Could vouchers and more charter schools be on the way?

The Motley Monk is no fan of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which, for the most part, masquerades as an independent and non-partisan group of foreign policy wonks.  Just survey CFR's reports and the many positions they have advocated over the past decade to get an understanding of how CFR defines "balance."

That said, groups like the CFR sometimes do offer a more fair and balanced, non-faux MSNBC approach to examining critical issues.

The Motley Monk believes the CFR's Independent Task Force (CFR-ITF) report on U.S. Education Reform and National Security provides an example of the latter.

CFR-ITF has found that American students are gradually falling behind their international peers.  Of course, the failure of many of the nation's public schools is nothing newsworthy.  It's all been very well documented.  However, CFR-ITF believes this failure presents a potential security risk for the United States, a long-term trend that could negatively impact the nation's economic growth and competitiveness, physical safety, intellectual property, U.S. global awareness, and U.S. unity and cohesion.

The Motley Monk couldn't agree more!

It's no surprise that the public school system in the United States is failing to educate many of the nation's young people.  As CFR-ITF notes, international achievement tests indicate that U.S. students are 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math.

More compellingly:

• 25%+ of students don't graduate from high school in four years (for Black and Hispanic students, it's nearing 40%);
• 75% of U.S. students don't demonstrate proficiency or better in civics;
• ~20 of Americans don't speak English while the number of foreign language programs in the nation's public schools is decreasing; and,
• only 22% of U.S. high school students meet "college ready" standards in all of their core subjects (and among college-bound seniors, only 43% meet "college-ready standards," requiring more college students needing to take remedial courses).

Again, none of this is newsworthy.

But, The Motley Monk's eyes nearly popped out when he read one of the CFR-ITF's recommendations: To allow greater competition among education providers.

It may be that even analysts on the political left who put the nation's interests ahead of their ideology are beginning to realize that statist solutions to the nation's education woes have failed many of the nation's children miserably.

Could vouchers and more charter schools be on the way?

This news is enough to warrant The Motley Monk to celebrate with an adult beverage!


Let the discussion begin...



To read the CFR-ITC report, click on the following link:
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618

A step forward in the acceptance of a pro-life culture...

There's nothing newsworthy when "pop culture" musters its power to reject traditional values, as happened when Hollywood studios rejected the anti-abortion drama "October Baby."

The "problem" with this movie is that follows the journey of a young woman who learns that she was almost aborted, but at the last minute was instead given up for adoption.

According to FoxNews, the film's director, Jon Erwin, said:

This film couldn’t find a home, no studio wanted to touch it. It was considered too controversial.  There was a real moment of despair at one point, the film wasn't finished and nobody would take a look at it. But every time we screened it, it attracted such intense emotional reactions. So we had to raise the money ourselves, and the release process took much longer than we wanted.

Yet the movie, starring Rachel Hendrix, earned the second-highest-per-screen average when it opened, bringing in almost $2M in ticket sales in only 390 theaters.

Concerning the film's acceptance, Erwin said:

I was shattered when I first learned about the story. I was moved and mesmerized. I wasn't an activist, I was just someone who was shattered by the truth.  Here is our little film, small budget, in the top ten (at the box office). We are thrilled, blown away.

In this round of the so-called "culture wars," The Motley Monk is gratified to see ticket sales verifing what the polling data have indicated all along.  That is, the majority of Americans are anti-abortion, evidencing that the Church's pro-life teaching resonates with Americans.  When that teaching is presented in its authenticity---and in this case, powerfully through cinematic art---people are not only are uplifted in their emotions and thoughts but also touched in their souls.

Hopefully, word of mouth will increase the movie's exposure to viewers so that theaters which would normally not present movies like "October Baby" will have a financial incentive to do so.


Let the discussion begin...


To read the FoxNews article about "October Baby," click on the following link:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/03/27/pro-life-october-baby-rejected-by-major-studios-blitzes-box-office/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qaiuQeYe

To find a theater showing "October Baby," click on the following link:
http://octoberbabymovie.net/theaters

A papal peregrinage worth noting...

The Motley Monk normally doesn't follow papal peregrinages, as the jettings here and there of popes generally don't amount to much.

That said, The Motley Monk's all-time favorite papal pereginage was John Paul II's 1979 trip to Medellin when he described the problems associated with Marxist-inspired social justice programs that had as their aim having the Church demonstrate a "preferential option for the poor."  This message didn't set well with Gustavo Gutierrez, the Dominican priest who is regarded as the founder of "liberation theology."  TIME magazine later dubbed John Paul II's agenda the "taming the liberation theologians."

The Motley Monk was interested in the recent papal peregrinage to Cuba, however.

Don't forget that it was Cardinal Joseph Ratizinger, as the Prefect of the Congregation of the Divine Faith, who argued as early as 1984 that liberation theology is not originally a "grass-roots" movement among the poor.  Instead, Ratzinger called it a creation of Western intellectuals and a form of "cultural imperialism" in reaction to the demise or near-demise of the "Marxist myth" in the West.

If ever there was a Marxist state where the preferential option for the poor should have flourished, it's Cuba.  But for more than 50 years, Cuba has been a failed Utopia.  Yes, much of this may be due to the U.S. embargo, that Pope John Paul II condemned.

"What would Benedict XVI have to say during this papal peregrination?" was a question interesting The Motley Monk.

An article in La Stampa provides the answer.

In contrast to his predecessor, Benedict XVI steered a more moderate path and did not attack the United States.

According to La Stampa:

The U.S. State Department had warned the Vatican that the regime would use Benedict XVI’s visit to protest against the embargo. This immediately materialised upon the Pope’s arrival in Santiago. Raúl Castro welcomed Benedict XVI with 21 gun salutes and went on to attack Washington for "the 53 years of hostility against the Cuban revolution," denouncing the fact that "the U.S.'s political and economic embargo oppresses the island.” Despite this, Castro said, "Cuba is changing; it is broadening its horizons and enjoys good relations with the Church."

Interestingly, Pope Benedict XVI didn't take the bait and said exactly what he had planned to say, describing his visit as a pastoral mission, one of opening Cuba up to the world and the world up to Cuba, on behalf of "the legitimate aspirations and wishes of all Cubans, wherever they may be."

