Lord Patten Reflects on the Papal State Visit to Britain, Cardinal Newman, and Church-State Relations

Lord Christopher Patten is the British government's special representative for the first state visit of a Pope in British history. Lord Patten is a former Member of Parliament, was Governor of Hong Kong, and is currently Chancellor of Oxford University. In the following interview he reflects on Pope Benedict's upcoming visit to Great Britain, the importance and continuing influence of Cardinal Newman, and the relationship of church and state in the United Kingdom.

The Tea Parties and the Future of Liberty

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard and a FOX News Contributor. His work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Reason, National Review and many other publications. He is the author of two New York Times bestsellers: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America and Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President. His great-great uncle was a president of Hillsdale College and many of his relatives have attended Hillsdale, including two grandparents.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on June 6, 2010, during a Hillsdale College cruise from Rome to Dover aboard the Crystal Symphony.

Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. Within a month he signed a $787 billion “stimulus package” with virtually no Republican support. It was necessary, we were told, to keep unemployment under eight percent. Overnight, the federal government had, as one of its highest priorities, weatherizing government buildings and housing projects. Streets and highways in no need of repair would be broken up and repaved. The Department of Transportation and other government agencies would spend millions on signs advertising the supposed benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I saw one of them on Roosevelt Island in Washington, D.C. It boasted that the federal park would be receiving a generous grant to facilitate the involvement of local youth in the removal of “non-indigenous plants.” In other words, kids would be weeding. We need a sign to announce that? And this was going to save the economy?

Then there was American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project number 1R01AA01658001A, a study entitled: “Malt Liquor and Marijuana: Factors in their Concurrent Versus Separate Use.” I’m not making this up. This is a $400,000 project being directed by a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The following is from the official abstract: “We appreciate the opportunity to refocus this application to achieve a single important aim related to our understanding of young adults’ use of male [sic] liquor (ML), other alcoholic beverages, and marijuana (MJ), all of which confer high risks for experiencing negative consequences, including addiction. As we have noted, reviews of this grant application have noted numerous strength [sic], which are summarized below.”

So what were those strengths? “This research team has previous [sic] been successful in recruiting a large (>600) sample of regular ML drinkers.” Also, “the application is well-written.” Well-written? With three spelling mistakes? But who am I to judge? As for the other strength, there is no question that the team’s recruitment had been strong. But is that really a qualification for federal money? After all, they were paying people to drink beer!

These same scholars were behind a groundbreaking 2007 study that used regression analysis to discover that subjects who got drunk and high were more intoxicated than those who only abused alcohol. The new study pays these pot-smoking malt-liquor drinkers at least $45 to participate. They can buy four beers per day for the three-week project—all of it funded, at least indirectly, by the American taxpayer.

Perhaps not surprisingly, when President Obama visited Buffalo in May, he chose to highlight other stimulus grants. On the other hand, he could have pointed out that the beer money goes right back into the economy. Think of all those saved or created jobs! In any case, the findings of this new study are expected to echo those of the first study, which found: “Those who concurrently use both alcohol and marijuana are more likely to report negative consequences of substance use compared with those who use alcohol only.” Reading results like this, I tend to think that those who concurrently get drunk and high are also far more likely to believe the stimulus is working.

And have I mentioned that the estimated cost of the stimulus was later increased from $787 billion to $862 billion? That’s a cost underestimate of nearly ten percent. Anyone in private business who suddenly had to come up with ten percent more in outgoing funds than previously anticipated would likely go out of business.

All of this set the stage for a revolt. The accidental founding of the Tea Party movement took place in February 2009, when CNBC commentator Rick Santelli let loose a rant against the stimulus package, and in particular the proposal to subsidize what he called “the losers’ mortgages.” He proposed a ceremonial dump of derivative securities into Lake Michigan, and a few hours later a website popped up calling for a Chicago Tea Party. The video clip raced around the Internet, and it was soon clear that many average Americans were furious about the massive new spending bill and the plan to subsidize bad mortgages.

