Category — Politics and Law

If the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court is successful, half of the Catholics who have ever served on the Supreme Court will be serving simultaneously. Writing recently for First Things, Jordan Ballor noted that this zenith in Catholic representation contrasts the Protestant nadir – the retirement of David Souter will mean that John Paul Stevens will be the lone Protestant on the bench. Ballor raises this point to ask whether the shift in legal influence reflects an underlying deficiency in American Protestantism. Despite the considerable influence of Protestantism on the development of the western common law, contemporary Protestant conceptions of justice have severed theology and law, created a division between word and deed. He argues that Natural Law, which flourished in the first two centuries following the Reformation, has subsequently come to be perceived as the strict domain of Catholic moral and legal theorists. As a result, he laments that even when “Protestants are in the game, whether morally, legally, or politically, they are largely playing from behind. And Protestants will continue to do so until they begin again to draw from the same well of wisdom that once nourished centuries of Protestant moral, legal, and political thought: the natural law tradition.”

However, Catholics would be amiss in thinking that, unlike Protestants, they have got it right. Sotomayor’s nomination is a segue to Ballor’s exposition, but he realizes that “Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court is not […] an indictment of contemporary Protestant approaches to the law.” Not only is Sotomayor not known as an adherent to the Catholic-developed natural law tradition, she may oppose the Church’s clearly defined teaching on the inviolability of life from the time of conception. During a meeting with Sotomayor, Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, purportedly asked the judicial nominee if the preborn have any rights. “I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it,” DeMint said in a statement. Unsurprisingly, reports have since appeared which claim to link Sotomayor with pro-abortion briefs. It would have been astounding if Obama’s nominee had been pro-life (one wouldn’t expect a Republican Administration nominee to be pro-abortion). When Obama was elected, the nomination of pro-abortion candidates was a fait accomplis. Catholics should now focus their attention not on Sotomayor’s limited words and alleged views, but remedying the underlying problems which they manifest: the Church’s failure to effectively disseminate its teachings at a foundational level.

If the reports prove accurate and Sotomayor is pro-abortion, she is only one of a myriad of such Catholics who have gained prominence under Obama. Other pro-abortion Catholics serving under the President include:

- Vice President Joe Biden, who incorrectly asserted in 2007 that his pro-abortion position is allowed by Church teaching, a remark that incited a barrage of rebukes from dozens of U.S. bishops.

- Obama appointed former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). While a state representative, Sebelius fought against laws that would provide parental notification of minors’ abortions, greater abortion waiting periods, and informed consent. As governor, Sebelius issued two vetoes against abortion facility regulation legislation, and one against a bill requiring explicit medical reasons for a late-term abortion.

- Obama appointed Leon Panetta as the head of the CIA. A practicing Catholic, Panetta amassed a strong pro-abortion as a California congressman. He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in 1990 and during his run as Clinton’s Chief of Staff supported the president’s veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.

The appointment of pro-abortion politicians to influential positions was the inevitable consequence of Obama’s election. However, when those appointed are self-purported Catholics, the non-Catholic public is left with uncertainty as to where the Church stands on abortion and how strongly it holds its ground. Poorly-catechised Catholics are left with the illusion that Catholicism and abortion are compatible. The Church needs to address the misperceptions which arise. Failure to evangelize from the pulpit is causing the doctrines of secularization and moral relativism to flourish.

It is a strong indictment of the Church when a practicing Catholic, particularly one so well educated, could even assert that she has never thought about the rights of the pre-born. True, there are many teachings of the Church which Catholics need to hear during Sunday homilies, but the protection of the pre-born has taken on special significance for the faithful. The Church has supported and entrenched the view that life begins at conception and must be defended. That Sotomayor can seriously claim that she has never thought about the rights of these children is evidence enough that many homilists have been negligent in their duty to teach and lead the faithful.

SOURCES:

Jordan Ballor, “Sotomayor, Catholic Supremacy, and Protestant Approaches to Law” First Things (Jun 11, 2009 )
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/6/sotomayor-roman-catholic-supre

Kathleen Gilbert, “Obama Selects Yet another Pro-Abortion “Catholic” for Leading Office” LifeSiteNews (January 6, 2009)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010603.html.

In his recent newsletter, Fr. John Corapi posited that Western society is “a train wreck waiting to happen.” He presents moral evil, specifically that of abortion, as the agent for this catastrophe and the denial of objective standards of morality as the catalyst.

