A Piece of My Mind

Religion Test

2005-09-15T12:28:00.000-07:00

You scored as Catholic.

Catholic

100%

Christian

80%

Jewish

80%

Cult

50%

Anarchist

50%

Buddhist

20%

Religion
created with QuizFarm.com

The Passing of the Pope on TV

2005-04-04T14:41:00.000-07:00

St. Peter's Cathedral at Sunset

Pope John Paul II has passed. The cable news networks have had continuous coverage, when he fell ill and even now as pilgrims pay final respects to the Vicar of Christ. For the most part, this coverage has been surprisingly positive. If I have any real criticism it is that the anchors so often get basic facts wrong. Even some of their experts could not get things right. The anchors talked about the Pope getting the Anointing of the Sick and then repeatedly referred to it as Last Rites. Actually, this sacrament was once commonly called Extreme Unction. The Last Rites are indeed "last" if the person dies, and they include Penance and Absolution, the reception of Holy Communion, and the Anointing of the Sick. Other absurdities were also voiced, like the reference to "beanies" on the heads of bishops and Cardinals. They talked about the "throne" of Peter or the Pope while it is actually his "chair". Commentators termed his ministry as the "reign" of the Pope instead of as his "pontificate". The list of errors and mistakes goes on and on, and seem to plague all the networks.

It has been my contention for some time that the newsmedia (television, radio and paper) would do well to hire full-time religion editors. Given the endless mistakes made regarding Catholic matters all year long that I know about, I suspect that they are no better regarding the other churches and synagogues, temples and faith movements. When basic mistakes are made, it weakens their credibility in the eyes of patrons. Further, some of the issues that they report from religious circles are quite complex and require more than a quick thirty second overview. Note how often they interview the religious anchor from the Catholic EWTN network. Some of them are recognizing that they are so clueless that they have to go to a competitor television station to make sense of what is going on.

Fallen TV Priests

2005-01-16T22:18:00.000-08:00

As I reflect upon the scandal caused by the Bud Macfarlane divorce, I am forced to face as well the legacy of disgrace that has been inflicted by famous priests.

I recall as a teenager picking up an IMAGE paperback in the back of the church one Sunday entitled Playboy to Priest by Rev. Kenneth Roberts. The work impressed me and along with several other books about priests, real and fictionalized, fueled my burning desire for a vocation. He would later become famous as the Medjugorie priest and he had several programs televised on EWTN on the Blessed Mother and a youth series based on one of his books, You Better Believe It. It was a great program and young people were really moved by it to study about and to live their Catholic faith. Upon my desk are other books he wrote, The Rest of the Week, Mary - The Perfect Prayer Partner, Fr. Roberts' Guide to Personal Prayer, Pray It Again, Sam! and Nobody Calls It Sin Anymore. They were not particularly deep; but that was okay because they were popular works for the rank and file. He gave talks and conferences across the nation. His tapes and videos were bought and shared. He was loved. Then he disappeared and rumors spread.

A boyhood hero had fallen. When I had helped out in a Birmingham, Alabama parish in 1989, I actually met and had dinner with him. He was a regular on Mother Angelica's Catholic television network. Now it turned out that he was continuing to wear clerics, function in public as a priest, and even did television work after he had been censured. Retired from the Dallas diocese for "health reasons" he had been suspended for violating restrictions placed upon him in 1995. His bishop made it very clear that he had to stop distributing his books and tapes and that he had to take down his website and Internet presence.

Dallas Bishop Charles V. Graham signed the decree of suspension on November 13 after verification that Father Roberts had violated restrictions. The English-born Father Roberts, ordained in 1966 for the Dallas Diocese, retired from the diocese for medical reasons on Sept. 1, 1995, and his faculties were restricted, barring him from exercising his priestly duties, wearing clerical garb and presenting himself as a Roman Catholic priest in good standing. His retirement followed public accusations of sexual molestation, though no civil or criminal charges were filed against him at that time. Now in his 70's, civil charges were filed in 2004 where three are named in a lawsuit filed in November by John Doe. The suit alleges that the Rev. Kenneth Roberts, now retired, sexually abused Doe at St. Mary's Catholic School in Belleville in 1984. The St. Louis Archdiocese and the Dallas Diocese have responded by asserting that St. Clair County Court has no jurisdiction over them because they do not do business there. St. Louis also says Roberts was never assigned or employed here, although he was allowed to live in three parishes in Florissant and was permitted to conduct some religious services here.

What happened? Was this for real? Fr. Roberts seemed so genuine and faithful; was it all a lie? I have kept him in my prayers because of his importance in my life and in the lives of so many. But, I doubt that the wound caused by these revelations will heal any time soon. There is also a lot of meanness about what happened. One nasty blooger said something like, "What do you think his revised autobiography will be titled, "Playboy to Priest to Pervert"? If the allegations are true, then we pray for the victims and perpetrator. The posture of the Christian is always on our knees in prayer and in petition for mercy.

All of Fr. Robert's tapes and videos are off the market. His webpage is gone. His programs deleted from the EWTN schedule and some have said they have been destroyed. Is it right that a man's possible weakness and sin should utterly destroy his legacy?

As a young priest, the pastor and I subscribed to monthly videos of a Paulist production called SHARE THE WORD. The Sunday readings were explained and many useful ideas were given for preaching. The host was an articulate and dynamic priest by the name of Rev. Laurence Brett. We were so impressed that he accepted our invitation to do three weeks of Friday talks and to lead the Stations of the Cross during Lent. He smoked constantly and affected a strong Irish brogue for effect during the Stations. I found the later a bit disconcerting. Why would he purport to be Irish when he usually had no such accent? It seemed like posturing and bothered me. However, his words were good and he proved himself knowledgable about the Scriptures and our faith.

I was transferred and the program, which was also on cable, eventually disappeared. For awhile the paulists were toying with taking the tapes and re-editing a Sunday commentary series out of it. But, nothing happened. Later, I found out why.

Years before, Frank Martinelli was a 14-year-old altar boy attracted to Rev. Laurence Brett as a role model at St. Cecilia's in Stamford, Conn. Martinelli claimed that Father Brett fondled him in a bathroom and that the priest urged the boy to give him oral sex in his car, blessing it as a way to receive Holy Communion. Thirty years passed before he and other young people spoke out. When the priest was finally censured, he became a fugitive. Church officials in Bridgeport and Baltimore called Brett a criminal and an "evil man." Even the FBI had trouble finding him. He changed the spelling of his name to conceil his identity and settled in 1996 on the island of Anguilla, a short boat ride from St. Maarten.

These men were notable evangelizers through the modern communications medium. They reached out to millions. Little or nothing has been said to explain what happened or to heal the harm caused to believers. The Pharisees had no monopoly on hypocrisy. Hopefully people will remember the message and not so much the messenger.

Ecumenism & Dialogue

2004-11-22T11:20:00.000-08:00

The following is a response to a courteous post from Tom about ecumenical dialogue. I am afraid though, that the constant debate with anti-Catholics drove him to look elsewhere for the sharing of views. Bigots see ecumenism as subterfuge for Catholic infiltration and domination. People who are afraid are quick to distrust and always ready to hate.

Dear Tom,

The roadblocks to full reintegration of the Christian community are many all too real. Today, this problem also includes the divergence of belief and behavior among the members within the various denominations themselves, including Catholicism.

My library is temporarily in great disarray, making it difficult to cite examples, but I would suggest that this has already been happening. The joint Lutheran-Catholic consensus agreement on justification will be a highlight of inter-confessional dialogue. It is still waiting final approbation from the Holy See. Earlier drafts seemed to indicate that much of what was condemned were Catholic exaggerations of the Lutheran stance or that which was promoted by Protestants lacking theologically astuteness or clarity. Defining terms and finding agreement based upon the Scriptural and traditional testimony has been a long and grueling enterprise.

We find some elements of this hard work in the new universal catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC #1991 - Justification is at the same time THE ACCEPTANCE OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

CCC #1992 - Justification has been MERITED FOR US BY THE PASSION OF CHRIST who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.

CCC #1993 - Justification establishes COOPERATION BETWEEN GOD'S GRACE AND MAN'S FREEDOM. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent.

No anathemas accompany the text. Outside the polemics of the reformation and counter-reformation, we see the fruit of mutual understanding here. Admittedly, there has been a movement or at least a clarification in the Lutheran view from a simple juridical imputation of righteousness to the addition of an accompanying ontological transformation. We are deemed as righteous because we are literally changed into a new creation. Yes, we are clothed in Christ, but instead of a mask it is a window to our new identity as sons and daughters of the Father. The Catholic and Lutheran views need not be seen as incompatible. A number of Lutherans, seeing this as the principal cause for the "reform movement" have suggested that other problems should be resolved within a reintegrated Church. Others, including many traditional Catholics, suggest it would be too hasty a move. Several individuals, nonetheless, have formally been received into the Catholic Church. They feel that most of that for which Martin Luther fought has been resolved or accepted within Catholicism. The trouble is that there is a large element of Lutheranism that Luther himself would not recognize today. This speaks to the formal divisions between the various Lutheran synods. I am afraid I am not well versed in this regard.

What is the major attraction to Catholicism? To be honest, while the Church is growing in some places, there are other spots in the world where the fires of faith seem to burn dimly. Thinking people are drawn to the great intellectual inheritance of the Church. Here we do quite well with converts. While we do not actively proselytize, it is also here that we attract impressive Protestants. Two Methodist professors I knew at Wesley Seminary (in Washington, D.C.) are now both Catholics and teaching at Church institutions. An Episcopal priest I know just resigned his pastorship and is seeking entry into the Catholic Church. He is a married man with a small family. He hopes that he will be granted ordination. In any case, he tells me that this is something he feels he "must" do. The Catholic arguments are very credible and history supports it. Fr. Neuhaus was a Lutheran minister who is now a Catholic priest and editor of FIRST THINGS. Malcolm Muggeridge became a Catholic at the end of his life because of the heroic and sincere Catholicism of Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa. The apologist Scott Hahn came in from the Presbyterian Church (by way of Scripture study). Walter Hooper, the last personal secretary to C. S. Lewis, became a Catholic priest. He insists that had Lewis lived long enough, he would have done the same. Lewis is important here. The same intellectual route that brought him back to Christianity is the road for many such people today toward Catholicism. He wrote that most people do not take this route. Again, I would have to agree regarding the road to Rome. The intellectual elite (like Cardinal Newman) is small in number by anyone's standard.

Missionaries are averaging 7,000 converts a day in Africa to the Catholic faith. Our greatest competitor there is Islam. The Church in her charity operations is shown to be a family that cares. The hunger to join the worldwide family is also satisfied with entry. They want something greater than tribal divisions. At home, the loving witness can not be underestimated as well. The sacraments provide a sense of belonging to the family of faith and to God. We are not abandoned. The former abortionist, Dr. Nathanson, remarked that he became a Catholic because he wanted his sins forgiven-- and he wanted to know that he was forgiven.

What is the greatest reason? It is still probably the nurturing of mothers and fathers, baptizing and raising their children in the faith.

There are ecumenical celebrations being planned for Jubilee 2000. But, in my own mind have I thought of it that way? Honestly, I think not. We are planning a Eucharistic Congress in Washington for the event that will probably be mostly Catholic. Certainly the "mea culpas" of the Pope shows that he wants to start the next millenium off with a clean slate for the Church.

What about "EX CORDE ECCLESIAE" I have given it little study. However, I would support anything that would preserve the Catholic identity of our institutions. I would suspect that many "traditional" Protestant groups might support the move today. Why? It is because campuses are becoming increasingly hostile to religion and particularly to Christianity. The true battles at home are not between Catholics and Protestants and Jews; rather, it is between the Judeo-Christian inheritance (values) and a secular, relativistic, and narcissistic worldview. When religion is promoted, the Eastern is given preference over the West, and a contradictory New Age (hodge-podge) philosophy is embraced.

A case in point is that Cardinal Hickey had to intervene with Georgetown University because they resisted crosses and crucifixes in the classrooms. The debates regard both ideas and fundamental symbols of Christian faith.

Sorry, Tom, for the rushed reply. I hope it is a fair beginning in this dialogue.

Peace

Is Abortion Okay for Christians?

2004-11-22T11:14:00.000-08:00

The following is a post in reference to a link left on the message board to a pro-abortion site. The site claimed that one could be a true Christian and pro-abortion. I recount and respond to some of their arguments below.

I recall hearing such pro-abortion arguments from a so-called Catholic feminist back in 1978 on a Catholic College campus. I was still a teenager, but with ready resolve gave the woman a difficult time regarding her interpretation of the facts. As I get older, I must admit to becoming increasingly disheartened. Not only are many Catholics pro-abortion, but they politic for their cause without shame. The Holy Father has reminded us in EVANGELIUM VITAE that abortion and the pro-death mentality are directly opposed to the Gospel and the incarnation of Christ.

Turning to the link you offered, the author contends that from 100 AD to 600 AD most "theologians" discounted any homicide in abortion, but instead stressed the sins of fornication and adultery. Nothing is said here about the fact that such a person would no longer be welcome in the Church, a most terrible punishment for sure. Further, while I question her dates, she denotes as "theologians" those who may only have been canonists or others charged with leveling juridical penalties. The death sentence rendered for homicide might not have been imposed; however, this did not in itself mean that murder had not been committed.

The Church has always and everywhere opposed abortion and infanticide. Such was an issue that quickly distinguished the early Christian community from its pagan neighbors. The universal catechism quotes from ancient documents that show the Catholic Church's disdain toward abortion: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish" (DIDACHE 2,2 [140 AD]; cf. Epistle of Barnabas 19,5 [70/79 or 117/132 AD]; Ad Dionetum 5,6 [125/200 AD]; Tertullian, Apology 9 [197 AD].

Illustrating their dishonesty, pro-abortion Catholics will mention the matter of hominization or delayed ensoulment. Thomas Aquinas is mentioned by name as holding that it occurred 40 days after conception for males and 80 days after for females. However, no mention is made that St. Thomas also inherited a faulty view of biology, believing that the whole person in potency was locked in the man's seed. Further, St. Thomas still considered the destruction of this person in potency to be a serious moral wrong. He did not accept abortion as a legitimate response to pregnancy. Modern biology supports the view of immediate hominization.

In any case, since we cannot empirically observe ensoulment, all believers must logically opt for the alternative that causes least harm, giving the unborn the benefit of the doubt. Catholics have as an added inducement the dogma of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. Things cannot be preserved or cleansed from sin, only persons. Thus, one could argue that like Mary, all are persons at the very first moment of conception. All human persons, from the womb to the tomb, are deemed as possessing a precious and irreplaceable dignity. All human life is incommensurate and beyond any utilitarian value.

Catholic principles that emerge from the Gospel of Life are universal and absolute. Past application was sometimes questionable because the data from the other sciences was imperfect. The universal condemnation of abortion throughout all Christianity and its history is unassailable. The pro-abortion proponents (who claim to be Catholic) are seeking to confuse this truth behind extraneous details.

Notice that the so-called ADULT! CHRISTIANITY site professes to be defending the rights of the "un-bornagain". Some of the material and links strikes me as lewd and I was embarrassed to visit it at all. They not only support abortion but other perverse matters as well.

What about the article entitled, "Abortion is Not a Sin"? As they do with so much else, they trivialize the dignity of the human person and assault the Gospel of Life.

Psalm 139:13-16 is reduced to a mere blueprint for human life, and not as an indicator of the human life of the unborn. This contention contradicts the text. "Truly you have formed MY INMOST BEING; you knit ME in my mother's womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works. MY SOUL also you knew full well; nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret, when I was fashioned in the depths of the earth (figurative language for womb)" (Psalm 139:13-15). The infusion of the soul is, in Christian terms, the beginning of human life. The context here would allow us to contend that it occurs at the very first moment of conception. The reference to "my inmost being" would also refer to that which makes us human. The pronouns are all personal, "I" and "me". We would not speak so about a tumor or a mere plan for our construction. It even seems that on some mysterious and intuitive level the soul of the unborn child in the womb is already in relationship with the Creator. Other Scriptures as with the visitation of Elizabeth by Mary reaffirm the Christian contention that human life and personhood begins in the womb. The unborn John the Baptist leaps joyfully in the womb when in the presence of the unborn Christ secluded in the flesh of Mary. The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is another support to the pro-life cause. Mary is preserved from Original Sin at the very first moment of her existence in the womb of St. Ann. Things cannot be delivered from sin, only persons.

The attempt is made to contrast the message from the psalm citation with the creation stories in Genesis. However, the unique creation of man and woman in the primordial garden is a narrative quite different from the usual experience of human generation. Further, while none of these passages were intended to teach biology, the understanding was clear among God's people that the unborn child is one of the human family. Otherwise, it would be hard to understand the happiness of mothers who feel their babies move within them or their sadness when they miscarry.

The author writes, "It is nothing less than idolatry, elevating the status of mere man, his sperm and his ejaculation above the power of God to give life." Such a separatist understanding falsely images the human being as trapped in a robotic body of flesh and blood. Rather than seeing our biology in conflict with God, we see it as an element of our human identity that is in partnership with divine creation. When men and women engage in the marital act, they are to do so responsibly, open to the gift of new life that comes from God. The mentality subscribed to by the article would ultimately allow for homosexuality and contraception. It drives a wall between the Almighty and us.

Citations are made from Hosea 9:14,16 in attempt to show that God approves of abortions. This is ludicrous. God is the author of life and death. Just because some babies die naturally in the womb does not give us the authority to terminate their lives. Indeed, the usurpation of God's authority as the article promotes would be true blasphemy and idolatry. The curse from the prophet's lips against their enemies is in reference to that which they consider most sacred. "Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts . . . yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Motherhood and family life was the measure of success in the Jewish world. Thus, these words illustrate not that the life of the unborn is cheap, but most precious. Such a blow would be hard to recover.

The ignorance of the author is compounded regarding Mary. She is portrayed as a pro-choice feminist who just happened to say yes to God. Anything else, we are told would be the unthinkable "rape [by God of] an unwed, teenaged virgin." First, the providence of God assured her positive response. Second, we belong to God and thus whatever God does for us must be measured as gift. Third, Mary was lawfully married to Joseph in the first of a two-tier ritual). The pro-abortionist is wrong on all accounts. Given that basic Scriptural facts can be misconstrued, it is hard to give this article any serious consideration. It is simply a revisionist attempt to excuse a self-indulgent lifestyle and a disregard for the true dignity of human life. I suppose the good Pope might rightly consider it propaganda for the pervasive culture of death.

The article from this point quickly becomes incoherent. We are told that those who seek the enact laws to protect human life or who participate in peaceful protest "lead innocent believers down a road to murder and depravity." Four thousand dead babies a day, one and a half million abortions a year (including thousands of partial birth infanticides), and the author has the audacity to call pro-life advocates guilty of "murder and depravity". Note that the web site in question would countenance all sorts of alternative sexual lifestyles. Many lesbians promote abortion because it allows them to insure female offspring, killing the males before they see the light of day.

It makes one very sick. Do not be fooled by them. The real victims are the dead children.

Letter to Senator Currie on Prayer in State Senate

2004-11-20T13:28:00.000-08:00

Friday, January 23, 2004

State Senator Ulysses Currie
3 West Miller Senate Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Senator Currie,

First order of business, please note that Rev. Pollard has not been at Holy Spirit Church for many years and I have been pastor since replacing Rev. Michael Murray four years ago. Please have the mailing list corrected.

Second, I received and read with great interest your letter of January 23 about the “Freedom of Worship in the Senate of Maryland.” I can well understand the desire to preserve a “comfort level for the entire Senate membership,” but would submit that such a task is probably next to impossible.

As a Catholic priest, ecumenism is a hallmark of our approach to other religions; however, joint services usually consist of each religious group offering the prayer that is consistent with their doctrinal beliefs. Ecumenical prayer, as you suggest, which is really generic prayer, may be inconsistent with the theology of many religions. Christianity presents a particular problem because all prayer and saving importance is placed in a particular person, Jesus Christ. A Jew might avoid calling God Yahweh and a Moslem might be reserved in speaking of Allah, but Christian prayer loses all its punch when the saving name is omitted. Given that the Incarnation is denied, Judaism and even Islam might fare better under the stated policy than a Christianity forced by reductionism to deny the saving history of the New Testament. Further, while Catholics and many Protestant groups feel that Islam’s Allah is the same one God as revealed in the Scriptures, a number of Fundamentalists believe that it is a demon in disguise. Some religions are polytheists (multiple gods), like the Mormons and Hindus. Others do not believe in a personal God or even deny his existence all together. There is no way to make everyone happy, so why make everyone unhappy?

I suspect if you look at the history of prayer in your chambers, you will find that Christian prayer has predominated going back to the colonial period. It is somewhat ironic that what was deemed appropriate by the founders is no longer considered acceptable in our revisionist interpretation of the clause regarding the separation of Church and State.

There is much talk these days about toleration, but when push comes to shove— its proponents can be quite intolerant. My personal feeling is that in a multicultural society, we should be generous enough to make room for our religious differences. While not going out of our way to be offensive, a proper prayer in Arabic where God is called Allah and “Mohammed is his prophet” should not trouble us. Jewish prayers, often based on the Psalms, and sometimes said in Hebrew are an important part of the Judeo-Christian inheritance. Jews and Moslems who argue for their own observances in dress and symbols, find no problem with crosses or Christians calling upon the name of Jesus. We may disagree about profound matters, but our love for one another should transcend such differences. The policy that you stated erases something of our religious variety and wealth, and ultimately denies by imposed silence something basic about our sense of identity and values.

Given that this matter involves clergy, did any ministers, rabbis, priests, Moslem leaders, and others have impute in how prayer might be handled in the State Senate? There might have been other alternatives. As the policy stands, some will still not be satisfied and many clergymen might have to wave the honor of presiding because it violates their religious conscience. Speaking for myself, when I have been the single clergyman to offer a prayer in a mixed setting, I often conclude my prayer in a softer voice, discernable only to myself and maybe a couple of people around me: “We offer this prayer in Jesus’ name.” And then for all to hear, I say, “Amen.” I am not happy with this compromise but it respects the audience and my own religious sensitivities. Obviously, the State Senate is not a place to belittle the faith (or lack thereof) of others; neither is it an occasion to proselytize. It is, however, a place to nurture freedom, not only of religion, but also of speech.

Know that you and Senator Miller will remain in my prayers. Your responsibilities are great and, as believers, I know that you always welcome divine assistance and guidance.

May the good Lord bless and keep you,
Father Joseph Jenkins
Pastor

Popes Opposed Slavery Against Dissenters

2004-11-20T13:27:00.000-08:00

We often think that dissent from the Holy See and the teaching Church is a new phenomenon. However, just as the land of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" silences any reference to God in her schools and promotes the mass murder of the unborn in the womb, so too did our land, and even her Catholic citizens, dissent from Papal admonitions against slavery. Catholic churchmen held large parcels of land and like their Protestant fellows, maintained the institution of slavery. The Maryland coloney first founded as a haven for Catholics would later maintain in Baltimore Harbor a central commercial trade in slaves. People were bartered as nothing more than animals or property. Personhood was denied. Human rights were denied. The rights of landowners and the "choice" of European stock immigrants was made preferential over the needs and wants of people kidnapped from the African shores.

Ancient Greek or Roman slavery did not compare to it. Slaves were taken from conquered peoples and indentured servants would be used well into the colonial period of America. After a period of service, and even restitution, such slaves were freed. However, we are the ones (European colonialism) who invented perpetual racial slavery-- a foul business that could be passed on from generation to generation. Families could be separated. Torture and death could be implemented without any care or worry about censure. Great Britain would renounce slavery many years prior to the Civil War (ended 1865) when the issue would be forced in the United States. Here is the irony. If the Revolutionary War had gone the other way, blacks would have known freedom many generations earlier.

1778 - Slavery outlawed in Scotland.

1807 - British slave trade outlawed.

1833 - All British slaves freed.

Reserving ourselves to the Catholic community, it must be admitted that Catholics often catechized and had their slaves baptized. However, the churches would be segregated and later their schools. It is interesting that Cardinal O'Boyle in Washington, DC would order the desegregation of parochial schools in the 1950's prior to similar efforts by the federal government. But, past injustice must not be excused because of later enlightenment.

