But, to keep you entertained in the meantime, read NPR’s article (via Fr. James Martin at America Magazine) on the Pope’s recent message. Actually, it’s really more of a satire (as evidenced by the title, “Give Us This Day Thy Daily Post”), with tips for the Holy Father from several prominent Catholic bloggers should he decide to start his own blog. Enjoy!

Imagine the pope, dressed in his white robes and his half-moon glasses, hunched over his laptop — blogging. We don’t know whether Benedict XVI will soon start a blog, but he does have a Facebook page.

In a recent message, he showed his interest in new technologies when he called on priests to “proclaim the Gospel” through blogs, videos and Web sites.

The call to blog took a lot of people by surprise. After all, the 82-year-old from Bavaria is better known for his conservative doctrine and revival of the Latin Mass than for his computer savvy. At first, the Rev. James Martin was startled as well. Martin is the author of The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything and blogs each day for the Catholic magazine America. Then Martin thought, surely Jesus would blog if he were on the Earth today.

“He didn’t sit around and wait for people to come to him,” Martin observes. “He went out and met people by the Sea of Galilee who were fishing. He went to tax collectors’ booths. He went into synagogues. He went all over the place. And so we need to, figuratively speaking, go out to the ends of the Earth — which includes the blogosphere.”

Bloggers Give The Pope Advice

The pope has not announced his own blog. But if he does, he might be wise to listen to the experts.

“As a blogger, let me say, I have some advice for his holiness,” says Elizabeth Scalia, who writes a blog calledThe Anchoress, which appears on the Web site of the Catholic magazine First Things. “The first being: If I link to you, you must link back to me. There are rules of reciprocation.”

Scalia, who is no relation to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, adds that the pope should aim high.

“He should try to get linked by the bigger blogs,” she advises. “He should try to be linked by, for example,Instapundit and the Huffington Post. Because if gets the exposure there, then he can up his blog ad rates.”

Presumably, ad revenue isn’t high on the pope’s list, although there are a few bankrupt dioceses in the U.S. that could use the money. Scalia says while blogging isn’t heavy lifting — you rarely get out of your chair, she says — the pope should prepare himself for the unrelenting pressure to post.

“You have to blog every day,” she says. “And he’s an 80-something-year-old guy, so maybe he’s not always going to want to blog.”

One solution: “He should have some favorite YouTube videos that he can just slap up there when he’s feeling kind of tired. Like the parade scene from Ferris Bueller,” she says, referring to the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. “Slap that up there and that’s a day’s blogging.”

Hot Links, Comments And Tweets

Of course, a blogging pope would also have to adjust to not only the pace but also the style of the Internet. Benedict is a German theologian famous for his long academic treatises peppered with footnotes. How to adapt?

“Think hot links, not footnotes,” advises Martin. “He can write a couple of paragraphs on, say, St. Augustine, or Origen [of Alexandria], or St. Athanasius. And instead of having 50 footnotes, have 50 hot links. People tend to like that on the blogosphere.”

Martin has another piece of advice: Be charitable. The Internet can be vicious, but the pope must refrain from ad hominem attacks, which, Martin says, the pope probably knows as a Christian. But should the pope allow comments?

“Only if he has a thick skin,” Martin says, laughing. “I would say there are two kinds of angry people. There are angry people, and then there are religiously angry people. And the religiously angry people tend to be angrier than the angry people.”

Still, David Weinberger, who writes about politics and culture on Joho the Blog, sees some dangers ahead. He says if the pope wants to spread the Christian message, he might be surprised at the result.

“Putting a message out over the Internet is exactly the same thing as losing total control of your message,” he says. “People take it up, they republish it, they make fun of it, they contextualize it. The simple message becomes incredibly complex because of all the ideas that are pulled out and linked to it. That means that the very thing that you wanted in your message was control and what you ended up with was the opposite of control.”

Which raises the question: Can something as nuanced as God’s word be tweeted?

“Trying to boil things down into tweetable form has a long history” in religion, he says.

Weinberger cites a theologian of his own tradition: Moses, who wrote the Ten Commandments on a couple of tablets. All those commandments — do not murder, do not lie, do not steal, etc. — can easily be boiled down to Twitter’s 140 character limit.

What about the Sermon on the Mount? That will require a hyperlink.

Kýrie, eléison; Christé, eléison; Kýrie, eléison.

“Lord, have mercy; Christ, have mercy; Lord, have mercy.”

There’s a lot that can be written about this (as well as about the fact that US law grants personhood to corporations but not to unborn human beings), but I’d like to start with a question: is the doctrine of corporate personhood acceptable under the modern social teaching of the Catholic Church? Because to me, it seems inimical to the Christian humanism that underlies these teachings, especially as articulated by Popes John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI.

