Exclusive: the backstory to CUA's "invitation" of John Kerry

Heard this evening from CUA president David M. O'Connell, C.M. (I am paraphrasing):

John Kerry was never invited. What happened was that a student member of the College Democrats at CUA knew someone who worked for John Kerry and thought it would be a good idea to invite him to speak at one of their meetings. The CUA newspaper (The Tower) extrapolated on this word-of-mouth and published (on the opening weekend before classes with the campus chock-full of visiting parents) a frontpage story claiming that he had in fact been invited. He was never invited. I wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

Normally I keep news like this to myself, but President O'Connell said this publically and also asked that the news be spread. So ... consider it hereby spread. Take it as you will, and that's all I'm offering.

FCS convention: Day One report

This weekend, in addition to covering the ongoing controversy surrounding the statement of the Connecticut Catholic Conference on Plan B, I've also been attending the '07 Fellowship for Catholic Scholars convention here in Washington DC. The first day was very fruitful.

Personal highlights:

• Dr. John F. Crosby's presentation on Newman's Idea of the University, and particularly on the Catholic University's criterion for appropriating scattered seeds of truth in culture.
• Spotting James V. Schall at dinner (which was generously provided by the Franciscan University of Steubenville). He gave my undergraduate commencement address and I've had the opportunity to review several of his books. He currently teaches at Georgetown.
• Meeting Bill May and E. Christian Brugger for the first time.
• CUA President David O'Connell's response to a presentation on Catholic identity (more on that here).
• Singing Compline at the close of the day's events with the gathered FCS membership.

Tomorrow's planned activities include Mass celebrated with and a presentation by Archbishop Donald Wuerl, lunch sponsored by the Ave Maria School of Law and several good presentation topics. Much fun!

Statement: Connecticut Bishops On Plan B and Catholic Hospitals

Update: Bp. Lori has issued a clarification on his blog. That text available here.

Released on the CCC website this morning (and issued to the general press yesterday):

The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut, joined by the leaders of the Catholic hospitals in the State, issue the following statement regarding the administration of Plan B in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape:

The four Catholic hospitals in the State of Connecticut remain committed to providing competent and compassionate care to victims of rape. In accordance with Catholic moral teaching, these hospitals provide emergency contraception after appropriate testing. Under the existing hospital protocols, this includes a pregnancy test and an ovulation test. Catholic moral teaching is adamantly opposed to abortion, but not to emergency contraception for victims of rape.

This past spring the Governor signed into a law “An Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault,” passed by the State Legislature. It does not allow medical professionals to take into account the results of the ovulation test. The Bishops and other Catholic health care leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time. We continue to believe this law should be changed.

Nonetheless, to administer Plan B pills in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape a pregnancy test to determine that the woman has not conceived is sufficient. An ovulation test will not be required. The administration of Plan B pills in this instance cannot be judged to be the commission of an abortion because of such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present. To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.

Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape. A pregnancy test approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration suffices. If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened. [source.]

Complete coverage of this story is available here.

To summarize, this statement is problematic for the following reasons:

• The medical facts regarding the abortifacient effects of Plan B are not up for debate. If administered to a woman who is ovulating Plan B may cause an abortion. Plan B itself admits its abortifacient potential on its warning label and website.
• The Catholic Church teaches (c.f. DV #13) that contraceptives with abortifacient potential fall under the same moral category as abortion because, when acting abortifaciently, they cause the death of a human being. The United States Bishops have similarly ruled-out the use of abortifacient pills like Plan B when the women is ovulating (c.f. Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, # 36).
• The document claims "To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act", but for the reasons already mentioned, since Plan B can act as an abortifacient in cases where the women has ovulated, it is at least gravely irresponsible to administer chemicals that could very well bring about the death of a human being.

Thus this statement of the CCC appears to contradict both Church teaching and USCCB directives. [update: in response to some reasonable criticism, I should clarify that I believe this statement certainly both a) takes a step back from the previous position of U.S. hospitals regarding the morality of dispensing Plan B to rape victims who have ovulated and b) charts a different course of action than the USCCB has previously suggested, in accordance with principles ennunciated by Church documents. To this extent, and no further, I believe the document is problematic and must therefore be either a) repealed or b) further explained.]

Moreover, this decision contradicts a long-held, widespread and fiercely-defended claim by American Catholic bishops that state laws must not force Catholic hospital staffs to administer abortifacients in situations where the woman may have in fact conceived a new human life.

The final line of this statement (which reads: "If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened.") seems to demand an immediate review of the Bishops' statement. The law in question will go into effect next Monday, October 1st.

This post will be updated. CWNews has covered the story here. Full past coverage available here.

Update: A commenter below has made what seems to be a reasonable claim that some recent scientific studies call into question the presumed abortifacient properties of Plan B, despite the literature produced by the company itself which describes an abortifacient mechanism as one method of preventing sustained pregnancy.

However, the statement of the CCC clearly does not take this research to definitively disprove the prior medical consensus. Indeed, the statement of the CCC operates under the principal that Plan B is to be administered in a situation of legislated ignorance as to whether there is an ovum present at all (since an ovulation test - prophibited by the new law - would provide this information). It is puzzling that Catholic hospitals would allow legislation to prevent medically-relevant knowledge from being obtained. Especially because Plan B poses the greatest threat to new human life when a woman is ovulating. One must also call into question the good faith of legislation that prohibits an ovulation test. Why prohibit it unless the lawmakers want to see Plan B proscribed in all cases? Why is the CCC still complaining if Plan B has no abortifacient potential?

Prudence would seem to dictate in a situation where human life is at stake that recent, disputed scientific research should not overrule the findings of prior investigations as well as the position of Plan B's manufacturer. Rushing a decision because of an impending legal compliance date (next Monday) compounds the likelihood of error.

[Note: Some statements made by the CCC's spokesman are not helping matters. Saying that the bishops had an "evolution of thinking" is poor wording. The bishops had an evolution of data if Plan B turns out to not be abortifacient. The thinking concerning the immorality of proscribing abortifacients has not undergone any evolution. It is still wrong.

Similarly, claiming that there are "many who are affiliated with the church that believe the ovulation test isn't necessary" is completely irrelevent if Plan B is not an abortifacient. This raises the question: if the new scientific findings are so definitive, why do we need so many other added reasons to accept the CCC's policy change?]

Update 2: LifeSiteNews has posted coverage here.

Since there is still much confusion on this topic, it might be helpful to restate some of my reservations:

• This statement by the CCC is a reversal of precedent. Previously, Catholic hospitals in the US have overwhelmingly followed a protocol that prohibited dispensing Plan B to rape victims who have ovulated. The CCC itself followed such a protocol, until this week.
• Up to this point, the scientific consensus which formed the basis of these protocols for Catholic hospitals said that Plan B could act as an abortifacient, in that it prevents the human embryo from implanting in the uterine wall as one of its mechanisms for avoiding sustained pregnancy and gestation.
• Given points one and two, new scientific claims that call into question the previous consensus do not sufficiently justify a change of course. In cases where human life is at stake, prudence dictates that one not choose a course of action that may harm newly-conceived human life.
• Clearly this statement is causing confusion among the faithful. The fact that this decision has taken so many Catholics by surprise in turn demands a response from Church leaders, if at the very least to avoid scandal among the faithful. Certainly the secular world is taking this decision as a retreat from Catholic principle and this too must be aggresively addressed.
• Furthermore, it is a disservice to the cause of building a Catholic culture and a culture of life when decisions are made under constrained circumstances and bear the stamp of hastiness. More explanation and clarity is required in this situation, because more than the isolated issue of rape protocols is at issue. This debate also touches upon a) the right of Catholic hospitals (and employees) to operate free from legal intrusion in moral matters. b) the relationship between scientific fact finding and subsequent Church guidelines. c) the important comprehensive witness the Church provides to the world on life issues.
• It is also probably useful to note that there seems to be an inherent contradiction in the CCC statement. Namely, if Plan B cannot act as an abortifacient, than it should not matter if the woman has ovulated. That said, why does the CCC continue to demand that the law be changed to allow an ovulation test? Either the statement is wrong to request the ovulation test be written into the law, or they are actually not confident that Plan B is non-abortifacient, and if they are not confident that Plan B is non-abortifacient, they should not be allowing it to be given to rape victims who may have ovulated.
• If this statement by the CCC is correct, and Plan B cannot act abortifaciently, then any Catholic hospitals in the US could proscribe Plan B to all rape victims. So, either the rest of Catholic hospitals can change their policy, or the CCC must revise its statement. Similarly, if Plan B may or may not cause abortion, the correct protocol for both the CCC and the US Bishops is to disallow its use in cases where the woman has ovulated. I am here invoking the principle that when human life is at stake, the prudent choice is to err on the side of life and not choose a course of action that may result in killing an innocent life.

Breaking: Catholic Bishops in CT to allow Plan B?!

Update 2: Bp. Lori has issued a clarification on his blog. That text available here.

Update: The Connecticut Bishops have released their statement. Coverage here.

The Hartford Courant:

In a major softening of their position, the state's Catholic bishops announced today that Catholic hospitals would comply with a new law that takes effect Monday that requires them to dispense emergency contraceptive pills to rape victims.

The Catholic church had lobbied strongly against the proposal at the state Capitol for more than one year, and some insiders believed the Church might file a lawsuit to block the law. Church officials, though, had said only that they were considering their options and never said that they would file a suit."

The Bishops and other Catholic health care leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time,'' the bishops said in a statement. "We continue to believe this law should be changed.''

... and the AP has picked-up the story here:

Roman Catholic bishops have agreed to let hospital personnel give emergency contraception to all rape victims, reversing their decision days before a new state law requires it.

The church had fought the state law by arguing it would force Catholic medical personnel to perform chemical abortions because they may be providing emergency contraception to women who are ovulating. The Catholic hospitals wanted to first perform ovulation tests, but lawmakers did not include such tests in the legislation.

The bishops now say that administering the drug, sold as Plan B, cannot be judged as an abortion.

This news is very disturbing if it is true. And sadly, I think it is.

This quotation sheds a little bit more light as to the purported reasons for the decision:

But Catholic Bishops of Connecticut and leaders of the Catholic hospitals said in a joint statement Thursday that "since the teaching authority of the church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work," the hospitals will be allowed to provide Plan B to rape victims without first requiring ovulation tests.

I can't find this document and it is frustrating that the Connecticut Catholic Conference does not have it readily available (unless I am hugely missing something). A visit to the website does, however, reveal that earlier this year Bishop Lori strongly protested the passage of this legislation. In fact, the Connecticut bishops have been fighting a long battle to resist this legislation as an unlawful imposition upon the self-governance of Catholic hospitals.

So what changed?

Certainly not the medical facts related to Plan B, nor the teaching that one cannot administer a pill with abortifacient properties if no testing has been done to rule-out the possibility of a pregnancy. The Church already has outlined the principles by which it is impermissible to administer abortifacients when there is the possible presence of a newly-conceived human being.

More as I read it....

Update: A simple fact that needs to be ascertained is whether or not any testing is done prior to the administration of Plan B, and whether or not the results of the test (i.e., that the woman is in fact pregnant or has in fact ovulated and possibly pregnant) have normative value upon whether or not Plan B is administered. Currently, from the reporting I've read, the bill allows a pregnancy test to be administered but not an ovulation test. This isn't enough, from the previous literature I've read on the question. An ovulation test is not difficult or intrusive, and it yields important information (albeit information that some people might not like to receive).

And for more context/history, read below what the CCBC said in its July 12th legislative wrap-up:

The General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, legislation (S.B.1343) mandating that all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals allow the distribution of the morning after pill (commonly known as Plan “B”) to victims of sexual assault, even in situations where it may cause an abortion. Connecticut’s Catholic hospitals do provide Plan “B” to rape victims in almost all cases. The hospitals will not provide it when it may abort a conceived human life. S.B. 1343 would force the hospitals to provide this medication even in those cases. This legislation is a serious violation of the religious freedom of Catholic hospitals. This piece of legislation was proclaimed by the Connecticut chapter of the abortions right group NARAL to be one of their biggest victories in the last ten years. The bishops of Connecticut are reviewing options of how to respond to this breach of the separation of Church and State, and preserve religious freedom in our state.

Again, what changed?

For rape protocol guidelines that respect human life and Church teaching, see the Peoria Protocol as it is described in this article. Note, chemical contraceptives (with abortifacient properties) are not to be proscribed if the woman has already ovulated.

Incidentally, though importantly, it is rare for a rape victim to ovulate because the trauma of the incident causes the body to naturally skip ovulation. Nonetheless, it should be determined that ovulation has in fact been suspended.

Also, one should keep in mind that conception rarely occurs as a result of rape, (0-4% in most studies). Where new human life may exist however, one must take the necessary precautions to ensure that an already conceived child is not killed. The Church teaches that a rape victim has every right to impede/prevent conception but no right to kill a child already conceived. [revision: some careful readers have asked for a source document to support my claim about the Church's teaching. It originates from the US Bishop's Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition:

#36 Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. [this provides the clarification] It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum. [this is why Plan B can be immoral.]

