Wednesday, May 23, 2012


RIDING THE TIGER

         Washington Post columnist Melinda Henneberger had an interesting column (“Contraception Contretemps”) in today’s (May 23) edition of the Post.  It has to do with the law suit recently filed by some Catholic institutions alleging the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage in their health care plans violates the Church’s religious freedom.

         New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd had a similar column (“Father Doesn’t Know Best”) in today’s (May 23) Times.  Both columnists dispute the Church’s claim that this issue is about “religious freedom.”  Interestingly, both columnists are Catholic besides being – obviously - women.  When it comes to sexual politics in the Church, Catholic women are particularly able to spot a side show – especially one starring old white men in medieval/renaissance hats and capes.

         To be fair, the Obama Administration made an egregious political error in the way it framed the mandate on contraceptive services.  Even many politically liberal and centrist Catholics, despite being strong supporters of health care reform, objected to it on religious freedom grounds.  The blunder was particularly puzzling given that one of the major architects of the legislation, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, and Vice President Biden are practicing Catholics.  Maybe they based their calculation on the fact that an overwhelming majority of Catholics – 82 percent in the latest Gallup poll, according to Dowd – believe that contraception is morally acceptable.

         What the Administration initially didn’t take into account was the political power of the U.S. Catholic bishops.  While the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not formally joined in the lawsuit, one doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to spot the mitered hand behind the litigation.  Even when the Obama administration did back flips offering a compromise solution, the bishops were having none of it.  They had a tiger by the tail, they thought, and they were going to ride it out.

         As Dowd points out in her column, Catholic parishes all over the U.S. have been forced to put alarmist messages in their Sunday bulletins “warning of apocalyptic risk” to the Church’s social mission if the health care mandate dealing with contraceptive service remains.  How ironic this is considering the Archdiocese of Washington, for example, threatened to cut back its commitment to social services in the District and environs unless the DC City Council rescinded its approval of gay marriage.

         Even before health care reform was passed in 2009, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops objected to the legislation because they believed it would lead to the government paying for abortions.  That was a bogus issue, but even after the bill was passed President Obama tried to further reassure it by issuing an Executive Order specifically forbidding the use of government funds to pay for abortion.

         Nonetheless, the Church hierarchy thinks it can convince enough Catholics that their Church is being attacked.  Maybe they can, but I am hoping that enough Catholics will see this issue for what it really is and ignore the hierarchy’s scare tactics.

         The bishops should be careful about getting so involved in partisan politics while insisting on their own protection and rights under the separation of Church and State.   As my longtime friend Tim Sprehe recently pointed out, “If the Catholic bishops keep messing around in politics and urging ‘the faithful’ to vote for this candidate and not that one … civil authorities [may] begin issuing subpoenas for church records.  If and when that happens, I believe many members of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy are going to jail for decades of aiding and abetting criminal activity, such as priestly pedophilia.”

         As the saying goes, sometimes those who ride the tiger’s back end up in the tiger’s stomach instead.

Gerald E. Lavey


Friday, May 18, 2012


SAME SEX MARRIAGE

       It’s interesting to follow the political reaction to the President’s recent announcement of support for same sex marriage.  I expected conservative politicians and publications like the Wall Street Journal to explode in indignation and outrage.  But, they have been rather subdued – or perhaps wary might be a better term.

         They, like the President are still uncertain as to the political consequences of support, or non-support, for same-sex marriages.  Thus, the caution and wariness of both sides as they head for elections in November.

         Considering the political gamble he took – with more than 30 state constitutions banning some form of same-sex unions -- I thought the President’s decision was a brave one – and the right one.  Moreover, I don’t think his claim that his thinking was still evolving was merely a political hedge, as pundits have alleged.

         This evolution in thinking has been slow in coming for many of us, especially those of us raised in strong religious traditions.  But, in the last couple of decades, as we have worked and lived next to gays and lesbians and become friends and co-workers, the old prejudices melted away.  We found out they were not “queer,” but just like us, albeit with a different sexual orientation.   Thus, same sex civil unions became a no-brainer, but same sex marriage was another matter, and for many of us support for that came only fairly recently.  Part of the transformation was due to the example of same-sex couples providing stable, loving family environments for children. 

         Perversely, I must admit, one of the things that helped nudge me along, too, was my reaction to the sanctimony and hypocrisy of politicians and religious leaders waxing rhapsodically about the sacrosanctity of marriage as being possible only between a man and a woman.  Let’s be honest, if any other major institution in society had a 40-50 percent failure rate, there was would be calls for a constitutional amendment banning it.

