A Two'fer

Atheists Attacking Religion With Signs Depicting Twin Towers to Mark Holiday Season..




IMAGINE REDUX



To be just, judge religion on its effects on the man who has followed it,
not the man who is impervious to it.

Favorite dead horse

Take the Global Warming quiz

ICECAP FAQs and Myths

Archbishop Chaput on Citizenship and Evangelization

lifted article

"We're Better Americans by Being More Truly Catholic"


NEW YORK, NOV. 5, 2007 (Zenit) - Here is the address Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered Oct. 26 at St. John's University School of Law in Queens, New York. The talked is titled "Church and State Today: What Belongs to Caesar, and What Doesn't."

* * *

I always enjoy being with friends like tonight because I can leave my Kevlar vest in Denver. I do a lot of speaking, and while most of the people I meet are wonderful folks, not everyone is always happy to hear what I have to say.

In fact, one of the distinguishing marks of debate both outside and within the Church over the last 40 years is how uncivil the disagreements have become. Being a faithful Catholic leader today -- whether you're a layperson or clergy -- isn't easy. It requires real skill, and in that regard, I've admired the great ability and good will of Bishop Murphy for many years. So it's a special pleasure to be with him tonight. New York's Cardinal Edward Egan is another leader who's given extraordinary and sometimes difficult service to the Church.

I'm not really surprised by the environment in our country or in our Church because Msgr. George Kelly saw it coming 30 years ago. I read his great book, "The Battle for the American Church," as a young Capuchin priest when it first came out in 1979. I remember being struck immediately by George's very Irish combination of candor, scrappiness, clarity, intelligence and also finally charity -- because everything he wrote and said and did was always motivated by his love for the Church.

I also remember George's sense of humor, which was vivid and healthy, and which probably kept him so generous and sane. He was a man's man and a priest's priest -- and his commitment to Catholic family life, Catholic education and Catholic scholarship has remained with me as an example throughout my priesthood. George and I became friends through our mutual friend Father Ronald Lawler, O.F.M. Cap., and after I became a bishop in South Dakota, he would often call me or write me with his advice -- and I was always happy to get it, because it was always very good. So I'm grateful for a chance to acknowledge my debt to him.

We have a full evening, so I'll be very brief. I want to quickly sketch for you the picture of an anonymous culture. But everything I'm about to tell you comes from the factual record.

This society is advanced in the sciences and the arts. It has a complex economy and a strong military. It includes many different religions, although religion tends to be a private affair or a matter of civic ceremony.

This particular society also has big problems. Among them is that fertility rates remain below replacement levels. There aren't enough children being born to replenish the current adult population and to do the work needed to keep society going. The government offers incentives to encourage people to have more babies. But nothing seems to work.

Promiscuity is common and accepted. So are bisexuality and homosexuality. So is prostitution. Birth control and abortion are legal, widely practiced, and justified by society's leading intellectuals.

Every now and then, a lawmaker introduces a measure to promote marriage, arguing that the health and future of society depend on stable families. These measures typically go nowhere.

Ok. What society am I talking about? Our own country, of course, would broadly fit this description. But I'm not talking about us.

I've just outlined the conditions of the Mediterranean world at the time of Christ. We tend to idealize the ancients, to look back at Greece and Rome as an age of extraordinary achievements. And of course, it was. But it had another side as well.

We don't usually think of Plato and Aristotle endorsing abortion or infanticide as state policy. But they did. Hippocrates, the great medical pioneer, also famously created an abortion kit that included sharp blades for cutting up the fetus and a hook for ripping it from the womb. We rarely connect that with his Hippocratic Oath. But some years ago, archeologists discovered the remains of what appeared to be a Roman-era abortion or infanticide "clinic." It was a sewer filled with the bones of more than 100 infants.

If you haven't done so already, I'd encourage you to pick up a little book written about 10 years ago, "The Rise of Christianity" by the Baylor University scholar Rodney Stark. You'll find all of this history in its pages and more.

But what does ancient Rome have to do with my topic tonight, the relationship of Church and state today?

Let me explain it this way: People often say we're living at a "post-Christian" moment. That's supposed to describe the fact that Western nations have abandoned or greatly downplayed their Christian heritage in recent decades. But our "post-Christian" moment actually looks a lot like the pre-Christian moment. The signs of our times in the developed nations -- morally, intellectually, spiritually and even demographically -- are uncomfortably similar to the signs in the world at the time of the Incarnation.

Drawing lessons from history is a subjective business. There's always the risk of oversimplifying.

But I do believe that the challenges we face as American Catholics today are very much like those faced by the first Christians. And it might help to have a little perspective on how they went about evangelizing their culture. They did such a good job that within 400 years Christianity was the world's dominant religion and the foundation of Western civilization. If we can learn from that history, the more easily God will work through us to spark a new evangelization.

I'm not a historian or a sociologist, so I'll leave it to others to fully evaluate Rodney Stark's work. But Stark does address a couple of key questions: How did Christianity succeed? How was it able to accomplish so much so fast? Stark is not only a social scientist, but also a self-described agnostic. So he has no interest in talking about God's will or the workings of the Holy Spirit. He focuses only on facts he can verify.

Stark concludes that Christian success flowed from two things: first, Christian doctrine, and second, people being faithful to that doctrine. Stark writes: "An essential factor in the [Christian] religion's success was what Christians believed. ... And it was the way those doctrines took on actual flesh, the way they directed organizational actions and individual behavior, that led to the rise of Christianity."

Let's put it in less academic terms: The Church, through the Apostles and their successors, preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. People believed in the Gospel. But they weren't just agreeing to a set of ideas. Believing in the Gospel meant changing their whole way of thinking and living. It was a radical transformation. So radical they couldn't go on living like the people around them anymore.