Thanks to t2irish for providing this source.]

Update 2: Calls to various numbers at the CCBC result in voicemail. Admittedly it's past office hours. I've sent them an email because I'd like to read their actual statement and not press reports. It's unfortunate how often the mainstream media beats even the official Catholic channels to the punch for a story. When will they learn that this downtime between action and website publication is harmfully occupied and manipulated by the mainstream reporting? It's much harder to combat erroneous reporting when the secular presses have greater access to the source documents than those who want to defend (and explain) Church teaching and decision making!

Update 3: Jeff Miller has also posted on this story and directly addresses the problem with proscribing Plan B - a known abortifacient - in cases where ovulation (and thus conception) may have occurred. In fact, Plan B itself admits that it acts to prevent a fertilized egg (= new human life) from implanting in the mother's uterus (= forced miscarriage) on its warning label. How can the science be ambiguous if the opposition admits the medical fact which prompts the objection?

Update 4 (11:30PM): This story is generating a great deal of press because it represents a reversal of position, so to speak, coming after a long and hard-fought struggle nationwide between Catholic bishops and cival legislators. Predictably, secular sources are mischaracterizing and overemphasizing the content of the decision, all while the general public do not have access to the actual documentation.

In this atmosphere of confusion it is hoped that an authoritative body (either the CCBC or USCCB, for instance) will soon issue a clarifying statement to the faithful. Numerous Catholic blogs and news sources have linked to my coverage and I will happily provide a forum for that clarification should it be issued. Let's pray that our bishops may provide clarity, conviction and a resolution to the controversy.

Until such a statement is available, it might be useful to note the plentiful amount of material available on the CCBC website related tothis topic. All of which, prior to today's decision, support the position that Plan B should not be administered to patients who may have ovulated because it has a proven abortifacient effect in cases of fertilization:

• Abortion / Parental Notification /The Plan "B" Issue - Resource page
• Connecticut Catholic Hospitals and Emergency Contraception: "If the woman is already in the ovulation stage of her cycle, then Plan B cannot have a contraceptive effect. In these cases, the only objective of administering Plan B is to impede the implantation of a fertilized ovum, which is abortion that the Catholic hospital cannot perform directly or in cooperation with others....The secondary mechanism of Plan B is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, which is abortion. This is confirmed on the manufacturer’s web site that says, “Plan B® may also work by preventing it (the fertilized egg) from attaching to the uterus (womb)....When Plan B cannot act as a contraceptive, it can only act to cause an abortion. Forcing Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B in these situations forces the hospitals to perform abortions."
• News release: Governor’s approval of Plan B legislation “a serious violation of religious liberty in our Constitution State” says Bishop William Lori; urges lawmakers to revisit issue and protect conscience rights of all religious institutions
• A PDF file of Bishop Lori's letter to Governor Rell (also signed by Bishop Cote of Norwich and Archbishop Mansell of Hartford), providing reasons to oppose the bill and requesting that the governor veto it. This statement is documented proof that each of the three Roman Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have previously opposed the same bill they are now allegedly permitting to be implimented in their Catholic hospitals.

Update 5 (10:30AM): The Connecticut Bishops have released their statement. Coverage here.

Georgetown: this. just. stinks.

Georgetown U. to fund abortion advocacy:

According to stories by Lifesitenews.com and the Georgetown University student newspaper The Hoya, the Georgetown law school has adopted a policy that will provide funding to law students to intern with public interest organizations regardless of their mission. [More from the Cardinal Newman Society.]

CNA coverage here.

AmP "For Shame!" List to be revised in the next website update....

Supreme Court Justice claims abortion was real confirmation hearings issue

A drudge exclusive:

In his first television interview, in which he discusses his childhood, his race, his rise to Supreme Court Justice and his job on the nation's highest court, Clarence Thomas says the real issue at his controversial confirmation hearings 16 years ago was abortion. Saying the issue was "the elephant in the room," Thomas also tells Steve Kroft that the hearings he called at the time a "high tech lynching" harmed the country. The interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Sept. 30.

... Thomas, whose Supreme Court positions on abortion issues have been conservative, says the confirmation hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee -- allegations he continues to deny -- were really about abortion. "That was the elephant in the room... That was the issue. That is the issue that people are apparently so upset about," he tells Kroft. "[That is the issue] that you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now," says Thomas.

Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Convention this weekend

I'll be attending this year's Fellowship of Catholic Scholars convention here in DC this weekend. I'm really looking forward to the scheduled topics as they touch upon several issues that are treated regularly at AmP, including the identity of Catholic schools and the relationship between that identy and the exercise of academic freedom.

Here is a PDF with extracts of the presentations. Here is a PDF with the schedule. The theme this year is "The Idea of the Catholic University for the Twenty-First Century."

For those of you who are in the area, you can still register online or drop a line to "jrook [at] catholicscholars.org" for more information. I hope to see you there! If you spot me, please don't hesitate to introduce yourself.

AmP quote of the day

Financial Times:

“This is an emergency,” Mr Gore told the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative. “I think that the key to fighting global poverty is to have the wealthy nations and the developing nations join together to reduce global warming … I think what we need is a global Marshall plan to make the creation of jobs around the reduction of carbon the central principle for how we develop this.”

Some other quotations from the article:

Robert Zoellick, the head of the World Bank, sounded a sceptical note on the developing world’s ability and desire to reduce carbon emissions, however. Poorer countries are worried aid is going to be “hijacked” by the climate change agenda, Mr Zoellick said.

... “There is some sensitivity in the developing world that resources that can be channelled to climate change will come at the expense of other development needs,” Mr Zoellick said. “It needn’t be that way, it shouldn’t be that way… but it is the responsibility of the developed world to reassure the developing world that it doesn’t come at their expense and instead can come in support of their aims of overcoming poverty.”

"Every place I went, people are very worried that developed countries are going to hijack spending,” he added. “We have to explain how it fits their energy and growth needs.”

... The World Bank estimates that 1.6bn people around the world do not have access to electricity. The developing world currently has a funding gap of around half of the $160bn investment needed annually to fulfil growing demand for electricity, the bank says.

Your PPOTD! Wednesday, September 26th

Reporters were quick to predict that the Vatican, to conserve paper, will soon switch over from conventional envelopes to carrier pigeons for its communication.

[ppotd: REUTERS/Tony Gentile (ITALY)]

Authentically forming the culture, starting with the side of a Starbucks cup

I like coffee. Working in a coffee shop for many months when I was living in Michigan did nothing to alleviate my addiction. I also like Starbucks. But I'm normally not impressed by the quotations they place on the sides of their cups to provoke thought and conversation. In fact, earlier this year I posted about an "anti-God" featured Starbucks quotation that (as I somewhat cleverly put it) "had Catholics steamed" (and rightly so, I might add).

Happily, today I received an email from a close friend who alerted me to a positive quotation that will be featured on the side of Starbucks cups starting next spring. Here it is. The quotation is from Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life (which I have not read). The quote however, is fantastic and deserves to be produced below in full:

You are not an accident. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did. He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose. Focusing on yourself will never reveal your purpose. You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance, and our destiny."

There now. Isn't that something to contemplate and converse about? What's so hard about this, anyway?

USA Today covered this story here and points out several organizations that try to make faith statements to their customers. As a result of which, I am more favorably inclined to support In-N-Out Burger (when in California), Forever 21 (well, maybe hand-me-downs) and Chick-fil-A (which I actually knew about).

This gets me thinking, however, do you know of other secular organizations that provide some regular Christian witness to their customers? I'd love to hear about it. Drop me a line or send me an email. Thanks!

“Mandatory Organ Donation Initiatives”

Last week I began a series of short essays on contemporary issues in bioethics, beginning with the topic "Recent Proposals for Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response". This week:

"Mandatory Organ Donation Initiatives"

In 2003 the President’s Council on Bioethics published a staff background paper on the topic of “Organ Transplantation: Ethical Dilemmas and Policy Choices”[1] in which the authors describe “a policy of organ conscription or mandatory organ retrieval” as something that “nearly all American[s] would rightfully find unacceptable for different reasons.” The paper continues:

Under such a policy, all cadaver organs would be retrieved regardless of the wishes of the deceased individual or the surviving family; dead bodies would be treated simply as a public resource in the service of the common goal of saving human life.

The staff paper notes that such a policy “by trying to preserve or pursue an absolute but isolated human good … ends up compromising or sacrificing other vital human goods.” Despite this claim that “nearly all” Americans (and by an arguable assumption, nearly all people) would consider mandatory organ donation unreasonable, there have been, in fact, many proponents of such policies, both before and after 2003. Several notable examples are listed below.

In 1992, the New York Times reported that a group founded by a sociologist at George Washington University proposed a national system of mandatory organ donation in which people not wishing to have their organs available for donation must notify a national registry to that effect.[2] The group cited a 1978 Georgia law as a precedent, which allegedly allowed eye or corneal tissue to be removed from a newly dead corpse if it the organ removal was unopposed by living relations and had not been not expressly objected to by the individual prior to death.

Ontario has a history of proposing aggressive organ retrieval legislation. In 1999 Ontario’s Conservative government and House of Commons Health Committee recommended that more pressure be put on individuals to donate their organs.[3] In 2006, an Ontario New Democrat Peter Kormos introduced a bill that proposed automatic organ donation unless people individually objected. Notably, Kormos included in his argument the claim that “Public opinion is changing” on the issue. In the face of such aggressive legislation and rhetoric, Dr. John Shea, a Toronto physician, recently published a report entitled “Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth” that highlights the dangers of abuse inherent in organ donation as it is practiced today.[4]

In the UK, in July of this year, Britain’s Chief Medical Officer proposed that organ donation should be made the default choice for all patients.[5] In 2005 the British Medical Association issued a statement that similarly proposed “presumed consent for donation.”[6]

The one reason for making organ donation mandatory (cited in turn by each of the proponents discussed above) is that there are not enough registered organ donors to satisfy patient demand; and this claim is true. However, these same proponents mistakenly claim that the low numbers of organ donation registrants is a byproduct of current policies and legislation that only permit voluntary organ donation. (For a notable case of this false conclusion, see: “The Case for Mandatory Organ Donation” in Wired[7].)

In fact, many individuals choose not to become organ donors because the current practice of organ transplantation, while not morally dubious in theory, in practice often results in medical decisions at-odds with respecting human life and dignity. Enacting legislation that universalizes and forces organ transplantation would do a further injustice to these goods. Instead, the medical establishment and regulatory committees would do better to address the abuses related to organ donation as it is currently practiced, which would in turn promote conscientious voluntary donor registration among individuals. +++

40 Days for Life - Get on Board!

I've been hearing many exciting things about this excellent initiative from close friends and would invite my readers to join in it. The vigil kick-off rally is occurring this very evening in DC. My family will be participating in the campaign. Chances are it's occurring in your backyard, too. Abortion may be everywhere in America, but so are loyal Catholics praying and fasting for its end!

40 Days for Life: the Groundbreaking Pro-Life Campaign that Gets RESULTS!

This fall, 89 cities in 33 states across the nation will unite for a unique pro-life campaign called 40 Days for Life -- an intensive effort designed to raise awareness, save lives, bring healing, and prepare America for the beginning of the end of abortion.

The campaign will be conducted simultaneously in all locations from September 26 - November 4.

There are three components to 40 Days for Life... [Read on]

The introduction video:

Philip Onochie gives us a personal introduction:

No doubt, you've heard about the unfortunate disposition which Aurora, Illinois has found itself in. With faith and prayer they may hopefully overcome the darkness that has been temporarily cast over them. With faith and prayer, they have swarmed the super abortion mill like never before and now, Planned Parenthood is showing signs of fear. The effort that brought these people all together is that, which 40 days for life is partly responsible for.

[Philip's words are rather prophetic considering the recent events at Aurora - more here.]

40 days has brought communities together in ecumenical efforts to pray for the souls of the unborn and to pray for the conversion of hearts. Here in Washington DC and in the VA area, we are proud to say that efforts are on the way to launch our own local campaign. Armed with faith and prayer and the encouragement of 82 cities and 32 states that are participating in this national campaign, we know that we have a strong chance of being heard on all accounts: Significant drop in percentage of abortions, bringing awareness to people, the media and the possibility of abortion mills closing their doors.

For those who are interested in getting involved (here in DC or elsewhere), you can also email 40daysforlife@gmail.com

Not that you need any more convincing, but here's a PDF with several pro-life leaders endorsing.

On a personal note, I had the privledge of attending a pre-vigil dinner with organizers of the 40 Days campaign which included (among notable others), Catholic writer/speaker/blogger Dawn Eden, Philip Onochie (quoted above, with prominent crucifix), and pro-life activist Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of "Roe v. Wade"):

(and yep, that's me with the "Best Quality Service" sign in back!)

