Are There Any Pro-Abortion People Here?

Let's start the conversation here:

Twisted abortion logic:

A commenter here at SA (and many thousands of people before him) recently wrote:

Perhaps with a bit of reflection, Joe, you may realize that support for abortion rights is quite a different thing from support for abortion.

Does this type of statement make sense in any other case?  If not, why do people think it makes sense in the case of abortion?   Let’s try substituting some other practices, and see how it holds up.

Perhaps with a bit of reflection, you may realize that support for the right to rape is quite a different thing from support for rape.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Southern Appeal.)

Notre Dame: Another Perspective

Lest we be guilty of focussing exclusively on the negative and sensational here is another point of view:

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT ND?

[Robert Gotcher]




5/22/2009





Greg, close your ears.



Last night I ran into Matt Alderman, of Holy Whapping blog, at the Extraordinary Form celebration of the Mass of the Feast of the Ascension at St. Stan's parish in Milwaukee. He had a great post recently about the ND situation--one which I almost agree with completely, especially these comments:

The same students and the same student culture (both pious and less so) is still there on campus[I know this is true, because my son is there and my other son is beginning in August.], and indeed, I'd say the caliber of the Catholic student population has improved since my time there. This one incident has not changed any of this. I agree something should be done--but I also think this event ought not to be exploited by those with some sort of beef against this place, or are unaware of how the territory has changed in recent years.

Read the rest.

Courtesy of Heart, Mind & Strength.

The Vatican Has Spoken

and said that President Obama is not "pro-abortion". So that provokes a couple of questions:

What or who exactly is the "Vatican"?

And what does it mean to say that someone or some group is "pro-abortion"? Can we agree with the President that no one is "pro-abortion"?

Let's start with the first question:

Wiegel on L’Osservatore Romano’s “fideist credulity”:

My friends – smart people – are angrily scratching their heads over the latest squishy musings in L’Osservatore Romano.



I have posted about this here and here.  In the second case, the editor, who is a fine fellow and doing a pretty good job making the paper into something other than fishwrap, really blew it. 



Here is a piece by George Weigel in National Review online with my emphases and comments.

Parsing the Vatican Newspaper

It doesn’t always speak for the pope.



May 21, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

By George Weigel



[snip]
2. In the normal course of events, L’Osservatore Romano does not speak authoritatively for the Church in matters of faith, morals, or public-policy judgment. The exceptions are when a senior churchman offers a commentary on a recent papal document (an encyclical, for instance), or on those exceedingly rare occasions when an editorial in the paper is followed by three dots, or periods, a traditional convention signaling that the opinion being expressed is from “high authority.” No knowledgeable or responsible analyst of Vatican affairs would regard commissioned essays in L’Osservatore Romano, even if they appear on page one, as somehow reflecting an authoritative view from the Holy See or the Pope. The same is true for statements by the paper’s editors or editorials without the dots. [True.  As I have pointed out in the past, unsigned editorials usually have more weight.  And there are some which have clues that they are even more weighty.]

Read the whole thing.

(Via What Does The Prayer Really Say?.)

Dialogue, Part Two

I'm consciously rejecting the "debate is bad, dialogue is good" idea right off the bat. Debate is a form of dialogue and arguably it's purest form. If dialogue is a search for truth by two or more parties, then debate is the potentially the best structure for that search.

But then I don't mean simply arguing to "win". Rather I mean supporting a position contrary to your interlocutor's with the conviction that it is true. And this with the fallibility principle: the recognition that no matter how convinced we are we may still turn out to be wrong. Properly understood as a search for truth in an adversarial fashion, debate in this sense aims to bring the opponents together in a better understanding of the truth.

I'm concerned that "dialogue" is for some a code word for talking pleasantly with no intention of pursuing the truth or even a conviction that we can know the truth. When the President announces the abortion positions are irreconcilable I'm concerned he means something like the above: "Let's talk, but don't expect me to engage what you have to say as if it really meant something to me." Or, as Foghorn Leghorn used to say, "Don't bother me with the facts, son, I've already made up my mind."

Enough already: here's another source for discussing "dialogue":

the dialogue about abortion:

Over at Via Media, Amy's started a discussion about dialogue.1) Who are the parties in the dialogue?2) Where is this dialogue situated?Should be an interesting conversation.To take things a step further, what are the necessary ingredients/principles in dialogue? What does dialogue look like in practice? I've made some efforts in the past to grapple with the concept of dialogue on my blog.I know

Read the whole thing.

(Via The Weight of Glory.)

Dialogue

is a popular word. But what does the speaker mean by that? The two Presidents' possibly facile invocation to dialogue provokes questions. Some among the so-called Pro-choice movement has declared debate off limits for years now. When the President says the positions are irreconcilable he may have this idea in mind.

