Vox Nova

To be honest, I had no intention of commenting upon this train wreck of a piece.  When one comes into the game with the pretense that persuading the bishops is a fool’s errand, one has already removed oneself from the debate.  What follows in such a piece is self aggrandizement.  One particular section needs commentary though, if only to be an example to others of what not to argue. Read the rest of this entry »

H.W. Crocker III’s article is reprised at Inside Catholic.  It is one of the more humorous takes on NFP.

Apparently Obama shows his unworthiness to be in the Pope’s presence before they even meet.  Expect wailing and gnashing of teeth before the day is done over there.  As for the actual meeting, it will likely be boring.

The cast of characters escapes me at the moment, but I’m sure the combox commentariat will fill in the details.  The ideas of a certain Jesuit were condemned by a Pope.  The Jesuits continued studying the book claiming that the ideas condemned by the Pontiff weren’t the ones in the book.  The Pontiff rejoinded by noting that he was able to read and not an idiot.  The story reminds me of much of the reaction to the latest encyclical. Read the rest of this entry »

Writing on the engagement of online personalities Peter Suderman and Megan McArdle, the psuedonymous The Man From K Street writes:

How should they get married? This afternoon. At the Arlington County Courthouse.

No, I don’t really care if they do or not. But seriously–this is supposed to be a blog that gets all judgmental and stern about societal trends re: cohabitation and/or delayed marriage. Suddenly we can’t muster any criticism about two folks who have been shacked up for almost a year because, unlike blue-collar Wasilla types or drugged-out C-list celebrities, they are “our kind of people”?

Let’s not get hypocritical here, people.

The man has a point. As a side note, I know for sure Ms. McArdle doesn’t identify as a religious conservative. I’m not as familiar with Mr. Suderman, and therefore I won’t offer speculation. For that matter, I won’t make further mention of either of them. Over the past couple years I have been invited as a guest or to participate in two weddings where the couples had living together. In one case the couple had been living together almost as long as we had been married.

When I come across this, I’m more relieved than anything else. Marriage is a milestone. Much like a baptism, I don’t really care about your struggles getter there (obviously assuming an adult baptism): you become a Christian on that day, and that is what’s important. The only time I ever really object is if someone gets defensive and claims they’ve been married longer than my wife and me, if you include the years dating. (Since my wife and I have enjoyed 9 years of bliss now, I hear more the variation, it’s like we have been really married 3, 4, 5, or however many years.) My reply is always the same. No, you have been married x years. People who speak of their long discernments prior to marriage are often like 7-year bachelor degree candidates, they want credit for something they haven’t earned. And just like taking 7 years rather than 4 years to get your engineering degree isn’t a signal that you are more desirous to be an engineer, taking your time to get to an engagement isn’t a sign of maturity. Likewise, playing house during prior to your marriage isn’t a sign of maturity or signal for its likelihood of success. Well, actually it’s a counter signal.

In honor of Michael Novak’s demagoguery of the yet to be published encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, I invite the readers to offer their own commentary on the yet to be published encyclical.  Feel free to include quotes from the encyclical, at least quotes you think should be there.

I had a dream the other evening.  We were still living in our home.  For some reason, it was just my youngest son and myself.  I would say he was about 5 years older than he is today.  My wife and older two children weren’t around.  Our house was almost like the description of a flat in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment.  My son and I had one room, and we had boarders in the other main level room and the three bedrooms upstairs.  Presently those rooms are the living room, play room, den, and bedrooms.  The kitchen, bathrooms, and dining room were common rooms.  As I contemplated this further, I recognized that this was the concept of space that most of the world had.  I further pondered that the city I occupy could be consolidated into about a 6×6 block area under such an arrangement.  The scale was a bit shocking but altogether human at the same time. Read the rest of this entry »

By way of introduction, my step-brother about a decade or so ago joined some friends at a small translation company.  Since that time, that company has internationalized web sites and documents for many companies worldwide, including a number of technology companies in northwest United States.  He has decided to start a newsletter on language and culture.  Since I know many of you have interests in foreign languages or the origins of words, I thought I would share it with you.  And besides, throwing a bone to family seems only proper for a person writing on a moderately successful web site.

