Bishop Jeff Miller
As a certified Catholic pundit that means I was ordained into the internet bishopric or the e-piscopacy. This means I get to second-guess priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. A flurry of keyboard presses and my anathemas are there for all the world to see. If only bishops would read my blog, take my advice ,and solve all their problems or at least the ones I deign to comment on. Want a comment on Canon 915? I am there for you, after all I read a blog post or two on the subject at one time and I got the Canons on my hard drive – somewhere. Want to know how to deal with wayward Catholic educational institutions? I got opinions galore and they include interdiction. Want to know how to deal with dissident Catholic politicians? Aren’t excommunications pastoral?
Plus I am not alone in my vocation to the e-piscopacy and I am quite annoyed that some other Armchair Bishops don’t always agree with me. Though due to collegiality I don’t always pronounce them as heretics. There seems to be a good amount of vocations to the Armchair Bishophood and in some cases the Armchair Papacy. But I am humble enough to only aspire to the e-piscopacy.
Now what is this blog post about? Well sometimes some people need their egos deflated and unfortunately sometimes that person is me.
I’ve been quite critical about the Archdiocese of Washington in regards to the handling of the Georgetown invitation to Sec. Sebelius. It is quite easy to critique somebody who has the care of souls when you don’t have the same responsibility for those souls. When your only sources of information pass through the media and you don’t know what is going on behind the scenes, it is quite amazing the conclusions you can come to based on such evidence.
I was thinking what really should be done in regards to Georgetown or whatever Catholic-Educational-Institution-Scandal-of-the-Week? Some would just have the Cardinal pull Georgetown’s designation as a Catholic institution. Kind of the nuclear-option in this regard. I can certainly see occasions when this should be done when there is pretty no hope of influencing the school. When they have so departed from Catholic teaching on the whole that they only serve to cause further scandal. I don’t see this as the situation in Georgetown myself and while they are quite maddening as so many schools are, there are still some very Catholic elements and instructors (who haven’t yet packed their bags). Though it kind of reminds me of the conversation between Abraham and God in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah. “Lord what if there is one instructor who still teaches the faith.” Kind of the “Go ahead and Brimstone Boston College, if it wasn’t for Peter Kreeft” argument.
Considering that the President of Georgetown seemed to do this quite deliberately (or at least my Armchair Bishop-senses tell me so), what could the Archdiocese do to get the invite canceled? Is this something that would really rise to the level of excommunication? Excommunication over an invite? Part of me yells “yes, yes, yes.” Of course with an understanding as excommunication used as a medicinal remedy as a call for repentance. In that light possibly. In the Culture of Death we certainly need to pick our fights, not sure if this is the one that should be picked.
Or how about Sec. Sebelius? While her bishop already told her that she should not receive Communion until she repents, isn’t it time to take the next step? I would certainly be inclined to think so since what she has done as in regards to Obamacare and the stripping of the Catholic conscience is quite serious. But on a technical point I do wonder about Catholic Politicians who maintain residence in both D.C. and their home state as to what bishop has jurisdiction? Or do both bishops have jurisdiction in this case. Though it is easier to ponder this than to realize I have jurisdiction in regards to prayer for her.
Maybe I just want the Cardinal to be vocal about this and what an outrage it really is. I don’t think the university is going to change its mind regardless of even such an outcry or the number of people that sign the petition against the invite. Notre Dame’s invite of President Oboma garnered repeated condemnations by their Bishop and a 300,000 plus petition signers. Catholic schools that do such nonsense seem to be immune to outside pressure or at least immune to pressure from faithful Catholics.
Mostly I think it is a case of us having to slowly take back our Catholic institutions and not just write them off. Though often another news story makes me want to type up another flurry of anathemas in frustration. Though like the parable of the barren fig tree, after years of producing no fruit it does come time to cut it down. Being an optimistic-pessimist I hope it is the case that as usual dissenters will die out and be replaced by people who don’t think a Catholic institution is just one that mentions it’s Catholic in its mission statement. That we can see a revival generally as what happened at the Franciscan University of Stuebenville. If note I will simply put my Armchair Bishop mitre back on.
