tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89949193461961688862024-03-10T23:16:00.174-07:00The Catholic Guys(and Mary Ann!)Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-83971022198292079172012-03-29T09:13:00.002-07:002012-03-29T09:33:42.274-07:00The Wanderer's Response to Jim HitchcockIn 2008, Jim Hitchcock attacked the <span style="font-style: italic;">Wanderer, </span>and <span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>Christopher Manion, its columnist and contributing editor, several times in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Human Life Review. </span>The editor graciously allowed us to respond, in an article <a href="http://www.humanlifereview.com/index.php/back-issues/45/89-abortion-and-the-catholic-right-a-response-to-james-hitchcock">here</a>.<br /><br />Hitchcock alleged that the <span style="font-style: italic;">Wanderer </span>had abandoned its pro-life position because it had accused President Bush of abandoning **his** pro-life position. As Grover Norquist pointed out years ago, in Washington, you get only your first priority. The <span style="font-style: italic;">Wanderer's </span>first priority in the moral order is <span style="font-style: italic;">Humanae Vitae, </span>which teaches that not only abortion, but contraception and sterilization are grave and objective evils. We criticized President Bush for embracing the invasion and occupation of Iraq, rather than pro-life principles, as his first priority -- because he never got around to the second one (assuming that the life issues, and not tax cuts, were indeed his second priority).<br /><br />Good Catholics can disagree about the Iraq War, and we did. But good Catholics cannot abandon the pro-life cause, and we did not. We criticized President Bush for shoving it to the back burner, a strategic decision which is clear to even the most ardent Bush supporter. That his decisions on the war led to the stunning defeats of 2006 and 2008, to the election of Obama and the adoption of ObamaCare, is now clear in hindsight. But even had his policies (which we opposed) led to peace and prosperity, all along shoving the life issues off the table, we would still condemn them for the crass opportunism they manifested, and for the cynical manipulation of the pro-life, pro-family movements that they represented -- because Bush 43 would never have been elected without the ardent support of those movements.<br /><br />The point of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Rubble </span>column entitled "Three Broken Legs" is simply this: Pro-lifers were betrayed during the Bush years and we should not allow ourselves ever again to ally ourselves with the Republican Party (or any party, for that matter: observe the disaster that has befallen the bishops for allying themselves with the Democrat Party for 100 years!).<br /><br />Put not your faith in princes!Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-58487089791429003622012-03-15T11:21:00.000-07:002012-03-15T11:22:56.541-07:00Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:enableopentypekerning/> <w:dontflipmirrorindents/> <w:overridetablestylehps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="nostyle">March 14, 2012<br /></p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I would like to begin by once again sending my condolences to the Johnson family on the death of Mrs. Loetta Johnson.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I also feel obliged to answer questions from my parishioners, as well as from the public, about the incident on February 25th.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">Here are the facts: On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30 a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms. Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I understand and agree it is the policy of the Archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">During the two eulogies (nearly 25 minutes long), I quietly slipped for some minutes into the sacristy lavatory to recover from the migraine that was coming on. I never walked out on Mrs. Loetta Johnson’s funeral and the liturgy was carried out with the same reverence and care that I celebrate every Mass. I finished the Mass and accompanied the body of the deceased in formal procession to the hearse, which was headed to the cemetery. I am subject to occasional severe migraines, and because the pain at that point was becoming disabling, I communicated to our funeral director that I was incapacitated and he arranged one of my brother priests to be present at the cemetery to preside over the rite of burial.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">Furthermore as the testimony of the priest that was at the cemetery conveys, he was present when the Johnson family arrived, and in fact mentioned that being called to cover the burial rite is quite normal, as many priests for reasons much less significant than mine (rush hour traffic for example) do not make the voyage to the cemetery. He routinely covers for them. This change in plans, was also invisible to the rest of the entourage. Regrets and information about my incapacitating migraine were duly conveyed to the Johnson family.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I have thanked the funeral director and the priest at the burial site, for their assistance that day. Mrs. Loetta Johnson was properly buried with every witness and ceremony a Catholic funeral can offer. I did not and would not refuse to accompany Barbara Johnson and her mother to the cemetery because she is gay or lives with a woman. I did not in any way seek to dishonor her memory, and my homily at the funeral should have made that quite evident to all in the pews, including the Johnson family.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I would like to extend again to Ms. Johnson and her family, my sincerest condolences on her mother’s death. I would never intentionally want or seek to embarrass anyone publicly or increase anyone’s emotional distress during such a difficult time. I did not seek or contrive these circumstances.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">But I am going to defend my conduct in these instances, because what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">Otherwise any priest could-and many will-face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve the Catholic Church in Washington D.C.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">As to the latest allegations, I feel obliged to alleviate unnecessary suffering for the faithful at St. John Neumann and others who are following the case.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I wish to state that in conversation with Bishop Barry Knestout on the morning of March 13, he made it very clear that the whole of the case regarding the allegations of “intimidation” are circumscribed to two conversations; one with the funeral director and the other with a parish staff member present at the funeral. These conversations took place on March 7th and 8th, one day before the archdiocese’s latest decision to withdraw faculties (not suspend, since Cardinal Wuerl is not my bishop) on the 9th of March. I am fully aware of both meetings. And indeed contrary to the statement read on Sunday March 11th during all Masses at St. John Neumann, both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. There is no hidden other sin or “intimidation” allegations that they are working on, outside of these two meetings. The meetings in question, occurred in our effort to document from people at the funeral Mass in written form a few facts about the nature of the incident. We have collected more than a few testimonies and affidavits, testifying to what really took place during the funeral liturgy.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">My personal conversation with both parties in question were in my view civil, professional and in no way hostile. I respect both individuals in question and really do not know the nature of their grievance.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">On March 13, I asked Bishop Knestout about detail on this matter but he stated that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter. I would only add for the record, that the letter removing me from pastoral work in the Archdiocese of Washington, was already signed and sealed and on the table when I met with Bishop Knestout on March 9, even before he asked me the first question about the alleged clash.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">In the days to come I look forward to addressing any confusion about the above conversations if the Archdiocese or the persons involved wish to talk about it publicly or privately.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I am grateful for all the good wishes and prayers I have received. And sincerely, having lost my own mother not long ago, I again extend my condolences to the Johnson family. I finally wish for the good of the Universal Church, the archdiocese, my parish and the peace of friends and strangers around the world, that the archdiocese would cease resolving what they call internal personnel matters of which they cannot speak, through the public media.</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">I remain my bishop’s and my Church’s, and above all Christ Jesus’ obedient servant,</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">Very truly yours,</p> <p class="nostyle"> </p> <p class="nostyle">Father Marcel Guarnizo</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></p>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-71213489437671628622011-12-08T14:56:00.000-08:002011-12-08T14:56:19.970-08:00Altar Girls RevisitedIf you are in the Diocese of Arlington, you've probably read or heard about the altar girl brushfire that was sparked when Fr. Michael Taylor, Pastoral Administrator of Corpus Christi Mission in South Riding, decided to reinstitute the practice of having only boys serve at the altar. He made the change and "grandfathered" (grandmothered?) the current girls who may continue to serve until they age out. The subsequent controversy was fanned by the Washington Post and the local news who covered a protest at the chancery attended by a meager crowd. The Post subsequently ran a survey on altar girls, a manipulated poll I might add. <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/curious-development-with-that-wapo-poll-about-altar-girls/">Fr. Z blogged </a>about it. The Post apparently wasn't getting the results they wanted, so they tried again. It still ended up overwhelmingly against altar girls. That hasn't stopped the altar girl cheering section that includes Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful, and the Women's Ordination Conference among others.<br />
<br />
Fr. Taylor's action follows one taken earlier this year by Fr. John Lankeit pastor of the Cathedral parish in Phoenix. His approach was a little different. He ended altar girls immediately and established a sacristan group for the girls. Their are other priests around the country, even in liberal dioceses, who quietly continue to use altar boys only. Hopefully, this is a growing trend that will expand because of the very publicity meant to force altar girls on unwilling priests.<br />
<br />
