Children of God

Over the summer, I was fortunate to attend a workshop on Scripture put together by Renewal Ministries of Ann Arbor, Michigan, a Catholic evangelistic organization. One of the speakers made a simple statement, a statement that we all surely remember hearing at some point as children. But, when heard again as an adult, the statement has a surprising impact. The statement was to the effect that each of us can truly say: "I am a child of God."

I am a child of God not just as a small child or young person. I am a child of God even as a full-fledged adult. And I will remain a child of God into old age if I am fortunate enough to reach that stage. And on the threshold of death, I will be a child of God returning home.

For those who are anxious, overscrupulous, or burdened with guilt and self-doubt, the simple statement that each of us is a child of God is liberating. It is indeed good news because what follows from being a child of God is exactly what Jesus taught. We are not to be anxious because God hovers over us. We are to keep asking because God will bless us just as we give good things to our own children.

With such a pedigree as children of God, the approval of others no longer seems so important. The accumulation of wealth seems like overkill. We have the true security that the fragile human condition yearns for. That fragile human condition includes the tempests of temptation rooted in fearful insecurity. Without that deep fear at the core of our human condition, we can face temptation.

The excellent prayer magazine Magnificat contains, as one of its regular features, meditations consisting of quotations of great saints and writers of the Church. In the current issue, there is an extended excerpt written by Father Maurice Zundel, who died in 1975, and is described as "a Swiss mystic, poet, philosopher, liturgist, and author." I admit that I had never heard of him before. But he is clearly worth reading, as you will see.

The excerpt begins with Zundel pointing out that all our desires are really aspirations to greatness which "remind us that to be a Christian is to be great, is to be a child of God" (Zundel, Magnificat, Sept. 2004, Vol. 6, No. 7, p. 149). He then has wise words on how to handle the temptations that beset all of us:

I believe that there is nothing more dangerous than to fight against oneself because, ultimately, when you are uptight against yourself, first you are focused on yourself, you do not cease to took at yourself, and then you are moving upstream. You repress your strengths but you do not discipline them.

The only thing that can liberate us is first to look upon Christ, . . . to put our trust in God's loving tenderness, and to wait, while soaring above ourselves, to wait until the light comes down and the storm abates.

Zundel, p. 150.

The need to find strength in Christ is why the Pope has never tired of urging his priests to have a special devotion to the Eucharist so that they may live out their calling. That need to find strength in Christ is why the Pope has so strongly encouraged Eucharistic Adoration for all. As St. Paul emphasizes again and again in his letters, Christian morality flows from the transformation of the Spirit. Without that preceding transformation, Christian morality becomes a burden.

But, as we truly know but somehow still doubt, Christ never meant it to be a heavy yoke. We are called to greatness and to abundant life. We are called to irradiate our human nature with the glowing light of Christ. We cannot do that by pursuing a rugged, self-reliant individualism apart from God and apart from our fellow believers. Zundel aptly quotes St. Benedict: "Shatter all your temptations against Christ" (Zundel, p. 149). Our own resources are too meager.

New Website Documents Kerry's Anti-Catholic Stands

The Republican National Committee has launched a new website exposing John Kerry's stands on issues most important to Catholics. It is called "KerryWrongforCatholics.com." Here is the link. The site's documentation of Kerry's anti-Catholic stands is extensive and eye-opening. It is a site definitely worth e-mailing to your Catholic relatives, friends, and acquaintances.

Taking "Scholars" With a Grain of Salt

Cum grano salis--with a grain of salt. The old phrase has a strong resonance for those of us who received our ostensibly Catholic religious education in the nineteen seventies. Having gone to a Jesuit high school in the seventies, I recall no mention of the word "chastity," but I do recall being regaled with talk of the Yahwist and Priestly editors of the Old Testament. These were the editors created by scholars to explain chunks of the Old Testament, especially the first five books or Pentateuch.

This scholarly effort, which dominated biblical scholarship in the last century, is known as the "Documentary Hypothesis" which "proposes that four distinctive source-documents were combined over a period of five or six centuries to produce the Pentateuch as we know it, the end of this process coming in the fifth century BC" (T.D. Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], p. 4).

Probably the most well-known example of the application of the Documentary Hypothesis, also known as source criticism, is in Genesis, where the use of two different names for God (Yahweh and Elohim) "first prompted scholars to discern the presence of two sources in the book of Genesis" (p. 17).

But this still reigning view is questionable. Biblical scholar T. D. Alexander notes that "[w]hereas Yahweh is a personal name, Elohim is a common noun [referring to deity in general]" (p. 20). Thus, depending on the context, one name would be more appropriate than the other. Thus, by itself, the use of one name over another name does not necessarily indicate a different source.

In addition, scholars now point out that the:

presence of both divine names in a single passage does not necessarily imply that two separate accounts have been integrated together. It is possible for one author to use both divine epithets.

Alexander, p. 21.

Another violation of common sense that appears in the work of these scholars is the assumption that if a particular text is silent on a religious practice or custom then that practice or custom did not exist at the time the text was composed (see Taylor, p. 28). This flaw is evident in attempts to recreate the history of the observance of Passover. As Alexander says concerning the development of the Passover, "conclusions drawn from the silence of the text may prove unwarranted" (p. 28).

Those who study the New Testament know that this argument from silence is widely relied upon by scholars who deny the presence of a priesthood or episcopate in the first century A.D. On a more popular and rhetorical level, the silence of the Gospels on certain matters, for example on homosexuality, is taken as a license to view certain Christian teachings as unwarranted distortions of the Gospel.

This overabused argument from silence is premised on the absurd notion that a writer must document all that he takes for granted and believes in. None of us do that today. Why would an ancient writer, part of a distinct community and addressing a distinct community, do that?

The current issues over different forms of biblical scholarship can be quite complex. But the current state of the Documentary Hypothesis-- a view that was taught without question in many Catholic schools in the seventies and probably is till being taught today in the same fashion in many places-- is one of "turmoil":

After almost a century of relative stability, Pentateuch criticism is in a state of turmoil as various theories vie with each other in an attempt to dethrone the Documentary Hypothesis as the explanation for the process by which these books were composed.

Alexander, p. 3 (original emphasis).

The lesson for any era is clear: never suspend your own common sense reactions on the basis of scholarly speculation. Apply common sense skepticism to the biblical skeptics who are largely responsible for the excessive dissection of the Bible.

Next Major Update: Monday, Sept. 13, 2004

Due to a special celebration of the Feast of Our Lady of Charity, Patroness of Cuba, the next major update will be Monday.

Presume CBS Unreliable

The world of blogs is afire with discussion and reporting about the possible forgery of Texas National Guard memos from the early nineteen seventies that were released by CBS to try to sink the Bush campaign. The CBS thesis is that the memoranda show that Bush received favored treatment in the National Guard and disobeyed a direct order to undertake a physical exam.

Even if the thesis should be true, many, including me, believe that the public will find the CBS reporting irrelevant. As I heard one person on the radio put it, Bush's most important military service has been his service as Commander-in-Chief for the last 3 1/2 years. The National Guard stories, whether true or not, will be deemed irrelevant and trivial by most of the public.

The single best source that I have found that covers the developments over the questioned documents is the Powerlineblog.com, but there are other sources worth looking at. (Powerline has links to most of the sources mentioned below.) The mainstream media ("MSM") is also taking part. The Washington Times has a good overview of the entire situation ("CBS' bomb turns blooper," by Jennifer Harper, 9/11/04). Predictably, the N.Y. Times and the Boston Globe, as of today, are taking, in their highly selective reporting, the line most favorable to CBS.

But ABC News is deep into questioning CBS and has revealed that one of CBS's star witnesses has recanted his support for the disputed memoranda and now believes they are fakes. The Associated Press is now running a story that is quite skeptical in tone of the CBS claim that the memoranda are authentic. Today's Los Angeles Times also raises serious questions about the authenticity of the CBS documents.

It has also been revealed that CBS does not have and never had the originals of these alleged National Guard documents. The lack of originals made a definitive authentication impossible. But CBS still ran with the story in the obvious hope of sinking Bush's surge in the polls. The heated anti-Bush bias could not be clearer. And so it is now the blogosphere, along with some MSM news outlets, that must do the legwork that CBS did not care to do before publication.

Anyone with common sense must assume that any negative CBS political reporting on Bush is highly questionable and not worthy of immediate belief. In other words, CBS News is not a news source worthy of automatic belief, especially on political matters.

Even as the controversy over the documents continue, the unreliability of CBS has already been proven and authenticated. When it comes to political news, add CBS to the ranks of the N.Y. Times as worthless sources of political information. The internet and the blogs are now the proofreaders and evaluators of the MSM.

One CBS defender criticized bloggers for lacking the "checks and balances" of professional news organizations like CBS. The truth is that the bloggers are now the new "checks and balances" for CBS and the rest of the MSM. Someone had to fill the vacuum.

Update: A reader sends this MSNBC link that gives another good overview of the situation. Please take a look at this animated depiction (credit to Powerlineblog.com) of the National Guard document at issue that CBS is still claiming to have been typewritten back in 1972. Indeed, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Comparing the Candidates--Boldly

There's an ongoing presidential campaign. U.S. bishops as a whole urge us to participate as voters and do our civic duty. They urge us to inform ourselves as to the issues. So it is perfectly appropriate for parishes across the country to make available to Catholics the positions of each candidate on major issues.

For decades, the Church and the Popes have written about, preached about, and urged Catholics to oppose the grave instrinsic evil of procured abortion. John Paul II has even called us to fight the Culture of Death in democratic countries that have legalized abortion and other acts against innocent life. So it is even more appropriate to inform Catholic voters about the position of each candidate on the highly significant issue of abortion.

Right to Life of Michigan makes available such a comparison of the two major candidates on abortion and other life issues for free at its website, in both English and Spanish (scroll down to "Stark Contrast"). The organization urges that people copy and freely distribute this comparison sheet.

The actual flyer is in PDF format at this link. It is a one-page flyer, with nine bullet points comparing George W. Bush and John Kerry on the Life issues. It is concise and purely comparative. It reports the facts and lets the voter decide whom to vote for. The flyer itself does not endorse one candidate over another, although it does mention the fact that Bush is endorsed by numerous prolife organzations including Right to Life of Michigan. This factual disclosure is necessary so that no one can allege that the source of the flyer is trying to somehow misrepresent itself as neutral on the Life issues.

The fact of such pro-life endorsements is presented as the true fact that it is-- a fact that voters are entitled to know about and consider. But remember that the flyer itself is not an endorsement. It is not a partisan flyer. It is non-partisan and educational. Education on the issues is not partisan political activity.

So the challenge for us is to take this non-partisan, factual information and make it available to our fellow Catholics. Let the voters make an informed decision. No one can argue with that. All we need is the boldness to spread the truth at the grassroots level. The major media and the unions with which many Catholics are still associated won't do it. We have to do it.

Is the Response to Terror "Anger Management"?

