Vatican II and Kairos

The Greek word kairos is used in the New Testament to mean the "appointed or proper time" (see Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament [London: UBS 1971]). An example can be found in Romans 5:6, where Paul writes that "at the right time [kata kairon] Christ died for the ungodly" (RSV). The word is commonly used in Christian writing and even by some writing in fields such as rhetoric who seek to emphasize the situation or context in which speech takes place (see an example). The documents of Vatican II issued during the years of the Council from 1962 to 1965, like all documents, have their own particular kairos or situation. Because of the controversial nature of Vatican II even to this day, there are competing analyses of the kairos of Vatican II.

The so-called "liberal" or "progressive" analysis of the kairos of Vatican II views Vatican II as merely the first step, the first crack in the door of a wholesale restructuring of the Catholic Church in doctrine, governance, morals, and liturgy. The "liberal" emphasis is on Vatican II as merely the first "baby step" in the rejection of most, if not all, supernatural aspects of Christian revelation, the rejection of any moral absolutes, and the reorientation of liturgy from adoration to communal self-affirmation.

The so-called "traditionalist" analysis of the kairos of Vatican II views the convening of the council as an error of the greatest magnitude for the very same reasons that the liberals hail it as a first step in a "progressive" direction. Both sides agree that Vatican II began the journey toward the rejection of the supernatural aspects of revelation, of moral absolutes, and of adoration in the liturgy.

But, when you read and re-read and are forced to study the words of Vatican II, some of us walk away with a radically different perception of the council's documents. Instead of Vatican II as the first step in modernism, Vatican II emerges as a deeply conservative council. The theme running throughout the documents is the unveiling of the riches of Christian revelation in Scripture and Tradition for proclamation to all the world. It is, to use two well-known phrases, an updating (aggiornamento) by means of a return to the sources (ressourcement)-- and the sources are Scripture and Tradition interpreted in a plainly orthodox manner.

That textual orthodoxy contradicts the vaunted "spirit of Vatican II" marketed by liberals as the first step to full-fledged modernism. I submit that the stubborn textual orthodoxy of Vatican II is why liberals emphasize "spirit" over text and issue calls for a "Vatican III." The decrees of Vatican II are emphatically not "liberal" or "progressive" as those terms are used today. The texts are faithful to divine revelation and its sources in Scripture and Tradition. Extreme traditionalists are unwittingly yielding unnecessary ground to modernists by acquiescing in the modernist falsification of the texts of Vatican II.

When all is said and done, the legacy of a council is not chained to its personalities or to superficial journalistic accounts of lobbying and conflict. When all is said and done, the permanent legacy of a council for the Church is contained exclusively in the final texts approved by the Pope. Those final texts speak for themselves. Certainly, we can and should consider the recorded debates in understanding the final texts, as we do with all texts. But, ultimately, the wording of the texts is the key to understanding the texts and dictate our use of recorded debates and interventions at the council. Background material is meant to illuminate the text, not to alter it.

Examples of the innate conservatism and traditionalism of the Council can be seen in its statements affirming the supreme power of the pope as set forth by Vatican I in 1870 (Lumen Gentium, 18), affirming organic, as opposed to unthinking, innovation in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23), calling for the retaining of Latin chant in the Roman rite (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36, 54 & 116), affirming the authority of Scripture as "the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, 9), calling for equal "devotion and reverence" for "both Scripture and Tradition" (Dei Verbum, 9), and affirming the perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of Mary, the Mother of God (Lumen Gentium, 52, 57, 59, 69). The above references are worth looking up and pondering. Reading them will dispel any false notion of Vatican II as a modernist or theologically liberal council.

To say that Vatican II was indeed conservative in the best sense of the word is not to excuse the disastrous implementation of the council, at times in direct disobedience of post-conciliar papal instructions. It is amazing to see in one well-known collected edition of the documents of Vatican II and its post-conciliar documents a 1974 letter from the Vatican stating that in accordance with "a desire which the Holy Father had frequently expressed, that all the faithful should know at least some Latin Gregorian chants, such as, for example, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei" (Letter to Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of Plain Chant, issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 14 April 1974, reprinted in Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II, New Revised Edition, Vol. 1 [Northport, N.Y.: Costello Publishing Co. 1998], p. 273). In light of such brazen disobedience, it is no surprise, that Pope Paul VI is reported to have remarked that the "smoke of Satan" had somehow entered the Church. All of which leads me to say that any parish that makes no effort to teach some chant to the faithful is far from being the Vatican II parish it may smugly imagine itself to be.

In my view, Vatican II was a conservative and traditional council--as one would expect of any ecumenical council convoked by the Pope. That we are still struggling to implement it is a testimony to our own failings and not to the failings of the documents promulgated by the Pope at Vatican II. In contrast to the liberal and traditionalist view of the kairos of Vatican II as the moment when modernism entered the Church, in my view, the kairos of Vatican II was indeed the appointed time for the Church to reaffirm the Deposit of Faith as the world was about to enter an era of rapid social change. The early sixties was probably the best time for the Church to state with minimum conflict the eternal truths of the faith in anticipation of the chaos of the later sixties and the seventies. Just imagine if Vatican II had been convoked in 1968 or 1973 in the midst of the chaos of those years. Vatican II would have been mired in the same acrimonious conflict that greeted the issuance of Humanae Vitae in 1968. The period of the early sixties was the opportune time or kairos for comprehensively reaffirming the Catholic tradition prior to decades of upheaval within and without the Church. Vatican II was a "kairotic" event.

More Nonsense from a Liberal Bishop

Since my high school years, the liberal magazine U.S. Catholic has been promoting ways to get around Church teaching. Unfortunately, I assumed, naively, as a high school student that a magazine called U.S. Catholic was a reliable source for how a Catholic could approach different moral issues, especially since it was prominently displayed in the reading room of the Catholic high school I attended. Well, many years later, the agenda of confusion and of subversion of Catholic teaching is still alive and well at the magazine. In the November 2003 issue, Catholic Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, makes an extended plea for Church approval of condom use to prevent AIDS in Africa (see story in PDF format).

The bishop is rightly anguished over the horrendous numbers that have succumbed to and are succumbing to AIDS in Africa. He is rightly upset over the poverty and unjust conditions that force many women to turn to prostitution. But, his moral revisionism is an exercise in fantasy. His proposal for Church approval of condom use to prevent AIDS will not only fail to alleviate the problems he is rightly concerned with but will likely exacerbate the problems. In the meantime, a central Christian teaching will be jettisoned for no good purpose.

The bishop has a problem with "the norms we promote", namely, the rejection of contraceptive methods. He calls for a "mature sexuality" and urges us not to "condemn condoms in the fight against AIDS." He also questions the Church's "credibility" on this matter.

If we analyze the bishop's article, the structure is quite simple, unfortunately, because there is no valid reasoning behind it. First, he paints a highly upsetting portrait of the poverty and bleakness of a prostitute dying with her child from AIDS. He then urges that the Church embrace condoms as a way of preserving health. He argues that the only evil the Church proscribes is the evil of seeking to prevent new life, not the evil of saving life from a fatal disease.

What is missing from this simple and highly emotional appeal? Well, the old logical term for the bishop's fallacious argument is non sequitur. In plain English, his conclusion does not follow from his premises. He really has two premises, one stated and one conveniently unstated: 1.) the stated premise that condoms reduce the transmission of AIDS; and 2.) the unstated premise that the Church's promotion of the norm against use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS. Now, as to the first premise, the bishop at least is careful to admit that condoms are not 100% effective in protecting against AIDS, but relies on the fact that condom use reduces the chances of getting AIDS. Already, we have an interesting concession that raises an enormous pastoral issue: how is the Church to promote use of a device that is not guaranteed to protect against contracting a fatal illness? It seems to me that, even on the level of the bishop's first premise, it would always be impossible for the Church to recommend the use of condoms in a game of Russian roulette.

The second unstated premise is where the bishop's plea falls apart. Once you consider the second unstated premise, it is clear that the bishop's argument is thoroughly fallacious and based on an emotional appeal that contradicts common sense. It makes one wonder whether the bishop may be, consciously or unconsciously, more committed to an agenda of so-called "justice" than to the Christian agenda of sexual morality. Christian sexual morality is an expression of social justice. There is no contradiction. The bishop's arguments indicate to me that he has a highly defective view of sexual morality that contradicts the Catholic tradition.

But worse than that defective view is that the bishop is really arguing that the Church's rejection of contraception causes the dying prostitute to contract AIDS. The bishop expects the reader to believe that a woman forced to be a prostitute in order to feed herself and her children is refusing to use condoms as a prostitute because of her commitment to Humanae Vitae. He also expects the reader to believe that her "customers" are also refusing to use condoms because of their commitment to Humanae Vitae. These expectations of the bishop are exercises in fantasy that make one wonder whether the bishop has already rejected Catholic sexual morality independent of his heartache over the AIDS crisis.

I submit that someone forced by economic duress into prostitution is not concerned in the least with the Church's teachings on contraception. I even more strongly submit that the "customers" of the prostitute are not influenced in any way whatsoever by Humanae Vitae.