33 comments
Gee this is really a long post Jeff! Ah yes! Sorry I forgot, “IT” is your blog!
Hey! I”m sure you noticed that your Armchair Bishop’s face is starting to change color! Come on Jeff! You can’t fool me cause I’ve been around too long for that, this is just a subliminal message in hope that “The Catholic Church Members” might summon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Hulk_(film). Is in “IT”?
I hear ya! Hey sinner vic, did anyone ever call you a troll?
Not me personally Jeff but they did indirectly call my twin or is that my shadow such names http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/05/16/be-one-traveler/#disqus_thread and then me, myself and i had to start traveling so the scouts couldn’t catch my soul and my spirit at the same place in time, if ya know what I mean? 🙂
Peace
One approach would be for othodox practicing Catholics to seek admission to Georgetown’s many schools. That, in addition to faithful Catholics applying for teaching positions there, would help to change the culture and return it to the faith.
It’s so weird, your One True God makes the One True Religion and no one can agree on the details.
>n regards to Obamacare and the stripping of the Catholic conscience is quite serious.
So. Because insurance companies will pay for medication that people don’t have to take if they don’t want to this affects your conscious how again?
Are you sure this isn’t political? That this is just an attack on an Obama policy? The reason why I’m thinking yes is that insurance companies covered contraception before and certain parties who were always against Obama only recently have started howling about it.
Then again it involves sex and that seems to make certain species of theists quite mad.
If your god didn’t want people to have sex without its permission it probably should have made it less fun.
(((If your god didn’t want people to have sex without its permission it probably should have made it less fun.)))
Gee salvage! If we gods wouldn’t have greated a little fun in “IT” then you humans wouldn’t be around, would ya NOW? If ya don’t believe me just ask “Mother Nature” and besides “IT” only last for a little while then “IT” is gone and then a little while later you humans are still looking for “IT”! Right? 🙂
I hear ya folks! WHAT ARE YA TALKING ABOUT sinner vic, piece? 🙁
Peace be with ya!
Mr/Ms Salvage – the government mandating that religious organizations go against their beliefs is the same if the government mandates that non-believers believe in a supreme being. This whole situation has nothing to do with being against Obama’s policies because they are Obama’s policies, it’s an attack on our Constitutional rights.
>the government mandating that religious organizations go against their beliefs
No they are not, they are mandating that medical insurance companies pay for medicine. If you don’t want to take contraception then don’t. What you are trying to do here is take that away from people who don’t share your superstition about a god getting angry about people having sex without making babies.
> is the same if the government mandates that non-believers believe in a supreme being.
It’s not even close to that. Is these sort of hyperbolic statements that make it quite clear you have given this no thought beyond rhetoric.
>This whole situation has nothing to do with being against Obama’s policies because they are Obama’s policies, it’s an attack on our Constitutional rights.
The constitutional right for religions to tell people what they can do with their bodies? Which constitution did you get that from?
And gosh, why wasn’t this an issue before Obama’s health care reform? You do know that there have been a few Catholic organizations that have suddenly just noticed they covered contraception?
It’s simple, if someone is Catholic and shares your superstition then they’re not going use birth control are they? So what is the problem? Furthermore an employee does not get insurance as a privilege, it’s part of their compensation, what right does the employer have to say what someone can do with their pay? If they were using their literal cash to buy condoms would their boss have the right to stop them?
“It’s so weird, your One True God makes the One True Religion and no one can agree on the details.”
Got it in one, Garibaldi.
@salvage,
There are many institutions that are self-insured. They do not provide for contraception or abortifacients. They have not and will not go against their consciences and be forced to pay for the contraception/abortafacients. They would be forced to pay the insurance companies higher premiums because the ins. companies aren’t going to do this for free.
Whats the big deal about providing a conscience clause for those who will not comply? Is that really that hard? Really?
If people want to spend their money on these carcinogens, then go spend their own money on it and don’t force someone who in good conscience can’t do it, to do it.
