Orestes Brownson and the twin evils of Capitalism & Socialism

The following quote is from Orestes Brownson, quoted by Michael Greaney at Just Third Way blog.

"Communion with God through Creation and Incarnation is religion, distinctively taken, which binds man to God as his first cause, and carries him onward to God as his final cause; communion through the material world is expressed by the word property; and communion with God through humanity is society. Religion, society, property, are the three terms that embrace the whole of man's life, and express the essential means and conditions of his existence, his development, and his perfection, or the fulfillment of his existence, the attainment of the end for which he is created."

Michael has a multipost series on Brownsen and the mistaken view that the only options are Capitalism or Socialism. you can start the series here.

Brownson is on my reading list but hasn't floated to the top yet.

Holy Father's "World Day of Peace Message"

Avoiding the extremes at both ends of the ideological spectrum, the Holy Father again shows that the answer lies not in "A or B" but "Yes"

FIGHTING POVERTY TO BUILD PEACE

While it has been rightly emphasized that increasing per capita income cannot be the ultimate goal of political and economic activity, it is still an important means of attaining the objective of the fight against hunger and absolute poverty. Hence, the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. In a modern economy, the value of assets is utterly dependent on the capacity to generate revenue in the present and the future. Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty, which must be kept in mind if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.

click the title link to read the whole address

Deadly Discrimination in Doublethink Disguise

The following article I am reprinting in full from Social Justice Review (Vol. 100, No 9-10, 2009)

Deadly Discrimination in Doublethink Disguise
Donald DeMarco, Ph.D.

Arbitrary discrimination and justice are mutually exclusive. This is a fundamental tenet of social justice. Considering all the current laws that protect women, minorities, the handicapped and disabled and various other groups from discrimination, one might think that America has tightly bound its anti-discrimination policies to social-justice principles. One would, however, be far from correct in so thinking. The will to discriminate is alive and well; it is simply disguised. In Current literature, the most salient and outrageous example of promoting discrimination by disguising it appears in the form of what its author and champion, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, calls "The Complete Lives System".

Dr. Emanuel first put forward his notions in 1996, in The Hastings Center Report (Volume 26, No.6) where, strangely enough, he linked justice with discrimination. Here, Dr. Emanuel argued that what he called "a just allocation of health care resources" should not be considered "socially guaranteed or basic" to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens". An "obvious" example of this, he went on to say, would be "patients with dementia". " A less obvious example", he added, "is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

The non-discriminatory notion, Christian in its essence, that human life is sacred and that all human beings possess unalienable dignity, is not present in Dr. Emanuel's thinking. Human beings, according to his reckoning, have no intrinsic value and justify their continued existence solely in terms of their supposedly and potentially positive contributions to society. One might rightly conclude, therefore, that Dr. Emanuel, by denying unalienable human dignity, discriminates against everyone. Nor does he appear to have much regard for either the U. S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Dr. Emanuel's notion of "The Complete Lives System" was clearly, though less than convincingly, proposed in 2009 in The Lancet (Vol. 373, No.9661) in an article that he penned with two colleagues. "Consideration of the importance of complete lives", they write, "also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life."

Discrimination, however, remains discrimination even when it is called "prioritizing". Or, as Abraham Lincoln once said, a dog still has four legs, even if you call one of them a tail. The order of naming may or may not coincide with the order of being.

In the context that Dr. Emanuel establishes, what does "complete" mean? The word is ambiguous to begin with, but in the hands of Emanuel et al. it contradicts the intended meaning. We say that something is "complete" either when it is fully present (a collection is complete when all the elements are present, as in a complete set of stamps) or simply when it comes to an end (a person's life is complete even though he dies at an early age; in this sense, he has run the complete course of his tenure on earth). Emanuel et al. draw on both of these meanings at the same time, favoring complete lives in some instances and incomplete lives in others: "Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old young woman is intuitively worse than that of a two-month-old girl, even though the baby has [lived] less life."

Surely, not everyone will have this same "intuition", especially parents who look upon their infant children through loving eyes. Also, the infant stands to lose more future life than the 20-year-old woman. If we measure the tragedy of premature death in terms of future years lost, then the death of the infant is worse. At any rate, Emanuel et al. are saying that the more complete life of the twenty-year-old (even though potentially shorter) is somehow better than the less complete life of the two-month-old (even though it is potentially longer). They say this under the rubric of "The Complete Lives System", but how do they rationalize it? They write: "The twenty-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects."

Allegedly, we should favor those individuals in whom society has made substantial investment and who are more likely to have "complete lives". Yet, there can be no investments without investors. And a goodly percentage of the latter are older people who do not have much time left for ''as-yet-unfulfilled projects". Moreover, this calculus fails to protect adequately those in whom society has not made substantial investments. In other words, "The Complete Lives System" discriminates against both the young and the old: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantive chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

This is not exactly "universal" health care. It is, rather, a staggering form of deadly discrimination, disguised by doublethink, against the majority of Americans. Who would take such a system seriously? The matter becomes all the more serious when we realize that Dr. Emanuel is a chief advisor on health care to President Obama. He works in the White House Office of Management and Budget as a health policy advisor and is a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. His brother Rahm Emanuel is White House Chief of Staff.

Doublethink, as George Orwell described it in 1984, is the act of believing two contradictory thoughts at the same time. Dr. Emanuel strains logic to the breaking point in a studied attempt to convince readers that his patently discriminatory proposal is not discriminatory: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds received priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 now was previously 25 years old. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

What is the moral difference, the inquiring reader may ask, between being 65-years-old or older and having 65 or more "life-years"? Discrimination against the former is supposedly "ageist," but discrimination against the latter is consistent with "The Complete Lives System"! If we are to take the above paragraph seriously, we should have to conclude that it is permissible to discriminate against a 65-year-old because we did not discriminate against him when he was 25. It is probably only small consolation to elderly subjects of discrimination to think back and remember that they were not discriminated against as they passed between the ages of fifteen and forty.

Has there ever been a more strained, illogical, inconsistent, and unpersuasive proposal put forth in the guise of health care? The current moral vacuum created by the decline of Christian values in contemporary society is being filled by sheer nonsense. But it is a dangerous nonsense that threatens everyone's well-being.

Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., Social Justice Review, Vol. 100, No 9-10, 2009

Cogent analysis

Author Michael Greaney, at The Just Third Way blog, has an interesting analysis of our times through the lense of history. These full essays are well worth reading.

The State is God, God is the State, Part V

If we assume that man creates God in man's own image and likeness, then (logically) man, not God, is the supreme ruler of the universe and the only standard for determining what is good or evil. Reality depends not on some objective actuality, but on subjective opinion. Everything becomes relative, based on the opinion of whoever can force others to accept his or her version of reality — for it becomes, ipso facto, reality by the mere fact that people "agree" on it. Black can become white, and up can become down, simply by convincing people that such is the case. You only think the Emperor is walking down the street naked, because your consciousness hasn't been raised and your perceptions corrected.

We can therefore easily understand the attraction that basing the natural law (and thus the social order) on the Will has for many people. In essence, you can do anything you want, as long as you have enough faith in your own interpretation, enough of an ego to maintain your position in the face of all argument and evidence to the contrary, enough inventiveness to dismiss objective facts and truth, and enough power to force others to comply with your will.

The State is God, God is the State, Part VI

While Judgment at Nuremberg used an obvious situation to make its point, the very obviousness of the point obscures it. People assume that what was done was wrong because "the Nazis" did it, not because it was wrong by nature itself. To this day we find many people asserting that there must be some flaw in the German national character that allowed them to give in to Hitler. They forget, ignore, or never knew that every tendency, even the philosophy itself that led to Hitler and the Holocaust is still with us today, and is much stronger and more pervasive now than then.

Regulation, Part III: The New Dictatorship of Money

Author Michael Greaney, of the Center for Economic and Social Justice, writes cogently on the madness sweeping our nation:

Regulation, Part III: The New Dictatorship of Money
By any standard of measurement, the decision of the Federal Reserve to "pump" $1.2 trillion into "the financial system" (meaning the stock market) is enough to terrify anyone who has a modicum of common sense left. ("Fed to Pump $1.2 Trillion Into Markets," Washington Post, 03/19/09, p. A1.) Such a move, a serious indication of stark, raving financial and economic insanity, is virtually guaranteed to begin finishing off what is left of the U.S. economy. Clearly motivated by political rather than economic or financial considerations, the decision is custom-made to destroy whatever confidence remains in the dollar.

The only question is how this situation was allowed to develop in a country presumably run for the benefit "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The answer is actually simple, once we free ourselves of the shackles imposed by the Great Defunct Economist, John Maynard Keynes.

By adhering to the letter rather than to the intent of the law, the federal government and the Federal Reserve have, between them, shifted the backing of the currency. The backing of the currency (or equity shares, or any other type of financial instrument) is what financial experts call the "underlying," with the additional word "asset" understood. The "underlying" of the currency has changed from "qualified industrial, commercial, and agricultural paper" (i.e., hard assets representing existing production and the present value of future production), to the federal government's ability to collect taxes. The currency has thereby shifted from being asset backed, to being debt backed.

This has had the expected effect. The value of the dollar has been falling for decades, prices have been rising, ownership of the means of production has become increasingly concentrated, basic industries have been leaving the country, and fewer and fewer people are able to make a decent income solely by selling their labor.

There are many other factors that have caused this situation, of course, but the virtual monopoly over the creation of money currently enjoyed by the federal government in unacknowledged alliance with the Federal Reserve has all but ensured that the great mass of people will be cut off from access to the means of acquiring and possessing private property. Further, freed from the necessity of having to tax in order to raise the money it needs, the federal government has acquired more and more power over the lives of American citizens, calling to mind the warning voiced by Pope Pius XI in 1931 in his "encyclical" Quadragesimo Anno ("On the Restructuring of the Social Order"), which itself echoed those issued by Henry C. Adams in his 1898 study, Public Debt: An Essay in the Science of Finance. As Pius XI declared,

105. In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.

106. This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will.

We don't need to be Catholic, or even believe in any God, gods, or goddesses to see the common sense of what Pius XI said and the dangers inherent in ignoring his warning. We need only substitute "State bureaucrats" for the "trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure" to realize the danger of allowing the federal government — or any government, for that matter — to have such enormous control over money and credit, and thus complete mastery over the economic life's blood of every man, woman, and child in the country.

Previously...

Regulation, Part II: The Federal Reserve Ponzi Scheme
Most people will immediately think of the Madoff scandal when the latter case is mentioned. They fail to realize, however, that the United States government is far more guilty than Madoff of issuing paper with nothing behind it, to the tune of more than $10 trillion. Compared to what the federal government has managed to pull off, Madoff is a piker.

Regulation, Part I: Two Views of Regulation
Consistent with the dignity of the human person, regulation should be designed to reinforce the system itself and encourage desired results, not run counter to the whole idea of a system itself and try to force desired results, whether or not the capacity exists to achieve the desired goal. The system itself must be designed to be self-regulating, not have control imposed from the outside. Unfortunately, what we've seen develop in government as well as law and economics is the belief that people must be forced to do whatever people in power want them to do, thereby attaining some bureaucrat's or academic's idea of utopia.

And this is just "too rich"

We Have Seen the Future . . . And It Doesn't Work

The second means of job creation is for the State to subsidize jobs directly by paying businesses to hire people for whom the business would otherwise have no use. The funds for a direct State subsidy can only come from increasing taxes on the rich (in which case you take money away from the rich to hand back to the rich so they can afford to hire people they don't need to hire), or by increasing the deficit.

Thus, in the Weird World of Keynes, unless you want to stifle job creation by taking away the money the rich have to invest, increased government spending can only come by increasing the deficit. Why? Keynes believed that it is impossible to finance capital formation out of "future" or "forced" savings, that is, by extending capital credit to be repaid out of the future profits of the new capital itself.

According to Keynes, then, money to stimulate demand, subsidize jobs, or decrease the deficit cannot come from the rich, because in the Keynesian universe the savings and income of the rich are the only source of financing for new capital. If the government taxes away the wealth of the rich to decrease the deficit, the rich can't invest their savings in new capital formation, and no new jobs will be created. If the government taxes away the wealth of the rich in order to subsidize job creation, all that is accomplished is that the State takes money away just to hand it back — the situation remains the same, and no new jobs will be created, because the State simply restores the status quo: businesses reduce jobs to meet their tax bills, and then hire the people back to fill subsidized positions.

