Liberal Traitor Sides With Pope

In a Washington Post op-ed we learn that condom use tends to increase risky sexual behavior, which leads to increased HIV/AIDS infections. That is, condoms make things worse (H/T: The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen):

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest...

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and -- along with contraception -- female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics -- nowhere else.

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study... Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows.

Why not?

One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.

These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.

So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.

So if the pros know this, why doesn't the liberal press? It's hard to come up with an answer to that question that's both charitable and credible. The most credible answer I can come up with is that, as Chesterton wrote 100 years ago, any stick is good enough to hit the Church with. Even if it's at the expense of public health in Africa. And that's despicable.

It Takes A Big Man

to offer up an apology like this.

Another Viewpoint

Here's a point of view on gay "marriage" that you don't hear too often:

Late last year, when the gay community was working itself into a frenzy over the passage of Proposition 8 - the measure to amend the California State Constitution to define marriage specifically as a union between one man and one woman - I realized I didn’t trust the community anymore. And I’m gay.

The realization didn’t come overnight; it had been forming for some time. But the Gestapo tactics over Prop 8 - McCarthy-style blacklists, boycotting of otherwise gay-friendly businesses, apologies coerced out of individual supporters who made the “wrong” choice, enforced politically-correct donations to the Human Rights Campaign - clarified it for me.

There's a great deal more that follows.

The Politics Of AIDS Prevention

A reported by the BBC, the British medical ournal The Lancet claims that the Holy Father is dishonest:

...the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS.

"Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," said the journal. [Emphasis added.]

To which the estimable Diogenes replies:

See if I've got this right. The "male latex condom is the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS." Solid. That means Science is telling me that, if my son's an HIV-negative abstinent virgin, he positively REDUCES his risk of AIDS infection by abandoning abstinence and engaging in passive sexual relations with some gork who's outfitted with a condom. Well, that's what the man says, isn't it?

We can all relax. The Lancet's assault on the Pope has little to do with medicine and nothing whatever to do with science. It belongs to the field of public health advocacy, which is a joke discipline, exercised exclusively for the amusement and flattery of social elites.

Think about it for a minute. The District of Columbia still requires couples applying for a marriage license to undergo the humiliation of a blood test for syphilis. Why? Because at one time the jokers considered syphilis a public health problem. So why don't they test for HIV? Because that test would cause offense to gay activists, which defeats the whole purpose of public-health advocacy. It's not that there's no concern for disease transmission among public health advocates, but any such concern is dwarfed by the reason for their existence: the project of fortifying the sexual esteem of their betters.

Some of us can remember when AIDS was not yet a problem, back when the public health game was to get all young women on the Pill -- ostensibly to reduce pregnancy, in reality to justify the emancipated sexuality of the advocates. In that period Science (i.e., spectacled men in white lab coats grasping Erlenmeyer flasks) was droning on about the high failure rate of the condom. Condoms were ridiculed by public health advocates as a crude backwoodsy expedient that only the naive or the unscrupulous would employ. Has the science changed in the meantime? No, only the terms of flattering the People Who Count.

Why Support Gay Marriage? (Part II)

[guest commentary by Paladin]

Not that I've never been redundant before... :) ...but this is a continuation of a very lively thread that has since fallen into the "Older Links" category. To refresh your memory (and to give me an opportunity to fix some rather silly typos):

[quote from original thread, response to commenter "Stephanie", who was supporting the "pro-homosexual" side of the discussion]

Stephanie,

First of all, thanks for the civility in your reply; I realize that these issues can get "hot buttons" pressed on both sides, but I do think it's possible to search after actual *truth*... which doesn't require rancor, although it does sometimes require frankness which stresses some comfort zones.

As this thread has showcased (somewhat to my embarassment), I'm not known for brief replies; in my defense, I can say only that my number of words is in direct proportion to the importance which I place on the issue at hand... and this blog brings up some rather serious issues, indeed. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't offer "sound-bytes" as answers. (I don't have Paul's gift of offering short replies which still convey the main points; my brief replies usually leave out a great deal.)

I'll reply to your data-specific questions in a separate comment; but--since you (and those who seem to agree with you on this issue) also ask "meta-questions" (about the whole idea of calling homosexuality a "disorder", homosexual activity "gravely sinful", and the like), I'll try to comment on those, first.

Part of the difficulty I've had with those who reject Catholic teaching is that they very often also reject *any* concrete appeal to objective moral truth at all. Some commenters on this blog, for example, have the conviction that rape is "self-evidently wrong", but they can't explain that conviction to someone who (even as a devil's advocate) challenges it; they can't explain what *makes* it wrong, or why. That's where I have a problem; if someone claims that "it's just wrong, that's all!", I immediately suspect that I'm dealing with a personal opinion, a matter of personal taste, or even an inherited prejudice. When such people go on to claim that abortion (for example) is a morally allowable option, then my suspicions about their moral relativism (i.e. "there are no moral absolutes--it's all a matter of personal conviction and choice") get far stronger... and the chances of having a meaningful discussion with such a person get far weaker.

Can you see my point? When someone says at one moment that "such-and-so action is always wrong!", and yet turns around at another moment to say, "How dare you tell me that what I'm doing is wrong?" (as opposed to the more reasonable, "I don't agree, but can you explain your case?"), I can't help but assume that they haven't thought the matter through, clearly (if at all). They seem always to be driven by some version of the liberal slogan: "I can't impose my morality on anyone else!"--which means, in most cases, that they allow themselves to impose their libertarianism on anyone who wishes to uphold some sort of objective moral standard (especially in the sexual arena). That inconsistency bothers me, for reasons which I hope are obvious.

You asked, some time ago, for an explanation of the Catholic conviction that homosexuality is a disorder (i.e. a disease, a.k.a. "Same-Sex Attraction Disorder"). I marvel at the necessity for an explanation... but it's a fair question, nonetheless. Here are the key reasons (some of which you may likely dismiss out of hand, since they're dependent on articles of Catholic Faith), though this is hardly an exhaustive list:

1) God created humanity in His Own Image--male and female were apparently both necessary for that Image to be complete (cf. Genesis 1:27)--and He was quite specific about what that meant, and how it was to be lived out. Homosexuality is a deviation from that "plan" which was explicitly condemned; and no orthodox Catholic (and, I would argue, no orthodox Christian of *any* stripe) can entertain it as a morally licit option.

2) Following from #1: male and female have a complementarity which allows for a true unity--"one flesh" (cf. Genesis 2:24)--not only physically (where the complementarity is immediately obvious), but psychologically and spiritually, as well. Even if we restrict the example to the physical, think of this as a metaphor: try plugging two "male" ends of a pair of electronics cables together, and you'll fail (and/or damage the cable ends by trying); likewise, if you try to plug two "female" ends of two such cables together, the result will be equally fruitless (pun not quite intended)... and this is true not only for particular homosexuals (such as ones with additional diseases/disorders), but homosexuals as a whole, without exception. (For me, this fact would be enough to make me suspicious of the idea that "homosexuality is just another [alternate] version of 'normal'", even if I had no Church teaching to guide me at all.)