I wrote an article on the Arlington fuss for the Autumn issue of the Les Femmes newsletter entitled <em>Back to the Future: Revisiting Girl Altar Boys</em>. I invite you to <a href="http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/two-thumbs-up-to-fr-michael-taylor-of.html">stop by and read it</a>. And if you have a pastor who maintains the time-honored tradition of using only boys as servers, tell him thank-you. You can be sure others are complaining.Mary Ann Kreitzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18245237845099708478noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-5696207423823848632011-11-13T10:42:00.000-08:002011-11-13T10:54:14.845-08:00A Catholic Looks At Veteran's Day(hat tip to The Wanderer Forum Foundation, wandererforum.org)<br /><br />Veteran's Day Address to Notre Dame ROTC Tri-Military Veteran’s Day Ceremony<br /><br />Prof. Emeritus Charles E. Rice, Notre Dame Law School, University of Notre Dame<br /><br />Nov. 11, 2010<br /><br /><br />This commemoration used to be called Armistice Day, in observance of the end of World War One. That was supposed to be “the war to end all wars.” It didn’t work out that way, as your presence here in uniform confirms. <br /><br />You are volunteers. One price you pay for that decision is misunderstanding by others as to who you are and what you are doing. In an environment of “political correctness,” especially on college campuses, we can understand how sincere but misinformed critics disparage your choice and the military vocation as contrary to the Christian tradition. But those critics are wrong. Let’s try to set the record straight.<br /><br />When “soldiers” asked John the Baptist, “And we—what are we to do?,” John did not tell them to find another line of work. “[H]e said to them, ‘Plunder no one, accuse no one falsely, and [perhaps most important] be content with your pay.” St. Paul did not demand that newly converted Christians who were soldiers must leave that profession. Instead he said, “Let every man remain in the calling in which he was called….[I]n the state in which he was called, let every man remain with God.” In the early Church, Christian pacifists drew support from Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, and other theologians, but they reflected neither the dominant Christian view nor the teaching of the Church.<br /><br />Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., dealt with this issue: “What was the attitude of the early Church toward the bearing of arms? More truly citizens of the earthly fatherland than has sometimes been thought, Christians similarly did not hesitate to become soldiers, charged with their country’s defense and perhaps extension. Accordingly, we find numbers of them in the Roman armies at a time when military service was obligatory only for the sons of veterans or in the infrequent cases of extraordinary levies. The fact that Emperor Galerius on the threshold of the fourth century had to ‘purge’ the armed forces because they had too many Christians is the best proof that, from the end of the second century to the beginning of the fourth, ‘conscientious objection’ was not felt by the majority.” <br /><br />One reason for the rejection of military service by some early Christians was not an intrinsic objection to military service as such, but rather the potential of that service to require immoral conduct and idolatry. An example from the third century illustrates the duty of the Christian citizen both to participate in the common defense and to recognize that his ultimate loyalty is to God rather than to the State. The Theban Legion, composed entirely of Egyptian Christians and stationed at Thebes in Egypt, was ordered by the Emperor Maximian to march to Gaul to suppress a rebellion. Under the command of Mauritius (Maurice), the Legion marched through the Alps into Gaul. Maximian then ordered, in 287, that the whole army must offer sacrifice to the pagan gods and must take an oath to assist in the extermination of Christians in Gaul. The members of the Theban Legion unanimously refused. Their number is commonly placed at 6,600, although that number has been disputed. In reaction to the Legion’s refusal, Maximian ordered the legion to be decimated, with every tenth man selected to be killed. A second decimation followed, but the survivors remained resolute. Following the lead of Maurice and their other officers, they sent Maximian a reply which capsulizes the vocation and duty of the Christian soldier:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"> We are your soldiers, but are also servants of the true God. We owe you military service and obedience; but we cannot renounce Him who is our Creator and Master, and also yours even though you reject Him. In all things which are not against His law we most willingly obey you, as we have done hitherto. We readily oppose all your enemies, whoever they are; but we cannot dip our hands into the blood of innocent persons. We have taken an oath to God before we took one to you: you can place no confidence in our second oath if we violate the first. You command us to punish the Christians; behold, we are such. We confess God the Father, author of all things, and His Son, Jesus Christ. We have seen our companions slain without lamenting them, and we rejoice at their honour. Neither this nor any other provocation has tempted us to revolt. We have arms in our hands, but we do not resist because we would rather die innocent than live by any sin.<br /></div><br />Maximian proceeded to execute every member of the Legion, none of whom offered any resistance. The massacre occurred at Agaunum, now St. Maurice-en-Valais, Switzerland. <br /><br />So don’t let anyone, on this campus or elsewhere, tell you that your commitment to military service is somehow inconsistent with the Christian tradition. That commitment might be unpopular with one group or another from time to time. But it is a noble calling fully in accord with, and indeed dictated by, the Christian tradition.<br /><br />It is not enough, however, for you to rest on the assurance that you are doing the right thing. You have to know why it is so and you have to be prepared to educate your critics on the realities of the duty to defend the common good. So let’s review some basic principles.<br /><br />The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the traditional Christian view that “governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Citizens are obliged to support a just war. “Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.” <br /><br />Such defense must satisfy “just war” analysis. The requirements for jus ad bellum, justice in going to war, are proper authority, just cause and right intention. The Catechism lists further details: “[T]he damage inflicted by the aggressor… must be lasting, grave and certain;” war must be a last resort, with “all other means impractical or ineffective,” “there must be serious prospects of success;” and “the use of arms must not produce evils… graver than the evil to be eliminated.” “The evaluation of these conditions,” however, “belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” Citizens, including members of the military, are obliged, in effect, to give a benefit of the doubt to the decisions of those in lawful authority.<br /><br />Jus in bello, justice in fighting a war, requires proportionality and discrimination (non-combatant immunity from intentional attack). The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” Pursuant to the principle of the double effect, however, it can be morally justified to attack a military target of sufficient importance even though the attacker knows, but does not intend, that innocent civilians will be killed in the attack. The key is the intent. No one ever has the moral right to intentionally kill the innocent. But the good act of attacking the legitimate target can be justified even though it has the unintended evil effect of killing the innocent, provided that the good effect of the attack is not obtained by means of the evil effect and provided there is sufficient reason for permitting the unintended evil effect.<br /><br />The Uniform Code of Military Justice, the very restrictive Rules of Engagement and other binding military policies effectively protect noncombatants and otherwise conform to the requirements of jus in bello. Some military personnel violate the law but their record is far better than that of corporate executives and members of Congress. And the armed services are diligent, sometimes even to the point of excess, in prosecuting putative offenses.<br /><br />The Second Vatican Council affirmed that, “All those who enter military service in loyalty to their country should look upon themselves as the custodians of the security and freedom of their fellow countrymen; and when they carry out their duty properly, they are contributing to the maintenance of peace.” <br /><br />The universal pacifist refuses to take part in any and all wars: “Those who renounce violence,” said Vatican II, “and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear… witness to the… risks of recourse to violence.” However, a universal pacifism which denies the right of the state to use force in defense, is inconsistent with the teaching of the Church.<br /><br />Granting the sincerity of universal pacifists, their claim to moral superiority is flawed. One can well “bear witness to evangelical charity” by renouncing force in defending himself. The universal pacifist, who denies that force can ever be used in defense of the common good, would refuse to defend not only himself but others. He would deny to his fellow citizens their right to have the state provide what the Catechism calls “legitimate defense by military force.” <br /><br />Unlike the universal pacifist, the selective pacifist refuses to take part in a particular war he regards as unjust. The law of the United States allows exemptions from military service only for universal, and not for selective pacifists. The Catechism urges, but does not require, the state to make “equitable provision” for all conscientious objectors who “are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.” It is difficult, however, to see how an exemption for selective objectors, who object not to war in general but only to a particular war, could be administered without inviting fraudulent evasion.<br /><br />Whatever its legal status, selective pacifism is required by the teaching of the Church. We should all be selective pacifists, insisting, with prudence, that any war—or any other act of state,-- is subject to the higher standard of the natural law and the law of God. A strong presumption of validity attaches to the decisions and acts of those entrusted with the care of the common good. But that presumption is not conclusive. All wars are debatable, including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Subject to the legitimate authority of Congress, the president has the duty to defend the nation. His decisions and those of Congress are entitled to a strong benefit of the doubt. But there are limits.<br /><br />To participate in the defense of the nation and the common good is an honorable calling. Those who do so deserve appreciation and respect. So, please, do not permit anyone to try to lay a guilt trip on you for your commitment to your country’s military service. You should be proud of that freely given service. You have earned the appreciation and respect of the Notre Dame community, and especially of those who profess allegiance to the Christian tradition. <br /><br />Yesterday was the 235th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. Permit me to quote a line from the Marine Corps Hymn which I rightly apply to you and to the Army, Navy and Air Force in honor of your service: “Here’s health to you and to our Corps, which we are proud to serve.” <br /><br />Thank you. And God bless you.<br /><br /><br />Notes:<br /><br />Luke 3:14. <br /><br />1 Cor. 7:20-24. <br /><br />John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism (1975), 346-347.<br /><br />Butler’s Lives of the Saints (1963), vol. III, 619.<br /><br />The Roman Theban Legion, http://bibleprobe.com/theban/html. St. Maurice of the Theban Legion,<br /><br />HYPERLINK "http://www.suite101.com/content/st-maurice-of-the-theban-legion-a42501" http://www.suite101.com/content/st-maurice-of-the-theban-legion-a42501.<br /><br />Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), no. 2308. <br /><br />CCC, no. 2310. <br /><br />CCC, no. 2309. <br /><br />Gaudium et Spes, no. 79.<br /><br />CCC, no. 2306. <br /><br />CCC, no. 2309.<br /><br />CCC, no. 2311.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-10807023085298830992010-02-01T07:59:00.000-08:002010-02-01T08:01:10.162-08:00Ron Paul Talks About His Pro-Life ConvictionsThe Wanderer interviews Dr. Ron Paul, Republican Congressman of Texas.<br /><br />July 2008<br /><br />[As the Congress prepared to go out on its annual August recess, Dr. Ron Paul met in his Capitol Hill office with Wanderer contributing editor Christopher Manion].<br /><br />The Wanderer. Dr. Paul thank you for your hospitality today. Let's get right to the point. Today, as the Congress is about to go out of session for the August recess, healthcare is the number one agenda item. Where does that stand, especially from the point of view of those of us who consider the life issues as paramount in this legislation?<br /><br />Representative Paul. I think it's going to be very bad. I've always assumed that the worst tactic the left could use is to make pro-life people pay for abortions. That gets their attention like nothing else will. And they're going to do it. They been doing it for years -- I used to fight all this foreign aid and this pretense that we send this foreign aid and that they say “Oh, yeah, no abortions,” and yet you know it goes to certain groups – these funds are fungible, and they end up going to abortions, and it's going to get a lot worse."<br /><br />Even the Hyde Amendment isn't perfect, but this actually blatantly violates or removes the Hyde amendment. I think ultimately the only way you can prevent taxpayer funding for abortions is no funding for those organizations.”<br /><br />The Wanderer. The GOP has been regarded as the pro-life party in these past few elections, and the party hasn't done very well. What do you think the prospects are for the GOP as a vehicle for conservative ideas in general, and especially for pro-lifers?