Eduardo Verastegui's video

Here's a web site called www.ObamaMustSee.com
Eduardo has produced a video to remind us what is truly behind the rhetoric.



Watch the video, and remember, that we are also watched, by a great cloud of witnesses.




"There are few things that can move me to tears; there are even fewer that can make me sob, unabashedly-this video is one of those. I have forwarded it to everyone on my list. - S.M."

This just in...

Here's a plug from Michael Greaney which I am pleased to quote in full:

I'm sending this rather impersonal "blog release" to Catholic blogs to alert them to the publication of my latest book, In Defense of Human Dignity: Essays on the Just Third Way from a Natural Law Perspective by Michael D. Greaney, Economic Justice Media, ISBN 978-0-944997-02-4, $20.00. In my opinion, the current financial crisis has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that only sound application of Catholic social teaching with its basis in the natural law can provide a framework for rebuilding a moral and virtuous society.

The majority of the articles in the book were previously published in Social Justice Review, the official journal of the Central Bureau, Catholic Central Union of America in St. Louis, and were personally vetted by the editor, the late Father John H. Miller, C.S.C., S.T.D. They demonstrate the universality of the principles underpinning the Just Third Way of the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice ("CESJ"), www.cesj.org, from a Catholic perspective. The book contains in-depth treatments of natural law political theory, distributism, and social credit, and closes with an extended analysis of the principle of subsidiarity.

I serve as Director of Research for the interfaith Center for Economic and Social Justice ("CESJ") in Arlington, Virginia. I was associate editor for and contributor to Curing World Poverty: The New Role of Property (Social Justice Review, 1994), was a co-author of Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen (Economic Justice Media, 2004), and am principal contributor to "The Just Third Way" blog. In Defense of Human Dignity can be ordered online from Amazon and Barnes and Noble, as well as by special order from major bookstores. Bulk orders are available direct from the publisher, CESJ, at a 20% discount off the cover price, plus shipping. Inquiries should be directed to thirdway@cesj.org. A free review copy in .pdf is available to bloggers. I had to split it into two "volumes," but the formatting is otherwise similar, and the pagination remains the same. You just don't get the cover designed by a professional graphic artist — but then, you shouldn't be judging it by that, anyway.

Thank you.
Michael D. Greaney, CPA, MBA
Director of Research
Center for Economic and Social Justice
www.cesj.org
http://just3rdway.blogspot.com

I am a regular reader of Social Justice Review, and recommend a subscription to one and all. The book will need to come next.

Paul III's Sublimus Dei reaches across 500 years.

There has been much interest of late expressed in popular media and educational circles regarding the native peoples of America when the Spanish first arrived in the New World, as well as the English and French at later dates. Five years ago, I visited Mexico along with a number of other people from Nampa, Idaho, and spent 10 days there, staying in a village called Tizapan el Alto on the largest lake in Mexico called Laguna Chapala [40 to 50 miles south of the city of Guadalajara, State of Jalisco(central Mexico)].

It was a beautiful place--somewhat high desert, not unlike Idaho, mild weather, and a city or municipality [not unlike counties in the U.S.] with approximately 20 to 30,000 people. Approximately one-half the population, I was told, was working in the United States. I met a few people that were an Indian mix, including some that claimed to be the progeny of the Aztecs. (Not a difficult claim based upon the proximity to Mexico City).

Upon my return to the States, I read the "Conquest of Mexico" by the Spanish padre, Juan Diego. That journal of events read like a storybook, commanding my keen interest and attention. The book is to be commended to anyone interested in the earliest involvement of Europeans on the North American continent. Of course, the Catholic Faith flourished after the conquest. Some say that the Spanish treatment of the Indians was terrible. Indeed, many Europeans whether English, Spanish, or otherwise, automatically viewed the Indian peoples summarily as savages, incapable of believing in God and the Catholic Faith, and that as savages, they should be enslaved, their property to escheat to the crown, and freedom denied.

Of course, that is illogical. The Gospel is for all humankind. It knows no bounds. In fact, the Gospel civilized the savages of northern Europe 1200 to 1800 years ago.

To learn history is a life-long task. I am no a history scholar. On the other hand, there is much prejudice regarding the history of the Faith, the Church, and how the Indians were treated. There is no one uniform story, for when people believe in Christ and that His Heart is for all peoples in all times, will largely treat people rightly. Much good was done. However, with human involvement comes evil. No doubt the evil of slavery and ignorance abounded and still does to this day.

Regardless, the Faith was passed on and it is testified that after the Mexican conquest, millions of men, women, and children were baptized into the Catholic Faith.

As an early example of papal admonitions about how to deal with foreign peoples and social justice, the Roman Pontiff, Paul III, issued the following bull "To all faithful Christians" with regard to the treatment of the American Indians demanding that the native folk be respected, that their freedom be honored, and their right to possession of their property. He clearly demanded that the Indians not be enslaved, "should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect."

It still read as a short statement on how to treat people to this day: Respect the person, respect liberty and property, do not enslave.

Here is the bull in its entirety and simplicity, issued on May 29, 1537:

Sublimus Dei

Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians)

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

Social Justice for families

The Church's Call to Peace & Justice

Does the concept of "social justice" require that government be the solution for every social problem? Probably not. Yet, many people who openly advocate what is called, "social justice," believe that government provides the best solutions to problems. In the end, do we trust each person, family, community, and nation to solve their own problems? Most problems seem overwhelming and too often these same folks look for global solutions. Go to the hotlink, and look at the article entitled: "Peace and Justice: Look to Freedom for Solutions."

See it here: www.nuncprotunc.wordpress.com

OF MARRIAGE, CHILDREN, LIES, AND THE 1970s.

American society is still built on a desire for truth. In most venues whether at home, work, business, play, or even in the functions of government, this is true. Despite this longing for truth and honesty in all areas of life, people still lie. I often pause in awe to realize that the American people are still appalled in 2008 when lies or vices are exposed.

Denying a cynical view, they even now look to truth and virtue as the standard and yearn for it.

Most recently as an example, people were surprised at the revelations of the national mortgage lender crisis involving the familiarly known entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The vice of greed most recently exposed the managers and executives of the lenders, because they received false generous bonuses due to pufferied income figures. From the most celebrated case, Enron, to Wall Street, from Congress to city hall, greed and lies continue to be exposed.

