Catholic Thinker

I'm drafting this message in flight on American 384, non-stop service from DFW to JFK, on my way for my Papal weekend. This morning was the public Mass at National's Stadium in Washington, DC, yesterday included a ceremony at the White House (complete with the Battle Hymn of the Republic and Happy Birthday for the pontiff's 81st birthday) and a celebration of Vespers (Evening Prayer) with all of the bishops of the United States (last I heard, not one sent their regrents).

Last night, I was interviewed by KEYE CBS 42 for a set of pieces they're putting together about the Papal visit; the first one with me was aired last night at 10 pm. I've seen myself in HD—somewhat scary, but I digress. In that interview, I mentioned that one of the aspects of Pope Benedict that makes him unique is his status as Pope of the Internet.

Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, was considered the Pope of TV. Anyone who saw any images—stills or video—were inspired by him. Whether it was the picture of him standing in front of a teepee in Native American-styled vestments or with sunglasses on or holding his cane upside down acting like it was a hockey stick, you felt a connection to him. He wrote many profound things, and by all means, they should be read and examined. His Theology of the Body and texts examining the role of Mary were groundbreaking in many ways, but he is remembered by the way he captured people.

Pope Benedict XVI is different. He's cute and hearing him with his German accent is great, but he is much more reserved than John Paul II. I can't imagine Pope Benedict ever using his cane as a hockey stick, for example. His gifts, however, lie with the written word. You may hear, or not, the Pope speak, but you want to go online and download the text. His gift isn't in the presentation of Truth, but in his explanation of the Truth. By training, he is a teacher, serving as a professor in Germany before being called up to the Major Leagues (in reverent terms, the fullness of priesthood as a bishop and then to Rome to serve in the Curia) and his natural gift for teaching is obvious.

He teaches when he speaks—from his weekly General Audiences to his Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist to the Moto Proprio allowing for the more widespread use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to, of course, his encyclicals, God is Love and Saved by Hope. Now three years after he was called to the Chair of Peter, Pope Benedict still has more people attend his General Audiences than our rock star John Paul II did. Why? Because they learn from this teacher. This is not to say anything negative about John Paul II, not at all, but only that the timid, quiet German who many consider quite dry has a mystical attraction that people are drawn toward through his catechesis.

The Internet is Pope Benedict XVI's biggest aid in his efforts. In the days after any text of his is released, people from around the world are reading it, discussing it, sharing it, wrestling with it and ultimately, finding a greater understanding of the Catholic faith.

I haven't had the chance to read the full-text yet, but apparently, what he had to say to the United States' bishops last night is worth the read.

Posted by Kraft at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

She's not worthy of the name. The name belonged to the Blessed Virgin Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ first. But if you google "madonna" nine of the first ten entries are not about her, but about the Queen of Bad Music and Cheap Sacrilege. (The one that actually references our Mother is at the very bottom.) Before there was Charlotte Church or even Britney Spears, there was this lady. Her full name is Madonna Louise Siccone. I think I'll call her ... Louise.

Is it possible to get Catholic and Jewish and Muslim leaders to agree on anything these days? Apparently yes. For Louise is planning on holding a concert in Rome just minutes away from the Vatican tomorrow night during which she will reportedly crucify herself on a mirrored cross while wearing a crown of thorns.

In response, the Big Three in modern monotheistic religions have held up their hands and uttered a collective, "WHOA." Higher ups at the Vatican are even talking excommunication, which shouldn't bother the baptized Catholic Louise too much considering she is now a staunch practicioner of Kabbalah. I still don't know what that is, except that I'm pretty sure I saw a book at Barnes and Noble once written by a Kabbalah, entitled God Wears Lipstick. Uh huh.

Life Style Extra reports that Ersilio Cardinal Tonino, speaking with Benedict XVI's approval, told an Italian newspaper:

"This is a blasphemous challenge to the faith and a profanation of the Cross. She should be excommunicated. To crucify herself in the city of popes and martyrs is an act of open hostility."

"Act of open hostility." That sounds pretty canonical to me.

But oh, that's not even the best one, folks. Riccardo Pacifici, spokesman for Rome's Jewish community, said also:

"We express solidarity with the Catholic world. It's a disrespectful act, and to do it in Rome is even worse."

And Mario Scialoja, president of the Muslim World League in Italy, had this to say:

"We deplore it, we feel it is an act of bad taste. She would do better to go home."

Haha! She would do better to go home! The very thought brings such joy to my heart. If Louise could just chill with her millions in the Hollywood foothills (or wherever she lives ... somewhere in the UK?) how much more pleasant would our lives be? Or even if Louise has to continue performing, maybe if she could dispense with the public acts of open hostility to things Christian? Maybe if she could just desist with all the intermingling of religious imagery and sado-masochism? Would that be okay Ms Siccone? No?

Well, I suppose excommunication is not far off for little Louise. We all should pray for this troubled lady. But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the fact that she has gotten leaders from all three of the major monotheistic religions to agree on something: namely, that she is beyond the pale. Bravo Louise!

Posted by Lavergne at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

I was asked by a friend a couple of days ago what I thought about Mel Gibson's much publicized tirade against Jewish people. I said quite frankly that if some blue-blooded Hollywood star had gotten pulled over for drunken driving and gone on a tirade against inbred simpletonistic divisive hate-mongering Christians, it would not have gotten nearly the press that this is getting.

This is not to defend the indefensible comments Gibson made. Certainly there are enough talking heads out there condemning his insignificant little rant. I merely wish to point out the equally indefensible double standard that exists in the mainstream press. How many of us, if we saw a headline saying something like, "Bill Maher defames practicing Catholics on late night show" would think someone in the news had become unusually agenda-oriented? The difference though is that Bill Maher uttering anti-Catholicism isn't news. He does it and loves it and never apologizes for it. Nor does anyone ever expect him to.

media can't contain it's anger
But I thought Mel spouting anti-Semitism wasn't supposed to be news either. We all knew he hated "the Jews" after his two-hour defamatory scandal The Passion of the Christ, didn't we? How does this change anything?

There's a couple of possible answers to this question. One is that the media simply knew all along that what they were saying about The Passion was crap. Mel Gibson turning out to actually have anti-Semitic feelings (albeit booze-induced) was just as much news to them as it was to the ordinary people who never bought their lines to begin with (and, I think, still don't).