Today many of our people and liberal Catholic theologians and bishops argue for abortion, artificial contraception and active homosexuality. They are the spiritual heirs to the Catholic dissenters on the matter of slavery.

Pope Eugene IV ordered that black slaves be freed in the Canary Islands back in 1435. Columbus was not even born yet! He demanded that "these peoples are to be totally and perpetually free." Slaveholders who refused the order were excommunicated.

Indians from the New World would be brought to the Pope with the absurd question as to whether or not they were human beings. It was hoped that if the Holf Father deemed them subhuman or animals, that this would legitimate the slave trade and the confiscation of their lands. Pope Paul III (1537) condemned slavery in the New World, saying, "the Indians and all other peoples ... who shall hereafter come to the attention of Christians ... are not to be deprived of their liberty and their possessions." While in regard to the mistreatment of Native Americans, this condemnation of slavery was absolute. The later popes spoke with one voice. Pope Gregory XVI (1839) stipulated that no one should "dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or enslave Indians, Blacks, or other such peoples." He decried the traders for their "sordid gain" and the slave trade as an "inhuman traffic."

Nevertheless, the Catholic bishops met in Baltimore in 1840 an contended that the Pope was only condemning the slave trade, not domestic slavery in the U.S.

Is there a similarity between the position of the bishops (for which Bishop John England was a major spokesman) in 1840 and the position of the majority of U.S. bishops today on abortion?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues from natural law that the situation of slavery in America and abortion today are analogous-- both strip human beings of personhood, liberty and life.

Where is the prophetic voice? What will future generations, if a culture of life should supplant one of death, think of this generation and her leaders-- civil and religious?

EGYPT Encourages Muslims to KILL Christians

2004-11-20T13:25:00.000-08:00

MURDER IS CONDONED

Back in February an Egyptian court acquitted most of those charged with massacring Christians in January of last year. Bishop Wissa of Balyana laments, “All the murderers were acquitted. That means Muslims are encouraged to kill Christians. They are being told ‘Go ahead. Kill Coptic Christians.’”

A court in the city of Sohag sentenced four Muslims to sentences between 1 and 10 years, while acquitting 92 others for the murder of 20 Christians and 1 Muslim in the nearby town of Kosheh. 38 of 58 Muslim defendents had faced the death penalty, the worst hostility in 20 years.

It is unbelievable that the murderers got off so lightly, given that the evidence was undeniable. “This verdict means that Christians cannot live in safety. It also means that there is no justice or law,” said the bishop. The bishop said that he “expected new massacres of Christians because this verdict means there is no justice or law.”

A year ago, Bishop Wissa accused government forces in Kosheh of either ignoring or authorizing Muslim attacks on Copts. He said that the Coptic community was still upset that no police were punished for torturing and abusing 1,000 Coptics in a murder investigation a couple of years before.

Bishop Bassanti of Helwan (Near Cairo) pleaded that the court reconsiders its decision so as to “preserve national unity” and to bring justice where a lenient outcome “makes light of human life.”

AFP News Service (Source)

Are the Coptic (not Catholic) bishops here asking for capital punishment?

What sort of verdict and sentencing would be just?

Why are so many radical Muslims seeking Christian blood?

Anti-Catholic MASS at CUA

2004-10-22T10:07:00.000-07:00

The business about allowing the NAACP on campus, after an initial courageous stand against this pro-abortion organization, is indeed disappointing. However, I suppose we should get used to having our nation's so-called premier "Catholic" university let us down on important matters. I had to do a double-take last December when I read in THE CATHOLIC STANDARD that Leonard Bernstein's composition, MASS, was going to be offered at Catholic University in April 2004. While the STANDARD offered a glowing article about the work, some of us felt that the performance was nothing short of blasphemous.

The fact that CUA would sponsor it is ample evidence that our national Catholic institution for higher learning is still manipulated by modernists and dissenters. There is even a hint of this in the article when the dean of the music school, Murry Sidlin, (who has conducted MASS seven times himself), states: ""MASS is a great work of faith that encourages young people to question issues." Since the context is the sacred liturgy, can there be any doubt that the subject of contestation includes Church teaching and ministry?

Has everyone forgotten the controversy about it back in 1971? Later, in 1972, when the work was performed in Cincinnati, the Archbishop forbade Catholics to attend. It was viewed as a cause for serious scandal. When it premiered in Vienna in 1973, the Austrian bishops protested against it.

This new production in Washington, D.C. was preceeded by a week-long symposia where scholars discussed MASS against the backdrop of issues prevalent during the 1960's. Sorry, but the Eucharist is our most precious inheritance, it should not be manipulated or abused to further debates in cultural and social issues.

Granted, parts of the composition are beautiful; however, the drama is anti-Catholic, regardless of the fact that it was a tribute to the Kennedys and the JFK Center for Performing Arts. Bernstein, himself a Jew, did not really understand or believe in the mystery of the Mass or in the sacred calling of the priesthood. He projects his own prejudices into the character of the celebrant, creating a doubting husk of a man where there should be one of prayer and faith.

[The composer was a man with a restless spirit, haunted by demons that would propel him to leave his wife at the end of his life to cohabitate with his gay lover.] How could he possibly understand the Mass as a participation in the heavenly wedding banquet? Is it any wonder that he did not appreciate the analogy of marriage in the liturgy, with the priest in the role of Christ as groom and the Church as his bride?

A priest is set apart from other men in his obedient and celibate love, a love that focuses upon God and is expressed in sacrifice and in service of God's people. Bernstein's priest is simply out of touch and increasing distant from the people (chorus). A priest is an "alterchristus", another Christ, making our Lord and his saving activity present in the Eucharist and other sacraments. Bernstein's priest, on the other hand, has merely been given a God-like status by the Church establishment. A priest is a teacher of souls, sharing the faith given by Christ and passed down from the apostles and preserved in the living Church. Bernstein's desperate priest is a vehicle of dependence, controlling people with religious dogma and traditions, instead of helping others to find lasting meaning in these sources of revelation. The Catholic Mass places us in solidarity with Christ and with fellow believers around the world and in eternity. Bernstein's Mass is one of upheaval and division; a revolution ensues, first against the priest and then between the people in the chorus.

The celebrant tries to regain order by smashing the holy vessels. The faithless priest says:

"I mean, it's supposed to be blood...
"I mean, it is blood...His...
"It was...
"How easily things get broken...."

"Supposed to be blood"? Back in the 1960's, the anti-establishment message of the work was clear. Bernstein was no friend to Nixon or his republican administration or the Vietnam War. I have to wonder if the current production did not also seek to make a political statement against the Bush administration and the newest war in Iraq? In any case, religious dissenters would be just as quick to promote this production. It readily fuels anti-clericalism, particularly given recent scandals, and would win accolades from the proponents for women priests, married priests, and the like. Most importantly, the composition is a stunning disrespect to the real presence of Jesus in the blessed sacrament.

Given the times, I was not surprised that many people slapped down $50 a piece to see this false caricature of the Mass with a counterfeit priest and a communion prop while failing to go to the real Sunday Mass at their parishes with a genuine priest and Eucharist. And, while donations of charity are always appreciated, tickets are not needed and the admission, like God's grace, is free.

NAACP at CUA: Capitulation to Pro-Abortionists

2004-10-22T10:00:00.000-07:00

I read in THE CATHOLIC STANDARD that the president of CUA has reversed himself and will allow a college chapter of the NAACP. This is very disappointing. While there are little to no health and safety regulations in the abortion industry, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recently announced its full endorsement of the "pro-choice" position. One press release stated that this was necessary because "women of color seek abortion at rates higher than their percentage in the population." What backward logic this is! This decision is utterly irresponsible. They do not seem to care that one in every three African American pregnancies ends in abortion. That constitutes a racial genocide of over 1,200 black children every day. They have placed themselves in the pocket of the abortion industry that has made a fortune from innocent blood. It is estimated that 70% of abortion providers are located in minority neighborhoods. Instead of seeking ways to support and build up African American families, they have opted to become part of the problem, perpetuating broken families and abusing and murdering their own children.

Do the officials at The Catholic University of America really believe that the NAACP is sincere about allowing the new college chapter to disassociate itself from the pro-abortion agenda advocated by the national organization? They are fooling themselves. Once they have a foothold, they will do what they want and if the university says anything, they will play the race card just as they have done all summer. They will spread their propaganda at a school where Catholic parents want their children to be formed wholly by the Gospel of Life. A great deal of pressure was placed against the president, Fr. David M. O'Connell, and many of us thought that he would stay the course. There were already two perfectly good minority organizations on campus that did not support abortion. This is simply a case of the NAACP trying to spread its liberal agenda that conflicts with Catholic teaching and interests, while wiping out any rival organizations. The NAACP held protest rallies and threatened litigation. I suspect this is a taste of how they will continue to function toward the university. Its president, Kweisi Mfume stated back in June that the school's refusal was "outright discrimination, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance all rolled into one. It is at the very least a double standard based on race and social philosophy." Of course, there was nothing racist about it; the problem was what he called "social philosophy," i.e. the Church's stand against abortion. If this "social philosophy" is constitutive of the NAACP's mission, can we really believe that any of its chapters will really disassociate themselves in practice? The answer is no, and just as some bishops (as in Lincoln Nebraska) have prohibited for Catholics (under pain of excommunication) any membership in organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights League; the same treatment should be given the NAACP for its toleration of abortion and homosexuality. What we need today is a new civil rights organization that will not compromise on the sanctity of life. The NAACP has betrayed its mandate and it is a scandal that any Catholic would maintain membership in it and certainly Catholic schools should prohibit it, under any guise, from their campuses.

Catholic University released a statement on October 12 where it was said that students assured Fr. O'Connel that the campus chapter "would adhere to the university's policies and procedures, including the university's presentations policy, under all circumstances." However, problems remain. Students come and go. Who is to say that members in the future will abide by such rules, particularly as the national NAACP plans accelerated efforts to promote its agenda among young people, under the auspices of its public health program? Further, the matter is more than mere bureacratic "policies and procedures". We are talking here about natural law and Church teaching. If the NAACP wants a chapter at CUA then it should reverse itself about abortion and take a pro-life stand. Any campus chapter should spell out in its founding principles, that it is pro-life and that abortion is the ultimate discrimination-- reducing a class of people to a commodity-- denying them their right to life. I suspect that they will not do this. Failing to do so, allowing them on campus is a serious mistake.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has drawn an analogy between the the institution of slavery and the toleration of abortion. In both cases, human beings are stripped of their personhood and inherent God-given dignity. By supporting abortion, the greatest social injustice of all, the NAACP has betrayed its mandate and has aligned itself with the slave traders and oppressors of yesterday.

Institution & Church

2004-10-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN OVER TEN YEARS AGO. MY VIEW HAS BECOME MORE NUANCED.

This reflection is in reaction to a phenomenon I have observed wherein critics immediately stereotype and associate the "institutional" with cruelty and sinful hypocrisy. It is not always the case that institutions victimize the "individual" or the "weak". If left uncontested, such a stance regarding corporations and governments might be hastily translated into a pessimism regarding relationships to the Church, too. Indeed, this already seems to be the case. We place our private agendas ahead of those truths taught and practices sustained in the institution that Christ founded.

When studying at Catholic University, I recall countless times during the liturgies when individuals would inflict injury upon orthodox sensibilities. Visitors and progressive seminarians would add petitions to the Prayer of the Faithful, like, "For women who are called to be ordained, that the oppressive male-dominated structures will be overturned and that all will hear their appeal for justice, we pray to the Lord," or "That the Church will discard its pompous wealth for the sake of the poor and needy, we pray to the Lord," or "That the Pope and bishops will be mindful of Christ's example in not making the terrible burden of celibacy mandatory, we pray to the Lord," etc. The presumptions in all these "so-called" intercessions are severe and they "victimize" the universal Church and those who render assent to her teachings. Notice in all these examples the authority of the "institutional" Church, as they might term it, is questioned. There is no sign of any critical eye turned to their own views. There is nothing of Christian humility in their stances.

The stark and rugged individualism, in which Americans often take great pride, and which these revisionists would criticize as not adequately empowering the needs of struggling sub-communities, is at work, nevertheless, behind the scenes of their own prideful advocacy. My dilemma in their regard often has to do with their ill-founded sense of certitude. Without being elected or appointed, they draw to themselves a select sect of like-minded believers and posit their "infallibility" over that of the shepherds established by Christ and safe-guarded by the Holy Spirit. In other words, they deem to speak in the name of God against his universal Church. Unlike the Magisterium, which we believe is protected by the Holy Spirit in a formal way from falling into serious error; these men and women have no such safeguard. Even their particular holiness is no guarantee to fidelity in doctrine. Many Protestants, with whom the Church take exception regarding particular beliefs, have demonstrated sincere faith in Christ and signs of spiritual Christian perfection. Even canonized saints of the Church have not, in retrospect, been correct regarding every theological opinion or interpretation of private revelation. Having said this, a callous disregard for the shepherds of the Church or of her structures can put serious barriers between us and the Lord who deems to give us his grace and salvation. While many revisionists would seek to stamp the Church as "institution" with the stigma of sin; it may be that the purity of the Church reflects or mirrors back the unrepented sins of her critics. This is not to say that the Church is totally void of sin. Christ came to call sinners and we have been faithful in filling our churches with them. However, we attempt to preserve ourselves from the charge of hypocrisy by using the penitential rite at the beginning of every Mass: "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy." The Church is holy because Christ is holy.

Recently, I read a book by Brian P. Hall entitled, Shepherds and Lovers. Although it had some good points, and indeed, is a good book overall, it too seemed to reflect the mentality that the "institutional" is somehow tainted. His references to theologians like Boff (outspoken proponent of liberation theology) and Kung (not so infallible questioner of papal infallibility) gave away his theological persuasion as revisionist and challenging of authority. He writes, ". . . each of us is caught between what our primary experience of institution demands of us and what individuals want from us" (p. 4). This introductory statement in itself makes some actual sense. In pastoral counseling, people often come with situations in which there is a struggle between "going by the book" and trying to help them come to some basic decisions of their own regarding their lives. However, Hall's tendency to put the mask of the villain on the institutional comes out in an earlier quote: "To succeed, 'to come out on top,' we need greater consciousness [whatever that means], more skills, and personal support systems that will enable us to oppose the very institutions that appear to support our day-to-day existence" (p. 1). He sees the tension between the "creative development of an institution" and the call to the "Shepherd Leader" as so terribly intense, that he identifies it with the Cross of Christ (p. 7).
Hall is ultimately in the same camp as the liberation theologians -- a different ilk, but still the same. Written in terms of spirituality and psychology, his work is keenly preoccupied with freeing people in their very selves and in raising their awareness of themselves and of God's plan for them. I find this very noble, even if I do claim differences of emphasis on some points. I am not sure that the demonic or sin can be explicitly identified with this tension he discusses. I am not claiming that the tension is neutral; indeed, what I propose might be quite frightening, that the tension is an opportunity for growth and blessing. The tendency for us to lump the Church with other "institutions" is unfair. We use the word by analogy with other organizations, not as one totally identical. Unlike a corporation, the parts and structures of the Church are not readily disassociated. Take away those aspects which are catalogued under the term "institution" and there is nothing left. From parishioner to Pope, from cathedral to missionary hut, from canon law to the commandment of love -- the Church is ONE. Even to speak of one part as distinct from another runs the danger of fracturing her organic unity, even if only on the theoretical level. However, a contemporary society which loves dualism, the thesis and antithesis, will always seek to separate for individual scrutiny, the body and soul, the Church's hierarchical structures and the charismatic Christian. What emerges in my mind as the pertinent question is whether any such inquiry would reflect the reality of the Church in which we all share. The Church is as she must be, the way Christ intended from the first seed of her foundation.

If there appears a tension between our obligations as members of a larger community, the friction and struggle needs to be interpreted as an opportunity to be weaned away from sin and to grow in holiness. The Church, not merely as an institution, but in all her constitutive parts, by definition must be in tension with the world. This is not to create another extreme dualism in which the Church is always seen as good and the world as evil; this would be an exaggeration. Prior to the foundation of the Church, there were many societies in which good pagans lived out their lives. However, the Church, as the beginning of God's kingdom breaking into the world, calls us not only to abandon sin but from an inadequate humanism as well. It calls us to fulfillment and to go beyond the natural into the supernatural realm. Both can be good, but one is better. Indeed, the one can be so much more wonderful that the good of the natural order might seem drab by comparison. For this reason, there will sometimes be a tension discerned; when actual evil intervenes, this tension hardens and becomes more fully actualized. However, to locate this evil or demonic in the institution seems too general a hypothesis.

The Christian tradition speaks of many kinds of evil. The Lord's Prayer itself speaks of deliverance from "the evil one," thus denoting a personal quality to this term. This "evil one" has been rendered as the great fallen angel, Satan. His most perverse weapon might be the humorous caricatures and atheism we have adopted in his regard. What you do not believe in, you cannot be defended against. (Before I continue, I must make note of that word "personal" used in Satan's regard. Although I believe he exists and has influence upon us, I would suggest that he is more an "it" than a "he". Sin by its nature always destroys the dignity of the person and a sin unrepented and mortal would strip away the significance of this great gift.) Evil can also be distinguished in terms of natural and moral. An example of natural evil would be if you lived with your family on a hillside and while you were playing with your children, a volcano erupted and wiped you all out. A natural event is interpreted as evil because people are involved. Otherwise, it might be quite neutral or even judged beneficial. An example of moral evil would be if the same family was assaulted and murdered in their beds by an intruder. Admittedly, the example is severe, but if I mentioned theft, blasphemy, sexual permissiveness, etc. the reader might not see anything wrong. Or, the examples might merely be equated as but another instance of tension between the "institution" and the average Joe.

The Church may be said to create tension in that her values are not entirely the same as those of cultures in which she finds herself. To forgive, to seek peace, to be charitable, etc. are often nice mottos on Christmas and Easter cards, but the Church actually challenges us to live out these values. Even in the hierarchy, the Pope himself is called the "Servant of the Servants of God." The word comes close to meaning slave! However, we interpret his position strictly in terms of power and influence. It is but one more case wherein the way the Church sees something is viewed as the direct opposite by those enraptured by the world. Obviously, there would be Christians who would deny this view; I would simply throw the ball back to them and suggest that even Christians and communities in the Church often see things and operate according to worldly values or Mammon and not as Christ requests. Religious people are not exempt; after all, did not Jesus, himself, call the Pharisees "blind guides"?

I recall another book I encountered recently, which also had something to say about our relationship to the "institutional" Church. Called Basic Christianity by John R. W. Scott, the book begins: "'Hostile to the church, friendly to Jesus Christ.' These words describe large numbers of people, especially young people, today" (p. 7). He continues in the next paragraph to say: "They are opposed to anything which savours of institutionalism. They detest the establishment and its entrenched privileges. And they reject the church -- not without some justification -- because they regard it as impossibly corrupted by such evils" (p. 7).

It should be noted that the above author belongs to the Church of England and not to the Roman Catholic Church. This is but a matter of clarification, not of snobbish antagonism. After all, we have not been without corruption or sin in our camp either. This brings us to an important point. The split or dualism in the language people use in regards to the Church might have something to do with the quality of our Christian witness. Division might sometimes be caused because people see professed Christians living very unchristian lives. A Church which has high churchmen involved in illegal banking swindles, a clergyman who is spied in a very compromising situation, parishioners who attend Mass every Sunday and illustrate their disdain of brothers and sisters Monday through Saturday, etc. may not be all that appealing or convincing to those who are searching for meaning in their lives.

During the Second Vatican Council, this theme emerged in the document regarding atheism, placing part of the blame upon ourselves for the plight of nonbelievers. Today, more and more people are opting, not for atheism and yet not for the Church, but for the dislocated figure of Jesus. As the quality of Christian witness declined, the person of Jesus has tended to be disconnected from the sacrament of his presence, the Church. This is a most bizarre development. Scott writes: "Yet what they have rejected is the contemporary church, not Jesus Christ himself. It is precisely because they see a contradiction between the founder of Christianity and the current state of the church he founded that they are so critical and aloof. The person and teaching of Jesus have not lost their appeal, however. For one thing, he was himself an anti-establishment figure, and some of his words had revolutionary overtones. His ideals appear to have been incorruptible. He breathed love and peace wherever he went. And, for another thing, he invariably practiced what he preached" (p. 7).

These are words which are quite on the mark. The only thing I would add is that the contradiction people see is not only in the "institution" but also in the individual. Our language can betray an ignorance of this distinction. For instance, I can recall dissenters to moral teaching being interviewed on television. Instead of hanging out the Church's dirty laundry in public, they should have sought quiet resolutions to their problems, thus avoiding scandal and leading others into sin. How someone can be so egotistical as to believe that he is absolutely right in the face of contrary doctrine and Scriptural testimony, is beyond me. Espousing ideas imprudently might lead others further away from the truth and salvation. That should be felt as a heavy weight to bear. Dissent should always be displaced by religious assent, treating all matters with humility, patience, and the utmost respect. In regards to the issue of lumping blame for problems upon the Church hierarchy, especially upon Rome, I fear it is simply a case where anti-Catholic bigotry is starting to take hold in the consciences of believers. Again, look at what people are saying. During the Fr. Curran affair, many reporters were questioning whether or not serious divergences on moral issues might lead to schism and a separate American Church. The Know-Nothings of yesteryear would have loved to hear that gibberish.

In casual talk, people will speak about how they can be good Catholics despite the misled and oppressive hierarchy. This stuff sounds like a child telling his parents that he won't love them anymore unless they give him all the candy he wants. The parents get yelled at and kicked for doing something they know they have to do in order to preserve the delinquent's teeth. Maybe the rebellion we sometimes see is simply the stirring of the Church in America, undergoing a childish tantrum of maturing as an adult?

I began this reflection by observing that we cannot be too severe in making distinctions between one part of the Church and another. And yet, people do the opposite all the time. Even those halfway benevolent to our heritage fall into these guffaws. For instance, I recall one interview on television wherein a young woman shouted, regarding abortion, "We are the Church and as women we know what is right to do with our bodies!" Or another, "The Pope and Bishops are wrong, we as the People of God know this to be true (contraception) because the majority of us are in agreement."

Let me begin to take some of this apart, for it is very complex. In the first statement, "we are the Church" and in the second, "we are the People of God" are both accurate statements as far as they go. However, in both cases they are uttered with the explicit intention of negating the authoritative membership of the hierarchy; they are also part of the Church. The reality of the Church as a sacrament of Christ's presence is much like the Eucharist. From the Church universal to the local and parish community, the risen Lord is fully present and available. Each is therefore complete in itself, in this sense. We are intimately bound with the other assemblies of our faith who are in communion with the See of Peter in Rome. To destroy or rupture this unity on a universal scale has as its effect, the distortion of the presence of Christ in the local community. The reason I tend to avoid the word "institution" in this regard is because it has been overly identified with another word "corporation" which unfortunately in the popular mind denotes corruption, greed, manipulation, and fraud. These are themes angry people imagine when they think of Church leadership on a universal scale. It is a stereotype which is no more than a big lie.

The irony which emerges in this kind of language is that the very ones who say that they have been excluded from decision-making positions and power would themselves exclude in their rhetoric, the Church leadership, rendering them inconsequential in regard to their views, and even worse, demoting them as non-members of Christ's Church.

From Pope to parishioner, we are all members of the People of God with particular roles and responsibilities. We should not seek to blur the distinction in our roles or to overlap them where to do so would do damage to the mechanism which works in the Church. Even theologians, who are called to defend and to help promote the teachings of Christ which develop and mature organically throughout history -- even they are not the Magisterium of the Church. They are helpers and movers but not the ultimate teachers. Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Religious, Layperson -- this is the pattern which safeguards the good order of the Church. This order is ingrained in us and is not simply extrinsic. All are ways to follow Christ in the universal call to discipleship. The teachings of the Church are taught by the Magisterium which itself is protected by the Holy Spirit from grievous error. Doctrine cannot be determined by census poll or vote. Again, we have to be cautious that we do not make our ways into God's ways. In Hall's book, there also reoccurs the subtle criticism about how individuals are called to leadership. Again, our view of democracy even colors our interpretation of the early Church. A few isolated incidents of communities voting for their ministers does not constitute a precedent and certainly not an infallible forum. The use of Trustees almost destroyed the young Church in this nation, I doubt we would want to return to it. We have all heard stories about Protestant clergymen who have sacrificed their values to get the choice appointments. The Catholic clergy must never do this. Ambition kills the priest! No, the magical answer is not always having communities dictate who their leaders should be. We are called, not to be navel-gazing narcissists but to be Christians. There will be times when the best leaders will tell us what we will NOT want to hear. They will challenge us to grow beyond our selfishness. This is true of the parish and this is true of the Church as a whole.

