Catholic Pulse Blog

When Is A Person Not A Person?

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that struck down as unconstitutional a proposed ballot amendment that would have defined human “personhood” as beginning at conception.

The obvious effect of such an amendment, were it to become law, would be to guarantee equal protection under the law for unborn persons and, as a consequence, to outlaw abortion in the state.

Because the U.S. high court did not comment on its denial, we have no insight as to its rationale. Perhaps the personhood amendment did not pose a sufficient challenge to precedent; perhaps the justice believed such initiatives are the proper domain of the individual states. What we do know is that such personhood amendments have yet to meet with success at the state level. Last November, voters in Mississippi handily rejected a ballot measure similar to the Oklahoma amendment; this summer, a Colorado personhood initiative failed to garner enough valid signatures to win a place on the November ballot.

Whether personhood amendments provide the most formidable challenge to the legal structure of abortion law in this country is a question worth considering. Yet the aim of personhood — equal protection under the law from the moment of conception — goes to the very heart of the pro-life argument.

History tells us of how personhood was argued and won once before in a court of law in a case that also had a strong Oklahoma connection. In 1879, a U.S. District Court judge in Nebraska heard the case of Chief Standing Bear, a member of the Ponca tribe that had been forcibly relocated from their Nebraska reservation to so-called “Indian territory” in what is now the state of Oklahoma. Having returned to Nebraska for the ceremonial burial of his eldest son, one of many Poncas who had died of starvation or malaria in their new land, the U.S. government had Standing Bear arrested. Sympathetic journalists, attorneys, and citizens of Omaha took up his cause, and Standing Bear had his day in court.

After two days of hearings, Standing Bear asked to speak on his own behalf. Stretching forth his hand to the judge, he said through a translator, in part:

That hand is not the color of yours, but if I prick it, the blood will flow, and I shall feel pain. The blood is of the same color as yours. God made me, and I am a man.

The entire court was moved to tears, and the judge ultimately ruled that Standing Bear and all Native Americans were indeed persons and were thus entitled to protection under the law.

It is an important detail of the story that Chief Standing Bear enjoyed much popular support for his cause — from the press, from folks in the legal profession, and from ordinary citizens. Without such support, it would seem unlikely that his petition would ever be taken before a federal judge, and less likely still that history would even remember his plight. Standing Bear would probably have been forced back to Indian territory and lived out his years there in poverty.

That was 133 years ago. As it stands in 2012, we must continue to work, hope, and pray for the day when the personhood of the unborn is recognized in law so that they, too, may enjoy its equal protection.

– Gerald Korson

Opportunity in Crisis: The World Needs the Year of Faith, But We Need It First

Just in case you were thinking we didn’t need this Year of Faith or the New Evangelization…Out comes the 2012 American Values Survey by the Public Religion Research Institute.

There’s a lot in this – a lot worth reading and a lot worth criticizing. There are some really interesting numbers on political affiliations and presidential preferences; there are also some really questionable approaches to asking certain questions and analyzing certain segments of the population. I am sure all of this will be addressed, but in pouring through the 88 pages of material, something else struck me.

In the midst of a climate where the election has reached a fever-pitch and is subsequently dominating the air waves, it has become easy to lose sight of the monumental happenings at the Vatican. Not completely, of course, but the emphases shift. The stakes in any election, including this one, are high. Nevertheless, we must not fall prey to the temptation of salvation through politics. No matter how informed or successful we are in our political endeavors, or how much we pay attention to the daily political happenings so as to remain vigilant and ready, we will not be judged for how many times we check the polls. We cannot let ourselves be spellbound by political messianism. The temptation is great, so great in fact that the Holy Father dedicated a book to the topic. Salvation will not come through politics.

The Synod, the Year of Faith, and the New Evangelization, on the other hand, deal with salvation of the eternal variety.

What does this have to do with the 2012 American Values survey? A lot, actually.

So far as I can tell, most of the early headlines on the survey were about the religious compositions of President Obama and Governor Romney’s electoral coalitions, and about the political leanings of different religions and sub-groups. But as I went through the report, it was the non-political findings that made me stop and think the most.

For example, the report shows a trend in growth among the religiously unaffiliated across generations. Only nine percent of Seniors (ages 65+) are religiously homeless. By the time you get to Millennials (ages 18-29), that number jumps to 32 percent. 14 percent of those aged 50-64 are religiously unaffiliated, as are 19 percent of those aged 30-49, showing a steady build across generations.

Then there’s this: the Catholic faith suffered the biggest loss of adherents. The poll asked respondents what faith they grew up in, as well as what faith they identify themselves with now. Catholics posted a net loss of 9.4 percent (the highest), while the unaffiliateds grew their ranks by 11.6 percent.