Amy Welborn has challenged both ideas: that debate is counter-productive and that only "dialogue", whatever is meant by that, is appropriate between the two camps. She is challenging those imagining they are champions of dialogue to begin doing so. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this.

But if words are only instruments we use to extend our will, then dialogue is an attempt to at least prevent another from imposing their will on me and at most an attempt to impose my will on my "partner". If people take this attitude then dialogue is not an attempt to arrive at the truth, but an attempt to project one's one will, truth notwithstanding. Beware entering that kind of "dialogue".

So here are some more eloquent words about this issue:

Some things to consider when it comes to the "D" word:

Christ said that He would send His disciples among men as "sheep among wolves." This suggests that they would not find their activities only in debating forums, academic chairs, or gentle dialogues. Indeed, they were told that they would be persecuted. They would be told how to answer magistrates, almost as if it was not their words that were being rejected. This realization brings up the limits of dialogue. Argument can be rejected not merely because it is illogical or inconsistent, but also because it is true. Of course, it will be rejected in the name of some other truth, or apparent truth. But the fact is that much modern thought, in its intellectual inconsistencies, is ultimately not rooted in reason but in will.

[snip]

...Chesterton remarks that the purpose of argument or dialogue is not ultimately to disagree but to agree. The purpose of disagreement is in the end to agree. That is to say, dialogue is intended to achieve something beyond itself. It is well that we do not agree before we understand why we should agree. On the other hand, it is also true that we refuse to argue or agree to philosophic positions because we are afraid of where the argument leads, if it leads to a coherence in the universe between reason and revelation.

The world is not divided merely by intellect and its understandings of things. It is more fundamentally divided by will, by the thesis that, as Benedict XVI said, "we want unlimited possession of the world and of ourselves." To accomplish this latter ambition, we have to lie to ourselves about ourselves and about the coherence of the world. To protect our self-generated view of ourselves, we have to develop a theory that justifies what we do according to our own wills. This is why, however useful, dialogue runs up against our wills that enable us to choose another view of the world but the one that is.

Read the entire essay.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog.)

Notre Dame: the Highlights

There is an immense amount of verbiage flying through Catholic cyberspace about the President's appearance and award. So why not add my two cents worth?

The great bifurcation in American Catholicism has been going on for some decades now. It became visible with the public dissent over Humanae Vitae in 1968. With Bishops and the occasional Cardinal or two in the next three decades the "Spirit of Vatican II" Catholics grew apart from the rest while assuming many of the levers of power in chanceries across North America.

But Archbishop Hunthausen is gone, except to make an appearance to testify to his criminal incompetence. Cardinal Mahoney is busy fighting off attempts to force him to do the same. And from a tiny handful of bishops in 2004 who raised the issue of Senator Kerry's fitness to receive Communion, we now have almost 80 bishops publicly rebuking the Notre Dame administration for honouring the most pro-abortion President ever.

The John Paul II priests are becoming Benedict bishops. And so the "Spirit of Vatican II" Catholics are gradually losing their grip on power in the Church and have less and less to tie them to the Church as it exists. In the end they will have to decide just what it means to call themselves Catholic.

In the meantime here are couple of links that I found enlightening. There are many more in the post cited.

Pres. Obama's ND appearance: Links, commentary, analysis:

• The American Papist has a quick post noting that "a Catholic liberal, a feminist liberal, and a Catholic conservative ... all unsatisfied" with Obama's speech. The conservative is Notre Dame legend Ralph McInerny, who writes, in a piece posted today on The Catholic Thing:

This
division among Catholics has been widening for more than forty years.
How did it come about that so many Catholics have such a mushy notion
of what it means to be a Catholic? The teaching of the faith since the
close of Vatican II in 1965 has been scandalously inadequate. In many
cases it has been the deliberate substituting of stones for bread. It
began with waffling on contraception when theologians, real or
self-proclaimed, impudently rejected Humanae Vitae, one of the
great encyclicals of modern times. The scandal of the encyclical was
that it placed Catholics on one side of a line and the zeitgeist
on the other. Yet dissent from it was allowed to flourish. Moral
theology went into steep decline and the official body of Catholic
theologians issued Human Sexual Morality in which doubt was
cast on the long tradition of teaching on pre-marital and extra-marital
sex, abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce – a systematic
dismantling of Catholic moral teaching.
[snip]
• George Weigel, writing about "Obama and the 'Real Catholics'", makes some excellent points about the strategy employed by President Obama at Notre Dame:

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.  <snip>

Whether or not President Obama knew precisely what he was doing — and I’m inclined to think that this politically savvy White House and its allies among Catholic progressive intellectuals knew exactly what they were doing — is irrelevant. In order to secure the political advantage Obama had gained among Catholic voters last November, the president of the United States decided that he would define what it means to be a real Catholic in 21st-century America — not the bishop of Fort Wayne–South Bend, who in sorrow declined to attend Notre Dame’s commencement; not the 80-some bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s decision to invite the president to receive an honorary degree; not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which explicitly and unambiguously instructed Catholic institutions not to do what Notre Dame did. He, President Obama, would settle the decades-long intra-Catholic culture war in favor of one faction — the faction that had supported his candidacy and that had spent the first months of his administration defending his policies.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog.)

