Open thread: 2009 Elections

I have to turn in and snatch some sleep soon, but I wanted to jump-start an open thread discussing tonight's election results.

First and foremost, Thank you for all of your efforts in these important races. Here's where they stand as of 12:30 AM EST:

• Pro-life, pro-family Catholic Republican candidate for governor Bob McDonnell won by almost 20 points. His excellent Catholic AG Ken Cuccinelli won by a similar margin. Awesome news.
• Pro-life, pro-family Catholic Republican Chris Christie won a hard, uphill race against incumbent governor Jon Corzine, despite Corzine's advantage of having a personal fortune, and having President Obama campaigning for him a record number of times. More awesome news.
• Traditional Marriage appears to have won in Maine, by a margin of about 3/4%. This is wonderful, important news which I will reflect upon at a later point. It has a huge impact on the national narrative on this issue which has important social and religious freedom ramifications. I was blogging about this issue today on National Review Online: Here, and Here, and Here and Here.
• Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman has conceded a close, crazy race. But the fact that he made it so close is very revealing for several reasons, which I will also go into at some point. Suffice it to say: the pro-abortion, anti-marriage Scozzafava completely crashed and burned, and went on to endorse the Democrat candidate. I hope this serves as a lesson to the GOP that they ought not to abandon their social and economic conservative base in 2010.

Okay - a day full of meetings for me tomorrow. Time to get some rest!

Open Thread: Anglican-Catholic Reunification

I will be busy today attending to APP-related activities, but I want to allow the discussion about yesterday's news to continue. Here are the posts AmP published yesterday about the Vatican announcing special pastoral provisions for traditional Anglicans to be received back into the Catholic Church:

• Important: Vatican welcomes Anglicans into Catholic Church with Apostolic Constitution
• Commentary: Anglo-Vatican announcement has important American/African dimension
• Video: Vatican press conference on Anglican provision
• Raw video: Abp. Nichols of Westminster explains new Anglo-Catholic structures

Please be aware of these resources which provide ongoing quality coverage and commentary:

• Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a Catholic priest and convert himself from the Anglican Church
• Damian Thompson, a reporter for the UK Telegraph and an expert on UK Catholic issues
• Ed Peters (my father) - a canonical expert who is looking at how this will all work out
• The Anchoress, an amazing blogger who has been doing mega-coverage of this story

For those very interested in the internal politics of this news, do read the entirety of Robert Moynihan's most recent report from Rome. He was in the room when the Vatican press conference took place, and provides a unique and thorough perspective on the many dynamics that were and are at play.

... and that should provide ample fodder for you eager Papists .... and those eager to be Papists!

And, as in all open threads, AmP readers are welcome to drop appropriate links into the comment box.

Legionaries: reform, refounding or dissolution?

It's time to look at the situation facing the Legionaries of Christ/Regnum Christi once again.

Austen Ivereigh of the America magazine blog writes about two different solutions preferred by members of the movement in Spain and in the U.S.:

The result of Rome's investigation (known as an "apostolic visitation") into the Legionaries of Christ will result in either the dissolution or the re-founding of the order, according to sources close to the Legionaries in Spain.

... Dissolution would mean the houses, universities and other properties of the Legionaries would pass into the hands of the dioceses where they are located. A new institute could then be founded.

... According to a former Legionary quoted by the Spanish religious journalist Jose Vidal, the ordinary priests and members of Regnum Christi, want a root-and-branch reform -- if necessary, by means of a dissolution -- in order to give a new institute a fighting chance. But the order's leaders are fighting a defensive rearguard action, arguing that they knew nothing of the double life led by Maciel, and were therefore neither accomplices in his abuses nor did they attempt to cover them up.

... There seems to be a difference between the Americans and the Spaniards. The Americans want to get at the root of the problem quickly: they favor sacking the current leadership and making amends with Maciel's victims. The Spaniards, on the other hand, are more inclined to defend their current leaders.

It would be helpful for me if former and current members of the Legion/RC could answer me these questions and give brief reasons for their answers:

1) Have you heard that the visitation is taking place in your area?

2) Do you have confidence that the visitation will fix the problems of the movement?

3) Is the ultimate solution, do you believe, a (minor) "reform" of the movement, a (major) dissolution-and-then-refounding of the movement, or a (complete) dissolution and subsequent disappearance of it?

After these three questions are answered you are welcome to take the discussion in other directions. If you choose to email me your answers (I will keep all correspondence anonymous), please write "LEGIONARIES" in the subject line.

