Bushies as Sopranos

During its ongoing discussion of the final season of the Sopranos, Slate proposes a game called "Bush-Soprano Mix 'n' Match". The idea is to "name a past or present member of the Bush administration or family and find the corresponding figure from The Sopranos' cast of characters". OK, I'll take the bait! Here are my initial thoughts (subject to later revision!):

George Bush: Tony Soprano, of course.

Laura Bush: Carmelo Soprano. Denial, denial, denial.

Jennifer Melfi: Daddy Bush (understudy: James Baker).

Livia Soprano: Barbara Bush. Icy! Explains a lot about the son...

Johnny Sack: Dick Cheney. Sees himself as superior to Tony. Ruthless.

Christopher Moltisanti: Alberto Gonzales. Hapless sycophant.

Uncle Junior: John Bolton. Cuckoo!!

Silvio Dante: Karl Rove. The voice whispering in Tony's ear.

Pauley Walnuts: Donald Rumsfeld. Incompetent, useless, and ruthless all in one!

AJ Soprano: Harriet Miers. No comment necessary!

Tony Blundetto: Colin Powell. A favorite of George-Tony, crossed Johnney Sack-Cheney, and needed a whacking.

Bobby Bacala: George Tenet. Trying to keep his hands clean yet remain part of the inner circle..

Janice Soprano: Condi Rice. Almost like family..

Karen Hughes: Meadow Soprano. Painting the family in a positive light!

Phil Leotardo: Scooter Libby.

Ralphie Cifaretto: Bernie Kerik.

Little Carmine Lupertazzi: Jeb Bush. Hiding out in Florida...

Hesh Rabkin: Jack Abramoff. The Jewish business partner...

Pussy Bonpensiero: Paul O'Neill. Part of the inner circle, betrayed the family early on, whacked.

The Cost of War

Endless carnage in Iraq: $456 billion and rising.

Cost of eliminating starvation and malnutrition: $54 billion a year.
Cost of a year of primary education for every child on earth: $30 billion.

So, this shameful war could have fed and educated the poor of the world for over 5 years. But, you know, at least Bush is pro-life...

Mitt Romney: Stupidity on Steroids?

A number of commentators (Kevin Drum, Spencer Ackerman, Daniel Larison) have picked up this little nugget from the last GOP presidential hopefuls debate. Remember, Mitt Romney likes to come across as a tough guy. He recently claimed he was a lifelong hunter, but never had a license and went on only two hunting trips in his life (that's not much more than me-- actually, that's two more than me...) But there's something about Republicans needing to prove their manliness by being willing to shoot things, or (more likely) ordering others to do the shooting. And any sign of thoughtfulness, of introspection, is a sign of weakness. So, when asked about Bin Laden, Romney jumps straight into Arnie-mode:

"We'll move everything to get him. But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shi'a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate. They also probably want to bring down the United States of America. This is a global effort we're going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It's more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die."

This little nugget encapsulates everything that is wrong with the Republican approach to national security. First, the obligatory cowboy rhetoric.. "he will die!!!". But more importantly, the appeal to simplistic rallying cries makes for an incredibly stupid foreign policy, a continuation of the disastrous Calvinist-inspired Manicheanism of the Bush administration that led to the present ruinous debacle in Iraq. Romney is lumping together groups that do not belong together, just to prove he is a non-nonsense tough guy. Here is Ackerman:

"Mitt Romney's War: the total conflation of all Islamist movements. Not only is the Muslim Brotherhood not a jihadist organization, but its very lack of jihadiness is what spawned Ayman Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Suffice it to say that there is no caliphate on heaven or earth that will simultaneously satisfy Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which goes a long way toward explaining why there is no concerted "worldwide jihadist effort" by these groups to establish one. "

And Larison:

"Ackerman is right that Romney’s remarks in the debate make no sense, but they are worse than he thinks. Not only is there “no caliphate on heaven or earth that will simultaneously satisfy Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood,” Hizbullah presumably wouldn’t even want a caliphate at all, since the last intertwining of Shi’ism and ideas of having a khalifat as such was in Fatimid Egypt more than a few years ago. Plus, the Fatimids were Ismailis (though not, strictly speaking, Seveners), and Hizbullah today is from the Imamiyyah or Twelver Shi’ite branch, which makes the likelihood of this predominant strain in Iranian and Lebanese Shi’ism indulging dreams of a restored caliphate in Cairo (where no Shi’ites today dwell) even more remote."

