COOPERATORES VERITATIS

A Word to the Wise

2006-09-20T14:09:00.000-07:00

"And what I'm trying to say is that nobody ever had a rainbow baby until he had the rain"

Jim Croce-- from the song Tomorrow's Gonna Be a Brighter Day

Taking Dale Vree and Certain Catholic Figures Who Defend Him On a Much Needed Trip to the Woodshed

2006-07-18T16:23:00.000-07:00

The article " Sock It To Us! Fling Us Into That Brier Patch" that appeared the New Oxord Notes portion of the New Oxford Review, whining about Pete Vere's rather terse criticism of their "critique" of a Michael O' Brien article about the tyrannical foothold militant homosexual activists have gained up in Canada with the passage of C-250 (legislation that makes any public criticism of the homosexual lifestyle a hate crime, punishable by jail time) is a recent example of the descent into the abyss of the asinine by Dale Vree of the New Oxford Review over the last couple of years.

Vree laments:

On Vere's Internet blog, The Lidless Eye Inquisition (Feb. 16 and 17), he socks it to the NOR because of our critique of Michael O'Brien of Canada. O'Brien wrote an article in another magazine where, according to Vere, he "warned [that] the homosexual agenda was leading to a new totalitarianism in Canada." Vere says, "the folks at NOR made use of their first ammendment [sic] rights to attack O'Brien and other Catholics from Canada for standing up to the gay agenda." In our February 2006 issue, we published a long article revealing "The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement," and as a result, we've been directly threatened by a homosexual. No First Amendment rights will protect us from violence.

Now I’m not saying that criticism of the methodology Pete employed in his criticism of Dale is off limits. In fact, I told Pete, in private correspondance, that some of the criticisms of the way he went after Vree had some merit. I think he was a bit heavy-handed with the namecalling and should have focused more on the substance (or should I say lack thereof) of Vree's arguments. For one thing, it gave Dale a big enough rabbit hole to jump down to avoid the substance of Pete’s criticisms.

Since Mr. O’Brien’s forte as a writer is fiction…apocalyptic fiction that is, I was more than willing to take that into account and overlook any literary exaggerations common to that genre. But after reading the article, I saw no need to grant such latitude. O’Brien’s characterization of the situation in Canada is spot-on accurate and his language more than appropriate.

But Dale Vree disagrees:

Michael O'Brien is an accomplished Catholic novelist. His strength is fiction. In The Catholic World Report (April), he ventures into nonfiction, specifically political science, and what he writes turns out to be fiction as well.

And:

This is pure hysteria, and is so reminiscent of the New Left in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which claimed that Nixon was Hitler and America is Amerikkka.

Agreeing with Vree, Karl Keating says:

I thought Michael O'Brien's essay was well composed, but Dale Vree happened to be right in saying that O'Brien overstretched in using "totalitarian" to describe the trend of the present situation in Canada. That word has a particular, narrow meaning, and I think O'Brien used it unwisely.

If Messrs Vree and Keating think O’Brien is hyperventilating, consistency would demand that they hand out the paper bags to Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI as well. The former says:

As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism" (Veritatis Splendor #101)

In his homily at the opening mass of the Conclave that elected him pope, the former Cardinal Ratzinger made this well-known and oft-repeated statement:

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

O’Brien’s article accurately (and without hysteria I might add) underscores how this “thinly disguised totalitarianism" and “dictatorship of relativism” has concretely taken shape in Canadian society and Canadian laws.

Moreover, I would like to ask both Keating and Vree if “a printing company that declined to print Toronto’s annual gay pride day literature was sued under the human rights law, fined heavily, and forced to print the material or close their business” doesn’t smack of totalitarianist tactics or militant homosexuals, buoyed by the positions taken by the Canadian legislature, behaving like “Nazi hooligans” in their in protesting outside Archbishop Adam Exner’s Episcopal residence in Vancouver because His Excellency “withdrew his Catholic schools from a bank due to their promotion of homosexuality” doesn’t contain a “ whiff of Germany in the early 1930’s” then what the hell does?

Vree quotes Vere stating (correctly I would say) that "New Oxford Review are useful idiots of the gay agenda." In Vree’s defense, the Pertinacious Papist (Dr. Phil Blosser) says "That NOR is 'useful idiots of the gay agenda'...is utterly absurd.... Nobody in his right mind who has read such essays [against homosexuality in the NOR] can see such statements as those above [Vere's statements] as anything but absurd."

Dr. Blosser’s remark shows that he is either:(a) clueless as to what the term “useful idiot” means , (b) clueless as to the strategy of homosexual advocacy groups and how Vree’s statements play into it, or (c) clueless about both. Dale’s wanton use of vulgar epithets like “fags” and “rump rangers” (neither of which, especially the latter, have any place in public Catholic discourse) make it much easier for gay activists to portray all of us who oppose societal validation of the homosexual lifestyle as “God hates fags”-chanting Fred Phelps wannabes. I fail to see how this helps to put the proper (and I think badly needed) stigma on homosexual behavior. Then he launches an attack on Michael O’Brien who (at the risk of jail time) courageously speaks out against the Canadian government’s attempt to force the gay agenda on the Canadian public by way of legislative fiat. The coupling of these two facts make clear that idiots for the gay agenda don’t come any more useful than Dale Vree.

If one reads the article written by O'Brien and then reads what Vree, Keating, and Blosser have said about it, he will see that the former makes an airtight case, replete with examples, to justify the use of his terminology, while the latters demonstrate they know not what they are talking about.

Just so no one misunderstands me, I am in no way saying that constructive criticism of O’Brien’s article is off limits. But Vree’s BS knee jerk drivel (as well as Keating's and Blosser's agreement with it) misses the mark of constructive criticism by such a long shot it would not have been affected if they had tried to hit it with an atom bomb.

But what I find more disturbing than Vree’s drivel is the eagerness employed by prominent Catholic apologist Karl Keating, Catholic philosopher and author Dr. Phil Blosser, and prominent canonist Dr. Ed Peters circling the wagons in Vree’s defense. This is especially true when we consider those whom Vree has unfairly attacked. O’Brien and Vere are not the only Catholics who are the targets of Vree’s vitriol. Popular scripture scholar and author Dr. Scott Hahn, John Paul II biographer George Weigel, and even Pope Benedict XVI himself come under fire from the NOR editor.

One would think that the prominent Catholic personages, especially the ones listed above, would practice fraternal correction with Mr. Vree. The fact of the absence of such badly needed correction, to say nothing of the defense of such excesses, is a gravely disturbing one.

In the interests of full disclosure, I must point out that Keating does say that he "sometimes disapprove[s] of the way Vree writes (and several times...[has] told him so privately, on the phone)". But as we will see in the paragraph after the next, Karl is clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth.

We have already seen Keating and Blosser embarrass themselves with their defense of Vree’s nonsensical attack on O’Brien. But it gets even better---or worse depending on how you look at it.

For starters, we have Dr. Blosser happily informing his readers of the “You didn’t have to defend him like you did, but you did, but you did (enter ZZ Top slide and return guitar riff here) and I thank you” phone call from Karl Keating complete with nauseating platitudes about how nice of a guy Vree is.

As we will see when we look at Dr. Phil’s apologia pro Dale Vree, he got Mr. Keating’s gratitude on the cheap. Dr. Blosser masterfully demonstrates that a Ph.D. in philosophy doesn’t guarantee sound argumentation...or intellectual honesty for that matter.

His main post defending Vree was entitled Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! First of all, for Phil Blosser to demand that people show respect for Dale Vree while not demanding that Vree do the same in light of his vicious treatment of good Catholics is beyond insulting.

Secondly, some “pit bull” this Dale Vree is! He yelps like a whiny poodle when Pete Vere gives him a dose of his own medicine.

He defends Vree’s treatment of Dr. Scott Hahn:

Scott Hahn is a very dear personal friend of mine, and I generally repose a near absolute trust in his theological judgments. Whatever may be said of his views concerning the Holy Spirit, however, the broadside derisive dismissal of NOR's discussion of Hahn's Pneumatology represented by such witless folderol is simply embarrassing, for NOR published no such nonsense as this. In fact Karl Keating, one of NOR's contributing editors, argues on Shea's blog that even if Vree's editorials were to be criticized as hyperbolic, the same charge could not be leveled against articles such as the one that appeared in the June 2004 issue entitled "Scott Hahn's Novelties," by Edward O'Neill. Keating writes: "I read that article more than once and saw no hyperbolic language or uncharity in it. It was a low-key look at some of the positions Scott has taken (some of which I hadn't been aware of), and I thought it brought up fair questions." (Source) I read the same article and drew much the same conclusion myself. Most of the emotional rants against the NOR that I have seen have not been based on first-hand acquaintance the journal, but with secondhand hype and balderdash.

Dr. Blosser's preface “Scott Hahn is a very dear personal friend of mine…” strikes me as reminiscent of what Dan Rather said to Bernard Goldberg before Mr. Rather went ballistic over the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Goldberg wrote about liberal media bias, ”Bernie, we were friends yesterday, we’re friends today, and we’ll be friends tomorrow.” Well, just as Bernie got “Mugged by the Dan”(Bias pp.33-34), Dr. Scott Hahn (along with George Weigel) got flayed by the Phil in the interests of protecting Dale Vree.

Dr. Blosser portrays NOR’s criticisms of Dr. Hahn’s views regarding the “femininity” of the Holy Spirit as they though are constructive and when they are nothing of the sort. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Ed O’Neill’s article is as Karl Keating says, “low-key look at some of the positions Scott has taken…” and “brought up fair questions”, it does not even come close to giving the full picture as to NOR’s treatment of Hahn. To wit:

In our New Oxford Note “Burn, Baby, Burn!” (Sept. 2002), we took on the highly esteemed Dr. Scott Hahn for saying outrageous and scandalous things. We noted: “Feminist theologians and their Queer cheerleaders have been campaigning for a feminine Holy Spirit for decades. How odd — how depressing, actually — to see Dr. Hahn jump on the bandwagon.”

Does Phil Blosser consider this “low key” and “fair”? Or is he unaware of this article or the “Burn Baby Burn” article? This doesn’t seem to be the case since, as Dr. Blosser makes clear, he is very familiar with the NOR and would, therefore, be aware of them. If he is not, he is not as familiar with NOR as he claims. So he is either deliberately, by way of omission, not giving his readers sufficient information as to NOR’s characterization of Hahn’s views or he is not sufficiently familiar with them to mount a credible defense of them. Either way, it seems clear that he is being less than honest with his reader.

I find Dr. Blosser’s characterization of the comments made at Mark Shea’s blog as “witless folderol”to be…well…witless folderol. Since comments boxes on weblogs are venues given more to sound byte-type off-the-cuff remarks instead of lengthy explanation or arguments supporting a position, as Dr. Blosser seems to demand, one should not expect such. That being said, I thought that the remarks made regarding Vree’s criticisms of Dr. Hahn generally accurate. I also think Blosser is less than honest in his portrayal of the comments box statements. For instance, he totally avoids the trenchant (and very relevant) explanation Rosemarie gives of Hahn’s position vs. Vree’s criticisms:

Having studied "Christian feminism," I'd hardly call Scott Hahn's speculation on the Holy Ghost "feminism." I read that controversial passage in First Comes Love; Hahn explicitly denies that the Third Person of the Trinity is essentially "feminine" and states outright that we cannot call God "Mother." That would annoy any "Christian feminist."Hahn basically cites certain Christian sources who spoke of the Holy Spirit in maternal terms over the centuries (he avoids heretical sources like Gnosticism). He then speculates that, since a mother is the "bond of love" in a human family and the Spirit is the "bond of love" in the heavenly family that is the Church, then perhaps the Spirit plays a "mother-like" role in our heavenly family. Since He also has a special bond with Blessed Mother and Holy Mother Church (the Spirit is "soul of the Church"), Hahn speculates that the Spirit's "mother-like" role may be somehow related to the Motherhood of Mary and the Church.

And:

Here's an example of how Dale Vree completely misconstrues Scott Hahn's argument. In his "Burn, Baby, Burn" Newsnotes he writes the following:"Dr. Hahn goes so far as to say the Holy Spirit is "bridal" and that "Mary's maternity is mystically one with that of…the Spirit." The imagery here is blatantly and scandalously lesbian."Here, Vree gives readers the false impression that Scott is saying that the Holy Spirit is the "bride" of Mary. Nothing could be further from the truth! He has taken Hahn's statements grossly out of context. On page 135 of First Comes Love, Hahn writes:"As the Father made Eve from the rib of Adam, so Methodius called the Holy Spirit 'the rib of the Word' - the uncreated principle of maternity".This comment from St. Methodius relates to the mystery of the Church as Bride of Christ. As Eve was taken from Adam's side, so the Church was born from the New Adam's pierced side on the Cross. St. Methodius represented the Spirit as coming forth from Christ's side on the Cross as well.What Scott Hahn is saying is: since the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church, and the Church is the Bride of Christ, in some mysterious sense the Spirit may be said to have a "bridal" relationship to the Word by means of the Church, the Bride of Christ. He relates this to Methodius' statement that the Holy Ghost is "the rib of the Word."He is NOT saying that the Spirit is Mary's bride, but that the Spirit is the "Soul" of Christ's Bride! This is a further example of how Vree misrepresents Scott Hahn's argument, making it seem he said something which he did not in fact say!The statement "Mary's maternity is mystically one with that of the Spirit" does not indicate lesbianism, either. It simply means that, since the Holy Spirit has a close bond with Our Lady (as St. Maximilian Kolbe taught), Mary's motherly love for Jesus and for us is imbued with the Holy Spirit, Whom Fr. Manteau-Bonamy called "the maternal love" of God the Father for the Son.It does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a "mother of Jesus" in addition to Mary. Scott Hahn makes no such argument. When you really understand what he is saying, you'll see there is no lesbianism there at all.Vree's malfunction is in part due to his erroneous idea that the Holy Ghost played a "sexual" role in the Incarnation. That is why he reads Hahn's work and thinks, "Lesbianism!!!" He's reading it through the lens of his own misunderstanding of the Spirit's role in the Incarnation, which was not a paternal -or maternal- role at all!

Lest anyone think Rosemarie is simply carrying the water for Dr. Hahn, she goes on to say:

Scott Hahn may be right, he may be wrong, and one can certain question whether that book, intended for popular consumption, was really the best place to engage in such nuanced theological speculation. But he did not deserve to be slammed with feminist/pro-gay marriage libel because of it.

Amen Rosemarie. Who’s operating from “hearsay” and “second hand” information? Dale Vree and Phil Blosser, not Rosemarie or anyone else in the comments box.

Dale Vree appears to have a serious axe…more like a guillotine…to grind against Pope John Paul II biographer George Weigel. He calls Weigel George “Humpty Dumpty Weigel” and characterizes his book The Cube and the Cathedral as “rhetorical witchcraft”. If Dr. Blosser is so damned adamant about Vree’s critics showing him respect why doesn’t he demand that Vree show respect for Weigel? In fact, he defends Vree:

But the real issue here is the definition of "freedom" and whether Vree misinterpreted Weigel. The answer, I contend, is quite simple: Vree turns out to be right here, and it is Weigel who is fudging. Let me explain. In his original article, ("A Nation Defining Election", The Tidings, April 2004), Weigel is concerned to distinguish two senses of the word "freedom": (1) freedom in the sense of doing things "my way"; and (2) freedom in the sense "doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way, as a matter of habit (which is another name for 'virtue)." There is nothing new about this distinction. Out of the multifarious senses of "freedom" one might distinguish (here Mortimer Adler's Freedom: A Study of the Development of the Concept in the English and American Traditions of Philosophy is probably definitive), Weigel has singled out two -- the former, a sense with modern associations stemming from the Enlightenment and Kant's notion of the autonomous executive will ("doing what I want") -- and the latter, a sense with classical associations stemming from the Greek, or more specifically, Aristotelian ideals of virtue ("doing what I should," or "acting in accordance with the inner telos of my true nature"). The latter is also susceptible of overlays of biblical understandings ("the Truth shall set you free") and Thomistic and Lockean natural law ("freedom is discerned through the naturalis ratio") and their respective modes of apprehending the Good.Now it is true, of course, as the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Weigel, and Aristotle and all of classical thought are agreed, that 'virtue' is a kind of 'habit.' Just as by repeatedly smoking cigarettes, one acquires the habit of smoking, so by repeatedly performing acts of moral goodness (like telling the truth) or evil (like telling lies), one acquires moral habits (virtues such as truthfulness, or vices, such as untrustworthiness). This much is a given.But now, when Weigel writes in his letter to NOR: "I have never written that 'freedom' is 'another name for virtue,'" and that what he had originally written was that "'habit' is 'another name for virtue,'" this may be true; but it is also beside the point and misleading. For the question is not whether "freedom" is "another name for virtue" -- which it isn't -- but whether it is conceptually linked with virtue in Weigel's second sense of "freedom," which it essentially and ineluctably is. Therefore it seems to me that Weigel is being not a trifle disingenuous here, probably still smarting from Vree's treatment of him in his Sept. 2004 New Oxford Note ("George 'Humpty Dumpty' Weigel") to which he obviously took strong exception. Vree's answer to Weigel sounds flippant, but it would be unwise to dismiss it precipitously as conceptually mistaken on that account, because it's not. Vree wrote:

What's not to understand? What you wrote is crystal clear: Freedom is habit is virtue. Therefore, freedom is virtue. Sorry, but there's no "plausible deniability" here. You can't wiggle out of it. You said it, and you can't pass the buck on to Fr. Pinckaers.

It's true that the terms and concepts of "freedom" and "virtue" are not identical. But in Weigel's second definition of freedom, he defines freedom in the sense of a habit of virtue; hence, Vree is entirely within his epistemic rights in concluding that, for purposes of that definition, freedom = habit = virtue. Thus Vree is the one who's got his philosophy right here, no matter how flippant he may sound, whereas it's Weigel who is blowing smoke and confusing the issue, no matter how diplomatic and scholarly he may sound. What's Weigel up to? Why would he do such a thing? Why would someone who is the object of sharp criticism react in this way? To distance himself from his critic? To give the appearance of having bested his critic in any way possible? You tell me.

Even if we were to concede some of Vree’s portrayals of Weigel’s definition of freedom had any merit (or that Vree is within his “epistemic rights”), Dr. Blosser would have to acknowledge that Vree’s attack on Weigel was way over the top. Given the insulting tone Vree employs in his “critique” of Weigel, I think Weigel’s “snippety” response was well justified.

Anyone with any familiarity with NOR knows, contrary to what Dr. Blosser claims, what is really at issue here is that Vree’s personal animus against Weigel and the rest of the Catholic “neo-con” establishment over issues like the war in Iraq is what fuels his vitriolic criticism of Weigel’s definition of freedom. And since Vree knows he cannot effectively take on Weigel or any of the other dreaded “neo-cons” in arena of ideas on this issue, he has to divert attention from that fact by starting a tempest in a teacup, pole-vaulting over the mouse turds of Weigel’s minor epistemological errors (real or perceived) on the nature of freedom. Anyone who actually reads Weigel’s article knows what he is talking about and just how petty Vree is being.

I find it disturbing, to say the least, for Blosser to not only refuse to hold Dale Vree accountable for conduct that is clearly unbecoming of an editor of a Catholic periodical, but hold Vree is high regard: “With very few and comparatively minor exceptions -- generally constituting, at worst, indiscretions of tact -- my judgment is that Vree's editorial performance has been utterly irreproachable.”

Let’s take a look at a few more examples of Dale Vree’s “utterly irreproachable” editorial performance, shall we?

To wit:

In an unjust war -- which is what the Catholic Church said the war on Iraq is -- killing soldiers, killing civilians who get in the way of military targets, and killing civilians on purpose are all murder. (And just what is the difference between terrorism and murder in warfare?) (emphasis added)

Now, Mr. Vree should know that when he says the “Catholic Church” said the war in Iraq is unjust that is ascribing magisterial authority to the opposition to the war of Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger despite the latter explicitly stating otherwise on two separate occasions:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles #3)(emphasis added)

Furthermore, the former Cardinal made clear that political matters (under which category the war in Iraq qualifies) are “not within his competence” and are “not a matter of Catholic doctrine”:

"Of course, [The Pope] did not impose this position as a doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith. The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq." ( Cardinal Ratzinger interview with Zenit News in May 2, 2003)

Vree has, recently, made his belief regarding the magisterial status of Vatican opposition to the war in Iraq even more clear:

So all in all, opposition to the war on Iraq can be considered a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, not infallible. The moral teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are to be given "loyal submission of the will and intellect" (Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, #25). This should be reason enough for loyal Catholics to oppose the war on Iraq.

But is this teaching infallible? Stick with us, for in a roundabout way, the condemnation of the invasion of Iraq is infallible. (emphasis added)

If we are to follow Vree’s logic here, Cardinal Ratzinger, by saying that Vatican opposition of the war in Iraq is not part of Catholic doctrine, is guilty of the same kind of Mater, sí; Magístra no refusal to submit to the Ordinary Magisterium viz. Lumen Gentium 25 , as the pro-war "neo-cons".

In the interests of full disclosure, I have to admit that the latter Vree quote came some time after Dr. Blosser’s defense. However, as the first quote indicates, the trajectory towards the latter was rather clear. Moreover, Dr. Blosser, I am sure, is well aware of the second quote and has yet to raise any objections to it. Considering Dr. Blosser’s willingness to go to pains to defend Mr. Vree in the past and the heterdox nature of Vree’s position as stated in the latter quote, I think Dr. Blosser ought to at least make clear that he objects to it.

Now enter in canonist Dr. Ed Peters. He weighs in on the Contra Dale Vree affair in his guest blogger post of February 20th of this year on Jimmy Akin’s blog. I would like to say that his approach was more reasoned than that of Karl Keating and Dr. Phil Blosser, but it wasn’t. He begins with:

“Lately it seems that ripping Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review has become many people’s favorite past time.”

Yeah, it’s because Dale deserves the "ripping" he has been getting.

“Of course, Vree is no stranger to intellectual street-fighting, so knocking NOR is nothing new. But to this observer, the pile-on looks like it’s getting out of hand.”

Given the way Vree whines when he gets his comeuppance, he isn’t much of a streetfighter. Seeing as how Dr. Peters seems to express no concern over what caused the “pile-on” to begin with, namely Vree’s beyond-the-pale vitriol, “this observer” isn’t all that observant.

“For example, just recently, Pete Vere, an early-30s, fairly well-known, orthodox Catholic blogger from Canada, thrice taunted Dale Vree (who is twice Vere’s age) for virtually being at death’s door and therefore practically out of time to repent of his publishing sins lest he go to hell. (I am not making this up). That does it. Somebody, hold my glasses. I’m going in.”

Well, given the blindness with which Peters flails about in this post, he would have been better off if he kept his glasses on (or at least wore contacts). Again, I think the manner Pete Vere choose in some of his criticisms of Vree left something to be desired, but the way Peters minimizes Vree’s faults in comparison to Pete’s is both embarrassing and intelligence-insulting. Note how Dr. Peters plays the “youth card” against Vere. What does Pete’s age (or Dale’s for that matter) have to do with any of this? Can we stick to the issues please?

“Dale Vree is not omniscient, his logical skills are not perfect…”

No one is demanding this, so why even bother with this non-sequiter?

“…and sometimes he fails in patience and charity. In other words, he’s a lot like me.”

Anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with Vree’s writings over the past couple years knows that Vree’s failures far exceed a momentary or even an occasional lapse in charity and good judgment. Vree’s rantings regularly display a gross lack of charity and concern for accuracy. In this light, I must now defend Dr. Peters against his own self-flagellation. No, Ed you are not like Vree. I don’t think anyone could find anything written by you that shows anything like the kind of lack of charity and concern for accuracy that has become par for the course with Vree.

“I’ve been reading NOR off and on for some 25 years—almost as long as Pete Vere has been alive—and there’s an old saying I just made up: ‘Blessed are the believing GenXers, for theirs is a world with abundant outlets for orthodox expression.’ “

If Peters has been "reading NOR off and on for some 25 years—almost as long as Pete Vere has been alive” he should know just how rancid Vree's polemics have become and just how silly and insulting his attempt at defending him is. Well , here's an "old saying" I just made up “Blessed are those abundant outlets for they prevent expressions of Catholic orthodoxy from being controlled by the apologists' old boys club.”

“They can’t remember the bad ole days, when virtually every organ of religious and secular media was dominated by the monolithic chant of ‘Burn, baby, burn.”

“Burn, Baby Burn”? Wasn’t that a title of one of Vree’s hit pieces on Scott Hahn? Yep, I think it was.

“Fewer people remember when, for his articulate defense of Catholic principles, Dale Vree was perhaps the loneliest man in Catholic publishing.”

So how does Vree's past good work justify the gutter ploemics he presently engages in? I mean, how many historians use Benedict Arnold’s earlier heroics (which by far exceed Vree's--real or perceived) to justify his later act of treason?

“But I remember those days, and say that if, in the twilight of his career, Dale Vree is making some unnecessary enemies, that is a genuine matter for concern and individual confrontation by his peers, not for disrespectful rebukes from youth.”

Well, if you guys who consider yourselves his peers would stop circling the wagons and actually confront him, there would be no need for “disrespectful rebukes from youth”. Peters’ statement here smacks of an elitism that has become all too commonplace amongst certain prominent Catholic apologists. Again Ed, can we stick to issues and put the youth card back in the deck? Thank you.

This gives rise to the question of why a Catholic apologist of the caliber of Jimmy Akin (who IMO is the most responsible and the most scholarly of the professional apologists) would allow his blog to be a venue for this. Now I don’t think Jimmy did it out of deference to Vree as much as to Peters, since he and Peters have a well-established working relationship. But I think Jimmy should have known better and examined what Peters wrote more closely or at least made some explicit qualifications.

Last fall when the conservative base of the Republican party was up in arms over President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and pressured him to pull her nomination (which he eventually did), some characterized it as a “crack-up” within the conservative base. Rush Limbaugh responded to that charge in an Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece entitled “Holding Court There's a crackdown over Miers, not a ‘crackup’” The title said all that really needed to be said about that issue.

Likewise here, this piece I have written, if understood and assimilated properly, will serve as a “crackdown” on what is going astray in Catholic apologetics and aid in its getting back on proper course, not a “crack-up”.

If Catholic apologetics is going to be taken seriously by those outside the Church, Catholic apologists (especially those most prominent) have to demonstrate that they are willing to hold themselves and their fellows to at least the same standard as they hold their non-Catholic opposition. In fact, I think they need to hold fellow Catholics (particularly those whom they have close working relationships with as Keating does with Vree and Akin does with Peters) to an even higher standard.

I have taken the time and energy to write this not only out of my respect for Catholic apologetics and the inestimable assistance it has provided to many (this writer included) in coming a proper understanding of what the Catholic Church is and what it teaches and why, but also out of respect for those who have made Catholic apologetics their life’s work, including those whom I have taken to task here.

Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” was the first work of Catholic apologetics I ever read. I found it to provide a valuable framework within which to understand certain controversial and difficult Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibility, the Real Presence, Mary etc. I would not hesitate in recommending it to anyone seeking a better understanding of the Catholic faith. I also believe that Catholic Answers, the organization founded by Keating, has provided an indispensable service to the Church as well.

Ed Peters’ canon law work, especially in regards to marriage and annulment issues is, in my view, second to none. He has also been more than generous in sharing his expertise on these matters, including his agreement to my request to give a presentation on annulments to a marriage and family (more like anti-marriage and family but I digress) class I was taking at a local community college about ten years ago.

