SSM follow-up

When I posted last month, I referred to same-sex marriages, and got a few comments from folks who disagree with my take. One of them was a nice guy named Ben; we exchanged a few comments in the box, and then Ben asked if I wouldn't mind if he addressed my own comments on his blog, to which I agreed. My comments were,

As to your questions... the crux of my position is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman in which they engage in reproductive-type sexual acts. The final clause indicates and implies that sexual activity has a two-fold purpose: the spiritual and physical union of the spouses, and the bearing and education of children. Sex, then, is for the good of the spouses and for the procreation of children. And marriage is recognized as a public institution b/c it provides a stable environment in which the children can be raised, thus ensuring furture generations of a culture/society (hence the state's interest).

But if the procreative dimension is reduced or negated -- as it is in gay "marriages" -- then one of the essential purposes for marriage is negated as well. Not only that, but since the natural means of having children is impossible, one of the essential reasons why the state recognizes marriage (may *the* essential reason) is negated as well.

Furthermore, if marriage is *only* about committed, consensual relationships, then why is polygamy and polyamory looked down upon and illegalized?

What do you think?

Ben recently posted his response at his blog, and I'd like to respond to some of his comments.

Ben's first comment:

Rubbish. By that logic the existence of married couples unwilling or unable to have children means that this "negation" of the essential "purposes" of marriage already exist in society. Conversely, many heterosexual couples have children without ever getting married. From an evolutionary perspective, the use of contraceptives is as "unnatural" as homosexual sex.

Ben, you've hit the nail on the head: contraception does negate one of the essential purposes of marriage... I completely agree! In fact, I think it's fair to say that a large part of the acceptance of homosexuality in the culture at large flows from this misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of sex. Now, before your eyes roll back into your head -- ;-) -- I'd like you to at least consider my position before dismissing it. So appealing to contraception doesn't do anything to rebut my argument, does it?

Second:

I'd also be interested in knowing why any secular democratic state which equally recognises all faiths, and lack thereof (or rather, SHOULD), would include the loaded religious term "spiritual" in any definition of marriage. I don't recognise the "spiritual" side of anything. Should I be limited to "civil unions" as a result?

Note that I didn't appeal to any spiritual definition of marriage in my (brief) discussion of the state's interest in marriage: I said that "marriage is recognized as a public institution b/c it provides a stable environment in which the children can be raised, thus ensuring furture generations of a culture/society (hence the state's interest)," without any religious reference.

Third:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Polygamous heterosexual marriages are just as, if not more, geared towards procreation (the "essential reason" for marriage, as you put it), than monogamous heterosexual marriages. We're talking about gay marriage here, not polygamy. The issues are completely irrelevant to one another.

No, they aren't. If you want the public to accept gay marriage, then you need to give a reason, a principle, which accounts for why gay marriage is a good which society should recognize, but polygamous marriage is not (I'm presuming here that you are opposed to legalizing polygamy; correct me if I'm wrong). If gay marriage is a civil right, isn't polygamous marriage also a civil right?

Next:

I think that the main problem people have with gay marriage is not the "erosion of society", or the "sanctity of marriage", or the "survival of the species", or any of that alarmist horseshit, but rather the anachronistic persistence of an general unwillingness to recognise the natural phenomenon of homosexuality, be it based upon religion, culture, ignorance, or otherwise.

First, note that this isn't my argument. Second, just because someone's tendency is involuntary doesn't mean that it's moral. We all have certain tendencies that we *rightly* avoid acting on, b/c we recognize that if we *did* act on them, we would actually end up *harming* our well-being, and others as well. If your argument is consistently applied, then it would be *impossible* to criticize anyone for anything, since pretty much everything we do is a result of an involuntary tendency.

Now, for Ben's questions...

Do you believe that a person's sexuality has any bearing on their morality, intelligence, ability to form relationships, or otherwise live up to their full potential?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, Ben. Can homosexuals be as smart or smarter than heterosexuals? Of course. Can they form loving relationships? Of course. Does that mean that a(n actively) homosexual relationship is a good? I don't think so, and I see no contradiction in say that with what I just stated.

In your opinion, does a homosexual relationship differ in any objective way from a heterosexual relationship, when the gender of the two parties is ignored? (ie, is a homosexual relationship somehow less "serious" than, or in any other way disparate from, a heterosexual one, all things considered?)

But that's just it: I don't think the gender of the relationships *can* be ignored. I think our gender is an intrinsic part of who we are, and that you can't just set it aside. What do you think of this analogous question: In your opinion, does an adult incestous relationship differ in any objective way from a heterosexual relationship, when the biological identity of the two parties is ignored?

Do you believe that it is ethical for there to exist inequalities in society towards an individual based upon any inherent characteristics established irrespective of that individual's free will?

Yes. I'll give you an example: parents have certain rights which their minor children do not have. But more to the point, marital laws as they exist today are not unjust: marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. That's simply what it is. If marriage were merely a sexual relationship between two consenting adults, then it would be unjust to deny gays such a union. But that's not what marriage is, and too often people beg that very question in asserting that marriage practices today are unjust.

Update

I've been away for awhile, for the most part because I've been trying to drastically reduce my time on the Web during Lent. So far, so good... relatively speaking.

Since I posted last, I've seen The Passion of the Christ... three times. Once for a panel discussion for the local paper, and the other two times for showings I arranged for the parishioners in the area.

My word for the movie: Powerful. That best encapsulates for me what I think of the film. I don't think it's for everyone, but I do think it can be a powerful event for many.

I'm going to try to post on occasion as this holy season passes, but we'll see how it goes.

SSM

Progressive Catholic Matt Zemek lauds Gavin Newsom as a modern-day prophet.

Mr. Newsom, you may recall, is the mayor of San Franciso, and you can guess what exactly it is that Matt is lauding the mayor for.

Meanwhile, today President Bush expressed his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Many people will see -- and do see -- this proposal as an injustice. Unfortunately, the reason for that is a lack of understanding as to the nature and purpose of marriage, which has been increasingly obscured by our culture for decades now.

If you're interested in what the nature and purpose of marriage is, I'd invite you to read the works of scholars like Robert P. George of Princeton. George uses reason alone to illustrate what marriage is. Go to your public library and do an interlibrary loan for one of his books (I'd recommend The Clash of Orthodoxies as a good place to start).

Others' "pre-take" on The Movie

Some of the readers at The Right Christians -- most of them liberal Christians -- aren't all that excited about seeing Mel Gibson's movie (see the comments to this post). One such commenter said,

If there's anything to be gained from hyper-realism it's this: NOT "Look how Jesus suffered!" but "Look what was considered 'acceptable'---crucifixions, by the *thousands and thousands*---by the (self-appointed) 'highest' and/or most powerful cultures of the time. What are we Americans---living in the culture (self-appointed) 'highest' and most powerful of *our* time---overlooking and deeming acceptable NOW??"

I'm not really surprised. I don't know if I could explain why, but if you would've asked me if many liberal Christians are interested in a uber-realistic depiction of Jesus' passion, I would have said probably not. And that appears to be the case.

Don't get me wrong: I know some people who aren't liberal Christians and have no desire to see the film -- it's too violent... it's not up their "spiritual alley"... things like that. And I can understand that.

But there seems to be something else underneath the perspective of liberal Christians... if I can put my finger on it, I'll let you know.

The Vatican gets medieval

Headline: Pope John Paul II eliminates Verot


Verot, of course, is a well-known cheese-eating surrender heretic. It appears that the Swiss Guard has dispatched him.


Unfortunately, a secret cabal staged a dramatic attack, and "stymied, bewildered and ultimately destroyed Pope John Paul II".


An investigation is underway.

Is the Court Supreme?

The complaint about judicial activism and overreach is common within conservative circles, and accurate. Over the past few decades, a number of Supreme Court decisions have been handed down which seem to require not obedience to the Constitution of the United States of America but obedience to the worldview of the majority of the Court. The basis for all of this, of course, is the Supreme Court's supreme authority when it comes to constitutional interpretation: if there's a question about what the Constitution means viz. a particular law, the Court has the last word.

Or does it?

This week Chuck Colson raised the issue in one of his daily Breakpoints. The context of the piece is a discussion of President Lincoln and his response to the Dred Scot Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that slaves were private property, i.e. not persons with rights.

In the course of his discussion, Colson refers to an article written by Robert George in First Things entitled, "Lincoln on Judicial Despotism". In the article, George uses the Dred Scott case to set the stage for an argument that the Court today has far exceeded its power as set forth by the Constitution.

Another article from First Things--this one from '99--makes a similar case. In "How the Court Became Supreme", Robert Clinton argues that the famous case Marbury vs. Madison--in which the judicial review was established--has been reinterpreted by today's Court, resulting in (an unconstitutional) judicial supremacy.

