You Keep Using That Word… I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Evangelization and catechesis… for those who have a passion for proclaiming the Catholic faith, these are commonly used words, which makes it all the more surprising that they are commonly misused, or more precisely, “mis-related”.

Let me explain.

If you analyze how most Catholics -- from the average Joe and Jane in the pew to popular theologians to well-formed priests -- use evangelization and catechesis, you’ll find that by “evangelization” they mean the proclamation of the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ, and by “catechesis” they mean a systematic education in the faith.

At this point, things are okay, or at least seem to be okay. The problem comes, though, when the same people compare or relate evangelization and catechesis: typically, you’ll hear that evangelization comes first, and then catechesis. Sometimes you’ll hear that such-and-such Catholic has been “catechized, but not evangelized.”

Uh-oh.

This is where the problems arise. Implicit in such statements is an understanding of these two concepts in which they relate to one another as “siblings,” as related but distinct activities.

The problem is that that this is not how the Church formally uses and relates these concepts. This is seen in a number of Magisterial documents, but most simply and clearly in Pope St. John Paul the Great’s document on catechesis, Catechesi Tradendae, wherein he states that catechesis is one moment (or stage) in the entire process of evangelization (the actual quote is, “Catechesis is one of these moments - a very remarkable one - in the whole process of evangelization” [article 18]).

Again: catechesis is one stage in the process of evangelization. This means that the relationship between evangelization and catechesis is not one of siblings -- related but distinct -- but one of parent-child -- one is inclusive of the other. In this case, evangelization is the “parent term,” of which catechesis is the “child”, or subset.

This is an important point for a variety of reasons, one of which I’d like to highlight here: this means that catechesis, as the Church understands and explains it, is evangelical in nature. Catechesis is not distinct from evangelization… it is part of the process of evangelization.

Today we seem to be in danger of reducing catechesis merely to instruction, to a (solely) intellectual activity, to learning the “facts” of our Catholic Faith. As the quote from St. John Paul indicates, this is manifestly not the case: catechesis is, as some aptly put it, teaching (yes) to conversion to Jesus Christ. It isn’t just about learning the Creed, the Commandments, the Sacraments and the prayers so that we (just) know certain truths… it is about learning these truths so that we might grow closer to the Truth, the Way and the Life: Jesus Christ. So, if you’re actually doing catechesis as its intended by the Church to be done, you are evangelizing.

That is not to say that catechesis is synonymous with evangelization, however; again, it is one stage in the process of evangelization, and not the first stage at that. Rather, it follows the stage of primary proclamation, in which the Good News is proclaimed and an initial conversion to Christ is sought after.

Instead of “evangelization followed by catechesis,” then, the Magisterium says, “primary proclamation followed by catechesis, all of which is evangelization.” And at the heart of it all? The encounter and relationship with the God-Man, our Lord and Savior, the Eternal Word, Jesus Christ.

Finding Meaning & Purpose in Everything

While many of us struggle today to find meaning in life, Christianity proposes that everything we do can have real significance for ourselves and others, in this life and in eternity. How? Through what is called the universal or royal priesthood of all the baptized.

Let me explain.

At every Catholic Mass today, those present heard a reading of the first letter of St. Peter, in which he writes the following: “let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

While most people think of priests as the guys in white collars, the Catholic Church -- like many other Christian traditions -- also teaches that every baptized person is a priest, as well as a prophet and a king (or queen). Why? Because by our baptism we are joined to Jesus Christ, who is the priest, prophet and king, and we share in His status as such.

“That’s all well and good, Chris,” you might be thinking, “but what does that have to do with finding meaning in my life?”

This is what is has to do with meaning: because we as baptized are priests in Jesus Christ, we are able to offer everything we do -- literally, everything (apart from our sins, of course) -- to the Father as a spiritual offering, a spiritual sacrifice, and in doing so, we join our offering to Jesus’ ultimate offering on the Cross. In this offering-with-Jesus’-offering, my seemingly little and insignificant gift is invested and imbued with incredible -- even eternal -- significance: because it is joined to Jesus’ offering by which He saved all of us and indeed all of creation, so too does my offering -- by its participation in Jesus’ offering -- become salvific or saving.

In decades past this teaching was summarized in the simple saying, “offer it up,” which was usually applied to suffering, whether little annoyances or great physical or emotional pain. But the same saying can be applied to any and every act we make, and in so doing, we fill that act with great meaning and purpose.

Here’s how the Catholic Church formally teaches this reality, in paragraph 901 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

Our daily work, the joys and struggles of family and married life, even the things I do to relax my mind and body… all of these things can be offered to the Father through Jesus, and in so doing become salvific, redemptive… saving.

I continue to be struck by this reality, and I continue to strive to live it out in my daily life, and in so doing, to give everything I do meaning & purpose.

What about you? Is this a new insight, or something you’ve been aware of? If the latter, how have you been able to live this out in your own life?

Links

One of the "dangers" inherent in awaking a long-dormant blog is the blogroll... yes, I know that most of the sites and links over to the right are long dead... I'll get to them as I can.

In the meantime... may the clicker beware.  :-)

Materialism and Concern about the Future of Our Species

If, as Carl Sagan said, the cosmos (matter) is all that is or was or will be, then concern about the future of our species -- and hence concern about climate change and zombie apocalypses alike -- doesn't make any sense.

Let me explain.

My favorite contemporary director is Christopher Nolan; way before his Batman trilogy saw the light of day, I'd been enthralled by Memento. Later, I was similarly taken by The Prestige and Inception. This year, I'm looking forward to Interstellar, due out this November, and just the other day we were treated to the first (non-teaser) trailer, in which we get a glimpse of what this movie is about: "As Michael Caine tells hero Matthew McConaughy in the new trailer, mankind 'isn’t meant to save the world' in the wake of what appears to be a natural disaster that has meant an end to food production on Earth, but instead leave the planet in search of new beginnings" (HR).

As I was reading various responses to and interpretations of the trailer, I came across this post, in which the writer comments on the apparent natural disaster that originates the plot of the movie:

I completely buy the trailer's vision of a future weather and resource global crisis. The global data is unquestionable. Man-made or not, I don't care, the fact is that climate change ishappening. It's drastic and it's accelerating, and we may not be able to stop it at this point.
Computer simulations show that we are headed to a place where humanity hasn't been before. The projections are so bad that the military have deemed it a national security threat already. And trust me, the men and women of the Pentagon are not tree-hugging hippies.
As climate changes, everything changes. We are already seeing the effects on agriculture, with ruined crops and food scarcity in many parts of the world. Or better said, we are not seeing it—people who live in third world countries are. Our oceans' fisheries are also dwindling quickly, with many species on the verge of exhaustion.
Combine this with the millions of poor people getting out of poverty conditions in China, India, South America and Africa. They are consuming more and more of resources that are already scarce. More food. More energy. More oil. More everything. Even if the population doesn't go up, the demand will keep increasing at a fast rate. It's not going to stop.
Still, I'm an optimistic person who thinks that science may save us at the last minute. Perhaps that's Nolan's thesis—or perhaps it's the contrary. We don't really know yet. But I have no doubt that we are headed into this direction.

