It's the Only Thing I Have to My Name After 8 Years of Blogging ...

... and these folks want to give it away to that old scoundrel Cardinal Law:

... Reader Victor Lam moves that [Anderson's] Law be changed to the Bernard Francis Law. I emphatically second that. The motion is moved and seconded. If Mr. Anderson agrees, I think it should henceforth be called the Bernard Francis Law or, alternatively, the Cardinal Law. What say you?

So, what say you? Should Anderson's Law instead be known as "the Cardinal Law"?

Honestly, I don't think it fits. Apart from not wanting to have something that originated here associated with that reprobate, let's not forget that Cardinal Law ACTUALLY DID (or aided and abetted) what Anderson's Law predicts someone will mention in an ad hominem fashion to distract from a completely unrelated discussion.

When someone inevitably mentions the scandal in a discussion completely unrelated to the scandal, is throwing Cardinal Law's name into the mix actually likely to steer the discussion back on course?

Sixth Anniversary of "Anderson's Law"

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one." 

~ Anderson's Law

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:   
See Anderson's Law

As the Debate Over the HHS Mandate Heats Up ...

... just a reminder:

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one."
~ Anderson's Law

As longtime reader and commenter Terry points out in the comments at another post, these days it generally only takes one or two comments for it to happen.

Anderson's Law Meets the Ultimate Political Low

Missouri Democrat Russ Carnahan sponsors a website that tries to tie the priest scandal to his Catholic opponent:

... Today Russ Carnahan admitted to hiring Democratic operative investigator Michael Corwin to smear Republican Ed Martin.

Corwin put together a disgusting website that tried to link Republican Ed Martin to the Catholic Church priest scandal.

Sick.

Here is the press release from the Ed Martin campaign:

Corwin’s approach in service to Russ Carnahan is to imply that I was somehow involved with the criminal conduct of priests within the St. Louis Archdiocese. The proof? I worked there. Many people have served faithfully and to the best of their ability in churches all over St. Louis. Is it now the new standard that Catholics who serve their church are open to being slandered like this?

To speak directly to the implied accusation: I worked for the Catholic Church doing education and advocacy about charity and service to our community. I had zero involvement or authority on the adjudication or disposition of those accused of crimes or wrongdoing. The only scandal I was responding to was that the Human Rights Office was supporting goals and making contributions to organizations that reflected poorly on the Church and her mission.

The abuse scandals that has been rocking the church for years is a still-open wound. There is still much work to be done to heal and make whole those who were betrayed by the men and women of the Church. Much work is being done by men and women in the church who tirelessly pour their hearts into these victims. Dragging this scandal into the political world is a heartbreaking tactic. This is not being done to pursue justice, healing or reckoning. It is a vulgar attempt to maintain power by an unpopular politician.

Later today Russ Carnahan admitted to hiring Corwyn for the job.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis is Gateway Pundit's)


Hat tip: Creative Minority Report.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bishop Takes a Stand and ... Well, You Know the Routine

If You Want to Experience Bishop Hatred from the Right That Rivals Anything You Might See on the Left ...

Newsweek Bigot: "When Bishops Play Politics"

Noted Loser Bob Shrum Crawls Out from Under Rock, Invokes Anderson's Law

President Goes to War Against Marriage and the Catholic Church: How Will the Bishops Respond?

A Personal Message from Bishop Blair

Vaguely Familiar

TIME: "Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?" [UPDATED]

"Godwin's Law" for Sex Scandal Revisited

A Version of Godwin's Law for the Sex Scandals

Some Shameless Self-Promotion ...

... using a tool that I learned about from the Regular Guy:





UPDATE
By the way, I hope no one takes this seriously. I was just staying up too late last night having a little fun with the Google Search Stories tool and the comments from the "What They're Saying" portion of my sidebar.

Bishop Takes a Stand and ... Well, You Know the Routine

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one."
~ Anderson's Law

Readers of this blog know that I have an oft-discussed rhetorical pet peave regarding invocations of the priest sex-abuse scandal in an ad hominem effort to shut down debate and call into question the moral authority of the Church whenever the Church or one of her Bishops takes a stand on an issue.

