Can A Country Not From The American Continents Win The World Cup In Brazil?

The sports media has been making a big deal about how only countries from the American continents have won the World Cup when the World Cup Finals have been held in the Americas.  Something have changed since the last two (I say two because for a while the media focused only on South American countries winning the World Cup when it has been held in South America) that may make you think about dismissing Germany from being able to win today.

First, keep in mind when these two World Cup Finals were.  The last time the World Cup was held in the Americas was in 1994 when the U.S. hosted it.  The last time a South American country hosted it was in 1978 when Argentina hosted it.  Brazil won the tournament in 1994 and Argentina won it in 1978.

Since 1994 (or 1978 if you want to focus on South America), the availability of data, video, and other scouting material is much easier.  Things that were considered difficult to get for a sports team are now easily available on the internet and people can even access the internet with their cell phones.

Players take their professional careers to other countries.  As such, they play against or with some of the players they would face when they play for their national team.  Players know more about their opponents for the World Cup now simply because they are more familiar with them and their tendencies.

Another effect of players taking their professional careers elsewhere is that they travel more.  More clubs are doing international tours during the summer.  The more you travel, the more you learn how to deal with the time zone changes.  So the effect of the time zone change is not as great as it was in 1994 and 1978.

Germany is the favorite to win today and many are willing to give Argentina the edge simply because of the history of countries in the Americas winning the World Cup when the Finals are held in the Americas.  A lot has changed since the last World Cup Final in the Americas or just in South America.  That doesn't mean that Germany will definitely win, but I wouldn't write them off simply because of this piece of history.  Should Germany win today, this is something you should consider as to why a a country not from the American continent won.

My pick is Germany 3-1 Argentina.

The Religious Exemption To Contraceptive Coverage In Obamacare

This note has to do with today's (Friday, June 28, 2013) ruling by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding the mandate for employers to provide coverage for contraception and the limited religious exemption as reported in this article from Bloomberg and the actual ruling, which is linked in the Bloomberg article.

First of all, why did it take so long for the HHS to make a final ruling, especially since they were ordered by the court to stop stalling and make a ruling?  I think it is because of the timing of the renewal of insurance policies, specifically those that renew during the summer (July 1 and August 1 come to mind) and the employers not having a sufficient amount of time to self-certify that they are an eligible employer to opt out of providing the coverage.  Their failure to self-certify in the first year of the law might even be used against them if they try to self-certify at a later date.

Secondly, it seems that there was no compromise on the definition of a religious employer as promised by the HHS.  The actual ruling states "Based on their review of these comments, the Departments are finalizing without change the definition of religious employer in the proposed regulations."

Thirdly, what insurance law allows for an insurance company to provide a coverage to the policyholders without collecting anything for the coverage?  I cannot think of any insurance company or state department of insurance that would approve of doing what is stated here:

"A nonprofit associated with a religious group that doesn’t want to pay for the coverage must inform its insurer or the company that administers its health plan, if it is self-insured, the government said. The insurer then pays for the services without using any money received from the nonprofit."

The actual ruling discusses this this in more detail.  It still does not appear to be actuarially sound on its own.  Rather, it relies on the cost savings in the insurance plan and allows the insurer to offset these payments with the cost savings.  This cost savings is only realized when one combines the payments for contraception coverage with the insurance policy that specifically excludes contraception coverage.  No matter what the ruling states about not using premiums from these policies to pay for contraception coverage, this is the only way the insurer can offset the losses for providing the contraception coverage free of charge.

If the federal government will be reimbursing third party administrators (TPA) of self-insured companies for this coverage, doesn't this mean the government is paying for it?  And how much will this reimbursement cost?  The government has no idea:

"Third-party administrators, who won’t financially benefit from reduced births, will be reimbursed for the coverage by the government. The administration offered no estimate of what those reimbursements would cost."

In regards to the first sentence of the quote in the last paragraph, why should the TPA's benefit from this?  TPA's contract with the self-insured companies.  The TPA gets their income simply for being the administrator and their fee is negotiated and spelled out in the contract.  The supposed savings would be for the self-insured company, not the TPA.

