Catholic and Enjoying It! |
|
 Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again! Tips are deeply appreciated! Yes! I do take Credit Cards! Atom RSS Feed         Franciscan Friars of the Assumption Province - Religious Vocations for Men   Little Way Web Store  Hard to find holy cards and photographs of St. Therese imported directly from her store in Lisieux. We specialize in carmelite spirituality and offer a wide selection of books and gifts about carmelite spirituality. This is the website you have been waiting for. Gethsemane Garden Stones  Stations of the Cross Garden Stepping Stones transform your garden into a Prayer Garden Check Out "Rock Solid"  Mark Shea's Podcast                   
ARCHIVES
My Site (Mark-Shea.com)04/01/2002 - 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 - 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 - 09/01/2002 09/01/2002 - 10/01/2002 10/01/2002 - 11/01/2002 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 Act One: Writing for Hollywood AirMaria American Chesterton Society Ave Maria Singles Catherine of Siena Institute Catholic Educator's Resource Center Catholic Exchange Crossroads Initiative Decent Films Drudge Report Exceptional Marriages Gilbert Magazine MercatorNet Peter Kreeft Mars Hill Review St. Austin Review St. Blog's Prayer Network Star of the Sea: Catholic Resources from Paul Thigpen David Alexander's Man with Black Hat: Zydeco Catholic Mike Aquilina's Fathers of the Church Rod Bennett: Tremendous Trifles Domenico Bettinelli: Very Sensible Guy Nancy Brown: Flying Stars Elliot Bougis: Fides, Cogitatio, Actio Chris Burgwald's Veritas Cacciaguida: Defending the 12th Century Since the 14th Catholic World News - Off the Record Cosmos Liturgy Sex: That About Covers it All Disputations: Dedicated to Arguing Ross Douthat: The Atlantic's Most Sensible Writer Michael Dubruiel's Annunciations: Sanity in Cyberspace Envoy's Blog: A Banana Republic for Catholic Apologists Dawn Eden: The Dawn Patrol Get Religion: The Smartest Blog on the Web about Religion and Media Dave Hartline: The Catholic Report Heart, Mind and Strength: The Weblog of Exceptional Marriages and Other Fun Stuff Intentional Disciples: The Group Blog of the St. Catherine of Siena Institute Fr. Rob Johansen: Thrownback Christopher Johnson: Midwest Conservative Journal Daniel Larison: Eunomia Fr. Dwight Longenecker: Standing on My Head White Around the Collar Mary's Aggies: Aggies for Mary Mere Comments: Touchstone's blog Mommentary: Elinor Dashwood's Sensible Blog Barbara Nicolosi's Church of the Masses On the Square: The First Things Blog James Preece: Catholic and Loving it! (Not to be confused with another site of a similar name) Dale Price: Dyspeptic Mutterings Scott P. Richert is All About Catholicism Scrappleface: As Funny as the Onion The Shrine of the Holy Whapping: Fun Lovin' Catholic Nerds from Notre Dame Southern Appeal: The Law with 11 Catholic Herbs and Spices Andrew Sullivan: The 800 Pound Gorilla of the Blogosphere Who is Hopelessly Fuddled about Catholicism and Sex Mark Sullivan: Irish Elk Amy Welborn's Charlotte Was Both What's Wrong with the World: Sane People in Insane Times Eve Tushnet: Wide Ranging Mind Daniel Vitz: Committed to an Institute Vox Nova Blog: An Interest Catholic Group Blog Zippy Catholic: Committed to Catholic Common Sense etc
|
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Blogger is being maddeningly slow, so I'm outta here for the day However, I leave you with reader John Farrell's "Sonnet 30": Jacob Michael Looks at Bob Sungenis' "Ph.D." So what's wrong with your academic advisor on your "religious studies" doctoral dissertation being a hypnotherapist with a specialization in past life regressions? And just because your supervising professor on religious studies is an expert in physics who was also your co-author for Galileo Was Wrong, why should that queer the pitch? And just because Calamus is not a recognised university within any jurisdiction of the world--why should that hinder us from awarding Sungenis the title of "Ph.D"? Public Service Announcement for Upcoming Conference: “Healing the Culture: A New Beginning” Healing the Culture: A New Beginning is an exciting, major pro-life conference coming soon to this area! The conference features Father Robert Spitzer, President of Gonzaga University and host of the internationally acclaimed, pro-life program, "The Life Principles.” Speakers will also include Camille De Blasi Pauley – President of Healing the Culture, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin – nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host. Come join us for 2 days of pro-life education and networking in beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia. It’s all coming up on November 16, 17, and 18. For more information and to register, go to 2006prolifeconference.com… that’s www.2006prolifeconference.com. or call (425) 481-6563. Sullivan Continues to be Maddening As an opponent of torture, I owe Andrew Sullivan a debt of gratitude for his insistence on keeping this fundamental issue of civilized morality in the forefront of public awareness despite all the attempts of Administration shills to pooh pooh it away. He has probably done more than any other public figure to keep this a live issue before a consequentialist public that doesn't much care and for that he should be commended. At the same time, Sullivan's attempts to dispense with all orthodoxy that get in the way of his comfort as "Christianism" and his drive to replace the Church with some sort of weak tea Episcopalianism compounded of a Doubting Jesus, gay enthusiasm, whatever Bart Ehrman said last week, gay enthusiasm, cheerleading against sleazy Republicans, and gay enthusiasm is really irritating. He is forever presenting us with the True Jesus[TM] who main qualification is that he is nothing like any Jesus a conservative would ever speak of. The problem is, when you calibrate your True Jesus based on making him the Opposite of the Conservative Jesus, instead of making him the Jesus of Scripture and Tradition, you wind up creating another fantasy figure. It's true that the Enthusiastic Republican Jesus is a creature of wishful and even idolatrous imagination and political mendacity:  But creating Not-Republican-But-Weak-Tea-Episcopalian-Self-Doubting-Jesus is just as much an act of idolatry. So, for instance, when Sullivan declares There lies the difference between Christianism and Christianity, between what these fundamentalists preach and what Jesus actually taught. Be not afraid, Jesus told us - always. He is hampered by the fact that the real Jesus actually said (at times): But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him! (Luke 12:5) Sullivan is, like his Mirror Universe opposite Sean Hannity, a tribal Catholic whose allegiance to the Church is familial, not doctrinal. Tribal Catholics tend to know what they know of the faith, not through