Catholic Power and Democracy

I intend to wite a few posts on the Catholic Church in American democracy. In no way do I find fault with the catholic laity I know; nor, frankly with the priests I know. But church as an international institution does have problems in a democratic society.

I start with two premises.

One, the laity have no power or influence in the catholic church. Church supporters like to say "the Church is not a democracy." And I accept this description. Only a few hundred, and, in most cases,one, the Pope, have any say in its policies. The laity can be saved by the church, but the church has no fundamental need for the laity.

Two, the church, unlike other institutions, does not have beliefs. it has final knowledge in any matter on which it so desires to exercise its authority. Anglicans believe there doctrines are true. The catholic church KNOWS what is right or wrong in any situation.

Democracy, on the other hand, is based not on absolute certainty but on a myriad of beliefs which in the final analysis must be compromised to work effectively. The Enlightenment and the rise of science, Wiegel to the contrary, have tended to remove Absolute certainty from civil society. Now we can be sure with a high degree of certainty that some things are right and some wrong. But democracy can not function if a large group claims the right of absolute final say as to how the society should operate. And this is the claim of the church. No matter what the majority says, much less any minority,----the church has the absolute final say on any matter it chooses to speak on.

The catholic church is the greatest danger to civil accord and the working of democracy. The church says that almost all Americans, 90 per cent or more, are supporters of genocide. Our new president is also a supporter of genocide. Is their a catholic bishop who, if he had the power, would not remove all democratic officials who disagree with catholic teaching. After all, as the saying goes "error has no right to exist."

Is the church subject to the laws developed in a democracy. The church clearly showed in the sex abuse scandal that its representatives are not subject to civil law. The pope himself called the cases of abuse just media hysteria. The archbishops and bishops, obviously believeing themselves not subject to civil authority, simply reassigned known child rapist.

The church claims absolute control over the private sex lives of their members. Fair enough, I guess. But it is clear they desire to control ALL citizens private lives, because what the church teaches must be true. It cannot be wrong.

Am I exaggerating. I think not. The church desires to have final say on any matter it so desires, but realizes at this time it does not have that power. But they are working. Any catholic medical professional licensed by the state now has the power to refuse medical aid to any person if such aid goes against his beliefs. Exaggeration? Could a devout catholic physican under this executive order refuse to give medical attention to those injured in the bombing of an abortion clinic, or even members of a Planned Parenthood group? Maybe not. But with a supreme court dominated by devout catholics could such be an interpretation of the law?

Wiegel and others have made it clear that our courts and judges SHOULD be under the complete control of catholic policies.

The bishop of Scranton Pa. has made it clear that he alone can speak on moral matters in his area. Right now, to catholics, but I am sure he believes, as the sole possessor of absolute truth in that area, that he should have absolute power over all citizens.

And what does the Vatican do? And what do our other bishops do. Nothing, of course. This group of celibate men should have, and I repeat, should have absolute power over the citizens of America. And who are we to complain about "Absolute power corrupting" Is the church not now safely past the rape of young boys.

Blog Comment Awards!!!!

Blogging is fun. One of the big thrills is finding 'outrageous' comments and then replying to them. Usually the outrageous 'commenter' calls foul and runs to the blog owner demanding support, kind of like 'working' the refs in basketball.

My favorite examples of the year.

C.S. This blogger answers all questions or challenges by saying "Holy Mother Church" says. In about ten exchanges he never changes. You plead with him to have an idea of his own, buts it's always "Holy Mother Church" says...

But my favorite is "d...." Her quote, winner of quote of the year is: "Protestant ministers perform their services for their congregations, not God, so if it's likely if they have only a few people.or no people (at their services) or they can't get there because of weather, well, eh...they've just disappointed a few people, that's all." Man, you talk about naked bigotry!!!

This quote was selected first by the whole panel. I hate to say the blog owner, a very fine Christian lady, raced to her defense. BTW, "T" is married, she tells us, to the greatest man in the world, well maybe the Pope not counted. And her catholicism is mixed with ASTROLOGY. Yah, that's right!!

The funny thing is these two folks are regarded as good solid catholics,and I'm a poor some kind of evil heretic or monster. I kind of thought it was the reverse.

You might stop by tomorrow, if you're not afraid, for my list of last minute gift items from the Padre Pio collection.

Some Pio questions

I'm still puzzled about Padre Pio. So some questions:

John 23 thought Pio was a fraud. JP2 visited Pio fairly early in his career. Apparently Pio told JP2 that he would be Pope someday. What influence did this have on JP2

JP2 pushed for his cannonization, when many were opposed.

How thorough is a review for cannonization by the Vatican, especially when the Pope is pushing hard?

Are cannonization proceedings made public?

As to Pio "gifts" I see no evidence that could be accepted by any reasonable neutral, fair minded, person that they were real. No tests were ever made of his "transverberation"(indeed HOW could that be tested?). I guess if you say you have that phenomenon , you have it?

The stigmata? How was that tested? Why did the hands and feet show no signs of peircing after his death and exhumation?

Was his bilocation tested? If so, how?

Could he fly? One "witness" said he could. Was that tested?

On his miracle of raising the dead child in a suitcase, what evidence was found? Certainly the church should use this. It could create millions of converts.

The same for seeing without having pupils in the eyes. What evidence was found for that? Again are we losing millions of converts by not thoroughly documenting this?

Is the official position of the church that the bodies of saints are not corruptible? If so why did Pio's head have to be reconstructed in wax after his exhumation? Do pilgrims know that?

Why are tickets sold to view his remains? Seems a bit crass.

In sum, other than the testimony of a few, what reliable evidence is there for his "abilities" and "miracles? Certainly if the church had real evidence on any of these things they would want to publicize them most widely. Have these been reported in any scientific journal? If so has this changed the face of science as they should?

It seems to me that the 'evidence' of Pio's abilities and miracles, might not even be acceptable to reasonable people of the first century.

I am quite aware that this will not be answered. My big concern is B16 going to Pio's site. After his really excellent analysis of Fatima, I hope he might just stay clear. But no. Too much pressure, I assume.

Proud of Jack

My grandson Jack served at the 8:00 mass this morning. Did great job. We were all very proud of him.

The Pope has no Clothes

In its unrelenting drive to maintain its unique authority, the celibate (no sex, no sex thoughts) catholic hierarchy relies on different tools. One of the most common is reference to "natural law."

Many people thinking about natural law assume you could go to your local library and find a book listing in detail the natural laws. But such people would be disappointed. Natural law theory is one of the most complex subjects in the whole field of philosophy, with as many opinions and analyses as can be found in almost any area of philosophy.

The church is putting new emphasis on natural law in its efforts, especially in the area of sexuality, to maintain its steadidly declining influence on sexual practices, and, of course, to justify its celibate imposed strictures and the superiority of celibacy over the married state. Thus masturbation is a sin. Indeed, according to that great doctor of the church, Thomas Aquinas, the most referenced catholic authority on natural law, masturbation is worse than rape in that the latter could lead, at least, to procreation. And male orgasm other than in the vagina of the female is considered a sin. And all homosexual thought is disordered and any homosexual practice is a grave sin. And, of course, any sex not open to procreation is evil. Using contraceptives sends you straight to hell.

It does not take a genius to understand this, almost hysterical, anti-sexual attitude of the hierarchy. The superiority, the authority, of clerics is intimately tied to their unique position of having sworn off sex in virtually, if not all, its manifestations.

It should also be noted that the church's position on the natural law, and the supposed restriction on sexual activity and thought, cannot be questioned. Paul 6, in Humana Vitae, makes it quite clear that the church has the unique authority to say what the natural law is. Ergo, the natural law is what the church teaches. They are synomymous for all practical purposes; what the church says IS natural law, and natural law MEANS what the church says . Hmm.

So I think it is fair to say on this matter: The Pope has no clothes.

Oh, I forgot. If you kiss before marriage the lips MUST BE CLOSED. I do not know if this has been declared infallibly or by the magisterium, but it is so taught in many catholic schools. Just trying to be helpful.

Visit to Pio

I notice with interest that B16 is planning a visit to the church home of Padre Pio.

As I always explained to students there is a fundamental difference between Protestanism and Roman Catholicism as to there approach to the faithful. Protestantism has traditionally expected its members and converts to hold to a rather strict set of beliefs, not allowing room for the keeping of any traditional native or questionable beliefs. Catholicism, on the contrary, seems to hold that a cup half full is better than an empty cup, thus allowing its members and potential converts to hold some beliefs that are not totally sound. Both sides have merits.

But to concentrate on Catholicism, we see a large number of this faith believing the most incredulous things. All kinds of weird miracles, weeping statutes, stigmatics, visions--the list is almost endless. Catholics are not required to believe in these strange things; however, in most cases belief is allowed if they might engender further faith .

And, of course, Padre Pio is the perfect case. Does B16 actually believe Pio can be in two places at one time. Does he really believe his heart was physically pierced by Jesus? Does he really believe in the Padre's stigmata? We live in a modern age in which hoaxes are must easier to detect and a higher level of proof is required to sustain an extraordinary claim, under the rubric of "extraordinaty claims require extraordinary evidence."

The Padre Pio case clearly strains the the limit of belief. None of his 'miraculous' abilities has any level of proof satisfactory to any person of knowledge. The clear and most obvious explanation is that Pio's miracles were hoaxes. That would seem obvious to any person not left with a very poor knowledge and a poor ability to reason. Either Pio was dishonest, as were those around him, or he was deranged, are the clearest explanations. Of course, arguing with the 'faithful' is futile. After death, for example, his body showed no signs of years of the stigmata.But to the believers that means nothing. Either way they 'win.' If there were signs of his skin being pierced that would prove the stigmata, the believer would argue. If there were no signs of the stigmata, as was obvious---then just another miracle.

