No Other Word For It: "Diabolical"

Over the weekend, John Kerry said that he believes that "life begins at conception" but in the same breath reiterated his support for Roe v. Wade (Washington Post, "Kerry Says He Believes Life Starts at Conception," July 5, 2004, by Jonathan Finer).

In the church canon law suit filed in June against Kerry, one of the offenses for which Kerry is denounced reads as follows:

Diabolical Scandal Leading to Heresy--Can. 1399 CIC: Defendant [Kerry] has willfully and with knowledge of the opposition to Church doctrine committed actions by facts, words, signs, and silence directly capable of leading others into supporting the Right-to-Choose doctrine, with the intent to pervert their hearts.

Source: "Denunciation of U.S. Senator John F. Kerry for Heresy" (filed 6/14/04), available at DeFide.com.

And so, with eerie timing, here is Kerry doing exactly what this count of the church suit alleges. He is teaching others that being pro-choice is fully compatible with the Catholic belief that life begins at conception. To make matters worse, he made the statement in an interview before attending Mass and receiving Communion in Iowa--an outing which he made into a campaign event by attending with his close supporter Iowa Governor Thomas Vilsak, also a pro-abortion Catholic. Kerry is thus manipulating his reception of the Eucharist and Mass attendance for maximum political gain. This practice was recently denounced in the bishops' statement entitled "Catholics in Political Life":

The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.

Source: U.S.C.C.B. Conference (second-to-last paragraph).

True to form, Kerry made the statement that life begins at conception in the face of Catholics increasingly troubled by his views on abortion. It is by now the shared opinion of many in this country that Kerry just tells people what they want to hear. So when faced with troubled Catholics, he gives them the statement that life begins at conception to make them feel that, deep down, he is a good Catholic who is really pro-life. But, of course, it is a great lie. When addressing pro-abortion rallies, Kerry plays the pro-abortion extremist.

When I first read the canonical Denunciation of Kerry, I wondered at the use of the word "diabolical," given my personal view that inflammatory phrases can be counterproductive. As an attorney, I assumed the shocking word was in the denunciation as a required term of art in canon law pleadings. But, now, after seeing Kerry's latest breathtaking effort at deception, I see that the word is completely apt. To teach others as a prominent public figure who will be in the center of the public eye for the next four months that Catholic belief is compatible with Roe v. Wade is a great lie. And lies are diabolical for we know from Scripture who is the father of lies. Tomorrow morning I plan to join the heresy suit against Kerry. If Kerry can show chutzpah, so can we. Many of us again and again urge our bishops to be bold. It is now time for us to be bold too. It is no exaggeration to say that for American Catholics 2004 is a historic year of decision even more so than for other Americans.

14th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Isaiah 66:10-14c; Galatians 6:14-18; Luke 10:1-12, 17-20

Beginning with the Gospel reading, we see Jesus sending out the seventy-two to visit the towns and places Jesus himself intended to visit. These seventy-two are to proclaim that the kingdom of God is at hand. The conclusion is unavoidable: the seventy-two are in effect proclaiming that the kingdom of God will be present when Jesus comes to a particular place. Jesus' coming will confirm peace or complete the judgment against a particular place. Those who reject the seventy-two will suffer a worse fate than Sodom. To those who reject them, the seventy-two are, by Jesus' command, to shake off the dust of that town clinging to their feet against that place.

The kingdom of God comes in the person of Jesus, and it brings peace and the healing of the sick, or it brings judgment. The beginning of that peace involves the healing of the sick. The beginning of that judgment involves a separation of the seventy-two from those rejecting the kingdom. Here again is the dramatic character of the Gospel: it requires a dramatic decision of acceptance or rejection. The place that rejects the Gospel will experience no peace.

In Galatians, Paul boasts only in the cross of Christ because "the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Paul will not deal with the world on its own terms, but only in terms of the cross. Paul is indifferent to anything else. Paul's boast in the cross and indifference to the world completes the image of the seventy-two shaking the dust off their feet. When the Gospel is rejected, the Christian moves on to other places.

Today, we have the tendency to be much more accepting of those rejecting the Gospel. We tend to be too accepting of a secular society with the result that our witness becomes muted. In authentic Christianity, there will always be an element of judgment and of separation. There is indeed an element of exclusion which is the result of free decisions. In modern America, one of the greatest secular sins is to be "exclusive." Exclusivity is indeed bad if it is closed to the conversion of the other through a pre-judgment. But exclusivity that results from the free rejection of the Gospel is not bad in itself, but merely the accurate reflection of the free decision of one rejecting the Gospel. One way in which we avoid committing the secular sin of excluding anyone even if he or she rejects the Gospel is to fail to preach the authentic Gospel in the first place. Instead, we preach something quite contrary to the Gospel: that no decision need be made for or against the Gospel.

In Isaiah 66, the prophet presents in rich images the salvation that the Lord will bring to Jerusalem. The other sections of Isaiah 66, not read today, present, like the Gospel, the other side of reality: judgment. Our rejection of the Gospel brings judgment. It is an inevitable consequence of our free decision. We do no one a favor by clouding that reality.

Cardinal Ratzinger: Deny Communion to Kerry

Here is the text of the much talked about letter from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to U.S. bishops on the issue of denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians:

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger


1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda [sic] campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Source: Sandro Magister, Chiesa Online , "The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops," July 3, 2004, (see link at top of this blog)(emphasis added; English stylistic and spelling errors in the original source left unchanged).

Magister makes his own personal analysis of the situation which, not surprisingly, is a bit idiosyncratic. On at least one point, I believe Magister gives the wrong impression. He presents Cardinal Dulles' recent interview with Zenit as opposing denial of Communion. Here are Cardinal Dulles' words on the issue from the same Zenit interview cited by Magister:

If, after dialogue, the bishop finds the politician incorrigibly opposed to Catholic teaching on this matter, he may have to advise or order the politician not to receive holy Communion, which is by its very nature a sign of solidarity with the Church.

Other steps might also be considered. For instance, the bishop could instruct Catholic parishes and institutions not to invite such politicians to speak on Church premises, not to give them roles in the liturgy and not to honor them with rewards and honorary degrees.

Source: Zenit.org, Daily Dispatch for June 29, 2004, "Cardinal Dulles on Communion and Pro-Abortion Politicians" (emphasis added).

Dulles clearly indicates that it is appropriate to order the politician not to receive Communion after appropriate discussion with the politician at issue. This statement is a far cry from opposing denial of Communion. In fact, Dulles' words reasonably imply that the bishop who issues the order not to receive Communion is well within his rights in denying Communion to a politician who defies the bishop's order. It makes sense that, if an order is appropriate, then enforcement of the order is also appropriate. You can read the rest of the Zenit interview and decide for yourself if Magister is just plainly mistaken in his presentation of Dulles' position. I would not be surprised to see Cardinal Dulles make further comments in the near future in reaction to Magister's article. In my experience and opinion, Magister appears to have good Vatican sources and so can provide good information as evidenced by his disclosure of the Ratzinger letter. But, at the same time, Magister's analysis of events is best taken with a grain of salt; his analysis at times tends to be, as I noted before, idiosyncratic--in other words, odd. An example is Magister's apparent hostility, expressed in some of his other articles, to Opus Dei, which is a vibrant, orthodox apostolate in the Church enjoying the full confidence of the Pope.

But what is significant about this letter is that now we have a clear statement from Cardinal Ratzinger on the issue. Any bishop who was hesitating on the issue now has the green light from the Church's highest authority, after the Pope, on doctrinal issues and from one of the Church's most reliable and trustworthy theologians. The Ratzinger letter also exposes the reason why Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., is of doubtful credibility on this issue. He repeatedly gave the impression in his public statements that the Vatican endorsed his own weak position on the issue. To those of us familiar with the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger, McCarrick's statements seemed suspect. Now, we know that they were suspect. Credibility depends on the quality of one's statements. McCarrick continues to lose credibility on this issue. The best thing the American bishops could do is to avoid making McCarrick a spokesman on significant issues like this in the future. The bishops' conference can ill afford any further loss of credibility.

Catholics on the Election Tightrope

Most polls indicate that the presidential election remains deadlocked. It appears at this time that each candidate as a 50-50 chance of winning. It also appears at this time that the election will come down to turnout and to a small number of swing voters in a handful of toss-up states. In a presidential election that appears to be on a tightrope, Catholics are walking on an even more precarious tightrope with most reports indicating a 50-50 split among Catholics. As a result, pro-life and pro-marriage Catholics are in a crucial strategic position. We may be one of the few groups of voters that will determine the outcome of the presidential election on November 2nd.

The academics are beginning to notice. Here is a recent excerpt from a Reuters report quoting one Ohio academic:

"The questions that have been raised about 'Is John Kerry a good enough Catholic?' are substantially and most effectively being raised by the traditional Catholics trying to bring a lot of the middle-of-the-road people over to the Bush camp," said Green.

Source: Reuters, "Catholicism Plays New Role In Election-- Experts," by Ellen Wulfhorst, July 1, 2004.

Remember that in 2000, Bush lost the popular vote but won the election by gaining a recount victory in Florida by just 527 votes. So if only a slice of "middle-of-the road" Catholics recognizes that Kerry is in fact the anti-Catholic candidate, in spite of his nominal Catholic identity, history can be changed. That is what this website and others are trying to do openly because a Kerry presidency would set back all the progress made in recent years in the pro-life struggle, a Kerry presidency would put more wind into the sails of the gay marriage movement that is transforming our culture and our children, and a Kerry presidency would present heresy as the prominent public face of Catholicism in the United States and thus directly undermine the New Evangelization.

In one swing state, Michigan, it is clear that many pro-life and pro-marriage Catholics are energized. Recently, Catholics played a major role in passing a ban on partial birth abortion through a highly successful citizen petition process. Another citizen petition campaign to protect traditional marriage is poised for victory having already gathered about 400,000 signatures from voters. If the marriage petition succeeds, Michigan voters will come to the polls on November 2nd not only to vote for President but also to vote on keeping heterosexual marriage as the norm in Michigan. Having this issue on the same ballot as the presidency will encourage even more religious voters to come to the polls. That turnout cannot help but aid George W. Bush in winning the toss-up state of Michigan.

There are other signs of an energized Catholic electorate in Michigan. Earlier this year, there was a Bush rally attended by the President in the "Reagan Democrat" and Catholic stronghold of Sterling Heights, Michigan, outside Detroit. The turnout at the rally was spectacular. Last night, the Bush campaign held an event in suburban Detroit just for Catholics. The hotel parking lot was packed. The meeting began with an introduction by a Catholic radio commentator and with praying the Hail Mary. What followed was an address by a local Republican congressman rallying Catholic voters. Individual Catholics circulated petitions to protect traditional marriage at the meeting. A petition was also circulated to put Ralph Nader on the ballot in Michigan to give Democrats an option other than Kerry on November 2nd.

There was enthusiasm in the room. It was good to be in a roomful of fellow Catholics who clearly see the stakes in this election and refuse to retreat into cynicism. Many are not sitting back just complaining. Many are on the ground making new facts--new facts that will be crucial in keeping a pro-life President in office and keeping out a candidate who is a symbol of the disfigurement of Catholicism and of our culture.

Talk of the Parish: Kerry Charged With Heresy

Here is the link to the Catholic World News report (July 1, 2004, "Heresy lawsuit filed against Kerry in canonical court") on the Los Angeles canon lawyer who has filed a canonical "denunciation" of John Kerry for heresy with Kerry's home Archdiocese of Boston. Even if the suit comes to nothing, as some prognosticate, the headline is made--and the charge made in the headline is undeniably true in both form and substance for reasons we all should know, only too well, by now. Non-Catholics will know that Kerry has been charged with heresy within his own religion. Catholics will know that Kerry's Catholicism is extremely problematic. Thanks to the Los Angeles lawyer for striking a blow for the truth. This is the Catholic version of Fahrenheit 9/11 with two striking and crucial differences: it is aimed at Kerry, and it is true and accurate.

Michael Moore's Distortion: The Real Story of Flint, Michigan

Years ago, Michael Moore, a native of the Flint, Michigan, area, made his name with the movie Roger and Me about the economic demise of Flint as GM downsized. Today, Moore is still exploiting the heartache of Flint in his newest movie Fahrenheit 9/11. This time the exploitation takes the form of using the understandable grief of a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War. The implication is that the poor youth of a Flint that no longer offers plentiful factory jobs are forced to risk their lives in military service. All of this is being done to advance a left-wing, paranoid agenda driven by conspiracy theories. Flint has served as the prop for Moore's career as a leftist propagandist. The problem is that Flint does not live up to the leftist fantasies of Moore.

Flint was at one time one of the most prosperous cities in the world. This is the town where General Motors was born. Old-timers tell me that there was a time when you could literally hear an unending "hum" in the city as auto factories worked around the clock. Downtown was alive throughout the night as workers changed shifts.

Today, GM is tearing down the old, massive Buick complex of factories. Auto jobs are a fraction of what they were in the past. Downtown is full of empty storefronts.

Yet, the downtowns of many other cities are also full of empty storefronts. In spite of the economic losses, Flint's downtown is earnestly trying, just as other cities do, to revive itself by renovating its major downtown street--with some visible success. The old Farmers' Market is thriving due to a private citizens' takeover from floundering city control. The story in Flint is not that much different from that in many other cities: fear of inner city crime has driven shoppers to the suburbs. The visible collapse of Flint's downtown has more to do with demographics than with GM. It has more to do with an inner city culture of random violence that is common in many American cities. But, of course, that analysis does not fit the leftist paranoid world view in which all social problems must be traced to an evil cabal of large corporations.

And if you go to the suburbs, you will find wealth and affluence similar to that in other American metropolitan areas. About twenty minutes south of Flint, there is a large sparkling clean, highly prosperous suburb with an upper class golf course that hosts the annual Buick Open usually graced by Tiger Woods. The same large suburb has one of the highest rated school systems in the state of Michigan, and a large private hospital complex that draws patients from other counties. Residents from nearby Oakland County flood the communities near Flint as they seek to escape high housing costs and high taxes in Oakland County. These people are not indigents. They come from Oakland County which is one of the most affluent counties in the nation. So the simplistic image of a down and out Flint is highly inaccurate. The greater Flint area is in no way down and out. As in many American metropolitan areas, you have a distressed inner city surrounded by typical American prosperity.

