Stepping Out Of The Boat

What Does the Word Mean?

February 2nd, 2010

The debate over same-sex “marriage” continues to roil our politics. It regularly appears in legislatures, and there’s an important court case going on in California over it.

But a new study should make us ask a key question: Just what do we mean by “marriage”?

Traditionally, marriage was defined as a life-long, sexually exclusive covenant between a man and a woman, directed to the procreation and education of children and to the personal good of the spouses.

When seen in that light, same-sex “marriage” just isn’t “marriage” – it’s something completely different.

Some same-sex “marriage” advocates have even rejected the idea of monogamy, and assume that their “married” relationships will not be sexually exclusive. This has been confirmed by a new study of same-sex relationships, conducted in San Francisco. The study found that the majority of the same-sex couples assume that they will not be sexually exclusive, they approve of such outside sexual relationships, and they have no intention of being faithful and monogamous.

So let’s take stock of how same-sex “marriage” fits into the definition of marriage.

“Life-long”? Nope.

“Sexually exclusive”? Nope.

“Man and woman”? Nope.

“Procreation and education of children”? Not naturally.

“Good of the spouses”? Well, maybe, but in what way is it different from any romantic relationship, or a “friends with benefits” relationship?

This has long been one of the unspoken truths behind the push for same-sex “marriage”. The advocates want the legal rights that go along with marriage, they want the social acceptance of the term, and they want to force us to accept their relationships as “normal”.

The only thing they don’t actually want is, well, marriage itself.

It seems clear to me that the insight of the philosopher Inigo Montoya is relevant here: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Posted in Same-Sex "Marriage" | 4 Comments »

The Politics of Principle

February 2nd, 2010

(This is a repeat of a post from this same day last year. It was written in memory of Jack Swan, a great warrior of faith and politics, who entered eternal life on February 2, 1998. God sent Jack into my life to teach me these lessons about politics, and I’m just a pygmy standing on the shoulders of a giant. Jack, please pray for me, that I get the lessons right.)

In the mind of most people, “politics” is the struggle of candidates, political parties, and their supporters to gain power and influence in the government. That is certainly true up to a point, and it makes for interesting entertainment.

I write a good deal about politics on this blog and elsewhere, and I’m frequently percieved as being “political” in that sense — of being”partisan”. That completely misses the point.

There is a deeper, more significant nature of politics. It is the way we order our society together, so that we can live according to our vocations and be happy, and ultimately attain eternal life. In this understanding of politics, the partisan theater is an important reality, but it is not the main focus. What really matters is principle.

Without principles, politics becomes mere pragmatism, where the question is whether something “works”, or, in the less elevated version of the game, what’s in it for me. Now, don’t get me wrong. Pragmatism is important — we want our government to be effective. But again, principle is more important.

I received much of my tutelage in the real world of politics from a man who devoted his life to being a practitioner of the politics of principle. I learned that it was fine to be keenly interested in the partisan scrum, but only to the extent that it advanced the principles we hold dear — defense of human life, protection of marriage, family and children, and religious liberty. The promotion of those principles is more important than party label, and the idea is to support — or oppose — politicians based on their fidelity to those principles, not based on what party label they happened to be wearing this week.

That’s how I try to practice politics, in my small and limited way. I have opinions and judgments about many pragmatic issues, and what kinds of national security, economic and other policies would “work” better than others. But none of those pragmatic issues matter at all, compared to the core principles.

Here’s how it works for me. If a politician doesn’t protect human life, I don’t care what his position is on other issues. If he can’t understand that human life is sacred and must be protected at all stages, I have no reason to trust his judgment about any other issue. And, very frankly, anyone who does not understand that basic principle is not, in my opinion, fit to hold public office.

The same holds for the other core issues. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. If you don’t respect human life, don’t see the need to preserve marriage as one man and one woman, and won’t defend religious liberty, they you just have to look elsewhere to get your fifty percent plus one.

This means that I am perpetually dissatisfied with our political process and our politicians. But that’s fine with me. They are all temporary office holders anyway, here today and gone tomorrow, and their platforms are passing fancies that nobody will remember in a short time. The principles, however, remain perpetually valid.

Listen, Our Lord made a very simple request of us. He said, “Follow me”. He didn’t say, be a Republican or a Democrat, a Socialist or a Whig. He demands that I be his follower. So I need to look to the Lord for my principles, and in this age that means I have to listen to the Church. That’s what Our Lord wants me to do — after all, he said to his apostles “he who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16). We happen to have in our midst the successors of those apostles — the Holy Father, our bishops, and my bishop in particular. As a Catholic I must listen to them, and get my political principles from them, not from Fox News, CNN, talking heads of the left or the right, the editorial page of the Times, or either the Democratic or Republican Parties.

