MH - Distributism, Part III

In part 1 of our series on Distributism, we discussed the reasons why a third way - neither socialist nor capitalist - might be needed, by looking at how both Republicans and Democrats fall short in certain areas. Part 2 dealt with previous papal encyclicals on the subject of capitalism and its relationship to the dignity of the worker.

We could do this entire post on Chesterton, and maybe we will. My thanks to Dale Ahlquist and his book G.K. Chesterton: The Apostle of Common Sense, which I've cited before, as the source of many of the Chesterton quotes.

Chesterton felt Big Business and Big Government were both dedicated to controlling the lives of individuals. In the case of Big Business, it was done through making the employee a "wage slave," one who worked not for himself but for someone else.

"When most men are wage-earners, it is more and more difficult for most men to be customers. For the capitalist is always trying to cut down what his servant demands, and in doing so is cutting down what his customer can spend."

This can be seen most strikingly in the advent of the superstore, the one-stop, low-price leading mega-building. Now, Wal-Mart wasn't around when Chesterton lived, but you wouldn't know it by his predictions. Chesterton forsaw the development of the superstore, and didn't like it. One of the funniest claims, Chesterton says, is:

"[T]he statement that it is convenient to get everything in the same shop. That is to say, it is convenient to wlalk the length of the street, so long as you walk indoors or...underground, instead of walking the same distance in the open air from one little shop to another. The truth is that the monopolists' shops are really very convenient - to the monopolist. They have all the advantages of concentrating business as they concentrate wealth, in fewer and fewer of the citizens."

In other words, by controlling the amount of disposable income we have, the big business forces us to seek the lowest prices we can, therefore driving us to that same big business. We're told that these companies are able to keep prices low by buying in bulk, and those who favor such companies will say that in doing so, the big business is able to keep other businesses - its suppliers - afloat.

But look at the problems inherent in such a situation - take the crash of Kmart a few years ago, for example. When Fleming won the contract to be the sole food supplier for Kmart, it was seen as a major victory for Fleming, and a defeat for its competitors. However, when Kmart ran into major financial difficulties in 2002, Fleming felt the pain of having put so many eggs in one basket (Kmart was responsible for one-quarter of Fleming's revenue, according to this story), and wound up facing problems of its own. Of course, when you read the fine print you see that Ronald Burke, one of the major investors in Kmart, also owned a sizable chunk of Fleming stock, which he sold for $75 million, making a $25 million pretax profit.

However, Chesterton saw more danger from big business than simply the superstore. There was the matter of big business' effect on the individual. Both big government and big business conspire against the individual because, Ahlquist says, "they are soulless. They are in revolt against the normal and the ordinary...They do not want the common man to have power." As Chesterton points out:

"They are willing to give him a vote, because they have long discovered that it need not give him any power. They are not willing to give him a house, or a wife, or a child, or a dog, or a cow, or a piece of land, because these things really do give him power."

In this sense, big business and big government are invoved in a conspiracy against you and me. For many years, the common wisdom has been that Republicans are the party of big business, while Democrats favor the working man. However, big business has a much broader agenda, and contributes substantially to both parties, in order to maintain its influence. Its ultimate goal is to maintain the status quo, for which they generally use the offices of the Democratic party. Think about it: more regulation, more layers of bureaucracy - in other words, specialities of the Democrats - actually favor big business. Oh, they may complain about it, perhaps in order to maintain their cover, but in fact these rules and regulations cost money - money that entreprenuers and smaller businesses seldom can afford. Through regulation, big business is able to eliminate competition and continue their monopolies. What the Republican party truly needs to do is identify itself more closely with the entreprenuerial class, which is the area of the economy that actually produces jobs, and tends to afford employees more ownership abilities.

Economics is not the only area in which this unholy aliance poses a threat to society. Chesterton stated in The Superstition of Divorce:

Capitalism . . . is at war with the family, for the same reason which has led to its being at war with the Trade Union . . . It desires its victims to be individuals, or (in other words) to be atoms. For the word atom, in its clearest meaning (which is none too clear) might be translated as individual. If there be any bond, if there be any brotherhood, if there be any class loyalty or domestic discipline, by which the poor can help the poor, these emancipators will certainly strive to loosen that bond or lift that discipline in the most liberal fashion . . . in other words smash it to atoms.

. . . A very profound and precise instinct has led them to single out the human household as the chief obstacle to their inhuman progress. Without the family we are helpless before the State, which in our modern case is the Servile State.

Let's think about this for a moment, because this is really a multileveled arguement consisting of three main points: big business encouraging consumerism, big business taking workers away from their families, and big business producing products that harm the family.

Begin with the two-wage-earner family - one can argue, correctly, that this often is a consequence of materialism (or perhaps more accurately, consumerism), becaues people want their toys - the second home, the fourth car, etc. On the face of it, this seems to be something you can't hang on big business.

True, but before we go too far down this road let's go back to what JPII said in Centesimus Annus: "If, on the contrary, a direct appeal is made to his instincts — while ignoring in various ways the reality of the person as intelligent and free — then consumer attitudes and life-styles can be created which are objectively improper and often damaging to his physical and spiritual health." In other words (my interpolation), materialism can be said to be an outgrowth of original sin, an affinity for sin; for business to deliberately cultivate and take advantage of that affinity is in and of itself a sin, when it "totally reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of material needs." (JPII)

When big business panders to, indeed creates, desires that are based purely on materialism, they must share some of the blame for creating this atmosphere of consumerism. You could call them predators, feeding off human weakness like a bar serving booze to a known alcoholic; the bartender may claim that he's only giving the customer what he wants, but in fact he's taking advantage of that alcoholic, exploiting his weakness in the name of profit.

Let me hasten to add: I'm not trying to say there's something wrong with owning nice things. Again, let's go back to what JPII said:

It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards "having" rather than "being", and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself. It is therefore necessary to create life-styles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments.

And what I'm trying to suggest is that corporate America, in its desire to make as much money as possible, is in the business of creating life-styles based on "having," on spending money and gaining possessions rather than spending time trying to gain the Kingdom of God.

But I said this was a multileveled arguement. Now let's look at its affect on family life in general. Ahlquist summarizes Chesterton's position on big business and the family as follows:

"Families are a nuisance to businesses that have to provide a living wage, health care plans, and maternity leave, and that have to put up with employees coming in late or going home early because a child is sick or missed the school bus."

Look at the statistics - Americans work more hours than employees in any other industrialized country, yet we take less vacation time. Work is the source of so much family stress - economic pressures, extended business travel, more time at the office - is enormous. And this says nothing about how artificial work measures such as "team building" put pressures on marriages by encouraging close relationships between men and women.

Yet business often turns a blind eye to such pressures, and nowhere is this attitude more evident than in the HR information I quoted earlier. It's clear that business sees employee value in terms of what the employee contributes to the well-being of the company, not the intrinsic value of the individual. Some would argue that business has done a great deal for the families - providing on-site day care facilities, plus other amenities at the corporate "campus," such as stores, dry cleaners, fitness centers, and medical facilities. But is this really for the advantage of the employee, or is it for the convenience of the company - to keep the employee at work as long as possible, to eliminate as many excuses as possible for the employee wanting to leave the facility. Keep 'em there, and they'll work longer and harder.

So far, we've talked about the internal mechanics of big business, and how it works (alone and in collaboration with big government) to dehumanize the employee and separate him from his family. In our next post we'll discuss how business puts profits ahead of people - and nations - by the products they produce.

And remember, all this is not intended as an attack on business per se, but a buildup to the rationale behind Distributism, and how it can become part of our thinking, our behavior, and our political system.

MH - "Whose Life Is It To End?"

...is the title of an editorial in the Dallas Morning News, written by George P. Bush, son of the governor of Florida. Excerpt:

American society is about to enter dangerous territory, in which the slow-motion killing of a woman by her faithless husband will have been sanctioned by the court. After Terri's death, where will we draw the line between one's right to privacy and another's right to life? Are our legislatures to have no say in the matter?

It is inconvenient to Michael Schiavo and to the Florida courts that Terri Schiavo continues to live and that her parents won't relent and let her die of thirst and starvation. If Mr. Schiavo prevails, then every person whose life is considered of negligible quality by a court or a legal guardian could be condemned. There is more at stake here than the fate of one solitary woman. After this Friday, it becomes possible that, in this country, if the unwanted and the weak are simply too burdensome to us as individuals, that the right to rid ourselves of inconvenient lives will be our courts' guiding principle.

