Because They Say So
By Mitch Berg
I’ve always admired brain surgeons and constitutional lawyers.
So over the weekend, at a ceremony attended by friends and loved ones, I had both the Medical Doctor and Doctor of Laws degrees bestowed on me.
My parents were so proud; at last, I can start making something of myself.
But the celebration was short-lived. There is so much work to do; cranial aneurisms to heal; rights to defend.
As if that weren’t enough, I grabbed a Ph. D in psychology – because I figure I can help people solve their lifes’ issues much more effectively if I’m properly credentialed. And my certification as a Mechanical Engineer also came through; what with all the bridges and stuff to rebuild, I figure I got some more time to set aside on my calendar.
Whew!
———-
Oh, you’re probably wondering about all those fuddy-duddy “licensing bodies”, and whether or not they’d actually grant (or allow the granting of) the degrees to someone who took one semester of college biology, has never taken a law class, whose entire background in psychology is watching two episodes of “Doctor Phil”, and who hated math class with a purple passion?
Licensing, scheissensing. I am a brain surgeon/lawyer/psychologist/mechanical engineer.
I have willed it to be so.
———-
While I am all of those things, one thing I’m not is Catholic. Nothing against Catholicism, of course; I believe Pope John Paul II agreed with the German Lutherans, finally, that the road to salvation as a Christian can be made clear to people through Catholic, Protestant, or heck, even Orthodox teachings. I mean, for crying out loud, we’re all on the same team – right?
I’m a Presbyterian. I don’t always agree with the Presbyterian Church in the USA’s governing General Assembly’s decisions, but the General Assembly doesn’t claim (in Presbyterian governance, indeed, can’t claim) to have authority over what the Bible – the revealed word of God – really means, either, so I can ignore them at my eternal leisure. Nothing the GA decides or believes has anything to do with my eternal life; they move the money around, install or remove people, and set larger, temporal goals for the church – as an administrative and governing, rather than theological body.
And as I’ve noted in this space in the past, a number of Presbyterian ministers have been very important figures in my life; Revs. Bill King, Mick Burns and Jim Jacobson stand out, of course, as people who had an immense, permanent affect on how I lived my life, but there have been many others. All of them married, some of them women. Which is, of course, no-go among Catholics.
Ordaining women – or gays, or gay women for that matter – is neither a positive nor a negative, in my book. I do understand Catholics’ theological injunction against it (as well as the history of exceptions to that injunction). But – and here’s a rather important caveat – it’s their church! The Vatican sets the rules, whether they’re right or wrong. Just like those paternalistic blowhards at the State Medical and psychological licensing authorities, or at the Bar Association, or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, they decide what the standards are for inclusion.
And, rightly or wrongly (in that great sense that none of us will really discover the answers for until we’ve finally gotten into the afterlife), the Vatican says “nyet” to women behind the altar.
I might disagree. I might even make a case for why women should be ordained.
But while I might declare myself, or some woman, to be a Roman Catholic Priest, the people who actually get to decide who is or is not a Roman Catholic Priest might take umbrage – as, in theory, the Minnesota Bar, Medical and Psych Licensing boards and the ASME might do as well.
“So what?”
———-
Well, the Minnesota Monitor’s coverage of the recent “ordination” of a couple of female “priests” approaches the issue with about the same gravity as I do being a Doctor, Lawyer, Psychogist or Engineer.
And there are really two ways to approach this story – via the “Mitch Is An Engineer”-like triteness that’d allow people to make such a unilateral declaration, and via the “coverage” it’s gotten from the local Sorosphere.
Let’s look at Andy Birkey’s story in the MinMon:
Two women were ordained to the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church at an event in Minneapolis last weekend. The ordination of Judith McKloskey and Alice Marie Iaquinta marked their addition to the approximately 60 other women who have been ordained nationwide. The Vatican, the Catholic Church’s highest authority, does not recognize the ordination of women into the priesthood, and in Iaquinta’s case, the ordination could result in excommunication.
The West Bend, Wis., woman’s ordination has raised the ire of the Catholic Church in that region. Archdiocese of Milwaukee Communications Director Kathleen Hohl told WTMJ, an NBC affiliate in Milwaukee that they will turn Iaquinta’s information over to the Vatican.