What is my proof? My proof is the fact that, if the prostitute under duress or the "customer" was in fact subject to influence by Church norms, he or she would never engage in this behavior to begin with. If they did engage in this behavior, it would be an isolated episode. And, even in that isolated episode, the existential reality is that when one decides to engage in mortal sin such as sex outside of marriage, the ancillary mortal sin of contraception poses no psychological obstacle for the sinner. Once you have separated the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act by engaging in sex outside of marriage in the first place, you have already crossed the crucial boundary into mortal sin and thus the additional mortal sin of contraception merely compounds the already accomplished mortally sinful separation of the unitive and the procreative dimensions. I am assuming a sequence of acts: first deciding to engage in sex outside of marriage and then deciding to use contraception. Of course, the two decisions to engage in mortal sin may also occur simultaneously and, in the West, commonly do so.

In other words, we can say, by analogy, that once you decide to murder, it is doubtful that you will hesitate to rob the corpse of its wallet. In the same way, once you reject Church norms and decide on fornication or adultery, you will not hesitate to use a condom if you wish to, and you will pay no heed to Humanae Vitae. And the United Nations and other agencies, financed by the West, are making sure that condoms are available for those who want to use them.

So we are left with the fallacious argument of a bishop who believes in the fantasy that a murderer will refrain from robbing the corpse because, all of a sudden, in the course of carrying out the murder, he is seized with fear that he will violate the commandment against stealing. It is likewise a fantasy to believe that someone who "cannot or will not follow the church's ideals in sexual ethics," to quote the bishop's own words, will, all of a sudden, in the course of fornicating or committing adultery be seized with fear that he or she will violate the Church's teaching against contraception.

It appears to me that the bishop should apply common sense to the situation in Africa and preach sex within marriage. He should also do everything possible to alleviate the poverty and social injustice that drives women into prostitution and should push for the arrest of those who use prostitutes. To propose that the Church get into the business of marketing condoms will help no one in practical terms and will in fact be a rejection of the Gospel. The problem in Africa, as in the West, is the failure to reserve sex for marriage. Yet, Africa has a gigantic mitigating circumstance--the crushing poverty and the desperation it induces. Social justice demands both chastity and the alleviation of poverty. Both facets of social justice are the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Dedication of the Lateran Basilica: Ezekiel 47:1-2, 8-9, 12; 1 Cor. 3:9-11, 16-17; John 2:13-22

The Lateran Basilica or St. John Lateran is "the Pope's cathedral or principal church in Rome . . . . known as the head and mother of all churches" (Stravinskas, Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing 2002). (Stravinskas also notes that St. Peter's Basilica, although it is not the pope's cathedral, is the site of most of the important gatherings of the Church because it is so near to the pope's residence and because of its size as the largest church building in the world.) Why celebrate as a liturgical feast the dedication of the Pope's cathedral in Rome?

I submit that this feast should make us focus on the fact that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the supreme pastor and bishop of the universal Church. In other words, all Catholics have at least two bishops, the local diocesan bishop and the Bishop of Rome who is superior to any local bishop. As Vatican II teaches, "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can exercise unhindered" ( Lumen Gentium, 22). In other words, the power of the Pope as supreme pastor can in no way be limited by a diocesan bishop. This teaching of Vatican II is worth recalling when people begin to speak of decentralization or "collegiality."

How do today's readings relate to celebrating the dedication of the Pope's cathedral? Ezekiel proclaims his vision of the temple of God from which water flows which gives rise to "abundant" life and which makes the salt waters fresh. Likewise, the Petrine ministry of the Pope is a source of abundant life for the Church. To share in this abundant life, we must remain in communion with Peter's successor and drink from the "waters" that flow from Rome.

In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul says that we are temples of God. John Paul II has taught his theology of the body tirelessly, a theology which merely explains and repeats the message of Paul: our physical bodies are temples of God. If the temple of God is a place of peace, then our bodies should be places of peace, not of addiction or anger or envy or any other form of tempestuous malice. If the temple of God is a place of purity and holiness, then our physical bodies should be pure and holy and not be used as instruments or tools of lust. Later, in 1 Corinthians 6:12-19, St. Paul makes clear that sexual immorality is a sin against one's own body and hence a sin against a temple of the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality is wrong because it is sacrilege.

In the Gospel, Jesus refers to his own body as the temple that he will raise up after three days. The Resurrection confirms the sacredness of the body. St. Paul refers to the Resurrection as proof that the body belongs to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13-14). Thus, the core event of the Christian faith, the bodily Resurrection of Christ, is linked with the theology of the body. There is no evading the issue. Reverence for the body and the rejection of sexual immorality are central aspects of the Christian faith. Those who embrace immorality are rejecting the Resurrection and have departed from the faith, regardless of the ornate vestments they may wear or the grand titles they may apply to themselves.

A Different Sort of Family Breakdown

In American society today, we are all well aware of family breakdown due to divorce and its underlying causes, whether alcoholism or other substance abuse, adultery, or even materialism in which the pursuit of career prestige overwhelms family commitment. But there is another sort of family breakdown that tends to be harder to detect: the breakdown of the extended family. As one who grew up with a grandparent living in the same house, the extended family was a natural reality. The live-in grandparent was an automatic link to other relatives. In addition, growing up among Spanish-speaking immigrants led to the typical ethnic social network: strangers in a new land sticking together.

But what I am increasingly becoming aware of is a glue that we took for granted, namely, an unspoken moral consensus. Whether one practiced a religion or not, no one challenged or attacked basic Christian belief or morality. It was not up for discussion. And the lifestyles of relatives did not openly challenge the moral consensus.

Today, I see a different situation that is probably increasingly common. It is not uncommon today for persons, young and not so young, to live in what used to be called "open concubinage." Today, we call it by the Orwellian euphemism of "cohabitation." Well, cohabitation is a perfectly good word whose good name has now been definitively tarnished. Would anyone speak today about "cohabitation" with one's grandmother? Of course not, it is impossible to use "cohabitation" in that sense because today "cohabitation" means sexual intercourse. Thus, another word has been stolen from ordinary language to take its place as part of the vocabulary of euphemism seeking to white wash the unsavory. You can think of other examples--words like "gay" or even more significantly the word "love." As to the word "love," conduct a thought experiment. In our culture, what is the first thing associated with the mention of the word "love"? The answer will indicate to you how much our culture is deeply immersed in lying about human nature.

So what happens to the extended family when some members live in open concubinage? What happens is that some Christian family members will find it impossible to carry on normal family relations because of the objectively scandalous moral example. The example of concubinage is not only scandalous to the children, it is also an insult to those who are married. Concubinage mocks the marital bond by announcing to the world that sexual intimacy is no longer the distinctive dimension of marriage. It is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, another in a series of attacks or "offenses against the dignity of marriage" (see CCC, 2380-2391).

Beyond the issue of concubinage, there is also deep moral disagreement about other hot-button issues. As abortion continues to be pressed as a fundamental civil right in the face of unignorable scientific images showing that it is in fact murder of the unborn, it is becoming increasingly difficult to feel comfortable around those who are outspoken defenders of abortion. This discomfort extends to the other rising social and religious cause célebre: the legal and religious approval of gay unions. These are highly emotional issues and rightly so. They are family-splitting issues as the Episcopalians are finding out.

And, to top it off, practicing Catholics who embrace the Church's official teachings are the subject of unprecedented mockery and harassment by members of the extended family. Bitter ex-Catholics cannot control their need to attack a practicing orthodox Catholic. Attacks that would never be acceptable if aimed at a Hindu or a Moslem are viewed as natural and right when directed against the beliefs of Catholic family members. Sometimes the attacking family members are bitter ex-Catholics, other times they are liberal Protestants, and other times they may be fundamentalists. Being Catholic makes you a target of all groups. The Catholic Church is the ultimate contradiction of the modern West; it is the only institution that challenges secular culture at every turn. Even fundamentalist Protestants have long accommodated themselves to contraception. The Catholic Church is virtually alone in its refusal to conform.

To these conflicts of belief must be added the materialistic nature and pace of American life, where many live to consume. Many of us are too busy making the money needed to engage in conspicuous and unnecessary consumption to engage in the leisure of family contact as an end in itself. All of these factors--severe ideological conflict, an emphasis on materialism--lead to the breakdown of the extended family.

In these circumstances, Christians may be coming slowly to see the relevance of a hard saying from long ago:

And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Matthew 12:49-50 (RSV).

Semina Verbi: Seeds of the Word

The word "seminary" comes from the Latin to sow or plant seeds. A recent Newsday.com article on the Pontifical North American College in Rome gives an exciting and hopeful look at the seeds being planted for the future. The writer characterizes the seminarians at this prestigious Roman seminary as quintessential men of John Paul II:

In a sharp break with the more rebellious attitudes that characterized their predecessors, many emulate John Paul's personal piety as well as his orthodoxy on matters ranging from mandatory priestly celibacy, to birth control and divorce, to his vision of priests as shepherds leading their flock. And they say their intention is nothing less than to carry on the pope's legacy long after he is gone.