As this citation as well as the rest of the post make clear, the author believes strongly that there will be very dangerous consequences for humanity as climate change continues to unfold. As I thought about this passage and similar views held by others, I was struck by the incongruence between the materialists' belief that matter is all there ever was, is and will be and their simultaneously-held deep concern for the future of the human race. After all, we're all going to die at some point... if this life is all there is, why does it matter if we all die at (about) the same time in some extinction level event? If materialism is true, there is no logical reason for me to be concerned about the fate of the human race. For that matter, if materialism is true, there is no logical reason for me to be "concerned" about my fate: that I will someday die is a cold, hard fact, and it's irrational to struggle against it. (A separate yet even more important point is this: concern about my own fate or that of any other person or group of persons is -- given the materialist view of reality -- irrational because the human being is nothing more than a particular grouping of atoms... why favor this type of grouping over any other? Simply put, the concept of human dignity is meaningless in the materialist conception of reality.)

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that we ought not be concerned about climate change and its consequences, nor am I arguing that we ought not be concerned about the fate of the human race. My point is simple: if materialism is true, there is no rational basis for concern about the future of our species, and hence for concern about climate change.

What do you think? Does my argument fail, and if so, where?

Resurrexit!

Wow. Six posts in the last six years. Let's see what we can do about that...

Hey, is this still on? ... :-)

A couple things

First, make sure you're reading American Catholic.

Second, make sure you're reading Culture11.

Third, start Plurking!

Do you Plurk?

(It's like Twitter, although telling you might not help much...)

Make sure...

You're reading American Catholic... I've posted more there in the last 10 days than I have in the last six months here!

New blog!

In light of the fact that my personal blogging at Veritas has fallen dramatically, I accepted an invitation recently to post at a new group blog that launched this week: American Catholic. I highly encourage whatever poor soul who still visits Veritas to check out AC.

March 25th!

That was the date of my last post here!

Wow.

Let me get this straight...

A number of banks, mortgage companies & investment firms give mortgages to people who can't afford them (and shouldn't have been asking for them themselves), and when those people default on said mortgages (surprise!), these companies expect the Fed to bail them out? HUH????

Another thing: the foreclosure "boom" is basically limited to that sub-prime market, yet somehow this leads people -- coughthemediacough -- to wring their hands over the foreclosure crisis we're in. Again, I say, HUH????

If it weren't for the fact that the media (and to some degree the market as well) would blow it out of proportion and probably instigate a "real" banking crisis, I'd say Bear Sterns should've been allowed to sink... that whole responsibility thing.

Barack isn't that different

Just like every other major Democratic contender for the Party's nomination for the Presidency, he makes his ritual observances before Planned Parenthood, sounding very similar to others who have sought the nomination.

Until the hold of the abortion lobby over the Democratic Party is loosened, they're going to have a hard time convincing a majority of Americans to vote for them. Not that it can't happen, but I can confidently say that if Barack was pro-life, he'd probably be a shoe-in for President.

Why conservatism?

(Maybe for Lent I should have given up *not* blogging... hmm....)

One of the big political stories over the last couple of weeks has been the response of conservative talk radio to the ascension of John McCain as the front runner and now presumptive Presidential nominee for the Republican Party. Almost across the board, the leading lights of conservative talk shows have come out against McCain, due to his deviations from conservatism on issues like tax cuts, immigration reform and free speech/campaign finance reform. The father of all conservative talkers, Rush Limbaugh, noted a few weeks ago that if McCain or Huckabee were the GOP nominee, "it's going to destroy the Republican Party." Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and other conservatives made similar comments.

In almost every case, the general argument has been something along these lines: because of his stance on issue X, McCain isn't a real conservative, and therefore shouldn't be the nominee.

Regardless of whether or not McCain is a real conservative (and I tend to be sympathetic to Limbaugh et al. here), I think many of these critics are missing an important link in their argument: they need to explain why conservatism is the better position. We're twenty years removed from the presidency of Ronald Reagan and 10 years from Gingrich's speakership, and it's no longer sufficient to simply demonstrate that position X is not conservative, because it's not evident to many people (including Republicans) that the conservative position is the better one on any number of issues.

What Limbaugh et al. need to do is go back to the basics -- or do a more thorough job of going back to the basics -- and explain why conservative positions are the stronger positions. Speaking as someone who is generally conservative on political matters, I agree with these talkers that conservatism is the better political philosophy in our day and age, but I don't often hear an extended argument on talk radio demonstrating why conservatism is the better position. This simply needs to happen.

In the meantime, I'll vote for John McCain for president, even if he's not as conservative as I'd like.

What are you giving up for Lent?

I think I'm going to give up blogging...


Hah!

A fav Lutheran blogger

Taking a timeout from yet another blogging hiatus here at Veritas to plug a blog: Weedon's blog, authored by Lutheran (LCMS) pastor William Weedon. Pastor Weedon exhibits an ability which -- at least in my experience -- is somewhat rare among confessional LCMS bloggers: you get the sense that he defines himself more by what he is (a confessional LCMS Lutheran) than by what he is not (a Catholic, or Reformed, etc.). (Unfortunately, the same tendency can be found among people of any tradition -- including Catholicism -- who are zealous about their orthodoxy; there's something about that zeal that tempts us to identify ourselves by opposition to others.)

Pastor Weedon reminds me of something often said by some Lutheran converts to Catholicism: with the truth at the heart of his view of justification (apart from the errors), Luther might have been able to reform the Church from within, instead of falling into heresy and excommunication. Alas. Why does Weedon's blog remind me of this? Because he offers us (in my opinion) some idea of the best that Lutheranism has to offer.

So: check him out. And be Catholic. :-)

Dialogue

Lutheran (LCMS) pastor Paul McCain today kindly (and I mean that) emailed me to let me know that I'm banned from commenting at his blog, noting that its not an open forum.

I replied that I appreciated him letting me know, but I also noted that I'm not sure what I said that he took issue with. In the last couple days, I've made three comments at his blog: one, here, wondering what his thoughts on Benedict's new encyclical Spe Salvi were; another, here, expressing concern (with him) about a Knight of Columbus who supposedly said, in regard to some relics of the Magi, "This is the closest I'm going to get to God in my physical lifetime"; and a final comment back at the first post I'd commented on, trying to clarify to another commenter that almsgiving in the context of indulgences wasn't very different from his own understanding of almsigiving and its potential effect on our sanctification.

It's the final comment which I think got me banned, but I'm not really sure why. Pastor McCain stated that he's not inclined to feature folks who are "intent on promoting faulty understanding and error." Now, given that I was simply trying to clarify that Catholic teaching on indulgences & almsgiving, I'm not sure how I was doing so, but there you go. Based on prior interactions with Pastor McCain and the history of his blog, I am inclined to think that he simply isn't interested in having his preconceptions regarding Catholicism challenged: he's confident that he understands Catholic teaching, and he isn't interested in haven't his understanding questioned. Nor is he interested in entering into dialogue with Catholics in order to confirm that his understanding is in fact accurate.