There is some truth to Hall's statement that "There are many Christian leaders who are not Ministers (bishops, priests, or deacons), but need to develop their ministry as shepherds within their respective institutions" (p. 8). However, I would caution that the limits of such ministry be clearly delineated so that it might not become confused with the service offered by clergy. Indeed, the word "ministry" itself might be better used as something peculiar to the ordained. A ministry might be "confirmed within" and become "evident to" one's community; however, I would caution against a clear identification (p. 18). Hall uses the example of Saint Francis who failed in converting Muslims in Syria and went home to where his call was fulfilled in his community. Certainly, God may have called Saint Francis back to Italy, but because he had something for him to do there, not because his ministry up until that point had been a failure. Such a view would negate the value of almost all missionaries in foreign lands where the message falls upon deaf ears. The Lord does not call us to be successful, only faithful. Again, we find another error of revisionism, that the fruits of our labors must always be abundant and obvious. The real ways of God are such that we might minister an entire lifetime and never really know empirically whether we made any difference or not; and yet, in faith, we know we did what we were called to do-- what we had to do. God's kingdom may be filled with a bounty prepared and harvested unknowingly in this life by faithful and tireless ministers of the Gospel.

Hall makes two points which I would like to applaud and re-emphasize:

Individuals are important but always within an institutional context. (p. 19)

If the growth is to be positive and life-giving, the institution must become a friend rather than an adversary. (p. 20)

First, there is a sense in which statement one is false. After all, each and every one of us is precious and irreplaceable in the eyes of God. Second, however, in regard to the corporate, the Catholic Church has always had a high regard for herself as a community. We are all bound together in the Mystical Body of Christ. From the saints in glory to the most miserable sinner asking pardon on this planet-- we are one. In the Old Testament, Yahweh called to himself a primitive Semitic people and made them his own. He called Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, the prophets, etc. from out of this community to bring them repeatedly back to fidelity to him. In the New Testament, Jesus emerges as the Messiah who would be hailed by John the Baptizer and who would gather twelve disciples around himself as the beginnings of a new People of God. All the great heroes or saints of the Church are the individuals who are important in our legacy as a Church and as disciples of Christ.

The second proposition is true as well; however, there is a responsibility of the perceived to witness integrity and holiness and of the perceiver to be generous and open. Closed hearts and minds will interpret the most loving and protective of mothers as simply oppressive and demanding. Conversely, we are to nurse from the bosom of this bride of Christ as thankful children, not as a ravenous and corrupted horde. We should not so much stress the tension as the unity of all the facets which make up the jewel we call the Church. The Church is here understood as the vehicle of salvation; not as an obstacle to everlasting life.

Prayer:

Dear Father, help us to see beyond our own selfish agendas to recognize the true needs of our brothers and sisters. Let us be as respectful to the teachers of our Church as we are to our family members whom we love and respect. From single to married, from bishop, priest, deacon, religious to layperson, let us nurture a generous spirit and a tongue which utters words of reconciliation. Let us be mindful that we are an indispensable part of a whole which is valuable and wonderful. We are part of this "institution" stemming some two thousand years, countless saints, and a billion followers walking this planet right now. Make us one in heart, mind, and soul, as we are one in baptism. Amen.

Answering Debi's Questions About Faith & Prayer

2004-10-02T18:04:00.000-07:00

Dear Debi,

Yes, sometimes I do have a clear sense of God's communication to me, although it is not the same as the dialogue between us. It is necessary that I give you something of my history. As a little boy I was often sick. My asthma was quite bad. Allergies and physical exertion brought on attacks. Some were so bad that I literally coughed up blood. This condition is better today, but respiratory problems still plague me. I lost weeks and months of school. Often I would sit, bent over for breath, alone by the window and watch the other children at play outside. Oh how I wanted to join them. I cannot tell you how many tears I cried in secret. It was in the midst of this sense of aloneness that the strong faith given me from my parents came into play. I would talk to God. "Why did you make me this way? Why can't I be like other kids? What possible part in your divine plan could my suffering find meaning?" I would talk to God for hours. He became as real to me as any other member of the family. While my body failed me, my seditary life moved me to study, especially the Scriptures and the catechism. In hindsight, I think those days set the stage for my vocation to the priesthood. Deep in my soul I heard his voice, not in an audible fashion, and yet in a way quite real. This intimacy with God has remained with me to this day. I prize it as a special gift.

Does God sometimes speak to me through the lives of others? Yes, especially in those whom I serve as a minister of the Gospel.

Do I ever feel that I am endlessly repeating some prayers? Yes, but this too can be a joy and a source of security. Like so many, the Rosary is very important to me, as is the Way of the Cross devotion. The great prayer of my life is the renewal of the new covenant, the Mass or the Lord's Supper. There is no other prayer in the life of a Catholic that allows us to so thoroughly offer ourselves with our Lord as an acceptable sacrifice to the Father. It must always be our prayer that just as the gifts of the altar are transformed, so should we be changed ever more and more into the image of God's Son.

As a priest, I also keep the hours of the day holy with the Church's prayer, called the Liturgy of the Hours. It is a selection of readings with the psalms and canticles, said by all religious and priests throughout the world. It is a visible sign of the Church praying unceasingly. There are wonderful words of encouragement here.

As for meditation, this is also a daily habit, although I steer clear of the Oriental models. I will speak more about this when time allows. Now I must run.

PEACE,
Fr. Joe

Dear Debi,

Repetitious prayer is not really such a bad thing. Does the beloved ever tire of hearing the words, "I love you"? And what about breathing, it is a repetitious act too, and yet our lives depend upon it. Similarly, we should always find deeper meaning in our regular prayer, and operation upon which eternal life depends. Faith itself is a kind of prayer-- a dedication of the person to Jesus Christ-- a loving response to his singular sacrifice.

As for Christian meditation, there are many models; however, at the same time we must be cautious, too. The movement of "centering prayer" sometimes became a bit self-possessed or self-orientated. Christian prayer should always open up to the divine. It is not our own spirit that we are trying to contact, or even a created spirit as such, but rather the Holy Spirit. Catholics may recall the blessed dead, however all true prayer finds its orientation and focus in God.

Various forms of Eastern prayer, of which I am largely unfamiliar, are often just techniques to calm the body. Some seem to gravitate toward a lack of awareness or nothingness. Such is not Christian meditation. Christian meditation makes use of the will, the intellect, and the imagination. We might pray over a biblical or doctrinal truth. We might imagine ourselves in a Scriptural scene, particularly where Jesus was teaching or ministering. I spend at least 30 minutes a day at meditation. Some keep spiritual journals to help in their pilgrimage of faith. In addition we would do well to practice reflection. Here the emphasis is not directly God or some aspect of faith; rather, it regards our lives and how we have or have not lived out the Gospel. This form of spiritual operation is often linked to a confessor and/or spiritual director. This is important because it keeps us honest. An unfortunate aspect of fallen humanity is that we can easily deceive ourselves. Spiritual companions can help us stay on the straight path.

What books can help? Well, first and foremost is the Bible. What book could possibly be better than God's inspired Word? It should be a daily staple of your life. What else? C.S. Lewis has some great stuff-- a reminder that Catholics and Protestants alike can be holy and offer genuine prayer. His work, REFLECTION ON THE PSALMS, is quite thought provoking. I would also recommend that you get a good Missal. All the liturgical prayers have Scriptural connections and you can follow the daily bible readings prayed at church. A personal favorite of mine is THE IMITATION OF CHRIST by Thomas a Kempis. Paulist Press has been good enough to publish a whole library of spiritual classics. My choices among these are as follows: SPIRITUAL EXERCISES & SELECTED WORKS by Ignatius of Loyola, SELECTED WRITINGS by John of the Cross, THE INTERIOR CASTLE by Theresa of Avila, SELECTED WORKS by Bernard of Clairvaux, THE COMPLETE WORKS by Francis & Clare, and THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING.

Hope it helps. Sometimes seeing how others pray and discovering their insights is beneficial for us.

PEACE,
Fr. Joe

Mass Attendance & Catholic Identity

2004-09-25T10:25:00.000-07:00

Are any of us really surprised by decreasing Mass attendance? While I would not want to fall prey to any kind of faithless cynicism, I am often more astonished about why people continue to practice their faith. The Cardinal demonstrated at the last meeting of the Presbyteral Council that he has some awareness of the real sources for the dilemma. I did not get an opportunity to speak, but his statements pretty much said it all. We are suffering from several generations of poor catechetical formation and Catholics have lost a sense of their faith identity. Certainly preaching in the way that he exemplifies would help: breaking open the Scriptures, stirring the people to holiness, and showing how the faith has meaning and importance in their lives. However, there are many baptized Catholics who no longer attend Mass even a few times a month. Some shop around and find religious meaning in other churches. Many, perhaps the majority, drop out entirely. Children might go to Catholic schools, but the majority may be missing from the pews on Sunday. When I was at St. Mary’s in Upper Marlboro, MD, I polled the sixth grade about their Mass attendance. One week only two kids out of thirty-five had gone to church— and everyone was from a Catholic family. Of these two, one had gone to the Evangelical Church of her father. Only one went to Sunday Mass. I am making no exaggeration. This is the state of affairs and things have worsened in light of the scandals. Those upon whom we had only a tenuous hold are escaping the grasp of the Church.

A number of the guys at the Council meeting mentioned accidentals: music, welcoming, fellowship, good preaching, etc. What we forget is that the exodus escalated back in the 1960’s when the ancient form of the liturgy with its ritual beauty and religious chant was shelved for experimental forms. Faithful Catholics remained with the Church despite bland prayers and trite music. However, as that generation has aged and died off, younger people find Catholic worship to be a poor imitation of what Protestants can offer. Even our small African-American churches with their Gospel Masses have borrowed the music and style of the Protestant Black churches. If our accent is simply upon such accidentals and entertainment, we are bound to fail. The new mega-churches put on a much better show and without the restraints of Catholic ritual or the appeals to a moral code that has been rejected out-of-hand. Jericho Church near the Redskins Stadium has a sanctuary that holds 10,000 people. Reverend Cherry’s church in Clinton, the Evangel Temple (Central Avenue), the Church of the Great Commission (Camp Springs), and Jericho (Largo/Capital Heights) each bring in more yearly converts than the whole Archdiocese of Washington put together.

While certainly we should make our churches welcoming places where the liturgies are well done and the preaching is moving and authentic, we will have to find new and more aggressive ways of reaching the hearts and minds of people who no longer enter our doors. If people truly believe that every Mass is a sacramental encounter with the living Christ, then we would not have the current decline in participation. People do not understand the Eucharist at the heart of our faith. It is here where we find Jesus most present, the one who gives meaning to our lives as well as mercy and healing. We need to rediscover our own evangelistic spirit and promote in every forum possible a genuine Christian formation. A corrective will be truly holy priests who offer reverent liturgies where we discover and celebrate the mystery of God. The poison of dissent and spiritual laziness, even among priests, must be rooted out. When the tides of change, indifference and pain assault us all, the ark of Peter is the only sure refuge.

Shepherds must make a courageous stand for the Gospel of Life, without compromise, so as to compel people to make a choice for Christ’s kingdom or for the secular castles in the sand.

Priestly Morale & Celibacy

2004-09-25T10:15:00.000-07:00

How do you encourage young men to be priests, if priests themselves are unhappy? There are many reasons for the current vocations crisis; but, I suspect that there are no elements more central than this one. The attributing factors toward this lack of joy in God’s service are where the usual laundry list of problems comes into play. Often priests are approached as if they themselves are the ones entirely at fault; and yet, this would be an exaggeration. The current situation would be better served if there were a complete candor in our discussion upon the state of holy orders. A desperate fear of scandal pervades the subject, as if we are afraid to acknowledge the priest’s humanity with all its accompanying strengths and weaknesses. Almost a decade ago, the Archdiocese of Washington did an inquiry into priestly morale with representatives from the Pastoral Center taking notes at the various local meetings. My recollection is that we had just suffered our second horrific ice storm and very few men attended the session at St. Peter’s in Waldorf, MD. Given road conditions we were surprised the meeting was not rescheduled. While one would expect that the good men from the Chancery had come to listen, when the issue of pedophilia was mentioned their pens became motionless and they actually dismissed my observation as a credible reason why morale was sometimes low. They quickly tried to move to something else. When another priest tried to interject a similar concern, an argument almost ensued. I say “almost” because at that point we realized the deck was loaded and there was no point in pursuing the matter. The final report was sanitized; they got the results they wanted to get, and nothing else: “morale was good and priests who left ministry and malcontents who complained were aberrations, not to be taken seriously.” While most priests may be happy with their lives, such a lack of regard for the opinions and contributions of individual priests, no matter if noteworthy or not, is itself a cause for anger and disenchantment in the ranks. At one gathering of clergy we were counseled to show our enthusiasm and contentment in our ministry to the people we serve. Surely, displays of happy priests would attract men to our formation programs. We were told not to be complainers. But, plastering smiles on the faces of men does not change what is going on in their hearts and minds. Keeping silent about problems does not solve the troubles of the day.

When I was first ordained, I would quickly go on the defensive when someone criticized the state of the priesthood. The years have taught me that it is better to listen, even if it is a message we do not want to hear. It is in this vein that I take seriously the petition of 163 priests in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee calling upon the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to address the issue of married men in the priesthood. They claim that it is a credible way to stem the decline in numbers. This proposition, which has not been proven, may itself be a rationalization of lonely, unfulfilled and unhappy men. What is particularly interesting is their acknowledgment that this effort was taken up from a push in their congregations, because of shortages, but more likely in frustration about the scandalous rascals in ministry. The current effort may have inadvertently been fueled by Rome’s allowance for Episcopalian or Anglican ministers to join the ranks of the Catholic priesthood. I suspect we sometimes underestimate how revolutionary such a step was. For about a thousand years in the West vowed celibacy has been an identifying hallmark of the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. Critics will sometimes contend that compulsory celibacy was the strategy of the “institutional” Church to insure the retention of Church property and wealth against any lawful heirs. However, as in the monastic model, celibacy had always been an element of the priesthood, going back to its periodic usage among the Jews in regard to their sacrifices at the Temple. There is ample evidence that, along the lines of St. Paul, it was held in high esteem and was even considered the best lifestyle for a man called to Holy Orders.

It is true that celibacy is a discipline of the Church and is not made compulsory by the accompanying theology of the priest as a new Christ, the bridegroom of the Church. However, Fr. Stephen Dunn, a spokesman for the Milwaukee priests, exploits the wedge that has been given them when he says, “We do have married priests who are Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran converts who are ministers and become Catholic.” Does he have a point? I must regretfully say that he does. What compounds the dilemma is that while no one I know argues for the validity of Lutheran ordinations, even most Anglican or Episcopalian priests are dubious. Old Catholic and Orthodox bishops, with valid apostolic succession, have sometimes participated at Episcopalian ordinations and consecrations of bishops. This has muddied the waters where Cranmer’s intermittent Book of Common Prayer had previously breached the lines of priestly transmission. However, except for the former Anglican Archbishop of London, Episcopalian priests under the indult have been ordained “absolutely” and not “conditionally”. This means that, if they were not true priests before, they are now. The petitioners, and probably many other Catholics from among the faithful and the dissenters, are concerned that married Protestant men can become priests but married Catholic men, no matter how good and holy, cannot.

A great deal is left unsaid in the present controversy. If as I suspect, this petition is somewhat self-seeking, the priests may be very disappointed at how the matter will or will not be addressed. There is a good probability that the petition will be ignored. It is the passive way that churchmen deal with important conflicts in the post-Vatican II Church. It avoids direct confrontation and sidesteps giving a voice to division in the American hierarchy. Certain more conservative voices actually side with the left in arguing that the topic should be considered once and for all. The presumption from this camp is that the bishops would assuredly side with the Holy Father and reaffirm compulsory celibacy and then label the case “closed”. I would suspect that this would happen, after much wrangling in private sessions; however, I am beyond being shocked by the surprising things that bishops say and do. The business about NOT targeting Jews with the Gospel of Christ and the bending over backwards to appease homosexuals, okay pun intended, are recent examples of defective instruction. It is not probable that the discipline will change any time soon, but I would not take bets on it either. Years ago the media delighted in fantasy statistics about the large numbers of gays in the active priesthood. These voices have largely gone mute since the rash of child molestation cases. They protect their own. I wonder how many petitioners themselves are heterosexuals who want the comfort of a woman in marriage? Even if the rules should change, they may be in for a terrible awakening. Marriage does not solve all the questions of intimacy and loneliness. Priests who have left the ministry for a woman have an inordinately high divorce rate. It is also doubtful that any change in discipline would be retroactive. Following the Eastern model, men would have to be ordained before the acquisition of the deaconate. Widowers would not be allowed to remarry, as is the current situation with our permanent deacons. Men who have already vowed celibacy would be held to their promises. Unless they are happy with their celibacy, can you imagine the tension for these men to labor side-by-side with married priests with families? There may be many other good priests who accepted the sacrifice of celibacy and are happy, but would feel betrayed by such a development. The hesitation to assign married former Episcopalian priests to regular parish settings illustrates that the Church is not blind to such concerns, even if largely unexpressed.

While there are common denominators, not everyone’s experience of the priesthood is the same. A man may not even recognize himself in a book or article about the priesthood, depending upon his situation and the model or models of ministry that are put forward. One priest remarked how he hated “preachy” idealistic books because they heightened his frustration in not becoming the priest he had fantasized about in his youth. Of course, this begs the question as to whether he fell sort because of weakness and lack of appropriate gifts or because the expectations of some writers are unrealistic. Priests have tended to measure themselves against the saints. This compounds the pain of priests in a society that now largely counts the priest among the hypocrites and blind guides condemned by Christ.

5. About the Gospel of Life: Part 4

2004-09-15T21:25:00.000-07:00

The fourth section of the encyclical has the Holy Father calling for the creation of a new culture wherein every human life is respected and guarded. He links this theme with the evangelization that constitutes the mission of the Church-- to bring the Gospel (of Life) to the Four Corners of the world. Each one of us here must be a prophet of this message-- a people of life and for life. This is why priests and deacons must preach on this message so seriously, even when it gets back to us that some desire us to stay off such personal topics. The deafening silence must end. The Gospel of Life is a constitutive element of our faith-- you will be hearing about it for as long as you live, and so will those outside the Catholic Church.

You Did It to Me: For a New Culture of Human Life

If we are going to make real change, then society must revere, protect, and promote the dignity of every human person (#81). Our teachers, pastors, and bishops must inform the consciences of our people. (#82). We need to pray and reflect about the great mystery of life and explicitly celebrate it in our sacraments (#84). The Pope even proposes a Day of Life commemoration each year (#85).

Properly informed, how do we go about changing our world? The Holy Father gives us a whole list of places to start:

Christians committing themselves as neighbors to everyone, particularly the poor;
Increased voluntarism, especially among the young;
Elimination of prejudice and discrimination;
Utilization of centers for natural methods of regulating fertility;
Marriage and family counseling centers;
Treatment centers for drug addiction, mental illness, AIDS patients, the disabled, and such;
The important role of hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and social service agencies;
Health care personnel;
Civil leaders fulfilling their duty to make courageous choices in support of life and to substantiate them in legislative measures; and
Political leaders helping in the reestablishment of a just order in the defense of human life.

We have heard for too long the falsehood that the world is over-populated. There are not too many people in the world. We have resources to feed many times over the numbers that currently walk the planet. If there is any shortage, it is in our love of neighbor. The Pope calls on the nations of earth "to create economic, social, public health and cultural conditions which will enable married couples to make their choices about procreation in full freedom and with genuine responsibility" (#91).

The family must again be seen as the "sanctuary of life" (#92). Consciences need to be properly formed within a transformed culture. Primary in this endeavor will be re-education. Although one has to admit, we have much with which to compete in this endeavor. Already, many if not most of our people have been indoctrinated by the anti-gospel. If you do not believe me, let me list the areas of education mentioned by the Pope: sexuality and love, natural family planning and responsible procreation, and a lifestyle wherein the primacy of being is over that of having. In other words, do we value things more than persons (#98)? The materialism of our age is inherently opposed to the Gospel of Life. More to the point, everything is reduced to things-- sexuality becomes "the wild thing" and the unborn child "an unwanted thing." Others and us are minimized as objects and not as thinking, loving, subjects. Do you see the problem and how far we have to go?

Against a radical feminism that reduces sexuality to numerical equality and its expression to a false and self-seeking liberty, the Pope speaks in Christ's name about the real value of womanhood and the unique role of women in helping to form and shape culture. It may be a heavy burden but I think the words of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen were right when he said that sexual morality is whatever women want it to be. If the women are holy, the men will follow. The Pope says that the great gift of motherhood "involves a special communion with the mystery of life," and summons all women to voice this deep respect for human life (#99). Turning to women who have had abortions, the Pope is sensitive to their pain and to their wounded hearts. He encourages them to keep hope alive, and after inviting them to repentance, he asks them to become the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life (#99). Finally, realizing the immensity of the task before us, he asks us to pray and fast as an efficacious means of bringing about God's will and design for the human person and the global family (#100).

The Pope Concludes with a Prayer to Mary

O Mary, bright dawn of the new world, Mother of the living,
to you do we entrust the cause of life:
Look down, O Mother, upon the vast numbers of babies not allowed to be born,
of the poor whose lives are made difficult,
of men and women who are victims of brutal violence,
of the elderly and the sick killed by indifference or out of misguided mercy.
Grant that all who believe in your Son
may proclaim the Gospel of life with honesty and love to the people of our time.
Obtain for them the grace to accept the Gospel as a gift ever new,
the joy of celebrating it with gratitude throughout their lives
and the courage to bear witness to it resolutely,
in order to build, together with all people of good will,
the civilization of truth and love,
to the praise and glory of God, the Creator and lover of life. (#104)

4. About the Gospel of Life: Part 3

2004-09-15T21:17:00.000-07:00

The third section of the encyclical centers upon God's law, notably the commandment, You shall not kill. Jesus tells us that following the commandments is the way to eternal life, to sharing the very life of God (#52). God's laws are never separated from his love. Those of you who are good parents have rules for your children. Sometimes your kids complain, not understanding how these rules make for a good home and keep them safe. But, the rules are an expression of your love. The same applies to our heavenly Father and to Mother Church. The Holy Father writes: "In giving life to man, God demands that he love, respect and promote life. The gift thus becomes a commandment, and the commandment is itself a gift" (#52).

You Shall Not Kill: God's Holy Law

Hatred and indifference leads to murder while love fosters life in manifold ways. The murderer's self-preoccupation results in personal destruction. The lover of God looks beyond himself and cherishes all life as a divine gift. There is no difference between our openness to life in the here-and-now and sharing in eternal life. The one flows into the other. Recalling 1 John 3:15, Pope John Paul II notes: "In this same perspective, the words of the apostle John have a categorical ring: 'Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him'" (#54).

We like to pretend that we are the final authority, totally in charge of our world, our lives, and our destiny. Contrasted to this false picture of things, the Pope tells us: "Man's lordship however is not absolute, but ministerial: It is a real reflection of the unique and infinite lordship of God" (#52). We will be held accountable for what we have been given (#52).

As the ultimate Creator of all, God has made us for himself; thus, there can never be any excuse for the destruction of an innocent human being. Opinions to the contrary are not part of the Gospel but constitute Satan's agenda (#53).

Scores of books and articles have been penned by radical feminists who refigure (or should I say disfigure) the truth about abortion, dismissing the long-standing teaching for life as the insensitivity of a patriarchally oppressive hierarchy. But God has promised not to lead us wrong. One of the most ancient documents of the Church is the Didache, sometimes called The Teaching of the Apostles, dated around the second century. It states: "There are two ways, a way of life and a way of death; there is a great difference between them . . . . In accordance with the precept of the teaching: You shall not kill . . . you shall not put a child to death by abortion nor kill it once it is born . . . . The way of death is this: . . . they show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and by abortion cause God's creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor; they are filled with every sin. May you be able to stay ever apart, O children, from all these sins!" (#54). From the very beginning of the Christian dispensation, the life of the unborn was sacrosanct.