I think he hits about 15 languages in his opening salvo.  A brief excerpt from his opening letter:

When we look at the Latin word for money, “pecunia”, which derives from “pecus” (”cattle”), an earlier value system comes into focus. The cow as a core unit of value is revealed in the English word “fee” (from the Old English “feoh” meaning “cattle, property, money”). Interestingly, the word “capital”, which appears in many European languages, and word “cattle” itself do not come to us from early words for the cow. Both are from the Latin “capitalis”, which means “principal”. Meanwhile, in Welsh the word “da”, which is generally used as an adjective meaning “good”, can be used as a noun to refer to “cattle” and “goods”.

The cow is not the only animal to find its way into our monetary lexicon. The root of the Russian word for money, “деньги” (”den’gi”), and the Turkmen equivalent of the penny, “tenge”, is the Turkic “tän’gä”, which literally meant “a squirrel’s fur”.

On a blog owned by the New York Times recently, they hosted a discussion about a woman contemplating an abortion.  Many have felt the need to offer advice to the woman.  Many have felt the need to comment upon it.  Rather than abortion being a regrettable expedient that is tolerated so we don’t as a community have to address the consequences of the sexual revolution, abortion is treated as if it were the evaluation of competing moral claims.  Once more we as a society have moved from tolerance to embracing. Read the rest of this entry »

There is  an old quote attributed to a worker under communism.  “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”  The quote comes to mind when reading the Vatican’s new policy and various reactions to it.  That policy is the banning of Facebook and MySpace from within the Vatican firewall.  The typical reaction from the Type A personality types is that it should be the person’s responsibility to manage their time, not the boss’s.    I regret to inform folks that workplaces generally aren’t filled with their types. Read the rest of this entry »

It’s okay not to feel sad over the death of George Tiller.  I know a lot of you are being told you should feel some sort of sadness.  If you happen to be against abortion and find everything Tiller stood for to be repulsive, of course you are a Christianist that might as well have pulled the trigger yourself.  Well, this is what you will be told at least.  Or you might hear from fellow pro-lifers that we must express how terrible a thing has happened because not doing so will hurt “the cause.”  (The quotes are there because like so many causes, “the cause” has consumed its object a long time ago.)  Just because a rich, white guy is killed for the evil he has done doesn’t mean that we need to mourn the loss of society.  George Tiller’s flouting of justice was reason enough to mourn the loss of society.  I don’t speak merely of his performance of abortions.  I speak also of his flouting of Kansas law, only to find himself acquitted when the Kansas Democratic establishment and a Kansas jury turned away from enforcing the very laws they had created.  While one hates to speculate on the impetus that drove a man in Kansas to kill George Tiller, his acquittal on breaking Kansas’s abortion laws when his violations were so manifest should be given honest consideration by those not merely interested in polemics.

Does this mean I’m endorsing vigilantism?  Not really.  Like the socialists of old debating, I happen to find violent revolution to be a harmful means toward accomplishing the goal.  For those still unsure, I don’t think violence is prudent.  I’m a little distressed to see the argument that violence should be dismissed as a priori illegitimate except as exercised by the State.  Oddly enough the nation that was founded in opposition to totalitarianism seems to have instilled an ethos that is decidedly totalitarian.  That is probably a bit too esoteric for this post though.  We have to keep in mind that a rich, white guy was gunned down by a serf in an act of vigilante justice.  Lord knows if this would have been a gang banger in the inner city killed by another gang banger, we would be seeing all this wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not claiming one should rejoice.  I’m giving you permission not to feel bad though.  For those that aren’t rich and white, it isn’t a tragedy when a person that does wicked things is harmed from doing those wicked things.  When a drunk driver is found 50′ from his vehicle and his car wrapped around a telephone pole, we don’t all the sudden wonder what happened to civil society.  Yes, it would be better if he weren’t dead.  No one wishes death upon the drunk driver.  Depending on your sources, roughly 60 people are murdered every day in this country.  Many of these deaths will go unremarked upon, even in the very communities from where they occur.  Some will want to celebrate Tiller as a political martyr.  There is no reason the pro-life movement has to join that celebration.  Check the obituaries over the next couple days if you are feeling guilty.  There are plenty of men, including men that have done heinous things, that could use your prayers.

