“Off with his head!”
Like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, that’s what we should be shouting when we execute criminals in America. Derived from the Latin, capitalis, “ regarding the head ”, the death penalty is capital punishment and was originally a severing of the head.
According to Amnesty International, as of December 2008, more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Much to my unhappy surprise, Christians are divided on the death penalty. Some quote Leviticus 24: 17-22 “ And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death”, while others quote Exodus 20: 13 “ Thou shalt not kill”. In this country, we favor Leviticus and kill those convicted of killing others. Methinks we’re getting away with murder.
The recent execution of Max Payne ( the 6th execution in the first 10 months of 2009 in Alabama!), reminded me how we trifle with human life in this country. We discard embryos we don’t need and destroy unborn children we don’t want.
The heinous nature of Mr. Payne’s crime was undoubtedly the reason the penalty was carried out. But, none of us gave him life, so none of us is allowed to take it away. Christians, of all people, should know that.
It was arrogant of us, in fact, to award ourselves this divine ability by attaching it as punishment for the violation of a law. Our desire to avenge a murder blinds us to the realization that we are not the givers of life. Execution is not punishment, it would seem, but revenge. And we all know what Christ said about revenge.
There has been some discussion, however, about ending the death penalty. In recent years the Supreme Court has voted to forbid the execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded, and it banned using the death penalty for crimes that did not involve killings. But, to my mind, that’s no different than the Nazis choosing who would go to the gas chambers and who would not. We still put people to death.
I’m no constitutional scholar, but, in my view, the Eighth Amendment implicitly forbids the death penalty.
Consider it was written by men who fled a country where punishments, such as public whipping or exposure in the stocks, were designed largely to shame the offender, and where the only death penalty was the brutal and also shameful hanging. Presumably, they wanted no more whippings, stocks or hangings in their new life and is probably what they had in mind when they wrote “cruel and unusual”.
The tone of the 8th Amendment, I feel, is concern for the convicted. Go easy on the bail and fines and, for heaven’s sake, don’t torture.That being the case, why would they want death as punishment?
OK. It’s the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. How then, you may ask, can the state maintain peace and order in society unless it rids us of those who commit awful crimes? Well, the punishment handed down for crime should restore that peace and order. Catholic teaching is clear on this issue and makes perfect sense: if there are non-lethal means sufficient to defend and protect the public while punishing for the crime, the state should limit itself to such means (such as life without parole). In that way, we are also respecting the dignity of the person who committed the crime.
God made man in His image and that is why life is sacred, whether it’s microscopic, cradled in a womb or spent making bad choices.
It troubles me that not much has changed since the days, 2,000 years ago, when people screamed, “ Crucify Him, crucify Him.”
Till next time...
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Kicking The Habit
From the clothing seen in an eleventh century monastery to the clothing worn by nuns on picket lines in the 1960’s, “habits” have always been designed and worn for a reason. Benedictines and Dominicans, for example, were clothed in outfits that were specifically created to identify women who had consecrated their lives to God. Many other orders of nuns wore habits that reflected their desire to blend in among the people they served. The understated habits of Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity that resembled the uniform of nurses comes to mind. When many religious abandoned their habits in the 60’s and 70’s, it stirred a debate that continues today.
Does it ever. If I live to be 100, I will never understand why some orders of nuns decided to begin to dress like laywomen. It was almost as if they were ashamed to be identified as nuns. Their reasons given for this radical change pale in comparison to why they should dress like religious. There is no plausible explanation for this sudden desire to appear as lay women. None. Oh, the reasons given for the big switch ranged from “ the habits were bulky, hot and uncomfortable” to “ lay clothes are donated or bought at thrift shops and are cheaper than habits”.
This is simple. Those excuses are secondary to the primary reason nuns wear and should wear clerical garb: they are clerics of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, they should be proud to display to the world that they have given up their lives to Christ. Dressing in mufti, as it were, tells those who know they’re nuns that they gave up their lives to Christ, but they not only want to be comfortable, but also do not want everyone knowing it. Disgraceful.
Once some of these nuns began dressing like laity, it was a foregone conclusion they would soon act like laity, albeit faithful to their vow of chastity. The parochial school system of the Church was the first to feel it. Little by little, the “ sisters”, those who were our teachers, were out of the convents and living on their own. Whereas they were receiving stipends because they had taken a vow of poverty, their replacements in the schools were laity and had to be paid living wages. That was the fundamental reason for the economic problems that suddenly faced the Catholic school system. The rest, as they say, is history. The wonderful nuns who taught me in grade school, were disappearing. And, for the most part, they are gone.