C'est la vie. There are plenty of other Christians -- including Catholics -- with similar mindsets, and while I'm disappointed that Pastor McCain has no interest in ecumenical dialogue, I can't say that I'm that surprised... for many of us who take confessional orthodoxy seriously, it can be difficult to understand the point of ecumenical dialogue. So while I am saddened by his actions in banning me, I applaud Pastor McCain for desiring to promote Lutheran orthodoxy on his blog. I only hope that at some point he realizes that one can uphold one's orthodoxy while simultaneously dialoguing with those of differing confessions.

Pope Benedict and the Jews

The First Things blog recently posted an article by Jewish scholar David Dalin on John Paul the Great and the Jews, extolling the late great pontiff for his relationships and engagement with the Jewish people, both on a personal and pastoral level.

In his conclusion, Dalin also makes reference to our current Bishop of Rome: "Pope Benedict XVI, like Pope John Paul II, is known to be a staunch friend of the Jewish people and the State of Israel and a vocal critic of anti-Semitism. [...] John Paul II was the heir and exemplar of a long a venerable philo-Semitic tradition within papal–Jewish relations, [!!!] a tradition of papal friendship and support for the Jewish people that has continued with John Paul II’s successor, Pope Benedict XVI."

New encyclical tomorrow!


Pope Benedict is set to sign and publish his second encyclical tomorrow. Entitled Spe Salvi ("salvation by or through hope"; it's from the writings of St. Paul), it's said to be on Christian hope, especially in the context of modern philosophy. Word from those who have read it is that it's weighty, which is no surprise.

The letter should be at the Vatican's website around 5:00 a.m. Central time, so keep your eyes peeled.

There's no way Rudy will get my vote

If the GOP nominates Giuliani, I'll either vote third-party or not at all (for President). I think that having a Republican president who supports abortion rights will do more harm than good to the pro-life cause in the long run, no matter what he says about judges.

I'm familiar with the argument that voting for Giuliani (as opposed to Hillary or any of the other Dem candidates) would be voting for the lesser of two evils (which is legitimate, from a Catholic moral perspective), but I'm still not sold... obviously, anyone who is pro-life would be voting for Giuliani in spite of his views on abortion, but if it was impossible for someone to support Kerry "in spite" of his views on abortion, how can someone do so with regard to Rudy?

My position doesn't have anymore weight behind it than my own solitary vote, but I don't care: I don't see anyway in which I can vote for Rudy for President.

Attached and Attacked

[W]hat we need is the heroism of life, not because it is against banality, but because it illuminates it. Like a young man who is in love with his girlfriend and she says “yes” to him: the world is the same, but different; the light is different, food tastes differently, relationships are different, what he does is different, his struggles are different. Therefore, the difference that makes it possible to live the ordinary lies precisely in affection, which means to be attached and attacked, attached to the truth and attacked by it, living reality intensely.
-- Giancarlo Cesana

Where else shall I go?

A fellow blogger used the occasion of San Francisco's archbishop giving Holy Communion to two transvesite men dressed as nuns to state the following:

"Wake up, folks! This is the reality of the Church of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Conservative Catholics longed for change, thought that these men would bring it, and what have they received? This."

Said blogger (a former Catholic) proceeded to quote Revelation 18:1-5, implying none too subtly that the Catholic Church is the Babylon of St. John's vision.

Here was my comment in response, which (for reasons inscrutable to me) didn't make the moderation cut:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

I stopped fretting about the sins and failings (real & perceived) of popes and bishops a long time ago... it's not my billet. I am confident that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the Body of Christ, despite the faults of her members, and there is no where else for me to flee to, no utopian ecclesial community that will be without fault, if for no other reason then as soon as I joined it, it would cease to be such.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I know that I receive Him and His grace & life when I dwell in her... that's good enough for me.

Warts and all, the Catholic Church is the place where I encounter Christ, in the fullness possible this side of heavenly glory.

Update: Said blogger now compares yours truly and other convicted Catholics to the people of Jerusalem who ignored the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah. But here's the thing: there's been plenty of sin in the history of the Catholic Church, which has been around now for much longer than Jerusalem was the capitol of Judah prior to its fall, and God hasn't destroyed it. Why? Because He promised that the Church would be pillar and foundation of truth, the place where His disciples would encounter Him even after His return to the Father. To compare the fall of Jerusalem to a supposed fall of the Catholic Church commits the crucial error of placing the Old and New Covenants and their promises and exactly the same level, when the very point of Christianity is that the New fulfills and completes the Old.

To posit that the Church can fail is to assert that Jesus cannot keep His promises.

Besides, if God didn't destroy the Catholic Church after Alexander VI, he won't destroy it because of John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI.

Sadly, not too surprising

Bill Cork -- recent convert from Catholicism to the Seventh-Day Adventism of his youth -- jettisoned his belief in the immorality of contraception when he swam the Tiber (the other way).

Unfortunately, it's relatively common to see those who once presumably recognized the destructive nature of contraception to abandon that belief when they abandon Rome... the cultural current in favor of contraception is an especially strong one, which relatively few Christians (including Catholics) seem able to swim against. (NB: I'm not psychoanalyzing Bill here... just making a more general observation.) And there's another issue at play here, which might get closer to addressing Bill's recent spiritual wanderings...

Generally speaking, Christians accept the truths of their faith not (necessarily) because they are convinced of the arguments offered in favor of said truths, but precisely because of their faith, their faith in God: they accept as true the things which He has revealed, even if they don't (yet) understand the "why's" with regard to each of those truths. This is in no way to disparage the process of seeking to answer those "Why?'s"... that's exactly what theology does, and it would be strange for a theologian to disparage his own discipline. However, as Christians we don't withhold assent to our doctrines until we have been presented with a proof with demonstrates their rationality... instead, we recognize He who is the origin of those doctrines, and give our assent accordingly. In those instances wherein we do not fully understand a particular doctrine, we can still give our assent because of our confident faith in God, and at the same time we can seek to understand the intelligibility of said doctrine.

For Catholics in particular, this is (or should be) a fairly easy process: because we understand the Magisterium (the pope and the bishops in union with him) to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in the teaching of Christian doctrine, we have confidence that what the Magisterium proposes for our belief is in fact true, even if we do not see the rationality of a particular doctrine at any particular moment. The Magisterium acts, then, as God's concrete instrument by which those who follow His Son can know what He proposes for our belief, and therefore what we can give confident assent to in faith, even prior to an understanding its intelligibility.

What this means is that we do not need to earn PhDs in theology in order to follow Jesus Christ! For if there is not a concrete means by which we know the doctrines which He teaches and therefore what we can give assent to, we are forced to examine each allegedly Christian doctrine to determine if it in fact is authentic Christian doctrine, and only then can we give our assent to it. Such a proposal strikes me as non-sensical: while we are all called to grow in faith and in our understanding of it, the divine pedagogy as we find it in Sacred Scripture certainly does not indicate that assent is to be withheld from each and every supposedly Christian doctrine until every such doctrine is judged as true by the (Almighty!) individual and his quasi-divine intellect. In addition, it's ahistorical: although the Church did not substantially and dogmatically articulate its Trinitarian & Christological doctrines until forced to by the Arian heresy, Christians before Arius still assented to the truths which were precisely formulated at Nicea and the other early Councils. And we're seeing the same thing today with regard to the reservation of ordination to men alone: the theological arguments which explain this teaching are only know being thoroughly developed (because the teaching has been challenged), but that doesn't mean that Catholics who lived centuries ago did not believe this teaching... they in fact did, despite the fact that they were not presented with elaborate theological argumentation in its defense.