This was precisely the mission that many expatriate Cubans in Florida wanted to hear, thinking the Vatican was weak in its dealing with the Castros.

More importantly, Pope Benedict XVI called for "a real theology of liberation, based on testimony of the faith and the freedom of those who open up to God."  Benedict XVI clarified what this meant when he said:

As Easter draws near, let us decide without fears of complexes to follow Jesus on his path towards the cross.  Let us patiently and faithfully accept any misfortune or affliction.  Let us do so in the conviction that through the resurrection He destroyed the forces of evil which cloud over everything, and created a new world, the world of God, light, truth and joy.

Raul Castro could not misinterpret what this message meant...all human beings and every political regime has a shelf life.  In effect, the Pope was saying, "You can get with the program, Raul, or face the music when Christ rises up to liberate the people of Cuba everywhere."

As Il Stampa interpreted the papal peregrinage to Cuba:

The Caribbean wall is about to collapse and Cuba, the only lasting souvenir of the Cold War look like a repetition of the final days of Eastern Germany: a Caribbean-style “ostpolitik” that changed 20th century history, peacefully pulling down the Berlin Wall....Under the surface, Vatican diplomacy is extremely active in the "technical challenges" of the future Cuba. Hence the Pope can now become a universal interpreter, highlighting "the suffering, joy, concerns and the most noble of yearnings" of a people expecting momentous change. The Pope is offering the Cuban government his collaboration to help bring about change; he is not offering to connive and collateralise for sinister purposes.

This message is definitely not a "theology of liberation" that would provide salsa music to the ears of those whose interpretation of Jesus is that he was a proto-Marxist.  They're worried about all of that "systemic change" of the "structures" that oppress the people.

That may be exactly what Pope Benedict XVI's gospel-based agenda was during this most recent papal peregrinage to Cuba.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the La Stampa article, click on the following link:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/cuba-papa-pope-el-papa-13868/

The income gap: Is making college more accessible and affordable the answer?

The disparity in income---the so-called "income gap"---is said to be related to education and, in particular, to the levels of educational achievement.  Lower incomes correlate with lower levels of educational achievement and vice versa.

Those ivy-covered hallowed halls

This correlation is verified by the 2010 census.

       By income:

• Income for those who earned a high school diploma averaged $50,561.
• Income for those who earned a bachelor's degree averaged of $94,207. That's an 86% income gap.
• Income for those who earned a master's degree averaged $111,149. That's a ~120% income gap.

       By level of educational achievement:

• At the lowest income level, 8% earned a college degree. For those earning $250k+, 78% have earned a college and/or advanced degree.
• At the lowest income level, 69% earned a high school diploma.  For those earning $250k+, 91% have a high school diploma.

With the level of educational achievement appearing to explain much of the growing income gap, it would seem enlightened social policy to make college more accessible and affordable to those in the lowest income levels.  That policy would eliminate this income gap, no?

Perhaps it's a well-intentioned but it's also a misinformed social policy, at least according to a Tax Foundation analysis.

Yes, those with higher levels of educational achievement do correlate with higher levels of income.  But, the fact is that more and more people are enrolling in more and more higher levels of education and attaining more and more degrees.

From the 2010 census:

• In 2010, 30%+ of U.S. adults 25 years of age and older had earned at least a bachelor's degree. That's a record high.  In 1998, <25% of this demographic had earned at least a bachelor's degree.
• In 2010, 5.6M more people earned a bachelor degree than in 1998.  Ditto with a master's degree: nearly 3.5M more people earned a master's degree than in 1998.

All of this increase in the levels of educational achievement is raising earning potential, no doubt about it.  But, it also increases the likelihood that those who attain those higher levels of educational achievement will become wealthier than those who aren't enrolling in more and more higher levels of education.

Thus, the income gap doesn't narrow but grows, according to the Tax Foundation.

As The Motley Monk reflects upon these data, he's wondering whether this well-intentioned social policy may also be misguided, because it rests upon the unproven assumption that every citizen possesses the wherewithal---the ability, the interest, the motivation, the stamina---to achieve at those higher levels of education.  There is, after all, a difference between making college accessible and affordable for those who possess the wherewithal and implementing a social policy that is based upon the belief that a college education is a fundamental human right.

And that's to say nothing about market forces.  For those whose interest is to earn larger incomes and who possess not only the wherewithal but also the financial means, it's likely they'll attain even higher levels of educational achievement to meet their goals.  The impact upon the income gap then would likely be negligible.

But it certainly is music to the ears of the academic administrators of the nation's colleges and universities!  With the supply of seats limited and demand increasing, the law of supply and demand suggests that it's a seller's market.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Tax Foundation's analysis, click on the following link:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/28055.html

"Boy that was deeee-licious...can I have some more?"

With Hollywood setting the trends that sweep the nation, The Motley Monk happened upon a Yahoo.com article detailing one "beneath-the-radar" trend that's now being popularized in Hollywood.

What's the trend?

Eating placenta.

Yes...The Motley Monk is definitely not jesting...or ingesting as the case may be.

An advocate of this trend, "Mad Men's" January Jones, has revealed that she ingests a dehydrated placenta capsule whenever she's feeling tired or blue. "Its not witch-crafty or anything, I suggest it to all moms!" Jones said.

The 34-year-old single mother touts the health benefits.  Jones returned to work 7 weeks following the birth of her son, Xander.

Evidently others agree with Ms. Jones.

The owner of Brooklyn Placenta Services, Jennifer Mayer, called placenta capsules "happy pills."  TIME reporter Joel Stein documented a "placenta encapsulation specialist" who cleaned, cooked, dehydrated, and ground his baby boy's afterbirth to make placenta pills for his wife.  The specialist said:

Its kind of wimpy.  She should be able to eat it like a steak.

And, believe it or not, some mothers do eat placenta in its natural state.  The Internet even offers such exotic recipes such as roast placenta, placenta spaghetti, and placenta pizza.

Click for some surpises!


However, before rushing out to purchase some placenta, beware that there is little scientific evidence demonstrating any benefits to eating placenta. Obstetrician Maggie Blott said:

Animals eat their placenta to get nutrition---but when people are already well-nourished, there is no benefit, there is no reason to do it.

Yet Jones maintains that mammals eat their own placenta after giving birth and more women should try ingesting their offspring's afterbirth as well.