I am not as familiar with the work of Dr. Phil Blosser, but I did find his work “War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning” a well-done work. The only significant, but harmless, error he made in the paper was about Ginger Baker dying of a drug overdose in 1960’s, unless of course he was miraculously resurrected for the 2005 Cream reunion concert at Royal Albert Hall. In fact, Baker looks better now in his 60’s than he did in his 20’s. And he’s still a great drummer.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for his defense of Dale Vree. The defense of Dale Vree by Dr. Peters and Mr. Keating, as well as Dr. Blosser is, in my view extremely harmful to the credibility that Catholic apologetics and scholarship needs to have if it is going to be able have any real impact today. Finally, let me ask them how do they expect the non-Catholic, to say nothing of the anti-Catholic world to give them a fair hearing when they engage in the same kind of behavior they have so often rightly upbraided their opposition for?

A Word to the Wise

2006-07-12T16:16:00.000-07:00

"The only cowboys they [Time Magazine and the rest of the Old Media] like are the ones from Brokeback Mountain."

--Mark Levin, yesterday on his syndicated radio show speaking about the Time magazine article proclaiming (they think) the end of the "Bush Doctrine".

Our Founding Fathers: Reluctant Revolutionaries

2006-07-03T22:41:00.000-07:00

Without a doubt, no revolution has had the impact in shaping the course of history as did the American Revolution. Because it is called the American “Revolution,” some seize upon this opportunity to characterize our Founding Fathers as though they are the patron saints of those who look for any excuse to just buck the establishment.

Does this description fit our Founding Fathers? Since the constraints of time forbid me to hold you in suspense, I will come right out and say no. We won’t have to look very hard to see that not only is description unwarranted, but that the exact opposite is true.

In the middle of the tenth line of the Declaration of Independence, we read the word

“Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly, all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Did Thomas Jefferson add this line for rhetorical effect only in an effort to make our case before the world? Again, the answer is no. It was an exact reflection of the attitude of the colonial leadership regarding the tensions that had arisen between the colonies and the British Crown, beginning at the end of the French and Indian War in 1759 culminating with the Declaration of Independence in July 1776. While resisting the Crown’s attempt to encroach upon the rights granted to the colonies under English law, independence was the furthest thing from their mind. For example, in we have saying Ben Franklin to Lord Chatham in March 1775: “ I have not heard in any conversation, from any person, drunk or sober, the least expression for a wish for a separation or even a hint that such a thing would be advantageous for America. “ George Washington, in a conversation with Rev. Jonathan Boucher of Maryland the spring of that same year said: “If I ever heard of his joining such measures as independence, I had his leave to set him down for everything wicked.” John Adams, known as the Atlas of Independence and who, by his own account, made himself obnoxious for the cause of independence recalls late in his life: “For my part, there was not a moment during the revolution that I would not have given everything I ever possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began.”

In July of 1775, the colonial leadership drew up what was called the “Olive Branch Petition,” which, as the title suggests, was an appeal to the king for peace. This petition not only didn’t express any desire to cut the apron strings of the Mother Country, but sought to strengthen that bond all the more. They entrusted Richard Penn grandson of Pennsylvania founder William Penn with the delivering of this petition to the king.

So, what happened? Here we have Franklin, Washington, and Adams speaking against independence. You also have this petition to strengthen ties with the Crown. What was the straw that broke the camel’s back? It was the action of one man. His name wasn’t John Adams, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor Ben Franklin. His first name was George, but his last name wasn’t Washington. It was Hanover III, king of England. He refused to even see Richard Penn. He rejected the petition, perhaps without even reading it. He issued an intemperate proclamation threatening condign punishment to those authors of the petition. And condign punishment for treason (which is what he was charging them with) was not exactly a slap on the wrist. From this there was really no recourse, but independence. The Declaration says it thus: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object envinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Whenever I think of the of the American Revolution, I am wont to recall what English Chancellor St. Thomas More said just before he was executed for refusing renounce his religious submission to the pope, “I am the King’s good servant, but I am God’s first.” Likewise, the American Revolution, in securing those inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a great act of obedience to the God who is the source of those rights.

A Word to the Wise

2006-06-30T22:09:00.000-07:00

A little common sense goes a long way in the spiritual life.

WMD's? What WMDs?

2006-06-22T19:52:00.000-07:00

I have always maintained that the fat lady hasn't even taken her first singing lesson as to whether or not Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs prior to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In fact, I have always had a feeling that she is just getting ready for the Mother of all Concerts and the anti-war, pseudo-peacemaker crowd isn't going to like the tune she sings.

Yesterday, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) called a press conference to reveal details of a recently declassified Pentgon report stating that over 500 projectiles with warheads filled with chemical agents, most likely sarin and mustard have been found in Iraq 2003.

According to the Loft, the six key findings noted by Santorum are:

--Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

--Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

--Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.

--The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.

--The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

--It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

Although, according to a Defense Department Official speaking to Fox News, "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war", it did " did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire."

According to Rush Limbaugh Fox News Military analyst Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said on Hannity and Colmes last night:

"[M]y personal opinion is, I think the fact is that the Russians moved large stocks of weapons of mass destruction out of Baghdad and Iraq in the fall of 2002. We've all heard what General Sada, the Iraqi defector said. He said that they went into three locations in Syria and one location in the Bekaa Valley, and if you get in there and if you found those weapons and found the precursors, the fingerprints would go back to Russia, China and France."

This is definitely a plausable theory considering the fact that Russia, China, and France were major members of the "Coalition of the Illlin'"{1} who lined their pockets with Hussein blood money vis-a-vis the corruption of the U.N. Oil for Food Program in exchange for their efforts at undermining U.S. and British-led efforts in the Security Council to put pressure on Iraq to disarm, stood to look really bad if we found WMD stockpiles post invasion. Secondly, they sure as hell had all the time in the world to do it. Everybody new we were going to invade Iraq a year ahead of time.

The next question is why doesn't it look as though the Bush adminstration or much of the GOP leadership gonna say a lot about this? Rush Limbaugh poses this theory:

"We've had a three-year propaganda program on "No weapons of mass destruction. None have been found." This is just settled in now as fact. It is not "fact." It is propaganda. The facts are coming out and there's probably a lot more to be unclassified if somebody will just do it. Now, there are other problems that exist here in addition to people not wanting to stick their necks out like Santorum has and Pete Hookstra [sic] has -- and Hookstra [sic], by the way, is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He's not a minor player here, not a minor figure."

I agree with ElRushbo here, but I also think it makes all those in the Adminstration, the Republican Party, and much of the conservative punditry who, for whatever reason, threw in the towel on the WMD issue saying, "Okay we had bad intelligence. Yada yada yada" look bad as well.

This is why it is important to remember it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Take heart, have courage and let Miss Tub O'Lard sing to her heart's content.

Note:

{1} I found this phrase somewhere in the blogosphere. I don't know who coined it. But props to whoever did.

A Word to the Wise

2006-06-19T12:16:00.000-07:00

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that the former judge people whereas the latter judge ideas.

Now This is How Political Ads Should Be Done

2006-06-15T20:40:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of North Carolina republican congressional candidate Vernon Robinson.

I most definitely approve of this message.

A Word to the Wise

2006-06-13T19:08:00.000-07:00

The faith doesn't always give us the right answers before it enables us to ask the right questions.

June 7, 2006: A Date That Will Live in Infamy...for the Anti-war Kooks On the Left

2006-06-08T19:32:00.000-07:00

On June 7, 2006, al-Qaeda terrorist leader in Iraq Abu Musab al Zarqawi, thanks to two five hundred pound laser-guided care packages courtesy of the U.S. Air Force, has assumed room temperature. While this is a cause for celebration for freedom lovers everywhere, the pseudo-peacemakers on the left and their willing accomplices in the drive by media (thank you Rush) take this as a swift mule kick in the crotch with a steel-toed jackboot.

For instance, Michael Berg, father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded by Zarqawi, equates George W. Bush with Saddam Hussein, actually making Bush out to be the worse of the two. Now, the instinctual reaction of many will be to take a hands off posture toward someone like Mr. Berg, who suffered the loss of his son under the most horrific of circumstances at the hands of this thug. But my reaction is one of outrage over how people like Michael Berg and Cindy Sheehan exploit their grief over the deaths of their children to attack George Bush and undermine the security of this country.

Get a load of this from ABC News "The Note"

Meanwhile, the Marxists masquerading as orthodox Catholics over at Terrorist Collaborating Rhetoric seem to be in sackcloth and ashes mode over the death of Zarqawi.

Now while I as a Catholic Christian must pray for the repose of Zarqawi's soul...and I will. But along with any such prayers will be a thanks to God that there will be one less terrorist to bother us and the Iraqi people who have proved by risking their lives that they want to be free to make their own contribution to the free world.

A Word to the Wise

2006-06-06T16:37:00.000-07:00

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid"

Ronald Reagan

Illegal Immigration: Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Mahony

2006-05-11T15:05:00.000-07:00

As I was browsing the online document library over at EWTN looking for transcripts of John Paul II's Theology of the Body audiences, I happened to stumble across the late pope's Annual Message for Migration Day 1996 given on July 25, 1995. Since the topic of illegal immigration has been a hot topic as of late, I was more than just a little curious as to what the late pontiff had to say on the subject. I also wanted to know how it compared to what some individual bishops, such as Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahony had to say in his 2006 Ash Wednesday Mass homily about it vis-a-vis a recent bill HR 4437 passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

In his Ash Wednesday homily, the Cardinal made the accusation that the bill would make it a felony to offer humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants. In a subsequent Spanish language interview, His Eminence went on to say: "I would say to all priests, deacons, and members of the Church that we are not going to observe this law." And in an open letter to President Bush, he said: "It is staggering for the federal government to stifle our spiritual and pastoral outreach to the poor, and to impose penalties for doing what our faith demands of us."

Besides the fact that the Cardinal's accusations have no basis in fact, when the language of the bill is read in context, it refutes his claim. The Cardinal, in his official capacity, is clearly taking one side over the other in an issue that a Catholic can take either side. This paints the false impression (albeit unwittingly) that there is only one legitimate Catholic position that can be taken.

Pope John Paul II, by contrast, understands the problem of illegal immigration as complex and delicate. And as such, the debate should not be framed in the rather simplistic terms it is presently framed in by both sides. He begins his message thus: "The phenomenon of migration with its complex problems challenges the international community and individual States today more than ever."

This is, of course, correct and the reasons why this is so are manifold.

And: "Thus migration loses that dimension of economic, social and cultural development which it had in the past. In fact, there is less and less talk of the situation of 'emigrants' in their countries of origin, and more and more of 'immigrants', with respect to the problems they create in the countries where they settle. Migration is assuming the features of a social emergency, above all because of the increase in illegal migrants which, despite the current restrictions, it seems impossible to halt."

I think it is worth noting that the Holy Father does not include illegal migration at this juncture as having the a "dimension of economic, social and cultural development". In the United States, the economic development enjoyed in its history has been in very large part to the fact that it has provided a haven for immigrants to stake out a livelihood for themselves by placing their labor and talent at the service of the common good in a manner unmatched in history. But I think in fairness, we would have to admit that some of those immigrants entered this country by illegal means. Along these lines, John Paul II points out: "Illegal immigration has always existed: it has frequently been tolerated because it promotes a reserve of personnel to draw on as legal migrants gradually move up the social ladder and find stable employment." As to the reasons why illegal immigration has been tolerated and to what extent it contributes to the employment pool and to an economy overall is indeed debatable.

But it does seem to reflect the common claim made here in this country that immigration laws are not enforced due to the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide and thus making them vulnerable to exploitation. It also seems that it is for this reason, the pope states: "Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (n.2)"

With the way things are now in the U.S. we have unscrupulous employers being able to avail themselves of illegal cheap labor without any fear of accountablity due to lack of enforcement of laws already on the books while being able to use the illegal status of these workers as leverage against them if they protest any abuses.

Another such activity commonly practiced is human smuggling. Those who engage in this activity (nicknamed "Coyotes") and gang activity who are the target of the HR 4437, not those simply providing humanitarian assistance, as Cardinal Mahony so brazenly asserted, according to Rep. Peter King (R-NY) one of the bill's sponsors.

The next sentence in the pope's message is an important one: "The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international cooperation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment."

Any "international cooperation" surely must include the willingness to hold the countries of origin accountable for the contribution the injustice and corruption of their governments make to this problem. For instance, in the case of Mexico, it is clear that that rampant cronyism and corruption in its government and much of the general culture is what holds many of the Mexican populace in absolute squalor. This desperate situation drives many of them to go to the lengths of risking their own lives to come into the U.S. illegally for even the faintest hope of securing a decent livelihood for themselves and their families.

Furthermore, the Mexican government act as enablers by providing printed instructions along with maps on how to evade the Border Patrol.

Unfortunately, the American government has been derelict in its duties in not pressuring the Mexican government to clean up their act.

Equally disconcerting is the silence of the U.S. bishops on this aspect of the issue. This is an area where they, in collaboration with the Mexican bishops, could do agreat deal of good. With the moral authority of their offices and appeals to the principle of subsididarity, they can put enormous pressure on the Mexican government to reform their society in such a way that provides greater opportunites to those in the lower social class (in Mexico, you are, for the most part either filthy rich or dirt poor) to stake out a livelihood while making a meaningful contribution to the economy. But it seems that both the American and Mexican bishops rather ride the "blame America first" bandwagon placing the blame almost entirely with the United States.

There is absolutely no good reason why Mexico cannot make it possible to create conditions more conducive to greater economic opportunities for underclass given the fact that it is a country rich in natural resources, namely oil.

In stark contrast to Cardinal Mahony's call for civil disobedience viz. HR 4437, the Holy Father calls for mutual trust and cooperation between civil authorities and social and charitable institiutions: "Social and charitable institutions can make contact with the authorities in order to seek appropriate, lawful solutions to various cases. (n.3)"

One of the ways this can be helped along is for Church and civil authorities to seek to better understand each other's aims and concerns. As Cardinal Mahony's attack on HR 4437 clearly illustrates, such misunderstandings are rampant. To make matters worse, Cardinal Mahony never contacted any of the sponsors of HR 4437 to ensure that his understanding of what the bill said was correct. According to HR 4437 co-sponsor Peter King, not one bishop, priest, or Church official contacted him inquiring about the bill's content. This is inexcusable in my view.

In difficult situations like that created by illegal immigration, the temptation to place inordinate blame on the illegal aliens themselves is great. The Pope warns against this danger: " It is necessary to guard against the rise of new forms of racism or xenophobic behavior, which attempt to make these brothers and sisters of ours scapegoats for what may be difficult local situations.(n.4)" Despite the widely publicized claims of of so-called pro immigration groups, there is absolutely no evidence that opponents of illegal immigration are motivated by racism or xonephobia. The accusations along these lines leveled at groups like the Minutemen border watchers are not only without merit, but are downright slanderous. The motivation here on the part of groups like the Minutement is nothing more than a legitimate concern for our own security and the integrity of our laws and sovereignty.

However, sometimes the arguments put forth regarding the economic impact of illegal immigration by both sides are less than sound. For instance, the claims that the contributions made to the U.S. economy by illegal immigrants is such that the economy couldn't function without them or at least would be seriously impeded has no merit whatsoever. The percentage across the board in the service industries that normally employ illegal immigrants is so miniscule (less than 10%) that the economy would hardly suffer any significant setback if they all went back home right now. But this knife cuts both ways. It also confutes the claim that these people are taking jobs away from American workers and are driving down wages in these industries. While it may have this result in very isolated cases and could be the result on a larger scale if illegal immigration were to continue and expand unabated, the present percentages of the workforce comprising of illegal immigrants is hardly enough to support the claim that this is what is happening now.

There are more than enough solid arguments to buttress the position that illegal immigration is a serious problem that needs to be recitfied. Among them is the fact that it is the illegal immigrants themselves who are among the hardest hit by this problem. Influxes of illegal immigrants due to pourous borders and lack of enforcement of our immigration laws only invite other dangers such as drug trafficking and gang activity, of which the same illegal immigrants are made pawns of . And in a post 9/11 world {1} the realization that pourous borders, particularly our southern borders{2}, makes us even more vulnerable to terrorist attack has been brought home with greater clarity.

One difficult local situation that is not caused by illegal immigration, but is surely exacerbated by it is the strain it puts on our already fiscally burdensome social welfare, public education, and health care systems that are in desperate need of reform. This makes illegal immigrants vulnerable to being explioted by politicians who stake their political careers on keeping these counterproductive violations of the principle of subsidiarity not only in place, but keeping them growing.

But all of this does not in anyway totally mitigate the resposnibility the illegal immigrants themselves bear in all this. While it is understandable that they would go to the lengths they do to illegally enter this country given their desperate situation, it is in no way justifiable. They are not relieved of their responsibility to respect our laws and our national sovereignty. They also make it harder for those who, while in the same predicament, choose to go about emigrating in a manner congruent with our laws. Illegal immigration serves to unfairly stigmatize these people and all who share the same ethnic origin. It seems clear to me that all pastors of souls have a duty to impress these facts upon the consciences of those illegal immigrants that seek their assistance. To say that this is not happening would be to only state the obvious.

Many have proposed the idea of some sort of guest worker program as part of a solution to this problem. While I do not oppose this idea in principle, I think some of the arguments put forth in support of it are both false and insulting to people's intelligence. The worst one is one often repeated by President Bush and others and uncritcally accepted by many (including myself at one time) that it is needed to fill jobs Americans won't do. In other words, Americans, due to their affluence, won't do the more arduous jobs. If this is the case, then why is there no demand for illegal immigrant labor in the coal mines? None of the jobs that are often filled by illegal immigrants are nowhere near as dirty, physically demanding, or dangerous as working in a coal mine.

The most plausable justification in my view for a guest worker program would be to fill jobs over and above the present rather low unemployment rates. It seems to me that a strong argument can be made justifying the need for it under these conditions.

The last statement from the pope's letter I would like comment on is this one: "I urge the particular Churches to encourage reflection, to issue directives and to provide information to help pastoral and social workers to act with discernment in so delicate and complex a matter.(n.5)" Boy, do our bishops need to hear this! What they have done falls far short of this ideal. In addition to what I have already pointed out above about the need for greater mutual understanding on this issue, I think bishops, especially those shepharding dioceses in border regions, along with Mexican bishops, should spend more time down on the border. They should visit with and enter into dialogue with those on both sides. And a key part of any pastoral exhortation should be to firmly and clearly practice paternal correction on those Catholics who seek to deliberately misrepresent the aims of those on either side of this debate.

In His social encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II said that the preferential option for the poor is not exlusive or discriminatory toward other groups. Hence, the care and concern for the lot of those poor souls who enter into country illegally cannot exclude the concerns of all involved in this problem.

Notes:

{1} This papal message was issued in 1995, some six years prior to 9/11, had it been issued post 9/11 it would have surely addressed the security concerns surrounding the problem of illegal immigration.

{2} While the northern border with Canada presents sigificant problems, the similarities in appearence of those of Middle Eastern descent (from whom the greatest terrorist threat exists. This is a fact of life and not at all an indictment on all those of Middle Eastern ethnicity.) with those of Hispanic ethnicity, the ability of them to blend in with each other poses a unique problem on our southern borders that does not exist on our northern border.

The Cross: Sign of God's Life

2006-03-23T19:02:00.000-08:00

Out of all Christian symbols, the sign of the Cross is by far the most significant. In the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths, the blessings given by priests, which are believed to convey actual grace, are given with the sign of the Cross.

The Cross also symbolizes one of the cruelest forms of capital punishment ever inflicted in human history. So it should be no surprise that this "sign of contradiction" is seen by many as the largest "stumbling block" of the Christian faith.

Such reaction, while superficially understandable, ignores a foundational truth of human experience large and small as attested to by history: the greatest of life's triumphs and successes have always come on the heels of the worst failures and horrors.

This truth finds it fullfilment in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Our Lord.

While believing firmly in the truth of this great paradox, I couldn't shake the feeling that the Cross symbolized something more than just a paradox, a deeply profound paradox though it may be.

In reading what then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) had to say regarding the sign of the cross in his book Spirit of the Liturgy, I believe my hunch was vindicated. The sign of the Cross is the sign of God's mark on creation prior to being a sign of crucifixion.

He states:

" Thus we can say that in the sign of the Cross, together with the invocation of the Trinity, the whole essence of Christinaity is summed up; it displays what is distinctively Christian. Nevertheless, or rather for this very reason, it also opens the way into the wider history of religion and the divine message of creation. (pg. 178)

The future pope Benedict XVI then cites archeological evidence to suggest that the sign of the Cross, as the Judeo-Christian faith is concerned, has roots in the pre-Christian Jewish era:

"In 1873, on the Mount of Olives, Greek and Hebrew grave inscriptions bearing the sign of a cross were discovered from the time of Jesus. The excavators inevitably assumed that they were dealing with Christians of the earliest times. In about 1945 increasing numbers of Jewish graves with the sign of the cross were being discovered and assigned to more or less the first century after Christ. The discoveries no longer left room for the view that these were first- generation Christians. On the contrary, it had to be recognized that signs of the cross were established in the Jewish mileu.(pg 179 Emphasis in the original)

He then gives the scriptural backdrop for this acheological find:

"How are we to make sense of this? The key is to be found in Ezekiel 9:4f In the vision described there, God says to his linen-clad messenger, who carries the writing case at his side: 'Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark [Tav] upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.' In the terrible catastrophe now imminent, those who do not connive in the sin of the world suffer from it for the sake of God, suffering impotently yet at a distance from sin, are sealed with the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the Tav, which was written in the form of a cross (T or + or X). The Tav which as a matter of fact had the form of a cross, becomes the seal of God's ownership. It corresponds to man's longing for God, his suffering for the sake of God, so places him under God's special protection. E. Dinkler was able to show that cultic stigmatization--on the hands or forhead--was occasionally practiced in the Old Teastament and that this custom was also well known in the New Testament times. In the New Testament, Revelation 7:1-8 takes up the basic idea in Ezekiel's vision. The discoveries of the graves, in conjunction with the texts of the time, prove that in certain circles within Judaism the Tav was a widespread sacred sign--sign of confession of faith in the God of Israel and at the same time a sign of hope in his protection. Dinkler summarizes his findings by say ing that, in the cross shaped Tav, ' a whole confession of faith is summed up in one sign.' 'The realities believed in and hoped for', he says 'are read into a visible image, but the image is more than just a mere reflection; it is in fact an image in whose saving power one places one's hopes.' (pg. 179-180 Emphasis in original)

Perhaps even more striking is the theological significance of the sign of the cross is not limited to Judeo-Christianity. Again the future pope states:

"The Fathers belonging to the Greek cultural world were more directly affected by another discovery. In the wirings of Plato, they found the remarkable idea of a cross inscribed on the cosmos(cf. Timaeus 34ab and 36bc). Plato took this from the Pythagorean tradition, which in its turn had a connection with the traditions of the ancient East. First, there is an astronomical statement about the two great movements of the stars with which ancient astronomy was familiar: the ecpliptic (the great circle in the heavens along which the sun appears to run its course) and the orbit of the earth. These two intersect and form together the Greek letter Chi, which is written in the form of a cross (like an X). The sign of the cross is inscribed upon the whole cosmos. Plato, again following the more ancient traditions, connected this with the image of the deity: the Demiurge (the fashioner of the of the world) 'stretched out' the world soul 'throughout the whole universe'. (St. Justin Martyr d. 165), the Palestinian-born first philosopher among the Fathers, came across this Platonic text and did not hesitate to link it with doctrine of the triune God and his action in salvation history in the person of Jesus Christ. He sees the idea of the Demiurge and the world as premonitions of the mystery of the Father and the Son--premonitions are in need of correction and yet also capable of correction. What Plato says about the world soul seems to him to refer to the coming of the Logos, the Son of God. And so he can now say that the shape of the cross is the greatest symbol of the lordship of the Logos, without which nothing in creation holds together (cf. I Apol. 55). The Cross of Golgotha is foreshadowed in the stucture of the universe itself. The instrument of torment on which the Lord died is written into the structure of the universe. The cosmos speaks to us of the Cross, and the Cross solves for us the enigma of the cosmos. It is the real key to all reality. History and the cosmos belong together. When we open our eyes, we can read the message of Christ in the language of the universe, and conversely, Christ grants us understanding of the message of creation. (pg. 180-181 italics in original)

The Cross symbolizes more than anything that the value of suffering is not that suffering in and of itself has any value. It doesn't. In fact, suffering is an evil. But due to sin it is an unavoidable reality. The value of suffering is actually the value of the good showing itself most magnificantly in the face of suffering and great evil.

Evil is defined by some as an absence of good. In its most violent form, evil is a direct attack on the good, especially those goods which are most sacred. Therefore, it stands to reason that the Cross, the most sacred of all signs, that sign which is God's mark on creation, would be the means through which evil attacks the sacred in its most gruesome form, that is the evil of Deicide. But as the good manifests itself most magnificantly in the face of evil, the power of the Cross would show itself most clearly in this most grave of evil deeds. It is with this confidence that St. Paul can say, "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:54-57)

With simliar confidence, the furture Pope Benedict XVI can say:

"In one respect, of course, the Cross does have a terrible aspect that we ought not to remove. It was, as a matter of fact, the cruelest form of execution known to antiquity. ...To see that the purest of men, who was more than a man, was executed in such a grisly way can make us frightened of ourselves. ... However, the Cross doesn't stop at being a horror; it is not merely a horror, because the one who looks down at us from the Cross is not a failure, a desperate man, not one of the horrible victims of humnaity. For this crucified man says something different from Spartacus and his failed adherents, because, after all, what looks down at us from the Cross is a goodness that enables a new beginning in the midst of life's horror. The goodness of God himself looks on us, God who surrenders himself into our hands, delivers himself to us, and bears the whole horror of history with us. Looked at more deeply, this sign, which forces us to loook at the dangerousness of man and all his heinous deeds, at the same time makes us look upon God , who is stronger, stronger in his weakness, and upon the fact that we are loved by God. It is in this sense a sign of forgiveness that also brings hope into the abysses of history.

It is indeed often asked today how we can still speak of God and do theology after Auschwitz. I would say that the Cross recapitualtes in advance the horror of Auschwitz. God crucified and says to us that this God who incomprehensibly forgives us and who in his seeming absence. (Salt of the Earth pp. 26-27)

The Cross "recapitualtes in advance" every suffering, large and small, that man grapples in the "valley of tears" that is much of his existence in this life. In this light, I find it somewhat disconcerting when some well-meaning people use the sufferings of Christ to minimize their own. While it is true that the tendency to overdramatize one's woes is almost irresistable and should be avoided. But to size oneself up against God incarnate and lament one's falling short, on close observation, smacks of pride. Of course, our ability to accept our sufferings will always fall short in comparison to that of Christ. He's God for crying out loud. Of course, he will be able to accept suffering much better than even the best of men. As God, Jesus has perfect integrity and complete faculties of self-control and self possesion that we do not have. Instead of minimizing our own sufferings and struggles to that of Our Lord, we can look to his perfect sacrifice as a means of encouragement and inspiration to bear our own with greater courage and faith.

For God so loved mankind that he embraced the human condition completely, body and soul. This includes embracing all of man's joys, sorrows, hopes, and disappointments. An understanding of the Cross that does not include all these elements is insuffcient in my view. Intimately bound up with this is also man's legitimate desire to not want to undergo suffering. After all, it was Jesus himself who said "Father, if it be thy will, let this cup pass from me." (cf. Mark 14: 35-36, Matt. 26:38-42) Here, our Lord is teaching us that when we suffer for the sake of the Kingdom of God (and we will) it is in fact for the sake of the Kingdom of God and not for it's own sake. This keeps us humble and protects us from trying to use suffering as food for the ego, as we have a tendency to do. I believe that it is twelve word phrase reveals the contrast of Jesus' attitude toward martyrdom with that of Peter, who pridefully (albeit sincerely) proclaimed his willingness to die for Jesus only to deny Jesus out of cowardice even after Our Lord told him point blank that that was what he was going to do. (cf. Matt. 26:33-35)

Furthermore, it is the power of the Cross that give us the courage to ask why we must suffer prescisely at the time when we are in its throes. "Elo-i, Elo-i, lama sabach-thani?" as well as "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will." should be part of our prayers when faced with suffering.

