Recent and numerous articles in the secular and religious press on the appearance of officials of the Roman Catholic Church before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Children have rekindled the ruminative nature of a topic that occasionally haunts my quiet moments.

The issue that has troubled me for sometime is the co-mingling of a sovereign territory (Vatican City State) and the Roman Catholic Church (a religion). These two entities do not necessarily share common goals, objectives, and means; they can be mutually supportive, even if by confusion or subterfuge--intended or unintended. Each entity has its own rights and duties within the international community of nations and among the religions of the world. In an earlier day, these two dimensions were co-mingled as European adventurers explored the New World and lay claim to these "newfound" lands for their sponsoring monarchs and in the name of a universal deity known only to themselves. Today this comingling is seen in the Roman Catholic Church's response to the sexual abuse of children by members of its clergy.

Wikipedia has been very helpful as I fleshed out these thoughts on this topic and attempted to organized them in such a way that they reflected "the facts." (I will not cite this source other than to credit the website in general; any errors in my use of this background material are mine alone.)

The pope is the "absolute elected monarch" of the Vatican City State and the infallible leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The governance--spiritual and pastoral--of the latter is properly referred to as the Holy See. The Vatican City State does not have its own diplomatic service; the Holy See conducts diplomatic relations for both bodies. The Holy See has permanent observer status in the United Nations General Assembly. Why does the Holy See have this status? Why doesn't the Vatican City State have this status, even if the former conducts diplomatic relations on behalf of the latter? Are there any other religious bodies that enjoy such status or would be so eligible?

How does this comingling create problems? The Holy See's representatives before the UN Committee claimed that whomever they represented only had responsibility for children residing within Vatican City State. Therefore, it could not be held responsible--directly or indirectly--for the sexual abuse of children occurring in any other country. Yet the Holy See clearly oversees the credentialing of clergy and sets and enforces standards of behavior. A cursory read of the secular press provides amply evidence that the arm of the Holy See charged with this task ignores or overrides the recommendations of local bishops in disciplining local clergy who have abused children. As a sovereign territory, which maintains diplomatic relationships (embassies) with numerous countries around the globe, the Vatican City State (Or is it the Holy See?) claims diplomatic immunity not only for members of its diplomatic corps but also bishops, archbishops, and cardinals (for example: Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston). The claim for those not members of the diplomatic corps may be more properly a claim of dual citizenship and thereby an enjoyment of protection from the judicial system of a foreign power. How is it that church officials, not just members of the diplomatic corps, have Vatican City State passports? Who qualifies for such dual citizenship with the Vatican City State--lay persons, missioners (lay or ordained), leaders of religious orders and societies, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals?

In my judgment, these issues need to be clarified. In terms of its relationship to the United Nations as a permanent observer member and signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Children, is the Holy See representing the Vatican City State or the Roman Catholic Church or both? As noted above, the Holy See, responsible for the spiritual and pastoral governance of the Church, performs diplomatic relations for both itself and the Vatican City State. If it is acting in the name only of the Vatican City State, then the very narrow sphere of responsibility its representatives claim may well be technically accurate. If that is the claim, how can these same individuals in the very same context take exception to selected terms of the Convention which was accepted by the Vatican City State and possibly by the Holy See? This appears to be comparable to the question that forms the core of those court cases wherein corporations claim lay claim to an exercise of its religious freedom to avoid compliance with certain elements of the Affordable Care Act.

The responsibility to sort out these issues rests with Church officials (either the Holy See or Vatican City State or both), United Nations leadership, and the governments with which the Holy See and/or the Vatican City State have diplomatic relations. I seriously doubt this will occur, with the possible exception of the United Nations. These other parties have much to lose, if such a distinction is made and implemented. Nation states get to claim the sanction (or is it sanctification?) of a religious authority and the deity which it represents; this sanction may not be deserved. The Church is able to maintain itself as a geo-political entity legitimizing the trappings of a monarchical Medieval Europe and the associated historical claim to a kingdom of this world.  The "maintenance costs" of the Church's position may well be: (1)an incalculable loss of credibility among the world religions, (2)an incentive for other religious denominations to ally themselves with those currently in power in their host countries at the expense of their otherworldly visions, and (3)a restraint on the national and international moral voices with which religions claim to speak.

I have been dealing with considerable snow and cold temperatures in my neck of the woods. This is simply a statement of the activities in my environment which I perceive as fact or as a personal observation; it is not meant to be an introduction to a post on the subject of weather.

When one lives on a peninsula, the phrase a "neck of the woods" would seem to be a particularly apt choice. Looking at a map, it is quite possible that "headland" would be a more correct description of this place even though common parlance refers to it as a peninsula.

Language is a curious thing. It approximates a miracle at times--at least it seems so to me--that we understand one another (or is it each other?) at all.

