Punditry

Via Mary Meets Dolly

I found this gem in the Telegraph. In this piece, Roger Highfield writes about the unease about breeding cloned animals the conventional way and letting them enter the food chain. This is a very real conundrum. Most people agree they don’t want to eat meat from a cloned cow (although they are clamouring to inject themselves with embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos) but what about the offspring of a cloned cow. The daughter cow is technically not a clone, but "half-a-clone." Does that count? Would you eat the offspring of a cloned cow?

What left me scratching my head about this piece is how Mr. Highfield finishes it:

Underlying much of the concern about a calf that is not even herself a clone is the "yuck factor". This articulates a visceral fear that these methods are unnatural, though what people mean by this is hard to say.

After all, in the Garden of Eden, the first life was reproduced by cloning. Like Dundee Paradise, we all have clones in our family tree.

Huh? I guess I just wasn’t expecting a science editor to suggest that Adam and Eve were our real ancestors and that they were clones in the same breath.

If Eve was a clone then I guess we need to revise history since it was not Alexander Graham Bell, but Satan who made the first clone fall.

More seriously though Rebecca is right is wondering about this add convergence. Sillier though is if Eve was cloned then she would be genetically identical to Adam and of course of the same gender.

ATLANTA (BP)– Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have proposed the establishment of a broadly inclusive alternative Baptist movement to counter what they called a negative image of Baptists and to address poverty, the environment and global conflicts.

Carter and Clinton kicked off their plans with a news conference Jan. 9 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, flanked by leaders of moderate Baptist groups including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a breakaway group of an unverified number of churches that objected to the election of conservative leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. Carter and Clinton announced a “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant,” tentatively set for Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, which they hope will attract 20,000 Baptists.
[Via Jay Anderson]

An alternative to the Southern Baptist conference? I wonder what they will call it? Perhaps "Way Southern Baptist", that is they are so way South that they can smell sulfur.

Vatican, Jan. 9, 2007 (CWNews.com) – The president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care has welcomed a new breakthrough in research using stem cells from amniotic fluids.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan told a Vatican Radio audience that the latest discovery was welcome because it allowed for the stem cells to be harvested without any threat to the life of the donor.

The Church, the cardinal pointed out, does not object to stem-cell research in itself, but to the harvesting in which human embryos are destroyed in order to obtain stem cells. The use of amniotic fluid involves no such destruction of human life.

It is pretty good news that this development has been reported fairly widely. Usually any actual breakthroughs that dealt with any process that did not actually require the destruction of human embryos received pretty much a media blackout.

Not that this will have any effect on the political debate. Even if amniotic fluid produced stem-cells that were exactly equal to the purported capabilities of embryonic stem-cells it would not matter. The political debate has never really been about cures, but a reaction to any attempt to admit that human embryos are persons and should not be destroyed. This is the only explanation for the totally unbalanced hype and subsequent coverage between embryonic and non-embryonic sources of stem-cells.

To prove the point.

Paolo De Coppi told the Italian ANSA news agency that a groundbreaking paper published this week in Nature Biotechnology had previously been rejected by four different journals. “It took seven years to get our paper published,” he said.

De Coppi and his colleague, Anthony Atala, demonstrated that stem cells derived from amniotic fluid could be used to generate many different types of body tissues, which could be used in the treatment of diseases. For the purposes of medical research, their paper argued, the stem cells taken from amniotic fluid show more promise than those obtained from human embryos.

Nevertheless, De Coppi told ANSA, his research was unwelcome in some quarters. He concluded that his paper was met by “a resistance to the idea of finding an alternative to embryonic stem cells,” because many leading researchers– particularly in the US– are so heavily invested in embryo research.

The researches in this case have no ethical problems with ESCR itself in the first place, they just made the mistake of finding another source.

Though I do wonder if this work turns out to be truly promising if there is still the problem of using stem-cells that are not yours and having the body reject them. That is why so much effort has been put into cloning in the first place. News stories don’t often mention that they would have to create of clone of yourself first, kill it, and then harvest the embryonic stem-cells – kind of a self-cannibalism.

The article entitled "Catholics largest group in new US Congress" has been making the rounds in St. Blogs. Shouldn’t the title be "Cafeteria Catholics largest group in new US Congress?"

I also started to wonder if the term cafeteria was affixed to other Christian groups to designate those that that pick and choose what their church teaches. Checking Google I got no hits for Cafeteria Methodist, and only a handful for Cafeteria Baptist and Cafeteria Calvinist (who I guess are predestined to be Cafeteria Calvinists). The ones for Cafeteria Presbyterian only referred to a real cafeteria in a Presbyterian hospital. I also got zero hits for Cafeteria Anglican or Episcopalian though mainly because a Cafeteria Anglican would be a Unitarian anyway.

