The President, The Pope, And Women's Reproductive Rights

Two powerful men discuss the reproductive rights of women like the one trailing silently behind in black.

From most accounts it seems that President Obama and Pope Benedict had a mutually beneficial chat. While agreeing to disagree on legal abortion, they do seem to have agreed that reducing abortions is a mutually common goal. They also agreed on the necessity for conscience protection clauses, the Middle East, global economics, and protection for the poor. They may not have agreed on the how's of how all this will be accomplished, but they do agree on the why's. Both men seemed to genuinely like and admire each other and that is a good thing.

The Pope gave PO a lot of reading material and PO gave the Pope the stole used by St. John Neumann and a letter from Senator Ted Kennedy. No one knows what was in the letter, but Senator Kennedy is facing terminal brain cancer and one can surmise Papal prayers can't hurt his prognosis. It was a nice gesture on the part of President Obama to take the time to deliver this letter. It serves as a reminder that no matter how global the concerns of the Pope and the President, in the end both are most effective on the individual level.

I am very glad to see the abortion issue being reframed around reduction because I think the idea of reducing abortions, and the attendant support systems being discussed, will have far greater impact on women choosing to carry pregnancies to full term. The reason I believe this is because it places the emphasis on a positive approach to women and pregnancy. In a sense it says it's not their duty or moral obligation to have children, but a gift they can choose to give and which society will support in the giving.

Our historical approach to women and pregnancy has been mostly a reactionary approach, determined by men who are totally and irrevocably dependent on women to give them children. Instead of seeing pregnancy as a gift of the woman,--a gift which came with a lot of personal risk--it was made her legal obligation and duty.

Reproduction does represent the one area in which men have no real control. They can't have their own children. Most of what passes for natural sexual morality seems to me to be a reaction to this fact. Women, their uteruses, and their children became the property of men very early in the Judeo Christian tradition. For women, producing and raising as many children as possible became a religious, legal, and cultural duty. Providing children was not seen as a gift of the mother. Pregnancy was seen as both an affirmation of male potency and a gift from God. The fact this gift from God frequently resulted in the death of the mother was explained by the fact Eve's sin brought this pain, suffering, and death thing into the equation. Men were blameless and victims of the whole mysterious process.

It's not surprising, given this history, that the whole notion of female reproductive choice is a red flag. It's an almost unconscious atavistic reaction, especially in patriarchal cultures. Churches still consider and teach that notions of fertility goddesses, earth worship, and other forms of female pantheism are the height (or dregs) of paganism. In some respects Catholic Mariology is the antithesis of and male answer to these pagan notions of enshrining female fertility. Catholics celebrate female virginity in the form of Mary with what can be seen as a cultic fervor. This fervor has effectively supported the doctrine that the choice for virginity is the sole reproductive choice Catholic women can make and the only one which is really celebrated. After that sole choice has gone by the way side, women are supposed to be obedient to male leadership and the vagaries of their reproductive systems. Theoretically men are bound by the same reproductive choice, but the consequences of failure to comply are rarely condemned with equal vehemence--except in the case of gay men.

It's hard for me to believe that President Obama sees that the only reproductive choice his daughters have is whether or not they will continue to be virgins. It is also conceivable to me that he personally doesn't agree with abortion and would be conflicted beyond belief should his daughters ever face such a choice.

Part of that conflict is that he truly does respect the right of women to control their own bodies as much as he respects his right to control his own body. He is also a father, knows the joy of bringing children into the world and is very much aware of the fact he can't do it himself. He truly sees his children as gifts from Michelle, rather than as obligations on her part to him. On this level there is a real fundamental difference between President Obama and Pope Benedict and it may well be irreconcilable.

We need to start seeing children and pregnancy as gifts given by women to their partners and that both choose to give to the greater culture. We can no longer insist pregnancy is a woman's duty or moral obligation. To do so demeans and cheapens both the process of pregnancy and the children that are the result. When children are seen as real gifts that women choose to give from love, men are far less likely to see them as cannon fodder--their children or anyone else's children.

When pregnancy is enforced as a moral and legal given, children are not truly gifts. They are commodities of the system. There is no dignity in being a commodity. Forcing choice on women only exacerbates this perception. Uplifting pregnant women and providing for their needs is a sound moral strategy in reducing abortions and ennobling the resultant children.

I think it's great that both Pope Benedict and President Obama have essentially agreed they can support this strategy. If it works and reduces abortion, maybe the idea of women's reproductive choice won't be seen as total anathema in certain circles. Celebrating and supporting a woman's choice to bring children in the world may go much further than repeatedly condemning the whole notion of women even having a reproductive choice.

And no, I don't expect the tried and true believers on either side of this debate to agree with me, but it's nice to see both PO and PB can see this concept of abortion reduction as a valid starting point. It's a starting point which may lead to places neither one can foresee, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for either of these two powerful men and could be a great thing for all the women and children who weren't privy to their manly discussion.

Is this a meeting between two global peace and justice socialists, or a trip to the wood shed for President Obama?

The Pope and Peoria

By Anthony Stevens Arroyo, Washington Post

For decades now, politics in the United States has tested relevance to Middle America by asking: "How will it play in Peoria?" The new papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, is a nuanced and carefully worded document of considerable length on the economic and social morality of globalization. I predict it will be the signature encyclical of the pontificate of Benedict XVI. But it won't play in Peoria. (It didn't play out too well in the world of Catholic neocons. George Weigel was downright insulting.)

Caritas in Veritate makes two assertions that will limit its appeal to Catholic America. First, the issue of abortion is made one of many and removed from the center stage of political issues. The pope sidesteps the argument that the primary political concern of Catholicism is to abolish abortion. This will surprise folks outside the Church who have caricatured Catholicism as a Johnny-one-note on political issues. More importantly, this papal encyclical will disappoint the American Catholics - laity and clergy alike -- who have considered abortion as the intrinsic evil that compels all the church's political attention.

(It's probably more accurate to say that this encyclical will disappoint those pro life Catholics who see the criminalization of abortion as the primary political concern of Catholicism.)

I am not suggesting that the encyclical revokes Catholic opposition to abortion (see #28). However, the pontiff contextualizes pro-life teaching by calling for remedies to the socio-economic causes of abortion, and much of the encyclical is dedicated to various aspects of how to end poverty and uplift the world's population with ample food, clean water, educational opportunities and the like (#43-51). Catholic Democrats will rightly consider this papal document to legitimize their alternative approach to Pro-life politics over the abortion-only policies that sounded very "Republican Party." Thus, the current divide in Catholic America will not be bridged with this instruction from Benedict XVI. In fact, the pope gives ammunition to the pro-life Democrats in their effort to reduce the number of abortions by addressing larger social issues. (Pope Benedict did call for remedies to the socio-economic causes for abortion but he didn't exactly endorse artificial birth control as an alternative to unwanted pregnancies. Nor did he address the fact that abortion is the birth control solution in too many impoverished countries.)

