By William Donahue

Yesterday, the Catholic League criticized the anti-Catholic bigotry displayed by the San Diego Minutemen against St. Peter's Church in Fallbrook, California. The anti-illegal immigrant group is protesting the cooperation that the church's pastor, Father Edward "Bud" Kaicher, has shown in helping day laborers find employment in the San Diego suburb.

Today, the group accused the Catholic League of creating "hatred amongst Catholics nationwide against Americans standing up for what’s right and legal." It also accused the illegal immigrants of increasing "crime and disease in our communities," and said that the "corrupt Catholic church" was committing "outrageous crimes and deeds."

We have learned that the San Diego Minutemen are unaffiliated with either the Minuteman Project or the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. As such, our comments are solely directed at the San Diego Minutemen.

The Catholic League is calling upon non-Latino Catholics in Southern California to join with Latino Catholics to condemn the flagrant anti-Catholic bigotry of the San Diego Minutemen.

Regardless of whether one is sympathetic or not to the plight of illegal immigrants -and/or the grievances of legal immigrants - there is one issue that all fair-minded persons should be able to agree upon: there is no role for bigotry in this dispute.

We are prepared to work with other Catholic organizations in the San Diego area to put an end to the Catholic bashing. To think there can be a realistic chance of achieving reconciliation without first addressing the issue of anti-Catholicism is pure nonsense.



Click here to return to homepage

By William Donahue

The San Diego Minutemen have chosen to target St. Peter's Church in Fallbrook, California, and some of the protests have been accompanied by anti-Catholic bigotry.

Father Edward "Bud" Kaicher, pastor of the suburban San Diego parish, has extended a helping hand to day workers seeking employment in the area, and for this he has been displayed in effigy as Satan.

Worse, the right-wing brigade of Minutemen has harassed Catholics going to church, used bullhorns to spout their invective, have uttered patently anti-Catholic remarks at parishioners and have even stooped so low as to intimidate little kids on the day of their First Communion.

Showing how incredibly debased and uncivil they are, the San Diego Minutemen have sought to paint all priests as pedophiles and have pledged to continue their incivility all summer long.

To top it off, the xenophobes are illiterate. "With all the pediphelia [sic] problems going on in the church," a posting on its Internet site says, "it makes no sense to have 50 loitering men watching little children playing on the playground each morning."

There are legitimate ways to protest. This is not one of them.

By succumbing to anti-Catholic bigotry and harassment, the San Diego Minutemen have discredited their cause and have no moral grounds upon which to make their appeal. They should be opposed not only by Latino Catholics, but by all Catholics.



Click here to return to homepage

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the city of Slidell, Louisiana on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in its courthouse lobby.

The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." The ACLU says the portrait — an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament — is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity, reported The Associated Press. It claims the portrait violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. The defendants in the suit are the city of Slidell, City Judge James Lamz and St. Tammany Parish, which partially funds the court, said the ACLU.


On Saturday, Lamz said he didn't believe the portrait violates the Constitution and the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed, reported the AP.

Michael Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group representing the city and parish, noted that the painting has been on display at the courthouse for nearly a decade.

Johnson noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public places are constitutional.


CNA
Click here to return to homepage

By Santificarnos.com

And as people age, those who were highly religious fare much better than most, according to a new study. The authors of the report found that people in the twilight years who were dealing with physical ailments but who had high levels of religiousness did not experience the same levels of depression as their less religious peers.

This finding, and others is presented in "In the Course of a Lifetime" (University of California Press), a book that gathers together the findings of University of New Hampshire Professor Michele Dillon, and which provides an unprecedented portrait of the dynamic role religion plays in the everyday experiences of Americans over the course of their lifetime.

"In the Course of a Lifetime" relies on a unique 60-year study of close to 200 mostly Protestant and Catholic men and women born in the 1920s. The participants were interviewed first in adolescence and then again in the 1950s, 1970s, 1980s and late 1990s. Drawing on these extensive first-person interviews, the researchers paint a picture of the place of religion in people's lives and how it intertwines with their everyday experiences over time as well as with broader cultural changes, aging, and transitions in the life course.

The study also notes the rise in alternative forms of spiritual seeking.

Most longitudinal studies compare the responses of different groups people interviewed at different times about the same topics. The two studies used by Dillon and co-author Paul Wink of Wellesley College -- the Berkeley Guidance and Oakland Growth studies established by the Institute of Human Development at UC Berkeley -- provide rare, detailed data from interviews with the same group of people over their lifetime.

"As our data from the 1930s through the 1990s show, there is much autonomy in how Americans construe religion, church, and the sacred. At the same time, though it is not heavy-handed, religion matters a great deal in many people's lives, adding texture and meaning to their everyday reality, anchoring their personal and social commitments, and buffering them in times of adversity," the authors said.

In looking at the ebb and flow of religiousness over a lifetime, Dillon and Wink found that adolescence is a high point of religiousness for most people. This discovery was exciting considering only a few studies worldwide have the necessary survey data to trace religious change from adolescence to late adulthood. Religiousness dips slightly but remains high through early adulthood (people in their thirties) but then drops through middle adulthood (forties). It plateaus between middle and late-middle adulthood (people in their mid-fifties and early sixties) and then increases as people move into late adulthood (people in their late sixties and seventies).

Adolescents were attracted to church for many reasons, including the social network it provided. Many reported switching churches – and even denominations – because of a particularly endearing pastor, exciting social activities and friendship opportunities. They all also were part of the pre-World War II civic generation of Americans who were highly involved in community activities.

"Our adolescents clearly appreciated the social opportunities for interacting with their peers that church allowed, and, in fact, encouraged," the researchers said. "There were strong expectations that young people would not simply attend Sunday school classes but also actively participate and assume social and leadership responsibilities in mixed-gender young people's societies."

The researchers attribute the drop-off in religiousness in middle-adulthood to parents feeling less pressure to socialize their growing children in religious circles as well as parents encountering increase career responsibilities.

"Apparently, as a result of the confluence of children leaving home and newly emerging pressures exerted by work and other activities, our middle-aged participants assigned a lower priority to church involvement. The perceived need for church may also have dimmed because midlife is a time in the life course when individuals tend to see their mortality as still far off," Dillon and Wink said.

Throughout their lives, women consistently were more religious than men. And conservative Protestants (evangelicals) had the highest levels of religiousness when compared to mainline Protestants and Catholics.

One of the most interesting discoveries of Dillon and Wink's research is a more in-depth understanding of spiritual-seeking Americans, those who do not participate in regular traditional religious services but who would be incorrectly labeled as secular.

The majority of surveys about religious behavior rely on the frequency of church attendance as a measure of a person's level of religiousness. Those who do not attend church frequently or at all usually are considered to be less religious or not religious at all. These types of results are partially responsible for the debate about whether Americans are becoming more secular.

