Good article Mr. Shea! However, I am still a little baffled why Dreher and yourself suggest that a bishop may be mistaken in considering the morning after pill an abortifacient. Perhaps it is not *necessarily* an abortifacient (i.e., it *may* prevent fertilization of the egg from taking place), but it can also act by preventing the fertilized egg from being implatend. That would be an abortion. I just want to clear that up lest anyone be confused about what Plan B does and does not do...

I would be interested in Mr. Shea's comments on the Natural Law right to self-defense (And duty to protect innocent others?) and on the right to the means (Modern fire arms) to enforce that right when the authorities (Local police, UN) are unable, and often unwilling, to do so.

No doubt the Christians of the Sudan and India would be interested in his words---If not actions.

Michael:

For the purposes of my article, I'm not interested in whether the bishops are wrong or right about the factoid of the abortifacient qualities of the morning after pill. They may well be right. I don't know. I'm simply responding to Dreher's question "What if they're wrong?"

James:

Try to stay on the topic. If you want to derail the conversation, please start your own blog. Thanks.

Mr. Shea, by injecting that very controversial issue as your main example, along with the photo of Plan B, the morning after pill is fair game for discussion. You could have chosen the minimum wage or something else that does not kill babies.

That's the example that Dreher happened to pick when he was asking his question. I made clear in the article that it could have just as easily been about farm subsidies.

Honest. I'm not arguing the bishops are wrong or right. It's not the point of the article. And, as I make clear, I'm opposed to morning after pills.

*Must* readers gin up acrimony about irrelevancies and non sequiturs? Sheesh!

"...and not like pundits on NPR or FoxNews."

I am growing more and more concerned by a trend gaining momentum among Catholic bloggers regarding an obsession to avoid being labeled liberal or conservative so as to "appear reasonable." If it continues, I may have to start a 12-step program for moderate-aholics.

As Christians, our goal should always be to try to discern God's will in humility and espouse the residual wisdom. This can only work well if we "separate ourselves" from the equation.

To even consider that our opinions may allow others to define or label us is simply motivated in pride. It is far better to speak the truth and have the whole world call us liars than to water that truth down in order to have the world think of us as "moderate." Of course this refers to issues of Faith and Morality ie. abortion and homosexuality, not political issues that fall outside these parameters.

Political moderation is relative, however. JFK would be considered a far right wing politician by todays standards. Fox News would consider him reasonable while NPR would disagree with him on almost every issue.... but if he had a D after his name, they would look the other way.

Being Catholic equals being moderate? Who knew? And here I thought being Catholic meant taking your theology from the Church and not from Hal Lindsey or Pat Robertson. So, for instance, a Catholic knows that he need pay no attention to quack exegetes who write things like

We Know Which Side God Is On
January 06th, 2009 | 2:31pm
Ezekiel 38:18
But on that day, the day when Gog invades the land of Israel, says the Lord GOD, my fury shall be aroused. In my anger
19 and in my jealousy, in my fiery wrath, I swear: On that day there shall be a great shaking upon the land of Israel.

...as though this automatically baptises every single act of the secular nation-state of Israel as the will of almighty God and automatically condemns any critic of anything Israel might do as an enemy of God. Indeed, I can find nothing in the magisterial teaching of the church that assures us "God is on the side of Israel" (except, of course, in the sense that "God is with us" as he is with all human beings in his Son, Emmanuel.

A Catholic knows perfectly well that such an application of Ezekiel to current events has not the slightest foundation in magisterial teaching and is entirely derived from the various apocalyptic end-time theories floating about in Evangelical and Bible-only circles that, not infrequently, are deeply hostile to situating Scripture in the context of apostolic tradition and the magisterial office of the Church.

An "extreme" Catholic such as yourself should know this. However, not a few "faithful conservative Catholics" pay much more attention to Hal Lindsey or Tim LaHaye than they do to the Magisterium, resulting in unfortunate alloys of theological quackery and political ideology. Whatever that is, it ain't docility to Church. It's the elevation of human tradition to the level of Sacred Tradition, and is pernicious and deeply dangerous.

"James:
Try to stay on the topic."
Written by Mark P. Shea

followed by :

"We Know Which Side God Is On
January 06th, 2009 | 2:31pm
Ezekiel 38:18"

From another thread on a completely different topic. Must be nice to be able to make and then break the rules.... just joking.