But for the purposes of leftist propaganda, distortion is needed. Flint must somehow become a national symbol for lack of opportunity that makes military service the only route out of poverty for people who can no longer find high-paying union jobs. But the truth is that opportunity for upward mobility is present even in the heart of distressed inner city Flint. The prestigious University of Michigan system maintains a modern, attractive campus in the heart of the city. Nearby is a large community college in a cultural area containing a large central public library, two museums, an institute of music, and a large concert hall. Both the art museum and the music institute, which trains young musicians, are undergoing major renovations. While symphonies close in other cities, the Flint Symphony is alive and well. Nestled nearby is an attractive and graceful old estate open to visitors. The estate belonged to a philanthropist who invested large sums of money in the city. His foundation continues his philanthropic work to this day, but I have yet to hear of the activities of a Michael Moore Foundation in Flint. There is also a large private vocational school with a modern campus not far from the center of the city.

And so opportunity in the form of education is literally on the doorstep of the youth of Flint. Opportunity for most of us today is in many ways a matter of education. You don't have to sign up in the military to find opportunity. It is there for any who are willing and determined. And so another leftist caricature is exposed.

The story of Flint today is that of poverty and prosperity, of opportunities ignored and opportunities taken. It is a story replicated in cities throughout America. Individual initiative and determination make the difference. No one is locked into an oppressive caste system. No one is forced to join the military. As in the rest of America, the greatest obstacles to progress are cultural. The cultural sense of entitlement--whether to a government check or to a high-paying unionized factory job--is the worst enemy of progress in Flint. But this cultural reality does not fit the leftist fantasy in which there must always be an evil conspiracy seeking to keep people down.

And a word has to be said about unions. Flint played a historic role in the rise of unions. In the thirties, union members, with great courage, famously stood firm in defense of their rights. Unfortunately, what began as a fitting fight for social justice ended up with a hyper-unionism that chased away the goose that laid the golden egg. Today, any investor seeking to open a factory would think long and hard before breaking ground in highly unionized Michigan. The unions have a share of the blame for the economic problems of Flint. Again, you will not see this angle presented in leftist propaganda.

So take Michael Moore with a grain of salt. He continues to make a living from exploiting the misfortunes of his hometown. The problem is that the misfortunes of his hometown have less to do with evil corporate conspiracy than with the passive culture of entitlement spawned by government dependence, excessive unionism, and a misplaced sense of entitlement. The Catholic vision of the person is that of a free individual of great God-given potential who has the dramatic freedom and challenge to shape the course of his life. In contrast, the Michael Moore vision is that of people crushed by the conspiracies of the powerful. It is a hopeless vision. It is definitely not a Catholic vision.

Cardinal Dulles Sets the Record Straight

As he has done before, Avery Cardinal Dulles sets the record straight on the calculated confusion fostered by those who, for political reasons, give Catholics the erroneous impression that the abortion issue is on the same plane as issues like the death penalty and just war. In a Zenit interview, Dulles states as follows:

Q: Some have questioned the insistence on the abortion question when there are other matters -- such as the conflict in Iraq and the death penalty -- in which there are contrasts between some politicians and the Church position. Why is abortion being singled out?

Cardinal Dulles: The three cases you mention are quite different. The Church recognizes that there are occasions when war and the death penalty are justified, even though such measures are undesirable and should be kept to the necessary minimum.

The present Holy Father has made it clear that he thinks that certain, particular wars and executions are wrong and unnecessary. Catholics will respect this as the prudential judgment of a wise and holy pastor.

But Catholics who fully accept the doctrine of the Church can sometimes disagree about whether a given war or death sentence is morally defensible.

Abortion is in a different class. As the deliberate taking of innocent human life, direct abortion can never be justified. About the moral principle, there can be no debate in the Church. The teaching has been constant and emphatic.

Source: Zenit.org, June 29, 2004, "Cardinal Dulles on Communion and Pro-Abortion Politicians."

We have seen in the mainstream media and in the internet numerous statements by ill-informed or mendacious Catholics that make the death penalty and war equivalent to the abortion issue. We can now conveniently quote Cardinal Dulles directly every time these false statements are repeated.

The Artful Dodges of Garry Wills

Garry Wills is a public figure with a public reputation for misleading arguments and rhetoric against Church teaching. He is at it again on the editorial pages of the N.Y. Times ("The Bishops vs. the Bible," June 27, 2004, Op-Ed Section). This time he is arguing that the bishops can contribute "nothing distinctive" to the debate on the morality of abortion. Wills says that the morality of abortion is a matter of natural reason. It is amazing that Wills appears to be ignorant of the fact that the bishops have also consistently said the same thing: abortion is a matter of natural reason, it is a matter of human rights, not of imposing a theological opinion on non-Catholics. So Wills' entire thesis is off-base. It is as if he has been completely out of touch with the abortion debate that has been raging for years.

Yet, even on the claim that bishops have nothing distinctive to contribute to the debate, Wills is wrong. He is also wrong to say that bishops have "no special mandate from their office to supplant the individual conscience with some divine imperative." Bishops have done and can logically do two things simultaneously in the abortion debate: point out that abortion is an evil under natural reason to all Americans, Catholic or non-Catholic, and point out specifically to Catholics the fact that the evil of abortion is divinely revealed and thus a teaching that is binding in conscience. They have a special mandate to do both because bishops are servants of the Truth; and for Christians, the Truth is the person Jesus Christ. The bishops can thus simultaneously address two audiences with different emphases. It is absurd for Wills to declare by fiat that this is not possible with, of course, no meaningful, in-depth analysis. For a man who is reflexively anti-papal, Wills has a "pope complex" that mimics his own caricature of the papacy--he persists in pontificating by arbitrary fiat. It is a comical situation worthy of satire: the "Pope" of Evanston, Illinois (where Wills resides) versus the Pope of Rome. Take your choice. The "Pope" of Evanston is here living up to his usual rhetorical mode of operation: take a kernel of truth and imperialistically exaggerate it to exclude other truths. That is a mode of operation that is quintessentially anti-Catholic. The genius of Catholicism, in contrast to Protestantism, is to give universal validity and place to all truths, whether they are truths available through natural reason or only through divine revelation. In the case of abortion, the evil of abortion is a truth available through both natural reason and divine revelation.

In his op-ed piece, Wills, true to form, takes his habitual papal swipe. This time he asserts that Pope Pius XI was wrong to view the Onan story in Genesis 38:7-10 as support for the teaching against contraception. Wills appeals to biblical scholars who correctly say that the story has to do with the Jewish custom of levirate marriage. But no one needs to appeal to biblical scholars to see that the story is about levirate marriage. The reference to levirate marriage is plainly in the biblical text at issue. Surely, Pius XI could read the text as well as any of us today and see the clear reference. It is just plain silly to suggest otherwise, but Wills specializes in making silly caricatures of the popes.

This levirate or "brother-in-law" marriage referred to in the Genesis story was an institution of Jewish law whereby the brother of the deceased husband married the widow so that the line and name of the deceased brother would be perpetuated (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10). The custom is familiar from the Gospels where the Sadducees use an example of a series of levirate marriages to question Jesus about belief in the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33). The purpose of the custom was to perpetuate the line of the dead brother: to produce offspring.

Now, the issue is joined. Why did Israel view the production of offspring as so important to go to these lengths? What lies at the depth of such preoccupation with offspring? There is surely a desire for immortality. But why such a preoccupation with immortality that is not personal, that does not involve the deceased himself returning to life?

Let's take a look at a Jewish commentator, a non-theologian, who has dedicated himself to a philosophic--note, not a theological-- reading of Genesis. Surely, if a non-Catholic philosopher can draw moral lessons from Scripture that can appeal to non-religious people, then Catholic bishops can do the same on the issue of abortion. Here is what Leon Kass, the non-theological Jewish commentator on Genesis, has to say on sexuality and procreation:

Despite the hardships connected with their rearing, no one who understands would see children mainly as a burden. A child is good because being is good, because life is good, because the renewal of human possibility is good. One's child is a good that is one's own, though it is good not because it is one's own. Rather, one's own children become one's own share of that-good-which-is-children. Through children, male and female finally achieve some genuine unification (beyond the mere sexual "union," which fails to do so): the two become one through sharing generous, not needy, love for this third being as good. Flesh of their flesh, the child is the parents' own commingling being externalized, and given a separate and persisting existence; unification is enhanced also by their commingled work of rearing. Providing an opening to the future beyond the grave, carrying out not only our seed but also our names, our ways, and our hope that they will surpass us in goodness and happiness, children are a testament to transcendence.

Leon Kass, M.D., The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (N.Y.: Free Press, 2003), pp. 117-18.

Of course, the early Israelites did not reason with such philosophical sophistication and neither do most of us, but in their hearts and in our hearts we come to the same conclusion: children are important because they are "a testament to transcendence," as Kass notes. While, in a later footnote discussion (p. 529), Kass himself fails to develop this dimension of the Onan story (although he does not exclude it as Wills does), Kass' observations on procreation clearly lend a depth to the Onan story that scholars usually ignore. It is not hard to see that the custom of levirate marriage testifies to the goodness of children, a goodness that completes the unification that is only imperfectly accomplished by "mere sexual union." What more is all of this philosophical reflection than another way of saying what Pius XI, Paul VI, and John Paul II have said about the sexual act, namely, that the full meaning of the sexual act requires a procreative dimension? The sexual act that is not open to life is imperfect and diminished.

So when Onan refused to be open to life, he diminished the marital act. He turned his back on the good of children, a good integral to the good of his deceased brother, of his family and tribe, and hence of himself. Onan sinned against the transcendent meaning of the sexual act. To read the Onan story as being merely and only about an outdated Middle Eastern tribal custom misses the deeper point. The Onan story is about the transcendence of the sexual act, a transcendence inseparable from procreation. And so, Pius XI, whom the "Pope" of Evanston so cavalierly dismisses, was right after all. In our Catholic gut and hearts, we knew it all along: better Rome than Evanston.

Intelligent and Orthodox Catholicism from England

I give an unqualified endorsement to a 136-page book entitled An Intelligent Person's Guide to Catholicism by British Franciscan Alban McCoy, who is the Catholic Chaplain to the University of Cambridge. The book is orthodox. On two of the signature issues on which virtually all Catholic liberals reject Catholic teaching--the all-male priesthood and contraception, McCoy affirms the orthodox position. At the same time, McCoy gives with skill and depth a presentation of Catholic anthropology in his account of the "Seven Deadly Sins."

It is refreshing to see a Catholic with a first-rate mind calmly present the logic and truth of the Catholic faith without any watering down. On most bookstore shelves, you will find many books by liberal Catholics who claim to present Catholic teaching but instead present their own private distorted version of Catholicism. It is tiresome to see these liberal Catholics present again and again their own prejudices and defects under the false cover of Catholicism. Skimming such books will lead you to agree with the observation of Cardinal George of Chicago that liberal Catholicism is a failure that has failed in passing on the faith. You cannot pass on what you do not accept. What is there to pass on if religion is viewed as what humans, to use George Weigel's phrase, "make up" as opposed to what they receive from God?

We are not looking for guidance from humans. By the time we reach forty years of age, most of us have emphatically experienced the fundamental confusion and self-delusion that congenitally besets human beings. We are not looking for guidance from that realm. Rather, we are looking for guidance from the Creator. We are looking for revelation. As McCoy points out, this faith in search of revelation is inseparable from reason, logic, and reflection: "Logic and mystery belong together, and faith is the name for that gift of the spirit which understands God as the origin of both" (McCoy, An Intelligent Person's Guide to Catholicism [London: Continuum, 2001), p. 126). And so McCoy does not make up Catholicism as liberals like Garry Wills, Hans Küng, and Richard McBrien do. "Made-up" Catholicism is a dead end.

McCoy takes on the liberal obsession with women's ordination:

At root, the reason why the Church can only ordain men to the priesthood is that she is bound to follow the example of Christ himself, who chose only men as apostles. . . . . This raises a more fundamental point: the Church's existence is rooted in actual historical events . . . . Christ is an actual human being; this is the whole point of the Incarnation. . . . . The Church therefore cannot escape certain facts: she cannot reinvent herself or the heart of her belief. This is received. The Church cannot determine the recipients of priestly ordination in a manner that contradicts the actions of Christ himself, its originator.

McCoy, pp. 53-54.

Here we have a ringing defense of the all-male priesthood in a book published by Continuum, a publishing house not known for its orthodoxy. It is a ringing defense by a priest who is a literary adviser to the liberal Catholic newspaper The Tablet. Orthodoxy has infiltrated Troy.

McCoy completes his affirmation of the all-male priesthood by exposing how the liberal obsession with "justice" is irrelevant on the ordination question:

The question of justice in connection with the Church's teaching that it cannot ordain women arises only if you think that all or any human being or all or any of the baptized have a right to be ordained. Clearly, there is no civic right to be ordained on the part of any citizen. But nor is there a right rooted in any aspect of the Church's nature or the shared vocation of all Christians. Not being ordained does not in any way contradict the call to holiness or constitute an obstacle to fullness of life and communion with God. An old-fashioned but useful way of expressing this is to say that ordination is not necessary for salvation. To deprive someone of what is necessary for salvation most certainly would be a grave injustice.

McCoy, p. 55.

You can find a similar ringing defense of the Church's teaching against contraception (pp. 11-114). The value of McCoy's presentation is that he takes aim at the "myths" of modern Western societies that lead people to assume wrongly that there exists a right to ordination or to assume wrongly that contraceptive sexual intercourse is a harmless recreational pastime with no deep personal and spiritual consequences. He exposes these myths that are so engrained among modern Westerners that we take them for granted and leave them unexamined and unquestioned. And so McCoy demonstrates that Catholicism, instead of closing one's mind, opens one's mind to reality.

