A Catholic website for the modern reader
Democracy
The Score Stands at 1 - 1
08/11/20 17:14
Forget about the multitude of World Cups in sports. Forget about the numerous World Championships in international athletic competitions. Forget about the different World Series events. As exciting as they all are, not one of them matters in the greater scheme of life. None of them makes a significant difference on world history; on how we live our lives; on whether or not we survive. Only one major competition truly matters. Call it the World Cup, or World Championship, or World Series of GOVERNANCE. The current score is Vladimir Putin 1, Democracy 1.
Putin inherited the Russian State while it was still a fledgling democracy and immediately began to morph it into an autocracy. His rallying cry was rooted in a forlorn despondency as he openly lamented the demise of the Soviet Union. In 2005 he stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
Deep in what passes for his soul, Putin knew that he could not reclaim Russia’s former status without dismantling liberal democracy around the globe. Although he attempted to achieve his aims in some of the former Soviet satellite states, his most brazen venture was the disruption of the American democratic process in 2016. The result was that he took an early lead: 1 - 0. He proudly told his own people that liberal democracy did not work and was on the decline.
In one sense Putin chose the perfect candidate to foist upon an unsuspecting American public: Donald Trump. This was a man not only deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs. Trump was also a person for whom democracy meant nothing. He lived by the mantra of Lord Voldemort: “There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.” But the deceptive reality remains. Voldemort’s mantra is itself the definition of evil.
Many bottles of expensive vodka were consumed as Putin watched Trump seek to demolish the United States Constitution. If he had succeeded, democracies the world over would have fallen. As insurance, Putin’s forces began to interfere with elections throughout Europe. But his eyes were always on the prize: The USA.
Putin interfered again in 2020. But this time he failed. As Biden repeated many times, this election was a battle for the soul of the nation. As true and critical as that statement was, something even more foundational was at stake.
Over four years Trump, systematically sought to emasculate the Constitution. He employed executive orders, relying on an acquiescent and sycophantic Republican congress, and a court system corrupted by numerous unqualified, but Republican-confirmed judges.
Give Trump credit. He telegraphed his intentions by claiming that the second article of the Constitution gave him authority “to do whatever” he wanted. Even to point of wrecking that same constitution. He saw no need to respond to Congressional inquiries or even subpoenas. He declined to turn over documents; he regularly refused to allow members of his administration to appear before congressional committees. With the Republican Party willingly enabling Trump, Putin sat back and drank—every sip of vodka better than the one before.
But Putin did not learn the lesson of history. 2020 would see the giant awake again. Although not as cinematically dramatic as Pearl Harbor, the United States once again woke from its slumber. Americans were not about to allow their democracy to be destroyed. More citizens voted in 2020 than in any other election in U.S. history. At this writing, Biden’s count of the vote was more than any person who ever ran for office—four million plus votes over Trump’s tally. As Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo tweeted, “Welcome back America!”
The United States is not the only victor in the 2020 election. The entire world has exhaled a sigh of relief. First, because the tense, fraught and exhausting last four years are approaching an end. Secondly, because the cause of democracy has been strengthened. For now.
It is also important to recognize that the contest is not over. Putin’s powerful army of GRU internet operatives are constantly at work. For the rest of the world, there is no going it alone. Democratic governments must stand together and support one another. The alliances that have maintained freedom for more than seventy years must be reinforced.
For now the score is Putin 1, Democracy 1.
But the world of Putin, Trump and Voldemort is driven by power. And it remains an evil world. My bet is on democracy. Its foundation is not power. It is truth. As it turns out, Voldemort was wrong. There is good and evil. Or, as it is phrased in American lore, “Truth, Justice and the American way.” Trump is gone and Putin has no chance.
Putin inherited the Russian State while it was still a fledgling democracy and immediately began to morph it into an autocracy. His rallying cry was rooted in a forlorn despondency as he openly lamented the demise of the Soviet Union. In 2005 he stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
Deep in what passes for his soul, Putin knew that he could not reclaim Russia’s former status without dismantling liberal democracy around the globe. Although he attempted to achieve his aims in some of the former Soviet satellite states, his most brazen venture was the disruption of the American democratic process in 2016. The result was that he took an early lead: 1 - 0. He proudly told his own people that liberal democracy did not work and was on the decline.
In one sense Putin chose the perfect candidate to foist upon an unsuspecting American public: Donald Trump. This was a man not only deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs. Trump was also a person for whom democracy meant nothing. He lived by the mantra of Lord Voldemort: “There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.” But the deceptive reality remains. Voldemort’s mantra is itself the definition of evil.
Many bottles of expensive vodka were consumed as Putin watched Trump seek to demolish the United States Constitution. If he had succeeded, democracies the world over would have fallen. As insurance, Putin’s forces began to interfere with elections throughout Europe. But his eyes were always on the prize: The USA.
Putin interfered again in 2020. But this time he failed. As Biden repeated many times, this election was a battle for the soul of the nation. As true and critical as that statement was, something even more foundational was at stake.
Over four years Trump, systematically sought to emasculate the Constitution. He employed executive orders, relying on an acquiescent and sycophantic Republican congress, and a court system corrupted by numerous unqualified, but Republican-confirmed judges.