I will be polite and respond to your point.

You are correct when you state that Catholics should look to the Magisterium and not LaHaye, Lindsey or Robertson for theological truth. I have never watched Robertson or read one Left Behind book. I do sometimes read Hal Lindsey's articles on World Net Daily and find him interesting because he is willing to tackle tough subjects and isn't interested in being P.C. He has absolutely no theological credibility with me, however, because I heard him say in an interview that the Biblical "whore of Babylon" was the Vatican.

As for Israel.....

It was on that occasion that the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the Great River (the Euphrates),
19
the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,
20
the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
21
the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

It is the only nation which God Himself determined the borders. I might be wrong but I don't believe that the Magisterium has ever nullified this covenant which would put the burden of proof on you not me that it no longer applies.

Now, the point I was trying to make on this thread was to respond to your phrase "and not like pundits on NPR or FoxNews"

Though Fox News is imperfect and sometimes obnoxious, there is no way it can be compared to NPR who voices a disdain for Catholic values as well as the Catholic Church itself.

I hope you receive this in the spirit intended. I know we are on the same side and I love all of the writers and commenters on this site.

But, in this article, ( http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml ) the USCCB says that with regards to victims of rape, women could use a specific non-abortifacient protocol to protect themselves against conception -- provided that the drug is not abortifacient or even potentially so. Is this directive wrong? (in which case my point is irrelevant)

If it is not wrong, it does have real implications for morality whether plan B (or some newfangled emergency contraceptive that acts in a different way) is abortifacient or not. (I'm not claiming plan b is not abortifacient -- I'm just saying the question could be relevant for morality, especially when concerned with whether Catholic Hospitals might need to provide such drugs as part of rape kits).

You are a) ridiculing docility as "moderateness" and b)recommending zeal without knowledge as some sort of Christian model of courage. I'm explaining that fidelity to the Magisterium (i.e "docility") is not the wimpy "moderation" you ridicule (the term you *really* mean is "timidity/faint-heartedness/cowardice"), but the willingness to listen to what the Church has to say and not rush off to foolishly elevate some human tradition to the status of Revealed Truth.

In short, I am correcting your false claim that docility to the Church's teaching means timidity. It doesn't. Paul was docile to the Church. He was a lion for the Faith. And he taught that zeal without knowledge is not a good thing (Rom. 10:1-3). You should listen to him, particularly when he warns "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Colossian 2:8). If you aren't sure how to distinguish between mere human tradition (such as "Ezekiel as a Guide to Understanding Today's Headlines from Gaza") and Sacred Tradition, try listening to the Church. You will not find this exegetical theory being taught as dogma or even as remote theological speculation--except among some non-Catholic preachers. You may not know where this crank reading of Ezekiel comes from, but that's the source. So the next time you confidently insist that we, as Catholics "know" what your proof text means, you might consider checking to see if we actually "know" any such thing.

Maida.

When a victim of rape is brought to a Catholic hospital, a test to see if she has ovulated is performed. If she hasn't, than we may assist the victim with non-abortifacient protocol. If she hasn't ovulated, the pill works as a contraceptor which is only permitted in cases of rape.

I did ONCE have a priest in confession counsel me to commit a mortal sin.

At which point I shrieked "WHAT?!?!?!?" At the top of my lungs. At which point the priest asked if I had said what he THOUGHT I'd said, and I informed him that, no, I'd said something totally different than what he'd heard, and we all breathed a sigh of relief, had a good laugh, and got back to confession.

He also told me that if I ever again encountered a similar situation, shrieking in confusion was the appropriate response! =)

An interesting quote reflecting on your zero tolerance towards any type of coercion tactics in time of war where clearly there are no teachings from the magisterium.



And clearly the Church respects State's rights to execute malefactors to protect itself and/or as punishment. CCC 2266

Isn't any "command to tend the Garden in Genesis" moot because we're now outside that Garden?

I'm so glad you're "docile," Shea. And I'm really impressed by your industry, especially when you refer people from your present discussion on Unam Sanctam to your other discussion on Unam Sanctam, which presumes you're an expert on Unam Sanctam. But I do wish you would learn the mean of "prudential judgment." As much as you try, you never seem to get that one right.