Now, understanding these distinctions requires a modicum of intelligence and thoughtfulness, or at least a willingness to learn. But this is exactly what the modern Republican party, with its premium of folksy populism, will not give us. Hence we are left with the simplistic "with us or against us" rhetoric that isolates decision making from all notions of history, context, culture, and nuance. Instead, every enemy is part of the march of "islamofacism", a term decried by Larison as possibly "the most stupid of the current century". So, simply to appease Romney's sense of manliness, we need to accept an utterly vacuous and dangerous foreign policy." More Larison:

"Romney shares in their profound confusion (or deliberately misleading rhetoric) for the same reason: all these diverse and disparate groups must be brought together under a single, frightening label and they must be made out to be enemies of America, whether or not these descriptions are plausible, true or reasonable.....In other words, the word we use to describe our enemies must be meaningless in order to accommodate the maximum number of enemies. If there were ever a politician who was perfectly suited to an age in which words should be entirely malleable and subject to the political needs of the moment, it would have to be Romney. Romney and rhetoric about Islamofascism were made for each other."

How thoroughly postmodern. It would be comical if it were not so tragic...

Abrogation of Media Responsibilities

The sad and sorry state of US journalism has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time now. We all know that Fox News is little more than an arm of the Republican party. CNN, once a half decent organization, has descended into a sleazy pit with a screeching Nancy Grace and a fawning Larry King. Forget what's happening in the world, let's talk about celebrities, bland human interest stories, and missing white girls.

A few cases stand out starkly. Last month, Time magazine ran with a cover story called "Talibanization", dealing with the rise of extremists in the tribal areas of Pakistan. An important story, surely, and available to Time readers all over the world, with one exception: the United States. Yes, the US edition ran with a cover story on religion in schools. Newsweek did exactly the same thing last September. While the rest of the world read about "Losing Afghanistan" and the return of the Taliban, US readers were treated to a more important and timely story: a look at photographer Annie Liebovitz's new book. And CNN's dirty little secret is that its international edition is far better than the domestic counterpart, broadcasting quality material on world affairs.

As part of this soft-focus agenda, an unwritten rule of political reporting is that you cannot attack "powerful government officials". This is an argument made recently by Glenn Greenwald in the context of an attack on Keith Olbermann for being too partisan in his reporting. With Olbermann's popularity soaring on the back of his crusading zeal against Republican corruption and incompetence, certain journalists are arguing that MSNBC is going too far in mixing reporting and opinion. After all, the argument goes, even Fox does not put Bill O'Reilly out there as a news anchor. Greenwald immediately rips this argument to shreds, noting that the preeminent Fox "anchor", Brit Hume, makes partisan statements on a daily basis. Recently, he concluded a story about Jack Murtha by concluding that the Democrats are not serious about national security. Fine lines indeed!

Hume is a quintessential "loyal Bushie" and yet remains highly respected among his peers. What explains the double standard? It's far too easy to take the bait and groan about an inherent "conservative" bias in the media. No, something far more subtle is going on here. As Greenwald notes:

"What Olbermann actually is, first and foremost, is a critic of the government who adopts an aggressively adversarial posture towards the President and those in power. That actually is -- or at least used to be -- called "journalism." What ought to define the function of political "journalists" is that they exercise adversarial oversight over government officials. That is the only thing that makes a political press worthwhile.

Even if one concedes for the sake of argument that Olbermann is a "liberal," what clearly emerges from all of this is that it is not inappropriate in any way for a "journalist" to express political and ideological views, even the most extreme, offensive and partisan views. The behavior of Brit Hume and Chris Matthews leave no doubt about that.

What is "inappropriate" -- really, prohibited -- is for a journalist to express certain types of political views, in particular the views expressed by Olbermann. That is why his status as a "news anchor" supposedly "stretch(es) traditional notions of journalistic objectivity."

Olbermann's real journalistic crime is that he is too critical of powerful government officials. That is the real crux of Olbermann's commentary -- criticizing Bush officials for their abuses of power, exploitation of fear and terrorism threats for political gain, and blatant corruption. Whereas in the past, exposing abuses of power by our most powerful officials and criticizing corruption was the hallmark of a real journalist, that behavior is now considered out of bounds, the mark of an unacceptable ideologue, not a journalist. "

This is the crux of the issue. Its about a symbiotic network of cronyism, whereby the ruling political elite shower favors on the established media elite in return for a respect veering on fawning obsequiousness. The one thing a journalist is not supposed to do is be disrespectful. That breaks the golden rule of modern journalism. It also betrays the very concept of what journalism is supposed to do. And of course, the Bush administration exploits this weakness to great effect.

The media in other countries is not like this. In fact, political journalists believe that asking tough questions is their job, no matter how uncomfortable it makes them feel. Just look at the kind of hard-hitting European interviews that make politicians squirm and sweat in their seats. Back in 2004, Irish television reporter Carole Coleman interviewed Bush in a style typical of Irish TV. As Bush repeated his talking points on Iraq, Coleman continuously interrupts with comments like "Indeed, Mr. President, you didn't find the weapons of mass destruction" and questions like "Do you not see that the world is a more dangerous place [because of Iraq]?" As the interview progresses, Bush becomes more and more irritated that this lesser mortal dares to interrupt his well-rehearsed screed. Afterwards, the Bush administration complained to the Irish government and cancelled an interview with Laura Bush. But there was nothing unusual about this interview from an Irish journalistic perspective. Or a British one for that matter. After the Coleman interview, a Bush supporter I know told me that he thought Coleman was terribly disrespectful to a head of state. Lost on him was the notion that Bush is an elected representative, not an untouchable monarch. And they claim to be "leaders of the free world"... God help us!

