Man Bites Blog

Stephen Brainbridge quotes Arhchbishop Chaput’s post on Roman Catholics for Obama and adds:

The Archbishop’s standard—being able to explain your vote, “with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life” puts the problem for people like Andrew Sullivan and Doug Kmiec quite starkly.

I agree this is a problem for Catholic supporters of Obama.  But on the flip side, Catholics supporting Republican candidates better be prepared to confront those impacted by the war.  Here’s how that conversation might go…

Iraqi mother whose children were killed in the invasion:  So, you voted for a candidate who pledged to continue the Iraqi invasion even after you recognized it as a failure.

GOP voter: Yup

Mother: Care to explain?

GOP voter: Well, the candidate who opposed the invasion supported legalized abortion.

Mother:  Doesn’t your country already have legalized abortion?

GOP voter:  Yes!  And that’s the problem.  It has to stop!

Mother:  Doesn’t your current president oppose legalized abortion?

GOP voter: Yes, he does.

Mother: And your country still has legalized abortion?

GOP voter: Yes, but it’s not that simple.  Legalized abortion was brought about by a Supreme Court Ruling that can only be changed by the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment.

Mother: Oh — has your president proposed such an amendment?

GOP voter: Well, no.

Mother:  So explain to me why electing a pro-life president is so crucial that it’s worth my two sons?

GOP voter: Well, the president appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

Mother: Oh, and has your candidate pledged to appoint justices who would overturn this decision?

GOP voter: No, not exactly.

Mother:  When did this Supreme Court decision take place?

GOP voter: 1973

Mother: Oh, that’s 35 years ago; so I assume all those justices have since been replaced.  For how many of those years have Republicans held the presidency?

GOP Voter: 22

Mother: Oh, so almost all the Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who professed opposition to legalized abortion, and still there’s no change?

GOP Voter: Well, you have to understand…

Mother: Well, I understand that your war has demolished my town and taken my sons.  And that is a change form the previous president.

GOP Voter:  Yes, but war is not an “intrinsic” evil like abortion is, so I must base my vote on abortion.

Mother:  Well, it doesn’t make much difference to me whether my sons were killed by an intrinsically evil act or an incorrect prudential judgment.  They’re just as dead.  But you go ahead and vote on it being more important to keep electing presidents who make vague statements  indicating they might end abortion, even though they have not done so for the previous 35 years.  I do know they sure can wage war, though.

via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Also a rare somewhat favorable treatment of Archbishop Burke.

If Archbishop Burke were a college basketball coach, this would be the year when his first recruiting class becomes seniors.

The article takes more of a conservative/liberal tack than I would prefer, allowing those who wish to believe that these are Abp. Burke’s conservative foot soldiers to do so.  I think this is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the prayers of the faithful, and the archbishop’s emphasis on vocations.

In essence, my prayers are with these men, and all those considering the priesthood.

As for the argument that the bishops and the pope favor liberalized immigration so that the pews will be filled up and more money will go into the Church’s coffers…

1.  If a Catholic living in a Latin American country immigrates to the United States, what does that do to the global count of Catholics in the world?  Answer: It stays the same!
2. Related question:  If that Catholic regularly donates an amount of money to the Church, then immigrates and continues to give an equivalent amount in his new home’s currency, what does that do to the total amount of money collected?  Answer: It stays the same!
3. Another question:  Would a Catholic be more likely to remain Catholic in a country that is almost uniformly Catholic or in the religiously diverse United States where he or she will be exposed to different religions (and atheism) and perhaps marry someone from a different faith?

The only way that immigration helps the Church’s coffers is if the immigrants subtantially improve their material situation by immigrating, in which case the Church’s and the immigrant’s interests are aligned.

I’d like to associate myself with Mark Shea’s comments here.

It’d be hard to think about how thousands of people gathering for a Mass with the Holy Father could be turned into a bad thing.  But these liturgical cops might do the trick.  If your reaction to something like the papal Mass is to sneer at the musical selections, then I submit that you might want to consider whether the problem is in your heart rather than wiht the music.

I even read one commenter who said  he would have abandoned his plans to attend tomorrow’s Mass at Yankee Stadium if the music selection was similar.  I can think of few things that would please the Evil One more.

Bernie Miklasz reveals his ignorance of Catholicism and what different people’s roles are in a blog post yeasterday.