As catholics it is very fashionable to laugh at Oral Roberts and the "80 foot Jesus." Just a scheme to bring in money. Then we turn around and believe, violating all rules of physics, that this poor Padre can be in two places at one time. Oh, and the money. His town will reap a million times more profit in a few years than poor Oral could have dreamed.

So what does B16 believe. Is it the same as he says?

CALL THE POPE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

I want to post something which I feel strongly about. On the first try, what I post may not be as clear as I want. If so, then I will return.

Again I have run afoul of a couple of catholic bloggers, and I think I know what the problem is. There are two basic approaches to finding the truth . First is mine and others way which says I think A is almost certainly true. But there is a possibility, as remote as it might be, that I could be wrong.

And then B,I will call it for purposes of this post, the catholic way. That is, I have been told by my church not what is 99.9999999 sure, but what is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and I accept that. You may argue with me, but there is ZERO chance you are right.

In the last century the church officially procclaimed the doctrine of Infallibility. Faced with science and its doctrine that anything may be subject to revision, even though on many matters that chance is infinitesimally small, the church adopted the principle of Absolute Certainty. The poor dumb people needed this so they would not be seduced by wicked scientist like Darwin. That is, the church, when it so desires can make statements of fact that have NO possibility of being wrong

My first point is that this doctrine "trickles down" to many catholics, and they become very intolerant of those who question their 'infallibility", based, they would argue, on what the church has stated cannot be error. Although not a blogger, Bishop Chaput of Denver is a good illustration. In his recent book "Render unto Caesar" he simply states what is absolutely true and urges catholics to enter the political area with the confidence that, as they have been taught, there is no possibility they could be wrong. Oh, yes, he would say, give arguments if it might help, but start from the absolute truth and then search for the rationales. I think the Key sentence in his book is seen when he brings up the subject of "personhood" as it applies to abortion. Most thoughtful people think this is a key discussion. Chaput simply reduces it to 'I will not discuss it as those who disagree with the church MUST be wrong. '

Now good conservative catholics follow his approach and think they are being totally logical. This is the TRUTH period. Of course, that is fine, but such an approach does throw a chill over rational debate. That is, we start with there is no chance I am wrong they say, and yes, I will deign to make an argument or two, but the discussion really has no meaning because my church, and by extension, I, as a follower, CANNOT be wrong.

Newman finally supported Infallibility on the grounds it would seldom be used. He thought to proclaim the doctrine was counter-productive. But the church is wise. It has used the doctrine only twice, frankly on matters that do not have great significance in our daily christian lives. But the 'rulers' of the church are not satisfied with such meager power since the proclamation of infallibility.. So we have the magisterium, which in all conservative catholic thinking is really 'infallibility' with not such a brute word.

And this 'magesterium' goes almost all the way. It can say with TOTAL, ABSOLUTE, certainty that one cell MUST is a human person, on exactly the same level as you and I . On a practical level this 'magisterium' is even more useful. It can tell you with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who to vote for for president, or even maybe county sheriff. Of course, they don't give the name of who you should vote for, but you would have to be an ABSOLUTE, TOTAL MORON to miss the point.

In summary then, I am not arguing that the church should not speak out and that what it says should not be given weight. But I, for one, cannot accept that the church speaks with ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF ERROR on virtually any subject it desires from what to think and practice about sex in the most minute detail, to whom the president of the U.S. should appoint to any office, or to tell Obama (as John Allen wrote) that his first order of business is to call the pope and get his views.

Who said what????

Whew, got by the election and now back to blog.

Have read Theology of the Body, well most of it. The closest relationship of most married people is to their spouse and their children. Both unique experiences most would agree. And so here comes JP2 having sworn off both--spouse and children--as getting in the way of knowing God, and the old fella decides to tell us how to conduct our lives INCLUDING our sexual and parental lives.

It's kind of like my 5 year old grandson telling us how to do deep sea diving based on his experience in his 12 inch deep wading pool!!

Our wonderful teachers.

Well, back to the blog. I have a list to post on , but will do it one at a time. First of all the great bishops/teachers of our church. I notice that catholics supported Obama to a far greater extent than protestants did. Hnnn...do our great "teachers" not even have support of their class. I assumed all the huffing and puffing and you're going to hell from our wonderful "teachers" would be taken a bit more seriously. Guess not.

Hierarchy Tricks

I have been on some other blogs and have not written here in some time. But taking time off from football and the election, let me respond to some common comments I've been see.

The Church Pillars keep talking about destroying "innocent" life. The anti-abortion crowd are falling right in line. Thus my question: How can we say one cell is "innocent." Does not 'innocence imply by necessity 'not innocent' or 'guilty?' After all does "up" have meaning without "down?" My finger is human life. Is it "innocent" or "guilty.?" Silly question, to be sure. But the Church pillars talk like a single cell is "innocent." Could this single cell be "guilty?"

I constantly find myself amazed by the verbal "tricks" of the self serving hierarchy. But do the lay Catholics, the true catholics in my opinion, not see this trick? Jack

Render Unto Caesar

Kind of a slow weekend in college football for me, so I spent my time reading Chaput's "Render unto Caesar.". For those who have nostalgia for the past, this book is a wonderful trip backward. I guess it is good to know that old style catholic triumphialism and bigotry is still around. Basically the book is a snide denigration of American values and shows that Blanchard's "American Freedom and Catholic Power" still has value. Chaput, the Catholic Archbishop of Denver, is about as far right and anti-American as one can find in today's hierarchy.

The unstated, but underlying premise of the book is based on the, many hoped, pre-vatican 2 theory of only the Church has the truth and the state SHOULD enforce Catholic doctrine on American democracy. A view that Vatican 2 was supposed to have repudiated. In addition, Chaput comes very close to claiming the Church's infallibility for himself. After all he is an authenic spokesman for that "Truth" which belongs most fully to the Catholic Church.

Written with the feeling of a sour old maid, his book is so filled with absurd leaps of logic and naked prejudice that it probably deserves line by line refutation. However since the only ones who will take it seriously are the Weigles, Opus Dei, and the anti-anything modern fanatics, I will leave the task of refutation to others. But as a Catholic, let me place here a mere sampling of his screed.
Overlooking, indeed denying all apparent lessons from history we are told that that American democracy has nothing to do with the Enlightenment. Alll reputable historians with which I am familiar emphasize the importance of the Enlightenment. Chaput copies the exact thoughts of Weigel and his couple of cohorts and informs us that America democracy is basically the fruit of Medieval Christian moral thought. Chaput then takes on what most believe are essentials of our democratic way "pluralism", "consensus," "choice," "the common good," "tolerance," "equal rights," democracy," etc. and arrogantly states that these words are merely slogans of the ungodly. Only the Church, Chaput fulminates, knows the "true" meaning of these words. Our society, he argues, uses these words as simply cover for its calamitous sins.



Readers may or may not be enlightened to know that the great changes in our concept of sexual morality are not caused by the changes in our economic and social developments, a view of social change that is almost universally accepted, and which is the standard explanation of historians,


but by the use of contraceptives and, marvel or marvel, by John Kennedy's Houston speech in which he stated his policies would not be dictated by the Church. On Kennedy, the Archbishop virtually evauates himself with scorn. Not only is JFK a principal cause of sin of all types in our country but his "Theological vapidity", a view not directly from Chaput but one which he approves, shows the President's failure to even vaguely understand the true faith.

And Catholic social justice doctrines. Chaput follows the present practice of many in the Catholic hierarchy of ignoring them completely after a brief nod in passing by. To these prelates there is only one social justice teaching---anti abortion. All the others are just whims up for grabs. I have asked many bloggers this question: Which candidate should a catholic support.
Candidate A. Opposes minimum wage laws, denies his employees health insurance, polutes the environment, is violently anti-hispanic, sexually molests young boys, BUT is a leader in the anti-abortion movement.
Candidate B. Pays workers above the minimum wage, provides health insurance to his workers, has an active 'save the environment' program, treats his hispanic workers like he treats all, BUT is a leader in the local Planned Parenthood movement. To my
amazement most prefer candidate A as probably does the great Archbishop.

The book is filled with sly slaps at bigoted Proestants, complete distortions of history, a claim that to even discuss the idea of "personhood" in the abortion debate is noxious.


And the company he 'keeps'. Clarence Thomas, a devotee of pornography, Robert Bork, David Brooks, George Weigel---well enough said. Those he hates: JFK, all democrats (one or two exceptions) Hugo Black(Chaput lets the reader know he (Black) was a member of the Klan for a short period of time failing to mention Black's standing in Supreme Cout history and his recognition as a great Supreme Court Justice. He never mentions Clarence Thomas' love of pornography.)


I must not conclude without mentioning his hyperbolic chapter on Thomas More, one of the most insideous persecutors, torturer, and killer of herectics of his day. As to be exected he says nothing of the strange sexual orientation and practices of More, no doubt approved by Chaput.

And finally, but not near exhaustively, his preference for Southern catholicism with its adherence to 'family values' and apparently its poverty, its distain for women, its child sexual mutilation, its starvation as opposed to the decadence of America with its perverted ideals. Well, as an African catholic cleric said'we let the people have their local ways and customs.'
ap

Look Ahead, Anna

Anna, well great!!! Save your money. You're going to need it. Kind of like the Trapp family. Seriously all the best wishes, and I will continue to try to keep you from your 'logical' heresies!!!

Have you noticed "Victor" posting comments on my blog. And now he's on Crystal, where he refers to you as Saint Anna. The brothers and the girls send their best. See what you have to look ahead to a decade or two away. Jack

Amazing free predictions

Just a couple of my amazing political predictions. McCain will begin to close the Gap on Obama by Tuesday. Why? They both supported the bailout, but McCain is more grumpy and that fits in with almost a majority of Americans.

