In his obituary of William F. Buckley, Slate’s Timothy Noah wrote the following:
“Christian piety and anti-communism were Buckley’s twin pillars, the former to such an extent that Buckley ruled out David Brooks, his onetime protege, as a possible editor of National Review on the grounds that Brooks was Jewish. Buckley wasn’t willing to sacrifice National Review‘s identity as a publication whose mission was at least partly theological.”
Think about this for a second. When I attacked the National Review for both parading its Catholicism and simultaneously endorsing non-negotiable moral issues, the combox clackers denounced me for falsely imputing a Catholic connection. Remember, torture in an intrinsically evil act. And not only has the National Review, as a corporate entity, embraced torture on consequentialist grounds but its online editor, Kathyrn Jean Lopez, has used opposition to torture as a factor in deciding who is “one of us”. Talk about formal cooperation in evil. And for an outfit with even the slightest whiff of a Catholic connection, this is a major scandal. Sounds like grounds for denying communion to me, if we want to be fully consistent here.
The current editor of National Review, Rich Lowry, is a Protestant, so the idea that there is some sort of Catholics-only litmus test for the editorship of the magazine doesn’t hold water. The story sounds made up, frankly.
Here, by the way, is David Brooks’ article on the passing of Buckley. The last line, I think, is unintentionally ironic.
Noah doesn’t know what he is talking about. NR has never been a Catholic magazine. Buckley and early financial backers did want it to have a Christian character, as it stood against Communism and Marxist political influence, but a very wide variety of people have been writers and editors.
I don’t doubt he would want a Christian as editor, but there’s no indication that Brooks was going to be editor and then was cast aside because he is Jewish.
Typical partisan nonsense, and uncharitable during this week to boot. You’d think people could lay aside their worldviews, even for a little while. There’s more to life than politics, and not everything is political.
Torture is an intrinsically evil act in two non infallible venues..a pastoral document of Vatican II..Gaudium et Spes #27 and in Splendor of the Truth section 80. Imprimatured moral theology books after Vatican II allow for studious and prayerful dissent from such levels of authority which Buckley may have had and those imprimaturs post date Lumen Gentium 25′s “religious submission of mind and will” (see Grisez p.854 “Way of the Lord Jesus” vol.1) and are meant to complement its lack of balance which was brought up by three bishops at the Council and who sought an emendation of #25 in that several early 19th century encyclicals on suppressing religious liberty had been corrected by Vatican II and “religious submission of mind” understood unconditionally prolongs such errors in the Church (and turns away creative minds from non primitive groups from conversion).
True…torture had been condemned in Pope St. Nicholas I, Response Ad Consulta Vestra, November 13, 866 AD….and yet brought back
in Pope Innocent IV, Bull Ad Exstirpanda (May 15, 1252) and affirmed with safeguards in Ecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-1312) and then banned by Pope Pius VII (19th century) from Catholic countries.
But this is not proven clear development…..this is as yet a roller coaster process that sooner or later must deal with the Old Testament passages that touch on the topic and might permit it in hopefully rare cases.
And not only has the National Review, as a corporate entity, embraced torture on consequentialist grounds but its online editor, Kathyrn Jean Lopez, has used opposition to torture as a factor in deciding who is “one of us”
What is your basis for asserting that “National Review, as a corporate entity, embraced torture on consequentialist grounds” ? — I recall some various members of NOR taking pro/con positions on the subject, including Michael Ledeen, who opposed torture on consequentialist grounds (“Torture, and the belief in its efficacy, are the way our enemies think. And remember that our enemies, the tyrants of the 20th century, and the jihadis we are fighting now, are the representatives of failed cultures.”); John Derbyshire. I don’t read the NOR regularly and haven’t kept up with how the issue is discussed, but I get the sense that various members have offered their pro/con views on the subject. If you point me to a column where “the editors” have formally taken an affirmative stand on the subect then you may have a case.
From a review of Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement, by Linda Bridges:
Is that necessariliy the case today as it was at the time of it’s founding?
Christopher– that would be from the positions taken on the editorial page.