Matthew Archbold provides a recent example of the phenomenon in this post about a priest going on NPR to attack Bishop Thomas Olmsted after the Bishop confirmed that Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix's Saint Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center had automatically excommunicated herself, latae sententiae, after approving an abortion:

The Church's sexual abuse scandal is the "blame Bush" of Catholicism. Anything that goes wrong anywhere that has even the remotest connection to Catholicism can be explained by or blamed on the sex abuse scandal.

It's reflexive now. Liberal Catholics can't say anything about the Church without bringing up the sex abuse scandal. Whether it's a conversation about altar rails, mass times, abortion, vestments, or gay marriage liberal Catholics will instinctively raise the specter of the abuse scandal as if the very existence of sin in the Church is evidence that they're right.

A priest who's made quite a name for himself by attacking the Church every chance he gets is now attacking the Church for the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride who approved of an abortion being performed on a woman whose life was in danger. The media is, of course, making this the most famous excommunication since Theodosius'. The Rev. Thomas Doyle is joining in the bashfest on National Public Radio by calling out Bishop Thomas Olmsted.

He said Sister McBride shouldn't be excommunicated because of...(wait for it) the sex abuse scandal...

[More]

Of course, we know that it's not just leftists opposed to the Church's teachings that engage in this line of attack. Bring up the Bishops' views on immigration reform, and you're just as likely to see Catholics on the right dragging up the scandal in an effort to diminish the teaching voice of the Bishops.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
If You Want to Experience Bishop Hatred from the Right That Rivals Anything You Might See on the Left ...

Newsweek Bigot: "When Bishops Play Politics"

Noted Loser Bob Shrum Crawls Out from Under Rock, Invokes Anderson's Law

President Goes to War Against Marriage and the Catholic Church: How Will the Bishops Respond?

A Personal Message from Bishop Blair

Vaguely Familiar

TIME: "Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?" [UPDATED]

"Godwin's Law" for Sex Scandal Revisited

A Version of Godwin's Law for the Sex Scandals

If You Want to Experience Bishop Hatred from the Right That Rivals Anything You Might See on the Left ...

... just get into a discussion about immigration. Even so-called "faithful Catholics" aren't above engaging in vile attacks upon the Bishops whenever this issue comes up:

... On a human level, men who can't figure out that they should keep child molesters out of their rectories shouldn't presume to tell us who to let into our country. A decent sense of SHAME should compel America's bishops to 20 years of penance and silence--or better, a mass resignation of the 2/3 who enabled the abusers.

And when confronted about such language ...

Wow. What an unfortunate ad hominem comment. I expect that sort of thing from enemies of the Church who wish to shut the Bishops up on matters like abortion and the sanctity of marriage, etc. But I expect better and more enlightened argumentation from faithful Catholics, especially in the context of a commentary about the inappropriate use of a particular rhetorical device as a conversation ender. But then, that's exactly what you did by making that comment: by bringing the scandal into a discussion that wasn't about the scandal, the goal wasn't rational discourse, but to end the argument. The Bishops should just shut up and no one should listen to them because of the sex-abuse scandal.

... they just keep piling on:

... Two thirds of these bishops have disgraced themselves and their office, as surely as if they had collaborated with the KGB. Their willingness to speak corporately on any issue outside the strict confines of defined doctrine is effrontery that deserves contempt.

By the way, among the Bishops that this gentleman specifically names as undeserving of our respect is Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. I wonder, has Archbishop Chaput "disgraced" himself in the manner that the writer of the linked piece describes? Has Archbishop Chuput earned nothing but "contempt"?

If not, then one might wonder why this gentleman paints with such a broad brush in dismissing our Bishops as unworthy of our attention.

Newsweek Bigot: "When Bishops Play Politics"

One of Newsweek's many anti-Catholic bigots, Lisa Miller, attacks the U.S. Bishops for fighting to keep federally funded abortion coverage out of the health care reform bills:

They see themselves as crusaders for human rights—protectors of the innocent, the voiceless, and the powerless. After years of enduring the slings and arrows of opposition, these activists are finally in the power seat. They are among the most important voices on a crucial political question: will abortion finally scuttle health-care reform?

They are America's Roman Catholic bishops.