Palin will look surprisingly good at the V.P. Debate. The expectations for her are so low, if she doesn't faint, people will say"hey, she not so bad."

By End of this coming week the race will be almost tied again. Within 2 or 3 points EITHER way.

Sex and Abortion

We, as humans, often exaggerate or tell 'little white lies' with the best of intentions. We tell children if they play with matches they will burn the house down; or we, wisely, say not to talk to 'strangers' becuase they may harm you; we use to tell young boys if they 'played with themselves' they would go blind. And a thousand other examples could be given.

Now they Church as a very long and undisputed history of considering sex a 'bad' or dangerous thing. I am reading a biography of Thomas More, and this acclaimed and intelligent man thought sexual desires and practices were a very strong deterrent to loving God.

I believe the Church has never changed its anti-sex outlook, and as the guarrdian of peoples' morals still regards sex as bad, EXCEPT for the procreation of children. Yes in the last decades it has added the "unitive" principle, but this principle is ONLY active when the possibility of procreation is there. This, of course, involves the Church in some problems: What about the aged, what about the impotent, what about the infertile. And, most important what about the obvious desire of so many humans for the pleasure of sex. Well this can be covered through special arguments, family planning, for example, but the Church places before mankind the very clear dictum that all sex MUST have at least some possibility of producing a offspring. And so we find Aquinas saying that corsorting with a prostitute is superior to masturbation because at least procreation is possible.

It is very clear to me and others that the "right to life movement" is at base a "sex is dangerous" movement, a movement whose end result is to curb sexual activity. And this leads to such fallacies as the basic purpose of all sex is fertilization. Any orgasm outside the vagina is sinful. Indeed any sexual thought must be avoided, if possible. Any sperm penetrating an egg is to create a person.

I think the Church's ultimate goal and position is quite clear. Again, sex is bad outside its procreative aspect. And this is most clearly seen in the fact that ALL decision makers in the Church must be totally devoid of sexual activity and even sexual thoughts, if possible.

The argument put forth is that only by a total rejection of all sexual activity and thought makes one eligible for the closest contact with God.

This standard is not held in any other area of human life. Celibate doctors are no more devoted to their patients than married doctors, and so on through all human activites.

I have written many times about the Church's interest in celibacy. I do back away from one impression I may have made. The Church MAY be sincere in its view that the sexual drive is most dangerous. The celibate idea MAY NOT be simply self-serving to the all celibate masters of the Church.

The issue of abortion is very important. But to use it as a screen to hide a overwhelming belief in the dangers of sex is not acceptable to almost all, including Catholics, and keeps us from making the real case for sexual restraint and responsibility.

Abortion by the numbers.

Maybe a point or two of clarification might be helpful.

Overruling Roe v. Wade would NOT make abortions illegal. Such action would simply return the decision to the states. Those with money would have no problem going to a state where abortions were legal. The poor would go to the "back alley."

The basic hypocrisy of the extreme "pro-lifers" is that they would NOT punish the women who tells the doctor to commit "murder", but only the doctor. The pro-life argument is that the women who have abortions don't know what they are doing. So assume a women with a Ph.d in biology from Harvard has an abortion. Does she not know what she is doing?

McCain, the pro-life candidate, makes exceptions for rape and incest. This is in direct contrast to the Church's teaching. If a woman claimed she was raped he would take her word for it. Really?

Only approximately 10 percent of Americans agree with Church's position (no abortions). No real difference between numbers from Catholics and others.

70 per cent of American favor allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest.

73 percent favor allowing abortion for women's health.

56 percent of Americans favor allowing abortion to help mother's mental health. 28 per cent oppose.

53 percent of Americans favor abortion if fetus has fatal birth defect. 30 per cent oppose.

62 per cent of Americans believe the extreme position on abortion should be compromised.

Is this America or Vatican City?

Oh, yes, I know the majority is not always right. But should a small percent dictate to the whole country?

The 'slippery' slope and beyond.

Few things in the world are more irritating to me than the debate between the so called "pro-life" adherents and the "pro-choice" advocates. I say irritating because both sides are being dishonest. They both are using the 'slippery slope' fallacy to "prove" their point. That is, they are assuming a strict necessity of progress from point A to Point Z without offering any proof that all the interceding 'letters' must follow from their start at A. In a practical sense they assume the POSSIBLE final outcome and then try to show how A always leads to B, B to C, and on to their hoped for conclusion. I am dealing here with how the Church plays this fallacy, but am just as critical of the pro-choice extremist who say "It's my body and I can do anything I want with it, including choosing to have an abortion at any time." This is blatant nonsense. No one has the right, except in the most extraordinay and rare circumstances to kill an unborn child 10 minutes before its delivery. But whydo they argue such a fantasy? The 'slippery slope' fallacy. If I can't control my peproductive rights, the Church will 'run in' and say: We will legally control your reproductive rights.

Now the Church is the same. Looking at the current scene over the Nancy Pelosy abortion statement, the hierarchy is in a veritable feeding frenzy, trying to use the Church's vague if not false terminology . The church plays word games either deliberately, as I believe, or out of ignorance. Yes, the bishops were responding directly to the Church's position on abortion, but ALSO trying to slip in some anti-choice arguments.

Let's take the"wisdom" of Cardinal Egan who 'bolsters' his argument against abortion by saying that anyone who does not know a fetus is a person need only look at a sonogram and see the fetus "waving and smiling to us". What? Can the good(bad) Cardinal tell me how or show me a one cell waving and smiling. Sheer nonsense. But you say he was talking about abortion. It makes no difference. His statement, fully in line with his position that this one cell is a person like a two month old baby, makes no sense to the basic argument.

Looking further, I notice our mighty bishops talking about "Human life" (I agree the fertilized egg is human life, but so are my fingernails) "life", "human beings" "human species" "when the human fetus becomes a human being in the strictist sense" (why not at the one cell stage?) and yes, one reference to "person".

From over 50 years debating the abortion issue, I say with some certainty, that all serious discussions from both sides comes down to the idea of "person". This is the term used in science, philosophy, ethics and legal fields to identify what all want to protect. Some Church spokesmen, including Cardinals, like to wax over our guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, trying to argue that since a fertilized egg is "life" (as is sperm) our founding fathers desired to protect the first fertilized cell. One might ask does that single cell also have the right to "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness?" What does that mean when we say a single cell is a person? Our laws and speech are not simply normative, but descriptive; and nowhere do I find a single cell 'called' a person. Take that back. A handfull of catholic theologians, philosophers, do use "person" to describe that one cell. But the overwhelming evidence of usage is that a single cell is not a person, or for that matter a human being or a child, or a baby.

Now where are we. A few Christian (mainly Catholic) clerics and theologians say the impregnated egg is a person. Almost all others say "no." And I shall show later how even most catholics cannot accept a single cell as a person. These Christian/Catholics (most of them) realize the issue of what is a "person" is a theological/philosophcial question. That is fine, if the cleric, theologian, philosopher or devout Catholic sincerely believes this is a theological/philosophical issue.I think people know what I think on this issue. To the sincere believer in the one cell as person doctrine I say fine. There are arguments to be made. People disagree.

BUT, and this is the thrust of those who reject the 'slippery slope' "arguments" of the pro-life and pro-choice factions, even those who are not using the 'slippery slope' argument intentionally:

WE HAVE HERE A HIGHLY DISPUTED ISSUE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHURCH SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ITS THEOLOGICAL POSITION ON THOSE WITH DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS. I THOUGHT THE CHURCH HAD GONE BEYOND THAT. ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON ANY OF YOUR MEMBERS AS A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP. DO NOT FORCE ALL TO ACCEPT YOUR POSITION BY LAW.

The Catholic Church, Sex and Family

Anyone who has looked at my blog knows that I very interested in the Catholic Church's position on matters relating to sex from masturbation to abortion. To clear the air a bit, I am Catholic---some may doubt this---, no member of my family, immediate or extended has had an abortion to my knowledge and I know only three families personally that have had abortions for their children. I do not advise abortion; I think it is a poor thing to do.

I am quite aware that the Church finds abortion to be a sin, indeed murder. I do not agree with this position totally.

Although I have blogged and commented on these issues at various times, I want to put together my thought in a brief series of posts.

I believe all recognize that in dicussing an issue, it is legitimate to see if those who speak or write on the issue , have any special interest in the outcome of the discussion. We recognize this in our courts which are dedicated to finding the truth in any case. For example if a person sues, say, the Ford Motor Company for negligence in making a car,it is quite proper and indeed necessary, to take the possibility of 'interest in the outcome' if a Ford company executive is giving testimony. Also his expertise in the matter through knowledge and experience is relevant. And so in a criminal trial, the testimony of the defendant must be matched by his interest in the outcome. Not that in either case, the Ford executive or the criminal defendant, is the testimomy automatically false. It may well be true.

Now I believe the Catholic Church has a definite interest in the outcome of discussion about sex in general. This interest in the outcome must be weighed in shaping one's beliefs.

I believe all would agree that the Church had an anti-sex position for many centuries. Sex was primarily or only for procreation. But I will leave that history aside and concentrate on its position today, or in the last few decades.

These considerations need to be looked at in determining the Church's teaching or disciplines in these matters.

One. All significant decision makers in the Church are celibates.

Two. All significant decisions makers in the church are pledged to repress or sublimate all sexual feelings.

Three. The Church clearly teaches that a celibate life makes it easier to serve and know God.

Four. No significant decision makers in the Church (with a few exceptions) know of or have experienced the special bond of husband and wife.


Five. No significant decision maker in the Church has experienced the special bond existing between parents who, through their actions, have created a child.

