Tancredo as harbinger of 2012?

If you want to see one scenario of 2012, take a look at Colorado's governor's race. Recently, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have been hinting at the possibility of a third-party challenge if the Republicans don't fully embrace the Tea Party platform of slashing the federal budget, security the borders and rolling back the Obama agenda. Many Democrats are positively gleeful at the prospect. Many Republicans believe it unthinkable. 

But is it impossible? The Republican and Democratic parties being the two major parties in America are not set in stone, nor in the Constitution. Parties have a natural life span. Now the Tea Party is an ally of the Republicans, but they are a fickle and independent bunch. They don't trust the Republican party apparatus and have no qualms about targeting moderate Republicans. Just ask Spector, Crist and Murkowski, who all showed their party loyalty by running against the GOP as soon as they lost a primary (or were about to).

And perhaps the Democrats should contain their glee. Consider Tom Tancredo. Long derided as part of the lunatic fringe, Tancredo is running as the Constitution Party candidate against Republican Dan Maes and Democrat John Hickenlooper. So, how is this xenophobic, tea-party fueled, third-party candidate doing? Well, he's winning. 

Okay, not quite winning, but he is out-polling the Republican candidate by an astonishing 39 points, according to the latest PPP poll.  And the Dems lead is within the margin of error. In the three months since Tancredo started his candidacy, polling has gone from an even split of 24%-24% between Maes and Tancredo to a steady fall for Maes. In July there were cries for Tancredo to step down, lest he deliver the governorship to the Democrats. Of course, now that the spoiler role might go to Maes (who may get 5% of the vote), few are calling for him to end his candidacy. 

And Colorado is no deep Red state. It went for Obama over McCain by 9 points in 2008. Further, it is 20% Hispanic and might have the highest profile anti-illegal immigration advocate as its governor. 

What's the lesson here? First, this must be seen in the context of all the other candidates who are considered "too conservative"  to win from Brown in Massachusetts to Fiorina in California. The term "unelectable" is all but meaningless in this time of flux and uncertainty. Second, Republicans cannot engage in business as usual, selecting candidates based on seniority or ability to compromise. Finally, we can see that a major party can collapse in the blink of an eye. Party loyalties are weaker than ever and party affiliation is down. Only 60% of Americans identify with one of the two major parties. 58% of Americans think that a third major party is needed. Colorado shows that if the Republicans try to put forth flawed and uncompelling candidates, voters will not simply roll over. 

Palin-Limbaugh 2012 for the Tea Party? It could be reality, if the GOP doesn't watch out. Worse for the Democrats, they could win, if they don't take them seriously. Just ask Tom Tancredo.

Three pictures of the summit = three thousand words.

Can you tell which ones are our allies and which are our rivals/enemies?

Prime Minister of Canada, our ally and neighbor.

And leader of the Conservative party.

Hmm, not much love there.

 

President of Brazil, an important partner in the Western Hemisphere.

And he is a founding member of the leftist Workers' Party.

That's a pretty warm greeting. Especially compared with Harper's.They are like comrades.

 

And an obsequious bow to the president of China. With no reciprocal bow.

And if you think this is taken out of context see the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bNoe0RTQYA

This is what rivals should do:

Quodlibetica redivivus!

After just over four years, I am back and ready to write about the intersection of politics, law and culture. I hope to have some more reviews and even original photography. Stay tuned.

'Anguish of abortion is worse than miscarriage'
(Filed: 12/12/2005)

Women who have an abortion can suffer mental distress, anxiety, guilt and shame at least five years afterwards, researchers say today.

A study in Norway compared a group of 40 women who had suffered a miscarriage with 80 women who had an abortion, questioning them 10 days, six months, two years and five years after the event.

Although women who had a miscarriage suffered more mental distress up to six months after losing their baby, women who had an abortion experienced more mental distress at the two- and five-year intervals.

The study, by the University of Oslo, published in the journal BMC Medicine, measured the extent of intrusive thoughts, feelings and flashbacks about the end of pregnancy. The researchers also assessed how much women avoided thinking or talking about the event.