Another theory: The media is bitter and jealous of and angry at Gibson. Why? Because he created a product that they hate with every fiber of their body, and that they could never produce themselves, and that despite all their hatred people still flocked to theatres in droves to see. Even though if these media elites had five minutes alone with their Hollywood pals in a room with no windows or recording devices they would have equally venomous and defamatory things to say about Pope Benedict, Opus Dei, Tom Selleck, Bill Donahue, Mel Gibson, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus Christ. Although anyone who watches the news knows it doesn't take a room with no windows for some of these people to let their vitriol flow.

All of this merely demonstrates that hatred of Christians and Christianity is the last accepted prejudice in Hollywood and in the mainstream press (and, incidentally, on college campuses). Mel Gibson is live bait for these bloodthirsty media sharks because he is an outspoken Christian, albeit a very eccentric one. If he was a Muslim, he would have the same standing in the mainstream press as Louis Farrakhan and Hezbollah.

mel and the UN: a match made in heaven?
And speaking of that, have we heard about what Mel actually said to the officer after being pulled over? According to several sources, here's what he said:

"The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?"

Now when I read what Gibson actually said the first thing that popped into my head was, "Hey, maybe Mel should join the UN Security Council." How is this any different from what we're hearing from those guys and from the mainstream press regarding the actions of the State of Israel in the latest MidEast conflict? Why is it okay for these elites to say that the Israelis' actions in war are "indefensible" and "wrong" but it's not okay for Mel to say basically the same thing in hyperbole on a drunken bender to a cop? Again, I'm not saying it should be okay for him; just that if it isn't, it's no more okay for these people to paint Israel as if they're just going after poor defenseless Hezbollahs.

bottom line
The Sydney Morning Herald Online asked today if people will want to go see Mel's next movie. My answer is yes, for the simple reason that for every Mel Gibson in Hollywood there are at least twenty or thirty other looney Hollywood types whose hatred for Christians and for the Gospel doesn't stop us from going to watch their pathetic movies.

Whoa ... I think my one-quarter Irish is out tonight.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

That first one is Charlotte Church, and yeah, we're talking five-star sacrilege here, folks. According to the Catholic News Service, the renowned Welsh singer turned pop star mocked the Church in the pilot of an eight-part television chat show.

She called Pope Benedict a nazi, dressed up as a nun, pretended to hallucinate while eating "communion" wafers imprinted with smiley faces signalizing the drug ecstasy, smashed open a statue of the Virgin Mary revealing a can of hard cider inside, stuck chewing gum on a statue of the child Jesus, and well, you get the idea.

Pray for this woman.

At any rate, Ignatius Press had been a distributor of her CDs, cassette tapes, VHS tapes and DVDs. They have decided, surprise surprise, to no longer do so. In a statement, Ignatius said:

"In light of the recent statements and actions of singer Charlotte Church, Ignatius Press will be dropping all of her products. It is with regret that we do this; Miss Church possesses a great gift from God, and in the past she has used her talent often to offer praise and glory to our Lord. She has performed for the late Pope John Paul II, and in many sacred concerts, televised Christmas celebrations, and her many albums were enjoyed by our customers over the years.

But we cannot stand by a young woman who uses her stature in the media to mock the Eucharist, slander the Holy Father, and denigrate the vows of religious women.

Therefore, our catalogs and website will immediately withraw all compact discs, cassette tapes, DVDs and VHS tapes that feature Miss Church. Please join us in praying for this troubled young woman."

I have to wonder if Ms Church hasn't had second thoughts about her shenanigans. I have no reason to think she has. But, there's always hope.

Posted by Lavergne at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | Blog Reaction

Gee whiz I love our pope!

The more I see of this man, the clearer it becomes that this is a pope who will not keep silent about that pesky thing that gets in the way of so much “progress,” that annoying x-factor, that “narrow” and “imposing” mantra used by us unenlightened religious folk—“The Dignity of the Human Person.” While power elites hide behind a false rhetoric of “freedom,” while misguided technologists press the weakest human beings on the planet into lethal servitude in the name of “science” and “medicine,” they can only roll their eyes and hang their heads in dismay (or is it shame?) as the Successor of Peter reminds us all about the truth and mystery of each person, and thus the discriminatory and destructive nature of these cultural fads.

The Meeting of Families
During his homily at Mass at the FIfth World Meeting of Families on Sunday, the Holy Father made plane multiple times that marriage is to exist between one man and one woman, and that couples must accept the child born to them as loved by God. Said he:

In contemporary culture, we often see an excessive exaltation of the freedom of the individual as an autonomous subject, as if we were self-created and self-sufficient, apart from our relationship with others and our responsibilities in their regard. Attempts are being made to organize the life of society on the basis of subjective and ephemeral desires alone, with no reference to objective, prior truths such as the dignity of each human being and his inalienable rights and duties, which every social group is called to serve.

“The Human Person: Heart of Peace”
On the heels of that dramatic message, the Vatican News Service reported Thursday that the Vatican issued a communiqué announcing the theme for the next World Peace Day, which will be celebrated on January 1, 2007: “The Human Person: Heart of Peace.” The theme was chosen by Pope Benedict, the communiqué said. The news report quotes the communiqué at length, saying that the theme

…expresses the conviction that respect for the dignity of the human person is an essential condition for peace within the human family. Only through an awareness of the transcendent dignity of each man and woman can the human family follow the path that leads to peace and to communion with God.

Today, perhaps more persuasively and with more effective means than in the past, human dignity is threatened by aberrant ideologies, assailed by the misguided use of science and technology, and contradicted by widespread incongruent lifestyles. Indeed, ideologies that find their inspiration in nihilism or fanaticism (material or religious) seek to deny or to impose supposed truths upon reality, upon man and upon God.

Catch that? It’s often said by proponents of these “aberrant ideologies” that it’s us unenlightened religious types who seek to “impose our views” on the rest of humanity. But the Vatican press office here is turning the tables, saying it is rather these aberrant ideologies that actually impose their own views upon reality itself, in other words, trying to establish what is right and wrong merely by their own whims. This table-turning has proven to be a rhetorical specialty of Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict, as exemplified by his now well-known phrase “the dictatorship of relativism.”

