The Lion as Catholic

Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist's shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that "only such a faith can outlast the
death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations". You see the little rift? "Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason." That's the game, (C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Letter XXIII)

Admittedly, I dive into to politics often. I'm sure this makes my apologetics partner grown. There is a very good reason, though. And Phil Lawler's reveiw of Ted Kennedy's posthumous autobiography, True Compass, A Memoir, puts that reason into perspective (my emphasis).

Because they concentrated so heavily on the misbehavior that he never denied, most of Kennedy’s conservative critics failed to realize the real political masterstroke that he never discussed. Over the course of his political career, Kennedy steered steadily leftward without endangering his popular support in Massachusetts; he brought his constituency along with him. Still more remarkably, he became more and more open in his conflicts with the Catholic Church—eventually becoming the most influential opponent of Catholicism on key public issues—while remaining the most visible Catholic legislator in Washington.

Throughout his public life, and especially at his death, Ted Kennedy was identified as a devout Catholic. He was, after all, the standard-bearer for the most famous Catholic family in America. His brother had been the country’s first Catholic president; his father was so close to Boston’s Cardinal Cushing that he referred to him as “Richard” (which is curious, really, since everyone else in Boston called him “Dick”); he himself had received his First Communion from Pope Pius XII.

How did Kennedy manage to maintain the public perception that he was a loyal Catholic, even while he worked to shatter the solidarity that once characterized the Catholic voting bloc? How did he keep alive the traditional presumption that ethnic Catholics belonged in the Democratic Party, even as the Democratic Party began to marginalize anyone who upheld Catholic moral teachings? That question is never addressed in True Compass. In his memoir, as in his public career, Ted Kennedy deflects attention from his most remarkable—albeit ultimately destructive—achievement.

Lawler, in his review, details the political shift that brought Catholic Democrats to the place of defending the culture of death. I'm not sure this was all Ted Kennedy's doing. It's hard to believe one man could scandalize an entire region and a good percentage of the nation. The evil "Spirit of Vatican II" was quite active in this political transition of American Catholics, and this transition obviously transcended politics. Nevertheless, I must concede to Lawler two points. One - He's clearly an expert on the matter. Two - I was once one of Ted Kennedy's scandalized.

But that is for another time. I've blogged about Kennedys before, and may soon after.

Kennedy mentions his Catholicism hundreds of times in this book, but almost invariably he is referring to the cultural heritage of Catholicism rather than to its doctrinal content or its spiritual exercises—the form rather than the substance of his faith. Still he insists that his faith shaped his political outlook. In one of the book’s most revealing passages, he relates how his thoughts matured as he entered adult life:

"My own center of belief, as I matured and grew curious about these things, moved toward the great Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 especially, in which he calls us to care for the least of these among us, and feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, visit the imprisoned. It’s enormously significant to me that the only description in the Bible about salvation is tied to one’s willingness to act on behalf of one’s fellow human beings."

It boggles the mind that an adult Catholic—who presumably heard the Scriptures read at every Sunday Mass, even if he never read the Bible himself—could claim that there is only one passage in the Bible addressing the question of salvation. But the above quotation contains another sign, less obvious but even more telling, of the author’s detached attitude toward his faith. When he says that “he calls us to care for the least of these among us,” Kennedy never identifies who “he” is. The name of Jesus does not appear anywhere in this memoir.

“All of my life, the teachings of my faith have provided solace and hope,” Kennedy wrote as he faced the prospect of death. He surely did draw solace from his faith, but
not guidance. He knew that the Church offered words of comfort; he never recognized that the Church also spoke with authority. So in his final illness, while he felt the need to write to Pope Benedict XVI, asking for the pontiff’s blessing, he still saw no need to renounce his long history of public opposition to Church teaching on the dignity of life.

A Christianity without Jesus, a Catholicism without sacraments, a doctrine without authority: this is the conception of the Church that emerges from True Compass. Ted Kennedy saw Catholicism as an important part of his identity, of his family history, of his cultural patrimony. But his life story provides very little evidence that his faith shaped his political ideals. On the contrary, it seems clear that his political ideals shaped the content of his faith. The story of Ted Kennedy’s public life is, to an alarming extent, the story of a generation of Catholics—in Boston in particular, in America in general. It is, regrettably, not a story of how these Catholics shaped the
popular culture, but of how that culture changed their faith.

This is the story of faith kept at arms' distance, used, as Lewis wrote, as a means, and not embraced to the fullest. Faith is turned upside down. God is made in our image instead of the reverse.

