All For The Want of a Horseshoe Nail: The Scapegoating Begins

Source: Bishops Share The Blame | Blogs | NCRegister.com

[Disclosure: This article is an expansion of a response I wrote on another blog]

Let the Blames Begin…

For better or worse, health care has passed.  I believe it is for the worse of course.  Not because I oppose a reform of the system we have, but because it is a "reform" which makes legal things which must be condemned and opposed as evil.  What I find tragic however is to see that instead of a unified front to challenge the evils, we are now seeing infighting among the Christians, pointing fingers.  Among Catholics, this is shown as pointing fingers at "The Bishops."

The problem I have with the Register's assessment, in saying…

Again, while the Bishops have acquitted themselves well through this process recently, they cannot ignore the past.

The hard truth is that for years the Bishops have allied themselves with the pro-abort party in matters related to health-care, and now they claim 11th hour betrayal.

When you hang out with thieves, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get robbed.

Moreover, the Bishops silence for years in the face of pro-abortion Catholic politicians has given aid and comfort to those who seek the death of children.  The Bishop’s unwillingness, with some obvious exceptions, to effectively address or discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians allowed for the Democrats to portray the Church as divided on the issue.  They have also allowed a culture of dissent to flourish for decades that culminated in the shameful last minute endorsement by a group of radical nuns that seriously hurt the cause of life.

The bishops’ decades long collective silence on these issues allowed for this culture to develop and has resulted in the USCCB being understandably criticized as an extension of the Democrat party (the Democrat party at prayer they say).  This is the horrible result of that ungodly alliance.

…is that while many bishops may not have saw the danger at the time, they certainly stood strong during this Health Care debate.  I was never in any doubt that the USCCB opposed the Senate Bill from the time it was originally created, so I disagree with the "11th hour" claim.

Reflections on the American Bishops

Yes, American bishops had been weak for decades.  For that matter, German Bishops prior to 1517 were also weak in enforcing discipline in the Church, leading to the abuses that Luther opposed.  Does that mean the bishops after this time were to blame as they sought to repair the damage done?  Whatever happened in the past is past.  As Catholics, we believe that people can repent and begin working for the truth.  Many of those bishops responsible for the silence of the 80s and 90s are retired or deceased.  Many of those who remain seem to have been strongly encouraged when Pope Benedict XVI visited America and began speaking out.

Remote Cause vs. Immediate Cause

This is the confusing a remote cause with an immediate cause, like the old poem:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail

Often (mis)interpreted as saying small things lead to big losses.  However, one has to assess how far back one can reasonably assign blame.  Is it reasonable to say because one nail was missing, the kingdom was lost?  Or is it more reasonable to assign blame to a failure to prepare for contingencies?

Did certain bishops back in the 1980s and 1990s often behave ineffectually?  Yes.  Did they sometimes identify Democratic policies with Catholic teaching?  Yes, tragically.  Did some bishops think Obama would be a good president?  Yes, it sadly seems to be so.

Is it correct to say that because bishops in the past failed to act as they ought, that this is the cause of the situation we face today?  I think not.  I am inclined to think the direct cause of this is too many placed all their trust in Stupak and failing to consider other contingencies.  The bishops who spoke out did not rely on Stupak.  They kept speaking out to the members of Congress, seeking to convince as many as they could of their moral duties.

Who Failed to do Their Job Now (As Opposed to the Past)?

Some failed in their duty and some did not.  This is why I must disagree with the Register article when it says:

Blame may be cathartic for some but that is not the reason I bring this sorry history up now.  Like the Republicans, the Bishops too must learn from their mistakes.  If they continue to ally themselves with the Democrat party and continue their cowardly and ineffective “pastoral” approach to pro-death Catholic politicians things will only get worse, and yes they can get worse.

So it is time for all of us to admit our mistakes and learn from them.  Lives depend on it.  We failed them before, let’s not do it again.

The problem I have is that it is clear from the actions of Bishops being increasingly vocal since the beginning of the Obama administration that they already have learned from their mistakes.  Yes, we now need to do more still.  Some may still do less than they ought, but this article seems to negate the strong witness bishops have given.

If We Wish to Judge, Let Us Begin With Ourselves

^{1 †} “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^† [Commentary from NAB] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Mat 7:5,6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.

People want someone to blame.  If so, perhaps we should begin with ourselves, on our own failure to do enough at our level.  Did we do our best to oppose the bill, or did we decide to let Stupak do it for us, failing to consider he might be turned?

I believe that, if we examine our actions, most of us will have to say the latter.  Perhaps I should have written more on the subject than I did, for example.  I believed the statements of the bishops were quite strong, but perhaps I ought to have made them available on this site to inform the (admittedly small) number of followers of this site.  I could have looked for links to put on the site banner.  I couldn't have forced people to change their minds, but I could have perhaps let others know of other views.  For that, I can only say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Yes it is easy to point fingers.  Yes, Archbishop Niederauer (for example) should have imposed discipline on Pelosi long before.  Yes other bishops have been lax.  Yes, the USCCB can use a better system of vetting when people try to use their name to promote a political agenda.  Yes, the visitation of the American nuns should immediately be ratcheted up a few notches in intensity.

Indicting the Whole For the Acts of Some

However, there is a large difference between being disappointed in saying certain bishops should have done more and indicting "the bishops" as a whole.

The USCCB did make their voice known through the proceedings, urging changes and once it became clear that the final senate bill was set, shifted to outright opposition.  When the CHA made their 11th hour deceits, when certain nuns misrepresented themselves as speaking for 60,000, when the Stupak compromise was announced, the USCCB made clear that these things were unacceptable, and urged members of Congress to vote against this law.

Certain Catholics in Congress may have used the words of dissenters to justify their wrong actions, but they would be guilty of vincible ignorance in the face of what the Bishops spoke out about.

We cannot control what others do of course.  We can control what we do.  We can only make our voice be heard and pray.

What If They Opposed Obamacare and Nobody Came?

I believe this comic, from DBD.com makes clear our duty now.  If we know this bill will impose injustices on us, it is up to us to fight, and not expect others to.  I think Berthold Brecht said it well:

What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.

Let's avoid pointless recriminations now.  We have this to deal with now, and we need to face it united as Christians, not infighting among ourselves.  The infighting, the blame seeking and the scapegoating only aids those we must oppose.

