Change - Yes We Can! But...

UPDATE at bottom of post.

There has been considerable chest-pounding in the wake of the Massachusetts Senate race. The conservative pundits have been celebrating the dawning of a new era, a paradigm shift, for the American electorate. President Obama promised "change", and he most certainly delivered. Not all of the change, though, was the same change he promised. Some of it was (e.g. coddling our enemies, selling-out our friends, massive government solutions for all those who earn less than average) and some of it wasn't (e.g. bipartisanship, line-by-line budget cutting, tax breaks for the middle class), but it was most certainly a change. As his presidency passes the first anniversary, more Americans are realizing that misdirected change is actually worse than the status quo. On January 19th, that reality was manifested in the election of Scott Brown. But is this the first gust of the winds of change, or was this a tempest in a tea party pot.

One thing that struck me was how amazingly brazen was his competition. Martha Coakley, among her many striking statements, declared that devote Catholics, you know, the ones who actually believe in the sanctity of human life, "...probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room," on the chance that they might be in a position to treat a rape victim and refuse the abortifacient morning after pill. Killing the unborn is so important to Martha that she made this her most vocal issue. Keep in mind, Scott Brown is not pro-life. He only believes in the so-called "common sense" provisions, like parental notification, a ban on late-term abortions, and conscience rights for medical personnel.

In Martha's world, a woman's right to an abortion supersedes all other rights. The reason she declared that devote Catholics need not apply for medical jobs was to make that distinction between her abortion absolutism and Brown's softer pro-abortion position. Her campaign used this distinction to paint Brown as a heartless extremist. This tactic resonated well with a good portion of the electorate.

Massachusetts is 44% Catholic, more than all the other religious affiliations combined. Martha herself is Catholic. Yet she made it clear that belief in what the Catholic Church teaches is extreme and justifies nixxing their rights expressed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution in favor of a right which is no where expressed in the same document.

We have a strong Catholic voting population. And we should also be able to assume that, among the rest of the 56% of the population, there resides a substantial number of people of good conscience who would recognize this blatant disregard of fundamental human rights.

Rather, what we find is that this woman, whose positions should make her disqualified for any office this side of the free world, garnered 47% of the vote. That tells me that her radical statement on the second-class status of faithful Catholics might have changed a few minds, but it did not move the voting numbers like such a revealing statement should.

Phil Lawyer breaks down the real reason for the Brown victory and the likely fallout, and unfortunately, despite all the giddy pundits, there isn't much to celebrate.

It was, I am convinced, a long-overdue manifestation of independence on the part of the state's voters, who have been held in thrall for years by liberal ideology and Kennedy mystique. That's progress.

It was also a reminder that American voters, even in true-blue Massachusetts, resent the idea that their representatives in Washington might ignore their wishes and enact a sweeping federal policy-- like health-care reform, in this case-- despite heavy public opposition. With the arrival of Senator Scott Brown on Capitol Hill, the
unpopular plan is apparently dead. That's progress, too. (As C.S. Lewis pointed out, when you realize that you're headed in the wrong direction, the best way to make progress is to turn back.)

However, I hope no one who read my analysis concluded that political sanity has returned to Massachusetts. We have a long, long way to go before a healthy political climate is restored. Consider: Senator-elect Brown is not pro-life. On the issue of health-care reform his vote may benefit the pro-life position; the state's largest pro-life group saw that as reason enough to endorse his candidacy. But Brown did not appeal for pro-life support, did not use pro-life arguments, did not mention pro-life issues. On the contrary, while his opponent Martha Coakley made her unswerving support for abortion the #1 issue in her campaign, Brown did his best to dodge the issue. He may now suspect that he won despite the support of pro-lifers, and liberal journalists will encourage him toward that conclusion. Republican consultants will tell their candidates to imitate Brown's campaign strategy, avoiding the abortion issue. Already the new Senator from Massachusetts is being touted as the ideal GOP candidate: populist in approach, patriotic, conservative on fiscal questions, and silent on social issues. In the long run, the upset in Massachusetts is more likely to benefit the "big tent" Republicans than the pro-life movement.
...

