Cahiers Péguy

Harry Wu: Laogai, the Chinese Labor Camps

2009-08-23T15:23:00.000-07:00

Rimini TV: Harry Wu with John Waters

Laogai Museum in Washington, DC.

Harry Wu at Wikipedia

“Perez… that’s a very hot topic in our country right now” and ...

2009-04-20T15:42:00.000-07:00

I have not watched a beauty pageant since I was around 7 years-old, when the Miss America Pageant was 1970s “must see T.V.” I certainly do not plan to start watching pageants now. Since it was all over the news this morning, I can’t help but laud Miss U.S.A. contestant, Carrie Prejean, a.k.a. Miss California, who, when asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton, whether she thought every state should follow Vermont and the three other states that have given legal recognition to same-sex marriage, responded: "Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you."

It was not enough to ask a baiting question and accept the answer given, Mr. Perez, who is a well-known and very vocal advocate for same-sex marriage, lambasted Prejean after the contest, saying that her answer was "the worst answer in pageant history." Why? One can only surmise that it is because she neither came out in favour of same-sex marriage, nor did she choose to be "diplomatic" and avoid answering the question directly. Isn’t this a bit like seating a V.P. of Citibank as a pageant judge and her asking contestants what they thought about Hank Paulson’s TARP legislation? In fact, it was a question about bank bailouts that Prejean’s competitor, Kristin Dalton, Miss North Carolina, who went on to be named Miss U.S.A., was asked, but not by a bank vice-president.

Being a generous man, Mr. Hilton went so far, after the pageant, to suggest an answer he would not have found offensive: "Perez, that’s a great question and that’s a very hot topic in our country right now. I think it’s a question that each state should answer for themselves because that’s our forefathers designed our government. The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal." Looking back at Carrie Prejean’s answer, I think she did state what Hilton suggested as regards what it means to live in a constitutional democracy, like the U.S. Her apparent misstep was answering his question in its entirety, a question that asked what she thought about the matter.

It is also important to note that her opinion is the opinion of a majority of Californians who went to the polls last November and democratically rejected giving legal status to same sex marriage, thus popularly overturning an edict by the California Supreme Court. It may bear reminding Mr. Hilton that the only state that recognizes same-sex marriage that has done so by anything like a democratic process (i.e., not by judicial fiat) is Vermont. In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa it is something imposed by state supreme courts. Further, wherever same-sex marriage has appeared as a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, including California (and Utah), it has passed, the California vote being far and away the closest, though Colorado and Arizona passed marriage amendments with majorities of 55% and 56% respectively. I will concede that while Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriage as the result of a state Supreme Court ruling, subsequent attempts to amend the state constitution have been defeated in the legislature. New Jersey and New Hampshire both have civil partnership laws, like Vermont did prior to the recent vote to override the governor’s veto of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Sadly, Hilton was not able to limit himself to dismissing her answer with prejudice. Posting a video blog he went on to call her " dumb bitch." I would expect to see feminists take issue with a gay man calling a woman a dumb bitch, just as people did when Isiah Thomas, defending himself in a sexual harassment lawsuit, claimed that it was alright for an African American man to call an African American woman a bitch, but it was not alright for a white man. Just to be clear, it is not okay for a man of any colour or sexual orientation to conduct himself in such a reprehensible manner, especially under these circumstances, in which she was merely giving an honest answer to a question he asked!

It is true that her answer likely cost her title Miss U.S.A., but that is a small price to pay for maintaining her integrity. Perhaps Perez Hilton should just stick to asking himself questions, that way he’ll always get the answer for which is looking.

I think this event is very instructive regarding the current cultural circumstance in which we find ourselves. The question for us, attending to the totality of its factors, how do we live this reality, how do we give witness to Christ in this reality? Part of the answer lies in giving honest answers to questions, questions that are ultimately about meaning and purpose, our meaning and purpose, even in the face derision and hostility.

While I am at it, note to Janeane Garofalo: just as it was not inherently un-patriotic to criticize Pres. Bush, it is not inherently racist to criticize Pres. Obama.

Being always aware of the One whose witnesses we are

2009-04-17T16:56:00.000-07:00

It is not a question as to whether we should be reduced to practicing our faith in private or giving public witness. Without a doubt, we are to give public witness to the truth, whether it be about the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, or about the nature of marriage. So, it becomes about the nature of our public witness. This gets back to something I posted not long ago, namely an observation by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "that for conservatives it is axiomatic 'that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society.' As one might suspect, it is an atomic truth of liberalism that politics is more fundamental and important to society than culture."

The reaction of many to the two recent dust-ups involving President Obama and Catholic institutions do nothing but prove the thesis I set forth in my earlier post, namely that in the U.S. almost everyone is liberal because we look to politics and/or political solutions, that is, power plays and assertions of will, to solve every problem. By doing this, we expend resources, effort, and energy that are better spent building up culture through education and other means. Reacting to circumstnaces in this way leads to a reduction of faith, which is a reduction of ourselves and others.

Let's take another controversy as instructive of what it means to start from a positive hypothesis: the Holy Father's assertion that the way to prevent the further spread of HIV in Africa is not by distributing condoms, but by rehumanizing sexuality. This is not a political assertion, though it is one in conformity with the epidemiological facts. Hence, it is not an ideology, an assertion of what the church teaches against a reality that contradicts it. Rather, he begins by recognizing the humanity of the people of Africa, the fact that the human person is a direct relationship with the mystery, and by recognizing sexuality as an authentic part of being human. You become ideological when your abstractions and theories discount and reduce the humanity of others because you are asserting yourself against the fact that constitutes reality.

As Rose wisely observed: "Let us start from the fact that we need to be educated, even in living sexuality. But education primarily concerns the discovery of self: the person who is conscious of himself. He knows that he has a value that is greater than everything. Without the discovery of this value - for themselves and others - there is nothing to hold." Hence, to begin, as those who think the distribution of condoms is either the only way, or merely the primary way, of combating the spread of this deadly virus, from a negative hypothesis- that people in Africa, or anywhere, like teenagers in high school, will inevitably behave in a sexually irresponsible manner is dehumanizing. As the Holy Father said, the rehumanization of sexuality consists of "bringing a new way of behaving towards one another." As Carlo put it in a title to his post on Paper Clippings, it is a matter of putting education over mechanics.

This is the kind of witness we are called to give. Somehow I do not think shouting, marching, carrying banners, condemning to hell, etc. are ways to witness to Christ or to give witness to the sanctity of human life because they do not start from a positive hypothesis, but a negative one and are ideological expressions. It is a way to further polarize, a polarization that not only pits the church against the world, but members of the church against each other.

Is there nothing we can do? I remember Fr. Trento's declining to be made a Knight of the Order of the Star of Solidarity of the Republic of Italy, due to the government's refusal to intercede on behalf of Eluana Englaro. Why? Because it contradicted his solidarity with those whom he serves. After receiving it, he quietly returned it on his own to the Italian embassy in Paraguay, the country in which he lives and ministers. He did not call a press conference, or organize a demonstration, he did not angrily denounce or condemn anyone, he merely pointed out the contradiction of honoring someone who has devoted his life to serving many people in the same situation as Eluana. He then went back to his ministry, where he remains giving witness to the One whose presence "is the only fact that can give meaning to pain and to injustice."

A Catholic University?

2009-04-06T06:20:00.000-07:00

I have been following the events at Notre Dame with great curiosity, and when I read what Sharon blogged (she has links to everyone else, so just read what she wrote and follow her links) on the subject, I sensed an invitation in her post. So, here I am!

