Benedict XVI goes to Brazil

We applaud the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Latin America, determined to lay down church law on abortion. We have no idea whether the bishops of Latin America really needed that, but -- without question, many Catholics do need such a reminder.

We would, however, go further than he wished. It is not sufficient to warn Catholics of the errors of abortion. The Church really needs an examination of conscience regarding the messages that the Church sends out. Catholics need to see with their own eyes the deep commitment to life to which Christ is calling His Faithful. We need desperately to see the Church actively ministering to Children. There could be no better way for the Church to do that than to return the Sacred Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood to what it was originally, a pro-life sacrament, by a return to the practice of paedo-communion.

We do not doubt that there are many difficulties which such a return would involve. Certainly there would be priests who would refuse to minister to children, priests who would say they are too busy with other more important matters.

Perhaps we may be forgiven for believing this to be an important matter?

And there are those busy people who would object if the Sacred Mysteries started taking more of their time when all they want to do is hit the golf links as early as possible.

We feel their pain. But isn't the care of children more important than a round of golf?

To be practical, we would not wish to force priests to get involved in areas in which they have no interest. But in an age in which the Church is willing to create extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, priests do not need to get involved. Certainly there are virtual armies of pro-life parents who would jump at a chance to care for children. Employing their services in this vitally important ministry would mean that there is no real need for the Sacred Mysteries to take any more time than is now required. While the priest ministers to adults, they would minister to children. It's a win-win situation -- even for the man or woman who dreams of nothing beyond that important round of golf.

Finally there are those who find First Communion and all the activities revolving around it important social activity. We would not wish to force anyone to adopt the practice of paedo-communion. Thus it might be introduced as an option. Parents who feel that their children are ready to receive the Sacred Mysteries should be given that option -- even in the case of infants. We do not doubt that some brave parents would choose that option. We do not doubt that others would follow their example. And if every year the number of children involved in First Communion decreases, who would complain? They should always be given the option of following the current practice.

We do not doubt that if the supreme pontiff were brave enough to permit this return to the Gospel's message, many would find the ancient practice inspiring, as it truly is. There are few things which we find more practical and more inspiring than the words of the Gospel...

And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.

Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.

~ Mark 10:13-16

Decency?

We have written of the horrors, which the victims of FC have suffered. (See Justice?)

One of the major players in that debacle, Zell Miller, former governor of Georgia, has written a book, ironically called, A Deficit of Decency.

We think that Mister Miller needs to do a bit of soul searching regarding the harm that his efforts have caused to the handicapped people who were abused through FC. So far as we are aware, he has never apologized to the victims of his efforts for the harm they suffered. Where is the decency in that?

Four Causes?

Aristotle presented the notion that there are four causes of being: material, efficient, final, and formal. The material cause is matter. The human body is a prime example. The efficient cause is the force, which acts on bodies to cause action and reaction. The final cause is the intention for which a thing exists. The formal cause is the form of a thing. Human nature, for example, forms men.

Consider a statue. Its matter is the bronze from which it was forged; its efficient cause is the sculpture who molded it; its final cause is the beauty or courage or whatever it is meant to inspire; its formal cause is the image of a man.

Aristotle's theory was a great improvement over earlier ideas, which recognized only the efficient cause. The philosopher, Democritus is associated with the idea. The Western world generally adopted Aristotle's idea -- until, that is, the beginnings of modern science turned the clock back. Most men today believe that everything can be explained by reference to efficient causes alone. Their reasoning is that it simplifies things to consider them only from the viewpoint of forces interacting to produce things.

There are a minority of us who remember Aristotle's idea. It is far better than the ideas of Democritus. But I wonder if there are some things missing: causes not counted among the four given. For example, one might consider these seven causes: God, the formal cause, the ether (space), love, desire, the efficient cause and the material cause...

Tookie is dead... Long live the Crips?

While liberals may praise Stanley 'Tookie' Williams, his death means little to most Americans. The real issue is how long must we wait before his followers, the Crips join him in death. If Mr. Williams had truly found redemption, he would have been eager to testify against his followers, thereby doing all of us a great favor. In the meantime, many must live in fear of those same followers.

It will take great effort and real courage to put an end to this brood of vipers. Mr. Williams didn't have the courage to go against them. Let us hope that others will do what he could not.

Scalito -- quack, quack!

The nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the United States Supreme Court, following President Bush's failed nomination of Harriet Miers to that post seems to mark the transition of President Bush to the status of being a lame duck. It is certainly unfortunate that he caved in so easily to the Conservative elite who had opposed her nomination.

Nevertheless, we find Judge Alito to be a fine choice. His conservatism is unquestionable. Had he been nominated under different circumstances, his choice would have brought nothing but delight.

We wish the best for him and for the President.

The president's Argument

George F. Will writes…

“The president's argument for Harriet Miers ' nomination to the Supreme Court amounts to: ‘Trust me.’”

Conservative radio show hosts from Laura Ingraham to Bill Bennett tell of their disappointment. The hypocrisy of it all is striking.

For years Conservatives have been saying that what they want is someone who will interpret the Constitution according to the intent of the Founders. They claimed that politics was not an issue. When the Democrats began filibustering judicial appointments they said that the Constitution requires only a majority vote to confirm a President’s nominee. Therefore a filibuster was unconstitutional. “Give us an up or down vote!” they cried. “We have a Constitutional right to that.”