Give Trump credit. He telegraphed his intentions by claiming that the second article of the Constitution gave him authority “to do whatever” he wanted. Even to point of wrecking that same constitution. He saw no need to respond to Congressional inquiries or even subpoenas. He declined to turn over documents; he regularly refused to allow members of his administration to appear before congressional committees. With the Republican Party willingly enabling Trump, Putin sat back and drank—every sip of vodka better than the one before.
But Putin did not learn the lesson of history. 2020 would see the giant awake again. Although not as cinematically dramatic as Pearl Harbor, the United States once again woke from its slumber. Americans were not about to allow their democracy to be destroyed. More citizens voted in 2020 than in any other election in U.S. history. At this writing, Biden’s count of the vote was more than any person who ever ran for office—four million plus votes over Trump’s tally. As Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo tweeted, “Welcome back America!”
The United States is not the only victor in the 2020 election. The entire world has exhaled a sigh of relief. First, because the tense, fraught and exhausting last four years are approaching an end. Secondly, because the cause of democracy has been strengthened. For now.
It is also important to recognize that the contest is not over. Putin’s powerful army of GRU internet operatives are constantly at work. For the rest of the world, there is no going it alone. Democratic governments must stand together and support one another. The alliances that have maintained freedom for more than seventy years must be reinforced.
For now the score is Putin 1, Democracy 1.
But the world of Putin, Trump and Voldemort is driven by power. And it remains an evil world. My bet is on democracy. Its foundation is not power. It is truth. As it turns out, Voldemort was wrong. There is good and evil. Or, as it is phrased in American lore, “Truth, Justice and the American way.” Trump is gone and Putin has no chance.
Autocracy is a Slide, not a Turn
01/10/20 18:50
The 2016 presidential race raised serious concerns about Donald Trump’s commitment to democracy. Some people took the extreme position of suggesting that he was another Hitler. That was never an accurate depiction. For although he tapped into similar types of populism and nationalism, he did not have the oratorical skills to match Der Führer. Hitler spoke in complete, grammatically correct German. Trump is still learning English. And failing dramatically.
On the other hand, there were clear signs that Trump tended toward an autocratic approach to government. Nothing stands as a better example than his narcissism. And two quotes serve as perfect examples.
When speaking about the so-called Islamic State, Trump said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals.” Clearly, that was an absurd claim. At the time I thought that anyone with more than a third grade education would find his statement completely untenable. I was wrong.
The other claim was far more treacherous. When speaking about Washington, D.C. and describing everything as a mess, Trump said, “I alone can fix it.” Only a dictator speaks in such exclusivity and superlatives. That, more than anything else should have set alarms screeching.
After Trump was first sworn in, a concern surfaced that he would immediately set about establishing and exercising the power he so admires in other dictators. I am hesitant to suggest that Trump is clever. He’s not. But neither is he stupid. Initially he was savvy enough to move only on the xenophobic nonsense that fueled his campaign, e.g. the Muslim travel ban. Had he attempted a power grab that early on, he would have lost the support even of the now subservient Republican senate.
Trump took gradual steps to mimic the members of the autocratic club he so desperately wants to join. But it takes time to lay a foundation, to prove that you belong, and that requires deviously simple steps. First, every autocrat must lie. Over time, of course, lies add up. But there is a tipping point after which it does not matter. No one can keep track (with the exception of the Washington Post), and the familiarity that comes with persistent untruths tends to numb even the most critical of minds.
For Trump, taxes were a good place to start lying. When queried about releasing his tax returns—as Americans have become used to in presidential politics—Trump declined, saying he could not release them because he was under audit. That was not true. But it sounded reasonable enough, so many people let it slide and some were even willing to believe his claim of being a successful businessman. Never mind that the bankruptcy of one venture after another told a different story. Trump knew that without his returns no one would know that even his famed real estate holdings, specifically his golf courses, were hemorrhaging millions.
Beyond lying, a successful dictator must disparage and demean his opponents. In this particular regard, Trump is practically phenomenal. In reality he could put many dictators to shame. For he chose to go after true American heroes, like John McCain. It was a risk. But he banked on Kool Aid being a refreshing drink. Good people could disagree with McCain's politics, but no one could question that he was a patriot and a war hero. Trump, by contrast, faked bone spurs to avoid military service. No heroism there. Then again, that was so long ago. Not unlike an airborne virus, Trump’s attacks against heroes were an hallucinogenic capable even of unmasking the totally shallow and superficial Lindsey Graham. Previously, Graham considered McCain his best friend. But apparently death and autocrats have a way of making one forget. Lindsey has a new friend, now. Only one.
In order to join any fraternity or club, one must first cozy up to its leaders or its most influential members. For Trump, secret meetings and phone calls with Vladimir Putin were followed by accepting Putin’s word over US intelligence agencies; protestations of a love affair with Kim Jong Un; warning Syria’s Assad of a missile attack so there would be no loss of life or major damage; defending the brutal Mohammad Bin Salman after his orchestrating the murder and dismemberment of an American resident. The list goes on, but it is too long for this piece.
