Archbishop Chaput Takes a Step Forward

In the latest Commonweal, Melinda Henneberger reports on an interview she conducted with Archbishop Chaput of Denver in which she quizzes him on abortion politics. Chaput, remember, was one of the more vocal bishops who spoke out against John Kerry's position on abortion back in 2004. As noted by Cathleen Kaveny, a New York Times article at the time noted the following:

"Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion."

Of course, Chaput was part of a tiny minority of bishops to say such a thing, and this small group was chastised by their brother bishops. But that was 2004. Today, Chaput says something quite different. He seems to desire only that politicians address abortion as a fundamental issue, and not simply ignore and bury it. He states that his "aggressive stance" during the last election arose from a frustration with the fact that treating abortion as one of many moral issues had become a license to dismiss it. He goes on:

"Do I think there are people in the last election who voted for a prochoice candidate and did so sincerely after reflection and prayer? Yes, I do. Did they do wrong? No, they followed their conscience. But that serious reflection and prayer, that’s really important, and not just being swayed by party sympathies or that’s the way you always vote. It has to be about the issues."

This is exactly right. Chaput even goes further, stating:

"You can have good Catholics who say that they’re not for the criminalization of abortion, or they want to take gradual steps toward eliminating it by convincing the public that this is a bad thing. Those are all legitimate political positions-as long as you’re really moving towards the goal of protecting unborn human life. You at least have to have the goal."

Read that again, for it is profoundly important. For a start, Chaput is acknowledging that the elimination of abortion involves issues of prudential judgment (the link fleshes out the argument). In other words, betting everything on picking judges to overturn Roe v. Wade is not the only game in town. I also believe that Chaput is offering an olive branch to the Democrats. He is saying something like: we can tolerate you not wanting to criminalize abortion, or moving slowly, but you cannot pretend that this is a "right" that must be defended at all costs. That can never be defended. Clearly, he does not want a repeat of 2004 when it seemed that he was supporting Bush and his whole sorry agenda (he wasn't). But unless Clinton and Obama listen, history could repeat itself. Come on folks, it's not that hard...

Very Quick Thought on Abortion in Latin America

Today's Financial Times had an interesting observation. Noting the restrictive abortion laws throughout Latin America, it argues that many left-wing leaders who might be sympathetic to liberalizing such laws refrain from doing so out of loyalty to a Church that stood by them during the heated political struggles in the 1970s and 1980s.

Interesting. But, according to the dominant right-wing position in the United States at least, the Church is supposed to focus only on "non-negotiables" like abortion while eschewing social justice concerns. Had it done so in Latin America, the current political climate would be far less favorable to the Church, and abortion laws would probably be looser. But of course, thinking through the consequences of their actions is not a major strength of the American right these days!

It Was Eighty Years Ago Today...

With the barrage of anti-Catholic bigotry surrounding the alignment of Supreme Court votes in the recent partial birth abortion case, it is well worth reflecting on another case where the Catholics (or in this case, the Catholic) stood apart. I'm referring to the May 2, 1927 case of Buck v. Bell, which dealt with issues of eugenics and compulsory sterilization (almost eighty years ago to the day).

In 1924, Virginia adopted a eugenics statute, with the aim of sterilizing the mentally retarded. The case involved an attempt to sterilize an 18-year old girl named Carrie Buck, who was mentally retarded, and also accused of prostitution and "immorality". It went all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided in favor of sterilization by a whopping 8-1 majority. Here's what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in his majority opinion:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."

There was a lone dissenter in the case, who happened to be the only Catholic justice on the court, Pierce Butler. With the benefit of hindsight, we look back in horror at this decision. It was a naked appeal to moral relativism, an exercise in callous utilitarianism. Nowhere did it acknowledge the God-given human dignity of the person in question. And yet, the Catholic justice stood alone. Perhaps he was the subject of anti-Catholic attacks for his dissent. Did he see something the others could not?

Eighty years into the future, will people be looking back and applauding the stance of the Catholic justices in Gonzales v. Carhart, wondering in horror how the weight of established opinion favored such a procedure that again appealed to cold utilitarianism?

Poverty and Choices

Mirror of Justice links to an interesting study by the Center for American Progress entitled "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half." A noble aim, given that almost 40 million people live in poverty in the United States (one in eight), and poverty rates have risen dramatically under the Bush presidency (from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.6 percent in 2005). These figures are among the highest in the developed world. Inequality is also mushrooming, with the richest 1 percent of the population holding the largest share of income since 1929.

The study puts forward four key recommendations that, if implemented, would reduce poverty by 26 percent immediately. The recommendations are: (i) raise the minimum wage; (ii) expand the earned income tax credit (in-work benefits); (iii) provide childcare subsidies to poor families; (iv) expand the child tax credit.

The overall cost of these measures: $90 billion a year. To put this in perspective, Bush's tax cuts cost around $400 billion a year, while tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 a year alone costs more than $100 billion. And of course, the Iraq war: $420 billion and counting...

So there is a choice. It is possible to reverse the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush era, and still enact policies that would dramatically reduce poverty rates. Do we want to help the poor and the needy, as Christ commanded, or do we want to give handouts to the rich and spend money on war? For a Christian, the answer is clear. For the Bush administration, not so much.

Does Bush Still Not Care About Bin Laden?

It turns out that the Taliban is giving Osama Bin Laden full credit for the attack on the US military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, during the visit of Dick Cheney. Although Cheney was unharmed, 23 people died in this attack. I wonder if Cheney shares his bosses views about Bin Laden. Remember, Bush-- ever anxious to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction-- got quickly bored by the Saudi terror master. On a number of occasions, Bush made statements like "I truly am not that concerned about him" and capturing Bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources."

The mind boggles. Imagine a Democrat had made these statements. And then imagine the intensity of the right-wing noise machine in the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Cheney. In a sense, though, the Democrats have only themselves to blame. The reason: every time a Bushite makes a ludicrous statement about how voting for Democrats means everybody is going to die, the typical response (as Kevin Drum puts it) is "whining". For instance, Rudy Guiliani, his campaign under attack from all sides, whips out the fear card. Instead of using this as a chance to explain how Bushite policies have been such a dramatic failure on national security grounds, we are subjected to balderdash like "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low" (Obama) and "One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11" (Clinton). This just makes the Democrats look weak and whiny, and plays into Republican hands. What's so hard about pointing out that Bin Laden is not only alive and kicking, but up to much mischief, and that Bush bears some responsibility?

Update: Josh Marshall nails it.

"Democrats should just hit right back on how President Bush has been helping Osama bin Laden for almost six years. Sounds harsh. But it’s true. Consider the facts. President Bush had bin Laden trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora. But he let bin Laden get away because Bush wanted to focus on Saddam Hussein instead. The president and the White House tried to lie about this during the 2004 election. But since then the evidence has become overwhelming. President Bush decided to let bin Laden get away so he could get ready to attack Saddam Hussein. So pretty much anything bin Laden does from here on out is on President Bush. And how about Iraq? President Bush has screwed things up so badly that he’s created a whole new generation of recruits for bin Laden. He’s created a whole new army for bin Laden. Not by being tough but by being stupid. And by being too much of a coward to admit his mistakes once it was obvious that the occupation of Iraq was helping bin Laden specifically and the jihadist agenda in general. After half a decade, the verdict is pretty clear: President Bush has been the biggest ally Osama bin Laden has. He’s helped bin Laden at pretty much every turn — even if only by his own stupidity, incompetence and cowardice. And when the next big terrorist attack comes, we can thank President Bush for helping make it happen."

Obama Continues to Inspire

Who else today can speak the truth so eloquently, without spin and subterfuge?

"But if the next President can restore the American people’s trust – if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility – then I believe the American people will be ready to see America lead again. They will be ready to show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city. That is not who we are."

Amen.

Partial Birth Abortion And Catholic Judges

As was well noted, it was the five Catholic Supreme Court justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) banding together that upheld the ban on partial birth abortions last week. We should all remember what this practice entails: pulling the baby out apart from the head, sticking a pair of scissors into the baby's skull to kill him/her, then using a suction to suck out the brains. As barbaric a procedure as one can possibly imagine. A procedure that the weight of public opinion is against, and that figures like Daniel Patrick Moynihan deemed to close to infanticide for comfort. And yet... the leading Democratic nominees have all criticized this decision. Are they so in the thrall of the abortion lobby that they cannot stand up for what is right, even in this most extreme of cases? Don't they realize that this is why the Catholic vote keeps slipping away?

