Preliminary Tests Show Weapon of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq

The syllogism is quite simple. Before the current Iraq conflict, it was undisputed that in the past Saddam Hussein possessed sarin gas. He agreed to destroy the chemical agent. The U.S. went to war in part because of Saddam's failure to account for such chemical agents. The chemical agent has now been found in Iraq. Case closed.

For details on the discovery of sarin and also mustard gas in Iraq, see this Fox news report. This discovery further bolsters the case that the Iraq war was and is a just war. Now watch the anti-war spin. It has already begun with former inspectors David Kay and Hans Blix dismissing the significance of the discovery. What will satisfy them? Nothing, because entrenched egos come first.

As for the rest of us whose egos are not tied to exonerating Saddam Hussein, we can make the inescapable, common sense conclusion: Saddam Hussein still had chemical agents at the time the Iraq War started. The current tests appear to be preliminary, but it appears that at least two U.S. soldiers suffered symptoms of chemical exposure. So it seems reasonable to believe, as of now, that some chemical agent was present.

Update: The N.Y. Times online provides a balanced and bias-free article on the discovery of a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq ("Army Discovers Old Iraqi Shell Holding Sarin, Illicit Weapon," Intern'l section, by Dexter Filkins, 5-18-04). If preliminary tests are confirmed, this discovery is the "smoking gun" that further justifies statements about WMD made by the Bush administration before the beginning of the war. As to those who sincerely believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq, I urge them to consider with an open mind this new evidence and also to consider that, without an invasion, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today torturing as a matter of unquestioned official policy completely immune from investigations or hearings of any kind, engaging in the widespread murder of Iraqis as a routine tool of governance, and possessing chemical weapons. To say that it was a mistake to overthrow Saddam Hussein comes perilously close to saying that Iraq would be better off today with Saddam Hussein still in power. I think the Kurds and Shiites would beg to differ. So would I.

Here is a quote from the N.Y. Times article: "The discovery of the sarin-filled shell appears to offer some of the most substantial evidence to date that Mr. Hussein did not destroy all of the banned chemical agent, as he claimed before the war last year." The article also notes the difficult challenge of discovering these weapons. In this case, the shell was not marked as containing a chemical agent. The Army found it by accident.

Update: Fox News reports on Tuesday, May 18th, that tests have confirmed the presence of the sarin nerve agent in the Iraqi shell. There must be a lot of network and print editors scratching their heads about how to report this new development.

Bush Again Calls for Federal Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage; Kerry Again Opposes

Gay marriages were legally solemnized today in Massachusetts. Gay couples will enter from other states to also be married. They will go back home and take legal action to have these marriages legally recognized. It is obvious that only a federal amendment can preserve the meaning of marriage in America. Bush has renewed his call for a federal amendment to define marriage as the union of one mand and one woman, as reported by the Associated Press. Kerry, of course, opposes such an amendment. In spite of Kerry's pro forma, tactical denials, in my opinion, the conclusion is inescapable that Kerry favors the gay marriage movement, as does most of the Democratic Party leadership. Another issue that makes Bush the clear Catholic choice on November 2nd.

Update: Here is the text of President Bush's statement on the issue:

Statement by the President Regarding The Sanctity of Traditional Marriage

The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate. I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Truth is Reality

In his small and wise book on prayer, philosopher Peter Kreeft makes a point in the early pages of the book that bears repeating: when we seek God in prayer, we are seeking reality, not escape or fantasy. Kreeft gives this reality as a motive for prayer:

"The true, the good, and the beautiful" are the three things we need and love the most, because they are the attributes of God. . . . To put it most simply, God is God, the Absolute Reality, Infinite Perfection, more massively real than the universe itself and more worthy than all the ideals together ever conceived by all human minds. . . . Thus, we should pray because prayer is the most realistic thing in the world to do. It is our acknowledgement of reality, our right response to reality, our honesty with reality.

Kreeft, Prayer for Beginners (Ignatius Press, 2000), pp. 16-17 (original emphasis).

Kreeft returns to this focus on reality near the end of the book:

[To become wholly God's] is not only the perfection of sanctity, it is also the perfection of sanity, of right-reality-response, of living in objective reality instead of in our subjective fantasies. For in reality, we are wholly God's. We are creatures: our very act of existence is not our own but his gift, on permanent loan.

Kreeft, p. 92 (original emphasis).

The truth that we are creatures whose very meaning, identity, and purpose derive from God makes prayer the most realistic and sensible thing we can do. This reality is what makes sense of renunciation. When we renounce some transient pleasure, it makes sense only if we are renouncing it in favor of our truth and reality which are given to us by God. The hedonistic, consumerist, and materialistic mentality of our culture is always anxious about "missing out" on some pleasure--the perks of high income, sexual indulgence, exotic travel, fame and attention. But to evaluate those things, we must go to God who made us.

And so, Kreeft writes that the realistic attitude toward our fellow creatures is that "we must love them as they are: as our equals, our brothers and sisters, not as our gods" (Kreeft, p. 93). That advice in itself would save many a marriage or other relationship from the ravages of disillusionment. Kreeft emphasizes the point to include not just other people but things: "They [other creatures] are not our God, and things are not our God, and we are not our own God; only God is God" (Kreeft, p. 93). Of course, the same realistic appraisal would apply to non-rational creatures or animals, in spite of the tendency to implicit idolatry of some extreme animal activists.

If we drift from focusing on God as the most real, we inevitably substitute some other god. And so the ambitious politician can end up evaluating everything in terms of his own ambition. The sensualist evaluates everything in terms of transient pleasure. The money-hungry keep buying or building palaces of conspicuous consumption. One's god is fairly easy to spot, sometimes in contradiction to one's outward religious observances.

Once we focus on God as reality, we acquire a trust and serenity in the midst of unpopularity or disapproval and can dare to defy conventional wisdom. And courage results. So those bishops who have bravely spoken the obvious about pro-abortion celebrities who should not receive the Eucharist are, in spite of their small numbers, the ones in touch with reality. No public opinion polls, no media coverage can shake the serenity of one who is in touch with reality. In fact, so much of the news and commentary in our society is nothing but illusion, as seen in the cliche that the "medium [not the truth] is the message."

Fortunately, illusions have a tendency to collapse. Many who were deluded by bad catechesis and preaching in the seventies have discovered through hard experience the eternal truths of the faith. That is why it is not uncommon to hear stories of successful businessmen or professionals who by the time they reach forty years of age have or are ready to enter the priesthood or serve the Church in some other capacity. Truth emerges because it is reality, in spite of the best efforts of many to hide it or run away from it. And that reality is God.

Sixth Sunday of Easter: Acts 15:1-2, 22-29; Revelation 21:10-14, 22-23; John 14:23-29

Today's readings are quintessentially apostolic in character. They highlight the apostolic origins of the Church and the apostolic succession which is found in the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox churches. In Acts, we have a picture of the early Church functioning with apostles and elders. The Greek for elders is "presbyteros" or presbyters. Our English word "priest" derives from this same word. Even today, in Catholic dioceses, the presbyteral council is an advisory council of priests, and the term "presbyterate" refers to priests. In Spanish language missals, priests are routinely referred to as presbyters or "presbíteros." Thus, we see in the New Testament the apostles functioning as bishops assisted by priests or presbyters. The conclusion in inescapable that the Acts of the Apostles portrays the Catholic Church. Contrary to the myth long pushed by biblical scholars, mostly from a Protestant cultural background, the book of Acts does not portray a pre-Catholic church later "corrupted" by Catholic elements that smothered charismatic vitality. The Catholic elements were present from the beginning. In the reading from Acts, the apostles and presbyters issue the first conciliar decree invoking the direct authority of the Holy Spirit to welcome the new Gentile converts to the Gospel. The picture could not be clearer once prejudices borne of the Prostestant Reformation are put aside. The apostles are the first bishops supervising the churches, assisted by presbyters or priests. As the apostles die, some of these presbyters will emerge to take their place as supervising bishops. Some, like Timothy, already acted as New Testament bishops during the lifetime of the apostles who appointed them.

This apostolic theme is consummated in the book of Revelation where the foundation of the New Jerusalem at the end of the age contains the "twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." The foundation of the Church is apostolic.

In the Gospel reading from John, Jesus reassures his disciples that the Holy Spirit "will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." This is the same Holy Spirit invoked by the council of apostles and presbyters in the Church's first conciliar decree. The Catholic system is the New Testament system.

Absurd Quote of the Week

The Washington Times has more coverage from the on-going unravelling of the "traditional" consensus of meekness among Catholic bishops about pro-abortion politicians. Sometimes, it is exhilarating to undo the "traditional." In its coverage, the conservative Washington Times correctly follows the significant change in course from the past resulting from more Catholic bishops being more outspoken against pro-abortion political celebrities. For the liberal spin, you can read this article from the National Catholic Reporter in which the reporter has obviously gone out of his way to interview two known "liberal" or "moderate" clerics in order to get on the record opinions in favor of coddling pro-abortion politicians. In this case, the liberal reporter searched out well-known liberal Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles and "moderate" Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati. (Of course, in liberal spin, moderates are "reasonable" and "open-minded" as opposed to "rigid" and "close-minded" conservatives.)

Yet, even the liberal spin can't cover up the liberal alarm over some Catholic bishops taking their charge to defend the truth seriously. Mahoney expresses alarm in the article:

"I am puzzled by people rattling sanctions at the moment. That has not been our tradition over the years," he said.

It looks like Cardinal Mahoney is a bit taken aback by a new generation of bishops who are bucking the spineless consensus.

In addition, the National Catholic Reporter (also known, for very good reasons, on these pages as the National Catholic Distorter) thinks the matter so alarming that is posts a hyperventilating editorial excoriating bishops who have rebelled against the past paralysis on this issue. The editorial argues that the faulty logic of the outspoken bishops was exposed when pro-life leader Senator Santorum recently endorsed pro-abortion Senator Specter in Pennsylvania. The editorial argues that, under the logic of bishops taking action against pro-abortion policians, Santorum should be denied communion. Let me say from the outset that I would support any bishop who would deny Santorum communion for his support of Specter. But the editorial's argument falls apart once you think clearly about it. Santorum is a strong pro-life leader who wants to keep Senate control in the hands of the only pro-life national party, the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Santorum made the judgment that pursuing that goal required supporting Arlen Specter. I, for one, think that judgment was mistaken. But it was a tactical judgment meant to advance the current strategic advantage the pro-life movement now holds in the Senate with Republican control--an important strategic advantage that the editorial writer is surely aware of but fails to mention. The bottom-line is that Santorum made a tactical decision to preserve a strategic pro-life advantage. That much is clear even if you think, as I do, that Santorum's tactical decision was mistaken.

That tactical scenario is very different from the pro-abortion politician who is acting solely to protect Roe v. Wade's regime of abortion on demand. If a bishop thinks that Santorum should be denied communion because of the tactical Specter endorsement, that is fine with me, although the fact is that any pro-life person can only dream that a Kerry, a Kennedy, a Clinton, or any other national Democrat for that matter would ever come close to matching the strong pro-life leadership demonstrated in the past by Senator Santorum.

More interestingly, the editorial ends with a plaintive plea:

"The circular-firing-squad mentality infecting too many conservative Catholics and a number of bishops should stop now. Before it is too late."

Before it is too late for what? The editorial does not say. Maybe, the editorial writer is worried that his liberal Catholic subscriber base will begin to actually leave the Catholic Church. In my opinion, that outcome should be welcomed because it is merely a recognition of the truth that they have long since fallen out of full communion with the Catholic Church by pursuing religion as something we make up. Better the honest truth than a lifetime of self-deception and denial.

But the promised "Absurd Quote of the Week" goes to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., as recorded in the Washington Times, defending his discomfort with refusing communion to anyone: "[A]s a priest and bishop, I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the sacred body of the Lord Jesus in my hand."

Cardinal, what altar rail? The altar rails of the vast majority of our churches have been ignominiously torn out of church after church. And, what confrontation? Any political celebrity to be denied the Eucharist by the cardinal will have been duly informed, in accordance with canon law, well before he or she shows up at the communion line. All the ministering priest has to do is to kindly give a blessing and move on. I assure the cardinal that none of the political celebrities will try to forcibly take the Eucharist from him--that would not look good, even in the secular press. And if the political celebrity wants to exchange words, so be it. Is that too much for a priest of the crucified Christ to risk? Is that too much to risk to protect the Body of Christ from sacrilege? The cardinal is straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. And so to him belongs the absurd quote of the week.

N.Y. Times Aghast that Colorado Springs Bishop Proclaims Catholic Teaching

Another bishop has courageously stepped up to the plate and dared to repeat Catholic teaching in a pastoral letter, citing the Catechism of the Catholic, Church, the Pope's encyclical The Gospel of Life, and the recent document on politicians by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In his pastoral letter, Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs begins with a welcome and needed discussion of the Catholic view of what conscience is and its role in our moral decisions. He then proceeds to state clearly that in the November election Catholic voters must ensure that pro-life candidates win. He states clearly the bottom-line on pro-abortion Catholic politicians and voters:

There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

Bishop Michael Sheridan, Pastoral Letter "On the Duties of Catholic Politicans and Voters," (PDF document), May 1, 2004, Diocese of Colorado Springs.

Bishop Sheridan correctly applies this same conclusion to those advocating same-sex "marriage":

As in the matter of abortion, any Catholic politician who would promote so-called “same-sex marriage” and any Catholic who would vote for that political candidate place themselves outside the full communion of the Church and may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been
reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance.

See link to Sheridan Pastoral Letter above.

The document is worth reading in its entirety. Bishop Sheridan also makes clear that he is in solidarity with and supporting his brother bishops who have dared to clearly state Catholic teaching on these issues. After you read the letter in its entirety, then consider what I will now say about the N.Y. Times coverage of the same letter.