That would seem the prescription offered by many in the media. One web columnist justifies his support for Kerry by arguing, in effect, that electing Kerry will somehow in some unspecified way help reduce anger against the United States in the Middle East and thereby reduce the likelihood of terror attacks against us (see today's Mickey Kaus column at Slate.com).

First, how Kerry will manage to do that is a mystery, a mystery that will, in my view, remain unexplained through election day. Second, even in the highly unlikely event that Kerry could somehow reduce anger against us, the anticipated benefit will not materialize because our enemies will still attempt to attack us again and again.

The original thrust of Islam was world conquest through the sword. That is what Bin Laden and company believe in and have revived. It is not a matter of angering them. It is the simple fact that the U.S. is not an Islamic nation. Even worse in their eyes, we emerged in the nineties as the world's only superpower. That is the problem-- one non-Islamic superpower-- that we pose for radical Islamists. That is the problem they are fanatically obsessed with eliminating one way or another.

Anger management will not work. The particular people who have attacked us and are still trying to attack us have long been angry toward us and will always be angry toward us. They are angry at the U.S. for what the U.S. is: a non-Muslim superpower.

As long as the U.S. remains a superpower while not being an Islamic nation, they will always direct their anger at us. Nothing we do or don't do will ever change that. Hence, the only solution is to destroy the Islamic radicals before they destroy us. This solution is nothing more than the old and unquestioned moral right to self-defense.

To suggest that Kerry "nuance" will somehow mollify these enemies shows a fatal misunderstanding of the enemy. The U.S. can't shrink or disappear from the world stage. We are big, rich, and powerful. We are not Islamic. As long as those traits remain, we will be a target no matter who is President. From the radical Islamist perspective, the only way the U.S. can insulate itself from future attack is to convert en masse to radical Islam.

From the radical Islamic perspective, the second best way would be for the U.S. to cut all ties, aid, and diplomatic support to Israel. But even cutting Israel completely off will not satisfy them in the long run as long as we remain non-Islamic. Their goal is world Islamic hegemony or control, however crazy and alien that goal seems to us. Hitler caused untold misery with the same crazy goal for Nazism.

In short, the impact of trying to appease the anger of ideological fanatics is similar to the law of diminishing returns in which the more you do a particular thing, the less benefit you get from it. But in this case the returns will likely be worse than merely diminishing. For implacable hatred, appeasement efforts will make at best for a law of no returns in greater security. At worst --and more likely, such efforts make for a law of increasing terror attacks as the haters see weakness as provocation, as encouragement, and as a divine omen of ultimate victory.

The 9/11 Commission has great prestige and credibility among the mainstream media. Many hold it in high regard as an oracle of wisdom. Here is its view of the people who attacked us and are still trying to attack us:

To the . . . question [of what we can do to stop these attacks], al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind."

The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 51 (emphasis added).

Earlier, the Commission noted that Bin Laden seeks "to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam" (Commission Report, p. 48; emphasis added). The full text of the 9/11 Commission Report is available at this link.

Now, many of us here in the U.S. agree that our culture is deeply troubled with godlessness and immorality that keeps expanding. Such immorality will, by the way, keep expanding under a Kerry presidency dedicated to abortion, to unrestricted embryonic stem cell research, and to posing no obstacles to the gay marriage crusade. But many of us do not favor abandoning Israel, a democratic nation with deep cultural ties to us. And certainly very few of us desire to convert to Islam and even less of us wish that conversion to take place at the point of a gun or a bomb.

The goal of the "new terrorism"--the label used by the Commission-- is worldwide Islamic hegemony. That goal will not be changed by anger management through appeasement. The reality which many of us in our affluent and spoiled society do not want to see is that defeating the fanatical devotees of Islamic conquest is our only recourse, however much that struggle may disrupt our private pursuit of pleasure and comfort.

Hedonism wishes to buy off the threat with the illusion of anger management to avoid any lifestyle disruptions. Such an approach will only stoke the fire. The best way to choke off the flow of recruits to these religious fanatics is to bring wider democracy to the Middle East. That is why the U.S. is fighting in Iraq. The mysterious promise of "anger management" will not do. That is why Bush is on the right track.

The Parasitism of a Liberal Religious Order

Webster's defines "parasitism" as "an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; esp: one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usu. injures." Yesterday, the Detroit Free Press ran a story about a Michigan religious order that donated money to a pro-abortion organization called Emily's List ("Donations by nuns to Emily's List questioned," Sept. 7, 2004, by Patricia Montemurri). The sole, self-proclaimed purpose of Emily's List is to sponsor women candidates for political office who support abortion.

And not just any pro-abortion women candidates: only Democrats need apply according to the Emily's List website. The website repeatedly refers to the threat posed by George W. Bush and the Republicans to abortion rights. If anyone still needed confirmation that the true Catholic vote in this election is for Bush, just browse the Emily's List website.

The donor to Emily's List in question in the Detroit story is the Immaculate Heart of Mary female religious order in Michigan. Predictably, the order's spokesperson is now speedily backtracking and claims that the order did not intend to make a statement concerning abortion but rather sought to support more women in political office.

That claim defies belief. Why pick an organization focused solely on promoting pro-abortion female candidates? Why support an organization claiming to endorse only Democrats? You can surely find other ways to encourage women to run for public office. In any event, why just focus on women? Why not just encourage more people in general to engage in public service or consider running for office?

Therein lies the problem. The Immaculate Heart of Mary "sisters" have, from all indications, bought into the conventional secular feminism of the culture instead of presenting the authentic feminism of Catholic thought. In an authentic feminism, abortion is a crime against both women and the preborn. In authentic feminism, the true dignity of women and of the vocation of motherhood is advanced, not the violence of abortion that attacks both the dignity of women and of motherhood.

It is a great satanic lie to view abortion as a boon to women. As Paul VI is reputed to have said, the smoke of Satan has surely made its way into our Catholic institutions. This parasitical situation in which religious orders and others live off the Church while at the same time undermining the Church is, of course, common.

We have, as Webster's definition notes two organisms intimately associated: on the one hand disingenuously but outwardly Catholic liberal entities, on the other hand the Catholic Church as a whole. The liberal orders and other entities benefit from their association with the Church in terms of their status in the community, range of educational and other activities, and funding directly from the Church or from duped Catholic donors. These liberal entities live off the goodwill of many, both Catholic and non-Catholic, toward the work of the Church. But, like all parasites, these entities injure their host, the Church, while deriving tangible and intangible benefits from their intimate association with the Church.

We have to call these liberal religious orders and kindred entities what they really are: mini-denominations unto themselves that follow a non-Catholic agenda. Rather than stand alone as liberal Protestant denominations do, they seek to survive by remaining outwardly in the Catholic fold while undermining Catholic teaching from within.

It is time for them to be honest with themselves and with the wider community and stop the parasitism: either fully embrace Catholicism or split off. It is also time for those with the sacred obligation to fight such confusion to push for that honest self-appraisal and to put an end to this deceptive parasitism. A push must come from the hierarchy because the usual response of these orders when caught in the act is to claim that they were acting innocently in spite of the damning evidence. Yes, they are innocent. The problem is that they are innocent of a full and intimate embrace of Catholic truth.

C.S. Lewis the Prophet

Continuing our look at C.S. Lewis, we come to the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Kerry, eagerly assisted by the odd persona of Ron Reagan, Jr., is brandishing a blank check for research that destroys human embryos at will. Lewis was a prophet on this issue, as he was on others. Biographer A.N. Wilson was himself a bit of a prophet in 1990 by highlighting Lewis' comments on the dangers of runaway scientists:

Many a mild-eyed scientist in pince-nez, many a popular dramatist, many an amateur philosopher in our midst [i.e. Freud, Shaw and A.J. Ayer] means in the long run just the same as the Nazi rulers of Germany. Traditional values are to be 'debunked' and mankind to be cut into some fresh shape at the will (which must, by hypothesis, be an arbitrary will) of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it. The belief that we can invent 'ideologies' at pleasure, and the consequent treatment of mankind as specimens, mere [raw material], preparations, begins to affect our very language--once we killed bad men: now we liquidate unsocial elements.

C.S. Lewis, quoted in A.N. Wilson, C.S. Lewis: A Biography (W.W. Norton & Co., 1990), pp. 199-200 (emphasis added).

For the advocates of embryonic stem cell research, their favored researchers are "the few lucky people in one lucky generation" who have come across a treasure trove of human raw material made possible by in vitro fertilization. This accumulation of human embryos is cavalierly deemed to consist of disposable elements, just as the Nazis deemed certain ethnic groups unworthy of life.

A.N. Wilson, a non-Christian, clearly saw the problem, that now looms larger than ever, back in 1990 when he noted that "Lewis's arguments cover . . . the so-called advance of medical science in the area of experimenting on human embryos" (p. 200).

For a detailed, methodical consideration of this central issue of human life, take the time to review the essay by law professor Robert George and other resources at the Family Research Council website.

C.S. Lewis the "Catholic"

This is my first commentary on a 1990 biography of C.S. Lewis by British biographer A.N. Wilson (C.S. Lewis: A Biography [W.W. Norton & Co., 1990]). I first encountered Wilson's work in reading his biography of Leo Tolstoy, a biography which still brings back pleasant memories. But I also recall Wilson's succumbing to the almost irresistible temptation to reconstruct the "historical Jesus" in his book Jesus: A Life (W.W. Norton & Co., 1992).

Wilson is not a Christian. He admits it plainly and honestly in his misguided book on Jesus. For that honesty, he should be commended. Unlike modernists and liberals who still claim to be Christians and go on to revise Christian belief from within the fold, Wilson is honest and logical enough to recognize that, since he no longer believes that Jesus is still alive or that Jesus is "Lord and Judge of the world," he could no longer call himself a Christian (Wilson, Jesus: A Life, p. xvi).

Would that so many others, both Protestant and Catholic, would be as intellectually honest and stop passing off their unbelief as updated Christian theology. Yet, for Christians, Wilson's defection is, of course, still unfortunate, especially because it appears to be based on a dated and highly defective critical reading of the New Testament that has since been exposed as baseless by ground-breaking biblical scholarship.

Given Wilson's rejection of Christianity, there are bound to be some problems with his treatment of Lewis. But as a good biographer, Wilson does his research and does manage to give us a glimpse at the man behind so much of the best Christian writing of the twentieth century. It is an irresistible look at C.S. Lewis, whose writings are still wildly popular.

For a Catholic, the most striking aspect of Lewis is how close to Catholicism he really was. Lewis never became a Catholic and remained an Anglican to the end. But, in spite of his Ulster Protestant upbringing and the related prejudices inevitably ingrained from that upbringing, Lewis surprisingly gravitated to the most Catholic of practices available in some quarters of Anglicanism. Lewis' temperamental affinity to Catholicism is not surprising given his life-long friendship and the literary enthusiasms that he shared with the Catholic J.R.R. Tolkein.

It is not wishful thinking to conclude that Lewis would have been strongly attracted to entering the Catholic Church if he had lived to see the current theological disintegration of the Church of England, which has made Lewis' "mere Christianity" entirely optional. The routine reality of Anglican bishops in good standing publicly denying the divinity and Resurrection of Christ, coupled with same-sex ceremonies and a gay Episcopal bishop, would have surely made Lewis look to Rome.