Read the whole thing here. Props to GetReligion for the post. I particularly liked the statement that Terri's life is "inconvenient" to Michael and the Florida courts. Doesn't that echo so many of Mother Teresa's statements about abortion, especially this one: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

MH - I Wish I'd Listened to What My Mother Told Me When I Was Young

In light of the California ruling that the state's ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, Relapsed Catholic (via Volokh) reminds us that Phyllis Schlafly had predicted such things back when she was fighting the ERA:

"Yet it now looks like the 'hysterical' 'emotional scare tactic' 'canard' may well have been quite reasonable predictions: It looks like courts are indeed treating opposite-sex-only marriage rules as involving sex classifications, and as thus being presumptively unconstitutional. Had the ERA been enacted at the federal level, it would have further raised the bar against sex classifications, and thus made decisions like the California and Massachusetts one more likely."

Although Volokh favored passage of ERA (with some modifications), he admits:

"But the California decision -- and the Massachusetts decision, and a similar Hawaii decision that has since been reversed by the Hawaii voters -- shows us that we shouldn't lightly dismiss plausible, facially valid textual arguments (the text bars discrimination based on sex, and the marriage laws do treat people differently based on their sex) as 'canards,' 'scare tactics,' or 'hysteric[s].' The anti-ERA forces, much as I probably disagree with most of them on many things, have proved prescient."

It proves once again (as if we needed further proof) the truth of the slippery-slope arguement. Which brings me to the title of this post (500 points to anyone who knows where it came from):

Arthur: "You know, it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse, and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space, that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young."

Ford: "Why, what did she tell you?"

Arthur: "I don't know, I didn't listen."

Substitute "judicial tyranny" for a Vogon airlock, and you have our current situation in a nutshell.

MH - Wish I'd Written That...

"Million Dollar Baby, [Clint] Eastwood’s latest, starts off as a feel-good boxing flick and ends up as a slickly appointed, tacitly anti-Catholic public-service announcement hawking the joys of euthanasia, one of the cultural Left’s nastier enthusiasms. (Has there ever been a safer Oscar prospect?)"

- Terry Teachout, Crisis Magazine


My comment: I think I've said all that before, but not nearly as well.

MH - The Lessons of "Mercy Killing"

An excellent post from Against the Grain. Takes us through eugenics, the Holocaust, the euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, the "assisted suicide" law in Oregon, and inevitably to Terri Schiavo. Advocates of "mercy killing" won't want to acknowledge the roots of their movement, but face it - once you start down this slippery slope, there's only one way it can end. Excerpts:

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's website has a section on the Nazi Persecution of the Disabled, including the origins of the Nazi T4 Euthanasia Program.

The T4 Euthanasia Program had its roots in Hitler's drive to develop a "master race" out of a "biologically pure" Aryan population. The forced sterilization of those suffering from hereditary disease -- a move reflected in the United States' eugenics movement -- was a precursor to the mercy killing of those deemed "uncurable."

[...]

In December 2004, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) "asked the Netherlands Ministry of Health to create an independent board to evaluate euthanasia cases for each category of people 'with no free will,' a category that would include children, the severely mentally retarded and patients in irreversible comas. ("Dutch ponder 'mercy killing' rules", CNN Dec. 2, 2004).

According to the Associated Press, the Groningen Academic Hospital in Amsterdam "recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives." ("Netherlands grapples with euthanasia of babies" MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2004). The story made its rounds through the blogosphere, but as Hugh Hewitt noted in the Weekly Standard ("Death by Committee", received precious little mention by the editors and pundits in the mainstream press.

[...]

Those living in the United States might react with horror and moral repugnance at the news coming from the Netherlands, but we've got monsters in our own backyard to contend with. The State of Oregon has already taken the plunge by passing its own doctor-assisted suicide law in 1997, resulting in the documented deaths of more than 170 patients.

[...]

Those involved in Germany's T4 program were compelled by social Darwinianism (for whom the disabled were considered an impediment to their utopian dream of a master race); the Dutch on the other hand are motivated by a more enlightened compassion (desiring a quick and "painless" end to those for whom there is no cure), and Michael Schiavo is driven by the desire to put his wife out of her alleged misery and go on with his own life (having already done so to a certain extent, shacking up with his mistress and melting down Terri's wedding rings to make jewelry for himself). Regardless of the historical context or personal motivation, there seems to be an underlying theme to these situations: when faced with the task of caring for the disabled, and especially those deemed incurable, all those involved have subjectively decided that the patient's life is of such a quality that he or she may be deemed expendable. Suffering is regarded as the greatest offense, and killing is considered the chief act of mercy.

MH - How Times Have Changed

On September 30, 1963, ABC aired an episode of The Outer Limits entitled "The Architects of Fear," starring Robert Culp. The story concerns "a group of scientists who try and instigate world peace by creating an imaginary alien threat, which they hope Mankind will unify against." Culp plays one of the scientists, who, by drawing the short straw, agrees to undergo injections and operations that will transform him into a grotesque alien creature (I suppose now they'd just contact George Lucas and have him whip up an intelligent alien, but that's beside the point).

Of course, as usually happens in stories like this, things go awry; the spaceship, which is supposed to land outside the UN building, instead goes off course, and Culp winds up being shot and killed by farmers. There are some effective, disturbing scenes in the show, and there is an interesting commentary on the power of love, but my purpose here isn't to write a review of the episode.

I thought of this story over the weekend while watching the DVD that accompanies the book What We Saw, a recap of the CBS coverage of September 11, 2001. I picked the book up on the sale table at a bookstore on Saturday. Both the book and DVD have some typically ponderous narration by Dan Rather, but the images from that day are, of course, searing. I was going to say they were unforgettable, but I'm afraid too many people have forgotten them already. Much of it I'd already seen live, but (not being a CBS news watcher) I hadn't seen most of the features that ran in the days following the attack.

One of them in particular gave me cause to think, and to write this piece. It concerned the wave of patriotism that swept the country in the aftermath. American flags were flying out of the stores, Republicans and Democrats spoke "as one voice," and, as Rather and others pointed out, it was proof once again that Americans come together in times of danger.

And as I watched this I wondered, as many have, where all that togetherness has gone.

If you believe the polls and whatnot, we're a more divided country than ever before. The war in Iraq, indeed the entire war on terrorism, is immensely controversial, in a way that would have been difficult to imagine on September 12. Democrats, of course (at least the prominent ones), remain mostly united in their "blame America first" mentality. Radicals suggest we "asked for it," that we had it coming, that we were even involved in some kind of conspiracy to cause it to happen (Michael Moore, call your office.) There's no sympathy from the world "community" now, just scorn.

Conservatives have been split, and one now sees the divide between the neocons and the paleocons even more clearly. Catholics have been split, as the debate over just war receives more prominence than it has in many years. Periodicals such as First Things and Crisis line up on in favor of the war, opposed by those such as New Oxford Review and The Wanderer (I mention these four because I've subscribed to all of them at one time or another). It's particularly depressing to see these kinds of disagreements among Catholics, who in most other ways are on the same side in defending conservative orthodoxy against both internal and external attacks.

One of the underlying reasons for this dispute, I think, is the nature of what exactly the United States stands for. To underscore this I flashback to the days immediately following 9/11. Churches are packed. There's a feeling of togetherness. People everywhere are saying "the country has changed." But do you remember exactly what was happening on September 10? For one thing, there was a lot of debate over President Bush's recent decision to allow research on a limited number of embryonic stem cells that had been harvested, even while prohibiting future use of such stem cells. Today Bush sounds like a voice of sanity, but back then many of us in the pro-life movement were looking at this as a depressing defeat. And, yes, the debate over embryonic stem cells has become even more fierce.

Then we talked of a resurgence of religious faith, but today we deal with the spectre of Terri Schiavo being starved to death in Florida, of euthenasia becoming more and more acceptable, of homosexual marriage mandated by legislative fiat. The Pledge of Allegiance may be unconstitutional, the Ten Commandments are under attack everywhere, and pro-abortion Catholic politicians talk about not contaminating their public duties with their faith. In many places you can't even say "Merry Christmas" in polite company anymore. Yeah, things have changed, all right.

This is where I think much of the ambivalance over the war comes from - the question as to whether or not this is a country worth saving. And I understand where people who say this are coming from. In the year or so prior to the attacks, I had many times commented that, in my opinion, the United States was becoming one of the largest exporters of evil in the world, what with the culture of death, pornography, and a general contamination of other parts of the world with our valueless culture. For a while there, after September 11, you couldn't really say things like that, but now it seems to be open season again, so I can admit it. I myself asked the question as to whether or not this was a country I could fight for (an easy question to ask when you're over the draft age). In so many ways, America seems bent on going to hell in a handbasket.

And yet...