Who's Digesting Your News For You?

If it's the MSM it's being abbreviated in very interesting ways:

The MSM strikes again:

Courtesy of a loyal SA reader and ND alum:

I’m not sure how the media missed it but yesterday we had an open-air mass and rally (the latter of which Bishop D’Arcy attended) and estimates put the crowd at least around 2000

Read the whole thing.

(Via Southern Appeal.)

More Torture

I've tried wading into some of the discussion about Torture, primarily in Catholic Blogs where the argument has raged. There are questions to be answered: Does the Church teach that torture is intrinsically evil? Seemingly yes, from Veritatis Splendor, which, in turn, cites Gaudiam et Spes.

What does the Church mean by torture (or torments)? Is there a reasonably clear line that helps us decide what treatments to condemn and which to tolerate? The answer seems to be no.

My intuition remains that water-boarding is a form of torture and therefore to be rejected. But how the relatively recent movement of the Magisterium to reject torture helps in specific cases isn't at all clear to me. So in the process of trying to digest the various arguments here is another take on the problem:

Disproportionate infliction of pain:

In a discussion on a Catholic and Enjoying It! post on the ongoing defense of the Bush Administration's policy of torturing prisoners, I was invited to address the position staked out by Jimmy Akin in a series of posts back in 2006.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Disputations.)

Just To Muddy the Waters a Bit

Here is a more specifically theological look at the nature of intrinsic evil and how that might apply to torture:

JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Intrinsic Evil:

According to CCC 1755, "A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together." If any of these three is lacking, the act will be evil.

Read the whole thing.

(Via JImmy Akin.org.)

Torture Discussion

continues:

“Is Torture One of the Church’s Non-Negotiables?”:

That is the question posed by my friend Deal Hudson.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Southern Appeal.)

Torture

First off, torture is something evil, which we must not do nor condone:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2297

So now the question is: how do we recognize torture? Are there some things that are torture under some circumstances but not under others? Specifically, are there circumstances under which water-boarding is not torture?

Keep in mind that a fundamental principle of Catholic theology (and classical philosophy) is that you may not do evil in order to achieve some good end. The good ends do not justify the evil means. So arguing that water-boarding has been effective and saved potentially thousands of lives does not justify it. If it's evil, it's evil.

So is water-boarding torture? Intuitively that seems obvious. It is using physical and moral violence to wrench information from an unwilling prisoner.

Is it always torture? Are there circumstances under which its moral? Say, you only do it once. Or there's a million lives at stake (a al 24). To which I respond, how many times do you have to use a thumb-screw for it to be torture? If it's just as effective as water-boarding and cheaper, why not use thumbscrews?

These are just my tentative thoughts on the subject. Here are some more erudite sources for your consideration:

A Word on Torture:

For now, go read Philip Zelikow at Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government blog, and Conor at The American Scene. For later, further comment from me. I suppose I can mention here that since I’m on record as saying that one dunk at the waterboard is not torture, whereas three dunks is, I judge 130+ dunks clearly to be torture, regardless of whether the issue is whether we ought to torture or not.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Postmodern Conservative.)

Easter Week

has been a time of convalescence for me, so far. I started sneezing a week ago Monday in the Quirinale Gardens (the greyed in pathways between Via 20 Settembre and Via Piacenza). No, not the fabulous ones, open to the public rarely, if ever. Rather, a small public park, just a couple of blocks away from the Quatro Fontane.

The cold (I assumed it was an allergy, given the Spring blossoms that were everywhere around me) settled in my chest after the marathon flight home, but didn't seem so bad. So as of Easter I believed I would be back at work on Tuesday as per my schedule. But Monday it turned into a low-grade fever and general weakness. So today will be sick-day number two and decision day.

Either I go to work tomorrow morning and tough it out, which is my preference. Or I go see the doctor and see if this is something to be concerned about. I don't remember seeing this frailty being written up in the brochure about old age. I've been sold a bill of goods. Who do I sue?

We Have to Shout "The Sky is Falling"

or no one will listen to us. Oh dear, my what is this really about flag just flipped up, big time:

More Evidence That Global Warming “Science” is Politics:

The New York Times Magazine ran a story a few weeks ago on a global warming skeptic named Freemon Dyson, entitled “The Civil Heretic.” The current edition’s letters to the editor on the story are all opposed to Dyson’s views, ...[b]ut one letter stood out in its clear admission that the “science” of global warming is not science as much as politics. From the letter by Monika Kopacz, a Ph.D. candidate in applied mathematics and atmospheric sciences, Harvard University:

...The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’—and readers’—attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Things.)