Now, for better or for worse we have this system of Health care.  Now, it is our duty to challenge those aspects of it which are contrary to what we believe to be right and just.

Now is not the time to blame and scapegoat.

All For The Want of a Horseshoe Nail: The Scapegoating Begins

Source: Bishops Share The Blame | Blogs | NCRegister.com

[Disclosure: This article is an expansion of a response I wrote on another blog]

Let the Blames Begin…

For better or worse, health care has passed.  I believe it is for the worse of course.  Not because I oppose a reform of the system we have, but because it is a "reform" which makes legal things which must be condemned and opposed as evil.  What I find tragic however is to see that instead of a unified front to challenge the evils, we are now seeing infighting among the Christians, pointing fingers.  Among Catholics, this is shown as pointing fingers at "The Bishops."

The problem I have with the Register's assessment, in saying…

Again, while the Bishops have acquitted themselves well through this process recently, they cannot ignore the past.

The hard truth is that for years the Bishops have allied themselves with the pro-abort party in matters related to health-care, and now they claim 11th hour betrayal.

When you hang out with thieves, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get robbed.

Moreover, the Bishops silence for years in the face of pro-abortion Catholic politicians has given aid and comfort to those who seek the death of children.  The Bishop’s unwillingness, with some obvious exceptions, to effectively address or discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians allowed for the Democrats to portray the Church as divided on the issue.  They have also allowed a culture of dissent to flourish for decades that culminated in the shameful last minute endorsement by a group of radical nuns that seriously hurt the cause of life.

The bishops’ decades long collective silence on these issues allowed for this culture to develop and has resulted in the USCCB being understandably criticized as an extension of the Democrat party (the Democrat party at prayer they say).  This is the horrible result of that ungodly alliance.

…is that while many bishops may not have saw the danger at the time, they certainly stood strong during this Health Care debate.  I was never in any doubt that the USCCB opposed the Senate Bill from the time it was originally created, so I disagree with the "11th hour" claim.

Reflections on the American Bishops

Yes, American bishops had been weak for decades.  For that matter, German Bishops prior to 1517 were also weak in enforcing discipline in the Church, leading to the abuses that Luther opposed.  Does that mean the bishops after this time were to blame as they sought to repair the damage done?  Whatever happened in the past is past.  As Catholics, we believe that people can repent and begin working for the truth.  Many of those bishops responsible for the silence of the 80s and 90s are retired or deceased.  Many of those who remain seem to have been strongly encouraged when Pope Benedict XVI visited America and began speaking out.

Remote Cause vs. Immediate Cause

This is the confusing a remote cause with an immediate cause, like the old poem:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail

Often (mis)interpreted as saying small things lead to big losses.  However, one has to assess how far back one can reasonably assign blame.  Is it reasonable to say because one nail was missing, the kingdom was lost?  Or is it more reasonable to assign blame to a failure to prepare for contingencies?

Did certain bishops back in the 1980s and 1990s often behave ineffectually?  Yes.  Did they sometimes identify Democratic policies with Catholic teaching?  Yes, tragically.  Did some bishops think Obama would be a good president?  Yes, it sadly seems to be so.

Is it correct to say that because bishops in the past failed to act as they ought, that this is the cause of the situation we face today?  I think not.  I am inclined to think the direct cause of this is too many placed all their trust in Stupak and failing to consider other contingencies.  The bishops who spoke out did not rely on Stupak.  They kept speaking out to the members of Congress, seeking to convince as many as they could of their moral duties.

Who Failed to do Their Job Now (As Opposed to the Past)?

Some failed in their duty and some did not.  This is why I must disagree with the Register article when it says:

Blame may be cathartic for some but that is not the reason I bring this sorry history up now.  Like the Republicans, the Bishops too must learn from their mistakes.  If they continue to ally themselves with the Democrat party and continue their cowardly and ineffective “pastoral” approach to pro-death Catholic politicians things will only get worse, and yes they can get worse.

So it is time for all of us to admit our mistakes and learn from them.  Lives depend on it.  We failed them before, let’s not do it again.

The problem I have is that it is clear from the actions of Bishops being increasingly vocal since the beginning of the Obama administration that they already have learned from their mistakes.  Yes, we now need to do more still.  Some may still do less than they ought, but this article seems to negate the strong witness bishops have given.

If We Wish to Judge, Let Us Begin With Ourselves

^{1 †} “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^† [Commentary from NAB] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Mat 7:5,6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.

People want someone to blame.  If so, perhaps we should begin with ourselves, on our own failure to do enough at our level.  Did we do our best to oppose the bill, or did we decide to let Stupak do it for us, failing to consider he might be turned?

I believe that, if we examine our actions, most of us will have to say the latter.  Perhaps I should have written more on the subject than I did, for example.  I believed the statements of the bishops were quite strong, but perhaps I ought to have made them available on this site to inform the (admittedly small) number of followers of this site.  I could have looked for links to put on the site banner.  I couldn't have forced people to change their minds, but I could have perhaps let others know of other views.  For that, I can only say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Yes it is easy to point fingers.  Yes, Archbishop Niederauer (for example) should have imposed discipline on Pelosi long before.  Yes other bishops have been lax.  Yes, the USCCB can use a better system of vetting when people try to use their name to promote a political agenda.  Yes, the visitation of the American nuns should immediately be ratcheted up a few notches in intensity.

Indicting the Whole For the Acts of Some

However, there is a large difference between being disappointed in saying certain bishops should have done more and indicting "the bishops" as a whole.

The USCCB did make their voice known through the proceedings, urging changes and once it became clear that the final senate bill was set, shifted to outright opposition.  When the CHA made their 11th hour deceits, when certain nuns misrepresented themselves as speaking for 60,000, when the Stupak compromise was announced, the USCCB made clear that these things were unacceptable, and urged members of Congress to vote against this law.

Certain Catholics in Congress may have used the words of dissenters to justify their wrong actions, but they would be guilty of vincible ignorance in the face of what the Bishops spoke out about.

We cannot control what others do of course.  We can control what we do.  We can only make our voice be heard and pray.

What If They Opposed Obamacare and Nobody Came?

I believe this comic, from DBD.com makes clear our duty now.  If we know this bill will impose injustices on us, it is up to us to fight, and not expect others to.  I think Berthold Brecht said it well:

What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.

Let's avoid pointless recriminations now.  We have this to deal with now, and we need to face it united as Christians, not infighting among ourselves.  The infighting, the blame seeking and the scapegoating only aids those we must oppose.