Diogenes has more on the history of the Archdiocese of L.A. Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics,

You’ll remember the Archdiocese’s original animator of gay ministry was a Carmelite named Peter Liuzzi, who dismayed orthodox Angelenos with his counter-Catholic advocacy and who was constantly protected by Mahony’s inner circle. That Liuzzi’s abstract advocacy fronted for a personal lifestyle issue became obvious when fellow Carmelite Dominic Savino was found to have molested high school boys, and Mahony’s right-hand man Msgr. Richard Loomis, in a hacked e-mail, urged his fellow apparatchiks to play down the Savino-Liuzzi connection (3/19/2002):

A complicating fact: I believe that Father Peter Liuzzi is being assigned to Crespi Carmelite HS as a faculty member. A representative of the "Lay Catholic Mission" has approached a Carmelite priest who occasionally helps here at Saint Charles to question "the wisdom of assigning Father Liuzzi to an all-boy school." On top of that, Father Liuzzi and Father Savino have lived in the same community house for as long as I have worked at the ACC — not quite seven years. They are close friends. I am not sure how many people know these facts and I would not want to tip my hand. Everything in this "complicating fact" paragraph would be tracked right back to me. I would not want it made public if it can be avoided. But my thought is that one issue might ignite the other in the press, both secular and retro-Catholic.

Here’s how the daisies were chained: Liuzzi was the Archdiocese’s gay ministry guru. He left the job, and was teaching part time at a Carmelite high school, while sharing a bungalow with his boyfriend Savino, who’d molested boys at the same school. Loomis, the director of the Cardinal’s secretariat for administrative services, ran interference for Liuzzi when the Savino story broke. But it doesn’t end there. Loomis himself later left ministry after being accused of molesting two boys. ("Loomis. That case proves that our procedures are working," said Cardinal Mahony, when taxed by Jason Berry in 2005 with his adjutant’s perfidy in the matter.)

The conflict of interest here speaks for itself. Yet the Archbishop, and the Archdiocese’s Ministry with Lesbians and Gays, are still under full sail — which indicates that the forces that share their sympathies have more clout than those that don’t. Those of us Loomis calls retro-Catholics might object to the Gay Rainbow Jesus, but it’s clear that most senior churchmen in the Archdiocese would be bewildered at the suggestion that there’s anything objectionable about it. In heraldic terms, it’s an eloquent emblem of Cardinal Mahony’s tenure as bishop and, indeed, of what they understand as religion full stop.

Cardinal Mahony himself ordained an openly homosexual deacon and activist last year so you know the Archdiocese ministry is really just a subversion of the Church’s teaching under the wraps of tolerance. They talk about being "consonant with Church teaching", but somehow never get around to what those teachings actually are as evidenced by their web page. No references to the Catechism or any authoritative Church documents on their ministry site. Now how could that happen? I guess it is just a coincidence that Deacon Eric Stoltz the openly homosexual activist who designed the ministries website and in fact the archdiocese website is involved.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles wants you to order a rainbow fish pin "as a sign of recognition of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers".

Here is the web page: Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics

Here’s some quotes:

See in the fish pin a sign of recognition of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. The pin signals solidarity with all people of faith who promote justice and inclusivity for every person in their faith communities.

In 2006 we celebrated our 20th anniversary of this ministry. The Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics was founded by Cardinal Roger Mahony on February 4, 1986 and is supported throughout the Archdiocese at parish level a an active outreach ministry with gay and lesbian Catholics, their parents, families and friends.

I have a question: How does wearing a rainbow fish pin help anyone? If I see someone wearing one, what should that lead me to think?

Does it mean the person is a homosexual? Is it meant to make it easier for homosexuals to recognize one another and connect?

Does it mean the person has a friend or relative who is homosexual? What, then, by wearing the rainbow fish do they want people to think or feel about homosexuality?

Why would a ministry to people with an intrinsically disordered orientation encourage people who have that orientation, as well as everybody else, to recognize and define the totality of a human person by their disordered orientation? Will they be making pins that assist alcoholics, drug addicts, and people with eating disorders in recognizing one another? How about a pin for people who are promiscuous or for people who tend to commit adultery? How about one for people who struggle with an addiction to internet pornography? Why not?

Is a disorder something to wear proudly, like a badge of honor?
[Roman Catholic Blog]

The first fish I ever caught as a kid was a Rainbow Trout so I wonder if this qualified as solidarity with those who have same-sex attraction. Though maybe gutting and eating it is not the sign of the Rainbow Fish they intend. Though the Archdiocese of L.A does seem to keep gutting the faith.

Maybe we need some other pins to identify with those who have other disordered attractions. A fish in a bottle pin for solidarity with Alcoholics. A Fish eye pin for those who have a wandering eye with lustful thoughts. A Shark pin for solidartiy with adulterers. A fish with bunny ears pin for those attracted to porn. Let is be inclusive and not just concentrate on only one group which is such a small part of the population. Heck why not charm bracelets with little charms for every disordered inclination?