So, when we take up our Cross (notice the Lord is saying we are to take up our own not His or anyone else's) we can be confident that we are following the way of Jesus Christ, the Truth, and Way, and the Life of God and man, even in the face of great suffering and great evil.

Amen

Reaching the Big 40: A Birthday and a Milestone

2006-02-27T09:59:00.000-08:00

Today is my birthday; not just any birthday, but my fortieth birday. That's right, I hit the big 4-0(0 as in Oh my I'm getting old). Turning forty is considered something of a monumental event in our popular culture. And as such, many see it as an opportunity to take a trip down memory lane. In keeping with this spirit, I decided to post a couple photos from my younger days in addition to the photo here to the left taken at Nagasaki, Japan back in November of 2005 ( a most recent picture of me).

First is my First Holy Communion circa 1974:

The second is my Navy boot camp graduation picture circa 1985:

Why The U.S. Cannot Afford to Write Off "Old Europe"

2006-02-19T18:39:00.000-08:00

In following the Blosser v. Blosser debate regarding the trajectory towards the assinine that the New Oxford Review, led by editor Dale Vree, has been on (for about at least the last two years in this writer's opinion), I happened to read an article the younger Blosser linked to titled Europe’s Problem—and Ours by John Paul II biographer George Weigel.

After explaining how Europe's problem with its demographic and cultural freefall along with its perilous penchant for appeasement of Islamic terror is at root a spiritual problem, he echoes a conviction that I have held for some time: and that is if the U.S. serious about winning this war terror it cannot be indifferent to the European problem.

There are, I think, a few obvious reasons why I think this is so. Coincidently, Weigel touches directly on them all. The first of which is that America's cultural, political, and above all spiritual, roots are planted in European soil:

"A United States indifferent to the fate of Europe is a United States indifferent to its roots. Yes, Americans have developed a new form of European civilization. But that American civilization has long understood itself to be in continuity with the civilization of the West that we associate, in its origins, with Europe—with the unique civilizational accomplishment that emerged from the interaction of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. Americans learned about the dignity of the human person, about limited and constitutional government, about the principle of consent, and about the transcendent standards of justice to which the state is accountable in the school of political culture that we call “Europe.” We should remember that, with pietas. We have seen what historical amnesia about cultural and civilizational roots has done to Europe. Americans ought not want that to happen in America."

I am of the view that this factor weighed heavily in the FDR Administration making the European theater the higher priority than the Pacific in WWII, although Imperial Japan was the most fierce foreign enemy we have ever faced in war. I think this was something Gen. Douglas MacArthur either failed or refused to understand. While I think he understood better than anyone the impact of Asia in the foreign policy equation, he failed to grasp the paramount importance of the cultural ties America had with Europe and how that factored in.

This leads right into the second reason, that of the impact this has on our own security:

"The second reason we can and must care has to do with the medium- and long-term threat to American security posed by Europe’s demographic meltdown. Demographic vacuums do not remain unfilled—especially when the demographic vacuum in question is a continent possessed of immense economic resources. One can see the effects of Europe’s self-inflicted depopulation in the tensions experienced in France, Germany, and elsewhere by rising tides of immigration from North Africa, Turkey, and other parts of the Islamic world. And while, in the most optimistic of scenarios, these immigrants may well become good European democrats, practicing civility and tolerance and committing themselves to the religious freedom of others, there is another and far grimmer alternative. Europe’s current demographic trendlines could eventually produce a Europe in which Sobieski’s victory at Vienna in 1683 is reversed, such that the Europe of the twenty-second century, or even the late twenty-first, is a Europe increasingly influenced, and perhaps even dominated, by radicalized Islamic populations, convinced that their long-delayed triumph in the European heartland is at hand."

If the refusal of the Muslims who are emigrating into Europe en masse to assimilate into European culture along with their tendency to violence is any indication, the best case scenario discussed above is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

This goes right into the third reason Weigel lists:

The third reason why the “European problem” is ours as well as theirs has to do with the future of the democratic project, here in the United States and indeed throughout the world. What Pierre Manent laments as Europe’s “depoliticization” already has its parallels in our own public life. What is most disturbing, for example, about the bizarre debate over the mere mention of Christianity’s contributions to European civilization in the proposed European Constitution is that the amnesiacs who wish to rewrite European history by eliminating Christianity from the historical equation are doing so in service to a thin, indeed anorexic, idea of procedural democracy. To deny that Christianity had anything to do with the evolution of free, law-governed, and prosperous European societies is more than a question of falsifying the past; it is also a matter of creating a future in which moral truth has no role in governance, in the determination of public policy, in understandings of justice, and in the definition of that freedom which democracy is intended to embody.

Were these ideas to triumph in Europe, that would be bad for Europe; but it would also be bad for the United States, for that triumph would inevitably reinforce similar tendencies in our own high culture, and ultimately in our law. The judicial redefinition of freedom as personal willfulness manifest in the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas was buttressed by citations from European courts. And what would it mean for the democratic project in global terms if the notion that democracy has nothing to do with moral truth is exported from Western Europe to Central and Eastern Europe via the expanding European Union, and thence to other new democracies around the world? If Christopher Dawson was right that a thoroughly secularized democracy, constitutionally and politically disabled from bringing transcendent moral truths to bear on its public life, is self-destructive, then the entire democratic project—in Latin America, in south and east Asia, in Oceania and Canada—is being imperiled by the prospect that the “European problem” will metastasize beyond the current membership of the EU.

So there are many reasons why we should, and must, care. We sever ourselves from our civilizational roots if we ignore Europe in a fit of aggravation or pique. Our security will be further imperiled in a post–September 11 world if Europe’s demographics continue to change in ways that give new advantage to the dynamism of radical Islamism in world politics. The American democratic experiment will be weakened if Europe’s “depoliticization” reinforces similar tendencies here in the United States, and so will the democratic project in the world."

I don't think it is by accident that those who are undermining our efforts to effectively fight terrorism here in the U.S. are the same one chanting the "Why can't we be more like Europe?" refrain across the ideological spectrum. I have always thought that much of the moral and cultural trash that washes up on American shores comes from Europe.

So what do we do about it? Weigel makes the following suggestion:

"Is there anything to be done about all this, at the level of public policy? Let me return one last time to Christopher Dawson, who, in an earlier phase of the 'European problem,' wrote that 'the modern dilemma is essentially a spiritual one, and every one of its main aspects, moral, political, and scientific, brings us back to the need of a spiritual solution.' If Dawson was right, and I think he was, then the long-term answer to the demise of Europe will only be found in a revitalization of Europe’s Christian roots and the rebirth of Christian conviction in Christianity’s historic heartland. Europe, in other words, needs something like a Great Awakening—by which I mean, not necessarily a fourth wave of the Wesleyan revolution, but a rebirth of life-transforming and culture-forming Christian conviction, especially Catholic conviction. And that, by definition, is something that cannot be produced by public policy—either European domestic policy, or American foreign policy."

Along these lines, I think it is crucial that we understand that winning the culture war is a necessary element in winning the war on terror. I fail to see how an America that kills its own posterity at the rate of about a million and a half{1} a year under the guise of a "woman's right to choose" and allows a redefintion of marriage, whether you call it "gay marriage" or "civil unions" can win this war unless we not only stave off this tide but start to reverse it. This is especially true when you consider the fact that we are facing an enemy who understands this. They know that abortion, contraception, and homosexuality are lethal to their being able to reproduce themselves, which is why they forbid engaging in such behaviors. In this light, I think the concern over Europe's rejection of its Christian heritage expressed by the former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, needs to be taken all the more seriously.

Although Weigel is correct this is something that public policy cannot, of its own resources alone, bring about. But there are a number of ways public policy can be of badly needed assistance. One of which is that a better understanding be forged between the diplomatic quarters of the Holy See and the U.S. If there is one thing the run up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq turned up (other than no WMDs) was that neither understood one another. I think this was due to the fact that the Bush Administration did not seem to think that it needed to go to great pains to make it case to the Vatican. After all, why did it seem content with having Michael Novak, who did not represent the U.S. government, instead Colin Powell (or even then Ambassador Nichelson matter) make the case? It's not that Novak wasn't competent in making the case (I think he made passable arguments), it was just that the U.S. government not sending someone who could speak for it in an official capacity didn't give the Curia a very good reason to take it seriously. Another contributing factor, I think, to this confusion is the fact that there were some prominent figures in the Roman Curia who were infected with the same penchant for appeasement like that of Old Europe. Since, as Weigel correctly points out, the European crisis, and by extension the threat posed by radical Islamic terror, is primarily a spiritual one, the contribution of the Vatican in dealing with this crisis is vital.

Weigel ends the article with this:

"These difficult first years of the twenty-first century have taught us the importance of reading world politics in new ways. Europe’s crisis of civilizational morale teaches us that, while there are many lenses through which history can be read, theological lenses help us to see deeper, farther, and more truly."

Toward this end I would suggest the book Truth and Tolerance by Pope Benedict XVI.

Note:

{1} 6-16-06: Revision: I had originally said almost three million legal abortions in the U.S. each year. This was an error. The number of legal abortions in the U.S. each year range from 1.3 to 1.5 million a year.

Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) On Christian Opposition to the World

2006-02-18T11:15:00.000-08:00

"It is not Christians who oppose the world, but rather the world which opposes itself to them when the truth about God, about Christ and about man is proclaimed. The world waxes indignant when sin and grace are called by their names. After the phase of indiscriminate 'openess' it is time that the Christian reacquire the consciousness of belonging to a minority and of often being in opposition to what is obvious, plausible and natural for that mentality which the New Testament calls--and certainly not in a positive sense--the 'spirit of the world'. It is time to find again the courage of nonconformism, the capacity to oppose many of the trends of the surrounding culture, renouncing certain euphoric post-conciliar solidarity."(The Ratzinger Report pp. 36-37)

In the view of your host, the Christian approach to world trends boils down to the recognition of what is true and what is false. To the extent that these trends are in accord with the truth, we should not only support them, but also show that it is only in the fullness of Christian faith do they have any real chance of coming to fruition in addition calling the false ones false.

In other words, it is simply not a matter of nonconformism (or conformism for that matter) for its own sake. It is fidelity to the truth pure and simple.

To parlay this into an effective strategery requires we be as "wise as serpents and innocent as doves". (Matt. 10:16)

Honestly, we Catholics need to do a better better job of actively exegeting this Scripture passage.

Memo to Stephen Hand and Any Other Seditious Idiot Who Would Rather Fight President Bush Instead of The Terrorist Bastards Who Want to Kill Us

2006-02-04T13:18:00.000-08:00

Anedote to the stupid call for impeachment of Bush courtesy of Daryl Worley

Roe v. Wade: Breaking Precedent in Order to Create It

2006-01-22T00:19:00.000-08:00

Today is the thirty-third anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that overturned a Texas abortion law and thus made abortion legal throughout the United States.

Since then, much has been said, and correctly so, about that landmark decision being a moral, social, cultural, and legal bastardization.

There's one aspect of the latter I would like to discuss, seeing as how it was brought up in conjunction with the Alito confirmation hearing: and that's the issue of it being precedent. If you were to listen to the pro-abortion advocates in the tyrannical feminist movement and their willing Senate Democrat (and a few pro-abort Republicans) acolytes, you would think that Roe v. Wade is such a firmly established precedent (even going so far as to call it "super precedent") that it is not only settled law of the land it is set in stone as though it were Holy Writ, perhaps even more so.

But the fact of the matter is that Roe v. Wade itself is arguably the most egregious violation of precedent in the history of U.S. jurisprudence.

Robert B. French points out:

"All previous abortion laws and rulings, for example, recognized penalties for abortion, the assumption that there is something--or someone--in the womb worthy of protection. Roe v. Wade, almost overnight, set up very broad conditions under which abortion would be allowed, while completely ignoring the question of the fetus' humanity."

He continues:

" In the thirteen original colonies, abortion was a crime under common law if movements of the fetus were "perceptible"; and this law remained when the Consitution was adopted. John T. Noonan, in his book A Private Choice, reminds us, 'What the framers knew to be a crime at common law in the states when they made the Consitution, they did not intend to legalize; indeed, the indeed the protection afforded the unborn at common law accorded with their view of the protection to be afforded persons. "

For example, there was a 1716 New York City forbidding midwives to Adminster abortifacients or even counsel women to have abortions. There was also a nineteenth century Conneticut statute forbidding abortion after quickening (which was understood as discernable fetal movement). There was also an 1849 Virginia statute that outlawed abortion throughout pregnancy, providing proof of pregnacy could be established.

French goes on to state that:

" The American Medical Association (AMA) crusade helped tighten state laws againstr abortion. By the end of the nineteenth century, all states protected protected the life of the fetus from conception through birth. The motivation for the enactment of these laws was the fact, some would say, that life is present from conception and does not begin at some arbitrary stage of pregnancy. The AMA report of 1871 stated the reason very simply: 'We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less.'"

In our present age of unbridled judicial activism that grounds law on lies, we need "honest judges on the bench [who] call things by their proper names".

French states: "These [anti-abortion] laws remained in force, for the most part, until the 1960's when pressure for change began." (Is the Fetus Human? Eric Pastuszek ed. pp. 42, 44-47)

Furthermore, decisions regarding abortion matters were decided on the state level, not on the federal level.

The fact that Roe v. Wade was also a major violation of the "sacred" principle of stare decisis is lost even on conservative legal scholars and pundits. I suspect that this is part and parcel of the error most of them fall prey to that somehow if the individual states wish to legalize abortion, they are within their constitutional right to do so. If this is the case, they can legalize all crimes involving homicide if they so choose because all homicides are ajudicated at the state level, except those that involve more than one state, occur on federal property, or have national security implications (like an act of terrorism). As we have seen, our founders and framers viewed abortion as homicide.

On page 51 of the book cited above, the same Robert French points out:

"In a New York case, Judge Adrian Burke cited the Declaration of Independence in his dissent from a 1970 New York ruling that permited abortion on demand for the first six months of pregnancy. 'The Declaration,' wrote Justice Burke, 'has the force of law, and the constitutions of the United States and various states, must harmonize with its tenets....It was intended to serve as a perpetula reminder that rulers, legislators and Judges were without power to deprive human beings of their rights.' Burke referred to the 'natural law,' upon which the Declaration was founded, saying, 'The American concept of a natural law binding upon government and citizens alike, to which all positive law must conform, leads back through John Marshall to Edmund Burke and Henry de Bracton and even beyond the Magna Carta to Judean Law.'" (ibid pg. 51)

Justice Burke had it right here. The Constitution is not an isolated document and can never be treated as such. It must be interpreted in a way subservient to the Declaration of Independence which views our right to be a sovereign nation as an entitlement of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". And abortion can never be reconciled by its rubrics and therefore is unconstitutional under ANY circumstances. Especially in regards to matters of human life, the Declaration of Independence has to be recognized as having the "force of law." To paraphrase (and recapitualte) James Carville: It's the Declaration, stupid!

Bush Gives the Iraq P.R. Machine a Much Needed Tune Up

2005-12-20T18:48:00.000-08:00

I had stated in a previous post that "[w]hile it is good that President Bush is finally responding to the terrorist collaborating rhetoric of the anti-war pigs {1} on the left, his P.R. effort in regards to Iraq still falls way short of the mark."

To begin with I stated that he had to (a) give his speeches in prime time and (b) give them from the Oval Office so as to speak more directly to the American people.

Well, it seems that the President got the memo. Sunday night 9pm EST (6pm out here on the left coast) he spoke from the Oval Office about Iraq. In a speech that last just a hair under twenty minutes he touched all the bases that he needed to touch.

Regarding both the challenge and promise that lie ahead in Iraq he said:

Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders — a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world. This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote — 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world — means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror. All who had a part in this achievement — Iraqis, Americans, and coalition partners — can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.

He rightly stood by his decision to invade Iraq despite the fact that WMD has not yet been found, although they found capacity to restart WMD programs. The only part of that I would take issue is his stating that the intelligence was wrong. That has not yet been proven conclusively. Given the fact that intelligence agencies on "Arab street" nations like Jordan and Egypt, the UN Security Council, and even intelligence agencies for countries like France, who, may I remind, were among the most vehement opponents of the U.S.-led invasion believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles. Also, when we consider the fact that given the pourous borders between Iraq and Syria and that Saddam new we were coming almost a year before we did, they had all the time in the world to move them to Syria. In fact, Charles DuefluerDirector of Central Intelligence Special Advisor for Strategy regarding Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Programs stated his belief in that possibility. Needless to say, the fat lady hasn't even taken her first singing lesson on the subject of WMD in Iraq.

The President then wins the Captain Obvious Award with this one:

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the War on Terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone. This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims — a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals — to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted Al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

I have two questions for the Maestro Murtha-led Crackpot Chorus chanting the demand for immediate withdraw refrain: (1) Why did Osama Bin Laden say before 9/11 that our premature withdraw from Somolia inspired him to think the U.S. was paper tiger that would cut and run when things got tough, thus giving the impression that al Qaeda could pursue its terrorist activity unabated if taking the fight to the terrorist only makes more terrorists? This, along with repeating the "Iraq is another Vietnam" canard of the "give appeasement another chance" crowd, is a major talking point of the letters sent by Zawahiri to his underlings to "keep up their spirits. This leads right into the second question, how's does it feel to want what the terrorists want?

Bush then followed up his Oval Office speech with a press conference where he pulled no punches on the loaded questions offered by the leftist media. Since, for the most part, he just repeated and elaborated on what he said in the speech the night before, I won't say much about it. But there is one line I thought was brilliant:

Well, the Patriot Act helps us connect the dots. And now the United States Senate is going to let this bill expire. Not the Senate -- a minority of senators. And I want senators from New York [read Chuck Schumer] or Los Angeles [read Barbara Boxer] or Las Vegas [read Harry "Dingy" Reid] to go home and explain why these cities are safer.

Since we are in such an inquistive mood, I would like to ask those same very senators along with a few of their friends ( Sens. Russ Feingold D-WI and Carl Levin D-MI) how leaking news of classified wiretaps, giving our enemies a heads-up as to our tactics for undermining their deadly activity, makes us safer? And how does trying to mislead the American public as to the legality of this make us any safer? Anyone with an I.Q. of an ice cube knows that both of these nonsensical acts of political posturing threatens our national security.

Here's your next memo Mr. President. Now that you got the engine in your Iraq P.R. machine fully tuned up and firing on all cylinders, it's now time to run right up the tailpipe of the machinery of the Axis of Weasels right onto victory.

Give the Cut and Run Coward Naysayers the Finger....

2005-12-15T06:53:00.000-08:00

....the purple finger that is

The Execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams: Justice Well-Served

2005-12-13T06:01:00.000-08:00

The execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams at 12:01am this morning ended the 24+ year effort to overturn a 1981 death sentence handed down for the murders of 7-Eleven store clerk Albert Owens, and Brookhaven Motel owners Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, and their daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin on February 28 and March 11, 1979 respectively.

In explaining why I think Governor Schwarzenegger was right in denying clemency to Williams, I want to use Catholic teaching on capital punishment as my backdrop.

The Catholic Church teaches, as it always has, that it is morally licit for civil authorities to administer capital punishment to those guilty of serious crimes commensurate with its duty to protect the safety, public order, and the moral health of society. This would include such other aims as deterrence and retribution, since the former is a means through which the civil power protects its citizens and the latter redresses the disorder caused by the offense. For this reason, the judgments involved in whether to execute or not are based on several contingent criteria including the issue of whether present day penal systems can satisfy these goals without recourse to lethal means. And when one considers that the determination of the efficacy of penal systems lies outside the Church's competence to speak on authoritiatively, it must be emphasized that (contrary to common perceptions otherwise) the opposition to the death penalty on the part of the Vatican and many of the world's bishops does not carry the force of Catholic doctrine. For this reason, Catholics are not obliged to give religious submission to it as is expected for actual magisterial teachings according to the Second Vatican Council (cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium 25).

For starters, let's look at the Williams case through the criteria of protecting the safety of society. At first glance, it might seem as though since Williams is securely locked up in a maximum security prison like San Quentin, he poses no longer poses any danger to society and therefore no recourse to the death penalty is required. But such a view is extremely superficial. First of all, it leaves out the deterrence factor. By putting to death someone who has committed the crimes Williams did it sends a message to those who have any ideas about committing similar crimes that the state takes its obligation to protect its citizens seriously enough to exact the most severe punishment. This will cause such persons to, at the very least, reconsider the idea of killing innocents. Human nature, as well as history attests to the fact that the prospect of paying for a heinous crime with one's life will be decisive in causing many to decide against committing murder. The fact that only a miniscule percentage of murders are murder-suicides and that the defense attorneys of 99.9% of convicted murders argue vigorously for life instead of death is further testament to this fact. In this light, the idea that capital punishment has no deterrent effect is a prima faciae absurdity and this writer finds such claims insulting to his intelligence. Beyond this, there are credible studies that demonstrate, despite its truncated application, the death penalty in the U.S. has a notable deterrent effect.

Williams is a co-founder of the Crips, one of the most brutal and dangerous street gangs in the world. His execution would serve to undermine the activities of the Crips as well as other gangs in general by the demoralizing effect of seeing their forebearer die at the hands of the law.

Finally, it is my view that non-lethal means are not sufficient in protecting society from the danger Mr. Williams poses when we consider the fact that he refuses to be debriefed by prison officials. As the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE TO STANLEY WILLIAMS’ PETITION FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY makes clear: "Such a debriefing could provide the prison authorities with important information to aid them in establishing institutional security. It would also provide tremendous insight into how the gang members operate within the prison walls and how they are able to continue their criminal activities on our city streets while locked up behind those walls."

Williams' refusal to be debriefed lends a great deal of credibility to the suspicions of prison officials that Williams is still coordinating gang activity from behind the walls of San Quentin.

This along with the fact that, despite the overwhelming evidence against him, he still refuses to admit committing the crimes he was convicted of undercuts his claims to have atoned for his past. This I think renders any granting of clemency injurious to both the public order the moral health of society. But what about the anti-gang children's books he coauthored? And what about the Noble Peace Prize nominations he has received for those efforts?

As to the latter, the fact that a terrorist like Yasar Arafat, if I am not mistaken, had been nominated for the same prize should cut no ice with anyone. As to the former, well, again, if he really was serious about steering children away from gangs he would tell prison and law enforcement officials what he knows about the organizational structure and actvities of the Crips inside and outside prison walls. As the L.A. D.A. counter petition cited above states, such cooperation would be of great assistance in helping them break up the deadly hegemony of gang activity inside prison walls and on the streets. His refusal to do so, in conjunction with the fact that his writings bear traces{1} of hostility toward police, leads me to believe that these books are nothing more than a front for his deception, thus allowing him to better pursue his clandestine gang activity.

I also find it offensive that the anti-death penalty camp trumpets, without qualification, his so-called atonement in light of the above-stated facts that at the very very very least cast suspicision on the veracity of Williams' claims. It seems to me that the anti-death penalty camp is so dedicated to their agenda that they are willing to overlook such obvious sophistry even if it puts innocent lives in danger.

It is not out of hatred for Mr. Williams that I take this position. I do so out of my concern for justice and the protection of the common good. I also take this stand out of mercy for Williams' soul. It is not good for the soul of someone like Tookie Williams to allow him to think he can commit the crimes he has committed, refuse to accept responsibility for them, and refuse to make restitution for them by refusing to assist law enforcement break the grip of terror street gangs have over many neighborhoods, especially poor black neighborhoods, by providing needed information, and pretend he has made atonement when he has not.

By denying him clemency and making his execution imminent, making his impending face to face meeting with God in judgment imminent, his chances of having a change of heart and repenting as he passes through the portal of this life into the next is greater, thus enabling his eternal salvation.

And for that I will pray and urge everyone reading this to pray for the repose of Stanley Williams eternal soul.

Note:

{1} See the Introduction of the Tookie Proposal for Peace. In it, Williams blames "police tyranny" along with other factors for gang violence, including his own participation in it. The fact that he doesn't include his own choices in his litany is very telling I think.

The Bush Iraq P.R. Machine Is Running Better, But Still Needs Work

2005-12-03T01:13:00.000-08:00

In the last month or so, the Bush Administration has finally begun to strike back at the false claims of the opposition regarding the war in Iraq.

He rightly pointed out that over one hundred Democrats in the House and Senate bore witness, by their votes, to the fact that they agreed that Saddam had to go. And Vice President Dick Cheney's saying that while he "cannot prevent them [the Democrats] from losing their backbone, but will not allow them to rewrite history" was as well put as it was true. The President has also made a more concerted effort to outline the progress made thus far in Iraq. He has even begun to to tie the word Islam (extremist Islam that is) to the terrorism we are at war with. Deo Gratis!

While it is good that President Bush is finally responding to the terrorist collaborating rhetoric of the anti-war pigs {1} on the left, his P.R. effort in regards to Iraq still falls way short of the mark. I am not talking so much about the content (although I agree with Laura Ingraham, at least I think it was Laura Ingraham, who said that Bush ought to talk more about how our being in Iraq is making us safer at home) as I am about (a) the time factor and (b) the choice of venue he uses to convey his message.

As to the first, the times of day he has chosen to give his last few policy speeches have been, if I may be blunt, horrid. They have either been too early in the morning (even by EST) or too late at night. In both cases, most people miss hearing the speech in its entirety and are at the mercy of either the sound bites of the networks or the analysis of pundits as to what was said and what it means. And we all know how unmerciful the network nedia has been with providing an accurate picture of what's actually going on in Iraq. I think saying that that's not good enough wins the No s#&t, Sherlock Award hands down.

These speeches have to made in prime time so the maximum number of the American public hear it straight from the president first hand.

The second, and I think equally, if not more, important is the venue. The seriousness of this issue demands that the president's choice of venue properly conveys that seriousness. And the pep-rallyish venues he has chosen thus far don't fill the bill at all, to put it mildly. It appears as though he is speaking to the American people in a second hand way. And I think the American people naturally resent that on an issue as serious as the war on Islamo-facist terrorism (of which Iraq is the main front), as do I.

I believe the President needs to speak from the Oval Office in primetime (making his request for network time clear) directly to the American people.

He needs to clearly outline the progress made in Iraq, that while it is still a dangerous place, it is better and safer there now than it was prior to the war. He needs to repeat ad infinitum that America is safer today because of our presence in Iraq by pointing out that we have captured or killed more al Qaeda operatives in Iraq than anywhere else; and we have foiled many terrorist plots here in the U.S. due to the intelligence obtained from those captured.

Mr. Bush needs to continue to drive home the fact that many of the Democrats who are playing the "wrong war at the wrong time, at the wrong place" broken record are flip-flopping ala John Kerry from their original position. It would also be helpful to characterize our pulling out of Iraq at this juncture as a "surrender" {2} because that's exactly what it would be.

The President needs to keep hammering on the point that the Democrats attacking the Iraq policy for political gain only emboldens the terrorists and puts us here at home in greater danger. To this end, it sure wouldn't hurt to use Joe Lieberman's recent WSJ op-ed piece as a source for some of his talking points. Hoist the Democrats up on a Democrat petard I say.

Again, the importance of the venue cannot be stressed enough. The Oval Office, with all its majesty and historical significance, is the best venue in my view.

Recently Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) suggested that the President use the firseside chat motif, ala FDR during WWII to convey his message.

Now, it is not everyday that I find myself in agreement with the former Mr. Liz Taylor. He was, after all, part of the that stupid "gang of fourteen" that pulled the rug out from underneath the feet of the Senate Republicans trying to get rid of that hideous filibuster rule in the confirmation of judges.