Now, for better or for worse we have this system of Health care.  Now, it is our duty to challenge those aspects of it which are contrary to what we believe to be right and just.

Now is not the time to blame and scapegoat.

Analysis of Cardinal Rigali and the Health Care Bill

Source: CNSNews.com - Top Catholic Cardinal Says 'No Way' Catholic Members of Congress Can Support Senate Health Care Bill That Funds Abortion

I know some people are going to miss the point and accuse Cardinal Rigali of waffling on the issue, so I thought I'd link this article here because of the great clarifications it makes.

Cardinal Rigali was asked if it was mortal or venial sin to vote for a pro-abortion bill.

Rigali replied:

“People have to follow their conscience, but their conscience has to be well-formed,” said Rigali. “And you have to make sure that when it is a question of doing something that has a provision, if it has a provision in it for abortion, then this is absolutely wrong by every standard and not by the standards of the Catholic Church as you see here today.  It’s the standards of Christian, standards of the natural law.

“Everyone is called. Yes, no, any bill, any bill that has abortion in it is in our opinion to be rejected,” Rigali continued. “But keep in mind that health reform as such is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But a bill that includes it, there’s no way in the world that it can be supported and if it comes down to that.  Once again we have the coming down as we examined in other questions. If it comes down to that, then we would urge, urge, a rejection because health reform is necessary, it has to be reformed, and it can’t be killing.”

Some people will claim he is not giving a straight answer on the question, but the truth is, he is giving us the information we need.

1. Conscience must be well formed
2. Abortion is absolutely wrong, and can never be supported
3. Health Care Reform is good
4. However, Health Care Reform which supports abortion can never be supported, and must be rejected.

From this, we can reason:

• A person with a well formed conscience knows abortion can never be supported
• The Senate Bill has abortion support
• Therefore a person with a well formed conscience can never support the Senate abortion bill.

Fr. Sirico, in this article offers an excellent commentary on this, which is well in keeping with the teaching of the Magisterium:

“When you ask if something is a mortal sin or a venial sin, you’re asking a question with regard to the individual act,”

“When we’re talking about the broad morality of the thing, we’re talking about as it exists in natural law,” he said.  Abortion and funding abortion violate the natural law and are gravely immoral. But for a person to commit a mortal sin, Sirico said, three conditions must be met: the act must be gravely wrong, the person must know it is gravely wrong, and the person must deliberately choose to do it.

“So, the reason the cardinal seemed like he wasn’t answering the question directly is because you can’t judge this along every congressperson, because it depends on their individual knowledge and their individual act of free will,” Sirico said.

“And so, it is grave, and if a person knows that it’s grave, and acts upon it freely, they may have committed a mortal sin,” he said.

Of course with the Church giving strong notice of the grave evil of abortion, the claims of not knowing it is gravely wrong is shrinking drastically.  Vatican II has taught, in Gaudium et spes #16:

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

If one claims to be a Catholic, then it stands to reason that one must follow what the Church teaches with authority.  On the issue of abortion, the Catholic Church is quite clear:

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. (Gaudium et spes #27)

and

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (Gaudium et spes #51)

A Catholic who would claim invincible ignorance to the teaching of the Church must confess gross ignorance not only to the teaching of the Church, but also gross ignorance to the knowledge of the authority of the magisterium, if they would ignore the teaching of the bishops speaking out on abortion in America.

A Catholic Politician knowing that the Church teaches abortion is gravely evil, and knowing this freely chooses to vote in favor of laws protecting or expanding abortion rights does indeed seem to be guilty of mortal sin.

So Rigali is pointing out that a Catholic who believes abortion is acceptable to vote for does not have a well formed conscience, and if he knows that abortion is condemned as evil and supports it all the same with this full knowledge, they are knowingly cooperating with a grave evil.

That's mortal sin.

So what are we obligated to know, and what is invincible ignorance?

Thomas Aquinas makes this distinction:

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)

So, to be invincible ignorance, it would have to be something which a man is unable to know, even through the study which was available to him.  If he could have found out, if he had bothered to look, it is not invincible, but vincible ignorance.

Could a Catholic Pro-abortion politician find out about the grave evil of abortion?  Certainly.  He only needs consult the magisterium.  Is he bound to know it?  He is, if he would be an informed Catholic in relation to his task of making laws.

So by failing to learn what he is bound to learn, the Catholic pro-abortion politician is committing a sin of omission, and by acting in a way contrary to how he is required to act, he is performing a sin of commission.

Now, not knowing (As Fr. Sirico pointed out) just how responsible each politician is for his or her own ignorance, we cannot say definitively who is guilty of mortal sin.  All we can do is to instruct and to remove ignorance, so that those who do not know the truth might choose truth over error.

If the person is instructed, and chooses to remain in their error to do evil, then they will answer to God for it.

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Reflections on Cardinal O'Malley and His Blog Entry on the Kennedy Funeral

Source: Cardinal Seán's Blog » On Senator Kennedy’s Funeral

This article is written with Canon 212 §3 in mind:

They [The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

What I say here is written with full recognition and respect of Cardinal O’Malley being the head of the Archdiocese of Boston and possessing the authority as a successor to the Apostles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is no doubt that the public funeral which praised Ted Kennedy was scandalous to many.  Ted Kennedy was not only failing to oppose abortion, but he was known for his active role to expand the rights of abortion and opposing limitations, earning a 100% rating from NARAL.

Now much has been written about Kennedy and whether he had repented in the end to merit a public funeral instead of a private one (See here for a canon lawyer’s take).   This may indeed be true.  I do not have the facts to judge, and I certainly do not have the right to judge whether or not he died in a state of grace.  However, the point is he not only failed to protect life for the unborn, he was an active opponent of such attempts to do so.

In other words it was an active choice on his part.  Sins of Commission, not of Omission.

It is because of this I find the blog of Cardinal O’Malley very troubling indeed in speaking about the controversy of the funeral.

The first area of alarm comes when the Cardinal writes:

Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publically support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. ­­­Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefitted from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn.  To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished.

As I said above, Kennedy did not sin by omission.  He sinned by commission.  His actions were in opposition to the protection of life, not a failure to act for life.  In contrast, Pope John Paul II wrote:

In this way, and with tragic consequences, a long historical process is reaching a turning-point. The process which once led to discovering the idea of "human rights"-rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State legislation-is today marked by a surprising contradiction. Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.