3) From #2--and at the risk of using rather blunt language (please pardon me, you other gentle readers!): there is no such thing as true sexual intercourse between two humans of the same sex. At best, two females could only practice mutual masturbation (or other erotic stimulation); two men are likewise limited either to similar mutual masturbation, or to anal intercourse--and the damage done by the latter is strikingly downplayed (if not outright ignored) by many in the "pro-'gay'" camp--see here for a taste of what can be involved, above and beyond the normal physical damage done by a male sexual organ forced repeatedly into a human anus which was never designed to handle such). Paul, our host, already explained--quite clearly--how homosexual "sexual activity" of these types cannot possibly yield children (I'll trust you to know enough biology to understand why this is the case); even the healthiest (abstracting from the disease of SSAD, for the sake of the example) young same-sex couple is powerless to conceive a child without technological intervention (which involves, at least at this point, acquiring viable sperm from a man). The same is not so with a husband (man) and wife (woman); if both are in perfect health, and if both marry before the wife's menopause, there will be a sizable number of years in which the two--through participation in true sexual intercourse--can co-create children. You do see the difference clearly now, I hope?

4) Given homosexuality's dislocation from (a) true complementarity of sexes, and (b) fertility, the only possible foci for its practice would be pleasure-seeking--be it physical or emotional, purely self-seeking or also seeking to give another human pleasure. I trust that Divine Revelation is not needed for you (and any other person who rejects Catholic teaching) to see the "anti-good" associated with hedonism; but even the idea that "sex is for pleasure, both for myself and for my 'partner'" is wrong-headed... and it's one of the ingredients for divorce and/or heartbreak. (The reasoning for the latter is solid, but it takes longer to describe. Perhaps you could try here, for some data about the reasoning behind this? You could also check out Chelsea's excellent blog, at which she posts information regularly about this? (Use "Theology of the Body" as your search phrase.)

5) As Paul and I mentioned earlier: any unbiased evaluation of homosexuality, even on purely secular, materialistic and "evolutionary survival value" grounds, yields a negative judgment against homosexuality. When a man is infertile, it is rightfully called a "disorder" (and evolutionists would agree, since an entire race of such men would doom the species rather quickly)--and, I'll add, there's no emotional or pejorative gradient meant by the term at all (i.e. no insult is meant to the sufferer of the infertility). Paul referenced Immanuel Kant's "categorical imperative" (although Kant's version was concerned primarily with ethics), by which the "order/disorder" of a phenomenon or condition could be tested by supposing it to be universal and seeing if it would defeat itself. (Think of lying: lies only "work" if you get someone to believe them; and if everyone lied, no one would believe anyone, and the power of the "lie" would vanish.) Homosexuality certainly seems to fail that test, as mentioned above; if every member of a species eschewed sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex in favour of sexual stimulation with members of the same sex, the species would die in one generation. Homosexuality certainly doesn't seem to have survival value, strictly speaking.

In closing, let me address a few of Oliver's points with you (and with him, if he'll behave himself):

1) I hope you (and he) can see the fact that, even if "homosexuality is hard-wired before birth" is an idea with solid data behind it, it has no bearing whatsoever on homosexuality's status as a disorder. Cystic fibrosis, Down's Syndrome, hemophilia, and the like are all "hard-wired before birth", as well, yes? And such data can hardly be expected to prove that *all* homosexuals are "hard-wired" from birth; it would only indicate that, out of a given sample space, a percentage of individuals exhibit what might be genetic predisposition to that disorder.

2) Re: the claim that "the idea that homosexuality evolves by natural selection is also well supported" (on a purely personal note: claims about "evidence for natural selection" such as this strike the ears of orthodox Christians the way evidence for the validity of tea-leaf reading might strike yours); surely you see that this begs the question, "Does 'natural selection' (whatever that might mean at any given moment) produce disorders?" And I will admit to some dubiousness--even given an evolutionary/atheist set of axioms--that said natural selection would somehow weed out "whose who reproduce successfully" in order to produce "those who do not reproduce, through biological compulsion/preference". The journalist's suggestions that homosexuality would somehow "increase social stability" (Oh, really?), "increase fertility" (Hmm...), and the like weren't conclusive in answering my objections or quelling my doubts.

3) Likewise: the idea that homosexuality is "widespread in other animals, too" (I note that no percentages were offered here) proves nothing like his intended point (or yours); aside from the rather dubious and subjective definition of "widespread" (which data re: percentages could have helped to clarify), this says nothing, whatever, about its normalcy or lack of normalcy. Cancer, deformities, and the like are widespread in animals, as well, but I don't see that as any basis for redefining them as "non-disorders"--do you?

UPDATE:
Sorry... fast typing made for some typos and ambiguities; in #1, the last sentence should more properly read:

Homosexuality is a deviation from that "plan" which was explicitly condemned; and no orthodox Catholic (and, I would argue, no orthodox Christian of *any* stripe) can entertain indulgence of it, or acting out impulses based on it as a morally licit option.

Homosexuality, in the sense of experiencing sexual attraction to members of the same sex, is not a sin (and cannot be, since sin requires sufficient knowledge and sufficiently free will--it's a choice, not a feeling or impulse); but any choice to act on, or indulge, that disordered impulse is sinful... and gravely so, given the dignity, importance and sublimity of human sexuality (where God allows us to "co-create" immortal life).

(This may also address the points mentioned by Mrs. Lindblom, at 3/20/2009 6:17 PM...)

A Big Broken Promise

I said all along that I didn't believe this promise (H/t: Backyard Conservative):


I predicted this on election night.

Doubtless, no one who voted for Obama will admit that this was why, nor will admit to being dissappointed now.

So, if you voted for Obama, tell me why, and I'll tell you how likely you are to face disappointment.

Secular Liturgical Secrets

[guest commentary by Paladin]

In the frothing, tossing sea of nuance, trollishness and Newspeak, it's always good to read a refreshing bit of clarity--even of the parody variety!

The inimitable Fr. Longnecker has leaked the top-secret rubrics for the upcoming liturgy at Notre Dame, where the President of Death^TM is to be honoured:

Liturgical key: Say the black. Do the Red.

The President shall ascend the platform and shake hands with Father Folkmass, Sister Sandals and other important representatives of the Catholic religion. The President shall then begin the Litany of Self Affirmation.

President: We can Make a Difference!

People: Yes we Can!

President: We Shall Overcome!

People: Yes we Can!

President: Children are a punishment!

People: Yes they are!