This is the sorry state of American political journalism. It's no wonder that this cosy cabal reacts strongly to those who challenge this status quo, even in jest. Remember that phony outrage from the journalistic community that surrounded Stephen Colbert's performance last year at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner? His sin was skewering the media with lines like ""Over the last five years, you people were so good--over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out."? The establishment media found him rude and unfunny. Because he hit them where it hurt most.

The Seven Step Program for American Right-Wing Catholics

If you want to be a successful right-wing American Catholic, you need to follow the following seven steps. It is extremely important that you master each step before you move on to the next one. Only then will everything fit together, and you will find total peace and enlightenment, and those pernicious liberals can't touch you....

(1) Make friends with the evangelical right, and ignore the aspects of their theology that conflicts with Catholicism. At the same time, attack your fellow Catholics on the left. This is a good warm-up exercise, as it is not intellectually very challenging.

(2) Tell Catholics that they are prohibited from voting Democratic because of their position on abortion and embryonic cell research. If you are feeling really zealous, throw in gay marriage for good measure. For bonus points, come up with some bogus theological justification (if in doubt, just crib from Catholic Answers).

(3) Insist that the bishops deny communion to all Democrats. Feel free to denounce the 99 percent of bishops who do not follow your advice. The key to a success at this stage lies in displaying the right amount of self-righteous outrage.

(4) Dismiss Catholic social teaching not mentioned in stage 2 as "mere trifles". Be as dismissive as possible, and don't forget to make condescending remarks about Europe. Make sure you have plenty of good anecdotes. Denounce high taxes, and talk about the long waiting list for hip replacements in Canada.

(5) Adopt a zealous America-first nationalism. Make sure to note that anybody who opposes Bush's war is a Euro-weenie, and being a pope does not let you off the hook! To ensure that everybody knows how reasonable your position is, point out the fact that your enemies are inflicted with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and are leftist moonbat loons. Make sure to denounce Euro-weenies and the United Nations. Bonus points if you can twist just war theory to support the Iraq war!

(6) Time for consequentialism: the end justifies the means! Make sure you point out that America did no wrong whatsoever during the second world war, and make those fools understand that nuking the hell out of those Japanese cities was the only way to defend lives. And point out to those "liberals" that torture may be needed to stop terrorists nuking cities (theological source: Jack Bauer on 24). If you are feeling really clever, you can try and argue that Pope John Paul did not really say what they think he said.

(7) Disregard facts, including scientific facts. Dismiss evolution and global warming as liberal hoaxes. Now you are ready to create your own reality, and your task has been accomplished. Congratulations!

The Attraction of Buddhism

"Spiritual but not religious". As an underlying philosophy, this has never been more popular, alongside a vocal disdain for "organized" religion. As I discussed numerous times now, this reflects the popularity of Gnosticism in American society, and Gnostic energy often gets channeled in a Buddhism direction, owing to key parallels.

Let me just review Gnosticism (see here and here for earlier discussions). Traditional Gnosticism believes in a Platonic metaphysical dualism that sees the world and all of creation as evil. Since creation is evil, it cannot have been created by a benevolent God. No, the creator is an evil God, a demiurge, often identified with the God of the Jews. Beyond all this lies a greater God, a good God. And here is the crux: within every human being lies a "spark of the divine" that is itching to be re-united with this greater God and escape the confines of the evil materialistic world. And how to escape? Escape comes through knowledge, gnosis, often hidden esoteric knowledge available only to a select few.

Now, at least on a superficial level, this has some overlaps with Buddhism. At is basis lies the underlying principle that life involves and endless cycle of suffering, and suffering is rooted in desire. The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, provided a basic road map to escape the cycle through the suppression of desire. The term "buddha" is used to denote anybody who has attained "awakening" (enlightenment/ Nirvana) and has escaped earthy suffering. Many are taught this knowledge by others in an esoteric fashion.

Many like to argue that the advantage of Buddhism is that it has no doctrine, is not organized, and it has no notion of a personal God. It is easier, conceptually, to view it through the frame of Gnosticism. Buddhism and Gnosticism both see the difference between "God" and creation as one of degree, not of kind, and view humanity as returning to some kind of equality with "God". Creation is not good, and the ultimate goal is liberation from the world. Of course, such an escape is not simple, and requires arcane knowledge ("gnosis") and ardent practice, and is only available to an elite few.

