Term Limit Federal Judges

Years ago I remember reading a book entitled The Quotable Dwight D. Eisenhower, or some other name to that effect. I recall being surprised that Eisenhower seriously proposed limiting the tenure of federal judges. Although I have not been able to locate the book again, I believe my memory is correct (and invite input from any knowledgeable readers in correction or confirmation of my memory). Of course, federal judges now serve for life (technically "during good Behavior") according to the Constitution (Article III, Section 1).

Beginning with the invention of a constitutional "right to privacy" in the sixties to invalidate restrictions on contraceptives, the federal courts have eagerly embraced, with unparalleled arrogance, the agenda of elite social engineering. The ever malleable "right to privacy" became the basis in 1973 for the abortion on demand culture we now have. The same elite social engineering ruled last summer that states cannot outlaw sodomy. The state courts, most recently Massachusetts, have been busily aping the activism of their superior federal colleagues by trying to impose gay marriage on various jurisdictions in the last few years. Soon enough the federal courts will have their say on gay marriage, and, from all indications, it won't be pretty.

While state court judges can usually be voted out of office, the federal court judges are, for all practical purposes, ruling for life. I certainly support a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. But, in the long run, we should also pursue a constitutional amendment to set fixed terms for federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court. A term of ten or fourteen years should be more than enough unparalleled power for any human being. The hope is that a limited term will deliver the message that judicial power is not a blank check and is realistically and politically vulnerable to limitation by the voters and their representatives. If the radical solution of limiting terms is enacted, I believe judges will exercise more restraint because they will know that the body politic will be willing to impose even further restraint if necessary. The smugness of the judicial elite must be punctured. Term limits for federal judges are a good first step. Their state court colleagues will also get the political message. If federal judges can be subject to fixed terms for the first time, then surely state legislatures can reduce the already fixed terms of state judges. It is time to change the dynamic of judicial invulnerability on both the federal and state levels.

Federal judges are there to serve, not to be crowned for life. This proposed constitutional dose of political reality can put an end to elite social engineering as an unquestioned and unassailable prerogative in the minds of many judges. The ultimate right of social engineering resides in the people and their representatives through a constitutional amendment. It is time to tame the beast. As of now, the federal courts have become a source of instability in our culture by taking the lead in destroying foundational cultural goods, such as the life of the unborn and eventually the institution of marriage.

Interestingly, Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, a highly intelligent and articulate man, has recently lambasted the arrogance of the judiciary. He noted that judicial activism, specifically the recent ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the highest state court in that state), promotes disrespect for democracy and is dictatorial. (See Catholic World News.) It is time to respond constitutionally to what the Cardinal has so well articulated.

A Paradigm of Liturgical Folly

I recall attending a Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament at one parish church in which the priest did not use the humeral veil to hold the monstrance. The humeral veil is "the scarflike liturgical garment . . . worn over the shoulders . . . . out of reverence when sacred objects are carried in procession or when the faithful are blessed with them . . . . [and] used to hold the monstrance at Benediction or procession of the Blessed Sacrament" (Stravinskas, Catholic Dictionary [Our Sunday Visitor 2002]). I also recall the same priest remarking that the use of the humeral veil was a gesture reflecting a piety from another era.

This anecdote illustrates a wider problem we are all familiar with: the lack of reverence in the liturgy. The first, immediate, and instinctive response of any Catholic, and especially a priest, to liturgical custom should be to reverently follow it. The Catholic should feel that he is one small individual in an ancient and broad stream of tradition that is ultimately of divine origin. He should be reluctant to tinker with the sense of the faithful expressed through hallowed liturgical practice.

Some might view this refusal to use the humeral veil as minor. Well, consider how our elder brothers in the faith, the Jews, handle the Torah:

[I]n a synagogue today the Old Testament is kept in a shrine on the wall, rather like a tabernacle in a Western Catholic church. The scrolls in the Torah shrine are never handled directly, but only by using cloths or wearing gloves.

Aidan Nichols, O.P., The Shape of Catholic Theology (Liturgical Press 1991), p. 112)(italics added).

This special handling of the Torah is an expression of the Jewish, and our own belief, that the Torah is of "divine origin" (Nichols, p. 112). In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the New Moses dispensing the New Law or Torah in the beatitudes. More than that, in the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Word of God. Thus, we can say that Jesus himself is the new Torah. So it is indeed awesomely appropriate to hold the monstrance containing the very Word of God with a veil, with at least the same piety and reverence that our forerunners in the faith, the Jews, handle the Torah.

When a cleric or any other Catholic takes it upon himself to dispense with custom, he should tread carefully. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34, RSV).

Solemnity of Christ the King: Daniel 7:13-14; Revelation 1:5-8; John 18:33b-37

In a time of great moral confusion, confusion about what it means to be human, about what it means to love, about what it means to be married, the final victory of the truth is certain. As stated in Daniel, at the consummation of the world "all peoples, nations, and languages serve him." In Revelation, Christ is the "ruler of the kings of the earth."

In the Gospel, Jesus proclaims the truth to Pilate, the symbol of empire, power, authority, who is preoccupied with pleasing the mob and its leaders. Jesus says: "For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." Pilate does not know what truth is. In John 18:38, Pilate responds to Jesus' words with the famous question: "What is truth?"

Today, millions, especially in the Western world, do not know what truth is and, ironically, affirm the "truth" that there is no objective truth. The result is a vacuum that is filled with egotism, manipulation, narcissism, exploitation, and abuse. We have liberated ourselves from truth and created hells on earth. The father of lies is Satan (John 8:44), and the current so-called liberation from truth is quintessentially satanic. Yet, it is certain that the father of lies and all his lies will be defeated. The embrace of lies is a desperate quest borne of despair. It accomplishes nothing. It merely destroys. It is destined for defeat. As noted by the Catechism (671), even though the defeat of lies is certain, the kingdom of God "is still under attack by the evil powers." So do not be surprised at the on-going struggle.

Gay Marriage: Order vs. Disorder

One reader asked me to pursue further and more specifically the theme of disorder in the discussion of gay marriage. Rather than pursue at this time a phenomenological analysis of the disorder of homosexual acts, let us first look at the natural order created by God as the standard by which to judge all sexual disorders, whether homosexual or heterosexual. All departures from this standard are grave sins, although homosexual acts are graver in the sense of being a greater "abuse of the thing [i.e., of copulation]" (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part II-II, q. 154, art. 12, Reply to Objection 4). What exactly is being abused?

For a modern articulation of the nature being abused, we can turn to John Paul II's theology of the body. Theologian Christopher West has published a useful commentary on the Pope's theology of the body that is helpful in this regard (West, Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II's "Gospel of the Body" [Boston: Pauline Books & Media 2003]). Here is West on the nuptial meaning of the body:

The whole truth of the body and of sex, John Paul affirms, "is the pure and simple truth of communion between persons". This communion is established through an integrated, incarnate love. Hence, John Paul defines the nuptial meaning of the body as the body's "capacity of expressing love: that love precisely in which the man-person [here "man" referring to human beings in general] becomes a gift and -- by means of this gift-- fulfills the very meaning of his being and existence". Here John Paul echoes that key text from the Second Vatican Council: "It follows then, that if man is the only creature on earth that God willed for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself." John Paul establishes here that this teaching of the Council is rooted not only in the spiritual aspect of man's nature, but also in his body, in the complementary difference of the sexes and their call to become "one flesh."

West, p. 98 (citations omitted; only bold emphasis added).

Thus, the standard is self-gift through the complementary union of the two genders. That is the order. Anything else is disordered. To use the body to become "one flesh" with the same gender contradicts the call to self-gift because there is no complementary union. A complementary union involves an exchange of gifts that completes each person. Without the complementary difference of the genders, there is no genuine exchange of gifts. Without the genuine exchange of gifts, we cannot discover our true selves. Instead of turning outward to be completed, we turn inward to dwell in the self. In a way, that is the essence of sin: to turn inward to self as opposed to turning outward as a gift to the other, as willed by God. This mutually self-gift is what the Scriptures mean by becoming "one flesh."

It is undeniable that the natural and unerasable differences between the genders is the path of self-gift through becoming "one flesh." Nature testifies to the spiritual call to self-gift. Sexual activity between those of the same gender is the rejection of the call to self-gift that is obviously inscribed in our gender differences. The bodily differences between the genders are a sign of deep, complementary psychological and spiritual differences. When those differences are united in the act of sexual union, new life is possible: a new life for the male and female and a new independent life--the child.

Thus, the theological order requires union of differences, not narcissism. In the secular civil debate about gay marriage, such theological reasoning will not be the appropriate language for discussion, but the theological analysis does outline the direction of the civil discussion: gay marriage will undermine the goods of complementary union. These concrete goods of complementary union of male and female include: the good of procreation itself, the most healthy setting for the education and nurturing of children, the minimizing of sexually transmitted diseases, and heterosexual marriage as the privileged didactic model for the healthy psychological development of young people. Traditional marriage is an inherently social good. It calls us to dare to go beyond self to give ourselves to what is fundamentally different so that we can grow through that gift. It is and should remain the model of human development that dares to take up the challenge and risk of complete self-gift. The narcissistic and fundamentally anti-social model of gay marriage undermines these goods, especially in presenting a false model for malleable young people subject to incessant media pressure and images. The social vitality of society demands that the privileged model of human development be heterosexual marriage. Otherwise, society will fragment even further and spreading psychological dysfunction will impose even greater social and medical costs on the public. We are called to take the risk of genuine self-gift. We are not called to the defeatism of narcissism. That willingness to risk genuine self-gift is the élan vital of human civilization.

The gay agenda aims at the elimination of the privileged status of heterosexual marriage. This excessive and totalitarian agenda is unrelated to any quest for protection of certain rights and for elimination of unjust discrimination. The removal of unjust discriminatory practices can easily be pursued through other legal means. The quest for gay marriage is an excessive ideological assault on the life force of human society. It is an overreaching that is destructive of society. The removal of any unjust discrimination does not require the destruction of the privileged status of heterosexual marriage. As a society, we cannot afford to satisfy the emotional zeal and psychological frustrations of the gay extremists. Even if we did, the frustrations would still remain unresolved. What we are seeing again, as in other areas, is the dishonest use of arguments as a cover for pursuing an unnecessary revision of a fundamental institution of society. We should not fall for this rhetorical "con" game. The stakes are too high, especially for the young.

Putting Aside Ego in the Gay Marriage Debate

Listening to a talk radio exchange between a gay man and a conservative talk radio host (not Limbaugh), I became aware how much our own egos stand in the way of honestly stating the simple truth that the gay lifestyle is disordered. The conservative host opposed gay marriage, but only after repeatedly protesting that he, in true libertarian fashion, did not care what the gay caller did in his private life because the talk show host like many others was so wrapped up in his own life. The conservative host robustly affirmed that he was above such concern over the gay lifestyle, and based his opposition to gay marriage on the fact that it would inevitably lead to widespread gay adoption of children. The talk show host emphasized that such a situation would not be in the best interest of the children involved.

While he is right about gay adoption, the talk show host's dancing around the morality of the gay lifestyle itself is an example of the smothering inhibitions imposed on us by a libertarian culture. Our egos demand that we ensure our own popularity by not appearing to be puritans judging others. Our egos demand that we affect an aloofness about the lifestyles of others. Our egos demand that we present ourselves as easy-going personalities who would never dream of openly rejecting another's lifestyle.

In the gay debate, we must put our egos aside. We must put aside our preoccupation with our own self-image and personal popularity. If we participate at all in the debate, we should point away from ourselves to the truth. To point to the truth is a work of mercy for us and for others. Our personal popularity and easy-going self-image are irrelevant.

The truth is that the homosexual orientation itself, although not a sin, is a disorder. To grant the label and privileges of marriage to this disorder is to lie and say that homosexual orientation is not a disorder. Once you grant that it is not a disorder, we then inevitably must grant that homosexual acts are natural expressions of a healthy human personality. That is not the truth. Revealed religion, the biology of our bodies, and human experience through the ages testify that homosexuality is a disorder. Society should not elevate a disorder into an esteemed lifestyle.

The Christian tradition, along with other religious traditions, makes the truth of the matter clear. We have a right and an obligation to point to the truth. To tolerate certain private behavior is one thing, but to grant state approval to that behavior is a matter of a completely different order. The same applies to granting legal recognition to heterosexual relations outside of marriage. The law cannot impose virtue in all situations, but the law must refrain from lying to the public. As Aquinas states, "human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained" (Summa Theologica, Bk. I-II, q. 96, art. 2). To celebrate disordered behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is a lie that spawns grave medical and other social consequences.

A Christian should not censor himself for the sake of his own self-image. We point to the truth, not to ourselves, when we say we oppose "civil unions" and gay marriage because they are state approval of disordered behavior. That is the standard we must express. One day some who oppose and, yes, hate us for this stance will realize we were right to put aside our egos and point to the truth in spite of withering criticism.