I believe these factors must be kept in mind when evaluating the doctrines and disciplines promulgated by these decision makers. I believe to ignore them is the height of unreason.Again, I do say these factors do not, of themselves, automatically make the Church's position wrong.

The Return of Dusty Rhodes.

Some of you oldsters or movie fans may recall the 1957 movie "A Face In The Crowd."

A fast summary: The setting of the film is late 1950 when television is replacing radio as the means of mass communication. The main character is Dusty Rhodes, a coarse and abusive man who others find has acolloquial on air charm which quickly endures him to his predominantly rural listeners. From a little town in Arkansas, his popularity leads him to Memphis, then to a prime time show in NYC. He soon becomes a national phenomenon, some suggesting he might someday run for President of the U. S., and he becomes a national political figure. However, he is exposed as a fraud and loses his TV show. But his advisor says 'you'll be back but it won't be quite as fancy.'

Well, he is back. In a dress and glasses and, yes not as a presidential aspirate, but as a candidate for Vice-President.
s

Pride before.............fall

Gee, I hate to boast, and I know I am sinning....BUT

There are many political blogs on the 'net, but I have to say so far I have been "amazing."

First blogger to say Republicans know how to play 'win' politics, when everbody was in Obama will landslide it mode.


First to hit almost exact figures on convention bounces.

First anybody to point out the "meaning" of Palin. See Liam's blog.

Yes I am ashamed of myself for my 'pride', but just trying to help the folks out there. And no one is perfect. Jack

Another great prediction

On the site "538" I said BEFORE the Republican convention that by next week after the Repub. Convention the polls would show a tie or Obama up by no more than 2. Wanted to get this in on my blog before Palin speech. Jack

Sick, sick, sick.

I think some who look at my blog wonder why I am Catholic. I am proud to be a member of this Church, BUT am extremely upset over two things: Its increasing 'clericalism' and its sick--yes sick--attitude on sexual matters. Let me deal with the sick sex syndrome in this post, and return later to the clericalism.

Let's take the Palin girl's pregnancy. We should be sorry for her. But the Church screams 'no sex and possible pregnancy' outside marriage. Now, I agree. Maybe for reasons slightly different than the Church, but still sexual intercourse should be confined to marriage.

And, as we all know, the Church gets way out of shape on abortion. I personally oppose abortion, but do not consider very early abortion murder. But, never mind, I do oppose abortion.

Now why is the Church sick? Miss Palin at the age of 17 became pregnant. I CAN FIND NO CHURCH OFFICIAL critisizing her in any way. Not even wicked old Archbishop Chaput. Indeed they will probably praise her. After all she didn't have an abortion!!

So my advice to teen age catholic girls. Get pregnant before you marry. But carry the child to term. The Church will lavish you with praise, and your name will much more likely to be put up for sainthood than the poor girl who remained a virgin until married. Sick, sick, sick, of course. But just check the Republican convention with its cadre of Catholic "right to lifers." I hope you get the point. I'm waiting for some Catholic prelate to announce this as the best chance of sainthood!!! Jack

Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!

Please check my previous post. Not 100 percent accurate but well within margin of error. Stay tuned for more amazing predictions!!!! Jack

All winners!!

It's back to politics today at the start of the Democratic Convention. I may be paranoid, but I see alot of 'partisan' politics here.

The name of the game lately has been "gain or loss." Obama extends lead; McCain cuts Obama lead". The actual figures get little attention. So let's say I am a Republican leaning pollster. Today I want Obama a few points ahead so after the convention I can report a near tie, so the Convention did not help Obama. And the reverse. If I am a Democratic leaning polster I want it almost a tie today. Then after the convention if Obama is 4 points ahead I can say "Convention gives Obama big boost.

As you know I am not afraid to go to the limb. After the convention, Obama will be 2-3 points ahead on average. So both sides win.

Republican leaning poll: Rasmussen.
Democratic leaning poll. Zogby.

And don't forget margin of error (MOE). Everyone is right using MOE.

Catholicism: The American Taliban?

In an earlier post I had questioned what the Catholic Church's position was on placing its doctrines into law in the U.S. The earlier position-pre-vatican II- was that the Church for reasons of expediency might accept laws which they considered contrary to Catholic doctrines, but would maintain the right to make and enforce laws acceptable to the Church if Catholics were in the majority. Vatican II seem to modify this position, but I am not clear what the Church's actual position is on this issue.

We know, of course, that our democracy is supposedly based on the rule of the majority WITH protection for the right of the minority. The Church's position is, and I assume still is, that error has no right to exist.

Now obviously we see this conflict in the abortion wars. The majority of Americans would seem to agree that abortion under some circumstances (rape, incest, health of mother etc) is legal. The Church argues that abortions should always be illegal except for immediate danger of death to the mother. The Church argues that this is strictly a matter to be decided by 'majority rule' with no rights for the minority. The Church considers abortion murder; most Americans do not. Assume, for the sake of argument that 51 percent of Americans in a state agreed with the Church could the 'rights' of the 49 percent be eliminated and the death penalty opposed on those who have abortions?

Now let's go further. The Church considers contraception a major sin. Now, if in a state, the majority agreed it was sinful, could, under Catholic thinking, those who use contraception (49 percent we'll say) be subject to criminal penalties.

A step further. The Church believes orgasm outside of male sexual penetration of the female is sinful. Would masturbation and any other act of orgasm not meeting the sexual penetration criterion be considered criminal behavior with legal penalties and punishments?

Would sexual intercourse outside of marriage be considered a criminal offense?

I believe the Church already considers the state has a right to ban same-sex relationships.

My point should be clear. Since the Church considers all sexual conduct sinful/evil that does not conform to their standard, are there any minority rights in this area exempt from legal censure and punishment should the Church gain a majority in any state of the country.

I should make this clear. I have no objections to the Church enforcing these strictures on their members with what tools they have. But should the Church attempt to enlist the state to enforce its definitions of sin/evil on all others? Assuming as Catholics do that the magisterium is almost never, if ever, in error.

Celibacy is Superior The church is not a democracy.

Blogging over the last couple of years has confirmed that catholics put forth the argument when pressed that "the Church is not a democracy." This is true and is not necessarily bad. Burke said something to the affect that 'men should be weighed, not just counted.' But, of course, there is a danger in 'weighing, not just counting' in that it CAN be a receipe for the dominance of one group over another.

I see this most clearly in the Church's attitude toward human sexuality all the way from masturbation to abortion. My approach is this: What would a society or group who were all pledged to celibacy have to say about human sexuality. From this I conclude that the Catholic church's teaching on sexuality fits perfectly what we would expect from a society of celibates.

One. It is clear that the church since the earliest times held sexual desires and actions to be inferior to celibacy. And that is putting it mildly. The Church for centuries regarded sex as degrading but necessary to keep the species going.

Two. The church has always held that celibacy is necessary for the complete devotion to God. And thus the celibate should be superior to the married in the service of God .This belief is clearly still held today, if we look past the effort to soften this attitude today.

Three. The church has always argued that the principal purpose of sex is procreation. They offer no proof of this from natural law or logic. It is simply true because the church says so, despite the fact that throughout human history procreation has been an occassional outcome of sexual intercourse, but has in no ways been the principal motive of sexual relations.

Four. Beginning in the 1930's the church has added the "unitive" principle as a reason for sexual relations. JP2 was the culmination of the two purposes of sex approach. It should be pointed out that the church, before 1930, must have been teaching falsely in that virtually no emphasis was placed on the "unitive" aspect and JP2 doctrine was considered a great 'breakthrough."

Five. The two 'purposes' approach is totally inadequate to most. The must have possibility of preocreation argument simply means no contraceptives or no orgasm outside of sexual intercourse. The unitive principal would take incredible subtlety to follow. Example: to assume that both parties are in total unity as to the pleasure of the sex act is almost impossible to determine. I'm watching a football game on TV and my wife desires sexual relationship. I put her off---has the unitive principle been violated. Even if sexual relationships are performed, but I am less interested, Have I failed the unitive effect? The unitive effect really comes down to don't rape your sponse. Good point, Yes.

Six. The church's teaching of no orgasm without male penetration is far-fetched. Great excitement in foreplay can lead to orgasm. I notice in checking the Catholic Answers site they suggest the unse of benzacaine to deaden sexual feeling. A bit artificial it seems to me.

Seven. The church desires the banning of contraceptives. Do they also desire to dictate the legitimacy of sexual foreplay and positions.

Eight. In its wisdom the Church developed NFP. That is a way to have sex not open to procreation, or, at least, so they claim. It is not like a condom, for example, because it is not artificial. That is a condom is something physical. The rigors of NFP achieve the same result with calendar counting, temperature, etc. Perfectly natural the church says.

Nine. Life begins at the moment of conception. Clever, but transparent. All aspects of the human body are human life. The real question is when does a cell become a person. The church knows their position that a single cell is a person is not accepted by most;so let's change person to life. No one will notice the difference. So a fertilized egg is a person just as much as a billion cell body. It has all the rights of any person. This is so unreasonable even to catholics---a pregnant person is not counted as two people, a single cell is not baptized, billions of these "persons" are eliminated by nature in spontaneous abortions, people do not weep over these simple cell forms which are expelled by nature, if they are full persons what is their physical in an afterlife, and on ad infinitum.

Ten. The church shows no particular interest in life after birth. It supports with great pride the African churches with their incredible records of female sexual mutilation, starvation sized families ( if only all Africans could have a NFP course), their opposition to sex education, the spread of aids, the suppression of women, their support of or neutrality toward dictatorial regimes. Well, the church says, we must not interfer with local customs.

Now all of the above are exactly what you would expect from those who are self claimed superior because of their celibacy but realize they cannot totally control human nature. The church can and should be great. But as long as ALL decisions are made by practical eunuchs to protect their superiority, there is little hope. After all the church is not a democracy. So what laypeople think and do is without significance.

