Barack Bush?

The time has come. The Republican National Committee has put out its talking points on the major Democratic presidential candidates. Have a look, it's quite comical: the titles seem taken directly from a Saturday Night Live parody!

But here's one that struck me: Barack Obama can be summed up as "An Inexperienced, Insulated, Arrogant, Unabashed Liberal". Now, take away the word liberal, and who does this remind you of? Hint: one of the sub-headings is "Righteous And Cocky Obama Builds His Bubble". Staggering.

Torture and 24

Is 24 simply a harmless TV show, or is there an insidious element to it? A recent article in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer suggests the latter. She notes the rise of torture on 24, how it nearly always works, and how the military loves the show. Before the 9/11 attacks, there were fewer than four acts of torture seen on prime-time TV each year, all by villains. Now, the number has risen to over a hundred, and it's the heroes of the show who torture people. The danger is that people will become desensitized to torture, much as they are to gun violence.

In 24, the justification for torture is nearly always the fabled "ticking bomb scenario", whereby the hero needs to torture the person to obtain timely information to save lives. And the idea that this is a valid justification is implicit in 24. The right-wing creator of the show gives the game away when he asks:

“Isn’t it obvious that if there was a nuke in New York City that was about to blow—or any other city in this country—that, even if you were going to go to jail, it would be the right thing to do?”

Well, no, actually it would not, that would be naked consequentialism, the end justifying the means, doing evil so that good may come of it. Funnily, as Mayer points out, the exact same justification was given to the French public during the Algerian war to provide "French liberals a more palatable rationale for torture that..racist explanations". The exact same holds true for defenders of the Bush administration and goes along way to explain both the popularity of 24 and the fact that there has not as yet been an honest open debate on Bush's torture policies in the United States.

Chillingly, the agents on 24 use some of the same "interrogation methods" (or as Bush prefers to call them, "an alternative set of procedures") that the United States has employed on terrorist suspects in real life. Nobody on the show argues that torture does not work. Mayer notes that 24 may even be affecting behavior:

"However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, ... was misperceptions spread by '24,' which was exceptionally popular with his students. .. “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about '24'?’ ' He continued, 'The disturbing thing is that although
torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.'"

'Although reports of abuses by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have angered much of the world, the response of Americans has been more tepid. Finnegan attributes the fact that 'we are generally more comfortable and more accepting of this,' in part, to the popularity of '24,' which has a weekly audience of fifteen million viewers, and has reached millions more through DVD sales. The third expert at the meeting was Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq. He told the show’s staff that DVDs of shows such as '24' circulate widely among soldiers stationed in Iraq. Lagouranis said to me, 'People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen.' He recalled that some men he had worked with in Iraq watched a television program in which a suspect was forced to hear tortured screams from a neighboring cell; the men later tried to persuade their Iraqi translator to act the part of a torture 'victim,' in a similar intimidation ploy. Lagouranis intervened: such scenarios constitute psychological torture.

'In Iraq, I never saw pain produce intelligence,' Lagouranis told me. 'I
worked with someone who used waterboarding”—an interrogation method involving
the repeated near-drowning of a suspect. “I used severe hypothermia, dogs, and
sleep deprivation. I saw suspects after soldiers had gone into their homes and broken their bones, or made them sit on a Humvee’s hot exhaust pipes until they got third-degree burns. Nothing happened.' Some people, he said, 'gave confessions. But they just told us what we already knew. It never opened up a stream of new information.” If anything, he said, 'physical pain can strengthen the resolve to clam up.'

Part of this can be blamed on the media, as it continues to merge news with entertainment. In such an environment, it is no wonder that 24 is seen as a role model for real life behavior. But the real culprit is the evil policies of the Bush administration, who with their supporters continue to defend torture. Mostly, they do so for consequentialist means. But sometimes, through the veneer of the security excuse, the sadistic streak comes out. Mayer quotes right-wing pundit Laura Ingraham saying that while she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, “it was soothing to see Jack Bauer torture these terrorists, and I felt better". Sick. But then again, when you engage in evil, and use the One Ring, do not be surprised if it corrupts absolutely.

America and Gun Violence

CNN is reporting another depressing gun violence story this morning, about a teenager who opened fire on a crowd in Utah. Here we go again. Of course, the NRA and their Republican lackeys will tell you that the wide prevalence of guns had absolutely nothing to do with this. Let's look at some international gun violence statistics, from a 1998 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Argentina 8.93
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05

The United States leads the pack, by a long shot. And anybody who claims this has nothing to do with the prevalence of guns is simply not living in the "reality-based community". For there is a deeper problem, a glorification of militarism and violence that poisons the culture. Yes, many conservatives are right to talk about casual violence in movies, video games, and music. But they fail to see the same phenomenon in the glorification of the military, and the increasing militarization of everyday life. Criticism of the military is becoming more and more beyond the pale. Garry Wills recently decried the increasing use of the term "commander in chief" and a synonym for ''president".

Just look at popular culture. Children from the earliest ages become desensitized to gun deaths. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has made a deal with the devil, coming down harshly on all realistic portrayals of sex, so that the industry can make money from violence marketed to teenage boys. And even the Superbowl portrays football players in militaristic terms. Sadly, until the United States comes to terms with the cult of violence, these deaths will not abate.

Time to Revisit Donohue's Partisanship

True, despite the best attempts of the liberal blogosphere to say otherwise, the John Edwards blogger fiasco (see here and here) has precious little to do with our old friend Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. But, given all the attention, I thought it was about time to revisit some of Donohue's inflammatory rhetoric. Donohue is an easy target: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. In this post, though, I will confine my comments to Donohue's vastly different standards he applies to Democrats and Republicans on the subject of religion.

First, Bill really likes George Bush. Donohue actually entitled a 2003 press release "Is Bush too Holy to be President?" and claim that his opponents "put words in his mouth and then denounce him for saying what he never said." In 2004, he comes out with the fantastic statement that "most observers, regardless of their political bent, agree that President George W. Bush seems at home with his Christianity". And after Bush's 2004 victory, Donohue proclaimed that "most Americans appreciate and admire President George W. Bush for his strong religious convictions". Elsewhere Donohue quotes approvingly Bob Woodward's claim that Bush "prayed for the strength to do the Lord's will" before the Iraq war. Donohue also presented a number of anti-Bush quotes as evidence that "we need to build more asylums".

Second, Bill really does not like John Kerry. For when it comes to religion, Bush is religious, Kerry is a phony. So when Kerry talks about religion (such as when he stated the Catholic belief that both faith and good deeds are required for salvation) he is denounced as a hypocrite, and insincere. Donohue is disgusted by Kerry trying to defend his religiosity, asking "whether Kerry is playing politics with his religion". To Kerry, "religion is an enigma". Donohue even feels the need to list friends of Kerry's who claim he is not religious. Contrast with the fawning treatment of Bush.

There's more. How about both candidates' attempts at religious outreach? Special venom is reserved for Kerry's people. Donohue claimed that the resume of one (Mara Vanderslice) is "that of a person looking for a job working for Fidel Castro", while another (Brenda Peterson) is lambasted for opposing "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Contrast this with his now infamous defense of Bush's Catholic liaison, Deal Hudson. After allegations that Hudson abused his authority as a Fordham professor by taking one of his female students, a disturbed 18-year old, to a bar, proceeding to get her drunk before engaging in sexual relations, Donohue blamed the victim, decrying the allegations of a "drunken female he met in a bar." Even by Donohue's standard, this was low.