Stark shows that one of the key areas in which Christians rejected the culture around them was marriage and the family. From the start, to be a Christian meant believing that sex and marriage were sacred. From the start, to be a Christian meant rejecting abortion, infanticide, birth control, divorce, homosexual activity and marital infidelity -- all those things widely practiced by their Roman neighbors.

Athenagoras, a Christian layman, told the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the year A.D. 176 that abortion was "murder" and that those involved would have to "give an account to God." And he told the emperor the reason why: "For we regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care."

As this audience already knows, Christian reverence for the unborn child is no medieval development. It comes from the very beginnings of our faith. The early Church had no debates over politicians and communion. There wasn't any need. No persons who tolerated or promoted abortion would have dared to approach the Eucharistic table, let alone dared to call themselves true Christians.

And here's why: The early Christians understood that they were the offspring of a new worldwide family of God. They saw the culture around them as a culture of death, a society that was slowly extinguishing itself. In fact, when you read early Christian literature, practices like adultery and abortion are often described as part of "the way of death" or the "way of the [devil]."

There's an interesting line in a Second Century apologetic work written by Minucius Felix. He was a Roman lawyer and a convert. He's talking about a birth-control drug that works as an abortifacient. He describes its effects this way: "There are women who swallow drugs to stifle in their own womb the beginnings" of a person to be.

That's what the first Christians saw around them in their world. They believed the world was snuffing out its own future. It was stifling future generations before they could come to be. It was slowly killing itself.

Since we see similar signs in our own day, we need to find the courage those first Christians had in challenging their culture. We need to believe not only what they believed. We need to believe those things with the same deep fervor.

The early Christians staked their lives on the belief that God is our Father. They respected Caesar, but they didn't confuse him with God, and they put God first. They believed the Church is our mother. They believed their bishops and priests were spiritual fathers and that through the sacraments they were made children of God, or "partakers of the divine nature," as Peter said.

It's time for all of us who claim to be "Catholic" to recover our Catholic identity as disciples of Jesus Christ and missionaries of his Church. In the long run, we serve our country best by remembering that we're citizens of heaven first. We're better Americans by being more truly Catholic -- and the reason why, is that unless we live our Catholic faith authentically, with our whole heart and our whole strength, we have nothing worthwhile to bring to the public debates that will determine the course of our nation.

Pluralism in a democracy doesn't mean shutting up about inconvenient issues. It means speaking up -- respectfully, in a spirit of justice and charity, but also vigorously and without apologies. Jesus said that we will know the truth, and the truth will make us free. He didn't say anything about our being popular with worldly authority once we have that freedom. In the end, if we want our lives to be fruitful, we need to know ourselves as God intends us to be known -- as his witnesses on earth, not just in our private behavior, but in our public actions, including our social, economic and political choices.

If pagan Rome could be won for Jesus Christ, surely we can do the same in our own world. What it takes is the zeal and courage to live what we claim to believe. All of us here tonight already have that desire in our hearts. So let's pray for each other, and encourage each other, and get down to the Lord's work.

Bishop Vasa speaks

Documented, undocumented -- our citizenship is in heaven
03/01/2007 Bishop Robert Vasa

It will come as no surprise that the weekend entailed a bit of travel. Friday required me to be in Portland for an afternoon meeting and on Saturday and Sunday I needed to be in Milton-Freewater and Athena and on Monday I needed to be back in Bend. I did not keep a close record of the miles but it appears to be something in excess of 600 miles. Fortunately they were great days for travel. Unfortunately they would also have been great days not to travel. I could not help but be amused upon driving into Milton-Freewater to discover a rather prevalent frog theme. A number of the businesses have positioned anthropomorphic frogs such as a four foot frog dressed as a dentist, an accountant, a reader at the library, some shoppers and even a frog lineman positioned twelve feet up on a power pole. They struck me as both quite clever and delightful. I must admit, however, that I have not yet discerned the connection between Milton-Freewater and frogs. I have a hard time imagining that the local High School mascot is a frog but then again one never knows.

My purpose, of course, in coming to Milton-Freewater and to Athena was to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. The class at Athena was small, being comprised of four members. There was also one First Communicant. The youngsters were quite well catechized which was a good thing because, since there were only four of them, each one needed to respond to several questions. The First Communicant was likewise given an opportunity to answer a couple of questions about Confession and Holy Eucharist. It was most delightful.

The class at Milton-Freewater was considerably larger and the Church was jammed to overflowing. It has been my experience that when a small community has a rather large Sacramental class it is usually true that a vast majority of that class will be Hispanic. This is certainly the case in Milton-Freewater. In this class of 46 confirmands I estimate that more than 40 were of Hispanic descent. I did not attempt to determine the legality or the illegality of the immigration or worker status of the families connected with these young people but it is something about which I know there is much concern. In terms of the Church we recognize a universal membership. A person baptized Catholic in Mexico is just as much a Catholic as someone baptized in the United States. As St. Paul says, our citizenship is in heaven. As fellow citizens in this one overarching kingdom of God we must be careful that our legitimate concerns about national security and unregulated borders do not cause us to think or act in a way unbefitting this primary citizenship. I suspect that there may be a significant number of Catholic Hispanics within our own diocese who are counted among the 10 - 12 million undocumented residents. That status, which some describe as criminal, deprives them of the tranquility which we enjoy, it deprives them often-times of the opportunity to be with their families for important familial and holiday celebrations, it deprives them oftentimes of access to the sacraments, most notably marriage. While it can be argued that they came here of their own accord and that they have chosen the good with the bad it is more likely true that they sought some good and overlooked the extent to which that good involved a high personal cost. It is important in our necessary discussions of the status of undocumented workers and residents that we not forget that there are still basic human rights which are not conditioned on citizenship. These basic rights and the Christian principles of justice, mercy, compassion and charity must be afforded to everyone who is our neighbor. The one who is our neighbor in Christ, towards whom Christ requires the extension of the hand of help and friendship, is not necessarily a good person, a well person, an honest person, a sober person; he is only a person in need. The one who is our neighbor in Christ, towards whom Christ requires the extension of the hand of help and friendship, is not necessarily properly documented. He is, nonetheless, our neighbor. This does not mean that we abdicate our social and civil responsibilities but it does mean that we seek to fulfill those responsibilities in a way which does not violate our higher responsibilities to human life and dignity.

