Thanks to Susan for her response to my posting on the MDGs.
She acknowledges that the 2007 report (the most recent on the MDGs) that I cited as an example, not as the only evidence supporting my claim (Susan at the outset states “based on the evidence he cites”) addresses “reducing unwanted pregnancies.” But it appears that she thinks that the only text I cited is all there is upon which I base my claims. Let me be clear that I cited this 2007 report as an example, not as the only evidence supporting my conclusions about what has happened to the MDGs. Let us all be clear on another important point: my critique is not of the MDGs, it is what is happening to them. As I concluded in my post, “there is time for interested parties and persons to realize what is happening and to lend a hand to get the MDGs back on track.” I cannot see how anyone would contend that, based on what I previously said, my critique was of the MDGs themselves. My concern is what is happening to them, and I stand by the position taken in my earlier post. My concern, moreover, is based on what I have witnessed personally in the halls of the UN when issues involving the MDGs or related to MDG goals have been discussed.
I have about seven years worth of reports and other UN documentation that substantiates my claim about the MDGs in particular. Moreover, I have the personal experience of being present as a negotiator in the General Assembly, the ECOSOC, the Third Committee, the Sixth Committee, the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the Preparatory Commission for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Commission for Social Development, the Commission on Sustainable Development, the Commission on Population and Development, and the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities over the past decade. Many of these meetings have addressed implementation of the MDG goals. Other meetings preceded the Millennium Declaration but addressed matters subsequently addressed by the MDGs.
The Millennium Declaration was adopted in September of 2000 as I mentioned in my previous post. After its adoption, many delegations wanted to emphasize what is needed to combat “maternal mortality” is basic health care, including pre- and post-natal care for mother and child. However, these efforts have been met with persistent lobbying to address instead “reproductive health” issues (often a coded phrase encompassing abortion access, population control, and the facilitation of sexual promiscuity outside of marriage). The reports and other documents of the United Nations Population Fund are but one source of this problematic phenomenon. But there are others. The 2007 report that I cited as an example, not as exclusive evidence, is a tiny portion of the tip of a menacing iceberg. I wish the iceberg did not exist so that the noble goals of the Millennium Declaration designed to help all the poor of the world can be achieved in a timely way. But the iceberg does exist, and I have seen its distressing presence too many times.
The report to which I referred is one of the latest products of UN activity which carries the world further away from tackling head on the basic health concerns of the poor amongst our sisters and brothers—especially that dealing with expecting mothers and their children in utero.
I’ll conclude this posting with the candid assessment (that reflects some of my concerns) made at the Summit of the Heads of State and Government During the 60th General Assembly (September 2005), which allocated a good deal of time addressing the progress toward achieving the MDGs, by Angelo Cardinal Sodano, then the Vatican Secretary of State:
To a world already exposed to pandemics, while others are at risk of breaking out, to the millions without access to basic health care, medicine and drinking water, we cannot offer an ambiguous, reductive or even ideological vision of health. For example, would it not be better to speak clearly of the “health of women and children” [as the MDGs do] instead of using the term “reproductive health”? Could there be a desire to return to the language of a “right to abortion”?
It's never too early to find the perfect stocking-stuffer for that new natural lawyer on your Christmas list. Oxford law prof Nicholas Bamforth and NYU law prof David A.J. Richards provide a provocative gift idea with their new book coming out next month, Patriarchal Religion, Sexuality, and Gender. Here is the abstract:
This book is an evaluation and critique of a school of thought that has defended a form of natural law theory, alleged to be based in Thomas Aquinas, that has prominently defended the conservative moral views of the papacy on matters of both sexuality and gender as, allegedly, a secular view consistent with liberal constitutionalism. New natural law is not a secular view consistent with liberal constitutionalism or a form of argument consistent with the philosophical aims of historical Thomism, but rather polemically defends sectarian arguments that many thoughtful Catholics now properly reject. Finally, the book criticizes the fundamentalist style of the new natural lawyers as rooted in their embattled defense of the highly patriarchal structure of religious authority. The book contains an original analysis of the history and culture that gave rise to such patriarchal authority (including a celibate male clergy), and questions the appeal of such authority in contemporary circumstances (discussing the priest abuse scandal in the Catholic church). The book concludes by discussing alternative forms of Christianity that are not fatally flawed in the way new natural law is.