In fact, the report finds that former Catholics who have moved into the unaffiliated category make up a stunning six percent of the American population.

Why did they leave? The survey doesn’t break it out by faith, specifically, but if we look at the generic numbers, the most predominate answers are lack of belief in God and/or the teaching of the Church, as well as a belief that organized religion is generally bad and causes problems.

Some of the respondents’ explanations are fascinating.

One respondent, who left the Catholic Church, was quoted as saying “I was raised in a Catholic house, and one commandment is thou shall not kill. In the army, I was a sniper, so for me to do my job, it was something I left behind.”

One-in-ten unaffiliated Americans say they left because their Church – whatever it may have been – goes against science and logic. One respondent said “I just guess it’s the inability of religion to cope with scientific findings. A lot of times, when science finds fact, then religions tend to either ignore it or say it’s wrong despite the facts.”

It’s easy and perhaps natural to be discouraged in the face of stats and stories like these. But, on the other hand, what a tremendous opportunity! What a startling example of both the need for and the gift the Year of Faith and the New Evangelization.

They are part of an integrated, two step process.

Many people are suffering from a “profound crisis of faith,” as the Holy Father put it in his apostolic letter announcing the Year. It is a crisis that the Year of Faith and the New Evangelization are meant to address. 

But to bring faith to the world, we need it first ourselves, otherwise, how can we hope to be effective participants in the New Evangelization? At least I know that’s the situation I find myself in. And that – I think – is the principal objective of the Year.

Commenting on one of St. Bernard’s most famous quotes, Jean-Baptiste Chautard put it this way in his magnum opus, Soul of the Apostolate, the favorite book of Pope Pius X:

“Is there anyone who does not know St. Bernard’s saying, to apostles, ‘If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels….’ The channels let the water flow away, and do not retain a drop. But the reservoir is first filled, and then, without emptying itself, pours out its overflow, which is ever renewed, over the fields which it waters. How many there are devoted to works, who are never anything but channels, and retain noting for themselves, but remain dry while trying to pass on life-giving grace to souls! ‘We have many channels in the Church today,’ St. Bernard added, sadly, ‘but very few reservoirs.’”

The Year of Faith gives us an opportunity to replenish our reservoir. And how are we to do that? Through a more robust prayer life and increased participation in the sacraments, to be sure, but we can also stock up by diving headlong into the deposit of faith, reading the Catechism, and digesting the Conciliar documents.

This is – after all – the Holy Father’s intention.

In his apostolic letter, he noted that:

 “….It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, ‘have lost nothing of their value or brilliance.  They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart….’”

“…. In order to arrive at a systematic knowledge of the content of the faith, all can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a precious and indispensible tool….It is in this sense that the Year of Faith will have to see a concerted effort to rediscover and study the fundamental content of the faith that receives its systematic and organic synthesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Only after we have renewed and prepared ourselves can we set out to be leaders of the New Evangelization and provide an authentic, Catholic witness to our families, our friends, our coworkers, and our communities.

“What the world is in particular need of today,” the Holy Father said, “is the credible witness of people enlightened in mind and heart by the word of the Lord, and capable of opening the hearts and minds of many to the desire for God and for true life, life without end.”

And this witness can make a difference. Consider some other interesting statistics from the study. The study sub-divided those who were unaffiliated into four groups, secular, agnostic or atheist, unattached believers, and uncategorized. 78 percent of the secular group and 79 percent of atheists and agnostics say that they seldom or never attend religious services. Could it be that a large majority of that group remains secular, atheistic, or agnostic because of a lack of exposure to the Faith? Many of them likely have simply never been evangelized at all.

Furthermore, only 12 percent of secular Americans and 13 percent of atheist or agnostic Americans say that their beliefs (or lack thereof) are very important in their lives. Perhaps for many, or even most, their atheism, agnosticism, or secularism it is not a deliberate, vital identity. They are taking a negative stance, rather than a positive one.

And we know that especially with the young (the most unaffiliated generation) the longing for something more, something deeper is there.  Not just theoretically from an Augustinian standpoint (of course that is true as well), but reinforced by the data as well.

A recent Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll found that “to be spiritual or close to God” was the number one long-term life goal of those aged 18-29. 31 percent of that generation identified that goal as one of their top two. Only 21 percent of “The Greatest Generation,” 19 percent of “Baby Boomers”, and 17 percent of “Gen Xers” did the same when asked to reflect on their top two life goals when they were 21.

For what it’s worth, the next highest goal among the Millennial generation was “to get married and have a family.” 27 percent said it was one of the top two goals of theirs. “to get rich,” “to be an expert in your field,” and “to have fun,” all scored at or near the single digits.