For his part, The Motley Monk has observed other mammals eating other things as well.  But, there's no way he's going to consume those things either.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Yahoo.com article, click on the following link:
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/january-jones-eats-own-placenta-healthy-ick-165800669.html

A new profession: $50k/year to stand in line...

Watching the early morning news on the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court hearings concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare, The Motley Monk listened on as a reporter spoke about how people had been waiting in line since Friday in the hope of getting one of the 50 tickets to observe the potentially historic oral arguments.

When the cameraman panned the line, The Motley Monk was aghast, if only because The Motley Monk is a "true believer" when it comes to decorum.  And not just church decorum---a much overlooked form of etiquette today---but public decorum as well---like how to dress appropriately when visiting public buildings...like the Supreme Court.

For The Motley Monk, the lineup looked like a bunch of homeless people!

"These people are going to be allowed into the U.S. Supreme Court to watch oral arguments?" The Motley Monk asked himself.

It wasn't until reading the newspaper later in the morning The Motley Monk learned that most of those people in line for tickets indeed were "professional line-standers."

According to the Washington Post, these people are paid to wait in line for lawyers, lobbyists, and anyone else who's willing to pay for someone to hold a place for them in line at big events.  When they have to attend to other business, professional line-standers subcontract their spot to other line-standers....paying $15/hour.

One professional line-stander at the Supreme Court reported making $50k standing in line last year.

What a world!


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/professional-line-standers-and-their-subs-hold-spots-outside-supreme-court/2012/03/25/gIQA6VNWbS_blog.html

Health insurance and better health: The conventional wisdom seems to be wrong...

With the opening of the U.S. Supreme Court's oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare, the economist Robert Samuelson published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he discussed a fact that appears to have gotten lost amid all the cackling and crowing on the political left and right concerning Obamacare.

In his op-ed, Samuelson questions whether the conventional wisdom that Obamacare's objective---that every American has affordable healthcare---would significantly improve the health of the nation's citizens.

"How could it not?" most people---including The Motley Monk---would ask.  That seems to be a "no brainer."

According to Samuelson:

"...it's popular wisdom that this would significantly improve people’s health. But it's not true.

Although millions would benefit from health insurance, the overall relationship between people’s insurance status and their self-reported health is underwhelming.

To support his contention, Samuelson offers some research:

• A study of Massachusetts’s universal coverage program by economists Charles J. Courtemanche of the University of Louisville and Daniela Zapata of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, estimated that since Romneycare was enacted in Massachusetts only 1.4% of the state's adult population moved into the "very good" or "excellent" health categories.
• A study by economist Daniel Polsky of the University of Pennsylvania examined what happened to uninsured Americans who went on Medicare at age 65. Polsky found "no significant health effect for the uninsured relative to the insured upon reaching Medicare eligibility."

These studies have their methodological problems, of course, as Samuelson notes.  But the evidence does indicate that there is a rather loose relationship between health and healthcare insurance.

So, Obamacare's expense to the nation won't necessarily improve the overall health of its citizens.  Why, then, has the President been so adamant about this "signature issue"?

Samuelson offers an explanation why that will absolutely infuriate the political left.

The Motley Monk will leave it to those who want to learn about that explanation to read Samuelson's op-ed for themselves.  Needless to say, The Motley Monk thinks it's a winner!


Let the discussion begin...



To read Robert Samuelson's Washington Post op-ed, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-tries-to-seal-his-legacy-with-health-care-reform/2012/03/23/gIQAdgxeaS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

To read the Courtemanche and Zapata study, click on the following link:
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w17893#fromrss

To read the Polsky study, click on the following link:
http://ldi.upenn.edu/uploads/media_items/how-the-newly-insured-use-health-services-a-lesson-for-the-u-s-from-medicare.original.pdf

Academic administrators at the nation's traditional colleges are trolling for dollars...

A report published by the Heritage Foundation raises an important question: "Can online colleges reproduce the full college experience?"

The intuitive answer---and the answer on the part of academic administrators at many traditional colleges---is an emphatic, "No" (with a harrumph added, of course).  Their basic argument is that online colleges can't provide a "comprehensive" college experience.



Those ivy-covered, hallowed halls
of online learning

The factual answer---the answer those academic administrators pretend they don't hear---is that college experience in its academic, social, and extracurricular elements demonstrates that online providers are on par in each area.  According to the Heritage Foundation report:

       Academically:

• A 2010 meta-analysis by the U.S. Department of Education found that students in online conditions performed modestly better, on average, than those learning the same material through traditional face-to-face instruction.
• The 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement found that, compared with their counterparts in traditional classrooms, online students were more likely to"[v]ery often participate in course activities that challenged them intellectually" than were traditional students.

       Socially:

• 67% of college graduates report that it helped them "grow and mature as a person."
• However, some components of traditional college undermine this growth due to increased feelings of social isolation, peer pressure, financial concerns, and difficulty moving away from home.
• But with 58.5% of traditional college students now living at home and commuting, physical independence is no longer the integral component of the traditional college experience.
• Online courses allow for a controlled educational experience whereby students can avoid the unnecessary stressors associated with a traditional on-campus experience.

        Extracurriculars:

• Many activities such as a school newspaper or a chess club are easily reproduced online.
• Online colleges can provide credits for outside-the-classroom experiences.
• Online students have comparable access to study-abroad options.

The Heritage Foundation report notes that with the skyrocketing costs associated with traditional colleges, online providers have a substantial business opportunity.   With lower overhead and a streamlined business model, online colleges can underprice traditional colleges while providing a comparable education.

Are the academic administrators of traditional colleges worried?

The Motley Monk would observe that they've already figured it out.  Talk all they want about the "real college experience," look how many of those colleges have jumped head first into the online business.

They know how to fish in that pond without the stigma of it appearing to be a for-profit business...which it is!


Let the discussion begin...



To read the Heritage Foundation report, click on the following link:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/can-online-learning-reproduce-the-full-college-experience

Another Friday afternoon "document dump": Culpability and the Massey Energy mine disaster...

Remember the Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine disaster on April 5, 2010, that killed 29 workers?

If one was to believe the main stream media reports at the time or the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA) recent internal review, the disaster was entirely Massey Energy's fault.

