In the above clip, two reporters explain why a drop in American casualties does not constitute news, while an increase in casualties does constitute news.
Is this a case of "If it bleeds, it leads" or a case of media bias–or both?
You decide.
MORE.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
Interview with Cardinal George
John Allen has an interesting interview with Cardinal George which, for some idiotic reason,the NCR folks decided to put online in pdf form.
FIRST, HERE’S A BACKGROUNDER ON THE INTERVIEW.
AND HERE’S THE INTERVIEW ITSELF.
In the interview, Cardinal George has a number of things to say that have a bearing on the thesis that a broader cultural shift among Catholics is significantly responsible for declining Mass attendance and other religious practice, yet he also faults the leadership of the Church for contributing to the problem out of a sense of sociological naivete.
Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge talk about the distinction between “high tension” and
“low tension” religion, arguing that over time low tension groups tend to dissolve into
secularism.That’s right. In the 60s, it was very important to show you could be American and Catholic.
Whole magazines were devoted to that. There was a collective sigh of relief at the Second
Vatican Council, with human freedom being so much in the forefront of the conciliar concerns,
that the tension wasn’t there anymore. I think some of the moves of the church in that period
now seem sociologically naïve, in their long-term consequences.
What do you have in mind?Catholicism as a distinctive way of life was defined by eating habits and fasting, and by days
especially set aside that weren’t part of the general secular calendar. They were reminders that
the church is our mediator in our relationship to God, and can enter into the horarium [calendar]
that we keep, into the foods that we eat, into all the aspects of daily life, into sexual life. Once
you say that all those things can be done individually, as you choose to do penance, for example,
you reduce the collective presence of the church in somebody’s consciousness. At that point, the
church as mediator becomes more an idea for many people. Even if they accept it, it’s not a
practice. So then when the church turns around and says ‘You have to do this,’ then resistance is
there to say, ‘How can you tell me that? I’m deciding on my life for myself, and you even told
me I could!’
Cardinal George also comments on the situation with the new translation of the liturgy being prepared and notes that, while the new translations are better and the right thing is being done in preparing them, it’s still going to be a significant adjustment for people:
Bishop Donald Trautman and others worry that when that Sunday comes and you have to
explain to people that from now on they will be saying “and with your Spirit” rather than “and
also with you,” there will be a negative reaction. Do you share those concerns?Hopefully, there will be a lot of good catechesis, which is already being prepared in all the
English-speaking countries. That [a negative reaction] will happen if it’s not well prepared. It
will be a lot harder, as we all know, to go from English to English than from Latin to English.
The Latin was foreign anyway, and this was our language. Now we’ve got something that is our
language, and we’ve got something new that is also our language with a slightly different cast.
That’s going to be hard. Beyond that, we’ve memorized. I can say the canons by heart. We can
enter into them and pray them. Even if they’re not great translations, they’re not bad, and in
many ways they’re quite beautiful. I’ve made them my own. It’s good when you say “We
believe,” and people go down the line through the Creed. We’re changing four lines in that thing.
It’s going to be difficult. People will go back again to reading it, whereas for 20 years now we’ve
just been able to remember it. That’s not going to easy, and nobody’s looking forward to it.
Is it worth it?Oh yes. I think the translations are superior. There’s a lot of the richness of the Roman rite, and
therefore our faith, because our liturgy reflects our faith, that we will have present in our hearts
again. But it will take 20 years, maybe, before we have it memorized. I mean, I’ll probably go to
my death fighting not to say, “and also with you,” because it’s so second nature by now. People
know immediately what to do. That’s great, that’s a sign of unity. So we’re introducing a
discordant note in our unity, for a good purpose. I think the reason is very adequate, but it’s
going to be work.
GET THE STORY. (PDF WARNING)
The Nattering Nabobs of Know-Nothingism
I have never seen an episode of ABC TV’s The View.
Until Rosie O’Donnell got in trouble on it, I hadn’t even heard of the program, though it’s apparently been on for more than ten years.
From reading about the show and seeing clips of it, I have, however, come to hold a very low opinion of it.