In contrast, Christianity views creation as the result of a beneficial Creator. God created everything that exists from nothing. Creation is good, but humanity is sinful. The essence of Christianity then, is that God became human to overcome this sin, and to allow humanity to become one with God. Note the clear difference: union with God is not a natural "homecoming"; it is rather a gift, a privilege. Moreover, this form of salvation is available to all, not just a small elite. The "institutional" church is simply the entity through which Christ mediates grace.

Why, then, are so many Americans attracted to Buddhism? Actually, what they seek is Gnosticism, rather than Buddhism. They merely see much of Gnosticism inside Buddhism. Part of the attraction springs from a very post-Enlightenment denial of objective truth. If truth is more relative than objective, then how can there be such a thing as sin? It's far easier to assume a natural unification with God after death, with no heed for the consequences of your behavior. Who needs doctrine when all that matters is the "spark of the divine" within me? Experience trumps everything! At the same time, the entrenched individualism in American society rebels against anything vaguely communitarian, especially an entity that claims to know the truth. Far easier to follow your own path! This can so easily feed the narcissism and sense of entitlement that pervades much of modern American culture and society (is it any wonder that Buddhism and Scientology are most popular in Hollywood, the ultimate pit of narcissism?). The notion that one can be a sinner is repellent in the popular mind. No, Gnosticism makes you feel special. I'm OK, you're OK! Do what makes you feel good!

There is a darker side to this, of course, as it can feed into the doctrine of American exceptionalism, that sees America as unique, specially blessed by God, not subject to the same rules and constraints as other countries. And if creation is not fundamentally good and in need of renewal, then why should be it not exploited through violence and environmental degradation?

This lies at the root of the American love-affair with Buddhism, and why it is seen as superior, better than those nasty "organized" religions. Though I would contend that Buddhism has some serious flaws, much of this crowd is attracted to a very shallow version of it, a Buddhism of the mind, not rooted in reality. Note, for example, that traditional Buddhism is concerned with suppressing the ego, the very opposite of the modern American instinct. No, Gnosticism is at fault, and Buddhism is largely guilty by association.

One final thought: one of the much-touted "attractions" of Buddhism is that it is inherently peaceful, tolerant, and non-violent. This is utterly false. Just look to the political turmoil in Sri Lanka. Here, a nationalistic and xenophobic brand of Buddhism is highly influential among the Sinhalese minority, and is not above denying equality to the minority Tamils, or using violence to impose its will. Remember too, in Vietnam, it was the Buddhist monks who burned themselves to death. And yet the Hollywood brigade tends to ignore these inconvenient facts...

Catholic Candidate Denies Evolution

Absolutely surreal. When asked who did not believe in evolution, three of the ten Republican candidates for president raised their hands: Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Sam Brownback. Now, Brownback is a Catholic convert from evangelicalism, and a darling of the right. Clearly, some of his evangelical mode of thinking has not left him.

As I discussed recently, there is no inherent conflict between faith and evolution, as long as boundaries are respected. Therefore a person of faith should not castigate scientific findings about evolution that are accepted by all but a handful of quacks, and a scientist should likewise refrain from arguing that evolution proves the absence of a Creator (it proves no such thing). Way back in 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that there was no opposition between evolution and the Christian faith. While Pius was tentative, Pope John Paul II stated very clearly in 1996 that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." Cardinal Schonborn, who has reflected a lot on the topic, sums it up: "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." And Pope Benedict recently voiced similar thoughts: "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 title of John Paul's 1996 address was "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", which is quite apt. In other words, as Pope Benedict is fond of saying, faith and reason are perfectly compatible, because God's own word is Reason (Logos), who is God himself. Catholics believed God gave his own Word or reason so we could become one with him, and, in his essay, Pope John Paul appeals to Aquinas when be notes that "man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created". God is reason and infinte intelligence, and faith and reason are intimately entwined. We simply cannot appeal to faith to dismiss basic scientific tenets.

But if you believe that God's word is not reason incarnate, but a fixed text, then none of this holds. This explains why there is such a strong correlation between denial of evolution and American-style evangelical fundamentalism. After all, evolution conflicts with the literal text of Genesis. It is important to note that the American-created "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). It is denial. But the argument is a little more nuanced than simply appealing to biblical literalism. At the heart of the issue is the relationship between faith and reason. Systems of text-based revelation veer away from an idea of God that is reason, truth and infinite intelligence, and toward a notion of God as pure will which leaves the door open to God' purposes being arbitrary. This is voluntarism. It also, by the way, is the point Pope Benedict was making about Islam that landed him in such hot water last year (see here and here). We must always remember that faith and reason are compatible.