President: But you are not a punishment.

People: No, we're not!

President: Together we can change the world!

People: Yes, we can!

President: Do you want to give me an honorary Doctorate now?

People: Yes we do!

The people then hug one another as a sign of their self affirmation.

The liturgy continues with the ministry of the word. Actresses shall recite excerpts from The Vagina Monologues while rainbow banners are unfurled from the ceiling. A drama may be performed, or a joyful liturgical dance may now take place. This could portray the President's great victory in the recent election, or a similar cultural revolution of historic magnitude. (Like the election of Jimmy Carter)

The President shall then read from a teleprompter and inspire the people.

Congratulations, Secretary Clinton

Planned Parenthood honors one of its own (H/T: PewSitter.com):

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America will honor pro-abortion Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a Friday night gala in Houston, Texas. There, Clinton is slated to receive the national abortion business' highest honor, the Margaret Sanger award.

The award, named after the Planned Parenthood founder who some say held racist views against African Americans, honors Clinton for her advocacy of "women's health and rights throughout her public service career."

Now, Hillary Clinton has been one of the world's foremost proponents of abortion for quite a few years now, so her award from Planned Parenthood is neither surprising nor alarming.

But imagine, what if, what if, Planned Parenthood were to take a leaf from Notre Dame's playbook, and decide to honor someone... from outside their worldview? What if Planned Parenthood were to invite Jill Stanek or Alan Keyes to be the keynote speaker at their next national gathering?

At least Notre Dame dodged the bullet of having Barack Obama receive the Margaret Sanger Award just before he delivers their commencement address. That might have been awkward.

Not to worry; given the rate at which he's advancing the cause of infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive research, and every aspect of the culture of death, I'm sure that the president will be on the short list for the Margaret Sanger Award next year. I'm sure Notre Dame won't mind if Obama puts it on the shelf next to his honorary doctorate.

Living History

Those of us old enough -- and sober enough -- to remember life before the internet can really appreciate this reminder of life before Netflix and iTunes:

For The Anti-Palin Republicans

This is for the "moderate" (read: pro-abortion) Republicans who declared that they would rather support Barack Obama than John McCain, because of Sarah Palin, I have a question:

What's "moderate" about this?



(Graphic courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, h/t: Backyard Conservative)

These deficits are not due to tax cuts without spending cuts, like during the Bush years, folks.

This is all about spending. Spending on abortion and embryo-destructive stem cell research, spending for condoms and sex ed, spending on paying down mortgages that should have never been granted, spending on bailouts and more bailouts, spending, spending and more spending.

You guys swore up and down that Barack Obama was too smart for this traditional liberal garbage. And we told you over and over again that Barack Obama was nothing but a traditional liberal, only moreso.

Now we see who was right.

Has he lost your support yet? Are you ready to support conservatives in 2010 and 2012?

The Politics Of Personal Destruction

Liberalism is a philosophy of hate. And they sure do hate Sarah Palin (H/T: Backyard Conservative):

From just September till now, Sarah Palin has accumulated a personal dept of over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself against fake/false/frivolous ethics charges. That’s Five Hundred Thousand Dollars.

A group of Alaska liberals, with the apparent cooperation of members of the Alaska Democratic Party have been filing ethics charge after ethics charge against Sarah Palin. The aim? Not to get her impeached and booted from office, because every single one of the charges are frivolous, baseless and even fairly deranged - one was even filed in the name of a soap opera character - but something far more personal.

These people want to bankrupt the Palins and leave them destitute. They want to empty their bank accounts so that they cannot afford the basics and necessities of life after Governor Palin leaves office.

With the exception of the partisan ethics complaint filed against Palin because her husband (a private citizen) made it clear (as was his right) that he didn’t think a policeman (now a hero to liberals) who used a taser on a ten year old child should continue to keep his gun and badge, all of these ethics charges were filed after John McCain tapped her to be his Vice-President.
...

These people’s aim is most assuredly not political. Frivolous charge-filers Andree McLeod, Zane Henning, Linda Kellen Biegel, etc. are affiliated with a group of liberals ... who went to Palin’s hometown of Wasilla immediately after she was tapped for the VP spot and dubbed themselves the “Wasilla Project” with the sole purpose of ensuring any and all manner of slander, innuendo and libel against Palin was publicized on YouTube and from there would hopefully make it into the mainstream media. Henning (who claims to be a “conservative”) and McLeod (who is a “registered Republican”) feature prominently in their videos in “interviews” repeating the Alaska Democratic Party’s campaign talking points on Palin on cue.

McLeod, Henning, Biegel and others like them have discovered, however, that no matter how frivolous their charges, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how bone-headed stupid, the Governor would still have to legally defend herself against them - meaning she’ll have to pay attorney fees as she goes before the Personnel Board. And so they have gotten down to business, ... they’ve been filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Governor Palin, but this time with her bankruptcy in mind.

Palin is now owing the law firm she has been forced to retain to answer this storm of ethics charges over half a million dollars since September - and note that her annual salary as Governor of Alaska is only $125,000 with Todd Palin making about $86,000 as both a fisherman and an oil worker - with more of these suits and ethics charges being promised by these bottom feeders and others like them. [Empahsis in original.]

All of which demonstrates once again that people who support killing babies will stoop to anything to destroy -- not just defeat, but destroy -- their opponents. The culture war is a real war, and it's a fight to the death.

UPDATE: More on this from Wynken, Blynken and Nod.

Notre Dame Students Oppose Obama Speech

A colleague of mine has a brother at Notre Dame, and asked me to spread the word about his new Facebook group to organize students to protest the president's visit.

Reasons To Oppose The Illinois Abortion Bill

More from the Archdiocese of Chicago (H/T: Illinois Review):



The legislators who have supported this must be punished. Especially Republicans. They must suffer the loss of their seats. They must face primary opponents and passionate resistance in the next elections. They must be defeated at the polls. My state rep is one such, and I will be there, so help me God and St. Michael.

Another Sign Of The Apocalypse

Judge orders FDA to authorize Plan B over the counter for girls as young as 17!

And he recommended it be authorized for girls of all ages (H/T: And Sometimes Tea):

A federal judge ordered the Food and Drug Administration on Monday to make the Plan B morning-after birth control pill available without prescription to women as young as 17.

The judge ruled that the agency had improperly bowed to political pressure from the Bush administration in 2006 when it set 18 as the age limit.

The agency has 30 days to comply with the order, in which the judge also urged the agency to consider removing all restrictions on over-the-counter sales of Plan B. The drug consists of two pills that prevent conception if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse.

Some women’s health advocates hailed the decision.

“It is a complete vindication of the argument that reproductive rights advocates have been making for years, that in the Bush administration it was politics, not science, driving decisions around women’s health,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the attorneys for the plaintiff in the suit against the F.D.A.