What I have seen and read about the show leads me to the conclusion that it is shallow and bubble-headed and frequently shameful, embarrassing, and even disgusting. In other words, it swings between the two extremes of insipid, inconsequential fluff, often with prurient undertones, to completely idiotic attempts to take on serious subjects by a group of commentators who don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about.
Since the commentators are also all women, the show is clearly aimed at a female audience, and if I were a woman, I’d be insulted that ABC thinks this is the kind of junk that I’d be interested in.
The show also seems to deliberately stir up controversy in order to attract ratings by hiring sick puppies like Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg (note that it’s Barbara Walters in the clip who first introduces a disgusting suggestion, which Goldberg then amplifies and makes even worse; there’s plenty of sick puppyism to go around on this show).
So it comes as no surprise that, if this pack of intellectual mendicants (not in the good sense, in which Dominicans are intellectual mendicants) were to choose to take on the subject of Archbishop Raymond Burke’s statement that he would deny Rudy Giuliani Holy Communion that they’d make more errors than you could shake a stick at.
And they did.
Reading the following transcript of part of yesterday’s show (which sure sounds authentic, though I haven’t been able to verify that yet, so caveat emptor,though I have partial confirmation from another source) is like playing one of those "How many things can you find wrong in this picture?" games.
Man, is it painful!
ABC–and its owner, the Disney corporation–should be ashamed of itself that it’s putting out this kind of offensive and brainless twaddle.
Since the hosts of The View obviously don’t have a clue, ABC should get one and cancel the show.
Transcript below the fold (CHT to the reader who e-mailed).
Vatican’s Top Liturgical Liberal Steps Down
It’s been predicted for some time that B16 would remove Marini from his office as the papal master of ceremonies.
And now he has.
His replacement is . . . Marini!
That is, Archbishop Piero Marini is being replaced by Fr. Guido Marini.
Same last name. Two different guys.
In case you haven’t been aware of who Piero Marini is or what the papal master of ceremonies is, basically he (Piero Marini) is the guy who, as master of ceremonies, plans the pope’s celebration of the liturgy.
Want to know why there were Aztec dancers gyrating all over the place at the canonization of Juan Diego?
Piero Marini.
Want to know why John Paul II’s vestments for the Third Millennium celebration looked like a costume from Star Trek Voyager?
Piero Marini.
Want to know why liturgical law was disregarded regularly at John Paul II’s major celebrations of the liturgy?
Piero Marini.
I don’t know why JP2 kept him around, particularly as he started tightening up on liturgical abuses through the latter part of his reign.
I mean, if you’re trying to tighten up the celebration of the liturgy for Catholics all over the world, not using one’s authority as pope to authorize deviations from the norms at your own liturgies would seem to be a good first step.
Otherwise, it’s easy for liturgical dissidents the world over to say, "Well, the pope had this (e.g., dancing) at his own Mass, so it’s obviously okay for us to have it, too."
But for whatever reason, Pope John Paul decided to retain the services of Piero Marini.
Once B16 was elected, it was widely expected that he would replace Marini, though not immediately lest it look like a slap.
Some have thought that the case of Benedict’s tie-dyed vestments in Austria (more on those later) might have precipitated the replacement.
So who’s the new Marini?
EXCERPT:
The new Marini, according to Italian observers, does not bring a sharply defined ideological profile into his new position. Though he served as the master of ceremonies in the Genoa archdiocese for both Cardinals Dionigi Tettamanzi and Tarcisio Bertone (today the Vatican’s Secretary of State), Guido Marini, 46, has an academic background in canon law and spirituality rather than liturgy.
Bad News In Connecticut–Part II
In my prior post, I mentioned that I’ve received multiple requests for comment on the Connecticut Plan B situation. The following reader expresses the sentiments of many when he writes:
Jimmy,
What is going on in Connecticut right now? The Bishops there have
released a statement, explaining that they will now allow Plan B to be
administered in their hospitals…where they previously stated (or
implied) otherwise. Curt Jester & American Papist have coverage on
this, but I just don’t understand the issue.Specifically, why is contraception allowed after rape (since it’s
sex without the proper intent etc etc) but is NOT permitted after
casual, recreational sex that also lacks the proper intent?
