Family and Public Office

Mrs. Palin announced her daughter was indeed pregnant after the media ran the story. Not content, some journalists and pseudo-journalists announced that the Palin’s youngest son was actually the daughter’s child and that Mrs. Palin is somehow using this for some advantage by claiming the child as her own. The motivation? Unclear.  Perhaps they were insinuating that this move would insulate the family from scandal. Perhaps it was a desperate ploy to catapult her into a position of prominance? I have no idea – and neither do the yellow journalists that peddled this story.

I find this story and the assault by those who call themselves ‘enlightened’ to be difficult to stomach. What newsworthy rationale lies in this story and the other, unsubstantiated slanders that are swirling around the blogosphere? This is an irresponsible journalistic practice. Even more importantly, it is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the real issues that should be debated in public forums. Moreover, it is patently an attempt to hurt, humiliate, or intimidate Mrs. Palin.  As her announcement on the subject clearly indicated, none of these tactics were efficacious.

As a man who believes in the sanctity of life, I find myself with no choice but to support McCain. Previous posts have clearly indicated why an Obama presidency is unacceptable to Roman Catholics. This story does not weaken my respect for Mrs. Palin – indeed, she handled an insulting, intrusive, and crass assault by the media with grace, poise, and conviction. As an attack, it was ineffectual.

I applaud Senator Obama for immediately denouncing this story and those who posted it. By doing so, he is not only continuing a long-standing tradition based in expediency and compassion, but he is protecting his own family. I cannot recall Chelsea Clinton coming under such a vicious attack. It simply hasn’t been done, and it is perhaps illuminating that a staunch liberal-democratic blog sunk to such tactics. Senator Obama has his work cut out for him. No longer can he preach his is the party of unity, of compassion, of dignity. His denunciation is not enough. The Daily Kos enjoyed a prominent position in the Democratic Convention, a distinction they should no longer enjoy. Otherwise, many will consider that this was a purposeful tactic – using an attack dog that is later denounced…after the damage has been done.

Let us argue the facts. Let us examine the policies. Let us allow the children some protection from the vicious political machinations that infest politics.

Comments on HHS FRDOC 0001-0031

 

There is an important proposed regulation open to public comment on the Regulations.gov website. It is entitled “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law” and has caused some controversy since President Bush directed the Dept Of Health and Human Services to draft the regulation. If you are interested, you may view the document here. Briefly, it provides protection under federal law to health care providers who do not wish to provide services that are contrary to their religious or moral beliefs. While one could argue that the Constitution already provides such protection, current practices and political ideology requires safeguards that one conversant with the Founding Documents would consider to be superfluous.

As I was writing my comment, I was thinking of the past two posts – both dealing with religion and politics. So, I have decided to post my comments to the HHS panel here as well. As always, I hope you enjoy reading it!

 

Thank you for providing a forum for this very important issue. I am writing to argue that the government supports the freedom of health care providers following their conscience. As much as I would like to see certain practices abolished, this is not the intent of my argument or of this proposed regulation. The patient seeking birth control, abortions, or other procedures contrary to a health care provider’s religious or moral beliefs are not being denied service, they would simply receive service from those who don’t object. This is the intent of this policy, and it is an acceptable compromise.

 The most immediate argument is that as Americans, we are protected by the Constitution from interference from the State regarding our religious beliefs and practices. Contrary to the interpretation of many, a careful reading of the First Amendment clearly mandates that the government cannot interfere with the religious practice of the populace. The very nature of the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is to place boundaries on the power of government. not the people. Indeed, the Constitution repeatedly affirms that sovereignty rests solely in the hands of the people, and that we cede certain freedoms as stated and limited in the language of the Constitution. To suggest that an individual’s practices based on religion is unconstitutional is absurd. Only an activist judiciary would pervert the substance of the Constitution in such a manner. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has taken to this practice increasingly over the past several decades. I urge the Executive branch of government to be mindful of its obligations. It is charged to protect eh citizens from the tyranny of government.  to compel health care providers to provide medical treatments and products that are contrary to their religious beliefs is itself a violation of the Constitution – as my discussion has clearly articulated.