One thing I enjoy about reading Michael Perry is his use of unusual or little used vocabulary--words that are much more descriptive and accurate in describing what he is about than the more common and thereby overused ones. I suspect this overuse has resulted in such words becoming almost generic in nature--trying to be all things makes for a poor job at any one thing. I wonder if Michael comes across such words in his readings or if he uses a thesaurus to locate a gem around which to craft a sentence. Then again anyone who reads Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man" in a treestand during the Wisconsin gun deer season probably has no use for a thesaurus.

It has been sometime since I made an entry in this blog; I have been struggling to come up with an idea or a topic, so I fell back on an old standby, the weather at least to break the ice--a appropriate phrase for this time of the year.  My heart really wasn't in a note on the weather, so I was easily distracted by the turn of a phrase in my opening sentence. In the end, I ended up somewhat far afield. Fields have headlands too, by the way.

I find myself arriving at a place where the only reality is what we as individuals with our singular vision or as members of a group with a shared vision come to accept as real. On the other hand, I know that if I slam my finger in the car door, it will hurt like hell, or like heaven, or like purgatory. Purgatory is probably the most apt descriptor, since I also know that the pain is temporary and that the injury will also heal. At least that is what my personal historical experience of such events have shown me.

Here are links to two recent reads:

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2013/12/possessive-individualism-can-really/

http://blog.kennypearce.net/archives/theology/bible/the_gospels/a_thought_for_christmas.html

Where does this leave us, when we are at my place? I guess it simply means that we--individually and collectively--have the choice to be nice to one another and the capacity to follow through on that choice. The capacities of individuals and groups--both large and small--vary greatly, but that doesn't let anyone off the hook--even part way--should they choose the path that circumnavigates this place.

The past few days I have been haunted by these and other recent reads and the desire to post a Christmas Holiday note. I don't know if I succeeded, but this is my effort.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
J. Keye

In the final quarter--a rough estimate--of my working career, I occasionally experienced some degree of regret over not having a fixed benefit retirement program in my future. The absence of such a vehicle for the ride into the great beyond was the result of working for employers, who did not have such an item in their fringe benefit package, and having a work career that coincided with significant changes in retirement plans. Now that I am enjoying the benefits of a personal retirement strategy coupled with Social Security, I can breathe a sigh of relief in what appears to be a greater sense of security in individual retirement plans than in fixed benefit plans found in private industry and governmental employment. It is not that what was less secure that has  now become more secure; it is what was more secure has become even less secure than that which was previously less secure.

A federal court decision in the case of Detroit, Michigan, underscores my point. The judge decided that federal bankruptcy laws override pension program rules, negotiated contractual terms, and state constitutional and legislative language which was intended to protect the integrity of these programs. I am sure this decision will be appealed, so the final chapter has not been written. In the meantime, folks relying on such retirement programs must find themselves experiencing a certain level of anxiety. There are enough units of government facing bankruptcy and reorganization that retirees of the City of Detroit will not be alone for long.

When AIG was facing bankruptcy, the Federal government decided they needed to step in and save this nongovernmental corporation and that the annual bonuses had to be paid to those managers, whose decisions were responsible for the impending failure of the firm, because bonuses were part of their employment contracts. The commentator that made that observation also asked: How are retirement contracts different? Are retirement contacts not employment contracts? The question that I ask is: How do we decide what is good for GM and AIG is not good for Detroit? Some will say that we can't afford to bail out Detroit. How is it that we are able to afford the estimated 32.9 billion dollars that it will cost to bail out AIG?

As the bankruptcy of the City of Detroit plays out over the next several years, I can assume the stance of a curious bystander. Any dog that I might have in the fight as Detroit and additional governmental units pursue similar resolutions to their financial problems will be a small dog reflecting my personal, diversified portfolio. I just need to make sure that I am not relying on a Bernie Madoff act-a-like to manage my nest egg.

This letter in today's "Dear Abby" column raises the question: Is this the ex-wife of Mr. Free Man of yesterday's column? Could very well be.

DEAR ABBY:

 

My mom insists on including my ex-husband and

his wife at our family gatherings. I have told her repeatedly that it
makes me very uncomfortable, but she even included them in
the gift exchange last Christmas. What should I do? Not go?
My sister has already laid a guilt trip on me. Must I go and
have Christmas with my ex like we’re one big happy family? (If
we had been happy, we would not have gotten divorced.)

What are your thoughts on this?

-- LIVING IN DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION

 

I'll bet the dude in question even violates Rule #2 of gift exchanging: Each exchange participate is to buy only one gift and that for the person, whose name one selects. There always seems to those folks, who agree to participate in the exchange and who violate this rule. This behavior leaves those, who are not the beneficiaries of secondary gifting, questioning why they did not make the secondary gifting list. Those, who are the beneficiaries, will question the motivation of the giver based on their current relationship and history with the giver.