<br /><br />Rep. Paul. I don't think -- you know it's shifting, but over the years we never suffered from it. I mean Ronald Reagan you know took a pro-life position, but it is true that the Republican party, like in many other issues, would speak more strongly than their actions -- you know, they didn't do a whole lot once they were in office. I think for the Republicans to be successful, they should stick with it, but I have a position that's slightly different than the average Republican. Which is less confrontational, because I don't want to use the cloud of the federal government to settle this dispute. I want to do it constitutionally, so I don't want to write national laws, and I want to go back to the states, which means that I want to repeal Roe versus Wade and I want the state of Texas to be able to write these laws and to be left alone, and lo and behold, that is not nearly so antagonistic as having constitutional amendments and more mandates. Sometimes our right to life groups get upset with me because they write laws up here and they use the clout of the government to punish, and I don't think that's the proper way to do it. I think it's an act of violence, and I think all acts of violence, whether it's robbery and murder and manslaughter – all these things are meant to be local issues. And I think that's where they should stay.<br /><br />The Wanderer. A lot of people get rankled when I mention that you've delivered 4000 babies (he chuckles) because they don't want to confront the reality of a baby in your arms. <br /><br />Rep. Paul. Yeah, that’s right.<br /><br />The Wanderer. You are a champion of the Constitution with regard to the pro-life issue and with regard to the wars abroad. What is going to happen to the Constitution with all the new influx of American responsibility and troops into Afghanistan now, and in the Middle East in general?<br /><br />Rep. Paul. Well, I would probably phrased the question in a slightly different way -- you say, "what is going to happen to our Constitution," and I might say, “what has happened to the Constitution?" Because, you know, I don't think we have a whole lot left of our Constitution. It gets worse all the time, whether it's in the executive branch, or the judicial branch, or the legislative branch. And we go to war without declarations, and we print money without authority to print money -- you know, in the Federal Reserve system -- and it all goes on and on. So I think it's going to continue. So often I make the point that we got into this financial and political mess and foreign-policy mess because we don't obey the Constitution. Maybe we could get out of it if we decided to follow the Constitution. I'm not hopeful that in the next year or two that were going to have any majority vote in the Congress changing the course that we've taken. But I am very optimistic about the number of young people who are really really interested in what we've been talking about and coming to our rallies. Our campus meetings that we’re having and our rallies have been very well attended, and they're very interested in the Constitution.<br /><br />And that's what it takes. You know, Keynsianism in economics came in vogue in the 1930s. And that is a philosophic issue that is pervasive in the Republican and Democrat parties-- it is both. So a philosophic revolution has to affect both parties. Whether it has to do with gun issues or right to life issues or economic issues, to be successful you really have to have a philosophic change.<br /><br />And that's why I'm encouraged. The young people are willing to look at these issues because they know they're getting dumped on, they know they're getting a bad deal. They're getting wars to finance, wars to fight, and these bills to pay. So I look at this as much as an opportunity as a danger that we have today.<br /><br />The Wanderer. Dr. Paul, the Fed [the Federal Reserve Bank] has always been a mysterious institution. In the last six months, they’ve lent two trillion dollars to people whose names they won’t reveal. Isn’t that our money” I notice that your “Audit the Fed” Bill now has a majority of congressman sponsoring it. But it's clearly going to get resistance from the Senate and from the White House. Why is the Fed so important for our readers to understand?<br /><br />Rep. Paul. Well, because of the assumption made, especially with your readership, who are people who have moral principles. The basic moral principle in dealing with the Fed is that it should be illegal to counterfeit money. People understand counterfeit, and the Bible says something about honest weights and measures, it's been around a long time that you're not supposed to cheat people. And when you're just printing money out of thin air, you're diluting the value of the dollar that we hold and there's no restraint on the printing press.<br /><br />If an individual did it, they’d go to prison for counterfeiting. Here, we've created -- we've allowed it to be created by Congress -- a secret private organization that is not monitored and has no significant oversight, and they’re a government unto itself. They print money, and not only have they done this for years, but just recently with the financial crisis, they been able to bail out their buddies. You know, there are a lot of people who have gotten loans, and guarantees, they've allowed to get involved in loans to governments, and loans to other central banks, and in a way they're doing something that should only be done by treaty. They're actually having agreements with other governments. Here we are, having the Federal Reserve get involved and treaties, and they're doing it without the authority of the Constitution. The Constitution has not given any authority for a central bank, and we have been instructed to use only gold and silver as legal tender, so there's a lot of reasons why we should oppose the Fed, and it's also the reason that I’m writing a book that's coming out, it’s called End The Fed.<br /><br />The Wanderer. Pope Benedict and America’s founders seem to agree that do have a society that enjoys liberty, morality is indispensable in the people. Can you restore liberty to this country without restoring morality?<br /><br />Rep. Paul. No, there's no way. I think even the abortion issue is more of a moral issue than a legislative issue. I've admired Mary Cunningham Agee, she's very, very strong on pro-life, but she doesn't deal in politics. She deals in taking care of young women.<br /><br />The Wanderer. When I was the pro-life faculty advisor at Boston University 20 years ago, she was very helpful in a very practical way to our efforts.<br /><br />Rep. Paul. Well, she emphasizes doing something, caring for these girls and caring for the unborn. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against abortion, because it is killing, and we should do it directly under the Constitution. I became very much aware of the abortion issue in the 60s when I was studying OB/GYN. I tell the story in my little booklet on right to life that I walked into a room -- and the law was still pretty strong against abortion -- and I walked in where they were doing a hysterotomy, because the fetus was fairly large, a pound or two, and they deliver the baby, and it was still breathing and crying, and whimpering, and they put the baby in a bucket and put it in a room and pretended that they didn't hear anything. And I thought, “Wow! Isn’t this something,” but the law was against it. But they were defying the law. Society had changed -- we had the drug culture, the Vietnam culture, and the so-called desire for these abortions on demand, then the law changed. We didn't become immoral because the courts said it’s okay to do abortions, we did abortions, society endorsed abortions, so the courts were reflecting society. And I think that's an example of how you need to be a moral society. The Constitution is a great document, but the document is only dependent on the people, and dependent on the quality of the people … [even] if you have a good document, it won't change the morality of the people.<br /><br />The Wanderer. Dr. Paul, I think you've been a great inspiration to millions of people. Thank you for talking to us today, and keep up your good work for the cause of liberty.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-57980249462537590882009-09-21T08:13:00.000-07:002009-09-21T08:19:25.738-07:00What Happened To Notre Dame? [Part Two]<span style="font-weight:bold;">Is Abortion Just Another “Issue”?</span><br /><br />By Christopher Manion [from the Wanderer] <br /><br />The more one pages through Charles Rice’s new book, “What Happened to Notre Dame,” the more Obama’s triumphal visit there last May emerges as a turning point, not only for the university, but for Catholic education and the American Catholic Church. No longer could the university pretend that the “Fighting Irish” would fight for the lives of the unborn. Instead, the event sent the message that Notre Dame had demoted abortion from the status of an intrinsic evil to just one of many increasingly obscure threads in the “seamless garment” that Obama’s favorite archbishop, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, conjured up long ago to diminish the relative importance – indeed, the horror -- of abortion in America, reducing it to a political issue that must be considered alongside many others. <br /><br />Rice confronts that dialectic head-on, using the lens of Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Dictatorship of Relativism.” I wonder, do Notre Dame students read Orwell any more? Because the truth is right there in Animal Farm: in the seamless garment, “all issues are relative, but some issues are more relative than others.” Professor Rice drives the point home: “Could you possibly imagine Fr. Jenkins … honoring a public official who persistently expresses his approval of the Holocaust or legally enforced racial segregation, because of that official’s stand on the economy or health care?” <br /><br />Come on, class, let’s not always see the same hands. <br /><br />Relativism nonetheless has its supporters in the Church. While some eighty-three American bishops criticized Notre Dame’s decision to honor the most pro-abortion president in history, a couple of hundred were silent. Last month, one of their number, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, criticized his colleagues who were critical of Father Jenkins. According to the National Catholic Reporter, “Sheehan said the Catholic community risks isolating itself from the rest of the country and that refusing to talk to a politician or refusing communion because of a difference on a single issue was counterproductive.” Archbishop Sheehan, who said he had once worked under Cardinal Bernardin, called the bishops’ criticism of Notre Dame “hysterical.” <br /><br />I am grateful to Archbishop Sheehan for candidly revealing that he thinks not theologically, but politically – taking politically in its post-modernist, relativist, and reductionist sense. Abortion is reduced to a pesky “single issue” -- oppose it forthrightly and you “risk isolating yourself”! The good archbishop pretends that those 83 bishops “refuse to talk” to pro-abortion politicians, a canard that sounds pretty “hysterical” in itself (He does not complain that pro-abort politicians might not have ears to hear). But if that’s what Abp. Sheehan is against, what is he for? The Reporter again: “He said his approach – whether dealing with civic officials or church members, relied heavily on collaboration, a technique he said he learned from the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Collaboration or Cooperation?</span><br /><br />Rice recognizes that collaboration is a dangerous road. Regarding Obama’s support of cloning, and then killing, human embryos for stem-cell research, he writes, “the experiments performed by Nazi doctors on concentration camp prisoners were unimaginative and primitive by comparison. By conferring Notre Dame’s highest honors on the national leader who is setting the stage for such an atrocity, Notre Dame’s officers acted like ‘good Germans’ who were submissive to their Führer.”