The theme of the N.Y. Times headline and story is that Sheridan is now daring to advocate denying the Eucharist to any Catholic voter who votes for a pro-abortion politician ("Bishop Would Deny Rite for Defiant Catholic Voters," N.Y. Times Online, National section, 5/14/04). Of course, this sensationalistic approach is intended to panic the average Catholic parishioner who fears that now he or she will be denied the Eucharist just as some pro-abortion celebrities have been. Well, if a Catholic voter is a well-known activist for abortion or gay marriage who obstinately and knowingly persists in pushing these anti-Catholic positions then he or she can and should under canon law be denied the Eucharist. But it is obvious that no anonymous, average Catholic voter by definition fits into the category of a public activist. This pastoral letter is telling average, anonymous Catholic voters that if they have freely and knowingly voted for pro-abortion politicians and/or politicians supporting gay "marriage," fully aware, as is likely, that these positions are gravely immoral under Catholic moral teaching, they need to go to confession prior to receiving the Eucharist.

But obviously no one will be able to deny the Eucharist to such an average voter for the simple practical reason that his acts are not known to the public. Even the N.Y. Times article makes note of that, even while distorting the wording of the bishop's pastoral letter. In my view, the N.Y. Times is distorting the message of the pastoral letter--which at no point addresses the issue of denying anyone the Eucharist--in order to paint Sheridan as an extremist inquisitor who will now harass every Catholic communicant, however humble and anonymous. In my opinion, this distortion is part of the liberal strategy to save Kerry and other pro-abortion celebrities by linking their fate to that of non-celebrity, average Catholics.

The N.Y. Times is so alarmed and aghast that some Catholic bishops are showing chutzpah that it misrepresents Sheridan's written statement and thereby creates confusion among average Catholics. But the same liberal media won't be alarmed about someone like Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles who is indirectly quoted in the same story as asserting that Kerry is "welcome" to receive the Eucharist in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Mahoney's compromise of Catholic teaching is to be expected by anyone familiar with his liberal reputation. It is no surprise. I would not even be surprised to see Mahoney leading the invocation for Kerry at the Democratic convention in Boston. Kerry recently met privately with Mahoney on May 5th. It would not be out of the ordinary for Kerry to have already issued the invitation for Mahoney to appear at the Democratic convention. As I recall, Mahoney has done that before. But what is a newsworthy surprise is that an increasing number of Mahoney's brother bishops are showing that they are cut from a different cloth.

Update: If you would like to thank Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs for his strong apostolic witness, you can e-mail the Diocese of Colorado Springs at info@diocs.org. The media will try to paint these stalwart bishops as extremists or kooks. We know better, and should encourage bishops who stand up to the errors of the secular culture.

Proof That Prison Scandal is a Pornographic Scandal

In a graphic article, the New York Post (May 13, 2004) reports that the photos of prisoner abuse include pornographic photos that have nothing to do with Iraqi prisoners, but a lot to do with pornographic activity between and among U.S. soldiers, with one female soldier apparently being in effect the leading pornographic "actress" in the photos. This evidence supports the initial analysis written here that the crux of the current scandal is about pornography, not about any official military policy of prisoner abuse (see Catholic Analysis for May 8, 2004). These were crazed, rogue soldiers steeped and formed in the immoral pornographic culture that flourishes in our country.

Yet, as pointed out before, the liberals, who enthusiastically take the lead in dismantling traditional morality by pushing abortion, contraception, domestic partnerships for both unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals, gay marriage, and exaggerated First Amendment protection for indecency in the media, are assiduously avoiding the central moral aspect of the prison scandal. The liberals would prefer to make it a matter of "torture" and official policy, even after the highly praised military officer, Army General Antonio Taguba, who authored the investigative report on this particular Iraqi prison, made clear in sworn congressional testimony that the abusive conduct was not the result of official orders or wider policy. With that statement, the liberals lost the scandal. It slipped right through their fingers. They know it.

But a scandal that liberals would rather not confront remains. And it is a pornographic scandal that reflects a corruption at the heart of our society. But you can bet that Senators Kennedy and Clinton won't be too concerned with that scandal because they don't find the culture of sexual chaos scandalous in the least. For them, it is not chaos, but a matter of liberation and empowerment. Yet, the real truth of this scandal is emerging. It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media reacts to the emergence of the type of scandal that contradicts its cultural bias against traditional sexual morality. It is likely that they will engage in blatant denial and ignore the obvious. Thus, you will likely see the scandal slowly recede from the headlines as its true parameters continue to emerge. Only in conservative media, especially on the internet, will you see the crux of the prison scandal described in unflinching terms.

All of which brings me to a point that many political observers fail to grasp when discussing the public's view of the state and direction of the nation. Many such observers point to polls showing that a majority of the public believes the nation is on the "wrong track" as a sign of trouble for Bush's re-election, in spite of the fact that the Kerry campaign remains stuck in the polls. I suggest that the Beltway pundits and their colleagues from the other major liberal media centers are missing a central point: a solid Bush supporter can be deeply pessimistic about the state of the nation but still turn out to vote for the President. In fact, the deeper the pessimism, the more likely the Bush supporter will turn out to vote for Bush. The reason is that the pessimism is based not on the daily political back and forth served up by the mainstream media or the latest mischaracterized scandal pounced upon by the media but rather on cultural pessimism. It is right to be culturally pessimistic about a society in which moral chaos is rampant in the push for current lifestyles of sexual insanity and in the craze for hedonism and materialism.

This moral chaos results in an "integrity deficit" in our country. That integrity deficit is far more dangerous and alarming than any budget deficit could ever be. Those who lean to supporting President Bush know that. It is why Bush's strongest support comes from Americans who take religious practices, such as church attendance, most seriously. So the mainstream media has the equation backwards: cultural pessimism may very well propel the vote for Bush, not for the candidate steeped in extreme Massachusetts social liberalism. It all depends on what the voter is pessimistic about. The economy is obviously improving, and the Iraq situation is already slowly stabilizing. Yet, the source of legitimate cultural pessimism remains: the integrity deficit. That cultural pessimism favors the Bush campaign. But, alas, sometimes the deepest cultural currents are too deep to merit the notice of a superficial mainstream media that itself so closely reflects the integrity deficit.

Update: More proof of the above thesis at the N.Y. Post. One Slate.com commentator remarked sardonically that "right-wing cultural warriors" would spin the scandal into one of sexual immorality. Well, the "right-wing cultural warriors" are looking more on target every day.

Respecting Conscience

A popular argument by some clerics who argue that they are not comfortable with denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion political celebrities is that the decision to receive is up to the conscience of the celebrity. In prior posts, I have indicated why this highly subjective view of conscience is contrary to Catholic teaching and even to relevant canon law. But today it is time to consider one of the most effective ways of exposing fallacy: reductio ad absurdum, that is, showing that a point of view is mistaken by showing that it leads to absurd results-- to "a reduction to absurdity."

Let us take a hypothetical bishop who goes to the media and says that he is not comfortable with denying the Eucharist to a pro-abortion celebrity--in reality, some have already actually done this. But now let us go to a local priest who has a correct grasp of Catholic teaching and canon law on this issue and as a result is firmly convinced in his conscience that for him to give the Eucharist to the local pro-abortion governor or legislator or to John Kerry would make him as a priest an accomplice to the profanation of the Eucharist. Our hypothetical priest has an informed and correct conscience. Moreover, he is certainly obligated to protect the Eucharist from profanation. How can our hypothetical bishop expect that priest (or for that matter a lay person who is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion) to act contrary to a well-formed conscience and give the Eucharist to a pro-abortion celebrity?

The hypothetical bishop can forbid the priest from denying the Eucharist, but, in that case, the bishop has contradicted his own public statement that the judgment of the individual conscience is supremely sovereign on the issue of who can receive the Eucharist. Or the bishop can let each priest make his own decision on giving or denying the Eucharist. That latter option would at least be consistent with the bishop's public statements on the supremacy of individual conscience. Yet, even this latter option is not desirable because it introduces chaos into the sacramental life of the Church within a particular diocese and between different dioceses.

In other words, the best our hypothetical bishop can do is to recognize that both theology and canon law require a consistent policy of refusing the Eucharist to pro-abortion celebrities. The Eucharist is protected, and Catholic sacramental life remains orderly and uniform within and between dioceses.

Some may object that a policy of denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion celebrities would itself be the source of chaos because there would have to be a complex laundry list of political positions that preclude one from receiving the Eucharist. The truth is that there would be no chaos. Any political celebrity openly and obstinately contradicting Catholic teaching on what is grave sin should be told not to approach the Eucharist and should be denied the Eucharist if he or she does approach. We are not talking about the death penalty issue--the Church has no absolute prohibition against the death penalty, contrary to the implications of some who speak publicly. We are not talking about the mechanics of economic policy about which Catholics can and do legitimately differ. We are not talking about the Iraq War because the Church recognizes that Catholics can legitimately differ on the application of just war criteria to a particular situation.

Any laundry list of obstacles to communion would involve grave and intrinsically evil matters about which the Church recognizes no right to diversity of opinion. In addition, the only practical and feasible targets would be celebrities who persist in denying such Church teaching and thus create scandal--not the average anonymous parishioner.

Catholic liberals are continuing to spout what can only be called "whoppers" in the news media that misrepresent Catholic teaching in their eagerness to defend pro-abortion Democrats. As noted before, one common misrepresentation is that the abortion issue and issues such as the death penalty or the Iraq War are on the same plane. The other great misrepresentation is that denying the Eucharist to a political celebrity is equivalent to denying the Eucharist to an anonymous parishioner where scandal is not a factor.

The biggest misrepresentation was recently made by that reliably unreliable source of Catholic teaching, the Rev. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame University, who is quoted as saying that "Abortion is not a dogma." Here is an excerpt from the news article containing the McBrien quote:

"The only way that you can separate yourself from the church is by knowingly and deliberately denying a dogma of faith," said the Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a professor of theology at Notre Dame and a liberal in such matters. "Abortion is not a dogma."

"Communion Becomes a Test of Faith and Politics," by Daniel J. Wakin, N.Y. Times online, May 9, 2004 (free reg'n required).

Well, a "dogma" is a divinely revealed teaching. It may be defined solemnly as was done in the case of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary, or it can be defined "in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life" (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary s.v. "Dogma"). As Hardon notes, a dogma is a "[d]octrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation" (Ibid.). And it is clear that the grave immorality of the direct and voluntary taking of an innocent human life--which includes deliberate or procured abortion--is a divinely revealed teaching:

This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), section 62.3 (i.e., 3rd paragraph in section 62).

Consistent with the Pope's declaration, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that the grave immorality of the direct and voluntary taking of innocent human life is a divinely revealed teaching (see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei,' June 29, 1998, section 11 (also refer to section 5), available at EWTN.com.)

So McBrien, not surprisingly, is again wrong. The only remedy for this mess is exposure of these wild misrepresentations and a constant reiteration of the truth. The power of the truth cannot be suppressed by sound bites.

A Benedictine Abbot's View of the Eucharist: Highly Relevant for Today

Abbot Vonier (1875-1938) was a German-born Benedictine monk who for many years was abbot of a monastery in England. Among the many theological works he wrote, one that is especially relevant to today's controversies is a work from 1925: A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, reprinted in 2003 by the new Zaccheus Press in Bethesda, Maryland. In an introduction to this book, theologian Aidan Nichols, O.P., describes Vonier as "the most gifted dogmatic theologian writing--and preaching-- in England during the inter-War years [the nineteen twenties and thirties]" (Vonier, p. xi). In a preface to the book, Catholic philosopher and apologist Peter Kreeft notes that he has "seldom read such a convincing, clear, and comprehensive study in Eucharistic theology" (Vonier, p. ix).

Vonier's writings on the Eucharist are especially relevant today when some priests and bishops seek to justify the scandal of pro-abortion political celebrities receiving the Eucharist with impunity. The thread of the reasoning of these clerical defenders of scandal is a highly individualistic and subjective view of the human conscience. If you consider their rhetoric, which at times appears to have an off-the-cuff, shoot-from-the hip quality to it, it reflects the American cultural worship of the individual subjective conscience, however ill-informed, as justifying a wide range of behaviors. Under this secular world view, "choice" is preeminent over the "good" because there is no authoritative, objective measure of the good. In this cultural view, the best we can do is agree on procedures by which to allow for the social co-existence of virtually every subjective desire or choice imaginable. That American cultural view has infected, whether consciously or unconsciously, the rhetoric of some churchmen.

In contrast, the authentic Catholic view is that conscience must be formed by authoritative objective truth, that conscience can and does frequently err, and that it is the obligation of the Church as the bearer of objective divine revelation to correct such errors for the sake of the truth, the good of the individual and wider humanity, and the glory of God.

As to the current controversy about "pro-choice" political celebrities receiving the Eucharist, Vonier's writing from 1925 is a necessary corrective to the current cultural mindset. Vonier emphasizes the social and ecclesial aspect of the Eucharist:

The Eucharistic sacrifice is fundamentally a corporate act, the act of the Church herself; we are never isolated worshipers in the great rite, even when we are but a few gathered around the altar in some remote church, for we are in communion with the whole Catholic Church. So the eating of the divine oblation is always invested with social significance. We all become members of one Body, eating one Bread: this is the classical, traditional concept of the Eucharistic assembly.

Vonier, p. 169 (emphasis added).

Receiving the Eucharist is a social act. It announces that one is in full communion with the Catholic Church. It is, as Vonier writes, "the act of the Church herself." Eucharistic theology determines the meaning of the Eucharist, not secular culture's obsession with "choice." In contrast,the current defense of people like Kerry receiving the Eucharist focuses on the Eucharist as a highly individualistic exercise with no social significance. This type of defense of pro-abortion leaders receiving the Eucharist implies that the Eucharist belongs primarily to individuals, not to the Church. That is how the false and absurd charge can be made that, in defending the Sacrament, the Church is somehow interfering in politics.

Vonier writes prophetically when he observes as follows:

It would be a disastrous day for the Christian cause if, in the minds of the faithful, the Eucharistic mystery were shorn of that all-important social character, if their frequent eating of the heavenly Bread meant to them nothing more than individual spiritual satisfaction, without promoting the well-being of Christ's mystical Body, the society of the elect.

Vonier, p. 169.