It’s understandable, given the Church’s strong stand against contraception and abortion, why this issue would be so confusing. In order to make sense of it, we need to look at several things, but first
THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: What I am about to write is not indicative of my own view. I’m trying to explain the apparent reasoning of the Connecticut bishops. I’m not saying that they are correct or incorrect. Rome could rule either way on this, and it may well get involved. What I’m trying to do is explain a position, not defend it.
The starting point to understanding the apparent reasoning behind the Connecticut bishops’ statement is a close reading of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae. Here’s the key line in Latin:
Item quivis respuendus est actus, qui, cum coniugale commercium vel
praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem
obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur.
Now, I’ve given this in Latin so that you can see the key term coniugale commercium. Coniugale means "conjugal/marital/pertaining to or proper to marriage." Commercium means "commerce/traffic/relations/intercourse/sexual intercourse."
You could translate this literally as "conjugal intercourse," "conjugal relations," "marital intercourse," "marital relations"–things of that nature.
Which is how this passage is translated when it’s quoted in the Catechism:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil
Unfortunately, some translators are sloppy in how they handle this text (which is particularly unfortunate, since it’s a key text in a sensitive document). For example, the English translation of HV on the Vatican web site renders this:
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
That’s a loosey-goosey translation, and if you go with that one, what the Connecticut bishops said will be absolutely inexplicable, since the use of Plan B to prevent ovulation or fertilization clearly would be "specifically intended to prevent procreation . . . as an end . . . after sexual intercourse" (rearranging the elements of the quote a bit).
But that’s not what the Latin original says. It doesn’t say "sexual intercourse," it says "conjugal intercourse" and "conjugal" means "marital."
Paul VI phrased himself very carefully in this area, and what he did
was say that you can’t use contraception to thwart the procreative
aspect of marital intercourse. His language does not explicitly
address the issue of the procreative aspect of intercourse
outside of marriage.
Of course, intercourse outside of marriage always involves grave sin to begin
with, and it seems reasonable to conclude that if contraception in
marriage is an evil, contraception outside of marriage only compounds
the evil of non-marital sex. One day the pope or the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith may clarify that this is indeed the case.
But this goes beyond what can be shown from the language of HV. The way HV is phrased
in the original Latin (and in the literal translation of the passage
given in the Catechism), all you can say with certainty is that Paul VI
condemned all use of contraception within marriage.
He did not address–or cannot be ascertained certainly as addressing–the situation of sexual relations outside of marriage.
Thus, some have held that at least some forms of contraception (ones
that aren’t abortifacient, for example) might not compound the evil of
non-marital sex. Some might argue that, although non-marital sexual acts are gravely wrong,
contraceptive non-marital sex might be less gravely wrong than non-contraceptive non-marital sex since it has a lesser risk of bringing a child into the world outside of wedlock.
By divine law, children have a right to be conceived only within a
family that has a father and a mother who are married to each
other. To the extent that they may cause children to be conceived
outside of wedlock, non-marital sexual acts can be viewed as grave sins against
charity regarding the child that may be conceived, as well as other
affected parties (such as innocent spouses).
In case of rape, one pursuing this line of argument might maintain, there is no sin in the victim using at least certain forms of contraception since the victim is not married to the rapist (apart from cases of marital rape) and did not consent to the sexual act.
Thus the U. S. bishops Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (4th ed.) states:
Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is
the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate
with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and
spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who
has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential
conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing,
there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be
treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm
capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to
initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or
direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the
implantation of a fertilized ovum [n. 36].
The issue of non-marital contraception is a theological hot potato that the Holy See will eventually have to sort out, because this issue is not going to go away, as the situation of the Connecticut state law illustrates.
But if–and note the "if"–the Church ended up endorsing the view that contraception is impermissible within marriage but potentially permissible outside it then it would allow for a variety of situations, such as:
-
Nuns in dangerous situations where they may be raped could use at least some forms of contraception
-
Women who have been raped could be given at least some forms of contraception
I’m not defending these views. I’m just pointing out that they are not expressly precluded by the language used in Humanae Vitae or, to my knowledge, by subsequent Magisterial documents.