careful study, but through a sort of osmosis that takes popular anecdotes and confuses them with Bible stories or (in this case) takes a phrase popularized by Pope John Paul II and makes it "what Jesus *always* said". It's quite true that John Paul's watchword was "Be not afraid!" and that it was a fine watchword for the time and place in which he found himself. But it simply is not the case that Jesus told us "always" to be not afraid. Similarly, Sullivan's itch to refashion Jesus as The Opposite of Whatever Those Evil Righties Say is on display here, again leading him to ignore the biblical Jesus in favor of Opposite Jesus: The message of the Gospels seems to me to be constantly returning to this theme: those who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness, the men of the book, the Pharisees, are often the furthest from God. [Actually, Jesus' complaint is that they are *not* "men of the book" because they have subverted the teaching of Moses by elevating their own traditions above the letter and spirit of the law. Note, for instance, this passage from Mark 7: And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?" 6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." 9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; 11 but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) -- 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."] Rules can only go so far; love does the rest. And the rest is by far the most important part. Jesus of Nazareth constantly tells his fellow human beings to let go of law and let love happen: [Actually, Jesus of Nazareth does not regard the Law as the opposite of love. He regards love as the fulfillment of the Law. To Jews worried that the gospels was an invitation to "let go of the Law", Jesus replied (Matthew 5), "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.] to let go of the pursuit of certainty, [Sullivan's emphasis on the gospel of doubt is one of the clearest examples of his muddy thinking. Yes, the gospel encourages us to be doubtful about doubtful things. There is no gospel political program, no official Christian way to do art, philosophy or science. But that does not mean that everything is up in the air. Jesus commands neither doubt nor certitude, but faith. "Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." And Jesus, make no mistake, teaches that we are to extend that to the teaching of the Church, including the teaching about homosexual practice, which is the core of his objection to "Christianism". That's why Jesus says to his designated successors, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16). So while it's quite true that when some partisan hack tells you that Jesus wants you to vote for him because he will uphold the teaching of the Bible about gun control, capital gains taxes, and Strength Through Torture we are looking at political pandering and a bogus attempt to use the Faith as a political lever, it does not follow that everybody who believes the Faith teaches something definite is a "Christianist"] to let go of possessions, to let go of pride, to let go of reputation and ambition, [to let go the disordered demands of what Paul calls "the flesh"], to let go also of obsessing about laws and doctrines. [The person who has no interest at all in laws and doctrines is perhaps not the best person to adjudicate who is "obsessing" about them, just as the person who is petrified of Marian devotion is probably not the person to determine that Catholics honor Mary "too much" and the teatotaler is unlikely to know who drinks "too much."] This letting go is what the fundamentalist fears the most. [No. It is what human beings fear the most, Andrew Sullivan included.] To him, it implies chaos, disorder, anarchy. To Jesus, it is the beginning of wisdom, and the prerequisite of love. [Actually, for Jesus, the fear of the Lord, not "doubt" is the beginning of wisdom.] The reader who sent in the initial alert about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in the San Francisco Church writes: Just wanted to thank you and confirm that your blog entry made all the difference. It was something the diocese would tolerate, but not if it was brought to light. This really highlights the "power of the (your) blog." I'll let you know whether the current event really gets shelved. There will likely be protests if it is. Folks, this was accomplished because *you* guys took the time to do something about it. Pay thyselves on the back for a job well done! Monday, October 30, 2006
Scrat is the single greatest animated character in all CGI films to date So imagine my joy at discovering this treasure Courtesy of the glorious WebElves. And courtesy of Sydney, we have these!: What joy! I promised I'd get back to this today, so here I am Squiboda radiates his customary contempt for me as he writes: Oh the irony!!! Mark quotes from Jimmy's combox without addressing the actual post that combox sprouts from. Squiboda appears to have either not followed the discussion very carefully, to have ignored what I have said in the past, to have ignored Jimmy's post, or perhaps all three. Indeed, in his zeal to condemn me he managed to write: Mark has consistently labeled anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a torture apologist. and when I pointed out to him that this is, in fact, a lie, he replied: I missed the part where you explained why Jimmy Akin isn't a torture apologist. Did you get a free pass on that because I lied about something? obliging me to point out the following: Here's the deal. When you categorically declare that "Mark has consistently labeled anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a torture apologist" and I fail to say that Jimmy (and Dave, for that matter, as well as others who have disagreed with me) are torture apologists, it is not incumbent upon me to explain why I failed to live up to your slander. It is incumbent upon you to explain how you can categorically declare that "Mark has consistently labeled anyone who disagrees with him in any way as a torture apologist". To his credit, Squiboda took responsibility for the lie and apologized. He then asked: So how come Jimmy Akin isn't a torture apologist? And I replied: Because he's basically answering the question "Has the Church ever issued a definition of which acts constitute torture and which do not?" The answer to that question is "No" and I don't think it's at all problematic for Jimmy to state that fact. What the Church has said is "Torture is intrinsically immoral." It has not provided a taxonomy of definitions about every conceivable permutation of moral acts that might constitute torture. Evidently, however, this was not enough. Or Squiboda's ingrained contempt for me just got the better of him again. Or both. At any rate, he replied: You are most certainly welcome for accepting my apology Mark. If you think your explanation of Jimmy Akin's explanations makes