But he has definitely put a much needed finger on the venue problem.

While this war has been unfairly and inaccurately compared to Vietnam, ala Ted "Senate Wet Brain" Kennedy's "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnaaaam." gin-soaked sloganeering, our failure in Vietnam taught us a valuable lesson that needs to be applied here in the war in Iraq: the profound effect public opinion has on prosecuting a war effort. I think Abe Lincoln once said that public opinion is everything in war. The lives of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent Americans and westerners depend upon Iraq NOT becoming another Vietnam viz. a P.R. failure.

And ensuring Iraq does not become such a failure is a grave responsibility that falls on the shoulders of President George W. Bush.

Notes:

{1} This is something of a recapitulation of the Black Sabbath song War Pigs.

{2} It was either a guest or a caller to the Bill Bennet's Morning In America Radio show that suggested that Bush call premature withdraw from Iraq a "surrender".

Ex Corde Gregoriam

2005-11-26T03:03:00.000-08:00

The problem with relativism is not that it rejects absolutes, it's that it relativizes what is absolute and absolutizes what is relative.

John Paul The Great Missionary Pope

2005-11-18T22:38:00.000-08:00

Bust of Pope John Paul II outside of the Urakami Cathedral Nagasaki, Japan

On my recent trip to Japan, I decided to pass the time during the 11+ hour flight from LAX to Tokyo by rereading John Paul II’s “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”. My first reading of thatgreat book about 11 years ago was my first real exposure to the thought of the recently-deceased pontiff; during which time, I was having great difficulty reconciling the idea of Catholicism being the only true religion (naturally bound up with this of course was similar difficulty with the teaching of no salvation outside the Catholic Church) and the fact there is religious and spiritual truth in religions (namely Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism) outside the formal boundaries of the Catholic faith and Christianity in general.

I will never forget how helpful this book was in enabling me to begin to reconcile what superficially appeared to be irreconcilable. The care and skill with which the pope dealt with that difficult and oftentimes painful question impressed me deeply. First was the way he rooted his response not in his own opinion and insight, but in the authoritative teaching of the Church. He cites Vatican II’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) which states:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (NA#2)

Let me stop there for a moment. Discovering the fact that the Church even recognizes truth and holiness in other religions was, by itself, a ground breaking discovery for me. Until that time, I had labored under the misconception that in laying claim to being the only true religion meant the Church was saying that unless it bore the marks of explicit formal Catholicism, it had no religious or spiritual value. Unfortunately, I am not the only one who was taken in by that error. In fact, some, if not many well-meaning Catholics have been (and still are) likewise misled. Such an idea flies in the face of Church teaching expressed not only by Vatican II, and subsequent magisterial statements, but also what the Church said prior to VCII. For instance, Pope Pius XII said the following in 1950:

Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths. (Humani Generis #9)

John Paul II’s efforts in regards to non-Christian religions are an amplification, in principle, of what his predecessor called for in the above-cited quote.

While by no means ignoring or glossing over the vast differences between Catholicism and non-Christian religions the pope, by recognizing what is “true and holy” in these other religions, draws some much-needed parallels:

“YOU SPEAK OF MANY RELIGIONS. INSTEAD I will attempt to show the common fundamental element and the common root of these religions. The Council defined the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions in a specific document that begins with the words ‘Nostra Aetate’(‘In our time’). It is a concise and yet very rich document that authentically hands on the Tradition, faithful to the thought of the Earliest Fathers of the Church. From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The Council document speaks of this unity and links it with the current trend to bring to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The Church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties: ‘There is only one community and it consists of all peoples. They have only one origin, since God, whose providence, goodness, and plan for salvation extend to all….Men turn to various religions to solve the mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death; judgment and retribution after death; and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. From the ancient times up to today all the various peoples have shared and continue to share an awareness of that enigmatic power that is present throughout the course of things and throughout the events of human life, and, in which, at times, even the Supreme Divinity or the Father is recognizable. This awareness and recognition imbue life with an intimate religious sense. Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language” (Nostra Aetate 1-2)

Here the Council document brings us to the Far East--first of all to Asia, a continent where the Church’s missionary activity, carried out since the times of the apostles, has borne, we must recognize, very modest fruit. It is well known that only a small percentage of the population on what is the largest continent believes in Christ.

This does not mean that the Church’s missionary efforts have lapsed¾quite the opposite: that effort has been and still remains intense. And yet the tradition of very ancient cultures, antedating Christianity, remains very strong in the East. Even if faith in Christ reaches hearts and minds, the negative connotations associated with the image of life in Western society (the so-called Christian society) present a considerable obstacle to acceptance of the Gospel. Mahatma Gandhi, Indian and Hindu, pointed this out many times, in his deeply evangelical manner. He was disillusioned with the ways in which Christianity was expressed in the political and social life of nations. Could a man who fought for the liberation of his great nation from colonial dependence accept Christianity in the same form as it had been imposed on his country by those same colonial powers?

The Second Vatican Council realized this difficulty. This is why the document on the relations between the Church and Hinduism and other religions of the Far East is so important. We read: ‘In Hinduism men explore the divine mystery and express it through an endless bounty of myths and through penetrating philosophical insights. They seek freedom from the anguish of the human condition, either by way of ascetic life, profound meditation, or by taking refuge in God with love and trust. The various schools of Buddhism recognize the radical inadequacy of this malleable world and teach a way by which men, with devout and trusting hearts, can become capable either of reaching a state of perfect liberation, or of attaining, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination’ (Nostra Aetate 2)…

The words of the Council recall the conviction, long rooted in Tradition, of the existence of the so-called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word), present in all religions. In the light of this conviction, the Church seeks to identify the semina Verbi present in the great traditions of the Far East, in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the needs of the contemporary world. We can affirm that here the position of the Council is inspired by a truly universal concern. The Church is guided by the faith that God the Creator wants to save all humankind in Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man, inasmuch as He is the Redeemer of all humankind. The Paschal Mystery is equally available to all, and, through it, the way to eternal salvation is also open to all.

In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 13), making use of these very semina Verbi, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions.

I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, where we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.

At this point it would be helpful to recall all the primitive religions, the animistic religions which stress ancestor worship. It seems that those who practice them are particularly close to Christianity, and among them, the Church’s missionaries also find it easier to speak a common language. Is there, perhaps, in this veneration of ancestors a kind of preparation for the Christian faith in the Communion of Saints, in which all believers—whether living or dead—form a single community, a single body? And faith in the Communion of Saints is, ultimately, faith in Christ, who alone is the source of life and of holiness for all. There is nothing strange, then, that the African and Asian animists would become believers in Christ more easily than followers of the great religions of the Far East.

As the Council also noted, these last religions possess the characteristics of a system. They are systems of worship and also ethical systems, with a strong emphasis on good and evil. Certainly among these belong Chinese Confucianism and Taoism: Tao means eternal truth—something similar to the ‘Word’—which is reflected in the action of man by means of truth and moral good. The religions of the Far East have contributed greatly to the history of morality and culture, forming a national identity in the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, and Tibetans, and also in peoples of the Southeast Asia and the archipelagoes of the Pacific Ocean.

Some of these peoples come from age-old cultures. The indigenous peoples of Australia boast a history tens of thousands of years old, and their ethnic and religious tradition is older than that of Abraham and Moses.

Christ came into the world for these peoples. He redeemed them all and has His own ways of reaching each of them in the present eschatological phase of salvation history. In fact, in those regions, many accept Him and many more have in implicit faith in Him (cf. Heb 11:6). (Crossing the Threshold of Hope pp. 77-83.)

But it is a grave error to think, as the pope alludes to above by mentioning that “[t]he Church is guided by the faith that God the Creator wants to save as humankind in Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man, inasmuch as He is the Redeemer of all humankind” that the elements Catholicism shares in common with these other religions can be understood in a syncretistic sense. Picking up where I left off above in quoting the Council document on non-Christian religions that goes on to state, “[I]ndeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”(NA#2)

Again, this is a point that John Paul II has stressed over and over again in various speeches, such as those delivered at Assisi in 1986 and 2002 and in various magisterial documents such as Dominus Iesus promulgated by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the pope’s request. In the same “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” cited at length above, the Holy Father draws clear contrasts between Christian faith and these other religions, Buddhism and Islam namely. With Buddhism, the pope points out that while it offers a doctrine of salvation, its understanding what salvation is concretely is radically opposed to the Christian understanding of it. The former understands salvation in a negative sense in that it entails a total detachment from external and material reality which is viewed in this system as being the source of all evil, like that of Manichæism or Gnosticism that have a material vs. spiritual dualistic theological approach. Christian theology (apart from which its soteriology cannot be properly understood), on the other hand, sees the external and material reality as good because they come from the hand of God as does the spiritual. As to Islam, he seconds, in his own voice, the Council’s respect and “high regard” for the religiosity of Muslims. However, he goes on to explain that, in contrast to the Old and New Testaments, Islam “ completely reduces Divine Revelation.”

He goes on to say:

It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.

Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammed. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity. (ibid. pp.92-93)

If it is in Christ the “find the fullness of religious life” and “in whom God has reconciled all things in Himself”, then it is only in Christ (and by extension in the Church He founded) where men ultimately find their salvation. The Holy Father summed it up this way: “Everyone who looks for salvation, not only the Christian, must stop before the Cross of Christ.” (ibid. p. 73) I will never forget how much this simple phrase helped me tie together those three ideas that seemed so irreconcilable. It is this light that the idea how those who, through no fault of their own (i.e. invincible ignorance), do not accept Christ or his Church before death, can be saved makes sense. {1} It is my contention that either at some point in this life or at that moment such people pass through the portal of this life into the next he will be clearly presented with this truth and have to make a decision in that regard. The question I have about such cases is the same as the question the pope posed:

Will he be willing to accept the truth of the Pascal Mystery, or not? Will he have faith? This is yet another issue. This Mystery of salvation is an event which has already taken place. God has embraced all men by the Cross and the Resurrection of His Son. God embraces all men with the life which was revealed on the Cross and in the Resurrection, and which is constantly being born anew from them. As indicated by the allegory of “the vine” and “the branches’ in the Gospel of John (cf. Jn 15:1-8), the Pascal Mystery is by now grafted onto the history of humanity, onto the history of every individual. (ibid pp73-74)

A 1949 Holy Office Letter “On the Ecumenical Movement” , in reassuring prospective Protestant converts to the Church said: “It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. “ In the same light, it can said to those non-Christians that they lose nothing “true and holy” in their religious traditions, but embrace them all the more by accepting "the truth of the Pascal Mystery".

Stopping “before the Cross of Christ” is not only a prerequisite of salvation. It also says something significant about the life of Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II). His life was an 84 year “stop before the Cross of Christ.” This fact was recognized by those outside the Catholic fold as well as by those within it. On the occasion of the pontiff’s death, the non-Catholic Rush Limbaugh, who summed it up thus, “The life Pope John Paul II was about one thing: the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

I also have no doubt that his unwavering witness to Christ struck a chord deep into the hearts of those non-Christian religious leaders who he reached out to in dialogue, although the latter my not have been fully cognizant of it. Despite the fact that same religious leaders often took umbrage with John Paul II’s insistence on the faith of Christ and the Catholic religion He founded being the only true religion, they still accepted the pontiff’s invitation to Assisi {2} for an interfaith prayer meeting on two separate occasions. It shows that they saw in John Paul II’s witness to Christ as His Vicar, true religious leadership, albeit imperfectly.

If the day that the Far East, in its rich ancient cultural heritage, converts to the true faith ever comes to pass, history will show that the efforts of the great missionary Pope John Paul II played an essential part in bringing that to fruition.

Notes:

{1} Those who wish to portray Pius IX’s “it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry” as meaning that it would “unlawful” for the Magisterium to gain a deeper understanding of the issue of invincible ignorance are clearly mistaken. The fact that the issue was taken up in a dogmatic constitution of an ecumenical council over a hundred years later disproves that notion.

{2} I would urge readers to look at Cardinal Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict XVI) assessment of the Assisi interfaith prayer meetings I posted to the Lidless Eye Inquisition.

2005-11-16T20:57:00.000-08:00

Your (trying to be) humble host at the A-Bomb hypocenter Nagasaki, Japan circa November 2005. The Atom Bomb drop on Nagasaki, like that on Hiroshima, stands as an example of how cruel the good must be at times in it's triumph over evil.

For further explanation click here and here.

Go In Peace Mr. President, Your Sin Has Been Forgiven

2005-10-31T18:17:00.000-08:00

One element in the theology of forgiveness that is often overlooked in our "non-judgmental" culture is that for forgiveness to be efficacious, the sinner must acknowledge his sin and display a willingness to make restitution for any harm done.

Thankfully, President Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court in the aftermath of the Harriet Miers debacle seems to be an indication that the President indeed understands that.

Granted, he needed the fraternal correction of the conservative base to help him see the light. But as Proverbs 17:10 says: "A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. "

And the Alito SCOTUS nomination demonstrates that the rebuke was not wasted on the President.

Deo Gratias!

Go in peace, Mr President. Your sin is forgiven.

But don't think this means you can nominate Alberto Gonzalez when the next SCOTUS vacancy comes up.

Pope Benedict XVI on Celibacy

2005-10-30T15:53:00.000-08:00

" It is not a dogma. It is a form of life that has grown up in the Church and that naturally always brings with it the danger of a fall. When one aims so high there are failures. I thnk that what provokes people today against celibacyis that they see how many priests really aren't inwardly in agreement with it and either live hypocritically, badly, not at all, or only in a tortured way... People need to get straight in their minds that times of crisis for celibacy are also times of crisis for marriage as well. For, as a matter of fact, today we are experiencing not only violations of celibacy; marriage itself is becoming increasingly fragile as the basis of our society. In the legislation of Western nations we see how it is increasingly placed on the same level as other forms and is thereby largely 'dissolved' as a legal form. Nor is the hard work needed really to live marriage negligible. Put in practical terms, after the abolition of celibacy we would only have a different problem with divorced priests. That is not unknown in the Protestant Churches. In this sense, we see, of course, that the lofty forms of human existence involve great risks.

The conclusion I would draw from this, however, is not that we should now say, 'We can't do it anymore', but that we must learn again to believe. And that we must also be even more careful in the selection of candidates for the priesthood. The point is that someone really ought to accept it freely and not say, well now I would like to become a priest, so I'll put up with this. Or:I'm not interested in girls anyway, so I'll go along with celibacy. That is not a basis to start from. The candidate for the priesthood has to recognize the faith as a force in his life, and he must recognize he can live celibacy only in faith. Then celibacy can also become again a testimony that says something to people and that also gives them the courage to marry. The two institutions are interconnected. If fidelity in the one is no longer possible, the other no longer exists: one fidelity sustains the other. ...

In both cases a definitive lif decision is at the center of one's own personality: Am I already able, let's say at age twenty-five, to arrange my whole life? Is that something appropriate for man at all? Is it possible to see it through and in doing so to grow and mature in a living way--or must I not rather keep myself constantly open for new possiblities? Basically, then, the question is posed thus: Does the possibility of a definitive choice belong in the central sphere of man's existence as an essential component? In deciding his form of life, can he commit himself to a definitive bond? I would say two things. He can do so only if he is really anchored in his faith. Second, only then does he also reach the full form of human love and human maturity. Anything less than monogamous marriage is too little for man.

The point is that, in any case, it has to be free. It's even necessary to confirm by an oath before ordination one's free consent and desire . In this sense, I always have a bad feeling when it's said afterward that it was a compulsory celibacy and that it was imposed on us. That goes against one's word given at the beginning. It's very important in the education of priests we see to it that this oath is taken seriously....

I think giving up this condition basically improves nothing; rather it glosses over a crisis of faith. Naturally, it is a tragedy for a Church when many lead a more or less double life. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that has happened. In the late Middle Ages we had a similar situation, which was also one of the factors that caused the Reformation. That is a tragic event indeed that calls for reflection, also for the sake of the people, who really suffer deeply." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Salt of the Earth Ignatius Press 1997 pp. 196-198)

To take this opportunity to put in a shameless plug of my own (after all it is my weblog), my own meager contribution on the subject can be found HERE.

The Miers Nomination Part 2: To Pull or Not to Pull, That is the Question

2005-10-13T08:35:00.000-07:00

This morning on her radio show, Laura Ingraham said she believes that since the conservative pressure is mounting on President Bush to pull the Miers SCOTUS nomination, that he will, in her words, "do the right thing, pull her nomination and reenergize the conservative base." She said that's her "gut feeling".

I hope she's right, but, unfortunately, my gut tells me something different. My gut agrees with Robert Bork that while he should withdraw the nomination, he won't because he is "too stubborn."

She spent most of the morning polling callers as to whether or not Bush should yank the nomination. Predictably, most of the callers agreed that he should, while some came up with the interesting conspiracy theory that Bush floated this nominee as a ruse to energize the base, pull the nomination, then nominate the person he had wanted to all along, and that because the base is so riled up, the Democrats in the Senate won't dare fight it lest they face the fury of the base.
If there's a conspiracy theory I would like to buy into, it's that one. But, sad to say, I don't.

Of course, there were a few "we're standing by our man" kool-aid drinkers who oppose the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination.

Again I don't believe he will yank this nomination, regrettably, unless he has serious doubts about her prospects for confirmation, which is, although by no means a slam dunk, probable, sorry to say.

I mean why would Bush pull this nomination? He's got some of the greatest minds out there making an irrefutable case for him. He's got Ed Gillespie and Ken Mehlman out there claiming a whiff of sexism and elitism among the conservative base. He's got Alberto Gonzalez saying Miss Miers is a friend of his. Best of all, we have Laura Bush telling Matt Lauer she's an extrordinary woman.

June Cleaver is an extraordinary woman too. Does that mean she's in line to become the next Supreme Court nominee when the next justice steps down?

Bush clearly misoverestimated the loyalty of the conservative base. How dare they choose loyalty to their core principles over loyalty to him?

My Thoughts On the Harriet Miers SCOTUS Nomination

2005-10-11T20:36:00.000-07:00

In addition to other objections already raised against the nomination of Chief White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. no one, including the President himself{1} knows squat about her, that she has no judicial experience, and there is no evidence that she has both the intellect and the will necessary to help move the Court in the direction it needs to go), I have a few additional takes of my own.

The first is an amplification of the lack of judicial experience issue. In response, defenders (all of which can hold a convention in a phone booth) will surely point to the fact that recently deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist had no judicial experience prior to being nominated and subsequently seated on the High Court. I would say two things in response to that. One is, as Laura Ingraham points out, Rehnquist was a known expert on Constitutional law and his philosophy was long-known matter of public record when he was nominated. But we don’t know what, if any, expertise Miss Miers has in that regard.

The second (and I believe most important) point is that the times in which Rehnquist was nominated are different than our own. While the Court was full of (in Richard Nixon’s words) “senile old bastards” and “fools”, it was not at the critical crossroads that it is at now. There may be a time when it is a good idea to nominate a non-judge to the Court; but now is not the time.

Some have expressed shock at the lack of “faith” the conservative base has in Bush vis-à-vis this pick. After all, hasn’t this been the one area that Bush has been solid thus far? What about all the other good Federal Circuit and Appeals Court picks he has made? To this objection I would pose the following question: yes, they were good picks, but how much political capital did he invest in coming to their defense when the Senate Democrats torpedoed their nominations with the filibuster? Answer: none. They were all left basically twisting in the wind by both the Senate Republicans and the White House (Can anyone say Miguel Estrada? That poor guy was left hanging so long he got fed up with both the abuse and lack of support he withdrew his name from consideration. Now, if Bush wanted to go with a non-judge for a pick, Estrada would be the guy. But Estrada would probably refuse the nomination based on the previous experience of Bush and the Senate Republicans not supporting him when the confirmation process got ugly.)

This president’s unwillingness to go to bat for any of his nominees (except maybe Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General. Can anyone say cronyism?) seems to be genetic. His father George H.W. Bush left Clarence Thomas to fend for himself. If Thomas hadn’t of taken matters into his own hands and took the fight to the gang-banging leftist thugs on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he would have met the same fate as Robert Bork.

So, I would say that conservative mistrust here is well-founded.

It is Bush’s over eagerness to back down from a political fight with the Democrats that lies at the heart of all this. Make no mistake about it boys and girls.

I don’t for a minute buy into the “It’s the weak-kneed Senate Republicans’ fault” defense. As president, he’s the leader of the Republican Party. If he wanted to, he could have twisted enough Republican arms to get them to fire up the Enola Gay and drop Little Boy on the filibuster rule. After all, he was able to twist enough Republican arms in the House and Senate to get them to pass that Ted Kennedy-authored sorry excuse for an education bill.

It would be great if we could change the direction of the courts in this country without a knock down, drag out fight. But the sad reality is we can’t.

By avoiding this necessary fight we just kick the can even further down the road…perhaps to 2006 when we hear those dreadful words Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Need I say more?

Note:

{1} Now Bush claims he knows Miss Miers although he admits to not ever having one discussion with her regarding Roe v. Wade, the case that the battle for the Courts hinges on in large part. He also said he could read Vladimir Putin’s soul too. (Move over St. Padre Pio).

Words Of Wisdom

2005-10-11T20:28:00.000-07:00

"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so. (Ronald Reagan circa 1964)

Understanding The Difference Between Doctrine and Prudential Judgments: Essential to the Formation of The Catholic Conscience

2005-10-08T10:33:00.000-07:00

The formation of the Catholic conscience in regards to issues like abortion, euthanasia, contraception, out-of-wedlock sex, and homosexuality is easier than forming the same with issues like capital punishment, the decision to wage war, certain acts that take place in a just war {1}, and economic policies. Why is that?

The reason is that the former are intrinsic evils and the latter are not. To deliberately kill innocent life viz. abortion and euthanasia are not morally licit under any circumstances; nor is rendering the human reproductive organs unable to function naturally viz. contraception, engaging in the marital act outside the bonds of marriage, and sexual activity that contradicts the male-female sexual complimentarity written into human nature.

The latter, however, do not fall in to the same category. For example, it is morally licit to execute dangerous criminals when the physical safety, public order, and moral health of society require it. It is also licit to wage war when national security necessitates it. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in his official capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated such in an communiqué to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops {2} in September of 2004:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Worthiness to Receive Communion-General Principles Emphasis Added)

What makes it even more difficult for some to form their conscience on war and capital punishment are the stated policies of the Holy See and the late Pope John Paul II opposing capital punishment outright and most decisions to wage war.

Out of all papal prudential judgments, John Paul II stating that, due to modern penal systems the need for capital punishment is “rare, if not non-existent” in Evangelium Vitae #56 and his calling capital punishment “cruel and unnecessary” during a visit to St. Louis in 1999 has caused the most confusion.

If you read USCCB literature on the death penalty, statements from individual bishops, and programs in many dioceses across the country, one would think that a Catholic must oppose the capital punishment. Exacerbating this confusion, there are normally very trustworthy Catholic thinkers like Dr. Robert George of Princeton University saying things like, "Nevertheless, he [the pope] has taught authoritatively that the circumstances in which the imposition of the death penalty could possibly be justified are today so rare as to be "practically non-existent." (Clash of Orthodoxies pg. 241)

Pope John Paul II based his stated opposition to the death penalty squarely on his belief that the efficacy of modern penal systems are such as to render the need for capital punishment “rare, if not non-existent”; and since determining whether or not penal systems are efficacious in that regard falls within the competence of the State, and not the Church, such a statement from the pope can in no way be considered authoritative. Dr. George, just on the basis of being a legal scholar, should know that. Besides, the “rare, if not non-existent” statement is obviously speculative in nature, and no authoritative statement of any kind, much less one coming from the Church, is NEVER couched in speculative terms.

In any event, I hope that the statement from the future Pope Benedict XVI quoted above clears up that confusion on the issue of capital punishment.

It seems to me that, despite the best efforts of some, the same degree of confusion does not exist in regards to the issue of waging war.

The importance of knowing the difference between doctrinal statements and prudential judgments cannot be stressed enough. The former deal with matters entirely within the Church’s competence to speak on authoritatively and the latter involve making assessments that are outside the Church’s competence to pronounce on (e.g. efficacy of penal systems in regards to the death penalty and analyzing military intelligence and security concerns in regards to waging war.), although such assessments are to be done within the parameters of Catholic moral principles. In other words, the Church’s competence with regards to the latter issues extends only in so far as to define what those moral parameters are.

This is not to say that the prudential judgments of the Church hierarchy on such matters should be dismissed out of hand. The faithful should carefully, and respectfully, consider such judgments.

But this respect should never be understood as an impediment on the freedom of conscience (or as then-Cardinal Ratzinger put it a “legitimate diversity of opinion”) a Catholic enjoys to arrive at conclusions based on his best understanding of the facts involved--even if it contrasts with the opinion of the pope. As one is bound to obey a certain conscience, it can be said that a Catholic would be bound to disagree with the pope in such instance.

It would seem to me that this would apply all the more to a Catholic who has expertise in the pertinent secular matters (e.g. juridical, law enforcement, military intelligence, and geo-politics). I believe they have a duty to do all they can to make their views known to Church officials; and Church officials, likewise, have a duty to carefully consider such opinions.

To ascribe magisterial status to the prudential judgments of a given pope is conducive to creating a view of the papacy that is sort of a Ceasaro-Papism in reverse. For those who don’t know what Ceasaro-Papism is, it is where secular heads of state try to usurp the authority and prerogatives proper only to the pope, as what occurred in the Fourth Century after Christianity became the state religion in the Roman Empire.

Such a distorted understanding of the papal office makes it vulnerable to politicization where the pope, vis-à-vis his opinions on secular matters, becomes the vehicle of someone’s political or social agenda. This would also play right into the hands of those who wish to undermine papal authority by claiming that the papal office is no different than that of a democratically elected secular ruler. Following this logic (i.e. the power enjoyed by a secular ruler is held in check by other human elements and whose laws can be changed or repealed, and can be voted out of office), the pope’s magisterial authority can be subject to the whims of a majority.

Furthermore, since misconceptions about the papacy represent a major stumbling block for many Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians, blurring the distinction between magisterial pronouncements and prudential judgments are an impediment to Christian unity and evangelization.

Above all, distinguishing between doctrinal imperatives and prudential judgments is nothing more than obedience to our Lord who commands us to "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods." (Matt. 22:21 RSV)

Notes:

{1} The most hotly debated ius in bello subjects is the use of nuclear weapons. Atomic weapons have only been used in war twice, when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. I deal with the moral ramifications of those atomic bomb drops viz. Catholic principles HERE and HERE.

{2} Although contraception, homosexuality and economic issues are not dealt with in Cardinal Ratzinger’s communiqué. Everyone knows that the Church brooks no dissent in regards to the first two and that, like the issues of capital punishment and war, determining correct economic policy involve making assessments outside the Church’s competence as well as staying within the moral parameters defined by the Church.

In Defense of Bill Bennett

2005-10-01T02:32:00.000-07:00

During the "Morning in America" radio talk show hosted by former Education Secretary and Drug Czar-turned radio talk show host Dr. William Bennett, the following exchange took place during the last segment on Wednesday 28th:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Predictably, the left took one sentence (But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.), out of context to paint Dr. Bennett as some knuckle-dragging Nearderthal racist who wants to exterminate blacks.