…[O]ften science and technology (especially biomedicine), rather than serving the common good of humanity, are instrumental in serving an egotistical vision of progress and wellbeing. Moreover, propaganda and the growing acceptance of disordered lifestyles contrary to human dignity are weakening the hearts and minds of people to the point of extinguishing the desire for ordered and peaceful coexistence. All this represents a threat to humanity, because peace is in danger when human dignity is not respected and when social coexistence does not seek the common good.

Culture wars on World Peace Day?
So direct is the Vatican in announcing the focus of the Day that it makes reference to the encyclical of John Paul II that made clear in an unprecedented way the Church’s emphatic defense of life.

The Church has the mission of announcing the Gospel of Life, the central position of mankind in the universe and God's love for humanity. [emphasis added]

It’s rather striking when one considers: we are talking about the World Day of Peace. Yet the day looks to focus on issues the contentious and sometimes downright hateful conflicts over which have been described by many as “culture wars.” Someone might then object: How are we to work towards peace if we are fixating on issues that are so divisive? Won’t this just lead to more conflict?

This argument depends upon a false understanding of peace that, it seems to me, the pope and the Vatican are now blowing out of the water. Peace doesn’t just mean the absence of conflict. It does not mean simply sitting down and remaining silent in the face of evil. Sometimes, one must fight—yes, fight—against falsehood and injustice in order to build a culture where peace is possible. Not necessarily with guns but with truth. Not with missiles but with charity. We must love those who disagree with us, but that does not mean pretending no disagreement exists. It means finding charitable ways to communicate truth to them. This is an ongoing and difficult struggle. But it is a necessary prerequisite for real peace.

His Holiness’ holiness
Remember all those folks in the secular press who preened like peacocks when the pope came out with his first encyclical and didn’t mention abortion, contraception, homosexuality or divorce? Remember Ian Fisher at the New York Times and so many others who beamed back in January that the pope had “presented Roman Catholicism’s potential for good rather than imposing firm, potentially divisive rules for orthodoxy”?

Where are those people now? Might they be eating their own speculations? Why, this snarling bulldog of a pope was supposed to have been enlightened by the importance of his office! He was supposed to realize that the world was bigger than the tiny world he knew as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! How frightfully upsetting that he has turned out to be just as committed to these narrow-minded doctrines now that he is the Successor of Peter as he was when we all made fun of him and called him “God’s Rottweiler”! How could he be so unconcerned about what we think?

The fact of the matter is he doesn’t have to be concerned about whatever the rest of the world says about him because His Holiness’ holiness is a direct refutation in itself of whatever defamations might fly his way. Instead of never shaking any cherry trees and being just the irrelevant nice-guy pope so many in power and the press wanted him to be, he has consistently made himself a model of what it means to speak difficult truths to the world—even a world that slanders him—with the love of Christ. And no one who ever actually knew or appreciated him is surprised by this. He is simply the same man with the same strong message and the same gentle voice that he always was.

Except now he’s the Rock. Viva il Papa!

Posted by Lavergne at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The Fifth World Conference of Families recently wrapped up in Valencia, Spain this past weekend.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero annoyed the Vatican by playing hooky from yesterday's Mass, although he had welcomed the pope at the airport when he arrived to visit the conference. Now why would he want to do that? Maybe because the Catholic Church and the Vatican in general and Pope B16 in particular represent all the sorts of moral absolutism and family defense and life defense that the socialist prime minister abhors.

John L Allen Jr at the National Catholic Reporter anticipated the Holy Father's visit to the conference in Valencia and his much awaited meeting with Zapatero by looking back at his time in office.

Since taking office in 2004, Zapatero's government has either adopted or discussed legislation in favor of:

* Same-sex marriage legislation;
* Fast-track divorces;
* Curbing religious education in state schools;
* Supporting embryonic stem-cell research;
* Easing abortion laws;
* Reducing or eliminating public funding for the church.

After listing off a few other jabs Zapatero has taken at the Church and her vision for a culture of life, Allen writes:

Cumulatively, the impact of all this has been to make Spain the front line in the battle against what Benedict XVI has called the "dictatorship of relativism." The stakes are doubly high, from the Vatican's point of view, because not only is Spain a traditional Catholic stronghold in Europe, but it exercises a strong gravitational pull on Latin America, home to almost one-half of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world.

It was not supposed to be like this.

When Zapatero was elected just three days after the March 11, 2004, terrorist attacks in Madrid, he attracted support even from practicing Catholics. Many thought his government would be akin to former Socialist Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales -- cautious on social questions, albeit officially committed to progressive positions, and respectful of the church. Prior to the election, almost no one predicted a serious church/state clash. Zapatero campaigned in favor of dialogue, and he was actually closer to the church on what was the election's deciding issue, the war in Iraq.

Once in office, however, Zapatero let loose the dogs of cultural war.

What puzzles me is Allen's assertion that "it was not supposed to be like this." I don't see how anything that has taken place in Spain could not have been entirely predicted before Zapatero took office. He garnered much of the Catholic vote because of his stance on what turned out to be the deciding issue--the war in Iraq. As Allen puts it, he was closer to the Church on that one particular issue, even though he was decidedly against the Church on a laundry list of others. The simple difference here is that the war in Iraq--I hate to say it but somebody has to--is an issue on which people of good will, Catholic or otherwise, can legitimately disagree. On the other hand, that laundry list includes issues--same-sex marriage, embryo-destructive research, and abortion--that simply cannot be disagreed upon from a Catholic standpoint. And pardon my frankness, but an issue that can be legitimately disagreed upon should not have been the deciding electoral issue in a country where 80 to 90 percent of the population is Catholic.

But alas, what do we have here? We have a mostly Catholic electorate choosing a candidate based on issues--like war--that require prudential judgments on the part of the part of the politicians. (That is to say, the Church in the end leaves it to the prudential judgment of the heads of State to decide what the best course of action is in terms of war and peace. They can assess, they can persuade, but theirs is not infallible judgment in matters of state.)

So in the process the Spanish electorate basically ignored issues--like same-sex marriage, embryo-destruction and abortion--Church teaching on which is clear and unequivocal. And I'm telling you folks, it's just not that complicated: When you elect politicians who claim to agree with the Church's prudential judgments but not with the Church's timeless moral and social doctrines, you can expect major friction with the Church if that person wins. And that's exactly what's going on in Spain right now. This whole thing was entirely predictable.

It's also entirely predictable on account of less than 20 percent of the Catholics in Spain are practicing. If they don't go to Mass, they can hardly be expected to make the distinction between intrinsic evils and prudential judgments.

