The Case Of The Missing Shadows

CastrosI’m writing this Monday night so I won’t have to blog on Tuesday’s holy day, so this all may be moot now, but here goes . . .

What happens when tyrants die?

Well, being tyrants, they aren’t well liked by their people (however much their people have been forced to act otherwise) and so as soon as the guy who’s ruled the land with FEAR for so many years kicks the bucket there can be a . . . y’know . . . popular uprising. People go out and celebrate, drink too much, shoot guns up in the air (if they have them), kill all the former dictator’s family and friends. That kind of thing.

So what do you do if you’re one of the family and friends?

In fact, what if you’re the tyrant’s baby brother and heir apparent?

If there’s a popular uprising, you’re going to be Target #1 to bump off.

So what do you do?

Do you . . . y’know . . . try to keep the people from finding out that the tyrant is dead? At least until you can consolidate your control on power? Do you try to make it sound like your brother–who is actually dead–is really sick so that you kind of ease the populace into the idea of him not being here any more, while you visibly rule the country, smoothing the transition into your own reign so that they get used to being afraid of you the way they were afraid of your brother?

Sounds like something that belongs in the Evil Overlord Rules.

Of course, word will leak out that your brother is not just dead but really most sincerely dead, and so you’ll need to fabricate evidence that he’s alive, like photoshopped pictures of him recuperating in the hospital and notes written in his name talking about the fact that he’s not dead. But those are small things.

Which brings us to the picture above.

What’s up with those shadows coming off of Castro’s brotherHugo Chavez? Y’know . . . the shadows that ain’t coming off Castro himself.

Certain quarters in the blogosphere LIKE HERE and HERE have been speculating that the recent recuperative photos of Castro have been faked in some kind of photoshoppy Caribbean version of Weekend At Bernie’s.

I haven’t really been following that beat (in fact, I haven’t read the two sites I just linked with any thoroughness, so there may be bad words or something on them, so caveat lector), and I haven’t seen anything that’s knocked me out as proof that the recent Castro photos are fake, but . . . DUDE! Where’s your shadow!

We’ve got two strong light sources causing Chavez to throw some crisply defined shadows. . . . Why ain’t Castro doing the same thing?

Of course, even if evidence emerges of Photoshop fakery (BTW, let’s try to use the word "Photoshop" as a generic term as many times as possible just to annoy the Adobe corporation; it’d be good revenge for their evil file format, .pdf) it wouldn’t mean that Castro’s dead. It might just mean that he looks like hades and they’re trying to keep the populace from realizing what horrible shape he’s in.

But until we’ve got video of Castro that is of unambiguously recent vintage, I’m going to have a question in my mind about whether Fidel is really still among us.

BTW, credit where credit is due . . .

PEGGY NOONAN CALLED THE "CASTRO MAY BE DEAD" THING TWO WEEKS AGO–EARLIER THAN ANYBODY ELSE I KNOW.

Also,

WIKIPEDIA’S ON THE BEAT.

And

HOW ABOUT THIS ALLEGED AUGUST 13TH NOTE FROM CASTRO.

PRE-PUBLICATION UPDATE: Late Monday night Drudge reported that Cuban TV has aired video of Castro that at least seems to be of recent vintage. (Conclusive proof of that didn’t seem to be mentioned, though.) Best guess is that Castro is still alive as of Monday night. Thought I’d let this post go up, though, since (a) the new video doesn’t prove that the Castro photos aren’t Photoshopped (take that, Adobe!), (b) it shows that even tyrant kid brother wannabes are waking up to the fact that photos aren’t enough anymore (though single-source video won’t be for long; soon you’ll need multiple free-world-accredited cameras rolling due to the possibility of a Lucasfilm fake; take that, Lucasfilm!), and (c) it provides a run-through for what this dictatorship (or any other) might do when the time fore Fearless Leader’s passing finally comes.

MORE ON THE VIDEO.

Shulerkreis 2006!

No! It’s not the Bavarian equivalent of Woodstock!

Well, not totally.

It is a gathering of students, though. Specifically, it’s the gathering of the students that Herr Dr. Joseph Ratzinger had back in the day when he was a college prof. (Y’know, before that whole cardinal/pope gig came along.)

Every year the main man and his former students get together for several days of peace, love, and understanding–with the emphasis on the understanding part. Each year their gathering has a theme that is explored by different speakers (some invited from outside the group) so that the participants can chew over and learn more about the subject.