 At one time, physicians used to take the Hippocratic Oath, although I understand that this practice has fallen out of favor. There are still many health care providers who remember and believe in the passage that roughly translates as ‘do no harm’. There are many health care providers who believe that abortificants and surgical abortions are indeed doing harm to a life – the unborn child in the womb. While the medical community may continue to debate and seek the scientific threshold of life, for the Roman Catholic physician, the answer lies in the Magisterium – the teachings of the Church. Life begins at conception. Pope Pius IX stated this ex cathedra in 1869, and it has been part of the Catholic Canon sine – although writings as early as the first century condemn abortion. How can the state require health care providers to use techniques, pharmaceuticals, and practices that violate the rights of the unborn child?  This ethical argument dovetails nicely with the first argument. It is not only morally wrong, it is a violation of First Amendment rights.

 Finally, the cost to society would be catastrophic. It is not commonly recognized, but the Roman Catholic Church provides a significant amount of health care in this nation. According to the USCCB – the United States Council of Catholic Bishops – the Roman Catholic Church operates – and largely funds – over 404 health care centers and some 1,500 homes. Twenty states report that more than 20% of their citizens are admitted to Roman Catholic hospitals. Roman Catholic hospitals report over 15.4 million emergency room visits. The service that Roman Catholic hospitals provides is significant and could not easily be replaced by local, state, or federal governments. Catholic Charities provides services from addiction recovery, shelters, psychiatric counseling, and other assorted health services that surpass government services in some states. To force Roman Catholic health care providers to administer treatments that are contrary to our moral and religious beliefs is criminal. I – and many other Roman Catholics who support Catholic Charities – would find other used for our money. I could not in good conscience support hospitals and clinics that were providing abortions and other objectionable practices. I think that many bishops would agree. In fact, several have openly stated that without this protection, the may ‘close shop;’. I don’t see how state and local governments could absorb the crushing influx of the sick and injured that would no longer be served by Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Care Association. Not only would the number of patients increase dramatically, millions of patients who are indigent would no longer have their care subsidized by the charity of Roman Catholic Americans who support the good works of he Catholic hospitals.

I live in Connecticut, a state where the Speaker of the General Assembly – a Mr. Amman – threatened the Catholic hospitals over such an issue. I don’t want to see this tactic repeated nationwide – and this experience leads to the final point. On the basis of the constitutional arguments alone, the remedy that is proposed by this regulation should be meaningless and unnecessary. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government – on any level – has the power and authority to force a man or woman to act against their conscience. Indeed, the Constitution expressly limits the power of government and openly asserts its purpose as a bulwark to defend the rights of the sovereign citizen. It is a sign that we live in a nation that has so grossly subverted the wisdom of our founding fathers that I have to take the time to write this letter.

 I urge the Department to accept this regulation, to protect the rights and liberties of physicians and health care providers to practice ethical medicine. No one should be compelled to choose between two mastes. No one should be forced to leave their vocation because of ther moral beliefs. This past week, a Dr. Dean O’Dell argued on national radio that moral and religious beliefs should not be a factor in their practice – anyone who would not provide abortions over issues of conscience should not have entered the medical profession. This it he tyranny of the minority – in this case, one person – seeking to subjugate the moral principles of thousands of men and women who have honed their talents, passions, and God-given gifts to the treatment and care of the sick.

 

Senator Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and the ‘Catholic’ Politician

Senator Biden has been tapped as the Democratic Party’s VP nominee. According to the Associated Press and the Obama campaign, his selection will ‘cover the Catholic base’. But is this true? Should it be?

Senator Biden has – uncharitably – threatened to “to shove his rosary down the throat of the next Republican who tells him he isn’t religious.” (AP story). Well, sir, I have a problem with that on two counts. The rosary is not an object to be subjected to such use – you should know better than that. The more pressing issue is the imperative need to be in communion with the Holy See, even if you are a politician. Actually, ESPECIALLY if you are a politician.

Being a Roman Catholic is not a birthright. While many are born into the families who are Roman Catholic, are ushered through the sacraments, and perhaps attend church regularly, this is not sufficient. Every week in Mass, Roman Catholics affirm their willingness to abide with the teachings of the church. Many don’t, and for the private citizen, this is a matter between them, their confessor, and God. For the public citizen, this is not the case. Politicians and public officials who are Roman Catholic must – I repeat MUST – act in a manner consistent with church teachings or they should be denied the Sacraments. One’s faith is not the same as one’s allegiance to a football team; it is not a casual relationship. If you are Roman Catholic, you affirm that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that the teachings of the Church are the foundations of our faith. Unfortunately for the politician, words and intent are not enough. Christ calls us to be active in expressing our faith in our daily lives. Indeed, Christ would argue that the two are commingled…or should be.