Discussing related issues, the Pope affirms the right to self-defense, even defining it as a grave duty for the protection of another's life, the family, or for the state. Of course, there sometimes emerges "a heroic love" wherein love as we know it is redefined in an act of sacrifice which imitates Christ's self-offering. Turning to the death penalty, he speaks of the growing demand that it be applied rarely or even abolished. Asserting that its primary purpose is to right a wrong (disorder) caused by the offense, the Pope says we "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society" (#56). He offers the view that such cases are few if not for all practical purposes, nonexistent.

These matters of self-defense, defense of country, and the death penalty are quickly mentioned in passing; the real emphasis in the document is upon innocent human life. Making sure that there is no confusion whatsoever about his authority to teach upon it, he tells us: "In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the church's tradition and consistently proposed by her magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result of that 'supernatural sense of the faith' which, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit, safe-guards the people of God from error when 'it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals" (#57). With such an understanding he makes the first of three declarations in this section: "I CONFIRM THAT THE DIRECT AND VOLUNTARY KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING IS ALWAYS GRAVELY IMMORAL" (#57). The case is closed.

He specifies the backing of these teachings:

By the authority Christ gave Peter and his successors; In Communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church; Based upon unwritten law found by reason in man's own heart (natural law); Reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture; Transmitted by the tradition of the Church; and Taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Covering all the bases, this teaching is infallible. We must learn its full implications, assent, and live by it. All innocent human life is sacred and equal in value. Echoing Vatican II, this makes abortion and infanticide, an "unspeakable crime."

Ambiguous terminology cloaks abortion's true nature. It is the direct and deliberate killing of an unborn child. Nothing justifies it-- not the mother's health, not a desire for a better standard of living-- nothing. The Church does not lay all the fault with the woman. It is shared by fathers pressuring abortion or abandoning their mates; friends and family urging termination; doctors and nurses turning their skills for life to the work of death; elected officials legislating the easy availability of murder; and let us not forget media people and others, who encourage ". . . the spread of an attitude of sexual permissiveness and a lack of esteem for motherhood . . ." (#59). Finally the Cairo Conference was a vivid reminder that there are international institutions and even governments who are campaigning for the legalization and spread of abortion worldwide. The cards seem stacked against us, but as the Church Militant we must not give up the fight.

We frequently hear the slogan, "It's my body!" But, the unborn child is a distinct individual, not an impersonal growth like a cancer. If anyone disputes this, leave it alone for nine months and see what it becomes. The successor of Peter points out: ". . . 'from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and . . . modern genetic science offers clear confirmation'" (#60).

We believe God implants a soul into every individual at conception, insuring an eternal destiny. The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen asked believers to pray for the unborn and to spiritually adopt those threatened by abortion: "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I love you very much. I beg you to spare the life of the unborn child that I have spiritually adopted who is in danger of abortion." I would not be surprised if the rejected children should be found waiting at the gates of heaven, longing and hoping to embrace parents whose hearts have been softened by remorse. If one had DOUBTS about their humanity, one would still be compelled to err on the side of NO HARM. The Pope tells us: "Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide 'a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason of a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: How could a human individual not be a human person?" . . . what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo" (#60). Such a life of body and spirit demands respect.

The Bible emphasizes the unborn child as an object of God's loving and fatherly care. The early Church condemned as an abomination the abortion and infanticide practiced in the Graeco-Roman world. Athenagoras, around the year 177 AD, notes that Christians consider as murderesses women who have taken abortifacients, because children in the womb "are already under the protection of divine providence" (#61). The Latin author Tertullian affirms: "It is anticipated murder to prevent someone from being born; it makes little difference whether one kills a soul already born or puts it to death at birth. He who will one day be a man is a man already" (#61). Recent Popes, like Pius XI, Pius XII, and John XXIII reaffirmed the sacredness of life and the evil of abortion. The Church's Code of Canon Law says that a person who knows about the penalty incurs automatic excommunication from the Church if they have or assist another in having an abortion. Within this context of unanimous teaching, we find the Pope's second declaration: "I DECLARE THAT DIRECT ABORTION, THAT IS, ABORTION WILLED AS AN END OR AS A MEANS, ALWAYS CONSTITUTES A GRAVE MORAL DISORDER, SINCE IT IS THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING" (#62). The Pope then goes on to condemn the killing of embryos in experimentation and as waste products after in vitro fertilization. He even warns about prenatal diagnostic techniques that are implemented for purposes of selective abortion. The Church, in contradiction to this approach, is close to those families who willingly accept "gravely handicapped children" (#63).

Struggle and suffering in the Christian context is not wasted. Fleeing these hard realities at all costs, the secular mentality has an "excessive preoccupation with efficiency" finding our growing numbers of elderly and disabled too much of a bother. Of course, when death is imminent and inevitable, we can in good conscience refuse "precarious and burdensome prolongations of life" as long as normal care is not altered. This is simply accepting the mortality that is ours in the human condition. Further, Pope Pius XII said that painkillers which in themselves might decrease consciousness and shorten life may be permissible. But you cannot deprive the sick of food and water, and you definitely are not to poison them. They should be given every opportunity to prepare for their meeting with God. It is at this stage in the encyclical that the Holy Father offers his third declaration: "I CONFIRM THAT EUTHANASIA IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF GOD, SINCE IT IS THE DELIBERATE AND MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE KILLING OF A HUMAN PERSON" (#65).

An evil choice, suicide is "the rejection of love of self and the renunciation of the obligation of justice and charity toward one's neighbor, toward the communities to which one belongs and toward society as a whole" (#66). It repudiates God as the Lord of our life. Assisted suicide is an evil because it is never licit to kill another, even if they beg you to do it. Euthanasia is a false mercy, indeed, it is a perversion of it. True compassion shares the pain of another. We do not snuff out life, assuming it exacts a price too much for us to bear. Not being the end, there may be a far greater pain awaiting some of us after death, because of serious sin. Our inmost being rebels against death. For the faithful, the certitude of a future existence and the hope of resurrection transforms the mystery of suffering and dying; we are enabled to trust completely in God's will for us. Suffering becomes a sharing in Christ's cross, associating ourselves with his redemptive work.

The good of life cannot be weighed against other goods and dismissed. If an act is wrong, it remains wrong no matter who thinks different. So, there were a few illegal abortions and some of these proved unsafe; now we have millions of abortions and when two people go into these clinics, mother and child, only one comes out! We even hear the deceit, ". . . every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct" (#69). All this does is to capitulate individual responsibility into the hands of civil law, renouncing personal conscience in the public arena. Civil law should not become a slave to public opinion on abortion. At the center of all this is an ethical relativism. Is it not tyranny to kill innocent and defenseless human beings? Is it not the ultimate intolerance? Objective moral law must not be dismissed. Democracy survives only if solidarity and trust between all its members is maintained, especially among its weakest. We must be true to the founding fathers' appreciation of "inalienable" human rights that foster the common good, particularly that of life. Otherwise, the strong will take advantage of the weak. We must take drastic and immediate stands for the Gospel of Life.

When contrary to the moral law of God, civil law loses all binding force. Indeed, unjust laws become acts of violence. The Pope writes, "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 propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it'" (#73). Politicians are instead asked to limit abortion and if possible to eradicate it. Let us be free from the taint of innocent blood. Let us find the beginning of freedom by repenting of sin and seeking to sow good where there was evil. The Pope concludes this section: "We are asked to love and honor the life of every man and woman and to work with perseverance and courage so that our time, marked by all too many signs of death, may at last witness the establishment of a new culture of life, the fruit of the culture of truth and of love" (#77).

3. About the Gospel of Life: Part 2

2004-09-15T18:57:00.000-07:00

The second section of the encyclical is entitled, I Came That They May Have Life. It offers an extended meditation on what life means for the Christian believer. In fact, earthly life is judged to possess heightened value because it points to eternal life.

Life & the Believer

At the heart of the pro-life message is the person of our Savior, Jesus Christ. We have been invited into the divine life of the blessed Trinity: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn. 10:10). To this end, the Holy Father writes: "In this way the human experience and reason tell us about the value of human life, accepting it, exalting it and bringing it to fulfillment" (#30).

Counter to this, can we really say in all honesty that contraception and abortion embraces and raises up life as an incomparable treasure? No. Thus, the Pope's words tell us where we ought to be on life, not actually where we are. The scandal is that many who are professing belief in Christ in church are working fervently against the Gospel elsewhere, particularly in the bedroom. Now, you might say that I have no right to tell you what to do behind closed doors-- and we can debate that another day-- but is not Christ suppose to be in all our bedrooms? Sure he is. As I have said many times, we have the sacrament of Confession for any who want to repent of their sins. But a great sadness of mine is that the sin of contraception, not even to mention abortion, is so rarely confessed. Our sexuality should not be reduced to a crass form of cheap recreation. It is the manifestation and the giving of our very selves, or at least it ought to be. The Church teaches that in marriage, the couple "become partners in a divine undertaking: Through the act of procreation, God's gift is accepted and a new life opens to the future" (#43). Out of a responsible parenthood and respect for Church teaching, the rectory phone should be ringing off the hook for referral to Natural Family Planning programs in the archdiocese. The phone is suspiciously quiet. Our families are even more suspiciously small. Your priests are not fools, and neither is the Pope. He asks, "How can anyone think that even a single moment of this marvelous process of the unfolding of life could be separated from the wise and loving work of the Creator, and left prey to human caprice?" (#44). We know what is going on and we weep that our people should reject life instead of being open to it as the Holy Father teaches. The money that our people spend on contraceptives, fuels and finances an industry that is daily fighting the traditional family and the Church in which we worship. Every penny spent on a condom or birth control pill is also a further incentive to racist organizations like Planned Parenthood to mock the Pope and bishops and to distort God's plans for you and me. If we do not love God enough to be faithful, then do we at least fear judgment? Why is it that we have become comfortable with this act of selfish rebellion-- have we forgotten that even one mortal sin will deprive us of God's presence and damn us to the fires of hell for all eternity? How can we teach our children what is right and wrong about the little things of life, when many of us fail to do what is right about those most important matters of our personal conduct and of the generation of human life? Think about that one.

Christ has broken our shackles of sin and death; do not try to put them back on. We can only be who God wants us to be if we recognize that we have been given "an indestructible dignity." All human history is rerouted and made sacred. Many of our fundamentalist brothers and sisters are very much involved in the creationist campaign; well, for myself it does not matter so much whether all was made in six days or whether we evolved from precocious fish-- our eyes should be set on the sacrament of the present moment and our high calling. Creation and re-creation are going on right now. The wonder of salvation history is the reciprocal finding of God and our own self-discovery. Only in God can we know ourselves and our purpose for living. With the infusion of immortal souls into our first parents, the human family was set upon a journey of discovery that finds its goal in the divine. Even though revelation progressively unveils God's plans for us, some of these truths had always been planted in the human heart. The promised land and posterity promised in the Old Testament points to the heavenly Jerusalem and resurrection in the New. How can I put this simply? Is there anyone who truly wants to cease to exist? Is there anyone who wants to be nothing more than a corpse in a forgotten grave? Most of us will be little remembered as soon as we are dead. Let's face it, if there was no Easter, you and I would have lived in vain. Our lives would have made little difference. It gives you a sickening feeling, does it not? Sure. Thank God, the proposition of atheists is a lie-- but it is a deceit that many people by their lifestyle assume. I am not talking about the elderly who pray for death. They believe-- they offer their sufferings in union with Christ's for the redemption of the world. No, they want to die so as to be with God in heaven. Many of them miss family and friends, wanting to see them again. They want an end to pain, but not at any price. All this is at the core of what the Holy Father is telling us: "This first notion of totality and fullness is waiting to be manifested in love and brought to perfection by God's free gift, through sharing in his eternal life" (#31). God's grace gives us a taste of what awaits us. In every one of us there is the cry, "I want to live! I don't want to die! I want to see my grandmother or my sister or my husband again! I don't want to hurt anymore!" These yearnings given us by God will be fulfilled. That is our trust. Suffering is not a cause for despair, but for enriched hope. We read: "Jesus sets forth the meaning of his own mission: All who suffer because their lives are in some way 'diminished' thus hear from him the 'good news' of God's concern for them, and they know for certain that their lives too are a gift carefully guarded in the hands of the Father (cf. Mt. 6:25-34)" (#32).

Of course, the mission of Christ was not simply for the sick, the suffering, and the oppressed. The moral and spiritual dimension of every life is touched by the Gospel. "Only those who recognize that their life is marked by the evil of sin can discover in an encounter with Jesus the Savior the truth and the authenticity of their own existence" (#32). The cry of the Baptizer still has merit, "Repent and believe!" Otherwise, the truth is unavailable. Sin blinds us. Selfishness prejudices our consciences. There are only two choices, rebellion or repentance. The former brings renewed slavery, the latter, liberty and life. We have an entire culture in bondage to the pill and condom. What does it say? We cannot control ourselves! We will have this pleasure when we want and with whomever we want! -- girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, or somebody else's spouse! This mentality is all perverted. Unfortunately, I can shout the rooftops off with the Gospel challenge and I doubt some would listen. We only hear what we want to hear. But, as prophets of the Good News we must speak the truth all the same. Every man or woman who has sex outside of marriage is a thief. They steal the chaste love owed to God, the virginity that belongs to a future spouse, and the sanctity that would be theirs in a holy life. Every man or woman who has used artificial contraception is a liar. They go through the motions of openness to God and to one another while they have in actuality closed themselves to life and from the total self-donation they promised in marriage. They blaspheme the providence of God. Every man or woman who has cooperated in the procurement of an abortion is a murderer. Herod's soldiers now seek the Lord in the womb. The blood of the holy innocents continues to be shed. We read in Evangelium Vitae: "But there is also, from the start, rejection on the part of the world which grows hostile and looks for the child in order 'to destroy him' (Mt. 2:13); a world which remains indifferent and unconcerned about the fulfillment of the mystery of this life entering the world" (#33). I know these words are a heavy and stinging condemnation, but there is a sure hope if we repent. SEE THE SIN, do not dismiss it as unimportant! SEE THE SIN, do not say to yourself that you have time to change, the time is now! SEE THE SIN, do not say that you're good in a lot of other areas and that makes up for it, it does not. Supposedly good people who do a whole host of wonderful things, including going to church, can still suffer the loss of heaven on account of one serious sin-- one. A single act of contraception, for example, is the matter of mortal sin. While there may be mitigating factors like a lack of understanding, habit, passion itself, and coercion, both from a spouse and economic considerations-- it is still serious. A person might go to hell for it. How many of our people have contracepted so many times that they could not even dare put a number to it? Added to it the tens of millions of abortions and we have buried ourselves under a mountain of sins. The Church wants us to look at it honestly, admitting our fault, and altering our focus and behavior-- allowing God to change us into more perfect likenesses of his Son.

Jesus' self-donation on the cross is the reservoir for our new life. If Jesus can be so selfless, then cannot our married couples exhibit the same kind of sacrificial love for one another and for their children, born and unborn. I think so. In my own vocation as a priest, I have chosen a celibate love, not to repudiate conjugal love, but to exalt it. Precisely because I prized it so highly as a gift from God, I chose to forsake it as a sacrifice that would really be felt in my life. As a normal male, I very much liked girls. But, as a teenager I cared for my female friends too much to ever want to lead them into mortal sin. We also need to respect our own dignity regarding such matters. Many priests, religious, sisters, etc. surrender the sexual life so as to become signs of contradiction in a world that abuses this gratuity. We try to give ourselves more fully to the Lord and to the service of his people. If men and women can do this, cannot our married couples exhibit periodic restraint if they want to space the births in their families and avoid contraception? Sure. Discipline and the grace of God will come to those who really desire it. As for our single people, they need to know that fornication is only one step removed from adultery. Statistics prove it. Sin makes it so. Make your bodies sources of holiness, for your bodies are YOU. Your lives are great treasures. "Truly great must be the value of human life if the Son of God has taken it up and made it the instrument of the salvation of all humanity!" (#33).

Elevating us above all creation, God has made us able to know and to love him; indeed, we were made for God and have an eternal destiny. Despite progress and technological improvements, the perils of sin remain the same: "Through sin, man rebels against his Creator and ends up by worshiping creatures . . ." (#36). When God is not given his due, our own meaning is forfeited and indifference, hostility, and even murderous hatred compromise the unity between people. But, if we follow Christ, the divine image is renewed and restored. Existence is not just the occasion for self-expression or for forming relationships, it is where we encounter and come into communion with God. This is the meaning of life! The Holy Father states: "Man's life comes from God; it is his gift, his image and imprint, a sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of his life: Man cannot do with it as he wills" (#39). The question for the Christian is, "What does God want me to do with my life?" Will we commit ourselves into the loving and nurturing hands of God's providence?

As it has been said before, contraception is the handmaid of abortion. When the pill fails, which it does at least 3% of the time, these couples, more so than not, abort. Even worse, it creates a climate in which abortion is more tolerated and utilized. The New Testament confirms the value placed upon human life even from its beginning in the womb. Giving you the Pope's exact words, he states: ". . . the value of the person from the moment of conception is celebrated in the meeting between the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth, and between the two children whom they are carrying in the womb. It is precisely the children who reveal the advent of the Messianic age: In their meeting, the redemptive power of the presence of the Son of God among men first becomes operative" (#45). You cannot be pro-abortion and remain a true Christian. The pro-abortion agenda is the work of the anti-Christ.

I most move on now and mention with some speed the other matters that the Pope brings up in the second section of his encyclical. The commandment against killing, comes to full stature only in the course of time and under the illumination of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, even today there are residual elements of the old law as found in penal legislation and the death penalty that the Holy Father believes we are to move beyond. The overall message of the New Testament ". . . is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person" (#40). Not only must we avoid killing our neighbor, we must love him. Not only must we protect widows, orphans, the sick, the poor, and the child in the womb (cf. Ex. 21:22; 22:20-26), we must turn enemies into friends by loving and praying for them. Such is the shift and heightened expectation of the new covenant. This development of doctrine is particularly pertinent in a day when fanatics will bomb abortion clinics. We want to protect the lives of both the innocent and the guilty.

Rushing forward to another issue, the Pope reiterates that old age is to be regarded as dignified and should be treated with reverence. From the womb to the tomb, all life is sacred. Euthanasia or mercy killing (particularly the Dr. Kevorkian type) is murder, pure and simple. We should neither kill our babies nor our old people. This should be obvious, but the nonsense is going on all the same. I can hear the devil now, "You might have survived the womb, but I'll get you yet!" Many who receive these words of mine may already be up in years and many others, like myself, have high hopes of getting there-- these murderous attempts at false compassion should unnerve us greatly. The Pope says that "Man is not the master of life nor is he the master of death. In life and in death, he has to entrust himself completely to the 'good pleasure of the Most High,' to his loving plan" (#46). Having said this, the Pope acknowledges that our current bodily life is not an absolute good. We might be asked to give up our lives for a greater good, like the martyrs who died for others and for the Gospel. However, this is not an arbitrary matter. Life has a meaning all its own. Forget this and we endanger ourselves and become a threat to everyone else.

Today, the Pope wants us to become like the prophets of old. We cannot allow ourselves to "go with the flow" of our society. Western culture is increasingly ignoring God's plan, we must forcefully remind all our brothers and sisters, by our words and example, that the Lord alone is the authentic source of life. If you are living in sin, then you are not alive at all. It is a contradiction in terms. Pope John Paul II reminds us that God will give us new hearts through his Spirit and that the law of God will bring us fulfillment. If you are single and a virgin, cherish it and bring it undefiled to a religious vocation or to the marriage bed. If you are living with someone and fornicating with them, make space for God and stop giving away that which the other has no right to receive. If you have been unfaithful to your spouse, distance yourself from the one who robs your spouse of his or her just due and find renewed fidelity. If you have used contraception, throw the junk away and find out how you can both be responsible parents and good followers of Jesus in his Church. If you have had anything to do with abortions, join the brave souls who march for life each January in Washington, D.C. It is embarrassing that so many believers stay home. If you have aging friends or family whom you have neglected, spend some time with them and let them know that they are still loved. And please, do not forget to come to a priest for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Allow God to forgive your sins in the Church. It is not enough to just say you are sorry in private. You need the mercy and healing that comes from Christ in his Church. As I said in the beginning, our physical life and eternal life are two sides of a single coin. The successor of Peter tells us: "It is the very life of God which is now shared with man. It is the life which through the sacraments of the church -- symbolized by the blood and water flowing from Christ's side -- is continually given to God's children, making them the people of the New Covenant" (#50). Follow in the footsteps of Christ -- it might lead to the cross; but, it will definitely take us to heaven.

The Pope ends this section with a prayer, make it your own: "Grant, therefore, that we may listen with open and generous hearts to every word which proceeds from the mouth of God. Thus we shall learn not only to obey the commandment not to kill human life, but also to revere life, to love it and to foster it" (#50).

2. About the Gospel of Life: Part 1

2004-09-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

The first section of the encyclical is entitled, The Voice of Your Brother's Blood Cries to Me From the Ground. It offers an extensive analysis of the threats to life, and, lest we drown in a sea of utter negativity, renders a few signs of hope, too.

All Murder is a Family Affair

The Pope begins by alerting us that all murder is a family affair. Every murder flows from and resonates with that first homicide wherein Cain killed his brother, Abel. All of us share a common humanity and within this framework many of us participate in the one faith of Christ. Faith and blood unite us. Every murder is the destruction of our own flesh. Besides the spiritual kinship that is assaulted, even when innocent persons unknown to us have their lives taken, abortion and euthanasia bring this violation into our own homes. The successor of Peter draws our attention to the twofold commandment of Christ: love of God and love of neighbor. They are inseparably connected. Our love for one another flows from and is dependent upon our love for God. Consequently, it should not surprise us that those who revolt against God are also at odds with their brothers and sisters in the family of man. Selfishness is not discriminating. Just as Cain tries to cover up his crime with a lie, many in our day refuse to be honest about their relationship with God and about their attacks against the life and dignity of others. The pornographer does not care about the moral worth of his model; the pimp does not worry about the spiritual welfare of his prostitute; the abortionist does not prize the gift of the child he destroys, and in his greed, cares not for the mother, but for her purse. Will these people be able to look God straight in the face when they cross over the threshold of death? Will God embrace them, calling them good and faithful servants? Hardly, hatred and neglect of God always leads to a similar disregard for one's fellow men and women.

God orders Cain to wander a hard barren land-- the cost of his sin: we are told that murderous violence desensitizes man's environment to such crimes. This happenstance alienates our world from God. All life belongs to God. God spared Cain's life. Showing his distaste for capital punishment, the Holy Father notes that even God preferred correction to the death of the sinner. He would have us act likewise. God's question of Cain becomes ours. "What have you done?" It might be turned around as well, "What have you failed to do?" We must acknowledge our complicity in the attacks against life. Because of poor priorities or erroneous opinions, even in the family is no longer a safe haven, the "sanctuary of life." The news around the world might be full of stories of murder, war, slaughter, and genocide-- but we have plenty here at home with which to deal as well. And, I do not mean just the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City, for as tragic as it was, it pales in comparison to the 4000 plus abortions in this nation every day, one-and-a-half million a year. We ignore it. We refuse to march for life or say we are too busy. We leave it to someone else to write to our senators and congressmen and -women. We vote for candidates who say they hate abortion but who promise that they will do everything in their power to insure that the killing of unborn babies will not be stopped. And, some of us have been directly party to these unspeakable crimes. As with Cain, only the grace and mercy of God, granted to a repentant heart, can allow us to live with our fault. On top of this, many of us forget to pray about such matters or for the little murdered souls.

We live in a climate of relativism and a culture of death. Innocuous medical terms are used to hide the truth, indeed, we strip truth of any objective meaning. We give our selfishness free reign behind a veil of moral uncertainty and a structure of sin. Live and let live-- no, it is more like live and let die. We categorize the unborn as an unjust aggressor and the aged as an embarrassment best removed from the picture, maybe better off dead. In this conspiracy against life, when did children, the elderly, and the handicapped, become the enemy? What did they do to deserve such treatment? Only one thing-- the only thing that our society will not forgive-- they exist. That is how twisted things have become-- we have re-imaged life as a crime. The unborn child is no longer a gift from God, but an unfortunate accident. The elderly are not deserving of our respect, but are hopelessly backward and senile. Stereotypes numb our consciences. Can we not see that something is terribly wrong in all this?