Should we get rid of annulments?

Annulments after all are an innovation.  The Orthodox, for example do not offer annulments.  Add to this the number of marriages declared invalid due to lack of form, a judicial requirement and not one essential to the Sacrament of Marriage.  It would seem more fundamentally honest to say the Church will look the other way as couples remarry rather than to claim that nearly every marriage that doesn’t work out wasn’t really a marriage, no matter how many children suffer because of it.

I had attempted to keep my disgust quiet, but I’ve really had it.  Our latest celebrity convert Newt Gingrich has a decorated history.  While his wife was being treated with cancer, he was having an affair with the woman who would become his second wife.  His current wife was the result of adultery with his 2nd wife.  Being the good Catholic girl she was though - excuse me, I forgot to insert a devout in there too – she couldn’t marry the guy with whom she was sleeping until Newt’s annulment was rubber stamped.  Being that Mrs. Gingrich II married Newt after having failed at marriage once, the annulment was a rubber stamp.  Having been so impressed by his current wife’s piety, he finally joined the Catholic Church and has appointed himself spokesman for all that is good and holy.  To this, the usually suspects give an amen and thank God for Newt’s libido finally finding a Catholic girl to satiate it and leading him to the Church.  Quite frankly the whole thing makes me sick and smacks of the Church making natural marriage a joke.

Lew Daly has a provocative essay titled, “Family Warfare“, over at Front Porch Republic.

As I’ve noted before, my prefered terms in the abortion debate are pro-abortion and anti-abortion.  Over the past generation, the two sides have adopted the terms pro-choice and pro-life.  More recently we have seen people attempt to distinguish between pro-abortion and pro-choice and likewise anti-abortion and pro-life.  I’ve generally tried to stay out of these debates, because I think they are unproductive. Read the rest of this entry »

I hadn’t planned to comment upon Obama’s speech at Notre Dame.  I had figured he wouldn’t touch abortion with a 10′ pole and was proved wrong, but other than that, there wasn’t a whole lot that was interesting.  For whatever reason people seem surprised that he didn’t say he was conforming his views on life to Evangelium Vitae and then managed to be outraged because he didn’t.  His concession that conscience rights of health care worker were important didn’t seem to make a difference and was deemed wholly insufficient by those that had no intention of being contented.

The more interesting thing is the scorn and derision that continues to be heaped upon the student body of Notre Dame.  There were a number of people that were convinced that Obama’s presence was an affront to pro-life principles.  A number of people including large swathes of the student body did not share this view.  For this, they were considered the enemy, even if they actually were pro-life.  After several weeks of protesters on campus seeking photo-ops for their fund raising efforts and claiming that allowing Obama speak was to support abortion, it is little wonder that the pro-life interrupter was greeted like the Code Pink protesters at the Republican convention.  A funny thing happens when people keep insisting that you are the enemy: before long you start to think that people think you are the enemy.

Just to make the record clear, I think Speaker Pelosi’s complicity if not outright endorsement of the torture regime is a good argument for her removal from the Democratic leadership.  One can find information on Pelosi and torture from various places, but here is as decent a place to start as any.  To reiterate, I’m not supportive of charging those involved in implementing the torture regime.  There should however be political consequences, and they should be bold.  Removing Speaker Pelosi from the leadership would be a good start.

For those uninitiated, I am a former Republican.  This does not mean I am a conservative and not a Republican, in popular parlance.  I stopped calling myself a conservative a couple of years ago, because the word became mostly associated with beliefs I didn’t hold.  I stopped really considering myself a conservative about a year ago.  Whatever conservatism in America is today, I’m not it.  In this dichotomous world, people are prone to label me liberal.  I guess there is nothing wrong with being a liberal, but I don’t consider myself one.  I consider myself to have a rightward disposition.  Being one of the ones that left, I figured I might as well advise the GOP on how to get back into the game.  Take it for it’s worth. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m not sure I can officially say we didn’t celebrate Mother’s Day this year, but we didn’t do anything for it either.  This is getting to be a more common occurrence at our household.  This past Christmas was the least enjoyable for me, at least since childhood.  I’m to the point where I would like to stay home (rather than travel) and go to mass on Christmas Day at my parish.  If any family are in town, we can celebrate together, but otherwise we’ll celebrate as a family and possibly with some friends whose extended families are also far away. Read the rest of this entry »