The second anti-Peoria directive is in sections #21-25 where Caritas in Veritate advocates governmental redistribution of wealth. The pope says governments should redistribute wealth to sustain domestic social services and whenever granting international aid. Unions are to be encouraged (#22, 25), immigrant workers are to be respected (#25), and the profit motive must be subordinated to morality and social justice (#35-37). The redistribution of wealth and energy with emphasis upon the quality of life fits the European context of a mostly Socialist economy better than the current economic structures of the United States. The culprits in a global economy, according to the pope are Capitalism and secularism (#37-38). (These are the ideas which have gone over like a lead balloon with Catholic conservatives. Apparently they prefer being trusted to take care of the poor from their own largesse on their own terms. Sort of the charity version of 'trickle down' economics.)

Although I believe Pope Benedict is insightful in his analysis, I do not think his words will play in Peoria. Many Catholics in America have absorbed the pro-Capitalist phobia against socialized medicine, government redistribution of wealth by taxation and anti-business regulations to protect the environment. When this encyclical urges socialist measures upon Catholics, Benedict XVI places the Church on the right side of history and the left side of U.S. politics. (On some of these issues Pope Benedict is quite to the left of President Obama.)

I suspect that there will be mighty few sermons in America next Sunday from Catholic pulpits to praise the papal message! The general message of love and truth will surely be lauded, but there will be little attention paid to details. Admittedly, a Sunday sermon is not the best setting to educate Catholics about the nuanced positions of papal teaching. Moreover, the political implications of the encyclical on this side of the Atlantic make it a hot-wire item, especially for Catholic Republicans. And while making Benedict into an Obama supporter will prove to be a temptation impossible for some to refuse, in fact, the papal teaching goes well beyond the proposals of Mr. Obama. Pope Benedict's teaching on social responsibility in an age of globalization, I fear, will not be understood or appreciated by most of Catholic America.

(I actually read one commentary from a conservative site in which the author states that the average Catholic really doesn't need to read this encyclical, as it's nothing particularly new, unlike Benedict's first two encyclicals.)

Globalization - a term so feared by those who suffer from the power of greedy corporations - is viewed by Pope Benedict as neutral itself, with the potential to reflect the "the unity of the human family and its development towards what is good" (#42). But it is not yet on the radar screen in most of Catholic America. (It will be on more Catholic radars as more US Catholics find themselves incapable of living above the poverty line.)

Rather than a hammered-together political platform, Caritas in Veritate might best be considered a packet of seeds. The long-term impact of this teaching is years into the future. The day morality intrudes into the market place decisions of governments will be the day that the encyclical flowers.

*******************************************************

It's been fun to read conservative responses to Pope Benedict's encyclical. So far Caritas en Veritate has certainly focused the light on the truth that Conservative American Catholics are as cafeteria in their approach to the fullness of Catholic teaching as they have so loving accused their coreligionists on the left. This latest encyclical and the response to it, has certainly shown that Cafeteria Catholicism is a big tent.

One would hope that the biggest serving in the tent would be some humility, but somehow I doubt it. George Weigel in his review of this encyclical certainly showed zero humility or much respect for Benedict's intelligence. He blames most of the passages on wealth redistribution on loser social justice types from Paul VI's era. Come to think of it, he doesn't show much respect for Paul VI either. Even I never questioned Benedict's intelligence, although I might have said something about living in an Ivory Tower.

In the meantime, the oft called socialist President Obama has met with the newly minted socialist Pope Benedict. As of this writing there hasn't been much said about the meeting, only that it lasted twenty five minutes and that Pope Benedict tweaked his usual protocol and allowed for television coverage before their private meeting. Oh, and they did exchange gifts which I guess could be taken to mean they honored each other, but somehow I doubt there will be much of a hue and cry from the Cardinal Newman Society. They are probably too busy burning up phone lines and email accounts trying to figure out how to spin Caritas en Veritate for their true blue Catholic colleges into something which elevates free market capitalism to heavenly status. Good luck with that one.

In my opinion this encyclical will be prophetic for a couple of very important reasons. It's the first time this papacy has made a real effort to put some balance in the equation between social justice issues and family life issues. This is important because it's damn difficult to have much of a family life when the family can't sustain life. The inability of so many of our fellow humans to sustain life is the basis for the real culture of death. Weigel and his neo con buddies would prefer we ignored how much American interventionist policies and corporate greed have played into maintaining and creating that culture. That culture of death currently has one billion people on this planet facing starvation and millions here in the US one or two steps above starvation.

In my book placing criminalization of abortion before social justice is akin to a farmer throwing out seeds on an asphalt parking lot, believing it doesn't matter if they ever grow, just that they are given the chance to grow. I suspect in the discussion between President Obama and Pope Benedict on the the abortion issue, it wasn't about the criminalization of abortion, it was about providing access to a life style which sustains a culture of life. That is change the whole world wants to believe in and that is where real security for all peoples and all nations can be found. It's not found in Standard and Poors, or armies and armaments, it's found in the Beatitudes, and both men share common ground on those talking points.

Pope Benedict On The Questions And Choices Raised By Technology

The section of Pope Benedict's encyclical which deals with technology is longer than the three paragraphs I have extracted below. I think these paragraphs make his basic case, with the others delineating specific examples of what he writes here. In the interests of commentary and readability, I am going to break up these three extensive paragraphs. The italics with in the text are Pope Benedict's, the sentences in bold type face are my emphasis.

70. Technological development can give rise to the idea that technology is self-sufficient when too much attention is given to the “how” questions, and not enough to the many “why” questions underlying human activity. For this reason technology can appear ambivalent. (Operative for me is that while technology can appear ambivalent, but it is not ambivalent at it's core. The 'why' questions are critically important precisely because it's people who use technology, and people are not value free.)

Produced through human creativity as a tool of personal freedom, technology can be understood as a manifestation of absolute freedom, the freedom that seeks to prescind from the limits inherent in things. The process of globalization could replace ideologies with technology[152], allowing the latter to become an ideological power that threatens to confine us within an a priori that holds us back from encountering being and truth. Were that to happen, we would all know, evaluate and make decisions about our life situations from within a technocratic cultural perspective to which we would belong structurally, without ever being able to discover a meaning that is not of our own making. (One of the clearest example of this is the misuse of media technology, which Benedict deals with in paragraph 73 of this encyclical.)

The “technical” worldview that follows from this vision is now so dominant that truth has come to be seen as coinciding with the possible. But when the sole criterion of truth is efficiency and utility, development is automatically denied. (Efficiency and utility have their place, but when pursued to for their own sake, man loses his own place.)

True development does not consist primarily in “doing”. The key to development is a mind capable of thinking in technological terms and grasping the fully human meaning of human activities, within the context of the holistic meaning of the individual's being.

Even when we work through satellites or through remote electronic impulses, our actions always remain human, an expression of our responsible freedom. Technology is highly attractive because it draws us out of our physical limitations and broadens our horizon. But human freedom is authentic only when it responds to the fascination of technology with decisions that are the fruit of moral responsibility. Hence the pressing need for formation in an ethically responsible use of technology. Moving beyond the fascination that technology exerts, we must reappropriate the true meaning of freedom, which is not an intoxication with total autonomy, but a response to the call of being, beginning with our own personal being.