Today's UN exhortation: a moral imperative without content?

From today's VIS. My comments paragraph-by-paragraph:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE

Made public today was the text of a speech delivered by Msgr. Pietro Parolin, under-secretary for Relations with States, before the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly which is meeting to deliberate on the theme of "the future is in our hands: addressing the leadership challenge of climate change."

"Climate change is a serious concern and an inescapable responsibility," said Msgr. Parolin in his English-language talk. "My delegation wishes to stress the underlying moral imperative that everyone, without exception, has a grave responsibility to protect the environment," he added.

Everyone has a responsibility to protect the environment. This statement is an imperative for human action. However, where is the actual content of this action? What must human beings do, in the modern world, to protect the environment? Again, in this vacuum of specificity the content will continued to be supplied by secular lobby groups.

"The best scientific assessments available have established a link between human activity and climate change," he continued. "However, the results of these scientific assessments, and the remaining uncertainties, should neither be exaggerated nor minimized in the name of politics, ideologies or self- interest. Rather they now need to be studied closely in order to give a sound basis for raising awareness and making effective policy decisions.

Of course there is a link between human activity and climate change. My contention is that it is so minimal as to be irrelevant on a global scale. I agree there should be objectivity in the debate. However, if the fundamental scientific claims still "need to be studied closely" in order to raise awareness, how can there already be moral imperatives involved? Or is the moral imperative to study the question? Finally, how can effective policy decisions be an imperative when further study is still required?

"In recent times," he added, "it has been unsettling to note how some commentators have said that we should actually exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences, using a world view supposedly based on faith." This, said Msgr. Parolin "is a fundamentally reckless approach." However "there are those who hold up the earth as the only good, and would characterize humanity as an irredeemable threat to the earth, whose population and activity need to be controlled by various drastic means." They, he stressed, "would place human beings and their needs at the service of an inhuman ecology."

I'm not sure exactly who these people are who claim we should "exploit our world to the full, with little or no heed to the consequences." The position is so extreme as to not deserve attention in the first place. In other words, the phrasing ("exploit, to the full, no heed to consequences") precludes justifying it as a rational position. Of course it's a "fundamentally reckless choice." But abuse does not negate the use: just because some people abuse the environment doesn't mean the environment can't be used legitimately. The principle stated above that one must never "place human beings and their needs at the service of an inhuman ecology" pretty much sums up my reason for resisting countless innitiatives the environmentalists council.

"Since no country alone can solve the problems related to our common environment, we need to overcome self-interest through collective action. On the part of the international community, this presupposes the adoption of a coordinated, effective and prompt international political strategy" to "identify ways ... to enhance sustainable development and foster a healthy environment," while bearing in mind "that poor nations and sectors of society are particularly vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change, due to lesser resources and capacity to mitigate their effects and adapt to altered surroundings."

"The pace of achieving and codifying a new international consensus on climate change is not always matched by an equally expeditious and effective pace of implementation of such agreements. States are free to adopt international conventions and treaties, but unless our words are matched with effective action and accountability, we would do little to avert a bleak future and may find ourselves gathering again not too long from now to lament another collective failure."

This line about poor nations is problematic. If by saying "poor nations ... are particularly vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change" he means for instance, rising sea levels caused by man made global warming will drown citizens of coastal areas, I see a problem, which touches upon a more fundamental issue of prudence. Namely, I think it is more prudent to directly aid people who are the victims of natural disasters than to mandate worldwide, drastic changes in the very structures of international society and production because such actions *might* alleviate future natural disasters. This *might* is dependent upon recent, questionable scientific hypothesis. Remember, the UN is the same institution that said global overpopulation would destroy the earth (and now they're actually admitting that underpopulation is the chief problem in most the world). These are the same scientists who said we were risking the advent of another Ice Age back in the 1970's. Since when do these same bodies, so clearly susceptible to "group think" and politics, merit the support of Vatican delegates?

Is this prudence? I don't think so.

"Medieval Church Law" reviewed by Ed Peters

Canonists, rejoice! Find the link at In Light of the Law.

Ahmadinejad and the limits of free speech in academe

The president of Columbia University Lee Bollinger has invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak today [AP report]. Ahmadinejad had also planned to visit Ground Zero during this trip until his request was denied using the excuse of security concerns [Reuters].

Surveying the situation, it's ironic how categorical the condemnation of this invitation has been, while the (I would argue, parallel) situation of inviting pro-choice politicians to speak at Catholic universities is considered legitimate.

Columbia President Bollinger didn't help matters any when he stated publically that he wouldn't have a problem inviting Adolf Hiltler to speak (video).

Of course, when secular society is faced with this kind of attitude, it's quick to threaten financial penalties: and sure enough, state and city lawmakers are contemplating witholding public funds in protest of Columbia's invitation.

I haven't had the chance yet to really think through this whole question, but in these events I'm trying to imagine, for a second, what the world would look like if it universally admitted that pro-choice politicians are proponents of infanticide and treated them as such when they were given pulpits by universities.

I think it would look much like the resistance we are seeing to Ahmadinejad's invitation at Columbia.

Update: Diogenes, with his characteristic brevity and wit, co-posts on this topic.

Update 2: To give credit where credit is due, President Bollinger evidently excoriated Ahmadinejad (and rightly so) on his human rights track record, as the AFP and Reuters reports. And 25,000 people protested Ahmadinejad's UN appearance. I'm happy to see that America still has enough moral integrity to call some forms of evil, well, evil.

Also, via commentor John V, via the Dawn Patrol, a clip from an upcoming documentary that looks at "tolerance, Columbia-style":

3rd Episcopal Bishop Crosses the Tiber

Amy reports.

Kerry not coming to CUA. Reason? "Scheduling Conflict"

LifeSiteNews reports.

Hmm, now what exactly am I supposed to do with all the materials I bought to construct Kerry protest signs? Oh well, I guess I'll save them for the next time something like this happens. ;-)

UK tabloid claim: "Pope to make climate action a moral obligation"

The UK Independent is making some big claims today and I'm going to attempt to give some clarification and context:

The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following.

The New York speech is likely to contain an appeal for sustainable development, and it will follow an unprecedented Encyclical (a message to the wider church) on the subject, senior diplomatic sources have told The Independent.

It will act as the centrepiece of a US visit scheduled for next April – the first by Benedict XVI, and the first Papal visit since 1999 – and round off an environmental blitz at the Vatican, in which the Pope has personally led moves to emphasise green issues based on the belief that climate change is affecting the poorest people on the planet, and the principle that believers have a duty to "protect creation".

While Pope Benedict may speak about stewardship of creation, I highly doubt such an appeal would constitute the "centerpiece" of his entire US tour. It is also imprecise to say that Pope Benedict has the authority to "invent" new moral causes, strictly speaking. The Pope can, however, emphasize to the Church that stewardship of creation is an important duty, in line with previously revealed truth. In other words, don't expect to see Pope Benedict adding an eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt use only hybrid cars." He'd be the last person to do that.

More interesting is the UK Independent claim about an "unprecedented Encyclical" on the same topic. This claim contradicts all previous reporting as to the subject matter of his next encyclical, with the dominant strain of rumor proposing a topic involved with economics. [related: What do we know for sure about the Pope's next Encylical?] I'm sure they'd like an encyclical on climate change, but I'd like to see them hold their breaths for that.

The next claim that this UN address will follow an "environmental blitz at the Vatican" is similarly biased. Pope Benedict has been very active on many issues (issues, incidentally, that don't make it into popular reporting), stewardship of creation being one of them. As for climate change "affecting the poorest people on the planet", all he actually said was that scarsity of water is a problem in some areas: it is, but the cause of that problem is not global warming. [related: What Pope Benedict said about Creation at Loreto]. It is true that the Catholic Church teaches we have a duty to "protect creation" - that's nothing new. What constitutes protecting creation in today's world is what Pope Benedict would be addressing. And so far, it's a very different message than what the global warming lobby want to hear. But that doesn't seem to bother them.

Back to the text of the UK Independent article:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Catholic Church in the UK, said last night: "This is a crucial issue both today and for all future generations. We are the stewards of creation and we need to take that responsibility seriously and co-operate to care for the created world."

I wonder if the Cardinal knew he was being interviewed for an article that seeks to reveal Pope Benedict's plans for his UN speech, and for the universal church, months prior to its delivery. I hope not.

Much of the rest of the article operates upon the principle that Pope Benedict's topic and message is already a done deal, and works through the implications (as the author sees it) of Pope Benedict getting firmly on the climate change bandwagon. Some of the author's history, however, is similarly incomplete:

News of the speech comes as Vatican City has become the first fully carbon-neutral state in the world, after announcing it is offsetting its carbon footprint by planting a forest in Hungary and installing solar panels on the roof of St Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Once again, the Vatican's Hungarian forest initiative provides eager reporters the "evidence" they need to claim that the Vatican is going green the way reporters want to see that happen. To clarify, the Vatican accepted the offer of a 3rd party company to plant a forest in Hungary. It's good to plant forests, and that's about all you can claim about the decision. I've blogged extensively on this (in my view, imprudent for several reasons) collaboration: "The Vatican and Planktos: strange bedfellows or sign of the times?" and again here: "Wait a minute, wasn't the selling of indulgences a bad thing?."

As for installing solar panels on the roof. Sure, that's true. I'm sure the Vatican also has low-flush toilets now (or again, maybe not). Electricity isn't cheap, and I'm not sure what more you can really claim about the choice to incorporate some solar energy.

Oddly enough, I think the last paragraph is more revealing that it might desire:

UK diplomats have held a number of behind-the-scenes meetings with Vatican officials on the environment. A Whitehall source said last night: "Benedict is the spiritual head of 19 per cent of the world's population and a highly respected figure. If the Pope's words are taken on board by his community that is one big constituency for change and could well turn the tide on climate change and environmental degradation."

Exactly, of course the global warming lobby wants the Catholic Church on its side. Once they can make the claim that global warming initiatives - as they see them - are a moral obligation (with sinfulness and culpability attached to ignoring it) as opposed to a simple act of prudence with two valid outcomes, they'll have successfully increased the size of their adherents. And here's the rub: even if they don't get the Catholic Church to say what they want, they can publish articles like these to convince people that the Catholic Church in fact does endorse their views.

What the Vatican must decide, and soon, is if it will continue to allow articles and reports such as this one to put words in Pope Benedict's mouth. If the Vatican doesn't speak, they will continue to speak for him.

Moreover, when he does speak, proposing a parallel track to their message isn't as effective. Unless he makes the distinctions and shows where Christian stewardship of creation is different than secular environmentalism, his audience might not be able to make the distinction. In this vacuum, the press accounts carry the day.

Of course, in general, when he does make the distinctions, the media is very good at chopping up his comments into sound bytes digestible for their purposes. In these situations, the Vatican press agency needs to be as pro-active on correcting these (often times intentional) errors in transmission as they have been on such issues as, for instance, Pope Benedict's comments on the Mexican legislators and whether they were excommunicated.

Moving farther still from normal human reproduction

What, removing slices of ovarian tissue, freezing them for years, then stimulating them with hormones into growing ovum to be fertilized in a petri dish sounds a bit unnatural? Well, you have a few years to decide.

Your PPOTD! Saturday, September 22nd

The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

had not received the memo to conserve paper.

[photo: AP Photo/L'Osservatore Romano, ho]

Papist-Quote-of-the-Day

From Il Papa:

Benedict XVI smilingly affirmed that Italian debates on taxation are a sign that "some things never change."

The Pope jokingly made this comment Wednesday during his reflection at the general audience focused on St. John Chrysostom. Referring to the saint's homilies written during the so-called statue revolt, a third-century protest over the emperor's taxes, the Holy Father said with a smile, "You can see that some things never change throughout history."

The Pontiff's off-the-cuff remark came two days after Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi announced that he will not cut personal income taxes this year. The prime minister raised taxes last year in an effort to cut the country's budget deficit. [Zenit]

Hope for China?

There are increasing signs.

Workers in Marriage Tribunals get a little nod...

... by Pope Benedict at the end of this Wednesday's general audience:

Benedict XVI greeted the participants in a course on matrimonial law and the canonical process.

The Pope mentioned the course at the end of today's general audience, encouraging the participants to take advantage of this "precious occasion of juridical formation so as to be able to offer your dioceses and communities a qualified and diligent service."

The course, sponsored by the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, is under way in Rome through Friday. [Zenit]

Breaking: Pro-Life Victory in Aurora, Illinois

Thanks to reader Phil Onochie for the tip:

News from the National Campaign Director of 40 Days of Life:

I'm standing on the street outside the Federal courtbuilding in Chicago, IL, and a crowd of faithfulChristians is singing "Glory, glory, hallelujah!"

Judge Norgle just DENIED Planned Parenthood's requestfor an emergency preliminary injunction that would haveenabled them to open their 22,000 square foot abortionfacility. That means Planned Parenthood STAYS SHUT!

God really does answer 40 days of prayer and fasting!