They found that after 10 days 47.5 per cent of women who had miscarried suffered from mental distress compared with 30 per cent of the abortion group. The proportion of women who had a miscarriage suffering distress fell to 22.5 per cent at six months and 2.6 per cent at two years and five years.

However, levels of distress remained high in the abortion group, falling to 25.7 per cent at six months and 18 per cent at two years but rising to 20 per cent at five years. The women in the abortion group also had high levels of anxiety, guilt, shame and relief.

Anna Pringle, from the pro-life charity Life, said the research confirmed that abortion can cause "massive" emotional suffering. "We believe it is time that the Government acknowledges the fact that abortion carries with it psychological risks that can affect women long after the actual event," she said.

Richard Warren, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said it showed the need for continuing counselling and the importance of family planning. But a spokesman for the Family Planning Association said: "There is no evidence to suggest that abortion directly causes psychological trauma.

"Women can experience mixed feelings after an abortion such as relief or sadness. These are natural reactions and few women experience long-term problems."

The Illogic of the Left

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard opening arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the first abortion-related case before the Court in five years. Already, the left is up in arms:

During arguments yesterday in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, reports the San Francisco Chronicle, Roberts looked for a way to preserve New Hampshire's right to require the notifying of parents at least 48 hours in advance if their daughter seeks to end an unwanted pregnancy:

Roberts focused on the tiny number of cases that might arise where a teenage girl's health might be at risk without immediate access to an abortion. "The problem arises only in an emergency situation," Roberts said. "The vast majority of cases don't involve an emergency situation." He asked the lawyer representing Planned Parenthood, "Why challenge the act as a whole when the objection is so narrow?"

Oh, why indeed? Because a female's basic right to choose what happens with her own body is at stake, maybe?

Lets examine that last statement. Does current law support the view that all female's have a basic right to choose what happens with her own body? If a 15-year-old wants to have sex with a 25-year-old, what does the law say? That is statutory rape, because society has determined that a 15-year-old is incapable of giving consent because she is too immature. The law also says that a girl cannot have a tatoo or her ears pierced without parental permission. Why don't the usual suspects sue that that "violates her right to choose"?

Further, does anyone believe that it is unconstitutional for states to set laws concerning smoking or drinking for minors? But, why can't they do what they want with their own bodies? Why is there an age limit to star in a pornographic film? Indeed, why are there age limits to working at all? Aren't child labor laws a violation of a child's right to do what she wants with her own body?

More directly, what about medical procedures? Why don't they try to enact laws barring notifying parents if their children goes to the emergency room? Doesn't that "violate their privacy"? Why can't a 15-year-old get plastic surgery without notifying her parents?

These examples show that this is not an abortion issue so much as a parental rights issue. Ruling in favor of the New Hampshire law would not set a precedent against Roe. Why can't they acknowledge that abortion is a choice, yes, but one with powerful emotions and pressures that a 16-year-old is not capable of handling. The law doesn't recognize an absolute right to do to your body whatever you want, especially if you are a minor.

Recall also that the New Hampshire law doesn't require parental consent, but simply notification (and a 48 hour waiting period). And a judge can waive that notification.

Now consider the situation personally. A girl is having sex (probably illegally (see statuatory rape laws) and probably without her parents' knowledge.) Yet, someone provides her with a ride and the money to have the abortion. And that someone is not her parent. Since the law has decided that minor's are incapable of consent, who is actually making the choice? That would be the man, covering up the evidence of his using of the girl, the evidence of his crime. Is it any wonder that the most pro-abortion demographic is 18-25-year-old males? The woman is left empty and in pain (literally) and alone, while the man's life continues on without problem. This is feminism?

Most strikingly, and hypocrically, the ACLU argues that minors should not be tried as adults because they do not fully understand the moral implications of life and death decisions. Teens who murder are not treated the same as adults who murder because their immaturity diminishes their moral judgment.

Then why does the ACLU not believe that the immaturity of a 14-year-old pregnant girl diminishes her capacity to make good decisions? Magically, this girl is fully qualified to decide for herself. If a 15-year-old boy shoots someone, it is because he is immature and was pressured by his friends, etc. If a 15-year-old girl has an abortion, it is because she is immature and resisted all outside pressure. Does that make any sense?