Recall the sound bites like these?

• "Those big evil coal companies and their CEOs care only about money."
• "Send in the feds and shut the mine down.  It's too dangerous."
• "This call for new regulations."
• "We've gotta put an end to coal mining."

In a Friday afternoon "document dump" reported by the Washington Post, the Labor Department made public a study of the disaster conducted for National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Its finding?

The study states:

The MSHA failed to heed warning signs or implement MSHA regulations, which allowed the conditions that led to the explosion and fire that swept through the mine.

 If MSHA had engaged in timely enforcement of the Mine Act and applicable standards and regulations, it would have lessened the chances of---and possibly could have prevented---the UBB explosion.

In light of the NIOSH report, it is fair to say that Massey Energy is culpable for its role in the disaster.

That said, the MSHA's "characterization of the facts underlying this conclusion understates the role that MSHA's enforcement could have had in preventing the explosion."  For example:

...if MSHA enforcement personnel had taken appropriate actions during the inspections in the months prior to the explosion, either dangerous accumulations of explosive coal dust would have been rendered inert, or the mine would have been idled.

Even when MSHA enforcement inspectors observed excessive accumulations of explosive coal dust, they failed to take appropriate enforcement actions.

And what about the need for new regulations?

The NIOSH report states that new regulations aren't necessary.  All MSHA has to do is to enforce existing regulations.  For example, if MSHA inspectors had followed existing regulations prior to the disaster, they would have made Massey Energy reduce explosive methane and dust levels or shut down the mine.  But, the inspectors didn't.

That's culpability, no?

So why didn't MSHA find fault with itself?

Could it be that MSHA is led by a former mine workers' union leader, Assistant Secretary of Labor Joe Main?

All of this reminded The Motley Monk of something the economist Dr. Thomas Sowell once said:

You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.

Let the discussion begin...




To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/independent-panel-says-federal-regulators-partly-to-blame-for-fatal-massey-mine-blast/2012/03/23/gIQAyr9qWS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

To read the NIOSH study, click on the following link:
http://www.msha.gov/PerformanceCoal/NIOSH/Independent%20Assessment%20Panel%20Report%20w_Errata.pdf

In the old days, it used to be that...

"In the old days, it used to be that...."

Now there's a phrase that certainly dates the individual uttering it, making that person sound like a "ol' coot" or "old fogie" whose lust to return to the halcyon days of yore demonstrate a certain lack of progressiveness in attitude.   There's just no "withitness" in anyone who says "In the old days, it used to be that..."

But, when it comes to cars, it is accurate to say "In the old days, it used to be that just about every guy dreamed about owning a car."  Most dreamed of driving off in a Corvette, Mustang, Camaro or Dodge Charger. The Motley Monk dreamed of driving off in a '67 Chevy Malibu...red with a black top.   However, the realities of cash flow dictated a "jalopy" or, in a worst-case scenario, driving Mom's car.

According to a New York Times article, that's all changed.   Young consumers---meaning under 30 years old---don't dream much if at all about owning a car.  In fact, Government Motors (GM) has teamed with MTV Scratch to figure out how to seduce young consumers into buying a car because "many young consumers today just do not care that much about cars."

Difficult as it is for The Motley Monk to believe, young consumers today "...think of a car as a giant bummer," according to the Executive Vice President of MTV Scratch, Ross Martin.  The cost of gas and the emissions spewed into the environment are "big turnoffs."

It's also difficult for The Motley Monk to believe but "young consumers find riding in a car with a stranger creepy."  In the old days, it used to be that picking up a hitchhiker was a corporal work of mercy.

More importantly, the independence that used to be associated in the old days with driving off in a car with a girl hanging onto one's arm has been replaced by computers. OMG!

Does all of this sound crazy?

Here's the data:

• In 2008, 46.3% of potential drivers 19 years old and younger had drivers’ licenses.   In 1998, there were 64.4%.
• Drivers between the ages of 21 and 30 drove 12% fewer miles in 2009 than they did in 1995.
• 46% percent of drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 said they would choose Internet access over owning a car.
• A survey of 3k consumers born between 1981 and 2000 asked which of 31 brands they preferred. No car brand ranked in the top 10.

Now that's a techtonic paradigm shift, The Motley Monk notes. Nearly 54% of 19 year olds don't have a drivers license?

It seems that GM, in particular, exhibits little "withitness" and Martin has recruited "insurgents"---young employees who are willing to change things from the inside and report to him on skeptical executives---to give young consumers a voice in GM.  It's called GM's "MTV-ification."

So what's the outcome?

Hold onto your hats!

What guy would ever lie on a bed and dream of driving away in a "techno pink," "lemonade," or "denim" painted Sonic, Cruze, Spark, or Volt that's loaded with images of hip products like headphones created by Dr. Dre, a tablet computer, and a chunky watch?

Maybe a metrosexual.  But really?

The Senior Vice President at MTV Scratch, Anne Hubert, says that if GM doesn't adjusts, it risks "becoming the dad at the middle school dance."

Yes, indeed.

In the old days, it used to be that Dad worked hard to pay the bills, financed that first jalopie, and was proud to watch his son drive off with a girl hanging onto his arm.

How the times have changed, according to the New York Times.


Let the discussion begin...



To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/business/media/to-draw-reluctant-young-buyers-gm-turns-to-mtv.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120323&pagewanted=all

Worshipping at the altar of environmentalism: A bait and switch jujitsu...

Considering that 2012 is an election year, an article in Politico reminded The Motley Monk that the main stream media has been pretty quiet when it comes to propaganda concerning environmental issues.  There aren't many reports about the oceans rising, polar bear sightings off the coast of Bermuda, or even the warm winter in 2011 and the even warmer spring in 2012.

Where's Al Gore?

Now that's global warming!

Well, it appears those who worship at the altar of environmentalism learned a valuable lesson when they tackled global warming head-on.  And having lost their much-coveted cap-and-trade plan in Congress, they've decided their best bet to advance their ideology in Congress is to elect global warming ideologues by focusing upon gas prices and pollutants in the 2012 election cycle.

The Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Daniel Weiss, said:

 You don't have to be James Carville to figure out that talking about people's health and the health of their children...is going to make a difference to the average voter.