Lewis believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Wilson notes that Lewis "clearly had a full belief in the Eucharistic Presence, or there would be no force in the rhetoric of his [statement that] 'Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses' "(pp. 174-75).

Most surprising to me, Lewis even turned to the practice of sacramental confession. He was friends with an Anglican nun who apparently encouraged his first confession, which appears to have been made to an Anglican priest from an Anglican religious order (p. 175). The old Ulster Protestant was going to confession to a religious order priest, with the encouragement of a nun. That is an astonishing evolution.

And here, Wilson the unbelieving biographer comes through in a telling description of the drama of confession which reminds me of the writings of John Paul II:

The practice of confession brought before Lewis the drama of redemption as a perpetual game of cat and mouse with the Devil-- the Enemy. The very particularity of the sacrament forces upon the penitent the sense that it is on the here and now-- that row we had with the neighbours, the bad temper with which we did the washing-up, this specific uncharitable thought or unchaste deed-- that salvation and damnation depend. It is in the small area of our own conscience and our own personal behaviour that the good angels and the bad angels are wrestling over our souls, an idea which is both stupendous and slightly comic.

Wilson, p. 176.

Lewis was quite Catholic without formally being Catholic. And Wilson, the honest unbeliever, gives a surprisingly insightful description of sacramental confession. Ironically, many Catholic modernists and theological liberals, who lack the honesty of Wilson, are incapable of such insight about sacramental confession and have contributed mightily to the dramatic decline of confession among Catholics. Sometimes we can learn more from those outside the fold than from those who falsely present themselves as being inside the fold.

Unfit for Command Now #1 on Bestseller List

The Swift boat book Unfit for Command is now #1 on the N.Y. Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction books (see Bestseller List ; free reg'n required).

23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time: Wisdom 9:13-18b; Philemon 9-10, 12-17; Luke 14:25-33

Today's readings show how the Holy Spirit inverts what we think is the right order of our lives. The message is quite clear in the book of Wisdom: our deliberations are "timid" and "unsure" because of the "many concerns" that weigh down our mind. This Old Testament book is explicit about the solution: "who ever knew your counsel, except you had given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high?" Our fears and insecurities are a poor guide to the wise way to live. We need help to give us a clear vision of life free from the taint of our insecurities.

In the Letter to Philemon, Paul pleads for Philemon to treat his missing slave Onesimus as "a brother" and as "a partner." Paul here is inverting the accepted order in which the master and the slave are neither brothers nor partners. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul is turning the conventional outlook of the times upside down. He is asking Philemon to give up the idea of the slave as a mere possession.

Jesus goes even further in the Gospel reading from Luke. Jesus asks us to "hate" even our families, to carry our own crosses, and to "renounce all" possessions. Surely, these commands turn our world upside down and subvert our conventional wisdom.

If family members subvert the work of Jesus in our lives, then we must be ready for conflict with them. It is much as if a reformed alcoholic from an alcoholic family must stop attending drunken family gatherings and exposing his children to alcoholism. You can add a variety of other problems that afflict many families today, in addition to substance of abuse of one kind or another: compulsive cynicism and mockery of fellow family members, the worship paid to consumerism and materialism, and the flaunting of sexually immoral lifestyles past and present. The cost of following Christ may include the cost of severing some family ties, however much that goes against our conventional mindset.

Jesus warns us to weigh the cost of discipleship and to be ready to renounce all possessions--and possessions may be things or they may be people. If we really want the wisdom available through the Holy Spirit, we must be ready to see our world--families, careers, lifestyles--turned upside down.

Can Old Sinners Preach About Their Old Sins?

Recently, the liberal National Catholic Reporter gratuitously disclosed a ten-year-old scandal in the past of a leading conservative Catholic activist. In the past, I have referred to NCR as the "National Catholic Distorter" because it takes theological positions that are plainly not Catholic at all, such as on gay marriage or the priesthood. With the unnecessary disclosure of an old scandal for no valid objective reason, I think I can now add a new name for NCR: the "National Malicious Reporter."

But the latest nickname for a strange, leftist publication that pretends to to be Catholic is not really what is important because that publication is nowhere near as important as it thinks itself to be. The important issue is whether old sinners can preach about their old sins. If they are unconverted Elmer Gantrys, then the answer is no. But if old sinners have experienced conversion, which obviously includes change in behavior, then these old converted sinners have an obligation to warn others from falling in the same pit.

On this site, I myself write quite frequently about the dangers of sexual immorality. I write as someone who grew up as part of what I call the "fornication culture," something I wrote about extensively in Homiletic & Pastoral Review ("The Fornication Culture," April 2003) (available at CatholicCulture.org, free reg'n required). I write about the fornication culture with urgency because I know the life-long damage it can cause to individuals and families firsthand.

I also write with urgency about sexual immorality because, like many in my generation, I was not exposed to the Church's true teachings on sexuality. My own eyes were first opened in 1994 with the publication of the first English translation of the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church. Up until that time, I, like many others, could walk into a bookstore and easily find a book by a liberal Catholic whose reasoning would justify just about any behavior we wanted to engage in or were already engaged in. I even keep an old copy of one such book to document that experience.

The title of this old book is quite revealing: Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, published by Crossroad Publishing in 1991. The author was a Benedictine monk named Philip S. Kaufman, O.S.B. Even more revealing is that the foreword was by a liberal moral theologian, Richard A. McCormick, S.J. The back cover of the book contains endorsements by Robert Blair Kaiser, who is still writing and lecturing about the papacy, by Andrew Greeley, who is still spouting nonsense, and by a publisher of Commonweal, a publication that still exhibits the muddled thinking of moral relativism to this day.

Like the heterodox Richard McBrien's book Catholicism, this little book has caused untold damage to the faith and practice of many educated Catholics by pushing the lie that we can concoct our own private version of Catholicism as if we were concocting a meal at Mongolian Barbecue. Many of us were only too happy to take such liberties as recommended by writers in religious orders or at famous Catholic universities.

If you have been hoodwinked by such false or negligent teaching, you don't want others to be similarly fooled. If you have experienced the negative effects of moral relativism, you want to expose those effects with logic and clarity. It is similar to the Old Testament prophet who said that he could not keep silent because his prophetic message was burning within him.

Now, a hypocrite who does not currently practice or attempt to practice in good faith what he preaches has no business preaching anything. To do so would be an added form of deception. But a converted sinner is not deceiving anyone. A converted sinner is trying to prevent others from similarly falling for the deception he was once subject to. Many of us today are trying to prevent others from falling for the deception of the moral relativism preached for years by publications like the so-called National Catholic Reporter.

A prudent writer or speaker who proclaims the Church's authentic teachings should make clear that he himself is an old sinner who has converted and is continually in the process of conversion. It is prudent to do so as a shield against the enemies of the Gospel who seek to discredit witnesses to the Gospel. But more importantly, noting one's sinful past and one's struggles emphasizes that the Gospel message is good news for all and offers hope and mercy for all. The Gospel can make all things new.

Yes, old sinners who are on the journey of continual conversion can preach about their old sins. These old sinners are in fact obligated to preach about their old sins. It is a work of mercy. It is a task that Christ calls them to. Whether they dare to fulfill that task, even in the face of pseudo-journalism, will be part of how they will be ultimately judged by the only Judge that counts.

St. Paul, the formerly rabid Pharisee, preached most against the Judaizers of his time. St. Augustine, with a particular weakness for lust, preached and wrote extensively about chastity. In the mysteries of providence, these men were great spokesmen for great truths precisely because of their own contradictory past.

Even Mother Teresa first lived in relative privilege for years as a private school teacher in the midst of a poverty-stricken India before eventually and famously devoting her life to the poorest of the poor in India. Closer to home, we know that there can be no stronger witness to someone struggling with alcoholism than the reformed alcoholic at an AA meeting.

And so the key to evaluating the credibility of a witness to the Gospel is his continuing conversion, not the existence per se of skeletons in the closet. God mysteriously uses our skeletons for His own ends. God uses the past darkness of his new servants to illuminate the darkness that traps others. He makes all things new. It is His prerogative, and He does not need permission from pseudo-journalists. Now that, in contrast to moral relativism, is true freedom and true liberty.

The Pro-Life Candidate Gets a Poll Bounce

Time magazine is reporting a double digit lead for President Bush over Kerry in its latest poll taken during the Republican Convention.

A Virtuous America: Is the Effort in Vain?

We live in an American culture with big contrasts. On one side, marriage has been battered. "Shacking up" has replaced marriage for many. Decades ago, it used to be the alternative for those mired in a world of desperate poverty and lack of education. It is now the preferred domestic arrangement for many people with good jobs and college degrees. Divorce has made even the traditional household of husband, wife, and young children an unstable arrangement. Gay activists now seek to further muddle the picture with more confusion.

On the other side, there has been a backlash. Abstinence education is now becoming more common as people recognize that promiscuity is self-destructive. There is a growing awareness of the life-long destructive effects of divorce, especially on children. Religious denominations that conveniently ignored the collapse in sexual standards are now asking young people to save themselves for marriage. Books and speakers around the country urge a return to sexual modesty.

But the onslaught continues. Hollywood and pop music turn out a barrage of insanity aimed especially at the young. Pop singers, well-known to the young, eagerly engage in public lesbian kissing. Cable shows aim to glorify the gay lifestyle. Sex outside of marriage is celebrated in popular sitcoms. Big box stores market fashions for young girls that make them look like hookers from a nineteen seventies police TV series. Abuse of alcohol and nacrotics is treated as normal and even glamorous. All of this is a great deception because the deep psychological and physical costs of this irrational behavior are never portrayed. It is a great illusion.

Worst of all, the killing of the preborn and partially born continues apace as a perverse safety net viewed as necessary for sustaining the right to fornicate at will. This return to irrationalism occurs in the face of ultrasounds that make clear that the preborn are persons and in the face of the now decades old scientific discovery of the DNA map for human life that is fully present at fertilization. Now, the irrational goal is to go even further and to manufacture embryos for medical research involving their destruction and disposal at will. Unrestricted cloning is the ultimate goal of our modern mad scientists aided by ignorant and power-hungry politicians.

And in the end, a highly confused culture offers only one certainty: money and power are all-important. No rage about abortion, but just try to take someone's money. We have created a culture which can get enraged only about losing money, but not about prostituting the young or about killing the unborn. Where money and power become all-important, honesty and integrity are the first casualties. No one can give his word because honor has been banished from the culture. Promises and handshakes increasingly mean nothing.

It doesn't take a perfect person to point all of this out. It just takes a thinking person who has likely experienced firsthand or through proximate observation the lunacy described. Many of us now in our forties and even younger were deceived in our churches and schools about genuine Christian moral teaching. We are speaking up today because we resent that past deception and want it to stop once and for all.

