It's Iimi!

Friday, September 4, 2009

On The Logical Errors and Rash Judgment In an CWN Article on Bishop Martino

Sources: Catholic Culture : Catholic World News Feature Stories : Bishop Martino's departure: did he jump or was he pushed?; http://wbcitizensvoice.com/pdfs/MARTINO_STATEMENT.pdf; http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090902/us_time/08599191996900

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

I found myself disappointed with the tone of this article by CWN discussing the resignation of health issues. While they may ultimately have stumbled on some truth, I find the article guilty of hasty judgment and a priori assumption which ought to be eliminated before printing their conclusions.

The article in question makes two assertions which it claims to explore:

Whether Bishop Martino was forced out
Why he was forced out

It reminds me of an old Foxtrot comic by Bill Amend —

Student: OK, if the United States is here, then Iraq must be here

Teacher: Um, let's go back to that first "If"…

The issue in question is whether Bishop Martino was forced out. If he was not, then the second assertion (why he was forced out) is without merit. Unfortunately, I find the case for the first assertion to be guilty of Hasty Assumption, and perhaps is guilty of a bifurcation as well.

The article states:

Did he jump or was he pushed?

That's the easy question. Bishop Joseph Martino was pushed into resignation at the age of 63. No intelligent observer can credit the official explanation: that Bishop Martino retired because of health problems. The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness.

Lets put this into a syllogism:

The official reason was because of health problems
The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness
Therefore Bishop Martino was forced out.

In terms of logic this is a non sequitur. Whether or not the health of the Bishop was the real reason, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The bishop himself said regarding his retirement:

As I became more informed about the needs of the Diocese of Scranton throughout 2004, it became clear to me that, at the very least, something had to be done to halt the rapid financial deterioration of our Diocese. This situation had been caused by very high institutional expenses due to an excessive number of schools and parishes competing with one another and diluting Diocesan and parish resources. Even greater than the financial challenge of the Diocese was the fact that with so many schools and parishes, the clergy of the Diocese was not assigned in a strategic manner, with a view to leading a vigorous and successful New Evangelization of the Diocese, so dear to us all.

For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and at times a crippling physical fatigue.

The Diocese of Scranton needs to continue to respond to the call of our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, to engage in the New Evangelization. To do so, however, the Diocese of Scranton requires a Bishop who is at least physically vigorous. I am not that Bishop.

With this in mind, the syllogism of CWN also becomes a Straw Man argument. Yes the Bishop did not say he was suffering from grave illness, but it does not follow from this that he was forced out.

CWN goes on to say:

Clearly Bishop Martino was under a great deal of pressure, and therefore it is not difficult to believe that he suffered from insomnia and fatigue: the only medical complaints that were mentioned in the press conference announcing his departure. But while those are serious problems, they are not ordinarily serious enough to compel a motivated leader to resign. And even if insomnia had risen to the level of a serious medical problem, the question remains: Why was the bishop under so much pressure-- the sort of pressure that could give rise to such serious problems?

This is a speculation here, which requires the ignoring of what the Bishop said: "For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and at times a crippling physical fatigue." CWN does not know whether Bishop Martino was fatigued from the opposition he received in his diocese or not. Lets face it. Not all men can handle all situations sent there way.

In other words, whether or not CWN accepts their explanation, the Bishop stated that he was not able to carry out the job. So if CWN wishes to make a case, they have to demonstrate more evidence for their case. This link is not supported, and so their argument is not proven true.

CWN moves now into the territory of Begging the Question, in assuming as proven what needs to be proved. They say:

If anyone had lingering doubts about the question of Bishop Martino's health, he had only to look carefully at yesterday's announcement from Scranton. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty's retirement was announced on the same day. The Dougherty departure, taken by itself, would have been completely unremarkable; at the age of 77, he was well beyond the ordinary canonical retirement age. But the fact that the two retirements were announced simultaneously leaves no doubt about what happened. It was a house-cleaning.

Again, let us place this into the form of a syllogism:

Bishop Martino resigned
Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty retired the same day
Therefore this is a Housecleaning

There can be other reasons for such an incident, such as this scenario (this is my own looking at the facts for other reasons and should not be seen as my personal view of what did happen):

Bishop Dougherty was 77 and overdue for retirement. Bishop Martino decides he can no longer continue as Bishop due to stress and fatigue. The decision is made that since they will need to replace Martino, it is time to accept Dougherty's resignation as well.

You can see that if it happened this way, there is no sinister reason for such an action. Now, CWN has not proven Bishop Martino was "pushed." It is their speculation, just as the scenario I wrote above is speculation.

However, Canon Law has this to say on bishops resigning:

Can. 401 §1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly.

§2 A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfilment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office.

In other words, both bishops resigning are legitimate from Canon Law. Note that it requires the resignation to be offered to the Pope, and from this the Pope is the one who accepts or rejects the resignation request.

