Human Integration

Some people who deny that the human fetus is the subject of human rights try to make their case by pointing to brain death. They argue that the end of life is defined by the lack of brain activity, and hence the beginning of life requires brain activity, which de facto requires the presence of a brain, which is obviously not the case for the human embryo in the first weeks of its existence.

Neurobiology and anatomy professor Dr. Maureen Condic superbly dissects this argument in her article, "Life: Defining the Beginning by the End." She demonstrates that what is relevant in brain death is the dis-integration of the human being. That is, with the onset of brain death, the human organism is no longer a single, unified, self-directed, integrated organism, but simply a number of organs and organ systems co-habitating. It is not the loss of brain activity per se which is crucial, but rather the implication of that loss for the integration of the human. Death, Condic shows, is defined by the loss of integration; brain death merely indicates this disintegration.

Turning to the embryo, Condic demonstrates that although there is no brain, the embryo is in fact a single, unified, self-directed, integrated organism, and as such is morally and ontologically equivalent to an adult human being. The lack of a brain is irrevelant, in that the function of the brain -- to integrate various biological systems into a whole (human) being -- is found in the early embryo.

This really is a great article.

The Population of Hell

That's the title of this article in May's First Things by Avery Cardinal Dulles. Dulles' piece, which was discussed and summarized on a number of blogs when this issue appeared a month ago, essentially provides an overview of the question of whether or not any human beings are in hell. Of course, Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar's thesis that we can hope (as opposed to know) that no human being actually ends up in hell is discussed, and the cardinal basically agrees with von Balthasar, as do I, as I have indicated on numerous occasions on this and other blogs.

Tangentially, this issue is mentioned by Mario Derksen, who introduces a discussion on the question by stating, "Could Hell Be Empty? Not a chance! But believe it or not, some people actually propose this as an acceptable theory, most notably the infamous modernist Hans Urs von Balthasar, whom John Paul II tried to make a cardinal, but who died just before he got the red hat."

Mario and I briefly discussed von Balthasar in the context of the same question when Fr. Regis Scanlon wrote an article in New Oxford Review in 1999, criticizing von B's view. In my discussion with Mario, I tried to get him to define precisely what a modernist is, in light of his contention that von B falls under the category. Mario didn't then, and he still does not. Too bad.

Evangelical dissent on the Holy Land

James Kennedy's Knox Theological Seminary recently released an open letter Evangelicals and others on "The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel," signed by a large number of Evangelical leaders and scholars. The opening paragraph explains the reason for the letter:

Recently a number of leaders in the Protestant community of the United States have urged the endorsement of far-reaching and unilateral political commitments to the people and land of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, citing Holy Scripture as the basis for those commitments. To strengthen their endorsement, several of these leaders have also insisted that they speak on behalf of the seventy million people who constitute the American evangelical community.

The signatories of this, letter, however, do not agree with this prior statement, and they are compelled to write this open letter:

At the heart of the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God's alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel. Second, others are teaching that the Bible's promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or "Holy Land," perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible's teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.

The letter makes for interesting reading. I, for one, erroneously believed that most Evangelicals were of the same mind on the political question of Israel, but this letter demonstrates my error.

Animal Rights

I've been reading some books of late which deal with philosophical anthropology (what is man, from a philosophical perspective), with the issue of animal rights in the background. One of the more interesting and technical discussions is found in Evolution, Animal 'Rights,' and the Environment by James B. Reichmann, SJ. Reichmann, who wrote a more general Philosophy of the Human Person in the 80's, devotes this volume to a consideration of what makes human beings different from other creatures. In the process he treats the question of whether we differ from other animals in kind or in degree; that is, whether other animals share the same things we do, but only to a lesser degree, or whether we are essentially and different from other creatures.

In order to treat this issue in the depth he desires, Reichmann necessarily enters into an extended discussion of evolutionary theory. He does so because many of those who argue that we do not differ essentially from other animals base their case on the "fact" that we descended from other animals, and hence we logically cannot differ in essence from other creatures. (I put "fact" in quotes only because I am currently agnostic on the origins of our bodies.) Or rather, he demonstrates how strict Darwinistic evolutionary theory requires that one view humans and other animals as essentially the same, thus meaning that we humans possess no rights which can be denied to at least some other creatures.

Even more, Reichmann refers to the views of some ethicists and philosophers who argue that nonsentient and inanimate beings (i.e. plants and trees) may have rights! Taking up the work of Tom Regan, Reichmann states,

After meticulously developing his case for animal rights, and grounding it on what he chooses to call "the inherent value of the animal," and initially limiting his argument to include only those animals that might be said to be subjects-of-a-life, Regan now grants the possibility that other living things, including animals who are not-subjects-of-a-life, and even some nonliving things, might truly possess rights.

Unbelieveable, no? Yet we cannot flippantly dismiss such notions; if we do, we risk discovering later that they have gained stature in our society, precisely they were so casually dismissed.

Fr. Reichmann's text is a work devoted to demonstrating the intellectual case against such ridiculous arguments. If this is a topic which interests you, I'd highly recommend this book.

new journal

There's a new journal out from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society. Here's its mission:

The New Atlantis is an effort to clarify the nation’s moral and political understanding of all areas of technology—from stem cells to hydrogen cells to weapons of mass destruction. We hope to make sense of the larger questions surrounding technology and human nature, and the practical questions of governing and regulating science—especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep.

We also hope to stir things up—to challenge policymakers who know too little about science, and to push scientists who often fail to think seriously or deeply about the ethical and social implications of their work.

The magazine has two basic sections: a series of critical essays and in-depth reporting pieces, and an ongoing survey of technology and society that provides brief commentary on the major scientific advances and political debates as they happen.

This much seems clear: Technology will be central to the future of American life and American politics. It will create new political divides and new moral quandaries. It will force liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, to rethink their guiding principles and political vision. The New Atlantis hopes to be at the center of redefining politics for the technological age—by helping scientists, policymakers, and citizens deal more wisely and more creatively with the promise and perils of our nation’s future.

The lead article in the premier issue is by Leon Kass, president of the National Bio-Ethics Council, entitled "Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls," and it is one of many excellent articles.

This is a journal which has great promise, and happily, it is available online.

I can't believe this

According to this Zenit story, there is already a good deal of controversy developing over Mel Gibson's movie on the Passion of Jesus Christ. The story refers to a column by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who defends Gibson and the movie, noting that critics should want until the movie is actually made before they criticize it.

The controversy concerns the portrayal of Christ's passion viz. Jews. Apparently, some scholars and others are worried that "stereotypical" anti-Semitic elements will be present in the film. The Zenit story even tells of an 18-page paper put out by a group of Catholic and Jewish scholars who complain that "a graphic movie presentation of the crucifixion could reawaken the very anti-Semitic attitudes that we have devoted our careers to combating."

Please. Gibson has made it clear that he is being faithful to the Gospel accounts of the Passion. If that is the case, and the movie is little more than a visual version of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then maybe these scholars should request that the gospels not be read, for fear of reawakening those anti-Semitic attitudes.

By the way, this is the same group of scholars who issued a paper last summer stating that it was inappropriate to seek the conversion of Jews to Christianity.

Rosarium

I recently (finally) finished reading the Holy Father's letter on the Rosary, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, which he promulgated last October at the beginning of the 25th year of his pontificate.

I have to say, it is a terrific document... JPII demonstrates the Christocentric nature of the Rosary, showing how the Rosary is a prayer by which we come closer to Jesus.

I have to confess, my use of the Rosary in my prayer life is very, very inconsistent. But this letter made clear to me how the Rosary can help my conform myself to Jesus Christ, and as such, I'm going to make a greater effort to make it a part of my prayer life.

I'd highly recommend reading this document, regardless of what Christian community you belong to.

sorry about the delay...

I've been out of town, and I've also been struggling a bit with what direction I want to take this blog... there are plenty of people out there who provide "instant punditry" (see my links to the left), and I want to provide something a bit different.

I hope to post more frequently now... we'll see what happens.

This is getting very tiresome...

Joel Engel writes today about Danny Glover and a threatened boycott of MCI because Glover -- the pitchman for the company -- supports Fidel Castro. Engel refers to an AP story in which Glover indicates that "the outcry directed at outspoken celebrities like himself and Sean Penn indicates that the country is teetering on the precipice of McCarthyism" (Engel's words).