After getting home from work Thursday morning, I happen to come across a CNN segment dealing with the story during my morning ritual of T.V. channel surfing. And guess who they had on to give his view on the matter? Al Sharpton. And of course, Mr. Sharpton (I refuse to call him Reverend) railed about how racist Bennett's comments were. But there was nothing racist about them. All Dr. Bennett was doing was drawing a hypothetical sceanario following the twisted logic of the "abortion lowers crime" crowd and said that if we were to "abort every black baby in this country and your crime would rate would go down." And you know what? Bennett's right. If we were to follow the aforementioned sick logic, the crime rate WOULD go down if we were to abort every black baby. That's right! In proportion to population, the crime rate amongst blacks is the highest in the country with black on black crime having the highest per capita crime rate and black on white having the second. Where is Shapton's outrage (or Jaaaaaaaaaaacksonnnn's, or Mfume's, or Maxine Waters' etc. for that matter) over that fact? Where is their outrage over the fact that about one third of the unborn children slaughtered every year in abortuaries in this country are black when blacks make up only 10-12% of the population? No wonder black pro-life leaders call legal abortion genocide. And why in the hell doesn't any of the info-babes (Thank you Rush) or empty suits in the liberal media ask them that question? But we already know why they don't ask those questions, don't we? Rich Lowery, editor of National Review tried getting a straight answer from Democrat strategist Michael Brown (a black man himself) on the question of blacks and abortion while filling in for Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes and Brown danced a Bojanglesque jig around that question.

The fact of the matter is this: the so-called black civil rights leaders have become the Uncle Toms doing the bidding of the white liberal slave master. And legal abortion, as well as keeping as many blacks as possible a permanent underclass, is foundational to the white liberal ideology. It's that simple, boys and girls.

Just as I thought things couldn't get worse...well...they got worse. On my way home from work Wednesday morning, I hear local (San Diego) talk show host Rick Roberts lambasting Bennett for his comments. Those of you who listen to Michael Savage are familiar with Rick Roberts because he often fills in in Savage's absence. So Roberts is no liberal by any stretch. In fact, I like him. He has been a great force for good in the San Diego community. He has done the Lord's work, so to speak, on championing the cause of keeping the Cross/War Memorial on Mount Soledad. He has also been tireless in his efforts to draw attention to problem of our porous southern border. I've met him in person and have talked to him on the air several times when he was previously with a different San Diego radio station. So, listening to him go after Bennett the way he did was a real disappointment (not to mention a shock) to say the least when he should have been sticking up for him.

But even worse than that was the White House and RNC chairman Ken Mehlman joining the criticism of Bennett chorus, calling his remarks "regrettable and inappropriate." Of all people, they should know better. They know Bill Bennett. They know he is not a racist. They know that he is a stand-up guy. They should have at least given him the benefit of the doubt and checked with him before joining in on the criticism. Of all people, they should know that the left has made a cottage industry out of twisting the statements of conservatives out of context for political purposes.

I would like to say that I am surprised by this, but unfortunately, I am not at all surprised by it. The present republican leadership and this administration is so terrified in the face of any pressure of these race-baiting thugs that they are willing to sacrifice even a staunch ally like Bill Bennett to appease them. If I were Dr. Bennett, I would be offended by this.

Setting a "new tone in Washington" was one of the pillars of the Bush presidential campaign. Memo to the President: if you want to set a new tone in Washington, it's real simple. Cut the B.S. That'll set a new tone in Washington!

You can start cutting the B.S. by denouncing those "race-pushing poverty pimps" (thank you J.C. Watts) who do nothing but cash in on the misery of those whom they claim to speak for and who do everything in their power to bring about your political destruction, not those who go to the matt defending your policies like Bill Bennett {1} when Bennett did nothing wrong to warrant any criticism.

Note:

{1} In fact, Bill Bennett, like the rest of talk radio, has been far more articulate in defending Bush policies than anyone in the administration has.

Subsidiarity Part 2: Thoughts on Bush's Thursday Night Speech

2005-09-17T12:15:00.000-07:00

Although he hem haws and stutters like a machine gun when trying to give extemporaneous remarks, President George W. Bush ranks right up there with Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill when giving prepared speeches intended to inspire and uplift.

His address to the Nation on September 15th on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was another example of this--at least in part.

He very movingly spoke about volunteers, aid and rescue workers, hospital personnel, and ordinary citizens banding together and scarificing heroically to assist those in need. He also took pains to allay many concerns by pointing out that recovery efforts are moving ahead of schedule and that the "major gasoline pipelines are now in operation, preventing the supply disruptions that many feared. "

But then he goes from sounding like Churchill after the Battle of Britain to sounding like a Matthew Lesko {1} infomercial. When he got done disclosing all the federal monies he plans to throw at this disaster, LBJ's legacy became that of a fiscal conservative in comparison. When I hear the President say such things as , "Federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone, from roads and bridges to schools and water systems", I must ask, "Principle of subsidiarity, where art thou?" Why is the federal government picking up the tab for infrastructure that is the responsibility of the local government? And why isn't the President asking why the City of New Orleans and State of Louisiana failed so miserably in their duty to both prepare for something like this and execute even the deficient procedure they already had in place and demand that they be held accountable?

As with all other federal spending on social programs, the lion's share of this money will never even reach its so-called intended recipient, especially with city and state officials that are as corrupt as those in the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana. For example, before the Hurricane, Louisiana had already federal funding to upgrade the levee systems. Want to know where that money went? It went to paying for fiber optics for the casinos.

Whatever meager funds that do get to those who are poor is gonna wind up, in large part, in a crack pipe or liquor bottle. I mean, that's where most of the welfare money that hasn't been gobbled up by a greedy bureaucrat has gone in the last forty years. How does George W ( W as in Wide Open Wallet) Bush expect this to be any different? He's going to have a "team of inpectors general reviewing all expenditures" ? Great! One group of clueless and/or corrupt bureaucrats looking over the shoulders of the group of another. I'll sleep better at night knowing the foxes really do guard the hen house now.

Besides, if the private faith-based and secular organizations are doing as well the President says (and I do believe they are, don't misunderstand me), then why does he see any need for such intrusive federal involvement? He should cheerlead their efforts and insure that the federal governement is going to stay the hell out of the way. Everyone will be better off for it.

Finally, it is high time for both the President and other politicians who call themselves conservatives to stop allowing the race card to be dealt in situations like this. I believe the President had both the opportunity and the duty to denounce those who used Hurricane Katrina to advance their hate-filled, race-baiting agenda. Charlatans and shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who have profited for far too long off of the misery of those they claim to speak for need to be treated with the same disdain that we so willingly (and rightly) treat white racists like David Duke and other KKK remanants.

Note:

{1} For those of you may be unfamiliar with Matthew Lesko, he's that goofy looking guy who has that infomercial hawking a book on how to get (not borrow) government money for everything from getting a Ph.D to taking an overseas vaccation.

The Katrina Disaster Illustrates the Need For The Catholic Social Principle of Subsidiarity

2005-09-15T14:32:00.000-07:00

In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II stated:

"Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (#48)"

The chaotic situation in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of the practical importance of the principle of subsidiarity, which is an integral part of Catholic social teaching. Unfortunately, its a perfect example of what happens when that age-old, tried and true principle is not only ignored, but rebuffed outright. This makes an already disastrous situation...well...more disastrous.

Not only did the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana not have a coherent evacuation plan, but even failed to follow the deficient plan they had in place. By now, I'm sure everyone has seen the photos of the submerged buses. Mayor Nagin claims that he was unable to find people willing to drive those buses to get those people out of way of the storm. Please excuse me for saying that I find that awfully hard to believe. In actuality, it would have been pretty easy if you had just done as Rush Limabaugh pointed out:

"What if you said, mayor, what if the said to the drivers whose job it is to drive the buses, 'Look, this will get you out of here, too. If you're driving the bus, you will succeed in evacuating. And we'll even let you bring your family. If you don't have a car, we'll let you bring your family, put your family on the bus as you're evacuating those who need help to get out, and we will kill two birds with one stone. We'll save you and your family and the school bus and the people who are being transported out.' "

Sounds pretty simple to me. But when a "community of a lower order" is paralyzed by an inordinate dependence on a "community of a higher order," such simple solutions that would have saved many lives evade the grasp of the civil authorities who have the grave responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizenry.

Also, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, in her own words, hesitated in calling for military assistance:

"I said we're not tolerating asking for more military presence. But I mean -- but I'm saying put good people at jeopardy, potentially. I really need to call for the military. I should have started that in the first call."

And there are reports that the "Louisiana Department of Homeland Security blocked a vanguard of Red Cross trucks filled with water, food, blankets and hygiene items from bringing relief to the thousands of hungry and thirsty evacuees stranded in the New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina struck, according to a Fox News Channel report."

To make matters worse, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin refuse to accept responsibility for their failures in this matter and blamed the federal government (i.e. President Bush).

Now, there is no question that the federal government dropped the ball on their end and the President has personally accepted responsibility and begun to make some needed personnel changes in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, such lack of efficiency is what we are to expect from a distant bureaucracy that has either been given too much responsibility in local affairs or has usurped it.

If the principle of subsidiarity was actually taken seriously by the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, they would have been better able to make use of whatever federal assistance was needed--which it probably was needed in this case. Florida governor Jeb Bush (himself no stranger to dealing with natural disasters, having dealt with four hurricanes within a short time span last year), put it this way:"If we weren't prepared, and we didn't do our part, no amount of work by FEMA could overcome the lack of preparation,".

Furthermore, I find Mayor Nagin's claim about not being able to find drivers not only not credible, but rather insulting to those he has sworn to serve, in that he displays a pretty low opinion of them. He couldn't be anymore wrong about that. If there's one thing that America has always been able to count on in her darkest hour, along with the principle of subsidiarity, is the faithful assistance of her private citizens. Whether it's on-scene volunteer assistance or financial donations, the American public has always came through for their neighbors in need.

If you wish to make a donation, here are a few organizations you can send your donations to.

Also:

http://www.catholicmatch.com/pl/pages/mercy.html

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/news/katrina.cfm

Debunking Dave Armstrong’s “Consensus of Catholic Opinion” Argumentation Fallacy Viz. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

2005-09-08T11:39:00.000-07:00

One of the things that give Catholic moral/ethical teaching its enduring credibility is that it is not subject to the shifting sands of majority opinion...or what we are often misled to believe is majority opinion.

Since even the best and the brightest of the members of the Catholic Church are fallible humans, at times influenced by their own biases and emotional dispositions, and subject to being misled by inadequate, or even false, information, they are by no means exempt from this. In fact, the infallibility of the Church's teaching magisterium, because it is essentially a negative charism (i.e. it prevents the Church from teaching error on matters of faith and morals), it prevents the Catholic conscience from being hamstrung by improperly formed private opinions of those in the Church hierarchy, including the pope himself.

It is imperative, therefore, that this be borne in mind when forming moral judgments on certain acts committed in the waging of a just war. The reason being is that making such judgments require not only a sound understanding of Catholic moral principles guiding such action, but also having knowledge of and being able to make assessments of concrete circumstances that are not theological per se and hence outside the Church's competence to authoritatively pronounce on.

This is especially true when we try to make moral heads or tails of an event as gruesome and horrific as the Atom bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan on August 6th and August 9th 1945, bringing an abrupt end to the Second World War.

Catholic commentators and apologists as a whole, while normally displaying a great deal of thoughtfulness and balance in discussing other complex issues, drop the ball big time on this one. The most recent, and I think the most embarrassing, examples are the recent weblog postings (Click HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE) of well-known Internet Catholic apologist and author Dave Armstrong in response to myself, I. Shawn McElhinney, and Kevin Tierney. Instead of actually interacting with the arguments made by Shawn, Kevin (Kevin himself being undecided in his opinion as to the moral justification of the bombings) , and myself that support for President Truman's DECISION TO DROP THE BOMBS AS HE DID indeed has room in the Catholic conscience he just regurgitates quotes from prominate Catholics in a fashion reminiscent of an anti-Catholic fundamentalist who throws up quotes from Scripture and the Early Church Fathers as proof texts supporting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or some other objection to the faith. {1}

But before we deal directly with some of the Catholic sources he cites, I want to make some preliminary points.

The first is a little background behind Dave's outburst.

Back on August 7th of this year (the day after the 60th Anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb drop), I sent a private e-mail to a small circle of friends (Dave being among them) remarking on how Stephen Hand of TCR, a mutual nemesis of ours, was beside himself in characterizing the bomb drops as "Absolute Evil" on his website, even going so far as to decorate his homepage with a picture of the mushroom cloud, the devastation of the city of Hiroshima, and a stopped clock against a black background.

In another e-mail, subsequent to that one, I made the remark that the circumstance in question was too complex to make the slam dunk condemnation that most Catholic apologists make with the bombings. Dave's response was rather passionate in that condemning them was indeed a slam-dunk. Then Shawn and I (mainly Shawn) responded by making a brief case, sighting pertinent and often overlooked information concerning the circumstance within which the decision was made (e.g. it was the least catastrophic of any alternative and that these were military, not civilian targets etc.), as to why an outright condemnation of the bomb drops viz. Catholic moral principles made by many Catholic apologists was way too simplistic. In reply, Dave admitted his ignorance of the issue (an admission he later makes public in his first blog post):

"Obviously, you and Greg have studied this particular matter in far more depth than I have. So I eagerly look forward to considering your arguments carefully when I return [from his vacation]. If you can convince me, great. I would like to think that the act was a morally justified one. Thus far, from what I know (and admittedly there is a lot more to learn about the whole thing) I maintain my present opinion." (Emphasis in the original)

I remember remarking to Shawn in a phone conversation (before Dave's public reply) how stand-upish and humble it was of Dave to make that admission.

But lo and behold, on the same day he returns from his vacation on August 25th, he posts his first of several rather verbose responses.

Now, there is no way he can go from being as ignorant as he admitted to being to being able to interact with the arguments of those who have in his words "studied this particular matter in far more depth than I [Dave] have" in one day when you consider that in the thirteen days between his admission and his first post, he was on vacation and (again) by his own admission, did not study the matter during that time.

Furthermore, I now see his going public the way he did, not giving us any real advanced heads-up, as an attempt to blind side us. Look, if I had a disagreement of this magnitude with a polemical ally, I would at least try to hash the issue out privately, ensuring that I have a proper understanding of both the issue in question and the arguments of the other before even considering to take it public. This would make even more sense if I was as ignorant of the issue under discussion as Dave admitted to being.

But wait, it gets even more bizarre. He then reads some pretty strange things into my linking to a Victor Davis Hanson Article:

Greg also prominently links to Victor Davis Hanson, military historian, conservative Democrat, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and frequent contributor to National Review, describing one of his articles as a "smackdown on the revisionist historians and hand wringers." We shall turn to this article next.Victor Davis Hanson's "Smackdown on the Revisionist Historians" First of all, it should be noted for the record that Hanson is not a Catholic. It took some doing to discover this but I was curious enough to pursue it. At length I found a statement of Hanson himself: "I am a 48-year-old Swedish-American Protestant . . . " Most Swedes (and their American offspring) who are religious at all are Lutherans, and that would be my best guess here, unless Hanson converted to something else later on. That doesn't mean that Hanson could not accurately portray or reflect in his own opinions, classical Catholic just war theory (I did so myself in my former Protestant days), but it is just a tad bit strange that a Catholic has to appeal to a Protestant in order to uphold primarily Catholic just war thought and ethical considerations.In fact, in the article cited by Greg: 60 Years Later: Considering Hiroshima , Hanson never once uses the terms just war or Christian or Catholic. And when he uses the word morality in reference to the bombings, it is in a sense decidedly non-Catholic, and arguably relativistic, merely utilitarian, and an instance of situation ethics (I shall cite that portion below, in a separate section). Furthermore, he strongly implies that the bombings were indiscriminate actions in precisely the sense that Catholic teaching clearly condemns. So this is a strange source for Greg to cite in favor of his outwardly Catholic position. Hanson's argument does not (at least not prima facie) proceed from Catholic or even general Christian principles, it seems to me. Could it be tied into the "double effect" principle?

When Dave can pull the boards of Pat "[the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] are te rrorism on a colossal scale "Buchanan, Ralph "Truman is a war criminal worse than any Japanese general" Racio, and Howard "Objectivity is impossible, even undesirable" Zinn from his eye, he will see that Hanson isn't even a speck in mine. I don't cite Hanson as moral authority per se, but as a military historian and scholar who indeed "puts the smackdown" on on the revisionists and handwringers who operate from a faulty premise regarding the circumstance within which Truman made his decision. That's pretty much it! So, how Dave comes to the conclusion that Hanson's Swedish Protestant lineage is somehow relavent here and that I am ascribing some sort of quasi-magisterial authority to him is a big mystery to me.

Dave's attempts to deflect the justification of the bombings viz. the principle of double effect are, in a word, pathetic. Since Shawn demonstrates in painstaking detail how this is so, I won't belabor the point too much. But I would like to comment on one thing Dave says here:

"It cannot plausibly be maintained that this was a non-intended effect of a moral good (taking out military installations) because of the nature of the weapon, where it was targeted, and immediate historical precedent." (Empahsis Added)

If Dave thinks that the "nature of the weapon" (i.e Nuke) proves that the bomb drops are unjustifiable, it (to borrow a phrase from his beloved Cardinal John Henry Newman) "proves too much." It not only proves that the bomb drops are unjustifiable, but that Pope John Paul II, in recognizing the moral licitness of nuclear weapons as a means of deterence, is endorsing situation ethics (i.e. the ends justify the means). The logical conclusion here is inescapapble: If the acquisition and/or build-up of nuclear weapons as a means of deterence is morally licit, then so are their use, should the circumstances require it. And as we will see a bit later, this isn't the first place Mr. Armstrong runs into trouble with the late pontiff.

Now let us turn our attention to some of the particular quotes Dave cites (Dave's comments and sources are in red my sources in blue, and my comments in regular font). The first is what he cites from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani:

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani wrote in 1947:

The extent of the damage done to national assets by aerial warfare, and the dreadful weapons that have been introduced of late, is so great that it leaves both vanquished and victor the poorer for years after.Innocent people, too, are liable to great injury from the weapons in current use: hatred is on that account excited above measure; extremely harsh reprisals are provoked; wars result which flaunt every provision of the jus gentium, and are marked by a savagery greater than ever. And what of the period immediately after a war? Does not it also provide an obvious pointer to the enormous and irreparable damage which war, the breeding place of hate and hurt, must do to the morals and manners of nations?These considerations, and many others which might be adduced besides, show that modern wars can never fulfil those conditions which (as we stated earlier on in this essay) govern - theoretically - a just and lawful war. Moreover, no conceivable cause could ever be sufficient justification for the evils, the slaughter, the destruction, the moral and religious upheavals which war today entails.

[I would argue that current-day technology with non-nuclear precision, "surgical" strikes, smart bombs, etc. make just war conditions far easier to fulfill than 60 years ago (indeed I believe that the criteria are fully met in the Iraqi War); but one cannot anachronistically project today's weapons back to 1945; the atomic bombings as they were carried out remain unjustifiable by catholic moral standards]

First of all, it seems rather clear that Dave is confusing the difference between making a clear moral judgement and expressing concerns about the dangers of modern warfare (i.e. hand wringing). Again, this would prove too much if we were to follow Dave's logic because His Eminence is clearly including conventional weapons and war in general, and makes no mention of nukes (even though he probably had those in mind too). Dave does a good job of hoisting himself on his own petard with his bracketed comment at the bottom. His stating that "current-day technology with non-nuclear precision, "surgical" strikes, smart bombs, etc. make just war conditions far easier to fulfill than 60 years ago" put him in direct conflict with the opinions of Popes John XXIII, John Paul II, and the present pontiff Benedict XVI who all argue the opposite, that "current technology" makes war less, not more justifiable vis-a -vis the Just War theory than before. But then again he can disagree with those opinions (as do I) because such disagreements fall well within the framework of the legitmate diversity of opinion enjoyed by Catholics. However, since he later quotes John Paul II, speaking in the same manner about the bombings to make his case that the bombings cannot be justified by Catholic moral standards, he has to say the same about the Iraq war, a war which he believes to be just. Can't have your filet mignon and eat it too, Dave.

Next is his citing of Karl Keating's August 3, 2004 E-Letter:

Many justify the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima by saying the abrupt end to the war saved as many as a million American lives that would have been lost had Japan been invaded. I don't know where the figure of one million came from. My understanding is that the War Department estimated a maximum of 46,000 casualties in an invasion. That was a worst-case scenario, meaning the likely number of casualties would have been far lower.

Some commentators have argued that no invasion was needed at all, since Japan no longer had an air force or navy and had no domestic source of oil for its industries. A blockade would have resulted in the Japanese war machine and economy grinding to a halt. The war thus could have ended without an invasion, though the end probably would have come long after the summer of 1945.

Be that as it may, what concerns me is the attitude, so prevalent among political conservatives (most of whom are religious conservatives), that there are no limits in defensive warfare: If the other guys started the fight, they deserve whatever they get. In a defensive war it is not a matter of "My country right or wrong" but of "My country can do no wrong," which is an odd thing coming from conservatives who, on domestic matters, can be highly critical of their government's moral failings (as regards abortion or homosexuality, say).

To achieve a good, you may not perform a sin. To provide your family financial security, you may not rob a bank. To protect your wife's health, you may not abort the child she is carrying. And to defeat an enemy in war, you may not violate just war principles. But we did--and more than once, sad to say.

The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, like the fire bombings of Dresden and other German cities, cannot be squared with Catholic moral principles because the bombings deliberately targeted non-combatants. The evil done by our enemies did not exonerate us from the moral law. Their evils did not provide us justification for evils of our own. Being a Christian in peacetime is difficult; it is more difficult, but even more necessary, in wartime.

Fat Man exploded directly above the Catholic cathedral in Nagasaki. The city was the historical center of Catholicism in Japan and contained about a tenth of the entire Catholic population. The cathedral was filled with worshipers who had gathered to pray for a speedy and just end to the war. It is said their prayers included a petition to offer themselves, if God so willed it, in reparation for the evils perpetrated by their country

Dave not only doesn't help his own case here, but also doesn't do the Apologist any favors by repeating the latter's rather weak arguments. For starters, if the Apologist could have made a clear magisterial argument against the bomb drops, effectively slamming the door on any Catholic debate, he definitely would have. But the fact that he doesn't undercuts his slam-dunk protryal of it that it "cannot be squared with Catholic principles." And the matter-of-fact way that he states that the bombings were the "deliberate targeting of civilians" shows that his lacuna of knowledge regarding the situation is such that he is unable to correctly apply Catholic principles to it. Truman's diary entry of July 25, 1945 states:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old Capitol or the new."

When this is read in conjunction with the other statements made in other pertinent documentation, the unqualified assertion made by the Apologist that the bombings "deliberately targeted non-combatants" is totally absurd. Moreover, further blurring the distinction between combatant and non-combatants is the fact that Japanese civilians were being conscripted en masse. According to MacArthur biographer William Manchester:

Hirohito's generals, grimly preparing for the invasion, had not abandoned hope of saving their homeland. Although a few strategic islands had been lost, they told each other, most of their conquests, including the Chinese heartland, were firmly in their hands, and the bulk of their army was undefeated. Even now they could scarcely believe that any foe would have the audacity to attempt landings in Japan itself. Allied troops, they boasted, would face the fiercest resistance in history. Over ten thousand kamikaze planes were readied for "Ketsu-Go," Operation Decision. Behind the beaches, enormous connecting underground caves had been stocked with caches of food and thousands of tons of ammunition. Manning the nation's ground defenses were 2,350,000 regular soldiers, 250,000 garrison troops, and 32,000,000 civilian militiamen, a total of 34,600,000, more than the combined armies of the United States, Great Britain, and Nazi Germany. All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called "Sherman's carpets." This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate,a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511)]

It is worth noting here the fact that this statement comes from the biography of one of the most high profile opponents of the bomb drops is of no small import here.

The ignorance of the Apologist on this subject is further laid bare with his "46,000 worst-case scenario" canard. My friend Shawn briefly explains where that number came from:

"To start with, I remind you all that there were over 7,000 American battle deaths in Iwo Jima (21,000 Japanese deaths) and 12,000 American battle deaths at Okinawa (Japanese killed or captured was around 100,000: that excludes suicides by Japanese soldiers to avoid capture). The decision to use the bomb (and forego an invasion) was made after Okinawa because of the concern that invading Japan may well involve a whole slew of Okinawas. Prior to that point, several scenarios were run by the Joint War Plans Committee with battle deaths ranging from 21,000-46,000 with casualties of 105,000-170,000. I remind you all that those figures were presented in June of 1945 and were based on running various scenarios as well as estimations of Japanese troop levels being at six combat divisions, two depot divisions, 350,000 men total (numbers first proposed in 1944), and other elements. Furthermore, they were offered as an "educated guess": hardly the definitive statements..."

MacArthur himself even further debunks the 46,000-casualty error via his biographer:

He [MacArthur] had no illusions about the savagery that lay ahead he told Stimson that Downfall would "cost over a million casualties to American forces alone"--but he was confident that with the tanks from Europe he could outmaneuver the defenders on the great Kanto Plain before Tokyo. Whether he would be as adroit with Eisenhower's generals "not to mention Ike himself- was another matter. Granting an interview to Bert Andrews of the New York Herald Tribune, he said that the ETO commanders had made "every mistake that supposedly intelligent men could make," that "the North African operation was absolutely useless," that "the European strategy was to hammer stupidly against the enemy's strongest points" and that if he had been given "just a portion of the force" sent to North Africa in 1942, he "could have retaken the Philippines in three months because by then the Japanese were not ready." [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 513]

Besides, if 46,000 casualties was anywhere near a realistic scenario, not to mention worst case scenario, for what would have been the largest invasion in the history of warfare (it would have made the Allied invasion of Normandy look like a couple of sailors crashing a bridal shower) it would have meant that the invasion, in proportion to its magnitude, would have been the Mother of All Cakewalks. Truman would have been a fool (not to mention criminally cupable) not to opt for the invasion because dropping the bomb instead, in the face of such minimal losses in an invasion, would have robbed him of a much-needed moral high ground.

Lest anyone think that the U.S. did not consider holding the moral high ground important and that they didn't have it, I refer them to the very insightful words of Japanese diplomat Toshikazu Kase, in his 1945 report to Emperor Hirohito on the ceremony aboard the USS Missouri (BB-63) marking the surrender of Japan, and the end of the Second World War. He wondered "whether it would have been possible for us, had we been victorious, to embrace the vanquished with similar magnanimity [as the U.S. embraced the Japanese]. Clearly, it would have been different." He continues, " After all, we were not beaten by dint of superior arms. We were defeated in the spiritual contest by virtue of a nobler idea. The real issue was moral--beyond all the powers of algebra to compute." (Taken from William Manchester's "American Ceasar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964" pg. 534)

Just as, if not more, absurd than the 46,000 casualties worst-case scenario canard is the idea of a blockade of Japan. The death and misery that a blockade would have visited upon the Japanese civilian population would have dwarfed that of the bombings. Historian Richard Frank points out.:

The strategy of blockade and bombardment looked to end the war by starving the Japanese population and trusting that the emaciated survivors surrendered. This strategy was supported by naval and air officers who later claimed it could have ended the war without the atomic bombs. While General Marshall told Truman in June 1945 that the air campaign could not end the war with Japan, I believe that there is good chance (though not certainty) that the advocates of bombardment and blockade were correct. There is no absolute certainty as to when the war might have ended under this strategy given the contingency of so many events and the belief among many Japanese officers that it would be better for the Japanese people to perish than to surrender.

Japanese historians maintain that ten million Japanese were on the edge of starvation when the war ended. Certainly the records of the early occupation period I examined brought home forcefully an extremely dire food shortage that lurched very close to a famine during 1946. Had the U.S. chosen to rely simply on the blockade and bombardment strategy and not use atomic bombs or an invasion, it would have killed a great many of these ten million starving Japanese, if not all. Would we be morally more at ease with this outcome? How many of them were children? I believe for reasons I set out in my book that had the war gone on for only days after August 15, the revised targeting directive aiming the B-29s at the Japanese rail system and the food shortage would have locked Japan on a course to a mass famine regardless of whether the war ended shortly after the rail system was destroyed or not. Thus, it was far more imperative for the Japanese that the war end abruptly in August 1945 than they have appreciated. And it was far more fortunate that events worked out that they did surrender then.

