That Was Going On? Really?

Conservative Catholicism: The Future of the Church

From the Wall Street Journal:

In his Holy Thursday homily at St. Peter’s Basilica on April 5, Pope Benedict XVI denounced calls from some Catholics for optional celibacy among priests and for women’s ordination. The pope said that “true renewal” comes only through the “joy of faith” and “radicalism of obedience.”

And renewal is coming. After the 2002 scandal about sexual abuse by clergy, progressive Catholics were predicting the end of the celibate male priesthood in books like “Full Pews and Empty Altars” and “The Death of Priesthood.” Yet today the number of priestly ordinations is steadily increasing.

A new seminary is to be built near Charlotte, N.C., and the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., has expanded its facilities to accommodate the surge in priestly candidates. Boston’s Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley recently told the National Catholic Register that when he arrived in 2003 to lead that archdiocese he was advised to close the seminary. Now there are 70 men in Boston studying to be priests, and the seminary has had to turn away candidates for lack of space.

According to the Vatican’s Central Office of Church Statistics, there were more than 5,000 more Catholic priests world-wide in 2009 than there were in 1999. This is welcome news for a growing Catholic population that has suffered through a real shortage of priests.

The situation in the U.S. is still tenuous. The number of American Catholics has grown to 77.7 million, up from 50 million in 1980. But the priest-to-parishioner ratio has changed for the worse. In 1965, there was one priest for every 780 American parishioners. By 1985, there was one priest for every 900 Catholics, and by 2011 there was one for every 2,000. In dioceses where there are few ordinations, such as New York’s Rochester and Albany, people know this shortage well.

Still, the future is encouraging. There were 467 new priestly ordinations in the U.S. last year, according to a survey by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, up from 442 a decade ago.

While some of the highest numbers of new priests are in the Catholic-majority cities of Newark, N.J., and Philadelphia, ordinations in Washington, D.C. (18 last year) and Chicago (26) also are booming. The biggest gains are not only in traditional Catholic strongholds. In Lincoln, Neb., Catholics constitute only 16% of the population yet have some of the strongest numbers of ordinations. In 2011, there were 10 men ordained as priests in Lincoln.

What explains the trend? Nearly 20 years ago, Archbishop Elden Curtiss, then leader of the Omaha, Neb., diocese, suggested that when dioceses are unambiguous and allow a minimum of dissent about the male, celibate priesthood, more candidates answer the call to the priesthood. Our preliminary research on the correlates of priestly ordinations reveals that the dioceses with the largest numbers of new priests are led by courageous bishops with faithful and inspirational vocations offices.

Leadership and adherence to church doctrine certainly distinguish the bishop of Lincoln, the Most Rev. Fabian Bruskewitz. He made national news in 1996 when he stated that members of dissident Catholic groups including Call to Action and Catholics for Choice had automatically excommunicated themselves from the church.

Cardinal Francis George, the longtime leader of the Chicago archdiocese, once gave a homily that startled the faithful by pronouncing liberal Catholicism “an exhausted project . . . parasitical on a substance that no longer exists.” Declaring that Catholics are at a “turning point” in the life of the church in this country, the cardinal concluded that the bishops must stand as a “reality check for the apostolic faith.”

Such forthright defense of the faith and doctrine stands in clear contrast to the emphasis of an earlier generation of Catholic theologians and historians. Many boomer priests and scholars were shaped by what they believed was an “unfulfilled promise” of Vatican II to embrace modernity. Claiming that the only salvation for the church would be to ordain women, remove the celibacy requirement and empower the laity, theologians such as Paul Lakeland, a Fairfield University professor and former Jesuit priest, have demanded that much of the teaching authority of the bishops and priests be transferred to the laity.

This aging generation of progressives continues to lobby church leaders to change Catholic teachings on reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and women’s ordination. But it is being replaced by younger men and women who are attracted to the church because of the very timelessness of its teachings.

They are attracted to the philosophy, the art, the literature and the theology that make Catholicism countercultural. They are drawn to the beauty of the liturgy and the church’s commitment to the dignity of the individual. They want to be contributors to that commitment—alongside faithful and courageous bishops who ask them to make sacrifices. It is time for Catholics to celebrate their arrival.

Of course, the same thing is happening within Protestantism. Liberal denominations that spend their time accepting gay marriage, criticizing politicians like Paul Ryan and divesting themselves of stock in companies that do business with Israel are declining. More conservative denominations (and liberal denominations in the Global South -- Methodists and Anglicans in Africa, for example) are at least holding their own, and often prospering.