N.Y. Times Beams Over Gay Revolution

Today's, N.Y. Times editorial explodes in ecstasy over what it terms a "legal revolution"-- the recognition of the right to gay marriage by Massachusetts. It is a gushing endorsement of the gay revolution without a hint of criticism or balance. The editorial labels the gay revolution a continuation of the Supreme Court's landmark decisions on racial equality.

When a society reaches the end of the road, the previously unimaginable becomes second nature. Major institutions in our country have reached the end of the road. Major newspapers, universities, and the judiciary itself have proven themselves lacking in common sense and all credibility. As Cardinal Ratzinger says, we Christians must now be a non-violent "force for resistance" against the cascade of lies that is descending on the entire society.

We will see the legal canonization of the gay lifestyle and shortly thereafter a concerted attempt to prohibit any criticism of or advocacy against that lifestyle. As the Gospel says, a house divided against itself will fall. The N.Y. Times is celebrating the path of American decline.

The celebration reminds me of those in the Catholic Church who, in arguing for the acceptance of contraception, viewed contraception as a harmless option exclusively for married couples. Instead, contraception has become a license for payment-free prostitution, and its failures have fed the demand for abortion, which is now destigmatized as de facto contraception. Likewise, those for gay marriage will argue that the issue is about recognizing "committed" exclusive relationships. The reality is that gay marriage is the seal of approval on the gay lifestyle. Experimentation with gay sex will increase among otherwise heterosexual people, especially the young. Today, many Americans have a highly complicated and promiscuous sexual past. That sexual past will increasingly include homosexual experiences. It will not be surprising to see persons in the future who will enter a gay marriage, divorce, and then enter a heterosexual marriage. At one time, any divorce and remarriage was viewed as a stigma and a social aberration. Today, divorce and remarriage is commonplace. The same destigmatization process will now occur with homosexual behavior and relationships and will lead to an increase in bisexual activity.

The legacy of this legal revolution will be that the courts will direct this country down a path of further sexual confusion. It is a sexual confusion that will result in more disease, more death, and in deep psychological and emotional costs. We already have experienced these results from the first stage of the so-called sexual revolution. This second stage of the sexual revolution will be no different except for the depth of the disorder it will introduce by destroying traditional marriage.

It is clear that this legal revolution is a sexual revolution ushered in by judicial elites. The judge, that great figure of American lore, has become in effect more dangerous than any foreign terrorist or enemy by undermining the fabric of American society. Al-Quaeda and its sympathizers have no greater allies than our own black-robed mullahs, the judges of America. Only a radical remaking of the reach of judicial power can save American society. Are we up to that radical solution?

The Very Public Costs of Gay Marriage

In today's America, the overwhelming attitude toward any sexual behavior is libertarian: live and let live. The assumption is that sexual behavior is exclusively private in its effects. That assumption is an obvious lie. Tell physicians who treat untold numbers for sexually transmitted diseases, including the dreaded AIDS, that sexual behavior is exclusively private. How many people realize that, in an era when AIDS is the most dreaded disease, other sexually transmitted diseases can even result in cervical and oral cancer? Sexual confusion has resulted in a grave medical crisis in the United States. Millions that could have been spent on other diseases and illnesses are now spent in the treatment of behaviorally preventable sexually transmitted diseases. As the economists would say, sexual confusion creates enormous opportunity costs as resources are diverted to nurse the epidemic of avoidable immorality.

Even more hidden than the costs of medical treatment are the emotional and psychological costs among adults and especially among children. What we are seeing in today's culture is the deconstruction of human nature. Adolescents will mature in an era that views human nature as infinitely malleable. Nothing is assumed or proposed as a model for the healthy development of human nature. All options are available and respected. Untold millions will experiment to their detriment in self-destructive lifestyles, as millions already do, in order to simply realize what civilization has long known: sexuality outside of marriage is a sure road to unhappiness and deformation of human character. By canonizing the gay lifestyle, we are setting the stage for tragic experimentation that will end for some in an early death and for others in permanent psychological damage. These are unquantifiable but deep costs that will be paid disproportionately by the young.

All of human society is the product of the complementary and intimate union of male and female in a family. We have taken its benefits for granted for centuries. We will slowly find out how much we have taken for granted in the quality of individual and social life. Heterosexual marriage is by definition open to life. It sets its face forward into the future. At its best, it does not close itself by focusing inward, but projects the energies of society forward to building a better civilization that integrates both masculine and feminine traits in the raising of new generations. From the interaction and integration of the masculine and the feminine in marriage, a civilizational energy is harnessed that provides a deep and healthy wholeness to human society. When the central civilizing role of heterosexual marriage is reduced to just one among many equally respectable private arrangements, civilization as a whole will falter in its development. It will be as if society as a whole were stricken with a dreaded disease that will sap its energy. Many will argue that these warnings are Cassandra-like. But Cassandra's prophecies were destined to be true.

No Surprise: Massachusetts High Court Rules for Gay Marriage

Here is the link to the AP story. The assault on marriage that began with contraception, heterosexual "shacking up," and easy divorce now culminates with the total deconstruction of marriage. To paraphrase Pius XII, only the Catholic Church stands tall upholding the truth amidst the moral and social ruin. Make no mistake about it: the gay agenda is not about equal benefits which could be pursued by gay-neutral legislation applicable to non-sexual relationships. The gay agenda is about full-fledged gay marriage on a par with normal marriage.

The Disaster of Establishment Feminism

By "establishment feminism," I mean the dominant feminist ideology focused on the equation that the liberation of women is synonymous with promiscuity. It revolves around the notion that a women's body is an instrument owned by the woman to be used without any moral inhibition. Of course, given the unique biology of women, this view of the female body as an all-purpose tool means that contraception and abortion become essential technological interventions. What drives such an odd definition of liberation as promiscuity? The ideological focus of establishment feminism is equality without difference. In other words, the focus of establishment feminism is an abstract equality that fails to account for the bodily reality of women as mothers and potential mothers. An authentic feminism would focus on the fact that a woman is not a person who happens to be in a female body, but rather that a woman's personhood is inseparable from the female body. Such an authentic feminism would take great care to protect women from sexual exploitation by males and from behaviors that would harm the female body.

Well, the irrational establishment feminism of promiscuity has managed to do the opposite: it has made the sexual exploitation of women more commonplace than ever and has led to a health crisis for women as described by Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School:

The price for the nation’s prolonged bacchanal has been high, especially for women and children. There’s been a high cost in terms of women’s health, including an epidemic of infertility caused by sexually transmitted infections, and a startling rise in cervical and oral cancers among young women from the same cause.

Glendon, First Things (June/July 2003).

Glendon also gives her view of how the irrational feminist embrace of promiscuity has subordinated women to the exploitive whims of males as the number of women in the baby boom generation surpassed the number of available men from that generation:

The increased competition for mates, coinciding with the arrival of the birth control pill, helps to explain a number of things, such as the collapse of sexual taboos as young women began to offer free samples and to pursue men previously considered off limits (such as other women’s husbands). The ripple effects were vast and affected nearly everyone. Inevitably, there were abuses by men of their suddenly dominant position in the mating market. Many women of Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug’s generation found themselves alone and in difficult circumstances when their husbands divorced them to marry younger women. That created a second large group of angry women, and 1970s feminism was off to the races.

Glendon, First Things (June/July 2003).

The solution is a return to sanity, a sanity that recognizes that the human body is a prized possession bestowed by God, not a tool or instrument to be exploited by anyone, even by the one whose body it is. The female body is particularly vulnerable to exploitation because of its uniquely central reproductive role. The solution is not to destroy that distinctive reproductive role through contraception, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. The solution is to reserve access to the female body to marriage, the only arena that gives the female body, the female person, her due. That elementary justice is essential to authentic liberation and authentic feminism.

Louisiana Election: Shifting the Abortion Debate Even In Defeat

Louisiana just elected its first woman governor, a Catholic Democrat by the name of Kathleen Blanco. Normally, you could safely assume this meant the election of another pro-abortion politician, but things aren't so simple. The most pro-life candidate was the young Republican and Indian-American Bobby Jindal who was narrowly defeated. He rejected abortion without exception, and it is indeed a shame that he lost. It is a shame that he lost not only because he was the most pro-life candidate, but because he was the only candidate who offered a radical break from the political and social mediocrity that has enveloped Louisiana for decades. It is also a shame that Jindal lost because Blanco will do all she can to assist the fortunes of the pro-abortion national Democratic Party in Louisiana. As a native Louisianian, I can offer little hope for improvement from the election of a Democratic career politician who will do little to change the culture of mediocrity of my native state.

Yet, the new Democratic governor is not just another liberal pro-abortion politician. She opposes abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger (see Lafayette, La., newspaper article). It is noteworthy that she could not run with anything near the typical Democrat's full-throated embrace of abortion. Republican candidate Jindal adopted such a strong pro-life position that she was forced to resist any temptation to move toward the traditional Democratic worship of abortion. Although it is disappointing from a pro-life perspective that the superior candidate, Jindal, lost, Jindal's candidacy did ensure shifting the abortion debate in the pro-life direction. Thus, even when losing, candidates who stand on principle can shift the ground of the debate. And that is a very good thing. When a politician stands for truth, even when he loses an election, he has done an immense service for the truth. He has forced the issue, and sometimes can ensure that the other candidate does not stray too far, as in this case.

The winning Democratic candidate even admitted to the pressure in an off-hand comment to a fellow Democratic politician ("Richard") overheard by reporters:

Away from the crowds, Blanco joked . . . at one point about the political difficulties of the abortion issue and Jindal's no-exceptions position. "A Hindu out-Catholic'd both of us, Richard." Jindal grew up in a Hindu family but converted to Catholicism as a teenager.

See New Orleans newspaper article.

Her Republican opponent Bobby Jindal had converted from Hinduism to Catholicism, and, unlike the typical Catholic politician, was unafraid to insert his faith into the election. By doing so, he broke the mold of mediocre Catholic politicians like Blanco and Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu and created strong pro-life pressure among the electorate.

Jindal's defeat is an example that sometimes we win even if we lose in conventional terms. He shifted the ground in the abortion debate in a pro-life direction. In addition, this new and extremely intelligent Catholic convert is only 32 years old-- a factor that probably led to his narrow loss. He will be around far longer than the new mediocre Democratic governor of a state governed for too long by similar mediocrities. He and others like him will continue to shift the terms of the abortion debate in a salutary direction.

33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time: Daniel 12:1-3; Hebrews 10:11-14, 18; Mark 13:24-32

Today's readings urge us to watchfulness for the coming of the Messiah. In Daniel, the reference is to Michael the Archangel who confronts the forces of Satan in a time "unsurpassed in distress." The Jerusalem Bible notes that this is the same Michael referred to in Jude 9 in the New Testament.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ our high priest is now at the right hand of God waiting "until his enemies are made his footstool."

In Mark, we have Jesus describing the coming in glory of the Son of Man after a time of tribulation and distress. Two questions can puzzle the reader from this passage. The first is that Jesus says that all these things will occur before this generation passes away (Mk 13:30). As noted in the Jerusalem Bible, the events that will occur before the passing away by the generation addressed by Jesus are the events of the "messianic crisis," namely, the events surrounding the crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The second question arises from Jesus' admission that the Son does not know the day or the hour of His coming in glory (Mk 13:32). Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Tan Books 1974), gives two explanations in the tradition for Jesus' statement. The first is that Jesus' statement refers to an "economic ignorance," as opposed to an essential ignorance, due to the Father's decree that neither the day nor the hour should be communicated to men (Ott, p. 166). The other explanation is ascribed to Pope Gregory the Great who affirmed that, although Christ did know the day of the General Judgment, Christ "did not have this knowledge from his human nature" (Ott, p. 166). These explanations become clearer when compared to Acts1:7 (cited by Ott) in which Jesus tells the apostles prior to his Ascension that "[i]t is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority" (RSV). While Jesus as God shares in the knowledge of the Father, Jesus in his earthly ministry would defer all knowledge of the day or hour of his coming to the Father.

In the end, the thrust of the readings for us today is that we are to be vigilant, alert, and ready for the coming of Christ in the crises that crop up in our lives just as the generation addressed by Jesus was called to do so; and, most importantly, we are called to be ready for the ultimate crisis, the happy crisis, of Christ's Second Coming.

An Example of the Popular Misrepresentation of Vatican II

Cardinal Dearden was head of the Archdiocese of Detroit from 1958 to 1980 and is described as a leading contributor to Vatican II. Some of his colleagues and admirers are gathering in Detroit to celebrate his life and work. All that is fine, good, and fitting. But, in the press release advertising the gathering, one of the late Cardinal's collaborators, Bishop Joseph Imesch of Joliet, Illinois, praises the late cardinal with these words:

Bishop Joe Imesch is a former secretary to Cardinal Dearden who is now the Bishop of Joliet, Illinois. He recalls that Cardinal Dearden’s Church was “never hierarchical, but rather collaborative and participatory.”

See Archdiocese of Detroit website (PDF document).

There are two problems with Bishop Imesch's statement. First is the reference to "Cardinal Dearden's Church." This phrase cannot but help to bring to mind a comment by Cardinal Ratzinger correcting the errors of post-conciliar thinking: " ' it is [H]is Church and not ours' " (Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth [Ignatius Press 1997], p. 80). Of course, what Ratzinger is saying is that the Church ultimately belongs to Christ, not to us so that we can do with it as we wish.