         To me, once I dealt with my squeamishness, it came down to this:  Why not allow gays and lesbians to marry?  Why should they not be allowed the same privileges and responsibilities of other citizens?  Especially, with so many children desperately needing loving, stable environments to help them grow up to be good, responsible citizens.  I also thought about the parents of gays and lesbians hoping that their children would be afforded the same rights as other children.  It must be crushing to see their children treated as pariah.

         The May 21st New Yorker reminds us that in the 1960s and even 1970s, there were many adults who said things like: “I’m all for civil rights. But marriage between Negroes and whites?  I don’t know…”  In 1968, “the year after the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, in Loving v. Virginia, seventy-two percent of Americans disapproved of marriage between whites and non-whites and only twenty percent approved.”  Today, that sounds so quaint and retro – and so wrong.

         So, let’s hope that in 20-30 years, if not before, people will look back at this opposition to same-sex marriage as so quaint and retro – and so wrong headed as well.  It’s really not a matter of hope – it’s a matter of inevitability.  As the New Yorker observes: … “People will continue to want what they want and deserve what they deserve: the freedom to love whom they love and have that accepted… And, eventually, the [Supreme] Court will do the right thing on same sex marriage, just as the President did last week.”

Gerald E. Lavey

Tuesday, May 8, 2012


AYN RAND VS. J.C.
          The presidential election campaign in France the past couple of weeks has been a welcome divertissement from our own interminable campaign, and it’ll be interesting to see how the results of that election and the one in Greece will play out in the U.S. presidential sweepstakes.  
         
          The political pundits and economists have already begun to weigh in.  Nobel Prize winner economist Paul Krugman, who writes a column for the New York Times, sees it as a validation of his position that austerity alone is not the answer to getting the economy going.  He is a Keynesian who believes that during these severe economic downturns, the public sector needs to “prime the pump” to help the private sector recover.  The Wall Street Journal, strong proponents of laissez faire economics, wants to keep the central government out of it and let the private sector economy work things out.  Like most of us, I gravitate towards those whose political philosophy I agree with, so I tend to agree with Krugman’s analysis.

          Still, there are people on the other side – or in the shrinking middle -- who make interesting arguments for their case.  For example, a couple of days ago I listened to Republican Governor Chris Christie’s blunt, thoughtful speech to the Cato Institute.  And in today’s New York Times, columnist David Brooks makes an interesting case for austerity while addressing structural reform of the economy, as does Raghuram Rajan, Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago, in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.     

          What doesn’t make sense to me is when Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, whose blueprint for economic recovery and a path forward for the GOP, claims his budget proposal was shaped by his Catholic education and upbringing. I make no pretense of being an economist, but I do know something about Christianity and Catholicism, having read the New Testament many times and heard it proclaimed from the pulpit more times than I can count.
          So, I don’t know what translation of the New Testament Rep. Ryan was raised on, but it surely doesn’t agree with the one I was taught.  And I have a lot of company of both political persuasions.  Jesuits and other professors at Georgetown jumped all over Ryan’s claim, with more than 90 signing a letter to him, saying: “In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”

          That elicited an harrumph from Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner, another Catholic, who essentially said that liberal Catholics think they’re the only ones who understand Catholic social teaching.  They didn’t get by with that either because even the U.S Catholic Bishops Conference had to put aside its preferential option for the GOP and call them out on that one.
          To be fair, Ryan says that if we don’t get spending under control, the poor and the disadvantaged in our society will suffer the most in “the long run.”  True, but, as Harry Hopkins, FDR aide during the Great Depression, once famously observed:  “People don’t eat in the long run; they eat in the short term.” 

              Moreover – and here is where the fig leaf slips badly -- while Ryan’s plan would have a devastating impact on programs for the poor, he wants to cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, which he and other GOP leaders refer to as the so-called job creators.  That just doesn’t pass the smell test because it’s widely agreed that small businesses are the principal job creators in this country and President Obama has already cut their taxes seven times.

          Meantime, the segment of Americans who need the most help would bear the brunt of the GOP proposal.  So, it appears to me that the GOP budget may have been influenced by FOUNTAINHEAD or ATLAS SHRUGGED, but it’s hard for me to see any major influences from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

Gerald E. Lavey