Last year’s theme for the Schulerkreis was Islam.

This year it’s a no less controversial subject: Evolution.

GET THE STORY.

Man, I’d love to have tickets to this event. If anybody is scalping, lemme know.

Uh . . . Mr. Protestant Bishop Sir?

A reader writes:

I’m curious how a Catholic should refer to protestant ‘bishops.’  In the course of day to day (non-religious) business I run across men who refer to themselves as "Bishop so and so" when we introduce ourselves  They are typically from small, local, apostolic-type of protestant sects . . . in other words, they are not priests, nor are they annointed by bishops in communion with the Church.

A Catholic would NEVER give the title of pope to somebody who introduced themselves as such (except the true Holy Father).  So, does the same reasoning follow for protestant bishops?  Shall I simply call him ‘reverend’?

I’ll be of what help I can, but first let me challenge one bit of what you said–the idea that a Catholic would never give the title pope to anyone except the holy father.

Actually, they would.

And you know who would? The pope himself!

The reason is that the term "pope" is not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome. It is also used of certain other religious leaders, including the head of the Coptic Church and the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

Thus the current head of the Coptic Church is His Holiness Pope Shenouda III (his website is copticpope.org) and the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Alexandria is Pope Theodoros II (though he seems to be more commonly called Patriarch Theodore II; and here’s his website).

The title "pope" is given to these individuals even by the pope. If you check the Vatican’s web site, you’ll find a common declaration between Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III, and an address by John Paul II to delegates of Pope Shenouda, and a mention of Pope Shenouda in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint (see n. 62)–among other references to the Coptic pope, using the title "pope" for him.

These usages reflect the approach taken by the Holy See, which is generally to concede the religious titles that are customary in the community that a religious leader belongs to.

This is not to say that they would always grant a person his preferred title. For example, I can scarcely imagine that they would concede the title "pope" to an antipope (of which there are several at the moment, as there always are in every age of Church history since there are always kooks in every age of Church history). Doing that would be too confusing to the faithful, but when it is clear that the religious leader in question makes no pretense of being Catholic, the Holy See has judged the situation sufficiently clear to the faithful that it is willing to extend to a clergyman whatever his preferred title is, even if that title is "pope" (which, after all, just means "father").

This practice is also extended to Protestant bishops who are presumed to have been invalidly ordained, including the head of the Anglican communion. Thus on the Vatican’s web site you’ll find a common declaration between Pope John Paul II and the Archbishop of Canterbury, referring to the latter as "the Archbishop of Canterbury."

The reason they’re doing this, presumably, is the principle that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and refusing to use the preferred title for such individuals would be a distinctly vinegary thing to do.

On the other hand, we don’t all move in circles of high ecumenical figures, and there are times when a vinegary "tough love" approach is warranted. It is certainly understandable that you would feel uncomfortable conceding the title "bishop" to individuals who . . . aren’t. And, furthermore, who may not even be trinitarians, depending on what kind of "apostolic" church they are members of.

It’s understandable if they feel that they have this office and are thus entitled to be titled by the title with which it is titled, but it is also understandable if you don’t.

It therefore strikes me as a judgment call as to what you should call them in any particular circumstances. Depending on what will do the most good in a particular case, you might follow the Holy See’s general practice and concede a non-Catholic clergyman his title of preference or you might choose to call him something else. "Reverend" is a good backup term since it is generally used as a clergy honoriffic across confessional lines and doesn’t connote much more than that the person is a clergyman (more info on the title). Personally, I’d have a hard time using even this, though, for a person who is not a trinitarian minister.

As a Southerner, I’ve got something of an out on this one, though. Where I come from, the honoriffic "Sir" is so ingrained that it can be seamlessly used for any male, regardless of his job. In fact, Catholic priests are often reflexively called "Sir" by many Southern Catholics, without the Catholics even realizing that they’re doing it. (They’re not doing it to the exclusion of "Father"; it’s just that "Sir" slips out automatically.) This was particularly noted by one priest I came into contact with who moved to the South and was at first disoriented by his own congregants calling him "Sir" part of the time, until he realized that it was just the custom of the area.

(NOTE: I’m sure that there are Southern Catholics who would disapprove of this, but it’s a fact that it happens–particularly among those who have had the polite use of "Sir" ingrained in them from a very young age.)

Of course, this would leave me in a lurch for what to call a female clergyman, but then there’s that other reflexive regional usage: "Ma’am."