The Truth Is What We Say It Is

What a prescription for unhappiness and frustration. So we turn to George Orwell for the quote of the day:

We Choose to Side With the Pope:

“In a time of universal deceit,” wrote George Orwell, “telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” That was confirmed by Pope Benedict’s recent comment about controlling AIDS in Africa—namely, that condom distribution worsens the epidemic.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic Exchange.)

Never Complain

unless you've got a solution ready. The annual influx of poorly catechized candidates and catechumens results in a significant loss as the weeks and months roll by after Easter. Many of these wonderful people stop practising the Faith after entering the Church. So, what are the problems and what are the solutions?

5 Reasons People Don’t Stick | The Blog That's All About R.C.I.A.:

Here, we’ll highlight 5 reasons new Catholics stop practicing the Faith soon after they’re received into the Church through the RCIA process. It’s a sad reality, but it happens more often than we would like to think it does. But have no fear! There are solutions to these 5 reasons and these fixes are given under each reason.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Via Media.)

Catholic Lectures Pope

LCD Catechesis is undoubtedly the method used to bring this man into the Faith. Whoever was in charge of his RCIA process should be in sackcloth and ashes right now.

A Pastoral Approach to Dissent

Sighs are one of my characteristic signs: opportunities missed, misunderstandings, difficulties unresolved. The memory of my three-year experience with RCIA process still brings me to sighs from time to time. The earnest, decent members of the team were scandalized by my repeated requests for a more complete exposition of the Catholic Faith, in particular both the sex and gender issues that are so controversial and of the Church's own self-understanding as to her role and authority as the Teacher anointed by Christ Himself.

Some of the issues that many Candidates and Catechumens, as well as the Team Members themselves, did not want to discuss: abortion, contraception, homosexuality, authority, infallibility, catechism, dissent and obedience. One rationale offered, when push came to shove, was that many, if not most, "Catholics"disagreed with the Church on these issues. My only retort was: Is there anything in any Church Document to indicate that one or more of these teachings is optional? The other argument was 'We are not catechists'. I would then point out that the Archdiocese encouraged to us to take their course, upon completion of which we received an "RCIA Catechist" certificate. Our discussions didn't progress much beyond this.

So this document (I've added an updated version) is a lovely example of a rational and pastoral approach to the see-no-evil, teach-the-minimum approach to faith formation.

Thanks to Catholic Culture for the link.

Arrivederci, Roma

Sorry for the lack of posting. We have been travelling busily each and every day, here and there, in Rome. Tomorrow we return to the real world. The wife is more than ready, but I'm a little blue about leaving Roma behind.

The unexpected whiff of Wisteria in bloom; little fountains and piazzas around every corner; so much History the Romans don't bother to label most of it; But all good things must come to an end.

We saw the reliquary of Saint Peter under the main altar of Saint Peter's after touring the ruins of the necropolis beneath that. We celebrated Mass with Pope Benedict twice; once on the anniversary of John Paul II's death and again on Palm Sunday. We saw all the churches on my "must" list, including Santa Maria in Trestevere, Santa Maria della Vittoria (with Bernini's "Ecstasy of Saint Teresa"), the Gesu, Santa Croce in Gerusaleme, and many others. We prayed up a storm for all concerned.

Spring in Rome: it doesn't get much better than this. Wish you were here. Wish I didn't have to leave. Ciao!

As I Was Saying

It's not impossible to come by fact-based opinions in the Pope-condoms-AIDS controversy. But they might not say what you expect them to.

Mistral Winds

are notorious amongst sailors in the Western Meditteranean. So as we were departing Barcelona the captain interrupted our dinner to announce that we would be travelling through gale-force winds in the night and should expect a bumpy ride, stabilizers or no. I must be acclimatizing to the sea-travel, because I slept through the whole thing.

It was cool and blustery in Monte Carlo when we docked this morning. We did a bit of walking around, though slower and more purposeful than my preferred style. The wife was investigating perfumes for the girls at home. But nothing satisfied, so we'll keep looking for ideas in Rome. At least the sun came out and shone beautifully on the gardens by the palace.

We have one more cruise day tomorrow, then it's off to Rome for six days. That's the portion of the trip I'm looking forward to. We're hoping to attend the anniversary mass for the death of John Paul II on Thursday evening. We arrived in Rome for our first visit a month and a half after that (2005).

There's plenty of time left on my ship-board account, so I'll blog again tomorrow. We hope to see Pisa and Lucca. The bus driver in Palma correctly pointed out that these single-day visits aren't really adequate. You need to stay at least a week someplace to get a good feel for it. I'm afraid only Rome get's anything like that attention this time around. Quello che sarà.