Tonight the Washington Post reported that President Obama will issue an executive order to HHS to require all hospitals receiving Medicare and/or Medicaid to accept gay partners whose partner is hospitalized to grant them visitation rights the same as for family members. Hospitals must also accept partners with power of attorney on behalf of partners who have granted that power to them.
In the comments by readers there is much moaning and complaining about the "power of government" taking away the prerogatives of Congress, "telling" or "ordering" hospitals to do this instead of merely "allowing" hospitals to do this. It seems to me that this is just another example of the increasing anti-government malaise in the country at this time. It's another example of expressive individualism gone wild and a loss of a sense of the "common-weal" or "common good."
Many of these people also need to study civics. The federal government in various ways, through Congress and the executive branch do have authority over the purse strings. Back in the 70s the federal government didn't order states to reduce speed limits to 55mph (to save gasoline). It merely said that if states wanted continued federal dollars, then they needed to reduce speed limits ("he who pays the fiddler, calls the tune."). Conservatives want government to restrict federal dollars if states or hospitals choose to perform abortions. That is their right . But why call the same procedure "unfair" in this case?
But more to the point of this post and the reason that "Christians?" is in the title. Every U.S. citizen has the right to favor or oppose this executive order. Period. However if anyone reads the reader "Comments" following the article one will discover that the majority of comments made (at the time I read them) were from so-called "Christians." I say from so-called Christians because the comments were so vitriolic and hate filled. It was as if these people's "God" was only a God of vengeance and that they were sent by God to separate the "sheep from the goats."
No Christian, even those who do not accept homosexuality or same-sex behavior, has the right to speak so hatefully as they have in the comments to this article. Yes to those conservatives, God is a God of Justice. But God is just as much a God of mercy, compassion and love!!!
I believe that I am a reasonably good Christian (I'll leave that judgment to God), but I strongly believe (as a Christian) that some same-sex relationships and same-sex sexual behavior are moral, just as I believe some heterosexual relationships and sexual behavior are moral.
My plea and hope is that more and more Christians will come to believe that "God is love," and will treat all "others" with love, compassion, and mercy, because what God has created is good and all are the Children of God.
Having read the comments by "Christians," is it any wonder that so many people (and especially here, gay people) distrust, blow off and hate the Christian message in light of how "Christianity" and "Christians have treated them?
Think about it. Comments are welcome!
Showing posts with label health-care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health-care reform. Show all posts
15 April, 2010
13 January, 2010
Reforming the Reform: It's out and growing- Part One.
Another clear and "official" indication that the Vatican is disassembling much of Vatican II, appears in a speech given by Msgr. Guido Marini, the pope's Master of Ceremonies, in Rome 6 January 2010. (Click hereand page down for full text. )
General Observations.
For some time now we have seen changes in worship and theology that indicate a restoration of "pre-Vatican II" forms. Now Msgr. Marini says that we are, in fact, in the midst of a "reform of the reform." [see my post "Retreat from Vatican II", dated 10-18-09 for a few examples].
In tone, the speech is generally harsh in discussing "abuses" and those who engage in them. He says, for example, "...some individuals have managed to upset the liturgy... under the pretext of a wrongly devised creativity, thus appropriating the right to remove from, add to or modify the liturgical rite in pursuit of subjective and emotional ends." [Emphasis added]. Marini, also builds and destroys many "straw men," described, in vague extremist terms. He provides no specific examples.
Marini places emphasis on the past and present; nothing is said about the future. The speaker rationalizes the need for and type of changes he (the Vatican) supports by appealing to, "...an urgent need to reaffirm the 'authentic' spirit of the liturgy.. in the uninterrupted tradition of the church, and attested, in continuity with the past..." Benedict, has, "made continuity the authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the Church. Unfortunately, the "past" here seems only to go back to the 16th Century and the "Catholic Reformation."
"Church" here seems to refer to the Vatican; there is no positive mention of bishops or priests who allow or foster inauthentic changes. By the end of the speech, there is one "positive" statement that, "...in this new liturgical renewal...we priests ...are to recover a decisive role."
The substance of Monsignor's speech is divided into five sections. I will make a few comments on each of them and then draw some conclusions.
1. The Sacred Liturgy, God's great gift to the Church.
The emphasis in this section is that the liturgy is God's gift to the Church and this means that only the "Church" can determine what it is and whether and how to change it. Therefore the Church cannot allow changes by the "arbitrary will of man," or allow people, "to treat the liturgy as if it were an object open to manipulation...where liturgical groups stitch together the Sunday liturgy on their own authority."