I had a second introduction of sorts to the idea of free range kids over the weekend.  Writing in Salon, Lenore Skenazy discusses how we as a society are overly protective of our children.  My first introduction was via a link a commenter at Front Porch Republic gave to her blog, suggesting the two blogs get together for a play date.  Lenore Skenazy’s claim to fame is a column she wrote a couple years ago about allowing her 9-year-old son to ride the subway home by himself.  For allowing this, she was deemed by many to be a grossly irresponsible mother. Read the rest of this entry »

There has been an interesting back and forth between The American Scene and The League of Ordinary Gentleman on the topic of education.  I have some loosely held, strong opinions on the topic of education.  What this means is that my mind is amenable to being changed on the topic.  So far the primary things discussed have been marginal pay, unions, autonomy, and school choice. Read the rest of this entry »

A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. The bomb will go off on the 2000th beat of the heart of terrorist’s unborn child. Do you order the abortion and save 1,000,000 people?

One of the more common reasons given by converts to the Catholic Church for their conversion is that they can have a living authority.  They are no longer burdened with being an expert on every theological nuance for fear of hell.  In particular, those arising from the fundamentalist, pentecostal, and new church strains enjoy this comfort having come from places where traditional teachings traced themselves less than 200 years and more often less than 70 years from leaders widely dispersed and having weak communion.  And while one can certainly trace this back to the Enlightenment, our present self-esteem culture could just as easily be blamed.   What many folks of course find is that once the Tiber is crossed they are amongst people that have drank heavily of that same culture.   One of the biggest issues today within the Church and within the broader society is the feeling that one’s personal opinion is important. Read the rest of this entry »

Update:  For those interersted, Commonweal has created a transcript of the remarks under question.

Many have been outraged at Father Sirico of the infamous Acton Institute giving his blessing to Torture on EWTN.  (See the 7:55 mark for the remarks on torture, euphemistically called enhanced interogation.)  The 9:45 mark features joking about waterboarding.  We also learn that one must be a pacifist to oppose “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

EWTN’s website is a mixed bag on this issue.  Here, we see torture improperly addressed.

First of all, the first quote from the Catechism refers to those who perpetrate crime by kidnapping or hostage taking and then torture their victims. Second, I am not certain, but it occurs to me that the enemies of the state, or people who have already perpetrated heinous crimes against the innocent, are already people who are despicable, so if they refuse to cooperate with a just government, is torturing them a sin? I cannot answer that, but it is clear that without all the facts, nobody can suggest that torture is intrinsically evil.

Here, EWTN addresses it properly more properly.  I would read the which clause as descriptively rather than restrictively.

David, Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions,to punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or to satisfy hatred is contrary to the respect for a person and for human dignity, and is a sin against the 5th. Commandment.

I do not receive EWTN, so I cannot offer comprehensive commentary on their programming.  I am apprehensive of people treating EWTN as an alternative magisterium.

Nothing stirs the spirits of anti-family forces like the marriage of young adults.  No, I’m not speaking of teen marriage, a taboo bridge we’d crossed long ago.  I was half tempted to write “…the marriage of people before middle age,” but that would have been too provocative by half.  For all the talk of Humana Vitae of bringing others into the sex act, it seems anymore others are being brought into the sex act to create fertility rather than obfuscate it.

Bringing about this ire seems to be a rather innocuous op-ed in the Wash Post stating the obvious.  The obvious is that making a family has taken a backseat to other needs.  These other needs turn out not to be all that important in making a marriage last.  Peter Suderman over at the American Scene can manage to concede, “So for those who want children, there might be some very small benefit to early marriage.”  Mr. Gobry, also writing at the American Scene, feels the need to defend his lifestyle choice of marrying young without being able to bring himself to state that some choices are better than others.  To wit, “I think people should get married whenever the hell they want.  Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks and all that.”  And one wonders why liberal catholics have no difficulty seeing erecting a firewall at gay marriage as the arbitrary and ultimately impotent act it is. 

