Royal Baby

Prince ????

Anglophiles from hither and yon are all a-tither and a-twitter  at the news which said "Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, was delivered of a boy child." The little fella is third in line to become King of all England.  (I'm not sure why they feel the need to say "all" of England, but maybe they want to make certain  the Falkland Islands are included.)

Although many questioned the media coverage of the little guy's birth, the event or non-event depending on your perspective, dominated Twitter. The forty-character wits were, during the birth, tweeting about the infant "crowning." Some pre- and post- partum comments were:

Henry Beams: "Breaking News: Not since Moses parted the sea has broken water attracted so much attention."

Ryan Bellenville: "When Kate's water broke, it was actually champagne..." (I presume the implication is that a royal baby is encased in something other than just plain water.)

David Wild: "I don't care if the #royalbaby is a boy or a girl. I just hope it's healthy. And not a Kardashian."

But now that the birth is behind us, we can turn our attention to the 2013 Man Booker Longlist for Fiction which was announced yesterday in London. Too hasty, my friends. The Royal Family knows how to keep the attention focused on themselves. As long as they haven't named the baby, they can keep media speculating and waiting. And let's be clear; I have nothing against the Royal Family. Their only job is to provide the media with newsprint and photo ops, and they are damn good at it.

Thus, the name game begins. Fortunately, we are just talking about his first and middle names. Royals, like Elvis, need only a first name. If you have occasion to address the little tyke, you will refer to him as "Your Royal Highness Prince ????? of Cambridge." If, when the royal baby is older and is stopped by the bobbies, he can use the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Some "experts" think "James" is a likely choice of a name. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you with some certainty that the royal baby will not be named: Vladimir, Barrack, Mohammed, Hussein, Benjamin, Shawn, LeBron, Trig, Newt, or Mitt. I'm not saying that Kate and William are not capable of thinking outside of the box, but let's face it, they are in a box they cannot escape. Naming the boy "Prince Juice of Cambridge" would put the queen in the royal cemetery.  

Saints, Papal and Otherwise

Papal Saints

Far be it from me to say it, but many a wag I know would suggest that the phrase "papal saints' is an oxymoron. And the fact that Pope Francis has decided to expedite the canonization of two recent pontiffs causes an eyebrow or two to be raised.

For Francis, who appears to be quite media savvy, this may be one of his significant public relations coups. Catholics love their saints, therefore give them some new ones even though they also happen to be former popes -- a process that appears "a little self-congratulatory." (Michael Sean Winters, 7/8/13)  And the fact that he is canonizing two popes (John XXIII and John Paul II) who appeal to different factions of Catholicism is a real coup. Canonizing John XXIII by himself would have irritated the conservative element of the church no end, but throw in John Paul II into the mix and everybody has their ice cream.

Does that sound a bit political? Well, don't forget that the process of having someone canonized is much like a political campaign. It takes organization, contacts in high places,  and money. If you don't have those, forget about having Aunt Rose canonized although we all know she is a saint. The papacy is in a much better position to get one of their own canonized.

And then there is the question of how many canonized saints the church needs.

I have on my bookshelf a German book from the 1880's entitled Leben der Heiligen (Lives of the Saints) that I received from my German grandmother. The book is four and one-half inches thick and requires a weightlifter to remove it from the shelf. I have never had the time to count up the number of saints in this volume, but most of them are unknown. Take for example, "Der Heilige Konrad, Bishof." His bio is marked in our book because "Konrad" was a popular middle name in our family, even though most have never heard of him.

But the question remains, how many saints does a church need?  Other than politics or public relations, what difference does it make?

I did notice that there were far more male saints than female -- a fact which surprised me since I have known more women than men who have lived saintly lives. On the other hand, I have noticed that the presence of testicles is not a great predictor of pious behavior. 

The demographics of sainthood aside, a more important issue is: why do we have saints and what is their purpose? When I was studying the Baltimore Catechism, I was told that Catholics do not worship saints, but pray to them in an attempt to have them intercede with God on our behalf. They are in effect heavenly lobbyists (that too has the ring of an oxymoron).

