Category: Controversies

Suppose someone you know died, and his surviving family didn’t talk about his life. You went to the wake, but the only thing they did was read off a short list of attributes: lived in Topeka, Kansas; worked as an insurance adjuster; was married with three kids; dead at 49.
Nobody prayed for the departed soul, nor did anyone try to publicly comfort the family. No eulogies were delivered; there were no amusing anecdotes about the deceased, or heartfelt recollections. If this is was supposed to honor a man’s life, you would probably think that reducing him to the facts listed on a credit application was inadequate, if not disrespectful.
“Nightline” is pretty much doing the same thing, only they’re just sticking to the names of the dead. Powerline quotes Arthur Chrenkoff:

Ted Koppel will be again reading out the names of American soldiers fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan sice last year. I’ve got a modest proposal to Ted Koppel and “Nightline”: why don’t you read one day the names and show the pictures of the 170,000 or so American servicemen and women stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan who every day are working their hardest to ensure that democracy takes root, terrorists are defeated, and these two countries have a chance to build a better future for their people. That might convince a cynic such as myself that you really care for the troops generally, and not just only when they can be cynically used to embarrass the Bush Administration.

170,000 is more names than they can cover in an hour, so here’s a counter-proposal: why not do an hour on medal winners of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
How about Army Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, who received a Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for saving 100 of his fellow soldiers, and giving up his life to do it?
Or Marine Sergeant Raphael Peralta, whose last act was to shield his squad from a grenade with his own body?
Or PFC Patrick Miller, who singlehandedly wiped out an Iraqi mortar position to stop them from blowing up a fuel truck and his fellow soldiers?
One would think those stories are eminently more watchable than a laundry list of names. The last time he did this, Koppel insisted he was “honoring the troops” or some platitude. I don’t watch “Nightline,” so maybe they have done a multitude of positive stories about U.S. troops. If so, they have gone unnoticed by the sources I read. (Chime in if you watch the show regularly.)
If not, then reducing human lives to their names and the fact of their demise is disingenuous. When we want to honor the memory of our loved ones, we talk about them, not just their deaths.

From the coverups in the sex-abuse scandal to the strange removals and reinstatements of priests, from the imposition of a dubious anti-abuse program to the silencing of a priest critical of it, from the somewhat arbitrary closing of parishes to the establishment’s unwillingness to admit obvious mistakes, Boston Catholics aren’t impressed with the quality — let alone the content — of the archdiocese’s communications over the past couple of years, and some folks are talking back by stiffing the second collection today for the “Catholic Communication Campaign” — and for the archdiocesan communications office.
Update: the Globe surveys the ongoing fuss.
Word has it that my fellow parishioners are joining in the financial protest. At Sunday’s first Mass, the Communications collection took in 19 “funny-money” protest notes and fourteen $1 bills. The priest-administrator of the parish reportedly kicked press and TV reporters off the property and tried vainly to bar them from the sidewalk in front of the church. (That should make some good television.)
At the noon Mass, collection baskets were brimming with the pastel green faux-notes.

With the death of Pope John Paul II has come a lot of “Catholic on the Street” interviews. This LA Times piece is typical of what happens when the media talks to the average Catholic. It has it all: women priests, laypeople giving homilies, an “active parishoner and spiritual director” who says she’d think about becoming a priest if it was allowed. Listening to some of them makes you wonder where Pope John Paul II kept his iron fist… if he didn’t change things, he must have been a tyrant. Why didn’t he just wave his wand, said the incantation, and made everything the way some of these people want to be?
The answer is no.
Why no? Here’s a quick lesson, one that opened up a vast array of understanding and appreciation when I was a muddled teen-age Catholic.
In the Church, there’s a huge difference between doctrine and discipline.
Doctrines include teaching on the Eucharist, the Trinity, that Jesus was fully God and fully Human. Doctrines are not reversible or negotiable. Doctrines were given to the Church by God through the Holy Scripture and the Apostles. The only thing that can happen to doctrine is that our specific understanding of some of the details can be heightened over time. We can have a better understanding of existing doctrine, but we can’t reverse or modify the essence of existing doctrine.
Church discipline is entirely different. The operational rules of the Church, like whether or not a parish can have altar girls, or how often a priest should say Mass, or when a person should abstain from meat – these are disciplines. These change from time to time based on culture or local circumstances. Discipline is informed by doctrine, but it really amounts to how the Church works and how it’s governed. Doctrine is considered to be enduring Truth – that’s right – Truth with a capital T.
And the confusion over doctrine & discipline issue means this:
The people who say “I wish the Church would change X” where X is a doctrine are going to be disappointed forever.
People who say “I wish the Church would change Y” where Y is a discipline have a chance of getting their wish.
What’s hot on the X list?
Women Priests – it’s a point of doctrine that women cannot be priests. It’s not open for discussion, regardless of pastoral need, changing culture or what a leotard-wearing liturgical dancer wants.
Birth Control – same thing. It’s doctrine and is not going to be negotiated, repealed or refabricated.
Church teaching on homosexuality – defintely doctrine. A homosexual orientation (being attracted to the same sex) is not a sin. Homosexual acts are a sin. No amount of protests, letter-writing, or wringing of hands will change that teaching.
What’s hot on the Y list?
Married Priests – while there’s a strong basis for clerical celebacy, there may be a time where married priests in the Latin Rite are permitted. There are some conditions where Roman Catholic priests can be married, and there are a few married priests in the Latin Rite but the rule at this time is for a celibate clergy.
So there it is.