My first reaction after the Trade Center collapsed was that we ought to go nuclear. To this day, I think one of Bush's mistakes was that he didn't strike back quickly enough. We had enough of an idea who was responsible that we should have been bombing that night. And we really didn't need the UN to do that - this was an attack on the United States, and to that we reserve the right to defend ourselves. Bush also should have sought a formal declaration of war from Congress (I know the technical objections that existed then, but they could have been overcome), which might have made some of the subsequent disputes over "authority" a moot point. Whereas some accuse Bush of having gone overboard, I'm one of those who think he didn't go far enough. Protecting the citizenry is one of, if not the primary, responsibility of the Federal government, and whatever my disagreements with the government have been and continue to be, I want them protecting my butt out there, and my wife and family and friends as well.

As for the war in Iraq, I admit that I was skeptical about the whole thing. Still am. I'm cautiously optimistic about the results, more or less, but was this really the war we needed? Far better, I thought at the time, to go into Syria or Iran or even Saudi Arabia, areas that I thought were more of a direct threat in the war on terror. Is this empire-building, as some would argue? I don't know but, frankly, I would have been in favor of wiping out the entire Middle East if it would have kept this country safer. And while it might not have been the right decision to go into Iraq (or if it was, we might not have done it for the right reasons), we're there now, and we'd better make sure we don't leave without finishing the job.

I look at the conservative columnists who have been most vocal in their opposition - Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and Joe Sobran, for example - and the publications such as The Wanderer, and I have a great deal of respect for them and their opinion. If I do disagree with them over the war, it's one of the few things in which we don't agree. Some would argue that this stems from a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of certain important points of Catholic or conservative ideology, but I don't accept that. I think there is room for honest difference of opinion that doesn't make one side totally wrong, and therefore morally bankrupt. I don't usually feel that way, but on this issue I do.

But this isn't really about what I think of the war, either, and I don't want to turn it into that kind of a debate. If and when I do write more about my opinions, you'll know it.

Instead, what I keep coming back to, in my mind, is this scenario posed by the documentary, this idea of America coming together. In truth, I think there's more support for the war out there than the MSM or opinion polls would have you believe, but there's no question the country is divided, often bitterly so. And the question this raises for me is this: is there anything that can make this a United States again? Increasingly we see the national culture slipping away - we don't even speak the same language or follow the same customs any more. A great example of this is TV and radio - there are so many specialty stations out there, there isn't really anything that brings us together as a nation in a shared cultural experience, except maybe the Super Bowl. Special interest groups have succeeded in dividing the country along so many arbitrary lines that you can't even keep track of them. Politics has become so personal that you can't really have a friendly disagreement in most cases. And we watch the continuing moral decline, the sense that things are much, much worse than they have been. Christians are fighting back - I think The Passion of the Christ was the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" movie of our lifetime, and it has definitely energized people to fight back - but there are so many things against which we must fight.

So we've been attacked, and some Americans think we deserved it. We're at war, and some Americans side with the world against their own country. People shoot at us, and we argue as to whether or not we should shoot back. We capture enemy soldiers, and can't agree on what the definition of torture is. And in the meantime we, as a country, debate whether or not we should murder the unborn and the disabled.

You hear a lot of people talk about the world of difference between September 10 and September 11, 2001. Ah, but here I sit on March 14, 2005, and from this vantage point it is the world of September 12, 2001 that seems to be a lifetime ago...

MH - Words of Encouragement

Well, we could use a few. As I mentioned, I've been away from the computer most of the day, but for the latest in Terri's fight for life, including prayers for the intercession of Bishop Sheen, check out Blogs for Terri.

And as for the encouragement, how about the first reading from today's Mass: Wisdom 2:1a, 12-22:

The wicked said among themselves, thinking not aright: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls.

MH - Reflections for the Fifth Friday in Lent

Psalm 22:6-8

But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people. All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; "He committed his cause to the LORD; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him!"

My apologies for the silence today; but I did want to get this meditation up, so it will, perforce, be brief.

As we prepare to enter Passiontide, it might be good to recall the words of the suffering servant in this Psalm, one of my personal favorites. When you read it, remember the suffering Our Lord has already gone through, and that which is to come; and remember why He is doing it.

Love. His love for us. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

As Bishop Sheen once said, Our Lord loves us as if we were an only child. As we look to Palm Sunday and Good Friday, remember this love, and let it sustain you no matter what happens.

MH - By The Way...

Just to show you that there is some kind of synergy, some linkage to this type of thought, let's consider the case of Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, who so many of us felt was "squishy," to say the least, in defense of Terri Schiavo. Oh, what's that, you say? "What defense?" Well, you're right. His idea was that everyone should compromise.

First there's this story from the St. Petersburg Times, courtesy of Cruxnews.com, that "The Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg paid slightly more than $100,000 to a former employee who claimed he had been harassed by Bishop Robert Lynch."

We are reminded (thanks, Ignatius Insight!) that this is the same Bishop Lynch who has defended liberal liturgists against Vatican interference. This article from Adoramus Bulletin tells the story:

Speaking of the bishop's authority to govern the liturgy in his diocese, Bishop Lynch said, "I would understand that it is my duty to find the middle between the law and proper liberation from the law which might allow for cultural or local adaptations which are not in strident disagreement with the law". The Bishop deplores "pontificalism", the "sin of symbolic and ceremonial excess", but says he does not hear of much pontificalism in his diocese. And he adds his voice to those who object to "Vatican interference."

Of course, when you're talking about "bishop's authority," you can't help but remember that Bishop Lynch used that authority to end regular exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. (Links to this story are numerous; I've used this one because it also has information that rebuts the bishop's claims.)

Here in the diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Eucharistic Adoriation is given great credit for the increase in vocations we're seeing. And it is true that many studies suggest that the new crop of priests are more theologically conservative. Perhaps Bishop Lynch wants to curb the growth of that new, conservative priest - priests like Fr. Rob Johansen, who has done so much to fight for the life of Terri Schiavo. No thanks to the bishop.

Is all this linkage valid? Well, where there's smoke...

MH - And Another Thing..

Want to know how we got to the point we are in that last post? It's a slippery slope, my friends. Take, for example, these words of the infamous Peter Singer (thanks, K-Lo!): "Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a perosn, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

Of course, presumably the disabled, those who are on some form of life-support, would fall into that same catetory - they have no "sense of their own existence" either, right? Therefore, what's the big deal? After all, it's not like it's murder or anything...

Now, how widespread is this feeling, you ask? Again from K-Lo, this CNN story: "Study: Newborn euthanasia underreported."

Euthanizing terminally ill newborns, while still very rare, is more common in the Netherlands than was believed when the startling practice was reported a few months ago -- and experts say it also occurs, quietly, in other countries.

Dutch doctors estimate that at least five newborn mercy killings occur for every one reported in that country, which has allowed euthanasia for competent adults since 1985.

Clearly, I need to look for something more lighthearted to write about next...

MH - Here's Who Comes Next

In one of my posts yesterday I quoted a headline from Blogs for Terri - "Judge Rules No Food, Water for Terri Schiavo - Who's Next?" Bill Cork has the answer in this post, the story of a man on a ventilator, receiving artificial nutrition and hydration. His family wants to keep him alive - no problem there - but the hospital told his wife they were cutting him off. A judge sided with the hospital against the family - apparently they don't think the prognosis is good, and in the meantime it's costing them too much to keep him alive. Here's the complete story.

But what really gets me about this the most is this editorial from the Houston Chronicle, headlined "When relatives file suit to overrule physicians and keep loved ones on artificial life support, everybody loses." Here's Bill's excerpt from that editorial:

If relatives prove incapable of making a rational decision, then courts must be willing to enforce the law [that permits the plug to be pulled apart from the family's desires], no matter how personally disagreeable the judge might find that duty.

In other words, the judge says I'm just following orders - the order of the law. After all, we are a nation of laws, not men, right?

Keep this up, though, and there won't be any men - or women - left. This is so toxic, so grossly immoral to even consider, I don't have the words to express how it makes me feel.

MH - The True Face of a "Million Dollar Baby"

...can be found in this post from Rich Lowry at The Corner, on a NYT story of a real-life female boxer facing a situation similar to that of the movie's "heroine." Lowry calls it "heart-breaking," and I'm in no mood to disagree.

You know, this is what the fight for life is all about. It's for women like Terri Schiavo and Katie Dallman and other men and women like them. It's for the millions of unborn babies who depend on their mother to bring them to life outside the womb. It's for you and me, who by the grace of God and our mothers were born, and by the grace of God might avoid death at the hands of a killer society. It's what Pope John Paul has been preaching about for his entire life. It's the dignity of life, and make no mistake about it - life has an innate dignity that neither the state nor Corporate America nor anyone else can take away from you.

