End-around Collective Bargaining in Democratic Connecticut?

While all eyes are on places like Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and New Jersey, as conservative politicians take bold action to attack workers' rights head-on, and in the process to try and eliminate collective bargaining, an end-around the same collective bargaining rights seems to be taking place in Democratically controlled Connecticut. Democrats control the legislature, and there is a Democratic governor, which might make you think that Hartford would be immune from the moves that are elsewhere putting unions and workers' collective rights under attack. But for some reason the Democrats seem united in handing over such rights to the demands of .... Democrats. Currently under consideration in fact is legislation that aims not to hit collective bargaining head on, but instead that seeks to accomplish the same end by effectively reclassifying many unionized workers as "managers," which will immediately remove them from unions and put the terms of their employment directly in the hands of the Governor. The Republicans must be sitting in awe that the Democrats are doing the work for them in achieving such anti workers' rights goals. And worst of all, the unions about to be affected by all of this aren't even making a sound. What's been happening in places like Wisconsin under the glare of nightly-news cameras and vehement public protest, is happening quietly and cooperatively in Connecticut with Democratic unanimity it seems. Did we fall asleep?

Oh Bishop Where Art Thou?!

In a previous blog I had reflected on the moral inconsistency in the Diocese of Providence, where the Bishop has basically excommunicated Rep. Patrick Kennedy for his politically nuanced stand on abortion (and his stance of promoting the current health care bill in Congress without actively looking to add a strict prohibition against abortion in the bill)....and where on the other hand the Diocese has moved its employees' personal retirement accounts into funds that invest in the likes of Haliburton, General Dynamics and Rockwell International (top fund producers, top war industries).

In that post I did not linger around another issue--that of the Rhode Island Roman Catholic Church's sordid and egregious history of covering up cases of pedophilia. That example of moral inconsistency is almost too obvious these days to have to note. However, in recent weeks that whole issue has pushed its way glaringly back into the category of "notable" with the occurrence of several events: The recent annual meeting of US Roman Catholic Bishops where they approved a letter that attempts to put into words the value of moral respect for family, marriage and sexuality; and the final release of an official report in Ireland on the investigation of coverup by the Church and law authorities of decades of child sexual abuse. See Full Report

First, the US Roman Catholic Bishops met in their annual gathering to address key issues facing the Church and society at large. With two endless wars raging, that sap the US of its resources for social and economic health, and perpetuate US global militarism; with health care in the US now dominated by a gouging medical industry that is bankrupting families at an alarming rate and leading to tens of thousands of deaths each year; the Bishops chose to focus once again on pelvic morality-- all about the issues relating to sexuality and its social expression. And of all things, they seem to feel they have some kind of moral authority to do so. They are going to tell us all--Catholics and non-- that abortion is an intrinsic evil, family is a product of natural law with only one ideal expression, marriage likewise has only one main (and naturally defined) purpose, that homosexuality is deviant, and eventually, that 'cohabitation' is still "living in sin" (intrinsically evil).

In the midst of their meeting, these men--who are the leaders of an institution that has bankrupted itself financially by the liability it created under decades of the cover-up of sexual abuse of children--had to bring in experts with a $2mil study to clarify for them, among other things, that pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing and "are not necessarily connected." These are the men who uphold the Vatican's view that young men with "deep seated homosexual tendencies" will be banned from their seminary training--in part to "solve" the pedophilia problem! ("One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies," the Vatican has said in a previous "clarification" letter!) These are the men who believe that women are not equal to them--or at best are "separate but equal" in their (subservient) social and church roles. These are the men who have housekeepers to do their chores, allowances to pay for their food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and retirement, assistants to arrange their schedules, resources to wine and dine with the powerful of society, but who somehow can know just what it means for struggling families--single mothers, loving homosexual couples--to live morally in these times.

And did I mention... the families on both sides of the wars that this country continues to fight?

Then there is the official report from the Commission of Investigation under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in Dublin, IE just released. Its research tells of decades of coverup of child sexual abuse in Ireland--coverup perpetrated by the highest Church officials, aided by law enforcement, and fully known by the highest levels of the institution--the Vatican itself. If there is any inkling of hope in the whole situation it is the candid apology issued immediately after the release of this report, by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Diarmuid Martin, who among other things noted pointedly, “The sexual abuse of a child is and always was a crime in civil law. It is and always was a crime in canon law. It is and always was grievously sinful.” This certainly begs the question, at the same time, how the abuse and its coverup could have gone on for so many decades.