Isn't any "command to tend the Garden in Genesis" moot because we're now outside that Garden?

No. Our responsibility for our dominion over creation is a constant feature of Catholic teaching.

An interesting quote reflecting on your zero tolerance towards any type of coercion tactics in time of war

I do not oppose "any type of coercion tactics". I oppose torture. So does the Magisterium. Quite clearly. Anybody who has read my voluminous commentary on this question knows that, so I can only assume you are either a) ignorantly passing along false gossip or b) deliberate lying about what I think in order to score a point.

where clearly there are no teachings from the magisterium.

What is unclear about "torture is gravely and intrinsically immoral" and "Prisoners must be treated humanely"? Those who are docile to the Church's teaching don't waste time trying to think of excuses for getting as close to torture as possible without technically committing it, just as they don't waste time trying to figure out how to get as close as possible to making it with their secretary without technically committing adultery. It's only complicated if you want it to be.

And clearly the Church respects State's rights to execute malefactors to protect itself and/or as punishment. CCC 2266

Yes. So? Are you suggesting I deny this? On what basis? Particularly since I have made clear multiple times that I do not deny it at all.

Ben:

You stay classy.

Good article, Mark. Allow me to give some thoughts.

Docility might in itself be a worthy virtue to practice, but I don't think it's without its own set of problems. When docility is exalted by the crowd and pursued without prudence, it can lead to dangerous consequences. The centuries-old tradition in the Church of treating Jews with scorn, referring to them as "perfidious" in our rites, and other anti-Semitic practices were certainly problematic. I am not an expert on the matter, but from what I understand, it was docility on the part of the masses that allowed this to continue. Failure to confront or oppose the culture of anti-Semitism in our Church caused the ongoing marginalization of an entire people and certainly seemed to contribute to tolerance of their outright persecution.

Also, I have to comment on this, which is a good summation of one of your main points:



I think this is unfair. Some people have to make these calls in real life, and they need to know where hard moral lines are drawn and if they exist at all. A military attorney who is an observant Catholic, put in charge of developing guidelines for coercive questioning of prisoners, will no be served by your exhortations of docility - he's got to conisder how far this useful tactic can go before it falls under the definition of "torture". He doesn't have the luxury of avoiding the whole question and appealing to docility. Nor does the health care worker treating a rape victim with a non-abortifacient morning-after pill. These things matter, and a spirit of docility won't answer them.

Finally, a healthy skepticism is a good antitode to the groupthink effect of docility, which is what we Catholics are certainly conditioned for ("pay, pray and obey" isn't a punch line for nothing). Your assertions notwithstanding, today's laity are as well-educated as our priests, and many of us are on par with our bishops, education-wise. The information available to them is available to us, and I don't think it's a bad thing that we have become perhaps more prone to meet their pronouncements with some reservation.

"In short, I am correcting your false claim that docility to the Church's teaching means timidity." - Mark Shea

In short, you can not be correcting me because I agree with you regarding being docile to the Church's teachings.

The point I was making about "moderate-aholics" was intended for you personally .... not the Church.

For a third time : "Now, the point I was trying to make on this thread was to respond to your phrase "and not like pundits on NPR or FoxNews"

If you believe that these are two sources are outside the parameters of reasonable journalism then would you please provide an example of a news source positioned to the left of Fox News which is docile to the Church's teachings on abortion and homosexuality?

With all due respect to the notion of docility, I think there's another way to interpret Shea's notion of the term. The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the term several times:

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason. They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

1830 The moral life of Christians is sustained by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are permanent dispositions which make man docile in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.

1742 Freedom and grace. The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world.

However, none of these uses of "docile" or "docility" precludes critical examination or study of our faith. That is what intelligent faithful and theologians ponder every day. It's what St. Anselm called "faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum)." Not all can do this and not all can do it well, but those who can are well within their rights to do so as long as they respect the boundaries set by the Church. One might cite the example of Joseph Ratzinger, one who has pondered his faith deeply and, sometimes, with serious questions. He has even gone so far as to question magisterial documents, such as Gaudium et spes. I wonder what Shea would say about that? Oddly enough, Joseph Ratzinger is still a Catholic in good standing.