The thing is that one needn’t be Catholic to consider ingratiating society to Peter Pan Syndrome is destructive.  Every society that has managed to persist on earth has very strong traditions and taboos regarding the bringing forth and forming of children.  As we cavalierly abandon those, I’m afraid we are going to regret the society that forms.

Writing elsewhere Policraticus said,

In fact, the three [contributors of Vox Nova] who did vote for Obama were quite clear of their reasons, disavowing his abortion policies and hoping for a reduction in the number of abortions by way of his social policies.  It is quite clear to me retrospectively that these members of Vox Nova made a poor judgment and were not correct in their predictions.

At this point, a brief retrospective of that decision seems appropriate.  I can only think of one contributor off hand though that thought Obama’s election might lead to a reduction in abortion.  Maybe there were two.  I did not have that view though, and I thought I had made that clear.  If I remember correctly, Policraticus declined to vote in protest.

My opinion was that in choosing between the election of John McCain and Barack Obama, the difference in advancement or decline of abortion policy would be trivial.  As of today, the trivial gains of Bush have been repealed and no real advancement in the pro-abortion agenda has been made.  As I stated in a variety of ways, the election was about the issues placed before us, and not the issues that we desired to be placed before us.  In fairness, our nation was probably better for the fact that abortion wasn’t placed before us as an issue, because we would have most likely lost horribly.  (See South Dakota at the local level.)  This wasn’t the Miss America pageant where points are awarded for what we desire absent any connection to reality.  Regrettably the pro-life movement has been reduced to throwing temper tantrums in the absence of a real agenda.  They have cocooned themselves into believing that they are the only ones that care.  Anyone that cares about health care, immigration, war, or even just how they are going to put food on the table and shelter over their heads isn’t just someone that is wrong about priorities, but a person that doesn’t care about the unborn.  There are lessons to be learned, and I’m afraid that they aren’t being learned.

That will be $4,800.  What will be $4,800?  An hour of my time.  You believe that is too much?  Well, you have already taken 30 seconds of my time.  Give me my $40 you owe, and I will be on my way.  I do have to warn you though.  If I’m not fairly compensated, I will just blog somewhere else.  You see highly skilled people like myself compete in a global marketplace.  I’m sure East Turkmenistan, Ivory Coast, Peru, or even Cuba would be more than happy to have my skills and those of other highly skilled professionals like myself.  My kids have to eat too.  I’m sorry that you aren’t as fortunate as I am, but the free market says I’m worth $10,000,000 per year. Read the rest of this entry »

One hesitates to write this post.  I could generalize it so as not to refer to anyone specifically and thus be accused of erecting a straw-man.  Lord knows I’ll be accused of persisting in animosity that never existed in the first place.  If we are to change the culture however, we must address the real problems and people’s willful blindness to them.  And before I get much further, let me offer a sympathetic voice by saying that the worst thing about having children is they remind you of every fault you have and yet still manage to find ways of having their own faults.  One doesn’t comment on the raising of the next generation because the task is easy and readily accessible.  One comments because the costs of failure are so terrible. Read the rest of this entry »

In my post on Iowa discovering same sex marriage, I gave credit to the adoption industry for causing a further reduction in the recognition of the intrinsic relationship between biological parents and children.  Some have taken that statement to be by logical extension a condemnation of adoption.  I believe that all efforts should be taken so that a child can remain with his birth mother or father.  I do not believe adoption is value neutral.  Such is not to say that adoption cannot be an improvement over the present situation. Read the rest of this entry »

As a cultural observer, I am quite dismayed at the ruling in Iowa.  Going through the ruling though, there are parts that are difficult to disagree with from a cultural perspective.

[Plaintiffs] also submitted evidence to show that most scientific research has repudiated the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents or biological parents to grow into well-adjusted adults.