Politicians love to blow smoke about "dialogue," during political campaigns. But bottom line: If they stand against the Church on clear-cut, indisputable evils, we shouldn't be surprised if those politicians go militant anti-Catholic once they're in office. Even if they are Catholic themselves.

Posted by Lavergne at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Blog Reaction

NOTE: The term "crappy church music" is apparently sweeping the Catholic blogosphere. I'm at least the third person to use it. Sorry for my lack of originality, it's just so darn true, people!

I was talking on the phone with my sister in Minneapolis today. She moved there recently and has been dabbling in different Catholic churches in the area. She likes St Olaf's. She tried another parish but found said she didn't like it because the liturgy was "too contemporary."

So just now I come across this story from the UK Telegraph which reported on Tuesday that Pope Benedict XVI has "demanded an end to electric guitars and modern music in church and a return to traditional choirs."

It is possible to modernise holy music. But it should not happen outside the traditional path of Gregorian chants or sacred polyphonic choral music.

That's right, B16! Throw down!

Posted by Lavergne at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | Blog Reaction

Boston College philosophy of religion professor Peter Kreeft wrote in one of his books: “Relativism is not humane. It is tolerant only as long as it feels like being tolerant. Once it feels otherwise no moral law prevents it from becoming dictatorial.”

We are seeing that very truth play out before us in the American Civil Liberties Union. Our brothers and sisters adrift in this organization have for years defended speech on all fronts, however despicable and exploitative the speech might be, always citing the sacrosanct value of liberty and autonomy afforded by the First Amendment to those perpetrating the speech.

But now they’ve apparently found something even more evil, even more egregious than hardcore pornography, something they simply must oppose on principle. What could it possibly be you ask? Why, advertising by those evil pro-life pregnancy centers of course!

A question of truthfulness
The Christian Examiner reported yesterday that in Washington a new campaign is under way to limit the speech rights of Pro-Life Pregnancy Help Centers like our local Gabriel Project Life Centers among others. US Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York introduced on March 30 the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act. Maloney said in a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called ‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have a right to exist, but they shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their particular beliefs.”

With all due respect to Rep Maloney, she does not want to go down that road. It is becoming more and more widely known that the minute pregnant ladies walk through the doors of an abortion clinic, what immediately ensues is precisely what she describes, only in this case at the hands of the opposite interests. The South Dakota Task Force on Abortion reached this very conclusion and shortly thereafter bipartisan legislation was passed and signed into law that looks to shut down the abortion business in the state almost completely. The last card the abortion industry wants to play is “truthfulness.”

At any rate, needless to say representatives of the crisis pregnancy centers themselves have had a few bones to pick with the proposed legislation. Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said, “This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in deceptive advertising.”

Kim Conroy, director of Sanctity of Human Life at Focus on the Family, said that women deserve to be fully informed of all the facts and have accurate medical information before the abortion. “And,” she said, “they deserve to get that information from an entity that is not going to profit from their decision.”

"What about the First Amendment?"
Now in response to this monumental muzzle of proposed legislation, the ACLU has—denounced it as an affront to the First Amendment? Whipped out their old shtick about “no matter how offensive some speech may seem, it is not our place to decide who has the right to speak and who doesn’t based on moral ideology”?

Nope. They’ve endorsed it. Big surprise. And that endorsement has caused many who have defended the organization’s work in the past to now come forward and openly criticize the group. Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist and former ACLU board member, asked, “What about the First Amendment? When you have the state, with its power, deciding what is deceptive on something as thoroughly controversial as this, it goes against the very core, it seems to me, of the First Amendment.” According to Hentoff, advocacy of abortion over and above freedom of speech has been a problem in the ACLU for years. Of course it has, because when you get down to it, that’s more important to them.

University of California law professor Eugene Volokh said that parts of the bill would likely be declared unconstitutional. Said he: “The same logic would justify regulating a broad range of political or historical statements. I think that’s a very dangerous policy.”

Dissension in the ranks
Criticism isn’t coming just from without, but from within as well. Yahoo! News reported on Tuesday that ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer openly dissented the ridiculous backing of the ridiculous bill. Kaminer is a Boston attorney who considers herself “very strongly pro-choice.” Said she: “I don't believe the pro-choice movement has the copyright on the term ‘abortion services.’ That seems to me a very clear example of government being the language police.”

Now reports are coming out that the ACLU may do a little internal language policing of its own. Agape Press reports that the ACLU is developing new guidelines that would restrict its own officials from publicly criticizing disagreements within the organization. The new policies stem from recent squabbles that took place between Kaminer and ACLU executive director Anthony Romero. During a meeting, Romero asked her and fellow board member Michael Meyers to step outside, after which he verbally chastised them.

Bendict is dead-on
Just think if word got out about Pope Benedict telling dissenters to step outside and then chastising them later. Imagine the deluge of coverage that would get! We would never hear the end of Cardinal Ratzinger’s history of “suppressing debate” and “silencing dissent” and all this other rigmarole. As it turns out Pope Benedict has listened far more charitably to other people’s ideas and been more pastoral than anyone in the mainstream press anticipated, far from the foaming fuming rabid rottweiler we were told to expect. And on the other hand you’ve got the executive director of the ACLU chewing out the two people in the room who have the smidgen of intellectual honesty necessary to point out the blatant hypocrisy of their organization’s endorsements. The more we see of the goings on in the meeting rooms of those who support abortion to the exclusion even of rights like free _expression, the more Pope Benedict’s characterization of the “dictatorship of relativism” proves dead-on.

I think somebody, maybe one of the reps from South Dakota, should introduce a counter-bill, entitled the “Stop False Accusations of Pregnancy Help Centers Act.” I wonder if the Anti-Christian Liberties Union would back that?

Posted by Lavergne at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Yesterday the Holy Father delivered an address on the grounds of what used to be the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in Poland. As an article from Reuters reported, the reception of the address was mixed.

Apparently some commentators applauded the pope for asking such questions as "Where was God?" and "God, why did you remain silent?" The Reuters guy described the asking of such questions on Benedict's part as a "bold decision." As if this is some new and unusual thing for committed and faithful Christians to ask the Lord questions. Course, Job did it. And um, Jesus did too. I don't think Benedict would say he was blazing some new trail. Still, it does create a connection and a sense of understanding with all the poor souls who lost faith in God as a result of the persecutions they and their loved ones suffered as a result of Nazi atrocities. That's always been a little-known strength of Benedict's, meeting people where they are.