The stimulus was bad, but by itself it was probably not enough to sustain an entire movement. This is why the larger context matters: Under President Obama, federal spending has been growing at an unprecedented pace. We are adding $4.8 billion to the national debt every day. The long-term viability of Medicare and Social Security isn’t merely uncertain—as so many analysts would have us believe. In fact, their failure is a sure thing without structural changes. By adding a massive new entitlement with the health care bill, we are simply going to go broke faster. Americans understood much of this even before Mr. Obama was elected.

Consider this story from the recent presidential campaign: In July 2008, Republican nominee John McCain stopped in Belleville, Michigan, to participate in a town hall. After several friendly questions, he took one from Rich Keenan. Wearing a shirt with an American flag embroidered over his left breast, Keenan told McCain that he would not be voting for Obama. But then he said: “What I’m trying to do is get to a situation where I’m excited about voting for you.”

The audience laughed, and many in the crowd nodded their heads. Keenan explained that he was “concerned” about some of McCain’s views, such as his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his views on the environment. Keenan allowed that he was grateful that McCain had begun taking more conservative positions. But he concluded: “I guess the question I have, and that people like me in this country have, is what can you say to us to make us believe that you actually came to the right positions? We want to take you to the dance, we’re just concerned about who you’re going to go home with.” The audience laughed again. McCain laughed, too, but then he grew serious: “I have to say, and I don’t mean to disappoint you, but I haven’t changed positions.” He defended his vote against the Bush tax cuts and, at some length, reiterated his concerns about global warming. Later, he went out of his way to emphasize his respect for Hillary Clinton and boast about his work with Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy.

I talked with Rich Keenan after the town hall. He described himself as a conservative independent. He said he often votes Republican but does not consider himself one. He added, “I do think that there are millions of Americans out there like me who are fairly conservative, probably more conservative than John McCain, and I think a lot of them are concerned about what’s going to happen if he does get elected.” Keenan was right. There were millions of people out there like him—conservatives, independents, disaffected Republicans, and many of them stayed home on election day. These people form the heart of the Tea Party movement.

In recent years, the Republican Party has seen its approval levels sink to new lows. In 2005, 33 percent of registered voters told Gallup they considered themselves Republican. By 2009, that number was 27 percent. The number of voters who identified themselves as independent showed a corresponding rise. But what’s interesting is that over that same time-frame, the number of voters self-identified as conservative stayed relatively constant: 39 percent in 2005 and 40 percent in 2009. (Self-identified liberals constituted 20 percent of respondents in both 2005 and 2009.) So even as the number of self-identified Republicans declined and the number of self-identified independents grew, the number of self-identified conservatives was constant. Of course, it’s too simple to postulate a one-for-one swap, but the trend seems clear. The Tea Party movement arose in an environment in which a growing number of Americans believed neither party was voicing its concerns.

All of this has liberals in the mainstream media and elsewhere flummoxed. At first they were dismissive. Think of the footage of Susan Roesgen of CNN going after Tea Party enthusiasts at a Chicago rally, suggesting they were irrational and stupid. And consider a few of the many other examples:

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote: “The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction—the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day—and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies—is calibrated not to inform but to incite.”

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said: “I believe that the Tea Partiers are misguided. I think they are racist, for the most part. I think that they are afraid. I think that they are clinging to their guns and their religion. And I think in many respects, they are what’s wrong with America.”

Actress Janeane Garofalo: “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. These are nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks.”

Comedian Bill Maher: “The teabaggers, they’re not a movement, they’re a cult.”

Perhaps the most stunning comment came from prominent Democratic strategist Steve McMahon: “The reason people walk into schools and open fire is because of rhetoric like this and because of attitudes like this. The reason people walk into military bases and open fire is because of rhetoric like this and attitudes like this. Really, what they’re doing is not that much different than what Osama bin Laden is doing in recruiting people and encouraging them to hate America.”

We’ve seen this before. On November 7, 1994, the Washington Post ran an article about the loud, hateful fringe on the right: “Hate seems to be drifting through the air like smoke from autumn bonfires. It isn’t something that can be quantified. No one can measure whether it has grown since last year, the 1980s, or the 1880s. But a number of people who make their living taking the public’s temperature are convinced it’s swelling beyond the perennial level of bad manners and random insanity. It’s fueled, they say, by such forces as increasingly harsh political rhetoric, talk radio transmissions, and an increasing sense of not-so-quiet desperation.” The next day, Republicans took Congress.