A long while ago, a reader of this blog asked what my “Member, Coalition for Clarity/Because Torture is Intrinsically Evil” item on my sidebar meant. Was there a group called “Coalition for Clarity?” Who were its members?

Truth is, the group is (thus far) fictional. I put the sidebar item (and the picture that I hope is okay to use, but will remove if it’s not) up as a statement of my principles on torture, which are as follows:

1. Torture is intrinsically evil. Period. We’re not entitled to do it, not under “ticking time bomb” or any other scenarios, just as we’re not permitted to engage in acts of rape, murder, etc. under “ticking time bomb” scenarios. What is intrinsically evil may not be done.

2. Catholics especially have a moral obligation to stand against torture. Whatever may have been done or excused or tolerated in the past, Catholics today are not in a position where they may pretend to ignorance about the Church’s teachings on torture. The Church’s teachings include this, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong.Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizationsperformed on innocent persons are against the moral law.⁹¹

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

3. The enumeration of the following in the definition of torture above: “…to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred…” in no way implies that torture may be used for other reasons, including interrogation; there is also no “good guys exception” which permits torture by the “good guys” in order to prevent worse acts of terror or war by the “bad guys.” Though this seems blindingly obvious to me, I never cease to be amazed at the number of Catholics who would swear to both an “enhanced interrogation exception” or a “good guys exception” in the Church’s discussion of torture.

4. Most of what is called “enhanced interrogation” is, in fact, torture. Waterboarding, cold cells, sleep deprivation, and the like are torture tactics. In one of the late Fulton Sheen’s books, he includes a picture of a Soviet “torture cell” which is a small room in which every surface is made impossible to sit or lie down on (including the floor) in various ways (e.g., covered in spikes, slanted at a steep angle, etc.) so that the prisoner had to stand, hour after weary hour, in the tiny bit of clear floor space. We had no problem seeing this for what it was–torture–when the former U.S.S.R. was the entity responsible for it–but now, all of a sudden, that sort of thing’s just dandy so long as the Stars and Stripes are flying overhead?

5. I owe most of my understanding of the torture issue to this man, and I’m grateful for his persistent and (mostly) patient explanations as to why Catholics can’t support torture, full stop. Any Catholic who is wrestling with the issue in good conscience would do well to search Mark’s blog for his many posts on the subject. I do believe it is possible for Catholics to wrestle with this issue in good conscience. Certainly we believe in the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty. The problem with torture is that it does not really involve either; the person being tortured has generally been deprived of his legal rights, has not had a trial, has not been judged guilty; the innocent are quite likely not to be protected at all by the torture of a prisoner, and the prisoner himself may turn out to be innocent of terror activities or ties. We can’t morally decide that torture is a solution to any problem.

Should there be a Coalition for Clarity? I think there should be, and that Catholic bloggers who, regardless of their political leanings, are firm in the conviction that torture is intrinsically evil and may not be condoned under any circumstances should be vocal about saying so. It’s especially necessary given Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts’ views on torture, and the way those views are already being spun by what Mark Shea likes to call the “Rubber-hose Right.” As someone who often votes for Republicans, it is absolutely unconscionable to me that the Republican Party or any observer of it would decide that my vote was a vote for torture, and I would rather see Republicans lose every election from here to kingdom come than have there be the slightest bit of confusion as to the utter moral repugnance of torture to many of us who have reluctantly supported the GOP for their stance on other issues.

Essentially, I will be marching on Friday because I do not believe that the wealthiest, most generous nation on Earth should have to choose between the needs of mothers and the rights of their children. I do not believe that we should have to choose between protecting the rights of the born and those of the unborn. I believe that the dichotomy that is represented by the abortion debate–the notion that one can stand up for the unborn or stand up for women, and not both–is a tragic lie (and one that both sides, in their own ways, are responsible for perpetuating).

I know that this issue is not an abstract one; I know that, as President Obama often says, no woman faces the prospect of having an abortion lightly. I know that many who find themselves in such situations have to worry about whether they can financially support another child; some have undergone the trauma of rape or incest; and some are under intense pressure from husbands, boyfriends, or parents to “do away with” their “problem.”

But ultimately I cannot accept that violence is the answer to tragedies like this. Ultimately I believe that the violence of abortion compounds, rather than fixes, the tragedy. Ultimately I believe that to say to a woman, “Just get an abortion and everything will be fine,” is the easy way out, a way of neglecting the larger questions about the socioeconomic conditions that brought her to the point where she would even consider such a wholly unnatural act. In short, I believe, to paraphrase the motto of Feminists for Life, that all of us, especially women, deserve better than abortion. Life, no matter what stage it’s at and no matter how bad the circumstances of its conception are, is beautiful. And that is why I’ll be marching on Friday with 300,000 Americans–men and women, young and old, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, of every race and religion–because regardless of my differences with some of them on other issues, they believe the same thing. America can do better.

