There's been a lot of buzz lately in the Catholic news outlets about one of my favorite topics: liturgy.  And I'm eager to share a few thoughts of my own on the matter...

There was a time in my life (not all that long ago) when "liturgy," for me, was not much more than a physical expression of some poorly-formed and weakly grasped ideology--one that took issue with Reformation-esque practices as (in the words of Hilaire Belloc) a "profound cleavage" from the traditions of Roman Catholicism.  But, at the heart of my rash reactionism was a poor understanding of just what that Roman Catholic tradition meant for the history of Western civilization as a whole; and, accordingly, a grasp of what the Protestant influence meant for its future.

I've come to the (slightly) more informed realization, recently, that the Church's influence on culture and tradition has not merely offered a sense of universal significance to something that was otherwise without, but rather that its very importance is entirely and inextricably united with the basic, cosmological significance of history and tradition as it has always unfolded and developed.  And nowhere is this more clear than in the Catholic liturgy.

Thankfully, this opinion is more than simply personal.  And, in the last few days, it has been echoed strongly by papal emcee and liturgist, Msgr Guido Marini, in his comments regarding the "reform of the reform" of Catholic liturgy.  In short, Marini asserts that the liturgy celebrated by the Catholic Church should have a character of historical continuity.  "I purposely use the word continuity," says Marini, "a word very dear to our present Holy Father. [...]  He has made it the only authoritative criterion whereby one can correctly interpret the life of the Church." (CNS)

What is more "Catholic" than "catholicism": that is, universality, interwovenness, and the highest sense of "continuity"?  And, conversely, what is more "Protestant" than an affront to such continuity (often expressed even overtly in terms of "non-denominationalism" or post-enlightened "egalitarianism")?  If there is no clear series of precedence, then there is no possibility for continuity.

What I saw initially as a "profound cleavage" from Roman tradition--the Reformed infiltration of the Catholic liturgy--was a valid perception.  But without attempting to comprehend the absolute depth of such cleavage, my mindset was one aimed merely at fixing the problem at hand, and not at seeking to repair the damaged roots of a thorough and complete break with the sensus fidei.  "The liturgy cannot and must not be an opportunity for conflict," says Marini; yet the reformist mentality of the late 20th century amounted almost entirely to nothing but a conflict with the stated and perennial traditions of the Church for centuries before.

As Marini is keen to point out, the real work of faithful Catholics in the 21st century--for those who wish not simply to profess the faith, but to live, preserve and pray it by their deeds and practices--lies in promoting an understanding of the liturgy that is, above all, wholly Christian, and wholly undivided and non-partisan.  "Fixing the glitch" is not a sufficient response to the deep wounds inflicted by the Protestant mentality of spiritual individualism (or what Belloc calls the "alienation of the soul").  Instead, Catholics must follow the example of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, by further grasping the true meaning of liturgy (theologically) and by evangelizing their fellow Christians on its deep importance in the life of faith.

"I have learned to deepen my knowledge these past two years in service to our Holy Father," admits Marini.  "He is an authentic master of the spirit of the liturgy, whether by his teaching or by the example he gives in the celebration of the sacred rites."

Indeed, Pope Benedict has never modeled an attitude of reactionism; but instead always an attitude of genuine appreciation and profound love for the beauty of the liturgy that is possessed simply by virtue of its supernatural character.  Benedict and Marini speak of the "reform of the reform" not because they are Reformers, but instead because they realize the importance of eradicating the very mentality of  the Reformation by way of a thoroughly Catholic "hermeneutic of continuity."

Who calls Russia by its official name: the Russian Federation?

Apparently the Vatican press office, which recently released a statement indicating that Rome and Russia are soon to be trading top agents.

According to the Vatican Information Service, "the Holy See and the Russian Federation, in the desire to promote their mutual friendly relations, have decided by joint agreement to establish diplomatic relations, at the level of apostolic nunciature on the part of the Holy See and of embassy on the part of the Russian Federation."

Pretty straightforward news—but equally as groundbreaking.




The new concord comes after Thursday's meeting of Pope Benedict XVI with Russia's premier, Dmitri Medvedev.  But despite the "cordial" atmosphere of the encounter, Vatican officials are saying that a papal visit to the Kremlin isn't likely. (New York Times)

Still, if the Holy Father's recent dealings with the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs have anything to do with this...I wouldn't rule such a visit entirely out of the question.

I've got a bit of a guilt complex about using In Umbris Sancti Petri as a launchpad for other projects but...

...for those who haven't, please consider checking out the work being done over at ProLife ProPatria.  If you like what you read here, you will most certainly enjoy the discussions there!

Since founding ProLife ProPatria about one year ago, Matthew Barry and I—along with a whole new team of writers, editors and consultants—have been plugging away, making our website as worthwhile and informative as possible.  And now, finally, after a year of hard work, we think we're onto something big.

In the beginning of 2010, we'll be making a push to incorporate ProLife ProPatria as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.  This will help us to solidify our structure, bring on-board even more top-notch authors and editors, and provide the basis for financial stability over the next years.