Finally, on Wednesday this week Stuart Buck linked a law review article entitled "The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury", in which Michael Stokes Paulsen (U. Minnesota) argues that--as Stuart summarizes--"the reasoning used by Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison logically and inexorably leads not to judicial supremacy, as is so often thought, but to the right of both the executive and legislative branches to interpret the Constitution for themselves, even to the point of refusing to enforce a judicial decision that departs from the Constitution." Stuart explains the importance of such an argument: "Marshall supported judicial review by saying that if a judge is presented with a law that appears to him to violate the Constitution, his oath to the Constitution must come first. According to Paulsen, the exact same logic applies to the other branches: If a President is presented with a judicial decision that appears to him to violate the Constitution, his oath to the Constitution must come first.

Maybe the Court isn't as supreme as it -- and most of us -- think.

Vatican II: no revolution

Bill Cork refers to a recent news item concerning Cardinal Dulles' thoughts on Vatican II. As Bill quotes the story, "The Second Vatican Council was no revolution in Catholic thought or doctrine, and theologians who do not read the council documents in light of earlier church teaching badly misinterpret them, Cardinal Avery Dulles said."

Bill's take is that Vatican II "was truly revolutionary in its approach to ecumenism and relations with the Jews."

I know what he's saying, but I disagree, although the disagreement may be in semantics alone. I don't think there can be a real revolution in the Church, even at an ecumenical council... there had to be some impetus for the program of Vatican II from within the Church. If there wasn't, where did it come from?

I think that even in the significant developments in the areas of ecumenism and relations with the Jews, the foundation had been prepared prior to the Council. There was, after all, some softening at least during Pius XII's pontificate in these areas, if not before.

Development? Yes. Significant development? Again, yes. Revolution? Based on my understanding of twentieth century theology and church history, no.

First Things on The Passion of the Christ: two thumbs up

The March issue of First Things arrived today, and in it, Russell Hittinger (Catholic Studies prof at the U. of Tulsa) and Elizabeth Lev (Christian art and architecture prof at Duquesne's Rome campus) write approvingly of Gibson's movie. A couple of items:

Hittinger and Lev argue that although there are elements of the film which do not come from the Gospel narratives, none of the additions violate the narratives. Addressing the question of the influence of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, they write, "the question of how much of this imagery was inspired by Emmerich's visions is inessential, for such imagery and ideas about in traditional Christian liturgy, hymnody, and iconography."

They also argue that the film is something in the vein of the medieval passion plays. The movie, they claim, is "nearly the opposite of the arcane and politically fraught tradition of the passion play. [...] Gibson denies the audience any shred of political or religious triumph, or, for that matter, defeat. [...] It is hard to imagine anyone coming out of Gibson's movie with an appetite for a religiously politicized passion. If anything, this is the definitive post-passion-play passion."

Their conclusion: this is "the best movie ever made about Jesus Christ."

Between this article and Gibson's interview Monday night, I'm very excited to see the film.

Is the gay marriage push a demand that I accept homosexuality as legitimate?

Gay marriage advocates argue that this is an equal rights issue. But what is it that a married hetero couple can "do" that an unmarried gay couple cannot "do"? Under current law, gays can commit themselves to one another... they can live together... what can't they do that married people can do? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

So why is it so important for these gay (and lesbian) couples flocking to San Francisco to be able to hold up an "official" marriage certificate after their one-minute wedding? I surmise that it's about validation: gay and lesbian marriage is about their relationship being recognized precisely as a marriage.

But my question is this: why am I being forced to acknowledge gay relationship as marriage? That is, after all, what marriage is: a political (i.e. public, on behalf of the people) stamp of recognition.

Hence, my conclusion: in many ways (albeit not for all those involved), gay marriage is about forcing the body-politic to recognize homosexual unions as legitimate.

Update: Occasional commentor Madeline comments that civil marriage is a civil right, and as such, cannot be denied to some but not to others.

My question for her and others: what exactly does the right to marry mean? How do you prove that a man has a right to marry another man? It's clearly not self-evident, and hence it must be rationally demonstrable; so... can anyone use a rational argument to prove that a man has the right to marry another man? NB: don't beg the question -- don't assert that anyone has the right to marry anyone, because that's precisely the point I'd like to see demonstrated. All of our rights are rationally verifiable... I'd like to see the rational verification of the right to marry someone of the same sex.

The Humanity of the Human Embryo

Is the human embryo a human being, with all the rights and duties attendant to such beings? Any reader who even occasionally reads this blog knows that my answer is an affirmative one, and that I believe so based not on religious dogma but scientific fact.

The position I hold is articulated by a number of scholars. My friend and philosophy prof Patrick Lee, for instance, has a terrific book called Abortion and Unborn Human Life which uses embryology and other biological sciences to document this position; he also addresses the various philosophical arguments in favor of abortion.

Closely following Lee's biological argument is that of Robert George (the two have worked together on this issue). George lays out the position in his personal statement appended to the President's Council on Bioethics' report on cloning. George's statement, which can be found here, is worth quoting:

The subject matter of the present report is human cloning, the production of a human embryo by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or similar technologies. Just as fertilization, if successful, generates a human embryo, cloning produces the same result by combining what is normally combined and activated in fertilization, that is, the full genetic code plus the ovular cytoplasm. Fertilization produces a new and complete, though immature, human organism. The same is true of successful cloning. Cloned embryos therefore ought to be treated as having the same moral status as other human embryos.

A human embryo is a whole living member of the species homo sapiens in the earliest stage of his or her natural development. Unless denied a suitable environment, an embryonic human being will by directing its own integral organic functioning develop himself or herself to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage. The embryonic, fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages are stages in the development of a determinate and enduring entity – a human being – who comes into existence as a single cell organism and develops, if all goes well, into adulthood many years later.i

Human embryos possess the epigenetic primordia for self-directed growth into adulthood, with their determinateness and identity fully intact. The adult human being that is now you or me is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of his or her life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you and I were undeniably whole, living members of the species homo sapiens. We were then, as we are now, distinct and complete (though in the beginning we were, of course, immature) human organisms; we were not mere parts of other organisms.

Consider the case of ordinary sexual reproduction. Plainly, the gametes whose union brings into existence the embryo are not whole or distinct organisms. They are functionally (and not merely genetically) identifiable as parts of the male or female (potential) parents. Each has only half the genetic material needed to guide the development of an immature human being toward full maturity. They are destined either to combine with an oocyte or spermatozoon to generate a new and distinct organism, or simply die. Even when fertilization occurs, they do not survive; rather, their genetic material enters into the composition of a new organism.

But none of this is true of the human embryo, from the zygote and blastula stages onward. The combining of the chromosomes of the spermatozoon and of the oocyte generates what every authority in human embryology identifies as a new and distinct organism. Whether produced by fertilization or by SCNT or some other cloning technique, the human embryo possesses all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth. Unless deprived of a suitable environment or prevented by accident or disease, the embryo is actively developing itself to full maturity. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.ii The human embryo is, then, a whole (though immature) and distinct human organism – a human being.

If the embryo were not a complete organism, then what could it be? Unlike the spermatozoa and the oocytes, it is not a part of the mother or of the father. Nor is it a disordered growth such as a hydatidiform mole or teratoma. (Such entities lack the internal resources to actively develop themselves to the next more mature stage of the life of a human being.) Perhaps someone will say that the early embryo is an intermediate form, something that regularly emerges into a whole (though immature) human organism but is not one yet. But what could cause the emergence of the whole human organism, and cause it with regularity? It is clear that from the zygote stage forward, the major development of this organism is controlled and directed from within, that is, by the organism itself. So, after the embryo comes into being, no event or series of events occur that could be construed as the production of a new organism; that is, nothing extrinsic to the developing organism itself acts on it to produce a new character or new direction in development.

But does this mean that the human embryo is a human being deserving of full moral respect such that it may not legitimately be used as a mere means to benefit others?