What Dillon and Wink found is that the vast majority of those interviewed were either religious or spiritual seeking. Instead of relying on traditional measure such as church attendance, the researchers took cues from those interviewed about how they lived their lives and whether they engaged in regular spiritual seeking behaviors, such as meditation. Simply saying they were interested in spiritual endeavors was not enough to be classified as a spiritual seeking person.

Discovering and measuring this spiritual seeking behavior was important, as Dillon and Wink found that people who were spiritual were just as concerned about the well-being of others as more religious people. "Our study suggests that there is more than one pathway to the development of an ethic of care for others," they said.

And as people age, those who were highly religious fared much better than most. The authors found that people in the twilight years who were dealing with physical ailments but who had high levels of religiousness did not experience the same levels of depression as their less religious peers.

"In other areas of functioning – depression, sense of control, and fear of death – our data showed a more specific role for religiousness. In particular, among those who were in poor health, religiousness emerged as a strong buffer against depression and the loss of life satisfaction and personal control," the authors said. "These findings strongly support the common assumption that religious involvement helps individuals cope with adversity."

Click here to return to homepage

By Rev. Paul C. Kauffman

I was asked to write this as a letter home from a soldier. I thought I might write from the viewpoint of a young infantry soldier in the war zone, but I couldn't.

I have never actually heard the sounds of combat. The noise of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan is the boom of an IED (improvised explosive device) exploding or the crack of a sniper rifle. Sometimes it is the cry of the wounded and dying. Sometimes it is even the "thank you" of the rescued.

The sound of battle where I fight the war here-at the Army Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operations Center, Alexandria, Va.-is mostly the click of the computer keyboard or the ringing of a phone.

The more wrenching sounds are in the background. It is the sound of the anguished cry of a wife or parent or child when told their "soldier" has died or is seriously wounded.

We don't often hear those sounds ourselves here where I serve. I hear them indirectly through the accounts of those who break the terrible news to family. Sometimes the sound I hear is a chaplain on the phone choking back tears after having attended his eighth notification.

I send a message of support to all of them-all of the chaplains, all of the NCOs (non-commissioned officers) and officers who actually have to say the words: "The Secretary of the Army has asked me to express his deep regret that your ..."-changing forever the world of a military family.

Whether they recognize it or not, in that moment, they are forever joined to that family by an unshakeable bond of grief. I have noted how often they respond to my message of support with declarations of their faith that God was and is with them.

One part of our battle here is to help the families of the wounded be at their bedside. The victories may seem very small-like when we arranged for a mother to say goodbye over the phone to a son still breathing but unable to make it home from the ICU in Germany.

It is a very small victory, but any victory is still a victory in the battles we fight here.

It is absolutely appropriate for America to remember and honor military men and women who have sacrificed their lives to preserve America's values and way of life. They are all heroes. But every day is Memorial Day for those who fight the war on the battlefield where I am. Everything we do is to honor those heroes.

Our greatest victories come when we honor a soldier by ensuring his or her family is provided for-as best as the United States can provide.

Here, the "only" danger is to the emotions and the spirit. One can get too emotionally involved and end up breaking down. More likely, one gradually turns off emotions and becomes mechanical, affecting not only the work but all relationships.

It is hard to keep everything in balance. Oftentimes I think I'd rather be over there where the danger is tangible. But I am glad to be here. I wish this battleground did not exist but, as long as it does, I am proud to be a part of those who fight this quiet battle.

Keep us in your prayers.

This "letter home" was written by Chaplain Paul Kauffman for a Memorial Day service at Christ United Methodist Church, Selinsgrove, Pa. Kauffman is operations center chaplain at the Army Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Center, Alexandria, Va.


Click here to return to homepage

The U.S. bishops decried the failure of comprehensive immigration reform legislation to move forward in the U.S. Senate.

“As a nation, we cannot continue to employ an immigration system that leads to the exploitation of millions of our fellow human beings,” said Bishop Gerald Barnes in a June 29 statement. Bishop Barnes is chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration.

“We cannot accept the toil of a large underclass which does not have full rights in our society. This strikes at the very character of our nation and lessens us as a people,” he continued.

The bishop lauded those senators who worked for comprehensive reform legislation and urged all Congress members to return to this issue as soon as possible.

“The status quo is morally unacceptable and should not be allowed to stand,” Bishop Barnes said. “The U.S. bishops shall continue to point out the moral deficiencies in the immigration system and work toward justice until it is achieved.”

Source: CNA

Click here to return to homepage

By Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.

The appointment of Sir Mark Malloch Brown as the U.K.'s new minister for Africa, Asia, and the United Nations is the clearest sign yet of a break with the pro-U.S. stance of the Blair government. Malloch Brown, who served as chief of staff and deputy to former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is well known for his stridently anti-American views and fierce opposition to the war in Iraq. Although Malloch Brown will not be a full member of Gordon Brown's Cabinet, he will be entitled to attend some cabinet meetings and is expected to become one of the most powerful voices in British foreign policy after David Miliband, the newly appointed Foreign Secretary (and also a critic of the Iraq war and Tony Blair's support for Israel). His selection sends a clear signal that the Brown government will adopt a more openly critical stance toward U.S. foreign policy.

A Critic of U.S. Foreign Policy

Malloch Brown served as Kofi Annan's chief aide during the investigations into the massive U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal and played a lead role in downplaying the U.N.'s failings,[1] bringing him into conflict with the Bush Administration and leading Senators and congressmen who were pressing hard for reform of the world body. Before joining the Secretary-General's office, Malloch Brown was head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), a dysfunctional U.N. agency that has recently become embroiled in a series of major scandals.

As a U.N. official, Malloch Brown was an outspoken critic of American leadership on the world stage and a constant thorn in the side of the United States. He launched an unprecedented attack on Washington's approach to the U.N. in a speech in New York in June 2006, despite the fact that Washington gives over $5 billion a year to the U.N. system--more than France, Germany, China, Canada, and Russia combined. Malloch Brown warned of the "serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by U.S. Administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully with the U.N." and condemned "the prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics."[2] He singled out for particular criticism Washington's decision to opt out of joining the disastrous new U.N. Human Rights Council, despite the fact that it was no better than the discredited former Human Rights Commission.[3]

Malloch Brown could barely disguise his contempt for the American public and media, speaking of "unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping" and a "U.S. heartland [that] has been largely abandoned to its [the U.N.'s] loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News." What was needed in response, he argued, was for America's leaders to support the U.N. "not just in a whisper but in a coast to coast shout, that pushes back the critics domestically, and wins over the skeptics internationally."