However, CWN does go on, guilty of Begging the Question, saying as to why he was "pushed" (note CWN has not proven he was pushed):

Two different explanations have been put forward by informed observers. One school of thought says that Bishop Martino was too rough in his administrative style. He was a bull in a china shop, constantly making new enemies, needlessly causing division, refusing to act in a collegial manner and respect the advice of his brother bishops. The other school of thought says that he was simply too conservative for the tastes of his brethren in the US bishops' conference-- and especially for his metropolitan, Cardinal Justin Rigali, who has emerged as the most influential prelate in America today.

The first explanation could in fact how Bishop Martino found himself in a situation where he could not cope with opposition from underlings which contributed to stress and crippling fatigue.

The second example, Cardinal Rigali, who was quite outspoken on life issues in Congress (which I pointed out twice in my blog) in a position of having to defend his orthodoxy (which many confuse with conservatism) when CWN is required to bring forward evidence he is not. A Google search of Cardinal Rigali and abortion gives 122,000 hits — all of them showing his supporting the right to life. Yahoo News speculates that Bishop Martino may have been let go because he was too Pro-Life. The CWN article indirectly implies that Martino was pressured due to his orthodoxy being too much for other bishops.

Now let us consider this:

The Pope is the one who accepts or rejects the resignation of the Bishop
Bishops Martino and Dougherty had their resignations accepted.
Therefore the Pope accepted their resignations.

Now, with this in mind, the CWN article creates a dilemma. They claim Bishop Martino was "pushed." The Pope accepts the resignation. Therefore he was either complicit or he was deluded. If the Pope was complicit, then logically he was guilty of condemning an innocent man. If he was deluded, this means the Pope is rubber stamping everything… both are serious charges which require substantiation, as they are in effect an attack on the authority of the Pope.

This is especially serious as Canon 1390 §2 reads:

A person who calumniously denounces an offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise injures the good name of another, can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.

If CWN does not have a cause to accuse Cardinal Rigali, a case could be made that this article could be applied to CWN.

I especially think this case could be made when one looks at this statement by the CWN article:

(We might even ask, in passing, why Church leaders persist in offering such implausible excuses for the resignations of bishops. If no one really believes that Bishop Martino is too sick to carry on, why is that flimsy explanation offered to the public? Corporate leaders routinely offer vague, unsatisfactory reasons for a change at the top: it is a matter of "different styles of leadership," they might say, or a question of "conflicting visions." But those explanations, lame as they are, are not transparently false. Don't Church leaders attach any importance at all to the principle of that honesty is the best policy? Don't they worry about undermining their own credibility?) [Italics in original]

What have they asserted in this paragraph?

That Bishop Martino lied about his health
That the Church has another reason for releasing Bishop Martino
That Church leaders are lying about the reason for his resignation.

Combining this with the accusation that Bishop Martino was too conservative for Cardinal Rigali. we have four charges which need to be substantiated. A fifth charge by logical conclusion was that the Pope was either a willing or unwitting participant in a unjust action.

There is a sixth charge one can make too: That Bishop Marino had some unspoken action which merited being forced out.

All of these conclusions can be drawn from CWN's article. However they all presuppose that CWN is right that Bishop Martino was forced out. This was the point they failed to prove however.

This does not mean that CWN is proven wrong. They may have made a lucky guess (things can be true even if not proven true after all). However, their argument is fallacious and therefore the conclusion CWN makes is not proven true from their argument. To thus publish an article which directly states three accusations and can lead to three others logically, truth must be proven, and not accusations given wildly.

With these things considered, I think this CWN article is guilty of Rash Judgment.

On The Logical Errors and Rash Judgment In an CWN Article on Bishop Martino

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

The article in question makes two assertions which it claims to explore:

Whether Bishop Martino was forced out
Why he was forced out

It reminds me of an old Foxtrot comic by Bill Amend —

Student: OK, if the United States is here, then Iraq must be here

Teacher: Um, let's go back to that first "If"…

The article states:

Did he jump or was he pushed?

That's the easy question. Bishop Joseph Martino was pushed into resignation at the age of 63. No intelligent observer can credit the official explanation: that Bishop Martino retired because of health problems. The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness.

Lets put this into a syllogism:

The official reason was because of health problems
The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness
Therefore Bishop Martino was forced out.

In terms of logic this is a non sequitur. Whether or not the health of the Bishop was the real reason, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The bishop himself said regarding his retirement:

As I became more informed about the needs of the Diocese of Scranton throughout 2004, it became clear to me that, at the very least, something had to be done to halt the rapid financial deterioration of our Diocese. This situation had been caused by very high institutional expenses due to an excessive number of schools and parishes competing with one another and diluting Diocesan and parish resources. Even greater than the financial challenge of the Diocese was the fact that with so many schools and parishes, the clergy of the Diocese was not assigned in a strategic manner, with a view to leading a vigorous and successful New Evangelization of the Diocese, so dear to us all.

For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and at times a crippling physical fatigue.

The Diocese of Scranton needs to continue to respond to the call of our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, to engage in the New Evangelization. To do so, however, the Diocese of Scranton requires a Bishop who is at least physically vigorous. I am not that Bishop.

With this in mind, the syllogism of CWN also becomes a Straw Man argument. Yes the Bishop did not say he was suffering from grave illness, but it does not follow from this that he was forced out.