It is interesting and significant to note that, over the past 30 years, the number of women in Catholic religious orders has decreased by a reported 50%. There are now approximately, only 85,412 religious sisters in the United States and their average age is 68.
The good news is that the religious orders that are actually seeing growth are the ones that wear the traditional habit including the Dominicans and Mother Teresa’s religious order.
It is widely held that Vatican II said that nuns should take the habit off in favor of secular clothes. Surprisingly, not true (See below). Nowhere in the Council documents does it say that the priests and religious should dispense with religious habits, and it never said that habits should be the street clothes of the common man. Vatican II stated that habits are to be an outward sign of consecration. They need to be simple, modest, poor, becoming, and needed to be changed if they were unhealthy or not suited for today's needs. Maybe that was the “opt-out” wording seized upon by some nuns.
This is not a new idea. Religious habits have changed throughout history, but for obvious reasons priests and nuns wearing secular apparel from a department store does not fit the bill. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II both have told priests and religious that they must wear their religious habit, but many have chosen to ignore the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council.
Certainly, the gradual disappearance of habits of some nuns does not change any fundamental doctrine of the church. But, how are we, as Christians, to transform the world for Christ if some religious are in disguise?
And, what are we to make of the disappearance of the habit causing the disappearance of “role models” for young women considering the religious life? There are some women who just naturally draw young people to them whether wearing a habit or not. But, as some young women have been reported to have said, “ wearing civilian clothes makes them just ‘one of the bunch’. Traditional garb is special (maybe not the most comfortable) and attracts even the youngest to these traditional women.”
The document, “ Perfectae Caritatis” , proclaimed by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965, spends a long time laying out the parameters of the discussion, but eventually reaches some very important conclusions.
Section #17 ( of the 25) is spot on:
17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed. (Editor's note: notice here that the idea of abandoning the habit altogether is not even considered)
One final note: Canon 669,1 in Code of Canon Law states: Religious are to wear the habit of the institute determined according to the norm of proper law as a sign of their consecration and as a testimony of poverty.
As a sign of their consecration. Wonderful.
Till next time.....
Does it ever. If I live to be 100, I will never understand why some orders of nuns decided to begin to dress like laywomen. It was almost as if they were ashamed to be identified as nuns. Their reasons given for this radical change pale in comparison to why they should dress like religious. There is no plausible explanation for this sudden desire to appear as lay women. None. Oh, the reasons given for the big switch ranged from “ the habits were bulky, hot and uncomfortable” to “ lay clothes are donated or bought at thrift shops and are cheaper than habits”.
This is simple. Those excuses are secondary to the primary reason nuns wear and should wear clerical garb: they are clerics of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, they should be proud to display to the world that they have given up their lives to Christ. Dressing in mufti, as it were, tells those who know they’re nuns that they gave up their lives to Christ, but they not only want to be comfortable, but also do not want everyone knowing it. Disgraceful.
Once some of these nuns began dressing like laity, it was a foregone conclusion they would soon act like laity, albeit faithful to their vow of chastity. The parochial school system of the Church was the first to feel it. Little by little, the “ sisters”, those who were our teachers, were out of the convents and living on their own. Whereas they were receiving stipends because they had taken a vow of poverty, their replacements in the schools were laity and had to be paid living wages. That was the fundamental reason for the economic problems that suddenly faced the Catholic school system. The rest, as they say, is history. The wonderful nuns who taught me in grade school, were disappearing. And, for the most part, they are gone.
It is interesting and significant to note that, over the past 30 years, the number of women in Catholic religious orders has decreased by a reported 50%. There are now approximately, only 85,412 religious sisters in the United States and their average age is 68.
The good news is that the religious orders that are actually seeing growth are the ones that wear the traditional habit including the Dominicans and Mother Teresa’s religious order.
It is widely held that Vatican II said that nuns should take the habit off in favor of secular clothes. Surprisingly, not true (See below). Nowhere in the Council documents does it say that the priests and religious should dispense with religious habits, and it never said that habits should be the street clothes of the common man. Vatican II stated that habits are to be an outward sign of consecration. They need to be simple, modest, poor, becoming, and needed to be changed if they were unhealthy or not suited for today's needs. Maybe that was the “opt-out” wording seized upon by some nuns.