Are today’s Tea Party supporters on the radical fringe? In a National Review/McLaughlin Associates poll conducted in February, six percent of 1,000 likely voters said that they had participated in a Tea Party rally. An additional 47 percent said they generally agree with the reasons for those protests. Nor is the Tea Party movement “monochromatic” and “all white,” as Chris Matthews claimed. Quite the contrary: the National Review poll found that it was five percent black and 11 percent Hispanic.

Perhaps that poll could be dismissed as the work of a right-leaning polling firm and a conservative magazine. You can’t say that about the New York Times and CBS. Their poll, which has a long history of oversampling Democrats, found that Tea Partiers are wealthier and better educated than average voters. It also found that 20 percent of Americans—one in five—supports Tea Parties. That’s an awfully big fringe.

Other polls confirmed these findings: a Washington Post/ABC poll found that 14 percent of voters say the Tea Party is “most in synch” with their values; 20 percent say Tea Parties are “most in tune with economic problems Americans are now facing.” The most interesting poll, in my view, came from TargetPoint Consulting, which interviewed nearly 500 attendees at the April 15, 2010, Tax Day rally in Washington, D.C. Here are some results:

Tea Partiers are united on the issues of debt, the growth of government, and health care reform.

They are socially conservative on the one hand and libertarian on the other, split roughly down the middle.

They are older, more educated, and more conservative than average voters, and they are “distinctly not Democrat.”

This new information complicated the mainstream media’s narrative about the Tea Party movement. This was not a fringe. Nancy Pelosi, who had earlier dismissed Tea Parties as “Astroturf”—meaning fake grassroots activism—revised that assessment, telling reporters that, in fact, she was just like the Tea Partiers.

This brings us to the present day. The president’s approval ratings are low, and Congressional Democrats’ are even worse. Members of the president’s party are not only running away from him in swing districts, but even in some relatively safe ones. Many analysts are suggesting that control of the House of Representatives is in play, and perhaps even that of the Senate.

This dissatisfaction flows directly from the president’s policies and those of his party. It is not simply “anti-incumbent,” as many of my press colleagues would have it. This voter outrage—and it is outrage, not hate—is specific and focused: Americans are fed up with big government and deeply concerned about the long-term economic health of their country. The stimulus was unpopular, and most Americans do not believe it’s working. Obama’s health care plan was unpopular when it passed. The American people understood the rather obvious point that it wouldn’t be possible to cover 30 million additional people, improve the care of those with insurance, and save taxpayers money, all at the same time.

Does all of this add up to big Republican gains in November? Not according to the mainstream media. The Boston Globe’s Susan Milligan recently wrote: “The Tea Party movement is energizing elements of the Republican Party and fanning an anti-Washington fervor, but the biggest beneficiaries in the mid-term elections, pollsters and political analysts say, could be the main target of their anger: Democrats.” CBS News reported the same thing just a few days later. What nonsense! I think there is little question that the Tea Parties—and the enthusiasm and energy they bring—will contribute to major Republican gains in November.

One final point: For many Tea Partiers, the massive and unconstitutional growth of government is the fundamental issue. But I think there’s something deeper, too. After her husband had won several primaries in a row in the spring of 2008, Michelle Obama proclaimed that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country. It was a stunning statement. It also foreshadowed what was to come: Since Barack Obama took office in January 2009, he has devoted much of his time to criticizing his own country. He apologizes for the policy decisions of his predecessors. He worries aloud that the U.S. has become too powerful. He has explicitly rejected the doctrine of American exceptionalism.

And this is not mere rhetoric. For the first time ever, the U.S. is participating in the Universal Periodic Review—a United Nations initiative in which member countries investigate their own nation’s human rights abuses. The State Department has held ten “listening sessions” around the U.S. during which an alphabet soup of left-wing groups aired their numerous grievances. These complaints are to be included in a report that the U.S. will submit to the United Nations Human Rights Council. It will be evaluated by such paragons of human rights as Burkina Faso, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, and Cuba.