This, to me, is the way to live as a disciple of Christ in this crazy political process. I realize that this will be considered odd by many, and even dangerous by some.

But we hardly need more party loyalists at this, or any other, time. And we certainly need more practitioners of the politics of principle.

Posted in Discipleship, Religion in Public Life | No Comments »

The State of the Union

January 30th, 2010

On Wednesday, the President gave the annual State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress. Since I am known as a political junkie, I was asked by many people if I watched the speech and what I thought of it.

I have to confess that I haven’t watched a State of the Union Address in over twenty years. I find them almost unbearable to watch — full of platitudes and bromides, with artificial applause lines, and little that is of real substance or interest. I liken it to an American political version of Kabuki theater — highly stylized and formal dance, with everyone wearing a mask.

In my mind, it would have been much more interesting if the President and Congress had taken a few moments to take stock of the real state of the most important union we have — marriage.

The strength of marriage is an essential measure of how healthy our society is. Marriage — the life-long faithful union of a man and woman, dedicated to their well-being and the procreation and raising of children — is the foundation of any society. And by all reasonable measures, marriage is in trouble right now:

The marriage rate — the number of people getting married, as a portion of the population — continues to fall.

The percentage of the population that is married continues to go down — soon, fewer than half the women in America will be married (as opposed to almost two-thirds in 1960).

The number of couples who are choosing to cohabit without marriage continues to rise.

The number of children born out of wedlock is still going up — it will be over 40% soon, and is a catastrophic 77% among African-Americans.

While the divorce rate has gone down in recent years, it remains true that about 40% of marriages don’t last.

All of these measures of marital health are even worse among low-income people and African Americans.

By all measures, marriage is in a crisis right now, and one would think that our political leaders would see the problem and want to address it. The Department of Health and Human Services actually has a pretty good program called the “Healthy Marriage Initiative“. But that’s not good enough — has anyone even heard of it?

In fact, think about this. When’s the last time you heard any significant public official say that we need to start looking at our public policies — taxes, health care, etc. — to see how they impact marriages? When’s the last time you heard a political leader say that we need to promote marriage? Did you read the President’s proclamation last fall for “National Family Day“? The word “marriage” wasn’t even mentioned.

This is a crisis that needs to be addressed by our own Church, too. The Bishops of the United States have issues a pastoral letter on marriage, and have set out on a National Pastoral Initiative on Marriage, which is producing excellent resources for couples and those helping to serve them. Here in the Archdiocese, Cardinal Egan and our priests were very supportive of our efforts in the Family Life Office to enhance our marriage preparation and natural family planning programs. It is very encouraging that Archbishop Dolan has put such a strong emphasis on marriage as a pastoral priority, calling the state of marriage a “real vocation crisis”. The promotion of marriage will require a wide effort by all our Church institutions.

Let’s be honest — the state of our most important union is troubled. We have to redouble our efforts to support and promote marriage.

Posted in Family, Marriage | No Comments »

The March for Life and Real Feminism

January 25th, 2010

On the morning of January 22, the day of the March for Life, the odd publication that has taken over the name “Newsweek” published a piece online, asking “Who’s Missing” from the March, and coming to a most implausible conclusion — that it’s young women.

Anyone who has ever been at the March, or who has seen photographs of it, can only shake their head at the level of self-delusion behind such a thought. One of the most remarkable things about the March is the number of young people there, and the joy that they have in proclaiming their faith in the Gospel of Life.

The folks at Newsweek, though, don’t see that, because it doesn’t fit into their narrative and they’re trapped by ideology. According to the tenets of what passes for modern “feminism”, pro-lifers are mostly angry old white men, and a few angry old white women who have been oppressed by the evil heteropatriarchy. That’s because modern “feminism” is rooted in a denial of authentic femininity, in particular a rejection of — and even fear and resentment of — fertility and motherhood. They have traded authentic feminism for an illusory “freedom” that amounts to little more than the slavery of sexual license, and which requires adherence to the tragic “right” to destroy their own children.

When you look at the world that way, you don’t have to bother to go out to the Washington Mall to see the tens of thousands of young women who were having a great time at the March. Or to the Verizon Center to see the thousands of young women who were rejoicing at the Youth Rally. You don’t even have to get up early to see the 50 young ladies from St. Barnabas High School, and the dozen more from Mt. St. Ursula Academy and St. Michael’s Academy, who took the bus to the March from my parish that morning.

