Punditry

So there is a new a new Archbishop of Canterbury – Rt. Rev. Justin Welby. Really being the Archbishop of Canterbury should be one of the Dirty Jobs that Mike Rowe tries out. This job is like striding across a fault line during an earthquake with two sides continuing in opposition and trying to maintain balance.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker has his analysis which is quite interesting.

Well it turns out that St. Teresa of Avila’s “Let nothing disturb you prayer” was just as apt the day after election. Really though it is apt everyday.

One thing about having the gift of faith is that it can give you perspective and serve you in ways you might not expect. For example any election result like the one we just had would have severely depressed me when I was an atheist. When you are an atheist the main tool for culture shaping is the government. The government becomes the lens to shape whatever desired vision of the body politic you see best. There is no heaven so you want to create one on earth. I know I was certainly very angry whenever some candidate I wanted to win didn’t.

This time around I am certainly disappointed, but not despairing. God can bring good out of evil and we keep providing him with material to work with. Sure I had a momentary pulse of anger, but it was one I could put down quickly. We are not exactly headed to the catacombs (yet). Sure the serious threats to our nation and specifically the human person are serious and growing. A false view of human freedom and rights continues to get exaggerated into distorted forms. It is not like Catholics have not been in this situation before. The cross is never far from the life of faith. We are not alone in this struggle though since many members of the Communion of Saints have “Been there, done that.” The fact that the reason we even know about many of the saints is because of their martyrdom in these situations. The fact that we are unlikely to be martyred does not diminish the fact that these false views being adopted and lived are damaging to the human person and the family.

While I am sure my faith plays a part in my not being as upset as I might have been, I wonder about other possible factors. For example Gov. Romney was not really somebody I wanted to vote for in the first place. His election would have brought a different set of problems.

Now since pretty much every pundit is weighing in on Romney’s loss I guess I will add to the metric tons of useless of opinions. Or at least to set a couple of points to ponder.

Some months ago on Facebook I quipped something to the effect that “Gov. Romney will make as great a president as Sen. Bob Dole, Sen. McCain, and 2nd Term George H. Bush.” Looks like I was right on that score. Moderate Republicans just plain lose. If there was any chance for a moderate Republican to win it was this time out considering the economy – but that just was not enough. All of these men had some things in common. For example you can describe none of them as really social conservatives. Social conservatives were held off at arms length for the most part and were something to be used but not embraced. All of them also had opponents that had severe failings and ultimately  did not take advantage of those failings. They were all pretty much fine with attacking fellow conservatives, but loath to say anything about their opponent that might come off as cross. Compare Romney’s attack ads against primary opponents to his ones against Obama. When it came to the 3rd debate Romney treated the President with kid gloves when it came to Bengazi and the Presidents complicity in their death seems to get worse and worse. Romney apparently thought he was just going to slide in upon the performance of the first debate.

In the aftermath of these losses two things always happen. Conservatives who are not social conservatives blame social conservatives for losing the race. If only the social issues didn’t come up everything would be fine. Social conservatives blame the Candidate for not being a social conservative. Beyond the moral questions the idea that if Romney embraced abortion (again), and gay marriage that he would have won I think is rather silly. You just aren’t going to out-Democrat the Democrats on this. Would Romney have won if he was really a social conservative? Seems doubtful to me. This schism of conservatism and social conservatism is a false schism and I go for the both/and approach here. I want a candidate that can articulate conservative ideas that includes so-called social conservatism. Either way Romney was not the full package and certainly no conservative philosopher who had thought deeply on these ideas. Ironically it was the President who made his campaign about social issues and was quite strident in his abortion and same-sex marriage support.

There was much talk about Romney exciting the base and bringing more enthusiasm. This turned out to be a dud and obviously some of the base was not going to hold finger to nose and instead did what their consciences informed them to do. What might be some of the factors in this?