It goes without saying that the Catholic hierarchy has always been pro-life. Nevertheless, the new prominence of this ancient fraternity is somewhat surprising. For one thing, the American public hardly regards the institutional Catholic Church as sacrosanct. Thanks to continuing sex scandals [ED.: Here we go again ...], many Americans—even American Catholics—roll their eyes on the subject of the Catholic hierarchy's ability to stand as a moral example [ED.: ... and there it is. Anderson's Law on full display in a "mainstream news" publication. Argumentum ad paedophilium never will go away, will it?].

Also, American Catholics reflect the voting public at large, which is to say that they are—and have long been—pro-choice. [ED.: Really? That's quite an overstatement, don't you think? At best, you could say that Catholics, broadly defined as also including those who no longer regularly practice their faith, are roughly evenly split on whether abortion should be legal in most or all cases vs. illegal in most or all cases (note: the "pro-choice" position, as embodied in those who support Roe v. Wade and its progeny, is that which holds for the legality of abortion-on-demand in all cases, and that reflects the attitude of only 16% of the Catholic population; all other Catholics - 84% - support at least some legal restrictions on abortion)] According to a 1999 poll [ED.: You had to scrounge up a poll that's over a decade old in order to support your bogus claim?], more than half of American Catholics believe you can be a good Catholic and disregard the bishops' teachings on abortion. [ED.: Hold on now! That's an altogether different inquiry than whether "American Catholics ... are—and have long been—pro-choice."]

Now a new generation of bishops, appointed by Pope John Paul II and activist especially on life issues, sees the opportunity to affect abortion policy. They've seized, in particular, on the Democrats' lack of unity on the choice issue [ED.: How dare the Bishops "exploit" the fact that there are pro-life Democrats by trying to work with them. Don't they know that the pro-abort forces "own" the Democrat vote?], and they've stepped into that gap by articulating a firm and uncompromising anti-abortion stance [ED.: Heaven forbid! The Catholic Church articulating a firm and uncompromising anti-abortion stance? Wouldn't that be the same firm and uncompromising anti-abortion stance the Church has been articulating for 2000 years, and even more forcefully for over 35 years since Roe v. Wade was decided? I don't get it. What's supposedly "new" about what the Bishops are doing?]. In sum: they want health-care reform, but they don't want a single taxpayer dollar to go to abortion providers—or to health-insurance plans that cover abortions. They don't care if the disenchanted laity [ED.: Again with the broad assertions about what lay Catholics allegedly believe. Just because all the Catholics you happen to know avidly read the National Catholic Reporter doesn't mean that the rest of us support federally funded abortion via health care reform. In fact, why don't you consort with one of those polls of which you seem to be so fond and disabuse yourself of that notion altogether. You see, not only do an overwhelming majority of Catholics NOT want to see abortion funded via government-subsidized health care, but that view reflects the attitude of the rest of the country at large. Americans, as a whole, SUPPORT the Bishops in their efforts.] disagrees with them, and they're less interested than previous generations in working on policy through proper bureaucratic channels. [ED.: What are these "proper bureaucratic channels" through which the Bishops are supposed to be working? They can't just call up their congressman like the rest of us citizens are supposed to be able to do? Besides only to a leftist with a fetish for statism (but I suppose that's redundant) would "working through bureaucracy" be seen as a virtue.]

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

Fortunately, the Bishops have fired back via the USCCB Media Blog: "When Newsweek Plays Bishops":

A March 4 piece in Newsweek, When Bishops Play Politics: a New Generation Gets Righteous, by Lisa Miller, doesn't have too much to recommend it.

The article follows a predictable narrative, saying that the U.S. Catholic Bishops are meddling in the politics of health care reform. The article suggests that, because of their opposition to abortion funding, health care legislation in its entirety might fail.

This is problematic on several levels.

First there's the presumption that the bishops, who are after all private citizens, somehow shouldn't speak freely on civil matters, as if the First Amendment didn't extend to them. It's part of a pattern of thought recently described by USCCB President Cardinal Francis George as seeking to relegate religious values to the place of private devotion, with no place as a voice for good in the public square.

The article couples its criticism of the bishops' speaking out with the assertion that their voices don't represent anyone significant because 1. clergy sexual abuse et al has stripped them of their moral authority and 2. polls allege that a majority of U.S. Catholics don't even agree with the bishops on abortion.

