Controversies: June 2004 Archives

Joseph A. Califano Jr., Washington establishmentarian, sets it all straight for us. He's been there, and he's done it right. He knows how to reconcile his Catholic beliefs with occupying a public office. He tells us this from the pages of the Washington Post, in an article reprinted from America magazine, that bastion of rock-ribbed Catholic orthodoxy.

When God and Caesar claim controlling jurisdiction over public policy in America, public servants who are Catholic can get caught between a religious rock and a public policy hard place. Sen. John F. Kerry, who is at the center of a controversy over whether Catholic politicians should be denied Communion if their political views contradict church teaching, finds himself there. But he's not the first. I know. I've been there, too.

This dedicated servant of God was indeed there -- to undermine Catholic teaching on artificial contraception:

We crafted an uneasy truce: If [President Johnson] used the term "population problem" (which also allowed for solutions such as increasing available food) rather than "birth control" or "population control," the bishops would stay silent. Johnson kept his part of the bargain. So did the bishops.

I'd love to hear the bishops' explanation. Did they really agree to "stay silent" while the Johnson administration pushed condoms and vasectomies on poor people? If so, that's a shame, but that doesn't diminish Califano's actions.

As a citizen I consider it preposterous and wrong for the political parties to impose an abortion litmus test on eligibility for their party's presidential nomination: in support of abortion rights for Democrats, and opposed to them for Republicans. But that is no reason for the bishops to make the same mistake by imposing a similar litmus test for the right to receive Communion.

The Church founded by Christ, nurtured by his Body and Blood, for which countless martyrs have died, and through which salvation comes to all men, is equivalent to a political party.

I believe that public figures who are Catholic are entitled to consult their own conscience to determine whether they are entitled to receive Communion. The Catholic tradition of leaving that decision to the individual Catholic and God applies to Catholics who have divorced, sinned or eaten food five minutes before Mass.

Working to keep abortion lethal, legal, and frequent is the same as accidently taking a swig of orange juice on the way to Mass.

Read the whole thing here. Couldn't the Post find somebody with an original thought to contribute? Or someone who could come up with a line better than "a religious rock and a public policy hard place"?

It does provide a minor public service: we now know how culpable Joseph Califano was in midwifing the Culture of Death a quarter-century ago. I'm sure it will be read back to him at the Last Judgment.

Thomas Sowell explains how.

Iranian Source: British Sailors Apprehended To Swap For 40 Iranian Volunteers for Suicide Missions Captured in Iraq

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Hitchens critique of Moore and his "documentary" is devastating. It won't keep Moore from laughing all the way to the bank with this dreck, coming soon to a theatre near you.

For decades, liberal judges have advanced their agenda by arbitrarily declaring "rights" that defy the Western legal tradition, articulated so well by Cicero, Aquinas and Martin Luther King Jr., that just laws comport with God's laws. They have declared peddling pornography, killing unborn babies and even same-sex marriage are "rights."
These are not rights, they are wrongs. For judges to enshrine them permanently in our law, they must first unthrone God — and put themselves in His place.

Yup. Washtimes.com. Interesting article!

In and Out of Communion

"Rage Explodes After Another Baghdad Blast," bellows the headline in this morning's Washington Post. It is the paper's take on the story mentioned below, about the murder and maiming of dozens of innocent Iraqis and foreigners.

Other than the pretense of objectivity -- making it sound like the snarling mob has some legitimate grievances, and that killing random innocents is just a civil rights protest -- the thing to note is the ingrained racism. Arab anger is treated as a force of nature, something that cannot be contained or mollified. They are essentially sub-human, and it is useless to challenge their paranoic rantings (in the Post's stories, there is never any indication that the reporter ever challenges the wild assertions of the mobsters, probably out of fear.

For instance, the story says "[m]en shouting at the top of their voices swore they had seen an Israeli flag in one of the vehicles shortly after the bomb detonated." Right. An Israeli flag on an SUV in Baghdad. Those filthy Jews are getting careless! The assertion is merely repeated without comment. "Isn't it interesting," the subtext reads, "that these Arab creatures equate the U.S. and Israel?"

The focus of the story is not on facts, events, or analysis, but on an emotional reaction. This is consistent with the Post's Iraq reporting, which is calculated to provoke an American emotional reaction, not to inform the public. More on that in a future post.

Of Stem Cells and Fairy Tales - weeklystandard.com

"stem cell experts confess . . . that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit."

But people like Nancy Reagan have been allowed to believe otherwise, "a distortion" Weiss writes that "is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." Why? The false story line helps generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, "It [Nancy Reagan's statement in support of ESCR] is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum."

"Sorrow can be alleviated by good sleep, a bath
and a glass of good wine."

--St. Thomas Aquinas

I've seen that quotation many places, but without reference to the source. I approve of the sentiment, but it doesn't sound very Thomistic to me. Anyone want to venture an opinion?

British military historian John Keegan writes about how the media needs to drop the drama and take a lesson from history. We could have either bombed the Iraqis into totally submission as we did to the Germans and the Japanese at the end of WWII, or we deal with the chaos that ensued by occupying a land that was not totally subjugated and demoralized in defeat. Clearly the latter would have been unjust, so we're left with the former. That isn't Keegan's point, however. He says not all wars ended neatly and what is happening in Iraq is to be expected.

...the serried ranks of self-appointed strategic commentators who currently dominate the written and visual media's treatment of the Iraq story, have a duty to stop indulging their emotions and start remembering a bit of post-war history. Iraq 2004 is not Greece 1945, not Indochina 1946-54, not Algeria 1953-62 and certainly not "Vietnam".

Read the whole thing - it's quite good! Link via Fr. Mattew at SoDakMonk

That is to say, "Come, coreligionists! Into the handbasket! We're going to Hell!"