The Church remains silent. The majority of voters in Massachusetts are not registered in any political party. These independent voters swung the election for Scott Brown, demonstrating that they have finally escaped the magnetic force of the Kennedy family. But what will replace that influence? There's an old common-sense principle in politics: You can't beat somebody with nobody; you can't beat something with nothing. For 45 years Ted Kennedy offered a vision of what the political system should accomplish, and Massachusetts voters embraced that vision. When Martha Coakley put forward a very similar vision, the voters rejected it. But Scott Brown had no compelling vision. The Republican Party-- in Massachusetts, at least-- has no vision at all. And politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Someone will provide a new vision: a new model for politics. Who will it be? As I explained in my book The Faithful Departed, the Catholic Church was once, not too very long ago, the dominant force on the local scene, and set the agenda for discussion of public issues. But for more than a full generation now the Catholic influence has been waning, and Church institutions have been co-opted to serve the purposes of a secular liberal ideology.

If ever there was a time for a genuine Catholic revival in Massachusetts, now is that time. But it won't be easy; we have miles and miles to go.

This vote, and the general current of the country, is a rejection of the policies and tactics of the Obama administration. But one should soberly recognize that despite all that's happened in the last year, this nation hasn't embraced everything that is anti-Obama. There very well could be big victories for the loyal opposition over the next few years. This represents the ebb and flow of the political landscape, with the recent spike only came about because we have an aggressive administration that played too strong of a hand in too short of a time span. We haven't fundamentally changed. The liberals and their media allies only have to keep tearing down American values until something sticks, and they'll be back on top again.

As Catholics, we need to reclaim what has been lost. How can so many Catholics feel just fine in the pro-abortion camp? As Phil stated, we have such a long way to go. So don't take the wrong message from this election. If anything, this election shows what a terrible state we are in today. The victory for Scott Brown was a great thing, a very great thing indeed. However, it doesn't mean a collective light bulb went off in Massachusetts. Politicians on both sides of the aisle didn't stop being liars and cheats, for sale to the highest bidder. The only paradigm that shifted was that voters realized that Obama wasn't the transcendent leader that they believed he was only a year ago. And many of them will forget that lesson as soon as they learned it.

What we need is to begin to reclaim the Cafeteria Catholic into the genuine fold of the Church. Our bishops and priests are incrementally moving in that direction as best as I can see. This is one long road, though. The ranks of our priests are poisoned with some bad apples. Our parish and diocesan staffs are infiltrated with Marxists, feminists, and pragmatists. Our schools seem more of a reflection of the modern culture than an escape from it.

We will know we are there when we can have open and frank discussions on moral issues like abortion with our neighbors. Abortion's worst nightmare is an honest discussion. Abortion cannot stand up to any logical construction. It stands upon lies and convenient sound bytes. Yet a real discussion can't take place. Even conservative talk radio avoids the issue. In public, both sides throw long-standing phrases past each other, and the real questions are never addressed. Bringing up a topic like this could even get you fired at work.

How can any one's mind change if we can't talk about it? A unified Catholic Church is the first step in that direction. We can't transform the culture if we can't get our own house in order. If we have the Church as a solid base, the citizenry will find the courage to put abortion, and all other "extreme" issues, back into the public square.

The message of this post: Hurrah for Scott! Now the rest of you, don't get your hopes up or let your guard down. Nothing earth shattering happened or is likely to happen soon. Our best hope is to support the Church in her movement away from silence and more towards cultural confrontation.

UPDATE: So, you ask yourself, what did he mean when he said, "Yet a real discussion can't take place?" If I could write good, maybe I would have wrote something like this here:

A survey of the justifications advanced by scientists, philosophers, and other members of the elite class, such as judges, to justify the legalization of induced abortion reveals that they have abandoned rational inquiry in favor of ideology. For although their arguments have the trappings of the objectivity of scientific method and other marks of rational inquiry, it is clear that they subvert reason and manipulate evidence to actualize an ideal that they perceive to be above all rational criticism. This enslavement to ideology is but a reenactment of what happened in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to the detriment of science and philosophy, not to mention the degradation of human life.