Keep in mind from where the HHS feels the cost savings will come:

"“We do strongly believe that the cost of contraceptive services will be absolutely cost-neutral and offset by improvements to women’s health as well as reduced pregnancies,” she (Chiquita Brooks-Lasure, deputy director of policy and regulation at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS, which is implementing much of the Affordable Care Act.) said at a briefing with reporters."

The overall impact on women's health of providing contraception may actually increase costs.  Some forms of contraception actually have negative impacts on women's health, such as  increased risk of cancer, so that may cause a net increase.  As with the federal government, I am not providing estimates on this, but I will refer you to the National Cancer Institutes Fact Sheet on Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk.

If the offset is in reduced pregnancies, then we are in trouble as public policy is being made on the cost of one's life.  It may cost less to the government, an employer, an insurance carrier, and the family (or in some cases, just the woman) to not go through a pregnancy.  The family should be the one making the decision on whether they can afford another child before going through the act of doing something that could conceive a child.  This should NOT be a decision of the government, an employer, or an insurance carrier.  Using the reduced number of pregnancies resulting from providing another coverage is a dangerous precedent in public policy and can lead to the government making such decisions for all people.

And how is the federal government going to determine how much a company saved by providing contraception coverage for them even though it goes against the beliefs of the employer?  How deep into one's health insurance claims will they dig to determine the cost savings of an insurer providing this coverage?

Finally, there is no way for an individual working at some non-religious employer to opt out.  It is simply up to the employer to decide whether to even offer an option to opt out of having the contraception coverage provided.

This ruling was intentionally delayed to make it difficult for eligible employers opt out, did not compromise on what constitutes an eligible employer, forces insurance companies to pay for contraception coverage out of their own pocket while only offering to make this actuarially sound by violating this ruling, does not have an estimate in the cost to the federal government for reimbursing TPA's for providing this coverage, relies on reduced pregnancies to justify this requirement, and does not allow for all individuals to opt out of the coverage.

The Carpenter's Role In Salvation

Christians know the role St. Joseph had in our salvation.  Non-Catholics may simply dismiss Joseph's role in salvation as he was merely the man that was tasked with raising our Lord.  As we see in Matthew 1:18-24, Joseph was afraid to take Mary as his wife because she was with child.  He loved her and did not want "to expose her shame (and) decided to divorce her quietly."  The penalty for such adultery at the time was death.  Had Joseph divorced her publicly, then Mary would have been stoned to death and our Lord Jesus Christ would not have been born.  The role of Joseph in salvation history is more than just husband to woman who gave birth to Jesus, but that of foster father to and teacher of our Lord.

I am in the minority of lay people that prays the Liturgy of the Hours (or the Divine Office).  Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer are the hinges of the Liturgy of the Hours and perhaps the most well known among the faithful.  I feel that the Office of Readings brings the Liturgy of Hours to its fullness in living the yearly cycle of the Church.

On Saturday's during Ordinary Time the Liturgy of the Hours gives the option for the Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  One of the options for the second reading comes from a homily by St. John Chrysostom.  In this homily, St. John Chrysostom shows the symbols of our fall and salvation are "a virgin, a tree and death."  In our fall "the virgin was Eve; then there was the tree; and death was Adam's penalty.  And again these three tokens of our destruction, the virgin, the tree, and death, became the tokens of our victory. Instead of Eve there was Mary; instead of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the wood of the cross; instead of Adam's death, the death of Christ."

The virgins were actors that brought our fall and salvation to us.  They both answered calls to do something.  Eve was called by the devil and Mary was called by God.

The trees were instruments that gave us our fall and salvation.  Consuming the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil brought about our fall.  The cross was used to crucify Jesus Christ.  The fruit of the cross is the Body of Christ, which we receive in Holy Communion.

The death of Adam was the penalty that was given to mankind.  We were all doomed to death because of Adam.  Yet when Jesus Christ was put to death and rose from the dead, all were given a chance of salvation, "even those who were born before" Jesus' death and resurrection.

