Today is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and CNN has a good article explaining why his description of evolution is such a significant turning point in human self-understanding and particularly in the fields of science, history, politics, philosophy and theology.
The writer reminds us of something that Darwin fans and foes tend to forget: that among Darwin's academic achievements was a degree in theology from Cambridge. Perhaps that helped Darwin to appreciate the significance of his discoveries and motivated him to promote that significance publicly.
The article notes that in the United States today only 14% of people polled accept evolution exactly as Darwin taught it. The same poll found that 44% cling to a literal reading of Genesis and another 36% believe that evolution happened over a much longer time frame, but led and guided by God. That makes God's role, if any, an appropriate topic in philosophy and theology classrooms and journals, but not for the biological sciences.
The article also notes that Abraham Lincoln shared the exact same birth date--and notes the curious parallels that both felt a calling to put an end to slavery and that Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation just a few years after Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. Most of CNN's article follows:
Before there was an extensive fossil record, DNA sequencing or even a basic understanding of genetics, there was Charles Darwin.
Today, the world commemorates the 200th birthday of a man who single-handedly revolutionized biology with an explosive theory that challenged the core of our existence.
"Darwin wrote about who we are," said historian and author James Moore, who has cowritten a new book on the famous evolutionist. "He gave us a re-interpretation of the history of humans on earth, and what we can become."
Darwin's theory of evolution proposes that humans evolved over millions of years from animal species, specifically apes. Such thinking, which challenged the biblical account that a deity created the Earth in six days, was considered radical, even blasphemous, when Darwin published it in 1859.
A century and a half later, the legacy of history's most noted naturalist continues to make headlines.
After a contentious debate, the Texas Board of Education is set to vote in March on how evolution should be taught in the state's public schools. Last week, actor-comedian Ben Stein backed out of giving a commencement speech at the University of Vermont because of student complaints about his views challenging the theory of evolution.
The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, conducted in May, found that only 14 percent of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years, and another 36 percent believe that God guided humans' evolution from animals over a much longer period of time.
"The problem is, there are a number of fundamental people on both the left and the right extremes," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of the Clergy Letter Project, which seeks to find common ground between scientists and the clergy.
"Most people think you can't believe in evolution and have faith," added Zimmerman, a dean at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana. "Faith does not mean that you have to give up common sense. Faith is deeper than that."
Darwin devoted much of his adult life to questioning the unquestionable. Born February 12, 1809, in Shrewsbury, England, he earned a degree in theology from Cambridge University and was known for his obsession with collecting things, especially beetles.
His outlook on life changed after he embarked in 1831 on a five-year voyage around the world on the HMS Beagle, a British naval ship. His observations during the journey inspired Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection, the process by which organisms that are best adapted to their environment produce more offspring while those less suited eventually die out.
After spending 20 years meticulously crafting and weighing the implications of his theory, Darwin finally went public with his life's work. "On the Origin of Species," his landmark book about evolution and natural selection, was published in 1859.
Darwin was an unassuming scholar who wanted to make a humble contribution to the world of science, but his ideas on evolution were heresy to much of 18th-century England. The implication that our past, present and futures are all connected in an integrated web shook the biological, religious and political foundations of life as it was believed to be.
"The world was not the same after its publication," said Sean B. Carroll, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin and author of a new book, "Remarkable Creatures: Epic Adventures in the Search for the Origin of Species."
Central to Darwin's thesis was his scientific explanation of life's diversity: that all life evolved from a common lineage through the process of natural selection. This egalitarian view was not popular with those who professed their anthropological superiority over people of other races.
"Darwin's theory challenged the notions of human exceptionalism and brought to light this idea that humans are a result of natural processes, meaning we were not as 'special' as [we] once thought," said Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Darwin shares a birth date with Abraham Lincoln, who sought to end slavery in the United States soon after "On the Origin of Species" was published. A major driving force behind Darwin's research was his own disdain for slavery, prejudice and human suffering.
"He had a deep regard for humanity and living entities," said Moore, who co-authored a new book, "Darwin's Sacred Cause," about the influence of slavery on Darwin's thinking. "There was no high or low, better or worse. Things were just different."
But most of Darwin's theories are now accepted as a foundation of biological science.
"The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. We can see it all around us," said Carroll, the University of Wisconsin professor. "He teaches us that life is continually adapting to keep up with a changing Earth."
This continual fight for survival may resonate more loudly today than ever. In the 21st century, climate change is forcing species to evolve more quickly to survive on a warming planet, scientists say.
If drought conditions intensify and deforestation continues, many scientists expect to see great changes in the biological compositions of ecosystems over the coming decades.
In other words, Darwin's theory of natural selection is still very much in evidence.
"Changing ecological systems are causing intense environmental pressures on organisms," said Scott, of the National Center for Science Education. "We are seeing rapid species growth and waves of extinction all at the same time."
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
European Theologians and Faithful Petition Rome to Abide by Teachings of Vatican II
Queering the Church, a Catholic blog written near London, reports that theologians and Christians in Germany, Austria and Switzerland plan to send a petition to Rome, calling on the pope to refrain from undermining several of the decrees of Vatican II, fully implement all of the council's decrees, and pursue dialogue with all movements in the church, not just those on the far right. The petition is being circulated in England by We Are Church UK. The petition follows, along with a link that encourages concerned believers to sign it.
THE PETITION
The papal cancellation of the excommunication of bishops from The Society of St. Pius X signifies the reception into full communion with the See of Rome those who have consistently opposed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
Regarding the anti-Semitic remarks and the denial of the German national-socialist persecution of the Jews by Bishop Richard Williamson and his followers, we share the indignation of our Jewish sisters and brothers. Moreover, we state that the SSPX’s attitude towards Judaism does not correspond to the Council’s understanding of and commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue.
We support the recent statements of Bishops’ Conferences, and others, all over the world, on this issue. We also welcome the recent statements made on these matters by Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.
We believe that the close correlation between the excommunication’s cancellation and the 50th anniversary of the calling of a General Council of the Church by Blessed Pope John XXIII gives a clear indication of the direction which the present Papacy wishes to take. We sense a desire to return to a pre-Vatican II Church with its fear of openness to the breath of the Holy Spirit, a positive appreciation of ’the signs of the times’, and the values of democratic institutions.
We are very concerned that this act of rehabilitation heralds a turn-around on important documents of Vatican II, for example, the decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, the declaration on non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate, the declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. Such an act will have a disastrous effect on the credibility of the Roman-Catholic Church. For Catholics who love their Church, the price is too high!
The Pope hopes this act will help unify the Church. However we think it is particularly outrageous that the Vatican’s renewed overtures to a schismatic traditionalist movement have been undertaken without the imposition of any conditions whatsoever. In June 2008, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Lefebvre’s excommunication, the SSPX rejected the invitation of the Holy See towards theological reconciliation. Likewise, the fraternity rejected the invitation to sign a five-topic declaration containing conditions for its re-integration in the Roman Church.
A return to full communion with the Catholic Church can only be made possible if the documents and teachings of the Second Vatican Council are fully accepted without any reservations, as requested by the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, on the topic of the Tridentine rite. It is also imperative that the papal ministries of Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are recognised and accepted.
The Church of Rome, perceived as the Barque of St Peter, lists heavily as long as the Vatican:
+ only rehabilitates the ‘lost sheep’ at the traditionalist edge of the Church, and makes no similar offer to other excommunicated or marginalised Catholics
+ persists in preventing progressive theologians from teaching
+ refuses dialogue with all movements in the Church
We Are Church UK 5 February 2009
(Based upon an original text by Prof. Dr. Norbert Scholl, Angelhofweg 24b, D-69259 Wilhelmsfeld published in Essen on 28 January 2009)
Please add your signature
THE PETITION
The papal cancellation of the excommunication of bishops from The Society of St. Pius X signifies the reception into full communion with the See of Rome those who have consistently opposed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
Regarding the anti-Semitic remarks and the denial of the German national-socialist persecution of the Jews by Bishop Richard Williamson and his followers, we share the indignation of our Jewish sisters and brothers. Moreover, we state that the SSPX’s attitude towards Judaism does not correspond to the Council’s understanding of and commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue.
We support the recent statements of Bishops’ Conferences, and others, all over the world, on this issue. We also welcome the recent statements made on these matters by Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.
We believe that the close correlation between the excommunication’s cancellation and the 50th anniversary of the calling of a General Council of the Church by Blessed Pope John XXIII gives a clear indication of the direction which the present Papacy wishes to take. We sense a desire to return to a pre-Vatican II Church with its fear of openness to the breath of the Holy Spirit, a positive appreciation of ’the signs of the times’, and the values of democratic institutions.
We are very concerned that this act of rehabilitation heralds a turn-around on important documents of Vatican II, for example, the decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, the declaration on non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate, the declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. Such an act will have a disastrous effect on the credibility of the Roman-Catholic Church. For Catholics who love their Church, the price is too high!
The Pope hopes this act will help unify the Church. However we think it is particularly outrageous that the Vatican’s renewed overtures to a schismatic traditionalist movement have been undertaken without the imposition of any conditions whatsoever. In June 2008, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Lefebvre’s excommunication, the SSPX rejected the invitation of the Holy See towards theological reconciliation. Likewise, the fraternity rejected the invitation to sign a five-topic declaration containing conditions for its re-integration in the Roman Church.
A return to full communion with the Catholic Church can only be made possible if the documents and teachings of the Second Vatican Council are fully accepted without any reservations, as requested by the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, on the topic of the Tridentine rite. It is also imperative that the papal ministries of Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are recognised and accepted.