It would be a terrible thing indeed if the reason for all of the concern about the presence of undocumented residents is tied more to fear that their presence will detrimentally impact upon our standard of living than it is about legitimate fears about national security. It is true that the legalization of the status of 10 to 12 million undocumented residents will have an impact on our society. I am not at all convinced that this impact will be a bad thing in the light of the eternal realities. I wonder, for instance, how many Confirmations I would have had in Milton-Freewater if there had been no undocumented or improperly documented families participating. I do know that the number would have been very scant if those of relatively recent arrival from Mexico had been excluded. It may well be that a vast majority of these young people are affiliated with families who have no immigration or documentation concerns and that would be wonderful. My fear is that a number of them may not be properly documented and that this is having a very detrimental impact on them, on their families and on their practice of the faith.

Earlier in the week I spent a day at the Powell Butte property studying and working on the irrigation system. I have always been a bit fascinated by wheel line irrigation and since there is a wheel line on the property and since it belongs to the diocese the maintenance likewise falls to the diocese, in this case, me. I think I learned a lot. I also got very wet - several times. In the process I decided that there really was no shortage of water-related recreational possibilities for our summer youth camps. I was reminded of the many summer time Sunday water fights which erupted on the family farm at home which generally involved squirt guns, hoses, buckets, balloons and sprinklers. The end result was very much like the end result of my working on the wheel line - very wet, very cool, well contented. The Milton-Freewater frog would have been right at home.


Copyright 2002-2006, Catholic Sentinel, Portland, Oregon

Happy b-earth day?

Earth day? Lenin's birthday? oh yeah. same thing...

read about it here:

Earth Day is crap, or: My last column for Our Sunday Visitor

Film review: AMAZING GRACE

March 16, 2007

The film Amazing Grace, currently playing in theaters, is a multi-layered story of love and triumph against powerful cultural forces that supported the slave trade in the United Kingdom. On the most basic level, it's the personal story of William Wilberforce, a British Member of Parliament, who championed the abolition of slavery in the UK during the 18th Century. On a deeper level, the film chronicles the cultural conflict between the entrenched evil of the slave trade and the force of the Truth. It is an unabashedly Christian message in our morally ambiguous age.

William Wilberforce, played by Ioan Gruffudd, was only 21 when he was elected to Parliament fresh from Cambridge, where he was graduated in 1780. Soon after entering Parliament he had a profound Christian conversion, and then began a twenty-year crusade against the slave trade. The film chronicles his life from that point on, using long flashbacks to alternate between his early public life and his climatic strugglesto achieve a vote against the slavers.

Wilberforce suffers physically during the second act, and his friends show great care and concern for him by seeing to his medication and encouraging him to rest. As the film progresses, his physical suffering from untreatable colitis seems to parallel the spiritual suffering he underwent trying to convince his countrymen of the evils of the slave trade. The film draws us into the debate as we accompany Wilberforce on a tour of a slave ship, guided by a freedman, Olaudah Equiano (Youssou N'Dour). He describes the brutal conditions of the hold where women were raped, the weak were cast overboard to lighten the load, and death stalked each African slave on the passage. Wilberforce and his friends also arrange for a river "tour" of the harbor for aristocrats, causing them to pass close by a slave ship where they could smell the stench of death emanating therefrom. The capstone for me was the scene where Equiano bares his branded chest and explains, "They give you this so that you know that you no longer belong to God, but to a man."

When his suffering is almost too much to bear, Wilberforce's friends come to the rescue by introducing him to the woman who would be his wife, Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai). She is intelligent and full of life, and, through her, his passion and strength for the cause is renewed. As their love blossoms, we see color return to the screen and the grey of suffering begins to pale. There is one scene in particular that becomes the turning point for his life's work. William and Barbara have spent the entire night talking, he narrating his effort to free the slaves and she encouraging him to go on, when he walks to the window and realizes it has become morning. As the third act begins, he opens the curtains to let the sunrise into the room, and Barbara reminds him, "after the night comes the dawn."

The third act begins with the wedding of Barbara and William, and the story is then completed in a series of scenes depicting the backroom political maneuvering in Parliament. As victory nears, Wilberforce's good humor returns and the story lightens a bit. Clearly his new wife, Barbara, and their children have a positive effect on Wilberforce, even apparently improving his physical condition. At the end, after achieving the political victory with the vote to outlaw slavery throughout the British dominion, he is so recognized for his achievement that even his political adversaries acknowledge his character.

Amazing Grace has a talented supporting cast, including Albert Finney who plays the evangelical preacher, John Newton, author of the popular hymn that lends the movie its name. Newton provides the binding of the film, and in some ways the voice of God, in guiding young Wilberforce to discern how best to serve God. Newton looks him straight in the eye and tells him flatly, "You have work to do." Wilberforce recognizes it as his commission. The rest of the cast is equally spectacular, giving performances both effortless and powerful.

The photography and musical score guide the mood of the film without becoming overbearing, lending credibility to each scene, and immersing the audience in the Britain of 200 years ago.

The film explores a number of themes: the dignity of life, the value of suffering, and the necessity for perseverance for truth, even, with a simple remark by Barbara, of the true end of marriage -- being open to life. I was struck again and again by the parallels between the fight then against the slavers and the fight now against the abortionists. As my dear mother often said, "the more things change, the more they remain the same."