You might find the above line of reasoning entirely implausible, but I’m not advocating it. I’m merely trying to help with the "What on earth are they thinking?" factor of this situation.
If you are of the opinion that the above views are wrong, you might well conclude that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from ever endorsing such views and that he may guide the Church into a clear-cut rejection of those views.
But that has not yet occurred, at least in Magisterial documents that I am aware of.
In fact–and this is pure speculation and should not be taken as anything other than the pointing out of a possibility–the Connecticut bishops may even have consulted with the CDF for advice about how to handle this issue.
That leaves the question of whether the policy they announced is a good one, and, speaking only for myself, I can only say that I find the announced policy to be troubling.
There are disputed claims about whether Plan B will prevent the implantation of a newly-conceived child. The manufacturer’s own label for the product (see links to American Papist and Curt Jester) say that it may have this effect. Legal disclaimers of this nature are notoriously broad–in order to prevent future lawsuits–and they frequently list potential outcomes for the use of drugs that are either not possible with the drug in question or which are very unlikely. Because of this kind of language in medical disclaimers, as well as a lack of knowledge about how Plan B actually works, there is ambiguity about whether or not it is abortifacient.
That ambiguity is what generates a lot of the tension within the Connecticut bishops’ statement, and it is one of the things that I find troubling about the whole situation.
I’m far from being an expert on Plan B, but any time there is a possibility that something is abortifacient, I want to apply the Deerhunter Principle: If you’re out in the woods hunting, you cannot open fire if the result is reasonably foreseen to involve the possible death of a human.
Bad News In Connecticut
The recent statement by the Connecticut bishops that they will allow Plan B to be used for rape victims in Catholic hospitals is causing a great deal of consternation in the Catholic community, and I have received numerous requests for help in figuring out what is going on.
I’ll do my best to help, but let’s begin with some background.
FIRST, HERE IS AMERICAN PAPIST SUMMARIZING WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR.
AND HERE’S COVERAGE BY THE CURT JESTER.
Some of the early coverage of this was hampered by the fact that the statement of the Connecticut bishops did not seem to be on their web site, making it hard for people to know what they said without the lens of the news media.
The statement is now there, but it’s in a Word doc, so here’s the full text of it in html:
—————————————————
Connecticut Bishops Statement On
Plan B and Catholic Hospitals
Issued September 27, 2007
The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut, joined by the leaders of the Catholic hospitals in the State, issue the following statement regarding the administration of Plan B in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape:
The four Catholic hospitals in the State of Connecticut remain committed to providing competent and compassionate care to victims of rape. In accordance with Catholic moral teaching, these hospitals provide emergency contraception after appropriate testing. Under the existing hospital protocols, this includes a pregnancy test and an ovulation test. Catholic moral teaching is adamantly opposed to abortion, but not to emergency contraception for victims of rape.
This past spring the Governor signed into a law “An Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault,” passed by the State Legislature. It does not allow medical professionals to take into account the results of the ovulation test. The Bishops and other Catholic health care leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time. We continue to believe this law should be changed.
Nonetheless, to administer Plan B pills in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape a pregnancy test to determine that the woman has not conceived is sufficient. An ovulation test will not be required. The administration of Plan B pills in this instance cannot be judged to be the commission of an abortion because of such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present. To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.
Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape. A pregnancy test approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration suffices. If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened.
—————————————————
Commentary later.
Sigh.
So the Dutch Dominicans have put out a pamphlet calling for local churches to pick their own ministers, men or women, married or single, straight or homosexual, to celebrate the Eucharist, and hopefully these will be ordained by the local bishop and everyone will join hands and sing Kumbaya, blah, blah, blah.
Doesn’t this stuff ever get old to them?
Actually, it’s the people who are getting old, according to some.
EXCERPT:
Wim Houtman, religion editor for Nederlands Dagblad, a major Dutch newspaper, told NCR
that the booklet reflects the views of an aging generation in Holland,
many of whom are active in their local parishes, and disappointed by
what they see as a conservative turn under Popes John Paul II and
Benedict XVI.Yet such debates, Houtman said, “mean nothing … to the people in
their twenties and thirties who increasingly make the music in the
Dutch Catholic Church.”