It is important to remember that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that abortion is killing, and that embryonic research qualifies as abortion. And it is Abp. Burke’s sworn duty to ensure keep his flock in line with Catholic teaching.

With that in mind, some exceprts…

Majerus reiterated that he doesn’t speak for Saint Louis University or the Archdiocese. He doesn’t demand that anyone agrees with him though he would like to rally folks around the cause of stem-cell research.

Um, excuse me? We’re supposed to give credit to a Catholic coach at a Catholic institution for not insisting that others take a position oppose to that of the Catholic Church.

Again, what Majerus would like to “rally people around,” is, in his Church’s view, the deliberate killing of persons. It is well within his bishop’s authority to correct that.

As much as Majerus enjoys conversations with people who agree with him, he draws more enjoyment from discussing the issues of the day with those who disagree with him. Majerus doesn’t try to squash dissenting opinion; he encourages it. (OK, this doesn’t necessarily apply to basketball practice, if his players pop off. But that’s a different dynamic).

No, it’s precisely the same dynamic. Burke:Majerus on matters of faith and morals = Majerus:SLU basketball players on basketball matters. Why should the reaction of a bishop to a Catholic is his archdiocese advocating intrinsic evil be that much different from the reaction of a basketball coach to player “popping off”?

“…And I never want to impose my views on someone else. I will share my views, certainly. But not impose them, as if I have all the answers, and that I am always right. So I want to discover all that I can. Maybe there is something I don’t know.

The polarizing Burke, on the other hand, has adopted a zero-tolerance policy. According to Burke, it’s the Catholic Church’s way; or the proverbial highway. Those who don’t comply strictly with the Vatican’s teachings aren’t about to receive a warm welcome from the Archbishop.

Maybe that’s because Archbishop Burke is a bishop and Rick Majerus is a basketball coach. I mean, come on. We’re supposed to think Majerus is Burke’s superior becuase Majerus doesn’t insist on agreement with his political views?

Exactly what kind of welcome would the oh-so-tolerant Majerus put up with a player who insisted on playing zone defense when he had directed them to play man-to-man? Or decided to keep playing when he was calling for a timeout? I’m guessing the welcome would amount to a cold stare and a seat on the bench.

And that’s perfectly appropriate — it’s Majerus’s job to ensure that his players follow his direction on the court. And it’s Burke’s job to ensure that Catholics in his Archdiocese, particularly ones with high profiles, give proper deference to the Church’s position.

If we’re going to give credit to Majerus for not insisting that others share his political views, then it seems we ought to also give Burke credit for not insisting that Majerus follow his basketball strategy.

If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is.

Majerus doesn’t understand that. He believes churches should be inclusive. He doesn’t understand why any church would take a hostile position that could drive worshipers, or potential worshipers, away.

Supporting civil rights in the 1960’s probably drove some worshippers away. Preaching forgiveness toward terrorsits and against torture probably drives worshippers away. That doesn’t make it wrong for the Church to take those positions.

Jesus Himself took some pretty hostile positions that drove potential worshippers away, too.

“If religion speaks to anything, it should be optimism and hope,” Majerus said. “In some cases, those patients who are suffering, and their families; all they have left is hope and faith. And I’ve witnessesed this, first hand. So, yeah, I personalize these issues. But why take away that hope? If stem cell research could lead to a dramatic breakthrough that would save lives or improve lives, then don’t we owe that to these brave people?”

Except that resorting to embryonic research is the direct opposite of hope — it is declaring that we cannot bear these dieseases without turning on the least among us. It is letting the diseases win.

Recent scientific advances have shown that embryonic stem cells can be derived without killing embryos. So I ask — who is giving up hope — those who insist on embryo-destructive research, or those who believe that we can find ways to confront these diseases without destroying embryos?

My purpose here isn’t to attack Majerus, but to defend Burke. Majerus seems to have arrived at his position out of genuine concern for those who are sick, and I pray that he will find his way to express that concern in a manner that is in harmony with the Church.

But Abp. Burke is not only correct, but bound to correct Majerus when he’s off course, just as it is Majerus’s job to correct a player who decides to run a different play than the one Majerus called.

Kathryn Jean-Lopez has posted a sort of aplology/walk-back on the Corner for her comments on McCain and waterboarding I noted below..  I’m glad she realized she crossed a line, but this passage is still troubling:

 But his leadership on the issue of torture and whether or not waterboarding is or isn’t torture has done more harm than good.