The national media is here in force, and they will becovering the big pro-life rally where I'll be speakingtonight about how Aurora is setting the stage for the40 Days for Life campaign that kicks off in 80+ citiesin just 6 days!

Expect amazing things like this to happen all across America in the coming weeks!!

Yours For Life,

David Bereit

National Campaign Director

40 Days for Life

More as I get it.

Update:

• Killing Delayed is Killing Denied (Dawn Eden)
• Per Judge: Planned Parenthood Aurora CANNOT open (Jill Stanek)
• CNA: Secretive Planned Parenthood abortion clinic will not open doors as scheduled
• LSN: Largest Abortion Center in the U.S. Refused Permission to Open
• the AP: Judge refuses Planned Parenthood motion on Aurora clinic

Via Gerald, Fox News coverage:

I'll be posting on 40 Days for Life shortly.

News bits (9/20/07)

CWNews, "Cardinal Bertone reflects on 1st year as Secretary of State":

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who completed his first year as Vatican Secretary of State on September 15, told the Italian daily Avvenire that he has no desire to lead the Church himself, but seeks simply to serve the needs of Pope Benedict XVI.

CNS, "Vatican: Pope's refusal to meet Rice should not be seen as snub":

Pope Benedict XVI declined to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during his August vacation, but Vatican officials said it should not be interpreted as a diplomatic snub."

The only reason she wasn't received was that she came during a period when the pope doesn't receive anyone. It was a purely technical question of protocol," an informed Vatican source told Catholic News Service Sept. 20.

CNA, "Hundreds witness miracle of St. Januarius in Naples":

As has occurred every year for the last 400 years, the liquification of the blood of St. Januarius took place in the city of Naples on the martyr’s feast day of September 19.

"Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response"

I'm going to try to get into the habit of composing a short (2 page) bioethics essay each week:

“Recent Proposals for Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response”

One of the emerging forms of scientific embryonic stem cell research is the creation of human-animal hybrids. On September 6th, the Human Fertilisation and Embryonic Authority (HEFA) in Britain approved the creation of human-animal embryos in theory, subject only to the possible intervention of the UK’s High Court. Without an intervention, the creation of hybrid embryos by two teams of scientists could begin in the UK by the end of this year. HEFA is believed to be the first fertility regulator in the world to explicitly approve such procedures.[1]

The request for authorization of the procedure was prompted, scientists say, by the lack of human embryos for research purposes. The hybrids would be created by inserting the nucleus of a human cell into the denucleated ovum of a mammal (most likely bovine). The resulting embryo would then be destroyed fourteen days after fertilization and its cell lines analyzed. This procedure is a type of In Vitro fertilization, but its problematic moral nature goes beyond IVF.

The Catholic Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW), along with the Linacre Center for Healthcare Ethics issued a joint response to this proposal back in June of 2007.[2] In point four on “Inter-species embryos”, the CBCEW opposes the creation of hybrid embryos, while not definitively deciding upon whether such an organism would be human, saying instead that “If an embryo is conceived with a single animal gene, or even if a human nucleus is placed in an animal ovum, this may be compatible with the presence of a genuine human embryo following the procedure.” However, the CBCEW is also careful to point out that “embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.” On this issue, the teaching of the CBCEW is similar to the Church’s common response to the practice of In Vitro fertilization: i.e., such research is immoral and not be done, but if it is done the resulting human embryo’s rights must be respected.

On September 6th, the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life Elia Sgreccia gave an interview to Vatican Radio in which he described the creation of hybrids as a “monstrous act which is against human dignity.” His claim is spelled-out in a document released by the Linacre Centre in response to the Government’s proposal. When discussing the wrong done to the dignity of human life in the case of embryos created through IVF, the Linacre Centre states:

Serious as these wrongs are, there is an additional wrong in the case of animal-human hybrids, in that the embryo’s dignity is violated by the very structure of its creation … the embryo made from animal components is still further alienated from any possibility of parental respect or protection, in that this embryo may have literally no human parents.[3]

The Linacre Centre also admits the possibility that hybrid embryos may not, in fact, be human embryos. Nonetheless, even non-human embryos created with component human genetic material would still offend against human dignity, they claim. In an interview rebroadcast by Vatican Radio, the director of the Linacre Centre Dr. Helen Watt elaborated that hybrid creation is offensive because the human material is being used as a substitute for animal gametes, and when humans are brought into animal reproduction it violates the dignity of the human species.[4]

Apart from the other practical considerations involved with this development, it is clear that Catholic theologians must continue to both speak out against procedures that violate human dignity while at the same time deepening and refining their own understanding of the relevant scientific data in order to provide cogent, timely teachings on hybrid embryo procedures. +++

Lombardi confirms: Pope Benedict in NY '08

Associated Press: "Pope Benedict XVI plans to travel to the United States in the spring to address the United Nations, but other possible U.S. stops have not been confirmed, the Vatican said Wednesday."

CWNews: "Pope Benedict XVI will visit the US in April 2008, for a major address at UN headquarters..."

Of course, when I ask Lombardi for a confirmation my email gets bounced back.

(Okay, I didn't try, but next time I just might...)

Update: Pope 'refused meeting with Rice'

I don't think you can really make that much of it.

Update: Since the story is getting some traction (slow news day), I'll comment.

From the AFP:

Pope Benedict XVI refused to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in August, saying he was on holiday, an Italian newspaper reported Wednesday.

Rice "made it known to the Vatican that she absolutely had to meet the pope" to boost her diplomatic "credit" ahead of a trip to the Middle East, the Corriere della Sera daily reported without citing its sources.

She was hoping to meet the pontiff at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo at the beginning of August, it said.

"'The pope is on holiday' was the official response," the paper said....The newspaper said the pope had rejected all meetings with political representatives during August.

1) It was August, and the pope really does take a break from meetings during the entire month (as does most the Vatican). I do, however, seem to remember that he broke that general rule for some special situation last year, but at the moment I can't recall the details. (anyone?)

2) If Condi requested a meeting just to "boost her diplomatic credit" than it's not at all surprising the pope would decline. Asking for advice or offering support is one thing. Photoshoots are another.

So many topics and so little time

I'm experiencing a serious mid-week time-crunch so to keep things brief:

• Bodies the Exhibit and the Diocese of Pittsburgh - Curt Jester
• Catholic leaders welcome Vatican documents on artificial nutrition - CNS
• Archbishop planning presidential race in Zimbabwe? - CWNews
• Largest Abortion Center in the U.S. Refused Permission to Open - LSN
• Vatican Observatory to host astronomy conference - CWNews
• Bishop Encourages All Priests to Imitate Him by Spending One Hour in Front of Abortion Facility - LSN

I'll soon be contributing to Catholics for Ron Paul

At the invitation of the webmaster, I'll soon be contributing to the Catholics for Ron Paul blog. Here are a few quotations from CFRP which I cite to explain my carefully-made decision to join their efforts in the upcoming months:

"This website is a place for ordinary Catholics who are serious about the wholistic body of principles known as the Social Doctrine of the Church to examine how Ron Paul's message and public policy proposals square up against these natural principles.

... This blog is a place to learn about Catholic Social Teaching and to examine these principles and in light of the practical proposals Ron Paul is making.

... At Catholics for Ron Paul, we are faithful to the Magisterium and the Social Doctrine of the Church; if there are areas where Ron Paul's policies don't square with CST, we will not jettison CST to promote Ron Paul but will examine the issues.

... It is our contention that Ron Paul's candidacy has the most reality based understanding of the problems facing America and his policy proposals are profoundly in harmony with CST.

Over the course of the coming weeks and months, this blog will take up the work of making that case."

With these important considerations in mind, I eagerly look forward to making my contributions. Currently, besides the webmaster, the other member of this group blog is Thomas E. Woods, perhaps best known for his recent title How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. So I'll find myself in good company.

Of course, living in Washington DC I hope to enjoy unique opportunities to follow Ron Paul's campaign and provide timely, accurate evaluations of his message. In turn, I hope to deepen my understanding of the relevant issues in this upcoming presidential election so that I can pass them on to the CFRP (and AmP) readership.

Whatever the results of this election, may good come about!

Update: For those interested, my first day on the job at CFRP:

• Video: Ron Paul at the Value Voters Debate
• Alan Keyes makes 3rd bid for presidency
• Ron Paul's views on homeschooling
• Ron Paul Roundup (9/12/07)
• Clinton: health care a requirement before work

Also, those interesting in contributing to CFRP or joining the list of Catholic bloggers who support Ron Paul, feel free to email me. The same goes for those who have blogged about Ron Paul (including critically) - let me know!

Current Popular AmP Topics

• Wait a minute, wasn't the selling of indulgences a bad thing?
• Pope Benedict to visit Eastern U.S. cities in April '08?
• Praise for Fox's "House M.D." from a (perhaps) surprising source
• Creighton U.'s Unfortunate History of Dissent
• Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK

Wait a minute, wasn't the selling of indulgences a bad thing?

Back in July I blogged about the Vatican's decision to become the "world's first carbon neutral sovereign state." CNA covered the story here shortly thereafter. I questioned at the time the wisdom of granting de facto Vatican approval to companies that make a profit from selling carbon offsets.

Sure enough, by early August, folks were declaring that the Roman Catholic Church was "dabbling in the hottest new religion – environmentalism" (and followed that up with saying it was now time to discuss the problem of overpopulation). Okay, well, people say the darnedest things.

Fast-forward to late August, where we first heard about a Benedictine Monk hearing "eco-confessions", during which people confessed to him sins they had committed against the environment. Okay, well, misplaced zealousness and abuse of sacraments often go hand-in-hand. Some commentators joked at the time that the penances given out probably involved buying carbon offsets and taking the bus to work.

Well now, with the coming of mid-September and the first chills of fall, the New York Times has noticed the Vatican's recent carbon-neutrality bid. The resulting article, entitled "Vatican Tree Penance: Forgive us our Co2", for the most part covers old ground. The last two paragraphs, however, I think are unsettling:

Klimafa has been given the right to restore the land by the Bukk National Park, which owns it; costs will be covered by carbon credit purchases. Mr. Torda said it would take 50 to 150 years to produce a mature forest.

After the Vatican agreement was announced, Msgr. Melchor Sánchez de Toca Alameda, an official at the Council for Culture at the Vatican, told the Catholic News Service [here] that buying credits was like doing penance. “One can emit less CO2 by not using heating and not driving a car, or one can do penance by intervening to offset emissions, in this case by planting trees,” he said.

In other words, if one has "sinned" against the environment by, say, failing to recycle or owning an inefficient car, this representative of the Vatican's Council for Culture is saying that one has a moral imperative to, if possible, purchase a carbon offset, which will result in some company like Planktos/Klimafa planting a tree (the same CNS story gives the details).

Okay, IF human-emitted carbon dioxide damages the environment to where it will in the future harm human beings and IF therefore emitting too much carbon dioxide is a sin and IF therefore people must do something to make up for their impact and IF planting a tree will ammend that evil which they have done ... EVEN THEN ... is paying a company the right way to fix this situation? Is offsetting personal carbon emissions the most important issue that the folks at the Council for Culture have to address currently? Isn't this purchasing of carbon footprints a luxury of the rich, in most cases? Is this truly the face of authentic Christian conservationism?

I just don't think so. And I'd like to see this issue addressed more comprehensively. Because I think that when the NYT is publishing articles that quote Vatican officials telling Catholics to consider purchasing carbon offsets, we've reached some sort of critical mass.

Pope Benedict to visit Eastern U.S. cities in April '08?

A notable upswing in cardinal-and-archbishop sightings during the last couple weeks here in DC set off rumors that something big was brewing. New to the scene myself, I shrugged my shoulders and figured that this state of affairs was average for the Nation's capital.

Disconnected as it may have been, Rocco reports that plans for a Papal visit to the Eastern seaboard were disseminated and discussed by the heirarchy during that time frame. (Quelle surprise, yes?) The highlights of Rocco's report:

The tentative dates of the visit would be April 15th-20th (Tuesday-to-Sunday).

Appearances in New York: a speech before the United Nations, Mass at Central Park, address and prayers at St. Patrick's Cathedral, a moment of reflection at Ground Zero.

Appearances in Boston: Sunday Mass on Boston Common and a meeting with the bishops of New England.

Appearances in Washington DC: Pope Benedict is reportedly eager to see the campus of CUA, he would also meet with President Bush, and probably celebrate Mass at the National Mall.

A visit to Baltimore might be added.

And, parting with tradition, the Pontiff will be visiting in an election year, right near the time when the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates should have just emerged. (Cue the fireworks.)

... well now, it seems I have to go block out a certain week in April on my calendar...

More as I find it.

Update: On Friday, CNS speculated: "Vatican officials say the pope also expects to visit the United Nations and New York in 2008, and April now looks like a likely time frame. He could easily add one or two other eastern U.S. cities, such as Philadelphia or Boston, to that itinerary."