It’s not all rosy and I don’t mean to say that it is. There are plenty of statistics, in the PRRI poll and elsewhere that indicate a decline in overall belief and a deterioration in overall attitudes towards religion. But nevertheless, we cannot wish the problem away.

Instead, we can and should seize the tremendous opportunity that we’ve been given this year to prepare ourselves to be participants in the New Evangelization.

The world needs us –or rather the world needs Christ - but before we can be of service to Him in the world, we must first prepare ourselves by deepening our prayer lives, increasing our participation in the sacraments, expanding our knowledge of Catholic teaching, and growing in our faith.

There’s no time like the present, and there is no better year than the Year of Faith.

~ Matt St. John

Extremism Reconsidered: The Truth About Abortion Statistics

Abortion has found its way back into the election narrative this week thanks to another down-ballot race. This time, the proximate cause was Indiana Senate candidate Richard Murdock and his comments at a recent debate.

In the aftermath, many in the media have been painting Mourdock, Governor Romney,  Congressman Ryan, and Republicans in general with the same “extremist” brush, pointing to polls that show that most Americans favor exceptions on abortion.

Polls do show most Americans favor exceptions, but that doesn’t even begin to tell the whole story.

So let’s look at the facts.

Most committed pro-lifers and pro-choicers are aware that the country has been edging slightly pro-life lately. In fact, the most recent Gallup poll from May of this year shows that 50% of Americans identify as pro-life, while a record-low 41% identify themselves as pro-choice. A clear victory for the pro-life camp, to be sure, but hardly a large enough margin to earn either side the label of “extreme.”

But wait, there’s more.

When you remove the labels, drill-down, and examine what the American people really believe, the accusations of extremism get turned upside down.

In one of their Moral Compass polls, the Knights of Columbus and Marist Poll gave respondents not just two choices (pro-life v. pro-choice) on the abortion question, but six: never permitted, life of the mother as only exception, rape, incest, and life of the mother as only exceptions, any time during the first trimester, any time during the first two trimesters, and unrestricted abortion.

The absolutely stunning results were analyzed in detail by Carl Anderson in his recent book Beyond a House Divided.  In it, he explains why the story of the nation divided on abortion (and on other issues for that matter) is a myth. It turns out that 79% of Americans want significant restriction of abortion, with just under 20% favoring unrestricted abortion or abortion in the first two trimesters.

But what does it mean for the current claims of extremism in the presidential race?

According to Paul Ryan in the recent Vice Presidential debate, “a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.” The Obama/Biden position, by contrast, is that abortion ought to be legal in all any and all instances. 

Conveniently for the purposes of our current analysis, both positions were among the six choices offered in the KofC/Marist Poll.

The Romney position is one that is held by 31% of Americans, the plurality among the six choices. The President and Vice President’s position is held in common with just 12% of the American electorate.

In their commitment to keeping all restrictions on abortion off the books, the President and the Vice President find themselves towing the line on a position that only a tenth of the country holds.

Their opponents, the supposed “extremists” for wanting to restrict abortion to the three exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother, Governor Romney is in step with not only 31% who believe his approach is exactly right, but the additional 20% who would restrict abortion even further, either by not permitting it under any circumstances or only in the case of the life of the mother.

But that’s not all. 28% of Americans believe that abortion should be allowed only during the first three months of a pregnancy, and another 8% believe that abortion should only be allowed during the first six months.

So, the reality is that the President and Vice President’s extreme position is more pro-abortion than 88% of the country.

The contrast is stark. So why is there an air of credibility when pundits and politicians chide the pro-lifers for being extreme?

There shouldn’t be. The American people are overwhelmingly pro-life. No, they don’t overwhelmingly support prohibiting abortion in all instances, but 79% of them are in favor of placing some restrictions on abortion. 

What should we make of all of this? There is an overwhelming, clear, statistically-supported opportunity to drastically reduce the amount of abortions and to begin to turn back the Culture of Death. What the numbers and Anderson’s book show is that a majority of both pro-life and pro-choice Americans favor significant restrictions with abortion. The American people are more with us than against us. This transcends party lines and political identifications.

Consider this quote from Blessed John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae:

“…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. “

Perhaps we’ve found a starting line.

***

In a column on abortion extremism during the Democratic National Convention, Anderson argued the same point about where the American people really are, as opposed to where they’re purported to be. Stressing that the President’s emphasis on abortion and contraception may very well hurt him in the long run, Anderson began his column with the following:

On November 7, we may well look back at this week’s events and see this was the week that President Obama lost the presidency – because of the abortion issue.

When you consider the numbers, it’s plain to see that Anderson’s logic is anything, but – well – extreme.