Will we be able to remake America completely into a virtuous nation? Not at all. Just as the founders knew that it was necessary to include checks and balances due to our highly imperfect natures, we know today that moral checks and balances must be put forward to fight our natural tendency to selfish exploitation. Call it original sin or concupiscence, all mature people know, whether they are religious or not, that, left uninstructed in virtue, we tend to hurt others and ourselves.

The good and the bad will continue to grow side by side. The task of those who seek the good is to teach by word and especially by example that we can turn away from the bad, no matter our age or our past. That task must be carried out in our churches, schools, homes, and seminaries. We will not have total victory because of our efforts, but we will contribute to the total victory of the truth that faith ultimately guarantees. That is why our efforts are not in vain even in the face of so much irrationality.

George W. Bush's Acceptance Speech

For Catholics and others, below is a very welcome portion of the President's acceptance speech:

Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them. Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

Source: FoxNews.com.

You won't hear these words from the Democratic Party.

Possessions and Generosity

Last Sunday the Gospel reading contained Jesus' parable of a banquet with guests vying for the best seats and a host inviting desirable guests (Lk 14:1, 7-14). I was fortunate to hear an insightful homily which compared life itself to a banquet and asked the congregation to consider their roles as guests and as hosts. As guests, we are called to humility as the way to gain the "esteem" of our fellow dinner guests. As hosts, we are called to disinterested generosity as the way to salvation.

It is striking to consider ourselves as guests in the world. As guests, everything is a free gift, everything is grace. As British apologist Alban McCoy has noted, even our very life itself is a gift. McCoy uses this point to argue that ownership is an illusion: if we don't even own our lives, how can we even own our possessions? (McCoy, An Intelligent Person's Guide to Catholicism [Continuum, 2001], p. 98).

If we recognize that in the course of our lives we are but guests, we acquire an enlarged view of our freedom. We are not defined by our possessions, and it would be foolish to let ourselves be controlled or enslaved by them. Our possessions are blessings for our use, but not the purpose of our lives. If we view ourselves as guests, we will be less grasping, anxious, and insecure about our material holdings.

Now in matters of politics and social policy, many rightly argue, as does the Church, that the right to private property must be protected. Ownership gives people a stake in their work and in their communities so that both are better. But we are talking here about our attitude to ownership, all along assuming that ownership is a good and necessary human right. With the attitude of a guest, we will be freer and more realistic--more realistic because we recognize that we are not justified by possessions freely received.

The other role that Jesus highlights in the parable is that of the host. As the homilist pointed out, we also serve as hosts throughout our lives. Jesus called on the host not to invite the most prestigious guests or the guests that are in a position to repay the host's generosity. Jesus called on the host to invite "the poor, the crippled, the lame, [and] the blind."

This disinterested generosity is the other side of recognizing ourselves as guests. We as guests receive freely although we are certainly, in many aspects both past and present, poor, crippled, lame, and blind. Our own disinterested generosity merely recognizes the generosity we have ourselves received from God and others with no expectation of return.

The Value of Shame: Nixon vs. Clinton

In Catholic moral theology, a distinction is sometimes made between imperfect contrition and perfect contrition. Imperfect contrition refers to sorrow for our sins because we fear God's punishment or feel deep embarrassment and shame because of the "ugliness" of sin (cp. Catechism, 1453). Perfect contrition is sorrow focused on sin as offending the God who is perfectly good and who is love itself.

As stated by the late Fr. Hardon, imperfect contrition is "sufficient for remission of sin in the sacrament of penance," while perfect contrition goes further and "detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God, who is supremely good and deserving of all human love" (Modern Catholic Dictionary s.v. "Imperfect Contrition" & "Perfect Contrition").

Last night, at the Republican convention, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did something that it appears no speaker has done at a Republican convention since 1972: he praised Richard Nixon. The governor recounted his admiration for Nixon as a young immigrant listening to Nixon debate Hubert Humphrey in 1968. It appears that many immigrants have a durable appreciation for Nixon. I know my own immigrant parents did. I have heard the same from a close friend about his own immigrant parents.

Whatever his moral faults--and they were deep, Nixon articulated a vision of hope and faith in a strong America in contrast to the fashionable leftist rhetoric of the sixties and early seventies. New immigrants loved that. They had not come to settle in a country of protest riots, flag burning, or medal throwing. They had come to settle in the America of John Wayne--another figure also mentioned by the California governor. Nixon resonated with the immigrants of the sixties.

When Nixon was faced with certain adoption of articles of impeachment by the House, leading Republican leaders, including Senator Goldwater, made the necessary trip to the White House to urge his resignation. Before suffering the humiliation and shame of impeachment, Nixon resigned. At that moment, he must have felt deep shame and embarrassment. It would not be surprising to find out that he came close to or even attained imperfect contrition.

In contrast, when the House was on the verge of adopting articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, I do not recall any Democrat heavyweights visiting the White House to urge Clinton to resign. In fact, after the entire House voted to impeach Clinton, Clinton responded with a rally on the White House lawn led by then Vice President Gore. The Clinton response, the response of the entire Democratic Party, was one of arrogant disdain for the grave charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The Clinton response to threatened and actual impeachment did not remotely bear the marks of imperfect contrition.

Shame is the initial prompting of imperfect contrition. The behavior of Clinton indicated no sense of shame. Everybody did what he did, and he had a right to try to cover it up through any means, legal or illegal. Nixon, on the other hand, was from another generation. There was still a lingering sense of public shame. And so Nixon's party advised resignation, and Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

Both men committed grave offenses, but only one, Nixon, showed any indication of shame. Clinton, to this day, smiles his way through life as if nothing untoward ever happened. He is even marketing his own wife as a future President. And, certainly, he plans to play a major role in that enterprise should it ever become reality.

Whatever the sin, shame has a proper and underestimated value in our culture. Shame is the recognition that we dropped the ball. Shame communicates to others that they should not follow the same route. Shame upholds the standards we all must, however imperfectly, keep trying to attain. Shame is the respect paid by sinners to the Good. At least Nixon's resignation paid respect to the Good. We are still waiting for Clinton to do the same, although the opportune moment has long passed.

Many immigrants appreciated and still appreciate the highly imperfect Nixon's articulation of a free and strong America in the late sixties and early seventies--the very same time when a young Bill Clinton was part of the sixties counterculture of shamelessness with which he has never parted.

British Dry Wit Hits the Mark

Recently, a friend suggested that I post some humorous pieces. I doubt I will take that course given that humor is abundantly available elsewhere on the web and that the focus of Catholic Analysis is, well, analysis. Yet, sometimes, irony and satire are part of an analysis and may lead to smiles and chuckles. Hopefully, that type of analytical humor will inevitably pop up now and then on this site.

Apropos to this topic, a loyal Catholic Analysis reader, who has become in effect an informal "reporter" for this site, sends me an article (reg'n required) from Forbes.com by British historian Paul Johnson analyzing the ongoing presidential campaign. Johnson's column is an example of cutting analysis that can't help but bring a smile.

Two examples from the column are particularly striking. First, there is the following comparison of President Bush and Michael Moore:

Bush looks to be a man who keeps himself trim through self-discipline, while Moore is a gross, shapeless, unshaven monument to self-indulgence and gobbling.

Paul Johnson, "Will Showbiz and Moneybags Hijack the Election?," Sept. 6, 2004, Forbes.com, available at this link.

The second example is Johnson's view of the millions dedicated by financier George Soros to defeat President Bush:

No other financier of modern times has made such abusive use of his money to exercise power; I am tempted to recall the famous saying of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, written for him by Rudyard Kipling-that this is "Power without responsibility-the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."

Paul Johnson, available at above link.

This British historian shows how analysis can also be entertaining and not just informative.

The Republican Platform is Catholic Friendly

The level of worthless speculation and punditry on some of the news shows is truly astounding. On one cable network, MSNBC, the assembled wise men and women speculated on the future presidential candidacy of former New York Mayor Giuliani, who is pro-abortion. As usual, the media acts as if abortion is a non-issue because for them it is a non-issue. They have long ago accepted abortion as an unquestioned civil right.

This personal assumption blinds them to the reality that the Republican Party in 2008 will not nominate a pro-abortion presidential candidate. And, in the highly unlikely event it did, the party would go down to defeat.

Giuliani will have to embrace the pro-life plank of the Republican platform if he seriously plans to contend in 2008. When a rare pro-life Democrat thinks of seeking the presidential nomination of his party, he quickly becomes pro-abortion. Giuliani will have to do the same, in reverse, because the Republican Party is the pro-life party (see "The Republican Party is the Pro-Life Party").

This year the Republican Platform continues to be Catholic friendly on issues ranging from abortion to school prayer. The entire text of the newly adopted Republican Platform is available at this link (PDF document with "thumbnails" for easier page location; this is a slow link). The Platform reiterates that the "unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed" (p. 86).

The Platform also affirms "that [the] legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage" (p. 85). The Platform backs both a Human Life Amendment and an amendment protecting marriage.

While the Democratic Party is tied at the waist to the liberal National Education Association teachers' union, the Republicans "defend the option for home schooling" and student-initiated school prayer (p. 84). The Platform also defends school choice for parents, including vouchers (p. 56).

On the issue of scientific destruction of human embryos, the Platform affirms the "policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to encourage the future destruction of human embryos" (p. 68). The Platform also praises "the President's call for a comprehensive ban on human cloning and on the creation of human embryos solely for experimentation" (p. 68). Unfortunately, a stronger statement rejecting any and all scientific experimentation with human embryos was not adopted (see convention report for August 30th from pro-life Republicans). On the issue of embryonic research, there is more work to do, but the Republican position is still vastly superior to John Kerry's blank check for all embryonic stem cell research.

Social conservatives have worked hard to maintain a pro-life, Catholic friendly Republican Party Platform. If you wish to be part of this continuing effort, see the website maintained by the Republican National Coalition for Life (RNCL). It is important to keep the only pro-life major political party pro-life. It is important to keep that party up-to-date in the continuing battle for life. There is no other alternative in sight, given that the Democratic Party has enthusiastically turned its back on Catholics and on so many other Christians.

For one hundred fifty years, the Republican Party has tied the idea of freedom to the dignity of all human life: "In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, we assert that no human being, born or unborn, can be considered the property of another . . . ." (see RNCL website essay). The current abortion jurisprudence says that the unborn or partially born child is the disposable property of another, just as the antebellum Supreme Court of Lincoln's day affirmed the slave as the disposable property of another. The same party, the party of Lincoln, still opposes viewing human beings as commodities.

Lincoln the "War Hero"

Military coat-tails have a long history in American politics. Think of Washington, Andrew Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower. Back in the presidential election of 1848, the Democrats nominated a war hero and former prisoner of war from the War of 1812: General Lewis Cass, the Senator from Michigan.

Cass was a prominent politician of the time with a varied background as secretary of war under Andrew Jackson and as a diplomat in France. Cass lost the 1848 election to another general, Zachary Taylor, the Whig candidate. At the time, Lincoln was a Whig congressman and vigorously supported Taylor's ultimately successful candidacy.