Currently, we are looking for anyone who might be able to offer valuable connections (individuals, companies, dioceses, universities, etc.) that might help us to get off the ground in a real way, and maybe even form long-lasting partnerships in this important field of bioethics and Catholic social theory.

Over the last month, In Umbris Sancti Petri has seen "hits" from viewers around the globe—from 62 countries, and 36 states.  I hope that you all who've been reading these pages will consider supporting an even greater project; and that you'll pass the word on to friends and colleagues who may also be interested.

For now, I'll do my best to keep things up-to-date here (as well as there).

Oh, and did I mention that I'm getting married in a month?!

Well, I suppose I should have seen this one coming.

Recently, the pharmaceutical group, Neocutis--which specializes in the production of burn treatments and skin creams--cited a 2005 Vatican document from the Pontifical Academy for Life in defense of its implementation of aborted fetal tissue research in the manufacturing of biomedical products.

Much has happened since our last encounter! And although I can't possible share it all here, suffice it to say that changes in my own employment status (from "non" to "employed") have really taken away a vast chunk of my free time. So, once more, I was forced to stop writing for a while.

As many of you know, another project that's eaten up quite a bit of time—and that is currently picking up steam once again—is the movement I've helped to found: ProLife | ProPatria. In the last few weeks, lots of new things have happened—including the advent of a few new writers/editors, some leads on important connections, and the creation of a new website that will be launched by the beginning of October (same URL: www.prolifepropatria.com).

As always, I'll try my best to make some time for this site; but most of my 'teaching' efforts will have to be put forth both at school, and with the movement. If you've been a follower of this blog for long, ProLife | ProPatria will be a nice addition to your RSS feeds; and the content we discuss—coupled with the new array of fresh writers—will certainly pique your interest!

So stay tuned, and venture over to check it out!

With all the recent flurry in the news about the killing of Dr. George Tiller, it’s hard to avoid for very long the question: “Just what does it mean to be ‘Pro-Life’?”

On the one hand, most Catholic moral and ethical authorities have come out stating strongly, that ‘the murder of George Tiller is a gravely wicked thing, and is an absolutely unjustified transgression of the moral law.’ Their stance seeks to maintain a hermeneutic of continuity, so to speak, in the Pro-Life movement, valuing the life of both unborn babies and abortion doctors equally and without distinction. ‘Violence is never the solution’ in such cases, they say, and to kill an abortionist in cold blood is murder just as much as to kill an unborn child is murder. Rather, the ‘solution’ (for them) lies in recourse to civil authorities, and in the hope that the future will bring a reversal of the current abortion laws in America, and a defense of all life, from conception to natural death.

On the other hand, some Pro-Life activists have come out strongly in support of the slaying, noting that the exercise of lethal force is justified in such a case where the civil authorities condone the murder of children; and where Dr. Tiller’s stated intent was to continue performing such genocidal atrocities. For these people, to gun down Tiller in cold blood is not murder, but rather an implementation of a sort of “just war” theory on the civil level. In other words, from such a standpoint, the ‘murderous’ character of the slaying is alleviated by the fact that killing an abortionist is really the protection of innocent human life, which would otherwise be in imminent danger of utter destruction.

I trust that the Catholic moral authorities have stated something true. And I don’t want to launch into a debate, here, on the objective moral status of such a killing as happened in Kansas this week.

More importantly, I think, is the fact that much of the debate surrounding abortion in America today has become one of polemics and rhetoric, rather than a debate situated in the context of immediate and government-sanctioned genocide. Abortion is, as Dr. Robert George notes (regarding President Obama), not presumed to be the extermination of mere biological matter, but rather the killing of real (little) human beings. And thus, the ultimate tragedy is that an open declaration of class-genocide is in effect; and it is genocide that is fundamentally supported by American law.

This isn’t a debate between political ideologies. And it isn’t a disagreement that ought to be hashed out with rhetoric. The abortion debate in America is one that involves real, imminent, widespread murder; and murder condoned on the level of civilly sanctioned genocide.

Certainly, the reality of this debate doesn’t mean that we ought to go out and kill abortionists. But it does mean that we must, at least in our own minds and in our actions and convictions, restate the basic terms of the ‘argument.’ The reality of the plague of abortion means that we must understand the relevant object of our concept (i.e. the actual murder of unborn children), and bring it to the forefront of our consciousness. It will do no one any good to suppose that abortion is merely a word (even if a heinous, unbearable one). “Abortion” is a reality; and it ought to be treated as such.

The media frenzy covering the killing of Dr. George Tiller is, at the very least, bringing some of this reality to our immediate attention. And we should take the opportunity to make the most of it.

In a recent debate, hosted by the Catholic University of America, Robert George and Douglas Kmiec faced off on the question: "The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is there a common ground on life issues? What is the right response by 'Pro-Life' Citizens?"

For those unfamiliar with the two debaters, Robert George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, and an outspoken and poignant proponent of the Pro-Life cause; and Douglas Kmiec is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University. Both men are Catholic; however both differ severely on how their faith ought to affect their decisions and actions as American citizens.