What Shea disregards or doesn't understand is this very concept. And he puts everything under the rubric of "things that shall not be discussed or questioned." Nothing is prudential, everything is dogma. But that's not how the Catholic Church works.

What Shea disregards or doesn't understand is this very concept. And he puts everything under the rubric of "things that shall not be discussed or questioned." Nothing is prudential, everything is dogma.

One wonders if you are capable of reading at all, Ben. How you can derive the notion that I think "Nothing is prudential, everything is dogma" from what I wrote in this piece is a mystery beyond my poor powers to grasp. Perhaps words don't mean the same thing on your planet. I don't know.

If you believe that these are two sources are outside the parameters of reasonable journalism then would you please provide an example of a news source positioned to the left of Fox News which is docile to the Church's teachings on abortion and homosexuality?

Translation: You don't care about Hannity's contempt for the Church's teaching on life issues and you don't mind news organs that cheerlead for war crimes, just pelvic issues.

I never said these organs are "outside the parameters of reasonable journalism". I said that Catholics should form their thinking according to the Magisterium, not according to what a hack like Hannity (or so pro-abort NPR pundit) tells them to think.

Catholics should not, in issues where this is the case, be either right or left, but should uphold the teachings of the Church. That is being ardently anti-abortion and ardently anti-torture.

We know we are doing what we are trying to if, instead of being appeased, each side of the political arena is uncomfortable with us. While the right may be closer to Catholic morals than the left, that doesn't mean that it is identical.

The salvation of the world doesn't come through politics, but through love and the gospel. Like us, the state will never or very, very rarely be completely ordered to the precepts and counsels of God, and will therefore be engaged in a constant struggle against itself. Sanctity is what is needed, politics is merely a tool to be used for that purpose.

Mark Shea, I'm sure you've noticed more than I by now that 90% of people who leave comments online come from different planets where words mean something different.

Half the comments I leave seem to address this in some way, pointing out how people misunderstand each other, and are arguing silly unending arguments about things they don't even completely disagree about.

Mr. Shea is completely mistaken when it comes to teachings of the magisterium of the church on faith and morals. When the holy father, or the bishops in union with him propose a teaching that is not an infallible definition, but a teaching that leads to a better understanding of faith and morals, the faithful are to accept this with ascent of intellect and will. This is from Lumen Gentium paragraph 25.

while a theologan might interiorly dissent, he is not allowed to publicaly dissent.

Also when your bishop teaches on faith and morals, you are to accept this with ascent of intellect and will.

I look forward daily to checking out Inside Catholic and reading intelligent articles and comments. However, many of the comments following this piece, including the much of the author's comments, are really a disappointment--not to mention, in violation of the "Rules for Comments." Am really hoping the editors remove some of it. It's really embarrassing as a fellow Catholic.

<blockquote>If she hasn't ovulated, the pill works as a contraceptor which is only permitted in cases of rape.</blockquote> Permited by whom?

Nothing I read here on Inside Catholic did you explain the line between coercion and torture. I did peruse your blog a little and found nothing.

Prove your personal insult with a web page link!

One man's torture is another man's coercion.

An authoritative woman interrogating a Muslim probably is torture to him. How about playing gangster rap during this same coercion.

Forcing me to listen to Hamas or any other terrorist group's ranting videos long hours with sleep deprivation would be torturous to me.

The fact is that torture is subjective and you know it. And saying one political party has sole culpability is much less than honest.

I would say condemning someone to death is a form of torture. You can punish someone with the death penalty but “harsh” coercion tactics are forbidden? Doesn’t compute.

Season 7, 24:

"It opens with a bunch of pontificating, pompous buffoons of a Senate committee interrogating Jack Bauer, trying to put him in jail for torture"

Congressional liberals don't torture people?

What is abortion? (FOCA promises infanticide)

What is euthanasia?

What are any legalized intrinsic evils or immoral licenses but slavery and torture?

Seamus-

I didn't post that statement, but it seems obvious from the context that Dee is referring to the Catholic church. Why would a contraceptor in such a case NOT be permitted?

Docility might in itself be a worthy virtue to practice, but I don't think it's without its own set of problems.