The Church of Rome, perceived as the Barque of St Peter, lists heavily as long as the Vatican:
+ only rehabilitates the ‘lost sheep’ at the traditionalist edge of the Church, and makes no similar offer to other excommunicated or marginalised Catholics
+ persists in preventing progressive theologians from teaching
+ refuses dialogue with all movements in the Church
We Are Church UK 5 February 2009
(Based upon an original text by Prof. Dr. Norbert Scholl, Angelhofweg 24b, D-69259 Wilhelmsfeld published in Essen on 28 January 2009)
Please add your signature
Post-Postings: Progress on Guns on Campus; Regress on Saving Live Oak Trees
Every so often, a news or opinion item notes novel developments on issues I've addressed in previous blog postings. As luck would have it, two appeared in the opinion section of today's Houston Chronicle.
One is an editorial calling recently proposed laws to allow concealed guns on Texas college campuses "not such a bright idea."
Such proposals are not new, whether from a Texas perspective or even nationwide. But they reached a fever pitch in the wake of the on-campus shootings at Virginia Tech on April 18, 2007. Two days later I decried the complete insanity of the idea in a posting entitled Nothing a Few More Guns Wouldn't Fix! The concern was also in the background when I argued that the Supreme Court's subsequent gun ruling mistakenly found in the 2nd Amendment A New Right to Kill, but virtually ignored clear historical evidence on the real right to bear arms that the Founders codified--evidence which no Supreme Court justice disputed.
So it will come as no surprise that I find the Chronicle's arguments against arming college students to be persuasive. More importantly, so does everyone at Virginia Tech today, along with the student government of the University of Texas in Austin.
But until the editorial I was not aware of an even more positive development: "After the horrendous carnage on the campus of Virginia Tech in 2007... Seventeen states introduced measures to allow guns on campus. Voters turned them all down." It's especially gratifying that after extensive public discussion voters in one-third of the states have agreed that guns on campus is a lame-brained idea that, as the Chronicle says, would only "increase the vulnerability of students and others on campus."
The other topic was protecting live oak trees, one of the few natural assets in the Houston metropolitan area. This was the subject of my post on June 24, 2008, which highlighted efforts by "Trees for Houston" to prevent the city from destroying 126 live oak trees for the wholly unnecessary widening of a major thoroughfare. It was also addressed in a posting October 7, 2008, about the mayor's support for planting a million new trees in Houston over the next five years.
An opinion piece in today's Houston Chronicle reports some potential back-tracking on efforts to save the live oaks--this time by the City Council's Quality of Life Committee, no less--and urges the citizenry to oppose it.
What's new is proposed revisions to Houston's tree and shrub ordinance after so many trees broke power lines during Hurricane Ike. The column points out, however, that no one has documented power-line damage by any live oak tree--because all of the damage was done by higher-growing, less flexible trees, such as tall pines, water willows, red oaks and post oaks.
For this reason, the advisory committee that recommended the ordinance changes did not prohibit live oaks under power lines. But after receiving the advisory committee's report, the Quality of Life Committee inserted the words "small tree" in the power line section, expressly to include live oaks. The council committee did this without telling the advisory committee, and the advisory committee has cried foul.
The author of the opinion piece appears to know what he's talking about: Hugh Rice Kelly is a retired executive vice president and general counsel for Houston's Reliant Energy! He says the real reason the Quality of Life Committee now wants to authorize destruction of live oak trees under power lines is that CenterPoint Energy is "tired of spending money to trim trees." Its previous tactics have included "a new kind of Texas chain-saw massacre: Mangle people's live oaks badly enough and maybe they will just give up and plant little bushes that don't hide the power line."
Kelly says people plant the live oaks because the power lines are ugly and the trees do the best job of hiding them. He urges the public to pressure the Houston City Council to back-off more live-oak destruction. The trees are worth a lot more to the region than the electric providers' bottom lines.
One is an editorial calling recently proposed laws to allow concealed guns on Texas college campuses "not such a bright idea."
Such proposals are not new, whether from a Texas perspective or even nationwide. But they reached a fever pitch in the wake of the on-campus shootings at Virginia Tech on April 18, 2007. Two days later I decried the complete insanity of the idea in a posting entitled Nothing a Few More Guns Wouldn't Fix! The concern was also in the background when I argued that the Supreme Court's subsequent gun ruling mistakenly found in the 2nd Amendment A New Right to Kill, but virtually ignored clear historical evidence on the real right to bear arms that the Founders codified--evidence which no Supreme Court justice disputed.
So it will come as no surprise that I find the Chronicle's arguments against arming college students to be persuasive. More importantly, so does everyone at Virginia Tech today, along with the student government of the University of Texas in Austin.
But until the editorial I was not aware of an even more positive development: "After the horrendous carnage on the campus of Virginia Tech in 2007... Seventeen states introduced measures to allow guns on campus. Voters turned them all down." It's especially gratifying that after extensive public discussion voters in one-third of the states have agreed that guns on campus is a lame-brained idea that, as the Chronicle says, would only "increase the vulnerability of students and others on campus."
The other topic was protecting live oak trees, one of the few natural assets in the Houston metropolitan area. This was the subject of my post on June 24, 2008, which highlighted efforts by "Trees for Houston" to prevent the city from destroying 126 live oak trees for the wholly unnecessary widening of a major thoroughfare. It was also addressed in a posting October 7, 2008, about the mayor's support for planting a million new trees in Houston over the next five years.
An opinion piece in today's Houston Chronicle reports some potential back-tracking on efforts to save the live oaks--this time by the City Council's Quality of Life Committee, no less--and urges the citizenry to oppose it.
What's new is proposed revisions to Houston's tree and shrub ordinance after so many trees broke power lines during Hurricane Ike. The column points out, however, that no one has documented power-line damage by any live oak tree--because all of the damage was done by higher-growing, less flexible trees, such as tall pines, water willows, red oaks and post oaks.
For this reason, the advisory committee that recommended the ordinance changes did not prohibit live oaks under power lines. But after receiving the advisory committee's report, the Quality of Life Committee inserted the words "small tree" in the power line section, expressly to include live oaks. The council committee did this without telling the advisory committee, and the advisory committee has cried foul.
The author of the opinion piece appears to know what he's talking about: Hugh Rice Kelly is a retired executive vice president and general counsel for Houston's Reliant Energy! He says the real reason the Quality of Life Committee now wants to authorize destruction of live oak trees under power lines is that CenterPoint Energy is "tired of spending money to trim trees." Its previous tactics have included "a new kind of Texas chain-saw massacre: Mangle people's live oaks badly enough and maybe they will just give up and plant little bushes that don't hide the power line."
Kelly says people plant the live oaks because the power lines are ugly and the trees do the best job of hiding them. He urges the public to pressure the Houston City Council to back-off more live-oak destruction. The trees are worth a lot more to the region than the electric providers' bottom lines.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Rome Must Address New Questions Before It Can Make Its Abortion Teaching U.S. Law
Recent articles and letters in the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) raised significant new questions about the Vatican's on-going efforts to enact laws that would ban all abortions in the United States.
Several challenge the official church position that conception occurs and human life begins the instant a sperm fertilizes an ovum. Another charges that the U.S. bishops departed from their own long tradition of social justice leadership by saying so often that abortion is the most serious social evil in U.S. society.
In the December 26th NCR, William B. Neaves, president and CEO of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo., asked simply, When does a person become a person?
His starting point is that Dignitas Personae, the new Vatican bioethics document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, "accords the dignity of a person to the first cell that results from fertilization of an egg by a sperm."
Against this, Neaves reminds us that:
(1) in 1974 the same CDF said that it is not within the competence of human knowledge to determine when God infuses an immortal soul into a developing person;
(2) this built on the position of St. Thomas Aquinas eight centuries ago that it was the embryo's physical development that built a suitable home for the soul; and
(3) around the same time Dante conveyed the contemporary Catholic opinion that ensoulment could not take place until the embryo developed a functioning brain.
Neaves also raises two other, more contemporary challenges to making fertilization the moment of conception or personhood.
One is that a substantial number of fertilized eggs do not become pregnancies: "in many (and probably most) instances, the single cell resulting from fertilization of an egg by a sperm perishes in the woman’s reproductive tract and never implants in the uterus. Only after implantation does a birthed baby become highly probable. Would God have ordained that most people should die in the first two weeks of existence, long before seeing the light of day?"
A second issue is that sometimes two separately conceived fraternal twins fuse in the mother's reproductive tract and merge into a single embryo that comes to term. If fertilization is the first moment of personhood, how do the two separately conceived persons become one person?
To address these problems, and to reaffirm the insights of Aquinas, Dante and the CDF in 1974, Neaves likes a better option: "An alternative point of view to the Vatican’s, embraced by many Christians, is that personhood occurs after successful implantation in the mother’s uterus, when individual ontological identity is finally established."
This would obviate several positions that Dignitas Personae is forced to take by defining the start of personhood too soon in the reproductive process: "In the alternative moral framework, taking a pill to prevent the products of fertilization from implanting in a uterus is morally acceptable. Using in vitro fertilization to complete the family circle of couples otherwise unable to have children is an unmitigated good. Encouraging infertile couples with defective gametes to adopt already-produced embryos that will otherwise be discarded is a laudable objective. And using embryonic stem cells to seek cures becomes a worthy means of fulfilling the biblical mandate to heal the sick."
Three letters to the editor in the January 23rd NCR expanded on Neaves' concerns.
Bob Fehribach noted a different quandary in the case of identical twins: "In this situation, the developing embryo splits into two identical embryos. If personhood is determined at the time of fertilization, a similar question arises of how one person becomes two people."
Br. Finbar McMullen, FSC, quoting from Bernard Lee's The Future Church of 140 B.C.E.: A Hidden Revolution, cited two more examples from church history:
“The catechism of the Council of Trent holds that through miraculous intervention the human soul was joined to the matter from the first instance in the case of Jesus. Nobody can doubt that this was something new and an admirable work of the Holy Spirit, since in the natural order nobody can be informed by a human soul except after the prescribed space of time.” The implication is that for the rest of us, "the prescribed space of time" is some time after fertilization.
“The Holy Office declared in 1713 that a fetus can be baptized ‘if there is reasonable foundation for admitting that the fetus is animated by a rational soul. If, however, there is no reasonable foundation, it may by no means be baptized.’ ” The implication is that there is some period of time when the fetus is not animated by a rational soul.
