Out from Under a Penumbra....

This is a nice day for those of us who hope for a return to the Constitution's principles (our motto: No more penumbras!). A blogger on National Review's invaluable Bench Memos observes that there are two reason why Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court (he may be Justice Alito by the time you are reading this) is so important:

"One: the triumph of quality. We have a new Justice with outstanding qualifications and experience, proving that the demagogues of the liberal left can no longer ‘Bork’ such outstanding nominees. The process is still nasty, and the demagogues still try their hardest, but the partisan judicial filibuster has failed. The American people see that Justice Alito is not the caricature the extremists tried to paint. Indeed, it is clear that is attackers are the real extremists.

"Two: the triumph of the philosophy of judicial restraint. Americans are appreciating the virtue of judicial modesty and respect for democracy in our courts. The last few years, Americans have grown increasingly frustrated with out-of-control judges imposing a leftist agenda on them through judicial activism. A recent ABA poll shows the public believes such judicial activism has reached 'crisis' proportions. But Justices like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito hold the promise of greater faithfulness to the Constitution and the laws enacted by the people through their elected representatives. Today, a significant step has been taken in restoring American self-government."

The Senate vote was 58-42 (here is the roll call). It is important to acknowledge that the confirmation of this fine justice could not have been achieved without a Republican majority. There are many reasons to believe that this majority won't hold. But Republicans have one secret weapon: the left. The more you see of them, the less you like them. The more you see of them pulling the strings of Democratic senators, the less you like both the puppets and the puppeteers. Take yesterday's press release from the National Organization for Women--known as NOW but it should be known as THEN:

"We commend the 25 honorable senators, led by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who voted on principle today—choosing a valiant stand for justice over weak-kneed capitulation to George Bush's stacking of the Supreme Court.

"Today's vote is the only Alito vote that really counts. Votes against Alito tomorrow are irrelevant, and no senator who voted 'Yes' today can hide behind a 'No' vote tomorrow."

The left wants to play hardball. This is hard if all you have is hufffing and puffing from puffed up pols. But we do get to see the left in action, which helps the right. And the crazies are a potent part of the Democratic Party to which candidates must pander. Daily Kos has a straw poll of potential Democratic nominees, and he notes that all on his list voted nay on Alito. It is very difficult to pander to Kos & Co. and still appear centrist.

On the hysteria front, my favorite response to Alito's confirmation so far is from the Washington Post blog: "Mothers, protect you [sic] 10 year old girls from strip search Sammy." This injunction is presumably directed at mothers who traffic in illegal substances, as the Alito decision in the relevant case regarded a drug dealer. I'd be more inclined to urge mother to protect their 10-year-old daughters from drug-dealing. But, hey, that's me.

It is very unlikely that the government is interested in your phone communications, unless you are talking with terrorists abroad. Nevertheless, the left has always indulged in a penchant in wallowing in fantasies of fascism. It was particularly present during that 1970s, but, as Michael Barone observes, we are to some extent stuck in the '70s. You certainly saw that in the Alito debate. Let's hope we soon emerge from that penumbra, too.

Please Don't Make Me Kill You!

Actually, the headline on this item isn't a joke. The culture of death is so warmly embraced in our culture that I can imagine a Catholic nurse pleading with a patient with just those words. Note the hint of disdain in this report that nurses and doctors might be "sheltered" from having to kill somebody:

"More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.
About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and 'morning-after' pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician, or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells, and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians."

I am morally opposed to all of the measures cited above, except for providing health care treatment to gays and lesbians. Should somebody be forced to do them?

How Embarrassing!

Feminist icon and former Al Gore sartorian guru Naomi Wolf has found Christ. I'm not comfortable commenting on her conversion, except to say I wish her well. But I do want to quote an account from the Glasgow Sunday Herald:

"Born-again Christians might nod in recognition at Wolf’s awakening, but secular society will find it extremely bizarre. At the time, she was struggling with writer’s block, and sought help from a specialist, who induced what Wolf calls 'a light meditative state', then asked her to walk downstairs in a classic deep relaxation technique. 'I opened the door and there he was,' recounts Wolf.

“'I wasn’t myself in this visual experience,' she continues. 'I was a 13-year-old boy sitting next to him [Jesus] and feeling feelings I’d never felt in my lifetime, of a 13-year-old boy being with an older male who he really loves and admires and loves to be in the presence of. It was probably the most profound experience of my life. I haven’t talked about it publicly.'

"Well, no wonder. She confesses she still feels awkward speaking about it. 'It’s very embarrassing. We’re intellectuals, we’re on the left, we’re not supposed to talk like that,' she says later."

What stands out here--and this is something I do feel comfortable talking about--is the peculiar notion that if you are a Christian, you aren't an intellectual. Thomas Aquinas might have something to say about that. The Church, of course, is responsible for the very idea of a university.

Contemporary intellectuals are stranded in a small slice of time, and nothing shows their isolation more than their disdain for the religion that created our culture. Oh, but they don't like that either. (Condescending to Christians appears to be a pastime for intellectuals, but this critic of Wolf's apparent conversion gets nasty.)