Its impact on the U.S. economy and on the international scale may unfold for years as investors and consumers loose confidence and trust in the American financial system--at one time the envy of the world.

The life of overconsumption and abuse of the material creation caused by greed and dishonesty has affected America. Of course, as the old biblical saying goes, the Truth shall set you free. All people hold onto affections, ideas, things, desires, hopes, and dreams that are yet be exposed to the light of truth, and when done so, if we are honest with ourselves, we tend to let those things go. After all, God wants us to be free. When we are truthful with ourselves, and with each other in charity, it is there that we are able as children to receive His grace and adore Him fully.

Yet, the impact of lies on our Nation is especially revealing today. The leading example is abortion (the legal prohibition of abortion was lifted in the 1970s). There are philosophical and religious institutions and profit-making industries devoted to one colossal lie and to the loss of one life at a time: that it is legitimate to spill the blood of a kid in the womb.

Another 1970s monstrosity changed modern American jurisprudence. It enables men and women by the thousands daily to lie with little or no effort in court. In the early 1970s, the legislatures across the United States passed laws that permitted divorce by a reprehensible claim of “irreconcilable differences.”

By simply testifying before a judge under the penalty of perjury, imprudent men and women tell a judge that he or she cannot cannot reconcile with their spouse. Christians and non-Christians alike. Catholics and non-Catholics alike. No statistical difference. Yet, these Christians and Catholics lie, stating proudly and unequivocally that they cannot get along with their soon-to-be former spouse. [Note here that this does not discount the spousal physical or sexual abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, or adultery, or other legitimate causes. These can be legitimate and right claims to escape the terror of real abuse].

Where the claim of irreconcilable differences are made in court, surely there are some differences between spouses that are insurmountable and irreconcilable. Yet, divorce? Have we become so desensitized that America--or should I say, Catholics--has forgotten the real tragedy called "divorce?"

By the grace of God, the effort to get along with one’s spouse is more than mere words, challenges, or claims. Has the husband been all he can be in Christ? Has the wife been the helper that she has been called to be? Most often, the failing answer is “No.” This is not an excuse for divorce. The classroom called marriage teaches us the real reason for the marital institution: to help us save our sinful souls. Men need to be men and use their testicles. Women need to be women and to stop looking at the extremes of feminism or other false ideas.

The real casualty of the courtroom lies is the children. Their limitless imaginations, playfulness, inquisitiveness, innocence, and love are shattered against the rock of selfish and impatient worldliness, and self-absorbed spouses known also as Dad and Mom. The social devastation and evil done to children in this generation and its progeny is immeasurable except by God Himself. Yet, we live with it today, with children who quickly become adults, well versed in the excuses and misgivings of adulthood long before their bodies reach maturity. They have learned the wiles of lying parents, maddened by separation, frustrated by lost and noble parental purposes and love, and haunted by a seemingly unrecoverable loss.

The world looks at this and says, “Get over it,” “Live with it,” or the old primers, “It must have been God’s will,” or "My spouse is not the same person I married," or with equal nonsense, “He (or she) was too immature, incapacitated, or childish to have entered marriage.” As arrogance is to pride, is denial of the impact of divorce on individuals and society. Another lie.

As friends, ministers, and counselors of these dissolved spouses, we church men and women at times rush to salve the guilt that dissolution brings, ready to deny the truth and the trajedy, to give excuse and comfort to every sigh and whim rather than encouraging the spouse to face, settle, and reconcile differences with his or her spouse. Are those who aid and abet such nonsense any less problematic or better said, any less sinful?

Christ came as a sign of contradiction. Too often, what we see on another person’s face is not what is inside. Defensiveness caulks up our willingness to expose our innards to our spouses and friends. Poor thinking and sinfulness further darkens our minds and weakens our wills that is so necessary for grace, the type of grace that encourages reconciliation and hope for a relationship, for ourselves, but most importantly for our children.

The one hope that can be expressed is that the American people born of freedom and personal responsibilty, still show an outward love of Truth. Yet as the human condition reveals we often tolerate lies that end up either killing people physcially or inside their souls. It is hopeful, that in an effort to right some of the wrongs of the last supercilious 20th Century, i.e., self-absorbed, permissiveness, feelings, sexual revolution, abortion, divorce, and excuses upon excuses, that we can reform some of the laws the permit an easy divorce, or an abortion that kills a kid.

Of course, a change in the law does not change hearts. The law is but a standard. The law will change most fully when we adapt our lives personally to Christ.

A just society can be measured by how it treats its families, treasures relationships, and secures those relationships to secure the institution called a family. In this way, the most innocent members of society which are our children, remain protected whether in the womb or in the bedroom. Trust of family, friends, and institutions will be remade, and our society reformed.

In the end, Catholic social justice demands that the family be protected, that abortion be ended, that the divorce laws are reformed, and that Catholics make their spouses and children their first priorty after God--not jobs, wealth, or things. Outside of Our Lord and the promise of Salvation if we but follow His commands, These are the most dear and lovely things in our personal possession.

spiritual Alzheimer’s, hold the applause

From RORATE CÆLI

LAMBETH CONFERENCE 2008
MISSION, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EVANGELISATION
Cardinal Ivan Dias
Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, Rome

Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer’s. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson’s.

From Catholic Exchange

Hold the Applause: Confessions of a Conflicted Clapper
Mary Anne Moresco

Whenever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.

The above words were penned by our Holy Father Pope Benedict the XVI, (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) on p. 198 of his book entitled The Spirit of the Liturgy. I first read this book before our Holy Father became pope. The book did three things to me. First, it made me acutely aware that there was much about the meaning of the liturgy to which I was blind. Second, it deepened my love for the liturgy. Third, it put me in conflict with respect to how I needed to approach Mass. One area of conflict was in clapping at Mass.

Having read Cardinal Ratzinger’s words on clapping, I wondered how I could continue to clap at Mass in good conscience. As one who has been to Masses where there was clapping for just about everyone, from musicians, lectors, altar servers and church decorators to priests giving homilies and lay people giving testimonies, I began to wonder why we clap at Mass at all.

hat-tip for both items to Fr. Z at What does the Prayer Really Say. both are reading the full items.

Justice be what, now?

From DIVINE INTIMACY by Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D.