This is not a new idea. Religious habits have changed throughout history, but for obvious reasons priests and nuns wearing secular apparel from a department store does not fit the bill. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II both have told priests and religious that they must wear their religious habit, but many have chosen to ignore the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council.
Certainly, the gradual disappearance of habits of some nuns does not change any fundamental doctrine of the church. But, how are we, as Christians, to transform the world for Christ if some religious are in disguise?
And, what are we to make of the disappearance of the habit causing the disappearance of “role models” for young women considering the religious life? There are some women who just naturally draw young people to them whether wearing a habit or not. But, as some young women have been reported to have said, “ wearing civilian clothes makes them just ‘one of the bunch’. Traditional garb is special (maybe not the most comfortable) and attracts even the youngest to these traditional women.”
The document, “ Perfectae Caritatis” , proclaimed by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965, spends a long time laying out the parameters of the discussion, but eventually reaches some very important conclusions.
Section #17 ( of the 25) is spot on:
17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed. (Editor's note: notice here that the idea of abandoning the habit altogether is not even considered)
One final note: Canon 669,1 in Code of Canon Law states: Religious are to wear the habit of the institute determined according to the norm of proper law as a sign of their consecration and as a testimony of poverty.
As a sign of their consecration. Wonderful.
Till next time.....
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A Father's Love
If I live to be a hundred, I will never understand why some children treat their parents the way they sometimes do. “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” was a Commandment by Christ, not a suggestion.
A good friend of mine has not spoken with his son in eleven years. They’re estranged. What a terrible word. Estranged means to be removed from usual surroundings and to become strangers to one another. He has told me there is no acceptable reason for this silence of one of his lambs. But, whatever it might be must never thumb its nose at that Commandment. Never.
It saddened me to think that my friend had helped create a child, held him in his arms, taken him to school, taught him to play ball, fed him, clothed him, laughed with him, cried with him, watched him grow and, then, felt him slowly drift away. Was this the reward for becoming a father?
Keenly aware that he did not want to anger his son as St. Paul warned in his letter to the Colossians, “Fathers do not provoke your children, so they may not become discouraged ”, he traveled to the city where his son worked to find out what was wrong. He was also well aware of the first part of that warning of St. Paul: “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord ” (Colossians 3: 20-21) Tough call, but good for him.
It is the teaching of my Christian faith that “divine fatherhood is the source of human fatherhood.” * (“ For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named ” ) ( Ephesians 3:14-15). “This is the foundation of the honor owed to the parents. It is required by God’s Commandment.” * ( “Honor your father and your mother that you may live a long life in the land which your God is giving you ) (Exodus 20:12)
“Respect for parents comes from gratitude towards those who, by the gift of life, their love and their work, have brought their children into the world and enabled them to grow in stature, wisdom and grace.” *(“ Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back that equals their gift to you?”) ( Sirach 7:27-28) (* Cathechism of the Catholic Church )
No one will doubt or challenge that mothers and fathers deserve respect. Much of what I’ve quoted from the Bible and my church’s teaching will surely resonate with many of you. We need simply look around today to see the collapse of the family through divorce, drugs, scandal, what have you. The moral fabric of our society is badly frayed.
Some may argue that something must have happened to cause this parting of their ways. Indeed, obviously, there was something that this father could not fathom and is why he sought out his son. He claimed he was not aware of anything he might have done to cause this rupture, but would offer apologies nonetheless and ask forgiveness if need be. If his son is embarrassed and is shielding him from some grief, he needs to know so that he may offer comfort. But, overriding all of this speculation is the profound truth that children must respect their parents and parents must love their children.
“He who honors his father atones for sins; he stores up riches who reveres his mother. He who honors his father is gladdened by children and when he prays he is heard. He who reveres his father will live a long life. He obeys the Lord who brings comfort to his mother”(Sirach 3: 2-6)
Love is a powerful force and prayer is even stronger. Together, they have been known to make miracles.
Let’s pray for that, since he never connected with his son.
.
A good friend of mine has not spoken with his son in eleven years. They’re estranged. What a terrible word. Estranged means to be removed from usual surroundings and to become strangers to one another. He has told me there is no acceptable reason for this silence of one of his lambs. But, whatever it might be must never thumb its nose at that Commandment. Never.