Now they have a perfect opportunity to get what they wanted in Harriet Miers. Are they happy? Not at all.

But is President Bush’s choice so unprecedented? Hardly! Speaking of the President, the Constitution says he “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law…” Thus the only requirement for a judge is that he must be appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate.

It is not at all unusual for a President to appoint someone who is not a judge, but who is otherwise qualified.

But Conservatives are not happy. The problem seems to be that they want a confirmation fight. They believe that George Bush has appointed Harriet Miers simply to avoid a fight. To justify their claim they cite poll results showing that the President’s approval rating has fallen. So they reason that he has appointed Harriet Miers from a weakened position, thinking that by avoiding a fight he will prevent further erosion to his poll numbers.

Question: Has George Bush been one to form policy based on poll results? Answer: No. He is not another Bill Clinton. He has frequently shown himself to be a man of principles.

So why would he appoint Harriet Miers? For comparison, let’s look at the qualifications for John Roberts …

From 1981 to 1982, he served in the Reagan administration as a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith. From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as Associate Counsel to the President under White House Counsel Fred Fielding.

Roberts entered private law practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Hogan & Hartson, but left to serve in the first Bush administration as Deputy Solicitor General, from 1989 to 1993. Roberts has argued 39 cases for the government before the Supreme Court, prevailing in 25 of them. He represented 18 states in United States v. Microsoft. In 1992, George H.W. Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but no Senate vote was held, and Roberts's nomination expired when Bush left office after losing the 1992 presidential election. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson as a partner, and
became the head of the firm's appellate practice. In this capacity, Roberts argued several cases before the Supreme Court:

See: Wikipedia (JohnRoberts)

Now let’s look at the qualifications for Harriet Miers …

Miers worked in private practice for the Dallas firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp (and predecessor firms prior to mergers) from 1972 until 2001. She was the first female lawyer hired at the firm, and later became its president. When the merger that created Locke, Liddell & Sapp took place in 1999, she became the co-managing partner of a legal business with more than 400 lawyers… As a commercial litigator, she represented clients including Microsoft and the Walt Disney Company.

In 1986, Miers became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association. In 1989, she was elected to one two-year term as an at-large member on the Dallas City Council; she did not run for reelection in 1991 after the structure of the council had changed…

In 1992, Miers became the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. During her tenure as head of the Texas Bar, she led an unsuccessful effort to have the American Bar Association adopt a neutral position on abortion and drop its official
pro-choice position. She has also served as chair of the Board of Editors for the American Bar Association Journal and as the chair of the ABA's Commission on
Multi-Jurisdictional Practice.

Miers met George W. Bush in the 1980s, and worked as general counsel for his transition team in 1994, when he was Texas governor. She subsequently became Bush's personal lawyer, and worked as a lawyer in his 2000 presidential campaign…

In January 2001, Miers followed Bush to Washington, D.C., serving as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary during the first two years of his presidency…. In 2003, she was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. In November 2004, Bush named her to succeed Alberto Gonzales, his nominee for Attorney General, to the post of White House Counsel, the chief legal adviser for the Office of the President.

See: Wikipedia (HarrietMiers)

So why shouldn’t George Bush appoint Harriet Miers? Her career seems remarkably similar to that of John Roberts. Both have worked as lawyers in private practice. Both have taken on important Government service. The chief difference between the two of them seems to be that John Roberts had previously gone through the confirmation progress – and drawn the opposition of the Democrats. During that process Conservatives had gotten to know and like John Roberts. He had received their stamp of approval. Harriet Miers is an unknown. She has not been blessed by the Conservative elite.

George Bush has known her for many years and has complete faith in her abilities… If George Bush is right, why are the Democrats happy with her appointment? Probably it is because they are, themselves, in a very weak position. They made fools of themselves in the John Roberts’ confirmation hearings. Trying as hard as they could, they were unable to find anything in his qualifications to object to. So they now want to play a different game. The new game is trying to divide the Republicans between into moderate and Conservative camps divided against themselves. From the looks of things, they appear to be fairly successful.

We suggest that Conservatives relax. George Bush didn’t appoint one of their favorites. They feel that they have been rebuffed. But George Bush is a man of principle. He is a moderate -- not a true believer in Conservatism. They need to get over it. Maybe they are right. Maybe George Bush is right. But falling into Democratic traps will help neither the Conservatives nor the moderates.

The Conservatives have no real alternative at this point but to see where the cards fall. There will be time in the confirmation hearings to get to know Harriet Miers. If Conservatives can keep still long enough they may well find that the nominee is indeed qualified. After all their talk about the President’s right to pick any qualified nominee who agrees with his principles, they ought to be willing to let him do just that.

And it is still far from clear that the nomination will go through without the confirmation fight that Conservatives really want. What the Democrats fear is that the new court will permit the several States to restrict Abortion. They do not want to have to go back to their constituents to explain how they had allowed the appointment of justices who might allow such a result. In the end they may have little choice but to fight.

Freedom: Virtue or Vice?

Is freedom a virtue or a vice? Americans constantly have it drilled into them that freedom is the supreme good, the only thing that makes life worth living.