I praise and thank God for giving us the Magisterium; even though I do have a doctorate in theology, I have just enough self-awareness to recognize that if I had to arrive at the intelligibility of a doctrine prior to giving my assent to it, the content of my faith would be extremely sparse. Thankfully, I don't have to do so to revel in the truths which God has revealed for my salvation.

(Feel free to offer your critical comments... this line of thought is very much a work in progress.)

S-CHIP

Last week the House and Senate passed sizable increases the State Children’s Health Insurance Program budget, despite the threat of a presidential veto. S-CHIP ostensibly exists to offer health insurance for children of the working poor, and because of that, many thoughtful and well-meaning people -- including some of the people at the very interesting Catholic blog Vox Nova -- support the growth in the program which the House and Senate approved.

However, it looks to me like this is another example of a good program being grown beyond its original purpose to create a new entitlement for those who do not need it. I'm certainly not questioning that there are those enrolled in S-CHIP who need it: that's definitely true. But I have a hard time understanding how a family of four with an income of $60,000 (or even $83,000 in some cases) and whose kids are 25 years old can qualify.

Let's help the working poor, but let's not redistribute income to those who don't need it. (See here for more.)

Oops.

Despite being (or because he is?) a highly successful suer (not sewer, but close), John Edwards has a penchant for sticking his feet in his mouth.

Take his recent criticism of Hillary Clinton for accepting political contributions from media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Turns out that Murdoch's publishing house gave Edwards and $800,000 advance for his 2006 book. As a News Corp. spokesman said, I wonder if Edwards will give that money back to Murdoch?

In distancing us from ourselves, we distance ourselves from Christ

The first way we distance ourselves from Christ is by distancing ourselves from our very selves. In that text from the Exercises twenty years ago, Father Giussani quoted a phrase from Pope John Paul II that is still decisive for us today: "there will be no faithfulness... if a question isn't found in man's heart to which only God... is the answer." He doesn't say there will be no faithfulness if we're not good, if we're not coherent, if we lack the energy. No. There will be no faithfulness -- in other words, in the end Christ will not matter to us -- without a question to which only He is the answer. If this question is not rooted in the depths of our I, and if we are not loyal to it, sooner or later Christ will not matter to us anymore. Like many others, we too will go away. For this reason, our first loyalty is to our humanity, to our cry, to the urgent need of our heart.

Fr. Julian Carron, Exercises of the Fraternity of Communion and Liberation, Rimini, 2007, pp. 8-9 (English transl, Fr. William Vouk et al.).

Can you believe it?

That's three posts for this month, not even counting this one!

Wow!

Who is the real liberal Catholic?

A nice post by Shawn of NLM on the opposition of some Catholics to Pope Benedict's recent decision to liberalize the use of the "traditional Latin Mass". He notes that if you look at the historical meaning of what a "Catholic liberal" is, the Holy Father fits the bill far more than those opposing this liberalization.

Hey libs: do you want to stop genocide or not?

Jonah Goldberg has a succinct column examining the hypocrisy inconsistency of many liberals (including many running for their party's presidential nomination) on the question of using force to stop genocide.

Comments

I know posts have been extremely sparse here over the last several months... I appreciate those of you who poke your heads in on occasion, as well as those who feel moved to offer a thought or two. Rest assured that vulgarity and spam aside, comments are not moderated... I feel that if you take the time to offer a thought, I'm happy to give you the space. Nor does disagreement (even strong disagreement) concern me... I'd hate for someone to think that I ignored/deleted a comment because I didn't like the conclusions or consequences of the comment.

Polarization remains

Good post by Stanley Kurtz on the reality of polarization in our country.

Hear hear!

"In same way, many Catholics congratulate themselves as "Thinking Catholics" under the false impression that they have devoted actual thought to the Church's theology. The vast majority have simply followed the line of least cultural resistance by adapting themselves to the fashion that disdains Catholic orthodoxy as a kind of boot camp of working class muscular moralism. Since it's so terribly un-chic, you never have to get around to showing that it's false" (emphasis added).

Well said, Diogenes!

Josh... still at it

Josh S. is a Lutheran (LCMS) seminarian at the synod's seminary in Ft. Wayne, Indiana who's been in the blogosphere for a number of years. Last year he closed down the group blog that he'd started (after closing his own personal blog previously), owing to his time in the seminary. That, however, hasn't stopped his need to blog... I just discovered that he's continuing to post at The Boar's Head Tavern, under a pseudonym.

Josh's online personality is a bit of an ornery cuss. He seems to mildly enjoy flamethrowing and the results that it brings... at his own blogs, he's gone after anyone and everyone from any Christian tradition, focusing his ire in particular on Calvinism and Catholicism at various times. Like a number of Christians I know, he seems to identify himself by what he isn't (Catholic or Calvinist), more so than by what he is. Or to be a bit more precise, his explanations of what he is (or what he believes) are generally in the context of what he is not (or what he does not believe). In Josh's case, I have no idea why that is... any ideas I could offer would only be speculative, no matter their accuracy.

Josh has always been fairly well read, and that's obviously still the case in seminary. But as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And despite the reading he's done, he evidently still doesn't get Catholicism (not that that's uncommon, btw... I suppose if he did get it, he'd convert). Unfortunately, he's still prone to occasionally saying completely ridiculous things. For instance, he has this funny little post on what converts to Catholicism ignore. Written in the context of Dr. Francis Beckwith's recent return to the Catholic Church of his youth (he became an evangelical when he was young, and had some standing... he just resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society), Josh apparently thinks that no one could possibly convert to Catholicism if they really knew these things (many of which are fairly accurate, but some of which are off-base; for instance, the second item on his list).

Conversions & reversions are mysterious things, but it's pretty bold to claim that someone of Dr. Beckwith's intellectual rigor & honesty would ignore the warts on the Church. More likely, he's well aware of them, but realizes that in the end, they don't obscure the reality of what the Church is: the community of disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, founded and structured by Him, communicating (in many ways) the salvation won by Him.

The Key to '08: Minnewisowa!

Glad to see that some political analysts are recognizing the major political importance of what some are calling the Minne(sota)Wi(sconsin)(I)owa SuperState.

And note which comes first ;-)

Greedy Capitalists

"my needs for the future just didn't dovetail with what ABC was able to offer me."
-- Rosie O'Donnell, explaining that she won't be back on The View in the fall because of contract differences with ABC.

I hope she has enough consistency to avoid complaining about people who she thinks are overpaid.

Vincible Ignorance

Just when I was starting to think that Pope Benedict was reaching even those who couldn't care less about him, his Church, or his Lord, we have some blogger at some group blog to remind us that persuasion is ineffective against those who refuse to consider the possible.

Just as bad is his (the blogger's) reflexive tendency to see everything through a political lens, which seems to be pretty common among those who are obsessed with -- you guessed it -- politics. But when you attempt to reduce the Infinite and Transcendent from your life, you have to fill the void with something, and politics fits the bill for too many of these guys.

