Pro-life progressive

Thanks to Allen of The Right Christians, I recently discovered a blog by a politically-progressive Catholic: Matt Zemek's Wellstone Cornerstone. We've been having some interesting discussions in his comments, here and here. The latter discusses abortion: Matt is pro-life, but does not believe that changing laws (e.g. reversing Roe v. Wade) is the way to go: he'd rather see RvW become irrelevant because of a lack of need on the part of women to seek abortions. I strongly disagree, but it's been an interesting discussion, and some of you might be interested.

two new permalinks

One by a brother-in-law: Carried Away.

Another by Fr. Rob Johansen (who has flown down to Florida to give pastoral care to Terri Schiavo's family): Thrown Back.

new permalink

This one to John Gibson's Expagan blog.

Thanks for the link, John!

labels

There's a good discussion going on in the comments box of this post at Disputations on the question of progressive/liberal and conservative, in politics and religion.

Check it out.

Make sure

you're reading Bill Cork on a regular basis.

Too good to pass on for very long...

anti-JPII

Last week I came across a couple of columns slamming JPII for -- of course -- being too rigid, conservative, etc. etc.

I share them now for anyone who has too-low blood pressure...

First is this column by Jesuit priest Fr. Daniel Maguire of Marquette University in Milwaukee. [Correction: Maguire is laicized and on his second wife, and was diocesan, not Jesuit, and Marquette alumnus Kevin Miller informs me in the comments; thanks, Kevin.] The title of the article is A Papacy's 25 Years of Unfulfilled Potential," and the subtitle is, "We shouldn't celebrate John Paul II's demeaning view of women and obsession with 'pelvic orthodoxy.'" Oy-veh.

Second, this column by San Francisco Gate columnist Mark Morford. The title of his piece? "Slap A Condom On The Vatican," with the subtitle, "They say condoms kill. Meanwhile, millions die of AIDS. Can the Catholic Church be stopped?"


For some nice stuff, though, read Maggie Gallagher on JPII, or this Dallas Morning News editorial, or Phillip Jenkin's take, or George Weigel's view.

All of these should return your blood pressure to optimal levels.

been busy...

and hence I haven't had time to blog much in the past week.

I'm not gone, though...

Friday Fax

Here's the latest Friday Fax from the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute:

Dear Colleague,

Today we report on the anniversary greetings the BBC sent to the Pope in the form of a vicious "documentary." It appears the Catholic Church must be persecuted, because it has little faith in condoms.

Spread the word.

Yours Sincerely,

Douglas Sylva
Vice President

Action Item: To get the complete transcript of the documentary, go here.


To complain to the BBC, write to panorama@bbc.co.uk, steve.bradshaw@bbc.co.uk, or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/416244.stm.
_____________________________________________________________

FRIDAY FAX

October 17, 2003
Volume 6, Number 43

BBC Accuses Church of Worldwide Condom Misinformation Campaign

To mark the 25th anniversary of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) aired a television documentary Sunday night roundly criticizing Catholic moral teaching on sexuality, even accusing the Catholic Church of engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to misinform people about condoms' effectiveness in preventing HIV infections.

Stephen Bradshaw, the reporter of the documentary, entitled "Sex and the Holy City," said that "The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by AIDS not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which the HIV virus can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk. The Church is making the claims across four continents despite widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus."

Ideological opponents of the Vatican's promotion of traditional sexual morality have seized upon these reported statements doubting condom effectiveness. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the world's largest distributor of condoms, said in a press release that it "deplored" the actions of the Church. A UNAIDS scientific advisor said that the Church is "totally incorrect. Latex condoms are impermeable. They do prevent HIV
transmission." A World Health Organization (WHO) spokesperson claimed that the "Catholic Church's incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous," since "consistent and correct" condom use is 90% effective in stopping infection.