None of this, of course, proves that liberals in the Church are wrong on theology. But it does prove that their liberal views simply aren’t consistent with a growing, thriving Church.

The On-Again/Off-Again French/Latin Mass

We have heard for several days that the French Honor Society would be sponsoring a mass tomorrow night. It would be the “Latin Mass” we were told, but with parts in French.

It was to be led by Rev. Canon Olivier Meney, who is the “go to” guy for the Latin Mass in southeastern Wisconsin.

Indeed, just a few minutes ago we got the flyer for the event.

But now it has been cancelled. We confirmed that with Rev. Meney’s secretary, and with Emily Schumacher-Novak in Campus Ministry.

According to Schumacher-Novak, “the student organization wasn’t able to get the proper confirmations on the event in time to do it.” They were unable to get the proper information from Fr. Meney, and they didn’t have confirmation from the Office of Student Development. Further, “we thought let’s push it back a little bit so they can get the publicity out in time and do it correctly rather than haphazardly.”

More critically, Schumacher-Novak explained “I needed to check with Fr. Meney as to which form of the mass he was doing.” She explained that “we don’t have permission on the campus to do the Extraordinary Form [Latin Mass] at this point in time.”

But Meney’s secretary confirmed that part of the mass would indeed have been in Latin.

A student organization, the Robert Bellarmine Society, has been trying to get the Latin mass established on campus for most of this academic year, and has faced the resistance of the Campus Ministry.

No doubt, a narrow reading of the guidelines put forth by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee supports their refusal. But of course, if they really wanted too allow the Latin Mass, permission would not be hard to obtain.

What we appear to have from the Campus Ministry is a cultural aversion to the Extraordinary Form.

Michael Coren: Catholics Are Right

From Canadian author and journalist Michael Coren, a viewpoint that is rather uncommon around Marquette.

We happen to be Protestant, and so have no pressing need to defend the Catholic Church.

But fair is fair, and Coren debunks a variety of notions that are the stock-in-trade of anti-Catholic types, including a lot of people who call themselves Catholic.

Warrior Among Top 200 “Catholic Blogs”

We were a bit surprised to find our blog listed among the Top 200 Catholic blogs.

Admittedly, we are holding onto the place by our fingernails, being in a four-way tie for the 197 rank.

This is odd since we aren’t Catholic.

Of course, this isn’t as bizarre as being (say) listed among the Top 200 liberal blogs. We do bring a Christian perspective to certain issues, and do report on what’s going on around Marquette University, and do support the rather tattered “Catholic mission” of Marquette. So the average conservative, loyal Catholic will probably find our posts simpatico.

It’s just a little odd to get an honor for which you aren’t really eligible.

Latin Mass Tonight

St. Robert Bellarmine Society will be sponsoring a Latin Mass tonight, at the Joan of Arc Chapel at 7:00 p.m.

The mass will be led by Reverend Canon Olivier Meney, Rector of St. Stanislaus Oratory in Milwaukee.

Denying Communion To Pro-Abortion Catholics: The Hypocrisy Factor

The current brouhaha over the fact that Bishop Thomas Tobin told “Catholic” pro-abortion politician U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy not to take communion could use some historical perspective.

Let’s roll the clock back almost 50 years, to Louisiana where Catholic politicians who were segregationists were disciplined by the church for their opposition to church teaching about racial integration.

Three Louisiana Catholics were well known for their diehard stances against integration. Leander Perez was once a state judge but is best known as the political boss of Plaquemines Parish, an extremely isolated rural area south of New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Under Perez’s leadership, many of the black people of Plaquemines lived in a debased state of peonage little better than slavery. In 1960, Perez retired and devoted himself full time to the battle against integration. Perez was joined in the public fight by Una Gaillot, the leader of a militantly segregationist group called Save Our Nation, and Jackson Ricau, who was executive director of the New Orleans Citizens’ Council. All three publicly repudiated the theological arguments behind Rummel’s statements on racial equality and led efforts to encourage other lay Catholics to defy Rummel and to undermine the church.