On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.

On the other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. This denial is still more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely because it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How can these repeated affirmations of principle be reconciled with the continual increase and widespread justification of attacks on human life? How can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal to accept those who are weak and needy, or elderly, or those who have just been conceived? These attacks go directly against respect for life and they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of "people living together", our cities risk becoming societies of people who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed. If we then look at the wider worldwide perspective, how can we fail to think that the very affirmation of the rights of individuals and peoples made in distinguished international assemblies is a merely futile exercise of rhetoric, if we fail to unmask the selfishness of the rich countries which exclude poorer countries from access to development or make such access dependent on arbitrary prohibitions against procreation, setting up an opposition between development and man himself? Should we not question the very economic models often adopted by States which, also as a result of international pressures and forms of conditioning, cause and aggravate situations of injustice and violence in which the life of whole peoples is degraded and trampled upon? (Evangelium Vitae #18)

In other words, Kennedy did not "fail" to support abortion and thus diminish his record as the Cardinal put it.  The right to life is key and without it, all other areas of social justice are just so much straw.  Kennedy opposed the right to life, actively and it negated his other work.

The second statement of the Cardinal I found deeply disappointing was when he wrote:

At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another.  These attitudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church.  If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness, it will be doomed to marginalization and failure.  Jesus’ words to us were that we must love one another as He loves us.  Jesus loves us while we are still in sin.  He loves each of us first, and He loves us to the end.  Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the Church, for our proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other.

I would like to remind the reader that Pope John Paul II used the very strong (some would call "harsh") label of Culture of Death.  Pope John Paul II wrote:

At another level, the roots of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them. While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of "the strong" against the weak who have no choice but to submit. (ibid #19)

Yes Jesus still loves us in our sins.  However, we must atone for our sins.  St. John wrote in his first epistle, chapter 4:

^20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. ^21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

It is estimated that an average of one million to 1.5 million unborn children are aborted in America alone each year.  The Catholic Church believes these unborn children are human persons.  This is a real evil which Kennedy lent his support to against the clear teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject.  Now it is indeed possible that he could have repented on his deathbed, and we are required to pray for his soul and not wish him in Hell.

However, to speak of the "good" he has done, while downplaying the evil he did in life is to indicate we do not think abortion important.  It's as if we spoke of Mussolini for bringing stability to Italy and making the trains run on time while ignoring that many people were killed on account of what he did.

Cardinal O'Malley has indeed spoken out on life issues.  However in the way he writes here he makes it possible to believe that while yes Kennedy was wrong on abortion, he was right on other issues and Other Issues > Abortion.

This is not what the Church teaches and I don't think the Cardinal intends it either.  But his words are written in such a way that one might think him indifferent on the issue of life… that it is not as important as other issues.

Really all we can say of Kennedy is that while he did some good things, he also did some terrible things which run counter to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, and these terrible things were on an issue the Catholic Church teaches is fundamental.

So let us not lionize Kennedy.  Let us not speak of him as a tragic hero.  He was a great public sinner for whom we pray God will have mercy on his soul and remember that Matthew told us in Chapter 7:2 — "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

So as we pray for his soul, let the Church in America look at his legacy and say "Never again will we permit such a scandal in the Church."

Reflections on Cardinal O'Malley and His Blog Entry on the Kennedy Funeral

Source: Cardinal Seán's Blog » On Senator Kennedy’s Funeral

This article is written with Canon 212 §3 in mind:

They [The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

What I say here is written with full recognition and respect of Cardinal O’Malley being the head of the Archdiocese of Boston and possessing the authority as a successor to the Apostles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is no doubt that the public funeral which praised Ted Kennedy was scandalous to many.  Ted Kennedy was not only failing to oppose abortion, but he was known for his active role to expand the rights of abortion and opposing limitations, earning a 100% rating from NARAL.

Now much has been written about Kennedy and whether he had repented in the end to merit a public funeral instead of a private one (See here for a canon lawyer’s take).   This may indeed be true.  I do not have the facts to judge, and I certainly do not have the right to judge whether or not he died in a state of grace.  However, the point is he not only failed to protect life for the unborn, he was an active opponent of such attempts to do so.

In other words it was an active choice on his part.  Sins of Commission, not of Omission.

It is because of this I find the blog of Cardinal O’Malley very troubling indeed in speaking about the controversy of the funeral.

The first area of alarm comes when the Cardinal writes:

Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publically support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. ­­­Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefitted from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn.  To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished.

As I said above, Kennedy did not sin by omission.  He sinned by commission.  His actions were in opposition to the protection of life, not a failure to act for life.  In contrast, Pope John Paul II wrote:

In this way, and with tragic consequences, a long historical process is reaching a turning-point. The process which once led to discovering the idea of "human rights"-rights inherent in every person and prior to any Constitution and State legislation-is today marked by a surprising contradiction. Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.

On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.

On the other hand, these noble proclamations are unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. This denial is still more distressing, indeed more scandalous, precisely because it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast. How can these repeated affirmations of principle be reconciled with the continual increase and widespread justification of attacks on human life? How can we reconcile these declarations with the refusal to accept those who are weak and needy, or elderly, or those who have just been conceived? These attacks go directly against respect for life and they represent a direct threat to the entire culture of human rights. It is a threat capable, in the end, of jeopardizing the very meaning of democratic coexistence: rather than societies of "people living together", our cities risk becoming societies of people who are rejected, marginalized, uprooted and oppressed. If we then look at the wider worldwide perspective, how can we fail to think that the very affirmation of the rights of individuals and peoples made in distinguished international assemblies is a merely futile exercise of rhetoric, if we fail to unmask the selfishness of the rich countries which exclude poorer countries from access to development or make such access dependent on arbitrary prohibitions against procreation, setting up an opposition between development and man himself? Should we not question the very economic models often adopted by States which, also as a result of international pressures and forms of conditioning, cause and aggravate situations of injustice and violence in which the life of whole peoples is degraded and trampled upon? (Evangelium Vitae #18)

In other words, Kennedy did not "fail" to support abortion and thus diminish his record as the Cardinal put it.  The right to life is key and without it, all other areas of social justice are just so much straw.  Kennedy opposed the right to life, actively and it negated his other work.