When President Obama spoke before the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009, he declared that a world order that elevates one country or group of countries over others is bound to fail. So he’s changing that order. If his domestic policy priority is the redistribution of wealth, his foreign policy priority seems to be the redistribution of power.

Most Americans don’t agree with the president’s priorities. And many of these Americans are now active in the Tea Party movement, a movement that has succeeded in starting a serious national conversation about a return to limited government.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

The Feast of Venerable Solanus Casey

If we only try to show the Dear Lord a good will and ask Him for resignation to the crosses He sends or permits to come our way, we may be sure that sooner or later they will turn out to have been just so many blessings in disguise.

~Venerable Solanus Casey

A young student in a Catholic school was once asked "who are the saints?" Thinking of the figures in the stained glass windows of the parish church, his response was prescient: "saints are the ones who let the light shine through.":

Today is the feast day of one of our patron saints, Venerable Solanus Casey. Father Solanus, a meek, humble, kindly doorkeeper, was also a great mystic, poet, counselor, and is thought to be one of the most prodigious healers in the history of the Church. Many of our readers appreciate the sermons by Father Franklyn McAfee that we post on Sundays. Father McAfee's mother was one of the thousands healed by Father Solanus. Father McAfee's own reflection on Father Solanus is here.

Father Solanus Casey so completely surrendered his life to the will of God that he became a powerful vessel through which the light, love, and Divine Healing flowed in miraculous ways.

For this extraordinary living sermon, example, intercessor, and reflection of Divine Love, Deo Gratias!

Ellen DeGeneres Fired After She Jumps the Shark for American Idol

By Gary McCullough

When it comes to the business relationship between American Idol and Ellen DeGeneres, to the chagrin of Pansy Hilton and a multitude of homo-fascist bloggers, I am on an I-told-you-so roll.

In January, I wrote, "I am confident that the producers of American Idol will be shocked when their market share has cratered, and will in all honesty find a dozen other reasons for the drop in ratings. After all, what successful television producer could have a clue what wholesomeness is as long as they see promoting homosexuality as a virtue."

In May, I wrote, "Here is my next prediction. There will be no left wing social activist as a judge for the tenth season of American Idol. Not only will DeGeneres be gone, she will not be replaced by anyone close to a Rosie O'Donnell wanna-be."

The question now is; can American Idol be saved. I say no. Ellen DeGeneres skied over that bull-shark and the audience she drove away will never return. Idol may as well succumb to slobbering panders of Hilton and bring him on as a judge and nuke the fridge.

There is a moral to the story of this DeGeneres-Idol saga. There is a limit to what Christian viewers will tolerate, and I am using "Christian" in the broadest of definitions. The revenue generating ability of television programming that promotes homosexuality has its limits. If primetime network programming becomes indistinguishable from HBO and Showtime someone else will take ownership of the family-friendly entertainment market.

The encouragement I take from the firing of DeGeneres is that someone in Hollywood understands what I have been saying; that the promotion of homosexuality and the production of family entertainment do not mix. There is money to be made and there are cultural battles to be fought; if you try to do both you will lose twice. That has been my business advice.

Cultural battles have two sides, one of which is immoral. Choose to fight on the immoral side of a cultural battle and any victory you experience will only be temporary. That is my spiritual advice.

Gary McCullough is director of Christian Newswire.

A Mother Bear Shows Why Parental Choice of Schools is the Answer to America's Failing Public Schools

Latest Hayworth Ad Takes Hard Look at McCain's Pro-Illegal Alien Record

The campaign of U.S. Senate Candidate J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) today launched its hardest-hitting television ad exposing Sen. John McCain's long record of supporting illegal aliens during his years in the Senate.

Newt Gingrich: Freedom Will Prevail

Our previous president foolishly characterized America's war with radical Islam as a "war on terrorism," while calling the hateful ideology behind the terror the "religion of peace." That is like characterizing America's war against Nazism as a war on blitzkriegs. Of even greater concern, the current president sympathizes with our enemies and refuses to even acknowledge acts of terrorism.

In the following clip Newt Gingrich eloquently and rightly assesses the historic challenge confronting America and western civilization.

A Good Shepherd Goes to Trenton

One of the best presidents ever to preside over our alma mater and America's Pontifical university, The Catholic University of America, will be installed tomorrow as Bishop of Trenton. The Catholics of central New Jersey will be greatly blessed by this gifted, good, and holy man.