<br /><br />In German, they called those folks “Kollaborateur” -- collaborators. How does Archbishop Sheehan counsel us to prevent his (apparently innocuous) collaboration from becoming cooperation? He does not say. <br /><br />His positivism persists: Abp. Sheehan next claims that “the majority” of bishops agree with him. Perhaps that is true. He complains: “We’d be like the Amish, you know, kind of isolated from society, if we kept pulling back because of a single issue.” <br /><br />Why the Amish, Your Excellency? Why not the English martyrs? <br /><br />Darn those silly little “single issues”! But not all of them: near the end of his life, Cardinal Bernardin was very concerned about the precipitous decline of voluntary financial support for the Church from the laity. Could that explain why the USCCB has turned to the government, which has given their educational, charitable, and medical institutions tens of billions in taxpayer dollars? Didn’t Cardinal Bernardin ever warn Archbishop Sheehan that the issue of money might tempt the bishops not only to collaborate, but to cooperate, with abortionists? Was government money a “single issue” that the Church just couldn’t refuse? <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Bravo Bishop D’Arcy</span><br /><br />One prelate who takes his job more seriously than money or politics is my hometown bishop, John M. D’Arcy. After Rice’s book went to press, D’Arcy penned “A pastoral reflection on the controversy at Notre Dame” for America magazine – perhaps placing it in that liberal journal to make sure that folks at Notre Dame would see it. Bishop D’Arcy gets right to the point: “Does a Catholic university have the responsibility to give witness to the Catholic faith and to the consequences of that faith by its actions and decisions—especially by a decision to confer its highest honor? If not, what is the meaning of a life of faith?” <br /><br />Bishop D’Arcy finds much to applaud in the students of Notre Dame: “I attended the Baccalaureate Mass the day before graduation, for the 25th time, speaking after Holy Communion, as I always do. Then I led an evening Rosary at the Grotto with students, adults and a number of professors. We then went to a chapel [the largest, in Dillon Hall] on campus. It was packed for a whole night of prayer and Eucharistic adoration.” (By the way, Fr. Richard McBrien, Notre Dame’s notorious critic of popes past and present, recently wrote that because today’s Catholics “are so literate or even well-educated … there is little or no need for [such] extraneous Eucharistic devotions.”) About Fr. McBrien’s colleagues in the Theology Department, Bishop D’Arcy makes a stunning, possibly promising observation: “It is notable that a vast majority has been willing to seek and accept the mandatum from the local bishop [D’Arcy],” he writes. <br /><br />For Bishop D’Arcy, l’affaire Notre Dame is not yet over. “I firmly believe that the board of trustees must take up its responsibility afresh, with appropriate study and prayer. They also must understand the seriousness of the present moment,” he writes. It is up to board to address “the situation that so sundered the church last spring.” Well, since Land O’Lakes, that board has been pretty proud of its independence from the hierarchy. No matter -- Bp. D’Arcy makes his role clear: “The bishop must be concerned that Catholic institutions do not succumb to the secular culture, making decisions that appear to many, including ordinary Catholics, as a surrender to a culture opposed to the truth about life and love.” <br /><br />Bishop D’Arcy then puts three questions to the board of Notre Dame: “(1) Do you consider it a responsibility in your public statements, in your life as a university and in your actions, including your public awards, to give witness to the Catholic faith in all its fullness? (2) What is your relationship to the church and, specifically, to the local bishop and his pastoral authority as defined by the Second Vatican Council? (3) Finally, a more fundamental question: Where will the great Catholic universities search for a guiding light in the years ahead? Will it be the Land O’Lakes Statement or Ex Corde Ecclesiae?”<br /><br />In his introduction to Rice’s book, Professor Alfred Freddoso observes that Notre Dame invited Obama thinking it “could reap the great public relations benefits of a presidential visit, once it survived what it undoubtedly expected to be a short-lived protest by the local bishop.” Clearly Notre Dame got it wrong. Those questions are not going away: Bishop D’Arcy is waiting for answers. <br /><br /><br />[Charles Rice's book is pubished by <a href="http://staugustine.net]/whathappenedtond.html">Saint Augustine's Press</a>Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-3431018105380849432009-09-21T08:09:00.000-07:002009-09-21T08:13:38.808-07:00What Happened To Notre Dame? [Part One]What Happened To Notre Dame?<br /><br />[a review of Charles E. Rice's <a href="http://staugustine.net/whathappenedtond.html">new book</a> from St. Augustine's Press]<br /><br />By Christopher Manion for the Wanderer<br /><br />A few weeks into Notre Dame’s Fall semester of 1949, a sleeping freshman was jostled awake by a couple of upperclassmen.<br /><br />“Hey, fella,” they shouted, “hey, we just wanna know -- how did you get into Notre Dame if you’re not Catholic?”<br /><br />That awakened the sleeper in a heartbeat. “Whaddya mean, ‘not Catholic,’” he retorted. “Of course I’m Catholic!”<br /><br />“Then why don’t you go to Mass!” they sternly replied.<br /><br />That freshman became one of our family’s best friends – and one of Notre Dame’s most passionate alumni. All his life, he attributed his profound faith and his ardent love of Holy Mother Church and our Blessed Mother to Notre Dame. For him, and for generations of the Fighting Irish, Notre Dame was the exemplar of the Catholic Faith. <br /><br />But times have changed. <br /><br />“What happened to Notre Dame?” I have heard that question countless times since I graduated forty years ago. A ready answer does not come easily to mind. After all, Knute Rockne, Notre Dame’s legendary football coach, used to tell my father (who started teaching there in 1919), “You should never spit on a man’s head if you’re standing on his shoulders.” And countless thousands of Notre Dame alumni undoubtedly owe their academic, their professional, and even their spiritual formation to Notre Dame. How can they criticize Notre Dame if they are “standing on its shoulders”? <br /><br />Everything good about Notre Dame comes from God. For a century and more, the Holy Catholic Church and the salvation of souls was Notre Dame’s sole reason for being. By the 1960s, however, Notre Dame had grown weary of “standing on the shoulders” of the Church. Like a wayward spouse, it longed for independence, to be of the world as well as in it. Finally, with Land O’Lakes in 1967, Notre Dame filed for divorce. “For the sake of the children” (its students and alumni) and money (their financial support), it continued to project a public façade of harmony between the Church and its own secular relativism. But Notre Dame was simply trying to serve two masters, keeping up its Catholic appearances while sinking ever deeper into the mire of worldly infidelity. Last May, the flimsy façade finally came crashing down.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Hey, Wake Up!</span><br /><br />The timing of even the most inevitable earthquake is hard to predict. But for years, Notre Dame has been poised athwart a widening chasm that makes the San Andreas Fault look like the Rock of Gibraltar. Charles E. Rice, Professor of Constitutional Law at Notre Dame since 1968, has long been a defensor fide there. His column in the campus newspaper regularly pierces the fog of faculty doubters like the siren of a Catholic Rescue Squad, racing to resuscitate victims who have been run over by hit-and-run heterodoxy. His numerous books, his Wanderer columns, and his speeches and legislative testimony have made key contributions to the intellectual and legal defense of the Culture of Life in the United States. When “Old Notre Dame” collapsed for good with Barack Obama’s commencement appearance last spring, Dr. Rice went to work. With his new book, What Happened To Notre Dame, he once more rides to the rescue. <br /><br />In the introduction, Notre Dame philosophy professor Fred Feddoso succinctly explains Obama’s visit: “Both sides had much to gain. President Obama could cloak himself in the mantle of Our Lady’s university as part of an ongoing campaign to solidify his standing among those many Catholic voters for whom life issues are not very important, or at least not overriding. The university, on the other hand, could reap the great public relations benefits of a presidential visit, once it survived what it undoubtedly expected to be a short-lived protest by the local bishop, John D’Arcy of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, and a few hardcore pro-life activists.”<br /><br />Ever since, both Obama and Notre Dame have struggled to stay on message: “No big deal -- just a natural meeting of a great university and a great leader. Turn the page.” <br /><br />Well, not just yet. Professor Freddoso limns Notre Dame’s transition from Catholic orthodoxy to national prominence, a course that Rice examines in detail. Freddoso’s ruminations conclude that “Notre Dame is a wonderful place in many ways. [But] What it is not is a Catholic university, i.e., an institution of higher learning where the Catholic faith pervades and enriches, and is itself enriched by, the intellectual life on campus.” Freddoso concludes with the arresting description of Notre Dame as “a public school in a Catholic neighborhood.” The kids are Catholic, but the education -- what is taught in the classroom -- “has little or nothing to do with Catholicism.”<br /><br />In celebrating Obama last May, University President Father John Jenkins was giddy with exultation. All that was missing was a tattoo across his forehead, proclaiming, “Fighting Irish Welcome O’Bama.” Rice zeroes in on the telling moment, early in Obama’s address, when a voice from the cheap seats shouted, “abortion is murder!” Immediately the students answered with a roar, shouting Obama’s campaign slogan (“Yes we can!”) and their favorite football cheer (“We are N. D. !!”). <br /><br />How could it be that the kids from the “Catholic Neighborhood” were cheering the premier advocate of abortion in the western world? Perhaps the students were not just cheering Obama. They were cheering Father Jenkins, who had defeated their arch-rivals. And who were the bad guys? Not Michigan State or Southern Cal, but the Church, the orthodox faithful, the old alumni, and, ultimately, the Magisterium.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Notre Dame As A Lesson For Everyone</span><br /><br />Always the master teacher, Rice examines the Obama appearance with precision. He then moves to a deeper consideration of the principles that inform Catholic education, and compares them with the conflicting assumptions and key events that have made Notre Dame “a small Purdue with a Golden Dome” that eventually collapsed into the arms of modernity with a longing for money, prestige, and worldly “success.” Over the years, Notre Dame has built a very expensive house of cards designed to serve two masters – the modern secular world of the intellectual, political, and cultural elite, on the one hand, and traditional Catholic faithful and alumni, on the other. With Obama’s appearance, those cards came tumbling down. One by one, Rice lays them face up on the table.<br /> <br />In one example, Rice addresses Notre Dame’s desire to be a “research university,” which brings in millions in grants, but gives the back of the hand to undergraduate education. Almost anticipating this criticism, Notre Dame broadcast an infomercial during its season opener in September touting its role “as a premier research university [that] works to pursue a cure for .. rare diseases often overlooked by mainstream science.” The irony? Right under its nose, there is a very widespread disease, all the more dangerous because it is so rarely detected – a loss of faith, a dalliance with the culture of death, a celebration of modernity, and an abandonment of the university’s responsibility to provide a Catholic education.<br /><br />Rice’s book is not a polemic but a roadmap. “In its historical acceptance of its full Catholic character, including the teaching authority of the Church, Notre Dame had it all. And then walked away from it,” he concludes. The remedy? Return – not to the past, but to the timeless truths that the “Fighting Irish” used to cheer and fight and die for – the truths of the Faith, our firm defense against the dictatorship of relativism.<br /><br /><br />Christopher Manion won the Father Hesburgh Prize in 1968.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-74087893959124880702009-07-11T05:11:00.000-07:002009-07-11T05:12:39.192-07:00Who's On First?<span style="font-weight:bold;">From Under The Rubble</span><br /><br />by Christopher Manion<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Wanderer</span>, July 2, 2009<br /><br />So Obama has weighed in on the removal of Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales by the country’s Congress and Supreme Court, and, ultimately, the Honduran army. It’s “not legal,” says Obama – but neither was Zelaya’s plan to pull a Chavez-style coup of his own. The Honduran constitution limits the president to a single term. Zelaya, elected in 2005 with 49% of the vote, wanted to defy the constitution – undoubtedly modeling himself not only on Venezuela’s Chavez, but perhaps also on our own stateside Democrats and Republicans who routinely ignore the U.S. Constitution at home and abroad. Well, Zelaya announced that, whatever the Honduran constitution says, he would run for re-election anyway. To accomplish that goal, he announced a referendum, which the country’s Supreme Court and Congress both declared illegal. He ignored them, and demanded that the army provide security for it. <br /><br />Army Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez refused, citing the constitution. Zelaya fired him and branded the rest of the government as “elitists.” The rest of the country’s top military commanders quit in support of General Vasquez Velasquez, and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the general’s firing was illegal. The Honduran Congress stripped Zelaya of his presidential powers, and instead of providing security for the Sunday referendum, the army surrounded Zelaya’s house and sent him packing to Costa Rica. <br /><br />Since Zelaya is a leftist, this event is popularly known as a “coup.” Were he a rightist, his removal would be hailed as “national liberation.” But let’s not quibble about vocabulary, since by now the reader might be experiencing what Bill Safire, who used to be funny, once coined as “MEGO” – “My Eyes Glaze Over.” <br /><br />The average American isn’t expected to keep up on all those Latin American tinhorns, and neither is our own youthful, energetic president. Obama certainly doesn’t want to be bothered with such depth of detail without his teleprompter – after all, isn’t General Motors bigger than General what’s-his-name in Honduras anyway? But we can all rest assured that our State Department, under the seasoned hand of Hillary, has everything under control – right?