Defying the Master

First, I must say that Br. Timothy Radcliffe, OP intimidates the heck out of me. Not only is he a published author, residing at Blackfriars in Oxford and, of course, former Master General to
whom I vowed obedience, but he also has an English accent (and really wild hair).
However, I most strenuously disagree with many points of his recent article in The Tablet (may require registration), in which he seeks to interpret the new document
on homosexuality and the seminary put out by the Vatican today.
Fr. Timothy first reminds us of two things: we should interpret the document "positively" (presumably in a way that liberal, Western Europeans would consider positive) and that the vocation is a call from God (not the Church). Then he says something peculiar:

I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met. So no priest who is convinced of his vocation should feel that this document classifies him as a defective priest. And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the gifts of both.

Now, no one pretends that God doesn't call sinners and broken men to be priests. In a way, all priests (as all people) are "defective" because we are imperfect (only perfect things have no defect). I have no doubt that God calls men who are sexually attracted to men to the priesthood. But that is quite different than God calling a homosexual to the priesthood.
God doesn't call a homosexual to the priesthood qua homosexual, but qua person. God calls us to our vocations as persons--we should not be reduced to our sexuality. God does not call us because of our sinfulness, but in spite of it. Yes, we may bring gifts derived from
our encounter with sin (a sense of humility, fortitude, etc) but the sin or defect is not itself a gift, as Fr. Timothy implies. A same-sex attraction is not a gift, but a defect (which may be seen as an opportunity to grow in virtue, as can all difficulties or temptations). We can see that Fr. Timothy has a very different understanding of homosexuality than does the Church. Fr. Timothy then attempts to understand what the document means by a "deep-seated homosexual tendency." He says that it cannot mean homosexual orientation, because he knows many good priests who have a homosexual orientation and are clearly called by God. But again he falls into a fallacy. He may not go so far as to say "A good priest I know does X. Therefore, X is good," but he comes close. He does seem to be saying that anyone who is called by God to be a priest cannot have a negative trait of enough magnitude to bar them from the ministry. Sadly, however, there are priests with problems relating to alcoholism, sexual abuse, anger issues, etc. Are all these not actually called to the priesthood? Similarly, could one say that all those whose marriages don't work weren't actually called to marriage? Or is there some other explanation?
I think that the vocational understanding of my former Master is a bit simplistic. God calls us to a certain way of life, but it is our choice to follow it. But that is not our only choice, he helps us prepare for the life he calls us to but we can fail in that preparation. If a person felt called to the priesthood, does that mean he could enter the seminary at 9? Of course not. Denying admission would not be an indication that that person is not called, but that he, in the Church's eyes, is not yet ready. Similarly, when the Church says that a man with a "deep-seated homosexual tendency" cannot be ordained, they are not saying that he does not have avocation. He simply needs to mature and reduce this tendency, if not eliminate it. Just because Fr. Timothy knows some good priests doesn't mean that it is not a good policy.
Fr. Timothy further reveals his differences with Church teaching when he says "Seminarians should learn to be at ease with whatever is their sexual orientation, content with the heart that God has given them," which puts heterosexuality on par with homosexuality (or I should say natural attraction to the opposite sex with an intrinsically disordered attraction to the same sex). Fr. Timothy rightly says that this homosexual tendency (or heterosexual one) should not be at the core of our identity, but he belies that statement by consistently referring to "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" rather than the document's "homosexual tendency." The first overemphasizes its importance in identity. He also inflates its importance by using "orientation" which implies a fixed, immovable position, rather than a tendency. His false understanding is fully revealed when he says "I have known priests who thought that they were gay when they were 30, and then discover that they were not, and vice versa. " Using the phrase "discovered" implies an immutable, ontological status, at the core of one's being, unrelated to self-image, behavior, etc. Presumably any one of us could think we are heterosexual, get married, have children and then "discover" our true selves as a homosexual. This understanding is irreconcilable with his previous statement not to celebrate "as central to their lives what is not fundamental." Something that remains despite behavioral change and self-understanding seems pretty fundamental to me.
The Vatican document reflects a much more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the human person and sexuality than does Fr. Timothy's writing, which is riddled with contradictions and bad anthropology. Being told you are immature may sting, but it is not a denial of one's vocation. Indeed, it may be a confirmation of it, since immaturity implies potential, a potential that needs to be grown into, but potential nonetheless.
This is what the Vatican document says about vocation:

