Controversies: July 2004 Archives

The Battle of the Mosque by Arnold Kling. Publish 07/27 on Tech Central Station

If the Dead Could Talk by Victor David Hansen. Publish today on NRO.

Both of these speak to the challenges of the terror war and how it's not going to be won with platitudes and irrational idealism. I would add that entrusting our national security to the party of those who formerly eviscerated our intelligence capabilities with budget cuts and who suggest now that we make every islamofascist read "All I Ever Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" to change their minds about us is not going to win this war.

We need to face the fact that we're at the beginning of an active conflict with Islamic terrorism, not at the end. This is going to be won by besting the enemy, not surrending to their capability to influence the media. It seems to me the terrorists are in control of the debate in this country, not us.

As VDH says,

billions of American dollars flow to Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. We have even given billions to that wretched Arafat kleptocracy and saved Muslims from Kuwait to Bosnia. U.S. jets, not deranged riff-raff from Afghanistan, stopped Milosevic. There is no legitimate complaint of the Arab world against the United States — any more than Hitler had a right to Czechoslovakia or the Japanese to Manchuria. Just because the Japanese whined that the cutting-off of U.S. petroleum forced them to bomb Pearl Harbor didn't make it true.

I apologize in advance for the disjointedness of this missive. I'm in a hurry as I have an exam for my summer class today.

Liberal Catholic meets Conservative Catholic for the second time

A friend from high school recently emailed me after seeing my name on an alumni website. She remembered me being Catholic in High School and was writing to tell me she entered the Church this year. I was positively elated. We began an email dialogue in order to catch up after more than a decade of no contact.

I'd like to share some snippets from our emails, if for no other reason than she is very liberal and I am, as you know, conservative. I want to believe modern liberalism is compatible with the faith but I think it involves a suspension of disbelief that, in the final analysis, is contrary to the demands of faith itself. More on that unsupported premise later. Now, on to the emails.

I'll call her "Ms. Often Wrong Silly Pants" to protect her true identity. But I jest! I will call her "Dianne." Nope, I never liked that name. How about "Maria"? Maria is it! Ok, now on to the emails!

Since when does the killing of an innocent human being serve as a badge of honor? Since Planned Parenthood, by way of the online store hosted by Yahoo, starting selling t-shirts that say "I had an abortion." How can the words "I had an abortion" support women's rights?

I direct your attention to a post I made back in June about Respect Life Masses here in Arlington.

Kerry stops, drops, and rolls when questioned about his statement that he believes life begins at conception. Here is part of an interview with Peter Jennings, from Jay Nordlinger on NRO.

Jennings: "You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?"

Kerry: "My belief, just my, my, my personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process as a, as a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in. Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights. I believe in the right to choose, not the government choosing, but an individual, and I defend that."

Jennings: "Could you explain to me: What do you mean when you say 'life begins at conception'?"

Kerry: "Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established — is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I — you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard."

Jennings: "If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?"

Kerry: "No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins. Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe vs. Wade."

Let's have a gander at what some of the democrats are saying about the vote in the House today on the bill that would prevent Federal Courts from requiring one state to accept the gay marriage license of another.

"This debate is about a national election," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said in opposing the bill. "We are playing with fire with this bill, and that fire could destroy the nation we love."

To say "we are playing with fire" is one thing, to say "that fire could destroy the nation we love" is nonsensical. How, exactly, would this proverbial fire destroy the nation we love?

"I rise in defense of the Constitution, in defense of the separation of powers," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. "What's next? No judicial review of laws that restrict freedom of speech or religion?"

Considering that freedom of religion has become freedom from religion I think we're well on our way, but in a respect Rep. Hoyer isn't thinking of. In fact, he commits the fallacy of false alternatives by lobbing this rhetorical hand grenade. There are obviously other alternatives than "no judicial review of laws that restrict freedom of speech or religion."

As an irrelevant and uncharitable aside, I'd just like all of you to know I think "Steny Hoyer" is a dorky name.

Catholic Lawmakers Ignoring Bishops - AP

"I believe that what I do as a public servant is in accord with church teaching," said Virginia Lt. Gov Tim Kaine, the presumptive Democratic candidate for governor next year. He supports abortion rights with restrictions such as requiring parental consent for minors and banning late-term abortions. "It hasn't caused me discomfort as a Catholic personally," he said.