Manipulating the populace is one of the most critical steps in an autocrat’s evolution. Trump accomplished that by holding post election campaign rallies and misgoverning by tweet. He took a page from PT Barnum, and turned it into his own circus. Barnum realized that if you keep entertaining people, no matter how absurd or extreme the illusion, no one has time to examine reality. I believe magicians call it misdirection. The rallies created the illusion of massive support that both galvanized the base and frightened any moderate Republicans. The result was that the Senate was quickly added to Trump holdings. And it cost him nothing.
Eventually, of course, people become suspicious of a burgeoning autocrat and opposition mounts. It then becomes necessary to eliminate any accountability. For his first two years Congress, controlled by Republicans, questioned nothing Trump did. But when the Democrats sought a desperately needed accountability, even enlisting the impeachment process, Trump simply refused to cooperate. He withheld evidence, ignored subpoenas and sought assistance from the conservative courts he was packing.
Delegitimizing the voting process is one of the most critical moves in the autocrat’s play book. It is the reason that various non-profits closely monitor elections around the world, usually in countries that have a history of corruption. This year, thanks to Trump and Republican legislatures around the nation, the United States of America will join the countries needing international monitoring. But whatever the outcome it will not matter, because there is an open seat on the Supreme Court.
If there had ever been an indication that Trump was trying to become another Putin, his rush to fill the seat before the election is proof positive. Unlike other dictators, however, Trump does not hide his ambitions. He unabashedly admits what he is doing. He wants his people on the Supreme Court so that they can hand him the election—an election he has promised to fight in the courts. Still, there is one final thing Trump needs to do to gain admittance into the autocratic club. And he can only accomplish it if he is reelected.
In a contested election, Trump will receive a great deal of pushback from Democrats, especially those elected members of Congress. If the Supreme Court indeed hands him the election, Trump will disband that Congress, especially if both houses are controlled by Democrats. That is the final stage of his autocratic initiation. Trump will then rank among the most despicable despots in history. The sad thing for American democracy is that the evidence was there each step of the way. When Trump succeeds, we will only have ourselves to blame.
Autocracy is not a turn. It is a slide. And we are all on it. But unlike an amusement park ride, it does not end with giggles in a splash of water. It ends with death. It ends with the drowning of democracy, itself. It ends with Republicans leading a national salute and chant, “Heil Trump!”, while Democrats are left with "Heil Dic!"
On the other hand, there were clear signs that Trump tended toward an autocratic approach to government. Nothing stands as a better example than his narcissism. And two quotes serve as perfect examples.
When speaking about the so-called Islamic State, Trump said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals.” Clearly, that was an absurd claim. At the time I thought that anyone with more than a third grade education would find his statement completely untenable. I was wrong.
The other claim was far more treacherous. When speaking about Washington, D.C. and describing everything as a mess, Trump said, “I alone can fix it.” Only a dictator speaks in such exclusivity and superlatives. That, more than anything else should have set alarms screeching.
After Trump was first sworn in, a concern surfaced that he would immediately set about establishing and exercising the power he so admires in other dictators. I am hesitant to suggest that Trump is clever. He’s not. But neither is he stupid. Initially he was savvy enough to move only on the xenophobic nonsense that fueled his campaign, e.g. the Muslim travel ban. Had he attempted a power grab that early on, he would have lost the support even of the now subservient Republican senate.
Trump took gradual steps to mimic the members of the autocratic club he so desperately wants to join. But it takes time to lay a foundation, to prove that you belong, and that requires deviously simple steps. First, every autocrat must lie. Over time, of course, lies add up. But there is a tipping point after which it does not matter. No one can keep track (with the exception of the Washington Post), and the familiarity that comes with persistent untruths tends to numb even the most critical of minds.
For Trump, taxes were a good place to start lying. When queried about releasing his tax returns—as Americans have become used to in presidential politics—Trump declined, saying he could not release them because he was under audit. That was not true. But it sounded reasonable enough, so many people let it slide and some were even willing to believe his claim of being a successful businessman. Never mind that the bankruptcy of one venture after another told a different story. Trump knew that without his returns no one would know that even his famed real estate holdings, specifically his golf courses, were hemorrhaging millions.
Beyond lying, a successful dictator must disparage and demean his opponents. In this particular regard, Trump is practically phenomenal. In reality he could put many dictators to shame. For he chose to go after true American heroes, like John McCain. It was a risk. But he banked on Kool Aid being a refreshing drink. Good people could disagree with McCain's politics, but no one could question that he was a patriot and a war hero. Trump, by contrast, faked bone spurs to avoid military service. No heroism there. Then again, that was so long ago. Not unlike an airborne virus, Trump’s attacks against heroes were an hallucinogenic capable even of unmasking the totally shallow and superficial Lindsey Graham. Previously, Graham considered McCain his best friend. But apparently death and autocrats have a way of making one forget. Lindsey has a new friend, now. Only one.
In order to join any fraternity or club, one must first cozy up to its leaders or its most influential members. For Trump, secret meetings and phone calls with Vladimir Putin were followed by accepting Putin’s word over US intelligence agencies; protestations of a love affair with Kim Jong Un; warning Syria’s Assad of a missile attack so there would be no loss of life or major damage; defending the brutal Mohammad Bin Salman after his orchestrating the murder and dismemberment of an American resident. The list goes on, but it is too long for this piece.