The second and more significant problem with Bishop Imesch's statement is the assertion that Cardinal Dearden's Church was " ' never hierarchical.' " Well, if that statement is in fact true then Cardinal Dearden's Church was not the Catholic Church. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium has an entire chapter, Chapter III, dedicated to the Church as heirarchical. Here is how three different translations word the title of this crucial chapter:

1. The translation of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the forerunner of the Catholic Bishops' Conference: "On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and In Particular on the Episcopate";

2. The virtually identical translation in the collection of the documents of Vatican II edited by Walter M. Abbott, S.J.: "The Hierarchical Structure of the Church, with Special Reference to the Episcopate"; and

3. The succinct translation in the collection of Vatican II documents edited by Austin Flannery, O.P.: "The Church is Hierarchical."

Some say that this chapter of Lumen Gentium may very well be the most important one produced by the Council because it completes the work of Vatican I (1870), which focused on the papal office, by presenting the teaching on the role of the bishops in general and the role of the bishops in conjunction with the papacy. Yet, here we have the direct implication by Bishop Imesch that somehow "hierarchical" is bad because it is the opposite of the virtues of participation and collaboration.

Some will understandably say that my analysis is a bit too picky in focusing on an informal, non-doctrinal statement in a press release. In defense, I will say that I am not imputing any heretical or dissenting intent or even consciousness to the statement of the bishop. But what I am pointing out is that this statement is an example of the sloppy thinking and description of the spirit of Vatican II that has confused the laity and misrepresented the Council's work. It is not too much to ask that a bishop, one of whose central roles is to teach the faith, be careful and accurate in the impressions he gives his audiences, especially about Vatican II whose misperception has been the cause of so much division in the Church. This type of sloppy thinking is what creates the phenomenon of organized heresy that includes groups like Voice of the Faithful who wish to remake the Church into a larger ethnic version of the democratically-run, collaborative, and participatory Episcopal Church U.S.A. We do not want to go down that road.

The bishop's informal statement is an expression of American culture, not of Catholic culture. The word "hierarchical" refers to a sacred order or rule and is derived from the Greek heiros meaning "holy" and the Greek archein meaning "to rule." Thus, to say that the Church is hierarchical is to say that it is characterized by "sacred ruling" -- although Cardinal Ratzinger himself argues that a better translation would be "sacred origin" with "origin" emphasizing that the priest or bishop is merely a conduit for the power of Christ (See Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth [Ignatius Press 1997], pp. 190-91). In either case, certainly, Bishop Imesch does not mean to reject the idea of a sacred rule or sacred origin in the Church. What he most probably means to reject is the idea of non-participatory, non-collaborative one-man rule. That restricted and typically American meaning of the word "hierarchy" is a chimera. Most, if not all, bishops do not exercise their authority in that manner. Such a caricature of episcopal rule is just not possible in running a complex organization like a diocese.

Yet, the local bishop does have ultimate authority in the diocese as a representative of Jesus Christ who did in fact rule in a sovereign, hierarchical fashion that shows no trace of being participatory or collaborative in the gospel accounts. To my knowledge, we have no record of Jesus consulting democratically with his disciples prior to setting the direction of his ministry. In fact, Jesus famously responded to Peter's rebuke with his own harsh rebuke: "Get thee behind me, Satan . . . ." (Mt. 16:23, KJV).

The sloppy words of Bishop Imesch may certainly be forgiven, but they should not be overlooked because they serve, however innocently, to misrepresent the work of the Council and the very nature of the Church herself. Such informal remarks merely add to the popular misrepresentation of Vatican II which has caused so much confusion.

More on the Authentic Vatican II

In the now famous interview, The Ratzinger Report, published about 18 years ago (a commentary in itself about John Paul's lengthy papacy), Cardinal Ratzinger described the circumstances surrounding his parting of the ways with the progressive-leaning journal Concilium:

At our very first meetings I pointed out two prerequisites to my colleagues. The first one: our group must not lapse into any kind of sectarianism or arrogance, as if we were the new, the true Church, an alternative magisterium with a monopoly on the truth of Christianity. The second one: discussion has to be conducted without any individualistic flights forward, in confrontation with the reality of Vatican II, with the true letter and the true spirit of the Council, not with an imaginary Vatican III. These prerequisites were increasingly less observed in the following period up to a turning point-- which set in around 1973-- when someone began to assert that the texts of Vatican II were no longer the point of reference of Catholic theology. Indeed, it was flatly stated that the Council still belonged to the traditional, clerical moment of the Church and that it was not possible to move forward very much with such documents. They must be surpassed. Hence the Council was only a starting point.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report (Ignatius Press 1985), p. 19 (emphasis added).

In the Catholic Analysis post for November 11, 2003, I noted the "liberal" view that the documents of Vatican II were merely the first step in a modernism that would revise Church morals, doctrine, and governance. What Cardinal Ratzinger's comments confirm-- from one who
was literally on the scene--is that this modernist project was present very early on. In a sense, the
modernists were correct: the documents of the Council reflected, to their chagrin, the great stream of Catholic tradition and orthodoxy. For these revisionists, such documents bearing the odor of Catholic orthodoxy had to be quickly surpassed. Hence, the emphasis on the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II over the texts of Vatican II. In my November 11th post, I spoke of the kairos or timeliness of Vatican II. Its timeliness lies precisely in having enunciated its Catholic vision while still within an unquestionably orthodox setting, as opposed to the chaotic setting of the late sixties and the seventies. It was precisely at the right time in the early sixties when the last period of theological calm reigned in the Church that providence led the Church to hold the Council-- a time when the false "alternative magisterium" of dissent had not yet risen to prominence. In a way, Vatican II created a bulwark against dissent by restating authoritatively, before the deluge of dissent, the Catholic vision for a changing world.

Yet, as many have pointed out, there is nothing more stagnant than a Catholic progressive: they remain stuck in the late sixties and seventies pursuing a boring and dated liberalism that continues to create a fictitious liberal Vatican III that rejects the texts of Vatican II. The ironic stagnation of the self-styled progressives can be seen in the description given by Cardinal Ratzinger. From his description, we can see that the liberal project has not changed in the last forty years. In spite of a Western world in which the family is attacked, in which sexual morality has virtually disappeared, in which human life is treated as expendable, and in which materialism has become the practical religion of millions, the liberals persist in an infantile vision that is completely out of touch with reality. Where families are breaking down, the liberals propose the recognition of remarriage and gay "marriage." Where sexual morality has collapsed, the liberals propose more condoms. Where abortion has slaughtered millions of children, the liberals propose embrace of the abortion regime. Where euthanasia has risen to clear out the disabled from our hospitals, the liberals keep silent or argue for the right to die. Where there is a rejection of Catholic doctrine, the liberals offer a Christianity without any supernatural elements, a mere warmed over, emotional version of secular "social justice"-- the Church as Peace Corps. For every challenge to the Gospel, the liberals precisely offer the remedy of surrender.

That is why ultimately the theological liberals, in spite of their disingenuous rhetoric, are one in rejecting the texts of Vatican II. It is appropriate to remind them of the cry of the phenomenologists that we should return "to the things themselves"-- in this case, the things themselves being the texts themselves. The modernists living in their fantasy world would do well to take that lesson from the secular world.

Grace as Beauty

In his book on the theological aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, theologian Aidan Nichols, O.P., points out that the "Greek word for grace, charis, means also the attractiveness of the beautiful, and, [that] Balthasar finds that more than a coincidence" (Nichols, The Word Has Been Abroad: A Guide Through Balthasar's Aesthetics [Catholic Univ. of America Press 1998), 6). Balthasar finds it essential to do theology in the light of beauty, as also in the light of the other "transcendentals" such as the true and the good. In speaking of beauty, Balthasar refers again and again to the "form" of Christ and of each individual.

Nichols describes what Balthasar is trying to point out in the relation of grace and beauty:

Justification and sanctification guarantee a spiritual form that 'will thrive as the greatest of beauties.' In Catholic piety, the faithful love their saints because 'the image of the saints' lives is so love-worthy and engaging'. In the redeemed, the archetype of Christ is set to work on the image of ordinary existence, for its transfiguration, by that almighty Creator Spirit who has no need to destroy the natural so as to attain his more-than-natural goal.

Nichols, p. 4.

Jesus Christ as the glory of God is the "original form" and the source of all beauty (Nichols, p. 5). Grace in the sense described by Balthasar transfigures us and makes us more "beautiful," not in the superficial sense of our consumerist world of cosmetics, fashion, body sculpting, and plastic surgery. Rather, the idea is that we find our fullness as persons through grace as we participate in the glory of God. Yet, it is not just a matter of our personal fulfillment, but primarily a matter of reflecting the glory of God in our lives.

The role of grace as beauty allows us to consider ourselves and those we have known in a new light. Think of someone you have known well, probably a parent or other close relative, and think of all their good qualities and wonderful character traits and personal gifts. If such a person has not followed Christ, all those good qualities and traits ultimately remain, to borrow a word from Balthasar, expressionless (Nichols, p. 3). Imagine all those incipient abilities and good qualities transfigured by Christ and imagine the strikingly more powerful person that would have resulted.

This reflection is not meant to induce mourning over lost opportunities. But it is intended to induce awareness of grand opportunities that have been passed by, opportunities to be transfigured in Christ through grace. The best that we naturally have and possess has been made for transfiguration in Christ. We can then become as engaging as the saints because we will reflect the glory of the Lord. Whatever natural beauty our lives possess has been made for a supernatural beauty bestowed by grace.

This message of grace as beauty is not only for non-Christians but also for Christians who are in need of renewal, of continual conversion. It is a message far different from the stereotypical presentation of Christianity, and especially Catholicism, as imposing burdens alien to human nature. The transfiguration of grace is alien to the extent that it must, because of what it is, challenge, re-shape, and transform our wounded nature, but the cross ultimately is a means to transformation and resurrection. So that, in the end, the burden is light.

The End of Catholic Assimilation and the New Prophetic Model

For generations, Catholics in America have eagerly sought complete assimilation in American culture. The most visible Catholic on the cutting edge of assimilation was the late President Kennedy. In an oddity for Catholics of his era, in his whole life he attended a Catholic educational institution for a grand total of one year--when he was 13 years old. The JFK resume was one long pursuit of the credentials of Northeast Protestant elite culture. In gaining the presidency, JFK assiduously ran away from the Catholic Church. Since then, assimilation has proceeded at a furious pace as distinctive Catholic lifestyles have become hard to find. Highly urbanized American Catholics, especially in the Northeast and the Midwest, have succumbed to the secularism of American culture with gusto. The results consist of so-called Catholic politicians who routinely and with impunity embrace abortion and now gay unions, of many calling themselves Catholic who make no effort to follow Catholic moral teachings or even attend weekly Mass, and of the embrace of the common materialistic consumer ethos. Catholics in America have become "Kennedyized." The assimilationist model has run its course.

The problem is that the success of such assimilation means the end of any identifiable Catholicism. Personally, I am still awaiting the first Catholic president-- although I am tempted to say, tongue in cheek, that President George W. Bush, with his robust embrace of the culture of life, may be the first "Catholic" president we have ever had. The secular culture has exploded in its challenge to traditional Christian and Catholic moral teaching in the contraceptive mentality of widespread fornication, in euthanasia, in abortion, and in its material decadence. As a result, a practicing faithful Catholic today is emphatically not assimilationist. Instead, a faithful Catholic is by necessity separated from the dominant culture. It is a prophetic role that will gradually separate the sheep from the goats within the Catholic Church itself.

Faithful Catholics have left the assimilationist model because what remains to assimilate into is so decidedly anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. The new prophetic model is one of challenging engagement, not of eager, codependent conformity. The extent to which bishops and all other Catholics embrace the new prophetic model will be the measure of the health of the Catholic Church in the United States. Otherwise, many of us will end up becoming "secular Catholics" just as non-practicing Jews have long been known as "secular Jews." Either Catholicism in the United States will become a mere ethnic curiosity, or it will become a prophetic force challenging the dominant culture at every turn. This choice will have a big influence on the universal Church, but the universal Church will, of course, march on with or without American Catholics. The universal Church has cut its losses before. When much of northern Europe cut itself off with the Protestant revolt, the Church found a New World in the Americas. There are newer worlds than the United States beckoning to the Church today. Maybe, rising immigration from Latin America or Asia will bring that new world to these shores and save American Catholicism from following the paths of decline pioneered by French or Dutch Catholicism.

Vatican II and Kairos

The Greek word kairos is used in the New Testament to mean the "appointed or proper time" (see Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament [London: UBS 1971]). An example can be found in Romans 5:6, where Paul writes that "at the right time [kata kairon] Christ died for the ungodly" (RSV). The word is commonly used in Christian writing and even by some writing in fields such as rhetoric who seek to emphasize the situation or context in which speech takes place (see an example). The documents of Vatican II issued during the years of the Council from 1962 to 1965, like all documents, have their own particular kairos or situation. Because of the controversial nature of Vatican II even to this day, there are competing analyses of the kairos of Vatican II.