Take this beyond gay marriage.  Society really does no longer believe in a special and sacred bond and trust between a child and their biological mother and father.  Thank you adoption industry.  Thank you divorce industry.

Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons.  Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples.  Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples.  Society benefits, for example, from providing same sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.

 For those keeping score at home, marriage is an honorific given by one person to another noting their love and commitment.  Children are not intrinsic to a particular family but commodities that are acquired through procreation, divorce, or adoption.

Oh, and as a note to same sex couples, Iowa does have common law marriage, so you may already be married, even if you didn’t think you would be.

A minor detail of the Notre Dame controversy has been various organizations and people springing up claiming to speak for the whole.  For example, ND Response was organized to protest the visit.  My second or third thought on this was “Who made them representatives?”  Then I thought about it some more, and I thought of  “Catholics for Sebelius.”  Thinking some more, I thought about “Catholics Against Biden.”  The more I thought about it, the more kept coming up with examples.  Breaking outside religious examples, every campaign features front groups with catchy sounding names that imply they are representative of someone other than just themselves.  It is so common place that I see people say Vox Nova believes or Vox Nova says when we have explicitly stated many times that Vox Nova doesn’t take corporate positions and won’t be for the foreseeable future.

I ain’t here to beat anybody up.  This is a cultural trend.  It has been happening for a while.  At some point the priesthood of all believers morphed into the magisterium of all believers.  A so common believe is that since I’m a member I can speak on behalf of.  I’m still somewhat surprised when I hear in casual conversation an organization belief is stated and the reply will be, “Well, I don’t think you have to believe that.”  Such isn’t a statement of the veracity of the organizational belief but rather a dismissal of the organization’s authority.

In the case of Notre Dame, there is a speaker for Notre Dame and he is Fr. Jenkins.  Likewise, I’m sure there is some Student Senate President or something similar that can claim authority to speak on behalf of the student body.  Don’t get me wrong, whoever is the head of the pro-life student group on campus, I also believe he has the authority to speak on behalf of that organization.  But we also have a number of groups that try to claim some sort of authority that are little more than interlopers.  There’s nothing wrong in principle with being an interloper; being an interloper just leads to less respect going into the game, so they try to avoid being identified as such.  As for me, I just speak for myself.

Having been chided to address Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama on the merits I will do so.  My instinct is that this will be a massive waste of my time, but we shall see.  A common current of the opposition is the claim that the offer is honoring President Obama.  Stated in various ways is the belief that offering this platform is an affirmation of everything Obama has ever said and done, most significantly his recent actions with regard to abortion and ESCR.  Complimentary to this, is the belief that his views are so beyond the pale so as to not merit recognition in civilized society.

Recognizing this, we choose our measure.  Some will argue intrinsic evil (a concept many people mistakenly think means really bad grave evil) should be used as an absolute measure.  As MM has pointed out, if that is the measure, then torture is on the table as well as other issues.  Some proponents would argue that this is fine.  The practical effect of making inelligible most men we call leaders seems to be feature and not a defect.  There is another measure that one could use and it is relativistic, specifically popular support.  In this case context is important.  As someone will no doubt be prone to remind, Pope Benedict has often warned about the dangers of relativism.  He is however speaking of philosophical relativism, not political relativism.  Politics, by definition, is the weighing of relative goods to produce some goal like justice or the commonweal.  While it is tempting to believe that the scourge of abortion will be ended by exposition of the truth - a Platonic hope so to speak that men do evil because they do not know truth – we moderns recognize our knowledge of right and wrong and our choice to choose it.  Think the penitential rite, “I have sinned throught my own fault…”

So what is the relativistic standard I propose?  It is to meet people where they are at.  It is to recognize that regardless of one’s opinions, the President of the United States, whoever he or she is, is not a minority or fringe figure.  As I stated in various ways prior to the election, if you believe that the choices placed before you (the two candidates with any chance of being elected) are routinely so evil so as to not offer you a choice, then your obligation is greater than mere protest.  No one holds the Amish responsible for abortion in this country or the war in Iraq.  If you desire the peace of not being a part of the world then monastic solicitude may be for you.  I don’t offer it as an insult.  Monastics provide a valuable witness, a witness I wish were more present in this country.  We also need evangelists in the culture at large.  The goal is conversion of a people.  That movement of wills is not merely exposition, although exposition does have real value.  That movement of wills is also the conditioning of society to recognize and choose good.  Rome was not built in a day.  Even the monastics haven’t achieved heaven on earth.   And no progress can be made until we start looking to advance the good.