Update 2: In fairness to my readers, I should note that this report is unsubstantiated at this point and has not been confirmed by any official source. Expect, at the very least, many of the venues and planned activities mentioned in this post to change. From what I'm hearing, the projected dates and major cities look fairly certain, but anything beyond that hasn't passed into anything resembling a consensus.

Update 3: CNA reports on the rumors here (and it appears to simply relate Rocco's details).

Obviously, in a situation like this the various involved dioceses and planning committees don't want to jump the gun and release details that have not yet been confirmed. Cities and other destinations at one time on the list would feel slighted if taken off during a later stage of planning, etc. Plus, there's a massive amount of logistics collaboration that has to go on with state and local officials (security, etc). Having the details of a visit available to the public won't help those proceedings move smoothly along in the least. So, everyone, stay patient and tuned.

There's plenty of time to book tickets.

Beginning of the week link roundup

And what better way to start the week than catching up on the last?

Catholic Blogs:

• The Benedict Blog: Summary of the Pope's trip to Austria
• Ratzinger Fan Club: Fr. Peter C. Phan
  

Catholics News:

• CNA: Navarro-Valls: Focus of Benedict XVI’s pontificate is “ministering to the intellect”
• CNA: Ave Maria Law School may face threat to accreditation
• CNS: Vatican nutrition text not a ruling on specific cases, says official
• CWNews: Pope meets with Sudanese leader
• LSN: Australian Doctor Dies After Refusing Cancer Treatment in Order to Save Her Unborn Child
• LSN: Planned Parenthood Files Injunction Request to Allow Opening of Aurora Clinic
• Zenit: Father Cantalamessa on the Joy of Fatherhood
• Zenit: Papal Coat of Arms Still Relevant
  

Who said Babel doesn't have modern-day applicability?

Tallest in the world, and still going strong...

The Dubai construction crew is an international hodge-podge of workers, many of them exploited. Riots and unrest have been reported from the site previously. No word on any massive language meltdowns - yet.

Your PPOTD! Friday, September 14th

Pope Benedict didn't have the heart to tell him that Angels

mentioned in the Old Testament don't leave fossilized remains.

[credit: AP Photo/L'Osservatore Romano/h.o.]

Breaking: CDF releases clarification (confirmation) re: nutrition & hydration

Via Amy, the CDF responds to a request from the USCCB today:

First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a "vegetative state" morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?

Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.

Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a "permanent vegetative state", may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. A patient in a "permanent vegetative state" is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.

Also published, a lengthy commentary by CDF on the history of the teaching that artificial nutrition and hydration is ordinary and proportionate means. More backstory when I get a chance.

Update: This is the first time Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, has gotten involved in this particular question (as far as I know). CDF hereby has confirmed Pope John Paul II's teaching given in 2004 that artificial hydration and nutrition is, in principle, ordinary care and as such always to be administered. The CDF commentary specifically states, "the Responses now given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continue the direction of the documents of the Holy See cited above, and in particular the Address of John Paul II of March 20, 2004."

I'm guessing, but don't know for sure, that President Skylstad submitted this question to CDF because many Catholic hospitals are still ignoring the directive of Pope John Paul II.

Well, now they're ignoring the recent teaching of two popes.

Update 2: Reuters coverage.

Praise for Fox's "House M.D." from a (perhaps) surprising source

Imagine my surprise at seeing my favorite (and sole) TV addiction, House M.D., praised by a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life in a recent Zenit interview:

The Fox Broadcasting Company's series titled "House: M.D." reflects the existence of good and evil and the need to choose between the two, says a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Dr. Carlo Valerio Bellieni is director of the Department of Newborn Intensive Therapy of the University Polyclinic Le Scotte in Siena, Italy. He told ZENIT that the series "shows something interesting."

He explained: "The show seems to be an apology for separation and absence: It tells the story of a misanthrope and harsh doctor, Gregory House, who doesn't want any contact with patients.

"This separation, however, caused by his existential and physical suffering, is only apparent. While remaining surly and anti-social, each time he insistently tries to understand the depths of the person he is caring for.

"He is able to recognize suffering in others because of his own suffering and it is because of this that he can see things that may escape others.

"It is even more strange, and interesting, that the 'non-politically correct' actions and judgments, with some exceptions, come from a character who is in constant struggle with the world."

[more astute observations.]

I posted summaries and reactions to three House episodes last season, entitling them "The Moralities of House":

• 3x21 "Family"
• 3x20 "House Training"
• 3x19 "Act Your Age"

The season four premier will be on Fox this September 25th. Time permitting, I hope to continue my series.

Update: Here's a short preview for the new season:

Motu Proprio goes into effect ... in about 20 minutes.

CWNews reports:

Summorum Pontificum, the motu proprio with which Pope Benedict XVI encouraged wide use of the Roman Missal of 1962, will take effect on Friday, September 14.

The Pope's initiative-- which was made public on July 7 after months of intense speculation-- calls upon pastors to "willingly accept" requests from the faithful for access to the pre-conciliar liturgy. Pope Benedict explained that his motu proprio was an effort to promote "interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."

Vatican Radio spoke with Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei today. Zenit has a transcript/article of what he said. For a bit of the bubbly, visit Fr. Z.

AmP's 2000th post!

Even my rudimentary math skills are functional enough to tell me that averages to a little over 250 visits-per-post! (okay, I had to use a calculator.)

And since sitemeter doesn't count readers who access AmP's content through RSS readers, bloglines, feedburner or the like, the actual sitewide statistics count well over a million visits.

Nonetheless, I think it's a good measure of the continuing health of the blog that I have so many other stories I'm working on currently that I don't have the luxury of taking the time to dwell upon this milestone.

To the folks who have just stumbled across this papist's ponderings for the first time today, and to those loyal friends who have been here from the beginning, my humble thanks!

Now, on to the next story....

When people refuse to let reality get them down...

... they get featured in Newsweek.

Via the incomparable Diogenes.

Update: I was thinking about this story a little bit more and I've decided something: I work for Newsweek. I've always felt like I deserved to work there and, well, now I do. I intend to submit my first article tomorrow. If they reject it, or make the absurd claim that I don't, in fact, work for them, I'm going to go public and proclaim:

"I work for Newsweek. Not Surprisingly, the Heirarchy of Newsweek does not approve."

Trouble on the homefront: CUA & Georgetown

Two stories, sadly, taking place in my backyard.

First, John Kerry has been invited to speak at the Catholic University of America:

LifeSiteNews:

Pro-Abortion John Kerry to Speak at Catholic University of America: Invitation violates principle unanimously agreed upon by US Bishops in 2004

WASHINGTON, September 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Catholic University of America (CUA) has invited former presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry to speak on environmentalism and the Iraq war this semester, despite initial opposition by the office of University Center, Student Programs and Events (UCSPE).

The Tower, the campus paper of Catholic University, said the UCSPE had initially objected to Kerry's appearance, saying there is an "unwritten" campus rule banning political candidates during an election year.

Kerry, who still receives Communion regularly, has a 100 per cent pro-abortion voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America. During the 2004 presidential debates, Kerry claimed that he was "personally against abortion", but would not "take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith."

[Related: U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Says Pro-Abortion Politicians Should be Shunned - LSN]

Carl Olson has commentary at InsightScoop.

TheTower (CUA's newspaper) reports:

Former presidential candidate John Kerry will speak on campus this semester despite initial opposition by the office of University Center, Student Programs and Events (UCSPE).

The College Democrats will host the Massachusetts senator, who has been approved to speak specifically on environmental concerns and the Iraq war.

UCSPE initially rejected the College Democrats' request in early August, according to junior Mark Arnone, chairman of the College Democrats. Bill Jonas, the director of UCSPE, sent an e-mail to Arnone as well as Michael Nardi, chairman of the College Republicans, highlighting an unwritten University policy banning candidates from campus during an election year.

... Patrick Reilly, the founder of the Cardinal Newman Society which is dedicated to the renewal of Catholic identity in Catholic higher education in the United States, learned about Kerry's scheduled appearance in a phone call with a reporter yesterday.

"This is wrong on so many levels," said Reilly. "For a Catholic university that accepts Catholic moral teachings as truth to invite or to host an active political candidate who intends to uphold and possibly expand the incidents of abortion in the United States is entirely contrary to its Catholic morals."

... When contacted yesterday, Kerry's senate office said that his speech had not been finalized and an exact date for his appearance had not been set, and deferred comment to a later date.

TheTower article, laudably, is very critical of Kerry and disapproves of his invitation. You have to think that Kerry is accepting the invitation out of spite. The College Democrats at CUA, I believe, are a small segment of the campus. Is he rubbing his status in our face? It seems so.

Second, across town, news that the Vatican & U.S Bishops are investigating a Georgetown professor:

John Allen:

Both the Vatican and the U.S. bishops are investigating a book by a prominent American Catholic theologian, Vietnam-born Fr. Peter Phan of Georgetown University.

The book raises issues about the uniqueness of Christ and the church, issues that were also behind recent censures of other high-profile theologians, as well as a recent Vatican declaration that the fullness of the Christian church resides in Catholicism alone.

The case confirms that no subject is of greater doctrinal concern for church authorities, including Pope Benedict XVI, than what they see as “religious relativism,” meaning the impression that Christ is analogous to other religious figures such as the Buddha, or that Christianity is one valid spiritual path among others.

Critics of writers such as Phan, who offer a positive theological evaluation of non-Christian religions, assert that their work courts confusion on these points, while others believe church authorities are drawing the borders of theological discussion too narrowly.

Phan, a priest of the Dallas diocese, is a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. The book in question is Phan’s 2004 Being Religious Interreligiously, published by Orbis.

This should all sound oddly-familiar to CUA. (*cough* Charlie Curran *cough.*)

Sherry W at Intentional Disciples reacts:

My initial concern with Phan's work was staggeringly bad history and worse statistics. Phan's ahistorical reading of contemporary Christian missions systemically ignored massively documented realities like the explosive growth of Christianity in the third world which a casual reader could uncover with a 60 second Google search.

I knew that it was almost certainly theology that was driving this strange obtuseness on Phan's part because "missionary failure" would enable him to portray his theological positions as "realism" - the stoic acceptance of the fact that Asians had voted with their feet and rejected Christianity en masse - rather than an ideology that he was asserting in the teeth of overwhelming evidence that Asia (especially China) is on the verge of becoming one of the evangelizing dynamos of the Christian world.

So I'm relieved that serious questions are being raised at the highest level about the theological issues behind the lousy missiology.

The mainstream media is hot on the story. Associated Press:

The U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has traded correspondence with Phan since July 2005 seeking clarification on his writings, said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"There was not complete satisfaction with his response, which is why the dialogue continues," Walsh said. She did not go into further detail.
Phan declined comment Wednesday.

Mind-bogglingly stupid quotation:

The issues underpinning Phan’s case are causing great debate among Catholic theologians grappling with how Catholicism relates to other faiths outside a European context, said Terrence Tilley, chairman of the theology department at Fordham University and president-elect of the Catholic Theological Society of America.

"To come to judgment as the Vatican seems to be doing so quickly, before theologians have had time to work out and critique the positions ... it’s just premature," Tilley said. "It’s in a sense cutting off debate before the debate’s started."

You have to be kidding me. The debate concerning the nature of the Church has been going strong for, oh, about 1,900 years. Easy. How can Terrence Tilley expect to get away with such a claim?

Hmm, let's think about this. Terrency Tilley, "president-elect of the Catholic Theological Society of America" ... Peter Phan former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America.

There, now it's beginning to make sense.

More news from the front as it emerges....

Papist Links, Thursday September 13th

Stories of note, but time precludes analysis:

• Benedict XVI's Q-and-A Session With Youth in Loreto (Zenit)
• Hey Briney, it was never about your singing! (Catherine Harmon at InsightScoop)
• So Much for 10% Gay: New Statistics Show Homosexual Couples Represent only 0.6% of All Couples in Canada (LSN)
• Lutheran leader raps Vatican stand on Reformation communities (CWNews)
• Catholic Beer Review (Phillip Blosser)
• New personal secretary for Pope Benedict XVI (CNA)
• Seminarian Video: The Attack of the Bowl Washer!

Catholic Carnival 136 is up!

This week's Catholic Carnival is hosted by "Just Another Day of Catholic Pondering."

Besides my post on Creighton U.'s unfortunate history of dissent, there's much fine fare. :)

Think there's a scientific consensus on man-made Global Warming?

There isn't:

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see." (source)

And it's significant to point out that many of these "dissenters" claim that global warming, if it were to happen, would be beneficial to humanity. Why again, are we so worried?

Conservationism - when properly ordered to the good of man - is laudable. That's what Pope Benedict has been promoting. Most initiatives you see promoted by the environmentalists, however, actually harm or inhibit the proximate good of particular humans for the purpose of avoiding unproven, temporally-distant catastrophes that they claim will be caused by global warming. This is not prudence. On a personal level it is silly, and when made into policy or the new "liberal orthodoxy", it is grossly negligent.