The Founding Fathers understood that what the state gives to you it can also take away, and we must keep it in mind as well. The dignity of life comes from God alone, and it is that with which we must cooperate while here on earth, for through that we touch Him, and honor the dignity which He gave us.

MH - Can Pope John Paul II Save Europe Again?

That's the question posed by John O'Sullivan in this very good piece from NRO. He first offers a bleak description of the state of Christianity in Europe:

For the Christian churches that survived the oppression of communism seem to be succumbing to the euthanasia of post-Christian consumer materialism under liberty.

Or to change the metaphor, if Communist hostility to religion was rape; liberal antagonism is seduction it sets out to deny and destroy the soul by painting man as an entirely materialist creature rightly devoted to pleasure and inspired at best to bureaucratic compassion.

In this atmosphere religious belief and attendance are both declining across the continent even in such outposts of belief as Ireland.

He then discusses the Holy Father's reaction to such events - his campaign to fight secularism in Europe - and concludes on this note, to which we can all add our hopes and prayers for this tireless warrior who has already done so much for our Church and our world:

It surely grieves him. But is there perhaps in the pope's pilgrimages to the third world and in the "reverse missionaries" from there to Europe the hand of providence a second time?

Thousands of pilgrims from all over the world came to St Peter's Square last Sunday to see the silent pope and hear his appeal for their prayers read by another.

Will the millions of new Christians they represent in Asia and Africa be the vehicles of the saving grace that will rejuvenate the tired churches of Europe? And will the pope himself live to lead this renaissance as he led the last? Or will he merely glimpse from afar, like Moses, the promised land he is not permitted to enter?

Not to be in the least flippant but: God only knows.

MH - Latest on Terri

Is here, at Blogs for Terri. If this headline doesn't make you want to weep, what does?

"Judge Rules No Food, Water For Terri Schiavo: Who's Next?"

Do read this site every day, and check back for updates on what more we can do, to add our actions and voices to those of the Heavenly Hosts.

MH - Now Playing

Mozart's Requiem, one of the greatest compositions in the Western musical canon. The version I'm listening to is by Sir Colin Davis and the London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus, but there are many great recordings around. I know Ben Stein is very partial to a rendition by Sir Neville Marriner and the Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields (maybe it's this one). (Marriner was, coincidentally, music director for several years of our very own Minnesota Orchestra.) There's always a section in the Dias Irae, the Lacrimosa (Ah! that day of tears and mourning!/From the dust of earth returning/man for judgment must prepare him;/Spare, O God, in mercy spare him!), that makes me stop whatever I'm doing and just listen.

One of the most profound days of the liturgical year is All Souls' Day, November 2, which is always commemorated at St. Agnes (and other Catholic churches, in fairness) with a Requiem High Mass, featuring the Mozart Requiem. To listen to the pleadings of the Dias Irae, the solumnity of the black vestments, and the sublime genius of Mozart, is an experience to last the entire year.

MH - Mr. Lileks and the Coffee Shop

Sounds like the title of an episode of Monk, doesn't it? But if you look at his column today you'll notice he's talking about a strip mall near the coffee shop where he's writing the column. I know exactly the place he's talking about! We used to live about 10 minutes from there, and we were actually over in that neighborhood last week. One of the secret pleasures of living in the same city as a famous columnist is that you occasionally (more than occasionally, actually) recognize yourself as a participant in the great canvas backdrop to the world about which he writes.

Nothing else - I just thought that fact might impress you...

MH - Reflections on "Father Elijah"

Ignatius Insight has a link to the Catholic novelist Michael O'Brien's website, StudiOBrien.com, and features a very interesting discussion of O'Brien's novel Father Elijah.

I've refered to this novel in the past as having played a significant role in my decision to drop out of politics. Father Elijah is, not surprisingly, the protagonist of the story. As we get deeper into the novel we see occasional glimpses of Father Elijah's life prior to entering the monastery. Through them we we learn that he is a convert from Judiasm, a man who was a prominent politician in Israel, headed on the fast track to perhaps becoming prime minister someday, when his wife is killed in a terrorist bomb explosion. After that he is forced to reexamine his life, eventually dropping out of politics, converting to Catholicism, and becoming a priest.

It's a disturbing novel, in which Father Elijah is called out of his simple life at Carmel by the Pope and the Cardinal Secretary of State to embark on a secret mission which involves a confrontation with the Antichrist. Just looking at the description of the novel contained in the Ignatius link, and O'Brien's discussion of it on his website, reminded me of how punishing an experience it is (in particular, a scene that describes an advertisement for an art show using the bodies of aborted children). The subtitle of the book is "An Apocalypse," and that's no exaggeration.

But my purpose here isn't particularly to discuss the plot of the book as it is to explain why it had such an effect on me. I read it just before or during my campaign for the Minnesota state legislature in 1998, a race in which I'm proud to say I finished second (but circumspect enough to avoid mentioning that there were only two people in the race). As I think about it, I must have read it some time in 1997, when the campaign was well under way, but before the point where I actually got out there and knocked on doors.

I'd been involved in politics for almost 25 years at that point, having worked on my first campaign in 1974 when I was still in high school. During that time I'd written for newsletters and designed campaign fliers, I'd gone on early-morning lit drops and worked evening phone banks, I'd done the typical grunt work. By 1998 I'd already managed a campaign for the legislature, served two terms as the chairman of the local party, spent three years hosting a public-access cable TV show, been appointed to the city's planning commission, and had emerged as a rising star in the party. It was a foregone conclusion that I'd be a candidate for public office, and when I decided to run for the legislature I won the party's endorsement without opposition.

What does all this have to do with Father Elijah? Well, one thing that I leared through all this time was that to succeed in politics you have to really want it, be willing to do whatever it takes to win. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to do anything illegal or unethical; I use that phrase merely to indicate that you have to be focused, with virtual tunnel vision, in order to rise to the top. And I think it was reading Father Elijah that first impressed on me the idea that politics wasn't necessarily the be-all and end-all that I'd thought it was. I'd already converted to Catholicism myself at this point, and I will say on my behalf that my campaign was, I think, sufficiently informed by my faith that even today I have nothing to be ashamed about. But there was this idea in my head that politics was for me a calling, a way to change the world, a way of life. Even if I ran for office and lost, I'd still be involved in some way.

But then to read a book about a man, a powerful man on the verge of leading his country, who abruptly turns his back on all that worldly power and walks away. That made a big impression on me, and I think it affected the way I ran my campaign. It wasn't the only factor (another one was Pat Buchanan's simple statement "You have to worship at a higher altar than the bottom line."), but coming at the time in my life that it did, I can't deny that it changed the way I thought about things. It was the first time I understood that I wasn't stuck in politics forever; I could walk away from it and there would be another life to live. I try to close my eyes now and think of what else went through my mind as I read the book, and nothing in particular is coming to me, just the feeling that there was more to life than this, that perhaps God had something else in store for me, that He didn't want me succeeding in this particular venture.

I don't want anyone who worked on my campaign to think that I wasn't giving it my all, but in truth by the time the election rolled around I genuinely didn't care whether or not I won. Part of that was because the campaign itself, particularly the candidate, was so inept that it didn't especially encourage continued participation. But a major part of it was the continuing influence of Father Elijah. As election night came and the votes were being counted, I knew that whether I won or not (and at that point I was pretty sure I'd lost; I was, in fact, the only person involved in the campaign who felt that way - but I don't think the campaign's overconfidence had anything to do with the final outcome) I'd taken part in my final campaign, that even if I won I wouldn't seek reelection. After my concession speech I walked out of the the banquet room and out of politics forever. It wasn't enough that I wasn't cut out to be a candidate; there was more to it than that. I had a different path to pursue, one that I'm still working on, occasionally having trouble keeping track of where that path runs, but doing the best I can.

As you can tell from this site I keep up-to-date on what's going on politically, and I comment when appropriate, but since then I've stayed away from political gatherings, dropped out of all the organizations to which I belonged, turned my back on my previous existence and lived a much more peaceful life. It's why I have such an affinity for the writings of Peggy Noonan, who always seems to get it that there's more to life than what meets the eye.

Could this change in the future? As James Bond once said, never say never, but if I were to go back (and I have to admit it looks better all the time when compared to the life of Corporate America), it would be with a different set of priorities and a different way of looking at things.