In the course of the campaign, Congressman Abraham Lincoln had occasion to remark on the political phenomenon of military coat-tails in a speech to the House of Representatives. Here is part of that speech in which Lincoln refers to his own service back in 1832 as a member of the Illinois militia in the Black Hawk Indian War:

By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes, sir; in the days of the Black Hawk war, I fought, [and] bled, . . . . It is quite certain I did not break my sword, for I had none to break; but I bent a musket pretty badly on one occasion. If Cass broke his sword, the idea is, he broke it in desperation; I bent the musket by accident. . . . If he [Cass] saw any live, fighting indians, it was more than I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the musquetoes; and, although I never fainted from loss of blood, I can truly say I was often very hungry.

Lincoln, "Speech in the U.S. House of Representatives on the Presidential Question," July 27, 1848, repr. in Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858 (The Library of America, 1989), p. 214.

Lincoln's war record seems similar to that of our current wartime President, George W. Bush. Neither saw combat. Lincoln served in the militia. Bush served in the National Guard, the modern equivalent of the militia of Lincoln's day. Both ended up as highly controversial wartime Presidents. Both accurately take a humble approach to their war record.

But such humility would also be advisable to other politicians who did see combat. Senator Dole recently pointed out that Senator Kerry, the Senator Lewis Cass of this election, should not have focused so much attention on his Vietnam exploits. As I recall, Dole pointed out that people like "quiet heroes." It has also been reported that Senator McCain warned Kerry not to overemphasize Kerry's Vietnam service. But Kerry could not resist highlighting the military coat-tails approach, given his left-wing Senate record.

Kerry would have been well-advised not to take himself too seriously and adopt a more Lincolnesque, self-deprecating approach. But, as we have learned, that is not in Kerry's character. This past Sunday the lectionary readings were on humility. In the Gospel reading, Jesus pointed to humility as the way to really get people to esteem you. It is a lesson that political candidates, even war "heroes," should not ignore.

Easy Way to E-Mail a Particular Post to a Friend

At the end of each post, there is now a new link in the "posted by Oswald Sobrino" line which lets you e-mail a particular post to a friend. This e-mail link looks like a small envelope. It allows you to e-mail a specific post to someone who will likely be interested in reading it.

Next Major Update: Monday, August 30, 2004

Due to a law school reunion, the next major update will be on Monday, August 30, 2004. Go Swifties.

Utterly Confused: Kerry at the Cooper Institute

John Kerry recently spoke at New York City's Cooper Institute standing before a bust of Abraham Lincoln. In Lincoln lore, the Cooper Institute is famous as the site in 1860 of one of Lincoln's greatest speeches. One Lincoln book calls it the "oratorical climax" of Lincoln's career--at least before the Gettysburg Address later during the Civil War. The speech is also known as the Cooper Union address, with "union" referring to the Republican organization that sponsored it. The full text of the address is available at this link.

So Kerry, the antiwar Democrat, tries to grab the mantle of Lincoln the first wartime Republican president. But when we take a closer look at Lincoln's speech at the Cooper Institute on February 27, 1860, Kerry's attempt to usurp Lincoln's memory is even more outrageous.

Lincoln's speech focused on his thesis, copiously supported by historical research, that the founding fathers meant to put slavery on the road to eventual extinction. Lincoln defended the new Republican Party against southern charges of radicalism by showing that the authentic conservative position on slavery was that of the Republicans who merely wanted to continue the opposition of the founding fathers to the spread of slavery.

Lincoln ended the speech with the familiar line: "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it" (A. Lincoln, "The Cooper Institute Address," Feb. 27, 1860, repr. in Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln: A Documentary Portrait Through His Speeches and Writings [Stanford Univ. Press, 1964], p. 143).

Today, John Kerry stands for the proposition that Roe v. Wade has secured the permanent national recognition of abortion on demand throughout the United States. In Lincoln's time, those against the spread of slavery also labored under the burden of wrongheaded Supreme Court reasoning. Yet, Lincoln refused, as anti-abortion voters do today, to accept the wrong reasoning of the Supreme Court "as a conclusive and final rule of political action" (p. 140).

Lincoln hoped in his time, as we hope today concerning Roe v. Wade, that "[w]hen the obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, [it will be reasonable] . . . to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it" (p. 139). That long hoped for reconsideration will come only with another Republican president willing to appoint Supreme Court justices open to that reconsideration. The election of Kerry would firmly close the door to such reconsideration in the near future.

Lincoln denied that the right to take slaves into federal territories was found in the Constitution just as the pro-life forces deny that the right to abortion is found in the Constitution (p. 138). We can adopt Lincoln's response to those basing their case, whether for slavery or abortion, on such "assumed" constitutional rights: "We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication" (p. 138).

Lincoln pointed out what was behind the demand for the national recognition of slavery: "Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing" (p. 142). Today, Kerry and his allies view abortion as morally right, as socially elevating, as a legal right, and as a social blessing. That is the only explanation for their stubborn and passionate embrace of this evil.

In contrast, we who view abortion as a great evil demand its eventual extinction. Lincoln also articulated the force of the pro-life stance:

Thinking it [slavery/abortion] right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it [slavery/abortion] wrong as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Lincoln, at p. 142.

Likewise, we who view abortion as wrong, cannot but vote for the only pro-life candidate in this presidential election. That is why former Democrats, like this writer, will be voting for George W. Bush.

And our pro-life votes will not be dissuaded by the false arguments of the "Seamless Garment" variety that confuse this great moral issue of our times. Lincoln also had apt words for those who by sophistry seek to cloud the great moral questions faced by voters:

Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man--such a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care . . . .

Lincoln, at p. 142.

Even some clerics, to their eternal shame, engage in these "sophistical contrivances" to confuse voters. They did so in Lincoln's time. They do so today.

Kerry attempted to usurp Lincoln's memory in blithe ignorance of the great moral question of our domestic politics. But Lincoln's logic can never be usurped by those, like Kerry, still viewing human beings as disposable objects.

The Philosophy of "As If"

Although I have written daily on a blog for quite a while, I rarely relied on other blogs for news. Instead, I relied and continue to rely on the wire services, newspaper websites, and network websites, often using the Drudge Report as a starting point. But since the Kerry Vietnam issue broke, the best way to follow continuing developments is to visit several leading blogs covering the issues involved. This experience has now led me to check up on leading blogs more frequently than I ever did before. Others must be going through the same experience. That is why I agree with those who say that this Swift Boat controversy may have major effects on the status of blogs in the reporting of news. It certainly has in my own case.

But sometimes blogs can yield more than news. In one blog covering the Swift Boat issue, there was a perceptive reference to the philosophy of "as if" as articulated by Kantian philosopher Hans Vaihinger (1852-1933) (see RogerLSimon blog (8/23/04); encyclopedia entry) . From what I can tell, Vaihinger took the Kantian contentions that we can never know reality in itself and that the categories of our minds define or construct reality, and applied these contentions, in a manner similar to American pragmatism, to describing how science works and how individuals try to make sense of their lives.

The idea of trying out hypotheses to see if they "work" in the real world is of course the hallmark of the scientific method. In this sense, science always begins with educated fictional guesses that are then tested. That view of science is certainly nothing new.

The idea that we as individuals also try out fictions to see how they work is more intriguing because we tend to be unconscious about any such process. But surely we can see it working as our ambitions and goals change after contact with reality. We project a certain lifestyle or occupation and may end up in entirely different circumstances. The healthy person adjusts accordingly and makes the best of unforeseen circumstances with a "story" that makes sense of his or her present predicament. That is an intriguing process to consider, but really not all that surprising.

I even recall hearing one philosopher of the pragmatist school analyzing religion in the same way. This philosopher was an atheist but respected religious individuals as persons who found a particular relgious narrative to be pragmatically justified because it successfully organized their experiences.

You can see that, true to its Kantian roots, this idea of organizing reality for practical results, as opposed to gaining certain knowledge of objective reality in itself, is fundamentally relativistic. You can also see that this neo-Kantian point of view permeates modern Western culture and results in the victory of moral relativism.

What can Christians do with this overwhelming and widespread view that makes of Christian faith just another personal fiction of choice that may or may not be useful for someone? The Christian always points to an objective, historic reality: the empty tomb coupled with the appearances of the risen Christ.

Yet, the philosophy of "as if" is, as we all know, quite common among many liberal Christian theologians and biblical scholars. Some plainly deny any objectively historical resurrection. Rather, they emphasize the survival of the "spirit" of Jesus in the lives of his followers. Others are more circumspect and will say with supposed Delphic (or Germanic?) profundity that the resurrection is not a "historical" event all, but simply that it is beyond history. In my view, this denial of the resurrection as historic is the same as outright denial of its occurrence.

The philosophy of "as if" is certainly useful in formulating scientific hypotheses and even in seeking to alter one's personal moods, as recommended by pioneering American psychologist William James, by acting as if one were happy or optimistic in the hope of actually becoming happy or optimistic. But in these areas just mentioned, the philosophy of "as if" assumes an ultimate convergence with reality: the hypothesis is eventually verified. The scientific hypothesis successfully predicts the outcome. There really are reasons to be happy or optimistic.

Christianity was verified by the empty tomb and the appearances of Christ. No other religion dares to make the same claim. We live as if Christ rose from the dead because He did. We trust the testimony that the tomb was empty and that Christ appeared to his followers. Genuine Christianity is not a form of the philosophy of "as if." Christianity is rooted in that marvelous name of God that Jesus applied to himself: "I AM" (John 8:58). There is nothing conditional or hypothetical about "I AM." It has already been verified. Christianity is the religion of "I AM," not "as if."

# 3 on NYTimes Bestseller List: Unfit for Command

Here is the link confirming that after only one week the firestorm book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry is at number 3 on the N.Y. Times Bestseller list for hardcover nonfiction.

For yourself or for the sake of others, you might want to request that your local public library obtain a copy of the book for its patrons. The authors are John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi (Publisher: Regnery Publishing, 2004; ISBN: 0-89526-017-4). There is nothing like the Kerry attempt at suppression and censorship to stoke the demand for a book.

Atrocities Then and Now

This site will try to give you the Catholic perspective on current events. You will not see the following obvious comparison made on any mainstream "Old Media" outlet. You will not even likely see it in any "mainstream" New Media blogs such as Instapundit. The only place you will likely see the following obvious comparison is on sites run by Catholics trying, however imperfectly, to follow the teachings of their Church and of the founder of their Church, Jesus Christ.

The latest in Kerry's highly confused and controversial military career focuses on Kerry's vouching, under oath before a Senate committee in 1971, for highly suspect accusations that atrocities were committed day in and day out in Vietnam with full knowledge of the chain of command. Needless to say, hundreds of honorable Vietnam veterans are boiling mad about that decades-old smear on their conduct.

But we don't have to go into the particulars of this specific Vietnam debate to draw our own conclusions about Kerry's fitness to be president. Kerry presents himself, to this day, as the noble, high-minded conscience of the war, with his upper class New England diction, daring to point out the Vietnam War as one big, non-stop atrocity and criminal enterprise. Of course, that presentation is muted long enough so that he can also present his particular military service in Vietnam as so heroic and high-minded that it qualifies him to take over as a wartime president. But there is an even graver conflict than the just described conflict that leaps from these dual, contradictory presentations about the Vietnam War.