It is also worth observing that the dilemma posed in this post is not unique to Catholics. Non-Catholics also feel torn about what to call clergy from other groups. In particular, many Protestants feel reluctant to call Catholic priests "Father," for understandable (if ultimately unpersuasive) reasons.

I know that from my own time as a Protestant, and I was struck when, after becoming Catholic, I once was visting the Western Wall in Jerusalem with Fr. Mitch Pacwa and I looked over and saw–of all people–Jerry Falwell doing a videotaping a few feet away from me. I pointed him out and soon our two groups were talking. I was struck by how gracious Rev. Falwell was toward Fr. Pacwa, greeting him warmly as "Father" even though Falwell’s theological views have been quite opposed to Catholic principles.

The culture war in America, though, like the ecumenical effort in Rome, has led to a warming of relations between folks of different confessions and a corresponding willingness to grant each other their preferred titles.

Canonical Implications Of Simulated Ordination To The Priesthood and Diaconate

Many are aware of the recent attempt by a group of women in the United States to be ordained to the priesthood and the diaconate in a ceremony in Pennsylvania.

This is very unfortunate, and we may hope and pray that those involved will repent. In the meantime, there is the question of what is to be done and how the individuals in question are to be treated and regarded under canon law.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of what seems to be misinformation floating around in the popular and Catholic press regarding this. Numerous individuals have been asserting that the women have automatically excommunicated themselves and/or removed themselves from the Church.

Neither of these claims appears to be true, canonically speaking.

While the actions of those involved in the ceremony are certainly very grave and a canonical response is called for, there does not appear to be a basis in canon law for the two claims.

Canon law does provide an automatic excommunication for the (valid) consecration of a bishop apart from a papal mandate:

Can. 1382 A
bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the
person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae
(automatic) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

This applies to episcopal consecration, but canon law does not provide an automatic excommunication for valid but illicit ordinations to the priesthood or the diaconate or for invalid (simulated) ones.

What happened in the Pennsylvania ceremony was a simulation of the sacrament of ordination, for which the relevant canon appears to be this one:

Can. 1379 In addition to the cases mentioned in can. 1378, a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.

To my mind, a just penalty in this case would be excommunication. What the participants in the ceremony did is clearly grave enough to warrant excommunication. Canonically, however, the law does not provide for this penalty to take effect on them latae sententiae (automatically). That automatic triggering of the punishment does not take place for simulation of holy orders. It would have to be imposed by ecclesiastical authority, and canon 1379 provides the legal basis for its imposition.

There are, however, canonical effects that likely have taken place automatically regarding at least some of the women involved in the ceremony. Those who attempted ordination to the priesthood have presumably or are known to have subsequently attempted to celebrate Mass, and there is an automatic penalty for those who simulate the celebration of the Eucharist:

Can. 1378

§2. The following incur a latae sententiae penalty of interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae penalty of suspension:

1/ a person who attempts the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice though not promoted to the sacerdotal order;

2/ apart from the case mentioned in §1, a person who, though unable to give sacramental absolution validly, attempts to impart it or who hears sacramental confession.

§3. In the cases mentioned in §2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.

By attempting to celebrate Mass subsequent to their attempted ordinations, the women in question would have interdicted themselves (unless this was prevented by one of the provisions of canons 1323 or 1324). Interdiction has many of the same effects as excommunication but not all of them (see canon 1332 in comparison to 1331). Their action also (per section 3) would provide a basis for the imposition of additional penalties, including excommunication, though this would have to be imposed by ecclesiastical authority instead of taking effect automatically.

The canonical basis also is not clear for the claim that the women have removed themselves from the Church.

The individuals in question had committed an offence against the unity of the Church that disrupts their full communion with the Church, but it is not clear that this breach of unity is sufficient to sever their union with the Church and constitute a formal act of schism.

Canonically, schism is defined as follows:

Can. 751 . . . schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Since there is a canonical penalty of excommunication for schism (can. 1364), whether or not an act of schism has occurred must be judged strictly since "Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation" (can. 18).

This means that a narrow construction is to be given to what constitutes "refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff" and "refusal . . . of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

It does not appear that the individuals involved in the Pennsylvania ceremony are attempting to sever communion with other members of the Catholic Church (they still profess to be Catholics), and not every act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff constitutes a refusal of submission to him (otherwise every knowing violation of canon law would be an act of schism). If the individuals involved in the ceremony said "We don’t believe that the pope has any authority over us" then they would have refused submission to him or–if the pope determined that a specific act constituted a refusal of submission (as John Paul II did in the case of the Lefebvrite episcopal consecrations)–then they could be judged to have committed schism.