And please, spare me the specious arguments based on the mother's health. To those making this argument, I would propose the following: how about banning all abortions except when the life of the mother is endangered? We all know how the pro-abortion lobby would react to this proposal. No, it's not about the health of the mother. Shed the pretence.

But this is also no time to pat the Bush administration on the back. True, Roberts and Alito made the right call in this case, but they have not stood up for the dignity of life in other cases (remember Hamden and the Geneva Conventions?). And, as most experts point out, the impact of this decision on the actual incidence of abortions will be negligible, while the carnage in Iraq continues to mount. Thank you indeed, George W. Bush.

But the most appalling reaction of all is the one that pins the blame on the Catholic faith of the aforementioned five justices for this decision. Cartoons are circulating of five Supreme Court justices wearing miters. As this link shows, the ugly anti-Catholic prejudice being generated by some on the left matches the old bigotry on the right portraying Catholics as agents on an insidious papacy. As reported by Mirror of Justice, one of the milder commentators, Geoffrey Stone from the Chicago law school put it as follows:

"What, then, explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore."

Incredible. Since when did respect for human life become a value specific to the Catholic faith? Could one not argue that the since the two Jewish justices dissented, there is something inherent in Judaism that supports infanticide? Of course, this would be a despicable and outrageous argument. And yet, when you replace "Judaism" with "Catholicism", common standards of decency simply fall down...

Genocide in Turkey

As noted by Daniel Larison, tomorrow marks the 92nd anniversary of the Turkish genocide against the Armenian people. The goal was clearly the obliteration of the Christian Armenians, textbook genocide. The best estimates are that about a million people died. A fervent form of "Holocaust denial" became entrenched among the Turkish authorities, through the present day. As Larison notes "denialism and Turkish republicanism have unfortunately combined; the hyper-nationalists today are only the most obnoxious of the denialists." In Turkey today, it remains a crime to simply state the historical facts and to even mention the word "genocide". The criminal code forbids "insulting Turkishness." Recently, Hrant Dink, an Armenian Turk, after criticizing Turkey's genocide denial, was prosecuted three times, and eventually assassinated by nationalists.

Now, right-wing culture warriors today will look at this story and paint a stark picture of Islamic aggression against a small helpless Christian community. But this is not accurate. The Armenians lived for centuries under the Ottomans. They may have suffered discrimination and a lack of true religious freedom, but they lived unmolested. No, it was secular nationalism that killed them, the pseudo-religion that exalts the Turkish nation. After all, it was on suspicion of aiding the enemy during the first world war (the Russians) that provoked the massacres. And it is that form of nationalism, dressed in patriotic garb, that can be truly chilling.

Who Cares What George Washington Thought, About Guns And Other Things?

One of the most ludicrous positions in the US constitutional debate is the notion that one must remain wedded to intent of the original framers of the Constitution. In other words, it should not be a living document. I may start to sound like a broken record on this one, but this reflects a wholly Protestant approach, secularized sola scriptura. Catholics, of course, appeal to the unwritten natural law and try to discern what is right from basic principals. Everything stems from the fact that the Word of God is a person, Jesus, and not a mere text. It follows that the starting point is the recognition that every human being is endowed with God-given human dignity that must always be respected.

Now, if this is in accord with written law, fine. If not, then an effort should be made to change the law. The founders accepted slavery. We don't. We have learned that torture is gravely evil. We have come to the realization that the death penalty debases humanity, and should be used only when there are no further options. We continue to declare that abortion is wrong, even though we accept the equality of women because it is an attack on innocent human life. The natural law does not change. We just understand it better.

Today, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, the old debate over gun control has rekindled. Those favoring guns offer a literalist reading of the constitution. Others note that the "right to bear arms" refers only to state militias. But who really cares? Does it make any difference what a group of 18th century Americans thought? The issue before us should be: what best protects the common good, the free availability of guns, or some gun control? The answer seems easy. As I've discussed numerous times before, the gun death rate in the United States is off the charts. Why this is the case is open to debate. Some point to the legacy of popular revolution and the frontier culture, others to the acceptability of violence as a response to problems, others to a popular culture that glorifies violence, and others still to the greater diversity that breeds tensions. But one thing is certain. The free availability of guns is bound to lead to further bloodshed.

Think of the recent tragedy. The young perpetrator of the massacre was clearly mentally ill, seriously so. He was paranoid and delusional, and possessed violent fantasies. These unfortunate souls exist in every country in the world. But in most other countries in the world, they could not so easily come across such deadly weapons that could cause such carnage. Sure, there are other ways to commit mass murder, but they are a lot harder. The counter argument is always some bizarre definition of "freedom", as if freedom is a primary virtue that can never be compromised. In fact, freedom is compromised every day in the service of the common good, and this is equally true in the United States as elsewhere. Examples abound. The freedom to drive a vehicle at any speed, or under the influence of alcohol, is curtailed, and for good reason. Certain drugs are made illegal, again for good reason. On the topic of alcohol, most citizens of the world would regard the ludicrously high drinking age in the United States as an undue restriction on freedom. All but the most extreme libertarians accept the role of the government in regulating behavior in the interest of the common good. Of course, there can be legitimate debate over boundaries. (Hint: the common good encompasses all, not just subgroups such as fellow countrymen. It is separate from the promotion of personal morality).

After the recent tragedy, the world press was united in condemning the liberal gun laws in the United States. The standard reaction of the right was a firm "butt out", tinged with a smug sense of superiority. For America is "free", more "free" than any other country, indeed, the "leader of the free world". Sorry, Europeans are no less "free" than Americans, and certainly do not see themselves so, but they are safer. No, the old "freedom" excuse for scorning gun control is based on an outdated mode of thinking, one that supposes that citizens with guns are the best protection against a coercive state that may abuse its power. Which brings me back to my original point: George Washington and his friends may have good reason for holding such views. We certainly don't. It's high time to adopt a Catholic approach to the natural law, rather than fealty to a dead text.

"Charism of Political Discernment"

A few days back, we saw Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus, Bush's favorite Catholics, making a last ditch effort to defend the Iraq war, and a rather feeble one at that. Now is the turn of the third member of the triumvirate, George Weigel. In a First Things essay, Weigel still defends the Iraq war, despite tactical mistakes along the way. It is interesting that Weigel, Novak, and Neuhaus do not seem at all chastened, even when others who supported the war (including the New Republic) have since repented.

In an excellent editorial, Commonweal takes Weigel to task for a position he has held in the past, that the political authorities are in a better position to assess the "morality and wisdom of war" than the bishops, as these officials tend to be "more fully informed about the relevant facts". Thus the charism of political discernment! In his latest essay, though, Weigel is strangely silent on the "charism" argument. This is hardly surprising, given how disastrous the Bush administration has been, displaying the polar opposite of a political discernment charism. It would be funny if it were not so tragic. But the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways. The experience under the Bush administration has shown clearly that Weigel's argument is deeply flawed. It was the thin sheet he used to hide his ideological preferences behind some Catholic sounding catchphrases, and it has been abruptly whisked away, rendering him naked and rather unattractive at that.

Perhaps people should have listened to the bishops more closely then, as they should have listened to the last Pope Benedict during the first world war. As Commonweal puts it, "For a group that is supposed to lack the charism to make sound judgments about war and peace, the bishops have acquitted themselves far better than their critics." Indeed.

The Bush Bubble, Defined

We all know about the bubble. Sycophantic insiders. Pre-screened audiences. Isolation from reality. But it's rare to see a legal argument admitting the existence of, and defending, the Bush bubble. The case centers around the "Denver Three", Denver residents who obtained tickets from their Republican congressman to attend a Bush speech in 2005. One of the "loyal Bushies" on duty noticed a "no blood for oil" bumper sticker on their car, and threw them out, impersonating Secret Service agents in the process (a crime, by the way). As noted by the Carpetbagger Report, "this was an example of American citizens getting escorted out of a public event, dealing with a public policy issue, on public property, featuring public officials, because someone didn’t like their bumper sticker." Charming. The evictees sued. And how did the Bushies respond? With this statement: "The president’s right to control his own message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience." There you have it, the bubble...

