Colorado Lawsuit Update

CNN

(CNN) -- A Catholic hospital in hot water for claiming in a Colorado court that a fetus is not a person backtracked on Monday, saying it was "morally wrong" to make the argument while defending itself in a wrongful death lawsuit.

 And

"In the discussion with the Church leaders, CHI representatives acknowledged that it was morally wrong for attorneys representing St. Thomas More Hospital to cite the state's Wrongful Death Act in defense of this lawsuit. That law does not consider fetuses to be persons, which directly contradicts the moral teachings of the Church," Catholic Health Initiatives said in a statement.

It promised that attorneys for the hospital would not cite the Wrongful Death Act in any future hearings.

And

The state's bishops similarly released a statement, expressing support for CHI and for the Stodghill family.

"We join CHI in affirming the fundamental truth that human life, human dignity and human rights begin at conception. No law can ever mitigate God-given human rights," they said. "Each human life is a sacred gift, created as a unique and unrepeatable expression of God's love. Life is given by God, and the right to life is a fundamental good, without which no other rights can be enjoyed."

This news is a few weeks old now.  It's a good outcome.  I am especially appreciative of the Bishops' statement.  "Life is a fundamental good."  Amen!

Update on the Colorado Lawsuit

According to The Denver Post, the bishops of Colorado are undertaking a full investigation of the hospital and its owner, Catholic Health Initiatives, but will not comment on ongoing litigation.

Hypocrisy at St. Thomas More Hospital

CNN

Canon City, Colorado (CNN) -- Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.

A fetus is not legally a person until it is born, the hospital's lawyers have claimed in its defense. And now it may be up to the state's Supreme Court to decide.

And

They said that under state law, an embryo is not person until it is born alive, according to court documents. The Stodghills' twins were deceased when they were removed from their mother's lifeless body.

There is no excuse for a "Catholic" hospital to be making this argument, even if it a legal maneuver to use already existing state law as a defense.  The administrators of St. Thomas More Hospital and Centura Health should be ashamed of themselves!  I hope the Colorado bishops who are looking into this matter will right this wrong as quickly as possible.

The Pope's Position On Condoms

For a summary up until now of what this latest bit of media hype is all about, I recommend Damian Thompson here, here, and here. I don't agree with all of it, but the three posts together are good for catching up.

In his third post, Mr. Thompson quotes with his bolding the relevant paasages of the new book coming out, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants …

And then:

[Question:] Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

[Answer by the Pope:] She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Father Z is still jet-lagged from travel, but he has a post up on this. It doesn't say much, but I recommend reading through the comments for an 'on the ground' response to this, especially Prof. Basto here, here, and here. He has some excellent points and analysis in the three comments I have linked to here that deserve to be read for a better understanding of the context here.

Health Care

I wrote this as a comment at TitusOneNine:

It’s a slippery slope. All the things that may end up left out of the bills now (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) may be slipped in later once control is handed over. What I am fearful of is that the bishops are either letting their own personal or ‘institutional’ (USCCB) opinions intrude or else simply being short-sighted by approving of a concept that will subvert the autonomy of the individual conscience.

As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.
—Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79

If you want to talk about conscience, then feel free to discuss free will and each person’s willingness to give to charity to help those in need. But I for one do not accept the premise that government confiscation of revenue for whatever reason beyond the most basic necessities is a legitimate means to provide for those in material need.

Pro-Life Advocates Beware

From AveWatch.com: Ave Maria Loses Catholic Moral Authority, Moves Focus to Pro-Life Crowd.

Everyone who frequents this blog should by now know of my fascination with all things Ave Maria and Tom Monaghan. AveWatch.com is the premiere watchdog site that keeps track of the pizza baron and his great boondoggle down in Florida. In an article posted on Tuesday, Ave Watcher analyzed recent data points and draws the conclusion that with large segments of orthodox Catholicism onto his MO, Tom and his co-conspirators are moving to woo the pro-life movement at large in a bid to further the brand of Ave Maria.

Read it all, it's pretty damning.

A Disgusting Case

Dr. Edward Peters, the esteemed canon law expert, has posted this morning on the case of Sister Donna Quinn of Sinsinawa Dominicans who is known for serving as an escort at abortion clinics.

You can read more about the Sinsinawa Dominicans at the left under the Father Mazzuchelli link (yes, those sisters).

Dr. Peters suggests a few canons under which Sister Donna could fall, but he is not enthusiastic as to if any consequences will come from her actions. I wonder though if this lack of action on the part of the community could be brought before those undertaking the current examination of women religious here in the US?