Yet, the most masterful part of the book is the section discussing the seven deadly sins: pride, sloth, envy, avarice, gluttony, wrath, lust. McCoy gives a skilled presentation of Catholic psychology or anthropology. I do not recall reading a better presentation of the meaning of chastity than that in McCoy's discussion of lust.

In his discussion of sloth, McCoy quotes Dorothy Sayers from 1949 who captured the mindset of so many today:

Sloth is the condition of the sleepwalker: it 'believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, lives nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and only remains alive because there is nothing it would die for'.

McCoy, p. 91 (quoting Sayers, Creed or Chaos [N.Y., 1949]).

And McCoy points out that we disguise that sloth with selfish hyperactivity of all sorts in careers and in hedonistic recreation (p. 93).

When we see the popularity of propaganda like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11,
we see the hand of sloth because sloth:

persuades us that it's no use trying to understand or learn or improve our grasp of anything. Stupidity is not our fault and thinking gets us nowhere. Once convinced of this we are vulnerable to ideologies and totalitarianisms and tyrannies of various kinds . . . .

McCoy, pp. 93-94.

Applying this analysis, Michael Moore becomes a cartoonish figure representing sloth, the sloth that fails to think and reason and revels in superficiality and manipulative emotionalism. Add the obvious personal signs of gluttony, and we can see in the Michael Moore phenomenon a very current example of the nihilistic sloth that is the hidden cancer of our society.

The New Midwestern Catholicism

Sunday, at noon, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is a snapshot of the future of American Catholicism. The noon Mass at the Cathedral of Saint Andrew is in Spanish. The priest is apparently non-Hispanic, but speaks a fluent and smooth Spanish that I, as a highly Americanized Hispanic more comfortable in English, would envy. The congregation is sparse right up to twelve noon, but, almost miraculously, as Mass begins, the large cathedral is full. It is full of Mexican-Americans, some even holding white cowboy hats in hand. I even saw one Texas Longhorns baseball cap on a pew. To the side of the main altar, was a very large icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

The congregation includes many family groups, couples, and even young men attending alone. What draws them here? Could it just be nostalgia for community and for a gathering in Spanish? The responsorial psalm said it all: "Protégeme Dios mío . . . mi refugio" "Protect me my God . . . my refuge." They are speaking to God in the language that the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500-1558), who also doubled as King of Spain, referred to as God's language: "To God I speak Spanish, to women Italian, to men French, and to my horse--German."

But I saw something that jolted me as someone accustomed to attending the typical American Catholic Mass in English. As the distribution of Communion began, I waited patiently--the cathedral was large and long and I was sitting well toward the back. But I didn't have to wait for long because to my great Americanized surprise, many people did not get up to receive the Eucharist. I had to get up sooner than I anticipated and walk quickly and unhindered, past many people still in their pews, to receive the Eucharist. In my own experience over many years, that sort of thing just does not happen in any English-speaking Mass in the United States, where virtually everyone reflexively rises to receive the Eucharist.

And so these working-class Midwestern Mexicans taught me theology. They taught me that attending Mass has value even without receiving the Eucharist. They taught me that the future of American Catholicism will likely contain many who reverence the Eucharist enough to know when not to receive. Their example also exposes the churlish and spoiled outlook of many American Catholics who consider attending Mass and not receiving the Eucharist an unacceptable and foolish option.

It also exposes the strange and odd anguish of some politicians and some clerics over asking pro-abortion politicians not to receive the Eucharist. It is the difference between a self-centered and theologically confused Catholicism of the spoiled and an older, more stoic, more mature, less self-centered Catholicism that will providentially shape our future.

After the Mass, I also saw something else that I have never seen before in the United States. As the parishioners exited the cathedral, several vendors with small ice cream carts were strategically located on the cathedral plaza. One more distant ice cream vendor in a van tried to overcome its disadvantage by blaring short, periodic outbursts of music--including a snatch of "Dixie"--to call attention to itself. The reverence and stoicism were replaced with an innocent and very human festivity. Reverence and festivity. Very Catholic, muy católico. Thanks be to God. Gracias a Dios.

"Cover" for Brave Bishops in Communion Debate

Liberal N.Y. Times religion columnist Peter Steinfels weighs in today on the bishops' recent statement on pro-abortion politicians and the Eucharist (See N.Y. Times Online, "Documents Add to Abortion Debate," June 26, 2004, Nat'l Section). As discussed previously on Catholic Analysis (6/18/04 post), the bishops' statement recognized a significant change in the status quo of the past in which bishops customarily did not take the route of denying Communion to these politicians. The official statement is a milestone because it makes clear that a bishop can indeed appropriately deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, if the bishop so chooses.

Steinfels' column confirms that the statement's recognition that a bishop can indeed deny Communion in these cases is an important change. Steinfels writes that the statement gives "cover" to those few bishops who support denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. Because of this recognition--which is certainly a repudiation of the liberal view--Steinfels finds it necessary to dwell on the report of the bishops' task force on politicians. In contrast to the official statement, the task force report clearly stood against denial of Communion. The task force position is no surprise to anyone who has listened to the recent statements of the task force's leader, Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C.

What is a welcome development is that the task force stance never made it into the official statement approved by vote of all the bishops. The task force is merely a committee, and its report is not a statement of the bishops' conference as a whole. In this case, the bishops as a whole could not issue a statement adopting the task force recommendation against denying Communion. And so the McCarrick task force view on the issue remains just that: a view or opinion that is not binding on any other bishop. The result should not be a surprise given that no conference can tie the hands of an individual bishop. Nevertheless, it is good to see an official statement adopted by all the bishops that recognizes that the brave few have every right to be brave on this issue. We knew it all along, but it is good to see it confirmed.

Update: Catholic World News carries an analysis of the bishops' statement that supports my own positive assessment at this link (Catholic World News, June 29, 2004, "U.S. bishops rejected task force statement on Communion," by Culture of Life Foundation).

Devastating Column on Anti-American Michael Moore

Michael Moore, for those few who haven't heard, is a leading Bush hater whose propaganda film attacking Bush personally was released yesterday, to wide acclaim by liberal Democrats in and out of the media.

But the Democrats now have a big problem: Moore not only hates Bush, Moore also hates America. I, like many other Christians, parted ways with the Democratic Party over abortion, but now the Democratic Party is going one step further and is itself parting ways with America. For anyone with a sense of history, what the current national Democratic Party is doing in destroying the legacy of FDR and Truman is a breathtaking shame. The party of FDR and Truman is now the Anti-American party. All of this is documented in today's devasting column by mild-mannered David Brooks of the N.Y. Times (see N.Y. Times online (free reg'n required), Op-Ed Section, June 26, 2004, "All Hail Moore," by David Brooks). The column documents the anti-American--and even anti-Semitic--rhetoric Moore spouts in speeches to European audiences. I wonder what traditionally Democratic Jewish voters will think of a party that embraces a propagandist who condemns Israel and praises anti-Israel terrorists as patriots. I guess the new Democratic coalition no longer needs Jewish voters and is satisfied with pro-abortion radicals, gay marriage activists, and kooky Bush haters. How the mighty have fallen.

N.Y. Times Spinning Again for Kerry

This time the goal of the spin is to try to hurt Bush's standing with conservative Catholics by falsely saying that the President is now promoting contraception in the fight against AIDS. A good post at the Catholics for Bush blog demonstrates that the President is doing no such thing. The N.Y. Times reporters are either inept or eager to spin for the Kerry campaign. Either way, the internet enables us to read the raw data--the transcript of the President's remarks--so we can make up our own minds about what the President really said. In short, the President's emphasis is on abstinence and fidelity in the fight against AIDS, not contraception, as his remarks show. Thanks to Catholics for Bush for fact checking the liberal media. For details, see their post for June 25, 2004, entitled "Condoms and Half-truths," at this link.

N.Y. Times Caught Misleading On Iraq, Al-Qaeda Ties

See Slate's Mickey Kaus column for June 22, 2004, for the N.Y. Times' deception on the issue of ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (scroll down to last paragraph for June 22nd). A document has now emerged showing that Iraq actively sought an alliance with Osama Bin Laden. This is the Iraqi regime that was a grave and gathering threat. This is the Iraqi regime that a just war overthrew. Catholics believe that we have a moral obligation to seek the truth. Given the misleading and partisan news coverage of the pro-Kerry N.Y. Times, that obligation takes on greater urgency. More and more it seems to me that history will look back at Bush and see him in much the same position as Lincoln during the Civil War: savagely mocked and villified, but heroically unwavering. Take a look at U.S. history during the Civil War, and you will see some enlightening parallels. The reputation of Lincoln's Secretary of War even parallels that of Rumsfeld today as a blunt and controversial figure. History is in the making, but the liberal media is doing its best to cover it up.

Next Major Update: Monday, June 28, 2004

Due to family commitments, the next major update will be on June 28, 2004.

"The Politics of Pain"

A female Lutheran pastor converts to Catholicism and becomes an opponent of the ordination of women. That scenario does not fit into the "progressive" tide of history that is the fantasy of Catholic liberals. Yet, the scenario is true--and she is not the only female Protestant minister who has taken this path. Zenit recently ran an interview with this convert, Jennifer Ferrara, on the issue of the all-male priesthood. The following excerpt from the interview is, in my view, the crux of the matter:

In general, modern people chafe against revealed authority because they expect the outer life of institutions to be rendered serviceable to the psychological inner life of individuals. Therefore, if women want to be priests and claim to feel pain because they are not priests, it automatically follows that they should be priests.

Yet women who insist they have a call to the priesthood and use their pain as evidence of an authentic interior call from God are, in fact, using the protean politics of pain and not Catholic theology to explain their experiences.

Source: Zenit.org, June 22, 2004, "Former Lutheran Pastor Defends All-Male Priesthood (Part 2)."

Here, as many others have pointed out, is the problem endemic in Western societies and surely in the United States: psychology is reality. As others have noted, we abort the innocent at will because we have come to define a "human person" on the basis of psychology by referring to levels of consciousnessness, instead of defining a human person on the basis of a God-given rational nature. We have transformed conscience from the serious search for objective truth into a mirror of our momentary and irrational feelings and urges.

In a book that I enthusiastically recommend, British Franciscan Alban McCoy captures this deformation of conscience under the label "subjectivism" which he defines as:

[T]he view that whatever you believe to be true is, by that fact alone, true--for you: whatever you think it is right and good to do is, by that fact alone, good--for you. The inevitable implication of this view is that there is no such thing as objective truth or anything that is objectively right or wrong. All is a matter of individual temperament, upbringing, predilection, propensity, preference and taste: and de gustibus non est disputandum ["about tastes we must not argue"].

Alban McCoy, An Intelligent Person's Guide to Catholicism (Continuum, 2001), p. 49.

A prime and contemporaneous example of this are the literary confessions of Bill Clinton. Excerpts of the Clinton autobiography explain his Lewinsky scandal as the end result of his childhood in an abusive family. Surely, that sort of unfortunate childhood would certainly influence one's future behavior. But the scandal in the Lewinsky matter is not that, like all of us, Bill Clinton has weaknesses, some of which may stem from very early experiences. The scandal is that the behavior was objectively wrong, immoral, exploitive, and destructive. The behavior was inhumane in the sense that it assaulted the humanity of the young intern he exploited. (By the way, it all did begin when Lewinsky was an intern and not a regular employee, as finally admitted in the new book, an admission that contradicts Clinton's prior sworn testimony to a grand jury [see CNN report, "Clinton Revises Timeline of Lewinsky Affair," June 23, 2004, Inside Politics section].)

So the important issue is not the psychology of Bill Clinton that may have influenced his behavior. The important issue is that sexual exploitation is gravely wrong. But instead of focusing on the objective standard or truth, Clinton focuses on his feelings. One cannot help but suspect that all this psychologism is an attempt to excuse his own conduct and to persuade us to also excuse it in spite of claims of taking responsibility. Clinton is practicing the same "politics of pain" mentioned by the former Lutheran pastor in her interview.

A Clinton who focused instead on the objective standard that was violated would recognize that he had a lot more to address in his book. I have yet to hear in any media excerpts of the book any mention of Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who, in a highly credible manner on national television, accused Clinton of raping her when he was Arkansas' attorney general (see Washington Post story, "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired," by Howard Kurtz, Feb. 25, 1999). If Clinton had focused in his musings on the objective standard that sexual exploitation is wrong, then surely he would address that credible allegation at some length. That there apparently is no serious explanation of this matter in the book leads me to conclude that Clinton still does not get it, and that his claims of remorse for his past conduct have more to do with his being caught and humiliated than with his doing what was objectively wrong. In other words, Clinton is understandably remorseful, as we all have been at times, because he has suffered the pain of humiliating exposure. Yet, in traditional Catholic language, this remorse may not even rise to the level of imperfect contrition because there is a failure to recognize that an objective and general moral standard also applicable to other incidents was violated.

This psychological morality is why our contemporary debates seem to go nowhere. Gays cannot understand why some of us would deny the objective status of marriage to their feelings of intimacy. Fornicators cannot understand why their consensual relations should be a matter of scandal to anyone. The defenders of abortion thunder that the government should have no role in a woman's "private" decison to abort. The real pain of caregivers gives rise to the demand for unrestricted embryonic stem cell research. Blinded by feelings, the blind lead the blind; and, when they run into an objective standard, all they can do is curse it.

The clamor by some for the Catholic ordination of women follows the same pattern. Some women claim to feel called to Catholic ordination and rebel against the psychological pain and frustration due to denial of this privilege. It is psychology, not theology, as the Zenit interview notes. It is one more instance of what George Weigel calls liberal religion--religion we make up as opposed to revealed religion which we receive from God. This psychologism or subjectivism is also at the heart of the liberal morality, exemplified by the Clinton memoir and so many other trends in our society, a morality that assumes that emotion is morality.

Update:
The Washington Times lists the roster of women not mentioned in Clinton's autobiography (see Washington Times, "The missing Clinton women," by Jerry Seper).