sense, why don't you take a poll. The trouble with ingrained contempt is that it hurries you past the plain sense of words in the search for their most damning sense. This, I am afraid, is what Squib has done in his reading of both Jimmy and me. Somehow, he's persuaded himself that I said, "Jimmy Akin's posts are saying the same thing I am." Actually, it would be much nearer the mark to say "Jimmy is scarcely talking about the same thing as me at all." That's why I have no big issue with Jimmy's posts. Jimmy, as even a cursory reading of his post will show, is focusing on the question of whether the Church has answered the question "What is the definition of torture?" Note that he focuses on whether a dubium has been submitted to the Church and whether Catholic theologians have taken up the project in any focused way. The answer to those questions, as I could have told you, is "No." But since this blog has never ever asserted that the term "torture" has been given a rigorous definition by the Church, that's not particularly germane to the discussion. Jimmy, in short, is answering a question I have never bothered to ask because I already knew the answer. And his answer is 100% accurate. The mystery of why it took "all weekend" for me to respond to Squib's devastating reply is not hard to seek: I have a life. When I say "See you Monday" on my last Friday post that means it's pretty likely I'm gonna be busy on the weekend. One of the many mysteries of this discussion for me is how so many people seem to think I believe that all forms of coercion are torture and that I am mortally opposed to ever trying to distinguish them. I have said again and again (including in the article that began this entire conversation) that it is perfectly reasonable to try to distinguish legitimate forms of coercion from torture. Precisely what I object to is the attempt by torture apologists (see, for instance, Linda Chavez' sleight of hand in my article) to hopelessly blur the distinctions between the two so that torture gets called "aggressive interrogation" and is impossible to distinguish from legitimate interrogation. This is the real goal of all those people who insist on finding it perpetually impossible to know what torture is, who never seem to get around to figuring out that even waterboarding, cold cells, and Palestinian hanging are what any sane person would call torture, and who cannot even get it through their heads that the Church really does teach that torture is intrinsically immoral, no matter how many times you point them to a Magisterial document or three that says it is. So Jimmy's perfectly right. We do need to distinguish legitimate forms of coercion from torture. I am not such a moral imbecile as to think handcuffing a prisoner or forcing him to put his hands on his head is torture. I leave that to the moral imbeciles who want to pretend that it is impossible to ever know whether an act is torture or not. And though I haven't asked him, I suspect Jimmy too would not find it hard to distinguish between handcuffing a prisoner and subjecting him to hypothermia. Here's the thing: It's not really the *job* of the Church to define every possible permutation of what could be an act of torture, just as it's not up to the Church to define every conceivable way in which an employer might cheat his workers. The Church tells us that two of the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance are oppression of the poor (Ex. 2.23), and defrauding the laborer of his wages (James 5.4). It does not give us a complete catalog of the almost infinite number of way to commit these sins. But lack of this catalog does not allow us to say that these sins do not cry out to heaven for vengeance. In *exactly* the same way, when the Church declares (as She does) that torture is immoral we cannot, as Dave Armstrong wrong-headedly says, declare "I can't discuss whether "torture" is immoral without knowing exactly how one is defining that term (it being a fine line in many cases)." The simple fact is, you *can* and indeed *must* declare that torture is intrinsically immoral. This does not forbid you from trying to define what torture is, nor from trying to distinguish it from legitimate acts of coercion (or, if it comes to that, from *all* acts of coercion since not all torture is done to coerce. Sometimes it's just done for fun.) This is why, you see, all the "I'm desperate to have a definition of torture" stuff is so counter productive when the subject is the question "Is torture intrinsically immoral?" As I was at pains to remind Dave, when the question is "Is torture intrinsically immoral?" the answer is simple: yes or no? The Church has answered it for us and the answer is "Yes". That's the teaching of Veritatis Splendor, expanding on the teaching of the Council. It really is a no-brainer. Torture is intrinsically immoral. Dave has made repeated demands to know why I think the Coalition for Fog is at war with this simple point. And given that he has read their site and their repeated sneers and smears aimed at those who accept this rather obvious teaching, I don't know what else to add that will convince him. It could be that he simply doesn't fully grasp what "intrinsically immoral" means. If not, I will tell him: It means there is no circumstance--ever--which renders such an act justifiable. When applied to the act of torture, this means that there is no circumstance--ever--that renders torture justifiable. The Coalition's appeals to Fr. Harrison essentially boil down to an attempt to say that John Paul is wrong. Here's how it works: John Paul says, in a section completely devoted to describing just what he means by "intrinsically immoral" that torture is intrinsically immoral. What does the term "intrinsically immoral acts" mean, Holy Father? Why, it means acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object Golly, that's a big problem if your country is engaging in torture such as waterboarding, cold cells and Palestinian hanging, your President has lyingly said, "We do not torture" and you want to make excuses for that and neutralize Catholic opposition to this crime against God and man. What to do? Find Fr. Brian Harrison, who dislikes all this modernist Vatican II stuff and who describes Joseph Ratzinger has a "weak reed" and a liberal. Fr. Harrison very reliably tells us that John Paul "brands" torture (note loaded and hostile language) as intrinsically immoral and declares My understanding would be that, given the present status question is, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians. This is *precisely* like getting ahold of, say, Richard McBrien or Daniel Maguire and having them explain that, in the case of the desperate circumstance of incest or rape, abortion, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians. The purpose is to say the Old Guy in Rome doesn't have to be listened to when he says abortion (and