2. The orientation of Liturgical prayer
Guido Mariani then turns to a discourse of the ancient tradition of facing east to pray. This was part of our early tradition based on the idea that Christ, the Son, would return from the East just as the Sun rises from the East. Admitting that church buildings, in fact, were not always oriented toward the east, "...the Church had recourse to the Crucifix [a Medieval innovation] placed upon the altar, on which everyone could focus." Marini quotes Benedict XVI who reaffirmed his earlier proposal, "...to place the Crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the the Liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord." On the other hand, it seems to me that the Lord is present to "look at" (experience?) all around us during the Liturgy: in the presider and the People, in the proclaimed Word and in his special presence, especially during the Canon of the Mass. So, what is the need of a crucifix here?
There is another reason for looking at the Crucifix during Mass, as stated by the Holy Father, "The idea that the priest and people should stare at one another during prayer was born only in modern Christianity [emphasis added]... The priest and people most certainly do not pray to one another, but to the one Lord" [emphasis added]. Personally, I wonder what parish Mass the Holy Father celebrated when he and the People starred at each other or how often Catholics have said that they pray to the priest during Mass.
Perhaps there is another reason for all the emphasis on facing East or a Crucifix and it might be related to the fact that, "...it is still possible to celebrate the Holy Mass upon the old altars, as the pope does in the, "Sistine Chapel on the feast of the baptism of the Lord" and as many cardinals and bishops do. Perhaps the "Church" wishes to turn the celebrant's back to the People so he can quietly address the prayers to God without distraction.
I wholeheartedly agree that "celebrating facing the people" is a modern innovation (adaptation?) in relationship to the"monastic" celebration of the liturgy as we knew it for over 400 years. But as Louis Bouyer, under whom I studied, has shown, in the earliest churches all present celebrated the Eucharistic Prayer "circumstantes" around the altar having moved there from the place in which the Liturgy of the Word was celebrated. I am also very willing to admit that there is great value and power in the presider and People facing the same direction during orations. However,there must be more creative ways to deal with these "issues" and with more forthrightness, as we attempt to conduct our worship inculturated into the great cultural traditions of the world in our own time. I always try to remember that, "the Sacraments were made for men (sic); men were not made for the Sacraments."
[NOTE: My next post will be an update on the situation in Uganda, followed by part 3, Adoration and union with God" of Masgr. Marini's speech.
General Observations.
For some time now we have seen changes in worship and theology that indicate a restoration of "pre-Vatican II" forms. Now Msgr. Marini says that we are, in fact, in the midst of a "reform of the reform." [see my post "Retreat from Vatican II", dated 10-18-09 for a few examples].
In tone, the speech is generally harsh in discussing "abuses" and those who engage in them. He says, for example, "...some individuals have managed to upset the liturgy... under the pretext of a wrongly devised creativity, thus appropriating the right to remove from, add to or modify the liturgical rite in pursuit of subjective and emotional ends." [Emphasis added]. Marini, also builds and destroys many "straw men," described, in vague extremist terms. He provides no specific examples.
Marini places emphasis on the past and present; nothing is said about the future. The speaker rationalizes the need for and type of changes he (the Vatican) supports by appealing to, "...an urgent need to reaffirm the 'authentic' spirit of the liturgy.. in the uninterrupted tradition of the church, and attested, in continuity with the past..." Benedict, has, "made continuity the authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the Church. Unfortunately, the "past" here seems only to go back to the 16th Century and the "Catholic Reformation."
"Church" here seems to refer to the Vatican; there is no positive mention of bishops or priests who allow or foster inauthentic changes. By the end of the speech, there is one "positive" statement that, "...in this new liturgical renewal...we priests ...are to recover a decisive role."
The substance of Monsignor's speech is divided into five sections. I will make a few comments on each of them and then draw some conclusions.
1. The Sacred Liturgy, God's great gift to the Church.
The emphasis in this section is that the liturgy is God's gift to the Church and this means that only the "Church" can determine what it is and whether and how to change it. Therefore the Church cannot allow changes by the "arbitrary will of man," or allow people, "to treat the liturgy as if it were an object open to manipulation...where liturgical groups stitch together the Sunday liturgy on their own authority."
2. The orientation of Liturgical prayer
Guido Mariani then turns to a discourse of the ancient tradition of facing east to pray. This was part of our early tradition based on the idea that Christ, the Son, would return from the East just as the Sun rises from the East. Admitting that church buildings, in fact, were not always oriented toward the east, "...the Church had recourse to the Crucifix [a Medieval innovation] placed upon the altar, on which everyone could focus." Marini quotes Benedict XVI who reaffirmed his earlier proposal, "...to place the Crucifix on the center of the altar, in order that all, during the celebration of the the Liturgy, may concretely face and look upon the Lord." On the other hand, it seems to me that the Lord is present to "look at" (experience?) all around us during the Liturgy: in the presider and the People, in the proclaimed Word and in his special presence, especially during the Canon of the Mass. So, what is the need of a crucifix here?