In many ways, the real message of the March is an affirmation of authentic feminism. Real feminism recognizes that God made man and women equal, but complementary. It understands the awesome meaning of the female body — a meaning that affirms fertility, that welcomes and nurtures new life, and that literally embodies an actively receptive love that is a model of our relationship with God Himself. Real feminism is not afraid, or resentful, of fertility and parenthood, but understands that they part of the meaning of life — not just for women, but for men as well.

If the reporter from Newsweek broke out of her ideological prison and came to the Mall, she could have seen this. I saw it very clearly as I trudged up Constitution Avenue, all around me. In particular, I saw it in three young women who were walking in my vicinity, near the Archdiocese banner. To me, Annie, Lauren and Genevieve are perfect examples of what the March really means. These smart, attractive young women, two of whom were there with their sleepy babies, have embraced their femininity, their fertility, and their faith with joy, and were joining the March to celebrate the miracle of life.

Who’s missing from the March? Not young people, and not young women either. It’s modern feminists, who haven’t yet awakened to beauty of how God made them.

Posted in Media, Pro-Life, Theology of the Body | No Comments »

Not a Cause for Rejoicing

January 21st, 2010

One of my favorite websites is National Review Online. Not only do they have top-notch political analysis, but they feature a number of excellent writers who are strongly pro-life and excellent promoters of Christianity and Catholicism in the public square, like Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Unfortunately, some of their contributors have a significant blind spot when it comes to torture. I’ve written a number of times now about torture, and its absolute immorality under all circumstances (see here, here, and here, for example). I’m not going to re-hash the arguments once again.

But now we have one of the leading defenders of the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, including waterboarding, saying this about the results in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate:

Scott Brown spoke out forcefully in favor of enhanced interrogation, and won — in Massachusetts. He said of waterboarding, “I do not believe it is torture. America does not torture . . . we used aggressive, enhanced interrogation techniques.” And his own top strategists say their polling shows his victory was not in spite of this public stance, but because of it… [E]nhanced interrogation is not torture. It stopped terrorist attacks. And as Scott Brown’s election shows, Americans understand this — and rally to candidates who are willing to speak the truth.

In support of this contention, he cites the distressing recent polls that show a majority of Americans, and a majority of Catholics, support the use of torture — flat out torture, not just “enhanced interrogation techniques” — against people we suspect of being involved in terrorism (see my comments on those polls here).

It’s a tragedy that a majority of Americans, and perhaps now another United States Senator, think it’s a good idea to torture human beings who are made in the image and likeness of God, just because we suspect they might have knowledge of heinous acts. That’s not a cause for rejoicing, it’s a cause for moral alarm.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m happy that Mr. Brown’s victory kept an ardently pro-abortion politician out of the Senate (he’s “pro-choice”, but open to some pro-life bills). It also makes it less likely that Congress will pass one of the gravely flawed health care reform bills.

But if his victory demonstrates that Americans are even more pro-choice about torture than they are about abortion, and that politicians should take advantage of that when they campaign, then don’t expect me to show up at that victory party.

Posted in Elections, Torture | No Comments »

Where We are on Health Care Reform

January 20th, 2010

Now that the special election has been held in Massachusetts to fill the vacant United States Senate seat, the Democrats in the Senate have lost their filibuster-proof majority, and new political winds are blowing. So, it’s worth considering where we are in the health reform debate.

My friend Kathy Gallagher from the New York State Catholic Conference suggested that the best way to illustrate the status and fate of the bills currently before Congress is this — take the largest stack of paper in your house, go over to the window, open it up and throw all the papers out.

That may be a bit dramatic, but there’s no doubt that the entire political dynamic has changed, and there is clearly a groundswell of opposition to increased government spending and activism. As a result, the Senate health reform bill, which has been sent to the House for consideration, is unlikely to pass without major changes. Given the new make-up of the Senate, no bill will pass that body again without significant concessions to the Republicans and moderate Democrats. Moderate members of Congress, particularly the Democrats, are re-calculating their political futures, and are unlikely to support dramatic expansions of government activity or increases in taxes.

This new situation also has tremendous significance for pro-lifers. It now appears much less likely that there will be an expansion of federal abortion funding under the guise of health care reform.

In short, it seems likely that the current bills have reached their expiration dates, and the President and the Congressional leadership will have to look to new ideas to break the deadlock and accomplish any kind of health care reform.

I think that Catholic social teaching provides a possible solution, particularly the principle of subsidiarity. This requires that, in developing social policies, we must defer to the most local level that can handle the problem adequately. So, the primary responsibility for virtually all issues falls on individuals and families. We must respect their freedom to make decisions about their welfare, trust that in most cases they will act rationally, while at the same time enacting social policies that help them make decisions and offer assistance when they are unable to accomplish their goals.