Gun Nuts Exploit Tragedy

As I write this, I'm following the horrible story of the gun violence in Virginia Tech University, where a gunman brutally murdered 32 people today. We all know that the United States has some of the highest gun-related deaths in the world. What can we do about it? Well, if you are a gun nut like Glenn Reynolds, you could argue that the problem was the gun ban on campus. He notes that a bill to allow students carry handguns on campus was shot down and concludes "Had the bill passed, things might have turned out differently". At times like this, I simply think that the right is criminally insane. Think about it. A campus where every drunken frat boy has a handgun in his pocket. Wonderful. By this logic, Fallujah and Ramada must be some of the safest cities in the world...

What is the "National Catholic Prayer Breakfast" Anyway?

Its mission statement:

"We have created the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in response to the call of Pope John Paul the Great for a "New Evangelization, new in order, methods and expression." We gather from across the United States of America for worship and fellowship. We gather to thank Our Lord for his abundant blessings upon this Land. We reaffirm our faith in Him and renew our dedication to this great Republic. We commit ourselves to providing for our brothers and sisters who are the most vulnerable in society, and we commit our country to the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

Look at the highlighted sentence. Doesn't that mix religion and nationalism? Doesn't Catholic mean universal, going beyond the confines of a particular country? And isn't there something a little discomforting about equating faith in God and "this great Republic" in the same sentence?

Bush Mocks Catholic Teaching

At the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast this morning, Bush made the following comments:

"Renewing the promise of America begins with upholding the dignity of human life. In our day, there is a temptation to manipulate life in ways that do not respect the humanity of the person. When that happens, the most vulnerable among us can be valued for their utility to others -- instead of their own inherent worth. We must continue to work for a culture of life -- where the strong protect the weak, and where we recognize in every human life the image of our Creator."

Of course, he enunciates quite clearly the way Catholics view the culture of life, founded on God-given human dignity. What is distressing is that his policies bear so little relationship to such a guiding philosophy, and are often in stark contrast to Catholic teaching.

The culture of life. What about torturing people? What about imprisonment without charge? What about deportation in order to be tortured? What about rushing to war on a tissue of lies? What about elevating consequentialism as an over-arching principle? What making the world a more dangerous place? What about promoting a narrow nationalism? What about granting tax cuts to the super-rich, while cutting medicaid and food stamps? What about executing people at a brisk rate, denying them the proper legal defense, and then mocking pleas for clemency?

Whatever philosophy guides Bush, it is not Catholic. Just remember, Jesus reserved his harshest words for those who used religion for political reasons (the "hypocrites").

Lessons from Malawi

As the bishops in Zimbabwe take a stand against Robert Mugabe's entrenched thugocracy, dubbing it "racist, corrupt and lawless", John Allen brings our attention to the role of the Catholic bishops in promoting change in Malawi, something he refers to as the "most remarkable, if largely untold, political interventions of the Catholic church in the 20th century." Malawi under Hastings Banda was a rather unpleasant place. A megalomaniac, Banda claimed personal ownership of the whole economy, and decreed that pictures of himself be placed in every office (and, even more bizarrely, insisted his image be broadcast before all movies). Critics were arrested, and often tortured and killed. Censorship was the norm, and the intelligence service was feared. And while millions lived in dire poverty, Banda secreted away his own millions. But Banda also maintained warm relations with apartheid-era South Africa, which led Reagan and Thatcher to turn a blind eye to his mis-rule.

In 1992, the Catholic bishops issued a stinging pastoral letter that was read in every single church. In it, they denounced income inequality, injustice, human rights abuse, corruption, nepotism, and the lack of free speech. In the words of the letter:

"We cannot turn a blind eye to our people's experiences of unfairness or injustice.. These are our brothers and sisters who are in prison without knowing what they are charged with, or when their case will be heard.. No one person can claim to have a monopoly on truth or wisdom... Nobody should have to suffer for living up to their convictions. We can only regret that this has not always been the case in our country."

The result was electrifying. People went crazy at Mass, and church attendance soared. The government attempted to crack down, and the cabinet even debated murdering the bishops. But the tidal wave could not be stopped. People started standing up to the security forces. Students began protesting. By 1994, Banda was gone. An inspiring story!

Bilal Hussein

Andrew Sullivan raises the issue of Bilal Hussein, a press photographer in American custody without charge for about a year. In fact, the Bush administration refuses to bring charges; in fact, the accusations seemed to change "even in the course of a single press cycle". Even worse, "the U.S. Forces insist that they have secret charges which, in the manner of Franz Kafka's novel The Trial they are unwilling to present to Bilal Hussein". The manifold "suspicions" raised by military spokespeople have been exposed as false.

Who, then, is Bilal Hussein? Hussein was part of an Associated Press (AP) team of photographers that won a Pulitzer prize for coverage of the war in Fallujah in 2005. This sheds some light on a possible reason for Hussein's incarceration. The Pentagon was enraged by some pictures he took of fighting in the Al-Anbar province, pictures that disputed the established storyline. In fact, the administration was irked that these AP photographers won a prize in the first place. So the message is clear: toe the line on Iraq, or else...

Sadly, there is precedent. During the early stages of the war, the U.S. bombed Al Jazeera headquarters in Baghdad, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. It had done the same thing in Kabul, destroying the building. Coincidence? Hardly. Remember the leaked memo, describing how Tony Blair had tried to talk Bush out of bombing Al Jazeera? Of course, the Bush administration denied it, but the British government pursued charges against two civil servants under the Official Secrets Act for leaking the document.

No More Double Standards, Please

Frankly, I'm sick of the media circus over the Imus psuedo-controversy. I don't care about radio "shock-jocks" and I don't care about basketball. I do care about hypocrisy, however, and what I don't understand is why one fool who makes racist comments is subjected to such vilification while right-wing blowhwards use this kind of language every day of the week. Yet again, the standards of civilized discourse tend not to apply to this sub-group. Media Matters does some sterling work sifting through some of the more outrageous statements against women and minorities from the likes of Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson. Follow the link. My personal favorities: Michael Savage calling for genocide in southern Lebanon, Rush Limbaugh making fun of torture, and Neal Boortz advising Katrina victims to take up prostitution for a living.

Benedict Reflects on Evolution

Writing in a new book, the pope states that neither a theory of creation that makes a mockery of science nor a theory of evolution that eschews any role for the Creator is acceptable. In his words:

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

The pope did not endorse intelligent design, which is surely a disappointment to the American evangelical right eager for a Vatican ally on this issue. As I noted recently, there is a need to keep separate "physics" and "metaphysics" and let not the experts in one domain claim knowledge over the other. Religious believers should stay out of the scientific debate. It is important to note that "intelligent design" does not merely postulate that God is the Creator of everything out of nothing and guides all of creation (sensible), but encroaches on scientific territory by holding that organisms appeared simultaneously (not so sensible). Likewise, the claim of some neo-Darwinists that evolution proves the non-existence of God is equally ludicrous, as they step rather indelicately beyond science and into theological speculation. As the pope says "I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science."

Remember, this is a key theme of Benedict's, that faith and reason are not at loggerheads.

(Tip: Rocco Palmo.)

Life is Better Than Under Saddam, Right?

Not according to Shlemon Warduni, auxiliary bishop of Baghdad. Last year, and interviewer asked about whether life was just as bad as under Saddam. The bishop cut him off:

"No, in no way. The comparison won’t hold up, it’s not even worth suggesting. Under Saddam there was dictatorship, the wars… but the people lived fairly well. Today there is the total insecurity, one can’t be sure in the morning of coming home in the evening, it seems absurd but that’s how it is. I can testify to it in person, if you’ll believe it."

Hmm, I wonder if Michael Novak is as disappointed with him as he was with the pope. What an ungrateful cleric, unwilling to thank his real Messiah, George W. Bush, for bestowing the freely-given gift of freedom and redemption! Just another euro-weenie trying to "stick it to the Americans". Actually, maybe Novak needs to live in Iraq to wallow in the glory himself...

(Tip: Evangelical Catholicism.)

Banana Republic Watch

Josh Marshall has been at the vanguard of the US attorneys story, following its nefarious twists and turns and sniffing out conspiracies theories that, however unlikely, always turn out to have a kernel of truth. Today, he focuses on the real story behind the story: the Rovian voter suppression machine. He starts by noting a New York Times story that shows precious little evidence of voter fraud, despite the best efforts of the Republican noise machine to play up the issue over the past few years. Last year, there were only 86 convictions for voter fraud, and most of these were the result of simple mistakes. Possibly the most tragic case is that of Usman Ali, a Pakistani immigrant who filled out a voter registration form alongside the other forms he was handed by a brusque official at the DMV while renewing his driving license. For this "crime", he was deported to Pakistan. Charming.