Important: Abp. Chaput's advice on nationalized health care

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, who I have immense respect for, has dedicated his latest column to the subject of health care. 

Typically I excerpt paragraphs from articles to give AmP readers the highlights and save them time, but in this case, I would simply urge you to read the whole thing (it's fairly short).

It's such a joy to encounter informed, rational debate and advice on health care from one of our bishops. Much space on AmP has recently been devoted to shooting down insane and deceptive perspectives on the issue. This is unfortunate because it may leave some with an impression that I only have critical things to say about health care reform as it is now offered. Well, it's true I have many critiques to make, but I'm also happy to engage in constructive conversation.

Anyway, after you have read Abp. Chaput's piece, consider a few comments of my own:

• I think it's brilliant that Abp. Chaput reminds us Catholics that the Church invented "common ground" on controversial issues. We're always in favor of true common ground that does not contradict our fundamental Catholic (and human) principles.
• Simultaneously, Catholics can support "in theory" the concept of health care reform but vehemently opposed a particular attempt at health care reform when, as Abp. Chaput says, "the devil is in the details." The details of the plan, in my personal opinion, flunk it, not the concept of reforming health care (how about, for instance, tort reform, anyone?). 
• If, as Abp. Chaput says, this health care plan explicitly includes mandated abortion access, or sneaks it in through another mechanism, this is "simply ... a form of lying." We should be angered at those who lie about their intentions, for it is an added offense beyond their determined support to make Catholics fund what we know to be the murder of innocents.
• Abp. Chaput is right to call out the amendment recently offered by Lois Capps (D-CA) as a "shell game". The current state of the health care bill, I confidently argue, is pro-abortion.
• Obviously, Catholics need to be vocal and involved in this debate. Amen a thousand times.

Regarding, finally, Abp. Chaput's four key principles that should guide the development of a health care plan "in light of the mixed and sobering track record of national health plans in other countries" (take note of this warning!) ... I think this health care plan currently fails on all four counts:

1. The elderly and disabled I do not believe will be treated "with a special concern" in the current plan. Rationing is a reality of every government benefit. Eugenics and pressure to low-income and disabled groups is a phenomenon of most every government-run health care plan I've come across. Look at England and our own state of Oregon.
2. The current plan contains no conscience clause protection for individuals or institutions!
3. The current plan funnels money to abortion under such euphemisms as "comprehensive planning services" and "mainstreams" their funding and pays those who provide them.
4. The current plan is economically unrealistic and unsustainable. Seriously, the government can't keep the postal service in the black, what's to make us think it can run 1/6th of our economy any better? Their first step has been to draft a gargantuan bill, so dense in its bureaucracy that not even the officials who are to vote on it have read it!

I could continue, but since this is an ongoing debate, I'll pause it here with my first round of impressions.

Weird: Controversial Doll Lets Little Girls Pretend to Breast-Feed

You had your chance. I warned you today would be a weird news day:

A controversial new doll is leaving some parents wishing for the good old Cabbage Patch days.

A Spanish toymaker known as Berjuan has developed a breast-feeding doll that comes with a special halter top its young "mothers" wear as they pretend to breast-feed their "babies." The halter top has daisies that cover the little girls’ nipples and come undone just as easily as the flaps of a nursing bra would.

The doll — called Bebe Gloton, which translates as “gluttonous baby” — makes sucking noises as it "feeds."

Like many other dolls, Bebe Gloton can cry, signaling she wants more milk.

Although many health care providers promote the benefits of breast-feeding, parents around the world have criticized Berjuan, saying the idea of breast-feeding is too grown-up for young children -- and may even promote early pregnancy. (FOX News)

Promoting early pregnancy? Now that's a big stretch.

But I'm curious, does everyone agree this doll is an all-round bad idea?

More on this week's motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem

Yesterday I asked AmP readers to help me understand Ecclesiae Unitatem, the motu proprio issued by Pope Benedict on Wednesday. In addition to the good comments left there, one tipster sent me a short-hand explanation which I found useful:

Don’t you think that the Holy Father simply wants to separate the two parts of the SSPX controversy? I.e., the liturgical and the doctrinal. By separating them, he can mainstream (even more) their liturgical desires through the CDW, while continuing to study their doctrinal concerns through the CDF.

Fr. Z also wrote a very helpful analysis.

Photo: Archbishop Dolan prays at Ground Zero

Source: New York Daily News.

I found this image very powerful. Let's stop and say a prayer for the victims of 9-11 and of all terrorism.

... and after that, how about a serious open thread discussion about Archbishop Timothy Dolan as papabili?