“It is our duty and obligation to forward this information to the Vatican for consideration,” said Hohl.
First with the trite. While I’m not unsympathetic with the notion of female clergy, I’m also not a Catholic, much less one of the Bishops, Cardinals or Popes that makes these sorts of decisions for the Catholic Church. They make the rules (in the Catholic Church, at any rate). So – if the church’s rules say “guys only”, and your drive to see women (or gays, or married people or whatever) ordained is more important than your membership in that church, why be a Catholic at all? There are many Protestant denominations that will welcome one. Or why not be intellectually honest and cast your lot with a secessionist American Catholic movement, and show the Vatican who’s really boss?
And saying “women used to be priests” is hardly a convincing argument. Appealing to what is, after all, ancient history (and disputed history at that) is a dumb justification; things change. “It used to be legal” could be used to justify polygamy, slavery, burning at the stake, infanticide, suttee, honor killing…and while ordaining women is nothing like any of those horrors, it’s also – ahem – not the way the body that governs that church does things anymore.
Now let’s turn to Birkey’s article. I obviously disagree with him on most every political issue, but he’s not a bad writer.
But this article? The women weren’t “ordained to the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church”, as Birkey claimed in his lede. They may have consecrated themselves to serve God in the way they felt called upon to do so. They may have even been ordained into some ideo-theological construct that may eventually morph into the long-promised American Catholic Church (“All of the contraception, none of the guilt! Now with female priests”). They may even legitimately be considered “protesters” against the Catholic injunction against female priests.
But, unless the Vatican rammed through a rule change when I wasn’t looking (which I rarely am, but on the other hand the Vatican rarely “rams” anything through), they are most assurely not “ordained catholic priests”.
Now, as I said, Andy’s not a bad writer. But this piece showcases the perils of viewing “news” and “journalism” through an entirely partisan lens. Birkey’s main issue is gay rights. The Catholic Church is a lightning rod for gay activism, as it is the mainstream church that has moved the least toward accomodation (barring many American evangelical denominations – but gay activists don’t seem to be trying to win over the Southern Baptists all that hard, either). The Catholics draw, as a result, all sorts of protests, both crude (paintings of the Virgin Mary done in dung) and fairly sophisticated (activists like McKloskey and Iaquinta and their attempt to co-opt and/or skirt the church’s rules). And Birkey’s story plays into that, in ways obvious enough to cause one to smack one’s head. Classic example – for Andy Birkey to say they were “ordained to the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church” can be seen as either “wishful thinking” or “serving as the womens’ PR agent”. McKloskey and Iaquinta were no more “ordained into the Roman Catholic Church” than I was “admitted to the bar” for claiming that I was a lawyer.
So Birkey’s story turned, in its lede, served as a vehicle for McKloskey and Iaquinta’s wishes – we could call it “propaganda”, in the strictest and least-prejudicial sense of the term.
Which is his right as a partisan activist writer, to be sure, but it is to “journalism” as I am to brain surgery, engineering, psychology and the law, and as Judith McKloskey and Alice Marie Iaquinta are to the Roman Catholic priesthood.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
And saying “women used to be priests” is hardly a convincing argument. Appealing to what is, after all, ancient history (and disputed history at that) is a dumb justification; things change.
As compelling an argument for the dismissing of ‘constructionist Constitutional Theory’ as there has ever been. Kudos.
Things change, the world becomes more complex, and the view of intent is disputed at best – whether they intended for the words to be guidance or strictly held to, included in that list of disputes.
Birkey’s column definetely fills the bill as propoganda, as does yours. From time to time you admit to it, sometimes you deny it. Which is this today?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
This has been in the works for some time… “Goodbye, good men”.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
From time to time you admit to it, sometimes you deny it. Which is this today?
Whatever you, dear reader, would like to call it.
As always.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I don’t have a problem with female or married priests, but I would rather be in a church that is 500 years behind times, then one that is 5 minutes behind latest trends, and is huffing and puffing trying to keep up.
Perhaps these women would be more suited in a large liberal Protestant church. You know, the ones that pay for the abortions of their employees, are or will soon be blessing same sex unions/marriage. That sort of thing.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Perhaps these women would be more suited in a large liberal Protestant church. You know, the ones that pay for the abortions of their employees, are or will soon be blessing same sex unions/marriage.
