AN UNCHRISTIAN ACT BY CHRISTIANITY’S OLDEST INSTITUTION!

By Edwin Cooney

No, I'm far from being anti-Catholic although I've never been a member of that faith. There are elements and entities within that religion that the rest of us would do well to appreciate more than we do. A former sweetheart of mine who is a retired Methodist missionary used to say, "Every time you hear Ave Maria, don't you wish you were a Catholic?" I heartily share that sentiment! I'm also proud of the Catholic Churches anti-capital punishment stance, although I wouldn't do to pro-capital punishment parishioners what too many bishops are currently doing to President Biden!

As I understand it, a considerable number of American Catholic bishops propose to deny President Joseph R. Biden, only the second Roman Catholic ever elected President, the right to receive communion in view of his "pro choice" stance regarding abortion rights. They apparently have the right to do this despite the opposition of Pope Francis, the reigning vicar of Christ.

What bothers me, aside from my general support and sympathy for President Biden, is what I see as the pure cussedness and meanness behind it. Being a political entity, President Biden is naturally and even rightly subject to personal judgments, attacks, and criticisms, but it seems to me that to bar him from his right to the Holy Sacrament is downright medieval. It's my guess that in the wake of this decision, the next act the bishops will take is likely to be a declaration of  holy heresy against the president.

Before I offer my strongest objections to the bishops’ apparent attitudes, I must state my feelings regarding "pro life" and "pro choice."

I'm convinced that had I been conceived in 1975 rather than in 1945 I would likely have been aborted according to my legal illegitimacy. Hence, on the one occasion when I had a direct say about the use of abortion, I rejected it as an option and I would do it again. Nevertheless, I see the right of choice as an option of the individual according to his or her understanding of solemn moral judgment. I can and do respect men and women who insist on their right to have an abortion. I could easily love a woman despite her outlook on that subject. I simply would oppose the abortion of a child I had fathered! As I see it, a child is the responsibility of two parents, not just one!

I have three objections to the potential denial of President Biden's right to Holy Sacrament.

First, I'm convinced that this movement is not strictly about religious writ or doctrine. Conservative Protestants and Catholic officeholders continue the search for some aspect of Joe Biden's character that will put him on an equal standing regarding the moralities of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Hence we have the charge brought by Tara Reade a former Biden staffer that Biden had sexually abused her back in 1993. Apparently, that charge hasn't stuck. However, some folks are still trying to lower the president's level of decency in the public mind.

My second objection is to some degree doctrinaire. My understanding that Christianity is about such characteristics as charity, forgiveness and "Amazing Grace.” Thus my question is obvious: Where's either the charity or amazing grace in the consideration of these Holy Bishops?

Finally, one of my personal quarrels with my fellow Christians is: where is the hierarchy of sins? Ironically, the Catholic Church at one time categorized sins as venial and mortal and perhaps even as "cardinal sins.” and that's the closest understanding of the hierarchy of sins I've ever known about! It's my guess that there's little likelihood that Joe Biden has ever indulged in abortion except agreeing with the proposition that the right of abortion is personal rather than governmental and that the extent to which government should get involved in abortion activities solely reflects the right of the individual.

In closing, it's my understanding that one of the first twelve human beings to receive communion from Christ in that upper room was an Apostle named Judas Iscariot! If Judas Iscariot was eligible to receive communion from Jesus (whom he was apparently about to betray), certainly Joe Biden is worthy of Christ's grace, is he not?

Perhaps I just don't understand what I ought to grasp. If you like, you can straighten me out!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

THE INTUITIVE PSYCHOLOGIST? HEY, THAT'S BOTH YOU AND ME!

By Edwin Cooney

Hey there, don't try pulling the wool over my eyes, ‘cause I know you like I know me. Don't tell me you've never tried to understand who someone is by their behavior even though you have little or no psychological training! After all, I've done it thousands of times and even if you're only half the sinner I am, that's plenty of sinning!

That's why I paid attention to the obituary of Dr. Lee Ross by Alex Traub which I read last week in the New York Times. Back about 1977, young Dr. Ross wrote a piece he titled "The Intuitive Psychologist and His Short Comings." The substance of his book was what he termed "The Fundamental Attribution Error." So, you may well ask, what the hell is an “attribution error?"

The answer to that question is simple. Whenever or almost whatever and, especially, whoever we try and understand and assess, we ultimately attribute who they are by their personhood rather than by the circumstances that affect who they ultimately are.

Ross's work has increasingly been utilized by modern professors, psychologists and writers. The theory of fundamental attribution error compels one to take into account the social circumstances rather than the actions or personality under consideration.

We who attempt to understand the factors that have influenced historical movements and events too often focus on the personalities of individual leaders rather than on the factors that influenced those leaders who directed historical events. It's not enough to simply label the Kennedy Administration the “era of Camelot,” LBJ's time as "The Great Society," the Reagan Administration as "Morning in America,” or even the Trump Administration as “the era of damnation and disaster" which millions of Biden Democrats might be inclined to do — me included.