Huh? CNS fails to fairly report USCCB's "support D'Arcy" statement

Something important happened at the US bishops' combined meeting last week, which we are just hearing about today: "the USCCB expressed their solidarity for Bishop John M. D’Arcy ... in particular for his care and concern for the University of Notre Dame, which resides in his diocese."

It's an important move because there had previously been a calculated attempt by some liberal Catholics to discredit the dozens and dozens of bishops who spoke out about the Notre Dame scandal, claiming in effect that these vocal bishops represented a "minority" position, out of step with the "majority" of US bishops.

The USCCB released this statement of support:

"The bishops of the United States express our appreciation and support for our brother bishop, the Most Reverend John D'Arcy. We affirm his pastoral concern for Notre Dame University, his solicitude for its Catholic identity, and his loving care for all those the Lord has given him to sanctify, to teach and to shepherd."

Now, how do you think Catholic News Service - the USCCB's own news agency, reported this story?

First, with out-dated numbers: "More than 50 bishops voiced their disapproval of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama and decision to give him an honorary degree." 

In fact, my list (when I stopped counting) had 75+ bishops named. These are not obscure or new numbers, and I wasn't the only one to compile such a list. This is lazy reporting by the CNS author, Nancy Frazier O'Brien. And it's convenient that the number she decides upon is, oh, about 40% of the actual number (by my conservative standards - I only counted active US bishops, for instance).

Second, with dissenting, minority views: "But two bishops interviewed at the San Antonio meeting by the National Catholic Reporter said they see a need for dialogue with U.S. Catholic university presidents about this issue and left open the possibility of revisions to "Catholics in Political Life."

Isn't it fascinating how, when a "minority" of bishops take a position against Notre Dame's invitation, they are dismissed as a minority, but when the majority of US bishops (or at least, the public voice of the bishops in committee) take a position for Bishop D'Arcy, it is then the minority position that is given space and even the last word (seriously - two bishops?! And in the National Catholic Reporter? This is our her go-to source for information!).

Really, it's impossible to win with rules of engagement like this, especially when Catholic News Service seems to have more of an affinity with the National Catholic Reporter than the US Bishops executive committee.

Third, just to really drive this point home, O'Brien says: "The statement made no direct reference ... to a recent call by the board of directors of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) for the bishops to revisit their 2004 statement, "Catholics in Political Life."

That was an attempt by liberal Catholics to simply change the 2004 statement and so avoid the (legitimate) conclusion made by D'Arcy that Notre Dame and (hence, by inference) many other Catholic institutions are currently operating in violation of what it says.

But back to the point: O'Brien has full awareness of this challenge made by the ACCU, and feels free to make negative points about what statements don't say or respond to, and yet ... she does not bring up the context I mention above, namely, that liberal Catholics have been attempting to marginalize the vocal opposition of dozens of bishops to the Notre Dame invitation. Therefore, in the full picture, the bishops are responding against this attempt to marginalize Bishop D'Arcy by releasing a statement in support of him. Why support Bishop D'Arcy, in other words, unless he was in fact being attacked by some?

So who is left expressing a dissenting viewpoint at this point in the game? Well, two bishops, picked-up by the National Catholic Reporter ... and given selective play by O'Brien in the Catholic News Service.

Related: I'm not the only person to note these endemic issues with CNS's reporting. 

In an effort to be fair myself, CNS does plenty of good reporting - but it's frustrating to see how often it really drops the ball on some of the most important current stories, especially ones that involve Catholic interaction with the culture-at-large. I'm not asking that we all think the same on these issues, I'm asking that more than one way of thinking be fairly presented to the readers of CNS.

Open Thread: Legion Visitation?

Has anyone heard if the apostolic visitation of the Legionaries of Christ has actually begun yet?

Open thread: Is the recession coming soon to a diocese near you?

The Church is not exempt from the financial strain of the times, as the Diocese of Madison shows us:

"Closing the [Catholic Multicultural center in Madison, WI] is just one result of a drop in investment income due to the recession, [diocesan spokesman William] Yallaly said. As he spoke, several of his colleagues at the diocese’s headquarters were being told their jobs were eliminated, he said.

Yallaly did not know how many of the staff of about 60 would be laid off. Those who remain will take pay and benefits cuts.

In a letter to staff, Bishop Robert Morlino called the cuts “terribly difficult, but increasingly necessary.” Morlino was in Washington, D.C., Thursday at a Catholic symposium.

In March, the diocese made a direct, voluntary pitch to parishioners to step up their annual giving to the diocese from $3.2 million to $5.9 million, an 84 percent increase...