To deny that embryonic human beings deserve full respect, one must suppose that not every whole living human being is deserving of full respect. To do that, one must hold that those human beings who deserve full respect deserve it not in virtue of the kind of entity they are, but, rather, in virtue of some acquired characteristic that some human beings (or human beings at some stages) have and others do not, and which some human beings have in greater degree than others.iii

We submit that this position is untenable. It is clear that one need not be actually conscious, reasoning, deliberating, making choices, etc., in order to be a human being who deserves full moral respect, for it is clear that people who are asleep or in reversible comas deserve such respect. So, if one denied that human beings are intrinsically valuable in virtue of what they are, but required an additional attribute, the additional attribute would have to be a capacity of some sort, and, obviously a capacity for certain mental functions. Of course, human beings in the embryonic, fetal, and early infant stages lack immediately exercisable capacities for mental functions characteristically carried out (though intermittently) by most (not all – consider cases of severely retarded children and adults and comatose persons) human beings at later stages of maturity. Still, they possess in radical (= root) form these very capacities. Precisely by virtue of the kind of entity they are, they are from the beginning actively developing themselves to the stages at which these capacities will (if all goes well) be immediately exercisable. In this critical respect, they are quite unlike cats and dogs – even adult members of those species. As humans, they are members of a natural kind – the human species – whose embryonic, fetal, and infant members, if not prevented by some extrinsic cause, develop in due course and by intrinsic self-direction the immediately exercisable capacity for characteristically human mental functions. Each new human being comes into existence possessing the internal resources to develop immediately exercisable characteristically human mental capacities – and only the adverse effects on them of other causes will prevent their full development. In this sense, even human beings in the embryonic, fetal, and infant stages have the basic natural capacity for characteristically human mental functions.

We can, therefore, distinguish two senses of the "capacity" (or what is sometimes referred to as the "potentiality") for mental functions: an immediately exercisable one, and a basic natural capacity, which develops over time. On what basis can one require for the recognition of full moral respect the first sort of capacity, which is an attribute that human beings acquire (if at all) only in the course of development (and may lose before dying), and that some will have in greater degree than others, and not the second, which is possessed by human beings as such? We can think of no good reason or nonarbitrary justification.

By contrast, there are good reasons to hold that the second type of capacity is the ground for full moral respect.

First, someone entertaining the view that one deserves full moral respect only if one has immediately exercisable capacities for mental functions should realize that the developing human being does not reach a level of maturity at which he or she performs a type of mental act that other animals do not perform – even animals such as dogs and cats – until at least several months after birth. A six-week-old baby lacks the immediately exercisable capacity to perform characteristically human mental functions. So, if full moral respect were due only to those who possess immediately exercisable capacities for characteristically human mental functions, it would follow that six-week-old infants do not deserve full moral respect. If one further takes the position that beings (including human beings) deserving less than full moral respect may legitimately be dismembered for the sake of research to benefit those who are thought to deserve full moral respect, then one is logically committed to the view that, subject to parental approval, the body parts of human infants, as well as those of human embryos and fetuses, should be fair game for scientific experimentation.

Second, the difference between these two types of capacity is merely a difference between stages along a continuum. The proximate, or immediately exercisable, capacity for mental functions is only the development of an underlying potentiality that the human being possesses simply by virtue of the kind of entity it is. The capacities for reasoning, deliberating, and making choices are gradually developed, or brought toward maturation, through gestation, childhood, adolescence, and so on. But the difference between a being that deserves full moral respect and a being that does not (and can therefore legitimately be dismembered as a means of benefiting others) cannot consist only in the fact that, while both have some feature, one has more of it than the other. A mere quantitative difference (having more or less of the same feature, such as the development of a basic natural capacity) cannot by itself be a justificatory basis for treating different entities in radically different ways. Between the ovum and the approaching thousands of sperm, on the one hand, and the embryonic human being, on the other hand, there is a clear difference in kind. But between the embryonic human being and that same human being at any later stage of its maturation, there is only a difference in degree.

Third, being a whole human organism (whether immature or not) is an either/or matter – a thing either is or is not a whole human being. But the acquired qualities that could be proposed as criteria for personhood come in varying and continuous degrees: there is an infinite number of degrees of the relevant developed abilities or dispositions, such as for self-consciousness, intelligence, or rationality. So, if human beings were worthy of full moral respect only because of such qualities, and not in virtue of the kind of being they are, then, since such qualities come in varying degrees, no account could be given of why basic rights are not possessed by human beings in varying degrees. The proposition that all human beings are created equal would be relegated to the status of a superstition. For example, if developed self-consciousness bestowed rights, then, since some people are more self-conscious than others (that is, have developed that capacity to a greater extent than others), some people would be greater in dignity than others, and the rights of the superiors would trump those of the inferiors where the interests of the superiors could be advanced at the cost of the inferiors. This conclusion would follow no matter which of the acquired qualities generally proposed as qualifying some human beings (or human beings at some stages) for full respect were selected. Clearly, developed self-consciousness, or desires, or so on, are arbitrarily selected degrees of development of capacities that all human beings possess in (at least) radical form from the coming into being of the organism until his or her death. So, it cannot be the case that some human beings and not others are intrinsically valuable, by virtue of a certain degree of development. Rather, human beings are intrinsically valuable in virtue of what (i.e., the kind of being) they are; and all human beings – not just some, and certainly not just those who have advanced sufficiently along the developmental path as to be able to exercise their capacities for characteristically human mental functions – are intrinsically valuable.

Since human beings are intrinsically valuable and deserving of full moral respect in virtue of what they are, it follows that they are intrinsically valuable from the point at which they come into being. Even in the embryonic stage of our lives, each of us was a human being and, as such, worthy of concern and protection. Embryonic human beings, whether brought into existence by union of gametes, SCNT, or other cloning technologies, should be accorded the status of inviolability recognized for human beings in other developmental stages.

(Although this excerpt is lengthy, it is still only an excerpt, and I would recommend that the rest of George's statement be read.)

This argument clearly demonstrates that the human embryo is a human being, and it does so without reference to religious dogma or authority.

In numerous dialogues (my own and others') with abortion rights supporters, I've yet to see this argument refuted.

Questions for Kerry

George Will has some questions for John Kerry.

I'm sure that George isn't expecting answers anytime soon.

Rod Dreher asks a good question:

What I don't get is this: why was it wrong for Judge Roy Moore of Alabama to unilaterally declare federal law wrong, and defy it by installing a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse rotunda ... but it's okay for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to unilaterally declare state law wrong in prohibiting same-sex marriage, and defy it by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples? I mean, I know why the media was outraged by the former episode of grandstanding and not the latter, but as a legal matter, what's the difference?

A friend asked the same thing in a phone conversation just last night.

I suppose the answer has something to do with the fact that the SF mayor is just obviously doing the right thing, while Moore was just obviously doing the wrong thing. (BTW, I disagreed with Moore, as I blogged at the time; but Dreher's point remains a valid one.)

Reason alone

It has been claimed that in my discussions with progressives (whether secular or religious), I appeal entirely to the authority of religous doctrine.

For anyone who thinks this, I'd urge you to read the discussions I have with those with whom I disagree; if you do so, you'll find that I never appeal to Scripture or religious dogma to make my point, but to reason alone. It makes absolutely no sense to quote the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it is inspired, and I know that... that's why I don't appeal to it! Same with those who do not believe that the Catholic Church's claims about itself are true.

For example, look at the post from last week on the need for intellectual discussion, and the comments thread I referenced therein: in my discussion of abortion with J. Collins Fisher, I never appeal to Scripture or dogma to make my point... I only use reason.

To charge that I use arguments from religious authority may be easier--it allows me to be lumped in with people who do make such arguments--but it doesn't reflect reality.

The key point is this: it is precisely because I appeal only to reason that dialogue is possible; if my arguments were based on references to the bible and dogma, there would be no way to discuss with those who do not accept either. But since my appeals are to reason, dialogue is possible.

Cafeteria Catholicism

One of my frustrations in discussions with progressive Catholics is their tendency to discard truths (especially of a sexual nature) which they disagree with. Other Catholics certainly may tend to do the same thing with other teachings, but this particular Catholic (me) accepts every teaching of the Church, because of Jesus' promise that the Church would not fail.

For instance, one progressive Catholic blogger recently wrote the following:

I mentioned a couple of days ago that most of the arguments made by the Christian Right against equal rights for our GLBT citizens are scripturally based (the Catholic Church's objections are based in the "natural law" tradition, and have to do with a religious anthropology of sexuality as being licit only when it is open to procreation--I'll deal with the weaknesses of that argument at another time) and, as such, are open to opposition on scriptural basis.

This blogger obviously disagrees with the Church's teaching on homosexuality and marriage.

Another progressive Catholic blogger said the following in a comments box:

Apply all this to discussions of the Nicene Creed. Is it, or should it be, a gold standard of belief? No--I take the liberal view there. But should it be dismissed for any and all limitations it has and/or is perceived to have? No--I take a stance defending the Catholic Church on that score.

I know the good heart of this blogger, but such a statement saddens me: the Nicene Creed was the standard by which one was judged to be a right-thinking Christian in the fourth century; if you couldn't recite the Nicene Creed, you didn't believe as Christians believe, it's that simple. To deny it as a "gold standard" is to deny a defining statement for Christians.