Manipulating the populace is one of the most critical steps in an autocrat’s evolution. Trump accomplished that by holding post election campaign rallies and misgoverning by tweet. He took a page from PT Barnum, and turned it into his own circus. Barnum realized that if you keep entertaining people, no matter how absurd or extreme the illusion, no one has time to examine reality. I believe magicians call it misdirection. The rallies created the illusion of massive support that both galvanized the base and frightened any moderate Republicans. The result was that the Senate was quickly added to Trump holdings. And it cost him nothing.
Eventually, of course, people become suspicious of a burgeoning autocrat and opposition mounts. It then becomes necessary to eliminate any accountability. For his first two years Congress, controlled by Republicans, questioned nothing Trump did. But when the Democrats sought a desperately needed accountability, even enlisting the impeachment process, Trump simply refused to cooperate. He withheld evidence, ignored subpoenas and sought assistance from the conservative courts he was packing.
Delegitimizing the voting process is one of the most critical moves in the autocrat’s play book. It is the reason that various non-profits closely monitor elections around the world, usually in countries that have a history of corruption. This year, thanks to Trump and Republican legislatures around the nation, the United States of America will join the countries needing international monitoring. But whatever the outcome it will not matter, because there is an open seat on the Supreme Court.
If there had ever been an indication that Trump was trying to become another Putin, his rush to fill the seat before the election is proof positive. Unlike other dictators, however, Trump does not hide his ambitions. He unabashedly admits what he is doing. He wants his people on the Supreme Court so that they can hand him the election—an election he has promised to fight in the courts. Still, there is one final thing Trump needs to do to gain admittance into the autocratic club. And he can only accomplish it if he is reelected.
In a contested election, Trump will receive a great deal of pushback from Democrats, especially those elected members of Congress. If the Supreme Court indeed hands him the election, Trump will disband that Congress, especially if both houses are controlled by Democrats. That is the final stage of his autocratic initiation. Trump will then rank among the most despicable despots in history. The sad thing for American democracy is that the evidence was there each step of the way. When Trump succeeds, we will only have ourselves to blame.
Autocracy is not a turn. It is a slide. And we are all on it. But unlike an amusement park ride, it does not end with giggles in a splash of water. It ends with death. It ends with the drowning of democracy, itself. It ends with Republicans leading a national salute and chant, “Heil Trump!”, while Democrats are left with "Heil Dic!"
What's in a Name?
17/08/20 14:32
Romeo and Juliet may not be the best of Shakespeare’s plays, but it remains one of the most popular. How can one not appreciate a play about a love so strong that it seeks in vain to overcome longstanding hatreds? At the heart of that conflict rises the somewhat obvious challenge, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
I decided to run a little test. Outside my front door is a red rose bush. A few months ago I changed its name and began calling it a dandelion. I even flirted with the possibility of using it to make wine. But then I’m not a vintner. I watered it, sat back and waited for the next bloom.
Not surprisingly, my dandelion sprouted a beautiful red flower. But the test was yet to come. I picked it, raised it to my nostrils and inhaled. Wow! Shakespeare had been correct. It was just as aromatic as when I called it a rose.
That left me wondering further. Could I extrapolate the same way Shakespeare did? His theory was that a name meant nothing. It did not matter whether his lovers were one each a Capulet and a Montague. What defined them was their love. I attempted another experiment.
The current president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. I am not interested in who ran against him in the past or will run against him in the future. I am interested in what defines him. So I looked at other world leaders. And again, I discovered that William Shakespeare was correct—but that I was not prepared. I found four significant categories that reaffirm Shakespeare’s premise. By no means is the following exhaustive.
The first list consists of leaders who died in the last two years: Donald J. Bignone of Argentina, Donald J. Meza of Bolivia, Donald J. Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Donald J. Ben Ali of Tunisia.
The second list is comprised of unelected—and unaccountable—Monarchs. These include Donald J. Waddaulah of Brunei, Donald J. Said of Oman, Donald J. Salman of Saudi Arabia, Donald J. Khalifa of Bahrain.
The third list contains the names of currently elected leaders such as Donald J. Erdoǧan of Turkey, Donald J. Orbán of Hungary, Donald J. Duterte of the Philippines, Donald J. Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Donald J. Deby of Chad, Donald J. Bolsonaro of Brazil.
The final list are the Illegitimate presidents: Donald J. Maduro of Venezuela, Donald J. Lukashenko of Belarus, Donald J. Ortega of Nicaragua.
Three world leaders deserve special note. These are men with whom Donald J. Trump has either fallen in love, conducts a bromance, or holds in high esteem. They are, course, Kim Donald J. of North Korea, Xi Donald J. of China and most special of all, Donald J. Putin of Russia.
What do all these leaders have in common besides their first name and middle initial? They are all autocrats—dictators, despisers of democracy, delusional and drunk with power.
If Shakespeare were alive today, how might he rephrase his famous passage? I suspect he would engage an economy of words: “What’s in a name? That which we call a Trump by any other name would smell.”
I decided to run a little test. Outside my front door is a red rose bush. A few months ago I changed its name and began calling it a dandelion. I even flirted with the possibility of using it to make wine. But then I’m not a vintner. I watered it, sat back and waited for the next bloom.
Not surprisingly, my dandelion sprouted a beautiful red flower. But the test was yet to come. I picked it, raised it to my nostrils and inhaled. Wow! Shakespeare had been correct. It was just as aromatic as when I called it a rose.