The speech was also an extraordinary intervention in domestic American politics. In what can only be described as the first stump speech by an international civil servant on U.S. soil, Malloch Brown rallied his largely liberal audience[4] with these stirring words:

Back in Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's day, building a strong, effective U.N. that could play this kind of role was a bipartisan enterprise, with the likes of Arthur Vandenberg and John Foster Dulles joining Democrats to support the new body. Who are their successors in American politics? Who will campaign in 2008 for a new multilateral national security?[5]
Malloch Brown's remarks were rightly described by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton as "condescending and patronizing" and "a very serious affront" to the American people. Bolton called on U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to repudiate his deputy's comments, which he viewed as "the worst mistake" by a U.N. official in a quarter century.[6]

Malloch Brown's intervention was symptomatic of an increasing tendency among U.N. officials to openly criticize American foreign policy. Kofi Annan had sparked a major controversy in September 2004, just weeks ahead of the U.S. presidential election, when he described the war with Iraq as an "illegal" violation of the U.N. Charter in an interview with the BBC. Annan followed these remarks with a further intervention on the Iraq issue in November 2004, when he wrote a letter to U.S., British, and Iraqi leaders appealing for Coalition forces to hold back from retaking the insurgent-held city of Fallujah.

Malloch Brown's New York speech echoed a 2005 commencement address he delivered at Pace University School of Law,[7] in which he launched a stinging attack on what he perceived to be America's lack of respect for international law. In his remarks, Malloch Brown painted the United States as an uncooperative superpower that acts outside of the rules, without respect for others:

And it's clear that abroad, President Bush's push for democracy and freedom will run aground on the shoals of American exceptionalism if the United States keeps apart from this emerging international legal system. While the U.S.'s involvement has made the World Trade Organization a powerful facilitator of free trade and global growth, elsewhere, America stands apart. The United States is the country that has opposed the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol on the environment, even UNICEF's convention on the rights of the child.

Because this great ungainly magnificent giant of a nation that has led the world in advancing freedom, democracy, and decency cannot quite accept membership of the global neighborhood association, and the principle of all neighborhoods--that it must abide by others' rules as well as its own. It certainly doesn't want to paint its picket fence the same color as the neighbors and won't turn down the dance music at a sociable hour . . . Yet respect for law, for other people's laws as a basis for building shared international law is not only a calculus of foreign policy, it is also a reflection of respect for other cultures and points of view and therefore as relevant to the United States as to others.

More recently, Malloch Brown took another swipe at Washington in a London speech, blaming the U.S.-British-led invasion of Iraq for "a loss of credibility" for humanitarian workers serving in trouble spots such as Darfur who are no longer seen as neutral: "Iraq is the immediate cause for this. And 9/11 the preceding trigger, but both come at the end of a process that has knocked humanitarian work off the straight and narrow of non-impartial help."[8]

A Barrier to Anglo-American Cooperation

Other than outspoken former International Development Secretary Clare Short, few, if any, British politicians are more disdainful of U.S. foreign policy than Mark Malloch Brown. His appointment is a slap in the face of the Anglo-American alliance and does not bode well for relations between the Brown government and the Bush Administration.

Faced with the rising threat of global terrorism, the insurgency in Iraq, counteroffensives by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, the next few years will be a critical time for U.S.-U.K. relations. It is imperative that London and Washington work together in addressing the major international issues of the day, which will involve close cooperation on the U.N. Security Council. It is hard to see how Malloch Brown's appointment to the British government will help to advance the special relationship.

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Intern Joseph Cutler assisted with research for this paper.

[1] See Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., "An Assessment of the Volcker Interim Report and the Independent Inquiry Committee Into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program," Testimony before the House Subcommittee on International Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on International Relations, February 9, 2005, at www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/tst020905a.cfm.

[2] Mark Malloch Brown, "Power and Superpower: Global Leadership in the 21st Century," address to the Century Foundation and Center for American Progress, June 6, 2006, at www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/dsgsm287.doc.htm.

[3] See Brett Schaefer and Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., "The Right Decision on the UN Human Rights Council," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1031, April 6, 2006, at www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1031.cfm.

[4] The audience included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Democrat financier George Soros, who also happened to be Mark Malloch Brown's landlord. See "Losing the United Nations," The New York Sun, June 8, 2006, at www.nysun.com/article/34079.

Just weeks before his appointment to the British government, Malloch Brown was made vice president of Soros's multi-billion dollar Quantum Fund. See Benny Avni, "Ex-Deputy UN Chief Joins with Soros," The New York Sun, May 7, 2007, at www.nysun.com/article/53955.

[5] Malloch Brown, "Power and Superpower: Global Leadership in the 21st Century."

[6] U.S. Department of State, "UN Official’s Remarks a 'Grave Mistake,' U.S.'s Bolton Says," Press Release, June 7, 2006, at http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2006/Jun/08-236703.html.

[7] Mark Malloch Brown, Commencement Address to the Pace University School of Law, May 22, 2005, at http://content.undp.org/go/newsroom/may-2005/mark-malloch-browns-commencement-address-to-the-pace-university-school-of-law.en;jsessionid=axbWzt8vXD9?categoryID=593045&lang=en.

[8] Anne Penketh, "UN No Longer Seen as Neutral, Says Former Chief," The Independent, June 25, 2007, at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2705369.ece.

Click here to return to homepage

A recent article in New York’s Village Voice claims that Rudy Giuliani is using his Catholicity to gain political advantage in his current campaign for Republican presidential candidate.

“Giuliani has only struck a public Catholic pose when it has suited him politically,” the article claims. The article offers an analysis of Giuliani’s about-face regarding his Catholic faith in relation to his current campaign, pointing out the contradictions between his current campaign and his track record as New York City mayor.

For example, Giuliani is currently saying that he hates abortion and is committed to decreasing the number of abortions. He has even said that it would be “okay to repeal” Roe v. Wade. However, while mayor of New York, he hosted three anniversary celebrations at City Hall for the landmark decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

Giuliani also appointed Pam Maraldo, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, to the city's four-member Board of Health. City records indicate that Giuliani's health and youth agencies awarded more than $2 million in contracts to Planned Parenthood's New York City branch over the years, the Village Voice reports.

The magazine also notes that while the mayor cut the city's welfare rolls, he found millions of dollars in city funds “to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet eligibility standards.”

“His wholesale reversal on Medicaid funding, late-term abortions, and parental consent are all part of a repackaging designed to soften not just his New York public record, but also the inconvenient details of his personal life,” the article claims.

“It's impossible to reconcile that [mayoral] record with Giuliani's presidential pose on abortion, just as it's impossible to match his Catholic candidacy with his marital history,” the article states.

The magazine points out that Giuliani has been married three times. Giuliani divorced his second wife after 18 years and remarried in a civil ceremony, clearly outside of the norms of the Catholic Church, the New York magazine notes.

“The question is: Can Giuliani run for president as a Catholic, identifying with the swing vote that has picked the winner in virtually every modern presidential race, when he is so out of step with the Church's code of personal conduct?” the magazine asks.