Bill Signing Ceremony with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at Reagan Presidential Library

On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Mrs. Ronald Reagan stood alongside Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library as the Governor held a ceremonial bill signing for SB 944 by Senator George Runner and AB 1911 by Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick honoring President Ronald Reagan for his life's accomplishments and his contributions to California.

Dozens of Groups Join Call for Kagan Probe

More than 30 respected national and state organizations representing concerned citizens from across the nation joined Americans United for Life Action, AUL’s sister organization, in sending a group letter to all 100 U.S. senators. The letter calls for a “thorough investigation” into Elena Kagan’s role in the 1996-97 partial-birth abortion debate.

President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “A nominee to the highest court in the land must meet our nation’s absolute highest standards of integrity and impartiality. With serious outstanding questions clouding Ms. Kagan’s nomination, we are leading a united effort to ask that the Senate investigate discrepancies between her Senate testimony and the written record on partial-birth abortion before proceeding to a floor vote.”

To see the open letter, AUL Action’s 54-page report examining Kagan’s role in manipulating the medical statements of two major organizations on partial-birth abortion, and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop’s letter urging the Senate to reject the Kagan nomination, click here.

'In God We Trust' Again Upheld by Federal Appeals Court

From LifeSiteNews

In a 3-0 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, DC, ruled that the National Motto, “In God We Trust,” is constitutional and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Quoting the 1970 decision in Aronow v. United States, the Court wrote: “It is quite obvious that the national motto and slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”

Judges David B. Sentelle, Karen L. Henderson, and David S. Tatel cited four cases in their succinct ruling. In each case, “In God We Trust” has been upheld against constitutional challenges. One of the precedents cited by the Court of Appeals comes from the 1996 opinion in Gaylor v. United States, which says: “[T]he statutes establishing ‘In God We Trust’ as our national motto and providing for its reproduction on United States currency do not violate the Establishment Clause.”

The case began when an atheist from Texas, Carlos Kidd, filed suit in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. The District Court wrote: “Courts have consistently held that the phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Kidd then appealed and lost again.

“In God We Trust” became the National Motto in 1956. Passed during the Cold War, the Congressional Record states: “In these days when imperialistic and materialistic Communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, it is proper [to] remind all of us of this self-evident truth [that] as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail.” The phrase appears in the final stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner (“And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust’”), written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key, the first stanza of which later became the National Anthem. A law in 1865 allowed the motto to be used on coinage. In 1908 most coins were required to carry the motto. The penny and nickel were later included in 1938, and from that time to the present all coins have been required to carry the motto. “In God We Trust” is the National Motto and the State Motto for Florida.

“The National Motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ is obviously constitutional," commented Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. "The First Amendment was never meant to erase from history references to God or public acknowledgments of God.”

Public representations of God or Christianity in the U.S. has met with opposition on several fronts in recent months. A cross in California's Mojave Desert that has stood for years as a war veterans memorial was only barely upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April, which allowed the cross to stand in a 5-4 decision. The cross was later stolen.

Papers Prepped to Disbar Elena Kagan

'She should not be a justice when she's defrauded the Supreme Court'

From WorldNetDaily
By Drew Zahn

One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join – and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution – for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Leo XIII Decried Socialism, 150 Years Later The USCCB Embraces It

"The socialists wrongly assume the right of property to be of mere human invention . . . and, preaching up the community of goods, declare that ... all may with impunity seize upon the possessions and usurp the rights of the wealthy. More wise and profitably, the Church recognizes the existence of inequality amongst men."

—Leo XIII, Dec. 28, 1878

From Pew Sitter

By Frank Walker


Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org, was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.

This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?

This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.

Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.

Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”

This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.

Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.

The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.

The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.

Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.

The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women. Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org, was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.

This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?

This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.

Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.

Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”

This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.

Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.

The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.

The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.

Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.

The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women.

Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege

America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.

From The Wall Street Journal

By James Webb

The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

How so?

Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.

The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.

The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."

The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.

Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.

Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.