• I think the whole Mormon aspect played a larger role than many pundits expected.  A prudential case for not electing a Mormon as president can certainly be defended on some levels.  I certainly heard callers on some talk radio stations who were not going to vote for him based on this.  While some mainstream Protestants came out for him towards the end I think this played some factor – though probably not a decisive one.
• Going back to social conservatives again we knew the Governor was not one of us or that we were dubious of his claims of being pro-life.  For someone who supposedly repented of these views he did not act like this was a real concern to him.  Promising judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade is not the same as realizing the horror of abortion. That the GOP has been treating pro-lifers as second class citizens is becoming more and more obvious and I can certainly understand those who refused to vote for him based on these facts.  I might have preferred Romney over Obama, but I would not overturn someone’s conscience with pragmatic advice.
• For those concerned about the threat to religious liberty again Romney sounded hollow.  This was more of a sound bite issue to him than any real concern.  His duplicity regarding Catholic Hospitals and forcing them to use Plan B is certainly evidence that like the President he was willing to violate religious freedom for political reasons.
• For those who are opposed to Obamacare  it was hard to see how Gov. Romney’s  association  with Romneycare which included abortion coverage was to be trusted in repealing Obamacare.  Sure there are differences between a Federally mandated program and a state one, but there were also a lot of similarities.

The question is will conservatives learn anything this time?  Probably not.  Each loser seems to have been someone whose time had come and deserved the shot. Someone that had run for the nomination before and lost. Maybe this isn’t a metric for automatic dismissal since the same facts are pretty much true of other GOP nominees that went on to win.  It just shouldn’t be an automatic reward.

Now not to just dump on Romney, I don’t think any of the primary contenders would have won.  I was closest in philosophy to Sen Santorum (with some grave exceptions), but frankly he comes off negative and not charismatic. Unfortunately that is a factor in today’s races.  I just want a candidate that does not support any intrinsic evils. Apparently that is asking too much.

Now what will the President’s second term be like?  Well much like his first when he had a GOP dominated congress.  Nothing will get passed and he will side-swipe the constitution with more executive orders.  I don’t see the economy improving, but would love to see the private sector overcome these government imposed burdens. The drum beat for Federal approval of same-sex marriage will increase  now that we have had people vote in this non-reality.  There will be more persecution of Catholic and other faiths in the name of tolerance.  His possible Supreme Court picks could shape the court for another generation. He will only add to his rightly-earned dishonor of being the most pro-abortion president in history. I wonder how much the facts of the deaths of four Americans in  Bengazi will play out in a congressional investigation. We have talked about teflon presidents before and it is embarrassing that he could survive Fast and Furious, the economy, and the shameful betrayal of our embassy employees.  The media will hit the snooze alarm for another four years so whether these things will ever escalate into media coverage at least on the level of Valerie Plame is doubtful.

Wow this is all pretty depressing.  Thank God I don’t rely on just the Government to be the solver of all things. History is full of surprising events and even more surprising conversions.  No executive order can stop me from praying and living the Gospel.  My Hope is the one who Changes water into wine and wine into his own Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.  Meanwhile I will be praying for the President and his administration, but loving my enemies is not the same thing as saying I don’t have any.

My employer is obviously trying to kill me.  Pope Benedict has said access to food is “a concrete expression of the right to life.”  The United States’ Declaration of Independence called for the protection of  “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”  Yet my employer is not paying my food bills.  They do no support a food insurance plan or any plan to subsidize my grocery bill.  So since my employer is not paying my food bills it has to mean that they are denying my right to food!

Now this might seem like a ridiculous argument and of course it is.  But of course it is exactly the same argument being used by those that would enforce employers to pay for contraception.   Now a sane person would look at my argument for employer bought food and make the obvious observation that since I am payed a salary and can buy food with my salary my employer is no way blocking my access for food.  The same goes for people who think they have a right to contraception in that nothing is blocking them from paying for it out of their own salaries.  Now maybe some people can’t pay for the extra-premium extra-pricey contraception that Sandra Fluke says she is paying for and costs so much more than in all the normal pharmacies.  But even those who contravene the natural law and demand hormone-based birth control are not going to be going to the poor house based on that.