But that hardly explains the need for the Church to canonize saints. I was also told I could have a personal relationship with God. If that's the case, why would I not pray directly to God? Why take the circuitous route of praying to Saint Konrad? Do I really need a lobbyist?

That raises another question. Do the various saint/lobbyists have different levels of influence? If I pray to Saint Peter, will he have more influence than St. Konrad? Or does St. Mary Magdalene have more influence than St. Peter? And what about my mother or father (I am sure they are saints)? It seems to me, they would be better intercessors than some guy I never knew.

Is there such a process for "decanonization"? If, through research,  we learn that a canonized saint from the 1500's participated in genocide, can the church revoke his/her canonization?

Also, why is it there were so many more saints in the early days of the Roman Church than there are today? Was it easier to hide one's dark side in those days before universal government surveillance?

The best aspect of saintology is "patron saints." They are "heavenly advocates of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, clan, family or person." (Wikipedia). If you are Irish, St. Patrick is part of who you are. If you are a "lost cause," St Jude is your man. If you are a lover, St. Valentine is looking out for you. 

I wonder; does a "patron" saint have special lobbying powers for his/her constituency  If so it is important to know who is the best saint for job at hand. If you are British, St.Patrick may not be your best bet.

And then there are some of the lesser known patron saints. Are you familiar with:

• St. Adrian of Nicomedia -- patron of arms dealers. (Has to be a favorite of the NRA.)
• St. Clare of Assisi -- patron of television
• St. Columbanus -- patron of motorcyclists
• St. Amand of Maastricht -- patron of barkeeps (John Boehner's favorite)
• St. Blaise -- patron of cowboys and John Wayne
• St. Barbara -- patron of saltpeter workers (no comment necessary)
• St. Isodore of Seville -- patron of computers and the internet*

It will be interesting to learn the specialties of John XXIII and John Paul II.

*I have no idea how these holy advocates became patrons of these things. You will have to research that on your own.

Catholic Church's Image Post Francis

Is there a "Francis Effect"?

The image of the Catholic Church appeared to improve after the new pope, Francis, began talking about the poor, rejected some of the regal trappings of the papacy, and even promised to purge the Vatican and the Vatican Bank of criminals; but, unfortunately for the new pope the sins of the past continue to arise.

Recently we learned that, contrary to his denials, Cardinal Timothy F. Dolan, the head of the US Catholic bishops and presumably one who made a run for the papacy, has been lying about illegally transferring funds  ($57 million) to a cemetery fund to protect the money from being used to compensate victims of clergy sexual abuse. A letter he sent to the Vatican explains exactly what he was doing, although he fails to inform the Vatican that such an action is a crime.

And, then, there is Boston where Cardinal O'Malley  prevented the Austrian priest, Father Helmut Schuller, from speaking at a Catholic parish. The reason? Father Schuller advocates ordaining women and making celibacy for priests optional. So much for openness and dialogue. One has to consider the irony here. A priest who suggests non-doctrinal change in the church is not allowed to speak in a Catholic parish while in the not-too-distant past priests who had sexually abused children were delivering homilies and celebrating mass in parishes throughout the diocese.

(For those of you in the Midwest who are interested in hearing Father Schuller, he will be speaking in Cleveland on July 25 and 26, Detroit on July 26, and Cincinnati on July 27.)

 On top of all this, there is the birth control fiasco. The US Bishops, headed by Cardinal Dolan, and some politicians like Rick Santorum, are going out of their way to make a political issue out of an irrational belief that the use of birth control is immoral. Although they are entitled to their beliefs and are presumably following their own consciences, they wish to impose their beliefs on others who happen to work or teach in a Catholic institution. Catholic and non-Catholic employees of these institutions are rational adults, are capable of following their own consciences and are offended by a church trying to tell them how to have sex.

Not only do the bishops want to tell their employees what to believe, they have gone so far as to turn the concept of religious liberty upside down. They argue that because in the United States they cannot impose their beliefs upon their employees, the church's religious liberty is being usurped. Such logic would have St. Thomas Aquinas scratching his tonsured head. Of necessity, freedom of religion implies freedom from religion, as several founding fathers pointed out. 