Given the frequency with which such "women’s ordination" ceremonies are now occurring, the Church may in the future judge that they constitute schismatic acts or otherwise provide a latae sententiae excommunication for those participating in them, but it has not done so to date.

What is clear is that the individuals involved in this ceremony have committed a grave ecclesiastical offense with the exacerbating circumstances of scandal and sacrilege and they most assuredly deserve censure, including excommunication, even if it must be imposed rather than taking effect automatically.

ED PETERS HAS MORE ON THE SIMULATION OF MASS.

An Unexpected Candidate For 2008?

Feddie over at Southern Appeal writes:

I thought that you would like this. Bainbridge noted it on his blog:

http://tinyurl.com/o7q55

At the link one will find this bumper sticker:

Cthulhu_sticker1_1

Indeed. Sounds like there’s significant support for the Old Boy (I mean, the "Old One") making a presidential bid.

And that’s not the only Cthulhu presidential sticker I’ve run into! There’s also this one:

Cthulhu_sticker2

I even have a copy of the latter.

It came with my Call of Cthulhu DVD.

A Priest Forever

Jduryea_1

I had never heard of Fr. John Duryea but apparently he made quite a splash in the 1970s when he announced to a California congregation that he had committed the Intolerable Sin: he had fallen in love.

Well, that’s how he put it anyway. More to the point, he became involved in an illicit relationship with a woman twenty-four years his junior and eventually would be excommunicated, receiving the letter of excommunication on his wedding day.

On July 22, 2006, the feast of St. Mary Magdalene, John Duryea died.

"Over the past two years, Duryea suffered from deteriorating vision and hearing, although he was still able to walk daily until recently. He was suffering from a rare form of cancer, and family members said he chose a ‘self-directed death,’ [translation: suicide] which Eve DeBona [his wife] said should be legal and acceptable as a ‘much kinder’ way of passing. she was holding his hand when he died. He composed a letter/e-mail to friends the day prior to his death, in which he said, ‘I will go soon. Of all the images I take with me, the strongest are of my beloved mountains.’"

GET THE STORY.

The missive Duryea composed can be read in its entirety on his stepdaughter’s blog. Here is an excerpt:

"I wish to die now, because life is getting too painful for me. I have dermato-fibrosarcoma protuberante, a rare kind of cancer. In addition, my growing blindness and deafness and weakness give me the feeling of being in a fog all the time, and cut off from people, especially my family. This is so unlike my experience of life.

[…]

"From beyond death, I do not wish to reincarnate; I do not wish to return to this earth to face the tangled-up affairs of the world. But I do wish to remain a priest. In my experience, communication between the living and the dead has not been adequate. I would like to foster that communication, with my helping love.

"May God guide you as you have to deal with the present chaos of the world. May God bless Dr. Kevorkian who is suffering in prison because of his love and care for people who wanted to choose the time and means of their deaths. May God bless the state of Oregon, which now offers people this freedom."

GET THE POST.

AND A RELATED POST.

(Nod to Katie Allison Granju for the blog links.)

What struck me most — repulsed me, really — was how this former priest’s choice to do away with himself has been entirely whitewashed with terms like "self-directed death" and "a much kinder way of passing." While the family’s use of euphemisms is completely understandable and while my sympathies and prayers for comfort and healing go out to them during their time of grief, the news account of Duryea’s death does not even mention the word suicide. Just as abortion has been euphemized into social tolerability, so the reality of suicide is now being layered over with neologisms.

In the end though, John Duryea has received his wish "to remain a priest." He is indeed a priest forever. May God have mercy on his soul and may he rest in peace. Please keep him in your prayers. From the stories of his life and death, it sounds like he needs them.

St. Mary Magdalene, apostle to the apostles and patron of repentant sinners, pray for him.

Grover Shouldn’t Work Blue

GroverSigh.

EXCEPTS:

The creators of The Muppets and Sesame Street are staging a puppet show that is strictly for adults only.

Miss Piggy would blush over the antics in "Jim Henson’s Puppet Improv" which spearheads a renaissance of puppet shows for grown-ups at this year’s Edinburgh Fringe arts festival.