Really the HHS mandate has an agenda that is just an attack on future children.  There are many things they might have demanded that insurance companies paid for regarding real world health experiences. Yet the three they choose to mandate were contraception – prevention of children, sterilization – eliminating the possibility of children, and so called Plan B after the fact contraception and abortion inducing chemicals.  The Obama Administration is like Dana Carvey’s church lady on SNL but instead of the hush tones where the answer to every problem is “Satan!” they use the same tone with “Children!”  Surprised they haven’t yet redirected Smokey the Bear to say “Only you can prevent children.”  Funny how they divorce children from sex and then equate sex with voting.

One of the saddest things about this direct attack on the 1st Amendment of the Constitution regarding religious freedom is how mostly the American people have yawned about it.  Sure there is a small segments of Catholics that are up in arms about it and the Bishops have been very vocal about it.  There is even a nice portion of Evangelicals who see this as an attack on religious freedom and have joined in on the law suits.  But mostly this is not an issue this election will turn on. Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan have brought it up from time to time – but it is not centerpiece or major part of  there stump speeches.  The President and Vice President have also bragged about it and have made it a major part of their campaign.  We can laugh about Sandra Fluke drawing tens of people, but they certainly have made the HHS mandate seem righteous to their supporters.

I remember when the whole HHS mandate first broke and I was awed by how giant this political miscalculation was.  An administration that could be so blind to infringing religious freedom and the repercussions is just amazing.  The bubble the Obama Administration lives in  is obviously sound proof and pretty much impervious to realities other than “I heart abortion.” Audacious and arrogant is what the HHS mandate is and when there was an initial outcry they created a non-compromise that did not change the moral calculus – just fudged the moral equations. Yet again the election will not turn on this.  This is just a naked power  grab to enforce a view of the world onto religious believers and if the economy was better they might have totally gotten away with it.  Now if the President were able to win election then certainly this is something that will be decided in the courts.  But just because something is blatantly unconstitutional does not mean that they will not give it a judicial seal of approval.

I certainly hope to see the death of the HHS mandate in the short term.  The problem is that we have a culture that was pretty much open to it in the first place and we will continue to see manifestations of this mindset.  While a political election might solve one problem, the real problem is not  going to be solved by politicians and as Jesus told the Apostles some things need much prayer and fasting to drive out.

“Contraception is a lot cheaper than live births, especially if the live births are problematic.”

If there was ever a television show called “Liberal theologians say the darndest things” surely Fr. Reese would be on it. Since the show does not yet exist Fr. Reese had to confine himself to say this at Holy Trinity Catholic Parish in Washington, D.C. Because of course cost is the primary moral factor that can magically make an intrinsic evil somehow less intrinsically evil.  Think of all the money we can save in regards to taking care of the elderly and other health care money drains.  The problem with liberal theologians is that they make Jonathan Swift-like “modest proposals” that aren’t satirical essays.

Next up in an episode of “Liberal theologians say the darndest things” is Richard P. McBrien who has made many appearances on the show.

He couldn’t have foreseen, for example, the concerted efforts of his successors, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, to undermine the council, consciously or not, by the appointment of bishops and archbishops unfriendly to the council.

What he means is bishops unfriendly to “the (false) spirit of the council.” But when you become your own magisterium and know better than the last two Popes you just might be Rev. McBrien.

I did like the humble part of his article.

As I said (to a standing ovation) at the symposium held in my honor at the University of Notre Dame toward the end of April, few North American Catholics would be Catholics today if it were not for the nuns. The nuns, I insisted (to another standing ovation), are the greatest asset to the church in North America, and one hopes and prays that the Vatican will soon come to realize that as well.

I really (to a standing ovation) thought it (to a standing ovation) was well (to a standing ovation) put. I’m sure Rev. McBrien is praising Mother Angelica and her nuns for all their work here.