What is causing the depopulation in Russia?

This no longer qualifies as an "offbeat" story. The following is a demonstration of the critical depopulation situation in Russia caused by rampant contraception, sterilization and abortion (there are, for instance, more abortions than live births in Russia each year - 13:10).

Reuters:

The governor of a central Russian province urged couples to skip work on Wednesday and make love instead to help boost Russia's low birth-rate.

And if a woman gives birth in exactly nine months time -- on Russia's national day on June 12 -- she will qualify for a prize, perhaps even winning a new home.

"It's normally something for the home -- a fridge or a television set," Yelena Yakovleva at the Ulyanovsk regional administration press office, said.

"It doesn't matter if it's a girl or a boy."

...This year a record 78 babies were born on June 12 at the main hospital in the regional capital of Ulyanovsk, beating the 2006 total of 26, said chief doctor Andrei Malykh.

...A mass wedding and special lessons for children at school on how to deal with having a brother or sister are also planned in Ulyanovsk city, which is about 900 km (560 miles) from Moscow.

At the town's central post office, a sign urges locals to write love letters for free to anywhere in Russia, with postage pre-paid.

This week First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, a possible successor to President Vladimir Putin, said he wanted to stabilise the population at about 142 million by 2015 and boost it back to 145 million by 2025.

But I ask you, to what factors does Reuters attribute the problem of underpopulation?

Russia wants to reverse a trend in which the population is shrinking by about 700,000 people a year as births fail to outpace a high death rate boosted by AIDS, alcoholism and suicide.

This is what the AP says:

Russia's population has dropped since the 1991 Soviet collapse, fed by declining birth rates, a low life expectancy, a spike in emigration, a frayed health care system and other factors. The country — the world's largest — now has just 141.4 million citizens, making it one of the most sparsely settled nations. And experts estimate the population could fall below 100 million by 2050.

At least this paragraph mentions "declining birth rates", although it fails to explain the causes for this phenomenon that I mention.

How bad is the situation?

Last year, President Vladimir Putin called the demographic crisis the country's most acute problem and announced a broad effort to boost the birthrate, including cash subsidies for couples giving birth to more than one child. Women who give birth to their second or third child receive $10,000 vouchers to pay for education or home repairs.

More acute than global warming? My, that's saying something.

Archbishop Ncube Ntrouble - but what is the truth of the matter?

The VIS bulletin was terse and to-the-point:

"[Today the Holy Father:] Accepted the resignation from the pastoral care of the archdiocese of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, presented by Archbishop Pius Alick Ncube, in accordance with canon 401 para. 2 of the Code of Canon Law."

The back story is long and complicated, but to summarize:

• Abp. Pius Ncube has been an outspoken critic of Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe (who, from all reports, is a corrupt dictator)
• President Mugabe has had his state-run media and secret service proliferate a vicious campaign accusing the Archbishop of having a sexual relationship with his secretary
• The President conducted an undercover operation that resulted in a video which purports to show the Archbishop having relations with his secretary (and other women as well)
• Abp. Ncube has denied the accusations, but has resigned to "protect the church." He will remain a bishop in Zimbabwe and continue opposing the president's activities.

I don't believe that the Archbishop's resignation proves that he is guilty, as the secretary-general of the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishop's conference pointed out to reporters. The Archbishop was not asked to resign [update: this detail is now contested - see bottom of the post], and he submitted his request back in July with the purpose of allowing himself more time to defend against the civil charges of adultery that he is facing from the government as well as a suit submitted by the husband of the woman with whom he is purported to have had an affair.

The Catholic Church is said to be conducting its own investigation, and that's what I'll be watching more than the (likely corrupt) civil suit. Efforts are also underway to examine the authenticity of the media which attempts to compromise the Archbishop (I don't envy those involved with that task).

It is also interesting to note that the Archbishop was charged with adultery almost immediately after he was quoted as saying that it would be morally justifiable to overthrow President Mugabe's regime [source]. If we want to talk about timing, that is rather noteworthy.

And I have to say that, in general, I'm very impressed by the Archbishop's words. If he is indeed guilty, this only makes the situation all the more tragic because he clearly seems to have an integrated understanding of his office and duties as an Archbishop - at least on paper.

The CNS coverage of this issue is extremely well-done and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to read more of the archbishop's position, as well as learn more about the background of the controversy.

Finally, Rocco reports:

Ncube's resignation is the second indicator in a week of a concerted shift in the Holy See's Zimbabwe policy.

Little noticed when it dropped eight days ago, Benedict transferred the nuncio to Harare, Archbishop Edward Adams, to Manila as the papal representative to the Philippines.

Other sources:

• Sep 12: Zimbabwe Archbishop Resigns (New York Times)
• Sep 12: Pope lets critic of Mugabe quit after sex video (UK Gaurdian ... unfair headline)
• Sep 11: Archbishop Pius Ncube resigns amidst allegations of adultery (CNA)
• Sep 11: Zimbabwe's Archbishop Ncube resigns under fire (CWNews)
• Sep 11: Pope Accepts Zimbabwean Prelate's Resignation (Zenit)
• Sep 11: Ncube to resign, reports anticipate (CathNews)
• Aug 31: Zimbabwe's bishops rally behind accused archbishop (CNA)
• Aug 31: Zimbabwe bishops rally behind accused prelate (CWNews)
• Aug 28: Lawyers for Archbishop Ncube ask for detailed charges (CWNews)
• Aug 23: Zimbabwe government launches new charges against Archbishop Ncube (CWNews)

Update: John Allen reports: "Ncube yesterday told Corriere della Sera, Italy’s leading newspaper, that he would “never admit” that the photos are authentic. Ncube also said that he would not have resigned on his own, but did so in obedience to a request from Benedict XVI." The AFP reports along similar lines.

Update 2: CWNews, in turn, disputes that the Holy See asked for the resignation:

A spokesman for the bishops' conference of Zimbabwe told the Catholic News Service that Archbishop Ncube had submitted his resignation freely, denying that the Vatican had pressed him to resign. However he also said that the archbishop's resignation was "not expected." Ncube had earlier told reporters that he had offered to resign in July, when newspapers in the nation's capital first ran stories on the adultery charges.

A papist-on-the-ground's pics of Pope Benedict at Mariazell

A classmate of mine from college is now living in Austria attending school at the International Theological Institute (where I studied for a semester in 2003). He was present during the Pope's recent visit to Mariazell and recently uploaded his pictures here. A sample:

I take this to be definitive proof that those vestments were just as ugly up close. Yikes.

Last-minute notice for you early birds tomorrow

My professor for Medical Moral Theology this semester, Fr. Basil Cole, O.P., will be on Good Morning America tomorrow morning (Tuesday). The topic, I believe, has to do with a statue of Our Lady of America that exists very near ground zero of the World Trade Center site.

I'm guessing that most my readers don't watch GMA with any frequency. Frankly, I really don't see the draw of their other planned segments, especially "Does Your Pet Look Like A GMA Anchor?" Dear me. What a world.

Pavarotti received Anointing of the Sick

CNA reports:

Luciano Pavarotti, the world renowned tenor was laid to rest in Modena’s cathedral with a grand funeral which paid tribute to the opera legend and gave witness to his return to the Catholic faith.

The diocese had received criticisms that it had gone overboard in honoring a remarried divorcé. But Pavarotti's parish priest, Fr. Remo Sartori, said the twice-married singer had been reconciled with the Catholic faith, reported the Sydney Morning Herald. Pavarotti had received the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick before losing his battle against pancreatic cancer last Thursday, aged 71.

Church leaders and pastors, including Pope Benedict XVI, sent messages conveying their condolences. The Pope’s message expressed his sorrow at the loss of "a great artist who with his extraordinary interpretative talent honored the divine gift of music".

In his tribute, Archbishop Benito Cocchi of Modena recognized Pavarotti as an exceptional talent and as someone who “expressed himself in charity towards those who suffered."

One of the emotional climaxes of the funeral was a 1978 recording of Panis Angelicus (Bread Of Angels), performed by Pavarotti and his father, Fernando.

Another followed a prayer composed by Pavarotti's three eldest daughters from his first marriage, which said: "We thank God for having given Dad the gift of a great voice and we pray that he will allow him to use it in heaven to sing his praise."

Pavarotti's musical talent emerged in a church choir, where he sang with his father, Fernando Pavarotti, who was a baker. His father also had a terrific tenor voice, but stage fright prevented him from developing his talent.

Mark your calendar, Colorado!

Cardinal Arinze is coming to Colorado Springs on the 19th of this month!

Burke's Canonical Bunker Buster for Pro-Abort Politicians

And in this case "Bunker" means "those who think that Canon Law doesn't prohibit pro-choice Catholic politicians from receiving the Eucharist" and "Buster" means "Archbishop Burke's recent article published in the world's leading journal for Canon (Church) Law."

The title of Burke's article: "CANON 915: THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN." It is available online in its entirety here.

I would highly recommend reading my father's introduction to this article at his blog In the Light of the Law (published today) which fills-in the context surrounding the debate and attempts to prepare the reader for what is, admittedly, technical and demanding language (I'm sure that won't constitute a disincentive to my readers).

He considers it the most important article on canon law published this year.

A friend of mine alerted me earlier this year to Burke's intentions of publishing this article, but he could not specify which journal had accepted it and my efforts to find out proved fruitless. Regardless, it has now reached the light of day and by nightfall I'm fairly certain we can expect some fireworks.

Creighton U.'s Unfortunate History of Dissent

As attentive readers well know, Creighton U. recently invited the pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia writer Anne Lamott to speak on the topic of "Women & Health." The same university then chose to "mutually agree upon cancellation" of her appearance, albeit in rather overly-apologetic and hesitant language.

As background, this is not the first time Creighton U. has run afoul of conservative Catholic circles. Most recently, the Archdiocese of Omaha severed its ties with Creighton U.'s Center for Marriage and Family after two of the university's top professors suggested that the Catholic Church should let couples cohabit and have sex before marriage. CNA has more on that story. The proposal was critically evaluated by the In Light of the Law blog (run by my father), as well as by Jeff Miller at Curt Jester, Rich Leonardi, and thoroughly by Carl Olson at Insight Scoop.

Several other Catholic Blogs also covered the story of Anne Lamott and her Creighton U. invitation and cancellation, including Revert Convert (#2), The Cafeteria is Closed (#2), Amy Welborn's Charlotte Was Both, and - notably - local resident Jeff Baker of Defend Us in Battle, whose posts were credited by LifeSiteNews as being partially responsible for Creighton U.'s change of course.

In follow-up to the story, in addition to the LifeSiteNews coverage, CNA published an article detailing "what seems to be a pattern of disagreement" between the Archdiocese of Omaha and Creighton U., and the Associated Press was the mainstream source for that conclusion.

Matters took an interesting turn this week, when president of Creighton U., John P. Schlegel, S.J., circulated a memo claiming that blogs had absolutely nothing to do with his decision (CNA covers that story here).

Well, methinks the president doth protest too much. Gerard published the entire text of the memo here, and for my discussion I'm going to single out what the president had to say about the non-influential blogs:

I know that the mutual decision of Creighton University and Ms. Anne Lamott to cancel her planned lecture has been the subject of much discussion, debate and concern on and off campus. This is a healthy thing and a learning experience for all of us.

Unfortunately, however, the somewhat incomplete accounts of what has transpired may be clouding that discussion. The decision to cancel the lecture was not the result of outside pressure from any group. I made this decision last Friday, August 24, after prayerful reflection upon reading from her latest book, the publication of which post-dated the invitation and in discussion with Amy Haddad, director of the Center for Health Policy and Ethics. To put it more frankly: my reflection on this question started well before the bloggers latched upon the invitation. (underlining mine.)

Some initial thoughts:

I find it dismissive to refer to the blogosphere as "the bloggers." Such a phrase normally finds its way into sentences like "oh you know the bloggers [the press, the MSM] aren't to be trusted."

Furthermore, and more to the point, I don't think it's fair to say the bloggers "latched upon the invitation." Parasites latch onto things. The bloggers who posted about this story, however, merely brought up a reasonable, valid point in an honest manner, while providing people with the means to work within the system and thereby voice their complaints to the administration.

Clearly, the bloggers were correct because they came to the same decision as the president himself (and here, I'll use my words): "Anne Lamott has no business being paid by a Catholic University to conduct an endorsed lecture wherein she supports positions contrary to Church teaching (and human dignity), and is herself a glaring example of the unapologetic culture of death."

As to whether "outside pressure from any group" didn't influence President Schlegel's decision. I think there's some evidence it actually did. First of all, his public decision did post-date the wide coverage it received. In this situation one can look to the president's previous decisions on these matters and speculate as to whether the evidence demonstrates that he would have come to the same conclusion about Anne Lamott regardless of his institution being in the public spotlight.

Quite simply, who has Creighton U. been in the habit of inviting prior to the Lamott scandal?