True. It's a rule of thumb, not an iron law. However, it's a rule of thumb that is largely counter-cultural in American Catholicism which (even as we see in this thread) tends to be riven by factionalism that breaks down roughly along the lines of The Minimize Church Teaching on Pelvic Issues party (they're most reading the National Catholic Reporter, not Inside Catholic) and The Minimize Church Teaching on War Crimes Party. It think before we spend *too* much time worrying about the dangers of docility to the Church, it's generally good to get people to stop being reflexively docile to the World. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

The centuries-old tradition in the Church of treating Jews with scorn, referring to them as "perfidious" in our rites, and other anti-Semitic practices were certainly problematic.

Agreed.

I am not an expert on the matter, but from what I understand, it was docility on the part of the masses that allowed this to continue.

It's not that simple. Anti-semitism was very often a popular grass roots phenomenon reined in by the Church. Do recall that the Inquisition was established was precisely to act as a check on popular vigilantism. Similarly, we have on record numerous times when the only thing that stood between the Jews and the mob with torches was the priest, bishop, or Pope. (If you Google around, you can find a rather remarkable repudiation of the blood libel written by a medieval Pope (I forget who.)

Failure to confront or oppose the culture of anti-Semitism in our Church caused the ongoing marginalization of an entire people and certainly seemed to contribute to tolerance of their outright persecution.

Agreed. Which is precisely why we cannot simply check our brains when it comes to practical application of the Tradition.

I think this is unfair. Some people have to make these calls in real life, and they need to know where hard moral lines are drawn and if they exist at all.

I realize this. However, I am speaking from long and tedious experience with laptop bombardiers who do *not* have to make such calls, but who are actively engaged, even at this hour, with making endless excuses, tergiversations and theological rationales on behalf of the torture regime by which George W. Bush has embarrassed the honor of these United States. One principal method they continually use is to constantly pretend utter bafflement about the possibility of ever knowing what torture is by (as one blogger aptly put it) "making the case for fog". Simply pretend to "seek a definition of torture", reject every definition ever proposed, and propose no definition of your own. Voila! The conversation can go on blindly groping through the artificial murk forever. It's the same technique used by those who feign perpetual bafflement over how to tell the difference between the work of Michaelangelo and Larry Flynt. They both portray naked bodies! Who can possibly detect a definable difference between art and pornography? Who can possibly know the difference between legitimate coercion and torture? It's all subjective and relative! The trick is not to suppose "No bright line" means "No distinction".

A military attorney ... he's got to conisder how far this useful tactic can go before it falls under the definition of "torture".

That's why there's an Army Field Manual, a body of trained interrogators who know the rules and Geneva Conventions. They worked pretty good up for 50 years. The only thing that changed was that Bush wanted to torture people and many Righties, including--alas!--many Catholics, wanted to make excuses for it. My recommendation is "Ask the experts how humane interrogation is done." Not a few are appalled at what the Bushies have wrought.

(see next post....)

Finally, a healthy skepticism is a good antitode to the groupthink effect of docility

Americans are, largely, extremely docile--just not to the Church. We are a herd of independent minds who congratulate ourselves on our "healthy skepticism" while reliably conforming to the templates given us by salesmen, politicians, and media/corporate machines. It is hilarious to me that we then baptize our (usually blind) rejection of almost anything the Church proposes which inconveniences our pursuit of money, sex, and power as "healthy skepticism".

That's why most American Catholic discourse on Pet Topics is framed *far* more by whatever junk people hear on TV, in movies or on the radio than by the teaching of the Church. Far more conservative Catholics ask themselves "What would Jack Bauer do?" in deliberating the morality of torture than consult Veritatis Splendor (if they've heard of it). That's why, when you Google "ticking time bomb" you get untold thousands of hits from people who think they are "seriously" discussing the morality of torture, even though ticking time bombs are a fantasy that happens on "24", not something driving actual policy as it has been implemented by the Administration. Hey! Rush Limbaugh laughed it off as frat hazing and minted a "Club Gitmo" t-shirt so his Dittoheads could join in the hilarity. Who cares what those wimpy Euroweenie peace 'n justice bishops say? They should mind their own business.

Similarly, the pro-abort wing of the Catholic "faithful" is fueled far more by watching Oprahfied sob stories, feminist manifestos, and apologias on the Tube than by any serious consideration of Catholic teaching. Who cares what celibate dried out stick insects in the Vatican say about sex? They should mind their own business.