The so-called "liberal" or "progressive" analysis of the kairos of Vatican II views Vatican II as merely the first step, the first crack in the door of a wholesale restructuring of the Catholic Church in doctrine, governance, morals, and liturgy. The "liberal" emphasis is on Vatican II as merely the first "baby step" in the rejection of most, if not all, supernatural aspects of Christian revelation, the rejection of any moral absolutes, and the reorientation of liturgy from adoration to communal self-affirmation.

The so-called "traditionalist" analysis of the kairos of Vatican II views the convening of the council as an error of the greatest magnitude for the very same reasons that the liberals hail it as a first step in a "progressive" direction. Both sides agree that Vatican II began the journey toward the rejection of the supernatural aspects of revelation, of moral absolutes, and of adoration in the liturgy.

But, when you read and re-read and are forced to study the words of Vatican II, some of us walk away with a radically different perception of the council's documents. Instead of Vatican II as the first step in modernism, Vatican II emerges as a deeply conservative council. The theme running throughout the documents is the unveiling of the riches of Christian revelation in Scripture and Tradition for proclamation to all the world. It is, to use two well-known phrases, an updating (aggiornamento) by means of a return to the sources (ressourcement)-- and the sources are Scripture and Tradition interpreted in a plainly orthodox manner.

That textual orthodoxy contradicts the vaunted "spirit of Vatican II" marketed by liberals as the first step to full-fledged modernism. I submit that the stubborn textual orthodoxy of Vatican II is why liberals emphasize "spirit" over text and issue calls for a "Vatican III." The decrees of Vatican II are emphatically not "liberal" or "progressive" as those terms are used today. The texts are faithful to divine revelation and its sources in Scripture and Tradition. Extreme traditionalists are unwittingly yielding unnecessary ground to modernists by acquiescing in the modernist falsification of the texts of Vatican II.

When all is said and done, the legacy of a council is not chained to its personalities or to superficial journalistic accounts of lobbying and conflict. When all is said and done, the permanent legacy of a council for the Church is contained exclusively in the final texts approved by the Pope. Those final texts speak for themselves. Certainly, we can and should consider the recorded debates in understanding the final texts, as we do with all texts. But, ultimately, the wording of the texts is the key to understanding the texts and dictate our use of recorded debates and interventions at the council. Background material is meant to illuminate the text, not to alter it.

Examples of the innate conservatism and traditionalism of the Council can be seen in its statements affirming the supreme power of the pope as set forth by Vatican I in 1870 (Lumen Gentium, 18), affirming organic, as opposed to unthinking, innovation in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23), calling for the retaining of Latin chant in the Roman rite (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36, 54 & 116), affirming the authority of Scripture as "the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, 9), calling for equal "devotion and reverence" for "both Scripture and Tradition" (Dei Verbum, 9), and affirming the perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of Mary, the Mother of God (Lumen Gentium, 52, 57, 59, 69). The above references are worth looking up and pondering. Reading them will dispel any false notion of Vatican II as a modernist or theologically liberal council.

To say that Vatican II was indeed conservative in the best sense of the word is not to excuse the disastrous implementation of the council, at times in direct disobedience of post-conciliar papal instructions. It is amazing to see in one well-known collected edition of the documents of Vatican II and its post-conciliar documents a 1974 letter from the Vatican stating that in accordance with "a desire which the Holy Father had frequently expressed, that all the faithful should know at least some Latin Gregorian chants, such as, for example, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei" (Letter to Bishops on the Minimum Repertoire of Plain Chant, issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 14 April 1974, reprinted in Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II, New Revised Edition, Vol. 1 [Northport, N.Y.: Costello Publishing Co. 1998], p. 273). In light of such brazen disobedience, it is no surprise, that Pope Paul VI is reported to have remarked that the "smoke of Satan" had somehow entered the Church. All of which leads me to say that any parish that makes no effort to teach some chant to the faithful is far from being the Vatican II parish it may smugly imagine itself to be.

In my view, Vatican II was a conservative and traditional council--as one would expect of any ecumenical council convoked by the Pope. That we are still struggling to implement it is a testimony to our own failings and not to the failings of the documents promulgated by the Pope at Vatican II. In contrast to the liberal and traditionalist view of the kairos of Vatican II as the moment when modernism entered the Church, in my view, the kairos of Vatican II was indeed the appointed time for the Church to reaffirm the Deposit of Faith as the world was about to enter an era of rapid social change. The early sixties was probably the best time for the Church to state with minimum conflict the eternal truths of the faith in anticipation of the chaos of the later sixties and the seventies. Just imagine if Vatican II had been convoked in 1968 or 1973 in the midst of the chaos of those years. Vatican II would have been mired in the same acrimonious conflict that greeted the issuance of Humanae Vitae in 1968. The period of the early sixties was the opportune time or kairos for comprehensively reaffirming the Catholic tradition prior to decades of upheaval within and without the Church. Vatican II was a "kairotic" event.

More Nonsense from a Liberal Bishop

Since my high school years, the liberal magazine U.S. Catholic has been promoting ways to get around Church teaching. Unfortunately, I assumed, naively, as a high school student that a magazine called U.S. Catholic was a reliable source for how a Catholic could approach different moral issues, especially since it was prominently displayed in the reading room of the Catholic high school I attended. Well, many years later, the agenda of confusion and of subversion of Catholic teaching is still alive and well at the magazine. In the November 2003 issue, Catholic Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, makes an extended plea for Church approval of condom use to prevent AIDS in Africa (see story in PDF format).

The bishop is rightly anguished over the horrendous numbers that have succumbed to and are succumbing to AIDS in Africa. He is rightly upset over the poverty and unjust conditions that force many women to turn to prostitution. But, his moral revisionism is an exercise in fantasy. His proposal for Church approval of condom use to prevent AIDS will not only fail to alleviate the problems he is rightly concerned with but will likely exacerbate the problems. In the meantime, a central Christian teaching will be jettisoned for no good purpose.

The bishop has a problem with "the norms we promote", namely, the rejection of contraceptive methods. He calls for a "mature sexuality" and urges us not to "condemn condoms in the fight against AIDS." He also questions the Church's "credibility" on this matter.

If we analyze the bishop's article, the structure is quite simple, unfortunately, because there is no valid reasoning behind it. First, he paints a highly upsetting portrait of the poverty and bleakness of a prostitute dying with her child from AIDS. He then urges that the Church embrace condoms as a way of preserving health. He argues that the only evil the Church proscribes is the evil of seeking to prevent new life, not the evil of saving life from a fatal disease.

What is missing from this simple and highly emotional appeal? Well, the old logical term for the bishop's fallacious argument is non sequitur. In plain English, his conclusion does not follow from his premises. He really has two premises, one stated and one conveniently unstated: 1.) the stated premise that condoms reduce the transmission of AIDS; and 2.) the unstated premise that the Church's promotion of the norm against use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS. Now, as to the first premise, the bishop at least is careful to admit that condoms are not 100% effective in protecting against AIDS, but relies on the fact that condom use reduces the chances of getting AIDS. Already, we have an interesting concession that raises an enormous pastoral issue: how is the Church to promote use of a device that is not guaranteed to protect against contracting a fatal illness? It seems to me that, even on the level of the bishop's first premise, it would always be impossible for the Church to recommend the use of condoms in a game of Russian roulette.

The second unstated premise is where the bishop's plea falls apart. Once you consider the second unstated premise, it is clear that the bishop's argument is thoroughly fallacious and based on an emotional appeal that contradicts common sense. It makes one wonder whether the bishop may be, consciously or unconsciously, more committed to an agenda of so-called "justice" than to the Christian agenda of sexual morality. Christian sexual morality is an expression of social justice. There is no contradiction. The bishop's arguments indicate to me that he has a highly defective view of sexual morality that contradicts the Catholic tradition.

But worse than that defective view is that the bishop is really arguing that the Church's rejection of contraception causes the dying prostitute to contract AIDS. The bishop expects the reader to believe that a woman forced to be a prostitute in order to feed herself and her children is refusing to use condoms as a prostitute because of her commitment to Humanae Vitae. He also expects the reader to believe that her "customers" are also refusing to use condoms because of their commitment to Humanae Vitae. These expectations of the bishop are exercises in fantasy that make one wonder whether the bishop has already rejected Catholic sexual morality independent of his heartache over the AIDS crisis.

I submit that someone forced by economic duress into prostitution is not concerned in the least with the Church's teachings on contraception. I even more strongly submit that the "customers" of the prostitute are not influenced in any way whatsoever by Humanae Vitae.

What is my proof? My proof is the fact that, if the prostitute under duress or the "customer" was in fact subject to influence by Church norms, he or she would never engage in this behavior to begin with. If they did engage in this behavior, it would be an isolated episode. And, even in that isolated episode, the existential reality is that when one decides to engage in mortal sin such as sex outside of marriage, the ancillary mortal sin of contraception poses no psychological obstacle for the sinner. Once you have separated the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act by engaging in sex outside of marriage in the first place, you have already crossed the crucial boundary into mortal sin and thus the additional mortal sin of contraception merely compounds the already accomplished mortally sinful separation of the unitive and the procreative dimensions. I am assuming a sequence of acts: first deciding to engage in sex outside of marriage and then deciding to use contraception. Of course, the two decisions to engage in mortal sin may also occur simultaneously and, in the West, commonly do so.

In other words, we can say, by analogy, that once you decide to murder, it is doubtful that you will hesitate to rob the corpse of its wallet. In the same way, once you reject Church norms and decide on fornication or adultery, you will not hesitate to use a condom if you wish to, and you will pay no heed to Humanae Vitae. And the United Nations and other agencies, financed by the West, are making sure that condoms are available for those who want to use them.

So we are left with the fallacious argument of a bishop who believes in the fantasy that a murderer will refrain from robbing the corpse because, all of a sudden, in the course of carrying out the murder, he is seized with fear that he will violate the commandment against stealing. It is likewise a fantasy to believe that someone who "cannot or will not follow the church's ideals in sexual ethics," to quote the bishop's own words, will, all of a sudden, in the course of fornicating or committing adultery be seized with fear that he or she will violate the Church's teaching against contraception.

It appears to me that the bishop should apply common sense to the situation in Africa and preach sex within marriage. He should also do everything possible to alleviate the poverty and social injustice that drives women into prostitution and should push for the arrest of those who use prostitutes. To propose that the Church get into the business of marketing condoms will help no one in practical terms and will in fact be a rejection of the Gospel. The problem in Africa, as in the West, is the failure to reserve sex for marriage. Yet, Africa has a gigantic mitigating circumstance--the crushing poverty and the desperation it induces. Social justice demands both chastity and the alleviation of poverty. Both facets of social justice are the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Dedication of the Lateran Basilica: Ezekiel 47:1-2, 8-9, 12; 1 Cor. 3:9-11, 16-17; John 2:13-22

The Lateran Basilica or St. John Lateran is "the Pope's cathedral or principal church in Rome . . . . known as the head and mother of all churches" (Stravinskas, Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing 2002). (Stravinskas also notes that St. Peter's Basilica, although it is not the pope's cathedral, is the site of most of the important gatherings of the Church because it is so near to the pope's residence and because of its size as the largest church building in the world.) Why celebrate as a liturgical feast the dedication of the Pope's cathedral in Rome?

I submit that this feast should make us focus on the fact that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the supreme pastor and bishop of the universal Church. In other words, all Catholics have at least two bishops, the local diocesan bishop and the Bishop of Rome who is superior to any local bishop. As Vatican II teaches, "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can exercise unhindered" ( Lumen Gentium, 22). In other words, the power of the Pope as supreme pastor can in no way be limited by a diocesan bishop. This teaching of Vatican II is worth recalling when people begin to speak of decentralization or "collegiality."

How do today's readings relate to celebrating the dedication of the Pope's cathedral? Ezekiel proclaims his vision of the temple of God from which water flows which gives rise to "abundant" life and which makes the salt waters fresh. Likewise, the Petrine ministry of the Pope is a source of abundant life for the Church. To share in this abundant life, we must remain in communion with Peter's successor and drink from the "waters" that flow from Rome.

In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul says that we are temples of God. John Paul II has taught his theology of the body tirelessly, a theology which merely explains and repeats the message of Paul: our physical bodies are temples of God. If the temple of God is a place of peace, then our bodies should be places of peace, not of addiction or anger or envy or any other form of tempestuous malice. If the temple of God is a place of purity and holiness, then our physical bodies should be pure and holy and not be used as instruments or tools of lust. Later, in 1 Corinthians 6:12-19, St. Paul makes clear that sexual immorality is a sin against one's own body and hence a sin against a temple of the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality is wrong because it is sacrilege.

In the Gospel, Jesus refers to his own body as the temple that he will raise up after three days. The Resurrection confirms the sacredness of the body. St. Paul refers to the Resurrection as proof that the body belongs to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13-14). Thus, the core event of the Christian faith, the bodily Resurrection of Christ, is linked with the theology of the body. There is no evading the issue. Reverence for the body and the rejection of sexual immorality are central aspects of the Christian faith. Those who embrace immorality are rejecting the Resurrection and have departed from the faith, regardless of the ornate vestments they may wear or the grand titles they may apply to themselves.