Inatius Insight has a detailed explanation as to why we can't argue the case for life. Part II is here. That ought to make Andy's eyes glaze over.

Berlin and Fort Hood

UPDATE: Father Sirico has a much more eloquent statement for the occasion. His assessment was bleak, but I loved how he ends on a hopeful note:

Then I remember the years leading up to 1989. The
people who brought that victory about were not defeatist or compliant.

A former Hollywood actor, undaunted by ridicule and
the compromising lethargy of his own party; a Soviet prisoner, Alexander
Solzhenitsyn, reaching from the frozen tundra of the Gulags of the Soviet Empire
and wounding the omnivorous bear with a simple pen; an iron lady in England,
Margaret Thatcher, who didn’t get the memo about the demise of capitalism and
the rise of the Marxist dialectic; a rough and crude Polish shipyard worker,
Lech Walesa, who led a workers’ revolt against the Worker’s Paradise, encouraged
by another Pole, John Paul II, who on his appearance on the world stage bade the
world to throw open the doors to Christ and who, without tanks or military
resources, stood face to face with Soviet puppets who literally trembled at his
calm articulation of the Truth.

It is a remarkable testament to the human thirst
for freedom under such hardship and against such odds—in the midst of
deprivation and with guns pointed at them—all they were able to achieve, these
mothers and fathers of freedom. Their example calls us not to acquiesce to the
softer, more insidious and seductive tyranny of our own time, but to redouble
our efforts.

Their example also calls us to remember what too
many of us today have forgotten: We are beings with a destiny both in and beyond
this world—a destiny which can only be worked out in human freedom.

Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall fell. Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, such an event was unthinkable. We thought of the Reds as strong, inflexible, unbreakable, with a zeal for world domination. The thought then was that the wall would only come down if Soviet expansion assumed the entire city of Berlin, or possibly something worse. It was the symbol of the divide between east and west. In the past, citizen uprisings in Czechoslovakia and Hungary were met with brutal repression. As much as we despised the Wall, most of us were used to the idea of living with it.

Then citizen uprisings began that year. It wasn’t just Berlin. Before the wall fell, also in 1989, citizen movements in Hungary and Poland managed to force multiparty elections, and lo and behold, the communists lost. Soon after November 9th of that year the Velvet revolution toppled the communist government of Czechoslovakia and citizens gained control of the military forces in Romania, closing out 1989 with the hasty executions of Nicolae Ceausescu on Christmas day.

The news was fast and furious and there was giddy hope for the future. Of course, not all was well, as Yugoslavia and China did not adjust well to this new paradigm. Nevertheless, such a stirring victory for human freedom was deemed a fantasy. Looking back, was it not for the courage of men and women who believed in God and our inheritance of Western Civilization, such a glorious day as the fall of the Berlin Wall. The multitude of heros will never be counted in this life, but three names resound today; Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul the II.

Looking at Reagan in particular, I can only state what I remember from my high school and early college years. It seemed as if he was on an island of his own. When he made his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gates in 1987, many people unduly influenced by the media shrieked with embarrassment that we had such a fool as our leader. I was one such person. His foreign policy was reckless, so we said. And his senile mouth was even more dangerous. We couldn’t wait to rid our nation of this dolt.

Ronald Reagan, to his credit, subscribed to a traditional American school of thought which recognizes the dignity of the human person. His critics, for the most part, do not. They would never admit to that, but the liberal dialectic reduces the person to a set of traits based on accidents of birth or inclinations. And it has so pervaded American thought that I don’t think, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that we could in our age so valiantly participate in such a noble endeavor.

Recent news mocks this momentous anniversary. I could apply this to the current debate over healthcare, but instead, since other bloggers have written well on the Fort Hood massacre, I will piggy-back on that and look to contrast the weakness of our current times with the strength of the previous generation of leadership.

Former Education Secretary and Drug Czar Bill Bennett zeroed in on this earlier today.