It saddened me to think that my friend had helped create a child, held him in his arms, taken him to school, taught him to play ball, fed him, clothed him, laughed with him, cried with him, watched him grow and, then, felt him slowly drift away. Was this the reward for becoming a father?
Keenly aware that he did not want to anger his son as St. Paul warned in his letter to the Colossians, “Fathers do not provoke your children, so they may not become discouraged ”, he traveled to the city where his son worked to find out what was wrong. He was also well aware of the first part of that warning of St. Paul: “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord ” (Colossians 3: 20-21) Tough call, but good for him.
It is the teaching of my Christian faith that “divine fatherhood is the source of human fatherhood.” * (“ For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named ” ) ( Ephesians 3:14-15). “This is the foundation of the honor owed to the parents. It is required by God’s Commandment.” * ( “Honor your father and your mother that you may live a long life in the land which your God is giving you ) (Exodus 20:12)
“Respect for parents comes from gratitude towards those who, by the gift of life, their love and their work, have brought their children into the world and enabled them to grow in stature, wisdom and grace.” *(“ Remember that through your parents you were born; what can you give back that equals their gift to you?”) ( Sirach 7:27-28) (* Cathechism of the Catholic Church )
No one will doubt or challenge that mothers and fathers deserve respect. Much of what I’ve quoted from the Bible and my church’s teaching will surely resonate with many of you. We need simply look around today to see the collapse of the family through divorce, drugs, scandal, what have you. The moral fabric of our society is badly frayed.
Some may argue that something must have happened to cause this parting of their ways. Indeed, obviously, there was something that this father could not fathom and is why he sought out his son. He claimed he was not aware of anything he might have done to cause this rupture, but would offer apologies nonetheless and ask forgiveness if need be. If his son is embarrassed and is shielding him from some grief, he needs to know so that he may offer comfort. But, overriding all of this speculation is the profound truth that children must respect their parents and parents must love their children.
“He who honors his father atones for sins; he stores up riches who reveres his mother. He who honors his father is gladdened by children and when he prays he is heard. He who reveres his father will live a long life. He obeys the Lord who brings comfort to his mother”(Sirach 3: 2-6)
Love is a powerful force and prayer is even stronger. Together, they have been known to make miracles.
Let’s pray for that, since he never connected with his son.
.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
God And Evil
Why Does God Allow Evil In The World?
Having recently left the horror of hurricanes in Florida, I have now settled in to my new home in Alabama and discovered the terror of tornados.
Lately, there have been natural disasters the likes of which we have not seen in years. Fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes are happening far too often and are causing death and destruction. Let me not forget the frightening evidence of global warming and widespread drought.
The question often asked is being asked more frequently these days. Why does God permit these terrible tragedies? Tough question. Obviously, no one knows. But, we can speculate. I have a theory.
For those of us, who believe in God, believe He created a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection which we believe is being with Him. Whatever that might be. As long as it has not reached that perfection, it is an imperfect world with both good and evil Or, to put it another way, a perfect world could not be both good and evil.
So, ours is not a perfect world. No siree! It is filled with natural beauty and natural disaster. God is supremely good and would only permit the evil of disaster to occur or to exist in His works, such as storms like the deadly Katrina or the recent spreading wildfires in California, for example, because He knows that good can be derived from evil.
Don’t scoff. The good that comes after storms such as Katrina is evident in the help the victims received with love and consideration of people around the world. This is always the case after every flood, hurricane or fire. Compassion inevitably follows chaos. It is happening in California to the victims who saw their homes and all their possessions reduced to ashes.
These disasters are not punishments by God. So, we should not ask why He ‘allows’ them, implying He is angry with us for our moral decay. The disasters, on the contrary, are opportunities for good. Consider that the greatest good came from the greatest evil: the redemption of sin came from the crucifixion of Christ.
All of these disasters, I believe, therefore, are blessings in disguise.
Till next time...
Having recently left the horror of hurricanes in Florida, I have now settled in to my new home in Alabama and discovered the terror of tornados.
Lately, there have been natural disasters the likes of which we have not seen in years. Fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes are happening far too often and are causing death and destruction. Let me not forget the frightening evidence of global warming and widespread drought.
The question often asked is being asked more frequently these days. Why does God permit these terrible tragedies? Tough question. Obviously, no one knows. But, we can speculate. I have a theory.
For those of us, who believe in God, believe He created a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection which we believe is being with Him. Whatever that might be. As long as it has not reached that perfection, it is an imperfect world with both good and evil Or, to put it another way, a perfect world could not be both good and evil.