Or Else!

Via Drudge, we have this blog post from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos:

In a letter just released, the three Catholic bishops leading the Church’s efforts on health care warned Congress that “we will have no choice but to oppose the bill” unless current bills are amended.

The letter signed by Bishop William Murphy, Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop John Wester outlines three main areas of concern: “that no one should be forced to pay for or participate in abortion, that health care should be affordable and available to the poor and vulnerable, and that the needs of legal immigrants should be met.”

Of those, of course, abortion poses the gravest threat to the bill. The bishops simply don’t buy the argument that House Democrats found a way to block public funding for abortions with the Capps amendment, and they insist that the Hyde amendment doesn’t apply to the bills because they are not appropriations measures. A sizable bloc of House Democrats, led by Bart Stupak of Michigan, agree and are pressuring for a clear prohibition on public funding.

Not really much new here, but the reference to /legal/ immigrants (my emphasis) is heartening.

Dipping Into Health Care

His Excellency R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City has this to say regarding the health care debate (hat tip to Hotair.com):

First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research.

We refuse to allow our own parish, school, and diocesan health insurance plans to be forced to include these evils. As a corollary of this, we insist equally on adequate protection of individual rights of conscience for patients and health care providers not to be made complicit in these evils. A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have.

Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right.

The “natural right” of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion.

As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under “prudential judgment.”

Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care.

Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good – it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible – health care should not be subject to federal monopolization.

Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined “best procedures,” which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect.

Emphasis mine. The bolded parts are excellent illustrations of his point.

Widescreen

Has anyone else noticed the tendency lately for Youtube videos to be widescreen? This video looks interesting and the quotes are nice. Could use some subtitles though.

1,001 Posts

I was going to commemorate the 1,000th post with lots of cool things, but I just noticed that that was the last post. I guess I wasn't paying that much attention. Oh well. That spares me the obligation to get creative.

The Pope is going to Israel soon and will be visiting a Palestinian refugee camp.

Professor Glendon (I don't recall right offhand her first name) declined the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame as she didn't want to the token next to Obama. Father Jenkins has rounded up a judge who is a past recipient and the medal won't be given out this year. Nice sidestepping there, Father.

Archbishop Ranjith is said to be headed home to Colombo, but there's no official word.

Over at Rorate, they're busily commenting about curial rumblings surrounding the exile of Ranjith (whenever it eventually happens if it does). One poster, Matt, made an excellent point:

With all of this rumbling, the Holy Father should do what any Head of anything does, he or his designates walk into the office of the slacker prelate with security and tell him, "Thank you for your services but the Holy Father had decided it's time to part company." They are then given fifteen minutes to clean out their desks and are escorted out. Done. Why this is so hard for the Pope is beyond me and the reason why so much trouble exists in the Church. Do what the heck you want and no one can fire you? No wonder they act like that.

These prelates are not OWED, or ENTITLED. They serve at the pleasure of the Pope and can be dismissed at his pleasure. I suppose the Vatican has an alternate reality

If the One (Mr. Obama for you neophytes) can go around sacking top bank officials and the CEO of GM, I should think the Pope himself could do as Matt suggests.

That's enough of a round-up for now. I ask for your prayers in this hour of anxiety for me.

Funny Stuff (Notre Dame)

Criticism over Obama invite mounts at Notre Dame [my way]:

Chris Carrington, a political science major from the Chicago area, said he doesn't see how Obama's appearance at Notre Dame contradicts Catholic values.

"To not allow someone here because of their beliefs seems a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be," he said.

I find this quote to be quite entertaining. Let's look at what Mr. Carrington is driving at here more closely, shall we? The parts I've bolded are the key points.

Mr. Carrington labels as hypocritical and contradictory what he feels the Church's and the university's mission should be. Note: he is not labeling as hypocritical and contradictory what the Church's mission really is (given that they've invited Obama, it's fair to say that the mission of Notre Dame and the Catholic Church have diverged...).

So let's review: Mr. Carrington is criticizing the Catholic Church as hypocritical and contradictory because of the mission he thinks it should have, not its actual mission. So I put it to Mr. Carrington: What do you actually think about the Church's mission as it exists now, not what you think it should eventually morph into to suit your tastes?

And no, Mr. Carrington, you cannot claim that you misspoke or that this is all just semantics. You're a student in what is perceived to be a one of the better universities in the United States. No cop outs here.

Quiverfull

...What we used to call 'Irish' and 'Catholic.' My dad is one of ten and descends from German and Irish stock.