Two years ago, in 2005, the same "Women & Health" annual lecture at Creighton U. was presented by author Elizabeth Berg, and personally introduced by President Schlegel [source]. Berg offers such wisdom as this: "[the] future no longer belongs to analytical professionals--the linear, logical knowledge people. [Rather] it belongs to creators and empathizers." A little research shows that one of her books, Until the Real Thing Comes Along (1999) is about a woman's love for a gay man. The story is taken from her personal experience. On her website, she explains the situation as follows:

When I was in college, I had a relationship with a man who later revealed that he was gay. He was wonderful-compassionate, intelligent, sensitive, a great cook and a swell dresser. And gorgeous! I modeled Ethan on him. I modeled Patty on a friend of mine who was dying to have a baby but just couldn't find the right one.

She then provides this quotation from her book:

"I took that moment for what I wanted it to be: an acknowledgment that Ethan too ached for that kind of intimacy, and I was the one to give it to him. I was as helpless as an addict before he can even think of changing: stuck in overwhelming want, governed by bone-deep need. Oh, that bad pleasure-it's amazingly good."

Swell sentiments to share with the audience of Creighton U., and apparently she did read extended quotations from her books during her lecture.

But this was two years ago. This could be old news. But what about last year in 2006, which featured author Jodi Picoult speaking to 700 folks on the "controversial topic of genetic planning" which she treats in her most recent novel My Sister's Keeper?

Some of Jodi Picoult's credentials include having "observed open-heart surgery, lived with the Amish, gone ghost hunting and even spent time in jail."

Creighton U's Center for Health Policy & Ethics website explains that in another of her books, The Tenth Circle, Jodi Picoult "drew on Eskimo life in Alaska, comic books, Dante’s Inferno (which she hated in college when she had to study it—and still does), rape, and teen-age sexuality to provide the framework for her story of the Stone family: Daniel, Laura, and Trixie, their teenage daughter. Daniel is a comic book artist and Laura a professor who teaches Dante’s Inferno in her college class. Trixie’s rape launches a complex story that includes Daniel’s childhood experiences growing up as the only white boy in an Eskimo village."

Although reading more about Jodi Picoult's novels is outside the scope of my present purposes, a homeschooling mother who read her book Nineteen Minutes (a New York Time's bestseller) had this to say:

The odd thing about Picoult, I think, is that she manages to bring in something that makes me angry almost every time I read her books. The midwife in the story, also the mother of the shooter, thinks back to marching for Pro-Choice marches where she met her husband. I have a hard time rationalizing a midwife even being pro-abortion.

Jodi Picoult's website has a great deal of material on it, but a brief survey found this quotation, in which she is describing some of the research she did on her next book dealing with people on death row:

"She [the warden giving the tour] definitely had her guard up – and wasn’t budging an inch. We started talking about the last execution in Arizona; and at some point she mentioned she was a practicing Catholic. “If you’re Catholic,” I said, “do you think the death penalty is a good thing?” She stared at me for a long moment, and then said, “I used to.” From that moment on, the wall between us came down, and she was willing to tell me everything I wanted and needed to know – including scenes you’ll see in this book in 2008..."

Jodi then goes on to give us her explanation of the Gnostic gospels (which she used for her research):

[The Gnostic gospels are] part and parcel of a religious movement that was denounced as heresy by Orthodox Christianity in the middle of the second century....the basis for their beliefs is that if you want to know God, you have to know yourself. Or in other words, there’s a little bit of divinity in all of us, coded and hidden…and it’s up to each of us to figure out how to get it out. The Gnostics felt that religion was something that by definition had to be personal – and that if you simply believed what others told you to believe or said the right words during a church service or just got baptized, it wasn’t enough to reach spiritual fulfillment....

... There are a lot of good reasons – political and religious – why Orthodox Christianity rejected the Gnostic movement…but something else was lost along with those gospels – the belief that people might reach spiritual enlightenment in a variety in ways, rather than one “right” way....

... you get the general idea.

Mind you, these two authors are direct predecessors of Anne Lamott. I didn't bother going through the entire list, but others are welcome. The nice thing about the internet is that there is a public record of these things. (A brief aside: the replacement to Anne Lamott is Ann Hood. Her website seems innocuous enough. Her latest book is entitled The Knitting Circle and merited the praise of being "A wonderfully simple book about something complicated, the nearly unendurable process of enduring after a great loss" from the Washington Post.)

Nonetheless, to return to my initial question: who has Creighton U. been in the habit of inviting prior to the Lamott scandal? Evidently people like Elizabeth Berg and Jodi Picoult.

So why did President Schlegel's "prayerful reflection" upon reading these two author's books result not in dismissal, but encouragement and endorsement? I'd agree that on a spectrum Ann Lamott's pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia stance is more offensive than Elizabeth Berg's sentimilization of gays and Jodi Picoult's newfangled gnostic spiritualism, but still, is this the best a Catholic university can offer its students and benefactors? Read through the rest of President Schlegel's memo and insert these two concepts whenever he speaks about academic diversity.

Moreover, how can he possibly say that "as a Catholic university, we have the added responsibility of fostering engagement among these perspectives and forms of knowledge with the Catholic intellectual tradition" when clearly, the authors he introduces are unsympathetically chosen for their anti-Catholic intellectual beliefs? Nowhere in any of the literature I've seen from Creighton's Center for Health Policy & Ethics website do they critique or even mention that there is a critical debate ocurring during these proceedings.

President Schlegel himself admits that "In the case of a sponsored lecture where the speaker is to be compensated and expenses paid, the lecture unavoidably and plainly takes on the imprimatur of the University."

I'm relieved that Schlegel discerned that Lamott's views deserve no such imprimature, but then neither do the views of their last two invitees!

LifeSiteNews makes the good observation that in June 2004, the USCCB issued a statement entitled "Catholics in Political Life," which states: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

This seems to be exactly what President Schlegel has supported the Center for Health Policy Ethics in doing, and leaves the door open to doing in the future when he says:

"I know that many of you will be concerned that the logical end of this position is that we will never have a sponsored speaker other than ones by those who agree in every respect with Church teaching. I understand and respect that concern and can assure that it is manifestly not my intent to impose uniformity of this sort."

Indeed, he is evidently still more concerned about appearing to be "anti-free thought" by his academic peers and donors than he is about being faithful to the Catholic tradition which he is obligated to uphold and defend as the president of a Catholic University, and as a priest of the Society of Jesus.

To end this post I’ll play devil’s advocate for a second. Maybe President Schlegel did indeed experience a change of heart. In which case, that same change of heart should have led him to realize that a) it wouldn’t take much research to demonstrated that his institution during his administration has had a long history of similar offenses, in which case b) it’s time to cease defending their imperfect policies and begin a genuine renewal of their criteria for inviting speakers.

What’s at stake here is nothing less than the academic and spiritual formation of the people Creighton U. has entrusted to it.

If President Schlegel’s “reflection on this question started well before the bloggers latched upon [the story]”, I hope that his reflection on the more fundamental questions I have brought up here has likewise started well before he reads this post. If not, may this be a charitable invitation to do so. Oremus pro invicem.

Postscriptum: I was in a bookstore a couple days ago and read through a large part of Anne Lamott's most recent book, Grace (Eventually): Thoughts on Faith. It wasn't so much that it was vulgar (frequent f-words), nor that it was egocentric (it is), but that it's .... nothing. It's meaningless drivel with no answers, and instead mostly opining and empty wordcraft. Watching her describe her relationship and parenting techniques was only painful. If that's the way she's bringing up and teaching her son (and passing this on to her readers as wisdom), who is she to teach the Catholic faithful? She isn't. And that doesn't take much prayerful reflection to determine....

It's just common sense.

[Picture credits.... Anne Lamott: Metro Active. President Schlegel: Creighton University website. Second picture of President Schlegel: Focus, Creightor Center for Healthy & Policy Ethics. Pictures of Elizabeth Berg, Jodi Picoult, and My Sister's Keeper: Creighton University Medical Center website.]

Brave new world... where ND offers TLM

Matt of "The Whapsters" reports:

After several weeks of promising rumors, Campus Ministry has determined on a very favorable course of action regarding the Tridentine liturgy: a regularly-scheduled recited mass in the Extraordinary Form will be celebrated in the chapel of Alumni Hall dorm (it's generally considered one of the most beautiful on campus, and possessing a fine high altar, shown above) at 8 AM on Sundays, starting after September 14; and starting in second semester, missae cantatae will be offered once or twice a term on special occasions with music by the official university choirs. This is extremely promising, and also likely to spread interest in the rite among a wider section of the student body. You can find the official statement here [PDF file].

Four days until the motu priori goes into action. More general information here at Wikipedia.

Related: "Notre Dame to offer Latin Mass in the fall." (CNA)

Photopost: Capuchins welcome Pope Benedict to Loreto

Most folks probably didn't know this, but Pope Benedict visited a local Loreto shrine and the Capuchin Friars while he was there. CWNews reported on it:

During his weekend visit to Loreto, Italy, on September 1-2, Pope Benedict XVI made a private visit to the famous Holy House there.

On Saturday evening, after a meeting with young people in the town's Montorso section, the Holy Father made a visit to the shrine to pray in silence .... He also gave his blessing to the local Capuchin friars and cloistered nuns at the site.

"May the Holy House truly be the center and heart of your city," the Pope said. He reminded the local officials of "the great privilege you have of living in the shadow of the Holy House."

In his prayer at the renowned shrine, the Pope appealed to Christ to "show us, we ask of you, your ever-new face, the mysterious mirror of God's inexhaustible mercy." He asked the Virgin Mary to "help us have innocent hands and a pure heart" with which to serv God.

Happily, a Capuchin Fransiscan Friar let me know about the webpage of the Order of Capuchin Friars Minor that contains some rare (and beautiful) photos taken during the Pope's recent visit.

(click for full-size versions)

The same website also has a news post covering the Pope's visit. Some excerpts:

At 9:15 p.m., Benedict XVI entered the Basilica, welcomed by the Rector, Br. Marzio Calletti, OFMCap and his Delegate S.E. Monsignor Gianni Danzi who accompanied him to the Sanctuary of the Holy House of Mary, the Virgin of Nazareth. Here the Holy Father prayed in silence at first, then through a televised linkup, to the prayer vigil of the young people. Before he left the Basilica, the Pope met with the Capuchin Friars, guardians of the House of Mary since around 1559.

... After receiving the greetings of the Minister General, Br. Mauro Jöhri (who on this day also celebrated his 60th birthday – and may the Virgin of Loreto sustain his ministry) who was accompanied by the Minister of the province of the Marches, Br. Gianni Pioli, the Pope, in an outdoor program, wished to speak with the friars who had gathered in the German Chapel. He thanked them for their presence and for their dedication to the sacramental ministry of Reconciliation and the welcoming of pilgrims. He then added that he knew well the “Capuchin Fathers” because from the time of his infancy he listened and learned when, very frequently, they were present in his parish for preaching and the sacramental life.

What a wonderful little jem. You can even hear an audio file of the Pope's words to the community. If that isn't technology put to good use I don't know what is!

AmP Event: DC Dominicans Install New Faculty

This Saturday the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies, where I am attending classes for my S.T.B. degree, is having two important events: a laying of the cornerstone for their new $18 million expansion and an installation Mass for their new President, Vice President and Academic Dean.

Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl and the Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. Archbishop Pietro Sambi will be officiating and celebrating the events. Numerous other archbishops and bishops will be in attendance. As part of my work-study for the PFIC's Advancement Office, I have been helping to organize the event. I'll try to post a follow-up summary of the event next week.

The PFIC website has a press release:

The Dominican Friars will install new leaders at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception, located in northeast Washington DC. It is one of the seven pontifical faculties of theology in the United States. The installation will be the occasion also for the solemn laying of the cornerstone of the new, $18M, academic center currently under construction. The academic center will house the Dominicans’ theological library, as well as the administrative offices and classrooms of the pontifical faculty.

Father Dominic Izzo, O.P., provincial superior of the Dominicans in Washington stated, “We are proud to be installing Dominican Fathers Steven Boguslawski, Gabriel O’Donnell and Joseph Fox as the new leaders of our pontifical faculty. The Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception has an outstanding tradition of academic quality and education. We look forward to continuing and developing its well-deserved reputation by new academic programs and strategic partnerships with other ecclesiastical institutions.”

At 4:30pm, the ceremony of laying the cornerstone to the new addition will be presided by Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the Vatican Ambassador to the United States. The Mass and installation will be celebrated by the Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington at 5:30pm in the chapel of the Dominican House of Studies. In the evening, there will be a private reception and dinner at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center.

Father Izzo concluded, "We see the construction of the new academic center as being tangible evidence of our commitment to these new efforts. We've been doing a good job at the Dominican House of Studies for more than a hundred years, and we look forward to doing even better in the next hundred.”

Also see the biographical sketches of the new officers and the one-sheet with more information about the PFIC.