There are all sorts of motivations for such actions... some good, some not. But whatever the reason, there is no rational basis for a Catholic to deny church teaching, whether it be a moral teaching or a credal statement. To be Catholic means many things, but one thing it means it to recognize the authority of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals, and it disappoints me to see charitable and intelligent people disregard the gift which is the Magisterium in such a manner.

Being pastoral

I've encountered too many people who think that being pastoral in effect means emptying a hard truth to make it more palatable.

It does not.

Being pastoral means communicating what is a hard truth in a language which offers the best chance of the truth being accepted by an interlocutor. God certainly knows that I personally too often fail to do this, and I seek His wisdom to prevent such occurrences in the future.

But my failings aside, the reality is that watering down hard truths is in fact detrimental to the well-being of our interlocutor. Why? See the post below for my explanation.

Doctrine, principles, and ideas "versus" People?

As I've sought to engage progressives (secular and Christian) in dialogue over the past several months, I've realized that many (certainly not all) progressives have the idea that conservatives elevate doctrine and/or ideas over people. That is, conservatives are more concerned with right ideas than with loving people.

I find this to be a very vexing proposal, almost to the point of incredulity. There simply is no conflict between right and true doctrine and (love for) people. Why? For a very simple reason: to say that something is true (whether it be religious, philosophical, or otherwise) means that it tells us something about reality. Thus, truths which refer to questions of human morality indicate what is true about being and living as a human. Truths which are theological indicate what is true about God and His plan of salvation for humanity. And so on.

As such, there can simply be no conflict between true doctrine/ideas and love of people, and to suggest otherwise is mistaken.

Now, it's possible that a doctrine or idea might be wrong, and in that case, there is most definitely a conflict between that proposition and loving people. But to arrive at such a judgment, the idea needs to be discussed first. And that is precisely what I'm attempting to do in my discussions which progressives.

Church and State

In light of the controversy surrounding Archbishop Burke's decision while in La Crosse, Wisconsin to deny communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, I'd highly recommend this article by Profs. Robert P. George and Gerard Bradley. They handle the separation of church & state issue very deftly.

Civics lesson

Jeff Miller reminds us of the three branches of government: judiciary, judiciary. and judiciary. And he also explains the difference between a judge and a dictator.

He's writing, of course, in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's "clarification" that basically, only marriage will suffice for granting gays full legal rights.

And as Kevin Miller notes, "if you can have 'gay marriage,' you can have polygamy. There's just no good argument that admits the one but excludes the other." Exactly. As I've noted before, I've tried to get my progressive Christian blogpals to articulate a reason (as opposed to an assertion) why sexual relationships require exclusivity, to no avail. I'm sure some folks would reject Kevin's statement, but what reason would they advance to do so?

Need a speaker?

Attention Diocesan and Parish DRE's, etc.: if you'd like to have a solid and entertaining speaker come to your parish or diocese, might I recommend Mark Shea? Mark was in the Diocese of Sioux Falls and appeared at six parishes, giving a different talk at each, and in every case, I heard excellent reviews, and requests to have him back, to which I guess I'll acquiesce. ;-)

So, visit Mark's blog and his website, and if you like what you find, contact him for a speaking gig!

The need for Intellectual discussion

The reason I've been posting less of late is that I've been engaging some fellow Christians on topics on which we disagree. Specifically, they've been progressive Christians like Allen Brill, Matt Zemek, and J. Collins Fisher.

J. and I have been engaged in a cordial discussion of late on a wide range of issues, from abortion to papal supremacy viz. one's conscience.

J. recently decided that it was time to abandon the thread and move on, which is understandable. What disappointed and surprised me, however, was her reasons for doing so. In her final comment, J. stated,

The problem w/ trying to have an intellectual discussion of these issues w/ you, ChrisB, is that I'm enabling you to believe that this is about an intellectual discussion. It is not.

It is about rights. Human rights. God-given rights. *My* rights, and the sentient female-bodied persons who believe as I do (about the autnomy they have over their bodies). Queer people, who want to celebrate their God-given queerness, in the public square, and in the Church.

[...]

This site is about being "In the World, Not of the World": in *my* world, w/ the decisions that I actually face, not some functionally meaningless "angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin/"active vs. passive potential" abstraction. [Ed: the final comment refers to the our abortion discussion and the difference between a blastocyst which has the active potential to develop into an adult human and a skin cell which only has the passive potential to do so.]

Here was my response:

J., I'd urge you to reconsider abandoning this thread, for this reason: if we are unable to articulate a philosophical, reasonable explanation for *why* we have rights and *why* they are unalienable, then they will eventually be denied and taken away; maybe it won't happen today, tomorrow, next year, or in ten years, but it will happen, as it has always happened throughout history.

I'm sure that given another consideration, you'd recongize that my "abstract" discussion is in fact *fundamental* to guaranteeing *our* rights, not just those of the youngest of human beings. At some point, J., *every* discussion which seeks to present the ultimate basis for who we are and what we are entitled to and obliged to do will become "abstract". An intellectual discussion thus is *necessary*.

How does your argument not become a shouting match about what is and is not right? To simply assert that X is a God-given right and leave it at that is not an argument, J., and you know it. It's something which is typically expected of the *other* side of the Christian divide, and I'm disappointed to see you resort to it.

I mean no offense by this post, J.: we've always had serious discussions in which the issues are discussed thoughtfully, and I'm saddened to see that you have no interest in continuing that in this instance.

I hope that J. is willing to re-engage the discussion, because her final comment is, frankly, dangerous, or more precisely, it is indicative of a position which has important ramifications for public discourse in our nation. If we are unable to have intellectual discussions in which we get to the metaphysical heart(s) of the issues which divide us, what is our alternative?

Why did we got to war?

I thought it was because Saddam had (we thought) WMDs. But others have said that that's only one reason, and even a minor one. For instance, Jonah Goldberg wrote the following today:

Anyway, my point is this: to the extent the post-Iraq failure to find WMDs is a disaster for the United States in terms of its credibility, its relationships with allies etc. one could argue that the fault lies in the fact that George W. Bush listened too much to Colin Powell and the State Department instead of the hawks, since it was the Wolfowitz crowd which wanted to emphasize freedom, democracy, stability and the war on terror. Now that no WMDs have been found that rhetoric seems self-serving when in fact those were co-equal priorities all along. If George Bush had talked before the war about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq as eloquently as he did afterwards, he would be in a lot better shape politically and in the history books. Moreover, I bet he would have been a lot more honest. Bush is a moralist and I'm certain he had the liberation of Iraq and the war on terrorism in his mind as much as anything else.

Now, I like Jonah; he's a great writer, whose material I really enjoy reading.

But I think he's all wet on this one. Simply put, I don't think the very noble goal of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq and thus (hopefully) to the region is sufficient grounds to launch a war, and I've never seen someone who argued for the war on the basis of just war doctrine attempt to do so.

SOTU

The wife and I watched the State of the Union address tonight. I thought it was a generally good speech, but like most SOTU addresses, there were a lot of cliches and a lot of clapping, both of which get a little old pretty quickly.

As you might expect, I agree with most of Bush's policy stances, although I'm not sure why pro-sports steroids made a State of the Union address.

I thought that Bush was effective as a speechmaker; as the Better Half commented, he really has improved in this regard since he took office. I thought the best line of the speech was this one: "Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain... Australia... Japan... South Korea... the Philippines... Thailand... Italy... Spain... Poland... Denmark... Hungary... Bulgaria... Ukraine... Romania... the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq." Bingo, Mr. President. (Someone needs to read this line to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who in the Democrat rebuttal said that Bush "has pursued a go-it-alone foreign policy that leaves us isolated abroad." Oops.)

Again, I thought it was a good speech, all in all. I look forward to Bush's next such address in 2005 ;-)

MoveOn's headliner

Yesterday I linked a partial transcript of MoveOn's award show, which included comedian [sic] Margaret Cho's obscenity-laced rant against Bush.

It turns out that Cho has also vented her irrational hatred against John Paul II before... go here to see a version of her anti-Catholic ranting with *'s in the appropriate places.

And then wonder why MoveOn would have someone like this as their headliner.

(Thanks to Mark Shea for the initial heads-up.)

Worth reading

In the continuing discussion over the Iraq War and just war doctrine I find it helpful to read serious and intelligent thoughts on both sides. A number of folks in the Catholic corner of the blogosphere continue to raise good questions about the war and just war theory (Mark Shea, for instance).

Over the last couple of days I've read/glanced at longer articles which are critical of the war, although not always from the just war perspective. For instance, intelligence analyst Kenneth Pollack, whose book The Threatening Storm made a persuasive case for war in late 2002, has an article in The Atlantic Monthly which addresses the question of WMD's (or lack thereof) in Iraq. Pollack isn't outright against the war, but he raises a number of critical points which are worth considering.