Still, some critics just couldn't be satisfied with the Holy Father's words as long as he stopped short of incriminating himself, his Church, and in particular his predecessor Pius XII, who was the pope during World War II. Ever since the holocaust, Pius has been maligned for not speaking out with enough volume during the Axis' reign of terror. It is believed in some circles that His Holiness was indifferent or even complicit in the slaughter of six million Jews and millions of others during the war. People were upset because the pope did not so much as mention Pius or Pius' actions from that period.

One possible reason he would choose not to do so is because the accusations against Pius are utterly preposterous. Jimmy Akin has a nice article on this topic at Catholic Answers entitled "How Pius XII Protected Jews." I recommend the whole thing as it is lays to rest a lot of myths surrounding Pius XII's supposedly wimpish papacy. But here's my favorite passage which sums it up pretty well:

While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.

Looks like that armchair quarterbacking continues to this day. Some were dismayed that Pope Benedict wasn't strong enough in denouncing anti-Semitism specifically. From the Reuters piece:

Some faulted him for not clearly mentioning anti-Semitism, others for saying Germany was taken over by criminals in the 1930s, as if Adolf Hitler had not had any popular support.

First as to the matter of implying that Hitler had not had any popular support, Benedict never denied that he did have plenty of popular support. Benedict merely observed how he came to garner so much popular support--through "false promises." Not too much unlike today's "idelologies of evil" that John Paul II described in Memory and Identity. As Benedict put it:

[A] ring of criminals rose to power by false promises of future greatness and the recovery of the nation's honor, prominence and prosperity, but also through terror and intimidation, with the result that our people was used and abused as an instrument of their thirst for destruction and power.

And as to the matter of anti-Semitism, apparently these words of the Holy Father weren't quite explicit enough:

The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the earth. Thus the words of the Psalm: "We are being killed, accounted as sheep for the slaughter" were fulfilled in a terrifying way.

Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham.

What more does anybody want? The admission of historical fallacies about as well grounded as the Da Vinci Load? Next time I feel like I can't please anyone, I'll take comfort in remembering that a good man named Pope Benedict visited the site where so many people were killed to express solidarity with them and their sons and daughters, and his words weren't good enough for some.

Posted by Lavergne at 11:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The BBC reports that in preparation for the Holy Father's visit to Poland, his beloved predecessor's homeland, a number of things are changing. The southern town of Wadowice, where John Paul II was born, has banned the sale of takeaway ice creams and cream cakes for the duration of Benedict's visit! If I were him, I would be outraged!

Polish authorities are calling it a health risk. Bozena Okreglicka, a spokeswoman for local health inspectors, said:

Cakes and ice cream can easily go off in summer temperatures and can pose a danger to health. That's why we're banning takeaway sales on the day many pilgrims will be arriving in Wadowice.

And that's not all either. Some places that the pope will visit, including Warsaw and Krakow, will be dry! Dry! For a German pope who has unabashedly expressed his approval of Bavarian Ale!

Polish police say the ban is in place to maintain public order and as a mark of respect for the pontiff.

Pope Benedict XVI himself will be offered both red and white wine as he attends a series of gala dinners, according to local media reports.

I read this and I'm thinking, is the pope the only one who will be offered wine at these things? Surely other people will too? They're not just all going to get together and watch the pope get sloshed are they? I think a guy like Benedict would likely prefer that other people get to share in the joy of drink. He's a German, for crying out loud!

If banning ice cream and alcohol wasn't enough, there's also a ban on certain television advertisements--such as advertisements for alcohol, contraceptives, lingerie and tampons. Tampons? I don't think there's any Catholic teaching that bans the use of tampons. Wait let me check the Catechism ... Nope, nothin' on tampons. In fact the only thing on that list that the Catholic Church actually prohibits outright is contraceptives. Why the sudden scrupulosity?

Apparently with the Holy Father's visit the Polish airwaves have rediscovered the art of modesty.

Even a television advert for a new television has been barred. The ad featuring a couple appearing to have sex promoting the "multiple pleasures" of LG Phillips television sets is currently only aired late at night and will not be shown at all during the Pope's visit.

"There is always the risk that the faithful may feel hurt if programming devoted to the Pope's visit is interrupted by frivolous ads," Zbigniew Badziak, head of advertising for Telewizja Polska, the state-run TV network, told the Associated Press news agency.

The double-standard
Well well well! They didn't want to offend the Catholics. Meanwhile in America, the number one movie in the nation, advertised and promoted to the nth degree, has drawn fire from Catholic ckergy and lay people, making many feel quite slandered and attacked for no other reason than because of where their allegiances lie. (I'm thinking in particular of American members of Opus Dei here.) And what have they gotten in return for their distress? A few explanatory words before or after the film about the reality of the organizations depicted? The pithiest acknowledgment of people's concerns? The slightest bit of empathy? No. Catholics are basically being told in this country, "It's just entertainment, get over it."

What we're seeing in Poland is an example of what it might look like if the Hollywood powers that be had half the respect for Catholics that they have for other ethnic and religious groups. The criteria that they used in Poland for Catholics, and in America for everybody else, is that if there is a possibility that someone might feel offended by something, it's time put our pandering caps on. We see here in America quite a strong and empirically verified fact that some Catholics will in fact be and are offended by the Da Vinci Load of Crap. But we are expected to be magnanimous and open-minded. But newspapers in this country won't run Danish cartoons of Mohammed because they're insensitive.

Pandering vs magnanimity
I'm not saying one approach is better than the other. I'm just saying let's have one standard for everyone, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu whatever. Either pander to and walk on eggshells around everyone, or rather expect everyone to have enough inner strength to choose not to be offended or threatened by malevolent or slanderous material. Perhaps in that sense pop culture is paying Catholics a compliment, expecting us to be stronger than anybody else because, after all, we knew this was coming didn't we? Jesus told us so.

What if he came here?
You know what I'm thinking, folks? I'm thinking the Holy Father ought to visit our fruited plane. Of course, of course, we know the network and film executives probably wouldn't care nearly as much what would offend the Catholics in this country. But imagine if the Holy Father commanded the same kind of respect in the Land of the Free that he commands in Poland? Would anything still be on the airwaves? Desperate Housewives? Friends? One Tree Hill? This may be hitting a soft spot for some people, even friends of mine, and even myself, but it's an honest question. If it's not worthy of the pope's viewing, is it worthy of ours? Just throwing it out there.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Here's another gem from Ratzinger's Pierced One.