Yallaly said the diocese will disclose the appeal’s outcome in early summer. Parishioners have been “extremely generous,” he said. Yet “we knew we couldn’t expect an incredible outpouring. People just don’t have the money.”

Closing the center was “the very last thing anyone in the diocese would want to do,” said Yallaly, adding that the diocese will try to find other ways to help the center’s clients." (Wisconsin State Journal)

Has your diocese or parish been effected by the recession?

When times are tough and we are forced to re-evaluate our spending, let's try to deny ourselves some things first before we deny the Church and our fellow Catholics. Those who give out of their want (not their surplus), give twice. If not much more.

Your Take: The Top 3 Catholic books on Amazon

Right now are....

• American Babylon: Notes of a Christian Exile by Richard John Neuhaus (his last book)
• The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist by Matt Baglio (which we've talked about)
• Practicing Catholic by James Carroll (this one I think has some serious warning signs)

Has anyone read any of these three books? Have you read any good new Catholic releases lately? And what's all this about the Kindle? (I filled out the form to have AmP content included on it but no response yet.)

Legion of Christ open thread

400+ comments on the last Legion-related thread, so I'm starting a new one.

I'm particularly interested in hearing if you have found out when your local apostolic visitation will begin.

Friday Legion Thread

From what I'm hearing, the clarification statement by the Legion won't be released anytime soon.

From what you're hearing, how are members of Regnum Christi handling the news now? Are people leaving the movement? Are they scaling back their personal involvement/financial support? How much weight are they putting on the clarification? Is the Maciel scandal still being discussed, or have most people moved on?

I realize I'm asking these questions in the third person, but obviously we have many RC members among us.

Open thread: What approval does the Legion *now* enjoy?

As we wait for the Legion's promised "serious clarification" statement, I'll continue to select what I find to be compelling comments which will provide a starting point for further discussion.

Today's comments originate from someone claiming to be a Legionary priest, who says:

I am an active LC priest, dismayed by the silence and passivity of many of my brothers. Outrage at this entire situation and our hapless leaders' response to it is the ONLY acceptable position.

I find particularly dismaying our superiors' reliance on the argument that runs something like this: "We know all is well in the LC because the Pope has tols us how much he esteems us and Cardinal Whoseewhatzit and Cardinal Whatzhisname have been visiting our centers saying how wonderful we are."

How could that type of reasoning convince anyone? Least of all those of us who lived through the LC's halcyon years under Pope JPII?

Fr. Maciel was praised publically and privately by the Pope and other Vatican officials time and time again during the 80s and 90s when he was actually living the double life we now recognize with horror. The Pope said lots of nice things about us then when the Founder was in the act of duping us all.

How could anyone's praise or approval of us now be a sign that all is well? We've already seen that Popes and Cardinals can be fooled and manipulated. We already know that the LC does its best to show them only what the LC wants them to see.

The only thing that can save the LC is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Full disclosure, full transparency and full renunciation of its policy of deception.

It doesn't matter who approves of us or disapproves of us if we are not truthful with ourselves.

I'll add a point to these thoughts. Fr. Alvaro has claimed that the Legion and/or Rome only recently discovered the fact that Maciel had a daughter twenty-two years ago. This means that all the previous conversations Fr. Alvaro claimed to have had with Cardinals, and Pope Benedict, and all the encouragement he claims to have received from them, were given without their knowing about the full extent of Maciel's deception.

One must then wonder how the Vatican is re-evaluating the status of Maciel and his inner circle in the light of this "recent" discovery.

A revealing question to ask: how many bishops and cardinals have spoken publicly encouraging the Legion to carry on with business as usual after this news was made public?!

Find me one.

And if indeed not one has thrown their hat in with the Legion, what are we to make of all these claims that "the Vatican" completely endorses their current activity? If these Cardinals and Pope Benedict are so eager to support the Legion, why has not a one of them said so in public?

(Also of interest: A Jesuit studying to become a priest compares Ignatian Obedience and the Legionaries.)

Slower news day

Or maybe I'm just missing out on the important stories out there.

So help me fill the void - what are you talking about these days?

Waiting for the wedding before first kiss?

A Chicago couple decided to.

Fox & Friends decided to mock the decision (not cool).

What do you think about the decision?

Laudable? Puritanical?

My thoughts about the 2008 election

I have been covering the 2008 presidential election since its beginning, striving always to provide a personal perspective informed by, and faithful to, the teachings of the Catholic Church.