Lucille Oliver voices the most extreme departure from the Vatican position: "A woman’s fertilized egg is no more a human than a walnut tree. Both have the potential of their God-given destinies, but the tree is dependent on proper earth care and nurturing. The egg-turned-fetus will live in symbiosis with the mother for six to seven months before it is able to live, even with help, outside the mother’s womb. At that point, it is a human being, not before." While equating viability with the beginning of human life moves the event later than Aquinas and the other commentators would, there is nothing in Christian or Jewish scripture that rules out Oliver's view.
Meanwhile, a February 2nd article on the NCR website reported that at a symposium on January 29th Leslie Woodcock Tentler, a professor of American Catholic history at the Catholic University of America, said the dominant approach of the current U.S. bishops on the abortion issue was out of character with their advocacy of social justice positions in the past, including positions on sexual ethics.
As background, the article says, Tentler listed several positions of "the 1919 'Bishops’ Program for Social Reconstruction,' the first statement issued by the then newly formed National Catholic War Council, the original organization of what is now the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops." She said the statement was in many ways a charter for what became FDR's New Deal. Of the eight provisions Tentler cited, not one mentioned the evil of abortion.
Even when the bishops did get around to a sexual ethics concern, their focus was on birth control, which some of them considered a graver sin than abortion. But given the political position of the Catholic church at the time, the bishops never took the position that the Catholic opposition to birth control should be written into U.S. law. The NCR article continued:
"'Anti-Catholicism was still a powerful emotion in American culture,' and the bishops had decided that in any battle against contraception they needed to have non-Catholic allies and needed to frame the public argument in ways that 'were not specifically religious,' she said. 'Among those nonreligious arguments was the family wage, a centerpiece of the 1919 bishops’ program. A truly just society, according to the bishops, is one that pays male workers enough to support a large family in comfort and security. An unjust society pays poverty wages, forces married women into the workforce and tells the poor to avoid having children.'
"She said the bishops eventually lost their fight against liberalized legal access to contraception, but her point was to highlight the difference between how that struggle was waged and how some bishops in recent years have been waging the fight against legalized abortion.
"'They consistently framed the debate in terms of values that nearly all Americans shared.'"
This echoes the theme of several Catholic Democrats, who argued during the last election that persuasion and cooperation with other people of good will would go much farther toward reducing the number of abortions in this country than trying to impose the official Catholic position as a matter of U.S. law.
The Vatican and the U.S. bishops have yet to address any of these questions successfully. They need to--before trying to impose Catholic abortion strictures on a society that includes believers and non-believers with multiple convictions on when life begins and when abortion should be banned.
Several challenge the official church position that conception occurs and human life begins the instant a sperm fertilizes an ovum. Another charges that the U.S. bishops departed from their own long tradition of social justice leadership by saying so often that abortion is the most serious social evil in U.S. society.
In the December 26th NCR, William B. Neaves, president and CEO of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo., asked simply, When does a person become a person?
His starting point is that Dignitas Personae, the new Vatican bioethics document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, "accords the dignity of a person to the first cell that results from fertilization of an egg by a sperm."
Against this, Neaves reminds us that:
(1) in 1974 the same CDF said that it is not within the competence of human knowledge to determine when God infuses an immortal soul into a developing person;
(2) this built on the position of St. Thomas Aquinas eight centuries ago that it was the embryo's physical development that built a suitable home for the soul; and
(3) around the same time Dante conveyed the contemporary Catholic opinion that ensoulment could not take place until the embryo developed a functioning brain.
Neaves also raises two other, more contemporary challenges to making fertilization the moment of conception or personhood.
One is that a substantial number of fertilized eggs do not become pregnancies: "in many (and probably most) instances, the single cell resulting from fertilization of an egg by a sperm perishes in the woman’s reproductive tract and never implants in the uterus. Only after implantation does a birthed baby become highly probable. Would God have ordained that most people should die in the first two weeks of existence, long before seeing the light of day?"
A second issue is that sometimes two separately conceived fraternal twins fuse in the mother's reproductive tract and merge into a single embryo that comes to term. If fertilization is the first moment of personhood, how do the two separately conceived persons become one person?
To address these problems, and to reaffirm the insights of Aquinas, Dante and the CDF in 1974, Neaves likes a better option: "An alternative point of view to the Vatican’s, embraced by many Christians, is that personhood occurs after successful implantation in the mother’s uterus, when individual ontological identity is finally established."
This would obviate several positions that Dignitas Personae is forced to take by defining the start of personhood too soon in the reproductive process: "In the alternative moral framework, taking a pill to prevent the products of fertilization from implanting in a uterus is morally acceptable. Using in vitro fertilization to complete the family circle of couples otherwise unable to have children is an unmitigated good. Encouraging infertile couples with defective gametes to adopt already-produced embryos that will otherwise be discarded is a laudable objective. And using embryonic stem cells to seek cures becomes a worthy means of fulfilling the biblical mandate to heal the sick."
Three letters to the editor in the January 23rd NCR expanded on Neaves' concerns.
Bob Fehribach noted a different quandary in the case of identical twins: "In this situation, the developing embryo splits into two identical embryos. If personhood is determined at the time of fertilization, a similar question arises of how one person becomes two people."
Br. Finbar McMullen, FSC, quoting from Bernard Lee's The Future Church of 140 B.C.E.: A Hidden Revolution, cited two more examples from church history:
“The catechism of the Council of Trent holds that through miraculous intervention the human soul was joined to the matter from the first instance in the case of Jesus. Nobody can doubt that this was something new and an admirable work of the Holy Spirit, since in the natural order nobody can be informed by a human soul except after the prescribed space of time.” The implication is that for the rest of us, "the prescribed space of time" is some time after fertilization.
“The Holy Office declared in 1713 that a fetus can be baptized ‘if there is reasonable foundation for admitting that the fetus is animated by a rational soul. If, however, there is no reasonable foundation, it may by no means be baptized.’ ” The implication is that there is some period of time when the fetus is not animated by a rational soul.
Lucille Oliver voices the most extreme departure from the Vatican position: "A woman’s fertilized egg is no more a human than a walnut tree. Both have the potential of their God-given destinies, but the tree is dependent on proper earth care and nurturing. The egg-turned-fetus will live in symbiosis with the mother for six to seven months before it is able to live, even with help, outside the mother’s womb. At that point, it is a human being, not before." While equating viability with the beginning of human life moves the event later than Aquinas and the other commentators would, there is nothing in Christian or Jewish scripture that rules out Oliver's view.
Meanwhile, a February 2nd article on the NCR website reported that at a symposium on January 29th Leslie Woodcock Tentler, a professor of American Catholic history at the Catholic University of America, said the dominant approach of the current U.S. bishops on the abortion issue was out of character with their advocacy of social justice positions in the past, including positions on sexual ethics.
As background, the article says, Tentler listed several positions of "the 1919 'Bishops’ Program for Social Reconstruction,' the first statement issued by the then newly formed National Catholic War Council, the original organization of what is now the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops." She said the statement was in many ways a charter for what became FDR's New Deal. Of the eight provisions Tentler cited, not one mentioned the evil of abortion.
Even when the bishops did get around to a sexual ethics concern, their focus was on birth control, which some of them considered a graver sin than abortion. But given the political position of the Catholic church at the time, the bishops never took the position that the Catholic opposition to birth control should be written into U.S. law. The NCR article continued:
"'Anti-Catholicism was still a powerful emotion in American culture,' and the bishops had decided that in any battle against contraception they needed to have non-Catholic allies and needed to frame the public argument in ways that 'were not specifically religious,' she said. 'Among those nonreligious arguments was the family wage, a centerpiece of the 1919 bishops’ program. A truly just society, according to the bishops, is one that pays male workers enough to support a large family in comfort and security. An unjust society pays poverty wages, forces married women into the workforce and tells the poor to avoid having children.'
"She said the bishops eventually lost their fight against liberalized legal access to contraception, but her point was to highlight the difference between how that struggle was waged and how some bishops in recent years have been waging the fight against legalized abortion.
"'They consistently framed the debate in terms of values that nearly all Americans shared.'"
This echoes the theme of several Catholic Democrats, who argued during the last election that persuasion and cooperation with other people of good will would go much farther toward reducing the number of abortions in this country than trying to impose the official Catholic position as a matter of U.S. law.
The Vatican and the U.S. bishops have yet to address any of these questions successfully. They need to--before trying to impose Catholic abortion strictures on a society that includes believers and non-believers with multiple convictions on when life begins and when abortion should be banned.
German Jews Know Vatican II Requires All Catholics to Repent of the Holocaust
Reuters reports that Germany's Central Council of Jews sees yesterday's Vatican statement that Catholic traditionalists must explicitly accept all of Vatican II--including its rejection of anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews as Christ-killers or God-killers--as a direct result of Chancellor Angela Merkel's criticism of the pope and an affirmation that the pope himself will adhere to Vatican II. The Reuters article follows:
Germany's Central Council of Jews welcomed the Vatican's decision to order a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to recant Wednesday, saying it could lead to a resumption of ties with the Catholic Church.
Charlotte Knobloch, president of the Council of Jews, said the Vatican's move was a positive signal and a reaction to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's demand for clarification after Pope Benedict sparked outrage over his rehabilitation of the bishop.
"It is a first step which could lead to a resumption of dialogue with the Catholic Church," said Knobloch in a statement which struck a conciliatory tone after she said last week she was breaking off ties with the Catholic church.
She had been angered by the German pope's rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson, who denies the extent of the Holocaust in which Nazis killed 6 million Jews, and that of three other members of the ultra-traditional Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).
Knobloch also welcomed the Vatican's statement earlier that SSPX must accept all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which urged respect for Judaism and other religions.
"That would mean the brotherhood would have to publicly retract their statements that Jewish citizens are murders of God, and to firmly condemn every form of Holocaust denial," Knobloch said.