So, the Politico article notes, political advertisements paid for by those who worship at the altar of environmentalism are now going to feature smog-induced asthma---young children and teenagers choking and hacking---rather than melting icebergs. Fuel-efficiency will also be emphasized---the cost of a gallon of gasoline at the pump---not pollutants.

The Motley Monk is conjuring up those commercials in his mind right now.  They could be pretty effective in scaring the bejeezus out of people.

However, when it comes to elections, The Motley Monk would note that the problem for those who worship at the altar of environmentalism is that they are on the wrong side of the facts:

• Fact #1: Polls indicate that 65% to 70% of adults are very satisfied with air quality.
• Fact #2: Air quality has improved since the smog-choking 1960s.

Maybe this bait-and-switch jujitsu is politically smart.  But, The Motley Monk would humbly submit, those who worship at the altar of environmentalism should save their shekels in this election cycle and build up a bigger war chest and stash of cash for future battles.

Worshipping at the altar of environmentalism

Come to think of it, that'd also save the majority of Americans from having to endure yet another round of environmentalist propaganda.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Politico article, click on the following link:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5885E5C5-6079-4133-8266-848F300DC916

The costs of U.S. higher education: Adult beverages and healthcare insurance premiums...

A new study published in the journal Health Affairs has unearthed yet another high cost associated with college education: The cost of blackouts due to the excessive consumption of adult beverages on the part of the nation's collegians.

Those hallowed ivy-covered hall
of Bacchanalia

The article calls heavy alcohol use among college students "a pervasive public health problem."

The facts?

• 80% of the nation's collegians drink adult beverages and 44% binge drink.
• An estimated 599k college students suffered alcohol-related injuries in 2001.
• Approximately 1,825 college students died from unintentional alcohol-related injuries in 2005.

The study followed 954 students for two years.  At the study's outset, 52% of the males and 50% of the females had experienced an alcohol-induced blackout during the past year.  Of the 404 emergency department visits among the participants over ensuing two years, about 12.5% were associated with blackout drinking.  Injuries ranged from broken bones to head and brain injuries requiring computed tomography.

Based on a large university campus having more than 40,000 students, the researchers concluded that blackout-associated emergency department visit costs to the healthcare insurers would range from $469k to $546k per year.

To think The Motley Monk has been worried about the cost to U.S. taxpayers of providing artificial forms of birth control for 30-plus year old law school coeds!  In light of these findings, the cost of alcohol-induced blackouts across the United States is staggering.

Typical of this genre of research studies, the findings are interpreted as calling for additional costs.  In this study, for example:

We conclude that blackouts are a strong predictor of emergency department visits for college drinkers and that prevention efforts aimed at students with a history of blackouts might reduce injuries and emergency department costs.

Yes indeed...that's what's needed: New prevention efforts to stop the nation's collegians from imbibing in adult beverages.

Of course, those prevention efforts will require a new Associate Provost of Healthcare to administer the program and to measure its outcomes, several EdD's and support staff to do the Associate Provost's work and to develop PowerPoint presentations that justify the additional costs to the bean counters, and a cadre of highly-trained facilitators who will sponsor the abstinence programs for the students.

All The Motley Monk can say is "At least birth control pills work."


Let the discussion begin...



To read the article in Health Affairs, click on the following link:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/03/13/hlthaff.2010.1140.full.html

The neo-narrative: "The ultra-conservative, right-wing, nutjob narrative"...

As this is the "Age of the Narrative"---when everyone it seems is contextualizing everything in a narrative---The Motley Monk has detected a new narrative being written about some of the nation's Catholic universities and colleges.  The Motley Monk calls it "the ultra-conservative, right-wing, nutjob narrative."

Yes, if the narrative is to be believed, ultra-conservative, right-wing, nutjobs are intent on policing thought and speech as well as trampling upon academic freedom in U.S. Catholic higher education.  In short, they are seeking to destroy all that makes U.S. Catholic higher education distinctively Catholic.


To wit:  Boston College

Boston College has terminated a priest in the Theology Department, Fr. John Shea, OSA, allegedly due his outspoken position concerning female ordination.

Some BC students believe that a "climate of intolerance" pervades the campus, especially when it comes to discussing contested issues, such as the ordination of women.  A letter of protest states there's an underlying message in the decision to terminate Fr. Shea: Don't disagree with Catholic teachings.

WBUR reports one student, Paul Shoaf Kozak, saying:

There's some suspicion, for sure, especially given the fact of the atmosphere right now of our Church.  And at our school we're not fully permitted to discuss issues in the public forum about homosexuality, female ordination, those issues that are very important for our generation of Catholics, here in a North American context.

The narrative is all about "context" but those ultra-conservative, right-wing, nutjobs are all about "content."

Academic administrators, however, say that Fr. Shea's contract was not renewed because his position was changed to a tenure-track job.


To wit: Loyola Marymount University

The LA Loyolan reports that Loyola Marymount University banned a rock band from performing on campus.

Why?

One version of the name of the Portland-based "indie pop band" STRFKR's includes an expletive.  The group was to appear at the Sigma Chi’s annual philanthropic event “Derby Dance” on March 23.

In an unscientific LA Loyolan poll, 58% of respondents said that STRFKR should not be banned.  For its part, STRFKR posted a message on its Facebook site calling Loyola "Super lame."

For his part, the Associate Vice President for Student Life, Richard Rocheleau, said:

It's a judgment call. I'm responsible for approving major campus events, and in my judgment, having a band that has vulgarity as part of its title isn't fitting for our campus.

The narrative is all about "self-expression" but those ultra-conservative, right-wing, nutjobs are all about "self-restraint."


To wit: Villanova University

Several weeks back, Villanova University canceled a weeklong workshop by a homosexual performance artist, Tim Miller, whose stage shows are often laced with nudity and simulated sex.

An editorial in the Villanovan explained why the editors believed the invitation was withdrawn:

At the outset of the 2011-'12 academic year, the University unveiled the "Ignite Change, Go 'Nova" campaign. The slogan inspires a sense of innovation and demands a commitment to unified progressive action. By making one strongly conservative decision, the University has proven this new initiative to be a house of cards. 