In conclusion, Brownback, as a Catholic, should know better. In a sense, Tancredo's response makes more sense. He has left the Catholic church for evangelicalism. To have embraced a voluntarist God is therefore compatible with his conversion. But Brownback still has some distance to travel. Lest there is any doubt about this hypothesis, simply note that the denial of evolution is concentrated in a small group of American evangelicals. You do not see Christians around the world disdaining science in such a manner. And it goes beyond evolution. Just look at the global warming debate. In a recent poll, despite the overwhelming consensus of the evidence, only 13 percent of Republicans in Congress believe human activity is leading to global warming. And, as with Brownback on evolution, they have backers among the Catholic right. I'll have more to say about this soon...

Hurricanes and the Bush Family

A recent article talks about a GAO probe into a little incident of corruption in New Orleans.

First, "when the Army Corps of Engineers solicited bids for drainage pumps for New Orleans, it copied the specifications 'typos and all' from the catalog of the manufacturer that ultimately won the $32 million contract"

Second, the pumps were installed before the 2006 hurricane season, and turned out to be defective.

Third, Jeb Bush used to work for the company in question, and they are major Republican donors.

Thank God there was no major hurricane last year. But can you honestly trust these people? Even when it comes to protecting people, corruption comes first (actually, Halliburton blazed the trail on that one..)

Defending War Crimes

Daniel Larison provides a good summary of a trend on the right that I have long noticed: the defense of war crimes. Larison notes, quite accurately, that there is a certain mysticism surrounding the second world war where criticism is simply not tolerated. Hence, not only do you find people defending internment, carpet-bombing, and the use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations, but, the argument goes, if they did it in world war 2, it must be fine....

I've already argued once that the right derives the wrong lessons from the second world war, but that is not the point of the current post. No, I want to make a far less subtle point here: that this reasoning is nothing short of depraved. For a flavor, here is Dean Barnett:

"Unfortunately, given the nature of the war we’re in, certain moral compromises are a necessity. Using coercive interrogation techniques is one of them. What’s most infuriating about the anti-torture people is their tacit assumption that you can fight a war without making moral compromises. War is all about moral compromise. It’s not in the normal order of things to kill others. The very aim of war is to do just that. In World War II, we did terrible things like the fire-bombing of Dresden, the massive bombing of Tokyo, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While all these actions were terrible, they were also necessary. And justifiable."

And here is Thomas Sowell, who seems to be something of a guru to Jimmy Akin, who runs his own little parallel magisterium in California (hint: it drops all the stuff that goes against the Republican party). Here's what he has to say:

"There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy."

And one more, courtesy of Larison. This time, it's Charles Krauthammer, the dean of the torture fetishists:

"When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin. Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan."

Of course, the partisans of the National Review make arguments along these lines quite frequently when they defend torture. Amazingly, many of these people are Catholics, and staunch "pro-life" Catholics to boot (the quotes are intentional). Then again, as I've noted before, one of the biggest abortion opponents of all, Phyllis Schlafly, held similar views. In her words:

"The atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God... Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima meant the difference between life and death to hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest young men."

I've said this many times, but it is well worth repeating. There are a number of fundamental moral principles that we Catholics believe to be true. First, it is never licit to do evil so that good may result. 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. Carpet bombing is intrinsically evil. Torturing somebody to get information is intrinsically evil. Interning innocent civilians is intrinsically evil. In fact, quite a lot of acts during the second world war were intrinsically evil, which as we know means evil in their object, so that they can never be justified by appeal to intent or circumstance (which is, of course, what the observers quoted above are doing).

This is the essence and heart of right-wing cafeteria Catholicism. It is not about the minimum wage, or tax policy, or immigration, or even poverty. No, it is about the deliberate embrace of an intrinically evil act, an act that violates the God-given life and dignity of human beings, which in a very real sense is the foundation of everything we believe.

The trap they fall into is consequentualism, an end-justifies-the-means ethic that rapidly collapses into complete moral relativism, the denial of any objective truth. In a cold utilitarian fashion, all you need to do is weigh up the good and bad side effects, and of course the scales are always tilted to "our" side because "our" cause is just and "our" guys lives are worth more. The fact that this is always the outcome should spell out very clearly what is wrong with this approach.

Note that many moralists holding the strongest positions against nuclear weapons are also some of the staunchest opponents of abortion and euthanasia. 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". No, it is simply impossible to be opposed to abortion and yet support the use of nuclear weapons if such opposition is for the right reasons.

Listening to the Passion this Good Friday, it dawned on me that Caiaphas was an early consequentialist. John's gospel notes; "It was Caiaphas who had counseled the Jews that it was better that one man should die rather than the people." By justifying the death of innocents in support of some greater good, many on the right are latter-day Caiaphas's. He was wrong then, and they are equally wrong today. At least as wrong as those who support abortion.