But some conservative groups voiced concern that the ruling could promote sexual promiscuity. “Now some minor girls will be able to obtain this drug without any guidance from a doctor and without any parental supervision,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.

Plan B has been available by prescription in the United States since 1999.

But because the drug must be taken so soon after intercourse to be effective, in 2001 more than five dozen public health groups, with endorsements from World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, asked the F.D.A. to make Plan B available over the counter.

I think it's clear to anyone of any sense that these people hate women, hate girls, and loathe families. They want to cleanse America of all morality, and promote and enable sexual activity at all ages.

How long, O Lord? St. Maria Goretti, ora pro nobis.

Arkes-Kmiec Debate

I watched this interesting video today, of a debate that occurred last month at Villanova between Hadley Arkes and Douglas Kmiec.

If I were a Catholic Obama supporter, I'd be embarrassed by Kmiec's performance, which seemed entirely based on emotion, misdirection, comparing unlike things, an unshakeable faith in the things Barack Obama tells him, and his own ego. Of course, the story of Kmiec's being denied communion once made it in, and how wronged that made him feel.

Arkes, on the other hand, focuses like a laser on the issue at hand, and Kmiec barely addresses his points, and never refutes them. Much as in another recent debate (H/T: Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate). See for yourself (H/T: Moral Accountability):

Battlestar Galactica Finale

Don't read this post if you don't want spoilers!



So? What did we think of the finale?

Cardinal George Comes Out Against New Illinois Abortion Law

This was in my parish bulletin this morning:


I've often wondered why the Cardinal didn't communicate in this fashion on such issues more often, but it's wonderful to see him doing it now.

Two Minutes' Hate Schedule For The Coming Week

It seems I'm not the only one to make the 1984 connection, as RedState presents the schedule for the coming week's two minutes' hates:

The Ministry of Hope invites all members of The Party to celebrate Two Minutes’ Hate against the following enemies of the people:

Sunday, March 22: Executives of AIG
The Attorney General of Sector R has uncovered evidence that AIG paid bonuses

Monday, March 23: Rush Limbaugh
An enemy of The Party and The People, he wants The Party to fail

Tuesday, March 24: CEOs
The hereditary class of Enemies of The People who rule “The Private Sector”

Wednesday, March 25: Wall Street
The capital city of The Private Sector where money is hidden from The Party

Thursday, March 26: Bernard "Bernie" Madoff
An Enemy of The People, Madoff symbolizes CEOs and Wall Street

Friday, March 27: The Private Sector
A land of corporations and businesses ruled by greedy CEOs

Saturday, March 28: Investors
Citizens of The Private Sector who prevent money from being directed by The Party

Hates will begin promptly at 6:30 p.m. (5:30 Central) on central feeds NBC, CBS, CNN, and PBS.

We are at war with the Private Sector. We have always been at war with The Private Sector

This looks like fun. I'll have to take a swing at scheduling a future week.

New Battlestar Galactica Pilot

See the preview here:



(H/T: American Catholic)

I'm guessing that in the next shot, the cylons come flying in and kill everyone here, and the survivors escape into space as part of a rag-tag fleet.

Newspeak Doubleplus Good

As a sophomore in high school, I played O'Brien in the school play, 1984 (the role that was later played on film by Richard Burton). To help prepare for the role, I read George Orwell's novel on which the play was based.

The most frightening thing about the entire story, to me, was the Newspeak dictionary. In the story, the government was working to restrict people's thoughts by excising words from the language. Each year's edition of the Newspeak dictionary was smaller than the prior year's.

That was written in 1948. Today we call it "political correctness." And it's happening now (H/T: Blowing San #1):

Officials of the European Union have issued a booklet for EU Parliamentary staff, saying that the use of "Miss" and "Mrs" for women, as well as such terms as "statesman" and "fireman," are to be banned on the grounds that they are "sexist."

Any honorifics that distinguish between a married and an unmarried woman in any language are to be banned as well, including "Madame" and "Mademoiselle," "Frau" and "Fraulein," "Senora" and "Senorita." Instead, staff are asked not to use any form of honorific and merely to address women by their names.

"Gender-specific" terms, such as "statesman," are to be replaced with gender-free alternatives, such as "political leader."

Newspeak, as Orwell promised, is a vital tool for Thought Control.

Obama's Pro-Life Abortion Supporters Waking Up

Here's another, Prof. David Gushee:

It's no secret that a group of self-identified centrist or moderate evangelicals built a friendly relationship with Barack Obama and rejected the Christian right's vilification of him. I am in this group, which has also included megachurch pastor Joel Hunter, evangelical lobbyist Rich Cizik, academic-activist Ron Sider and others.

This positive relationship has flowed from three factors.

First, Obama worked to establish a relationship with us by reaching out early in his run for the presidency. Second, he promised transformational leadership that could bridge longstanding gaps in the culture wars. Finally, Obama's positions on a number of issues — such as torture, the climate, taxes, health care, Iraq and education — struck me, at least, as more consistent with broadly pro-life and pro-justice Christian values than the standard Republican alternative. (I remain convinced on that point.)

I knew from the beginning that if Obama took typical Democratic positions on abortion-related issues, this centrist evangelical friendliness toward him and his administration would be tested. I knew that during the campaign he had hewed closely to the standard Democratic pro-choice line. But his party's platform also promised a commitment to abortion-reduction efforts, and he has echoed that language. Some of us continue to dream that he will roll out a major abortion-reduction initiative.

Such an initiative has not been offered. But what has occurred are a series of disappointingly typical Democratic abortion-related moves:
...

Mexico City, conscience clause, Sebelius, embryonic stem cells. In each case, I have been asked by friends at Democratic or progressive-leaning think tanks not just to refrain from opposing these moves, but instead to support them in the name of a broader understanding of what it means to be pro-life. I mainly refused.

But I do confess that my desire to retain good relationships with the Obama team has tempted me to give what was asked in return for the big payoff of a serious abortion-reduction initiative that I could wholeheartedly support.
...

My understanding of the majestic God-given sacredness of human life tells me that a society that legally permits abortion on demand is deeply corrupt. It pays for adult sexual liberties with the lives of defenseless developing children. That practice, in turn, desensitizes society to the implications of paying for prospective medical cures with defenseless frozen embryos, which themselves are available because our society pays for medically assisted reproductive technology by producing hundreds of thousands of these embryos as spares. And yes, that same commitment to life's sacredness has grounded my opposition to paying for national security with torture, or paying for today's affluence with tomorrow's environmental destruction.

Christian conscience requires me to make this case even if it has no chance of prevailing in American society. And if we lose on abortion, as it appears we will lose for a long time to come, Christian conscience requires me to ask the government not to require citizens to pay for procuring services that violate their sacred beliefs.