In America, Roman Catholic politicians have had a long and infamous history. For decades, Roman Catholics were persecuted as having greater loyalty to the Pope than the United States. As late as the 20thcentury, John Kennedy swore publicly that he would never let his faith influence his politics. What a pity. He was perhaps the first – certainly the most famous – of politicians on the national stage who forswore their faith in the name of political expediency. Joseph Biden is the latest.

As early as the first century, the Church forbade abortion. The Didache, also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, clearly addresses this issue. Pope Pius IX in 1869 declared that the doctrine of ‘fetus animus’ and ‘fetus inanimus’ to be no longer valid. Life begins at conception. Perhaps Senator Biden was not present when Pope John Paul II articulated the Church’s commitment to this policy.

“I do not hesitate to proclaim before you and before the world that all human life—from the moment of conception and through all subsequent states—is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person. . . If a person’s right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in his mother’s womb, an indirect blow is struck also at the whole of the moral order, which serves to ensure the inviolable goods of man. Among those goods, life occupies the first place…And so we will stand up every time that human life is threatened. When the sacredness of life before birth is attacked, we will stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life.” (Homily on the Capitol Mall, Washington, D.C., October 7, 1979 )

Tertullian, Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas…all have written extensively on this subject. Too much to include here, but I will work on a post addressing this issue in the detail and depth it deserves.

You cannot set aside the moral dictates of your faith when they are inconvenient, despite John Kennedy’s protestations, despite the practices of Catholic politicians who support causes contrary to the faith. Luke 16:13, “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Does this mean that religious authority trumps civil authority. No, it doesn’t. Once again, to the Bible. Matthew22:21 “Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s. ” Contradictory? Not at all. We are encouraged to be active in the world. We are encouraged to apply the teachings of our faith to our civil life. Our religious teaching should guide us. The moral precepts postulated on the pulpit should not be forgotten when you leave the parking lot. The church teachings on abortion are clear. A politician chooses to run for office, the people elect him. It is incumbent that the politician not lie – he should proclaim his Catholic background and beliefs when running and demonstrate how the teachings of the church is not incompatible with public life. This is what the first quote implies. It has nothing to do with seeking public office, it is a charge that one must stay true to the Magisterium throughout life – and that includes public office. Politicians – like Senator Biden- who have sold their faith short by supporting policies contrary to the Magisterium are not in communion with the Holy See and therefore not eligible to receive the Sacraments – save Reconciliation, of course.

So is it impossible to be a good Roman Catholic and public servant? Absolutely not. In fact, the First Amendment protects people of faith from the tyranny of government interference. Contrary to popular belief and secular interpretation, a careful reading of the amendment clearly demonstrates that the disestablishment clause is to keep the government from imposing a particular religion to the populace. It says absolutely nothing about ‘protecting’ the government from people of faith. The Roman Catholic church in America is already the most active social service agency, spending more time, money, and other resources than most states. This is the finest example of Roman Catholics involved in civic life. Political service is another that could be used for the betterment of all. There is nothing wrong with Roman Catholics applying their beliefs to civic life. If this is contrary to the beliefs and practices of other people, it is imperative that the politician is prepared to defend his position using compassion, tolerance, and arguments based on the Magisterium. If this is not acceptable to the people, then the politician – however well meaning, is much better off not securing the office. I would wager that the politician who ran on Catholic principles would find a tremendous amount of support – not just from Catholics, but with other religious groups with similiar values.

There are those who claim that the Obama campaign is premised on Catholic social teachings. This is far from true. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is not a smorgasbord. You cannot pick and choose what is convenient or palatable and claim that the part you have chosen is the whole of the thing. The Obama campaign supports abortion. As clearly explained in this post and repeatedly in homilies and the Magisterium, abortion is contrary to Roman Catholic teaching. Period. Even if the Obama campaign endorses many policies that are compatible with Catholic teachings, by supporting a platform based on abortion, they cannot claim that they are consistent with the Church. Roman Catholic citizens who support abortion are ‘serving two masters’ – actually, they are forsaking the obedience and loyalty that should be rendered unto God. By supporting abortion, they are choosing to serve Caesar over the teachings of the Church. There is an organization known as Roman Catholics for Obama. On their website, they articulate several Obama platforms that are consistent with the church. How do they deal with the abortion issue? They claim that “Senator Obama will be most effective in nurturing a socio-economic environment and providing a safety net that will make abortion increasingly unnecessary and rare.” This is contrary to his performance as a senator, and contrary to the Magisterium. Unfortunately, Catholics for Obama have lined up at the buffet, unwilling to acknowledge that their support is leading others into immoral action. It is interesting that they often use Just War language and often allude to the precepts of Moral Reasoning. Pity that they are not applying those disciplines to the examination of their candidate’s platform. I give them credit for ‘tweaking’ the US Bishop’s statement on “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. Perhaps I need to reflect and refute their arguments in a future post.