Come onnnn, Glover... give me a break. If I, as a citizen and consumer in this country, decide that I don't want to do business with MCI -- for whatever reason -- that's my right as a citizen! How can the free actions of citizens in any way be called McCarthyism or censorship, for heaven's sake? Those things are imposed by the government not citizens or groups of citizens! Talk about stupid... if I think Glover has his head up is rear-end on politics, I can demonstrate that by chosing whom I do business with. That's America, helloooo!

Allow me to quote Wallace Shawn's character, Vizzini, in The Princess Bride: "Morons."

Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?

That's the title of Carl Olson's new book, which I'm reading right now.

Olson goes into serious detail in exploring the theological sources of the doctrine of the Rapture, and in so doing, he's really opening my eyes to things about Fundamentalism which I've never understood before, things like their particularly strong view of separating oneself from the world, their strong stance in favor of Israel on theological bases, and their view of the Rapture, of course. He does a great job of explaning dispensationalism and millenarianism along the way.

Truly a great book, which goes beyond the norm in terms of apologetics texts available today.

Project Aims to Promote Dialogue Between Faith and Science

That's the title of this Zenit story, which explains a new initiative undertaken by the Pontifical Council for Culture, the Templeton Foundation, and three pontifical universities (the Lateran University, the Gregorian University and the Regina Apostolorum Athenaeum) to promote dialogue between faith and science. Paul Cardinal Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, spoke of the project in a press conference today, according to the article:

"The Church needs science, and science needs religion," the cardinal added. "Science can purify religion of the error of superstition. As a way of knowing the truth, the Church cannot do without science."

"Religion, for its part, can purify science of the idolatry of the scientific spirit and false absolutes," he added. What is more, science needs to "recover its sapiential dimension."

Hmm... interesting...

You know who started Islam?

No, it wasn't Muhammad, at least not ultimately. It was....

the Vatican! Yes, the Vatican!

You see, since the end of the third century, the Vatican has been pining for control of Jerusalem. In order to take over the Holy City, the pontiffs devised a nefarious plan to use Arab manpower to form an army to crush the Jews and conquer Jerusalem. Besides that, these armies were used to slaughter the real Christians who were living in small communities in Africa.

Don't believe me? Hey, I've got a reputable source... Jack Chick! You see, I just read Jack's special message from the May/June 2003 issue of "Battle Cry," in which our scholar explains the great influence of that "tiny little speck" that is Vatican City. In this message, he writes,

One afternoon in my office, ex-Jesuit Alberto Rivera told me how Jesuit General Augustine Bea, father confessor to Pope Pius XII, explained how the Vatican started Islam. Bea was briefing a group of Jesuits like Dr. Rivera, who were under Extreme Oath and Induction. It was such a fascinating story that we published it in the Crusaders Comic, "The Prophet".

So, being the inquisitive sort I am, I read "The Prophet," and was astounded by the history it details, a history hidden and unknown to most of humanity.

But now it has been laid bare! And the Whore of Babylon that is the Vatican is revealed for the satanic creation that it is! Read... if you dare!

He's on again

Bill Cork had a terrific post recently on the relationship between Catholics and Evangelicals, and how a sloppy form of Catholic apologetics does more harm than good in this relationship.

Check it out.

Church offers free medical care to needy Muslims in Indonesia

That's the title of this EWTNews story, which tells how poors Muslims in the eastern Indonesia diocese of Manado "will be given free medical treatment at hospitals and health centers run by local Christians, both Catholic and Protestant."

I'd love to post something from the other direction (i.e. Muslims doing something similar for Christians). Does anyone have any examples?

Some questions

Joel Engel asks some questions from the back of the class. They are all good, but there are three near the end that are excellent:

With the Dixie Chicks posing nude on a magazine cover to atone for their intemperate remarks, don't we wish that Shania Twain had opened her mouth instead?

Okay, so maybe it's off-color, but it still got a chuckle out of me.

Why is a plausible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda invisible to the same people who can quickly connect the dots between the president and a worldwide conspiracy of oil and defense interests?

Great question.

Aren't critics of the speed with which Iraq's multilateral government is progressing forgetting that our own Constitutional Convention came years after the fighting ended; that it was preceded by weeks of jockeying over the seating of delegates; and that it took months of fractious debate before the long ratification process began? Don't they know that if George Washington hadn't rejected the kingship suggested to him years before, there wouldn't now be a First Amendment to misinterpret?

Yes, Joel, they are forgetting, because their memory doesn't go back beyond the sixties.

Anti-Catholicism





In reading the book I referred to last week, The New Anti-Catholicism by Philip Jenkins, I came across reference to this cartoon from 1875 by Thomas Nast (see a larger [over 1 MB] version here).

The cartoon is called "The American River Ganges," and was published in Harper's Weekly in the September 30, 1871 edition. Here is an explanation of the cartoon:

By the middle of the nineteenth century, large numbers of Catholic children had withdrawn from the significantly Protestant American public schools to attend newly organized Roman Catholic schools. With a large and influential Irish Catholic constituency, the powerful New York City Democratic machine centered at Tammany Hall persuaded the Democratic state legislature to provide public support for the Irish schools. A firestorm of controversy ensued, especially in states like Ohio and Illinois,where the Catholic hierarchy had made similar requests. The controversy re-ignited smouldering Republican nativism, a policy of protecting the interests of indigenous residents against immigrants; and it suddenly became attractive as a vote-getter since that Reconstruction issues appeared to have been resolved. Tammany politicians are shown dropping little children into the “American River Ganges,” infested with crocodilian bishops. The American flag flies upside down, the universal signal of distress, from the ruins of a public school. Linking Roman Catholicism to the Ganges, the sacred river of Hinduism, suggested its exotic un-Americanism and also linked it with what Americans then considered a primitive and fanatical religion.

Interestingly, Nast would make the anti-Catholic nature of the cartoon even stronger four years later:



(A very large of this version is found at the Harper's website here.)

Continued...

Anti-Catholicism, Cont'd



Harper's explains both versions, noting the differences in the later one:

For the 1875 version, Nast replaced Tweed and his associates with generic political thugs (who grab the schoolchildren and lead Miss Columbia to the gallows), and switched the label on the Vatican from "Tammany Hall" to "The Political Roman Catholic Church." In both instances, Nast's cartoon was accompanied by articles written by Eugene Lawrence, "The Priests and the Children" (1871) and "The Common Schools and Their Foes" (1875), in which the Catholic hierarchy is bitterly assailed for its alleged assault on the public school system.

Can Healthcare Providers be compelled to offer certain services?

Many of the extremists in the pro-abortion movement are outraged at the fact that Catholic hospitals (which constitute a large percentage of American hospitals) refuse to offer abortions, contraception, etc. In many cases they are working to legally compel such institutions to offer these "treatments."

Excuse me? On what basis can the provider of goods be compelled to offer a service? While the law disallows discrimination in who is served, there is no moral or legal basis I know of to force a company to offer a particular good or service. Do I have the right to walk into my local gas station and demand that they sell hard-core pornography? Of course not. And it doesn't matter if they are the only establishment in the area that might offer such "goods"... if they don't want to, they don't have to.

Nor should Catholic hospitals be forced to offer abortions, etc.

The Blaine Amendment

Ever heard of the Blaine Amendment? I hadn't, until just recently.

James G. Blaine was the Speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875, a Senator, and he sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1876, 1880, and 1884 before winning the nomination (and losing the election) in 1888. As Speaker in 1875, he proposed an amendment to the US Constitution forbidding the use of federal funds at "sectarian" schools (primarily Catholic schools, not simply religious schools... most public schools at that time taught religion & morals, but of a Protestant persuasion. This is why the Catholic school system was initially erected).

The amendment failed, but all of the states that entered the Union afterward -- and some already in the Union -- would adopt the amendment in their state constitutions. Today, 37 of the 50 states have this amendment in their constitutions.

So what's the big deal? Let me refer to what the Becket Fund has to say:

Until recently, it has not been widely known that Blaine Amendments were passed as a direct result of the nativist, anti-Catholic bigotry that was a recurring theme in American politics during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Finally, in the Supreme Court's Mitchell v. Helms decision in 2000, the four-Justice plurality explicitly recognized that the term "pervasively sectarian" in First Amendment jurisprudence has a "shameful pedigree." Justice Breyer's dissent in this year's Zelman v. Simmons-Harris further develops the theme, and makes clear that the Court now recognizes that many of its school funding decisions rest on shaky ground.