Germany's Central Council of Jews welcomed the Vatican's decision to order a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to recant Wednesday, saying it could lead to a resumption of ties with the Catholic Church.
Charlotte Knobloch, president of the Council of Jews, said the Vatican's move was a positive signal and a reaction to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's demand for clarification after Pope Benedict sparked outrage over his rehabilitation of the bishop.
"It is a first step which could lead to a resumption of dialogue with the Catholic Church," said Knobloch in a statement which struck a conciliatory tone after she said last week she was breaking off ties with the Catholic church.
She had been angered by the German pope's rehabilitation of Bishop Richard Williamson, who denies the extent of the Holocaust in which Nazis killed 6 million Jews, and that of three other members of the ultra-traditional Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).
Knobloch also welcomed the Vatican's statement earlier that SSPX must accept all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which urged respect for Judaism and other religions.
"That would mean the brotherhood would have to publicly retract their statements that Jewish citizens are murders of God, and to firmly condemn every form of Holocaust denial," Knobloch said.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Vatican: Traditionalists Must Profess "Full Recognition of the Second Vatican Council"
In its first real concession to Catholic progressives since the papacy of Benedict XVI began, the Vatican said today that the ultra-traditionalist Society of St. Pius X cannot be reconciled to the Catholic Church until its members profess "full recognition of the Second Vatican Council"--and that until that time the society "does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic church" and the four bishops whose excommunications were rescinded will not be allowed to function as Catholic bishops.
After criticism from the Chancellor of Germany, the Archbishop of Vienna and the U.S. Catholic Bishops among others, the Vatican also said that Bishop Williamson in particular cannot resume episcopal functions unless and until he repudiates his denial of the Holocaust "in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion."
The following is the National Catholic Reporter's translation of the Vatican statement:
NOTE OF THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE, February 4, 2009
Following the reactions generated by the recent Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, with which the excommunications of four prelates of the Society of St. Pius X were rescinded, and in relation to the declarations denying or minimizing the Shoah on the part of Bishop Williamson of this same society, it is regarded as opportune to clarify certain aspects of this affair.
1. Remission of the Excommunication
As has already been published, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated January 21, 2009, was an act with which the Holy Father kindly responded to repeated requests on the part of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X.
His Holiness wished to remove an impediment that prevented the opening of a door to dialogue. Now he is waiting for equal openness to be expressed by the four bishops, in total adhesion to the doctrine and discipline of the church.
The extremely grave penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, which these bishops incurred on June 30, 1988, which was then formally declared on July 1 of the same year, was a consequence of their ordination by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a most grave canonical penalty, but in no way has it changed the juridical situation of the Society of St. Pius X, which, in this moment, does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic church. Also the four bishops, despite removal of the excommunication, do not have any canonical function in the church and do not licitly exercise any ministry in it.
2. Tradition, doctrine and the Second Vatican Council
For any future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X, a full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition.
As was already affirmed in the Decree of January 21, 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to purse the questions which are still open with the interested parties, thus to be able to reach a full and satisfying solution to the problems that gave rise to this painful fracture.
3. Declarations on the Shoah
The positions of Bishop Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked this past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reconfirmed his full and indisputable solidarity with our brothers who received the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead “humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the human heart,” adding that the Shoah remains “a warning for all against hate, against denial or reductionism, because violence against even a single human being is violence against all.”
Bishop Williamson, in order to claim admission to episcopal functions in the church, must distance himself in absolutely unequivocal and public fashion from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were not known by the Holy Father when the excommunication was lifted.
The Holy Father asks accompaniment in prayer from all the faithful, that the Lord may illuminate the path of the church. May the commitment of the pastors and all the faithful grow to sustain the delicate and weighty mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the “custodian of the unity” of the church.
After criticism from the Chancellor of Germany, the Archbishop of Vienna and the U.S. Catholic Bishops among others, the Vatican also said that Bishop Williamson in particular cannot resume episcopal functions unless and until he repudiates his denial of the Holocaust "in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion."
The following is the National Catholic Reporter's translation of the Vatican statement:
NOTE OF THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE, February 4, 2009
Following the reactions generated by the recent Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, with which the excommunications of four prelates of the Society of St. Pius X were rescinded, and in relation to the declarations denying or minimizing the Shoah on the part of Bishop Williamson of this same society, it is regarded as opportune to clarify certain aspects of this affair.
1. Remission of the Excommunication
As has already been published, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated January 21, 2009, was an act with which the Holy Father kindly responded to repeated requests on the part of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X.
His Holiness wished to remove an impediment that prevented the opening of a door to dialogue. Now he is waiting for equal openness to be expressed by the four bishops, in total adhesion to the doctrine and discipline of the church.
The extremely grave penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, which these bishops incurred on June 30, 1988, which was then formally declared on July 1 of the same year, was a consequence of their ordination by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a most grave canonical penalty, but in no way has it changed the juridical situation of the Society of St. Pius X, which, in this moment, does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic church. Also the four bishops, despite removal of the excommunication, do not have any canonical function in the church and do not licitly exercise any ministry in it.
2. Tradition, doctrine and the Second Vatican Council
For any future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X, a full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition.
As was already affirmed in the Decree of January 21, 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways judged opportune, to purse the questions which are still open with the interested parties, thus to be able to reach a full and satisfying solution to the problems that gave rise to this painful fracture.
3. Declarations on the Shoah
The positions of Bishop Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked this past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reconfirmed his full and indisputable solidarity with our brothers who received the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead “humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the human heart,” adding that the Shoah remains “a warning for all against hate, against denial or reductionism, because violence against even a single human being is violence against all.”
Bishop Williamson, in order to claim admission to episcopal functions in the church, must distance himself in absolutely unequivocal and public fashion from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were not known by the Holy Father when the excommunication was lifted.
The Holy Father asks accompaniment in prayer from all the faithful, that the Lord may illuminate the path of the church. May the commitment of the pastors and all the faithful grow to sustain the delicate and weighty mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the “custodian of the unity” of the church.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Pandering to Conservatives Could Prove Fatal to Obama's Stimulus Plan
He should have stuck with "I won."
That, reportedly, was President Obama's response to Republican Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill January 23rd, when they greeted his outreach for support of his economic stimulus package with a chorus of gripes--mostly to the effect that their pet theories about the economy, disgraced before the election and overwhelmingly defeated during it, weren't being considered.
"I won" was precisely the right response: the conservatives have done more than enough for the economy, and the nation needs no more of their failed 'solutions.'
And yet, despite the House Republicans' zero vote for his stimulus bill, the president continues to give bipartisan support for it higher priority than enacting a bill that will counter the conservative delusions that got the economy where it is today.
Several columnists who support Obama are expressing grave concern that continuing to pander to the conservatives will doom the stimulus to fail.
In yesterday's Washington Post, columnist E. J. Dionne Jr. asks "Bipartisanship at What Price?"
Dionne acknowledges that Obama's outreach is politically popular "because a streak of anti-partisanship has run through the American soul since the founding of the republic." On the economy in particular, he also salutes Obama's emphasis that "Americans will have more confidence in the future if they see the nation's politicians cooperating to resolve the crisis."
But the emphasis needs to be on inviting the Republicans to bipartisanship and inviting American wrath if they decline, not encouraging them to use the stimulus package to reassert ideas and approaches that have already proved useless and the electorate rejects. Otherwise, Obama squanders what he won and concedes the political high-ground pointlessly. Dionne argues:
"If achieving bipartisanship takes priority over the actual content of policy, then the Republicans are handed a powerful weapon. In theory, they can keep moving the bar indefinitely. And each concession to their sensibilities threatens solidarity in the president's own camp."
For, as Dionne points out, the so-called 'partisan' bill the Republicans accused Speaker Pelosi and her lieutenants of pushing was based hugely on the administration's own proposals. Following Rahm Emanuel's dictum "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Obama wants to use the stimulus bill not only to promote job-creation, consumer spending, freer credit and the like, but also to begin movement toward some of his larger objectives--especially, reforming our health care and education systems. Obama should not allow these objectives to be delayed "in pursuit of a nebulous cross-party comity."
Also pointless pandering to conservatives is making continuing private ownership of failed banks a higher priority than getting a return on the billions of taxpayer dollars already invested in those banks. Indulging in this fiction is just as self-defeating.
Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist and winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize for economics, says "We can't afford to squander money giving huge windfalls to banks and their executives, merely to preserve the illusion of private ownership." He argues that "Pumping in enough taxpayer money to make the banks sound would, in effect, turn them into publicly owned enterprises."
In his latest weekly address, Obama called Wall Street bankers who gave themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses from Bush bailout funds shameful and irresponsible.
But as Krugman and Pulitzer Prize-winner Maureen Dowd both point out, Tim Geithner at Treasury and Barney Frank in Congress are reluctant to make tight restrictions on executive pay a condition for getting government aid, because it could keep some firms from seeking it. Yet this leaves Obama's outrage so much bluster, with no consequences for the bank executives and no program to ensure that additional bailout billions won't become more undue executive rewards.
Krugman is correct: the point of giving the banks taxpayer money is not to enrich the executives or the stockholders. The point is for taxpayers to own the banks and return them to solvency until new private buyers can be found. Otherwise, we simply pump billions down a hole.
Dowd is correct: "Anyone who gave bonuses after accepting federal aid should be fired, and that money should be disgorged to the Treasury."
Will that keep some businesses from seeking aid? Perhaps. But it won't be deserving businesses who agree to play by the rules. The only losers will be those who deserve to lose: those who will not join the rest of us in making the patriotic sacrifices required to get the economy off public life-support.