Probably the saddest chapter of his tragic life was revealed at his funeral, something Lawler mentions above. This was his letter, delivered by President Obama, to our Holy Father. Oddly, it was read by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick to offer the mourners comfort. Instead, for those of us who were searching for something hopeful in his words to indicate a conversion, what Cardinal McCarrick read was confirmation of his fantasy faith, a platform for his pride, and persistent obstinance. Kennedy's intention seemed to be to lay out for Pope Benedict his cause for salvation, nay, canonization.

I want you to know Your Holiness that in my nearly 50 years of elective office I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I have worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war.

Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a United States senator. I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I am committed to do everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life. I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I will continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone. I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, our Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God's blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me.

(I can't say he did much for those "conscience protections", as his colleagues in the Senate passed a bill without any, and his legacy candidate made it clear that she didn't believe in them.)

With all due respect, why Cardinal McCarrick thought this would be a fitting tribute at his funeral is beyond me. The idea that we can trumpet our own case for salvation (fudging or straight-up lying about the facts) and use the faith for whatever we see fit is a terrible heresy. It's plagued Ted Kennedy's generation, and every one since.

What would have brought me more comfort is to find out that he received his sacraments before passing. That's more important than any accomplishments or failings that seemed to follow him to his death. Luckily, like other high-profile obstinate cafeteria Catholics, he was at the receiving end of prayers and graces, and had priests available at his last hour. That is what gives us hope that Kennedy will see God - not his expansion of government to solve the problems of the poor.

It is most unfortunate that members of the Church seemed to be agreeable to Kennedy's public version of faith, thus allowing his scandal wide influence for 40 years. I'm grateful that those days seem to be coming to an end. But I can't help but note how tragic it was that his scandal wasn't addressed early, publicly when warranted, and consistently. Many will say that I don't know that it wasn't addressed properly. But how can 40 years of public scandal from a man wearing the Catholic label and no public rebuke from his bishop be considered proper?

The errors of Kennedy in matters of faith are widespread. In fact, most all of us suffer from this tendency to some extent. Always remember to check your own version of faith with the one that has God's promise of Truth. Submit early and often, and root out your tendency to run with your own will.

Contact CBS Now!

CBS, the television network that will broadcast this year's Superbowl, is being pressured by the peddlers of the Culture of Death to not broadcast a pro-life commercial during the game.

A coalition of women's groups called on the CBS network on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.

The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two college football championships.

The New York-based Women's Media Center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center.

You know, I get the point that abortion may be more divisive than Budweiser vs. Miller or Pepsi vs. Coke. But the feminist concern is not about dividing, but rather that life argument is raised at all. As my previous post points out, the pro-abortion argument only survives when it remains unchallenged. That is their concern. To them, the pro-life cause has no place anywhere, let alone the most-watched commercial stage.

My fellow pro-life bloggers, please spread the word. We need everyone who can to contact CBS now and encourage them to stand up to the pressure.

As for me, if they decide to cancel the commercial, I will not watch the Superbowl, nor anything else on CBS for 2010. If they cancel, it is a clear message to me as a pro-lifer, one who wants to spread that message, that my patronage of their network is unappreciated. That, however, won't be in my message to them. They are planning on running it as of right now, and they don't need threats. They just need some backbone reinforcement. Thanks and admiration will do just fine.

Timeliness is important. I'm sure there is support within the notwork for dropping the ad, and that contingent won't give up. Some support right now might help keep this ad in it's prime-time location.

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.

2009 In Review

This week between Christmas and New Years Day is always prime time for news organizations to show you what a good job they did throughout the year keeping you up on current events. They remind you of what happened, since any news observer cannot remember back to the last newscast. They will also do some considerable editing and commentary to show that Obama's first year was a major success, especially considering all the turmoil he inherited from the Bush administration, which aparently includes Nigerian panty-bombers.

Yawn.

If you are going to subject yourself to this media self-praise, I recommend reading a year in review from someone who remembers the events of 2009 a little differently than anyone else:

On a more upbeat note, the nation finds a new hero in US Airways Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, who, in an astonishing feat of aviation, manages to land a US Airways flight safely in the Hudson River after it loses power shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia. Incredibly, all 155 people on board survive, although they are immediately taken hostage by Somali pirates.
...
. . . President Obama, speaking on health care before a joint session of Congress, is rudely interrupted by Kanye West, who grabs the microphone and declares that Beyoncé has a better health-care plan. No, wait, sorry: The president is rudely interrupted by Republican congressperson Joe Wilson, who shouts ``You lie!'' Wilson later apologizes for his breach of congressional etiquette, saying, ``I should have just mooned him.''