And if we lose there, as it appears we will, Christian conscience requires me to insist that religious institutions and professionals not be required as a condition of accreditation, or employment, or contact with federal dollars, to actively facilitate or perform deeds that their conscience forbids them from doing.

And if we lose there, then the entire relationship between religious faith and American society will move into a period of profound crisis.

President Obama, we need more than lip service on these crucial issues. Bring the transformational change your promises led us to hope for. [Emphasis added.]

Why Homeschool, Part 27

So your kids aren't dragooned into gladiatorial matches!

A Dallas public high school was cited for dealing with troubled kids by making them fight each other (H/T: Opinionated Catholic):

The principal and other staff members at South Oak Cliff High School were supposed to be breaking up fights. Instead, they sent troubled students into a steel utility cage in an athletic locker room to battle it out with bare fists and no head protection, records show.

Documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News say the "cage fights" took place between 2003 and 2005. The records don't say how many fights may have taken place.

Donald Moten, who was principal at South Oak Cliff High at the time, denied any wrongdoing when contacted Wednesday.
...

Internal district reports obtained by The News describe a culture of sanctioned violence in which school employees and even the principal relied on "the cage" to settle disputes and bring unruly students under control.

Moten, along with security monitors and other employees, "knew of the practice, allowed it to go on for a time, and failed to report it," investigators for the DISD's Office of Professional Responsibility wrote in a confidential 2008 report.

Despite investigators' assertions that the staff's conduct "may constitute a criminal violation," charges were never filed against Moten or the hall monitors accused of organizing the fights. Many of those employees were still working on campus at the beginning of this school year.

"It was gladiator-style entertainment for the staff," said Frank Hammond, a middle school counselor in Cedar Hill who was fired from South Oak Cliff High School and has filed a whistleblower lawsuit. "They were taking these boys downstairs to fight. And it was sanctioned by the principal and security." [Emphasis added.]

Ah, the creativity of modern educational professionals!

Cardinal George: Despotism

In a brief video statement, USCCB President Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, warns that President Obama is moving towards despotism in removing conscience protections from medical providers who choose not to provide abortion services (H/T: Dad29 and A Shepherd's Voice):

On Friday afternoon, February 27, the Obama Administration placed on a federal website the news that it intends to remove a conscience protection rule for the Department of Health and Human Services. That rule is one part of the range of legal protections for health care workers—for doctors, nurses and others—who have objections in conscience to being involved in abortion and other killing procedures that are against how they live their faith in God.

As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we are deeply concerned that such an action on the government’s part would be the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism. [Emphasis added.]

I'm proud to see my archbishop and the American Catholic bishops engaging the president and providing leadership on this issue.

In other news, Cardinal George met briefly in private with President Obama this week, and I feel sure that this concern was conveyed to him.

And They're FDA Approved!

(H/T: Is Anybody There?, who points out that this is how the media reacts to embryonic stem cells)

Doug Kmiec (And Morning's Minion) Comes Out For Gay Civil Unions

Everyone's favorite Catholic apologists for the Culture of Death begin laying the foundation to apologize for the President's promised repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by proposing that nobody should be married except in the Church, and we should all just have civil unions:

”Give gay and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union — anything, really, other than marriage. For people who feel the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they wanted...”

This is not a new idea, but I think its merit increases over time. It’s certainly not first best, which is a situation where the civil authorities specifically acknowledge and favor an institution that acts as the foundation of society — permanent marriage between one man and one woman geared toward the bearing and rearing of children. The problem is, this is no longer the social standard and we fool ourselves to think otherwise. First, serial monogamy is considered the norm, and the incidence of divorce is actually greatest in those parts of the country supposedly most religious. And, second, we have long passed the point of thinking about marriage as the bearing and rearing of children — instead, it is seen in exclusive romantic terms, the fulfilment of individual needs and desires. With these two pillars collapsed, is it any wonder that the third– the one pertaining to man and woman– would be the next to go?

And then what next? The point about it being only two people? The point about it being people at all?

And what makes Kmiec or the Minion think that the gay "rights" movement will be satisfied with allowing the churches to have a monopoly on marriage? They view "marriage" the way Shakespeare's Henry V viewed the French crown, and like Henry, they're coming for it:

...for if you hide the crown, even in your hearts, there will he rake for it...

And if we try to retreat to the churches and take "marriage" with us, they'll come knocking on the door by and by.

This is not Catholicism. This is surrender. These two belong to the same faith as Thomas More and the many great martyrs?

FOCA Comes To Illinois

Should your thirteen-year-old daughter be able to get a tattoo without your permission? How about an abortion?

An Illinois bill enshrining abortion as a "right" and introducing explicit sex education was approved by the Illinois House Human Services Committee yesterday in a 5-2 vote.

HB 2354, proposed by state House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, states that the government shall not "deny or interfere with an individual’s right" to abortion and contraception. The bill would nullify or prevent all common-sense legal restrictions on abortion, including health and safety regulations for abortion facilities, informed consent, and parental notification laws.

Dubbed "Illinois’ FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act)" by pro-life advocates, the bill calls for taxpayer funding of abortion and contraception, and hamstrings the conscience rights of medical personnel who object to abortion or contraception.

More on the bill here. My Republican State Rep. voted in favor of this in committee.

P.J. O'Rourke On Stem Cells

P.J. O'Rourke, on the Morning's Minion policy, makes some amusing points:

A false choice means there's no choosing. The president of the United States tells us that sound science and moral values are united, in bed together. As many a coed has been assured, "Let's just get naked under the covers, we don't have to make love." Or, as the president puts it, "Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view."

Mr. President, sir, if this is your respect, I'd rather have your contempt or your waistline or something other than what you're giving me here. The more so because in the next sentence you say,

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans--from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs--have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research.

Mr. President, you're lying. There is no consensus...

The question is not about federal funding for stem cell research, the question is are you a knave or a fool? I'm inclined to take the more charitable view. For one thing you have a foolish notion that science does not progress without the assistance of government.

Philosophy was once considered science. After Alexander the Great had accepted the surrender of Athens, he found Diogenes the Cynic living in a barrel.

"What can I do for you?" Alexander asked.

"Get out of my light," Diogenes said.

On the other hand, you, Mr. President, said that scientific progress "result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work."

Thus it was that without King George's courtiers winding kite string for Ben Franklin and splitting firewood and flipping eye charts to advance his painstaking and costly research into electricity, stoves, and bifocals, Ben's years of lonely trial and error never would have borne fruit. To this day we would think the bright flash in a stormy summer sky is God having an allergy attack. We would heat our homes by burning piles of pithy sayings from Poor Richard's Almanac in the middle of the floor. And we would stare at our knitting through the bottoms of old Coke bottles.

We'd probably have telephones and light bulbs if President Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) had been willing to support the work of Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. As you say, Mr. President, "When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed." (Although the light bulbs would now have to be replaced by flickering, squiggly fluorescent devices anyway, to reverse global warming.)

More On Stem Cells

It's not just me, and it's not just Catholics.

From the Tribune's John Kass (H/T: Backyard Conservative):

When President Barack Obama signed his executive order to allow human embryos to be mined for their stem cells in order to help older, more powerful humans, there was much excited applause.

The applause came from so many, their eyes bright, lit as if from within. It came from those who believe in scientific progress as the answer to the problems of the modern world, believing as fervently as any monk on the slopes of Mt. Athos believes in the Resurrection of Christ.

In signing the order last week, the president said that the Bush administration, which strictly limited such research, had offered a false choice between science and morality. He said his new order "is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda—and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

There it was. Ideology, a pejorative applied to faith, offered up during Lent by our president.

As a Greek Orthodox Christian, I'm troubled by all of this, as are many Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others who are taught by the faiths of our fathers that life is sacred. And I know there are many who belong to these faiths and see nothing wrong with stem cell research.

But many of us watch in quiet horror as America rationalizes the conversion of life into a medical product to further other lives, as our culture ignores the cost to our humanity.
...

When I was a boy about to go swimming with my friends, I was warned about the drowning man. And just then I knew, with the rapture of scientific certainty, that President Obama was also warned as a boy.

It may have come from his mom, or grandparents, or some camp counselor at the edge of the water, an adult responsible for his safety. The kids knotting up in groups on the shore, sand hot on their feet, bright sunshine overhead, eager to jump in.

We all were warned, each of us, you too. As parents, my wife and I told our boys, and Barack and Michelle most likely have told their girls. All kids lucky enough to grow up and become parents will warn their young if they have even the slightest sense of responsibility.

You stay away from the drowning man.

The drowning man isn't an individual, exactly.

The way I remember things, it was the figure of a man drawn in some first-aid pamphlet of long ago, a dangerous hieroglyph thrashing in the water, threatening those who approached.

The drowning man wasn't evil. He wasn't good. There was no history to him.

His dreams and kind acts didn't matter. His betrayals and bitterness weren't counted against him. If he had any sins, their residue wasn't apparent in his expression. There was no face, at least not one with clearly defined features.

Only a head and arms waving in the water, the drowning man going down.

The grown-ups told us that when you're swimming and you see someone struggling and thrashing, you call for help. You might extend a towel or a shirt as a rope. But you don't go near, because you might get grabbed.

Panicked, the drowning man wants what all life wants, to continue. He can't comprehend that he's pushing you down to push himself up. It's not his fault. He's afraid. He's drowning. He's dying.

But we're all dying, aren't we? And what happens to us, as we take other lives, in order to live?

And from Michael Reagan, a warning (H/T: Is Anybody There?):

What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.

In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.

Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells.

What President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's federal ban on certain lines of embryonic stem cell research ultimately could cost American lives.

Obama and his subservient mainstream media allies ignored science in favor of politics, and the results will prove to be disastrous.

What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).

When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.

This is where 72 different diseases are now being remedied or cured.

There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception. A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness.

According to media reports, the boy, now 17, received the ESC stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumors. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and their tests show it most probably was caused by the stem cells.

The Moscow doctors should have known better. It is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.

That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.

The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen.

And finally, from everybody's favorite wheelchair bound blogger:

Mr. Caplan, I am in a wheelchair and I certainly do not want to see everything tried. Not when “everything” involves the deliberate use and destruction of tiny human beings. Excuse me, but my ability to walk is not worth the cost of another human life, no matter how small.

She, certainly, is not John Kass' "drowning man."

Barbaric Indeed

And now Radical Catholic Mom has become the first of the Vox Nova Four, the Catholic bloggers who endorsed Obama before the election, to unequivocally offer a criticism of her candidate, President Obama, for his anti-life policies:

I need to state for the record that Obama allowing Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is barbaric. A culture where humans are created to become spare body parts for other humans is suicidal. I am to the point of believing as the Scripture says that we need to cede Death to those who yearn for it. You can gain the whole world and still lose your soul. [Emphasis in original.]

My sincerest compliments.

As I've discussed elsewhere, it's the responsibility of Catholic Obama supporters to let the administration know that the president's anti-life policies, if he persists in them, will cost him Catholic support in 2010 and 2012.

OK, that's one.

Not Just Extremists

What do you call them when the extremists are mainstream?

Whenever I bring up the misbehavior of homosexual activists, particularly following their loss in the prop 8 election, it's excused by claiming that both sides did extreme things.

Oh yeah? (H/T: Backyard Conservative):

In November, the San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California's Proposition 8 marriage initiative. All available information, plus the amount donated, was broadcast. My name is on that list.

Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship. Some were anonymous but a sizable number were signed, an indication of confidence in collective clout that belied howls of victimhood. New York's Gay City News asked for an interview because I was "one of only four New Yorkers who contributed more than $500."

I ignored the request, trashed the emails, and forgot about them. But the West Coast bureau chief of the New York Daily News did not forget.

One night in early February, I drove home to find two cars, two men, waiting for me, unannounced, in the dark. Reporters for the Daily News, they were publishing a story on me and Prop 8 the next day and wanted a live quotation. Serious interviews are arranged ahead of time. Besides, I had filed enough newspaper pieces on deadline to know that copy is well into the can
at 7 P.M. This was intimidation, not fact-gathering. [Emphasis added.]

Isolated extremists? I count two mainstream print newspapers as the bad actors in this story. And the story is just getting started.

Come What May

(H/T: Reflections of a Paralytic)

Terri Must Die

...and so must her story!

If you disagree, check out this video (H/T: Faith of a Convert):



Two things frighten me particularly about the Terri Schiavo case, among a long list of frightening aspects.

First, all the people who gathered to demand that Terri must die. Why was the advocating of this woman's death such a popular cause?

And, secondly, an innocent woman was ordered by a court to be starved and dehydrated to death, and the Pinellas County Sherriff's office had no shortage of deputies to carry out the order. When elements of the American government issue evil decrees, there will be no shortage of stormtroopers to enforce them.

Notice the line about the Senate's unanimous vote. Barack Obama cited that vote, and his failure to dissent from unanimity, as his greatest regret as a Senator.

Stem Cells: Obama Institutes New Policy

The Catholic blogosphere is buzzing with the news that, as anyone could have predicted, President Obama has reversed President Bush's executive order forbidding federal funding for new embryo-destructive research.

I'm calling it the "Morning's Minion Policy," after the Vox Nova blogger who so eloquently and in so many posts argued that Barack Obama was the true "pro-life" candidate for president. Barack Obama will face no consequences from his Catholic supporters for this move, because contrary to their claims, they are not pro-life. They are content with destroying embryos within and without the womb, for any reason or no reason, and are unwilling to see anyone do what must be done to stop the killing.

For a more in-depth critique of the Morning's Minion Policy, check out our scholarly friends at Moral Accountability.

Why Support Gay "Marriage"?

I'm sorry not to remember where I ran across this link, but I found it an interesting review of gays' comments about gay "marriage" in Canada:

...supporters of so-called “homosexual marriage” have managed to convince many people ... that what’s really immoral is discriminating unjustly against homosexuals by denying them the opportunity to marry.

What’s wrong with this argument? First of all, discrimination isn’t the issue. Marriage by its nature can involve only a man and a woman, but every man and woman possesses an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Here’s another flaw in the “discrimination” argument: Empirical evidence from north of the border indicates most homosexuals don’t want to marry even when it’s legally possible.

Although homosexual “marriage” was legalized in Canada in 2005, census data for the following year found only 17% of homosexual couples were seeking to get married compared to 80% of heterosexual couples.

And those figures don’t come from a pro-family source; they were featured in an article published in September 2008 by the Canadian homosexual magazine XTRA!West.

Why aren’t Canadian homosexuals rushing to the altar? Here are some of the reasons cited in lesbian writer Jillian Deri’s XTRA!West article:

“I do not think that the church or the state should have any part in validating my relationships,” says Erica Hirshberger, a local queer woman. “It will be valid without their consent.”

“Personally, until I need some of the rights entitled only to married people I prefer to stay in an unmarried state of commitment with my current partner,” says Caro Moffatt, “because I find it very romantic to wake up every morning and choose to be together instead of staying together because of legal bonds.”

“I think owning property or having a pet is more of a commitment than a marriage,” adds Gloria Edith Hole.

The obligations of marriage are another sticking point for many homosexuals.

“Gay lawyer Ken Smith points to another disincentive to legalize vows,” Deri writes. “With marriage rights come obligations; you can’t opt in or out at will. For example, if you are common-law or married, you are expected to support your spouse and this changes access to welfare and social support, such as disability benefits. Income tax is also calculated differently for couples.”

Overall, Deri’s XTRA!West article suggests many homosexuals support marriage rights purely as a political statement, not as a result of a yearning to enter into marriages themselves. She writes that “same-sex marriage represents a reform movement that seeks to prove that queers are ‘just like everyone else.’ But many of us are not like everyone else — and unapologetically so.

“As Randy Morris, a Vancouver gay man, says, ‘I believe that many of us still believe that just by being gay, we have accepted unconventional perspectives on relationships. I actually have reveled in the idea of my relationship being unconventional. Marriage, to me, seems to signify an effort at conformity.’”

And here’s how Deri envisions the future of homosexual relationships: “I’d like to see more information, resources and support for all forms of relationships: single, polyamorous, coupled, friendship, chosen family or whatever our queer hearts can dream up.” [Emphasis added.]

It's nice to see them admitting that gay "marriage" isn't about anything other than forcing people to say that being gay is the same as being straight. But as More asked Cromwell in A Man For All Seasons, "will you serve England by populating her with liars?"

Latest Attack On The Church

In Connecticut, the state legislature is apparently considering a bill that would mandate the restructuring of the Catholic Church in such a way that bishops and priests would no longer be in charge.

And the state's interest in this would be...?

Simplex Vir has the details!

Congratulations, Rosanna Pulido

In what may be a first, a candidate endorsed on my blog has won her primary race, seeking to fill the congressional seat vacated by Rahm Emmanuel.



Congratulations, Rosanna!

Abortion And Ethics

John Bivers at Champion News has an excellent piece on the relationship between ethics in government and opposition to abortion.

A Letter to my Evangelical Friend, Part 1

Introduction

Dear Brett,

Ever since the day you and I met seven years ago, just before we both turned 40, we have been friends. The years we've spent sharing too-small offices, the conventions we've attended together, the projects we've done (and are still doing), the talks we've had on virtually every subject under the sun, and especially the trust, admiration and respect that has grown up between us provide us a foundation for a friendship like very few I've known in my life.

And from very nearly the first day we have discussed, debated, compared, contrasted, argued and justified our different-but-similiar religious faiths: your sincere Evangelical Christianity, and my devout Catholic Christianity.

For both of us, our faith is very important. Neither of us would be the men we are without our faith. We are better men because of our religion -- because of our relationship with God, particularly in the person of Christ Jesus.

In our last round of discussion, we focused on the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, and you set yourself the task of praying for guidance and studying scripture to try whether you could accept the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

What you eventually told me was that you could not accept the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist if it required also accepting the Catholic conception of the priesthood.

You're quite right in understanding that there is an integral relationship between the priesthood and the Eucharist. Scripture teaches us that Our Lord instituted both the Eucharist and the Priesthood on the same occasion. Rejection of the one necessarily entails the rejection of the other.

What I propose to do in this letter is to discuss the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the priesthood. I also know that another objection to Catholicism you have is the prominent position that Catholics perceive for Mary. Finally, I'll discuss the role of the Church, its teaching authority, and the promises Christ endowed it with.

Throughout, in deference to your belief that scripture is the sole authority for Christian faith, I will emphasize scripture as a basis for argument. But scripture will not be the sole basis for my argument. Luther used scripture and reason, and I propose to include no small amount of history in the mix as well.

My goal will not be to convert you to the Catholic faith, although I would walk barefoot across hot coals or broken glass to convert you to the Catholic faith. My goal will be to help you come to an understanding of the Catholic point of view. As to whether you will accept that point of view and adopt it is up to the Holy Spirit.

I hope you will find this to be good reading. Look for the next part soon.

May God bless you and keep you.

This is the 1,700th post to this blog.

Children Are A Source Of Wealth

... for our families and for our society!

What does it look like when a society contracepts and aborts itself into oblivion? What's the first symptom we should expect to see?

Read the papers. It's happening now:

The first thing that conservatives have to tell Americans is: “You are poorer because you failed to raise enough children. The decline of the traditional family is undermining the American economy.”

Housing prices are collapsing because single-person households are replacing families with children. As Brookings Institution economist Christopher Leinberger wrote in the March 2008 Atlantic Monthly,

When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.

The consequence of this is a coming 40% surplus of large homes:

Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.

There never will be a housing price recovery in many parts of the country. Huge tracts will become uninhabited except by vandals and rodents.

Conservatives have to cast the blame for the crisis at the culture of death. It isn’t only home prices, of course. If the labor force shrinks because the next generation simply fails to appear, who will pay taxes to support pensions and medical care for the elderly? Unlike most of Europe, or Japan, America still has a fertility rate close to replacement. It isn’t past the point of demographic no return.

There are a few things that economic policy can do right away to make things better. Big tax cuts (in the form of a per-child exemption) that help families with children will do more to revive the economy than infrastructure boondoggles. Young families spend; empty nesters save. That’s elementary. If you want to get more spending, put more money into the hands of the demographic cohort that has the greatest propensity to spend.

But conservatives also must tell Americans the bitter truth that the deterioration of family formation has made them poorer and that it will take more than economic policy to correct. The culture of death will not be overcome by tax incentives, useful as such incentives are. Our children are our wealth. If we cease to have children, we die. Nothing has contributed more our impoverishment than Roe vs. Wade. I do not propose to attack Roe vs. Wade on economic grounds — it is intrinsically evil — but it is indispensable to make clear that the culture of death has economic consequences.

Conservatives have to reach out to blue-collar Democrats, particularly Catholics and Evangelicals who voted for Obama, with a pro-family message. They must be willing to offend libertarian conservatives. A new kind of coalition is required. It will take a good deal of experimentation and debate to find the right mix, but the principle is clear: the economic crisis stems from the culture of death and the only solution to the crisis is to restore a culture of life. [Emphasis added.]

We must also reach out to pro-life ethnic groups, such as Hispanics and African-Americans. Because a shrinking population cannot support a great nation.

We must ask ourselves, do we want our nation to grow, or to die? Because those are the choices: growing, or dying.

Omnibus

It's too many weeks since my last post. To those of you still keeping an eye on this blog, I thank you. I want to reassure you that I have not forgotten this blog anymore than you have.

• I have been reading a book, if you can believe it. A big, thick book. It's a biography of Stephen A. Douglas, Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois, famous today for going up against Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and 1860 Democratic nominee for president. He served in Congress with John Quincy Adams, and in the Senate with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Jefferson Davis.
  
  I have in mind, after I have finished this book, to write something comparing the politics of slavery in the 1840s and 1850s with the politics of abortion in the 21st century.
  
  A preview of my thesis: Stephen A. Douglas was pro-choice.
  
  
• I also plan to return to one of the original purposes of this blog: apologetics. I am planning a series on the Eurcharist, the Priesthood, Mary, and the Church, written as a series of letters to an Evangelical friend I have been talking with.
  
  
• I have not been completely silent; I've been involved in a series of comments over at Vox Nova, in which I draw the logical conclusion that public support for abortion rights by a legislator or even by a citizen or voter is NOT mortally sinful. The short version goes like this: Canon 915 requires that the Eucharist must be withheld from people who are publicly in a state of mortal sin, in order to avoid damage to the person's soul, and to avoid scandal to the faithful. The most common example of this is the case of persons who have divorced and remarried outside the Church. Canon 915 is routinely applied by bishops and pastors to deny communion to divorcees. But Canon 915 is not applied anywhere in the world (with very few exceptions -- a bunch of U.S. pro-aborts received communion at papal masses in the U.S. last year) to prevent pro-abort politicians from receiving the Eucharist.
  
  This implies one of three possibilities:
  
  
  1. That the Holy Father and the bishops do not believe what the Church teaches about the Eucharist and the necessity for worthy reception;
     
     
  2. that the Holy Father and the bishops are cravenly refusing to carry out their duty to govern and correct; or
     
     
  3. that public support for abortion "rights" (as distinct from actually seeking or performing a particular abortion) is not mortally sinful.
  
  The more charitable of these alternatives is to presume that the Holy Father and the bishops are faithful, and are correctly carrying out their responsibility. Otherwise, they would never have allowed Fr. Richard Drinan, and would not be now allowing Sen. Ted Kennedy, to go to their judgments without doing everything possible to correct their error. Can anyone refute this logic?
  
  
• My fellow Battlestar Galactica fans might be interested in these thoughts from Patrick at Creative Minority Report. You would probably also enjoy the Secrets of Battlestar Galactica podcast as much as I have. Three more episodes. I'm hooked, but I'm reserving judgment.
  
  
• Parents of teen daughters will want to review this piece at Patrick Madrid's blog:

  Not five minutes later the doctor called me back in. One look at Jody and I knew she was distressed. My motherly alarm system kicked in and I felt my heart speed up. Dr. X left the room and I said,
  
  “What’s wrong?”
  
  “The doctor asked me about birth control,” said Jody. “I don’t even know what it is.”
  
  Stunned is an inadequate description. I felt my face turning red with rage. Dr. X returned and I literally bit the inside of my cheek to keep from spewing forth loud invective. I knew I needed the whole story before I did or said anything. When Jody and I got to the car she told me everything.
  
  Here’s the gist. When they were alone the doctor asked Jody if she was drinking or using drugs. Jody said no and the doctor then told Jody in a firm way how important it was to keep drug- and alcohol-free. Then the doctor asked if Jody had a boyfriend. Jody said no. Then the doctor said, “If you ever get a boyfriend, and you’re having sexual relations, I can give you birth control pills.”

• Rest in peace, Paul Harvey.
  
  
• In case you missed it, Jill Stanek had a great piece on the infamous "Octomom" recently. Take a look. I disapprove of IVF, but I support big families, so perhaps I have the opposite reaction to this story than the vast majority of Americans who despise large families but approve of IVF. I think Stanek's column hits just the right note, and it has a happy ending, too.
  
  
• The appointment of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abort "Catholic" as HHS Secretary has been called an "insult" to Catholics. I don't buy it. This is what Catholic Obama supporters were voting for. This is the sort of appointment that Obama promised to make. Catholics who supported Obama cannot be insulted by this, they voted for it. And Catholics who opposed Obama cannot be insulted by this, because it is, again, what Obama promised, and we can't expect the President to make appointments to please his opponents -- after all, it's not as if he's a Republican.
  
  
• Oliver left a comment asking me to expound on Paul's Law, expressed in the sidebar: "If you want your values to survive into the future, there is no substitute for fertility." It's pretty simple. It's just my reformulation of the old line that "the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world." They say that celibacy is not hereditary, that is, if your parents didn't have kids, you probably won't either. If you contracept and abort your children out of existence, who will remember 100 years from now what you believed today? When I was kid, I wanted to grow up to be president. That'll never happen. But why couldn't a child or grandchild of mine be a president? Why shouldn't a future president of the United States repeat Paul's law as something his grandfather once told him? Even if you have one or two kids, they will be outvoted in the next generation by my five. If you have three or four grandchildren, they will be outvoted in their generation by my twelve or fifteen.
  
  In the UK, the fastest growing demographic is Muslims. In the U.S., it's Hispanics. Ever see the movie Idiocracy? In western culture today, it's the people who think that they are the best and brightest who are breeding themselves out of existence. Which begs the question, by what standard do you measure intelligence?
  
  
• Wooly Mammoth left me a comment recently in which he said I was ranting; it's possible, it happens. But there are some outrages, and abortion and gay "marriage" are among these, to which anger is the only appropriate response.

More soon.