Now, there are many possible policy solutions that would satisfy the principle of subsidiarity. But one that would also accomplish the major goals of health reform (restraining costs, allocating costs fairly across the population, increasing consumer choice, attaining universal coverage) could include some of the following:

Changing the tax code to permit people to de-link their health insurance from their job. This would give people the freedom to take their health insurance wherever they go, instead of being locked into a plan chosen by their employer of the moment (and forever afraid of losing their insurance if they change or lose their jobs).

Permitting health insurance companies to carry on business across state lines, subject, of course, to reasonable regulations to ensure fair practices. This would allow more options for individuals and families to shop around to control their costs and their coverage.

Creating health care “exchanges” for consumers, which offer choices among a number of health plans. This is like the system enjoyed by employees of the federal government, and it would increase the ability of families to select the kind of coverage that is best for them, as opposed to being required to accept a “one-size-fits-all” approach. It’s also more likely to respect individual rights to conscience, for instance by allowing people to choose plans that do not cover offensive things like abortion.

Creating a catastrophic insurance plan that would automatically cover everyone. This would be especially attractive for those who do not wish to carry ordinary health insurance but who want to be protected against major risks.

Guaranteeing access for all, including immigrants who wish to buy insurance, and those with pre-existing health conditions. This could even involve increasing the eligibility levels for public plans (e.g., Medicaid or Family Health Plus), so that more low-income families would have access to coverage.

Providing subsidies (such as tax credits or vouchers) to help low-income people purchase insurance, either from a private company or a public plan (e.g., Medicare, Child Health Plus, Medicaid, etc.).

The President and Congress could pass these initiatives in a very simple piece of legislation that would, in my opinion, enjoy wide bi-partisan support. It wouldn’t significantly expand the role of government in the economy, and wouldn’t dramatically increase deficits or taxes. It also wouldn’t require all Americans to pay for abortions, or leave them in fear of government health care rationing.

Elections have consequences. The Massachusetts election result is saying something very clear — it’s time to start thinking of new solutions.

Posted in Congress, Health Care Reform | 4 Comments »

More Threats from Caesar

January 15th, 2010

Yesterday, I posted the Manhattan Declaration, a new and significant statement by Christian leaders. The three principal causes that united these leaders was the need to defend human life, authentic marriage, and religious liberty.

Anyone who thinks such a declaration is unnecessary should have been reading the news. Here is a new example of the threats to religious liberty that routinely come from the powers-that-be.

You’ll find it in a report about the activities of the President’s faith-based initiatives panel. This group was set up to find ways that the government can partner with religious groups in providing social services. In the process of getting recommendations together for the President, the panel discussed the question of whether or not recipients of federal grants could continue to hang visible religious symbols on their walls. They couldn’t come to a decision, but here are the choices they considered:

1. Making such religious icons not allowed for federally funded services.
2. Allowing it only if no other religious neutral rooms are available and covering up such icons is impratical.
3. Not requiring removal of such icons but encouraging religious orgs to be sensitive about the issue.

Yes, you are reading that correctly — the government is actually considering whether to ban the hanging of a crucifix on the wall of a Catholic agency that provides social services, if the agency received money from the federal government. I understand that when you take Caesar’s coin, you have to swallow Caesar’s rules, but this is an intolerable intrusion into the freedom of expression of religious organizations.

What’s next — telling newspapers that receive some tax benefits that they can’t print editorials critical of the government?

This flies directly in the face not only of the history and traditions of our nation, but of the nature of the state and the proper role of Catholic social services. The mission of Catholic agencies is not just to provide pragmatic services, but to meet spiritual needs as well, and do something that no government can do — they offer love to every person.

Pope Benedict, in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, said this:

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. (28)

The state that would arrogate to itself the authority to eliminate religious expression as a condition of providing social services is a tyrant. That is why we need the Manhattan Declaration, and that is why we must unite in defending religious liberty.

Posted in Religious Liberty | 1 Comment »

The Manhattan Declaration and You

January 14th, 2010

On November 20, a broad coalition of religious leaders jointly issued an important statement, called the Manhattan Declaration. This declaration represents a watershed moment in American religious and political history — a coalition of faith communities, committed to having a significant impact on our culture and our law.

Here’s how the sponsors state the purpose of the Declaration:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Declaration has been signed by almost 200 religious leaders, including our own Archbishop Dolan, and over forty other Catholic bishops. When they opened the Declaration up to the public, over 370,000 people have signed on so far.