To the perpetually offended: grow up already.  Really.

Regrettably, or fortunately depending on your view, I have been rather busy lately and haven’t been frequently posting.  I feel I cannot let pass the selection of Gov. Sebelius for Sec. of HHS without comment.  Several Catholics have disappointingly offered their endorsement for her nomination.  On this point I believe they are mistaken.

The defense against her abortion advocacy is little more than a series of non sequiturs.  Sebelius has identified herself and been identified with the pro-choice community for a while.  She has embraced George Tiller, a notorious abortionist.  While seeking to reduce teenage pregnancy and seeking to improve adoption services are of value and do merit consideration in a comprehensive approach, they do not mitigate against open advocacy for abortion.  One would be tempted to dismiss the issue except HHS has a profound affect upon abortion and family services more generally. 

But most importantly, this offer of support is wholly unnecessary.    No one had any expectations that Mother Teresa would be nominated for HHS.  ”It could be worse” is no way to go through life, not that the endorsers seem to be making anything near as guarded of an endorsement.  Even if you are personally thrilled that Sebelius was chosen, there are plenty of good reasons to lay low and keep your mouth shout.  I can appreciate that one isn’t likely to stop any nominee given the make up of the Senate.   And perhaps there is an argument to be made that gross sychophancy puts one in a position to get concessions later on.  I more inclined to the belief that the squeaky wheel gets the greese.  I’m inclined to believe that those that lay down will be walked over.

While worthy of its own post, let me offer a brief comment on the various interactions between Sebelius and her bishop.  While recognizing a bishop’s right to find conduct that makes one unworthy to be offered communion, in the specific case of politicians I believe they should be addressed by the penal canons, specifically 1369.  In particular, there seems to be the expectation that an injuction against receiving communion should be universally recognized, and the application of 915 does not address that as it is not a penal canal whereas the penal penalities are universally recognized.  With politicians, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people, making the argument of an inability to be expedient moot.  We are also dealing with a class that is generally not stable in a particular church or in many cases a diocese.  (I’m in the minority in believing that one should generally abstain from communion when outside one’s parish.  One isn’t obligated to have weekly communion.)  Finally, we are dealing with a class with enough celebrity so as to be recognized widely.

Naturally, CNA’s server has crashed as people around the country and world go look to see Archbishop Chaput’s statement on Obama.  Zenit has his full remarks and their site currently isn’t down, although that could obviously change.  The controversial remarks are as follows Read the rest of this entry »

With the selection of “orthodox”, “ultra conservative”, etc., Timothy Dolan as archbishop of New York, it has become abundantly clear we have reached a crisis of language in ecclesial affairs.  Certainly I won’t be the one to question his bonafides in either regard, but if this is how we are going to describe ecclesial appointments for the next decade or so, then they all are going to be “orthodox” and “ultra conservative.”  Unfortunately, none of this is really fair to Archbishop Dolan.

The more secular wing of Catholicism seems to be waiting for the choice that affirms a woman’s control of her reproduction is key to her achieving humanity and salvation is found through self-actualization, i.e. if having sex with people of the same gender brings you joy then God is happy too.  I suppose through such a lens, Archbishop Dolan looks orthodox.  In regards to feminity, this view of feminism has never really taken hold in the Catholic Church as a whole although it has seen some fits in the US and Canada.  In regards to homosexuality, whatever path is taken toward liberalization – a presumption at this point – such liberalization won’t take place based on the pop-psychology that views all choices solely based on the interests of the individual rather than the family (larger than nuclear) and society.  (Ditto divorce.)  The 60s are over.  In so much as the sexual revolution has been affirmed, it has been done so outside the Church.