Unfortunate.

A couple good columns

It's been a busy couple weeks and home & work, and hence the lack of posts.

The blog has had a bit more of a political slant of late, and that's continuing today, with two recommended columns:

Rep. John Boehner's column on Democrats & General Petraeus.

A great TCSDaily column documenting the violent crimes that occur even in countries with strict gun-control laws (in light of some quarters' call for more gun control here in light of the VTech horror).

Best show on TV:

Lost, on ABC, Wednesday nights, 8/9E&P. Hands down. Most intelligent, one of the best written & acted... there ain't been anything like this since The X-Files!

Hoping for the salvation of all

The twentieth-century Swiss theologian and cardinal-designate, Hans Urs von Balthasar, is known for many theological insights and proposals, perhaps the most controversial being his assertion that we should hope for the salvation of all men. This is controversial in the opinion of some because they fear that it tends towards universalism, i.e. the assertion that all men in fact will be saved. Also, some believe that Scripture and Tradition indicate that we know that some people either are or will be damned. I've discussed this in the past on this blog, and it's come up recently at Insight Scoop and Evangelical Catholicism. In short, I see no problem with hoping and praying for the salvation of all, as long as it's made clear that this is not an assertion that we in fact know that all men will be saved. Such has been my position for some time.

Today my confidence in this position was bolstered when I came across the following in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the context of the discussion of the theological virtue of hope: "In hope, the Church prays for 'all men to be saved' [1 Tim 2:4]" (1821). [For you sticklers, the Latin doesn't really differ: "Spe orat Ecclesia 'omnes homines [...] salvos fieri' (1 Tim 2,4)."

Umm... a pretty strong endorsement of von Balthasar's view, no?

Jonah on Britain, and a Euro response

Decent column by Jonah Goldberg on Britain's recent (i.e. the last several years) "wobblying". Perhaps even more interesting is a response he received from a European:

Perhaps the biggest wrong we Europeans have done to the native peoples of the American continent since that Italian man mistook them for Indians is that we have spent nearly 500 years dumping our trash in their back yard. We have booted out our misfits and rejects, our religious bigots and everything we had that was violent, agressive, intolerant or beligerent. If you sent only brown-eyed people to a remote location and they reproduced among themselves, how may blue-eyed people do you think there would be in that population 500 years later? Therein lies the fundamental difference between the civilization that has developed on the American continent and our European civilization. You use a couple of our languages, after a fashion, but that is all. That is probably the kind of thinking that underlay the OU motion and, yes, I think you're right, it is a setup!

A few "American" jokes for you.
1. They warned Columbus that if he sailed out too far to the west it would lead to disaster. Well, he did. And it has!
2. American: "I feel very lucky that I don't live in Europe."
European: "Me too!. I also feel very lucky that you don't live in Europe."

Talk about bitter. Seems to me that Jonah hit a nerve with his column.

Look, I've spent over three years of my life in Europe, and there's a ton that I love about it. But the Europe of today is not the Europe of the past, in many ways. And I'm sick and tired of Europeans forgetting where the two worst wars in world history began, who began them, and who it was who was instrumental in ending them.

I'm sure some Europeans are tired of Americans pointing out that we saved their butts from totalitarianism, but as long as they keep throwing out inane comments like these, some of us will keep reminding them of recent history (funny, I thought it was Americans who had short memories).

WaPost slams Pelosi

This week Speaker Pelosi strangely decided that it would be somehow helpful to send mixed signals to Syria and other countries in the Middle East by visiting those countries and promoting her own foreign policy, rather than that of the government official who is responsible for foreign affairs: the President and his duly appointed Secretary of State.

Not surprisingly, she made a mess of things, so much so that in today's editorial, the Washington Post slammed her for her conduct. And rightly so. Like it or not, we are in a war, and whatever divisions there might be in Washington, when it comes to projecting our foreign policy to other nations, we should be of one voice: the President's. If you don't like his foreign policy, get one of your own people elected.

A post for today

Some lefty websites say that General Petraeus should be fired for meeting privately with Republicans to map out a legislative strategy.

Small problem: the reality is that the general gave a video teleconference at the Pentagon for Republicans and Democrats, but the Dems chose not to attend.

Oops.

HT: RS Insider.

Democrats: fulfilling their stereotype of Republicans

Democrats and liberals regularly accuse Republicans and conservatives of ignoring the little guy, of not caring for the poor, the sick, the worker, the downtrodden, etc. They claim that conservatives and the GOP only care about their rich country club buddies, and have no interest in helping the less fortunate in our country.

Of course, these accusations and claims are erroneous, but that's beside the point right now.

What's interesting to me is that the antiwar liberals and Democrats are doing exactly what they claim conservatives and Republicans do... instead of the poor and downtrodden being Americans, though, they are Iraqis, and the antiwar folks apparently have no problem with abandoning them to whatever fate has in store for them.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time this has happened... many of the same people who want to abandon innocent Iraqis to violence and bloodshed were pretty quick to do the same in Southeast Asia, i.e. South Vietnam, when they pulled the plug on financial aid to that country after our troops were out.

I guess it really is better to be poor in America.

Prophets vs. Science

Al Gore vs. climatologists et al. (Probably not what you were thinking when you read the title.)

Blog of the day

NRO's Planet Gore.

Yes, the earth (or more technically, the biosphere) is warming, and yes, human activity probably has something to do with the increase. But to what extent? I don't know, and despite what some would have us believe, it doesn't appear that climatologists know either.

That, together with the fact that bearers of news of apocalyptic doom tend to be wrong (Paul Erlich et al.) makes me skeptical of the fear-mongering about global warming.

With that in mind, I recommend Planet Gore, a blog at NRO that offers a different perspective from that you'll see, oh, at the Oscars.

Things are looking up for Williams Arena!

I attended the University of Minnesota for just under three years before transferring to Franciscan University of Steubenville, and I had student season tickets each one of those three years. While the basketball teams those years ('92-'93 to '94-'95) weren't quite the '96-'97 that (now unofficially) won the Big Ten title and made it to the Final Four, they were still fun to watch: Ariel McDonald, Randy Carter, Townsend Orr, Voshon Lenard, et al. From those years to the peak years of that '96-'97 team, Williams Arena was a hot ticket in Minneapolis.

Then, scandal. Faced with the pressures of winning in a major conference, Clem Haskins recruited some guys with solid talent but less-than-solid character and academics. And it caught up with him. Just two years after taking his team to the Final Four, Haskins was forced out and the team was placed under severe penalties by the NCAA.

Dan Monson replaced Haskins, and cleaned things up off the court, but on the court, they turned ugly, and quickly. While some of the blame must fall on the sanctions, Monson simply wasn't able to recruit and coach the kind of talent needed to win in the Big 10. And so he was fired just seven games into this season, and ten years after making the Final Four, the Golden Gophers finished 9-22, setting a school record for most losses in a season. Tickets that once couldn't be found now couldn't be unloaded quickly enough.

Today, none of that matters.

At a noon press conference, Tubby Smith will be introduced as the new men's basketball coach for the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers, and the last ten years of misery will soon be forgotten.