Yeah. Same graying of the dissident movement that’s happening here. Dissidentism fails to reproduce itself effectively, leading to an aging of the dissident population.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Vatican intervenes on this one or if they just leave it up to the Dutch bishops and the leadership of the Dominican order.
TIME MAGAZINE: Did John Paul II Commit Suicide?
In a shockingly outrageous and irresponsible story, TIME Magazine has suggested that John Paul II committed suicide, or at least attempted to do so.
Here’s the basis of their story:
1) An Italian doctor who only watched news stories about John Paul on television thought that he was losing weight and having trouble swallowing due to his Parkinson’s disease.
2) Two years after his death, following the Vatican’s refusal to allow a Church funeral for a notorious Italian who demanded to be starved to death (and was), this doctor decides to revisit the death of John Paul II.
3) She concludes that if he was losing weight and having trouble swallowing then he should have been given a feeding tube earlier than he was.
4) She assumes that John Paul II’s doctors would have explained this to him.
5) Since he wasn’t given a feeding tube earlier than he was, she concludes that he must have refused it himself.
6) She also concludes that Church teaching would have required the use of a feeding tube at the earlier time she now thinks he should have had it.
7) Therefore, John Paul II was euthanized at his own request.
Which would mean it was suicide.
Kids, can you say "Cheap sensationalistic Italian press attempt to subvert Church teaching on euthanasia, tar the memory of John Paul II, and get payback for the Church’s stance regarding the Italian who starved himself to death last year?"
This chain of reasoning is so full of holes that I don’t see how it can be read as anything else.
And how about these gems from the TIME article:
Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life.
Indeed her accusations are grave, questioning the Catholic Church’s
strictly traditional stances on medical ethics, including the dictum
from John Paul’s own 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae to use all modern means possible to avoid death.
Whoa!
Kids, can you say, "Partisan TIME correspondent too dangerously unqualified to keep his job?"
Yes! It seems that Ruth "I’m too dangerously unqualified to keep my job" Gledhill has some company in her unique group of reporters covering religion. She’s now joined by Jeff "I’m too dangerously unqualified to keep my job" Israely.
Hey, TIME Magazine! Next time you want to do a hit-job on the Catholic Church, try running the story past someone who knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches!
Try to avoid using television to diagnose subtle things like when a feeding tube should be used, too. Not every sick man should be put on one as soon as the scale drops a few pounds.
On GodTube
CHT to the reader who e-mailed!
iTunes, You Just Got Some Serious Competition
Amazon.com has just launched its new mp3 download service, which offers DRM-free music for download.
EXCERPTS:
Web retailer Amazon.com Inc. launched its
much-anticipated digital music store Tuesday with nearly 2.3 million
songs, none of them protected against copying.The
store, Amazon MP3, lets shoppers buy and download individual songs or
entire albums. The tracks can be copied to multiple computers, burned
onto CDs and played on most types of PCs and portable devices,
including Apple Inc.’s iPod and Microsoft Corp.’s Zune.Songs cost 89 cents to 99 cents each and albums sell for $5.99 to $9.99.
Major
music labels Universal Music Group and EMI Music have signed on to sell
their tracks on Amazon, as have thousands of independent labels. The
company said several smaller labels are selling their music without
copy protection for the first time on the Amazon store, including
Rounder Records and Trojan Records.
The thing that is different about this venture, compared to other similar ones, is that Amazon has the corporate muscle ot give iTunes a run for its money–or rather, a run for our money. Even if it doesn’t have as big a catalog as iTunes right now, it more than its competitors has the potential to get there and even surpass the selection on iTunes.
So naturally Amazon’s stock went up.
Shares of Amazon rose 89 cents to $93.48 Tuesday.
In other words, the price of a song.
This is, of course, good news for all of us, as it is likely to lead to lead to more DRM-free media in the future.
Now they just need to let me put mp3 songs and albums with previews in my aStore.