That is what we Americans typically mean by "healthy skepticism". And it is, very predictably, led to a deeply unhealthy Church here in the US.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful note. A refreshing change of pace.

My apologies for answering my sillier critics in kind. Please forgive me.

Hi Mark. Thank you for your reply. A propos our last topic (healthy skepticism): I hear what you're saying and it sounds to me like we're approaching the issue from different sides and cautioning against the excesses of the other. So while you're saying: "Think for yourselves, but consider that you might want to cultivate more docility to the words of our shepherds", I'm saying "Give respectful consideration to what your bishop says, but judge the issue(s) for yourself, taking into account actual Church teaching, logic and reason". Similar messages, different exhortations.

We're all colored by our experiences, you and me included, and your observations about "American groupthink" lead you to urge us to pay more heed to the voice of the Catholic heirarchy. My experiences with orthodox Catholics lead me to urge people to think for themselves and not give undue deference to episcopal pronouncements (with an emphasis on "undue").

Anyway, thanks again for the dialogue. On my lunch break, I'm gonna try to Google that medieval bishop you mentioned who wrote a repudiation of the Jewish blood libel. I'd be very interested to read it - thanks for the tip!

Here's the link:

http://tiny.cc/fhkL1

And by the way, I had not noticed "nobody's" hilarious appeals to "24" as Sacred Tradition and his veneration of the martyr St. Jack Bauer when I wrote my reply to you. It's so thoughtful when people illustrate precisely the point one is trying to make.

The Inquisition is certainly guilty of some awful crimes, but during the late Medieval and Early Renaissance Periods, many thousands of innocent people were murdered by crazed mobs. Poor souls accused of witchcraft or some other "crime" were seized by mobs and burned at the stake or murdered in some other horrific manner. In France and Germany, I think well over 50,000 people were killed in these frenzies during the 15th century. In Spain, people accused of witchcraft, heresy, etc were usually brought before the Inquisition and questioned, then judged by a panel of priests. Now, thre were often abuses and other horrors, but from what I have read, the mass hysteria that afflicted France and Germany was stopped at the border, and the priests of the Inquisition were not as prone to burn people at the stake for no good reason. I understand that often, people were released due to lack of evidence and even if guilty were often afforded the opportunity to repent. I could be wrong here[I often am], but I would imagine that Spain had many fewer people burned at the stake as compared to France and Germany. Can anyone advise on this?

First, I used the Jack Bauer example because real Congressional liberals have NOT published or charged anyone with torture or war crimes. And neither have you.

So if you can’t refer me to documents of real examples of torture you and the Congressional liberals are either complicit in the supposed crimes or the both of you are guilty of calumny and slander for political points.

Your heavy breathing example of mentioning the existence of an Army interrogation manual, Ha ha, that’s a good one.

Nobody:

Your rhetoric is a classic example of "asking questions to keep from finding things out" that so typifies apologists for torture on the Rubber Hose Right. Even a modest competence with Google would enable you, if you were actually serious about getting answers to your questions to find things like this:

http://tiny.cc/x830l

It's even signed off on by John McCain, who just two months ago you were telling me I must vote for because it's God's will. Of courze, what would *he* know about torture compared to a laptop bombardier? The report makes it clear that, yes, we torture prisoners and, no, it wasn't just a few bad apples but Administration policy that were behind the abuse.

If this is all not good enough for an expert who has seen a great many episodes of 24, perhaps this will persuade you:

http://tiny.cc/hYI3I

It's generally acknowledged by experts that if you die from asphyxiation while they are "coercing" you, that was torture. Curiously, the people who murdered this man have been shielded from prosecution by the Administration.

Finally, since you can't seem to read, much less figure out how to use Google to find elementary facts, let me reiterate that I spoke of a Army Field Manual, not an Army Interrogation Manual. It does indeed have elementary instructions (written for people with a sixth grade education) on how to treat prisoners. Putting them in stress positions till they die of asphyxiation, stripping them naked, subjecting them to freezing temperatures, and throwing icy water on them until they require hypothermia treatment is not prescribed by the Field Manual. But these are among the tortures the Bush Administration has inflicted on prisoners (quite a number of them found later to be innocent) and which it has fought to keep legal for the CIA at this very hour.