St. Thurgood? Not Good.

If further evidence that Episcopalians are demented is needed: Episcopalians in the Diocese of Washington, D.C., are asking the Episcopal General Convention, which takes place this summer, to declare the late Justice Thurgood Marshall a saint and include his name in the calendar of lesser feasts and fasts. As Diogenese pointed out, Marshall was part of the Supreme Court majority that legalized abortion with Roe v. Wade in 1973. Please St. Thurgood, don't pray for me.

Marshall was a lovely man, I'm sure. But his selection shows where modern Episcopalians see the moral center: government and the courts, not the church. In fact, the testimonials in Marshall's favor acknowledge: "Courts, not candles, were his milieu." (Translation: His church attendance was spotty but he was a liberal on the Supreme Court.)

Unlike the Catholic Church, which has an official canonization process (with miracles required under the theory that a candidate for sainthood can't perform as miracle from hell or purgatory and must be in heaven), Episcopalians seem to have embraced more of an anything goes process. But it is only in the last four or so decades that they have behaved with such reckless abandonment.

Saving Love

I've taken a short time to read an encyclical that will be pored over a hundred years from now--but here are a few thoughts on Deus Caritas Est, Benedict's XVI's first encyclical:

First of all, it's beautifully written (of course, I am reading it in English translation), a bonus in a day when so many Church documents are written in bureaucratese. The encyclical has been called "surprising:" some were expecting a stern rebuke from Benedict.

Instead we have an encyclical that goes to the heart of what our lives are all about: the love God gives us and the love we share with others. If love goes wrong, we are in a mess. Benedict writes:

"In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others. That, in essence, is what the two main parts of this Letter are about, and they are profoundly interconnected."

This is destined to be one of the most quoted lines: "Eros, reduced to pure 'sex,' has become a commodity, a mere 'thing' to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity." It is closest to the expected rebuke. It is an important point to make in today's world--but Benedict goes much deeper into the nature of the various kinds of love, including eros, "that love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings."

Benedict notes that the Old Testament tends to avoid the word eros:

"The tendency to avoid the word eros, together with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love. In the critique of Christianity which began with the Enlightenment and grew progressively more radical, this new element was seen as something thoroughly negative. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity had poisoned eros, which for its part, while not completely succumbing, gradually degenerated into vice. Here the German philosopher was expressing a widely-held perception: doesn't the Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions, turn to bitterness the most precious thing in life? Doesn't she blow the whistle just when the joy which is the Creator's gift offers us a happiness which is itself a certain foretaste of the Divine?"

In an excellent critique of the encyclical, Amy Welborn of Open Book writes:

"Benedict's first task is to rescue eros, to help us look at it clearly and understand the ultimate direction of its energy and yearning, and to see how it becomes destructive when left undirected. This, he points out, is the gift of Biblical faith, beginning in the Old Testament and culminating in Christ, showing how eros and agape are two dimensions of love, fulfill each other and become skewed without each other."

I think the encyclical goes a long way towards rescuing eros. He rejects the pre-Christian, Greek version of eros, "a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a 'divine madness.'" A Christian eros requites discipline and must provide something beyond "fleeting pleasure."

Benedict asks a root question: Is God's love something different from human love or are their points in common? Benedict embraces the latter proposition:

"Two things emerge clearly from this rapid overview of the concept of eros past and present. There here is a certain relationship between love and the Divine: love promises infinity, eternity--a reality far greater and totally other than our everyday existence. Yet we have also seen that the way to attain this goal is not simply by submitting to instinct. Purification and growth in maturity are called for; and these also pass through the path of renunciation. Far from rejecting or 'poisoning' eros, they heal it and restore its true grandeur."

I do hope I'm not making this sound dour--this is a joyous document that talks of the "bold" sexual imagery in the Old Testament. It is about saving love. In the Benedictine view, the way to save human love is to unite it with divine love. He writes:

"Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to 'be there for' the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow. Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God."

"In the account of Jacob's ladder, the Fathers of the Church saw this inseparable connection between ascending and descending love, between eros which seeks God and agape which passes on the gift received, symbolized in various ways. In that biblical passage we read how the Patriarch Jacob saw in a dream, above the stone which was his pillow, a ladder reaching up to heaven, on which the angels of God were ascending and descending (cf. Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). A particularly striking interpretation of this vision is presented by Pope Gregory the Great in his Pastoral Rule. He tells us that the good pastor must be rooted in contemplation."

It is not surprising, as Amy notes before me, that the New York Times would regard this most Catholic of documents as an encyclical that "Shuns Strictures of Orthodoxy." Yikes, these people are really ignorant. The Times says the encyclical "presented Roman Catholicism's potential for good rather than imposing firm, potentially divisive rules for orthodoxy." If the ignoramuses read more carefully, they might glean that this is the ultimate statement of orthodoxy.