Yeah. If I WERE a Catholic, I’d be wondering what other parts of Catholic orthodoxy they’d opted to dispense with, along with the “no chick priests” thing.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I dunno. As to how hierarchical the Catholic church is, and how binding various rulings by the hierarchy are, I know that opinions differ among people who call themselves Catholics (whether they are “really” Catholics or not isn’t something I have an opinion on), I think of that as an issue I don’t get an opinion on, not being a Catholic and all.
Heck, I’m not even sure that this Benedict guy is the Pope. There’s a guy — http://truecatholic.org/ — who claims that he is Pope Pius XIII, and who am I to say otherwise?
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Chuck,
Perhaps you’d like to review the law, and then insurance law besides. Pregnancy is defined as an illness, because without it being so defined, treatment would not be provided.
The Law alllows for abortion as a legal treatment.
Many many employers pay for medical insurance, damned near all of that insurance pays for abortions – it’s the law.
Mitch – you’ve said in the past, when confronted with the fact that you and MINMON are essentially the same in your approach, that “atleast I’m open about it.” Those were your words, at least as well as I can recall – which then means if MINMON is a propoganda tool, which I don’t dispute, you are too. Do you dispute that? Do you consider purposefully ignoring fact, purposefully ignoring subjects that don’t paint you in the best light, as anything other than propoganda? What do you consider propoganda to be?
You complain about MINMON with the same fingers that point back at you. Sometimes you have the honesty to admit it, I guess today isn’t one of those sometimes?
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Over on one Catholic blog I read they keep calling these ‘priestesses’ “little girls who like to play dress up”. If they really, really want to be ordained then they should go join the Episcopal church. Lots of the same rituals and they allow women to be priests, allow abortion, ordain gays, etc.
I’m not sure of the Canon (Church) Law but these ladies, and anyone who ‘ordained’ them, might be automatically excommunicated. Things like heresy, schism, ordination of a bishop without Papal approval, and conspiracy/being an accomplice of the former are grounds.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Mitch – You would probably be a lot better certified to fix bridges with a degree in strctural or civil engineering. Mechanical engineers deal with moving objects.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Pregnancy is defined as an illness, because without it being so defined, treatment would not be provided.
Yeep. If medical claims processors ran the world, life itself would be an illness.
Those were your words, at least as well as I can recall – which then means if MINMON is a propoganda tool, which I don’t dispute, you are too. Do you dispute that?
Yes. Not only do I dispute it, I refute and debunk it with prejudice. Propaganda means “information that is intended to propagate a point of view”. I’m an activist and an evangelist, but the onoy view I’m propagating is my own. To the extent that that coincides with a major party, whooie, and it’s no different than you are.
Do you consider purposefully ignoring fact, purposefully ignoring subjects that don’t paint you in the best light, as anything other than propoganda?
No, I consider those “scabrous fiction from someone who obviously needs something else to occupy his time”, since I do none of those things.
What do you consider propoganda to be?
A misspelling of the word “propaganda”.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Mechanical engineers deal with moving objects.
Yeah, I know, but I figured there’s likely going to be a hinge joint in there somewhere. And I couldn’t remember the the name of the CE certification body 🙂
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“Pregnancy is defined as an illness, because without it being so defined, treatment would not be provided.”
And there are those that say “Liberalism is a mental disorder”. Actually AM1280 The Patriot was selling shirts at last years fair with that on them.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
“Pregnancy is defined as an illness, because without it being so defined, treatment would not be provided.”
You have to love this twisted logic. Abortion is a treatment, and conception is an infection. I have to wonder if Peevish’s mother used to pat his head and call him “Her Little Parasite”.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
i like the way you think, Mitch. Religious arguments are about my favorite things to come from you, (and not just because they are some of the only posts i “get”.) But you make me giggle every time. i agree with you, too, if those women want to be in church leadership, and the Catholic church won’t let them, why be Catholic?
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Mitch says:
“What parts of the Constitution don’t apply?
I mean, other than campus speech codes and the Fairness Doctrine?”
Mitch; You are without doubt a self-declared constitutional lawyer, and a brain surgeon, but you should have done your lawyering before you performed a frontal lobotomy on yourself.
