The Black Madonna

The Death Merchants are now ready to start short-selling humanity.

Down Syndrome Now Detectable In 1st Trimester
Earlier Diagnosis Allows More Time for Decisions

Next stop, Dachau.

free turbo pascal 7

Conspiracy theory

Steve has information that John Roberts has been replaced by an alien robot. Though not quite so good looking as the others I've seen, I think it's probable he's actually a cylon.

The good news: Jimmy Akin says it's okay with God to "lock and load" on robots. The bad news: the theology gets murky if the robots have a soul, so we'd better send in Dean, since he's an orthodox atheist. Then again, even Dean might have a problem with the idea.

No good answers

A comment in response to a post at Catholics in the Public Square got me a little riled up, as someone tried to continue the confusion of Church doctrine on the death penalty with other life issues - while cruelly judging the intentions of another Catholic, to boot.

Too bad Jeb likes to execute people so much - compromises his culture of life, no?

Actually, no.

Some of us actually believe the death penalty supports the culture of life, by unambiguously proposing to execute those who hold life so cheap as to brutally take the life of an innocent. And thanks to Church teaching, there's nothing doctrinally incorrect with that opinion.

Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.

Even when the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement in opposition to the death penalty, they hedged. As Karl Keating put it:

Must Catholics adopt a particular view regarding the use (or non-use) of capital punishment? In short: no. They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in [the Catechism of the Catholic Church]. Contrary to what some people claim, there has been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter.

If the state were to prevent a woman from killing a baby in her womb, they would be preventing someone from committing a violent act against an innocent. People who support that woman's right to murder cannot make that claim, because no one has a right to murder.

On the contrary, people who support a murderer's right to life are protecting someone who is guilty from suffering punishment at the hands of the state, which IT has every right to do - provided all laws are followed, due process is respected, and careful adjudication is taken.

Someone who asks that the people of the state protect the life of the guilty like we protect the life of the innocent are asking the people to forgive. For forgiveness to be truly Christian, one must give it freely - it cannot be forced.

Ironically, these are exactly the circumstances when "I can't impose my beliefs on others" actually applies: you cannot compel a victim's family to forgive the murderer of their loved one. You cannot force the people of a state to forgive murderers and let them walk free.

We can pray that one day we'll all be Christian enough that it would happen without asking - or better yet, so Christian as to not have any murders to prosecute. Until then, I'll remain firmly on the fence on this one.

Onward Catholic Marchers!

Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO passes on an email received from a party-crasher at a Kerry rally in Steubenville, Ohio. Apparently, either Kerry mistook the residents there for small-"c" catholics of his persuasion, or his staff doesn't know the difference. In any event, the students of Franciscan University gave him a big welcome.

Before Kerry arrived there was a huge pro-life march led by Franciscan University students, 500 strong. "You can't be Catholic and pro-abortion", read some of their signs. Students and members of local Catholic parishes were full of energy and FoxNews reported that this was the largest protest against Kerry outside of the Democratic Convention. Just picture 500 pro-lifers marching from their college campus to meet Kerry. Where else but in Steubenville, Ohio! Though the Franciscan University did not organize the event, it is well known for its orthodox Catholic education which encourages students to put their faith into action. These students simply cherish their Catholic faith and could not stand to let Kerry use their faith as a political prop.

According to a post at Catholic[?] Kerry Watch which also covered the rally, another one of the banners reportedly said, "Pontius Pilate was also personally opposed". Late tonight, I got a call from my uncle in California, whose daughter attends Franciscan University. If I can get a first-person inteview of my own, I'll post it here.

The definition of confused

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Thinking the two current occupants looked a little lonely, I went looking for appropriate links to add to our new St. Blog's blogroll. I found a quite entertaining site by Kathy Shaidle, Relapsed Catholic.

At one point on her current front page, Kathy comments that she'd changed her position on abortion - but then fails to say from what to what. Naturally, I went diving through the archives to satisfy my curiosity, and came up with this gem. Make sure to read the linked commentaries by some of her friends - they're dated by the onward march of the campaign, but still quite insightful and entertaining.

Kerry's last Catholic leg

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

As I pointed out previously, John Kerry has defended his position on abortion and same-sex marriage by asking of his detractors, "Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?" As if this bait-and-switch weren't lame enough, I indicated at the time that Catholic theology is far from defining capital punishment as intrinsically evil.