Every afternoon at the Fringe, an anarchic troupe of puppeteers led by the late Jim Henson’s son Brian do an improvisational show for kids.

Every evening the air turns blue as the show takes off into surreal flights of fancy dictated by the audience.

But would Brian’s father have approved?

"I think he would have loved it because of how outrageous I get. My Dad really believed in community and sweetness but the other side of him was incredibly naughty."

Based on my (limited) knowledge, I also suspect that Brian is correct.

I have to question this, though:

So does Henson, director of the Muppet Christmas Carol and Treasure Island movies, feel puppeteers around the world are trying to redress the balance so adults get a look in?

"Yes, absolutely," he said.

"The Americans are more action-oriented. They want to see the puppets beating each other up.

"British audiences are more intellectual. They like to see it sick and twisted, but in an intellectual way."

A lot of British humor doesn’t strike me as all that intellectual (some is, sure, but then so is some American humor). I find this particular juxtaposition ironic given the prominence in British culture of

PUNCH AND JUDY.

Anyway,

GET THE STORY.

Oh, and

THAT’S NOT THE ONLY MISCHIEF AT THE EDINBURGH FRINGE FESTIVAL.

I don’t find it in myself to write about the latter at the moment.

Logos Libronix Lack Of Catholic Works

A reader writes:

I own a Logos Libronix (LDLS) collection of ebooks and love the many of the functions of the LDLS system especially the search functions. However there are few Catholic titles available. I know Harmony Media has a great selection of Catholic titles but I would love to be able to search the Catechism, and Papal Encyclicals, and Vatican II documents in LDLS.

Recently another Catholic user has posed the question in their newsgroups as to why there are so few Catholic titles. The response was the following:

"The Libronix Digital Library System is just that – a library system with many books by many publishers. And many of those books disagree with each other in one way or another. For comparative study this is a very good thing. It means you can compare multiple theologies and a variety of doctrinal positions. Yet for many Catholic publishers, that’s where the problem lies. Most love the idea of their books being searchable in the LDLS, but when they find out that other non-Catholic books can be added to the system by users, they stop loving the idea. It’s the commingling of books on Catholicm and perhaps, books on Calvinism that stops them short. For many specific reasons, they cannot and will not allow this to happen. Yet, if Logos were to build a special product that effectively put a wall around Catholic material, our Library system representing many books by many publishers would cease to be a Library system, at least in the way the LDLS is constructed. "

Are Catholic publishers not allowed to publish their books with Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs in a system that allows the use of non-Catholic material? That seems to be the answer we are getting. But in a normal library all kinds of books are in one place, it doesn’t make sense that the Church would have such a restriction.

We have no responses fro any Catholic publisher on the subject.

Do you know of any other electronic versions of Catholic titles besides Harmony?

Harmony is a leading producer of Catholic e-books, though there are other companies that have put them out. To date many of the results have not been that impressive (the USCCB, for example, put out an electronic edition of the Catechism a few years ago that was simply awful; you had to click seven different things before you could get to your first screen of Catechism text). I’m sure this is something that will be solved with time and–to a significant extent–can be done at home using online resources. IntraText also has critical editions of certain key Catholic works available online.

As far as your question about what Catholic publishers are allowed to do, nothing in canon law prevents them from allowing their works to be placed in a particular storage medium as long as it is made clear that any imprimaturs that their works carry apply only to their works and not to other works also placed in the storage medium. This is the principle, for example, by which the Vatican allows the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches to be placed in the IntraText archive, which also contains many non-imprimatured works.

That being said, I do not know who at Logos wrote the reply that you quote or whether it would be endorsed by higher-ups at Logos. It also is not clear to me what the person means, but at first glance the person appears to be trying to blame Catholic publishers for not wanting to have their works put on CDs for Catholic publishers that also contain unlockable versions of non- or anti-Catholic works.

In the old days, Logos did not have a problem preparing special edition CDs for Catholic publishers. I know, because they did prepare a special edition CD for Catholic publishers at one time that omitted the anti-Catholic footnotes of the 38-volume Church Fathers set.

If Logos has now decided that they will no longer prepare special editions for Catholic publishers and they insist on putting unlockable non- or anti-Catholic works on CDs then that is entirely a marketing decision of the people at Logos and has nothing to do with a concept of a library.