Many observers charge the BBC and its allies with attemeting to smear the Catholic Church. Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, England, said that the BBC was exhibiting "hostility" towards the Church and that "the Catholic Community is fed up." C-FAM president Austin Ruse, who was interviewed for the documentary, said, "my interview with the BBC was among the most biased, aggressive and deceptive I have ever participated in. it was shockingly clear that their conclusions were drawn against the Church long ago."

Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, who was quoted in the documentary, later said that he "was surprised with some of the reactions" to his questions about condoms and "safe sex." "I simply wished to remind the public, seconding the opinion of a good number of experts, that when the condom is employed as a contraceptive, it is not totally dependable, and that the cases of pregnancy is not rare. In the case of the AIDS virus, which is around 450 times smaller than the sperm cell, the condom's latex material
obviously gives much less security. Some studies reveal permeability of condoms in 15% or even up to 20% of cases. Thus, to talk of condoms as 'safe sex' is a form of Russian Roulette," he said.

The Cardinal also cited US government research that has found that condoms do not protect their users from a number of sexually transmitted diseases, including genital herpes, human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, syphilis, chanchroid and trichomonas.

Critics of the international response to the AIDS epidemic have long doubted the efficacy of condoms, as well as the morality of telling people in the developing world that they are "safe" from infection when condoms admittedly fail 10% of the time, even when used "consistently and correctly."

Copyright - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org

Pastores Gregis

That's the title of the new Apostolic Exhortation published today by JPII, On the Bishop, Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World. It flows from the work of the tenth Synod of Bishops which was held in 2001 in Rome.

Ad multos annos!

The heading for this post is the latin birthday wish (the sentiment in translation is, "and many more [years]!"), but I'm using it today to congratulate Pope John Paul II on the 25th anniversary of his election as pope, and to wish him many more years of service.

Congratulations, John Paul the Great!

Yeah, we respect human dignity

I haven't posted much on the infuriating-and-sad case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who -- although not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), let alone a coma, and in spite of the fact that multiple medical experts have testified as to her awareness -- is now being starved to death by court order.

If you haven't heard about this, go read Earl at Times Against Humanity, who has been covering this extensively for some time, and Mark Shea, who has some spot-on posts from today and some links to similar comments at other blogs.

As Mark notes, even Fox News is keeping the story at an arm's distance. Like Mark, this reminds me of how "devoted" many political conservatives are to the pro-life cause -- not very, it seems to me. Liberals, of course, who claim to be the ones who are there for the down & out and the defenseless, are even more mute.

But keep praying: starving to death takes days, which is usually a curse, but in this case, it may mean that Terri can still be saved.

So smart, for being so dumb

People who seem to have an ax to grind viz. the President are writing a lot on Bush's ability to say one thing while really meaning something else. They refer to the "elaborate webs of disinformation" which come from Bush and his administration.

As I've said before, Bush's ability to misdirect is amazing, given that he's so stupid.

True, unfortunately

Mark Brumley comments on the latest letter from the US Bishops Conference, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility:

What If They Issued a Document and Nobody Read It?

The U.S. bishops are getting a jump on the 2004 elections by issuing their election year treatise Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. With all due respect to the bishops, they have produced one more long document that will have virtually no impact on the vast majority of Catholics in the United States. Even if every Catholic in America read it--and let's face it: only a tiny minority will ever even hear of it--most of them are so poorly catechicized that they would not benefit very much from it. And even if they understood what the document says and why it says it, they wouldn't necessarily be disposed to accept its teachings.

With respect to prudential judgments contained in documents issued by the U.S. bishops, it is fine enough that the laity exercise some independence of judgment. When it comes to genuine principles of Catholic social teaching, Catholics should embrace these principles according to the manner in which the Church presents them. At the very least, these principles represent authentic Catholic teaching and are therefore owed at least the "religious submission of will and intellect." Assuming, of course, we're talking about the genuine teaching of the Church and not simply some ecclesiastical officeholder's political opinions.