Men of faith like William Wilberforce led the way for the abolitionists, and there was considerable cultural conflict between institutions and groups over the issue in America as well. At one time, the U.S. Postmaster General refused to carry abolitionist publications to the South, teachers with abolitionist beliefs were excluded from Southern schools, and even Harvard, Yale, and Princeton resisted the tide of abolitionist feelings in the North and sided with the slaveholders. Predictably, there was conflict between American Catholics and the Pope over the issue, with some American Catholics dissenting from Pope Gregory XVII's bull In Supremo Apostolatus that forcefully decried slavery and the slave trade as a "disgrace from the whole confines of Christianity" and "utterly unworthy the Christian name." Undoubtedly there were some Catholics, clergy among them, who took the position of "personally opposed" to the issue of the permanent bondage of another man.

Just as the Abolitionists were shouted down by "polite and established society," so the Pro-Life Movement is forced to shout to be heard. Once again, the established institutions of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are on the wrong side of the issue, supporting the murder of the innocent as "choice." Pro-Life teachers are told to toe the line or loose their jobs, just like those who were sent away from the South in the 1850s. And once again, American Catholics, clergy among them, dissent from the magisterial teachings on the subject.

Just as his predecessor did, the current successor to Peter has spoken clearly to reaffirm the ancient Christian horror at the murder of innocent children. In 2005, Pope Benedict said, "For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself." [emphasis mine]. Just as with slavery, Benedict knows that to cheapen a single human life cheapens all human life, and abortion most certainly reduces human life to a commodity, a child to mere property that a woman may dispose of as she chooses. Similarly, embryonic stem cell research takes tiny human beings and rips them asunder for their parts as one would disassemble a car for the a spare piston.

Some people on the pro-abortion side call for "compromise" and ask Pro-Life persons to "work together to make abortion rare." But there can be no middle ground in this issue because there is no middle state between life and death. Either a person is alive or they are not ... and innocent life must be defended. It is our responsibility, it is our duty, it is our vocation.

The success of the Abolitionist movement of the 19th Century should give us great hope, for far smaller groups than the Pro-life Movement inspired great progress in the protection of human beings from slavery. The new terrible slavery that grips the land is on the wane, despite what one might hear in "polite society." Two-hundred thousand people marched in Washington's freezing temperatures just a few weeks ago, and thousands more marched in other cities. Pro-Life politicians are being elected, and slowly the unjust laws that condemn men and society to the bondage of death are being rolled back.

It's really only a matter of time now, and I'm very proud to call myself an Abolitionist.

Copyright 2007 Catholic Exchange

Mickey Addison is a career military officer, and has been a catechist at the parish level since 2000. He and his wife have been married for 19 years and they have two children. He can be reached at addisoncrew@gmail.com.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Complete video is available here

March 15, 2007
Global Warming Swindle
By Thomas Sowell (http://www.realclearpolitics.com)

Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.

One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today.

None of the dire things predicted today happened then.

The British documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds.

These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models that have been used to hype global warming hysteria, even though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models.

What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media, and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.

Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise. One of the scientists interviewed on the British documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.

This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers.

The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago.

What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.

"Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.

Correction: Britain's Channel 4 produced the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," not the BBC. References to the BBC have been corrected or removed.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate

"Religion" of Environmentalism

Czech President: "Religion" of Environmentalism a way of
"masterminding human society from above"
A "New World Order" With Warming "Deniers" Threatened

By John-Henry Westen

LONDON, March 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The general appreciation for taking care of the earth's resources, of being stewards of creation is being exploited to drive a political and even mythological system of environmentalism. The President of the Czech Republic spoke at the Cato Institute Friday calling "environmentalism" a "religion", and warning against the hysteria being generated by 'global warming' enthusiasts."

All of us are very much in favour of maximum environmental protection and protection of nature," said President Vaclav Klaus during a follow-up interview for a Cato podcast. "But it has nothing in common with environmentalism, which is ideological and practically attacking our freedom."

Environmentalism is, he said "a way of introducing new forms of statism, new forms of masterminding human society from above." The Czech President noted that the citizens of his nation experienced communism first hand giving them awareness of agendas of domination. It is, he said, "something we feel very strongly about because our experience with communism gives us very special sensitivity in this respect."

Almost as if on queue, Gordon Brown, likely to replace Tony Blair as the next British prime minister, delivered a speech today calling for a "new world order" to combat global warming. He called on the United Nations to make the fight against global warming a core "pillar" of its international mission.

The warnings of President Klaus come as no surprise to the pro-life movement which has warned for years that Kyoto and similar proposals to counter global warming have at their core a population control agenda.

According to scientists who contest the science behind global warming, the faithful followers of the environmentalist religion do not sanction dissent. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, told the Sunday Telegraph that he has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change."

I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust," said Ball. "That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

The Telegraph also reports that Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently stated that: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges." Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, concurred: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

To hear the podcast interview with President Klaus:
President Vaclav Klaus: Environmentalism as Religion

Moment of Reckoning

From the March Editorial in "This Rock" magazine

Here at Catholic Answers, we begin every day with Mass celebrated by our chaplain, Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. At the “sign of the peace,” Fr. Vincent says, “Peace be with you,’ and we respond “and also with you.” Then he proceeds with the breaking of the host. In other words, we skip the handshaking, hugging, kissing, waving, and peace-sign flashing that is characteristic of most parish Masses.

Although the exchange of a sign of peace among the congregation is optional, most Catholics are not aware of that. That is not surprising given the emphasis on the sign of peace in many parishes. Many people would interpret its omission her as a sign that we don’t care about community or peace.

That’s far from true; we have a genuine Christian community. Nonetheless, we are sinners, and like every other workplace, we have conflicts and tensions. So, I like the omission of the shake, rattle, and roll at our daily Mass. In that moment of silence, with nothing to distract the conscience, any lack of peace resounds like a foghorn.