#237 INFINITE JUSTICE

Mercy is the effusion of the sovereign Good who communicates His goodness to creatures; justice is zeal defending the rights of that sovereign Good who ought to be loved above all things. In this sense, justice intervenes when the creature tramples on God's rights and offends Him instead of loving and honoring Him. The punishment of the sinner is the fruit of justice, but at the same time it is the fruit of mercy, for "whom the Lord loveth, He chastizeth" (Prov 3:12). God does not punish a sinner in order to destroy him but to convert him. In this life the means used by divine justice are always directed by mercy, insofar as their purpose is always to put the sinner in such conditions as to profit by the divine mercy. Therefore, God is always merciful even when He punishes; His chastisements are not merely punishments, but they are also, and above all, remedies to cure our souls from sin, except in the case of those who refuse to be converted.

In our spiritual life, mercy and justice are continually alternating and intertwining. God's mercy offers us His divine friendship; but, in justice, He cannot receive as an intimate friend anyone who retains the slightest attachment to sin and imperfection. Therefore He subjects us to purifying trials for a twofold purpose: to make us atone for our faults - which is the aim of justice - and to destroy in us the last roots of sin that we may be disposed for union with God - ant this is the aim of mercy. Hence, we must accept our trials humbly, realizing that we deserve them. We must accept them with zeal and a love for justice, wishing to avenge in ourselves God's rights, rights which we too often forget and ignore. We ought to accept them too with love, for every trial is a great mercy on the part of God, who wants us to advance n the way of sanctity.

Too often the "Social Justice" movement thinks in terms of a world without God; in which case the first casualties will be justice and mercy.

in the above piece, it does well to remember that "atone" is a two word contraction of "at one." To become "at one" with God is what "atonement" is all about. The often referred to "dignity of man" is not anything that is in man by nature or of his own doing, but the dignity of man is his supernatural vocation to be "at one" with God; a vocation that begins at conception.

Bishop Vasa: rightly placed hope

Christian hope rooted in Christ's death, triumph over sin
By Bishop Robert Vasa
Print Edition: 05/09/2008

BEND — Over the past months I have commented both in sermons and in writing on Pope Benedict’s Encyclical on hope. I do continue to return to it for points of reflection and encouragement on a fairly regular basis. I have found in it very rich and even challenging material. Throughout the Easter Season I have reflected on the type of hope which the Apostles and others who lived in the days of Jesus possessed. It is very easy to see them as people who had a rightly placed hope, a hope centered in God and focused on eternal life.

The events of Palm Sunday are perhaps indicative of a truth somewhat different from this perception. Remember that the people saw Jesus healing the sick, curing the blind and the lame, multiplying bread and fish and even changing water into wine. When they perceived that Jesus was coming into Jerusalem to take up His kingly throne, they were ecstatic with hope that now, at last, His kingdom would come, that they would be part of it and there would be health and food and wine in abundance for all. This accounts for the enthusiasm with which Jesus was greeted on that original Palm Sunday.

Their hope for a material kingdom, a hope that all their immediate needs and wants would be gratified was far different from the hope which Jesus came to bring. Their hope was a meager hope, as Pope Benedict describes these rather limited hopes. It was not until the Lord’s resurrection that the light of genuine hope began to shine on the lives of the Apostles. It was a categorically different type of hope. It was an insurmountable, an indomitable hope. It was a hope founded on the fact that Christ had conquered sin and death forever.

In this regard the Holy Father writes about the hope and joy of the saints. They are men and women, who often despite horrendous conditions and even tortures, lived peacefully and joyfully. Concerning their capacity to suffer for the sake of the kingdom of God the Holy Father writes: “Yet this capacity to suffer depends on the type and extent of the hope that we bear within us and build upon. The saints were able to make the great journey of human existence in the way that Christ had done before them, because they were brimming with great hope.” (Spe Salvi, 39)

In contrast, I suspect most of us are rather brimming with meager hopes. Like the people of Jesus’ day we hope for an earthly kingdom, we hope for good health and food and wine in abundance. When we have these things we readily rejoice as did the people of Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. They too were brimming with meager hopes. Yet these hopes do not seem to us to be meager anymore than a teen infatuation seems to that teen to be only “puppy love.” It is only much later when more authentic love is discovered that one looks back and recognizes the meagerness of that previous love. It is only in light of the resurrection that the Apostles were able to look back, and perhaps even laugh, at the meagerness of their previous hope.

“The capacity to suffer depends on the type and extent of the hope we bear within us and build upon.” A person suffering with cancer may have “hope” for a cure to their cancer, they may even be “brimming” with this hope. This is certainly a worthy and even necessary hope. Yet when the diagnosis is that nothing more can be done, then in what do we hope? Many see only the hope of finding some other alternative cure. Lacking that, unless there is a hope which supercedes these other meager hopes, the alternative is to seek to avoid the suffering which appears now to be inevitable. Making the “great journey of human existence” is not only about being brimming with hope but rather it is about being “brimming with great hope,” brimming with a hope infinitely greater than the meager hopes which often compel us in our day to day lives.

My journey this weekend was quite short, fewer than 20 miles each way. Saint Thomas Parish in Redmond was the scene of this weekend’s Confirmation. Seeing their lovely church reminded me that “all serious and upright human conduct is hope in action.” The hope which encouraged and fostered the building of a new larger church more than four years ago is still alive and active. In some ways such buildings are perhaps extravagant. One could argue that all we really need is a large auditorium, a multi-purpose building in which we can have Mass as well as a series of other parochial events. It seems to me that such an arrangement might be tenable as a short term necessity but it bespeaks a kind of hopelessness. After all, it says that having a heart-uplifting sacred space set apart exclusively for the worship of God is either not possible or not necessary.

If we were to take a bit of license with Pope Benedict’s passage it might be re-written as: “Yet this capacity to suffer (to build something beautiful for God) depends on the type and extent of the hope that we bear within us and build upon.” The many beautiful churches of the diocese, built 75 to 100 years ago, are a testimony to the great hope of those who went before us.

As we are heartened by the manifest hope of what our forebears built, the youngsters who endure my questioning and come forward for the anointing of the Holy Spirit need to see our hope in action as well. We have an obligation to try to imitate the saints. They “were able to make the great journey of human existence in the way that Christ had done before them, because they were brimming with great hope.” May we, in our turn, both for our own sakes and for the sake of those who come after us likewise manifest an indomitable hope, a great hope.