In 1971, Kerry was a radical antiwar movement leader with his eyes set on running for Congress from leftist-leaning Massachussetts. He enthusiastically became the mouthpiece denouncing war atrocities as widespread, routine, and authorized. Yet, today, Kerry is the leader of another equally radical movement: the pro-abortion movement. Just as antiwar sentiment in the Massachusetts of the nineteen seventies made his denouncing war atrocities so politically convenient, so today the radical pro-abortion sentiments of the modern Democratic Party and its elite opinion make Kerry's embrace of the atrocity of abortion politically convenient and essential.

No one can deny that the killing of preborn or partially born children--children whose identity ultrasounds testify to daily and who, from the point of fertilization, contain the DNA of new life--is an atrocity committed daily by crushing heads or injecting poison or just plain dismembering with sharp instruments. Yet, Kerry and his modern Democratic Party are adamant about the perpetuation and protection of these daily atrocities committed against the most innocent and defenseless.

That is the greater contradiction, a contradiction greater than that of a suspiciously bemedaled candidate claiming the heroism of Vietnam who earlier claimed that he was a war criminal among war criminals in Vietnam. The greater contradiction that demonstrates a character unfit for command is the amoral indifference to the atrocity of abortion today while having engaged in unrepentant, postured outrage over the atrocities of wartime. It is a character of consummate amoral calculation. It is a character unfit for any leader at any level and certainly unfit for the presidency. Let me know if you see this obvious contradiction exposed on any non-religious website.

The Gutting of Catholic Culture

In my opinion, the New York Times is really two newspapers in one. On the one hand, its coverage of politics and events in Iraq is utterly unreliable. As is being proven daily during the Kerry Vietnam debacle, the self-imposed mission of this newspaper is to run a public relations campaign for Kerry--a man who has already had to retract his proven false melodramatic claim that he spent Christmas in Cambodia.

But there is also another side of the paper that makes it worth reading: the non-controversial cultural side. When the subject is utterly non-political or not related to liberal social issues like gay marriage, the paper can be quite interesting. When a piece is on daily life in New York or on life in some out-of-the-way corner of the world or in the travel section, you can usually enjoy interesting and even, at times, insightful reading. The same is true of its obituary section, which in my view is the most interesting part of the N.Y. Times.

On August 15, 2004 (a date that always stands out for Catholics as the Feast of Mary's Assumption), the newspaper ran a lengthy obituary on Czeslaw Milosz (pronounced: CHESS-wahf MEE-wosh), the Nobel-winning Polish poet who defected from the diplomatic service of Communist Poland in the nineteen fifties. Milosz was an urbane, multi-lingual man whose poetry is of world significance. He was an adamant anti-Communist and took to task the so-called intellectuals, of all stripes, who justified totalitarianism. He was close to both Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa of Solidarity fame.

The N.Y. Times appropriately quotes at the end of the obituary a Milosz meditation on his own death:

I imagine the earth when I am no more:
Nothing happens, no loss, it's still a strange pageant.
Women's dresses, dewy lilacs, a song in the valley.
Yet the books will be there on the shelves, well born,
Derived from people, but also from radiance, heights.

Czeslaw Milosz, "And Yet the Books" (1986).

Thus, we have a poet who does what poets do--capture the insightful moment we all have felt but have not been able to express and preserve.

Where did this urbane, soulful man get his talent? Milosz gives us the source:

If I were asked to say where my poetry comes from I would say that its roots are in my childhood in Christmas carols, in the liturgy of Marian and vesper
offices, and in the Bible.

N.Y. Times obituary, Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004 (full obituary available for a fee at this link).

Milosz also gave credit to his education in the Latin language:

He studied Latin for seven years in school, and in his Nobel acceptance speech [in 1980] credited that underlying linguistic discipline and classroom translations of poems with helping him to develop his mastery.

N.Y. Times obituary, Sunday, Aug. 15, 2004.

And so the great poet, a poet of universal significance, tells us that the source of his poetic genius lies in the Catholic liturgy, the Bible, and in the Latin language. His poetic genius sprung from a robust Catholic culture.

All of which raises the question for today: where will our future Catholic poets find the youthful nourishment they need? If they attend a public school [government-run for U.K. readers] in the United States, they will not hear any traditional Christmas carols. They may not even hear many traditional Christmans carols in "progressive" parishes. And it is extremely unlikely that, in the last thirty or so years, any significant number of Catholic youth has had any exposure to "the liturgy of Marian and vesper offices." And as to exposure to the Bible, biblical instruction, like catechesis in general, has collapsed in the past thirty years.

Milosz also mentions the influence of years of training in Latin. In direct defiance of the edicts of Vatican II, Latin has been unceremoniously exiled from the liturgy. Your best shot at hearing any Latin today is at the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, where it seems that the old Latin hymns of St. Thomas Aquinas have somehow miraculously managed to survive, or by seeking out a Tridentine Mass. You might come across here and there a Vatican II liturgy fully in Latin or with some Latin chanting occasionally interspersed. And as to education in Latin, it seems that some priests today are not even trained in Latin while in the seminary. A fortiori, the situation is worse among the children of the laity.

So the fertile ground for the Catholic literary imagination has been woefully impoverished for the youth of the last few decades. It is no surprise that you hear moaning about the lack of Catholic literary achievement. And that impoverishment is not just a Catholic problem. It diminishes the entire world of culture. Something has been lost.

Fortunately, here and there, some hope is springing. As noted before, you will find more and more that some Latin chant is occasionally inserted into the modern liturgy. Closer to home, I happily noticed that a nearby church was planning to introduce the public praying of the Liturgy of the Hours. These are needed steps to undo the gutting of Catholic culture that guts all culture.

21st Sunday in Ordinary Time: Isaiah 66:18-21; Hebrews 12:5-7, 11-13; Luke 13:22-30

The clear message, as both Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have emphasized, is that the Church is missionary at her core. In Isaiah, the prophet who in so many ways is so close to the New Testament, God's universal call to all peoples is emphasized. God's people have a missionary and evangelistic calling. In Luke, Jesus reaffirms the message of Isaiah: "And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God."

This prophecy is not just a vision of people of any and all religions ultimately gathering together. God can and does save individuals of all religious backgrounds who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to respond to the Gospel. But this is the same Jesus who also said that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. This is the same Jesus who, as stated in today's Gospel, "passed through towns and villages." Jesus was an untiring evangelist. We must also be evangelists.

In Hebrews, Paul exhorts us to endure our trials as instances of loving discipline from God. This advice makes sense only if we are aware that we are sinners always in need of healing. Those without any sense of sin will bitterly despise and reject the call to accept trials as discipline. At the end of the reading, Paul makes a thought-provoking statement: "Make straight paths for your feet, that what is lame may not be disjointed but healed." He seems to be saying that following the straight path will heal our lameness. It is an extraordinary image: by walking the lame will be healed. Our natural instinct is to stay off our feet if we are lame. Here is an insight that bears serious reflection.

In so many instances in life, our natural and understandable reaction is to draw back in the face of pain. Faced with physical pain, many of us become withdrawn. Faced with spiritual pain, the temptation is to despair. Faced with a person who has some sort of disability, we naturally tend to accommodate them rather than to aggressively seek to improve their condition. Faced with a Church racked by scandal and moral and religious relativism in various quarters, our tendency is to lick our wounds. What Paul would say is: get on the straight path, accept the trials as discipline, and be who you are--a missionary, evangelistic Church taking the Gospel to all peoples. Paul would have been at home with the popular saying: "the best defense is offense." Keep walking the straight path.

Book Review (Part 2): Unfit for Command (Regnery, 2004)

On Thursday, I posted a review of Part I of the shocking book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi. The first installment of the review covered the first part of the book focusing on John Kerry in Vietnam. The upshot of the first review was that Kerry is obligated to make a specific factual rebuttal of the very serious charges made. In addition, even beyond all the particular and detailed factual issues raised, the charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth give us a picture of Kerry that is the opposite of that painted at the recent Democratic Convention.

In the convention, the image created was that of a Kerry eager to fight for his country. That is not the picture presented in the book. You get the sense of a disconnect between the gung-ho heroic Kerry presented at the convention and the reluctant, frequently complaining, and difficult Kerry, boasting of his post-war political ambitions, that is portrayed by these veterans. Something is amiss.

In Part II of the book, the focus switches to Kerry the antiwar protester after he left Vietnam. The TV campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is following the plan of their book. First, they released an ad that has set the political world afire by focusing on Kerry in Vietnam, as does Part I of the book. Yesterday, they released their second ad that focuses on Kerry the antiwar protestor, as done in Part II of the book.

You can view the new ad at Swiftvets.com. The new ad uses Kerry's own words, under oath, to the U.S. Senate in 1971 describing gruesome atrocities allegedly committed by the U.S. military in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" (p. 103). The ad includes the statements of veterans, including a P.O.W., asserting that Kerry defamed them and aided the enemy by his testimony. The newly released ad in effect summarizes the key point of Part II of the book.

In the media, some have noted that the ad fails to state that Kerry was summarizing the testimony of other veterans. That defense is unpersuasive. Kerry freely chose to present these allegations under oath. As a recently returned veteran, Kerry was vouching for these allegations before the Senate and the nation. It is too late to blame someone else.

The core of the anger of these veterans against Kerry is that he defamed them and that his statements violated, in the words of a former Vietnam P.O.W., "a covenant among servicemen never to make public criticisms that might jeopardize those still in battle or in the hands of the enemy" (p. 107).

There is also Kerry's highly troubling romantic view of the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong as anti-colonial freedom fighters (see pp. 104-105, 137) . It is no surprise that a recent poll showed that Vietnamese-Americans, who know about the prison camps of these so-called "freedom fighters," are overwhelmingly opposed to Kerry's presidential candidacy (compare p. 121).

The book's authors contend that Kerry was motivated by "sensationalism" to advance a political agenda (pp. 106-107, 109). This sensationalistic bent matches the sensationalism with which Senator Kerry in 1986 spoke of his, now retracted, Christmas stay in Cambodia as part of a political attack on the Reagan administration. A pattern emerges.

Another pattern also emerges: the way Kerry responds to criticism of his war-related activities. Eerily enough, Kerry's way of responding as described in the book is now being reenacted before our eyes in response to the Swift Boat ads! Kerry's own conduct today is confirming what the book describes him as doing in the past when faced with allegations about his conduct as a war protester:

Rather than address the contradiction directly, Kerry fell back on what for him was a familiar response technique-- he attempted to shift the subject away from himself and the question he had been asked, making the new focus on an enemy presumed to be attacking him.

Unfit for Command, p. 146.

Kerry is repeating that response technique today. His strategy so far is to respond to the Swift Boat ads by alleging a Bush campaign conspiracy instead of rebutting the specific charges. All of it is reminiscent of the Clinton accusations of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," even though we later learned that the accusations against Clinton were true. It appears that the anti-Kerry veterans have shrewdly taken the measure of Kerry and will not be surprised in the least by the attacks that Kerry will make upon them.