<br /><br />Well, as one Foreign Service lifer used to answer every question, “only up to a point.” And how we arrived at that point – that is, history – is worth looking at. Let’s start with the last eight years. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Seven Lean Years</span><br /><br />In attempting by force to enkindle the “natural democratic spirit” in Middle Eastern Islamic societies after 9-11, the Bush Administration missed a golden opportunity to solidify the still fragile, America-friendly democracies in Latin America. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had managed to clean up after Jimmy Carter and nurture that continent’s move away from dictatorship while directing the final, triumphant conduct of the Cold War leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. <br /><br />A historic feat indeed. Alas, the Bush years were different. In fact, the contrast with the Reagan years could not be more stark, nor the consequences more dire. Latin America has for years been a foreign policy backwater, attracting sentimental leftists to academic and government posts dealing with the area. The tough assignments were Russia, Asia (primarily China), and the Middle East, and Europe. Regarding Latin America, Bush’s first Secretary of State, Colin Powell, didn’t have a chance. After a long battle, he lost control of foreign policy to the neocons. They then damaged him beyond repair by feeding him disinformation regarding Iraq and WMD that Powell repeated in public testimony before the U.N. Security Council. Dismayed and discredited, Powell finally left office. <br /><br />Colin Powell was succeeded by Condi Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor. Rice was undoubtedly well-intentioned, but she was simply inept. Nonetheless, President Bush valued her highly, as he did his other gentle protectors, Karen Hughes and Harriet Miers, whose support he relied on most during the years that Dick Cheney ran the executive branch and foreign policy as the most powerful vice-president in history. <br /><br />While the Bush Administration studiously ignored our neighbors to the south, China’s top leaders treated Latin America like their backyard, sealing long-term economic and political deals, encouraging leftists and anti-Americans of every stripe, and simply outclassing their American counterparts. During the Bush years, U.S. officials appeared to be merely bewildered as Latin America veered ever more leftward. With Obama, that momentum will now be facilitated by Hillary’s State Department and the Senate veteran Chris Dodd, who has steered Latin American policy to the left for the Democrats there for almost 30 years.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />A Whiff Of An Empty Bottle</span><br /><br />Dr. Erik von Kuehneldt-Leddihn was a conservative original. He traveled the world, lecturing six months out of every year, spending the other months studying at his home in the Austrian Tirol. He knew a dozen languages and was always busy learning another one (“I have to go upstairs and study Japanese,” he said on one of his last visits, as he finished breakfast). Dr. von Kuehneldt-Leddihn was “an expert on everything, including expertise,” one wag fondly observed, and Leftism, his magnum opus, still stands as a true work of genius.<br /><br />He once told me about a short story he had written (I’ve never been able to find it – he published it under a pseudonym, and in an obscure journal) -- in the late 1940s. He referred to it on several occasions to illustrate the inevitable decline of a culture, or even a civilization, once its central core of truth is abandoned.<br /><br />The final scene is unforgettable. A young man has become a revolutionary. His father, a weak-kneed Lutheran minister, tried to restrain his son with reminders of the civic virtues, admonishing him to avoid extremes – all typical of the plaintive liberal weakling. The son, fed up with his father’s vacillations between progressivism and propriety, finally erupts. He points to the portrait hanging over his father’s desk. It depicts his grandfather, whom his father reveres – who was all his life a staunch and devoted Lutheran minister. <br /><br />“He believed in something,” the son shouts, pointing to his grandfather. “He had principles, he had faith, he had courage, he had convictions. But you – (here his father cringes) – you -- you are living off the whiff of an empty bottle!”<br /><br />I was reminded of Dr. von Kuehneldt-Leddihn’s young revolutionary by Hilaire Belloc’s description of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury under Charles I. Laud came to power as “the leader of and representative of those who feared and disliked Puritanism as a moral disease.” Laud had “sympathy” with all things Catholic – images, Our Lady, the Sacraments, even the Eucharist. But he and his cohorts “remained (though they would not have admitted it) thoroughly anti-Catholic, because they rejected that one part of Catholic doctrine which is its essential -- the combination of unity and authority. The unity of the visible Church and its invincible authority were repugnant to their growing nationalism, and those who preserved such an attitude of mind were just as much the enemies of Catholicism as the most rabid Puritan could be, or the most complete agnostic.” <br /><br />As we survey the cultural wreckage around us, and hear platitudes about “human rights” (the homosexual slogan) and “I am personally opposed to abortion but…” – we see everywhere a dying body politic. But the whiff of an empty bottle cannot revive it. Only the Truth – Christ crucified, who unites us while platitudes and perversion divide and destroy us – can save us. Loyalty to Christ, to his Vicar on earth, and to the unity he represents is the true hope of the world.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-41704840639785977372009-07-11T05:06:00.000-07:002009-07-11T05:09:10.009-07:00Another BattlegroundFrom Under The Rubble<br /><br />by Christopher Manion <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Wanderer</span>, July 2, 2009<br /><br />During the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981, Guatemala was living through one of its more chaotic moments. The country’s military waged pitched battles with armed Marxist-Leninist terrorists throughout the country. Cardinal Mario Casariego, Archbishop of Guatemala City, was candid regarding the number of Catholic priests who supported the revolutionaries. There were quite a few of them, he told me – disobedient, passionate, and harmful to the Catholic Church as well as to the country.<br /><br />The Cardinal’s observation came to mind when I was given a briefing by the U.S. embassy staff in Guatemala City. This "country team” meeting involved in-depth presentations by all the senior embassy officials -- perhaps ten in all. As they surveyed the economic, political, agricultural, and military disasters besetting the country, they never mentioned religion, much less the Church.<br /><br />When they were finished, I asked a simple question: "I understand there are many American protestant missionaries here in the country. Have any of them come to you and said something along these lines: "Please tell the military government that our church doesn't preach politics like the Catholics, we only teach the Bible."<br /><br />“Oh, yes!” came the answer -- from virtually everybody around the conference table, almost in unison. Then there was a moment of silence as they all stared at one another. Apparently, every one of them had heard similar complaints from American protestant missionaries in Guatemala – they were afraid that the military government classified all American missionaries as leftists, just because so many Catholics were. These non-Catholic missionaries -- primarily independent Evangelicals and Baptists – were all over the country, including some remote village areas that were often controlled by the terrorists. They didn't want the military to think that they were terrorist supporters -- "like those Catholics."<br /><br />What surprised me most was how ignorant our State Department officials were. Every one of these "experts" at that briefing had heard the same complaints from Americans in Guatemala, but had never bothered to report them or even to discuss them with each other. As far as religion goes, they were clueless -- like most secular government types then and now. Furthermore, most of them were liberals, if not socialists, and they probably thought that, for all they knew, Liberation Theology represented progress for Latin America. <br /><br />Well, it certainly didn’t represent progress for the Catholic Church there. Evangelical missionaries from the United States roundly denounced the Catholic Church. Like the Liberation Theologians, they attacked it as a backward institution that kept the people poor. Like their American sponsors, they preached “the Gospel of Prosperity,” promising Latin Americans that “God wants you to be rich.” Jimmy Swaggart packed them in, 90,000 people a night, at the soccer stadium in Lima, Peru. <br /><br />Most of these American evangelical missionaries were supported by individual, independent congregations throughout the United States. Those churches tithed religiously and made their foreign missions a highlight of their activities. Their missions built schools, medical clinics, and orphanages, and also provided a good number of volunteers from the congregation for several weeks a year to work on those projects.<br /><br />Unfortunately, leaving the Church has not helped Guatemalans achieve either peace or prosperity. A friend there tells me that gangs, kidnappings, and murder now abound. He’s been there since I first visited in 1959, and he’s never seen it worse. People are looking to get out, either to Spain, or to the U.S. <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />The Theology of Reconciliation<br /></span><br />Liberation Theology was popular among the Latin American left for political, not religious reasons. “Human rights” advocates in the United States would criticize only governments, not the revolutionaries who terrorized their countries. Politically, the terrorists got a free ride in Congress: the domestic Left relentlessly attacked President Reagan’s policies, often employing religious language and stooges. Not surprisingly, the culturally illiterate State Department officials were pathetic, and always on the defensive.<br /><br />That was not the case with the Latin American Church. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo of Colombia became known and beloved by American Catholics in the 1990s because of his heroic efforts on behalf of the family. But in the 1980s, as secretary and then president of the Latin American Bishops Conference (CELAM), he championed “the Theology of Reconciliation,” an authentic antidote to Liberation Theology based on man’s true liberation from sin in Christ, rather than in ideology and revolution. Cardinal Lopez Trujillo was never fooled by the religious trappings of liberation theology – he knew from long years of study and experience that it represented the Marxist theory of class warfare, which he knew would destroy Latin American culture. <br /><br />Pope John Paul II made over 100 international trips during his pontificate, but the very first was to the meeting in Puebla, Mexico, in January 1979 – arranged by then-Archbishop Lopez Trujillo. Puebla lay the important groundwork for the Church’s response to Liberation Theology for the next 25 years.(Incidentally, the principal advocate of liberation theology, both at the preparations for the meeting in Puebla and throughout the 1980s, was Father Gustavo Gutierrez, O.P., who now serves as the Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">A Two-Front Battle</span><br /><br />For 40 years, the Catholic Church in Guatemala (like its sister churches throughout the hemisphere) has fought on two fronts: first, against the "liberationists," and second, against the "sects" -- the fundamentalists. Unfortunately, a recent report from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) indicates that the battle is far from over – that the Catholic Church in Guatemala is seriously threatened by the growth of Evangelical sects that try to win converts with offers of money, jobs, and other material goods:<br /><br />“Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), a Catholic Charity that works with oppressed and suffering Christians throughout the world, found that half of the people of Guatemala are now Evangelical, and new churches are appearing rapidly,” says the report, which actually describes a steady process that took over 30 years. The report details allegations that the fundamentalists’ recruitment efforts include outright payments and even bribes, which may be true; but the most powerful attraction of the “sects” is their focus on the Bible, and the stress they place on economic advancement as part of their evangelization.