These amendments have to go, and the Becket Fund is helping. Last week they filed a federal lawsuit "challenging a provision of South Dakota's Constitution because it 'violates federal constitutional guarantees against religion discrimination.'"

Let's hope they win.

AIDS Funding

Guest columnist Pia de Solenni has a good piece on the AIDS bill currently working its way through Congress. She discusses the tried & (not so) true means to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa (i.e. bombarding the populace with condoms, etc.), contrasting that with the success in Uganda with abstinance programs. As she says,

Uganda has provided an alternative to condom hype. In 1995, when Uganda began to address HIV/AIDS by emphasizing abstinence, the country had an infection rate of 18.5 percent. By 2000, that rate had fallen to 6.1 percent. No other country has had this success. In fact, no other country has decreased its rate of infection despite the prevalence of condom programs.

Funny, why hasn't this news been seen much in the mainstream press?

The Libertarian Question

That's the title of a piece at NRO by Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz's purpose is to explore the bearing of libertarian philosophy of the question of gay-marriage. He begins by posing the libertarian question(s):

Why should any form of adult consensual sex be illegal? What rational or compelling interest does the state have in regulating consensual adult sex? More specifically, how does the marriage of two gay men undermine my marriage? Will the fact that two married gay men live next door make me leave my wife? Hardly. So how, then, does gay marriage undermine heterosexual marriage? Why not get the state out of such matters altogether?

He then sets out to show that the libertarian mindset has difficulty finding a place for social taboos, specifically those concerning consensual sexual relations.

More importantly, Kurtz argues that in fact certain forms of consensual sexual relations do impact negatively on marriage. Although seeing a gay couple may not prompt me to divorce my wife (as the "libertarian question" puts it), Kurtz argues that what once were called "non-typical" sexual relations impact society's understanding of marriage, negatively so. At one point, Kurtz states,

But what, exactly, does the taboo on homosexuality protect? There is more than one way to approach that question, but the short answer is: The taboo on homosexuality protects marriage. Or, to look at the same problem from a slightly different angle, the institution of Western marriage, in its most traditional form, has been protected by a many-sided taboo against all sexuality outside of its confines — and against non-procreative sexuality within it. Just as the taboo on incest reduces the temptation to child abuse, the taboo on non-marital and non-reproductive sexuality helps to cement marital unions, and helps prevent acts of adultery that would tear those unions apart.

Later, he elaborates further on how gay marriage is detrimental to monogomy:

First, gay marriage threatens monogamy because homosexual couples — particularly male homosexual couples — tend to see monogamy as nonessential, even to the most loyal and committed relationships. [...] Even more powerfully, gay marriage threatens monogamy through its tendency to lead, on a slippery slope, to the legalization of polygamy and polyamory.

Kurtz thus addresses the libertarian question head on:

The libertarian asks, Just because two married gay men live next door, is that going to make me leave my wife? In a way, the answer is "Yes." For one thing, as a new generation grows up exposed to gay couples who openly define their marriages in non-monogamous terms, the concept of marriage itself will gradually change.

This is a powerful piece, well worth reading.

But...

The Libertarian Question, Cont'd

Having said that, I do take issue with Kurtz on one point. Alluding to Senator Santorum's remarks, he writes,

Unlike Sen. Santorum, I would rather accept some disruption in family stability than go back to the days when homosexuality itself was deeply tabooed. The increase in freedom and fairness is worth it.

I disagree with the concept of freedom which Kurtz implicitly holds here. He believes that the loss of the taboo of homosexuality is generally good, in that it has led to an increase in freedom. Clearly, Kurtz's view of freedom is a "freedom of indifference" as moral theologian Servais Pinckaers (and following him, George Weigel) puts it, as opposed to a "freedom for excellence."

Modernity tends to view freedom exclusively as freedom from (external) coercion; it has lost the older understanding of freedom as freedom for excellence, for virtue, etc.

The relevance is clear for those with a Christian worldview: one can be free from coercion, but still in bondage... to concupiscence and sin.

In my mind, this is one of the major defects in much modern political discourse, whether on the right or left. Whether or not the term "sin" is used ("vice" is a very acceptable alternative), the fact remains that a democratic society can be "free" in one sense, but not in another (more important) sense.

Other than this, however, I do believe that Kurtz's piece is excellent and well-worth a good read.

Beware the "Idolatry of the Market"

In this Zenit story, Pope John Paul II "says the great danger posed by the "civilization of consumption" is the so-called idolatry of the market." The story quotes the Pontiff's address to the Czech ambassador to the Vatican:

History teaches us that the journey from oppression to liberty is arduous, often marked by the lure of false forms of freedom and hollow promises of hope [...] While economic development and the accompanying social transformation have benefited many in your country, the weaker members of society, particularly the poor, the marginalized, and the sick and elderly, must be protected [...] Authentic development can never be attained solely through economic means. In fact, what has become known as the 'idolatry of the market' -- a consequence of the so-called civilization of consumption -- tends to reduce persons to things and to subordinate being to having. This seriously detracts from the dignity of the human person and makes promotion of human solidarity difficult at best. Instead, recognition of the spiritual nature of the human person and a renewed appreciation of the moral character of social and economic development must be acknowledged as prerequisites for the transformation of society into a true civilization of love.

"Our life-enhancing cause"

Back in January, Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt spoke at All Saints Church in Pasadena, California, where she spoke to "people who proudly call themselves progressive pro-choice Christians." In her speech, she spoke about our culture, a culture which she claimed "is hostile to our life-enhancing cause."

Did you read that? The president of Planned Parenthood said that American culture is hostile to her life-enhancing cause. Life-enhancing??? What is this woman smoking? Is abortion life-enhancing? If so, should there be more of it, to more greatly enhance life???

You know what else is sad? Ms. Feldt's speech is chock-full of stories of women who had an abortion because they had no where else to turn. While that may have been true at one point (although that seems doubtful), it certainly isn't true today: there are all sorts of crisis pregnancy centers available for women with unplanned pregnancies which offer real support. It's not a choice between killing a child and starvation or homelessness... there are people who will help!

W's War on Women

Since his first day in office, George W. Bush has appeased his domestic hard-right political base by pursuing a steady campaign to eliminate reproductive freedom. He has revived retrograde anti-choice policies, installed religious political extremists in key administration posts and on the federal bench, and pushed ideology rather than scientific or medical evidence in domestic and international reproductive health policy. With all these measures, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress threaten women's rights and health, not only in the U.S., but around the world. The effects will be felt first and foremost by poor women everywhere, but will ultimately touch everyone.

Brought to you by the kind folks of Planned Parenthood at their Save Roe website.

I need to throw up.

Interesting...

This item from the Media Research Center compares how USA Today and the New York Times each treat the economic situation of state and local governments: a recent headline in USA Today read, "States, localities spend at record pace," while a headline from the next day's NY Times read, "Deep Cuts Have Not Closed Deficit in Many States, Report Says."

Hmm...

Censor me? No! Censor you? Yes!

Once again thanks to Jeff Miller, I found this story from 2000 which explains how actress Susan Sarandon "added her voice to the campaign to keep radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger off TV."

Yes, that free speech champion, Susan Sarandon, at work again, fighting for the rights of all... who agree with her. And against the same who dare to believe differently than her.

Oh boy.

Thanks to this post by Jeff Miller, I just read an article by Mary Jo Anderson (contributor to Crisis Magazine) on Sean Hannity, specifically his status (or lack thereof) as a spokesman for Catholicism.

Apparently, Sean recently claimed on air that "the Church has slacked up a bit on its teaching, adopted a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy on homosexuality." Like Mary Jo, this elicites a big groan from your's truly. She goes on to describe a caller who sought to set our talk show host straight by quoting the Catechism, at which point Sean replied... [ready yourself]... "Which catechism is that?" Once the caller explains, "THE Catechism," Sean "dismissed the Catechism because, he says, he has consulted theologians on this matter and they say something different."

Oh boy.

This is why -- as Mary Jo so eloquently put it -- Catholics who live and work in the public eye "need more training than an altar boy."

Bingo.