Source: Carol Eisenberg, "Answering an Uncommon Call," Newsday.com, Oct. 22, 2003.

The North American College is highly significant for us in the United States because, as the article notes, it "has produced more U.S. bishops and cardinals than any other seminary." The author notes that these men will have " a disproportionate effect" on the priesthood in the U.S. It is also clear that, by having a disproportionately positive effect on the Catholic Church in the U.S., they will also have a significantly positive effect on the universal Church.

Of course, some are troubled by the good news of young, highly qualified, and orthodox seminarians enthusiastic about their vocations as future priests. As the article notes, liberals are worried:

[S]ome worry their moral certitude may create rifts with those who ignore Rome's teachings on church attendance, sex, birth control and divorce and who are increasingly vocal in their demand for a role in church governance.

This observation is quite revealing. Why would "some" be worried about the orthodoxy of future priests? Well, we all know the answer: because "some" reject orthodox Catholic belief and are intent on undermining orthodox belief. One sociologist--a specialty that I firmly believe no thinking person would miss if it disappeared entirely from the academic world--opines that there is a worrisome "generational divide in the U.S. priesthood." It is a blessing that such a generational divide exists precisely because the earlier generation of priests is riddled with so many false vocations. For it is indeed a false vocation when a priest does not pass on the moral teachings of the Church to his flock. Woe to such a priest or bishop or cardinal on the day of judgment because much will be demanded of him to whom much has been given. I, for one, welcome this generational divide in the priesthood and am happy that the mortality statistics favor the newer, orthodox generation of clergy.

Contrary to the liberal mindset, the relationship of priest to laity should not be one of enabler to the confused. Rather, the relation should be one of a challenging teacher. After all, Christ was the quintessential challenging teacher. The priesthood is not there to humor our errors and confusions. The priesthood is their to challenge us to rise to our own vocations as lay people.

The image of the seeds of the Word is rich in evangelical resonance. Some seeds have died, others have sprouted. The wheat and the tares grow together until the end of time. John Paul II has planted well, and the harvest will be rich. For those of us in the common priesthood of the baptized and confirmed laity, our call is to support the new generation of orthodox priests by speaking out in praise of orthodoxy and in the exposure of heresy. May this new generation of orthodox priests find those of us in the laity outspoken and fearless in our support in word and deed.

Buried in the N.Y. Times: More Republican Voters Nationwide

On page A22 of today's print version of the N.Y. Times is a one paragraph mention of highly important political news, namely, a significant increase in Republican registered voters since September 11th. Here is the first sentence of the one paragraph story:

The Republican Party, which lagged in registered voters for much of the last century, has made major gains across the country and pulled even with Democrats, a study of the electorate found.

See on-line N.Y. Times, Nov. 6, 2003, National Section, National Briefing: Politics (free registration required)(emphasis added).

The survey was done by the Pew Research Center, which, in my personal opinion, leans in the liberal direction. The results show that registered voters in the U.S. are about one third Republican, one-third Democrat, and one-third independent. Whether this portends the long anticipated Republican realignment remains to be seen, in my view, because the whole question of realignment presupposes strong party loyalty which has disappeared from the American scene. What it does confirm is that left-wing Democratic policies have indeed destroyed the old FDR Democratic coalition. That destruction opened the way for Republican electoral success under Reagan in the eighties, in 1994 under Clinton, and under the current President Bush. I cannot pass up the chance of noting that in my opinion the greatest accomplishment of Bill Clinton in the history books will be-- ironically for him-- the rise of a Republican House of Representatives in 1994.

The pro-life party, the Republican Party, is more competitive than ever. If that leads to a Republican realignment, so much the better. In the meantime, what the N.Y. Times buried is quite good news. It is also interesting that the N.Y. Times notes gains among white Roman Catholics and Hispanics. Republican gains among Hispanics are especially ominous for the Democrats. It remains to be seen how the Democratic gay agenda, which has only recently received much attention due to the recent Supreme Court ruling favoring sodomy, will further affect this Republican trend among Hispanics. The gay agenda will not be a plus in attracting Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party, just as the Episcopal Church's gay agenda has not been a plus in Latin America, or Asia, or Africa.

The Detroit Free Press has a detailed article on the survey buried by the N.Y. Times. The Detroit Free Press ran the article on the front page of its print edition.

Scottish Catholics Oppose Gay Partnerships

There is positive news from Scotland after an October littered with negative press reports. The Catholic Church in Scotland has taken a firm stand against a plan to recognize gay partnerships. Here is the link.

In addition, new Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien has recently spoken out to urge the government to support the institution of marriage. See BBC story. It appears that O'Brien's recent elevation to cardinal may be having a good effect after all.

The Best Endorsement

A prominent pro-abortion activist comments on President Bush's signing today of the bill banning Parial Birth Abortion:

"Today we saw the real George Bush. If we could afford to, we would put that speech on television every day from now until the election," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Any shred of doubt that this is the most anti-choice president this country has ever had has been convincingly erased."

Source: Associated Press story.

From a Christian point of view, both Catholic and Protestant evangelical, her remarks are in fact the best possible endorsement President Bush could ask for. Many of us prayed for George Bush to be elected president in 2000 precisely because of the abortion issue. Our prayers were not in vain.

Here is the text of the President's remarks today that so upset Kate Michelman:

President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
The Ronald Reagan Building
Washington, D.C.

1:40 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land. (Applause.) For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child. (Applause.)

I want to thank you all for coming. Many of you have worked long and hard to see this bill come to fruition, and we thank you for your efforts.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I see some members of my Cabinet have come. I appreciate the good work of the Attorney General, John Ashcroft. (Applause.) Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is here. Thank you, Tommy. (Applause.) There are a lot of members of the Senate and House here today, I want to thank you all for passing this important legislation. I'm glad you're here. (Applause.)

The primary Senate sponsor is with us, Senator Rick Santorum. (Applause.) Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Mike DeWine helped, as well, in the Senate. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Steve Chabot was the primary House sponsor, and Steve is with us. Thanks for coming, Steve. (Applause.) I'm thankful that our Speaker is with us today. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) The Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, as well. Thank you for coming, Tom. (Applause.)

I'd like to mention three other members of the House. Henry Hyde is with us today. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Jim Oberstar is with us. Jim, thank you for being here, sir, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Bart Stupak, from Michigan, is with us, as well. Thanks for coming, Bart, glad you're here. (Applause.)

I appreciate His Eminence, Cardinal Egan, is with us today. Thank you very much, sir. (Applause.)

In passing this legislation, members of the House and Senate made a studied decision based upon compelling evidence. The best case against partial birth abortion is a simple description of what happens and to whom it happens. It involves the partial delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life. Our nation owes its children a different and better welcome. (Applause.) The bill I am about to sign protecting innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of America.

In the course of the congressional debate, the facts became clear. Each year, thousands of partial birth abortions are committed. As Doctor C. Everett Koop, the pediatrician and former Surgeon General has pointed out, the majority of partial birth abortions are not required by medical emergency. As Congress has found, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother, and a violation of medical ethics. (Applause.)

The facts about partial birth abortion are troubling and tragic, and no lawyer's brief can make them seem otherwise. (Applause.) By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience. And the executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts. (Applause.)

America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right of life. And the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life. (Applause.)

In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. We're asked to live out our calling as Americans. We're asked to honor our own standards, announced on the day of our founding in the Declaration of Independence. We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society. And today, we welcome vulnerable children into the care and protection of Americans. (Applause.)

The late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey once said that: when we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins. (Applause.) This is the generous and merciful spirit of our country at its best. This spirit is reflected in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I am now honored to sign into law. God bless. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.) Thank you, all. (Applause.)

END 1:51 P.M. EST

Source: White House website.

In my opinion, the President's most memorable line is the following:

Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life.

God bless the President of the United States of America. It feels good to say it.

Bush to Sign Ban on Partial Birth Abortion Today

Today, President Bush will sign the ban on partial birth abortion, vetoed twice in the nineties by former President Clinton. The Associated Press has a good
summary of the background for the signing.

Several things can be said. First, with the signing of this bill, further cumulative tangible proof is produced that no Catholic can in good conscience support the national Democratic Party which embraces partial birth abortion. For serious Catholics, the national Democratic Party molded by the Clintons has vaporized: it is the party of abortion, pure and simple.

Second, the conflict over partial birth abortion will now move to the judicial branch, with several lawsuits already filed. If the courts strike down the bill, it will be another step toward the time when courts in the United States will lose their judicial independence. Courts cannot continue to ignore obvious crimes that become plainer and plainer to the rest of society without losing their power (see Catholic Analysis essay on judicial hubris for 10/22/03). The abortion issue has the potential of being the wedge that leads to an eventual revision of our revered system of judicial independence. Much like the crisis-ridden Episcopal Church, sometimes institutions, however venerable, simply lose all credibility. There is no divine right of judicial independence. If the abuse of judicial power continues, the extent of judicial power will slowly diminish.