Moreover, that moment of silence is a fitting metaphor of a Christian understanding of peace. This understanding gets lost in most conversations on the topic.

The world sees peace as something relatively easy to achieve, given the right intervention. But a moment’s consideration will make it obvious that peace is not accomplished by a simple gesture during Mass, let alone by picketing in front of the School of the Americas. Partial peace begins with each of us living lives of heroic virtue.

It is only partial because peace in this life is never fully accomplished. It is never absolute. It cannot be chosen, for example, in the same way chastity or temperance can be chosen because peace is dependent on other people. It is always temporary and always fragile. The world talks as if we could bring about complete and lasting peace by our own efforts. What we long for, however, can be found only in Christ.

In the words of Dietrich von Hildebrand:

We must not seek peace for its own sake, and on no account must we seek any and every kind of peace, but seek God and content ourselves with that peace which He alone can give to our soul. Those restless in the world are nearer to God than those satisfied in the world.

In that tension – the space between the peace we desire and the lack of it which confronts us – we Christians dwell.

Cherie Peacock, Editor, This Rock magazine

The Great Global Warming Swindle

On British TV:

Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

'The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have,' says Tim Ball, Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg in the documentary. 'They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up'.

In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. 'So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.'

'I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,' says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. 'Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.'

The film examines an alternative theory that explains global temperatures, based on research by Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Space Center. The professor and his team found that as solar activity increases, and the sun flares, cloud formation on earth is significantly diminished and temperature rises.

Ian Clark, Professor of Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology at the Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa explains: 'Solar activity over the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years, correlates very nicely, on a decadal basis, with temperature.'

Finally, the film argues that restricting CO2 emissions could actually be damaging for people in the developing world. James Shikwati, Kenyan director of the Inter Region Economic Network, says: 'The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.

'I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio.

'The thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide.'

Watch trailer here

More Schall

From the Schall archives:

The Political Philosophy of Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas put things succinctly. He found numberless things about which to think. He could, with few words, illuminate the whole of what is in logical form. He wrote little about political things. He discussed other topics normally called “political”—property, rebellion, prudence, justice, virtue, and common good. In commenting on the Gospels of Matthew and John, he spoke of the death of Christ and the things of Caesar.

Here, in propositional form, is what Aquinas held about political things. Presenting them this way gives, I hope, some overall view of where Aquinas's thought leads.

1) A human being, body and soul, is a single person, created for his own sake, with a destiny that transcends and therefore limits any political order. 2) Man is and remains naturally a political animal. 3) A state (polity) is an established relationship existing among real human beings, outlining the order of action, especially free actions, toward one another. 4) The highest end of man is thus not political. The political can and should provide “happiness,” usually called “temporal.” No actual polity is perfect. Often it contains laws or customs militating against the human good.

5) Human happiness consists in the activities of the virtues, the objects of which are our fears, pleasures, relation to others, property, wit, anger, and speech. Each person is responsible for his own self-rule. 6) Every action has an accompanying proper pleasure. Pleasure as such is never wrong, only its experience when out of order. It is designed to foster and enhance the goods that are given to us. 7) The forms of rule correspond to the order or disorder of souls. Polities reflect the habitual choices of the citizens, their self-definition of what they consider to be virtue or vice. Modern notions that the soul is only formed by the polity deny the basis and origin of vitality and action in the public order. 8) Law, defined as “the ordination of reason, for the common good, by the proper authority, and promulgated,” is the context in which Aquinas discusses most political things. An unreasonable law is no law, as Aquinas cites from Augustine; it lacks one or more elements of this definition.

9) A thing can be an end that itself becomes a means to a further end. Thus, the polity is an end, but it ordains those within it to a higher purpose. The polity does not itself define this higher purpose, but only recognizes it. 10) A polity needs to contain within itself at least some who are wholly oriented to what is beyond politics. All members of any existing polity are intended for a transcendent destiny. The presence of contemplatives and philosophers within any society is necessary for its well-being. 11) The life of politics is worthy but dangerous. The Fall is a factor in each individual life, including that of the politician. His virtues are prudence and justice; however, legal justice brings all virtues under the purview of the polity.

12) The majority of men are not perfect. Therefore the law should not be more strict than the majority of ordinary men can observe. 13) Law ought to be a standard of what is right or wrong even if it is not fully observed. 14) Virtue is not simply following the letter of the law; it is normally more strict or noble than what the law defines. 15) Aquinas holds that private property is the best way to meet the purposes for which the world is given—i.e., that the generality of men can provide for themselves.

16) Revelation is given so that ordinary men can do what is right and necessary both for their own salvation and, indirectly, for the good of the polity. 17) Revelation addresses reason. Reason will only recognize this address provided reason has already formulated genuine questions that it has asked itself and attempted to answer.

Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. , teaches political science at Georgetown University

Bp Vasa speaks

There are just and unjust choices -
church teaching helps
03/01/2007 Bishop Robert Vasa

This week I had the honor of presiding, at both Bend and Baker City, over a ceremony known as the Rite of Election.

This is the ceremony in which those who have been engaged in the process of learning about the Catholic Faith with a view to joining the Church make a public declaration of their intention and the Church, represented by the Bishop or the Pastor, officially declares that the intention of the Church is to welcome them to full communion at Easter.

It is an important step for the Catechumens (that is, those who are preparing to be baptized) and for the Candidates (those who are already baptized). It is a day of decision, a day of deeper commitment, a day of resolution, a day of joy and a day of peace. The joy of the day is shared by the spouses and friends of the candidates and catechumens and it is shared, in a particular way, by the sponsors who have accompanied these candidates and catechumens on this portion of their faith journey.

I commend and thank all those who are involved in the catechetical process. I especially encourage all throughout the Diocese who are now involved, throughout this Lenten Season, in a particularly intensive spiritual preparation for Profession of Faith, Baptism, Confession, Eucharist and Confirmation.