So: I've given you some documentation. I suppose it would be too much to expect an apology from you for suggesting I calumnied anybody?

Mark and "Nobody": Torture doesn't just affect the victim, it affects those who do the torturing: it strips them of their humanity and makes them into something that they really don't want to be [for the most part]. It also robs us, as a people, from having the high ground morally. I know a lot of people, say the end justifies the means, and if we can save lives from information obtained from torture, but it is the old slippery slope and the idea of Americans routinely employing torture makes me sick. Team Bush jumped into this with grins and high fives, like it was some sort of Fraternity prank or initiation, not fully grasping the monster they were unleashing. Many American military officers [I am a former Marine officer] were very upset by the abuse of detainees. It goes against our code, it tarnishes our honor. I don't like it one bit, and I am very disappointed in Bush, who I had voted for, and from whom I expected more.

Hi Mark,
I just discovered this sight and I enjoy reading the comments or at least most of them.

Docility is a sign of humility. When a person is docile he or she is saying "I don't know everything and I am willing to listen and learn." Docility doesn't mean, as you stated in your article that I except everything I hear uncritically, which is the problem with way to many in our society today.

I do think, however, and maybe I missunderstood you, that when the bishops or even the Pope make an incorrect statement on a legitimate topic, such as "man made golbal warming" then they should be corrected, because of the damage and real harm to human beings that can be done by wrond headed sollutions. Of course we must always be respectful. I remember when JPII caved on alter girls. Blessed Mother Theresa took him to wood shed if I remember correctly.

The bishops have a difficult task especially today. We must encourage them and stand behind them and most importantly pray for them.

Pax,
James

"I would imagine that Spain had many fewer people burned at the stake as compared to France and Germany. Can anyone advise on this?"
Written by Will

Will, I have found Thomas Madden to be the best Catholic writer regarding the Crusades and Inquisition. I hope you find these articles helpful.

Here is a link to a great article about the Crusades :
http://www.staycatholic.com/the_crusades.htm

This is a link to a great article about the Inquisition :
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

So you treat a summary report by an Ultra-Abortionist Carl Levin and a Democrat Party Controlled Congress like a Papal Encyclical?

Wow. Are there any other Congressional Encyclicals that you recommend?

Should Carl Levin and his ilk instruct Catholics on abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell, homosexuality, and human cloning too?

Maybe you should read the fourth thru the seven amendments which pertains to innocent till proven guilty, due process, Grand jury, right to a trial, and such which is NOT required in producing Congressional Encyclicals.

It’s also a fact that Google searches are much less than arbitrary and so-called bipartisan.

Texas Democratic Congressman Silvestre Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on December 16th not only urged Obama to retain Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden at their posts, but also advised him to allow the CIA's "alternative interrogation program," i.e., torture, to continue.

"We don't want to be known for torturing people," said Reyes. "At the same time we don't want to limit our ability to get information that's vital and critical to our national security." This Democratic approach could be summed up as: Keep torturing, but keep it quiet.

..... just in case some may be trying to use torture as a political "gotcha" against Republicans.

Also, for the record :

"only three detainees were ever subjected to waterboarding: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks; Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda operative tied to the Sept. 11 plot; and Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, a Saudi suspected of playing a key role in the bombing of the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000."

Alaska state legislature (democrats, a month before the last election) found that governor Palin had violated ethics rules when she dismissed an employee, only to have the state personnel board (which actually does have legal ruling power) dismiss all charges.

Legislators make law.

Courts and departments with limited granted power make judgments.

Thank you Jason. Seamus - yes, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that it is permissible for a Catholic physician, nurse, hospital to administer Plan B to a victim of rape under one set of circumstances: A test for markers of ovulation is done, it demonstrates with certainty that ovulation is not in the three day period of an egg release/ sperm survival. The Church considers this aberration of Evangelium Vitae as a contraceptive act in self defense. As it would an act of self defense in an attack that ends up with the perpetrator dead.

I admire your skepticism. Don't believe me - do your diligence with the official teachings of the Church.

Shorter nobody:

Nobody: Give me evidence!

Me: Here you go.

Nobody: I don't want your stupid evidence!

Anyway, for those who can read and think, it's obvious that we have tortured people (sometimes to death).