Every time I began to think about the president's invitation to speak at (and to receive an honorary degree from) Notre Dame, a conversation I once overheard would run through my mind. A Catholic philosopher who was teaching at the University of Chicago was speaking to the dean of one of the colleges that is considered more orthodox and serious about its Catholic identity. The philosopher observed that he could always tell which of his students were either Catholic or Jewish from the rest of the students. The dean asked him how he could tell, and the philosopher replied, "The Catholic and Jewish students all have a sense that there are other countries in the world, that people speak other languages, that in the past there were people, people who came from cultures very different from our own, who thought great things and whose works are worthy of examination." The dean seemed bemused and then said, "Well, we know our students are Catholic because daily Mass on campus is packed with students, because they often gather together to pray the rosary, and because a majority of them major in theology, and because they engage in a multitude of pro-life activities." And that was the end of the conversation.

I think that Stephen (not my husband, but a good friend) is right that the people who now decry Notre Dame's invitation to President Obame are (more or less) the same people who have been suspicious of Notre Dame's claim to being a truly Catholic institution. It seems that this controversy provides them with a litmus test -- to judge just how "Catholic" Notre Dame is. Will Notre Dame waver under the barage of email, phone messages and letters of protest, or will she remain "Catholic in name only"?

The question about what makes a University Catholic and what makes its students Catholic seems to be the unspoken heart of the whole brouhaha. There is enormous pressure on the students to "prove" their Catholicism by protesting or even boycotting their graduation ceremony.

What troubles me is that this drive to reject a man (who is after all, our president) seems neither human nor Christian. Many of the children in my atrium pray for President Obama that he may be a good president and make good decisions. A few pray that he will stop killing babies. Both prayers indicate a commitment toward his person, toward his humanity, I think. These prayers imply a relationsionship with the man. If we want these things for him, for his ultimate good, then we must spend time with the man. Jesus spent more time with Pharisees than he did even with the poor and the lame -- at least, his conversations with the Pharisees use much more ink in the Bible. Why? Why did he spend time with them? Why did he pray with them, witness to them? Why did he forgive them from the Cross?

As Catholics, we should think hard about how we approach those who come from other worlds, who speak another language. God has placed this president in our lives for a reason. He exists and leads us for our good, to lead us to Christian maturity (as Sharon so beautifully points out). We should spend some time thinking about what is best for him, how we might help him "to be a good president and make good decisions."

Cross posted at Come to See.

Catholic Senators Vote Against Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Workers

2009-04-04T06:32:00.000-07:00

Troubling news comes from CNA about a majority of Catholic senators voting against a conscience protection amendment yesterday that keeps health care workers from being forced to participate in abortion-related and other morally objectionable services.

Senator Tom Colburn’s amendment states, "To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions."

The amendment was voted down by a margin of 41-56, in which a majority of Catholic Senators voted against the amendment 9-16. The failure to pass this legislation now leaves the door open for the Obama Administration to rescind the law by executive order and force health workers to compromise their moral convictions.

A good number of senators voted in favor of this amendment suggesting it was a reasonable amendment. It wasn't a matter of restricting abortion but of protecting freedom of conscience, not for some obscure cultish scruple, but in a hotly contested moral arena. This is after Cardinal George's very public appeal to Catholics to advocate for these conscience protection rules.

It is becoming more evident that the Church is the main defenders not only of life, but of freedom.

Culture and Identity in the Current Crisis

2009-04-01T23:15:00.000-07:00

Now I'll be almost the last to weigh in on the Notre Dame controversy, except for perhaps Suzanne (unless I've forgotten). Here's Stephen, Fred, and Deacon Scott as well as a more general observation which I thought pertinent from Conjectures, a quote from Bishop Blase Cupich of South Dakota who warned his fellow bishops that “prophecy of denunciation quickly wears thin.” I'll post here in case we take it up together since for some reason it just won't die.

I'm also (like Stephen) not shocked or particularly surprised by Notre Dame's decision. I've both attended and taught at mainstream Catholic colleges. I'm mildly curious about why Bill Clinton isn't on the list of presidents who received this honor (was he asked? did he refuse?). It would be more useful, in my opinion, to put resources to fighting the erosion of conscience protections for health care workers than to fight this battle.

Some years ago at the national diakonia in Chicago, we heard Cardinal George speak about the original immigrant culture of Catholics which really never took root in the American culture. It has been a while, so I may be overstating this observation, or not. Instead Catholics after some generations assimilated to the culture. You can find some of this thought of his in an interview with John Allen, where he said:

[W]e created alternatives to the mainstream institutions. They were never, I think, ghetto institutions, because they prepared people to take their place in mainstream society. They didn’t try to cut them off from it, but to prepare people to take their place in the mainstream precisely as Catholics. Once they succeeded, then the value of those very institutions seemed to be lessened, and the institutions themselves said it’s important for us to be mainstream, and to no longer be so identifiably Catholic. So they’re porous in ways that they weren’t before....

Notre Dame, perhaps the most prestigious Catholic institution in the country, is an example of this ambiguity, at least in respect to the current controversy. It's certainly not true of the entire institution, as witnessed by various friends of mine. Note that the response to such ambiguity often has been to again set up alternate institutions, separate and culturally apart. This counter-culture is robust, though we may wonder how significantly it leavens the common culture.

What bothers me most about the current debate is the painful public lack of unity which is probably not helped by the Catholic blogosphere. Tangentially, there was the set-up with Archbishop Burke which was part of a lay campaign to remove bishops who were not aggressive enough in denying communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians. That most saddens me, some of our finest pastors, denounced for their own pastoral approach.

The entire situation we find ourselves in today, since the November election, reminds me of the 1968 crisis Fr. Giussani spoke about in 1972 in his talk "The Long March to Maturity". Perhaps the crisis itself was quite different, but the challenge of our response is really the same.

Perhaps it is useful to remember that in the life of those He calls, God never lets anything happen unless it serves for the growth and maturation of those He has called.

This is so above all for the life of the individual, but in the final analysis, and more profoundly, for the life of His Church, and therefore, analogously, for the life of every community, be it a family or an ecclesiastical community in the broadest sense. God never permits anything to happen unless it is for our maturity, our maturation...

This, we can say, is the indicator of our faith’s truth, its authenticity or lack thereof: if the faith is truly in the foreground, or if in the foreground there is another kind of concern; if we truly expect everything from the fact of Christ, or if we expect from the fact of Christ what we decide to expect, ultimately making Him a starting point and a support for our projects and programs.

Now look at Fr. Giussani's judgment of the "Reduction of the Christian Fact", which could not sum up better the risk we take right now in our political *reactions*. A campaign even for a good cause becomes an ideology. As if solving the political problem would conquer the evil.

What were the consequences identifiable in the attitude assumed by this large sector of the Movement in the era we are commenting on?

a) First, as it says on the sheet: “An efficientistic conception of Christian commitment, with accentuations of moralism.” Not accentuations–with wholesale reduction to moralism! Why should anyone remain Christian? Because Christianity pushes you to action, presses you to commitment, no other reason! It’s like a father and mother who tell you, “Come on, you have to do this!” and then they leave you alone to do it yourself, as if they weren’t there. (Instead, Jesus says, “I will be with you to the end of time.”) This is a concept of incarnation in which the Christian is truly cut in half, cloven in two. And from the contingent, historic point of view, Christians still have the right to remain in the world only to the degree in which they throw themselves into worldly action: it’s ethical Christianity, that is, Christian ethics, Christian behavior, which means being Christian in the world identified with worldly commitment....

b) Second consequence (and this is the gravest thing): the incapacity to “culturalize” the discourse, to bring one’s Christian experience to the level in which it becomes systematic and critical judgment, and thus a prompt for a modality of action. It’s the Christian experience blocked in its potential for impact on the world, because an experience impacts the world only to the degree to which it reaches a cultural expression (which doesn’t mean only to the degree to which it reaches the university–this has nothing to do with it!). Cultural expression means judgment, capacity for systematic and critical judgment of the world, of worldliness, of the historic circumstance, and thus it becomes a suggestion for a modality of program and of action.