No less a legal mind than Senior Fox Legal Analyst and former NJ State Supreme Court Jutice Andrew Napolitano has stated for the record “The Bush Administration has ignored the Constituion more than any administration in memory” But it will take you a few minutes between Trivia Contests to “shred his arguments”
Oh – specifics- the short list:
Article 1 section 8:The Congress shall have Power to….declare War….and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Article 1 Section 9 The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
the public Safety may require it. and..
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of
all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Article II Section 2 The President shall have Power to fi ll up all Vacancies
that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by
granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of
their next Session.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of
a Grand Jury….nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law;
Amenment VI
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Coldeye, you might want to check on your “facts” before you go on a rant. Napolitano was a Superior Court Judge, not a Supreme Court Justice or Appeals Court Justice. There are many legal analysts who consider him an intellectual lightweight. He is easy to like, but I don’t respect his opinion very much.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 am
Senior Fox Legal Analyst and former NJ State Supreme Court Jutice Andrew Napolitano has stated for the record “The Bush Administration has ignored the Constituion more than any administration in memory” But it will take you a few minutes between Trivia Contests to “shred his arguments”
Wow. Suddenly a Fox News commentator is an expert. “Fox News! Unfair and Unbalanced – Unless We Agree!”
As to the rest of your “argument” – well, forget that. More interesting: who taught you that arrogance was a substitute for an argument?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
Kind of makes me long for the olden days, when religious people who didn’t like the way the church was run didn’t lie and fake it; instead, they nailed their objections on the church door and, if the church kicked them out, started their own church.
The Pillar of Fire Repentence Tabernacle (a Minnesota corporation) is open for business in St. Paul. All you ex-Catholics are welcome. We ordain women priests, allow contraception, embrace abortion, and marry gays, just so long as you tithe 25% of your gross income.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Coldeye, justo one quick rebuttle for now. The constitution does not apply to foreign fighters.
“The Bush Administration has ignored the Constituion more than any administration in memory”
Dude, apparently you’ve never heard of Abraham Lincoln. He ingnored the constitution more then any other President. Of course, if he didn’t, there would be no USA today, but a fractured group of hostile counties in North America.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
Nate, that’s the way I feel. You don’t like a group, then leave it. The liberals instead try to destroy those organizations they oppose. Good example, the Boy Scouts. Instead of starting a homosexual boys scout group, they want to destroy the existing BSA.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 am
“Dude, apparently you’ve never heard of Abraham Lincoln. He ingnored the constitution more then any other President. Of course, if he didn’t, there would be no USA today, but a fractured group of hostile counties in North America.”
Couple differences there Chuckles. First, Lincoln won his war. Second, he was the best president in our history, not the worst. Otherwise totally on point with the parallel.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
First, Lincoln won his war.
As Bush’s will, indeed, be won.
Second, he was the best president in our history, not the worst.
Curse that Martin Van Buren, Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter and/or William Howard Taft!
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 am
Mitch said: “As Bush’s will, indeed, be won.”
Even if you’re right, Bush won’t win it. And there’s no reason to think he’ll take out bin Laden. Eight years in office. Ain’t that a pisser?
By the way, can you name a worse two-term president? Grant’s the only one in the same league and he, by contrast, had one or two accomplishments before he came into office.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
can you name a worse two-term president
Let’s see – lowest unemployment ever, better economy than under Clinton by all rational measures, terrorism being engaged rather than ignored, taxes reduced, no significant terrorist attacks on American soil (or, outside of combat zones, hardly anywhere) in six years, civil liberties for actual law-abiding Americans actually *expanded* (but for McCain-Feingold), immigration at last being *addressed* rather than swept under the rug?
Yes. Bill Clinton.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Hey – could we move this “conversation” over to a more-appropriate thread? We’re talking about female “priests”, here.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
And there’s no reason to think he’ll take out bin Laden.
Bin Laden is not the objective!
It’s not like killing him would (or would ever have) end, or even affect, the war.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Yeah but it’s kind of a bad example, dontcha think Mitch? You know, when a guy kills 3,000 Americans, maybe the U.S. government should do something to punish him. Especially if you’re a law and order type like Shrub. And when you made some really big boasts about smokin’ him out and whatnot, like six years ago.