Vonier clearly saw, way back in 1925, what is now at stake in having obstinate pro-abortion leaders partake of the Eucharist. What is at stake is an exaggerated neo-Protestant view of the Eucharist as an individual transaction between one worshipper and God, with the Church merely providing the physical setting for the act. This neo-Protestant view does away with the Church herself as the custodian of the sacraments. This view has now become the thoroughly secular caricature of religion as mere "spirituality" for individual consumption in the market for spiritual and psychological solace. This psychological view of the sacraments is why our society inevitably views as puzzling the Church's efforts to defend the Eucharist and limit participation by those who reject fundamental Church teaching. Much of American culture cannot comprehend the classic social significance of the Eucharist and thus invests it with an individualism that, while indigenous to our American culture, is alien to Catholicism.

Vonier notes, with an amazing relevance to our current controversies, that the "ideal world of which the saint dreams is a human society where there is practical knowledge of the meaning of the Eucharistic sacrifice, where men and women have a clear comprehension of the divine mysteries, and where purity and justice are cherished, because without them men would be unfit for the Communion of the Body of God" (Vonier, pp. 169-70). Without a commitment to the justice of defending human life in all its forms, we are unfit for Holy Communion. The clear articulation of the theological basis of this truth makes the reprinting of Vonier's book on the Eucharist a timely, welcome, and providential event for these troubled days.

Clerical Malpractice

When an educated professional with qualified staff and other available resources gives a superficial and erroneous analysis of an issue within his area of responsibility with harmful results, our culture calls it malpractice. Recent statements by clerics, such as Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, D.C., respond to the issue of pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist by saying that you cannot deny them the Eucharist because we cannot see into their hearts and minds and know what lurks therein (see Catholic News Service story, 4/27/04). Here is what Cardinal McCarrick is quoted as saying in the Catholic News Service story:

"I would be very uncomfortable to have a confrontation at the altar, because it implies that I know precisely what's in a man's heart or in a woman's heart, and I'm not always sure," he said.

That is the analysis presented to the public and to fellow Catholics. It is devastatingly wrong. It is clerical malpractice.

In a recent Zenit interview, priest-theologian Thomas Williams, the dean of the School of Theology of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum in Rome, gave a professional analysis of the issue based on canon law. You can and should read the entire interview at this link. But let's get to the "heart" of the issue: to deny the Eucharist to these politicians, does a bishop have to know what lurks in the hearts of men? Canon law clearly says no. Here are the words of Fr. Williams:

Four essential elements come into play, all of which are necessary to fulfill the conditions laid out in Canon 915.

The first element is "gravi peccato," or grave sin. This can only be taken to refer to the matter of the action -- or omission -- without necessarily implying a judgment of subjective culpability. "Grave sin" in this case simply means objectively evil conduct of a serious nature.

The second requirement specified by Canon 915 refers to the "manifesto," or overt, character of the sin. This stipulation limits the sanction to sins of a public nature, and reiterates the public and ecclesial dimension of Holy Communion, which signifies moral, spiritual and doctrinal union with Christ and with his Church.

Thirdly, to be refused Communion a person must persist -- "perseverantes" -- in this openly sinful behavior. To say that a person persists in a public sin means that he somehow makes it known that he plans to continue engaging in his sinful behavior.

Finally, the code speaks of obstinate persistence. The Latin adverb "obstinate" here means that the person has been duly informed of the evil of his behavior but deliberately chooses to persist in it anyway.

There is such a thing as inculpable persistence in evildoing, when a person is unaware that a certain habitual activity is sinful. But once the evil of his actions has been brought to his attention, his persistence qualifies as obstinate.

Judging from the foregoing considerations, it seems clear that a politician who votes in a way that fails to defend innocent human life on a consistent basis and gives every indication of his intention to keep doing so despite warnings from ecclesiastical authorities can be said to obstinately persist in objectively evil behavior of a public nature. And in this regard he fulfills the requirements of Canon 915.

"Why Communion Could Be Denied to Anti-Life Legislators," April 26, 2004, Zenit.org (emphasis added).


No judgment of subjective culpability is required. What canon law requires is "objectively evil conduct of a serious nature." This objectively evil conduct creates scandal. Canon law contemplates denial of the Eucharist to squelch the scandal. So for McCarrick and other bishops, such as Bishop Mengeling of Lansing, Michigan, for example (see Lansing State Journal story), to speak of not being able to judge the hearts of communicants is to miss the boat. Here are Mengeling's remarks as reported in the Lansing newspaper:

Mengeling said denying Communion to Granholm [the pro-abortion Michigan governor] and other politicians who support abortion rights would force the church to judge every Catholic, a task he said is up to God.

"We assume that (people) are in good standing with the law in terms of their own conscience," Mengeling said. "The Lord knows that. I don't."

No one is making the straw man argument of reading anyone's heart or conscience. In the same Zenit interview, Fr. Williams points to the absurd situation of effectively open communion created by irrelevant talk of reading someone's heart: "If publicly supporting abortion doesn't constitute a sufficient pastoral reason to justify the denial of Holy Communion, it is hard to imagine when recourse to this measure would be appropriate."

Canon law is not speaking here about reading anyone's heart. Canon law does not contemplate impossibilities. The issue of reading someone's heart is a red herring that is, from all indications, a convenient way to dodge the issue and avoid confrontation. Avoiding confrontation over the truth is episcopal malpractice. The People of God deserve better. And, thanks to Zenit, the People of God now know better.

Fifth Sunday of Easter: Acts 14:21-27; Revelation 21:1-5a; John 13:31-33a, 34-35

A striking common theme of all three readings is the transformation of the world. In the reading from Acts, Paul and Barnabas are traveling evangelist-bishops going from city to city. I term them "bishops" because they oversee the various churches they set up in different cities. As they travel, they strengthen and exhort the disciples undergoing hardships for the kingdom of God, just as Jesus in the Gospel of Luke had said that Peter, another traveling evangelist-bishop, would strengthen the brethren (Luke 22:31). Interestingly, Luke is also the author of the book of Acts in which the work of Paul and Barnabas, as just noted, is described as strengthening the disciples (Acts 14:22) . In these two passages (Lk 22:31 and Acts 14:22), Luke uses two slightly different forms of the same Greek verb for "strengthening" or "confirming." Peter, Barnabas, and Paul are engaged in the same type of work, although Peter is singled out in the Gospel of Luke as preeminent in strengthening the brethren in a broader sense.

It is also worth noting that earlier in Acts 13:2-3, we have an account of the ordination of Barnabas and Paul through the laying on of hands at the direct command of the Holy Spirit. Here we see the Sacrament of Holy Orders with its distinctive laying on of hands functioning at the direct command of God. Thus, in Acts, we see those who have been ordained taking the lead in transforming the world by evangelization. As part of this evangelization, Paul and Barnabas, the traveling evangelist-bishops, appoint elders or presbyters in each church (Acts 14:23). In the New Testament, the terms "presbyter" and "bishop" tend to be used interchangeably. But we can already see a distinction between Paul and Barnabas who supervise and appoint presbyters for different communities and the resident presbyters they leave behind. These presbyters are the new priests of the New Testament who assist the traveling evangelist-bishops by leading the newly converted. In time, as the Church developed, the chief resident presbyter or elder in each community would become the exclusive holder of the title of bishop in each community. It is clear from Acts that the specially ordained are taking the lead in transforming the world through evangelization and through the founding of churches.

In Revelation, John sees a new heaven and a new earth. The New Jerusalem is the bride adorned for her husband, Jesus, the Lamb. Jesus is the bridegroom. Later, in Revelation 21:14, we are told that the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are inscribed on the foundations of the New Jerusalem. So we see that the ultimate transformation of this world is based on the evangelistic work, described in Acts, of the apostles of the Lamb. They have done the work of the Bridegroom on earth. Although Paul is, so to speak, the "13th Apostle," his apostolic ministry was confirmed by the original apostles (see Acts 15).

Finally, in the Gospel of John, Christ gives the new commandment: love one another. This love (agape) is the distinctive mark of Christ's disciples on earth. It is how they will transform the earth. A timeless expression of that transforming love is found in the Latin chant Ubi caritas, which can be translated into English as follows:

Where charity and love are, there is God.
The love of Christ has brought us together into one flock.
Let us rejoice and let us be glad in that love itself.
Let us fear and love the living God.
And let us love from a pure heart. Amen.

In sum, today's readings tell us in the book of Acts the identity of the ones taking the lead in transforming the earth (the apostles and their assistants), describe the final transformation in Revelation based on the work of the twelve apostles, and remind us in the Gospel that love is the distinctive means of that transformation.

The High Price of a Pornographic Culture

For those who have a squeamish temperament or who find bad news too much to handle, it is probably better to skip this essay. For the thesis of this essay is that America is a pornographic culture in denial. The bottom-line is that we and our leaders must speak openly about this before we are fully enveloped in chaos.

The current military prison abuse scandal, which is in many prominent ways a sexual abuse scandal, is an epiphany. For it manifests the reality of our culture. To see the generals and Rumsfeld himself--all from a prior generation--grapple in disbelief with the magnitude of the prison abuse scandal is to see a tremendous difference in generational formation. For a prior generation, which benefited from growing up in a culture with a conservative sexual moral consensus, it is hard to believe that professional soldiers would indulge, photograph, videotape, and take great pleasure in perverse acts. But it is not hard to believe for those of us who grew up in a different culture in which fornication and sexual license became a way of life.

It is a culture in which it is common for Catholic males getting ready to shortly receive the sacrament of matrimony to have bachelor parties in which pornography--live or videotaped--is a staple. It is a culture where President Clinton made references to fellatio a topic of household conversation . It is a culture that was foreshadowed in the private pornographic White House lifestyle of the mythic John F. Kennedy. Today, the heir of that Kennedy lifestyle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, calls for Rumsfeld's resignation--the same Kennedy who left behind a young female companion, later found dead, at Chappaquiddick, the same Kennedy who was caught on camera a few years ago, while a Senator, engaging in sexual intercourse in open air on a sailboat off the European coast. In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, the living emblem of the cultural problem poses as the moral crusader outraged at the problem.

A pornographic culture will produce sexually perverse and abusive soldiers, just as a pornographic culture produces sexually perverse politicians, priests, and ministers. The latest revelation is that a former Carter cabinet member now admits having had sexual relations with a 14-year-old earlier in his political career! The news also contains a steady stream of reports of an HIV/AIDS outbreak in the nation's busy pornography industry centered in Los Angeles. It is amazing that the industry is legal. It is amazing that engaging in sexual acts for money is considered "work" on a par with other work and that the sordid, satanic pornographers are considered an "industry." Well, the "industry" is now at a standstill because abused nature is taking its revenge. In an age, when the news media delights in exposing corporate corruption and every possible peccadillo involved with politically connected companies like Halliburton, it is amazing that there is no news media exposé of the pornography "industry" which is intrinsically and openly exploitative, inhuman, and anti-woman.

As in the Catholic sexual abuse scandal, those who planted the seeds of the problem now seek to exploit the problem to advance their pre-existing political agendas. Reference has already been made to the walking hypocrisy of Sen. Kennedy. All we have to do is add the school-marm hypocrisy of Senator Hillary Clinton about whose spouse's contribution to the pornographic culture I have already said enough. In the same way, Catholic liberals who for years undercut traditional Catholic sexual morality sought and seek to advance their agenda during the sexual abuse crisis. Recently, Bishop Untener of Saginaw, Michigan, a leading Catholic liberal, passed away to great sorrow. But lost in most of the accolades was the reminder that this same Bishop Untener, earlier in his career, allowed films with pornographic content to be made available to seminarians in order to "sensitize" them to sexual issues (see National Catholic Reporter's sanitized version of the incident [13th paragraph from the top]).

Yet, Rumsfeld is no Cardinal Law, however much Sen. Kennedy yearns for that identification. From all indications, the military scandal was a surprise to Rumsfeld. In contrast, Cardinal Law apparently knew what had happened, but kept transferring the guilty to new parishes. Rumsfeld should not be the target here. The target is a morally chaotic culture in which pornographic excess permeates our schools, our churches, our media, and our military. It is time for cultural conservatives, in and out of politics, to make this self-criticism. It would behoove the President to point out our cultural flaws in this area, as he has done in other areas. Sometimes the best patriotism is that which exposes cultural corruption. Anything else smacks of sentimental and self-destructive denial.

New Jersey Governor Bows to Reality

A Catholic Analysis reader sent me the May 6th New York Times article noting that pro-abortion Governor James McGreevey of New Jersey has decided to bow to reality. He says that he will not receive communion in the dioceses of three New Jersey bishops who have said that he should not seek to receive the Eucharist. The bishops are Archbishop John Myers in Newark, Bishop John Smith in Trenton, and Bishop Joseph Galante in Camden. Three bishops stood up, said the obvious, and the politician bowed to reality. The governor is free to attend Mass, come forward, receive a blessing, and make a spiritual communion.

The bishops have done him a great spiritual favor. They have rescued him from compounding his own confusion about abortion with the sin of sacrilege and have clearly shown him the path to full communion with the Catholic Church. I would not be surprised if one day McGreevey thanks these courageous bishops for their clarity.

The N.Y. Times article makes much of the fact that pundits believe that this action by the bishops will help the governor politically. The article misses the boat. The bishops' action has nothing to do with the political fortunes of the governor. It has everything to do with the sacramental discipline of a religious community. The political effects are irrelevant. These observers just can't seem to understand that for Catholics protecting the Eucharist is worth all the political setbacks in the world. The pundits can't seem to understand anything beyond the back and forth of political competition.

Yet, the governor is still resistant, as seen in his comments complaining that the bishops have violated the separation of church and state. Of course, this complaint is ridiculous. Freedom of religion, enshrined in the Constitution, means that religious communities are free to decide who has access to their rites and rituals. In fact, it is the governor and other pro-abortion politicians who are violating the separation of church and state by pressuring a religious community to change its age-old moral teachings and sacramental discipline to match a secular political agenda that became prominent only in the nineteen seventies.

As to other, less courageous Catholic bishops, the lesson is clear. Here, three bishops in a very liberal, pro-abortion state took a firm and clear stand, protected the Eucharist, and protected the integrity of the Church's teaching against abortion, and their world has not collapsed. The consciences of the bishops are clear. No priest in these dioceses will be placed in the position of possibly contributing to the profanation of the Eucharist. It is as it should be.