You'll have a much improved recollection of 2009 reading this alternative than with CNN. It has been one crazy, unforgetable year. The good news is, 2010 will have its work cut out for it if it wants to be crazier.


A continued Merry Christmas, and may 2010 be all you hope for.

A Good Lesson for Advent

This post from the Acton Institute, along with the documentary trailer, really struck me:

Just over a year ago, I traveled with the Acton Institute to Rwanda in preparation for a new project on poverty. Although we were there primarily talking to entrepreneurs about wealth and poverty, it was impossible not to have questions about the 1994 genocide. In less than 100 days, nearly one million people were murdered and tens of thousands were responsible for these deaths. Flying into the country with that knowledge, a mere 14 years later, I didn’t know what to expect. I was anxious and unsettled, the same sort of tension that I felt while visiting Tim’s body at the funeral home. The weight of death stood in stark contrast to such a vibrant culture.

Genocide destroyed Rwanda — socially, economically, and politically. After some measure of stability was restored, the new leaders needed to find a way to further return order and rebuild the infrastructure that was lost. Punishing the murderers and enacting justice was immediately a problem. How do you uphold justice when the guilty are too many to count? The small, landlocked country didn’t have the prison space to lock up all of the killers. With an overwhelming backlog of court cases and little hope of full reparation, Rwanda’s leaders tried something revolutionary. Incarceration and execution were set aside in favor of reconciliation. Beginning in 2003, over 50,000 killers who acknowledged their part in the genocide were released and reintegrated back into society. The doors were opened for genocidaires to live side by side with the surviving members of families they had destroyed.

Advent should help us to face the ugliest elements of our lives, reminded of the shortness of our time to fill the valleys and make low the hills. The Gospel of Gaudette Sunday contains a stark note of caution regarding the One, "...Whose fan is in his hand, and he will purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." Few things can focus the need for repentance like examining those in extreme situations:

Filmmaker Laura Waters Hinson jumps headlong into the tension between the justified victim and the repentant killer. Her hour-long documentary, As We Forgive, tells the personal stories of two women struggling to forgive the men who took their families from them. Hinson also shares the testimonies of the men, wracked with grief and remorse, as they do their best to find forgiveness and rebuild trust. With the help of Rwandan mediation groups, the victims and killers meet face to face in an
attempt to reconcile.

There is nothing forced about the forgiveness process Hinson exposes in As We Forgive. She simply uses the camera as a window through which the audience watches it unfold. The story follows Rosaria, who has already forgiven the man who killed her family. Her journey in the film is one of re-building trust. I liked Rosaria immediately and was amazed by the peace and gentleness that flowed from her, despite the incredible hardships. But not so with another woman, Chantal, who has no desire to meet the man who wronged her. The pain she suffered is tangible and forgiveness is nothing compared to the justice she feels she deserves. Hers is a story of deep grief and a desire to withhold forgiveness.

I will never forget the personal stories I heard from the survivors of the genocide during my visit. The stories of the killers, however, were not told nor did I ask to hear them. Hinson, on the other hand, has the insight to recognize the importance of the guilty men’s accounts. Both men describe the darkness that overcame them and how the weight of their actions has affected their lives. Their burden of guilt is heavy and, although terrified to meet and interact with Rosaria and Chantal, both men do whatever they can to redeem themselves.

Anyone else have trouble forgiving those in the family who squeeze the toothpaste from the top of the tube?

Check out the whole post - I think it's a timely subject. While you're doing that, I'll head out to check Home Depot and see if they rent bulldozers. I've got to ramp-up my leveling project.

Next mystagogue project - avoiding the "righteous anger" crutch. [Oh, how I love that one :( ]

UPDATE - I notice that the author of this post is a new contributor to the Acton Institute blog. She's got an interesting video of her own on Rwanda and poverty. Check this out:

Thoughts on Poverty. from Tabitha Blanski on Vimeo.

Drive By Post

A real quick post, and I need to yield the computer to Mrs. Jack.

Do you celebrate Veteran's Day or Martinmas? I'd like to see us blend those traditions together. After all, St. Martin was a veteran, and a little more of a celebration is called for.

Speaking of Veteran's Day, Amy Proctor reports that President Obama still can't make up his mind about what to do in Afghanistan. His "thinking" this strategy over during the two bloodiest months of the war ought to remind voters that elections matter.