Ah, as long as it doesn't cause a politician discomfort that it is a-ok! This is, of course, a fallacious interpretation of the so-called primacy of conscience. If one's conscience isn't properly formed to begin with, or if it's been killed by pathologies of modernity, it can't be a trusted.

This probably isn't a full quote of Lt. Gov Kaine, but it's clear that what is behind these statements is a subjective ethical and moral view, in addition to a faulty understanding of Church teaching.

From an interview of Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker City, Oregon.

Bishop says he will deny pro-abort politicians Communion and that Cardinal McCarrick withheld text of the memoradum from Cardinal Ratzinger at the Bishop's Retreat.

Full text of the interview via Catholic.org:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1155

Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor. Here is part of his statement to the AP.

"In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said.

"When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded," he said.

Discarded, eh? Accidentally? Right. Mr. Berger has a bridge to sell us - who's buying it?

Once, within living memory, it was a day apart in many places: a 24-hour stretch of family time when liquor was unavailable, church was the rule, shopping was impossible and — in some towns — weekend staples like tending the lawn and playing in the park met with hearty disapproval. But America changed, and it dragged Sunday along with it.

And such an article wouldn't be complete without a quote like this:

"We've erased a lot of the distinctions between night and day, between weekday and weekend," says Susan Orlean, author of "Saturday Night in America," a 1990 book. "Our notions of time and space are collapsing."

Yes, space and time are collapsing to one point in time, now, and one lonely microcosm, where, as David Hume said, “we never advance a step beyond our selves.” Did I use too many commas in that sentence?

More on the collapse of space and time later, if I have space and time enough to blog something I read today about Stephen Hawking.

A letter to the Editor of the Washington Times form Laurie Letourneau, President, Life Action League of Massachusetts and Mass Voices for Traditional Marriage. You have to scroll down the page a bit.

Don't miss the the other letters on the Federal Marriage Amendment. A pro-homosexual marriage advocate says Bush's job "is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not to change it and abuse it." A premise he in no way substantiates or justifies.

Another reader says the defeat of the amendment is a victory for states' rights. I think Eric mentioned there is litigation pending to recognize Massachusetts same-sex marriages in other states. Of course I could be mistaken. Regardless, the question of homosexual marriage is on an inexorable course for the federal judiciary system if it is not there already. What is left up the states now anyway? I think states' rights ended with the War of Northern Aggression.

No, not in Mass, in the public schools.

I'm attempting to look up the abortion voting records or positions of all the prominent speakers at the Republican National Convention. I'm righteously steamed that the most notable ones, Schwarzenegger, Pataki, and Guiliani, are all pro-abort Republicans who call themselves Catholic. What about McCain? Not Catholic, but pro-abort, right?

Please post in the comments if you can point me in the right direction to find their stance on abortion, and let me know if I'm leaving any names out. I have never been a card-carrying Republican, and this is one of the reasons. The tent is too big if pro-lifers are marginalized in such an important forum.

Kate O'Beirne has some thoughts on the topic. Again, on NRO.

At the Big Apple convention, three Kerry Catholics will be representing the millions of faithful Catholics being aggressively courted by the Bush campaign. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will likely be heard from as a congressional leader, but haven't senators who have been on point on crucial issues like abortion, cloning, same-sex marriage, and international human rights earned primetime placement alongside their tormentor John McCain? Conservative Republicans should be asking why senators like Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback aren't enjoying the same public embrace as the New York Times' favorite Republican.

By Victor David Hansen over at NRO. In the midst of an election year, it's important to have a historical perspective.

About this time 60 years ago, six weeks after the Normandy beach landings, Americans were dying in droves in France. We think of the 76-day Normandy campaign of summer and autumn 1944 as an astounding American success — and indeed it was, as Anglo-American forces cleared much of France of its Nazi occupiers in less than three months. But the outcome was not at all preordained, and more often was the stuff of great tragedy. Blunders were daily occurrences — resulting in 2,500 Allied casualties a day. In any average three-day period, more were killed, wounded, or missing than there have been in over a year in Iraq.

And an article by Philip Chase Bobbitt, linked to by Jonah Goldberg, published before the invasion of Iraq, states that we can't measure future outcomes based on the present, but rather we must judge future outcomes based on other possible future outcomes. So the question, "Are we better off now than we were four years ago" is meaningless:

Or, consider the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Are we better off now than we were the day before we intervened? Probably not. Before that war we knew where Al Qaeda had its bases and it had not struck since Sept. 11; a number of American and allied soldiers who became casualties were then alive and unwounded; public opinion in Pakistan was less hostile to America; there was a greater measure of sympathy around the world for our losses in New York and Washington; our economy and confidence in our markets were stronger.