That left me wondering further. Could I extrapolate the same way Shakespeare did? His theory was that a name meant nothing. It did not matter whether his lovers were one each a Capulet and a Montague. What defined them was their love. I attempted another experiment.
The current president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. I am not interested in who ran against him in the past or will run against him in the future. I am interested in what defines him. So I looked at other world leaders. And again, I discovered that William Shakespeare was correct—but that I was not prepared. I found four significant categories that reaffirm Shakespeare’s premise. By no means is the following exhaustive.
The first list consists of leaders who died in the last two years: Donald J. Bignone of Argentina, Donald J. Meza of Bolivia, Donald J. Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Donald J. Ben Ali of Tunisia.
The second list is comprised of unelected—and unaccountable—Monarchs. These include Donald J. Waddaulah of Brunei, Donald J. Said of Oman, Donald J. Salman of Saudi Arabia, Donald J. Khalifa of Bahrain.
The third list contains the names of currently elected leaders such as Donald J. Erdoǧan of Turkey, Donald J. Orbán of Hungary, Donald J. Duterte of the Philippines, Donald J. Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Donald J. Deby of Chad, Donald J. Bolsonaro of Brazil.
The final list are the Illegitimate presidents: Donald J. Maduro of Venezuela, Donald J. Lukashenko of Belarus, Donald J. Ortega of Nicaragua.
Three world leaders deserve special note. These are men with whom Donald J. Trump has either fallen in love, conducts a bromance, or holds in high esteem. They are, course, Kim Donald J. of North Korea, Xi Donald J. of China and most special of all, Donald J. Putin of Russia.
What do all these leaders have in common besides their first name and middle initial? They are all autocrats—dictators, despisers of democracy, delusional and drunk with power.
If Shakespeare were alive today, how might he rephrase his famous passage? I suspect he would engage an economy of words: “What’s in a name? That which we call a Trump by any other name would smell.”
Democracy in the Catholic Church
02/11/13 21:02
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Just a moment. We’re not there, yet. Pope Francis has asked that every parish, meaning every practicing Catholic, weigh in on significant issues of faith—same-sex marriage, birth control, divorce, to name just three. He’s taking a poll. But what does this mean?
First of all, it signifies that all the people have a voice in church teaching. Now before conservatives get too worked up, this is not really radical. Merely unusual. For too long, there has been a tendency to confuse the “Church” with the Vatican, or its institutional structure; a tendency to confuse the authority of the pope and bishops with the “faith” of the church. As the Second Vatican Council emphasized, the church is the people of God. Underlying every Catholic doctrine is the “sensus fidelium”, the sense of the people. In the simplest of terms, this means that the entire people cannot err in faith—they cannot believe something contrary to the truth. An individual, a parish, a diocese, even an entire country can be in error, but not the whole people. Collectively they have been given the deposit of faith.
Although possibly only an academic distinction, it should be noted that not even the pope can declare something infallible that the people themselves do not believe.
It is true that in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus declares that the keys of the kingdom belong to Peter. But in context, Jesus places Peter in charge as “first among equals”. It was not a power play. Peter was to be the source of unity, who would exercise authority in order to hold the church together. Scholars note that in all the Gospels, when any list of apostles is given, Peter is always mentioned first and only Peter speaks for the entire group. That indicates the position Peter enjoyed among the twelve. But even then, it was not absolute.
In the Acts of the Apostles we see that Paul, also an Apostle—though not one of the twelve—challenges Peter. He does so not to usurp the authority of Peter. He does not even attempt to. Rather, Paul makes sure that Peter exercises his authority correctly. That he embraces the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the non-Jewish followers of Jesus.
In Catholic theology, the pope is the successor of Peter. So he possesses that same role of authority and unity. But there has been a tendency to over-emphasize the authority. A good example is the church’s teaching on birth control. Pope John XXIII established a commission to examine whether or not artificial contraception was intrinsically evil. Following his election, Pope Paul VI expanded the commission to 72.
It remains a sad historical reality that at the conclusion of the study two reports were presented to Paul VI. The official report was signed by 65 members—including every lay person on the commission, hence anyone who had received the Sacrament of Marriage. Their conclusion was artificial contraception is not intrinsically evil. But there was a minority report (isn’t there always?). The minority report was signed by 7 clerics (4 priests, 1 cardinal and 2 bishops), none of whom was married. Paul VI promulgated the minority report. Where was the sensus fidelium in 1967? By the way, for any Americans reading this blog, we have additional reason for shame. Two American priests drafted the minority report!
I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that Paul VI was wise enough not to claim infallibility! That would have been a mess, for the best studies indicate that the number of married Catholics who practice artificial birth control may be as high as 80%. Pope Francis has decided to give proper weight to the sensus fidelium.
Does this mean the Catholic Church will become a democracy? Perhaps not. But for the long suffering, this is the same excitement that stirred in people from the American Revolution to the Arab Spring. Pope Francis has welcomed the Holy Spirit back to Rome after far too long a vacation!