I give you the words of two German Chancellors: Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel.
When the wall came down, Helmut Kohl told President George H. W. Bush: “Without
the U.S., this day would not have been possible. Tell your people that.” And
last week, Angela Merkel said this:

I think of John F.
Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961,
after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of
Berlin by saying, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far
earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of
the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this
gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This appeal shall remain forever in
my heart.

I thank George Herbert Walker Bush for the trust he
placed in Germany and then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl, offering something of
immeasurable value to us Germans already in May 1989: partnership in
leadership. What a generous offer 40 years after the end of the Second World
War.

“Forever in her heart,” “partnership.” “leadership.”
“Immeasurable value.” “Generosity.” That is what the United States of America
stands for, that is what this country dedicated to a proposition stands for.
That is what our men and women in uniform fight for.
…Last week the
battlefield showed itself in one of the most unimaginable places: Ft. Hood,
Texas. We don’t need to wring our hands and our brains to try and figure out the
motive of the terrorist, when someone fires on Americans, killing as many as he
possibly can, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” that is all I need to know. The
question of motive need not be asked, especially not when you have further
evidence of devout religiosity, and vocal criticism of our military missions in
our other battlefields, like Iraq and Afghanistan: all of which was true of
Nidal Hasan.

But there are questions to be asked and I suspect many
of the answers will be unsatisfying — I also suspect we will see memos or some
kind of paperwork on Nidal Hasan that will prove embarrassing to officials in
the FBI, our intelligence services, or the military. There are many stories to
relay relating to Hasan — here’s just one, reported
by the AP: “Fellow students of Hasan in a military training course
complained to the faculty about Hasan’s ‘anti-American propaganda,’ but said a
fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from
filing a formal written complaint.”

This last part is one isolated example that showed Maj Hasan had no business on duty. Had this man been a non-Muslim and spouted right-wing hatred in this manner, there is no doubt he would have been stripped of his commission and been closely watched by the FBI, if not incarcerated. As ironic as it sounds, this man could not be treated as if he were a potential Islamic terrorist because he was a Muslim. It sounds silly, but you know that it is true.

This insane political correctness has continued in Orwellian fashion in the aftermath. From President Obama to the talking heads on most of the cable shows, the association of the man’s professed religion and his actions, though obvious to all, has been ignored.

We were instructed twice by the president not to “jump to conclusions”. Of course, that means we aren’t supposed to jump to the obvious conclusion. But, not much more than an hour after the first rounds were discharged into our innocent service men and women, the FBI had no trouble declaring that terrorism wasn’t involved. The media then “jumped” into full gear “conclusion” mode, speculating that gunman was a victim of discrimination and post traumatic stress syndrome (despite his lack of deployment to a combat theater). This is a good roundup of the media “jumping to conclusions”, other than the obvious. The obvious, that this man is a traitor and an Islamic terrorist, is avoided. Days later, it’s still avoided.

The same flawed thinking that fought President Reagan every step of the way has had 20 more years to metastasize and pervade more and more of our institutions; media, education, government, the Church, and even the brave world of our military. So what is going on here? Why is this insanity taking over?

Let it be said that liberals are principled. They just don’t adhere to universal principles in certain, and very important, matters of right and wrong. Dr. Jose Yulo wrote a very short and profound post, the key to unlocking the mind of the liberal, and all of us who are susceptible to it.

The motivation behind the massacre still remains mysterious. What is
intriguing, however, was the quickness with which some news organizations began
the narrative of a soldier ridiculed because of his ethnicity, ultimately
cracking and lashing out in a rage against his perceived persecution. Making
matters more interesting was the possibility of the murders carried out because
of post-traumatic stress, an unusual possibility to say the least since, by
latest account, the attacker had not yet been deployed overseas and therefore
had yet to experience the fire of combat.

Perhaps unknown to its various authors, the roots of this narrative run
deep and parallel to the precedents set forth by certain philosophical schools
in the last century. Paramount here is the dichotomous worldview ham-fistedly
established by Marx and perennially finding converts among cultural elites. The
dialectical clash between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is often
chameleon-like, assuming the suitable color and hue to fit the assigned
socio-political context.