As for what to expect from a Dolan regime, I would expect a relatively parochial one.  Expect competent administration.  Expect those willing to work for the advancement of the diocese to advance and those more consumed with their own interests to be marginalized.  Daniel Maguire is a fine example of the latter.  As for what the online community seems consumed, I wouldn’t anticipate Dolan taking a public leadership role in addressing politicians that support abortion, specifically denying them communion.  He hasn’t to date.  With politicians and with clergy, he is likely to take the attitude of working with what he has rather than trying to remake either in his own image.   So, perhaps conservative is the proper term after all.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/holy.name.fire.2.926335.html

The fire broke out around 5:30 a.m. at the cathedral at 735 N. State St., which just reopened in November after a series of renovations. The cathedral is a city landmark and the seat of the Chicago Archdiocese.

Flames shot throught the roof through a void space between the roof and the ceiling, around the middle portion of the church sanctuary. The fire was burning right above the area with the altar, where past cardinals’ hats and other artifacts are kept.

News comes of his passing today.  As a father with young children, I offer my prayers and I hope you will offer yours for his widow Amy Welborn and their children.  Archangel Michael, please intercede on behalf of your namesake and watch over him.

Saint Michael the Archangel, Powerful Spirit of Truth
Take my hand and lead me to Divine Truth.
Protect me from all the evil in the world.
Guard me and compensate for all my weaknesses.
Change, bless, and restore the consquences of all my mistakes.
Carry me on the wings of your love and might to the
Throne of God and pray to Him with me forever.
Amen.

The Los Angeles Times just got punked. Its description of the European Parliament’s report is not accurate. (Point of disclosure: I served as an expert witness in hearings leading to the report.) But that’s the least of its problems. It misses the difference between the renditions program, which has been around since the Bush 41 Administration at least (and arguably in some form even in the Reagan Administration) and the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43 and clearly shut down under an executive order issued by President Obama in his first week.

There are two fundamental distinctions between the programs. The extraordinary renditions program involved the operation of long-term detention facilities either by the CIA or by a cooperating host government together with the CIA, in which prisoners were held outside of the criminal justice system and otherwise unaccountable under law for extended periods of time. A central feature of this program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy.

- Scott Horton, Harpers

Deal Hudson of Inside Catholic addresses a topic that is sure to get some more play in the coming weeks.  Over the past half dozen years, there has been a growing call to reinstitute the fairness doctrine and also to bring back into focus the public part of the public air ways.   In preparation for this fight, there is a bit of a internicine  split with the USCCB (alluded to here and also noted by Mr. Hudson above) being generally supportive and the Catholic Radio Association offering opposition.  Depending on what interest group was being affected, there has been a tendency to think that the proposed regulations are about them.  For example, people will say that the Fairness Doctrine would take Rush Limbaugh off the air.  In my opinion – that and $3 will get you a coffee at Starbucks – he would be as likely to be affected as the odds the FCC will cause The Batchelor to be taken off the air.  Admittedly, neither would be a great loss.  In the case of Catholic media, we are to believe that they are obviously the ones being targeted. Read the rest of this entry »

In the midst of confusion surrounding Doug Kmiec’s missive at Commonweal, I thought I would offer as a public service a guide to help people know if they might be running a right wing hate site.  Admittedly this confusion seems to be of the sort as finding impropriety at a brothel, but I will act in good faith.  This is not intended to be comprehensive, nor is it a checklist.

1. Your blog/site typically referred to Obama supporters as ultimately wanting to increase the rate of abortion.   The supporters were either stupid or devious.
2. Your blog/site uncritically accepted as gospel that support of Obama were grounds for refusal of communion in your milder moments or outright excommunication except for those spineless bishops in your less tender moments, unless the Obama supporter were irredeemable stupid.
3. Your blog/site continually speculated that a person’s stated reason(s) for supporting Obama were impossible to believe and substituted theories of personal corruption being more likely, no matter how poorly researched or plausible.
4. You or your blog/site engaged in campaign to deny employment and or speaking opportunities, even grossly speculative employment like an ambassadorship raised on a blog post for crying out loud, for the sin of having publicly stated the election of Obama would be preferred over McCain.
5. The idea that someone disagreed with you over who to support for the President leads primarily to a debate over whether that person was stupid or evil.