The second statement of the Cardinal I found deeply disappointing was when he wrote:

At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another.  These attitudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church.  If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness, it will be doomed to marginalization and failure.  Jesus’ words to us were that we must love one another as He loves us.  Jesus loves us while we are still in sin.  He loves each of us first, and He loves us to the end.  Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the Church, for our proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other.

I would like to remind the reader that Pope John Paul II used the very strong (some would call "harsh") label of Culture of Death.  Pope John Paul II wrote:

At another level, the roots of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them. While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of "the strong" against the weak who have no choice but to submit. (ibid #19)

Yes Jesus still loves us in our sins.  However, we must atone for our sins.  St. John wrote in his first epistle, chapter 4:

^20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. ^21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

It is estimated that an average of one million to 1.5 million unborn children are aborted in America alone each year.  The Catholic Church believes these unborn children are human persons.  This is a real evil which Kennedy lent his support to against the clear teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject.  Now it is indeed possible that he could have repented on his deathbed, and we are required to pray for his soul and not wish him in Hell.

However, to speak of the "good" he has done, while downplaying the evil he did in life is to indicate we do not think abortion important.  It's as if we spoke of Mussolini for bringing stability to Italy and making the trains run on time while ignoring that many people were killed on account of what he did.

Cardinal O'Malley has indeed spoken out on life issues.  However in the way he writes here he makes it possible to believe that while yes Kennedy was wrong on abortion, he was right on other issues and Other Issues > Abortion.

This is not what the Church teaches and I don't think the Cardinal intends it either.  But his words are written in such a way that one might think him indifferent on the issue of life… that it is not as important as other issues.

Really all we can say of Kennedy is that while he did some good things, he also did some terrible things which run counter to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, and these terrible things were on an issue the Catholic Church teaches is fundamental.

So let us not lionize Kennedy.  Let us not speak of him as a tragic hero.  He was a great public sinner for whom we pray God will have mercy on his soul and remember that Matthew told us in Chapter 7:2 — "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

So as we pray for his soul, let the Church in America look at his legacy and say "Never again will we permit such a scandal in the Church."

If We Are Silent On This, We Do Not Deserve to be Considered a Free Nation

Sources: ADF: NH court orders home-schooled child into government-run school - Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty; http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KurowskiOrder.pdf 

Pundit Ann Coulter once remarked that when dealing with liberalism you can’t employ the reductio ad absurdum (reducing to absurdity) to point out the problems with a claim because no matter how one distorts it, somebody has already proposed it.

This seems to fit well with this story from New Hampshire (State slogan Live Free or Die — which state laws seem to be moving towards option two).  It is reported that a child who was homeschooled and described as  above average  academically and well liked socially was recommended that she be put into a public school.  Why?  Because she is a believing Christian and her father (the girl’s parents are divorced) does not like that.

The news report reads:

Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl’s “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view” and then recommended that the girl be ordered to enroll in a government school instead of being home-schooled.

This isn’t just a “hysterical right wing” report.  It’s in the Judge’s ruling as well:

Despite Ms. Voydatch's insistence that Amanda's choice to share her mother's religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.

In other words, if you are ten years old and raised as a devout Christian it means you have not been exposed to the views of others and need to be in order to ensure you fairly consider other views.  The problem with the issue is this; the father does not like the fact that his daughter is a devout Christian, and the Judge’s ruling states:

In her Further Report and testimony, the Guardian ad Litem echoed her previous concerns that Amanda's relationship with her father suffers to some degree by her belief that his refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does. Amanda expressed these feelings to the counselor.

There is a red flag here all right, and one which the guardian ad litem allows to sail right by.  These statements by the daughter indicate a Father who is contemptuous of the faith.  The comment of “his choice instead to spend eternity away from her” indicates a response to his daughter which the Father is not acting respectfully of his daughter’s beliefs.

The report goes on to say:

Mr. Kurowski testified that he and Amanda both enjoy his parenting time; Amanda particularly enjoys the contact with Mr. Kurowski's other daughter. They rarely discuss religion, although they have, several times in the past. He believes that exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs, and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world which requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view.

What we have here is the state making the decision between parents over how much religious belief is “normal” or “abnormal.”  This is a decision the state has no right to make.

This becomes especially concerning when the ruling goes on to say:

Ms. Voydatch acknowledges the strength of her own religious beliefs. She acknowledges that she shares those beliefs with Amanda, but denies that she pushes Amanda to believe the same things. In fact, she testified that Amanda told the counselor that she was upset with the parenting schedule because her father "bombards her constantly" about her faith and won't let her alone about it. She testified that Amanda's wide variety of adverse symptoms are caused by her increased contact with her father. In response to Mr, Kurowski's testimony that Amanda enjoys her parenting time with him, Ms. Voydatch offers her observation that Amanda only reveals her true feelings and behaviors when she is at home with her mother, who is the "trusted adult" in her life.

This testimony seems to follow what this counselor has said.  Yet the courts and the counselor has ignored this, and used a straw man fallacy to justify their decision.

Without considering Mr. Kurowski's testimony that Amanda enjoys her parenting time with him, the evidence gathered from the counselor and from the school teachers does not support the conclusion that Amanda is a deeply troubled child at risk for emotional and mental damage from exposure to her father. To the contrary, the evidence support a finding that Amanda is generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level.

So the father essentially accuses the mother of making his daughter into a zealot.  The mother claims that the father seems to hold her faith as something harmful for her and challenges the daughter on it, and the court employs a Straw Man fallacy which says she’s not an “at-risk” child because of her exposure to her father.  That isn’t the issue here.  The issue is the father considers the girl’s religious faith to be a hindrance to their relationship and the state considers the girl’s faith to be subservient to the wishes of the father.

The willful ignorance of the state on the issues here is shown when it comes for the ruling on weekend custody.  On the issue of Sunday visits, the ruling states:

Mr. Kurowski seeks a routine schedule which would have Amanda with him on three out of every four weekends, but the Court concludes, in part based on the Guardian ad Litem's conclusions and recommendations, that Amanda should have generally equal exposure to each parent for her weekends, particularly if Ms. Voydatch will not be home schooling Amanda. Assigning the fifth weekend of those months with five weekends to Mr. Kurowski is an adequate response to assignment of the majority of residential responsibility for Amanda to Ms. Voydatch.

The court calls it “Weekends” yet a couple of paragraphs earlier, the dispute hinges on Sundays:

The parties present different specific proposals for Sunday night overnights for Mr. Kurowski's parenting time, the number of weekends per month for his time, and provisions for the school summer vacation schedule. The Court considers these proposals by reference to Amanda's best interests.