The article also focuses on Giuliani’s close friendship with a priest accused of sex abuse. His first 14-year marriage was annulled thanks to his close friend, Msgr. Alan Placa, who has since been defrocked due to allegations of sex abuse of four minors, says the Village Voice. A lawyer by training, Placa was hired as a three-day-a-week consultant at Giuliani Partners, where he remains today, the magazine reports. Placa had also baptized Giuliani’s children.

Village Voice offers a lengthy exposé on Placa’s personality, based on testimonies, and on how he helped cover up incidents of sex abuse of minors by his fellow priests while in a position of authority at the diocese.

The hiring of Placa and the passage of a bill, which forces public schools to report abuse complaints to law enforcement as soon as they are received but exempt private schools from this same requirement, shows that “Giuliani's tone-deaf response to sex-abuse issues,” the article states.

Giuliani is also reversing himself on gay issues, rejecting any attempt to welcome gay men into the military, the article notes.


Source: CNA

Type rest of the post here
Click here to return to homepage

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has called on all people of goodwill to join him in rejecting the divisive and erroneous label that Philadelphia is now a pro-choice city.

The Myth of American Church-State Relations

by Matthew M. Anger

Craycraft’s argument... places him far afield of mainstream American Catholic thought. Radical as it is... his book is in many ways a rather scholarly, serious, and cogently argued exposition. It expresses an outlook that has rarely been heard in America but was once widely trumpeted in Europe, and not all that long ago. - Jeremy Rabkin, Policy Review (August & September 1999)

Though it has been in print for a few years now, Kenneth Craycraft’s American Myth of Religious Freedom (Spence Publishing, 1999) is worth another look as a remarkable study on the subject of American Church-State separation. Not only is the American Myth a long overdue Catholic appraisal, it also represents a paradigm shift among conservative thinkers outside those traditionalist circles that have hitherto been most vocal on the subject. Craycraft was the first to break ranks and enunciate a thorough and appropriately merciless, critique of the whole notion of "religious liberty." The concluding remarks of the book leave little room for second-guessing:

There is no such thing as religious freedom, and the reason that such an assertion sounds so shocking is that we have been completely formed by the American myth.

This position was arrived at by Craycraft as part of a reassessment, in the 1980s and early ‘90s, of the writings of John Courtney Murray, S.J. Best known for his treatise, We Hold These Truths, Fr. Murray was the prime architect of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). Given the now "mainstream" status of indifferentism in church-state relations it is not surprising that Craycraft’s forthright discussion provoked heated controversy within the neo-conservative Catholic camp. This group comprises men like George Weigel, Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus. Their passionate reaction to Craycraft merely proves how wedded the dominant Catholic bloc is to an ideology which seeks to reconcile the irreconcilables of Americanist dogma and Church doctrine.

Synopsis of the Work

The American Myth presents a closely reasoned treatise of under 200 pages, which negates decades of sentimental cant about a supposedly Christian understanding of the "religious liberty" precept of the First Amendment. Craycraft’s analysis runs the gamut of recent political studies, precedent setting court decisions, and the question of the Founders’ intent, and includes discussion of Jefferson, Madison and the formative ideas of English secularist philosopher, John Locke.

The sections of the book that stand out most for their clarity and vigor are those directly treating the problem of secular American politics and ideology. Ironically, the sections which prove difficult are those which attempt an orthodox interpretation of the current Vatican response to religious liberty. Given the intellectual power of the work and its potentially pivotal role in genuine conservative thought, one almost hesitates to criticize The American Myth, yet the difficulties of the book cannot be conveniently shuffled aside. Nevertheless, the murky ambiguities of Vatican II are far from the most interesting or momentous aspects of Craycraft's book.

Secularization in Practice

Craycraft has a keen sense of what priorities will most impress the reader. He starts with important court decisions and well-publicized controversies over issues of traditional religion and the doctrine of "tolerance." The author notes the baneful fruits of religious liberty. Then, having made clear the overwhelming juridical and mainstream ethical bias against orthodox belief, he traces these fruits to the source which begat them.

Among the many court cases under consideration, the most striking is the Alabama school prayer case of Wallace v. Jaffre (1985). Justice John Paul Stevens made explicit the otherwise implicit opposition of the secularist state to revealed religion. It is worth citing at length, since Craycraft deems it of tremendous importance:

The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. The Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of a free and voluntary choice of the faithful [author's emphasis].

Craycraft says this is the key to deciphering the myth of religious liberty. Only "voluntary" creeds are "worthy." It is the underlying raison d'être of Americanist religious thinking.

Adapting the terminology of Michael Sandel, who has studied national judicial activity in some detail, Craycraft explains that according to the Americanist concept of religious pluralism, individual rights stand paramount to any religious system. Liberalism not only rejects, but cannot even begin to contemplate, the idea that a person receives his religious and moral convictions from some outside agency (which, of course, would include God's direct action by means of supernatural grace). Thus liberalism speaks of people in a free society as "unencumbered selves." In order for a religious experience to be "authentic" it must completely free and subjective. By contrast, "encumbered" selves (orthodox believers) can have no proper standing under the law, both as originally conceived in the First Amendment and as enacted in everyday court decisions. That is because the Catholic, for example, takes his moral guidance from a transcendent authority—a source which the secularist state does not acknowledge.

If the state does grant concessions (which it does), these are only exceptions to the rule. They are pragmatic means of avoiding tension and maintaining the peace, and nothing else. One example is the exceptional ruling in favor of an Amish farmer in Wisconsin who violated that state’s law on mandatory schooling for children up to the age of fifteen (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). The sensible deduction from this case, and others like it, is that the state can permit exemptions to an essentially non-threatening sect like the Amish which does not challenge the federal policy of religious neutralization. As the late Allan Bloom observed, the majority of Americans who practice a form of nominal Protestantism have essentially "ceased to be Christian." Bloom believes, with good reason, that "most Americans who think that they are Christians truly are something else, intensely religious but devout in the American Religion."

In truth, Americans practice a religion that has little resemblance to historical Christianity and instead embodies Gnosticism, radical personal autonomy, and salvation unmediated by the Church. The result is that the majority pose no significant threat to the doctrine of the "unencumbered self," while traditional religious groups, both Catholic and non-Catholic, are marginalized. Though Craycraft does not say so, this marginalization of native Catholicism is presently carried out through neo-modernist clerics and lay leaders who have effectively turned the faith into a "voluntary creed," though the faith being what it is, tensions are not completely eradicated, nor will they ever be. Hence, Craycraft notes the furor which erupted over Cardinal O’Connor’s 1990 declaration in favor of excommunicating public figures who supported abortion. The media, representing the broad political consensus, charged that the Church was meddling in politics by pressuring Catholic politicians to adopt a stance in line with its teaching. Hence O’Connor was placing the Church above the democratic process and thereby acting in an unAmerican manner. These charges are no different in essence from the violent anti-Catholic Know-Nothingism of the 19th century. It is further proof of Craycraft’s thesis. Revealed doctrine cannot be reconciled to a liberal theory which, on the one hand, claims religious freedom yet sets the standards for which religions are deserving of that freedom. Absolute and universal tolerance does not exist.