I was considering voiting for John Kerry in the last election, and even on Election Day was not entirely displeased with the thought that he might win.

I knew Kerry was pro-choice.  But what clinched it for me as an unacceptable candidate was when he demoagogued Bush on the embryonic stem cell issue — brining Ron Reagan to the convention, saying Christopher Reeve would walk again, etc.

It’s one thing to disagree; it’s another thing to make to trumpet that disagreement as a reason to reject one’s political opponents.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, seen recently clutching her handkerchief in grief over how Mice Huckabee is tearing up the GOP’s “winning coalition” by taking his orders from his Christian conscience rather than the Club for Growth, writes of John McCain:

But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us.

Emphasis added.

It’s worth remembering that Lopez is Catholic, and the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned torture. And yes, simulating drowning is torture.

I’m recalling 2004, when conservative Catholics were hectoring others that they must vote for George W. Bush, because abortion and same sex marriage are “non-negotiable” intrinsic evils, and things like the war in Iraq and health care are not. John Kerry should be denied communion, and anyone who voted for him should seriously consider her worthiness for it because of that vote.(not that Catholics shouldn’t in general more seriously consider their worthiness for Communion).

But here we have a Catholic commentator, not favoring a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil because there is no viable alternative, not choosing favoring another candidate because of other issues, even “negotiable” ones, but declaring a candidate not “one of us” because he opposes an intrinsic evil.

I believe we’ve crossed the line from “remote material cooperation” to “formal cooperation” with intrinsic evil.

Should we notify K-Lo’s pastor?

HT: Mark Shea

At MOJ, Rick Garnett passes on this from Bill Stunts on whether criminalizing abortion is prudent:

That is the consistent lesson of American history, including the history of abortion and abortion law itself. Cultural change must either accompany or precede legal change for the latter to be effective. And, as to some subjects, if we get the order wrong, we actually retard cultural change rather than advancing it.

The puzzle, to my mind anyway, is not abortion but civil rights. Plainly, the civil rights movement shows that law CAN move the culture — as it did: those of us who grew up South of the Mason-Dixon line in the 1960s and 1970s saw it happen. I’m sure I don’t understand all the reasons why legal change sometimes promotes cultural change and sometimes doesn’t, but I do have a strong suspicion: my guess is, the most culturally productive kinds of law are the kinds that create human relationship and community rather than sundering those things. The civil rights movement created at least the makings of an integrated economy and an integrated political community; it was relationship-reinforcing. Criminal prohibitions, by contrast, are relationship-destroying. Maybe, if and when there is ever a genuinely pro-life political majority in the United States (as there clearly is not now), that majority should try to use government policies to promote enterprises like crisis pregnancy centers: means of encouraging and helping young women in distress, not hammering those who make bad choices.

I think this is a fairly sanitized recounting of the civil rights movement. Reading this, one would think the primary thrust of the cvil rights movement was promoting enterprises to help white bigots overcome their racism. It wasn’t. It was about both socially and criminally sanctioning discriminatory behavior. I don’t consider this a point against it — the behavior was worthy of sanction. But the idea that there were no losers (however worthy) of the civil rights struggle, people who were ostracized and made into criminals for behaviors that had been tolerated, is far too rosy a picture. Many people found themselves cut off from society, and died with the same racist attitudes they had, the civil rights legislation notwithstanding.

The primary motive of restricting abortion is to strengthen our relationships with the unborn.

It seems to me that in order to buy Prof. Stuntz’s argument that, on net, civil rights legislation was “relationship-reinforcing” while restrictions on abortion are relationship-destroying,” one must accept at least one of the following premises:

1. Relationships with the unborn are of less value than relationships with segregation-era blacks.
2. Relationships with abortionists and women inclined to procure abortions are more valuable than relationships with segregation-era bigots.
3. Abortion is less of a relationship destroyer than segregation.

The third premise is absurd; I think what animates this type of thinking is some combination of the first two premises.

It is easy to demonize segregation era racists today; perhaps a better way of putting it is that it can be difficult to see their humanity, while it may be easy to sympathize with women seeking abortions. There are many of those women with us today, whereas segregationists can be hard to find. But would our attitudes be different if the legal environment were different?