Experience that doesn’t reach this point has no face, lacks a face in history; it has no face and therefore can subsist for a long time in “pre-historic” eras, but to the degree to which the relationships in society, in human life become denser, press against that experience, it disappears, because it’s alienated in the pressures of the environment. ...

Our experience disappears. How tragic.

So how do we respond? What kind of campaign should we raise?

I remember being so struck by this text by Fr. Giussani when I first read it as another way to proceed: this method, which is following, obedience, something far more solid than my own presumption.

In any case, the methodology is faithfulness to experience. I don’t know whether anyone here has remembered in this moment what it says in the premise: that Christianity spreads in the world not because of our work, but by the grace of God. So then, leaving behind our immaturity, becoming mature, is a grace of the Spirit within us. Let’s keep reminding each other! The Holy Spirit descended where they were gathered together in the Cenacle, where they were all gathered together. The Holy Spirit descends upon our communion. Therefore, for example, a “settlement” is an outcome of cultural expression, but before being an outcome of cultural expression, at least as a tendency, it’s the premise for cultural expression. In fact, our maturity is expressed in our passionate desire that the Church of God live visibly here where we are, in our striving that it be lived here, and therefore that Christian communion be built here and wherever we are, so that this “new person,” this “one body” as Saint Paul says–“in which there is neither man nor woman, neither Greek nor barbarian, neither left nor right” (“All of you are one, one person in Jesus Christ”)–may bring good to the neighborhood, university, work, parish… bring good to the world, as an incarnate presence, incarnate!

But the logic of the incarnation, that is, the logic of mission, happens entirely in us, because the incarnation in the world, in the sense of interest in and help for the world’s problems, of real collaboration in the world’s struggle for authenticity, is only a ray of light, only an inevitable consequence of those problems, of the world’s needs, of flesh and blood, of the world, of life lived as Christian community, converted, translated in terms of faith. Incarnation doesn’t mean getting involved in the labor union, the factory, or university. Incarnation, that is, mission, is living the university, the factory, etc., as communion. It doesn’t mean getting involved in this or that cultural or practical or socio-political problem, but living our whole humanity as communion.

I remember once, in a time of great trial, when we were living hard things faithfully and enduring the lack of understanding of others, thinking that "living well is the best revenge". We were certain that all would be well if we held onto the One we trust. How many psalms state just this in every situation of threat, injustice and untruth.

The only way, it seems, is to live this communion in the place where Christ is present, this living experience. However awkward, rough, we hold to this communion which is home to this life-giving experience, a house with a necessary human structure. It isn't for us to save the world, but to witness by our unity to One who is saving all.

A bit of a rant

2009-03-31T16:26:00.000-07:00

Is there some course offered at exclusive country clubs about how, if you are wealthy, you don't have to pay all of your taxes? I mean Geithner, Daschle, Sebelius! So, you want to tackle the details that will lead to the long overdue and total transformation of our financial regulatory system, or even the more difficult and detailed analysis required to reform health care, but you either cannot master the IRS tax code as it pertains to personal income tax or even find an accountant who can? I realize that a post like this is a little out of skew and dramatically over-simplifies things, but come on!

How 'bout that Obama vetting team? I guess finding people who are are not tax cheats is pretty hard, which explains why all but one (the secretary) of the 23 Treasury positions that require Senate confirmation are filled. The president has only nominated two (besides the Secretary) to fill these positions. Among the many priorities we should have, perhaps simplifying the tax code should be added in somewhere.

Culture, politics, and society

2009-03-30T17:52:00.000-07:00

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed that for conservatives it is axiomatic "that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society." As one might suspect, it is an atomic truth of liberalism that politics is more fundamental and important to society than culture. The worst outcome, that which began in the late 1960s, is the politicization of culture; culture co-opted in the service of politics. I think this distinction helps because it shows how deeply-rooted liberalism is in the U.S. and why there is a persistent attempt to banish religion from the public square. Questions about what such a conservative view would mean for our initial decision to invade Iraq in the first place aside, how many times have we heard that in Iraq what we need is a political, not a military, solution? Have you ever heard that what we need is cultural solution? No! Why? Because religion, which is the foundation of culture, is seen as the obstacle to unifying and sustaining society. Nonetheless, we must ask, despite being the only predominantly Arab country with a Shi'a majority, how many Iraqis, especially leaders, actually listen to the Grand Ayatollah Sistani? Let me answer that one too- Not many!

Too often the trouble with religion is that religious leaders and people become liberal in the sense that they begin to seek salvation through politics. The Holy Father understands the priority of culture and how human culture, especially high culture, is not really possible without religion. He also sees the necessary link between Christianity and the advancement of western culture. Stated simply, the loss of faith leads to the coarsening and ultimate demise of culture. Msgr. Giussani also understood this very deeply and sought to communicate this in everything he taught. It is important that those of us who share Giussani's charism listen and learn, both from Giussani and the Holy Father, as well to and from Fr. Carrón.

Factoring in Bill O'Reilly

2009-03-30T07:30:00.001-07:00

I am not a big fan of the cable news shout fests, like The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann's program. Once in a while, via the constant news feed at work, when I am there in the early evening, I'll catch a few minutes of one of these programs. However, I do think that these folks perform a service, the kind of service Jon Stewart was urging Jim Cramer to perform in his now famous Daily Show interview. This service consists of asking the tough questions that we all want to ask and pressing interviewees hard for answers, not letting them off the hook in the easy manner in which they are let off on, say, ABC's This Week, and other more convivial shows.

I have to admit that at least Bill O'Reilly has a sense of humor about himself and appears on The Colbert Report, on which he is known as Papa Bear, and has also appeared on the Daily Show. Even though he and Jon Stewart could not have a more different political frame of reference, I think Stewart respects O'Reilly, at least as much as he respects anyone, though not to the point of not criticizing him, as when he lambasted O'Reilly's two-faced take on women running for high political office, depending on whether he was talking about Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin.

For some odd reason, I linked to an interview with O'Reilly off the Yahoo home page this morning because I really had to find out who the actor was that O'Reilly would not even go see his movies- Sean Penn. I actually found the interview interesting and O'Reilly's answers to be refreshingly straightforward and candid. He has a lot of very complimentary things to say about a lot people. It was nice to read about this side of a guy whose on-air persona is gruff and often angry. On his Hollywood A-List? Clint Eastwood. His favorite Eastwood film? Unforgiven. I can't fault him for taste on that!

The part of the interview I liked the most and to which I found myself saying Yeah! to was this:

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WHY ARE ACTORS SUCH FREQUENT TARGETS OF "THE FACTOR"?

O'Reilly: My job is to watch the powerful. A performer has a forum that other people do not, and all we ask is that they be fair. If they believe something and use their TV show, movie or concert to spout off about it, that's fine. But if we have some questions about their beliefs, I think they should answer them -- and not be drive-by people.

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WHO ARE THESE DRIVE-BY PEOPLE YOU SPEAK OF?

O'Reilly: I take it case by case. We took on George Clooney over the 9/11 charities, and we were absolutely right, but Clooney does a good job with Darfur. We took on Bruce Springsteen for things he has done at concerts because we want to know what his frame of reference is. These are powerful people, and we're not going to give them a free ride. If there was somebody screaming right-wing stuff, we'd do the same thing. But there is no one like that because if they do that in Hollywood, they're not going to work, which is an interesting story in and of itself.