It is good to see bishops in a major state not following the passive approach advocated by Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, D.C. It is obvious that McCarrick's view is his own problem that he will have to sort out on his own and will not inhibit bishops who wish to act like bishops. It may be that we are seeing the beginning of the end of a long, cowardly phase of American Catholicism.

FDA Rejects Over-the-Counter Sales of Morning-After Pill

The FDA has rejected a proposal to sell the "morning-after" contraceptive pill over-the-counter. The regular birth control pill requires a prescription, but the higher dosage "morning-after" pill would have been available without a prescription under the rejected proposal. One news report notes that many of the buyers of the "morning-after" pill are males who then give the pills to the females they have relations with. The women's group quoted in the news report contends that the morning-after pill facilitates sexual abuse of young females. You can read the news report at this link. The connection between contraception and sexual abuse is more evidence that the contraceptive mentality is an anti-woman mentality.

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse and the Corruption of Feminism

The current media frenzy over the photos of the wanton humiliation of Iraqi prisoners--who I assume included people who attacked American troops--is justified because the behavior contradicts American identity and policy. Yet, as columnist Cal Thomas writes, the issue must be kept in the context of a Middle East in which brutal physical torture--not just non-physical humiliation--is still a daily reality imposed by Moslems upon other Moslems. One of the masters of such physical torture was Saddam Hussein himself whom American troops removed from power in about 21 days. Hussein would even film his torture of political opponents, just as Hitler filmed the brutal executions of those Germans who tried to assassinate him during World War II, in order to terrorize other potential opponents. Maybe, someone could dig up one of those films and publish excerpts of it in order to give a sense of realistic context to the current controversy.

It is undeniable that these acts of humiliation were rogue acts in defiance of American policy in Iraq. The physical torture of Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, was the anointed centerpiece of his regime's governance to which the United Nations for years turned a blind eye. The American public intuitively understands that, and so the Democratic attempt to gain political points from this scandal will come to nothing. Thus far these intolerable acts seem to be mostly non-physical and lacking the infliction of physical pain. Therefore, based on what we know now, they cannot be appropriately termed "torture" except by those with a pre-existing ideological axe to grind.

Yet, there is a deeper issue here from a Catholic perspective: the moral character of the soldiers who did this. It is especially disturbing to see pictures of female American soldiers engaging in sexual humiliation of male prisoners. Would that have occurred in another era? Would female American soldiers be grinning at and pointing at the genitals of male prisoners? In a prior era, where feminine modesty was considered a virtue, you would have never seen such wanton behavior. In fact, you would have never seen female personnel dealing so intimately with male prisoners. It is already apparent from some of these infamous photos that part of the politically incorrect roots of this scandal lies in the breakdown of feminine dignity and modesty in wider American culture.

In the military itself, there seems to be a policy of androgyny: male and female soldiers are considered, for the most part, completely interchangeable. That policy is an expression of our corrupt culture in which gender differences are considered merely accidental and not central to our human identity. It is a great lie. The idea that there are certain situations in which female participation is inappropriate is now considered quaint. And here are the consequences. The radical feminist project which refuses to recognize that women should not be placed in certain situations should be questioned as a result of this scandal, but you can rest assured that the mainstream media will not touch that issue.

If we as Catholics really believe that our gender differences are central to our human identity, then we should point out that those gender differences mean that women soldiers should not be manhandling male prisoners. Otherwise, we are left with demeaning photos of naked males mocked by grinning females. I submit that in these photos the one experiencing the greater humiliation is the highly confused grinning female soldier and her family back home. And I think not a few Moslems will agree with that assessment.

Statement on Eucharist and Abortion from Newark Archbishop

Archbishop John Myers of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, issued today an eloquent statement that clearly analyzes the issues involved in the propriety of pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist. The archbishop correctly distinguishes between grave and instrinsic evils like abortion on which there is only one Catholic position and other issues of social policy, such as increases in welfare payments or tax cuts, about which Catholics can differ in good faith. The archbishop also makes clear that receiving the Eucharist is not an absolute right, and that those who are pro-abortion should honestly admit they are not in communion with the Church. Let us hope that this statement is a prelude to action. What is also striking about this statement is the contrast with the weak-as-water comments of Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., who heads a task force considering this issue for the bishops' conference. It has even been reported that this task force will probably not finish its work before the 2004 election! So in the end, Cardinal McCarrick's passive response to the issue is irrelevant. What is relevant is that some bishops and archbishops are taking action or preparing to take long overdue action. Maybe the rest of their colleagues will eventually emulate their apostolic boldness. According to Vatican II, each bishop is a vicar of Christ in his diocese--not a vicar of the bishops' conference or of a committee or of a paralyzed task force. Fortunately, it seems that several bold bishops have taken that teaching of Vatican II to heart.

The Popularity of Ambiguity

I was recently stuck in a traffic jam in Sterling Heights, Michigan, one of the original enclaves of the famous Reagan Democrats. As you may recall, the Reagan Democrats were those traditional, usually working-class Democratic voters, many of them Catholic, who crossed party lines to elect Reagan twice as president. This time the traffic jam was caused by Bush supporters heading to an outdoor rally at which George W. Bush would speak. It is likely that more than a few Reagan Democrats were headed to the rally. All of which raised for me the different personal styles of Reagan and Bush on one hand and John Kerry on the other.

If the pollsters are correct, a "gender gap" persists in this presidential election with more women preferring Kerry, while more men prefer Bush. Whether that gap will last until November 2nd is unclear. My own hypothesis is that the gender gap may have to do with our differing cultural reactions to assertive politicians with a penchant for morally unambiguous statements. Back in the eighties, when Reagan stated the abundantly obvious--that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire"-- he was roundly criticized as a warmonger by the liberals and the liberal media. Reagan had committed the sin of making a clear-cut distinction between good and evil. Reagan had played the role of the assertive male. At the same time, Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady," was playing the role of the assertive female who did not shrink from calling a spade a spade and was also the target of venomous criticism.

The assertive proclamation of good and evil is viewed in today's culture as insensitive and unintelligent. We can see that in the current paralysis by many Catholic bishops on the question of denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians. Some--including most recently Bishop Mengeling of the Diocese of Lansing, Michigan--take cover in the obvious fact that they can't read the minds of every Catholic seeking to receive communion. Of course, this excuse is transparently baseless. No one is talking about denying the Eucharist to anonymous parishioners. We are talking about prominent political celebrities who go out of their way to publicly reaffirm again and again that they are leaders in the pro-abortion movement. There is no need to read their minds or consciences. They have spilled forth the contents of their minds for all, but the most timorous, to see. But there is a strong cultural affinity for the "nice" approach that shrinks from unambiguous confrontation with evil.

In a way, an inaccurate view and caricature of Christ has been partly responsible for this cultural preference for moral ambiguity. The false image of Christ that is the darling of liberal Protestants and liberal Catholics is that of Christ as the sensitive male who never confronts evil. The Gospel picture is radically different. Christ was brutally executed because he would not desist from confrontation. Christ had a spine of steel, while the caricature is a biblically fictitious person who would have offended no one and would have never been executed.

But back to political preferences. Today, George W. Bush is the favorite political target of those, both male and female, who favor the morally ambiguous male. Bush is mocked and derided as unintelligent, as a warmonger, and even as a killer of civilians because he dared to overthrow a genocidal tyrant who terrorized thousands of his subjects for years while the U.N. engaged in endless debate. Bush routinely refers to the terrorists as evildoers, while the culturally sensitive seek to focus exclusively on the excuses and frustrations that lead to terrorism.

Kerry, on the other hand, with his trademark pink salmon-colored tie, is the quintessential tortured Hamlet who is incapable of making a clear judgment call. He is for and against everything, and breathes ambiguity. The ambiguity even enveloped for years his own ethnic background. As reported by the Boston Globe, Kerry was happy to leave Massachusetts voters for years with the useful impression that he was of Irish Catholic background. To the surprise of many who had been his constituents for years, Kerry lacks any Irish Catholic background. Kerry's ambiguity extends to more significant matters: rejecting Catholic teaching on abortion but refusing to get out of the communion line, supporting and then attacking the Iraq War, crowing against gas guzzling vehicles but owning an SUV, basing his whole campaign on his Vietnam war record but refusing to release all of his military records, and making populist attacks on tax cuts for the rich while at the same time being an extremely wealthy man with a conspicuously opulent lifestyle who supports his heiress wife's refusal to release her own tax returns. In sum, Kerry is the incarnation of the cultural affinity for the Hamlet-like, sensitive, "intelligent" male paralyzed by distinctions.

Experience teaches many of us that, at some point, excessive introspection is not a sign of intelligence but of moral escapism. Life is by nature dramatic and requires dramatic choices. That is how we form our character. Yet, we see a strong cultural affinity for ambiguity that is a mark of our preference for seeking escape, whether in the pursuit of power, alcohol or other drugs, pornography, or materialism. In the real world, escape is sometimes not an option. Sometimes you must make a clear choice and take up the cross.

New Report on Unfaithful Historically Catholic Colleges

The Cardinal Newman Society is an organization intent on restoring fidelity to the campuses of historically Catholic colleges and universities. Note that I call them "historically" Catholic institutions because that is all you can safely say in general about them and still be accurate. We know that these institutions were founded by prior generations in complete fidelity to Catholic teaching. But today it is common to see example after example of blatant contradictions of Catholicism. Patrick Reilly, the President of the Cardinal Newman Society, has brought to my attention the following news story which I reproduce in full with a link to the society's new report on these campuses. The value of this report is that it gathers in one place what most of us have seen in sporadic media stories or on different weblogs. What do we do with this information? If you are an alumnus of one of these confused institutions, you can protest and withhold contributions. If you are a student, you can protest. If you are the parent of a prospective college student, you can go out of your way to find a faithful institution and stop subsidizing anti-Catholic behavior--you can also let one of these scandal ridden institutions know why you chose to put your tuition dollars elsewhere. I am afraid that, as in the homosexual abuse scandals, only financial pressures will force reform.

Here is the story on the recent Cardinal Newman report:

NATIONAL STUDY REVEALS PRO-ABORTION, RELATED ACTIVITY AT CATHOLIC COLLEGES
SINCE 1999

- 56-Page Report Documents Scandals in Catholic Higher Education -

MANASSAS, VA (April 28, 2004) - Cardinal Newman Society has issued a
shocking new report on scandals at U.S. Catholic colleges and universities
that is certain to reignite concerns about the colleges' religious
character.

The 56-page report, "The Culture of Death on Catholic Campuses: A Five-Year
Review," documents inroads made by advocates of abortion, contraception,
premarital sexual activity, and physician-assisted suicide onto Catholic
college campuses since 1999. It is the most extensive evidence of problems
in Catholic higher education ever compiled in a single source-and yet it
only scratches the surface, relying primarily on media reports and college
websites.

"'Pro-choice' is no choice for a Catholic institution, which by its Catholic
mission must be courageously pro-life," said Erin Butcher, lead researcher
and co-author of the report. "Cardinal Newman Society has responded to
scandal after scandal on Catholic campuses, but many Catholics still fail to
appreciate the scope of the problem."

The report, which can be downloaded free of charge at
www.cardinalnewmansociety.org beginning April 28, identifies the problems
and suggests solutions to ensure that Catholic colleges uphold their
Catholic, pro-life mission. Highlights include:

* Pro-abortion presidential candidates at Catholic colleges. In January,
St. Anselm College (N.H.) hosted seven pro-abortion candidates for their
final debate before New Hampshire's Democratic primary. Other campaign
appearances have included John Kerry at Georgetown in January 2003, Dennis
Kucinich at Sacred Heart University last June, Howard Dean at St. Anselm
last September and at Georgetown last October, Dick Gephardt's daughter at
Boston College last November, Gephardt and Kerry at Clarke College (Iowa) in
January, Wesley Clark at Rivier College (N.H.) in January, and Kerry at
Georgetown again in April.

* Nearly 200 instances of campus speakers and honorees who have been public
advocates of abortion or otherwise contributors to the "Culture of Death".
These include at least 17 visits and lectures by President Bill Clinton at
Georgetown University, researchers engaged in human cloning and embryonic
cell research at Assumption College and the College of the Holy Cross, NARAL
Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman at Boston College law school,
radical feminist Gloria Steinem at Fairfield University, pornographer Larry
Flynt at Georgetown University, and National Organization for Women (NOW)
president Kim Gandy at Loyola University of New Orleans.

* "Emergency contraception," an abortifacient, provided to students by the
College of Santa Fe and Rockhurst University.

* College officials and faculty with ties to pro-abortion and
pro-euthanasia organizations, including a Boston College law professor on
the board of directors of the Death With Dignity National Center; a
Georgetown University philosophy professor on the board of directors of the
Compassion in Dying Federation, and two Georgetown University women's
studies professors who are also employees of the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America.

* Pro-abortion politicians serving as college officials and faculty,
including Carol Moseley Braun teaching management at DePaul University,
Geraldine Ferraro on the Fordham University law school Board of Visitors and
teaching public policy at Georgetown University, and Leon Panetta teaching
political science and on the Board of Trustees and law school Board of
Visitors at Santa Clara University.

* Pro-abortion student clubs including the Reproductive Choice Coalition at
Boston College law school, H*yas for Choice at Georgetown University,
Georgetown Students for Choice at Georgetown law school, and a NOW chapter
at St. Ambrose University.

* Internships and service opportunities offered by Catholic colleges,
including service as a Planned Parenthood "clinic escort" promoted by
Nazareth College's campus ministry and internships with Planned Parenthood
offered by Villanova University.

* Website referrals to pro-abortion organizations as medical or academic
resources including Georgetown University links to local abortion clinics,
LaSalle University links to NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation, Loyola
University of Chicago links to Planned Parenthood and the Feminist Majority
Foundation, Loyola University of New Orleans links to NARAL Pro-Choice
America and Planned Parenthood, and Seton Hall University links to the
Feminist Majority Foundation and NOW.