A significant difference in these three symbols is that the tree that brought about our fall was alive and the tree that brought about our salvation was dead.  The work of a carpenter is to build and repair structures of wood.  How did the tree become a cross?  Obviously someone took the wood of a tree and made a cross to crucify Jesus Christ as well as the two thieves next to him and many others that the Romans put to death.  Was it simply the work of human hands that made the cross the symbol of our salvation?  Anyone skilled in carpentry to make a cross for crucifixion.  But to make the cross a symbol of our salvation required the work of a special carpenter.

Joseph, the foster father of Jesus Christ, was a carpenter (Matthew 13:55).  As the foster son of a carpenter, Jesus likely learned the trade of carpentry.  It is this skill that allowed Jesus to do with the cross something that no other carpenter could do.  He took the work of the carpenters, the cross, and by allowing Himself to be put to death on the cross, He transformed the cross into the symbol of our salvation.  Joseph taught Jesus the carpentry skills that allowed Him to transform wood into structures and other useful items and decorations.  Without the carpentry skill learned from Joseph, could Jesus have turned the wood of the cross into the symbol of our salvation?  Although Jesus, as the Son of God, could do anything, I think it was necessary that as the Son of Man He also had to learn something from His foster father, Joseph, to bring about our salvation.  And that something is the carpentry skill.

Congratulations To Pope Francis

Congratulations to Pope Francis (Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina) on his election to the Papacy.

Many may have forgotten that he was supposedly a contender in 2005.  I had dismissed him as being too old to be considered this time.  Either this was not an issue for the Cardinal Electors or they believe him to be in good health.

Others may be wondering why a Latin American was elected to be Pope.  About 42% of the Catholic Church is in Latin America and his election reflects this.

Yesterday I was discussing possible Pope names with my wife.  I mentioned that it had been a while since we had a Pope take a name that had not yet been used by a Pope.  My research shows that the last Pope to take an original name was Pope Lando in 913.  I later recalled that John Paul I in 1978 took an original name.  Considering that John Paul I chose the two names together to honor both of his predecessors, so it is not as original as taking a name like Francis that had not been used as a Pope's name.

Pope Francis looks like a Pope to me.  A few days ago I had an image of John XXIII appear to me.  This image appeared to me when looking at an image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  Although Francis is not as large as John XXIII, the image that appeared to me reminds me more of Francis that John XXIII.

Finally, I am certain the Holy Spirit guided the College of Cardinals in selecting Pope Francis and I am sure he will guide the Church well.

Congratulations to Pope Francis, our new Pope!

Challenge: Is Care For The Poor, Sick, And Elderly An Intrinsic Evil?

Earlier today I saw online a Catholic arguing that our Christian obligation to support those that cannot support themselves (the poor, sick, and elderly) is more important than the issue of abortion.  Although I do not know the person, I chose to reply because of the nature of the audience that would see his position.  What follows is my response to his opinion that care for those that cannot support themselves is more important than ending abortion.

Taking care of the poor and sick is certainly a good thing for us to do. However, supporting anyone that stands behind allowing the killing of innocent people is intrinsically evil (for those not familiar with the term intrinsically evil, please see this blog post; it means "evil no matter what the circumstances.") You could argue that one candidate allowing for an exception in limited cases is intrinsically evil in order to not support him, but if you do that you would have to not support the other candidate that supports abortion with no exception for the same reasons. In which case you would have to find another candidate to support. Support for abortion is morally wrong. As the bishop said,"One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils," and that is our first obligation as faithful Catholics.

If a President and Congress make changes that cut back drastically on support of the poor and sick, we can still provide for them through our own work. So long as there are laws that allow abortion (with no exceptions), we are allowing an intrinsic evil to occur. If laws were to come that would make it illegal for us to provide for the poor and sick, we might have an interesting discussion on whether caring for them or allowing abortion were the greater intrinsic evil, but they are both intrinsically evil and we could not support a candidate with either belief. The one intrinsic evil in play here is abortion. We might disagree on how to provide for the poor and sick, but how that is performed is not a moral issue, in which case we are called to support that candidate that does not support abortion (with no exceptions).