Another quote for today

"So often the Church’s counter-cultural witness is misunderstood as something backward and negative in today’s society. That is why it is important to emphasize the Good News, the life-giving and life-enhancing message of the Gospel (cf. Jn 10:10). Even though it is necessary to speak out strongly against the evils that threaten us, we must correct the idea that Catholicism is merely “a collection of prohibitions”."

-- Pope Benedict XVI, in an address to the bishops of Ireland on their "ad limina" visit to Rome, on October 28th of last year.

A quote for today

"Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose, constitute an interesting subject for study."


-- Alfred North Whitehead referring to Darwinists, in The Function of Reason (Princeton University Press, 1929), p. 12. Cited in turn by Fr. Stanley Jaki, "The Science of Education and Education in Science" (PDF) in The Challenges for Science: Eduation for the Twenty-first Century (The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2002), p. 67. Cited also by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, "Reasonable Science, Reasonable Faith", First Things (April 2007), p. 24.

Quote of the Day

"We Christians must not fear spiritual confrontation with a society whose ostentatious intellectual superiority conceals its perplexity before the final existential questions."

From Pope Benedict's address to the first group of German bishops on their "ad limina" visit to Rome last November.

A Thanksgiving Parody of Apollo 13

This is pretty funny.

HT: Moe @ Redstate.

The Dangers of (Blind?) Loyalism

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, has an interesting article at Real Clear Politics on an underlying error in the President's style of management: a trust in "good men" and "good women" which insufficiently takes their credentials into account.

I continue to believe that George W. Bush is both a good man and a good president, but he is certainly not without fault nor above rebuke, where legitimately necessary.

Sean Hannity

On Tuesday, I was talking with some friends about conservative talk radio, noting that Laura Ingraham was my runaway favorite, with Rush coming in second, and the rest finishing far, far back, in this order: Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Mike Gallagher, and Michael Savage. One of those I was talking with indicated her preference for Hannity, and I opined that I basically can't stand him, at least as a talk show host. I find him superficial and quick to exaggerate and demonize his opponents' views. I also noted that his Catholicism seems to be of the cafeteria variety, based on some of his comments on the air.

It was rather ironic that my take was validated by Sean himself just a couple days later, when he had a back and forth with HLI president Fr. Thomas Euteneuer on his Fox News TV show about his (Sean's) views on contraception (which he apparently supports).

He employed his standard form of argument: raise a couple sound points in the midst of a deluge of non sequiturs and quasi-ad hominems. Father said that Sean's grasp of the faith seemed superficial, and while Sean disagreed, I thought that he actually confirmed Father's take.

Find more at Amy Welborn's post here, and do read the comments.

A conservative's candidate (with a chance) for '08?

Some conservatives have been pushing and hoping for a Fred Thompson candidacy for 2008. While I think Senator Sam Brownback is the best on the issues of the current and possible candidates, I think Thompson would be a great nominee.

More on him and his appearance on Fox News Sunday -- including his take on the bigger issues -- here.

Politics as usual

From an AP article today:

The Senate's No. 3 Democrat said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign because he is putting politics above the law. Sen. Charles Schumer cited the FBI's illegal snooping into people's private lives and the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors.

Schumer, D-N.Y., said Gonzales repeatedly has shown more allegiance to President Bush than to citizens' legal rights since taking his job in early 2005.

I propose that Senator Schumer should resign, as he continually puts politics above what is best for his state and our nation.

Article of the Day: Islam and the West

This OpinionJournal article discusses Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her critique of Islam.

Post of the Day

Interesting post at On the Square on one of the latest anti-religious polemicists. The source of what is bad in religion [sic] is, apparently, certitude. The fact that (at least many) religious people are certain about their beliefs is somehow a dangerous thing.

The anti-certitude position has become a popular one of late in arguments against both religious and political conservatism (I really hate using political terminology for matters of faith, but it'll have to do for now). From Andrew Sullivan to the fellow discussed in this post, the fact that people are certain about things is somehow a bad thing. Of course, what's ignored or downplayed is the fact that these critics have their own certitudes, but those are in some way different from the certitudes of those they (attempt to) criticize.

Much more could be said about this, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Blog of the Day

Intentional Disciples. Great stuff, all the time.

Check 'em out.

Post of the Day

Here's a post at RedState detailing a talk Hillary Clinton recently gave at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby. She explains how "mean-spirited" the Federal Marriage Amendment is, how she supports civil unions for gays, and a few other heart-warming things.

Article for today

As the new archives template indicates, there is an inverse relationship between blogging activity here and the welcoming of the Burgy Babies into the world ('04, and twins in '06). Finding the time and energy to blog has been a challenge, to say the least.

Nonetheless, due to the demands and expectations of some of the readers here, I'm going to try to highlight articles or posts that I've found interesting on a more regular -- perhaps even daily -- basis. We'll see how it goes.

For today, I recommend this article at Right Reason; it's an interesting attempt to explain the difficulty in establishing democracy in the Middle East, by pointing to the strong tribal culture prevalent in Arab society.

New Format

If you've ever visited Veritas before yesterday, you know that I've redesigned the appearance of the blog. The thing I'm most excited about is the new Archives section (to the right, below the blogroll), which is both more compact and more easily navigated.

Let me know what you think.

Rich "vs" Poor

Good article at TCS Daily on the frugality of most millionaires, which contradicts the stereotypical image of the millionaire.

Giuliani: an interesting twist

Whatever his successes as mayor of New York -- and that's to downplay his leadership on 9/11 in anyway -- Rudy Giuliani is way down my list of preferred GOP 2008 presidential nominees, due to his socially-liberal perspective. My top pick isn't running, due -- perhaps -- to an currently infelicitous last name: Jeb Bush. My top pick among declared candidates is Sam Brownback, but I also think that Newt would be an interesting candidate.

But back to Giuliani. For those for whom the issues of respect for life and marriage are important, he seems simply impossible to support. He has stated clearly that he is pro-"choice" and supports the right to marry for gays.

Having said that, he's made things somewhat interesting of late with his repeatedly stated assertion that as President, he'd nominate SCOTUS judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. Now, if the CV on these guys is accurate, they're votes in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting traditional marriage.

What we have with Giuliani, then, is a twist on the common pro-"choice" refrain, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but in matters of politics, I will work for the right to abortion". In Giuliani's case, it could be argued that his position is, "I personally support abortion, but in matters of politics, I will work against the right to abortion."

Which puts social conservatives in an interesting dilemma. Is it morally licit to support a politician who personally favors moral evils, but whose policies will (almost directly) oppose those evils?

You may recall that some Catholic Democrats tried to argue that it was moral to support John Kerry's candidacy on similar grounds, positing that whatever his stated views on abortion, his policies would actually reduce the need for and hence incidences of abortion. This view was widely criticized by many pro-lifers, and with good reason, in that Kerry's intention was not to do away with abortion; whatever positive effects may have occurred because of his policies, he thought that abortion should remain legal.

The Giuliani situation is similar, in the he apparently wants to keep abortion legal. The difference, though, is that in a very direct manner, one of his announced positions (that on SCOTUS and other federal judicial nominees) would most likely read to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, consequently returning the issue to the states, as a result of which abortion will be illegal in many of the United States.