If the Apologist objects to the Atomic bomb drops that had the derivative, not intentional, effect of killing 200,000, he would have to object more strongly to the blockade idea that could possibly have starved to death as high as fifty times that many. And I'm sure everyone, except maybe Michael Schiavo attorney George Felos, would agree that being killed by an atomic blast is a more merciful death than starvation.

Let us now turn our attention to the Mark Shea "If Killing You is Wrong, I Don't Wanna Be Right" piece shall we? It is not all together clear from this piece whether or not Mark is inferring that believing the bombings are justified is an example of an "If Killing You is Wrong, I Don't Wanna Be Right" mindset. Anyone with an understanding of Catholic principles guiding moral conduct in war and an understanding of the circumstance surrounding the decision to drop the bomb wouldn't dare utter such nonsense, regardless of whether he believed the bombings were justified or not.

I find Dave's citing of Fr. Jim Tucker especially interesting seeing as how I had asked the young padre to substantiate his "Vatican of Pope Pius XII condemned these actions as crimes against God and man" claim and the best he could do is come up with second and third hand sources (one of which I cite in my previous blog post on the subject) too ambiguous to add up to a condemnation of any kind, much less a magisterial condemantion. In response, I had pointed out to Fr. Tucker that when these statements are understood in the overall context as to how the political Vaticanese toward war issues had developed from at least fifty years prior to the time of Pius XII (especially during the pontificate of Benedict XV) these statements aren't really all that harsh. In fact, Pope John Paul II had been more harsh in his opposition to the death penalty and that Vatican officials had been much more harsh in their opposition to the Iraq war and that both issues are within what the future Pope Benedict XVI called a "legitimate diversity of opinion" even going so far as explicitly stating that Catholics could disagree with the Holy Father in an official CDF communique to the USCCB last year.

Furthermore, I asked if Pius XII believed that there was absolutely no room in the Catholic conscience then why didn't he make that clear, seeing as how many, if not most, Catholics in the U.S. and other Allied countries likely agreed with Truman's decision. It would have been his pastoral duty to correct such erroneous consciences, no?

Moreover, I also illustrated how Guadium et Spes #80 does not apply to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings because they were not (a) indiscriminate (b) directed toward the destruction of cities. As the relevant statements from Truman's diary and other documents make clear that they were military targets that specifically state that civilians were not targeted, although it was a foregone conclusion that there were going to be civilian casualties. And such action can be justified under the principle of double-effect provided the bad effect of such action does not outweigh the bad effect to be avoided.

My response was sent on 8/18 of this year and I have yet to receive a reply.

Then he quotes Fr. Michael Scanlon, former President of Franciscan University at Steubenville, Ohio:

In addition to dealing with the internal reality of sin and the need for conversion, the call to be penitents enables one to deal effectively with the sin in the world around us. Men and women frequently experience depression when they allow themselves to experience the sinful atrocities of the contemporary world. Whether it be the ovens of Auschwitz and Dachau, the charred bodies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the ravages of saturation bombing, the starvation of Bangladesh and Calcutta, the destruction of family life and morals, the prevalence of abortion and pornography, the teenage drug addicts and alcoholics, the crime waves, the imminence of a nuclear holocaust, the practical atheism of pagans and nominal Christian peoples, or the individual tragedies that touch all our lives, the sin around us is real and must be faced. Who does not experience powerlessness in the face of all this? (http://www.franciscanfriarstor.com/resources/stf_be_penitents.htm)

Here again, Dave achieves more in the way of embarrassing the person he is citing than he does in buttressing his case. He exposes Fr. Scanlon's rather careless way of lumping in the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in with the atrocities at Auschwitz and Dachau. Irrespective of whether or not one believes the bombings to be just, it is clear that there is absolutely no comparison between an act that had as its motivation the ending of a grueling and bloody war and preventing further mass bloodshed and an act that was clearly directed to the extermination of innocents because of their race. It is beyond incomprehensible that anyone, not to mention the former president of one of the most reputable Catholic Universities in the U.S., if not the world, would even give the impression that these acts share any moral equality. I will give Fr. Scanlan the benefit of the doubt by not asserting that he did this deliberately, but it does read in such a manner that it could be interpreted that way.

Then he cites C.S. Lewis:

C.S. Lewis:

"The victory of vivisection marks a great advance in the triumph of ruthless, non-moral utilitarianism over the old world of ethical law; a triumph in which we, as well as animals, are already the victims, and of which Dachau and Hiroshima mark the more recent achievements."

May I add, the non-Catholic C.S. Lewis! Since he gives me grief for citing the non-Catholic Victor Davis Hanson (even though I don't cite him as a moral authority per se as Dave is clearly citing Lewis), it is only proper for me to return the favor. Again, lumping the bombings in with Dachau, as the quote from C.S. Lewis appears to be doing, is a prima faciae absurdity as I already explained above.

Now, let's see how Dave tries to bring two popes in on the act. First up is Pope Paul VI:

It is no longer a simple, ingenuous and dangerous utopia. It is the new Law of mankind which goes forward, and which arms Peace with a formidable principle: 'You are all brethren' (Mt 23:8). If the consciousness of universal brotherhood truly penetrates into the hearts of men, will they still need to arm themselves to the point of becoming blind and fanatic killers of their brethren who in themselves are innocent, and of perpetrating, as a contribution to Peace, butchery of untold magnitude, as at Hiroshima on 6 August 1945? And in fact has not our own time had an example of what can be done by a weak man, Gandhi - armed only with the principle of non-violence - to vindicate for a Nation of hundreds of millions of human beings the freedom and dignity of a new People?" http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19751018_ix-world-day-for-peace_en.html)

Since, as the contextual background of the pope's statement and the venue in which it was made make clear, it carries no magisterial weight and must be treated solely on its merits as any other opinion. And given the fact that this statement is inserted into a hand-wringing over war in general, it unclear what the pope's actual opinion was as to morality of the bombings. I remember Shawn remarking to me in a conversation that he has read a couple of biographies on Pope Paul VI did not come across any discussion on the part of the late pontiff on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that because the future Pope PauL VI already had enough on his plate in the years following the war with his various duties, he was not able to study the issue in sufficient depth to be able really weigh in on the matter.

It is also important to note here that during the time (the 1960's) Cardinal Montini was elected pope (1963) coincided with a massive change in how historical events were interpreted and that widespread disputes broke out over whether certain events actually occurred. This is a nice way of saying that revisionist history gained an inordinate amount of traction during this time.
Its effect on understanding the circumstances surrounding the bombings is even more complex, as historian Richard Frank explains:

"In 1945, an overwhelming majority of Americans regarded as a matter of course that the United States had used atomic bombs to end the Pacific war. They further believed that those bombs had actually ended the war and saved countless lives. This set of beliefs is now sometimes labeled by academic historians the "traditionalist" view. One unkindly dubbed it the "patriotic orthodoxy."

But in the 1960s, what were previously modest and scattered challenges of the decision to use the bombs began to crystallize into a rival canon. The challengers were branded "revisionists," but this is inapt. Any historian who gains possession of significant new evidence has a duty to revise his appreciation of the relevant events. These challengers are better termed "critics. "
Among an important stratum of American society--and still more perhaps abroad--the critics' interpretation displaced the traditionalist view."

Further still, the MAGIC cables did not first become declassified until 1978, the same year Paul VI died. Even then, the release of the full non redacted set didn't take place until 1995.

Next is John Paul II:

Pope John Paul II condemned the bombings, and strongly implied by comparison that they were genocidal, as shown in Catholic World Report, Nov. 1999 (vol. 9, No. 10): "World Watch" http://www.cathol..):

==================================JAPAN
Lessons of Hiroshima, NagasakiPope sees "crimes" in atomic bombing
As he greeted a new ambassador from Japan, Pope John Paul II said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki should stand as "symbols of peace" and should remind the world of "the crimes committed against civilian populations during World War II."

Receiving the new ambassador, Toru Iwanami, on September 11, the Pontiff lamented that "true genocides" are still being committed in several parts of the world today. He expressed his regret that the "culture of peace is still far from being spread throughout the world."

In response, I will just simply repeat, (with a few minor adjustments) my earlier response to this in Dave's comments box on 8/29:

"Dave:

If the quotes you provided from JPII and Paul VI is of them speaking in a magisterial voice, then it would be game, set, match. Shawn and I would have to change our positions if we were to remain within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy.

No pope has ever condemned the use of nukes as intrinsically evil. In fact, the same JPII you quoted recognized the moral licitness of building up nukes as a means of deterrence. The inescapably logical conclusion drawn from that is that their use can be morally licit, should circumstances require it.

I wonder that if JPII (or Paul VI for that matter) knew that the bomb drops were not the targeting of civilians but the targeting of military assets that caused civilian casulties as a derivative effect and that the only alternative would have been a blockade that would have starved and/or an invasion that would have slaughtered in upwards of ten times the amount of civilians, if he would have spoken of the bombings as crimes. You cannot assume, especially without them explaining why they hold such opinions, that they have accurate knowledge of the concrete circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the bombs. There was, and still is, a great deal of misinformation out there regarding the bomb drops. You should know; you've spent the last week or so parroting a great deal of it.

Furthermore, if you are going to cite statements JPII (you would do better to find the full text of the pope's statements than just a Catholic World Report news blurb using snippets) made when receiving a Japanese ambassador to buttress your case that the supporting Truman's decision has no room in the Catholic conscience, then you would have to say that the same pontiff calling the death penalty "cruel and unnecessary" in St. Louis in 1999 means that support for the death penalty has no room in the Catholic conscience either. This would put you in a real quandary because JPII's doctrinal chief (who now sits in the papal chair made clear (with the pontiff's approval) that a Catholic can disagree with the Holy Father on this issue in an official CDF commnique to the USCCB."

As Dave did not interact with those points when I first raised them on 8/29, I will not be surprised if he again fails to do so here.

On the issue of whether or not John Paul II had adequate information as to what went into that fateful decision, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that, in addition to the factors I cited above in my response to his citing Paul VI, John Paul II had the added burden of being behind the Iron Curtain until his elevation to the papacy in 1978. And when we consider the development of Vatican policy (not doctrine mind you) toward war in general and nuclear weapons in conjunction with the influence of revisionist history previously alluded to, it is by no means an unreasonable stretch to assume that he may have been further influenced by Communist spin doctoring on the bombing issue.

Because of his reputation as a credible thinker regarding Catholicism and just war issues, theologian and John Paul II biographer George Weigel is the most credible source he cites:

George Weigel readily concedes the objective immorality of the bombings, and their clash with just war theory, while noting the limitations of the options of that terrible time (as opposed to maintaining that the actions nwere just because of the complexities of the ethics and military strategy, as Greg and Shawn and Victor Davis Hanson do):

In these circumstances, which were the real world circumstances of the time, the use of atomic weapons seems far less a deliberate atrocity than a tragic necessity.This is not to suggest that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, or is, easily justifiable under the moral criteria of the classic just war tradition. But the moral barrier had been breached long before August 6 and August 8, 1945. So-called strategic bombing, aimed at the destruction of civilian populations, had been going on for five years; none of it met the just war in bello criteria of proportionality anddiscrimination. Indeed, if one measures the violation of non-combatant immunitystatistically, the fire-bombing of Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Nagoya, and other Japanese cities was a greater breach of the just war tradition than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.That the Germans had destroyed Rotterdam, the British, Hamburg, and the British and Americans, Dresden, does not "justify" the American destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But certain moral distinctions can and should be drawn between the bombing of cities for purposes of sheer terror (Rotterdam) or revenge (Dresden), and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, on the best available evidence, was undertaken with a legitimate strategic purpose in mind. That purpose was summarized succinctly by Truman biographer David McCullough: "If you want one explanation as to why Truman dropped the bomb: 'Okinawa.' It was done to stop the killing."The greater legitimacy of an end does not, of course, justify any possible means.But recognizing the legitimacy of the end does enable us to enter imaginatively and even sympathetically into the moral struggle over means faced by a responsible political leader confronting a brace of bad choices.It sometimes happens, these days, that a parallel is drawn between Auschwitz and Hiroshima, as two embodiments of the evil of the Second World War. But this seems wrong. What Harry Truman did in August 1945 was, strictly speaking, unjustifiable in classic moral terms. But it was understandable, and it was forgivable. What was done at Auschwitz was unjustifiable, maniacal, and, in this world's terms, unforgivable. That is a considerable moral difference.

But outside of the fact that Dave and George Weigel agree that bombings cannot be justified, all similarities between them cease. Unlike Dave, Weigel sympathizes with Truman's decision. I am sure Mr. Weigel would be as appalled as I am at Dave's calling the bombings the "murder of 200,000 civilians." Although I disagree with Weigel's conclusion that the bombings do not meet the Ius in Bello criteria, I applaud the rather balanced way he takes that position.

It seems to me that Weigel is laboring under the idea that we were targeting civilians. As I had previous shown, this is erroneous or (in the best case favoring the view condemning the bombings outright) very, very, very doubtful.

I think the reason why Weigel is taken in by this error is that perhaps the "critics" view was probably an uncontested view (as outlined the by Richard Frank quote above) in the academic environment that Weigel came of age in.

Now to some concluding thoughts. I am sure many readers have, understandably, two questions on their minds at this juncture: 1) Why am I "attacking" a fellow orthodox Catholic in public so strongly? And 2) Why are you expending so much energy arguing over something that happened sixty years ago?

To the first objection, for starters, in the words of John Rambo, "He drew first bluhd" by blind siding us, naming us by name, in going after us in public first. Even after Shawn appealed to him to bring this back into the private forum before this situation gets ugly and Dave goes further and further adrift into waters he has no idea how to navigate in, Dave refused. Furthermore, if we are going to hold our opposition accountable when they unceasingly engage in this kind of shoddy pseudo-argumentation, shouldn't we hold fellow Catholics, particularly those who have established reputations for orthodoxy and influence to an even higher standard?

Answering the second objection comes down to this: What happened on August 6th and August 9th 1945 are significant historical events. And the care we take in acquiring and fostering a proper understanding of those historical events has a profound impact on the future, even if we at times draw different conclusions as to the moral rightness of the decisions shaping those events. In light of the havoc wreaked by revisionist history in recent years, it is clear that Santayana wasn't blowing smoke out of the southern end of his anatomy when he said that "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

As Catholics, we of all people should be all the more mindful of this because arguably no other insititution in the world has been more victimized by revisionist history than the Catholic Church.

I hope and pray that Dave Armstrong will take this to heart and exercise much greater care in his portryal of these gruesome and horrific events.

Notes:

{1} Lest the reader draw any conclusions that this writer has any personal axe to grind against Mr. Armstrong, let me point out a couple of things. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the way he has used the medium of the Internet to make the truths of the Catholic faith accessible to literally thousands. I am also grateful for the public solidarity he showed Shawn and I when we publicly rebuked Stephen Hand for passing off his irresponsible rantings as though they were some kind of quasi-Catholic dogma, particularly in light of the way Dave took the brunt of Stephen's mean-spitited public accusations.

Kevin Tierney's response to Dave Armstrong can be read here.

Dispensing With the American Imperailism Canard Through the Words of a Vanquished Enemy

2005-09-04T14:35:00.000-07:00

Japanese diplomat Toshikazu Kase, in his 1945 report to Emperor Hirohito on the ceremony aboard the USS Missouri (BB-63) marking the surrender of Japan, and the end of the Second World War, wondered "whether it would have been possible for us, had we been victorious, to embrace the vanquished with similar magnanimity [as the U.S. embraced the Japanese]. Clearly, it would have been different." He contnues, " After all, we were not beaten by dint of superior arms. We were defeated in the spiritual contest by virtue of a nobler idea. The real issue was moral--beyond all the powers of algebra to compute." (Taken from William Manchester's "American Ceasar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964" pg. 534)

I find it striking that many Americans, especially those who fly under the banner of "America First", who wail about the myth of "American Imperialism" fail to see what was so clear to a diplomat of a defeated nation that was one of the most bitter enemies America has ever faced.

Stephen Hand's Dick Durbinesque Definition of Torture

2005-08-21T10:32:00.000-07:00

I am sure you all painfully remember this embarrassingly seditious remark from Senator Dick Durbin regarding "torture" of prisoners at Club Gitmo (aka Guantanamo Bay, Cuba):

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Well, taking his cue from the Illinois Democrap, Stephen Hand says the following in the Musings (Oozings is more like it because this statement, like much of what he says is a real infected pus rocket) section on his website:

The Return of Torture

A society which allows the courts to dictate that the disabled may be dehydrated and starved to death or otherwise euthanized may not have to wait too very long before torture is openly fair game again. As in the days of ancient Rome... With the United States shipping prisoners to countries which specialize in the atrocity of torture (how's that for legalistic hypocrisy?), with people like Alan Dershowitz running around from television camera to television camera asking that writs of torture be made legal and respectable again, and with the light flashed unexpectedly onto Gitmo and Abu Ghraib as it was... Are we really any better than Saddam when we hide civilian deaths and kill in the name of freedom and compassion?
Pray for the victims of torture all over the world. Death is a far easier fate.

For starters, the same element in society that has been able to "dictate that the disabled may be dehydrated and starved to death or otherwise euthanized" are the same ones who are spewing the same seditious drivel that Stephen is in the interests of "peace." While I believe that President Bush, his brother Jeb, and the Republicans in congress did not do all that they could have to spare Terri Schiavo's life, they weren't adamant in supporting her court-ordered starvation like many of Stephen's anti-war buddies were.

Yes, Stephen, we ARE better than Saddam. In fact, although we are not perfect by any means, but we are a lot better than Saddam. The fact that you would even pose such a rhetorical question shows how badly your anti-Americanism has warped your mind. (I know, I know, you're not anti-American. Yeah, and O.J. is still looking for the real killers)

I would like to know how many people had their tongues ripped out in Abu Ghraib under American control? How many children were raped and murdered in front of their parents by American soldiers? All of this happened routinely under Saddam. In fact, I don't think anyone died at the hands of Americans at Abu Ghraib. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by a few renegade American soldiers, which was embarrassing and grotesque, was NOT sanctioned by the Bush Administration or the Rumsfeld Defense Department. In fact, it was quickly halted when it was discovered and those responsible were punished for what they did.

Only a bigot with nothing but hatred in his heart for the country that, while not perfect by any means, has given him so much could compare putting women's panties on the heads of terrorists and making them pig pile while naked to ripping tongues out of people while still alive and raping and murdering children in front of their parents.

As far as Club Gitmo is concerned, the prisoners are treated unreasonably well there. That is why Rush Limbaugh appropriately calls it Club Gitmo. Special care is taken in the way the religious rights of prisoners are respected that include calls to prayer over loudspeakers five times a day, as per Islamic law, handling of Korans according to Islamic customs (Does anyone dispute the fact that the religious sensitivities of Americans would not be respected if the tables were turned?), and culturally-sensitive foods that include orange-glazed Chicken, fresh fruit roupee, steamed peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf. I can almost gaurantee that the prisoners are eating much better than the troops that are guarding them.

Of course, no detainee has died at Club Gitmo. I will bet that if there is a death at Club Gitmo, it will be from hardening of the arteries from all the rich food the prisoners are eating, not torture. Many prisoners have gained weight while in detention at Club Gitmo. I can just see it now: the ACLU (Anti-American Criminally Leftist Union) will file lawsuits holding the Bush Administration and Pentagon responsible for prisoners' problems with obesity. And I'm sure Mr. Hand will be more than happy to place his skills as an attorney (or paralegal, or whatever the hell his legal background is) at the service of the ACLU in helping write the legal briefs.

What Stephen continues to overlook here is the fact that those detained at Club Gitmo are TERRORISTS!!! And these TERRORISTS would not hesitate in cutting an innocent American's head off, including Mr. Hand's, if given the chance. It seems that Stephen is not at all alarmed at the prospect of having his head cut off. This is entirely understandable. Given the thinking manifested in his insane rantings over the last couple of years, I wouldn't want his head on my shoulders either.

The A-Bomb Drops on Japan: Is There Room In the Catholic Conscience to Support Truman's Decision?

2005-08-19T11:58:00.000-07:00

The 60th anniversary of the atomic bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and V-J Day marking the end of World War II came and went. And again, the impression painted by certain popular Catholic aplogists is that there is no way that the bomb drops can be justified in light of Catholic moral principles.

Is this assessment correct? Or is there a legitimate diversity of opinion as to whether or not Truman acted within the parameters of Catholic moral teaching regarding conduct in war (ius in bello)?

Well, if a Catholic can in no way approve of the bombings, then why did Pope Pius XII never unequivocally condemn the bombings in any fashion, much less with a magisterial voice? It would have been his pastoral duty to do so when we consider that fact that many American Catholics (as well as many Catholics in other allied countries) believed Truman was morally justified in doing what he did. When I did a Google search for any statements of Pius XII and asked those making the claim that Pius XII did in fact condemn the bombings to provide some proof and the best we were able to come up with were secondary sources that are way too ambiguous to add up to a condemnation such as the New York Times' front page of 8 August 1945 headlines: "Vatican Deplores Use of Atom Bomb" and a 1946 l'Osservatore Romano editorial that states:

"While we repeat the condemnation, the unavoidable condemnation, of this ordnance ofdeath... we cannot however forget how this was nothing but the finalendpoint of so many horrors, far too prolonged, which had brought theallied forces to propel themselves in the just enterprise ofdestroying the forces of evil."

Heck, JPII was more harsh in his opposition to the death penalty. And a Catholic is free to disagree with the Holy Father on the death penalty, as Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) made clear in an official CDF comm unique to the USCCB last year.

When one looks at the statements above in the overall context of how the political Vaticanese toward war issues had developed over at least the last fifty years prior to the time of Pius XII (especially during the time of Benedict XV), you will see that are relatively mild in their tone. Again, the tone of Vatican officials toward the Iraq war was more "condemning" and Catholics are free to disagree on whether or not the conditions justified the U.S. led invasion.

Imagine if Truman had a private audience with Pope Pius XII to seek his moral guidance on the matter before making his decision. I know that secrecy and security concerns would made such a meeting impossible, but work with me here.

Truman lays the matter before the Holy Father thus, "Your Holiness, I am faced with a extremely difficult decision. To end this dreadful war with Japan, I have to decide between an invasion of the mainland or drop a couple of atomic bombs on mainland military targets. The former will cost in upwards of over one million American troops casualties, deaths accounting for almost half of those along with about three times that amount of Japanese casualties and deaths, most of those being civilians. We also have good reason to believe that Japanese civilians, including women and children, are being trained and encouraged to fight invading troops with everything from small arms to sharpened bamboo sticks. Although the thought of using an atomic weapon saddens me greatly and will cost about 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, most of them being civilians, it seems to be the least destructive of options that I have available to me. Your thoughts, Holy Father." Pius would respond with something like this," I would beg of you, Mr. President, to please find some other way. But given the scenario you have presented, and it is within your, not my, competence to evaluate what the least catastrophic course of action to take, I cannot, in my official capacity as Supreme Pontiff, condemn such action as being intrinsically evil because it seems clear that such action could be {1} justifiable under the principle of double effect ."

CCC 2314 and Gaudium et Spes #80 are not damning evidence making the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings intrinsically evil. Note what they both actually say: "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. (Emphasis Added)" As the bold italics suggests, "indiscriminate" is the operative word. The U.S. atom bomb drops were not indiscriminate destruction of cities. They were ostensible military targets, as the decision making process in favor of the bomb drops over an invasion make clear. Truman's diary entry of July 25, 1945 also makes this clear:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old Capitol or the new."

Nor do the use of nukes, in and of themselves, make the bomb drops intrinsically evil. John Paul II acknowledged the moral licitness of nuclear weapons build-up as a means of deterrence. Now, if it is licit to have nukes as a means of deterrence, it is, by default, also licit to actually use them, should circumstances require it. And it is my contention that the bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted such licit use viz. the circumstance.

However, I acknowledge that a Catholic can believe otherwise, that such action was not justifiable. But it is the responsibility of Catholics who engage in apologetics, especially those who have far-reaching influence and those who are ordained pastors of souls to not present their opinions, legitimate though they may be, as though they bind the Catholic conscience when they in fact do not.

Regardless of what side of the opinion divide we find ourselves on regarding this issue, we can stand together in gratitude to Almighty God in His goodness that he used this fateful event to restore Japan to its proper place among the family of nations.

{1} Update 8/29/05- I have changed the wording here because the previouswording I used gave the impression that I was implying that Pius XII would have given blanket approval to Truman's decision. This, of course, would be inaccurate and was not what I intended to convey. GAM

Pseudo-peacemakers, The Real War Mongers

2005-08-17T12:08:00.000-07:00

Isn't it ironic that those who incessantly wail about giving peace a chance every time this country takes up arms to protect itself promote policies of appeasement that always lead to bigger and bloodier wars.

The anti war crowd is also violent both in their rhetoric and in their actions.

So much for "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Victor Davis Hanson On the 60th Anniversary of the A-Bommb Drops on Japan

2005-08-07T11:36:00.000-07:00

Leave it to VDH to put the smackdown on the revisionist historians and hand wringers.

The Catholic Church: Mother, Teacher...and Student

2005-08-06T12:00:00.000-07:00

“THE Catholic Church has been established by Jesus Christ as MOTHER AND TEACHER of nations, so that all who in the course of centuries come to her loving embrace, may find salvation as well as the fullness of a more excellent life. To this Church, "the pillar and mainstay of the truth," her most holy Founder has entrusted the double task of begetting sons unto herself, and of educating and governing those whom she begets, guiding with maternal providence the life both of individuals and of peoples. The lofty dignity of this life, she has always held in the highest respect and guarded with watchful care.”

This introduction to the 1961 encyclical letter Mater et Magistra of Pope John XXIII beautifully states, in capsule form, the maternal solicitude of the Church’s teaching authority.

This “ salvation as well as the fullness of a more excellent life “, found in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, is not merely an abstract theory, but a most concrete reality that involves every aspect of human life.

By unceasingly nurturing her children with the light of divine revelation, the Church enables them to make use those things that are understandable. This is most strikingly evident in her contributions to the philosophical and scientific disciplines. For instance, the theological thought of such great thinkers as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas have illustrated that the disciplines of philosophy and psychology have as their end something of real meaning, vice play toys of speculation and relativism.

Likewise, in the physical sciences, the idea of the heliocentric nature of our solar system (That of the solar system revolving around the sun.), first advanced by the Polish Catholic Nicholaus Copernicus in the sixteenth century, has undoubtedly been indispensable in advent of aerospace technology, not to mention the advancement of astronomy as a whole. Our ability to understand, and consequently control, the devastating mechanisms of disease would not have been possible without the pioneering work of the French Catholic chemist Louis Pasteur in the field of bacteriology.

Both Copernicus and Pasteur attributed their gift of scientific knowledge to their Catholic faith. In a letter to his children, Pasteur expressed the dependence of his knowledge on his faith this way: “The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of a Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman. “

We also owe much of our advances in agriculture to the monks. They were able to devise ways to clear land that had been hitherto inaccessible by clearing forests to build roads, building bridges over rivers, and turning desert land into farmland and gardens through their cultivation efforts.

The monks also preserved the texts of ancient literature throughout the Dark Ages. They copied by hand not only the Scriptures, but ancient philosophical and other literary texts as well. In their contemplation of the truth and beauty of God’s revelation, they were able to see its manifestation in the tangible created world and that preserving it was worth the great effort and sacrifice they undertook.

Attentiveness to what her children say and do is a hallmark characteristic of any good mother. She not only lovingly corrects them when they err, she also learns from their discoveries and is fortified by their virtue. The same is true for Holy Mother Church. In fact, this is a major catalyst for the development of her doctrine and her growth in holiness. In recognition for their contributions and to serve as a means of inspiration for succeeding generations, the Church canonizes some of her children as saints, and in real special cases, doctors of the Church.