<br /><br />Our own bishops confront similar problems -- again, on two fronts. First, we have our own Liberation Theology -- the "parallel Catholic Church" applauded by Obama at Notre Dame – that is advocated by Catholic university faculties and the staff of the USCCB. Second, a detailed study by the Pew Charitable Trust reports that ten percent of American evangelicals are former Catholics. Of course, some of those defections can undoubtedly be attributed to Catholics who disagreed with the moral teachings of the church and who left in search of friendlier pulpits. But as Wanderer readers know all too well, there are other very plausible reasons, too many to number, for this sad exodus.<br /><br />The U.S. Church also confronts the Latin American dilemma. The millions of Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, in the United States undoubtedly comprise millions of former Catholics who are now members of fundamentalist churches. Like their brother bishops in Guatemala, our bishops naturally want to keep the Catholic faithful from jumping ship. While we might differ with their chosen means – supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, and advocating a left-wing political agenda in Washington – the laity should certainly do all it can to help our bishops and priests bring wavering Hispanics back to the fullness of the faith. <br /><br />Perhaps we can start with Sonia Sotomayor.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-69626878477325399272009-07-11T05:03:00.000-07:002009-07-11T05:05:36.328-07:00No Way To Treat A Laity<span style="font-weight:bold;">From Under the Rubble</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Wanderer</span>, p.3<br />June 18, 2009<br /><br />In this “age of the laity,” the laity that the USCCB bureaucracy pays attention to features Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, and Nancy Pelosi. Now Barack Obama, has taken the lead, brandishing his newly-minted Fighting Irish imprimatur and adroitly evading moral absolutes as he preaches the same political agenda that the USCCB has embraced for years. <br /><br />Obama’s speech at Notre Dame was a clarion call for pro-abortion “Catholics” to stand up and fight for the heresy that Pope Benedict has called “the dictatorship of relativism.” That effort requires a sly semantic two-step -- first, reductionism: equate the importance of the paramount life issues of abortion, stem-cell research, and contraception to the “social justice” issues like those found in the platform of the Democratic Party. This approach echoes the “seamless garment” sleight-of-hand promulgated by Obama’s favorite bishop ever, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. <br /><br />The second step is pragmatism: we must (ahem, regrettably) admit that we are not within practical reach of reversing Roe v. Wade, passing a Human Life Bill, or adopting a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, we must find “common ground,” without alienating those pro-abortion politicians whose cooperation and support is so critical to the successful expansion of our “seamless garment” goals. Now, those same pro-abortion politicians are all supporters of “gay rights” as well. They are busily cooking up “hate crimes” bills that might outlaw the preaching of Catholic moral teaching altogether, as like-minded leftists have already done in Canada and England.<br /><br />Many bishops have taken a firm stand of late in defense of traditional marriage, but some apparently find it difficult to take the next step and preach Humanae Vitae, even though Paul VI prophetically predicted the evils that are ravaging our culture today. These sinful indulgences are advocated in the public schools and celebrated on once-Catholic university campuses. They permeate the entire popular culture, and represent nothing less than a brazen and virtually unopposed frontal attack on the Catholic Church.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Models Of Perfection</span><br /><br />On June third, we celebrated the Feast of Saint Charles Lwanga and companions, who were brutally executed by Ugandan King Mwanga on June 3, 1886. King Mwanga, a homosexual, hated Christians. Charles Lwanga was a lowly page in the court of the King, but he and his companions bravely rejected the King’s advances. The irate King ordered savage executions for the boys, all of whom chose to die for their Faith. Their heroism so impressed Pope Paul VI that he canonized the Ugandan Martyrs in 1964, then traveled to Uganda to in 1969 to break ground for a Basilica to be built on the site of St. Charles Lwanga’s execution.<br /><br />On that occasion, Pope Paul VI said, “Who could have predicted to the famous African confessors and martyrs such as Cyprian, Felicity, Perpetua and – the greatest of all – Augustine, that we would one day add names so dear to us as Charles Lwanga and Matthias Mulumba Kalemba and their twenty companions?… The infamous crime by which these young men were put to death was so unspeakable and so expressive of the times. It shows us clearly that a new people needs a moral foundation, needs new spiritual customs firmly planted, and to be handed down to posterity.”<br /> <br />Holy Mother Church is so devoted to the memory of these valiant young men that Pope John Paul II made a pilgrimage to the basilica in 1993. All Uganda reveres them every year on June 3, which is now a national holiday there. <br /><br />Like many homosexuals today, King Mwanga hated the Catholic Church. Yet Popes Paul VI and John Paul II underscored the heroic witness of the Ugandan martyrs to the truth of Catholic moral teaching in defiance of the king’s hatred that he inflicted with such brutality. Today, as we watch one “Catholic” state after another ratify some sort of officially-recognized homosexual consortium, Saint Charles Lwanga and his companions might be admirable models for our prayerful advocacy of moral foundations and spiritual customs based on the truths of the Catholic Faith.<br /><br />Pope Paul VI visit to Uganda came less than a year after he had promulgated Humanae Vitae. He clearly recognized the fearless heroism required to defend moral teaching in the face of a decadent culture backed by a vile and powerful ruler. Today, in our midst, the battle is on. Saint Charles Lwanga and companions, pray for us!<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Abortion Is Child Abuse</span><br /><br />The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil, but a lot of Americans don’t think we really mean it. A majority of Catholics -- and possibly even of our bishops -- apparently voted for Obama, and today many “Catholics” willingly serve and support the most pro-death administration in American history. How can we restore the unity of the faithful that prevailed among our ancestors just 100 years ago -- when virtually everyone (and not only Catholics) considered abortion to be murder?<br /><br />Christ prayed “that all may be one,” (John 17:22), but today the sheep are scattered indeed. In recent months, many of our bishops have bravely confronted the Culture of Death in the political sphere. At their upcoming meeting on the weekend of June 17-19, they have two opportunities to make further progress. <br /><br />First: In 2008, when employees of Catholic Charities of Richmond, Virginia, procured an abortion for a minor under their care, neither Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo nor the director of Catholic Charities reported the incident to the Safe Environment Director in the Chancery. The lawyer for the diocese justified such secrecy, insisting that abortion is simply not considered either child abuse or murder by the Diocese of Richmond. <br /><br />At their meeting this month, the bishops should take their cue from Bishop DiLorenzo. They should amend the definition of "abuse" in their 2002 Dallas “Charter For the Protection of Children and Young People” to include “abortion, or the procurement of an abortion for a pregnant minor.” It may seem like a no-brainer, but believe me, the bureaucrats, lawyers and insurance companies will scream bloody murder if the USCCB even discusses the issue in public. <br /><br />But wait, there’s more: Bishop DiLorenzo fired four employees after this incident, but required them to sign nondisclosure agreements or lose their severance pay. This cover-up, was paid for with the money of the faithful to keep from the faithful facts they deserved to know. Such deceit was a central ingredient of the scandals for decades – but today it is also a direct violation of article VII of the Dallas Charter, which requires – which demands -- transparency.<br /><br />Is there any worse occasion of "child abuse" than the murder of the defenseless child in the womb? The bishops should act swiftly. <br /> <br />Second: another no-brainer. the bishops should amend the Charter to reverse their decision in Dallas to exempt themselves from its provisions. In 2002, the bishops acknowledged that they had lost the credibility of the faithful because of the clerical sex abuse scandals. Cardinal Avery Dulles warned them that their Charter would alienate them from their priests. You could see them on EWTN, furtively glancing at the cameras as they voted to amend the definition of “cleric” to exclude bishops. <br /><br />Unfortunately, that same approach has also alienated many of our bishops not only from their priests, but from the laity. In 2002, the bishops thought they could sweep it all under the rug and “put the scandals behind them.” Today we know all to well the damage wrought by that approach.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-16973923568274858232009-07-11T04:58:00.000-07:002009-07-11T05:02:52.081-07:00The Greatest Generation? No Way!<span style="font-weight:bold;">From Under The Rubble</span><br />The Wanderer, P. 3<br />June 11, 2009<br /><br />In January 1973, my car broke down after dark about an hour north of Green Bay, Wisconsin. The temperature was 30 below, I was in the middle of nowhere, and the only building within a mile was a farmhouse set far back from the highway. No one was home, but the door was open. I went in, called the police, and waited for a tow truck.<br /><br />Two hours later, I saw the flashing lights out on the highway. As I went out, a car came up the driveway. It was the farmer and his family and the biggest dog I have ever seen, barking at me from the back seat. "My car broke down -- that's my tow truck," I explained. "I've been in your house for the last two hours.” The farmer just laughed and said, "Well, that's great!" I didn't think to tell him how grateful I was that he had taken his dog with him.<br /><br />The tow truck driver had my car up by the time I got there. When I climbed in, he let fly. "I own this company. None of my drivers wanted to work on a Friday night. So I came out to get you myself. (Pause)... one of these days, us old folks are going to stop pulling this gravy train, and you kids are going to have to get out and push."<br /><br />My generation is not the greatest. I was born two weeks after George Bush and three weeks before Bill Clinton -- certainly nothing to brag about. So I thought of my tow truck driver when I read the address by Indiana's governor, Mitch Daniels, to the graduating class of Butler University in Indianapolis, delivered at about the same time that Obama was speaking at Notre Dame. Here's what Daniels said about us “children of the baby boom":<br /><br />“As a group, we have been self-centered, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, and all too often just plain selfish. Our current Baby Boomer President has written two eloquent, erudite books, both about -- himself…. We have spent more and saved less than any previous Americans…. we ran up deficits that have multiplied the debt you and your children will be paying off your entire working lives…. We voted ourselves increasing levels of Social Security pensions and Medicare health care benefits, but never summoned the political maturity to put those programs on anything resembling a sound actuarial footing. <br /><br />“In sum, our parents scrimped and saved to provide us a better living standard than theirs; we borrowed and splurged and will leave you a staggering pile of bills to pay. It's been a blast; good luck cleaning up after us.