And then there is the Bob Jones incident. During the 2000 election, Donohue accepted Bush's apology for speaking there, claiming that the issue was now settled. He talked about Christian forgiveness. He then went on to accuse John McCain of "demagoguery" and of playing the "politics of fear" for raising Bob Jones's anti-Catholic and racist background. And others who kept raising the issue were engaging in a "smear tactic" for "political profit". Later, when John Ashcroft received an honorary degree from Bob Jones, and was criticized, Donohue leaped to his defense, calling it "much ado about nothing" and declaring that Ashcroft was right to attack his opponent for raising the issue. So much for speaking out against anti-Catholicism.

Contrast this with the Catholics for a Free Choice incident. Donohue hounded Terry McAuliffe for listing this organization under the "Catholic" banner on the DNC website. And in this case, Donohue actually had a point. But when McAuliffe caved, how did Donohue react? You might guess something along the lines of "settling the matter" and "Christian forgiveness", along the lines of Bush at Bob Jones? You'd guess wrong. His actual statement? "We will not congratulate the DNC for doing the right thing... this victory is oh, so sweet." Nice.

And how about the Justice Sunday incident? Here, Donohue faced allegations that some of his evangelical allies included those who branded Catholicism a false religion. Perfect fodder for the president of the Catholic League? Alas, wrong again. Donohue not only defends his friends, but attacks phantom left-wing critics: it's the "fat-cat, left-wing bigots like George Soros who concern us" whereas "Dobson is our friend."

No, on all issues, Donohue is a partisan conservative Republican in a deep alliance with the evangelical right. Just look at the policy issues he focuses on: aside from abortion and gay marriage, he spends an inordinate amount of time discussing such core Catholic issues as the public display of the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance, and school vouchers. Bill also has views on other topics too. How about the allegation that Republicans favor tax cuts for the rich? "The greedy want to keep the money they've earned; those who want to take it from us are the altruists". What about the Iraq war? Here, he claimed, falsely, that Pope John Paul never said that there was "no legal or moral justification for the war". And he angrily denounced those who "exploited" the pope's position while not respecting "his teaching on all subjects".

So, there you are, Bill Donohue in a nutshell.

More on Edwards' Whopping Mistake

So, Edwards refuses to fire Amanda Marcotte, a blogger who has viciously mocked Catholic beliefs in the past (see the previous post) after she issues a mealy-mouthed non-apology. And it seems that massive pressure from left-wing bloggers, outraged that Edwards would cave to the likes of Bill Donohue, saved their jobs. What the liberal bloggers fail to understand is that the only people outraged here are not merely conservative blowhards, but Catholics in general, including those closer to the Democratic end of the spectrum. Eduardo Peñalver over at Commonweal gets it just right, when he notes:

"Look, I can understand that we shouldn't let Donohue set the agenda for our discussion, but it makes no sense to take the reactionary stance that if a charge comes from a hypocritical thug like Donohue that it has no merit whatsoever and is not worthy of discussion. You can admit that the blog posts in question gratuitously evinced overt hostility to Catholics, and were therefore at least problematic for someone attached to a presidential campaign in a communications capacity, without crediting Donohue's idiocy. Reacting as the liberal blogosphere has, by simply closing ranks and denying that there is anything wrong with defaming the religious symbols of the largest (and most Democratic) Christian constituency in the country simply feeds into the stereotypes that keeps people like Donohue in business."

But does anybody see this? A few bloggers do, as noted by Penalver. Nancy Scola from MyDD asks if "we [have] made the Democratic tent big enough to welcome religious activists without constantly snickering behind their backs?". And the influential Huffington Post fronts a piece by Melinda Henneberger noting that Marcotte's comments are harmful to liberal Catholics as well, as evidenced by Commonweal's reaction. She draws attention to a comment at the Commonweal blog noting that "Marcotte's comments were viciously anti-Catholic. The fact that many on the left failed to realize that explains very clearly why the GOP (a party that violates Catholic social theory over 90 percent of the time) seems to attract legions of Catholics." Who wrote that last comment? Why, a commentator named Morning's Minion!

But these observations are few and far between. The liberal blogsophere is content to stand by Edwards and downplay any sense of offense, secure that its honor has been maintained. Is the liberal blogosphere so trapped in its own self-congratulatory and narcissistic worldview that it fails to see the harm done? Is the loathing of Catholicism so great that they are quite happy to see a natural constituency enter the arms of the Republicans rather than show them a modicum of respect? This issue goes way beyond Donohue. It even goes way beyond Edwards. It gets right to the heart of how many on the secular left regard religion.

The Key Problem: American Exceptionalism

I've talked a lot about how views of American exceptionalism, often underpinned by Calvinism, shape much of Bush's foreign policy. Now, William Pfaff has penned an excellent essay on this very topic in the New York Review of Books.

He states the problem up front:

"The Bush administration defends its pursuit of this unlikely goal by means of internationally illegal, unilateralist, and preemptive attacks on other countries, accompanied by arbitrary imprisonments and the practice of torture, and by making the claim that the United States possesses an exceptional status among nations that confers upon it special international responsibilities, and exceptional privileges in meeting those responsibilities."

And this can be traced directly to the Calvinist religious dissenters who formed the early New England colonies. Pfaff does not engage the theology directly. Clearly, the early settlers saw America as favored by God, much as ancient Israel had been in Old Testament times. God formed a covenant with the Puritans, again following the Old Testament example. They viewed themselves as the "elect", those chosen by God to be saved through no action of their own. And America was their country. Puritan settler John Winthrop gave perhaps the clearest example of this theology in his famous city-on-a-hill speech in 1630 (that was later appropriated by Ronald Reagan):

"For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken ... we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God ... We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us til we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going."

This mentality guided the "manifest destiny" and frontier expansion, but Pfaff argues that it was pretty harmless until the 20th century. Then Woodrow Wilson stepped onto the stage. Wilson, the son of a Calvinist minister, believed that the United States had been chosen by God to show "the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty." Pfaff notes that Wilson's far-reaching approach to "self-determination" complicated Europe's pre-existing problems, leading to ethnic and territorial grievances that would ultimately be exploited by the fascists. During the Cold War, Eisenhower's secretary of state was John Foster Dulles, a firm Calvinist (and Presbyterian elder). The notion of the United States as a providential nation really became ingrained under Dulles, after Wilson's false start. And Bush fit right in, dividing the world into the good and the bad, embracing American exceptionalism on steroids, and trying to remodel the world under the tutelage of the United States.

Interestingly, the Wilson-Dulles-Bush ideology is eerily similar to Marxism. This is hardly surprising given its roots, as many have interpreted Marxist determinism as secularized Calvinism. History is moving inexorably in one direction, and the role of America is to nudge it along. In Bush's version, the impediment is radical Islam intent on restoring an oppressive caliphate. Just wipe the mess out of the way, and the preordained plan will play out.