Apparently the separation of Church and State argument only goes one way in the minds of some people. The administration is mandating that everyone have health insurance and that health insurance companies pay for contraception and abortafacients. What’s mext mandating that you believe in the mighty “O” ?
There are many institutions that are self-insured. They do not provide for contraception or abortifacients. They have not and will not go against their consciences and be forced to pay for the contraception/abortafacients.
Once again. Health care is part of the compensation for work, it is not your, their boss’s or your god’s business what they spend their money on or what kind of medicine they take.
Once again. If you don’t like contraception/abortafacients (whatever that means) don’t take them.
Why do you think someone else’s conscious matters to anyone who isn’t them?
>They would be forced to pay the insurance companies higher premiums because the ins. companies aren’t going to do this for free.
No they wouldn’t, contraception/abortafacients (really? What is that?) are not that expensive and insurance companies charge what the market dictates, that’s the only factor in setting price. How much more do you think the pill would raise anyone’s premiums anyway? Since this seems to be a big deal to your argument I’m sure you can tell me.
But I do love this pivot, it goes from it’s a matter of conscious and religious freedoms!!! to it’s about money! Christians so much like Jesus, y’know he was all about the bling too.
>Whats the big deal about providing a conscience clause for those who will not comply?
Because once again, they are not doing anything, they are taking something away from someone else who does not share their beliefs. If you think your god cares about that stuff then great, don’t take the pill but don’t think that gives you the right to take away from other people.
Once again, if a boss tells their staff that they can’t use their pay to buy contraception/abortafacients (is the pill one?) would that be okay?
Please answer these points if you respond, I’ve noticed posters here that disagree with me tend not to address what I actually say but just repeat their points as if I hadn’t addressed them.
>If people want to spend their money on these carcinogens,
They are not carcinogens please go to the Cancer Society web page and educate yourself on this subject. The pill and abortions do not cause breast or any kind of cancer, if you keep saying that you are now a liar because you have been told.
>who in good conscience can’t do it, to do it.
Really? Someone takes the pill who works for you and it’s paid via the employee insurance program and that’s going to keep you up at night? You’re going to feel responsible for what? That person having sex without making babies? How is that any of your business much less your conscience?
>The administration is mandating that everyone have health insurance and that health insurance companies pay for contraception and abortafacients.
Health insurance companies are religions? I did not know that.
@salvage
Mayo Clinic article about the Breast Cancer-Birth control pill link.
http://www.polycarp.org/
Not a liar. Pheww.
This issue is first and foremost a personal liberties issue. Its not at first a religious issue.
I don’t want the government telling me I need to buy something.
“There are many institutions that are self-insured”. Really, how many? And how many do and how many do not?
” Health care is part of the compensation for work,” Nope, in most cases health insurance is a benefit offered to employees. The employer decides the coverages, etc. that are offered.
“If you don’t like contraception/abortafacients (whatever that means) don’t take them”. You don’t get it do you, i do not want to pay for your to have contraceptives, go buy your own. My tax dollars should not go to pay for someone elses insurance that will give them contraceptives.
“are not that expensive and insurance companies charge what the market dictates, that’s the only factor in setting price”. Duh, Mr. O wants insurance to give contraceptives to evrybody “free” of charge. Nothing in life is free, it costs somebody something. And the market does not dictate insurance compensation rates, read about it and get your facts straight. your argument I’m sure you can tell me.
“If you think your god cares about that stuff then great, don’t take the pill but don’t think that gives you the right to take away from other people”. It’s not a right it’s a choice. Why are you pro choice people only for choice when it involves killing babies in the womb? Choice should be all encompassing. I choose not to pay for your rubbers and morning after pills.
“if a boss tells their staff that they can’t use their pay to buy contraception/abortafacients (is the pill one?) would that be okay”? Ridiculous assertion, come back to reality.
“Please answer these points if you respond, I’ve noticed posters here that disagree with me tend not to address what I actually say but just repeat their points as if I hadn’t addressed them” As you try to deflect and produce smoke screens?