It seems to me this attitude can only stand if one believes that segregation, on both an individual and universal scale, was a greater affront to personal dignity than abortion. While this notion might find sympathy in our culture, it is not consistent with what we profess to believe as Catholics.

That criminalizing abortion would harm our relationship with those who carry out and procure abortions is no more an argument against it than the isolation of segregationists is an argument against civil rights legislation.

At The Corner, Katherine-Jean Lopez points out the audacity of Georgetown University teaching that waterboarding is a ‘crime’.

I mean, come on, yes, the Church infallibly teaches about the dignity of the human person and all that, but this is war, damnit! Plus George W. Bush does it, so it can’t be a crime! Alberto Gonzalez said so!

UPDATE: Yeah, you read something like this and wonder how on earth anyone would call it a ‘crime.’ Those crazy Jesuits!

Via WWTW, James Kushiner writes this at Touchstone:

I propose that no bishops be consecrated in any church unless they have studied and inwardly digested the full ecclesiastical history of the fourth century, beginning with the mass persecutions, then on to Nicaea, the Arian-inspired exiles and persecutions, and beyond. They should be rigorously quizzed on the names, the dates, the documents, the accounts of the martyrs, and then sign a form (in triplicate, of course!) saying they will faithfully walk in the steps of these orthodox bishops (and saints), and defend, to their last breath, that which was handed on from the apostles, and if not, then get a real job.

Indeed, because if you compare the early Church to today’s Church, the one thing that jumps out at you is the difference in the bishops.  We in the laity are just as heroic as the early Christians were.  Look how successful we’ve been at preventing our country from embracing abortion, preemptive war, capital punishment, leaving aside the poor, and now torture.  Watch how many Christians are willing to sacrifice for these things, just as the early Christians willingly went to their death.   Obviously, all that’s left for us to do is shake our fingers at the bishops and demand that they study up on history and make pledges.

Oh, wait — we’re not.  Many of these affronts to life are indeed being brought about by lay Christians!  And most of us can’t be bothered to do anything about it.  And if we’re asked to make little sacrifices, like try to bring our faith to bear in decisions we makes as consumers, we bristle.

 Yeah, the bishops are the problem…

Meta-note: I am in a nasty mood.  Expect my blogging to reflect that.

In this discussion I mentioned earlier, a commenter wrote:

Dreher’s fabulation called “crunchy conservatism” is similar to Dreher’s orthodoxy — despite writing a book about it, he cannot define it by what it is, he can only say what it is NOT.

Another commenter pithily added:

Perhaps more relevant is WHO it is not.

As regular readers(shut up!) know, I have never been a fan of using “orthodox” as a personal adjective for Catholics. Beliefs are orthodox or heterodox. For people, that’s probably best left to God.

The way the word “orthodox” is used in commentary is almost always exlusionary. It seeks to set those who are “orthodox” apart from the rest of us. Those are the Really Good Catholics, as opposed to the rest of us.

Compare it to the word “catholic,” which means universal. That means sinners, those who enjoy guitar music, those who might want to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, that guy wearing shorts, those who prefer the Latin Mass, the toddler eating Cheerios — everyone.

I suppose we shouldn’t have been surprised by Dreher’s conversion because his commentary always seemed as if he would rather be described as “orthodox” than be part of something “catholic.”

Which is a temptation for all adjectival Catholics. We begin to identify more with the adjective than with Catholicism.

Now, it may seem that I’m proposing a false choice, and I suppose I am. What Mr. Dreher and I suppose the rest of us would prefer is if orthodoxy, that is “right belief”, were indeed catholic, or universal. And that is a noble goal. Where we separate is in how best to achieve that, and how we should muddle through where we are now.

It is ironic that this thought would be spurred from a Catholic writer objecting to the Orthodox Dreher’s article being included in a collection of Catholic writing. Ah well.

So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice…

Now to apply it, which can be a tad trickier…

There are some who didn’t care for this story from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee newspaper’s vocation supplement about a priest who occasionally dresses up as a clown (not at mass, mind you, but at parish carnivals and such).

To make them feel better, I offer what I suspect is their dream vocational article:

Asked to describe his best memory as a priest, Fr. X recalled the time he assisted Abp. Wuerl at Mass at the National Shrine:

“It came time for communion, and was given a cup, and up strolls Nancy Pelosi. Abp. Wuerl, wuss that he is, gives her communion!!! I could not believe my eyes!”