torture) are intrinsically immoral. That's the goal of the Coalition. Frosting on that argument is provided by the reliable Chris Fotos, who does his Catholics for a Free Choice imitation by pointing to the credentials of the theologian who is deconstructing magisterial teaching and saying, "Who is Mark Shea compared to the credentialed awesomeness of The real question however, remains carefully unaddressed: Who is Fr. Brian Harrison compared to Pope John Paul II? For like it or not, John Paul II says that torture, like abortion, is intrinsically immoral and that there are therefore absolutely no "desperate circumstance" that legitimates either act. That's what "intrinsically immoral" means. Assuming we are now on the same page and that the Coalition has either abandoned its derisive rhetoric about Veritatis Splendor 80 as a "fundamentalist proof text" or else, failing that, has fallen silent as the rest of the Catholics in the room at last recognize that the Coalition is peddaling dissent just as much as Catholics for a Free Choice, let us turn to the question of defining torture. No. I don't mean to repeat myself yet again. Instead, what I want to point out is that the whole sudden need to define torture is driven by one thing and one thing only: the Administration's need to cloud the issue, not our need to know what torture is. Why? Because we already had perfectly workable guidelines that the military and police employed for decades without massive bafflement over whether handcuffing somebody was tantamount to beating them with a rubber hose. Periodically, folks like the Coalition will point out that American troops have used torture. Yes. And they have been properly prosecuted when caught doing so. So the point is what? That the Army regulations were just a sham? And the torture apologist say *I* hold the military in contempt! On the contrary, I hold the military in high regard, not only for maintaining a code of honor in dealing with prisoners, but for successfully resisting this Administration evil attempts to loosen perfectly functional regulations so as to make it easier for the Administration to order the military to torture prisoners as it has already authorized (and continues to authorize) the CIA to do so. It is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to distinguish torture from legitimate coercion. The military has done so for decades. So have the police. That's because, until the Bush Administration insisted on "going to the Dark Side" in the words of our Vice Glorious leader, the standard for prisoner treatment was the same as the Catechisms: treat prisoners humanely and with respect. But once the Bushies became enamored of the idea of Strength Through Torture, their apologists had to find a way to justify it. And so the sudden baffling fog descended and everybody started asking about the exact, precisely, technical difference between torture and more "aggressive interrogation." Which is my point: It is not legitimate to *pretend* to try to distinguish between torture and coercion while in reality trying to confuse them to the point that nobody can tell whether handcuffing and waterboarding are distinguishable. This is the goal of those who demand definition yet accept none: not even those in use by professional interrogators for the past 60 years. Such attempts to generate fog and confusion are simply attempts to make excuses for what is going on, right now, at the hands of the Bush Administration. One need not have a definition of every conceivable act of human degradation to be able to know that some acts are torture. The Administration and its apologists are past masters at euphemism, so that Khmer Rouge tactic of waterboarding becomes the friendly horseplay called "dunking" and cold cells where men die of hypothermia are dubbed "discomfort". Jimmy, coming late to the conversation and trying to do his job as a specifically Catholic apologist answered the question about a torture definition in a perfectly honorable way: he tried to address the question of whether Mother Church has given a wire-drawn definition of torture. No, She has not, he concluded. And he's perfectly right. Unlike some of his more polemical readers, he did not conclude from this that it is impossible to define torture in any way, nor did he conclude that because every possible permutation of torture has not been defined, therefore no obvious act of torture can ever be named as torture. Jimmy, being indeed a true pro, knows that this is not so and so does not draw the conclusions that a guy like Squiboda does. However, many torture apologists are all too eager to overlook the obvious in a rush to justify the inexcusable. So, to recap, the obvious is this: Torture is intrinsically immoral. The United States of America has engaged in and continues to engage in acts which no reasonable person can deny are torture. Men have (repeatedly) died from such acts. The United States has now passed legislation which effectively disengages the US from the obligation to abide by the Geneva Convention by giving the guy ordering the torture the final authority to define what is and is not torture. I have named three acts which any sane person (except George W. Bush) recognizes as torture: waterboarding (which the Veep himself boast about while denying he is doing so), cold cells and Palestinian hanging. The President has lied by declaring "We do not torture" while authorizing these and other intrinsically immoral acts and continuing to do so. And most depressing of all, Christians, including not a few Catholics, make every excuse they possibly can for it and attack those who protest it as Torture Pharisees, liars, enemies of America and even enemies of God (if one takes seriously the full meaning of "selling one's soul"). Way to go, Team! Stimulus. Response: Got a response from the Archdiocese! Here's the text: Well done, folks! New Jersey Rejects Abstinence Funding New Jersey will not accept federal abstinence dollars since doing so requires teachers to say that sex within marriage is best, the Kaiser Network reported. America: The Happy Land of Upside Down where the government is conscience-stricken at the thought that marriage is the best place for sex and a Catholic is told that he has "sold his soul" by opposing torture. A friend sends along the... Priests for Life Voter's Guide. Haven't had time to read it myself, so I can neither affirm nor deny what they say. The main thing in the equation that has changed for me since the last election is that the contest is not longer between one party that is zealous committed to the intrinsic moral evil of abortion vs. a party that doesn't give a rip but is willing to exploit pro-lifers by pretending to care every election cycle. Under those circumstances, I could vote for the GOP because I prefer a party that is largely passive and cynically exploitive about abortion to a party filled with gibbering foaming