Today is World Malaria Day (I suspect a better name would be World Anti-Malaria Day). Go over here to read about what Catholic Relief Services is doing about malaria (they need money both for anti-mosquito nets and the education to use them properly), and then over here to send a donation. Remember what Archbishop Chaput keeps saying: “If we ignore the poor, we will go to hell”.

It seems to me clear that authoritative Catholic teaching forbids the use of torture under any circumstances. However, some hold that torture might occasionally permissible in extreme situations. As emerged recently, Deal Hudson is one of those who do not see why torture might be occasionally permitted, and he has written on this. The real meat of the discussion is in the comments that follow. Henry Karlson is particularly good. At one point in the comments, Hudson says: “this [Veritatis Splendor] is example of how, in my opinion, Catholic social teaching gets itself in a jam”. A rather unfortunate thing to say about a papal encyclical. But this occurs right after Hudson has been misinterpreting the intentions of the teaching (as Karlson later points out).

So the root cause seems to be Hudson’s misunderstanding of the teaching, rather than any real ambiguity in the teaching. Is a blog posting, and a set of comments a good way to resolve this? Not particularly. It needs an extended dialog to resolve such issues, and a threadful of comments doesn’t produce that. Rather, it produces even more poorly founded questions and answers. Somehow, the web  has to come up with a better technique for promoting real dialog.

Archbishop Dolan is quickly stepping up to the challenges of being the newest Archbishop of New York. Father Zuhlsdorf over at What Does the Prayer Really Say? has a look through an interview Dolan gave to the New York Post, and likes it.

The Kansas Catholic Conference (the official voice of the Catholic Church in Kansas on matters of public policy) has responded to Governor Sebelius’ veto of a bill that would significantly aid the enforcement of Kansas’ existing late-term abortion law.

Kansas, despite having one of the strictest late-term abortion laws in the country, is internationally known as a haven for the practice of particularly barbaric late-term abortion procedures – the kind most abortionists will not do. And no one has done more to ensure that Kansas retains its status as sanctuary for the likes of George Tiller than Governor Sebelius.

The full statement here. (H/T The Catholic Key Blog)

There’s an an approach to immigration over at Ascent to Mount Carmel that I really don’t get:

There’s a flu epidemic in Mexico right now.  Given the United States’ weak border security, it’s only a matter of time before it reaches us.

I looked up some example statistics and found that in 2004 there were about 240 million legal crossings from Mexico to the USA. Illegal crossings are only a fraction of that, so weak border security can surely only have a small effect on increasing the transmission rate of any such disease.

The post goes on:

It is not a moral burden on our shoulders if an illegal immigrant comes to our door begging for food and we turn them in to the authorities

The Catholic Catechism is considerably more challenging:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.

It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal, used to kill; education that can enlighten, used to rationalize away basic moral impulses; the bureaucracy that sustains modern life, used as the machinery of mass death, a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands.

That’s Obama, talking about … what? Follow the link over at the Black Cordelias to find out what.

With the movie-version of Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons about to be released, the director, Ron Howard, is eager to paint the movie in a positive light. So when William Donohue of the Catholic League complained of the makers’ “animus against all things Catholic”, Howard penned a note to the Huffington Post, complaining that the movie was fiction, and thus shouldn’t be taken as really applying to the real Catholic Church. One of Howard’s defenses is that though he can list off the usual suspects — he brings up Galileo, the Inquisition, and the Crusades — none of those events are actually in the movie, but only fictional stuff. So why worry? Pay for a ticket first, and then decide.

There is plenty to lampoon in Howard’s piece (he has a curious knack for coming across as saying the opposite of what he seems to be saying). The Curt Jester lampoons one consequence of following Howard’s lines of argument.

The possibility that the British Cardinal O’Connor might take up a place in the House of Lords (to explain this to US readers: it’s a sort of a Senatorial office, but with much less direct power) is continuing to cause controversy, since the Catholic Church has fairly strongly moved away from the idea that clergy at any level should be involved in politics. A commentary in the Guardian gives some further reasons why O’Connor should not accept.

Looking through the various memos released detailing the United States involvement in torture, among all the many shocks, are some nasty details concerning torture that was based on the religion of the victims. A torture not only physical but also spiritual, since attempts were made to coerce the conscience of the victims. Look at these passages:

A memo dated January 17, 2003 also described techniques “used” against Khatani between November 23, 2002 and January 16, 2003, including stripping, forced grooming, invasion of space by a female interrogator, treating Khatani like an animal, using a military working dog, and forcing him to pray to an idol shrine.