Now at a timely moment, Kathryn Lopez at NRO has dredged up from the bowels of the Internet an April 2001 essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles that breaks down the issue in fascinating theological detail. (hat tip: Catholics for Bush)

Both Lopez and Dulles argue against the death penalty, even while acknowledging the authority of the State to enforce it. While neither goes to this level in the linked articles, both seem to make the case that a politician who favors the death penalty is far from disqualified from earning a Catholic's vote. In reading Dulles' arguments, I would go so far as to say a Catholic legislator is well within church doctrine to support the death penalty in a general sense, as long as he lobbies to build in safeguards to ensure it is applied fairly and to shy away from its use in all but the most egregious cases.

In an interesting detail I was unaware of until now, it appears even the National Conference of Catholic Bishops aren't as keen on denouncing capital punishment as I had been led to believe. Dulles points out in a footnote that there was more than a little dissent on the matter when they made their "statement" against the practice in 1980.

The statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain. Thus the statement did not receive the two–thirds majority of the entire membership then required for approval of official statements. But no bishop rose to make the point of order.

In any case, Dulles makes a strong stand that one's support for or against the death penalty - a criminal matter between the State and a capital defendant - clearly has no relation to one's support for or against the taking of an innocent life in abortion. The only question remains: when will our bishops stand up and defend the faith?

So... shall ye sew?

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I know I'm drifting off topic again, but this is getting aggravating for me. Besides, I don't have a Catholic-themed blog to vent on [Ed: Well... I do now], so I'll have to ask your indulgence while I get my frustrations out here. That said, it appears the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is tripping over his confirmation stole again.

Mr. Kerry became combative when told that some conservatives were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. Are they the same legislators who vote for the death penalty, which is in contravention of Catholic teaching?"

He added: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."

Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.

This was brought to my attention by Steve, who asked in confusion, "Since I'm not a Catholic, how bad is what he says here?" My answer: Where do I begin?

There are several facets to Mr. Kerry's outburst that are revealing: his attitude toward episcopal authority, and toward his fellow Catholics, and his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches us with regard to the various issues he discusses. But he also appears to have misunderstood what his handlers have told him... I mean, what his catechism teacher and his spiritual advisors have taught him... about recent church history. Most importantly however, Mr. Kerry has revealed that he has spent many years (at least) away from any kind of immersion in Catholic culture.

It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on matters that are not central to dogma. It's another to intentionally misrepresent Church teaching, or to completely ignore it. Perhaps Mr. Kerry just misunderstands the difference between the Church's position on capital punishment and what it teaches about the issues of abortion and homosexuality. But the fact remains: capital punishment is legal according to Catholic doctrine, but opposed by Catholic bishops in the United States for humanitarian (and not strictly doctrinal) reasons. Meanwhile, abortion and homosexual acts are forbidden by the Church and all its bishops according to two thousand years of guidance under the Bishop of Rome. It is generally permissible to disagree with the bishops of the United States in the former case, but not with the pope and all the bishops in the latter two.

It should also be pointed out that even in the case of capital punishment, one might risk a decision by one's bishop that his support of the practice in his case is so extreme as to risk excommunication. And if such a decision were reached by a bishop, he would counsel the transgressor and warn him of the possible consequences. Such a warning would require the individual to rethink his position or submit himself to such a judgment by the episcopal authority. I have to stress that a Catholic would believe that the authority of the bishop in this kind of situation is binding and a Catholic would have to accede or admit that he is no longer a part of the Church. If the individual does not reform, excommunication ensures that he is deprived of eternal salvation. There is no debate.

Here is where Mr. Kerry does not take proper care to prudently make his case in the context of a faithful Catholic. He not only flaunts his willful disregard of episcopal authority, but to distract attention from his own "potential" transgressions, he accuses other Catholics of not being faithful to "Catholic teaching".