“A Christian sensibility formed the subtext–and context–for much of NR’s brand of conservatism.” Not really consistent with adopting positions supporting intrinsic evils (torture) and extrinsic evils (Iraq war).
Christopher– that would be from the positions taken on the editorial page.
I’d say she’s speaking as Kathryn Jean Lopez and on behalf of herself, not for the National Review as a collective entity. When one of the editors of the New York Times writes a column I tend to take it as his opinion; when the publication releases something under the heading “from the Editors”, it carries significantly more weight.
It’s not as if all the editors of National Review got together and collectively endorsed waterboarding in the same manner as they endorsed Mitt Romney for President. And you can’t mention Lopez’ piece without her follow-up:
IMHO.
Not really consistent with adopting positions supporting intrinsic evils (torture) and extrinsic evils (Iraq war).
MM — did you not read the piece I quoted? It’s describing National Review as a publication in its inception (the publication after all has been around for at least half a century. Much of the “inner circle” it references is no longer its chief contributors. Many of its current contributors did take a position on the Iraq War contrary to the misgivings of its founder. And as far as the claim that the magazine “adopted positions on torture” — see my prior comment.
Thanks for reminding me again why I should give up commenting on this blog for Lent. =)
I don’t know, Christopher. When Lopez speaks of torture within the context of “being one of us,” it suggests she’s speaking through a form of media for conservatives in general and, more immediately, the contributors to the same form of media in which she plays an editing part. Whether or not she intended to speak for herself is not self-evident from the piece quoted by MM.
Whatever. (Back to reading).
NRO’s “By the Editors” editorial on waterboarding can be found here.
As Christopher notes, it’s only fair to Lopez to take her follow-up into account, in which she clarifies her intention re: the waterboarding & one of us issue.
Whatever. (Back to reading).
I appreciate your desire to defend both Lopez and the NR. However, what is stated is stated. If I had been a newcomer to NRO, I certainly would take that “one of us” talk to denote the organization and to connote all conservatives. Lopez, perhaps, ought to be a bit more careful with how she phrases things, which she even admits herself in her follow-up.
Lopez, perhaps, ought to be a bit more careful with how she phrases things.
Fair enough.
Bill Bannon, your OT hermeneutics are questionable. That the OT accepts torture, somewhere (not quite sure where) would by no means mean that we today would be licensed to accept it. The OT also accepts genocide (Num 31; 1 Sam 15 and many other texts).
The uselessness of infallibility is made clear by your posting, or rather its usefulness in robbing church moral teaching of false authority and placing it firmly on the ground of the authority of conscience.
Just a gentle reminder that saying people accept torture because they accept waterboarding is a baseless accusation, since under the Church’s definition of torture it can be reasonable argued to include or exclude the use of waterboarding. Furthermore it has been refuted that torture is “intrinsicly evil” in the proper sense of the word.
God Bless,
ps. isn’t it a shame that socialist/marxist regimes (democratically elected ones) are threatening to destroy the peace that exists in South America? It’s a clear reproof against their very philosphy.
Spirit of Vatican II
The genocide of the Old Testament has zero to do with any genocide outside of Scripture and was ordered by God with the reasons given in Wisdom 12. He used Israel as His arm in that matter and only after punishing those people previously with ligther punishments “that they might have space for repentance”. They were involved with child sacrifice and cannibalism….and Israel being without sanctifying grace would have emulated them….thus they were worthy of death due to actions and they constituted a near occasion of sin to weak Israel.
Israel was negligent in carrying out the genocides. As a matter of fact Saul lost the kingship of Israel….why Spirit of Vatican II????….you don’t know do you? You don’t read the Old Testament…do you? But you are going to teach me about it aren’t you?
You know, I love it when some of you guys go to great lengths to defend the National Review. I expect to see the same defense of Frances Kissling as you have for Lopez– after all, they are in the exact same moral box– claiming to be Catholic and supporting– and publicly lobbying in favor of– an intrinsically evil act.