Optimism, Hope, & the Presidential Race

One liberal cable TV commentator writes that the winner in the presidential election is the candidate with "the sun on his face," that is, the one perceived as optimistic (see National Review Online's "Kerry Spot" section for June 21, 2004, "The Man With the Sun on his Face"). The review of the Reagan years confirms that line of thought. So now comes the question: who has the "sun on his face" in this race? Kerry or Bush?

Superficially, the TV image of Kerry would tell us that the answer is surely not Kerry. In the age of TV, pioneered in presidential campaigns by Kerry's hero John Kennedy, the "look" of the candidate counts. Without descending to the petty and personal, Kerry just plain looks glum. Bush, on the other hand, has a cheerful demeanor. So, on the superficial level, Kerry loses the "sun on the face" test.

But, even if you go to a deeper and much more significant level of analysis, Bush emerges as the optimistic candidate. Recently, conservative columnist David Brooks noted how Kerry criticized the anti-Castro dissidents in Cuba for their protests by labeling the protests as counterproductive (N.Y. Times online, "Kerry's Cruel Realism," 6/19/04). Brooks correctly contrasted Kerry's abandonment of these freedom fighters with Reagan's strong inspiration and support for dissidents in the Soviet Union. In contrast to Kerry's dark foreign policy realism which views dissent against dictators as counterproductive, Bush has tightened sanctions on the Castro dictatorship and not wavered from the vision of a free Cuba. The effectiveness of the Bush message is verified by the stream of vitriol against Bush that is still issuing from Castro as this is written. Bush believes that a free Cuba is well on the way. Kerry opts for a softer approach that is pessimistic that dissidents can bring liberation.

And, of course, even more significantly, the striking contrast in mood emerges in Iraq policy. Bush fervently believes that freedom is a possibility for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. He has not wavered in his vision of a free and sane Iraqi government. In nine days, Iraq will have its first sovereign government run by sane people after decades of the mad rule of Saddam Hussein. The same will happen one day in Cuba after over 40 years of the mad rule of Fidel Castro. Both dictators imprisoned a talented, educated, and enterprising population in the whims of one emotionally disturbed man. Bush rejects that insane spectacle, while Kerry is willing to live with it. The Kerry view is that Bush erred in going to war in Iraq. This means that Kerry thinks it was wrong to overthrow Saddam Hussein. That is the inevitable conclusion. As in Cuba, Kerry is more comfortable with the dictatorial status quo. No greater contrast with the optimism of Ronald Reagan is possible.

Domestically, you can see the same pessimism on the issue of stem cell research. Bush is holding the line on research based on the new destruction of human beings-- which is what human embryos are. Instead, Bush points to the promise of research on adult stem cells. Characteristically, Kerry is pessimistic about adult stem cell research and so unthinkingly throws the door wide open on creating human life so that it can be destroyed to buy an extended life or a better quality of life for other human beings. All human life is equal. You cannot make that barter or trade between human lives. With all due respect to the late President Reagan, he lived 83 self-fulfilling years full of tremendous achievement and accomplishment. That the last ten years to age 93 were marked by the misfortune of Alzheimer's is no excuse for destroying other human life. Reagan, as this website has documented, would be the first to reject this bartering of one powerless human life for the benefit of other human life. Without vision, Kerry succumbs to the pessimism of those who settle for the worst solution. He is doing it on stem cell research, as he has done it on Cuba and Iraq.

And, of course, the pessimism is the foundation of the Kerry embrace of abortion. He settles for a Culture of Death as inevitable. Bush, on the other hand, has proven again and again that he is not satisfied with the status quo and seeks to transform our culture into a Culture of Life. Bush will not settle for the darkness of abortion on demand that Kerry sees as a permanent part of American life to be celebrated as a fundamental right.

As to the economy, the pessimism from Kerry continues even in the face of overwhelming economic evidence that the economy is booming. As a result, expect more rhetoric about "Two Americas," one prosperous and the other hopeless. That rhetoric will increase if Kerry chooses John Edwards as his running mate. Edwards is known for endlessly repeating the line of "Two Americas," true to his experience as a trial lawyer who knows that repetition is the key to emotionally enthralling a jury. In contrast, Bush believes in one America in which hope is the legacy of all. School vouchers, vehemently opposed by Kerry, are the best way to rescue millions from scandalously dysfunctional public school systems in the inner city. But with such a long overdue reform, the one America of hope for all will become a reality that does not fit the trial lawyer campaign rhetoric that depends on "Two Americas." The Democrats have a vested interest in preserving "Two Americas," while they brainwash millions of minority and union members into thinking that pessimistic Democratic policies will give them hope. It is a cruel deception. For Kerry, the world will always be divided between the noble elite, like him, who play with expensive toys in expensive Nantucket, and Democratic voters whose children are mired in hopeless public school systems.

The Catholic version of optimism is known as "hope." Catholic hope does not flinch from the worst situations. The most severely disabled life is still worthy of and capable of love and joy. Violence is not the answer to an unwanted pregnancy. The answer is to welcome life. The trials of aging are to elicit love and sacrifice by us, not the sacrifice of innocent human life created expressly for destruction. As shown in the Poland of John Paul II, Catholic hope does not see even the most powerful, ruthless, and long-lasting dictatorship as set in stone. Catholic hope inspires captive populations with faith and self-confidence to recover their cultural heritage from the clutches of mad dictatorships. That is what the Pope sought to do in visiting Cuba. Hope does not take the route of despair in the face of harsh realities. Hope, inextricably tied to love and faith, never gives up and never settles for mediocrity. It certainly never settles for evil, whether at home or abroad.

Ronald Reagan and Christianity

At the end of the Reagan funeral ceremonies, one of his sons, Ronald Reagan, Jr., gave a eulogy with a veiled attack on President George W. Bush. In those remarks, Ronald Reagan, Jr., made the veiled comment that, in contrast to his father, some politicians wear their religion on their sleeves and claim a mandate from God for their policies. In contrast, Reagan's eldest son, Michael Reagan is an outspoken Christian who used the eulogy to communicate the greatest gift he received from his father: his Christian faith. Why the difference?

In a recent book, Hand of Providence by Mary Beth Brown, published before the death of former President Reagan, it looks like we have an explanation for Ron Reagan, Jr.'s crusade against George W. Bush:

In an interview on the History Channel, Ron Reagan [the son] talked about the rejection of his father's faith, which first became apparent one Sunday morning when the boy was just twelve years old. According to Ron, his father came into his room when it was time to go to church, and young Ron was sitting on his bed in his jeans and "not in my little suit." Ron told his father, "I'm not going. I don't believe it, and I'm not going." Ron admitted that it hurt his father very much, and he didn't think Reagan ever got over it. Ronald Reagan wished more than anything for his family to know the Lord the way he did.

Mary Beth Brown, Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004)(foreword by Micheal E. Reagan), p. 200.

Ron Reagan, Jr., has worked in the past as a news commentator for MSNBC's political show "Hardball" hosted by liberal journalist and former Democratic congressional staffer Chris Matthews. During the coverage of the funeral, Matthews and liberal commentator Howard Fineman eagerly embraced Ron Reagan, Jr.'s veiled attack on the religion of President Bush. Matthews followed up in the coming days with a full interview with Ron Reagan, Jr. Apparently, more media interviews are in the works. Finally, the liberals had a nugget out of the Reagan funeral ceremonies to use against George W. Bush.

What Matthews and Fineman did not mention during the funeral coverage on Friday of that week is that Ron Reagan, Jr., apparently strongly rejected his father's Christian faith. Certainly, that long-standing rejection must contribute to his hostility to public expressions of Christianity by a president. And Matthews and Fineman, as far as I recall, barely mentioned the strong Christian eulogy given by Michael Reagan. It was as if the evangelical rhetoric of Michael Reagan was by its very nature unworthy of sustained attention. In my opinion, the MSNBC coverage showed the biased secularist mindset of the commentators.

But, more important than pointing to another example of distorting and misleading media bias against religion, is the fundamental question raised by Ron Reagan, Jr.'s eulogy: was President Reagan's rhetoric about religion really different from that used by George W. Bush?

Mary Brown's book answers no. In her book on President Reagan's religious faith, she quotes copiously from President Reagan's speeches in which he explicitly and generously states the importance for the nation of faith in God and in Christ. In fact, she points out that President Reagan pioneered the formation of the political coalition of Protestant evangelicals and Catholic voters united by their dislike of abortion and desire for a renewed moral consensus in American culture (see Ch. 11, "The Road to the White House"). This is the same coalition that is strongly supportive of George W. Bush in this election. And so the reality is that there is a striking continuity in the reliance by both Presidents on religion in their presidencies.

As to speaking about religion and Christianity in public, President Reagan did so many times. Here is one example:

In January of 1984 [an election year], again at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, Reagan would state his view on the [pro-life] issue outright and stir up a lot of vicious criticism from the media. "Let's begin at the beginning. God is the center of our lives; the human family stands at the center of society; and our greatest hope for the future is in the faces of our children . . . . God's most blessed gift to his family is the gift of life. He sent us the Prince of Peace as a babe in a manger. I've said that we must be cautious in claiming God is on our side. I think the real question we must answer is, are we on his side?

Brown, p. 186.

Imagine if George W. Bush in this election year gave such a speech invoking God, religion, and the "Prince of Peace" born in a manger to speak up against abortion. The media, including Ron Reagan, Jr., would be up in arms, as it was when President Reagan made those remarks in 1984. The New York Times criticized the religious references in the speech by noting that "Americans ask piety in presidents, not displays of religious preference" (Brown, p. 181). Ron Reagan, Jr.'s veiled critique of George W. Bush is a repetition of the same misguided critique the N.Y. Times made of his own father in 1984.

It is said that President Reagan did not wear his religion "on his sleeve." Likewise, many of us who are deeply committed to religion don't wear our religion on our sleeves in the sense that we are not always using religious rhetoric in the routine interactions of our daily lives. To do so would be odd and inappropriate. Yet, we remain deeply committed to our faith and outspoken about it at the right time and place.

And so did President Reagan. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was an associate of President Reagan dating back to his years as governor of California, put it this way:

The president feels a person's religious beliefs are a very private matter. He had never tried to exploit them or utilize them for political purposes. At the same time, he feels a Christian has an obligation, when the opportunity comes up naturally, not to be reticent about professing his faith.

Brown, p. 183.

Neither the record of President Reagan nor that of George W. Bush is one of wearing religion on one's sleeve, but history will show that both were deeply influenced by strong Christian beliefs and viewed their service in the presidency as part of God's plan for their lives. In that sense, both humbly claimed a mandate from God for their service in the White House, just as each of us tries to fulfill God's will for us in our own tasks. After all, "mandate" comes from the Latin mandatum meaning "command."

Every Christian has a mandate from God: God's will for his or her life. Here is President Reagan speaking about that mandate to a newspaper reporter when he was governor of California:

I've always believed there is a certain divine scheme of things. I'm not quite
able to explain how my election happened or why I'm here, apart from believing it is part of God's plan for me.

Brown, p. 136.

Likewise, George W. Bush believes it is God's plan for him to be President at this perilous time in our nation's history. That is the Christian world view. It is one not shared by Ron Reagan, Jr. The secularist criticism of Ron Reagan, Jr., apparently reflects his deep-seated lack of religious belief and own cultural bias. It is a secularist critique that would apply even more forcefully to the documented rhetoric of his own father than it would to the rhetoric of George W. Bush. The Reagan family, like many, many others, is divided by religion--not so much by different religions, as by the more fundamental chasm between secularist faith and religious faith. If you read the account in Mary Brown's book, you will see an extraordinary amount of documented evidence that the true President Reagan was the one described in the eulogy of Michael Reagan, the outspoken Christian. What we saw in the eulogy of the other son was instead a distorted picture concocted to take a cheap shot at George W. Bush. Keep that in mind as the interviews roll on and see if the interviewers raise the issue of Ron Reagan, Jr.'s personal hostility to religion.

Update: Not surprisingly, Ron Reagan Jr. admits that he is an atheist in the N.Y. Times Magazine for Sunday, June 27, 2004 ("The Son Also Rises," interview by Deborah Solomon). So it makes sense that he is very irritable and snappish about President Bush's straightforward and unembarrassed religious faith.

12th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Zechariah 12:10-11;13:1; Galatians 3:26-29; Luke 9:18-24

On Father's Day in the United States, it is inevitable that we read the Scriptures with fatherhood in mind. In Zechariah, the prophet transmits the message of the Lord that the Chosen People shall mourn the one "they have pierced" like a father mourns an only son or a firstborn. This mourning will open a fountain that will purify their sins.

In Galatians, the Gentiles are told that through baptism in Christ we become children of God, descendants of Abraham, and heirs to the promise made through Zechariah. God becomes the Father of all people. That is the distinctive message preached by Jesus: we are called to become intimate sons of the Father who can call him "Abba."

In Luke, Jesus predicts his passion, death, and Resurrection. This was no upstart overwhelmed by events beyond his control. Jesus knew his mission from the Father and embraced the Paschal Mystery in obedience to the Father. He calls us to the same mission as sons of the Father: to take up our cross daily and lose our lives so that we may save them. The commitment of Jesus to his mission has him again and again tell the disciples not to tell anyone his true identity. In this way, Jesus can fulfill the mission from the Father, instead of the expectations of the crowd.

The theme that jumps out of these three readings on Father's Day is that we become the intimate children of the Father by obedience to the mission given us by the Father. Through our baptism, we have clothed ourselves with Christ, and so we reproduce the sacrificial form of Christ's life in our own lives. Many times we will ask the Father to let a certain cup pass as Christ did. And each time we must submit to the Father's will, deny ourselves, and so save ourselves and others. It is only by so doing that those of us who are males, whether married or celibate, become authentic fathers.

The Die is Cast in the Presidential Election

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard appeared yesterday evening on PBS's Lehrer News Hour and baldly stated that Kerry made a "mistake" in charging that the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War. Kerry charged that Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq's contacts with Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization (see Washington Post story, June 18, 2004):

The finding of the [9/11] commission's staff led Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), to escalate his accusations that Bush deceived both the Senate and the American public about the rationale for war in Iraq. "The president owes the American people a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts," Kerry told reporters at the Detroit airport. "That is the finding of this commission."