Perhaps, in this context of hope, I would be a bit remiss if I did not mention again the diocesan camp/retreat center which we are planning for our rural diocese. If the Holy Father is correct that “all serious and upright human conduct is hope in action” then the varied churches of the diocese are a sign of the hope in action of our ancestors.

The current building projects throughout the diocese are a sign of hope in action within our parishes. The diocesan project is a sign of hope in action for our diocese. The marvelous side effect of moving forward in hope is that doing so actually fosters the hope which it manifests.

© 2002-2008, Catholic Sentinel

And seek not what you shall eat or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high. For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. Lk 12:29-31

greater love than this no man hath

Dilexit me, et tradidit semetipsum pro me, He loved me, and delivered himself for me (Gal 2:20)

#137, The Gift of Love (Holy Thursday)
Divine Intimacy, by Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D.

If we cannot imitate the love of Jesus by giving our body as food to our brethren, we can imitate Him at least by giving them loving assistance, not only in agreeable circumstances, but also in difficult and disagreeable ones. By washing His disciples’ feet, the Master shows us how far we should humble ourselves to render a service to our neighbor, even were he most lowly and abject. The Master, who, by unceasing proofs of His love, advances to meet ungrateful men and even those who have betrayed Him, teaches us that our charity is far from His unless we repay evil with good, forgive everything, and are even willing to repay with kindness those who have done us harm. The Master, who gave His live for the salvation of His own, tells us that our love is incomplete if we cannot sacrifice ourselves generously for others. His “new commandment,” which makes the love of Jesus Himself the measure of our fraternal love, opens up unlimited horizons for the exercise of charity, for it means charity without limits. If there is a limit, it is that of giving, like the Master, one’s life for others, for “greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13).

---

A part of the “purification” of the errors of liberation theology...


“..there is the ‘option for the poor’: the poor Christ is God’s option in person.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1996, “A New Song for the Lord”

Why is Kenya bleeding?

From www.domlife.org:

Why is Kenya Bleeding?
Bert Ebben, OP (St. Martin)
Coordinator, Community Development Projects in Africa

After months of drought the parched land of Kenya thirsts for life-giving water. After years of oppression and exploitation the weary people of Kenya long for justice and peace. After four decades of independence the nation bleeds from a nearly mortal wound, while it reverberates with threatening accusations of tribalism, ethnic cleansing and genocide. This very morning yet another school and orphanage were torched in Mathare, Africa’s largest slum just a few kilometers from the Kware slums of Ongata-Rongai where I continue to facilitate various programs at VICODEC, a center dedicated to the promotion of human development.

Prompted by my Dominican Brothers in Raleigh I am writing this reflection, an attempt to respond to repeated questions from around the world. Why have 600+ Kenyans been so brutally massacred? Why have 250,000 people been driven from their homes and villages? Why are thousands more fleeing across the borders into Uganda and Tanzania? Why, this very day, are masses of Kenyans threatening to demonstrate in thirty cities and towns across the country? Because of an election, alleged by the opposition (Raila Odinga and his ODM Party) to have been fraudulent yet subsequently declared to have been free and fair by the Kenyan Electoral Commission, thus giving the incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki of the PNU Party another five years in office? I don’t think so!

However controversial this decision is itself, it does not radically explain how the normally tolerant, long-suffering and peace-loving citizens of Kenya were driven to perpetrate such horrific death and destruction upon their beautiful country, once thought to be the most united and democratic nation in sub-Saharan Africa. While the failed electoral process is, without doubt, the catalyst that continues to spark such devastating reactions, fear and violence, it cannot account for the ensuing explosive situation. The root cause can be found only in the poverty, inequality and injustice that have plagued this country since independence and that have been systematically incorporated into the structures of its society, ever widening the great divide separating the powerfully rich minority from the masses who languish in poverty and hopelessness. Bridging that divide seems to be so far beyond the reach of ordinary poor Kenyans that they regrettably resort to anger, bitterness, acrimony and despair.

In such an anti-gospel milieu, it appears almost impossible for the everyday Kenyan to accept that God’s reign does not reach down from the presidential State House, nor from the Parliament, nor from the heights of power and wealth, but that the God of peace only breaks through in real acts of compassion, healing and justice, only in the nonviolent liberation of the poor and oppressed.

Sharing the pain and anguish of my Kenyan brothers and sisters, I am pushed and pulled into the confrontation and indignation of their experience. But even more I am emboldened to pursue God’s promise of peace on earth. I am compelled to continue to confront my own country’s “wars on earth”. I am driven to resist the present U.S. administration’s militaristic and arrogant imperialistic ambitions around the world. I am persuaded to oppose handguns, the death penalty, abortion, racism, sexism, poverty, corporate greed and the environmental devastation of our spectacular planet Earth.

Even as I conclude this reflection, the skies suddenly break open to release a soft, gentle rain. I am reminded of Isaiah’s “Rorate coeli desuper et nubes pluant justum”(45:8) in which the prophet expresses the world’s longing for the coming of the just one. I pray that the refreshing rain, now at last gently falling on the parched earth of Kenya, is a prophetic sign of the coming of God’s “Just One”, showing all of us the way to that New World without war, without poverty, without injustice – peace in Kenya, peace in the world, peace at last!

Bert Ebben, OP

Ongata-Rongai, Kenya

16 January 2008-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my response:

Dear Fr. Bert Ebben OP:

Thanks for the political commentary.

There is much to be said about expanding political and economic freedom, as well as market economic solutions to helping the poor come out of poverty and sustain their own middle class advantage. This is no less true in Kenya as it is in any American or European country.

However, Fr. Ebben's commentary about Kenya is certainly personal and tragic to each noble citizen of that country, yet he hardly offers a solution based upon Christian prinicples.

While he offers a manifesto from his personal view, Fr. Ebben's seeks resolutions that are--absent abortion--from a dull regressive liberal read: 'ism's' galore.

These are hardly solutions that should be offered by a member of the Order of Preachers!

Your spiritual response should be a call those who riot and commit mayhem to a moral standard; and call the government to establish order and right conduct by protecting persons against riots and crime, and establishing the law so that the rights of life, liberty, and property of each person are protected at law not on the streets, and to act forthrightly with reason and morality. Simply put, preach the Gospel!