I am almost afraid to track what the Holy Father has to say in this portion of his encyclical. The faithful 28% who still go to church, the remnant of our faith in this land, even many of them probably feel uncomfortable when the topic of contraception is breached. The Pope views it as the handmaid to abortion. Trembling in my boots, but unwilling to sacrifice the truth, let me quote the courageous words of the Holy Father: "But the negative values inherent in the 'contraceptive mentality' -- which is very different from responsible parenthood lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act -- are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation [of abortion] when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: The former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment 'you shall not kill.' . . . Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfillment" (#13). It is important for many of our families to think about this and to remember that the sacrament of penance can remit the blame for this serious sin.

In rapid succession, the Holy Father mentions the many other threats to life: artificial reproduction (in which spare embryos are discarded), eugenic reproduction and infanticide (especially retarded babies are deemed unworthy of continued existence), and euthanasia or mercy killing (start worrying, Kevorkian might be coming after YOU next). We saw with the Cairo and Beijing Conferences that affluent nations are all too willing to attach anti-birth policies to any economic help they might offer developing nations. As cohorts with the World Bank, our country and the Clinton administration was behind much of this. Over twenty members of the U.S. delegation to Cairo were members of Planned Parenthood. Our tax dollars paid their way. Placing all his hopes in the next generation, Pope John Paul II warned the young people in Denver against the many false prophets of our age. The 20th century will go down as the era of the holocaust-- we have seen massive attacks on life, an almost endless series of wars, and the perpetual taking of innocent human lives. Oddly enough, we hear a great deal about rights these days. Almost all of it is empty rhetoric. If the weakest in our society are not safe, none of us are safe. The dignity of the human being and that person's right to life must not be made contingent upon his ability to produce or to verbally communicate. We are not simply factors in production. We have value even if we cannot express ourselves clearly to those around us. The last instance is notable. The unborn child has no voice. He is silenced before he can cry out. Similarly, the seriously ill in a hospital may likewise be unable to interact except on the level of a silent language of sharing affection. That is sufficient, despite the bombardment of lies to the contrary. We must practice what we preach! We must be their voice in this over-politicized world of ours.

The Holy Father fears that by failing to be our brother's keeper, we are distorting democracy and moving toward a new totalitarianism. As one who lived under Polish Communism, he should know. Our freedom possesses a relational dimension; absolute autonomy would cast everyone as our competitor, our enemy. The democratic ideal survives only if the inalienable right to life is protected for all. To take this right away from a segment of the population, as we have done, is to negate true freedom. St. John writes: "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).

Without God, humanity is emptied of all value. Without God, we will either abuse nature or divinize it to our detriment. Without God, individualism, utilitarianism, and hedonism can flourish unchecked. With the eclipse of God, we are all reduced to a crass materialism. This is the state of affairs. Bearing one's cross becomes the new secular sin in this context since our pro-death culture sees no value at all in suffering. The passion of Jesus becomes the cosmic joke. We live as if there is no God at all. As individuals, we, become all that matters, and we only work with others for what we can get out of it. We sacrifice the weak and the helpless for what we consider to be more important needs. We use people and they only matter while their utility can be exploited. The body and its pleasures are to be appeased at every opportunity. Sex becomes the great recreation. Pregnancy becomes synonymous with illness, fought against first with drugs and obstructions and later dealt with as an unwanted cancer, surgically extracted.

In all this, and it is no less than monstrous, there is a glimmer of hope. The moral conscience has been confused, but all the conditioning and efforts to enforce silence cannot totally stifle the voice of the Lord whispering the truth in every conscience. As Christians, we believe that the blood of Christ will win the victory for life. We observe many signs of hope. There are still couples, who live faith-filled and selfless lives, raising godly families. There are still pro-life doctors scattered about who seek medical advancements on the side of raising the quality of life. Pro-life centers are ever growing and natural family planning programs, like the one operated by Mercedes Wilson, are bearing good fruit. Pro-life lobbying continues and we have reaffirmed non-violent protest. Despite the rule of greed and selfishness, our Church is one of the largest providers of charity in the world. Voices cry out for world peace, to find alternatives to capital punishment, to be good stewards of the earth. It is my fervent hope that our reflection at the end of this millennium will find us all unconditionally committed to the Gospel of Life as we enter the next. Why does the Church poke her nose into such matters? It is because life is a constitutive element of the Gospel-- the Good News of Christ is on the side of life! That is why one who opposes life, despite statements to the contrary, is working against Christ's kingdom and is presenting an anti-gospel. "See, I have set before you this day life and death, good and evil . . . . Therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live" (Dt. 30:15, 19).

1. About the Gospel of Life: An Introduction

2004-09-13T21:31:00.000-07:00

Following the promulgation of our Holy Father's encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, the pastor of St. Mary's and myself preached on it for five consecutive Sundays at all Masses. We also distributed several hundred copies of the papal document. Many welcomed the reformulation of the pro-life theme as at the very heart of the Gospel. Others were perplexed entirely, having never before really heard such moral positions of the Good News spelled out. Admittedly, several parishioners objected very much to the message and distanced themselves from us. We were accused of being idiosyncratic and insular, particularly since there was a lack of any uniform and universal effort to make people aware of these moral teachings of the Church. As to why some priests failed to familiarize themselves with the encyclical or to preach upon it, I will not speculate. However, I would suggest that silence is not safe. Speaking for myself, I am ever mindful that I teach our Lord's Gospel as interpreted and transmitted by the Magisterium of the Church-- and not my own personal opinions which lack the full safeguards of the Holy Spirit. Any countering apologetic for secular humanism, vaguely disguised as pop religion, constitutes an anti-Gospel. Christians who are afraid of making waves about such topics as abortion, euthanasia, and contraception should be more concerned about the judgment of God than human opinion. As a priest, almighty God will hold me accountable if I lead people astray or fail to admonish them in respect to the truth of these matters. Why is it that certain national initiatives like the failed women's pastoral and letters on peace and economics merited mandatory study groups and vigorous discussion forums while the Pope's letter has not? This is not to say that Catholics in the pews are not interested. The letter can still be found in many secular bookstores. At a Christian Coalition convention in Washington, D.C., I heard Catholics and Protestants alike praise it. Allocating the family a central place in the moral life of this nation, they found the Pope's words courageous, truthful, and prophetic. Along with those shepherds courageous enough to speak the truth, maybe this element of the Gospel is most uniquely the treasure of our faithful and orthodox laity. The true "sensus fidelium" upon this matter is not with dissidents who neither practice their religion nor believe in the apostolic faith; but with the faithful remnant which patiently perseveres despite all sorts of foolishness and selfishness. These few words of criticism and commentary are intended as an encouragement for those witnessing to these teachings in their lives and as a tool to propagate them to others.

Time for the Silence to End

This papal letter may very well be the watershed document that will define our Christian discipleship for life. Here is where our legitimate Jubilee 2000 preparation should begin. Every literate Catholic should acquire a copy. The amount of resistance it has received seems to guarantee that it will have a part to play in the ultimate confrontation between the kingdom of Christ and that of the world. I do not exaggerate when I say this. Christ is the Gospel of Life. As such, he is the Light of the world. The forces of darkness, pretending to be illumination, have already cast this proclamation of truth aside as intolerant and backward. Selfish people will have no part of it. It is a call for courage, sacrifice, and true understanding.

Despite our tendency to disconnect the creedal elements of our faith from the moral life, the Holy Father starts off his epistle by showing us that they are inextricably linked. Recalling the good news of Christmas, he notes: "The source of this 'great joy' is the birth of the Savior; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn. 16:21)" (Intro., 1). In other words, every child is precious and irreplaceable: every child is a reflection of the Christ-child. The "new and eternal" life to which we are called gives heightened meaning to "all the aspects and stages of human life" (Ibid.).

Unlike the separatist theologians whose dissent has brought much confusion to the minds of Catholics; Pope John Paul II would have us share in the integralism that is intrinsic to the Gospel. We are not angels. We are men and women. Yes, we have souls. But, human beings are also in-fleshed. We are not robots. We are bodily persons. We cannot and must not try to separate the spiritual element of our make-up from the physical. Death will do that soon enough. Neither must we undervalue our bodily life in the here-and-now. The Pope writes: "After all, life on earth is not an 'ultimate' but a 'penultimate' reality [a reality next to the last things]; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters" (Intro., 2).

Sometimes it is argued that we as Catholics are trying to overly press our religious views upon others; and yet, the Holy Father echoes both Pope Paul VI and Pope John XXIII when he contends that the Gospel of Life is an objective truth knowable to all: "Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom. 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree" (Intro., 2).

An appeal to natural law is made so as to foster dialogue and agreement, not simply in the Catholic community, but also among non-Christians. However, it must be admitted that there is a resistance against this type of argumentation even from those who are supposedly Catholic. Inserting my own reflection for a moment, I am reminded of Senator Ted Kennedy's attack upon Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings because of a paper the judge had offered correlating the natural law defense which prevailed against black slavery to that of the unborn and abortion. Showing that the Pope cannot be pigeonholed as either in the camp of the right or left, he seems to allude to Mater et Magistra released by Pope John XXIII in July of 1961: "Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn. 1:14), is entrusted to the maternal care of the church" (Intro., 3). William Buckley, the renown conservative magazine editor, called the earlier Pope's work, "an exercise in triviality," and yet the present Pope reaffirms the Church's role as both mother and teacher. If Mater et Magistra was seen as an extension of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Rerum Novarum, regarding social questions, the distribution of wealth, the rights of laborers, etc.; then Evangelium Vitae is a further expansion of such questions into the very core issue of human life itself.

While many of the Pope's critics appeal to some vague and nebulous "spirit of Vatican II," the Holy Father, who was there, quotes the council against such derision with a passage that leaves little room for debate: "Whatever is opposed to life itself such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction; whatever violates the integrity of the human person such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons. All these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator" (Gaudium et Spes, 27). The Pope is putting the full weight of a Church council behind him and what he is going to say. The Holy Spirit is invoked at councils to guarantee that they are true expressions of Almighty God's truths. We may remember from our catechism that "received" conciliar teachings take upon themselves a level of certitude equal to any infallible papal declaration. What we are going to be talking about are not just the Pope's personal ideas, to which we might lend casual agreement or unthinking disagreement and repudiation. The Holy Father is drawing a line in the sand. If we disagree with what he teaches in this instance, then we will never find a proper home in the Catholic Church. We can start our own church or join one that makes few demands on its adherents; but, if any of us are to remain Catholic, we must stand unreservedly with the Pope, and I believe with Jesus Christ, on the matter of human life and dignity. The Church is offering this teaching, not to be contrary, but to save our souls and to conform the world more to God's divine plan.

Instead of improving, in the practical sphere, things have grown increasingly worse in this century for the cause of life. "Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable" (Intro., 4). Is this not true? Sure it is. For over 2 decades abortion has been legal in our land. And yet, prior to the infamous Supreme Court decision, it was almost universally regarded as murder. Indeed, doctors took an oath to that effect and promised to avoid such actions. So much for promises. We either do not make them today or we break them. No one ever thought that euthanasia would take hold and now state legislatures have voted or are considering votes that might legalize it. When I was taking IV antibiotics for a serious infection in my leg a few years ago, one of the technicians decided to make small talk and in her own words told me, "You know, Dr. Kevorkian is my hero." She meant it. As a medical professional, she saw no value in pain and had completely bought into what we call a false compassion. I looked at my IV hookup with no little alarm, that I can tell you-- and this woman was a Catholic with kids in one of our schools! This false compassion is often espoused by mothers considering abortion, "It would be cruel to put the baby up for adoption by strangers!" No, they would conclude it is better to kill "it". Compounding the problem further, even defective children have been allowed to die without intervention-- infanticide is thus also a symptom of this false compassion. Often it is selfishness masquerading as mercy. All of this would have been unheard of a few years ago.

Even contraception, let us not be so polite as to avoid that word, is widely practiced by Catholics-- despite its condemnation as a moral evil and a matter of mortal sin. But alas, we do not even seem to be afraid of going to hell anymore-- not to mention loving God enough to want to follow his will. At the risk of being catalogued as rigid and unsympathetic, I will say that if you're doing it-- be fearful-- be repentant-- be faithful. Before the turn of the century, it was illegal in every state of the union. Now, it is publicly funded with condom giveaways in our schools. The Anglican Church was the first to capitulate on this issue at the 1930 Lambeth Conference; many of the other Protestant churches were quick to follow suit in discarding 1900 years of Christian tradition and practice. This surrender to modernity has bred a contraceptive mentality which is inherently anti-life. Only with the acceptance of contraception could we later avow abortion and mercy-killing. How can we be so narcissistic and blind? Pope John Paul II states: "Not only is the fact of the destruction of so many lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life" (Intro., 4). Right on the mark!

For many people there is no longer any imaginable activity which can be categorized as wrong or sinful. Cohabitation and sex before marriage is becoming the rule; adultery afterwards, its logical fruit. Homosexual activity, once thought perverse, is argued by many as a legitimate lifestyle. No. In the former instance, illicit heterosexual unions frequently result in abortion and if they do not spoil the chance for real and lasting love, they leave painful memories. In the latter, the procreative aspect of marital love is bypassed altogether and the unitive is distorted into a mocking caricature of nuptial fidelity. Although, there is talk about implanting fertilized embryos into the stomach linings of homosexuals so that they might also go through the motions of motherhood. Are these not expressions of a sick society? I for one am glad that we have a shepherd courageous and intelligent enough to speak out.

It is Catholic teaching that whenever the Pope speaks in union with the world's bishops on a matter of faith and morals that is to be universally held, it can be taken for granted that the teaching is authoritative and every Catholic must assent to it. In my own opinion, the prohibition against contraception has been infallibly made since 1930 when Pope Pius XI in Casti Cannubi spoke on Christian marriage. With this current letter, there can be no doubt whatsoever. The issues discussed by the Holy Father are serious and no room for dissent remains. Again, we are not talking about a casual disagreement. If we are Catholics and believe that the Pope has this authority, then we must assent. If he is wrong on this score, then he may be wrong about everything else as well. Maybe the Eucharist is not a sacrifice? Maybe the holy communion is just bread and wine? Maybe Jesus was not God and he did not rise from the dead? Maybe the bible is just a book of fables and lies? Maybe God does not care and after you die, you simply become worm food? I do not think so. We have to be consistent. We need to embrace both those truths which most appeal to us, as well as those which our hurts and selfishness would needle us into rejecting. This new letter is a clear expression of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. No longer can we hide in the dugouts or secretly bet on the other side; we have all been called out to the ball field and this game is for keeps! The Pope remarks about the backing of his encyclical: "I wrote a personal letter to each of my brother bishops asking them, in the spirit of episcopal collegiality, to offer me their cooperation in drawing up a specific document. . . . In so doing they bore witness to their unanimous desire to share in the doctrinal and pastoral mission of the church with regard to the Gospel of life" (Intro., 5).

Why does the Church speak? She must, there is no alternative. The Gospel is at stake. She is faithful to the Lord, and no earthly power will silence her-- not the National Organization of Women, not the National Abortion Rights League, not Planned parenthood, not ACT-UP, not Kissling's member less Catholics For Choice, no, not even the United States government or the United Nations. Elements in all these organizations have ridiculed the Pope and fought the Church's policies for life, both at home and abroad. When the Church challenged Mayor Kelly in Washington, D.C. for her plan to give homosexual couples the same legal status as married men and women, she threatened to take away the Church's tax-exemption. What is interesting is that when the Church spoke out against racism a few days earlier, she commended us for our activism. Similar trials have faced us regarding abortion, especially in places like New York and Chicago. When our own words and actions are in agreement with the establishment's agenda, we are praised; when we are a disagreeable sign of contradiction, we are mocked and threatened. We see this pattern played out over and over again. Pro-Abortion advocates sometimes blaspheme the work of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary, shouting the slogan, "Keep your rosaries off our ovaries!" If these people have any faith at all, it must be a twisted one. Again, every child is to be, on the level of grace, a new Christ: "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." We must not obey any voices contrary to that of Christ or of his holy Church. Why do we speak? In regard to abortion the reason is clear: ". . . the church feels in duty bound to speak with the same courage [as she did for oppressed laborers in Rerum Novarum] on behalf of those who have no voice. . . . Today there exists a great multitude of weak and defenseless human beings, unborn children in particular, whose fundamental right to life is being trampled upon" (Intro., 5).

The Holy Father speaks for all true believers and acknowledges that his words are offered "in profound communion" with them. This is not the fabrication of new doctrine, no, we have gotten enough of that from other mouths these past thirty years or so. He is doing what the Church has always done, restating, albeit in a more formal fashion, what is our inheritance from Christ and the centuries. The Holy Spirit has never abandoned the Church, he will not forsake us now. What was true in the past is still true. This is because Christ is the same-- yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Holy Father concludes his introductory statements by addressing each and every one of us: "To all the members of the church, the people of life and for life, I make this most urgent appeal, that together we may offer this world of ours new signs of hope and work to ensure that justice and solidarity will increase and that a new culture of human life will be affirmed for the building of an authentic civilization of truth and love" (Intro., 6).

Innocent Man Released After 22 Years

2004-09-13T10:44:00.000-07:00

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Here is a justice issue that caught my eye today, about Wilton A. Dredge, a 42 year old man freed from prison after serving 22 years for a rape he did not commit. A seventeen year old girl wrongly identified him as the assailant. We are told that he left with all his worldly possessions in a small plastic bag. Although exonerated by new DNA evidence, he did not even get the usual $100 that Florida gives the meanest ex-convicts. Neither did he get counseling, job search help, or temporary housing. While such benefits come to guilty rapists and killers, as an exoneree (released from a county jail while awaiting test results) he did not qualify for anything—not even a bus ticket home.

It seems that only 18 states and the federal government offer any compensation to those who have served unwarranted prison terms.

This poor man lost all of his youth because of a mistake and because the criminal-justice system, at least in this instance, failed.

What do you think? Do we owe this man something?

Should he be reimbursed for lost wages and benefits over the last 20 years?

How much do we give? Can anything really compensate for what was taken from him?

GORE: A Friend to REAL Catholics?

2004-09-12T06:48:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This is NOT a statement from from any particular parish or diocese. Rather, it is an entirely PERSONAL opinion offered.

Well, the election is over and while not saying for whom we should have voted, we still have the freedom to voice an opinion about the personalities and their views. As an important elected official, Vice President Gore has deserved our prayers and his office, our patriotic respect.

Abortion Opposes the Gospel of Life

His FRIENDS may not be our friends, but they also need our prayers and kind consideration. We do not judge one's ultimate salvation, that is left to God; however, we must make determinations about justice and truth while we still walk the earth. Abortion is murder. But, instead of violence and punishment, we seek to convert the physicians and technicians while giving comfort to grieving confused women. Homosexual actions are a violation of divine positive law in Scripture and of the natural law. Nevertheless, God is infinitely merciful and we are all sinners in need of forgiveness and healing. Racism is a sin. However, so is reverse-racism and race baiting-- activities opposed to the brotherhood and dignity of man. Nothing is said here to be mean-spirited. Not to speak out would be a violation of love.

Is citizen Gore a friend to Catholics?

Where do we begin? Vice President Gore opposes vouchers for Catholic and private schools. While this may not offer a pressing moral issue, it is certainly a matter of importance to Catholics and poor families fed up with poor Public schools. While he would allow CHOICE in regards to killing babies; he will not tolerate CHOICE for education alternatives, notably private and Catholic schools. The same education he had, because of the influence and large purse-strings of his elete family, he will not permit the poor. Instead, if they want such an education, they must be taxed for the public schools and assessed again for the funds to pay private school tuition. Endorsing Gore, certainly this makes the NEA happy. It removes any incentive to improve the teaching pool and allows further misguided and unchecked spending as well. Such opposition is not simply because there might be God-Talk in these private schools; rather, it is because Christian values in opposition to his liberal agenda might be fostered upon the children.

Vice President Gore flip-flopped along with his wife regarding a rating system for the music industry and he has done nothing about excessive violence and gratuitous sex in movies. Empty "get tough" words were uttered during the campaign, but the truth was well known by the liberal Hollywood crowd. Gore was their man. They gave him their money, campaigned for him, and celebrated with him at all the parties. If President Clinton was the first MTV President; then, Al was their first poster child for all their aspirations. Together, they would continue the liberal formation of our children. The Ten Commandments would be replaced with the Seven Deadly Sins, the latter which constituted an approving special on MTV.

Citizen Gore believes in reverse racism under the double-speak code term of "equal opportunity". This reached an obscene high when his supporter Jesse Jackson seemed to urge insurrection and race war in the streets over the Florida election. The NAACP endorsed him and even ran an ad that insinuated that Bush was implicated in a race-hate murder. Eventually the ad was withdrawn but the impression remained. Gore defended the continuation of a cycle of dependence in social help programs. The irony is that so many men and women of color do not see such manipulation as a new form of bondage.

Citizen Gore would raise perverse and unseemly lifestyles to a level equal with marriage. While Christians would urge a respect for privacy; he would perpetuate progressive education in the schools and seek the formal recognition of same-sex life-styles and marriages. No nod of respect is given to the Scriptures or the sensibilities of heterosexuals.

Citizen Gore has supported the free condom giveaways and "artificial contraceptive" education in our schools; thus endorsing a permissive attitude toward sexual activity from the young.

Citizen Gore has allowed himself to be bought and paid for by the abortion industry, going so far as to accept partial birth infanticide. NARAL, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE (an anti-Catholic front organization) all spoke in his favor at the National Democratic Convention. These are the arch-enemies of the Gospel of LIFE and the Church of Christ.

While some have criticized Bush for the use of the death penalty in Texas; Citizen Gore has remarked that he would have no qualms, being consistent at least, in the death penalty for feloneous pregnant women. This his opponent said, he would never do.

Vice President Gore promoted the gay pride activism in Rome despite the fact that it coincided with special Jubilee celebrations of importance to Catholic pilgrims. He even had a letter of support read to the participants. Meanwhile, just as in San Francisco, prominent gay activists dressed as priests and nuns, mocked the Jubilee and a few appeared naked. It is common at these events to hear vulgar language and to see the feigning of lewd sex acts. Back in the States, such activists are finding a receptive home in the liberal and controlling branch of the Democratic Party and even among so-called Christian ministers (on the left) and in the black churches. Jesse Jackson was one of the first to embrace their agenda as his own in the Rainbow Coalition.

When the presidential election dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the Associated Press (Dec. 11, 2000) noted that "Gore's allies in the Democratic Party's liberal base plan to apply political pressure Monday when the Rev. Jesse Jackson and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney hold a news conference to call for prayer vigils across the country as the Supreme Court deliberates the case." In otherwords, we actively pervert divine providence to the selfish purposes of sinful men and women. We will bend to our own will that of the God of righteousness; brushing aside the Gospel of Life in favor of a political agenda that distorts truth and furthers a culture of death. Prayer should not be seen as political pressure. While some may maintain that Bush's agenda is more in line with traditional Christian morality, even borrowing the Pope's words in the encyclical, EVANGELIUM VITAE, there is a widespread hesitance for such outward shows by sympathetic Christian leaders. Does the liberal base actually believe that God approves of killing babies? While traditional Christian ethics allowed room for capital punishment in certain cases, and has preached the forgiveness of sins; the Church throughout the ages has spoken with a virtually unanimous voice against abortion, infanticide, and promiscuous and/or lewd sexual behavior. What we have in the liberal base is a NEW church, a NEW morality, and a NEW god. Or is it really NEW? Some have contended that it is the return of very ancient gods and goddesses. Maybe it is Baal come back with a thirst for innocent blood? Maybe the excesses in certain pagan religions have been revived for a new hedonistic age? Vice President Gore says that he and Tipper were the inspiration for the movie, LOVE STORY. As I recall, then President Nixon saw the film and could only remark his distaste against it as a "dirty movie". I suppose such a comment deserves another embarrassingly passionate kiss between the Gores in public before the cameras.