71. This deviation from solid humanistic principles that a technical mindset can produce is seen today in certain technological applications in the fields of development and peace. Often the development of peoples is considered a matter of financial engineering, the freeing up of markets, the removal of tariffs, investment in production, and institutional reforms — in other words, a purely technical matter. (These issues are never purely technical because, as Benedict points out, the technological or engineering approaches serve first a particular philisophical mindset. No amount of technological wizardry should be allowed to cloud this fundamental fact.)

All these factors are of great importance, but we have to ask why technical choices made thus far have yielded rather mixed results. We need to think hard about the cause. Development will never be fully guaranteed through automatic or impersonal forces, whether they derive from the market or from international politics. Development is impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are finely attuned to the requirements of the common good. (People who see that their fellow humans are more than votes and more than consumers, more than ends to their own means.)

Both professional competence and moral consistency are necessary. When technology is allowed to take over, the result is confusion between ends and means, such that the sole criterion for action in business is thought to be the maximization of profit, in politics the consolidation of power, and in science the findings of research. Often, underneath the intricacies of economic, financial and political interconnections, there remain misunderstandings, hardships and injustice. The flow of technological know-how increases, but it is those in possession of it who benefit, while the situation on the ground for the peoples who live in its shadow remains unchanged: for them there is little chance of emancipation. (I think the point that Benedict is making here is that once one falls into the technological world view one begins to see people as nouns, not 'beings'. Things to be used, things to be controlled, things to be examined, problems to be solved.)

Following these two paragraphs, Benedict develops this thinking further with regard to the media, and biological research with heavy emphasis on the apparent amorality of reproductive technologies and end of life issues. He puts forth the idea that "the conscience is simply invited to take note of technological possibilities." There's a lot of truth in that observation. He follows this up with concerns about the splitting of man's spiritual self from his material self, as the technological mind set can not account for the mysterious spiritual side of man.

Benedict then ends this section on technology with the following paragraph which serves also as the introduction to his conclusion:

77. The supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from recognizing anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter alone. Yet everyone experiences the many immaterial and spiritual dimensions of life. Knowing is not simply a material act, since the object that is known always conceals something beyond the empirical datum.

All our knowledge, even the most simple, is always a minor miracle, since it can never be fully explained by the material instruments that we apply to it. In every truth there is something more than we would have expected, in the love that we receive there is always an element that surprises us. We should never cease to marvel at these things. In all knowledge and in every act of love the human soul experiences something “over and above”, which seems very much like a gift that we receive, or a height to which we are raised. The development of individuals and peoples is likewise located on a height, if we consider the spiritual dimension that must be present if such development is to be authentic. It requires new eyes and a new heart, capable of rising above a materialistic vision of human events, capable of glimpsing in development the “beyond” that technology cannot give. By following this path, it is possible to pursue the integral human development that takes its direction from the driving force of charity in truth.

*****************************************************

I'm not surprised that Benedict devoted so many words to the conflicts between a technological mindset and the idea of man progressing in wisdom and knowledge. I think the points he makes in this section are the really prophetic aspects of this encyclical. I also know they aren't particularly new observations. It may just be that they are timely observations.

The technological mindset is an outgrowth of Newtonian physics and the scientific method. It tends to be reductionist in outlook rather than expansive. Spirituality moves in the opposite direction. It's expansive and inclusive, reflecting on the why, rather than the how. It doesn't operate like Newtonian physics in that it doesn't necessarily give reproducible answers. Spirituality is pretty personal and idiosyncratic, and because of that, it's a world view that spawns creativity, not conformity or reproducibility. It allows the freedom to think new thoughts and 'see' new things into being.

Technological breakthroughs would not exist without mankind's capacity for creative thought.

We may know how neurons fire to produce the creative thought, but we are blind as to the why's of the generation of the thought. Something is going on beyond our capacity to reduce thought to it's constituent components. I think we sometimes lose site of the simple fact we are far more than predictable constituent components. We find ourselves in conflict with our need to control vs our need to create.

Like Benedict I firmly believe if we approach human problem solving from a strictly technological or engineering model we are doomed to failure. Humanity, as either individuals or social communities, does not lend itself to reductionist models. Something more is always going on, will always raise it's head, will not have been predicted. Rather than fearing or trying to control that unpredictability, it should be celebrated, because without it there is no progress.

It seems to me humanity is at a cross roads. We can sell our souls to the technology that merely mirrors our innate spiritual capacities (and 95% of the time is out of our control because it is dependant on energy delivery systems), or we can promote individual spiritual progress which is always at our choice. We can take the freedom of the path of the mystic, or the inbuilt dependence of the technological path. In the one case technology serves the path, in the other technology controls the path. One leads to true species advancement, and one leads to counterfeit illusions of advancement. The choice is ours.

Pope Benedict's Encyclical "Caritas in veritate" --Truly Global In His Thinking

Pope Benedict's encyclical "Caritas in veritate" while an extension of his two previous encyclicals, is in my humble opinion, one of his very best works. You can read it in it's entirety here. The following are some excerpts, which struck me forcefully, but not always for the reasons he wrote them.

In reading these excerpts, it's probably good to keep in mind that one of Benedict's main points is that men and women are works in progress, and that progress is defined in spiritual as well as material terms. We also have a moral duty to pursuit our individual progress in an environment of common communal good, with a spiritually oriented ability to relate from truth and love--from a Catholic Christian perspective. So here goes:

Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual. (Openess to life also means openness to the idea of future generations and our need to be responsible in leaving them something with which to survive on. However, what also struck me about this paragraph is that the celibate male clerical system Benedict leads is by it's very nature a counter witness to what he writes here. If any group has given itself permission to "employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own (childless) citizens", it is the celibate male clerical Roman Catholic priesthood.)

The truth of globalization as a process and its fundamental ethical criterion are given by the unity of the human family and its development towards what is good. Hence a sustained commitment is needed so as to promote a person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide integration that is open to transcendence. (This is a profound paragraph and I fully understand what he means when he insists on the importance of transcendence as the goal of world-wide globalization and integration. The other alternative is exploitation and the world has had enough of that.)

Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource. Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs. Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure effective forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant confidence in the future and moral weariness. (Although I disagree him on what constitutes 'morally responsible' openness to life, and with his analysis of population benefits---at least in terms of his refusal to see the direct correlation between over population and poverty---I do heartily agree with this point: "These situations are symptomatic of scant confidence in the future and moral weariness." I think this is really true for the West as we have all had to grow up under the threat of nuclear annihilation as the principle fruit of two world wars. We had no reason to believe all those nuclear weapons and all the money they represented were never going to be used--even if accidentally. Why would you want to bring future generations in the world if you knew you were a prime target for a nuclear strike and didn't believe the world would survive it?)

This is not merely a matter of a “third sector”, (Here he's talking about corporations which exist not only for profit but also the common good) but of a broad new composite reality embracing the private and public spheres, one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a means for achieving human and social ends. Whether such companies distribute dividends or not, whether their juridical structure corresponds to one or other of the established forms, becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society. (This is a shout out to corporations like Ben and Jerry's, and we can sure use more of those.)

The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences[122]. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments.”

(Shifting one's mentality calls not only for conversion, but for credible examples. The only other method of adapting new lifestyles is to be forced into it. Something which seems to be happening full bore in the West. The real moral choice will come when the old lifestyle is once again achievable. Hopefully most of us will see it's no longer a valid or moral choice. Maybe we will have learned that living simply also means living with more freedom.)

Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between reason and religious faith. Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous price to human development. (I wonder how many conservative traditionalists will read 'secularism' and then gloss over 'fundamentalism'. Both truly do exclude notions of human development. I also appreciated his careful use of the word 'religion' as needing to be purified by reason to show it's authentic human face. I flashed on Cardinal Cardoso vs Cardinal Fisichelli in the Brazillian rape case. It's an important point about the need for respectful reasoned dissent and dialogue with in religions, especially with regard to doctrine and dogma.)

In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all. (This is the operative assumption now being pursued by Bill Gates and others. In essence it's about investing in the ability of future consumers to buy corporate products which helps insure the corporate generational future.)

What is meant by the word “decency” in regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living. (Nice synopsis of Catholic social justice teaching on the meaning of work. Now if only all Catholic enterprises took this to heart--also Catholic neocons and theocons.)

(Italics are Benedict's.)

To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, (This is essentially a call to put some teeth into the UN and other global regulatory agencies. He doesn't mean the New Apostolic Reformation and their desire to rule the world for Jesus. There is a great deal in this encyclical which will not be well received by such groups.)

******************************************************

These extracts came from approximately the first half of Benedict's encyclical. Tomorrow I will extract some things from the latter half. I am totally impressed with the scope of this encyclical as Benedict touches on all kinds of factors and issues confronting mankind in the realms of social justice and globilization. I will probably take substantial chunks of his thinking on technology because he raises very crucial points about mankind's future, not only about the impact of technology on our material future, but also on our anthropological future. Technology and transcendence do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Although this encyclical takes some time to read, it's well worth the effort. There's some really good stuff in it, some food for real thought. I can easily imagine President Obama getting a crash course on it before his meeting with Benedict on Friday. Actually, I can imagine PO reading it himself. There's definitely some quotable material in it for PO to use back home concerning certain pending legislation.

Speaking of President Obama, sure was nice to read that the US and the Russians have agreed to reduce nuclear armaments by one third. That's a good start to a nuclear free future. Maybe Benedict will give him some sort of honor for that--or maybe not.

Air Force Says No To Jets For Jesus

Talk to Action is reporting that over this past weekend a military fly over was denied for the Nampa, Idaho God and Country rally. The fly overs had been done in the past for this unabashed mix of Evangelical Christianity and it's unique concept of patriotism. The past participation of the Air Force was a direct violation of Department of Defense regulations regarding ceremonial flyovers. The Talk to Action article has the entire letter of denial sent from the Air Force.

The following excerpt from the same article is the response from the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition. It's a great example of how the rules for the rest of us don't apply to Christian conservatives.

"For years, flyovers have been allowed by the Pentagon at the 'God and Country Rally' in Nampa Idaho. These flyovers were not to endorse or promote any one religious faith tradition. Rather, they were held to honor and pay tribute to our heroic men and women who have served or are currently serving in our armed forces. (Did this honoring include atheistic, agnostic, Islamic, Jewish or gay men and women?)

"For the Obama Administration to deny a flyover for the first time, is a slap in the face to all those who proudly serve our country especially when we are at war. These flyovers have been a special part of the 'God and Country Rally' for many years. (Technically the Department of Defense denied the fly over, and legally they should never have occurred at all. Not for the God and Country rally and not for any other patriotic rally with any religious over tones.)

"Will the new policy of President Obama be that a person has to surrender their faith tradition to honor and pay tribute to our courageous men and women who serve in the military? (One does not have to surrender one's faith tradition. The military can not single out any faith tradition for special recognition, a legality that was consistently violated for Christian events.)

"With respect to the economic concerns that the Pentagon mentioned, I would answer this way. If we can pay hundreds thousands of dollars for President Obama to go on a date with his wife to see a Broadway show and have an expensive dinner in New York City, we can certainly find a way to honor our brave men and women who serve in the armed services with a simple flyover.
"The Christian Defense Coalition will diligently work to reverse this unjust policy and determine why this flyover was denied in the first place." (Wow, wonderful straw man argument. One can't help wonder if the same kind of argument would have been used for all of GW's trips to Crawford----on the tax payer's dime.)

"Does this mean in the future that all public rallies must be stripped of any expressions of faith to respect our military? This Administration should be protecting religious expression in the public square not crushing it. (How is denying a fly over which clearly violates military law crushing religious expression in the public square? You still had your religious expression. You just didn't have any Air Force planes fly over the public square.)

"I hope that President Obama will reverse this unjust policy and next year we will be allowed to give the military the honor they deserve." (I'm sure every military person who is not Christian hopes that the Department of Defense maintains the law and does not reverse this denial.)

*************************************************

Why is it when Christian groups are not given preferential treatment, when they are treated like any other civilian group, it's state oppression? Could it be because these Christian groups actually think they are better than the rest of us, and deserve preferential treatment? Is it because they somehow think they have rights the rest of us don't? Or is it just because they've always gotten away with it in the past and now don't think the rules apply to them?

The Department of Defense is finally waking up to the abuses of separation of Church and state in our military, and it's about time. Evangelicals have had a relatively free hand to proselytize and push their religious agenda for way too long. So long in fact, some reasonable people see it as not just an internal security issue, but a serious morale issue effecting unit cohesiveness and mission. The exact thing Evangelicals are very quick to claim about gay service members.

As I've written before this has become one of my major concerns. The US Military is in the business of acting on the decisions of secular authority which is why the POTUS is the Commander in Chief. They are not supposed to be in the business of furthering one particular view of one particular religion. That's what the military in Iran is about.

It's getting tiring to hear the same mantra from conservative religious concerns that they are facing oppression when they don't get their entire way in the public square. It's getting tiring to hear that they are an oppressed minority when too much of their business seems to be oppressing the rights of minorities. Playing the victim card because the law puts boundaries on your behavior is getting very very old. Thank God the Air Force finally got this one right.

As for me, I got to watch the Navy's Blue Angels the previous weekend and they are awesome, and yes this was a strictly secular event. In their practice runs they flew right over my house, and the way it shook, it seemed like they were 10 feet above tree top level. Looked like it too. I thought it was a rush, but my cats didn't. I also thought that if this had been for real, I would have reacted just like my cats. There is a terribly beauty about these planes, and I have incredible respect for the people who fly them. I pray that the day will come when the only time the world experiences their terrible beauty is for celebratory fly overs---secular ones.

A Pro Life Archbishop Gets The Progressive Treatment At Retirement

Pope accepts resignation of Brazilian who spoke about girl's abortion

By Cindy WoodenCatholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) --

Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the resignation of the Brazilian archbishop at the center of a controversy over excommunications related to the case of an abortion performed on a 9-year-old rape victim.

The pope accepted the resignation of Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife July 1, the day after the archbishop's 76th birthday. Under canon law, bishops must submit their resignations when they turn 75.

At the same time, 62-year-old Bishop Fernando Saburido of Sobral, Brazil, was named as his replacement. With the appointment, he automatically becomes an archbishop.

In early March doctors at a hospital in Recife performed an abortion on the girl, who was pregnant with twins, weighed a little more than 66 pounds and reportedly had been raped repeatedly by her stepfather from the time she was 6 years old. Abortion in Brazil is illegal except in cases of rape or if the mother's life is in danger.

Interviewed by the media after the abortion, Archbishop Sobrinho noted that abortion always was a sin and that, according to canon law, anyone participating in the abortion -- including the girl's mother and her doctors -- would automatically incur excommunication.

He told a newspaper that while it was true the child ran health risks if she continued the pregnancy, "the end does not justify the means. The good aim of saving her life cannot justify the killing of two other lives."

********************************************************

This has to be some sort of record for the acceptance of a resignation and the assignment of one archbishop for another--especially conservative. Archbishop Cardoso Sobrhino most certainly came under a great deal of world wide negative publicity for his stance in this particular case. His designate replacement, Bishop Saburido, also served in the past as an auxiliary bishop for his new archdiocese.

Lifesite News, a Canadian Catholic pro life site, has it's suspicions of what this speed of change is all about. They see Archbishop Cardoso as a heroic martyr to the pro life cause:

Heroically Pro-Life Brazilian Archbishop's Resignation Accepted Under Cloud of Vatican Newspaper Misrepresentation
By John-Henry Westen RECIFE, Brazil, July 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

This morning, the Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI accepted the resignation of Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the metropolitan archbishop of Olinda and Recife. The pope appointed Bishop Fernando Antonio Saburido as his successor. Pro-life activists around the world are very familiar with Archbishop Cardoso for his heroic defense of the unborn despite criticism he received even from Archbishop Salvatore (Rino) Fisichella, the President of Pontifical Academy for Life. (Pro life activists aren't the only people familiar with Archbishop Cardoso.)

The acceptance of his resignation at this time has raised many questions; however, there is no evidence to indicate that it was undertaken as a punitive measure. The Vatican announcement merely states that the archbishop's "resignation from the pastoral care of the same archdiocese the Holy Father accepted, upon having reached the age limit."

Bishops are required to submit a letter of resignation to the Pope on the completion of their 75th year, but accepting the resignation is at the discretion of the Pope. Archbishop Cardoso just turned 76 yesterday.

For his ardent defense of the lives of unborn twins, Archbishop Cardoso has been vilified in the media since February of this year. The media pounced on the archbishop due to his action in the very hard case of a nine-year-old girl who was raped by her step-father and was carrying twins.
The priest involved and Archbishop Cardoso himself did everything in their power to work with the family and the child to assist them with their needs and also to save the lives of the twins she was carrying. An international abortion lobby group was pushing the family to have the girl abort, apparently seeing the case as a golden opportunity to press for legal abortion in the nation. (Abortion in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life were already legal in Brazil. That fact makes this statement highly suspect.)

As a last-ditch effort to save the lives of the unborn twins, after the girl was moved by pro-abortion activists to an unknown location, the archbishop announced that those involved in procuring the abortions would suffer an automatic excommunication. (The Archbishop's announcement came after the abortion, not before.)

The international anti-life media jumped on the announcement, portraying the archbishop as heartless and cruel. At first the archbishop was defended by his confreres in the episcopate locally and also by the Vatican's Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops Cardinal Battista Re.
However, the relentless media attacks and falsifications, coupled with public denunciations from political leaders including Brazil's health minister as well as its President, began to affect even his brother bishops. (The bigger issue here is that Archbishop Cardoso made it very evident to the eyes of the world that the pre born were more important than the born. In a real sense he was saying the 'creation' is more important than the 'creator'. This is what prompted some of the remarks from his brother bishops.)

The most devastating rejection of Archbishop Cardoso's actions came from the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life in the pages of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Without ever having consulted his brother Archbishop in Brazil, Archbishop Fisichella launched what has been seen as a scathing attack on Archbishop Cardoso. (Maybe the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life understands his mission is to value all life equally, not just the pre born.)

Fisichella's Vatican newspaper article implied that Archbishop Cardoso had not been caring enough for the rape victim, that he had "hastily" announced the excommunication and defended the abortionists from excommunication. Criticism from other bishops around the world followed with two French bishops and a Canadian cardinal chiming in.

When Archbishop Cardoso requested that he be permitted to defend himself in the pages of the Vatican newspaper, and correct factul errors present in Fisichella's article, his request was declined.

The world's pro-life movement followed the story closely and were, especially due to this persecution, all the more endeared to Archbishop Cardoso. Human Life International put those sentiments into reality in April as it presented Archbishop Cardoso with a prestigious award recognizing his valiant defence of life.

The award was presented by Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula, JD, STD, head of HLI's bureau in Rome. LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Monsignor Barreiro about his reaction to Archbishop Cardoso's resignation.

"It is regrettable that his resignation has been accepted without an official clarification that defends him against the unjust accusations leveled against him by Archbishop Fisichella in his article of March 15," said Monsignor Barreiro. "Nevertheless it would be an act of justice if, even after the retirement of Archbishop Cardoso, that those clarifications would be published for two reasons.

Firstly, "To clarify the confusions created by Archbishop Fisichella with regard to extreme cases. It should be made absolutely clear that under no circumstances is an abortion permitted." And, secondly, "A clarification that would underline that Archbishop Cardoso and his archdiocese paid the best pastoral care to the young girl who eventually suffered the abortion."

**********************************************

Pro lifers will wait until hell freezes over before Archbishop Cardoso is given an apology or receives any act of 'justice' from the Vatican. The fact the pages of L'Osservatore Romano were not offered for his clarifications and his resignation was accepted post haste and his replacement announced at the same time pretty much says it all.

The reason is this 'extreme' case showed the contradictions inherent in any absolutist moral stance. In placing a nine year old rape victim at the mercy of her twin pregnancy the Archbishop made it plain that the life of pregnant girl is not equal to the life of her unborn offspring. In making this absolute judgment Archbishop Cardoso left open doors to question all kinds of other Church moral teaching. One of those is the whole notion of self defense. Another is the whole issue of justifiable war, which also kills plenty of innocent unborn children.

His stance also brought to the forefront the idiocies in the whole tapestry of natural law sexuality which explicitly puts the act of rape morally above any other sexual act not open to procreation precisely because most rape is open to procreation. Hence it is impossible under current church law to excommunicate the causal act of the step father. This is a case in which the consequences of the original act carry more penalty than the original act itself---and those penalties are applied to neither of the original parties.

There were all kinds of reasons this high profile act of Archbishop Cardoso caused Vatican angst. In being canonically correct, the archbishop merely pointed out the incredible theological flaws in the absolutist position with regards to abortion. This case was surely a storm of publicity the Vatican neither wanted nor will applaud and undoubtedly wishes would go away. The Vatican can not afford to have thinking people come to the conclusion that adherence to the law supersedes Christian compassion and understanding. Meaningful compassion sometimes means finding meaningful loopholes.

One thing Catholics get good at is finding meaningful loopholes in otherwise stringent doctrine and almost all Catholics engage in this very thing. In that sense Archbishop Fisichella was being very Catholic in his search for compassion. It's sometimes referred to as pastoral license.

I doubt very much the acceptance of Archbishop Cardoso's retirement letter and his subsequent replacement is going to make this story go away. This is not all that unusual a story. Young girls are raped into pregnancy with far more frequency than the Church wants to admit. The only thing that makes the Brazil story unique is the amount of world wide publicity it generated. Archbishop Cardoso will never have any Vatican thanks for that.

Alaska's First Point Guard Drops The Ball

These were better days for Alaska's most famous highschool point guard.

I watched Sarah Palin's speech last night and my first thought was WOW! She's finally admitted the real game for her is not governing, it is running for office---mostly running for the next bigger office.

There's not a lot of fun and adulation in actually governing, there's only hard work, lots of accountability, and far less gratitude than grumbling. Sarah Palin can blame bloggers, and ethics challenges, but I think the biggest reason she quit in mid term is because being governor didn't give her near the ego boost campaigning did. Campaigning on the national level for the office of Vice President was a continuous shot of adrenaline for a campaign junky. We have not seen nor heard the last of Sarah Palin.

The Republican party needs to understand this about Sarah Palin. She is a campaigner with no desire nor interest to govern anything. The omnipresent First Dude apparently does most of the nuts and bolts of actually governing. It looks to me like Mitt Romney knows this. It wouldn't shock me if a lot of the negative information recently released by bloggers and journalists came from his camp. The parts of the Republican party which know the Southern strategy is doomed to failure also know that one of the party's strongest faces for that strategy is Sarah Palin. The moderate wing of the party can not afford to be over run by the Palin wing and have any national hopes.

The sad thing is that Palin's quitting in mid term will have absolutely no bearing on how she is viewed by her faithful. Like any attention seeking narcissist she's very adept at playing the victim card and convincingly spewing half truth or out right lies in defending her image. She's not quitting, she's doing Alaskans the greatest humanitarian service she can and saving them money to boot.

She did this a number of other times in her speech last night. One which I found most telling is her insistence that she had somehow spent four years either running for or being governor of Alaska. She's off by a year, but four years sounds closer to having finished her full term, than the truthful three years. Then there was her accusation that people had been taking shots at her son Trig. No one has been able to validate this assertion, but this won't matter to the base. They will hear that mean liberal bloggers and media hate her so much they are attacking her defenseless son. The truth is that most of the serious attacks, those which question her competency, are coming from the right. None of this will matter to her core base. They will hear only Sarah the victim/martyr---exactly what she wants them to hear because it's exactly how she sees herself.

I strongly suspect there's more behind this sudden change in occupation. She's too much the political animal to have taken this step without serious reasons, none of which came out last night. She was way too nervous and too convoluted to have been giving Alaskans the complete truthful story. Her basketball point guard analogy is indicative of the kind of convoluted run on sentence that left me brain locked. Maybe I've played too much basketball.

There are rumors of federal investigations into political favors and concerns about a potential embarrassing legislative reversal over her refusal to take stimulus money. Her popularity numbers in Alaska were dropping precipitously, but weren't affecting her nationally. While it may be the grass just looks greener south of Alaska's borders, I think there's more to this story.

I wonder too, what her Evangelical pals will makes of this sudden move. Did God tell Sarah to quit in preparation for bigger things? There was very little mention of God in Sarah's resignation speech, but a huge reference to hell, as in the 'hell yes' purportedly said by one her children when asked whether Sarah should step down. It was a comment that was kind of jarring and out of character, and Sarah implied their was more behind that comment--and left us dangling.

It will be interesting to see what the new incarnation of Sarah Palin will be, but there's no question it will involve 2012. She may come up with novel ways to change her stripes, but underneath the stripes is still the political animal who needs the political stage and the adulation she receives from it. In the meantime she can console herself with the millions Rupert Murdoch is paying for her autobiography. I wonder how the chapter on this episode will read. Probably not near as upbeat as the chapter on Sara the state champion point guard.

Cardinal Cottier's Take On Obama's Abortion Realism VS The Phillipine Church

Philippine children scrounging on Manila dump. Taken from Christian Science Monitor article on Philippine support for a reproductive rights bill vehemently opposed by the Church.

Former papal theologian praises Obama's 'realism,' even on abortion
by John L Allen Jr on Jul. 03, 2009 Rome NCR Today

In the run-up to President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated July 10 meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, an influential cardinal and Vatican adviser has praised Obama’s “humble realism” and compared the president’s approach to abortion to the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas and early Christian tradition about framing laws in a pluralistic society.

Swiss Cardinal George Cottier, 87, former theologian of the papal household under Pope John Paul II, laid out those views in a cover essay in the current issue of 30 Giorni, perhaps the most widely read journal of Catholic affairs in Italy.

Styled as an analysis of two Obama speeches – his May 17 commencement address at the University of Notre Dame and his June 4 speech to the Islamic world in Cairo – Cottier’s essay was overwhelmingly positive, repeatedly arguing that Obama’s “realism”, as well as his commitment to finding “common ground”, resonate with Christian tradition and the social teaching of the Catholic church.

Seen through American eyes, perhaps the most striking element was Cottier’s analysis of what Obama had to say at Notre Dame. The university’s decision to invite Obama, and to award him an honorary degree, were widely criticized in Catholic circles in the States, given Obama’s positions on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other life issues. More than 80 bishops publicly objected to the event.

Cottier, however, compared Obama’s Notre Dame address to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, in its accent on dialogue and common ground, and to the document Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) on conducting the search for truth in a pluralistic society. Christians, Cottier wrote, “can be in agreement” with Obama’s “way of framing the search for solutions.”

Cottier noted that many American bishops have been critical of Obama on abortion, writing that “on the one hand, those criticisms are justified, because … non-negotiable values are involved.” Yet, he wrote, Obama offered “positive indications” in his Notre Dame address of a desire to find common ground on the issue.

Cottier argued that Obama has not defended abortion as an absolute right, that he recognizes the “tragic gravity” of the problem, that Obama does not defend “relativism,” and that “his words move in the direction of reducing the evil” by seeking to make “the number of abortions as small as possible.”

Cottier invoked early Christian history to suggest that efforts to reduce the actual number of abortions, rather than to seek an outright legal ban, might be justifiable as a temporary expedient.

“I’m reminded of the first Christian legislators, who didn’t quickly abolish the tolerant Roman laws regarding practices which didn’t conform to the natural law, or which were actually contrary to it, such as concubinage and slavery,” Cottier wrote. “Change happened along a slow path, often marked by steps backward, as the Christian population increased, and, along with them, the impact of a sense of the dignity of the human person.” (This would also be known as the impact of individual Christian witness, which has always been far more effective for meaningful change than criminalizing immoral behavior.)

“At the beginning, in order to guarantee the consent of the citizens and to protect social peace, the so-called ‘imperfect laws’ were kept in force, which avoided persecuting actions and behaviors in contrast with the natural law,” Cottier wrote. “St. Thomas [Aquinas] himself, who certainly had no doubt that the law must be moral, added that the state must not enact laws which are too severe or ‘high,’ because they’ll be disrespected by the people, who won’t be able to follow them.” (The inability to follow laws is not always the result of a premeditated willful choice to disobey them. A nuance which is lost in the abortion debate.)

“Political realism recognizes evil, and calls it by its name,” Cottier wrote. “Yet it also recognizes that one must be humble and patient, combating evil without the pretense of eradicating it from human history through instruments of legal coercion.” (Love this sentence. Humility and patience, novel concepts in the abortion debate.)

He said that the Catholic church is aware of the dangers of trying to totally eliminate perceived evils through the use of force, saying that was the problem with Communist regimes.
In that regard, Cottier wrote, the recent murder of an abortion doctor in the United States illustrates that even the highest values can be become “marching orders at the disposition of an aberrant ideology.”

All of that, Cottier wrote, puts the “humble realism” of Obama in a positive light.
With regard to Obama’s Cairo speech to the Islamic world, Cottier praised it as a “radical reject of the thesis of a clash of civilizations and an antidote to the tendency to apply negative stereotypes to others.” He compared Obama’s approach to international relations to that of John Paul II in the emphasis upon forgiveness and “purification of memory.” (This has also been defined as transcending or working through historical trauma.)

"The president also reaffirmed that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside, and that in the movement toward democracy every people must find its own path," Cottier wrote. "He underlined that religious liberty is fundamental for peace."

Noting that Obama cited the Sermon on the Mount during his Cairo speech, Cottier wrote that he "seemed to perceive its positive reflection and its inspiration for public life."

*********************************************************

I pulled this off the National Catholic Reporter before any comments had been posted. Given Cardinal Cottier's reasonable tone I suspect this piece will receive the same bashing that Sr. Joan Chittister's has on the same topic. For both Cardinal Cottier and Sr. Joan the issue is seeing Obama's abortion strategy of reduction as equally valid or even better than the strategy of criminalization.

It's really an accomplishment of President Obama and progressive Catholics that the abortion debate is finally being framed in this way. If one studies the numbers of abortions in countries which have legislated Catholic natural law, one has to face the fact that abortion in these countries, in spite of it's illegality and tough punishment, is much higher than it is in countries with easy access and legal birth control. That's a fact which goes right to Cardinal Cottier's point that it's not in the best interests of societies to legislate moral laws which people can not obey. This is especially true when the laws do not address the root causes and only punish the consequences of those root causes. The over whelming root causes of abortion are poverty and lack of support for women and their children.

The sad sad fact is that the Church has spent too much time and money on the wrong solution to reducing abortions. It's hypocritical to maintain the sanctity of life when that sanctity isn't supported with near the same vehemence post birth.

The Philippines is a case in point. They have highly restrictive access to family planning and birth control ---depending on the local situation. In the capital city of Manila there is virtually no access or state funded birth control. Manila is not unique. It is estimated that Philippines women undergo 500,000 abortions a year with 80,000 winding up in hospitals due to complications from back alley abortions. Ten women a day die in child birth. The population of the Philippines is 80 million. That's a lot of abortions for a population of 80 million since the numbers of women of child bearing age would be less than a third of that total.

In spite of the Roman Catholic Church's strong opposition it appears HB 5048, a national women's re productive bill including far better access to birth control and sex education, might actually make it to the desk of President Macapagal-Arroyo. It is expected she will not sign it, but let it pass into law without action on her part. She is a devout Roman Catholic who has admitted to using birth control to limit the size of her own family but supports the Church's position. She admits to having confessed her sin in order to be fully back in the Church.

Access to birth control was not a problem for her. It isn't for the wealthy. For poor women the choices are abortion or tubal ligation.

It has taken 40 plus years for a reproductive rights bill to make it this far in the Philippines. One of the key reasons cited for the majority support this bill enjoys amongst Filipino voters is the reduction in influence of the Roman Catholic Church. Real people with real children who actually have to pay the price for the size of their families no longer listen to a Church hierarchy which is considered mired in conservatism. The back lash from continual Church interference in reproductive legislation may be coming home to roost.

HB 5048 does not change the legal status of abortion. This is not a bill about abortion. It is first and foremost a bill about reducing abortion. Birth Control and sex education have proven track records in reducing the number of abortions. It's called reproductive choice. Insistence on Natural Family Planning and abstinence is called religious reproductive tyranny. They have a proven track record of increasing abortions. They prove Thomas Aquinas's thinking about the futility of enacting laws people determine they can't obey.

It seems to me the Church has to do some serious thinking about the impact of it's anti birth control stance on it's desire to end abortion. When one stance fuels the other it's time to decide which should have the priority. It would seem to me allowing birth control as an abortion prevention measure is a no brainer, but that might not be the real issue. The real issue for the Church might not have anything to do with responsible moral reproduction and every thing to do with Institutional authority and Papal infallibility. If that's true, then the real issue in the Philippines (and every place else) has never been the sanctity of life. It's been the sanctity of religious authority. Maybe it's time some of those religious authorities spent some time on a Manila dump.

When The Going Got Tough A Solution Was Found

Last night I received an email from a reader with some great news for the people of Madison, Wisconsin. The Catholic Multicultural Center will reopen. I wrote on this closing previously. The following report is from the Capital Times:

Catholic Multicultural Center to reopen its doors August 3
Pat Schneider — 7/01/2009 12:25 pm

The Catholic Multcultural Center, the south-side services center whose abrupt closing a month ago shocked and angered the Madison community, will reopen its doors on Aug. 3.

And Queen of Peace Parish, which will run the center in a building that will continue to be owned by the Madison Diocese, will be launching a public fund-raising campaign to help meet a $350,000 two-year budget. Bishop Robert Morlino had agreed to let Queen of Peace take over following a groundswell of opposition to the center's closing.

News of an opening date brought applause from members and friends of the Latino Support Network -- LaSup -- gathered today to discuss the status of the center, 1862 Beld St., which has served the city's south side since 1946. It was LaSup that rallied community support to save the center in the days after its May 29 closing, and members of the group today were almost gleeful as the center's former administrator Andy Russell reported on developments. Russell and two of the center's other three employees let go when the diocese closed its doors citing lack of funding, are being rehired by Queen of Peace.

An anonymous challenge donation of $175,000 has been made -- if a matching amount is raised in the community. The Catholic Diocese is giving $155,000 toward operation of the center, two local parishes have pledged $10,000 each and many smaller donations have been made, Russell says. Donations, in fact, have come from five states.

The controversy over its closing has raised the profile of the center, and anyone who wants to learn more about it or how to help, an Open House will be held 2-5 p.m. Sunday, July 12.

**********************************************

This is a great story about compassionate people stepping up to fill a void. Queen of Peace parish is one of the biggest and most affluent parishes in the diocese and seems well placed to take on this outreach program. Kudos to Queen of Peace parish and their pastor Fr. Fiedler for making this reopening feasible and Kudos to Bishop Morlino for acting quickly to approve and support this grass roots effort.

It's worth reading the link given in the article about Queen of Peace parish. This is also from the Capital Times and is a more extensive article on the closing of the Center and it's aftermath. The comments are worth reading as they serve to underscore the division amongst Madison Catholics regarding their bishop. Here's part of one comment from a supporter of the Bishop which in my mind succinctly states a major conflict about how Catholics see the role of the institutional church:

3) Yes, the poor have a high priority for ALL Christians, and we all share a duty to care for the poor. While this is the duty for ALL Christians, it is NOT the FIRST duty for the INSTITUTIONAL Church. The first priority of the INSTITUTIONAL Church, is to preach the gospel and provide the sacraments.

I can see the logic in this assessment that the Institutional Church's first priority is to preach the Gospel and to provide the Sacraments. Unfortunately Jesus taught quite specifically that preaching wasn't enough. One had to live and act on His teachings. It's not enough to talk the talk, you must also walk the walk. Providing for the institution before providing for the poor is not walking His talk.

The Diocese of Madison is not the only diocese in which the role and definition of the bishop and Church mission is in conflict. As financial resources dry up the question of mission becomes more critical. In Madison an individual parish stood up and with help from others, has decided the poor and needy are their mission. The Diocese has opted to step back and support them in that mission, rather than lead them in that mission, at least in the day to day operation. There is still plenty of room for conflict over other issues concerning church teaching and acceptance of secular or other denominational support if the Multi Cultural Center maintains it's status as a Catholic enterprise. There is still plenty of stuff to work through.

But in the meantime, come August 3rd the Center reopens it's doors and that's a very good thing for the people of Madison. Which goes to show that when there is a will, a way will be found. That's a very affirming and hopeful message. It's a Jesus message.

Sally Kern And The Oklahoma Christian Manifesto

Sally Kern, the Republican Oklahoma legislator who follows the 'Christian Bible' to the very last letter, is heading up the "Oklahoma Citizen's Proclamation For Morality" to be signed on the floor of the Oklahoma State Capitol tomorrow July 2nd. It's a pretty interesting read with some questionable quotes from our founding fathers regarding the state and religion--specifically the Christian religion.

The 'where as's that really got to me, given the propensity for adultery demonstrated by some of her fellow culture warrior Republicans, are these particular 'where as's:

"WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built...."

How could this upright Christian woman not mention adultery in the list of moral woes afflicting this country or are we to assume adultery is to be included in the notions of 'other forms of debauchery'--- somehow amongst those not immoral enough to merit individual listing. I suppose it's just a coincidence that adultery happens to be the immoral behavior which is wiping out Republican presidential candidates. I mean after all, adultery is mentioned in the bible far far more than homosexual behavior. Jesus even spoke directly to the immorality of adultery and people routinely were stoned to death for committing adultery---at least women were. How does adultery get overlooked?

Sally, Sally, some of us might think you're being highly selective when it comes to sexual immorality.

Even assuming the failure to mention adultery is an over site, it's still a very selective list of our moral ills when greed isn't even remotely hinted at as a cause of our national economic crisis. Ms. Kern must belong to that cadre of Christians who see the willful pursuit of economic excess as God's showering abundance on the righteous true believer.

Were we functioning from our rich Christian heritage when your fellow born again Christian Republicans sanctioned torture, out right lied, and engaged in pre emptive war? Those particular forms of rich Christian heritage were never part of our Constitution because those particular rich traditions were pre Enlightenment. Perhaps we should bring back slavery as well.

Sally ends her proclamation with the following resolutions:

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord,” and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

I am at a loss as to understand how it's possible that this proclamation, which unabashedly places Christianity above the state and country, can be proclaimed in a state capital building.

It's not surprising that the Oklahoma ACLU is strongly objecting to both the wording and the inaccuracies of some of the cited quotes with in the proclamation. They have some legitimate points.

It seems to me that the blurring of the lines between the state and religion is getting blurrier under President Obama. I don't know if this kind of proselytizing didn't happen much under President Bush because he was seen as one of them, or if the Evangelical and Catholic culture warriors think they can keep Obama distracted from acting on his campaign promises by becoming more and more overt and confrontational.

The President himself got into a little bit of a brouha over reports about his supposedly selected place of worship. Word leaked out that he preferred the chapel at Camp David which is pastored by an Evangelical Navy Chaplain, Lt. Carey Cash, who is part of an Evangelical group of military chaplains whose goal is to use the US military to pursuit their 'take the world for Jesus' campaign. He can be seen in a 2005 video stating 'first the military, and then the country'.

The White House promptly denied this story when the Military Religious Freedom Foundation brought their concerns about Lt. Cash to public attention. I suspect it is the strong presence of Evangelicals in the military which is causing the delay in the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. This in spite of the fact our military brass have been more and more vocal about repealing the law. They see it as a National Security issue, not one of morality. I bet DADT would be repealed in a heart beat if the same stringent application was applied to adulterous military personnel. I encourage readers of this blog to check out the MRFF site. It's enlightening and frightening.

When I started this blog some two years ago I never imagined I would be spending so much time researching Evangelical/Pentecostal Christians and right wing Catholicism. None of this was specifically on my radar, although some of what I was concerned with was part and parcel of this phenomenon. I have been shocked with both the interpretation of Jesus's message and the Book of Revelations which underpins the theology of these groups. I have been blown away by their use of highly individualized 'mystical' experiences, (many of which appear to have been taken from New Age channels and attributed to the Holy Spirit) to justify their agenda of essentially white Christian supremacy and conquest. That they have such deep inroads into our military is the most frightening thing of all.

President Obama needs to take the warnings he has been getting about this trend very seriously. He will certainly not get the truth from Rick Warren, who is his own loose cannon in this movement. Obama needs to understand that abortion and gay marriage are just smoke screens covering the real agenda. If Sally Kerns was really all about the moral decline in this country adultery would never have been left off her list of sexual sins. She won't mention adultery because she and her cronies need those adulterous politicians to further their real ambitions.

Pope Benedict needs to take this phenomenon seriously as well, because these people are very adept at picking off his flock in Southern countries. This is the trend which probably most concerns his bishops in South America. They know there is no compromise coming from the Evangelicals when it comes to Catholicism. The Whore of Babylon is in Revelations and it is interpreted to live in the Vatican. For these particular groups of Evangelicals, politics is only a secular means to their religious end. It would behoove both President Obama and our Catholic leadership to understand this while there is still time to insist of the clear separation of church and state.