fanatics who are bound and determined to expand the murder of babies as far as they possibly can. This year, however, (and probably for many years to come thanks to this mendacious Administration and its lackeys), the choice is now between a party dedicated to the intrinsically immoral thing called abortion and a party dedicated to the intrinsically immoral thing called torture. I do not see how a Christian can vote for any candidate who supports either. So I will be voting for candidates who reject both or, failing that, I will register my vote with the Lord of All Nations at in the Eucharist Adoration Chapel. More Rave Reviews for "Grace Before Meals" A PBS (!) show wherein a Tae-Kwan-Do-instructor-turned-priest (!) talks about the goodness of family embodied in sharing meals together. Very Crunchy as well as very Catholic (not to mention human). Join the South Dakota Novena Against Abortion! Chris Burgwald writes: I'm hoping you might plug the novena our diocese is encouraging for the successful passage of our state's abortion ban. The novena began yesterday, Sunday the 29th, and concludes on Monday, the 6th. You can find more information and the text of the novena at the website for the Campaign to Affirm HB 1215. Interesting piece in Christianity Today on the enduring influence of Fra Angelico By the way, if you are interested in the arts and the creative process *and* in the attempt to reflect on such matters from a Christian perspective, you can hardly do better than to read Dorothy L. Sayers The Mind of the Maker. Her basic thesis is that, though Christian artist have been *making* art for centuries, very little has been done to try to understand the creative process from a Trinitarian perspective, so she attempts to do so. She does so because the human ability to create is a profound reflection of the creative Trinitarian God in whose image man is. A terrific book. A reader asks: My family was just wondering about umbilical stem cell research vs. embryonic stem cell research. Isn't there enough umbilical stem cell matter available to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research? I know you might not be the expert on this but maybe you could send me to a reliable source for this. Right. You can get stem cells from umbilical cord blood. However, that means denying the abortion industry a chance for monstrously huge profits from recycling aborted babies. In short, what is driving ESCR is $$$$$$. Fr. Rob writes: This past weekend I gave a little talk to my parishioners on "Making Political Decisions" as a Catholic, by way of introducing Bp. Olmsted's "Catholics In the Public Square". I have posted it at Thrown Back with some remarks about the circumstances of my talk. The Michael J. Fox thing reminds me of something I've been thinking for a while, which is that the Left's tendency to use victims as human shields for genuinely morally objectionable idea is something that can ultimately only end in a sort of backlash of heartlessness. The backlash will not be justified, anymore than the use of victims as human shields, but it will be a perfectly predictable, almost mathematical, example of social dynamics as the drunk that is humanity gets up after falling off the horse on one side and proceeds to fall off the horse on the other. I'm sorry Fox has Parkinson's. I'm sorry my Grandma had it. I'm sorry I'm at risk for it. But chopping up babies is not the answer and a good percentage of people still retain the awareness that this is so. In fact, a good percentage of people know that what drives ESCR is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and not a single proven cure for anything. But the Pusher of ESCR are hoping to silence all opposition with the sad spectacle of a sick man. Sad spectacle of victims, put forward to ram some immorality down people throats tends to generate anger, because everybody recognizes the cheap emotional manipulation at work. Most people are polite and say nothing for a long time. But let the anger build up long enough and sooner or later a tipping point is reached. Then you start to get people beginning to make fun of the emotional manipulation. But it doesn't stop there. They go on to make fun of the victim himself (because it feels liberating and transgressive). Eventually, it becomes hip and transgressive for the powerful to frankly exult in mocking the powerless. Something in the human soul is numbed and even killed as the impulse that originally drove satire to laugh at the foibles of the corrupt powerful is perverted to laugh at the weak and suffering as "losers". Exhibit A:  I've never much cared for South Park, because while most people are chattering about "South Park Conservatism" I've long has the sense that it's really just nihlistic libertarian contempt for anything that interferes with the Imperial Autonomous Self. Somebody explain to me what is funny about this? Defeat Murder Inc. The effort to ban abortion in South Dakota is being dwarfed by the$8,000,000 PLANNED PARENTHOOD is pouring into this state. Polls say that as of right now the November 7 referendum to ban abortion in SouthDakota is losing by 3 percentage points. Fourty percent of all the media time between now and election day has been purchased by the PRO-ABORTS. In an attempt to counter this media blitz, a wonderful PRO-LIFE individual has offered a matching challenge grant of $250,000. What this means is that anything you give in the next week will be matched dollar for dollar up to a total of $250.000. Media time is cheap in South Dakota. Your gift of $150 when matched will buy two 30 second ads on GOOD MORNING AMERICA. Your gift of $300 when matched will pay for two 30 second ads during the NFL football game the Sunday before election day. For more information on how to donate, visit www.VoteYesforLife.com or call 888-855-4580. If you wish to write a check, make it payable to VOTE YES FOR LIFE and send it today to P.O.Box 461, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57101. YOU WILL BE GLAD YOU DID. DONATE TODAY!!!! If we are successful, this could be the first step in REVERSING ROE v WADE. And please pray incessantly between now and election day for the success of this courageous effort. Thank You! Jack Ames Director, Defend Life 410-337-3721 www.defendlife.org If only Episcopal Priests... could marry! Once again, the curse of sexual perversion and abuse finds its root in the monstrous discipline of celibacy. Read all about it here. Interesting Interview with Pitta Jixxon on Kiwi National Radio He's always struck me as a basically nice guy. This interview reinforces that impression. The World Series of Catholic Theologians Championship poll is up and people are now voting We're down to two worthy thinkers: Joseph Ratzinger and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Friday, October 27, 2006
