And Some Other Thoughts

The Pope came out with an encyclical in which he insisted that Catholic Church doctrine cannot be the test for answering questions of morality, that individual consciences must be the guides.  Whoa!  If that is the case, then why have a Church at all?  Isn't the Church there to provide a moral as well as a spiritual compass?

For that matter, if as the Pope uses divorce and civil remarriages (formerly sins in the eyes of the Church) as examples of using individual consciences as guides, why can't the same be held for gay marriages?  After all, isn't same-sex marriage a "tricky question of morality?"

It's almost as if the Pope is trying to dismantle the Church.  OK, likely he's not.  But he is trying to change the nature/face of the Church.  And, in doing so, inadvertently, might he not also be heading down the road to the Church's death?  His intentions might well be good (and I for one have no problems with same-sex marriages or unions or whatever they are called), but once the Church is removed from one of its primary functions, well, why is there a need for it?  It's a very slippery slope

In a similar vein, isn't the transgender issue going to open the door to a lot of lawsuits?  Can anyone deny we live in a litigious society, where many people see and use the courts as means of getting something?  No doubt, some people deserve the compensation of court rulings.  Others have lucked into what might be called "the judicial lottery."  When will the discrimination suits against transgenders start?  Hirings?  Lost promotions?  Even firings?  One-gender bathrooms?  How many people (and lawyers) will see this as another golden goose?  Oh, the pain and suffering......

And I realize that many unions have serious faults.  They are often there to protect themselves rather than represent their dues-paying members.  (Yep, if you read something personal in that, you have read correctly.)  They have, in negotiations, exhibited a great deal of short-sighted greed which has contributed to longer-term pitfalls.  (And, too, remember that unions don't decide things unilaterally; management must agree.)  I have a serious problem with right-to-work laws.  I call them right-to-work for less laws.  But that's not my concern here.  It's those who choose not to join unions, as is their right and their choice, but also demand they get the same benefits as the dues-paying union members.  I read about one such lawsuit this week, although I forget the state.  A worker doesn't want to pay dues, fine, but does want the protections the union gives its members.  And I see that right here in Michigan, right here in our local area.  I wonder if any of those folks see themselves as "greedy?"  Nah, I don't think so.  It's always the other guy who is greedy.