I did not write this in anger and was holding it off because of my two boys. I was "inspired" by a flagrant example of naked clericalism that I experienced this week effecting my grandchildrem. Jack

Hidden Appeal

I am not being cynical, but McCain has some appeal we might overlook. In fact some might think they are drawbacks, but I don't think so. Decades ago Richard Hofsteader wrote a book called Anti-intellectualism In America. The gist of his argument, very well documented, was that the United States has a very strong inbred prejudice against what some called intellectualism or elitism. Let's look at how McCain may well fit that prejudice.

McCain had a very poor academic record as opposed to Obama's stellar record. Do not many of us dislike the class smart-ass and love the guy who just plugs through.

McCain is a very poor speaker. Obama is most eloquent. Whom do we trust? The 'golden tongue' or the straight talking down to earth 'talker?"

McCain gets little support from the 'highly ' educated. Obama alot. Well are the Obama the "pointy headed" intellectuals that the Republicans have been talking about since 1952?

McCain is "old". Obama is relatively young. Who do you want? Age or smart -ass youth.

Obama friends from the past are a bit radical. McCain has sewed up the VFW crowd. No Weatherman there.

McCain is listed as Episcopal, but apparently goes to the Baptist church. Obama BELONGED to the most liberal denomination in America---the United Church of Christ.

McCain is from Arizona. Obama from Chicago. Where would you rather live?

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Obama is the perfect target of the anti-intellectuals and anti-elitist. This will not be talked about much, but it's there. The Republicans are already working on this theme.

THE FIRST PREDICTION!!!!!!

If I were to compare this election to a previous presidential election, the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy would, at this stage seem the best comparison. Sure there were plenty of differences but also some striking similarities.

Of course, the obvious parallel is the fact that Kennedy was only the second catholic nominated by a major party and Obama is the first African-American. Al Smith, a catholic, had been nominated by the Democrats in 1928 but was resoundingly defeated---many thought a major factor was Smith catholicism (including people in my own family). This big loss by Smith made many Democrsts wary of nominating a catholic. But in 1960 the Democrats went with Kennedy. Many Democrats thought the religious factor would be decisive for Nixon's election.

The 1960 race had another similarity. Nixon's campaign was based on experience. Kennedy theme was 'let get America moving again', that is, change.

But to me the deciding factor in that extremely close election was the persona of each candidate. In other words who had the most appealing persona or image. Most historians think the first presidential television debate ever between the two candidates was the turning point. Nixon was favored in the election but the debate showed that Kennedy was his equal in debating and--- this is important---Kennedy looked better.

Now we see some similrities to 2008. Obama is the first African-American to be nominated by the two major parties, as Kennedy was the second catholic. McCain is running on 'experience' and Obama on 'change.' But I think the first debate of 2008 will be decisive. Obama has the easier task. Republicans are already saying McCain will outclass Obama in the debate. But all Obama has to do is seem "equal" not better than his opponent. In other words, a draw means Obama wins this debate.

On the appearance factor, I believe Obama has the clear advantage. Youth versus age. Better looking versus average looking. Better speaking skills versus poor speaking skills. The issues are important, yes, and McCain has the advantage of a simpler view of the "social" issues, which issues were not a factor in 1960, and the Republicans have learned how to use these emotional themes to their advantage.

Either candidate could make a big gaffe in the debate. But both will be so well prepared that this is not a great possibility.

So an early prediction. I'll go out on a limb. A very close election with Obama the winner, based to a great degree on his more appealing personality. Kennedy had the "jumpers"." Obama has the potentiality of attracting "jumpers" , or their equivalent. THIS IS THE EARLIEST PREDICION YOU HAVE SEEN. Of course I have the right to change, or be within the margin of error. Take that pollster wimps:).

President, election, Trivia

When I taught a course on Presidents, the kids loved the "trivia" unit best. So here are ten trivia questions about presidents and elections. Let me know by comment what your answers are. I'm pretty sure I'm right on the answers but if you think I'm wrong, let me know after the answers tomorrow.

One. What presidential candidate was refered to by his oppents as "The little man on the wedding cake"?

Two. According to Washington insiders at the time, who was our only "gay" president?

Three. Who was the youngest person to ever serve as president?

Four. Who was our only bachelor president?

Five. What person won the popular vote for president three times but was only elected twice?

Six. What president of the 19 century was accused of having an illegitimate child?

Seven. What president was neither elected president or vice-president?

Eight. What president wrote a book on government which became a standard textbook in colleges? (Written before he was president, I believe).

Nine. What third party presidential candidate was the only third party candidate to finish second in a presidential race. (After 1860)

Ten. What president served the shortest time as president?



BTW, this is a great party game for those into politics, history, elections.

Veep Stakes

I haven't written anything about the Veep Stakes yet. So here goes.

There are apparently 4 theories as to how the presidential candidates should pick a running mate. But first, why do they wait as long as possible? Well, the want to see the 'lay of the land.' If you are way ahead or way behind---that really effects your choice. But at this time when it seems close here are the four theories.

Theory One. Make it just a race between you and your head of ticket opponent. Just be safe on VP pick.

Theory two. Double up, that is pick someone who might emphasize your (presidential candidate) strengts.

Theory Three. Pick someone who helps in a key state.

Theory Four. Pick someone who might really help you overall .

Right now I see Romney for McCain (theory four) and Biden (theory four) for Obama.

These seem logical in what seems to be a close race. Both McCain and Obama might be forced to theory four.

I believe McCain sees himself a little behind at this time and would pick Romney because it might help him in Colorado, Nevada, with some rigid conservatives, and the age gap.

I believe Obama would pick Biden at this time. Never mind Delaware but Biden adds experience, knowledge, to Obama's weak point to some---his inexperience.

This can change with tomorrow's polls. As of this time, I believe these are the logical choses.

Obama. Against the Wind

Often when we look at presidential elections, we concentrate so hard on the particulr race we are in, we tend to overlook and not analize the historical trends.

In my opinion since the 1864 election to today--2008--we have had three, yes only three, major trends or eras. And I think a brief look at these three show, this year, why Obama is not 'running away' with the race. This is because we are not filtering the current race through the historical prism. Each era or trend has an overall theme for one party or the other, and while a particular election may go against the trend, there are always some specific circumtances that allow this to happen. In brief then:

Era one. 1860 to 1932. The Civil War, the bloody shirt, made the Republican party the dominant party for these 73 years. Yes, there were two Democrats elected to two terms, Cleveland and Wilson. Wilson, it should be noted, one his first term due to the fact that T.Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote enough and allowed Wilson to be elected as a minority president. He was re-elected under the spectre of war ('He kept us out of war') but by the slimest of margins over Charles Evans Hughes. (Hughes went to bed on election night thinking he ad won the presidency, only to wake up finding he had lost.) Cleveland is a different matter, but it is good to notice he was very conservative president, almost a Republican.

Era two. 1933 to 1979. The great depression was so traumatic and Roosevelt's coming made the Dems the dominant party for these years. Eisenhower won two terms as the Republican, indeed the nations, War hero. A very moderate Republican. Nixon, yes a moderate on issues, won twice, barely squeaking by Humphrey and slaughtering McGovern, a Democrat of the left . Carter barely won against Ford and the Nixon pardon. The tide was beginning to change.

Era three. 1980 to 2007 -. The cold war, and the Repubs as the party of a strong military and defense, and the beginning of ''social issue' politics, have made this party dominant in presidential elections. Clinton , an incredible politician, a southerner, charismatic, and moving to the middle won two terms. The second against Dole; much closer than 'expected' against the well---unattractive as you can be candidate Bob Dole. We are still in this era. National defense, the terrorism threat, the totally established "social issue" bloc, give the Repubs the historical advantage. Sure, the economy is bad, but compared to the Great Depression, not that bad. Proof of Repub. era: An almost nobody (my prejudice) wins against a sitting Vice-president in good economic times and wins a second term against the 'Frenchman' Kerry.

So Obama is facing the historical "winds." The fact he is even in the race is a puzzle. Running against a war 'hero' who fought the commies, a very strong national defense man, a, as of lately, far right social conservative, Obama, amazingly has a small lead as of this time, it appears. But can he win. The historical winds are strong and hard to buck. We'll just have to see.

All MAN.

Just finished a two day trip to 'far right' blogs. Kind of scary. Lots of very heated rhetoric, lots of hate for gays, liberals, Obama, big government. My favorite was the guy who wants his far right friends to take over a state in the U.S. and, as he implies,separate from the U.S.

But we can all learn something new, or better our focus. I have always wondered why there is a rather pronounced difference between men and women in their political leanings. I think I know now. A lot of men want to project a 'macho' image. That means being tough, not sentimental, not overly concerned with sympathy for others. Of course this open quest for a macho image is at the margins. That is most men don't really worry too much about whether they are perceived as macho-manly. But it is very apparent on the far right blogs. Lots of military stuff, very anti-gay, contempt for liberal bleeding hearts folks.

In our country for the last half century, the Republican party is seen as the party of strong military action as a real option to any international crisis, a strong individualist capitalist society with little tolerance for government action to curb excesses, the right of the majority to determine anything with little tolerance for minorities of any type---women, racial minorities, sexual minorities etc. The Democrats are defined by reversing the above---diplomacy, government intervention on behalf of the consumer, women's 'lib', affirmative action, gay rights etc. Definitely not the platform of macho-man.

Again, let me say, this is at the margins. Most men and women do not fall exactly under these stereotypes. But enough do to make a difference in party preference.

You can't escape the feeling that some men are so fearful of their sexual identity, that they want others to know they have no feminine tendencies. The tougher, less caring , the more self-reliant I am---all this proves I am all "man." No limp wrists, see.

Racist Jack?