The cornerstone of the debate—and what probably caused it to occur in the first place—is the fact that Kmiec has openly supported President Obama on a number of occasions (even voting for him in the election) while George has remained staunchly opposed to the president's policies, and continually expresses heavy criticism toward those Catholics who supported him last November, knowing full-well his stance on issues of human life.

All in all, the debate unfolded like most do. Kmiec presented his case, George countered, and then they had a period of Q&A with moderator, Mary Ann Glendon. The main focus of the discussion was, quite naturally, the hard-line stance of President Obama toward anti-life legislation; and the responsibility of Catholics to act conscientiously in the face of such evil. A number of striking points were made on both sides, but the final tally was surely not in favor of Kmiec.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the whole event was Dr. George's candid presentation of the Obama administration's shortcomings in his 20-minute portion of the debate. George is, without a doubt, a tremendous and clear-headed thinker; and his portrayal of both the pros and cons of almost any situation is bound to be thorough. Once again, he did not disappoint, leveling a barrage of hard-hitting questions against Kmiec's Catholic-Democrat position. He outlined (quite thoroughly) the fact that Obama does not deny the human fetus to be a human being, but that it has rather become a question of 'when must we treat such a being as having fundamental right?' The critical thing, George pointed out, is that Obama's pro-abortionism is not one grounded in ignorance of biological facts; but rather in the alienation of an entire demographic of American citizens.

Overall, I thought the George-Kmiec debate was a real testament to the integrity of the Pro-Life position—and especially one so grounded in philosophical and academic honesty as is presented by Robert George. I would strongly encourage anyone interested in the the roots of the Pro-Life argument to check out this video and see what they think.

To my regular update-checkers, my apologies again for the lack of content on the blog. Per usual, things have been busy. Really busy.

But although my time hasn't been spent here in the last weeks, it has been spent—and doing good things, I might add!

Ecce...www.prolifepropatria.com...the newest addition to Haines-corp-blogging-enterprises-that-sometimes-(although-not-always)-come-to-fruition.

Somehow, though, I think this new one will be a hit. And not only a hit, but a big one—check it out!

In addition to that, I've begun a little gig, writing at Suite101.com, an online magazine that covers everything from cooking and travel to philosophy and Catholicism. (Guess which section I'm writing in...?) Here's a link to my profile; from there you can check out a few of my articles and see what I've been up to elsewhere.

For now, that's about all I've got. Please continue to check back, though, and encourage others to visit the ProLife | ProPatria site in particular. We are really passionate about the mission it seeks to accomplish, and we need all the help we can get!

Thanks!

Now here's an interesting story. The pope, during his audience with administrators and students from the University of Parma, Italy, spoke a great deal about the 'dangers' of being too wrapped up in the technological advances of an age.

Students today are in danger of losing this balance, the Holy Father explained, due to the increased use of information technologies. “On the one hand, they run the risk of a growing reduction in their capacity for concentration and mental application on an individual level; on the other, that of isolating themselves individually in an increasingly virtual reality. (CNA)

The crux of Benedict's point seems to be that an overabundance of technology diminishes the need and appreciation of a genuinely social environment, disabling students from forming "constructive relations with other." On the other hand, says the pope, human interaction allows for “the opportunity to mature intellectually, morally and civilly, through the great questions that challenge the conscience of the contemporary man."

How could I disagree with all that? It's pretty foundational stuff (not to mention the very topic of my undergraduate thesis!) But how often is it simply overlooked?

While eating out the other day, I was seated next to a table full of young girls—perhaps 13ish—accompanied by two older ladies, perhaps a mother and grandmother. It looked like a birthday party. Of course, I couldn't tell that from the conversation or interaction between the girls, but I simply guessed it based on the number of kids and their similar ages. The mother and the grandmother sat stoically on one end of the table, with eyes glazed over staring off into oblivion. The girls, on the other hand, all giggled to themselves. Each of them had in her hand some sort of cellphone/PDA/smartphone device, and was occupying herself playing games and sending text messages. I can only assume that the text messages weren't being sent to one another...

If this is any indication of what the Holy Father is getting at—and I think it is—then this shouldn't be something simply for speculation. The very future of our society hinges upon how well we teach children and young people to interact with technology. (Even blogging as much as I do is probably indicative of some overuse of the internet, I admit.) The real trick is figuring out how to enable kids to be proficient with technological advances while at the same time not allowing them to be consumed by them. Unfortunately, the pope doesn't give a quick answer for this. But I think if he had to point in one direction, it would be toward the parents.

There are, of course, lots of noteworthy things to think about in the wake of the election. Perhaps most germane to this blog are the two letters sent to Barack Obama, one by Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, and one by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. Both prelates extended words of congratulations to the US president-elect, and stated their continuing prayers for his cooperation in the work of justice, peace and—most pointedly—upholding fundamental human rights.