After all, how many drive-by attacks has the Holy Father endured both with regard to his largely misunderstand and misinterpreted lifting of the SSPX excommunications and his all too accurate statement that condoms are not the answer to HIV/AIDs in Africa?

The one year anniversary of the YFZ raid

2009-03-27T10:04:00.000-07:00

Looking back at yesterday's post on my blog, today marks the one year anniversary of the raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas. You know what is really weird? I have twice spent the better part of a year in San Angelo, Texas!

"In sermons and school lessons," writes Brooke Adams in today's SL Trib, "the FLDS have kept alive eight decades of efforts to wipe out their polygamous lifestyle -- most notably, the 1953 raid on Short Creek, their traditional home base at the Utah-Arizona border. Authorities kept 263 women and children in state custody for two years. The raid led the sect to close ranks -- a decision that contributed to what happened in Texas 55 years later." She then goes on to quote Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, whose statement is as notable for what he does not say as for what he does: "One good thing is it sent a message to [sect leader] Warren Jeffs, or anyone of his ilk, that they can't go somewhere else to perform underage marriages, even though they went to extraordinary lengths to have it be private on the ranch." Note that he is not so concerned about polygamy per se, which is forbidden by the Utah State Constitution, but only with underage shenanigans. Now, if one has to prioritize, sparing young girls the tribulation of being forced to be a plural wife at an age younger than the law permits anyone to enter into a marriage is a higher priority. Do not for one minute think that he has no sympathy for polygamists. After all, it is Shurtleff who said,

FLDS Temple at the YFZ Ranch
"Polygamy is illegal in Utah and forbidden by the Arizona constitution. However, law enforcement agencies in both states have decided to focus on crimes within polygamous communities that involve child abuse, domestic violence and fraud. The Utah Attorney General's Office and the Arizona Attorney General's Office also worked together [with polygamy advocates] to produce 'The Primer -- Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities.' This manual provides basic information about various communities that will assist human services professionals, law enforcement officers and others in helping victims from these communities. The Primer will be updated regularly to reflect modifications in the law and changes in each organization's beliefs and practices . . ."
I am not entirely unsympathetic with such an approach to law enforcement, but the idea that these communities can in any wise be trusted to police themselves and cooperate honestly with authorities, given their histories, strikes me as being more than a tad too optimistic.

Mike Leavitt, who served in the Bush Administration as EPA Administrator and then as Secretary of Health and Human Services, while serving as governor of Utah, once called for the repeal of state laws against polygamy and for an end to laws against polygamy being enforced, not only in Utah, but other states, too, because he thought the practice fell under the protection of the first amendment, despite the fact that the constitution of his state, which he took an oath defend, has to say on the matter. The Utah constitution makes polygamy a third-degree felony, although enforcement of laws banning it have not been high on the law enforcement or legal agenda since the 1953 raid. Of course, he corrected himself a few days later by saying that it is difficult to impossible to enforce laws against it because of the manner in which it is practiced. This last statement is no doubt true, but do not be fooled into thinking that he, Shurtleff, and others state leaders have problems in principle with the practice of polygamy. Why? Doctrine & Covenants Section 132, which states:

"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. "

The LDS believe that these are words of the Lord spoken directly to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. Hence, for the LDS faithful, these words remain divine revelation, an unambiguous expression of God's will.

And on it goes...

2009-03-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

IN the interests of fairness, I offer Jake DeSantis' letter of resignation to AIG, which the NY Times published as an Op-ed piece. Dear A.I.G., I Quit!, which reads in part:

"After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

"I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down"

The on-going immorality

2009-03-15T17:11:00.000-07:00

You've presided over the biggest corporate failure in history and help oversee a company that is a financial blackhole so large that $170 billion of tax payer money has not yet been able to fill it. Yet, unlike Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns, but like Hank Paulson's own beloved Goldman Sachs and Citibank, you have been deemed to be too big to fail. So, what do you deserve? Your super-sized welfare payment, of course! That is why A.I.G., despite being on federally funded life-support, is doling out $165 million to their clueless, slack-jawed executives who did their part to guarantee the demise of our financial system.

I think it only fair that you are rewarded for your monumental effort that led to losing $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. A loss like that, which is the biggest in corporate history, certainly deserves a reward. It could've been worse, the fourth quarter loss could've been $61.8 billion, or $61.865 billion, thus recouping the amount their bonuses. Hey, I am a coffer's-not-as-empty-as-it-could- be kinda guy!

While there is much that is very fundamental about which I disagree with Jon Stewart, he was spot-on in his interview with Jim Cramer. Here is the three part, unedited, interview:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts, but he and his wife are still worth over $800 million. What really infuriates me is that he is under no obligation to talk or disclose anything. Stewart's take away quote is worth taking to heart: "When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work?"

A shrewd observation

2009-03-05T11:57:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I was reading an address by philosopher Peter Van Inwagen entitled Quam Dilecta. It is a very good and accessible description of faith and reason and how they work together in the life of this prominent philosopher. In the course of the biographical portion of his address, he discusses his belonging to the Episcopal Church and how his belonging illustrates "Robert Conquest's Second Law: Every organization appears to be headed by secret agents of its opponents."

Of course, my purpose for citing this is that it is a universal law, not limited to Episcopalians.

Abortion as International Aid

2009-01-25T03:08:00.000-08:00

As expected, President Obama, in the first three days of office, reversed the Mexico City Policy which banned funding for NGOs that provide for and advocate abortion. Although he signed the executive order late Friday, and not on the day of the March for Life, this is no reason for reassurance, as Deacon Scott Dodge points out.

Well, it looked a lot like politics as usual today with President Obama's signing of an Executive Order that reversed what is known as the Mexico City Policy. It is called this because President Reagan announced it in a speech he gave in 1984 at the U.N. International Conference on Population held in Mexico City. The Mexico City policy stipulates that no monies given by the U.S. government to foreign NGOs can be used to fund abortions or abortion-related services. The rule also prevents foreign NGOs that receive U.S. money from presenting abortion as a possibility to the women they seek to serve. Hence, the policy is known by proponents of abortion-on-demand as "the global gag rule".

It is important to point out that the policy does not extend to NGOs based in the United States because such a denial has been determined to be unconstitutional. The Mexico City policy was in force from 1984 until the first few days of the first Clinton Administration, when then-President Clinton overturned it by another Executive Order issued on 22 January 1993, the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's unfortunate Roe vs. Wade decision. The Mexico City policy was once again put into effect with yet another Executive Order signed by Pres. Bush on 22 January 2001.

I gave a hearty guffaw to the idea put forward by a reporter for NPR, which she no doubt received from the White House Press Office, that by not reversing the Mexico City policy on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, Pres. Obama sought to de-politicize the issue. Wow! That is spin at its worst and least creative and most disingenuous. I agree with Ashley Horne from Focus on the Family that it is not possible to "reduce abortions by channelling more money to the abortion industry". What do we offer the world? Abortion on demand! Who does this offend? All traditional cultures. The gap widens. Besides, the right to life is not a political issue, it is not an ethical issue, it is a fundamental moral issue.

What it means is that the NGOs which promote the dignity of the person will be replaced by those advocating for (e.g. asserting political pressure) and providing abortion services as a means of relieving poverty in the world. Obama stated: "For the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries... For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.”

Additionally, the President apparently intends to fund the U.N. Population Fund. Jack Smith at the Catholic Key blog explains:

Appended to the president's action was a notice in which he said:
In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.
This action could be even more monstrous than the reversal of the Mexico City Policy. The U.S. government ceased funding the UNFPA after independent investigations found the agency complicit in China's coercive one-child policy - coercion that includes forced abortions.