On the abortion front, Jeff Miller calls for the wall to come down between social justice and the pro-life effort. Amen. And Michelle Malkin points out the 14th victim of the Fort Hood shooting that the media will never count.

So, you may ask, why is Obama dithering while our military personnel die? Why is there a wall between social justice and the right to life? Why can't the media note the 14th victim? All such questions are answered by that very long post I wrote on the liberal dialectic. Please read it and never question these absurdities again.

UPDATE: Father V. does an excellent job of explaining the logic that favors abortion. Bravo! Along with finding the nearest common ground, true dialog on any important issue must start with defining the argument from the other side, with terms that both sides can agree on. Now, which pro-abortion blogger will step out an do the same from his side?

Can it be that we could exist as a country where one’s conscience can be the determining factor? The question becomes can a people live in unity where one sees a soul-less life to be treated as the “host” wills and the other who sees a person with legal and God given rights of peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I don't expect to see much of a reaction from the other side to an honest debate. That's something that historically hasn't played itself out. Those who subscribe to the liberal dialectic believe that all is fair to champion the oppressed, lies included. The truth is something to be feared. To date, no one has yet explained the pro-choice position on the beginning of life and stuck around to defend their logic. It won't hold up. Unless, of course, someone is honest about it. Then it holds up logically, but opens a new can of worms that would unify the nation against the practice. That's why a close, honest examination of the issue is avoided. In the liberal mind, the end is what matters, and it will be achieved by any means deemed necessary.

Welcome Punjab!

Hey, write one post that vaguely addresses the issue of Islamic terrorism, and, whammo, I get a hit from Punjab! No one is reading the blog because it's been dormant for 2.5 months, and then immediately, one post on Major Hasan, and Punjab finds it.

Well, it is customery in my politically correct culture to make certain I stress that my uncompromizing hatred of Islamic terrorism is not transposed the followers of Mohammed. Faithful Muslims have my deepest respect. Please return often.

Of course, not all those in Punjab are Muslim. A modest Catholic presence resides there. Regardless of your faith, I welcome you and am honored with your visit.

For my Christian visiters, I offer this:




For any new Muslim friends that drop by, I offer this:




Ad Majorum Dei Glorium!

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.

My latest hero

I'd like to be this guy for a moment. I'll let you figure out which guy I'm talking about.

Mrs. Jack and I used to be residents of Camas, WA. Unfortunately, before this guy, Camas was best known for being the place where Tonya Harding used a hubcap as a frisbee and destroyed the face of her live-in boyfriend. Said boyfriend not only sold any sense he had to be with this frisbee pro, but he also sold off his testosterone to press charges against her for domestic battery.

Thank you David for providing a better model for us men.

The One, and the Second Commandment

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. (Ex 20:7)

Cursing in the name of God has often been thought in modern times to be the exclusive way to sin against the second commandment. If you were to read an examination of conscience, you might find some other ways that tend to be uncommon (e.g. blasphemy, lying during a confession, etc.). In pre-Christian days, the Hebrews made it very easy to keep this commandment – never utter His name at all. Nowadays, we can see the wisdom of that prohibition, as variants of God’s name are used in the most casual way. But let me propose another means of breaking this commandment that I think is quite common, but often overlooked. What if we were to use God’s name for our own manipulative purposes?

Obvious examples of this are clear; televangelists whose obvious motive is to manipulate their preaching into cash, religious charities that front for other purposes, and those who invoke God to justify their own sinful behavior. But I think we are all are more susceptible to this sin than we may realize. As fallen man, we tend to turn creation upside down and create God in an image suitable to our sensibilities. That way, we can get along with him much better. This temptation is all the more enticing when it comes to politics.

The Founding Fathers of the United States invoked God, declaring it a “right” granted by God to declare independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

While our Founding Fathers were not very Catholic (only one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence was openly Catholic), they were most certainly steeped in the Natural Law, which owes it’s heritage to pre-Enlightenment Era Catholic thought, even as some of its practitioners often considered the Church it’s greatest foe. The human right to be governed in such a way is truly “self-evident”, and it can certainly be reasoned that war may be necessary to achieve such governance. But then they took it one step further, suggesting that it was a God-given “duty” to sever the tyranny of the English crown.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government."