Father Corapi points to the U.S. government’s interventionist policies as evidence that the process has begun and indicates the ultimate result – increasing infringements on freedom and liberty:

“Personal liberty has already begun to be compromised. Various governments, including the United States, now own car companies like General Motors and Chrysler, mega insurance companies, soon perhaps health care and energy. Injustice is beginning to be seen from the smallest of individuals to the largest of corporations. The only problem with that is that governments have never been able to operate anything profitably, efficiently, or equitably. The little guy and the large corporation will all be equal opportunity recipients of heavy-handed injustice very soon.

The government is about to dictate what car you can drive, how you insure it, what your bank can pay you or not, what kind of heating you have in your home, if you can have air conditioning or not. And, oh, if you eat a Twinkie your health insurance premium is going up. If you get sick, perhaps the Twinkie did it, and you aren’t covered.”

Hyperbole aside, his proposition is interesting, even if presented a little awkwardly. As I understand his message, Fr. Corapi contends that “the high sounding rhetoric of the day” which surrounds these governmental policies creates only an illusion of progress. The reality is that a lack of respect for human life, of every human being “from the moment of conception to the last moment of natural life”, has left our society unsafe and unsecure. An inevitable regress will occur not because the current policies are bad in and of themselves, but because our lack of adequate moral filtering has left us ill equipped to identify and elect officials who are capable of being trusted and protecting the liberty and dignity of others:

“You might say that the government needs to control things to keep us safe, etc. That might work if the people in government could be trusted. They can’t, but we elected them. We get what we deserve, and many chickens are about to come home to roost.  One of the inherent difficulties with a democratic republic is that it is only as good as the people in it. When a people lose their moral equilibrium, live in sin, and suffer the consequent loss of wisdom, then that nation’s days are numbered.”

It is no secret that politicians are among the less trusted members of society, but are they really that bad? News out of New York may make you wonder. Last night two former Democrats effectively crossed the floor, restoring GOP control of the State Senate for the first time in six years. The response of the out-going majority? Behave like children:

“During the coup, Democrats fled the chamber, turned out the lights, and cut off the Internet feed of chamber proceedings, leaving Republicans and their two Democratic friends to take the vote in the dark.”

Of course, you can’t paint all politicians with the same brush. However, when this is the manner of behaviour of the elected officials of an influential U.S. State act, can you really be surprising that Fr. Corapi doubts their ability to respectfully uphold the dignity of those they were elected to serve?  

SOURCES:

Fr. John Corapi, “Father Corapi on the “Flash Point” in Western Society”(http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060416.html)(republished from the most recent newsletter from SOLT: http://www.fathercorapi.com/).

CBS News, “In New York, Senate “Coup” Takes Down Dems”

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/ …

politics/main5073657.shtml).

I was poking through the pages of Zenit.org two days ago and came across Pope Benedict’s papal address to the Envoy from New Zealand.  Although the average non-Kiwi would probably find most of the text fairly sterile, the pontiff did include an engaging remark explaining how true common ground can found among diverging interests:

“The Church’s engagement with civil society is anchored in her conviction that authentic human progress — whether as individuals or communities — is dependent upon the recognition of the spiritual dimension proper to every person. It is from God that men and women receive their essential dignity (cf. Gen 1:27) and the capacity to transcend particular interests in order to seek truth and goodness and so find purpose and meaning in their lives. This broad perspective provides a framework within which it is possible to counter any tendency to adopt superficial approaches to social policy which address only the symptoms of negative trends in family life and communities, rather than their roots. Indeed, when humanity’s spiritual heart is brought to light, individuals are drawn beyond themselves to ponder God and the marvels of human life: being, truth, beauty, moral values, and relationships that respect the dignity of others. In this way a sure foundation to unite society and sustain a common vision of hope can be found.”

Let me unpack this for you a little and more clearly draw out how Benedict proposes that we unite society

First, Benedict suggests that a prerequisite for uniting society is (i) recognizing the spiritual dimension proper to every person and (ii) recognizing our inherent essential dignity.

Second, if these prerequisites are present, society can transcend particular interests by seeking (i) truth and (ii) goodness.

If these elements are present (i) individuals will find purpose and meaning in their lives and (ii) we can unite society and sustain a common vision of hope.

These comments are timely, as they seem, at first blush, to fit very nicely with President Obama’s proposal of how to unite society amidst our differences.  During his commencement speech given at Notre Dame University, Obama provided his vision of how society can unite despite its conflicting views on abortion:

“The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts?  Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort?  …

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.”  A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election.  He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”  …  He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”  Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter … I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.  And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.  Because when we do that - when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

… I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.  Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.  Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts.  Open minds.  Fair-minded words. …”

On the surface, Benedict’s vision and that of Obama seem very similar. Obama’s words reflect a sense of the spiritual dimension of people.  An opening of minds connotes an openness to truth.  We may presume a desire for goodness.

