In All Things

The American Principles Project (APP), founded by conservative Catholic professor Robbie George, seems to have an inordinate fixation on gay people. In dealing with presidential appointments and, now, with the President’s promise to end "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," Professor George’s organization betrays a bigotry that is at the very least unseemly in a tenured professor.

Of the three Obama administration appointees APP has attacked – issuing "Action Item" alerts calling for people to contact their senators to oppose the nominations – two of the three were gay. The website of APP listed various opinions expressed by the nominees but also made sure to throw out traditional canards against gay people. Of Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, APP wrote that he is "a target of social conservatives for his past drug abuse and what they say is his promotion of homosexuality in schools, is under fresh attack after it was revealed that the pro-gay group he formerly headed recommends books his critics say are pornographic." I especially like the phrase "promotion of homosexuality" for its outdated caricature of gay people as predators. And the concern about "books his critics say are pornographic" puts one in mind of Sweet Alice Moore’s crusade in the early 1970s in Charleston, West Virginia to get such "pornographic" works as "Catcher in the Rye" removed from the school curriculum.

George’s attack on "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is especially interesting. The APP website has again issued an "Action Alert" to try and prevent the policy from being overturned. They provide a link to an article by a group called Center for Military Readiness (CMR), an outfit which is similarly obsessed with the issue of gays in the military. In CMR’s analysis of the 2008 election, the first four items on their issues list were all related to gays in the military or, as they nicely put it, creating a "San Francisco military." Surely, Professor George, if not the people at CMR, knows that before San Francisco was a city, he was a saint, and a pacifist, so the allusion to a "San Francisco military" is as offensive to Catholics as it is to gays. Of course, APP earlier cited Sen. Inhofe as an expert on climate change which is a bit like citing Bishop Williamson as an expert on the Holocaust.

What "American Principle" is offended by letting gays serve in the military? Of course, APP notes that the military culture is different from civilian culture and that the military should not be a place to score political points. That argument sort of worked until yesterday, when Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told Congress that ending "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" was "the right thing to do" and that ending it involved issues of institutional as well as personal integrity. And, of course, it would be curious to know how APP’s argument comports with Harry Truman’s decision in 1948 to integrate the U.S. military. Actually, one of the few clear, obvious "American Principles" that seems to apply to this discussion is the principle of civilian control of the military. But, Professor George’s organization is turning itself into the intellectual heir of General Douglas MacArthur and his fellow rightwing crazies, so perhaps we should not be surprised that this particular principle, still less recognition of Truman’s courageous and correct stand, do not meet Professor George’s partisan standards. The APP is trading in simple bigotry.

All these supporters of banning gays from serving openly in the U.S. military should be asked what they think of the career of Baron von Steuben. The Baron’s statue is one of four foreigners that grace Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House. (Lafayette, Rochambeau and Kosciuszko are the others.) The Baron was in many ways the founder of the U.S. Army, training the Continental Army troops in discipline and drills at Valley Forge. He was also the first known gay man in the U.S. military.

None of this would matter if Professor George was not, in addition to running APP, promoting himself as a leading Catholic intellectual. A recent New York Times profile seemed to indicate that George was the intellectual driving force of the American Catholic bishops. The USCCB, of course, has not taken a stand on "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" because the issue does not involve any Catholic principles either. But, the bishops who support and applaud Professor George should be aware of what they are signing up for. He is not only a thoughtful defender of natural law, he is also the proprietor of a D.C.-based advocacy organization that is embarrassing in its bigotry, especially embarrassing to an intellectual. Especially to a Catholic.

Michael Sean Winters

The UK media outcry over Pope Benedict's remarks Monday to the English and Welsh bishops caught me by surprise. 'Anger as Pope slams UK equality law' is the Press Association headline, which could stand for all the others. 

The Pope told the English and Welsh bishops in Rome:

Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. 

His words have been interpreted by the BBC and The Times and almost everyone else as referring to the Equality Bill now before Parliament, which consolidates the past 40 years of equality legislation by expanding rules stopping employers from discriminating against gay employees because of their sexuality. Churches and religious organisations are currently exempt from the legislation, but last week an amendment to the Bill aimed at closing that loophole. It was defeated in the House of Lords with help from the Anglican bishops who are also exposed to any expansion of the equality legislation.

But it as more likely that Pope Benedict was referring more generally to a series of laws enacted by Parliament implementing European anti-discrimination legislation, which have already resulted in the closure of Catholic adoption agencies.