Mr. Kurowski wants three Sundays out of every four.  Sunday just happens to be the Christian day of worship.  Based on other testimony given in the report (linked in the sources above), it seems more evidence of a father hostile to his daughter’s religious faith.

It seems to me that the issue is Mr. Kurowski objects to his daughter’s religious convictions and wants to reduce them… and the state is agreeing with the father.

It is unfortunate of course when parents divorce and cannot agree on the religious upbringing of the children.  I do not personally have knowledge of Ms. Voydatch’s religious affiliation nor do I know what I would think of her theology.

However, the fact that the state considers the daughter’s religious conviction to be abnormal and believes the girl would be better served “exposed to other views” is an extreme overstepping of the bounds of the freedom of religion.

Now, it would be another issue if the family shared one faith and then after the divorce the mother radically changed faith and sought to turn the daughter against the father and the faith the family practiced together.  However, this isn’t the issue.  Rather we seem to have an irreligious father and a religious mother who has raised her daughter according to her faith… and the courts agree with the father.

God save us all if we allow the courts to decide how much faith is too much for our own good.

This is why I say that if we are silent on this, America does not deserve to be considered a free nation.  The State will have usurped the right to do good.  Freedom after all, is not the freedom to do what we wish, but the freedom to do what we ought to do.

If We Are Silent On This, We Do Not Deserve to be Considered a Free Nation

Sources: ADF: NH court orders home-schooled child into government-run school - Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty; http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KurowskiOrder.pdf 

Pundit Ann Coulter once remarked that when dealing with liberalism you can’t employ the reductio ad absurdum (reducing to absurdity) to point out the problems with a claim because no matter how one distorts it, somebody has already proposed it.

This seems to fit well with this story from New Hampshire (State slogan Live Free or Die — which state laws seem to be moving towards option two).  It is reported that a child who was homeschooled and described as  above average  academically and well liked socially was recommended that she be put into a public school.  Why?  Because she is a believing Christian and her father (the girl’s parents are divorced) does not like that.

The news report reads:

Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl’s “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view” and then recommended that the girl be ordered to enroll in a government school instead of being home-schooled.

This isn’t just a “hysterical right wing” report.  It’s in the Judge’s ruling as well:

Despite Ms. Voydatch's insistence that Amanda's choice to share her mother's religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.

In other words, if you are ten years old and raised as a devout Christian it means you have not been exposed to the views of others and need to be in order to ensure you fairly consider other views.  The problem with the issue is this; the father does not like the fact that his daughter is a devout Christian, and the Judge’s ruling states:

In her Further Report and testimony, the Guardian ad Litem echoed her previous concerns that Amanda's relationship with her father suffers to some degree by her belief that his refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does. Amanda expressed these feelings to the counselor.

There is a red flag here all right, and one which the guardian ad litem allows to sail right by.  These statements by the daughter indicate a Father who is contemptuous of the faith.  The comment of “his choice instead to spend eternity away from her” indicates a response to his daughter which the Father is not acting respectfully of his daughter’s beliefs.

The report goes on to say:

Mr. Kurowski testified that he and Amanda both enjoy his parenting time; Amanda particularly enjoys the contact with Mr. Kurowski's other daughter. They rarely discuss religion, although they have, several times in the past. He believes that exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs, and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world which requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view.

What we have here is the state making the decision between parents over how much religious belief is “normal” or “abnormal.”  This is a decision the state has no right to make.

This becomes especially concerning when the ruling goes on to say:

Ms. Voydatch acknowledges the strength of her own religious beliefs. She acknowledges that she shares those beliefs with Amanda, but denies that she pushes Amanda to believe the same things. In fact, she testified that Amanda told the counselor that she was upset with the parenting schedule because her father "bombards her constantly" about her faith and won't let her alone about it. She testified that Amanda's wide variety of adverse symptoms are caused by her increased contact with her father. In response to Mr, Kurowski's testimony that Amanda enjoys her parenting time with him, Ms. Voydatch offers her observation that Amanda only reveals her true feelings and behaviors when she is at home with her mother, who is the "trusted adult" in her life.

This testimony seems to follow what this counselor has said.  Yet the courts and the counselor has ignored this, and used a straw man fallacy to justify their decision.

Without considering Mr. Kurowski's testimony that Amanda enjoys her parenting time with him, the evidence gathered from the counselor and from the school teachers does not support the conclusion that Amanda is a deeply troubled child at risk for emotional and mental damage from exposure to her father. To the contrary, the evidence support a finding that Amanda is generally likeable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level.

So the father essentially accuses the mother of making his daughter into a zealot.  The mother claims that the father seems to hold her faith as something harmful for her and challenges the daughter on it, and the court employs a Straw Man fallacy which says she’s not an “at-risk” child because of her exposure to her father.  That isn’t the issue here.  The issue is the father considers the girl’s religious faith to be a hindrance to their relationship and the state considers the girl’s faith to be subservient to the wishes of the father.

The willful ignorance of the state on the issues here is shown when it comes for the ruling on weekend custody.  On the issue of Sunday visits, the ruling states:

Mr. Kurowski seeks a routine schedule which would have Amanda with him on three out of every four weekends, but the Court concludes, in part based on the Guardian ad Litem's conclusions and recommendations, that Amanda should have generally equal exposure to each parent for her weekends, particularly if Ms. Voydatch will not be home schooling Amanda. Assigning the fifth weekend of those months with five weekends to Mr. Kurowski is an adequate response to assignment of the majority of residential responsibility for Amanda to Ms. Voydatch.

The court calls it “Weekends” yet a couple of paragraphs earlier, the dispute hinges on Sundays:

The parties present different specific proposals for Sunday night overnights for Mr. Kurowski's parenting time, the number of weekends per month for his time, and provisions for the school summer vacation schedule. The Court considers these proposals by reference to Amanda's best interests.

Mr. Kurowski wants three Sundays out of every four.  Sunday just happens to be the Christian day of worship.  Based on other testimony given in the report (linked in the sources above), it seems more evidence of a father hostile to his daughter’s religious faith.

It seems to me that the issue is Mr. Kurowski objects to his daughter’s religious convictions and wants to reduce them… and the state is agreeing with the father.