But history does not move in a linear deterministic fashion as the Marxists predict. By ignoring the consequences of their actions, the Dulles-Bush strategy has been an unmitigated disaster. Just look at Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine. More generally:

"America's so-called war against terrorism has not saved its allies from violence. The terrorist problem is generally seen in Europe as one of domestic social order and immigrant integration—a matter for political treatment and police precautions— related to a religious and political crisis inside contemporary Islamic culture that is unsusceptible to foreign remedy. Few leaders outside the United States, other than Tony Blair, consider the terrorist threat a global conspiracy of those "who hate freedom"—a puerile formulation—or think the existing militarized response to it a success. The positive results have been meager, and the negative consequences in relations with Muslim countries have been disastrous. The US approach has become perceived as a war against Islamic "nationalism"—a reaffirmation of cultural as well as political identity (and separatism)—which like most nationalisms has thrown up terrorist fighting organizations."

There is, of course, a better approach, one that eschews American exceptionalism. Pfaff lauds George Kennan's approach to the Cold War, that of containing communist powers and staying patient until their internal contradictions undermined them. This is the approach he recommends, an approach that actually thought about the consequences, shunning ideology, emphasizing "pragmatic and empirical judgment" and always paying attention to history. It would be based on minimal interference in other countries, and working resolutely through international organizations. Military action would be a last resort, a sign of political failure. [see my post on the wrong lessons from World War II for similar points]

Pfaff dares to imagine an alternative history, had this path been tried:

"Had a noninterventionist policy been followed in the 1960s, there would have been no American war in Indochina. The struggle there would have been recognized as nationalist in motivation, unsusceptible to solution by foreigners, and inherently limited in its international consequences, whatever they might be—as has proved to be the case. The United States would never have been defeated, its army demoralized, or its students radicalized. There would have been no American invasion of Cambodia, which precipitated the Khmer Rouge genocide. The tribal peoples of Laos would probably have been spared their ordeal.

The United States would not have suffered its catastrophic implication in what was
essentially a domestic crisis in Iran in 1979, which still poisons Near and Middle Eastern affairs, since there would never have been the huge and provocative American investment in the Shah's regime as American "gendarme" in the region, compromising the Shah and contributing to the fundamentalist backlash against his secularizing modernization."

Importantly, the United States would not be stuck in Iraq today, just as it was stuck in Vietnam three decades ago. And it most certainly would not be thinking of starting a war with Iran, where the consequences in terms of regional stability and fallout would be utterly disastrous. It would not have tilted so heavily toward Israel over the years, as the Israel will only ever have true security upon the resolution of the Palestinian political question. Pfaff notes that 40 years of American misguided involvement "served mainly to allow the Israelis to avoid facing facts, contributing to the radicalization in Islamic society".

In conclusion, much of the American zeal for military solutions arises from an ingrained ideology that can be traced back to Calvinist notions of American exceptionalism. It ignores messy consequences and contexts, because it believes in a linear deterministic view of history. Unfortunately, this is wrong. The mistakes in Vietnam are being replayed in Iraq. And Bush and Cheney now want to march into Iran...

What role for the military solution? In line with recent Vatican thinking, Pfaff makes a case for "humanitarian intervention" under the auspices of the United Nations. There is no double standard, as he notes correctly that "an interventionist foreign policy in which the US aggressively interferes in other states in order to shape their affairs according to American interest or ideology is not the same as responding to atrocious public crimes." Extracting Charles Taylor from Liberia is an example of a successful intervention. Kosovo, Rwanda, and Darfur are clearly more complicated, requiring careful thought. But one thing is for sure: Clinton's actions in Kosovo are in no way similar to Bush's in Iraq. And we need to understand why.

Why the Double Standard?

While I stand by my post yesterday that John Edward's new blogger has written some viciously anti-Catholic stuff, some have raised the issue of double standards. I'm talking about the media reaction in particular. Whenever a Democrat is associated with malicious speech, all hell breaks loose. And yet Republicans are frequently held to lower standards.

Take John McCain. He recently hired a man called Terry Nelson, whose illustrious career includes the racist ad against Harold Ford, participation in Delay's corruption and money laundering, jamming phones in New Hampshire to hinder the Democrat's get-out-the-vote endeavor, and working with the Swift Boat liars. And yet McCain is still the media darling.

Or what about the right-wing bloggers and pundits that support Republicans? A group of such pundits who recently met Bush included: (i) Sean Hannity ("making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the speaker is worth dying for"; (ii) Neal Boortz (Islam is a deadly virus); (iii) Laura Ingraham (Sens. Biden and Boxer are on the side of Kim Jong Il); (iv) Mike Gallagher (called on the government to “round up” several left-leaning voices, including Keith Olbermann, label them “traitors,” and have them sent to detention camps); (iv) Michael Medved (Islam has “a special violence problem.”) [Thanks to Carpetbagger Report for the detailed list]

And this is nothing new. Ann Coulter makes all kinds incendiary remarks (such as attacking 9/11 widows), and remains a media favorite. Bill O'Reilly says that it would be fine for Al Qaeda to blow up San Francisco. No consequences. Rush Limbaugh defends torture by saying that the torturers were having a good time, and needed an emotional release. He calls Barack Obama a "Halfrican American" and makes fun of Michael J. Fox's disability. He regularly equates Democrats and terrorists and still claims that Vince Foster was murdered. And of course, Robertson and Falwell blame Americans for 9/11, and get away with it.

And yet whenever a left-wing pundit makes a similar, or even a far less offensive, statement, the knives are out. But this is no surprise: generating fake outrage and stirring up anger is one of the right's main weapons. No, the problem is that the mainstream media laps this stuff up.

And the same policy holds when it comes to minor stuff. Recently, the media is hawking stories about Nancy Pelosi demanding a luxury plane (it turns out she merely wants a plane that can reach her district, which is quite a bit further away than Dennis Hastert's), and the size of John Edwards' house. Why do we never hear these stories about Republicans? The last six years shows that Republicans can get away with all manners of nefarious behavior, from corruption, money laundering, stamping down on dissent, filling vacancies with political hacks... but this rarely gets traction. Suddenly, the Democrats are back, and it's Clinton's hair cut all over again.

Edwards' wealth is the biggest joke of all, as if Bush and Cheney are men of modest means! Of course, we never hear tales of how they acquired their wealth in the first place, do we?

More Shameful US Behavior

57 countries signed a United Nations convention banning governments from holding people in secret detention. The convention focuses on the arrest, detention or kidnapping of a person by state agents followed by denials about the detention or location of the individual.

But the United States refused to sign, claiming that the convention "did not meet [its] expectations." I guess it is still too attached to its Maher Arar-style renditions policy, and its secret CIA prisons.

Contrast this with the attitude of the pope, who, in his World Day of Peace address noted that the United Nations is charged with protecting human rights, and the 1948 Universal Declaration embodies those rights, which are "not simply on the decisions of the assembly that approved them, but on man's very nature and his inalienable dignity as a person created by God."

Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice?

This story is doing the rounds today. John Edwards hired a blogger named Amanda Marcotte. It turns out that Marcotte has written some pretty nasty things about Catholicism in the past, and now Edwards is being called to account.

Who is criticizing Edwards? Well, our old friends William Donohue of the Catholic League, and Kathryn Lopez of the National Review (yes, the pro-torture publication). And who is defending him? An array of left-leaning bloggers, including Steve Benen, who downplayed it as a storm in a teacup, a story about bloggers "who’ve written a few posts conservatives consider shrill". But it's not quite so simple. Here is a sample of Marcotte's writing:

"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

"There’s a pragmatic reason that the Vatican might be a little hesitant to come right out and say that there’s no limbo is because the concept is wielded by everyday Catholics to explain where the souls of unborn babies go, which is just an extra way to guilt trip women who have abortions."