At this point, there could be little that Mr. Kerry would say that would make me think he is a mainstream Catholic. As if rising to the occasion, he actually does himself more harm by misstating the name of a previous pope. Make no mistake, for all you non-Catholics out there: this was no simple slip of the tongue. It is simply impossible for an adult Catholic to confuse "Pius the Twelfth" and "John the Twenty-Third". (I spell them out on purpose - say them out loud and try to get yourself confused.) More importantly, Pius XII was a controversial figure, having held the papacy during World War II. But John XXIII - the pope who called a revolutionary Church Council (Vatican II) - is beloved by Catholics the world over, and was beatified by Pope John Paul II (beatification is the step below sainthood). I can only imagine that any confusing of the two can only be achieved through years of avoiding serious discussion of all things Catholic.

UP
DATE: James Taranto coincidentally imitates us.

Dancing on both ends of a two-headed pin

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Is it time to fight fire with fire? Allen E. Parker Jr. thinks so. The human-rights lawyer is trying to reverse Roe v. Wade by invoking an obscure part of the law that allows a plaintiff to sue to have a previous ruling in his favor reversed.

Parker believes Doe and Roe were wrongly decided and that there is a promising way to challenge them using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FCRP) that govern federal trials. Parker’s approach differs from previous challenges in not relying primarily on arguments about the right to life of unborn children and constitutional errors in the decisions. Those arguments are true—and tried. No majority of justices has heeded them, even in a challenge to the flagrant barbarism of partial-birth abortion. Something different is needed, that “gives the Supreme Court a graceful way out of the problem it is in” over abortion, as Parker says. Rule 60 of the FRCP and Parker’s plaintiffs may be that something.

Rule 60 provides that “on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party … from a final judgment … for the following reasons: … it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” The original plaintiff may return to court to ask that a judgment be reversed if it is now unjust. There is no statute of limitations.

While I wish him good luck, I think Mr. Parker's human-rights background can lead him to an even more startling injustice resulting from abortion.

I can understand that politics makes strange bedfellows, but I find it hard to grasp how self-appointed leaders of the black community like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton - who normally play the race card at every opportunity - can spurn the chance to pronounce that nothing short of a genocidal campaign has been has been waged on African-Americans to the tune of 14 million children in 30 years. Surely this would rank right up there with the high rate of incarceration for black men, wouldn't it? Perhaps they think that being black isn't even skin-deep... if you're in the womb.

Trifecta, Part III

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I had meant, in Part III, to link to a decisive op-ed piece describing the failure of legislatures of the various states to impose their will - and ultimately, the will of the people - over the objections of an unelected clique known affectionately as "the court system". Unfortunately, I lost track of the link, and you get Howard Fineman instead.

The president isn't the only Bush working the Red State voters hard on cultural issues. His brother is, too. In Florida, at Gov. Jeb Bush's urging, the Legislature empowered him to order the resumption of tube feeding to a severely brain-damaged woman named Terri Schiavo, who had been in a vegetative state for 13 years. The governor sided against Schiavo's husband and with her parents, who wanted her kept alive. More important, Bush sided with anti-euthanasia forces, who share many ties and sympathies with those who oppose abortion.

As a family, the Bushes are making a political and moral statement: We are for the sanctity of life, as the Catholic Church defines it, and against legal powers that would extinguish it. (Except in the case of the death penalty, which the church also opposes.)

If it sounds like a Holy War at home it is, and the Bushes are hoping that red is the color not just of blood but of victory.

I don't have much to say to Howard, except that I think he hasn't quite whitewashed all the disgust out of his "journalism", and he's treading quite close to anti-papism. And I'm not surprised by either.

Trifecta, Part II

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Now we turn - merely as an interlude, of course - to the heart of the matter. Daniel Henninger lays out for us a scene very reminiscent of the last time the Supreme Court made a judgment over the worth of a human soul.

The men who made the American Constitution understood that nothing in the pristine vapors of their nation was so special or unique as to ensure that Jack would never despise the opinions of Tom--and more than anything would like to shut Tom up, for starters. It is clear in the Federalist Papers that the Founders, above all, tried to reduce the destruction often done to civil life by political factions. I don't know that James Madison is spinning in his grave over the factionalism washing through U.S. politics, but surely he is heaving heavy sighs.

Of course, there are also differences. In 1860, the problem had permeated all facets of the two very different cultures that then existed in our country. The problem was resident in our homes, our fields, and our legislatures. Nowadays, it simply exists in our courts, where most people assume they have no rights other than those that are argued by a high-priced lawyer, or adjudicated by a federal judge.