ST. CATHARINES, Ontario — The Anglican Church of Canada approved a measure Thursday to "affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."

The move stops short of authorizing dioceses to hold same-sex blessing ceremonies, but is still likely to complicate efforts aimed at unifying the 77 million-member Anglican Communion. The worldwide Anglican body is deeply divided over homosexuality.

Delegates to a national church meeting handed the victory to supporters of gays and lesbians as a consolation prize the morning after they voted to delay any national go-ahead on church blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples till 2007 and possibly 2010.

The "integrity and sanctity" measure was approved by a show of hands.

Sanctity is now determined through democratic means. How convenient!

The California Supreme Court ruled that "Catholic Charities of Sacramento is not a religious institution and as such must provide coverage of contraceptives for its workers." Why?

...Catholic Charities does not qualify as a religious employer because it offers secular services to the public without regard for the recipients' beliefs and without preaching about Catholic values. Catholics do not make up either a majority of its employees or a majority of the recipients of its services.

Of course this is ludicrous, so ludicrous in fact that some new derivative of the word "ludicrous" must be used to describe it. We shall say it is "ludicricious." Aside from the ludicriciousness of the Court's decision, I believe that Catholic charities of any kind should always, in the course of their work, preach the Gospel. Too often Catholic social justice activity looks like government service. Material needs are provided without respect to spiritual needs. Actually, I know some parishes here in Arlington where social justice is basically income redistribution. What I mean to say is that it is ludicricious for a Catholic institution to not preach the Gospel. If anything, put some pamphlets by the door for Christ's sake! For Christ's sake indeed.

One of the reflex principles of ethics states that, when there is a question about the morality of an act, the morally safer course must be followed. With respect to abortion, stem cell research, and any issue dealing with pre-born humans, the morally safer course must be followed. Once cells begin dividing, absent a miscarriage before birth, the only result is a living, breathing human baby. The morally safer course is to ensure the baby safely comes to term. Of course, pro-aborts would have us believe there is no doubt that the embryo is not human life.

In his support for stem-cell research, Orrin "Don't count your Hatches before they chicken" Hatch states that after discussing the matter with all manner of experts: religious, ethicists, and scientists, he can't believe that a mass of cells in a petri dish is human life. That is absurd. Medicial technology allows a fertilized embryo to be placed inside a woman so the baby can come to term. When does it become human life? When placed inside the mother? When it is born?

Fr. Stanley Jaki wrote a fascinating essay on the Galileo controversy called "Galileo Lessons". In the last section he addresses modern technological advances and the question of abortion vis-a-vis the Church. He brilliantly connects Galileo's statement upon signing his confession to the question of the continuance of the human embryo. "And yet it moves."

The Jaki book is worth getting just for those last few pages.

How can the Church's tax-exempt status come into question? Pundits, like Cindy Rodriguez, who I linked to earlier today, see moral issues as purely political issues. To her, if a priest or bishop states that the faithful should not vote for representatives who support abortion-on-demand, they are explicitly supporting candidates who are pro-life. Ms. Rodriguez and others see this as an endorsement of pro-life candidates rather than a statement on morality in accord with Church teachings.

She appeals to the sense of moral relativism and so-called primacy of conscience that brought the question of abortion to the courts to begin with. If questions of morality are simply issues for us to form opinions about based on sound bites and our own personal feelings, we elect representatives who will enact civil law that reflects that same moral relativism. The result in some cases is unjust law.

It's interesting that the title of her piece is "Let bishop guide votes, tithe to IRS." For liberals taxes are a kind of tithe because they look at the state as a god, their guardian and protector from cradle to grave. Tax money goes to the government to fund all kinds of activities and programs, some that are perfectly appropriate for the government to be engaged in and others that we as Christians know are immoral.

How do we bring the truth of natural moral law back into the public debate? Liberals can't defend the "inalienable rights" of people without admitting that our Constitution is based in natural law. The other constitutional issue, of course, is freedom of religion, something that would be tossed out with yesterday's news should religious institutions begin loosing their tax-exempt status because of their stance on moral issues. It seems Ms. Rodriguez surely defends the right of free speech over religious freedom. Yet the right of free speech has become, for the majority of the media, the right to foist atheistic and morally relativistic opinions on all of us, all the time. Not only that, but freedom of religion has come to mean freedom from any discourse of a religious nature in the public forum.

That leads me to another point that one of Eric's recent posts brought to the fore. Most of the media turns to what he calls "meta-narratives" when reporting the news. Doesn't the media have a fiduciary responsibility to report facts and data, sans spin, to the public? Editorials and opinion pieces notwithstanding, the problem is that facts and data don't sell newspapers or ads. And they don't generally agree with liberal notions of morality. What sells newspapers are headlines and politicized articles that galvanize the public in a partisan fashion. That's ok for Ms. Rodriguez and the Denver Post. They pay their tithe to their god, the state.

The US Attorney's office has charged a Philadelphia catholic priest for child exploitation.

57-year-old catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia father Matthew Kornacki is accused of possessing computer discs and other materials on his personal laptop computer at Saint Charles Borromeo seminary that contained child pornography .

US Attorney Pat Meehan says the images had been mailed, shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce. [emphasis mine]

If convicted, Kornacki faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250-thousand fine.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia says Kornacki has been removed from active ministry.

He was a priest for more than 30 years and most recently served in the Department of Continuing Formation for priests at the seminary.

Who knows if this priest was trafficking in these images or if this means he just paid money for them? Regardless, this is a terrible charge, especially for someone who is faculty at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary. More info on this case and another charge, this for a priest of the Diocese of Allentown, can be found here.