Where I am Tomorrow If you live in the Seattle area or, more specifically, over on the Peninsula, here's my calendar for tomorrow: October 28 9:30 AM-2:00 PM Our Lady Star of the Sea. Bremerton, WA. Topics: 101 Reasons not to be Catholic, Behold your Mother, and This is My Body. Contact: David Bauld Till Monday, Ciao! I love letters like this I was reading about purgtory so as to better grasp what Catholics believe. Does anybody really think that first paragraph was even slightly honest? "I want to know what you believe, you lie-blinded heretic." Some research. Still, I will simply point out to the reader that they begin with a man-made tradition of sola scriptura as their basis, so it's not surprising that they are unaware of how revelation is actually transmitted to us. Happily, even they don't *really* believe in the Bible alone. They rely on some very important chunks of sacred tradition and would be much worse off if they did not. They simply don't see that if they treated the piece of sacred tradition they accept in the same way as they treated the bits they don't, they would be deep in outer space. I would like to invite the reader to settle the question, "Why do I borrow some pieces of extrabiblical tradition from the Catholic Church, but not all of it?" To that end, I invite them to read my book By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition. There's no real point talking about Purgatory until you've disabused yourself of the false notion that Christian faith is "based on" Scripture. It's not. It's based on apostolic tradition, both written and unwritten. If you don't know that, you don't really know what you are talking about in doctrinal disputes, because you will inevitably contradict yourself in your rush to contradict the Catholic Church. Vice Glorious Leader Dick Cheney tests the American Public to See Just How Many Lies He Can Tell Before Anybody Notices An astonishing triple play from the White House: WASHINGTON - The White House said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney was not talking about a torture technique known as "water boarding" when he said dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer." So, you see, friendly horseplay called "dunking people in water" is "aggressive interrogation". But it's not waterboarding or simulated drowning. And "dunking" (which is not waterboard and is *certainly* not torture) works. So critics of Sad to see Tony Snow morph into Comical Ali just to save this lying rat's ass. Sadder still to have to read the inevitable justifications for this disgusting pastische of lies which will doubtless appear in the attached combox. A reader writes concerning the Torture arguments: It's hard to keep the players straight without a scorecard. In addition, for those who are willing to agree that, whatever torture is, it's intrinsically immoral, there are various secondary questions like "What is torture?" and "When O when will Mark Shea define torture for us a fourth time because we didn't like the first three definitions he offered?" There's also the "When is Shea going to admit that torture *works* (despite the fact that Shea has repeatedly said "Even when torture works, it doesn't work because it's a Faustian bargain like abortion, which also "works" but at the cost of both the individual and national soul." I am happy to report that a genuinely *new* contribution was made to the discussion yesterday by a guy named "John" over at Jimmy Akins' blog. I reprint the relevant part here: But for a church where our main symbol is Christ crucified on the cross, and a church that has always supported the death penalty until lately from some of the liberal wings of the church-how can Mark Shea speak out as the moral authority of the church? Without torture-would we not have any martyrs? Are you saying that God did not allow this torture for a reason? Now *that* is creative thinking. Anyway, the state of the game at present (as near as I can tell is this): The Church says torture is intrinsically immoral. Some people don't want to accept this. Such people search for excuses like "Fr. Harrison disagrees!" or emit put downs like "fundamentalist proof text" to show that simply accepting the language of the Magisterium is dumb. I think accepting the language of the Magisterium is smart. Therefore, I take it as a starting point in my thinking that torture is intrinsically immoral and regard those who reject this proposition as being just about as reliable as those who labor with might and main to reject the Church's teaching on abortion. Now, some people accept the church's teaching and then proceed to the question, "But what is torture?" (a reasonable question). Among those who do are the honest and the dishonest. The honest ask because they want an answer. The dishonest ask because they don't want an answer. The *really* dishonest ask and are answered three different times: Def 1: Check the dictionary. It defines what "torture" means. This is rejected as hopelessly fuzzy. Def 2: Check the regulations for treatment of prisoners that have been used by the military and police for the past 50 years. Again, my readers find themselves helpless to have the slightest inkling of what "torture" could possibly mean. Def 3: Try the Interrogator's Golden Rule of "If you'd call it "torture" if it were done to you or a friend, then it's torture. Still the cry goes up that all is mist and fog and I will not clearly define torture. After the third reasonable definition, I think it is incumbent on the person who is allegedly baffled about defining torture to change the terms of the discussion by admitting that their goal is not to define torture but to keep from defining it. Granting that obvious fact, I think the question then becomes "Why?" I've seen two basic reasons emerge: 1) a sort of wrong headed traditionalism that simply is suspicious of John Paul as a "liberal" and 2) a more political desire to make excuses for the policy of our present Administration. I think Fr. Harrison's arguments are pretty clear artifacts of the former and that Kevin Miller has shown quite nicely why his argument is all wet. I think the Coalition for Fog's motivations tend to lie more with the latter and simply find Harrison's argument a good excuse (since almost any will do, including calling people who accept Veritatis Splendor "Pharisees", "jerkwads" and "liars"). I could be wrong, but that is the impression I have formed. What I do know is that every argument of the Coalition is calculated to keep Catholics from seriously *applying* the clear teaching of the Magisterium to the actual, intrinsically immoral acts our State has committed and is continuing to commit. At any rate, once it becomes obvious that some folk simply aren't interested in definitions of torture, I think it's time to point out that this, in part, is why the whole "What is torture?" question is wrong-headed from the start. For, as I have said, "Don't torture" is not the be all and end all of the Church's teaching. The