So, ours is not a perfect world. No siree! It is filled with natural beauty and natural disaster. God is supremely good and would only permit the evil of disaster to occur or to exist in His works, such as storms like the deadly Katrina or the recent spreading wildfires in California, for example, because He knows that good can be derived from evil.
Don’t scoff. The good that comes after storms such as Katrina is evident in the help the victims received with love and consideration of people around the world. This is always the case after every flood, hurricane or fire. Compassion inevitably follows chaos. It is happening in California to the victims who saw their homes and all their possessions reduced to ashes.
These disasters are not punishments by God. So, we should not ask why He ‘allows’ them, implying He is angry with us for our moral decay. The disasters, on the contrary, are opportunities for good. Consider that the greatest good came from the greatest evil: the redemption of sin came from the crucifixion of Christ.
All of these disasters, I believe, therefore, are blessings in disguise.
Till next time...
Sunday, August 23, 2009
T'ain't Easy
It’s not easy being Christian. Or, as Molly McGee said to her husband Fibber on their radio program many years ago,” T’aint easy McGee”. No. it isn’t. Christ never said it would be.
The hard and fast rules of Christianity are sometimes difficult to accept in a culture that can best be described as “ whatever works ”. Opposing abortion and the death penalty, for example, will not win you many friends and alienate some you have, many of whom, surprisingly, might be Christians.
To be Christian means to belong, through Baptism, to a church founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God, It means to believe and obey all that Church’s doctrines based on Christ’s teachings which carry the responsibility to preach them and transform the world.
The current town hall meetings filled with shouting, angry citizens got me to thinking. What does it mean to be a Christian citizen? How do you faithfully follow the tenets of your faith and, at the same time, obey and accommodate those laws or challenge possible reform that does not respect life?
While many objected to the now proven false “ death panels” in the health care reform bill, the protests at their core were manifestations of responsibilities as Christians ( and non-Christians, to be sure)
OK. So far so good. But, what does a Christian do when a politician, seeking public office, does not openly proclaim opposition to either abortion, the death penalty or the “death panels” when that rumor began.? Can a Christian vote for such a politician? The simple answer is “yes” if the purpose of the vote is, obviously, not to promote any of those barbaric acts.
The flip side is that a Christian may choose not to vote because the candidate may support abortion or the death penalty or some other intrinsic evil, such as embryonic stem cell research or euthanasia, aka “death with dignity”. Although we shouldn’t be one issue voters, it is possible and permissible.
But, it really doesn’t end there. The Christian citizen has a serious moral obligation to participate in political life so that evil laws are changed. It is heartening, then, to see these town hall meetings however raucous they may be.
What does it mean to be a Christian politician? Ah, that’s a lot tougher than just being a Christian.citizen.After all, a Christian politician is also a Christian citizen.Christians are called to bring truth to political life. The people who make laws also have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good. Not a popular concept.
Hearing all this, there are those who will scream First Amendment, separation of Church and State! Nonsense. Fulfilling responsibilities as Christians is not establishing a national religion. It is, quite simply, living the faith as Christ commanded us.
Responsible citizenship, then, is a virtue and participation in political life is a moral obligation. That does not mean we should all run for office. Rather, at the least, we should raise our voices on matters that affect our lives and the common good. (Of course with more decorum than is being displayed in those town hall meetings)
It is essential, then, that we bring our convictions ( read: our faith) into public life. It is far too common to hear the separation of church and state argument as if our faith is like the good china that we keep at home and only use on Sunday.
Yeah, t’ain't easy, but worth it for the heavenly reward.
Till next time....
The hard and fast rules of Christianity are sometimes difficult to accept in a culture that can best be described as “ whatever works ”. Opposing abortion and the death penalty, for example, will not win you many friends and alienate some you have, many of whom, surprisingly, might be Christians.
To be Christian means to belong, through Baptism, to a church founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God, It means to believe and obey all that Church’s doctrines based on Christ’s teachings which carry the responsibility to preach them and transform the world.
The current town hall meetings filled with shouting, angry citizens got me to thinking. What does it mean to be a Christian citizen? How do you faithfully follow the tenets of your faith and, at the same time, obey and accommodate those laws or challenge possible reform that does not respect life?