A point of information
Abortafacients, in most simple terms are : Substances which induce abortions.
Mayo Clinic article about the Breast Cancer-Birth control pill link.
And the link doesn’t got to the Mayo Clinic so why do I suspect it worthless? What site is this..
What is TPRI’s mission?
To promote and perform research that seeks to improve the physical, psychological and spiritual condition of mankind.
Ah, worthless, let’s see what science has to say:
• A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women. However, the risk level goes back to normal 10 years or more after discontinuing oral contraceptive use.
• Women who use oral contraceptives have reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time oral contraceptives are used.
• Oral contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer; however, this increased risk may be because sexually active women have a higher risk of becoming infected with human papillomavirus, which causes virtually all cervical cancers.
• Women who take oral contraceptives have an increased risk of benign liver tumors, but the relationship between oral contraceptive use and malignant liver tumors is less clear.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
And before you going jumping up and down “appear to slightly increase” can also be said about sleeping pills, red meat and preservatives used in microwavable food.
If you keep saying that oral contraception causes cancer you are a liar.
>This issue is first and foremost a personal liberties issue.
Agreed! And the government isn’t telling you have to buy contraception, they’re saying that insurance companies have to treat them like any other medication and that an employer cannot deny someone’s right to them.
> Its not at first a religious issue.
Yes and the pill causes cancer.
>I don’t want the government telling me I need to buy something.
Really? So when the government “makes” you buy their services through taxes you refuse?
> Nope, in most cases health insurance is a benefit offered to employees. The employer decides the coverages, etc. that are offered.
No, it’s part of your compensation, do you not know how capitalism works? See if I have a business I want the best talent I can get to work it so I offer competitive wages and benefits so I can attract them and so a health plan is part of that scheme.
Employers aren’t charities, they only give their employees what they need to keep them with the company. If company A offers the same money but better health benefits than company B which are you going to go with?
See? It’s just like money but to the employer it’s a bit cheaper than cash especially if they have a large amount of workers. In fact they can pay a bit less if they have a great health plan.
>“If you don’t like contraception/abortafacients (whatever that means) don’t take them”. You don’t get it do you, i do not want to pay for your to have contraceptives, go buy your own. My tax dollars should
Your tax dollars go to an medical insurance company? Are you sure you understand what you are talking about?
And does everything the government do with your tax dollars meet with your approval? What if someone doesn’t like war or the death penalty should they be able to hold back their taxes that pay for it?
>“are not that expensive and insurance companies charge what the market dictates, that’s the only factor in setting price”. Duh, Mr. O wants insurance to give contraceptives to evrybody “free” of charge.
Ha! Ha! Yes! That’s exactly what the whole HCR is all about! Free pills for all! You clearly have researched the topic.
> And the market does not dictate insurance compensation rates, read about it and get your facts straight. your argument I’m sure you can tell me.
Ha! Ha! Yes! The laws of supply and demand and market forces do not affect insurance! They are magic! The only things keeping the prices where they are is insurance companies don’t pay for contraception, if that’s included the price will triple!
Then how will the churches afford to pay their abuse settlements?!!?
>It’s not a right it’s a choice. Why are you pro choice people only for choice when it involves killing babies in the womb? Choice should be all encompassing. I choose not to pay for your rubbers and morning after pills.
What an amazingly confused mind you have, let’s see if we can break it down.
>”. It’s not a right it’s a choice.
A choice that you don’t think people should have, right?
> Why are you pro choice people only for choice when it involves killing babies in the womb?
What choice are we against? People who don’t want to take contraception choosing to stop other people from doing so? And the pill kills babies in the womb? Wow, do you not even understand how that works?
> Choice should be all encompassing.
Except when it comes to a woman’s own body and what pills she wants to take, then you want that choice taken away.
>I choose not to pay for your rubbers and morning after pills.
I don’t think anyone is asking you to, insurance companies and employers on the other hand cannot pick and choose what medication they cover, that is up to the employee as it is their body and their compensation so it’s their choice.
Which you seem to think is a good thing unless people choose things you don’t like then it’s bad. I think there is a word for that sort of thing.