Dear President-elect Obama [wrote Cardinal George],

I write to you, in my capacity as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to express our congratulations on your historic election as President of the United States. The people of our country have entrusted you with a great responsibility. As Catholic Bishops, we offer our prayers that God give you strength and wisdom to meet the coming challenges.

Our country is confronting many uncertainties. We pray that you will use the powers of your office to meet them with a special concern to defend the most vulnerable among us and heal the divisions in our country and our world. We stand ready to work with you in defense and support of the life and dignity of every human person.

May God bless you and Vice President-elect Biden as you prepare to assume your duties in service to our country and its citizens. (ZENIT)

Benedict's letter, unlike the cardinal's, was not published due to its "personal nature." However, I think it's fair to say that it expressed much of the same.

So what does this say about the Church and politics? What does it tell us about our own involvement in the political sphere beyond election day? I think the most reasonable conclusion is that the Church, as it has always taught, does not see political involvement solely in terms of elections and vying for political offices, in the sense that secular society portrays it. In Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II writes that the Church "values the democratic system…[which] is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person." This seems to imply that what seems manifestly 'democratic'—i.e. the electoral and representative process we see in the US—is only possible due to the laws of the state it governs, and the adherence to these laws in cases concerning human dignity. Moreover, the pope goes on to say (in a 2000 letter to Cardinal Vlk) that the Church "has a specific contribution to make; not only can Christians join all persons of good will in the realization of this great project [of political activity], but they are also invited to be in some way its soul by showing the true meaning of the organization of the earthly city."

What John Paul II tells us is clear: political life isn't a once-in-four-years phenomenon. It is a sustaining presence and, in the words of the pope, the very "soul" of a democratic government. It is up to Catholics, with the support of their bishops, cardinals and pope, to maintain the efforts toward life so ardently offered in the time leading up to this year's presidential election. Now is when the moves for the next pro-life changes are initiated. Now is when we take up the task of becoming the "soul" of democracy by our witness to the fundamental dignity of life.

When in doubt, just turn to the poor of the world for confirmation in the mission of being Catholic. It happens time and time again, and this time it's with Africa. According to ZENIT, next October's synod will focus on the Church in Africa, discussing it's "exceptional growth" in recent years, and will consider the future of the local church in the coming years. "The idea for this synod arose during the last years of Pope John Paul II's pontificate... The Polish Pontiff had already welcomed the idea in 2004. In 2005, Benedict XVI announced his plan to convoke the assembly, which will be a continuation of the first Africa synod, held in 1994." (Full article here.)


So what kind of things are so "exception," you may be wondering. Well, here are a few statistics about Catholicism in Africa: since 1994, there has been an overall growth in number of bishops by 18%, and in number of diocesan priests by 58%. Also, realizing that a hundred years ago Africa had only 2 million Catholics, it is startling to consider that today, a mere century later, the continent is home to over 150 million (17% of it's total population).

[Archbishop Eterovic] affirmed that the Catholic communities [in Africa] are active and committed: "Religious practice has a high rate, especially regarding participation in Mass on Sundays and holy days. In some countries, the rate of religious practice is around 80%."

This explains, he said, "the high number of vocations to the priesthood and the consecrated life. […] In sum, Africa is not a mission land in the passive sense, but rather it sends missionaries, both for the continent itself and for the whole world."

This much is clear for almost anyone who lives in a US diocese nowadays, since in recent years African priests and nuns have come to the rescue in places with shrinking presbyterates and religious presence. In Rome—as I recall—a substantial portion of almost all my classes was made up of African seminarians, priests and religious, sent to study in Europe for mission or domestic work after receiving their degrees.

But in light of all the progress, Africa still maintains an atmosphere of overwhelming uncertainty and political unrest. The purpose of the upcoming synod, in part, is to discuss the Church's presence on the continent with particular regard for the heightened inter-tribal tensions in recent years, as well as the growing number of African Muslims who are currently making up a significant portion of the land's population. "'Reconciliation is a priority need in Africa, in which progress is not lacking, but neither are problems,' the [Eterovic] affirmed. 'Without the true peace in Christ, there cannot be any cultural or social development. The Church should be a prophetic voice that invites to reconciliation, justice and peace.'"

It's been a quiet week here at the blog. I've been occupied with studying for a midterm, researching for three term papers and preparing two presentations for the coming week. All in all, it's been a load of work. I'll soon be finished with my pressing assignments, though, and back to blogging on a more regular basis. For now, here's a curious (and brief) article about Catholic political activity by a philosopher from the University of Notre Dame (which has generated quite a buzz of attention.) Don't let the cliché subject matter dissuade you from giving it a read. It's very interesting. And I'd be curious to hear some comments:

The Only Vote Worth Casting in November
Alasdair MacIntyre

When offered a choice between two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to themselves the power of framing the alternatives. These are propositions which in the abstract may seem to invite easy agreement. But, when they find application to the coming presidential election, they are likely to be rejected out of hand. For it has become an ingrained piece of received wisdom that voting is one mark of a good citizen, not voting a sign of irresponsibility. But the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush's conservatism and Kerry's liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.

Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish. These two sentences, if fully spelled out, amount to a politics. It is a politics that requires us to be pro-life, not only in doing whatever is most effective in reducing the number of abortions, but also in providing healthcare for expectant mothers, in facilitating adoptions, in providing aid for single-parent families and for grandparents who have taken parental responsibility for their grandchildren. And it is a politics that requires us to make as a minimal economic demand the provision of meaningful work that provides a fair and adequate wage for every working parent, a wage sufficient to keep a family well above the poverty line.

The basic economic injustice of our society is that the costs of economic growth are generally borne by those least able to afford them and that the majority of the benefits of economic growth go to those who need them least. Compare the rise in wages of ordinary working people over the last thirty years to the rise in the incomes and wealth of the top twenty percent. Compare the value of minimum wage now to its value then and next compare the value of the remuneration of CEOs to its value then. What is needed to secure family life is a sufficient minimum income for every family and that can perhaps best be secured by some version of the negative income tax, proposed long ago by Milton Friedman, a tax that could be used to secure a large and just redistribution of income and so of property.

We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment.

In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote case for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote.

It's not really the most audibly pleasing word in the English language, but it sure can have a nice ring to it, compared to the words it's often used as a substitute for: "We are going to have to terminate your employment, mister so and so," "Susie was terminated last week," etc. Heck, one of the first mental images "terminate" instills in me is of Arnold Schwarzenegger wielding a shotgun.

A lesser-realized yet equally-as-chilling usage of "terminate" comes to us today from the folks at the Down's Syndrome Association, where recent medical progress has heightened spirits. Really, the news starts as Stanford University (also known for their recent gridiron demise at the hands of the Fighting Irish), where Dr. Stephen Quake and a team of colleagues has been pioneering a form of Down's Syndrome testing for use in early-stage pregnancies.

Dr. Quake said: "Non-invasive testing will be much safer than current approaches."

One of the current ways of confirming the syndrome is amniocentesis, in which a needle is used to take a sample of the fluid within the womb.

Approximately one in 100 women who have the test will miscarry as a result, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists...

Dr. Quake said the new DNA test could be carried out at an even earlier stage of pregnancy than the current tests, giving women more time to make choices about their pregnancy. (BBC)

"What sort of choices," arises the question in the mind of the reader.

Carol Boys, chief executive of the Down's Syndrome Association, said: "There is no question that these non-invasive tests will be introduced in the next few years.

"It's therefore incredibly important that potential parents are given accurate information on Down's syndrome before they make a choice about whether to terminate or not.

"We don't consider Down's syndrome a reason for termination, but we recognise that bringing up a child with Down's syndrome isn't right for everyone.

And so surfaces the topic of our post: "termination." Oddly enough, it does not come from the scientist experimenting with the testing, who incidentally believes his work to be beneficial for those seeking 'choices,' but rather from the woman defending the fetuses afflicted with this 'syndrome.' She doesn't want to call them people, I'm quite sure. Nor does she want to state the harsh reality that her careful choice of words highlights so blatantly. "Potential parents" is a dead giveaway: how can she believe the fetuses are human beings if the procreative agents aren't yet parents? But, then again, why head up an association that seeks to defend Down's Syndrome children if they aren't really 'people' until birth? Why not just "terminate" them all and get it over with? Perhaps she has a cozy job. Perhaps the "termination" of too many fetuses would infringe upon that. Perhaps she may even have to take a solid stance on the issue. But for now, she doesn't.

What is happening is murder, no matter how you choose to say it. And if the advocates of the poor and sick themselves will not stand strong in the face of public and social backlash, then who can?

For my daily dose of news I usually read the BBC, as opposed to any American news network, since it tends to be a bit more objective in cases of American electoral debates and foreign policy than does anything domestic. Usually, I think that holds true. But like anything, the BBC too has its shortcomings, and quite often they seem to surface by way of a distinctively non-theist bias toward many different sorts of stories and coverage. Simply reading the comments on some of their web-based articles—which reflect mostly the mentality of their British reader base—is enough to evidence this claim. Nevertheless, I think the decidedly non-theist bent is something increasingly popular in news reporting worldwide, and a phenomenon that we cannot overlook as a matter of sheer coincidence.

In a recent comparison of U.S. vice-presidential candidates, the British Broadcasting Corporation published a series of verbal blunders from each candidate in an attempt to predict a possible outcome of Thursday evening's debate. While most were somewhat alarming, some were simply funny; but one seemed out of sorts, and caused me to think a little deeper into the objectivity of the reporting. (Or at least, I should say, into the effort of the reporter to think critically and not simply superficially about the material being published.) The clip I am writing of is this:

Speaking to graduating students at her former Wasilla Assembly of God Church in June, Mrs Palin suggested a natural gas pipeline project had divine backing. "I can do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30bn project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaskans and we'll have a lot of energy flowing through here. And pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas pipeline built, so pray for that." (BBC)

The "problem" here, I gather, is an assertion that Sarah Palin seeks to invoke divine support for economic and commercial projects, and will similarly do so as Vice President of the United States. I, on the other hand, gathered something altogether different from the quote cited. It seems eminently important to consider, as part of the quotation, the context in which it was uttered. If she were speaking to the Senate, that would be one thing. But she wasn't. She was speaking to a group of graduates from a Christian college, and not just any college but rather her own alma mater. Is it really problematic, then, that she urged them to consider praying for a resolution to an issue of personal importance to her? Perhaps it may not have been the most prudent time to make such a statement, but the question is still: "Was it wrong?"