~ Matt St. John

A Child’s-Eye View Of The Electoral Process

Do you ever wonder what our children think of all the fuss over the upcoming election?

The thought occurred to me the other night as my wife and I sat and watched the third and final presidential debate. Some of our older children tuned in with varying degrees of interest, but a couple of our elementary-school daughters also stayed up to witness the event as part of a class assignment.

I suspect that to the younger kids the whole thing sounded a bit like a playground spat. To paraphrase:

            Candidate #1: My plan will do A, B, and C.

            Candidate #2: No, it won’t. The math doesn’t work.

            Candidate #1: Does too!

            Candidate #2: Does not! And last month, you said you would do D, E, and F, not A, B,   and C.

            Candidate #1: Did not!

            Candidate #2: Did too! Liar!

These little verbal sparring matches are usually rather obtuse, let’s face it — long on rhetoric, short on details, big on posturing, zingers, and soundbites. As I suffered through the broadcast, I wondered how much benefit the young ones were actually getting out of it other than a later-than-usual bedtime.

Civility is also a frequent casualty in these debates, and this one was no exception. There were statements and denials, barbs and interruptions, accusations and counter-charges. The language used may have been a bit more sophisticated than the average junior-high student might use, but even an adolescent knows a quarrel when she sees one.

I think our younger kids understand the basic mechanics of an election: Adults cast a vote, someone wins, and we all learn to live with it. Much of the rest, I would imagine, is just plain confusing to them. Heck, it confuses a lot of adults who find themselves awash in a sea of conflicting claims and figures.

So how do we explain the real heart of the electoral process — and our role in it as citizens — to our children?

A new pamphlet published by Our Sunday Visitor and written by a Dr. Joseph D. White, titled Talking to Kids About Elections & Current Events, offers a few tips on how to help children “make sense of the elections.” In summary, these include:

— Tell children that we are called to bring our faith and principles into the public square. Living our faith, in other words, requires that we work for the common good of all.

— Let children know that as Catholics we do not have allegiance to a particular person or party, but to a set of principles that relate to the truths we profess and believe. As the U.S. bishops remind us, we must sort out the issues and candidates based on our faith, the moral and social teachings of the Church.

— Help children grasp that everyone sees life and the world a little differently. This is a simple fact of life: People disagree — that’s clear enough from the debates — and we have to respect their free will. But that’s not to say that every point of view is equally valid. There is room for prudential judgment on a lot of issues, but we must always uphold and defend objective moral truths.

— Be charitable and respectful in the example you set for your children. We must show them what it means to be civil, even as we defend our positions, values, and objective truths to others.

— Reassure children that they are safe and secure, and that our nation is in God’s hands. Even if you personally are alarmed at the direction our nation is going, don’t let it become a fear factor in the lives of your children. God is our ultimate commander-in-chief, and we must put our trust in his guidance and providence.

The OSV pamphlet offers many other suggestions and a guideline for how to discuss the key issues of our day with your children. It may be a good way to help form your kids so that they may become politically responsible Catholic voters themselves someday. 

– Gerald Korson

Besides bin Laden: What to Expect in Tonight's Debate

“Monday’s debate is a little different because the topic is foreign policy,” President Obama told the crowd at last week’s Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York. “Spoiler alert,” the President continued, “we got bin Laden.”

The killing of Osama bin Laden was arguably the largest foreign policy story to come out of the President’s term, so it will surprise no one when it, Afghanistan, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and all of the other related issues come up in tonight’s debate.

But what else can we expect?

Here’s a rundown of the latest debate news and what we think tonight’s contest will look like.

1.)    The Facts

Tonight’s debate will take place at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. The topic of this third and final debate will be foreign policy. The format will be similar to the first debate. Both candidates will be seated throughout the 90-minute contest. The debate will be moderated by CBS’ Bob Schieffer.

2.)    Expect the Benghazi question to come up again – but things are different now.

You likely remember the highly-controversial exchange from the second debate between President Obama, Governor Romney, and moderator Candy Crowley on whether or not the President and his administration labeled the Benghazi raid an act of terror or not. There’s almost no conceivable scenario in which the continuation of this discussion will not loom large in tonight’s contest.

Since last week’s debate, Crowley came out and admitted that Governor Romney was “right in the main,” but “picked the wrong word.”

But much more has happened since then.

Both the McClatchy News Service and the Associated Press published stories late last week chronicling both the Administration’s official responses and the intel they were receiving. It seems clear that the administration initially – President Obama, a spokeswoman, and the intelligence community – all pointed to a terror attack, even if not explicitly. The CIA station chief in Libya, within 24 hours of the Sept. 11 attack, also pointed towards militants, not mobs. The explanation then, however, quickly changed.