Do they wish us well? Hell, no. Why should we give a damn about them?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Combatting Hunger: Flood-Tolerant Rice Increases Yield Three- to Five-Fold
CNN reports a really creative advance in the fight against world hunger: three scientists, two from campuses of the University of California, have proven that a new flood-tolerant rice they developed multiplies the yield of rice fields three to five times. They expect that will make a significant dent in the 4 millions tons farmers lose each year to flooding. Excerpts from the CNN story follow:
If every scientist hopes to make at least one important discovery in her career, then University of California-Davis professor Pamela Ronald and her colleagues may have hit the jackpot.
Ronald's team works with rice, a grain most Americans take for granted, but which is a matter of life and death to much of the world. Thanks to their efforts to breed a new, hardier variety of rice, millions of people may not go hungry.
About half the world's population eats rice as a staple. Two-thirds of the diet of subsistence farmers in India and Bangladesh is made up entirely of rice. If rice crops suffer, it can mean starvation for millions.
"People [in the United States] think, well, if I don't have enough rice, I'll go to the store," said Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at UC-Davis. "That's not the situation in these villages. They're mostly subsistence farmers. They don't have cars."
As sea levels rise and world weather patterns worsen, flooding has become a major cause of rice crop loss. Scientists estimate 4 million tons of rice are lost every year because of flooding. That's enough rice to feed 30 million people.
So Ronald and her colleagues -- David Mackill, senior scientist at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and Julia Bailey-Serres, professor of genetics at the University of California-Riverside -- spent the last decade working to find a rice strain that could survive flooding for longer periods.
Mackill identified a flood-resistant gene 13 years ago in a low-yielding traditional Indian rice variety. He passed along the information to Ronald, who isolated the gene, called Sub1, and introduced it into normal rice varieties, generating rice that could withstand being submerged in water for 17 days.
The team relied on something called precision breeding, the ability to introduce very specific genes into plants without the associated baggage of other genes that might tag along in conventional breeding.
Using precision breeding, scientists introduced the Sub1 gene three years ago into test fields in Bangladesh and India. The subsequent rice harvests were a resounding success.
"The results were really terrific," said Ronald. "The farmers found three- to five-fold increases in yield due to flood tolerance. They can plant the normal way. They can harvest the normal way and it tastes the same. Farmers had more food for their families and they also had additional rice they could sell to bring a little bit of money into the household."
"The potential for impact is huge," agreed Mackill in a statement on the IRRI Web site. "In Bangladesh, for example, 20 percent of the rice land is flood prone and the country typically suffers several major floods each year. Submergence-tolerant varieties could make major inroads into Bangladesh's annual rice shortfall."
The researchers anticipate that the flood-tolerant rice plants will be available to farmers in Bangladesh and India within two years.
But Ronald has no plans to rest on her laurels.
"I feel a great sense of gratitude that I was able to contribute in this way," she said. "But the farmers have asked us, 'Can you develop varieties that are drought tolerant, salt tolerant? Can you develop varieties that are insect resistant?' There are always more things to work on."
If every scientist hopes to make at least one important discovery in her career, then University of California-Davis professor Pamela Ronald and her colleagues may have hit the jackpot.
Ronald's team works with rice, a grain most Americans take for granted, but which is a matter of life and death to much of the world. Thanks to their efforts to breed a new, hardier variety of rice, millions of people may not go hungry.
About half the world's population eats rice as a staple. Two-thirds of the diet of subsistence farmers in India and Bangladesh is made up entirely of rice. If rice crops suffer, it can mean starvation for millions.
"People [in the United States] think, well, if I don't have enough rice, I'll go to the store," said Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at UC-Davis. "That's not the situation in these villages. They're mostly subsistence farmers. They don't have cars."
As sea levels rise and world weather patterns worsen, flooding has become a major cause of rice crop loss. Scientists estimate 4 million tons of rice are lost every year because of flooding. That's enough rice to feed 30 million people.
So Ronald and her colleagues -- David Mackill, senior scientist at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and Julia Bailey-Serres, professor of genetics at the University of California-Riverside -- spent the last decade working to find a rice strain that could survive flooding for longer periods.
Mackill identified a flood-resistant gene 13 years ago in a low-yielding traditional Indian rice variety. He passed along the information to Ronald, who isolated the gene, called Sub1, and introduced it into normal rice varieties, generating rice that could withstand being submerged in water for 17 days.
The team relied on something called precision breeding, the ability to introduce very specific genes into plants without the associated baggage of other genes that might tag along in conventional breeding.
Using precision breeding, scientists introduced the Sub1 gene three years ago into test fields in Bangladesh and India. The subsequent rice harvests were a resounding success.
"The results were really terrific," said Ronald. "The farmers found three- to five-fold increases in yield due to flood tolerance. They can plant the normal way. They can harvest the normal way and it tastes the same. Farmers had more food for their families and they also had additional rice they could sell to bring a little bit of money into the household."
"The potential for impact is huge," agreed Mackill in a statement on the IRRI Web site. "In Bangladesh, for example, 20 percent of the rice land is flood prone and the country typically suffers several major floods each year. Submergence-tolerant varieties could make major inroads into Bangladesh's annual rice shortfall."
The researchers anticipate that the flood-tolerant rice plants will be available to farmers in Bangladesh and India within two years.
But Ronald has no plans to rest on her laurels.
"I feel a great sense of gratitude that I was able to contribute in this way," she said. "But the farmers have asked us, 'Can you develop varieties that are drought tolerant, salt tolerant? Can you develop varieties that are insect resistant?' There are always more things to work on."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fraternity of St. Pius X Disavows Holocaust-Denying Bishop and Orders Him to Shut Up
National Catholic Reporter correspondent John Allen Jr. says the Vatican released a statement today by religious superiors of Bishop Richard Williamson, saying that his Holocaust denials "do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity" and prohibiting him "from taking any public positions on political or historical questions."
If the gag order is in fact enforced, it might give the Vatican some help in its efforts to disentangle the issue of lifting the 1988 excommunications of Williamson and three other ultraconservative bishops from the issue of Williamson's Holocaust denial. However, since the Vatican II teachings which the Fraternity of St. Pius X deny include those affirming that God's covenant with the Jewish people is eternal and that anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews are sins, the Fraternity ought to be required to specifically affirm those teachings as a condition for being reconciled to the Catholic faith. The NCR story follows:
The Vatican today released a statement from Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and one of the four traditionalist bishops whose excommunication was rescinded in a Jan. 21 decree from the Congregation for Bishops.
The statement is in response to the uproar created by a recent interview on Swedish television in which another of the traditionalist bishops, Richard Williamson, asserted that the Nazis had not used gas chambers and that only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews had died in the Second World War.
The statement was released in Italian and French; the following is an NCR translation from the Italian.
We have become aware of an interview released by Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Fraternity of St. Pius X, to Swedish television. In this interview, he expressed himself on historical questions, and in particular on the question of the genocide against the Jews carried out by the Nazis.
It’s clear that a Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on questions that regard faith and morals. Our Fraternity does not claim any authority on other matters. Its mission is the propagation and restoration of authentic Catholic doctrine, expressed in the dogmas of the faith. It’s for this reason that we are known, accepted and respected in the entire world.
It’s with great sadness that we recognize the extent to which the violation of this mandate has done damage to our mission. The affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.
We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its mission.
This is something we cannot accept, and we declare that we will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to administer the sacraments of grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Menzingen, January 27, 2009
If the gag order is in fact enforced, it might give the Vatican some help in its efforts to disentangle the issue of lifting the 1988 excommunications of Williamson and three other ultraconservative bishops from the issue of Williamson's Holocaust denial. However, since the Vatican II teachings which the Fraternity of St. Pius X deny include those affirming that God's covenant with the Jewish people is eternal and that anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews are sins, the Fraternity ought to be required to specifically affirm those teachings as a condition for being reconciled to the Catholic faith. The NCR story follows:
The Vatican today released a statement from Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and one of the four traditionalist bishops whose excommunication was rescinded in a Jan. 21 decree from the Congregation for Bishops.
The statement is in response to the uproar created by a recent interview on Swedish television in which another of the traditionalist bishops, Richard Williamson, asserted that the Nazis had not used gas chambers and that only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews had died in the Second World War.
The statement was released in Italian and French; the following is an NCR translation from the Italian.
We have become aware of an interview released by Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Fraternity of St. Pius X, to Swedish television. In this interview, he expressed himself on historical questions, and in particular on the question of the genocide against the Jews carried out by the Nazis.
It’s clear that a Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on questions that regard faith and morals. Our Fraternity does not claim any authority on other matters. Its mission is the propagation and restoration of authentic Catholic doctrine, expressed in the dogmas of the faith. It’s for this reason that we are known, accepted and respected in the entire world.
It’s with great sadness that we recognize the extent to which the violation of this mandate has done damage to our mission. The affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.
We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its mission.
This is something we cannot accept, and we declare that we will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to administer the sacraments of grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Menzingen, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Dear Pope Benedict: Your "Dictatorship of Relativism" Is Getting Old. Try Getting Real.
Dear Pope Benedict:
On April 18, 2005, using your homily at a mass after John Paul II's death to promote your own candidacy for pope, you said:
"How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true.
"Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine," seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."
It certainly impressed Catholic conservatives at the time. And it so impressed the College of Cardinals that they did indeed elect you pope.
Isn't it curious, then, that your papacy to date has so often been one that "does not recognize anything as definitive" with papal pronouncements that often reflect only your "own ego and desires"?
The latest example is your decision, announced over the weekend, to reverse Pope John Paul II's 1988 excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, ordained by schismatic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to advance his denial of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and even the church's authority to convene it.
So much was this decision a matter of your "own ego and desires" that you made it and announced it without consulting other top Vatican officials. Analysts expressed concern that you are increasingly isolating yourself within the Vatican and seriously undermining the credibility and moral authority of the papacy.
It did not help, of course, that one of the excommunicated bishops, British-born Richard Williamson, had already angered Jewish officials around the globe for denying the reality of the Holocaust. The Vatican insisted that rehabilitating Williamson was in no way an endorsement of his Holocaust-denial. In fact, however, one of the Vatican II teachings which the Lefebvre crowd denies was the council's condemnation of anti-Semitism and regret for the church's historical involvement in persecution of Jews.