>“if a boss tells their staff that they can’t use their pay to buy ontraception/abortafacients (is the pill one?) would that be okay”? Ridiculous assertion, come back to reality.
So you say no, a boss cannot tell the employee what they can spend their compensation on? I agree it’s’ absurd yet you think it’s perfectly sensible if that money is in the form of insurance. What’s the difference?
>As you try to deflect and produce smoke screens?
Ha! Ha! Yes! My insistence that you address my points is a deflection and smoke screen! You are very clever for seeing through my sneaky plan!
>Abortafacients, in most simple terms are : Substances which induce abortions.
Is the pill one?
RU 486 has been shown that if it is used after conception, it will cause an abortion, by rendering the uterine wall incapable of supporting the new pregnancy. RU 486 is given within 72 hours, so conception could occur before the drug is administered, and thereby cause an abortion.
For established pregnancies, I don’t know. The research is conflicting. So is the research about use of the pill effect on future pregnancies (as in if and when the woman wants to get pregnant but having used the pill in the past she keeps miscarrying, or just can’t get pregnant.)
>t will cause an abortion, by rendering the uterine wall incapable of supporting the new pregnancy.
That’s how the pill works, it prevents the egg from being in place for fertilization, is that an abortion?
If conception has occurred, then yes it is an abortion. Even medical science admits that much.
Now you are confusing ABC with abortion, though related they are not the same thing. Catholics do use Natural Forms of Birth Control as permitted ( NO NOT RYTHM, that does NOT work) but there are perfectly acceptable forms of naturally planning your family that are just as effective as the pill or the condom, both of which run about 90% and they cost nothing.
>Now you are confusing ABC with abortion, though related they are not the same thing.
Agreed, which one is worse?
I know you think they’re both awful but if you had to choose which is worse?
> are just as effective as the pill or the condom, both of which run about 90% and they cost nothing.
Sure, and if that’s the way you want to go, great! Why do you get to decide or even have an opinion in the slightest way as to what other people can do with their family planning?
It is a very poor argument to say that bad is not bad because worse is worse.
@salvage: Any medical studies that you don’t agree with = stupid/wrong/ bad science.
Thanks for the Saturday night LOL.
Bottom line, again, don’t make ANYONE pay for contraception if they don’t want. Do you pretend to not understand how insurance works?
Follow this kindergarten logic:
Gov’t demands free contraception for all.
Insurance companies pick up the tab.
Employers pay a higher premium as a result.
Ergo, SOMEONE, who didn’t want to pay for something the gov’t is forcing them to pay for, is now paying for it.
Somehow I can predict your response. You are not listening to what people are saying. Its not really that enjoyable to me to talk back and forth and not concede basic logical points.
Peace man.
The beautiful thing about all of these details and issues that we may never agree on is that one day in less than 100 years, neither of us will care either way. Ha! Hope fully we will all be basking in eternal glory. Anyway that’s my goal. Word.
>It is a very poor argument to say that bad is not bad because worse is worse.
I’m not making an argument, I’m asking you a question, you said they were different, are they not?
And what is bad about preventing the egg from being in a position not be be fertilized? I see nothing wrong with it.
>@salvage: Any medical studies that you don’t agree with = stupid/wrong/ bad science.
No, any medical studies that are presented by an organization with an obvious agenda = stupid/wrong/ bad science or are you saying that the Cancer Society and the links I provided are wrong?
>Gov’t demands free contraception for all.
This isn’t happening, where do you get this from?
>Insurance companies pick up the tab.
Which is what insurance companies do so I’m not sure why that is bad.
>Employers pay a higher premium as a result.
Yeah, people like you keep saying that but fall silent when asked for specifics, how much more are there premiums going to be? A $1? $2? ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!!! furthermore as has been pointed out, insurance companies already cover contraception. It’s a medical thing, you understand that right? Medical insurance covers medical stuff.
You know that sex is natural biology right? I know your god thinks it’s evil unless you do it with its permission but in reality, where we live, it’s just a natural function of no more source of wonder than bowel movements, burping or sleeping just a lot more fun.