Sometimes you have to post on something that can easily be misunderstood. So I'm going to do that.

We all have our favorite cable news network.Mine is MSNBC. Why? Because it has a liberal tilt to a degree. My sister-in-law and her husband watch Fox. Why? It has a conservative tilt, and Peggy and Ed are very conservative. Fair enough.

I have no problems with analysts having political leanings. Olberman (sp?) is liberal, but openly so. O'Reily is conservative, but openly so. I do have a problem with Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who is obviously pro-obama, but does not indicate so on his comments.

But my real problem (hold on to your hats, some are going to say I'm racist) is with two MSNBC analysts who are African-American and pro-McCain. Now, here's my problem. In my state we had a great football quarterback who decided to run for office. He was African-American. Now had he decided to run as a Democrat he would have had tremendous competition from other young A-A's. But the Republican party has been working hard for years to expand its 'tent' to include A-A's. So he ran as a Republican in a conservative state and easily won. He rose to great heights in the Republican congressional caucus.

The two analysts on MSNBC I am speaking about in all probability followed the same logic. If I am a A-A Democrat I will be one among thousands if not millions of my race with credentials to be a national figure. But if I become Republican, have a college degree, am well-spoken, then the road ahead looks very smooth. There's not much competition.

Okay, call me a racist. I'm not. I support Obama. I contribute money to his campaign. But if you're looking for an easy target, here I am. Fire away.

Beware polls, but I love them.

The only credential I have to post on presidential elections is I'm old. I can remember in pretty good detail every presidential election since 1948. So some comments on polls.

We all remember or have read about Truman V. Dewey in 1948. Gallup, and I believe Roper, were the only two nationally recognized polls. They both blew it. Dewey was so far ahead they reasoned why poll the two weeks before the election. So what did they and we learn. CAMPAIGNS DO MATTER. Several elections since'48 have shown this.

Also, of course, POLL UP TO THE LAST DAY.

Today with the proliferation of polls, it's best to taka a poll of polls. They'll all probably be close by election day, but still it's a good thing to check an average of the polls.

Be alert for prejudice. Some polls put R or D after their name to show the runners of the poll are definitely working for one party or another. Some are on one side or the other but don't tell you that. Rasmussen, for example, is run by a far right Republican and is endorsed by Larry Kudlow an equally far right market analyst. It is only fair to say this poll has been pretty accurate at the end (election day) but shows some amazing results before, making it possible the poll is trying to shape opinion rather than measure it.

Watch out for tricks. Zogby used exit polls in 2004 to adjust it findings, showing a big Democratic sweep. Fooled Ted Kennedy and ruined a lot of Kerry election parties.

I think we all love polls. They're a lot of fun. But you have to watch out. They all have a rather low bar to jump. It's called the 'margin of error.' They just have to get close, which most do. Recently Gallup crossed the line a little by putting out three resuls within a day. Two polls had Obama ahead; one had McCain by 4 points. Ah, the secret. Margin of error. The two Obama ahead polls had a margin or error of plus/minus 2.5 percent. The McCain ahead poll had margin of error plus/minus/ 6 percent. No one to my knowledge in the media caught this. Happy polling.

Shame on McCain

Sorry I missed posting yesterday. But I do want to take up the question of biased media coverage of the presidential campaign.

It has long been a staple of popular wisdom that the main stream media has "liberal" bias." This is true and false. Let me explain. I believe very strongly that if we were to poll the writers and broadcasters of the MSM, a clear majority would personally favor the election of Barrack Obama. This is a bias. Liberals would say this bias is present becuse the MSM is better informed on the issues and naturally comes to the conclusion that Obama is better candidate on issues and personally than John McCain. Conservatives would contend this bias comes from the backgrounds of their education and the favoritism which these liberals receive from their older liberal colleagues. So we say the MSM has a liberal PERSONAL bias.

But the real question is: Does this bias show up in the reporting and anlysis of these likely to be liberal media figures? My answer is "no." Why? Because of the attacks and the general impression that the MSM is liberal, that same media overcompensates in a conservative direction to show their objectivity. A survey has been released that shows that Obama gets overwhelming negative coverage. This has been very apparent in the last few days. Hours have been spent by the networks and reams devoted by the newspapers to the issue of Obama NOT visiting a military hospital in Germany. I believe all fair minded people would agree this has little to do with who would make a good president.

But here is how it works. The Republicans put out an TV commercial with the suggestion that Obama does not care about these wounded troops and shows his poor priorities. It is an extension of McCain's suggestion that Obama is not patriotic---'he(Obama) would lose a war to win an election.' Since the commercial is so extreme the MSM runs it again and again even though the McCain campaign pays to air the ad only a few times. The TV networks then ask a Republican and a Democrat to comment on the commercial. The Democrat says it is 'dishonorable'. The Republican says it is justtified and true.

All commentators of the MSM, even most conservative ones, get up their courage and timidly say the commercial is dishonest--making statements and juxaposing images dishonestly. And they are right. But their comments are strictly secondary to the commercial itself and the fighting between the Republican and Democrat surrogates. And McCain gets hundreds of thousands dollars of free 'air' time.

Aristotle once said 'The equality of unequals is inequality.' In the case of this McCain commercial and a couple of other of his, Aristotle was right. This 'wounded soldier' commercial is not just Republican Vs. Democrat. Not just McCain vs. Obama. It is honor vs. dishonor. And McCain should be ashamed.

Roll the dice!!!

When I starting teaching Government in 1958, one of the things my students really loved was the "presidential availability" unit. "Presidential availability" refers not to what the U.S. constitution requires to be elected preident, but to what real world factors would make a person electable. It's best to look at it from the negative. So with a class of 40 students we would list and discuss those things which would keep a party from even nominating a person for president.

Well, first we eliminated about half the class by saying a women could not be nominated. In 1958, that was true, and I guess still applies today (sorry Hillary). Then the couple of blacks in the class were eliminated, then catholics (this was pre-Kennedy), Jews, non-believers, unmarried persons(ya, I know Buchannan), persons with obvious physical deformities, persons with southern European backgrounds, and on and on ---till almost no one in the class could ever aspire to be president!

The years have gone by and some "availibility" factors have fallen. Catholic (Kennedy), southern European background (Dukakis , I think) and we've gotten close on a woman.

Jackie Kennedy, a Republican at one time, once said something to the effect that 'the Democrats are so much more fun than the Republicans.' I think she's right. But fun can be dangerous. The Democrats really rolled the dice this year!!! They could have gone with Edwards---no presidential 'disabilities.' Instead they gave us a choice at the end between a WOMAN and a BLACK (African-American to be correct) , and, and, and, with a white mother and black father from Africa!!!! And with a pastor that knew all four verses of "God damn America." IT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY.

Okay, I'm a Democrat. I like to have fun. I like to live dangerously. But I also like to win. We'll just have to see. Maybe you can't have everything!!

The name of the game is "WIN"

As a former philosophy teacher, I have always had a tendency to "reductionism." Reductionism is the effort to reduce seemingly complex phenomena to a simpler explanation. I am a Democrat, but I must say I admire the Republicans mastery of "political reductionism." While the Democrats struggle to explain EVERY issue from war to the price of bread, the Repubs try, and often succeed, in reducing an election to a word or phrase. Nothing fancy or complicated to be sure.

In 2000, with relative world peace and a good economy, the Democrats, with Al Gore, waged a "deep intellectual debate", or tried to, on global interconnections with its myriad implications. The Republicans stuck with "Who would you rather have a beer with.". Pefect. Gore, even to his strong supporters, such as myself, did seem a bit----well, pompous, and pedantic. Yes , Gore won the popular vote but that's not the way we do it. We should, but we don't.

2004. John Kerry, an "intellectual giant", compared to Bush, was easy pickins' for the reductionists Republicans. Wind sailing, 'French ' tendencies, and, most important flip-flopping--I voted for the bill before I voted against it . Three strikes and you're out. Kerry strikes out. Add a fourth strike: Kerry's wife actual name: Teresa Simoes-Ferriera Heinz-Kerry. There's no fourth strike, but you get the point.

Now 2008. Obama trying to have a "deep" position on everything. From stay home African-American dads to 'I can make the Europeans love us again.' Good stuff. Maybe. And the Republicans: Obama, you blitthering idiot, you said the "surge" wouldn't work, but it did. Don't give us that complicated 'excuse' about the 'sunni awakening' being a real cause of reduced violence. The 'Sunni awakening' is a term my polling shows understood by about one per cent of American voters up to last week. And the press loves it, liberal as they might be. The "surge". We all know what that is. The "sunni awakening"; some kind of middle eastern religious revival?

Now, I'm not saying who's right. I'm just talking politics. Those Republicans sure know how to play---change that to know how to win.

Civilian supremacy. Who makes the call?

I mentioned in a previous post the doctrine of "civilian supremacy." Let me expand a bit on this essential of the American way.

Although not mentioned specifically in our constitution, it is accepted that certain principles are the foundation of the success of our democracy. Separation of powers, checks and balances, separation of church and state , and civilian supremacy are some of these bed rocks.

Probably the least known, but maybe the most important, is the doctrine of civilian supremacy. In effect this idea says that all military forces and commanders are, in the final analysis, under the control and direction of non-military (civilian) authority. This is extremely important because only armed (military) forces have the ability to take over control of our government, becaused they ARE armed. South America is a good example of NOT having civilian supremacy--a junta a week.

The closest we have come in my lifetime to abrogating civilian supremacy was the MacArthur-Truman fight over the Korean war. MacArthur desired to invade China after having a great success in driving communist chinese troops out of Korean. Truman favored driving the Chinese out of Korea, but not invading China. MacArthur lobbied American political figures to get the right to invade China. This was a clear violation of civilian supremacy. President Truman was the commander-in-chief and MacArthur had no right to lobby against a president, his commander.