And I’m sorry, but– in spite of internal dissent– a magazine can be labeled by its editorial policy,
Matt: if you want to refute the pope and the bishops, go ahead. There are many Protestant churches for you. You friend Bill Bannon likes to quote all kinds of passages from the OT and papal documents simply to repudiate Dei Verbum and the whole basis of modern Catholic social teaching– he revealed himself quote clearly when he defended torture on consequentialist grounds. Juts don’t pretend you are not flirting with evil as egregiously as any abortion supporter.
MM
During the 19th century, Catholicism was not liberal but aristocratic and here in an encyclical, you will see a Pope fulminate against liberal governments allowing freedom of religion and you will see him call on the authority of Scripture, the Church and the Fathers and then you will see Vatican II rightly repudiate his view exactly 100 years later and insist on government constitutions including freedom of religion…the incident serves to show why the intelligent Catholic has a right to question non infallible encyclicals…and an encyclical by Gregory XVI prior to him did the same mistaken thing and he refers to it:
Quanta Cura Pius IX Encyclical promulgated on 8 December 1864.
section 3 2nd paragraph:
“And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require. From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,”2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”
Vatican II said this in DIGNITATIS HUMANAE :
“This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.”
_______________
MM,
Frances Kissling as you have for Lopez– after all, they are in the exact same moral box– claiming to be Catholic and supporting– and publicly lobbying in favor of– an intrinsically evil act.
This is moral relativism. Just as evil to advocate for waterboarding a handful of terrorists, as it is to advocate for the murder of millions of unborn children. That is profoundly evil.
Matt: if you want to refute the pope and the bishops, go ahead.
Are you saying the Pope says that waterboarding is torture? We’ve already shown that neither the catechism nor VII nor any other authoritative documents declare in any sort of definitive way that torture is intrinsicly evil. Even if it is the Church has clearly stated that not all evils are at the same level, abortion and euthanasia being the most serious.
There are many Protestant churches for you. You friend Bill Bannon likes to quote all kinds of passages from the OT and papal documents simply to repudiate Dei Verbum and the whole basis of modern Catholic social teaching– he revealed himself quote clearly when he defended torture on consequentialist grounds. Juts don’t pretend you are not flirting with evil as egregiously as any abortion supporter.
I demonstrate above that your assertion is false. Furthermore, I was not even advocating for or against waterboarding being designated as torture (frankly I don’t see how it could be), or for the use of torture in any circumstance. Just that the Church has not made a definitive statement on either situation. You and your ilk are simply trying to apply your interpretation as magisterial authority, that is just not the case.
Speaking of labelling a magazine by it’s editorial content, I guess by that standard National Catholic Reporter, America and Commonweal are ant-Catholic as well.
Bill B.,
I think you raise some interesting points, I’m not sure we agree completely though. There is many levels of authority, and the Church can bind our conscience and intellect even if a declaration is not infallible. There has to be a careful breakdown of the application of constant teaching to changing situations. That is not relativism but a question of understanding what the definitive teaching is, and what the circumstances are. What I mean to say is that Quanta Cura was not wrong, but it may not completely apply to the current context. Furthermore, a careful reading of QC vs. DH shows that they are not fundamentally opposed. DH ought to be read in contect of QC, it does not create an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly an publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way, but to ensure that religion is not imposed (or violated) by the coercive power of the state. Very importantly, as the Holy Father has recently clarified, DH does not imply that religion is simply a matter of free choice, it is most certainly not, freedom is the right to do what one ought… The Church has alwasy taught that one ought to be a Christian in the fullest sense – Catholic and that it is an abuse of freedom to refuse to do what one ought, carrying has serious and eternal consequences.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt: to defend one instrinsically evil act over another is a heresy known as proportionalism. Start reading Veritatis Splendour!
Morning’s Minion,
Matt: to defend one instrinsically evil act over another is a heresy known as proportionalism. Start reading Veritatis Splendour!
Perhaps YOU should tone down the accusations of heresy, they do not further the cause of truth and only seek to inflame the situation. Why can’t you have a reasonable discourse? And why do you throw out entire documents instead of making a reasoned point by point argument? Is your intellect so weak that you can’t argue properly?