From NPR:

The movement, called Quiverfull, is based on Psalm 127, which says, "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them."

Those in the Quiverfull movement shun birth control, believing that God will give them the right number of children. It turns out, that's a lot of kids.
[...]

"I think, help! Imagine if we had had more of these children!" Campbell says, adding, "My greatest impact is through my children. The more children I have, the more ability I have to impact the world for God."

A Christian God, that is. Campbell says if believers don't starting reproducing in large numbers, biblical Christianity will lose its voice.

"We look across the Islamic world and we see that they are outnumbering us in their family size, and they are in many places and many countries taking over those nations, without a jihad, just by multiplication," Campbell says.

Still, Quiverfull is a small group, probably 10,000 fast-growing families, mainly in the Midwest and South. But they have large ambitions, says Kathryn Joyce, who has written about the movement in her book Quiverfull: Inside The Christian Patriarchy Movement.

"They speak about, 'If everyone starts having eight children or 12 children, imagine in three generations what we'll be able to do,' " Joyce says. " 'We'll be able to take over both halls of Congress, we'll be able to reclaim sinful cities like San Francisco for the faithful, and we'll be able to wage very effective massive boycotts against companies that are going against God's will.' "

Aside from the religious arguments, I dare you readers to read this from USAToday and then try and tell me why this is not a good idea.

Greeks and Romans

The political blog Politico has video and a summary:

At the White House’s celebration of Greek Independence Day Wednesday afternoon, President Obama got a little unexpected flattery from Archbishop Demetrios, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in the United States

Listing a series of challenges Obama will need to deal with as president, Demetrios predicted: Demetrios to Obama: "Following the brilliant example of Alexander the Great...you will be able to cut the Gordian knot of these unresolved issues."

Obama responded by making a face to the crowd, prompting laughter. And when he took the mic, he speculated on what the compliment could do for him at home.

"I will tell Michelle I have been compared to Alexander the Great. I will see if that gets me a little more respect,” said Obama, who conceded: “She's still the boss."

While the Greeks in the US seem to have no problem hanging out with the president, the Romans are having difficulties. President Obama has accepted an invitation to speak at the commencement at Notre Dame later this spring and Catholics who actually care about their faith are up in arms. A coalition of student groups from the university have coordinated and put together a website: Notre Dame Response.

In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, CSC’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principle commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. Further, the University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.

Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has put some of his students into a position of moral dilemma as to whether they can attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, now feel personally conflicted about participating in the commencement. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.

And of course there is a petition from the Cardinal Newman Society here protesting the invitation. About 140,000 people have added their names so far, including myself.

Rabbi Speaks on Williamson and the FSSPX

Via Father Z...
--------------------

Left Wing of the Catholic Church Destroying the Faith Says Orthodox Rabbi [LifeSiteNews.com]

By Hilary White, Rome correspondent

ROME, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The dissident, leftist movement in the Catholic Church over the last forty years has severely undermined the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral teachings on life and family, a prominent US Orthodox rabbi told LifeSiteNews.com. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the head of a group of 800 Orthodox rabbis in the US and Canada, also dismissed the accusations that the Holy See had not sufficiently distanced itself from the comments made by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) on the Holocaust.

"I support this move" to reconcile the traditionalist faction in the Church, he said, "because I understand the big picture, which is that the Catholic Church has a problem. There is a strong left wing of the Church that is doing immeasurable harm to the faith."

Rabbi Levin said that he understands "perfectly" why the reconciliation is vital to the fight against abortion and the homosexualist movement.

"I understand that it is very important to fill the pews of the Catholic Church not with cultural Catholics and left-wingers who are helping to destroy the Catholic Church and corrupt the values of the Catholic Church." This corruption, he said, "has a trickle-down effect to every single religious community in the world."

"What's the Pope doing? He's trying to bring the traditionalists back in because they have a lot of very important things to contribute the commonweal of Catholicism.

"Now, if in the process, he inadvertently includes someone who is prominent in the traditionalist movement who happens to say very strange things about the Holocaust, is that a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start to condemn Pope Benedict? Absolutely not."

During a visit to Rome at the end of January, Rabbi Levin told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the media furore over the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X is a red herring. He called "ridiculous" the accusations that in doing so Pope Benedict VXI or the Catholic Church are anti-Semitic and described as "very strong" the statements distancing the Holy See and the Pope from Williamson's comments.

Rabbi Levin was in Rome holding meetings with high level Vatican officials to propose what he called a "new stream of thinking" for the Church's inter-religious dialogue, one based on commonly held moral teachings, particularly on the right to life and the sanctity of natural marriage.

"The most important issue," he said, is the work the Church is doing "to save babies from abortion, and save children's minds, and young people's minds, helping them to know right and wrong on the life and family issues."

"That's where ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue has to go."

Although numbers are difficult to determine, it is estimated that the Society of St. Pius X has over a million followers worldwide. The traditionalist movement in the Catholic Church is noted for doctrinal orthodoxy and enthusiasm not only for old-fashioned devotional practices, but for the Church's moral teachings and opposition to post-modern secularist sexual mores. Liberals in the Church, particularly in Europe, have bitterly opposed all overtures to the SSPX and other traditionalists, particularly the Pope's recent permission to revive the traditional Latin Mass.

The Vatican announced in early January that, as part of ongoing efforts to reconcile the breakaway group, the 1988 decree of excommunication against the Society had been rescinded. Later that month, a Swedish television station aired an interview, recorded in November 2008, in which Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four leaders of the Society, said that he did not believe that six million Jews were killed in the Nazi death camps during World War II.

At that time, the media erupted with protests and accusations that the Catholic Church, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, are anti-Semitic.

Rabbi Levin particularly defended Pope Benedict, saying he is the genius behind the moves of the late Pope John Paul II to reconcile the Church with the Jewish community.

"Anyone who understands and follows Vatican history knows that in the last three decades, one of the moral and intellectual underpinnings of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, was Cardinal Ratzinger.

"And therefore, a lot of the things that Pope John Paul did vis-à-vis the Holocaust, he [Benedict] might have done himself, whether it was visiting Auschwitz or visiting and speaking in the synagogues or asking forgiveness. A lot of this had direct input from Cardinal Ratzinger. Whoever doesn't understand this doesn't realise that this man, Pope Benedict XVI, has a decades-long track record of anti-Nazism and sympathy for the Jews."

A Pro-life Message

I have no idea what this girl is saying, but I watched half of it and she looks pretty animated while saying it.

Eluana Englaro

Italy faces constitutional crisis over coma woman
Michael Day in Rome
The Observer, Sunday 8 February 2009

The Italian government has been plunged into a constitutional crisis over the fate of a 38-year-old woman who has been in a coma for the past 17 years. Eluana Englaro was left in a vegetative state after a car crash in 1992. After a decade-long court battle, doctors reduced her nutrition on Friday in preparation for removing her feeding tubes, which her father claims would be in accordance with her wishes.

But in an extraordinary turn of events, the country's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, after consultation with the Vatican [which the Vatican denies], has issued an emergency decree stating that food and water cannot be suspended for any patient depending upon them, reversing the earlier court ruling. On issuing the emergency decree, Berlusconi declared: "This is murder. I would be failing to rescue her. I'm not a Pontius Pilate."

Justifying his campaign to save Englaro's life, the prime minister added that, physically at least, she was "in the condition to have babies", a remark described by La Stampa newspaper as "shocking". Giorgio Napolitano, Italy's president, has refused to sign the decree, but if it is ratified by the Italian parliament doctors may be obliged to resume the feeding of Eluana early this week.

But, in a moving interview with the Observer, Eluana's father Beppino said last week that the doctors were carrying out his daughter's wishes by allowing her to die. "If she couldn't be what she was (before the accident in 1992) then she would not have wanted to live". [Hearsay, though I suppose if there's been a court battle, this has been weighed by competent authorities.]

The case has deeply divided Italian society and raised concerns over the influence of the Vatican. Yesterday Pope Benedict indirectly referred to Englaro in a message delivered to mark the World Day of the Sick, stating that society had a duty to defend "the absolute and supreme dignity of every human being" even when "weak and shrouded in the mystery of suffering". But even some of Berlusconi's political allies, including the president of the lower house of parliament, Gianfranco Fini, have stated that the supreme court ruling should be obeyed and Englaro should be allowed to die.

Opposition leader Walter Veltroni, of the centre-left Democratic party, said the government should leave the Englaro family in peace and warned that Berlusconi's intervention "could cause a very dangerous constitutional crisis". Last night demonstrations in support of Eluana's right to die and the supreme court ruling were taking place across Italy.

[Details of the woman's planned death are elaborated upon here.] The process means the Englaro family and their doctors are now in a race against time as they try to end Eluana's life before the Berlusconi government and its backers in the Vatican halt the process.

Beppino, 67, was last night in the family home in Lecco, 30 miles north of Milan, caring for his wife and Eluana's mother, Saturna, who is gravely ill with cancer. After a long, agonising fight to allow his daughter to die, he described the government's last-ditch attempts as "a grotesque attack on my family".

Prior to issuing the decree, Berlusconi was involved in frantic telephone exchanges with the Vatican head of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone [See above about this alleged conversation and note the complete misunderstanding of Bertone's role as secretary of state], who implored the prime minister to prevent Eluana's death. The cardinal reportedly told Berlusconi: "We have to stop this crime against humanity."

Doctors have confirmed that, after 17 years and with such catastrophic brain damage, Eluana will never regain consciousness or awareness. The anaesthetist caring for her, Professor Antonio de Monte, said: "Eluana died 17 years ago."

A Strategy After FOCA

I've written the following even though it mostly sums up and rehashes various points already made by many commentators out there. However, I write it because I have never seen articulated to the degree I'd like it to be (or maybe it's just my failure in looking) the strategy of finding common ground between social conservatives and libertarians. Given that Republicans shortly will no longer be in power in any branch of government, it presumes a return to power sometime in the future. In the meantime, they must work to follow the principles here at the party level until that future arrives...

I've been thinking about abortion for a long time, about how we can best counter it and the various strategies being followed today. We all agree that abortion is bad, it cheapens human life and takes us down the slippery slope. The question how to best combat abortion. On the one hand, there is the option of a federal amendment that would completely criminalize abortion as murder anywhere in the United States. This would take Roe v. Wade totally out of the equation. On the other hand, there is the option of simply seeing Roe v. Wade overturned and have the issue of abortion kicked back to the states for their own legislatures to consider. This has been the most publicized option with Supreme Court nominees coming under the microscope for their views and, in extreme cases like Bork, sent away. I believe that the second option, though coming more and more under attack for being ineffective, is still the best hope for dealing with abortion.

First, it is important to consider why the Supreme Court option is coming under attack. Critics out there point to the fact that even though Republicans have held the presidency six terms to three since Roe v. Wade was decided, the balance of the Supreme Court has never apparently been enough to overturn that decision. This has led to the idea that Republican presidents are not committed to the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade and are merely using the Christian segments of the Republican base to get elected and are then washing their hands of the issue until the next election. Critics point especially to the justices appointed by Bush 41, moderates who have trended more liberal than conservative in their decision making. They also point to Bush 43, who before the outcry over his first choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, nominated one of his close confidants who was more a Bush loyalist than a small government jurist with strong credentials.

Some critics who have come to see the Supreme Court option as a red herring point instead to an all encompassing federal constitutional amendment as being the better option. While this avenue bypasses the judicial branch altogether, it does have its own drawbacks. The chief drawback is that the three different procedures for amending the US Constitution given by that document are all quite lengthy or convoluted. One example is the 27th Amendment, which was proposed along with the Bill of Rights, but not ratified itself until 1992. A second one is the Equal Rights Amendment, which despite broad support, has consistently failed. Another drawback is that even if the constitution is appropriately amended, it would still be interpreted by the Supreme Court; if that court should come to be dominated by activist jurists, the amendment would be interpreted into toothlessness.

It all leads back to the Supreme Court and who is sitting on the bench. In order to prevent disillusionment, it is important to temper expectations. An outright majority of small government jurists should not be expected to overturn Roe v. Wade at the drop of a hat. Rather, it should be expected that they would over time and in concert with lower court judges of the same outlook set up a legal framework to counteract the activist bent seen in the federal judiciary over the last few decades. A slow and steady approach has the virtue of not causing a harsh reaction in favor of preserving the status quo. Once the Supreme Court and lower courts of the federal system set in place a rational system that is not going to legislate from the bench and that is going to respect the natural rights of all citizens, the high court can tackle the chief issue itself.

In conclusion, the abortion issue must be argued in a natural law framework. Too often, the pro-life cause is both identified by others and by itself through its religious framework. This is counterproductive for a number of reasons, the chief of which being that people don't like to give up their rights, even if those rights aren't real rights. Unless the paradigm of the argument itself is altered, it is destined to continue to fail. Social conservatives and liberatarians in the United States can make common cause if social conservatives change their language from a biblical one to a natural law one and if libertarians can be shown that rights for their own sake are not rights at all.

Out of the East

You all know Spengler, the columnist at Asia Times Online. At least I hope you do. It surprises me how little play he gets in the Catholic blogosphere given how often he talks about the Catholic Church and his obvious admiration for Benedict XVI.

Anyway, he has a new piece posted about the recent conference in Rome with a group of Muslim scholars. Spengler refers to the conference as a 'pyrrhic propaganda victory' for the Church. The Soviet example:

Leonid Brezhnev left the 1975 Helsinki meetings on European security
cooperation convinced that he had won an enormous concession - final recognition of the Soviet Union's postwar borders - in return for lip service to human rights that the communist regime never could or would provide. "Instead," wrote Cold War historian John Gaddis, the Helsinki Accords "gradually became a manifesto of the dissident and liberal movement ... What this meant was that the people who lived under these systems - at least the more courageous - could claim official permission to say what they thought."

The Jewish "refusenik" Natan Sharansky became a symbol of Soviet human rights violation, and president Ronald Reagan's personal support for the dissidents - often over objections of his diplomats - introduced hairline fractures into Soviet Power.

On contrast to this, Spengler describes the concessions of the Muslim scholars in Rome. After much negotiation, they agreed in their statement to pledge their adherence to the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights. Spengler points out the problem with this:

The fact that the attending Muslim scholars - who have no authority over the laws of Muslim countries - piggy-backed on the UN Declaration of Human Rights does not augur well for the "Helsinki" strategy. After all, having signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights does not in the least inhibit Muslim governments from persecuting non-Muslims in their own countries; why should the affirmation of such rights by a group of Muslim scholars have any additional impact?

Spengler then goes on to discuss the superficial agreement between Catholics and Muslims on abortion, but he makes the argument that the two religions have fundamentally different outlooks on God's relationship with Man:

[...] At best the conflation of the Islamic and Judeo-Christian concept of love is an exercise in self-deception. For those who find the theological arguments obscure, I suggest searching the word "love" in any of several online versions of the Koran, and doing the same in the online Bible, and comparing its frequency and context. Even more simply, try a Google search on the respect terms, "God loves you" and "Allah loves you".

The column concludes with a look at Tariq Ramadan's participation in the conference and a look at the consequences of a photo op with the Pope. Spengler ends with a brief paragraph and I join my hopes to his:

Ramadan, as Sandro Magister observed, portrayed the November 4-7 meeting as a rollback of Benedict's Regensburg speech. I hope the pope proves him wrong.

Thoughts This November

UPDATE (11/16/08 1259): Ed over at Hot Air examines the response of the Charleston diocese and quotes a bit of Scripture:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

----------

It's getting on into November and with the failing of the year, it's both dark and rainy. It's about five in the afternoon and it's already night out.

In the spirit of Father Z's post about a reform of the calendar, I want to bring up a few thoughts.

1. For those out there who think that no harm would come from playing with the 1962 calendar, I urge you all to think again. Just look at the fact there is a faction of the Russian Orthodox Church that is referred to as the Old Calendarists. Moving from Julian to Gregorian time seems not a big deal, but it was to them. Messing with the 1962 calendar with rearrangements and all that would just not be smart if you're looking to increase unity, not decrease it.

2. In case you missed it, Father Jay Scott Newman's piece for his parish in South Carolina has made national news (a nod to Father Z whose post is informative).

Father Newman's first point is not something I am qualified to expound upon beyond the most superficial reading as a layman. However, I would like to point at the comments left for the article at the local newspaper's website. They are quite scary in how they illustrate just how the Catholic Church is disliked and even hated. Not that we needed any reminder, but it's still an important lesson. When I was a boy, my grandmother told me the story of how a cross was burned in her neighbors' yard. Her neighbors though weren't black, they were Catholic.

Father Newman's second point is worth repeating lest we fall into the same trap with Obama those did who disliked Bush:

Barack Obama, although we must always and everywhere disagree with him over abortion, has been duly elected the next President of the United States, and after he takes the Oath of Office next January 20th, he will hold legitimate authority in this nation. For this reason, we are obliged by Scriptural precept to pray for him and to cooperate with him whenever conscience does not bind us otherwise. Let us hope and pray that the responsibilities of the presidency and the grace of God will awaken in the conscience of this extraordinarily gifted man an awareness that the unholy slaughter of children in this nation is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the United States and constitutes a clear and present danger to the common good. In the time of President Obama’s service to our country, let us pray for him in the words of a prayer found in the Roman Missal:

God our Father, all earthly powers must serve you. Help our President-elect, Barack Obama, to fulfill his responsibilities worthily and well. By honoring and striving to please you at all times, may he secure peace and freedom for the people entrusted to him. We ask this through Our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever.

Amen.