In the liberation theology of Paulo Freire, the
paradigm of the oppressor and the oppressed takes form as the basis for the
Brazilian's distillation of Socratic dialogue into "conscientization." In this
third world setting, members of the latter class are made aware of their
assigned status and encouraged to rebel, sometimes violently, against the former
since, as Freire claims, rebellion is an "act of love."

Integral in this school of thought is the belief that group membership
in the oppressed class, even removed by both time and current economic
conditions, permits for a looser interpretation of moral norms, enabling a
historically underprivileged group the license to "correct" their plights by
means restricted only by their creativity.

Read the whole article. It’s very important, especially if you’ve ever found yourself questioning the liberal devotions to abortion, reverse-racism, the labor movement, environmentalism, anti-capitalism, sympathy for foreign and domestic communists and terrorists, the peace movement, and a paranoid fear of an imperial United States. In every case, you can cast a group in the role of the bourgeoisie and the opposing group in the role of the proletariat. It’s pretty simple, then, to understand the thinking.

For example, let’s take abortion. In this case. men (that is All Men) are the oppressor group and women are the oppressed. It is clear that there has been a history of male oppression over the physically weaker sex. That is universally understood. So now, with that history, women can be defined as an oppressed group, even if much of that oppression has long past. As an oppressed group, they bear no responsibility for anything they do as a member of that oppressed group. It’s simply a reaction to being a victim. Children, in fact, limit the potential of women to combat this inequality with men, an inequality which renders them victims. They are forced to live pregnant for nine months (something not inhibiting men), nurse (again, something men could not do, even if they wanted to), and nurture the children through their young youth. This limits the potential of a woman who desired to pursue her own career, compete in a male world, and reach what they consider a place of respect. Therefore, abortion is a required option. A) It’s perfectly moral to rectify inequalities and B) even if it were not moral, a woman is a victim and cannot be held responsible for her actions.

You might be tempted to wonder why unborn children are not considered an oppressed class. That’s a good question that needs to be explored, and once answered, could be used to convert more liberals to the pro-life cause. But as my wife, a sociology graduate student, remarked, there have to be hierarchies of the oppressed to order the thinking of elites, and currently woman occupy a high tier than the unborn. My guess would be that woman are outside of the womb, and therefore can complain about their oppression, whereby the unborn cannot. It could be as simple as that.

Please understand, I was once a liberal myself. Having converted through the course of the 90’s, I have to say that I cannot understand my own thinking. But this is how I think it starts. My family was in most ways very traditional. My mother stayed at home and my father worked at the factory. We were a union family. We cared about many issues, but clearly when it came to politics, the issue that trumped all others were labor concerns. Thus, we belonged to our own oppressed class.

Thus, in 1987, I’m a huge Ronald Reagan detractor. But still, despite that, we were still pro-life, and we never subscribed to the grievances of the environmentalists, the gay community, the peace movement, or any of the other liberal groups. They were crazy. Yet, we still loyally voted for candidates who were supported by all those other groups.

I theorize that the rank and file oppressed only subscribe to their own grievance. They generally don’t subscribe to all the other grievances out there that the liberals all embrace. Take the black community as an example. They vote liberal in lock-step since they see themselves as an oppressed group, and their grievances will be addressed by they liberals. But all the studies I’ve seen show that they line up against other liberal causes; gay marriage, abortion, environmentalism, etc. Yet, much like my family, their own grievance trumps all, and that’s the way they vote.

After high school, I went on to college, and moved from being an oppressed to being an elite. Sympathy for one oppressed class can lead to the universal sympathy of liberalism. An elite sees the big picture, recognizes all these oppressed groups, and understands the need for political cooperation in order to accomplish justice for any of them. An elite does not necessarily have to belong to an oppressed class. They only have to be a champion for them. That gives their life meaning. We all want to champion the oppressed, don’t we? In return, the oppressed adopted us. We can, thus, be a member of the oppressed without ever suffering oppression. Pretty good deal, eh?

And what happens when an oppressed member decides to fight for the oppressors? The highest scorn of the oppressed and their elite champions is reserved for the traitor, people like Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin. Feel free to earn money, social status, and fame, but never turn your back on the people you left behind.