I did not “defend” one intrinsicly evil act over another, I dare you to repeat the accusation with a supporting quote… but you won’t. Furthermore, you missapply the heresy of proportionalism, it refers to a belief that the greater good can justify an evil act. I respectfully suggest you set aside some of the lofty reading you do, and start in with the Catechism, maybe the compendium would be best. You really need to bone up on the fundamentals before you can understand the more complex and less ‘unpacked’ writings.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. A response to my post would be very helpful. Do YOU think that waterboarding is as evil as abortion? A yes or no answer is acceptable.
Matt: you cannot choose evil, ever. Is killing one person better than killing a million? That’s a choice we can never make. You cannot kill one person to save the life of a million. You can never support any intrisincally evil act. You cannot publicly advocate for abortion. You cannot publicly advocate for torture. You cannot claim that an ancient and horrible technique like waterboarding is not torture. And you cannot simply claim the Church does not deem torture instrinsically evil, when it patently and obviously does so (I’m sure you know all the references). Why are trying to jump through hoops to defend evil? I’m sorry, but making these arguments puts you in the same category as Catholics for a Free Choice.
Matt
QC and DH really are opposed on the legal level where the former did condemn governmental freedom of religion and the latter extolled it. You switched to the theological level where things are different and harmonizable….but the two documents were talking about the legal-govermental level and are opposed to each other. Intelligent protestants who look into conversion have remarked on this tendency of Catholics to harmonize opposites for the sake of the Church’s reputation….thus the usury mistake was not really a mistake….but in fact it was; domestic slavery was really Catholics disobeying the bulls against slavery according to apologists…. When in fact, canon law protected domestic just titled slavery until 1917 and the bulls were about the trade and new native slavery not about just titled slavery.
Morning’s Minion,
you cannot choose evil, ever.
You should at least build a strawman before you tear it down.
Is killing one person better than killing a million? That’s a choice we can never make.
No, but murdering an innocent unborn baby is more evil than making a terrorist think he is drowning.
You cannot kill one person to save the life of a million.
With due regard to the principle of double effect you can… and if it meets the conditions YOU MUST, if it does not meet the conditions, you MUST NOT.
You can never support any intrisincally evil act.
Correct.
You cannot publicly advocate for abortion.
Tell it to Martin Sheen.
You cannot publicly advocate for torture.
I think you’re right here, but doesn’t seem definitive, certainly not as evil as the former.
You cannot claim that an ancient and horrible technique like waterboarding is not torture.
Oh yes I can.
And you cannot simply claim the Church does not deem torture instrinsically evil, when it patently and obviously does so (I’m sure you know all the references).
Post them then, they’ve been posted before and found wanting. I don’t think the Church is ready to declare torture intrinsicly evil, probably not until it clarifies what constitutes torture. The Catechism does not say it is intrinsicly evil, and especially it does not identify waterboarding as torture.
Why are trying to jump through hoops to defend evil?
I’m sorry, but making these arguments puts you in the same category as Catholics for a Free Choice.
I’m sorry but that’s an utter, and slanderous LIE. Demonstrably so. CFFC advocates for the murder of the most innocent. I do not advocate for waterboarding or torture. I advocate for a principled discussion of the Church’s teaching on these matters, and that waterboarding is not torture since the Church does not teach that it is and it is a lie for you to claim it does. Therefore you have committed the grave offense of slander against me personally, but fret not, I forgive you already.
Bill,
I think I agree (cautiously), I wanted to make it clear that the Church’s teaching did not change, but it’s prudential judgement about the legal-governmental situation did, and rightly so. In the same sense the Church has become increasingly critical of things like slavery and other human rights violations in the modern world, but never changing her fundamental doctrine.
God Bless,
Matt
MM,
ps. A response to my post would be very helpful. Do YOU think that waterboarding is as evil as abortion? A yes or no answer is acceptable.
Can you answer? or not? I guess if you don’t your answer is a relativistic YES.