Following the State Department's own 2002 investigation, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote a letter to Congress saying, "UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion."

Cardinal George had previously urged President Obama to keep the policy intact out of respect for life and for other cultures:

The Mexico City Policy, first established in 1984, has wrongly been attacked as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. In fact, it has not reduced such aid at all, but has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased, the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect.

Mortgaging our future

2009-01-24T09:55:00.000-08:00

In an article written for the Wall Street Journal entitled The World Won't Buy Unlimited U.S. Debt: We're asking others to sacrifice for our 'stimulus', Peter Schiff ponders our immediate and intermediate economic future. In the process of doing so he gives a very straightforward and realistic analysis of the proposals on offer from the Obama Administration. The sad thing is that there is no change here and without change there can be little hope that we will fix what is fundamentally wrong with our economy, which flows from what is wrong with us. The economy is not something apart from us.

I tackled one aspect of Schiff's analysis in a post on my blog, Καθολικός διάκονος, entitled What sacrifice? I tackled another issue in a previous post here on Cahiers back in November, Debt. This is a point that is rarely addressed, it was not even addressed by either economist who participated in the panel discussion that comprised part of the New York Encounter that was, in turn, part of our National Diakonia last weekend, Finance and the Economy at a New Crossroads: Different Models or a Different Vision. This discussion, with the exception of Prof. Freeman's refreshing presentation, was exclusively about new models and who is to blame, but there was no new vision on offer, just as there is no new vision on offer in Washington, despite the change of administrations. What the economists almost completely ignored is the fundamental fact that the economy exists for the human person and not the human person for the economy. Due to the inevitable human factor involved, economies do not follow laws as in physics.

The discussion was also disappointing because not one panelist addressed the crisis wrought by the irresponsibility of financial institutions in light of what we should have learned from the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s, which demonstrated both the need for an updated regulatory regime and that de-regulation was a bad idea. In other words, we spent a few hours pretending that nobody could've seen this coming. Well, the truth of the matter is that plenty of people saw this train wreck coming, it's just that their opinions did not matter because they were not part of the revolving door, Ivy League elite. The same elite whose education, as was observed months ago on Paper Clippings, consists almost exclusively of "empirically-oriented knowledge directed at problem solving," to the neglect of "philosophy," which entails "grappling in a systematic fashion with questions of truth and meaning".

Anyway, this quote from Schiff gets to the heart of the matter, which our economic and political elites continue to evade for reasons of personal gain and political expediency:

"The root problem is not that America may have difficulty borrowing enough from abroad to maintain our GDP, but that our economy was too large in the first place. America's GDP is composed of more than 70% consumer spending. For many years, much of that spending has been a function of voracious consumer borrowing through home equity extractions (averaging more than $850 billion annually in 2005 and 2006, according to the Federal Reserve) and rapid expansion of credit card and other consumer debt. Now that credit is scarce, it is inevitable that GDP will fall."

It should be shocking to us all that 70% of our Gross Domestic Product is consumer spending and not only consumer spending, but spending that depends almost wholly on consumer borrowing, to include draining the equity out of our homes. To use an old observation, the chickens have come home to roost. This state-of-affairs has proven to be unsustainable. Hence, we cannot seek to replicate it moving forward. This seems like a common sense observation, but that is exactly what is on offer, more of the same. At least it will continue to be a bi-partisan effort. I read a book quite a few years ago, the thesis of which strikes me as more relevant now than when it was published, Pete Peterson's Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It.

Schiff observes that we will no longer be able, as less than 5% of the world's population, to account for 25%of global GDP. You know what? This contraction, while somewhat painful, is a necessary correction not only for economy, but for our humanity. This is the truth of the matter. Stated simply, hope for a better economic future cannot be realized if we fail to address this truth, this fact, verified by the reality we are experiencing. There is no hope in falsehood. President Obama was correct in his inaugural address, we must put away childish things.

Medaille on Republicans and the Economy

2008-12-27T05:08:00.001-08:00

John Médaille at The Distributist Review has a thoughtful piece on the question of what the Republican party stands for and where the conservatives are.

So what is wrong with the Republican Party? Let me suggest that the problem is that they have no idea of what they ought to conserve; they have no idea of what constitutes liberty. Indeed, the only common theme among the factions is economic, and in that what they are trying to conserve is economic liberalism, the doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism. They have forgotten that this was the very doctrine that destroyed conservatism in the 19th century, and while it is now over 200 years old, it will never be conservative.

What conservatism ought to conserve is the proper scale of things; government at its lowest possible level, strong families as the foundation of society, small manufacturing, small farms, strong communities. Low taxes, to be sure, but taxes commensurate with the tasks we ask government to perform. We know that the key to lowering taxes is to localize government as much as possible and reduce its scale. But you cannot have localized governments in the face of commercial institutions that are bigger than most states—indeed, bigger than most nations. These institutions declare themselves “too big to fail,” when in truth they are too big to succeed without massive government support. Republicans since Reagan have tried to grow government, shrink taxes, and deregulate everything. Alas, they have been all too successful.

Distributists know that the key to shrinking government and ending oppressive taxation is to shrink the need for government. Great and global institutions require big government and large military and regulatory apparatuses. And these require big taxes. And while they create great wealth, for some, they create great dependency for the mass of men, a dependency that expresses itself as the welfare state. The small farm is better for food, but it is also better for community; the small manufacturer, tied by bonds of economy and affection to his locality is the basis of a sane economy

Conservatives are out there; they're just not represented by a political party at the present time.

But because America has no conservative party does not mean she has no conservatives. Indeed, The left wing is scratching its head over the fact that the Black Obama voters in California voted solidly for a ban on gay marriage. At heart, America is a conservative country, not only in the South and Midwest, but in the Northeast, Northwest, and even in the great cities that are regarded as the strongholds of liberalism. Indeed, much of the new liberalism today involves a certain nostalgia for the land, for the community, and for a more human scale to the economy and to politics. It is a natural conservatism that spans race and age and gender. Indeed, the newcomers are more authentically conservative than many of the older population. But American conservatism lacks any real institutional support, and any real ideology. It picks up what older liberals have discarded and calls it conservative, and then is very surprised when it turns out liberal.

The economic crisis may be the opportunity for recovering a more healthy social and economic model, if the recovery plan assists local economies rather than enabling the failures of supersized institutions. And the Republican party's defeat can be the occasion for a new direction, if it doesn't continue to favor large corporate interests and discredited economic theories.

The Meaning of Christmas in a Post-Christian World

2008-12-26T08:45:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Ross Douthat decided to respond to Christopher Hitchens' bah-humbug Christmas taunt. First a slice of Hitchens:

... Suppose we put the question like this: Imagine that conclusive archaeological and textual evidence emerged to prove that the whole story of the birth, life, and death of Jesus of Nazareth was either a delusion or a fabrication? Suppose the mother had admitted shyly that, in fact, she had fallen pregnant for predictable reasons? Suppose we found the post-Calvary body?
Serious Christians, of the sort I have been debating lately, would have no choice but to consider such news as absolutely calamitous. The light of the world would have gone out; the hope of humanity would have been extinguished.... If all the official stories of monotheism, from Moses to Mormonism, were to be utterly and finally discredited, we would be exactly where we are now. All the agonizing questions that we face, from the idea of the good life and our duties to each other to the concept of justice and the enigma of existence itself, would be just as difficult and also just as fascinating.

Douthat disputes that claim by first deconstructing the ethical reduction of the Christian Gospel.