This strategy was orchestrated by the Rovian machine, with the backing of the Republican National Committee. But what did they hope to accomplish? Again, Marshall is pretty clear:

"Republican party officials and elected officials use bogus claims of vote fraud to do three things: 1) to stymie voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts in poor and minority neighborhoods, 2) purge voter rolls of legitimate voters and 3) institute voter ID laws aimed at making it harder for low-income and minority voters to vote."

In other words, it's all about keeping potential Democrats away from the polls. Remember those stories of posters plastered around black neighborhoods giving the wrong day to vote? Remember the stories of too few voting machines in minority areas, along with surpluses in Republican-leaning enclaves? Remember the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, in which Republicans were indicted for deliberately sabotaging the Democrat's get-out-the-vote campaign? And remember John Thune's narrow victory over Tom Daschle in South Dakota, that came on the back of massive intimidation of native American voters as Republicans harped on and on about voter fraud on the reservations? And, of course, who can forget the ur-scandal that opened the eyes of Republicans to the voter suppression potential, the 2000 voter debacle in Florida?

So, this strategy works. But the Republicans need compliant legal officials to keep pressing these bogus claims. And, as Marshall diligently points out, the US attorneys scandal leads back directly this strategy. As he puts it:

"Only most of the relatively non-partisan and professional US Attorneys simply didn't find any actual fraud. Choosing not to indict people on bogus charges got at least two of the US Attorneys (Iglesias and McKay) fired. And we are seeing evidence that others may have been nudged out less directly for the same reasons. In turn they've been replaced by a new crop of highly-political party operative prosecutors who, in the gentle wording of the Times, "may not be so reticent" about issuing indictments against people who have committed technical voting infractions with no intent to cast a fraudulent ballot."

Welcome to the Banana Republic...

Bertone Slams Media

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone recently expressed frustration with the media's obsession with Church sexual teaching, at the expense of everything else. He noted:

"We face an extremely grave problem. The church's messages are subject to a type of manipulation and falsification by some western media...I see a fixation by some journalists on moral topics, such as abortion and homosexual unions, which are certainly important issues but absolutely do not constitute the thinking and work of the church...Why this deafening silence? We have to say the press does not write much about the social and charity work of thousands of Catholic organisations around the world."

Of course, it's not just gays and sex. To be fair, the media is quite capable of bringing up a diverse range of topics, such as the Inquisition, Galileo, sex abuse, and the Crusades. Oh, and how women are ill-treated in Catholicism, but apparently not at all (judging from media attention) in Islam or orthodox Judaism. Fair and balanced indeed!

The Democratic Party and Christianity, Again

Why is it that the Democratic leadership refuses to accord the respect to Christianity that it accords to other religions?

Here is Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's Easter message:

“Easter Sunday is a joyful celebration. The holiday represents peace, redemption and renewal, a theme which brings hope to people of all faiths. During this time Christians are called to remember who they are as people of faith, and that even the greatest of evils will not have the last word. It is also a time to reflect upon and be in solidarity with those who are persecuted and suffering among us. We should also use this time to honor those who continue to make incredible sacrifices for us, including our brave men and women in the armed forces serving overseas during this holiday. I would like to wish all those celebrating around the world this Sunday, a joyous Easter.”

What's missing? Any reference to the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the whole point of the Easter celebration. Contrast this with the statement Howard Dean released for Passover:

"At sundown tonight, Jews around the world will begin celebrating Passover, a holiday that symbolizes the true blessing of freedom. For the next week the enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt, their persecution and suffering and their eventual redemption will be remembered."

A little different, no? And they wonder why Christians flock to Republicans, in spite of policies that (to put it mildly) frequently deviate from Christian principles.... Will they ever learn?

(Tip: Andrew Sullivan).

Usual Suspects Attack Benedict

With Benedict gaining more and more respect from previous critics on the left, it seems that the most trenchant criticism these days comes from the American right, especially when he touches on issues of war and peace. Recently, in his Easter Urbi Et Orbi address, he noted the following: "the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees". This "nothing positive comes from Iraq" provoked the ire of Bush's Catholic cheerleaders, Michael Novak and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.

Here is what Novak had to say (in the pro-torture National Review):

"Benedict XVI's Easter Sunday remarks in St Peter Square hit a low point, I would think. He said that "nothing positive comes from Iraq." This is a very skewed report on the realities on the ground. But it might mean that the message the Pope wanted to convey is that of the American Left: 'Whatever the good or the bad achievements, it is time to get out.' In other words, not an accurate description, but a prescription for the near future.... [These words] sounded like a standard European view of reality — at least of those Europeans who have always disagreed with the American war aims, and now that things have become difficult and costly want to stick it to the Americans."

And Neuhaus:

"It is worth keeping in mind that in 2003 all the countries with developed intelligence services agreed that Saddam Hussein had or was quickly developing weapons of mass destruction that he intended to use in aggressive war.... It is further recognized by almost everybody that the current strategy led by General David Petraeus is a last effort to turn that situation around... I am impressed by the reporters and informed observers who have in recent weeks offered tentative but hopeful judgments about the success of the Petraeus strategy.... Pope Benedict is not so impressed. Catholics in particular pay close and respectful attention to the words of the pope, also when he is offering only his own prudential judgment with respect to this or that world problem. Admittedly, it is galling when Catholics and others who are usually blithely indifferent to church teaching seize upon a papal opinion with which they agree and, suddenly becoming hyper-infallibilists, elevate it to dogmatic status.... I hope he is wrong about there being nothing positive in what is happening in Iraq."

What strikes me most about these statements is the hint of desperation. After throwing in their lot with the Bush administration for so long, they find it hard to jump ship at such a late stage. Neuhaus is left is hoping against hope that the so-called surge will succeed, and repeating old lies about the whole world believing in the Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (it would ill-behoove a priest to admit that his culture war Bush and Cheney lied to go to war). There is also a tone of irritation. Neuhaus is angered by the notion that a man who prides himself on calling others to task for insufficient orthodoxy now finds himself on the other end of the stick. Novak is less concerned with theology than with the secular ideology he holds dearly, the Calvinist-inspired American exceptionalism that sees God giving the United States a divine mandate to remake the world in its own image (and getting rid of the "bad guys" in the process). Anybody who criticizes this is trying to "stick it to the Americans". It's sad, really, these guys just cannot let go. But that's what happens when you put nationalism instead of universalism, country ahead of God, expediency ahead of principle.

Most Beautiful Prayer Ever

Looking toward a sea of candles in a darkened cathedral during the Easter Vigil, the deacon (or somebody else), after the Lucernarium, begins to intone the Exultet. Dating from the fifth century, this never loses its power:

Rejoice, heavenly powers! Sing, choirs of angels! Exult, all creation around God's throne! Jesus Christ, our King, is risen! Sound the trumpet of salvation!

Rejoice, O earth, in shining splendor, radiant in the brightness of your King! Christ has conquered! Glory fills you! Darkness vanishes for ever!

Rejoice, O Mother Church! Exult in glory! The risen Savior shines upon you! Let this place resound with joy, echoing the mighty song of all God's people!

My dearest friends, standing with me in this holy light, join me in asking God for mercy, hat he may give his unworthy minister grace to sing his Easter praises.

The Lord be with you. (And also with you)
Lift up your hearts. (We lift them up to the Lord)
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. (It is right to give him thanks and praise).

It is truly right that with full hearts and minds and voices we should praise the unseen God, the all-powerful Father, and his only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

For Christ has ransomed us with his blood, and paid for us the price of Adam's sin to our eternal Father!

This is our passover feast, when Christ, the true Lamb, is slain, whose blood consecrates the homes of all believers.

This is the night when first you saved our fathers: you freed the people of Israel from their slavery and led them dry-shod through the sea.

This is the night when the pillar of fire destroyed the darkness of sin.

This is night when Christians everywhere, washed clean of sin and freed from all defilement, are restored to grace and grow together in holiness.

This is the night when Jesus Christ broke the chains of death and rose triumphant from the grave.

What good would life have been to us, had Christ not come as our Redeemer? Father, how wonderful your care for us! How boundless your merciful love! To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Most blessed of all nights, chosen by God to see Christ rising from the dead!

Of this night scripture says: "The night will be as clear as day: it will become my light, my joy."