Third, the abject moral failure of many nominally Catholic institutions to fight against the crime of abortion is more and more evident. The Associated Press story linked above quotes the defiant words of Kim Gandy, the President of the pro-abortion National Organization of Women (NOW). Well, a few years ago, Loyola University of New Orleans honored her with a public service award as a revered alumna, in spite of public protest by alumni and even by the archbishop of New Orleans (see Catholic Analysis essay for 10/8/03). Just like the national Democratic Party, no faithful Catholic can cast his or her lot with such transparently failed nominally Catholic institutions--and certainly Loyola of New Orleans is not, by any means, alone.

It is worth noting that the abortion issue persists as the great wedge issue of American culture. Over this issue, we may very well see the gradual dissolution of the judicial power we have become accustomed to. Over this issue, we see the growing loss of Catholic voters by the national Democratic party. And, over this issue, we see long-time loyalties of sentiment to now dysfunctional and confused Catholic educational institutions eroding. As science gives further proof of the humanity of the unborn child, the barbarism of all abortion will become more self-evident to more and more people, and the tensions in American culture will increase.

Liberal Media Bias More Prominent Than Ever Before

Conservative columnist Larry Elder made note in 2002 of a rarely reported admission by CBS's Andy Rooney on the Larry King show confirming what we all know:

CBS's Andy Rooney appeared recently on "Larry King Live." King asked Rooney about "Bias," the book by Bernard Goldberg that accuses CBS in particular and mainstream news in general of a liberal bias:

"What did you make of Bernard Goldberg's book," asked King, "critical of television liberal bias, and especially harsh on some of your folks at CBS."

"I thought he made some very good points," replied Rooney. "There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the -- I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too. But I think he should be more careful ... " Rooney went on to accuse Goldberg of being a "jerk," but left untouched Goldberg's accusation of mainstream media leftism.

Larry Elder column, June 27, 2002, available at this link (emphasis added).

Given this undeniable left-wing media bias, it is all the more amazing that as we stand today there is a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a plethora of Republican governors. Yet, the bias is not all political. It extends to religious affairs coverage, with the Boston Globe taking the prize, in my opinion, for the most anti-Catholic of major newspapers. Or, to be more exact, the Boston Globe is anti-Catholic if you happen to be a Catholic who embraces the official teachings of the Church. The Boston Globe has no problem with anti-papal pseudo-Catholics like Richard McBrien of Notre Dame or Peggy Steinfels of the Commonweal family dynasty.

Yesterday's Boston Globe contained the most scurrilous character assassination of faithful Catholics that I, for one, have ever seen in the mainstream media. The article was a hatchet job on prominent conservative Catholics like Deal Hudson of Crisis magazine, Fr. John McCloskey of Opus Dei, Tom Monaghan of Ave Maria University, among other prominent names. It also quotes the opinions of dissidents McBrien and Peggy Steinfels as confirmation of its wild protrayal of a right-wing conspiracy within the Catholic Church. I guess dissident Catholics don't need to do the dirty work of character assassination on their own. They can rely on the liberal secular media to take the bait, possibly with little or no nudging.

For Catholics who are pro-papacy and embrace the teaching authority of the Church, the proposal of a vast right-wing conspiracy in the Church is, ironically, a good sign. In the past, when liberals, whether theological or merely political, trot out the conspiracy theories, it is usually a sign that conservatives are succeeding and are viewed as threats. Witness Hillary Clinton desperately fronting for her spouse during the Lewinsky scandal. In the on-going Anglican gay crisis, the proponents of the gay agenda have been so alarmed by the vehemence and level of organization of orthodox Episcopalians that charges of a right-wing conspiracy, funded by right-wing millionaires with a "political" agenda, have become standard fare.

It is ironic that the journalistic profession, which has to be one of the most self-righteous arbiters of right and wrong in American society, is so transparently lacking in basic integrity and honesty. For those who do not receive Deal Hudson's e-mail letters, here is Hudson's response to the Boston Globe, a response that confirms the worst caricature of the liberal media:

Answering The Boston Globe

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter

November 3, 2003

**********************************************

Dear Friend,

It was just a matter of time. When Charles Pierce showed up at our
September 8 meeting with the bishops, he said he was working on a
story for the Boston Globe Magazine.

Days went by. Then weeks, then months. The stories from the other
reporters present were written and printed (and were actually quite
fair). But nothing from Pierce.

Until yesterday.

If you don't get the Globe, let me give you a quick rundown:
Yesterday's edition of the Boston Globe Magazine had a cover story
called "The Crusaders." As you've probably already guessed, it was a
feature-length assault on faithful Catholicism in general and
faithful Catholic leaders in specific (Fr. C. John McCloskey received
the brunt of the abuse; Opus Dei, Tom Monaghan, George Weigel, and I
received our share as well).

You can read the piece here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/

Normally, I would have simply ignored the piece. After all, you
won't last long in this business if you get upset every time a
liberal reporter does a hatchet job on you.

But this article contained a claim that's simply too outrageous to
let pass. If you've read the piece, you know exactly what I'm
referring to. If you haven't, you'll find out in a moment.

First, let me say that there's something oddly refreshing about a
reporter who forgoes even the appearance of objectivity. When Charles
Pierce put pen to paper (or, more likely, fingers to keyboard), he
clearly had no intention but to write a one-sided, liberal critique
of "conservative" Catholics. How else can we explain outrageous
statements like this:

"Vatican II is now a towering historical event, representing for
some the ongoing spirit of reform in the church and for others a kind
of theological breeder reactor, constantly on the edge of going out
of control. While favoring the latter view, Pope John Paul II, who
has led the Catholic Church since 1978, also has reinterpreted the
events of the council in such a way that they support his
traditionalist view of the church."

John Paul II has "reinterpreted" the council to support his
"traditionalist" views? Obviously, Charles Pierce has never read the
documents of the Second Vatican Council or he'd be too embarrassed to
make such a statement.

Furthermore, he seems to have no idea what a traditionalist is. In
fact, in the very next paragraph, he makes the astonishing claim that
"Over his lengthy pontificate, John Paul II has allied himself with
the traditionalist side of every ongoing dispute within the church."

Traditionalists would certainly be surprised to hear this.

But Pierce's bias is apparent in other ways as well. The extremely
liberal Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame is laughably presented
as mainstream; the Ethics and Public Policy Center -- a conservative
think-tank -- is criticized for receiving money from (gasp!) some
conservative foundations. (Does Pierce criticize liberal think-tanks
for receiving funding from liberal groups? Hardly. I guess it's only
wrong when conservatives do it.)

Our September 8 meeting with the bishops comes in for similar
treatment. Pierce begins by seriously mischaracterizing the earlier
secret meeting between the bishops and a group of dissenters, making
it sound like a small, harmless meeting of bishops and laypeople
genuinely concerned about the sex abuse crisis (no mention that the
attendees were almost exclusively dissenters, nor that vital "sex
abuse" topics like birth control and women's ordination were
covered).

In regards to our own meeting with the bishops, Pierce takes a much
different tone:

"Almost immediately, the conservative network reacted strongly to
what it termed a 'secret meeting' between the bishops and
'dissenters' and organized its own meeting at the Cosmos Club in
September, which Gregory and the other bishops could hardly refuse to
attend. Ironically, the conservatives were being more forceful in
their invitation than deference to episcopal authority might
previously have allowed."

Actually, we simply (and quietly) invited Bishop Gregory and the
others to the event. There was no force, no threats, no bluster --
nothing at all. The bishops graciously accepted and we had a very
productive and positive meeting. But this doesn't fit into the "angry
conservative" stereotype Pierce is trying to assemble.

Finally, near the end of the article and after a host of other small
errors that any fact-checker should have picked up (First Things is
NOT a Catholic magazine... it's ecumenical; the 26-year-old
Christendom College is not "new"; etc.), Pierce makes a truly
shocking statement:

"Deal Hudson does not like John McCloskey. Before saying anything
about him, and nothing that's good, Hudson turns off a reporter's
tape recorder. After all, if one is trying to simultaneously renew
the universal church and build a conservative Catholic political
movement out of the ashes of scandal, it does not help to have
someone baptizing leading political conservatives while waxing
affably about the religious dissolution of the country."

I don't like Fr. McCloskey? Well that's certainly news to me. After
all, we've been friends for years... he was the first guest on my
EWTN show (he and I inaugurated the theme of Church and culture on
that episode)... I've attended several retreats with him... he's a
long-time supporter of the magazine and attends most of our events...
in fact, we often have him offer the prayers at our annual
fundraising dinners. And to cap it all off, I recently asked Fr.
McCloskey if I could hold the release party for my new book at his
Catholic Information Center in two weeks (he generously agreed).

Make no mistake: I like Fr. C. John McCloskey. We've been friends
for years, and that friendship will continue.

But if that's all true, what on earth is Pierce referring to?
Actually, it's quite simple and undeserving of the sinister treatment
he gives it in his article. At one point in our interview about
faithful Catholics in the Church, Pierce asked me what I thought of
Fr. McCloskey's take on the sex abuse crisis. Since Father McCloskey
and I have a friendly disagreement over the role of the media in the
scandal, I turned off the tape recorder (I didn't want to be quoted
as disagreeing with him). It's an in-house debate, and we can argue
over it privately as friends, but I didn't want anything I said to be
used as ammo for an anti-McCloskey hit-piece.