On March 31, 1962, Rummel sent letters to Ricau, Gaillot, and Perez, warning them that their actions were in direct defiance of his authority over Catholic schools and that they were in danger of excommunication. All refused to curtail their activities. On April 16, 1962, the chancellor of the archdiocese, Msgr. Charles J. Plauche, announced that the three had been excommunicated. They were to be denied the sacraments and a Catholic burial, and were forbidden from attending Mass (although they would not be physically ejected if they did so). The Vatican later commended Rummel for his courage in the face of entrenched American racism.

There is more here.

So, did the Church violate the “separation of church and state” here?

Did in interfere with “freedom of conscience” here?

The average liberal Catholic will say “but that was segregation, and that was bad.”

But of course, for the Church abortion is bad. Indeed, segregated black people are at least alive, while abortion kills babies, and disproportionately black babies.

Quite simply, it depends on whose ox is gored. Liberal Catholics are quite happy to see the Church enforce, with excommunication if necessary, positions that they agree with.

Archbishop Dolan in New York

Milwaukee’s former Archbishop is making rather a splash in the Big Apple.

Check out the coverage of the NBC local affiliate.

Catholic “Social Justice” Bureaucracy Dominated by Leftists

We are a little late on this, but it’s still worth noting.

From the Free Republic:

This Sunday (Nov. 23rd) is the annual collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). You may have heard that the CCHD had given over a million dollars per year to ACORN, a radically leftist group which seeks the election of “progressive” anti-life politicians among other things. The CCHD says that they will no longer be giving our donations to ACORN because there was reported embezzlement by [the brother of ] ACORN founder Wade Rathke some time ago. (see: http://www.usccb.org/cchd/morin_acorn_report.shtml)

[Editors Note: Wade Rathke was involved in covering up his brother’s embezzlement.]

There is a lot of confusion about what the CCHD is, how it works and whether faithful Catholics can be sure their donations will be put to use in a way consistent with Catholic teaching.

The CCHD is a social justice group established by the US Bishops. They collect money and then farm it out to various local and national organizations throughout the US. This is absolutely a fine and legitimate thing to do. Unfortunately, the groups selected by the CCHD to be stewards of our donations include many organizations which promote either Marxist socialism or anti-life/anti- church teaching. A complete list of last years grantees can be found here.

Just hearing the name “Catholic Campaign for Human Development” might make one think that money goes to scholarships for needy students, or youth centers in poor neighborhoods, or job training for women trying to get off welfare.

That assumption would be dead wrong. The list of people getting the money includes virtually nobody with anything other than a leftist political agenda.

Some random examples:

The Intercommunity Peace and Justice Center: This Seattle-based leftist Catholic group actively promotes women’s ordination, radical feminism, socialism, radical environmentalism, and a disregard for Church tradition. Read the brochure for their “Northwest Catholic Women’s Convocation” and ask yourself if this is something you would like to support via your CCHD donation. Also, note that one of the featured speakers is Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson who worships God as a goddess and stated “every aspect” of the Catholic faith “is not just tainted but perverted by the evil of patriarchy. It is not that the tradition has some problems; the tradition is the problem.” (see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07111305.html)

Chinese Progressive Association: A Marxist/socialist group. (listed as a “meeting ground” in the communist newsletter “Voice of Revolution”
http://www.usmlo.org/arch2006/2006-04/VR060407.HTM) Supports Homosexual Marriage
(http://www.marriageequality.org/?page=supporters).

The Somali Action Alliance: lists both the CCHD and the very pro-abortion Women’s Foundation of MN as partners. (see: http://www.somaliactionalliance.org/news.php and http://www.wfmn.org/health.shtml)

Los Angeles chapter of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice: Chairman is Rev. James M. Lawson Jr. who in 2001 stated in a speech: “The U.S. has become the number-one enemy of peace and justice in the world today.” He regularly speaks on Marxist themes and has stated “The revolution this nation needs has not yet begun.”

(http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/)

The simple fact is that the Church has always been subject to penetration by secular forces, and the leftist tilt of the “social justice” bureaucracy is just the latest example of something that has been happening for 2,000 years.

But there may still be, out there, some devout but somewhat naïve Catholics who think that if some institution is part of the church bureaucracy it is actually loyal to Church teaching.

They might also assume that if they happen to have a relatively conservative Archbishop (like Dolan) that people and projects radically contrary to Church teaching and subversive of church doctrine will be kept out of the Archdiocese.

The reality: the enemy is within.

Catholic Gay Priest Problem

Via Dad29, a post from Crunchy Con comments on the “Gay Priest Problem.”