I probably haven't expressed this particularly well; personal confessions of this sort rarely are. But my purpose is to point out a couple of things: one, that literature can genuinely be a life-changing experience; and two, that at the end of the day, no matter what it is you're doing, you're going to have to answer for it. I have no doubt that committed Christians involved in politics are doing the best they can, but as I've warned in the past, make sure that you're not so wrapped up in getting "a place at the table" that you forget your place at the ultimate table, that of Our Lord at the banquet He promises us. Beàti qui ad cenam Agni vocàti sunt; Blessed are they who are called to the banquet of the Lamb.

MH - Countdown on the Ten Commandments

Larry Kudlow, NRO Economics Editor and Catholic convert, has a very good piece defending public displays of the Ten Commandments. Read the whole thing, but here's a sample:

Religion has always been central to our national identity. Religious references do not violate the First Amendment, which was never intended to bar all religious expression or discussion from national discourse. James Madison himself, the author of the First Amendment, was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible. So was George Washington, and, I believe, every president since.

[...]

I have a few direct questions for you: Is it such a bad thing to think about not killing, not stealing, not lying, and not committing adultery? Is it so bad to talk about honoring one’s parents? Or to think about a power greater than oneself — about God or some higher deity? Or to set aside just one day a week as a spiritual day, separate from the material strivings of the other six days?

Attempting to live by these moral and religious values is a worthy endeavor. No one of us is perfect; that role is for God alone. But if we strive for better values in our day-to-day lives, if we seek to meet the age-old standards of goodness and honesty, if we try to help our neighbors in all we do, won’t we be better people, even if our imperfections cause us to fall short?

We can suspect that justices such as Scalia and Thomas agree, but what about the rest? These are true words, and well worth considering - not only by the Supreme Court, but in the hearts of each and every one of us. Have you read the Ten Commandments lately?

MH - Good Grief

Dawn Eden has an insightful and humorous article today on when the comic strip Peanuts jumped the shark. It's one of those great pieces that sums up what you've been thinking all along without realizing it. Read Dawn's piece, and the link to the post that started it all, from Jamie Weinman.

As I said, I hadn't really given the issue that much thought, but I agree with it completely. For many years Peanuts was my favorite comic. I bought each new paperback collection as it came out (I think my collection reached about 40 in all before I sold them), I had the "Charlie Brown All Stars" baseball cap and uniform, I faithfully watched each Peanuts special, and as I'm writing this post I can look at my Snoopy astronaut doll on top of my bookcase (you remember that during one of the Apollo flights, the command module and lunar module were named "Charlie Brown" and "Snoopy"). Even to this day, there's seldom a week when I don't find myself quoting some line from a classic Peanuts strip.

And then somewhere along the line, Peanuts stopped being a daily read. I still read my collections, watched the cartoons when they came on (even though I was in my 30s at this point), but the new strips didn't seem to be as compelling. I think the points in these articles had a lot to do with it, although I tend to agree with Dawn that Snoopy's philosophical blackouts were really funny. I would add that Peanuts began to push the line when the characters seemed to be everywhere, endorsing every conceivable type of product. As Captain Kirk once said, too much of anything, even love, isn't necessarily a good thing.

I met Charles Schulz once when he was at the Mall of America; a nice, gentle man. I know that he fought depression, and some of the things that I've read by and about him in the later years of his career reflect that weariness (for example, his complaints that his books weren't as visible in the stores as they used to be, or his inability to understand why Bill Watterson wouldn't license his characters, Calvin and Hobbes).

When Schulz died a few years ago, there was a vast wave of affection that swept away many of the doubts hanging over those final years. For instance, people forgot that Calvin and Hobbes had, in the minds of many, replaced Peanuts at the top of the comic pyramid, a situtation that endured until the end of Calvin's run. Weinman doesn't appear to be a big Calvin fan, but I always thought it was LOL funny and insightful; and if it was occasionally preachy, it still did so in an entertaining manner. (I've found the insult "fur for brains" to be a most effective rejoinder.)

This isn't to demean Peanuts in any sense; it still ranks as one of my favorites. Greatness is greatness, after all, even if it does occasionally overstay its welcome; and it's hard to argue that Peanuts blazed the trail for Calvin and the others. But here's one of those cases where you read something that helps to explain why you felt the way you did, and to me, that's what good writing (and blogging) is all about.

MH - Terri Update

Bill Cork at Ut Unum Sint has the latest Vatican appeal to save the life of Terri Schiavo. Bill has the entire text of the letter; I encourage you to click on the link and read the whole thing there, which also gives you a chance to check out Bill's blog if you haven't done so already. In the meantime, here is an excerpt:

However, in just a few days, [if her husband and the courts have their way] this is exactly what will happen to Terri. She will be completely deprived of water and food. She will have excessive suffering and pain inflicted upon her which will lead to her cruel death. Yet we have come to the point of asking whether due process been fully carried out and all options exhausted on behalf of Terri? This is unbelievable! Is it not sufficient enough to say that there are still questions that must be answered? We plead, we make the urgent appeal for the life of a helpless human being...a person with whom we all share our God given human dignity. How can anyone say that her best interests have been taken into consideration?

In his Message for the Eleventh World Day of the Sick (11 February 2003) His Holiness Pope John Paul II stated: “And while palliative treatment in the final stage of life can be encouraged, avoiding a “treatment at all costs” mentality, it will never be permissible to resort to actions or omissions which by their nature or in the intention of the person acting are designed to bring about death.”

Palliative care, by its definition is the alleviation of suffering and relieving pain. In the last stage of life, it is this care for which we all must hope because, if the feeding tube is removed and Terri is forced to die this slow, terrible, painful death, we must ask ourselves, “And who will be next?” Will this open the door for a state to decide whether this or that incapacitated person should die...not be allowed to die a dignified death but that they should have death inflicted upon them?

It must stop here and now. The courts, the judges and everyone involved with this must understand that all of the questions involved in the case of Terri Schiavo have not yet been answered. Society must realize that we can never inflict this sort of death on a human being, on any other creature, without each and every one of us and society as a whole suffering a terrible fate.

In other news, Blogs for Terri has a story of a Nobel-nominated doctor who says Terri "can still be rehabilitated." Also, please take note of this call for action to support the "Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act," which is being introduced in Congress. With so many protected classes already in this country, is it too much to hope for one more?

MH - Perspectives on the Evening News

With Dan Rather's final CBS Evening News broadcast coming up this week, and since Tom Brokaw retired from the NBC Nightly News earlier, you're likely to hear talk about Peter Jennings being the last reminder of the era of "Brokaw, Jennings and Rather." Before we go too far with this line of thought, however, let's consider an item from another of my old TV Guide collection.

This is from the issue of June 12-18, 1965 - the one with Milburn Stone and Amanda Blake of Gunsmoke on the cover. (You do remember Gunsmoke, don't you?) At any rate, this issue contains a review of the past TV season, written by the critic Cleveland Amory. (I'm not even going to ask whether or not you remember him. Trust me, he was quite well known at the time. Perhaps you've heard of this.) Near the end of his article, reviewing the year in news, is this sentance: "[I]t was a season in which no new top newscasters, other than ABC's Peter Jennings, were developed." That's right. Peter Jennings. In fact, although many people don't remember this either, Jennings became anchor of the ABC Evening News in 1965, when he was only 27 years old.

The evening news was different back then. CBS and NBC had expanded from 15 minutes (15 minutes!) to a half-hour only in 1963, and in 1965 ABC's newscast was still 15 minutes (it wouldn't go to a half-hour until January 9, 1967). Jennings' competition back then was Walter Cronkite on CBS, and the top-rated newsteam of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley on NBC (Uncle Walter didn't hit the top of the ratings until after Huntley's retirement in 1970).

Now, it should be noted that Jennings didn't anchor the news all that time. In the rotating door that was ABC news in the 60s and 70s, Jennings was replaced in 1968 by Bob Young, who in turn gave way to Frank Reynolds, Howard K. Smith, Harry Reasoner, Barbara Walters, Max Robinson (the first black anchor of the evening news) and Frank Reynolds (again) before finally settling back on Jennings in 1983. (Once that happened, the title of "job with the shortest average tenure in America" became exclusive property of manager of the New York Yankees.)

I want to add that, although I admit to mostly watching ABC's news back when I watched network news, I'm not what you'd call a big fan of Jennings. In many ways, his newscasts have been filled with political bias and elitist distain for the conservative movement. However, in the interests of providing perspective, as well providing another opportunity to go through my old TV Guides, I do think this is worth mentioning. Jennings has been a major player at ABC for 40 years now - Cronkite, for example, was anchor at CBS for just under 20 years. LBJ was president when Jennings first anchored the news, and there have been three popes during that time (Jennings covered the papal elections in 1978 from Rome). Only Queen Elizabeth has been around as long. You can make any number of arguments as to how and why Jennings has survived for so long; nonetheless, facts are facts.