I was there and the outcry against Truman was unbelievable. A clear majority of Americans favored his impeachment; MacArthur, on his return to the U.S. was greeted as no other war hero we had had. MacArthur was asked to address congress to great acclaim. The argument was made that MacArthur knew the situation on the ground in Korean, he was a career military man and thus knew best what to do. In the end, civilian supremacy prevailed, but just by a nose.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater again came close to crossing the line. He argued, with some success, that the use of neclear weapons was a decision to be made by military commanders, not the president.

Now today, McCain flirts with the doctrine of military supremacy. His insistence that the key factor in the debate over when to leave Iraq should be controlled primarily by the commanders in the field, is very close to abandoning civilian supremacy. In fairness, he has not gone completely over the line, but he is close.

The doctrine of military supremacy in war has some surface obvious appeal---after all a general is a military 'expert.' But the danger of final decision being made by those with an army or armed men should be clear.

So McCain be careful. America be careful.

The three faces( images) of John McCain

A common misconception to this point in the '08 presidential election is that the McCain campaign is in disarary and has no winning theme. Quite to the contrary, there is slowly emerging a powerful 'accidental' strtegy which may well be unstoppable.

I say "accidental" because the strategy is not coming from his campaign, but being forced on the campaign by what works.

For the sake of analysis, let's assume three groups of voters: The least informed , the moderately informed, and the well informed. Of course these are not set, rigid groups, but the electorate may fairly be view against these markers, recognizing that the knowkedge of voters is on a continuum. Obama has one face, one image. McCain has three, and each image fits very well into the three electorate categories.

For the least informed , McCain is seen as a Navy pilot, shot down in some war, captured and tortured by a cruel enemy. So McCain in the enemy hospital bed picture.

For the moderately informed, McCain as the maverick. On ocassions disagreeing with his party, and most important, diverging at times from an unpopular President Bush. So McCain battling with Bush for the 2000 Republican nomination and calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance."

For the well informed, base of the party, McCain as the penitent, eschewing his 'liberal' tendencies by embracing a very hardline, rightwing stance. 'Family values' all the way; use of torture , anti-gay, progun, security at all costs, conservative supreme justices---all , by the way, a reversal in many ways from the image of the moderately informed. This is not 'flip-flopping', but like Romney, a seeing of the light, a conversion.

All three of these McCain's are 'real' in some ways, at some times. As the presidential campaign goes on, his advisors can emphasize each of the three as circumstances determine. The three together may be unstopable.

Is this the DECISIVE election?

In the couple of years I have been reading blogs and having this blog, I have not posted on politics. However, in the last several days some trends have emerged which I want to post on.

I do consider this election the most important in my years of following politics. I vaguely remember the presidential elections of '40 and '44. In '48 and since I have followed each presidential campaign very closely from, as they say today, the events on the ground.

For all of these years I have had my favorite, of course. But I have always contended that, because of our two-party system, which forces both parties to the middle, the outcome of the presidential election has not been totally decisive in determining which direction politics in our country is going. This year, however, I feel very strongly that this election is of vital importance to our country and its politics. Maybe I am jumping the gun. Maybe Obama and McCain are really not that different and economic and foreign policy would not be that much different regardless of which one wins.

But frankly, my concern is the last few days has greatly increased. I may discuss these in detail in future posts, but let me point out two trends I see developing which could have a generational lasting effect.

For many campaign cycles the Republicans have had the upper hand in the minds of voters on national defense matters. But this year this debate is beginning to spill over into the matter of personal patriotism. Dole came very close to this with Clinton. But now McCain has crossed the line. His suggestion that Obama would 'rather win an election' than have America 'win a war' is to call his opponent disloyal, unpatriotic and, indeed, treasonous. Yes. strong words. And I notice that one of the major polls is polling on 'who is more patriotic ,McCain or Obama.?

I am a democrat, but have always had some regard for McCain. But apparently feeling he is behind in the race, he is playing this patriotism card. In the 60 years I have closely followed presidential campaigns, this McCain approach is the most blatant and disturbing thing I have seen. And it comes from a "moderate" Republican. So my fear is this: If this McCain position succeeds, what will follow? Will not both parties see the success of this ploy, and will our elections become nothing but lurid personal attacks on the loyalty to America by each side? Will jingoism became the national touchstone of our parties?

If anyone out there in blogdom thinks such issues should be explored, drop me a comment. On this post I also was going to discuss the issue of 'civilian supremacy' which McCain is raising. But let me wait and see if if this post 'finds' anyone. I mentioned "two" trends above, but am dealing with just one at this time. Jack

Gays and the priesthood

Let me say in the beginning that the Catholic position on homosexuality, at least the American Bishops position, is far more understanable than the "fundamantalist Christian" position. Let me make several comments, however.

1. There is little resarch on whether homosexuality is inborn, learned, or a combination of both.

2. Unfortunately the question of homosexuality has become a political issue mainly, not a science issue. Most of the google and book results on the issue are from those with a vested interest in homosexuality being a learned behavior. I have no objection to people of religious persuasion having an opinion on this issue, but I do discount those who start with their religious convictions and try to find scientific evidence that supports their religious views.

3. Their is a difference, which is sometimes blurred, between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. Behavior can change, of course, but orientation is a different matter.

4. There is no reputable evidence that homosexual orientation can be changed.

5. If learned, there is no reliable evidence as to how it is learned. Also it must be asked if heterosexual behavior is learned, then how?

6. Assuming such behavior is learned, all seem to agree that it was learned quite early in life. And at a time when the person had little or no control over the circumstances.

7. Assuming 6 to be correct, it seems illogical to blame a person for their homosexual orientation.

8.Thus to bar homosexuals from the priesthood, based on their orientation, seems prejudicial.

9. I see a difference , to a degree, between the American bishops and the Vatican on these issue.

Knowing that long posts are often not read, I have only outlined my position. Jack

"Excluded Middle"

Getting a bit off my current discussions, I want to remark on the "excluded middle."

On another blog I ask a women if there was anything in Catholicism that she might disagree with of even have a question about. She answered with a firm "NO." She then ask me to name a catholic teaching I agreed with. I named several, and could have named many. Never heard from her again on this issue.

Let's take atheism (total materialism) as one extreme and move across to the other extreme, total acceptance of everything the church says. To me a false dichotomy. Most of us are someplace on that continuum. Catholic blogs seem to be dominated by those who have no questions:If the Church says it, it has to be true. The only argument they offer is :The Church says it and you are not catholic if you do not fully accept what they think it says. Very primitive to me.

As any who has been here know, I think the church is way off balance on matters of human sexuality. Its position is exactly what you would expect from the thinking of a body of celibate males who are protecting their position. I see no other explanation.

But I'm off-point. There are shades of opinion on most issues, and that is a strength of the Church. Mindless sheep do not a Church make. Jack

Preferencium Latinium vs. I prefer the vernacular.

I have never written on my blog about the "liturgy wars." I saw a post on another blog and thought I might make a comment or two. The blogger I read said the contest was between those who favor 'beautiful, elevated' language over simpler, easier to understand more direct vernacular language.

Let's take Latin vs. Today's English (American). The assumption seems to be that the former is more 'elevated', more 'beautiful' than English. But the purpose of language is to communicate. But, you say, isn't poetry more beautiful than prose. Absolutely not. Poetry is a form of compressing language so that the thought will be stated MORE clearly and more efficiently than a much longer prose statement of the thought.

In evaluating one language against another we should remember that one language is not more "elevated and beautiful' than another. The criterion is which most effectively and efficiently expresses what is being conveyed. "Italia petula est sacramentum" is no more beautiful than "I will go to the store." Which communicates best is the criterion of excellence. In my example, can there be any doubt as to which is the better language?

English has become almost the universal language because it is direct, and efficient. Latin is dead because it was emcumbered with exceptions and rules making it very difficult to convey meaning. And the same with French. Why, for example, should adjectives have gender? "Big" is "Big" regardless of what it modifies. English adjectives do not have gender when they mean exactly the same thing.

Earlier forms of English did have a multiplicity of unnecessary variations, but over the years these have dropped as useless and unnecessary making communication easier. We say
I do
You do
He does
We do
You do
They do."
At one time, each of these verbs was a different word. Now only 3rd person singular remains irregular. But you say: We can't say "he do." It isn't right! But why? Only because we have been taught not to say it. I'm sure if we could bring back an Englishman from hundreds of years ago he would be offended by "You do." He would want a different word for second person.

So the Liturgy War is provoked by those who do not understand the purpose and development of language.

Oh, but the Latin advocates say, we , as Catholics, should all be praying in the same language. Thus when we go to another country we can follow the service. So let's all use Latin. Apparently they desire that we all must be equally ignorant of what is being said or read. That will be the unity of ignorance!

Not to sound provincial, but a majority of students of the history of language say the direct, simplicity of English easily trumps the elaborate, difficult variations of most other languages.
"Goedinium farwellium" or Good bye. Jack

I should point out that the other blogger said there was a distinction between" good" books and "Great" books. And, of course there is. A great book is one that communicates more clearly to more people over the expanse of time. The same goes for the other arts. Bach is great, not because he is "elevated" but because his music communicates to us, those before us, and those to come. Farwellium againium. Jack

Angola. Family Values Catholic Haven

Yesterday I posted a comparison of Brazil and the U.S. on "family values". See previous post. But South America may not be your 'cup of tea.' Today I will give figures for Angola. I have picked Angola because it is an African nation and part of the "family values" rich southern Africa. In gathering information I noticed that Angola is featured by the International Right To Life Federation as a model for anti-abortion countries, prohibiting even any "propoganda" in favor of abortion. Ah, a real haven for you family values folks.