A Different Sort of Family Breakdown

In American society today, we are all well aware of family breakdown due to divorce and its underlying causes, whether alcoholism or other substance abuse, adultery, or even materialism in which the pursuit of career prestige overwhelms family commitment. But there is another sort of family breakdown that tends to be harder to detect: the breakdown of the extended family. As one who grew up with a grandparent living in the same house, the extended family was a natural reality. The live-in grandparent was an automatic link to other relatives. In addition, growing up among Spanish-speaking immigrants led to the typical ethnic social network: strangers in a new land sticking together.

But what I am increasingly becoming aware of is a glue that we took for granted, namely, an unspoken moral consensus. Whether one practiced a religion or not, no one challenged or attacked basic Christian belief or morality. It was not up for discussion. And the lifestyles of relatives did not openly challenge the moral consensus.

Today, I see a different situation that is probably increasingly common. It is not uncommon today for persons, young and not so young, to live in what used to be called "open concubinage." Today, we call it by the Orwellian euphemism of "cohabitation." Well, cohabitation is a perfectly good word whose good name has now been definitively tarnished. Would anyone speak today about "cohabitation" with one's grandmother? Of course not, it is impossible to use "cohabitation" in that sense because today "cohabitation" means sexual intercourse. Thus, another word has been stolen from ordinary language to take its place as part of the vocabulary of euphemism seeking to white wash the unsavory. You can think of other examples--words like "gay" or even more significantly the word "love." As to the word "love," conduct a thought experiment. In our culture, what is the first thing associated with the mention of the word "love"? The answer will indicate to you how much our culture is deeply immersed in lying about human nature.

So what happens to the extended family when some members live in open concubinage? What happens is that some Christian family members will find it impossible to carry on normal family relations because of the objectively scandalous moral example. The example of concubinage is not only scandalous to the children, it is also an insult to those who are married. Concubinage mocks the marital bond by announcing to the world that sexual intimacy is no longer the distinctive dimension of marriage. It is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, another in a series of attacks or "offenses against the dignity of marriage" (see CCC, 2380-2391).

Beyond the issue of concubinage, there is also deep moral disagreement about other hot-button issues. As abortion continues to be pressed as a fundamental civil right in the face of unignorable scientific images showing that it is in fact murder of the unborn, it is becoming increasingly difficult to feel comfortable around those who are outspoken defenders of abortion. This discomfort extends to the other rising social and religious cause célebre: the legal and religious approval of gay unions. These are highly emotional issues and rightly so. They are family-splitting issues as the Episcopalians are finding out.

And, to top it off, practicing Catholics who embrace the Church's official teachings are the subject of unprecedented mockery and harassment by members of the extended family. Bitter ex-Catholics cannot control their need to attack a practicing orthodox Catholic. Attacks that would never be acceptable if aimed at a Hindu or a Moslem are viewed as natural and right when directed against the beliefs of Catholic family members. Sometimes the attacking family members are bitter ex-Catholics, other times they are liberal Protestants, and other times they may be fundamentalists. Being Catholic makes you a target of all groups. The Catholic Church is the ultimate contradiction of the modern West; it is the only institution that challenges secular culture at every turn. Even fundamentalist Protestants have long accommodated themselves to contraception. The Catholic Church is virtually alone in its refusal to conform.

To these conflicts of belief must be added the materialistic nature and pace of American life, where many live to consume. Many of us are too busy making the money needed to engage in conspicuous and unnecessary consumption to engage in the leisure of family contact as an end in itself. All of these factors--severe ideological conflict, an emphasis on materialism--lead to the breakdown of the extended family.

In these circumstances, Christians may be coming slowly to see the relevance of a hard saying from long ago:

And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Matthew 12:49-50 (RSV).

Semina Verbi: Seeds of the Word

The word "seminary" comes from the Latin to sow or plant seeds. A recent Newsday.com article on the Pontifical North American College in Rome gives an exciting and hopeful look at the seeds being planted for the future. The writer characterizes the seminarians at this prestigious Roman seminary as quintessential men of John Paul II:

In a sharp break with the more rebellious attitudes that characterized their predecessors, many emulate John Paul's personal piety as well as his orthodoxy on matters ranging from mandatory priestly celibacy, to birth control and divorce, to his vision of priests as shepherds leading their flock. And they say their intention is nothing less than to carry on the pope's legacy long after he is gone.

Source: Carol Eisenberg, "Answering an Uncommon Call," Newsday.com, Oct. 22, 2003.

The North American College is highly significant for us in the United States because, as the article notes, it "has produced more U.S. bishops and cardinals than any other seminary." The author notes that these men will have " a disproportionate effect" on the priesthood in the U.S. It is also clear that, by having a disproportionately positive effect on the Catholic Church in the U.S., they will also have a significantly positive effect on the universal Church.

Of course, some are troubled by the good news of young, highly qualified, and orthodox seminarians enthusiastic about their vocations as future priests. As the article notes, liberals are worried:

[S]ome worry their moral certitude may create rifts with those who ignore Rome's teachings on church attendance, sex, birth control and divorce and who are increasingly vocal in their demand for a role in church governance.

This observation is quite revealing. Why would "some" be worried about the orthodoxy of future priests? Well, we all know the answer: because "some" reject orthodox Catholic belief and are intent on undermining orthodox belief. One sociologist--a specialty that I firmly believe no thinking person would miss if it disappeared entirely from the academic world--opines that there is a worrisome "generational divide in the U.S. priesthood." It is a blessing that such a generational divide exists precisely because the earlier generation of priests is riddled with so many false vocations. For it is indeed a false vocation when a priest does not pass on the moral teachings of the Church to his flock. Woe to such a priest or bishop or cardinal on the day of judgment because much will be demanded of him to whom much has been given. I, for one, welcome this generational divide in the priesthood and am happy that the mortality statistics favor the newer, orthodox generation of clergy.

Contrary to the liberal mindset, the relationship of priest to laity should not be one of enabler to the confused. Rather, the relation should be one of a challenging teacher. After all, Christ was the quintessential challenging teacher. The priesthood is not there to humor our errors and confusions. The priesthood is their to challenge us to rise to our own vocations as lay people.

The image of the seeds of the Word is rich in evangelical resonance. Some seeds have died, others have sprouted. The wheat and the tares grow together until the end of time. John Paul II has planted well, and the harvest will be rich. For those of us in the common priesthood of the baptized and confirmed laity, our call is to support the new generation of orthodox priests by speaking out in praise of orthodoxy and in the exposure of heresy. May this new generation of orthodox priests find those of us in the laity outspoken and fearless in our support in word and deed.

Buried in the N.Y. Times: More Republican Voters Nationwide

On page A22 of today's print version of the N.Y. Times is a one paragraph mention of highly important political news, namely, a significant increase in Republican registered voters since September 11th. Here is the first sentence of the one paragraph story:

The Republican Party, which lagged in registered voters for much of the last century, has made major gains across the country and pulled even with Democrats, a study of the electorate found.

See on-line N.Y. Times, Nov. 6, 2003, National Section, National Briefing: Politics (free registration required)(emphasis added).

The survey was done by the Pew Research Center, which, in my personal opinion, leans in the liberal direction. The results show that registered voters in the U.S. are about one third Republican, one-third Democrat, and one-third independent. Whether this portends the long anticipated Republican realignment remains to be seen, in my view, because the whole question of realignment presupposes strong party loyalty which has disappeared from the American scene. What it does confirm is that left-wing Democratic policies have indeed destroyed the old FDR Democratic coalition. That destruction opened the way for Republican electoral success under Reagan in the eighties, in 1994 under Clinton, and under the current President Bush. I cannot pass up the chance of noting that in my opinion the greatest accomplishment of Bill Clinton in the history books will be-- ironically for him-- the rise of a Republican House of Representatives in 1994.

The pro-life party, the Republican Party, is more competitive than ever. If that leads to a Republican realignment, so much the better. In the meantime, what the N.Y. Times buried is quite good news. It is also interesting that the N.Y. Times notes gains among white Roman Catholics and Hispanics. Republican gains among Hispanics are especially ominous for the Democrats. It remains to be seen how the Democratic gay agenda, which has only recently received much attention due to the recent Supreme Court ruling favoring sodomy, will further affect this Republican trend among Hispanics. The gay agenda will not be a plus in attracting Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party, just as the Episcopal Church's gay agenda has not been a plus in Latin America, or Asia, or Africa.

The Detroit Free Press has a detailed article on the survey buried by the N.Y. Times. The Detroit Free Press ran the article on the front page of its print edition.

Scottish Catholics Oppose Gay Partnerships

There is positive news from Scotland after an October littered with negative press reports. The Catholic Church in Scotland has taken a firm stand against a plan to recognize gay partnerships. Here is the link.

In addition, new Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien has recently spoken out to urge the government to support the institution of marriage. See BBC story. It appears that O'Brien's recent elevation to cardinal may be having a good effect after all.

The Best Endorsement

A prominent pro-abortion activist comments on President Bush's signing today of the bill banning Parial Birth Abortion:

"Today we saw the real George Bush. If we could afford to, we would put that speech on television every day from now until the election," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Any shred of doubt that this is the most anti-choice president this country has ever had has been convincingly erased."

Source: Associated Press story.

From a Christian point of view, both Catholic and Protestant evangelical, her remarks are in fact the best possible endorsement President Bush could ask for. Many of us prayed for George Bush to be elected president in 2000 precisely because of the abortion issue. Our prayers were not in vain.

Here is the text of the President's remarks today that so upset Kate Michelman:

President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
The Ronald Reagan Building
Washington, D.C.

1:40 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land. (Applause.) For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child. (Applause.)

I want to thank you all for coming. Many of you have worked long and hard to see this bill come to fruition, and we thank you for your efforts.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I see some members of my Cabinet have come. I appreciate the good work of the Attorney General, John Ashcroft. (Applause.) Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is here. Thank you, Tommy. (Applause.) There are a lot of members of the Senate and House here today, I want to thank you all for passing this important legislation. I'm glad you're here. (Applause.)

The primary Senate sponsor is with us, Senator Rick Santorum. (Applause.) Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Mike DeWine helped, as well, in the Senate. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Steve Chabot was the primary House sponsor, and Steve is with us. Thanks for coming, Steve. (Applause.) I'm thankful that our Speaker is with us today. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) The Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, as well. Thank you for coming, Tom. (Applause.)

I'd like to mention three other members of the House. Henry Hyde is with us today. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Jim Oberstar is with us. Jim, thank you for being here, sir, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Bart Stupak, from Michigan, is with us, as well. Thanks for coming, Bart, glad you're here. (Applause.)

I appreciate His Eminence, Cardinal Egan, is with us today. Thank you very much, sir. (Applause.)

In passing this legislation, members of the House and Senate made a studied decision based upon compelling evidence. The best case against partial birth abortion is a simple description of what happens and to whom it happens. It involves the partial delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life. Our nation owes its children a different and better welcome. (Applause.) The bill I am about to sign protecting innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of America.

In the course of the congressional debate, the facts became clear. Each year, thousands of partial birth abortions are committed. As Doctor C. Everett Koop, the pediatrician and former Surgeon General has pointed out, the majority of partial birth abortions are not required by medical emergency. As Congress has found, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother, and a violation of medical ethics. (Applause.)

The facts about partial birth abortion are troubling and tragic, and no lawyer's brief can make them seem otherwise. (Applause.) By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience. And the executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts. (Applause.)

America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right of life. And the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life. (Applause.)

In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. We're asked to live out our calling as Americans. We're asked to honor our own standards, announced on the day of our founding in the Declaration of Independence. We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society. And today, we welcome vulnerable children into the care and protection of Americans. (Applause.)

The late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey once said that: when we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins. (Applause.) This is the generous and merciful spirit of our country at its best. This spirit is reflected in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I am now honored to sign into law. God bless. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.) Thank you, all. (Applause.)

END 1:51 P.M. EST

Source: White House website.

In my opinion, the President's most memorable line is the following:

Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life.

God bless the President of the United States of America. It feels good to say it.

Bush to Sign Ban on Partial Birth Abortion Today

Today, President Bush will sign the ban on partial birth abortion, vetoed twice in the nineties by former President Clinton. The Associated Press has a good
summary of the background for the signing.

Several things can be said. First, with the signing of this bill, further cumulative tangible proof is produced that no Catholic can in good conscience support the national Democratic Party which embraces partial birth abortion. For serious Catholics, the national Democratic Party molded by the Clintons has vaporized: it is the party of abortion, pure and simple.

Second, the conflict over partial birth abortion will now move to the judicial branch, with several lawsuits already filed. If the courts strike down the bill, it will be another step toward the time when courts in the United States will lose their judicial independence. Courts cannot continue to ignore obvious crimes that become plainer and plainer to the rest of society without losing their power (see Catholic Analysis essay on judicial hubris for 10/22/03). The abortion issue has the potential of being the wedge that leads to an eventual revision of our revered system of judicial independence. Much like the crisis-ridden Episcopal Church, sometimes institutions, however venerable, simply lose all credibility. There is no divine right of judicial independence. If the abuse of judicial power continues, the extent of judicial power will slowly diminish.