Abstract:
The effects of gay and
lesbian parenting on children has been the touchstone issue in much of the
recent state litigation on same sex marriage, with opponents of same sex
marriage arguing that there is a rational basis for denying marriage rights to
gays and lesbians because the central purpose of marriage is procreation and
childrearing, but that children are harmed or disadvantaged when raised by gay
or lesbian parents. To interrogate this claim, I critique the social science
research that informs the concerns frequently expressed about the possible
negative effects of lesbigay parenting on children's emotional, psychosocial,
and sexual development. In particular, I focus on research relevant to whether
growing up in a lesbigay household is as positive an experience for children as
growing up in a heterosexual household, as much of the literature to date has
addressed the issue of whether lesbigay parenting is harmful to children. I
conclude that the research fails to support the theory that denying marriage or
parenting rights to same sex couples serves the welfare of children. I further
argue that public opposition to gay marriage, particularly in the context of
lesbigay parenting, is animated by a deeper concern - the proverbial “elephant
in the room” on gay rights issues. That elephant is the visceral disgust
reaction that many Americans feel toward homosexual sex, and the resulting moral
intuition that homosexuality and homosexual relationships are immoral. Thus,
many people will conclude that it is better for children to be raised in
heterosexual households because they do not want children exposed to the
lesbigay “lifestyle.” Nor do they want to increase the “risk” that children will
develop a homosexual orientation if they are raised by lesbigay parents. The
article discusses new psychological research on moral decision making, which
suggests that the “moral” emotion of disgust is at the root of much of the
opposition to gay rights. The disgust reaction is likely a byproduct of human
evolution that fails to inform rational judgments about the policy questions
surrounding lesbigay parenting and marriage rights.
With respect to Fr. Araujo, I must disagree with his claim that the Millennium Development goals have been corrupted or compromised based on the evidence he cites. The one goal he appears concerned with (there are eight goals, including reducing poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education and ensuring environmental sustainability) is the fifth goal: "improving maternal health." He raises a concern with the discussion of the achievement of that goal in the 2007 MDG report (which can be accessed here), in particular with a passage that suggests that the "vast majority of maternal deaths and disabilities could be prevented through appropriate reproductive health services before, during and after pregnancy, and through life-saving interventions should complications arise." However, the bulk of what is discussed immediately following that language has to do with the need for "skilled health personnel (doctors, nurses, midwives) who are trained to detect problems early" and who can provide pregnant women with obstretric care and with disparties in antenatal care. It is true that the report also says that reducing unwanted pregnancies could avert a significant number of maternal deaths, including those resulting from unsafe abortions (a claim that seems fairly obvious) and talks about "an unmet need for family planning." In my view, neither the text nor the context of this section of the report seems to me fairly characterized as evidence that "the MDGs have become a pawn for those interest groups that have been laboring for a universal right to abortion."
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City gave a presentation at the October 20th Gospel of Life Conference in Denver entitled Faithful Catholics and Faithful Americans, and his remarks are HERE. I would think that he would be discussing his important and insightful thoughts with his fellow bishops at the annual meeting which began today in Baltimore. Given the context that the bishops will be finalizing their quadrennial document Faithful Citizenship, I am sure Archbishop Naumann's counsel will be valued. RJA sj
CSPAN's web site has a link to John F. Kennedy's September 1960 speech to ministers in Houston about his Catholicism. It's fascinating, especially the Q & A section. I had not appreciated how hostile some of those in the audience were, and had instead always assumed that his "Church does not speak for me" line had carried the day easily.
Relatedly, here's a news story regarding Mitt Romney's decision (for now, anyway) not to give an LDS version of "the Speech."
I sincerely thank Susan for her recent posting addressing the Millennium Development Goals. When the Millennium Declaration was promulgated in 2000, it addressed, for the most part, the pressing issues of humanity that could be embraced by most people. Unfortunately, the MDGs have been subjected to problematic interpretations since the Millennium Declaration was adopted in September of 2000. Some of these interpretations concern matters that do conflict or likely conflict with Catholic teachings. For example, in 2000, the MDGs said nothing about a code phrase “reproductive health” which now frequently appears in UN documents. This phrase has often been associated with problematic claims such as “the right to abortion”. In the most recent report on the MDGs (2007), this interesting passage appears:
The vast majority of maternal deaths and disabilities could be prevented through appropriate reproductive health services before, during and after pregnancy, and through life-saving interventions should complications arise.