The Catholics for Obama claim that their candidate’s platform is in line with many of the values promulgated by the USCCB “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. I am sorry to have to tell these people, but there is a passage that is a ‘deal-breaker’. In the section titled ‘Doing Good and Avoiding Evil’, page 13, section 1.8, item 22, the Bishops exlain that some positions are intrinsically evil and cannot be countenanced.

There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia.

-USCCB ‘Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

  In the light of this statement, any Roman Catholic who reads this tract is compelled by the teachings of the Bishops not to support Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, many Catholics have not read this or are unwilling to accept that the Magisterium must shape our civic lives. Even more disturbing are the Roman Catholic priests who support Obama and the Democratic platform. They are men who should know better and in continuing to support candidates who advocate abortion, they are violating their vow of obedience. Father Pleger is a perfect example of a defiant priest. Many of his statements are contrary to church teachings but he continues to remain in his Office as pastor of St. Sabina. Why his bishop has not taken action is a question I have asked and received no answer. While Fr. Pleger’s defiance is the most glaring example of Roman Catholics who are forsaking their faith, many communities have Roman Catholic Priests and Religious who support candidates who do not promote Catholic teachings. Just as there are many well-intentioned laypeople who support political positions that are anathema to the Magisterium, there are a number of priests who are unable or unwilling to accept that one cannot compromise on certain principles. While Fr. Pleger revels in his apostasy, many priests espouse that the ‘good outweighs the bad.’ This is unacceptable in the ordained, who should have received a sound education in moral theology and the doctrines of the church.

 

  Just today, I heard Nancy Pelosi argue that abortion is a contemporary issue that the ‘Church hierarchy’ itself is hotly debating. Nonsense. The liberal-leaning Catholic may wish this was true. I am shocked and dismayed that the Speaker of the House has such a flawed knowledge of the Magisterium. It is appalling that she actually spoke – with authority – with such blatant disregard for the truth. In a supposedly educated woman, this is unforgivable. I would urge the Speaker to read this post – and check back for the teachings of the Church Fathers on abortion. If you still don’t understand it, please feel free to email me and we will talk. The offer goes to you as well Senator Biden – as long as you check your rosary at the door. I just don’t trust you.

 

The Moral Vote

This is the first in a series of entries exploring the connection that should exist between moral reasoning and politics. In order to eliminate any outcry over mixing politics and religion, I am going to discuss the flaws in the contemporary interpretation of the First Amendment.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment clearly states that the government shall make no law establishing a NATIONAL religion. It furthermore endorses religious thinking by expressly protecting the rights of all people to freely exercise their religious beliefs. This is a significant statement that has been twisted and spun considerably in this secular age. The First Amendment is protecting religion from the government. The common interpretation is ‘separation of church and state’. The text does not say that. It does not imply that. It clearly states that there will be no national church. As a resident of Connecticut, I understand the meaning very clearly. Until 1818. Congregationalism was the state endorsed religion. People were expected to pay taxes to support the local congregation. Other religions existed in a quasi-legal limbo. The authors of the Bill of Rights knew this was happening, and determined that freedom demanded that state religions be abolished. And in a Constitutional revision, Connecticut ended its sponsorship of the Congregational church.

I am protected from government interference in practicing my faith. The government is not safe from my practice of faith-based values in the exercise of political sovreignty however. Free exercise is – well, free exercise. It doesn’t say free exercise unless someone disagrees or is offended. It doesn’t say free exercise except in political matters. It is a sweeping and powerful protection given to people of faith. We are free to participate in public life without having to suppress our religious convictions. And it is protected in the Constitution of the United States.