The problem is, as Kristol's own publication has documented, that those contacts and ties did indeed exist, as corroborated even by Clinton administration officials. Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard makes that clear in his most recent article criticizing the misreporting (calculated in my opinion) of statements by the 9/11 Commission (see article).

Kerry jumped the gun, caught up in the misreporting concerning the 9/11 Commission's statements by the liberal media, especially the New York Times whose inaccurate reporting has been forcefully challenged by Vice President Cheney as "outrageous." As a result of Kerry's error, the major divide in this election is now clear: Kerry's campaign is based on the allegation that the President lied to the American people about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda. Yet those ties did indeed exist. In addition, Kerry apparently spoke before taking into account yesterday's statement by President Putin of Russia--who opposed the Iraq War--but nevertheless confirmed that Iraq was planning terror attacks in the U.S. before the war began and that this information had been passed on to the U.S. government.

Saddam Hussein was obsessed, after the first Gulf War, with exacting revenge against the U.S. That's why he plotted to assassinate the first President Bush and why the Clinton administration retaliated against Saddam for that plot. That's why Saddam was planning terrorist attacks in the U.S. That's why Saddam had extensive connections with terrorists, some of whom were active within Iraq's police state with Saddam's knowledge and approval. Those terrorists included al Qaeda. There is no doubt that Saddam was actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction to advance his aims. Given these facts and the continued defiance of U.N. resolutions on disarmament, war was inevitable.

Any U.S. President who, in the face of all of this and especially in the aftermath of September 11th, would sit on his hands would be derelict in his sworn obligation to protect the nation. Yet, Kerry is in effect now saying that in the face of this grave threat he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein. If Kerry had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today planning attacks against the U.S. That Hussein is in fact now a prisoner of the U.S. means that an extremely dangerous terrorist dictator of a terror state is out of commission. For that reason, you and I and our families are safer.

The American public, in the midst of a Terror War unleashed upon us on September 11th, now has a clear choice: a President Kerry who believes in doing nothing in the face of a grave and gathering threat and a President Bush who will take no more chances with the possibility of another and deadlier September 11th. In the privacy of the voting booth, the moment of truth will come. Between a do-nothing Kerry and a forceful Bush, the choice in a time of war is clear.

Never has Catholic or Christian teaching asked for a nation in the midst of a war for its survival to do nothing in the face of attack and the threat of attack. In fact, the Christian is morally obligated to protect the common good. And, in the end, that is all President Bush has done and will do. The moral weakness that allows Kerry to comfortably support abortion on demand is the same moral weakness that allows him to imagine living comfortably with the grave threat of Saddam Hussein. It is a moral weakness based on an extreme, dithering reluctance to confront evil. To elect a man like that as President in the midst of a global war on terror is to surrender our fate into the hands of our enemies. Under Kerry, our enemies would drive events in this war, not the U.S. And that would be a sin against the common good.

Update: The U.K. Telegraph online points out how the misreporting of the links between Iraq and al Qaeda is a result of media hostility to Bush and Blair ("There was a link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda,", by Melanie Phillips, June 20, 2004, U.K. Telegraph).

U.S. Bishops Call for No Honors or Platform for Pro-Abortion Politicians

In a statement issued today entitled "Catholics in Political Life" (June 18, 2004), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called for Catholic institutions to refuse honors or a platform for pro-abortion politicians, whether Catholic or non-Catholic:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Source: U.S.C.C.B. Website.

This means that we should not see John Kerry holding campaign events at Catholic schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, or soup kitchens. Kerry will have to limit his photo opportunities with Catholic symbols to his entering and exiting Catholic churches for Mass.

On the issue of denying Communion, the Conference recognizes that the decision is in the hands of individual bishops:

The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.

Source: U.S.C.C.B. link above.

This stand is not a concession. The Conference cannot bind the hands of any bishop in this matter. St. Louis Archbishop Burke and other brave bishops are completely free to deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians. Obviously, Cardinal Ratzinger, in his letter to U.S. bishops, must have upheld the power of bishops to deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians. Hopefully, this green light from the Vatican will mean that more bishops will play the man and defend the Sacrament. To repeat, the Vatican has given the green light to bishops who think it is necessary to deny the Eucharist to politicians like Kerry.

The conference statement also shows that the view apparently held by some that Catholic teaching requires leaving the decision on whether to receive the Eucharist solely to the individual communicant's conscience is wrong.

This statement is a victory for those who see the need to deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians like Kerry. It is a victory because for decades the status quo has been that these politicians can receive Communion with impunity. This statement recognizes that the status quo is changing. And that is a victory for the right to life.

Postscript: The Archdiocese of New York sponsors the Al Smith Dinner as a fundraiser which is a big media event with speeches by the presidential candidates. If, as the bishops' statement says, the Catholic community should not provide a platform for pro-abortion politicians, then Kerry should not be allowed to address the gathering. Let's see what transpires. See this N.Y. Times editorial from May 10, 2004, already bemoaning the fact that Kerry may not be allowed to speak at the dinner.

Update: Catholic World News carries an analysis of the bishops' statement that supports my own positive assessment at this link (Catholic World News, June 29, 2004, "U.S. bishops rejected task force statement on Communion," by Culture of Life Foundation).

Change is a Function of Truth

Change is in the air for Catholics in the U.S. The upcoming nomination of adamantly pro-abortion Senator Kerry for president has brought to a head tensions that have been increasing for years. Church teaching is crystal clear that the most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life of the innocent. Issues like the death penalty or military conflict are not on the same level. Kerry, although Catholic, is an extremely ardent supporter of legal abortion. Kerry is even worse than some other Democrats because he even opposes a ban on partial birth abortion. Some southern Democrats have found it necessary to draw the line at partial birth abortion. So much for Massachusetts being a Catholic state. With a schizophrenic Catholic electorate like that in Massachusetts, the Church is better off with more Southern Baptist voters.

Archbishop Burke, as the previous post shows, has just as adamantly stood his ground that Kerry should be denied the Eucharist. Burke's common sense logic is unassailable and grounded in canon law, Scripture, Eucharistic theology, and the magisterium. As I have noted, Burke has become the New Athanasius for American Catholics. The power of one man standing ramrod straight for the truth should never be underestimated. The previous post contains a link to Burke's most recent writing on the issue. It is a delightful call to battle--a call that should have been made years ago.

On the other hand, it is clear that some clerics are in fact "pro-choice" although they know better than to explicitly admit their view for attribution. As Paul VI said, the smoke of Satan is in the Church. That some clerics actually welcome Kerry with open arms to the Eucharist is evidence of that smoke. But as the saints have taught us, Satan has a tendency to cut and run in the face of bold assertion of the truth. Lies and self-deception are the stuff of his arsenal. But the truth boldly and persistently stated disperses the lies.

E-mail a bishop, write a letter to the editor. Pray and keep speaking out. We may be at a turning point at which an American Church for too long cowed by the Culture of Death may be ready to march. We know with certainty that victory belongs to the truth because the Person who is the Truth left behind an empty tomb.

The New Athanasius in St. Louis

Like Athanasius who is said to have virtually stood alone in turning back the Arian heresy in the early Church, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Missouri, is standing tall for the truth. My reaction to the article at the following link is: Wow! Habemus episcopum! We have a bishop!

The article was published in America magazine and is available at this link ("Catholic politicians and bishops," by Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke, June 21-28th issue). Truth is powerful. The silence has been broken. Like the emperor without clothes, the scandal of inaction is there for all to see. In secular language, we say that history will be the judge. More accurately, the Lord of history will be the judge.

Icon of Misdirected Emotions: Bill Clinton

Self-absorption on a gargantuan scale elicits no shame in today's America. Years ago, there was a bestseller entitled Looking Out for No. 1 preaching a gospel of self-absorption and self-promotion as virtues. Today's America has in many ways accepted that gospel of ego as an unquestioned part of the landscape. In another time, self-promotion was viewed as bad form. Your actions were supposed to speak for themselves, and it was up to others to offer praise. Emotions did not make facts. Facts elicited emotions.

Bill Clinton is currently putting on display the reigning power of self-absorption. Recently, we saw the Clintons basking in nostalgic self-absorption when unveiling their portraits at the White House. Soon Bill Clinton's new autobiography will be released--a book that is unlikely to shed the light of truth on anything of significance. Instead, we will likely get a surrealistic view of events, a view that will affirm the ego and nobility of the main character.

What is most striking about this prominent example of baby boomer self-absorption is its emotionalism. Emotions when directed at moral challenges are greatly needed. Outrage at abortion on demand, at the incessant pornographic assault of the media, at the moral debasement of our young people, especially girls and women, are in short supply. There is a curious stoicism and emotional restraint about assaults on life and on human dignity. But, when it comes to matters of self-absorption and one's ego, our culture gives emotionalism free rein.

Because of his public stature, Bill Clinton is an icon of this misdirected emotionalism. What does Bill Clinton get emotional about? We know that Ronald Reagan was deeply and emotionally committed to fighting the evils of Communism. What is Clinton deeply and emotionally committed to? The closest thing to such emotional commitment that I have come across is his commitment to civil rights for all races. But that is an old battle from another era, initiated and won by others. It is an emotional commitment with no current cutting edge: there is no serious social debate that all citizens should have their civil rights protected. It is now a noncontroversial verity or piety of our culture.

Is Clinton's emotional commitment then to a balanced budget and rising stock market? It appears from the media that he views those as his greatest accomplishments as President. Like the issue of civil rights, that is an emotional commitment that is too banal, too common in today's America. We all agree that a prosperous economy is good. In a culture where moral consensus on crucial issues has broken down, malleable moralists, like Clinton, can always comfortably fall back on one of our culture's few noncontroversial moral absolutes: more money is good.

In my view, what seems clear from Clinton's behavior and comments, is that his primary emotional commitment is to himself. In the wake of Ronald Reagan's death, the media carried an odd interview--about which I have seen no commentary-- in which Bill Clinton waxed in emotional, rapt tones about the late President. It even seemed from looking at his eyes that he was on the verge of tears. Some trial lawyers are adept at giving the same impression before a jury. It was, in my view, another exercise in self-absorption: he emotionally appropriated Reagan as part of himself, however nonsensical such a link is on its face. Here is the typical baby boomer mentality on display: absorb everything and coopt everything, however alien, to bolster yourself.

At the recent unveiling of the portraits at the White House, Clinton spoke of Theodore Roosevelt and referred to TR as "macho" and as someone who while "scared to death" still did the right thing (see CNN transcript). The language is psychobabble about feelings inappropriate for serious public comment. Yet, that is the signature language of our culture of self-absorption that cannot be repressed even in public.

Finally, in an upcoming interview with Dan Rather, Clinton refers to his fighting impeachment as a "badge of honor." Again, emotions process reality and change it into something unrecognizable. Just as he emotionally transformed Ronald Reagan into his new "hero" to match the mood of the moment, just as he projected his own emotional insecurities onto Theodore Roosevelt, Clinton now emotionally transforms the dishonor of his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice into a fictitious badge of honor.

We are seeing self-absorption of gargantuan proportions on display. It is everywhere. Clinton is just one prominent version of what is endemic. It is almost like an extended adolescence--well into one's fifties.

American Life League: Bold and Effective Newspaper Ad

You can see at this link (PDF document) the newspaper ad that the American Life League is currently sponsoring (the link may be somewhat slow in loading). I saw the full page ad in today's print edition of USA Today. The ad, as you will see, boldly states the simple truth: stop the sacrilege of pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist. The ad also cites the relevant canon (c. 915) in the Code of Canon Law, plus sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In response to this ad, some will bemoan the rise of "factionalism" and any attempt to lobby the bishops by advertising. The problem with that complaint is that orthodoxy is not a faction. Orthodoxy is the Church. American Life League is seeking to foster respect for the Eucharist and to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege, consistent with the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism. Factionalism is when a group seeks to impose its own doctrines in place of revealed doctrine. In contrast, the American Life League is defending revealed doctrine.

As to lobbying bishops, that is also a right recognized by canon law. In an anti-Catholic society and in a Church where heretics and the heterodox are highly active and organized, the bold articulation of the authentic sense of the faithful is all the more necessary and urgent. Every bishop should welcome such bold articulation. Thanks to the American Life League for speaking up for so many Catholics who are tired of excessive compromise and are hungry for bold leadership from our bishops. The time for boldness is now.

Turning the Other Cheek Is Not Retreat

In the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, we have the famous words of Jesus that we should turn the other cheek, give the shirt off our back if our coat is taken, and go the extra mile if we are forced to go one mile (Mt 5:38-42; Lk 6:29-30). These are words about responding with heroic generosity, instead of with fearful retribution. Yet, these are, as is often said, hard sayings. The Scriptures are so rich in divine meaning that no one writer, no one meditation can ever do justice to their depth. That is certainly true of these famous passages. But common sense tells us that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Grasping imperfectly part of the rich message of the Bible is a good thing for us humans to do. And so I offer my own thoughts on these hard sayings.

The prestigious New Jerome Biblical Commentary comments on the ethic of non-resistance found in these words by pointing out that non-resistance is not the exclusively available Christian response in conflict. The commentator writes that the type of Christian response depends on the moral stage of one's enemy. If the enemy is the Gestapo, it is better not to give up the Jew hiding in the cellar. If the enemy is a segregationist Southern governor in the sixties or the indifference of American public opinion, then Martin Luther King, Jr., proved that civil disobedience can be powerfully effective. If the enemy is an expansionist Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan proved that standing one's ground with strength without mincing words can be devastatingly effective.

But even if the non-resistance described by Jesus is not meant to be the only option for Christians, that non-resistance is surely being taught as the epitome of the Christian response. We have heard these words so many time that many of us just ignore them. Most of us would probably be able to admit that we treat these words as so much rhetoric or exaggeration that paints a good but impossible ideal. Many of us just glaze over these famous words because we just don't know what to do with them.