There is another reason for looking at the Crucifix during Mass, as stated by the Holy Father, "The idea that the priest and people should stare at one another during prayer was born only in modern Christianity [emphasis added]... The priest and people most certainly do not pray to one another, but to the one Lord" [emphasis added]. Personally, I wonder what parish Mass the Holy Father celebrated when he and the People starred at each other or how often Catholics have said that they pray to the priest during Mass.
Perhaps there is another reason for all the emphasis on facing East or a Crucifix and it might be related to the fact that, "...it is still possible to celebrate the Holy Mass upon the old altars, as the pope does in the, "Sistine Chapel on the feast of the baptism of the Lord" and as many cardinals and bishops do. Perhaps the "Church" wishes to turn the celebrant's back to the People so he can quietly address the prayers to God without distraction.
I wholeheartedly agree that "celebrating facing the people" is a modern innovation (adaptation?) in relationship to the"monastic" celebration of the liturgy as we knew it for over 400 years. But as Louis Bouyer, under whom I studied, has shown, in the earliest churches all present celebrated the Eucharistic Prayer "circumstantes" around the altar having moved there from the place in which the Liturgy of the Word was celebrated. I am also very willing to admit that there is great value and power in the presider and People facing the same direction during orations. However,there must be more creative ways to deal with these "issues" and with more forthrightness, as we attempt to conduct our worship inculturated into the great cultural traditions of the world in our own time. I always try to remember that, "the Sacraments were made for men (sic); men were not made for the Sacraments."
[NOTE: My next post will be an update on the situation in Uganda, followed by part 3, Adoration and union with God" of Masgr. Marini's speech.
06 December, 2009
NOW and THEN: Kennedy, Califano and Conscience
NOW !!!
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) is a supporter of a just society. Recently he criticized of the outspokenness of the nation's Catholic bishops in opposing any new health care reform that included Federal funding for abortion. On October 21st, Mr. Kennedy said, "...how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time [health care reform], adding that that the bishop's position was fanning, "...flames of dissent and discord."
Kennedy and the hierarchy have tangled before on a woman's right to choose an abortion or not based on her conscience; and because she has this right to choose, it is appropriate that publice funds be available so that women, especially poor women, can exercise choice.
Beginning during the pontificate of John Paul II and very evident in the views and actions of Benedict XVI, and now evident in the actions of the American bishops, there is what John Allen has identified as an Evangelical Catholicism. Among the characteristics of this orientation are:1) a strong opposition to "secularism" and much of Western culture (the "culture of death") 2) a need to reclaim a "Catholic Identity" based on clear markers which differentiate being "Catholic" from other religions, 3 ) a defensive posture as exhibited in a new emphasis on apologetics and of episcopal authority and power over the laity and in the public square, and 4) a change from inter-religious dialogue to "inter-cultural" dialogue.
The tension between Mr. Kennedy and his bishop, Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, can be understood best in light of this changing church.
Ostensibly because of Kennedy's stance on abortion, Bishop Tobin sent Mr. Kennedy a private letter on February 27, 2007 in which he said, "In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving holy communion and I now respectfully ask you to refrain from doing so." Because of Kennedy's continued stand on abortion, especially his concern that the bishops' lobbying might kill the entire health-care bill, the issue has become public once again and Bishop Tobin has taken a stronger position.
"...Bishop Tobin has accused Mr. Kennedy of 'false advertising' for describing himself as a Catholic." He also said, "If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things." And, "If you cannot do all that in good conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else."
Most recently the bishop said, I will absolutely respond publically whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry."
THEN !!
Joseph Califano is a Catholic layman who served as chief domestic advisor to President Lyndon Johnson and as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare for President Jimmy Carter. Under Johnson, Califano was responsible for enforcing Johnson's aggressive policy to promote family planning in the United States and internationally. Johnson ordered that contraceptives be made available to the poor and Califano was to enforce the policy.
Johnson's policy was attacked by the Catholic bishops as "coercing the poor to practice birth control;" Johnson told Califano to "work something out" with the bishops so as not to lose their support for his anti-poverty and civil rights legislation and programs. Califano met with Archbishop (later Cardinal) John F. Dearden (Detroit), leader of the American Bishops, and members of the Bishops' staff. They worked out differences by rephrasing words (E.g. from "contraceptive" to "population control") and re-writing the policy to include the, Church approved, rythm method of family planning. With this the bishops toned down their stinging criticism.