There is an inherent contradiction in these University messages. The progressive slogan portrays a step forward, an acceptance of contemporary values and a general modernization of the University's philosophy. The denial of Miller portrays a rash, reactionary adherence to outdated tradition which stakes little claim in other campus affairs.... 

The college is the venue in which students develop character and grow by interacting with diversity. Upon entering collegiate life, students experience differences of lifestyle and opinion that ultimately expand their realms of consciousness and shape their understanding of society as a whole. This decision has effectively eliminated a part of this crucial student growth and halted the University in fulfilling its greater purpose. 

It's 2012. It's time to embrace difference and move forward.  

One student, Marissa Weber, observed:

The University is bowing to homophobic pressure and now speaking out against them. If our educators and role models won't stand up for what's right, then who will?

Indeed.  The narrative is about "liberating progressivism" while those ultra-conservative, right-wing, nutjobs are about "stultifying traditionalism."

Yes, if the narrative is to be believed, ultra-conservative, right-wing, nutjobs are intent on policing thought and speech as well as trampling upon academic freedom in U.S. Catholic higher education until it resembles what it had become by the early 1960s: A total embarrassment to U.S. higher education.

The trouble is that some thought and some speech and much of what is said to be protected by academic freedom is vulgar.  The Motley Monk thinks that pretending that vulgarity isn't vulgarity doesn't befit any institution of higher education, religious or not.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the WBUR report, click on the following link:

http://www.wbur.org/2012/03/05/bc-professor-contract-ends

To read the LA Loyola article, click on the following link:

http://www.laloyolan.com/news/university-cancels-planned-strfkr-appearance/article_d4a104e6-6e5c-11e1-b339-0019bb30f31a.html?TNNoMobile

To read the Philadelphia Weekly's summation of the Tim Miller story, click on the following link:

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/arts-and-culture/stage/Gay-Performance-Artist-Tim-Miller-Responds-to-Villanova-Cancellation-of-His-Visit-140644603.html#ixzz1paFmkzmj

To read the students' comments, click on the following link:

http://www.villanovan.com/news/university-retracts-invite-ignites-backlash-1.2790998

To read the editorial in the Villanovan, click on the following link:
http://www.villanovan.com/opinion/editorial-university-response-inadequate-amid-controversy-1.2793425

A conundrum: When environmentalists want it both ways...

What are those who worship at the altar of environmentalism to do?

As reported in the Washington Post, the dilemma pits their demands for renewable sources of energy against their demands that endangered species be protected.

Worshipping at the altar of environmentalism

Here's how the dilemma is unfolding.

BrightSource Energy is constructing a $2.2B solar farm in the Mojave Desert.  This cost includes $56M to protect and relocate the desert tortoise which seems to have stopped evolving more than 220M years ago.  For that $56M:

• BrightSource gave up ~10% of its expected power output by redesigning the project's footprint by 12% and the number of 460-foot-tall "power towers" from 7 to 3.
• BrightSource also installed 50 miles of fencing, costing up to $50k/mile that would prevent relocated tortoises from climbing or burrowing back into harm's way.
• BrightSource built a nursery for tortoise hatchlings.
• BrightSource is paying to have as many as 100 biologists to be on the site at one time.

But, that's not good enough for the environmentalists.

Why?

At least one tortoise has been crushed under vehicle tires (not a BrightSource vehicle).  Ants are attacking the hatchlings in the nursery.  And---gasp---one small tortoise was carried off by an eagle with its embedded microchip pinging faintly as the bird and prey receded in the desert skies.

Then, when excavation work discovered more of the turtles than biologists had estimated (38 instead of 16), construction was brought to a standstill for three months.

It's an environmentalist's equivalent of David and Goliath!  A shoe-boxed sized creature is now the single-biggest obstacle to industrial-scale solar development in the Mojave Desert.

Will the fittest survive?

 

The environmentalists are siding with the desert tortoise.  After all, it has survived what caused dinosaurs to become extinct.  The desert tortoise continues to live in the desert even after the Ice Ages wiped out most living creatures.

But, those solar energy companies---funded by President Obama's energy plan---aren't to be messed with in the Commander-in-Chief's war against fossil fuels.  Regarding those primates, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, Jeff Lovich, notes:

One could argue that [the desert turtles] are nature’s greatest success story.  Yet over half the world's turtles are in dire need of help.  The common denominator is humans.  They may not survive us.

The Motley Monk would noted that n a dilemma---which pits two "goods" against each other---it's not possible to have it both ways.  That is, unless you worship at the altar of environmentalism.

 

Adherents of this ideology would have corporations like BrightSource spend whatever it takes to protect the desert tortoise, even if those costs make a renewable energy project economically unfeasible.  And once again, that is, unless BrightSource can get the federal government---through the largess of those citizens who pay federal taxes---to pick up those costs.

 

 

Let the discussion begin...

 

 

 

 

To read the Washington Post article, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/prehistoric-animal-has-big-role-in-energys-future/2012/03/09/gIQAYh5jLS_print.html

Pipedreams and tax fines...

With all of the President's talk recently about converting algae into biofuel, The Motley Monk went back into his files to dust off a New York Times article he read in early January.  The article reported that all of those big, evil oil producers would be paying a hefty tax on the gasoline and diesel fuels they produced in 2011 because they failed to mix them with a special type of biofuel.

"Field of dreams"...an environmentalist's dreams

Once again, it's all about federal regulations based on a pipedream (and The Motley Monk isn't here referring to the LX pipeline) confronting market place realities.

President Obama's signature energy program, the "Energy Independence and Security Act" (EISA) required that in 2011 vehicle fuel from cellulose would amount to 250M gallons and in 2012 it would amount to 500M gallons.

EISA is an environmentalist's dream come true!  The climate will now be saved because of the inspired leadership of President Obama (and, Al Gore) and the Democrats who passed EISA!

However, even these minimum quotas proved to be unrealistic.

Why?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered there wasn't enough biofuel available for purchase to meet the EISA minimums.  So the EPA reduced the quotas even more: To 6.6M gallons for 2011 and 8.65M gallons for 2012.  That's almost a 98% decrease for 2011 and almost a 99% decrease for 2012.

Omigosh....gasp!  More global warming due to depletion of the ozone layer caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions from burning all of that vehicle fuel!

But, here's the real KITA for all of those big, evil oil producers: Failure to to reach the new minimum quota for 2011 will cost refiners approximately $6.8M.