Infant Mortality Rate. U.S. 6.37 per 1,000 live births. Angola. 184.44 per 1000 live bitths.
Life Expectancy. U.S. 76. Angola. 37
Aids adult prevalence. U.S. 0.6 per cent. Angola. 3.9 percent.
Death rate for Aids victims. U.S. 5.8. Angola. 8.5.
Abortion rate. Not available for Angola, but 80 per cent of women refugees report being raped.
WHO rank of health care. U.S. 37. Angola. 181.

I think you can see here why the InternationalRight to Life Federation is so excited about Angola as a showcase for those OPPOSED to the "culture of death." Remember U.S. is debauched, debased, and enjoys tearing babies limb from limb. Thank God for Angola and Family Values!!!

Special Offer for Catholic Family Values Seekers.

To my surprise I have found that I live in a country( U.S.) that is debauched, debased, enjoys tearing babies limb from limb---that is a country with very poor "fanily values." At least according to many in Mother Church. Of course, my country is not alone. Almost all industrialized, well educated Western European countries are in this sorry state. Therefore as a service to any blogger who might stop by, I feel it is my duty as a catholic to suggest alternative countries to which as catholics concerned with "family values" we might move . This may take more than one post, but let me start with a comparison of the U.S. with Brazil. The former is, as stated above, debauched, debased, and enjoys tearing babies limb from limb. Brazil, on the contrary, is what some refer to as a "southern catholic" country with much higher regard for "familiy values."

So a few statistics, as catholics interested in "family vales" and opposed to cultures of death as defined by the Holy Father.

Infant Mortality rate per 1,000 live births. U.S. 6.7. Brazil 27.62.
Abortions per 1,000 women. U.S. 24. Brazil 41.
Life espectancy at birth. U.S. 76. Brazil 72.
Aids prevelance rate for adults. U.S. 0.6. Brazil O.7
Death rate from Aids. U.S. 5.8. Brazil. 7.5.
WHO rank of health system. U.S. 37th. Brazil 125th.

Now as any fool can see the U.S. is a culture of death and debauched, debased, and enjoys tearing babies limb from limb. Brazil is clearly a culture that respects human life and well being at all stages.

You will also be glad to know that I am working on a deal with the Vatican to provide 5 'free' indulgences to those moving to Brazil, thus affirming the culture of life.

The Choice

Let's assume you are a young man of about 18 years. You have noticed that you have a sexual affinity for other males. But you are a catholic. And you know your church has identified this affinity as "gravely disordered." This means , or course, that you are gravely disordered. You try to fight this affinity, but to no avail. You hear your friends and family constantly using the word "queer" in reference to boys/men in your position. Maybe you have heard your mother say " I would die if one of my boys was "queer." The head of your church, the pope, adds, yes you are very perverted. Maybe you can't help it {but I suggest you can), but even if you can't help your feelings they must never be put into action' he says.. The pope adds 'certainly if you are "queer" you should not associate with others like yourself, because then you become part of the "gay" culture and not worthy to serve the church in most capacities.' The church says do not tell your fellow catholics of your situation. because that may cause "scandal."

In a spot---well yes. You try to think it out. Where is your girlfriend? It will be wonderful, your mother says, when you find the 'right' girl and make me a grandmother.

Then it occurs to you. If I could become a priest in our church, then people would think I had given up all sex for a higher duty. My family would be very proud of me. No longer would people think I was a "queer." Of course the training to be a priest wll be hard; but I'm smart and can pull it off. I'll have to be interviewed before I can be accepted as a potential priest, but the chances are good that won't be so difficult. After all there's a good bet one of the interviewers is "queer" himself. And the point of the interview won't be whether I'm "queer", but am I strong enough to repress all sexual thought before it becomes action. Can I be celibate, is the point.

Well, I decide to become a priest. Why not? I am a conscientious catholic, so this minor little flaw nature (God) gave me will be offset by my service to the church and others. I can be whole again.

This blogger believes that this happens thousands of time each year. It's not so bad. A "queer" priest doesn't bother me in the least. Maybe I'm a prude, but I'm so square I really think it's kind of bad taste to spectulate on the "sex' acts of others, straight or "queer." (I had to here to make my point.) I sometimes like to think the Queen of England and certainly the Pope don't have...well, bodily 'functions.':) I don't look down on the young man I described above. I know he is no more likely to sexually abuse a child than is my family lawyer. But I do feel sorry that this young man had to make his career choice the way he did. But I wish him the best of luck and think he will probably serve our church and others well.

Abortion: Some Questions

Still posting my way about the Church and abortion and other issues. I notice as I go to different blogs the anti-abortion commenters advance two arguments. Some attempt to give reasons for the Church's position. Others simply argue against abortion because the Church opposes it. Of course, these in a sense are two different positions.

I think the argument that abortions at all stages after conception constitues murder is extremely weak, and I have given reasons for this here. But going to the second argument---abortion is wrong because the Church says it is raises some questions. The standard argument of this second group when they see that the position of the Church has virtually no support even among Catholics is that the Church is not a "democracy" so the fact that so few Catholics as others agree with the Church on this issue is pointless. But several questions come to mind:

Is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Catholics worth nothing?

Is it fair to say that this great majority of Catholics condone murder?

Why do the leaders of the anti-abortion movement ,who insist that abortion is murder, not see a contradiction in that belief and their general belief that at least the initiators of the murder should not suffer severe legal penalties?

If political figures should be denied communion because they are pro-choice, or, if as some argue these figures have made themselves unworthy of communion because of their stance, should not the near 80 per cent of lay Catholics not be in the same position? Should they be bared from communion?

If the Church is infallible on this issue, as many commenters assume, why did Paul6 give a rather long explanation for his 'ruling'. Is the explanation necessary? Is a person not being somewhat ingenuous when they give reasons for feeling abortion is murder, then trump that by saying, the arguments don't really make any difference ? The Church has spoken and that settles it.

I do not mean these questions to be overly argumentative. But I do feel the Church should have a position of them. Jack

.

Liberal and Conservative: The Issues.

Some like to critisize the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as too simplistic. I think these terms are about as good as we can do to describe the differences in our church today. It is a sprectum, fo course, and probably a majority don't fit exactly in one camp or the other. Accepting this, let me make some observations on the differences.

Three areas seem to be in contention between the two groups: Liturgy, 'social' gospel vs. personal piety, and clericalism vs. the laity. I notice these differences daily on the blogs and in the media. For example, yesterday a came across a new Pew survey dealing with the attitudes of Christian churches in America. It showed to me a rather surprising trend. Catholics seem to be less in step with the 'official' philosophy of their church than most other groups. This promted the Archbishop of Denver to say that the Church needs to 'evangelize' its own members, because , he suggested, a high percentage of Catholics do not understand the teachings of the Church. I see two possible 'takes' on his comment. Maybe he is right. Or maybe the laity know more than the good Archbishop thinks, but find some of the teachings hard to accept. An example of the latter is the Church teaching on contraception. The official Church position on the issue is that the use of contraceptives is a serious sin, a grave violation of the natural law, a violation of God's command etc. Those familiar with this issue point out there is little, if any, distinction between catholics and other church members on this issue---a great majority of all religious people do not accept the catholic position on this issue. Even within the Church hierarchy there is wide differences. As we all know, a commission coming after Vatican 2, a commission made up of clerics recommended the position of the Church be modified. This was turned down by Paul 6.

Beyond this difference in the Church on this issue, is also a division between the hierarchy and the laity . The emphasis of Vatican2 on the role of the laity is obviously not palitable to many in the clergy. On a prominent catholic blog the conservative catholics were incensed over what they called the "anti-clericalism" of church members today. I was told by several of the people on this blog to"stay in my place" and not toy with questioning 'official' church positions. The Church is not a democracy, was a constant refrain, and my duty was to accept what the hierarchy said.

In my own diocese, our nice but very conservative bishop, has announced in a lenghty essay. the responsibility to "adopt a priest." He clearly states that priests are closer to God than lay persons, and we should recognize their unique position. Again, the effort the reassert the supremacy of clerics over the laity.

I will have more to say on the issues I have mentioned in this post in the days ahead and kook forward to any comments pro or con. Jack

I suspend, Part 2

Having no luck finding the difference between "evil" and "intrinsic evil" other than a confused definition by Aquinas which really says nothing---'we seek what is good.' Oh?

In the abortion argument we have two unreasonable extremes. One extreme says a women can do anything she wants with her body, including killing a fetus seconds before it is born. Reasonable people, I believe, regard this as nonsense. The other extreme is saying that one cell caused by sexual intercourse is a "person," "child," "infant," "human being," etc. That some religious people would argue the latter, is not convincing for most. Both sides like to fudge a bit. The totally pro-abortion person , to start with, needs to contend that a fetus my be killed at any time. The total anti=abortion defender needs to argue that the one cell is just as fully a person as a 5 year old. Both are equally absurd positions and are rejected by all common sense. A fetus is not just "my body." One cell is not a person etc.

Now, some religious bodies state that one cell is a person. The catholic church so teaches, but its members like members of other religions do not accept this extreme. Our vocabulary which is descriptive not proscriptive never refers to a cell as a person. As I will post later the church is forced to this position because of its belief in the demeaning nature of sex as such, which it clearly teaches, but tries to cover with 'sugary' words.

I accept neither of the extremes written about above. I have no personal stake in this argument. No relative of mine, no family member I know of has ever evn thought of abortion as a way to prevent the birth of a child. My saying this, of course, carries no probitive weight. I say it totry and draw the discussion back to what I wrote above---both sides must defend their position starting with the extremes above.

Both sides play the "slippery slope" game. If I admit anything except the argument in it's purest form it will become a slippery slope to conceeding my point. Logical nonsense, but used by both groups.