So the next time you hear talk about the age of "Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather," keep in mind that Peter Jennings is, in fact, the last reminder of the era of Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and Walter Cronkite. That should put things in perspective.

MH - I Guess There Really Is No Dying With Dignity

It's just going to be one of those days.

Here's another story you've probably read about - a cover story in the alt-weekly New York Press, with a picture of the Pope and the headline "There's Nothing Funny About This Man Dying - Or is There?" It's been written up in a number of places - I think the best is this from Amy Welborn (no surprise), who includes the entire list of "the 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope" Want a preview? #1 is Throw a marble at the dead Pope's head. Bonk! #2: This is what happens when weird old men in dresses communicate with the world with doors and chimneys.

A warning, if you choose to read this story or any of the other links - some of the language is extreme, and the content is quite offensive.

The story is covered in Brian Saint-Paul's Crisis e-letter. Here's a link to the Catholic League press release. Coverage from GetReligion is here, and here's some interesting fallout as a result of the story - seems it was a little strong even for some of the paper's personnel, as Press contributor Alan Cabal notes:

My loyalty has its limits, and here we are. Take my name off the masthead. I am no longer a "contributing writer" to this sophomoric mockery. NY Press once challenged the [Village] Voice -- now it can barely compete with The Onion.

This story would be offensive no matter who it was written about. The fact that it is about the Holy Father makes it more than that. If it were written about some other class (fill in the blank with your choice), it would probably be considered some kind of hate crime - if it had been written in Canada about homosexuals, the writer would have been arrested. It emphasizes, once again, that Catholic-bashing is the only acceptable bigotry left.

MH - US Draws Jeers for [Anti-] Abortion Comments at UN

Good morning! I hope you all had a restful weekend. Now you'll have the energy to get fed up again. I assume most of you have seen this story already, since I picked it up from our blogs links, but for those of you who haven't, it's worth reading.

Now that you're up-to-speed, read this excellent commentary from Blogodoxy. And I trust most of us echo the comments from Emily at Holy Whapping.

MH - The Five Movie Quotes That Pop Into Your Head

OK, here's the latest game to make the blog rounds - the first five movie quotes to pop into your head, thanks to OGIC. No thinking about it beforehand (which shouldn't be a problem for me - the "no thinking" part, that is). Again, I make no guarantees that these are especially brilliant, and I suspect they'll say more about me than I'd want you to know, but since I'm a sucker for movie quotes - go spouting them all the time - here we go...

1. "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" (Treasure of the Sierra Madre) Yes, I know this isn't the exact quote as it appears in the movie, but who cares? It's the one I thought of.
2. "Soylent Green is people!" (Soylent Green, of course) My Chuck Heston runner-up: "It's a madhouse! A madhouse!" (Planet of the Apes)
3. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" (Network) Subject of a future post, on the legacy of The Passion of the Christ. Suffice it to say I think that movie did a lot to instill this attitude in newly-assertive Christians.
4. "As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again." (Gone with the Wind) This one wound up in my (presently unpublished) novel. Whenever I say this around the house, I always have to add "Do you hear me?"
5. "I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on here." (Casablanca)

Yes, I know these lines are familiar ones, and it seems that I have something to say about all of them, but it's not as if I sat down and thought this out. I suspect it's because I have something to say about them that they popped into my head so quickly. If I actually had time to think about it, there are a lot more I could write down...

And with that, I note that we've been blogging for 12 days in a row, and there were some heavy ones in that group. So you know what? Unless something exciting or extreme comes up tomorrow, I think we're going to take the weekend off! So barring an emergency, see you on Monday...

MH - Schiavo a Case of "Abuse of the Disabled"

So points out Ut Unum Sint in an excellent link from the story in The Tampa Tribune:

Filed with Greer on Feb. 23, the DCF [Department of Children and Families] petition states the agency received "30 detailed allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation in a 34 page document received by the DCF hotline'' Feb. 18 and Feb. 21, "whereupon an investigation has been commenced.'' ...

Read the whole story here. It may seem as if we're stating the obvious through these posts, or just rehashing news, but my thinking on it is this: blogs like ours are intended to inform and educate as well as just put forth our thoughts. If there's one person out there who learns something new, or one talking point that someone uses in conversation with another, then we've done our job.

You may ask what difference it makes if your next-door neighbor suddenly sees the light thanks to something you point out. Well, it can make a big difference - that person's letter, or prayer, or sacrifice, could be what tips the scales in Terri's favor. But what else could it do for that other person, your next-door neighbor? It could influence them to change their own plans, or to make them better-known to their loved-ones, perhaps by making a Loving Will, courtesy of the American Life League. It could be the beginning of a rebirth in that person's spiritual life - maybe they'll go to Mass on Sunday for the first time in a while, or offer up an extra prayer.

The point is, we don't know. What we do know is that with God, nothing is impossible. At that, why not just do the right thing and leave the rest to Him?

UPDATE: It also helps if you have accurate information. Here are two links, from Cruxnews and Insight Scoop, on the statement by Bishop Lynch of St. Petersburg, Terri's bishop. Both point out how ridiculous the statement is - urging both sides to "talk things out," and suggesting that both sides represent extreme positions. Yes, if you consider trying to save someone's life "extreme," than I suppose he's right. Point is, as Mark at Insight makes, the Bishop's statements are fine if you're talking about the terminally ill, but Terri isn't dying - "she is slated to die from intentional starvation." In other words, if the judge's ruling goes through, she's going to be killed. Big difference. And it might make a difference when you're talking to someone, if they may have read the Bishop's remarks, to point this out. It never, ever, hurts to have truth on your side.

MH - Meditations for the Fourth Friday in Lent

Laetare Sunday

This Sunday is Laetare Sunday, so called from the first words of the Introit at Mass, "Laetare Jerusalem" - "Rejoice, O Jerusalem". According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Strictly speaking, the Thursday before Laetare Sunday is the middle day of Lent, and it was at one time observed as such, but afterwards the special signs of joy permitted on this day, intended to encourage the faithful in their course through the season of penance, were transferred to the Sunday following. They consist of (like those of Gaudete Sunday in Advent) in the use of flowers on the altar, and of the organ at Mass and Vespers; rose-coloured vestments also allowed instead of purple [...] The contrast between Laetare and the other Sundays is thus emphasized, and is emblematical of the joys of this life, restrained rejoicing mingled with a certain amount of sadness.

We've been looking the last few Fridays at the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, but I thought this an occasion to lighten up a bit. (That plus the fact that there are only five Sorrowful Mysteries and seven Fridays in Lent!) So when you see the rose vestments and the flowers and hear the music on Sunday, allow your sprits to lighten. Have you had trouble with your resolutions or sacrifices during Lent? Don't let it be an occasion of despair; there's still time. As we heard recently in the parable of the workers, even the worker who only works an hour will get his just wage. Redouble your efforts; pray to Our Lord and Our Lady for the strength to make your commitment, offer your sacrifices knowing that He will do great things with them.

MH - 10 Things I've Done That You Haven't

Time to lighten up a bit.

This has been sweeping blogdom (I got it from Eve Tushnet and then Terry Teachout) - listing 10 things the writer has done that his/her readers probably haven't - and since you know I can't stand being left out in the cold, I figured what the heck, might as well. Actually, it was an interesting exercise, since at first I figured I couldn't possibly come up with 10 things that unique. After all, I've lived a pretty dull life. Well, it took me a couple of days, but you know what? I was able to come up with 10. They might not be that interesting, but it's a good exercise, and I'd recommend all of you try it as well. You might realize that you're more special than you think (even though God knew that already...)

1. Nearly been hit by lightning, and then nearly hit by falling debris from the building that was hit by lightning.
2. Run for public office.
3. Hosted my own (cable-access) television show.
4. Did a radio commercial when I was in grade school.
5. Called the boyfriend of a female friend of mine (at her request), a man whom I had never met before, and told him he needed to pay more attention to her. (Surprisingly, the releationship didn't last.)
6. Had my picture taken with the Stanley Cup.
7. Seen a comet with my bare eyes.
8. Written a novel (unpublished, as yet).
9. Spent a Super Bowl Sunday flying from Minnesota to Maine, with stopovers in Chicago and Boston - the two cities whose teams were playing in the game.
10. Had a book personally autographed by a former President of the United States.

Can you do better? I'm sure you can...