Ambassador Rice and others, including the President and the spokeswoman, insisted that the evidence suggested that the attack was a spontaneous response to a YouTube video. The AP and McClatchy seem to suggest that the “pivot” in messaging was not based on a “pivot” in intel.

But not so fast. The debate got even less clear this morning, when the Wall Street Journal reported that the President’s top-secret daily briefing maintaining that the attack was a spontaneous response to the video until September 22^nd.

It seems that conflicting intelligence led to conflicting explanations.

It will be interesting to see how the two candidates will handle the issue, given all that’s come to light since last Tuesday.

3.)    Talks with Iran – will we or won’t we?

The New York Times caused quite a stir this weekend when it ran an article claiming that the United States and Iran had agreed to historic, direct talks after the presidential election.

The United States, Iran, and even Israel very quickly denied any such agreements.

The candidates will almost certainly spar over the correct approach to the Middle Eastern belligerent, with both promising to be tougher than the other. It will be interesting to see if either man brings this up, either to refute it or to use it to win points.

4.)    Tough talk on China – but will it get past accusations of economic treason?

It would be hard for two candidates for the Presidency of the United States to avoid talking about China in a debate about foreign policy. It will be even more difficult given the fact that Governor Romney has made standing up to China a pillar of his economic plan.

The President has also taken steps to crack down on China’s economic manipulations – and both candidates have already argued about whose pension invests in China and who doesn’t.

Let’s hope the discussion of the giant “dragon” in the room is more substantive than that.

5.)    Expect Governor Romney to talk about the Coptic Christians

It’s tempting to think that foreign policy debates are largely meaningless for American Catholics, who tend to focus more on social issues. Issues of foreign policy have always mattered to Catholics, but have been getting particular attention in Catholic communities in recent months.

The fate of the Middle East is clearly on the mind of the Holy Father. Last week, he announced that a Papal delegation of bishops, including Cardinal Timothy Dolan, will travel to Syria to show solidarity with the victims and encourage a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict.

In recent months, there has also been significant focus on the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt, who have become increasingly vulnerable and persecuted since the Arab Spring.

We know that some lawmakers, and Governor Romney himself, have demanded that the federal government place restrictions on foreign aid to Egypt, such as protecting the Copts.

We hope both candidates will take a moment to discuss it.

6.)    Will there be differences in tone or difference in substance?

This morning, the Wall Street Journal had an article arguing that the differences between the two candidates on a wide-range of issues such as Afghanistan, Iran, China, and Syria were much more “tonal” than substantive.

Both campaigns and candidates, however, have insisted repeatedly that this is a choice election, showcasing two distinctly different worldviews. Will the candidates provide evidence for their claims tonight?

******

Regardless of how it all shakes out, this is it. Gaffe-filled or not, blowout or not, Americans will go to the polls on November 6^th and won’t have another opportunity to see President Obama and Governor Romney head-to-head.

So the stakes – as always – are high. The first debate definitely moved the needle. The second debate definitively did not.  We’ll know by week’s end exactly what impact tonight’s contest had.

~ Catholic Pulse Staff 

Big Meaning in "The Hobbit"

With the first part of director Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit” trilogy (“An Unexpected Journey”) due out in theaters at the end of this year, the beloved children’s book is getting some renewed attention and interest.  Even so, “The Hobbit” is often dismissed by many, even fans of Tolkien, as being an enjoyable, but minor, diversion that merely sets the stage for the serious work that is “The Lord of the Rings.”  I’ve always been uncomfortable with this characterization and even as a child had a strong sense that there was a real profoundness to the story.  Both the depth and the breadth of the world Tolkien created can be seen immediately in his detailed and evocative portrait of the Shire, which when quickly invaded by Gandalf and thirteen dwarves expands into a sprawling landscape of an entire world.

Writing in the U.K. Telegraph, in a piece entitled “The Hobbit: What has made the book such an enduring success?,” eminent Tolkien scholar Thomas Shippey helps confirm my childhood intimation and reveals the genuine meaning that exists in “The Hobbit.”  Dr. Shippey draws out several examples of this meaning, but the one that struck me most forcefully was where he recounts Bilbo’s “moral courage” in deciding to turn over the Arkenstone:

Bilbo decides (on his own again) that his dwarf companions have got it wrong in their greedy defence of the dragon treasure, and so secretly gives away the greatest treasure of all, the Arkenstone, to his friends’ besiegers, to use as a bargaining point. And then he goes back to be exposed, in the end to confess, because they’re his friends still.