While many objected to the now proven false “ death panels” in the health care reform bill, the protests at their core were manifestations of responsibilities as Christians ( and non-Christians, to be sure)
OK. So far so good. But, what does a Christian do when a politician, seeking public office, does not openly proclaim opposition to either abortion, the death penalty or the “death panels” when that rumor began.? Can a Christian vote for such a politician? The simple answer is “yes” if the purpose of the vote is, obviously, not to promote any of those barbaric acts.
The flip side is that a Christian may choose not to vote because the candidate may support abortion or the death penalty or some other intrinsic evil, such as embryonic stem cell research or euthanasia, aka “death with dignity”. Although we shouldn’t be one issue voters, it is possible and permissible.
But, it really doesn’t end there. The Christian citizen has a serious moral obligation to participate in political life so that evil laws are changed. It is heartening, then, to see these town hall meetings however raucous they may be.
What does it mean to be a Christian politician? Ah, that’s a lot tougher than just being a Christian.citizen.After all, a Christian politician is also a Christian citizen.Christians are called to bring truth to political life. The people who make laws also have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good. Not a popular concept.
Hearing all this, there are those who will scream First Amendment, separation of Church and State! Nonsense. Fulfilling responsibilities as Christians is not establishing a national religion. It is, quite simply, living the faith as Christ commanded us.
Responsible citizenship, then, is a virtue and participation in political life is a moral obligation. That does not mean we should all run for office. Rather, at the least, we should raise our voices on matters that affect our lives and the common good. (Of course with more decorum than is being displayed in those town hall meetings)
It is essential, then, that we bring our convictions ( read: our faith) into public life. It is far too common to hear the separation of church and state argument as if our faith is like the good china that we keep at home and only use on Sunday.
Yeah, t’ain't easy, but worth it for the heavenly reward.
Till next time....
Saturday, August 15, 2009
America’s Royal Court
Hollywood aside, the closest that we come to anything resembling royalty in this country is the Supreme Court. Calling it the Supreme court should be the first clue.
It has long fascinated me that, in this democracy, most of the rulings on laws that have directly affected our individual lives have been made by people who were not elected by us. And, once chosen to serve, cannot be removed by us, no matter how much we may dislike them. Talk about to the manor born!
Think about it. Nine people can have more effect on our lives than the elected President and 100 members of the Senate. Or, for that matter, 435 elected members of the House. Nine. And, the one justice who causes the majority is the one holding ‘ the balance of power’. One. What a country. “We the people. .” Yeah, right.
With Judge Sonia Sotomayor now confirmed by Congress to fill the Court vacancy, I thought it would be interesting to examine how this extraordinary body of barristers came to be.
As you will see, we made this court a royal one, not the Founders. In fact, we call it the High Court, which the Founders never did.
Other than establishing it, the Constitution spells out neither the specific duties, number of justices, powers nor organization of the Supreme Court. “ The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court ...” (Article III, Section I ) Instead, the Constitution left it to Congress and to the Justices of the Court itself to develop the authorities and operations of the entire Judicial Branch of government.
(www.usgovinfo.about.com/blcthistory.htm )
That special power to choose justices was, in fact, given to the President :" nominate, by and with the advise and consent of the Senate" and curiously was buried in Article II, Section II of the Constitution. It was stated after " appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.." and followed by " all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments....",and on and on. Originally there were only six Justices, later 7 (1807), then 9 (1837), a failed attempt at 10 with nine finally settled on (1869).
You have to wonder why we make such a big deal of these appointments since the Founding Fathers apparently didn’t. Of course, they didn’t have TV, the Internet or cell phones with cameras, texting, tweeting and whatever. It’s my guess, then, that they probably never imagined that the ‘power’ to select would someday result in a court of nine people who would resolve life-altering issues. “Roe v. Wade” comes to mind.
But, here’s the unbelievable part. When chosen and consented to, these judges remain on the bench for life. For life. Ye gads. Why? Because the authors of the Constitution wrote, “ The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior.” (Article III/Section I ) Good behavior ? Boy those guys lived a simple life! Well, since the average lifespan at the time was in the mid-40’s, how long they served was probably of no real consequence to them.
In my view and, in due respect, the Founders really blew this one. But, the Constitution is, as they say, a “living document ”, so, we can and should perform minor surgery and amend the constitution to create term limits.
Should we do that, the regal aura surrounding these reclusive, virtually cloistered lawyers might then dissipate and even better, the Congressional hearings with televised posturing that gives birth to sound-bites might mercifully disappear.