* Student newspapers promoting sex and contraception, including sex advice
columns titled "Sex and the Univercity" in The Heights at Boston College and
"Sex on the Hilltop" in The Hoya at Georgetown University.

The report is available at the Cardinal Newman Society website.

John Paul II and Our Preaching

In 1982, André Frossard, who famously experienced a striking conversion experience from atheism to Catholicism, published a book of conversations he had with John Paul II early in his papacy. As you would expect, such a book contains gems of insight into the Pope and the faith as the Pope spoke with ease and familiarity with Frossard. One striking comment involved the Pope's definition of an "active life." The response was prompted by Frossard's asking about the role of prayer and contemplation in John Paul's life. Here is part of John Paul's response:

If my past and present life can be described as 'active,' let us not forget that the 'act' par excellence of each day is the Holy Mass, which constitutes the most perfect synthesis of prayer and the heart of our meeting with God in Christ. Over thirty years' experience of priestly life has taught me that to reach this summit, to arrive at this synthesis and this fullness, one must approach it through prayer and emerge from it towards the prayer of the whole day, knowing perfectly well that this day will be filled to overflowing with activities and engagements of every sort. . . . On the whole, work takes most of the time, but all activities should be rooted in prayer as though in a spiritual soil.

André Frossard, 'Be Not Afraid': André Frossard in Conversation with John Paul II (London: St. Martin's Press, 1984), p. 33 (original emphasis).

In his recent book Letters to a Young Catholic (just reviewed in Catholic Analysis), George Weigel highly recommends praying the liturgy of the hours, even if in an abridged form. Weigel goes so far as to recommend the use of the monthly prayer magazine Magnificat. Interestingly, in his conversation with Frossard, John Paul makes special mention of how "the priest's day is liturgical, not only thanks to the Mass but also through the liturgy of the hours . . . ." (Ibid.). Certainly, praying the liturgy of the hours is one suggestion worth seriously considering.

But more impressive to me as a writer and relevant to all of us who must inevitably in writing or speech make known what we think throughout the day is John Paul's reference to an "ancient principle":

The ancient principle, Contemplata aliis tradere (hand on to others the fruits of prayer), is still topical and life-enhancing. It concerns in the first place the one who 'hands on', the preacher or servant of the Word: he is entitled to communicate-- uniquely and exclusively only contemplata, thoughts passed through prayer.

Frossard, p. 34 (bold emphasis added).

The Pope refes to the privilege of the preacher "in the first place" to pass on "thoughts passed through prayer." Yet, it is not only the preacher at Mass--priest or deacon--who has this obligation, as the Pope's phrase "in the first place" implies. Lay persons speaking to groups outside Mass, any of us speaking to any other person, and certainly those who write on religious topics have the privilege and I daresay obligation to pass on what has first gone through prayer. Anyone who has attended a charismatic renewal gathering knows that in such gatherings it is not uncommon for people to stand up to share the fruit of their personal prayer with those assembled. Our own sharing may not be as dramatically presented as those in such gatherings, but we seem to be called to do, for all practical purposes, the same thing. What better communication than to communicate the fruit of prayer?

Certainly, I do not mean adopting the posture of a prophet who prefaces his remarks with "thus sayeth the Lord." But what we communicate can be the fruit of prayer even if we do not ostentatiously label it as such. If we are praying Christians, then it should be assumed that our serious remarks to others should be rooted in that prayer. The lay person is also called to communicate in the appropriate venue what has been contemplated. Even the lay lector at Mass by reading the Scripture should make his or her reading the fruit of contemplation by previously praying over the assigned reading. In a way, the lay lector has the privilege of being the instrument of God's own preaching.

This perspective shows how silly it is for those obsessed with usurping clerical roles to try to have lay people, contrary to the rules of the Church, give homilies at Mass. There is no need to usurp the role of the priest or deacon. As lay people, we are in effect engaging in a form of preaching as lectors in the Mass and everytime we engage in a serious conversation outside the liturgy. This perspective exposes the superficiality of those who think that lay people are empowered only to the extent that they encroach on the roles of the ordained. Such misguided crusaders have missed the boat because they forget that all of us in the active life are called to pass on what has been first contemplated. The mindset of those seeking to encroach on the preaching role of the ordained reflects a mindset alien to a life of prayer. It is an impoverished mindset which equates preaching solely with the homily. The Pope's perspective in contrast brings back to mind that in all the activities of life we are in effect preaching if we pass on the fruit of our prayer. From that deeper perspective, there is no need to compete over liturgical roles.

4th Sunday of Easter: Acts 13:14, 43-52; Revelation 7:9, 14b-17; John 10:27-30

All the readings today focus on the mission ad gentes, to the peoples, to the gentiles. In the Acts of the Apostles, those Jews who rejected the Gospel turned on Paul and Barnabas out of envy with "violent abuse." A strange spectacle of our fallen human nature: to reject good news, the news that God is here to save you from spiritual and physical death. Yet, we do it all the time. The teachings of Christ call us to a high standard of love, yet we still descend to the level of pornographic behavior. The teachings of Christ call us to put relationships above the pursuit of money and power, yet we structure our whole lives around that pursuit. Some parents even jockey to put their small children in competitive preschools so that they can gain a career advantage in the long run! Millions put themselves into enormous debt seeking self-justification by means of conspicuous consumption and thus reject the good news that none of that striving and juggling is even remotely necessary for our welfare. And so it is no surprise today that those attempting to follow Christ are still met with jealousy and violent abuse because the teachings of Christ radically call into question the cherished life plans of many.

In Revelation, the fruit of the mission to the peoples is on display. John has a vision of a great multitude from every race taking part in an eternal Palm Sunday waving palm branches and worshipping God. That is the liturgy we participate in at every Mass. And the promise is not vague: "God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." That is why every Mass is simultaneously solemn and joyful. We are rejoicing that the very structure of reality is merciful.

The Gospel reading is quite brief. Jesus says that his sheep hear his voice, that he knows them, and that they will follow them. The one who rose from the dead and thus proved his credentials now promises that we will have eternal life. The sheep follow him from quite disparate backgrounds, cultures, and tastes. In spite of distance from each other, the sheep gravitate to Him. And so the Church is the sign or sacrament of the unity of all mankind. The old classical humanist saying is that "nothing human is alien to me." Well, nothing that is authentically human is alien to Christ-- for sin is not authentically human.

Another Bishop Takes Action

The bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, has barred pro-abortion Indiana Governor Kernan from giving a commencement address at a local Catholic high school. You can read about Bishop D'Arcy's action in this Associated Press story.

Cardinal McCarrick: An Invitation to Open Communion?

Some of us have noticed that the comments by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., on the denial of communion to pro-abortion politicians are reminiscent of the kow-towing to political power pioneered by those proto-Anglicans who succumbed to the political bullying of Henry VIII in sixteenth century England.

Well, conservative Anglican Christopher Johnson of the Midwest Conservative Journal seems to see this similarity, although Johnson draws the comparison not with Cranmer but with the present-day weak-as-water bishops of the Episcopal Church USA. Different comparisons, same defects. See Johnson's post for April 29, 2004, entitled "Outbreak" at the Midwest Conservative Journal. Johnson with his usual skill analyzes McCarrick's recent comments to the media and rightfully asks if the Catholic Church is now practicing open communion since McCarrick seems loathe to deny the Eucharist to anyone who comes forward to receive. If Johnson, an Anglican, can see the strange muddle in McCarrick's recent comments, then so should more Catholics and, more importantly, so should McCarrick's fellow bishops.

Double Heresy

Liberals frame the issue of denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion Catholic politicians as one of the Church interfering with politics. Of course, the exact opposite is true. This whole matter is an issue of pro-abortion politicians seeking to revise Church teaching and thus interfering with an intimately religious issue: the sacramental discipline and parameters set by a Christian community. First, they contradict Church teaching by being blatantly and uncompromisingly pro-abortion. Second, they proceed to proclaim that they are "devout" and faithful Catholics. Third, they proceed to prove their good standing as Catholics by receiving the Eucharist. The inevitable conclusion from their actions is that being pro-abortion is reconcilable with the Catholic faith. That conclusion is heretical because the Catholic faith proclaims the direct killing of innocent human life as inherently and gravely evil.

But there is an additional heresy involved in the "three-step" dance by which the pro-abortion politicians mock the Catholic faith. That heresy is the notion that there is an unconditional right to receive the Eucharist. Scripture is clear:

Whoever, therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and the blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (RSV).

Participating in the Eucharist is not unconditional. This teaching was recently reiterated in the just released disciplinary Vatican document on the Eucharist (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, sections 80-86, 91). Canon law provides that Catholics have a right to the assistance of the sacraments, but canon law does not and cannot alter the theological conditions on that participation ("Can. 213 Christ's faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments." See the 1983 Code of Canon Law at this link.) To give the Eucharist in a situation where those conditions are not met is not "assistance" but rather the condemnation spoken of by St. Paul.

Liberal activists use arguments based on access to the Eucharist to push for the ordination of women and even for erasing the distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained in consecrating the Eucharist. The hypocrisy of this liberal reliance on access to the Eucharist is that the liberals never want to discuss the primary condition under which one can exercise that access: freedom from mortal sin. But, of course, liberals stopped believing in mortal sin a long time ago. Under the liberal version of "fundamental option" theory in moral theology, the rule is simple: "Once a Catholic, always a communicant." It doesn't work that way, and it never will. To the surprise of many in an age of poor catechesis and confusion, merely being Catholic is not enough to allow one to receive the Eucharist. But that is the additional heresy that the pro-abortion politicians and their defenders are pushing, even after being clearly told not to approach the Eucharist.

Influential Bishop Denies Eucharist to Pro-Abortion New Jersey Governor

New Jersey Bishop Joseph Galante of the Camden Diocese, a prominent figure in the U.S. Bishops' Conference, has gone on the record stating that he will deny the Eucharist to New Jersey's pro-abortion Governor McGreevey. Bishop Galante is to be installed today as the new bishop for the Camden Diocese. Galante cited the fact of McGreevey's irregular marriage and anti-Catholic positions on life issues:

Galante said he was taking the stance primarily because the divorced governor, who is Catholic, remarried without receiving a church annulment. Also, he said, McGreevey's record of "pushing" for legalized abortion, stem-cell research, and other positions the church views as immoral "is almost like he throws the gauntlet down."

Philadelphia Inquirer, "Bishop would deny rite to N.J. governor," April 30, 2004, by David O'Reilly.

Add Galante to the list of no nonsense bishops like St. Louis Archbishop Burke and Nebraska Bishop Bruskewitz. Even if the majority of bishops are quiet at the moment, something is changing in the American episcopate. And make no mistake that Galante is a leading member of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here is an excerpt from a diocesan news release noting Galante's credentials in the conference and the fact that he holds a doctorate in canon law:

He holds a Doctorate in Canon Law (1968, Lateran University, Rome) and a Master of Arts in Spiritual Theology (1991, University of St. Thomas, Angelicum, Rome).
Bishop Galante serves on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Communications, Committee on Canon Law, Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse and the Ad Hoc Committee on Economic Concerns of the Holy See. Previously, Bishop Galante was Chair of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Communications and Chair of the U.S. bishops’ Religious Life Committee, as well as committees on Science and Human Values and African American Catholics.

News Release (PDF document), March 23, 2004, Diocese of Camden.

Update: The Boston Globe also covers the action by Bishop Galante (see "Bishop says he won't serve Communion to N.J. governor," by Geoff Mulvihill, May 1, 2004, Nation section.) There is also for May 1st a column in the N.Y. Times (free reg'n required) by liberal religion writer Peter Steinfels predictably calling for bishops to take no action against pro-abortion politicians. Steinfels says the situation is too murky and gives as an example the recent support by strongly pro-life Catholic Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania for the re-election of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter is pro-abortion and non-Catholic, while Specter's Republican primary challenger was pro-life. In my view, Steinfels' argument is weak. Santorum is undeniably an extremely strong leader in the pro-life cause in the Senate. Santorum's goal is to preserve procedural control of the Senate by the only pro-life party in the Senate. This control is important because the Senate will vote on confirming, among other things, a future pro-life appointment to the Supreme Court. Specter is a minority within a pro-life Senate Republican majority. To put it bluntly, Specter is being used to keep Senate control in the hands of the pro-life party because Specter is believed to have a better chance of beating the pro-abortion Democratic candidate in the general election. Personally, I would not have voted for Specter and believe the Republicans should have risked going with the pro-life candidate, but the bottom-line is that Santorum supported Specter in order to maintain Republican control of the Senate. Republican control of the Senate translates into pro-life procedural control of the Senate, as shown by the priority given to recent successful pro-life causes in the Senate. Steinfels' attempt to equate what Santorum did with what pro-abortion Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Leahy, and others do is absurd. Santorum is a pro-life leader. Catholic senators like Kerry and the others just named are, in contrast, leaders in the crusade to protect abortion in America. Pro-life Catholics would be delighted to have Senator Kerry and the other pro-abortion Catholic senators become clones of Santorum any day. And we would be delighted with a Democratic Party which would facilitate pro-life legislation and judicial appointments in the Senate, rather than seek to derail them through procedural maneuvers. As even Steinfels admits in his column, the Democratic Party has made support of abortion its signature issue on a par with the Republican emphasis on tax cuts. Therefore, denying procedural control of the Senate to the Democrats is a worthy pro-life goal.

Obstacles to Conversion

In our decidedly immoral society, one of the obstacles to conversion in the first place or to the continuing conversion called for by the Church is the understandable feeling by some that we can't live up to the teachings of Christ and to the commandments. The clergy scandals involving longtime priests, who had the privilege of offering the sacraments daily, naturally increase the doubt that the call of Christ is livable in this world. The area of sexual ethics comes to mind first, given how much we are bombarded with sexual images in television, on the internet, in advertising, and in public behavior and dress. But other areas also come to mind. Christ calls us to become indifferent to consumerism and to use our goods to advance the mission of the Church. This material imperative is just as difficult as the call to purity, given that in our society possessing things is the prime marker of one's identity and self-worth. The purchase price of a new house and the brand of car we drive are instinctively considered by legions as the marks of human success, however self-evident the irrationality of this standard is as soon as we dare to explicitly and openly articulate it.