This episode always disconcerted me as a child in a way that few other childhood stories did or could.  It made tangible the reality that are times when there are no easy or obvious answers, virtues such as loyalty and prudence can appear to conflict, and even the best of choices involves tradeoffs.  Bilbo’s sense of honor in his decision to return to the Dwarves and share their fate, after what they would almost certainly regard as a terrible betrayal, further made clear that this was something deeper than a diverting children’s story.

There are many sources of this depth of meaning in “The Hobbit” such as Tolkien’s own powers of storytelling and his immersion in folklore and mythology.  But at the end of Dr. Shippey’s article, I think he points to the core of what makes “The Hobbit” and the rest of Tolkien’s work so rich:

Some time in late 1914, Tolkien and three of his schoolmates decided they would bring about a cultural revolution in England, seemingly through poetry. It was a project of astonishing self-confidence for four young men just out of school, and a Birmingham grammar school at that. Within three years two of them were dead and Tolkien was in hospital, invalided from the Western Front. They succeeded, though. Tolkien may not have brought about a revolution, but he did set up a counter-revolution, quite against the literary tide of irony and self-doubt.

As many have pointed out (such as Bradley Birzer’s in his brief, but profound, book “J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth”), it was Tolkien’s Catholic faith and belief in the traditional, transcendent moral order that illuminates all his work, including “The Hobbit.”  This is the true source of the complexity and wisdom found in the stories he told and his motivation in trying to bring about a poetic cultural revolution.  Dr. Shippey helps ensure that “The Hobbit” is appreciated for its role in the literary counter-revolution that still fortifies and defends the imaginations of many against the “tide of irony and self-doubt” that has swamped and washed away so much of our cultural inheritance.

– K.G. Montgomery

The Six Things You Need to Know About Tonight's Debate

Overwhelmed by all of the pre-debate stories? Here are the six things you need to know to be ready for tonight’s second contest.

(1)    The Facts

Tonight’s debate (9:00 – 10:30 PM EST, major networks) is a town-hall style debate on domestic and foreign policy issues moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley.  Pre-screened questions will come from the undecided voters in the audience. The debate will take place on the campus of Hofstra University in Hampstead, NY.

(2)    Both campaigns are nervous about the moderator. They want a mostly silent timekeeper, she wants a larger role. 

The two campaigns, in the midst of an otherwise contentious and heated contest, are united on one issue: the role of moderator Candy Crowley and what’s appropriate. According to Time’s Mark Halperin, the  two campaigns entered into a “memorandum of understanding” which says that “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.”

Interestingly though, Halperin reports, Crowley has never agreed to the terms, nor was she asked to.  The agreement does, however, say that the Commission on Presidential Debates – which is in charge – will provide Crowley with a “copy of this agreement and shall use its best efforts to ensure that the moderators implement the terms of this agreement.”

Crowley, however, seems to have her own ideas. She has said recently that “once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X,Y,Z?”

Read the full story: http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/moderator-role-under-scrutiny-before-the-debate/#ixzz29Ui2wflJ

(3)    Democrats want to talk abortion, contraception.

As reported by Evan McMorris-Santoro at the Talking Points Memo, Democrats hope that President Obama will get the chance “to talk about women’s issues, a centerpiece of the president’s reelection campaign…” The article quotes DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserrman Shultz as saying “I would fully expect these [women’s] issues to come up because given that the audience is going to include a number of women who share the same concerns that we do, that those questions would be put to the candidate.”

Read the full story: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/debbie-wasserman-schultz-womens-issues-debate-hofstra.php

(4)    Both the campaigns and the candidates have shifted strategies.

Leading up to the first debate, both campaigns were trying to downplay expectations, suggesting that their candidate wasn’t the best debater. Now things are different. According to a report from Fox News, “The Obama campaign appears to be taking nearly every opportunity ahead of the second presidential debate to tell Americans what to expect from President Obama, while the Romney camp has remained essentially mum – a sharp contrast to the days before the first debate when the parallel strategy was to lower expectations.”

Expect the President to focus on health care and his opponent’s time at Bain Capital and tax plan.

Expect Governor Romney to focus on personal connections, his plans, and issues he has with his opponent’s record.

Read the full story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/in-second-debate-new-expectation-game-with-obama-team-doing-talking/

(5)    The first debate mattered. Will tonight?

According to the “RCP Average” compiled by the website Real Clear Politics, there has been a significant shift in opinion polls thanks, ostensibly, to the first debate and the aftermath.  On the night of the first debate (Oct. 3) the RCP Average showed the race at O 49.1/R 46.4. As of tonight, the RCP average shows O 47.0/R 47.4.

Also, Real Clear Politics, which also keeps track of state polls, has tightened its electoral vote projections. It now counts 11 states, representing 146 electoral votes as toss-ups. It gives the President 201 reliable electoral votes, and Governor Romney 191 votes. The winning candidate will need 270.