Too bad, by the way, the Founders didn’t include “during good behavior” when establishing the rest of our government.
Till next time.....
It has long fascinated me that, in this democracy, most of the rulings on laws that have directly affected our individual lives have been made by people who were not elected by us. And, once chosen to serve, cannot be removed by us, no matter how much we may dislike them. Talk about to the manor born!
Think about it. Nine people can have more effect on our lives than the elected President and 100 members of the Senate. Or, for that matter, 435 elected members of the House. Nine. And, the one justice who causes the majority is the one holding ‘ the balance of power’. One. What a country. “We the people. .” Yeah, right.
With Judge Sonia Sotomayor now confirmed by Congress to fill the Court vacancy, I thought it would be interesting to examine how this extraordinary body of barristers came to be.
As you will see, we made this court a royal one, not the Founders. In fact, we call it the High Court, which the Founders never did.
Other than establishing it, the Constitution spells out neither the specific duties, number of justices, powers nor organization of the Supreme Court. “ The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court ...” (Article III, Section I ) Instead, the Constitution left it to Congress and to the Justices of the Court itself to develop the authorities and operations of the entire Judicial Branch of government.
(www.usgovinfo.about.com/blcthistory.htm )
That special power to choose justices was, in fact, given to the President :" nominate, by and with the advise and consent of the Senate" and curiously was buried in Article II, Section II of the Constitution. It was stated after " appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.." and followed by " all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments....",and on and on. Originally there were only six Justices, later 7 (1807), then 9 (1837), a failed attempt at 10 with nine finally settled on (1869).
You have to wonder why we make such a big deal of these appointments since the Founding Fathers apparently didn’t. Of course, they didn’t have TV, the Internet or cell phones with cameras, texting, tweeting and whatever. It’s my guess, then, that they probably never imagined that the ‘power’ to select would someday result in a court of nine people who would resolve life-altering issues. “Roe v. Wade” comes to mind.
But, here’s the unbelievable part. When chosen and consented to, these judges remain on the bench for life. For life. Ye gads. Why? Because the authors of the Constitution wrote, “ The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior.” (Article III/Section I ) Good behavior ? Boy those guys lived a simple life! Well, since the average lifespan at the time was in the mid-40’s, how long they served was probably of no real consequence to them.
In my view and, in due respect, the Founders really blew this one. But, the Constitution is, as they say, a “living document ”, so, we can and should perform minor surgery and amend the constitution to create term limits.
Should we do that, the regal aura surrounding these reclusive, virtually cloistered lawyers might then dissipate and even better, the Congressional hearings with televised posturing that gives birth to sound-bites might mercifully disappear.
Too bad, by the way, the Founders didn’t include “during good behavior” when establishing the rest of our government.
Till next time.....
Friday, August 7, 2009
Fantastic Voyage
When does life begin?
Good question. Is it when the child is still a fetus inside the womb? Or is it when the fetus becomes a baby and takes it’s first breath outside the womb?
As a Christian, I believe that life begins at the magical, mysterious moment of conception. To understand why I believe that, come with me on a fantastic voyage.
Imagine we’re miniaturized like those actors were in that old classic science fiction movie,“ Fantastic Voyage ”.
Please don’t be squeamish, but imagine we’re floating in a tiny vessel that is taking us through the bloodstream in a woman’s body. Since women have been chosen and blessed by God to be the receptacles-almost the tabernacles, if you will-of life, then, maybe, if we’re lucky, we’ll see how life begins.
Imagine we are watching an egg (ovum) traveling down the hollow organ
(fallopian tube) that connects the ovaries( female egg hatchery) with the
uterus (the nursery, so to speak). The egg seems to be looking for that
certain ‘someone’ among the countless sperm swimming by.
Look! Oh my, it appears to have found ‘ the one’ among millions swimming in the womb and doesn’t it look like they’ve ‘ kissed and made love’? (Scientists call it “ fusion”) Oh boy, a single cell has now emerged and it’s dividing, again and again Wow. It’s getting bigger.( known as a blastocyst)
Here we are, a few short days later and what began as a microscopic cell
has become what is called an embryo. Ah, an embryo. Isn’t that what’s being slaughtered on the altar of research? Look at that. Just like a baby, it has found the most comfortable and secure spot on the uterus wall and attaches itself as if to nestle in a crib. Isn’t that wonderful.