Third, the abject moral failure of many nominally Catholic institutions to fight against the crime of abortion is more and more evident. The Associated Press story linked above quotes the defiant words of Kim Gandy, the President of the pro-abortion National Organization of Women (NOW). Well, a few years ago, Loyola University of New Orleans honored her with a public service award as a revered alumna, in spite of public protest by alumni and even by the archbishop of New Orleans (see Catholic Analysis essay for 10/8/03). Just like the national Democratic Party, no faithful Catholic can cast his or her lot with such transparently failed nominally Catholic institutions--and certainly Loyola of New Orleans is not, by any means, alone.

It is worth noting that the abortion issue persists as the great wedge issue of American culture. Over this issue, we may very well see the gradual dissolution of the judicial power we have become accustomed to. Over this issue, we see the growing loss of Catholic voters by the national Democratic party. And, over this issue, we see long-time loyalties of sentiment to now dysfunctional and confused Catholic educational institutions eroding. As science gives further proof of the humanity of the unborn child, the barbarism of all abortion will become more self-evident to more and more people, and the tensions in American culture will increase.

Liberal Media Bias More Prominent Than Ever Before

Conservative columnist Larry Elder made note in 2002 of a rarely reported admission by CBS's Andy Rooney on the Larry King show confirming what we all know:

CBS's Andy Rooney appeared recently on "Larry King Live." King asked Rooney about "Bias," the book by Bernard Goldberg that accuses CBS in particular and mainstream news in general of a liberal bias:

"What did you make of Bernard Goldberg's book," asked King, "critical of television liberal bias, and especially harsh on some of your folks at CBS."

"I thought he made some very good points," replied Rooney. "There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the -- I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too. But I think he should be more careful ... " Rooney went on to accuse Goldberg of being a "jerk," but left untouched Goldberg's accusation of mainstream media leftism.

Larry Elder column, June 27, 2002, available at this link (emphasis added).

Given this undeniable left-wing media bias, it is all the more amazing that as we stand today there is a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a plethora of Republican governors. Yet, the bias is not all political. It extends to religious affairs coverage, with the Boston Globe taking the prize, in my opinion, for the most anti-Catholic of major newspapers. Or, to be more exact, the Boston Globe is anti-Catholic if you happen to be a Catholic who embraces the official teachings of the Church. The Boston Globe has no problem with anti-papal pseudo-Catholics like Richard McBrien of Notre Dame or Peggy Steinfels of the Commonweal family dynasty.

Yesterday's Boston Globe contained the most scurrilous character assassination of faithful Catholics that I, for one, have ever seen in the mainstream media. The article was a hatchet job on prominent conservative Catholics like Deal Hudson of Crisis magazine, Fr. John McCloskey of Opus Dei, Tom Monaghan of Ave Maria University, among other prominent names. It also quotes the opinions of dissidents McBrien and Peggy Steinfels as confirmation of its wild protrayal of a right-wing conspiracy within the Catholic Church. I guess dissident Catholics don't need to do the dirty work of character assassination on their own. They can rely on the liberal secular media to take the bait, possibly with little or no nudging.

For Catholics who are pro-papacy and embrace the teaching authority of the Church, the proposal of a vast right-wing conspiracy in the Church is, ironically, a good sign. In the past, when liberals, whether theological or merely political, trot out the conspiracy theories, it is usually a sign that conservatives are succeeding and are viewed as threats. Witness Hillary Clinton desperately fronting for her spouse during the Lewinsky scandal. In the on-going Anglican gay crisis, the proponents of the gay agenda have been so alarmed by the vehemence and level of organization of orthodox Episcopalians that charges of a right-wing conspiracy, funded by right-wing millionaires with a "political" agenda, have become standard fare.

It is ironic that the journalistic profession, which has to be one of the most self-righteous arbiters of right and wrong in American society, is so transparently lacking in basic integrity and honesty. For those who do not receive Deal Hudson's e-mail letters, here is Hudson's response to the Boston Globe, a response that confirms the worst caricature of the liberal media:

Answering The Boston Globe

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter

November 3, 2003

**********************************************

Dear Friend,

It was just a matter of time. When Charles Pierce showed up at our
September 8 meeting with the bishops, he said he was working on a
story for the Boston Globe Magazine.

Days went by. Then weeks, then months. The stories from the other
reporters present were written and printed (and were actually quite
fair). But nothing from Pierce.

Until yesterday.

If you don't get the Globe, let me give you a quick rundown:
Yesterday's edition of the Boston Globe Magazine had a cover story
called "The Crusaders." As you've probably already guessed, it was a
feature-length assault on faithful Catholicism in general and
faithful Catholic leaders in specific (Fr. C. John McCloskey received
the brunt of the abuse; Opus Dei, Tom Monaghan, George Weigel, and I
received our share as well).

You can read the piece here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/

Normally, I would have simply ignored the piece. After all, you
won't last long in this business if you get upset every time a
liberal reporter does a hatchet job on you.

But this article contained a claim that's simply too outrageous to
let pass. If you've read the piece, you know exactly what I'm
referring to. If you haven't, you'll find out in a moment.

First, let me say that there's something oddly refreshing about a
reporter who forgoes even the appearance of objectivity. When Charles
Pierce put pen to paper (or, more likely, fingers to keyboard), he
clearly had no intention but to write a one-sided, liberal critique
of "conservative" Catholics. How else can we explain outrageous
statements like this:

"Vatican II is now a towering historical event, representing for
some the ongoing spirit of reform in the church and for others a kind
of theological breeder reactor, constantly on the edge of going out
of control. While favoring the latter view, Pope John Paul II, who
has led the Catholic Church since 1978, also has reinterpreted the
events of the council in such a way that they support his
traditionalist view of the church."

John Paul II has "reinterpreted" the council to support his
"traditionalist" views? Obviously, Charles Pierce has never read the
documents of the Second Vatican Council or he'd be too embarrassed to
make such a statement.

Furthermore, he seems to have no idea what a traditionalist is. In
fact, in the very next paragraph, he makes the astonishing claim that
"Over his lengthy pontificate, John Paul II has allied himself with
the traditionalist side of every ongoing dispute within the church."

Traditionalists would certainly be surprised to hear this.

But Pierce's bias is apparent in other ways as well. The extremely
liberal Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame is laughably presented
as mainstream; the Ethics and Public Policy Center -- a conservative
think-tank -- is criticized for receiving money from (gasp!) some
conservative foundations. (Does Pierce criticize liberal think-tanks
for receiving funding from liberal groups? Hardly. I guess it's only
wrong when conservatives do it.)

Our September 8 meeting with the bishops comes in for similar
treatment. Pierce begins by seriously mischaracterizing the earlier
secret meeting between the bishops and a group of dissenters, making
it sound like a small, harmless meeting of bishops and laypeople
genuinely concerned about the sex abuse crisis (no mention that the
attendees were almost exclusively dissenters, nor that vital "sex
abuse" topics like birth control and women's ordination were
covered).

In regards to our own meeting with the bishops, Pierce takes a much
different tone:

"Almost immediately, the conservative network reacted strongly to
what it termed a 'secret meeting' between the bishops and
'dissenters' and organized its own meeting at the Cosmos Club in
September, which Gregory and the other bishops could hardly refuse to
attend. Ironically, the conservatives were being more forceful in
their invitation than deference to episcopal authority might
previously have allowed."

Actually, we simply (and quietly) invited Bishop Gregory and the
others to the event. There was no force, no threats, no bluster --
nothing at all. The bishops graciously accepted and we had a very
productive and positive meeting. But this doesn't fit into the "angry
conservative" stereotype Pierce is trying to assemble.

Finally, near the end of the article and after a host of other small
errors that any fact-checker should have picked up (First Things is
NOT a Catholic magazine... it's ecumenical; the 26-year-old
Christendom College is not "new"; etc.), Pierce makes a truly
shocking statement:

"Deal Hudson does not like John McCloskey. Before saying anything
about him, and nothing that's good, Hudson turns off a reporter's
tape recorder. After all, if one is trying to simultaneously renew
the universal church and build a conservative Catholic political
movement out of the ashes of scandal, it does not help to have
someone baptizing leading political conservatives while waxing
affably about the religious dissolution of the country."

I don't like Fr. McCloskey? Well that's certainly news to me. After
all, we've been friends for years... he was the first guest on my
EWTN show (he and I inaugurated the theme of Church and culture on
that episode)... I've attended several retreats with him... he's a
long-time supporter of the magazine and attends most of our events...
in fact, we often have him offer the prayers at our annual
fundraising dinners. And to cap it all off, I recently asked Fr.
McCloskey if I could hold the release party for my new book at his
Catholic Information Center in two weeks (he generously agreed).

Make no mistake: I like Fr. C. John McCloskey. We've been friends
for years, and that friendship will continue.

But if that's all true, what on earth is Pierce referring to?
Actually, it's quite simple and undeserving of the sinister treatment
he gives it in his article. At one point in our interview about
faithful Catholics in the Church, Pierce asked me what I thought of
Fr. McCloskey's take on the sex abuse crisis. Since Father McCloskey
and I have a friendly disagreement over the role of the media in the
scandal, I turned off the tape recorder (I didn't want to be quoted
as disagreeing with him). It's an in-house debate, and we can argue
over it privately as friends, but I didn't want anything I said to be
used as ammo for an anti-McCloskey hit-piece.

I guess I was a bit naïve.

Regardless, my comments were confined to our relatively minor
difference of opinion on the sex abuse crisis. Nothing I said could
possibly be understood as evidence of ill will. So for Pierce to
claim that I don't like Fr. McCloskey is simply dirty pool... a
clumsy attempt to sew division among faithful Catholics.

In the end, Pierce's article is a mess -- an agenda-driven mishmash
of distortion and error. It's certainly not uncommon to see attacks
like this against faithful Catholics. But rarely are they so
obvious.


I'll talk to you again in a couple days,

Deal

So, if you were wondering if the Boston Globe's coverage of the recent Church scandals was fair, wonder no more.

From Henry VIII to Gene I: The Failed Experiment of Anglicanism

In 1533, Henry VIII divorced and remarried in defiance of the Pope and was duly excommunicated. Yesterday, 470 years later, Gene Robinson, also divorced and "re-committed," insisted on his consecration as an Episcopal bishop. He is now about to be effectively excommunicated by orthodox Anglicans. The morning news is already reporting that the Anglicans in Kenya have broken all ties with the U.S. Episcopal Church. More such announcements will likely follow. The Pope has already made clear that this action derails any hope of progress in ecumenical relations with Anglicanism. The same distinctive pattern of 1533 has emerged in 2003: an arrogant man with power rams his will through in defiance of Christian tradition and Scripture, oblivious of the chain of events he is unleashing. The arrogance of Gene Robinson comes in a much softer package, but the steely arrogance is there in the persistent defiance of Scripture and tradition.

In the England of Henry VIII, the king as dictator defined the culture, and proceeded to execute any who stood in his way, most famously St. John Fisher, the only English bishop to resist, and St. Thomas More. Today, Gene Robinson is no political dictator, but he is a spokesman for cultural correctness that seeks to codify the gay lifestyle in law and surely will press for laws forbidding any attacks on that lifestyle. I have heard some refer to the likelihood of future persecution of orthodox Christians, especially Catholics, in the United States. Today, I can see the initial trajectory of that as a real possibility. Once a lifestyle is codified due to cultural changes, the pressure will be to silence all who attack the lifestyle. Those who feel bound by a higher loyalty to witness against that lifestyle will become the targets of legal persecution. There have been reports from other nations confirming this outcome.

Just as in the England of Henry VIII it was essential to survival to approve of the King's new relationships, so in the West of the future it may be essential to survival to approve of the embrace of even more radically new relationships. Those who remain loyal to authentic Christian tradition have no choice but to resist this journey to legal persecution. Political elections in the United States will be increasingly marked by conflict between those who wish to accelerate the gay agenda and those who wish to reverse it.

The Anglican experiment has been focused on using Christianity as a vehicle for social, cultural, and political expression when Christianity in fact is beyond culture and sits in judgment of all culture. The Anglican experiment has failed because it has lost the subject of the experiment: Christianity itself. All that remains is Rowan Williams, the Anglican leader in Canterbury, muttering sophistries about commissions and structures-- the ultimate example of the absurdity of clinging to empty forms.

All Souls: Isaiah 25:6-9; Romans 6:3-9; John 6:37-40

On this feast, we do not merely remember but actively assist our departed loved ones who are undergoing post-mortem purification, the process of purgatory. We pray that they may speedily fulfill their destiny of seeing the face of God and, in turn, ask that they may intercede before God for us who remain in this vale of tears.