In addition, this pursuit of material "success" deforms our characters. We lack time for human interaction. We lack time for the social graces that make life livable. We lack time for works of charity which may just be a matter of spending a few extra minutes with someone or writing a letter. Recently, there was a media article bemoaning that so few of us any longer write personal letters. That is a sign that we have replaced communio or genuine interpersonal communion with frenetic activity. At the end of the day, activities dissipate, but relationships endure. We should invest ourselves in relationships, and not transient activities. It is telling that when the word "investment" is used in our culture, we instinctively think exclusively of financial investment, as opposed to personal investment. This money-obsession is the driving engine of much of middle class life--especially among the upwardly mobile.

The feeling is that in such a culture it is just impossible to even try to live up to the Beatitudes and to the commandments. And so many twist Christ's words that his kingdom is not of this world into an admission that Christ's teachings are irrelevant. In this situation, a bit of wisdom from an old source may be helpful. Saint Alphonsus Liguori ((1696-1787) discussed temptation in his short work Uniformity with God's Will. On the temptations we face to mimic our surrounding culture, the saint has some good advice for what he terms "unrelenting temptations":

Let us then say: "Lord, do with me, let happen to me what thou wilt: thy grace is sufficient for me. Only let me never lose this grace." Consent to temptation, not temptation of itself, can make us lose the grace of God. Temptation resisted keeps us humble, brings us greater merit, makes us have frequent recourse to God, thus preserving us from offending him and unites us more closely to him in the bonds of his holy love.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Uniformity with God's Will (Tan, 1977).

Liguori touches on the theme that temptation can, in effect, be a gift, a pathway to growth, a part of the journey to which we are called, although we still pray that we not be led into temptation and duly avoid its unnecessary occasions. Like the epic hero, our temptations are dramatic obstacles to be overcome and by which our character is shaped and formed in the direction of the truth or in the direction of the lie. Through hard experience, even some secular thinkers have managed to stumble, in a hazy and confused way, onto the truth that what at first blush may seem disastrous may in fact be a tremendous opportunity in disguise.

To view temptation in this way takes great faith in God's Providence. Liguori highlights that faith:

God has made the attainment of our happiness, his glory. Since he is by nature infinite goodness, and since as St. Leo says goodness is diffusive of itself, God has a supreme desire to make us sharers of this goods and of his happiness. If then he sends suffering in this life, it is for our own good: "All things work together unto good." Even chastisements come to us, not to crush us, but to make us mend our ways and save our souls . . . ."

Liguori, pp. 14-15 (original emphasis).

And sometimes we fear temptations that we can readily foresee, which is in essence what leads many not to respond to Christ's high calling. Liguori has firm advice for dismissing our hypothetical fears:

Let us dismiss the temptation [posed by these fears] by saying: "By God's grace, I would say or do what God would want me to say or do." Thus we shall free ourselves from imperfection and harassment."

Liguori, p. 18.

At one point, Liguori refers to St. Teresa of Avila's custom of constantly offering herself to God by "placing herself at his entire disposition and good pleasure" (Liguori, p. 16). From the arid plains of Castile, Teresa gave us words that, however much we hear or read them, still calm the soul:

Let nothing disturb you, nothing affright you;
All things are passing; God never changes;
Patient endurance attains to all things;
Who[m] God possesses in nothing is wanting;
Alone God suffices.

Christian Prayer: Liturgy of the Hours (Daughters of St. Paul, 1976), Night Prayer for Tuesday, pp. 1020-21 (original translation by Arthur Symons put in modern language by this writer).

Apologetic arguments are sorely needed, but sometimes the greatest obstacles to conversion do not arise from doctrinal or philosophical difficulties but from the fear that the calling is utterly impossible. Saints Alphonsus Liguori and Teresa have given us some answers worth pondering.

A Timely Book

George Weigel's most recent book Letters to a Young Catholic (Basic Books, 2004), is timely and may become a classic because it captures the historic moment we are experiencing in Catholicism. In his message to young and "not-so-young" Catholics, Weigel offers us a work that is more personal than his other works. Here, we get a peek at his prayer life in which he prays the divine office daily (p. 155), at his taste for the music of Maurice Duruflé (p. 115), at an early disillusionment with a childhood pastor that was later redeemed (p. 118), and at his experience of a strongly Catholic friend from the pro-life movement dying of cancer (p. 183). These hints of the personal make this book more engaging and gripping that his other fine but understandably less personal recent books. That is why I look forward one day to reading his memoirs because they will tell the story of the twists and turns of Catholicism, especially in the United States, a story that will make riveting reading.

The book touches on many themes. In a prior post, I have discussed probably the most pertinent theme for understanding the Catholic situation in the United States and other Western countries: Weigel's contrast between liberal religion defined as the religion we make up and revealed religion (see Catholic Analysis, April 26, 2004). That is the signature conflict permeating Catholicism in the West. But other themes are also worth noting.

Like many, Weigel recognizes the gnostic thread running through modern Western culture which, in spite of its hedonism and materialism, actually "demeans the material" (p. 88). This modern gnosticism ends in nihilism. This demeaning of the material is obviously part of the modern sexual chaos in which the body becomes an instrument for using other people. In contrast, Weigel re-presents the Catholic view of sexuality in which longing is transformed into self-giving (p. 133). And Weigel is not afraid to take on the gay movement which he views as "the most potent example" of the gnostic imagination (p. 137). He even issues a gentle challenge to Catholic gay commentator Andrew Sullivan (pp. 137-38).

Weigel also does not shrink from facing other problems in Western Catholicism. In discussing the importance of beauty to Catholicism, he makes no bones about the "sad fact . . . that a lot of contemporary Catholicism is ugly: ugly buildings, ugly furnishings, ugly decorations, ugly vestments, ugly music" (p. 200). He is calling the younger generations to remedy that. And then there is the more general mediocrity prevalent in the liturgy as "a quickie, forty-five minute affair--'Suburban Lite' " (p. 145). He contrasts with this mediocrity a stirring example of reverent and beautiful liturgy at a Catholic parish in Greenville, South Carolina, a parish that can serve as a model for parishes nationwide in its use of chant and in returning the tabernacle to the central place in the sanctuary (pp. 140, 144).

As an interesting sign of the times, Weigel refers to theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar at several points in the book. In fact, he refers to Balthasar as "a kind of pyrotechnic genius of the modern Catholic world" (p. 56). The references to Balthasar are indeed a welcome sign of the times, an antidote to the muddled legacy of the liberal icon Karl Rahner (p. 79).

Weigel, as a Baltimore native, makes much of John Carroll, who became the first Catholic bishop of the United States with his headquarters in Baltimore. Weigel shows how Carroll viewed Catholicism and the promise of the new United States as complementary. He even points out how Benjamin Franklin and Carroll were the best of friends (p. 208). At this point, I would suggest that Weigel may be putting too good a face on the complementarity of our American origins and the Catholic point of view. From my own reading, it appears that Benjamin Franklin was already at that early date in our history a practitioner of the liberal religion which Weigel criticizes earlier in his book. Franklin was not an orthodox Christian. He was already practicing the liberalism of religion as something we make up. And so the heterodox Enlightenment origins of our nation will always be in tension with Catholicism. Weigel rightly points out that there is also a strong element of medieval Catholic culture that was the historic crucible for the rise of American freedom in the eighteenth century, but it is still undeniable that there is also an inherent tension between the liberal religion of Franklin and Jefferson and authentic Catholicism. That tension is alive and well today even at an institution named for the good bishop, John Carroll University in Cleveland, which at times exemplifies the liberal tilt at Jesuit institutions nationwide.

But, in the end, the big message of the book is one of hope. Weigel tells young Catholics and all other Catholics that in today's world we are not alone in our commitment to revelation. We are in fact on the "cutting edge" of history (p. 236). It is liberal religion that is dying.

The Empty Suit

There must be panic these days in the Kerry camp. David Broder, the "dean" of Washington pundits, a liberal columnist at the liberal Washington Post, has pointed out the obvious: the American public has figured out that Kerry is an unprincipled opportunist. Here is Broder quoting in part, and devastatingly, from the liberal (!) Boston Globe's biography of Kerry:

"Unlike many who are driven to succeed in public life by a core belief system, the arc of Kerry's political career is defined by a restless search for the issues, individuals and causes to fulfill a nearly lifelong" ambition for the White House. The election is still six months away. But Kerry's reputation has been built over 40 years. And the voters seem to be sniffing it out.

David Broder, "Opportunism Knocks," Opinion section, April 25, 2004, Washington Post online.

And what Broder does not say, but implies is that, in contrast, Bush stands for certain core beliefs, however unpopular with the liberal chattering classes and the liberal mainstream media. In this sense, Bush is following in Reagan's footsteps. They hold to core conservative beliefs and stick to them. A public that yearns for strong leadership reacts positively.

But Kerry is a symbol of a larger problem in American politics that emerged most dramatically with the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960. Kennedy was the product of a family obsessively driven to obtain the presidency at all costs. Ask someone what were Kennedy's core beliefs, and they will be hardpressed to be specific about anything. The usual response is that Kennedy's eloquence, glamour, and charm made the nation feel good about itself. "Vigah" is not the basis of a core belief system.

In this sense, Kerry is indeed like Kennedy and like that other politician besotted with Kennedy hero worship: Bill Clinton. Both Clinton and Kerry are empty suits in the Kennedy model of ambition for the sake of ambition. But problematically for both of them, neither are as remotely eloquent or charming as the original. Kennedy didn't stand for much of anything, but he made America feel good. Clinton and Kerry leave American cold. Don't believe the media chatter about Clinton's eloquence or charisma. Clinton can't even approach the Kennedy standard on those traits. Remember this is the same media that in 1988 labelled the Rev. Jesse Jackson's childishly rhyming speech to the Democratic Convention as extraordinarily eloquent. The standards for applying the adjectives "eloquent" and "charismatic" have gone through the floor.

In my view, Kerry, like Clinton, has had presidential political ambitions from a very early age due in no small part to being smitten with Kennedy's glamour. Like Kennedy, both men lack a distinctive core of belief to bring to politics. Unlike Kennedy, both men are personally dull.

But what does this have to do with a Catholic analysis? Well, the empty suit in politics brings that same lack of core conviction to the Catholic Church. The Church is a welcome affiliation in historically Catholic Massachusetts, and is part of the Kennedy legend. The rest is pure "liberal" religion, which George Weigel has aptly defined, as the religion that we make up as we go, as opposed to revealed religion. And so Kerry is the quintessential liberal, cafeteria Catholic. In fact, he is a perfect caricature of the empty suit that is the liberal Catholic. In Kennedy's time, no Catholic politician would publicly diverge from the Church's fundamental moral teachings. American society in 1960 still held to a broad, Judeo-Christian moral consensus. We now know, after the fact, that Kennedy recklessly and compulsively defied that moral consensus in private, but we also know that he correctly feared its ever becoming public because it would end his political career. In today's America in which the moral center of gravity has shifted, Kerry does not share the fear of flaunting his lack of a foundational moral core. And so after rallying pro-abortion forces, he gingerly steps into the communion line.

460,000 Petition to Ban Partial Birth Abortion in Michigan

The front page of the Detroit News said it all: "460,034 sign up to limit abortion -- Petitions aim to let Mich. lawmakers sidestep gov.'s veto" (April 16, 2004, headline, see newspaper article). Pro-abortion Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Democrat, vetoed late last year a bill to ban partial birth abortion in Michigan. This bill defined any partially born child as a legal person entitled to the full protection of the law. In other words, under the bill, you couldn't kill a partially born child because it is illegal to commit murder.

To get around the governor's veto, Michigan Right to Life, the Michigan Catholic bishops, the Knights of Columbus, and many evangelical churches united to launch this petition drive. The petition drive has now concluded and has been wildly successful. All it needed to collect was about 254,000 signatures. It collected over 460,000 signatures. This means that the bill to ban partial birth abortion will again be passed by the Michigan legislature, but this time it won't go to the governor's desk. The ban will automatically become law without the signature of the governor. Through the petition process, 460,000 registered Michigan voters have removed the governor's power to veto the bill. This is a slap in the face to the extreme pro-abortion views of Jennifer Granholm and her ideological twin John Kerry, all in the crucial election year swing state of Michigan.

Over the last few days, the mainstream media has given extended coverage to a pro-abortion march in Washington, D.C. Well, in the nation's heartland, a rebellion took place that knocked a pro-abortion governor off her feet. I, for one, have seen little coverage of this massive pro-life revolt in the national media. But the revolt happened, and the effects will be felt in this election year. The petition drive is a warm-up for a high turnout of pro-life voters in an important swing state for the Nov. 2nd presidential election.

From a Catholic point of view, this pro-life victory has other aspects. Like Kerry, Granholm is an extreme pro-abortion politician who pushes the line that being pro-abortion is perfectly consistent with being a practicing Catholic. This successful petition drive gives the lie to that heretical claim. All the Catholic bishops of Michigan and thousands of other Catholics signed on the dotted line and rejected this revision of the faith. Among Michigan Catholics, Granholm is now a known and undesirable political presence. The petition drive has helped unmask in parish after parish the ambiguity in which pro-abortion Catholic politicians thrive. Catholic voters will remember her push for partial birth abortion in the next governor's election.

All in all, the Church--bishops and laity--took a stand and used the legal process to push back successfully against a renegade Catholic governor. Times are changing. Almost 150 years ago, the new anti-slavery Republican Party was born in Jackson, Michigan--an anniversary that will be celebrated this year. But also this year, a new and more assertive anti-abortion Catholic movement has been born in the same state-- a movement that has taken the cover of ambiguity from the political arsenal of pro-abortion politicians like Granholm and Kerry. Let us hope that this new assertiveness against renegade Catholic politicians will spread to other states.

George Weigel's Letters to a Young Catholic

George Weigel, born in 1951, is a powerful exception to those liberal Catholic baby boomers who have dismembered and watered down Catholic teaching. He is the positive side of a controversial generation. In his recently published Letters to a Young Catholic (Basic Books, 2004), Weigel looks to the rising generations for a more vibrant, faithful, and orthodox Catholicism. He is quite explicit in laying out the welcome generational change. In fact, the book's dust cover bears a telling subtitle, The Art of Mentoring, that emphasizes the generational focus.