Catholic Judges Don't Take Long To Be Inconsistent

While the "Catholic bloc" stood together on the partial birth abortion case, it did not take long for this alliance to be pulled asunder. As noted by Eduardo Penalver, all but Kennedy voted the wrong way in a sequence of three death penalty-related cases. Of course, as some also argued in the context of the Hamden case (pertaining to the applicability of the Geneva Conventions), the voting was purely based on a procedural point of law. This is the position adopted by Rick Garnett, Panalver's Mirror of Justice colleague, who notes that there is no "authoritative church teaching involved in what amounts to a "question whether a federal judge reviewing a state court's denial, on procedural grounds in state postconviction proceedings, of a death-row inmate's ... claim is required to vote to reverse that denial".

But as I noted before, Church teaching pertaining to the death penalty is not mere "prudential judgment" that can be blithely dismissed. While the Church does not teach that the death penalty is always and everywhere wrong (like abortion), its moral licitness depends on the intent and circumstance. In other words, we are talking about principles governing circumstances rather than judgements about particular circumstantial facts. Here, the Church does carve out conditions under the death penalty may and may not be immoral, namely, that there must be no other way to defend society.

How does this relate to the judiciary? Penalver makes the following point:

"Given the immorality of the death penalty in all but exceptional cases (what I take to be the authoritative teaching of the Church) and given an American death penalty that goes substantially beyond what the Church would allow, it seems to me that Catholic Justices are under at least some moral obligations with respect to the death penalty."

That sounds about right. Frankly, I fail to understand how the kind of legal "originalism" so favored by conservative judges can be compatible with a Catholic approach to the law. Its focus on text rather than the natural law is surely inspired by Protestantism. For Catholics, the natural law must transcend all positive law. I am not encouraged when I hear judges speaking out against Roe v. Wade simply because it created a far broader right to "privacy" than was ever intended. This is undoubtedly true, but not relevant. They should oppose abortion because it is wrong, and no positive law can make it right. What if the original constitution had included a specific right to abortion? It would still be wrong, despite the original intent. The same holds true for the death penalty. In cases pertaining to the God-given human rights and dignity of the person, appealing to legal procedural niceties simply will not cut it. There are moral issues involved, at least as important (if not moreso) than the vote of a legislator.

And, as we have seen with the recent death penalty cases, the Catholic justices did not take long before they started deciding as non-Catholics...

Jack Valenti Funeral

As was reported today, the funeral Mass for Jack Valenti, former head of the Motion Picture Association of America, took place today at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington DC. It was an amazing scene at the cathedral, where the likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy mingled with Kirk Douglas, Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Steven Spielberg. News reports refer to the remarks made by Kirk Douglas about his friendship with Valenti. What the news reports do not mention is that these remarks took place during what was supposed to have been the first reading at the Mass! An interesting case of liturgical deviation indeed...

Gnostics of the World, Unite!

The New Republic's Michael Crowley is reporting that Mitt Romney's favorite novel is a tome by L. Ron Hubbard. Crowley thinks this is "amazing". I find it less so, since Mormonism and Scientology are both made-in-America Gnostic religions with science fiction undertones. Gnosticism appeals in America because of its individualism and sense of narcissism.

Traditional Gnosticism believes in a Platonic metaphysical dualism that sees the world and all of creation as evil. Since creation is evil, it cannot have been created by a benevolent God. No, the creator is an evil God, a demiurge, often identified with the God of the Jews. Beyond all this lies a greater God, a good God. And here is the crux: within every human being lies a "spark of the divine" that is itching to be re-united with this greater God and escape the confines of the evil materialistic world. And how to escape? Escape comes through knowledge, gnosis, often hidden esoteric knowledge available only to a select few.

Both Mormonism and Scientology have imbibed key aspects of Gnosticism, in that they see the difference between God and creation as one of degree, not of kind, and view humanity as returning to some kind of equality with God. Mormonism views God not as an uncreated supreme being who created everything out of nothing (the Christian view) but as (in the words of Damon Linker) "a finite being who evolved into his present state of divinity from a condition very much like our own and then merely 'organized' preexisting matter in order to form the world". Pious Mormons hope to be "Gods" some day, in charge of their own planet. Scientologists believe that there are trapped "thetans" (immortal spiritual beings) inside every human body yearning to escape. This, in particular, is no more than traditional Gnosticism with some science fiction thrown in for good measure. No wonder Romney likes it!

Double Standards Yet Again

Harry Reid makes a factual statement that the "war" in Iraq is lost, and is hounded mercilessly. Mitt Romney makes a normative statement it would be too much effort to get Bin Laden, and.... you guessed it, nothing. But could you imagine the reaction is a leading Democrat had said such a thing...

Bush Makes the World Safer!

Then how do we explain the 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks in 2006?

No wait, the Bushies create their own reality, I forgot, where there is no evidence for evolution, SUVs are good for the environment, tax cuts boost revenue, and Bush keeps everybody safe...