There are other moral issues as well, like support for gay marriage, that go against the teaching of the Catholic Church. One might argue that we have no right to force our morality onto others, but this is something that will have an impact on any religion that believes in marriage being between one man and one woman. Laws are being pushed to force churches to perform "same sex marriages." If this is not an issue of religious freedom, then I don't know how far the government would have to push to make people of faith realize that the government is intruding in religion. Secondly, there is a good amount of imagery in our faith that is rooted in marriage like the creation accounts and the marriage of Jesus to the Church. These images lose their meaning as "same sex marriages" become legal. Do you want the teachings of the Church to become watered down because of changes in the law?

"Same sex marriage" is a moral issue as are abortion and care for the poor and sick. The intrinsic evils are abortion and "same sex marriage," which means "evil no matter what the circumstances." I hope you understand how abortion and "same sex marriage" are "evil no matter what the circumstances." Go back and reflect on whether how one party plans to care for the poor and sick is "evil no matter what the circumstances." If you still feel that supporting a candidate that supports abortion and "same sex marriage" is acceptable, please explain your rational. The rationale should explain:
1) How one candidate's plans for caring for the poor and sick is an intrinsic evil.
2) Why abortion and "same sex marriage" are not intrinsic evils OR why it is acceptable to support a candidate that supports one intrinsic evil over a candidate that supports another intrinsic evil.

I challenge any Catholic to provide such rationale.

I "Unfriended" Someone Today - The Failure Of Logic And Reason

About a year ago I reconnected with a high school friend on Facebook.  While we have some common interests, it became quickly apparent that we did not agree on religious, social, and political issues.  The social and political issues which we tended not to agree stemmed from religious beliefs - he is an atheist and I am a Catholic.  I entertained discussions with him because it gave me a chance to grower deeper in my faith.

The discussions would be on the role of religion in the government and moral issues.  We would have a few good exchanges on a topic and then insults were thrown at me because he perceived a comment of mine to patronize him.  He did not like it when I would remind him of something from history in response to his criticism of something the Catholic Church has done.  His response would be something like "don't patronize me, I've studied history for the last 10 years and have a Masters Degree in History" or "I studied the Bible and Church Fathers and learned a lot."  I do not doubt that those statements are true, but that does not excuse his comments or even suffice as a logical response.  Rather than giving me a reasonable or logical argument, he chose to give me his credentials and expected me to give up.  If one really has the credentials the cite, then they should be able to give an answer rather than shoving the credentials in another's face.


For a while I ignored this and tried to continue with the discussions.  He would either drop out of the discussion or come back to the beginning of the discussion.  Either way, the discussion basically came to an end.  Then another topic would come up and we would go through the same discussion points.  I really tired of this as he would continue with the same comments that I already refuted.  Without fail he would bring up  priest sex abuse and make that out to be a problem unique to the Catholic Church.  Despite many refutations regarding the frequency of allegations compared to the general population, the time period from which most of the alleged abuse occurred, and the Church following the norms of society when dealing with abusers, he continued to use this as an argument against the Church (Note that I do not think any actual abuse by anyone is acceptable).  He even went as far as claiming that the real reason the Church opposes abortion is because every abortion is one less child for a priest to molest.


Despite having to restate my arguments, that is not why I chose to "unfriend" him today.  About six weeks ago I was in a political discussion with him and he reminded me that the President of the United States is elected by the people.  I know that is code for some people that believe that Congress should approve anything the POTUS wants simply because he is elected by the people.  I reminded him (and anyone else using that argument) that Congress is also elected by the people and they have a responsibility to their constituents, not the POTUS.  He does not like it when I remind him of that and feels that I patronized him by doing so.  If he really know how the different branches of government work, he would not think that the POTUS should get whatever he wants.  Anyhow, during this particular discussion he chose to deactivate his account.  This is a habit I had noticed of his when he would get upset about a discussion.  Perhaps he has another reason to leave Facebook, but it always seemed to be in the middle of an especially heated discussion, one in which he felt it necessary to throw his credentials at me rather than continuing in discussion.  If you are going to claim there is no God, make attacks against my religion, claim to use logic and reason instead of God, refuse to give logical arguments to defend your beliefs, and even runaway or hide instead of continuing a discussion, then I have no use for you.  This happened too many times and I had decided to "unfriend" him when I realized he deactivated his account.  I could not do this at the time because I cannot "unfriend" someone whose account is not active.  Since I saw some posts from him today, I knew this was my chance to "unfriend" him as I intended.