Although child molesters in society generally are more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual, it’s very different where the Catholic priesthood is concerned.

The issue is not nearly so simple as the notion that “gays are child molesters.”

The story is much more complex, involving the domination of many seminaries by open and aggressive homosexuals. And no, not just guys who lust after other guys, but men who unashamedly engage in homosexual sex. Indeed, seminarians (gay and straight) who want to remain celibate are often marginalized.

It’s not, in other words, about the sinful nature of individuals (something Christianity holds to be universal) but about a perverse culture.

The mainstream media, not surprisingly, won’t touch the issue.

Fr. Bryan Massingale: Politically Correct Race Hustler

From Daniel Suhr of GOP3.COM, a thorough deconstruction of a fellow who appears to be Dan Maguire’s successor as the high-profile leftist in Marquette’s Theology Department.

It has been reported to me that during his homily celebrating the opening of Mission Week, Fr. Bryan Massingale, associate professor of theology, said that when you fight for justice, “People may write about you on blogs, or call you liberal or politically correct.”

But as Shur makes quite clear, Massingale is liberal (or leftist) and is politically correct.

Anybody who wants to dispute that might find any statement of his that contradicts the standard orthodoxy of secular liberals.

A key element of Massingale’s rhetoric is the idea of “white privilege:” the idea that if you are white you have it better than most black people, and should feel guilty about that.

Well, you do have it better and you should not feel guilty about that.

If black people are worse off on average than white people, the causes are complex, but blathering about “white privilege” gets you nowhere in understanding them.

Black people, for example, are worse off because they are much more likely to have been born out of wedlock, or to have grown up in a single parent family. Is it the fault of white people that black guys knock up black girls and women and then run off? The hard core politically correct types say “yes,” but that’s because they hold the idea, profoundly demeaning to black people, that the latter can’t be expected to make moral decisions.

The generation of black people that marched with Martin Luther King was able to make moral decisions. Today’s generation could too, but are less likely to if people like Massingale tell them they are not expected to.

Black people are much more likely to be victimized by crime than whites. But it’s not Klansmen doing the victimizing. It’s other blacks. Again, trying to blame whites is not convincing.

Where whites are to blame, they are mostly long dead. Of course, in the world of the politically correct, just being white taints one with the sins of the slaveowners. But this is no better than the old racist canard that blacks bear the Mark of Cain.

For the politically correct, it doesn’t matter if an ancestor of yours died fighting on the Union side in the Civil War. You are still tainted.

The blather about white privilege is simply a strategy for manipulating people. As Massingale put it: “The reality of one’s white privilege does not make him or her an evil individual; what a person does with that privilege is the acid-test of his or her personal morality.” Translation: adopt our political agenda, or you are an evil person.

A common theme among the victim mongers is the notion that whites are well off because they exploited blacks. As Massingale’s document asks rhetorically: “‘Why should I give up a social status that benefits me?’ We answer: ‘Because the privileges of some are obtained at the expense of others.’”

This, quite simply, is nonsense.

If it were true the South, where slavery was widespread after it had withered away in the North, would have been richer and more prosperous than the North. In fact, the South ended the Civil War poor and remained crushingly poor up until only a couple of generations ago. While the slave owners may have benefited the region did not.

Slavery and segregation did not make whites any better off, with the arguable exception of the slave owners. Probably the people who benefited most were slave traders.

But a lot of those were blacks in Africa.

In the narrow little zero-sum world of the politically correct, nobody gets better off unless they make somebody worse off. This belief is why they tend to be socialists. John Paul the Great, in Centesimus Annus, preached the gospel of economic growth, opportunity, entrepreneurship and free markets. Clerical leftists like Massingale essentially blew this off, and continued to take their cues from secular leftists.

Live Blogging Archbishop Timothy Dolan From the Marquette Law School

Official starting time: 12:10. We are running a couple of minutes late.

12:15 -- Mike Gousha and Dolan walk in.

It’s a full house, with extra chairs being brought in.

Gousha introduces Dolan, who gets a nice round of applause when Gousha says to “make him welcome.”

Gousha: Asks about Dolans recent trip to Washington. What did Dolan tell the assembled crowd in DC?

Dolan: The ceremony was called the Red Mass, and goes back to the Middle Ages. Several Supreme Court Justices attended. Dolan read the creation story from Genesis, which he told the group means that man and woman are created in the image of God. Stressed that non-Christians have taken a similar view, and the U.S. was based on the notion that people have inalienable rights because they are created in the image of God.