The power of this holy night dispels all evil, ashes guilt away, restores lost innocence, brings mourners joy; it casts out hatred, brings us peace,and humbles earthly pride.

Night truly blessed when heaven is wedded to earth and man is reconciled with God!

Therefore, heavenly Father, in the joy of this night, receive our evening sacrifice of praise, your Church's solemn offering. Accept this Easter candle, a flame divided but undimmed, a pillar of fire that glows to the honor of God.

Let it mingle with the lights of heaven and continue bravely burning to dispel the darkness of this night!

May the Morning Star which never sets find this flame still burning: Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead, and shed his peaceful light on all mankind, your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

Into Great Silence

Last weekend, I saw this excellent movie centering around the lives of the Carthusian monks inside the Grande Chartreuse in the Alps. The movie is three hours long, and has practically no dialogue. All we see are scenes of the monks living their daily life as the seasons change. It is an immensely beautiful movie, and the viewer is almost touched by the grace exuded by these monks. The three hours pass by as as fleeting moment, much as their life does, engrossed as they are in searching for God. See this movie if you can.

In light of the upcoming Triduum, this blog will also go "Into Great Silence" for a few days. Let's set aside politics, take a leaf out of the Carthusians' book, and focus on more important things. At least for a few days! See you soon...

Conservatism and Nationalism

At present, the American conservative movement is characterized by a deep and passionate attachment to nationalism. America first, patriotism, glorification of the military.. call it what you wish. Here's the funny thing: not that long ago, conservatism stood firmly against nationalism and all it stood for. Nationalism used to be synonymous with liberalism. The Church also recognized the dangers in unleashing an ideology that placed allegiance to some group-- nation, race, class-- above our common humanity. It foresaw quite clearly the downside of the pseudo-religions that rose up after the Enlightenment to take the place of a Church that had been discarded. Practically all the great evils in the world since the French Revolution can be said to derive from post-Enlightenment nationalistic ideologies. It is important to note that nationalism, no matter how embedded in consciousness today, is a relatively recent phenomenon. In earlier times, the ruler was regarded as having a divine mandate to rule, but this was contingent upon the ruler supporting the common good.

Today, we see the rotten fruits of nationalism still falling from the same tree, despite the death of communism and the most pernicious of the race-based ideologies. Just recently, Iran arrested some British military personnel and generated an anti-British nationalistic outcry, whipping up patriotism to bolster the power of the ruling despots. This is a technique that the Chinese have perfected. Robert Mugabe and the Sudanese demonize the outsiders to justify their murderous policies. Race-based nationalism is alive and well in subtle forms, even in countries like Japan. Even in the United States, nationalism is invoked to quash criticism of the war strategy, or the military in general, and to avoid any question of morality.

Nationalism is rapidly becoming a tired, jaded, bankrupt ideology. As Francis Fukayama noted:

"The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military."

Of course, Fukayama mentions God, nationalism, and militarism in a single breath as if they sprang from the same root. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the fact that many American conservatives meld them together is perhaps their greatest error. But Fukayama's vision is a good one. In his view, the future will downplay nationalism, and be based more on transnational authorities. Kind of like the Holy Roman Empire...

Gun Nuts and the District of Columbia

Recently, a D.C. Court declared that the district's ban on keeping handguns at home is unconstitutional. In response, the pro-torture National Review organized a symposium that showed as much diversity as a Bush administration public event. The tenor of the opinion was that the Court was right to toss aside the ban, that the decision was a "masterful treatise", a restoration of "full constitution freedom" for DC, and would even help foster the "rights consciousness" of the American people (doesn't that sound vaguely Marxist?).

What you do not hear is talk of activist judges reading broad rights into the Constitution that are patently not there (since when did every gun nut with an SUV and suburban house constitute a "well-regulated militia"?). You do not hear attacks on courts thumbing their nose at the democratic wishes of the people. Yet so-called conservatives make these arguments quite vociferously in other cases, such as when the right to privacy was deemed to encompass the right to abortion. Sadly, opposition to "judicial activism" is not a principle, but merely a rhetorical device to support one's ideological agenda.

Of all the opinions expressed on the National Review symposium, the most laughable comes from John Lott, who notes that "the nation’s strictest gun-control laws, gun-control advocates have been embarrassed that the city has frequently had the highest murder rate of any large city in the U.S". Hence gun control does not deter crime! Given that there are no border controls in place between DC and Virginia, this is an utterly ridiculous argument. If you want real numbers, compare gun deaths in the United States and countries with broad based gun control measures. I raised this issue before, and here are the numbers again:

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.

There are many hypotheses for the high rate of gun deaths in the United States. Some point to the legacy of the Wild West, others to the acceptability of violence as a response to problems, others to a popular culture that glorifies violence, and others still to the greater diversity that breeds tensions. Whatever the reason, dishing out guns to people in such an environment is an act of gross irresponsibility. It's not an issue of "freedom" (most countries on the list above are at least as "free" as the United States), but rather a part of the gospel of life.

Paging William Donohue...

James Dobson recently declared that Fred Thompson, potential Republican presidential nominee, is not really a Christian. Thompson's people reacted swiftly, declaring that their man is indeed a Christian, having been baptized in the Church of Christ. Put on the defensive, Dobson's crowd responded by noting that they use the term "Christian" exclusively "to refer to people who are evangelical Christians." Well, I suppose that rules out Catholics, among others. Such an overt statement of anti-Catholic bigotry is sure to raise the ire of William Donohue of the Catholic League. Right?

Wrong. Not a thing on their site. They do manage to attack Hillary Clinton for not marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade, but nothing on Dobson. But don't hold your breath. Donohue has faced this test before, and he failed miserably. When confronted with the anti-Catholic statements of some of the evangelicals at the "Justice Sunday" rally, where some even branded Catholicism a false religion, Donohue thought it was no big deal. Instead, he attacked those who raised the issue, declaring that "Dobson is our friend." and that it is "fat-cat, left-wing bigots like George Soros who concern us." I await Donohue's claim that George Soros is behind Fred Thompson...

A Short Post on Evolution

Where to begin? Frankly, I find the "religious-secular" wars surrounding evolution to be tedious, misleading, and slightly annoying. Here is a basic principle that should underpin our analysis in this area: let is keep separate "physics" and "metaphysics" and let not the experts in one domain claim knowledge over the other. Evolution is a basic scientific hypothesis that commands practically universal assent. As believers in a reasonable God, Catholics are quite at home accepting scientific findings. There is no conflict. Therefore, religious believers should stay out of the scientific debate. But, as I mentioned, this needs to work both ways. Irresponsible neo-Darwinists should also refrain from making bold and bogus claims against religious belief, such that evolution precludes the belief in a creator God. This is nonsense.

It is precisely the tendency of both sides to step on each others turf that causes so much trouble. Let's start with the basics. Catholics believe in creation, not creationism. We believe that God created everything that exists out of nothing. By no means should we interpret the creation account in Genesis literally. How God creates is beyond our comprehension. Of course, loosely speaking, there is an "intelligence" that "designs" the universe. When some in the Church, such as Cardinal Schonborn, make this point, it is to refute the neo-Darwinists who claim that natural selection rules out a greater intelligence. As Schonborn noted succinctly: "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained." Exactly!

The "intelligent design" movement's key error is in stepping beyond the mere recognition of the role of a Creator, and into scientific debate itself. A few years back, Jerry Coyne, exposed the movement in a long article in the New Republic. Basically, it joins its brother movement, fundamentalist creationism, in trying to debunk the scientific evidence for evolution. For a key premise is that organisms appeared simultaneously, and have existed that way ever since. Its supporters accept the idea of "microevolution" (within species) but cast doubts on "macroevolution" ("large scale changes, leading to new levels of complexity".) In other words, they are not merely pleading for an acknowledgment of the Creator, but attacking the fabric of scientific research itself.

The fact that this is an almost uniquely American issue, driven by evangelical fundamentalists, should set off alarm bells. After all, the latest trend among the American right is to embrace their its form of postmodernism, creating a parallel universe more in accord with their own ideology than reality. Thus tax cuts boost revenue. Wars end terrorism. There is no such thing as man-made global warming. And evolution is a hoax. The utter disdain for science reflects a dangerous voluntarist strain in American protestantism. But for Catholics, God is eminently reasonable. Even though the mind of God is vastly beyond our comprehension, the way we think is close enough to the way that God thinks to allow us to claim that God is an infinite and eternal intellect. That should provide the basis for a healthy respect for science, even while always remaining aware that science can never challenge the essence of faith. In short, the "evolution war" is a phony war.