Behind the row is a conflict between legal equality and religious freedom. And behind that is a dispute over the role of the state.

The Labor Government has increasingly adopted a secularist view more typical of the French than the English, one that  assumes that the state conditions society rather than the other way round. This conflicts with with the Church's view that the state should not attempt to impose any one cultural norm but should regulate the public sphere to ensure basic standards and fair play. Because the cultural norm in this case -- the view that gay unions are equal to marriage -- violates the Church's understanding of the human person, Pope Benedict's opposition is all the stronger.

Because gay rights are regarded as one of the great achievements of the Labor Government, the fury at that opposition has not been backward in coming forward. The National Secular Society (NSS) is mounting a broad protest movement ("Protest the Pope") against Benedict XVI's visit which includes secularists, gay groups, family planning organisations, pro-abortion groups and “anyone who feels under siege from the Vatican’s current militancy”.

While the Pope objects to the state imposing cultural norms alien to the Christian conception of the human person, the secularists object to the UK state ('Make the Pope pay') footing the estimated £20m cost of the papal visit. Their view is that the taxpayer is funding the visit of a foreign potentate whose bigotry flies in the face of British tolerance.

Add to this mix bruised Anglican sensibilities over the ordinariate proposal and a dash of traditional English distrust of Rome, and the visit starts to look distinctly exciting. There are many live wires involved, and Pope Benedict seems happy to trip over all of them. No wonder Ruth Gledhill, The Times religious correspondent, says today: "Pope Benedict XVI is a religion correspondent's total dream. What fantastic news he makes."

Charles M. Whelan, S.J., the longest serving editor in America's history, died this morning at the age of 83. In the coming days you will surely hear more from my colleagues about the man they worked with for so many years. Here Fr. Whelan, who also taught at Fordham Law School, remembers the first article he wrote for the magazine. May he rest in peace.

Tim Reidy

As a young child, I loved Catholic Schools Week (this year, Jan. 31-Feb. 6). During my elementary-school years my school's celebration often included activities such as coloring a poster or bookmark with the Catholic Schools Week logo, attending a school-wide Mass, or eating a free ice cream sundae after lunch. These events, while enjoyable in and of themselves, also provided the added benefit of taking up class time, which meant the best perk of all: no homework.

Today, I've come to a greater understanding of what it means to celebrate the depth and value of my 12 years of Catholic education. I appreciate the sense of community fostered during that time, the value of discipline and even the uniforms. And since 1990, even Washington has taken note, by designating a national appreciation day:

"As part of Catholic Schools Week, National Appreciation Day For Catholic Schools will be observed Wednesday, Feb. 3. National Appreciation Day was established to encourage supporters nationwide to showcase to elected officials the great accomplishments and contributions of Catholic schools. In Washington, a delegation of Catholic school students, teachers and parents will visit Capitol Hill to meet with congressional leaders to promote Catholic schools."

I've also gained a greater appreciation for the women religious who helped shape my school experience and their predecessors who helped to establish and grow the first Catholic schools in America. Although the presence of women religious in schools has dropped since its height in the mid-1960s, their legacy remains and their good work continues. Therefore, I was thrilled to learn about the traveling exhibit called "Women & Spirit: Catholic Sisters in America" now at the S. Dillon Ripley Center at the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. The exhibit not only highlights the contributions of women religious to education, but their work to further heath care, science, human rights and assistance to the poor.

The exhibit's next stops include New York City; Dubuque, Iowa; and South Bend, Ind. Catholic educators in those cities should consider taking students on a field trip to the exhibit. The students will certainly appreciate missing class and the possibility of fewer homework assignments, but they might also learn a thing or two about the many ways in which their lives, their education, their country have been and will continue to be changed by these strong, faith-filled women.

Last year, I wrote a blog piece entitled A Call for Charity, asking why the Vatican opposed a United Nations resolution condemning the criminalization of homosexuality and the beatings and killings of gay men and women across the globe. It made no sense, I wrote, for the church to take this position considering its otherwise strong and consistent support for the human rights of all individuals.

But to their credit, church officials recently began moving in the right direction. Ugandan officials are trying to pass legislation that would imprison and, in some cases, execute gay men. The Ugandan government receives advice and funding for this initiative from some American evangelicals. Several countries and organizations immediately condemned the bill, including representatives in the Anglican Communion, Sweden, and, though less robustly, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Considering the Vatican's opposition to the UN resolution last year, I was surprised and heartened to read that the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN is among those individuals condemning the bill. Archbishop Celestino Migliore said:

As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.