The actual entry into the Church most properly takes place at the Easter Vigil for those who are preparing for Baptism. For them there is a Profession of Faith, the Baptismal Promises, Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion.

For those already baptized there is a Profession of Faith, Confession and then Confirmation and Holy Communion.

The Candidates recite the Creed and then add their personal attestation and commitment. It is this personal commitment which constitutes the heart of their conversion to the Catholic Faith. The phrase which is added is this: “I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” It is a moment of great freedom; a moment of abandonment of oneself into the hands of God and into the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is an unconditional “yes” to Jesus while at the same time recognizing that we may never completely know all that this “yes” entails.

Nonetheless the commitment is made, the pledge is spoken and it is then sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation. This commitment recognizes that believing is a graced choice and not merely a feeling; it is a decision. It is a decision which irrevocably alters the whole of the rest of our lives. It is a decision which alters how we see the world.

For example, the commitment of Faith entails certain beliefs about the Most Holy Eucharist. The Church teaches that the bread consecrated at Mass really and truly becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My attestation of faith confirms that I choose, in response to the grace of Faith, to believe this. Once I make this commitment of faith, my own “I believe”, then it is incumbent upon me to live in a way consistent with that profession of belief. It is radically inconsistent to declare on the one hand that I believe the Eucharist is truly our Lord and at the same time to conclude that I owe no special deference or honor to that Eucharistic Lord. The conclusion belies the declaration. If I truly believe then my actions must be consistent with what I profess to believe. My actions must also defend what I believe. For example, because I believe that the Lord is truly present under the form of bread and wine it would be unconscionable for me to allow someone else to scatter Consecrated Hosts throughout a Church, to keep a Consecrated Host in their home as a personal possession or to allow someone to receive Holy Communion when it is patently clear that they lack the proper understanding or disposition.

Thus, if someone were to say to me in response to a question about the need to protect the Most Blessed Sacrament from profanation: “To me it is not even a question. God has given us a free will. We are all responsible for our actions. If you do not want to scatter Consecrated Hosts throughout the Church, you do not believe in doing that, then do not do it. But do not tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their religious convictions. After all, they are just choices.” Clearly, such a position would belie one’s authentic belief in the Real Presence of our Lord. At very least such a position would contradict one’s attestation that they “believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

Some months ago a prominent Catholic public person, described as faithful to the church, was asked if being pro-choice or pro-abortion was an issue which conflicted with the Catholic Faith. Here is what was said: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, then don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities.” According to a close relative the choice to have an abortion or not to have an abortion had no moral component whatsoever. “They were just choices.”

It seems to me that there are just choices and there are unjust choices. Choices would be the preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream or sherbet instead of ice cream. That is just a choice.

A just choice would be to choose to pay a fair and living wage to employees as opposed to simply meeting the mandatory standard of minimum wage laws. An unjust choice would be to choose to terminate the life of another human being. This is not just a choice and it is not a just choice; it is an unjust choice.

Furthermore it is an unjust choice which is diametrically opposed to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as well as to the clear and consistent teaching of God Himself in the Ten Commandments. The direct, intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is inhumane and unjust. It is not just a choice!

It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice. What we believe must inform what we do.

Copyright 2002-2006, Catholic Sentinel, Portland, Oregon

The clear eye of youth?

Global warming concerns are keeping children awake at night

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.

A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.

One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

Most of those polled understood the benefits of recycling, although one in 10 thought the issue was linked to riding a bike.

Lets see... Politicians cause global warming? ok; lots of hot air there.

'Nuf said..

Utopia by force

Sleight-of-(2nd) Hand?

That is one thing that is true, regardless of the issue. Implementing any sort of utopia requires that the truth be damned, and use of force.

---

Mike is on to something here

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi on Antichrist

here is something he wrote two years ago regarding the Antichrist:

The days are coming, and are already here…
by Giacomo Biffi

The Antichrist, says Soloviev, was "a convinced spiritualist." He believed in goodness, and even in God. He was an ascetic, a scholar, a philanthropist. He gave "the greatest possible demonstrations of moderation, disinterest, and active beneficence."

In his early youth, he had distinguished himself as a talented and insightful exegete: one of his extensive works on biblical criticism had brought him an honorary degree from the University of Tübingen.

But the book that had gained for him universal fame and consensus bore the title: "The Open Road to Universal Peace and Prosperity," in which "a noble respect for ancient traditions and symbols was joined with a sweeping, audacious radicalism toward social and political needs and directives. Limitless freedom of thought was united with a profound comprehension of everything mystical; absolute individualism with an ardent dedication to the common good; the most elevated idealism toward guiding principles with the complete precision and viability of practical solutions."

It is true that some men of faith wondered why the name of Christ did not appear even once, but others replied: "If the contents of the book are permeated with the true Christian spirit, with active love and universal benevolence, what more do you want?" Besides, he "was not in principle hostile to Christ." On the contrary, he appreciated his right intentions and lofty teaching.

But three things about Jesus were unacceptable to him.

First of all, his moral preoccupations. "The Christ," he asserted, "has divided men according to good and evil with his moralism, whereas I will unite them with the benefits that both good and evil alike require."

He also did not like Christ's "absolute uniqueness." He was one of many, or even better – he said – he was my precursor, because I am the perfect and definitive savior; I have purified his message of what is unacceptable for the men of today.