And that's why I'm in adult faith formation :-)

New blog

In some recent comments discussions at Josh's Lutheran blog (my title, not Josh's) I've seen come great thoughts from Alan Phipps.

Thanks to Bill Cork, I'm glad to see that Alan now has a blog of his own! As he notes in his first post, he's a convert from Southern Baptist.

Go take a gander!

Which Twentieth Century Pope are you?
(from Disputations)


You are Pope John Paul II. You are a force to be
reckoned with.


Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Cool.

Jonah's right on today

In today's G-File, NRO editor Jonah Goldberg slam dunks the ridiculous claims coming from Hollywood about censorship and the (alleged) infringement of free speech rights viz. the war in Iraq. The entire column is worth reading, but to try to give a sneak-peak, here's one paragraph:

Now, I don't want to belabor this point, but there is something remarkably obvious that needs to be said. In countries where actual free speech is threatened, where fascism or Orwellian thought control are the order of the day, the victims of the backlash don't typically go on to pose naked on the cover of a magazine, mock their critics, and score exclusive primetime interviews on national TV as well as, literally, thousands of write-ups in magazines and newspapers across the country. It's just not the way it works in … hmmm I dunno, let's say, for example's sake, Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Over there people who criticized the president received different treatment. Over there, if I were to mention at the local bazaar, for instance, that Saddam Hussein dyes his mustache, I might expect a knock on the door later that evening from some men. One of them might grab my tongue with a pair of pliers and then, without anesthetic, slice my tongue off before I was carted off to jail for an unknown and unknowable period of time.

Right on, Jonah... stars who complain about the fact that a large swath of the American public don't like their views and then act on that -- e.g. the boycotting of the Dixie Chicks -- are being hypocritical: they have the right to criticize the President, but apparently no one has the right to criticize them.

Here's another good passage:

[Martin] Sheen and his defenders want to be simultaneously saluted for their "courage" to speak out while at the same time believe they there should be no risks for those who do speak out. Well, if there are no risks, where's the courage? And why should movie stars have a right to risk-free political speech when no other profession has anything close?

You got it, brother.

I like President Bush's take on this phenomenon, referring in his interview last week with Tom Brokaw to the Dixie Chicks:

Of the singing Texas trio, who have been outspoken critics of the U.S.-led war, Bush said, "The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind."

At the same time, Bush added: "They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street."

Bingo. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

France and Iraq

Today Fox News carried a story from England's The Sunday Times which details how information found in the Baghdad headquarters of the Iraqi foreign ministry indicated assistance to Iraq from France over the past couple of years. The story states, "The information, said in the files to have come partly from "friends of Iraq" at the French foreign ministry (search), kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war."

Thanks again, Jacques.

Bishop Carlson and Senator Daschle

A couple of items concerning the dustup:

UPI has an excellent commentary by Uwe Siemon-Netto. The closing paragraphs are right on the money:

Carlson is first and foremost a pastor. He will and must not tell the rest of the world what he has told Daschle, although we can assume that it did not differ from the teachings of Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, and the whole Church.

A brief statement from the bishop ends with a beautifully revealing paragraph: "Other than inviting people to pray for the Senator's conversion, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to discuss my pastoral relationship with the Senator. ... I would never break off dialogue or a pastoral relationship with anyone."

A pastor indeed!

Also interesting is this CNS piece. The article quotes Judie Brown -- never one to mince words when it comes to abortion, politics, and the church:

"I'm very proud of the courage of Bishop Carlson and I respect his privacy in this matter," she said. "He, I believe, is very upset about the fact that this was made public."

Brown said that, because she had not seen the letter, she did not want to comment on what Carlson might or might not have written to Daschle.

"I'm just going to say that [Carlson] is a very heroic bishop, who has repeatedly done everything he possibly could to be a good shepherd to Senator Daschle," she added.

Coming to Santorum's Defense

Two great articles recently, coming to Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's defense.

The first is by Stanley Kurtz, who does an excellent job of showing the actual "slippery-slope" argumentation of Santorum's AP interview.

The second is by Deal Hudson; it's his most recent e-letter. It's not online yet, but Deal asks that we forward it to anyone whom we think might benefit from it, so I'm going to post it here:

I've been in the media business long enough to have learned a thing or two about the way the system works. Sometimes I learned those lessons the hard way after being misquoted or having my statements taken out of context by an unfriendly reporter. It's like playing the old game of telephone: What you say, no matter how clearly you phrase it, is almost always jumbled and confused after being passed from person to person.

We've all been there before. And now it seems the latest victim is Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania.

Sen. Santorum, a devout Catholic with a strong pro-family voting record, has recently come under fire after he was quoted in an AP article as saying, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

On the face of it, this statement seems confusing. Is Santorum equating homosexuality with incest? What exactly does he mean here?

It's not surprising that members of the Democratic party and various homosexual activist groups have jumped all over this. Santorum's comments have been equated with Trent Lott's earlier remarks about Strom Thurmond, and some are even calling for his resignation as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. The political director of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights lobbying group, said, "Clearly, there is no compassion in his conservatism. Discriminatory remarks like this fuel prejudice that can lead to violence and other harms against the gay community."

But is Santorum really being discriminatory here? It's always a tricky business talking about homosexual activity in today's society, especially if you happen to be against it. But this isn't just a case of differing views -- Santorum's comments here were taken out of context.

The interview he gave AP was in reference to a case coming up before the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of Texas' sodomy laws. The plaintiff in the case is arguing that the state has no right to interfere in one's sexual life (in the form of anti-sodomy laws) on the grounds that it violates our constitutional right to privacy.

The question is, how far does our right to privacy extend? Legal scholars have pointed out that, if the sodomy laws are overturned on the basis of our right to privacy, then other sexual acts that are currently illegal -- like incest, bigamy, and adultery -- will have to be made legal on the same grounds. Santorum's point is not a new one, nor is it discriminatory. Really, it's just being consistent.

Reading the full transcript of the AP interview makes it even clearer that Santorum isn't "gay-bashing," but merely questioning the constitutionality of the argument for sodomy based on the right to privacy, and then extending that argument to its logical conclusion. Rather than having the Supreme Court come in, Santorum said that the people should be allowed to vote within their state as to whether they want sodomy laws, or any other kind of laws that restrict these activities.

The moral of this story is this: You can't get too philosophical with reporters. In the end, your in-depth analysis will be reduced to a 5-second sound byte, and no one will bother to understand your original point. Trust me, I've been there. Just chalk it up to experience and move on. I hope that Senator Santorum will do the same.

NYTimes Watch

America's Media Watchdog, the Media Research Center, has launched a new website: Times Watch, which is devoted to "Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times."

Check it out.

It's a little moot now, but still...

I just came across this article from February 1st by Julie Birchill in the left-leaning British paper, The Guardian. After establishing her past credentials as an anti-American, she argues in favor of the war in Iraq. Noting that "The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice," she comments on "the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists," responding to the most common arguments made against the war. In response to the fourth of the arguments she treats -- "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" -- she notes, "If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise."

Amen, sister.

See what I mean?

For the first time in decades, Iraqi Shiites are able to make a pilgrimage to their holy sites Karbala; over a million people have crowded into the town.

And what do some of them do? Protest the US! The country that enabled them to make their pilgrimage in the first place! One of them, a 25-year-old engineering student, Khudayer Abbas Musawi, said, ""Saddam Hussein was evil. And so is America. America came here not to free the Iraqi people but for oil. They came to occupy, not to liberate. The Americans removed Saddam and now the Americans should leave."

You know where Khudayer is getting these ideas? Michael Ledeen is betting on Iran, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

We'd better deal with this soon, and Ledeen lays out a strategy for using the Iranian methods against them.

Wild Win! Wild Win! Wild Win!

Last night, playing for the second consecutive night, the Minnesota Wild defeated the two-time NHL champs, the Colorado Avalanche, 3-2 in overtime in game seven of their Stanley Cup playoff series. Not only the the Wild unexpectedly win the series, but they did so by coming back from a 3-1 series deficit, winning two of the last three games on the road.

As Minneapolis (Red) Star-Tribune sports columnist Pat Reusse said, this may be the biggest upset in Minnesota pro sports history.

Awesome, baby!

