Rep. Kennedy's bishop calls him on the carpet

I wish that the bishops for a previous generation of Kennedies had done the same:

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

This is exactly what the bishops should have been saying to the pro-choice Catholics in this country for the last thirty years.

It's probably too late to really make a difference, but still--I'm glad someone's finally doing it.

--Shack

(HT: InsideCatholic)

One more thought on the Nobel Prize

This one from Peter Beinart:

The Nobel Prize Committee should be in the business of conferring celebrity on unknown human-rights and peace activists toiling in the most god-forsaken parts of the world; the people who really need the attention (and even the money). It should be in the business of angering powerful tyrants by giving their victims a moment in the sun. Choosing Barack Obama, who practically orbits the sun already, accomplishes the exact opposite of that.

--Shack

A brief thought...

...on brand-new Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama, and the thought process of the committee that gave him the award:

"They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace."
-Jeremiah 6:14

--Shack

War on Terror-(Insert suffix here)

Thomas Friedman's column in today's New York Times is primarily about Friedman's belated recognition of the one worthwhile contribution Rudy Giuliani made to the last presidential campaign: that Bush's widely-derided "War on Terror" was, in fact, "the Terrorists' War on Us."

The end, though, takes a look at what really is the only long-term workable solution to the issue...assuming there is a solution:

[I]n the short run, winning this war requires effective police/intelligence action, to kill or capture the jihadists. I call that “the war on terrorists.” In the long run, though, winning requires partnering with Arab and Muslim societies to help them build thriving countries, integrated with the world economy, where young people don’t grow up in a soil poisoned by religious extremists and choked by petro-dictators so they can never realize their aspirations. I call this “the war on terrorism.” It takes a long time.

Our operation in Afghanistan after 9/11 was, for me, only about “the war on terrorists.” It was about getting bin Laden. Iraq was “the war on terrorism” — trying to build a decent, pluralistic, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Despite all we’ve paid, the outcome in Iraq remains uncertain. But it was at least encouraging to see last week’s decision by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to run in the next election with a nonsectarian, multireligious coalition — a rare thing in the Arab world.

So, what President Obama is actually considering in Afghanistan is shifting from a “war on terrorists” there to a “war on terrorism,” including nation-building. I still have serious doubts that we have a real Afghan government partner for that. But if Mr. Obama decides to send more troops, the most important thing is not the number. It is his commitment to see it through. If he seems ambivalent, no one there will stand with us and we’ll have no chance. If he seems committed, maybe — maybe — we’ll find enough allies. Remember, the bad guys are totally committed — and they are not tired.

I say "assuming there is a solution" because I have my doubts about the passage I put in bold in the first paragraph. It's an open question how much of the "religious extremists" are, in fact, mainstream Islam; the answer you get seems to depend on who you ask--not on the basis of any actual evidence, but on the basis of what they've already decided the "right thing to do" should be. Commentators, right and left, pick whatever interpretation of Islam best fits their predetermined world view.

If mainstream Islam is moderate Islam, then this course of action has a chance. If not, then the Middle East will see this course of action--correctly--as the United States seeking to undermine and sabotage its religion.

That will almost certainly lead to war...but in that case, war is inevitable, no matter what the US does.

--Shack

A thought on protests

Something that's occurred to me recently, in thinking about the recent posturing by supporters of Obamacare--things like Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer calling protests against the plan(s) "Un-American," or the even more ridiculous spectacle of one Congressman calling another's opposition to the plan(s) "an act of treason"--is how similar all this is to what took place during the Bush administration.

We had the fierce protests--if anything, even more over-the-top than what we have now. We had the President's supporters firing back, accusing the protesters of all kinds of nefarious political motives...and yes, we had some supporters throwing around words like "Un-American" and "treason."

However, it seems to me that there is one very big difference.

The Bush policies that so enraged the left were matters of foreign policy. They were matters where, quite apart from the debate over how these matters should be conducted (or whether they should be conducted at all) the shrillness of public protests, once past a certain level, had the effect of undermining and sabotaging the United States on the global stage--in arenas where our soldiers were in harm's way.