Can we forget Mr. Gore's role at the Cairo Conference on population issues? He lead a U.S. delegation largely composed of current or past members of Planned Parenthood. They deliberately slammed pro-life and Catholic delegates as dangerous terrorists so that the Egyptian government would harass and incarcerate them. Such underhanded tactics were done with his approval to inhibit their participation in the discussions and to prevent their voting against pro-abortion and anti-marriage measures, no matter how racist against the Third World and heinous against human life. He publicly encouraged and endorsed the pro-abortion agenda of the United Nations, offering no corrective to the EARTH NEWS mockery of the Papal Office as the "Holy Semen" instead of the HOLY SEE.

Mr. Gore and his wife, along with the Clintons, will also never forget the prayer breakfast they shared with Mother Teresa. She told on them and while everyone else applauded her, they remained frozen and outwardly inexpressive. It was often said that meeting Mother Teresa was like being in the presence of Jesus, himself. If this is the case, Jesus was not happy with the Gores when this living saint said, "I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself." Oh, how much he must have hated her for saying this. Afterall, along with Hillary Clinton, he had become the major spokesman for the wholesale murder of babies. Surely he was boiling over inside when Mother Teresa remarked, "By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems." I suspect that even Mrs. Gore was seething by now. She had surrendered her pro-life status and her fight against vulgarity in the music and entertainment industry for her husband's political career. This little woman was saying she had betrayed her own children and those of all America. But Mother was not finished. "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." Both Mrs. Gore and Mrs. Clinton had recently spoken before Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights League. They stood behind their men. Mother Teresa stood behind Jesus and the God of life. The U.S. planners of the event were aghast. Mother Teresa was warned prior to the event that she was NOT to mention abortion. Instead, she made it the hallmark of her speech and told on the enemies of life. Turning directly to President Clinton and Vice President Gore, and their spouses, she pleaded, "Please don't kill the child, I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child." The picture opportunity was ruined. Gore was wide-eyed and silent. The President rebutted, "We will always have our differences. We will never know the whole truth." History repeated itself. Jesus said that he came to testify to the truth. All who would know the truth hear his voice. Pilate answered, what is truth? Clinton and Gore had made truth subservient to political and selfish goals. That which was written by the finger of God, they would make subjective and seek to invalidate.

Vice President Gore has not acted alone. He rides the tide of a party that has largely surrendered traditional values so as to appeal to Hollywood New Age eletes, closet socialists, and hordes of uneducated pawns eager to swallow the empty slogans thrown their way. They tell old people that the nasty Republicans are going to take their social security checks away and throw them into the streets. They tell women that they are the party of CHOICE as if all women want to kill their babies. With some help from the NAACP, they tell African Americans that the guy running for president in the other party is culpable for the oppression and murder of innocent black folks.

Vice President Gore kisses his wife on national television and he goes up in the polls. What does this say about the electorate? It is a dangerous time for America. He sells us out to Russia and China and now he comes to finish the job with a kiss. As I recall, the last one to kiss Jesus was his betrayer, Judas.

Let it be clearly said, pro-choice (meaning pro-abortion) Catholics are NOT true Catholics at all. Their support for any political candidate cannot be construed as an element of the Catholic vote. A separate category should be made for Catholics who fail to attend Mass and say their prayers-- the Fallen-away Catholics. I suspect lapsed Catholics went heavily for Gore because they also hold grudges and much anger against the Church and her teachings.

Clinton: Our Pro-Abortion Ex-President

2004-09-12T06:39:00.000-07:00

He told us at the democratic convention that "I hate abortion!" And yet, look at his words and record since.

NOTE: This is NOT a statement from from any particular parish or diocese. Rather, it is an entirely PERSONAL opinion.

The very day that he took office, President Clinton, kept his promise to remove federal bans against fetal research. Dedicated to their cause, he has filled many posts in his administration with Planned Parenthood personnel. Indeed, the pro-abortion industry considers him, his wife (now Senator) Hillary, and the Gores as the best friends they ever had. Research grants were offered to the NIH for experimentation on human embryos; he encouraged the World Health Organization in its American testing of the French abortion drug RU-486; he removed Reagan's long-standing federal restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions; the White House sought to suppress legitimate protest in front of abortion clinics; he sent an official United States delegation, largely made up of NARAL and Planned Parenthood members, to the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development; he has made access to America's foreign aid programs dependent upon the implementation of widespread usage of artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortion; he has praised China's initiatives at population control even though they include forced sterilizations and abortions; he has urged the United Nations to make abortion an integral component of their population control agenda in developing countries; his one Supreme Justice appointee was a lawyer for Planned Parenthood, as was his top aide the late Ron Brown, and the list goes on and on.

At least the President's public and private life on this matter is consistent. The woman with whom he purportedly had an intimate relationship back in Arkansas, made no secret of the fact that he paid for the abortion of their unborn child. Does he ever remember his lost son or daughter in prayer? Is there no sorrow or regret?

Despite all this, the President has told us that he HATES abortion. If this is the case, given the harvest of death under his leadership, then may heaven spare us from what such a LOVE might bring. What is the old saying? Oh yes, "Actions speak louder than words." Regarding his closing scandals in the White House, he has said that it was an entirely "personal matter," the same reasoning (or lack thereof) used to promote abortion.

Let us PRAY for our president and for all government leaders, past and present. Despite the caricatures on this page, no ultimate claim is made about anyone's personal salvation. However, we must still decry sin and warn our brothers and sisters about what is clearly wrong and a violation of human dignity. Those who support abortion on demand and partial birth infanticide are spiritually walking on very thin ice. May they know a true conversion in Christ and renounce the message of death for the Gospel of Life. Let us pray for all mothers and fathers, that they will protect the child in the womb as a priceless treasure and a reflection of the Christ-child. Let us pray for the child, that God will shower his care and love upon those rejected by their parents and our society. Let us pray for ourselves, that our response to abortion will be one of love, prayer, and peaceful protest.

God bless America!

Amen.

Abortion Dishonesty

2004-09-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

[Written on Saturday, April 8, 1989]

This past weekend, pro-abortionists marched upon our city by the tens of thousands to uphold the status-quo erected by the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. As always they have attempted to conveniently side-step the real issues in order to disguise both to themselves and to others the real nature of abortion. What have they argued?

Four Arguments of Deceit

1. "A woman has a right to freely choose." We as Americans might at first be smitten by such a slogan which uses that word which is our birthright as citizens, "freedom". However, what the opposition does not elaborate upon is how this freedom shall be realized. Americans have not enshrined liberty at the cost of justice. We are free only to the extent that it is not infringed or denied to others. Presently, parents have the authority to tell their teenagers to finish their spinach and not to drink or smoke, but not to halt an abortion. A husband who must place his signature next to his wife's in certain joint bank accounts has been castrated of any privileges to his unborn children. Finally, behind the legal fiction of viability and place of residence (the womb) a child is stripped of any and all rights or freedoms even before seeing the light of day.

2. "Without legalized abortion, countless women would die at the hands of butchers." Despite what the pro-abortionists might say, illegal abortions, even in their heyday years, probably did not exceed 200,000. This is bad, but a million-and-an-half is over seven times worse. Deaths constituted an unfortunate but small statistic before legalization. This argument of theirs is utterly and morally bankrupt. If one's sole criteria for legalization is difficulty of enforcement or to gain better control over a problem, however, sordid, then could not the legalization of hard drugs, suicide, prostitution, etc. also be argued?

3. "A woman has a right to determine what to do with her body." This has never been entirely true. Does she have a right to cut off her arms and legs? No. By allowing a married woman to have an abortion in opposition to her husband, the state opts to abrogate the Christian teaching of "the two in one flesh" and becomes a third party involved with the most intimate sphere of their life. As for the woman's body, if it had been inviolate from the beginning, she would not be in this predicament. Of course, it is upon this issue that the Right to Life groups most take issue. It is not simply her body, they would astutely argue. Human life, from the very first moment of conception has a right to preservation. The Christian would add that an immortal soul is present, making that small embryo or fetus a human person with an eternal destiny. For a period of months this person's life is contingent upon another. He must never be regarded as simply an undesirable and cancerous extension of her flesh or as a property which can be bartered or discarded at will. He or she (yes, the unborn woman has rights too) is irreplaceable and precious. He is alive. He is human. He is a person. If the courts define personhood simply in terms of utility, as they did, then this term is evacuated of any true meaning and none of us are safe. If the state and the pro-abortionists were honest, they would hesitate at this point. How can they know for sure that there is no human being present? And, if they cannot be sure, are they not required by decency and logic, to at least offer the unborn the benefit of a doubt, and choose the course which results in the least harm, with life and the most possibilities available, for all? The answer is undeniably, yes!

4. "Abortion is an acceptable means of preventing an unwanted pregnancy, especially if the woman is single, or poor, or involved with a career." It is true that since its legalization, abortion has more than ever become acceptable for many; indeed, many women use it routinely as a form of birth control and as a backup to contraception. The District of Columbia has one of the highest abortion rates in the nation, making it "the murder capitol of the world" long before this title became popular. The average woman in Washington who has one abortion, has two. Many have even more. Candidates for abortion ironically span two worlds, the ambitious or successful and the poor. Critics of pro-life legislation have argued that if abortion is made illegal, the social welfare system would collapse under the weight of unwanted babies. However, the real facts seem to show that the contrary is true. Having taken away the fear of pregnancy, women more frequently engage in illicit sex and married couples surrender self-discipline. The so-called solution, exacerbated the problem. Orphanages have closed. Couples wanting to adopt have had to wait years, and in many cases, may still have not received a child. Abortion has stolen their children both from them and from us. Who knows, maybe already we have killed the child who would have cured the world's most vicious diseases or who would have most advanced the cause of world peace or who would have made it possible for us to touch the stars?

Proponents of abortion have failed to realize that abortion is a poor short-term answer to dilemmas which need long-term solutions. Poverty, promiscuity, and immaturity can not be resolved by pretending that a child is not conceived, and thus taking its life. We must not make the unborn child a scapegoat for the various problems of our civilization as the Nazi's once made the Jews in theirs. In our arguments, legislation, and mutual support, we have to let our fellow citizens know that responsible love and fidelity to the truth are the only ways we can deal appropriately with this most basic life issue. Motherhood and fatherhood are a blessing, not a curse. A child is a gift, not a mistake. Pregnancy is a sharing with another and with God in his great creative power, and is not a disease to be medicated out. For many unborn children, it is already too late; however, if our faith is right, then these children joined with the Holy Innocents killed in Christ's stead, are still alive. In the presence of the Master, they wait and pray for their parents who have neither patience nor blessing for them.

A Demanding Love

2004-09-11T10:13:00.000-07:00

In the paper The National Catholic Register of January 8, 1989, there is an article devoted to the re-emergence of anti-clericalism in France, particularly as the backlash of its opposition to the film, "The Last Temptation of Christ," resistance to the new abortion-pill, and to the condom campaign. In response, Cardinal Albert Decourtray astutely observes that although there is a need for tact, the possibility of annoying people should not make the Church fearfully silent. He says: "But it's not the Church's role to seek to please. We are there to serve the truth, even if it's inconvenient. Perhaps our way of criticizing things has not always allowed the love that is underneath these statements to show through. But people must realize that it's a demanding love."

The cardinal hits the matter squarely on the head. Any other response by the Church would forfeit its credibility both as the abiding vehicle of Christ's love and as a community in pursuit of the truths of Christ. A parent who allows his children to do whatever they want, without ever raising a criticism or setting limits, would rightly be considered a poor parent. Out of love, the parent expects a certain level of performance and of obedience, to safeguard the child and to aid him in growing into an adult. Parents follow their convictions because they believe themselves to be right and desire their children to follow suit. The Church really believes in the Gospel, in both the doctrines of faith and in those of moral action. To suggest anything else would be to preach a counterfeit gospel. It would be a message from covenience and a route of less resistance; however, when has it ever been totally convenient to be a Christian? When has the road which follows Christ up to Calvary been made routine?
How many of those who disagree with the Church today on matters of teaching, usually ones regarding the relationship between the sexes, have actually attempted to understand the Catholic position? Have they studied the Scriptural testimony? Have they explored the wealth of our history and tradition? Have they read and studied the documents promulgated by the teachers of our Church who are especially gifted by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the unadulterated truth? More so than not, I am afraid the answer is meager and negative. In addition, to understand the Church at all requires at least the preliminary steps of faith. If people do not worship God at the Mass every week as a community; if they do not spend some time each day at prayer; if the Scriptures are not familiar to them; if they do not nurture this faith among each other and the young; if their lives are not filled with charity; how can they hope to even begin to have the inner disposition to understand the other issues revolving around Christian discipleship? The answer is simple. They cannot. They can only witness to the new and empty secular humanism which despite the long history of man's injustice to man, would now herald the Westernized human being as their god and false idol. Under the guise of a science which displaces objective norms or ethics for fleeting human whims, they would seek to remodel society into a so-called freer and ultimately a more hedonistic environment. As far as authority and obedience in regards to the Church, these are themes which they want to see relegated to the past; however, in regards to the new secularism, dissent from religious quarters is to be mocked and stamped out with all available tools. If the Church would at least allow others the freedom to follow their conscience, even if in error, the new secularism will not. It is simply another kind of slavery disguised as freedom. It is the old rebellion in the garden taking on a new setting. "You will be as gods!"

Have we not been down this road before? Must we travel it again? The solution is old and yet ever new, "Repent and believe!"

Catholic Witnesses to Life & to the Eucharist

2004-09-10T13:47:00.000-07:00

A.L.L. Crusaders Come to Washington

A dozen young people from colleges across the country walked from Augusta, Maine to Washington, DC in "Defense of the Catholic Church" and to spread the message that you cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion. Nevertheless, while many have applauded young people for taking up the "right to life" cause, this group of remarkable crusaders were banned from speaking in churches by several dioceses like Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Myself, Dr. Grier & a Crusader

The American Life League ran a series of stinging ads challenging the American bishops and Cardinal McCarrick to enforce canon law and to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege when pro-abortion politicians and others (who have made such "public" stands) take it upon themselves to receive holy communion. The young people have shown no spite or anger, only sadness that the nation's shepherds have largely chosen to remain on the sidelines. One priest remarked that the ads in protest were so severe that the American Life League owed Cardinal McCarrick and the leaders of the Church an apology. However, others thought that these good men should at least have shown the same respect and hospitality to the young marchers for life as they have in the past to the high profile anti-life politicians.While they were able to find lodging in the city, Holy Spirit Church had offered them a place to stay if needed, thanks to the generosity of parishioners. They attended 9:00 AM Mass on Friday, July 30 and were invited to say a few words afterwards-- an invitation that no other Washington pastor made. (It must be stated, to his credit, that despite the tension with the A.L.L., Cardinal McCarrick did not formally forbid the young people to speak in his churches. Throughout, nothing the young people said violated the archdiocese's rules against participation in partisan politics-- they did not name politicians by name, did not tell people for whom they should vote, and spoke with respect in regard to the Church's shepherds.) Following the celebration, a reception was held in the Parish House were the young people had a hearty breakfast and got to meet parishioners. Also in attendance were Reginald Grier, a parishioner, a Knight of Columbus at Fletcher Council and volunteer member of the archdiocesan Office for Black Catholics. John Stakem, a Knight of Columbus from St. Pius X Council, and past parishioner was present, too. John Stakem and Joseph Markauskas are long-time pro-life volunteers and are involved with the local pregnancy center. Joe and Betty Markauskas had even offered to give the young people housing while in town. We were very pleased that the director for the Forestville Pregnancy Center was present, Chyllene McLaughlin, along with her assistant. We wanted to communicate to these young people that they are not alone. Holy Spirit Parish, the Knights of Columbus, and the Pregnancy Center in the larger pro-life community, was very much behind them.

ALL Crusaders at Holy Spirit Parish

May God bless them for their sacrifices and may their witness bear fruit.

Dangerous Ground in Abortion-Communion Debate

2004-09-10T11:41:00.000-07:00

A priest friend suggested that I was on dangerous ground regarding the abortion and holy communion debate. Well, while this issue may indeed be a mine field, priests are footsoldiers who must sometimes take risks in the war between the Gospel of Life versus the Culture of Death. I could not disagree with my colleague more vigorously.

Treating the ALL Crusaders After 1,200 Mile Trek

One day the world will look back upon the passivity of our Church and bishops during these difficult days and we will be charged with collaboration and silence, much as poor Pope Pius XII has suffered from overzealous Jewish critics in regard to their own holocaust under the Nazis.

Kerry was a member of a secret fraternal society, received communion even prior to his annulment, and preaches grevious dissent against Catholic teaching regarding such matters as religious relativism, Church authority, and most notably "from his political and public stance" against the core issue of human life. Along with his drinking buddy Ted Kennedy, they represent a hedonistic agenda that insults common decency and orthodox faith. I have some other words for them, too, but self censorship restrains my righteous indignation.

As for the witness of Jesus, I take exception to the whimpish Christ that is so often portrayed by many. It is not the Christ I see in the Scriptures nor the one taught by the Church. The latter seems evident given Cardinal Arinze's statement, Cardinal Ratzinger's guidelines sent to Cardinal McCarriack and Cardinal Gregory, and the code of canon law.

My friend read too much into the feeding of the multitude scenes. Yes, they prefigured the Eucharist, but that is still a far cry from the real thing. Like Jesus, we all eat and drink with sinners, but I would not share the Eucharist with everyone with whom I share my regular table. In any case, these people in the narratives had followed Jesus and listened to his words. They are compared to lost sheep looking for a shepherd. Public dissent and political expediency on the matter of human life makes one a wolf, and in the cases of pretend-Christians and expedient-Catholics, they are predators in sheep's clothing.

Jesus would certainly face opposition from time to time on questions like the real presence, his sacrifice, and the nature of forgiveness. He essentially condemns the leaders of his day for hypocrisy and leading people astray. The contention that Jesus would never send people away or judge harshly is not substantiated by the Gospels. The pharisees and scribes are rebuked. The leaders are compared to dead men's bones and whited sepulchers. He whipped the money-changers. And politicians today often cringe when they hear Jesus quoted as saying, "and woe to you lawyers!" The parables of the kingdom offer the message of salvation and the terrible possibility of damnation.

Jesus himself dismisses Judas from the one instance of a true Eucharist in the Gospels. As far as we know this weak apostle was in a state of grace until his signification as the traitor. We are told that Satan entered him and he left to play his dire part in the providential plan that even incorporated human iniquity in the work of redemption . After the saving events of Christ, the early Church would seek out a suitable replacement to Judas. The early Church, thinking the parousia was imminent, was often quick to expel those who after baptism fell into their old ways of sin. The "closed table" evidenced in Catholic and Orthodox circles, although replaced with the "open table" of the Anglicans, made it first appearance.

Unity has to be real. A priest who denies communion to a pro-abortion politician is not in league with the devil. Yes, the devil is the one who "scatters" but such is his effort in response to the truths professed within the unity of the Church. Just because a person comes up for communion does not mean that he or she is spiritually and morally one with Christ and his Mystical Body, the Church. A person who supports the murder of children, even if he attends Mass-- and Kerry and others of his ilk should attend-- does not mean that they are worthy to approach the altar for communion. We can feed them with the Word of God. But the reception of holy communion implies that this transformative Word has had an effect in the believer. If we are attentive and receptive to the Word of God, then we are called to repentance, conversion, and communion.

We have always taught that a person should be in a state of grace before coming up to receive holy communion. The political figure or famous celebrity is not one who can easily hide their views or sins. Their status means they have a higher responsibility in the community and in the Church. The danger of scandal in such instances is greatly amplified.

Jesus did not even talk to Herod, and he was supposedly a fellow Jew. His silence was a resounding condemnation. He did not work a miracle. He did not give him absolution. Nothing was done to nourish him. The first Herod had sought out and murdered the holy innocents. The younger Herod proved himself, by his murder of John, as one who had truly succeeded him in tyranny. Pilate was a foreigner who could not be expected to know better. And yet, he is pictured as a politician afraid of the crowd, trying to wash his hands of a man he acknowledged as innocent. It did not wash then. It does not wash now.

My brother priest from Massachusetts asked what I called a silly question: "When you deny communion to pro-choice politicians or anyone for that matter, are not we doing the work of the devil?" I asked him, "Have you read the back of your missalette lately?" We do not share the Eucharist with people outside our denomination. We ask ordinary people to reflect upon their spiritual status so as to discern if they are worthy to receive the sacrament. It would seem that he would disagree, even upon these standards. I asked him, "If I was a member of ACT-UP and you knew that I would spit the sacrament back into your face, would you give it to me? If I was a nut-case involved with the occult and you saw me pocket the sacrament, would you demand it back? What if I came down the aisle with a shirt brandishing support for abortion and planned parenthood-- would you give me the consecrated host? If yes, then what if my shirt said something like 'Kill Jews!' or 'Beat Up Fags!' or 'Rape Women!' or 'Reinstitue Black Slavery' or something equally offensive?"

No, I suspect that we all have limits-- the trouble is that the boundaries have been wrongly moved.

As for the Republicans, there are a number of issues with which I and others as Catholics would take exception. Further, it should be remarked that pro-lifers can never fully ascribe to the "big-tent" notion that President Bush espouses to keep pro-abortionists and homosexuals on his side. The late Governor Casey, whose son I knew from St. Ann's, was a wonderful example of a progressive Democrat who refused to compromise on the right to life. He even refused to campaign for his former Lieutenant Governor because he changed sides on this foundational issue. There is no threat that any party will be completely identified with my experience of faith. However, this does not stop political parties from supporting or rejecting the views of others and thus meriting friends or adversaries. As the good Knights of Columbus acknowledged-- when it comes to the issue of the unborn child, President Bush is probably the best we can look forward to in the near future. Yes, it is one issue, and I recently criticised the President on using pre-existing stem cells from abortion in federally funded programs, but few in his party and even less in the opposition are as staunchly pro-life and pro-child. Take away a child's life and there are no more issues. Further, Kerry is on record saying that he believes in the Church position about the sanctity of life; however, he still votes to preserve Roe versus Wade, against parental notification, and for partial birth infanticide. It is one thing for an individual who does not believe in the humanity of the unborn to support abortion, but what good can be said when a politician says that we must protect the freedom to kill what he admits are unborn human persons? If any politician can make such a statement, then his callousness and threat to the weak and marginalized cannot be exaggerated.

While I will not say it from the pulpit-- is it not a mortal sin to vote for Kerry? There are no proportionate reasons that would make it lawful. I would rather be in good standing with God and my conscience than to "be careful" and forfeit my salvation and peace of mind.

We all have to live with ourselves. We do what we feel we have to do. It is a matter of real suffering. I would like to be in harmony with the majority of bishops. As I have gotten older, I no longer even like to debate or argue all that much. I know there is no earthly reward for my stands.

But, I would sooner have them (whoever they are) put a bullet through my head than to compromise upon this stance for life and the honor due the sacrament.

Senator John Kerry the Catholic Dissenter

2004-09-10T11:24:00.000-07:00

Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said religion shouldn’t be used as a divisive wedge among Americans.

Many things divide Americans, why does Senator Kerry insist that we cannot have religious views and values that might clash with one another? Have religions really changed all that much? The problem is that we increasingly live in a secular state that is hostile to traditional faith. Efforts at division are his when such believers are ridiculed as right wing fanatics. That which was once regarded as wholesome and good is now castigated as grossly intolerant, backward, and authoritarian. Senator Kerry is preaching for a new kind of religion, one that makes no absolute claims and which cannot make real demands on how we live our lives.

“I don’t want to claim that God is on our side,” said Kerry, “as Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray that we are on God’s side.”

We must do more than pray that we are on God’s side. The Christian must have a faith that is lived out in loving obedience. Otherwise, it is a lie. How do we know we are on God’s side? We examine our life and determine if we have kept the commandments, those guideposts to conduct that are given us by the Word of God and his holy Church. Senator Kerry married for a second time out of the Church. He supports homosexual activity among consenting adults. As a student he joined a secret society in defiance of canon law. He is an active proponent for the murder of unborn children. When counseled by the Church, he went to a liberal Paulist priest and to an Episcopalian priestess for communion, even though bishops had charged him to abstain because of the scandal he was causing. Is this really a sign that he cares one way or the other about which side he is on, as far as God is concerned? Just as God is not a strict fiscal Republican, neither is he a liberal Democrat. After the holocaust of children, for which Senator Kerry has had a significant role, can we really imagine that God will one day say to him, “Come O good and faithful servant”? We challenge Senator Kerry, not simply for an election, but to preserve the truth, to protect the honor due the Eucharist, to save babies from slaughter, and just maybe so that Senator Kerry will repent and save his soul.