As it attempts to undermine the bishops rather than engage them, the article ignores polls that show that the bishops are actually more in touch with the U.S. public on the issue of abortion funding in health care reform.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Noted Loser Bob Shrum Crawls Out from Under Rock, Invokes Anderson's Law

Deal Hudson reports at InsideCatholic:

Bob Shrum, consultant to the losing presidential campaigns of Gore and Kerry, emerged from beneath his rock recently to post a tirade against Bart Stupak and the Catholic bishops.

A graduate of two Jesuit universities, Shrum deems himself qualified to pronounce the position of Stupak and the bishops on abortion in the health care bill to be "at odds with the social teachings I learned in Catholic school."

Even worse, the insistence of Stupak and the bishops to keep federal funding for abortion out of the bill "transgresses the line drawn by JFK in 1960."

Half a century later, the bishops are attempting to achieve by indirection what they cannot achieve outright—a partial ban on a woman’s right to choose. Having abetted thousands of priests in molesting children, they’re now set on abusing health reform.

[More]

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one."

~ Anderson's Law


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
President Goes to War Against Marriage and the Catholic Church: How Will the Bishops Respond?

A Personal Message from Bishop Blair

Vaguely Familiar

"Godwin's Law" for Sex Scandal Revisited

A Version of Godwin's Law for the Sex Scandals

President Goes to War Against Marriage and the Catholic Church: How Will the Bishops Respond?

(Hat tip: The Opinionated Catholic)

Deal Hudson writes:

President Obama, the man trusted by the USCCB to do the "right thing" on health care, has declared war on marriage and, by implication, the Catholic Church.

Speaking to the nation's leading homosexual rights lobbying group, the Human Rights Campaign, Obama said:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

As Deacon Keith Fournier reports and comments, "The leading voice for this Cultural Revolution is now President Barack Obama."

The question becomes whether or not the leadership of the Catholic Church, both bishops and laity, are going to respond vigorously and loudly to Obama's direct challenge to one of its non-negotiable teachings.

How can the USCCB remain silent when the President of the United States said he wants Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

[...]

Perhaps the upcoming bishop's pastoral on marriage -- still a month away -- will provide an opportunity for more pointed comment on Obama's threat to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Meanwhile, Whispers in the Loggia reports that a draft copy of that pastoral has been leaked to National Catholic Reporter, and that particular rag is none too pleased about its contents:

... the centerpiece action-item of this year's USCCB November Meeting has been leaked.

Currently weighing in at 57 pages, the final committee draft of "Love and Life in the Divine Plan" -- the US bishops' long-awaited pastoral letter on marriage -- was published in full late in the day by the National Catholic Reporter, which ran the proposed text alongside an editorial calling for it to be scrapped... at least, in its current form...

GOOD! That's outstanding news! We can be comforted by the fact that if the National Anti-Catholic Distorter hates it, it MUST be full of solid Catholic teaching on the sanctity of marriage.

And don't miss out on all the comments from the dissident readership of that rag, including several instances of proving "Anderson's Law" (a.k.a. the reductio ad pedophilium).

A Personal Message from Bishop Blair

A personal message from Bishop Blair:

Written by MOST REVEREND LEONARD P. BLAIR, Bishop of Toledo
Monday, 20 April 2009

On April 18, the Toledo Blade ran a story about the request that the Holy See has made of me to conduct a doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the United States.

The Blade took the occasion to solicit comments about me from persons totally unrelated to the news in question, including a comment from SNAP’s national outreach director in St. Louis, whom I have never met or heard of. She was quoted as saying that I am “a bishop with a terrible track record on child sex abuse and cover-up.”

Since becoming your Bishop in 2003 I have had to deal with many grave matters, including cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors. I want to assure you that I have never “covered up” anything. Each and every allegation, past and present, has been taken with the utmost seriousness and handled according to the requirements of civil and church law. Above and beyond the law, our diocese has reached out to victims, and the outcome of clergy cases has been made public.

Every person has a right to his or her good name. As your Bishop I want you to know that I reject as false the characterization that appeared in the Blade. At the same time I take to heart what our Lord said, that we are to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who persecute us.

© Copyright 2002 - 2009 Catholic Chronicle
The Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Toledo

My Comments:
Good for Bishop Blair. There is no end to the slanders and calumnies of the SNAP types, who seem more interested in using the priest scandals as a means of discrediting any efforts by the Church and her Bishops to speak with moral authority on any matter (see Anderson's Law, also known as the reductio ad pedophilium).