I guess I was a bit naïve.

Regardless, my comments were confined to our relatively minor
difference of opinion on the sex abuse crisis. Nothing I said could
possibly be understood as evidence of ill will. So for Pierce to
claim that I don't like Fr. McCloskey is simply dirty pool... a
clumsy attempt to sew division among faithful Catholics.

In the end, Pierce's article is a mess -- an agenda-driven mishmash
of distortion and error. It's certainly not uncommon to see attacks
like this against faithful Catholics. But rarely are they so
obvious.


I'll talk to you again in a couple days,

Deal

So, if you were wondering if the Boston Globe's coverage of the recent Church scandals was fair, wonder no more.

From Henry VIII to Gene I: The Failed Experiment of Anglicanism

In 1533, Henry VIII divorced and remarried in defiance of the Pope and was duly excommunicated. Yesterday, 470 years later, Gene Robinson, also divorced and "re-committed," insisted on his consecration as an Episcopal bishop. He is now about to be effectively excommunicated by orthodox Anglicans. The morning news is already reporting that the Anglicans in Kenya have broken all ties with the U.S. Episcopal Church. More such announcements will likely follow. The Pope has already made clear that this action derails any hope of progress in ecumenical relations with Anglicanism. The same distinctive pattern of 1533 has emerged in 2003: an arrogant man with power rams his will through in defiance of Christian tradition and Scripture, oblivious of the chain of events he is unleashing. The arrogance of Gene Robinson comes in a much softer package, but the steely arrogance is there in the persistent defiance of Scripture and tradition.

In the England of Henry VIII, the king as dictator defined the culture, and proceeded to execute any who stood in his way, most famously St. John Fisher, the only English bishop to resist, and St. Thomas More. Today, Gene Robinson is no political dictator, but he is a spokesman for cultural correctness that seeks to codify the gay lifestyle in law and surely will press for laws forbidding any attacks on that lifestyle. I have heard some refer to the likelihood of future persecution of orthodox Christians, especially Catholics, in the United States. Today, I can see the initial trajectory of that as a real possibility. Once a lifestyle is codified due to cultural changes, the pressure will be to silence all who attack the lifestyle. Those who feel bound by a higher loyalty to witness against that lifestyle will become the targets of legal persecution. There have been reports from other nations confirming this outcome.

Just as in the England of Henry VIII it was essential to survival to approve of the King's new relationships, so in the West of the future it may be essential to survival to approve of the embrace of even more radically new relationships. Those who remain loyal to authentic Christian tradition have no choice but to resist this journey to legal persecution. Political elections in the United States will be increasingly marked by conflict between those who wish to accelerate the gay agenda and those who wish to reverse it.

The Anglican experiment has been focused on using Christianity as a vehicle for social, cultural, and political expression when Christianity in fact is beyond culture and sits in judgment of all culture. The Anglican experiment has failed because it has lost the subject of the experiment: Christianity itself. All that remains is Rowan Williams, the Anglican leader in Canterbury, muttering sophistries about commissions and structures-- the ultimate example of the absurdity of clinging to empty forms.

All Souls: Isaiah 25:6-9; Romans 6:3-9; John 6:37-40

On this feast, we do not merely remember but actively assist our departed loved ones who are undergoing post-mortem purification, the process of purgatory. We pray that they may speedily fulfill their destiny of seeing the face of God and, in turn, ask that they may intercede before God for us who remain in this vale of tears.

The prophet Isaiah calls death "the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations . . . ." (Is. 25:7), which God will "swallow up . . . for ever" (Is. 25:8). The empty tomb of Christ is the fulfillment of that prophecy. St. Paul in Romans precisely pins our hope on the bodily resurrection of Christ: "For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom. 6:9). Recent historical scholarship has confirmed what Christians have always believed: the bodily resurrection of Christ is the key to the Christian faith. As Anglican scholar, N.T. Wright, has stated, "'[t]he proposal that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead possesses unrivalled power to explain the historical data at the heart of early Christianity" (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Fortress Press 2003], p. 718). So if you are unfortunate enough to hear someone claiming that the Resurrection was merely a spiritual or non-historical event or mere psychological experience, remember the speaker is not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the term. In the Gospel reading, Jesus Himself promises that we will share in this bodily resurrection. Unlike others, He has proven his credibility.

Orwell, Private Definitions, & Catholic Dissent

I have belatedly discovered that June 25, 2003, marked the 100th birthday of the English writer George Orwell (1903-1950). Although a committed leftist, Orwell became famous for exposing the lying nature of Communist totalitarianism. He also wrote a famous essay that is still worth reading today called "Politics and the English Language" (1946). The essay is especially worth reading by those who write frequently for the public. Although I do not agree with everything in the essay, reading it has a sobering effect on a writer because of the constant temptation to borrow cliches in one's writing. Apart from a left-wing anti-Catholic reference in the essay, I am comfortable with most of its recommendations for writers. I do disagree with Orwell's emphasis on preferring the active voice over the passive voice. I believe Orwell's more fundamental recommendation trumps this particular "rule" of writing: use whatever is necessary to express your exact meaning. Orwell himself urges the reader to ignore his "rules" whenever common sense demands it. Today, many teachers of writing parrot the Orwellian preference for the active voice with the result that many students apply the preference mechanically and eliminate a legitimate part of our language. The essay is available at this link (it contains 2 or 3 insignificant typographical errors).

The following is an excerpt from Orwell's essay dealing with private definitions, a topic which is relevant to any evaluation of the writing of Catholic dissenters:

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," (1946).

We see this same use of words with private and misleading definitions in much of the writing of Catholic dissent. Whether or not there is conscious dishonesty involved as Orwell says is a judgment I leave to the reader. The scenario usually goes like this. First, the dissenting writer is someone educated enough either because he is a cleric or a theologian or both to know the traditional meanings of phrases like the "divinity of Christ" in Christology or "collegiality" in ecclesiology or "fundamental option" in moral theology.

Second, the dissenting writer has inverted the definition of the tradition. So the "divinity of Christ" becomes a symbolic affirmation that we somehow see God very clearly in the life of Jesus. "Collegiality" becomes a code word for individual bishops contradicting the teachings of the Pope. "Fundamental option" becomes a phrase that excludes the possibility of a mortally sinful act by a Christian. All of these new definitions contradict Catholic Tradition, which is the source of all Catholic theology. Yet, the dissenting writers present themselves as speaking authoritatively and accurately in the name of Catholic Tradition adapted to the modern age.

Finally, the dissenting writer usually refuses to notify the reader that he is using a private definition that contradicts Catholic Tradition. The writer baits the Catholic reader with the traditional phrase by making his use of the traditional phrase appear to be what it is not. The Catholic reader tempted to escape the demands made on him by Catholic doctrine and morals then experiences a sense of relief that, according to this particular theologian or cleric, the challenge of Catholic doctrine and morals is not as great as he once thought. The reader walks away deceived.

What is the practical solution to this common deception, whether conscious or not, by Catholic dissidents? I suggest that any Catholic dissident make clear at the outset, with punctilious accuracy, how Catholic tradition defines the subject he is treating. The dissident can then propose whatever he wishes, but the reader will know that it is a radical departure from Catholic Tradition. Of course, the better solution would be that the dissident writer would no longer present himself as Catholic in the first place by using the private definition that a Catholic is free to reject Catholic Tradition. Thus, a dissident like Hans Küng could easily preface his works by frankly admitting that he is a liberal Protestant. And those who praise Küng, such as Andrew Greeley, among others, could do the same.

The Wave of the Future

The assumption of many secular Westerners is that the culture of the secular West is the wave of the future. The lifestyle of sexual license, the push to re-define marriage, the embrace of childlessness, the philosophical focus on the fulfillment of the self at the expense of binding commitments are seen as the marks of enlightened civilized progress. In many ways, this Western world view, while radically new in the details of its agenda for change, is still rooted in the very old philosophy of the Enlightenment, a philosophy of uninterrupted progress as the shackles of traditional religion, family, and morality are left behind. Even after a twentieth century full of world wars, holocausts, the breakdown of family life, plummeting birth rates among European populations, and widespread, empty consumerism, the progressive outlook amazingly persists.

This progressive outlook looks at the so-called "backward" parts of the world, such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and envisions their gradual adoption of all the traits and preferences of secular Western lifestyles. But what if the model of the inevitable progress of secular Western culture is wrong? What if, like Marx, the prophets of secularism find that their anticipated historical outcomes refuse to materialize? In my view, much of the astounding refusal of Western progressives to abandon their worldview lies in their unquestioned and superstitious faith in the inevitable progress and expansion of their cultural preferences. But they may, in fact, be quite wrong.