First of all, it signifies that all the people have a voice in church teaching. Now before conservatives get too worked up, this is not really radical. Merely unusual. For too long, there has been a tendency to confuse the “Church” with the Vatican, or its institutional structure; a tendency to confuse the authority of the pope and bishops with the “faith” of the church. As the Second Vatican Council emphasized, the church is the people of God. Underlying every Catholic doctrine is the “sensus fidelium”, the sense of the people. In the simplest of terms, this means that the entire people cannot err in faith—they cannot believe something contrary to the truth. An individual, a parish, a diocese, even an entire country can be in error, but not the whole people. Collectively they have been given the deposit of faith.
Although possibly only an academic distinction, it should be noted that not even the pope can declare something infallible that the people themselves do not believe.
It is true that in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus declares that the keys of the kingdom belong to Peter. But in context, Jesus places Peter in charge as “first among equals”. It was not a power play. Peter was to be the source of unity, who would exercise authority in order to hold the church together. Scholars note that in all the Gospels, when any list of apostles is given, Peter is always mentioned first and only Peter speaks for the entire group. That indicates the position Peter enjoyed among the twelve. But even then, it was not absolute.
In the Acts of the Apostles we see that Paul, also an Apostle—though not one of the twelve—challenges Peter. He does so not to usurp the authority of Peter. He does not even attempt to. Rather, Paul makes sure that Peter exercises his authority correctly. That he embraces the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the non-Jewish followers of Jesus.
In Catholic theology, the pope is the successor of Peter. So he possesses that same role of authority and unity. But there has been a tendency to over-emphasize the authority. A good example is the church’s teaching on birth control. Pope John XXIII established a commission to examine whether or not artificial contraception was intrinsically evil. Following his election, Pope Paul VI expanded the commission to 72.
It remains a sad historical reality that at the conclusion of the study two reports were presented to Paul VI. The official report was signed by 65 members—including every lay person on the commission, hence anyone who had received the Sacrament of Marriage. Their conclusion was artificial contraception is not intrinsically evil. But there was a minority report (isn’t there always?). The minority report was signed by 7 clerics (4 priests, 1 cardinal and 2 bishops), none of whom was married. Paul VI promulgated the minority report. Where was the sensus fidelium in 1967? By the way, for any Americans reading this blog, we have additional reason for shame. Two American priests drafted the minority report!
I suppose we can take comfort in the fact that Paul VI was wise enough not to claim infallibility! That would have been a mess, for the best studies indicate that the number of married Catholics who practice artificial birth control may be as high as 80%. Pope Francis has decided to give proper weight to the sensus fidelium.
Does this mean the Catholic Church will become a democracy? Perhaps not. But for the long suffering, this is the same excitement that stirred in people from the American Revolution to the Arab Spring. Pope Francis has welcomed the Holy Spirit back to Rome after far too long a vacation!
The Electoral College at 205 Years of Age
16/10/12 16:37
When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, one of the key concerns was the election of the President and Vice-President. Contrary to popular belief, the current electoral system was not established to provide equal representation among sparsely and densely populated states. There were only about 4 million people in the U.S. in 1787. Today the United States of America is the third largest population in the world with over 314 million.
The Electoral College, or “Electors” as it is referred to in the Constitution, was itself a compromise system. The Electoral College is an example of federalism as much by accident as by intent. One suggestion under consideration at the time was that Congress should elect the President. The risk there, of course, is that the President would be beholden to Congress, not to the people. James Madison, among others, favored a direct election by total popular vote. However, as he himself wrote, that was an equally unworkable construct due to the restricted voting rights in slave states. Thus was born a compromise known as the Electoral College.
Query: Is this electoral system relevant in today’s world? Unfortunately, it seems that this question is only raised in earnest every four years, during a presidential election. Yes, this is 2012, an election year. Yes, I am adding my voice to this issue, even though it cannot be resolved at this time.
Therein lies the paradox. It is precisely because we are in the midst of an election that the issue is of concern, and the issue will fade from view once the election is over—unless we have a repeat of the 2000 presidential election. Democrats cried foul when Al Gore won a substantial majority of popular votes, but George W. Bush was elected by a single electoral vote. Would the Republicans not have been just as vociferous had the tables been turned? Of course they would. Such is the disingenuous nature of politics. Nobody wants a repeat of that election. Now, then, is the time to seize upon a public interest, and lay the groundwork for a post-election debate.
Everyone in America is well aware of a troubling fact: There are only a handful of states that will determine the outcome of this election. In principle, every vote counts. In reality, every vote does not count equally.
The all-important swing states are created because states like California and Texas are solidly Democratic and Republican, respectively. At least for now. These two most populous states in the nation, together representing 89 electoral votes, are not “in play”. All the attention of the Obama and Romney campaigns is on nine states, each with only a handful of electoral votes: one with only four, and two with only six.
Proponents of the current system suggest that this balances the influence of smaller states; the presidential campaigns must visit these states regularly to court their votes. These states cannot be treated as “fly over” states during the election process. That suggestion does not hold up to scrutiny. There are several other sparsely populated that also possess only a handful of votes each. Yet, these are not swing states. New York and Florida each have 29 votes. Florida is a swing state. New York is not.
What would be the advantage of a popular election? Actually, it would balance the needs and interests of the entire electorate much more than the current system. Each candidate would obviously need to campaign in the large states. To begin with, even though these safe states lean predominantly one way or the other, their votes would be tallied collectively with every other state.