In this brief calm tonight before tomorrow's storm, here are the top five conclusions I've drawn:

1. Obama's record and philosophy disqualifies him from being an acceptable Presidential candidate. He is unapologetically pro-choice, and for all his talk about moving on and changing politics as it is currently practiced, his solution to the problem of abortion is to completely and unilaterally decide in the favor of the abortion-on-demand crowd. More than that, his party platform and promises would force Catholics to help fund abortions, and his policies on embryonic stem cell research and other biomedical issues will pose a grave threat to the practice of Catholic ethical health care in America.
2. McCain is not a perfect candidate - far from it, he is flawed on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and not-quite-perfect on the issue of abortion. But he is, in a distinct sense, the lesser evil, and compared to the prospect of an Obama presidency, is the better choice. I could go on about his other policies, but they are matters of reasonable debate - the positions of Obama on life issues, however are not open for debate. They are so deeply flawed that they preclude our vote, and Catholics must shape the public debate by sending a strong message to pro-choice candidates that this will not be tolerated.
3. The American bishops have spoken. Well over one-in-three have chosen to conspicuously remind their followers about the importance of life issues in the weeks leading up to this election. Nor is this a coincidence - they know exactly what they are doing and what they are risking. Those bishops who have attempted to re-assert a (false) spectrum-of-issues argument can be counted on one hand, and hail from some of the most liberal and dysfunctional dioceses (and no, I'm not using the terms synonymously) in the country. We can expect a heated and urgent debate in a week when the bishops convene in Baltimore to discuss the fall-out of the misinterpretations of Faithful Citizenship spread by pro-Obama catholics. Sadly, I fear it will be precisely one week too late. But we hope for the future, and the next election.
4. Pro-Obama Catholics will remain with us into an Obama presidency. And we must hold these people accountable. By this I mean we have to hold them to the promises they have made the Catholic faithful about the reduction of abortions which they claim Obama's presidency will bring about, as well as a whole range of other predictions. They are on record, we have read their statements, and the burden is on them. Don't get me wrong - faithful Catholics will never cease in their efforts to defend the unborn, but as the waters rise, it is the pro-Obama Catholics who claimed we didn't need the levees.
5. Election controversies are faith controversies. Politics does not occur in a vacuum, and it is not separated from our Catholic faith. Disagreements arise (indeed, sometimes in a conflagration) more often in politics because it's impossible to ignore the opposing results that different understandings of our faith bring about in the real world and in practical day-to-day matters. "Do you believe, as the Church teaches, that abortion is a grave moral evil that Catholics must do everything in their power to eliminate, and quickly?" How you answer that question will effect how you vote. Or again, "Do you believe we must listen carefully to our bishops when they speak out on issues of justice?" These two questions are just a start.

I could go on, but there will be so many last-minute op-eds published today that I'm content to stop here.

If you haven't voted yet, go vote. It's an obligation for Catholics. Oh - and pray, and fast.

Those last two we can do the whole year round. To start, it's going to be a long Advent this year....

And, needless to say, I'm eager to learn what you've observed as well. We have time before the polls close.

Open Thread: other stuff

Everything non-political here. Yes, as in stories not related to politics. What are you reading? What's happening? What have I missed? What is the pope up too? Any good links? Any funny pictures for a caption call?

Open Thread: politics stuff

Okay, get it out there - thoughts and observations that haven't come up, or that you think should be examined again here. Less than two weeks to go. Plenty riding on this election. So Let's talk about it. 1-2-3-go!

Sarah Palin's fashion budget over $150,000?

Semi-gratuitous Palin photo:


The price of fashion isn't cheap (underlining mine):

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

... The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail. (Politico)

Some of the money probably went to John McCain and other people on the campaign as well.

... too much?

Then again, Obama's campaign has spent almost $500,000 on "food/meetings".

And of greater substance: Sarah Palin to Dobson: I'm Solidly Pro-Life and McCain Opposes Abortion

Open thread: final presidential debate {updated}

High stakes, McCain's last chance to change the trajectory - yadda, yadda. What do you think?

update: the abortion question came up as the second-to-last question. I am aware of several grassroots efforts that petitioned the moderator to ask such a question, though I'm not sure those are directly responsible for it being asked tonight.

There is much to talk about here, but I'll summarize my impression (and I'll wait to comment further until I have access to a transcript): I think McCain missed a golden opportunity to press Obama on his pro-abortion positions. I can't even feel confident that McCain is aware of these positions or gives them much priority. Obama's support of FOCA and repealing the Hyde amendment are two examples of his radical positions that polling shows are unappealing to the American populace. Moreover: I have never heard Obama say before that he supports a ban on partial birth abortion (can someone track this down?) - such a position cannot co-exist with his unwavering support of abortion on demand, and on removing all restrictions to abortion access.