Don’t you just love the “Evil Vatican vs. American Nuns” narrative? Strangely I don’t think he would see the HHS mandate putting the “Little Sisters of the Poor” and other religious sisters who help the poor and the elderly out of business in the same terms.

Source via Campus Notes

If there is one bumper sticker that I have seen the most of besides political ones it is certainly the “Coexist” sticker. There is something about this sticker that really annoys me. A reflex that does not exactly invoke tolerance for the person with the sticker.

Though why is this? The tolerance sticker like many things invokes a truth, but at the same time invokes an error. Now of course you can’t expect a one word bumper sticker made up of religious symbols as a full statement articulating fully what the owner of the sticker wants it to mean. It certainly is rather clever in the use of religious symbols to spell out the word and that leads to its popularity. But the symbol for smarmy people who put this on their bumpers seems to be missing. The message really is “I’m tolerant, your’e not – get with the program.”

There is also a “Can’t we all just get along?” vibe and again there is a larger truth there. Religious tolerance properly defined is certainly something to be promoted and strived for. The original design came from a Polish graphic designer Piotr Mlodozeniec who designed it for an art contest for a museum in Jerusalem. It was popularized when U2 started using it on a backdrop on one of their tours. Considering the religious clashes that have occurred in Ireland you can see why it appealed to them.

Now you can’t psychoanalyze someone from their bumper sticker, but you can look at general outlooks and make some guesses at what might motivate someone to choose this sticker. The fact that these stickers are sometimes combined with other left-leaning slogans helps to make these guesses. Though once I saw a “Coexist” bumper sticker with a “Nobama” one. From my armchair view my guess is that a large group of the coexisters are either not religious or of the “spiritual not religious” type. They are rightly scandalized by religious intolerance especially when it involves violence. Though at the same time know little about actual religious intolerance. For example I doubt if there is a large intersection between coexisters and those that are upset about the religious intolerance of the HHS Mandate. The fact that Muslim dominated countries severely restrict other religions is also something that pretty much passes them by. This view is grounded also in religious indifferentism which is another implied message of this bumper sticker. All religions should get along because they are all equally made up.

This idea of tolerance is something other than how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines it.

Toleration in general signifies patient forbearance in the presence of an evil which one is unable or unwilling to prevent. By religious toleration is understood the magnanimous indulgence which one shows towards a religion other than his own, accompanied by the moral determination to leave it and its adherents unmolested in private and public, although internally one views it with complete disapproval as a “false faith”.

In fact if you told a coexister that you liked his “forbearance in the presence of an evil” sticker I am certain he wouldn’t like that definition.

Mostly what annoys me is that the call of tolerance falls far short. I am called to love my neighbor, not just tolerate him. I am also called to love my enemy and not just tolerate them. But the false view of tolerance sees no allowed enemies. I am called to love those of other faiths and when possible to bring the Gospel to them. That type of fiery love is dissipated in the luke-warm water of tolerance.

If you look for the word tolerance in the Catechism you won’t find it and you certainly don’t find the false view of tolerance that levels all belief.

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus the question “What is truth?” Though it was more of a statement than a question.  During the political season the question “What is truth” can be answered as something there is little concern for.

This poisonous political period can feel like an oppressive fog that permeates everything.  There is little or no concern for truth so we get everything from exaggerations to outright lies and we shrug it off as “just politics.” We have come to expect that politicians are not intimate friends with the truth and just as long as we support part of their agenda we are willing to put up with it.  The ends don’t justify the means except when they do. We want zingers more than truth.

Now as an admitted political partisan myself I certainly would say that one side of the political divide is abusing truth more than the other.  That does not mean that I will pass by departures from truth for partisan reasons.   Something we almost never get is a politician accurately  speaking  about a policy of their opponent. Showing concern that first they understand it before critiquing it.  I guess when things are compressed down to a soundbite  the compression algorithm used removes truth for compactness.  I think of  the care that St. Thomas Aquinas took in the Summa Theologica to accurately state objections before answering them.  St. Thomas Aquinas said “All that I have written seems like straw”, but what he had written contained no straw men.