From a military perspective, Air War College professor Jeffrey Record -- in a study published under the auspices of the Army War College -- criticizes the handling of the entire war on terrorism, arguing that war in Iraq was in fact unnecessary. (NB: the military itself printed a critical document of the war on terror!) I haven't read the entire work, but again, it's something written by a serious person, not a partisan hack.

FYI!

But there are differences

In the post below from last week, I noted that just as conservatives loved to "hate" Clinton, liberals love to "hate" Bush.

However, I don't think the the conservative attitude towards Clinton ever descended to the depths of MoveOn.org and their ilk. Go read a partial transcript from MoveOn's award show, in which a bevy of c-list comedians, musicians, and actors unleash a torrent of obcenities and curses on the president, and then tell me of a similar example during the first term of the Clinton administration, or either term, for that matter.

The jerks.

Lying Liars and the Lies they tell

Allen Brill, host of The Right Christians, has a blog on which I enjoy interacting with folks who disagree with me on things political and theological. Most of the discourse is serious and charitable, as I've said elsewhere.

Every now and then, though, a commenter will make an overly-zealous statement. For instance, in the comments of this post, one fellow wrote, that Bush "cannot be trusted because he's lied on every policy initiative to come from his office." Every policy initiative? Wow. Quite the pathological liar we've got in the Oval Office.

In a different vein, Melanie of Just another Bump in the Beltway tracks the news of the day, and her dislike for Bush is pretty apparent. For instance, she recently blogged on Bush's statement on a settlement on Mars, commenting,

Bush might as well propose peace on earth, a chicken in every pot and universal spiritual enlightenment. Along with the immigration proposal earlier this week, this is nothing more than hot air. The level of cynicism that this betrays on the part of Team Rove is pretty spectacular. Just because Bush can form the words "base on the moon" in his mouth doesn't make him JFK.

Actually, it's Melanie who strikes me as cynical, considering that she immediately chalks this proposal up to hot air, and that she rarely has a single good thing to say about Bush. (In fact, I've never seen a positive statement about Bush from her, but it's possible that I missed it.)

The parallels between liberals' contempt for Bush and conservatives' contempt for Clinton are striking... it seems that the combination of their respective policy initiatives together with their own personalities really grate on the political opposition. Of course, I think Clinton was deserving of much of the scorn he received, and Bush isn't, but that's another story :-) It's still interesting how they seem to inspire similar reactions.

Dean's opposition to Iraq

Lately I've been trying to figure out how it is that Howard Dean opposed the war in Iraq, yet supported the war in Kosovo and Bosnia. I've come across a number explanations offered by him and by those who support him especially on Iraq, but I still can't figure it out.

Dean has stated (here, for instance) that he opposed the war because Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US. Now apart from the whole question of imminence (Bush didn't think the threat was imminent, either, and didn't argue it, contrary to many on the left), there's problem of threat -- or more properly, the lack thereof -- posed to the US in Kosovo and/or Bosnia. If we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because there was no imminent threat, why should we have gone to war in Kosovo & Bosnia?

Second, there's the multilateral issue. Dean often complains that the US didn't have the support of the UN in Iraq. But the UN didn't approve the actions in Kosovo or Bosnia either, yet Dean supports them! Ostensibly, that's because NATO was involved, meaning it was a multi-lateral effort. But so was Iraq! In fact, there were more nations involved in the war against Iraq than in the war in Kosovo!

So how is one to make sense of Dean's approach to war?

Then there's this: in this article from last March, Dean said the following: "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

One astute blogger commented as follows: "Dean's clarification to Salon seems eerily familiar. Let's delve into Dean's remarks to Salon closely: Iraq must be disarmed. The United Nations should get involved and its resolutions should be enforced. If the U.N. refuses to act, and Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm, the U.S. can and should force Iraqi disarmament through unilateral military action. Why does this position sound familiar? Because it's the exact same position taken by the Bush administration." (I'd recommend reading the entire post.)

So basically, I have no idea how to understand Dean on war, in Iraq or anywhere else.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, & Blessed Epiphany!

It's been a bit since I've posted, but I'm sure you can understand, considering the hectic nature of the Advent & Christmas seasons. I hope they've been good to you all thus far.

My first post for the new year is just to note something I found in an article at the site I mentioned in my last post, Godspy. The article is The Cultural Victory of Hugh Hefner, and it contains this interesting comment:

Thanks largely to Hefner's pioneering spirit, men have won every battle in the modern war between the sexes. Where women are free and equal, they are free and equal to be men. Just go shopping at the Gap. Or pick up any women's magazine published in the last few decades. In it you will find an article, essay, or questionnaire demonstrating or demanding that women should have more sex than they are currently having. Is there an escape, a way out, a means by which a woman can choose not to have her social norms and sexual drives dictated to by porn culture? In America right now, three out of four converts to Islam are women. Call it a jihad of the hijab.

The strange, unintended-yet-real nature of modern radical feminism to masculinize women is something I was previously familiar with. What I did not realize is that 75% of American converts to Islam are women. Hmm... why do you suppose that is? Not that I'm advocating the Islamic approach to women -- I strongly believe that Catholic Christianity much more embraces and upholds the dignity of women. My point is that it's interesting that it's apparently women more than men who are attracted to a faith which is generally regarded as, well, not exactly woman-friendly.

What does that say about our culture?

Here it is

Thanks to a link from Mark Brumley, tonight I discovered the website Godspy, which is one of the best Catholic sites I've seen on the web.

I arrive at that judgment in large part because of the Mission Statement, which I highly recommend viewing via the flash-based visual version linked above the text version, which reads as follows:

Blowing the Dynamite

Catholic scholars have taken the dynamite of the Church,
have wrapped it up in nice phraseology,
placed it in an hermetic container
and sat on the lid.
It is about time to blow the lid off.
- Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement.

What We Believe

We've created Godspy because we believe that Catholic faith is beautiful and mysterious, often exhilarating, and sometimes infuriating.

We believe that the person of Jesus Christ is the answer to the deepest desires of the human heart, and that the Catholic Church is his mystical body. And that we Catholics, despite our best intentions, do a good job of obscuring that fact.

We believe that the Church is not a lifeboat off a shipwrecked world, but that it exists "for the life of the world" [John 6:51] - our world. And because this world matters so much to the Church, Catholics need to do more to engage modern culture, and the people who shape it.

When asked why he became a Catholic, the novelist Walker Percy answered, "What else is there?" We feel the same way. But we know this answer seems absurd to many people.

It seems absurd to those who have been hurt by representatives of the Church. It seems absurd to those who only know the Church from newspaper headlines when things go wrong, or from biased, outdated history books. And it seems absurd to those puzzled by the Church's teachings, or turned off by half-hearted worship and preaching. These people need to know and experience the invisible reality that is the real Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, who is "the answer to the question that is Man." But how will that happen, unless committed Catholics reach out directly to them?

Why Godspy?

Love it or hate it, everyone can agree: the Church can't be ignored. "Catholic" means universal, and the Church is that in every sense. It's one billion members large, and it's spread across the globe. But it's universal in a more important sense. Nothing human or cosmic is beyond its reach.

"The Catholic person is truly universal: he is interested in everything and afraid of nothing," says the Catholic philosopher Adrian Walker.

That's why we believe there needs to be a fearless, intelligent forum for Catholics that's as universal as their faith, where non-Catholics and those in-between are invited to join the conversation. Not to "change" the Church, but to give witness to their lives.

We believe that Catholics and other seekers are looking for an intelligent magazine about real Catholic faith - without apologies - that doesn't avert its eyes from real life. A magazine that speaks with a voice that's authentic, honest, and generous. A magazine that's written for the average person, rather than for theologians or religious insiders.

Who Inspires Us

Much of our inspiration comes from the great Catholic fiction writers of the last century: Georges Bernanos. Graham Greene. Walker Percy. Flannery O'Connor. They were believing, often times anguished, Catholics who used their faith to reveal the truth about human existence. And from their vantage points, they challenged the preconceptions of both believers and non-believers.

Flannery O'Connor, in answer to a critic who said devout Catholics were "brainwashed," and lacking in the freedom necessary to be first-rate creative writers, said "there is no reason why fixed dogma should fix anything that the writer sees in the world. On the contrary, dogma is an instrument for penetrating reality. Christian dogma is about the only thing left in the world that surely guards and respects mystery." She challenged non-believers to consider the unseen reality, the eternal truths, within and beyond the visible world.

O'Connor was equally direct when addressing fellow Catholics and other believers. She criticized those who try to "tidy up reality," letting spiritual pride blind them to the realities of our fallen, broken existence. "We lost our innocence in the Fall," she said, "and our turn to it is through the Redemption which was brought about by Christ's death and by our slow participation in it. Sentimentality is a skipping of this process in its concrete reality and an early arrival at a mock state of innocence, which strongly suggests its opposite."