"He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw."

This goes far beyond honest disagreement with certain Catholic teachings. This insults and mocks core religious beliefs. Ask yourself: if the author had said similar things about Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, would the response have been so muted?

This is merely the latest manifestation of the old nativist anti-Catholic prejudice that has always been present in American culture (either manifest or latent). Catholicism is foreign, disloyal, anti-Democratic, passionate, irrational, rigid, an oppressive institution where priests tell people what to think. Throw in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and there you have it-- a classic American blend of anti-Catholicism!

As I noted recently, much of the right's stance against Mexican immigration can be explained by this very anti-Catholicism. It just so happens that in this instance it appears on the left. But this is not so peculiar. During the McCarthyite 1950s, and again in the lead up to the Iraq war, free speech was deemed less important than demonstrating loyalty to the national cause. The left adopted similar tactics to harass and censor those who deviated from "politically-correct" speech codes in various places in the 1980s and 1990s. The witch hunt has a long tradition in American popular culture, and it can rear its ugly head just as easily on the left as on the right. And the Catholic Church has always been the chief candidate for a witch hunt (how else do you explain the reaction to the sex scandal, with new allegations arising in the media every half hour or so?).

Until Edwards and the Democrats figure this out, the Republicans will continue to attract Catholics. And, as you know, I do not view this as a favorable outcome.

The National Review Embarrasses Itself..... Again

Who is Charles Stimson? He is the deputy assistant secretary of defense of detainee affairs, who caused such a furore lately when he suggested that companies should boycott law firms that engage in pro bono work for Guantanamo detainees. This is outrageous on so many levels. Let's start with the facts that (i) a high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield; (ii) fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees have ever been Qaeda members; (iii) many, perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists; they were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants; (iv) the majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords. And of course, these men have been locked up for years with charge. Some have been tortured, and others are there based on the testimony of other under torture. Lawyers who represent these guys for free should be given a medal, not criticized.

But, of course, the National Review sees things otherwise (from Andrew Sullivan and The Plank).

Exhibit 1: Mark Levin: "There is nothing unethical about Stimson's comments. In fact, he was serving a public interest by shining a light on those law firms that are representing the enemy."

Exhibit 2: Mark Steyn: "..the constitution is not a suicide note, at a time of war the American legal system should not be a slow-motion instrument of surrender. To upgrade every enemy combatant to a defendant is unprecedented and unwise.... the world frets about whether they’re getting sufficient multivitamins and excoriates any US official insufficiently deferential to the vast legal support network which no previous nation at war would ever have dreamed of according detainees."

Exhibit 3: Andrew McCarthy: "Stimson was talking about attorneys who've flocked to Gitmo — attorneys who, to fulfill no requirement and overlooking countless more worthy indigents, choose to contribute their skills to an enemy seeking to kill our troops and destroy our country. We don't stop those attorneys from doing it, but it is common sense that the branch of government charged with defeating this enemy should object to those volunteering to help the enemy use of our courts as a weapon of war against us."

Of course, not too surprising from the National Review, an outfit that recently defended Pinochet on consequentialist grounds, defended waterbaording, and lambasted John McCain's desire to "'preserve' our Geneva obligations." while defending Bush's torture program. Outrageous.

Vatican: Stop Glorifying Violence

At a time when Bush proposes major increases in military spending, the Vatican warns that such militarism is not the answer. Many on the American right are only too willing to embrace violence as the first, rather than the last, resort, failing to comprehend that violence backfires more often than not (the famous disproportionate consequences). In fact, the latter core component of the just war principles is constantly ignored by the war party, with their simple one-dimensional, almost deterministic, view of the world. So much so in fact, that I would argue that they actually reject the actual principle itself, rather than its to specific circumstances.

As reported by Rocco Palmo, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican observer at the UN outpost in Geneva, echoed Pope Benedict recently when he said that tackling underlying economic injustice was a precondition for achieving true peace. Also important is "stopping a revived arms race and the proliferation of a variety of weapons [and] rejecting the glorification of violence in the media." He lambasted the "culture of conflict", or the idea that clashes are unavoidable and that war is natural. Yes, the American right needs to pay more attention to what the Vatican is saying. On practically every foreign policy issue since the last Pope Benedict (during the first world war), it has been right.

Anti-Immigration? It's the Catholicism, Stupid!

Recently, I noted that the American right's paranoia about immigration has everything to do with culture. Some facts stand out: 63% of white evangelicals view immigrants as a "threat to U.S. customs and values", and 90 percent of the Family Research Council's membership favor deportation of illegal immigrants. Evangelicals have managed to deftly fuse national identity with religion.

Which brings us to Catholicism, which, by its very definition, is universal. And indeed, if you scratch a little below the surface of the anti-immigration movement, you will find vestiges of the old anti-Catholicism still lurking. The anti-Catholicism that doomed the presidential ambitions of Al Smith, and almost derailed John Kennedy. Of course, modern evangelicals play down these differences, because of their strategic deal with the Catholic right (see here for how Neuhaus misinterprets this alliance). But sometimes, the truth just seeps out. Via Andrew Sullivan, discredited evangelical pastor Ted Haggard had this to say:

"And the nations dominated by Catholicism look back. They don't tend to create our greatest entrepreneurs, inventors, research and development. Typically, Catholic nations aren't shooting people into space. Protestantism, though, always looks to the future. A typical kid raised in Protestantism dreams about the future. A typical kid raised in Catholicism values and relishes the past, the saints, the history. That is one of the changes that is happening in America. In America the descendants of the Protestants, the Puritan descendants, we want to create a better future, and our speakers say that sort of thing. But with the influx of people from Mexico, they don't tend to be the ones that go to universities and become our research-and-development people. And so in that way I see a little clash of civilizations."

Notice the build up. He firsts talks about how Protestant countries are so superior to Catholic ones. And then he brings in the unwashed Mexican masses. Catholic Mexican masses. Yes, it's all about the culture. Are you listening, Neuhaus?

Pro-Life Backlash?

I've talked before (more than once!) about the hypocrisy embodying much of the modern pro-life movement, how its view of Catholic social teaching is deliberately blinkered, making it more palatable the evangelicals, and also making it quite clear that the ultimate objective is to vote Republican. Now, via Rocco Palmo, comes news of a Catholic Accountability Project, with the following statement by its spokesperson:

"As a lifelong member of the Catholic Church who could reasonably be considered a traditional, anti-abortion, pro-life Catholic with nine children and eighteen grandchildren, I find the "Pro-Life" Movement and march on Washington increasingly troublesome. The uneasiness is with the ever more glaring hypocrisy of its leadership and that of the Catholic hierarchy.

The resounding silence of the "Pro-Life" camp, the Catholic Bishops and clergy in the face of daily horrendous violence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine is a scandal beyond
belief. Massacre of innocent civilians, women and children, use of cluster bombs to kill, dismember and mutilate, and now even torture, continue without a murmur of protest or discernible concern."