From this text and the context in which it appears in the 2007 report, the MDGs have become a pawn for those interest groups that have been laboring for a universal right to abortion. This is not the only problem affecting the MDGs, but it is one of the major ones. The MDGs have been compromised. Their initial noble goals have been corrupted by interest groups who favor programs, including population control and universal abortion access, that undermine the moral status of the MDGs. On a note of hope, there is time for interested parties and persons to realize what is happening and to lend a hand to get the MDGs back on track.RJA sj
Tom asks if I agree with him that "a real emphasis on empowering the poor calls for the program to be targeted at modest incomes. The subsidiarity-based strategy of school choice should act in the service of a more progressive (i.e. modest-income-focused) allocation of government spending on education."
I "sorta" do. It certainly does appear that, politically, it makes more sense to push for voucher programs targeted specifically (the more specifically the better) to helping poor children, or children otherwise not provided with educationally sound government-run alternatives. That said, I regard the case for educational choice as being not only about competition, and not only about assisting the poor, but also about religious freedom and value-pluralism. It could well be that there are families who are not, strictly speaking, "poor", and whose public schools are not awful, and who would prefer to form their children (as is their duty) through an education that integrates faith into the process, but who cannot afford to. The common good is, it seems to me, well served by relieving the burden on such parents.
All that said . . . Tom is right that the political realities are what they are.
The article about the defeat of vouchers in Utah is quite mistaken to say that voucher programs have always failed at the polls. School choice has regularly been adopted as a remedy for failing public-school systems: for example, in Wisconsin (Milwaukee), Ohio (Cleveland), the District of Columbia, and Florida (failing districts statewide). It has mostly failed -- for example in California and Utah -- when the scope of the program is universal, covering even middle-class to wealthy parents in decent or better school districts. While there are arguments of justice even for universal vouchers, the claim is significantly stronger when the program is targeted at those who have no hope of affording private schools -- as Rick suggests by his references to "vulnerable children [trapped in] badly-performing schools" versus "wealthy families [who] are able to exercise 'choice.'" The Utah program was somewhat targeted, giving $3,000 per child to the poorest families and $500 to the wealthiest, but it could have been more so (it didn't need to include the higher-income levels). Targeting those in need allows the program to get closer to funding fully their tuition at private schools, even good ones, and thus not to require the school to kick in a lot more. So again, while a universal school-choice program still has several things to be said for it -- and I would have voted for this program -- a real emphasis on empowering the poor calls for the program to be targeted at modest incomes. The subsidiarity-based strategy of school choice should act in the service of a more progressive (i.e. modest-income-focused) allocation of government spending on education. Do you agree, Rick?
Politcally speaking, Utah was in many ways an unlikely place for universal school choice to succeed; so I wouldn't draw broad conclusions from last week's result. The state has relatively few Catholics and Catholic schools, and although the bishop of Utah endorsed the proposal, the Catholic Church did not throw a lot of weight behind it (or have much weight to throw). The Church in Utah, the Mormon Church, for the most part does not operate its own general K-12 schools (there are "seminaries" for religious training but not general education). Mormons, although conservative, are not alienated from public schools to anywhere near the same extent as many other religious conservatives -- especially since, because the LDS Church dominates culturally in most of Utah, the ethos of the public schools is usually relatively sympathetic to Mormon values. Although Utah's public schools have their problems, particularly in serving minority and low-income children, they are not in any kind of statewide meltdown comparable to those in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and some Florida districts. Before the referendum, there was talk that if the program failed, proponents might come back with a proposal targeted at low-income families, with respect to whom there are serious problems in the Utah public schools. From what I gathered while in Utah last month speaking on the issue, it remains a distinct possibility that such a proposal would pass.
I also agree with Rick that it's rich for opponents of school choice to crow about how "the voters have spoken," when every time the voters enact a choice program the opponents fight tooth and nail in court to get it wiped out.
When Mr. Monda interviewed Grace Paley
two years before her death in August, she wondered why he wanted to
talk about religion and her views on it. “I think it’s the most
important subject of our time,” he said. “Rather, the most important of
all times.”
She parried, “Are you serious?” Their exchange opens one of the most
moving of the 18 interviews in “Do You Believe? Conversations on God
and Religion,” just published by Vintage as a paperback original.
. . .
[Monda] asked Ms. Paley, “Do you think that life after death exists?”
She replied, “Obviously no,” adding, “And an 83-year-old is telling you this, aware that she doesn’t have much time to live.”
And then, turning the tables on Mr. Monda, she asked, “And what is there for you after death?”
He replied, “The true life.”
“And what,” she came back, “is the life that we’re living at this moment?”
He answered, “A passage and a gift.”
“Now, you see,” she concluded, “this is an idea that interests me, because it’s very different from what I believe in.”