The media also reported yesterday that the Kerry campaign is calling for the publisher to withdraw this book from circulation. Well, Kerry is also quite familiar with that tactic, according to the book, because he has himself withdrawn from publication, because of its embarrassing antiwar rhetoric, an earlier book, The New Soldier, that he wrote himself (pp. 147-153).

At the end of the Swift Boat veterans' book, there is a quote from a letter, dated May 4, 2004, from 200 Swift Boat veterans calling on Kerry "to provide a full, accurate accounting" of his "conduct in Vietnam" (p. 175). The veterans also seek to hold Kerry accountable for his statements after leaving Vietnam.

This stunning book has presented the challenge, and merely blaming the Bush campaign and calling for the withdrawal of books and ads will not do. It is amazing that Kerry has presented himself as a candidate for President during wartime given his deeply complex and controversial military background.

But then again unbridled ambition, accompanied by a privileged sense of entitlement, is nothing if not bold. And it appears that it was that unbridled ambition that has created this mess to begin with. Pride cometh before a fall.

Pharaoh's Egypt or a New Israel?

Jewish philosopher Leon Kass points out in his commentary on Genesis that ancient Egypt was, at the time of the patriarchs, the most advanced, powerful, and prestigious society and culture around: "No place exemplifies more successfully or more fully the way of the world than does Egypt" (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom [Free Press, 2003], p. 538). The same can be said today about our own United States. In fact, I recall some references in the media to the fact that some Islamic radicals even liken us to Pharaoh's Egypt.

And there are indeed some similarities. Here is Kass describing some ancient Egyptian cultural traits:

From the very start of our encounter with Egypt, we are impressed by the importance of the subject of food. . . . Egypt, the place where people turn in times of famine, seems somewhat obsessed with food, even at the highest levels of society. As we will see, this greatest of civilizations is focused on life and devoted to its preservation, perhaps above all else. Threats to life--be
they poisoning, starvation, or plague--are taken with supreme seriousness.

Kass, p. 552.

As a native of New Orleans, I have seen first hand decadent obsession with food. But you see it everywhere in the United States. Cooking shows, reams of cookbooks, and thousands of restaurants are everywhere. We die from heart disease and cancer which are related to our obesity and our rich diet. Glossy magazines split hairs about the next great place to dine. Social life in many cities comes down to what restaurant to visit next.

And we are certainly obsessed with avoiding any dangers. We allow the unborn to be killed at will, but mount severe campaigns against smoking. We are willing to create and kill human embryos--human life-- at will in the hope of defeating the natural process of human aging marked by chronic health problems and disease. People who have no problem with casual and promiscuous sexual intimacy assiduously shop at organic food stores. (So do very chaste and honorable people!)

Behind all of this concern with preserving our own lives lies the desire to freeze time:

Egypt . . . is the place that seeks to abolish change and to make time stand still. . . . What the Egyptians seek is changelessness, agelessness, permanent presence, or eternal return and renewal. . . . [E]verywhere one looks, one sees in Egypt the rejection of change and the denial of death. Ancient Egypt is poles apart from ancient Israel.

Kass, p. 557.

Ancient Israel, on the other hand, accepts time and death. That is why the focus of the patriarchs is on perpetuation of the covenant through raising new generations, through proper marriage and procreation. Procreation accepts the inevitability of one generation aging and giving way to a new generation. Procreation is the realistic cultural response to our own death and to the reality of time.

Kass has discussed this issue in depth in a First Things article on bodily immortality and the modern quest to extend human life:

Unlike the death–defying Egyptians, those ancient precursors of the quest for bodily immortality, the Children of Israel do not mummify or embalm their dead; we bury our ancestors but keep them alive in memory, and, accepting our mortality, we look forward to the next generation. Indeed, the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply, when rightly understood, celebrates not the life we have and selfishly would cling to, but the life that replaces us.

Kass, "L'Chaim and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?," May 2001, available at First Things.

Kass' point is that we must not forget the Judeo-Christian embrace of procreation as the fitting response to aging and death. And, for Christians, the promise of genuine bodily immortality is not dependent on our scientific efforts but on the bodily Resurrection of Christ, a bodily resurrection also promised to us.

So, it is indeed, quite "Egyptian" for the modern United States to have so strongly embraced a contraceptive lifestyle and to be so preoccupied with extending life. Even the contraceptive Egyptian practice of male homosexuality now finds an ever-growing echo and even celebration in American society (see Kass, p. 625).

It is undeniable that our beloved United States is deeply immersed in an "Egyptian" mentality. In contrast, from the time of the earliest settlements, immigrants to these shores viewed themselves as a New Israel building the famous shining city on a hill. Our culture is at war within itself between the pull of "old Egypt" and the example of the "new Israel." The outcome will determine if our enemies' view of America is mistaken or not.

Book Review (Part 1): Unfit for Command (Regnery, 2004)

The number one bestseller on Amazon.com and the rumored number three on the N.Y. Times bestseller list is the now famous Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry by Paul O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. This is the famous book that attacks John Kerry for falsifying his Vietnam war experiences for political gain. It is a 216 page book, which includes an appendix with a detailed chronology, extensive footnotes, and a detailed index. The book comes in two parts: part one deals with Kerry in Vietnam; part two deals with Kerry as anti-war protester. This review will also come in two parts. Today's review deals with Kerry in Vietnam.

The book is easy to read. The only difficulty posed at times is the military tendency to use initials for various types of Navy boats or terms of art. The case against Kerry's claims is made in great detail. It is also made with a fearless confidence that Kerry is a phony. The authors and those quoted have issued a fierce challenge to Kerry. They are not going to back down or go away.

It is obvious that for them this issue is not just about an election or favoring one candidate over another. This issue is personal for those taking issue with Kerry on Vietnam. The book reads as you would expect persons fully convinced that they have been betrayed and insulted by a traitor to react to that betrayal. Common sense tells me that no politician's press releases, no intimidation, no hostile media cross-examination, no personal attacks will make these men back down. They have put all their chips on the table.

The detail in the first part makes the case that Kerry consistently misrepresented his deeds in Vietnam, that Kerry the war hero is a fraud. Only the Kerry camp can rebut these allegations. And they must do so in detail. So far, all we have seen from the Kerry camp are broad and vague statements that beg the serious questions posed. These Kerry responses include unpersuasive platitudes such as that the men did not "actually serve" with Kerry, although all the leading eyewitnesses were part of the same small coastal and river patrol units that Kerry was in and although the accusations of one of Kerry's actual shipmates is featured in the book (pp. 29; 56-57).

The second platitude being trumpeted by the Kerry campaign is that the accounts exposing Kerry as a phony contradict the official medal citations issued by the Navy when it awarded medals to Kerry. This second platitude is question-begging. The book claims that much of the information in the medal citations was based on Kerry's own imagination and exaggeration.

In addition, in response to a Washington Post story dated August 18th which unpersuasively attempts to cover for Kerry, one of the Swift boat veterans says that the wording in one of the medal citations has a fictional air right out of "Hollywood," even though he himself received a medal based on the very same citation. This veteran says that he always believed that he received his own medal primarily for other actions and not on the basis of the way events are inaccurately described in the official medal citation. This veteran is apparently ready to return his own medal if in fact its award was based on a fictional and fraudulent "Hollywood" account. As I said before, these men will not back down in spite of hostile media attempts to discredit them.

This first part of the book on Kerry's activities in Vietnam is crammed with detail. The jury, that is, we the voters, deserve a detailed response from Kerry. The overall picture that emerges is of a young Kerry who was precociously ambitious for the presidency in fond imitation of an earlier JFK of PT boat fame. The book contends that "Kerry was another politician posing briefly as a warrior to acquire military credentials" (p. 12). One Swift boat veteran and co-author, John O'Neill, who debated Kerry after their Vietnam service in 1971, contends that Kerry's "only values were political and ideological calculations" (p. 17).

Several details are offered to support this assessment of Kerry as willing to say or do anything to advance his political ambitions. One of Kerry's commanders is quoted: "Kerry told everyone that he was going to be president one day--you know, the next JFK from Massachusetts. Maybe he just thought Swift Boats would be a safe PT-109" (p. 26; see also p. 40). The reference to a "safe PT-109" is a reference to the fact, confirmed by Kerry himself, that his initial motive in volunteering for Swift boat service was to avoid combat because, in Kerry's own words, "I really didn't want to get involved in the war" (p. 26). In addition, part one of the book paints a picture of Kerry constantly complaining to others about one matter or another (see pp. 44-45, 66). That is not the picture presented to America at the recently concluded Democratic convention. The picture presented to America was that of someone eager to serve out of a strong sense of duty and patriotism.

The sense that Kerry was using his short, four month Vietnam service--of which only three months were in combat (p. 22)--with an eye to his future career plans is bolstered by his keeping a private journal during his service (p. 27) and by the astounding contention that Kerry reenacted some battle scenes on video for his personal archives of the war (pp. 51, 76).

All in all, the sense you get out of part one of the book is that Kerry was a whining, complaining prima donna obsessed with accumulating medals for use in a future political career. You get the sense of Kerry as a son of privilege with a very strong sense of entitlement and not hesitating to demand special treatment.

Is this picture credible to us the jury of voters? Those who did not know Kerry in Vietnam can look only to the political candidate we have seen these last few months. What we have seen of Kerry the candidate is someone who is willing to say anything, however outrageous or contradictory or demagogic, to become president. We have seen a candidate with no core beliefs bending to the wind at every instance and trying to take all sides of the issues. The calculating figure in Vietnam described in this book matches the calculating figure in 2004.

From a specifically Catholic perspective, there is also a strong religious parallel with the book's portrayal of Kerry's assiduous pursuit of medals while at the same time voicing anti-war opinions in Vietnam. Many of us Catholics are as deeply offended, as these veterans are about Vietnam, by Kerry's public displays of receiving the Eucharist even though he rejects Catholic teaching on abortion and on embryonic stem cell research. Kerry also refuses to support a federal amendment to protect marriage, even though the highest court in his own state is radically changing the legal landscape by embracing gay marriage. At the same time that Kerry takes anti-Catholic stands, he is, strangely enough, eager to be seen as a devout Catholic communicant.

This pursuit of the badges of Catholic devotion--receiving Communion, publicly making the sign of the cross--while at the same time taking stridently anti-Catholic political positions parallels Kerry's pursuit of military decorations while at the same time attacking the war before, during, and after his Vietnam service (see chronology, pp. 198-99, and my earlier comments). What is the common motivation for this strange approach to reality? Political power.

The picture of Kerry the soldier presented in part one of Unfit for Command matches the picture of Kerry the candidate in 2004. His political stands corroborate his character as presented by the Swift boat veterans behind this book. These veterans have made a good case. Now the jury of voters expects a persuasive rebuttal from Kerry himself. Vague, question-begging platitudes will not suffice.