Unfortunately, as I've already noted a number of times, the continual tendency of U.S. citizens expecting lawmakers to be devoid of personal convictions—religious especially, but otherwise as well—is unnerving. Although this instance from a BBC article is hardly something to throw a fit over, it does provide a glimpse into a problem much larger than isolated columns in far corners of the internet. It represents, I would suggest, a growing mentality, and one that shows no signs of coming to terms with the obvious and rational considerations that anyone well-versed in democratic theory could outline: namely, that lawmakers are elected to represent the wishes of the populace, and that they are elected precisely because they are known to believe certain things. If we seek to neuter our government officials of all conscientious potency, then we have only to continue along the path which we've so ardently been pursuing. I think it's naive. And if properly informed of just what is occurring, I think the majority of Americans would believe so too.

Having a blog is a good thing, especially when you need to put in a plug for another blog. And that is what I am doing right now.

Behold, The Synopsis Project.

Although this new project is quite different than In Umbris Sancti Petri, I have a feeling that many of you who are regular readers here will enjoy what (I hope) will be going on at The Synopsis Project. While this blog is mostly dedicated to things related to theology, philosophy and the Church on a wider scale, the other will be focused primarily on philosophical issues, and will have a decidedly more 'pinpointed' approach. For anyone who's wanted to venture deeper into philosophic topics, I would warmly welcome you to become a regular visitor and commenter at The Synopsis Project.

We are still getting it off the ground—we're at about T+2 seconds, I'd say—but soon it will be fully operational, and we're looking forward to lots of good discussion!

Whenever I think of the Roman university of La Sapienzia, and their bold claims against the Holy Father and the Vatican, I can't help but laugh a little. Especially in light of this:

The president of the Pontifical Council for Culture has said that evolutionary theory is “not incompatible” with the teachings of the Catholic Church, insisting that the theory of biological change over time was never condemned by the Church.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi made such remarks while presenting the new interdisciplinary conference to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. The conference, which is a Vatican initiative to promote dialogue between scientists and theologians, is scheduled to take place in Rome in March 2009. (CNA)

Now, its already quite clear that the Church has nothing against scientific progress; and I've already written quite enough on that topic for the time being. What really strikes me about this little news clip is the next paragraph (specifically the last line):

[Ravasi] said the theologians, philosophers and scientists are attending the conference not necessarily for the purpose of coming to an agreement, but rather hoping to confirm “the possibility of dialogue and a common desire to interpret reality, albeit from different points of view.”

This statement—as seemingly insignificant as it might be at first glance—provides us a window into some very big issues. First, it shows us precisely the point of all philosophic inquiry. It outlines the basis of philosophical reasoning and methodology: namely, that philosophy is concerned not with some universal method of understanding the truth, but with the truth itself—a truth which alone is universal. In other words, varied approaches to truth are (philosophically) equally acceptable, so long as ultimate and real truth is the goal.

Second, it calls to mind the task of theology, which is quite converse to that of philosophy. In theology, the 'object' or 'aim' of study is God himself. Therefore, the truth being considered is a divine one. Moreover, since theology concerns itself with the knowledge of God directly, something understood only by way of revelation (and particularly in the person of Jesus Christ), it is therefore inherently concerned with the truth of revelation in se. Perhaps more clearly, proper theology places an importance upon the understanding of revelation just as much as it does upon the understanding of God himself. The theological 'study of God' is equally the 'study of God revealed.'

Third, Ravasi's remarks call to our attention the place of science. The word, "science," comes from a Latin word for "knowledge," "scientia." This form of knowing is concerned not only with the ultimate truth, as is philosophy, or the means of knowing, as is theology, but rather both the means and the truth. Science is the understanding of reality based on empirical and experiential observations. One cannot believe that gravity exists and cite the color blue in proof of that claim; nor can one observe an apple fall from a tree and subsequently claim that the theory of gravity has been debunked. For science, the end and the means are equally integral constituents. They must cohere with one another.

The ultimate conclusion is that each of the three—philosophy, theology and science—are inquests toward the truth. In terms of method, philosophy is highest. In terms of object, theology is highest. In terms of utility, science is highest. The real goal is to understand which truth is accessible by which method.