positive command is that prisoners must be treated humanely. If you are trying to treat prisoners humanely, you will not find yourself accidently torturing them, or asking whether dragging them around on a leash naked is "humane" just so long as you don't set the dogs on them too. At this point we are confronted with the raw impulse to sheer consequentialism. One reader, for instance, loves to talk about "two minutes of discomfort as a small price to pay" (as though waterboarding consists of one friendly bit of "dunking" horseplay, after which the victim (who in ever case, we know to be guilty of something beforehand) comes up spluttering and laughing, "Okay guys! I give!". Of course, what we are really talking about is days, weeks, even months of abuse and torture which has, in several cases, led to death. Meanwhile another reader, in an easy-to-misunderstand post (and *very* angry when his easy-to-misrewad post is misread) writes of our Vice Glorious Leader's boasts about waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed: Can we now, at long last, put the Shea/Comerford "torture never, ever works" myth to rest? Pretty please? My sincere apologies for misreading the post initially, K. There are two basic responses here. First of all, it is wonderful how credulous some readers can be when our Vice Glorious Leader speaks. First he tells us we tortured Mohammed and it worked. In the next breath, he denies it was torture. *And* we are to accept his denial while still facing the cold hard fact that "torture works". Marvelously Orwellian. It never seems to occur to my reader that if the Vice Glorious Leader is lying about torture, he might be lying about its efficacy. At least one other source, without the proven track record of mendacity, gives a rather different account of the efficacy of our torture of Mohammed. However, prescinding from the fact that Cheney is a proven liar, I would just like to say that, for my part, I have never said that torture never works. I do agree with Mr. Comerford (again, the only person I know with actual *experience* in the matter everybody is such an expert in) that torture is very likely not to work and that you will mostly get from the victim whatever they think you want to hear. But I'm willing to grant our Vice Glorious Leader's boast that I have no particular difficulty with a black Jesus ... just as I have no particular difficult with the Euro Jesus of some particularly gooey forms of Euro piety, nor with a Madonna and Child with Japanese features. Christian art has *always* portrayed our Lord according to local ethnicities. The earliest images we have of him are as a beardless Roman shepherd. However, I do find it tedious to have Jesus' story subsumed by tiresome little homilies about multiculturalism. They do not express the story in a new way. They simply graft on to it a lecture about racism that is quite foreign to the story. It's just dumb to say Jesus was born in a manger because discriminatory lodging laws in Bethlehem denied his mother a bed at an inn. It's stupid, in a nation of dark-skinned people, for Nicodemus to say, "Can we believe that this dark-skinned Nazarene is really Him?" American forms of racism just can't be mapped to antiquity that way and the project comes off as ham-handed and peculiarly provincial. Mystery email I've been meaning to ask about this for some time. Every morning, a certain percentage of my mail is from total strangers and consists of a couple of random words in the header followed by various snippets of word salad made out of various texts that make a sort of weirdly evocative free verse. Here's one I grab at random from my mail before deleting it: Are you missing the English weather yet ! All this is mysteriously titled "Jew freelance". Every email is unique. I presume such emails are caused by a virus or something, since there is always a gif file attached. But my virus software doesn't delete them and they don't appear to infect my machine. I guess I'm wondering "What are they and what's the point?" Anyone? Sandra Miesel, Fearless Vampire Hunter Sandra will be interviewed next Monday, 30 October, at 6 PM EST on CATHOLIC ANSWERS LIVE. The subject is witchcraft and witch hunting. Scott Hahn: Albino Assassin Scott's written a nifty little book called Ordinary Work, Extraordinary Grace: My Spiritual Journey in Opus Dei. I have various friends (like Scott) who are members of OD but I've never been a member myself and so have not known much about it experientially. Scott's book is a nice intro that give people a sense of the Opus Dei emphasis on finding God in the ordinary and, in particular, in the ordinary work of layfolk as we go about our daily jobs. As a devotee of the St. Catherine of Siena Institute, I am all about laypeople living out their lay vocations, so I have a natural affinity for OD's emphasis on the laity taking their proper place in the world and not falling into a clericalist mindset that supposes Catholic life begins and ends with clergy and religous. The book will not be much help for those seeking salacious details about assassins, conspiracies, and curtain-gliding spies (but of course that's what you'd expect from someone with MK-Ultra Clearance levels within the Secret Brotherhood). But on the whole, it's a good snapshot of how a typical OD guy views life from within the OD tradition. For further info, the OD guys have set up a little weblink about the book here. If you click on it, your computer will do a little retina scan of you (it won't hurt) and download all your personal information to the Very Large Array of computer banks in the basement of St. Peter's. Standard procedure. Nothing to worry about. Thursday, October 26, 2006
A reader writes: You probably will blog on this today, but just in case, I wanted to pass this along. Via Lileks, I read the transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Andrew Sullivan about his new book. At one point in the interview (or "Inquisition" as AS put it) I read the following: Actually, there is such a thing as the sensus fidelium. Andy, true to form, treats it as a sort of running public opinion poll that get 1/3 of the vote in deciding what Catholics believe this week. Here is what the sensus fidei actually is, courtesy of Lumen Gentium: 12. The holy People of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, "from the bishops to the last of the faithful"[8] they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life. It should be noted that the "faithful" include, not just Andrew Sullivan and those on the TIME editorial board who agree with him about gay marriage, but the whole body of the faithful, throughout time and space, in union with the Magisterium that is graced to articulate and develop our understanding of the deposit of faith. So it's not quite as simple as polling American Catholics to see what they think of gay marriage or contraception and then adjusting the