This has consequences for all kinds of issues, from war and peace to the sanctity of innocent life.

Dolan addresses the notion that this idea involves “Catholics are forcing their ideas on other people.” Dolan says that any “thinking person” will come to a conclusion like that of the Church.

Gousha: What role should faith play in (say) the decisions a judge makes.

Dolan: “I would hope it would play a big role.” Faith is not something forced on people but something that “wells up from the inside.” But, of course, the key loyalty of a Justice will be to the Constitution.

Gousha: What about Archbishop Burke, who would deny Rudy Giuliani communion for support of abortion?

Dolan: “I think it’s getting warm in here.” (laughter) Dolan says good things about Burke, and then mentions a resolution of the Bishops. The Bishops agree on general principles (abortion is immoral), but then individual Bishops have to decide how they implement the principles. That is a matter of prudential judgment.

Burke himself told the Bishops that he didn’t mean to put other Bishops on the spot, or imply that all Bishops should adopt that policy. Dolan asks “have I answered the question?” (It’s obvious he hasn’t.)

Gousha: What about controversial statements that came from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith that other (non-Catholic) religions are defective?

Dolan: explains that this was in response to questions coming from around the world.

Dolan seems to agree that the Catholic Church is the “one true church,” but quickly adds that other faiths can have the truth.

He points out that there was “not much new” in the statement. Catholics do belong to the “one truth church” but have a profound respect for people of other faiths.

Gousha: Clergy sex abuse scandal. How does it now stand?

Dolan: “Continues to be a source of pain and scandal and hurt” in the Church. Says the issue has been a “tsunami of sadness.” Says there are “objective reasons for hope.” Quotes child abuse expert saying that there is no other organization in the U.S. that has been taking the issue as seriously as the Church.

More from Dolan: It is good to be constantly an issue, since “pain is a purifier.” Hopes the Church, which was an example of what not to do, can be an example of what to do. Mentions groups of “abuse survivors” who went to a Southern Baptist Convention meeting and told them they that they should emulate the Catholic Church.

Gousha: talks about the financial impact of the abuse scandal on the Church, particularly in California.

Dolan: cares more about the spiritual issue than the financial issue, but has to worry about the financial issue too. The Milwaukee Archdiocese has been hit with $25 million in expenses. “We are not in good shape. We are in the red.”

Gousha: Only 37% of Catholics go to mass regularly.

Dolan: On Sunday mornings when the Packers play it is even less. (laughter)

Dolan adds: “that’s not good.” Points out that people in Europe think this is great. In 1965, 78% of Catholics attended mass regularly. What do we do about it? Went to Priests’ Council, who said we have to turn to evangelization.

Gousha: asks about crime in Milwaukee. “Have we lost our way?”

Dolan: “I’m going to say ‘yes.’” Adds, “I don’t want to be judgmental.” So when he says “we” he’s including himself too. Quotes former Mayor Koch in New York (who is Jewish) who said that the Catholic Church was the glue that held the city together.

Wants to reclaim “the whole Judeo-Christian tradition.” Talks about a black speaker and activist from Philadelphia saying that “we have a crisis of the soul.” Adding “if an African-American teenager thinks he or she is made in the image or likeness of God” they won’t do drugs, shoot people, and so on.

Questions from the Audience

Question: How do we reclaim the tradition?

Dolan: “Today we all walk around as individuals.” Catholic social theory has always been communal. Invokes “solidarity.”

What do we do about it? One: “celebrate the good stuff we are doing.” “We’ve got tremendous things going on.” Tries to get out at least once a week to see people who are making a positive difference. Invokes Mother Theresa: “we love one person at a time.”

Commends Marquette for this kind of activism.

Finally: “keep it on our radar.” It’s easy to ignore such issues. Admits all this is a “fluid answer.”

Question: Audience member says that Dolan did evade the issue of pro-abortion politicians. Isn’t this a time to quit saying it’s an issue of prudence.

Dolan: thanks questioner for pointing out that he was evasive. Says that anybody who is out of communion of the Church should not receive communion. (But seems to be talking about a decision made by an individual Catholic.) Someone who takes communion in those circumstances is a hypocrite. Would advise a politician not to take communion if they were pro-abortion. They have “ruptured the bond” with the church.

But the question is “how do we get that across?” Do we “single out” people? The preferred position is dialogue. Insists it is a matter of prudential judgment.