“Then, she strolls over to my cup, expecting me to allow her to disgrace the sacrament once again.”

“Well, not on my watch. Ms. Pelosi bowed her head quietly like the devout Catholic she pretends to be. I acted like I was going to give her the cup, and said ‘The Blood of Christ…. will not touch your lips today!’ and snatched the cup back. Man, you should have seen the look on her face!”

“To me, that’s the best part of being a priest, putting fake Catholics like Nancy Pelosi in their place. “

A Catholic pro-choice politician is interviewed, and trying to prop up his Catholic bona fides, mentions that he’s been asked to join the Kinghts of Malta, a lay Catholic organization (that I honestly don’t recall hearing about).

How should we react?

Well,this provides a great opportunity to add some fuel to our dislike of the bishops (who as far as I can tell have absolutely nothing to do with admission to the knights) and generally lament the fate of poor, orthodox Catholics.

Please.

First of all, the only evidence of McAuliffe’s admission is his boast on the Hewitt interview. That’s it. So, these complainers claim that McAuliffe has no moral qualms about slicing babies in half (or whatever graphic language they want to use to cow those who might think they’re overreacting) but would never lie or embellish the truth in order to build himself up. But as we heard last Sunday, “love hopes all things, believes all things,” so I suppose the same is true for the desire for righteous indignation.

Second, as mentioned, this is a lay organization. From their website, the only in put any ordained religious has in the process is a letter of recommendation from the pastor. So if this organization is about to honor someone like McAuliffe, shouldn’t it be an occasion for us, the laity to engage is a long, hard, look in the mirror rather than another stream of insults hurled at “the bishops.”

This is what ticks me off about the discourse on the Catholic blogs. On the one hand, outrage is ginned up over 3,500 babies being killed every day. Then we are asked to focus that outrage on bullshit issues like the possibilty that a Catholic lay organization might honor a poltician we don’t like.

And how many babies will this save?

Yes, yes, I know about “giving scandal.” I know about leading souls astray. Bullshit. Do you think anyone heard that interview and thought, “Well, I thought partial birth abortion was a terrible evil, but if Terry McAuliffe is going to be a Knight of Malta, then maybe I was mistaken?” Um, no.

But if someone opposed the Iraq war, and they spent most of their energy on say, preventing SMU from accepting the Bush Presidential Library, would you conclude that that person was really serious about opposing the war, or borrowing outrage from that for a personal vendetta.

So how do you think bullshit like this looks to an outside observer who doesn’t like abortion, but is a little spooked out by the media’s portrayal of the pro-life movement?

This stuff is worse than a waste of energy. It damages the cause of ending abortion. It leads people to think that we are motivated by hatred of our political opponenets rather than love of the unborn.

And it’s not going to save one unborn baby. And it’s not going to save one soul.

But it’ll make us feel better about ourselves as noble warriors trudging forward without the support (nay, with the active opposition) of Church leadership.

Hope we enjoy it.

In seeing how people justify dissent from Church teachings, some patterns emerge:

• ”Just as bad as…”
  Here, the bishops might make a statement claiming that one questionable act is in the same general class as another act which is more indisputably condemned. For example, they might say that contraception moves the marital act away from its ideal, and toward things like lying and encounters with prostitutes, those who which to defend the questionable act flop to the floor about how mean the bishops are to draw such a moral equivalence, and claim they lose credibility by doing so. Examples include editorials in Commonweal and NCR in response to the bishops’ statements on human sexuality. Andrew Sullivan is a master at this one. I’ll admit to doing this myself at times.

  I’m not sure what can be done to confront this. It strikes me as an attempt to evade a Cross. This is an understandable response to being confronted with a cross – why should I have to carry a cross? I’m not as bad as those other people over there! But it is still not correct.

• ”Human Experience
  Both of these editorials cited above also cite “human experience” as a reason for the bishops to reconsider their positions. Another flavor of this is to say that the teachings are nice in the ideal, but out of touch with the reality on the ground, as was often done to oppose the Magisterium’s categorical condemnation of torture.

  Robert Araujo comments on this nicely. It’s not at all clear that the “human experience” that leads one to oppose these teachings in not human experience that should inform the positions the Church takes on these issues. It is a vague phrase – never specified, likely because it boils down to selfishness.