I think the question posed about supreme court justices gave us a small taste of what we simply have not seen in the debates this far - substantive questions about moral issues and cultural ones. What a difference a fourth debate might have made. The fact that Obama was so on the ropes and so disadvantaged when these topics came up would account heavily, I would argue, for his repetative insistence that all American's really care about is the economy ... surely we do, but we care about so much more. Economies ebb and flow, but the moral and cultural fabric is what sustains a nation throughout good times and bad. How will Obama support the government policies that will allow us to remain a great nation regardless of whether we are rich or poor?

Anyway, waiting for the transcript, the video, and the fact checks....

Open Thread

Today is a holiday for many of us (myself mercifully included) and I've managed to spend almost three consecutive days away from all things noteworthy. I'm about to run away again, but welcome readers in the meantime to hop in the comment box and give me a head start on the news .... so, what's happening? what are we talking about? who said what, where, when, and why?

Open thread: reactions to the debate

I watched about the first hour of it or so. I found the conversation monotonous.

Sure, the economy, health care, foreign policy and energy are important topics, but they are not the only topics, and yet these were the only things talked about.

Fred Barnes agrees:

"The problem was the questions .... No doubt there were some questions that would have surprised McCain and Obama or caught them off-guard or forced a moment on candor. But those weren’t asked.

The candidates were queried on a narrow range of foreign, economic, health care, and environmental issues--the stuff they talk about every day at rallies and fundraisers. These didn’t come close to what voters at a real town hall meeting might have asked. There was no mention of abortion, immigration, moral values, same sex marriage, guns, their role models, their view of the presidency, or their religious faith.

... The result was questions that reflected what interests an East Coast newsman.

... Oddly enough, it wasn’t a journalist who staged the best debate between McCain and Obama. It was an ordained minister, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, the author of best-selling The Purpose-Driven Life. In separate sessions, he asked the same questions, first of McCain, then of Obama. Their answers gave voters a far better idea of what makes the two candidates tick than all the policy-reality questions asked in the two official presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

So what did you think? Who did better? Did your opinions on anything change? Any off-hand observations?

On L'O.R. adding its two cents to US economic woes

I'm not sure what all to make of this. But I'm trying to come to terms with it [my comments in brackets]. I'd love to start a conversation about this:

The current financial crisis pummeling the United States and beyond is a sign that the so-called "new economy" and its risky investments have failed, the Vatican newspaper said. [I think what failed was unsound speculation, widely practiced and condoned.]

The booming growth of financial markets did not correspond to real growth or concrete development for society because it created an artificially robust gross national product, said a Sept. 24 article in L'Osservatore Romano. [I don't know about this one way or the other, but I'm prone to admit it.]

The only real growth registered in this crisis has been "the commissions, profits of the banks and bonuses for the managers," it said. [That's fairly obvious.]

The article, with the headline "A costly illusion," was written by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, an Italian economist and professor of financial ethics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy.

The U.S. financial meltdown has been blamed on "the greed of managers and lack of regulations. But curiously, no one ever refers to the indirect responsibility of the government's economic policy" which, he wrote, tried to cover the lack of any real economic development with a booming Wall Street. [I agree with this.]

He said the U.S. government's proposed bailout may stave off any worst-case scenario for its troubled financial markets, but it will not repair the root causes of the crisis. [Well sure, that's apparent.]

"Despite various attempts, the Western world does not know how to map out a model of development that is capable of guaranteeing stable wealth," the article said. [I disagree with this. I think we did very well for quite some time. It was departing from free market principles and introducing heavy government regulation that turned things sour.]

The West has "not succeeded with its new economy project, it did not succeed with accelerating growth in Asia by transferring low-cost production (there), and it did not succeed after inventing a boom in the GNP through risky financial models that were poorly conceived and badly regulated," it said. [Sure, but that does not mean the West doesn't know what it's doing, it's just losing its way, and badly.]

"In order to maintain this sham GNP, the banks financed things that were not guaranteed" and that should not have been financed, like the subprime loans, it said. Financial institutions created an "economic growth out of debt and, therefore, (created something) very risky," it added. [Yep, I'm with this.]

The article said the lesson to be learned is that nations cannot build a healthy economy or experience real development if it is not based on "balanced demographic growth." [Ah, now that's an excellent point. Demographics are hugely important - but what would the author say about the situation in Italy/Europe?!]