The Christian story is not, for instance, a theological or philosophical treatise. It's not a set of commands or insights about our moral duties. Nor is it a road map to the good life. It has implications for all of those questions, obviously; certainly, Jesus of Nazareth wasn't exactly silent on "the concept of justice" during his lifetime, and Christians have been deriving theologies, philosophies and codes of conduct from his example ever since. But fundamentally, the Christian story is evidence for a particular idea about the universe: It recounts a series of events that, if real, tells us something profound about the nature of God, and His relationship to His creatures, that we couldn't have been expected to understand or accept in precisely the same way without the Gospel narratives.

Douthat argues convincingly that atheists couldn't pose the question in quite the same way before the claim of the Incarnation. What kind of demand could we make on such a distant God?

Consider, for instance, the way in which the dominance of the Christian story has actually sharpened one of the best arrows in the anti-theist's quiver. In Western society, especially, the oft-heard claim that the world is too cruel a place for a good omnipotence to have created derives a great deal of its power, whether implicitly or explicitly, from the person of Christ himself. The God of the New Testament seems more immediate, more personal, and more invested in his creation than He had heretofore revealed Himself to be. But this arguably makes Him seem more culpable for the world's suffering as well. Paradoxically, the God who addresses Job out of the whirlwind is far less vulnerable to complaints about the world's injustice than the God who suffers on the Cross - or the human God who cries in the manger. For many Christians, Christ's suffering provides a partial answer to the problem of theodicy. But for many atheists and agnostics, it only sharpens the question: How can a God who loves mankind enough to die for us allow us to suffer as much as we do?

Whether or not this argument would convince Hitchens, it is a common fallacy to discount the social and historical influences on our thinking. Once in grad school, a fellow student absurdly claimed that if she had lived in the 16th century, she would have been a harlot, because she would not have been able to accept the constraints on women then.

For a glimpse of pre-Christian life, the miniseries Rome is enlightening, if we can't glean it from certain societies in our world today. We can fall back that far again, but it can never be as hopeless as before.

Christmas Message from Bethlehem

2008-12-25T04:07:00.000-08:00

From the Christmas Message 2008 By H.B. Fouad Twal
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem

Dear brothers and sisters,

With joy we would like to announce to you the desire of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, to visit the Holy Land, as a Pilgrim next May. The Supreme Pontiff, wishes to pray with us and for us, and to acquire a first hand knowledge, of the hard conditions of our region. We are confident in the Lord, that this pontifical pilgrimage and pastoral visit, will be a blessing for us all, as well as a substantial contribution, to a better understanding among the various nations of the region, lifting the barriers and helping solve the problems, removing distress and consolidating good relations among peoples, religions and denominations, in security and peace.

From Bethlehem, I call upon my Brothers the Bishops and other world religious Leaders, the religious Orders and Congregations, the Consecrated persons and all other people of good will, the Pilgrims and all those who love the Holy Land: please, remember Bethlehem and Jerusalem in your prayers! The Holy Land appeals to your conscience and entreats your support. Do not leave it alone in its distress. Assist it so that it might become and remain a land of love, peace, reconciliation and equality among all its children.

O Infant of Bethlehem, you who wanted to be born in silence and stillness, plant in our hearts a love for peace, justice and serenity! You, who have experienced poverty, wandering and fear, have pity on our poor, our wanderers, our prisoners and refugee camp dwellers!

O unlimited God who, in your incarnation, accepted to experience the limits of time and place: you knew the limits of place, by being born in a grotto and being compelled to escape and wander; you knew the limits of time, when you dwelt in the holy womb of the Virgin. You, who with your mother Mary and guardian Joseph were, in the Grotto, the model of refugees and rejected people, sanctify your- Country, so that your name be hallowed everywhere, and that we draw closer to You and to each other, under the hard circumstances ,in which we live.

O Infant of the Grotto, who rejected violence, homicide and hatred, you, whose Birth, divided History into two – the old and the new, before Christ and after Christ, expel war from your homeland, and bring an end to the destruction of its homes. Sow the seeds of brotherhood! Grant to the afflicted and the poor, hope and comfort! O You, the Poor, the Fugitive and the Persecuted One, look upon those who emigrated from Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and other suffering countries. May your Homeland ,be the Land of blessings and prosperity, where the followers of all religions meet in harmony, so that "no nation raises the sword against another." (Isaiah 2:4) May our faithful celebration of your Birth, be the birth of a new era of peace, stability and security, Amen!

+ Fouad Twal, Patriarch

Christmas and Hope, Julian Carron

2008-12-24T17:29:00.000-08:00

Christmas and Hope
Letter to the editor of the Italian Daily La Repubblica,
published December 23, 2008

Dear Sir,

I was struck by the readings that the Ambrosian Liturgy proposes for Monday if the third week of Advent. How must the members of the ancient people of Israel been disconcerted at the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “It will devour your harvests and your bread; it will devour your sons and daughters; it will devour your flocks and herds; it will devour the fortified cities in which you placed your trust” (Jer 5:17). He was telling them that another nation was going to conquer the kingdom in which they had put their trust. “Then, if they say: ‘Why has the Lord our God done these things?’, you will answer: ‘Just as you have abandoned the Lord and served foreign gods in your country, so will you serve foreigners in a country that is not yours’” (Jer 5:19).

It is as if this were said for us; today we see signs that make everyone afraid, it seems that what has supported our history is unable to withstand the test of our times: one day the economy, finance and work, the next day politics and the judiciary, then the family, the beginning of life and its natural end. So, like ancient Israel before a frightening situation, we, too, ask ourselves: “Why is all this happening?” It is because we, too, have been so presumptuous as to think that we can still get along after cutting the roots that supported the foundations of our civilization. In recent centuries, our culture has believed it could build a future for itself while abandoning God. Now we see where this presumption is leading us.

Now, what does the Lord do in the face of all we have brought upon ourselves? The prophet Zechariah tells us, speaking to his people Israel: “Look, I am going to send you my servant Branch” (Zc 3:8.). Notice the name. It is as if before the crisis of a world, our world – the prophets would describe it with an image dear to them, that of a dried-up trunk – a sign of hope were springing up. The enormity of a dried up trunk cannot prevent the sprouting of a humble, fragile branch in which lies the hope for the future.

But there is one drawback: we, too, when we see this branch appearing –like those before that child in Nazareth—can be scandalized and say: “How can something so ephemeral be the answer to our need for liberation?” Can salvation come from something so small as faith in Jesus? It seems impossible that all our hope can rest on belonging to this frail sign. The promise that only from this can everything be rebuilt seems scandalous. Yet men like St. Benedict and St. Francis started from that. They began to live while belonging to that branch that had grown through time and space—the Church, and in this way became protagonists of a people and of history.

Benedict did not face the end of the Roman Empire with anger, pointing the finger at the immorality of his contemporaries, but rather witnessed to the people of his time a fullness of life, a satisfaction and a fullness that became an attraction for many. This became the dawn of a new world, small as it was (almost a nonentity compared with the whole, a whole that was in total collapse), but a real world. That new beginning was so concrete that the work of Benedict and Francis has lasted through the centuries, has transformed Europe, and humanized it.

“He has revealed himself. He personally,” said Benedict XVI, speaking of the God-with-us. Fr. Giussani told us, “That man of two thousand years ago is hidden under the tent, under the appearance of a new humanity,” in a real sign that arouses the inkling of that life that we are all waiting for so as not to succumb to the evil in us and to the signs of the nothingness which is advancing. This is the hope that Christmas announces to us, and that makes us cry out: “Come, Lord Jesus!”