PS: Before the March, I’ll be attending the annual breakfast hosted by Democrats for Life, an organization that (along with Feminists for Life) does a lot of great work intended to help address the socioeconomic conditions that have led to the prevalence of abortion in our society. Should be a great event. If you’re interested, sign up here.

The Republican Party, to be quite honest, scares the hell out of me. The party’s positions on torture and preemptive war border on fascism, and I don’t mean that as hyperbole (and don’t even get me started on Catholics who try to defend those positions). Its base has become ever more radical, and its leaders and candidates (including Scott Brown) openly court such fringe elements as the blatantly racist “birthers.” On economic issues, they, with no apparent sense of irony, attempt to convince Americans that the same policies (tax cuts and deregulation) that got us into the current crisis will get us out. No amount of empty posturing on abortion will convince me that the Republican Party’s vision for America is not extremely, extremely dangerous. It is with great trepidation that I look at the prospect of them taking over the legislative and/or executive branches.

With all of that said, I honestly cannot say that the Democratic Party is that much more deserving of my support. I say that as someone who agrees with probably ninety percent of their platform. Its officeholders’ willingness to give up on health care reform due to the results of one special election demonstrates that, with rare exceptions, they are less interested in actually effecting positive change than they are in maintaining their jobs. Of course, from my perspective, it doesn’t really help that the party is wholly in the pockets of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

So what will I do this November? I don’t know yet. My votes, of course, will be based not on party affiliation, but on my assessment of each candidate’s relative merits. But I do know that, one way or another, I am more fearful for the future of my country than I was even in the darkest days of the Bush Administration.

1. I can’t wait to hear Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other pathetic Jack Bauer wannabes try to defend the “enhanced interrogation” techniques that led to these deaths, and/or smear this brave whistleblower as a traitor.

2. I can’t wait to hear President Obama come up with a reason why, even in light of these revelations, he is still refusing to support an investigation of any high-ranking Bush Administration officials for possible war crimes.

And please, let’s be clear: what this soldier describes was a war crime under every possible definition of the term. It is time to stop making excuses and recognize the fact that the United States of America, under the administration of President George W. Bush (who, by the way, is about to receive a major pro-life award from a supposedly Catholic organization), tortured people to death and then covered it up. Of course, within the next week, almost every so-called “conservative” will insist that anyone who thinks that this is a bad thing is a liberal sissy who is insufficiently tough on terror. God save us all.

UPDATE

The whole affair reminds me of this classic interview from The Daily Show with John Stewart.

Jon Stewart: “How is fake drowning, sleep deprivation, how isn’t that torture?”

John Oliver (“Senior Interrogation Analyst”): “That is not torture.”

Jon Stewart: “Why?”

John Oliver: “Because we don’t torture.”

“A lot of people who never prayed or believed — now they believe,” said Cristina Bailey, a 24-year-old clerk.

In parks and backyards, anywhere a group gathers, the prayers of the Haitians can be heard. Last week, the call-and-response chanting and clapping that accompany those prayers pierced the darkness of night and the pre-dawn hours — sometimes as early as 4 a.m. The singing and praying was particularly intense in Champs de Mars plaza, where hundreds of people have taken refuge. But the scene was repeated throughout the city, with preachers on megaphones exhorting the faithful, who responded with lyrics like “O Lord, keep me close to you” and “Forgive me, Jesus.”

Many preachers are telling followers not to lose faith, that God remains with them regardless of what’s happened.

Most Haitians don’t feel abandoned, Bailey said.

“People don’t blame Jesus for all these things,” she said. “They have faith. They believe that Jesus saved them and are thankful for that.”

erhaps few personified that deep belief better than 11-year-old Anaika Saint Louis, who was pulled from the rubble Thursday night and later died. Her leg had been crushed, and doctors thought they might have to amputate her feet. She said she didn’t care.

“Thank you, God, because he saved my life,” she said. “If I lose my feet, I always had my life.”

Jean Mackenle Verpre also suffered a crushing leg injury and was freed after 48 hours underground.

Asked what kept him going, he answered without hesitation: He believes in Jesus Christ and put his life in God’s hands.