The statement points the finger clearly at the close relationship between the main pro-life organizations (such as the National Right to Life Committee) and the Southern (sorry, Republican) Party. Kind of obvious, isn't it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski Makes Buckets of Sense

Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered an outstanding statement on the Iraq war and regional tensions at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today. His opener is simply the best description of the current situation in Iraq I have seen to date:

"The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability."

And he warns:

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."

He provides a perfect antidote to the ever-increasing drumbeat on the right about the need to confront Iran and radical Islam everywhere in the context of the "global war on terror". For the increasing shrill rhetoric about Iran's nefariousness is eerily similar to the picture painted about Iraq a few years ago. Is this a case of deja vu? Brzezinski:

"A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by
false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily
powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider slamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a
new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth
pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the
Islamic world. .... One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward he U.S. global posture."

He's right, of course. The Malkinesque right is indeed Manichean. It is often influenced by a derivative Calvinism that paints the world into the saved and the damned, the good and the evildoors, and damns the latter. Hence this group will latch onto any incident of Islamic extremism, making it seem like every Muslim shares these views, and keep shouting about how our entire civilization is at stake. Clowns like Dinesh D'Souza blame western culture. What these people fail to understand that citizens of the Middle East hate American foreign policy, and its intentions in the region, either real or perceived. They most certainly do not wish to live under a Taliban-style regime. And sure, there are some pathologies in the culture of the Islamic Middle East (such as the glorification of suicide bombing, a grave evil) but these pathologies do not call for a maximalist, and ultimately counterproductive, response.

So, what should the United States do right now? Brzezinski answers in a number of ways. First, withdraw from Iraq. Ambiguity about departure only maintains the current stalemate and unwillingness to compromise and negotiate. Moreover, since the role of the United States is viewed with suspicion in the region, only a quick withdrawal will alleviate such concerns. Second, talks with the Iraqis, against the backdrop of withdrawal. Third, dialogue at the regional level. And fourth, the United States should push forward on the Israel-Palestine issue, the source of much of the ill will toward the United States in the region. Brzezinski is a voice of sanity crying out in the wilderness!

The 90 Percent Doctrine

The title of Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine refers to a philosophy that supposedly guides Dick Cheney-- if there is even a one percent chance of something with potential catastrophic consequences (such as the terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon), this should be treated as if it were certain. Well, take global warming. There is more than a 1 percent chance that global warming is man-made, with potential catastrophic consequences. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--representing the scientific consensus)-- there is at least a 90 percent chance that global warming is man-made. This is a stronger position than it took in 2001, representing a hardening consensus.

And yet, many right-wing Catholics-- wedded to both individualistic materialism and secular nationalism-- simply don't want to hear about this. I've talked about this before, here and here. They will dismiss concerns as mere "prudential judgment", and feel qualified to question the IPCC and the scientific consensus. But what exactly is prudential judgment? It does not mean "something I can willingly ignore because it does not fit my with secular ideology". No, it means "the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances." And according to this new consensus, there is a 90 percent probability that "changing concrete circumstances" are leading to man-made global warming at an alarming rate.

Remember, this could be the ultimate moral issue. And discounting the welfare of future generations for the comfort of those alive today is an exercise in the crudest utilitarianism.

The Problem with Nationalism

In my post on immigration, I referenced the Catholic principle, the notion that (in Catholic social teaching), the concept of neighbor extends to the whole human race. In that sense, I have some basic problems with nationalism, the glorification of the nation state, or at the very least, the claim that it takes precedence over other claims of loyalty.

The way many Americans treat the concept of culture, flag, nation-- well, borders on idolatry. Nowhere is this clearer than with discussions of the Iraq war. Priests have been accused of treason for merely preaching Pope John Paul's opposition to the war from the pulpit. And in right-wing Catholic circles, one often sees more fealty shown toward the Bush administration than the pope! Many point that the Catechism seems to defer to the civil authorities when it notes that "The evaluation of these [just war] conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." Hence soldiers and draftees are morally obliged to obey orders, and civilians are urged to support the war effort lest they be accused of a bevy of abuses ranging from disloyalty to treason. We see this quite clearly in the ongoing debate today. But it's wrong. It is certainly a necessary condition that the secular leadership evaluates the just war conditions, but it is not a sufficient one. The judgment could be wrong, immoral.

Were soldiers in Nazi Germany obliged to obey orders? Was the German population obliged to support the war effort? Of course not! The Austrian farmer Franz Jägerstätter died as a martyr when he refused to be drafted by the Nazis. He reasoned very clearly that while obedience to the government was ordinarily required, this was not the case in gravely evil situations. And the Nuremberg trials concurred, stating clearly that the "following orders" defense was invalid.

Where am I going with this? In earlier days, before the Enlightenment and the rise of the nation state, nationalism, at least as understood today, was non-existent. The ruler was regarded as having a divine mandate to rule, but this was contingent upon the ruler supporting the common good. There was never any obligation to support tyrants. Of course, the environment was very different, during a time when borders were in constant flux, and when there was no real concept of a "state" demanding allegiance. Loyalties were of a local nature. But the rise of nationalism changed the equation, as (absent any notion of the divine), the state itself became an end in itself. It is by no accident that many trace the birth of modern nationalism to the French Revolution. As Christianity waned, secular mythologies and ideologies arose take its place, and those ideologies often glorified country. In its extreme forms, this ideology quickly shifted into the venomous pseudo-religions that so marked the 20th century. Even its more benign forms (such as in the United States) it is, in its essence, an artificial concept prone to corruption.

Perhaps we need to reassess nationalism. The ruler in a modern democracy is obliged to protect the common good, chiefly to protecting basic human rights. Borders are necessary to establish administrative boundaries. But should these boundaries be accorded a mystical quality of their own? I don't think so.

Five Favorite TV Shows

I think it's time for a lighter topic! So here goes: the five TV shows I most enjoy at the present time.

1. Battlestar Galactica

A brilliantly written show, featuring multidimensional characters and a fascinating story arc, that fearlessly addresses highly controversial topics like abortion, terrorism, torture, fear-mongering, suicide bombing-- all in the context of a science fiction space drama.

2. Lost

Mixing the present with character flashbacks, this complicated drama piles riddle upon riddle, mystery upon mystery, in an ever-increasing spiral of confusion, with only the vaguest hints that somehow everything is connected and will one day be revealed! Highly addictive...

3. Rome

And you thought modern politics was vicious! After Ceasar was knifed to death, it's everybody for themselves in the Roman streets-- and the Senate too.

4. 24

Maybe getting past its sell-buy date, but still makes for gripping television and a weekly adrenaline rush, as long as you realize that it's all fiction and that Jack Bauer is not somebody to lauded or emulated... (that's for Bush supporters!)

5. Prison Break

This started off as a unique concept-- breaking into prison to break somebody else out. Now trying to sustain itself in second season, the escapees are on the run and seem to have a remarkably easy time avoiding detection. Still, the diverse cast and multiple story lines makes for interesting viewing, and who can resist a drama about a nefarious president in the grip of big companies engaging in multiple conspiracies and cover-ups?

Now, if only The Sopranos returned, it would surely have its rightful place in this group restored!

The American Right is Wrong on Immigration

""Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'" -- Matthew 25: 42-45 (NAB).