It is conceivable that Republican votes in a Democratic-leaning state might “swing” the election as much as the nine states do under the current system. The same holds true in reverse. The smaller states could not be ignored, because the total of their votes also might alter the outcome of the election. That evens the importance and power of every voter in every state.
I live in California. I am grateful everyday. For one thing, I am not subjected to the barrage of campaign ads that citizens in swing states must bear. And yet, whether my candidate wins or not, I want to know that my vote counts in this presidential election. I suspect that many citizens in Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Alaska, etc. think the same.
The Electoral College system may have been historically necessary, even if only to secure passage of the Constitution. This process of indirect election of the president is no longer viable. Regardless of how politically divided the country may be today, whoever is elected President of the United States must represent all the people. Maybe all the people should have a voice in who wins.
The Electoral College, or “Electors” as it is referred to in the Constitution, was itself a compromise system. The Electoral College is an example of federalism as much by accident as by intent. One suggestion under consideration at the time was that Congress should elect the President. The risk there, of course, is that the President would be beholden to Congress, not to the people. James Madison, among others, favored a direct election by total popular vote. However, as he himself wrote, that was an equally unworkable construct due to the restricted voting rights in slave states. Thus was born a compromise known as the Electoral College.
Query: Is this electoral system relevant in today’s world? Unfortunately, it seems that this question is only raised in earnest every four years, during a presidential election. Yes, this is 2012, an election year. Yes, I am adding my voice to this issue, even though it cannot be resolved at this time.
Therein lies the paradox. It is precisely because we are in the midst of an election that the issue is of concern, and the issue will fade from view once the election is over—unless we have a repeat of the 2000 presidential election. Democrats cried foul when Al Gore won a substantial majority of popular votes, but George W. Bush was elected by a single electoral vote. Would the Republicans not have been just as vociferous had the tables been turned? Of course they would. Such is the disingenuous nature of politics. Nobody wants a repeat of that election. Now, then, is the time to seize upon a public interest, and lay the groundwork for a post-election debate.
Everyone in America is well aware of a troubling fact: There are only a handful of states that will determine the outcome of this election. In principle, every vote counts. In reality, every vote does not count equally.
The all-important swing states are created because states like California and Texas are solidly Democratic and Republican, respectively. At least for now. These two most populous states in the nation, together representing 89 electoral votes, are not “in play”. All the attention of the Obama and Romney campaigns is on nine states, each with only a handful of electoral votes: one with only four, and two with only six.
Proponents of the current system suggest that this balances the influence of smaller states; the presidential campaigns must visit these states regularly to court their votes. These states cannot be treated as “fly over” states during the election process. That suggestion does not hold up to scrutiny. There are several other sparsely populated that also possess only a handful of votes each. Yet, these are not swing states. New York and Florida each have 29 votes. Florida is a swing state. New York is not.
What would be the advantage of a popular election? Actually, it would balance the needs and interests of the entire electorate much more than the current system. Each candidate would obviously need to campaign in the large states. To begin with, even though these safe states lean predominantly one way or the other, their votes would be tallied collectively with every other state.
It is conceivable that Republican votes in a Democratic-leaning state might “swing” the election as much as the nine states do under the current system. The same holds true in reverse. The smaller states could not be ignored, because the total of their votes also might alter the outcome of the election. That evens the importance and power of every voter in every state.
I live in California. I am grateful everyday. For one thing, I am not subjected to the barrage of campaign ads that citizens in swing states must bear. And yet, whether my candidate wins or not, I want to know that my vote counts in this presidential election. I suspect that many citizens in Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Alaska, etc. think the same.
The Electoral College system may have been historically necessary, even if only to secure passage of the Constitution. This process of indirect election of the president is no longer viable. Regardless of how politically divided the country may be today, whoever is elected President of the United States must represent all the people. Maybe all the people should have a voice in who wins.
Voting Rights and Election Monitors
12/10/12 13:34
Throughout the world, mostly in emerging democracies and dictatorships, there has long been a need for independent, international election observers. It is a common occurrence to see vote manipulation and downright fraud in many third world countries. In the western world, one expects a different situation. Voting should be free and universal, honest and accurate.
Maybe it is the ease with which corruption embeds itself in the exercise of power; maybe it is insecurity after an opponent has unmasked one’s vacuous concepts; maybe it is the fear of losing control; maybe it is the dread of a rising and empowered populace; maybe it is merely the fact of human weakness. Whatever the cause, the electoral process as practiced in the Western world is not as elevated as we want to claim. This is one reason that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is called upon to monitor elections around the globe, including longstanding democracies such as France, the United Kingdom, and even the United States of America.
It is a necessary and daunting task. Take for example, the United States, the root of modern democracy. In the current election cycle, fraud rules the day. Not the fraud of unregistered, illegal, or even dead people voting. The real voter fraud is far more pernicious. It is not merely an effort to influence the outcome of an election. It is an attempt to prevent a large portion of the electorate from participating in the first place.
Not surprisingly, this fraud is exercised primarily by elected state officials, specifically Republicans, striving to cement their uncertain grasp on power. In a manner most deceitful, they espouse lofty principles even while they seek to undermine those principles. They use simple sounding words and frame their policies as “Voter ID laws.” That seems reasonable. Everyone would agree that there must be some regulations around the act of voting. Sadly, it’s just not that simple.