The US Roman Catholic Bishops have a legacy of documents that teach about profound truths. How those written "truths" seem so hollow, coming from an institution that not only seems so out of touch with everyday people and their struggles, but that also seems so glaringly out of touch with its own moral bankruptcy. Through their actions, the Bishops as institutional officials have hidden the work of pedophiles, lined the Church up with those who make wars--or make the weapons of wars-- led the faithful to support politicians whose records on war and the death penalty are as anti-life as they could be; then they presume to say their principled stand "for life" is clear, because they can unequivocally pronounce on matters that go on in women's bodies.

And Rep. Patrick Kennedy is the one who should consider himself not worthy to be in full communion with the Church?

RI Bishop Excommunicates Catholic Politician?

The news today is a bit disheartening if true, and also a bit cloudy, about the Bishop of RI and his "instruction" to Rep. Patrick Kennedy; if the report is correct, Kennedy has been told by the bishop not to receive communion in the RI diocese. The further report, from Kennedy, is that the bishop also instructed priests in the diocese not to give communion to Kennedy. I don't hear the bishop saying the word "excommunication," but that is what this amounts to, if in fact it isn't actually official.

The previous bishop of RI played with words a few years ago when he said about another Catholic, Maryanne Sorrentino, that he didn't excommunicate her but that she excommunicated herself in her work at Planned Parenthood. So we're talking about something akin to passive-aggressive excommunication. "Hey, Patrick, just make sure you don't go to communion..." says the bishop, without telling Patrick directly that he's out.

Ironically, it was Patrick's uncle Jack, who broke the anti-catholic stigma in national politics, and was elected as the first Roman Catholic to be President of the US back in 1960. At that time JFK brought forward a national discussion---theological as well as political-- about how a Roman Catholic could in fact be an effective politician at the national level, without simply being a mouthpiece of the Vatican. The best of theologians led the Church to consider the unique challenge of politicians in this democratic republic, to apply conscience and carefully nuanced political savvy in their leadership, not just to tow a single religious line that would otherwise affirm the anti-catholic fears of the day.

The US Bishops in fact have been no strangers to political nuance, at least when it comes to the powerful in society. Of course, a few--who have been marginalized in the process-- have dared to speak truth to power when it comes to war, the death penalty, social injustice, poverty, discrimination, the US 'culture of death.' There have been no threats however of excommunication of politicians who support the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, or the death penalty. Instead, the bishops (and the RI bishop included) have reserved their moral absolutes for issues that deal with what some moral theologians have pointedly called "pelvic morality": birth control, abortion, sex outside of marriage, sex inside of marriage, homosexuality (with the glaring omission of a moral absolutist approach toward pedophhilia).

Further disheartening is the way that such moralizing has led Catholic flocks to believe (or to believe that they should believe) that in ensuing elections, for example, one is morally obliged to vote against any politician who doesn't profess clearly to be anti-abortion; this in turn has led people to believe that their "moral choice" in such elections is to vote for politicians who are anti-abortion, despite their also being responsible for starting wars of aggression (or supporting such wars), responsible for implementing the death penalty, responsible for economic and social policies that marginalize and demonize the poor and the oppressed.

The US Bishops have some wonderfully nuanced statements on justice and peace (and the "seamless garment of life") for those who care to read them. But by example, rather than by their written words, they've led people to fall silently behind wars that even the Pope himself has declared an injustice; they've led people by their (in-)actions to vote against candidates whose lives reflect profound struggle for justice and equality, and to vote instead for candidates who under the "anti-abortion" banner, have perpetrated wars and injustice (state sponsored death) with impunity.

It is ironic that 40 years after John Kennedy struggled against anti-catholic prejudice to become President of the U.S., the Bishop of Rhode Island is now apparently weighing in on the matter with a judgment--however passively given--against JFK's very nephew: you can only be a Catholic politician in the US if you simply reflect without question the 'teachings' of Rome.

Meanwhile, the Bishop is also playing right on cue: as he brings the hammer down on Rep. Kennedy, he is also lining the Church up squarely behind the monied interests of the Medical Industry, adding his tacit voice against the healthcare reform that is on the table this very day--the reform for which Patrick Kennedy and others have struggled in the name of the poor and the disadvantaged.

Fortunately, there are too many adults in Rhode Island (a very "Roman Catholic State" in name at least) with well formed and active consciences who will take the Bishop's words and attitude under consideration, and then as they should, act in good conscience. (Primacy of conscience it is called.) It is too bad, in the process that the bishop in this instance may have forgotten the principle so profoundly modeled by Pope John XXIII, to lead by persuasion and example rather than by fear.

Pro-Life?