But will Obama’s plan allow us to “join hands in common effort.” Are there substantive differences between the messages of Benedict and Obama?

Certainly, at some level, we can find common ground.  Like the Christian doctor who voted for Obama despite his views on abortion, many members of society can overlook many issues.  It is unlikely that any politician’s funding approach to policy areas such as the environment or infrastructure will reconcile completely with all member of the electorate.  Some will consider the funding excessive; some will consider it too slight.  Many may consider it acceptable.  How many can claim that they know the perfect balance on such issues, let alone that a particular politician has struck it? There is obviously room for compromise on such matters.

However, Obama rightly concludes that there are some views which are irreconcilable.  During the Bush administration, many viewed the war in Iraq as such an issue.  For some citizens it was essential for American soldiers to invade.  For others the war was intolerable.  While debate could arise after the fact as to the number of soldiers to deploy or which particular exit strategy was most effective, the initial question was simply whether to invade or not to invade.  For those who had a passionate opinion on this question, the decision to invade likely impacted their decision at the ballot box.

Obama recognizes that the legality of abortion raises a number of issues post facto where some consensus may be attained:

“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies.  Let’s make adoption more available.  Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.  Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics [sic], as well as respect for the equality of women.  Those are things we can do.”

While many of these are things which we can do, the fact remains that they are like the post-war responses, what Pope Benedict would describe as “superficial approaches to social policy which address only the symptoms of negative trends in family life and communities, rather than their roots.”  The Church’s teaching is clear that life begins at conception.  For the orthodox Catholic faithful to the magisterium, abortion is the ultimate attack on the family.  An abortion both physically alters the family and is the ultimate affront to dignity of that unborn child - the very premise necessary to achieve Benedict’s vision of hope.  The adoption of the policies refered to by Obama cannot satisfy the Catholic conscience.

Therefore, Benedict knows that a president who believes that abortion should be legal and permissible is not united with Catholics who believe that the dignity of all life is both inherent and essential, including the dignity of unborn person.  Obama surely realizes this, too.

Where does this leave us? Hoping for a brighter tommorrow. As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, we must continue to engage in vigorous debate. As members of the mystical body of Christ we must engage in vigilant prayer, for the inborn, for our nations, for our Presidents and Prime Ministers, for our Pope and for the light of Truth.

Sources:

Papal Address to Envoy from New Zealand

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-26052

Obama’s commencment address at Notre Dame:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/In-Praise-of-Fair-Minded-Words-at-Notre-Dame/

According to George MacDonald, the two pillars of ‘political correctness’ are willful ignorance and a steadfast refusal to face the truth.  Interestingly, those who are politically correct often denounce those who are ‘politically incorrect’ as being ignorant and unwilling to face the truth.  The problem with feeling a need to either follow or fight any norm is that it places a damaging emphasis on arriving at a certain conclusion.  It places the cart before the horse and contravenes the scientific method.  Ignorance, or the failure to inform oneself of relevant evidence, will often lead to incorrect assertions of fact or truth.  Whether these conclusions are correct or not has no bearing on whether it is politically correct – political correctness is an independent variable.  What does matter is whether the desire to reach a certain conclusion affects the evidence analyzed and the conclusions drawn.  Thus, end-driven analysis has the potential to subvert truth, placing it at the epitome of ignorance.  This ignorance can befall those bearing both monikers.

Of course, none of us can ever assess all the data or know all the evidence.  Confucius says: “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”  Even for the most accomplished scientists assessing the most nuanced hypothesis, an over-readiness to derive conclusions of fact from evidence which is merely suggestive will leave them susceptible to error.  For most of us, our vulnerability to deception is greater: we are forced to place a large degree of reliance on the opinions of others.  This doesn’t mean that we ought to be precluded from stating opinions.  What it does suggest is that it is inappropriate to describe the ‘political’ opinion of another as ignorant when this attack is directed at the conclusion they’ve reached and not on the manner in which they reached it.