In their art, all of these writers looked upon reality without illusions. Their honesty touched the hearts of non-believers. We believe this sort of "Christian Realism" can touch the hearts of non-believers today, and help mend the rift between the Church and the world. That's why we explicitly invite all "seekers" to read Godspy.

We fully expect the graces to flow the other way, too. "Unbelieving searchers," observed O'Connor, "have their effect even upon those of us who do believe. We begin to examine our own religious notions, to sound them for genuineness, to purify them in the heat of our unbelieving neighbor's anguish."

Godspy's mission is to be a place where such encounters can take place. A place where Catholics and others searching for the face of God can together ponder "the mystery of things, as if we were God's spies" [King Lear].

Patron Saints

We entrust Godspy to Mary of Nazareth, the New Eve, the Virgin Mother of God.

We pray for the intercession of our patron saints: St. Catherine of Siena, St. Phillip Neri, St. Edith Stein, and St. Maximillian Kolbe, as well as three possible future saints: Dorothy Day, Cardinal Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta. They were all radical: in their faith, in their love, and in their lives.

Of course, our greatest living, human, inspiration is Pope John Paul II. Mere words can't convey our debt to him.

Thanks for your interest in our mission. Welcome to Godspy, and may the peace and mercy of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father be with you always.

As articulated here and as exemplified in their articles, Godspy appears to answer a deep need: presenting the full beauty and truth of the Catholic faith (as opposed to watering it down in the face of external pressures) in an attractive and stimulating manner.

Make sure and check this site out.

Huh!

I saw Lord of the Rings: Return of the King this past week. Actually, I saw it twice: once on Wednesday, once on Saturday (that should suffice for what I thought of the film).

Tonight I watched part of Titanic on NBC, and the actor who played the captain of the ship reminded me of Bernard Hill, the actor who did an excellent job (imho) potraying King Theoden of Rohan in the Lord of the Rings. So I got online, checked Titantic at Internet Movie Database, and what do you know! They are the same guy!

Huh!

Wow

Read this NYTimes article and the blasting which the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, gave the Security Council over its actions toward Iraq. Some choice quotes:

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people."

"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold."

"One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable. The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

"The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."

And extended passage:

He also took on countries like France that have expressed doubts about the current governing group. "As Iraqis," he said, "we strongly disagree with those of you that question the legitimacy of the present Iraqi authorities."

He continued: "I'd like to remind you that the governing council is the most representative and democratic governing body in the region."

He said, "The members of the Security Council should be reaching out and encouraging this nascent democracy in a region well known for its authoritarian rule."

Ouch!

For being so stupid, he sure has fooled a lot of people

Go here and read The Right Christian's author Allen Brill complain about how bad a president George Bush is, so much worse than Nixon.

I think Allen needed to let off some steam, because this kind of post isn't typical of him.

And while you're there, read various commenters' theories about how Bush can possibly be polling above single digits.

I'm sure I'll read things like this from the conservative side of blogland if we ever have another Democrat president (let's hope not, at least without major policy changes), but until then, I can only wonder if I'd ever write something like this.

Philip Bartlett responds

Back at the beginning of the month I briefly posted on sedevacantist Philip Bartlett. He responded in the comments of that post and by email; here's his take (in the email, with the subject line: Private Interpretation?- Response To A VERY Confused Man which will be posted on our website):

Mr. B (full name omitted to keep people from going to his website to be corrupted by heresy),

Your entire notion of private interpretation is skewed and faulty. We are indeed allowed to read the texts of the magisterium and also understand what they say. We also have the ability to understand what they say. We also have the ability to understand what the statements of the word of God, the scriptures say. As His Holiness Pope Leo XIII makes extremely clear, the approved method of interpretation of the scriptures is the literal and obvious sense.

"But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. " PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS (Leo XIII)

The fact is that not only do I believe that I must interpret the documents of the magisterium, SO DO YOU! For example, you interpret the catechism. You interpret the documents of the present day magisterium. You interpret Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. When I say interpret, I mean you read the words and accept what they are saying. The words themselves have meaning. If we were to adopt your false principle, that we may never interpret anything written to us, there would be no way whatsoever to prove that the Catholic faith is the true one.

Now you might say to me that you interpret something a certain way unless there is an indication from the Vatican that you can no longer interpret it that way. THIS IS LIKEWISE FAULTY. Because you are indicating by that notion that you believe that the Vatican is clear in its foribidding a certain interpretation, and that its statements forbidding such are clear.

Well then.... I submit to you, that the statements of the original councils are likewise clear for us. If they were not clear, there would be no point in having the scripture, tradition, or councils.

If you accept that those who seek God with sincerity can be saved outside of the Catholic religion, and that they will never enter the Catholic Faith or religion, you will be damned, because you deny and contradict the clear words of Gregory XVI, that submitting to the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation for every man. It has been defined by council, that in order to be saved you must hold to the Athanasian creed. IF you do not hold the concepts stated in the Athansian creed, you are completely damned. To understand that you should best read the implicit faith heresy article.

Therefore, if you condemn me on the basis of "private interpretation", I condemn you on the basis of the same, seeing that you seek to interpret the words of the New Magisterium in an effort to understand that I am wrong. You are privately interpreting what they are saying. But, even as you do that, you deny that me that very same right. If I were living in 1400, I would interpret the words of the olde councils in the exact same way you are interpreting the words of the present magisterium of Antipope John Paul 2- in their literal and obvious sense, the sense that God requires. The fact is, you are denying the words of the olde councils in their literal and obvious sense, in order to accomodate the heresies of Vatican 2.

Just as you deny the words of Christ Himself, who states that unless a man is born of water (in baptism) he can not enter the kingdom of heaven. By denying all of these clear words, you become a heretic.

Here's my response, by email and here:

Mr. Bartlett,

1. I'm not afraid to link your site, because I know that truth is more powerful than error, and that the people who read my blog are sufficiently formed in their faith not to be led astray by your own comments.

2. I contend that your intepretation is similar to that practiced by some Protestants for this reason: as you say, everyone interprets, and I agree. However, what distinguishes us is a recognition of the authority of the Catholic magisterium, or more precisely a recognition of the fact that it is the magisterium which has been given the gift of infallibility, not my own interpretation. In other words, I recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the other bishops in union with him (today and throughout history), and I interpret texts according to their authoritative teaching. You on the other hand still employ a methodology which exalts the individual's interpretation over that of the magisterium, while calling yourself a Catholic.

3. Your argument hinges on the idea that the bishop of Rome and his fellow bishops can together teach error, even in an ecumenical council. If that is correct, why accept any of the prior magisterial texts? Your conclusion of error at V2 depends on your own understanding of prior magisterial texts, rather than the understanding of the body which promulgated them: the Church's magisterium.

I'm not confused, sir. As a Catholic, I acknowledge the authority of the magisterium... I do not reject it and raise my own intellectual judgment in its place.

Have a blessed Advent & Christmas.

Chris

Give me a break

While perusing this comments thread at Howard Dean's website, I found a post (do a find for "degrift", part of the author's name) which states,

The damage caused by the Bush administration to our society is unaffected by Saddam's capture:

--Our environment continues to deteriorate.
--We still need a health care system.
--International relations remain damaged.
--The rich continue to get richer at the expense of everyone else.
--Unemployment remains way too high.
--Wages for an honest day's work remain inadequate to own a home for too many Americans.
--Our civil liberties remain under attack.
--Our policies continue to provide incentive for terrorist recruitment.
--K-12 education remains weak.
--College education is still becoming less affordable.
--Ownership of mass media continues to become concentrated.
--We continue to undermine our children's future by wasting energy and natural resources.
--There are still large numbers of people (like Alert, today's troll-du-jour) who don't understand the values upon which the country was founded.
--Church and State are being merged.
--Human rights for many Americans are still not respected.

Capturing Saddam Hussein doesn't solve these problems although many Americans may forget this for a few days.

Only this great campaign of hope led by Howard Dean will lead to resolving these real problems.

Come on. Apart from erroneous assertions, Mr. Van Degrift apparently believes that presidents possess the ability to solve all our nation's problems. I wonder, for instance, what exactly Howard Dean would do to solve the problem that "Wages for an honest day's work remain inadequate to own a home for too many Americans." Maybe we could enact a $40,000 per year minimum wage... I'd support that! Sign me up!

Success!

As you all know, Saddam was caught by US forces last night near Tikrit. There's no point linking news stories, since it's visible at any media outlet.