Andrew Sullivan provides doses of brilliance and stupidity in interpreting the encyclical: Noting that the encyclical is a "beautifully written document: humane, outward, subtle and exactly, in my view, what the Church needs right now."

Andrew goes on to comment on "Benedict's Augustinian realism that heaven on earth is impossible, that ideologies that pretend to solve all human suffering are lies, that we should not attempt 'what God's governance of the world apparently cannot: fully resolve every problem' -- all these are profound truths at the center of our faith."

But then he ruins it:

"I see no conflict between the love of two homosexual men or women for each other and the mystery of heterosexual love. One day, it would be wonderful to see this doctrine of love extend to all God's creatures."

God's love extends to all his creatures--but there is nothing in this encyclical to even hint that Benedict is abandoning the Church's teaching on homosexuality. In fact, if you read it, really read it, it seems to me that it is explicit that that form of love is out of bounds.

Andrew also praises Rocco Palmo's piece on Beliefnet. Rocco says that this encyclical will set the tone of Benedict's pontificate. I'll be interested to see how it is being received among the Latin Mass set when I partake of coffee and donoughts after Mass this coming Sunday.

A Bridge to Nowhere?

Episcopalians used to take pride in being the via media, the bridge church between Rome and more obviously Protestant denominations. But the Episcopal Church in the USA seems to be becoming a bridge to nowhere. The Episcopal Church has long been pro-choice, but Loose Canon missed a springtime initiative that carried this acceptance of abortion to another level: The executive committee of the Episcopal Church officially approved membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in March. (Via Canterbury Tales.)

In an article critical of the Episcopal Church on abortion, one writer says he is addressing "Episcopalians who know in their heart of hearts that the Episcopal Church, as an institution, has become something wrong, perhaps even unholy." The Episcopal Church's General Convention takes place in June in Columbus, Ohio. Despite the shrinking number of Episocpalians, the convention, at which a formal split of this church, once so filled with the beauty of holiness, may occur.

This just in: The slate of candidates from which the next Presiding Bishop (head of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.) will be elected has been announced. There is one woman. It's also quite heavy on southerners. Is this an attempt to appear conservative without actually conserving?

I can't say yet. Stay tuned.

Theocratic Menace: Fact or Fiction?

"Until recently, cultural expressions of religious faith were simply considered old-fashioned and gauche. But over the past decade, scorn has turned into bigotry and hatred," writes Frank Furedi of Spiked. His article asks: "Is it the Anglo-American cultural elites' insecurity about their own values that encourages their frenzied attacks on religion?"

There is much to disagree with in this essay--Christ in "The Passion of the Christ" was not "little more than a lump of meat;" "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" was a fine movie (not great but very, very good), and Intelligent Design does not reflect Christian lack of courage in that it is less bold than outright creationism. (To concede this final point, you'd have to believe that Genesis is literally true in a way that the authors in all likelihood didn't intend.)

But Furedi, who is not a believer, makes and raises intriguing points:

The artistic representation of religious conviction is frequently stigmatised with terms such as 'fundamentalist', 'intolerant', 'dogmatic', 'exclusive', 'irrational' or 'right-wing'. As a secular humanist who is instinctively uncomfortable with zealot-like moralism, I am suspicious of the motives behind these doctrinaire denunciations of films with a religious message. Such fervour reminds me of the way that reactionaries in the past policed Hollywood for hints of blasphemy or expressions of 'Un-American values'. Replacing the zealotry of religious intolerance with a secular version is hardly an enlightened alternative.

I wonder how today's anti-religious crusaders would respond to The Nun's Story, the 1959 film about a woman who gives up everything to become a nun? Would it be denounced as a subversive plot to manipulate the emotions of vulnerable girls? Or a conspiracy to give fundamentalism a human face? Might it be described as a sick film with a subliminal plot that promoted the 'Just Say No' campaign?

In order to justify their excessive fear and loathing of religious people, the elites have created "the fantasy of theocratic menace" (are you listening, Swami Uptown?). Furendi notes:

Such beliefs are underpinned by the patronising assumption that, unlike educated urbane people, ordinary members of the public need simplistic black-and-white answers about the meaning of life. In private conversation, some in the liberal elite discuss the masses - or 'rednecks', Nascar dads, tabloid readers, etc - as being crass, materialistic, simplistic, racist, sexist, homophobic."

A Church Wedding for Michael Schiavo

Michael Schiavo, who led the battle to starve to death his disabled wife Terri last March, was allowed to marry his long-time girlfriend, who is the mother of Schiavo's two children, in a Catholic Church in Florida. This is a wedding that should not have taken place in a Catholic church. Any bishop worth his mitre would have sent the couple to City Hall. But, as Life Sites reports, the bishop in whose diocese this took place doesn't have a stellar record when it comes to this particular matter:

Speaking at a "Stand Up for Life" rally in South Carolina, [Terri Schiavo's sister] Ms. Vitadamo said if the Florida bishops had stepped forward and denounced what was taking place "there would have been such an enormous outcry of support from parishioners in our diocese and from Catholics around the world that my sister could very well be alive today."

Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida, outraged Catholics when he offered his only statement during the 13 days it took Terri to die from dehydration, encouraging her family to reconcile with Michael Schiavo in the name of "peace."

The Catholic Church of Espiritu Santo, where Michael Schiavo's second marriage took place, is in Bishop Lynch's diocese of St. Petersburg.

While the Florida Bishops dismally failed to intervene and speak out in defense of Terri and of the value of all human life, the Vatican issued repeated condemnations of the decision to cause her death.

If Michael Schiavo isn't an unrepentant public sinner, I don't know who is.

Alito and the Democrats

I love the antics of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, all of whom voted against the Alito nomination, not without much bloviating. No kidding, I really do love them. They may help the Republicans hold on to a slim majority in the Senate.

The nomination now goes to the full Senate, where the Democrats will have ample opportunity to further embarrass their side. The Democrats must protest the nomination--it is demanded by what would be their fringe if it weren't their base--but there is a limited amount of damage (I hope) they can inflict. That is why you get the spectacle of Joe Biden reduced to a stream of consciousness monologue. He has to do this. He had no choice.

But here is why I really love the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee--and predict that I'll soon be able to include all Senate Democrats in this smarmy embrace: The fight against Alito shows something very important about the Democrats. Despite their quadrennial vow to move closer to the center, they can't do it. It is not in their nature. (See: Scorpion and Frog, tale of.) Since a CNN poll indicates that a majority of Americans want Alito confirmed (support for him actually grew during the hearings), the Democrats are doing themselves no good with the sort of citizen who does not belong to the shots-calling Moveon.Org. Blue state Democrats, who read the New York Times's Monday screed against Alito, probably view themselves as mainstream. They don't know they're in a cocoon. Increasingly, the American left, cut off from the mainstream, has become vicious and foul-mouthed. As my colleague Charlotte Allen notes garbage-mouthery seems to be their weapon of last resort. In addition to their behavior, many Americans will no doubt realize that but for a Republican majority, a qualified jurist wouldn't have had a chance.

What matters to liberal Catholics? They don't resort to garbage-mouthery, but it's interesting that the premiere liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal found a way to pussy foot around the abortion issue and urge the defeat of the Alito nomination. Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, commented on Commonweal's stance on Bench Memos: "The editorial instead provides a powerful lesson to faithful Catholics about the wretched prudential judgment (or is it lack of courage?) of much of the 'seamless garment' crowd."

A New Spring in Their Step...

There were so many unfamiliar people in church yesterday, most in town for today's March for Life. For this year's march, 33 years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade, there's a new feeling of hope: As the editors of National Review point out, the Roe consensus is "crumbling." Polls showing support are misleading, the editors argue (I think their analysis of what the polls really indicate rings true), and, moreover:

"The Court would be perfectly justified in concluding that its attempts to micromanage abortion policy have failed, in regarding this failure as an indictment of its pretensions to have any special expertise or authority to do so, and in scrapping Roe. In Casey, the Court argued that many people have relied on the availability of abortion in the event of contraceptive failure, and that this fact was a reason to continue to protect a right to abortion. But legislatures are perfectly capable of deciding what weight to give to that fact.

"The justices may prefer to move incrementally. They may decide, when they again rule on partial-birth abortion later this year, to rule narrowly: to cede just enough legislative authority back to legislatures to let them prohibit partial-birth abortion. Little by little, they might restore democracy in this area.

"Roe's twin fortifications are there to protect each other's weaknesses. The alleged popular ratification of Roe is invoked to cover its legal implausibility. But a truly populist constitutional law would allow prohibitions on late-term abortions and substantial restrictions on early-term abortions, so the majesty of the law and the authority of the court have to be invoked against this threat. The only way to keep the game going is through sleights of hand, diversions, and illusions: Roe creates only a limited right to abortion; everyone loves Roe; it is settled law; repeat as necessary.

"The pro-abortion activists are right to be alarmed."

If Roe is overturned, then the issue of abortion will return to where it belongs--with the people and their elected representatives. Future hearings for Supreme Court nominees will return to normal--but we'll have big battles over the issue at the state-level. We'll still have to make the case that abortion is wrong. Amy Welborn of Open Book has a number of posts today of the sort that will be helpful should that come to pass. One is by Princeton jurisprudence professor Robert George:

"Now a supporter of embryo-killing for biomedical research might concede that a human embryo is a human being, yet deny that human beings in the early stages of their development are due full moral respect such that they may not be destroyed to benefit more fully developed human beings who are suffering from afflictions.

"But to deny that embryonic human beings deserve full respect, one must suppose that not every whole living human being deserves full respect. And to do that, one must hold that those human beings who deserve full respect deserve it not in virtue of the kind of entity they are, but, rather, in virtue of some acquired characteristic that some human beings (or human beings at some stages) have and others do not have, and which some human beings have in greater degree than others.

"In my judgment, this position is untenable...."