As raised by some of the panelists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State. While the Holy See's position on the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity remains well known, we continue to call on all States and individuals to respect the rights of all persons and to work to promote their inherent dignity and worth.

So let’s give credit where credit’s due. With this statement, the church makes clear its opposition to egregious infractions against human dignity, especially relating to gay and lesbian individuals. Some may argue that the church still has a long way to go on these issues, but this is a welcome milestone.

Michael O'Loughlin

As part of our promise to furnish ample coverage of films in our online Culture section, here is a new review of the blockbuster "Avatar," from a slightly different perspective.  Michael V. Tueth, S.J., of the Fordham University's Communication and Media Studies department admits he is no great technophile, nor is he a professional theologian.   But he loves movies, knows a great deal about them, and loved "Avatar."  In fact, it took him 25 minutes to "calm down" after the film.  And he disagrees--politely--with the Vatican's (or at least L'Osservatore Romano's) partial condemnation of the film: 

Such is the current cultural prominence of “Avatar” that even the Vatican has weighed in with observations. Gaetano Vallini, a film reviewer for the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, praised the film’s “stupefying, enchanting technology.” However, he termed the screenplay unoriginal and “standardized” and felt that the film’s sentimentality diverts viewers from “more thoughtful observations on militarism, imperialism, and environmentalism.” What has drawn considerably more attention is his comment that the film “gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature.”

But, in my opinion, the religious beliefs and practices of the Nav’i are not genuinely pantheistic; they are closer to the Transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau, and their Catholic contemporary, Orestes Brownson, who saw nature as a powerful link to the divine—for Emerson that would be the Christian God; for the Nav’i, it is the compassionate Mother Goddess, Eywa, to whom they pray for victory, for healing and even for resuscitation from death.

Read the rest of his appreciation here.

James Martin, SJ

The President’s budget, announced yesterday, may have the finest calibration of budget details in the history of the human race. But, its delivery was not a political success and whether Budget Director Peter Orzag is a genius with numbers or not, he was not very adept as he made the round of the news shows yesterday explaining it.

The first thing to know about big annual announcements is that you need to decide in advance what you want the news cycle to focus on. It is not clear that the White House really thought that one through and, in the absence of any significant new direction or methodology, the press focused mostly on the size of the package. And that size is big, bigger than big actually, a stunning $3.8 trillion. As a news item, it plays directly into the Republican narrative that the President is spending our children’s future recklessly. It doesn’t matter whether the money is well spent, or needs to be spent. Unless there is news value in the way it is being spent, the press will focus merely on the size of the package.

Orzag was stuck defending goulash and budgetary goulash is difficult to defend. He discussed this proposal and that proposal. There was no central organizing theme. And, if you are defending goulash, he could have at least put budgetary honesty at the top of the list. You will recall that during the Bush Administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not in the budget at all, so about $200 billion of the Obama increase is attributable merely to the President commitment to simple honesty. Make the republicans defend their prior budgetary dishonesty and see how that sits with the Tea Party crowd.

Most of all, Orzag and the administration have failed to articulate the need for higher taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy do not pay nearly the share of federal tax dollars that they paid in the 1950s and 1960s when the economy was booming. And, there are whole categories of taxes that they do not pay at all. Social Security and Medicare are funded through a payroll tax, so people who take their money as management or professional fees and those who make millions in investment income do not pay anything towards the solvency of Social Security or Medicare which are the two most expensive items in the federal budget. Why should a billionaire investor pay nothing towards Social Security while a waiter or teacher or factory worker pay 14% of their income in payroll taxes?

The last major overhaul of the tax code was in 1986. Whether the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress survive the November elections or not, the President will be needing a bipartisan project for next year. It is not too soon to begin thinking about what that plan should be. But, the White House needs to think outside the box of very smart policy experts on this, and think about what will help make average Americans feel like someone is looking out for them. The answer, long proposed by Mike Kinsley, is a liberal version of a flat tax, retaining the progressive tax rates, but radically simplifying the code itself, ridding it of all the special tax breaks it contains, and removing the caps on payroll taxes and making those taxes more broadly applicable. After all, the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are individuals: Let’s tax them like they are.