  Yes, I am aware there are heart-breaking circumstances that might lead one to favor positions contrary to the Church. There are good reasons a couple might not want to have more children. I deal with one myself. But I don’t believe that the dissent from the Church’s teaching is based on these hard cases anymore than support for abortion is driven by compassion for victims of rape and incest.

  I think the typical couple that dissents from this teaching could accept more children into their lives if they were willing to forego some non-essential material comforts our ancestors never dreamed of like cable television, cellular phone service, a second car, or some meals out. I’m not saying that giving these things up would be easy, but it strikes me as a poor reason to tell Mother Church she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

  I think those inclined to dissent from these teachings know it to, which is why they don’t say it in detail but hide behind the squishy “human experience” term. That way, the reader can see it as a couple that already has three children with CF that is just scraping by, when in reality the writer is thinking about a couple that doesn’t want to have to miss the next season of The Sopranos

Via MOJ, and NRO, we have a quote from Jim Holt that neatly encapsulates where we’re going wrong in our culture:

the decision to kill ill or disabled babies should be governed by “a new moral duty,” namely, “the duty prevent suffering, especially futile suffering.” Holt writes: “To keep alive an infant whose short life expectancy will be dominated by pain — pain that it can neither bear nor comprehend — is, it might be argued, to do that infant a continuous injury.”

I know I should ground my arguments in secular terms, but for people of a religion whose symbol is their God nailed to a cross, the idea that we can determine what is “futile suffering” is repugnant.

This, I think is the biggest disconnect between American culture and the Gospel of Life — American culture makes no room for the Cross, not room for the sactifying power of suffering. If the path ahead leads to suffering, we buy our way out of it. If that means destroying some embryos that’s fine, so long as they’re not developed enough to suffer.

Out culture is built not around maximizing joy and happiness but around minimizing human suffering. We think we can get to Easter Sunday without Good Friday.

We haven’t been effective in witnessing to it, maybe because we don’t completely believe it.

This post reminds me that as documents trickle out of the USCCB conference, we’ll need to read them using my guide.

It’s important to remember that the purpose of the bishops’ teaching is not to instruct the faithful, but to affirm what you already know to be true (even if it’s that the bishops are bunch of harsh bigots or spineless squishes). So, please do not allow anything that comes out of the conference to change your beliefs or attitudes. Rather, our task is to evaluate the documents based on how effective they are in affirming what we already believe.

Via MOJ, a Commonweal post by Cathleen Kaveny listing framing methods used by conservative Catholics and other religious people that she hopes will go by the wayside.

1. A Manichean world view: it’s Good v. Evil, the forces of light v. the forces of darkness. And by the way, WE are GOOD.

Fair enough — we could do with more self-examination.

2. A delight in demonizing the opposition: who could see anything good in the forces of darkness? How could the forces of darkness have any point worth considering whatsoever?

Also fair enough — those who differ with us do so for what are good reasons that are typically rooted in compassion. We thing it’s misguided compassion, but it will not be guided in the correct direction by us yelling about how evil they are, and by engaging them, we can make policies that work for all involved.

3. An inability to recognize hard questions, and to acknowledge good faith disagreement about difficult moral and political issues. To Catholic culture warriors, the question of stem-cell research, or the Terri Schiavo case, weren’t even hard questions. The very suggestion that they are hard questions proved your moral turpitude.

Eh, not so fast. Some questions aren’t hard. It shouldn’t be hard to know that theft is wrong. Or rape. Or, yes, wars of aggression and torture. For someone to suggest that these are hard questions suggests that some self-deception is going on.

And yes, it is hard for me to see how one can fail to recognize that destroyin one human life for another’s benefit is wrong and something we shouldn’t do. And that if all someone needs to continue to live is to be fed, we should continue to feed her. We were reminded in last week’s Gospel how simple morality really is. Difficult, but simple. Pretending that it’s complicated yes, is usually a sign of moral turpitude. Perhaps pointing this out isn’t the best choice for an initial approach in engaging these people, but we shouldn’t pretend it’s not the case.

4. An ends-justifies-the-political-means mentality. If what it takes to rid the world of Saddam is prevarication on WMDs, so be it. If what it takes to save Terri Schiavo is to violate settled principles of federalism, so be it.

And now I’m officially off the bus.

End-means justification is perfectly fine so long as the means are not intrinsically immoral. I wouldn’t normally rip off another person’s sweater, but I might to administer life-saving CPR.