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Vatican Picks Bishop Blair to Direct Inquiry Into Nun Organization's Adherence to Catholic Doctrine

Anderson's Law

Vaguely Familiar

This post today by Rich Leonardi seems vaguely familiar.

"Godwin's Law" for Sex Scandal Revisited

(Hat tip: Thanks, Victor!)

Last week, I wrote about a version of "Godwin's Law" that could apply to the Church's sex abuse scandal. Rich Leonardi of Ten Reasons linked to my post, but beyond that, it didn't receive much attention in St. Blog's - not that I really expected it to.

Now, a week later, the following item appears in John McCaslin's "Inside the Beltway" column in Thursday's edition of The Washington Times:

A Catholic priest who regularly prays outside an abortion clinic wrote of his positions in a newspaper column, to which two letter-writers responded.They dismissed the church's teaching against abortion on the grounds of the recent sex scandals -- in which church officials covered up accusations of sexual abuse, mostly by homosexual priests against teenage boys.

Catholic blogger Jay Anderson reacted by proposing a Catholic equivalent to the Internet rule known as Godwin's Law "for invocations of 'the Scandal' as a rhetorical device."

"It would go something like this: 'As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one.'

"And then there's its corollary: 'Once such reference to the Scandal is made, whoever mentioned the Scandal has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress,' " writes Mr. Anderson, a former mayor of Columbia, Va.

"Perhaps the Scandal is still too recent," he concludes. "But surely, at some point in time, such ad hominem argumentation against the Church and its teachings needs to be consigned to similar status as inappropriate Nazi comparisons."

First, the National Catholic Register. And now, The Washington Times. I'm liable to get a big head if all the media attention continues. Sarah won't be able to live with me.

;-)


UPDATE
Thanks to Rich Leonardi, Dale Price, Amy Welborn, Dom Bettinelli, Julie D., Publius, Leticia, KaleJ, and The Curt Jester for their links.


UPDATE # 2 (2 April)
Dave Hartline also covered the Washington Times mention yesterday at Catholic Report. Thanks, Dave!


UPDATE # 3 (4 April)
Mark Shea has given the story new life by covering it at his blog. Thanks, Mark!

A Version of Godwin's Law for the Sex Scandals

Rich Leonardi posts the text of a letter to the editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer responding negatively to an essay by a SSPX priest that called for continued protests in front of an abortion clinic utilizing photos of the remains of aborted babies:

CHURCH HAS ITS OWN ISSUES TO RESOLVE

So, the reverend from St. Pius X Chapel in Northside encourages his flock in his guest column 'Abortion protests will continue' (March 17) to increase the protest of the Clifton women's center using graphic pictures of aborted babies. He vows to continue the protest until the center closes while not caring how it affects adjacent businesses or the sensibilities of innocent individuals.

How about protesters armed with graphic pictures of priests abusing children camping out in front of St. Pius church? Problem priests and pedophile preachers have abused thousands of children with 'mental abortion' for years without recourse.

Joseph Gorman, Finneytown

Leaving aside the controversy giving rise to this letter (for my part, I believe exhibiting graphic photos of aborted babies to be counter-productive; it is much more effective to show pictures of ultrasounds, especially of the 3-D variety), I want to focus on the ad hominem argumentation utilized in this letter to "counter" the priest's position.

I wonder if there will ever be a rule similar to "Godwin's Law" (regarding references and analogies to the 3rd Reich) for invocations of "the Scandal" as a rhetorical device?

It would go something like this: As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one.

And then there's it's corollary: Once such reference to the Scandal is made, whoever mentioned the Scandal has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

Finally, let's not forget the codicil known as the "Time Better Spent Fallacy": The Church has enough things to worry about and can better spend its time on cleaning up its own messes rather than on [fill in the blank]. Among Catholics, this fallacy is frequently invoked by "progressives" in arguing against the Church's reform of the reform.

Perhaps the Scandal is still too recent - with the repercussions still being felt and likely to be played out for years to come - for such a rule of debate to gain any traction at this juncture. But surely, at some point in time, such ad hominem argumentation against the Church and its teachings needs to be consigned to similar status as inappropriate Nazi comparisons.