The forced grooming was the shaving of Khatani’s beard, which has religious significance in Islam. And what on earth was the “idol shrine”? As for the “invasion of space by a female”, later passages gives more details:

Nor did the inquiry review an allegation that, on April 17, 2003, a female GTMO interrogator sat on a detainee’s lap “making sexual affiliated movements with he chest and pelvis while again speaking sexually oriented sentences.”

The second incident involved a female military interrogator who wiped what she tols the detainee was mentrual blood on a detainee’s face and forehead.

The memo stated that Slahi would be denied the opportunity to pray and described techniques to exploit “religious taboos,” such as using a female interrogator in “close physical contact.” The memo also stated that interrogators would play music to “stress [Slahi] because he believes music is forbidden” and that light in Slahi’s interrogation booth would be filtered with “red plastic to produce a stressful environment.” Khatani had also been denied prayer and a female interrogator touch him during his interrogation to increase his stress level.”

Horrifying.

Torture, as well as being in itself an evil thing, helps to train the enemy. I don’t mean that the enemy learns how to prepare for particular torture techniques (though that will happen), but that it gives the enemy precisely the right incentive to fight more cleverly.

Because, if any enemy wants to avoid the discovery of information through torture, then they have the precise incentive to prepare all plans so that they remain as secret as possible, as well as compartmentalize all information, so that the effect of discovered information is limited. (Just as the French resistance did when fighting the Gestapo.)

Additionally, if the enemy counts their own lives as worth relatively little (and I expect you can think of examples of this kind of enemy in the current world) then they will be encouraged to give up their lives yet more readily than they already do.

Look at those two effects of choosing to torture: enemies will plan more carefully, and give up their lives more readily.  Yes, torture is both evil and stupid.

What on earth does the New York Times think a “scientific convention” is? (H/T Amy Welborn) In the course of describing the first Sunday sermon by the new New York archbishop, the NYT writer writes:

He did not refer to it, but

Which is a wonderful way of being able to write about almost anything at all — there being an infinite number of things that aren’t mentioned in any talk. So what did the writer have in mind?

there is conflict between Catholic dogma and scientific conventions on several fronts

The writer’s purpose becomes a little clearer. Dogma (bad-word) versus scientific convention (good-words). Religion versus science. But still murky writing because a convention is a “set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria”. So, not scientific knowledge itself, but merely a social working agreement about certain aspects of it, amendable as socially decided — which of course actual scientific knowledge is not. Though the writer perhaps had science in mind, his point is watered down to a disagreement between religion and particular social conventions.

including

Now we’re looking for a list of what the writer considers to be “scientific conventions” that are in conflict with “Catholic dogma”.

the medical definition of brain death

But which definition? There are several, because medical decisions have consequence for further treatment,  further expense, and the harvesting of organs. There isn’t much Catholic dogma in this area beyond a desire to make sure that dead is really dead. Since the social convention of the point of death has consequences for the availability of resources and other financial considerations, there is clearly a temptation to define it as early as possible. And perhaps too early. Hence Catholic caution in this area.

the legal definition of the beginning of human life

That’s clearly not a scientific convention (though it may have some scientific input), but a social and legal convention. Much the same considerations apply as to the definition of death.

and the ethics of embryonic stem cell research

And if you’re talking about ethics, then “scientific” doesn’t come into it. Science produces no ethics whatsoever. No amount of is can produce an ought. (There is vast muddiness and stimulated ignorance on this point, not just in this article.)

Why does it seem entirely predictable that a post containing the phrase “With respect, Holy Father” is in fact not going to show respect to the Pope? This time it comes from Damian Thompson on his Holy Smoke blog. The post came about because it is time for another attempt at a United Nations conference on racism (the last in Durban being a notable failure), and the Vatican has decided to attend, in the hopes of it being constructive. Maybe it will be, maybe it won’t. Some countries have decided to attend, some have decided to attend and walk out if  the conference disintegrates, and some have decided to boycott it. Each approach has things going for it.

I have no idea which is the best approach.

And neither does Thompson.