What makes me reflect on this is the reaction to a statement from Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

This was seized on immediately to make him a supporter or rape. Any honest person not wanting to pin everything with an agenda would see that this was a badly worded answer that conflated rape as being the will of God. I have a hard time of seeing how somebody can so misread this other then bad will. At worse you could see him as confusing God’s ordained will vs. His permissive will not a support of rape.

When I wanted to find the actual quote of Richard Mourdock I had to wade through dozens of articles regarding it to find one that actually printed the quote in whole. If his statement was so indicting of him you would think they would print it for all to see.

On the other hand considering Todd Akins previous remark I think we need to send Republican Senate candidates to some kind of school as to how to articulate themselves regarding abortion and the rape exception. It is almost always painful to hear a politician articulate themselves on this. I must applaud Richard Moyrdock for his pro-life conviction that didn’t take the normal pragmatic route. Really though if he had stated it better, there would have probably still been some news concerning it.

The President of course took little time to mischaracterize Mourdock’s remarks for political gain. Unfortunately this is to be expected since I do not see our President as much of a lover of truth. I wish I could think of Gov. Romney as a lover of truth, but I do no delude myself this way.

It seems odd to me in this Presidential election where there is so much that divides the candidates policy wise that so much is wasted on something other than valid critiques of policy. As a political junkie it is easy to forget that many are not so engaged in what is going on and politicians would rather sway them with zingers and soundbites hoping it will get into their narrow window of political engagement. The first victim of war is truth, and the same goes for political campaigns that increase the victim count.

All I know is that I need to be much more of a prayer junkie than a political one.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center reported that one-in-five adults have no religious affiliation. They call this group “Nones” which adds no clarity. Especially since this group includes atheists, agnostics and “nothing in particular.” All three groups are on the rise with the “nothing in particular” garnering the largest increase. Of that 20% they report on six percent are made of of atheist and agnostics with agnosticism being the larger group. By the news reporting I heard it was made to sound as if the 20% was pretty much made up of atheists.

Now obviously we have to NIP (sorry some acronym humor here) in the bud.

I find the question interesting since it is so indicative of society. “Are you looking for a religion that would be right for you.” Crouched in terms of relativism instead of in the terms of looking for the truth. I am though rather surprised that of this group of those who choose “nothing in particular” that such a low amount are seeking.

Also interesting that Protestant’s of all stripes for the first time are less than 50% of the population. Catholics have held steady, but I would guess that immigration plays a larger part in that than some other factors.

I would be interested in a comparison between this study and what is going on in Europe and what factors are different. Certainly the religiously affiliated is higher in the United States than in most countries of Europe.

The the unaffiliated is growing and at higher rates among younger people seems to be a cultural indicator that will surprise nobody. I wonder how much of this segment considers themselves “spiritual but not religious?” There has always been quite an independent stripe among American believers and I believe Protestantism has some effect in that. When everybody becomes their own interpreter than pretty soon you can cut out the Church as the middle man. Protestant ecclesiology also kinds of lends to this with the fracturing from first national churches, to regional churches, to neighborhood “non-denominational” churches. A soft deism can develop where you might recognize the existence of God, but you live a life where this has no practical effect. Though that schism between belief and action is certainly well known among believers. The fracturing of Christendom into so many fragments also provides a barrier to belief. Jesus’ High Priestly prayer to the Father “that they may all be one” is one we must continue to constantly pray.

After having read Ross Douthat’s excellent Bad Religion it is also well worth noting that it is not like from the beginning the US was totally religiously affiliated with a slow drain off towards secularism. While church attendance rates have certainly dropped in the last century there have been a certain ebb and flow.

Instead of a call to holiness there seems to have been a dropped-call. A call I know I should answer, but when I see the Caller ID of Holiness, I would rather not pick up since talking about holiness is much easier than living it.