It turns out too that the Holocaust is not the only area where Richard Williamson suffers serious detachment from reality. The National Catholic Reporter has links to documentation that Williamson has said that: pedophiles are merely lonely men who deserve comfort rather than condemnation; women who wear shorts or pants sin; for all sorts of reasons, almost no woman should go to a university; and airplanes did not take down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
This, of course, is not the first time you have attempted to let your "own ego and desires" over-ride the clear teachings of Vatican II.
You did it when you tried to deny that other Christian denominations are actually churches.
You did it when you condemned theologians who upheld the idea that non-Christian religions should be respected as worthwhile approaches to the Living God.
You did it when you allowed wider use of the Old Latin Mass, without requiring those who value it to agree that it is one valuable liturgy among several others and not the only legitimate one the church may have.
As John Paul II's dogmatic watchdog, you did it when you tried to foreclose discussion of women's ordination by making ordination of males a matter of faith, rather than the accident of history and church discipline which it is.
You did it when you tried to silence liberation theologians and others who were faithfully spelling out the implications of Vatican II's Declaration on the Church in the Modern World.
But your gravest self-worship has been your failure to respect the multiple ways Vatican II said God's Spirit leads the church. The council introduced a healthy, accurate relativity by balancing Vatican I's emphasis on the authority of the pope with two other authorities: the authority of the body of bishops and the authority of the faithful as a whole.
Of the bishops, the council said: "The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of the bishops when that body exercises supreme teaching authority with the successor of Peter. To the resultant definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, whereby the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith."
Of the People of God as a whole, the council said: "The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith which characterizes the People as a whole, it manifests this unerring quality when, 'from the bishops down to the last member of the laity,' it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals."
No one pretended after Vatican II that these sources of authority could never be in conflict, or that how the church should move forward if they were in conflict had been resolved. That became apparent with the controversy over birth control, a scant few years after the council's end. But Vatican II's bottom line was that all three authorities were entitled to consideration and respect by everyone in the church.
Yet the bulk of your ecclesiastical career has been devoted to disrespecting and diminishing the authority of the bishops as expressed at Vatican II, and to denying the authority of the People of God as a whole to balance your own. Is it any wonder that Catholic observers and Protestant observers and Jewish observers and academic observers regard this latest Vatican aberration as more of the same?
Perhaps you could explain where you get the authority to lord it over the other bodies by which the Spirit has chosen to lead the church. Perhaps you could explain what gives you the right to make common cause with those who have spent decades denying the very legitimacy of Vatican II.
Perhaps, in short, you could explain how your behavior and actions are anything other than "a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."
Sincerely,
Gerald T. Floyd, Ph.D.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Darwin's Bicentennial, Evolution Tauted by Houston Museums, Libraries and Schools
In the University of St. Thomas library this morning, I came across a bookmark-size flyer for Darwin2009Houston, a website publicizing local events to celebrate the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth, the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species, and "the importance of the science of evolution."The website is hosted by the Houston Academy of Medicine - Texas Medical Center Library. Other institutions participating in and promoting the website include: Houston Public Library, Brazoria County Library System, Montgomery County Memorial Library Systems, Science Teachers Association of Texas, Houston Museum of Natural Science, Houston Zoo, Rice University's Fondren Library, University of Houston Libraries, and University of St. Thomas' Doherty Library. Other religious institutions supporting the website include Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church and Live Oak Friends Meeting.
The group's Advisory Board includes professionals from several of the institutions, including Donald R. Frohlich, PhD, professor of biology at the University of St. Thomas. The website also includes a blog that has postings on the importance of evolution going back to April 2008.
At a time when religious conservatives are trying once again to water down the statewide curriculum on evolution, it is gratifying that Darwin2009Houston is contributing to efforts to keep creationism, intelligent design and related religious claims out of the science classroom. It is also heartening that the library and the biology department of a Catholic university are continuing to uphold the Catholic tradition that there is no conflict between Genesis and Darwin's description of evolution.
The participants invite other institutions to join them. Here's hoping that many will!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Consider Baker Institute's 50-Cent per Gallon Gasoline Tax, Houston Chronicle Says
In an editorial today the Houston Chronicle says a 50-cent per gallon gasoline tax proposed January 18th by two energy experts at Rice University's Baker Institute has several merits and "deserves careful review" by the Obama administration. It is heartening that the necessity for such a tax is grasped by independent analysts in a city often touted as "the energy capitol of the world." The editorial follows, including a link I inserted to the original op-ed piece.
It was mere moments into his inaugural address before President Barack Obama warmed to the energy subject: “Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet,” Obama said.
And so they do. Gasoline prices may have backed off last summer’s $4-per-gallon highs, but there is widespread concern about a return to those price levels. Obama has spoken boldly about a new direction for the country in energy — including an ambitious green jobs program and eventual energy independence.
But the new administration has moved more gingerly on the question of a gasoline tax to slow demand and fund noncarbon alternatives. Steven Chu, Obama’s nominee as energy secretary, says such a tax is off the table for now, given the nation’s economic straits.
We understand sensitivities about adding to individual Americans’ tax burden while jobs are disappearing and household budgets are shrinking. But the interim before discussion of a gasoline tax returns to the national agenda, as it most certainly will, could be fruitfully spent with a thorough briefing on the subject. We would respectfully steer the new administration’s attention to the thorough scholarship on the subject done by energy fellows at Rice University’s Baker Institute.
In their recent Outlook piece (“ENERGY / Higher gas tax could help solve U.S. economic woes / Raise rates to wean country from oil imports,” Sunday, Jan. 18), Baker’s Amy Myers Jaffe and Kenneth Medlock laid out the benefits of gradual implementation of a 50-cent gasoline tax with a rebate for low-income consumers.
When combined with an increase in average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to 50 miles per gallon, the two estimate that a 50-cent tax could cut U.S. reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent over the next 20 years. Such a strategy also would lower greenhouse emissions in a meaningful way. Lastly, a gas tax would make it less likely that American drivers would face spikes to $4 gas by moderating consumption levels.
Meanwhile, the revenues accruing from such a tax would be significant — $75 billion annually at 2007 consumption levels. Used wisely, these dollars could build a bridge from the carbon era to greater reliance on renewable energy sources.
The Baker Institute scholarship on the impact of a gasoline tax deserves careful review by the new administration.
It was mere moments into his inaugural address before President Barack Obama warmed to the energy subject: “Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet,” Obama said.
And so they do. Gasoline prices may have backed off last summer’s $4-per-gallon highs, but there is widespread concern about a return to those price levels. Obama has spoken boldly about a new direction for the country in energy — including an ambitious green jobs program and eventual energy independence.
But the new administration has moved more gingerly on the question of a gasoline tax to slow demand and fund noncarbon alternatives. Steven Chu, Obama’s nominee as energy secretary, says such a tax is off the table for now, given the nation’s economic straits.
We understand sensitivities about adding to individual Americans’ tax burden while jobs are disappearing and household budgets are shrinking. But the interim before discussion of a gasoline tax returns to the national agenda, as it most certainly will, could be fruitfully spent with a thorough briefing on the subject. We would respectfully steer the new administration’s attention to the thorough scholarship on the subject done by energy fellows at Rice University’s Baker Institute.
In their recent Outlook piece (“ENERGY / Higher gas tax could help solve U.S. economic woes / Raise rates to wean country from oil imports,” Sunday, Jan. 18), Baker’s Amy Myers Jaffe and Kenneth Medlock laid out the benefits of gradual implementation of a 50-cent gasoline tax with a rebate for low-income consumers.
When combined with an increase in average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to 50 miles per gallon, the two estimate that a 50-cent tax could cut U.S. reliance on foreign oil by more than 50 percent over the next 20 years. Such a strategy also would lower greenhouse emissions in a meaningful way. Lastly, a gas tax would make it less likely that American drivers would face spikes to $4 gas by moderating consumption levels.
Meanwhile, the revenues accruing from such a tax would be significant — $75 billion annually at 2007 consumption levels. Used wisely, these dollars could build a bridge from the carbon era to greater reliance on renewable energy sources.
The Baker Institute scholarship on the impact of a gasoline tax deserves careful review by the new administration.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Shame on You, Barack Obama, For Inviting Bishop Gene Robinson, Then Silencing Him
Were gay Americans ever meant to be included in "We Are One," the inauguration kick-off event at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday?
Apparently not, judging from the organizers' contemptible treatment of gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson.
The inauguration committee made a huge public deal about inviting Robinson to give the invocation for the event. But then they made him speak before HBO began its exclusive television coverage, before the sound system was working for most of the live audience, and before the president-elect was even in attendance. So much for atoning for promoting quirky evangelist Rick Warren as the new Billy Graham.
Shame on the Presidential Inauguration Committee for trying to keep Robinson from being seen or heard.
Shame on HBO for acceding to the committee's decision "to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show."
And above all, shame on Barack Obama for allowing his inauguration party to be yet another occasion to deny equal civil rights for gay people--at the memorial to the Great Emancipator, no less.
Apparently not, judging from the organizers' contemptible treatment of gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson.
The inauguration committee made a huge public deal about inviting Robinson to give the invocation for the event. But then they made him speak before HBO began its exclusive television coverage, before the sound system was working for most of the live audience, and before the president-elect was even in attendance. So much for atoning for promoting quirky evangelist Rick Warren as the new Billy Graham.
Shame on the Presidential Inauguration Committee for trying to keep Robinson from being seen or heard.
Shame on HBO for acceding to the committee's decision "to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show."
And above all, shame on Barack Obama for allowing his inauguration party to be yet another occasion to deny equal civil rights for gay people--at the memorial to the Great Emancipator, no less.
As far as the HBO audience knew, Robinson was never there. He was not seen during the live broadcast, from 2:30-4:30 ET, nor during any of the successive re-broadcasts on various HBO channels.