So what does this mean? This means that it is eminently acceptable to use my religion as a sounding board for policy. As a Roman Catholic, I have been taught that life is sacred. This means that I have every right to seek to limit the application of capital punishment. I have every reason to use all the powers at my command to end the state sponsorship of abortion clinics. I have every reason to condemn the General Assembly’s insistence that Catholic hospitals provide abortions and issue the ‘morning after pill’.

When running for office, John Kennedy told a legion of pastors and reporters that would leave his religious views at the gates if elected. His religion would play no role in his decision-making. What a crime. What a lost opportunity. What a tragedy. And still, you see his portrait in so many homes celebrating the only ‘Catholic’ president. I do not consider him to be a Catholic president at all. Peter renounced Christ only to beg for forgiveness when the cock crowed. Kennedy spent his administration proving that religion and moral reasoning played no part in his presidency.

Conversely, when Joseph Lieberman was confronted with the question of religion interfering in his political life, he proudly proclaimed that as he was shaped by his faith, his political decisions would certainly be influenced by moral reasoning and the tenets of his religion.

The application of moral reasoning and using religious values to determine political choices are valid. They are protected under  the Constitution. And they should be.

There is a lot to cover here – please let me know what you are interested in tackling. I am working on the first topic essay this week….

Gas Prices

A ‘new-again’ email is making the rounds and was dumped in my mailbox…from yet another person who is using their position to espouse an argument. Like the 1st, this is another case of people who should know better using their freedom of speech in an irresponsible manner.

This email petition does not advocate a boycott on all gas stations – just a couple. According to the message, this plan was engineered by former executives from Halliburton and Coca-Cola. Unlikely, as anyone holding such positions have a better grasp of basic economic theory. Let’s break it down.

Boycotting one or two brands will have no effect on the cost of gasoline. The shunned brands will simply sell their gas to those who are selling gas in retail outlets. This will have no effect on gas – in fact, it may even raise prices as outlets compete for the ‘surplus’ gas. This is simple supply and demand economics.

Who would this hurt? It will hurt the business owner. The working poor and convenience store owner who has little control over the costs, makes little on the sale of gasoline, and relies on selling sundries to make their businesses profitable. Morally, any decision that targets – indirectly or no – a subclass of people who have no control over  an issue and will suffer from it is inherently wrong. By following this ‘plan’, convenience stores – not big oil – will suffer. Your neighbors, people.

How to solve this problem? It is a demand issue. Any commodity in great demand will be more desirable to a consumer (forgive me for stating the obvious here). As the demand increases, one of two things occur. Prices rise or supply increases – sometimes both. If there is a finite supply, the demand will drive prices up drastically. An example are the ‘hot’ game platforms and stuffed toys that command astronomical prices in the Christmas consumer feeding frenzy.

It seems that the ‘gas crisis’ is greatly alleviated these past couple of weeks. I have been calling it for quite some time – in economic terms, an imbalance between supply and demand will always seek to return to equilibrium. Consumers modified their behavior and demand decreased. As demand decreased, supply constraints were eased and the prices have gone down. A case of classic supply and demand, correct?

No. Not quite. Another factor influenced this drama – in fact, this factor may be the driving force for this ‘crisis’. Speculation. Speculation is a practice of purchasing ‘futures’ of a commodity. People make millions of dollars buying and selling commodities that they do not store, ship, process, or transfer. Why? Because they don’t exist yet. Is this a morally defensible practice? I would argue it is not. Gambling should be left to the gaming rooms of Atlantic City, Las Vegas, and the Mohegan Sun. Speculation drove prices to astronomical levels and has had a ripple effect whose influence will take months to assess. Already, consumers have drastically modified their behavior. Airlines are booking less – indeed some a grounding hundreds of aircraft. People are conserving more. The sale of SUVs and pick-up trucks is crashing. Ford posted a nearly nine billion dollar loss in the second quarter.

The world certainly faces an increasing crisis of available oil. I say ‘available’ because I believe that the supply is controlled by those who hold the resources. China and India are booming and will drive demand up dramatically. We must all learn to do more with less. And to find means of powering our cars, homes, and communities using other viable energy sources. This will take time, but a job never started never gets closer to being finished.

 

When we as consumers make decisions, we must contemplate the impact of those choices. We must learn to become responsible stewards of what we have been entrusted. And we must consider the real costs of our actions. Boycotts rarely hurt those that are targeted. A market economy acting without interference will generally find equilibrium. And if you think the big, evil corporations’ are so bad, try living without them. The Amish do for the most part. We cannot be strident in our protests unless we are willing to take meaningful action.