And the grievances were listed – all of them true, but most were exaggerated. One could reasonably conclude that “Prudence” had not yet run the course. But the Founders took liberty at this point to declare it their duty to change the government. To believe that was fine – but it was still a debatable point that they essentially declared to be “self-evident”. To declare it God’s expectation that they take up all means necessary to achieve independence is shaky ground. A few humble words, such as, “We believe that such has been the patient sufferance,” would go a long way toward admitting the proper relationship between the Creator and the created.

Nit-picky? Well, lay mystagogues tend to be that way. Even when it comes to opposing brilliant and esteemed icons. But one might think, “That’s probably what they meant.” To that, I reply, “This document was heavily scrutinized and painstakingly drafted. I’m confident they meant what they wrote.”

Speaking of brilliant and esteemed icons, let’s fast-forward to 1862. Abraham Lincoln exemplifies how American presidents have historically invoked the name of God.

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose.”

Unassuming. Completely lacking in self-serving presumption. Humble. Acknowledging His sovereignty, and asking His blessing. This is the standard, and presidents have generally held to that.

Now let me bring forward the much maligned George W. Bush, in what I consider his greatest speech, given during the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. He ended his speech with this, very much in line with Lincoln.

“On this national day of prayer and remembrance, we ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. We pray that He will comfort and console those who now walk in sorrow. We thank Him for each life we now must mourn, and the promise of a life to come.

As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God’s love. May He bless the souls of the departed. May He comfort our own. And may He always guide our country.

God bless America.”

This was a humble, comforting reminder of who we are, at a time when the nation truly needed that reminder. This ending was a walk-off grand slam if there ever was one. I hesitate to point out, though, the line that preceded this closure, one which would echo with resilience through his first term as president.

“And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time.”

We have a case of presumption. Veiled as it is, the implication is undeniable. According to President Bush, America was called to fight and defeat the ideology of Islamic terror and deliver the torch of freedom to those repressed by the same.

Now let me be clear. I’m not claiming that Bush was wrong. In fact, just the opposite. To accomplish the defeat of this deadly ideology and bring freedom to oppressed people would indeed be moral, and more importantly charitable. It is not out of line to believe that this is what God called our nation to do.

And it is also notable that other presidents in the past seemed to have shared similar ideals for America (Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy, just to name a few), so Bush isn’t unique in his outlook. All of the listed men had a faith in God, and believed in His hand guiding the actions of the nation. But I haven’t found any of them stating in public a particular divine calling for a specific endeavor.

Now considering both Bush and the Founding Fathers, both made and stated presumptions on God’s will for a specific course of action. In both cases, I agree with their presumption. In both cases, assuming they believed what they stated, they certainly did not break the second commandment. My problem is that, in both cases, as statesmen, it would be preferable to leave such assumptions unsaid. This is a bad precedent. It opens a can of worms to any armchair theologian in politics.

In fact, one of those armchair theologians has risen to the oval office. We are to believe now that God is calling Obama to have the federal government take over our health care. “We are God's partners in matters of life and death,” he proclaimed to some clerical supporters. And then, despite the fact that he is lying with impunity, he has the audacity of accusing those trying to set the record straight of “bearing false witness.”

Watch out Catholics – your bishop just might be bearing false witness.

Now it is absolutely necessary that religious and lay mytagogues walk on this shaky ground of announcing God’s will from time to time. We need that. For example, on the issue of abortion – there is no debate on the issue itself. Abortion is evil, no ifs, ands, or buts. What to do about it, though, is not a matter of dogma. It’s a matter of prudence. This is where we need leaders who stand up and preach the need for a specific course of action, to the point of declaring the opposite course of action a sin. Specifically in regards to health care, our bishops have repeatedly stated that universal access to health care is a human right and a Christian obligation. We need this kind of guidance from people who know God well. We need it from our Pope, our bishops, our priests, our families, and our friends. We don’t need it from our President, who isn’t (unfortunately) elected on the basis of how well he knows God.

Our chief statesman should invoke the name of God often, privately and publicly. But such an invocation must be done humbly, acknowledging His majesty, and asking His divine assistance. From our chief statesman, it should never be done with presumption. A can of worms has been open, and is now being served by a man who, either sincerely or insincerely, appears to be using God’s name for his own wrongful designs.

Sorry to be a petty hair-splitter, but I do believe that sometimes those hairs make a noticeable difference.

Update - Looks like I'm not the only one to notice that President Obama was calling the Bishops liars. Deal W. Hudson at InsideCatholic has a post on it. He rhetorically asks, "How stupid does Obama and his advisors think we are?" I've been asking the same question since I saw Obama's first stump speech in 2007.