Kerry on Santorum

Trying to strike while the iron is hot, Democrat Senator and Presidential candidate John Kerry today commented on Senator Rick Santorum's comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery (see this post). Kerry said, "Every day in our country, gay and lesbian Americans get up, go to work, pay their taxes, support their families and contribute to the nation they love. These comments take us backwards in America."

What is the Senator saying? That men with multiple wives don't "get up, go to work, pay their taxes, support their families and contribute to the nation they love"? What intolerance! And what about adulterers? Don't they do the same? Okay, maybe they aren't doing the best with regard to their family, but hey... if no one finds out, what's the problem?

Right?

Iraqi Information Minister has a new job!

Last week I read (here) that Iraq's former (Dis)Information Minister, Mohammad Saeed Al-Sahaf, had found new employment.

I don't know why I haven't heard more about this.

Affirmative action grading

Erin O'Connor blogs about UNC-Wilmington criminal justice prof Mike Adams who has been so convinced by the arguments in favor of affirmative action in university selection processes that he has altered his grading policies accordingly. You can read his letter here.

A Climate of Fear?

This Wash Post story shows how the anti-war Hollywood figures are doing pretty well, thank you.

I guess that forecast for a chilly climate by Tim Robbins was about as accurate as tonight's ten-day futurecast.

Give an inch....?

A Washington Post story from today begins,

A series of important advances has boosted the potential of human embryonic stem cells to treat heart disease, spinal cord injuries and other ailments, but researchers say they are unable to take advantage of the new techniques under a two-year-old administration policy that requires federally supported scientists to use older colonies of stem cells.

Now pressure is building from scientists, patient advocates and members of Congress to loosen the embryo-protecting restrictions imposed by President Bush, with some on Capitol Hill saying they want to take up the issue next month.

Later in the story we read about well-known ethicist, Senator Orrin Hatch, who "said that he is 'disappointed at the number of stem cell lines that have been available' to federally funded scientists, and that he will work with others on Capitol Hill 'in reexamining the administration's policy.'"

Thanks, Senator. Glad to hear that you still support killing the youngest of human beings.

More on Laci's 'fetus'

Cal Thomas has a good column on the issue of Laci Peterson's murdered (pre-born) child and its implications for the abortion debate.

That's Outrageous!

The Reader's Digest used to (and may still) have a feature called "That's Outrageous!" which detailed some of the ridiculous lengths people will go to in enforcing various codes.

Phyllis Shafley's column today is repleat with examples worthy of the title, all of them referring to taking "zero tolerance" policies too far in elementary schools. Here are the first two:

A first-grader at Struthers Elementary School in Youngstown, Ohio, was suspended for 10 days for taking home a plastic knife from the school cafeteria in his book bag. The 6-year-old wasn't threatening anyone; he just wanted to show his mother he had learned how to spread butter on his bread.

A third-grader at O'Rourke Elementary School in Mobile, Ala., was given a five-day suspension for violating the substance abuse policy after classmates reported that he took a "purple pill." His offense was taking a multivitamin with his lunch.

Go read the column to see the rest of the ridiculousness.

Has anyone ever heard of prudence and its application?

Sen. Santorum in the hot-seat

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has provoked the wrath of gay-rights lobbyists by staying in an interview with the AP, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Kevin Miller's take is right on: "if you accept homosexual acts, there's nothing to stop you from accepting those other acts. The comparison is reasonable."

Exactly.

A little late to the party

Oops. The other day I linked the article, "War in the Gulf: What the Pope Really Said."

Well, it turns out that Lane Core linked the piece three weeks ago!

Sorry, Lane :-)

The Last Acceptable Prejudice

A few months back I read about a forthcoming book by Penn State history and religion prof Philip Jenkins. Jenkins is well-known of late for a couple of reasons: first, his 1996 book Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis made him a sought-after figure during the priestly sex-abuse scandals this time last year (many people were probably surprised to find that his thesis did not damn Catholicism or priestly celibacy); second, his 2002 book The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity and the companion article in The Atlantic Monthly gained him serious attention for his forecast of the growth and development of Christianity in this century.

The book I read about also concerned Christianity and its largest Church, Catholicism. In particular, it was to focus on the bias against that institution and its members.

This book, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice is now available (I just purchased a copy at Barnes and Noble). It should be an interesting read. As Jenkins notes, he used to be a Catholic, but is no longer; nor does he have any vested interest in defending Catholicism (one would expect just the opposite from a former Catholic). He simply trains his scholarship on the only bias which is acceptable among the elite of the West, or at least a significant portion of that elite.

It should be an interesting read.

Will the real Hussein please stand up!

Someone has too much time on their hands.

Go here and watch & listen to a parody of Eminem's "The Real Slim Shady," in which the singer isn't our lost rapper, but our lost dictator. Without the swearing of the former.

The depths to which some will go...

You've probably already heard about this, but this story explains how "The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby."

The article quotes NOW's Morris County President, Mavra Stark, who stated, ""If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder."

You're right, Marva. It is murder, in both cases. What must be news to Ms. Stark is this: over 24 states already have "fetal homicide" laws. Now, how abortion remains legal in these states is a good question (who said legislators are consistent?). But the fact remains, that at least in cases where the mother wants the child, you can't kill it without the law coming down on you. But NOW apparently wants to change that, too.

The Real Hockeytowns

Before the third playoff game between the Colorado Avalanche and the Minnesota Wild in St. Paul, ESPN's Terry Frei had a great column on the return of NHL playoff hockey to Minnesota and the Twin Cities. It's a great piece which shows how the state is the center of the sport in the US.

I'll be honest.. I'm not a fan-atic about hockey; my hometown and the surrounding area are relative rarities in the state, in that hockey is not one of the top three sports. But even so, I enjoy hockey, and I recognize (as any honest person has to) that Minnesota is the heart of hockey in the country.

Sorry, Detroit... the Twin Cities are the real Hockeytowns.

Holy Saturday

Apropos of today, Fr. Bryce Sibley has three posts worth reading: von Balthasar on Holy Saturday (here; it's a link); Jesus' descent into sheol (here); and Balthasar, the Passion, and the Beatific Vision (here).

On Friday Fr. Bryce also referred to an excellent article by Avery Cardinal Dulles on Balthasar's thesis that we can hope for the salvation of all; there's a nice little discussion in the comments, too.

Follow-up to the post below

Re: the media reaction to the new papal encyclical, Bill Cork has two posts (here and here) detailing the media spin on EdE.

Crazy stuff.

The Media reacts to Ecclesia de Eucharistia

It's an exercise in hilarity to watch the mass media react to official theological texts like John Paul II's new encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Do a search for "eucharist" and "encyclical" at the Google News site. Here are some of the returns:

Pope reaffirms ban on joint communion - Toronto Star
Pope speaks against Eucharistic 'abuses' - Chicago Sun Times
Pope gives warning on Communion - Boston Globe
Pope takes tough stance on communion - Edmonton Sun
Pope warns against unholy communion - Guardian
Pope reminds Catholics of restrictions on communion - Minneapolis Star Tribune
Pope Cracks Down on Abuses Among Divorced - Guardian

And on and on.

Now, JPII does touch on these issues, but they in no way form the substance or bulk of the encyclical. But how should we expect a media that thrives on controversy to react?

Unintelligible

The other day I linked an editorial in the Arab News, and offered my letter to the author. Today (via The Corner) I came across this opinion piece, in which the writer refers to "the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and soldiers, and ten times that number of injured, most with permanent injuries."

This guy is supposedly talking about Operation Iraqi Freedom, but where he gets his numbers is beyond me.

He only serves to heighten my incredulity regarding the Arab response to the op. So many Arabs (who knows what percentage of the overall population they represent... I sure don't) have strange, incomprehensible responses to the liberation of Iraqis from Saddam's reign of terror. Some are depressed that Saddam's regime failed to put up a fight, believing somehow that this reflects poorly on the Arab Fighting Man.

I don't get it. How does the response of the defenders of the Hussein regime to our armed forces reflect in any way on, say, Joe Egyptian, or Joe Jordanian? I realize that there are religious and culture ties, but c'mon... I wouldn't react in this way if the Chinese took it to the Russians, or the Russians to the Germans (we didn't, in '42-'45, in fact).

Amazed and incredulous. That's me.

No anathemas

Contrary to what some people claim and many believe, Pope John Paul II never condemned a war against Iraq. That this is the case is aptly demonstrated in this article.