An alternative future scenario in which cultures reject the wild individualism of the West may be what is in fact triumphant. Acts have consequences, lifestyles have lengthy shadows over present and future generations. When the Old Testament Scriptures speak of the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children, we can no longer dismiss such passages as merely outdated and primitive musings. In fact, in our everyday experience, we see how the sins of the fathers overshadow tragically the lives of the children. The practical consequences of Western individual excess are plainly evident. The shadow of substance abuse, whether the substances are legal or illegal, has hung over countless Western families. The licentious lifestyle has marred and destroyed many a family, with deep psychological consequences that surface in the destructive choices of later generations. The empty consumerism and status-seeking of Western societies create the conditions for the abuse of substances and bodies and leads to an air of despair. Can a culture that produces such consequences in the midst of economic affluence really be the wave of the future?

C.S. Lewis once wrote of what he envisioned as a Christian culture, one marked by the de-emphasis on conspicuous consumption and by very conservative social customs. To Lewis, this rejection of consumerism and embrace of social conservatism seemed to be the inevitable traits of a Christian culture. Here is Lewis on what "a fully Christian society would be like" using the language of someone writing in 1943:

It [the New Testament] tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man doesn't work, he oughtn't to eat . . . .there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to be no "swank"or "side," no putting on airs. To that extent a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience-- obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I'm afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly, it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding worry or anxiety as wrong. . . . If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we'd come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, advanced, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old-fashioned-- perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic.

C.S. Lewis, Christian Behaviour (The MacMillan Co. 1950 [1943]), p. 15.

Clearly, Lewis envisions a Christian rejection of consumerism and a Christian embrace of social or family traditionalism. In the United States at least, what Lewis assumed to be a "Leftist" rejection of consumerism no longer applies. What passes for the Left in the United States is adamantly materialist and consumerist--- if in doubt, just peruse the glossy pages of excessive and dissolute advertisements in the liberal newspaper of record, the New York Times, on any given Sunday. The idea of leftist simplicity of lifestyle, say of an Orwell or a Dorothy Day, is long gone. In place, we have the limousine liberals of modern America exemplified by the materially voracious and morally dissolute lifestyle of the Clintons.

The vision of Lewis seems a sane response to the catastrophe of modern Western lifestyles. Even secularists who believe only in evolutionary changes and pragmatism must concede that destructive lifestyles will breed reactions seeking to escape their bad consequences. In that sense, the wave of the future may not be a spreading of the twin Western pillars of consumerism and sexual chaos. Instead, the wave of the future may very well be a rejection of materialism and a renewed commitment to traditional family life so that people will live to flourish and not live to consume things and consume themselves. But, regardless, of "the wave of the future," the wise, even if remaining a little flock, will seek the path of human flourishing and reject the path of nihilism.

Is the Liberal Media Taking On Politically Incorrect Africa?

African Christians are wielding power today to the dismay of Western liberals. The Anglican Communion is on the brink of dissolution as African churchmen threaten to break ties with Western Anglicans intent on officially recognizing the gay lifestyle as thoroughly Christian. The Catholic Church, as the enemy of all secular liberals, may one day have an African pope who will surely emphasize traditional Catholic moral teaching that is anathema to Western liberals who view any limits on sexual gratification as a human rights abuse. Given this trend of rising African Christian traditionalism, it is quite curious that the paragon of the liberal media, the New York Times, recently ran a story in its prominent Sunday magazine section replete with grotesque and horrific details about African cannibalism in the midst of the civil wars engulfing the Congo (see N.Y. Times On-line, Magazine section (10/26/03), "The Most Unconventional Weapon," by writer Daniel Bergner).

It is story full of horrible descriptions of cannibalism. The author goes on to allege instances of cannibalism, mutilation, and even desecration of graves in the following countries: South Africa, Uganda, Liberia, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone. He also mentions instances of human sacrifice. In other words, it is a bleak picture of a bleak continent.

Let us assume that all of the information is correct, and as such its reporting is worthwhile in order to call attention to this barbarity. Yet, the article makes, in my view, no effort to give the reader a means to evaluate how widespread the problem really is. We are given horrible descriptions, but no real context to make a judgment about the continent as a whole. In addition, it is quite surprising that all of a sudden a prominent liberal newspaper is willing to violate its own canons of political correctness on racial sensitivity. If the facts are true, the story must be told. But the timing of the story, given the anti-liberal proclivities of Africans in Christian debates, does raise a reasonable question: is the liberal media going to discredit African attacks on Western moral decadence with stories about African cannibalism, polygamy, and rampant superstition? The only way to tell is to watch if the frequency of these types of African stories increases.

Yet, there is already a quite recent precedent for being a bit suspicious. In the Anglican debates about gay bishops, liberals have already attacked conservative African sentiments by mocking the practice of polygamy and even raising questions of human sacrifice in Africa (see, for example, Guardian (UK) story at penultimate paragraph). It seems that for Western liberals obsessed with sexual revisionism and deeply engaged in the culture wars the old habits of racial sensitivity are expendable.

Voice of the Faithful Feverishly Proclaims That Catholic Hierarchy is Evil

If anyone had any lingering doubt about the questionable origins, beliefs, and intentions of the Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), the statements made at a recent tri-state gathering of the organization at Fordham University in New York City make the anti-Catholic nature of the organization clear. The tirade by former priest Eugene Kennedy, a well-known writer, psychologist, and former professor at Loyola University of Chicago, can easily match the invective, contempt, and hatred expressed over the centuries by anti-Catholics, whether during or after the Protestant Reformation. VOTF and Kennedy take their place along extreme fundamentalist anti-Catholics such as those at Bob Jones University or those who publish anti-Catholic pamphlets such as Chick Publications. Extended excerpts of Kennedy's diatribe, a diatribe laced with discernible New Age affectations and exhibiting the influence of a life accustomed to psychobabble, are reproduced in an article found in a Connecticut newspaper.

Here is a partial sample of the Kennedy harangue, loudly applauded by the assembled VOTF activists:

Abusing the body of Christ sacramentally and the bodies of children sexually are the responses of persons with power. The responses they make to people who trust them and have no power. The hierarchical poison is tasted every day by persons who seek very ordinary, but very important things -- the date and time of a wedding, a dispensation of some sort. Perhaps, permission to hold a meeting on church property. "Scholars taste it when officials strive to control what they think, write or say. Ministers gag on it when ordered to guard against homosexuals, the scapegoats of our age branded by hierarchs with the mark of Cain. People are told to submit to their own demeaning and thereby to gratify something unhealthy in the officials as they put you down to raise themselves up. All of this of course for the good of the church."

"The Voice of the Faithful," by Francis X. Fay, Jr., in The Hour Online, Norwalk, Conn. (first accessed on 10/28/03) (emphasis added).

This excerpt plus the rest of the excerpts from the newspaper article make the message of VOTF clear: the Catholic hierarchy is evil. In these excerpted remarks, there is no attempt to limit criticism to one or more particular bishops. What we have is a wholesale condemnation of the hierarchical structure itself, of the very concept of a church hierarchy.

By condemning the very idea of the hierarchy, they are rejecting Christ, and have put themselves outside the belief of the Catholic Church. Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, plainly proclaims that it was Christ himself who instituted the hierarchy:

In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. . . . .That divine mission, which was committed by Christ to the apostles, is destined to last until the end of the world . . . . For that very reason the apostles were careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted society.

Lumen Gentium, 18, 20, trans. by Austin Flannery, O.P. (Costello Publishing 1998)(emphasis added).

Kennedy and VOTF clearly reject the letter and spirit of Vatican II. The conclusion, in my view, is inescapable: these activists are not Catholic in spirit, word, or intent. They are a force for anti-Catholicism parasitically existing within the technical boundaries of the Church. They have remained in the Church, to borrow again from Lumen Gentium, " 'in body' not 'in heart'" (LG, 14). They have come full circle. They are now persecuting the same hierarchical Church for which many of their own immigrant ancestors suffered persecution.

The assertion of Penn State professor Philip Jenkins that much anti-Catholicism comes from within the boundaries of the Catholic Church is again being confirmed. Jenkins anticipates my own conclusions about the Eugene Kennedy harangue:

Many of the most damaging attacks against the Church derived from internal sources rather than external critics: [Maureen] Dowd, [James] Carroll, [Anna] Quindlen, [Eugene] Kennedy, [Garry] Wills, and [Richard] Sipe would all describe themselves as faithful Catholics. Yet their rhetoric deployes an often ferocious range of anti-Church arguments, which are readily adopted and amplified by the most fervent anti-Catholics. In this view, the Church is of its nature un-American, abusive, and totalitarian; clergy are closeted perverts.

Philip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism (Oxford Univ. Press 2003), p. 156.

The false prophets are active within the boundaries of the Church. Indeed, the smoke of Satan is still, unfortunately, with us.

The State of Scotland, The State of the West

Anglican theologian Kendall Harmon posts an excerpt from the London Times which in part describes the state of Catholic affairs in Scotland:

And congregations in Cardinal O’Brien’s Catholic Church are down 19% to 202,110 since 1994. In fact, the Pope said earlier this year that Scotland was no longer a Christian country, so feeble was its devotion to Mass.

