Rendering Unto Caesar: Class and Life
[Opposition posters within]
The party of Caesar was parading in the streets of San Francisco this past Saturday to voice their opinion in opposition to women's rights. The monthly topic got me ruminating on the issue from a position of class interest. Before the Supreme Court ruling that Caesareans detest, there was a significant discrepancy in the availability of feminine health services depending on financial income. Although the gap has been narrowed somewhat, it still heavily favors women of higher income brackets.
The women served most by community family planning clinics are those with the fewest resources to spend on medical treatment. They are also the women most likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy and the least able to provide for an addition to the household. Attacks on these kinds of health care services constitute attacks on those who need them the most. The march this past Saturday manifested a form of class warfare disguised as support for "life."
You might say that the Romans have always stood up for the poor. They have a tradition of collecting alms for the needy. They live lives of poverty and chastity in order to cultivate compassion for those in need. Why would such generous people act in a way that impacts negatively on women in need? It simply makes no logical sense. This war against the poor must be a figment of the imagination.
One might even point out that the Roman Church is bleeding property as a result of law suits over child molestation. The poor padres are not nearly as affluent as they were back when the Roe v. Wade decision was made. Vatican finances are on the decline. They are a mere shadow of their former opulent glory.
The Roman Church has a long tradition of diverting a hefty fraction of its alms income to administrative overhead. The fact that top members of its organizational hierarchy are housed in palatial splendor testifies to the bogus nature of clerical poverty. Few of the Romans I talk with see anything wrong in paying exorbitant salaries to executives of Catholic Charities. The Church can do no wrong in the eyes of the faithful.
What do you think about the attitude of an opulent Church towards the trials and tribulations of women in need? Is this claim of class attack without merit? (I have linked to an article about a recent investigation into Roman charitable activities.)
Links: Nikki Schwab on Boehner's boost after coming out against women's rights. Kendall Taggart and Kris Hundley report on how the Roman Order of Malta benefits from alms.
The party of Caesar was parading in the streets of San Francisco this past Saturday to voice their opinion in opposition to women's rights. The monthly topic got me ruminating on the issue from a position of class interest. Before the Supreme Court ruling that Caesareans detest, there was a significant discrepancy in the availability of feminine health services depending on financial income. Although the gap has been narrowed somewhat, it still heavily favors women of higher income brackets.
The women served most by community family planning clinics are those with the fewest resources to spend on medical treatment. They are also the women most likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy and the least able to provide for an addition to the household. Attacks on these kinds of health care services constitute attacks on those who need them the most. The march this past Saturday manifested a form of class warfare disguised as support for "life."
You might say that the Romans have always stood up for the poor. They have a tradition of collecting alms for the needy. They live lives of poverty and chastity in order to cultivate compassion for those in need. Why would such generous people act in a way that impacts negatively on women in need? It simply makes no logical sense. This war against the poor must be a figment of the imagination.
One might even point out that the Roman Church is bleeding property as a result of law suits over child molestation. The poor padres are not nearly as affluent as they were back when the Roe v. Wade decision was made. Vatican finances are on the decline. They are a mere shadow of their former opulent glory.
The Roman Church has a long tradition of diverting a hefty fraction of its alms income to administrative overhead. The fact that top members of its organizational hierarchy are housed in palatial splendor testifies to the bogus nature of clerical poverty. Few of the Romans I talk with see anything wrong in paying exorbitant salaries to executives of Catholic Charities. The Church can do no wrong in the eyes of the faithful.
What do you think about the attitude of an opulent Church towards the trials and tribulations of women in need? Is this claim of class attack without merit? (I have linked to an article about a recent investigation into Roman charitable activities.)
Links: Nikki Schwab on Boehner's boost after coming out against women's rights. Kendall Taggart and Kris Hundley report on how the Roman Order of Malta benefits from alms.