A couple years ago I wrote how odd I found the rainbow symbol in the first place.

I have found the sign of the rainbow highly ironic for the homosexual movement. In Genesis 9 after the earth was flooded because "that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", God set the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with man. I am not saying the flood was directly caused by homosexual acts, but it was certainly the results of sexual immorality. I put all acts of sexual immorality such as fornication, adultery and homosexuality pretty much on the same footing, though adultery is worse than fornication and it can be argued that homosexually acts are even graver. But they are all grave sins and can cause the loss of sanctifying grace in the souls of those who act thus. Yet their are no pro-fornication or pro-adultery protests going on and no open movements demanding that the Church change on these issues. If homosexual activists are trying to put these same-sex relationship at the same level of sacramental matrimony then why aren’t they crying out against homosexual fornication before marriage? Neither are they protesting when they breakup their long term committed relationship as in this very court case.

Q: You were recently quoted as calling yourself a “conservative Catholic.” Are you?

A: I think so. I was raised, as I say, in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, than that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.

I have five children, five grandchildren; I try to abide by all the teachings of the church in relationship to family. I think my family speaks very clearly to that.

So who is this "conservative Catholic?" Well if you didn’t get the reference by the mention of grandchildren (this politician mentions it at every opportunity) it is Nancy Pelosi from a 2003 NCReporter interview.

Q: Is being a Catholic in public life a blessing or a burden?

A: Oh, it’s a blessing. I have more people praying for me.

In the family I was raised in, love of country, deep love of the Catholic Church, and love of family, were all the values I was raised in. I don’t like to have religion and politics come too closely together, but I will say that I am motivated by the Gospel of Matthew, as many people in politics are. I find it an inspiration.

What did I see the other day? The divinity in me bows to the divinity in you. The respect that we have for the individual because of the spark of divinity that we all carry serves me well in politics – to respect people and their point of view. I say that, I hope it doesn’t sound patronizing, …in a very respectful way.

My upbringing — working on the side of the angels with my parents — to help people, again according to Gospel of Matthew, and the idea …. [that we] look upon God’s creation as an act of worship – to ignore the needs of God’s creation is to dishonor the God that made them. And that we have that responsibility, all of us.

It’s part of me, it’s immediate in my life, it’s immediate in the lives of many of my colleagues.

The divinity in me bows to the divinity in you? This is of course a Hindu greeting and the context is polytheistic. Though of course it can also loosely be interpreted in that those living in sanctifying grace become "partakers of the divine nature" and the Eastern Mystical Theology of deification. But I find the phrase itself rather odd in a Christian context. I can bow to you because you are the Imago Dei, made in God’s image. But does the image of God in me in itself bow to the image of God in you? The phrasing seems to me to be kind of leaving the human person out of the equation and to be only an exchange between divinities – which is of course the original meaning.

Q: Is it more difficult today to be a pro-choice Catholic then it was, say, ten years ago?

A: It’s about the same. Now when I traveled across the country when I was campaigning for candidates this last time, when I was in another city on a Sunday, I would try to find a Catholic church nearby. I heard some of the sermons in some of the churches down south, so I understand what some of our colleagues undergo in the church — it was difficult. We’ve had those sermons in California, but a little more subtlety than I was hearing down south. It gave me a better understanding of what some of my colleagues are going through.

I have never in my district in California, in my archdiocese…if I was going to [be allowed to] receive communion; I never knew if this was the day it would be withheld. And that’s a hard way to go to church. Fortunately, I’m invited — I have a big family — I go to a lot of weddings, I’m in a different church every week. I’m a moving target. I travel, so I’m not exactly a target in terms of always being in the same church, although I go to St. Vincent DePaul, which is my neighborhood parish.

In addition to that, on many occasions the archdiocese has told the nuns that I couldn’t be the speaker at some event. And that’s hurtful because we have so much in common. But it’s the decision the church has made.

Is it more difficult today to be a square circle then it was, say, ten years ago? This type of question shows perfectly just how heterodox NCR is. I also just love the condescending attitude towards the South. Yep nun of us no newance down hear. It also says a lot about the Diocese of San Francisco that a 100 percent pro-abortion record Catholic never had to worried about not receiving Communion. Being allowed to receive Communion sacrilegiously and causing scandal must be something too nuanced for me to understand. I guess you don’t have to worry about someone’s immortal soul if they are already a politician. You do wonder about the inconsistency of her not being able to speak on many occasions in the Archdiocese and yet can receive Communion.

One last thing from this conservative Catholic.

Q: Women as priests?

A: Oh absolutely…Why not? Why not?