We shop on the Sabbath instead of praying, we covet our neighbours’ goods, we worship false gods and indulge our basest instincts. Our men are foul-mouthed, our women are loose, our youth degenerate. The Pope was right, Christianity does have a tenuous connection to 21st-century Scotland.

See Harmon's web log (Sunday, Oct. 26, 2003).

It is time for stronger leadership in Scotland. Let us hope new Cardinal O'Brien will step up to the plate.

Catholic Evangelization: What Is Missing?

Because we Americans live in a culture with a strong Protestant evangelical presence, the word "evangelization" immediately conjures up the image of the streetcorner preacher or of the door-to-door distribution of religious tracts. The other image we have is of the televised crusades in stadiums made famous by Billy Graham. There are also other forms of Protestant evangelization that are part of American life: the Gideon Bible in hotel rooms, billboards, both humble and expensive, with biblical quotations, bumper stickers with religious messages, and radio or television shows. Avery Cardinal Dulles in a recent First Things article lamented the fact that many non-Catholic Christians show decidedly greater commitment to this task of evangelization than Catholics, a task defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the "proclamation of Christ and his Gospel . . . by word and the testimony of life, in fulfillment of Christ's command" (see Glossary under "Evangelization").

Dulles describes the situation as follows:

The call for a new evangelization strongly issued by Paul VI and John Paul II has fallen, it would seem, on deaf ears. The majority of Catholics have little appreciation of their mission to spread the faith as a precious gift intended for all. In some cases they behave as if faith were an unwelcome burden. Members of fundamentalist churches, Mormons, and Pentecostals commonly exhibit a stronger missionary thrust than Catholics.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, "True and False Reform," First Things (Aug./Sept. 2003).

Now, there are some Catholics heavily and admirably involved in proclaiming the Gospel in the United States. The apologetics organization Catholic Answers comes to mind with its high quality pamphlets and with its step-by-step guide to the nuts and bolts of evangelizing. EWTN, in both television and radio, is probably the greatest on-going Catholic evangelizing effort in the United States. And, of course, there are numerous Catholic radio stations doing the same. Catholic evangelists do exist, but they are very few in comparison with the number among Protestant evangelicals. And, certainly, the great works of mercy carried out by Catholics in hospitals, childrens' homes, homes for unwed mothers, schools, and various other institutions are forms of evangelization by "testimony of life."

Yet, in my opinion, the aspect of Catholicism that seems to be missing is the backbone of Catholic life, the parish. In most of the prominent examples of Catholic evangelization that I am familiar with, there is usually some organization involved that has arisen through the efforts of laity independent of the initiative of parish pastors and the hierarchy. This gap seems odd, and may be what Cardinal Dulles was getting at when he unfavorably compared Catholic efforts at evangelization with that of non-Catholic Christians.

What is the answer here? How can the Catholic parish be mobilized to evangelize? Should pastors encourage people to go door-to-door offering tracts similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Well, yes. Many Catholics go door-to-door selling candy for schools and scouting troops. Many Catholics go door-to-door canvassing for political candidates and selling products for a living. So there must be many Catholics already comfortable and experienced in this form of personal communication. Why not harness it for evangelization?

A parish can pay for a billboard in a prominent location inviting visitors to Mass. We have all seen billboards and other advertisements inviting the general public to parish fairs and festivals. A parish can make high quality pamphlets to parishioners to spread the Catholic faith among friends, relatives, and co-workers, aimed at both non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. I have yet to see a parish not adept at distributing raffle tickets to households in a parish. If raffle tickets, why not a pamphlet from Catholic Answers?

You get the picture. Virtually every Catholic parish already has a set of well-honed practices and techniques for fund-raising. Why not use the same techniques for evangelization? For those anxious about financial matters, we could point out that the Gospel calls us to seek the kingdom of God first and all else will be given to us. If evangelization produces more Catholic parishioners, surely financial needs will be better attended to. In addition, there is no necessary conflict between public outreach for festival and fairs and evangelization. Already some, usually relatively minor, efforts at evangelization are made by some parish organizations at parish festivals. Why not expand that presence?

In addition, in some settings, Catholic liturgical processions can be a means to witness the faith to the wider community. It can spark curiosity among non-Catholics who see public displays of Catholic faith.

All in all, it does not seem difficult to "evangelize" parish activities and thus make them means of evangelization. The deeper question is why that "evangelization" of parish activities is not more common and obvious. Here are some guesses. First, it is undeniable that many have adopted the religious relativism and indifferentism of Catholic liberals and the wider culture in which it is affirmed that the particular religion one adheres to makes no difference in matters of salvation and that thus there is no need to seek converts. Many do not realize that this religious indifferentism is a heresy. This mindset is usually reinforced by a grievous misinterpretation of Vatican II's embrace of ecumenism and respect for other religions, fostered even by some misguided Catholic theologians.

Second, there is a cultural factor similar to the dynamic among our Jewish brethren, namely, an erroneous view of Catholicism as an ethnic phenomenon. That seems to be the implicit view of many in the chanceries around the country. There is usually vigorous outreach to Catholic immigrants. There is certainly a focus on serving those already Catholic and even on reaching out to inactive Catholics. But there seems to be an absence of emphasis on converting non-Catholics. Some even go so far to condemn such efforts at conversion under the pejorative label of "proselytism." It is crucial that the hierarchy reaffirm that the Catholic Church actively seeks and welcomes converts-- and not just those marrying Catholics or those who show up on their own at RCIA meetings. The hierarchy must make clear that we actively invite and propose Catholicism to all, whether Jewish, Protestant, Moslem, or irreligious. We have been blessed with great freedom in this country. We are obliged to use it to propose the Catholic faith to all, regardless of background, without coercion or pressure tactics.

These two factors, religious indifferentism and an overemphasis on ethnic Catholicism, are, in my opinion, blocking the potential for Catholic evangelization in the United States, and probably in other Western nations. The bishops' conference should address this matter forthwith, and, if there is ever to be a plenary council again in the United States, this issue must be at the top of the agenda. After all, it is the command of Christ Himself.

Terri Schiavo Issue Re-Ignites: CNN's Larry King Hosts Husband Intent on Euthanasia

CNN's Larry King will interview Michael Schiavo, the husband of Terri Schiavo, tonight at 9:00 p.m. ET. According to reports, the husband remains intent on starving Terri Schiavo to death.

Consider contacting Larry King by e-mail with your comments urging him to interview the parents and siblings of Terri Schiavo in order to be fair and balanced. King should also question Michael Schiavo about media reports that he is living with another woman. It seems beyond belief that the legal system tolerates as a legal guardian someone who may very well be in open adultery toward the spouse whose best interest he is supposed to be pursuing. Terri Schiavo is entitled to a guardian without any such conflict of interest who can bring a divorce action to vindicate her rights. Clearly, adultery is an objective ground for civil divorce that a legal guardian can bring on behalf of Terri Schiavo. The Catholic Church recognizes that even faithful Catholics are not bound to remain at all costs in such a predicament and that civil divorce may be advisable for legal reasons, although, where there exists a valid marriage under canon law, the marriage bond always remains intact.

Here is the relevant Catholic position on civil divorce:

In view of serious circumstances of marital distress, the Church permits an innocent and aggrieved party, whether wife or husband, to seek and obtain a civil divorce for the purpose of acquiring title and right to the civil effects of divorce . . . . Permission for this kind of action should be obtained from proper church authority. The divorce, if obtained, does not break the bond of a valid marriage.

Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Almanac 2003, p. 208.

If there was no valid marriage in the Schiavo case to begin with, then there is no question that a civil divorce should be sought. If there is a valid matrimonial bond, then surely this case qualifies as one of sufficient marital distress to justify the benefit of having Michael Schiavo removed as a legal guardian. His removal as guardian would be a civil effect of any divorce.

If you care to communicate respectfully with CNN on the upcoming interview, here is the link to the Larry King e-mail at CNN.

John Paul II on Nutrition and Hydration

". . . the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a patient's death must be rejected."

-- Pope John Paul II, Ad Limina Address to the Bishops of California, Nevada, and Hawaii, delivered on October 2, 1998, in Rome (full text available at Catholic Information Network).

In the same address, the Pope continued: "America must become, again, a hospitable society, in which every unborn child and every handicapped or terminally ill person is cherished and enjoys the protection of the law."

Mary, Strength of the Church

A truly Catholic analysis or perspective on these times and all times is Marian. The most distinctive mark of Catholicism in contrast to other forms of Christianity present in the Western world is the Marian perspective. In the East, the Eastern Orthodox share the Marian perspective, but, even there, the degree of development of the Marian perspective has lagged behind that of the Catholic Church. No church is more Marian than the Catholic Church. To Protestants, long divorced from the Catholicism of their ancestors, this Marian perspective is a scandal. Even among the Eastern Orthodox, some express hesitation over Catholic expressions of Marian devotion and imagery. Yet, in spite of the scandal, the Catholic Church proclaims the Marian perspective as essential to the mystery of Christ and of the Church.