Once again and despite all of their good intentions, The Motley Monk notes, environmentalists, Congress, and the President failed to account for the fact that the technology does not exist to produce cellulosic ethanol to meet even their new minimum---really minimal---standards.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html

Medicaid and premature mortality...

The journal Cancer published a study that tracked 11k+ cancer patients with private or no insurance and 1,345 Medicaid patients who were diagnosed with cancer, half of whom enrolled around or after the time they received their initial diagnosis.

The study's findings:

• Of the patients with private or no insurance, fewer than 1 in 10 died within 5 years of their cancer diagnosis (<10%).
• Of the patients already enrolled in Medicaid, more than 1 in 5 died within 5 years of their cancer diagnosis (20%+).
• In addition, the patients who enrolled in Medicaid around or after their initial diagnosis survived the shortest time.

Why five years?

 

That's the metric used because the cancers in this study tracked are curable, likely adding five years to a patient's life.

 

The conclusion?

Medicaid patients were between 1.6 and 2.4 times as likely as patients with private or no insurance to die of their disease within 5 years.

When The Motley Monk discussed these findings with a friend who is a physician, The Motley Monk was told that he shouldn't be surprised because patients on Medicaid frequently don't have access to early screening or preventative care.

But, why the double standard?

Reimbursement rates.

This physician explained that the federal government limits the amount of money physicians can collect for various services and procedures.  So, physicians are increasingly booking appointments with patients who have private healthcare insurance program that are likely to reimburse physicians at a higher rate.  After all, physicians have bills to pay.  As a consequence, Medicaid patients now have limited access to those services and procedures and this may explain in part why those patients exhibit a greater rate of fatality from cancers that are curable.

The nation's Physician-in-Chief

This discussion left The Motley Monk wondering: Is this how Obamacare is going to bring down the costs of medical care?

 

Let the discussion begin...

 

 

 

To read the study in Cancer, click on the following link:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.27380/abstract

Kathleen Sebelius delivers with another edict from on high...

Just when The Motley Monk thought Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius couldn't make a worse decision, lo and behold, she does.

Once again, the story has to do with Ms. Sebelius' extensive powers to regulate the nation's healthcare under the so-called Obamacare "reforms."

Forget President Obama's promises about religious conscience.  Forget the President's compromise.  Forcing employers to provide healthcare insurance that provides free artificial birth control, abortofacients, and sterilization was only a "first" move.  The political game this issue represents is much larger and more complex than that.

Like the U.S. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has said, "We have to pass the bill in order to see what's in it....away from the fog of the controversy."

The Motley Monk would observe that the "fog" about which Ms. Pelosi spoke has only gotten thicker since the bill was passed.

According to the folks at LifeNews.com, Ms. Sebelius has issued a final rule governing the establishment of the state health care exchanges, as required by Obamacare.

The President and his HHS Secretary must not want the rule to look like what it is, as its language is "foggy" at best.  That said, here's the new rule in plainspeaque: The "individual mandate"---which requires every American to purchase government approved healthcare insurance or pay a hefty penalty---is now going to include an "abortion premium mandate."

How does it work?

The individual mandate will now require all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.  In practice, this means that insurance companies offering these plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from every premium payer.

So, people are now going to have to shop around to find healthcare insurance programs that don't include elective abortion coverage.

However, isn't that what the big problem was with Ms. Sebelieus' first regulation?  Aren't employers required already to provide healthcare insurance programs that provide free artificial birth control, abortofacients, and sterilizations or pay a really hefty fine?  Isn't that what got Cardinal Dolan of New York all fired up after he was double-crossed on the issue by President Obama?

But, here's the kicker: Ms. Sebelius' new rule only allows the surcharge to be disclosed at the time of enrollment, that is, when an individual first signs up for healthcare insurance.

That's very clever, indeed!

The Motley Monk can only imagine what that disclosure is going to look like: Lots of tiny print nested between lawyerly-like disclaimers that have subparagraphs and additional documents that define terms or, maybe, a super fast-talking salesperson similar to one of those insurance commercials on television.  The eyes of gun-toting and God-fearing prolife rustics, like Joe and Josephine Schlub, are likely to gloss over.  Not understanding a word of it, they're likely to ask in exasperation, "Where's the signature line?"

And, if that's not enough to foggy up Foggy Bottom so that no one will really know what Ms. Sebelius is really up to, her new rule mandates that insurers may only advertise the total cost of the premiums.  They are not allowed to disclose that enrollees will be charged the $1/month surcharge to directly subsidize abortions.

What's most interesting about this new regulation is that, yet once again, it's not in the Obamacare bill.  What's in the bill is the language allowing for all of this.  Those who crafted this monstrosity knew it all along.

The Motley Monk is wondering what former U.S. Representative Bart Stupak thinks about his crucial vote in favor of the Obamacare bill.

Former Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI)
and his chum, President Barack Obama

You've done the cause of prolife very well, Bart!  Look at what your vote made possible for Ms. Sebelius see was really in the bill, once it passed Congress by a vote of 219-212.

Assuming the Republicans fail in the effort to unseat the Democrats in Novemer 2012, the nation's citizens will have to decide beginning in 2014 between a healthcare plan that violates their consciences by directly funding abortion or a plan that may not meet their health needs.


Let the discussion begin...


To read the LifeNews article, click on the following link:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-admin-finalizes-rules-1-abortions-in-obamacare/?pr=1

To read the new HHS regulation, click on the following link:
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-06125_PI.pdf



The Motley Monk gives a "tip of the hat" to Second City for sending the LifeNews article to The Motley Monk.

Fr. Guarnizo tells his side of the story...

CNSNews.com has published the Reverend Marcel Guarnizo's response to the events that led to his being placed on leave by the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.

The summary of the facts that The Motley Monk has reported in two previous posts is that on February 25, 2012, Fr. Guarnizo---then-pastor of St. John Neumann Parish in Gaithersburg, MD----denied Holy Communion during a funeral Mass to Barbara Johnson, the daughter of the deceased.  Prior to the Mass, another woman with Johnson told Fr. Guarnizo that she was Johnson's "lover."  Guarnizo also walked off of the altar while Johnson delivered a eulogy and didn't preside at her mother's burial at the cemetery or provide for a substitute.  Those facts were gleaned from an article reporting the story that appeared in the Washington Post.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response

I would like to begin by once again sending my condolences to the Johnson family on the death of Mrs. Loetta Johnson.