But let's ask the relevant question: Are we better off today than we would have been if we had let the Taliban continue arming and sheltering our Qaeda enemies, many of whom we killed and captured in our intervention? Clearly, we are vastly better off for having acted.

A pretty old post of an article over at freerepublic.com, but worth reading the whole thing.

When the Catholic Church hierarchy took a strong stand on abortion, it found itself the target, rather than the position espoused. Quickly, the public issue of whether or not abortion should be fully legal in the United States descended into a cauldron of unrelated issues of separation of Church and State, the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the religious affiliation of abortion opponents, alleged "Catholic power," and the imposition of sectarian belief on American law. As one New York state legislator would thunder in the midst of abortion debate, "you have no right to come to the floor of this body and ask us to enact into law church doctrine."

Sound familiar? The author is talking about the abortion debate in the mid-1960's.

SNAP and Voice of the Faithful aren't satisfied with the Diocese's action in the Krafcik incident and his subsequent (by 20 years) laicization.

On Monday, the diocese announced that the Vatican had defrocked Andrew Krafcik, 76, of Arlington, for a 1984 sex abuse conviction near Richmond. Krafcik served in limited ministry at a Fairfax parish for nearly 12 years after he was convicted.

The diocese has said no other victims have come forward with allegations of abuse by Krafcik. But Mark Serrano of Leesburg, a SNAP board member who was a victim of pastoral sexual abuse, said it's foolish to assume there was only one victim without conducting an active investigation to seek others who may be reluctant to come forward.

"Some things are clear: A pattern of secrecy persists in the Diocese of Arlington, and victim outreach is woefully inadequate," Serrano said. "Christ strapped on his sandals and walked the countryside to seek out the hurt, the sick and the wounded. ... We are calling on Bishop Loverde today to strap on his sandals and seek out victims of clergy sexual abuse where they would likeliest be."

At a minimum, Serrano said, Loverde should go the parishes where Krafcik served and urge people who may have been abused to contact police.

I don't believe there is a pattern of secrecy in the Diocese or that victim-outreach has been woefully inadequate. In this climate, I don't know how a Bishop could keep those issues a secret. Arlington has been extremely forthcoming with respect to past child sexual abuse. Quoting from this link,

[the late] Bishop Keating put in place diocesan Policy on the Protection of Children/Young People and Prevention of Sexual Misconduct and/or Child Abuse which was revised in 1993, 2000 and 2003 in light of the passage of the bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

9 of the 891 diocesan and religious priests who have served in the diocese, or 1 percent, were accused of sexual abuse of minors by 11 victims. Of the nine priests, one was exonerated; two are deceased; one is retired without faculties; and the remaining five are no longer in ministry.

Mr. Krafcik must have been the one who was retired without faculties. He was laicized for an offense that occured twenty years ago. In Arlington, there not the terrible number of victims or repeat-offenders that there were in Boston and other parts of the country. I trust the Diocese and Bishop Loverde with respect to the information they've given the public about instances of child sexual abuse.

It wouldn't serve any purpose for the Bishop to go to the parishes where Krafcik served to search for more victims. How does Mr. Serrano expect Loverde to do this? To speak at all the Masses on a weekend in each parish? That is absurd. There would be a public outcry unknown in the history of this Diocese. It would do much more harm than good. Instead of being viewed as a shepherd of the Diocese earnestly attempting to reach out to victims he would invite even more scrutiny. Everyone would ask themselves, "Why is he asking this at our parish unless he knows there are more victims?" The crisis of confidence in his leadership and spiritual fatherhood would be severe. The trust of many people in this Diocese would probably be unrecoverable.

Krafcik was a priest for about 45 years. He was most likely ordained in the Richmond Diocese. If there were other instances of child sexual abuse abuse I'd be shocked if the victims hadn't come forward by now.

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 13, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and U.S. bishops are "very much in harmony" in regard to the Church's position on the issue of pro-abortion Catholic politicians' access to Communion.

Who are you and what have you done with Cardinal Ratzinger?

The article referenced below by professional buffoon Ted Rall is less provocative than his usual schtick. Next to condemning President Reagan to hell, or accusing a dead Ranger of wanting to murder innocent people, this is mild stuff. Maybe he reads his critics on the Web and has started to reconsider his vile tactics.