The only viewers who had any clue that Robinson actually spoke were those like me who watched CNN's coverage before the event. I could see Bishop Robinson standing at the podium, as pictured above. However, since HBO had exclusive rights to the production and would not allow CNN to show any of the performances, I assumed naively that the bishop was just testing the microphone. Once HBO began with Copeland's "Fanfare for the Common Man," it became clear that HBO's audience was never going see Robinson or his prayer.
One blogger reports that a spokesman for the Presidential Inauguration Committee has just issued this apology for excluding Robinson: "We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev. Robinson's invocation to be included in the televised portion of yesterday's program. We regret the error in executing this plan - but are gratified that hundreds of thousands of people who gathered on the mall heard his eloquent prayer for our nation that was a fitting start to our event."
But that apology rings false in light of HBO's statement that the committee instructed them not to cover Robinson's prayer. It also does not address why a sound system that was working fine just before the invocation suddenly broke down right when Robinson spoke.
Fortunately the same blogger links to a YouTube video of Robinson's prayer, and gives a transcription of what he actually said.
Ironically, Robinson mentioned "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people" only once in his invocation, at the end of a sentence which began "Bless this nation with anger - anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color and ..."
The only viewers who had any clue that Robinson actually spoke were those like me who watched CNN's coverage before the event. I could see Bishop Robinson standing at the podium, as pictured above. However, since HBO had exclusive rights to the production and would not allow CNN to show any of the performances, I assumed naively that the bishop was just testing the microphone. Once HBO began with Copeland's "Fanfare for the Common Man," it became clear that HBO's audience was never going see Robinson or his prayer.
One blogger reports that a spokesman for the Presidential Inauguration Committee has just issued this apology for excluding Robinson: "We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev. Robinson's invocation to be included in the televised portion of yesterday's program. We regret the error in executing this plan - but are gratified that hundreds of thousands of people who gathered on the mall heard his eloquent prayer for our nation that was a fitting start to our event."
But that apology rings false in light of HBO's statement that the committee instructed them not to cover Robinson's prayer. It also does not address why a sound system that was working fine just before the invocation suddenly broke down right when Robinson spoke.
Fortunately the same blogger links to a YouTube video of Robinson's prayer, and gives a transcription of what he actually said.
Ironically, Robinson mentioned "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people" only once in his invocation, at the end of a sentence which began "Bless this nation with anger - anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color and ..."
How unfortunate that Robinson could be so inclusive in asking God's blessing on every human being without exception, but Obama's people could not include him.
It is now to the point that there is only one apology that would truly matter: let Bishop Robinson speak at the inauguration itself. Why should anything less than that be believed?
It is now to the point that there is only one apology that would truly matter: let Bishop Robinson speak at the inauguration itself. Why should anything less than that be believed?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
GM Grasps Necessity of Higher Gas Taxes, But Obama Takes Them "Off the Table"
What's wrong with this picture?
For over a decade New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been the prime mover of a U.S. energy policy that would increase gasoline taxes and keep them high, so that the price of gasoline would, in one brilliant stroke, (1) induce consumers to buy fuel-efficient small cars, (2) lower domestic consumption of gasoline, (3) increase U.S. leverage against oil-states that wish us harm, and (4) reduce greenhouse cases generated by vehicle tailpipes.
So Friedman must really be sputtering with incredulity at Tuesday's turn of events.
On the one hand, General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Robert Lutz told Bloomberg News that lower fuel prices are discouraging U.S. sales of small cars and gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. The Bloomberg report continued:
Gasoline prices “are completely messing it up,” Lutz said today in a Bloomberg interview, referring to demand for small vehicles. “Nobody wants them.”
His comments reflect the swing back to pickups, sport- utility vehicles and vans at the end of 2008. The light trucks accounted for about 52 percent of vehicles sold in the U.S. in each of last year’s final two months, as gasoline tumbled to $1.62 a gallon from its $4.11 peak on July 15. For the year, cars outsold light trucks for the first time since 2000.
“We can’t sell small cars right now,” Lutz said. “People are buying trucks again.”
Lutz then went on to advocate what until very recently would have been heresy in Detroit: Obama's national energy policy must include higher gasoline prices. Score one for Friedman.
But on the other hand we have The Washington Post report on testimony to Congress 1/13 by Steven Chu, Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Energy. Departing from otherwise insightful and balanced remarks, Chu's comments on gasoline taxes led the Post to write this:
Although Chu once called for sharply raising gasoline taxes to cut oil use, yesterday he echoed Obama's comments that given the troubled economy, higher gasoline taxes are for now "off the table." He nevertheless continued to defend the idea of higher taxes, noting that they could reduce demand for petroleum products and encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, ultimately pushing down crude oil prices.
Clearly Obama needs to reconsider. The troubled economy will only get more troubled if Americans return to driving gas-guzzlers, thereby driving the price of gasoline back upwards, increasing greenhouse gases and making us even more dependent on oil-rich dictators. The time is ripe for higher gasoline taxes that should have been the centerpiece of U.S. energy policy for 20 or 30 years. If we let the moment slip away, shame on us all.
For over a decade New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been the prime mover of a U.S. energy policy that would increase gasoline taxes and keep them high, so that the price of gasoline would, in one brilliant stroke, (1) induce consumers to buy fuel-efficient small cars, (2) lower domestic consumption of gasoline, (3) increase U.S. leverage against oil-states that wish us harm, and (4) reduce greenhouse cases generated by vehicle tailpipes.
So Friedman must really be sputtering with incredulity at Tuesday's turn of events.
On the one hand, General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Robert Lutz told Bloomberg News that lower fuel prices are discouraging U.S. sales of small cars and gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. The Bloomberg report continued:
Gasoline prices “are completely messing it up,” Lutz said today in a Bloomberg interview, referring to demand for small vehicles. “Nobody wants them.”
His comments reflect the swing back to pickups, sport- utility vehicles and vans at the end of 2008. The light trucks accounted for about 52 percent of vehicles sold in the U.S. in each of last year’s final two months, as gasoline tumbled to $1.62 a gallon from its $4.11 peak on July 15. For the year, cars outsold light trucks for the first time since 2000.
“We can’t sell small cars right now,” Lutz said. “People are buying trucks again.”
Lutz then went on to advocate what until very recently would have been heresy in Detroit: Obama's national energy policy must include higher gasoline prices. Score one for Friedman.
But on the other hand we have The Washington Post report on testimony to Congress 1/13 by Steven Chu, Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Energy. Departing from otherwise insightful and balanced remarks, Chu's comments on gasoline taxes led the Post to write this:
Although Chu once called for sharply raising gasoline taxes to cut oil use, yesterday he echoed Obama's comments that given the troubled economy, higher gasoline taxes are for now "off the table." He nevertheless continued to defend the idea of higher taxes, noting that they could reduce demand for petroleum products and encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, ultimately pushing down crude oil prices.
Clearly Obama needs to reconsider. The troubled economy will only get more troubled if Americans return to driving gas-guzzlers, thereby driving the price of gasoline back upwards, increasing greenhouse gases and making us even more dependent on oil-rich dictators. The time is ripe for higher gasoline taxes that should have been the centerpiece of U.S. energy policy for 20 or 30 years. If we let the moment slip away, shame on us all.
French Interventionism Is Out-Performing All Other Western Economic Models
Holder Schmieding, chief European economist at the Bank of America, writes Newsweek's The Global Investor column, more or less monthly. In his latest he argues that the French penchant for aggressive state intervention in the economy is the only Western model that presently is working well. His list of models which have failed include those of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark and the European Union as a whole. Here are the final paragraphs of Schmieding's analysis:
While all these models have lost credibility, French-style pragmatism is spreading across Europe. When financial markets were working well, the Parisian penchant for supporting state-favored industries and national policy objectives was met with deep skepticism abroad. But with the unfolding crisis, the French habit to readily intervene in market processes has become a more widely accepted norm.
At its core, the French approach to economic management reflects a deep-rooted suspicion that the free movement of capital may not always yield politically desired outcomes. Unfortunately, the global credit crunch has strengthened this French argument, although closer inspection suggests that much of the financial excesses that turned to waste can be traced back to misguided signals sent by governments and central banks, rather than to alleged private-sector malfunctions. We expect France to continue its calls for tighter regulation of global capital markets.
Fortunately, France's forceful president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is not only an interventionist. He also champions a common-sense approach to labor markets, with a strong emphasis on old-fashioned work ethics and a contempt for socialist lunacies such as the compulsory 35-hour workweek. So far, the European Union has been characterized by a very liberal regime for capital markets, and often grossly inefficient labor markets. If the French model continues to gain steam, this may be flipped—labor markets may be allowed to work better, while financial systems may be more regulated than before. Global investors can only hope that Europe gets the balance right. If ad-hoc interventionism spreads too far, the continent may eventually have to pay a hefty price in terms of constrained opportunities for innovation and growth. Europe would then be outclassed once again by the eventual resurgence of the more flexible United States.
While all these models have lost credibility, French-style pragmatism is spreading across Europe. When financial markets were working well, the Parisian penchant for supporting state-favored industries and national policy objectives was met with deep skepticism abroad. But with the unfolding crisis, the French habit to readily intervene in market processes has become a more widely accepted norm.
At its core, the French approach to economic management reflects a deep-rooted suspicion that the free movement of capital may not always yield politically desired outcomes. Unfortunately, the global credit crunch has strengthened this French argument, although closer inspection suggests that much of the financial excesses that turned to waste can be traced back to misguided signals sent by governments and central banks, rather than to alleged private-sector malfunctions. We expect France to continue its calls for tighter regulation of global capital markets.