I warmly recommend it.

Oh yeah

The University of Minnesota Golden Gophers are the mens' college hockey champs for the second consecutive year!!! Woo-hoo!

Okay, that's a few days old, but I'm entitled...

Ecclesia de Eucharistia

Pope John Paul II's fourteenth encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia has been released; you can read it here.

I am a little surprised at one thing: it's length... it's a lot shorter than I expected! Not that that's a bad thing... I've just grown accustomed to long encyclicals from JPII. If you do a print preview on this encyclical, there are about 26 pages of text before the notes; in the last encylical, Fides et Ratio there were 50 pages before the notes, and Veritatis Splendor had 63 pages of text before the notes. Interesting.

Regardless, I'm sure it's an outstanding piece of theology; maybe being shorter will prompt more people to read it! I think I might make it my Triduum reading...

Oh yeah

I forgot... during the war-hiatus, Veritas celebrated it's one-year birthday on March 31st, which was Easter last year.

Thanks for all the visitors this past year... I hope you're visits have been worthwhile!

Arab Media

Last week I linked a couple of pieces detailing the reaction to the swift collapse of Saddam's regime in Baghdad in the Arab media. One of the more ridiculous pieces linked in the articles I linked was by Arab News managing editor John Bradley, who wrote:

Nothing, that is, but wait for history to take its course, for Fortune’s wheel to turn as it inexorably does, crushing underneath those who once danced on top of it. But not in our lifetime. Yes, there will be more terrorism, and Osama Bin Laden — or at least his infamous voice — was heard once more yesterday, calling for suicide attacks and thus giving more easy justification, as he did on Sept. 11, to America’s imperial ambition. Thanks, Osama, you’ve done us all about as much good as George W. Bush. Both are two sides of the same coin.

Here's the letter I wrote to Mr. Bradley in reply:

Dear Mr. Bradley,

I must say, I am perplexed by oft-repeated references to "America's imperial ambition." On one hand, I do understand the tendency to imagine that such an ambition exists... after all, every other world power in history which has had the strength the US has today has sought to extend its control over other nations, around the world in some cases.

But on the other hand, the history of the past 100 years demonstrates conclusively that the US does *not* have an imperial ambition; consider the facts: in both World Wars, the US and its allies liberated or defeated France (twice), Germany (twice), Italy, and Japan, among others. Yet in no case did the US extend its political control over those nations. Consider also more recent military actions: Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Kuwait and Iraq in '91, Afghanistan... in none of these cases did the US extend its political power over these nations in the way that an empire seeks to do.

There is no "American imperial ambition," Mr. Bradley. To claim that there is is to project the actions of past hegemons onto the US, in spite of the US's own actions in the past century.

No reply was forthcoming.

David Bloom

Here's the letter I sent to the email address for condolences for NBC's David Bloom, who died a week and a half ago in Iraq:

Dear Mrs. Bloom,

My wife and I first "discovered" your husband in the 9/11 coverage; we were impressed with his style of journalism, which was serious and very real & sincere... he always seemed to truly mean what he said. I wondered why he wasn't moving higher with NBC, only to learn recently that he loved being in the field.

We were again excited (if that's the right word) to see that he was an "embed," covering the war with the 3rd Infantry Division. Whenever Brokaw or anyone else would go to David, I'd yell to my wife, "David Bloom is on!"

I was sorry to learn only after his death that your husband was from my home state: Minnesota. I knew there was a reason I loved him! :-) Seriously, his personality and demeanor epitomized "Minnesota nice."

I can't imagine what the next few days, weeks, and months will be like for you and your daughters, and for your extended family. Although we will most likely never meet this side of Heaven, I want you to know that David, you, your daughters, and the rest of your family will remain in our daily prayers.

[end of letter]

Today I saw that David's funeral was at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York; Edward Cardinal Egan said that Bloom would attend Sunday Mass at the Cathedral after his Today Show duties.

What a guy.

Encyclical tomorrow!

Tomorrow at the Last Supper Mass at St. John Lateran's Basilica in Rome, Pope John Paul II is going to sign and thus promulgate his latest encyclical, this one devoted to the Eucharist. Should be exciting reading!

General Barry McCaffrey

A lot of people have been rightly mocking all the doomsdayers who just two or three weeks ago were throwing out "quagmire" and "Vietnam" left and right. See, for instance, this column by National Review editor Rich Lowry, detailing all the Chicken Little statements we heard.

Lowry, and others, include General Barry McCaffrey among the naysayers, referring to a statement made by Gen. McCaffrey to the BBC about a week into the war that, "If the Iraqis actually fight, it's going to be brutal dangerous work and we could take a couple to 3,000 casualties." McCaffrey was one of the most vocal critics of the size of the ground force we sent into Iraq.

I don't think the criticism aimed at McCaffrey is warranted, at least to the degree we've seen. On the question of the size of the force, I think he was wrong, and that events have proven so. I agree that it would have been better if we had had more forces at the ready, but non-military considerations made that difficult.

And on the question of casualties, note that he said, "we could take a couple to 3,000 casualties." He didn't claim that it was likely that we would, let alone out-right asserting that it was bound to happen. He merely offered his opinion that we might face that level of casualties. What's the problem with that? Should we mock the president, who warned that this war could last months? No. Nor should we be overly-critical of General McCaffrey, IMHO.

Can Freedom Be Imposed?

As the war in Iraq is moving out of the "decisive combat operations" phase, I'm been thinking about over the last week or so about the goals of the operation. Our purpose in this war was primarily to remove a threat to national and world security; along with that, we wanted to liberate the Iraqi people.

Some people, though, make more out of the second goal than is due, or rather, they treat it too blithily. What I mean is this: yes, all human beings desire freedom, by their nature. But we have to distinguish between different kinds of freedom, and then identify what kind of freedom we are giving the Iraqis in liberating them: political freedom, i.e., freedom from external coercion. As many would certainly agree, true freedom comes from God by His grace, not by the armed forces of the USA. This also means, though, that it was possible for the Iraqi people to be free in the greater sense even though they were politically oppressed while under Saddam's regime. And that leads me to my primary point...

How would we react if someone came into your home and said, "I'm here to free you from the horrible political regime under which you've been living for decades, but I'm going to kill two of your children and permanently main another. You have no choice in the matter." How would you react?

Yes, the Iraqis desire freedom, as all people do. But when it comes at such a great cost, they must choose it freely, and that they did not do.

I'm not saying that I've changed my mind about the justice of the war; I'm only "deflating" an argument I hear too often in its favor. In other words, I still believe that what we did was right, and I think it was just and right of us to liberate the people. But we must remember that there was a cost paid by some Iraqis, a cost which they were not given a choice whether or not to pay. And in this sense, I think we must recognize that at least a small number of Iraqis may hate us, because we killed their loved ones.

Arab Media

Yesterday I read a couple of articles detailing the reaction from Arab media to the events (here and here).

It's unbelieveable stuff. I'll comment later, but I wanted to get the links up now, before I forgot.

Interesting thought...

Seems some people are toying with the idea of putting a conventional warhead on our ICBMs (read about it here). Hmm... strike anywhere in the world in under an hour... I could see some scenarios where that might be helpful...

At the same time, the political considerations seem a bit dicey; after all, there is no way for someone who detects the launch to know whether or not we are just slamming some terrorists, or nuking someone.

Three Weeks

That's all it took for us to get to Baghdad and remove the regime from power there. No, we don't have full control of the city yet (let alone the entire country), but "for all intents and purposes" (whose fav phase is that?) we have removed Saddam et al from power in Iraq.

Today Tim Russert referred to something a senior administration official told him in light of the events Firdos Square: "I wonder how the Iraqi Information Minister is going to explain this?" Indeed! One of my favorite lines came from an LA Times story on Monday; the 3rd ID was on the western bank of the Tigris to stay, and Sahaf had to hold his press conference on the roof of a hotel. While he's trying to explain how there are no Americans in downtown Baghdad -- in spite of the sound of machine gun fire and rising, black smoke -- an interpreter for Sky News is translating on the fly: "At one point, an interpreter translating Sahaf's words into English for Britain's Sky News television was overwhelmed by the absurdity and started laughing." Ain't that great!

I can't wait to see what the 4th ID does in Tikrit...