Says Catholic preaching has been too “feel good” and “trendy.” Bishops have been “waffling” too much. Mentions Archbishop Rummel in New Orleans, who excommunicated three segregationists. New York Times thought this was great. But when Burke did something similar, it’s a violation of the First Amendment.

Question: Questioner asks about abortion, and says abortion “should be a personal issue.”

Dolan: Church teaches compassion, even for women who have abortions. Church teaching that abortion is wrong comes from the Natural Law. Taking an innocent life is intrinsically wrong. “This isn’t just a Catholic issue.” Mentions Nat Hentoff, a “Jewish atheist” who doesn’t care what the Pope says, but opposes abortion “because it’s wrong.”

Says abortion even in the case of rape and incest would “compound the tragedy.”

The Church in its teaching isn’t trying to exclude people, but to bring people in. In teaching “we have to convert people to a change of heart.”

Gousha: Dolan has to leave, and “let’s give him a round of applause.” The following applause is extended and enthusiastic, suggesting that Dolan is quite popular with the crowd.

Does Giuliani’s “Pro Choice” Position Make Any Sense?

Liberal Catholic politicians, not wanting to admit that they simply reject inconvenient or culturally out-of-fashion positions of the Church, often claim to be “pro-choice” on abortion.

But does this really make any sense? Via Shack Sounds Off, a recent column in the Washington Post takes issue with that.

There is, however, a question that comes before politics: Does Giuliani’s position on abortion actually make sense?

In early debates and statements, he has set out his views on this topic with all the order and symmetry of a freeway pileup. His argument comes down to this: “I hate abortion,” which is “morally wrong.” But “people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that’s her choice, not mine. That’s her morality, not mine.”

But the question naturally arises: Why does Giuliani “hate” abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin.

How can the violation of a fundamental human right be viewed as a private matter? Not everything that is viewed as immoral should be illegal; there are no compelling public reasons to restrict adultery, for example, or to outlaw sodomy. But when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference.

American history has tested these arguments. In debating the Missouri Compromise, Sen. Stephen Douglas said of slavery: “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves.” Abraham Lincoln differed: If faith and conscience tell us that enslaved Americans are men and brothers, then slavery must eventually be ended. Passing the 13th Amendment was not “imposing” our moral views on slaveholders; it was upholding the meaning of law and justice.

Giuliani’s doctrine of individual sovereignty goes much further than did Douglas, logically preventing even states from restricting abortion. And this raises a question about Giuliani’s view of the law itself: Can it be a right to violate the basic rights of others? . . .

Of course, one can be a thoroughgoing libertarian and believe that the “basic rights of others” is a controversial matter, not to be decided by government.

The problem is: even the “right to life” of people who have already been born is often a controversial matter. Historically, plenty of people have rejected the “right to life” of certain kinds of people -- Hitler with the Jews, Stalin with the kulaks, The Ku Klux Klan with any “uppity” black person.

Government should have taken the “controversial” position that all of these group have a right to life.

The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that a libertarian wants to define “basic rights” narrowly, and have government enforce as few as possible. An anarchist wants the government to enforce none -- indeed, doesn’t even want a government.

So the question is: is there any principled libertarian position that says that the right to life isn’t a basic right that government should enforce? It’s hard to see what that would be, unless one wants to claim -- against all evidence and common sense -- that a fetus isn’t a human being. But some people do claim that.

A number of pro-choice positions can be held consistently. It is possible to believe that human worth develops gradually and that the early fetus is merely a clump of cells. It is possible to accept professor Peter Singer’s teaching that human worth arrives only with self-conscious rationality, opening up disturbing new possibilities of infanticide.

But Giuliani has chosen an option that is not an option -- a belief that unborn life deserves our sympathy but does not deserve rights or justice. This view is likely to dog him in the primary process, not only because it is pro-choice but because it is incoherent.

The entire “pro-choice” view is incoherent in a larger sense.

The “pro-choice” crowd is chronically anti-choice when it comes to any behavior of which they disapprove. Like smoking. Or owning a gun. Or owning an SUV.

And they not only reject the idea that whites should be free to choose to discriminate against blacks, they want government for force whites to discriminate in favor of blacks.

Indeed, they would force anti-abortion taxpayers to pay for abortions.

When one is “pro-choice” only when one approves of the choice in question, one is not pro-choice at all.