But if we look closely and think about these words, they can stir us. In Matthew's version, Jesus calls us not to resist evildoers. As we have said, this command cannot apply to all evildoers of all kinds. The Church--the Body of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit--teaches that we have the right of self-defense. This right of self-defense taught by the Church cannot contradict any other part of divine revelation. But let's focus on the words "no resistance." In certain situations, we are indeed not to resist. But not resisting does not mean doing nothing. It is not a command to do nothing.

In daily life, not resisting does not mean not announcing the truth. "No resistance" does not mean "no truth." In many situations, people approach us with hostility. In some cases, that hostility is nothing more than a cover for envy. The usual way to respond is with equal hostility and even vitriol. We then feel satisfied and proud that we have held our own and shown that we cannot be pushed around, that we are people to be reckoned with. But the Gospel can mold our response in another direction. The conventional expectation is to hit back in the same way that we are hit. The powerful Gospel alternative is to change the game, to refuse to play on the game board set before us by our enemies.

A powerful way to change the game of hostility is to state the truth. Not shouting the truth, not pushing the truth, but simply and calmly stating the truth about what our enemies have really said. And so what the enemy is met with is not the same aggression they have meted out, but with a challenge to think about what they are saying or doing. The goal of trying something different from conventional tit-for-tat is to transform the enemy. That transformation recognizes that the enemy is created in the image of God with a rational nature that is vulnerable to the truth. Saying the truth is fruitful. It never returns empty. It is the mustard seed that should never be underestimated.

So if we turn the other cheek in this way, we are showing our enemy all that we are. We are giving him the whole truth that we have. If we hand over the shirt off our back, we are giving all that we value--all the truth that we have-- to our enemy. If we go the extra mile with our enemy, we recognize that the enemy is a fellow human being who is really asking for help. We give him that help. If we give to the one who asks of us, we are giving him what he most needs: the truth we ourselves have received as a gift from God, even while we ourselves were still God's enemies.

In daily life, these hard sayings are powerful weapons to transform our enemies. It is foolish to skip these famous words. They offer us victory for all concerned in many common situations. Instead of humiliating the enemy, what Jesus recommends can transform the enemy. And, in some cases, we may even learn some transforming truth ourselves because of our enemies.

More on Vatican and Communion Debate

Back on June 5th, I commented on a story from Catholic News Service which gave the impression that the Vatican might somehow restrain those courageous bishops saying they would deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion celebrity politicians. Now, Catholic News Service has followed with a story dated June 11th which is all over the place but, in my opinion, appears to signal that the Vatican is happy to let bishops like Archbishop Burke in St. Louis and Bishop Sheridan in Colorado Springs play a long overdue prophetic role on the problem of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. The key statement in the article is the admission as an undisputed fact that a bishop can indeed deny the Eucharist to a pro-abortion politician. Here is how the article states the matter:

Many at the Vatican would agree that a Catholic politician who supports legal abortion could be denied Communion under church law.

Source: Catholic News Service, "No easy answer: U.S. debate over Communion reverbates at Vatican," by John Thavis, 6/11/05.

In addition, the same article notes as follows:

Now that a few [bishops] have spoken out -- courageously or incautiously, depending on one's point of view -- the Vatican is reluctant to stifle them.

"There's probably some hesitancy (at the Vatican) to undercut somebody who may be taking a prophetic stance, even if it's a little bit imperfect or not terribly nuanced," said one Vatican official

Source: See above link.

How does all this fit into my prior analysis of the situation? In my prior June 5th post, I ruled out that the Vatican would just prohibit denial of the Eucharist to these politicians, because canon law and Eucharistic theology in fact support denial. The latest article supports that conclusion.

I also opined that the Vatican, given its concern, would take some sort of stand, most likely one providing guidelines so that bishops proceed carefully in this matter. If the Vatican sources in this latest article are reliable, then it seems that this is exactly what will happen: the Vatican will urge care and provide guidelines but leave the decision in the hands of individual bishops. And it is important to note, as the latest CNS article does, that an individual bishop cannot be hamstrung by the bishops' conference:

In recent years, in fact, the Vatican has sometimes reminded bishops that their duty to speak out boldly and "prophetically" should not be curbed by the consensus-building efforts of bishops' conferences and other assemblies.

Source: See above link.

So the handful of prophetic bishops can take comfort. As these bishops already know, since some of them are knowledgeable canonists themselves, they are on solid ground in taking the prophetic actions that have generated so much media coverage. In addition, these bishops were right in stepping forward and leading instead of waiting for the bishops' conference task force which does not appear to be in any hurry to address the scandal created by the pro-abortion politicians.

Catholic Does Mean Universal

Sometimes a small news story exposes the chasm between Catholicism and the rest of American culture in a way that even the big stories can fail to do. Recently, the N.Y. Times reported on a story that it is amazing that it even bothered to cover: that American Catholics are asking Catholic priests in India to offer Masses for special intentions and, of course, paying the customary offering associated with such requests ("Short on Priests, U.S. Catholics Outsource Prayers to Indian Clergy," by Saritha Rai, 6/13/04). Why would a major newspaper bother with that story? Even more intriguing, why would this major newspaper present this practice as somehow sinister or even vaguely scandalous? The implied thesis of the article is that this practice is unseemly and means that American Catholicism is on the verge of collapse and that Indian priests are somehow corrupt.

Well, if "catholic" means universal, the practice of American Catholics requesting Masses from Indian priests is not anything that is even remotely bad or unseemly. Rather, this practice is an expression of the heart of Catholicism: Catholicism as a universal communion. This universal communion encompasses Americans and Asian Indians. At the same time, when memorial Masses are involved, this now newsworthy practice shows that the universal communion of Catholicism includes the dead. As Cardinal Ratzinger does not tire of pointing out, the Church must be viewed "diachronically"-- literally, "through time"--and not merely synchronically, that is, focused only on the present or same time. As a result, Ratzinger concludes:

that in the Church no generation is isolated. In the Body of Christ, death no longer works as a limit; in this Body, past, present and future interpenetrate. . . . A majority formed at some juncture against the faith of the Church of all times would be no majority: the true majority in the Church reaches diachronically across the ages, and only when one listens to this plenary majority does one remain in the apostolic "we."

Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today (Ignatius Press, 1996), p. 99.

In addition to Ratzinger's point that a majority in the Church extends through time, it is also clear that a majority in the Church extends through geography. So the story of Asian Indian priests saying Mass for the intentions of American Catholics is a perfect concrete illustration of the nature of the Catholic Church. She encompasses the living throughout the world and the dead in another world. It all comes down to the traditional description of the Church, seldom heard in American homilies today, the Church Militant on earth, the Church Triumphant in heaven, and the Church Suffering in purgatory. All of those form the one Catholic Church. To split off the Church Militant from the others is to be left with a denomination or club, not a Church.

Ratzinger emphasizes this difference between a Church and a mere denomination holding periodic assemblies or conventions where resolutions are adopted by majority vote. He notes about majorities:

The foruitous majorities that may form here or there in the Church do not decide their and our path: they, the saints, are the true, the normative majority by which we orient ourselves.

Ratzinger, p. 154.

In fact, Ratzinger quotes another cardinal on this point. Cardinal Meisner wrote that "[d]emocracy in the Church means to accord the right to be heard in the present-day generation of Christians to the generations who have believed, hoped, loved and suffered before us" (Ratzinger, p. 154 note 9). Ratzinger comments again that "[i]n fact majority in the Church can never exist only synchronically but in essence is always purely diachronic, because the saints of all times are alive and because they are the true Church" (Ibid.).

And so we can see the great losses inflicted by the Protestant Reformation's rejection of prayers for the dead and de-emphasis on the role of saints. Even worse, we see the stunning myopia of liberal or modernist Catholics who strip our churches of images of the saints and treat purgatory as a medieval fiction. These so-called "reforms" are no more than attempts to dismember the Church.

So when an Asian priest says a Mass for a soul in purgatory, it is a reflection that the soul in purgatory is as much a part of the Church as any Catholic walking on earth. When an Asian priest invokes in the Mass the intercession of a saint or commemorates a saint in the course of praying for the intentions of an American Catholic, that priest is literally "being Church." If I were a non-Catholic reading about this exotic practice of international Mass intentions in the Catholic Church, I would want to be part of that Church, that communion of the living across the earth and including the dead. If a Catholic, I would once again have proof that I am in the right place.

Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ: Gn 14:18-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; Lk 9:11b-17

In Genesis, in a way, Christ makes his first appearance in the form of Melchizedek who, as Christ would do much later in the Gospels, brings out bread and wine, as a "priest of God Most High." The book of Hebrews in the New Testament clearly links Christ to Melchizedek. This first "eucharist" was a thanksgiving for the deliverance of Abram from his enemies. This first "eucharist" (which in Greek means "thanksgiving") became a source of blessing for Abram who received the blessing of God's priest. Let us allow Scripture to comment on Scripture:

[Melchizedek] is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.

Hebrews 7:2b-3 (RSV).

In my personal opinion, who else could Melchizedek be but Jesus Christ, the king of righteousness and peace, the pre-existing Word without human genealogy, the Alpha and the Omega? This is only a private opinion, but it is certainly defensible.

In First Corinthians, Paul passes on the tradition about the institution of the Eucharist. The New Melchizedek offers again the bread and wine for our blessing. In Genesis, Abram responded to Melchizedek with a tithe of "everything." Today, as a eucharistic people we will inevitably respond with equal generosity to the blessing we receive.

In Luke, Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fish and "all ate and were satisfied." Jesus as our food satisfies all. He can do so because He is the Alpha and the Omega without "beginning of days nor end of life" as was Melchizedek. Jesus as the Word is also our Creator. As our Creator, only He can satisfy us. No creature on earth, no created thing on earth can satisfy the human heart. We search, sometimes with great agitation, for self-fulfillment. Yet, it is there, quietly and serenely, in the tabernacles of our churches, always waiting for us. For many of us, it takes a great crisis of "hunger," a personal tragedy or failure of some sort, to bring us there. Our suffering, our finding ourselves "in a deserted place" like the crowd fed by Jesus, finally brings us back to reality.

The Cultural War Targets Religion

We are now in a society where casual heterosexual promiscuity and gay sexual relationships are openly accepted and celebrated as healthy and normal. We are in society where pornography and indecent fashion are everywhere accepted as part of the scenery. Just ask yourself: how many baby boomers are raising their kids to be chaste? The vast majority of baby boomer families will never raise the issue. It is not a surprise. If the parents don't believe it, never practiced it, and probably don't practice it today, how can chastity be transmitted to future generations? One major national political party and even some politicians, especially from the Northeast, in the other national political party view abortion has a fundamental civil right. All of these anti-Christian beliefs and behaviors are openly and aggressively pushed in our society. They have become noncontroversial for many.

Yet, if anyone invokes God or religion, there is a cultural problem. Religion is supposed to remain a private taste and search for spiritual self-fulfillment with no public impact. Religion is not supposed to be part of the national debate. And it is certainly not supposed to have a political impact. That's why George W. Bush is especially hated by liberals--because he does not hide his evangelical Christian faith. That's why the liberal media is up in arms over some Catholic bishops protecting the Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal.

One of the lies, parroted even by some people claiming to be religious, that plays a central role in this onslaught on traditional religion is the lie that sexual sins are just not serious sins. Some spiritual writers, including C.S. Lewis, have indeed correctly pointed out that passionate sins of the flesh are not as deadly as the more cold-blooded sins of pride and hatred. So much is true. But a needed correction needs to be made in our modern circumstances. Most spiritual writers who have correctly pointed this out lived in societies in which everyone knew that sexual sins were sins. They obviously occurred frequently, but no one claimed they were virtues or something to be openly proud of. Today, the situation is quite different because contemporary Western society rejects the concept of sin itself. And so sexual sin is not mitigated by a social consensus, by religious belief, or by shame. Instead, the bold pervasiveness of openly celebrated sexual sin has grown to huge proportions.

In my view, writers like C.S. Lewis and others, including Dante, viewed sexual sin as a weakness of the flesh due to our concupiscence--that is, in spite of our best intentions and ideals, we fell. They contrasted this weakness of the flesh with the more calculated and cold-blooded hatred exhibited in sins of pride and self-righteousness. But in modern societies, we do not tend to fall into sexual sin as a mere lapse but rather as an intended lifestyle. In our society, the fundamental option has been made by many that we are obligated to satiate consupiscence and leave it unchecked.

And so, today sexual sin is not so much about lapses, but a matter of consciously chosen lifestyles. That conscious choice is cold-blooded, not a product of momentary passion that is later regreted. The roots of that cold-blooded choice lie in our selfishness and our pride, in our callous exploitation of others for our selfish gratification. Now, in a society that misleads many into thinking that these lifestyles are good and normal, the person's subjective fault may not be clear, at least in the beginning. But, as all moral inhibitions are jettisoned, I submit that the harm done becomes progressively more obvious and subjective culpability increases. After all, we are rational beings. We cannot fail to observe the increasing injury done to others and to ourselves.

In addition to that selfishness, consider the self-righteousness of modern sexual immorality which refuses to question itself. Sexual license is viewed as a fundamental right that knows no limits--even the "contraceptive" killing of the unborn. This license has become an obsession and a tyrant. The sins of the flesh as practiced today are frequently rooted in an imperious self-righteousness that considers itself beyond good and evil. It is not the sort of momentary lapse that spiritual writers of another era were most familiar with. Sexual sin today exhibits a tyrannical self-righteousness that bridles at any dissent and refuses to blush.

In the face of this new tyranny, to invoke one's religion is equivalent to refusing to worship Caesar in the Roman Empire. It sets you distinctly apart. We are all supposed today to worship the secular Caesar of license in which religion is marginalized as a private self-help game. And even when you don't invoke your religion but merely argue for the right to life and for responsible behavior based on reason, human rights, and natural law, liberals will try to disqualify your views as religion in disguise. For liberals, the argument is won if any of your positions on an issue is consistent with historic Christianity. The only role liberals will allow for religion is as an inspiration for social work or "Peace Corps" work that duplicates secular inspiration.