I can accept that lying or embellishing evidence of WMD’s was and is immoral. Bearing false witness and all.

But “violat[ing] settled principles of federalism” is not intrinsically immoral. And it seems especially odd to see this implied in an article arguing for nuance. If adhering to settled principles of federalism means sitting on our hands while a woman is starving, screw federalism. If adhering to settled principles of federalism means botching a post-hurricane relief effort because things like that are really the states’ responsibility, screw federalism!

Yes, I know — federalism was more of a post-hoc excuse for the pathetic effort thatn a guiding principle for the governement’s (non)-actions. But still, we all recognize that getting people out of a flooded city is a higher moral principle than federalism

5. An inability to see nuance, or to take into account anything but one moral principle at a time. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Nothing else needs to be said. Therefore it should always be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. If you think the question of the woman’s consent to sex is at all relevant to the legal status of abortion, you’re the enemy.

In the paragraph above, Kaveny was suggesting that we sacrifice Terry Schiavo on the altar of federalism; now she’s criticizing others for letting one moral principle wiegh to heavily?

Also, if I’m not mistaken, our own President Bush holds the position that Kaveny describes as that of the “enemy.” And I thought he was the guy we were too attached to.

And what, exactly, is the moral principle that says that fetuses conceived by rape do not have a right to life?

6. A preference for the stick rather than the carrot – after all, you can’t fight a war with a carrot. Support marriage by banning gay marriage; don’t provide married couples with the social support and other resources they need to make their commitment stick. Be pro-life by banning abortion, not by voting for social services that will prevent unwanted pregnancies or help mothers and fathers make a long-term commitment to raise children.

Listen, I like things like the 95-10 initative. And banning abortion does not discharge our duty to babies conceived in difficult circumstances. But it is the necessary first step. Yes, first.

I know I’m displaying the characterisic lack of tolerance and recognition of nuance by even drawing this parallel, but if someone in the 1850’s said that the best way to address the injustice of slavery is not to ban it, but to offer incentives and support to southern plantation owners so they could compete wihout access to slave labor, how seriously would you take his opposition to slavery. If you were a slave and had the ability to vote, would you vote for the candidate who proposed this solution (along with a commitment to never criminalize slavery), or the candidate who wanted to criminalize slavery?

Yes, there I go again, seeing things from only one side. But there is an injustice being done. And a prerequisite for effectively addressing it is legally recognizing it as an injustice.

I agree we could all do with a healthy dose of humility and compassion when we enter into debates. We should recognize that our adversaries are not neccesarily our enemies. But we shouldn’t pretend not know what we know.

CARE VS. CURES
I’m struggling with a notion I have that out culture has a disordered notion of how to express compassion for those with diseases.

There is a lot of work an effort expended on “curing” diseases, but not much about “caring.” We raise some money, take a nice walk in the park on a spring day, get a T-shirt, and tell ourselves we’re doing what we can for victims of disease. And things like Amendment 2 receive wide support, because we want to support cures for diseases after all.

But I think this is grace on the cheap. It’s a lot easier to take a walk through the park on a spring day than it is to clean up after someone who can’t control his bowels, or hold someone’s hand as they’re going through pain, or give your daughter daily chest therapy and medicine. But I think this type of care is what we’re called to first. I help Meagan more by caring for her every day than I would working for a cure.

The reason I’m struggling is that this all sounds good and makes sense until I look to how Jesus responded to those with diseases. He didn’t just love diseased people where they were – He cured them. He didn’t talk about the virtues of suffering blindness or leprosy or demons, he freed people from those things.
So, that stops me from getting to worked up about what I still think is our culture’s disordered response to diseases.

MY TORTURE GUIDE
In respones to the torture debates, a lot of people want those opposed to torture to provide a specific list of what techniques are allowable.

Here’s my stab:

If the criminal law on torture plays any role whatsoever in your determination of whether to use a particular tactic, then you shouldn’t use it.

So, if you’re about to commit an act, and need to consult the torture law to see if it’s covered, you shouldn’t do it.

If you really think you’re in a “ticking time bomb” situation, but would be deterred by the possibility of of criminal punishment for committing torture, then you’re not really in a “ticking time bomb” situration, and shouldn’t commit the act. If the torture were really necessary to save the worlds, the prospect of criminal prosecution would be the least concern.