Expect lots of references to swing states like Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada.

Remember that early voting has already begun in many places, so the debates could have both an immediate impact, and a delayed impact on Nov. 6^th. The Romney camp is looking to maintain momentum, while the Obama camp is hoping to stem the tide.

Read the full story: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/16/as_swing_state_races_narrow_debate_looms_large.html

(6)    There’s one more left.

The third and final debate will take place on Monday, October 22 (9:00 – 10:30 PM EST, major networks) in Boca Raton, FL. The debate, moderated by CBS’s Bob Schieffer, will be similar in style to the first debate and will focus exclusively on foreign policy.

~ Catholic Pulse Staff

The “Idiocy” Of “Personally Opposed”

During the Oct. 11 televised vice-presidential debate between incumbent Joe Biden and challenger Paul Ryan, one of the most somber and serious moments — that is, one of the few in which Biden refrained from chuckling and interrupting Ryan during the latter's allotted time to speak — came when the candidates, both Catholic, were asked about the role of their religious faith in influencing their positions on abortion.

Ryan gave a fairly solid answer. “I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith,” he said. “Our faith informs us in everything we do… I believe life begins at conception.” He went on to cite the Romney position opposing abortion (albeit with exceptions) before turning to a discussion on religious freedom.

For his part, Biden agreed on the question of when life begins, but does not believe that human life should receive protection under the law. “Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others….  I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body.”

Biden’s view is a reiteration of the old “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but…” argument made infamous three decades ago by former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York and repeated in countless forms by “pro-choice” politicians, especially “pro-choice” Catholic politicians, ever since.

Gerard Bradley, law professor at the University of Notre Dame and author of the newly released book Essays on Law, Religion, and Morality (St. Augustine Press), noted in his comments after the debate that the “central flaw” in the “personally opposed” argument is “the failure to see, or at least to say, what it is that one is actually opposing”:

Biden says that it is not for the state in a liberal society like ours to “impose” those personal moral views of some people (like him) upon others who disagree, especially upon distressed women who disagree. But if one judges — as everyone should and as the Church does — that the reason to oppose abortion is the reason to oppose killing any other innocent human person, then the “personally opposed” position sounds ridiculous. The reason is that such killing is objectively, and gravely, wrong. It is a great injustice.

Bradley goes on to identify “another layer of idiocy” in Biden’s position:

It is that it is simply impossible to be “personally opposed” to abortion, but that as a public figure one would not “impose” that view upon the law. For the issue before public authority when it comes to abortion is the equal protection of the laws against killing. The question is not one’s “personal opposition” to anything. The question is about public justice. The grave injustice at question is the fact that liberal abortion regimes like ours hold to the following legal stance: everybody is protected by law against being killed, except for one class of people. Any member of this group, a group which happens to be especially defenseless and thus peculiarly in need of the law’s protection, may be killed for any reason or no reason at all by his or her mother.

When it comes to such grave injustice, there can be no dichotomy on such a matter between one’s personal belief and one’s public-policy position, Bradley concluded:

The only important question for Biden, Cuomo, the Kennedys or any other “personally opposed, but” politician is whether he or she supports this legal regime. It is a matter of yes, or no, and there is no “personal” as opposed to “public” about it. The question is intrinsically, and entirely, public. Biden, for example, supports laws which expose some people — those in the womb — to being killed. This means that he supports the grave injustice of denying these helpless people the most elementary protection which any state — liberal, conservative, you name it — owes to every one of God’s children.

Bradley’s analysis is right on target. If one truly believes that human life begins at conception, then the willful termination of that life constitutes the killing of human life. If one then goes on to support laws and public policies that fail to protect this life, then one effectively supports such killing. The “personally opposed” position, however it might be stated, is simply an indefensible argument for tolerating a grave moral evil by attempting to juxtapose “personal” and “public” positions that are intrinsically incompatible.

— Gerald Korson

Nobel Prize For Medicine… And Ethics?

A fine article posted the other day on the online journal Slate heralds the achievement of Shinya Yamanaka, who was awarded a share of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. What is perhaps most remarkable about Yamanaka’s work, according to journalist William Saletan, is not just what he did for medical science, but what he achieved in the world of medical ethics.

A scientist at Kyoto University, Yamanaka “showed how ‘induced pluripotent stem cells’ could be derived from adult cells and potentially substituted, in research and therapy, for embryonic stem cells,” according to Saletan’s article. Sharing the Nobel is British scientist John Gurdon, whose research back in 1962 set the foundation for Yamanaka’s breakthrough.