I felt inspired to write the above paragraphs yesterday, but struggled to find an appropriate conclusion. I wasn’t satisfied with how it all tied together, electing to only post the entry on walkingtheway.ca. It’s interesting how God works, directing us even when we are oblivious to His plans.  This morning, by happenstance, I came across a quote from Barrack Obama’s address to the convoking class at Notre Dame:  

“Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

…

Understand — I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

To a large extent Obama is correct - the two sides of the abortion debate are irreconcilable.  “Abortion is always wrong” and “aborting a child is always right” are mutually exclusive stances.  Vigorous debate where each camp makes its case on abortion is exactly what western society needs.  This debate needs to occur with passion and respect.  What we do not need is for those involved to remain firm in their convictions.  We need a conviction to discover truth and fact, regardless of whether that points to the conclusion that the person involved in the dialectic originally desired.  If we merely remain committed to our convictions, society will never overcome either the division present or the ignorance.

Let us pray that Obama’s words are a harbinger of true debate and that God will open the hearts of our nations to the truth. 

Sources:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052104.html

Facing the highest rates of unemployment in a decade and a crippled economy, many consumers in London will take any break they can get. In an attempt to placate over 13,000 people who signed an online protest launched on Facebook against major UK retailer Marks & Spencer, the company has announced it is cutting the price of select bras by as much as £2 and is offering an additional discount of 25 percent for the entire month of May.

Apparently responding to the increased costs of material associated with manufacturing larger bras, the retailer decided to up the price for undergarments of size DD and larger. “It’s true our fantastic-quality larger bras cost more money to make, and we felt it was right to reflect this in the prices we charged,” M&S told readers. “Well, we were wrong, so as of Saturday, the storm in a D cup is over.”

Twenty-six-year-old Beckie Williams, who wears a size 30G bra, helped form the group, Busts 4 Justice, which initiated the online protest. Busts 4 Justice, condemned the surcharge on bras bigger than a DD cup as not just being poor customer relations and questionable pricing strategy, but as being “criminally unfair”, urging “busty ladies” to “join forces to end this blatant discrimination”. I presume these phrases were not used as a legal term of art. Yet I hesitate to suggest that her wording was unintentional. Determining what constitutes discrimination shifts with society. Unfortunatly, the ground is moving so fast that we are heading for moral collapse.

Besides, breasts and bras have established legal precedents before. In the 1994 December edition of First Things Magazine, the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus (1936 - 2009) brilliantly elaborated on the connection between breasts and bias. This is one of the wittiest and most humorous short-articles I have ever read:

“The Politics of the Breast” is an opinion piece in the New York Times advocating the right of women to go bare-breasted on the subway. Two years ago the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state laws against indecent exposure could not be enforced against women who wish to be topless in public. Judge Vito J.Titone wrote that differential treatment of female bodies violated constitutional guarantees of equality and was “rooted in centuries of prejudice and bias toward women.” One suspects he meant to say against women. A certain delicacy about the display of the female body in public is indeed rooted, apparently from the beginning of the species, in an enthusiastic male prejudice and bias toward naked women. Such considerations seem to carry little weight with the court, however. If human nature and the edicts of the court are in conflict, human nature will just have to change. Mayor Giuliani, being a generally sensible fellow, says the transit police will continue to arrest bare-breasted women on the subway. A police spokesman explains that, in the close press of subway travel, a “very, very attractive” topless woman could create excitements that would pose a public danger. Some subway patrons, he opined, could become so distracted that they might fall down escalators or even onto the tracks. The Times writer is buying none of it. She scoffs at the idea that “the power of the female breast is such that it can lure its beholders to untimely demise in subterranean channels.” She concludes that the bare-breasted subway rider is making the point “that her breasts belong to her and not to the onlookers.” It is not, however, the proprietorship but the public display of the items that is in question. To be fair to the writer, this is a man thing and it is perhaps understandable that she just doesn’t get it. Her argument and that of the New York court, however, do helpfully illumine why it is so very difficult to make a case for public decency. The concepts of decency and indecency turn upon what is offensive. Today, unless you are a member of a certified victim group, you have not the right to be offended. If you are offended or, as in this case, aroused, the fault is with you. The fun for the more aggressive members of the certified victim group is to taunt and provoke you into protesting what they say or do, thus confirming that they are victims and you the victimizer. But this is old hat by now. And for all the media chatter about bare-breasted subway riders, we know nobody who has seen one to date. One expects it’s not for the lack of looking. In any event, the ancient maxim is again vindicated that those whom the gods would destroy are, if madness be the sign, disproportionately New Yorkers.

At least Fr. Neuhaus would be pleased that Busts 4 Justice is fighting to make bras more accessible.

Sources:

http://www.firstthings.com/

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britain_clothing_offbeat

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ms-agree-to-abandon-price-uplift-on-big-bras-1681822.html