The Meaning of Myth

Perhaps no greater service can be done today than to warn Catholics against adopting the cultural constructs and language of their opponents. Sadly, it is something they have done for many generations, and most especially since the 1960s. Such intellectual compromise is a surer means of defeat than the most violent assault by external enemies. Craycraft is merely echoing the admonition of Dr. John Rao’s brilliant essay "Why Catholics Cannot Defend Themselves." According to both men, conservatives are doomed to defeat when they try to "out-liberal" the liberals. The real coup takes place when the secularist forces his enemy to embrace the superficial definition of a word such as "tolerance," which has different definitions according to the object towards which it is applied. Conservatives feel compelled to be lenient towards liberal error even as liberals suppress traditional beliefs. The former accept pluralism at face value, as if it were really possible to achieve a sublime mediocrity in which everyone practices different creeds yet agrees on some set of "common values" which allows them to live in peace. Of course, the inherent contradictions of such a middle-of-the road position are obvious. One can no more take a stand on a vague secular ethical consensus than one can take a stand in mid air.

Despite the manifold evidence such as Craycraft provides, people will claim that daily hostility to organized religion on the part of judicial and legislative officials is actuall a betrayal of the Founders’ original intention. They say that "separation of Church and State" means "liberty for religion," not "from religion." It is, supposedly, the true genius of the pluralistic philosophy. Before proceeding to demonstrate that active secularization was the foundational intent, Craycraft discusses the point which is really at the heart of the decades-long debate over church-state relations—the pluralist myth which makes misperception on the part of conservatives possible.

A myth, says Craycraft, can be understood in two ways. First, as the ancient idea of mythos which is a set of rites, symbols and institutions that sustain a particular community. These things may not be absolutely true in themselves but do point to some greater underlying truth about a society. The other definition of myth is something false and deliberately deceptive. For Craycraft the American experiment in religious liberty is a myth in both senses.

It is a myth insofar as, despite its claims, the liberal idea of religious liberty as canalized in the First Amendment is a particular and exclusive understanding of religion, a particular story of what we Americans think—or ought to think—about religion and society. And it is a myth in the more popular sense that, insofar as it claims to protect religious freedom in its full and authentic sense, it is simply not true. Rather than protect authentic freedom of religious thought and practice... the American myth has given rise to a set of symbols, rites, and institutions which always subject religion to itself, and often positively hinder religious practice.... The American attempt to overcome political religious myth-making has not succeeded because it cannot succeed.

Based on this conclusion, the author categorically denies each of the following propositions: 1) the founding of the United States was essentially religious, and guided by Christian principles; 2) that even if strongly secular, the state affords an equal degree of security to religious and non-religious people alike; 3) that religious liberty is an obtainable arrangement in any society; and 4) that religious believers are best off in a regime which propagates religious indifference, or that such a regime is itself merely an enlightened product of Christianity. On the contrary:

The only definition of religious liberty in American political discourse is one that marginalizes, if not eradicates as a significant presence, orthodox religious belief. The American story is not interested in explicitly persecuting Christianity. Toleration is a much more effective means, especially if the liberal regime is successful in enlisting the support of Christians.

Founders' Intent

Craycraft tells us that the drive to invalidate orthodox faith ("encumbered self") and the gradual co-option and neutralization of religion are not new developments. The two men credited for creating and nurturing this doctrine in its American context are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Their mentor was the English rationalist philosopher, John Locke.

Madison's role, though consequential, is not as well known. As for Jefferson, it astonishing how any conservative can contend that the man was "religious" (in the Christian understanding of the word). Devout Protestants of the day cursed the Unitarian statesman as an "atheist." Jefferson reciprocated by damning all forms of revealed religion as obscurantism. Of the Catholic Church in particular he spoke of meddling priests and "monkish ignorance." Suffice it to say, the lasting accomplishment of the Virginia Deist in American politics, and the one he most wished to be remembered for, was the Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty. This law was the prototype for the First Amendment.

James Madison's influence was at least as decisive as Jefferson's. He not only supported the secularist ethos which underlies religious liberty but, more importantly, he used his mastery of the language to foist religious neutralization on a people which, Craycraft believes, still regarded themselves as essentially Christian. Madison advanced the secularist position in his famous Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 (which opposed Patrick Henry's proposal of tax-funded religious institutions) and in the columns of the influential Federalist Papers. In 1819 he wrote that civil government "functions with complete success... by the total separation of the Church from the State."

Craycraft notes Madison's deliberate irony on religious matters. In this he was following the lead of John Locke (whose notions of widespread "religious tolerance" included no clemency for the suffering English Catholics of his time). The making of the Americanist myth is fully at work in Madison’s career. He knew that the proposition must not be too bluntly stated lest it rouse the latent opposition of the mass of practicing and nominal Protestants. Therefore he phrased the idea in such a way that it would settle comfortably in his listeners’ ears while still achieving his ultimate aim. In the end, explains Craycraft, Madison's delicacy and patience won out over the short-lived opposition of his more religious-minded compatriots.

Some have stubbornly maintained that what Madison and others were aiming at was not a negation of Christianity but simply "articles of peace" which would provide religious neutrality and avoid the sort of bloody conflicts which had so long ravaged Europe. Yet, as regards the Virginia politician's intent, there can be no doubt. If his well-known writings are not clear enough, we have access to his unpublished "Detached Memoranda" (made public in 1946). According to Craycraft, these "betray Madison's explicit hostility to institutional Christianity, and further reveal the theological and religious presuppositions behind his public documents." In his private writings he admits that he does not simply wish to "disestablish religion," but to actively curb and monitor it by taxing religious bodies so as to limit property-ownership to a bare minimum. By such means liberalism would truly equalize religious opinions, physically as well as legally. For all of the fine distinctions between American and French liberals, it was a scheme worthy of Robespierre.

Not Liberty But Neutralization

Madison’s ideas dovetailed nicely with Jefferson's belief that the ideal moral framework is one in which there is a vast proliferation of inconsequential denominations and independent churches, each competing with the next. "Freedom," Madison said, "arises from a multiplicity of sects." That is because no one body can attempt to impose orthodoxy upon another. Jefferson similarly opined that the best way "to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them." It is further proof that the First Amendment achieves the gentle but certain neutralization of serious religious activity. Attentive study of the Founders' actions and beliefs makes clear that "freedom of religion" did indeed mean "freedom from religion," since the predominant views of the eighteenth century held that the only moral system entitled to respect was one entirely "rational" and voluntary. Revealed religion does not make the mark.