This is part of what I have noticed with many atheists online, Facebook or elsewhere.  They claim to be the group of people that use logic and reason when it comes to god and morals.  Many of them focus their attacks on Christianity, especially the Catholic Church.  They have canned responses to many issues and I have come across many of them.  When it comes to morals, they will eventually bring up a Levitical law.  They do not understand how certain laws no longer apply because of the new covenant given to us by Jesus Christ.  Any claim to that will question why some laws still apply and they simply will not accept that moral laws from the Old Testament still apply.  They just state that they do not interpret the New Testament that way and will not give a reason why.  If these people are really the people who use logic and reason instead of god, they should be able to give an answer to this.  They would rather point out where they think religious people are not following the teachings of their religion rather than understand the basis for such teachings.  When it comes down to defending their interpretation of the Bible, they fail because their logic and reasoning is wrong.

Is the Mississippi "Anti-Abortion" Law Unfair?

Yesterday we saw that a Federal judge is blocking "a state law that threatens to shut down Mississippi'sonly abortion clinic and make it nearly impossible for women to get the procedure in the state."

As we have heard for a while, the abortion business is about women's health.  If that is really the case, then those supporting the abortion industry should be concerned about what happens to the woman having an abortion and something goes wrong with the procedure.  If one reads the entire article linked above, they will notice "(Clinic owner Diane) Derzis said that since she acquired Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2010, no woman has had to be taken from the clinic by ambulance."  That may be true, but that does not mean that no woman receiving treatment at the clinic needed to be taken to a hospital.

In this article from 2010, we see a variety of issues with clinics that perform abortions.  This includes botched abortions in Columbus, OH, "illegal abortions, unlicensed staff dispensing drugs and performing medical tasks for which they were not qualified" in Nebraska, a doctor "violating the terms of his probation by doing abortions without the required supervision of another physician" in California, and two "forced abortions" in Michigan.  These could very well be exceptions, but let's take a closer look at the issue in Columbus.

Looking deeper into the story of two botched abortions, we see disregard for the woman's health immediately following a botched abortion.  In the first instance "a pro-life sidewalk counselor saw a young woman leaving...an abortion clinic in Columbus, Ohio, after an abortion...the patient swooned, dropped to her knees, and began to vomit as she bled heavily through her clothing."  She was at the clinic for a total of two hours and felt "nauseated and lightheaded" during her visit and when she was discharged."  At the emergency room, she was treated for heavy bleeding, and given medication for her dizziness and nausea. It took emergency medical professionals six hours to stabilize her."  Where was the concern for the woman's health at the clinic?  Were they just trying to get rid of her because they thought something serious might happen to her?  Perhaps even death.  If they clinic staff is concerned about women's health, they would have kept her there or taken her to one of the hospitals at which the doctors have admitting rights.

The second case is a woman being "admitted to a Columbus hospital after suffering excessive bleeding and pelvic pain after her abortion...According to her transcripts, she suffered from a hematoma, or internal bleeding inside the tissues, and excessive clotting. Efforts by hospital staff to contact the clinic were unsuccessful."  Again we have a woman having to go to the hospital due to complications from an abortion.  The article is not clear on whether she was discharged from the clinic before going to the hospital.  Considering that the hospital was unsuccessful in contacting the clinic, I think it is safe to assume that they discharged her.  Furthermore, the fact that the clinic would not respond to the hospital regarding the treatment of one of their patient's tells me that this is yet another clinic that is not really concerned about the health of the woman.

It is possible that these are isolated cases in one city.  Some would even say that it is likely that these are isolated cases and I will give them that.  However, if you dig around you will see that problems like this are being uncovered across the country.

The fact of the matter with this law is that the State of Mississippi needs assurances that the women receiving abortions in Mississippi is given the proper and necessary care, especially in the events of complications.  While this law may have been drafted with the intent of shutting down the abortion industry in Mississippi, the law does bring abortion clinics to the same standard as all ambulatory surgical centers.  If this law were drafted with any other type of clinic in mind, it would likely be a non-issue.  If this law were really unfair, it would be holding abortion clinics to a higher standard, not bringing them up to the standard of other surgical centers.