doctrine accordingly. Interestingly, Hewitt is dead wrong in his question about the the authority of Peter. Precisely what it is *not* is a "moral" authority. Peter does not command our obedience because he is a good man. He commands our obedience because he is the Rock upon which Christ has chosen to build his Church. Dittos for our bishops. The notion that bishops wield "moral" authority is nonsense. They wield spiritual authority that is quite apart from whether they are good men or not. A Catholic's duty is to obey the teaching of the Church, whether it is articulated by John Paul the Great or Alexander VI, precisely because that teaching does not in the least depend for its truth on whether the teacher who teaches it is a saint or a sinner bound for perdition. It depends on the Holy Spirit, not men. I'll be doing a radio gig tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM-Noon PDT The show is called "Sound Insight" and is hosted by a friend of mine named Dr. Tom Curran, a Catholic evangelist/speaker who lives here in the Seattle area and who does phenomenal work. You can listen on-line to KBLE 1050 AM here. "It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - G.K. Chesterton Vice-Glorious Leader Dick Cheney celebrates torture by calling it something else: Q: I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree? Permit me to interrupt with a visual aid. "Dunking people in water" evokes pool parties, bobbing for apples, friendly horseplay with your teenage pals in far-off summers of golden youth. What it refers to, in *this* conversation, is this (image courtesy of a Cambodian Museum display about the horrors of life under the Khmer Rouge):  In short, it's a euphemism for what plain speakers of English call "torture" and what those familiar with Catholic teaching call "intrinsically immoral". Our Vice-Glorious Leader responds: THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that. ... Just remember: Khmer Rouge-style torture worked on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. But we don't torture. Our Glorious Leaders say so and they don't lie or anything. I will not shed a tear if this bunch winds up arraigned for war crimes. Except for my country, that has such men leading it. After a pause, Sungenis Resumes Jew-Baiting Kookiness Always a healthy sign when your "news sources" include National Vanguard White Supremacists and various conspiracy nuts. Unleash the Power of the Blog! A reader from San Francisco writes: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence now use Most Holy Redeemer Parish Hall (beneath the church) for their monthly Revival Bingo. In addition to emailing Fr. Meriwether with your well-deserved protests, don't forget to CC Archbishop George Niederauer and Bishop John Wester as well as Bishop Ignatius Wang. There is simply no excuse for this revolting sacrilege. The Parousians are Contacting Me! Representatives of this advanced alien civilization have made contact with me from their secret base in the swamps of Louisiana. They inform me that the gutsy Parousian Emily Byers has written another gutsy Parousian Emily Byers editorial that is pissing of various pro-death powers and principalities who are trying make life hard for her in retaliation. If you go to the Reveille and post message of support on their message board, you'll be doing a good thing for a good gal and supporting freedom of speech in the bargain. Christians Who Cheer-Led for War Seem Strangely Uninterested in Massive Damage Inflicted on Iraqi Christianity Arguments Against Atheism We Could Do Without Somebody named Henry Gee argues against Richard Dawkins with a good solid piece of anti-rational sentimentality of the "If you believe Santa exists, then he does" variety. There's just one problem with this argument: it's garbage. If you believe with all your heart that Santa exists, guess what? He still doesn't exist. Arguments for theism that proceed from warm sentiments about The Miracle of a Child's Heart and so forth are sentimental junk. They show that the author is aware that Dawkins is weirdly inhuman, smashing a child's fantasy world out of some sick need to be a shrill atheistic bag lady screaming at the traffic. But they do nothing to advance the actual arguments for theism which, contra Gee, are not based on faith, but on reason and knowable without revelation. #1 LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE IN U.S. SEEKS FULL-TIME CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN Williams College, located in the beautiful Berkshire Mountains of Western Massachusetts, is currently conducting a national search to hire a full-time Catholic Chaplain to begin working by July 1, 2007. Williams is eager to hire a Catholic priest, but is also considering lay people for the chaplain's position. Applications for the Catholic Chaplain position are due by NOVEMBER 15, 2006. The college's official job posting and information about how to apply are available here. The Catholic Chaplain at Williams has an incredible opportunity to positively influence some of the best and brightest college students in America. Williams is one of the top liberal arts colleges in the nation. U.S. News & World Report has ranked Williams as the #1 liberal arts college in America for the past four years, and has ranked it as #1 in academic reputation for the past sixteen years. Williams students go on to become leaders throughout society - in business, law, politics, the arts, academia, and even the Church. The college's many distinguished alumni include: Fr. Michael Scanlan, Chancellor of the Franciscan University of Steubenville; Steve Case, founder of American Online (AOL); Bill Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education; Arthur Levitt, former Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC); George Steinbrenner, owner of the New York Yankees; Steven Sondheim, award-winning Broadway composer and lyricist; and Rep. Mark Udall, U.S. Congressman from Utah. Other Williams alumni have distinguished themselves by pursuing vocations as professors at Catholic universities, priests, seminarians, nuns, campus ministers, and theology doctoral students. Williams has a student body of about 2,100 undergraduates. Approximately, 20% to 25% of these students self-identify themselves as Catholics when they start college. The Catholic Chaplain at Williams has an incredible opportunity to help these students live, learn, and deepen their faith. Since these students will go on to positions of leadership and influence, the Catholic Chaplain can have an enormous impact in renewing society and the Church. The vibrancy of Catholic life at Williams has increased during the past decade. Papal biographer George Weigel noted this renewal in his recent book Letters to a Young Catholic. The result has been a tremendous number of vocations for a small, secular college. Recent Williams graduates include three lay campu |