I find this to be a very interesting thought experiment. However, I hope that I never have to seriously consider it, i.e. I hope that Giuliani does not win the GOP nomination.

Won't be too long before we find out.

Minimum Wage & Unintended Consequences

From The Corner:

Minimum Wage Minimizes Jobs [Jonah Goldberg]


From Brit Hume's "grapevine " last night:

The minimum wage increase that took effect in Arizona last month has brought with it some unintended consequences — many teenagers are losing their jobs. The Arizona Republic reports some employers say payroll budgets have risen so much since the minimum wage went from $5.15 per hour to $6.75 — they have had to cut jobs and hours.

The owner of one Phoenix pizza restaurant says his payroll has shot up 13 percent and he's had to lay off three teenagers and cut hours for others. Another shop owner said expenses rose by $2,000 a month.

A Federal Reserve study showed that for every ten percent increase in the minimum wage — there is a corresponding two to three percent decrease in employment.

02/13 10:13 AM

Um, we told you so?

The Assymetrically-Liberal Embrace of 'New Anger'

Here's a great essay by Peter Wood on the Left's embrace of anger both as a sign of authenticity and as a argument itself.

Conservatives are certainly not immune to such an embrace themselves, but Wood illustrates how the Left seems to be more prone to this particular form of political engagement.

"The real issue is whether we can have responsible adult discussions of issues..."

That's from this article by Thomas Sowell on the need for, well, real civility in D.C., instead of ongoing character assassination. He makes the point that while people can obviously differ on policies, there should be no doubt as to their sincerity, at least in the vast majority of instances.

I think that's something everyone, on all sides of our public debates, needs to remember.

Post-election

A belated post-election comment...

I saw the following at the Corner on the 8th, and agreed:

A Little Self-Congratulation?

[Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader:

Rush often talks about one of the main differences between Liberals and Conservatives being the prevailing Liberal attitude of pessimism and anger versus us Republicans and our overwhelming sense of optomism. And as I read The Corner this morning I am seeing life immitate Rush. I recall in 2004 when Bush won again and when the Rs were in charge of everything Democrats flying off the handle and the liberal blogosphere lighting up like a profanity-laden pinball machine. People screaming for recalls and blaming everyone under the sun because of how stunned they were that they could lose. But today, the morning after a rather telling loss, I am drowning in conservative literature and television with pundits and politicians alike focusing inward on how we can change ourselves to recapture the American heart rather than spewing vitriol at the Democratic victors. Our guys lost, fair and square. And they realize that they need to make things better from within before they can expect Americans to vote for them again. And they're already working on it.

Love your work,

This seems pretty obviously true, at least if you compare the respective blogdom reactions to the '04 and '06 elections.

Few kids = sign of better education = good Christian stewardship!

So says the new presiding bishop of the Episcopalian Church, trying to explain (justify?) why her church is dwindling in size.

And along the way she manages to insult Catholics and others.

See more from a terrific Episcopalian blogger here.

The first intuition

The latest book of Msgr. Luigi Giussani -- the founder of the ecclesial movement Communion and Liberation, who passed away last year shortly before John Paul the Great -- to be translated into english is The Journey to Truth is an Experience. In the introduction, he notes the first intuition of what would become CL:

... this was a matter of re-launching the announcement of Christianity as a present event of human interest and suitable for anyone who does not want to renounce the fulfillment of his or her hopes and expectations, as well as the use, without diminishment, of the gift of reason.

Amen. Beautiful. This is was attracts/attracted me -- a "being simply Catholic is good enough" kind of guy -- to CL.

[P.S. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since my last post: the election; the failure of SD's ban on abortion; and most importantly, the ordination and installation of our new bishop, Paul Swain. I simply haven't felt inspired to post. Sorry.]

The Moral Status of the Human Embryo

Readers in my neighborhood of the blogosphere might be familiar with the discussion over the last several weeks at Mirror of Justice regarding the moral status of the human embryo (you can go to September's archive page and scroll up from the bottom -- beginning with this post on embryonic stem cells -- and continue into October's page, where it really gets going).

The issue has more recently surfaced in the media, in the aftermath of Michael J. Fox's unintentional support of a proposed amendment in Missouri that would establish the right to clone [sic] as part of the Show Me state's constitution (Fox and others think the amendment would just strengthen the legality of embryonic stem cell research [ESCR]).

Trying to make a dispassionate case in recognition of the inherent dignity of the human embryo, I offered the following comment at a liberal blog:

One of the things that amazes me about the discussion of embryonic stem cell research is the inability to find any common ground whatsoever, as well as the inability to agree on certain basic facts.

The anti-ESCR position is fairly simple.

It begins by recognizing that embryos are human organisms. Now, if there is going to be any rational and civil debate on ESCR, this has to be acknowledged from the get-go. This is neither philosophy nor religion: it’s a fact of embryology.

The anti-ESCR position goes on to assert that every human organism possesses inherent dignity, and hence cannot be killed and its cells harvested for ESCR. NB: the key term is “organism”: we’re not talking about oocytes or any other simply human cell (which, in some sense at least, has human life); we’re talking about a human organism, which—again, according to science—an embryo is.

The only coherent way, then, to argue in favor of ESCR is to posit that not some human organisms do not possess inherent dignity. This argument, however, presents a new difficulty, in that that ESCR proponent must now develop a criterion by which to determine which human organisms possess human dignity and which do not. And presumably (Peter Singer et al. excepted), most ESCR proponents are going to try to tailor this criterion in a manner that does not exclude other classes from that which possess inherent dignity. But doing so in a non-arbitrary fashion is difficult as well.

What I find appealing about the anti-ESCR position is that it simply identifies dignity with being a human organism. It doesn’t tread down that well-worn path which seeks to grant dignity to some but not others; rather, it is all-inclusive: if you are a human organism, you possess dignity, not because I grant it to you, but simply because you are a human being.

My $.04.

If you go to the link to my comment and scroll down, you'll find replies made by those who (apparently) deny that embryos have the same dignity as other human beings.

I've decided to reply to a number of these comments in a series of posts. I do this not so much with the expectation that I'll convince my interlocutors at that blog, but with the hope that undecided parties might weigh my arguments and either find them convincing or help me see my erroneous argumentation. But I welcome and encourage thoughtful interaction with anyone, be they my interlocutors, those who agree with them, or anyone else.

NB: I've published these posts in opposite order of when they were written... while normally, the newest post is at the top of the page, for this series of posts, the newer ones are the lower ones, so the first post below responds to the first comment made to me, the second post below responds to the second comment made to me, and so on. There is a "bookend" post at the end to indicate the final post in this series.

Response to Pb's comment

Pb commented:

if you are a human organism, you possess dignity, not because I grant it to you, but simply because you are a human being

And therein lies the problem—the claim that embryos are equivalent to human beings at any or every other development stage—a claim which I and many others find to be simply laughable.