Thus, it is no surprise that polls consistently show that greater church attendance correlates with voting Republican. Secularized society considers religion the greatest scandal while at the same time exalting real scandal as freedom. For Christians, the situation is hostile, but there is a silver lining. We are called to risk mockery for the faith. Today, it is easy to fulfill that call. All that we have to do is merely question the new tyranny celebrated all around us.

Reagan Would Not Have Backed Destroying Embryos for Stem Cell Research

Today's N.Y. Times has an op-ed by William P. Clark, a former Reagan adviser and cabinet secretary, reiterating that Reagan was 100% pro-life. In the piece, Clark emphasizes that Reagan would not have in any way backed calls for stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos. Rather, Clark persuasively argues that Reagan would have shifted our attention to the promising potential in adult stem cell research. Clark, a Catholic, has great credibility when it comes to Reagan's views because Clark was for years close to Reagan.

Clark quotes from a 1983 speech by Reagan:

"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life," he wrote. He went on to emphasize "the truth of human dignity under God" and "respect for the sacred value of human life." Because modern science has revealed the wonder of human development, and modern medicine treats "the developing human as a patient," he declared, "the real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?"

Source: N.Y. Times Online (free reg'n required), "For Reagan, All Life Was Sacred," by William P. Clark, Op-Ed section, 6-11-04.

So don't let anyone forget that Reagan was a pro-life President. Even more telling was that in his famous "Evil Empire" speech before the National Association of Evangelicals, also in 1983, he made these remarks about abortion:

"Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year," he said. "Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected."

Source: see link above.

And so the Soviet Union was not the only evil empire referred to in that famous speech. It is time to recognize that Reagan was also talking about another evil empire tolerated in our midst: the evil empire of abortion founded on Roe v. Wade.

Peggy Noonan on Ronald Reagan

Especially in light of the Clinton years, the title of Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan's biography of Reagan says it all: When Character Was King (Penguin Books, 2001). Noonan was a former Reagan speech writer who worked on some of Reagan's most memorable speeches. She is also a strong Catholic and admirer of John Paul II.

The book is one of those that you will eagerly wish to read through as quickly as possible because of its gripping personal anecdotes. Noonan likes the personal, as most of us do, and so she does not disappoint us.

Reagan's strong religious faith inherited from his devout evangelical Protestant mother is key to his character. Like his mother, he believed that everything, good or bad, happens for a reason known to God. That was the basis of his optimism, not raw nationalism. And so, he thought that his survival of assassination in 1981 was the will of God:

Later Reagan would say he was sure someone was looking out for him that day. Which is precisely what Pope John Paul II himself would think, when, eight weeks later, he too would be the victim of an assassination attempt. The pope, who was Reagan's ideological and philosophical comrade, felt that he had been saved by the intercession of the Blessed Mother. It was the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, and the pope was a Marian devotee. When he survived he said that the rest of his life was owed to God, would go to God.

Eight weeks earlier, across the sea, Ronald Reagan in recovery also said that whatever time he had left was God's, would go to God.

Noonan, pp. 193-94.

The intersection of these two men in history and in the collapse of Soviet Communism was no accident.

Reagan's great faith in divine providence brought to the world stage the role of his mother. This small, devout, busy Bible-reading Midwestern "church lady" helped to change the world (see Noonan, p. 20). She transmitted a faith-based optimism to her son, and he brought it to the world when the world needed it. As Mother Teresa would say, "Do small things with great love." Nelle Reagan practiced it, and the world reaped the benefits in ways she could have never imagined. Yes, the humble can be world historical. Our small acts of faith will have an impact that we will never fully know in this life.

And Reagan, the former heroic lifeguard who had saved 77 people in his youth, was pro-life. Here is an anecdote concerning Reagan's pro-life activism as recalled by one his assistants:

We had a meeting in the cabinet room every January twenty second [the anniversary of Roe v. Wade], and all the right to life leaders were there, and as the meeting was ending he said, 'Wait a minute, we haven't asked about whether the baby feels pain during an abortion, we have to talk about it.' So they did. The next year Bernie Nathanson did the film The Silent Scream, with the baby kicking away from the needle--he did that because of Reagan. The old lifesaver at it again . . . .

Noonan, p. 259.

Reagan and his character are not out-of-date. His character is needed today more than ever. And we are fortunate that the President who will preside over the ceremonies today is George W. Bush, another man of deep religious faith, optimism, and strong character. I believe it is no accident that Reagan left this world during this particular administration. A Reagan funeral presided over by a President Clinton or a President Gore would have been as jarring as having a papal funeral presided over by an atheist.

Near the end of her book, Noonan has a chapter in which she interviewed George W. Bush about Reagan. She gives her historical assessment of our current President Bush, an assessment that George W. Bush apparently shares. It is an assessment that puts the relation between Reagan and George W. Bush in the perspective of American history:

Since September 11, Bush has put me in mind over and over . . . of Harry Truman, whom Bush had brought up in our interview. Truman had followed a charismatic leader, had seemed too plain and uninteresting to fill a president's shoes and was, his first few years in office at least, a bland public speaker, an uninspiring man. But this plain, uninteresting, colorless man had managed to do pretty much everything right. He rallied his war-tired nation to rebuild Europe, to support the Marshall Plan, to stop Soviet communism in Greece, to wage a war to stop it in Korea. He was a leader. He just didn't seem at the time, early on, to be one. I think in Bush we have a Truman. And my hunch is: Bush thinks so too.

Noonan, pp. 309-10.

You will hear it again and again this week: Ronald Reagan ranks with Franklin Roosevelt in transforming the American landscape. We are fortunate to have Reagan's Truman in office: a very different man from his predecessor but similar in the one thing that counts--character.

Michigan Bans Partial Birth Abortion

Recently, a federal judge declared the federal ban on partial birth abortion unconsititutional. But, in Michigan, 460,000 registered voters signed a petition banning partial birth abortion as a matter of state law (see Detroit News story, "Late-term abortions banned," 6/10/04). The Michigan legislature today comfortably passed the ban presented by the citizens' petition. The petition process was necessary because it allows the legislation to bypass the pro-abortion governor, who had previously vetoed a prior ban passed by the legislature. Now, the pro-abortion governor is out of the loop.

The pro-abortion and pro-partial-birth-abortion governor is Democrat Jennifer Granholm, who receives Holy Communion in the Catholic Diocese of Lansing. She claims that she cannot impose Catholic teaching on Michigan. 460,000 registered voters, Catholic and non-Catholic, want the ban on partial birth abortion. Comfortable majorities in the legislature also want the ban. It is not a matter of imposing Catholic teaching but of proposing and working for the protection of the most fundamental of human rights. The truth is that Gov. Granholm's reference to not imposing religion is a smokescreen. The reality is that she does not consider the unborn or partially born child a human person deserving of the right to life.

A brief comparison is instructive. In the recent past, the Vatican found it necessary, in response to complaints, to explicitly instruct clergy not to deny the Eucharist to individuals who choose to genuflect as a sign of reverence prior to receiving the Eucharist. In other words, some priests were in fact refusing the Eucharist to individuals that merely made a traditional gesture of devotion and reverence for the Body of Christ. Yet, today, many clerics say they just can't bring themselves to deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians. It is surely paradoxical that some were denied the Eucharist for being too devout, while pro-abortion crusaders like Gov. Granholm get a free pass.

The citizens of Michigan, with the help of the Catholic Church, successfully stood up to Gov. Granholm's fanatical devotion to abortion. Now, it is time for the Church to also stand up to politicians like Gov. Granholm in matters of sacramental discipline.

Media Poll Manipulation

One tried and true tactic of liberal media spin involves political polls. A biased and defective poll is a convenient way to make a partisan editorial favoring liberals under the cover of objectively reporting "public opinion." A biased poll is nothing more than a disguised editorial. The most recent example is the poll just released by the liberal Los Angeles Times claiming a Kerry lead of seven points over President Bush. Here is the strong response by Bush strategist Matthew Dowd as related to MSNBC's online First Read feature:

Bush campaign senior advisor Matthew Dowd tells First Read that the poll "is a mess. Bush is leading independents by three, ahead among Republicans by a larger margin than Kerry is ahead among Dems, and we are down by seven. Outrageous. And it gets worse. They have Dems leading generic congressional ballot by 19. This means this poll is too Democratic by 10 to 12 points."

Source: MSNBC's First Read, June 10, 2004 (emphasis added).

What Dowd is referring to is the voter sample skewed in favor of Democratic voters. You will not get those background details from the L.A. Times.

For a reality check, see the latest Fox News poll ("Poll: Bush, Kerry Still Closely Matched," 6/10/04, by Dana Blanton), and the latest Rasmussen poll showing a tight presidential race.

Another poll that is, in my opinion, problematic is the Zogby poll which has shown a plummeting approval rating for the President in the recent past. The problem is that Zogby apparently does not ask its respondents directly whether or not they approve or disapprove of the President's performance. Instead, Zogby asks if the respondent views the President's performance as excellent, good, fair, or poor. I know because I have been one of the respondents in his interactive poll. Zogby confirmed to me by e-mail that he treats "fair" responses as equivalent to "disapproval." In Zogby's own words, "Fair = Negative!" (e-mail communication dated 6/2/04). For me, and I believe for most people, "fair" intuitively means satisfactory or O.K. That's what it means when I see it on a child's report card. So, in my view, Zogby's numbers on the President's approval rating are highly questionable.

According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, the CBS poll--which also tends, in my opinion, to put the President in a worse light compared to other polls--has had problems in the past with undersampling of Republicans (e-mail communication dated 6/5/04). In sum, the lesson is: before you take a poll seriously, ask around and research it. What is not disclosed may surprise you. At a minimum, compare with other recent polls. As President Reagan liked to say, "trust but verify." For Catholics, it's known as the virtue of prudence.

A Study in Contrasts on D-Day: Secular Humanism vs. Bibles

On June 6, 2004, the President of France, Jacques Chirac, made his remarks at Normandy commemorating D-Day. Chirac appropriately gave his sincere thanks to all that America sacrificed to liberate France in 1944. President Bush followed with his own remarks. The contrast between the contents of these two speeches tells us much about the difference between secular France and a United States in which many Americans still view themselves as religious.

Not once in his speech--as far as I can see--does the French President mention God. He never invokes the blessings of God on the free world, nor does he invoke God's mercy on the departed. Instead, Chirac, true to the heritage of secularism borne of the French Revolution, invokes "humanist" values:

For over 200 years now, the same humanist values have shaped the destinies of France and America. Our two nations have never ceased to share common love of liberty and law, of justice and democracy. These values are rooted in the very depths of our cultures and civilization. They are the spirit of our peoples. They are the heart and soul of our nations. From the plains of Yorktown to the beaches of Normandy, in the suffering of those global conflicts that have rent the past century, our two countries, our two peoples have stood shoulder to shoulder in the brotherhood of blood spilled, in defense of a certain ideal of mankind, of a certain vision of the world -- the vision that lies at the heart of the United Nations Charter.

Source: Available at this link (emphasis added).

In contrast, President Bush invoked the mercy of God on those who died on D-Day and ended his speech with a poignant reference to the many Bibles that were strewn among the dead American bodies that littered the French coast on D-Day:

When the invasion was finally over and the guns were silent, this coast, we are told, was lined for miles with the belongings of the thousands who fell. There were life belts and canteens and socks and K-rations and helmets and diaries and snapshots. And there were Bibles, many Bibles, mixed with the wreckage of war. Our boys had carried in their pockets the book that brought into the world this message: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

America honors all the liberators who fought here in the noblest of causes, and America would do it again for our friends. May God bless you. (Applause.)

Source: Available at this link.

Chirac's blatant secularism echoes the French refusal to incorporate any references to God in the European Union's new constitution, in spite of insistent pleas from the Pope and some other European nations. The French Revolution ushered in an era of instability, dictatorship, war, humiliation, and surrender for France beginning in 1789 and ending with the ignominy of Vichy France. In fact, the French Revolution is famous for its Reign of Terror. In today's world in which terrorists are the prime external enemies of the free world, France gave us the first terrorists in the Reign of Terror.

Something is radically wrong in a France where at a solemn occasion commemorating the dead the President of the Republic makes no reference to God. A growing Middle Eastern population and declining French fertility indicate that French society will likely face major demographic changes in the near future. In my view, such declining fertility is a function of secularism. Ironically, French secularism may very well lead to increased religious fundamentalism from its Muslim residents. The country that spawned the Reign of Terror may face increased anti-secular Muslim terrorist activity on its own soil. The Old Europe is sick, and the source of its sickness is plain for all to see: a visceral hostility to religion.

Compare and Choose [Updated]

Let's get to the point, and evaluate the two candidates for President from a Catholic point of view. Bush is pro-life, while Kerry is a leading pillar of the abortion regime. Bush favors the death penalty, while Kerry apparently favors the death penalty for some crimes. As to the war in Iraq, the only difference appears to be that Kerry would have favored even more diplomacy prior to attacking Saddam Hussein--although it is hard to tell what Kerry actually thinks about Iraq. My view is that what Kerry says about Iraq depends on the latest polling and the latest campaign strategy meeting.

If we go through the issues one by one, we see that the Catholic choice is Bush. On abortion, Bush wants to return to the legal regime prior to Roe v. Wade in which the abortion issue was left in the hands of state legislatures with most states allowing abortion only in very restricted cases (see Abortion Law Before Roe v. Wade, by James S. Cole). Kerry of course favors Roe v. Wade as an essential civil rights landmark which made abortion on demand a federal constitutional right immune to tampering by state legislatures. While the Catholic position is no direct abortion ever, it is obvious that the Catholic voter must go with Bush, the candidate who wants to roll back Roe v. Wade's constitutional regime of abortion on demand.

As to the death penalty, neither candidate rules it out completely. Neither does the Church. The Catholic News Service runs an article where the Catholic distinction between abortion and the death penalty is clear: direct abortion is always wrong, while the death penalty can sometimes be appropriate (see Catholic News Service, "Church opposes abortion, death penalty--but experts see a difference," by Agostino Bono, June 8, 2004). Direct abortion is absolutely wrong, while the death penalty is more a matter of mercy mitigating a morally allowable option for society. It is impossible for a Catholic to put abortion and the death penalty on the same moral level, in spite of the misleading use of the "Seamless Garment" argument by many Democrats.