These Republicans know it is only a matter of time before their true intentions and their policies come to light. Unable to win by the force of their arguments, they seek to solidify their grip on power through oppression. Will these legions of darkness be allowed to prevail? That depends on whether or not people will see the truth, expose it to the light, and fearlessly condemn it in speech.
Many commentators, I presume unintentionally, play into the hands of corrupt Republican legislators by describing these machinations as disenfranchisement. That sounds almost harmless. Such language, however, is many degrees removed from the very real and deleterious effects of these laws, enabling politicians to disguise their true motives.
This is not the only corruption. Employers such as David Siegel, the Koch brothers and Richard Lacks are pressuring their employees to vote for Romney. Robert Murray forced coal miners in Ohio to attend--without pay--a Romney rally during the summer. The miners were even used a backdrop behind Romney during his speech.
This is where international election observers come in. They cannot affect the outcome of an election, but they can help reveal the truth of corruption. They can expose the real American election fraud to the entire world—on election day when people are turned away from polling places, and before elections begin when minorities are deliberately shut out of voting procedures or when voters’ freedoms are stripped through employer coercion.
The surface question is whether or not the people of America care what others think—does America’s standing in the world matter anymore? The deeper question is whether or not America’s founding values still matter to Americans, themselves.
I don’t know if Americans are gullible, ignorant, or if they just don’t care. This country used to stand for great things: for equality and equal opportunity. The American Revolution started something new in the world. The U.S. Constitution laid the groundwork for modern democracy, and the United States stood as a beacon of hope and progress in a changing world. These new “Voter ID” laws, coupled with employee coercion, crumble the very foundations of democracy.
Every person running for President is required to declare: “The United States is the greatest country on earth.” That kind of hyperbole was never really true, but it soothes the anxiety of a people who are insecure and need to feel important. It should be said, that citizens of most countries share that angst. In the United States it is amplified by this question: Are we as good as the generations who came before us?
At least when it comes to voting rights, the answer is clear. No. We are not.
Maybe it is the ease with which corruption embeds itself in the exercise of power; maybe it is insecurity after an opponent has unmasked one’s vacuous concepts; maybe it is the fear of losing control; maybe it is the dread of a rising and empowered populace; maybe it is merely the fact of human weakness. Whatever the cause, the electoral process as practiced in the Western world is not as elevated as we want to claim. This is one reason that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is called upon to monitor elections around the globe, including longstanding democracies such as France, the United Kingdom, and even the United States of America.
It is a necessary and daunting task. Take for example, the United States, the root of modern democracy. In the current election cycle, fraud rules the day. Not the fraud of unregistered, illegal, or even dead people voting. The real voter fraud is far more pernicious. It is not merely an effort to influence the outcome of an election. It is an attempt to prevent a large portion of the electorate from participating in the first place.
Not surprisingly, this fraud is exercised primarily by elected state officials, specifically Republicans, striving to cement their uncertain grasp on power. In a manner most deceitful, they espouse lofty principles even while they seek to undermine those principles. They use simple sounding words and frame their policies as “Voter ID laws.” That seems reasonable. Everyone would agree that there must be some regulations around the act of voting. Sadly, it’s just not that simple.
These Republicans know it is only a matter of time before their true intentions and their policies come to light. Unable to win by the force of their arguments, they seek to solidify their grip on power through oppression. Will these legions of darkness be allowed to prevail? That depends on whether or not people will see the truth, expose it to the light, and fearlessly condemn it in speech.
Many commentators, I presume unintentionally, play into the hands of corrupt Republican legislators by describing these machinations as disenfranchisement. That sounds almost harmless. Such language, however, is many degrees removed from the very real and deleterious effects of these laws, enabling politicians to disguise their true motives.
This is not the only corruption. Employers such as David Siegel, the Koch brothers and Richard Lacks are pressuring their employees to vote for Romney. Robert Murray forced coal miners in Ohio to attend--without pay--a Romney rally during the summer. The miners were even used a backdrop behind Romney during his speech.
This is where international election observers come in. They cannot affect the outcome of an election, but they can help reveal the truth of corruption. They can expose the real American election fraud to the entire world—on election day when people are turned away from polling places, and before elections begin when minorities are deliberately shut out of voting procedures or when voters’ freedoms are stripped through employer coercion.
The surface question is whether or not the people of America care what others think—does America’s standing in the world matter anymore? The deeper question is whether or not America’s founding values still matter to Americans, themselves.
I don’t know if Americans are gullible, ignorant, or if they just don’t care. This country used to stand for great things: for equality and equal opportunity. The American Revolution started something new in the world. The U.S. Constitution laid the groundwork for modern democracy, and the United States stood as a beacon of hope and progress in a changing world. These new “Voter ID” laws, coupled with employee coercion, crumble the very foundations of democracy.
Every person running for President is required to declare: “The United States is the greatest country on earth.” That kind of hyperbole was never really true, but it soothes the anxiety of a people who are insecure and need to feel important. It should be said, that citizens of most countries share that angst. In the United States it is amplified by this question: Are we as good as the generations who came before us?
At least when it comes to voting rights, the answer is clear. No. We are not.