Monday, April 19, 2010


Yeah, it was another long, long Lent, complete with the media and every detractor against that Church that still draws breath flogging the Church and Pope Benedict. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The New York Times says "rocks here, hard rocks, get your rocks here.."

Having been molested when I was 8 or 9, I can completely relate to, and still have to fight, the attitude of "string 'em up!" And I thank God that I don't know if my molester was a priest or not, and I try not to imagine it as so. Also, in the intervening years, I've learned some hard lessons about mercy and forgiveness, so I'm less apt to lash out about the issue.

I won't get into an analysis of the sexual abuse, the abusers, the bishops that kept it discrete, the therapists that enabled abuse to continue. I'm not an expert on any of those topics, and neither are most of the Church's current detractors. Most of the Church's fiercest critics are not interested in rooting out all sexual abuse in society, or else they'd be also relentlessly scouring the foster care systems, the public schools, and daycare programs as well.

Detractors' primary interest is the shame the Church by the failings of some of its' members, and to try and change the Church's doctrines and disciplines that they find most offensive to popular sentiments:

- Ordaining women won't eliminate abuse, or else you'd never see female teachers bedding male students.

- Married clergy won't eliminate abuse, or you'd never see married men sexually abusing minors.

- Blessing the use of contraception won't eliminate abuse either, instead it would just encourage already familiar forms of sexual abuse, like the current hook-up culture.

Sexual abuse is a feature of fallen human nature, not a feature of Catholic doctrine or discipline.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

No, the World Did Not End, Yet...


I decided to give up apocalyptic musings for Lent, and so to help me, Congress and President Obama decided to pass health care reform legislation. Okay, you caught me; I'm being flip.

Is it the end of the world, no. At least not until the legislation actually starts wreaking the destruction it promises to. The problem with our health care system is this; it works great for the Haves, okay for the Somewhat Haves, and not really for the Have-Nots. Seeing as how the Haves have fallen out of favor with the rest of us (with copious defamation from the mouthpieces of the Have-Nots), their opinions have been largely ignored. The grievances of the Have-Nots have filled the airwaves, print media, and Internet.

There are also a lot of Used-to-Haves out there, embittered by their Used-to-Have status, and they've been no help at all. A lot of these folks borrowed heavily to imagine themselves in the Haves caste, only to have those pesky 7-year balloon mortgages pop.and maxed out consumer credit tighten up.

What does all that have to do with the "heath care reform"? The socio-economic infighting has let the Statists dictate the terms of debate as class struggle and not a more fundamental question: is the Federal government responsible for the individual citizen's life, from cradle to grave?

If someone is responsible for something, you'd expect to give them the authority and powers to ensure a successful outcome. In this case, by making the State responsible for the health and well-being of the Individual, the individual needs to surrender sovereignty to the State. The State must now make the choices for the individual to effectively discharge it's duties. Obesity is a problem in this country, so the State MUST take action to prevent it. Coercive measures will develop, not only for the individual health's sake, but also the fiduciary health of the State.

Insurance companies are already applying the financial pressure offering "discounts" to people that enroll in their wellness/parole plan, and financially punishing those that don't participate. Government will do the same thing.