My eyes are now opened. What a stunning argument in favor of women’s ordination. Why not? Bludgeoning the homeless. Why not?

Q: On the flip side of the abortion question, how big a tent is the Democratic Party? Is it big enough to welcome Democrats who oppose abortion?

A: I think it is a bigger tent than people realize. I come myself from a family that does not share my views on choice.

Q: That must make for some interesting dinner table conversations.

A: Interesting in that they get back to the point that I made earlier – that we are all blessed by the creator with a free will [to] which we are answerable and I will step back to that. And that seems to be common ground [among the family].

Having said that, I think there are occasions where they would like me to be less visible, that they don’t like to see any disagreement between the church and any of us.

Well I am at least glad to hear that she recognizes that we are responsible for the choices we make and that she does not equate free will in this case with license. With her impending coronation, I mean 4 day party, please keep Nancy. Pelosi in mind in your prayers.

Amy Welborn the other day had a fairly extensive post on Nancy Pelosi and her voting record.

Try to imagine Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, dressed up as a bishop — the head bishop — of his own state-sponsored church.

According to media reports coming out of Latin America, President Chavez is considering a proposal that would establish him as the high priest of his own form of evangelical Christianity, convert his cabinet members into bishops of a lower rank, and submit church activities to the civil and military power of his government.

It is still unclear who is behind the proposal. Publicly, it has taken the form of a petition by leaders of “Centro Cristiano de Salvación” (Christian Center of Salvation). The association claims to represent 17,000 evangelical churches and 5,000,000 Venezuelans. Their request is simple: make their denomination the country’s official religion, teach it in all public schools and pay the pastors from government coffers. In turn, they will make Chavez their head bishop and promise to submit absolutely to his authority.

If the reports are true and this happens I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the American left to condemn this new theocracy. After all Chavez was able to consolidate power in the presidency by converting the bicameral National Assembly into a weakened unicameral legislature while still eliciting gushing praise. For many liberals the effects of Marxist leaders are similar to the sacrament of baptism, except all sins are remitted in the past and in the future.

Damon Linker has a piece in the current edition of The New Republic in which he questions Mitt Romney’s suitability for the Presidency of the United States based on his religious faith, which everyone knows by now is Mormonism. Linker even suggests that Mitt Romney’s recent election-year flip-flops on abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, protections for gays against hiring discrimination, etc. etc. etc. may be faith driven. “Romney may have undergone an authentic religious rebirth during the last few years—a rebirth that has led him to embrace the fundamental tenets of his church more fully than ever before in his political career. If so, voters need to know it. And they need to think long and hard about the possible consequences of making such a man the president of the United States,” Linker writes.
[Via Patrick Hynes at Deal Hudson’s blog]

Looks like Damon Linker knows as much about Mormonism as he does about the impending theocracy. Mormons have no official teaching on abortion, though they do have one on caffeine. As to Romney’s flip-flopping I think it is easier to believe it is something endemic in Massachusetts. Sen. Kennedy was once pro-life and then of course there is the King of Flip-Flops Sen Kerry. Though then again political opportunism is not just native to Massachusetts.

Rich Leonardi reminds me of something I also found odd this month. On one my Catholic calendars put out by J.S. Palusch, Inc and specifically a calendar devoted to vocations – lists today as the first day of Kwanzaa. Now I of course decided to do the readings associated with St. Stephen instead while reading the Divine Office today. Funny my guide book does not have alternative readings for Kwanzaa, but happily Kathy Shaidle previously supplied some. This day of course deserves the treatment that Kathy Shaidle gave to it.

Twas the night before Kwanzaa
And all through the ‘hood,
Maulana Karenga was up to no good.

He’d tortured a woman and spent time in jail.
He needed a new scam that just wouldn’t fail.
("So what if I stuck some chick’s toe in a vice?
Nobody said revolution was nice!")

The Sixties were over. Now what would he do?
Why, he went back to school — so that’s "Dr." to you!
He once ordered shootouts at UCLA
Now he teaches Black Studies just miles away.

Then to top it all off, the good Doctor’s new plan
Was to get rid of Christmas and piss off The Man.

Karenga invented a fake holiday.
He called the thing Kwanza. "Hey, what’s that you say?

"You don’t get what’s ‘black’ about Maoist baloney?
You say that my festival’s totally phony?

"Who cares if corn isn’t an African crop?
Who cares if our harvest’s a month or two off?
Who cares if Swahili’s not our mother tongue?
A lie for The Cause never hurt anyone!

"Umoja! Ujima! Kujichagulia, too!
Collectivist crap never sounded so cool!
Those guilty white liberals — easy to fool.
Your kids will now celebrate Kwanzaa in school!"

And we heard him exclaim as he drove out of sight:
"Happy Kwanzaa to all, except if you’re white!"