Here we see the Catholic Church not only as mother and teacher, but also as student. It is here we see that the infallibility the Church existing not only in her proclamation of the truth, but in the recognition of it as well.

With confidence that no truth exists anywhere that evades the ownership of her Lord, the Church can also recognize the truth even when it exists outside of her formal boundaries.

We see this with St. Paul, who in Acts 17:22&23 uses the altar of the unknown god in Athens as a vehicle to begin to preach Christ Jesus:

Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

Following St. Paul, saints such as Justin Martyr, Augustine, and Aquinas recognized in the thought of such Greek philosophers as Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle an understanding of absolute truth in human reason and material creation and often used it as a means to articulate Christian revelation.

It is this same confidence that has animated the Church’s missionary activity over the course of the centuries, not only as it regards truth found in modes of thought, but also in culture as a whole.

Pope John Paul II gives voice to this principle when he says: “From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery, she received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that Jesus Christ is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). It is her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: the diakonia of the truth. This mission ....makes the believing community a partner in humanity's shared struggle to arrive at truth;” (Encyclical Letter On the Understanding of the Relationship Between Faith and Reason Fides et Ratio)

Nothing brings more pain to the heart of a mother than when some of her children go astray. No one knows this better than Holy Mother Church. Throughout her history, the sword of countless heresies, schisms, and internal dissensions has pierced the heart of the Church. Just as the exemplary example of the saints and magnified the Church’s holiness, the scandalous behavior of some of her children have contributed to these divisions. In her decree on ecumenism, Vatican II acknowledges this:

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. (Unitatis redintegratio #4)

Just as the infallible charism allows the Church to recognize the truth, regardless of where it may exist, it also demands that she recognize sin and falsehood, even when it is being spread by her own members. From the ashes of these failures have come some of Mother Church’s greatest successes. Responses to these betrayals have led to growth in her holiness and greater exposition in doctrine. The so-called counter reformation of the sixteenth century revivified the Church with a greater sense of mysticism, the Arian crisis of the fourth century led to a greater exposition of the doctrine Christ’s divinity, and some today’s problems of dissent and scandal will, as is already evidenced in the flourishing New Evangelization, give way to a new springtime in the Church.

These are the hallmarks of the Catholic Church—Mother, Teacher, and Student.

And the Gates of the Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It: A Biblical Defense For Papal Infallibility

2005-07-27T12:03:00.000-07:00

One of the few things that unite all non-Catholics (unfortunately, you can include a few Catholics), be they Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, or Anglican, is their rejection of the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility. They see it as unbiblical and illogical.

Papal infallibility, according to the First Vatican Council, means:

"....we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

The objections to this dogma, however fueled by difficult historical circumstances and scandalous behavior of some popes, hit a wall when seen in the light of Christ’s promise to Peter that “ the gates of hell will not prevail against it [the Church].” (some translations render it “Jaws of Death” “Gates of the Nether World”)

Who is the driving force behind the gates of Hell? Satan. What traits does Jesus attribute to Satan? In John 8:44, our Lord states: “ He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.” The lie and the murder are inseparable. Anyone who has observed how abortion on demand has become legal in many lands will see how true this is.
What does this have to do with religious doctrine and Peter? If the Church, to whom Christ promised the “ gates of Hell will not prevail against “, were to teach one falsehood as though it was true, then the gates of Hell will have prevailed, thus proving Jesus to be a liar. Now what does this have to do with Peter? Two things: Jesus is making this statement as he is conferring primal authority upon Peter and this is the only time that this phrase appears in scripture.
Although not articulated in the explicit formal language of Vatican I, the Divine protection of the teaching office of the Bishop of Rome from error was understood, at least in kernal form, from the earliest times.

For example, we have Clement of Rome, the fourth pope, stating in the year 80 A.D. : “If; on the other hand, there be some who fail to obey what God has told them through us, they must realize that they will enmesh themselves in sin and no insignificant danger.” (Epistle to the Corinthians #59)

The qualifier “what God has told them through us” shows that Clement understood that the authority he is exercising is not merely human authority, but divine authority, which is of course without error. Some would object that because Clement is using the plural pronoun “us” that he is not claiming any authority for himself in a supreme way. But the use of this “us” and “we” is standard papal etiquette that has been used by popes through out history. In fact, the only modern pope to favor the singular pronouns such as “I” and ‘my” is the present Holy Father John Paul II.

In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas states:

[Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" . . . [Matt. 16:18]. These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. (emphasis added)

The early ecumenical councils, in recognizing the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter, reflect the same attitude.

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Chalcedon

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).

The Third Council of Constantinople, some two hundred years later, likewise states: “Peter has spoken through [Pope] Agatho.”

One might object, “ Well that’s all fine and good. But doesn’t Matt. 16:23 where Jesus says to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." make any claims to Petrine infallibility unravel like a cheap watch? In a word, no. There are two responses to this objection. Number one, Jesus’ promise to Peter is phrased in a future tense (“on this rock, I will build my Church.”). Number two, Catholic doctrine has always maintained that infallibility applies only to the pope’s official teaching capacity, not to personal behavior. The incident in Matt. 16:23, like that described by Paul in Galatians indicates an instance of Peter’s behavior, not an exercise of teaching authority. In other words, the popes are not impeccable. They are not without sin. Popes throughout history have made regular use of the sacrament of confession. They have to have some sins to confess in order for it to be a valid sacrament.

Nor does papal infallibility mean that statements of the pope’s private opinions (which include homilies and allocutions), even in matters theological, are protected from error. Since the pope, as a private person, is fallible like everyone else, it would therefore seem, at least on the surface, that the idea of papal infallibility is irreconcilable with reason. But it isn’t. Even though we are fallible humans, we can recognize some truth will infallible certainty (e.g. that two plus two equals four).

With this understanding we can see how, in papal infallibility, God uses fallible man’s ability to know infallible truth in an extraordinary way to ensure that “the gates of hell” will not prevail against the Church.

On the Importance of Shelters and Soup Kitchen Outreaches

2005-07-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

While the "least of my [Christ's] brethren" does not apply exclusively to those in more materially impoverished conditions, it does normally require that they receive special attention in many concrete circumstances. Recognition of this reality normally goes by the phrase "preferential option for the poor" in the parlance of Catholic social teaching.

I had made the point in a previous post that the "soup kitchen and the market are not meant to be enemies, but collaborators serving the common good". At this time I would like to elaborate on the vital role that the former plays in society. For the sake of brevity, included under the heading "soup kitchen" are shelter, jail, and other institutional outreach apostolates.

While it is true that providing the poor an oppurtunity to be self-sufficient and make their own contribution to the common good is esssential to their well-being as well as to society as a whole, they are, in many cases, in need of assistance before they are able to do so.

Of course, these needs take on several forms because poverty almost never occurs in isolation. It is almost always occurs in conjunction with behavioral (i.e. moral) degradation. Needless to say, discerning and meeting those needs pose some serious challenges. From the outset, the poor are not to be seen primarily as the "poor", as though their being poor is something ontological. They must be seen, first and foremost, as human beings created in the image and likeness of God just as much as everyone else. It is in this light that Blessed Mother Teresa called poverty and other problems as "disguises".

It goes without saying that this is much easier to understand in theory than to put into practice. The latter often requires seeing through disguises of alcoholism and drug addiction and the emotional instability and equally unstable, and even dangerous, behaviors associated with them. Furthermore, the odds of recovery are against those in the throes of drug addiction and alcoholism. Even with the "lesser" forms of poverty there is, at times, great difficulty. Many of these people have been exploited by unscrupulous businessmen, landlords, and even politicians {1} who often use the less fortunate as a means to further their careers. Or, in the case of women, being exploited by abusive men is also a serious issue.

Trying to secure the trust of people in such situations is difficult to be sure and often doing so in the face of great failure can be downright discouraging. It is, therefore, no empty accolade to say that people who have been called to such work possess great faith and are very pleasing to our Lord. They are a very special breed of people who have an ability that not many have. In addition to the challenges already discussed, those called to serve the poor in this capacity have to resist the temptation to become controlling or posessive of those they serve. In the previous post I link to above, I had pointed out that there are some of those whose "...sense of worth seems to depend upon the poor remaining such and therefore always dependent on them. " and that "[t]his is not love. It is tyranny of the worst sort." This gravely harmful to both the poor themselves and those who serve them.

In this light, it is all the more imperative that we support apostolates who have a trackrecord for being able to properly discern and serve the needs of those who need a hand-up in life. And that support can range from financial assistance, volunteering time, and prayer and moral support, or some combination of all three.

Such worthy apostolates and outreaches include (but by no means are limited to):

General Soup Kitchen and Shelter

Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal

Saint Vincent de Paul Village

Substance Abuse

Volunteers of America {2}

Prison Outreach

Kairos Ministries {3}

Battered and Homeless Women's Shelters

St. Clare's Home

Good Counsel Homes

{1} Political exploitation of the poor is a major reason why this writer opposes extensive government spending on social welfare programs. Here I am in total agreement with Catholic social teaching as expressed by Pope John Paul II of venerable memory. While recognizing that the state can " ...exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand." But goes on to say that "[s]uch supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of state intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom." (Centesimus Annus #48) The same encyclical elaborates on the dangers of the so-called welfare or "social assistance" state (as the encylical calls it): "In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called 'Welfare State.'...By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. "

{2} VOA is not a religious-based outreach, but it does do good work in the area of subsatnce abuse.

{3} Kairos is an ecumenically-based Christian outreach

The Declaration of Independence from a Catholic Perspective

2005-07-03T12:40:00.000-07:00

If I were to ask you the question “What took place on July 4, 1776?,” You would probably say, “Well, that’s a no-brainer. Why that’s the day America declared independence.” Although that answer would seem like a no-brainer, it wouldn’t be entirely correct. John Adams, writing back to his wife Abigail in Braintree, Mass. foresaw the celebration of independence by succeeding generations with the kind of pomp and circumstance we celebrate the 4th of July. But the date he gave was July 2nd because that was the day independence was actually decided. What took place on the fourth was that the final draft of the Declaration, after undergoing over a hundred revisions, was approved. If anyone is looking for proof that the Hand of God was active in guiding the events of the American Revolution, you need look no further than the fact that a committee of some 50 people edited the work of a great writer like Thomas Jefferson and not only didn’t screw it up, but vastly improved it. Nothing other than the Grace of God could pull a miracle of this magnitude off. Because when you normally allow a committee to take a hack at the work of a genius, the end result is something that is too horrific for the most iron- stomached imagination to contemplate.

In any event, independence is the object of our celebration. It’s the foundation of our country. It is therefore important that we as Americans have a basic understanding of what independence
means from a truly American perspective, particularly when you consider the fact that many people in our country, including but not limited to at least six out of our nine Supreme Court Justices, are confused as to what that is. Just as one cannot be a good Catholic without having
a fundamental understanding of the faith one cannot be a good citizen without knowing his own national heritage.

Nothing expresses the American heritage in a more succinct and timeless way than the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson rightly called the Declaration of Independence “an expression of the American mind.”

Far from relieving us this patriotic duty of learning our American heritage, our Catholic faith actually reinforces it. Vatican II, in it’s pastoral constitution on modern world Gaudium et Spes states that “Citizens must cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism.... (#73)”

It would naturally follow from this that the American Catholic would want to know what, if anything, do the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence share in common with our Catholic faith. That’s the question I will take up in this short paper. And what this paper will demonstrate is that this document, although drawn up and signed by men who were predominately non-Catholic (the only Catholic signer was Charles Carroll of Maryland), along with being an expression of the American mind as to how men should govern themselves in the secular sphere, it is also an expression of the Catholic mind in that endeavor.

But before you go any further, take a few minutes and actually read it. Perhaps it can be said that we celebrate both our independence and the power the words of The Declaration of Independence convey as to its meaning every 4th of July.

And needless to say, I think the occasion warrants such reading.

Even a cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence immediately dispels two commonly held misconceptions. The first of which is that God or religion was to have no direct influence on civil society or body politic. This error is advocated with great zeal, by such groups as the ACLU, People for the American Way, etc. It has also been buttressed by a number of high court rulings. For example, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruling that the phrase “ Under God “ in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional back a few years ago.

On this basis, they would have rule the Declaration of Independence itself as unconstitutional. It not only makes references to God, but appeals to Him as a judge. Now this is like pouring salt on an open wound to the “Separation of Church and State” crowd.

If any of them believe in God at all, He is nothing more than a benevolently senile old man whose only concern at the end of the day is that a good time was had by all. Our Founders saw the influence of religion not only as permissible, but essential to the survival of the republic. John Adams, speaking of the Constitution says: “ Our Constitution is for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of another.”

In his Farewell Address of 1796, George Washington said: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. "

In light of the damage wrought by the “Separation of Church and State” advocacy groups along with their willing accomplices on the various Federal benches, President Washington’s words here were indeed prophetic.

The second misconception is that our Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, were Deists. Now, the fundamental doctrine in Deism is a belief that once God creates, He takes no active part in caring for what He has created. If our Founding fathers held such a view, you would think that they would’ve had enough sense to know that it would be useless to appeal to judgment of a God who could care less what they do or rely upon the providence of a God who cares nothing for them.

Now, despite some of the unorthodox religious beliefs held by our Founding Fathers, they believed as does the Catholic Church, that the hand of God was very active in history. This belief was the animating principle of the whole revolutionary effort .

Furthermore, the Catholic Church, as well as Christianity as a whole believes that God, in Christ, not only directly acts in human history, but actually takes on human nature and becomes an intimate part of that history. And Christianity, in one form or another, was the dominating religious belief of our founders.

The Church also believes that nature serves as a criteria by which moral judgments are made. You can’t get very far in learning about Catholic doctrine without seeing this. Contrary to what some people believe, Catholic moral doctrine is not mythical speculation of a bunch of cranky celibates locked in the Vatican. Nature also bears a clear witness to the existence of the Creator. The First Vatican Council states:

" If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the light of natural human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema." (De Revelatione, can. 1)

So, when the Declaration states that our independence is an entitlement of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God “ it ought to pique the attention of any Catholic. It sure made an impression on the the late (and Great) Pope John Paul II. In his letter to then-U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Lindy Boggs back in 1997, he states:

“The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into it by "nature’s God." Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty": an experiment in which men and women would enjoy equality of rights
and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities toward the family and toward the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability,
and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.”

The foundation of these “natural groupings” and hence society as a whole is the family despite all the spin-doctoring of today’s so-called experts who say that what the family is defined by a given culture. It is plain, or to borrow a phrase from the Declaration, “self-evident,”
that it is God Himself, speaking through nature, who defines what the family is. And it is in the
context of the family that God wishes brings forth life.

It is not by mistake that life, therefore, is listed as the first amongst these “trinity” of inalienable rights. Why? The simplest reason on earth. Without life there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness. Since the right to life is the most important of all rights, it would follow that the natural means through which that life is transmitted be held inviolate. It is to secure, not rewrite or reinvent, theses natural rights that governments are instituted among men.

Therefore, to deem as legitimate, by way of civil law, destruction of innocent life, from the moment of conception until the time of natural death for any reason or any offense to its natural transmission (i.e. fornication, adultery, homosexuality, contraception etc.), regardless what this or that court says, is not only immoral and un-Christian, it is also un-American. Often times, in the attempt to make God’s law irrelevant in civil society, one must also turns man’s law on its head.

The idea that governments derived their “just powers from the consent of governed” that is that all political authority comes from God, but He bestows upon the people and they, in turn, transfer it to some king or ruler finds its most immediate origins in the Catholic Middle Ages.

St. Thomas Aquinas States:
The ruler has power and eminence from the subjects, and, in the event of his despising them, he sometimes loses both his power and position” (“De Erudit. Princ.” Bk. I, c. 6).

In the latter part of the Middle Ages, due to the rise of extreme nationalism, rulers became more tyrannical and hostile to the rights of the people. And since the people saw the Church as the greatest defenders of their rights, these ruler saw the Church as their chief obstacle.
One of the main reasons why the Protestantism was able to gain so much traction in certain parts of Europe was that their political philosophy that held that rulers held their power directly from God without any consent of the people. The greatest defender of the traditional Catholic view against this Protestant novelty, known as Divine Right of Kings, was St. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. He states:

“ In a commonwealth are born naturally free; consequently the people themselves immediately and directly, hold the political power so long as they have transferred this power to some king or ruler.”

Citing this quote in his political treatise Patriarcha, private theologian for King James I of England Sir Robert Filmer states:

“ This tenet was first hatched in the schools and hath been fostered by all succeeding papists.”
King James I used this theory as the basis of persecuting Catholics in the 17th century.

If God bestows political power by way of consent of the governed, as both the Declaration of Independence and Catholic political thought contend, it would naturally follow that the people can, should circumstances require, depose a ruler and/or change the form of government. The Declaration of Independence states: “ Should any government become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government.”

St. Thomas says:

“If any society of people have a right of choosing a king, then the king so established can be deposed by them without injustice, or his power can be curbed, when by tyranny he abuses his regal power” (“De Rege et Regno,” Bk. I, c. 6).

St Bellarmine:

“For legitimate reasons the people can change the government to an aristocracy or a democracy or vice versa” (“De Laicis,” c. 6).

This goes right into the next point. The Declaration states:
“ prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. “

This dispels another misconception that our founding fathers were possessed by a revolutionary spirit just looking for an excuse to buck the establishment. When we look at how the colonialists dealt with the tensions that arose between them and the Crown that began at the end of the French and Indian War in 1759 culminating with Independence in 1776, we see that the exact opposite is true. While standing firm against the Crown’s attempted encroachment on their rights granted to them under English law, independence was the furthest thing from their mind.

For example, we have Ben Franklin saying to Lord Chatham in March 1775: “ I have not heard in any conversation, from any person, drunk or sober, the least expression for a wish for a separation or even a hint that such a thing would be advantageous for America. “

John Adams, known as the Atlas of Independence and who, by his own account made himself obnoxious for the cause of independence recalls later in his life: “ For my part, there was not a moment during the revolution that I would not have given everything I ever possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began.”

In July of that year, the colonial leadership drew up what was called the “Olive Branch Petition, ” which, as the title suggests was an appeal to the king for peace. This petition not only didn’t express any desire to cut the strings of the Mother Country, but sought to strengthen that bond all the more. They entrusted to Richard Penn grandson of William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, with delivering it to the King.

So what happened? What was the straw that broke the camel’s back? It was the action of one man. His name wasn’t John Adams. Nor was it Ben Franklin. Nor was it Thomas Jefferson. His first name was George, but his last name wasn’t Washington. It was Hanover III, King of England. King George III would not even receive Richard Penn. We don’t even know if he had read the Olive Branch Petition. Instead he issued an intemperate statement threatening “condign punishment” to those “wicked and desperate” authors of the petition.And "condign punishment" for treason was far from a proverbial slap on the wrist.

But the idea expressed by the declaration here also reflects another Catholic idea that whether or not to take action in such a drastic case as this, one must take into account the evil effects that such an action might bring about and that it must be less than those that such action is intended to avoid.

As we all know, the issue of whether or not our war with Iraq was moral and just got a great deal of attention in the Catholic press. Along with that was a lot of talk about the Just War Doctrine. If you go to the Catechism, you will see in #2309 the conditions for a just war laid out, and in condition of #4 it says that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” Contrary to the view held by some, our Founding Fathers were not the patron saints of frivolous insurrections, but were role models of the Catholic principle of proportionality in action.

The closing phrase of the Declaration reads thus:

“ And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

This speaks a language that the Catholic Church understands well, the language of sacrifice. Our Founders understood that a liberty that had not the willingness to sacrifice for the sake a the greater good was not worthy of the name. They spoke this language not only with words but with heroism and great personal suffering. Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned.

One particular signer I found most interesting was Caesar Rodney of Delaware. {1}Days before the vote in Congress, he had to go back home to tend to a family emergency. At two o’clock on the morning of July 2nd, he gets a knock on the door. It’s a courier with a message that he is needed back in Philadelphia to vote for independence, that everything will turn on this. So, he gets on his horse, and as he says, “Rode like the Devil“ 89 miles to Philadelphia.

Now, an 89 miles on horseback was a treacherous journey, particularly when you consider the fact that not only were the roads much rougher back then, but also the darkness was much more menacing because there were no electric street lights back then. You couldn’t just erase the darkness like we can now. To make matters worse, it was pouring rain. By the time he arrived at the State House, now called Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he was covered with mud and was so exhausted that he had to be carried in.

John Adams said of Caesar Rodney that he was the oddest looking man he had ever seen, tall and thin like a reed. The reason he was so odd looking is that he had cancer of the eye and check. He had planned to go to England to see a doctor who was the only doctor in the world who could treat this cancer. But that chance was thrown to the winds by his voting for independence. He would have been arrested, tried and executed for treason.

Now, if riding 89 miles on horseback in pouring rain and driving oneself to complete exhaustion to deny himself much needed medical treatment by voting for independence is not an example of great sacrifice, few things are!

Many of our Founding Fathers were well off and could have very easily stayed that way if they had gone along with tyranny of the Crown. They knew that they risked losing everything, including their lives, as some did, by declaring independence. But they also knew they had a duty to God and their posterity, as the impact of the American Experiment on the following 227 years of world history proves, to stand firm in the cause of justice and liberty.

The importance of America’s role in mankind’s destiny as foreseen by the Founding Fathers has not escaped the notice of the Church. Just after WWII, Pope Pius XII said, “America has a genius for great and unselfish deeds. Into the hands of America God has placed the
destiny of an afflicted mankind.”

A genius for great and UNSELFISH deeds. An interesting choice of words. It is not very often that we hear those words in conjunction with one another. But it is in the welding of these two attributes that most characterizes both this country and our faith. I had the honor being in St. Peter’s Square when Pope John Paul II canonized Philadelphia native Katherine Drexel. In his homily, he said that Katharine Drexel is an excellent example of that practical charity and generous solidarity with the less fortunate which has long been the distinguishing mark of American Catholics.

Much is said, and correctly so, unfortunately about what’s wrong with the Church in America as well as America as a whole, particularly in light of the priestly sex abuse scandal. But let us not forget what is right with the Church in this country. For example, the combination of apostolic zeal and American enterprise has given birth to apologetic, evangelization, charitable outreaches, and various that have not only been successful here, but have served as a model for the rest of the
Catholic world.

Although we have barely begun to see what the birth of this great nation has in common with our Catholic faith, one thing’s for certain. Both are well worth “Our Lives, Our Fortunes, and Our Sacred Honor.”

Note:

{1} On the quarter for the state of Delaware, the image of the man riding the horse is Cesar Rodney.

Sources:

The Declaration of Independence and Catholic Sources by the late Father John Rager.

The Political Philosophy of St. Robert Bellarmine by Father John Rager. Published by the Apostolate of Our Lady of Siluva.
P.O. Box 4787, Spokane, Washington 99202-0787

Why the Colonies Declared Independence, The Writing of The Declaration of Independence, Michael Medved-Recorded July 3, 1998

Rush H. Limbaugh Jr. (Father of talk radio phemon Rush Limbaugh) speech: The Americans Who Risked Everything)

In Defense of "Cruise Ship" Spirituality

2005-06-14T21:34:00.000-07:00

In the past few years, Catholic apostolates such as apologetics organizations like Catholic Answers and Envoy Magazine, and Catholic singles groups like Ave Maria Singles and CatholicSingles.Com have hosted cruises, providing a vacation option for like minded Catholics.

This has drawn the ire of certain Catholics denouncing it as "cruiseship spirituality". One would wonder why, unless they see Catholics taking vacations and choosing a cruise as a vacation option as spiritually harmful. Along these lines, one would also wonder what in the world is wrong with Catholic apostolates providing Catholics an opportunity to take these vacations in a Catholic environment that helps better form their minds and souls (and maybe meet that special someone in the cases of the singles apostolates).

The response of the "more altruistic-than-thou" peanut gallery would be that such folks are "taking apologetics tours while the poor suffer". Sigh! First of all, how is the suffering of the poor alleviated by people not going on cruises? I don't think the poor are so steeped in self-pity so as to expect people to stop taking vacations because of their woes. Blessed Mother Teresa once said that, "[t]he poor do not want your pity; they want your understanding."

Secondly, those who wring their hands about many Catholic apologetics apostolates not having "an active heart for the poor" fail to understand that the poor are helped not only by assistance vis-a-vis the soup kitchen and homeless shelter, but also by providing them the opportunity to make a livelihood for themselves by placing their talents and labor at the service of others.

As one who has taken a few cruises myself (mea culpa, mea culpla, mea maxima culpa), I have noticed that many of those working on these cruise ships come from poor countries and poor circumstances. Working in the cruise ship industry give them a chance at a better life by earning more than they ever would in their own countries. And the opportunity to travel afforded by the industry enables these people to expand their cultural horizons.

On the last cruise I took, I remember having a conversation with a cheerful young man from Honduras who worked as a waiter in one of the main dining rooms. Being the inquisitive (ok nosy) type, I asked him how he liked his job. He responded by enthusiastically stating that he enjoyed his job very much and how it enabled him to support his family.

So how does the "cruiseship ship" spirituality leave the poor out in the cold, again?

Of course, underlying this hostility exhibited by these "more compassionate-than-thou" Catholics is the presumption that those of us who enage in "cruise ship" spirituality from time to time don't engage in the corporal works of mercy toward the poor in either soup kitchens or other venues of the kind. This is quite a presumption considering the fact that those make these criticisms have no way of knowing whether or not those they are criticizing do such works or not.

The fact of the matter is that many of those who take part in these cruises, whether as vacationers or as those involved in hosting the cruises have assisted the poor by either educational outreach, volunteering in kitchens and homeless shelters or by fighting it out in the trenches of the pro-life movement opening up their homes to women choosing life for their babies in the face of difficult circumstances, often making great sacrifices to do so.

Many of those who use the poor as a weapon against the "rich" are often those that as Fr. Neuhaus says are "in love with being in love with the poor and suffering." Their sense of worth seems to depend upon the poor remaining such and therefore always dependent on them. This is not love. It is tyranny of the worst sort.

The soup kitchen and the market are not meant to be enemies, but collaborators serving the common good. And "cruise ship" spirituality is a part of it.

For further reading:

Live Simply? Live Shrewdly
By Donna Doornik

Blessed Are They The Poor in Spirit: A Catholic View of Economics

2005-06-07T18:05:00.000-07:00

In worldly affairs, there are few issues that are given greater importance than that of economics. After all, without money one cannot do too much. The outcomes of elections are normally determined more by economics than any other single issue. As the phrase coined by Clinton operative James Carville in 1992 says, “ It’s the economy stupid.”

A close observance of the influence of economics will reveal that its importance is more than superficial. Economic activity, commonly understood as the means through which goods and services are exchanged, is a part of man’s social nature, and thus a part of human nature. Therefore, in order to achieve true economic prosperity, not just superficial appearances of it, it has to be conducted in a manner that adheres to the truth of human nature.

Since it is her duty to bear witness to Jesus Christ, who is the fullness of the truth of God and man, the Catholic Church views the issue of economics as one of paramount importance, as Sacred Scripture and Catholic social teaching attests.

In describing the nature of the Kingdom of God, Jesus often uses stories of a business or an economic nature as an illustration (e.g. The story of the talents etc.).

The scripture passage that best reflects the paradigm through which the truth of economic activity is to be seen is the first beatitude: “ Blessed are they the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of God. “ Although it doesn’t seem like it at first glance, this first beatitude has profound economic implications. What Our Lord is saying here is that regardless of personal wealth and stature, or lack thereof, our entire existence is equally dependent upon God, thus making us all equally poor in His eyes, and he who recognizes this fact and lives his life accordingly, is blessed indeed.