Populism does not come easily or naturally to President Obama. He is not "one of the guys" and thank God for that. But, figuring out ways to address the budgetary crisis facing the nation is one big invitation to engage in the kind of populism the Republicans will have difficulty fighting. The tax code is not 14 volumes long because it needs to be. It is 14 volumes long because lobbyists have successfully gotten their special tax breaks inserted into it. The average Joe does not have a lobbyist doing anything for him. Obama needs to get past the policy experts, even the smart ones, and talk to the average men and women. See how they would react to such a proposal as a progressive flat tax. He might find that it is a winner, economically and at the polls.

Who should play the leading role in rebuilding Haiti? Why Haitians, of course, and yet few development organizations appear to be seeking local expertise. In "Voiceless in Haiti," Brian J. Stevens, a former reporter for the Haitian Times, provides distressing examples of the trend toward neglecting Haitian voices, even those with a proven record of identifying and solving local problems. Stevens writes:

For decades non-governmental organizations, driven by international community aid dollars, have employed development paradigms largely devoid of the voice of the Haitian people. From the Creole pig debacle of the 1980s (scroll to minute 4:40 of Dr. Paul Farmer's account) to today’s discussion of how to house the newly homeless masses, Haitian perspectives appear absent. This is unfortunate, not just because it undermines the dignity of the Haitian people, but also because the wisdom of lived experience—a wisdom that has enabled Haitians to survive for decades in conditions that would surely kill most others, a wisdom that could help rebuild Haiti—is ignored. While the almost incalculable devastation requires an immediate response, in some cases the best of intentions can have serious long-term negative consequences for Haitians.

Read the entire Web-only article here.

Tim Reidy

David Gibson over at Politics Daily has a great piece on the "uproar" over the newly announced "Mother Teresa stamp."  Seems that some are objecting to her smiling visage gracing our letters and postcards.  And they're objecting for good reason.  The U.S. Postal Service's list of requirements for those who should appear on stamps includes this rather clear-cut restriction: "Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs."  The risibly named Freedom from Religion Foundation (named, I suppose, after one of the Four Non-Freedoms that Norman Rockwell famously commemorated in World War II) has used that restriction as an airtight argument opposing her.  Joe Carter at First Things takes a different tack, though: "Mother Teresa should certainly appear on a stamp -- but only after we change the law. We shouldn't look for loopholes that require denying the importance of her faith in order for her to qualify. Mother Teresa should be honored for who she really was -- a Catholic nun motivated by the love of Christ -- and not as a faux, secular saint."  

That makes sense, especially since, as Gibson notes, the Postal Service has honored The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was, um, a religious leader, and Fr. Edward J. Flanagan of Boys Town fame.  According to the USPS, they're acceptable because they were not known primarily as religious leaders, which would have surprised Rev. King and Fr. Flanagan (not to mention their congregations).  And as Gibson notes, the Blessed Virgin Mary somehow slips through those religious restrictions every Christmas.  That pesky BVM!  His article says, tongue-in-cheekly, that perhaps she's seen primarily as a mom.  Or maybe just a painting.

But let's use an even simpler argument.  US stamps rightly honor deserving people, events, inventions, achievements and even landmarks.  And so the question: Does Mother Teresa live up to these high standards?  Can she, for example, be counted in the august company as the two estimable figures, public servants and international humanitarians already honored by the Postal Service who are pictured at right?

Give me a break.  Put her on the damn stamp already.

James Martin, SJ

Fred Hiatt has an essay in this morning’s Washington Post taking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to task for his turn-around on the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg proposal to establish a bipartisan commission to recommend structural changes to the federal budget which, like the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission, would recommend a package of changes that can only be voted on as a whole, up or down. The idea behind such commissions is that they get around the self-interest of individual members of Congress by creating a proposal that is too big to fail.

BRAC has been a success. The problem before BRAC was this: As the military became more high-tech and less infantry-dependent, we did not need so many military installations and we needed the money for new weaponry. But, no member of Congress wants a base closed in their district because such bases provide jobs and economic opportunity. So, the BRAC committee makes one proposal, to close a whole bunch of bases, and Congress must vote up or down on the entire list. They can’t lobby to have their base reinstated. And, in any given Congress, there are enough people who do not lose bases to vote for the entire list, especially when the Pentagon brass insists that they support the BRAC proposals.