As for the Christian influence of men like Charles Carroll, the Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, it may well be that Carroll sincerely viewed the First Amendment as "terms of peace," alleviating decades-long oppression of his co-religionists and permitting the faith to develop unhindered by political considerations. This, Craycraft points out, was the perception of many ordinary Americans, but not that of key figures who shaped and implemented national policy. The actual course of American history, of which the current phase of obscene neo-paganism is an inextricable part, is indebted to the original plan to transform America into a deistic state. At best, sincere Christians have fought a rear-guard action in a battle they were meant to lose.

Locke and the Doctrine of Toleration

It is important to say something about the originator of the "religious liberty" within the English-speaking world, if only because some feel that there was an indirect orthodox influence on the Constitution via John Locke. The rather maddening claim is that the liberal philosopher perpetuated the traditional natural law tradition, albeit under a non-Catholic and rationalistic guise. This is a clear misreading of Locke, since his idea of "natural law" is merely a reiteration of the Hobbesian "law of nature." This latter holds that man, in a "state of nature," is inherently alienated and individualistic. Civil society (and by extension, religious association) are artificial constructs developed to maintain peace and foster social utility. Locke's idea involves a categorical denial of the classical theory of morality and politics as handed down by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. So much for the crypto-Scholasticism of John Locke.

The clear basis for the Jefferson-Madison neutralization of Christianity resides in Locke’s Letter Concerning Religious Toleration (1685). Cutting through the baroque idiom of the period, Craycraft offers a summary:

...Locke understood that orthodox Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism) is a natural enemy of the liberal regime. But since it was not possible to eliminate the political effects of such religion by force, Locke set out to do it by reason—by reducing "authentic" religion to a set of opinions whose adherents need not (indeed, must not) consider to be exclusively true. The exclusive truth that members of this regime must hold is that no religion possesses exclusive truth, or, perhaps, any truth at all. Any person or church which rejects this "truth" is a menace to the regime, and cannot reasonably expect unqualified toleration.

That is why Locke’s public opposition to freedom of worship for Catholics in 1667 is not a contradiction of, but totally in keeping with, the liberal dogma of religious liberty. Because "papists" were intolerant (they practiced an exclusive creed) they could not be tolerated. They advanced a belief, contrary to liberal-Whig position, of "encumbered selves" who would have an ethical commitment prior to the state.

Noting the impossibility of unqualified tolerance in any society, Craycraft goes on to assert that liberalism and Catholicism are actually alike in one key respect—both make claims to absolute truth. Unfortunately many believers today feel uncomfortable with such contentions, partly out of ignorance and partly out of indifference. It is nicer to maintain that the two creeds can affect a modus vivendi, even if one condemns the increasingly "elitist" and "intolerant" stance of politically correct secularism. One likes to deny that the Church itself has always been "elitist" and "intolerant." Such terms, of course, stick in one's craw. That is because liberals provide double-think definitions to serve their own agenda, in which "anti-elitism" really means totalitarian control and "free speech" equals social and economic censorship of undesirable views. Indicative of the real intentions of liberal doctrine, Craycraft cites two recent exponents of Lockean "tolerance"—Francis Fukiyama (The End of History and the Last Man, 1992) and Stephen Carter (The Culture of Disbelief, 1993). Both men envision a humanist republic in which "religion" plays an active role, but only so long as it is subsumed under the monistic order in which traditional beliefs, particularly orthodox Roman Catholicism, are eliminated (Fukiyama says so openly, while Carter broadly hints at it in his condemnations of Pat Buchanan).

The Murray Dilemma

For all the concentrated force of Craycraft's study, its impact is lessened by a protracted deflection into the neo-modernism of John Courtney Murray. To his credit, Craycraft’s approval of Murray is far from unqualified. He criticizes the liberal priest’s reading of the First Amendment as "articles of peace." It is not, says Craycraft, that Murray believed the Founders intended it to act as such, but the cleric felt that Catholics could nevertheless appropriate the language to their own ends and make use of religious freedom as if it did mean exactly that. According to The American Myth, such an optimistic theory must be held dubious at best. Unaccountably, Craycraft maintains that Murray's reasoning was essentially sound, even though the brief remainder of the priest's career (he died in 1967) reveals an increasing radicalization of his teaching which ended in proposing dialogue with Marxists and asserting that civil society, not the Church, was ultimate arbiter of contemporary ethical norms.

It is true that preliminary to the Council, Fr. Murray advanced orthodox arguments in favor of the Church's prior claim to religious liberty ("freedom for the Church") and the obligation of individuals to respond to its call to conservation and salvation. But that merely clouds the issue. He makes assertions that, if not in open contradiction to, nevertheless tend towards a liberal humanist rendering of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. It is the kernel of the modernist falsehood—a theory containing both truth and error, and thus advancing error in a more subtle and unimpeded manner than would blatant heresy. To say that Murray was "conservative" relative to the liberation theologians of the 1970s is meaningless.

As noted above, Craycraft tells us that the First Amendment cannot be treated as a fundamental dictate with reference only to itself. It must be judged by an unchanging and objective standard as established by true religion. Unfortunately, Craycraft appears guilty of the very mindset he condemns when he adopts a rationale towards Murray's writing and the Council as if these things were primary sources of authority, carrying with them doctrinal status. One would have preferred that he had drawn the logical comparison between Dignitatis Humanae and the writings of Madison, in which radical ends are advanced in moderate and vague terminology.

Opportunism Rebounds

The crux of the Murrayite thesis (as contained in We Hold These Truths) can be summed up not so much as a formal rejection of the Church as repository of truth but as a pragmatic or utilitarian compromise in the face of the reality of the pluralist society. Religious freedom "is not a per se good for Murray; it is an exigent one."

It would have made Craycraft's job far easier, and his analysis less tangential, had he simply placed Murray within the greater context of the Americanist error. Other questions, such as prudential implementation of Church policy, non-coercion (in matters of religious conversion), and natural law considerations, are extremely interesting and Craycraft does a good job handling them. Nevertheless, they are secondary to the main point of the magisterial view on church-state relations.

Prior to Vatican II, the proper role of these relations had been explicitly enunciated in the ex cathedra statements of Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos), followed by Pius IX (Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors). These pronouncements, quite unlike the tortuous language of the Council, were entirely consistent with themselves and with Catholic teaching as a whole. They commanded without exception that the state has the duty to recognize and protect true religion. Further, no society can say that man has an inherent right to be indifferent to the Church's claims. But the problem in this country was not one of theory but implementation. So, rather than implement it, however gradually, the theory was ignored.

The American hierarchy, which had made concessions to the First Amendment from the outset, largely committed itself to a "neutralist" position. In other words, they advanced Murray's expedient of pragmatism long before Murray. Compromise was a matter of convenience. This tactic sought to put off, if not completely obviate, the unavoidable conflict between pluralism and the Catholic faith. Thus, by the time Fr. Murray deliberated upon the matter in the 1950s, there was an underlying tension which had never been resolved and had never gone away.