To mark the welcome generational change he takes up where John Henry Cardinal Newman left off in challenging "liberal" Christianity, which Weigel concisely defines as "religion-we-make-up" as opposed to the real thing which is properly termed "revealed religion" (p. 74). As one who personally lived through the era of the rise of "liberal Catholicism," Weigel has seen the distortion firsthand. And his conclusion today is very good news:

As you consider what it means to be a Catholic today, here's one of the things you must wrestle with: liberal Christianity is dying. . . . Christian communities that maintain a clear sense of their doctrinal and moral borders flourish [read: official Catholicism, Southern Baptists], while Christian communities whose borders become so porous it's hard to tell who's in and who's out wither and die [read: Episcopal Church USA, United Church of Christ]. . . . Just as liberal Protestantism is dying today, a century and a half after Newman diagnosed the lethal disease that beset it, so is what often calls itself "liberal" or "progressive" Catholicism.

Wiegel, p. 75 (parenthetical remarks added).

What bears repeating again and again, because so many misunderstand it, is that the dichotomy between "liberal" Catholicism and real Catholicism has nothing to do with politically liberal views on taxes, the minimum wage, national health insurance, or foreign policy--all socio-economic issues on which Catholics can legitimately disagree-- but rather on whether there is obedience to revelation as authoritatively interpreted by the Church. So a socialist can be an authentic or "conservative" Catholic, while an economic libertarian can be a "liberal" Catholic. We are talking about the response to revelation, not about typically political issues.

The death throes of what Weigel calls "liberal" Catholicism or "Catholic Lite" can be seen in the demise of "self-consciously liberal religious orders and seminaries," which contrasts with the vigor of orthodox lay renewal movements (pp. 75-76). It is also apparent, to use Philip Jenkins' memorable phrase, in the rise of the "Next Christendom." As Weigel notes,

[I]t's no accident that the Church is in deep, deep trouble in those parts of western Europe, Canada, and Oceania where the romance of orthodoxy has been displaced by the siren songs of what Newman described as 'liberal' religion: of Christianity understood as opinion, or hobby, or lifestyle choice, not truth. Catholic Lite, as I've called it, has no real future.

Weigel, p. 76.

For the benefit of those of us from a younger generation, Weigel traces his own personal path through the years of the heady and disastrous rise of "progressive" Catholicism. He remarks on the promotion of liberalism by theologians intoxicated with power in the sixties and seventies, a phenomenon that is still found in "most Catholic theology departments in the United States today . . . at least among professors over fifty" (Weigel, p. 79). Weigel himself began to question the liberal paradigm when he finished his graduate studies. He admits that liberal icon Karl Rahner had been his "lodestar" (p. 79). But he describes his own awakening when he realized how irrelevant Rahner's description of the modern situation was. He summarizes Rahner's project as that of "a theology whose primary reference point was the contemporary academy and its profound nervousness about the very idea of 'truth' " (p. 79). That outdated reference point is what makes Rahner's focus seem so irrelevant to many of us today. Yet, you will still find some of the aging masters of Catholic Lite trying to pass on the desultory heritage of Rahner. Fortunately, the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar, which is quintessentially focused on obedience to the gift of revelation, has come into its own.

Weigel's critique of liberal Catholicism is devastating and rings true. It is penned by someone who was there. Years ago, Harry Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote a book about his career in helping to found NATO and establish the historic and ultimately victorious policy of containment in the forties, a book which he entitled Present at the Creation. Well, Weigel was, as a student, present at the creation of the now comatose progressive distortion of Catholicism. Weigel has written a needed and insightful book for younger Catholics following in his footsteps in the adventure of orthodoxy. That he has written it is an expression of genuine charity for the rising generations.

Next Major Update: Monday, April 26, 2004

The next major update will be on Monday, April 26, 2004.

The American Catholic "Establishment"

In England there has been an Anglican Establishment since the martyrdom of St. Thomas More on July 6, 1535. In that same year John Cardinal Fisher, now St. John Fisher, was also executed by Henry VIII for opposing Henry's usurpation of the pope's role as head of the Church in England. Henry VIII--the corpulent, excessive, lustful, gluttonous emblem of raw power--had his way and imposed his own view of the Church through execution and intimidation. Both More and Fisher died to defend the principle that the only earthly head of the Church was the Bishop of Rome. Surely, they would have also been willing to die defending the Church's teaching on the Eucharist. Even Henry VIII did not seek to challenge that teaching.

Today in America there is an American Catholic "Establishment" that parallels the politicization of the Church accomplished by Henry VIII. The American "Establishment" has cowed most of the bishops in the United States into silence on the issue of Catholic political brokers advancing the agenda of abortion. It is an establishment whose major figures are well-known: Senators Edward Kennedy (who particularly reminds one of the intemperate Henry VIII), Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, and, of course, John Kerry, among many others. All of them claim that being Catholic is perfectly consistent with being the leading advocates for abortion in the United States. Just as Henry VIII challenged a central belief of the Church, so these men are challenging a central belief of the Church. Yet, the situation is worse because the modern American Catholic establishment is arguably challenging a belief even more central to the Church's identity than that of the Petrine supremacy. That central belief is the teaching that those advocating and cooperating with grave sin are not worthy to receive the Eucharist. It is an intertwined, simultaneous attack on the teaching against abortion and on Eucharistic theology. It is an attack on the jugular because the Church is the Church of the Eucharist, as noted in the title of John Paul's most recent encyclical. In Catholic belief, authentic Eucharistic faith and practice are the sine qua non of a genuine church. The centrality of the Eucharist can be seen in the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes Eastern Orthodox churches as true particular churches because they have preserved authentic Eucharistic faith and practice, even though they reject papal authority.

St. John Fisher was the only English bishop to stand up to Henry VIII. Today, to my knowledge, only two bishops in the United States have openly stated the obvious. To use the lucid and inspired words of Cardinal Arinze, "If the person should not receive it, then it should not be given." Archbishop Burke of St. Louis and Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, have become the John Fishers of the American episcopate. It is time for their brothers to follow their lead. Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., who heads the bishops' task force on this issue, runs the risk of playing the role of the new Cranmer, the cleric who helped to consolidate the political control of the Church in England. History will play out, and roles will be inevitably assigned. History will judge, but we know Who will be the real judge of the heart and mind.

The American Catholic Establishment has thus far successfully cowed, with its raw political and financial power and influence (and with the shadow of the mythic Kennedy aura), most of the bishops in the United States into paralysis on the political trivialization of the Eucharist. That is why we can call the pro-abortion politicians as a group an "establishment"--this group exerts real, though illegitimate, power over the bishops. And so it is highly ironic that Kennedy, Kerry, and the other pillars of this modern-day religious establishment complain about religious interference with politics when the exact opposite is true: they are the ones who are in continual and aggressive interference against central theological tenets of the Church. It is time for the Church in the United States to "disestablish" itself from the new Henry VIIIs of our time. It is time for true religious freedom so that the Church can be the Church. It is time to stop the political interference of the pro-abortion political establishment in the teaching and sacramental life of the Church.

Kerry and Kissling Cry That Religion Should Not Be Election Issue

Pro-abortion stalwarts John Kerry and Frances Kissling, President of the misnamed "Catholics for Choice," are upset that Cardinal Arinze has spoken in defense of the Eucharist (see extraordinary Associated Press report). They claim that religion should not be an election issue. The cardinal is not concerned about the election. He is concerned about the Most Blessed Sacrament and its defense. If Kerry does not want this issue to come up, then he can do the honorable thing and stop receiving the Eucharist until such time that he can bring himself to disavow his pro-abortion crusade. Kerry has it in his hands to defuse the issue concerning the Eucharist by taking responsibility for his views instead of trying to have things both ways. You can't receive the Eucharist and support abortion. In politics, taking contradictory positions is considered normal, especially in Kerry's case. The problem is that it doesn't work that way in Catholicism. It is Kerry who is mixing religion and politics by trying to make Catholicism bend to his political position on abortion.

Kissling remarks in disbelief that if the Church refuses the Eucharist to Kerry, the Church must do likewise with numerous other politicians, including the grand, red-faced Old Plutocrat himself, Edward Kennedy. She's right on that narrow point: the Church must disassociate herself strongly from the powerful purveyors of sacrilege, including Kennedy. This can be the Church's finest moment in American history when, in the tradition of Saints Thomas á Becket and Thomas More, she refuses to succumb to the embraces of the powerful. Archbishop O' Malley of Boston has correctly gotten rid of the old episcopal palace in the suburbs of Boston. It is time for him to disentangle the Church from the corrupting embraces of the likes of Kennedy and Kerry. And let the chips fall where they may.

Cardinal Arinze: No Communion for Pro-Abortion Politicians

In a blockbuster, plainspoken statement, Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria, who is the head of the Vatican department or "congregation" overseeing the sacraments and liturgy, has bluntly stated that pro-abortion politicians should not be given the Eucharist:

Cardinal Francis Arinze, the top Vatican cardinal in charge of the sacraments, was asked at a news conference whether priests should refuse communion to a politician who is unambiguously pro-abortion.

"Yes," he replied. "If the person should not receive it, then it should not be given. Objectively, the answer is there."

See Reuters news report, April 23, 2004, "Cardinal: No Communion for Pro-Abortion Politician."

Note that Cardinal Arinze is referring to priests. Thus, priests already have their marching orders straight from Rome, but the reality is that the bishops must get in line with Arinze's common sense analysis. Archbishop O'Malley of Boston has already gone on record as stating publicly that no pro-abortion politician should "dare" present himself or herself for Communion (see N.Y. Times link in Catholic Analysis post for April 12, 2004). Cardinal Arinze has made the obvious inference from the premise stated by O'Malley: "If the person should not receive it, then it should not be given."

News reports have contained lame excuses by some clerics that they are in no position to know who should be denied the Eucharist. That is nonsense. We are not talking about the average, anonymous parishioner. We are talking about prominent politicians who have been the leading crusaders for abortion for years in this country: Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Leahy, and others. This list includes on the state level Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm who has even acted as an extraordinary Eucharistic minister! They are well-educated, well-known individuals who are constantly being interviewed by the media. They do not hesitate to take the lead in pushing to protect and perpetuate the current legal regime of abortion in this country. They are accomplices to the abortion-on-demand mentality that is flourishing. They have added to that grave sin the grave sin of scandal whereby they are in effect teaching others that the Catholic faith is reconcilable with abortion. They are false teachers usurping the role of the bishops to preserve authentic and unchangeable Catholic teaching. (And note that this list of politicians would also include California's new Republican Governor Schwarzenegger who is also pro-abortion, although, unlike many of the Democracts like Kerry, he does oppose partial birth abortion.)

The Church has the obligation to speak the truth in season and out of season and to make clear that the bishops, not politicians, are the authentic teachers of the Catholic faith. And, certainly, the Church has the obligation to protect the Eucharist to the point of martyrdom, if necessary. American bishops are being called to be martyrs to the politically correct media. That is a small price to pay to protect the Eucharist and to be able to face our Savior with a clear conscience at the last judgment.

Archbishop O'Malley has done wonderful and long overdue things in a long-corrupt Boston archdiocese. He has one more thing to do for Boston and for all of us. And it may be the greatest thing he will ever do. Here is the link to contact the Archdiocese of Boston to encourage Archbishop O'Malley to do the right thing: Archdiocese of Boston Contact Form . As to Arinze, the hand of God is upon him. No one would be suprised in the least if he should become a successor of Peter.

Update: Arinze's comments discussed above came in the context of a news conference concerning the issuance today of the Vatican document on abuses in the celebration of the Eucharist. This document, Redemptionis Sacramentum ("Sacrament of Redemption") is available in full at the Vatican web site under the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The document reiterates the teaching that those conscious of grave sin should not present themselves for the Eucharist. Interestingly, the document states as follows concerning lay persons called to assist in liturgical celebrations:

The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them. It is fitting that such a one should have received a liturgical formation in accordance with his or her age, condition, state of life, and religious culture.[117] No one should be selected whose designation could cause consternation for the faithful.[118]

Redemptionis Sacramentum, Section 46 (emphasis added).

Obviously, Michigan's pro-abortion governor, Jennifer Granholm, should no longer be allowed to act as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. Other interesting parts of the document encourage the lay faithful to bring liturgical abuses to the attention of bishops and of the Vatican (sections 183-84). In fact, it appears from comments made at the news conference that those complaints are what led to the issuance of this very document in the first place.

A Passing Generation

The "Baby Boom" generation is usually said to encompass those born from about 1946 to about 1964, a period of about 20 years. I myself fall at the very edge of the 1964 boundary. What can we say about a generation that, like all generations, includes so many diverse and disparate individuals and situations? We can say things about significant parts of a generation, although what we say about a part will not apply to other parts. In my view, a significant part of the "Baby Boom" generation has what I call the sixties/seventies mentality. I am particularly concerned with that mentality as expressed in American Catholic circles, especially universities and seminaries that play such an influential role. (For this particular analysis, I would also include in the baby boom generation those born in the late thirties and early forties. Cultural observations should override strict and arbitrary statistical boundaries in a cultural analysis.)

The sixties/seventies mentality is marked by a rejection of the concept of personal sin. In place of personal sin, there is an implicit or explicit embrace of an extreme version of a person's "fundamental option." In this extreme version, the fundamental option of faith made by a person virtually excludes the possibility of mortal sin. So it is no surprise that one result has been the decline in the use of the sacrament of penance that is the ordinary means of seeking forgiveness for mortal sins. It is also not suprising that there is a hostility toward kneeling in the liturgy which is mistakenly viewed as too morbid or penitential. I submit that the wholesale removal of kneelers from churches had much to do with this rejection of the need for penance.