Finally, and above all, he could not endure the fact that Christ is alive, so much so that he repeated hysterically: "He is not among the living, and will never be. He is not risen, he is not risen, he is not risen. He rotted, he rotted in the tomb…"

But where Soloviev's presentation shows itself to be particularly original and surprising – and merits greater reflection – is in the attribution to the Antichrist of the qualities of pacifist, environmentalist, ecumenist. […]

Did Soloviev have a particular person in mind when he made this description of the Antichrist? It is undeniable that he alludes above all to the "new Christianity" that Leo Tolstoy was successfully promoting during those years. […]

In his "Gospel," Tolstoy reduces all of Christianity to five rules of conduct which he derives from the Sermon on the Mount:

1. Not only must you not kill, but you must not even become angry with your brother.

2. You must not give in to sensuality, not even to the desire for your own wife.

3. You must never bind yourself by swearing an oath.

4. You must not resist evil, but you must apply the principle of non-violence to the utmost and in every case.

5. Love, help, and serve your enemy.

According to Tolstoy, although these precepts come from Christ, they in no way require the actual existence of the Son of the living God to be valid. [...]

Of course, Soloviev does not specifically identify the great novelist with the figure of the Antichrist. But he intuited with extraordinary clairvoyance that Tolstoy's creed would become during the 20th century the vehicle of the substantial nullification of the gospel message, under the formal exaltation of an ethics and a love for humanity presented as Christian "values." [...]

The days will come, Soloviev tells us – and are already here, we say – in which the salvific meaning of Christianity, which can be received only in a difficult, courageous, concrete, and rational act of faith, will be dissolved into a series of "values" easily sold on the world markets.

The greatest of the Russian philosophers warns us that we must guard against this danger. Even if a Tolstoian Christianity were to make us infinitely more acceptable in the living room, at social and political gatherings, and on television, we cannot and must not renounce the Christianity of Jesus Christ, the Christianity that has at its center the scandal of the cross and the astonishing reality of the Lord's resurrection.

Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God, the only savior of mankind, cannot be transformed into a series of worthwhile projects and good inspirations, which are part and parcel of the dominant worldly mentality. Jesus Christ is a "rock," as he said of himself. And one either builds upon this "rock” (by entrusting oneself) or lunges against it (through opposition): "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him" (Mt. 21:44). [...]

So Soloviev's teaching was simultaneously prophetic and largely ignored. But we want to repropose it in the hope that Christianity will finally catch on to it and pay it a bit of attention.

---

Hat tip to Simon-Peter

Scaremongers

By + Cardinal George Pell
Archbishop of Sydney
18/2/2007

Global warming doomsdayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in Central Queensland and then here in Sydney. January also was unusually cool.

We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters as some zealots have been painting extreme scenarios to frighten us. They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, that there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight story building, the Amazon basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and in Greenland melts.

An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics while a U.S.A. television correspondent compared skeptics to “holocaust deniers”.

A local newspaper editorial’s complaint about the doomsdayers’ religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity. Christians don’t go against reason although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace probabilities. What we were seeing from the doomsdayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.

I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all. But enough is enough.

A few fixed points might provide some light. We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history, e.g. the Ice Ages and Noah’s flood, where human causation could only be negligible. Neither should it be too surprising to learn that the media during the last 100 years has alternated between promoting fears of a coming Ice Age and fear of global warming!

Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years, as with the Federation Drought and in the 1930s. One drought lasted fourteen years.

We all know that a cool January does not mean much in the long run, but neither does evidence from a few years only. Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations in limited periods and places to misrepresent longer patterns.

The evidence on warming is mixed, often exaggerated, but often reassuring. Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one fifth of a degree centigrade per decade. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer and especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.

The East Anglia university climate research unit found that global temperatures did not increase between 1998 – 2005 and a recent NASA satellite found that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years. Is mild global warming a Northern phenomenon?

While we might have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg off Dunedin as large as an aircraft carrier we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.

The science is more complicated than the propaganda!

hat tip

Pursuing happiness and protecting the unborn child

Pursuing happiness and protecting the unborn child
E-Column by Bishop Robert Vasa

want to spend one more week reflecting on Father Robert Spitzer's presentation of the Four Levels of Happiness. Recall that he wrote: "these four levels of happiness dramatically affect our viewpoints on every important personal and cultural issue we face. The level of happiness we tend to live for will determine how we view success, what we mean by quality of life, what we think love is, how we interpret suffering, the system of ethics we live by, and how we understand freedom, rights, and the common good."
Father Spitzer writes his book, Healing the Culture, with a particular emphasis on the life issues, especially abortion. As implied above, the American attitude toward policies and agendas is dramatically affected by the level of happiness which is sought. In a culture where the quest for personal fulfillment and gratification, personal happiness and wholeness, personal pleasure and enrichment is largely accepted as an appropriate ultimate norm and goal, then permissive policies in relation to abortion, contraception, euthanasia, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and the like make perfectly good short term sense. When we consider ourselves as creatures of God, created in His image and likeness and redeemed by Jesus and destined, by God's plan and design, for an eternity in heaven, then these same permissive polices are seen as serious violations of human dignity. In other words the level of happiness we tend to live for will determine how we "understand freedom, rights and the common good."
It is axiomatic that young children are great at asking wonderful and simple questions, most notably: 'Why?' This is, in reality, the philosopher's question. For each of us striving and living with a view of heaven in mind, it is an important question as well. It is well known that some, and by some reports many, Catholics hold rather ambivalent views about the evil of abortion, contraception, euthanasia, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage and a host of other issues claimed as rights. I find it somewhat understandable that someone with no faith background could support and promote these things, but I find it incomprehensible that a thoughtful Catholic who has pondered eternal realities could do so.
Perhaps the "why" questions, even without the light of faith or belief in God, would proceed in this fashion: Why is it permissible to take the life of pre-born child? In order to promote the good of the mother or some other societal good. Why is the life of the mother superior to the life of the pre-born child? Because she has relationships and experiences and emotions and thoughts and the pre-born baby does not. Why should someone with a perceived higher quality of life be given the right to deliberately take the life of someone with a perceived lower quality of life? Because it's her body and she has the right to do what she wants, the Supreme Court said so. Why would the Supreme Court determine that a child's right to life is somehow less important than a woman's "right" to choose? Because freedom is an important American value and it needs to be protected. Why is it that, in the list of inalienable rights, life is always first, liberty second and pursuit of happiness third? Because without life there is no possibility of liberty, and without liberty there is no possibility of a pursuit of happiness. Why would the Supreme Court determine that a child's right to life is somehow less important than a woman's "right" to choose? Because they were operating out of a different value system, a system which prized individual liberty above life itself. Why should someone with a perceived higher quality of life have a greater responsibility to take care of the life of someone with a perceived lower quality of life? Because life is foundational and needs to be protected. Why is the life of the mother equivalent in value to the life of the pre-born child? Because the right that someone has to life can never appropriately be tied to one's productivity, usefulness, effectiveness, relational value, age, gender, or mental capacity. Why is it not permissible to take, directly and intentionally, the life of pre-born child? Because life is a more foundational right, even in civil law, than freedom or pursuit of happiness. The direct and intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is wrong. This is not something we believe because of a determination of the Supreme Court. We believe it because it is true regardless of the opinion of the Court.
When we add a faith-related or God-related element to this consideration, the incomprehensibility of a pro-abortion position on the part of a thoughtful Catholic is further heightened. "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270)
In order to comprehend a Catholic pro-abortion stand one must abandon Level Three and Level Four considerations and stay inflexibly at Level One or Level Two. At these levels one is able to maintain a pro-abortion stand because (Level One) there is an apparent immediate benefit to the one "choosing" the abortion. It appears to be "good" for her or for her family. This person is granted an instant and seemingly permanent solution to a short term (nine month) "problem." At Level One, with little consideration for long term effects or impact on a foundational good of another, abortion provides a solution. Level One thinking cannot see beyond the self. At Level Two, with its emphasis on control and exercise of power and freedom, the pre-born child is seen as an interloper who would "complete" with the mother for her personal resources or her personal happiness.
The child and mother are thus pitted against one another as competitors; one seeking life, the other freedom. The child is seen, not as a separate and distinct person with his or her own rights and dignity, but only as an impediment to the freedom of the mother, and at Level Two, impediments are made to be overcome or removed. But a child is not an impediment. A child is a human being who has a right to life and, if that right is not summarily taken away in favor of another's right to choose, a subsequent right to pursue Level Three and Level Four Happiness.