Why is this so important? This Declaration represents the basis of a new, broad-based ecumenical effort to bring our Christian values to the public square. For too long, our efforts have been hampered by the sad divisions that separate Christians from one another. But now, we have a unifying document, one that we can all rally behind, regardless of our theological differences.

I encourage everyone to read the Manhattan Declaration, which can be found on their website. Then, join the rest of us in this new movement of Christian conscience, and sign it.

Posted in Conscience, Discipleship, Marriage, Pro-Life, Religion in Public Life | No Comments »

Call Bart Stupak and Thank Him

January 10th, 2010

Last week, the New York Times ran a profile of Rep. Bart Stupak, the Democrat from Michigan who has been a stalwart in fighting to prevent the health care reform bills from funding elective abortions.

The profile was surprisingly positive, since it highlighted a man who is not only a pro-lifer, but is a Catholic who has no problems with saying that his political positions are informed by his faith. To put it mildly, those are not positions that are typically favored by Our Daily Newspaper.

Several things struck me about the column. One was that Mr. Stupak spoke openly about a reality that is not frequently acknowledged in public. He related several examples of the deep hostility towards the pro-life position held by the establishment of the Democratic Party. Democratic political consultants refuse to work for him, he has been denied committee positions, and was told bluntly that he would never “get on” in his political career because he is pro-life. And we wonder why so few Democratic politicians manage to hold on to their pro-life views once they are elected.

What was more striking to me, though, was a statement by Mr. Stupak’s chief of staff. He was reflecting on the reaction to the House’s adoption of the “Stupak Amendment” to the health care bill, a provision that ensured that federal funds would not be used to pay for elective abortions. The push-back from his fellow Democrats has been strong and negative, and Mr. Stupak has been getting calls from the public as well. In fact, the aide said, “I can’t tell you how many New Yorkers have called me up and yelled at me about this Stupak guy.”

We should not stand by and let Mr. Stupak think that all New Yorkers are pro-abortion. Pro-lifers from New York should send him a message that we support him, and thank him for his efforts. Here’s the best way — call Mr. Stupak, and tell him that you thank him for his pro-life position, and are praying for him. His phone number is (202) 225-4735.

It’s hard to imagine how much pressure Mr. Stupak must be feeling from the leadership and other members of his party. The momentum behind the health care reform bill is so intense that the leadership appears willing to do virtually anything to pass a bill. Mr. Stupak and a handful of other pro-life Democrats may be all that stands between us and a massive increase in federal funding for elective abortion, and an increase in the number of abortions. It will be very, very difficult for them to hold out for the cause for life.

Please pray for these men, that they may have the courage and resolve that they will need over the next few weeks as this bill comes up for final action.

But in the meantime, call Bart Stupak, and thank him.

Posted in Catholic Public Officials, Congress, Health Care Reform, Pro-Life | No Comments »

Just Us Unedjikated Pro-lifers Here

January 6th, 2010

The absurd insular intellectual pretensions of our elite betters are rarely on display as blatantly and laughably as in David Brooks’ most recent column in the New York Times.

Mr. Brooks reflected in his column on the fact that public opinion is shifting away from the positions held by “the educated class” on issues like abortion, climate change, “internationalism”, etc. After all, Mr. Brooks opines, all the “educated class” are in favor of “abortion rights”. I’m reading between the lines here, but that says to me that Mr. Brooks thinks that only “uneducated” people could possibly be against abortion.

Right.

I can only think that Mr. Brooks needs to get out more often, or at least he needs to encounter somebody other than the people he sees every day in the Times’ newsroom and the PBS television studio. Perhaps he could amble down to Princeton, where he might run across people like Robert George, the pro-life philosopher who was apparently “educated” enough that the Times even ran a profile of him recently. Or he could head north to Amherst, where he might meet Hadley Arkes, the philosopher and legal scholar who helped draft the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. If he’d rather stay in the same area code, I’m sure that some of the folks associated with First Things magazine or National Review would be happy to find the time to talk to him. There actually is no shortage of people with fancy initials after their names and pretty diplomas on their walls, who can easily explain why they oppose abortion, in terms comprehensible even to members of the “educated class”.

As for me, I’m perfectly happy hob-nobbing with my fellow “uneducated” types. I much prefer being with people who don’t need the kind of “education” that fails to understand the perfectly obvious truth — that an unborn child is a member of the human race, that she deserves our affection and love, and that society has an obligation to ensure that nobody will dismember her.

It’s times like these that you really miss Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who passed into eternal life just last year. With his puckish wit, he could certainly have done justice to this latest example of the delusive and risible conceit of the “educated class.”

Posted in Media, Pro-Life | No Comments »