All pro-life conclusions are based on the foundational belief that a human life begins at the time of fertilization of the ovum. Thus, an embryo is viewed as a human being with all of the rights of an adult. Experiments which subject an ovum to any significant risk are the ethical equivalent of the infamous medical experiments that were inflicted on unwilling and uninformed victims in Nazi death camps. Ends do not justify the means. Thus, no matter how helpful to mankind embryo research might potentially be, it cannot be done if the embryo is eventually killed or subjected to a significant risk.

Their bizarre interpretations would also raise all sorts of other problems, such as with fertility clinics and the hundreds of thousands of embryos they create, or with taxation and claiming dependents—you name it. But their arguments are really just faith-based, and grounded in ignorance, not science, like most of their positions. On the other side:

At this early stage of development (before 14 days) the embryo does not have human form or genetic uniqueness. It is a growing collection of cells which can divide into two and naturally produce identical twins. It is unable to survive outside of the womb, does not have any organ structures including even a primitive brain and it has no degree cognitive development. After conception following intercourse some 60 percent of human embryos are discarded by nature at this stage of development, before the mother ever realizes that she was pregnant. It would be difficult for society to ascribe “rights” to something that has such a high natural mortality.

I find all of that to be entirely reasonable and rational, which is probably why the pro-life crowd doesn’t want anyone talking about it in the first place.

Pb doesn't really substantiate his (or her) objections to my position... he posits that morally equating an embryonic human being with an adult human being is laughable, but doesn't elaborate. He also says that such an equation would create all sorts of practical problems, but considering the fact that most abortions were illegal until 1973 and none of these problems were present, that seems a fairly hollow objection.

He also states that pro-embryo arguments are faith-based, not science-based, but offers no proof this assertion. He does attempt to provide an argument in defense of his position in the last citation. That citation, however, is flawed in many ways. First, it posits that the embryo prior to 14 days does not have human form. Of course it does: it has the form of a 10-day old human being. Does it have limbs or organ systems? Obviously not; but the citation does not explain why limbs or organ systems are essential to being human (more on this argument in subsequent posts).

Second, the citation posits that because the very young embryonic human being can twin. But this does not prove that the embryo is not a human being. The fact that an identical twin can originate from a pre-existing embryo does not mean that that embryo wasn't a human being. While most human beings originate when a sperm fertilizes an ovum, some human beings originate later, in the process of twinning. Again, there is nothing here which demonstrates that an embro prior to 14 days of age is not a human being.

The citation then offers some standard objections to the humanity of the embryo: it cannot survive outside the womb; it doesn't have any organ structures; it doesn't have a brain; it has no cognitive development. None of these ultimately holds water. The fact that an embryonic human requires a particular environment to survive is no different than the fact that an adult human requires a particular environment to survive. If you put me in under water without a breathing apparatus, I will die. Does that mean I wasn't human? Of course not.

Regarding organ structures: why are they essential to what it means to be human? There are obviously some of us who lack certain organs... are we not human? What is it about organs that make there existence essential to being recognized as a human being? In fact, our organ systems serve to keep us (the individual human being) alive; that is their purpose. The youngest human beings -- embyros -- do not yet require complex organ systems to sustain themselves.

A similar argument demonstrates the irrelevance of the presence of the brain. The fundamental purpose of the human brain is to coordinate and integrate the various organ systems of the human being, such that the human being is a single, integrated organism. Again, the human being at the embryo stage is not yet so complex that he requires a brain to integrate himself.

Cognitive development could plausibly be proferred as a criterion for personhood, but it has no bearing on the fundamental fact that human embryos are human organisms. The author cited by Pb apparently believes that being a human organism is insufficient, and that some cognitive development is necessary to be deemed morally worthy, but -- once again -- no argument for this position is presented.

Finally, the citation asserts (without reference) that 60% of human embryos die at this early stage, and posits that therefore the embryo must not have rights. Even if the statistic is accurate, the error of this position is easily seen by noting that the mortality rate of adult human beings is 100%, yet we do not deny that they have rights.

So in this comment and its citations, we seem to have a number of unproven assertions. Perhaps Pb or someone else who agrees with him could prove some of these assertions in the comments.

Reply to Bruce Moomaw

Bruce comments:

Chris, a brain-dead human being is a “human organism”, and he is most certainly alive. But no one with any sanity objects to turning off his life support machines and thus killing him, because everyone recognizes that he has no consciousness and is therefore not—by any conceivable stretch—a person. In fact, he is far less of a person than a conscious animal is. And the same thing is true of an embryo—or an early-stage fetus—which has not yet developed any functioning brain cells, or has not yet started growing the interconnections between them in its cerebral cortex (which doesn’t even begin to happen until the 5th month). Therefore it is not only wrong, but downright ridiculous, to claim that there is ANY risk that we are killing a human person when we kill an embryo, or a first-trimester fetus. Not a one-in-a-million risk, or a one-in-a-billion risk. NO risk. And this is not fancy logic-chopping to try to justify abortions; it is plain, simple, common-sense physical fact.

Anti-abortionists and opponents of stem-cell research sometimes argue that, by killing embryos or first-trimester fetuses, we are keeping “potential” human persons from coming into existence. But by that same reasoning, any woman who doesn’t stay constantly pregnant is immoral—just think how many potential people SHE’S keeping from coming into existence!

First, I have to note that Bruce was one of the more polite and reasonable commentors; I thank you for that, Bruce.

Bruce begins with the example of a brain-dead human being. I obliquely addressed this issue in my reply to Pb: a brain becomes necessarily for life at a certain point because the complexity of the developing human requires integration and coordination, which the brain provides; without the brain, you do not have an integrated, self-directed organism. And so if you have a person who is completely brain-dead, you in fact do not have an organism, in the scientific sense of the term (an integrated, self-directed biological entity). The life-support systems are merely keeping the various organs alive, but the human being is already dead.

But this is not Bruce's position; instead, he argues that the brain-dead human being is dead because s/he is is not conscious. I imagine that Bruce would probably reconsider, if he noted that there are all sorts of people who are unconscious yet not dead: the comatose (reversible or not), as well as the sleeping! Lack of consciousness -- temporary or permanent -- therefore cannot be the criterion for human dignity and its concommitant rights.

In the remainder of Bruce's first paragraph lies a somewhat-hidden distinction, between a human organism and a human person. Bruce apparently holds that not all (living) human organisms are human persons, and this is a fairly common position among those who deny the dignity of the embryonic human being. But the criteria which he offers are problematic, as seen above: the brain simply isn't necessary in the very young human being (the function it provides is already present), and consciousness is obviously not required for human dignity.

In his concluding paragraph, Bruce makes a claim which is also very common, and frankly, demonstrates to me that those who deny the dignity of the embryonic human do not read opposing materials very closely. Bruce thinks that people like me hold that killing a human embryo kills a potential person (he actually says that he thinks we hold that killing an embryo prevents a potential person from coming into existence, but I think he meant it as I stated it here). This is not so: the "pro-life" position holds that killing an embryo kills an actual person, not a potential person. An actual person came to exist at the moment of conception (or twinning or cloning), when the human organism came to exist. While I grant the distinction between human organism and human person, I also recognize that there is no human organism that is not a human person. And hence Bruce's attempt at an argument ad absurdum is rendered invalid: I oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research because they entail the killing of a human being, which is not the case if a woman does not become pregnant.