Further, as a Preacher, speak about the abhorrence of murder, whether born or unborn--most especially the innocent.

Further, the blame America mentality only harkens back to the 1960s drivel of 'blame America' first and always, a manifesto that is an historical bomb.

Yes, we all look forward to the return of Christ and His peace, a peace not of this world or of those who would construct peace with their progromes and committees, but the peace of Christ. This will not come from political solutions, committees, UN, NGOs, more foreign aid, or the like, but by preaching Christ. As a Friar Preacher, our dear friar has this power of the Word and Truth.

Kenya is a beautiful country with incredible people with a Christian heritage.

These people need more than the ol' class struggle paradigm. They have the right to be taught and preached the Truth.

In this way, you will see the Just One rise up, in the hearts and minds of the people and their meritorious acts done in grace. That is a social revolution not of this world!

That is why you are called a Preacher. It is time to preach His Word, not the politics of destruction.

Thank you,

John Keenan, J.D., O.P.L.

-----------------

As most recently noted, the dynamics of conflict in Kenya is a matter of tribal conflict not the classic marxist model of class conflict as Fr. Ebben would have us believe.

Embracing VII is to reject abortion/contraception/euthanasia/etc

From Bishop Robert Vasa's column in the Catholic Sentinel:

Unheard joy, unseen hopes of unborn should 'raise an echo'

The snow can provide a temporary reprieve from invasive external decibels but a silence of the mind and a silence of the heart is a bit more difficult to achieve. I find this to be particularly true during this season of presidential primaries. There is a lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of "noise." Since the matter at stake is not only that of choosing presidential candidates but, more importantly, what they represent, there can be no doubt that there are matters of life and death at stake. There are a lot of genuinely important human rights and human dignity issues which need to be addressed. Some of these, particularly abortion, contraception and assisted suicide, have a direct bearing on the promotion of a culture of life or a culture of death. Our nation claims to seek "liberty and justice for all" but the word "all" is not as inclusive as it needs to be and the definition of "liberty" is often quite self serving. In truth there is great emphasis on granting licensed liberty to many different classes of persons but there is not yet an adequate granting of genuine "liberty and justice" to the poorest and the most helpless of persons; the pre-born child in the womb. As we think about how to translate the echoes of the cries of human concerns into definitive and life giving action during this politically charged year it is essential that we listen in contemplative silence, perhaps both external and internal, to the voice of God and remember that Christ "was crucified and rose again to break the strangle hold of personified evil, so that the world might be fashioned anew according to God's design and reach its fulfillment." [1] There is much emphasis these days on fashioning a newer and a better world but much that has been purportedly better and newer in the past has failed to be in accord with God's design and thus, despite the apparent progress, does not in reality bring us any closer to God-centered fulfillment.

(1)Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes "On the Church in the Modern World", 12-7-65)

The good bishop exposes as frauds those who purport to embrace Vatican II while also embracing the host of social evils currently unleashed (abortion, euthanasia, contraception, sodomy, denegration of marriage, etc).

Self-critical examination

Earlier this year this blog has hammered on the free-falling political activists of our Order; and that we have need to examine if such positions are consonant with 1) Catholic Faith & 2) the mission of the Order. It seemed to this author that a look at what Vatican II called for, and if that is or is not what has been done, is called for.

Now I read a far more articulate writer's words on the subject, with much the same direction. He calls us to the same examination, for the same reason. That would be Pope Benedict XVI, in SPES SALVI

21. Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx's fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another. Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed. True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This “intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized—which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man's freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.

22. Again, we find ourselves facing the question: what may we hope? A self-critique of modernity is needed in dialogue with Christianity and its concept of hope. In this dialogue Christians too, in the context of their knowledge and experience, must learn anew in what their hope truly consists, what they have to offer to the world and what they cannot offer. Flowing into this self-critique of the modern age there also has to be a self-critique of modern Christianity, which must constantly renew its self-understanding setting out from its roots. On this subject, all we can attempt here are a few brief observations. First we must ask ourselves: what does “progress” really mean; what does it promise and what does it not promise? In the nineteenth century, faith in progress was already subject to critique. In the twentieth century, Theodor W. Adorno formulated the problem of faith in progress quite drastically: he said that progress, seen accurately, is progress from the sling to the atom bomb. Now this is certainly an aspect of progress that must not be concealed. To put it another way: the ambiguity of progress becomes evident. Without doubt, it offers new possibilities for good, but it also opens up appalling possibilities for evil—possibilities that formerly did not exist. We have all witnessed the way in which progress, in the wrong hands, can become and has indeed become a terrifying progress in evil. If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth (cf. Eph 3:16; 2 Cor 4:16), then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world.

and in case it needed more emphasis, Archbishop Vlazny makes it clear in the previously posted article, Let's not Confuse Ethics with Religion:

All issues are not equal. They do have different moral weight and urgency. But it is important to ask our candidates how they intend to help our nation pursue these goals:
1) the pre-eminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst, namely, innocent unborn children;
2) how to keep our nation from turning to violence to address fundamental problems, including the violence of abortion, euthanasia and assisted-suicide;
3) defining the central institution of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman and providing better support for family life;
4) achieving comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders and treats all people with respect and dignity;
5) helping families and children overcome poverty, particularly with respect to ensuring access to and choice in education as well as decent work and decent wages;
6) providing health care coverage for the growing number of our fellow citizens;
7) opposing policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry and all forms of discrimination;
8) working together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good and care for creation;
9) establishing and complying with moral limits on the use of military force; and
10) joining with others around the world to pursue peace, protect human rights and religious liberty and advance economic justice in care of creation.

To this I would add that if you find the list upside down by your judgement, you might get off your head and stand on your feet instead. If that is too antogonistic for you, then consider that "God is Love" (deus caritas est) and you are drawn to a good, which is good, but to be drawn to a good at the expense of a greater good is the nature of disorder and sin. What I mean is that if #1 above is not your number one, you have placed a lesser good above a greater good, and willingness to sacrifice the greater for the lesser is the disorder which blindness has given.

And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who
saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand:
and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.

For the heart of this people is grown gross, and
with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their
eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with
their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with
their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. Mt 13:14-5.

Let's not confuse ethics with religion

The following is the column of Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland. It is very well articulated.