The line that comes to mind tonight is from Ghost Busters: "I'm a little fuzzy on this good-bad thing, Egon..." You see, I am in the Diocese of Providence (geographically, right now) where in the past few days the Bishop (Tobin) has made personal comments about our Congressional Rep., Patrick Kennedy. Specifically, he called Kennedy a "disappointment to the Church," in large part because Kennedy supports health care reform that doesn't have in it an absolute ban on funding for abortion (even though health care reform itself will likely save thousands of lives a year, and maybe even prevent a number of abortions in the process; and, under current law anyway, abortions can't be funded by federal monies...) So Kennedy is a disappointment... because too he had the nerve to say that the Church was wrong in not standing up for the justice of health care reform.

Moral consistency, the Bishop seems to be saying. Either you are for life or you aren't. If you don't say you are for life (and absolutely prohibit abortions under a bill that doesn't itself call for funding abortions) you can't be 'for life.'

Turn the page for a moment... on another page, the Diocese has just let its teachers and other employees know that it is dumping TIAA CREF as the investment fund for their retirement accounts. Instead they are going to put workers' personal retirement accounts into the Ave Maria Mutual Funds accounts. Top performers of those accounts? Haliburton, General Dynamics, Rockwell.... as Don Imus often says, "You can't MAKE this stuff up!!"

Egon, I'm a little fuzzy on this good-bad thing....

Mar. 20 2008 Audio Sample

This is an easy way to embed an audio podcast in Blogger... Easy to do....

On a Different Note... Are We Really Changing?

The following video is from anthropologist Michael Wesch as part of an ongoing project dealing with changes in this information age. More commentary to follow!

Ain't Gonna Study War Anymore

Once a year or so we recall the name and face of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and we commemorate a holiday for "what he did for America." So, what did he do? His name is on many an inner-city school and community center; teacher supply stores now carry "history" decorations that include Dr. King's face in three-tone color along side the grade-school images of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We remember him with TV news replays of his "I have a dream" speech and flashes of various Civil Rights marches. But what did he do for us, that we are celebrating?

I leave that question hanging, and propose something further beyond the question: If he were alive today, besides being fairly "old," he probably wouldn't be as revered, because he probably would have been a real bother to our society for many of the same reasons he was a bother before he was assassinated (for which he was assassinated?)

Our schools today are segregated and disparate along segregated lines, under conditions that may even be worse than before Plessy vs. Ferguson (which, of course was BEFORE Brown vs. Board of Education) *See Jonathan Kozol's The Shame of the Nation on this one. We have continued to face significant portions of our society in poverty and/or in jail (today with over 2 million of our population incarcerated). And, we are mired in yet another war--that this time has lasted over 14 years, when you consider that before we invaded Iraq with ground troops, we had been bombing the country daily--yes, daily!--for the ten years prior!

I don't imagine that, given the direction Dr. King was headed in 1968, attempting to point to the root connections between state sponsored violence and social injustice, he'd be a quiet observer today; his non-violence was active pacifism (not "passivism"). He made a point of "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." He was a radical peacemaker. And this is certainly not what we celebrate yearly on his "holiday." If we did, we would feel more than a little "convicted" by the challenge of what he stood for.

As with so many other "prophets" (both secular and religious) who we commemorate, we mourn his death but are then able to let ourselves off the hook from his message. In life he was a "disturber of the peace," and then we build him monuments and memorials after he has died.

So now, for example, the radical message of Dr. King has no place in our country's deliberations about war and peace. Anyone who might take his radical nonviolence seriously, in fact, will be summarily portrayed as a modern-day fringe wacko, out of touch with "reality." Certainly, let's not think we can get anywhere constructively by asking, for example, if there are any ways we can extricate ourselves not only from Iraq itself, but from warmaking as a means of peacemaking. Let's not think it is productive or realistic to connect the dots between the 10 Billion dollars a month (or more) spent on the US in Iraq, and our decaying schools, decaying neighborhoods, decaying healthcare system, and more.

In this very early "political season" in fact, we are being wooed by umpteen candidates who want to lead us next after the current administration has left its legacy. All but one candidate out of the whole lot, in either of the major political parties, even dares to question the fundamental principle of warmaking as a way to peacemaking; and that one candidate is so often portrayed as a fringe wacko, out of touch with reality. This point will be lost on a majority of our population. Even those on diametrically opposed sides of the Iraq war issue are disagreeing about timing; they aren't offering any serious leadership to help us address the very roots of war as a way of peacemaking.

I believe Dr. King was serious and committed when he intoned the phrase, "I don't know about you, but I ain't gonna study war, anymore!" Unfortunately we've redacted that one from our historic memory; it would be a dangerous memory if we took it seriously.

Here is another blog that includes texts from Dr. King's speech about the Viet Nam war in 1967, and an audio recording of his speech "Why I am Opposed to the War in Viet Nam."

And an excerpt from a speech by Dr. King: Aug. 28, 1963 as redacted for 21'st Century U.S.A.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

…And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don’t know about you, I ain’t gonna study war no more.
— Martin Luther King Jr.