Another post concerns
musician John Bonaduce's scripturally based requiem for unborn children:

"The liturgy, named the 'Shantigarh Requiem for the Unborn,' is a journey through Scripture. The very first words sung by a choir of more than 100 are from the Book of Wisdom: 'Before the Lord, the whole universe is as a grain or a drop of morning dew. And though we are small his love is great, for he is Lord and lover of souls.'"

(Bonaduce has personal experience with abortion, having helped a friend obtain one 25 years ago.)

If Roe is overturned, it will have a catalclysmic impact--and I'm not referring only to the state-level fights. The Roe decision plays a big part in the way we think about (and act upon) sexual urges today. As Marvin Olasky writes:

"Pro-lifers say the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade is about life. Pro-choicers say it's about sex. Both are right.

"Many of my baby-boom cohort are still greatly conflicted about sex. Some of us publicly avow a biblical worldview but, when it seems that no one is watching, fall back into the Playboy bait-and-switch philosophy. The bait is physical pleasure and a sense of psychological conquest. The switch becomes evident over time, when young bodies become old and loneliness swamps lust....

"The paramount pro-life message on Jan. 22 should of course be, 'Choose life.' But pro-choicers are right to say that our parallel message has to be, 'Abstain from sex outside marriage.' A few married couples choose death for their unborn children, but the overwhelming majority of abortions come when the father and mother are not married to each other. We can lower the abortion rate by offering compassionate help and developing laws that protect the unborn, but the front line is abstinence from extra-marital sex--and older adults need to set a good example."

Abstain from sex outside of marriage! Yikes so that's why Roe is so beloved, even among people who are well beyond the age of needing an abortion or do not engage in procreative sex: It is beloved because--along with the pill--it makes it possible to lead lives in which anything goes. Many who will never have the occasion to experience abortion personally are devoted to Roe because it bolsters their belief that there are no sexual boundaries.

Thanks to Filling Up Space,an excellent Protestant blog, for pointing out that Churck Colson makes a similar point today:

"On this anniversary, Christians must resolve to go on fighting, not only on behalf of the unborn, but addressing a broader question: Does our society have the capacity to rule itself according to what is the common good, adhering to its founding principles of the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or will it be swept up in the notion that the only thing that matters is that individuals can choose for themselves whatever they want?"

Why Didn't I Think Of This?

Andrew Sullivan calls Whispers in the Loggia "the Catholic Wonkette." Whispers is the best in Vatican gossip--and a truly encyclopedic knowledge of vestments. I love it.

Truce and Consequences

The most intriguing thing about Osama bin Laden's latest tape (aside from his transparent attempt to pretend that he's winning) is the degree to which bin Laden echoes the views of the American left (in which I include the mainstream media). Powerline makes a similar observation:

"It doesn't take a genius to see that things are going very badly for bin Laden and al Qaeda. Where does he turn for hope? To American opinion polls--which, of course, he reads very selectively. Still, think how encouraging it must be to him to read about calls for withdrawal from Iraq by Congressmen like Jack Murtha. It's hard to see much daylight between Murtha's position and bin Laden's: we're losing in Iraq; the American people are tired of the conflict; Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists; and al Qaeda is less likely to attack us if we just give up and go home. Given his isolation, bin Laden could be excused for believing that he's just one Congressional election away from salvation."

It is quite disheartening that one of the posters on the mini-board, BBarton, seems to think more highly of Bin Laden than of our own government:

"Sadly people, Bin Laden never lied to us in the past. I wish our government were as reliable when it comes to the truth.

"I think the truce offer is real, but I don't think truce is wanted by our government."

Why the government would accept a truce with a terrorist, and one who appears to be on the run, I don't know. But Captain's Quarter's makes this point about Bin Laden's supposed offer of a truce:

“It’s important to remember that a strict Muslim would only honor a truce until he gains the upper hand over an infidel, at which point he would be obligated to renew his jihad. Any offer of truce, either to give one or to accept one, shows that the Muslim believes himself to be at serious disadvantage. That Osama takes the time to discuss a truce in both countries where America has hit his network hard shows that AQ has taken huge body blows. Unlike in 2004, when he used the offer of truce to split the coalition, this time he’s aimed the offer at Americans to try to stop the annihilation of his forces.”

And Captain's Quarters also says that one expert translation of the remarks on the tape shows that Osama isn't actually offering a truce--he's merely saying he might accept if we offered. There's also the question of the tape's timing. The Captain ponders this:

“So why did the audio tape just surface now? An audio-only presentation isn’t exactly unprecedented, but usually only occurs when OBL and his number-two Ayman al-Zawahiri get separated. The latest on the attack in Damadola has Zawahiri escaping the bomb blast, but his media-relations expert dying in his place. It may have been a quickly-made effort to assure AQ operatives around the world that the entire command structure of the terrorist organization did not dissipate in the light of a Hellfire missile.”

BBurton, are you sure you trust this guy?

Who Are You Talking To Anyway?