Listen. Hear that? We’ve only been here about a month and already we can hear the tiny heart beat. In a few more weeks, I understand we’ll see the eyes, legs and hands begin to develop. If we stay for eight weeks, we’ll see facial features, muscles, nervous system and sex organs-sex organs! Imagine that! Of course, if we stayed even longer, we could see this baby-in-the making grow from 1/5 of an inch to about 10 inches, from an ounce to many pounds. What a show that would be.
Absolutely amazing. That almost invisible single cell, the “offspring” you
might say, of “mother ovum” and “father sperm”, will grow and in only
nine months or so, it will be their newborn child.
We really didn’t need to imagine all of that, since it’s all been recorded.
But, it was fun to imagine that we were there.
So, when did life begin? Was it when an arm, a leg or a face was formed
during its growth? That makes no sense. Life doesn’t begin in the middle of growth and development. Or was it later, when the doctor slapped the bare bottom of the baby as it came into the world? Please. Despite what you may have heard, the doctor is not God. He only gave it breath, not life.
No. Remember the sperm meeting and mating the ovum? That’s when life begins. That’s not religious dogma that we have to believe in blind faith. It is scientific fact. Fertilization of the female egg. Biology 101.
Each and everyone of us began life as that single cell that emerged when our father’s sperm met our mother’s egg. We grew from a single cell to a full grown, crying baby.,
So that single, first cell must have been alive, since dead things don’t grow.
That’s when life begins.
Good question. Is it when the child is still a fetus inside the womb? Or is it when the fetus becomes a baby and takes it’s first breath outside the womb?
As a Christian, I believe that life begins at the magical, mysterious moment of conception. To understand why I believe that, come with me on a fantastic voyage.
Imagine we’re miniaturized like those actors were in that old classic science fiction movie,“ Fantastic Voyage ”.
Please don’t be squeamish, but imagine we’re floating in a tiny vessel that is taking us through the bloodstream in a woman’s body. Since women have been chosen and blessed by God to be the receptacles-almost the tabernacles, if you will-of life, then, maybe, if we’re lucky, we’ll see how life begins.
Imagine we are watching an egg (ovum) traveling down the hollow organ
(fallopian tube) that connects the ovaries( female egg hatchery) with the
uterus (the nursery, so to speak). The egg seems to be looking for that
certain ‘someone’ among the countless sperm swimming by.
Look! Oh my, it appears to have found ‘ the one’ among millions swimming in the womb and doesn’t it look like they’ve ‘ kissed and made love’? (Scientists call it “ fusion”) Oh boy, a single cell has now emerged and it’s dividing, again and again Wow. It’s getting bigger.( known as a blastocyst)
Here we are, a few short days later and what began as a microscopic cell
has become what is called an embryo. Ah, an embryo. Isn’t that what’s being slaughtered on the altar of research? Look at that. Just like a baby, it has found the most comfortable and secure spot on the uterus wall and attaches itself as if to nestle in a crib. Isn’t that wonderful.
Listen. Hear that? We’ve only been here about a month and already we can hear the tiny heart beat. In a few more weeks, I understand we’ll see the eyes, legs and hands begin to develop. If we stay for eight weeks, we’ll see facial features, muscles, nervous system and sex organs-sex organs! Imagine that! Of course, if we stayed even longer, we could see this baby-in-the making grow from 1/5 of an inch to about 10 inches, from an ounce to many pounds. What a show that would be.
Absolutely amazing. That almost invisible single cell, the “offspring” you
might say, of “mother ovum” and “father sperm”, will grow and in only
nine months or so, it will be their newborn child.
We really didn’t need to imagine all of that, since it’s all been recorded.
But, it was fun to imagine that we were there.
So, when did life begin? Was it when an arm, a leg or a face was formed
during its growth? That makes no sense. Life doesn’t begin in the middle of growth and development. Or was it later, when the doctor slapped the bare bottom of the baby as it came into the world? Please. Despite what you may have heard, the doctor is not God. He only gave it breath, not life.
No. Remember the sperm meeting and mating the ovum? That’s when life begins. That’s not religious dogma that we have to believe in blind faith. It is scientific fact. Fertilization of the female egg. Biology 101.
Each and everyone of us began life as that single cell that emerged when our father’s sperm met our mother’s egg. We grew from a single cell to a full grown, crying baby.,
So that single, first cell must have been alive, since dead things don’t grow.
That’s when life begins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