The prophet Isaiah calls death "the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations . . . ." (Is. 25:7), which God will "swallow up . . . for ever" (Is. 25:8). The empty tomb of Christ is the fulfillment of that prophecy. St. Paul in Romans precisely pins our hope on the bodily resurrection of Christ: "For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom. 6:9). Recent historical scholarship has confirmed what Christians have always believed: the bodily resurrection of Christ is the key to the Christian faith. As Anglican scholar, N.T. Wright, has stated, "'[t]he proposal that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead possesses unrivalled power to explain the historical data at the heart of early Christianity" (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God [Fortress Press 2003], p. 718). So if you are unfortunate enough to hear someone claiming that the Resurrection was merely a spiritual or non-historical event or mere psychological experience, remember the speaker is not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the term. In the Gospel reading, Jesus Himself promises that we will share in this bodily resurrection. Unlike others, He has proven his credibility.

Orwell, Private Definitions, & Catholic Dissent

I have belatedly discovered that June 25, 2003, marked the 100th birthday of the English writer George Orwell (1903-1950). Although a committed leftist, Orwell became famous for exposing the lying nature of Communist totalitarianism. He also wrote a famous essay that is still worth reading today called "Politics and the English Language" (1946). The essay is especially worth reading by those who write frequently for the public. Although I do not agree with everything in the essay, reading it has a sobering effect on a writer because of the constant temptation to borrow cliches in one's writing. Apart from a left-wing anti-Catholic reference in the essay, I am comfortable with most of its recommendations for writers. I do disagree with Orwell's emphasis on preferring the active voice over the passive voice. I believe Orwell's more fundamental recommendation trumps this particular "rule" of writing: use whatever is necessary to express your exact meaning. Orwell himself urges the reader to ignore his "rules" whenever common sense demands it. Today, many teachers of writing parrot the Orwellian preference for the active voice with the result that many students apply the preference mechanically and eliminate a legitimate part of our language. The essay is available at this link (it contains 2 or 3 insignificant typographical errors).

The following is an excerpt from Orwell's essay dealing with private definitions, a topic which is relevant to any evaluation of the writing of Catholic dissenters:

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," (1946).

We see this same use of words with private and misleading definitions in much of the writing of Catholic dissent. Whether or not there is conscious dishonesty involved as Orwell says is a judgment I leave to the reader. The scenario usually goes like this. First, the dissenting writer is someone educated enough either because he is a cleric or a theologian or both to know the traditional meanings of phrases like the "divinity of Christ" in Christology or "collegiality" in ecclesiology or "fundamental option" in moral theology.

Second, the dissenting writer has inverted the definition of the tradition. So the "divinity of Christ" becomes a symbolic affirmation that we somehow see God very clearly in the life of Jesus. "Collegiality" becomes a code word for individual bishops contradicting the teachings of the Pope. "Fundamental option" becomes a phrase that excludes the possibility of a mortally sinful act by a Christian. All of these new definitions contradict Catholic Tradition, which is the source of all Catholic theology. Yet, the dissenting writers present themselves as speaking authoritatively and accurately in the name of Catholic Tradition adapted to the modern age.

Finally, the dissenting writer usually refuses to notify the reader that he is using a private definition that contradicts Catholic Tradition. The writer baits the Catholic reader with the traditional phrase by making his use of the traditional phrase appear to be what it is not. The Catholic reader tempted to escape the demands made on him by Catholic doctrine and morals then experiences a sense of relief that, according to this particular theologian or cleric, the challenge of Catholic doctrine and morals is not as great as he once thought. The reader walks away deceived.

What is the practical solution to this common deception, whether conscious or not, by Catholic dissidents? I suggest that any Catholic dissident make clear at the outset, with punctilious accuracy, how Catholic tradition defines the subject he is treating. The dissident can then propose whatever he wishes, but the reader will know that it is a radical departure from Catholic Tradition. Of course, the better solution would be that the dissident writer would no longer present himself as Catholic in the first place by using the private definition that a Catholic is free to reject Catholic Tradition. Thus, a dissident like Hans Küng could easily preface his works by frankly admitting that he is a liberal Protestant. And those who praise Küng, such as Andrew Greeley, among others, could do the same.

The Wave of the Future

The assumption of many secular Westerners is that the culture of the secular West is the wave of the future. The lifestyle of sexual license, the push to re-define marriage, the embrace of childlessness, the philosophical focus on the fulfillment of the self at the expense of binding commitments are seen as the marks of enlightened civilized progress. In many ways, this Western world view, while radically new in the details of its agenda for change, is still rooted in the very old philosophy of the Enlightenment, a philosophy of uninterrupted progress as the shackles of traditional religion, family, and morality are left behind. Even after a twentieth century full of world wars, holocausts, the breakdown of family life, plummeting birth rates among European populations, and widespread, empty consumerism, the progressive outlook amazingly persists.

This progressive outlook looks at the so-called "backward" parts of the world, such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and envisions their gradual adoption of all the traits and preferences of secular Western lifestyles. But what if the model of the inevitable progress of secular Western culture is wrong? What if, like Marx, the prophets of secularism find that their anticipated historical outcomes refuse to materialize? In my view, much of the astounding refusal of Western progressives to abandon their worldview lies in their unquestioned and superstitious faith in the inevitable progress and expansion of their cultural preferences. But they may, in fact, be quite wrong.

An alternative future scenario in which cultures reject the wild individualism of the West may be what is in fact triumphant. Acts have consequences, lifestyles have lengthy shadows over present and future generations. When the Old Testament Scriptures speak of the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children, we can no longer dismiss such passages as merely outdated and primitive musings. In fact, in our everyday experience, we see how the sins of the fathers overshadow tragically the lives of the children. The practical consequences of Western individual excess are plainly evident. The shadow of substance abuse, whether the substances are legal or illegal, has hung over countless Western families. The licentious lifestyle has marred and destroyed many a family, with deep psychological consequences that surface in the destructive choices of later generations. The empty consumerism and status-seeking of Western societies create the conditions for the abuse of substances and bodies and leads to an air of despair. Can a culture that produces such consequences in the midst of economic affluence really be the wave of the future?

C.S. Lewis once wrote of what he envisioned as a Christian culture, one marked by the de-emphasis on conspicuous consumption and by very conservative social customs. To Lewis, this rejection of consumerism and embrace of social conservatism seemed to be the inevitable traits of a Christian culture. Here is Lewis on what "a fully Christian society would be like" using the language of someone writing in 1943:

It [the New Testament] tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man doesn't work, he oughtn't to eat . . . .there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to be no "swank"or "side," no putting on airs. To that extent a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience-- obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I'm afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly, it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding worry or anxiety as wrong. . . . If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we'd come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, advanced, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old-fashioned-- perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic.

C.S. Lewis, Christian Behaviour (The MacMillan Co. 1950 [1943]), p. 15.

Clearly, Lewis envisions a Christian rejection of consumerism and a Christian embrace of social or family traditionalism. In the United States at least, what Lewis assumed to be a "Leftist" rejection of consumerism no longer applies. What passes for the Left in the United States is adamantly materialist and consumerist--- if in doubt, just peruse the glossy pages of excessive and dissolute advertisements in the liberal newspaper of record, the New York Times, on any given Sunday. The idea of leftist simplicity of lifestyle, say of an Orwell or a Dorothy Day, is long gone. In place, we have the limousine liberals of modern America exemplified by the materially voracious and morally dissolute lifestyle of the Clintons.

The vision of Lewis seems a sane response to the catastrophe of modern Western lifestyles. Even secularists who believe only in evolutionary changes and pragmatism must concede that destructive lifestyles will breed reactions seeking to escape their bad consequences. In that sense, the wave of the future may not be a spreading of the twin Western pillars of consumerism and sexual chaos. Instead, the wave of the future may very well be a rejection of materialism and a renewed commitment to traditional family life so that people will live to flourish and not live to consume things and consume themselves. But, regardless, of "the wave of the future," the wise, even if remaining a little flock, will seek the path of human flourishing and reject the path of nihilism.

Is the Liberal Media Taking On Politically Incorrect Africa?

African Christians are wielding power today to the dismay of Western liberals. The Anglican Communion is on the brink of dissolution as African churchmen threaten to break ties with Western Anglicans intent on officially recognizing the gay lifestyle as thoroughly Christian. The Catholic Church, as the enemy of all secular liberals, may one day have an African pope who will surely emphasize traditional Catholic moral teaching that is anathema to Western liberals who view any limits on sexual gratification as a human rights abuse. Given this trend of rising African Christian traditionalism, it is quite curious that the paragon of the liberal media, the New York Times, recently ran a story in its prominent Sunday magazine section replete with grotesque and horrific details about African cannibalism in the midst of the civil wars engulfing the Congo (see N.Y. Times On-line, Magazine section (10/26/03), "The Most Unconventional Weapon," by writer Daniel Bergner).

It is story full of horrible descriptions of cannibalism. The author goes on to allege instances of cannibalism, mutilation, and even desecration of graves in the following countries: South Africa, Uganda, Liberia, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone. He also mentions instances of human sacrifice. In other words, it is a bleak picture of a bleak continent.

Let us assume that all of the information is correct, and as such its reporting is worthwhile in order to call attention to this barbarity. Yet, the article makes, in my view, no effort to give the reader a means to evaluate how widespread the problem really is. We are given horrible descriptions, but no real context to make a judgment about the continent as a whole. In addition, it is quite surprising that all of a sudden a prominent liberal newspaper is willing to violate its own canons of political correctness on racial sensitivity. If the facts are true, the story must be told. But the timing of the story, given the anti-liberal proclivities of Africans in Christian debates, does raise a reasonable question: is the liberal media going to discredit African attacks on Western moral decadence with stories about African cannibalism, polygamy, and rampant superstition? The only way to tell is to watch if the frequency of these types of African stories increases.

Yet, there is already a quite recent precedent for being a bit suspicious. In the Anglican debates about gay bishops, liberals have already attacked conservative African sentiments by mocking the practice of polygamy and even raising questions of human sacrifice in Africa (see, for example, Guardian (UK) story at penultimate paragraph). It seems that for Western liberals obsessed with sexual revisionism and deeply engaged in the culture wars the old habits of racial sensitivity are expendable.

Voice of the Faithful Feverishly Proclaims That Catholic Hierarchy is Evil

If anyone had any lingering doubt about the questionable origins, beliefs, and intentions of the Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), the statements made at a recent tri-state gathering of the organization at Fordham University in New York City make the anti-Catholic nature of the organization clear. The tirade by former priest Eugene Kennedy, a well-known writer, psychologist, and former professor at Loyola University of Chicago, can easily match the invective, contempt, and hatred expressed over the centuries by anti-Catholics, whether during or after the Protestant Reformation. VOTF and Kennedy take their place along extreme fundamentalist anti-Catholics such as those at Bob Jones University or those who publish anti-Catholic pamphlets such as Chick Publications. Extended excerpts of Kennedy's diatribe, a diatribe laced with discernible New Age affectations and exhibiting the influence of a life accustomed to psychobabble, are reproduced in an article found in a Connecticut newspaper.

Here is a partial sample of the Kennedy harangue, loudly applauded by the assembled VOTF activists:

Abusing the body of Christ sacramentally and the bodies of children sexually are the responses of persons with power. The responses they make to people who trust them and have no power. The hierarchical poison is tasted every day by persons who seek very ordinary, but very important things -- the date and time of a wedding, a dispensation of some sort. Perhaps, permission to hold a meeting on church property. "Scholars taste it when officials strive to control what they think, write or say. Ministers gag on it when ordered to guard against homosexuals, the scapegoats of our age branded by hierarchs with the mark of Cain. People are told to submit to their own demeaning and thereby to gratify something unhealthy in the officials as they put you down to raise themselves up. All of this of course for the good of the church."

"The Voice of the Faithful," by Francis X. Fay, Jr., in The Hour Online, Norwalk, Conn. (first accessed on 10/28/03) (emphasis added).

This excerpt plus the rest of the excerpts from the newspaper article make the message of VOTF clear: the Catholic hierarchy is evil. In these excerpted remarks, there is no attempt to limit criticism to one or more particular bishops. What we have is a wholesale condemnation of the hierarchical structure itself, of the very concept of a church hierarchy.

By condemning the very idea of the hierarchy, they are rejecting Christ, and have put themselves outside the belief of the Catholic Church. Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, plainly proclaims that it was Christ himself who instituted the hierarchy:

In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. . . . .That divine mission, which was committed by Christ to the apostles, is destined to last until the end of the world . . . . For that very reason the apostles were careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted society.

Lumen Gentium, 18, 20, trans. by Austin Flannery, O.P. (Costello Publishing 1998)(emphasis added).

Kennedy and VOTF clearly reject the letter and spirit of Vatican II. The conclusion, in my view, is inescapable: these activists are not Catholic in spirit, word, or intent. They are a force for anti-Catholicism parasitically existing within the technical boundaries of the Church. They have remained in the Church, to borrow again from Lumen Gentium, " 'in body' not 'in heart'" (LG, 14). They have come full circle. They are now persecuting the same hierarchical Church for which many of their own immigrant ancestors suffered persecution.