Fate And The Sopranos

This has been one of my favorite shows since the beginning, and this final season is nothing short of stunning. A few months back in Commonweal, Cathleen Kaveny penned a thought-provoking essay entitled "Salvation & ‘The Sopranos’", where she explored themes of sin and redemption through the lens of this mafia show. Kaveny explores the role of fate, and uses some anecdotes from the show to conclude that a main moral of the story is that "we are trapped in a world ruled by an inexorable fate that seizes upon our moral failings in order to bring about our ruin." Moreover, "the world of The Sopranos ... seems infused with a cosmic retributive justice, which even Tony himself dimly perceives, although his own time of reckoning has not yet arrived." A dark message...

The show is downright pessimistic in its approach to redemption. Kaveny provides three examples of the subversion of redemption: redemption through psychotherapy, redemption through Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and redemption through Christianity. In the first case, Tony Soprano's experience with therapy allows him to understand the pernicious impact of his dysfunctional family on his nature. But not only does he not change, he deliberately conspires to make sure his sister Janice's therapy does not work either. In the second case, Tony and his cousin Tony Blundetto mock Christopher's attempts to stay sober, and Christopher himself encourages a friend from AA to get mired in gambling, with inevitable results. Finally, the Christian theme relates to Tony and Carmela's relationship, where Carmela carries substantial guilt relating to her complicity in Tony's "business". After a threatened separation, he agrees to reconcile only for "blood money", $600,000 for a house she wants built.

Kaveny wrote this before the final episodes began. But the themes of fate and retributive justice only grow more stark with each passing episode. Tony's visions when he lay in a coma at the start of the last season are absolutely crucial, and form the backdrop for everything that will happen. There, he saw himself as somebody named "Kevin Finnerty" (infinity?) trapped in a place he could not leave. His cousin Tony Blundetto, whom he murdered, invited him into a house, where he thought he could see his mother. That was his fate. There was no way he could avoid it. But avoid it he did, as he came out of the coma. And least for a while. Avoiding danger, and cheating fate, is a theme in Tony's life. He avoided going to jail with his cousin because an early panic attack caused him to be absent on that fateful night when Blundetto was arrested. But Tony can feel things closing in. In the first two episodes of the new season, law enforcement officials are waiting as his gate each morning. Once case is over a dropped gun from a few years back (ironically, during an incident when Tony escaped the FBI takedown of New York mob boss Johnny Sac), but that dies. Tony's anxiety grows. In the most recent episode, the FBI are digging in an area where the body of Tony's very first murder victim is buried, and Tony is scared. But again, somebody else takes the fall. Retributive justice. But for how long can be escape his fate?

Tony's years of therapy, combined with his near-death experience, have led him to the realization that his life is precarious, not to mention the salvation of his soul. But he cannot change. When we awoke from the coma, there was a moment that suggested he wanted to be free, but he could not do it. At the same time, he realizes he is trapped in a deep pit. When he was young, he looked up to Pauley; now, he sees Pauley as pathetic, a joke. The old stories from the past now irritate him. Likewise, Uncle Junior has become a caricature of his former self in a mental institution. Johnny Sac, once a ruthless and all-powerful boss, dies from lung cancer. Phil Leotardo and Little Carmine are tired of the life, and want out. Christopher continues to distance himself. A feeling of lethargy, or resignation, hangs over the entire season. It almost feels like everybody is playing their part, going through the motions, but with little conviction.

And yet, at the same time, tension is everywhere. If feels like something is going to explode. The first episode of this season showed Tony, Carmela, Bobby and Janice enjoying themselves playing cards at a lake house. But you just knew something was going to happen, and it did-- Bobby attacked Tony for insulting Janice. Tony's response is not violence. No, he seals Bobby's fate in another way: he instructs the guy who has never killed anybody to commit his first murder. An amateur, Bobby leaves plenty of evidence at the scene. And in the most recent episode, tension mounted when Tony and Bobby were on a fishing boat, as the fate of Big Pussy was in everybody's mind.

And so, we do not know how they will meet their fate, but meet it they will. There are a million permutations of how cosmic justice could be served. And yet, can there be hope for redemption? The darkening atmosphere suggests not. There is certainly no sign of grace or redemption in David Chase's created universe. This is not the Lord of the Rings; it is the antithesis of Tolkien's cosmology. At the end of the day, is David Chase trying to tell us there is a radical division between grace and nature, a bridge that cannot be crossed? That might not be a Catholic message, but it is one that might well resonate with contemporary culture.

The Root Of All Anti-Catholicism

There is a lot of debate over Pope Benedict's lamenting the loss of Christian faith in Europe and elsewhere, and its relationship to secularism and relativism. Many of these analyses have been insightful. Other less so. In the latter category comes an essay in the American Prospect by Adele Stan, arguing that:

"Europe's rejection of Catholicism has less to do with a loss of spirituality by the people of God (as the worldwide congregation of Catholics became known during Vatican II) than with a rejection of an authoritarian institution many regard as, at best, morally inept; at worst, morally bankrupt."