As to war, it is all a matter of how much diplomacy is enough. Like many, I consider that the President satisfactorily engaged in extended diplomacy to avert war and that he rightly took military action as a last resort. Kerry, at least for the moment, appears to disagree, but does not rule out eventually having attacked Iraq. So the difference here is one of political and diplomatic judgment. It is not a matter of fundamental moral absolutes as in the case of abortion. The war issue does not tip the scale one way or the other between these candidates. Consistent with Church teaching, the determination of a just war is a matter of prudential judgment for properly constituted civil authority (Catechism, section 2309).

As to stem cell research, Bush opposes expansion of research that would involve destroying human embryos. The Bush policy announced in August of 2001 was that such research could take place only on existing stem cell lines that did not involve the new destruction of human embryos (see Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research, 8/9/01). Given the media spotlight on Alzheimer's disease arising from President Reagan's death, Kerry is seeking to exploit the emotions of the moment to push for removal of the ethical standards applied by President Bush on such research, even though experts say it is unlikely that stem cell research would lead to a breakthrough on Alzheimer's (see Associated Press story, "Kerry on Radio Promotes Stem Cell Research," 6/12/04). In contrast to Kerry's opportunism, Bush is resisting pressure from both parties in Congress to loosen restrictions on stem cell research that would involve destroying human embryos (see Reuters story, "Senators Ask Bush to Change on Stem Cell Policy," by Thomas Ferraro, 6/7/04).

And to top it all off, we now have the issue of gay marriage, which is, of course, contrary to Catholic teaching. Bush supports a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman. Kerry rejects any such amendment because it would foreclose future court decisions legalizing gay marriage, as has already happened in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. The gay lobby is, like the pro-abortion lobby, an essential part of the modern Democratic coalition.

In sum, because Roe v. Wade has made the widespread and routine murder of the innocent socially acceptable, the fate of this court decision is paramount: roll back Roe v. Wade or maintain and strengthen Roe v. Wade? Bush would roll it back, while Kerry would strengthen the reach of Roe v. Wade, as he has proven by opposing even the ban on partial birth abortion. If Democrats want the intelligent and conscientious Catholic vote, they have to begin by rejecting Roe v. Wade--something the Democrats will never do because it is a pillar of their party's very existence. The Democrats have written off the informed Catholic vote. We Catholics should write them off as well. Liberal Catholics, including some prominent clerics, who seek to obscure the obvious moral choice are playing a game of smoke and mirrors.

Update: Another reason to prefer Bush emerged today. Laura Bush affirmed that restrictions on stem cell research should not be relaxed, even in the face of the understandably emotional plea of Nancy Reagan for relaxing such restrictions. See Associated Press story, "Laura Bush Says Cannot Support Stem Cell Research," by Sue Pleming, June 9, 2004.

Wojtyla the Prophet from 1960

While working on some minor revisions to the Catholic Analysis book Unpopular Catholic Truths, I saw once again how John Paul II was truly a prophet years before he became pope. Back in 1960, while a young bishop in Poland, Karol Wojtyla wrote Love and Responsibility, whose very title is the opposite of the "Lust and Irresponsibility" that the sixties would bring to the forefront in the way Western culture began to openly and aggressively view and organize relations between men and women. God gave us a prophet to warn us just before the cultural embrace of lust and irresponsibility and a prophet to guide us today in recovering from the disastrous physical and emotional legacy of decades of socially approved lust and irresponsibility.

In the book, I struggled with the issue of the primary ends of marriage and the issue of birth control. Liberals claim that with Vatican II the Church replaced procreation as the primary aim of marriage with "love." The liberals--whom, like Weigel, I define as those who believe in religion we make up, as opposed to revealed religion--love to make this claim as a justification for contraception and even for gay unions. But, of course, Vatican II did no such thing. And in Love and Responsibility, John Paul II gives us a key to interpret the passages of Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, especially section 50, in which the Council speaks of procreation as the aim of "the true practice of conjugal love and the whole meaning of family life." In the same section, the Council also stated that "[m]arriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained to the begetting and educating of children."

So, clearly, Vatican II's own words, ipissima verba, show no deemphasis on procreation. But how to relate the prominence still given to the aim of procreation with the emphasis on conjugal love? Prophet Wojtyla easily cuts the Gordian knot. In Love and Responsibility, Wojtyla makes clear that the traditional aims of marriage in Catholic tradition have not changed: the "primary end" of procreation, the end of mutual help between the spouses, and the end of satisfying sexual desire still remain (Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility [Ignatius Press, 1993], p. 66).

But, in a brilliant move, Wojtyla preempts any potential conflict between this listing of the aims of marriage and the importance of conjugal love. He does so by making use of what he calls the "personalistic norm" by which he means the moral imperative that the "only proper and adequate way" to relate to a person is through love (p. 41). This personalistic norm is the "principle on which the proper realization of each of the aims" of marriage depends (p. 67).

As a result, none of the aims of marriage can be realized apart from love and, in fact, are "realized in practice as a single complex aim" (p. 68). Yet, Wojtyla still affirms that "procreation is objectively, ontologically, a more important purpose" than the other aims of marriage because the "possibility of procreation" is necessary for the flourishing of mutual help between the spouses (p. 68) and for the flourishing of the "spontaneity and depth" of sexual intimacy (p. 69). In sum, marriage "always remains above all an intimate bond between two people," but, at the same time, procreation always remains the primary aim of marriage. As others have pointed out, it is the difference between defining what marriage is and articulating the primary aim of marriage. There is no break with Catholic tradition as the liberals like to imagine.

The impact of Wojtyla the prophet and pope is only beginning. Recently, even the New York Times took note that the Pope's Theology of the Body is spreading:

Dissemination of the theology started only in the last decade or so but has picked up in recent years. Advocates say it has taken years to study and interpret the pope's ideas on the subject.
But theologians say it is seeping into marriage preparation classes, workshops for the clergy, and other programs. Led by laypeople, dozens of groups have sprung up around the country to study the pope's views.

Source: N.Y. Times Online, "Spreading the Pope's Message on Sexuality and the Spirit," by Mireya Navarro, June 7, 2004, N.Y. Region section (Isn't funny that the article is not in the "National" section of the newspaper where it should be?).

For recent generations who learned about sexuality through the pornographic lense of manuals like the inaptly entitled The Joy of Sex, the Theology of the Body is long overdue for rewiring our minds on sexual matters. For newer generations, it will save them from a lot of the heartache and personal tragedy arising from the sexual "sound and fury signifying nothing" offered by our secular culture.

Ronald Reagan: A Superior Model for Aspiring Presidents

With the death of Ronald Reagan, there has been an outpouring of front-page headlines, of spontaneous tributes by average citizens, and of praise with non-stop, universal coverage by news outlets. All of this will continue at least throughout this week, culminating with a National Day of Mourning proclaimed by President Bush to coincide with Reagan's state funeral at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. But tributes to Reagan had begun long ago: Reagan Airport in Washington, D.C., the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, and even a proposal to put his image on our coins. One news report noted that already numerous streets and schools have been named for Reagan. As a Cuban-American, I recall that in the eighties there was already a Ronald Reagan avenue running through Miami's Little Havana. Cuban-Americans knew that he was their friend. The news report also mentioned that there already is a Mount Reagan. Don't be surprised if you find Reagan's image someday in your pocket change.

From a wider perspective, the passing of Reagan offers a unique cultural and psychological moment. He is rightly praised for making America optimistic again during his term of office. He may now, in death, be working an even more beneficial transformation in the way Americans think by providing a new model for presidential leadership that can potentially be influential for generations.

For decades now, a fascination with the late President Kennedy has held sway with large numbers of Americans. But most significantly, this Kennedy fascination has had a strong influence on the generations of Democratic politicians that followed Kennedy. Bill Clinton, for one, idolizes Kennedy. It is clear that Kerry is of the same mind as Clinton. Numerous other Democratic politicians and rank and file voters, both Democratic and not Democratic, still view Kennedy as the model president. Reagan may change all of that for our culture.

The great Kennedy mystique is based on his oratory, wit, charisma, and looks. The Reagan mystique is more than a match for Kennedy on all of these points. Reagan's muscular oratory is unforgettable for its boldness and fearlessness in an age of political correctness. Reagan's wit and charisma are second to none. And, even in looks, it is hard to imagine someone better cast for looking presidential. Reagan's posture, stride, and demeanor bespoke presidential authority.

But, unlike Kennedy, Reagan survived the attempt on his life and served two complete terms. In those years, Reagan was able to do what Kennedy did not have the chance to do: to transform American politics. Reagan put liberalism on the defensive. He laid the foundation for the historic Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Today, however tenuous, there is indeed undeniable evidence of the Republican realignment that began under Reagan. More voters identify themselves as Republican than ever in our recent history, and both houses of Congress are under Republican control. Kennedy, in contrast, inherited an already strong Democratic Party dominant in Congress for years before Kennedy took office. Radical changes in policy were left by fate to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

Even more important, from a Catholic point of view, than these political generalizations is the personal model of leadership that Reagan provides for future aspiring presidents. While Kennedy's ambition for the presidency trumped ideology, for Reagan conservative ideas were the reason to seek the presidency in the first place. The priority of ideas over manic ambition can be seen in the contrast between Kennedy the youngest man ever elected president and Reagan the oldest man ever elected president. Reagan was not an "ambition machine" on the fast track from an early age. Reagan acquired strong political convictions before he acquired presidential fever.

Here is how one historical overview described the very different Reagan route to the presidency:

Ronald Reagan, governor of California for eight years and President of the United States for another eight, never thought of himself as a politician. His journey to the White House was not marked by a burning lust for power or position. Ronald Reagan preferred to see himself as a simple citizen who had been called upon to come to the aid of the nation he so loved. His mission, as he saw it, was to free his fellow citizens from the clutches of an invasive federal government, and to rid the world of the tyranny of Communism.

Source: PBS's American Experience: The Presidents (Legacy, Ronald Reagan, 40th President).

On the more personal level, there is further contrast. While Kennedy is famous for his adulteries, Reagan is famous for star-struck devotion to Nancy Reagan. It is unimaginable that Ronald Reagan would have betrayed Nancy Reagan as President Kennedy casually betrayed Jackie Kennedy.

But, in my opinion, the most significant personal contrast between Kennedy and Reagan is in their very different reactions to the dysfunctions of their fathers. Kennedy's father, Joseph Kennedy, was severely dysfunctional in his own compulsive adulteries. Unfortunately, this dysfunction, and its accompanying damage to character and recklessness, flourished in President Kennedy.

Reagan's own father also had a serious dysfunction: alcoholism. But, in contrast to the Kennedy embrace of paternal dysfunction, Reagan emphatically rejected the dysfunction of his own father. Here is how Reagan rejected the flaws of his own father:

Reagan was no stranger to seemingly dismal situations. His childhood was marked by poverty, an alcoholic father and a long-suffering, "do-gooder" mother. Despite this, Reagan early on embraced an optimistic outlook that often defied the reality around him. In time, his rosy perspective and faith in better days ahead would win over legions.

The youngest of John and Nelle Reagan's two sons, Ronald Reagan was born on February 6, 1911 in Tampico, Illinois. When Ronald -- his family called him "Dutch" -- was nine, the Reagans moved to nearby Dixon. What little money John Reagan earned as a shoe salesman was often squandered on his drinking binges. As an adult, Reagan would say of his boyhood, "We didn't live on the wrong side of the tracks, but we lived so close to them we could hear the whistle real loud." But the future president appeared to gain wisdom from his meager beginnings, later reporting, "...I learned the real riches of rags."

Reagan's mother, Nelle, instilled in her son her belief in the essential goodness of all people and the importance of religious devotion. She encouraged Ron to participate in Disciples of Christ church activities and doctrine. Young Ron was especially drawn to the sect's strict abhorrence to alcohol. Not yet a teenager, Reagan honed his public speaking skills drumming up support for Prohibition.

Source: PBS's American Experience: The Presidents (Early Career, Ronald Reagan, 40th President).

Maybe, the lack of economic success of his own dysfunctional father, along with the presence of a mother determined that the pattern would not be repeated, made it easier for Reagan to escape his father's problems. In contrast, the Kennedy brood could not escape the shadow of the wealthy, successful, and dominating Joseph Kennedy. It is not the first time that a humble background turns out to be a blessing.

And so character won in Ronald Reagan's life from an early age. Reagan pursued an idealism integral to his character, not a superficial idealism founded on manic ambition. I submit that Reagan's model of idealistic character is a far better legacy for aspiring presidents than the Kennedy model of manic ambition combined with gravely wounded character. The Kennedy model gave us the highly flawed President Clinton. The Reagan model offers us something better. Let us hope that a paradigm shift occurs and that the better model replaces the tragic legacy of a mythic Camelot. That cultural shift may turn out to be Reagan's greatest contribution to the country he loved.

Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity: Proverbs 8:22-31; Romans 5:1-5; John 16:12-15

The reading from Proverbs provides a hint of the full revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament. This reading speaks of the wisdom of God who participated with God in His creation of the heavens and the earth. In John 1:1-4, the fullness of this revelation is finally made clear:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

In Romans, Paul mentions in the course of the five verses read today: God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In Pauline usage, the term "God" was traditionally and customarily reserved for the Father, even though both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were also unquestionably viewed as divine. The fact that all three, the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are mentioned repeatedly in the same breath by Paul in his letters gives us the triadic reality which the Church would later come to call the Trinity.

In the Gospel reading, Jesus himself presents the triadic reality of God. Jesus declares that the "Spirit of truth" will guide the disciples to all truth. Jesus further states that this Spirit "will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." Jesus then says that "[e]verything that the Father has is mine." Jesus thus links all the persons of the Trinity: whatever the Father has, Jesus Christ also has, and the Holy Spirit in turn will declare what they both identically have. And so from the mouth of Jesus himself we have three person in one Godhead--the Most Holy Trinity, a thoroughly biblical doctrine and teaching.