The American right is opposed to immigration. They are especially riled up by what they regard as illegal immigration, but many too, simply seek curbs on legal immigration. And here's the interesting thing: this group includes the majority of evangelical Christians. Eduardo Peñalver over at Commonweal links to an interesting article exploring Christian reactions to immigration. According to the article, a poll of the Family Research Council's (FRC) members showed that 90 percent of them favored deportation of the 12 million or so undocumented workers. Deportation! Moreover, according to a Pew poll, 63% of white evangelicals view immigrants as a "threat to U.S. customs and values," compared to 48% of the population as a whole. And sadly, many on the Catholic right shares these views. The champion of this group is evangelical fundamentalist politician Tom Tancredo, who seeks to criminalize those who "aid and abet" illegal immigrants, and is running for president on a strongly nativist platform. It used to be that Catholics faced the ire of guys like Tancredo. It is yet another bad fruit of the marriage of convenience between many right-wing Catholics and evangelicals that large number of Catholics can embrace such a position.

Why? Some will say it to to protect against terrorism. Others will say it is for economic reasons, to protect low-paid native workers. But these are not the real reasons. The real reasons are cultural. The American right is uneasy with, and sometimes hostile toward, Mexican culture. This is the defining issue. And when speaking among themselves, they can be refreshingly frank. Long-time right-wing activist Phylis Schlafly wrote to her membership that the proper Christian response to illegal immigration in the United States is to "erect a fence and double our border agents in order to stop the drugs, the smuggling racket, the diseases, and the crimes." Less provocatively, the FRC's Tony Perkins announces that the core issue is to protect the "cultural fabric." Gary Bauer also acknowledged that culture is the "unmentioned undercurrent" in the debate. Catholics can join in too. Thomas Fleming, president of the Rockford Institute, said that "Whatever we may say in public, most of us do not much like Mexicans, whom we regard as too irrational, too violent, too passionate." And we all know the views of well-known Catholic Pat Buchanan.

How can these views accord with Christian philosophy, with Gospel values? One can only assume that these people know full well that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were migrants and refugees, and that Jesus calls on us to embrace everybody as brothers and sisters, regardless of race or nationality. Ominously, as the quote at the top shows, he damns those who ignore the stranger.

What's going on here? The position of many on the right derives from a secular nationalistic ideology. There is nothing "Christian" about it. In particular, these people seem to have lost all notion of the "Catholic principal", the idea that there can be no boundaries on who is and who is not our neighbor. But there may be a way out. Evangelical fundamentalism is inspired by a Calvinist belief in predestination, dividing the world into the saved and the damned, and often holds that God has somehow favored the United States above all others. It follows naturally that America should protect its culture, much as God favors the United States. Thus a secular ideology can be safely wedded with (bad) theology.

But the essence of Christianity is that God does not play favorites. It is catholic, universal. St. Paul stated clearly that all races and cultures are united in one Church. The need to welcome the migrant is at the core of Christ's teaching, and that message is preserved in the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Evangelical Catholicism blog has been doing sterling work in standing up for this aspect of authentic Catholic teaching. The teaching is quite old at this stage. The right to migrate to sustain one's family was laid down by Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum back in 1891. At the end of World War II, Pope Pius XII recalled the Church's support for "pilgrims, aliens, exiles and migrants of every kind." and reiterated the right to migrate if workers cannot achieve a life of dignity in their own land. While the Church acknowledges that countries have the right to regulate borders, that right is by no means absolute. Above all else, the human dignity and human rights of all migrants must be always respected, irrespective of what documentation they hold. Basic rights must always be upheld.

The Church continues to make these points. Pope John Paul addressed the issue frequently, and had the following to say:

"By her nature, the Church is in solidarity with the world of migrants who, with their variety of languages, races, cultures and customs, remind her of her own condition as a people on pilgrimage from every part of the earth to their final homeland. This vision helps Christians to reject all nationalistic thinking and to avoid narrow ideological categories. It reminds them that the Gospel should be incarnated in life in order to become its leaven and soul, also through a constant effort to free it from the cultural incrustations that inhibit its inner dynamism.

For the Christian, every human being is a 'neighbour' to be loved. He should not ask himself whom he should love, because to ask 'who is my neighbour?' is already to set limits and conditions. One day Jesus was asked this question and he responded by turning it around: it is not 'and who is my neighbour?', but 'to whom should I become a neighbour?' that is the right question. And the answer is: 'anyone in need, even if he is a stranger to me, becomes a neighbour I must help'. The parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:30-37) invites everyone to reach out beyond the bounds of justice in the perspective of gratuitous and unlimited love."

In other words, beware of secular ideology and nationalism. And yet many Catholics will dismiss Church teachings in this area as yet another example of prudential judgment that can safely be ignored. And it is true that if the Church issues a statement on a particularly policy matter related to immigration, it is indeed a judgment about particular circumstantial facts. But in this matter more than any other, many who disagree with the Church are not simply questioning its prudence, but disagreeing with core social doctrine, in other words, about the underlying principles governing the particular circumstances. The critics above-- Perkins, Schlaffly, Tancredo, Buchanan, Fleming-- fall into this category.

And one more thing. Dismissing the God-given human rights of a migrant can have serious consequences. Deportation is one of the examples that John Paul gives in Veritatis Splendour when addressing offenses against human dignity that are intrinsically evil, in other words, that can never be justified by appeal to intent or circumstance. Deportation, just like torture and slavery, can become intrinsically evil if it violates the God given dignity and integrity (the intrinsic worth) of human beings. In other words, if it treats the person as a mere means to end (in this case, the protection of the American culture). This is always and everywhere wrong. And, no, this is not a prudential judgment.

Bishops And Domestic Partnership Benefits

When it comes to granting legal rights to same-sex couples, many of the Catholic right will kick and scream, oppose without thinking, and demand excommunication and (at the very least), denial of communion for those not with them. In that light, what is going on in Washington state right now is interesting. As noted by Rocco Palmo, Joseph Tyson, Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, testified at state legislative hearing concerning the expansion of domestic partnership rights and benefits. Tyson sought to broaden the provisions, to encompass not only same-sex couples but any registered "domestic partnership" (that could include, for example, an elderly parent).

This pragmatic solution as the one adopted a decade ago in San Francisco by then-Archbishop William Levada, averting a showdown with the City, and a possible loss of funding for the local Catholic Charities. Levada's solution was that domestic partnership benefits would be paid to "any legally domiciled member" of a household.

Of course, Levada was denounced on the right as a sell-out. But one person paid attention, and and promoted Levada to his old job (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) when this person was elected pope. And, interestingly, one of Pope Benedict's first appointments in the United States was (you guessed it), Joseph Tyson of Seattle. Yet again, will some on the Catholic right claim to know the mind of Benedict more than Benedict himself?

When is Euthanasia Not Euthanasia?

Evoking parallels with the Terri Schiavo case in the United States, the Italian Church has been at the center of controversy over the death of Piergiorgio Welby, a man who was paralyzed and kept alive by a ventilator for nine years. The case created a huge political furore, and the Church was painted as a stark opponent of allowing him to die.

First off, this is all incredibly complicated and nuanced. We need to be absolutely clear about what the Church says and what it does not say. For that, I recommend a good article in the Tablet by John Paris S.J., a leading expert on end-of-life issues. First, things first. Euthanasia (or "mercy killing"), like abortion and torture, is evil in its object, which means that no appeal to either intent or circumstance can justify it. As the Catechism says clearly (#22877): "

"Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to
the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself of by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator."