Fortunately, France's forceful president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is not only an interventionist. He also champions a common-sense approach to labor markets, with a strong emphasis on old-fashioned work ethics and a contempt for socialist lunacies such as the compulsory 35-hour workweek. So far, the European Union has been characterized by a very liberal regime for capital markets, and often grossly inefficient labor markets. If the French model continues to gain steam, this may be flipped—labor markets may be allowed to work better, while financial systems may be more regulated than before. Global investors can only hope that Europe gets the balance right. If ad-hoc interventionism spreads too far, the continent may eventually have to pay a hefty price in terms of constrained opportunities for innovation and growth. Europe would then be outclassed once again by the eventual resurgence of the more flexible United States.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
O Come, O Come Emmanuel: God Yearns for Union Just As We Do
National Catholic Reporter columnist Jamie L. Mansion, who received her master of divinity degree from Yale Divinity School, is director of social justice ministries at Jan Hus Presbyterian Church in New York. I thought her reflection on God-with-us, published in NCR's 12/26 edition, was poignant and insightful. It follows.
The line "Who mourns in lonely exile here," from the antiphon “O Come, O Come Emmanuel” runs in my mind and heart throughout Advent. Its haunting melody at once evokes loneliness and longing. It expresses exile, an isolation that runs so deep it seems that no human presence can bring any comfort. That such a profoundly personal experience is attributed to the group of people we know as Israel never ceases to fascinate and move me -- especially since I have been restless with loneliness and longing for most of my life.
My own personal mourning in lonely exile is in many ways a repercussion of a life-long battle with depression. I remember being caught in the throes of one particularly severe bout while I was in graduate school. I was sitting alone in my apartment, my head in my hands, feeling completely lost and alone, unable to think of one person to whom I could reach out.
Only words could keep me company that night. I remembered a quote from one of the letters of Vincent van Gogh. In an attempt to describe his own struggle with loneliness, Van Gogh wrote to his brother, Theo: “One may have a blazing hearth in one’s soul, yet no one ever comes to sit by it. Passersby see only a wisp of smoke rising from the chimney and continue on their way.”
I sat there, immobilized by grief, and thought about the blazing hearth in my own soul -- the passion both of my innermost yearning and of my suffering in mental and emotional anguish. How desperately I wanted to think of someone who might be willing to follow the wisps of smoke through the chimney, and find the fire within me and sit by it. I longed for a hearth, a home where I could dwell and flourish. I was in exile, deprived of any human presence that could get through to me, heal my broken heart and release me from this prison.
There was no one in my life who could be with me at that level. As my depression lifted and I got older, I realized there probably never will be one person who could do all of these things for me -- not unless I wanted a lifetime membership to codependents anonymous! But nevertheless, I learned a lot about feeling utterly alone and abandoned that night. Mourning in lonely exile turned out to be quite formative.
There is so much noise now, so many ceaseless opportunities for distraction, that I wonder how many people have had the chance to be aware of their longing and conscious of their isolation. The current hallmarks of progress -- cell phones and text messages, e-mails and Web sites, smart phones and Skype -- have made us more connected, but less communicative; more contactable, but less present; more reachable and yet somehow so much more isolated. These communications devices have done much to temper and mute longing and loneliness, especially for my generation. Yet, paradoxically, all of this progress has created conditions for unprecedented experiences of loneliness. By embracing my own exile, I learned about the human need for God. In my yearning, I began to understand Emmanuel.
God is with us. Yes, God was present to me during this suffering, whether I was aware of it or not. But I believe that God was with me, and with all people who have an experience like mine, in a much deeper sense. God was with me, and Van Gogh and the wandering Israel, in all of our longing, because God yearns for union just as we do. This, after all, is what Advent celebrates and anticipates: the glory of the Incarnation. The awesome realization that God so desires to be with us that God is willing to take on human flesh to seek a deeper union with us. No higher level of academic learning or childlike sense of wonder can ever capture a mystery so great and so extraordinary. Our yearning for divine presence is united with God’s longing for human presence. Though our longing for both divine and human presence seems so intense at times, it is only a glimpse of the longing that God has to be with us.
As our drive to find community continues to break down and the church persists in fracturing our hearts, it may seem more challenging than ever to find a place to dwell with God. Yet, I believe that if we can attune our vision, we might find that God is right here, trying to break through to us, longing to be found. God is that blazing hearth in our midst, who shines out to us in the faces of loved ones and strangers, who reaches out in the mightiest waves of the ocean and the gentlest breezes in the desert, who calls to us in the cries of the broken and the shouts of the joyful, who yearns for us in the stroke of paint on the canvas or the crescendo of the song. We must continually beckon, O Come Emmanuel, and seek out a hearth, the intimacy that will free us from exile. But the truly glorious mystery is that God beckons us with a desire that far surpasses ours.
God is with us, shining in the darkness of our deserts, gleaming as a bright morning star in our own nights of loneliness, and radiating above our broken mangers as the promise of union both present and future. And this is truly a reason to rejoice, rejoice.
The line "Who mourns in lonely exile here," from the antiphon “O Come, O Come Emmanuel” runs in my mind and heart throughout Advent. Its haunting melody at once evokes loneliness and longing. It expresses exile, an isolation that runs so deep it seems that no human presence can bring any comfort. That such a profoundly personal experience is attributed to the group of people we know as Israel never ceases to fascinate and move me -- especially since I have been restless with loneliness and longing for most of my life.
My own personal mourning in lonely exile is in many ways a repercussion of a life-long battle with depression. I remember being caught in the throes of one particularly severe bout while I was in graduate school. I was sitting alone in my apartment, my head in my hands, feeling completely lost and alone, unable to think of one person to whom I could reach out.
Only words could keep me company that night. I remembered a quote from one of the letters of Vincent van Gogh. In an attempt to describe his own struggle with loneliness, Van Gogh wrote to his brother, Theo: “One may have a blazing hearth in one’s soul, yet no one ever comes to sit by it. Passersby see only a wisp of smoke rising from the chimney and continue on their way.”
I sat there, immobilized by grief, and thought about the blazing hearth in my own soul -- the passion both of my innermost yearning and of my suffering in mental and emotional anguish. How desperately I wanted to think of someone who might be willing to follow the wisps of smoke through the chimney, and find the fire within me and sit by it. I longed for a hearth, a home where I could dwell and flourish. I was in exile, deprived of any human presence that could get through to me, heal my broken heart and release me from this prison.
There was no one in my life who could be with me at that level. As my depression lifted and I got older, I realized there probably never will be one person who could do all of these things for me -- not unless I wanted a lifetime membership to codependents anonymous! But nevertheless, I learned a lot about feeling utterly alone and abandoned that night. Mourning in lonely exile turned out to be quite formative.
There is so much noise now, so many ceaseless opportunities for distraction, that I wonder how many people have had the chance to be aware of their longing and conscious of their isolation. The current hallmarks of progress -- cell phones and text messages, e-mails and Web sites, smart phones and Skype -- have made us more connected, but less communicative; more contactable, but less present; more reachable and yet somehow so much more isolated. These communications devices have done much to temper and mute longing and loneliness, especially for my generation. Yet, paradoxically, all of this progress has created conditions for unprecedented experiences of loneliness. By embracing my own exile, I learned about the human need for God. In my yearning, I began to understand Emmanuel.
God is with us. Yes, God was present to me during this suffering, whether I was aware of it or not. But I believe that God was with me, and with all people who have an experience like mine, in a much deeper sense. God was with me, and Van Gogh and the wandering Israel, in all of our longing, because God yearns for union just as we do. This, after all, is what Advent celebrates and anticipates: the glory of the Incarnation. The awesome realization that God so desires to be with us that God is willing to take on human flesh to seek a deeper union with us. No higher level of academic learning or childlike sense of wonder can ever capture a mystery so great and so extraordinary. Our yearning for divine presence is united with God’s longing for human presence. Though our longing for both divine and human presence seems so intense at times, it is only a glimpse of the longing that God has to be with us.
As our drive to find community continues to break down and the church persists in fracturing our hearts, it may seem more challenging than ever to find a place to dwell with God. Yet, I believe that if we can attune our vision, we might find that God is right here, trying to break through to us, longing to be found. God is that blazing hearth in our midst, who shines out to us in the faces of loved ones and strangers, who reaches out in the mightiest waves of the ocean and the gentlest breezes in the desert, who calls to us in the cries of the broken and the shouts of the joyful, who yearns for us in the stroke of paint on the canvas or the crescendo of the song. We must continually beckon, O Come Emmanuel, and seek out a hearth, the intimacy that will free us from exile. But the truly glorious mystery is that God beckons us with a desire that far surpasses ours.
God is with us, shining in the darkness of our deserts, gleaming as a bright morning star in our own nights of loneliness, and radiating above our broken mangers as the promise of union both present and future. And this is truly a reason to rejoice, rejoice.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Gay Bishop Will Give Invocation Sunday at Lincoln Memorial Inaugural Kick-off
The Huffington Post, among several other news outlets, reports that openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson has been invited to give the invocation at "We Are One," the kick-off event this Sunday for Barack Obama's inauguration festivities.Obama's gay supporters were quite dismayed by his choice of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration itself--largely because of Warren's support for outlawing gay marriage in California (despite his church's significant outreach to AIDS sufferers). Several see inviting Robinson as atonement of sorts for that slight.
While it is possible to view Robinson's invocation as a consolation prize, it should at least be seen as a significant one, for several reasons.
Robinson himself has made it clear that he finds the event and its physical location especially important to advancing gay rights. It is not lost on him that choosing the world's most prominent gay clergy-person to lead off an event called "We Are One" is a marvelous opportunity to stress that gay people should be included in equal rights for everyone. Staging the event at the memorial to the Great Emancipator and the site of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech ties the struggle for gay equality to the historic struggle for racial equality that achieved its zenith with Obama's election.
The Robinson invocation is being seen in England as prominent support for the Episcopal Church USA in its fight to keep Robinson a bishop despite sustained harsh criticism and schismatic actions by conservative Anglican bishops from the Global South.
Several commentators also see Robinson's position as the first prayer-leader at the first official inaugural event as a sign that even though Obama may never be in a political position to support gay marriage, he may yet emerge as the president who does the most toward actually achieving full civil equality for gay people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