The Dictatorship of the Old Media

One of the ugly phrases that Marx bequeathed to later generations is the "dictatorship of the proletariat." We now know that this touted dictatorship was not good for anyone, including the so-called proletariat. In the United States, we are privileged to have been free from this mad experimentation. Instead, we face a less fearsome form of dictatorship that puts on a more pleasant face: the dictatorship of the media.

The Pope has warned that, even in proud democracies, totalitarianism can rear its head when evil is ratified by majority vote: "When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a 'tyrannical' decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings?" (see The Gospel of Life, section 70). The triumph of such electoral evil in a democracy necessarily needs the media as an ally to massage the fears and fantasies of the electorate. The media already plays that role perfectly on many other levels. It already manipulates our insecurities by manufacturing needs for massive homes, superexpensive cars, endless diet and exercise gimmicks, and for imagined sexual prowess.

But the media goes even further and makes possible what the Pope has warned about: the triumph of evil by majority vote. The established or "old" media, also known as the mainstream or elite press, in the United States is clearly campaigning for John Kerry.

Kerry is deeply committed to protecting from any and all limits or encroachments the right to kill preborn or partially born children. This same candidate is wildly trying to stir voters to his side by advocating a blank check for scientists who want to destroy human embryos at will. Isn't it clear that Kerry will also grant a blank check for human cloning if that is where some scientists claim all the miracle cures might emerge?

And so the elite media has packaged the messenger for an evil agenda of death as a bemedaled war hero. That is the way the ostensibly noble practice of electoral democracy is deformed into a mechanism for evil: by media packaging.

But, fortunately, the internet has produced some good in this arena, even among its numerous evils. The internet has produced a non-elite, new media that counters the political whitewash of evil that the elite media is pushing through the Kerry candidacy.

Unfolding before our eyes is the piercing of the elite media's overblown image of Kerry the war hero. Blogs have taken the lead in investigating, documenting, and putting together the story that exposes the untruths and phoniness behind Kerry's demagogic political use of his brief, four month service in Vietnam.

The most telling exposure is the revelation that Kerry repeatedly made false references, for political purposes, about a dramatic adventure in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968. I will not give the details here. The details are abundantly and easily available at several other blogs who have dug deep in the public record blithely ignored by the elite media. Some of these blogs include the highly popular Instapundit, HughHewitt.com, The Powerline blog, and the Captain's Quarters blog. These links are also available at the blogroll in the sidemargin. (Note: Instapundit appears to have fallen for the false appeal of embryonic stem cell research, but, unlike most of the old media, at least gives respectful and open-minded space to opposing views.)

Without the work of this intrepid new media, the path open to the "democratic" triumph of evil in this election would be much smoother. Fortunately, the campaign for evil is running into major problems due in no small part to the work of the new media. The dictatorship of the old media has met the revolution of the new media.

"Personhood: It Comes Naturally" by Dan Kennedy

Editor's Introduction:

Dan Kennedy is the chief executive officer of Human Life of Washington. This organization is the affiliate in the state of Washington for the National Right to Life Committee. It began in 1971, even before Roe v. Wade, when Washington state became one of the early states liberalizing laws on abortion. Fortunately for me, Mr. Kennedy is also a reader of this website who periodically gives me the benefit of his feedback.

In this article, Mr. Kennedy focuses on personhood and how high the stakes are for all of us when our society decides who is a person. Abortion is a solidarity issue. Denying personhood to the preborn or partially born paves the way for denying personhood to the disabled, the autistic, the stroke victim, the person with Down's Syndrome, and the elderly. The list goes on and on. Look at yourself and look around at your family. You or someone in your extended family is likely on that list.

But the truth is that we are all on that list. None of us is a perfect physical or mental specimen, and none of us will continue to possess all of the abilities that we are fortunate to have, as the years roll on.

In his article, Kennedy mentions Lincoln. Lincoln lives on in the struggle for human dignity. He was a pioneer in building a culture of life in these United States. Recently, I saw a Lincoln quote in a Midwestern museum that is quite striking for those of us fighting for the Culture of Life. On April 4, 1864, a little over 140 years ago, Abraham Lincoln wrote these powerful words: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."

My friends, if abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong. If a society embraces and protects and celebrates the direct and voluntary killing of the most innocent and most vulnerable--a killing that violates our deep, natural embrace for the youngest among us, then that society is capable of anything. We who are pro-life are standing in the way of that "anything." You can learn more about Mr. Kennedy's organization, Human Life of Washington, at this link. The article follows.

Personhood: It Comes Naturally

by Dan Kennedy, C.E.O., Human Life of Washington

To say that a single-celled human being at conception is no larger than the dot at the end of this sentence is to simply give a description based on appearance. It is not an explanation or definition of what this human being is.

Aristotle 2400 years ago noted that to obtain a true definition of what something is, you must discover what its powers are and what it is meant to be. To judge by appearance alone is both ignorant and perilous. Genocide, slavery, ethnic cleansing - history offers abundant witness to the brutal injustice that inevitably results from arbitrary judgments.

At conception each of us becomes a self-possessed human person. We possess our own future; it belongs to us uniquely and no one else. No matter our size, present within us at conception is the complete design of what we are meant to be and a guiding force or impetus that brings that development about. This power and the information necessary to direct it must be present at conception in order for development to occur.

Personhood is not dependent on whether one is currently manifesting all one's powers or not. It is not a temporary state that comes and goes with our degree of functionality. A machine could conceivably be designed to look like us, and mimic numerous human traits, but functional mimicry is not personhood. Indeed, there are already machines that actually function more efficiently than we do at specific tasks, but I seriously doubt your vacuum cleaner ever wonders about the fairness of it all.

You, however, are intrinsically oriented toward that unique human characteristic, evident even in young children, to desire and reflect on transcendent realities like justice and truth. Our dignity at conception is often obscured by labels assigned to stages of development such as zygote, blastocyst, fetus, or infant. But, an embryo is not less of a human being than an infant, anymore than a child is less of a human being before puberty than after. At every stage we are whole human beings.

This problem with labels is not new. In fact, Abraham Lincoln used to illustrate it by humorously asking how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? The answer is four, because it makes no difference if you call it a leg, it is still a tail. In the same way, how we label a stage of development doesn't change the fundamental nature or reality of that which we label.

Tragically, language has often been engineered for the very purpose of dehumanizing those who are different, who don't look like us, or those targeted for exploitation. Nor does the inability to perceive personhood in others serve as proof that it must not be present. One's own lack of clarity does not alter objective reality.

Ironically, those who would deny personhood under these circumstances, fancy themselves more sophisticated than their historical counterparts, who condoned atrocities based on appearance. However, they display the same shallow mentality when it comes to contemporary debates. Once again we witness ignorance and utilitarian motives corrupting what is both rationally and morally obvious, that we can not earn for ourselves, or bestow on others what is already ours by nature.

Our culture's eclipse of reason has resulted in untold suffering and a relentless violation of inalienable rights. The unborn, the elderly, the disabled are all targets of these self-appointed final arbiters of personhood. Inevitably, none of us are immune from their arbitrary judgments. Healing the culture must begin with acknowledging that at conception, a unique, self-possessed human person comes into being. Their future, as well as ours, depends on it.

Obtuse Culture

In trying to explain to a child what the word "culture" on a Native American museum banner meant, I simply said that "culture" is the way people live. The way many live in the United States is downright stupid. The polite synonym to use is "obtuse."

Many others do live sanely, but it is highly apparent that multitudes live obtusely and many others, including this writer, have lived quite obtusely in the past. The problem in this divided culture is that TV, the internet, the newspapers, Hollywood, and the rest of the media have overwhelmingly chosen to parrot the obtuse side of the culture.

One of the signature examples of obtuseness is to reinvent the wheel. What would we call someone who, in the midst of millions of automobiles, advises others to devote their efforts to building the first wheel? We would say that the project is astoundingly stupid.

But the media dispenses such equally stupid advice on a daily basis--even in the heartland of America. In the agricultural heartland of Indiana, the major newspaper of a fine and very attractive city, The Indianapolis Star, has chosen to syndicate a Washington Post advice columnist who gives what passes for, nowadays, as wise advice concerning the issue of "living together" or shacking up:

So, my opinion is, move in if both of you would agree with the following statement: "Far as I know, this is the way I'd be happy to spend the rest of my life." If you don't agree, hang onto your own apartment.

Source: Carolyn Hax, "Living together makes sense--if marriage is part of the plan," Indianapolis Star, Aug. 14, 2004, p. F1.

Now, let's give Ms. Hax some credit. It is common for people to shack up today with nothing even close to the very limited introspection that Ms. Hax recommends. So her advice is actually an improvement, however minor, in what goes on in much of the culture. But Ms. Hax surely earns the label "obtuse." She is inching her way toward reinventing marriage-- something that has no need of reinvention. What marriage is in need of is reverence and honor as central to the good human life.

But let's go back to her specific advice. If you are happy to spend the rest of your life shacking up with a particular person, aren't you making a permanent commitment of sorts? Doesn't that commitment mean exclusivity? If it's for the rest of your life, aren't you looking forward to trying to have children together?

Ms. Hax herself admits that she recommends living together only for couples engaged to be married. She is clearly reinventing marriage, but is now at the point in her reinvention journey of replacing marriage with "engagement" as the gateway to living together. She has moved the boundary from the traditional line of marriage to the moment of engagement.

But how can engagement avoid what the columnist earlier admits is the "emotional and logistical nightmare" of a break up? An engagement is by common knowledge and experience something that is eminently breakable.

So engagement is no solution to the "emotional and logistical nightmare" of a break up. Ms. Hax's underlying logic inevitably moves the thoughtful and logical reader to one conclusion--a conclusion she herself has not yet reached. That conclusion is that the time to live together is after marriage.

Hax does not make marriage the gateway to living together because she reasons that it is less traumatic to exit mere cohabitation than it is to exit marriage. But this reasoning is deeply flawed. She recognizes the traumatic dangers of living together but recoils from the best protection for those dangers. She offers an ineffective half-way house which, in her mind, reduces the chances of a traumatic break up. But the best protection for the trauma of a break up is to wait until you are married before living together.

The root problem with Hax's reasoning is that she evades the fundamental issue of commitment. Sooner or later, adults must make an honorable commitment that they mean to keep "for better or for worse." Marriage is the vessel of that commitment and so is the best solution to the question of whether to live together. Our laws have made divorce so quick and easy, as shown by the high divorce rate, that the crucial issue always comes back to the question of commitment.

To whittle down the commitment required to the much more casual commitment of an engagement is no solution. It is like telling a motorcycle rider to wear a floppy hat instead of a helmet because it is easier to take the hat off. It is easier to take the hat off because the hat offers no protection.

In the end, Ms. Hax is in the process of reinventing, of all things, marriage. She is inching her way to success. I hope she eventually reaches the logically inevitable and elegantly simple point: if you are not married, don't live together. Half-baked reliance on the flimsy conventional engagement is not a solution. It is, at best, an obtuse solution that does not address the real issue: the character of commitment.