LT fixed

I fixed the link to LT Smash's blog; he's the reservist now serving in Kuwait. Make sure you check it out... good stuff. His Dad's got a powerful post today on an exchange between CNN's embed with the 1st Marine battalion and four young Marines. Check it out.

You have got to be kidding

Thanks to a Drudge link, I read this story about the Belgian prime minister's recent comments on the US. PM Guy Verhofstadt stated, "America, a power deeply injured, and has become very dangerous, and it thinks to take over the whole Arab world."

Huh? We want to take over the whole Arab world? Since when? What secret White House/Pentagon directive has Mr. Verhofstadt read which could possibly lead him to such a conclusion? We have absolutely no desire to take over Arab countries; the closest we would come to such a view is our desire to see our form of government flourish in those places, but that is a far cry from "taking over."

No worries

I've gotten tired this week of the worrying in the media about the state of the war. As the President and innumberable officials and pundits alike have noted, we're only 10 days into this, and what we've achieved so far is remarkable in military history. Things are probably a bit tougher that Rumseld and others predicted, but that doesn't mean we need to bring the quagmire-talk back again.

And as far as all the reinforcements are concerned... that was always the plan. Whether or not the "rolling-start" was a good idea (and I tend to think that the Powell doctrine of assembling all our forces first would have been better, but hindsight is 20/20), we always planned to bring the 4th Infantry Division in through Kuwait once Turkey was closed, and the other divisions were also in the pipeline. Maybe their deployments have been accelerated, but the plan was still to bring them.

If you're worried about how things are going, read the following articles. They'll get your spirits up:

Ralph Peters, Guts and Glory
Victor David Hanson, History or Hysteria?
Mac Owens, Keep Thinking "Main Thing"

"A million Mogadishus"

This past Wednesday night, there was a "teach-in" anti-war protest at Columbia University. I first read about this protest in an article by a Columbia student, Matthew Continetti. Continetti quoted one professor, Nicholas De Genova, who said he desired that "a million Mogadishus" be visited on US soldiers fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In case you've forgotten, Mogadishu is the Somalian city wherein 18 US Rangers and Delta operators were killed in 1993. So this professor of higher education at one of the elite American universities is hoping for huge casualties among our soldiers. Un-be-lievable.

Fortunately, the press has gotten a hold of this. Do a Google news search for "Nicholas De Genova" and read all about it.

This guy has got to go. And that's this year's understatement. Fortunately, he's not tenured, so sufficient public pressure should be enough to get him tossed when his contract is up. Maybe he can find a position in North Korea, since Iraq won't be having him soon.

The Balloon Has Gone Up

Operation Iraqi Freedom began several hours ago.

And interestingly, there is a large, 1000-man operation underway in Afghanistan to find Osama as well; that's the largest op there since Anaconda about a year ago.

Can we get both guys within a day of each other?

Wow

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, has linked an amazing interchange between an Iraqi-American caller and a "peace activist" guest on a radio show in Seattle. The caller's question: "How exactly would leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?" The activist never answers the question.

Go listen here. It's worth it. It shows the inability of one part of the anti-war crowd (not the part of that crowd which I have great respect for), to deal with serious questions.

"The window has closed"

The US, UK, and Spain have withdrawn their new resolution on Iraq. As Ari Fleischer put it this morning, "The diplomatic window has closed as a result of the U.N.'s failure to enforce it's own resolutions for Saddam to disarm."

The President is addressing the nation tonight at 7 pm central time.

What France really wants

That's the title of this MSNBC piece by Dan Goure, who strongly argues that what France really wants is influence and power, both beyond its status as a "medium-sized power" in the international realm.

Moral Principles and their application

There's a good discussion going on in the comments to this post below, centering around the question of moral principles and how they are applied, and how each of them can be termed "official". I think a good analogy for trying to understand the difference between a principle and its application is the Church's teaching on a just wage.

The Catholic Church teaches that an unjust wage is immoral. But how is this moral principle to be applied? Good Catholics can disagree on this question of application, while they must believe in the principle of a just wage. Some Catholics -- e.g. the staffers at the USCCB -- believe that a just wage is enacted via the minimum wage. Other Catholics believe that there are better ways to apply the principle, e.g. on a case-by-case basis. Either way, the principle is held in common, while its application varies.

As far as "official" goes... every Catholic is free to seek different ways to enact a just wage in their society. When members of the Magisterium offer their views, they are simply doing what they have the right to do: argue for what they believe is the best way to enact a just wage. Some members of the hierarchy might believe that minimum wage laws are the best, but I am free to disagree with them on that (which I do), while necessarily believing that a just wage is still required.

I believe the same (or a similiar case) holds true on the matter of a war with Iraq. All Catholics must believe in the principle of a just war, but different Catholics may have different views on the application of those principles to the case of Iraq. As far as the Holy Father and other members of the hierarchy are concerned, they have just as much right as anyone else does to argue for their view in the public forum. What must be remembered is that the disagreement is over the application of a commonly-held moral principle, and when it comes to the application of a principle, legitimate disagreement (which is different from dissent, IMHO), is possible.

Is the Pope Catholic... Enough?

That's the title of this NYTimes Magazine story about Mel Gibson's traditional Catholicism, the traditional church he funds in LA, his movie on the last twelve hours of Jesus' passion, and most interestingly, the views of his father, which are, um... interesting, at least as indicated by the article.

Carl Olson at Envoy Encore posted on this Friday, noting Bill O'Reilly's description of the article as ", unfair, and malicious."

Interesting reading, either way.

Mini-documentary follow-up

Last month I linked a mini-documentary done on the anti-war protests by Evan Coyne Maloney. Now he's posted some follow-up questions & his responses.

Check it out.

Resolve

Both the Washington Post and NY Times have good stories on President Bush's certitude and resolve in this crisis with Iraq. They make clear what many of us have known for some time, and what the President reiterated in Thursday's press conference: he believes that Iraq constitutes a grave threat to our national security; as our president, it is his constitutional duty to address that threat, and he is bound, determined, and resolved to do just that, in spite of whatever opposition he may face. As one of New York's senior senator -- liberal Democrat Charles Schumer -- put it in the NYTimes story, "Whether you agree with him or not, one of Bush's strengths is that he goes with his instincts. And at a time like this, when the winds are swirling around in all different directions, a president is well served who has his own internal gyroscope."

Amen. Maybe Bush is wrong -- although I don't think he is -- but at least he isn't acting according to polling data.

Movie about St. Thérèse of Lisieux

I'm happy to post this in response to an email request:

Hey Everybody,
I want to tell you about the launch of a new web site for the movie THERESE, produced by Luke Films and scheduled for theatrical release October 2003. Please visit the site and support this beautiful family film on the life of St. Therese of Lisieux. There are all kinds of things to do and see on the site. You can learn about the people who made the film, learn more about St. Therese and join the discussion group, plus there's a contest where you can win a free trip to the movie premiere. The more of you who visit the site the greater the impact the film will have and it'll show the theater owners and the distributors what kind of films you want to see. Make sure you post a message on the discussion board to show your support. Here's your chance to make a difference in the entertainment industry.
Check it out, www.theresemovie.com.

Mike Masny
Luke Films
(800) 683-2998
www.theresemovie.com

A couple more links

I've linked two blogs that focus on nonsense on campuses: Erin O'Connor's Critical Mass and the team-blog Campus Nonsense.

I've also included the website for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, but I've put it under the blogs, as it seems to fit better there.

I also permalinked LT Smash's blog (he's the reservist now stationed somewhere around Iraq).

Dissecting a pro-cloner

Kevin Miller expertly dissects a column by Ellen Goodman in favor of cloning.

Check it out.

CL's charism

Sunday I posted a question, wondering about the charism of the (relatively) new Catholic religious movement Communion and Liberation, or CL for short. As I noted in that post, I'm somewhat familiar with the work and project of CL's founder, Italian priest Msgr. Luigi Giussani. What has been less clear to me is the charism of CL itself, as a religious movement within the Catholic Church.