It said the world economy also needs to be run responsibly and transparently with precise rules. [Sure, sure, but good luck.]

Okay, it's Friday. If anyone has some time on their hands, feel free to educate the rest of us.

Open thread: the economy

I figured on this bleak Tuesday I'd bring the topic up as I draft other stories.

... so what are folks thinking?

update: over at IC, Elizabeth Scalia talks about praying for economic and social wisdom, while the Anchoress says "prayer is not just okay, it is imperative" in situations like these.

Honestly, if we are to pray for something as general as "world peace," then "economic well-being at home" seems equally needful.

update 2: as some more food for thought, this is the best single post I've read about the past, present and future of the crisis. Inform thyself!

update 3: oh, and today CNA tells us that "Leading Catholic entrepreneur [has written] book on how people should relate to money". Interested? Here it is on Amazon.

The Biden Rundown

Obama has announced his running mate:

"Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama introduced Sen. Joe Biden to the nation as his running mate Saturday, telling supporters that he is "a leader who is ready to step in and be president." (CNN)

I'll admit to getting the text message this morning. I was interested. Now I can unsubscribe.

In another report, the radioactive phrase about Biden appears:

"[Biden is] a Roman Catholic..."

Biden, according to the public record, is also:

• pro-abortion (36-75% rating by NARAL, 0% by National Right to Life Committee)
• supports the nomination of pro-Roe v. Wade supreme court justices
• pro-allowing minors to cross state lines for abortions, and against telling their parents
• pro-embryonic stem cell research
• pro-contraceptives (but supports some abstinence education)
• against making harming an unborn fetus a criminal penalty
• against-partial birth abortion (unlike Obama)

Except for being less extreme than Obama regarding partial birth abortion, Biden holds basically the same positions, but as a Catholic. He also accepts "on faith" that life begins at conception, while still remaining pro-abortion.

Now, let's quickly sweep through the reactions to Biden's selection, from good-to-bad.

The best analysis I've read thus far is from Canon Lawyer Edward Peters (relation):

Barack Obama’s selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate is sure to provoke questions about Biden’s eligibility for holy Communion under canon law. Hoping to get out ahead of things, I’m suggesting that we start by asking the right questions, well.

One need not be a Catholic in good standing to be President or Vice President of the United States, but one must be a Catholic in good standing to receive holy Communion from the Catholic Church.

[Read on.]

For a Catholic perspective, that's your one-stop read.

I can't say I'm pleased with the Catholic News Service's introduction of Biden and discussion about his Catholic faith. On the one hand, they do admit in the first paragraph that Biden supports abortion, but immediatly add that Biden "has been an ally for the church’s public policy interests." Such a claim, however, cannot be logically true when you've already noted Biden is pro-abortion. Unless somehow protecting unborn human life is not part of the church's public policy interests. I'll leave you to read the rest of their treatment, but I have other reservations as well.

Chris Korzen of "Catholics" United has issued a press release supporting Biden's selection. I have serious questions about Korzen's sincerity when he says that his organization "refuse[s] to water down our [Catholic] faith in service of partisan politics." That's simply unbelievable coming from someone with such a partisan background. I'll talk more about this in a future post. (update: I talk about it here.)

CNN's "expert" analysis, meanwhile, plays things safe, claiming that "Biden gives Obama old-school cred", and also:

So how does Biden help Obama politically? Biden is Roman Catholic. There are nearly 70 million Roman Catholics in the United States, about 20 percent of the electorate, and they can tip the balance in a close contest.

Now what a naive, narrow observation to make.

Moving farther to left (prettymuch to the brink, in matter of fact), the feminists:

Biden has a not-so-hot record on choice. He says he supports Roe v. Wade, but is not really interested in expanding access to low-income women.

It continually frightens me to see what some people aren't satisfied with regarding abortion access.

So there's the lay of the land, as I see it now.

What are your thoughts? Open thread time...

update, day 2 reactions:

• Whispers: Hail, Columbia... Hello, Controversy
• InsideCatholic: Why Biden Will Not Help Obama Attract Catholic Voters
• Deacon Keith Fournier: Obama Chooses Senator Biden for VP and the Battle for Life is Engaged
• CNA: Despite losing among Catholics, Obama chooses pro-abortion vice president
• AP: Obama Faces New Criticism on Abortion

"Immodest Dress in the Church: Like Frogs in Boiling Water"

An open thread discussion topic:

In recent years what with acceptable fashion standards taking a major plunge (literally) into the realm of 'anything goes', young women are left to face conscious decisions in how they dress themselves, not realizing the weight that such decisions carry.