Using their convoluted logic the US Catholic Bishops are seeking a "Catholic Exception" to the Affordable Health Care Act. Perhaps it's time they stop playing politics and start acting as humble priests ministering to the impoverished, abused, sick, and downtrodden.

It should occur to the US Bishops that a majority of the Catholic faithful hold Catholic nuns in higher regard than the hierarchy because the nuns are out in the trenches carrying out the Church's Christian ministry. The last time I saw a bishop in a soup kitchen was as part of a photo op with a national politician. But, perhaps I am mistaken; the hierarchy may have recognized the religious women are better ministers than they are and they are therefore attacking these women on "dogmatic" grounds in order to take them down a notch. Who knows? Perhaps many of the US bishops are just confused about their role as good shepherds.

Kasich Cabal Put's it to Ohio's Middle Class

"Gang of Seven"

While they are still in office, Ohio governor, John Kasich,  and his Republican cohorts in the Legislature  are making an all-out effort to redistribute wealth by taking from the middle class and giving to the the wealthy and empowering private corporations while emasculating government agencies.

And why are we surprised? John Kasich and many of the Republicans who came to power in 2010  are puppets of the Koch brothers and are proposing and passing legislation written for them by ALEC, a Koch creation which writes corporate-friendly legislation for state Republican politicians to push through their legislatures.

The latest example in Ohio is a last-minute (one of their tactics) tax-cut plan which is part of a new $61.7 billion budget. The Toledo Blade describes the plan as one "that would reward their party's wealthy constituents while imposing new burdens on middle-class, working-class, and poor Ohioans."

The Ohio GOP tax plan is very simple: raise the Ohio sales tax rate in order to slash the income tax. In addition, it would scale back future local property tax rebates to compensate for the money lost as a result of the income tax cut.

This budget, and similar state budgets based on the Koch Brothers' model, is the latest assault on the middle class and working class Americans, and is a continuation of the redistribution of wealth initiated by the Reagan Administration.The graduated income tax is based on the ability to pay; a sales tax is the meat cleaver approach to taxation -- tax everyone the same regardless of their ability to pay. If a working mother wants to purchase a new blanket for her infant daughter, she pays the same rate as Donald Trump does when he purchases a yacht the size of some small countries. It takes no genius to understand that reducing the income tax and raising the sales tax is moving our wealth from the middle class to the wealthy class. But don't the wealthy deserve it? After all, they threw tons of money at Kasich and the other GOP politicians. (Today GOP is not the Grand Old Party, it is the Good Old Pawns, or perhaps, the Good Old Puppets?)

As the Cincinnati Enquirer said of the state budget:

"This new $2.6 billion tax package will increase the sales tax to 5.75 percent [...] This means every time you go to the store and buy necessities for your family, your bill will be higher so that wealthy Ohioans can get out of paying their fair share in taxes. The state of Ohio should not be funding income tax cuts for the rich with tax increases that will disproportionately hurt the middle class."

And, as usual, the GOP  budget socks it to senior citizens. The budget limits homestead property tax exemptions to senior households that earn less than $30,000 a year. God forbid that middle class senior citizens get a break. It's all about moving their money to the wealthy class.

In addition, we now learn that these all-knowing white males slipped in unconstitutional restrictions on abortions at the last minute. (What does that have to do with a state budget, you may ask. Absolutely nothing, but it does reveal the arrogance of the Kasich Cabal: we do it because we can.)

Most recently we learn that they also slipped in a  juicy carrot for their big business contributors. Buried in the state budget somewhere is a provision that "local cities and townships can now meet  secretly behind closed doors to discuss economic development deals with businesses...." (The Toledo Blade, 7/8/13)  So much for openness and transparency! Ohio is now open to back-room deals that the citizens will never be informed of.

Apparently,  the Ohio GOP strategy is quite simple: we are going to to assuage the evangelical Christians zealots by throwing them a carrot or two (the abortion provision) but the main game is to do the bidding of the Koch Brothers and our wealthy contributors.