Sometimes it's easy to forget during long-winded public prayers, but when we pray we're addressing God. Not the folks at the ballgame or the banquet table. And if you're speaking to God, why must you avoid using his name? Well, to avoid being hauled into court by the ACLU. But this this ACLU failure (via Mere Comments) shows that the ACLU's illogical positions don't always work:

The ACLU has struck out in its attempt to get a federal court injunction against ministers invoking the name of Jesus in prayers before meetings of the Cobb County Commission and the Planning Commission.

U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story denied a motion for an injunction last Friday in a decision that cut the legs from under the ACLU's position.

"Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits," the judge ruled.

The judge also said:

"To be sure, many of these speakers, in offering their invocations, identify the deity to whom they direct their prayer. In that respect, they surely convey their alignment with one religious creed to the exclusion of others.

"But viewed cumulatively, given the diversity in the denominations and faiths represented, it is difficult to extrapolate from any one speaker's affiliation a preference on the part of the Cobb County government.

"The Court cannot say that plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of showing impermissible governmental preference for one religious perspective. Plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of success on their Establishment Clause claim."

It strikes me that many prayers have deteriorated into a performance. That is why we must remember Whom we address--and, if Christians, in whose name we make requests.

Sex and Sacraments

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, this Anglican bishop makes a lot better sense than the Catholic bishop of Memphis Loose Canon mentioned yesterday. For starters, the Anglican fellow doesn't natter on about "sacramental moments." And he seems to recognize that there are some problematic aspects of gay relationships.

Here is a snatch of his discussion of civil unions and the sacraments:

[B]y declaring that lay people who enter [civil unions] should not be asked about the nature of their relationship, in the context of preparation for baptism and confirmation, as well as for the purposes of receiving Holy Communion, it has compromised pastoral discipline at the local level and pre-empted the relevant canons. In doing this, the House believes that it is adhering to the teaching in Issues in Human Sexuality. It interprets 'not wanting to exclude from the fellowship of the Church' as equivalent to there being no discipline in terms of access to the sacraments. Such an interpretation, however, flies in the face of clear biblical teaching and the unanimous practice of the Church down the ages. All are welcome, of course, but this does not mean there is no guidance and discipline for the sake of the fellowship.

The statement leans towards a 'folk' understanding of the sacraments as rites of passage rather than as an entry into states of holiness and of discipleship. Bishops have a particular responsibility for holiness and I cannot see how this aspect of the statement will promote it. It should be perfectly possible, without undue intrusion, to set out the Church's faith clearly and to guide those for whom we have pastoral care with compassion and understanding as to the future course of their discipleship.

(Via CaNN.)

Why the West Has Won...So Far

As Osama bin Ladin, who must somehow get the MSM in his mountain redoubt, grandly offers us a truce (not that he's losing or anything, of course), maybe we should consider why our society, not his, has been dominant in history for a century or so. There is a terrific article on just this subject in the National Interest. Author Lawrence Mead, in a piece headlined "Why Anglos Lead," noted that many commentators see the emergence of a new American empire. Some blame Bush; some blame the end of the Cold War for "unleashing" the Americans on the world.

This is short-sighted:

"Actually, American pre-eminence extends much further back--to World War II or before. It really continues a British primacy that dated back at least to 1815. During the 20th century, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia challenged the Anglo ascendancy, but they were turned back. So today the world order bears a remarkable resemblance to the late Victorian era. Now as then, the world is globalizing, and English is its lingua franca. The United States has merely supplanted Britain as the leading power."

But why? Mead explains:

What explains Anglo primacy? One immediate cause is that other rich countries that might show leadership have abdicated. Following the devastating wars of the 20th century, the continental nations and Japan sought to banish war by subordinating themselves and other states to international institutions--the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. Germany and Japan even adopted legal curbs on the use of their militaries abroad or for offensive purposes. The ethos of most of the developed world now runs strongly against war, even for a good cause. Thus, in moments of military crisis, America seems "bound to lead" because no other country can do so.

But beyond this, the Anglo nations also possess, to an unusual degree, the resources needed for war--wealth, a capacity to project force, confidence in war and the deference of other countries. Other commentators have noted these assets. What I add is chiefly the argument that all these resources ultimately stem from the Anglos' political achievements: Good government at home is the ultimate reason for Anglo leadership abroad....

The British passed the rule of law, like capitalism, on to their colonies, and it was the most precious of their gifts. In America, political and economic competition can look like a free-for-all, but it is undergirded by a formidable legal order. Enterprise is free yet regulated to limit collusion and other abuses. Most people pay their taxes and obey the law. A civic ethos suffuses the regime. Abuses and corruption occur, but they are exposed and redressed, as in the recent Enron scandal. American judges and juries are not for sale, which is why drug kingpins fear extradition to the United States. Equal opportunity, based on an elaborate education system, is generous. The whole system rests on a commitment to public impartiality that America imbibed, like mother's milk, from its British forebears.