It is unfortunate of course when parents divorce and cannot agree on the religious upbringing of the children.  I do not personally have knowledge of Ms. Voydatch’s religious affiliation nor do I know what I would think of her theology.

However, the fact that the state considers the daughter’s religious conviction to be abnormal and believes the girl would be better served “exposed to other views” is an extreme overstepping of the bounds of the freedom of religion.

Now, it would be another issue if the family shared one faith and then after the divorce the mother radically changed faith and sought to turn the daughter against the father and the faith the family practiced together.  However, this isn’t the issue.  Rather we seem to have an irreligious father and a religious mother who has raised her daughter according to her faith… and the courts agree with the father.

God save us all if we allow the courts to decide how much faith is too much for our own good.

This is why I say that if we are silent on this, America does not deserve to be considered a free nation.  The State will have usurped the right to do good.  Freedom after all, is not the freedom to do what we wish, but the freedom to do what we ought to do.

Bishop D’arcy on Notre Dame

Source: America Magazine - The Church and the University

Several months after the debacle event at Notre Dame, Bishop D’arcy has written an article in America magazine bringing forth the actual issues as concerns the Catholic Church.  He starts by demolishing the claim that it was an anti-Obama in nature, saying:

It is not about President Obama. He will do some good things as president and other things with which, as Catholics, we will strongly disagree. It is ever so among presidents, and most political leaders.

It is not about Democrats versus Republicans, nor was it a replay of the recent general election.

It is not about whether it is appropriate for the president of the United States to speak at Notre Dame or any great Catholic university on the pressing issues of the day. This is what universities do. No bishop should try to prevent that.

The response, so intense and widespread, is not about what this journal called “sectarian Catholicism.” Rather, the response of the faithful derives directly from the Gospel. In Matthew’s words, “Your light must shine before others, that they may see your good works, and glorify your heavenly Father” (5:13).

In short, the opposition to the visit of Obama was not about being opposed to Obama, the person and president, but opposition to the message Notre Dame was sending to the world.  Bishop D’arcy recognized that Obama as president has set forth a view which stands in opposition to the Catholic teaching, and asks what sort of witness do we show in this invitation?

Bishop D’arcy reminds us what witness a university attached to the Church is supposed to bear witness to:

Pope Benedict XVI, himself a former university professor, made his position clear when he spoke to Catholic educators in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2008:

“Teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church’s magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom.”

In its decision to give its highest honor to a president who has repeatedly opposed even the smallest legal protection of the child in the womb, did Notre Dame surrender the responsibility that Pope Benedict believes Catholic universities have to give public witness to the truths revealed by God and taught by the church?

This was the key portion of the opposition to Obama at Notre Dame, and was certainly the center of my own opposition to the invitation.  Obama was invited as an honor, not as an opportunity to discuss issues.  This honor either ignored or accepted as tolerable the fact that Obama actively supports things in contradiction to the Catholic Church.  With this in mind, it follows that Notre Dame failed to live up to its obligation to Christian witness.

The bishop also brings up another point: the failure of Notre Dame to acknowledge the role of the episcopacy… the successors of the apostles:

The failure to dialogue with the bishop brings a second series of questions. What is the relationship of the Catholic university to the local bishop? No relationship? Someone who occasionally offers Mass on campus? Someone who sits on the platform at graduation? Or is the bishop the teacher in the diocese, responsible for souls, including the souls of students—in this case, the students at Notre Dame? Does the responsibility of the bishop to teach, to govern and to sanctify end at the gate of the university? In the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which places the primary responsibility on the institution, I am proposing these questions for the university.

Notre Dame, being within his diocese, is subject to Bishop D’arcy — who is a successor to the apostles.  Yet Fr. Jenkins did not consult with the bishop on an issue involving the Christian witness of a Catholic institution.  This too is a witness to the lack of respect Notre Dame holds for the Church it professes to be a part of.

He then goes on to talk about the Board of Trustees and how they failed in their role.  They did not discuss what this meant in terms of Catholic identity.  They did not discuss it at all.

In the midst of the crisis at Notre Dame, the board of trustees came to campus in April for their long-scheduled spring meeting. They said nothing. When the meeting was completed, they made no statement and gave no advice. In an age when transparency is urged as a way of life on and off campus, they chose not to enter the conversation going on all around them and shaking the university to its roots. We learned nothing about their discussions.

I firmly believe that the board of trustees must take up its responsibility afresh, with appropriate study and prayer. They also must understand the seriousness of the present moment. This requires spiritual and intellectual formation on the part of the men and women of industry, business and technology who make up the majority of the board. Financial generosity is no longer sufficient for membership on the boards of great universities, if indeed it ever was. The responsibility of university boards is great, and decisions must not be made by a few. Like bishops, they are asked to leave politics and ambition at the door, and make serious decisions before God. In the case of Notre Dame, they owe it to the Congregation of Holy Cross, which has turned this magnificent place over to a predominately lay board; they owe it to the students who have not yet come; they owe it to the intrepid missionary priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., and the Holy Cross religious who built this magnificent place out of the wilderness. They owe it to Mary, the Mother of God, who has always been honored here. Let us pray that they will take this responsibility with greater seriousness and in a truly Catholic spirit.

If an institution is to consider itself Catholic, those who are trustees should act with the faith in mind, not prestige.  It should be worthy of what it considers itself to be affiliated to.

The bishop ends his article with a challenge, saying:

As bishops, we must be teachers and pastors. In that spirit, I would respectfully put these questions to the Catholic universities in the diocese I serve and to other Catholic universities.

Do you consider it a responsibility in your public statements, in your life as a university and in your actions, including your public awards, to give witness to the Catholic faith in all its fullness?

What is your relationship to the church and, specifically, to the local bishop and his pastoral authority as defined by the Second Vatican Council?

Finally, a more fundamental question: Where will the great Catholic universities search for a guiding light in the years ahead? Will it be the Land O’Lakes Statement or Ex Corde Ecclesiae? The first comes from a frantic time, with finances as the driving force. Its understanding of freedom is defensive, absolutist and narrow. It never mentions Christ and barely mentions the truth. The second text, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, speaks constantly of truth and the pursuit of truth. It speaks of freedom in the broader, Catholic philosophical and theological tradition, as linked to the common good, to the rights of others and always subject to truth. Unlike Land O’Lakes, it is communal, reflective of the developments since Vatican II, and it speaks with a language enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

On these three questions, I respectfully submit, rests the future of Catholic higher education in this country and so much else.