The assertion of Penn State professor Philip Jenkins that much anti-Catholicism comes from within the boundaries of the Catholic Church is again being confirmed. Jenkins anticipates my own conclusions about the Eugene Kennedy harangue:

Many of the most damaging attacks against the Church derived from internal sources rather than external critics: [Maureen] Dowd, [James] Carroll, [Anna] Quindlen, [Eugene] Kennedy, [Garry] Wills, and [Richard] Sipe would all describe themselves as faithful Catholics. Yet their rhetoric deployes an often ferocious range of anti-Church arguments, which are readily adopted and amplified by the most fervent anti-Catholics. In this view, the Church is of its nature un-American, abusive, and totalitarian; clergy are closeted perverts.

Philip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism (Oxford Univ. Press 2003), p. 156.

The false prophets are active within the boundaries of the Church. Indeed, the smoke of Satan is still, unfortunately, with us.

The State of Scotland, The State of the West

Anglican theologian Kendall Harmon posts an excerpt from the London Times which in part describes the state of Catholic affairs in Scotland:

And congregations in Cardinal O’Brien’s Catholic Church are down 19% to 202,110 since 1994. In fact, the Pope said earlier this year that Scotland was no longer a Christian country, so feeble was its devotion to Mass.

We shop on the Sabbath instead of praying, we covet our neighbours’ goods, we worship false gods and indulge our basest instincts. Our men are foul-mouthed, our women are loose, our youth degenerate. The Pope was right, Christianity does have a tenuous connection to 21st-century Scotland.

See Harmon's web log (Sunday, Oct. 26, 2003).

It is time for stronger leadership in Scotland. Let us hope new Cardinal O'Brien will step up to the plate.

Catholic Evangelization: What Is Missing?

Because we Americans live in a culture with a strong Protestant evangelical presence, the word "evangelization" immediately conjures up the image of the streetcorner preacher or of the door-to-door distribution of religious tracts. The other image we have is of the televised crusades in stadiums made famous by Billy Graham. There are also other forms of Protestant evangelization that are part of American life: the Gideon Bible in hotel rooms, billboards, both humble and expensive, with biblical quotations, bumper stickers with religious messages, and radio or television shows. Avery Cardinal Dulles in a recent First Things article lamented the fact that many non-Catholic Christians show decidedly greater commitment to this task of evangelization than Catholics, a task defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the "proclamation of Christ and his Gospel . . . by word and the testimony of life, in fulfillment of Christ's command" (see Glossary under "Evangelization").

Dulles describes the situation as follows:

The call for a new evangelization strongly issued by Paul VI and John Paul II has fallen, it would seem, on deaf ears. The majority of Catholics have little appreciation of their mission to spread the faith as a precious gift intended for all. In some cases they behave as if faith were an unwelcome burden. Members of fundamentalist churches, Mormons, and Pentecostals commonly exhibit a stronger missionary thrust than Catholics.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, "True and False Reform," First Things (Aug./Sept. 2003).

Now, there are some Catholics heavily and admirably involved in proclaiming the Gospel in the United States. The apologetics organization Catholic Answers comes to mind with its high quality pamphlets and with its step-by-step guide to the nuts and bolts of evangelizing. EWTN, in both television and radio, is probably the greatest on-going Catholic evangelizing effort in the United States. And, of course, there are numerous Catholic radio stations doing the same. Catholic evangelists do exist, but they are very few in comparison with the number among Protestant evangelicals. And, certainly, the great works of mercy carried out by Catholics in hospitals, childrens' homes, homes for unwed mothers, schools, and various other institutions are forms of evangelization by "testimony of life."

Yet, in my opinion, the aspect of Catholicism that seems to be missing is the backbone of Catholic life, the parish. In most of the prominent examples of Catholic evangelization that I am familiar with, there is usually some organization involved that has arisen through the efforts of laity independent of the initiative of parish pastors and the hierarchy. This gap seems odd, and may be what Cardinal Dulles was getting at when he unfavorably compared Catholic efforts at evangelization with that of non-Catholic Christians.

What is the answer here? How can the Catholic parish be mobilized to evangelize? Should pastors encourage people to go door-to-door offering tracts similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses? Well, yes. Many Catholics go door-to-door selling candy for schools and scouting troops. Many Catholics go door-to-door canvassing for political candidates and selling products for a living. So there must be many Catholics already comfortable and experienced in this form of personal communication. Why not harness it for evangelization?

A parish can pay for a billboard in a prominent location inviting visitors to Mass. We have all seen billboards and other advertisements inviting the general public to parish fairs and festivals. A parish can make high quality pamphlets to parishioners to spread the Catholic faith among friends, relatives, and co-workers, aimed at both non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. I have yet to see a parish not adept at distributing raffle tickets to households in a parish. If raffle tickets, why not a pamphlet from Catholic Answers?

You get the picture. Virtually every Catholic parish already has a set of well-honed practices and techniques for fund-raising. Why not use the same techniques for evangelization? For those anxious about financial matters, we could point out that the Gospel calls us to seek the kingdom of God first and all else will be given to us. If evangelization produces more Catholic parishioners, surely financial needs will be better attended to. In addition, there is no necessary conflict between public outreach for festival and fairs and evangelization. Already some, usually relatively minor, efforts at evangelization are made by some parish organizations at parish festivals. Why not expand that presence?

In addition, in some settings, Catholic liturgical processions can be a means to witness the faith to the wider community. It can spark curiosity among non-Catholics who see public displays of Catholic faith.

All in all, it does not seem difficult to "evangelize" parish activities and thus make them means of evangelization. The deeper question is why that "evangelization" of parish activities is not more common and obvious. Here are some guesses. First, it is undeniable that many have adopted the religious relativism and indifferentism of Catholic liberals and the wider culture in which it is affirmed that the particular religion one adheres to makes no difference in matters of salvation and that thus there is no need to seek converts. Many do not realize that this religious indifferentism is a heresy. This mindset is usually reinforced by a grievous misinterpretation of Vatican II's embrace of ecumenism and respect for other religions, fostered even by some misguided Catholic theologians.

Second, there is a cultural factor similar to the dynamic among our Jewish brethren, namely, an erroneous view of Catholicism as an ethnic phenomenon. That seems to be the implicit view of many in the chanceries around the country. There is usually vigorous outreach to Catholic immigrants. There is certainly a focus on serving those already Catholic and even on reaching out to inactive Catholics. But there seems to be an absence of emphasis on converting non-Catholics. Some even go so far to condemn such efforts at conversion under the pejorative label of "proselytism." It is crucial that the hierarchy reaffirm that the Catholic Church actively seeks and welcomes converts-- and not just those marrying Catholics or those who show up on their own at RCIA meetings. The hierarchy must make clear that we actively invite and propose Catholicism to all, whether Jewish, Protestant, Moslem, or irreligious. We have been blessed with great freedom in this country. We are obliged to use it to propose the Catholic faith to all, regardless of background, without coercion or pressure tactics.

These two factors, religious indifferentism and an overemphasis on ethnic Catholicism, are, in my opinion, blocking the potential for Catholic evangelization in the United States, and probably in other Western nations. The bishops' conference should address this matter forthwith, and, if there is ever to be a plenary council again in the United States, this issue must be at the top of the agenda. After all, it is the command of Christ Himself.

Terri Schiavo Issue Re-Ignites: CNN's Larry King Hosts Husband Intent on Euthanasia

CNN's Larry King will interview Michael Schiavo, the husband of Terri Schiavo, tonight at 9:00 p.m. ET. According to reports, the husband remains intent on starving Terri Schiavo to death.

Consider contacting Larry King by e-mail with your comments urging him to interview the parents and siblings of Terri Schiavo in order to be fair and balanced. King should also question Michael Schiavo about media reports that he is living with another woman. It seems beyond belief that the legal system tolerates as a legal guardian someone who may very well be in open adultery toward the spouse whose best interest he is supposed to be pursuing. Terri Schiavo is entitled to a guardian without any such conflict of interest who can bring a divorce action to vindicate her rights. Clearly, adultery is an objective ground for civil divorce that a legal guardian can bring on behalf of Terri Schiavo. The Catholic Church recognizes that even faithful Catholics are not bound to remain at all costs in such a predicament and that civil divorce may be advisable for legal reasons, although, where there exists a valid marriage under canon law, the marriage bond always remains intact.

Here is the relevant Catholic position on civil divorce:

In view of serious circumstances of marital distress, the Church permits an innocent and aggrieved party, whether wife or husband, to seek and obtain a civil divorce for the purpose of acquiring title and right to the civil effects of divorce . . . . Permission for this kind of action should be obtained from proper church authority. The divorce, if obtained, does not break the bond of a valid marriage.

Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Almanac 2003, p. 208.

If there was no valid marriage in the Schiavo case to begin with, then there is no question that a civil divorce should be sought. If there is a valid matrimonial bond, then surely this case qualifies as one of sufficient marital distress to justify the benefit of having Michael Schiavo removed as a legal guardian. His removal as guardian would be a civil effect of any divorce.

If you care to communicate respectfully with CNN on the upcoming interview, here is the link to the Larry King e-mail at CNN.

John Paul II on Nutrition and Hydration

". . . the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a patient's death must be rejected."

-- Pope John Paul II, Ad Limina Address to the Bishops of California, Nevada, and Hawaii, delivered on October 2, 1998, in Rome (full text available at Catholic Information Network).

In the same address, the Pope continued: "America must become, again, a hospitable society, in which every unborn child and every handicapped or terminally ill person is cherished and enjoys the protection of the law."

Mary, Strength of the Church

A truly Catholic analysis or perspective on these times and all times is Marian. The most distinctive mark of Catholicism in contrast to other forms of Christianity present in the Western world is the Marian perspective. In the East, the Eastern Orthodox share the Marian perspective, but, even there, the degree of development of the Marian perspective has lagged behind that of the Catholic Church. No church is more Marian than the Catholic Church. To Protestants, long divorced from the Catholicism of their ancestors, this Marian perspective is a scandal. Even among the Eastern Orthodox, some express hesitation over Catholic expressions of Marian devotion and imagery. Yet, in spite of the scandal, the Catholic Church proclaims the Marian perspective as essential to the mystery of Christ and of the Church.

In a little book on Mary, Hans Urs von Balthasar comments on the scene in the Book of Revelation where the dragon pursues the woman, "clothed with the sun," who is giving birth (Rev. 12):

This womanly, Marian Church cannot be affected by the power of the dragon, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The rock of Peter is safeguarded there too, which is why he is told: "Put your sword into its sheath." Paul and John Paul II go through the world without any sword: it is enough if they bear witness, that is their strongest weapon, and the successor of Peter can always find new strength, for this witness is a Church of Mary.

Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mary For Today (Ignatius Press 1988), p. 20.

As John Paul II becomes physically weaker, we can rest assured that he is drawing strength from the intercession of Mary so that he may continue to bear witness, even if it is by his silence. The Marian Church is invulnerable to the attacks of the dragons of secularism, paganism, and hatred. Her cloak protects all of her children.

Since the Incarnation, Mary has continued to play a pivotal role in giving birth to Christ anew in many lands and continents. Today, virtually half of the world's Catholic are in Latin America. Without the Iberian peoples and their descendants, today the Catholic Church would be but a shadow of itself. It was the presence of Mary at Guadalupe which was the catalyst for the conversion of the peoples of the New World. One author has described the impact of Guadalupe as setting:

. . . into motion the conversion to Christianity of a nation stretching from the Rio Grande to Honduras. Within seven years, some eight million souls would be baptized into the same "idolatrous" Church Luther was even then castigating--a spectacular rebirth that represented the equivalent of as many conversions on each of 2,666 consecutive days as on the day of Pentecost itself, when three thousand hallelujah-shouting sinners joined the fold.

John Martin, Roses, Fountains, and Gold (Ignatius Press 1998), p. 85.

Today, the image of Guadalupe has migrated northward and will change the historic citadel of New World Protestantism and secularism, the United States itself. Just as Mary appeared at Guadalupe while the great crisis of the Protestant Reformation was tearing Europe apart, so today in the midst of aggressive secularism and paganism in the Western world, Mary is moving into the heart of that powerful Western secularism.

The other great religious and cultural citadel in the world is that of Islam. Even here some, like the late Bishop Sheen, hoped for a Marian intervention. In 1952, decades before the crisis of September 11th, Bishop Sheen saw Mary as key to the conversion of the Moslems, especially under her title of Our Lady of Fatima. Fatima is of course the name of the daughter of Mohammed and considered by Moslems to be second in honor among women after Mary herself (Jacques Jormier, O.P., The Bible and the Qur'an (Ignatius Press 2002), p. 124). Sheen believed "that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as 'Our Lady of Fatima' as a pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son, too" (Fulton J. Sheen, The World's First Love [McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1952], repr. in Jormier, p. 124).

Fatima may be the pivotal event for the Moslem world that Guadalupe was for the natives of the New World. Just as the effect of Guadalupe is now being felt with great force within the United States through the migration of the children of Guadalupe, so it may be that the effect of Fatima may even penetrate the heretofore closed citadel of Islam. Clearly, the ground has been prepared and the seeds planted long ago.