Not that this has anything to do with the actual topic here, beyond serving as another apt illustration of how ideological commitment can turn Catholics away from championing teaching of the Church like, oh, you know, "don't torture people to death".

I will leave the rest of the "discussion" to those who wish to turn themselves into pretzels ignoring the bleedin' obvious teaching of the Church when it comes to their preferred ideological commitments.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration has been silent on the charges of any torture conduct during his time in office. So your “evidence” is completely lopsided in one direction only.

All you have done is regurgitated tired old liberal Democratic Party talking points condemning the Bush Administration for something he has not answered to, has not been indicted on, and certainly has not been convicted of.

I am not a Republican Party member and I have not espoused the Party virtues here on this web site or any other for that matter. Yes, I have voted mostly Republican because what is there to vote for on the Democratic party side?

A dozen or so Serviceman have been convicted of malfeasance in this war on terror, so yes, there are some bad examples. How far up the chain of command we don’t know and for you to assume how far is beyond the pale.

Your Bush Administration “evidence” amounts to suspicion worthy of investigation --- not condemnation.

And with all the bluster in your typing you still haven’t offered anything explaining when coercion crosses the line into torture. And the Church is silent on this matter.

An interesting side point is that President Bush has not pardoned any one in relation to the “torture” charges from the left and from people like you. It will be interesting how this plays out; can he pardon someone before they are charged. Is Bush leaving himself and his cabinet members exposed to future lawsuits.

Or is all of this just a political football as it appears?

Plan B can fail to block ovulation upwards of 50% of the time it is administered- so even after taking an negative ovulation test, there would be no assurance that fertilization would not occur if the woman ovulated immediately after the test.There appears to be a mode of abortifacient activity with Plan B after fertilization takes place, up to and including the interference of implantation. The statistical data continues to prove this-investigate Dr. Chris Kahlenborn and Dr Stanford's research on this matter....

If we're gonna quote the great anti-torture crusader let's share some more quotes:

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

First I would like to say how honoured I am to be able to join in this discussion--and what thougtful and prudent thinkers are here! The faith is in good hands isn't it? People grappling with things, understanding our lack of understanding at times; checking to see if we are on the same page or even in the same book. In Greek Orthodoxy we often say: "Show me five Orthodox Christians and I'll show you five interpretations of Orthdoxy". (I have heard that applied to a lot of family trees. But when we actually engage one another in Eucharistic Liturgy, we transcend our ideas for the moment--and we find ourselves in a new moment--not of our creation--but of God's. Thus we call it Divine Liturgy, Holy Mass---our dealings with the ideas of faith are given over in Docility. "Let us leave behind all earthly care, and sing the thrice Holy hymne, we who mystically represent the cherubim". liturgy of st. John. Our struggles with the nuts and bolts of obedience are not minimized--but graced with the presence of the All Holy one who accepts these struggles and all of our life, in the lamb, the great bread the priest lifts saying "thine own of thine own we offer to thee O Lord on behalf of all and for all" And thus, in the sacrifice of the Liturgy made without the shedding of blood, where Christ on His noetic altar unites our docility with his own to the Father and all of mankind are represented in this....and when we walk away...we may still have the questions and the struggles...but we also have Christ and One another! It is not possible to recieve the Eucharist, and not also recieve one another, because it is the body of Christ, and we are the body of Christ. And ultimately, through the life giving spirit, we become Docile to what and whom we are in the life of The Trinity. This we call Theosis...and it is docility..and it is submissive and proactive, affirming and negating...but always in complete obedience to The Fathers whom the Lord speaks through...and to one another. So my friends, this matter of docility is of great importance--because one day it will be the road that leads Christendom home to each other. It is the vocation of His All Holiness Pope BenedictXVI, Patriarch Kiril, Patriarch Bartholemew, every believer, monk nun, mother, father, gay, straight, black, white. It is being docile to who we have been, who The Logos is and has always been, and shall always be, and who wills us to be as He is. And our Dear Friend Jason eloquently points out to us the point of living the life of Christ to those in the position of the hard decisions, for whom the task is great and stressful to be faithful to the incarnation while being faithful to the parameters at hand. Yes, docility to docility, and to how it may present itself to you and to me, for the sake of Christ and the will of the Father for man. Let's keep going together walking in his love as He has loved us.
A Sinner