Less For More, In Health and War!

A recent report notes that, since 2001, the "war on terror" has cost $510 billion. What do we get for that? Hmmm. Increased terrorism and global instability. An unstable civil war in Iraq, creating a breeding ground for even more terrorism. Unprecedented loathing of the United States. North Korea and Iran going nuclear. Osama Bin Ladin still on the loose. A resurgent Taliban and destabilization of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Could the money have possibly been spent in a worse manner?

But there is predecent! Spending a lot of money for lousy outcomes is also a feature of the U.S. healthcare system. According to data from the OECD, the U.S. spends $4,497 a year on healthcare per capita (in PPP dollars). In contrast, the equivalent among the G-7 countries is $2,524. So, the US achieves superior outcomes for this investment, right? Wrong. Healthy life expectancy is 68.1 years, versus 70.9 years in the G-7. The standardized death rate is 670 per 100,00, as opposed to 582 in the G-7. The infant mortality rate is 6.9 per 1000, and 4.7 in the G-7. The child mortality rate is 7.6 per 1000, and 5.3 in the G-7. The maternal mortality rate is 10.5 per 100,000; it stands at 6.5 in the G-7. So, almost double the expenditure on healthcare for worse outcomes. Oh well, at least it's not "socialized medicine"...

The Real Reason for the Attorney Firings

Kevin Drum does a nice job cutting through the fog. For a start, the "Clinton did it too" argument, always the first bullet in Republican talking points, doesn't fly. As many have pointed out, installing a fresh set of U.S. attorneys at the start of the administration is no big deal. Nor would it be a big deal to fire 7 attorneys for performance reasons. Drum also notes that it would not be such a big deal either to fire 7 attorneys for "insufficient commitment to Bush administration policies". No, this is not the issue. The real issue is corruption, using the judicial arm to protect your own party and harass opponents.

Drum runs down the list:

"David Iglesias: Didn't bring indictments against some local Democrats prior to the
2006 election. John McKay: Failed to invent voter fraud cases that might have prevented a Democrat from winning the 2004 governor's race in Washington. Carol
Lam: Doing too good a job prosecuting trainloads of Republicans in the wake of the Duke Cunningham scandal. Daniel Bogden and Paul Charlton: In the midst of investigations targeting current or former Republican members of Congress when they were fired."

He could add the case of Bud Cummins, who was fired simply to give a job to a friend of Karl Rove's. The Justice Department admitted as much.

When you look into the partisan nature of corruption investigations, the Bush administration strategy starts to make sense. A study found seven times more investigations of Democrats than Republicans at the local level (262-37) since Bush took power, despite roughly equal numbers of elected officials from either party. Clearly, there has been a blatant politicization of judicial investigations, that Republicans can then use as fodder for attack ads. Vintage Rove. And any U.S. attorneys that get in the way should be swept off the board.

By the way, this tactic is also vintage Robert Mugabe, and a host of other banana Republic thugs...

Family Values: Democrats Versus Republicans

We know the story by now. Republicans believe in good honest family values. Democrats are amoral secular liberals in the thrall of every vice and hedonism. Except, in 2008, this story is turned totally upside down. Consider the following, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan the Times of London:

Democrats:

Barack Obama. Married to the same woman for 15 years, two daughters.

Hillary Clinton. Married to the same man for 32 years, one daughter, despite husband's affairs.

John Edwards. Married to the same woman for 30 years, five children. Their eldest son died in a car crash, and they stayed together. Statistically "most couples never survive the death of a child."

Republicans:

John McCain. His wife stayed loyal during his capture, torture, and imprisonment, but McCain dumped her when he returned.

Rudy Giuliani. Three wives, several high profile affairs, and an estranged son. He informed his second wife he was divorcing her at a press conference.

And the best of all....

Newt Gingrich. Married his first wife at 19. She put him through graduate school. But he dumped her and told her he was divorcing her while she was recovering from cancer. He was overheard remarking that “She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the president. And besides, she has cancer.” And he refused to pay alimony or child support. His second marriage broke up after he had an affair with a younger staffer (23 years younger, to be precise) at the exact time he was hounding Bill Clinton for having an affair with somebody far younger than him...

Welcome to the modern Republican party, the party of Torture and Divorce! Oh yes, and total hypocrisy.

More Church Teaching on Torture

I've talked about this a lot. The conciliar document Gaudium Et Spes condemned it explicitly. The encylical Veritatis Splendour said it was intrinsically evil, meaning it cannot be legitimated by intent or consequence. The Compendium of Social Doctrine also discusses it:

"In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim”. International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances."

This is pretty clear. Nothing can justify torture. Not ticking bomb scenarios. Nothing. And "international juridical instuments" means the Geneva Conventions, those pesky little things the Bush administration deems quaint. And yet some in Catholic right wing circles, in continued thrall to the Bush administration, have a hard time understanding this.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, and the Young

Mirror of Justice links to an interesting New York Times magazine article on the attitudes of the younger generation toward topical social issues. Indeed, the Times seems almost surprised when it reports:

"Young Americans, it turns out, are unexpectedly conservative on abortion but
notably liberal on gay marriage. Given that 18- to 25-year-olds are the least
Republican generation (35 percent) and less religious than their elders (with 20
percent of them professing no religion or atheism or agnosticism), it is curious
that on abortion they are slightly to the right of the general public. Roughly a
third of Gen Nexters endorse making abortion generally available, half support
limits and 15 percent favor an outright ban. By contrast, 35 percent of 50- to
64-year-olds support readily available abortions. On gay marriage, there was not
much of a generation gap in the 1980s, but now Gen Nexters stand out as more
favorably disposed than the rest of the country. Almost half of them approve,
compared with under a third of those over 25."

The Times goes on to suggest that the strong support for gay marriage shows that the young have not become complacent about "sexual rights", whatever their views on abortion. But what it fails to understand is that abortion is a key component in the gospel of life, not a private sexual matter, and not an issue of "sexual rights". Perhaps the young, with their greater zeal for human rights and equality, understands this better than the baby boom generation (of course, there are some troubling signs in the attitude of the young too, such as increasing materialism and narcissism). But it is nonetheless an optimistic sign that the least Republican generation is more, not less, opposed to abortion. It shows that the seamless garment uniting all aspects of the culture of life (not just those most compatible with a particular secular ideology) is alive and well.

What about the gay marriage results? I believe this issue is over, and will rapidly become as accepted as contraception and divorce. This, however, puts the Church in a tricky spot. But there is a way out. As I noted recently, the moral issues involved in gay marriage are nowhere close to those surrounding the sanctity of life. While the legalization of homosexual unions has clear implications for public morality, it ultimately deals with fundamentally private acts. John Courtney Murray defended the decriminalization of contraception precisely on these grounds. As conservative George Weigel noted in making distinctions between the shades of morality, "contraception is a matter of "conjugal morality and the sixth commandment" while abortion is a matter of "public justice and the fifth commandment". But homosexuality is also a sixth commandment matter.

Of course, the legal recognition of homosexual unions has clear public morality implications. But then again, so do contraception and, especially, divorce. And anyway, the public implications are automatically diminished by the current state of secular marriage which (to put it mildly) falls far short of the sacramental ideal. One of the core arguments put forth by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is that the legal recognition of homosexual unions spreads "erroneous beliefs" about marriage and sexuality. But could it get much worse in the era of serial monogamy and Britney Spears? And even when the law has a role to play, Murray thought it should be as minimal as possible. In this regard, given the strong support for gay marriage among the young in particular, rigid opposition could backfire. It would be a shame to alienate a generation that is eminently persuadable on gospel of life issues, including abortion. But this does not mean the Church has to accept the legitimacy of gay marriage. Far from it. But by accepting the secular arrangement, and thereby making a cleaner distinction between secular marriage and the sacrament, the Church could enhance its teaching role. And here, everybody benefits.

The Catholic Right and Sean Hannity

Who is Sean Hannity? A run-of-the-mill right-wing blowhard who places his ideology ahead of logic, reason, facts, and analysis. A man who nightly performs the ritual proskynesis before George W. Bush. A high-ranking resident of the truthiness universe. A prime example of the morally decadent Coulterized conservatism, which substitutes juvenile name calling for civil debate.