I love the quotation, "There isn't even one letter written by a soldier at the time referencing" spitting on Vietnam veterans. There is no record of any liberal screaming at me when I was in college, or making rude comments to my girlfriend (now wife), but it did happen, whether or not I can document it. I didn't think to report it to the police, because it didn't seem like they needed to be involved. I imagine that if you were in combat for the better part of a year, you wouldn't go running to the cops just because of saliva. Yet apparently there's a professor -- at Holy Cross, no less! -- who wrote an entire book saying that no protestor anywhere spat on any veteran.

Now, as it happens, I have a good source of first-hand observations about Vietnam protestors and how they treated members of the military. He is my father, who was an ROTC candidate while a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Campus protestors showed their spirited yet civil disagreement with the war by blowing up the ROTC building. That did make the papers, so the good professor has some evidence for his next book. And the future Army officers could not wear their uniforms on campus, for fear of being physically attacked. These attacks were not urban legends, either.

I've known many Vietnam vets with similar stories. It's funny, though -- they never mention working-class folks performing the abuse. The only ones doing the hitting and yelling were privileged, self-righteous college kids. Perhaps all these stories are invented, too.

I enjoy the pseudo-analysis of military compensation. He refers to a "two-year stint" in the military, which is unusually short -- most active-duty enlistment terms are four or six years. He complains that "Starting pay in the U.S. armed forces runs about $12,000 per year, about the same as working at McDonald's," but that pay increases almost immediately after boot camp, and the figure doesn't include the free housing, food, medical care, and other benefits. Add in college tuition money, and they are earning the equivalent of over $30,000 annually, which isn't bad for an entry-level job.

The cartoonist heroically says, "I'd rather sleep under a bridge, eating trash out of a Dumpster, than murder human beings for Halliburton." That life would be a big step up for Ted Rall.

...in the Diocese of Richmond.

When will we hear from them about their progress? We'd like to know if they can see any changes since the Bishop DiLorenzo arrived on the scene.

I can't mention Richmond without mentioning "TQ" - Pastor of Church of the Holy Family in Virginia Beach. Former Pastor of Good Shepherd Catholic Church in the Mount Vernon area, he is known far and wide for driving a VW Bug up the aisle while wearing an Easter Bunny suit some decades ago. He didn't like Bishop DiLorenzo's installation. No, not one bit!

For the first time in memory there were no LAY extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist distributing the Body and Blood of Christ. The sea of white vested clerics (deacons and priests) “grabbed “ everything with a sort of “it’s our Church” possessiveness. A GIRMness pervaded all.

Why use EME's if there are so many ordinary ministers of the Eucharist on hand?

Contrary to what Beregond posted in the comments last week, this does not rise to the level of schism. Perhaps Father JP would care to comment?

Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick downplayed a letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops from the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog on whether priests should refuse Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent his letter in early June to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the context of dealing with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic whose positions on several issues, including abortion, contradict church teachings.
But its full text, which was published Saturday in the Italian newspaper L'Espresso, contains much stronger language than Cardinal McCarrick used last month at a meeting of the country's Catholic bishops near Denver.
Cardinal McCarrick's nuanced speech during the meeting from June 14 to 19 paraphrased the Ratzinger letter to say that the Vatican had left the issue of Communion in the hands of the U.S. bishops.

Portland Archdiocese Filing Chapter 11

Sandro Magister, writing in L'espresso, presents the letter Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger sent the US bishops supporting the denial of Communion to pertinacious pro-abortion politicians.

(via CWN)

If you think Cosby is wrong, or that this is solely a problem of the supposed appeal of victimhood in the black community, think again. Clearly our expectations of any youngster are too low if the Worcester, Mass. school system thinks it's ok to put Tupac Shakur's "poetry" on the summer reading list: Rap Lyrics on Students' Summer Reading List

The appeal of victimhood is quite paradoxical, because while for a child it may be based in fact rather than imagination, it leads the adult to be a victim of his own sloth, neglect for duties to self, to family, and to community. It's reinforced by the diminished expectations of students in the public schools and the culture in general. When have you ever heard a rapper laud the virtue of getting his homework done, doing his chores, saying his prayers, and going to sleep early? That simply doesn't sell music or movies. Indeed the appeal of victimhood is fueled by the entertainment industry. Cosby is right. Whether or not anything will come of his tirades is another matter. I'm glad Jesse Jackson is behind him on this now, though he has made a career of convincing his brothers and sisters believe they are victims of forces outside their own community.