Yamanaka is not what you would call a pro-life warrior by any means, but a peek through a microscope at a frozen embryo stored at a fertility clinic made him realize that destroying human embryos for research was not a good idea. Still, he continued to support experimentation with embryonic stem cells even though he does not work with them himself. His own work had to be verified at a San Francisco laboratory that uses stem cells from killed embryos, an ethical smudge on his own research. “There is no way now to get around some use of embryos,” he told The New York Times. “But my goal is to avoid using them.”

Yet resolving the ethical problems in finding stem-cell therapies has been an explicit motivation for his cutting-edge research. For this he has won encouragement and praise from pro-life organizations and Catholic Church leaders as well.

Yamanaka first succeeded at reprogramming cells from adult mice into pluripotent stem cells. Later, after much trial and error, he experienced similar success using human skin cells to make induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs.

Although many news outlets ignored the ethical significance of his work, Saletan, no pro-lifer himself, takes care to point out how Yamanaka’s work changes the controversy over stem-cell research:

Yamanaka transformed that debate forever. He tore down the wall between preserving embryos and saving lives. He did what only a scientist could have done: He made it possible for both sides to win. In the words of Julian Savulescu, an ethicist and supporter of embryonic stem-cell research, Yamanaka “deserves not only a Nobel Prize for Medicine, but a Nobel Prize for Ethics.”

Let’s state it a little more clearly here: The arguments favoring the perceived superiority of stem cells obtained from killed human embryos has long hinged upon the theory that such cells are “pluripotent,” meaning they have the potential to differentiate into almost any cell in the body and thus have broad therapeutic application. Stem cells obtainable from adults — without doing harm to any human person — were said to be less versatile and more limited in their usefulness. Yamanaka’s success in showing how adult stem cells can be turned into pluripotent stem cells eliminates that key argument.

We’re not entirely out of the woods just yet. One of the great advantages of iPSCs is that patients can be treated with their own skin cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection medications to counter any immunological response. However, iPSCs, like embryonic stem cells, also have the potential to turn into cancerous cells. More research is needed to remedy that problem in iPSCs, but Yamanaka and others are already making headway toward reducing or eliminating that risk.

In the meantime, at least, it appears the utilitarian “pro-choice” perspective that living human embryos should be sacrificed in the name of potential advances in medical treatments has been dealt a devastating blow.

 – Gerald Korson

A Year of Deepening Faith

October 11 begins of the Year of Faith proclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI, a date that also marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council and the 20th anniversary of the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 The timing, of course, is no mere coincidence. The decree read out last May announcing a plenary indulgence for the Year of Faith stated explicitly that Pope Benedict intended the observance to be “especially dedicated to the profession of the true faith and its correct interpretation, through the reading of — or better still the pious meditation upon — the Acts of the Council and the articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

 That’s more than just a pious nod at these recent milestones in Church history. Those are marching orders for the New Evangelization, the initiative by which the faithful focus renewed energies into proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to the world through our word and our lived example.

 Yet in order to reach out to others, we must allow ourselves to be re-evangelized. Unless we ourselves are on fire with the Catholic faith, how can we possibly provide even a spark by which to inspire others to embrace it? How can we introduce others to Christ and his message if we have not fully encountered him ourselves? Only by being transformed ourselves can we ever hope to help transform others.

 In a Catholic Pulse commentary posted today, author and scholar Kenneth Whitehead notes that although Vatican II and its aftermath were the subject of great controversy, the Church today is seeing the great fruits of the council in its proper implementation. The sixteen documents produced by the council fathers articulate a broad-based and visionary path by which the Church can show the light of Christ to all the world — a fitting metaphor for the New Evangelization.

 In an audience Oct. 10 marking the eve of the Year of Faith, Pope Benedict reminded us of the catechetical and formational value of the council documents:

 The Second Vatican Council is a strong call for us to rediscover the beauty of our faith every day, to know nourish a deeper understanding of it, a more intense relationship with the Lord, to truly live our Christian vocation.

 That vocation of ours includes the evangelization of the world, mired as it is in an age too often characterized, in the pope’s words, by “forgetfulness and deafness towards God”:

 The Council reminds us that the Church, in all its components, has the duty, the mandate to transmit the Word of God that saves, so that the Divine call, which contains our eternal blessing, can be heard and welcomed.

 The council documents and the Catechism provide tremendous opportunity for deepening our understanding of the Catholic faith. As Catholics, regardless of our how much or little we have been catechized, let us each commit to a serious reading and study of these tools to more deeply enrich and empower our faith during this coming year.

 The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also offers a number of resources to help parishes, families, and individuals observe the Year of Faith, which closes on Nov. 24, 2013, the Solemnity of Christ the King. 

— Gerald Korson