Hannity also likes to play up his Catholicism upon occasion, though it is often simply to score ideological points. This, after all, is the man who wrote a "book" entitled Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism. He takes the Lord's Prayer, and turns it into a partisan cudgel. Nice. For him, God is clearly a Republican. He once asked, on air, "Can we pray for the reelection of George Bush?". He was not joking. And he denigrates Church teachings on topics ranging from just war, torture, the living wage, health care, and immigration on a regular basis-- because they go against his ingrained secular ideology. For his opposition to the Iraq war, Hannity concurred with the statement that Pope John Paul was a "wild-eyed liberal loon". He attacked efforts to restore the Geneva Conventions on the grounds that they would "tie the hands of interrogators". His whole view of torture is framed by consequentialism, or, as he would put it, whether it helps or hinders the famous "war on terror". In Hannity's view, "aggressive interrogation will save lives ". Yes, Sean is a good Catholic...

But these are all political beliefs. Going deeper, Hannity clearly has no idea what it means to be Catholic in the first place. During the abuse scandal, he declared that he was so annoyed by the behavior of some bishops, he seriously considered leaving the Church. That tells you everything you need to know about Hannity's "faith". He is a protestantized Catholic. If he had even the vaguest understanding of what the Catholic faith means, he could never have made such a statement.

Anyway, this is all background to today's story. Hannity got involved in a spat with a priest over the issue of birth control, which Hannity supports. Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International sparked the exchange by calling Hannity to task, calling him a hypocrite. Hannity responded by hectoring Fr. Euteneuer about the sex abuse scandal, or something like that, in full blustering character.

First things first. What was Fr. Euteneuer thinking? Of all issues, he picks Hannity's opposition to birth control. This speaks volumes about the politicized Catholic right. An organization calling itself Human Life International has no problem with Hannity's views on the war, on torture, on his denial that the lack of health insurance is a pressing issue, on immigration.... only birth control. Where were you when Hannity insulted and mocked Catholic teachings in other areas? These guys have a truly distorted sense of the culture of life.

The response on the right was also interesting. Many seem shocked by his tone, his arrogance. Please. Where have they been for the past decade? At the same time, many of them retain a soft spot for Sean, given his history of supporting their pet causes. For example, Amy Welborn berates him for his attitude, but also notes his good work on the Terry Schiavo issue (not seeming to realize that the moral principles underlying this issue were not exactly clear, as the Catholic moral tradition always made clear distinctions between killing somebody and discontinuing treatment that offers no hope of recovery, and that the tragedy was used more for political purposes). Kathyrn Lopez of the pro-torture National Review claimed that Hannity was "a reasonable and good guy". She also berated Fr. Euteneuer for making the whole thing public, when he should have talked to Hannity privately. Note the hypocrisy. In 2004, the same Lopez was calling on bishops to publicly denounce John Kerry, in what would be "a healthy and helpful educational opportunity". And by the way, don't expect Bill Donohue to comment either. Wrong side of the political spectrum. It's all about the double standards.

Which of the Three "John Kerrys" Will the Republicans Nominate?

Candidate Number 1: Mitt Romney, the man who changes his mind on absolutely everything.

Candidate Number 2: Rudy Guiliani, the pro-abortion Catholic.

Candidate Number 3: John McCain, the Vietnam war hero.

Three John Kerrys. I assume the conservatives will therefore repeat what they did in 2004, and hound these guys for flip-flopping incessantly, for dissenting from Church teaching on abortion, and for over-playing military service (I assume Republicans to repeat their little stunt with Purple Heart Band-Aids). Come on, folks, three John Kerrys! Don't you want to support Hillary?

Healthcare is Evil!

Has First Things, Richard John Neuhaus's conservative Catholic journal, finally jumped the shark? Perhaps. Peter Leithart has penned an essay addressing Barack Obama's concern with healthcare, or his "obsession" as Leithart puts it. He blames this "obsession" on secular humanism, which "cannot see how any good could emerge from human suffering" and "worship[s] the body itself". This then is the reason that "politicians, as well as the media, routinely accord priority to items of health-care policy." His bizarre conclusion is that "pain may be good for you" and that focusing on healthcare is misplaced.

Where does one begin with such idiocy? I've heard the argument many times on the right that healthcare is simply not as important as issues like abortion, and can be downplayed. I've heard spurious arguments against "socialized medicine" (these critics never seem to address why single-payer systems are both cheaper and achieve better outcomes than the US system). But I've never before heard a Christian argument that healthcare provision is actually a moral bad, because it denies the sick person a chance to suffer. I guess the Catholic church has it wrong, given that it is the single biggest healthcare provider in the world. I assume that when Jesus claimed that those who do not visit the sick or minister to the needs of the least among us, he was overly-influenced by secular humanism. But, you know, maybe Leithart has a point. In which case, I await his denunciation of Bush's tax cuts, as they deny the rich their fair share of suffering. I await his defense of torture on the grounds that expiatory pain is a positive good that should be spread throughout the Islamic world. And why not just start using those pesky nuclear weapons, since pain is good for you.

Yes, I do believe First Things has jumped the shark. Years of shilling for Republicans will do that to you.

(Via Andrew Sullivan).

Dobson Versus Wallis

A group of prominent evangelicals-- including James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins-- is highly critical of Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals for daring to claim that global warming is an issue that should concern Christians. The core of their argument is as follows:

"....We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."

In response, fellow evangelical Jim Wallis addresses Dobson:

"Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of 3 billion of God’s children living on less than $2 per day? And isn’t the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq? And then there is, of course, the issue that got Dobson and his allies so agitated. If the scientific consensus is right - climate change is real, is caused substantially by human activity, and could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths - then isn’t that also a great moral issue? Could global warming actually be alarming evidence of human tinkering with God’s creation?"

Wallis hits the nail on the head. Note that he is not denying the importance of the sanctity of life issues that command Dobson's attention. He simply realizes that the gospel of life is far broader. Catholics would agree, except, of course, those like Bill Donohue that would have the Catholic church follow the example of Dobson's Republicans and enter an unholy alliance with the Republican party. And Wallis does not even mention torture, where Dobson and his allies are eerily silent (or in tacit support). Jim Wallis deserves support, as he tries to rescue his brand of Christianity from Republican clutches.

Confessions of an American Torturer

Tony Lagouranis was a US military interrogator, who admits to participating in torture in Iraq. His account is well worth reading, although highly depressing. He arrived in Iraq after the infamous Abu Ghraib photographs had been made public. But the abuses did not stop. Far from it. The most common techniques he documents in Bush's torture chambers were exposure to extreme cold, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and bombardment with constant loud music and strobe lights. Despite being in Iraq, Lagouranis was told by his superiors that the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and to be "creative". Terrifying blindfolded prisoners with dogs was also common, although the effect soon wore off as the person realized the dogs would not attack. In other words, the technique was completely pointless. Still, the interrogators were ordered to keep doing it. As Orwell said, the object of torture is torture.

If this were not bad enough, Lagouranis reports and even darker side, especially when be talks about what the army did before handing prisoners over to the professional interrogators. In his words:

"We were getting prisoners from the navy SEALs who were using a lot of the same techniques we were using, except they were a little more harsh. They would actually have the detainee stripped nude, laying on the floor, pouring ice water over his body. They were taking his temperature with a rectal thermometer. We had one guy who had been burned by the navy SEALs. He looked like he had a lighter held up to his legs. One guy’s feet were like huge and black and blue, his toes were obviously all broken, he couldn’t walk."

"After the scandal broke, they stopped torturing people in prisons and they would torture them before they got to the prison. They would either torture them in their homes or they would take them to a remote location . . . The marines had a location—they called it the ‘meat factory’—they would bring them there and they would torture them for 24 or 48 hours before they brought them to us, and they were using techniques like water boarding, mock execution, they were beating them up, breaking their bones, whatever. It was bad, in particular the First Recon—they’re sort of like marine special forces, an elite unit [attached to the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, known as 24th MEU]. Every time they went on a raid it didn’t matter who they were bringing back, they would just fuck these guys up. Old men, 15-year-old kids, they all came with bruises and broken bones. One guy came with a blister on the back of his leg. It was big, it was horrible, a burn blister. They’d made him sit on the exhaust pipe of a running truck."