It’s weird how terrified of sex you people are.
Dearest Salvage, are you a paid spammer? Do you patrol Christian and Catholic sites to spread your propaganda? You are an atheist who does not want anyone to have any beliefs other than your beliefs or the governments? Collect you paycheck and go back to your Mothers basement. God loves you.
>Dearest Salvage, are you a paid spammer?
I wish! But then again I do post often while working so in a way, yes!
> Do you patrol Christian and Catholic sites to spread your propaganda?
No, I usually find them via a link or random bit of surfing.
You are an atheist who does not want anyone to have any beliefs other than your beliefs or the governments?
No, I are an atheist who likes to talk about religion with theists and ask them questions about the stuff they believe that doesn’t make any sense to me.
And what’s wrong with government? You don’t believe in it? Um. It does exist you know?
>Collect you paycheck and go back to your Mothers basement.
This is a really typical theist / wingnut burn, the mother’s basement thing. It’s weird for a couple of reasons, one that somehow living with your family is a bad thing, aren’t you pro-family? Two it doesn’t address anything I’ve actually said, it’s just a lame ad hominem attack.
>God loves you.
Yet because I don’t return that love (because loving things that aren’t real is stupid) your god is going to throw me into Hell along with everyone else who doesn’t think as you do.
Are you sure that’s love? Sounds pretty sick to me.
I love my wife and the marital embrace. And I have 7 beautiful children and three in heaven to prove it. Do yourself a favor and read Pope John Paul 2’s Theology of the Body and see how much “you people” know about sex and sexuality.
“you people”? What people is that?
And that’s nice that you love your wife and having children with her but that doesn’t change the fact that:
a) birth control does not cause cancer
b) birth control is a medical issue and that health plans must cover it
c) your opposition to birth control only gives YOU the right to refuse it for YOURSELF not anyone else.
And no, I’m not going to read some Pope tract about how sex is filthy and evil unless you do it with the blessing of an insane god and its mortal representatives. I am familiar with the Vatican teaching on the subject so nothing new there. What is ironic is that’s the same Pope that condemned consensual sex between unmarried adults but did his best to ensure that non-consensual sex between adults and children continued. So I think on the subject of sex morality him and the current Pope who most certainly embraced that policy (despite the current white wash of the past) should shut the flip up and sell everything the Vatican owns to settle with the victims.
Yes, if you bring up sex and the Pope I will bring that up.
Dear Child of God Salvage – Birth control is a medical issue because?? Is it because some people cannot control their behavior and therefore it is a medical issue that must be covered? Abstinence is a form of birth control and it does not increase the chance of breast cancer. If you like to check out Christian websites and talk to believers, open your mind and take the first step to enlightenment, read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Or do you wish only to stand on your soap box and pontificate? Which make me believe that you are a paid spammer. God does love you.
> Birth control is a medical issue because??
Because it’s biology? What do you think it is?
>Is it because some people cannot control their behavior and therefore it is a medical issue that must be covered?
No, it’s because having sex is a healthy thing. I know your religion has twisted it all up but really, it’s quite good to have sex for all kinds of reasons, not just the baby bit.
Is there something wrong with consenting adults having sex?
>Abstinence is a form of birth control and it does not increase the chance of breast cancer.
Sure and so are condoms and various forms of hormonal based contraptions, so what? If two people want to have sex but don’t want to have children what is the problem?
> read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
Yeah, I address that suggestion in the above post, Pope are very silly people whose insights are limited to the mythology and superstition on the ancient world making their value imperfect at best.
Are you incapable of forming your own opinions on subjects? Do you need a Pope to tell you what to think?
>Which make me believe that you are a paid spammer.
Yeah, I suspect you have a habit of believing things that are not true based on evidence you don’t have.
>God does love you.
You keep saying that but I think you are confused about what love actually means.
Puff, actually RU486 is the original name for the abortion pill first used in France and effective during the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. I think you are confusing that with the morning after pill, a high dose progestin pill.