Angryclown favors setting aside Ground Zero to house the Smithsonian Institution Bin Laden’s Cut-Off Head Museum. You could have a tasteful photo gallery and interactive exhibit showing how bin Laden was captured by U.S. troops and beheaded at half-time of the Superbowl. By Santa Claus. And the climax of the show, when 500 Elvis impersonators line up to urinate on his body. In the center of the museum would be bin Laden’s cut-off head, features frozen at the moment of meeting his 72 virgins or, if he’s wrong and we’re right, realizing he’s to spend eternity being anally raped by the barbed c**k of Satan.
But oh, right, you wingnuts don’t think that’s a big priority. Guess we’ll have to wait for Obama.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
can you name a worse two-term president
Mitch hallucinated: “Let’s see – lowest unemployment ever, better economy than under Clinton by all rational measures, terrorism being engaged rather than ignored, taxes reduced, no significant terrorist attacks on American soil (or, outside of combat zones, hardly anywhere) in six years, civil liberties for actual law-abiding Americans actually *expanded* (but for McCain-Feingold), immigration at last being *addressed* rather than swept under the rug?
Yes. Bill Clinton. ”
Thorazine. Stat!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“The Bush Administration has ignored the Constituion more than any administration in memory”
I’m sure that’s true but only for people whose memories don’t go back further than 2000. Not sure I’d be put much stock in their opinions though.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Pregnancy is defined as an illness, because without it being so defined, treatment would not be provided.
I call B.S. on this.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Thorazine. Stat!
Mmm. Thorazine.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
PB: Pregnancy is defined as an illness, because without it being so defined, treatment would not be provided.
Thorley: I call B.S. on this.
In that curious, neverworld way so common to the healthcare industry, PB might be right AND wrong.
PB was, at one point, a claims processor (and, if memory serves, CP manager) for one or more health insurance companies (used loosely; it’s a funky industry)
As I recall – from designing a Patient Portal, and having to correlate Condition codes with customer-intelligible terminology – I think Pregnancy is a “condition” – a “thing” for which a patient receives treatments, undergoes procedures, gets lab tests and fills presciptions (the major billable things in a healthcare “case”). Leukemia, the common cold, backache, brain cancer and the jitters are also “conditions”.
Healthcare is managed (in every one of the three health insurance-related jobs I had) in terms of “cases”. A “case” has a “condition” – the name for the bucket into which the “illness” (as mere customers call it) fits – as well as treatments, procedures, labs, prescriptions and so on. It’s this “case” that is the nexus of the claims analysis, billing and payment systems (different companies may have different systems, but two or three out of the three I’ve worked with treated it exacly as I’ve written). In terms of managing a “case”, the terms “illness” and “condition” are nearly synonymous (as I recall from my time(s) in the biz), although more like “Illness is a type of Condition, but Condition is not a type of Illness”.
Certainly, as the customer-experience designer, I’d never dream of allowing the customer-viewable version of our communications refer to pregnancy as an “illness”. It’s a condition. (Your mileage – or your health care provider’s, insurance provider’s, claims processors’ or lawyer’s, may vary).
So at the very least it’s a case where industry terminology and regular customer language are somewhat at odds. I suspect.
I’ll await somone-or-other’s inevitable apoplectic jumping-on whatever I’ve written differs from their views or understanding of the industry, and classifying same as “lies”, and answer in advance “I don’t work in the industry anymore, but that’s how we treated that big of linguistic pitfallery, so just have a glass of milk and watch a nice great pasture and don’t have an aneurism, it’s really not that big a deal”.
That is all.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Mitch says
As to the rest of your “argument” – well, forget that. More interesting: who taught you that arrogance was a substitute for an argument?
Coldeye says: Nobody, because it is not. However, the people who taught me you could get away with it in America are the Bush Adminstration and bloggers.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Mefolkes says:
Coldeye, you might want to check on your “facts” before you go on a rant. Napolitano was a Superior Court Judge, not a Supreme Court Justice
Codeye says: You got me on the distinction – I was prejudiced by all the verbal representations of FOX news on his credentials – which I obviously misheard – and I would have assumed he was the best Fox could get – a higher pay grade resume I agree. (what’s up with that, and the fact he is so seldom used by FOX?)
August 24th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Coldeye says: Nobody, because it is not. However, the people who taught me you could get away with it in America are the Bush Adminstration and bloggers.
in other words, you can’t answer the question.
Gotcha.