Julián Carrón

Defending love

2008-12-24T09:49:00.000-08:00

I think this particular portion of the Holy Father's Christmas address to the Roman Curia is deserving of some attention, especially in light of my last post. Let His Holiness' words serve as the positive hypothesis that undergirds my critical comments about the California Attorney General's effort to negate a democratically enacted constitutional amendment. That we have a lot to do with regard to witnessing to the truth can be seen by an exchange that happened as the result of something I posted on Καθολικός διάκονος yesterday:

"Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Credo, the Church cannot and should not confine itself to passing on the message of salvation alone. It has a responsibility for the created order and ought to make this responsibility prevail, even in public. And in so doing, it ought to safeguard not only the earth, water, and air as gifts of creation, belonging to everyone. It ought also to protect man against the destruction of himself. What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the correct sense. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysic. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term 'gender', results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator. The tropical forests are deserving, yes, of our protection, but man merits no less than the creature, in which there is written a message which does not mean a contradiction of our liberty, but its condition. The great Scholastic theologians have characterised matrimony, the life-long bond between man and woman, as a sacrament of creation, instituted by the Creator himself and which Christ – without modifying the message of creation – has incorporated into the history of his covenant with mankind. This forms part of the message that the Church must recover the witness in favour of the Spirit Creator present in nature in its entirety and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of God. Beginning from this perspective, it would be beneficial to read again the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation."

A deep diaconal bow to Rocco over at Whispers for the English translation of the Holy Father's remarks and for the photograph.

Petitio Principii in California

2008-12-24T06:43:00.000-08:00

While I am on the subject of would be oligarchs, California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, who is the former and, if current reports are accurate, maybe the future governor of that state (reminds me of a friend who used to work for Louisiana State investigative division who told me that when out of office, the now prisoner, Edwin Edwards, was introduced as "the former, future governor of Louisiana"- I guess recycling extends to politics these days, too) and whose Dad was governor, is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, a referendum passed on 4 November that amended the state’s constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. His reasoning? "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

I guess explicitly defining the family in the way it was understood when the state constitution was written and ratified is not compelling justification. In other words, not only is the justification compelling, but to assert that there is a "fundamental constitutional" right at stake is to beg the question. The only basis for such a claim is the State Supreme Court's ruling back in May claiming such a right. The citizens of California rejected this claim and amended the constitution in a legal and fair manner. Hence, there is no reasonable basis for Attorney General Brown's argument. Alas, law these days has less and less to do with reason properly employed because legal arguments and judicial decisions are no longer grounded on any objective premises. As Alasdair MacIntyre describes us, we are an emotivist society with no way of arriving at a consensus that is not seen as an arbitrary imposition, a power play, of one side against another. Such attempts at ushering in rule by the judiciary do not bode well for the future of our constitutional system of government, which is grounded on objective premises. In addition to After Virtue, I am also reminded of the highly controversial 1996 First Things symposium, The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics.

So, here’s the question, why is an elected official seeking to overturn a legally enacted constitutional amendment? The lesson here is that, as voters, we need to stop playing both sides of the street. We must vote in a clear-headed manner. How can we continue support candidates who do not value what we hold dear and expect anything different?

An Ideal for the World Economy

2008-12-23T04:13:00.001-08:00

Pope Benedict XVI issued his World Day of Peace message for this year on the theme "Fighting Poverty to Build Peace". The text takes up issues of globalization, development, finance, population and more. Above all, it emphasizes a guiding perspective on the world economy that recognizes the human race as a family:

[T]he reference to globalization should also alert us to the spiritual and moral implications of the question, urging us, in our dealings with the poor, to set out from the clear recognition that we all share in a single divine plan: we are called to form one family in which all – individuals, peoples and nations – model their behaviour according to the principles of fraternity and responsibility.

If there is a temptation to minimize abortion as the primary unjustice, the message here is clear. These are the poorest of the poor. "The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight against poverty, actually constitutes the destruction of the poorest of all human beings."

The Pope notes that population, rather than being a deterrent to well-being, has helped development, as the poverty rate of the world which was 40% in 1981 has been halved since then. He emphasized the vulnerability of children and the need to combat AIDS with a holistic approach that factors in the dignity of the person in sexual matters. The problem of the diversion of resources into armament is addressed, another in a long series of papal pleas.

The Holy Father spoke positively of financial markets as a necessary means to achieve economic stability for the future, but urged an "ethical approach to economics".

Objectively, the most important function of finance is to sustain the possibility of long-term investment and hence of development. Today this appears extremely fragile: it is experiencing the negative repercussions of a system of financial dealings – both national and global – based upon very short-term thinking, which aims at increasing the value of financial operations and concentrates on the technical management of various forms of risk. The recent crisis demonstrates how financial activity can at times be completely turned in on itself, lacking any long-term consideration of the common good. This lowering of the objectives of global finance to the very short term reduces its capacity to function as a bridge between the present and the future, and as a stimulus to the creation of new opportunities for production and for work in the long term. Finance limited in this way to the short and very short term becomes dangerous for everyone, even for those who benefit when the markets perform well....

While it has been rightly emphasized that increasing per capita income cannot be the ultimate goal of political and economic activity, it is still an important means of attaining the objective of the fight against hunger and absolute poverty. Hence, the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. In a modern economy, the value of assets is utterly dependent on the capacity to generate revenue in the present and the future. Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty, which must be kept in mind if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.

The preference for the poor was emphasized, and the Pope noted that the gap between rich and poor has also widened in developed countries. Practical solutions are not sufficient in front of the whole need of the person.

As my venerable Predecessor Pope John Paul II had occasion to remark, globalization “is notably ambivalent”[14] and therefore needs to be managed with great prudence. This will include giving priority to the needs of the world's poor, and overcoming the scandal of the imbalance between the problems of poverty and the measures which have been adopted in order to address them. The imbalance lies both in the cultural and political order and in the spiritual and moral order. In fact we often consider only the superficial and instrumental causes of poverty without attending to those harboured within the human heart, like greed and narrow vision. The problems of development, aid and international cooperation are sometimes addressed without any real attention to the human element, but as merely technical questions – limited, that is, to establishing structures, setting up trade agreements, and allocating funding impersonally. What the fight against poverty really needs are men and women who live in a profoundly fraternal way and are able to accompany individuals, families and communities on journeys of authentic human development.

We are not off the hook of our responsibility by simply offering charitable aid. A more comprehensive change is proposed to us.

Faithful to this summons from the Lord, the Christian community will never fail, then, to assure the entire human family of her support through gestures of creative solidarity, not only by “giving from one's surplus”, but above all by “a change of life-styles, of models of production and consumption, and of the established structures of power which today govern societies”.

Christmas Hope for Peace

2008-12-22T14:59:00.000-08:00

In India, authorities in Orissa have met with Hindu leaders to get agreements to ban anti-Christian demonstrations during Christmas. (AsiaNews.it) Archbishop Raphael Cheenath asked his parishes in Kandhamal not to have Midnight Mass because of the danger to Christians on their return home.

In Vietnam, political leaders offered Christmas greetings to Christian clergy (Vietnam News), while tensions between church and state remain high. From Fr. Joseph Nguyen: "Please pray for the Church in Vietnam. As Christmas draws near, we are still at the Golgotha on the Good Friday."