The Eucharist is never merely an event a deux, a dialogue between Christ and me. The goal of eucharistic communion is a total recasting of a person's life, breaking up a man's whole "I" and creating a new "We." Communion with Christ is of necessity a communication with all those who are his: it means that I myself become part of this new "bread" which he creates by transubstantiating all earthly reality.

My bishop once made the observation that when people receive communion, their relationship with each other, objectively, changes. For when they walked in they were ordinary people. But now that they have received the body blood sould and divinity of Christ, they have a whole new way of relating to each other. Their interpersonal relationship changes because their individual identities change. The man's whole "I" gives way to a new "We." So when we relate to each other as we exit the sanctuary, whereas the interaction previously was mortal to mortal, now it has become Christ to Christ.

Thus it is not merely the bread and wine on the altar that changes. The grace and action of Christ actually (Ratzingers phrasing here is great) transsubstantiates all earthly reality. The Mass changes the world! It changes our very selves. So next time we go to Mass, let's remember that, by this food that is stronger than us, it is we ourselves who will be transubstantiated.

Posted by Lavergne at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

From Behold the Pierced One, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Normal food is less strong than man, it serves him, is taken into his body to be assimilated and to build it up. But this special food, the Eucharist, is above man and stronger than man. Consequently the whole process involved is reversed: the man who eats this bread is assimilated by it, taken into it; he is fused into this bread and becomes bread, like Christ himself.

These words are awesome. It is easy to forget the mystery and sheer power of the Eucharist to truly transform a person, to elevate him, to make him into something greater than he now is. We are taken up into Christ, so that the drives that motivate him begin to motivate us as well.

It is like St Paul said in II Corinthians 5:17, "The old has passed away; behold the new has come." Our old self-centered desires and motivations, when we eat the food that is greater than is, become overwhelmed and uprooted, and the ecstasy of self-forgetful love is planted in its place.

Posted by Lavergne at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

From a recent letter by Bishop John M Darcy of the Diocese of Fort Wayne / South Bend, Indiana (the home of the University of Notre Dame):

Young people are idealistic. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, in his recent visit to Cologne, have nourished this Christian idealism, and asked all of us to serve these young people and never let them settle for anything less than an unselfish and devoted life, and such unselfishness will only last when it is rooted in faith. They rightly look to us and to our institutions to live by faith. It is the very best thing we can give them. Without it, we fail them.

THANK YOU BISHOP DARCY! This is the best articulation I have yet seen of the call to the perfection of Christian holiness, aside of course from the Holy Fathers to whom he refers. By making explicit this simple defense of the level of holiness and commitment for which many young people strive, he has assured me and others that there is nothing wrong with really striving to be exceptional as a Christian.

So cheers to never becoming jaded, never settling for less, and always being at least at heart, "young and idealistic." For it's not just uneducated younglings like you and me, dear readers: it's our Papas too!

Posted by Lavergne at 2:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Anyone read about what the Holy Father said earlier today to the Pontifical Biblical Commission? I heard about it on Relevant Radio on the way home from work. (This news made me smile, which is why I don't mind talking about it.)

Here's some of what Zenit said about it:

In receiving love "that comes from God, … man's freedom finds its highest realization," the Holy Father continued. "God's law does not attenuate much less eliminate man's freedom; on the contrary, it guarantees and promotes it."

For Benedict XVI, "the moral law, established by God in creation and confirmed in the revelation of the Old Testament, finds in Christ its fulfillment and grandeur."

"Jesus Christ is the way of perfection, the living and personal synthesis of the perfect freedom in the total obedience of the will of God," he said.

Because of this, "the original function of the Ten Commandments is not abolished by the encounter with Christ, but leads it to its plentitude," the Pope added.

Obedience? God's law? The key to freedom? No way!

For my penance today the priest actually told me to pray for freedom (and peace). Kinda neat that the Holy Father comes out with these reflections on the subject today. To pray for freedom is to pray for obedience to the will of God. I actually said to Him in doing my penance, "Keep me close to you, for you are the source of freedom, and of peace."

This is the great secret that the Church has been shouting from the rooftops, that God is the sole source of all real joy and peace and freedom in the universe. To be close to him, is to be at peace, to be happy, and to be free.

Posted by Lavergne at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

For the last several days, Catholics have been subjected to a flurry of internet and mainstream press innuendo over the possibility that the Catholic Church will alter its heretofore simple and clear teaching on contraception to allow condoms in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. It's a smokescreen, folks. Plain and simple.

Continue reading "Media salivating over Vatican statement on condoms" »

Posted by Lavergne at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | Blog Reaction

Here's one from allAfrica.com about entitled "Botswana: No Condoms, We're Catholic."

Father John Corrigan of the Roman Catholic Church in Gaborone reveals that St. Joseph's clinic is both a mission clinic and a government- aided clinic. He then states that it functions according to the Roman Catholic Holy Act, which does not treat sex lightly.

Father John says that during this era of HV/AIDS pandemic, the church encourages a new message to the youth - "practice safe sex".

"Sex is a secret and holy act that is meant to be a gift from God to husband and wife. However, with young people engaging in pre-marital sex, we encourage safe sex under two conditions. Don't get AIDS. Don't get pregnant," he says.

Continue reading "Botswana priest buys into "safe sex"" »

Posted by Lavergne at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | Blog Reaction

One year ago I and my like-aged friends got to witness our first papal election and introduction. John L Allen, Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, published a lengthy piece yesterday focusing on what has happened in Benedict's papacy since then. Allen writes:

Job no. 1 of this pontificate, therefore, is the reassertion of objective truth in a culture often allergic to the very concept. The beating heart of his pontificate can be expressed in three core concepts: truth, freedom and love. Truth, as the pope sees it, is the doorway a human person must walk through in order to be really free, meaning free to realize one’s full human potential; and love is both the ultimate aim of freedom, and the motive for which the church talks about truth and freedom in the first place.

Continue reading "Benedict Year One" »

Posted by Lavergne at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a growing number of states are considering enacting laws which would require all hospitals to make the morning after pill, also known as "Plan B," available to rape victims. This obviously isn't going to sit too well with the Catholic Church, which has always said that morning after pill is for one thing contraception and therefore always wrong, and for another thing will rather often double as an abortifacient, which is murderously wrong.

Seven states already require all hospitals to give it out, and twelve more states are considering it. And if you want to talk about media bias, have a look at the description attributed to the Merger Watch Project, the activist group behind this legislation: "A New York-based group that fights religious restrictions on patient rights and health care."

Yet again, we have a mainstream news organization framing the debate, taking for granted that the morning-after pill is a "patient's right" that can be legitimately described as "health care." Meanwhile they leave it up to the specifically Catholic sources in the story to frame the debate from the other perspective, namely that this is an attack on Catholic institutions, particularly (although this was never stated explicitly in the story) on the Church's "freedom of conscience"--which is so integral to the practice of religion free of government intervention. I guess the First Amendment is a red herring when reproductive empowerment is involved.

The main objection to this not just from the activists but from many in the "conflicted middle" is: Yes, but we are not talking about reproductive empowerment. We are talking about relieving a young lady of the terrible burden of carrying a child who was conceived during an act to which she did not even give consent.

These situations are certainly tragic, but sanctioning abortions in these circumstances, be they medical abortions (as in the case of the morning after pill) or surgical (as in suction, saline, or partial-birth abortions), would imply that the deliberate killing of the most defenseless human beings among us could conceivably be the solution to a problem if the problem is bad enough. But the Church has always recognized the contrary: that abortion in whatever form it takes is not the solution to a problem, but quite a traumatic problem in itself. It is not that the Church cares nothing for the best interests of the victims of rape who come into hospitals. It is that the Church cares too much to make the woman a victim twice, first by rape, and then by abortion.

This issue actually gives me a good opportunity to address a question that was posed to me by a student of mine a few weeks ago. Not long ago, in an address to the Pontifical Academy for Life, the pope made rather plain (or strongly implied) that it is the Church's position that new human life begins at the moment of conception. The immediate context was explaining why the Church cannot endorse research procedures that destroy human embryos, even if those embryos are not implanted. The same argument applies to the morning after pill.

But this student was confused because she had heard on television (that wonderful source of timeless wisdom) that it says in Leviticus that "a thing is not living until it has blood running through its veins." Now, we all know today that it takes a good three weeks or so for a child to form a vascular structure and a beating heart. Well well well, this TV program mused, if it takes this length of time for those blood structures to form, and a thing is not living until it has blood running through its veins," then perhaps Moses wouldn't have such a big problem with Plan B?

My initial response was that i would have to see this verse, since I had never read it. But I also pointed out that the Bible is not a scientific treatise but a divine revelation, and that it cannot be read the same way a biology textbook is read. Even so, I was curious and went looking for this verse, but was unable to find it. Unfortunately, my student couldn't recall the exact citation or the program on which she had heard of this.

But lo, a few days ago I was putting together "New York Times violates pro-choice orthodoxy," and I came across a page on the Concern Women for America site that directly addressed what this student had told me about. It was an article entitled "Life is in the Blood" by CWA contributor Kelli Wait. She talks about a recent episode of the CBS crime drama CSI , in which one of the main characters presents his argument for the point at which life begins. He actually cites a passage from, that's right, Leviticus, chapter 17 verse 11: "The life of a living body is in its blood" (NAB).

But as Wait points out:

Scripture has to be taken in context. The full passage in Leviticus 17 reads, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (NKJ). This reading makes it obvious that the Biblical reference is about sacrifice and atonement, not about when life begins.

Leviticus 16 and 17 have been called The Laws of National Atonement. In these chapters, God tells His people how to atone for their sin. He emphasizes the necessity for sacrifice.

Nothing in the chapter has anything to do with when life begins, and it is erroneous for anyone to use the Leviticus passage as support for abortion. While it is true that blood enters the embryo on the 18th day, one cannot argue that Leviticus 17:11 supports a pro-abortion position.

Neither then can such pseudo-intellectual games be played by those who favor the morning-after pill. The temptation may be very great to try to reframe or redefine life, particularly in cases of rape, so as to provide an easy out.

Neither then can such pseudo-intellectual games be played by those who favor the morning-after pill. The temptation may be very great to try to reframe or redefine life, particularly in cases of rape, so as to provide an easy out.

But the Church's belief, and the fact of the matter, is that life is always a blessing, even when to the human mind it seems most burdensome and its circumstances the most tragic. And when some activists lobby to require the Church to supply abortifacient drugs to rape victims or anyone else, they are not merely asking the Church to change her practice, but thereby to ignore that fundamental attitude towards life: that it is not a liability, but a gift.

Posted by Lavergne at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Earlier this week the Pontifical Academy for Life held a two day bioethics conference which examined the "Human Embryo Prior to Implantation: Scientific Aspects and Bioethical Considerations," essentially how embryos are handled before implantation in in vitro procedures. The congress marked the twelvth general assembly of the Pontifical Academy.

Continue reading "Benedict on embryonic life" »

Posted by Lavergne at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

VATICAN CITY, MAR 1, 2006 (VIS) - The Holy Father's general prayer intention for March is: "That young people who are searching for the sense of life may be understood, respected and accompanied with patience and love."

His mission intention is: "That, throughout the Church, there may grow that shared missionary awareness which favors the collaboration and exchange of those who work in the missions."

Posted by Kraft at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

National Catholic Reporter Online's February 10 issue includes a story about the reaction of media and some Catholics to Benedict XVI's headline-grabbing encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

Perhaps the most intriguing reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, is the generally positive response of liberal Catholics who were the most apprehensive about the election to the papacy of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long known as the church’s doctrinal watchdog.

I have to wonder, what's intriguing about it? After reading the encyclical I wasn't surprised that certain Catholics and media would be quite pleased with what he didn't say. Ian Fisher at the New York Times raved (in an Op-Ed quite effectively rebutted by Carl Olson) that Benedict didn't mention abortion, homosexuality, contraception or divorce. The most intriguing part of this to me is how little sense of history or perspective the media seems to have.

Granted, Benedict didn't mention any of those issues. But neither did John Paul II for a good long while in his encyclicals. He used the word love or some variation over 300 times and wrote about 92000 words before mentioning one of those issues--abortion--and even then it wasn't even his own words but merely quoting from the Second Vatican Council. None of this means that John Paul II was not a strong advocate of traditional teachings, or that he shied away from controversy.