---

This electronic newsletter may be duplicated, reproduced or retransmitted only in its entirety. Excerpts used for the purposes of quotation must be attributed explicitly to Bishop Robert Vasa and the Catholic Sentinel.

Pask a fisk?

This article is from professor James V. Shall, as published in Crisis Magazine (Feb 2007).

---

Sense & Nonsense
James V. Schall
On Murder and War

Originally, Veterans’ Day commemorated the end of the Great War, the bloodiest of all wars. On its eve, I was invited to supper at the Army and Navy Club off McPherson Square in Washington, D.C. Walking from the bus stop, I approached a corner of the square where an earnest young man stood with a large sign that read: “If Murder Is a Crime, What Is War?” “If this logic is correct,” I thought, “Schall should definitely not be dining at the Army and Navy Club on Armistice Day!”

This street-corner question cannot be fairly answered. Distinctions must be made; definitions set down. We can agree that war is murder if, but only if, it is unjust. Though each may still be wrong, neither war nor murder by itself is a crime. Technically, a crime is a legally defined aberration. It presupposes an objective wrongness to which it gives the sanction of law.

But if war is just, it is neither murder nor a crime. It is quite possible that not to fight against injustice is itself both a crime and cooperation in murder. Those who participate in a just war, however, exercise the virtue of courage. They protect innocent lives and worthy institutions from precisely what is unjust.

What seems like logic would have us identify one thing with another—“war” with “murder”—when they cannot be so identified. Such confusions make me wonder whether more damage is not caused in the world by faulty thinking than by war itself. No one who thinks and, subsequently, practices the dubious doctrine that war is ipso facto murder can ever be relied on to repulse an enemy or to protect anyone from any criminal state or movement.

The tyrant’s greatest friend is the one who refuses to protect the innocent. Even worse are those unable to define what innocence is. Such a doctrine that war is murder, by its nature, turns the world over to the vicious, to those who understand that no just force stands in their way. Naïveté and innocence are not ready helpers of peace. Peace, when it means “no effort to defend ourselves no matter what the issue,” is frighteningly easy to attain in this world.

What about the principle that “all war is evil”? It sounds edifying. But again, one has to distinguish: Are all wars on both sides evil? Are there no cases in history in which refusal to fight has made things worse? Is not the main hope of tyrants to teach their enemies doctrines of pacifism—that nothing is worth dying for? Are people who refuse or are unable to make distinctions so innocent after all?

If the alternative to war is not justice, is war still murder? Can institutions of peace, dialogue, discussion, and diplomacy exist without the reasonable use of force behind them? Only if such things as disorder in human nature did not exist would this dream be possible. Such dire things might be minimized or controlled, but not without some rational presence of force. If all power corrupts, so does all lack of power.

Is this view not pessimistic? Where is the hope for a better world? In a trenchant phrase, St. Paul told the Romans that the emperor bears the sword for the correction of our wrongdoing. Was this just pious talk designed to cover what he really meant, namely, that no arms are necessary? Hardly. It was a clear and practical estimate of what occurs in human nature. Is the emperor—that is, the civil power—always benign? Again, hardly.

Why are soldiers honored? Why do we have Armistice Day? Is it because “war is murder”? Are soldiers, because they are soldiers, criminals? These arguments only make sense if we refuse to acknowledge that enemies exist and that our freedom and way of life are at stake—if we deny that such things as truth and justice exist. War is not the problem. Dubious ideas are, when willed.

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J . , teaches political science at Georgetown University.

I may get this yet...

same source

Initial lift off...

Ok, time to try this modern communications thingy out...

Shamelessly borrowed from Simon-Peter Says