The left, increasingly virulent, refuses to recognize that America is a country in which wrongs such as Enron are righted. I think this failure to appreciate the gifts cited in Mead's piece is highly destructive. That's why I put "so far" in the headline. We may live in a society that no longer values its, well, values enough to risk lives and treasure to preserve them. Here's what I am wondering this afternoon: How long before somebody on the left says we should take Bin Laden up on his offer of a "truce"? (It would actually be a surrender.)

Can't Somebody Invite This Guy to the Oscars?

Just as I suspected, Osama bin Laden's views might fit in well with the American left. He doesn't sound any more crazed than George Clooney.

Oregon and the Culture of Death

Loose Canon can't comment on the legal aspects of the Oregon doctor-assisted suicide law that was just upheld by the Supreme Court. But morally it is a horror of an opinion. The coverage on the networks was upbeat with one cancer patient saying it gave her "a sense of security." What I can say personally is that when my oldest friend battled cancer she fought for every last moment, and I thank her and love her for giving the extra time to me. Saying that life must end on our terms is the ultimate contradiction of God. Fiat Voluntas Tua. Thy will be done. We want it to be according to our wills. If you don't believe in God, of course, it's a whole different ballgame. Whose will is there beyond your own?

As I said, I don't know enough about the law to dissect the ruling. But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas have law degrees, and they all dissented from the majority, with Scalia and Thomas writing minority opinions. "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," Scalia wrote.

Speaking of Scalia's dissent, Catholic blogger Diogenes wrote: "The contrary view has its own history of advocacy." Diogenes quoted from Hannah Arendt's 1963 book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". The quote comes from Arendt's reporting on Eichmann's trial. Robert Servatius was Eichmann's defense lawyer. Here is what Diogenese quoted:

"The moment, one of the few great ones in the whole trial, occurred during the short oral plaidoyer of the defense, after which the court withdrew for four months to write its judgment. Servatius declared the accused innocent of charges bearing on his responsibility for "the collection of skeletons, sterilizations, killings by gas, and similar medical matters," whereupon Judge Halevi interrupted him: "Dr. Servatius, I assume you made a slip of the tongue when you said that killing by gas was a medical matter." To which Servatius replied: "It was indeed a medical matter, since it was prepared by physicians; it was a matter of killing, and killing too is a medical matter."

Run! Run! Run for Your Lives!

If you want evidence (and I do) that the war on Christianity in this country is the result of a small group of The Offended, a piece in Christianity Today's fine blog is just up your (my) alley. It cites polling information to reveal exactly what percentage of the population is offended by having somebody say Merry Christmas--3 percent--as compared to the percentage of Americans who believe Christ is the Son of God--70 percent. This should help convince, if any more convincing is needed, the denizens of Manhattan and L.A. that this is one scary country.

It's a Good Thing Pat Robertson Didn't Say This, Part 2

You probably know already that Mayor Ray Nagin is blaming Hurricane Katrina on God (by way of George Bush--God is mad at Bush, among others). Why is it that some people can get by saying this and others can't? I do wish that God hadn't forgotten to use those school buses to evacuate people from flooded New Orleans.

A Bishop's History of the World....

As an erstwhile Memphian, Loose Canon was interested in the comments of Bishop J. Terry Steib, S.V.D., who is "laying the groundwork" for a diocesan ministry with gay and lesbians. The bishop gives a brief summary of history:

"A brief look at history--from slavery to the "march of tears" of our Native American sisters and brothers to the grape strikes in California--reminds us that God's work is always hampered when human beings are afraid of differences in each other. A new ministry with gay and lesbian persons will push open even further the door to promoting understanding and compassion among all of us. It will open the door to "home" for many who are an important part of who we are, and to a segment of our family that has been apart from us for too long."

That's the bishop's summation of history--from slavery to the grape strikes? Gee, LC thinks this is awfully parochial (in a bad sense of the word). But I guess if you think that's all there is to history you probably do believe that being "afraid of differences in each other" is the essence of history. History goes back a lot longer than southern slavery--what does the good bip make of Sodom and Gomorrah (this happened before the grape strike)?

Like the bishop, I believe that gays and lesbians should be welcome in church, but they should also recognize that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin. It the representatives of the Church fail to be honest about this, they are doing no favor to anybody. They should be welcome at "sacramental moments," to use the bishop's language, whatever it might mean, but nobody should risk his or her immortal soul by receiving Holy Communion with grave sins on the soul. Bishops are supposed to tell their flocks this--if they care about pushing open the door to heaven, that is.