Lutherans Reaffirm Desire for Shared Eucharist

From Christian Today India
By Audrey Barrick, Christian Post

Talks of a continued commitment toward ecumenism, or church unity, dominated the stage at the Lutheran World Federation's assembly on Wednesday.

The Lutheran commitment to ecumenism will not end until we can share the Eucharist with other churches, said LWF President Bishop Mark S Hanson.

"If Roman Catholics and Lutherans [for example] can feed the hungry together, wouldn’t it be good if they could be fed at the Lord’s Table together?" he posed.

LWF is the world's largest communion of Lutheran churches, representing over 70 million Christians in 79 countries.

This year's meeting assembly in Stuttgart, Germany, is being joined by leaders and representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, the United Methodist Church and the World Communion of Reformed Churches.

LWF has pursued deeper relations with each of the global church bodies. One of the landmark ecumenical events was the 1999 signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

"To be the Lutheran World Federation: A Communion of Churches is to be ecumenical," said Hanson in his report.

"When a radically inclusive communion is God’s gift to us in Christ and at the centre of our self-understanding we will always define ourselves first in terms of our relatedness to others in the body of Christ.

"We gather in Stuttgart as more than fragments who momentarily put together the semblance of a whole.

"We gather because we are one by God’s grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"God’s gift of unity will be experienced and expressed again and again in the midst of our varied diversity and even our differences."

Regarding differences on human sexuality, Hanson encouraged Christians to begin the conversation by identifying what they have in common – such as "we are all sexual beings" – rather than from a position of judgment. His comments come nearly a year after the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, of which he is the presiding bishop, opened the door to allow partnered gays and lesbians to serve as clergy.

He expressed concerns over emerging conversations in some Lutheran churches about what it means to be truly Lutheran.

"I sense that there is a growing desire on the part of some to look at our rich, shared confessions not as a reason for conversation about how we can live in that confessional tradition, but rather as a way of determining who is truly Lutheran and who is not."

Hanson said he desired to see full unity among Lutherans themselves. "That would be an unfortunate breakdown."

Lutherans should not only affirm the theological and confessional foundations they share as Lutherans, but also the notion "that to be Lutheran is to be both evangelical and ecumenical".

LWF General Secretary the Rev Dr Ishmael Noko recalled in his address the statement they adopted in 2007. Rather than see themselves as "the Church", LWF views itself as a movement within the "one Church".

"We are aware that we need other Christians," Noko said.

Interfaith Diapraxis, or practical cooperation across religious borders, has been a special focus of the life of the LWF since 2003. Continuing that commitment, LWF delegates are being asked this year to take an action that would redefine their relations with Mennonites – a group of Christian Anabaptist denominations.

Noko lamented that the two bodies have been estranged for 500 years and that their Lutheran confessions "have very harsh things to say" about the Mennonites.

LWF will consider an action that asks for forgiveness "for the persecution and violence of which our Lutheran forebears were guilty, and of which we are the inheritors", Noko said.

Also present at the LWF assembly is World Council of Churches General Secretary the Rev Dr Olav Fykse Tveit who lauded LWF's ecumenical efforts.

Though there are "several reasons given for why churches are not fully sharing the one bread in the Eucharist", Tveit said, "there are even more important theological and moral reasons why we continue to do anything we can do to come to the same table and have a common sharing of the one bread."

He said: "You are known for your commitment to peace with justice, to mission, diakonia and to ecumenical dialogue and inter-religious cooperation. Let it be so also in the future."

A Homily by Father Franklyn M. McAfee - "Just Tell Me the Truth"

Homily of Reverend Franklyn M. McAfee, D.D.

Pastor Emeritus

St. John the Beloved Catholic Church

McLean, Virginia

July 20, 2008

Morriston Tabernacle, Swansea, Wales "Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer"

Stephen Langton, the Catholic Cardinal Who Wrote Magna Carta

And organized the Bible into chapters

From Your Dictionary

Stephen Langton (died 1228) served as England's Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical office in the land. He played an important role in events surrounding the fabled Magna Carta, signed by the English king in 1215. Though the document specified certain rights to England's landed aristocracy, it is sometimes heralded as the first formal declaration of human rights in history.