It is in the recognition of his poverty before God that man recognizes his own abilities. In his dependence on the Infinite Creator, man discovers his own creative powers. This is the taproot of all true economic prosperity.

In this light, the evangelical counsel of poverty is not a repudiation of economic progress, but a necessary element of it. By renouncing attachment to material wealth, the evangelical counsels bear witness to the fact that economic prosperity is man’s servant, not his master. It also places greater trust in it by making itself dependent on its generosity. For example, convents and monasteries, whose duty it is to bear witness to the gospel in a special way, require monetary assistance in order to function.

Man’s recognition of his poverty before God is also the basis of true human equality. Failure to recognize this fact as the foundation of human equality leads to a false sense of equality that is materialistically rooted as opposed to an ontological (that is of being) equality rooted in creation.

This is precisely why the Church has always rejected Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. Pope Pius XI succinctly sums up the Catholic view of socialism in his well known statement: “...no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno n. 120) These philosophies, because they are Atheistic in nature, deny that the human person is made in the image and likeness of the Infinite Creator, which as a result, distrusts man’s own free initiative and creative ability. In fact, when anyone asserts the natural God-given rights of the individual, which calls forth this free initiative and creativity, he is treated as a criminal in a socialist system. This view reduces man to mere economic commodity to be bought, sold, and used as a cog in the machinery of totalitarianism as opposed to a person freely placing his talent and ambition at the service of the common good. Pope John Paul II affirms this when he says: “Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism.” (Centesimus Annus n. 13)

The economic destruction resulting from the socialist ideology have been clearly played out in the drama of history starring Communist Eastern Europe with Communist China and Cuba as co-stars. Furthermore, let us not forget the cameo appearance of the socialism of Nazi Germany.

But the socialist ideology is not always so overt. The more subtle forms of socialism such as the liberal welfare-state take over through an incremental usurpation of freedoms and responsibilities. Pope John Paul II addresses the issue of the Welfare State (which he refers to as the Social Assistance State) in this fashion: “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Centesimus Annus n. 48)

The enormous increase in spending that accompanies this bureaucratic stranglehold necessitates a confiscatory taxation that targets especially those in the higher income brackets, those whose entrepreneurial efforts are essential to the economic well-being of any community. This in turn creates an insidious class warfare that pits labor against capital—as though the two were intrinsically opposed to one another. Unfortunately, the pro welfare state neo-socialist liberals have been very effective in convincing all too many people that this false dichotomy actually exists. Furthermore, because this form of socialism works in tandem with a philosophy of moral relativism that is able to cloak totalitarianism in the language of freedom and individual rights, it is more dangerous than the more overt forms of socialism. In some cases, this has also been cloaked in Catholic sounding language, such as the ”Liberation Theology “ that has run rampant in much of Latin America and has had its devastating effects in the United States as well.

Misunderstandings about the meaning of the free market and abusive forms of capitalism such as the laissez faire economic system that was in place in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries have contributed to the rise of modern socialism. Because of the damage wrought by these abuses, socialism is mistakenly seen by many as the solution to the problem.

The survival of the free market depends upon adherence to the truth of God and the human person. Economic activity that does not place itself at the service of the intrinsic dignity of human life, from the moment of conception to the time of natural death, is doomed to failure. History could not be anymore clear about this.

By virtue of this fact, it is a self-contradiction to be in favor of a free market economic system and the legal sanctioning of abortion at the same time. Life is man’s greatest economic resource, when we give it we receive it in abundance and when we destroy it we gravely threaten economic well-being. For example, if the mothers of Einstein and Bill Gates decided to abort them while they where still in-utero, the world would not have benefited from their genius. Every new life that is conceived brings with it another set of unique ideas—ways of cultivating resources that have not been thought of before.

The genius in the cultivation of resources and economic success finds its fulfillment in the preferential option for the poor. A society whose economic activity is exclusive to anyone because of race or social class cannot truthfully claim economic prosperity despite superficial appearances of it. In ignoring the poor, society not only fails in its duty to help those in need, but also deprives itself of the beneficial contribution of ingenuity that is gained by those who, through their circumstances, have discovered ways to make astoundingly productive use from the most meager resources. Growing up in a large blue-collar family myself, I know first hand how to make abundances from the scantiest of means. This sort of ingenuity has been the hallmark of American economic prosperity. We have seen immigrants come to this country with nothing more than faith in God and gratitude for their freedom build economic empires. The preferential option for the poor is not a political play toy exploiting the needy by creating an unhealthy dependence on government programs nor is it “...exclusive or discriminatory toward other groups”, (Centesimus Annus n 57), but a recognition that the economic chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

It is in the service of the truth of the human person that governments place its powers in the socio-economic sphere. It is the duty of the government to protect economic freedom by laying down a firm institutional framework within which it is to operate. After all, freedom, especially in the context of economics, cannot be sustained in anarchy.

By the same token, the necessary involvement of the government has its limits. Failure to recognize these limits reflects a total misunderstanding of role of the government in the socio-economic area. These misunderstandings manifest themselves in ways that are not without detrimental effects as history and recent events clearly bear witness to.

By accepting our poverty before God and making the most of the gifts he gives us, we ensure true economic success regardless of our income level. We can then say with St. Paul: “ For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.” (2 Cor. 8:9)

A Memorial Day Remembrance

2005-05-30T10:14:00.000-07:00

Every serviceman who gave their life, every serviceman that has been wounded, and every family who has suffered along with them is a testimony to the fact that freedom is not only not free, it is not CHEAP either.

Blessed are the peacemakers:

ARMY

NAVY

AIR FORCE

MARINES

and:

THE COAST GUARD

The Meaning of True Peace

2005-05-24T11:03:00.000-07:00

In recent history, the issue of world peace is one that has been considered to be of paramount importance among those in the international community. There have been more peace treaties
signed in the thirty years than in the hundred or so years prior.

Given this fact, I believe it is important that we have a sound fundamental understanding of what peace on earth really is. In his 1963 encyclical letter "Pacem in Terris" addressing this very issue Pope John XXIII gave what I think is the most succinct definition of peace one could
give. He says:

“ Peace on earth, which all men of every era have most eagerly yearned for, can be firmly established only if the order laid down by God be dutifully observed.”

This statement points out that real peace has more to do with objective truth than it does a superficial sense of emotional tranquility.

In Matt. 10:34-36, Jesus expresses this in paradoxical language when he says

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for
my sake will find it. “

Now, of course, this stands in stark contrast to the “ Can’t we all just get along? “ mentality that characterizes most popular ideas concerning peace. Such a mentality, because doesn’t have the stomach to face conflict and usually has little or no regard for right order, sacrifices true peace for a seemingly painless caricature of it.

Now, it must be understood that the pursuit of peace requires patience, the respect of others, and the need to take the implications of individual situations into account. But peace does not fear conflict, nor does it shrink in the face tyranny. To the contrary, it engages this conflict and conquers tyranny.

The relevance of this felt with tremendous force today, particularly in the wake of 9/11 and the subsequent terrorist threat. The gravity of these attacks on our way of life, our freedom, our peace demand a full engagement of what the President called “the war between freedom and fear”. In his address to the joint

session of Congress, shortly after 9/11, President Bush said : “Freedom
and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know
that God is not neutral between them.”

And that is our consolation and our peace.

Rathergate Part Duex

2005-05-16T22:23:00.000-07:00

Newsweek Retracts Koran Desecration Story

When will they ever learn?

The Rock of Matthew 16: Peter or his Confession? …Actually Both

2005-05-14T21:21:00.000-07:00

One of the most common arguments put forth by Protestant apologists against
the primacy of Peter, and by extension the papacy, is that it is Peter’s confession
of faith, not Peter himself, that is the rock that Jesus refers to in Matthew 16:18. To support their case, they often refer to statements from Early Church Fathers
such as St. John Chyrsostom:

And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession (Homily on Matthew#54 Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume X, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.)

The Catholic Church’s answer to this question is expressed in terms of “both
and” as opposed to “either or”. While insisting upon Peter being the rock, she
has no problem with the idea of Peter’s confession also being the rock upon
which the Church is built. Paragraph #424 of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church says as much:

Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter,
Christ built his Church.

What those who get their horns caught up in the thicket of this “Peter vs. his confession” dichotomy fail to grasp is the nature of Peter’s confession. Peter’s confession “thou art the Christ, Son of the living God, “ because it is prompted by a revelation from the Father (Matt. 16:17) is authoritative, not merely that of personal conviction.

St. John Chrysostom (in the very same Homily #54 cited above as the Protestant prooftext) , in contrasting Peter’s confession with that of Nathanael in

John 1:49, states:

And Nathanael too said, “Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel;” and so far from being blessed, he is even reproved by Him, as having said what was far short of the truth. He replied at least, “Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.”Why then is this man [Peter] blessed? Because he acknowledged Him very Son. Wherefore you see, that while in those former instances He had said no such thing, in this case He also signifies who had revealed it. That is, lest his words might seem to the many (because he was an earnest lover of Christ) to be words of friendship and flattery, and of a disposition to show favor to Him, he brings forward the person who had made them ring in his soul; to inform thee that Peter indeed spake, but the Father suggested, and that thou mightest believe the saying to be no longer a human opinion, but a divine doctrine. (Homily on Matthew #54 Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume X, Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.1997.Emphasis added)

It is only in the light of understanding the authoritative nature of Peter’s confession can we begin to understand Jesus’ response, which, within the
context of the Jewish religious culture of that day, has unmistakable overtones of
the conferral of authority.

The first is the name change that occurs in verse 18. Whenever God changes someone’s name in the Old Testament, his role becomes one of primal authority. In Gen. 17:5, Abram’s name is changed to Abraham and in Gen. 32:28, Jacob’s name is changed to Israel. Jesus brings this Old Testament conferral of authority, signified by a name change, to its fulfillment in the New Testament establishment of the Petrine office.

Then Peter is given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. This is a direct
reference to Isaiah 22:20-25 where the key of the house of David is being passed
on from Shebna to Eliakim. The clear meaning of the text, as well as most
scholarly commentary on it, indicates that this key symbolizes the delegation of
authority, like that which a king would delegate to a prime minister. Jesus, who is
the Son of God, the son of David, and Eternal King, in the giving of these keys
delegates to Peter and his successors the primal authority to teach and rule the
Church in his name. (While the issue of succession is outside of the scope of
this article, suffice it to say that the handing on of Apostolic authority is clearly
affirmed in Scripture, i.e. Paul’s pastoral Epistles to Timothy. From this it would
stand to reason that the Supreme Apostolic office of Peter would be handed on
as well.)

Jesus further expresses this authority to teach and rule by stating “whatever you
bind on earth is bound in heaven whatever you loose on earth is loosed in
heaven.” These terms “bind” and “loose” are rabbinical terms used to describe
the manner in which authority was exercised. Scholar David Stern, a Messianic
Jew, explains:

“’In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt.16:18, 18:18). By these words [bind and loose] he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will move them with their fingers”’; that is, “loose them” as they have the power to do (Matthew 23:2-4), David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992 56-57 Quoted on pg. 63 Jesus, Peter, & the Keys Butler, Dahlgren, & Hess Queenship Publishing 1996 )

There are even many Protestant scholars on who concede on this issue.
Although they do not acknowledge any connection with successors i.e. popes, they do concede Peter’s prominence among the Apostles. Some, such as 19th century evangelical Presbyterian theologian Albert Barnes, not only recognize Peter as the rock, but also show its intimate connection with his confession:

The meaning of this phrase may be expressed: “ Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character, I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support my religion. (Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Frew, ed, Grand Rapids, MI. Baker 1973 See Jesus, Peter & The Keys Butler, Dahlgren, & Hess Queenship Publishing 1996 pg. 33)

What colors this and many other objections to the papacy on the part of
Protestants is that they see it as an obstacle to a personal relationship with Christ
and a challenge to Jesus’ authority. Far from being an obstacle to a personal
relationship with Christ or an obfuscation of his sovereignty, papal authority is a
certain witness to it that ensures a sound personal relationship. Every
authoritative papal pronouncement on matters of faith and morals is simply an
echo of that first papal pronouncement “ thou art the Christ the Son of the living God,”—the rock upon which the Church and the faith of Christians are built.

Pope Benedict XVI On "How Many Ways Are There to God"

2005-05-09T19:45:00.000-07:00

Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) was once asked the question

"How many ways are there to God?"

Here is his answer:

As many as there are people. For even within the same faith each man's way is an entirely personal one. We have Christ's word: I am the way. In that respect, there is ultimately one way, and everyone who is on the way to God is therefore in some sense on the way to Jesus Christ. But this does not mean that all ways are identical in terms of consciousness ans will, but, on the contrary, the one way is so big that it becomes a personal way for each man. (Salt of the Earth Ignatis Press 1997 pg 32)

Michelle Malkin On the White House Correspondents Dinner Fiasco

2005-05-03T21:47:00.000-07:00

THE WONKETTE-IZATION OF LAURA BUSH

The only thing I can say in response is that she's right.

War and Peace: Strange Bedfellows, But Bedfellows Nonetheless

2005-05-02T23:55:00.000-07:00

[This is the transcript of a I gave to a local Toastmasters group a few years back. GAM]

When we look at the concepts of war and peace in the abstract, it
becomes clear that they can in no way be reconcilable. In the
concrete, however, they are often times not only reconcilable, but
interdependent.

This paradox is easily understood once we have considered the following two facts:

1.) It is the duty of those who govern to protect the peace of their respective nations or locales from all threats, foreign and domestic. 2.) As the testimony of human experience reveals, this often requires force.

On the domestic front, we have federal agencies such as the FBI,
Border Patrol, and the BTAF, and others who are entrusted with securing our borders and enforcing federal laws. Similarly, on the local level, we have city police departments, county sheriff departments, and state police that protect the peace of local communities.

While it is true that these officers are trained to diffuse dangerous situations without resorting to force, but it is unrealistic to expect someone who is in a violent, psychotic, or drug induced rage to sit in a “time out” chair, if you know what I mean. After all, law enforcement personnel don’t carry guns to make fashion statements. Force is required in these situations to protect communities.

This is even more true in regards to foreign threats. Veteran’s Day,
which we celebrate every year, is an indication that this fact is well
recognized. Why else would we set aside a day to honor those who have placed themselves at the service of war or its possibility? Since we live in a world that is, to varying degrees, hostile, a nation that is not protected militarily cannot be peaceful.

Again, recourse to arms should be a last resort, but the refusal
to use force when all diplomatic means to resolve the crisis have
been exhausted or shown to be impractical has never resulted in
peace, but has mutated into greater conflict. History is more
than generous in providing examples of this. I would like, with your
indulgence, to discuss one such example.

The year was 1938. A dispute between Nazi Germany and
Czechoslovakia had arisen involving German territorial claims to the
Sudetenland, which, according to the Treaty of Versailles, drawn up
after the end of the WWI, was part of Czechoslovakia. This crisis not only posed a threat to Czechoslovakia, but had ramifications for the whole of Europe. The European Allies, led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in their unwillingness to use force to come to the aid of Czechoslovakia, ceded to Hitler’s demands in a diplomatic
deal struck at Munich, Germany.

To be sure, Mr. Chamberlain’s intentions were to preserve peace, but
His act of appeasement unleashed the Hitlerian terror on Europe and
threatened the peace of all civilization, which took the second world war to finally repel.

In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is considered by many to be the definitive history of the Nazi period, author William Shirer affirms this view :

“ It was this writer’s impression in Berlin from that moment until the end that had Chamberlain frankly told Hitler that Britain would do what it ultimately did in the face of nazi aggression, the Fuehrer would never have embarked upon the adventures that brought on the Second World War—an impression which ahs been strengthened by the study of secret German documents. This was the well-meaning Prime Minister’s fatal mistake.”

Is this merely the fruit of historical hindsight or speculation? Not quite! October 5, 1938, just days after the Munich deal was finalized, Winston Churchill, who succeeded Chamberlain as Prime Minister a few years later, said the following in a speech to the House of Commons regarding the Munich agreement:

“We have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat. We are in the
midst of a disaster of the first magnitude. The road down the
Danube...the road to the Black Sea has been opened ...All the
countries of Mittel Europa and the Danube valley, one after another,
will be drawn into the vast system of Nazi politics ....radiating from
Berlin...And do not suppose that this is the end. It is only the
beginning...”

And so it was only the beginning, the beginning of the
horrors of WWII.

With this in mind, let us fast forward sixty-seven years to the
present day. Our present age, with its advances in technological and
cultural development, not to mention the greater benefit of historical
hindsight, has unearthed new ways of diplomacy and dialogue that enable us to solve disputes without recourse to arms in ways that have been previously unknown. At the same time,
however, as we have seen, particularly in light of 9/11 and
subsequent events, the threats to peace that necessitate the use of
force to repel, have become more sophisticated.

True peace is not a fleeting superficial cessation of hostilities
achieved by way of appeasing evil dictators. “That would be’” as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says, “like feeding an alligator hoping he will eat you last.” No, true peace is a safe, stable, and orderly freedom that is worth protecting, even if it means enduring the of horrors of war.

Rush Limbaugh On the Left's Reaction to Ratzinger's Election to the Papacy

2005-04-30T21:44:00.000-07:00

"Exactly what the American media [and the Left--same difference] has been suggesting, has been hoping, has been praying -- uh, they don't pray -- asking the Catholic Church to do, demanding that the Catholic do the Catholic church has done just the opposite. The church, in their view, has not modernized. The church in their view has not become more relevant to the faithful. The church has not accepted liberal ideas. What you're seeing today if you could look at this through a pair of liberal eyes, they see a competing chief justice of a supreme court that is more powerful than theirs that has just been named pope, and there's nothing they can do to filibuster it. "

In the words of that great Western Sage Arthur Fonzarelli, Exactamundo!!!

The Pontificate of Benedict XVI on Meet the [De]Press[ed]

2005-04-29T22:30:00.000-07:00

The pontificate of the newly installed Pope Benedict XVI was the topic on last Sunday's (April 24th) Meet the Press on NBC. The participants in the roundtable discussion included REV. THOMAS BOHLIN, U.S. Vicar, Opus Dei, JOSEPH BOTTUM, Editor, First Things, Contributing Editor, The Weekly Standard THOMAS CAHILL, Author and Historian
E.J. DIONNE, Washington Post Columnist REV. JOSEPH FESSIO, S.J., Provost, Ave Maria University, Founder, Ignatius Press, JON MEACHAM, Managing Editor, Newsweek
SISTER MARY AQUIN O'NEILL, RSM, PhD, Director, Mount Saint Agnes Theological Center For Women and host Tim Russert.

Of course, the roundtable was divded evenly (well, almost) into pro and con camps. In this case, the pro defending Pope Benedict's vision for the Church and the con taking issue with it.

This particular episode is picture perfect example of why Rush Limbaugh calls it "Meet the Depressed." The Pope's detractors' position, as well as that of the rest of the old media, can be summed up in one phrase: "How dare those Cardinals elect a Catholic as Pope."

I will spare the reader of an analysis of the entire sorry episode. They can read the transcript of the show. But I would like to comment on a couple of the exchanges that took place. All quotes are taken from the aforementioned transcript.

The first one is an exchange that took place between Fr. Fessio and Thomas Cahill:

REV. JOSEPH FESSIO: Tim, Jesus told us that he who hears you hears me. The glory of the Catholic Church, which we accept humbly, is that God has revealed his truth to us through human instruments. And Jesus appointed Apostle Peter at their head to maintain that truth in its integrity. And so, yes, the Catholic Church, when it speaks authoritatively, is giving us the truth of Christ, and those who rebel against the church's authentic teaching are rebelling against God.

...the church--when the church agrees with the culture, I mean, that's just a confirmation of the culture, but the church also disagrees sometimes with the culture. So, you know, we just saw a young woman who was not sick, who was not dying, who was allowed to starve to death and to be put to death by lack of water, the church, the church--because Jesus was a man, because God became flesh, tells us all human life is precious. And so the Pope Benedict, the bishops are going to say, "We can't do things like that." God created us for love and for community, for a marriage, for example, which is fruitful, and has children and creates culture. Homosexual marriages can't do that. And so the church, while loving those people and recognizing in them the image of God, says, "No, that what you're doing is not consistent with God's plan."

So Cardinal Ratzinger, who listens very carefully to God's Word and is one who promotes it and will proclaim it, is going to say, as Jesus himself would say, "These things I affirm, these things I must tell you are not consistent with God's will." One of the most important things he said today in his homily, typical Ratzinger--look, I've known the man for 33 years. The man is a listener, a very careful listener. He says, "I want to put myself ‘ascolto di Dio’ at the listening of God, hearing God"; not my ideas, not my plans, but God's will and God's plan. And so I think you're going to see in Cardinal Ratzinger just like you saw in John Paul II, someone who's totally given to Jesus and the church that Jesus founded. And that, therefore, we expect the master to have disciples like him. Jesus predicted this. Those who followed him will be persecuted like he was. I think Cardinal Ratzinger's going to make very deep friends and arouse a lot of loyalties. He's also going to make enemies, because he is going to be--have the courage to speak out against those things which really harm human dignity and harm human development.

Thomas Cahill: I think the kind of, what I would call, recidivist theology of someone like the previous speaker is, A, historical. It is not based on the true history of Christianity, it's fanciful, and it is lacking in compassion for millions and millions of people who can't meet the supposed standards. When Jesus sat down next to the woman at the well, he talked to her for a very long time, then he said, "Why don't you go and bring your husband out." And she said, "I don't have a husband," and he said, "You're right. You've had five husbands and the man you're living with right now isn't your husband." And she said, "Wow." And she went into the town and said, "I've just met the Messiah." Now this was a woman, he didn't say to her, "Before you have communion with me, you must go back to your first husband." No, he didn't talk about her div--he kind of engaged her on the subject of her divorces, but a church that says, for instance, of divorced people know they may not commune with Jesus I think is making the terrible un-Christian un-evangelical mistake and I think it does it in many other areas, largely related to either sexuality or women.

Only a shrill left-wing ideologue like Thomas Cahill could have the audicity to call Jesus Himself un- Christian. I mean this is exactly what he is doing here by referring to Fr. Fessio's remarks as "recidivist theology" and being "not based on a true history of Christianity". All Fr. Fessio did was repeat Jesus' words. It was Jesus who said to the Apostles (a charge which they in turn handed down to their successors) "He who hears you hears me." It was Jesus who also said to Peter (and by extension his successors) " I give you the Key so the Kingdom of heaven. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven. What you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." Anyone who has read the Gospels knows that Fr. Fessio isn't putting words in the Lord's mouth here.

Furthermore, it offends me to no end when upholding the truth and dignity of the human person in God's image is labelled as "lacking in compassion for millions and millions of people who can't meet the supposed standards." What is really lacking in compassion is standing in the way of people learing the objective truth about themselves, especially when they need to (although they may not want to) hear it the most. This reminds me of a story that my local bishop tells about an encounter Pope John Paul II had during one of his travels either to the U.S. or somewhere in Europe. Anyway, as the pope was making his way through the crowd, a young man began to heckle the Holy Father about the having the same "lack of compassion" that Mr. Cahill accuses Fr. Fessio of. The Pope walked right up to this man and said,"Young man, the Church loves you too much to tell you a lie."

Now, Tim Russert used to have a well-deserved reputation for being equally challenging to both sides of any given debate. But ever since he showed his true liberal stripes by softballing John Kerry during last year's Presidential campaign, he hasn't seemed to recover his objectivity, as the following exchange between Russert and Fr. Fessio illustrates:

MR. RUSSERT: Father Fessio, the Catholic Church, in fact, could alter its teaching on birth control, or use of condoms or on married priests or on female priests, true?

REV. FESSIO: Well, you put several things in that list, Tim, and the answer is three are false and one is true, and the one that's possibly true is married priests, but not on condoms, not on contraception and not on the ordination of women.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not? Why not?

REV. FESSIO: First of all, I want to say this, that...

MR. RUSSERT: Why are those three not true?

REV. FESSIO: You know, Tim, I'd love to--you want to give me an hour to explain that, or maybe two hours?

MR. RUSSERT: Well is it...

REV. FESSIO: I mean, this is--we are--we have a difficulty here. First of all I want to encourage all the listener-watcher-viewers here, for every hour you spend watching television, please spend five hours reading good books, because we really can't have a serious discussion on these very deep, deep, mysterious issues with a bunch of sound bites. So all I'm saying is...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, I think devoting--Father, with all respect, I think devoting a full hour to this discussion is a very serious attempt. And my question was, why would those three issues--the use of condoms, birth control and women as priests--why could they not be altered? Have they, in fact, become doctrine to the church or have they been taught infallibly by a pope?

With all due respect, Mr. Russert, spending an hour (which is actually only about 35 to 40 minutes when you consider commercial breaks) throwing a bunch of issues out in such a buckshotish manner like you just did in your statement quoted above is anything BUT a serious attempt at discussion. And for you to say otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has even a modicum of understanding of the Catholic Church.

Like I said in the beginning, this particular episode of Meet the Press lives up to Rush Limbaugh's calling it Meet the Depressed. The left is so down in the dumps about the election of Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy, you might want to make Prozac stock a major part of your portfolio.

Pope Benedict XVI On Being Catholic

2005-04-26T14:27:00.000-07:00

In the 1996 interview given to German journalist Peter Seewald asked the future Pope Benedict, the following question:

"What is the most fascinating thing about being Catholic for you personally?"

To which then Cardinal Ratzinger responded:

"The fascinating thing is this great living history into which we enter. Looked at in purely human terms, it is something extraordinary. That an institution with so many human weaknesses and failures is nonetheless preserved in its continuity and that I, living within this great communion, can know that I am in communion with all the living and the dead; and that I also find in it a certainty about the essence of my life--namely, God who has turned to me--on which I can found my life, with which I can live and die." (Salt of the Earth pgs. 20&21 Ignatius Press 1997)

The Installation of Pope Benedict XVI

2005-04-25T10:31:00.000-07:00

Since the words Coopertores Veritatis (Coworkers in the Truth) was the episcopal motto of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, it is only fitting that reflections on his installation of yesterday April 24th inaugurate this new weblog.

The Pope's homily conveyed, in very simple language, the profound spiritual and theological richness so characteristic of the this "humble servant of the Lord's vineyard" from rural Bavaria.

The old media's shock and awe over the kindness exuded by this Holy Father shows they know nothing about this man. I have hope (not much though) that they will try to garner a proper understanding of this great man. If in the unlikely event that they do, they will see that he's a kind and gentle man not despite his unbending committment to upholding Catholic orthodoxy, but because of it.

To think that a single phrase would stand out in this great homily would seem ridiculous. But one hit me like a train! It is this one, " Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves."

I find it striking that he would make this statement on the occasion of his ascendency to the Petrine throne. You see, the person of Peter, arguably more so than any other biblical character, tells us two important things about the human person: his capacity for great heroism and extreme cowardice. On the latter, it is Peter, out of fear, who denied Christ three times, as grave a sin as any pope could ever committ. But this same Peter, after repenting, witnesses to Christ with a courage that embraced crucifixion coupled with the humility to recognize that he was not worthy to die in the same manner of his Lord.

Pope Benedict XVI understands painfully well these two opposite poles of human nature and does not deceive himself one bit about his own capacity to "flee for fear of the wolves." But he understands even more that God who places such a heavy yoke on his shoulders also sustains him with His Hand. God has called Joseph Ratzinger many times before to tasks beyond his capabilities and this humble servant has, with God's grace, answered this call in exemplary fashion. We have every reason to believe that as Pope Benedict XVI he will do so again.

In these thirteen words, the Holy Father was also telling us that he will not shy away from controversy. He will not hesitate in speaking those hard sayings of our Lord that our fallen world, along with of us in it, is in such desperate need of hearing.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI!!!