MH - Fast for Terri

Here's an idea that's been spreading around the Terri Blogs - it's from Gregory Popack at Heart, Mind and Strength:

In this season of Lent, a time of repentance in which we reflect on the generous suffering Christ endured for our sake, I suggest we do as St. Paul suggests (Col 1:24). Let us "join our sufferings to the cross of Christ" and offer those sufferings for Terri's sake.

I propose that from today to March 18--and perhaps beyond--all those reading this who are physically able, participate in a fast for Terri. Let us offer our hunger to God so that she might be spared of the hunger that will kill her.

A simple fast is when the main meal of our day is simple and the two smaller meals of our day--added together--are not as large as the main, simple meal. This is the kind of fast that is common for Christians on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Can we do at least this much for Terri everyday between today and March 18?

Gregory is right - we do need a miracle. We need to double and redouble our efforts. For those who can't fast (I know someone with diabetes, for example, who has to eat regularly) increase your prayer. If you've already given up some item or practice for Lent, consider adding to it. But please think about doing something, regardless of whatever your religious preference may be. It is this kind of communal sacrifice (something Catholics have been lacking since meatless Fridays outside of Lent became optional) that brings us all together and increases the power of our efforts.

MH - Distributism, Part II

Last week, you'll recall, we started our discussion of Distributism by looking over the political landscape, and finding that for many of us, both the Republicans and the Democrats fall short of what we really desire in a political party.

To start with, if you did your homework assignment, you've already checked out this website, an overview on Distributism. According to the site, Distributism can be defined as "an economic system in which private property, (especially the 'means of production'), is well distributed, in which as many people as possible are actual owners." Already that should put the lie to socialism or communism as acceptable economic models, for in both of those systems the emphasis is on ownership by the State; private ownership, in fact, undermines the authority of the State by allowing even a small amount of independence to creep into one's life.

So what about capitalism? It's probably no surprise to regular readers of this site that its owners tend to fall on the conservative side of the fence (actually, I was once accused, in print, of being a right-wing demagogue, but it's not the worst thing I've been called). Therefore, as a conservative, it seems to me that a greater case must be made as to why capitalism, as personified by Corporate America, is teetering on the edge of moral bankruptcy.

In doing this, my purpose here isn't to write an entire series defining Distributism and what it means. There are a lot of good websites out there already that have done a far better job of that than I could do. What I really want to do is call your attention to this concept, and point out why we have to begin to change the way we think about our how capitalism fits into the Catholic social teaching. And I'm not talking about the liberal policies that many pass off as teachings of the Church. The best way to do this is to look at some of the great social teaching documents of the Church, and for that I prefer to go straight to the Popes themselves.

In one of my first essays, I used the text of Pope John Paul II's encyclical “Laborem Exercens (On Human Work)” to demolish the assumptions of a particularly idiotic Human Resources document that had been sent to me. Now, let's take a look at the encyclical that was the basis for much of JPII's thought on the subject: the epic "Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor)," written in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII. Far from being outdated, this encyclical rings true to life in so many areas, even today.

Leo begins by dispensing, as we did a moment ago, with socialism:

4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

5. [...] Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

Lest one think that the Holy Father is roundly endorsing capitalism, however, let's go on. The following excerpts outline the Pope's idea of a truly just economic system, including the right to organize in a union, the right to a fair and just wage, and the proper treatment of employees. As you read through this list, make a mental note as to how Corporate America stacks up; maybe there won't be a quiz next week, but we are taking notes...

3. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolaged and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition.

10. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else? As effects follow their cause, so it is just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.

16. We affirm without hesitation that all the striving of men will be in vain if they leave out the Church.

20. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character [...] to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings [...] that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine.

45. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.

46. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.

49. The most important of all are workingmen's unions, for these virtually include all the rest. History attests what excellent results were brought about by the artificers' guilds of olden times. They were the means of affording not only many advantages to the workmen, but in no small degree of promoting the advancement of art, as numerous monuments remain to bear witness. Such unions should be suited to the requirements of this our age - an age of wider education, of different habits, and of far more numerous requirements in daily life.

60. Prejudice, it is true, is mighty, and so is the greed of money; but if the sense of what is just and rightful be not deliverately stifled, their fellow citizens are sure to be won over ot a kindly feeling towrds men whom they see to be in earnest as regards their work and who prefer so unmistalably right dealing to mere lucre, and the sacredness of duty to every other consideration.

In 1991, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pope John Paul II issued the encyclical Centesimus Annus - a look back on Leo's encyclical, and a commentary on the present state of labor. Contrary to what some conservative commentators said, this encyclical is not an unequivical attack on capitalism, nor is it an endorsement of Marxism. Rather, what JPII does is restate Leo's concerns, with an eye to what modern capitalism has become. It is a pointed critique of capitalism's shortcomings, and a warning of what they portend for society as a whole:

35. The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well. When a firm makes a profit, this means that productive factors have been properly employed and corresponding human needs have been duly satisfied. But profitability is not the only indicator of a firm's condition. It is possible for the financial accounts to be in order, and yet for the people — who make up the firm's most valuable asset — to be humiliated and their dignity offended. Besides being morally inadmissible, this will eventually have negative repercussions on the firm's economic efficiency. In fact, the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society. Profit is a regulator of the life of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral factors must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least equally important for the life of a business.

36. A given culture reveals its overall understanding of life through the choices it makes in production and consumption. It is here that the phenomenon of consumerism arises. In singling out new needs and new means to meet them, one must be guided by a comprehensive picture of man which respects all the dimensions of his being and which subordinates his material and instinctive dimensions to his interior and spiritual ones. If, on the contrary, a direct appeal is made to his instincts — while ignoring in various ways the reality of the person as intelligent and free — then consumer attitudes and life-styles can be created which are objectively improper and often damaging to his physical and spiritual health. Of itself, an economic system does not possess criteria for correctly distinguishing new and higher forms of satisfying human needs from artificial new needs which hinder the formation of a mature personality. Thus a great deal of educational and cultural work is urgently needed, including the education of consumers in the responsible use of their power of choice, the formation of a strong sense of responsibility among producers and among people in the mass media in particular, as well as the necessary intervention by public authorities

[...]

It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards "having" rather than "being", and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself. It is therefore necessary to create life-styles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments.

39. All of this can be summed up by repeating once more that economic freedom is only one element of human freedom. When it becomes autonomous, when man is seen more as a producer or consumer of goods than as a subject who produces and consumes in order to live, then economic freedom loses its necessary relationship to the human person and ends up by alienating and oppressing him.

41. The historical experience of the West, for its part, shows that even if the Marxist analysis and its foundation of alienation are false, nevertheless alienation — and the loss of the authentic meaning of life — is a reality in Western societies too. This happens in consumerism, when people are ensnared in a web of false and superficial gratifications rather than being helped to experience their personhood in an authentic and concrete way. Alienation is found also in work, when it is organized so as to ensure maximum returns and profits with no concern whether the worker, through his own labour, grows or diminishes as a person, either through increased sharing in a genuinely supportive community or through increased isolation in a maze of relationships marked by destructive competitiveness and estrangement, in which he is considered only a means and not an end.

[...]

Exploitation, at least in the forms analyzed and described by Karl Marx, has been overcome in Western society. Alienation, however, has not been overcome as it exists in various forms of exploitation, when people use one another, and when they seek an ever more refined satisfaction of their individual and secondary needs, while ignoring the principal and authentic needs which ought to regulate the manner of satisfying the other ones too. A person who is concerned solely or primarily with possessing and enjoying, who is no longer able to control his instincts and passions, or to subordinate them by obedience to the truth, cannot be free: obedience to the truth about God and man is the first condition of freedom, making it possible for a person to order his needs and desires and to choose the means of satisfying them according to a correct scale of values, so that the ownership of things may become an occasion of growth for him. This growth can be hindered as a result of manipulation by the means of mass communication, which impose fashions and trends of opinion through carefully orchestrated repetition, without it being possible to subject to critical scrutiny the premises on which these fashions and trends are based.

42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society?

[...]

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

43. The obligation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow also presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace. Just as the person fully realizes himself in the free gift of self, so too ownership morally justifies itself in the creation, at the proper time and in the proper way, of opportunities for work and human growth for all.

That's a lot to digest at one time. In order to gather the entire feel for these documents, your reading assignment for next week (should you choose to accept it) is to look at Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus and to review what I previously exerpted from Laborem Exercens, to read not just the excerpts I've provided but to look at them in the context of the entire documents.

Next time, we'll take a look at how Chesterton felt about capitalism, and how well Corporate America measures up to these standards.