What interests me is the reaction of the left, both secular and progressive. Some are clearly happy about the events (Allen Brill, for instance), but others acknowledge the importance in a sentence or two (or less) and then talk about how this isn't really any big deal, how it's not going to have that much of an effect, etc. etc. (see Atrios and progressive Catholic Melanie, for instance). They aren't exactly excited about what is clearly good news, even if it doesn't mean that Iraq is going to be completely peaceful by tomorrow.

Relatedly, on Meet the Press this morning, Joe Lieberman said, "if Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today."

Almost forgot

Much to my surprise, last Saturday I found an email from Wisconsin state legislator Marlin Schneider, responding to the most recent letter I'd written (he'd indicated that he wouldn't be continuing the discussion, but I guess he changed his mind). You can find it under "Third Update" in the original post.

I've yet to respond, and frankly, I don't know if I will.

New additions to the blogroll

Lutheran Confessions

Camassia

DeoOmnisGloria

Revealed truth and philosophy

Using the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a case study, Mark of Minute Particulars shows how the philosopher can take advantage of revealed truth in his own discipline. The key quote:

While it's true that any discipline which purports to work exclusively in the light of reason cannot come to conclusions that depend on revealed truths, such disciplines can use the light of faith to point them in the right direction and eliminate some avenues of speculation.

Precisely. The philosopher -- knowing that x is true -- can eliminate certain solutions to a particular problem in light of x, thus aiding him in solving the problem at hand.

This reminds me of the discussion in the mid to late 80's between a number of theologians: David Schindler one one side, George Weigel, Michael Novak, and Fr. Richard Neuhaus on the other. While I think highly of the second bunch, and appreciate and agree with much of their work, I think Schindler was in the right. The discussion is to wide ranging to attempt to summarize, but in a nutshell (which will probably be less than helpful to anyone who isn't familiar with the debate) it concerns the relationship between nature & grace and faith & reason, democracy, and public policy.

Why am I reminded of this discussion? Because what Mark is saying reminds me of part of Schindler's argument: IIRC, he argues that we should use the meaning of person as indicated by revelation (i.e. its communitarian dimension as seen in the Trinity) to a greater extent, rather than relying on a purely philosophical concept. That's not to say that public policy discussions should include references to Scripture or Nicea I, but that those concepts should be utilized when "person" is being discussed in the public square.

A theological thumbs-up for The Passion of Christ

Fr. Gus Di Noia, OP, whom I quoted the other day viz. nominalism and morality, did an interview with Zenit, the Rome-based Catholic news organization. Fr. Di Noia -- currently the undersecretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and member of the International Theological Council -- recently saw Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ, and had positive things to say about it, as you can see in the interview.

Check it out.

Two Churches?

In his latest commentary, Bob Sungenis contrasts "the old church," "the church of the past," and "the church of tradition" with "the church of today." However, what he is really contrasting in most cases is the views of individuals, both in the past and today. He is not comparing (let alone contrasting) "the old magisterium" with "the new magisterium," but rather what individuals in the past and today have respectively said.

In addition, he claims that adherents of "today's church" cannot claim that the "old church" erred (this claim is debatable in itself), because to do so would leave them open to the "future church" claiming that today's church erred. He says,

Therefore, if those of us on the Traditional side of the fence choose to accuse the modern church of being wrong, there is nothing they can say against us, for they have already opened Pandora’s box by claiming that the Traditional church was wrong. If the Traditional church can be wrong, then the post-conciliar church can be wrong, and we are at a stand-off.

Mr. Sungenis evidently does not see that he is opening himself to the same problem which proponents of "today's church" allegedly face: as soon as he says that today's church can err, then he is saying that yesterday's church can err, because they are one and the same.

That is the crucial point: yesterday's church and today's church are identical, not separate entities as Mr. Sungenis says when he claims that "the old church survived intact for 1965 years." As soon as he claims that the church in the post-conciliar era can err, he's asserting that the church prior to Vatican II can err.

In any case, I think that Mr. Sungenis misstates the proposal of Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium... the point isn't to condemn the past, nor to say that the Church was wrong in the past, but rather to propose that the unchanging doctrines of Catholicism need to be presented in a new manner for the modern mind. One can argue that the modern mind doesn't hold a candle to the medieval mind (in many ways, that's true), but it's beside the point: the purpose of the Church is to bring the Gospel to people where they are at, not where we would like them to be. The goal of the Church is the same as it was fifty years ago: to bring the Gospel of salvation to as many people as possible. The difference is that the Church believes that this can best be accomplished in means different from those employed in the past. One can argue as to whether or not these new means are effective or how effective they are, but the fact remains that the goal is the same.

Has the pope asked forgiveness for certain actions of Church members of the past? Of course. Does that mean that he's said that "the church of the past is wrong"? No.

I think I'll leave it at that.

Now that's presidential

In an with Rolling Stone magazine, Massachusetts Senator and Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry use the f-bomb to describe President Bush's Iraq policy.

Classy. Real classy.

PP Holiday cards, 2003

Last year I blogged about Planned Parenthood's holiday cards, one of which read, "Let There Be Choice On Earth".

They're at it again this year. You can see the latest at Jeff Miller's blog here, along with his own version... ;-)

Fr. Sibley on The Matrix

Fr. Bryce Sibley's thoughts on The Matrix Trilogy and its philosophy can be found here. In short, Fr. sees a definite philosophy underlying the films, rather than a hodgepodge of philosophies. What is that philosophy? Nietzscheanism. Here's Father's conclusion:

Presuming that this analysis is at least sound, it creates an amazing irony in the films. Neo is the Superman whose "will to power" helps his to rise above the machines, yet it is the same Nietzschean ideals that presumably lead to the rise of the machines in the first place. The will to power force the exponential increase of technology and creating the ethic of "it is possible, do it." So, with Neo’s death, have the humans finally been freed from the Matrix or simply become more inexorably intertwined with it?

Interesting...

Radical agenda?

Josh Claybourn responds to NY senator Hillary Clinton's assertion that President Bush has turned from his campaigning as a compassionate conservative to an "extremist agenda" in which he seeks to reverse Roosevelt's New Deal by noting the extraordinary growth of the federal government under Bush, something which many conservatives have been noting and complaining about for some time.

The bane of morality: Nominalism

There's a good discussion going on here at Disputations concerning the impact of the late medieval philosophy of nominalism on morality. Tom offered a quote from U.S. Dominican and current undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr. Augustine Di Noia as found in John Allen's latest Word from Rome:

Nominalism, [Under-Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Fr. Augustine] Di Noia[, OP,] argued, "let loose a catastrophe on the human race" by separating morality from anthropology... Imagine, he said, a mother cooking dinner who spots her child eating cookies. The mother could say, "eating cookies is forbidden in this house," appealing to her authority. Or she could say, "if you eat those cookies, you'll spoil your appetite," appealing to a truth about human nature. Nominalism proposes the first kind of morality, Di Noia said, while Thomism proposes the second.

Speaking of nominalism, Di Noia said: "The prevalence of this kind of moral theology gave rise to the intolerable tensions experienced by many Catholics in the face of the moral teaching of Humanae Vitae -- and eventually the entirety of Christian teaching about human sexuality -- which seemed to impose an outdated moral obligation whose connection with the human good was either denied or dismissed, or more commonly, simply not apparent." ...

Di Noia said the aim of John Paul II's 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor was to resuscitate a natural law approach to morality, one that sees obedience of moral commands "not as the suppression of the human person, but its perfection."

As I indicate in my comments, I agree completely Fr. Di Noia. For those interested in this discussion, I'd highly recommend The Sources of Christian Ethics by Di Noia's Dominican confrere, Fr. Servais Pinckaers.

Rep. Schneider responds

Wisconsin state representative Marlin Schneider has responded to my most recent letter to him regarding his comments on the letter Bishop Burke sent to three Catholic politicians in Wisconsin who support abortion rights.

There's no more substance in this response than in the previous one. You can find it just below in the post, "Chilly thinking from Wisconsin" under "second update."

New link

I'm blogrolling Certus Veritas, a blog which offers "Commentary and Opinion on Christianity, Politics, and Religion in the Public Square".

Check it out!

Chilly thinking from Wisconsin

This morning The Mighty Barrister linked a story in the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal on letters which La Crosse Catholic bishop Burke wrote to some of the state's Catholic legislators who vote for abortion rights. The Journal obtained a copy of one of the letters, written to state senator Julie Lassa (D-Stevens Point). After explaining the letter's contents, the article relates the senator's comments: "I'm concerned that the bishop would pressure legislators to vote according to the dictates of the church instead of the wishes of their constituents because that is not consistent with our Democratic ideals [...] When I was elected, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and that means I have to represent all the people of all faiths in my district."

Oy-veh.