Canada is now facing the largest political corruption scandal in its history. Unfortunately, I cannot post the details because the judiciary has threatened to arrest and charge any Canadian media representatives (including bloggers) who post the details. This comes after an American blogger leaked some really scary alleged details.
I spoke with my own lawyer last night and she warned me to stay away, even though Catholic Light is an American blog. Basically, if I understand correctly, everyone else on Catholic Light can link to the story except me. Here is a story on Canadian bloggers being threatened by legal action as reported in the Toronto Sun

Immigration is a complex issue, without a doubt. Many of the questions related to it are economic, and thus highly debatable. Neither the side favoring reduced immigration levels nor the side favoring high immigration levels can agree on the basic facts involved. Even a relatively straighforward question such as, “Are immigrants a net drain on the economy?” is contentious.
For my money, the immigration restrictionists have the better argument on strictly economic grounds. If immigrants contribute to the economy, they don’t contribute much. The vast majority of today’s immigrants are poor and unskilled. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 4% of the income taxes, and their share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes is similarly small. Against this must be balanced the huge social costs of immigration: educating children; providing care for elderly relatives who are “imported” after a legal immigrant establishes his residency; the high crime rates associated with many immigrant communities, etc.
Despite this evidence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argues flatly that Mexican immigration in particular is a boon to the American economy. In “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope,” the USCCB, in conjunction with the Mexican bishops, states that “the United States needs Mexican laborers to maintain a healthy economy.” Why? The paragraph does not say.
Another USCCB policy paper, written to buttress the case for legalizing illegal immigrants, inadvertently blows away that factoid: “Undocumented immigrants from Mexico alone contributed between $154 billion and $220 billion to the Gross Domestic Product of the United States in 2000.” Let’s accept that higher number, and inflate it to $250 billion to account for inflation and additional illegals. This year, the U.S. will have a $12,000 billion economy (see table 1.1.5), so they contribute about 2% of the GDP. By way of comparison, the Federal Reserve Board expects GDP to grow 3.5 to 4% this year. So this vital segment of the American economy, in strictly economic terms, is equivalent to perhaps six or eight months of decent growth.
You may object that people are not cold statistics, and that it is inhuman to consider them as such. Very true, but it is expedient to demolish the pragmatic argument first, so we can clarify the issue (and I would also point out that the USCCB is the one making the utilitarian case, not me.) If high-immigration apologists would make a straightforward moral argument, we would not have to get into pragmatics. Of course, the USCCB does make that moral argument, though these two paragraphs of theirs are irreconcilable:

II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
35. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people.
When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.
III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
36. The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.

If something is a “right,” it is something to which a person is entitled regardless of the circumstance. In that respect, how can there be a “right to migrate,” that is, the right to cross national borders, if nations have the “right to control their borders”? Which right trumps which?
If you read the documents and position papers of the USCCB, you come to the inescapable conclusion that they do not regard illegal immigration to be a “real” crime. Indeed, you come away with the impression that people should be allowed to travel, reside, and work wherever they want, and with no restrictions. Anyone who thinks differently is in need of conversion:

Faith in the presence of Christ in the migrant leads to a conversion of mind and heart, which leads to a renewed spirit of communion and to the building of structures of solidarity to accompany the migrant. Part of the process of conversion of mind and heart deals with confronting attitudes of cultural superiority, indifference, and racism; accepting migrants not as foreboding aliens, terrorists, or economic threats, but rather as persons with dignity and rights, revealing the presence of Christ; and recognizing migrants as bearers of deep cultural values and rich faith traditions.

I solemnly disagree with the USCCB’s esteemed bureacrats on this one. I believe that all immigration should be drastically curtailed by 80-90%, and this belief does not spring from “cultural superiority, indifference, [or] racism.” Rather, I object to high immigration levels precisely because it is socially unjust to allow it.
States have a prior moral duty to their citizens. That’s their place in God’s temporary plan for us, until Christ comes to reign in glory and then we won’t need states anymore. In the meantime, the world is divided into polities that are supposed to protect their citizens from harm, and provide an environment for them to flourish.
The Church teaches that states (and we) ought to consider the effects of a given action on the poor, before enacting any law connected with economics. This is called the “preferential option for the poor.” We can thus see that in the Catholic scheme of things, states take care of their people, and should care particularly for the poor and the most vulnerable.
High immigration levels hurt the poor and the vulnerable, and are thus immoral. How do they do that? Through supply and demand: immigrants, legal or illegal, flood certain parts of the labor market, driving down the price of labor. Businesses love that, but it ends up screwing over the people who were already in the U.S., including less recent immigrants. If these labor market segments were more static, businesses would be forced to train these workers, give them better equipment, and pay them more.
High immigration levels not only hurt the poor and the vulnerable in the U.S., but also in Mexico and other countries, too. It allows underdeveloped nations to ship their “surplus” population abroad, instead of dealing with their own faulty economies.
Illegal immigration fosters disrespect for the law, but even legal immigration keeps poor people poor. How can the bishops’ conference possibly support such a harmful thing?