“I don’t wear my religion on my sleeve, but faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday.”

Senator Kerry claims as a Catholic to believe that abortion is wrong. But, he says that he will not allow his personal views to influence his political support for abortion. A person who violates what he believes to be right for personal gain or power (even votes) is not a person of genuine integrity. Further, the subjective gravity of fault for a person who does not believe in the humanity and personhood of the unborn is quite different from one who supposedly acknowledges these truths. Abortionists often wrongly argue that the unborn child, at least in the earliest stages, is just a mass of cells like a cancer. They do not want to admit to themselves that what they are about is the killing of human beings. Senator Kerry is on the record, even recently, for saying that he accepts Catholic teaching about the wrongness of abortion; however, he insists that such is a decision that must be made by women and their health care providers. He has voted for and promoted abortion and even partial birth infanticide. Such a position is utterly heinous. Look at the lack of logic in what he is saying: Yes, the unborn are human beings; but I support the killing of human beings to preserve “choice” for women. Unless truth is utterly relativistic, Senator Kerry is a self-avowed and conscientious proponent for murder. These may be the values that he lives by; but they are also the values which sacrifice millions of children each year.

“Kerry’s speech on the convention’s last night was followed by the director of the Paulist Center in downtown Boston, where Kerry regularly attends Sunday Mass. He prayed, “Give counsel to world leaders so that they may never again declare an unjust war . . . .”

The issue of life was mentioned by the priest, but in an indirect way. His presence gave legitimacy to a pro-abortion Catholic’s candidacy. The priest could attack President Bush in regard to the war in Iraq (about which Catholics and others have varying legitimate opinions and for which Michael Novak has argued fit just war criteria); but he would not mention by name the ills of abortion, the murder of children for the harvesting of body parts and stem cells, the tragedy of perfectly formed nine month old babies in the womb having their heads crushed in partial birth infanticide, the perversity of homosexuals seeking marriage, and a host of other issues that define Senator Kerry’s candidacy.

Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald
Senator Kerry told the paper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

BUT SEN. FLIP-FLOP VOTES TO KILL BABIES ANYWAY!

What does that say about Senator John Kerry? People are disposable. Maybe YOU are next?

How Would Jesus Vote?

Abortion & the Cost of Unity

2004-09-10T10:50:00.000-07:00

Cardinal McCarrick's letter on Unity inspired this reflection. Please note that some apparent disagreement does not mean disrespect. Further, among American bishops and priests, there is a unanimity in the pro-life stance. We are all on the same page regarding the Gospel of Life. However, just as bishops can civilly disagree with one another; such is also the situation in the parishes among priests, congregations and with those regularly engaged in pro-life work. As a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, I am pledged to obedience (yes, to God but in an immediate way to the archbishop) and to the life of celibate love and service. What I am sharing here is my pained conscience as it struggles over the matter of the Eucharist and public proponents of abortion in the Church.

Cardinal McCarrick stresses the theme of unity, both in the family of the Church and in ecumenical outreach. But, how far do we go to maintain a home for dissenters within the Catholic community? While we can certainly follow the Holy Father's lead in seeking healing and cooperation with those who know other creeds; he has also stressed the need for Catholics to be faithful to revealed truths, both in external cooperation and in internal communication and governance. After dialogue and counsel, if the advocates of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia still refuse to amend their positions or their advocacy, it seems to me that they, themselves, have breached Catholic unity. Refusal to acknowledge such a break risks collapsing the meaning of fidelity and threatens to substitute a religious relativism, wherein the Church's missionary and evangelistic endeavors might be dismantled and a kind of contradictory "low church" / "high church" dynamism established similar to that which has eroded orthodox faith in Anglicanism. WE can do better than that.

We build bridges with those who worship and see religious meaning different from ourselves. However, we remember that the true bridge or PONTIFEX is Jesus Christ-- and that it is in "his" Church that redemption and salvation is realized and fully subsists. The Catholic running for the highest office in the land this year saw no problem with receiving holy communion in the Episcopal Church recently-- the same denomination that ordains women, tolerates abortion, sanctions artificial contraception and blesses homosexual unions. Does it surprise us that one who dissents against the Gospel of Life should treat the true Church as if it is interchangeable, as if it has no moral or spiritual authority over him? Look at the message he communicates to others! Our failure to act decisively may be leading others to sin. There is something more than an election at stake-- human lives and souls.

The Cardinal discusses the concept of unity as a political necessity. He speaks of the "sad tragedy of war between the states" but fails to mention why such a war was forced upon us: tension between states' rights and national unity as well as the moral issue of brutal slavery and the treatment of human beings as disposable property. For the sake of a false unity, would any of us argue that the Civil War should not have been fought? I do not think the Cardinal would say so. While we pray that violence can be avoided, the plight of the unborn is analogous to the subjugation of the black slave. Human personhood is denied while politicians deal with "other issues" and argue from convenience or economy for a freedom of choice regarding it. However, while the pre-civil war nation possessed free and slave states; the unborn child today is stripped of rights in every state of the union.

Next the Cardinal applauds the United Nations as an example of international unity where peace and stability is pursued. However, this same United Nations remains silent on many human rights issues so as not to offend various member states. It also laments the loss of American funds in its massive population control program that utilizes artificial contraception and abortion on demand. They have even acted like the proverbial totalitarian "big brother" in concealing contraception in vaccines, as distributed in India a few years ago. There is still much hope in what the United Nations might become; but we should not let our guard down if those hopes fail to materialize. Unity at any cost is too high a price for honest men and women of faith to pay.

When I heard about the lop-sided vote by the bishops on giving communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, my heart sank. How could it be true? Given that there is now some disparity about what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the topic and what was reported to the bishops, one has to wonder if any of the 183 who voted against the 6 will want to take back their votes? Cardinal McCarrick wrote in The Catholic Standard that he told the other bishops, ". . . there are times when the values of manifesting and promoting unity may outweigh other considerations and that this may be one of those critical moments." How can he say this?

At a time when we are concerned about clergy sexual abuse of minors, abortion is the greatest abuse of all. As a Church we teach not only with our words, but with our actions. Indeed, there is an old saying, "Actions speak louder than words." Such is the case here. All the bishops are on the record as against abortion. What is at stake is how far they are willing to go to back up their words. Like lemmings, are they following one another to drown in the sea, and taking the rest of us with them?

I pray that the faithful remnant among the laity will object loudly, or else the credibility of the Church will be seriously undermined and judged harshly by those in the future-- those who have a chance to be born. The laity are the ones who really make parishes places of welcome. Could they not, through their parish counsels and as individuals insist that public supporters of abortion not receive communion? Could they not take their case to the bishops? We are starting to see this happen and as in the ancient Arian crisis, the Catholic people, if only a remnant, are preserving the faith. Here is the true "sensus fidelium" of the Church. Too often polls and public outcries involve dissenters who claim to be Catholic but are more heathen than the pagans of old. The faithful remnant does not always understand the problems with artificial contraception, largely because their priests and other religious teachers remain silent and fail to offer credible witness and wisdom. But this group participates at Mass, makes donations to baby-bottle campaigns for the pregnancy centers and volunteers for efforts like the Gabriel Project and Project Rachel. They believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that pregnancy is a blessing and not a curse. They say their rosaries for life and seek reliable Catholic formation for their children. They are the ones wounded today in the Mystical Body when enemies of life are treated as believers in good standing.
Abortion is murder. Those who promote or facilitate murder are not worthy of holy communion. What kind of unity can a believer in the Gospel of Life have with such persons?

Those who deliberately vote for a policy of murder commit sin and should not receive holy communion either. Maybe it is time to flush out the wolves from our midst? The remaining faithful would then not be daily scandalized by their own co-religionists. We should not make a case for false unity. No one hears the "silent scream" in the womb and few seem to notice the "silent schism" that already exists among the People of God. It would be best to open our ears and eyes to the hard truth. Three quarters of the Catholic population in the United States has defected. We have people who go through the motions of faith who do not really believe. The crisis around human sexuality and the life issues makes this ever clearer. Yes, a hard stand for life will cost us some partners on other matters in the secular world. Yes, we will see some of the income we counted upon going elsewhere. Nevertheless, the truth would be preserved and maybe our souls as well. And who knows, maybe some who were disgusted at the Church for failing to fully embrace her mission with courage and vigor will find renewed confidence and strength in her?

If we manifest the truth clearly, might some change their ways and come home to her? When truth is taught clearly in word and deed, it can be incredibly compelling. May the Holy Spirit, the source of life and the guardian of truth, lead us in the days ahead.

The Cardinal said the recent statement protected the rights of bishops who took a hardline stand against pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Of course, the gravity is still against such measures as withholding communion or sanctions. We all know that the courageous few who took a stand had their hands slapped for making the situation more tense for the rest. Cardinal McCarrick, an extremely good and well-meaning man, has used his keen intellect and dynamic speech to seek concordance with the bishops as well as with the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Arinze. The results have been mixed. Although there are attempts to water down his statements, it is my understanding that Cardinal Arinze is sticking to his guns. Pro-abortion Catholic politicians are not fit to receive holy communion. For a few of us at least, that is the bottom line. Because of past inaction, and a business as usual attitude, we all have blood on our hands. It is time to wash them and to become true prophets of the kingdom.

What Did Cardinal Ratzinger Really Say?

2004-09-10T10:16:00.000-07:00

The archdiocesan paper in Washington, DC, failed to publish the initial letter from Cardinal Ratzinger where we are told that a minister "must" refuse communion to pro-abortion politicians, a view that deviates from the rule of thumb recommended in the statement from the American bishops. While Cardinal Ratzinger's letter and guiding principles were not reproduced in The Catholic Standard, the paper did quickly publish a short note from the Cardinal where he claimed ownership of the previous letter but exonerated the American bishops, somewhat, given that future dialogue and work on this matter would continue. Certainly there was "much" harmony in the pro-life stance; however, the practical element-- giving or withholding holy communion-- was very much in contradiction. Here is a copy of an email I sent the archdiocese, expressing my concern. There was no response:

New Ratzinger Letter & Harmony with Bishops' Statement (EMAIL)

The (USCCB news release) is all well and good, but Cardinal Ratzinger seems to acknowledge full ownership of this document, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles." If we place it side by side with the bishops' statement, yes there is "very much" a "harmony" with the pro-life teaching of the Church; however, other than dialogue with anti-life politicians, the praxis is remarkably different-- closer in line to Bishop Burke than to Cardinal McCarrick. Further, it was remarked at the Bishops' meeting that general principles could be expected from Rome later-- and yet, here they are, already fully formulated. I am not a stupid man, but this perplexes me.

The second letter from Cardinal Ratzinger will certainly be useful to dispel charges that the hierarchy is warring with itself-- as if the American bishops could possibly be in schism from the universal Church and the Roman Curia. Of course, many questions remain and the new letter is certainly not the wholesale absolution that it appears to be at first reading. Cardinal McCarrick writes: "I am grateful for his support of our statement and I look forward to continuing dialogue between our task force and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." This echoes the closing to Cardinal Ratzinger's letter: "It is HOPED that this dialogue can continue as the Task Force carries on its important work." Is it my imagination, or does a certain tension hang upon the word "hope"? Now it seems that the bishops' statement will not be the last word and that there will be need for further "dialogue" between the task force and Rome. We can only hope that there will be equal dialogue with the pro-abortion politicians and others who are to be warned about their precarious standing in the Church.

While differences between Cardinal Ratzinger's letter and the bishops' statement are not enumerated, and I cannot figure how they might be truly "harmonized" myself, the Cardinal writes that his letter was "sent as a fraternal service -- to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue -- in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations." This "fraternal" letter was leaked in Rome, no doubt from someone in the Curia itself-- for what reason? Could it be that someone was not entirely happy with the American response? Is this a wake up call? Do the bishops need clarification regarding basic doctrine and practice? What role did the letter actually play-- read or paraphrased-- at the meeting of bishops? Would it not have been better to have had Rome "sign off" with the bishops' statement before promulgation? If there is solid harmony between Rome and the American bishops, then such a procedure would have avoided the current embarrassment, confusion, and the need for any clarification to come with future dialogue.

Just sharing my thoughts, because I know that sooner or later people less sympathetic to the Church or respectful to the Cardinal will bring these matters forward. It is best to be forewarned.

Still perplexed, but ever faithful,

Father Joe Jenkins

P.S. We will have many wounds to heal as a Church with the Right-to-Life community after the coming elections. Some of them may be mortal. Have we forgotten who our true friends are?

Here are the two documents from Cardinal Ratzinger:

FOLLOW-UP LETTER

The clarification letter from Cardinal Ratzinger is published in The Catholic Standard with the urgent news release from the USCCB, but not with the initial letter and principles from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (that seemed to contradict the bishops' statement and Cardinal McCarrick's stand). Catholic readers assuredly did not know what the new commotion was about unless they had read the Vatican document in the secular press. Although it expresses the thinking of Rome and the universal Church, it was not published in the archdiocesan paper. The initial correspondence was to help Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Gregory with the deliberations prior to the bishops' conference and their subsequent statement.

USCCB (http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-133.htm)
DATE: July 12, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CARDINAL RATZINGER SAYS U.S. BISHOPS' STATEMENT ON CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE 'VERY MUCH IN HARMONY' WITH GENERAL PRINCIPLES SENT BY CONGREGATION

WASHINGTON-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, Chairman of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, received a July 9 letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, saying the U.S. Bishops' statement on Catholics in political life is "very much in harmony" with the general principles previously sent by the Congregation.

Cardinal McCarrick is Archbishop of Washington.

"I was grateful to receive Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, which affirms the harmony between the principles he had provided as a service to assist us in our discussions and the statement which the U.S. bishops overwhelmingly passed during our June meeting in Denver," Cardinal McCarrick said.
"Over the past several months, I have had many conversations and communications with Cardinal Ratzinger regarding the work of the task force, most recently last week," Cardinal McCarrick continued. "As I noted in the interim report I delivered to the bishops in June, His Eminence has consistently expressed his respect for the role of the bishops in carrying out their responsibilities as teachers, pastors and leaders in their own local situations. I am grateful for his support of our statement and I look forward to continuing dialogue between our task force and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
The interim report of the task force and the bishops' statement, which was adopted by a vote of 183-6, are online at www.usccb.org. The text of Cardinal Ratzinger's July 9 letter is below.

Your Eminence:

With your letter of June 21, 2004, transmitted via fax, you kindly sent a copy of the Statement "Catholics in Political Life," approved by the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their June meeting. The Congregation is grateful for this courtesy. The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations. It is hoped that this dialogue can continue as the Task Force carries on its important work.

With fraternal regards and prayerful best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

ORIGINAL LETTER WITH GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Published in the Italian press and in our secular papers, The Catholic Standard opted not to publish this letter, even though some of us thought it would provide balance and illustrate our willingness to always live in fidelity with the universal Church. Although a "fraternal letter" it has all the earmarks of a public one and as it simply restates Catholic doctrine, then there should be no problem with its dissemination.

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 judgment 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 propaganda 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 individual's judgment 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 judgment 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.]

Holy Communion & Abortion

2004-09-10T07:38:00.000-07:00

When I called the Archdiocese of Washington to ask whether or not a priest could be compelled to give communion to a Catholic pro-abortion proponent, the person on the other end had to admit that he was not sure. Years ago I recall a scandal along these lines with Virginia Representative Jim Moran in the Arlington diocese, who, although married out of the Church, would come up, baby in his arms, and dare the priest to withhold communion. One priest, who did not want to give him communion, took a lot of heat-- much of it from the Church herself. This new statement may force priests into the terrible no win situation in conscience of trying to obey lawful authority while remaining prophets to the truth and guardians of the Eucharist. Coincidentally, Moran went into a heated tirade against Rev. Michael Dobbins, pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish, recently, when the priest refused to recognize at Mass another pro-abortion politician (not Catholic) who was running for mayor in Arlington. Instead, he permitted another priest, Fr. Bryan Belli to preach against the sin of abortion and the harvesting of stem-cells from murdered unborn children. Moran threatened them, saying that what they had done was unethical and illegal. Here is a case in point where the bishops' strategy of dialogue without teeth has failed. Moran did shout a backhanded compliment: "You priests are closed minded!" Yes, I suppose we are sometimes, but only because we have sought to put on the mind of Christ.

Is the Bishop's Statement on Catholics in Political Life Good Enough?

While the bishops with the Pope are certainly our "magisterial" teachers in faith and morals, and worthy of respect and obedience, it was a bit surprising that the issue of abortion was not even mentioned by name in the grocery list of issues that were enumerated in the first paragraph of the American bishops' statement on CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE. After all, this is really the reason why there had to be a statement, in the first place. Rather, it was referred to as an "important matter". I should say that the devaluing of a whole class of people as disposable non-persons is more than "uniquely" important but is at the root to all the other moral questions we face. Thankfully, the matter of abortion comes forward strong, at least theoretically, in the second and subsequent paragraphs. (Of course, jumping to another subject, their weak voter guides represent a genuine shell game, which this year, placed the dominate weight on immigration and seemed to lose questions about human life among many other issues. One year they made the pro-abortion candidates look so good that I put the guides into the garbage. That kind of "help" we do not need. The Christian Coalition used to have some great voter guides; however, many of the bishops banned them, even when they were coming out from the now defunct Catholic Alliance.)

Returning to the bishop's statement, the document rightly asserts that abortion is intrinsically evil and is a matter of grave sin. The statement is also correct that to make such an evil act legal is a sin against justice. We read: "Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good." This is also a fair assessment of our moral theology as well as an ethics where many people of good will could find agreement. Further, the separation of church and state does not mandate that believers must disavow their faith and values in public. This is also an accurate rendering of the Catholic case. However, about half-way through, the document becomes a disappointment to many pro-life advocates.

It says the bishops are obliged to counsel pro-abortion Catholic politicians that "acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner." Okay, the bishops pledge themselves to keep talking to these public officials, but is talk all they are willing to do? Given the terrible seriousness of the issue, the document upon which they voted seems terribly mild. There is nothing of the LION OF JUDAH, a symbol that adorned the shirts of the young pro-life crusaders who walked from Maine to Washington this summer. If we recognize that what we are talking about is wholesale murder, then it is hard to see how the statement fully practices what it preaches. Does it not contradict itself and reaffirm the status-quo that has failed us for decades. How high must the bar be raised before the bishops will invoke canon law, disciplining politicians who bring scandal and spread dissent on this core issue? During the past 30 plus years we have faced this question in the United States, it has seemed that moral conviction and a willingness to act has wavered in our shepherds. Informed Catholics who freely participate in a single abortion commit mortal sin and incur the sanction of automatic excommunication. Nevertheless, the bishops seem to think that a Catholic politician who, "consistently" or not, is an advocate and an enabler for abortion on demand for hundreds or thousands or even millions is only one who "risks" being made a cooperator in this evil. When is the risk realized-- after ten thousand, half a million, how many have to die first? No, if we help one woman to destroy her child, we are guilty.

Our moral theology tells us that human life is incommensurate, utterly beyond value. The death of one is too many. We must engage the passions about this crisis-- something that the pro-abortionists attempt to prevent behind double-speak terminology and by shifting the attention from the sanctity of life to generic women's issues and an unrestricted liberation as understood by radical feminists. Maybe every bishop needs to hold an aborted baby in his hands before they will appreciate the urgency that many of us feel? Yes, the bishops are right, we must do more to teach the truth about the dignity and sanctity of human life.

Cardinal McCarrick mandated a petition each Sunday for vocations; should not a similar petition be required each week regarding the holocaust of innocents? Also, our schools should be thoroughly pro-life. We do not need pro-abortion teachers in our schools and CCD programs. Anyone involved with Catholic ministries and education should be queried on the issue of abortion to insure that the formation of our people is not compromised. A spelled out act of faith should be offered those who work in the name of the Church (a good idea for lay ministers and ordained ones, too). The scandal of priests telling people at informal gatherings that they voted for infamous pro-abortion politicians like President Clinton is real and fills pro-lifers with indignation and anger. Here may be part of the problem-- how many bishops and priests really are partisan and favor liberal democrats because of issues pertaining to the poor or education or social engineering? Several years ago, I recall a great ruckus in southern Maryland when it was discovered that the campaign manager of one pro-abortion candidate was his brother, who just happened to be a permanent deacon in the Church. Such incidents make it hard for the faithful to trust the judgment of their clergy and makes any preaching and teaching from the pulpit suspect. Similarly, our lectors, acolytes and extraordinary ministers of holy communion should be in solidarity with the Church on all the articles of the creed, sacramental doctrine and rubrics, and upon the great moral issues of our day, including the unspoken sin of artificial contraception. Politicians count on the passivity of Catholic churchmen. They take it as a matter of course that bishops can be intimidated by threats against tax exemption or the loss of support on other important matters to the Church. As long as this is the situation, talk without teeth will get us nowhere. We are not discussing here an elaborate involvement in partisan politics which is denied clergy and religious by Church law. We are talking about the defense of Catholic truth and the faith of God's people, a pro-active stance on behalf of the unborn, and a real desire to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege and profanation.

The statement says, "As bishops, we do not endorse or oppose candidates." Many of us would ask, why not? Everyone else does-- individuals, labor unions like the NEA and AFL-CIO, organizations like Planned Parenthood and the NAACP can come forward and endorse pro-abortion candidates, but the Church remains mute. Black churches have often pushed certain candidates at services and the democratic party still relies upon this type of recognition. This is done despite moral conflicts, as if racism and civil rights (minus abortion) were all that mattered. What if candidates oppose the Church or represent a real threat to the faith and to human lives. Clergy might be forbidden to run for public office; however, we should not abandon moral authority in the public square when it is most needed. If it is a sin to deliberately vote for a pro-abortion candidate because he is pro-abortion, should not the Church spell this out and name names? We do not even allow "realistic" voter guides on church property because we are so afraid of taking sides. However, silence and not taking a dynamic "in-your-face" stance, is itself capitulation to the evil of abortion in the public square. We have to stop writing with broad strokes and let everyone know that the Catholic Church is dedicated to the Gospel of Life as the greatest pro-life organization on the planet.

How many times do we indirectly honor pro-abortion politicians despite assertions that it is not our policy? A pro-abortion senator comes to an eagle scout ceremony for a Church sponsored troop; a pro-choice congressman brings a flag and dedicates it to the parish school; the high school has Catholic students paging for anti-life legislators in Annapolis or in DC; and you can bet that such facts are written up in newsletters and that there are many photo opportunities. The impression is given that so-and-so is really a nice guy, and oh yes, he's a Catholic too-- despite voting consistently against parental rights, for abortion, euthanasia, and now for partial-birth infanticide. We cannot take for granted that Catholic schools have any real sense about this. A number of years ago a high school sponsored by the Holy Cross Brothers in District Heights, MD, scheduled a "social concerns" assembly wherein Lt. Governor Kathleen Townsend Kennedy and Congressman Steny Hoyer were to be honored, even though they were both pro-abortion and even supported partial-birth infanticide. A few of us protested and I was forced by the Archdiocese to apologize to the school's president for my part in gathering opposition. (The local Pregnancy Crisis Center was going to station protesters outside the school and parish youth group teenagers were going to wear pro-life tee-shirts and turn their backs to the speakers when they were introduced.) Faced with such scandal, although officially it was for other undetailed reasons, the event was canceled.

Last year on September 17, the Center City Consortium in Washington, DC hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for the inner-city schools. The co-host for the event was Senator Ted Kennedy, just behind Senator John Kerry in terms of his pro-abortion record. To his credit, Cardinal McCarrick said that the event was not to honor Kennedy but to raise money for poor kids. Nevertheless, many protesting pro-lifers outside insisted that it was blood-money. Kennedy regularly touts such events in his letters and speeches to constituents in Massachusetts. Was the crowd he brought in so important that a pro-life statesman could not have been found instead?

Years ago when the CYO in Washington, DC was honored for 50 years of work in the archdiocese, one pro-abortion county executive was acclaimed by a priest as "the best friend our Catholic kids every had". A deacon friend had to grab my arm to stop me from making a scene and walking out. What he failed to say was "if the kids were lucky enough to get born!" Throwing money our way, buying uniforms, and throwing a few basketballs through a hoop does not make a pro-abortion proponent "child-friendly" and on "our side".