Murray was honest enough to see that it could not be suppressed indefinitely and demanded a clear settlement. The old tactic of sublime apathy could not endure. The logical answer was that American thought had to be brought in line with the Magisterium. Yet Murray ingenuously sought a "third option," neither ignoring nor conforming to Catholic doctrine. He went about restating the Magisterium in a manner that appeared to justify Americanism and religious liberty. Only in this way can we begin to understand what went on, first in Murray's mind, and then in the minds of the leading modernists at the Council.

On a superficial level the clerical progressives, including Murray, said they acknowledged the legitimacy of the confessional state. Yet whether advancing the confessional state or the indifferentist one, the criterion of value offered was that of historical conditions, not a moral absolute. In other words, if a Catholic state already exists, that is fine, but if a non-Catholic state exists, that is also acceptable. No longer would the Vatican encourage every nation to become a Catholic state. It is, of course, merely a type of relativism which says, as Murray did indeed say, that while certain principles may be true in principle they cannot be realized in fact. Look where Murray's "pragmatism" has lead us.

All so-called practical approaches ultimately serve some ideal, even if that ideal is purely shallow and materialistic. Murray's pragmatism does serve some principal. But it is a principal other than that of the Church, which is to "Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). Murrayism is the handmaid of pluralism, not evangelization.

Relevancy Made Irrelevant

The almost instantaneous fall-out from the Vatican's outward abandonment of the magisterial teaching on the duties of state to religion hardly needs elaboration. Under the aegis of Dignitatis Humanae the majority of bishops have handed the initiative to the prevailing naturalist regime and washed their hands of Catholic social teaching. Many pundits, from George Neumayr to Pat Buchanan, have observed that "relevancy" renders Catholicism completely irrelevant in the eyes of the world. The sad reality has been noted not only by traditionalists, but a growing number of conservative Catholic writers like James Fitzpatrick of Catholic Exchange.

It is interesting that Craycraft's acceptance of Dignitatis Humanae is diffident. There is an unacknowledged disharmony between an integral understanding of religious liberty, which he so fearlessly articulates, and the "official" contemporary stance of the Church. The upshot is a pessimistic notion of church-state relations that verges on a form of quietism, in which the Church must abandon its political involvement and concern itself solely with influencing society through spiritual means. Craycraft asserts that the alternative—official recognition of our religion by the state, starting with the supposedly ill-fated sanction of Christianity by Constantine in 313 A.D.—must entail widespread corruption and diminution of the Church’s role of spreading the faith. Such a view seems born more of reactive, if understandable, cynicism than sober historical consideration.

Even if the perfect church-state relationship is never to be obtained, at least the effort to do so achieved a very high standard in centuries past. After all, the Spanish Catholic monarchy of the 16th century set about colonizing the New World with conversion of souls as its stated primary intention. Whatever baser motives might have been in the minds of some Conquistadors, the fact is that millions of indigenous peoples were baptized just at the very moment when much of northern Europe was apostatizing (and, by the way, overthrowing the social and political authority of Catholicism). Today, in compliance with the new pragmatist dictate, which accepts the pluralist state as the norm, those areas won to the Church at such great cost are falling away completely.

Final Assessment

The answers to the Conciliar dilemma, and its unique non-dogmatic status, have been ably dealt with by writers like Michael Davies and Romano Amerio and need not be detailed here. Nevertheless, one feels that that Mr. Craycraft could have spared himself a great deal of grief if, instead of relying on John Courtney Murray as an authority on American religious liberty, he had turned to that unsung hero of anti-modernism, Msgr. Joseph Fenton.

Fr. Fenton was a determined opponent of the Murrayite view, who engaged in a running debate with the liberals in the years leading up to the Council. In a last ditch attempt to forestall the Americanist triumph, Fr. Fenton insisted that Church teaching

bears not the slightest resemblance to the explanation in We Hold These Truths [by Murray]. It is not a matter of Catholic politic or of Catholic tactic, but a matter of Christian doctrine, that in itself and objectively the state or civil society is obligated to give public and corporate worship to God, to pay to God the debt of acknowledgement due to Him because of His supreme excellence and because of our complete dependence upon Him. Under certain circumstances the payment of this debt may be impossible, but in any event it is definitely not a good or desirable thing to have any state withhold from God the payment of the debt of religion which is due to God.

The flaws noted in this review by no means negate the power of Craycraft's groundbreaking work. It is the most honest assessment of the church-state issue to be published, outside of traditional circles, since the articles of Msgr. Fenton. The mere fact it has seen the light of day establishes an important and precedent-setting step. Such a step, once made, cannot easily be retracted.

Despite its ambiguity on the question of Murray and the Council, The American Myth inclines more to the orthodox viewpoint than the prevailing neo-modernist one, while the chapters discussing American political and cultural concerns are irreproachable. One is inclined to agree with the critic from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute who said that the upshot of his analysis must necessarily be "a return to the old pre-Conciliar view."


Matthew Anger is a freelance Catholic journalist who writes on historical and literary subjects. He lives with his wife and seven children in the Richmond, Virginia area.

Originally published at Seattle Catholic.

SOURCES:
1 Craycraft, Kenneth R. Jr., The American Myth of Religious Freedom. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999.
2 D'Elia, Donald J., The Spirits of '76, A Catholic Inquiry. Christendom Publications, 1983.
3 Fenton, Msgr. Joseph, "Doctrine and Tactic in Catholic Pronouncements on Church and State," American Ecclesiastical Review, October 1961.
4 Murray, John Courtney, "Religious Freedom," Freedom and Man. New York: P. J. Kennedy and Sons, 1965.
5 Murray, John Courtney, We Hold These Truths, Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960.
6 Rao, Dr. John C., Americanism and the Collapse of the Church in the United States and "Why Catholics Cannot Defend Themselves". William Marra, 1995.

Following the first day of a “public relations blitz” on the part of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, one of the chief campaign bloggers for Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards quit Monday evening. The resignation of Amanda Marcotte came on the same day that the Catholic League publicized a new post she made regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

Marcotte posted on her personal blog that the criticism "was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign." Marcotte said she resigned from her position Monday, and that her resignation was accepted by the campaign.

READ THE REST ...

If like most bloggers you have been following the John Edwards debate regarding some of his staff and claims that they are anti-Catholic in their bloggings and you are still riding the fence with respect to "freedom of speech," the following post may change you mind ....

Following is an uncensored selection of the anti-Christian writings of John Edwards’s staffers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan as compiled by the Catholic League. The remarks contained at this link are graphic, vulgar and obscene. Spero News posts the following material as we believe it is important to the arguments being presented by both sides.

As has been reported, both bloggers are now employed by the John Edwards campaign. Click on the dates to link to the original blog pieces (The links are live at Spero News -- link below).

Amanda Marcotte:

June 14, 2006:

Q: What is Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

"Protestant anti-choice assholes are on the horizon."

FOR MORE OF THE SAME, AND WORSE ...