In a little book on Mary, Hans Urs von Balthasar comments on the scene in the Book of Revelation where the dragon pursues the woman, "clothed with the sun," who is giving birth (Rev. 12):

This womanly, Marian Church cannot be affected by the power of the dragon, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The rock of Peter is safeguarded there too, which is why he is told: "Put your sword into its sheath." Paul and John Paul II go through the world without any sword: it is enough if they bear witness, that is their strongest weapon, and the successor of Peter can always find new strength, for this witness is a Church of Mary.

Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mary For Today (Ignatius Press 1988), p. 20.

As John Paul II becomes physically weaker, we can rest assured that he is drawing strength from the intercession of Mary so that he may continue to bear witness, even if it is by his silence. The Marian Church is invulnerable to the attacks of the dragons of secularism, paganism, and hatred. Her cloak protects all of her children.

Since the Incarnation, Mary has continued to play a pivotal role in giving birth to Christ anew in many lands and continents. Today, virtually half of the world's Catholic are in Latin America. Without the Iberian peoples and their descendants, today the Catholic Church would be but a shadow of itself. It was the presence of Mary at Guadalupe which was the catalyst for the conversion of the peoples of the New World. One author has described the impact of Guadalupe as setting:

. . . into motion the conversion to Christianity of a nation stretching from the Rio Grande to Honduras. Within seven years, some eight million souls would be baptized into the same "idolatrous" Church Luther was even then castigating--a spectacular rebirth that represented the equivalent of as many conversions on each of 2,666 consecutive days as on the day of Pentecost itself, when three thousand hallelujah-shouting sinners joined the fold.

John Martin, Roses, Fountains, and Gold (Ignatius Press 1998), p. 85.

Today, the image of Guadalupe has migrated northward and will change the historic citadel of New World Protestantism and secularism, the United States itself. Just as Mary appeared at Guadalupe while the great crisis of the Protestant Reformation was tearing Europe apart, so today in the midst of aggressive secularism and paganism in the Western world, Mary is moving into the heart of that powerful Western secularism.

The other great religious and cultural citadel in the world is that of Islam. Even here some, like the late Bishop Sheen, hoped for a Marian intervention. In 1952, decades before the crisis of September 11th, Bishop Sheen saw Mary as key to the conversion of the Moslems, especially under her title of Our Lady of Fatima. Fatima is of course the name of the daughter of Mohammed and considered by Moslems to be second in honor among women after Mary herself (Jacques Jormier, O.P., The Bible and the Qur'an (Ignatius Press 2002), p. 124). Sheen believed "that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as 'Our Lady of Fatima' as a pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son, too" (Fulton J. Sheen, The World's First Love [McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1952], repr. in Jormier, p. 124).

Fatima may be the pivotal event for the Moslem world that Guadalupe was for the natives of the New World. Just as the effect of Guadalupe is now being felt with great force within the United States through the migration of the children of Guadalupe, so it may be that the effect of Fatima may even penetrate the heretofore closed citadel of Islam. Clearly, the ground has been prepared and the seeds planted long ago.

Next Update: Monday, October 27, 2003

Due to academic commitments, the next update will be on Monday, October 27, 2003.

New York Times Tries to Marginalize Supporters of Terri Schiavo as "Religious Right"

Today's New York Times "analysis" of the success of supporters of Terri Schiavo with the Florida legislature runs a headline seeking to marginalize those offended at starving a disabled young woman: "Victory in Florida Feeding Case Emboldens the Religious Right" (see N.Y. Times on-line, National section, free reg'n required). I had originally planned to write on another topic today, but one look at the headlines told me that, as others predicted, the Culture of Death would take notice of the Schiavo victory for life and begin striking back. The editors of the New York Times are taking notice of another alleged "right-wing conspiracy." Instead of genuine analysis, what the N.Y. Times gives us merits the label of obscurantism. Instead of trying to clarify matters, it is another knee-jerk attempt to marginalize the pro-life movement.

If opposition to starvation of disabled persons is, as the N.Y. Times opines, necessarily right-wing, then all who oppose the killing of the disabled are all now right-wingers. That in itself is a devastating commentary on so-called liberals and moderates who are so preocccupied with the procedural decorum of the status quo that they refuse to take a stand against barbarism. It reminds me of the mindset of the liberal Anglican leader Rowan Williams whose response to the apostasy of liberal Episcopalians is to call a commission to devise new "structures" and procedures for holding the Anglican communion together. What we get from liberals is procedure instead of substance, which is not surprising given the abandonment of any concept of objective truth in moral matters.

The old-fashioned idea of a liberal or a left-winger was that of someone committed to the most weak and vulnerable in society. That is no longer true. Modern day leftists are more preoccupied with saving whales, killing unborn children, legislating gay marriage, and recognizing an absolute right to commit suicide, with euthanasia thrown in when no living will is present. Instead of the old-fashioned leftist preoccupation with social justice, what we have instead is a left-wing libertarianism strangely preoccupied with overturning any trace of the fundamental commands of the Decalogue in American law and culture. In addition, many of the issues pursued by liberals are strangely tied to doing everything possible to secure a lifestyle of unlimited sexual gratification without consequences, whether through abortion on demand, through the widespread dissemination of contraceptive information and products, through the legal recognition of sexual "partnerships" outside of marriage, through the protection of rampant pornography as a First Amendment right, and through incessant attacks on the Catholic Church, the last institution in society teaching the fullness of Christian sexual morality, a fullness which even evangelical Protestants have abandoned in their generally uncritical acceptance of contraception.

If this is what the left is all about today, then it is not surprising that anyone standing up for the disabled is today considered a right-winger by elite opinion. President Nixon once famously stated that we are all Keynesians now, in reference to the liberal icon of economics from the nineteen thirties, John Maynard Keynes. In late nineteenth century Britain, a leading political figure also famously noted that we are all socialists now. Well, given the caricature that passes for the left in the United States today, we are all right-wingers now.

Yet not all in the N.Y. Times story is negative. There is an astoundingly positive portrayal of Gov. Jeb Bush, alongside an unjustified attack on James Byrd, a leader in the Florida Legislature:

Political analysts in Florida said that while Mr. Byrd in particular had a political calculus in championing the law, it would be too simple to view Governor Bush's actions as pandering to his conservative base. They said that Mr. Bush, a Roman Catholic who is strongly against abortion and talks frequently about the "sanctity of life," was mostly acting on his convictions.

"Jeb Bush has certain core values that are extremely important to him, and this is one of those values," said Jim Kane, director of Florida Voter, a nonpartisan political news and polling service. "It doesn't matter if it could win the state for his brother for the next two elections running. He wouldn't do it if it violated his belief about the sanctity of life." (emphasis added)

In 2008, it may very well be that the best is yet to come. Faithful Catholics may very well see the first genuinely Catholic President of the United States, one who does not make it a fetish to run away from the Catholic faith.

New York Times As Expected Condemns the Rescue of Terri Schiavo

In an editorial in today's on-line edition, the New York Times, as expected, condemns the rescue of Terri Schiavo as "scorning the courts" because it defies the "right to die" proclaimed by the Supreme Court in 1990. This editorial is another example of naming an issue but refusing to analyze it. The issue is indeed one of "scorning the courts." True analysis would ask why many citizens do indeed scorn the judicial system, and why legislatures are expressing the scorn of their constituents. The reason is, of course, wild judicial activism expressed in rulings that offend moral sensibilities and contradict common sense prudence and caution in dealing with life and death matters. What the editorial fails to mention is the blatant conflict of interest in having as a legal guardian, deciding the fate of an ill spouse, a spouse in open adultery and concubinage. The editorial also fails to mention the evidence showing that Terri Schiavo shows signs of consciousness, even if discounted by the so-called "experts." The editorial is silent on the radical difference between turning off a ventilator or respirator and shutting off food and water. Food and water are not extraordinary or heroic means of life support. And, of course, the editorial refuses to consider the wider effects of having guardians decide when a life is not "meaningful" enough to justify food and water. In my view, no human being is up to that decision.

But even more troubling is the assumption, made in the typically impoverished libertarian way, that the individual has an absolute right to die that society must honor in all circumstances. The Catholic viewpoint is that, while the individual may refuse extraordinary means of life support, there is no such thing as an absolute right to die. As noted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, suicide is a grave sin, although "grave psychological disturbances . . . can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide" (see CCC, 2280-2283). The Catechism's glossary puts it succinctly when it defines suicide as follows:

The willful taking of one's own life; a grievous sin against the fifth commandment [against killing]. A human person is neither the author nor the supreme arbiter of his life, of which God is sovereign master.

The Supreme Court cannot bestow an automatic and absolute right to die on anyone. In my opinion, no one can morally write out a living will that directs that he or she will be starved to death. You can refuse extraordinary means of life support, but not the ordinary minimal means by which life is normally nourished. A living will should never be a directive for suicide. Given the Supreme Court's apparent constitutionalization of suicide, as interpreted by the New York Times, it is no wonder that the courts are held in scorn. In all likelihood, that scorn will increase in time, and the ultimate losers may very well be the courts and their risky assumption that their power can never be taken away.