In Iraq, Christmas is being celebrated, despite all the trials of Christians there, with a new openness this year:

"The interior ministry organized a celebration," says Louis Sako, archbishop of Kirkuk, "the aim of which was to reward those who have struggled for interreligious dialogue and have carried forward initiatives of peace. It is a gesture of solidarity toward Christians, and an invitation to return to Iraq." The celebration, held on Saturday in the capital, the first public event connected to Christmas, saw the participation of a great number of children (in the photo) accompanied by their families. The celebration was enriched by a tree decorated with Christmas themes, a Santa Claus mingling among the crowd, images of Jesus and of the Virgin Mary, and the flag of Iraq to unite all of the citizens. "Today, all Iraqis are Christians," said Major Abdul Karim Khalaf, spokesman of the interior ministry. "The celebration was a gesture of friendship for Christians," continues Archbishop Sako, "and a symbolic condemnation of the violence that our community has had to endure over the past five years."

In Palestine, thousands of pilgrims are expected to visit the Lord's birthplace, and the area has seen a revival in tourism as hostilities have lessened. The small ancient Christian community there, squeezed between Israelis and Muslim Palestinians, has diminished over the years, but the increase in visitors is helping the local economy.

"The fact that this year so many pilgrims will join us for the Christmas liturgies is a sign that makes us even more sure that we are not the only ones seeking Jesus." Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Custodian of the Holy Land, comments on the boom of pilgrimages for the Christmas holidays....

"Sustaining hope ... is the biggest task in the situation in which we find ourselves. For this reason as well, the message for Christmas ends with the affirmation: 'There is still hope for everyone!'" The Custodian explains that "this is an appeal above all for the Christians of the Holy Land. In Bethlehem, their numbers continue to drop, and they suffer the frustration and difficulty of the conditions in which they live. With the wishes for Christmas, I want to recall that the miracle that is taking place is an invitation, in spite of everything, to renew ourselves and our zeal. The fact that this year so many pilgrims will join us for the Christmas liturgies is a sign that makes us even more sure that we are not the only ones seeking Jesus."

Banking on an Oligarchy

2008-12-21T04:27:00.000-08:00

Deacon Scott Dodge cites two recent editorials during the interregnum between Bush and Obama, one from Thomas Friedman, "The Great Unravelling", and the other a poignant reflection from The New Republic, "Important People" (clipped at Paper Clippings). Unravelling is the word for it because the dynasties have been in place and on the take for a long time.

Friedman compares Madoff's actions with Wall Street generally:

I have no sympathy for Madoff. But the fact is, his alleged Ponzi scheme was only slightly more outrageous than the 'legal' scheme that Wall Street was running, fueled by cheap credit, low standards and high greed. What do you call giving a worker who makes only $14,000 a year a nothing-down and nothing-to-pay-for-two-years mortgage to buy a $750,000 home, and then bundling that mortgage with 100 others into bonds — which Moody’s or Standard & Poors rate AAA — and then selling them to banks and pension funds the world over? That is what our financial industry was doing. If that isn’t a pyramid scheme, what is?

And Leon Wieseltier is by turns angry and philosophical:

In a society as wounded as our own, there is something repellent about the assertions of elitism. Its most awful expression, of course, is the acquiescence of almost everybody in the dynastic ambitions of the Kennedys. I can almost not imagine a more obvious mutilation of the meritocratic ideal than the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the United State Senate. A Senate seat is a fucking valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing. But of course it will not be given away for nothing: the princess and her family will be delighted to pay for it. Ever since this democratic indignity was broached, the really smart talking point has been that she has the money for her eventual campaigns....

A society may be measured by whom it admires. No class of Americans has done more to damage America than the financial class. A generalization is an ugly thing, but every day's newspaper refreshes my impression that the titans, the insiders, the big players, the boldfacers, the movers and the shakers-the hoshover menschen, as we say where I come from-have been, many of them, fools or thieves....

In these days of dread I prefer to linger over all the people who have never been able to facilitate a favor. The media that used to be fascinated by the pleasures of the rich is now fascinated by the pains of the rich, but the fascination is the same, and it contributed to the bubble that burst in all our faces, and it interferes now with what we really need to know. When I read the papers I skip guiltlessly over the desperate sales of jewels and summer homes and go straight to the accounts of unglamorous desperation, of ordinary people helping each other because otherwise they would be even more powerless than they are.

I add the Deacon's comments as a judgment because the economy is a human endeavor and must be managed as such; the consumeristic credit-heavy model is unreasonable, unjust, unstable and ultimately unsatisfying.

Who besides Bernard Madoff, who turned himself in, has even been indicted? Did nothing untoward or illegal occur in the respective collapses of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns? What about that hole in A.I.G. that $125 billion of taxpayer money has not been able to fill? Given that, why not chuck $14 billion, a mere 11.2% of what's been flushed down the A.I.G. toilet, Detroit's way? For that matter, what about Mr. Paulson and his oh so urgent bailout, which appears to be nothing but another brazen executive power-grab by the Bush Administration? Dear Hank, what has your scheme to keep those whom you personally deem to be important people afloat corrected, fixed, or gotten headed in the right direction, how many foreclosures has it forestalled? Why is the only fix I ever hear mentioned more consumer spending? Isn't this ridiculous, given that more and more people do not even have jobs? Besides, isn't out-of-control spending, lending, and borrowing what got us into this mess in the first place? If I understand this idiotic reasoning correctly, we do not need regulatory reform and sounder national economic policies, consumer education, better personal financial discipline, and higher overall savings rate. No, our broken and shattered economy will be fixed by everyone buying new microwaves and iPods on our credit cards; that's like saying our greenhouse gas emission problem will be solved by everyone returning to the use of coal furnances and barbecuing with charcoal brickettes every night, while idling our cars in our driveways. Hey, it's almost Christmas and, as Ricky Bobby might say, "Baby Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!" Let's go for broke! Wait! We're already broke! Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Golgotha in Vietnam

2008-12-20T05:18:00.000-08:00

A pitched battle is on in Vietnam between the Catholic church and the government. Several Catholics were recently tried and given sentences of house arrest and probation for the government's appropriation of church property. The government has demanded the expulsion of the Redemptorists from Hanoi. And a monastery is about to be torn down and the land converted into a public park.

Vietnamese authorities appear to have adopted a policy of turning Church property into green spaces, AsiaNews says. "Or perhaps it is a vendetta against local Catholics whose protests prevented them from selling the land to private interests."

Sandro Magistra recently reported on the Vietnamese bishops' reports of their church's struggle during the recent Synod.

At the synod taking place at the Vatican, there are two bishops from Vietnam: the bishop of Nha Trang, Joseph Vo Duc Minh, and of Thanh Hóa, Joseph Nguyên Chi Linh.

The latter of these, speaking on the morning of October 13, called the Church of Vietnam "one of the Churches most harshly tested by bloody and uninterrupted persecution."

But immediately after this, he encouraged those present with this passage from the conciliar constitution "Gaudium et Spes":

"The Church admits that she has greatly profited and still profits from the antagonism of those who oppose or who persecute her."

Proof of this "profit" – he said – is found in the flourishing of conversions in Vietnam, and the growing respect shown to Catholics for their extensive work in defense of motherhood, in a country with an extremely high abortion rate.

Yesterday, Hanoi priest Joseph Nguyen warned that the persecution will be ongoing.

“The Church needs to prepare for more persecutions,” Hanoi priest Fr. Joseph Nguyen warned, suggesting that a careful reading of Chairman Thao’s letter shows that he did not actually expect the Redemptorists to be transferred. “He expected and truly wanted the Church leaders to say no,” Fr. Joseph Nguyen claimed.

“The tone of the letter was so hostile, and so demanding. It also upset readers with the word ‘god’ in small case. It was not in tune with the claimed intention.

“What Thao really wants now is a good excuse for administratively coercive measures. Please pray for the Church in Vietnam. As Christmas draws near, we are still at the Golgotha on the Good Friday,” he concluded. (Catholic News Agency)