Both Jimmy Carter and Califano personally opposed abortion. However, Congress approved funds for abortion if the life of the mother was in danger (which the bishops tolerated) and, in addition, in the cases of rape and incest (which the bishops opposed) which were "promptly reported." Califano was tasked with the responsibility to define "promply." He defined this as "sixty days." The American Bishops were livid and went on the attack, but it was never suggested that Califano be denied the Eucharist.
At this time of increasingly assertive behavior on the part of the bishops, it would be wise to follow the words of Joseph Califano:
"As Catholics and as citizens, we have a right and obligation to assert our convictions on public issues clearly and vigorously -- to hope and work that they should prevail. To expect less from a public official would ask that he leave his conscience at home...."
"Where we cannot find unanimous answers, there is at least one point on which bishops and Catholic politicians can find common ground: insistence that those who search for the right answers are doing so with integrity and sincere conviction. That was what the church leaders I dealt with in the 1960s and '70s recognized, as their successors should today."
Do they? Will they?
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) is a supporter of a just society. Recently he criticized of the outspokenness of the nation's Catholic bishops in opposing any new health care reform that included Federal funding for abortion. On October 21st, Mr. Kennedy said, "...how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time [health care reform], adding that that the bishop's position was fanning, "...flames of dissent and discord."
Kennedy and the hierarchy have tangled before on a woman's right to choose an abortion or not based on her conscience; and because she has this right to choose, it is appropriate that publice funds be available so that women, especially poor women, can exercise choice.
Beginning during the pontificate of John Paul II and very evident in the views and actions of Benedict XVI, and now evident in the actions of the American bishops, there is what John Allen has identified as an Evangelical Catholicism. Among the characteristics of this orientation are:1) a strong opposition to "secularism" and much of Western culture (the "culture of death") 2) a need to reclaim a "Catholic Identity" based on clear markers which differentiate being "Catholic" from other religions, 3 ) a defensive posture as exhibited in a new emphasis on apologetics and of episcopal authority and power over the laity and in the public square, and 4) a change from inter-religious dialogue to "inter-cultural" dialogue.
The tension between Mr. Kennedy and his bishop, Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, can be understood best in light of this changing church.
Ostensibly because of Kennedy's stance on abortion, Bishop Tobin sent Mr. Kennedy a private letter on February 27, 2007 in which he said, "In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving holy communion and I now respectfully ask you to refrain from doing so." Because of Kennedy's continued stand on abortion, especially his concern that the bishops' lobbying might kill the entire health-care bill, the issue has become public once again and Bishop Tobin has taken a stronger position.
"...Bishop Tobin has accused Mr. Kennedy of 'false advertising' for describing himself as a Catholic." He also said, "If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things." And, "If you cannot do all that in good conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else."
Most recently the bishop said, I will absolutely respond publically whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry."
THEN !!
Joseph Califano is a Catholic layman who served as chief domestic advisor to President Lyndon Johnson and as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare for President Jimmy Carter. Under Johnson, Califano was responsible for enforcing Johnson's aggressive policy to promote family planning in the United States and internationally. Johnson ordered that contraceptives be made available to the poor and Califano was to enforce the policy.
Johnson's policy was attacked by the Catholic bishops as "coercing the poor to practice birth control;" Johnson told Califano to "work something out" with the bishops so as not to lose their support for his anti-poverty and civil rights legislation and programs. Califano met with Archbishop (later Cardinal) John F. Dearden (Detroit), leader of the American Bishops, and members of the Bishops' staff. They worked out differences by rephrasing words (E.g. from "contraceptive" to "population control") and re-writing the policy to include the, Church approved, rythm method of family planning. With this the bishops toned down their stinging criticism.
Both Jimmy Carter and Califano personally opposed abortion. However, Congress approved funds for abortion if the life of the mother was in danger (which the bishops tolerated) and, in addition, in the cases of rape and incest (which the bishops opposed) which were "promptly reported." Califano was tasked with the responsibility to define "promply." He defined this as "sixty days." The American Bishops were livid and went on the attack, but it was never suggested that Califano be denied the Eucharist.
At this time of increasingly assertive behavior on the part of the bishops, it would be wise to follow the words of Joseph Califano:
"As Catholics and as citizens, we have a right and obligation to assert our convictions on public issues clearly and vigorously -- to hope and work that they should prevail. To expect less from a public official would ask that he leave his conscience at home...."
"Where we cannot find unanimous answers, there is at least one point on which bishops and Catholic politicians can find common ground: insistence that those who search for the right answers are doing so with integrity and sincere conviction. That was what the church leaders I dealt with in the 1960s and '70s recognized, as their successors should today."
Do they? Will they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)