I’ll be the first to say that I find this surprising, and that I don’t really understand it. Though I do share the same faith (Christianity, specifically Catholic Christianity) as 80% of the Haitian people, mine is a faith that has never been tested by adversity. I always thought that perhaps the worst thing I could say to someone who has experienced a tragedy is, “Don’t worry, it’s all part of God’s plan.” The apostle of New Atheism, Christopher Hitchens, always says that the death of a single child should cause us to doubt the existence of a benevolent deity, and I cannot deny the emotional strength of that argument even as I reject it intellectually. Let’s be realistic: intellectual arguments don’t help someone who has lost their family in an earthquake. The last thing that a suffering person needs is a theological lecture on how their suffering is really the door to glory, no matter how true that may be.

Or so I thought. It appears that for many Haitians, their Christianity has given some sort of meaning to their suffering, and provided them a strength upon which those of us who will never experience what they went through can only look in awe. It’s not something that I understand. All that I can conclude, from my perspective as an American Catholic, is that the priest who led Adoration in Caldwell Chapel last Wednesday was correct. In his homily, he said that “Jesus Christ is as present among the ruins of Haiti as He is in the Blessed Sacrament upon the altar.” In some mysterious, incomprehensible way, the people of Haiti seem to have felt that presence.

So, for those who survived, may God continue to give them strength as they prepare their dead for burial and begin to rebuild their country, and may He inspire us to provide them the support that they need. And for those who died:

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem. Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

“May angels lead you into Paradise; upon your arrival, may the martyrs receive you and lead you to the holy city of Jerusalem. May the ranks of angels receive you, and with Lazarus, the poor man, may you have eternal rest.”

Simply put, STAND is unique in that it is quite possibly the only student-run organization that seeks long-term, proactive policy solutions to a complex international issue. Most nonprofits that are administered in whole or in part by students focus on one of two areas: responding (primarily through fundraising) to hot-button, late-breaking, high-visibility events like the recent earthquake in Haiti; and campaigning for political candidates (usually popular, charismatic ones like Barack Obama). Now, before you accuse me of being an insensitive asshole, let me hasten to note there is nothing wrong with responding to crises; obviously, events of the scale that we saw in Haiti, or before that in New Orleans and Southeast Asia, demand an immediate and overwhelming public response, and student groups on campuses around the country form an important part of that response. Nor is there anything wrong with campaigning for political candidates; on the contrary, the increased youth interest and participation in our political process over the past few years is a very positive trend.

However, positive, lasting solutions to the problems of our world require more than fundraising for humanitarian aid in the latest hot spot, and more than the election of candidates who claim to share your vision of change (as many young activists have found, to their great chagrin, after a year of President Obama). Positive, lasting change requires smart advocacy in favor of a set of carefully-designed policies intended not only to resolve current problems but also to prevent future ones. This type of advocacy is almost exclusively the domain of adult organizations staffed by full-time professionals. I say “almost exclusively” because there is one exception: STAND.

To be sure, many of our individual actions are somewhat reactive. After all, genocide and/or mass atrocities are ongoing in countries throughout the world, particularly Sudan, Burma, and Congo. We advocate a number of policies that are directly intended to help ameliorate these specific crises, and we recognize that a sense of urgency and immediacy is important in rallying campuses and communities around a cause. However, our core mission is proactive, not reactive. We do not simply seek to end atrocities that are happening today; we seek to prevent them from happening tomorrow, to permanently ban the scourge of genocide from the face of this Earth. To this end, we work with our parent organization, Genocide Intervention Network, as well as other adult-run organizations in a long-run effort to implement the recommendations of the Genocide Prevention Task Force. In the even longer term, we seek to create what we call a “permanent anti-genocide constituency” of citizens who will hold our elected officials politically accountable for their response to future instances of mass atrocities, just as there are constituencies that hold them responsible for their actions on issues like gun control and health care reform.

Make no mistake: these efforts are not sexy. They do not always generate the same excitement as a political campaign or an emergency fundraising drive. But they are important, and in the long run, they will pay off. STAND students are dedicated to this mission, and to this long-term vision. We take the time to understand the issues, and we are committed both to smart advocacy (to implement these policies) and to education (to build the constituency that will ensure the success of the policies). And that, in brief, is why I love STAND. As the National High School Outreach Coordinator, I have the privilege to work with national and grassroots student leaders who know what real change requires and are willing to see it through. I know of no other student-run organization that can make the same claim.

Addendum and disclaimer: much as I would like to claim otherwise, STAND’s general awesomeness has very little, if anything, to do with me personally. A large, eclectic, and tireless group of students made the organization into what it is today (i.e. what I just described), and I, along with the rest of the current leadership team, stand on their shoulders. The pride that you detected in this post is pride of association, not personal pride, because the latter would be completely unwarranted.