MH - Chaput Fires Back at Critics

Here's a story on the good Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, a man who's strong defense of the Church should stand as a model for all of us, fielding questions from a group of civic and business leaders this week. You'll see the typical attitude from Chaput's critics - why does the Church stick its nose in our business, what do celebate clerics know about sex, why force a woman to have a child she doesn't want - all the usual suspects. Chaput's answers are blunt and to the point, and he deserves our applause and support. The headline to the story reads "Lunch Crowd Challenges Chaput," but I think a more accurate headline would have been "Chaput Challenges Lunch Crowd," because his defense of the faith is just that, a challenge to them and to all of us to practice what Jesus preaches. It ain't easy, critics say. Yeah, no kidding. But lest we get too tied up in our materialistic world, remember what Our Lord said about rich men entering Heaven...

(Props to K-Lo for the story.)

MH - Quick Takes

Some good things I've noted while surfing our Blog Link sites this morning:

Dawn Eden has a touchingly personal reflection on what it means to commit your life to God. As C.S. Lewis once said, if you ask Him into your life for some reason, He won't be satisfied with addressing that one aspect - He's going to ask you to give Him everything.

Eve Tushnet on "What He [God] Really Thinks of You." Reassuring thoughts when you're feeling depressed, deserted, tempted to sin, or spiritually dry. It also speaks volumes to the dignity of human life, something we seem to be having a little difficulty with in this culture.

Catholics In the Public Square sees the parallels between Terri Schiavo and Million Dollar Baby, in "the fear of suffering and disability that pervades our culture [and] compels some to seek 'an easy way out', a quick painless end -- 'better off dead' rather than a burden to self and others." It is that fear and misunderstanding of suffering that is at the root of so much of our society's problems.

In conjunction with all these, Ignatius Insight Scoop links on a story about Princeton's notorious Peter Singer, the man who (among other things) thinks it's ok to kill some children after they're born, and "once criticized Mother Teresa for loving the individual human person rather than mankind as a whole."

Check them out when (not if!) you get a chance.

MH - Five Questions With...

Russ Rooney is the host of "The Rooney Report" on MCN Channel 6 in the Twin Cities, the author of Be a Friend for Life, and a long-time pro-life activist in this area. Recently I had a chance to ask Russ five questions on the pro-life movement and his involvement. Here's what he had to say.

Q: How did you get involved with the pro-life movement? When did you realize how you felt about abortion?

A: My parents were always pro-life and I've always held a pro-life position. Before Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, I remember as a child (about 10) seeing a photo of an aborted baby from New York and thought it unimaginable that someone could do such a thing. I was glad that Minnesota was far away from New York.

Q: What do you think is the most misunderstood aspect of the pro-life movement?

A: The pro-life people that I know are concerned about both the mother and nascent child. If you watch the mainstream media you get the false impression that pro-life people only want to take rights away from women. What pro-life people want to do is prevent women from hurt caused by abortion and the killing of their children. Nobody has a right to illegitimately kill an innocent human being.

Q: Why should people be involved in the pro-life movement?

A: First, there is not a single person who does not have an ancestor who went through a difficult time with an “unwanted pregnancy.” We are all here because of sacrifices made by previous generations. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that every human being is created in God’s image deserves the utmost respect. Indifference favors predators who gain financially by destroying those have no choice or voice in our society. Freedom denied to the most vulnerable means that the definition of who is “vulnerable” is up for debate.

Q: You're also a published author. Tell us about your book - what inspired you to write it, and what do you hope it will accomplish?

A: Be a Friend for Life was written to help people look at the abortion issue from different pro-life perspectives. If just one person helped save another person’s life because of reading my book then all the time and effort writing the book was worthwhile. The book consists of 52 thought provoking short chapters.

Q: Finally, many people think it's impossible for one person to make a difference. How can people become involved in becoming part of the culture of life? Who can they contact?

A: If you are able to pray then you can make a difference. There are many ways that someone can be involved with promoting the culture of life. Everyone is different and fortunately there are different ministries to choose from. You can use the internet and pro-life friends to determine where your talent and or money may best help the pro-life movement.

MH - Schiavo's Parents Ask Judge to OK Divorce

From Fox News. They're still in there fighting, folks. We need to do all we can to help them, and keep praying.

MH - True Presence or False?

In a post last week, I alluded to the controversy over an episode of the NBC sitcom Committed, which is either anti-Catholic or just plain stupid or both, take your pick. Here's the press release by the Catholic League, here's the response from NBC, and here's a recap from Church of the Masses.

There really isn't much more I can add to this, besides echoing the observations of some that if this had been any religion but Catholicism, such a slur would have been unthinkable. But I do have this to offer: how many Catholics understand what the problem is? I wonder. Sadly, Catholics are probably more poorly informed about the True Presence than most. Do we all understand that that Host isn't merely a piece of "bread" but is, in fact, the true Body of Jesus? Do we behave accordingly when we enter the church, when we (hopefully) kneel in adoration during the Eucharistic Prayer, when we present ourselves for Communion? Do we think about it when we have the opportunity to go to Confession, do we ponder what it means when we stand on the verge of venial or mortal sin? Or is it just a symbol, a shared community meal, a nice social get-together? (Or, in the case of that L.A. mass I mention below, a night-club act.)

If we really understand what the True Presence is all about, we should be outraged about this. Unfortunately, the polls would suggest that we Catholics remain woefully ignorant, that we don't believe in the True Presence any more than our seperated bretheren, that in fact we're probably not any better educated than the writers who actually thought mocking this quaint superstition would be funny.

Taking NBC and the rest of society to task probably, although it needs to be done, probably isn't that effective when our own faithful don't really get it.

MH - Am I In Church, or Did I Take a Wrong Turn and Wind Up In Vegas?

Remember what I was saying in that last post about why the Liturgy matters?

This is why. Read this for more details.

Thanks to CWN and Catholic L.A. for the links.

MH - Future of the Liturgy

Matt over at Shrine of the Holy Whapping has a fascinating dialogue going on over one of my passions - the Liturgy. I think one of the more significant events in my development as a Catholic convert was several years ago when I discovered a copy of an old Missal for the 1962 Mass. This contained the Tridentine Rite in English, which proved to be nothing more than a transitional period between the Latin Tridentine and the introduction of the Novus Ordo (at the end of the Missal there were Latin responses for those parishes where English hadn't been completely adopted). This must have been during the traumatic period in the Church when people could see the old dying away, destined to be replaced with a new that so many people found disappointing, disconcerting, and demoralizing. Having read some of the horror stories of that time (mid- to late-60s), I can only imagine what must have been going through people's minds.

At any rate, having the Missal in hand allowed me to imagine the Mass not as it actually was, but as it was supposed to be - in English, at any rate - and introduced me to the potential richness of the Liturgy. The "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault," the listing of the saints in the Confetior and the Canon, the sheer poetry of the language that so many overlook in a desperate effort to render the Liturgy "efficient" and shorn of redundancies.

Once I discovered the difference between the Mass as I knew it (post-conversion) and what it had been (pre-Novus Ordo), I suppose it was only a matter of time before we wound up at St. Agnes, listening to and participating in a Latin Novus Ordo that made the absolute minimum accommodation to the new Liturgical changes - and BTW, in case anyone tries to tell you different, Vatican II did not mandate abolishing Latin, tearing out communion rails and removing statues, the priest facing the High Altar, serving the Host on the tongue, Gregorian chant, or any other number of "Spirit of Vatican II" abuses that were introduced. We've been happy there ever since, with occasional side-trips to St. Augustine, the indult parish in South St. Paul, for the purity, clarity and tranquility of the Tridentine.

But I digress. You shouldn't be interested in what I have to say - instead, read the postings over at Holy Whapping. There's this link to the proposed revision of the current Mass, plus Matt's own draft of a new order, the Ordo Karolingianus (named in honor of JPII) - the post to which I've linked gives his overview of the project, plus a link to a PDF file of the entire draft - and finally, an ongoing discussion with The Squire regarding his analysis of Matt's project (I'll say that I'm much more in favor of the Ordo Karolingianus than The Squire is, but his comments are quite good and thought-provoking as well). Rich dialogue, with a lot of meat to it.

Some people might wonder if all this discussion is much ado about nothing. Isn't the bottom line worshiping God, after all? We brought a friend to St. Agnes on Sunday - a non-Catholic who is very interested in Catholicism. It was her first time atteding a Latin Mass, and to top it off, the St. Olaf College ancient music choir was making a special appearance, singing a polyphonic mass of Tomas Luis de la Victoria. We didn't know what she'd think - after all, it can be kind of overwhelming if it's your first time. We needn't have worried - afterward, she kept talking about the richness of the Mass, how meaningful the symbolism was and how it really made her feel as if she'd been to church. She wants to come with us again some Sunday.

And that's what this is all about.