Professor Myers, academic freedom, and responsibility

Perhaps Stan Lee said it best. “With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.” Who would have ever thought that a 25¢ four color comic could distill such wisdom. Unfortunately, I understand that it is no longer common for people to read Augustine and Aquinas, but one would have hoped that Myers had read – and understood – young Peter Parker.

For those readers who are not familiar with the story, Mr. Myers is a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota – a post that makes him eminently qualified to discuss and declaim on theology. He stole a host from a Roman Catholic Church and for several weeks, wrote repeatedly on his intentions to do ‘something’ to the ‘cracker’. I wrote Mr. Myers to explain the nature of his intentions and did not receive the courtesy of a response. Last week, he impaled the Eucharist with a rusty nail, made a quip about hoping Jesus had his tetanus shots, and threw it in the trash. This forum is a means to express the importance of making decisions and actions based on sound principles, so let us examine Mr. Myer’s shortcomings in this affair.

 

All actions have consequences. All actions are the expression of intent. Actions can serve noble and ignoble purposes based on the merits and motives of the intent. What has Mr. Myers achieved in this action? What was his intent?

For some time, Mr. Myers has used his position as a professor – and university resources – to espouse his contempt for organized religion. A common target for his criticism has been the Roman Catholic church. In and of itself, criticism is eminently appropriate. Martin Luther’s criticisms were a reaction to an institution that he felt was no longer responsive to the people it was supposed to serve. And in many ways, he was correct. Unfortunately, the Counter-Reformation movement did not coalesce quickly enough to prevent a schism in Christianity that exists to this day. Mr. Myers actions do not satisfy responsible criticism or responsible actions because he offered no intellectual argument. Luther posted his objections for the world to read and discuss. It sparked a debate that generated social, religious, and political movements that profoundly effect all corners of the world to this day. Mr. Myers action was petty, mean-spirited, and hateful.

One could argue that he acted from ignorance. Many readers may not be aware that in the Catholic tradition, the Eucharist is transfigured, it is in a very real sense the Body of Jesus Christ. While many denominations have Communion, only the Catholic faith considers Communion to be a sacrament that must be earned through study, prayer, and preparation. Whether one believes in transubstantiation or no, it is nonetheless a key tenet of Faith for Catholics. To assault a symbol integral to the beliefs and traditions of a people is morally indefensible.

Myers is hiding behind the cloak of academic freedom, the doctrine that educators must have freedom to express controversial ideas in the course of educating students. As a teacher myself, I understand and endorse this concept. But the use of this power comes with responsibility. Unethical use of a privilege should not be countenanced. Indeed, the University of Minnesota has such safeguards built into their Code of Conduct and their Tenure Code. As a biology instructor, Mr. Myers actions against the Eucharist could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered as appropriate for the purposes of instruction. The Tenure Code and the Code of Conduct both address that faculty members are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is sensitive and respectful to all people. In fact, there is language that considers his actions to be contrary to University expectations.

Section III, Subdivision 1.“Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member…be personally accountable for individual actions.”

Section III, Subdivision 2.“The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences….avoid all forms of harassment, illegal discrimination, threats, or violence.”

The Tenure Code of the University of Minnesota states that a professor may be removed from his position for  ‘unprofessional conduct which severely impairs a faculty member’s fitness in a professional capacity.’  

It is clear that the University has established very clear guidelines for ethical behavior. Why is this continuing to be an issue? The Chancellor stated that Mr. Myer’s actions are protected under the doctrine of academic freedom. Unfortunately, the University has determined that some cases of discrimination are acceptable while others are not. If a professor on campus expelled students who did not hold valid citizenship papers or visas, would that be tolerated? If a professor espoused that limited-intelligence people should be sterilized in order to prevent them from breeding, would that be acceptable? Of course not – not should it. By providing a flagrant example of discrimination, I hope to illuminate the skeptic that a hate crime is a hate crime. Abuse of power is abuse of power. Freedom without responsibility is the tyranny of the indulgent.

It is time that consistency be applied to the definitions of hate crime and discrimination. The University of Minnesota has a moral obligation to the institution, the faculty and staff, and to the state of Minnesota to maintain it’s standards. One hopes that the Regents will have the courage to seek the High Ground and stand firm upon it.