A library can include whatever works the librarian wants, and if the librarians at Logos are insisting on putting unlockable non- or anti-Catholic works on proposed CDs for Catholic publishers then that is entirely their own choice. There is no reason in the world, assuming the economics of the deal would work, why an all-Catholic library CD cannot be produced except the choice of Logos management.

I’m also dubious of the broad-brush approach that the author of the statement applies to Catholic publishers. Catholic publishers are not monolithic, just as Protestant publishers are  not. They have different degrees of openness to non-Catholic ideas and different degrees of risk tolerance. As someone who works in Catholic publishing, I am leery of catchall statements about Catholic publishers saying that they (as a group) are not willing to do certain things.

I suspect that there are Protestant publishers who have resisted placing their works in Libronix format for the reason that they don’t want their works next to works hostile to their viewpoint, and I suspect that there are Catholic publishers who would not have a problem placing their works in Libronix, even on a CD containing non- or anti-Catholic works. The statement that you quote thus strikes me as taking a broadbrush approach that attempts to place blame on Catholic publishers, which is not good PR to my mind.

Knowing that a company is likely to make such statements as part of its public relations efforts is also the kind of thing that would make Catholic publishers leery of doing business with Logos. One could easily have said, "You know, we’ve talked to a number of Catholic publishers, but thus far we haven’t been able to put together any (or very many) deals, although we’d love to. If you’d like to see your favorite Catholic works available in Libronix format, contact the publishers and let them know that there’s a demand for this."

Trying to make it sound as if Catholic publishers are overcautious (or even paranoid) and thus to blame for not making their works available in this format is not the kind of thing likely to encourage them to make them available in this format.

This is the information age, and sooner or later a large number of Catholic works will be available in electronic format. Whether Logos wants its Libronix format to be the one that wins out in that regard is something that is principally Logos’ responsibility.

I’m also glad that you have had a good experience with Logos Libronix. Personally, I have had a bad experience with it. The Logos system was good when it was in the 1.6 version but when they made the jump to 2.0 they (in my opinion) overbuilt the thing so that it became so musclebound it was simply easier to use Google or CTRL-F to search html documents. Libronix, when it came out, crashed my system and I haven’t been able to use it, so they may have solved some of the overbuilt interface problems from version 2.0. Perhaps at some future point I’ll try it again and discover that the problems have been solved (something that would please me very much).

Hope this helps!

Public Safety Lawsuits Harming Public Safety?

Have seen those ads on TV–or gotten them in the mail–asking if you were harmed by some product or procedure because there are a bunch of lawyers somewhere preparing a class action suit to go after the makers of the product or the providers of the procedure?

They’re all over the place these days, reflecting the amazing litigiousness of contemporary American society.

Have you heard news stories about fantastically large awards being given to people as a result of such lawsuits?

Those are all over the place, too.

What’s the cumulative effect of such lawsuits?

No doubt, it makes manufacturers and service providers more careful in what they present to the market, knowing that they could get sued if someone gets hurt.

Good.

That needs to happen.

But might the cumulative effect of such lawsuits result in companies becoming too risk averse? If that were to happen then the public would be denied products and procedures that would make life better and that could even save lives.

John Stossel argues that this is what’s happening:

Union Carbide has invented a small portable kidney dialysis machine. It would make life much easier for people with kidney disease, but Union Carbide won’t sell it. With legal sharks circling, the risk of expensive lawsuits outweighs the possible profit.

Are you pregnant and nauseous? Bendectin would probably cure your morning sickness. For 27 years doctors prescribed the drug to 33 million women because it was so good at stopping nausea and vomiting. But you can’t buy Bendectin today because lawyers kept suing the manufacturer, Merrell Dow, claiming the drug caused birth defects.

Studies did not show that Bendectin caused birth defects, and Merrell Dow won most of the lawsuits. But after spending $100 million in legal fees and awards, the company gave up selling the drug. Bendectin has never been effectively replaced, and morning sickness is now a major contributor to dehydration during pregnancy.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says, "Within two years of discontinuing Bendectin, the incidence of hospitalization for dehydration during early pregnancy doubled; the incidence of birth defects was unchanged."

Those are just some of the life-enhancing products we know we must do without because America’s peculiar legal system makes it profitable for trial lawyers to pursue extortion — like litigation. What wonderful products will we never even hear about because the lawyers have created a climate of fear?

On the other hand:

Fear of being sued reduced the number of American companies researching contraceptives from 13 to two.

Whatever one ultimately concludes, it’s worthwhile to

GET THE STORY.