History gives us a way to nail down what is going on with this extreme version of the "fundamental option" point of view. It is nothing more than Luther's discredited ghost revisiting the modern American Catholic Church. The Lutheran view was that we are justified by faith alone apart from the life of charity and hope expressed in good works. The Catholic view brilliantly articulated at the Council of Trent was that justification is a process involving faith plus a life of active charity and hope expressed in good works by which justification is itself increased and by which our merit through the grace of Christ really exists and can grow. Trent also taught, in contrast to Protestantism, that we can lose justification by mortal sin and that the sacrament of penance is necessary to restore us to the justification lost by mortal sin.

The liberal "Baby Boom" Catholic is crypto-Lutheran in the original historic sense. In actual fact, some present-day Lutherans are probably closer to the Catholic view of justification than the pioneer Lutherans of Luther's time. Ironically, the liberal Catholic baby boomers seem stuck in the original, outdated, and extreme views of Martin Luther himself. In place of the term "justification," they use "fundamental option." Like Luther, they emphasize faith alone to the detriment of personal virtue and avoiding personal sin. They de-emphasize the need to observe the commandments as too legalistic, and so the sacrament of penance is demoted and virtually abandoned, especially in the form requiring individual confession.

The result is antinomianism-- a fancy word for those who believe that Christians are free from the moral law. In some of his more extreme outbursts, Luther himself urged Christians to "sin boldly" because all depended on faith alone. Well, the message given in the seventies by the "fundamental option" adherents was for all practical purposes the same. Even today, some in the Church are quite hesitant to advise unmarried couples living together that they are living in a state of mortal sin, even when such couples are preparing to receive the sacrament of matrimony. Even if such couples are advised to go to confession prior to the marriage, what are they going to confess? The obvious mortal sin of their current lifestyle? If they have not been frankly told that they are living in mortal sin, then it is unlikely that they will bring this mortal sin to the confessional. Silence on this particular pastoral issue will understandably be interpreted as a nod and a wink at the conventional realities of the times. And so this particular issue is an example of how the crypto-Lutheran fundamental option still wreaks havoc even today at the grassroots of Catholic life.

The good news is that this significant but destructive portion of the baby boom generation is beginning to pass away. The retirements, the discreet transfers to less prominent positions, and even the obituaries are growing. And many in the newer generations, in seminaries, universities, and parishes, and even some of us baby boomers have learned the historical lesson from the pastoral disasters of the recent past. The change is coming.

More from The Threefold Garland

This commentary is one more in a series that highlights various insights in Hans Urs von Balthasar's short work on the rosary, The Threefold Garland (Ignatius Press, 1982). Needless to say, it is a book I highly recommend. Balthasar is poetry but more than poetry. It is a poetry not about sentiment or fantasy or imagination. It is the poetry of what is most real. Past commentaries have discussed his insights about the Passion of Christ (4/13/04), about the Eucharist (4/14/04), and about the Resurrection and Mary (4/20/04). Today the subject is the language of prayer.

We wonder about prayer. If God knows all, why do we need to pray and tell him about our needs? If God is all-powerful and merciful, why is prayer needed to ask for his favor? When we pray for others, why does God listen? Pages have been written on all of these sorts of questions. Even if we cannot really plumb the mysteries raised by these questions, we do know one thing for certain: Jesus, the God-Man, commands us to pray.

Balthasar ties prayer to mission, a central concept in his theological work. The Son is on a mission sent by the Father. In fact, in the Son, person and mission coincide. Likewise, we are apostles on a mission. Another hallmark of Balthasar's writing is the ever-present Trinitarian context. Balthasar begins his discussion of prayer by noting how the language of prayer is decidedly different from our everyday language:

[E]ach of our prayers should be made in the Spirit who is a Spirit between Father and Son, between the Son become man, whom we know, and the invisible Father, to whom the Son has always referred us. . . . [I]n order to be transformed into authentic prayer, worldly concerns must expressly be transferred into this space. It is not difficult to imagine whether a petition which I present to the Father is conceivable on the lips of the Son. If it is, then this petition will never have a merely private but always an ecclesial character. That prayer would not revolve around an isolated subject, but around one who, as a member of the Church who lives in and for an ecclesial mission, is praying for the necessary grace to fulfill it: for purity and courage, for clarity and trust, for understanding and selflessness-- for everything needed by a person who, through his life and example, would like to be an apostle of Christ.

Balthasar, pp. 122-23 (emphasis added).

The Son was always conscious of his mission and so prayed. His most striking prayer in the Gospels is that of Gethsemane. Likewise, if we are on a mission, all our prayers must ultimately be oriented to that mission. And so petitions about health refer to the carrying out of our mission. Petitons on behalf of others are themselves part of our mission and enable others to pursue their own mission. Prayers for guidance on how to deal with certain situations and persons seek what is best for the common mission of all concerned. Everything radiates from the mission proposed for us by Christ.

This "spirit of mission" is simply expressed:

In the apostolate, therefore, what is imperative is not at all to learn certain catechism truths by heart and then recite them back at people, nor to devise all on one's own a language which one thinks must be understood by the other. The essential thing, rather, is to live, to think and to speak from the wellspring of the triune life. To be sure, understanding belongs to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but this is an understanding in God which, as with Christ or Paul, can often enough appear to be human foolishness. Neither the Lord nor his apostle veils or thins down the divine truth the better to communicate it. There is a human defenselessness which appeals to the unarmored heart of one's fellow man and gains admittance to it if this heart is willing.

Balthasar, p. 124 (original emphasis).

And so our lives become prayers in action, using the same unveiled language we use in private prayer. We are not on a mission to express our theology or our own spiritual wisdom. We are on a mission to express what has been revealed to the Church. And so we do not hesitate to use the language of the Church even when we ourselves may not fully understand it but yet seek to live by it. Much of the problem faced by the Church in our own country arises from too many seeking to communicate their own novelties instead of the deposit of faith. Balthasar was certainly an innovative and great theologian, but for him the apostolic mission always took priority over his writings, and, surprisingly for one so erudite, many of his writings are of a straightforward devotional style that is aimed at audiences well beyond the theologically sophisticated. But even in his most abstruse theological writings the mission was paramount because for him theology had to be a kneeling or praying theology bowing before divine revelation. So it was not difficult to translate the more technical language of some of his works into the straightforward language found in The Threefold Garland. All the words shared the same mission.

Cheney Reaffirms Opposition to Abortion

CNN reports on a speech by Vice-President Cheney reaffirming the Bush administration's pro-life stance. See CNN Report.

CNN also notes the position of John Kerry:

Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, voted against the partial-birth ban and said he would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support abortion rights.

See CNN link above (emphasis added).

Kerry will nominate only pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court. For Catholics, it is evidence that demands a verdict.

Easter Meditation: Our Resurrection

We are beginning the fifty days of Easter that will end with the feast of Pentecost. It is an apt time to reflect on the future Christ promises us if we take up our cross and if we imitate his divine mercy. Mary cannot be separated from any such reflection. In fact, we invoke her so that we may enter into that new life.

Unlike the sinner, Mary experienced death as something that no longer had the character of "something forcibly imposed" (Balthasar, The Threefold Garland [Ignatius Press, 1982], p. 131). As Balthasar notes, the taking of her earthly life is "only the final form of her letting God do as he will: 'Be it done to me according to your word' " (p. 131). And so in the Hail Mary prayer, we explicitly invoke Mary to pray for us at the hour of our death:

This is why it is fitting to call upon our Mother precisely at the decisive hour of crossing: "now and at the hour of our death". Starting with her first word of assent, she daily died for God and into God; she practiced the act of self-surrender so often that she became the Great Expert in Christian living, so to speak. . . . And when with our last breath we perhaps breathe our last prayer, she will see our poverty, and repeat the word which she uttered in Cana: "They have no more wine." And to the servants who accompany us on our passage-- the angels --she will say: "Do everything he tells you."

Balthasar, p. 131.

So when we say the Hail Mary here on earth we are rehearsing that final decisive moment so that, when it comes in whatever way and at whatever time God chooses it to come, it will already be a familiar moment, not a terrible surprise.

And so the ever-present anxiety about aging, health, and death that lurks everywhere in our culture is defeated. In a way, the mystery of the Resurrection has already begun for Christians while still living on earth and waiting to be crowned with our bodily resurrection into eternal life at the end of time:

If we learn to die from her who learned to die in the manner of her Son, then we need not be worried about what will become of our human totality after our death. It will be God's business that we reach him not as mere halves of ourselves, but as whole persons. With Christ and with Mary the created world has already been taken up into the transformation and transfiguration, and the Last Day has already begun. . . . We cannot, of course, plumb the mystery of our bodily resurrection; it is quite enough for us to know that the heavenly City--Christ, Head and Body, Christ, Bridegroom and Bride--will be there corporeally when we make our crossing to take us up into itself.

Balthasar, pp. 131-32 (emphasis added).

And when we make that crossing, we will still be concerned with the remaking of this present world through the communion of saints:

And just as this Christ in heaven is, at the same time, the Christ who distributes himself eucharistically on earth and thus builds up the earthly Church, so even our heavenly joy will in part consist in our working with Christ in the perfecting of our earthly brothers and in our being connecting links between earth and heaven.

Balthasar, p. 132.

So that eternal life overcomes the barriers of historical time and is continuous with the Christian life here on earth. Yet its delight is beyond our comprehension because in heaven we will participate in the "infinite freedom" of God which means that "heaven will be the opposite of boredom" (p. 138). In Balthasar's words, "[f]or all eternity God will remain a mystery, and we will not ever exhaust the full depth of grace whereby each of us is permitted to participate in this mystery . . . ." (pp. 138-39). And so we will continue to pray the Hail Mary in some form even in eternal life in a "blessed cycle whereby God is always greeting us anew as his children and we are endlessly sending up to him a grateful sacrifice of praise" as modelled by the Annunciation (p. 139).

Why Some Don't Like Gibson's Passion Movie

Those who don't like the Gibson film The Passion of The Christ have reasons as different as you can expect from the inherent diversity of individuals and their backgrounds. In one recent media exercise in wildly misrepresenting Catholic teaching on several points, two liberal Catholics, Chris Matthews of MSNBC and his guest Andrew Greeley, both agreed that they did not like the film. As I recall, Matthews offered that the movie failed to present all of Jesus' teachings, including the "Temple on the Mount." That slip of the tongue is emblematic of the problem: a graduate of a so-called elite northeastern Catholic college, Holy Cross College, whose vehemence and bombast outrun his knowledge. At greater fault is the Rev. Andrew Greeley who falsely stated, for all practical purposes, that opposition to the death penalty is as central to Catholic teaching as opposition to abortion. One comforting factor is that Greeley, a pillar of watered-down Catholicism, is well advanced in years. With the studio makeup on, he already looked embalmed--a fitting image for his failed and out-of-date disfigurement of Catholicism. As I recall, Greeley's comment on the movie focused on the allegedly excessive violence.

Now, I can't read the minds of Matthews and Greeley or others who voice similar negative opinions of the movie. But I am not alone. From the superficial comments made on the air, it appears that neither Matthews himself nor Greeley himself has really read his own mind and confronted the real reasons for disliking the movie. Taking my cue from the cultural ambience of "liberal" Catholicism, I submit some probing reasons that seem more likely than not to be behind these negative reactions to the film.

I go back to someone neither man probably has much time for nowadays: Thomas Aquinas. Thomas considers the question of "Whether There Was Any More Suitable Way of Delivering the Human Race Than by Christ's Passion?" I can imagine that the liberal Catholic would agree that there could have been a less "violent" and "sadistic" way that could have been suitably designed by a diverse and inclusive task force.

But back to the main issue. Thomas offers various reasons, but I focus on one: by Christ's Passion, "man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Cor. vi. 20: Your are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. III, Q. 46, Art. 3 [4th reason for suitability of Passion; original emphasis]).

One of the categories of sin obviously excluded if we glorify God in our bodies involves violations of chastity. And that is exactly what troubles the liberal Catholic. Matthews opined on the air that Catholicism had a dysfunctional emphasis--he used the typically exaggerated "Jansenist" label and cliche to make this overwrought charge-- on sexual matters as opposed to matters such as the Iraq war or the death penalty. For Matthews, opposition to abortion is the result of an exaggerated focus on matters of sexuality and reproduction. Well, he is wrong: the abortion issue is about personhood. Is the unborn child or partially born child a human person who has a right to life? The question answers itself. (Yet, in fairness to Matthews, he at least did challenge Greeley on the idea that reversing Roe v. Wade would lead to "civic chaos." Greeley, in Roman collar, obviously signalled that he opposed reversing that decision. Matthews, in an unfortunately uncommon display of common sense, asked what would be so wrong with letting the states decide the issue of abortion. Greeley was not responsive to that question.)

But Matthews' distortion and stereotype of Catholic teaching on sexuality point to the liberal problem with the Gibson film: this much suffering and violence for our sake by a loving God surely calls us to respond by glorifying God with our own bodies--and that response includes the dreaded practice of chastity. Chastity involves a constant spiritual and intellectual battle marked with advances and retreats, victories and defeats. But the Passion calls us to that daily battle. The liberal mentality is uncomfortable with the call to battle. It sees no need to enter the battle.

But, as usual, Aquinas offers more. Thomas also considers the question of "Whether Christ's Body Ought to Have Risen with Its Scars?" One of Thomas' reasons will surely clash with the monochrome liberal, sensitive, nicer-than-nice Jesus concocted by the liberal imagination--although Greeley, to his credit, did admit that Jesus was too complex a figure even for his novelistic prowess. In response to the question, Thomas states that the scars on the glorified body of the risen Christ are in part appropriate so that "in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them [the damned] with their just condemnation" (Aquinas, Pt. III, Q. 54, Art. 4 [citing Bede; original emphasis]). The terrible news for those revising Catholic teaching is that the risen Christ is a judge, not just a judge but surely a judge. And the scars are a challenge to us because sacrificial love is a challenge to us. That is why the scars are uncomfortable for some and why Gibson's depiction of how those scars were savagely inflicted causes great discomfort in certain circles.

Update: The transcript of the interview is now available at MSNBC (see Hardball Transcript, April 16, 2004). Matthews' odd reference to the "Temple on the Mount" is transcribed as "the Temple and the Mount"-- I guess the transcriber couldn't make sense of the comment either.