It gets worse... state representative Marlin Schneider (D-Stevens Point), "called the letter outrageous." Him comments: "Churches ought not use the pulpit for blatant political purposes [...] When they start telling legislators how to vote, they've crossed the line." Schneider, mind you, is a Lutheran.

Here's the letter I wrote to him:

Dear Rep. Schneider,

Today I read the article in the Journal-Sentinel, "Bishop appeals to Catholic lawmakers".

I hope that the paper misstated your comments, because I found them to be outrageous. Perhaps you were not appraised of all the information, perhaps you reacted out of anger... I do not know. What I do know is that your comments do not indicate serious consideration of the issue.

For instance, the paper quotes you saying, "Churches ought not use the pulpit for blatant political purposes." Bishop Burke did not use the pulpit, Mr. Schneider. He wrote a private letter to Rep. Lassa which he did not publicize. And from the bishop's perspective, the issue is one of human rights, not "blatant political purposes."

The article also offers this quote from you: "When they [churches] start telling legislators how to vote, they've crossed the line." The Catholic Church has not told Rep. Lassa how to vote; the bishop informed Rep. Lassa that her votes did not accord with the faith that she professes, and that she needs to bring one into line with the other.

Mr. Schneider, what if a Catholic legislator had consistently voted in favor of racist legislation? Would you be outraged if one of the state's Catholic bishops wrote that legislator a private letter explaining that that person had to reconcile their voting with their faith? I doubt it.

I expect better from the state's representatives.

Sincerely,
Chris Burgwald

What's going on in Cheesehead Land? Too much beer drinking, maybe.

Update

Rep. Schneider promptly replied to my email; here it is:

Wrong. The day my church tells me how to vote and threatens me with salvation or membership is the day I leave. I have to represent all the faiths in my district not give preference to one over the other. I am sorry you do not understand that. This is just the kind of stuff that leads to Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Chechnya, and on and on. And they do use the pulpit and the church bulletins for blatant partisan political purposes. I walked out of my church one Sunday just three weeks ago when they passed out campaign materials in the bulletin. Obviously you agree with the Church's position on the issue not the principle involved in separation. This Doctrine of the Dual Swords goes back a long ways but our forefathers had the foresight to provide mechanisms that forbid us from favoring one religion over another. As a Lutheran do I favor my church's position on issues or that of the Constitution or my district's voters or just what? If I favor my church's position on aid to parochial schools, for example, (they were against it) as the basis of my judgment what do I tell Catholic voters who favored it? As a representative of people of all persuasions the principle must be followed of both the State and Federal Constitutions not my personal religious beliefs. I am sorry you are outraged but I will not favor one religion over another as a policy maker nor will I allow people who espouse the "truth" as only that coming from their particular denomination as the basis upon which I must make a judgement on public policy. To do so would make me a liar to my oath of office and I would bear false witness to my constituents. If you ever want to see this country tear apart at the seams just allow religion to become the basis for public policy with one becoming dominant over the others.

Well.

Here's my response:

Dear Rep. Schneider,

Thank you for your reply to my earlier email.

Do you think that opposition to something by the Catholic Church makes that issue a "Catholic issue" which then shouldn't be incorporated into public law? That seems to be implied in your response. In fact, abortion is not a "Catholic issue," Mr. Schneider... it is as a human rights issue. The human embryo is biologically a human being, and as such, deserves to be protected by the law like every other human being.

What if Bishop Burke came out tomorrow with a letter against racism? Would you say that his stance is a religious view, but that you have to respect the views of all your constituents, including racists? Would you invoke the principle of separation then? I'm sure you know that many abolitionists in the last century were fervent Christians; would you support slavery because opposition to it is a "religious belief," and public policy shouldn't be founded on religion?

If Bishop Burke had written Sen. Lassa and required her to support legislation affirming that there are seven sacraments, then I would agree with your position. But the issue at hand is a human rights issue and not merely nor exclusively a Catholic issue.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Chris Burgwald

We'll see if he responds again.

Second Update

He did.

Here's Rep. Schneider's response:

I am not going to continue a running debate with you. I believe in separation as provided in our Constitution. I believe that churches have a right to speak out on moral issues. I do not believe they have a right to threaten lawmakers to violate their oath of office or to represent their theological views exclusively above all others. Most Americans agree with my position, not yours. Do you think if I were a Mormon lawmaker that the Mormon Church should be allowed to dictate public policy on race as it did for so many decades? I would refer you to the historic statements of my hero President, now much maligned by the right, a Catholic President named John Kennedy, whose picture hangs in my office, about the relationship between Catholic office holders and the Church. End of discussion.

Normally I'd give an interlocutor the last word in a case like this. But I couldn't this time. Rep. Schneider completely failed to respond to any of my points, and I needed to make that clear. Here's the final letter in this little discussion:

Dear Rep. Schneider,

I know that I will not receive a response to this email; I understand your decision not to continue this discussion, and I respect that.

However, I do need to state that this was not a debate. In a debate there is an engagement of the ideas offered by the two sides. You have never engaged the points I've made, but continue to refer to this as a case of Catholic "theological views" being exclusively represented instead of acknowledging it as a human rights issue. You failed to respond to my example of racism as well.

I often tell people how real political discourse is absent in America because it's rare to find two opposing sides on an issue engage in a real meeting of the minds, in which the issues and respective positions are addressed directly, without talking past one another. Unfortunately, you have done nothing to reverse my opinion on that matter.

Wishing you a joyous Christmas Season, and

sincerely,
Chris Burgwald

As Kevin Miller noted in my comments, Rep. Schneider is known in Wisconsin as "Snarlin' Marlin," and I can see why.

Third Update

Here's the letter Rep. Schneider sent to me in response to the above:

And NOTHING I could ever say will reverse or impact your view. I refer you to John F. Kennedy's speech to the Texas Ministerial Association. Your argument is based on abortion not separation and your views will not change. I respect your belief on that I just don't believe that it is as simple as some would make it. The Church teaches all abortion is wrong. I believe there are instances where it is necessary. You won't accept that and I will not change my mind either. But that is not the issue. Let me ask you just
one question. If Senators Feingold and Kohl were dictated to or threatened on some issue by a Rabbi, since they are both Jewish, let's say on foreign policy as it relates to Israel, would you argue that they should represent the views on Wisconsin's people or that of their religion? When churches attempt to dictate public policy it crosses over the line. I have not argued that they have no right to state their views. To impose those views by church doctrine on the rest of us is what leads to the conflicts we have seen throughout history. It is why the Pilgrims came here in the first place. I want my representatives to represent me as best as they can using their best judgment on the issues before them. If they allow one set of religious dogma to dictate their policy decisions then I object. When Bishops sit in on committee hearings with thumbs up and thumbs down directing policy makers to vote a certain way I object. And that does
happen. When my church "leaders" said it was sinful for a Lutheran minister to participate in an ecumenical service with people of other faiths in New York after 9-11 and threatened him with excommunication I objected strenously at my church. It is that kind of narrow minded thinking among Lutherans that is quite distasteful to me. And when a Bishop threatens my friends and colleagues I will also object because his faith is not mine. I would object just as much if it were a pastor of another religion. Those who want to impose their religious views on the rest of us through public policy, sometimes without even reading bills or knowing what they mean, just a title, do a disservice to both their religion and public policy debate.

He doesn't seem to grasp my point... I'm not sure yet if I'll try again.

In one door, out the other

Sadly, some people enter the Catholic Church through one door (often evangelicalism) and within a few years, leave it through another (schism or worse).

One example of this is sedevacantist Philip Bartlett, whose website Roman Catholicism (sic) offers "Undeniable Proof that John Paul 2 Cannot Be Pope", recently told Robert Sungenis how Sungenis' writings had led him from Protestantism to Catholicism.

It appears that Mr. Bartlett continues to believe in private interpretation... now not of Scripture, but of Tradition.

Principle, please

In the past couple of weeks I've engaged in some interesting discussions with progressive Christians (including Catholics) on the topic of same-sex marriage and the morality of homosexual acts, one discussion occurring in the comments of this post at The Right Christians, the other in the comments of this post at Matt Zemek's Wellstone Cornerstone.

Beside making positive rational and non-religious arguments defending the notion that same sex marriages should not be legalized and that homosexual acts are immoral (on the former see especially this article by Princeton political philosopher Robert George), I think it's also beneficial to ask Christians (and others) who support the legalization of same sex marriages (sic) to articulate the principle by which they view homosexuality as moral while rejecting (any) other form of consensual sexual behavior as immoral. I pushed Matt especially on this point (in the second of the links above). Basically, I don't think that such a principle exists... if homosexual acts are moral, what moral or ethical principle prohibits any other form of consensual sexual behavior, regardless of the gender or number of the participants?