Controversies: January 2004 Archives

Mark Shea posted a snide comment about this image of Iraqi Shiites demonstrating for speedier elections:

I had the following to say in the comments box, after seeing some of the less-than-pithy postings:

I hate to introduce something so vulgar as "facts" to this discussion, but here are a few:

1. Most Iraqis are Shiites.

2. Despite that fact, most Iraqis do not like Iranians, despite Iran being the only other majority Shia nation.

3. Shiites have no problems with "graven images." Their brand of Islam is quasi-incarnational, in that they believe in the spiritual efficacy of natural objects, unlike, say, the Wahabbis, who are very anti-materialistic. Go into any Iraqi Shiite home and you will see at least one, and probably many, pictures of Hussein Ali, the founder of the Shia branch of Islam. You might even find, as I did in one family's home, that they have a picture of Jesus as the Good Shepherd.

4. There are fundamentalists and then there are fundamentalists. The majority of Iraqi Shiites are salt-of-the-earth types who simply want to harvest their dates or run their auto shop. They have very conservative religious views but they are not interested in an Islamic revolution, much less in exporting an Islamic revolution.

5. In all of the opinion polls conducted since the war, Iraqis have overwhelmingly indicated their preference for a secular government rather than an Islamic one. That Iraq is an Islamic country, and their secular law will likely reflect their religious values, is to be expected and even encouraged. It might be nice if our laws consistenly reflected our values -- perhaps that's an idea they could export to the U.S. I believe that idea -- the enshrinement of the majority's preference -- is part of what we call "democracy."

I found I liked the Shiites when I was among them, and Catholics have more in common with them than other branches of Islam. If I had more time, I'd write a long essay about it.

I completely agree with your post below, John. I've met -- and seen on the Web -- far too many Catholics who proceed on two false assumptions:

1. The "traditions of men" prior to Vatican II are praiseworthy merely because they are old.

2. It is impossible to be too rigid or legalistic.

In the case of #1, an example: I'm not against folk masses because I happen to prefer Palestrina. I'm against them because I think they're not conducive to repentance or adoration -- and thus they do not lead to true joy. (I use the term "traditions of men" not as an insult, but to point out that they are secondary things that flow from the central truths of the Faith.)

As for #2, it's common to think that because you see lots of people err in one direction that it is impossible to err in the other direction. While I would not join the chorus of people who think the Church in the 1950s was a cauldron of cruel pathologies, neither would I say that it was a paradise. Doubtless, in many, possibly most respects, it was superior to our state today; however, something made millions of Catholics abandon their faith in the '60s, so if the Church were perfect before Vatican II, then why did so many people leave?

As for the word "restoration," I rather like the term. Our task is not to "turn back the clock" to make things as they were. Our duty is to consecrate this time and place to Jesus Christ -- and though that will assuredly mean reviving forgotten practices and strengthening neglected ones, it does not mean that all things must be replicated. They need to be re-ordered; restored.

See Al's comments over at Amy's blog. The parents who objected to the Diocesan implementation of this program are clearly on solid ground. Here's a church document for you, Eric:

The Truth and Meaning Human Sexuality, November 21, 1995

"Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents".[69]

While some would say Good Touch, Bad Touch is a safety program, its content makes it a sexual education program as well. The parents have primacy with respect to sex-ed. They also have a responsibility to protect the innocence and the latency period of their children. By all means, write the Diocese, call the Chancery Office, harangue your pastor and parochial vicars, but know, parents, it is up to you to educate your children in this regard. It is up to you to determine if you child is old enough to be taught about human sexuality, and one of the key considerations is not only are they old enough to understand sexuality in combination with Christian moral principles as taught by the Church. If you are not comfortable with this program then opt out. If I had 1st grade children I wouldn't want them to go through this under any circumstances.

In eight months, my wife and I will send our two older children to a Catholic school in the Arlington diocese, so we're concerned about what happens within the system. The article cited by John below is disturbing, but more because of the behavior of the protestors than the proposed sex abuse curriculum.

I have no opinion on whether "Good Touch, Bad Touch" is appropriate for kids or contradicts Catholic values. Not having seen it, I refuse to base my opinion on heresay. I do have an opinion on the obnoxious behavior of those who disagree with the curriculum. If you disagree with someone, don't yell things or pray the Rosary to "drown out...the diocesan director of child protection and safety."

I wasn't there, so I can't confirm Julia Duin's account -- but she has a well-deserved reputation for fairness and she wouldn't write something like that unless it was true. Anyone who was there and wants to correct me, I'll gladly amend this post.

If you were there and you were one of the people shouting or praying loudly, let me tell you something as your brother in Christ. You don't advance orthodoxy (or orthopraxy) by making asses of yourselves, and by implication the cause you represent. How can we say that living an authentically Catholic life will make us better people if the people living that life are acting like jerks?

If you're so fond of quoting Church documents, you might want to take a look at the Catechism's section on blasphemy, and reflect on the part about "misusing God's name." You think Jesus and Mary appreciate their names being used to silence an employee of the Church -- even if that person is wrong?

This story appeared in yesterday's WaPo. Arlington has not complied with all the requirements of the child protection policy adopted in 2002.

The audit said that Arlington has not yet launched a "safe environment" program for children to raise their awareness of inappropriate conduct by adults. It also has not been conducting proper criminal background checks on diocesan personnel who come into contact with children, relying instead on a "self-reporting method" for obtaining information, the audit said.

Catherine Nolan, the Arlington diocese's director of child protection and safety, said that the diocese is addressing those deficiencies.

Missing from this intermediate "report card" is the fact that since the formation of the Diocese, Arlington has had no proven cases of child sexual abuse and paid no settlement money. These important fact should be included in the comprehensive report that is coming out in February. That report will contain info on sex abuse cases and settlements for each Diocese over the US for the last 50 years. Expect the spin in the media to be tremendous.

I was going to do a little comparison between the earthquake in my ancestral homeland of California and the one in Bam, Iran. (Please, no comments on the unfortunate onomatopoeia of "Bam.") But lo, Jonah Goldberg beat me to it.

The California earthquake was somewhat smaller than the Iranian one, but killed two people instead of 30,000+. The anti-globalizers on the Left want to ensure that these disasters happen from now until the end of time. Who cares about mothers wailing for their children, or thousands of homes wiped out in a few minutes of screaming, suffocating chaos? All these things must be offered up to the god of environmental primitivism.

What do I mean by "environmental primitivism"? The anti-globalizers think that poor non-Western people are cute, so they don't want them to change their charmingly backward ways, which are (they imagine) the way people lived before the nasty Industrial Revolution with its so-called "abundant food," "long lifespans," and "housing codes." They love that poor people don't consume much energy or natural resources, and they use "organic" methods of agriculture -- which aren't very helpful for crop yields, but they don't use evil pesticides or fertilizers. And harvesting by hand -- so darn cute!

Likewise, the stone-and-mud-brick houses of the Third World are environmentally friendly. They're also a deathtrap during a natural disaster. But not one tree was bulldozed to make room for them.

Wealth brings medical training, healthy food, and houses that won't crumple during an earthquake. Poverty kills, and therefore the misguided leftists who want to keep poor people poor are, in an indirect way, conspiring to make sure poor people keep dying in earthquakes, famines, and epidemics. Maybe if our brothers in the Third World promise to keep being cute somehow, the anti-globalizers would let them build their houses out of solid masonry and sheetrock?