Little is known about Langton's life outside of his writings on theological matters and his tenure as an emissary between his onetime foe, King John, and the English barons. Not even a portrait of him survives. He was thought to have hailed from Lincolnshire, in the north of England, and was likely born in the mid-1150s. His father, Henry, possessed a small manor home and some property there, where ancestors from Denmark had likely settled some 200 years earlier. Around Lincolnshire at the time of Langton's youth were several famous monasteries and abbeys, and he came of age during a period of strife between the church and monarch in England. Henry II, who ruled from 1154 to 1189, named his chancellor, a layman, as head of the church in England. Thomas a Becket, however, came to oppose Henry's increasing thirst for power, and fled to the Continent for a time. Before he left, he hid in the Lincolnshire area, and was sheltered by the monks of the Gilbertine order. The quarrel was mended for a time, but supporters of the king murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. All of this occurred during Langton's childhood.

Both Langton and his brother Simon opted to become members of religious orders. He later wrote that his decision to enter a monastery scandalized his father. Langton served as prebendary at York for a time-a member of clergy who receives a stipend-and went to Paris around 1181. He studied there among the loose coalition of masters and pupils at what would become the famed Universite de Paris, then taught there himself until 1206. During his student days he befriended an Italian cleric, Cardinal de Conti, who would later play an important role in his life. At the time, Paris was the Western world's most renowned center of learning, and was especially famed for theologians continuing the work of early Christian scholars, who formulated the principal doctrines of the faith. Paris was a small city at the time, mostly situated on the Ile de Paris, and during the entire 25 years of his stay there, Langton could hear the noises of the workers who built the Notre Dame cathedral. Langton's tutor, Peter the Chanter, wrote critically of the grandiosity and expense of this church.

Contributed to Modern Bible

Langton earned a doctorate in arts and theology from Paris, and began delivering what were termed questiones, or lectures on theological or moral problems. He also wrote extensively on the Bible. An important Vulgate, or common edition, appeared from the Universite de Paris theologians during the thirteenth century, and Langton worked on the project himself. He is credited for dividing the books of the Bible into chapters. The Paris Vulgate served as the standard version for the next two centuries, and the first printed-not hand-copied, as was the method in Langton's day-editions of the bible from Johann Gutenberg's press were based on this revision. The chapter divisions he devised were still in use eight centuries later.

Langton penned theological treatises and discourses on the topics of heaven, hell, transubstantiation, and prayer. Answering the question of whether the devil sins with all his might, Langton wrote: "The devil wishes to be either good or bad. If the former, when he does evil he must feel the sting of a biting conscience, that is to say, synderesis ; and authority says that synderesis is extinct in the devil. If he wishes to be bad, he wishes to deserve punishment and so to be punished. It may well be that the devil is so obstinate that he wishes to be bad and yet does not wish to be punished."

Appointed Archbishop

During the course of his career in Paris, Langton and his questiones, along with extensive commentaries he wrote on books of the Old and New Testaments, brought him such renown that he became known as "Stephen with the Tongue of Thunder." He was summoned to Rome by Pope Innocent III, the former Cardinal de Conti, who recognized in Langton an ally in his battle with the new king of England. The favorite, but youngest son of Henry II, John was given lands in France, the earldom of Gloucester, and the lordship of Ireland, which caused resentment among his brothers. When the eldest succeeded to the throne in 1189 as Richard I (the Lionhearted), John promised to remain in France. But he conspired against his brother, attempting to seize the throne while Richard was away on a Crusade to the Holy Land. In the spring of 1199, Richard died and John ascended to the throne.

During his reign, John became embroiled in a dispute with the church over the throne's right to appoint bishops. It was a dispute that stretched back to the time of Thomas a Becket. John had a formidable foe in Pope Innocent III, who was consolidating the church's political power at this time after a noticeable decline of the Holy Roman Empire. After the death of the archbishop of Canterbury in 1205, the king and the English clergy failed to come to an agreement on an acceptable successor. The Pope favored Langton, and named him a cardinal priest of St. Chrysogonus in 1206. The following spring, he was elected the archbishop of Canterbury by the monks of Christ Church in a vote at which Innocent was present. He was consecrated on June 17, 1207.