We shall see….

Just War

Just War is a difficult concept, one that I spend a fair amount of time teaching – especially in my humanities classes. It is a difficult topic for adults and young people alike. There are several principles that my students seem to agree on year after year.

1. War is a valid practice – but only when all other options have been exhausted.
2. The just war is one that has moral right behind it – self defense, the defense of allies or relations, to halt significant acts of violence…these are acceptable uses of war.
3. Legitimate authority is essential to the prosecution of just war. The decision to go to war must be made by means that are acceptable to the governed.
4. The use of force should be appropriate to the threat in a just war.
5. A just war must be one that promises a REASONABLE chance of victory.
6. Combatants in a just war have a responsibility to  protect the lives of non-combatants at all costs.
7. Peace should be declared as soon as the objectives have been met.

These are the ones that most often agree with ‘established’ tenets of Just War theory, although I often get others that are equally interesting. When I teach this concept, I usually toss out a bunch of wars throughout history, ask students to pick one, and apply the theory to it. They are expected to defend or prosecute the war on the basis of the criteria they have agreed on. It is often the most interesting unit we do in the course of the semester. Students learn that we have fought hundreds and hundreds of wars in recorded history. Of course, the Iraq War has been a popular one for inquiry the past 5 years – and it is one that causes students a fair amount of anxiety as they reflect on the qualifications of the war.

The purpose of this entry is to set the foundations for my future entries on war. The Iraq War has been a popular issue for discussion and debate for all of the candidates. War is never – nor should ever be – a popular or desirable activity. The cost in human life is immense, the allocation of resources that could have been expended on other needs, and the money that could have been otherwise spent – or more appropriately – saved…all are squandered with abandon in the prosecution of war. Conversely, war is sometimes the only moral alternative. It is in the application of the guiding principles of just war that we can balance the horrors of war against the horrors of inaction.

On using position to advance one’s political views

One of the amazing things about American Democracy are the privileges accorded to us under the Bill of Rights. My use of the word ‘privileges’ is quite intentional, for they are exactly that. I teach – emphatically – that those hoary old rights are not cast in stone, are not inviolate. Rather, they are liberties that have been secured for us and routinely nourished – or allowed to wither. In class I refer to the Bill of Rights as a contract that is paid under an installment plan. I fear that this era of entitlement has removed the onus of responsibility that should naturally – and morally – accompany rights.

Let me amplify. I own a boat, and am looking forward to another fine season of sailing on the Long Island Sound – one of the most beautiful stretches of water in North America. My right to operate my boat is dependant on a variety of factors. I have to maintain my safe boating certificate. I have to pay my registration fee on an annual basis. I have legal and moral responsibilities to the crew and guests on the Impulse. Some are legal, some are tradition, all are vital. One could argue that firearm carry permits, driver licenses, and other ‘rights’ are moderated by fiat of government and social expectations.

Freedom of speech is one of the most sacrosanct of these ‘rights’. This despite that several Supreme Court cases have determined that under certain circumstances speech can be curtailed. The Alien and Sedition Acts was the first of a long line of legislative actions that curtailed expression. Often there are good reasons, often there are not. The Hazelwood Case (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier) placed curbs on the speech of students and has been considered to be a legitimate limit on the freedom of speech. Tinker v. DeMoines produced a different interpretation on freedom of expression.

Now, to the point. Morally speaking, is it acceptable for the chief officers of an organization to advance their political views using the organization’s resources? And would private or public ownership influence this decision? How about a public agency? I would argue that – like the two Supreme Court cases I have cited, different circumstances mandate the application of different remedies.

A private corporation answers to the owner or to the Board of Directors. A public agency in theory answers to the public, but in reality is that a sufficient check on power? One must consider the nature of the expression. A posting on a publicly accessible website would provide the appropriate balance – the public could easily access the endorsement and act according to their convictions. Now an endorsement sent over a closed system – such as interoffice memos or email – can raise different problems. Is it ethical to forward in-system correspondences to parties out of the system?

I would argue that morally it is wrong on several levels. The first is the implication of the administrator speaking as the vox populi. There is strong established precedent in many organizations of a leader speaking on behalf of the people he supervises. The position he or she holds also places others who would dissent in an uncomfortable position. They cannot express their views with the same gravitas as the administrator – the levels of authority and position are too widely separated. Finally, there is always the fear of lower ranking members of an organization protesting. The implied possibility of censure – official or unofficial – are a specter that will deter many from expressing their opposition to the postition of the leader. Far easier – and safer – to simply say nothing, even if that is a morally wrong position.