A Roman Catholic priest originally from Lebanon who is accused of beating, groping and choking a soloist at his Las Vegas church has been arrested , authorities said.
The Rev. George Chaanine, 52, was taken into custody in Apache Junction, Arizona, about 50 kilometers east of Phoenix, said Deb McCarley, a spokeswoman for the Phoenix office of the FBI.

Chaanine had been a fugitive since the alleged assault on Jan. 26 at the Our Lady of Las Vegas parish office. A judge issued a felony warrant Tuesday charging him with attempted murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and battery with a deadly weapon.

'News 3' channel reported on its website that the arrest report says the priest "fought in a Lebanese war" and that the only way to get out of Lebanon was to become a Catholic priest.


McCarley said Arizona authorities located Chaanine after receiving information from agents in Las Vegas.

"He was stopped, he was taken into custody without incident, he did not give chase," McCarley said Thursday.

According to a Las Vegas police report obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, the woman, who works at the parish office, told investigators she was sitting at her desk when Chaanine broke a full bottle of wine over her head, grabbed her hair and dragged her down a hall toward his office.

She fought back, lost consciousness and awoke with Chaanine groping her breasts and genitals, police said. She continued fighting until Chaanine straddled her and grabbed her throat, police said.

The woman told detectives she began to pray for her life before her attacker suddenly stopped. He muttered that he was going to kill himself, told the woman to wait 15 minutes, said he would call an ambulance and left the parish office, according to the police report.

Chaanine has been suspended with pay from his position as church administrative pastor.

In a statement from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas, Bishop Joseph Pepe praised authorities for finding Chaanine.

"We are relieved that Father Chaanine has been found and now justice can be served through the legal process," Pepe said. "We have worked closely with the authorities and are hopeful that the information we provided proved helpful."

Chaanine was ordained in 1996 and worked at churches in several U.S. cities before beginning work at Our Lady of Las Vegas in 2004, the diocese said.(AP-Naharnet)
Type rest of the post here

In December Rep. Virgil Goode (R.-Va.) sent a letter to constituents following the election of the first Muslim member of Congress. Mr. Goode made several anti-Muslim statements. In late January an interfaith group of concerned citizens visited Rep. Goode to discuss his letter and present him with a petition asking he retract his published remarks. The following reflection of that visit was written by Vince Isner, director, FaithfulAmerica [www.faithfulamerica.org].

A "Goode" Day for New Beginnings

Washington, D.C., January 30, 2007 - High on the wall of Congressman Virgil Goode's DC office, just as he had noted in his now famous letter to constituents, was a framed poster stating "In God We Trust." High on the opposite wall a television played Fox News, most of it centered around the war in Iraq.

Below, as our small delegation of religious leaders took their seats, I recalled the statement from Goode's letter in response to newly elected Muslim representative Keith Ellison's decision to use a Qur'an for his unofficial swearing-in. "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Quran in any way." Speaking on the subject of immigration, Goode added, "...if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran."

I introduced the delegation: With me were the Rev. Greg Anderson, a Baptist Minister from Virginia's 5th District, the Rev. Brenda Girton-Mitchell from the National Council of Churches, Michael Kelly from the Islamic Society of Central VA, Mohamed Elsanousi of the Islamic Society of North America, and Dr. Sayyid Syeed, the Islamic Society's National Director.

We got right down to business. "We come bearing gifts," I began as I handed Mr. Goode the binder containing a petition with 8,000 signatures from concerned persons across the nation. "It is a gift, because these signatures represent people who believe in the power of your words hurt or to heal. We have come to share what we believe is an opportunity for you to help lead the way in promoting a season of understanding around this issue."

Mr. Goode listened as each member of the delegation spoke their minds and hearts. Their points were compelling, from stating how disparaging remarks from an elected official fuels anti-American propaganda abroad, to reminding the Congressman that his words and actions must extend beyond his personal religious views. At one point I was struck by the irony of the moment when I could hardly hear Dr. Syeed, a wise and seasoned man of peace, because of a hair-loss commercial blasting out of the television overhead.

I also wondered if Congressman Goode could hear.

I soon got my answer. When we had finished, Congressman Goode leaned across his desk, thanked us for our remarks, and told us unequivocally that he stands by his earlier statement. "I didn't say anything that was untrue."

Indeed, technically speaking, we were all in agreement. What he said could be factually supportable, and each is entitled to his or her own rights under our constitution. It was what was implied in the statements that raised such national concern - though apparently not uniformly throughout Goode's district, where letters of support outweigh letters of rebuke.

Congressman Goode then remarked that America is a nation where religious freedom abounds, "but if this nation had a majority of Muslims," he said, "I'm not sure it would be the case." Then gesturing to Dr. Syeed, he added, "Of course, if they were all more like you, I don't think there'd be a problem."

I held by breath. Privately I thought, "People used to say that about races of men and women...You're not like the rest of them. If more of them could be like you, we wouldn't have to worry. Why, you're a credit to your race."

Yes, it could have gone badly. But it didn't. Instead, it became both a kind gesture and Holy moment, because Mr. Goode was sincere in his compliment, and, in Dr. Syeed's wisdom, he - indeed all of us - understood that this is how seeds of understanding are planted. Despite years of Mr. Goode's apparent preconceptions, misconceptions, misunderstandings, or whatever it is that causes barriers where bridges might otherwise be... despite these and even a blaring television overhead, they were no match for a chance to sit eyeball to eyeball with deep and loving people whose lives are a genuine expression of what they believe.

Perhaps this was one of the first times Congressman Goode has met a peace-loving, broad-minded Muslim who is far more like him than unlike him (though I hear he has had some friendly exchanges with Rep. Ellison) and we hope it won't be his last.

I closed our visit by sharing with the group about my friend Zufar, a Muslim from Pakistan who is now a citizen of the U.S. and lives in Virginia with his American-born wife - who happens to be Catholic. She is dying of ALS. (Mr. Goode immediately asked how she was doing - not feigned, but from a genuine sense of concern.) "Not well," I replied. What keeps her alive after five years battling the disease and what inspires me is the way in which Zufar cares for her day after day, year after year, with little respite. His abiding Muslim faith is one reason for his devotion to his wife, and yet he takes great joy when her Catholic friends come to visit, pray for her, hold her hand, and sing Christian songs. I told Mr. Goode, "When I am stressed and feel like being less than my best as a person, it is my Muslim friend who helps me to be a better Christian."

And so he does.

Perhaps the most hopeful outcome of our visit was that Mr. Goode said he would accept an invitation to attend a Muslim service or gathering. I suspect he will take some heat in his district back home for that, but imagine all of those faces he will meet - peace loving, broad-minded Muslims, like those in our little group, who love their country and wish the best for all Americans. Imagine that day when a leader on the world stage is confronted with the faces of all of those men, women, and children who understand that with hands open - and not clenched fists - we can nourish one another in wonderful ways.

That should be a very good day indeed.