The question, as stated above, is to what might we profitably attribute historical events? The answer to that question broadly speaking is knowledge of and an understanding of the forces social, economic, political and spiritual that cause people to respond. It's all too easy to react to what happens in front of you (and sometimes it's absolutely necessary to respond to what's in front of you), but the truth might be that the cause of what you see is something you'll never know.

As Alex Traub writes in his obituary of Dr. Ross, you may be waiting in line when someone jumps ahead of you to obtain a product or benefit from a service. You're reaction to this "rudeness" is likely to consist of labeling this line-jumper as a jerk — the type who would snatch candy away from a baby or trip Santa Claus. The truth might be, however, that this line-jumper may be someone who's desperate to get to the airport to catch a flight to visit and comfort someone in his or her family who is dying.

Above, I listed and characterized the Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Trump administrations using judgmental terms by which they're generally recognized. The more truly informative and real question about these administrations is what forces, hopes, fears and ambitions brought them about thus causing them to function as they did?

Dr. Lee Ross's “fundamental attribution error” is applicable in relations personal and impersonal, conflicts local, state, regional, national as well as international.

I offer the following, although this is very personal, because it best illustrates the damage and even uncertainty that Fundamental Attribution Error brings about. I have never been able to learn what compelled my biological mother to keep me permanently separated from her and my two half sisters! To what was she subjected? What did she believe or not believe that led her to respond to my personal existence as she did? I've always wanted to know what she went through that caused her to "include me out" as one comic once put another dangerous circumstance! My life is permanently affected by mores and events I'll never know about!

If we could more readily employ Fundamental Attribution Integrity rather than Fundamental Attribution Error as we seek to understand our history and ourselves, the prospects for tomorrow would be as bright and shiny as a newly minted Abraham Lincoln penny!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE MAGNET THAT DRAWS AND DRAWS!

By Edwin Cooney

I can barely abide the 45th President of the United States. His persona, his name and even his voice are pretty hard for me to take at all comfortably!

I'll start from the beginning when I noticed him during the 2016 campaign. As it became pretty evident that not even disclosure of his tawdry outlook toward women was going to eliminate him from contention for the presidency, I interpreted his staying power to the weakness of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

His victory on November 8th, 2016 made it pretty clear to me that the failure of  the Clinton campaign, which was indeed pretty clumsy, had made Donald John Trump President-elect of the United States. After five and a half dreary and contentious years, I think I've finally hit upon the root of his appeal.

Before coming right out and telling you what I believe to be Mr. Trump's drawing power, I must begin by disillusioning two groups of Americans — Liberals and Conservatives.

Trump is not only neither of these two political and ideological entities, he's an entity all to himself as were some other willful international leaders in decades not too distant. Lenin and Castro rode Marx's ideology to the top of their bodies politic and Hitler manufactured his own party by linking socialism and Germanic nationalism together, but each of these three rose largely on the strength and dynamism of their personalities.

All of these men succeeded not because they were politically creative or clever, but rather, simply because they dared!

From as far back as I can remember, I've heard people wonder why we didn't more frontally challenge the Russians when we have always had the sufficiently superior technology to prevail. Why have we allowed racial minorities to threaten domestic tranquility when we've always had sufficient police power to say "no" and make it stick. Why have we not controlled large pharmacies when it comes to overpricing medical necessities when our government has the power to negotiate contracts with those who cooperate and deny companies who insist on overpricing medicines and other medical necessities.

Most Americans believe that success is about practicalities more than about ideology,. Besides, ideologies are invariably the playtoy of academicians who don't do “real” work and thus have a lot of time on their hands.   

If it itches, any Trumpite will simply tell you to scratch it. If someone pushes you, push them back. Never mind what their ethnicity, the color of their skin, or their political faith might be. Live on instinct! Don't explain — just do!

Mr. Trump has been pretty cagey when it comes to history and to politics. After all, according to his own evaluation, he was the “best president we’ve ever had” with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. Exactly where Ronald Reagan comes in is a matter Mr. Trump doesn't have to discuss with anyone. The Bushes, Reagans, Fords, and most certainly the McCains have nothing on Donald Trump.

The man's audacity is both his message and his promise. Donald Trump knows what makes a lot of people angry and therefore, on their behalf, he's sure his outrage, even more than any solution, will make them glad! Practicality will invariably bring outcomes not achievable by mere ideological politicians.

To sum it all up, Donald Trump succeeds for one reason and one reason alone.

More than any other politician since perhaps Huey Long who advocated redistributing the wealth during the 1930s, Donald Trump dares to dare.

Only a Donald Trump possesses the audacity to dominate the party of Ronald Reagan by insisting he's closer to Abraham Lincoln than even the"Great Communicator” himself! Only Donald Trump possesses the audacity to overthrow a constitutionally-elected president and insist that once he regains power he will faithfully "preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution which he recently violated! Donald John Trump doesn't explain, he just does!

The question remains, will his audacity ultimately pay off? I'm audacious enough to think I have the answer to that question! 

It's only my opinion, but I'll tell you what it is sometime!!!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY