Catholic Thinker

There has been a number of various "open letters" to our soon-to-be 44th President. I had the intent of writing a letter to him as soon as I thought there was no way Senator McCain would win out, but since everyone else is writing it openly, I might as well too.

Dear Mr. President-Elect,

Congratulations! The peaceful transfer of power is something that the United States demonstrated first to the world and we're again able to showcase it to the larger world community.

As a young person in Austin, TX, I was energized by your initial run, making my first and only contribution to a political campaign to afford myself a place to see you speak at The Backyard. I voted for you in the historic Democratic primary. In the weeks leading up to the general election, however, I had to pause and reflect upon casting my vote for you.

My confusion and hesitation was not because I started to doubt whether or not you would be a strong leader, or if I thought you had the better answers in this time of American's questioning on the conflict in Iraq, on the economy, on immigration and on other various, as the Catholic Church refers to them, "social justice" issues.

My pause was because of your position on abortion.

In your reflection on the 35th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, you refer to the choice of having an abortion as fundamental and the ability to have an abortion as "reproductive justice". Along the same line, on July 17, 2007, you answer a question at a Planned Parenthood event stating that the "first thing" you would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

I do not expect to be able to change your mind on this issue and I do not expect to be able to convince you that a child inside the womb is still a child.

In good conscience, I could not vote for you in the general election. I believe the State has a vested interest in and a duty to maintain the safety and security of all in our country. Supporting any person's ability to cause the premature death of an unborn child is directly opposed to these ideals.

You have mentioned before that fathers of children must step up and take responsibility. The Freedom of Choice Act and other pro-choice measures you support would take away the ability of these fathers to take responsibility for their unborn children, it would continue to promote a culture that divides action from accepting the logical outcome of an action, and it would continue to divide this country.

As a Catholic who aligns himself more with the Democratic Party than anything else, I feel isolated from the Party that I think could do the most good because of the Party's desire to ignore the first victims of abortion, as well as ignore the impact of the death of their unborn children has on many of those who sought out abortions.

With four, possibly eight, years before you as the President of the United States, you will be constantly in my prayers that most of your visions become reality and I look forward, with hope, that my worst fears regarding this topic will not be realized.

I pray that your administration will be receptive of people of faith, including those that disagree with you so much on this issue. I will work with your programs, directly or indirectly, to help end poverty and promote a just living for those who are on the fringes of our society.

As a young adult (in my mid-20's), I want to be involved in the political process. I think working for a campaign and helping in the governance of this country would be exciting. But, there is no place for me in America's political landscape.

While your campaigned helped a generation have hope in the political process for the first time, I must confess that I feel hopeless that this division will change anytime in the near future. I look forward to the day that I can fully respect and support the Party that energizes me. I look forward to the day that I can make a donation to your campaign, the DNC or some other candidate. I look forward to the day that I can place a Democratic candidate's name on my Facebook profile, the sidebar on my website or their sign in my window. Until that day, however, the only support that I can give to you, in good conscience, in the support of my prayers.

May God bless you and the United States of America!

Sincerely,
Brandon J.G. Kraft
Austin, TX

Posted by Kraft at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Voters overwhelmingly approve ordinance that bans renting to illegal immigrants

Farmers Branch, Texas, near Dallas, became the first community in the country to outlaw local landowners from renting to "illegal immigrants". I hope the community discovers how much of their quality of life depends on undocumented individuals: new construction should slow down quite a bit, or at least skyrocket in price. The same should go for most low-skilled labor, such as dishwashing, lawn work and similar areas.

I am disgusted by the way individuals in this country treat undocumented immigration like a plaque upon this land, yet have zero issues with the United States' lead in developing economic policies that allow multinational corporations to, for lack of a better word, screw individuals in Latin America, among other places.

NAFTA, the North American Free-Trade Agreement, truly did not help Mexican citizens. NAFTA enabled large multinational, U.S.-based agribusinesses to setup shop in Mexico. How can Mexican farmers compete in the corn market when an U.S. business moves in and is able to produce and sell corn in both the United States and Mexico while their production is subsidized by the United States government. There is much debate on this, with studies published supporting this statement and studies published refuting it. In all cases, parties agree that removing U.S. farm subsidies would allow Mexican farmers to improve their condition.

Undocumented immigrants are not coming into America to have "a better life"; they're coming into America to have a life. Why else would husbands or wives leave their family, take a journey to the United States that takes the lives of many only to be treated as a second-class individual in the United States?

I find it disturbing and disgusting that lack of charity people possess or the lack of recognition of the inherent human dignity possessed by these migrants. While they have broken the law, their offense is not on par with murder or a sex crime, yet, we label them as criminals. I broke the law when speeding on Mopac or when my tax advisor gave me the Telephone Tax Refund*, yet I'm not worried about having a paramilitary police force raid my apartment, have people spit at me or yell insults, be banned from renting an apartment, have my name listed on a criminal database or all those other things we reserve for the "worst" of our criminals.

The local diocesan newspaper quoted the a city parish's pastor as saying,

"I haven’t preached directly about the ordinance.I’ve mentioned that we are challenged to welcome the stranger, but we are also challenged to maintain the social order in our society. We must do it humanely and justly. People are not disposable. People have innate dignity. People get very emotional about this undocumented business. Part of that is that there is fear of some type of chaos.”

Perhaps this is part of the problem? Are we challenged to maintain the social order in our society? I know Jesus was radical and all, but he did seek to maintain the social order that involved the moneychanger's "right" to transact business on the temple grounds, right? Didn't he also maintained the social order by never challenging the religious figures of the time? Oh yeah, he maintained the social order through allowing the angry mob to stone the woman accused of adultery.

Wait, sorry, I was reading the wrong gospel, the gospel seen in many American churches that says whatever we want it to say. In the Gospel that I'm versed in, Jesus challenged the social order when an injustice existed. Why are we exempt from that today?

Social and political charity is not exhausted in relationships between individuals but spreads into the network formed by these relationships, which is precisely the social and political community; it intervenes in this context seeking the greatest good for the community in its entirety. In so many aspects the neighbor to be loved is found “in society”, such that to love him concretely, assist him in his needs or in his indigence may mean something different than it means on the mere level of relationships between individuals. To love him on the social level means, depending on the situations, to make use of social mediations to improve his life or to remove social factors that cause his indigence. It is undoubtedly an act of love, the work of mercy by which one responds here and now to a real and impelling need of one's neighbor, but it is an equally indispensable act of love to strive to organize and structure society so that one's neighbor will not find himself in poverty, above all when this becomes a situation within which an immense number of people and entire populations must struggle, and when it takes on the proportions of a true worldwide social issue.

This quote, taken from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (available as a published book or as online text) published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace sums it up. We're called to love all in our society, not only in terms of the emotional, but also in terms of the social. We're further challenged to "love" our neighbor by working for a social order that enables them to escape the shackles of poverty.

In the case of Farmers Branch, the newly-banned illegal immigrants easily fall within the category of neighbor. For the rest of us, as we promote the new global community as the reason why our stock portfolios are looking great or celebrate new technological tools enabling the
"world to shrink", shouldn't we also look at the poor around the world as our neighbor? Shouldn't we love him or her as we're able, including sharing the Good News with them and working that their living conditions match their human dignity?

This is for another post, but chew on this. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization has stated that there is enough food in the world to fully nourish everyone on the planet. Yet, data (more data) indicates that a large portion of the global population are lacking the proper nutrition. As we get hot under the collar about our brothers and sisters from Central and South America coming to America to help provide for their livelihood, shouldn't we feel just a bit guilty for spending our time protesting migrants instead of working toward adequate nutrition for the world's population?

Posted by Kraft at 4:46 AM | 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

United Regional Health Care System (URHCS) in Wichita Falls, TX announced that The Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth are leaving effective July 31st from their Wichita Falls medical operations.

Catholic-sponsored health care started in Wichita Falls in 1935 with the Sisters opened Bethania Hospital on 11th Street and moved into a convent across the street. Over the years, the hospital competed with Wichita General Hospital, located three blocks down Grace Street until in 1997, the two hospitals merged to form URHCS.

One of the sisters joined the Board of Directors for the combined operation and the Sisters maintained direction of pastoral care for the 11th Street Campus, as Bethania is now known.

Due to various circumstances, including the hopsital's performance of tubal ligations, the Sisters decided it was time to move on.

In the coming weeks, the Catholic identity of the hosipital will be stripped away. Except for the "landmark" cross on top of the building, the hospital will become secular. The hospital intends to maintain pastoral care and grow it into an interdenominational effort. The hospital's chapel, original to the 1935 section of the building, will be converted to an interdenominational structure. The chapel is the only public chapel in Wichita Falls to maintain a traditional high altar after renovations in the 1960s to the other Catholic chapels and parishes in the city. While no plans have been formalized, it is assumed that this will be removed as part of the transition.

URCHS will work with the Sisters to create a "herritage center" or "mini-museum" to honor the legacy of the Sisters and their impact on Wichita Falls healthcare. For all of the religious items removed, the hospital will work with the Diocese of Fort Worth to ensure they are handled with all due reverence and care.

My involvement with the pastoral care of the hospital has been quite minimal. I am friends with Fr. Donlon, chaplain of the hospital and the usual celebrant of the 12 Noon Mass at Sacred Heart Parish. Before moving to Austin, I was also an altar server and lector for the chapel's Sunday morning services.

I'll be in Wichita Falls in mid-July so I plan on visiting, praying in and taking pictures of the chapel for probably the last time I'll be able to before the transition.

Posted by Kraft at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Aaaah, it's good to be back in the blogosphere! I spent all of last week in Bapchule AZ on a pastoral mission trip ministering to Native American youth. Quite an experience. I'll be reflecting on it more in the future.

Here's something to watch for on the cinema front. December 1, 2006, The Nativity premieres, a cinematic presentation of the story of Joseph and Mary as the journey to Bethlehem and give birth to Jesus. Screenplay by Mike "good thing my last name isn't Roch" Rich, writer of Radio, The Rookie, and Finding Forrester. DIrected by Catherine Hardwicke, director of Tombstone, Three Kings, and Vanilla Sky.

Check out the movie's homepage. Looks like it might be pretty dandy. Five months from today, folks. I'm there.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

In a glittering gem of subtly slanted reporting, the Washington Post on Wednesday reports:

Harvard University announced yesterday the launch of a privately funded, multimillion-dollar program to create cloned human embryos as sources of medically promising stem cells.

If I read one more article from the Mainstream Press about how “medically promising” these untested, unproven cells are, I might have to take a vacation. We all know what “medically promising” means. It means entirely theoretical. If the mainstream media had as much blind faith in religion as they do in science and biotechnology, they would be more Catholic than the pope.

This is not about stem cells!
The glittering gem continues:

The collaborative effort, involving several Harvard-affiliated medical research centers, the New York Stem Cell Foundation and Columbia University, marks a new phase in the long-simmering U.S. culture war over stem cell research, pitting some of the nation's most prestigious institutions against a vocal conservative movement that opposes the work.

First of all, this “long-simmering US culture war” is not over stem cells. How many times do we have to go over this? It is over the embryos who are being destroyed in the process of having their stem cells taken away for research purposes. The least our friends in the mainstream press could do is accurately report precisely what the source of the controversy is.

Three out of the four possible sources of stem cells are considered perfectly licit by the Catholic Church and pro-lifers. There’s adults, there’s fetuses, and there’s postnatal umbilical chords. The last one is no longer living so it’s fair game. The first two can have stem cells extracted without being killed or maimed. There’s nothing wrong with researching stem cells. There’s something very wrong with killing innocent people in order to do it. And as Fr Tad Pacholczyk at the National Catholic Bioethics Center points out, it’s these sources of stem cells that are actually being used right now to treat disease and are actually succeeding! No blind faith needed here. But the Washington Post makes it sound like all of us grandfather-clock, anti-technology Christians are opposed to all the stem-cell research that’s happening when they fail to simply and clearly identify precisely the kind of stem cell research to which Christians and pro-lifers are opposed and why.

Borderline editorializing
Now I just have to observe here: How does the mainstream press describe those who perpetrate this research? They are “collaborative” and “pres-tee-gee-ous.” Whereas who are we? We are “vocal” and “conservative”! Well gee whiz Washington Post, why not throw in “meddling” while you’re at it? The contrast is so obvious it borders on editorializing. Could they not have at least suffered to give us the label “pro-life”? “Why no, Mark, that would bring a positive spin to the story and keep the paper from being fair-and-balanced.” Okay fine but if that’s true, then why is it okay to call these scientists “presteegeeous”?

“Sincerity” versus truth
The folks spearheading the latest embryo-destructive research campaign for whatever reason feel the need to pander to us scrupulous, antiquated, simple-minded, churchgoing pro-lifers who have opposed the utilitarian practice for years. Harvard President Lawrence H Summers had this to say:

“While we understand and respect the sincerely held beliefs of those who oppose the research, we are equally sincere in our belief that the life-and-death medical needs of countless suffering children and adults justifies moving forward with this research.”

Make no mistake folks. This is textbook relativism. Look at the premises behind what President Summers is saying. It doesn’t matter what you believe. All that matters is that you believe it sincerely. We dogmatic simpletons can believe that embryos are human beings who have rights and deserve not to be exploited even for ostensibly noble purposes. And our presteegeeous colleagues in the biotechnology industry can believe that embryos are industrial material, to be drained of resources and then discarded.

Surely embryonic research proponents like President Summers are aware that we antiquated religious pro-life types aren’t swayed by all of this “sincerity” talk. If we sincerely believe that Hitler’s final solution to the Jewish problem is a good idea, it is still a very bad idea. That kind of ideology of “sincerity” is precisely what justified those atrocities then, and it’s what justifies these atrocities today. It’s not enough to be sincere. I am reminded of something I heard Archbishop Fulton Sheen say on Relevant Radio a few days ago, that history shows us that what is happening today is not new. They are the same things that have always happened, just in different ways to different people.

Injustice has always been justified not by claiming that it is right but by claiming it is for a good end and it is nobody’s place to judge the means. And injustices have always been rectified by those who sincerely strive to do what is really right, even if it means being vocal, and meddling, and uncompromising.

Posted by Lavergne at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

From Fox News:

There are 400,000 women in Germany already whose livelihoods come from selling their bodies for other people's sexual enjoyment. A US Congressman has cited that perhaps 40,000 more will make their way into Germany's borders while the country hosts the World Cup Soccer games. Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, a top official for the Pontifical Council for the Care of Migrants, told Vatican radio earlier this week:

"Using soccer terminology, I say that red flags should be given to this industry, to its clients and to the public authorities who host the event. Prostitution, in fact, violates the dignity of the human person, reducing her to an object and instrument of sexual pleasure. Women become goods to be purchased, whose cost is even less than that of a ticket to a soccer game."

I wonder what the radical feminists think about this. I mean, do they whip out their same shtick about this issue that they do about abortion? "Prostitution empowers women"? "It's her body, it's her choice"? And if not, then I wonder if they would give this woman-suppressing cleric from the woman-suppressing Church some credit for speaking out on the exploitation of women. Hey I can dream can't I?

Posted by Lavergne at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

That's right ladies and gentlemen, I am posting this entry on the sixth minute of the sixth hour (...PM but anyways) of the sixth day of the sixth month of '06! Oh my gosh! that's like ... 66666! That's even more evil than 666!

Evil movie!
Well, what would a day like today be without summer blockbuster The Omen to commemorate it? And what kind of commemoration would a summer blockbuster be if said summer blockbuster was not a remake of an original from 30 years ago? (And thirty is a multiple of six! What're the odds??)

I have not seen it (and will not tonight because I have better things to do that don't involve the occult in any way shape or form), but hope to at some point. Roger Ebert gave it a positive review. He said something in the review that got me thinking:

I've observed before that when it comes to dealing with demons and suchlike, Roman Catholics have the market cornered. Preachers of other faiths can foam and foment all they want about satanic cults, but when it comes to knowing the ground rules and reading ominous signs, what you want at the bedside is a priest who knows his way around an exorcism.

Amen to that, Roger.

Posted by Lavergne at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Okay so, that may be overstating it. People have been joking about this empire of baloney since before the movie came out I'd wager. But now the jokes are really starting to permeate. Two great pieces on the DaVinci Load that came out recently:

"Opus Dei's Box-Office Triumph" by Paul Fortunato
On June 2 an Opus Dei member from Houston wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. He practices corporal mortification, and is not ashamed to admit it. He also does something that works as a demonstration of class while serving at the same time as a nice little back-handed jab at the author and creators of the Load. He thanks them.

As a member of Opus Dei, I would like to thank Dan Brown and Ron Howard for "The Da Vinci Code." Why am I not outraged like so many other devout Roman Catholics? Because I think we could not have wished for a better result: critics attack the film (and, retrospectively, the book) as boring and annoying and cartoonish; and because everyone is seeing it anyway, many people who would otherwise have no interest in Opus Dei are curious, allowing us to explain what we are really about.

"Heaven Can Wait" by Anthony Lane
This piece, printed in the May 29 issue of the New Yorker, is laugh-out-loud funny. The last paragraph is priceless, and I won't give it away. Just read it.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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

Folks if you are looking for any kind of advice on romantic relationships, stay as far away as you can from MSNBC.com. Every now and then I come across an article that after I read it I just have to look at it and say to myself, “Oh Lord, this is bad on so many levels.” I had that experience yesterday when I found an article posted on MSNBC’s website from the Today Show. Apparently a Today Show contributor named Dr Gail Saltz serves as a sort of Ann Landers for couples: individuals write to her and she gives them advice (if you can call it that—more on that later).

So yesterday as I said I found this article entitled: “My partner prefers watching porn to having sex.” The subhead directly beneath it reads, “A woman wants to know if she should leave her boyfriend. Dr Gail Saltz says she should find out more about his obsession – and then decide.”

Poor diluted “widow”
That by itself made me want to take a baseball bat to my computer monitor. But I calmed myself and read on. Here is what the lady seeking advice had to say to Dr Gail. (NOTE: I have reworded a couple of phrases from her original letter in order to make it sound less crude or irreverent. Reworded phrases are placed in brackets [like so.])

Dear Gail: My boyfriend and I have been dating for a rocky two years, and things were finally starting to mellow out. But now we have this porn issue! He has watched porn occasionally over the years, but it never [decreased our tendency to have premarital sexual intercourse.] So using the pick-your-battles theory, I’ve dropped it. But now that we’re living together, I find it increasingly hard to accept his obsession and I'm tempted to end our relationship.

He only watches porn alone, and he has refused my offers to watch it with him. Every time he’s home alone, he watches it. Then when I come home [hoping to have premarital sexual intercourse], he’s not interested. He has started lying and sneaking around. He basically told me, “I’m going to do this. I can either lie about it or you can leave me alone about it.” Can you give me some insight? —Weary Porn Widow

Shoddy advice
And this is the part where I said to myself, “Oh my dear woman, this is bad on so many levels!” But even more astonishing was the ineptitude of Dr Saltz’s advice. Now I’m not a counselor or a PhD or anything. But I know shoddy advice when I see it. And this is textbook shoddy advice. I’ll just take it line by line.

The first thing she says about the whole situation is: “If your boyfriend feels driven to do something — whatever it is — behind your back, your relationship is in trouble.” In other words, the fact that he’s watching pornography and not playing low-stakes poker with his buddies isn’t that big of a deal.

“Another concern is that you’ve been together for all of two years and he is no longer interested in having sex with you.” Why is this such a surprise? They’re not married. They’re having sex. The guy has lost interest. I’ve heard this story a million times and usually it takes a lot less time than two years. It’s called using a person, which is the opposite of love and which Karol Cardinal Wojtyla discussed at length in his book Love and Responsibility. Study after study has shown that the couples with the most fulfilling relationships—sexually and emotionally—are the ones who practice complete heterosexual monogamous fidelity in marriage. Surely Dr Saltz has familiarized herself with these studies? Or does she just watch Friends?

Next she says: “Keep in mind that I am not addressing the social or moral issues of pornography, which generate great controversy and which people have strong feelings about.” So she tries to straddle the fence, even though her remarks throughout the article indicate a distinct lack of consideration for the point of view of those who think pornography is what it is—a festering tumor on the face of the media industry. “Whether a couple includes pornography in their sex life is a personal choice.” Of course, what would a column like this be without paying homage to the false sense of moral autonomy?

But nothing could have prepared me for this: “Asking to be included in his porn watching was a good move.” Um, um, what? A good move? It’s the worst thing she could possibly do! Get down in the gutter and roll around in the filth with him? What is the widow supposed to say? “Now that you’re exploiting the people on the TV, won’t you exploit me as well”? This is absurd! How can Dr Saltz possibly claim to be morally neutral in her approach to pornography if she’s telling her client that it was a good idea to try to watch it with her poor excuse for a boyfriend? These are the people who think that it would be a good idea to teach our kids how to use condoms. I am the definition of incredulous right now.

“Porn can be an enhancement to your sex life, but it shouldn't be a substitute for it.” But that’s what it is. Pornography by definition is a substitute for the intimacy that takes place in any sexual relationship. Even in situations where the viewing of pornography leads to a “normal” act of marital intercourse, where is the arousal coming from? It’s not coming from the two persons. It’s coming from the images on the screen. And again, anyone who has done serious counseling work with married couples knows that pornography does not enhance the sexual life of a couple; it stagnates it. Why? Because just like contraception, it cuts off communication between the two persons. And I didn’t even learn this from the Church. I learned it from my interpersonal communications professor at UT. What leads to satisfaction in the sexual life of a couple is communication. Equally important are commitment and openness to life. Pornography destroys all three of those.

The myth of "empowerment"
But in a “morally neutral” society, where sexuality has been made into this sort of judgment free zone, even this plainest common sense is lost on people who should be the most educated and wise among us. The argument has been made in some circles of feminism that pornography is not about female subjugation or exploitation but rather female empowerment—that the woman is able to use her feminine wiles as a means to power. But what we see here is that the opposite happens in real life. Pornography reduces women to pathetic states of life, as in this story of a woman who hopes at best to share a man, who obviously does not care for her in the least, with a television screen, and is encouraged to do so by the closest thing our friends at MSNBC can find to a voice of reason.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to spend my Memorial Day Weekend thinking about happy things, and I hope you will too.

Posted by Lavergne at 9:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Steven Greydanus of Decent Films writes a fantastic review of the DaVinci Load. This part in particular struck me:

Is it possible to put all this aside and just enjoy the story as a thriller, an enjoyable yarn? I honestly have no idea how people can take that approach.

Catholic writer Mark Shea tells an anecdote about a college bull session among students at Central Washington University over The Da Vinci Code. “Even if it’s just fiction,” a student opined, “it’s still interesting to think about.”

To which another student replied: “Your mother’s a whore.” And then, to the first student’s stunned incredulity, he added, “And even if that’s just fiction, it’s still interesting to think about.”

Snap. When I read this it really got me thinking about just how personal this situation is, even if I don't realize it. This isn't just about some high-browed arteests slandering some old geezers in the Vatican and some fringe kooks in a secretive organization.

The reality is that I am a son of the Church, whom is classically referred to as Mother Church. And it is this Mother Church whose son I am and whose sons and daughters populate the whole United States and the world over, who is being maligned and slandered and pooped upon by the popular world. And how passionately are we sons and daughters defending the mother who has been feeding us with the Word of God since we were little kids? I hope that next time the topic comes up in conversation, I will have the guts to say something, if only to point out that my mother is not, in fact, a secretive murderous whore.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Well the weekend that heralded the gigantic opening of Ron Howard's cinematization of Dan Brown's Catholic smear tome The DaVinci Code has finally come and gone. Whew. Now I can't wait until it's three months from now and everyone has forgotten about this. Course there's always that second media campaign with the release of the DVD to look forward to.

The movie made $77 million in the United States (which is not anywhere close to what The Passion of the Christ made in the US in its opening days). The DaVinci Load of Crap also grossed $147 million everywhere else in the world, including recordbreaking sales in Italy and Spain.

We saw this coming of course. And now the Church is bracing for all sorts of confusion and misconceptions on the part of the folks who watch the movie and don't know that what they're watching is about as grounded in reality as Fox's 24, which, by the way, has featured public service announcements from Kiefer Sutherland (AKA Jack "If everyone followed his instructions the show would be called 12" Bauer) inviting people to recognize that most Muslims and Arabs are in fact ordinary decent people. Anything like that from Ron Howard? Tom Hanks? Dan Brown? Course not. Why not?

Sorry I know I've covered this ground before but I feel the need to say it again: When it's Christians and Catholics being maligned in a Hollywood load of crap it's cool, it's in demand, or at least it's "just entertainment." But when it's Muslims or homosexuals or anybody else you can't portray anything less than the highest nobility without being expected to run a public service announcement. And there's nothing wrong with that. But we Catholics would like one as well. I think we deserve it. Especially the real Silas. Did you know he's a stockbroker in New York with a wife and kids? And heres the kicker: the dude is Nigerian.

The LA Daily News ran a piece today rejoicing over the sizeable ticket sales of the Da Vinci Load. Exhibitor Relations Co. president Paul Dergarabedian said: "The critics certainly weren't kind to ("Da Vinci") but audiences heard so much about it, so how could they not see it?"

How could they not see it? What kind of silly question is that? They could not see it the same way I'm gonna not see it: by not going to see it. It's not that complicated. And frankly, I do wonder how it is that so much curiosity can be ginned up. The promoters of the film argue that protesters of the films are just promoting it by speaking out. But seriously, what are they supposed to do? Not speak up? Not defend themselves and their honor? If Opus Dei members were to keep their mouths shut it would be taken as a confirmation of the argument made by the film and book: that Opus Dei is a secretive and probably corrupt organization.

If the DaVinci Load of Crap is going to rake in hunreds of millions of dollars then so be it. It won't be the first two-and-a-half-hour baloney-fest to do so. I just hope the people who go to see it realize that what they're watching is in fact baloney.

But the fact of the matter is that whether they know that going in or not, they should be able to recognize the fact as soon as they walk out of the theatre and are confronted with numerous Catholics and members of Opus Dei and Catholic clergy etc, all of whom are saints. Of course, we would have to actually be saints in order for those who see the movie to recognize that. Perhaps that is the good that will come from this whole Catholic smear-fest. Perhaps now all we Catholics will have to be saints.

Posted by Lavergne at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Harmless fiction?
So, the DaVinci Code is just a bit of entertainment right? It's just a bit of fiction, it's not meant to mirror reality or anything. And besides most people aren't going to have their beliefs altered or really be influenced at all by what's in the book anyway. Right?

Wrong.

Disclaimer too much to ask?
Lifesite News reports that Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had some harsh words for director Ron Howard, who announced recently that there will be no disclaimer at the beginning of DVC. The story includes a list of films which had disclaimers at the beginning expressing that there was no intention of maledicting the groups depicted therein. Get a load of these:

· Asians: "Year of the Dragon"
· Blacks: "Birth of the Nation"
· Gays: "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"
· Jews: "Merchant of Venice"
· Mormons: "Big Love"
· Muslims: "True Lies"
· Native Americans: "Pocahontas II"
· Nearsighted: "Mr. Magoo"
· Wolves: "White Fang"

Now that's crazy. The most striking example to me is True Lies. If DVC was really the innocent little bit of fictional action fluff it claims to be, there would be no problem with a disclaimer of that sort. The fact of the matter is, for all their pretensions and posturing, the makers of this film are objectively hostile to bona fide Catholicism and to the image of the Church. These filmmakers and Hollywood in general are clearly not hostile to any of the above groups because they recognize the kind of sensitivity that all of them rightly warrant. They do not recognize that Catholics have a right to the same kind of sensitivity. In light of this double-standard, perhaps it would be appropriate to redub the movie, maybe something like, False Lies.

Posted by Lavergne at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

So today USA Today ran a praise piece on Oprah. She is, of course, the media darling of the modern world. A few things about this article that struck my eye, or maybe, poked it like a cattle prod.

First off, Kathryn Lofton, a professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon who has written two papers analyzing the religious aspects of Oprah, said this about her: "She's a really hip and materialistic Mother Teresa."

Um, what? First of all, the words "materialistic" and "Mother Teresa" do not belong in the same sentence. And certainly not the latter right after the former. The last thing Mother Teresa was was materialistic. And according to an expert on Oprah, it's the second thing she is. "Materialistic Mother Teresa" is a contradiction in terms, a stringing together of words that causes said words to lose their meaning and become superficial and bereft of substance. Now, if that's what we mean when we describe Oprah as a "materialistic Mother Teresa," superficial and bereft of substance, then I can accept that as a possibility.

Perhaps by "Mother Teresa" Professor Lofton just meant to refer to Oprah's participation in good causes like Darfur and Hurricane Katrina. The distinct difference here of course is that every day of Mother Teresa's life was about the good cause--specifically in Calcutta. Anything less was not enough for her or for her good name. For Oprah, the natural disasters are on Monday and Tuesday, and what not to wear is on Wednesday. That's not a jab at Oprah, it's just what is. There's also the distinct difference that everything Mother Teresa did was aimed at the glorification of Jesus Christ. She pointed to Him. Who does Oprah point to?

Later on the article reads:

One of Winfrey's most appealing subtexts is that she's anti-institutional, says Chris Altrock, minister of Highland Street Church of Christ in Memphis. He says Winfrey believes there are many paths to God, not just one. After doing his doctoral research three years ago on postmodernism religion, a religious era that began in the 1970s as Christians became deeply interested in spirituality and less interested in any established church, he came up with what he calls "The Church of Oprah," referring to the culture that has created her.

"Our culture is changing," he says, "as churches are in decline and the bulk of a new generation is growing up outside of religion." Instead, they're turning to the Church of Oprah.

"People who have no religion relate to her," Nelson says.

Well of course. This is no big riddle here. What makes the Church of Oprah so appealing to so many people particularly in America is the same thing that ever made every other craze in history so appealing: the veritable absence of challenging moral requirements. That's what's at work in the DaVinci Code, it's what's at work in alternative spiritualities and yes even in the spirituality of Oprah. Does she say some good things? I guess maybe: frankly I don't watch her show that often. What I do know is that in the Gospel according to Oprah most of the notion of moral obligation has to do not with your neighbor but with precisely "you". The article makes it clear: "purchase self-indulgent gifts, take time for you — because you deserve it. The notes rang true to millions of viewers."

True or false doesn't enter into it. It rings comfortable. And that's the pop cultural view of religion right there. Religion is a sort of therapy. It's all about comfort and happy feelings and the moment that it makes an uncomfortable demand on a person or a culture it ceases to be valuable. That's the popular religious outlook of many in America today and Oprah is glad to preach it. Catholicism is a profound rejection of that idea.

One pointy-headed Oprah follower actually goes so far as to invite readers to ponder the question: "Why do we all need her so much?"

"We all"? Excuse me? Forty-nine million viewers a week--okay, it's impressive. But it does not in any way shape or form constitute "we all," especially for those of us two-hundred-some-odd million Americans who actually don't watch it every single day.

I have to say, my favorite parts of the article were the quotations of Debbie Schlussel, a blogger who, aside from resenting the ridiculous comparisons of Oprah to bona fide saints, seems to just plain not like her. She describes Oprah's fans as "incredibly gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves." Winfrey, according to Schlussel, "acts as if her show has 'evolved,' but in fact, she still has the salacious sex and deviance stories, with a psychologist in the audience to make it seem highbrow and give it the kosher seal of approval. If this is the person whose morals we are putting on a pedestal, then America's moral compass is in much need of retuning."

Well, yes Debbie, I'm afraid it in fact is. Trying to look on the bright side though, I wonder if all 49 million of Oprah's viewers really are "fans," in the sense of being the gullible, bandwagon-jumping trend-slaves that Schlussel describes. Is it too much to hope that people can watch Oprah with a critical mind? I don't think so. Still, it is rather unsettling when "Oprah said" becomes an authoritative prefix culturally rivalling "Jesus said." But that's from the point of view of the present time. In terms of history, I think it's safe to say which person's words will last longer.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Here's a good article published in the Pittsburgh Catholic last week that draws parallels between Thomas Jefferson and Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code. There's really not a whole lot new about Dan Brown, particularly in his approach to the question of who Jesus was (is). It's the old art of fence-straddling.

Jesus was just a nice guy you see. He wasn't really the LORD. He was just a really good teacher who made everybody feel good, went around raising everybody's self-esteem. It was that big bad evil Church that hijacked the image of Jesus and turned him into a deity and told people that they better not misbehave or Jesus would send em to aich-ee-double-hockey-sticks.

In the "Total Agony Love" entry, I mentioned that a romantic attraction proves untenable for an enamored man for one of three reasons:

Either a) she does not know we exist; b) she knows we exist but has no clue how we feel about her; or c) she knows how we feel but would rather maintain a level of comfortable distance (i.e. she "just wants to be friends").

I think what's going on with DVC is situation "c." The Da Vinci Code is Dan Brown's bend-over-backwards attempt to keep his distance from the God who loves him, as well as make it easy for other Christians who are unsettled by the message of Christ to do similarly.

And in the meantime it unsettles even committed but uninformed Christians, claiming that maybe our lover is not everything we thought he was. So we then are tempted to distance ourselves, at the fear of being let down. It's a psychological operation.

This comfortable distance allows for a beloved to enjoy the superficial qualities of the lover's affections without having to commit to the uncomfortable ordeal of really reciprocating. So the beloved benefits in all the ways that they would wish to, in the ways that would make them feel better about themselves. But the lover is undeniably short-changed. The more admirable thing to do in this situation would be to simply cut off the relationship, rather than attempt to straddle the fence.

Similarly, DVC attempts to reframe the relationship of humanity with Christ, inviting followers to predicate their previously unqualified belief on whether or not it offends our modern sensibilities. Again, there's nothing new here, except the package. As characters in the book are quick to point out, they mean no disrespect to Jesus himself. They just have it in for the big evil Church. In other words, they don't want to completely sever their relationship with Jesus. They like him and all. They just don't want to date exclusively.

But as Jesus said, "Whoever is not with me is against me." In other words, it's time to fish or cut bait.

Posted by Lavergne at 12:02 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

Here's a happy tale. Does this remind anyone else of St Francis?

Posted by Lavergne at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Republicans are already on pretty thin ice with Catholic voters, and it doesn't help when one of their governors signs into law a bill turning Hawaii from the Aloha State to the Abortion State. The more they waver on this issue, the more they're going to upset the people responsible for giving them majorities in the first place.

Here's what Fr Thomas J Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, had to say about the dibacle.

Posted by Lavergne at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

One of my readers replied to "Benedict Year One" saying that the DaVinci Code is a good novel so long as one understands that it is fiction and none of the “facts” presented such as the nature of Opus Dei or the secret of Mary Magdalene are actually true. I can respect that. I’m sure the novel is very suspenseful and well-composed; otherwise it wouldn’t be all the rage today.

But my sisters and brothers, if you’re looking for some more well-composed, edge-of-your-seat mythology, check out the May issue of Glamour Magazine. Tell ya what, folks, this is great storytelling! For example, check out the article entitled “The new lies about women’s health.” (WARNING: This link contains a startling and borderline pornographic image of a woman's backside.) It’s a harrowing tale about how evil Christian pro-lifers seek to impose their morality on the rest of humanity by twisting the arms of politicians and distorting scientific research. So to the rescue come the noble “free spirits” at Glamour and Planned Parenthood etc to expose the lies. Will the Pro-Choice Freedom Fighters beat back the pathological Bible-thumping liars? You’ll just have to read and find out.

Continue reading "Glamour Magazine competes with DVC for enthralling fiction" »

Posted by Lavergne at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The Catholic religious group Opus Dei is suing the makers of the upcoming DaVinci Code movie to have a disclaimer included in the film saying that it is a work of fiction. Great idea, although it won't make me any more inclined to see the film. Now, if this was a two-hour film about how Opus Dei is a paragon of righteousness and the Church is the Pillar of Truth and Christ actually did die and rise and Mary Magdalene was a celibate saint, that movie I'd go see opening night.

And how about this: at the end of the above-described film we could have our own little disclaimer, maybe saying the following--

Everything you have just seen in this film is true. However some years ago, an anti-Catholic, self-important pseudo-historian wrote a catalogue of irrelevant binge seeking to malign everything just now shown here. It was recently made into a film which will soon be available in the drama section of your local video store, even though it would probably be better suited to the comedy section.

Posted by Lavergne at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman who was starved to death over the course of nearly thirteen days last year. She died on the Tuesday of Holy Week, and was joined days later by His Holiness John Paul II.

It has been reported that in his new book Michael Schiavo admits to having come close to giving up on the years long battle to starve his wife to death. In the book he explains that the day before Terri's feeding tube was removed, he called up his attorney George Felos and said that he was going to back out of the battle. But Felos, a staunch euthanasia lobbyist who continues to promote the practice today, persuaded Michael to stay the insidious course.

As Mr Schiavo recalls:

(Felos) reminded me that we had to realize that it wasn't just about Terri anymore. It was about the rest of the people who didn't want the government telling us how we could die and when we were allowed to decide that we didn't want further medical treatment. And it was about who has the right to make decisions between a husband and wife.

Surely the husband and the wife, provided the decision is not about whether or not to murder said husband or wife.

In the year since Terri's passing, her family has continued to minister in her name for the rights of patients, having founded even before her death a website known as Terri's Fight. As the website's mission statement reads:

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, Inc., (TSSF) is a non-profit group dedicated to ensuring the rights of disabled, elderly and vulnerable citizens against care rationing, euthanasia and medical killing.

This past Sunday morning March 26 during an internationally broadcast religious service, Fr Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, read an open letter to Mr Schiavo before a worldwide audience. Here it is in its entirety.

A year ago this week, I stood by the bedside of the woman you married and promised to love in good times and bad, in sickness and health. She was enduring a very bad time, because she hadn’t been given food or drink in nearly two weeks. And you were the one insisting that she continue to be deprived of food and water, right up to her death. I watched her face for hours on end, right up to moments before her last breath. Her death was not peaceful, nor was it beautiful. If you saw her too, and noticed what her eyes were doing, you know that to describe her last agony as peaceful is a lie.

This week, tens of millions of Americans will remember those agonizing days last year, and will scratch their heads trying to figure out why you didn’t simply let Terri’s mom, dad, and siblings take care of her, as they were willing to do. They offered you, again and again, the option to simply let them care for Terri, without asking anything of you. But you refused and continued to insist that Terri’s feeding be stopped. She had no terminal illness. She was simply a disabled woman who needed extra care that you weren’t willing to give.

I speak to you today on behalf of the tens of millions of Americans who still wonder why. I speak to you today to express their anger, their dismay, their outraged astonishment at your behavior in the midst of this tragedy. Most people will wonder about these questions in silence, but as one of only a few people who were eyewitnesses to Terri’s dehydration, I have to speak.

I have spoken to you before, not in person, but through mass media. Before Terri’s feeding tube was removed for the last time, I appealed to you with respect, asking you not to continue on the road you were pursuing, urging you to reconsider your decisions, in the light of the damage you were doing. I invited you to talk. But you did not respond.

Then, after Terri died, I called her death a killing, and I called you a murderer because you knew – as we all did – that ceasing to feed Terri would kill her. We watched, but you had the power to save her. Her life was in your hands, but you threw it away, with the willing cooperation of attorneys and judges who were as heartless as you were. Some have demanded that I apologize to you for calling you a murderer. Not only will I not apologize, I will repeat it again. Your decision to have Terri dehydrated to death was a decision to kill her. It doesn’t matter if Judge Greer said it was legal. No judge, no court, no power on earth can legitimize what you did. It makes no difference if what you did was legal in the eyes of men; it was murder in the eyes of God and of millions of your fellow Americans and countless more around the world. You are the one who owes all of us an apology.

Your actions offend us. Not only have you killed Terri and deeply wounded her family, but you have disgraced our nation, betrayed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and undermined the principles that hold us together as a civilized society. You have offended those who struggle on a daily basis to care for loved ones who are dying, and who sometimes have to make the very legitimate decision to discontinue futile treatment. You have offended them by trying to confuse Terri’s circumstances with theirs. Terri’s case was not one of judging treatment to be worthless – which is sometimes the case; rather, it was about judging a life to be worthless, which is never the case.

You have made your mark on history, but sadly, it is an ugly stain. In the name of millions around the world, I call on you today to embrace a life of repentance, and to ask forgiveness from the Lord, who holds the lives of each of us in His hands.

-- Fr. Frank Pavone

Posted by Lavergne at 9:46 PM | 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

It's been a long time since I've read an article by a pro-choicer that made me smile or chuckle as much as this one did.

Continue reading "New York Times violates pro-choice orthodoxy" »

Posted by Lavergne at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

George Weigel wrote a great opinion piece in the Denver Catholic Register on the abject bias of CBS' 60 Minutes news team in a recent feature story on stem cells. He begins:

The CBS news magazine 60 Minutes prides itself on asking the hard questions that other television news vehicles are too polite, or perhaps too afraid, to ask. That tough-minded approach to an important issue wasn’t much in evidence, however, when 60 Minutes recently took on the question of whether “spare” embryos “left over” from in vitro fertilization procedures should be used for stem-cell research that would result in the embryos’ death.

Check it out.

Posted by Lavergne at 1:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Interesting story to come out in the last few days: A couple of senators--Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana--have proposed to revive legislation from last year to create new domain suffixes for websites. The new suffix would be ".xxx." The suffix would of course be appended to websites that peddle pornography. Last year the legislation made the suffixes optional, but the legislation faced heavy opposition and ultimately was rejected.

Well these two Congressmen have brought it back and they've upped the ante. Now not only would the dot-xxx be made able to porn-peddlers, it will be made mandatory. So playboy.com would have to trade in its current URL for a "playboy.xxx."

However, there's apparently a sizable contingent of people from both sides of the pornography issue who are all working towards the same goal: killing this legislation like the last one. The movement to protect the pornography industry, spearheaded by the Free Speech Coalition, is actually working towards the same goal as conservative pro-family lobby organizations who would like to see the pornography industry in shambles both on and off the internet. These organizations include Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. The reason the two sides are working towards the same goal however is because they have radically different ideas of how the legislation will affect online pornography.

The Free Speech Coalition complains that the "dot-xxx" would lead to the "ghetto-ization" of online porn. Well ... yeah. On the other hand, pro-family coalitions like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are concerned that this might create a "virtual red-light district" that would actually consolidate the online pornography industry and may thereby make it stronger. Who's right?

As best as I can read this, whether or not the legislation proves beneficial or counterproductive ... depends. It depends for one thing on whether the peddlers will comply with it. Many of them may not, but that’s true of any law that regulates anything. It also depends on whether one has a moral compass. Those who have rightly formed consciences will see a dot-xxx and they will know to avoid it. Those who do not have rightly-formed consciences will see one and be enticed to consume it. It gives parents the opportunity to protect their kids, but it doesn't actually constrain the ability of vice-peddlers to distribute their materials, or perverts and addicts to consume it.

I have to say from a Catholic standpoint on this issue I can see both sides. On the one hand, creating dot-xxx domains would seem to legitimize the practice and stop short of what should be our ultimate goal of eradicating pornography completely. I can see how it would be somewhat like allowing contraception into the curricula of junior high and high school sex ed classes in the hope that it would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. It appears to put a band-aid on the problem, but might it only make the problem worse?

On the other hand, I can't get over the fact that these online pornography-peddlers actually target youngsters. They use innocent or familiar domain names--Disney, Barbie, ESPN etc--to lure people in so that they will stumble upon the material accidentally (for the consumers, but not for the peddlers). A dot-xxx would make such insidious ploys all but impossible. “Barbie.xxx” is clearly distinguishable from “Barbie.com.” The way it is now, the cyber-porn industry is more or less able to just blend into the crowd, getting new accidental users hooked every single day.

Consider it this way. There are many pornographic films that stylistically resemble legitimate genres of film. There are sci-fi porns, romantic comedy porns, medieval fantasy porns, western porns, etc. Right now all those movies are in the same section at the video store. Granted, those video stores are public places whereas the internet is at least ostensibly private. But it does create the effect of marking the material, placing all of it under the same umbrella according to similar content.

Imagine if there was no such section. Suppose all the sci-fi porn was in the sci-fi section, romantic comedy porn in the romantic comedy section, and so forth. It would be much more difficult to navigate a video store without bumping into that kind of filth. That’s how it is right now on the internet. Granted, we should work to eradicate such material from video stores anyway. But in the meantime it helps to know which part of the store merits boycotting.

Dot-xxx is the closest idea anyone has had to creating that kind of effect in cyberspace. It would be simple as pie for parents to cordon off all the dot-xxx’s if cyber-pornography peddlers were mandated to switch over. Would all the vice-peddlers on the internet comply with this legislation? Maybe not, but it might be a start. If there’s a better way to hamper this business then somebody needs to come out with it.

I welcome people’s opinions on this as I am still trying to form my own. All I know for certain is that this is an industry that makes $2.5 billion on the internet and $12 billion overall in the United States each year, with 72 million online consumers, the largest portion of that being children ages 12 to 17. (These numbers and others are rather eye-opening.) It is an industry that violates the dignity of the human person, male and female, in a most egregious and violent way, and it is time we took the fight to them. I don’t know if dot-xxx is the best way to do it, but it’s something that needs to be seriously discerned by those interested in promoting the common good.

Posted by Lavergne at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Father Thomas D Wiliams, LC, dean of the theology school at Rome's Regina Apostolorum University where he teaches Catholic Social Doctrine, has written a great piece in the National Review Online on the need for more Pro-Life Democrats. This comes in response to the "Historic Statement of Principles" from the 55 democrats in the House of Representatives. I found this passage particularly well-put.

"True, the statement acknowledges the “undesirability” of abortion, and the signers hasten to assure their constituencies that they do not “celebrate its practice.” That they do not “celebrate” the greatest social ill of our time may prove cold comfort to those who spend much of their free time actively campaigning for its abolition. And as regards its “undesirability,” this poorly chosen term will likely provoke only indignation. Hangnails are undesirable; under-seasoned salads are undesirable; lines at the cash register are undesirable. Abortion is repugnant and evil. Can you imagine a politician stepping forward and (with much hand-wringing) asserting that he finds rape “undesirable” and that he does not “celebrate” its practice, but that he will not stop defending legislation that permits it? Such a politician would rightly be ridden out of town on a rail."

Posted by Lavergne at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

The US Bishops, particularly Cardinals Keeler, McCarrick and DiMarzio, have written a response to the 55 Catholic Democrat Congressmen who wrote a statement recently about why they choose to ignore Catholic teaching on abortion.

The cardinals affirmed that the dignity of the human person mandates continued efforts to advance social justice in all its varied forms, but made plain that abortion as an issue in particular speaks directly to the right of every human being to live, and that that right to life, as John Paul II said, is " the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights" and that it must be defended "with maximum determination."

Continue reading "The US Bishops to Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians" »

Posted by Lavergne at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Well, it's official. Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota has signed into law the bill that looks to ban abortions in all cases except when the mother's life is in danger. The law is scheduled to take effect this summer, but the imminent legal challenges will almost certainly affect that.

And if the immediate reactions to the bill’s passage indicates anything, it is that there is still a considerable need for education of the public on this issue—both to address the genuinely difficult applications of the law and to cut through the sophomoric drivel cranked out ever-so-dependably by our brothers and sisters adrift in the pro-choice lobby.

Continue reading "On the South Dakota abortion ban" »

Posted by Lavergne at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

So the Academy Awards aired Sunday, featuring Jon Stewart as host. I've never been a huge fan of Jon Stewart, the host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central. But I have to say that I have one regret from not watching the Oscars, and it is that I missed him saying this to the celebrities:

"I’m from New York and I’ve been here a week and a half. A lot of people say this town is too liberal. Out of touch with mainstream America. A modern day beachfront Sodom and Gomorrah. A black hole where innocence is obliterated. An endless orgy of sexual gratification and greed.

“I don’t really have a joke here…and I just thought you should know a lot of people are saying that.”

In my book, his stock just went up a couple of points.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | Blog Reaction

Michael Medved has written a piece in USA Today discussing how disappointed the folks who brought us Brokeback Mountain are that the supposedly fanatical bloodthirsty Christian conservatives haven't reacted more violently to Hollywood's latest manifesto.

I had debated for some time writing a piece about Brokeback, the main hesitation being that I haven't seen the film, but have only been confronted with its advertising campaign, of which Medved makes mention. After reading Medved's piece, I am content to have said nothing, since it is apparently a sign of greater power and maturity on the part of orthodox and orthoprax Christians, that confronted with poisonous products like Brokeback, we can shrug it off rather than add to its publicity by voicing public outrage.

Posted by Lavergne at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | 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