Lagouranis became furious when be heard Rumsfeld claim that the Geneva Conventions were being upheld in Iraq. At the same time, Gen. Sanchez claimed that prisoners under US control were being treated humanely. He specifically denied that dogs were used. And yet he himself approved of every single technique mentioned by Lagouranis-- stress positions, exposure to heat and cold, prolonged isolation, loud music, sleep deprivation. Oh yes, and dogs. And even something ominously and euphemistically called "light control". Every complaint Lagouranis filed, every report he wrote, was ignored. By his own admission, 90 to 95 percent of the prisoners under US interrogation had nothing to do with the insurgency. But the torture continued.

Another interrogator, Stephen Lewis, noted only two choices in these circumstances: "disobey direct orders or become monsters". An accurate moral reckoning. Ultimately, the responsibility for this great evil lies with the authors of the policy, the Sanchezs and Millers, the Yoos and Gonzalezs, the Rumsfelds and Cheneys, and of course, the Bushs. Lagouranis is all too aware of the effects of these "coercive interrogation techniques". They scar the victims for life, probably moreso than physical abuse. And, as is the way with evil, the perpetrators are also affected. When Lagouranis returned to the United States, he was a mess, and left the army. This is what happens when one succumbs to the temptation to do evil. Remember Gollum. How in the name of God could the US have arrived at this point?

Ann Coulter

So, Ann Coulter goes to the Conservative Political Action Conference, and gives a speech calling John Edwards a "faggot". Then again, we should not expect any better from a person who peddles juvenile rhetoric for a living, and gets rich from it. But comparisons to the anti-Catholic statements of John Edwards's bloggers jumped immediately to mind. And please, don't start drawing lines by claiming that she was not on the staff of any leading candidate. She shared the stage with most of the leading candidates for the Southern (sorry, Republican) Party, and at least one (Mitt Romney) was gushing in his praise. Besides, Amanda Marcotte is a foul mouthed nobody. Ann Coulter, in contrast, is a foul mouthed Republican behemoth, who remains one of the most popular figures associated with the party.

Of course, Coulter's neanderthal base will gorge themselves on this red meat, but the reaction from much of the right was eminently more sensible. A typical example was Rod Dreher, who wrote:

"Has the movement launched by Ronald Reagan really devolved to the point where one of its most influential grassroots gatherings features Ann Coulter denouncing a Democratic presidential candidate as a "faggot," to cheers from the audience? Is this really the kind of people we want to be, or to be associated with? How, exactly, do we conservatives protest against the kind of bigoted garbage that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan were upchucking against Catholics and other Christians if we accept Coulter's offensive shtick?"

Even Michelle Malkin denounces this rhetoric. This is a positive development, and these right-wing commentators deserve praise. Look deeper, however. Many of these pundits note that Coulter is past her "sell by date" and that this kind of childishness plays directly into the hands of the Democrats. Of course, the major problem with this argument is that it assumes her rhetoric was not always beyond the pale. It is only a problem now that Republicans are down.

Certainly, Coulter has not changed. But when Republicans were ascendant, they gleefully wallowed in her vapidity. Sure, she's a bomb thrower, and sure, she's over the top, but she's funny, and she gets under the skin of "liberals", and anyway you shouldn't take this too seriously! But by succumbing to these cheap temptations, many on the right are implicated in the well known "Coulterization of conservatism", contributing to the coarsening and dumbing down of public discourse. At one time, we had the likes of Russell Kirk and William Buckley, intellectuals who argued from reason. Today, reason goes out the window in the era of ideologically-tinged truthiness (ultimate proof that moral relativism is alive and kicking on the right, and is most certainly not confined to the academic left) and schoolyard taunts trump civilized debate. After all, it is only a small step from Ann Coulter to Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (Sean Hannity), and Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton (Jonah Goldberg). For when Coulter has long been cast from the limelight, this is her enduring legacy. And it's not a pretty one.

Khaled El Masri

Another depressing story of "extraordinary rendition". In Khaled El Masri's own words:

"ON NEW YEAR'S EVE in 2003, I was seized at the border of Serbia and Macedonia by Macedonian police who mistakenly believed that I was traveling on a false German passport. I was detained incommunicado for more than three weeks. Then I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan, where I was imprisoned in a foul dungeon for more than four months."

When they realized he was innocent, they blindfolded him, put in back on a plane, and dumped him in the middle of Albania. In some good news, German prosecutors are trying to indict the 13 CIA agents involved in this kidnapping. As for El Masri himself, he sued the CIA, in an effort to garner a public apology. The US government attempted to dismiss the case on the grounds that it would expose state secrets and jeopardize national security. Always the last defense of a tyrant. And in this case, the courts agree, despite the fact that El Masri's story is public. Surreal. As he himself concludes: "It seems that the only place in the world where my case cannot be discussed is in a U.S. courtroom".

Incidentally, the CIA in this case is clearly involved with "formal cooperation in evil". This means "cooperation occurs 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". So just because the CIA did not themselves torture El Masri does not let them off the hook. For formal cooperation in evil is always morally illicit. And that formal cooperation extends not only to Tenet and the CIA, but to Rumsfeld, Cheney, and ultimately to Bush.

David Hicks

Talking Points Memo provides a good summary of this case, surrounding an Australian locked up without charge in Guantanamo for five years without charge. He will now become the first person charge under Bush's new military tribunals. His offense? Providing material support for terrorism, which only became a crime in 2006. In other words, they are grasping at straws. Australians are furious, justifiably so. To take just one comment, Barnaby Joyce, an Australian senator (and a member of the governing conservative National Party) claimed that the Americans had abused the process of justice. He also noted that “In fighting the barbarians, we are starting to imitate the barbarians.”

It gets worse. It now seems possible that Hicks's military lawyer, Michael Mori, could himself be prosecuted. The charge? "Breaching Article 88 of the US military code, which relates to using contemptuous language towards the president, vice-president, and secretary of defence". Unreal. Making it a crime to insult the president? The true sign of a banana republic. Just for the record, it is also a crime to defame or insult the president in Turkmenistan, one of the world's most odious dictatorships.

Soul Sisters: Frances Kissling and Phyllis Schlafly

What do these two women have in common? A lot, actually, despite deceptive appearances.

Until very recently, Frances Kissling was the president of Catholics for a Free Choice, a group claiming that a pro-abortion stance was compatible with Catholicism. Sitting at the polar opposite of the political spectrum, Phyllis Schlafy is a right-wing icon. She founded the Eagle Forum, and was central to derailing the Equal Rights Amendment. Although a Catholic, her worldview owes more to a strong secular nationalist ideology, with shades of American exceptionalism. In fact, she sounds more like a fundamentalist than a Catholic-- she has, for example, condemned evolution. But I want to make a more fundamental point. Schlafly is also a firm believer in the use of nuclear weapons, having once pronounced that "the atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God." She defended the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the grounds that it saved lives especially American ones: "Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima meant the difference between life and death to hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest young men". She even dubs it, perversely, the "lifesaver bomb".

Let me set out two basic moral principals, fundamental to Catholicism. First, it is never licit to do evil so that good may result. To say otherwise is an exercise in consequentialism. Second, the deliberate taking of innocent human life is always wrong. A nuclear attack on a city by its nature targets non-combatants, making it intrinsically evil. And, as we know, an intrinsically evil act is evil is its object, so that it can never be justified by either intent or circumstance. Thus a directly-procured abortion cannot be justified by appealing to the consequences of having the child, such as the economic situation of the mother. And dropping an atomic bomb on a city cannot be justified, even if it manages to save millions of lives. Consequentialism is misguided, utilitarianism is misguided, proportionalism is misguided.

What many fail to realize is that appeals to the morality of abortion spring from the same flawed philosophy as appeals to the morality of nuclear weapons. Note that many moralists holding the strongest positions against nuclear weapons are also some of the staunchest opponents of abortion and euthanasia. Moralists like Germain Grisez and John Finnis argued that even the nuclear deterrent is deeply immoral, on the grounds that nuclear deterrence entails an intention to kill innocents. Elizabeth Anscombe dubbed Truman a war criminal, and vehemently protested Oxford's granting him an honorary degree in 1956. She noted that in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "it was certainly decided to kill the innocent as a means to an end". Anscombe, by the way, coined the term "consequentialism" in the first place. She knew what she was talking about. Frankly, I do not understand those on the right who can oppose abortion and yet can support the use of nuclear weapons, or unjust wars, or torture.

So, at the end of the day, Kissling and Sclafly are not so different. They both defend the taking of innocent life because they perceive some "greater good". They both reject fundamental Catholic principles, and see no prolem with that. Soul sisters indeed.