I also feel obliged to answer questions from my parishioners, as well as from the public, about the incident on February 25th.

Here are the facts: On Saturday, February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact, I had never met her or her family until that morning.

The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m.

From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.

A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her "lover." Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms. Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused. 

I understand and agree it is the policy of the archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life. 

In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced Canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of Canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.

If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with Canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.

In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so. (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no public reprimand and no small lecture as some have reported.

Details matter. Ms. Johnson was not kneeling when she approached for communion, she did not receive the cup as the press has reported she has stated. It is the policy of St. John Neumann parish never to distribute under both species during funerals.

During the two eulogies (nearly 25 minutes long), I quietly slipped for some minutes into the sacristy lavatory to recover from the migraine that was coming on. I never walked out on Mrs. Loetta Johnson's funeral and the liturgy was carried out with the same reverence and care that I celebrate every Mass. I finished the Mass and accompanied the body of the deceased in formal procession to the hearse, which was headed to the cemetery. I am subject to occasional severe migraines, and because the pain at that point was becoming disabling, I communicated to our funeral director that I was incapacitated and he arranged one of my brother priests to be present at the cemetery to preside over the rite of burial.

Furthermore, as the testimony of the priest that was at the cemetery conveys, he was present when the Johnson family arrived, and in fact mentioned that being called to cover the burial rite is quite normal, as many priests for reasons much less significant than mine (rush hour traffic, for example) do not make the voyage to the cemetery. He routinely covers for them. This change in plans, was also invisible to the rest of the entourage. Regrets and information about my incapacitating migraine were duly conveyed to the Johnson family.

I have thanked the funeral director and the priest at the burial site, for their assistance that day. Mrs. Loetta Johnson was properly buried with every witness and ceremony a Catholic funeral can offer.  I did not and would not refuse to accompany Barbara Johnson and her mother to the cemetery because she is gay or lives with a woman. I did not in any way seek to dishonor her memory, and my homily at the funeral should have made that quite evident to all in the pews, including the Johnson family.

I would like to extend again to Ms. Johnson and her family, my sincerest condolences on her mother’s death. I would never intentionally want or seek to embarrass anyone publicly or increase anyone’s emotional distress during such a difficult time. I did not seek or contrive these circumstances.

But I am going to defend my conduct in these instances, because what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.

I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld.

Otherwise, any priest could---and many will---face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve the Catholic Church in Washington D.C.

As to the latest allegations, I feel obliged to alleviate unnecessary suffering for the faithful at St. John Neumann and others who are following the case.

I wish to state that in conversation with Bishop Barry Knestout on the morning of March 13, he made it very clear that the whole of the case regarding the allegations of "intimidation" are circumscribed to two conversations; one with the funeral director and the other with a parish staff member present at the funeral. These conversations took place on March 7th and 8th, one day before the archdiocese's latest decision to withdraw faculties (not suspend, since Cardinal Wuerl is not my bishop) on the 9th of March. I am fully aware of both meetings. And indeed contrary to the statement read on Sunday, March 11th during all Masses at St. John Neumann, both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. There is no hidden other sin or "intimidation"  allegations that they are working on, outside of these two meetings.

The meetings in question, occurred in our effort to document from people at the funeral Mass in written form a few facts about the nature of the incident. We have collected more than a few testimonies and affidavits, testifying to what really took place during the funeral liturgy.

My personal conversation with both parties in question were in my view civil, professional and in no way hostile. I respect both individuals in question and really do not know the nature of their grievance.

On March 13, I asked Bishop Knestout about detail on this matter but he stated that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter. I would only add for the record, that the letter removing me from pastoral work in the Archdiocese of Washington, was already signed and sealed and on the table when I met with Bishop Knestout on March 9, even before he asked me the first question about the alleged clash.

In the days to come I look forward to addressing any confusion about the above conversations if the archdiocese or the persons involved wish to talk about it publicly or privately.

I am grateful for all the good wishes and prayers I have received. And sincerely, having lost my own mother not long ago, I again extend my condolences to the Johnson family. I finally wish for the good of the Universal Church, the archdiocese, my parish and the peace of friends and strangers around the world, that the archdiocese would cease resolving what they call internal personnel matters of which they cannot speak, through the public media.

I remain my bishop's and my Church's, and above all Christ Jesus' obedient servant,

Very truly yours,

Father Marcel Guarnizo

If what Fr. Guarnizo reports in his response is true, the Washington Post did an extremely poor job in reporting this particular story.  Important facts---which could have easily been gathered through a couple of interviews---were overlooked or perhaps even neglected.  The, too, the tone of the Washington Post's articles concerning this story was decidedly biased against Fr. Guarnizo, depicting Ms. Johnson as completely innocent, a victim of Fr. Guarnizo's arrogant Pharisaism.

Likewise, Fr. Guarnizo's response paints Archdiocesan officials in decidedly dark hues, depicting himself as their innocent victim.  As the Washington Post reported earlier this week, those officials claimed that Fr. Guarnizo was "engaging in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry" in the weeks following the funeral.  That behavior is what justified Guarnizo's removal.

It will be interesting to see how the Archdiocese responds to Fr. Guarnizo's rendition of the events.  The Archdiocese could choose not to respond, "letting sleeping dogs lie."  After all, Archdiocesan officials surely know, stories like these have "shelf lives" and, given enough time, this story will evaporate like dew in the morning sunlight.  Those officials could respond in private, telling Guarnizo that his services are no longer needed in the Archdiocese and to return to his diocese of origin.  Or, having already put Guarnizo "on leave," those officials could do nothing...letting Guarnizo figure out what he's going to do next because he won't be ministering in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.

The Motley Monk is wondering if the problem for both the Washington Post and the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, is that Fr. Guarnizo's approach reveals that of a conservative traditionalist when the prevailing Zeitgeist favors liberal accommodationists?


Let the discussion begin...




To read the CNSNews.com story, click on the following link...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/father-marcel-guarnizo-i-did-only-thing-faithful-catholic-priest-could-do