But there is a profound difference between killing somebody and discontinuing treatment that offers no hope of recovery. This distinction is well-grounded in Catholic moral teaching. Again, from the Catechism (#2278):

"Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected."

The 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia had this to say:

"One cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide [or euthanasia]; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected."

This reflects a very old tradition. As far back in the 4th century, St. Basil wrote: "Whatever requires an undue amount of thought or trouble or involves a large expenditure or effort and causes our whole life to revolve, as it were, around solicitude for the flesh must be avoided by Christians." The distinction between proportionate/ordinary care (which was morally obligatory) and disproportionate/extraordinary treatment (which was not) was worked out in detail by a group of 16th Century moralists, including Domingo Bañez and Francisco de Vitoria. When Vitoria was asked if a sick person who refused to eat be guilty of suicide, he answered:

"If a patient is so depressed or has lost his appetite so that it is only with the greatest effort that he can eat food, this right away ought to be reckoned as creating a kind of impossibility, and the patient is excused, at least from moral sin, especially if there is little or no hope of life."

In modern times, and in modern medical circumstances, Catholics moralists have arrived at similar conclusions. As noted by Fr. Paris, the eminent Jesuit moralist Gerald Kelly concluded in the 1950s that (in Paris's words): "No one is obliged to use any means - natural or artificial - if it does not offer a reasonable hope of success in overcoming the patient's condition." He stated that this included the use of IV feeding for patients in a terminal coma. Pope Pius XII noted that the use of ventilators was not necessarily obligatory either. And in a recent case, Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow, in discussing a case of a woman paralyzed from the neck down, said that:

"The principle here [the request for the withdrawal of a ventilator] is quite different from euthanasia. The request in this case is not for assisted suicide, rather it is for the discontinuation of a medical procedure which is burdensome to the patient."

Paris concludes his essay by appealing to the example set by Pope John Paul II, who refused to go back to the Gemelli Hospital, where he would probably have been hooked up (yet again) to a respirator and feeding tube. Instead he said simply "Let me go to the house of the Father."

The consensus view is elucidated in a thoughtful essay by Brother Daniel Sulmasy, who claims that intervention can be judged extraordinary and disproportionate if it is "too expensive, not likely to work, is associated with great suffering, or might save the patient's life at too great a psychological, spiritual, or interpersonal cost".

In light of this, why did the Church react to Welby in the way they did? Quite simple. Gerald Kelly himself provides an answer when he wrote, in the context of his own position on the licitness of withdrawing IV treatment:

"I frankly hesitate to give a practical answer allowing the physician to discontinue the intravenous feeding as a means to end suffering. I fear the abrupt ceasing of nourishment to a conscious patient might appear to be a sort of ‘Catholic euthanasia' to many who cannot appreciate the fine distinction between omitting an ordinary means and omitting a useless ordinary means."

In other words, these issues can be complicated, and the Church is afraid that its unambiguous treatment on euthanasia would be watered down. It is afraid that nuance will be interpreted as support for suicide and euthanasia. Hence, many in the Church are willing to draw a heavier line than exists in Catholic moral teaching.

This is what happened in Italy. In the Welby case, the patient claimed that the technology was artificially postponing his death and that was too burdensome (he could no longer eat or speak). In many countries, his wishes would have been granted automatically. The issue is that Italian law does not permit the denial of lifesaving care even though the patient can refuse treatment.

The Vatican said clearly that the issue was whether or not the use of the respirator constituted extraordinary measures to postpone his life. But the Church was not willing to take a stance on this question. Accordingly, two top Vatican officials-- Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, and Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life-- stated that they did not have enough information to make such a determination. Both Cardinal Barragan and Bishop Sgreccia argued that the doctor should decide. But this is clearly an unsatisfactory position, as the Catechism clearly says that "the decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able."

More recently, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini entered the fray, and appeared more sympathetic to Welby's case, noting that he was fully lucid and that the breathing apparatus offered no possibility of improvement. Although Martini did explicitly condone Welby's decision, he did say that is is generally up to the patient to decide whether the treatment is disproportionate or not. So, at the end of the day, closer to the Catholic tradition, but not that far either from Cardinal Barragan, despite the media playing up in-fighting in the Church over this issue.

So far, so nuanced. But it got a lot worse when Cardinal Camillo Ruini, papal vicar of Rome, refused to grant Welby a Catholic funeral. Although the Diocese of Rome stated clearly that it was being denied because of his long-time advocacy for legalized euthanasia, and not arising from the circumstances of his death, the damage was done. The Church's attempts at nuance were lost. Welby's widow made the valid point that the Church had not refused a Catholic funeral to murderous dictator Pinochet. [As an aside, this gives a glimpse of how the Church's prestige in the US would suffer should they start to deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians.] As Cardinal Martini hinted, “more attentive pastoral consideration" was have been helpful.

So, where do we stand? Paris makes the compelling case that the removing of Welby's respirator was fully consistent with Catholic tradition, at least in terms of similar cases in the past. And yet the Church was loathe to embrace this position, for reasons that are (at least partially) understandable. Still, many people failed to note the nuance in the Church's position and equated Welby's death with text-book euthanasia. The same happened with the Schiavo case, with extremists on both sides contributing to an atmosphere of bitterness than managed to obscure the Church's authentic teaching on the matter at hand.

Going forward, we need far more clarity on end-of-life issues in the modern day. In particular, it would be useful to address these issues:

(1) Is there a difference between refusing to accept treatment, and ending treatment that has already begun? Pope John Paul refused to get back on the ventilator. Welby took himself off. Is there a major ethical difference? Is the latter too close to suicide?

(2) How do advancements in the quality of medical care and treatment affect a tradition that was worked out in context of the 16th Century? Already, as noted in a 2004 papal allocution, the Vatican seems to be saying that artificial nutrition and hydration should now always be seen as ordinary, and thus morally obligatory (which was not the case in the past).

(3) Can we discern an ever-unfolding emphasis in Church teachings on the God-given human dignity of every human being affecting this aspect of Church teaching, as it has many others? In recent times, the Church has restricted its position on the licitness of the death penalty, and sees ever-narrower conditions for the justness of war. Does this general trend have implications for end-of-life issues? Can we argue that the old proportionate-disproportionate distinction places too much weight on "quality of life", in a way that downgrades the human dignity of disabled people?

One thing is for sure: the Church will have a lot more to say about this matter!

How Low Can Fox News Go?

Has Fox News really reached its nadir? With the Southern (sorry, Republican) Party in disarray following the Congressional wipe-out, it must be forgetting to send the daily marching orders to Roger Ailes. Spinning out of control, and not sure why its world is being turned upside down, Fox is getting desperate. Very desperate.

Take two recent stories.

One, Fox has been peddling a story that Barack Obama attended a radical Saudi-funded Indonesian madrassa as a child. In fact, reporters from CNN and the Associated Press went to investigate, and discovered that it was a secular institution. They even found that it had classes on Christianity, with pictures of Jesus on the wall. Unlike John Kerry, Obama swung right back and denounced Fox for its "malicious, irresponsible charges", and called out Fox commentators Steve Doocy and John Gibson by name. Obama's letter was signed by Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic representatives. How did Gibson respond? By claiming that the "reporter" sent by CNN probably went to the same madrassa, and wondered how this person managed to miss the "terrorist training camps" and kids "bobbing their heads and memorizing the Koran." What can I say? Remember, this is the most popular news network in the country.