The story continues with praise from a laundry list of Church dissenters including former priest Paul Collins, Andrew Sullivan, and Hans Kung.

Collins interprets the encyclical as a sign that "This will be a modest and more traditional papacy. Just what Catholicism needs, really.” "This" of course is only "what Catholicism needs" because Benedict is orthodox and Collins is a dissenter.

Andrew Sullivan said the encyclical was "not as extreme or as repressive as Benedict’s well-earned reputation. It is a sign, one hopes, of a papacy that can change and grow and concentrate on the central truths, not peripheral obsessions." What Mr Sullivan calls "peripheral obsessions," John Paul II called "Gospel."

Swiss theologian Fr Hans Kung, with whom Benedict has a long history, said the Catholics should be happy that DCE is “not a manifesto of cultural pessimism or restrictive sexual morality.”

The article goes on to say that such reactions "have largely been paralleled in the global press," listing articles from French, German, and Austrian papers among others.

At this point, I'm rolling my eyes. None of this is intriguing to me. But then the article got good, when it said, "The chorus of praise was not, however, universal." Apparently Benedict didn't quite satisfy the wishes of the liberals in the Church. Even liberals who praised the encyclical did so with reservations.

Kung "said that the pope had failed to mention the charity the church should show toward loving couples who use contraception" among others.

If the Holy Father doesn't have to come out and say that the Church loves couples who use Natural Family Planning, then he shouldn't have to come out and say the Church loves couples who use contraception. For one thing, contraception is essentially condoned by default in a majority of parishes in the United States and the world because priests don't educate their parishioners about it or they educate wrongly. If anything, it's the NFP couples who need to be stood up for and supported in the modern Church, because they are a lot fewer and farther between.

Christian Weisner, spokesman for the liberal Catholic group “We Are Church,” said he hopes the Holy Father's emphasis on love will make him more open to opposing views. Quoth Weisner: "Loving your neighbors also means loving critical theologians. He also has to apply these ideas within the church itself.”

For one thing, it's not the "church itself." It's the Church herself. Secondly, Weisner here commits the fundamental mistake of dissenters in uniting persons with their ideologies. It is widely believed among such dissenters that disagreeing with someone, a dissenter at any rate, and going to some lengths to correct the person or discipline him if he will not be, is equivalent to dehumanizing the person as such. Therefore, to tell a dissenter that he is wrong is to be irredeemably uncharitable. It is this confusion which dissenters and secularists rely upon to in turn dehumanize the historical figure of Ratzinger (saying he was God's Rottweiler and the like).

But it just doesn't hold water. If a person holds an incorrect understanding of reality, then the nature and command of love is to correct the person (cf Galatians 6:1), not just to let him fester in error. It is people like Benedict, and John Paul II before him, who have a strong appreciation for God's love and who emphasize it, and who yet realize the importance of orthodoxy (right teaching) and orthopraxy (right living), that expose the dichotomy between God's love and God's laws for what it is: a lie from the devil.

Christian charity and moral conviction then turn out to be two sides of the same coin, the coin called holiness. God is the teacher in both, and he chose Benedict to lead the class. One wonders if the dissenters will ever really come to grips with that.

Posted by Lavergne at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

On Saturday the Houston Chronicle ran a story originally published in the Washington Post on January 30 by Rob Stein. He reports:

More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.

This paragraph is an example of the ongoing misnomers prevalent in the media these days. Notice how the only people in this scenario who are motivated by "personal beliefs" or "individual values" are the people who are pro-life. Whereas the folks on the other side of the debate are motivated by more universal principles: they just want "care" and seek to "defend patients' rights."

Mr Stein's characterization of the right to life and right of conscience as "individual religious values" betrays the attitude of secular culture, and the task of pro-lifers--namely, to demonstrate that the right to life is not an individual religious value but a universal moral principle, one shared by different religions and non-religious alike, that is crucial to the common good. At no point is it even mentioned that those who oppose right of conscience laws are equally motivated by personal moral beliefs. Why not I wonder?

The issue is getting messier. The broad measures to protect conscience come as lawsuits are being filed by both pro-lifers and pro-choicers against different companies in the United States.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday Feb 1 that three women are suing Wal-Mart in Massachusetts for scandalously failing to stock their pharmacy shelves with the morning after pill. The lawsuit seeks to force the 44 Wal Marts and four Sam's Club stores to carry them.

At the same time, the American Center for Law and Justice is suing Walgreen's for firing four pharmacists who refused to dispense the morning after pill because of "religious objections."

A few days following the flurry of stories regarding the right of conscience, Benedict XVI celebrated the Italian Pro-Life Day. During a pastoral visit to the Vatican parish of St Anne's, he presented a perfect frame in which to view the situations currently ongoing in the United States. The Holy Father said that in modern times "two mentalities are opposed irreconcilably." Said he, "One of the two mentalities considers that human life is in the hands of man, the other recognizes that it is in the hands of God."

It is sometimes believed that people who are motivated by "personal beliefs" or "individual religious values" are in a sense guilty of being self-centered and shortsighted. They do not have the best interests of others at heart. They are merely interested in keeping their own noses clean while other people suffer as a result. Yet there is no Catholic or Christian social teaching that is not directly aimed at the common good of society. The Church's teaching on family and on life issues is in fact crucial for the wellbeing of the global community. And whenever society has abandoned the Christian teaching on these issues, disaster has followed.

Thus individual religious values are not individual at all. Religious believers are precisely the ones able to look beyond the material world and the immediate future to see the long-term ramifications of certain actions, because they recognize that excluding God from the picture leaves the creature without the Creator. And as Benedict says, “[W]ithout the Creator the creature would disappear." The only thing “individual” about religious values is whether or not these values are recognized. Whether or not they exist does not vary among persons.

For pharmacists and doctors who happen to recognize the radical individuality of the unborn child, they have their own Hippocratic Oaths to consider. To say nothing of the side effects of emergency contraception on the woman herself, it obviously would not be very healthy for the tiny human being attempting to enter the mother's womb.

It is precisely in the careful discernment of the moral ramifications of their actions that doctors and pharmacists safeguard the rights of the patients whom they serve. That is the point of the right of conscience. In the long run patients and consumers like the women in Massachusetts only harm themselves and their posterity by seeking to impose morality on those who disagree with them.

Posted by Lavergne at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction