Have Spine, Will Travel

The president of the Canadian Catholic Bishops Conference (CCBC) is upset. It seems the CCBC has been providing enormous financial support to organizations that promote abortion in South America, financial support so enormous that the bishops of Peru have actually told the CCBC to stop killing South American Catholics. And Catholic bloggers have found out.

Bishop Weisgerber is upset that this whole story is becoming very well-known in North America through the tireless work of John Pacheco, Lifesite News and other Catholic media outlets.

The Catholic Register reports: "The role of web sites in stirring controversy has become a challenge for bishops." Weisgerber told the Register: "These bloggers who claim to be more Catholic than anyone -- I think first of all they're not part of the church, they're not Catholic in the sense that they have no mandate, they have no authority, they have no accountability. And they speak very, very definitively about what it means to be Catholic, and they're followed by so many people."

It is sad that a Catholic blogger like myself must point out the theological blunders of a bishop but, at the risk of being excommunicated for telling the truth, here goes:

1) Catholic bloggers do have a mandate. This mandate is endowed on us through baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, the sacraments of initiation, which empower every Catholic to preach the Gospel to all nations. Certainly a Catholic bishop should know this.

2) Catholic bloggers do have authority. This authority is endowed on us through baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, the sacraments of initiation, which authorize every Catholic to preach the Gospel to all nations. Certainly a Catholic bishop should know this.

3) Catholic bloggers are accountable. If the local ordinary over any Catholic blogger doesn't like what that blogger writes, he can call that blogger into his office and chew him out. Catholic bloggers are exactly as accountable as Catholic politicians, Catholic book publishers and Catholic universities. Of course, most bloggers are safe in the knowledge that a bishop who won't even get rid of the homosexuals on the parish staff or the pro-abortion parish priest is unlikely to be willing to tangle with a Catholic blogger.

But, the lack of courage on any particular bishop's part is not a commentary on the accountability of the Catholic blogger. If bloggers aren't held accountable, that would be the bishop's fault.

4) More Catholics would follow their bishops instead of their bloggers if Catholic bishops taught the Faith with the same level of assiduous care that is found amongst Catholic bloggers. Everyone gravitate towards people who are serious about being orthodox because the Truth is enticing. Everyone ignores "politically astute" types who, for fear of offending others, never take a stand for Truth. We ignore them if only because they make us throw up a little bit in our mouth.

6. The Church's mission is concerned with the salvation of men; and men win salvation through the grace of Christ and faith in him. The apostolate of the Church therefore, and of each of its members, aims primarily at announcing to the world by word and action the message of Christ and communicating to it the grace of Christ. The principal means of bringing this about is the ministry of the word and of the sacraments. At a time when new questions are being put and when grave errors aiming at undermining religion, the moral order and human society itself are rampant, the Council earnestly exhorts the laity to take a more active part, each according to his talents and knowledge and in fidelity to the mind of the Church, in the explanation and defense of Christian principles and in the correct application of them to the problems of our times. (Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People, Apostolicam Actuositatem, Pope Paul VI, Nov 18, 1965).

It's a pretty sad commentary when you hear more about the doctrines of the Faith from the laity then you do from their leaders.

It's also a sad commentary when the very bishops who claim to be in tune with "the spirit of Vatican II" seem to be completely unaware of the actual contents of Vatican II.

Bishop Weisgerber's commentary reminds me of nothing so much as the whining whimper made by the MSM as it slowly declines into obscurity, if only because the reasons for obscurity are identical in both cases.

The politics of major North American newspapers and television shows are indistinguishable from the politics of many North American bishops. Anyone who holds views like Bishop Weisgerber's are going to be ignored. That's not a call to ignore him, it's just a simple statement of fact, a fact that he has already implicitly acknowledged.

As Vatican II remarks, we have to "read the signs of the times."
And today's sign is, "Nobody likes a whiner."

The Bishop, the Pope, and Chris West

When John Paul II wrote Love and Responsibility as archbishop of Krakow, he included a section with a fairly detailed discussion of the sexual act. It shocked a lot of the people he sent drafts of the manuscript to, but he included it anyway, despite warnings against the idea.

Today, Chris West and other TOB advocates point to this when they themselves engage shocking language.

Probably the most shocking passage in John Paul II's papal audiences on the theology of the body is his July 4, 1984 audience.

Many people have used this audience to argue that "sex is liturgical" or "sex is a sacrament." In fact, it should be noticed that JP II doesn't call sex a sacrament in this or any other audience, nor does he say sex is liturgical, although the uncareful reader could easily come away with either idea. Instead, he says conjugal life is a SIGN of the sacrament.

Furthermore, he says, "The spiritual maturity of this attraction is none other than the blossoming of the gift of fear - one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, which St. Paul speaks of in First Thessalonians (cf. 1 Thes 4:4-7)."

He keeps insisting that the liturgy is what elevates marriage, and it does so through "chastity as a virtue and as a gift.In this way, through the virtue (of chastity) and still more through the gift (of chastity) the mutual attraction of masculinity and femininity spiritually matures...."

He ends the audience by pointing out that "the light of truth and beauty, expressed in liturgical language" is transferred to the body through chastity which he defines here as "the language of the practice of love, fidelity, and conjugal honesty," but even then notice how JPII hedges the ending: "conjugal life becomes in a certain sense liturgical." But only in "a certain sense."

In my first conversation with Chris West, lo!, these many years ago, Chris got rather upset when I referred to the phrase, "in a certain sense" as Pope John Paul II's favorite weasel words. But they are. When JP II wanted to say something that sounded shocking or odd without getting nailed for it, he used the phrase "in a certain sense." That kept him from violating the Magisterium while still allowing him to say things that sounded edgy.

So, does he say, as some like to assert, that sex is as important as the Mass for saving the world?
No, he doesn't.

Instead, he says that the liturgy empowers chastity in such a way that it has the capacity to transform "conjugal life" into something that is somewhat liturgical.

Or, to put it more simply, the liturgy is lived in chastity and chastity lifts marriage up towards the liturgy.

And when we remember that the whole series of talks is supposed to be commentary on Humanae Vitae, what he's really saying is "contraception is unchaste, so stop it."

But it isn't particularly shocking if said that simply, so JP II gussied it up with a lot of PhD talk.
As a result, uncareful readers have a greatly increased probability of totally misreading the audience. And they do.

Did John Paul II really mean to be edgy?

Well, remember, that he had taken a lot of hits for his Love and Responsibility as archbishop. Also, keep in mind that, as Pope, he cannot overcome the charism of his office. He can't mis-teach to the whole Church on matters of faith and morals. And, even the Pope is not impeccable. He is at best only infallible.

Now, the TOB teachings were certainly a matter of faith and morals.
But was he teaching to the whole Church? Well, that can be argued.

He certainly didn't invoke his full Petrine authority during the audiences.

Some would argue that the TOB teachings aren't infallible because Wednesday audiences are not normally considered a vehicle for infallible teachings. This argument ignores the fact that any communication CAN be the vehicle for infallible teachings. Heck, any time even you or I say "God is one Divine Nature in three Divine Persons," we have taught infallibly, even if it's just in an e-mail to our sainted aunt, because that particular doctrine is an infallible part of Church teaching. We don't have the charism by our office, as the Pope does, but we have the capacity to participate in the sensus fidelium simply by virtue of the gift of reason and our baptism.

So, "in a certain sense" every person has the capacity to teach infallibly, as long as what we teach accords with what the Church has always taught.

Now, the phrase "in a certain sense" is clearly meant to sharply limit the phrase it modifies.
JP II was a wordsmith in multiple languages - he knew darned well how to keep wiggle room alive in his phrasing as needed.

That particular phrase was a favorite of his in the Wednesday audiences, to an extent that's virtually unequalled in any of his other papal works.

I've read probably a third of his encyclicals, by no means all, but a fair number, and the only place you really find that phrase consistently is in the TOB audiences.

Remember, he had ALREADY shocked fellow churchmen with his Love and Responsibility, he KNEW it shocked his fellow churchmen, and he published it anyway, despite advice that he shouldn't. That was as archbishop. Archbishops can commit sins just like anybody else.

Was that chapter a sin? I don't know.
All I'm saying is that it didn't necessarily represent good judgement on his part.
Maybe it was a good idea, but just because Karol Wojtyla wrote it doesn't make it a good idea.

As a priest once remarked to St. Teresa of Avila, a man can go to hell by imitating the imperfections of the saints.

Now, once a bishop becomes a pope, the Holy Spirit is going to sharply curtail certain lapses in judgement that the bishop might previously have made. For instance, more than one bishop has become pope because the cardinals who elected him knew that he had always taught councils had greater authority than popes, that is, men have been elected Pope because they taught conciliarism. But invariably, as soon as the man got consecrated, his mind cleared and he stopped advocating conciliarism. You can't judge a pope's teachings by what he wrote when he was just bishop of Timbuktu. Or Krakow.

As an aside, a couple of years ago, right after Pope Benedict XVI got elected, John Allen of NCR came to town to give a talk on Benedict's attitude towards Islam. I asked him, "Pope Benedict hasn't said much of anything about Islam yet. Won't you have a short talk?" He replied, "Well, Cardinal Ratzinger has written quite extensively on the subject."

I didn't want to be rude, so I didn't point out that Cardinal Ratzinger's writings were not necessarily going to coincide with Pope Benedict's attitude. Before the talk started, I predicted to a friend that Allen, being a smart man, would say virtually nothing about Benedict and Islam during the talk, no matter the title for the evening. In fact, while he discussed Islam and he discussed Rome, John Allen never did discuss Benedict's attitude towards Islam, or even Cardinal Ratzinger's attitude, for that matter. But no one noticed (or they were too polite to notice) because John Allen is also a good wordsmith.

All of this is to note that when we get to the Wednesday audiences, they are not just a toned down version of Love and Responsibility. They are DIFFERENT. In the Wednesday audiences, he says he's giving us a "theology of sex" on at least one occasion, but he doesn't mean "sex" the verb, he means "sex" the noun, what we today incorrectly call "gender." And even in saying something as mundane as "liturgy empowers us to be chaste in marriage", which is really all the July 4 audience says, he recognizes that the converse is not going to be true in the full sense - conjugal life is never going to be fully liturgical, if only because the liturgy is participation in heaven and there is no sacrament of marriage, no conjugal life in the human married sense, in heaven.

He seems to WANT to make the connection go full bore both ways, heaven to earth and earth to heaven, but his office and his judgement prevents him from saying it. So, what he ends up saying is correct, as long as it is understand "in a certain sense."

And that's the difference between John Paul II and Chris West.

You might be able to argue that Chris West is just picking up where Karol Wojtyla left off.
I don't know that I would argue against that position very strongly.
I suspect that "in a certain sense" that is true.

I would just note two things:
a) Even as archbishop, Karol Wojtyla DID leave off there - he didn't continue into the territory that Chris West has so energetically entered,
and
b) John Paul II didn't go anywhere near where Karol Wojtyla went. In fact, JP II arguably began to walk away from some of Karol Wojtyla's work.

Too much stress is placed on Love and Responsibility.
Not enough stress is placed on the papal encyclicals.
The context for John Paul II's papal encyclicals is not Love and Responsibility, nor even the theology of the body Wednesday audiences. The context for John Paul II's papal encyclicals is 2000 years of Magisterial documents.

That's why the Catechism quotes writings of the Fathers and Doctors, other encyclicals and ecumenical councils. It doesn't quote from Love and Responsibility. Indeed, it doesn't even quote from the TOB Wednesday audiences. In fact, I can't recall a single encyclical or apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II that does make reference to his Wednesday TOB audiences. Not even his encyclical on human suffering, Salvifici Doloris, which is written and released while he's giving the TOB audiences, refers to them or is referred to by them.

Indeed, in his closing TOB audience, John Paul even notes that the TOB audiences are woefully inadequate because they don't address important themes like human suffering, but even in making this remark, he still refuses to refer even to his own document on human suffering. Instead, he keeps pointing us to Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio, and the latter doesn't reference the Wednesday audiences at all. This is all the more interesting given that Familiaris Consortio does reference Humanae Vitae eight times, and footnotes a Paul VI General Audience once (footnote 152).

Is it the case that John Paul II built his whole papacy around Love and Responsibility and/or the Wednesday Theology of the Body audiences? That assertion has been made by people who style themselves scholars, but it is remarkably difficult to find explicit evidence to back it up. Indeed, one might easily argue the reverse: that the whole of his papal teaching is walled off from those particular Wednesday audiences.

In any case, if we are going to use Love and Responsibility to justify how we address the subject of human sexuality, we have to remember that Love and Responsibility is not Magisterial - it is just some local bishop writing his thoughts on sex and marriage.

The local bishop ends up getting consecrated pope.

OK, but his prior writings didn't get consecrated with him.

Like the "conciliar" popes before him, we have to remember that some ideas may have gotten changed when the charism of his office cleared his mind.

Nixon and Obama: Blood Brothers

Alright, I don't get it.

Nixon is getting razzed because he said he was fine with abortion in cases where a white woman would otherwise be punished with a black child.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, was praised for saying that he didn't want his own black daughters to be punished with his (presumably) black grandchild.

And the difference is....????

Nixon was, once more, ahead of his time, channeling the One-der of the World.

See?

Big Tent Republicans and Democrats really CAN get along.
Richard Nixon was America's first Black President!

Philosopher, Healy Thyself

In his wild attempts to defend the indefensible Chris West, Dr. Michael Healy, a philosophy professor at Franciscan University, has now taken to providing inadequate quotes to moral theology texts, in much the same way that Drs. Janet Smith and Michael Waldstein deliberately mis-referenced Dr. Schindler's response to West.

Watch how this works. It is instructive.

Dear Steve,
Thanks for the sarcasm, but I’m afraid you are displaying your own ignorance. Are Janet Smith and Michael Waldstein also to be lumped with Grisez, West, and myself as suckering, deceiving heretics? [No. While Grisez is someone who already deliberately misteaches Catholic theology, as he explicitly denies the hierarchy of good, Drs. Healy, Smith and Waldstein are just Kool-Aid drinkers] Janet Smith mentions the same facts that I do about incomplete anal-genital contacts (while noting that both she and West find such acts completely unappealing, not to be recommended, and rather to be cautioned against, as do I); she also mentions that West’s books have received the Nihil Obstat after being reviewed by no less that Bill May. Is he also a heretic? If so, then we are rapidly running out of good theologians. [Notice the logical fallacy of "morality by acclamation." Everyone supports me, thus it must be true, an argument Arians used to excellent effect during a time when we rapidly ran out of good bishops.

Janet Smith has failed to back up her claims that sodomitical foreplay is morally acceptable. You have failed to do this as well, Dr. Healy. As for Bill May's opinion and the nihil obstat, I don't really care a fig for either. Neither is an expression of the infallible Magisterium. Bill May isn't even a bishop.]

Concerning the object of your ire here, it is certainly true that any orgasm, or even unjustifiable risk of orgasm, outside normal intercourse would be a grave sin against chastity. Everyone mentioned above fully agrees with this, so it is hardly parallel to denying the sin of abortion. [Straw man. The question isn't about orgasm, it's about the moral acceptability of sodomitical foreplay.]

Concerning such contacts as incomplete, preparatory acts, let me quote extensively [but not completely, as we shall see - click the link and check for yourself] from Frs. Ford and Kelly (both impeccably orthodox and writing in the late 50’s and early 60’s for seminarians, again with nihil obstat and imprimatur from Patrick O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington, at a time when there was certainly no “fudging” in the granting of an imprimatur):

“Practises such as these [Already he's implemented the bait-and-switch - used at all the finest used car dealerships - and you don't even know it's been done. Yet.] are repugnant and shocking to a great many people, and intolerable to some, but their morality cannot be decided on the basis of emotional reactions which, though normal, are apparently not universal. People differ very widely in their estimates of what is shameful or disgusting in sexual matters, these differences being the result of differing cultural backgrounds, family attitudes, sexual education, natural temperament, and other factors.” They go on to say that while no one should ever “speak as though there were no objections to these practises [which practices?] from the viewpoint of the Christian law,” neither is it justified to make “any universal a priori judgment as to sinful or inordinate hedonism” here, though these are the dangers. Further, of course, it would always be a grave sin against charity and justice to try to force such acts on an unwilling partner; they are not part of the marital debitum. It seems to me that all the authors mentioned above, including West, fit solidly within these guidelines. [What did the good Dr. Healy leave out of the quote? Why the sentence that preceded "Practices such as these" of course! But, because I'm a spoil-sport, I'll throw it in for you:

"As a practical matter, we feel it would be unrealistic nowadays to pretermit altogether discussion of the morality of oral-genital contacts preparatory to intercourse." (emphasis added)

See? There moral theologians being quoted are NOT referring to anal-genital contact at all. Drs. Healy and Smith being unable to distinguish the mouth from the anus, think anal-genital contact is parallel to oral-genital contact. In fact, while oral-genital contact is described as permitted above, NO ONE prior to 1970 has ever said anal-genital contact, whether as completed act or merely as foreplay, is anything other than a sin.

West supporters consistently twist the texts they quote. WHY?

If, as Augustine said, "God does not need my lie," why does God's messenger, Christopher West, ALWAYS require what Dr. Healy just did?]

Now this is not to deny that in the past even such incomplete acts have been condemned as intrinsically wrong by some theologians—and if you think so too, you also have support within the Catholic tradition. [Notice how he completely sidesteps the fact that his quote is deliberately taken out of context and actually refers to something else. He accuses me of being ignorant, and I cannot deny it - I am. But I prefer being called ignorant to dealing with the charge that can now be laid firmly at Dr. Healy's door.] But this is a question which has not been finally decided and closed—compared to the question of artificial contraception for instance. [Father Bernard Haring said abortion is not finally decided and closed. Drs. Janet Smith and Michael Healy would like to add anal-genital foreplay to the list, so as to cover Chris West's... back... with their waggish... words...] And as Ford and Kelly say (before Vatican II, before the massive rejection of Church teaching on sexuality), “most theologians today” would not describe them as always intrinsically wrong, but simply as dangerous and to be cautioned about. This is a fine distinction, but one that theologians have to make. [Would that these theologians had actually made the distinction Dr. Healy pretends they have.] However, as Janet Smith says, we really should not take up any more space about such topics in connection with Chris West, as such things are completely tangential to his message and his work. Yet if he is accused of betraying the Catholic teaching here, he has to be defended, despite the fact that I too, like Janet, would prefer not to mention the topic. (Quotes from Ford and Kelly are from Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol. II, Marriage Questions, Ch. 11, Special Problems of Conjugal Intimacy, pp. 228-230). [In short: don't bother about the man behind the curtain, the one who has been passing sin off as virtue. That's really not an issue. Let's move on to something substantive. Like where to buy a Krispy Kreme.

On the other hand, I am SURE that neither Dr. Smith nor Dr. Healy is interested in talking about this subject, since they can't defend it and it keeps coming up to bite them in the ... well... ]

If you bother to do a word-search on "anal" in the work of Frs. Ford and Kelly, as Dr. Healy obviously failed to do, you would discover the deeper problem in Healy's analysis. On page 309-310, the priests point out:

In surveying one of the Anglican defenses of contraception, we pointed out that the author's refusal to define coitus makes his arguments open to serious objections. In particular, since he refuses to concede even the minimum definition of coition as an actus per se aptus ad generationem, he must logically admit that any practice that has "relational value" for spouses (e.g., coitus interruptus and anal intercourse) is licit. (emphasis added)

This, of course is right up Chris West's alley. John Paul II's TOB audiences famously fail to discuss the generational aspect of the sexual act to any great degree. It is one of the odd but true aspects of those Wednesday audiences that those audiences, a commentary on Humanae Vitae totaling in excess of a quarter million words, mention the word "family" only once, whereas Humanae Vitae itself uses the word "family" 15 times in just 7000 words. Similarly, the words "parents" or "parenthood" occurs ten times in HV, but only three times in the TOB audiences (TOB figures based on the index in the first St. Paul edition of the TOB audiences).

The Theology of the Body audiences are 40 times longer than HV, but discuss the primary purpose of the sexual act between much less frequently in absolute terms. Yet isn't the point of contraception precisely the cutting off of any need to discuss family?

If TOB is not about the generational aspects of sex, then what is it about? It's emphasis is all on relationship - the "relational value," that the good priests warn against above.

As a result, the TOB audiences, while fine insofar as they go, do have huge theological holes in them, holes large enough to drive an ocean liner through.

Someone who primarily studies the TOB audiences and spends very little time with other JP II documents, or other Magisterial teachings in general, is very likely to mistake the importance of the relational aspects of the sexual act. That is, someone who is a largely self-taught "expert" on the Theology of the Body is likely to make precisely the mistake Chris West makes, and label anal foreplay acceptable.

Worse, Drs. Smith and Healy have leapt to defend West's statements not because they are defensible, for there is no defense available from the Magisterial documents. Rather, they have begun a "theology of personality", in which Chris West's statements have to be defended because of he who made them. Catholic theology is being bent to fit the predilictions of a specific personality.

I am a graduate of Franciscan University, but I was fortunate enough to never have Dr. Healy as an instructor. I'm sure he counts himself lucky he never had me as a student.

This is the kind of nonsense that is all too prevalent in Catholic institutions: mistaking fad theology for Magisterium, inability to distinguish between the orifices for nutritive intake and waste disposal, he literally doesn't know his ... from a... well... you get the idea.

This is often what passes for philosophy at Franciscan University. As a former graduate student, I can firmly attest and witness to the fact that, while Franciscan University's theology department is competent, their philosophy department has only a few decent thinkers. Far too many are of Dr. Healy's stripe. That's why I have never recommended the university to people.

Shooting Shea's Own

Mark Shea recently expressed frustration about the Catholic outcry over Christopher West's appearance on ABC's Nightline. In that 7-minute video, Chris said some amazingly silly things.

But Mark, relying on imprimaturs and his own sense of things, responded by saying, "Why do we Catholics so often bayonet our own troops?"

In fact, Mark did exactly this to me ago during the Da Vinci Code flap a few years ago. In the course of those discussions, I pointed out that Carl Olsen and Sandra Miesel, both friends of Mark, were in error regarding their labelling of DVC as Gnostic. Subsequently, Mark not only wielded that "but we're on the side of the angels!" line like a sword, at least one Catholic magazine editor deliberately set me up so that Carl Olsen could beat me up in the pages of a Catholic magazine.

But, I'm not interested in re-hashing that old fight. What I am interested in is this idea of "shooting (or bayonetting) our own."

Consider: I am sure Mark Shea has said vitriolic things about Nancy Pelosi, Sam Brownback, Joe Biden, et. al. over the last few months.

Now, those people are all baptized Catholics. Why would Mark denigrate them? Why would he engage in "shooting our own"?

"Ah,"he may argue, "But they are NOT our own - they are flouting the teachings of the Church!" I agree. But a lot of people felt the same way about Christopher West. A lot of people feel that way about people Mark happens to like.

So, what's the difference between whaling on Nancy Pelosi and whaling on Sandra Miesel or Christopher West? They're all baptized Catholics!

When Mark rolled out his line on me, wasn't he shooting ME by using the line?

What was the difference between me and Sandra Miesel except Mark happened to like the latter's position (and the latter) more than the former's position?

This "bayonetting our own" line is just a variant of the old pro-abortion argument, "No one has a right to impose their morality on others." Well, what if my morality says I DO have that right? By telling me what to do, aren't you assuming that YOU have the right to force this arbitrary standard on me? If you REALLY felt that way, you would have to remain silent, recognizing that I may not share your sentiments.

So, if the argument is so stupid from a logical standpoint, why would anyone say it? Well, it serves three purposes:

• First, I get a chance to take the moral high ground - when I use the argument, I can pretend that I am serving a higher standard than grubby little you.
• Second, because you have just been "shamed" you will probably shut up. After all, how are you going to fight against these "higher morals" I have just revealed?
• Third, if I use that argument, I don't have to answer any of YOUR grubby little charges. I've attacked YOU, not your position.

It's pure ad hominem attack, and it's sleazy.

This "shooting our own" gambit accomplishes precisely the same objectives. Mark is really just demonizing his opponent as someone who doesn't understand the Faith, while he places himself in the moral high ground of someone who understands every aspect, and is capable of judging behaviour. Best of all, he doesn't have to address any of the arguments brought forward. Indeed, as he himself points out, he doesn't even have to read the book or hear the talk that's being attacked. He generally rolls this argument out when

• he doesn't have a counter-argument and
• the person he intends to demonize is attacking someone he likes, as opposed to someone he doesn't.

Now, does Mark Shea like Chris West?
Not necessarily, but he DOES like West's publisher.

In this case, Chris West is being published by Matt Pinto. Matt Pinto and Mark Shea go WAY back. In fact, Matt Pinto's Ascension Press, Tom Allen's Catholic Exchange (where Mark Shea is chief editor) and Alan Napleton's Catholic Marketing Network are all joined at the hip, from a business perspective. That is, they've done a fair bit of business together. Quite a lot, actually.

So, was Mark's defense of West a business decision? It doesn't have to be. People work together because they like each other and hold similar views. It could be Mark just wanted to cover Matt's back.

So, what Mark Shea really means here is, "I have some sympathy with the person being attacked or his position. I don't like the fact that you are engaging in a proxy attack on me by attacking my friend, who holds the same position." When seen in this light, the phrase "shooting our own" becomes La Cosa Nostra, to which those who Do Not Think Rightly are excluded.

The key question: who constitutes "our own"?

Different people are going to have different judgements about where, prudentially, the line should be drawn in various debates. I'm not saying there isn't an absolute standard. I'm just saying that a lot of us engage in self-serving spin, myself included.

So, the next time Mark Shea or any of his minions roll out that line about "let's not start shooting our own," ask them who they include in that "our own" category. And if you are included, ask them why they are attacking you by saying YOUR position is wrong.

If you aren't part of the group, why are they shooting you?

Because they don't like you as much as they like the other guy.

And they aren't honest enough to say it out loud.

Talking With An Obama Supporter

Barack Obama at Notre Dame: " ... [on abortion] I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website... that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.... [because we know] the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

I sent the advertisements for my book, Debunking Obama's First 100 Days, to several thousand people a few days ago.

This was one response:

ObamaCatholic: Get a life!

Me: Feeling a little guilty, are we?

ObamaCatholic: No. Just tired of slander and gossip. Both are sinful behavior.

Me: Indeed. That's why everything about that bastard (and he is, you know - his mother wasn't married when she conceived him), is documented in the book.

ObamaCatholic: Wow! You leave me breathless. You have a great day!

Me: I'll have a great day the minute he leaves office. Until then, we all just pray for deliverance from evil.

ObamaCatholic: And I'll have a great day the minute you take me off your email list! Please do not reply. Thank you.

Me: I will make sure that I don't.

ObamaCatholic: You just did.

Me: Oh my heavens! But you Obama supporters are always interested in dialogue, right? So, being open-minded and willing to seek common ground, as you are, that isn't a problem.

As The One stated in his Notre Dame address, sure, our positions are irreconcilable - you think he's cool, I think he's a lying bastard - but that shouldn't prevent us from dialoguing and seeking common ground.

How about we agree that he's a really cool, lying bastard?
See?
I'm trying to be like you and engage in dialogue.
Except you didn't want dialogue.
Hmmm....

Contemplating it later, I reflected that, perhaps this could be another point for our dialogue? Our positions are irreconcilable - you don't want dialogue, I do - but we should seek common ground. How about I keep talking and you just shut up and listen?

Man!
No wonder it's so much fun being an ObamaCatholic!
I feel a pull to the Dark Side...

The Wedge

George Weigel is now insisting that Obama's speech is intended to separate Catholics from their bishops, driving a wedge between them. Weigel's concept is so popular, it has even hit the secular blogs. There's only one problem.

George Weigel is wrong.

Obama is not driving a wedge between Catholics and their bishops, rather, he's taking advantage of a pre-existing wedge between Catholics and their bishops, a wedge the bishops themselves created. Much as it pains me to agree with anyone from America magazine, Fr. Reese hit the nail on the head: no one is listening to the Catholic bishops, and they haven't been listening for a very long time.

But, Reese is also wrong - the bishops didn't lose their credibility during the sex abuse crisis. They lost it long before that crisis began. Indeed, part of the reason the bishops covered over the sex abuse crisis is precisely because most Catholics paid no attention to them as it was, and they couldn't afford to look like even greater idiots than they already had done.

As Joseph Bottum pointed out in his First Things article last week, the bishops stopped leading over 40 years ago. Today, as in the time of the Arian heresy, the faithful lead and the bishops follow as best they can. I go into much greater detail (if only because I have more space to explain it), in my book Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, but here's the thumbnail of the problem: when chemical contraception became possible, the American bishops became docile. They agreed to Lyndon Baines Johnson's suggestion that they shut the hell up on contraception in exchange for him conducting a war on poverty. So, while they were allowed to be in opposition to abortion, they would not speak a public word against the root cause of abortion, contraception. As I pointed out in 2004, they have kept that promise for over forty years, and still adhere to it today.

In fact, they liked LBJ's deal so much, many of them are still in the political tank. Out of over 200 bishops in the United States, less than 80 publicly made statements that were clearly in opposition to Obama's election. A different group of less than 80 bishops publicly made statements that were clearly in opposition to his speaking at Notre Dame. As CultureWarNotes.com points out, at least one bishop publicly came out in favor of Obama's Notre Dame speech.

Weigel could just as easily have argued that Obama is trying to drive a wedge between two groups of Catholic bishops, and he would have been just as right (or, in this case, just as wrong).

In fact, there is already a divide in this country, and it is due precisely to the American bishops themselves. The American Catholic bishops caved back in 1968. They stopped teaching the Faith in order to satisfy American politicians. When they stopped teaching Catholic doctrine in exchange for political favors, Catholics stopped listening to them.

Today, nobody really cares what America's Catholic bishops think. After all, how many Catholics in your parish have read any doctrinal encyclical from their own bishop within the last five years, apart from perhaps an instruction on how to avoid the swine flu? How many even know that their bishops produce doctrinal encyclicals?

And of those few faithful who have read those encyclicals, the writing generally hasn't improved their view of the bishops. What orthodox Catholic was not entirely ashamed of the USCCB's Always Our Children instruction on how to affirm homosexual identity? What of the frankly diosbedient attitude displayed in their instructions concerning Holy Thursday's liturgy? Or the most recent embarrassment, their attempt to instruct married couples in how to put spice back into their marriage? I literally know only a half-dozen people who have even visited the USCCB-sponsored website on marriage. Of those who have, everyone has been embarrassed by the juvenile attitude of some aspect of it.

The "Obama at Notre Dame" event will not drive a wedge between Catholics and their bishops, because the separations are already there, but it does highlight the problem bishops have in communicating with their flock. For instance, at least one Catholic friend of mine is of the opinion that some of the bishops who spoke against Obama at Notre Dame weren't really opposed, they were just jumping on the bandwagon because (a) they knew it would make no difference anyway - Obama and Jenkins would do what they wanted, and (b) it made them look good to the orthodox crowd in the diocese, the only ones who actually feel an obligation to pay any attention to the bishop. A bishop using this cynical ploy could then continue to allow abuses of the liturgy or silence on points of Catholic doctrine, while gaining points for orthodoxy in reference to Barack Obama's murderous attitude and legacy.

Is this really what is happening in certain dioceses?
I don't know.
But I will bet my whole bank account that if it is, you'll never hear George Weigel say it.

Update: A reader pointed out a very salient fact -
"I think the bishops' failure to teach goes a little further back that 1968. Try 1945. On March 10th of that year the 20th US Army Airforce attacked Tokyo with three hundred B-29's. The incendiaries they dropped started a fire storm that killed 100,000 people in six hours, the greatest loss of life in that time span in all of recorded history. Owing to the fact that all men of anything like military age were away, the victims were mostly women, children and the aged. The general who ordered the attack, Curtis E. Lemay admitted later that if Japan had won the war he would have been tried and executed as a war criminal. His candor was not reflected by a single American bishop. Granted, many historical elements contributed to this silence. Still, it's nothing to brag about."

I agree with the addendum. As I point out in the book, Catholic bishops in this country have had a long history of political collusion with the American (as opposed to the Catholic) concepts of various aspects of life, including ideas on how to handle:

• slavery (American bishops were silent while the Vatican opposed it),
• just war (see above),
• voting issues (American bishops emphasized individual conscience instead of informing yourself on Catholic teaching),
• contraception and abortion (see above and the book).

Shrink to Win Works

Peggy Noonan, bless her heart, doesn't get it.

She argues that the Republican party needs to become a "big tent" if it is to successfully combat the Democrats. She argues that kicking people out is no way to become popular. She is wrong in every respect.

"Shrink to Win" is a marvelously effective strategy, used constantly throughout history. Lenin followed this course when he named his party "the Bolsheviks", which means "the majority", even though they were NEVER a majority prior to their takeover of power. He wrote "Better Smaller, But Better" - a screed with insisted that a small party was more effective than a large one.

Hitler and Stalin did the same, restricting party membership for the same reason Lenin did - to maintain ideological purity. Napoleon pointed out that firmness of purpose is to numbers of troops as three is to one.

Every successful leader recognizes that force of purpose makes more difference than force of numbers. A small group of people with a single purpose accomplishes more than a large group of people whose motivations are diffused and obscure.

Barack Obama understands this. He has surrounded himself with fellow travelers, people who think exactly as he do on every issue. That's how he has managed to ram through so much in such a short period of time. He tells everyone what they want to hear, but he does only what he wants to do. He makes sure those in positions of power think exactly as he does.

The masses don't matter - they can be manipulated to run in any direction.
They won't buck the system because they rate their families, their obligations to relatives and friends, higher than they do the harm that would accrue to them by bucking the system. "If I just keep my head down, I can keep my family/friends/myself safe, and we can ride this out."

That kind of attitude is exactly what dictators love.
A dictator doesn't give a damn about family, friends, anyone. All of these are thrown overboard in pursuit of what matters: power.

Normal people protect people. That's their priority: saving people from immediate harm. Unfortunately, operating for the short term protection from harm often opens everyone up to long-term harm.

Dictators, on the other hand, protect power from entangling ties with people.
If everyone around you believes that power's the thing, then you will get and hold power.

Oh, yes, Peggy, Shrink to Win works.
Just look up.

Swine Flu - Something Smells

First, Mexico said over a hundred were dead.
Then the World Health Organization said 7.
But even as it revised the death figures down, it raised the pandemic rating UP.

Why?

Everyone agrees that there are no difference between the Mexican and US viral strains, but Mexicans are dying and being hospitalized, US patients aren't. If the strains aren't different, then there must be a difference in medical care, patient nutrition or some other aspect of immuno-competency. That is, the Mexicans are deficient in something that none of the US patients are deficient in. But no one is saying there ARE any such differences.

And if there were, what would the difference(s) be?

Everyone is saying that we have to quarantine now because it will otherwise enter the population and emerge much more virulent in a year or two.

That's just stupid.

No one has explained why a virus would get MORE virulent over time. Virii don't get more virulent over time. The idea that it would is completely counter to evolutionary theory.

Killing/incapacitating your host doesn't bode well for you, if you're a virus/bacteria. When the host dies, you die. The more virulent strains die with their hosts. The more incapacitating strains don't spread as efficiently because the host is flat on his back, vomiting into a bucket by himself. It's the weak strains that spread efficiently, not the virulent ones. And if the strains are virtually identical, then when a weaker, more efficiently spread virus gets fought off by a host, the host will be immune to the more virulent strain.

So, if this virus does anything, it will become adapted to the host, and thus LESS virulent over the next few months/years, not more virulent. That's how the Black Death disappeared, that's how a whole host of nasty diseases went away.

Strains always become less virulent over time unless you are attacking them, as with the MRSA bacteria. They get more virulent because we attack the bacteria with antibiotics until only the really virulent ones are left. But antibiotics don't work on virii because antibiotics attack cell membranes - that works great for cells like bacteria, but virii are just DNA strands. Antibiotics can't touch them.

So why is everyone worried about this thing getting more virulent?

The prevalence is microscopic, the flu isn't very virulent, it isn't going to get more virulent, and no one is interested in border control, although everyone seems interested in shutting down schools. Why is it that border control will NOT work and shutting down large public gatherings WILL work?

If wearing scarfs works, then have everyone at school wear scarfs. If it doesn't work, why are people being told it does?

What's the difference between the border around the mouth, around a school, around a church or around a country? Why are some kinds of border control encouraged, others not? And I'm asking this question as someone who has always opposed national border patrols. I don't see the logic in the arguments.

Very little of what I've heard in the news about this virus makes any sense. We've got enormous governmental response to essentially no serious numbers of cases. This whole thing smells to high heaven.

Not With a Whimper, But a Bang

As many commentators have noticed, Barack Hussein Obama is inflicting change upon the United States faster and harder than any previous president. We have seen alliances that were built up over decades being systematically attacked over the space of days, terrorists have become respected diplomats, economics has been turned on its head.

Today, we discover that Barack Obama has never called himself a constitutional law professor, that the members of the previous administration might be indicted for having prevented attacks on the United States, that terrorists aren't really terrorists no matter what the evidence says, and that anyone who accepts the Constitution at face value is a right-wing extremist/militiaman/terrorist.

Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

I have argued over and over and over again that Barack Hussein Obama is implementing the same agenda used by his predecessors, men like Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Revolutions work by changing the situation faster than anyone can follow. By the time you step back to take a breath, you're in a different world and there's nothing you can do about it. Rapid change instills learned helplessness in the people upon whom it is inflicted.


How quickly can massive change be implemented?French Revolution: Seven Years
1786 - Kingdom declared insolvent, new taxes proposed,
1789 - First Estates General since 1614, Declaration of Rights of Man
1790 - Monastic orders and vows suppressed, priests take oath of loyalty to the state, nobility abolished,
1791 - Constitution forced on the king,
1792 - King arrested
1793 - King and his wife were executed, Reign of Terror begins.

Bonaparte's Coup: Six Years
1793 - Drives British out during the siege of Toulon.
1795 - Successfully defends the Tuileries Palace against royalists.
1796 - Committee of Public Safety appoints him commander of the Army of Italy,
1797 - He forces Austria into peace negotiations,
1798 - Invades Egypt, Syria, Galilee,
1799 - Massacres prisoners, women and children of Jaffa, poisons his own ill soldiers to speed his retreat from Acre, returns to France, where he is ruler by the end of the year. He immediately launches pan-European war, makes alliance with the Muslims, and conquers most of Europe.

Russian Revolution (Lenin): Four Years
1914 - General strikes in St. Petersburg, WW I begins
1915 - The Great Retreat of the Russian army
1916 - Massive inflation and lack of goods, social upheaval
1917 - Massive strikes, Lenin returns to Russia and takes power, all ranks and titles are abolished,
1918 - Declaration of the Rights of People issued, the Tsar and his family are executed, secret police terror begins.

Russian Revolution (Stalin): Five Years
In his youth Stalin was a "Poet of Hope."
1924 - Lenin dies, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin team against Trotsky,
1925 - Stalin has Kamenev demoted to a non-voting member of the Politburo,
1927 - Zinoviev is purged from the Central Committee,
1928 - Trotsky is exiled,
1929 - Stalin has supreme power, collectivisation introduced, 300,000 families deported. He will kill an additional 6 million in the next three years. By 1936, Stalin had executed all of his rivals after various show trials.
 
Nazi Revolution: Three to Ten Years
1923 - Beer Hall Putsch as Nazis attempt to overthrow government, height of German hyperinflation,
1924 - Hitler released from prison
1925 - Hitler builds up party and reorganizes SA, the terrorist brownshirts
1927 - 1st Nazi meeting in Berlin
1928 - Nazis receive less than 3% of the vote,
1929 - Rapid increase in unemployment
1930 - Weimar Republic falls, Nazis get 18.3% of the vote,
1931 - Hitler becomes a German citizen and runs for president
1932 - Beginning of economic recovery, Nazi party receives 37% of the vote, with Protestants in favor, Catholics opposed, 30% of workforce unemployed,
1933 - Hindenburg gives Hitler office of Chancellor; Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Flossenberg along with lesser camps, are built. Over the next 10 years, there will be over 1000 camps.

Cuban Revolution: Three to Six Years
1952 - Batista takes power in Cuba
1953 - Fidel Castro leads assault on Moncada barracks,
1954 - Batista dissolves Parliament,
1955 - Fidel Castro is released from prison, meets the accomplished murderer Che Guevera in Mexico City,
1956 - Castro lands in Cuba
1957 - Attack on the Cuban Presidential Palace
1958 - Open war between Castro and Batista
1959 - Batista flees Cuba, Castro becomes Premier of Cuba, opposition newspapers shut down, KGB and Stasi train Cuban officials in secret police methods.


Everything can change in the space of just a few years, if the horse is whipped mercilessly enough. The one taking power needs a scapegoat. Lenin had the Tsar. Stalin had Trotsky and the kulaks. Hitler had the Jews. Cuba had the Americans. Barack Obama has George Bush and capitalism.

Why put the nation into trillions of dollars of debt? It makes sense if you want to break the piggy bank and fundamentally change the society. For Lenin and Hitler, the bank had already been broken when they got there. Stalin and Castro deliberately destroyed the economy in order to accomplish what they wanted. If Barack pushes a weak economy as hard as he can, it may well fail and allow him to really get to work.

Why release memos on waterboarding while redacting the information on the lives saved? This makes sense from a short-term political perspective. But it also makes sense if you want to discredit capitalism and its associated government so as to engender in people a desire for a different form of government.

Things are changing fast.
In four years, we will be living in a different country.

UPDATE:
Well, this essay was originally written about Obama, but Trump is doing the job just about as well. He's ratcheted the government debt to new and dizzying heights, with nary a whimper of concern from any of the usual suspects. Stir in Wuhan virus, and watch what bubbles out.

Why Liberal Talk Radio Fails

There are a lot of theories floating around about why liberal talk radio always fails.

People say liberals aren't interesting, liberals aren't funny, liberals scream too much, they act like the victim too often, etc.

While liberals certainly are and do all of these things, I don't think that's the reason.
The real reason liberal talk radio isn't successful is that liberals don't work for a living.

Think about it.

Of all the political persuasions, liberals are the largest group because they encompass both the wealthiest and the poorest among us. Liberal leaders are rich fat cats screaming about how they care about the poor while they simultaneously raise consumption taxes every chance they get. These kind of people watch television talking heads and read the New York Times. They are never in a car unless they are being chauffeured to the airport or the golf course. When they are in a car, they are on their cell phones schmoozing their next deal, they are most definitely not listening to the radio.

Welfare recipients don't listen to radio, they watch TV or play stupid video games.

The only people who listen to the radio are the people driving themselves, alone in a car, stuck in a traffic jam. By definition, that ain't rich people or welfare recipients.

It's working stiffs, grinding out their nine to five job and grinding out their one hour commute each way each day to make it a full-bodied ten-hour workday, five days a week.

These are the people who are working with their hands, people who have to keep their eyes on their work or on the road, but who want to occupy their minds while their hands and eyes stay busy. In a multi-media environment, radio is the only source of entertainment for blue-collar workers for most of the day. It's the only thing available for white collar workers at least two or three hours of the day.

People who work for a living aren't interested in George Soros, Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi.
They want someone who understands what it means to gain your bread in the sweat of your brow.

That won't change any time soon.

Why Scientists Can't Be Trusted

Scientific American, a marvelous magazine in many respects, recently published an article which not only demonstrated the foolishness of one scientist, but highlighted the foolishness of specialists in general.

In it, Dr. Judith Rich Harris opines that parents don't matter when it comes to child-rearing. According to Harris, a child's peer group and teachers make a far larger impact on a child's life and habits than do parents. The most a parent contributes is a handful of DNA, most similarities between children and parents can be chalked up to this DNA contribution, and the actual lifestyle results are really not imparted by parents at all.

Now, it is clearly the case, as any parent can attest, that individual children have individual quirks of personality wholly unrelated to how they are raised. A father who gets on all fours and growls like a lion at his little girl will likely see the young lass scream and run away, while a father who does the same to his little boy will see the young lad scream and attack. Some children are born with naturally outgoing personalities, others are naturally introspective. Certainly it is not all nurture - nature plays its part.

But, to say that a child's peer group and teachers have more impact than his parents is missing the point. Who controls the child's access to other children his age? Who determines which teachers the child will be exposed to?

Who among us has not had a parent tell us, "Why don't you make friends with X? They're a wonderful family!" or "If I discover that you are hanging around with Y, you will be grounded until you are 18."

Similarly, are there no parents who have said, "That is the school for my child!" or "We're going to have to get you moved to a different teacher. This one is not helping you."

While Dr. Harris has some interesting observations, some of them even worthwhile, she doesn't appear to ever have been a parent herself. Even if we grant her thesis, even if we agree that teachers and other children more direct impact on a child's socialization outside the home than parents do, we still must acknowledge that those other people only have this influence because they are permitted to have it by the parents.

Parents are the guardians, the gatekeepers.
For this we were born, even if myopic scientists don't want to admit it.

Fr. Stanley Jaki

Father Stanley Jaki, Templeton Prize winner and one of the finest minds in the world, has passed away.

I had the honor of speaking with Father Jaki on several occasions, once even being blessed with the honor of doing a bit of research for him before one of his talks. His work is voluminous, marvelous, luminous. The world is richer for having had him here, and he will definitely be a man whose intercessions are powerful on earth. May God bless him richly in heaven.

Please, do an indulgence for him and/or for other souls in purgatory, to speed him on his way if he needs it.

Too Weird

Wow.
I'm speechless.

That's not easy to do.

I'm not even sure what to do with this piece (hat tip, Dawn Eden - you probably shouldn't look at it at work).

After reading (?) the article, I feel like I just watched Jerry Lewis meet the third Matrix movie.

You know, this is why Germany invaded France.
Three times.

Or maybe this is the result of being invaded three times by Germany.
I'm open to suggestions...

Jenkins, Fool for Obama

Some people didn't like the fact that I'm making fun of the Notre Dame situation.
This is my response.

XXXX, I understand your outrage, but consider the reality.

Fr. Jenkins invited Obama in order to hook up with power and prestige.

If he rescinds the invitation now...
not only will he humiliate himself,
not only will he humiliate Barack Obama,
but he will guarantee he never gets another powerful person speaking at his commencements again.

No one will risk the humiliating possibility of having THEIR invitation rescinded as well.

As for Barack, the man has no reason to gracefully cancel.
He's got the Catholic Church right where he wants it.
Even if Fr. Jenkins quietly asked Obama to back out, Obama is not going to do it.

If Jenkins doesn't rescind the invitation, Obama wins because he has publicly put ND in his corner.

If Jenkins rescinds, then Obama can paint Catholics as narrow-minded fools, and he wins again, because most adult Catholics will reject the title and hew all that more closely to Obama just to PROVE that they are not one of those reactionary, rigid orthodox Catholics.

The only way Jenkins is going to rescind that invitation is to have his direct superior
require him to do it under pain of obedience.

His superior doesn't have the guts.

Obama is going to speak and that can't be stopped.

So all that is left is to make Jenkins look like a fool.
That's why I posted today's "news story."

Hnoorary Doctorate in History

In a surprise move intended to placate Catholics on the far right, the University of Notre Dame has decided to award an honorary doctorate in history to the Right Reverend Bishop Williamson, of the Society of St. Pius X.

Bishop Williamson's award comes as a result of Fr. Jenkins hope to expand and invigorate on-campus dialogue with various groups that do not necessarily view the world through the same lenses the Vatican uses.

Unfortunately, many orthodox Catholics are now up in arms about this second invitation, but Fr. Jenkins, head of UD, refused to be dissuaded.

"We have invited the bishop and he's honored us by accepting," he said

The SSPX and the University announced today the president will speak at the May 17 Commencement ceremony, to take place in the Joyce Center. The Notre Dame appearance will be Bishop Williamson's first commencement address since he remarked publicly that he didn't think all that many Jews had actually been gassed.

Jenkins made it clear in an interview with The Observer Sunday the University does not "foresee circumstances" that would cause Notre Dame to rescind the invitation.

"Bishops with all sorts of views have come to Notre Dame for decades to speak to graduates about our nation and our world. They've given important addresses on international affairs, human rights, service, and we're delighted that Bishop Williamson is continuing that tradition," Jenkins said.

Some members of the Notre Dame community, and the larger national Catholic community have negatively responded to the announcement, launching new campaigns to stop the bishop from visiting the University because of his stances on issues regarding the destruction of the Jews.

Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

"The invitation of Bishop Williamson to share a podium with President Obama as a Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing the positions of either one on specific issues regarding the protection of life, Jewish or Gentile," Jenkins said.

These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue. "There isn't really any difference between their positions," said Jenkins, "The opportunity for continuing dialogue cannot be overlooked."

The Naked Truth

Hat tips to Marie Pitt-Payne, Dawn Eden, who notified me about this. Link is on CultureWarNotes.com

Recently, Joanna Krupa claimed that her topless poses were inspired by John Paul II's Theology of the Body audiences.

"I think worrying about going topless in a photo shoot or film is really ridiculous," Krupa told FOXNews.com in an exclusive interview. "And the fact is Pope John Paul said, since we were born naked, it is art, and it's just showing a beautiful body that God created."

Now, a lot of things could be said about this, the first being very straightforward - she isn't the only person to misunderstand the TOB audiences. Very well-known promoters of TOB have said extremely stupid things about it, including making recommendations about the use of public or semi-public nudity that are virtually indistinguishable from Joanna Krupa's. Statements averring that the saints lack clothes in heaven, that the Blessed Virgin herself is nude, are made with an air of assurance that the interlocuter seems to have acquired from the Pope himself.

It doesn't go without saying (or I wouldn't be writing this) that such statements make a complete hash of JP II's actual statements. Far from making any statement in support of the idea that the saints are nude or that we should be too, the Holy Father was quite clear on the need for modesty in dress in order to preserve chastity in spirit.

In fact, John Paul II reminds us that photography, especially television and film, tends to make the body an anonymous object (#5 of 15 April 1981 - The HumanBody: Subject of Works of Art, his first talk in the series concerning art and the human body)

Clearly, he was not too fond of any attempt at art, especially attempts at visual art, which depersonalized the subject. Anything which tends to make the person "an anonymous object" is inappropriate. His talk two weeks later, (29 April 1981 - Art Must Not Violate the Right to Privacy), begins with a very clear statement in the second article:

#2 At this point it is not possible to agree with the representatives of so-called naturalism.

Note that he entirely condemns naturalism, nudity, the idea that we are born naked, therefore the human body is beautiful and should remain unclothed in public or semi-public settings. Naturalists argue that anyone should be able to look at a living naked woman or naked man in front of them without lust.

Naturalists are wrong.

The Pope not only says he doesn't agree, he says it is impossible to agree with such a position. He goes on, in article #3, to discuss not only the problem of naturalism, but nudity in any setting whatsoever, including . The problem comes because we don't know how it will be received. We have to consider the possibilities:

#3 The [naked] human body... is a problem which is not only aesthetic, but also ethical. That "element of the gift" is ... suspended in the dimension of an unknown reception and an unforeseen response... [I]t may become an anonymous object of appropriation, an object of abuse. ... The truth about man... creates here precise limits which it is unlawful to exceed.

#4. These limits must be recognized and observed by the artist... [No one has] the right to demand, propose or bring it about that other people, invited, exhorted or admitted to see, to contemplate the image, should violate those limits...

Is it possible to use nakedness in art? The Holy Father comments on this in the very next article:

#5. ...[T]here are works of art whose subject is the human body in its nakedness. The contemplation of this makes it possible to concentrate, in a way, on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and the beauty... of his masculinity and femininity.... [which] leads the viewer, through the body, to the whole personal mystery of man. In contact with these works, where we do not feel drawn by their content to "looking lustfully"...

Art can be used to contemplate the human person as he stands before God. In this kind of artwork, the body is not changed into an object to be used or enjoyed. Instead, it represents an encounter with mankind.

6. Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes the "need to create an atmosphere favorable to education in chastity" (n. 22). With this he intends to affirm that the way of living the human body in the whole truth of its masculinity and femininity must correspond to the dignity of this body and to its significance in building the communion of persons. 6 May 1981 - Ethical Responsibilities in Art

What does this all mean?

It means the art of the Sistine Chapel, the nude rendition of David, the multiple artistic representations of the Blessed Virgin Mary nursing the infant Jesus, these images are possible precisely because their subject is our relationship with God. Adam is naked on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel precisely because God sees him as he is, God reaches out to him.

It is to be noted that, while countless religious paintings represent naked bodies, none represent those bodies engaged in sexual conduct. Rather, in every case, the nakedness the artist renders for us highlights the person's relationship with God - the person who stands fully revealed before Him in the glory of virtue or fully revealed in the shame of sin.

We may indeed see Susannah at her bath with the lecherous elders looking on, but their very lechery highlights the fact that Susannah would sooner die than commit the sin of having sexual relations outside of marriage.

Truly, we are born into this world naked, but it is no less true that God Himself wove our first clothes of skin for us (Genesis 3:21).

Though we came into the world physically naked, we are not meant to be naked.

Adam and Eve were clothed with supernatural and preternatural grace.
When we lost the clothing of grace, God then gave us the clothing of skins.

No matter how you look at it, we need clothes.
Someone needs to look Joanna in the eye and let her know.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Culture War Notes has two very odd stories today.

First, there is the rumor that Barack Obama is trying to silence Archbishop Burke. Burke has apparently been far too outspoken on the abortion front to make our fine feathered community organizer comfortable. His operatives are communicating with Rome, trying to find a way to keep Burke from speaking on the subject.

This is made all the more difficult by the fact that Archbishop Burke is scheduled to be the speaker at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on May 8, along with SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia.

Now, we hear that Archbishop Burke is repudiating his very own videotaped words, a record he made specially for Randall Terry, one of the best-known abortion fighters in the nation.

Now, Archbishop Burke was not born yesterday. He knows full well who Randall Terry is, he knows how Mr. Terry operates, he knows that if he makes a video for Randall Terry, that video is going to be used and used widely, in every possible venue.

But now the archbishop is claiming he didn't know?

What could shut down a fearless man like Archbishop Burke?

I can think of only one other lion in the 20th century who voluntarily muzzled himself: Pope Pius XII.

What shut down Pope Pius XII?

I hope the comparison is wrong.

I'm Not Too Bright

In my book, Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, I discuss the rise of the corporation and the impact it had on the establishment of the school system.

Most people don't realize that the founding fathers of this country HATED corporations. Their fight was not just against Britain, but against the East India Company, the corporation that ran the economies of most of the British colonies. They knew that corporations were the bane of a free existence, so they destroyed every corporation in the nascent American states.

While I documented how the corporation affected the theology of American politics, it wasn't clear to me why the corporation should exist at all. What possible advantage would a government derive from allowing corporations to form, especially given the fact that these same corporations always tended to rival national governments in power?

The brilliant economist Walter Williams explains that in his March 18, 2009 column:

If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it must raise the price of its product, or lower dividends or lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of any tax levied on the corporation. An important subject area in economics called tax incidence says that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden can be shifted to another party. That's precisely what corporations do and as such they are merely government tax collectors.(emphasis added - Read it all.).

Governments want corporations because, prior to the advent of the IRS, corporations were the prime means by which governments collected taxes. Even after the IRS and/or similar government entities are created, corporations serve as mini-Me versions of the IRS. Whatever tax is levied on a corporation will be passed on to the populace.

The funny thing is, I recognized this relationship when I was roughly 14 years old. I never saw the point of raising taxes on business, since I knew I would be paying the tax in the form of increased product prices. But I never made the final connection: corporations are just additional taxing agencies, additional internal revenue services for the government. They provide the fine-grained control over collection which permits the IRS to run without needing to audit more than one or two percent of the population.

Every corporation from which I make a purchase is an extension of the IRS into my life. Seen in this light, in a country where sales tax is applied, every bit of advertising is really a come-on to allow the government to eat another portion of my revenue, with the corporation as the government agent splitting the swag. I never thought of it this way until now.

Is Our Family Like God's Family?

I must confess something.

I sometimes use this blog as a way to remember an argument that comes up infrequently, but which requires me to document the answer whenever it DOES come up.

If I put it on the blog, it never disappears, and I can go search it later.

One such argument is the following, and it is extremely common among certain theologians and certain TOB promoters. I put it here for your edification and delight:

The comparison between father-mother-child and Father-Son-Spirit is specifically called absurd by Aquinas.

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 93, Article 6

It would seem that the image of God is not only in man's mind.

Objection 2.

Further, it is written (Gen1:27) God created man to His own image, to the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. But the distinction of male and female is in the body. Therefore the image of God is also in the body, and not only in the mind.

I answer that, While in all creatures there is some kind of likeness to God, in the rational creature alone we find a likeness of image as we have explained above; but in other creatures we find a likeness by way of a trace.

Reply to Objection 2.

As Augustine says (De Trinitas, 12:5) some have thought that the image of God was not in man individually, but severally. They held that "the man represents the Person of the Father; those born of man denote the person of the Son; and that the woman is a third person in likeness to the Holy Ghost, since she so proceeded from man as not to be his son or daughter." All of this is manifestly absurd: [Aquinas doesn't mince words here] first, because it would follow that the Holy Ghost is the principle of the Son, as the woman is the principle of the man's offspring; secondly, because one man would be only the image of one Person; thirdly, because in that case Scripture should not have mentioned the image of God in man until after the birth of the offspring. Therefore we must understand that when Scripture had said to the image of God He created him, it added, male and female He created them, not to imply that the image of God came through the distinction of sex, but that the image of God is common to both sexes, since it is in the mind, wherein there is no distinction of sexes. [How many Theology of the Body promoters have said that the image of God is in the sex?] And so the Apostle (Col 3:10), after saying According to the image of Him that created him, added, Where there is neither male nor female.

Reply to Objection 3.

Although the image of God in man is not to be found in his bodily shape, yet because "the body of man alone among terrestrial animals is not inclined prone to the ground, but is adapted to look upward to heaven, for this reason we may rightly say that it is made to God's image and likeness, rather than the bodies of other animals," as Augustine remarks. But this is not to be understood as though the image of God were in man's body, but in the sense that the very shape of the human body represents the image of God in the soul by way of a trace. [Notice that: insofar as anything in the body images God, it does so by way of a trace]