Fortunately, a friend and member of CL put me in touch with a diocesan priest who is also involved with CL, and this week we had a very nice conversation about the movement. He was able to explain the group's charism in a very concrete way: CL's charism, as explained by this priest, is to promote the encounter with Jesus, especially through friendships. Now this in itself sounds like it is the charism of Christianity in general; what makes CL different -- in my opinion -- is the method by which it promotes this encounter: this encounter is fostered in the coming-together of members to discuss texts they are reading -- often Msgr. Giussani's works, but others as well -- and to reflect upon them with each other from their own experiences. Part of this involves a vocabulary which is somewhat unique to CL, in that Msgr. Giussani has a particular language he employs. The charism of CL also includes a critical openness to modernity, in which the true, good, and beautiful in modern society and culture is recognized and valued, while the rest is set aside.

Much of this is my own understanding, based on what this priest had to say, but I think it accurately portrays CL. In any case, the conversation was very helpful for me.

Just War and Dissent

Mark at Minute Particulars argues that the Open Letter written by lay Catholics to the President "undermines the authority of the USCCB and pope" and refers to the letter as a "statement of dissent." Disagreeing with Bill Cork, Mark argues that "the USCCB and the pope have indicated not only what the Church teaches, but how they believe it ought to be applied at the current moment." Mark says later, "I simply don't see how anyone can claim that the Church's teaching on just war has not officially been applied."

However, he also notes that one might disagree, saying, "I'm not suggesting that this is the only conclusion that one can draw about the Iraqi crisis in light of just-war theory." Further on, he notes, "It is clear that the bishops and pope do not think the present situation warrants an invasion of Iraq. Could they be wrong? Of course. Can I disagree? Of course."

To be honest, I don't see how Mark can hold that the position of the USCCB and John Paul II have given an official teaching on this situation which to disagree with is to dissent, and at the same time hold that one can legitimately disagree with the Holy Father. How can dissent -- even public dissent -- from official Church teaching ever be morally licit? I understand Mark's point about the importance of how one expresses his/her disagreement with the Holy Father's own personal judgment, but if one argues that what the Holy Father has said is not just his own judgment but is a Magisterial teaching (which is what "official teaching" means to me)... that's something else entirely.

Mark (or those who agree with him), can you help me understand your thought?

Rod and Greg

Today Rod Dreher has an article at the OpinionJournal in which he wonders why the Vatican didn't respond as quickly to the priestly sex scandal as it has to a possible war with Iraq.

Greg Popcak strongly replied at HMS Blog.

This is an interesting discussion. I side decidedly with Greg, but I'd recommend reading Rod's piece as well.

New Blog!

A few weeks ago I asked blog-watcher Evan Donovan why he didn't start a blog, in light of his many excellent comments at a number of different blogs.

I was happy to receive an email from him this week, stating that he started Out of Egypt.

Go take a gander.

Peggy hits a grand slam

Peggy Noonan's column today is outstanding... excellent.

In response to an apparent request from Andrew Cuomo for a contribution to a book of essays on the future of the Democrat Party, she wrote the piece appearing as this column. She begins by arguing that the Party has become focused on winning for its own sake, rather than for the sake of a philosophy. Such a philosophy, she later argues, is in fact missing from the modern Democrat Party.

The bulk of the piece, though, argues that the Party is controlled by a bunch of snobs who either openly or secretly look down their noses as Middle America and its values. In this context, she pens a great line, a line which she applies to too many Democrats, but can also be applied to anyone, if they are not careful: "You may mean to be helpful in the abstract, but you are not helpful in the particular."

Replace "helpful" with "compassionate" or "loving"... it's very easy to love humanity, but it's a lot harder to love the particular humans whom we come in contact with in everyday life. The Democrat Party, Peggy argues, has fallen prey to this mentality which enables us to believe that we are helpful, loving, and compassionate without ever actually having to be helpful, loving, and compassionate (again, this is something which afflicts more than Democrats, Peggy's piece not withstanding).

I'd highly recommend reading this essay... if you're a Democrat, I'd love for you to read the piece and then comment here.

Daily 9/11 Memorials

Karen Hall has been doing a thoughtful thing over the last several days: each day, she posts a picture and brief bio/comment about a 9/11 victim, and asks for a prayer for the deceased and their family.

Very touching.

CL's charism

Over the last couple of years, I've become interested in the writings of Italian priest Msgr. Luigi Giussani. I must confess that I have yet to read any of the volumes in his trilogy completely -- I'm suffering from a sort of literary paralysis, in that I've got too many great books to read and I can't decide where to begin, so I don't begin at all!

But anyway... Msgr. Giussani is the founder of one of the well-known modern religious movements in Catholicism, Communion and Liberation. I have some good friends who are members, and others who have inquired into the movement. One of those friends has purchased a gift subscription to the CL magazine, Traces, for my wife and myself.

But in the discussions I've had and the reading I've done, I have yet to put my finger on the charism of CL; I have a vague, nebulous idea of how CL understands itself and sees its role in the Church, but I've been unable to articulate it even to myself, let alone someone else.

So, if there is someone out there who is involved in or familiar with CL, I'd love to hear from you, either via email or in the comments.

Thanks!

Leading Catholics write open letter to Bush

A number of prominent American Catholics -- including Ignatius Press Publisher Fr. Joseph Fessio and political philosopher National Bioethics Committee member Robert P. George -- recently penned an open letter to President Bush, arguing for the morality of a war against Iraq. Here's the closing paragraph:

Catholics and all men and women of goodwill agree that the decision to use military force must never be taken lightly. Indeed, the tradition of just war theory holds that force may be justified only as a last resort. Hence, Bishop Gregory’s admonition to “pursue actively alternatives to war.” But if, in your careful and considered judgment, no alternative can be found capable of removing or disarming a proven aggressor whose willingness to murder his enemies is checked only by his capacity to accomplish the task without unacceptable consequences to himself, then the norms of justice permit—and your obligations of civic leadership require—you to act with the force of arms.

War Plan in Place

The Washington Post's Tom Ricks has an article today on the rough structure of Desert Storm II as it has been released in briefings, etc. One of the most interesting lines: "The framework that has emerged calls for a war that would be remarkably different from anything the U.S. military has done. It aims to combine the armored fist of the tank-heavy 1991 Persian Gulf War with the speed of the overnight 1989 U.S. takeover of Panama and the precision bombing of the 2001 U.S. campaign in Afghanistan."

This should be interesting.

But still, I hope and pray it never happens.

Jim Kalb

Sometime ago I linked the blog Metanoia by prospective Catholic Jim Kalb.

Lately I've been looking closer at Jim's blog and other sites, and I think it's unfortunate that more people in this corner of the blogosphere haven't picked up on his work. He's got a couple of sites:

This one is his self-described catch-all site, which includes the blog Metanoia and some of his writings, among them a discussion of principled opposition to feminism , a discussion and resources on the culture wars, and an essay on science, rationality and the good, with resources.

Jim also has two political websites: On to Restoration! (the point of this site: restoring contact with tradition and the transcendent), and Human Rights: Critique and Reform, where Jim argues against the contemporary institutionalized form of human rights.

Finally, Jim also maintains a political blog, View from the Right.

Jim's blog on his journey to Catholicism is excellent, and based on what I've seen thus far, so is the content of his other sites and blogs.

Universal Salvation?

Tom at Disputations has decided to discuss the topic of universal salvation. His first installment, in which he lays out what he sees as the three possible views which might be held on this question, is here, although the link may not work until Tom makes another post (for whatever reason, links to the "top" post haven't been working -- if they ever did).

As Tom mentioned in the initial post on this, where he decided to discuss the issue, there seems to be a "Great Wheel of Catholic Debate." Tom explains, and shows the relevance of the wheel for Catholic blogdom: "The inescapability of the Great Wheel of Catholic Debate, the fact that every subject has its canonical discussion that repeats itself again and again through time, is what will eventually doom all blogs with functioning archives; they are destined to become like the comedians' club in the joke, where people tell jokes by number."

I think he's right, even on this issue. I believe that Tom was part of a brief discussion on universal salvation last year; for my part, I posted on the topic -- and my take -- here. Briefly, there is nothing which the Church teaches which requires Catholics to assert that there are definitely human beings in Hell. Furthermore, much of the Church's prayer -- including the liturgy -- includes prayer for the departed, with no limiting qualifications. In other words, we should pray for all those who have died. Now, if we knew that some souls were in Hell, then prayer for them would be purposeless, and it would be pointless to pray for all the deceased, as the Church does. Hence, we don't know if any human is in Hell, and we should pray that in fact no human being is there.

That's my take.