How does this incident relate to the Supreme Court cases I provided as examples? In Hazelwood, the Court found that prior review is acceptable in a school system. Students in the Hazelwood case found that freedom of expression extended solely to the utility of advancing learning. If there was a pedagogical rationale for permitting or curbing freedom of speech, administrators are free to act. This is an example of curbing freedom of expression to limit disruption and discontent. While schools that would practice prior restraint likely have much to hide, the justification for limiting speech is clear. An extension of this decision can be applied – reasonably – to prevent students, faculty, and administrators from expressing opinions that are disruptive to the environment.

The Tinker decision deals with wearing peace symbols as a means of protesting the Vietnam war. The Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling and stated that this is and should be a form of protected speech. In this specific instance, the peace symbol was classified by the Court as an acceptable means of expression as it would not significantly interfere with the functioning of the school. Another opinion in the majority cited the 14th amendment, stating that this form of expression is permitted because citizens should be free of the government and subordinate creatures…including Boards of Education.

Two Supreme Court cases. Similar circumstances superficially, different results. Why? Symbolic speech is by its nature a more subtle creature. As a Christian, if I choose to wear my cross openly, I am expressing my convictions. Tinker defends this manner of speech as protected as it is a statement of my personal beliefs – and it is not considered to be disruptive or confrontational. Wearing a swastika will likely invoke a different response as it fails the test of what is considered to be acceptable. Leading a class in prayer is not acceptable in a public school, but is perfectly acceptable outside of school or in a parochial school. Once again, context and setting are relevant on moral and practical levels.

An administrator forwarding a column, letter, or article that endorses a particular viewpoint. Under the tests we have discussed – judicial and moral – the action is wrong. There is no effective oversight to curb such expression. The form of expression is not open to all – if there was an open forum (like this one), then such a statement would be more palatable. The fact that the article is not explicitly endorsing a position is not relevant. The reasonable man test is sufficient to evaluate the point of view of the author. If the author is espousing a particular point of view, then by posting it, I am endorsing it as my own. If I am doing so in an official capacity, than I endorsing it as the Chief Agent of the organization. 

Abuse of power is a slippery creature. It is simple to justify ones actions as ‘freedom of expression’. The problem lies in the balancing of liberty and responsibility. 

 

Thanks for visiting….. 

Moral Reasoning – Aquinas style

Saint Thomas Aquinas is one of the Church Fathers famous for his synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. For Aristotle, the pinnacle of human achievement is the realization of eudaimonia –the ‘happiness of spirit’. Aristotle’s treatment of moral reasoning is that all decisions must be based in the precepts of what is right or virtuous. Personal honor, wealth, or pride should not be the basis of a rational man’s decisions according to Aristotelian thought. This was an attractive argument for a Catholic theologian, and it comes as no surprise that Aquinas was influenced greatly his works.

Saint Thomas Aquinas added an element that Aristotle never considered. Aquinas believed that all man was ‘tainted’ by original sin. He argued that this did not preclude man from making decisions using moral reasoning, but that our ability to divine what was ‘good’ was diminished. The challenge – according to Aquinas – was being able to find the good in our decisions, to divine the will of God, in our everyday decisions.

Aquinas believed that evil is a deprivation of what something is. All that is in being is inherently good. to discern what is right is to understand how to look at someothing in it’s uncorrupted, natural state. We could argue in contemporary political thought that the appropriate lens will be to look at an issue devoid of personal, partisan,  and special interests.

This weblog is my personal journey in learning how to apply such a lens. My working hypothesis will follow that of Aristotle and Aquinas. The points are highlighted below:

1. All decisions seek to find what is right and virtuous for the state.
2. It is in man’s nature to be sinful and ignore the precepts of the good of the community over their personal desires and wants.
3. Just as everything in creation is inherently good through the act of Divine Creation, every political idea is inherently good. It is the diminishment or tampering of well-intentioned ideas that creates problems.
4. Moral reasoning requires a selfless perspective. One cannot profit from the results of an action without a corresponding or greater benefit accruing to the community as a whole.

This is simply scratching the surface. I expect that after some reflection, I will be modifying some or all of these points….