The bishops are quite right in quoting 1 Corinthians 11:27 and in saying that all must examine their consciences as to worthiness to receive Christ's body and blood. However, just as the individual has a responsibility; does not the Church through her shepherds have a duty to prevent, where possible, a sacrilegious reception? The bishops write that "This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the church in personal and public life." I do not know why the word "church" is not capitalized, but that issue set aside, a study of history shows that the Church, even from her earliest days, withheld holy communion from public sinners and those who had embraced dire heresies. Holy communion is not simply a private or personal act, but is an expression of corporate unity and good standing.

Abortion is a crime against God and man, no matter what civil law permits. It pertains to more than just moral theology, but touches the very heart of the Christian faith-- God became a human being in Jesus Christ. Every child "in potency" could have been the child of promise, the long awaited Messiah. Every child is a reflection of the Christ-child, even in the womb. The sin of abortion attacks at the heart of our faith, the Incarnation. It makes no sense for the pro-abortion politician or other anti-life proponent to say "Amen" to the Eucharist but to oppose the body of Christ imaged in the womb of every pregnant woman. Jesus raises up our humanity and makes it expressive of his divinity. No true Christian and definitely no real Catholic can be pro-abortion. Those who try are accomplices to Herod who sent out his soldiers to kill the new born king. Of course, we know, that Jesus was Lord and God, even in the womb. This truth is witnessed by the unborn John the Baptist leaping in his mother's womb at the visitation between Mary and Elizabeth. It was an encounter, not between two, but four persons. By rejecting a significant element of the Incarnation and repudiating the Gospel of Life as proclaimed by the Church, and so masterfully defended and explained by Pope John Paul II, the pro-abortionist places him or herself beyond the pale of Christianity and the kerygma of salvation. The pro-abortion politician who says that he is personally opposed to abortion and then does everything possible to facilitate it is being deceptive to himself and to us. It is one thing for a person who does not accept the facts of the unborn child's humanity to favor abortion; it is quite another for a person who in faith says he believes it is murder and then votes in favor of it. Has he adopted the prevalent relativism that says there is no objective reality to truth statements? Or is he just a self-avowed supporter of murder who will not stand up to Planned Parenthood, NOW, and the Abortion Rights League? We have a Catholic who is running for higher office now who is in this category. People who speak out of both sides of their mouths will always have trouble with the one who is the Way and the Truth and the LIFE.

What the bishops say about individual conscience is quite accurate for those whose sins are only known to God, their confessor and themselves. But, public officials, politicians, lobbyists, celebrities, or even those who just wear pro-abortion or Planned Parenthood tee-shirts, have made an external expression of their dissent and sin that cannot be ignored. While repentance can bring forgiveness for such things, it would probably also require an element of restitution-- like the public renunciation of the sin of abortion and an effort to make amends, like doing volunteer work at a pro-life pregnancy center or some other right-to-life service. Short of this, I think the minister, bishop or priest, would be well within his rights to refuse them holy communion. The scandal of these rascals demoralizes the simple faith of our good people. Instead of welcome, the ancient practice of public shunning might also be appropriate. If they truly want to be a member of the Church Jesus established, then they must accept this ancient Christian teaching. The Didache, an ancient document of instruction for those preparing for baptism in the first days of the Church, made it very clear that abortion is wrong. From the earliest days of the Church to the present, a Christian can have no part of it, no matter how much a sign of contradiction it makes him for the times. Instead of a ringing endorsement of this view, the bishops' statement merely says that individual bishops can make a "prudential judgment" (a phrase that needs unloading) based on canon law and "pastoral principles" (whatever that means). Truth be said, this recognizes that the conference of bishops cannot dictate to individual bishops how they should run their dioceses. That is as it should be. However, it then says that individual bishops can "legitimately make different judgments" about whether or not holy communion can be withheld. Bishops like all Christians are still subject to Christ and his reckoning. They are at the service of the living Word of God, but they are not its masters. All bishops must teach the same Catholic faith and insure the proper implementation of the sacraments. Unless the Church is going to become capricious in how it treats people, governance and discipline should always follow universal law, the deposit of faith and the mandate of Scripture. The question arises, should any bishop or priest (as a matter of course) give holy communion to known dissenters against core teachings and facilitators of murder?

It has been argued that Cardinal Arinze and even the Pope have given the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, like the mayor of Rome. The Pope is infallible, but no one says that his every prudential judgment is impeccable. Cardinal Arinze has made his strong views known; is it possible that sometimes these churchmen do not know the stands of such politicians? Even in our country, no one would criticize a priest or bishop who "unknowingly" gave the Eucharist to a pro-abortion politician, proponent or celebrity. Sometimes you do not even look at the faces or do not recognize someone before it is too late. All the other side in this debate is asking, is the general enforcement of a general rule (like canons 915 and 916), not that it will be humanly possible in each and every case to accomplish it. Certainly, individual pastors who should know their flocks are the ones who would most be affected by a prohibition against giving the Eucharist to certain persons. The dynamics of this have already been spelled out by a few courageous, if outspoken, bishops in the United States. The bishops' statement, while recognizing a difference of opinion among bishops, quickly mentions the "polarizing tendencies of election-year politics . . . in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends." Cardinal McCarrick has explained this to mean that he does not want a confrontation involving the Eucharist or to politicize the sacraments. He is "not comfortable" with using the Eucharist in this manner. I can understand his reluctance, although it seems to me that the minister is not the one forcing the confrontation. My criticism is that had the bishops acted before now, then we would not have this knee-jerk reaction prior to a major election. Catholic politicians should have been warned and disciplined years ago for their pro-abortion stances. How much do you want to bet that even after the election, the majority of bishops will still fail to act? Are judgments that would allow public dissenters and proponents of abortion to receive communion truly "legitimate"?

While the bishops are all pro-life, their statement seems to equate this life as something "less important" than that which has been already born into the world. Some would object to this criticism, but the proof is easy. If Adolf Hitler had practiced the Catholic faith in which he had been baptized, and if everyone was well aware of his atrocities, would the current bishops give him holy communion? Let us say that he never repented of having six million Jews murdered and some reduced to soap and lampshades. He did not "personally" or "immediately" kill any of them by throwing the switch, firing the gun, or releasing the gas. In any case, they were subhuman dogs-- not real people-- or so the deluded Nazis claimed. The holocaust was the CHOICE that he and his Nazi party made on behalf of the Aryan race to preserve their economy and pure bloodline. It was a political decision. Would the bishops collaborate with him or oppose him? Would they preach against him by name or with vague innuendoes to preserve their tax standing and property? What if the Confederacy was never challenged and mechanization had failed to eradicate slavery here at home? Would the bishops give holy communion today to land owners who treated blacks as non-persons and property? What about to a die-hard racist who lynched blacks as a hobby to satiate his bloodlust? Or maybe just to the politicians who fought for the rights of whites to subjugate blacks, and kill them if they tried to run away? The case of slavery is significant, because while the Popes had condemned slavery and had forbade it in the 1600's as offensive, it was still practiced in America for a couple more centuries, even by Catholics-- including the churchmen. Dissent is not a new issue, and neither is passivity in the face of heinous moral evil where human beings are stripped of their dignity and their lives.

As I close these reflections, I have a copy of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter on the Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. Is all not as it seems? Supposedly principles would not come out for some time and yet, here they are! The letter appears to deviate from what was presented in paraphrase form to the bishops and in contradiction to that for which they voted. His hastily written second letter asserts that it is "much in harmony" with the bishops' statement, but no one can say that it is "totally" in sync with it. The burden upon my conscience and heart has begun to be lifted by its publication, rumored because of Roman dissatisfaction with the American statement. After the lop-sided vote (183 to 6) in favor of the bishops' statement, I despaired of just how much in the minority my views were. While everyone was pro-life in principle, I was the only priest of the Washington Presbyteral Council to speak out in favor of denying communion and applying sanctions to "baby-killing" Catholic politicians. I hope the bishops will have a good response for the disparity between this and their statement. Some of our good people are beginning to think that certain American churchmen have to confess breaking the eighth commandment. Will bishops be able to rescind or change their votes regarding the statement on Catholics in Political Life? Can we look forward to the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger being published in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Catholic Standard, just like the statement, two letters from the Cardinal, and the article from Fr. Peter Daly that speak for the other side of the question? I hope so. Some response is necessary. Many pro-life volunteers feel that Rome has once again come to the rescue.

On April 23, 2004, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, authoritatively explained at a press conference in Rome that unrepentant pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians should be denied Communion. Relying on Canon 915, which specifies that "[t]hose...who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion," Cardinal Arinze put it succinctly: "If they should not receive, then they should not be given."

Canon 916 states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible."

Comments on the First Draft of the Women's Pastoral

1990-03-27T21:06:00.000-08:00

Introduction

I think it is unfair of the author(s) of the bishops' pastoral to state in reference to the prudent souls who urged them against writing it, that there is some insinuation that "women were the problem". Most proponents of a toned down letter would probably only note that no matter what the bishops write, it will only be a catalyst for further divisiveness and dissent. From all sides there will come critical rebuffs; after all, to tear down is much easier than to build. The accusation, that "the best we bishops might do,...was to express contrition", although ample advise for us all, might illustrate the current coercive influence of a rebellious strain of proponents who convict the leadership of the Church of sin because it fails to acknowledge their particular revisionist and/or secular agenda.

In addition, if one is absolutely determined to promulgate such a document, there may be great merit to dialoguing with women of various backgrounds and orientations; however, the weight of the opinions shared by women faithful to the Church's teachings should by far outstrip those who by their public positions and lifestyles, do not. This especially includes the lesbians who are mentioned by name in the document's introductory remarks.

The pain that many women confess in reference to such issues as ordination and contraception is unfortunate; however, what might be more sad is the failure of many of these same people to thoroughly research these issues and to assent to the teaching Church. Although a majority are noted as against abortion; the term "majority" implies a minority (which can be quite vocal) who favor it. People who advocate the killing of unborn children should have no voice in the Church which seeks to preserve the sanctity of all life. As in the Church of the first few centuries, we may have to become more particular in who may and who may not be a member of the Church founded by Christ.

Also the following needs qualification: "A significant number are convinced that the ordination of women to ministerial priesthood is the only way to attain full participation in the Church." What do statements like "a majority", "a significant number", "some", and "many" mean? In reference to this issue, and especially in reference to the recent papal letter, do they feel that they can continue to be members of the Catholic Church? How would they feel about joining the Episcopalians who now even have a female (divorced) bishop? If they are unwilling to accept Church teaching as definitive, would it not be better for them to outwardly manifest in their religious affiliation what they already believe inwardly? This would also help to resolve their conflicts with the Church's moral teachings, especially since so many of our Protestant sisters and brothers have officially rewritten doctrine to placate the new hedonism of secular society.

The author(s) claim that their document is a report of what they heard; a reflection on our tradition; and a two-fold response of seeking to remedy injustices women denounce and to promote their positive values. May I also suggest that some of these positive values may not always be the ones substantiated by a majority of women polled. As a teaching document, it may have to also challenge women to go beyond the rhetoric of feminist extremists and seek the Christian perception of womanhood. Those who seek to neuter men and women or who seek to make women more masculine at the cost of castrating men, should be firmly rebuked. Any compromise in this area, would only add more fuel to the fire which makes modern men uncertain about their identity and women more distant from their femininity.

Chapter 1: Partners in Personhood

pg. 10 -- "We do the [menial] work; the men, most often the priests, get the credit." This is a cheap shot against priests who have worked themselves into early graves on the behalf of such people who belittle their contribution.

pg. 10 -- "Relegated to specific sexual roles --virgin, mother, temptress": It may be true that there has been the tendency to value women exclusively for their sexual roles. However, these three themes, favorites of certain feminist theologians, are not always meant as pejorative. I suspect that some women are so afraid of their sexuality and the powers they possess that they stamp these three themes as the diabolic trinity. In actuality, all of us, men and women alike, are sexual beings. These three themes, including the third are a part of us. Virginity extends beyond simply the person who has not engaged in conjugal sex and in the Christian context also refers to the person who has accepted spiritual purity, especially as to love God more fully. The second role of parenthood may be among the human person's greatest opportunities. Even the celibate can lead the young closer to God as good witnesses of God's love and caring. The third, despite the negative connotation, is the kind of flirtation which might add spice to life. The attractiveness of the sexes is a gift from God in which we are to rejoice. However, this does not mean that we have to use these powers to manipulate or to fall into sexual temptation. Men and women have to be happy in who they are and in how they are made. They should not run away from this reality by repressing or denying it. The expression of our sexual identities in chastity and in conjugal love for married couples is a very real and promising thing.

Chapter 2: Partners in Relationships

pg. 24 -- "Cannot more be done, they wonder, for people in second marriages who seek ecclesiastical recognition and participation in the sacraments of reconciliation and communion?" Internal forum might already allow many of these unfortunate people readmission to the sacraments when there is little chance for scandal. However, it is doubtful that this allowance could come outside of some commitment of the parties to live as brother and sister. Without some such attempt, the necessary contrition for Penance would be lacking and even if absolution is received, as soon as the couple engages in conjugal relations, they fall back into sin. The Church did not create the problem. One or the other or both made free decisions earlier to give themselves "until death do us part" and unless proven otherwise, God and his Church take them for their word. The reality they consummate in marriage is not something for which the Church has been given the ready power to dissolve. As for communion, the closed table of the Catholic Church as opposed to the open table (i.e. Episcopalians) has a long and ancient tradition. Certain Protestant revisionists would contend that the Eucharist is a means towards unity. The Catholic Church admits this only in regards as to how this one Eucharist unites and enhances the unity of Catholics throughout the world. Indeed, by not admitting those who possess different beliefs or loyalties, the closed table makes more significant and honored its sharing. For those who are of other denominations, it should nurture a longing hunger for that day when we will all be united in the same Church, sharing one Eucharist. It is an expression of a unity, already achieved. This is the significant reason for asking those who are in serious sin or disunity to refrain from communion. It becomes a sacrilege because what it signifies is not present. It would be a false compassion which would invite people to be hypocrites or as St. Augustine would phrase it, to have the sacrament of salvation come to people's condemnation.

pg. 24 -- "In concrete practice, despite improvements, many criticized the annulment practice as being impersonal, unduly lengthy, humiliating, and depressing." Can the death of a marriage be made a source of pride and uplifting? No. This is a naive observation.

pg. 24 -- "Lesbian women express the pain of exclusion or insensitive pastoral care." Does this mean that we are to excuse lesbian and homosexual debauchery?

pg. 72 -- "Women ask that the Church examine its beliefs and values regarding female sexuality, especially those which are condemnatory or accusatory." I know of no such beliefs. Are they referring to traditional doctrines regarding marriage and virginity? Later on it states that the Church should examine its teaching on "family planning and sex education." I would suggest that it is not the Church but these critics who need to do this! They need to further study the articles of faith and sound moral teachings, making the appropriate sacrifices to live them out.

pg. 26 -- "...alienation was the issue of birth control." I suggest that the developments of NFP as over crude rhythm and the increased sensitivity of priests has made this a mute criticism today. If women continue to have problems with this issue, it is because they place more trust in so-called easy technological solutions than in trusting the Church of Christ and in self-surrender to his will. As for the disagreements among theologians and the wimpishness among certain clergy to teach what the Church offers, it is the great scandal of our age. Especially for clergy, they should remember that they are priests of Jesus Christ in his Church and do not represent themselves. We cannot have the same confidence in our own pet ideas as we can in the Magisterium which is protected by the Holy Spirit.

pg. 26 -- "Some women raise the issues that they are left out of both the discussions and the decisions leading to the evolution of moral teachings that govern their reproductive lives." First, it is not a question of whether or not women are excluded from assisting in making these judgments; certainly many are consulted in the formulations of doctrine. However, the teachers of the Church were chosen by Christ as his Apostles and later their successors. They speak, not with mere human authority, but with God's. Second, the word "evolution" or perhaps better, "development" does not mean reversal as the secret agenda of the feminists here would pose. The moral positions of the Church find their roots in the Gospels and early Church. Later, philosophy would seek to show where the judgment of God was sound. Truth may not always be best represented by so-called representative microcosms or as something arrived at by consensus.

pg. 27 -- "Some women are also concerned that the dialogue about abortion appears to be closed." It is. I would make it an article of faith and indeed, I will not baptize or receive into the Church anyone who feels otherwise. It is the most vile sin of all, attacking at the heart of our faith, the Incarnation of Christ. Every child, wanted or not, is a reflection of the Christ-child! I would suggest that those unwilling to accept this decision, exclude themselves from the Catholic community. It was one of the very first sins condemned by the infant Church. Murder is never a legitimate option.

pg. 27 -- "Women expect the Church to assist in a pastoral way with sex education of their children." It rightly begins at home. How can the Church teach what is being openly criticized or witnessed against in the family?

pg. 41 -- "Even though some women have not remarried, they have still been asked to resign from Eucharistic ministry, religious ministry, religious education classes, and family life committees." Is it demeaning to expect a Christian witness which is not seriously blurred by the trauma of broken promises? Priests who have left ministry are not allowed to teach seminarians. Should Divorced people be allowed to do the same for couples anticipating marriage? I believe the failure of a marriage is always very serious and even if the party is reconciled to the Church, certain posts may make divorce seem like an acceptable option for marriages in difficult straits. Similarly, I would question the entrance of men into these various ministries, including the diaconate, even if a subsequent annulment has been received. It is not a question of sin but scandal and witness.

pg. 42 -- "Neither ought males to urge women to choose abortion as an alternative to an unplanned pregnancy. Women who succumb to such pressure, legitimize and perpetuate male irresponsibility." Although this is true and sexual morality between the sexes still remains essentially whatever women want it to be, this statement of the bishops fails to take into consideration the severe loss of freedom and the attack upon responsibility that such pressure causes. Also, in the cases of minors, there is often parental pressure exerted on the teenager, forcing her with the threat to have an abortion or else -- out of my house -- out of my life!

Chapter 3: Partners in Society

pg. 47 -- "As a black woman, I would never even consider participating in any group that was blatantly racist--yet, I maintain membership in a church that is blatantly sexist." Again, what are some cases of this? If these are matters are incontrovertible doctrine, would it not be better for these individuals to leave our community? After all, this person, already merely calls our faith "a church" instead of the particular Church founded by Jesus. I do not perceive the Church as sexist. Indeed, throughout its long history, great women like Joan of Arc and Theresa of Avila have demonstrated that even in sexist societies the Church was the breeding ground for greatness and holiness among women. Indeed, next to Christ, the greatest human being of all was a woman, Mary!

pg. 51 -- "The church so often seems cold and distant from the poor woman's reality." Why this is, I do not know. The Church in a most special way bleeds out her life's breath for the poor, so many of whom are women. What more can we as Christians do?

pg. 51 -- "...the profile of a poor woman is: female, black, with no high school diploma, unmarried, with at least two children, one of whom is under six." This statistic in union with accusations of insensitivity really bothers me! In this nation, we have free education available to the poor in our public schools and with scholarships, in many of our Catholic schools. How am I or those like myself, who have kept our zippers closed to be held responsible for the whoring of poor black women? Why should society burden itself with the costs of leeches who refuse to take responsibility for their lives but rather allow their destinies to be manipulated by subcultures which belittle education and foster loose sexual morals? Although we have an obligation to the poor is it not as the bishops' document proposes, a partnership in redemption and not parasitical relationship of one-sided dependence and corruption? Through our schools and our faith can we not offer and urge our poor to accept the best that Western culture can offer? As many black educators are saying today, the solutions to the crisis in the African-American community are not going to come from a paternalistic "big government" or "big church" but rather from the black community itself. The time for blaming others is over. Along with the opportunities and benefits of our society should come a renewed sense of dignity and responsibility.

pg. 54 -- the only example of so-called sexism in the Church to be mentioned so far has to do with low salaries for lay-people in general. The question of lack of resources is important here. Also, the early danger of trustees must not be forgotten in giving lay-people more charge of Church funds.

pg. 58 -- "We will support legislation and affirmative action laws that assure women of equal opportunity and treatment and that remove sex discrimination." Would this mean support for such amendments as the now defunct ERA? Would this allow women to decide what they want to do to their bodies including abortion? Do the bishops see abortion as the ultimate discrimination? A local Nazi chapter in Virginia supports abortion in the District of Columbia because of their racism and degradation of womanhood. They support it because they envision it as black genocide. Statistics show that in this abortion capital of the nation, the majority of these aborted children are female -- where are their rights?

Chapter 4: Partners in the Church

pg. 66 -- "God is always a 'he,' which robs a female person of the possibility of seeing herself as an image of God...." This is a point of serious debate. God as the spiritual source of all beings is neither sexually male nor female. However, Christ is male. Some have argued that the life-giving image of the Spirit tends to be feminine. It is with this view in mind that Yves Congar has tried to link this theme closer to the Holy Spirit in reference to Mary who usually assumed most if not all of the piety towards the divine as mother. It may be that she, although a creature, has safeguarded that aspect of God in her own person where the Word became flesh. Having said this, I do not believe that drastic revisions of prayers like "The Our Father" or alternating "mother" for "father" or neutralizing it to "parent" in our forms of liturgical address is appropriate. The other images are too well ingrained; and indeed, in the continuing debates, there may be something peculiarly constitutive about God as Father that would make a substitution erroneous or at least less precise. As for the question of language, the scholar John Ciardi (translator of Dante's Divine Comedy) stated a number of years ago at Xavier University in Cincinnati that language is too fluid to force it to change because of social agendas. This is especially so in regards to masculine/feminine connotations. (However, these are not quite as severe as in many Romance languages where most nouns are divided into gender categories.)

pg. 67 -- "What mars the model of partnership is a false view of church as an exclusive masculine hierarchy rather than a community of God's people made up of lay, ordained, and religious members." There may be some truth here, but what is forgotten is that for the celibate priest, the Church is his whole life. It is all he has. To the extent that he loves and serves his parish, he loves and is faithful to Christ. It is an integral aspect of his celibacy. If he relinquishes his charge, he is left impoverished and spouse less. Cooperation must then be seen as a partnership under the continuing direction and support of the priest. How close this partnership should be might also be problematical. We are human, not robots. Tension, fatigue, shared concerns, fellowship, intimacy, etc. might all be factors to lead a woman to fall in love with the priest with whom she serves (and visa versa). This sounds crude, but past instances show that it is far from uncommon. Distance to preserve personal integrity and fidelity to a promise must not be interpreted as insensitivity.

pg. 68 -- "Christ...was highly empowering of women--the institutional church is not." Another cheap shot! Too general and unspecific! Without the enterprising women, the Church would not exist!

pg. 68 -- ORDINATION OF WOMEN: SEE ESSAY! [not included here]

pg. 74 -- ORDINATION OF WOMEN: SEE ESSAY! [not included here]

pg. 75 -- ORDINATION OF WOMEN: SEE ESSAY! [not included here]

pg. 75 -- ALTAR GIRLS: SEE ESSAY! [not included here]

Conclusion

pg. 81 -- "Such images (domestic and familial) do not reflect the gains women have made in terms of equality and co-responsibility." This is a slap in the face to women who have nurtured these qualities happily. I take serious exception to revisionist leanings regarding Mary who perceive her humble submission to God's will "I am the handmaid of the Lord" as irretrievable. Men and women alike could learn from Mary. Indeed, she has long been a model for priests to accentuate their more feminine qualities in union with the already present masculine.

THE BISHOPS' DOCUMENT HAS SOME GOOD POINTS. HOWEVER, IN ITS ATTEMPT TO APPEASE RADICAL FEMINISTS IT HAS LOST AN INNER CONSISTENCY AND OFTEN CONTRADICTS ITSELF, BETWEEN WHAT IT SEES AS NEEDS AND ITS REAFFIRMATIONS OF TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS. IT CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

Note that a later version of the proposed pastoral failed to get enough votes for official promulgation and was simply published and released as a work of the committee. It is interesting that the bishops could not get their so-called experts, who work for THEM, to prepare a document acceptable to the conference. Rome is evidencing similar concerns about the ICEL translators and the proposed liturgy revisions, going so far as to say that the new texts are seriously flawed and display doctrinal deviation. Unfortunately, in this latter case, the American bishops did give their approval. All this is embarassing to say the least and readily leads to scandal.