It is a conservative reflex to blame liberals for relativism. That is unfair. As I’ve shown, the liberal dialectic is very defined. But their reactions seem relativistic, since they can see evil and fail to condemn it, as is the case with this Fort Hood shooting. That is, evil from the conservative’s perspective, one that expects people to take responsibility for their own actions and holds them accountable.

When George W. Bush declared what is now known as the Bush Doctrine (any nation that assists the terrorists will be considered as guilty as the terrorists), he was criticized as being simplistic and seeing the world through rigid, black-and-white lenses. How could something so logical be so offensive? This criticism seems kind of relativistic, doesn’t it? Well, when viewed through the liberal dialectic, we, the United States, through our military and economic strength, are the oppressors of the world. Through our support of Israel, we’ve marginalized even further the plight of the Muslim world. So the help that terrorists, who were justified in their outrage against the US, receive from terrorist-sponsoring nations should not be acknowledged, since they obviously need the help to combat the US juggernaut. That isn’t relativistic from their standpoint.

Let me be careful at this point. This doesn’t mean that liberals overtly or covertly support terrorists. However, there is a level of sympathy that prevents them from interiorly condemning them and exteriorly acting on the condemnation. That’s why the president and the media are afraid to admit the obvious, for it might lead to a condemnation of someone who wasn’t responsible for his actions.

So here we are, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and we in the United States seem to be rapidly adopting the thinking that would have prevented that wall’s momentous fall. Maybe someday I will write on the errors of the conservative dialectic, but I will have to recognize that error first. I have no doubt that errors are there (especially when I continue to hear prominent conservatives insist that healthcare is not a right), but I don’t think in this era that they are important. Right now, the call to intellectual arms needs to favor an end to this group dialectic which is destroying our ability to see and respond to the truth.

By the way, this, again, is why we homeschool.

Heretic Central

That's what I'm considering calling our blog now that I've read one of the great lay mystagogues out there, Adoro, point out the sacramental disparity between her and those consecrated to teach.  "I have no authority," she claims.

When I stand in front of a classroom, the reality is this:  I'm on the same par with everyone out there. I am a laywoman. I am not an expert in anything, and even if I had a Doctorate in Sacramental Theology, it would not change my state in life.  Knowledge is important, fidelity to Church teachings is imperative, but the reality is that those people are looking up at me at the podium and thinking, "Who the hell are YOU to tell me I have to go to Confession?   Who the hell are YOU to tell us that we should not go to Communion if we've committed a sin on this list?  What kind of authority do YOU have to tell me what I should and should not believe?"

My thought - if she is questioning what she is doing, what the heck are we doing?  Well, she is an actual, honest to goodness catechist, so maybe she's got a higher burden.  People read theological goofballs like Andy and me at their own risk.  Still, that millstone will sink both the catechist and the goofball. 

Okay, kidding aside, I see the difference.  Imagine what would happen if we in the Church restricted the teaching of faith and morals to the ordained?  I would say that 98% of the parishes out there would have to fold their formation programs.  For some communities, that actually might be a good thing.   But for most communities, especially the one where Adoro teaches, the message needs to be delivered inside and out by people with the mind and heart of the Church.

A cynic could also ask, as is often done, what right a priest would have to advise a person on matters of marriage.  This would, of course, be an individual who doesn't believe in the charism of the priest to teach in such matters.  That's the point of view most cynics take.  So the priest is just as lost with them as would be any Catholic of good will.

All things equal, there is no question that the message is best delivered by the guy with the charisms.  And we should push our priests and bishops to do more teaching.  The role the laity plays is to echo that message far and near.  There is great power in that unity.  While unity is no substitute for authority, it does confirm authority to those looking for that confirmation (John 17).

So Adoro, my fellow lay mystagogue, exercise your sacramental confirmation and teach on without fear.  If they find someone with actual sacramental teaching authority, are they going to hear the same thing from them that they just heard from you?  Chances are that they will.  And chances are, they won't know about that "teaching charism" unless YOU tell them.  Save that one for the last lesson of the year.

UPDATE: Uh oh.  Well, at least she hasn't read my post.  I don't think so at least.