Hearing about the successful 'firing' of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) today in Europe sort of excited me. After reading the BBC's article about the experiment's focus—and listening to the embedded live audio clip—I was even more intrigued. From the way the news agencies were reporting, it sounds like some novel, revolutionary knowledge about sub-atomic particles is an almost certain probability. "We will be able to see deeper into matter than ever before," said one physicist from the University of Liverpool. "We will be looking at what the Universe was made of billionths of a second after the Big Bang. That is amazing, that really is fantastic." (BBC)

As a Catholic, I am very open to the role of scientific research in man's fullest manifestation of himself. After all, as Aristotle tells us, "All men by nature desire to know." What is science other than a systematized basis for coming to know things? If the desire to know is fundamentally natural, it should be treated as are other natural desires; the desires for sleep, food and sex, to name a few. The bottom line: nature is good, and so are the desires it engenders. But, as Aristotle also tells us, "Virtue is in the middle." In other words, extremely impulsive acts—as well as extremely restrictive acts—cannot be a form of virtue, and thereby are deficient in truly articulating human nature in its fullest sense. Just as the appetites for food and sex need to be enjoyed in moderation and within their proper context (viz. hunger and marriage), so too does the desire to know need to be understood within the context of humility in the face of God's infinitude.

All too often, something surfaces in the news that has some group labeling the Catholic Church as being restrictive of 'academic freedom,' 'scientific innovation' or something of the like. Just as often, they cite the locus of such an apparent dilemma in the person of the Roman Pontiff, who so often defends the Church's positions on issues which do not change, despite popular culture's conceptions thereof. But here's something to consider: If I had to make a guess, I bet Pope Benedict XVI was just as excited as me when he turned on his television and caught word of the LHC's successful trial run. Although the pope and I disagree with the prospect of the Big Bang as a viable cause for the universe coming into being, the idea of coming to know more about the world in which we live is nevertheless exciting. The key, I think, is realizing the true beauty of scientific discovery in light of the truths of revelation, which we profess and adhere to as Catholics.

So long as our gaze remains fixed upon the fundamental questions, all the scientific knowledge and learning in the world won't become a problem for us. It is only when we let knowledge control us to the point of acting impulsively that something truly sub-human is occurring. "All men by nature desire to know," indeed. But nature is not the end of man. God is the end of man, and we must continuously realize that all the knowledge in the world is limited to just that—the world. Knowledge of the divine is, however, Wisdom, and transcends both our capacity to understand as well as our capacity to live on this earth. Someday we will die, and someday we will encounter Truth in himself. That seems to me an incredibly fulfilling prospect!

My friend—a regular reader of this blog—uses this term to describe things which are less than satisfying in terms of argumentative or convictive substance. I doubt he would define it that way, but I'm pretty sure (based on my own experience of its usage) that this is what he intends by it.

I think we would both agree that Sen. Joe Biden's recent Meet the Press appearance was pretty "weak sauce."

At the risk of sounding polemic toward preeminent Democratic figures—and directing the focus of this blog away from its true telos and toward political commentary—I can't help but mention Biden's display of thoroughly lifeless reasoning on this week's television interview with Tom Brokaw. It is an unsurprising follow-up to Nancy Pelosi's comments of all-too-recent memory. Not only was Sen. Biden's reasoning similarly lifeless, but non-convicting and fallacious as well. When pressed on the question of abortion from the perspective of a Catholic in public office, the response was foreseeably typical: "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception...But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

While we're at it, we might consider removing murder, rape and pillage from the offenses punishable by United States law. After all, they aren't scientifically demonstrable evils. What are they beyond personal "judgments," imposed upon unsuspecting Americans who have a right to believe and do as they please in our pluralistic society? No one is really right, anyhow. At least not so "right" as to be entitled to press his or her judgment of rectitude onto the masses, who may or may not have voted for such a person to hold an office where precisely that is expected of them. Are we really all right? I guess that's a silly question; who are you to tell me if that is or isn't right? That would be so un-pluralistic of us! I'll think what I think and you think what you think, and we just won't bother with coming to a consensus of truth on this matter or any matter. That will show the world the power of American democracy...

I think a commentary on just why Sen. Biden's remarks were deficient is unwarranted. Hyperbole is worth a thousand words. It's also easier and more entertaining.

[My apologies to all the good Democrats out there. It's just that your party seems to be the one attracting all the nominal Catholics who are willing to compromise 'their' faith for the sake of the public 'good.']

It is amazing how manipulative things get in the political arena. Even grammar is not safe from the whims of politicians and—to use a Jon Stewart-ism—the aggrandizement of "party hacks." Our case study today is Michelle Obama's statement about her husband's pro-choice stance: "He’ll protect a woman’s freedom of choice, because government should have no say in whether or when a woman embraces the sacred responsibility of parenthood."

I realize the finer disagreement here is the question of when life begins. If life does not begin at conception, then the pro-abortion position seeks to eliminate the possibility of parenthood before it is actualized. Thus, Mrs. Obama's statement holds some water. Given that set of true premises. On the flip side, if human life begins at conception, then the argument to end life before birth would not prevent any actualization of parenthood, which will already have been initialized in the very act of conception itself. Those are the two sides of the when-does-life-begin debate, with regard to the Obama statement.