The Obama policies that have sent the right over the edge, by contrast, are matters of domestic policy. There is no worry about undermining or sabotaging the United States here, because no matter how over-the-top the protests become, there is no foreign enemy to be aided and comforted by the lack of a unified front.

The Obamacare protests, far from "Un-American," are precisely what the framers of the First Amendment had in mind--citizens non-violently gathering to petition the government for a redress of grievances, in matters directly affecting them.

It is American democracy in its purest form.

--Shack

On the "right" to health care

Terrific summation of the fundamental philosophical problem behind the drive to Obamacare--about the most succinct I've seen anywhere--can be found in the comments section of this essay. The eighth comment down:

As people in the software business often say, there's a difference between free speech and free beer. No one is being denied freedom to health care in the free speech sense: I try to use my own resources to get health care and someone blocks me. But health care, unlike speech (or the rights to worship or assemble) is like free beer: someone else has to provide it. So it's really saying we have a right to other people's money to pay for our health care.

In two centuries, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the right to free speech means I have the right to take even 50 cents from my neighbor to buy a stamp and an envelope to send a letter to the editor. If I can't afford to write a letter, I'll just have to live with preaching on the street corner, while the Murdocks and Turners of the world project their free speech to millions. And that's been fine. Throwing around the word "right" in this case without addressing the fact that we're talking about a very different kind of right seems dishonest.

Nothing more to say.

--Shack

Chutzpah

Even with the massive brouhaha over health care the past several weeks, I haven't had much inclination to blog on the issue.

My take on health care is simple and utterly pessimistic: No matter which side prevails here, the system is irreparably broken. Either the premiums I pay for my health insurance will go through the roof, or the taxes I pay for premiums for government health insurance--both for my own, if I enroll, and for others', regardless--will go through the roof (or the deficit will go through the roof...though that will happen, regardless).

Whether it's the insurance companies or the government in charge, if they want to have any hope of solvency they'll have no choice but to ration care and, in the case of those who most desperately need insurance (read: pre-existing conditions) deny or drop coverage altogether.

(Well, solvency's not something the government is particularly concerned about, which is a problem in and of itself...but let's set that aside for the moment.)

For me, the equation goes something like this: If we have government health care, we will have taxpayer-funded abortions. It's inevitable, as FactCheck.org admits without actually admitting:

While Planned Parenthood would appear to be a qualified health clinic providing certain health services to women, there is nothing in the amendment’s wording to indicate that abortion would be a covered procedure. That would be up to the HHS Secretary.

(That would be HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, for those keeping score at home.)

So, I'm opposed to any and all incarnations of Obamacare...for what little that's worth.

Public opposition means nothing. As I've said before, Obama will almost certainly be a one-term president...but in that one term, he will set the stage for a permanent Democratic majority. This will get done--the numbers game on Capitol Hill guarantees it--and once it does, it doesn't matter if Republicans get back into power. They will no more be able to repeal the programs Obama sets in motion than they were able to repeal LBJ's Great Society.

In watching this train wreck, though, there are the occasionally amusing moments, like the one at the now-infamous town hall meeting between Sebelius and Sen. Arlen Specter (D R D) on one side, and an angry crowd on the other (which may or may not have been a case of "astroturfing"--in either case, it's irrelevant to the point of this post).

Cal Thomas highlights:

In a joint appearance with Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Democrat, Mrs. Sebelius responded to shouts and catcalls from a skeptical audience at the Constitution Center in heavily Democratic Philadelphia. She said Mr. Specter shouldn't be criticized because the Senate's version of the bill has not yet been written. This takes hubris to a new level. It is one thing for a member of Congress to vote on legislation he hasn't read; it is quite another for government officials to ask for support of a bill that has not been written, at least in the Senate.

What can I say? It's a stunning display of gall and carelessness--and it's perfectly in keeping with the character of the Obama administration.

--Shack

Doing the pro-choice movement a favor

I'm not going to hold the newly-disclosed views of Richard Nixon against the pro-choice movement as a whole:

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

Nixon was just a politician, after all, and a Republican, at that--it's not like he was the founder of Planned Parenthood, or anything.

--Shack