Stalemate Kept Him in France

The move deepened the crisis between John and Rome. The king barred the new archbishop from entering England, and then began demanding revenues from churches, monasteries, and other religious institutions. In response, Innocent placed England under an Interdict, which prohibited Mass, marriages, and even church bells from ringing, beginning in March of 1208. The following year, hoping to end the stalemate, Langton sailed to Dover and sent word to the throne that he would negotiate with the king there. John, however, refused to travel farther than Kent, and Innocent then excommunicated the king in November of 1209. Meanwhile, in domestic matters, John was encountering opposition from his barons, who resented the increase in taxation necessary to finance an ongoing war with France. In 1199, 1201, and 1205, John promised his barons certain rights, but continued to ask them for more money.

For several years Langton lived in Pontigny, a Cistercian monastery in Auxerre. Historians know that during this period his father, Henry of Langton, was forced to flee to Scotland, because he feared trouble from the king or his agents. By 1212, John was planning an incursion into France to regain lands he had lost to its king, Philip II, in 1204. Worried that the French would ally with the Pope against him and invade England, John decided to make peace with Innocent. In November, he agreed to recognize Langton as the archbishop of Canterbury. In May of 1213, John symbolically surrendered his crown to Pandulf, the papal legate, who then returned it to him with the church's blessing at Ewell, near Dover.

Told Barons of Historic Precedent

Langton arrived in England in July of 1213. He and the other prelates met with John at Winchester, and absolved him from the order of excommunication. Problems between John and the barons continued, however, and the archbishop soon became involved as well. A 1212 plot to murder or at least desert the king in a battle with the Welsh came to light, and Langton forced John to provide a fair trial for the accused barons. In August of 1213, he delivered a sermon at St. Paul's Cathedral in London before an assemblage of barons and clergy. That same day, he allegedly met in private with some of the barons and revealed that during his studies in Paris, he learned of a charter from the year 1031, written on the occasion of Henry I's coronation. In it, the king granted the barons specific liberties.

With this legal precedent in mind, the barons created a new document, called the Unknown Charter because historians did not know of its existence until 1893. John balked at signing it, and the barons contemplated using force. Langton became the intermediary between the king and barons, and strongly discouraged the use of violence. Meanwhile, John's campaign against France had gone badly, and civil strife arose in England. Outright war erupted in May of 1215, and rebels captured London. After negotiating with them, the king met with the barons at a site called Runnymede, on the Thames River in Surrey, on June 19, 1215. There he signed their Magna Carta, or Great Charter. By this time, Langton had sided with the king against the barons, and was serving as his commissioner. It is thought that Langton, nevertheless, played a key role in the document's original drafting, and likely authored the first clause that granted the church and its bishops fullecclesiastical freedom. His is the first signature of witness on the document.

First Statement of Rights

The Magna Carta formed the basis of English constitutional law by limiting the powers of the crown, enshrining feudal rights, and guaranteeing the freedom of the church. Other clauses formally recognized the customs of the towns, and stated that both subjects and communities had certain rights that the king could not encroach upon. Other areas of the document confirmed the validity of a trial by jury and idea of habeas corpus-that a person must be brought before a court in person to determine if the detention is lawful.

The Magna Carta, despite the historical myth surrounding it, had a short life span. Other barons refused to accept it, and John appealed its terms to the Pope, who was now firmly on his side in the war against the barons. Innocent issued an order of excommunication for the barons, but Langton refused to publish it. His former ally in Rome then suspended him. John died the following year, and his son Henry III, not yet of majority, inherited the throne. Langton was reinstated to his Archbishopric in 1218. His role in forcing the removal of the papal legate in 1221 served to give his office of archbishop at Canterbury even more independence, for the absence of the representative from Rome made Langton legatus natus, or legate in his own right. In 1222, he authored a set of constitutions that formed the basis of English ecclesiastical law, and were still used by the courts seven hundred years later. In 1225, the Magna Carta was reissued, and seventeenth century alterations like the Petition of Right and the Habeas Corpus Act helped make it more than a just a document that confirmed feudal privileges. The U.S. Constitution contains several phrases that are clearly linked to it. Langton died in Sussex in July of 1228. He was buried at the Canterbury Cathedral.