Speaking to youth in Australia on July 18, Pope Benedict XVI mentioned modesty as he told of how becoming fully human means rejecting those voices that lead us into worshipping 'false gods.'

"People sometimes treat others as objects to satisfy their own needs rather than as persons to be loved and cherished. How easy it is to be deceived by the many voices in our society that advocate a permissive approach to sexuality, without regard for modesty, self-respect or the moral values that bring quality to human relationships! This is worship of a false god. Instead of bringing life, it brings death."

Those women who wish to remain modest in their dress have been increasingly left to their own defenses as recent fashion trends leave 'conservative dress' virtually impossible, if not extinct. Nowadays, anyone left clinging to conservative dress in the incoming tide of cleavage-baring tank-tops and clothing requiring classification (i.e. 'is that a shirt or a dress?') is left feeling, quite simply, alienated. - Jenna Murphy

The commentary goes on to describe "Pure Fashion" a specialized group that "challenges young women to embrace the fullness of their femininity: which means recognizing the power inherent to the human body and respecting this great gift (through dressing modestly) instead of harvesting its power for selfish reasons."

Your thoughts?

On clapping in Church, and whether one should (ever)

Fr. Z comments on an article in Catholic Exchange titled, "Hold the Applause: Confessions of a Conflicted Clapper", which begins with this arresting statement:

"Whenever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment."

Now guess who said that? Pope Benedict XVI.

Cardinal Arinze, head of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is also quoted:

"…when we come to Mass we don’t come to clap. We don’t come to watch people, to admire people. We want to adore God, to thank Him, to ask Him pardon for our sins, and to ask Him for what we need.”

Now, my question: does proper liturgical praxis involve never clapping during Mass (ever)?

On leaving Mass right after Communion

Fr. McNamara tackles the question in a Zenit Q&A:

Q: Unfortunately some in the parish have developed the poor habit of leaving Mass immediately after Communion. I estimate around 30%, or approximately 225 people, leave early. Our church holds 750, so the disappearance is definitely noticeable. Could you provide a theological discourse on why this is not appropriate behavior? -- D.S., Port Charlotte, Florida

A: This is a perennial problem, but one which must be faced with patience, insisting, as St. Paul would say, "Opportune et inopportune" (in season and out of season), until the message reaches home. [Read the entire answer.]

His answer, briefly: leaving Mass early robs you of the opportunity for silent reflection and prayer after receiving communion; it's simply discourteous; we ought to participate in the thanksgiving of the community post-communion; we ought not to leave until we are dismissed (sent forth) by the celebrant.

And let's not neglect the practical:

"From a very material standpoint one could also see if there is some tangible motivation that leads so many of the faithful to leave early. Is there a bottleneck in the parking lot? Are Mass schedules too close together? If there are real practical inconveniences involved, then theology alone will be ineffective in changing people's habits until these are resolved."

This all appears airtight to me. Sadly, in my parish I see people leave directly after communion often. It strikes me as very selfish to deny the community (and the Eucharistic presence of Jesus) your attention once you've "received what you came for."

Is it horrid of me to suggest some sort of (mild) public shaming for this sort of juvenile activity?

Open Thread: Do you eat distinctive Lenten foods?

This CNS News Hub story also put me in mind of a professor's recent observation that in Jewish tradition and Christian practice up through the middle ages, most major liturgical seasons were accompanied by distinctive foods (Protestants do not seem to have kept to these practices as much, to my knowledge).

So, do you have certain foods you eat only during Lent, particularly on days of abstinence from meat?

I remember as I was growing up, the frequency of Lentil soup skyrocketed during Fridays in Lent.

Open Thread: Local Lenten Liturgical Tweaks

Today my local parish here in DC placed this notice in its weekly bulletin:

The Lenten Liturgies

You will notice several changes in all the Masses celebrated during Lent. After the Sign of the Cross, the Presider will invite the congregation to kneel for the Penitential Rite. After a moment of silence, the Confiteor will be recited and the Kyrie sung at all Sunday Masses and recited at weekday Masses. People will be invited by the priest to stand before he offers the Opening Prayer. After Communion, the priest will say the prayer and invite all to join in a hymn of thanksgiving. Following the Final Blessing, the priest and ministers will leave the Santuary in silence. Parishioners are asked to leave the Church in silence.

I'm not aware if this is an Archdiocese of Washington-wide practice, or just my own parish.

What are your thoughts about these changes? Is your parish doing anything different for Lent?

The combox is open....