I think many people who don't get paid for waging politics are becoming quite frustrated with dysfunctional legislatures that are now polarized--as in Congress or in California--essentially along the cultural faultlines created by 30 years of allowing judges to pre-empt the broader community's ability to discover, or re-examine, its social beliefs. These legislators have become little more than clerks to judges and the complainants in their courts--the law as not much more than a brief. When this happens, citizens lose their status as voters or electors and become mere courtroom spectators. How can this be good?

The question is, will Americans continue to allow this "war" described by Mr. Henninger to rage in their courts? Or will they rise up in defense of their "public property rights"?

Trifecta, Part I

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Jacob Sullum surgically analyzes the differences (of which there were few) and similarities (of which there were many) between the ban on partial-birth abortion and (another) proposed ban on assault rifles.

Another difference between the two bans is that supporters of the abortion bill are more honest than the anti-gun activists about what they're trying to accomplish. President Bush, who is expected to sign the bill soon, called it "very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America." That "culture of life" presumably will include the recognition that D&E abortions are just as bad as D&X abortions. If killing a fetus is murder, doing it hidden from view does not make it OK.

During the debate over the bill, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) displayed a photograph of a 21-week-old fetus who had suffered from a birth defect that was surgically corrected in the uterus. "Is little Samuel's hand the hand of a person," he asked, "or is it the hand of a piece of property?"

Sen. Brownback has entered the realm of abortion debate that is seldom tread upon - the contention that in order to rationalize the practice of abortion, one is not required to prove that a woman has a right to "privacy" (a word that does not appear in the Constitution) - one must merely reason that abortion cannot be regulated because the woman controls the property rights to her own womb. I find it ironic that the clause that guarantees this right ends with the phrase, "without just compensation".

As a result of this revelation, I suggest Congress pass a law declaring eminent domain (based on future income taxes) over every fetus in America, and which requires any woman unwilling to carry a child to term to accept a reasonable sum as "just compensation" for the purchase of the fetus by the federal government in lieu of an abortion. Upon delivery, the 13th Amendment would require the federal government to free the child of his indentured servitude, and since he was now a ward of the state, he could be offered for adoption or placed in appropriate foster care.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

"Hangers are only for hanging clothes"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

The title is one of the several reasons given by Planned Parenthood as the benefits of 30 years of legal abortion. If only Holly Patterson had been given the opportunity to choose between an "illegal back-alley abortion" that might leave her disfigured for life and talking to her father about her pregnancy, she might be alive today. Unfortunately, she trusted the "modern medicine" of the abortionists and the rest of the left-coast leftists in her hometown of San Francisco.

Holly Patterson, who lived in the San Francisco suburb of Livermore, visited a Planned Parenthood clinic Sept. 10 to take the pill. She followed the prescribed procedure for using RU-486, taking two more pills at home three days later.

After experiencing bleeding and cramps so severe that she was unable to walk, her boyfriend rushed her to the hospital the following evening, where she was given painkillers and sent home. Three nights later, she was back in the hospital. She died the following day.

An autopsy has been scheduled to determine the cause of Holly's death. But Monty Patterson said he learned from an attending physician at the hospital that she had died after a massive infection caused by fragments of the fetus left inside her uterus caused her to go into septic shock. Planned Parenthood also said it is investigating Patterson's death.

In the style of James Taranto, I have to ask, "What would Holly Patterson do without Planned Parenthood?"

The Rebellion Strikes Back

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Bill Buckley, the Old Man of the Grand Old Party, has taken the lectern, and has he got a funny story to tell...

Attorney General Pryor has run into the high risk of sassing critically situated senators. Not that there was ever any possibility that Sen. Feingold would vote to confirm the nomination of Pryor to the court of appeals. The 41-year-old Pryor had given the committee an answer to the big question. He said it with a straight face. Said it as matter-of-factly as if he had been asked by the short- order cook if he wanted his steak well-done. The great question:

"Mr. Pryor, you once said that you thought the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was `the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.' Do you still think that?"

"Oh yes," said Pryor.

When asked whether he thought that that decision had had moral consequences, he said, oh yes. He explained: "It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children."

Woo-hoo! There's more funnies from the Pryor hearings, so read the article. Gotta catch that rerun on C-SPAN2.