The Gray Lady Tries Another Line

The New York Times, having given valuable information to our enemies with its wiretapping scoops, has now shifted its defense of the much-criticized stories. Old Line: Wiretapping U.S. citizens chatting up terrorists is illegal. New Line: It's unproductive. The Times reports:

In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

Virtually all? Why not all? I bet it's because at least one of the searches turned up a non-innocent person--and that's good enough for me. If lots of futile searches had turned up one hijacker, only one, before Sept. 11, the skyline of New York might be different today. The Weekly Standard shows why the story reveals that New York Times doesn't understand intelligence gathering:

After exposing yet another top-secret program, the New York Times is now doing its best to portray the program as not having much intelligence value....But if accurate, why is it surprising that much of the NSA data led to "dead ends" exactly? We still don't know everyone the 9/11 terrorists associated with and immediately following the attacks officials were worried that al Qaeda had inserted other "sleeper cells" inside the U.S. to carryout more attacks. The follow-on attacks never came but does that mean al Qaeda has no presence inside the U.S.? After our intelligence agencies failed to detect the 9/11 plot, we shouldn't presume that such cells might exist and use a variety of methods to detect them before they become operational? Do Democrats disagree? Do Democratic leaders agree with those saying that the president has no constitutional authority to authorize "wiretapping" outside of FISA?

On the bright side, extreme liberals can't stay away from this stuff--they basically hate the Bush administration more than they hate terrorists--but it doesn't play with the public. Do I see Republicans holding Congress at the mid-terms? Unless Democrats in Congress denounce the New York Times for revealing a vital part of our anti-terrorist program, I believe I do.

Wear Your Condom with Pride!

Planned Parenthood's new condom key chains are a new low in the bad taste department. Just plain trashy.

There are 28 designs, each with a picture or slogan. And Drudge reports that Christian right leaders are not amused. Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League's STOPP International, says of the key chains: "Some are even blasphemous."

"Planned Parenthood offends religious people with its key chain that shows a portion of the famous painting from the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo gave us a beautiful image of Adam stretching out his hand to God, with God's index finger about to touch Adam's index finger," said Sedlak. "In Planned Parenthood's blasphemous version, God is handing Adam a condom.

"Planned Parenthood goes on to offend parents with its key chain that shows a caricature of a loudly crying baby," said Sedlak. "Planned Parenthood's slogan accompanying the caricature states, 'Condoms are cheaper than diapers.'"

In addition, Sedlak said Planned Parenthood offends all patriotic Americans with a series of three key chains. "The first is a takeoff of the famous 'Uncle Sam Wants You' poster from World War II ­ in Planned Parenthood's version Uncle Sam is replaced with a condom saying 'I Want You.' The second is an American flag picture with the stars in the field of blue replaced with the words, 'Wear with Pride.' The third is a picture of the Statue of Liberty holding a condom instead of a torch."

Well, yeah, they are blasphemous. They're also an example of just how uncouth public discourse has become. I know a lot of parents, and they're not necessarily Religious Right types, who hate for their children to hear about four hour erections on television. Thanks, Planned Parenthood, for contributing, in so many ways, to the deterioration of public morals. Of course, it is an amusing irony that Planned Parenthood used the Creation story on their key chains.

Where Is Compassionate Liberalism?

And I thought the Beliefnet miniboards were mean: Loose Canon has commented elsewhere this morning on the nasty response of liberals to Martha Alito's tears.

Do You Love Your Body?

Few things are more misunderstood than the Christian teachings about the body--we actually like it! Mary Ellen Bork, who had every reason to cry but didn't, and is one of the most astute apologists for Catholicism Loose Canon knows, will be conducting a retreat on theology of the body, with emphasis on John Paul II's theology. Put on by Women Affirming Life and Sister Servants of the Eternal Word, it will take February 17-19 at the Casa Maria Retreat House in Birmingham, Ala. For details, email SISTERSERVANTS@EARTHLINK.NET or call 205-956-6760.

Infallible Means Purr-fect

In a round up of the men who will be important in the Benedictine papacy, Whispers in the Loggia ends the list of big shots rather charmingly:

And lastly... cats.... Meow.

Joseph Ratzinger, the Holy Father Benedict XVI, loves cats. The story's been told that one morning, on leaving his apartment on Citta Leonina, the street kitties whom the Prefect would routinely talk to and pet waited outside the door and followed him, in a line, to the Holy Office. A Swiss Guard interjected, "Your Eminence! The cats are taking over the Vatican!" Could it be that, maybe, in lieu of the John Pauline kissing of the ground in a new country, he'll presented with a local cat to kiss? Maybe he'll talk to it for five minutes, who knows? It's just fabulous. So be on the lookout for cats slipping through the Portone di Bronzo.

An Islamic Reformation?

One of the fond hopes of Western intellectuals is that Islam will have "a Reformation." Who, the question is posed hopefully, will be Islam's Martin Luther? Loose Canon has always thought that this was a naive question, founded, ironically enough, not on the multiculturalism so beloved of liberals but on a sort of West-o-centric approach to history and the world around us. But now somebody with a deeper knowledge of religion is challenging the notion that there might be an Islamic Reformation: Pope Benedict XVI.

Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., who is a friend of the pope's, revealed this in an interview with radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt (via CaNN). Fessio's remarks are very important and can be found on Confessing Reader:

Hugh Hewitt: Father Fessio, before the break, you were telling us that after the presentation at Castel Gandolfo by two scholars of Islam this summer with Benedict in attendance, as well as his former students, for the first time in your memory, the Pope did not