There are two indissociable aspects in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible liberty of the man. Vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. Responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to Him in love. The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive Ordination. It is the duty of the Church— in Her responsibility to define the necessary requisites for the reception of the Sacraments instituted by Christ— to discern the qualification of he who wishes to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation and to call him to Holy Orders, if he be judged to be in possession of the requisite qualities.

My Very Own Catholic Meme!!

Wow! It seems that my one and only Amazon review has burst onto the Catholic blogosphere in a big way! I noticed that Richard John Newhaus, editor of First Things mentioned it in his blog today. He said that he got it from Catholic World News. They both quote the abysmal Thanksgiving day prayer:

CELEBRANT: As consumers, we are conditioned by our economy never to be satisfied. But God, too, is a fantastic supplier, and we stop and take a sample inventory on this special day for giving thanks.

LEADER : For the smell of new rain, for pumpkins, and Snoopy, for the aroma of homemade bread, for cotton candy, for funny looking animals like giraffes and koalas and human beings; let us give thanks to the Lord.

2. For the smell of fall in the air, for paychecks, and smoked ribs, for the intricate designs of window frost, and for ice cubes and ice cream; let us give thanks to the Lord.

3. For clean sheets and peanut butter, and perma-press, and stereo-headphones, for vacations and seat belts, for escalators, and for views from tall buildings, and for red balloons; let us give thanks to the Lord.

4. For first romances and second romances, for eyes to see colors and ears to hear music and feet to dance, for dissenters and the right to dissent, for black and red and brown power, for pine trees and daisies, for newspapers and sandals and frogs; let us give thanks to the Lord.

5. For parks and woodsmoke and snow, for the smell of leather, for funny buttons and powerful posters, for pecan pies and long hair and french fries and recycling centers, for jet planes and for finding a nearby parking space, for zoos and splashing fountains and rock music and Bach music, let us give thanks to the Lord.

CELEBRANT: God, you overwhelm us with your goodness. And we have yet to mention your greatest gift, our brother Jesus! For these and all your gracious gifts please help us to learn how to live thankfully each day.

Curious as to whether I really did start the meme, I went to Google. The first reference is to the CWN article. The second is by Karl Keating, published in May 2004 [scroll to bottom], scant weeks after my review was put up on Amazon. Further evidence is that he used the same quotations I used (but fewer of them). (also, there is a Dominican/Catholic Answers grapevine, so anything is possible).
In July, 2004 Fr. Dowd published bits of the same prayers in his Waiting in Joyful Hope blog (and linked to my review!). Thank you Fr. Dowd for your kindness.
But this is not a blog about my lack of recognition! No, it is to show how small the Catholic world is. And I wanted to share with you the rest of the story. Fr. Newhaus and Karl Keating implied that we are far removed from these prayers. But I want you to do an exercise with me.

1. Put yourself in the mindset of a new liturgist. You want to order a "Prayers of the Faithful" book. So you go on the world's biggest book buying site.
2. Then you type in "Prayers of the Faithful"
3. And then you click on the top choice.
4. You are lead here. There are no obvious red flags. It was published in 1997 by the innocuous sounding Liturgical Press. It has a plain red and gold cover. It seems to be the most popular choice. Why not?

Well, that's why I simply had to write a review, my first and only on Amazon. I had to because that imaginary liturgist was our liturgist, at St. Albert's Priory, the Dominican House of Studies for the Western Province in Oakland. We actually ordered it and our poor lector read from it. I was so amused/angered that I snatched the book from the sacristan after mass and proceded to read through it cover to cover.
It truly is a scandal that it is the only Prayers of the Faithful available even today. I actually kind of wish that we hadn't sent it back. It would have been a great souvenir. Well, if you want to get me one for Christmas, I hear that Amazon has one left!!