But whether Faithful Citizenship presents Catholic teaching that all Catholics should embrace or a list of debatable prudential judgments Catholics may question or both, very few Catholics will ever set eyes on the document. Few priests will ever read it, much less the laity. Most Catholics will go happily or unhappily on their way without giving the least bit of attention to this document, regardless of its merits or demerits.

Being at ease in Zion gives you a certain sense of continuity, doesn't it?

Sadly, this is true: the vast majority of Catholics in the US will never read this document -- they just don't care.

There's a lot of work to be done out there.

Miracles and science

Amy Welborn links an LA Times story on cures which modern medical science is unable to explain.

You know what's hard to stomach?

Arrogant politicians who think they have the right to go anywhere and speak anywhere, even when their requests to do so are specifically denied.

The arrogance.

Two days...

until the 25th anniversary of Karol Wojtyla's election as pope. Kevin Miller links a number of articles on JPII.

He's thrown in the towel

Andrew Sullivan no longer calls himself Catholic, at least in public. He explains: "this past year has been a watershed for me. The combination of the cover-up of sexual abuse and the extremity of the language used against gay people by the Vatican has made it impossible for me to go back inside a church. I do believe that something is rotten in the heart of the hierarchy."

Sadly, if he had dropped the final three words of the last sentence, he would have hit the nail on the head: both the saint and the sinner are both with original sin and the tendency to commit sins (concupiscence); the difference between the two is that the former acknowledges his failings as such and seeks forgiveness from God, while the latter denies that his actions are sinful to begin with.

Keep Andrew Sullivan in your prayers. And read Gerard Serafin's thoughts on this.

T update

A week or two ago I had a brief exchange of blogs, emails, and comments with Tristero. Every few days I'll wander back to his blog to see what's on his mind.

Generally, Tristero (like Atrios) assumes the worst about President Bush and his administration, e.g. the "hidden motives" behind Bush's public policy, the administration's lies [sic], the president's intelligence, and so on. Why that is, I have no idea, since my contact with Tristero has been so limited. Because I don't know him that well, I think it would be rash to speculate on his own motives, so I'll refrain from doing so.

His biases results in posts which are certainly interesting to read. For instance, in a post from today, he speculates as to what he would do if he were the leader of another country today; not any specific country, but just not the US. Here's what his general plan would be:

I would work as hard as possible to ensure that never again would the US be in a position to act militarily in the face of nearly universal opposition. I would work to limit American power in as many ways as possible.

Two points:

1. "Nearly universal opposition"... this is a red herring; Tristero well knows that dozens of countries gave at least a modicum of support to the US. The fact that France and Germany and some other countries opposed Bush does not equate with "nearly universal opposition."

2. Tristero would prefer, evidently, that things return to the way they were before we invaded Iraq, when we had evidence going back to the Clinton administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and when Saddam ran a terror state. (NB: I've said before that the latter does not justify the war; but it is indisputably a positive side effect.) He would prefer that the US be unable to act "independently" (to assume Tristero's red herring for a moment) when the President and majority of people and their representatives believe that there is just cause for us going to war.

Needless to say, I disagree.

The "imminent threat" lie [sic]

A great post on the interchange between Fox's Tony Snow and Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Rockefeller accuses the President of calling the Iraqi threat "imminent," and Snow calls on it. Over. And over. And over.

Some people claim that Fox News is biased in favor of conservatism. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, Snow's fisking of Rockefeller and the "imminent threat" myth is real.

When in doubt, google

It'll increase your chances of finding what your looking for.

Why do I say this? Because someone out there in cyberspace went to Ask Jeeves and inquired as to "young marines in the nude". The seventh result was yours truly. Why? Well, "nude" came from a quote I posted about the Dixie Chicks posing nude on a magazine cover, and there are plenty of references to marines during the Iraqi War.

In any event, I'm happy to say that the inquirer did not find exactly what s/he was looking for.