Two, Fox has decided to broadcast a total lie about Clinton and 9/11 that was excised even from ABC's ludicrous production (written by a Republican partisan) last year. Following widespread protests, ABC agreed to scrap some of the most offensive scenes, including the one that shows Sandy Berger refusing to allow the CIA to attack Bin Laden. No matter that the 9/11 Commission said this did not occur. Fox is a full part of the Bushite alternate universe where ideology trumps fact, where an insidious and cynical postmodernist vision holds sway, and where there is no such thing as objective truth. This, my friends, is moral relativism. And calumny to boot.

Communion Wars

If you look at what energizes the Catholic blogosphere today, you would be forgiven for thinking that pro-abortion politicians standing in communion lines is the leading moral issue of the day! It all harks back of course to the right-wing assault on John Kerry in 2004, coordinated by Bush's Catholic allies, including the dynamic duo of Deal Hudson and William Donohue. Now, the issue relates to the newly-elected speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington DC, stated clearly that he has no intention of banning Pelosi from receiving communion. Instead, he drew attention to the Church's teaching role. The reaction was predictable. From Amy Welborn, who runs one of the most popular Catholic blogs:

"I think what Archbishop Wuerl and others fail to understand is the impact of things like this on the lay Catholic who is struggling to be a faithful disciple in the world. The message that is sent by silence is strong, in terms of the lay apostolate in the world, in terms of the unity of faith and life."

And Welborn's response was relatively timid. Richard John Neuhaus, whose essay I addressed in part yesterday, had this to say:

"It is understandable that Catholics and others have drawn the conclusion that, for both Wuerl and Egan, bishops of the two most prominent sees in the country, rejecting the Church’s teaching on the human dignity of the unborn child is not a big deal."

Neuhaus also accused Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Wuerl's immediate predecessor, of misrepresenting a letter sent by Cardinal McCarrick in 2004. Pretty serious charges. I've discussed this letter many times before in different contexts, including the relationship between abortion on one hand, and war and the death penalty on the other; and the conditions under which Catholics can licitly vote for pro-abortion candidates. But now the time has come to address the main point of the letter, the issue of communion. Here is Ratzinger:

"Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."

This results directly from the truth that directly-procured abortion is always and everywhere wrong, without recourse to intent or circumstance. It is the taking of innocent life. There can be no "right to take life". In this sense, and only in this sense, is abortion "non-negotiable".

So, what does this mean? First, formal cooperation in evil means something pretty specific. It refers to the proximity of the person to the act of abortion itself. It can be defined as "..when a person or organization freely participates in the action(s) of a principal agent, or shares in the agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal." According to Ratzinger, in the case of abortion, formal cooperation includes "consistently campaigning and voting for permissive" laws.

Now, this may come as a shock to some American commentators, but perhaps Ratzinger was not just thinking about the United States when he set of these principles. In the United States, the "right" to abortion comes directly from the U.S. Supreme Court. Members of Congress do not typically vote for permissive abortion laws. If anything, legislators are indicted by their rhetoric, if inappropriate. It is therefore really difficult to discern the true intent of a politician in voting for or against a piece of legislation. As blogger M.Z. Forrest notes, "a politician could claim that by enacting a piece of legislation that would be turned down by the courts at this time he would cause harm to justice and not effect the rate of abortion."Cardinal Avery Dulles has also discussed this issue, noting that voting for an appropriations bill that includes some provisions for funding abortions "might arguably be licit if the funding for abortion were only incidental and could not be removed from a bill that was otherwise very desirable." And of course, it is perfectly licit to vote against a Supreme Court nominee that might well vote to overturn Roe v. Wade (but who knows if they actually will?) for other compelling reasons.

Overall, given the source of the abortion "right" in the United States, the proximity of legislators to the act of abortion is automatically diminished. Of course, that does not let them off the hook, especially if they share in the intention of Roe v. Wade that abortion is a "right" and hence something good. But this becomes incredibly difficult to discern. And even when the Church is compelled to deny the Eucharist in a specific case, the guidelines call for it to be done privately, without the fanfare of right-wing Catholics jumping up and down.

Of course, one can argue that persistently lobbying for abortion creates a public scandal. The USCCB statement on the issue makes this point by noting that "to give scandal means more than to cause other people to be shocked or upset by what one does...Rather, one’s action leads someone else to sin.” But does anybody really think that John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi are encouraging others to sin, either directly or indirectly? And what about the public scandal of the Bush administration defending torture for the sake of "security"? And so many other examples spring to mind...

Of course, for Catholics, participation in the Eucharist is a serious issue, not to be taken lightly. And many pro-abortion politicians probably should not participate. Any Catholic can tell you that we are encouraged to partake in the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving communion after committing grave sins. And there are many such sins out there, ranging from murder and abortion through malicious gossip and missing mass. How many of those who receive the Eucharist do so correctly? No, the key issue is coercion, whether people should be refused communion. The line is hard to draw. In Northern Ireland, the Church did not refuse communion to members of Sinn Fein and supporters, even though they supported terrorism. How many known mafia members are turned away in parts of Italy?

If the Church singles out one issue, the abortion issue, it will be seen as politicizing the Eucharist. Cardinal Dulles makes this point when he says that a coercive approach raises the possibility that "people can easily accuse the Church of trying to meddle in the political process, which in this country depends on the free consent of the governed." Moreover, he claims that the Church could be accused of trying to coerce the politicians conscience, and, even worse, risk " alienating judges, legislators and public administrators whose good will is needed for other good programs, such as the support of Catholic education and the care of the poor." No, the correct approach is the non-coercive approach, the teaching approach, and that is favored by both Archbishop Wuerl and Pope Benedict.

For these reasons, the bishops in the United States opted not to deny communion to John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, or any other politician. There were a few exceptions (you can count them on one hand) and they were heavily criticized by their brother bishops. We should also realize that Wuerl's position on this was a matter of public record long before he was appointed Archbishop of Washington, and that he was chosen by Pope Benedict, who also happens to the the author of the Ratzinger letter. Clearly, some American Catholics seem to know more about the mind of Ratzinger than Ratzinger himself!

Burmese Repression

A disturbing new report suggests that the military dictatorship that rules Burma is planning on eradicating Christianity from that country. The ultimate goal is that there "shall be no home where the Christian religion is practised" and anybody accused of evangelization will be imprisoned. Interestingly, the report notes that the government is following the lead of a state-sponsored Buddhist group, whose goal is a Buddhist state, brought about by coercion and forced conversions.

Two points.

First, Pope Benedict's persistent exhortation against compulsion in religion remains timely and of utmost importance, not just in the Islamic world. As he noted in his World of Peace address, religious freedom is a core precondition of true and authentic peace.

Second, there is a myth by many in the western world that somehow Buddhism is purer, nobler, and generally better, than so-called organized religions, chiefly Christianity. This matter proves otherwise. And in Sri Lanka as well, the government is frequently held hostage by a vocal lobby of virulent Buddhist nationalists that opposes any peace talks with the Tamil Tigers. No, Buddhism should not be held to a higher standard. Frankly, I've never understood the "Hollywood" fascination with (what they perceive as) Buddhism. I believe its more a reaction "against" Christianity than "for" Buddhism.