I think this mode of thinking can explain most brands of anti-Catholicism. It's loyalty to an institution, a sinister foreign one as many on the right used to believe, or a hypocritical authoritarian one, as many on the left believe today. This results from a profound misunderstanding of how the Church sees revelation, and how it sees itself. The Church sees its role as preserving the memory of Christ, the Word or Wisdom of Reason of God. Some of this memory is contained in scripture, but some of it is not. But there is a single deposit of faith that the Church holds. Sometimes, it takes the Church a while to figure this out, but we take comfort in the unbroken line of the apostolic succession from the original apostles to the bishops of today, and from the knowledge that our core beliefs have never changed. To be a bit more formal, the Church believes that the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic church. This is all that scary-sounding words like "infallible" actually mean; it has nothing to do with a subservient "pray, pay, and obey" attitude.

I think if people had a clearer understanding of these issues, there would be less misunderstanding. The pope and bishops are not "authoritarian"; they are as bound by tradition (the deposit of faith) as you or me. Claiming that we have the fullness of revelation is not saying we are better than anybody else (just look at the history of the papacy, for God's sake!) but merely that we believe that certain things are true. There are two key stumbling blocks: first, the idea that there are objective truths beyond the empirically falsifiable, and second, that we are part of a whole and not just individuals that can choose whatever path we feel like. The Enlightenment, for all its other benefits, challenged these principles, and I think society is worse off for it. Individualism, relativism, and utilitarianism have dangerous consequences. Getting modern society to face these issues is foremost on the agenda of Benedict.

Stan argues that the integrity of Catholicism is compromised by its own history. There is a kernel of truth in what she says. Surely, the Church lost much of its moral authority in the aftermath of the first world war after various churches identified too closely with the authorities of the particular state. I would go further and say that most of the mistakes of the Church over the past two millenia arise from an overly-close relationship with secular authorities. A key lesson for today is that the Church must eschew nationalism. It must strive for something larger, if not a latter-day Christendom, then at least something broader than the petty nation state. Here I think is the plain where the Church can meet European secular humanists (Americans are still too steeped in nationalism). But there is a long journey ahead...

Archbishop Burke Takes a Step Backwards

This story received a lot of coverage today, from Rocco Palmo, Open Book, and Evangelical Catholicism among others. It turns out that Archbishop Burke of St. Louis picked a fight with singer Sheryl Crow! The latter was supposed to appear at a benefit concert to aid a Catholic hospital in the area. The archbishop, citing Crow's support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, protested and asked for her invitation to rescinded. The institution (SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center) refused and Burke resigned from the board of governors and issued a statement saying that:

"When, for economic gain, a Catholic institution associates itself with such a high profile proponent of the destruction of innocent lives, members of the Church and other people of good will have the right to be confirmed in their commitment to the Gospel of Life."

Burke clarified that his opposition was based not on Crow's personal beliefs, but on her public advocacy for these issues. First of all, calling it "economic gain" is callous. I believe the benefit was designed to raise money for sick children. If Burke really wanted to rail against immoral "economic gain", he could have a field day with the Bush administration's corruption...But I digress. So where to begin? For a start, this was a pretty stupid move. If the aim is to promote Catholic teaching on these topics, it clearly backfired. This kind of ham-fisted intervention just creates sympathy for Crow.

My main problem, though, is the inconsistency. Yet again, we have criticism of a public figure (I suppose an entertainer qualifies as a public figure!) based on opposition to selective moral principles, in this case, abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. Of course, one could argue that, unlike issues like tax policy and poverty, there is no room for diversity of opinion among Catholics. They are wrong in their object, irrespective of intent or circumstance. But as I've said over and over and over and over, so are many other issues. The illicitness of using nuclear weapons is non-negotiable, but would Burke call for a boycott of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly for saying things like the "atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God" (see here for the story and argument). And what about torture? So many public officials and backers of the Bush administration today defend torture on consequentialist grounds. Would Burke issue a blanket ban? And remember before Northern Ireland peace process when Sinn Fein still supported horrendously-evil terrorist acts, and were still invited to march in the New York St. Patrick's Day parade, right past the cathedral? Were was the outrage then?

To be consistent, the Church would be shunning a lot of people! But here's the rub: it should not be making these kind of personal attacks in the first place. Yes, the Church needs to speak clearly and not to compromise on its moral teachings, but it needs to do so in a consistent manner. Its main selling point is that it offers a consistent ethic of life that transcends secular categories of "liberal" and "conservative". The key is to persuade, and nobody who is inconsistent can persuade. It needs to persuade those who today are not persuaded. It benefits nobody to preach to the choir, making a bunch of conservatives feel good about themselves. Instead, the Church needs to challenge secular humanists to recognize the virtue of the consistent ethic of life, the seamless garment. Cherrypicking the issues simply won't wash.

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?