My contention is that the statement itself—grammatically speaking—is not only illogical (in that it is an unsound argument), but is even verbally contradictory. The whole point of what Mrs. Obama is trying to get across, it seems, is that a "woman's freedom" is aimed at "sacred responsibility," one of which being parenthood. The choice to embrace this end, then, is in the mind of her husband undefiled by law, and by the government's ability to impose upon what is properly personal and individual to the woman in question. The important part, though, is that Michelle Obama identifies parenthood as sacred, and as a viable end toward which women rightly and justifiably seek to move.

The first question I'd ask Obama, if I had the chance to engage her in dialogue, would be to clarify her qualification of 'sacredness.' If she admitted to believing in some divinely appointed role of parenthood in the plan of universal salvation...well...story over. I think we can all infer how that argument would progress. However, if she means 'sacred' in the sense of what is truly proper to human nature in its fullest and most articulated expression, then we would have another situation entirely. Frankly, I propose that this is probably what she means here—regardless of her individual religious beliefs, whatever they may be. She was speaking, I think, from an anthropocentric viewpoint, common enough to the modern mindset, wherein she intended to demonstrate parenthood as one of the heights of the human experience.

The distinction I would like to make here is of an entirely philosophic nature, yet I believe it is important and quite evidently present in the very statement made by Mrs. Obama. It concerns the presupposition that parenthood can usher forth from pregnancy; I would even argue that it should. Pregnancy, by its nature, and as recognized by Obama's comment, indicates the potential for parenthood. If this were not so, the right to choose would not be sparing some from embracing the "sacred responsibility," but would rather be of a different nature altogether. If this is so, however, doesn't the possibility of a child become necessary in early pregnancy, if the potential for parenthood is present when abortion occurs? If being a 'parent' is directly codependent upon another's being 'son' or 'daughter,' then we can rightly infer that the potential for human life has been initiated at the point of conception—even if many disagree about when that animated life begins. Nevertheless, Michelle Obama's statement is not focused on determining the moment of animation, as we have previously established; it is focused on embracing "sacred responsibility," and nothing sacred can spontaneously be generated if not first in a state of potential, itself in some way sacred by virtue of its life-giving role.

I think it would be difficult for any mother to submit, and particularly one who loves her children, that the right to abortion does not violate something altogether sacred. Although Obama's statement does not seek to identify when life does or does not begin, by seeking to identify parenthood as something intimately linked to pregnancy, she therefore recognizes that the potential for life does exist, even at the most early stages of conception. Her thoughts as a mother are telling. Frankly, I think they betray a fundamental concept of life which is in conflict with her and her husband's outlook on abortion and the 'right to choose.' I am curious what others think of this, and to what extent other Catholics will latch onto her address in similar fashion...

Nancy Pelosi teaches us an important lesson in the distinction between catechetics and theology: they aren't the same thing.

If you've read the news lately, you couldn't have missed the bit about the Speaker of the House's attempt to justify her pro-choice stance on abortion by aligning herself with the theological tradition of St. Augustine. The following, taken from a rebuttal by her spokesman, sums up her thinking:

After she was elected to Congress, and the choice issue became more public as she would have to vote on it, she studied the matter more closely. Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of Saint Augustine, who said: ‘…the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation…’ (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22)

No surprise to any serious scholar of Catholic thought is the fact that the views of saints do not always express the views of the Church. Although saints—and particularly Fathers and Doctors of the Church—attain such recognition by thinking and acting in accord with the faith of the Church, and by pursuing virtue and holiness to a degree that is exemplary and commendable, they are still humans with human opinions and biases. This is precisely one of those examples.

Amidst the onslaught of reprisal from Church authorities (one unprecedented in recent years), US bishops sought to establish just what the position of the Church, in relation to the ideas of saints such as Augustine, really states.

In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church's moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception—fertilization—each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

The advance of modern science does not, thus, enable us to condemn St. Augustine as a liar or heretic. He was a product of his environment, scientifically speaking, and was therefore confined to the conceptions of procreation available in his historical period. Nancy Pelosi, and other Catholic politicians, are similarly products of their historical matrix, and are responsible for discerning truth insofar as truth is discernible. It is not appropriate nor just to point toward a medieval conception of reality if modern conceptions and demonstrations of reality prove otherwise; to such would be a denial of man's ability to reason and develop over the course of time, and an ultimate disavowal of his dignity as a rational creature.

What I find most perplexing about this whole matter is that no self-respecting politician nowadays would point to the Middle Ages as a basis for understanding the role of women in the workplace, or in society at large. They would be criticized as supporting chauvinistic and dated views. But to identify a medieval theory of human conception as scientifically valid is not only permissible, for some politicians, it is laudable. "While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception," continued Pelosi's spokesman, "many Catholics do not ascribe to that view." Perhaps Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues in thought are simply ahead of the curve, jumping ahead of what the Church recognizes as true. Or perhaps she is afraid to admit that her position is indefensible. Either way, you can be assured, Saint Augustine is rolling in his grave.