CWN goes on to say:

Clearly Bishop Martino was under a great deal of pressure, and therefore it is not difficult to believe that he suffered from insomnia and fatigue: the only medical complaints that were mentioned in the press conference announcing his departure. But while those are serious problems, they are not ordinarily serious enough to compel a motivated leader to resign. And even if insomnia had risen to the level of a serious medical problem, the question remains: Why was the bishop under so much pressure-- the sort of pressure that could give rise to such serious problems?

CWN moves now into the territory of Begging the Question, in assuming as proven what needs to be proved. They say:

If anyone had lingering doubts about the question of Bishop Martino's health, he had only to look carefully at yesterday's announcement from Scranton. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty's retirement was announced on the same day. The Dougherty departure, taken by itself, would have been completely unremarkable; at the age of 77, he was well beyond the ordinary canonical retirement age. But the fact that the two retirements were announced simultaneously leaves no doubt about what happened. It was a house-cleaning.

Again, let us place this into the form of a syllogism:

Bishop Martino resigned
Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty retired the same day
Therefore this is a Housecleaning

There can be other reasons for such an incident, such as this scenario (this is my own looking at the facts for other reasons and should not be seen as my personal view of what did happen):

However, Canon Law has this to say on bishops resigning:

Can. 401 §1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly.

§2 A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfilment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office.

However, CWN does go on, guilty of Begging the Question, saying as to why he was "pushed" (note CWN has not proven he was pushed):

Two different explanations have been put forward by informed observers. One school of thought says that Bishop Martino was too rough in his administrative style. He was a bull in a china shop, constantly making new enemies, needlessly causing division, refusing to act in a collegial manner and respect the advice of his brother bishops. The other school of thought says that he was simply too conservative for the tastes of his brethren in the US bishops' conference-- and especially for his metropolitan, Cardinal Justin Rigali, who has emerged as the most influential prelate in America today.

The first explanation could in fact how Bishop Martino found himself in a situation where he could not cope with opposition from underlings which contributed to stress and crippling fatigue.

Now let us consider this:

The Pope is the one who accepts or rejects the resignation of the Bishop
Bishops Martino and Dougherty had their resignations accepted.
Therefore the Pope accepted their resignations.

This is especially serious as Canon 1390 §2 reads:

A person who calumniously denounces an offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise injures the good name of another, can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.

If CWN does not have a cause to accuse Cardinal Rigali, a case could be made that this article could be applied to CWN.

I especially think this case could be made when one looks at this statement by the CWN article:

(We might even ask, in passing, why Church leaders persist in offering such implausible excuses for the resignations of bishops. If no one really believes that Bishop Martino is too sick to carry on, why is that flimsy explanation offered to the public? Corporate leaders routinely offer vague, unsatisfactory reasons for a change at the top: it is a matter of "different styles of leadership," they might say, or a question of "conflicting visions." But those explanations, lame as they are, are not transparently false. Don't Church leaders attach any importance at all to the principle of that honesty is the best policy? Don't they worry about undermining their own credibility?) [Italics in original]

What have they asserted in this paragraph?

That Bishop Martino lied about his health
That the Church has another reason for releasing Bishop Martino
That Church leaders are lying about the reason for his resignation.

There is a sixth charge one can make too: That Bishop Marino had some unspoken action which merited being forced out.

All of these conclusions can be drawn from CWN's article. However they all presuppose that CWN is right that Bishop Martino was forced out. This was the point they failed to prove however.

With these things considered, I think this CWN article is guilty of Rash Judgment.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

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:

²⁰If 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. ²¹And 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.

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

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.

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)

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:

²⁰If 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. ²¹And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

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."

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI and His Prayer Intentions for August

VATICAN CITY, 1 SEP 2009 (VIS) - Pope Benedict XVI's general prayer intention for September is: "That the word of God may be better known, welcomed and lived as the source of freedom and joy".

His mission intention is: "That Christians in Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, who often meet with great difficulties, may not be discouraged from announcing the Gospel to their brothers, trusting in the strength of the Holy Spirit".

BXVI-PRAYER INTENTIONS/SEPTEMBER/... VIS 090901 (80)

Let us keep these prayers in our heart

Pope Benedict XVI and His Prayer Intentions for August

VATICAN CITY, 1 SEP 2009 (VIS) - Pope Benedict XVI's general prayer intention for September is: "That the word of God may be better known, welcomed and lived as the source of freedom and joy".

His mission intention is: "That Christians in Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, who often meet with great difficulties, may not be discouraged from announcing the Gospel to their brothers, trusting in the strength of the Holy Spirit".

BXVI-PRAYER INTENTIONS/SEPTEMBER/... VIS 090901 (80)

Let us keep these prayers in our heart

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.

Pages

Friday, September 4, 2009

On The Logical Errors and Rash Judgment In an CWN Article on Bishop Martino

On The Logical Errors and Rash Judgment In an CWN Article on Bishop Martino

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Reflections on Cardinal O&#39;Malley and His Blog Entry on the Kennedy Funeral

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

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI and His Prayer Intentions for August

Pope Benedict XVI and His Prayer Intentions for August

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

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