The State is No Substitute for You

This is for those who insist that Pope Benedict XVI does not understand the dangers of the welfare state. Writing in his encyclical "Deus Caritas Est," which to the Latin-challenged means "God is Love," the Pope writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person — every person — needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need . . . . In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) — a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human”

The emphasis is mine, because that is the crux of many arguments between conservatives and progressives over the relationship between men and government. Progressives believe that rights devolve out of social arrangements -- the State -- and are constantly in flux with the needs of the whole. Classic conservatives -- perhaps I should refer to them as libertarian -- believe that all rights come from God, are given to each of us as individuals as a birthright, and that each of us has the responsibility -- call it free will -- to exercise those rights.

And while we may lend or even cede some of these precious rights voluntarily through freely chosen decisions, none of our individual rights and responsibilities can be taken from us by force without violating the arrangement we have with God.

But, you may counter, a majority of people on this planet do not have this understanding, and certainly they do not enjoy the individual freedoms of Americans. How can you reconcile your beliefs with this reality?

And I will answer, just because the history of mankind is awash with the abrogation of God-given rights does not justify any of it. Evil allowed to flourish, even for the most benign or beneficial of reasons, is still evil and perhaps is even a greater evil because it presumes to call itself "good." God will deal with all of this in His own good time.

We, on the other hand, have been given a set of tremendous blessings and responsibilities by an enlightened and inspired group of founding fathers who recognized God's hand in the creation of these United States. We must relearn the wisdom of the founding and meet the challenge of defending individual liberties for all Americans from those who would strip them from us and our posterity.

For if freedom dies in America, it may be a long time before it blooms again anywhere else.

Why Condoms Aren't Africa's AIDS Solution

I get so tired of "bullet point" journalism from the mainstream, such as their coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's current African pilgrimage. So far the media coverage amounts to about one sentence: "... and the pope, in Africa, has condemned the distribution and use of condoms to fight AIDS."

Pope Benedict had much more to say, and if you see the context, you can understand his point.

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.

“Therefore, I would say that our double effort is to renew the human person internally, to give spiritual and human strength to a way of behaving that is just towards our own body and the other person’s body; and this capacity of suffering with those who suffer, to remain present in trying situations."

But perhaps the language is too complex for simplistic reporters, so let's see if I can put this into simpler terms.

Teaching people to use condoms implies that no other part of their behavior or outlook should change. So you still have men seeking multiple sex partners, and women accepting this behavior because it is part of the traditional culture of Africa. Given that no condom is 100 percent effective in blocking either HIV transmission or pregnancy -- failure rates of even 5 percent are not uncommon -- you may well make the problem worse as people assume they are safe.

When you teach abstinence and fidelity, or at the very least, personal responsibility so that those who are infected adopt a moral code that says "I refuse to infect anyone else," then you begin to change the culture. If the culture is not changed, the culture will die.

I fear the dirty little secret of many "western" reporters is that they don't mind if Africa dies. That is why there is relatively little outcry about the various civil wars and insurrections that take place there. That is why millions were massacred in Rwanda in the early 1990s, and the West stood by and watched. That is why Darfur gets the least amount of real attention possible. Let's face it: most Americans profess to care but would rather ship over a crate of condoms and declare that they've done their part.

I'm glad the Catholic Church, which is experiencing rapid growth in much of that continent, has a strong presence there.

Pelosi & The Pope Revisited

If the Pope meets with the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and no video equipment or photographers are allowed, did the meeting really happen?

That's the humor behind a more serious analysis of why the Vatican prevented photo and video records of the recent meeting Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi. This was an unusual restriction but apparently the pontiff thought it necessary so that Pelosi would not use such imagery to convey an image to American voters that she and the pope are buddies.

So why did Pelosi get the no-photos treatment?

Before Pelosi’s visit, false rumors had been swirling on the Internet that the pope was going to present her with an award. Instead, the pope told her that all Catholics, especially lawmakers, must work to protect life at every stage. The pope’s message to Pelosi, a Catholic Democrat, was clearly aimed at reversing her support for keeping abortion legal.

In not releasing photos, the Vatican minimized the encounter and at the same time carefully controlled perceptions of the meeting. A Vatican statement released after the meeting said the pope “briefly greeted” Pelosi. The statement said “His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.”

While the Vatican’s statement focused on abortion, Pelosi’s statement after the meeting had a different take. She said that she praised “the church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel.”

Two very different views of the same meeting, each party carefully controlling the message.

Would a photo of Pelosi and the pope together change perceptions of their meeting?

On walls throughout the world hang countless images of individuals meeting the pope. The formula used in the photos is tried and true: A smiling pope and a smiling subject meeting each other and shaking hands. The images convey an implicit connection with the pope and imply a sense of the pontiff bestowing his favor on the subject.

For all their simplicity, these images are very powerful. For many they are treasured keepsakes, but they are also used by countless people to promote themselves and their causes.

In not allowing photos of Pelosi meeting the pope, the Vatican recognized the power of the still image and its ability to be interpreted and used in many ways. Unlike a written statement, a still image is much more open to having many different interpretations.

And who said the Vatican isn't media savvy?

-------

GRATUITOUS SELF-CONGRATULATORY NOTE - This is post 1,100.