 

The only thing worse that violating Rule #2 is violating Rule #3, which reads: One shall not negotiate, either openly or secretly, with other participants to exchange names already selected--secondary selection. Fall-out similar to those associated with violations of Rule #2 will follow. Remember, such negotiations involve at least two participants, and one is dealing with family, so the secrecy rules do not apply despite sworn pledges.

 

By the way, we are dealing with family. There either are no rules or all rules are subject to change with or without negotiation or even a "heads up."

Okay, so I will admit to it that I read "Dear Abby." When I was a kid, Mom always seemed to read "Ann Landers." My sense is that Mom's motivation was to find guidance whereby one could maintain their bearings in navigating a world where much was not what it appeared to be and another much was out of synch with how it was suppose to be. I frequently check out "Dear Abby," because it is the one that appears in the local paper and not out of any greater affection for one A over the other A. (I know there is a history between Abby and Ann; for the purposes of this post, I will consider them one and the same.) I am not seeking guidance in the social graces or the proper etiquette for navigating the dark and deep waters of social interaction. My motivation is to find my own "News of the Weird" in a primary source. Numbed by the contemporary genre of reality tv, which is real in only that it is staged for the camera, I am convinced that many authors of the letters addressed Dear Abby or Dear Ann are the work of creative writer wannabes. Can one claim to be a published author if a letter one has penned becomes an entry in a Dear Abby or Dear Ann column? Wouldn't it be a treat to be able to look through the discharge pile--those requests for advice considered too weird to make the cut for inclusion in a column?

Then there is one letter in today's column, which raises the question: how did this one make the cut? What was set aside to make room for this one? Were there so few passable requests for advice that those in the discharge pile warranted a second look? This one--both the letter and the response--deserves a reader review.

DEAR ABBY: After 31 years of
marriage, my wife and I have split
up. We love each other, but after the
kids moved out we realized we have
little in common.
What is an appropriate Christmas
gift for an ex-wife? We are on friendly
terms and will probably spend the
holidays together with our children.
I don’t want to give a gift that will
offend or encourage her.
-- FREE MAN IN
PENNSYLVANIA

DEAR FREE MAN: How about a
gift card from her favorite store, or
a lovely scarf or colorful shawl, or
if she has a hobby, something to do
with it? None of them would send
the wrong message.

So, FREE MAN, just how free are you that you are concerned about offending or encouraging your ex-wife? What more is there to lose, if you offend the lady, or is there to gain, if you encourage her? What if your gift simply bores her or provides her with a reminder of the reasons the two of you broke up after 31 years of marriage? Do you ever think that your thoughts of encouragement are wishful thinking on your part?  Do you ever think that what you describe as "friendly terms" is your ex's efforts to make the best of a bad situation for the sake of the kids?

Hey, MISTER, it sounds like you have skipped out on the responsibilities of marriage and family while hanging onto the emotional nurturing. Is it not time to man up and live the free life and not just assume the title?

DEAR ABBY, how is it that a gift card, scarf, shawl, or hobby supplies would, unquestionably, not send the "wrong message?" What about such gifts as: a flannel nightgown, new locksets for the front and back doors, for which MR. FREEMAN does not keep a key for himself, security locks for all first floor windows, or a gift certificate for an on-line dating service? The MAN needs to avoid  hand lettered IOU's for lawn care, gutter cleaning, and replacement of the garage door opener, while keeping the access code.

Janet Yellen's characterization of income inequality in this country as a "very serious problem" is well worth noting. Even moreso is one of the reasons she cites in support of this worrisome concern: "the decline of unions." Ms. Yellen made these statements earlier this week in her Senate confirmation hearing as President Obana's nominee to become the next Chair of the Federal Reserve. I laud Ms. Yellen's bravery in her use of the bully pulpit of the Senatorial hearings and in expending the necessary personal and professional capitol such statements require in advance of even a committee vote on her nomination. Further statements referencing the "cross purposes" of Federal Reserve actions and Congressional actions in response to our present economic crisis can easily be interpreted as a clear criticism of Congressional actions.

The recent decline in union membership and strength is not so much the result of inherent weaknesses within the union movement, but the result of a direct assault by legislative bodies on the state level and the movement within governmental and private industry to use subcontracted personnel rather than direct hires. Lots of folks bemoan income inequality, but few, especially those with access to the top ranks of power, clearly identify self-incriminating causal factors and therefore the corrective measures that make both good economic sense and comply with a commonly accepted sense of social justice.

I trust that the ship of state (read: and civil society) has the ability to self correct. The tragedy is the pain, suffering, and loss of life that results from the errors in judgment and the narrowly focused application of political conviction committed by those in authority. May history hold them accountable so that much the same mistakes are not repeated and that the common good is characterized by genuine universality.