The ever-industrious Dominican Student Friars (who run an excellent website) have created a flicker slideshow with updates on the construction. Work is moving fast so the most recent pictures are already dated - just today on my way home from work I noted that the third floor is up and the brick walls are fast following.

The picture at right was probably taken about a month and a half ago. That's the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in the background. I have to admit that I'm rather envious of the people who have offices on that side of the building.

It's exciting times for the DC Dominicans. You can expect great things from them in the coming months and years, and I'll be doing my best to keep my readers updated!

Pope Benedict in Austria: Schonborn Site Coverage

I will be very busy this weekend with an event in Washington DC (which I'll be posting about next), and as a result I can't guarantee being free to cover the Pope's visit to Austria this weekend.

As a substitute, I refer my readers to the Cardinal Schonborn Site and its coverage page.

And actually, since I run that website as well, I can't really guarantee that it will get updated either - but I'll try.

Also, Austrian-born Catholic blogger Gerald Augustinus is going to be covering the events on his blog Closed Cafeteria as an official press photographer (lucky!).

Pres. of Pont. Acad. for Life reacts to UK hybrids

CWNews:

The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life has said that the British decision to approve creation of "hybrid" human-animal embryos is "a monstrous act against human dignity."

Speaking to a Vatican Radio audience, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said the British government had "crumbled with confronted by requests from a group of immoral scientists." The government had backed away from plans to outlaw the research on hybrid embryos under heavy pressure from researchers.

In England, meanwhile, the director of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship charged that decision to approve hybrid-embryo research, made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), was "shocking abuse of power." Andrea Minichiello Williams observed that Parliament had been studying the question, and preparing for a vote, when the HFEA "completely usurped the democratic process" by claiming the authority to approve the research.

"Pope may visit Holy Land next year"

Reuters:

Pope Benedict could visit the Holy Land next year, Israeli President Shimon Peres said on Thursday after a private audience with the Pontiff.

"His initial inclination is to do it next year," Peres told a news conference. "I believe he will try to do whatever he can to have his visit not postponed for any length of time."

The Pope told Peres's predecessor two years ago that he hoped to visit Israel in 2006, but that failed to happen and his spokesman said the timing of a visit was still not clear.

"As you know, the Pope is ready but the timetable still needs to be seen," Federico Lombardi told reporters after the audience.

The German-born Pope, who visited the former Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz last year, is due to pray at a memorial for Austrian victims of the Holocaust when he visits Vienna on Friday.

CWNews on the Pontiff's meeting with Peres.

"Help, Help - I'm being repressed by Canon Law!"

My father doesn't have much sympathy for such foolishness:

A spate of stories this summer (maybe the same few stories recycling themselves on slow news days) describes folks bringing wrongful termination actions against Catholic employers (usually schools). Today's features a man who claims he was terminated "for not getting an annulment." I doubt it.

I don't know who said exactly what to whom (that's what courts are there to sort out), but I do know this: there is no canon law that requires people to "get an annulment", so the failure to get an annulment can't be the basis for a termination. My guess is, though, it wasn't. [Read the rest.]

And neither do I. (And yes, it is a rather slow news day.)

Catholic News Highlights, Wednesday September 5th

Catholic News Agency:

Benedict XVI stresses need to protect Creation again

Developer restores former L.A. cathedral, converts it into event hall

Church’s tax status called into question, Cardinal Bertone responds

Catholic News Service:

British musicians send pope iPod nano packed with modern church music

Catholic World News:

Patriarch, Pope join in plea for the environment

Papal tribute to Mother Teresa on 10th anniversary of her death

Early World Youth Day registrations exceed goals

Zenit:

Episcopal Ordinations Set for This Month: "Benedict XVI will perform his first episcopal ordinations as Pontiff, ordaining later this month a former assistant private secretary of Pope John Paul II and other members of the Roman Curia."

Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK

Update: As expected, this procedure has been given the go-ahead:

Animal-human hybrid embryos could be created in British laboratories within months after the fertility regulator gave the controversial research its blessing.

Two teams of scientists are poised to start making cow-human hybrids for research into incurable diseases - with at least one project starting by the end of the year.

Reuters has found the story.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

The creation of part-human, part-animal embryos looks set to be approved by the fertility regulator tomorrow.

These "hybrid" embryos would be used for research into incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's.

The news follows a surprise Government decision not to ban the controversial research.

A shortage of human eggs has led two groups of scientists to appeal to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for permission to make hybrid embryos from human skin cells and animal eggs.

Cows' eggs are most likely to be used, because they are in plentiful supply.

[here, a graphic reproduced from the article:]

My summary: scientists say they do not have access to enough human eggs to support their research, so two teams from the UK are asking permission to use eggs from cows that have been killed for meat. They will remove the genetic material from these eggs and insert a complete human genetic code. This is a very similar to the technique used in cloning. Most countries, with the exception of China, have banned these types of techniques.

Back in late June, I posted on this same topic and would recommend reading that post if you want to understand the witness and teaching of the local bishops on this topic, which I summarized to be "Don't create human/animal hybrids, but if you do, treat them as humans if they have a preponderance of human genes." (I also posted several related links.) As I mentioned in my prior post, this pattern is similar to the Church's teaching on IVF, i.e., don't do it, but if you do, the embryos created are truly human and deserve to be treated as such.

Some context: Embryos with 99.9% human genetic code are still presumed to be human, and in keeping with human dignity do not deserve to be killed at fourteen days to have their cells harvested. Also, this kind of research still has no cures to its credit, and is undertaken despite the far better and demonstrable results obtained through adult stem cell research. Third and finally, there are several promising techniques being developed to "dedifferentiate" adult cells to a state of functioning like stem cells, which is what these scientists are attempting to produce through the unethical "forward process" of allowing normal embryonic growth, which begins with the creation of a human being that will eventually be killed for its stem cells.

So why the intense lobbying here and now?

Because scientists know that if you want to cook a frog, you put him in warm water first ....

[For those interested, here are the important details I came across in the current media coverage:]

• Like all embryonic research, this procedure will result in the creation of living embryos that will be destroyed.
• In May, Labour ministers "dramatically changed their minds" and refused to outlaw this research after initially-proposing a pan (which sparked a revolt among the scientific community).
• The final decision still rests with the license committee, due to meet in November.
• Dr David King, who works for research watchdog Human Genetics Alert, said: "We are not a pro-life group but creating embryos purely for the purpose of research turns the embryo into nothing more than a research tool and a source of raw biological material for experiments."
• "The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [HEFA] is an independent regulator which oversees fertility treatment and embryo research. Its members include ethicists, churchmen and lay people, as well as fertility doctors and scientists." [the article concludes with brief bios of some of the people - I don't see any Catholic "churchmen" listed.]
• From the UK Telegraph: the embryos created will "contain about 99.9 per cent human material and 0.1 per cent animal". I have no idea how they compute that.
• "Meanwhile the Government has published a draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill which would allow the creation of hybrids, but not so-called "true hybrids" - created by fertilising a human egg with animal sperm or vice versa. But a joint House of Commons and Lords committee scrutinising the draft Bill last month said all forms of hybrids should be allowed for research if regulators thought it beneficial."
• The majority of the article is concerned with analyzing the results of a 2,000 person poll, which evidently influenced the decision-making process.
• From the UK Daily Mail: "Dr Steven Minger, of King's College London, who heads one of the two teams, accepts that there is a "yuck factor" to the proposed work - but says the embryos would be human. The only remaining fragments of "cowness" would exist in machinery called mitochondria that provide the energy for the body's cells."
• Another explanation of the proposal: First, his team would take a single skin cell from the volunteer and inject it into an egg whose own nuclear DNA had been removed. After being kickstarted with an electric current, the egg would develop into a human embryo genetically identical to the human donor. Around six days after its creation, when it is still a cluster of around 150 cells - the embryo would be destroyed and harvested for embryonic stem cells."

Vatican News Updates, Monday September 3rd

The Vatican Information Service is back from its August vacation and so we once again have news updates from Vatican.Va. But of course, CWNews provides a bit more information for those of us who aren't on a first-name basis with the folks mentioned in the VIS releases:

Pope Benedict's prayer intentions for September:

The Holy Father's general intention is: "That the ecumenical assembly of Sibiu in Romania may contribute to the growth of unity among all Christians, for whom the Lord prayed at the Last Supper."

The Pope's missionary intention is: "That, following Christ joyfully, all missionaries may know how to overcome the difficulties they meet in everyday life."

A new head has been appointed for the Pontifical Council of Culture:

Pope Benedict XVI has named Msgr. Gianfranco Ravasi, the prefect of the Ambrosian Library in Milan, to become the new president of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Msgr. Ravasi replaces Cardinal Paul Poupard, who is retiring at the age of 77. The French-born cardinal had served an extraordinary term of nearly 20 years as the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

According to the noted Vatican-watcher Sando Magister, Msgr. Ravasi was the personal choice of Pope Benedict, who swept aside objections to the appointment of the prominent priest from Milan. For several years Msgr. Ravasi has been regarded as a likely candidate for an important ecclesiastical post. He has also been enthusiastically championed by Italian progressives, despite his sometimes strained relations with Milan's former archbishop, Italy's most influential progressive prelate, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.

Finally, for the record, Vatican security official an apparent suicide. (CNA coverage here).

Honorary PPOTD - Monday, September 3rd

In follow-up to my post on what Pope Benedict actually said about Creation at Loreto is this hilarious "Honorary Papist-Picture-of-the-Day" taken from Amy's post on the same topic:

"Pope Benedict XVI, intentionally wearing green vestments, attempts to boost his ecologically-friendly image by intentionally waving a branch at the 300,000 youth gathered in Loreto."

What Pope Benedict said about Creation at Loreto

The ever-industrious Teresa Bendetta of the Papa Ratzinger Forum has uploaded the English translation of Pope Benedict's homily, delivered September 2nd in Loreto to a gathering of 300,000 youth. The press has already decided that his entire homily was primarily about saving the planet "before it's too late" (to quote from the Reuters headline). I'm going to reproduce the relevant passage where the Pope does speak about safeguarding Creation.

This quotation consists of 162 words out of a 2,569 word address:

One of the fields in which it is urgent to work is most definitely that of safeguarding creation. The new generations are responsible for the future of the planet, which shows evident signs of a development that has not always known to preserve the delicate balances of nature. Before it is too late, we must make courageous choices with a view to a strong alliance between man and the earth.

We need a decisive Yes to safeguarding creation and a strong commitment to reverse those tendencies which risk bringing us to a situation of irreversible (environmental) degradation. That is why I appreciate the initiative of the Italian Church to promote greater sensitivity to the problems of protecting the environment by designating a national day for this purpose on September the first.

This year, attention is directed towards water, a most precious asset which, unless it is shared in a just and peaceful way, will become a cause for tensions and bitter conflicts.

... and that's it: an entirely reasonable admonition for youth to protect Creation. Notice that the scope of the stewardship, as I read it, focuses on problems of micro environments, i.e, scarcity of water in certain regions, and a plural reference to the "balances of nature."

Reuters has a real howler with its claim: "Intentionally wearing green vestments, [Pope Benedict] spoke to a vast crowd of mostly young people..." Yes, Pope Benedict intentionally wore green. But green is the proper liturgical color for ordinary time. It's no more a witness of support for environmentalism than wearing red would be a witness of support for communism!

The article also says, "Last month Benedict said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence." As LSN pointed out, the media is twisting the Pope's words here. First of all, it adds the conclusion "or risk destroying its very existence." He does not say that next. What he actually said next (in its full context) was this:

"... obedience to the voice of the earth is more important for our future happiness than the voices of the moment, the desires of the moment ... our own planet speaks with us and we should be listening if we want to survive and decipher this message about the earth... and if we should be obedient to the voice of the earth, much more we must be obedient to the voice of human life." (and he goes on to say:) " ... we not only take care of the earth, but we must respect the other, other human beings ... only in absolute respect of other (humans) ...can we make progress."

See the important clarification? Concerns for the environment are a subcategory of our more fundamental concerns for man. Where man's interest and nature's interest conflict - man comes first. This is the essential qualifier that the media consistently ignores; and it is also what differentiates qualitatively Christian environmentalism and secular environmentalism.

Every environmental issue that involves risk to human life deserves attention. Most of these issues involve microclimate issues of scarcity, and require individual, practical applied judgement. I'm all for prudence and stewardship in these situations, as the Pope exhorts. I don't see anything about global warming even implied in the Pope's speeches, nor a categorical condemnation of industrialization (which, in general, helps raise standards of living) in his talk.

Just my first reaction. Please, comment away.

Update: More liturgical ignorance (and just blain hokeyness) from the UK Independant:

Wearing green vestments, the Roman Catholic liturgical colour of hope, Pope Benedict XVI yesterday urged half a million youngsters to save the planet while there was still time.

Yes, green is the liturgical color for hope (as well as life), but - again- it represents our Christian hope in Christ, not in saving the environment. Distinctions, people - they save.