The truly Catholic institution will put forth truth in Christ as its mission.  It will not consider the faith to be apart from the truth as if truth was something which nothing possesses in full.  Nor will it consider truth and error to be equally valid.  If the Catholic school is to provide a Christ-centered education, it must bear witness with its actions.  The Church has been emphatically pro-life.  Notre Dame has invited one of the proponents of the culture of death.  What sort of witness have they brought witness to here?

Bishop D’arcy on Notre Dame

Source: America Magazine - The Church and the University

Several months after the debacle event at Notre Dame, Bishop D’arcy has written an article in America magazine bringing forth the actual issues as concerns the Catholic Church.  He starts by demolishing the claim that it was an anti-Obama in nature, saying:

It is not about President Obama. He will do some good things as president and other things with which, as Catholics, we will strongly disagree. It is ever so among presidents, and most political leaders.

It is not about Democrats versus Republicans, nor was it a replay of the recent general election.

It is not about whether it is appropriate for the president of the United States to speak at Notre Dame or any great Catholic university on the pressing issues of the day. This is what universities do. No bishop should try to prevent that.

The response, so intense and widespread, is not about what this journal called “sectarian Catholicism.” Rather, the response of the faithful derives directly from the Gospel. In Matthew’s words, “Your light must shine before others, that they may see your good works, and glorify your heavenly Father” (5:13).

In short, the opposition to the visit of Obama was not about being opposed to Obama, the person and president, but opposition to the message Notre Dame was sending to the world.  Bishop D’arcy recognized that Obama as president has set forth a view which stands in opposition to the Catholic teaching, and asks what sort of witness do we show in this invitation?

Bishop D’arcy reminds us what witness a university attached to the Church is supposed to bear witness to:

Pope Benedict XVI, himself a former university professor, made his position clear when he spoke to Catholic educators in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2008:

“Teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church’s magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom.”

In its decision to give its highest honor to a president who has repeatedly opposed even the smallest legal protection of the child in the womb, did Notre Dame surrender the responsibility that Pope Benedict believes Catholic universities have to give public witness to the truths revealed by God and taught by the church?

This was the key portion of the opposition to Obama at Notre Dame, and was certainly the center of my own opposition to the invitation.  Obama was invited as an honor, not as an opportunity to discuss issues.  This honor either ignored or accepted as tolerable the fact that Obama actively supports things in contradiction to the Catholic Church.  With this in mind, it follows that Notre Dame failed to live up to its obligation to Christian witness.

The bishop also brings up another point: the failure of Notre Dame to acknowledge the role of the episcopacy… the successors of the apostles:

The failure to dialogue with the bishop brings a second series of questions. What is the relationship of the Catholic university to the local bishop? No relationship? Someone who occasionally offers Mass on campus? Someone who sits on the platform at graduation? Or is the bishop the teacher in the diocese, responsible for souls, including the souls of students—in this case, the students at Notre Dame? Does the responsibility of the bishop to teach, to govern and to sanctify end at the gate of the university? In the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which places the primary responsibility on the institution, I am proposing these questions for the university.

Notre Dame, being within his diocese, is subject to Bishop D’arcy — who is a successor to the apostles.  Yet Fr. Jenkins did not consult with the bishop on an issue involving the Christian witness of a Catholic institution.  This too is a witness to the lack of respect Notre Dame holds for the Church it professes to be a part of.

He then goes on to talk about the Board of Trustees and how they failed in their role.  They did not discuss what this meant in terms of Catholic identity.  They did not discuss it at all.

In the midst of the crisis at Notre Dame, the board of trustees came to campus in April for their long-scheduled spring meeting. They said nothing. When the meeting was completed, they made no statement and gave no advice. In an age when transparency is urged as a way of life on and off campus, they chose not to enter the conversation going on all around them and shaking the university to its roots. We learned nothing about their discussions.

I firmly believe that the board of trustees must take up its responsibility afresh, with appropriate study and prayer. They also must understand the seriousness of the present moment. This requires spiritual and intellectual formation on the part of the men and women of industry, business and technology who make up the majority of the board. Financial generosity is no longer sufficient for membership on the boards of great universities, if indeed it ever was. The responsibility of university boards is great, and decisions must not be made by a few. Like bishops, they are asked to leave politics and ambition at the door, and make serious decisions before God. In the case of Notre Dame, they owe it to the Congregation of Holy Cross, which has turned this magnificent place over to a predominately lay board; they owe it to the students who have not yet come; they owe it to the intrepid missionary priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., and the Holy Cross religious who built this magnificent place out of the wilderness. They owe it to Mary, the Mother of God, who has always been honored here. Let us pray that they will take this responsibility with greater seriousness and in a truly Catholic spirit.

If an institution is to consider itself Catholic, those who are trustees should act with the faith in mind, not prestige.  It should be worthy of what it considers itself to be affiliated to.

The bishop ends his article with a challenge, saying:

As bishops, we must be teachers and pastors. In that spirit, I would respectfully put these questions to the Catholic universities in the diocese I serve and to other Catholic universities.

Do you consider it a responsibility in your public statements, in your life as a university and in your actions, including your public awards, to give witness to the Catholic faith in all its fullness?

What is your relationship to the church and, specifically, to the local bishop and his pastoral authority as defined by the Second Vatican Council?

Finally, a more fundamental question: Where will the great Catholic universities search for a guiding light in the years ahead? Will it be the Land O’Lakes Statement or Ex Corde Ecclesiae? The first comes from a frantic time, with finances as the driving force. Its understanding of freedom is defensive, absolutist and narrow. It never mentions Christ and barely mentions the truth. The second text, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, speaks constantly of truth and the pursuit of truth. It speaks of freedom in the broader, Catholic philosophical and theological tradition, as linked to the common good, to the rights of others and always subject to truth. Unlike Land O’Lakes, it is communal, reflective of the developments since Vatican II, and it speaks with a language enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

On these three questions, I respectfully submit, rests the future of Catholic higher education in this country and so much else.

The truly Catholic institution will put forth truth in Christ as its mission.  It will not consider the faith to be apart from the truth as if truth was something which nothing possesses in full.  Nor will it consider truth and error to be equally valid.  If the Catholic school is to provide a Christ-centered education, it must bear witness with its actions.  The Church has been emphatically pro-life.  Notre Dame has invited one of the proponents of the culture of death.  What sort of witness have they brought witness to here?