UPDATE: Ahmadinejad spouted his usual stuff, and this led to a walkout by some delegates, quite understandably. It's perhaps a little more clear why the United States, in particular, decided not to attend. If it has decided to engage Iran on the diplomatic front, then attending the conference would necessitate a walkout, which would make further diplomatic engagement with Iran much more difficult.

Steve Schmidt, the operations chief of the 2008 McCain presidential campaign, gave a talk to the Log Cabin Republicans, recommending that the Republicans should support gay marriage. The talk was problematic, since neither the moral rationale given for supporting gay marriage, nor the possible political consequences were given more than a muddy, and partial focus.

In his speech, Schmidt said:

[Marriage] has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman

Pretty much always and everywhere, throughout history, it has been assumed, without puzzlement or contention, or precise definition, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, whether in a legal framework or in the complete absence of one.

But Schmidt’s definition misses out a central feature of marriage — the feature that distinguishes marriage from a mere partnership of adults. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of producing and raising children. If the goal of children is missed out, the the purpose of marriage is lost. Without the goal of children, the adult partnership may be something of value, but it is not nearly the same value as a partnership that produces children. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness originates in each and every child and grows with each. To set in place a system of laws that allows this to occur, and nurtures it every step of the way is thus quite surely part of the national creed. And for that reason, the definition of marriage is central to any national creed.

Having missed out children, Schmidt’s thinking on marriage very rapidly goes astray.

it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans.

In the American context, it is not defined in a national creed because people took it as something whose purpose was obvious, unchallenged, and not something in desperate need of clarification. And that same context applies over worldwide history.

we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society

Well, yes. Sometimes for better, and sometimes for worse. So which is it? And decided on what grounds?

I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds.  I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it.  But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position.  If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.

That is rather akin to a method of thinking that is more commonly seen among Catholic Democrats who wish to vote for legalized abortion — “I personally think it is wrong, but I am not going to impose my religious beliefs on others”. But what’s believed on religious grounds may simultaneously be believed on rational grounds. For example, a firm belief that theft is wrong on religious grounds is not thereby a bar to voting for secular laws against theft — good secular non-religious reasons against theft can be found.

Certainly, what is purely a religious matter should not be imposed on others who disagree. Opposition to abortion is not a purely religious issue, and neither is support for traditional marriage. If political parties have to find support from those whose thinking is partly religious, then they will just have to live with it, for the good secular reasons.

As in fact they always have: the opposition to slavery was such an issue, partly based in religious belief and partly on rational grounds. The various political parties of the 1800s danced around that issue for quite some time. Schmidt’s line of thinking could  have the Republican party end up dancing with two partners who dislike each other, and in each alternate dance they would try to keep the other partner happy. You can keep that up for quite a while, just like the Whigs. But then they will end like the Whigs.

Last Tuesday Obama gave a speech on the economy, containing an explicit reference to religious texts. So, how well did his speech-writers stick to the context of the original words, while adapting it for current circumstances?

Here’s the reference, in Obama’s words:

Now, there's a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men. The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was soon destroyed when a storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for when "the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."

That’s a slightly loose description of of a passage from the gospel of Matthew. Here’s the original:

"Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.  And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;  and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."

Since the original is not much longer than Obama’s summation, why not just quote it directly? Well, pretty obviously, Jesus was not giving remedial advice on architectural design, he was relying on his audience knowing that it was a bad idea to build on a poor foundation for a house, and using that fact to point out what a good foundation was for people: Jesus’ own words. That’s what makes it a parable: point at what’s visible and concrete, so as to point beyond it to invisible principle.

But Obama’s speech-writers then willy-nilly go on to point only at the visible, and not at any kind of principle. Why bother to bring in a gospel text if in fact you’re not going to use it in a relevant way? They could simply have said: “We need to build on a good foundation” and go on from there. We don’t need the gospels to understand how to build physical houses. The gospels speak of more than that. Obama’s reference only ends up speaking of much less than the gospel.

( The speech-writers then go on to point out five things that Obama proposes to do. They decide to call them “five pillars”, and if you google “five pillars” you’ll soon find out what other religion they wanted to bring in to the speech, so as to be all diverse.)

If the gospel is going to be brought in such an irrelevant way, perhaps there is more that we can be looking forward to? “And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold” could be slipped in to the next speech on agricultural policy. “And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish” would do well for recycling. “For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life” could be fitted into banking regulation.