The budget commission was designed to clear a similar political hurdle. Democrats defend entitlement spending to the death. Republicans hate new taxes to the death. The outlines of a compromise are clear: The Democrats need to agree to some way to restrain entitlement spending and the GOP needs to agree to some types of tax increases. But, at any given moment, neither side has an interest in pursuing such a compromise. Sen. McConnell, who once supported the measure, now opposed it because his party has a clear interest in avoiding compromise right now, especially if that compromise entailed giving up their anti-tax credential. The tea party crowd would be on them in a heartbeat. Thus, this morning’s piece by Hiatt who chastises McConnell and others for their inability to put the public interest above their own partisan interest.

Of course, the Founders expected politicians to act out of self-interest, enlightened self-interest to be sure, but self-interest nonetheless. And, the Founders were never clear about where precisely that "light" in "enlightened" was to come from. As I mentioned last week, even those who are in the vanguard of defending science from "denialism" are themselves susceptible of avoiding courageous conclusions when those scientific conclusions do not comport well with upper-middle class, or Upper West Side, moral sensitivities. And, there are people who are pro-life so long as that does not involve supporting a health care reform that would save lives but would hand President Obama a victory. As has been evident for some time in our political culture, people do think they are entitled not only to their own opinions but to their own facts, and both sides in the ideological debate have their own networks and think tanks to establish those "facts." Fox and MSNBC appear to live in parallel universes.

This is why the President’s meeting last week with congressional Republicans was so valuable and why the President should schedule regular "Question Time" sessions with members of Congress. It is hard to sustain a false fact in the face of repeated questioning. Over time, the sessions would entail more give and take, no doubt, which would also be good. But, there is not now in our current system a viable means for saying, "That’s not true" Justice Samuel Alito’s mouthing of those words at the State of the Union notwithstanding.

There is, of course, a deeper cultural issue here and one to which Pope Benedict XVI has been calling attention for decades. We live in a culture where the existence of "truth" is questioned per se, where everything is reduced to subjectivity, where even intelligent people feel the need in conversation to state, "Well, it’s only my opinion but…." The trouble at the heart of America’s constitutional system is a problem at the heart of modernity, the inability to discern ways to discern truth and accord it a role in our political debates alongside interests. Those who invoke the Crusades and such are correct when they assert that the absence of ontology has sometimes been a blessing. The problem is that there is no such thing as the absence of ontology. The questions of truth, and value and meaning are endemic. Mr. Hiatt is on to something, but he is on to more than he realizes.

Pope Benedict XVI has given the first official Vatican confirmation that he will be visiting the UK in September to beatify Cardinal Newman. The full text of his address to the English and Welsh bishops at the conclusion of their ad limina visit is here.

He doesn't give any further details, nor even names the date, although 16-18 September is circulating among the bishops. The fact that he doesn't suggests that the itinerary is still very much under discussion. Perhaps he is leaving it to the bishops to give the details, which have been at the heart of their discussions in Rome. 

The Pope's address homes in on the battles in Britain currently being fought over equality legislation, especially in relation to gay people, which have a strong potential impact on the capacity of Catholic organizations to remain true to their beliefs while at the same time receive public funding.

"Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society," he tells the bishops. "Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

He calls for a robust Catholic presence in public conversation, appealing to the British tradition of free speech:

"Continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society. In doing so, you are not only maintaining long-standing British traditions of freedom of expression and honest exchange of opinion, but you are actually giving voice to the convictions of many people who lack the means to express them: when so many of the population claim to be Christian, how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?"

And he calls for the bishops to mobilize lay people to ensure that presence:

Make it your concern, then, to draw on the considerable gifts of the lay faithful in England and Wales and see that they are equipped to hand on the faith to new generations comprehensively, accurately, and with a keen awareness that in so doing they are playing their part in the Church’s mission. In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

These comments suggest that his UK visit will be a grand opportunity to pit Pope Benedict the defender of Reason + Faith against the apostles of scientism who promote a new, aggressive British -- although many would say very unBritish -- secularism. And the main tool of this counter-attack will be, of course, Cardinal Newman.

Cardinal Newman realized this, and he left us an outstanding example of faithfulness to revealed truth by following that “kindly light” wherever it led him, even at considerable personal cost. Great writers and communicators of his stature and integrity are needed in the Church today, and it is my hope that devotion to him will inspire many to follow in his footsteps.

He also calls for "generosity" in implementing Anglicanorum coetibus, his apostolic constitution which allows for the creation of ecclesial structures to accommodate Anglicans wishing to cross the Tiber while retaining their River Thames swimwear. "I am convinced that, if given a warm and open-hearted welcome, such groups will be a blessing for the entire Church," the Pope says.