Let's not confuse ethics with religion

By Archbishop John Vlazny

Ready or not, several weeks from now we Americans will begin to make some decisions about those whom we want to see as candidates for public office in the elections of November, 2008. Recent national elections have been quite contentious, to say the least. Unfortunately, the efforts of American bishops to offer some reflections on Catholic teaching and political life seem to have made matters worse, in the eyes of many. This will occur, of course, when folks confuse ethics with religion.

One public servant was recently discussing one of the most controversial of all issues in the last election, namely, legal abortion. It was his contention that someone could have a deeply held belief that all life, including that of unborn infants, is sacred. But at the same time he or she could rightly accept the fact that in a pluralistic society making all abortions illegal would constitute an unfair imposition of those beliefs on others. The problem with that statement is that the wrongness of abortion is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of ethics in a civilized society.

Killing another person is not wrong simply because it’s prohibited in the Ten Commandments. It’s wrong because it is unethical. It goes against the reasonable and well-founded standards of society from time immemorial. Even if everyone were to accept abortion, it would remain unethical. Americans accepted slavery for a long time. But it wasn’t ethical. Being ethical is much more than simply doing whatever society accepts.

In making a decision about how to vote in the coming elections, we citizens have a serious responsibility to examine the issues of the day and the positions which the candidates take vis-à-vis those issues. Catholics certainly should try to understand what the church teaches about issues that affect public policy. But not everything the church says about issues stems from belief. Many are positions ethically-based, reinforced by the moral values we share as disciples of Jesus Christ.

At the recent meeting of the American bishops in Baltimore, we discussed a statement entitled “Faithful Citizenship,” which is intended to help our people form their consciences about matters of public policy. Similar statements have been used widely in the past in our parishes and dioceses. Outsiders, and even some Catholic insiders, see this as an intrusion upon their freedom of conscience. Catholics, of course, have the obligation to form a right conscience, one in keeping with church teachings. But other folks also need to make their decisions based on ethical standards. Feelings, laws and social norms do not determine what is ethical. Sound reasoning does.

Because of the consistent confusion between ethics and religion, it is important for Catholic teachers like bishops to clarify positions they take. Are these moral convictions based on church teaching? Or are these ethical convictions, based on human reason, illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the church? Yes, the church teaches it is wrong to kill, to steal, to perjure oneself, to defame a neighbor, to marry one’s own parent or child. These are not matters of religious belief. They are ethical concerns. By that same token, the observance of Sunday as a holyday, liturgical directives, the personal consequences of sinful behavior, penitential practices, all these are religious in nature, pure and simple.

In the coming elections, there are some policy goals that we bishops would like our people to keep in mind in the light of ethical principles. Our purpose in sharing these is to help parishioners form their consciences and reflect on the moral dimensions of their public choices. All issues are not equal. They do have different moral weight and urgency. But it is important to ask our candidates how they intend to help our nation pursue these goals:
1) the pre-eminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst, namely, innocent unborn children;
2) how to keep our nation from turning to violence to address fundamental problems, including the violence of abortion, euthanasia and assisted-suicide;
3) defining the central institution of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman and providing better support for family life;
4) achieving comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders and treats all people with respect and dignity;
5) helping families and children overcome poverty, particularly with respect to ensuring access to and choice in education as well as decent work and decent wages;
6) providing health care coverage for the growing number of our fellow citizens;
7) opposing policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry and all forms of discrimination;
8) working together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good and care for creation;
9) establishing and complying with moral limits on the use of military force; and
10) joining with others around the world to pursue peace, protect human rights and religious liberty and advance economic justice in care of creation.

While these issues are being debated, over the next six weeks we Catholics will be pondering with Mary, the Mother of the Church, the great mystery of the Incarnation. God became man, thrusting himself into our midst, and changing the human family forever. This is a religious truth, not an ethical conviction. But it is the greatest truth we can tell. In response to the Lord’s coming, which we shall be celebrating during the weeks of Advent and Christmas, we want to ground ourselves more surely in his teachings about all human life and to do our part as a community with a rich heritage of ethical convictions to confront the many challenges in public life and thereby promote peace on earth and good will to all people.

Situation in Pakistan

This just received from:

FRATRES ORDINIS PRÆDICATORUM
CURIA GENERALITIA
and
Dominican Sisters International

November 25^th 2007

Feast of Christ the King

Dear Members of the Worldwide Dominican Family,

Dominicans live and minister in 101 of the world’s countries. Many members of our Family are present in countries plagued by economic poverty and conflict. During recent weeks, we are especially aware of the people of Pakistan and our Dominican Family members among them. We stand in prayer and solidarity with them during this time of crisis.

The crisis in Pakistan exists because the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, declared a State of Emergency on the 3^rd of November. As a result, the Constitution of Pakistan is suspended, the citizens of Pakistan are deprived of their basic human rights, dozens of Supreme Court and High Courts Judges and Chief Justices are under house arrest, and people do not have access to local independent television channels or to international news channels. Hundreds of journalists, lawyers, and key political leaders are either under house arrest or in jail. The Christian community feels very insecure and threatened. The bishops and major superiors of religious in Pakistan are extremely alarmed about the deteriorating situation in the country.

We urge the government of Pakistan to lift the State of Emergency, restore the suspended Constitution, guarantee full civil rights for all, free from jails all political leaders, journalists, lawyers and also all judges and their families who are under house arrest. Give the people of Pakistan free access to the national and international media. A return to constitutional democracy will improve the image and position of Pakistan around the world.

We urge all Dominicans throughout the world, to continue to pray for the people of Pakistan. Dominicans, in countries whose governments may be able to influence the government of Pakistan, we ask you to urge your governments to directly contact General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, insisting on a return to constitutional democracy in Pakistan, that basic human rights are assured, that the judiciary is restored, and that people are not deprived of access to media whether local or international. As people of faith, we find the consequences of the current State of Emergency and the suspension of the Constitution unacceptable.

Mindful of our Father Dominic, who wept for the suffering, and our sister Catherine, who influenced the civil leaders of her day, we are your brother and sister:

Carlos Azpiroz Costa OP

Master of the Order

and

Marie Fabiola Valesquez Maya OP

International Coordinator of DSI

Convento Santa Sabina (Aventino) – Piazza Pietro d’Illiria, 1 – 00153 ROMA
+39 06 579401 - FAX +39 06 5750675