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Illegals: The Next Generation</span><br /><br />Meanwhile, in the name of “Welcoming the Stranger,” our bishops are advocating amnesty for illegal aliens. They also support giving them generous government benefits like universal health care and exemption from immigration law enforcement. So I was surprised, for a moment, to read that the bishops have recognized some limits to this taxpayer largesse. While they support “unlimited” visas allowing extended family members of illegals to enter the U.S., they oppose visas for homosexual “partners.” Apart from that, apparently, anything goes. <br />Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration, puts it this way: “It is extremely important that barriers that keep the nuclear family—husband, wife, and child—divided are removed as soon as possible. The legislation achieves this goal while preserving the ability of other close family members, including siblings of United States citizens, to reunite with their loved ones and without eroding the institution of marriage and family.”<br /><br />Of course, the “barrier” that prohibits such reunions on U.S. soil is the law. Nothing prohibits aliens from reuniting with their extended families in their home country. Why doesn’t Bishop Wester advocate that? Sure, millions of illegals now have “anchor babies” – children born in the U.S. to an illegal mother – but why don’t they reunite back home, where they are all legal? Somewhere between twelve and twenty million aliens already reside illegally in the United States. Bishop Wester’s proposal would double, and perhaps triple, that number. Coming from corrupt countries, wouldn’t these immigrants tend to vote for “corruptos” like the ones they knew back home? Is that what Bishop Wester wants? <br /><br />Alas, the good bishop fails to tell all. I volunteer as a translator for law enforcement. Most of the people we interview are in the U.S. illegally. Virtually every one of them leaves family in his home country. Now, each illegal must not only pay thousands of dollars to a “coyote” to get smuggled into the U.S., but he must continue paying bribes long after he arrives. Not only does he send money home to his wife, but he must also bribe his hometown police chief, the local gang leader, and the mayor – or his house will be ransacked and his family assaulted. Virtually all illegals come from corrupt countries where survival requires breaking the law and paying bribes. That is not their fault, but it is the only culture they know. Their habits will not magically change merely because they are legal in America.<br /><br />Studies indicate that forty percent of those who actually attend Mass in the U.S. are Hispanic. Sadly, in recent decades, huge numbers of Latin American Catholics have left the Church to become evangelicals – apparently, they do not like liberation theology. Moreover, the Pew Foundation reports that ten percent of American evangelicals are former Catholics. Do our bishops fear alienating Hispanics and losing them to the evangelicals if Catholics don’t support amnesty? If so, shouldn’t our bishops tell us, in this “age of the laity”?<br /><br />A local clergyman asked me this winter to translate for a Salvadoran who showed up at the rectory. He had no job, no friends, and no plans, but wanted money to stay in town. “Why don’t you go home,” I asked him. “I would,” he replied, “but my wife wants the kids to go to school here.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">La Piñata</span><br /><br />Free school, free health care, free food stamps, and a host of other “free” taxpayer-funded benefits – no wonder Mexicans call it the “Piñata.” It’s great for them – but what about us? Why doesn’t Bishop Wester tell the people in the pews that virtually every decent home in the countries these “strangers” come from is surrounded by a wall, with barbed wire and shards of glass on top? That many homes require round-the-clock guards? Why do you think that is, Your Excellency? Because otherwise the house would be trashed within hours. And what about rampant kidnapping? It’s a way of life south of the border – not only with the hundreds of thousands of well-armed members of the criminal drug gangs in Mexico, but with countless common criminals throughout the hemisphere who just want to make some easy money. <br /><br />You don’t have to read Spanish -- the Los Angeles Times reports regularly how Mexican, Salvadoran, and Honduran drug gangs have spread their tentacles throughout the United States – with kidnappings, decapitations, and, of course, bribes. When our local sheriff is called to deal with Hispanics, the single most common phrase I have to translate is, “get your hands out of your pockets.” The deputy is afraid they are reaching for a gun. I know they are getting out their wallets -- to pay a bribe. <br /><br />Before committing the Church to this radical agenda, doesn’t Bishop Wester owe the faithful an explanation?Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-52925249900591025962009-07-11T04:54:00.000-07:002009-07-11T04:57:34.432-07:00<span style="font-weight:bold;">From Under The Rubble </span><br /><br />Christopher Manion <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />The Wanderer<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> - June 4, 2009, p. 3<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Contradiction or Capitulation? </span><br /><br />The recent unpleasantness at Notre Dame has shed a helpful light on a contradiction that has increasingly troubled the American Catholic Church for the past forty years. Bound up in this contradiction are, on the one hand, the Church’s bureaucracies, and their budgets and political agendas. On the other hand are the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Magisterium. <br /><br />Like many bishops, Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, the former President of the USCCB, welcomed Obama’s election victory as “a great step forward for humanity.” At Notre Dame, Father John Jenkins echoed Gregory’s sentiment, declaring that, “as the first African-American holder of this office, [Obama] has accelerated our country’s progress in overcoming the painful legacy of slavery and segregation.” There were celebrations all around. <br /><br />We should recall that the USCCB’s voter guide for the 2008 elections, Faithful Citizenship, specified only two “intrinsic evils” of which Catholics should take special notice when considering how to cast their ballots - abortion and racism. From the signals that the faithful are receiving these days from the majority of bishops, Catholic universities, and the virtually unanimous left-wing bureaucracy at the USCCB, it is evident that “racism,” however loosely defined, is much more universally opposed where the rubber meets the road than abortion is. For example, one strains to remember a Catholic University ever honoring an outspoken racist on campus, but pro-abortion speakers are routinely welcomed at a good number of them. <br /><br />A recent example nicely outlines the irony. At Providence College in Rhode Island, a student group invited Tom Tancredo, a pro-life former congressman from Colorado, to speak on campus regarding the immigration issue. But Mr. Tancredo opposes granting amnesty to the twelve- to twenty-million aliens illegally in the country already. Therefore, the President of Providence College, with the full support of Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, withdrew the invitation because Tancredo disagrees with the USCCB bureaucracy, which supports amnesty. <br /><br />While the college didn’t actually call Tancredo a racist, the administration certainly treated him like one. It reacted as though Tancredo advocated an evil far more intrinsic than abortion. But Providence College has often welcomed pro-abortion speakers to campus, and undoubtedly will again, even though the USCCB has called on Catholic institutions not to do so. In this regard, as Socrates would put it, the USCCB is Providence College writ large. In theory, our bishops abhor racism and abortion. In practice, many of them abhor racists but not pro-abortion politicians, as long as those politicians support the bishops’ liberal political agenda. <br /><br />About a quarter of the American hierarchy, including some major prelates, eventually criticized Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame. However, I have not heard similar criticism from any senior administrators of Catholic universities. This is not surprising: while the bishops are still muddled in contradiction, the universities have virtually collapsed in capitulation to secularism. <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Salvation As Politics – Or Politics As Salvation? </span><br /><br />This past January, the USCCB urged President Obama and Congress to pass government-run health-care, amnesty for illegal aliens, increased funds for Medicaid and SChip, more taxpayer funding for a variety of government poverty programs, new government spending for a “national safety net,” and – oh yes, to seek “common ground that will reduce the number of abortions in morally sound ways.” The billions that the government spends at home and abroad on contraception is not mentioned. The USCCB has indeed endorsed President Bush’s “conscience protections” for health care providers who oppose contraception and abortion, but Obama abolished those protections anyway -- long before he was cheered at Notre Dame. <br /><br />Ideas have consequences, said Richard Weaver. Well, so do contradictions, and they are becoming clearer all the time. Obama’s triumph marks a victory over racism -- but embryonic stem-cell research, homosexual rights, abortion on demand, and attacks on public witness to religious faith will all be advocated in Obama’s America. But so what? How on earth can our bishops acknowledge Obama as the most pro-death leader in the western world when they are so busy cheering his election as a victory over racism? <br /><br />As is the case in so many moral questions, the answer is simple but not easy. Borrowing the theme of Obama’s campaign, the bishops need to embrace “change.” Let’s face it: when it comes to protecting human life, the Church that Obama singled out for praise – that of Cardinal Bernardin – has failed. A long-time member of Bernardin’s staff at the USCC (who is as much a fan of Bernardin as Obama is) tells me that, while Pope Paul VI was valiantly trying to resonate Catholic moral principles in Humanae Vitae, Bernardin was busily politicizing the USCC (now the USCCB) irreversibly to identify the liberal agenda with the Catholic Church in every possible way. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Money Talks, Nobody Walks<br /></span><br />Catholic leaders embraced Bernardin’s political agenda, preaching it far and wide, for years. As payback, federal money flowed freely. Unfortunately, some of the advocates of this largesse were, and are, among the most corrupt politicians in the country. Wanderer readers will recall how Father George Parker, who barred pro-abortion Senator Chris Dodd from his parish in the Connecticut Diocese of Norwich, was forced to retire by his bishop in retribution. As Cardinal McCarrick put it later, years of perpetuating Cardinal Bernardin’s cozy relationship with the pro-abortion “social justice” crowd on Capitol Hill had put today’s bishops in a bind: either keep the money flowing by keeping silent to, or risk “alienating” the corrupt pro-aborts (and their funding) by preaching Humanae Vitae and applying Canon Law to rampant scandal and crimes against the Eucharist. <br /><br />The simple solution --“Damn the funding, follow Canon Law and preach Humanae Vitae” – certainly resonates with the truth, but it poses problems to the current organization of Catholic institutions all over the country. Our bishops might be tempted to be silent, but they now confront an even more dangerous threat: Obama’s radical allies, including his appointments to the federal bench, are simply going to declare war on the orthodox Catholic bishops in this country. <br /><br />In fact, they already have. Homosexual groups are demanding that the IRS remove the tax exemption of churches that oppose same-sex marriage. Catholic hospitals are being forced to offer “family planning” services and referrals. Obama’s judges will require that Catholic organizations provide “equal protection” for GLBTQ employees, applicants, students – you name it. On every front of the culture war, the Obama Left wants to push the Catholic Church to the wall.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Father Jenkins drones on: Obama “has set ambitious goals across a sweeping agenda -- extending health care coverage… improving [public] education …. promoting renewable energy….”<br /><br />Jenkins represents capitulation. What we need is a revolution. The Catholic Church should refuse all government funding immediately – it’s all stolen money anyway. Then it should renounce its tax exemptions, to prevent Obama’s Thought Police from threatening to revoke them. These steps would allow our bishops to be bishops, preaching the Gospel in all its beautiful fullness, and to turn away from pro-abortion politicians and government bureaucracies and towards the people in the pews for their sustenance and support. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Another “Catholic” Justice?<br /></span><br />Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. Much is being written and spoken about her Catholic background – especially the Catholic education she received thanks to the Archdiocese of New York. Do not expect her to be grateful. If Sotomayor were pro-life, she would still be sitting out on the curb in the Bronx, and she knows it. Now we know it.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-15220321916920096002009-07-07T06:52:00.000-07:002009-07-07T07:18:12.181-07:00L'Osservatore Romano needs a new editor!Kudos to The Wanderer for Marielena Montesino's two-part commentary on the <a href="http://romancatholicworld.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/losservatore-romano/">hijacking of L'Osservatore Romano</a>. Over the past few months, the Vatican paper has not only failed to enlighten Catholics, it's added to the <a href="http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2009/07/confusion-and-chaos-rattle-church.html">mass confusion inflicting the Church</a>. The outright Obama love-fest is particularly appalling to orthodox Catholics in the United States who see Obama's rhetoric swallowed hook, line, and sinker despite his radically pro-abortion actions. Montesino calls for removal of the paper's editor, Giovanni Maria Vian. I second that!Mary Ann Kreitzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18245237845099708478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-13099501887988355742009-06-05T12:52:00.000-07:002009-06-05T12:54:12.702-07:00There Goes "Old Notre Dame"<span style="font-weight:bold;">From Land O’Lakes To Land O’Bama</span><br /><br />In October 1964, Barry Goldwater’s running mate, Congressman William E. Miller of New York, visited Notre Dame. Miller, the first Notre Dame graduate (class of 1935) to run for national office on a major party ticket, attended a home football game, virtually next to university president Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C. Apart from a perfunctory handshake, Father Hesburgh showed little interest in his guest. In fact, Congressman Miller had not been invited by the university, but by a friend and fellow alumnus. <br /> <br />After the game, Miller was invited to speak on a platform (erected for an earlier rock band performance) in front of Sorin Hall. Father Hesburgh’s introduced Miller to a crowd of a few hundred along these lines: "Men of Notre Dame (there were no women in those days), you should always listen to people with respect, even when you do not agree with them. I give you Congressman William Miller." <br /><br />Contrast that chilly reception -- of an orthodox, pro-life Catholic Notre Dame graduate -- to the recent jubilation surrounding the arrival of the proudly pro-abortion leader of the international culture of death who was granted an honorary degree by Notre Dame at its commencement on May 17. The look on the face of university president John Jenkins, C.S.C. as he hugged President Barack Obama was totally bereft of the dark and distant disapproval evident in Father Hesburgh's stern gaze of some 45 years before.<br /><br />Fr. Jenkins was simply giddy with exultation. His introduction sounded like a cause for canonization. Jenkins was impressed, he insisted, that Obama had deigned to accept his invitation: “Obama has come to Notre Dame, though he knows well that we are fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of human life, and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Others might have avoided this venue for that reason. But President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him.”<br /><br />Sorry, Father John. Obama is not even someone who stops to talk to those who differ with him. Thousands of peaceful pro-life demonstrators lined every major route to campus that day, and Obama was forced to enter the campus by a nondescript back road, with police cars blocking every residential cross street for over a mile. No way would this fearless lover of conversation even have to see the demonstrators “who differ with him.” Nor did he see the thousands praying at the other end of campus, or the dozens of graduates who held their own (very crowded) pro-life graduation ceremonies at the Grotto. <br /><br />Obama didn’t have to worry inside the hall, either. Not one official discouraging word was heard. The message? Even if Obama doesn’t stop the killing, Notre Dame will still cheer him on. Meanwhile, Fr. Jenkins, knowing his place, never mentioned Obama’s support of abortion, partial-birth abortion, infanticide, contraception, worldwide abortion-on-demand, or any other of those pesky little issues that might make “The One” feel unwelcome. No, we save the cold shoulder for the likes of our own pro-life graduates, like Bill Miller. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Barack’s Bernardin <br /></span><br />As usual, Obama played the crowd like a very pliant fiddle. With a keen eye for the ideological fault line, he zeroed in on a leader of a bygone Catholic era, Chicago Archbishop Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. Now there was Obama’s kind of Catholic! Heterodox to the core, Bernardin was “congenial and gentle in his persuasion” – but, Barack, he didn’t seem to persuade you. In fact, didn’t Bernardin preside over the most disastrous period in the history of the American Catholic Church? You know, when homosexual abuse prospered under the guise of “the spirit of Vatican II,” when Bernardin’s bishops covered up for criminals, defied Pope Paul VI, and allowed their cohorts to defile the liturgy? And where were Bernardin’s brigade when their priests deep-sixed Humanae Vitae? Were they all too busy partying with his friend next door, Archbishop Weakland? <br /><br />Nor did Obama forget Father Hesburgh, who in the 1960s decided that to be a “great university,” Notre Dame had to shed its parochial Catholic character so it could qualify for major funding from the federal government. Great Job, Father Ted! Today, Notre Dame prospers without its Catholic character, but it would collapse without that generous government funding, which public records indicate now runs around $57 million dollars a year. This is the Notre Dame Obama praises: the one that depends not on Catholic truth, but on federal money, for its very survival. Obama’s got Notre Dame right where he wants it.<br /><br />Not since John F. Kennedy traded his faith for political gain has an American president so brazenly manipulated the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, Fr. Jenkins is pleased to play Obama’s lapdog, confident that the money and prestige will keep on flowing. He knows where his bread is buttered – and it’s not the Bread of Life. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Obama’s “Patriotic Catholic Church”</span><br /><br />Obama’s Notre Dame marks an important “coming out” of what we might come to call the National Patriotic American Catholic Church (NPACC). NPACC is modeled on the official “Catholic” church in communist China, which receives government support while the underground Catholic Church that is loyal to Rome is mercilessly persecuted. NPACC and the USCCB ardently support the entire left-wing Democrat agenda, while soft-pedaling abortion and never complaining about taxpayer-funded contraception. Through Notre Dame and various other “Catholic” universities and institutions, NPACC receives billions of taxpayer dollars annually. Even those bishops who condemned Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame have a hard time dealing with Obama’s pro-abortion Catholic colleagues – they too realize how much money is at stake. But Notre Dame might be a turning point. NPACC has been around for decades, but has enjoyed a relatively “peaceful coexistence” with the Church of Rome for most of that time. In future years, Obama’s Notre Dame visit might well be seen as marking the end of that era. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Jenkins’s Comfort Zone</span><br /><br />Brushing abortion aside, Fr. Jenkins applauded Obama’s leadership on other issues that apparently unite him with NPACC Catholics. Such as? “Extending health care coverage … improving education… promoting renewable energy … [the] fight against poverty, to reform immigration” … in other words, more left-wing USCCB mush to placate the Democrats who happen to be in charge of handing out all that government money.<br />And what about the graduates? For Jenkins, what is the greatest challenge confronting the Class of 2009? Is it living the Gospel in a hostile world? Preaching Christ Crucified to itching ears? Saving souls? Repentance and sacrifice? Prayer and fasting,? Selfless service to the cause of truth? Teaching the fullness of the Faith in the face of mockery and contempt?<br />Sorry, folks -- none of the above. No, Fr. Jenkins told the crowd that “easing the hateful divisions between human beings is the supreme challenge of this age.” <br />The Oxford English Dictionary defines “to ease” thus: “to render more comfortable, to relieve from pain.” Apparently, the task of Notre Dame-NPACC Catholics is to make our relationship with our sworn enemies – with abortionists, for instance – more “comfortable.” Hence, Father Jenkins’s goal was to make Obama as comfortable as possible at Notre Dame. Well, the unborn are human beings too. What about relieving their pain? Or healing the ‘hateful division” between them and their abortionist? <br />In the end, Father Jenkins knows that a university cannot serve two masters. As Donoso Cortes puts it, “liberalism can survive only in that brief moment that man decides, ‘Christ – or Barabbas!’”Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-50238190880293412742009-05-27T07:58:00.000-07:002009-05-27T08:00:20.365-07:00Howard Phillips Had It Right On SouterNineteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush put everything aside to call personally numerous conservative and pro-life leaders around the country. That he lavished such attention on them was unusual, but Bush had campaigned vigorously as a pro-life candidate to succeed President Ronald Reagan in 1988, and the retirement of Justice William Brennan gave him his first opportunity to fill a seat on the Supreme Court. <br /><br />The fact that it was Brennan’s seat conferred a special significance on the vacancy. After all, Dwight Eisenhower had appointed Brennan by mistake, one which he later lamented. Early in Ike’s first term, his Attorney General, Herbert Brownell, had seen Brennan give a speech to a legal convention. Brownell came back to Washington and told Ike that Brennan was quite a conservative. The only problem: Brownell did not know at the time that speechmaker Brennan was standing in for New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Vanderbilt, who was ill – and that Brennan was reading the text that had been written by Vanderbilt. Ike was looking for a conservative Irish Democrat to help him in the 1956 election, so Brennan got the nod. <br /><br />Brennan was one of eight children of Irish Catholic immigrants, but he became an ardent champion of abortion – and an effective advocate of Roe v Wade, in which he voted with the majority. Curiously, when he died in 1997, his funeral was not held in his home diocese of Arlington, Virginia. Instead, in spite of protests of chagrin and outrage from the laity, the Archdiocese of Washington allowed him a Catholic burial, and Brennan’s funeral took place in Saint Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington.<br /><br />Justice David Souter delivered the eulogy.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />“Trust Me”</span><br /><br />When Brennan retired, pro-lifers naturally expected President Bush to keep his word and nominate a strict constructionist to the court. That’s why Bush was busily making passionate calls all over the country. “Trust me on this one,” he repeatedly told conservative leaders. Alas, most of them did, some in spite of their better judgment, others ignoring danger signals like the strong support for Souter shown by his friend from New Hampshire, the notoriously pro-abortion Senator Warren Rudman. In the Senate Republican cloakroom, Rudman assured Senators Grassley (R – Ia.) and Helms (R – N.C.), “Chuck, Jesse, David Souter is just as conservative as you are.” (It is clear now that Rudman was either very dumb or a liar. Over the years before and since, he has paraded around Washington, invariably acting as though he were the smartest guy in the room. Draw your own conclusions). Meanwhile, Edith Jones, a young, brilliant, and constitutional judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was waiting in the wings as the most solid conservative choice. But Bush’s chief of Staff, John Sununu, was also from New Hampshire. Ignorant in principle but a skilled tactician, he successfully short-circuited the selection process, with crafty assistance from Rudman, and Souter got the nod.<br /><br />Enter Howard Phillips, founder and longtime president of the Conservative Caucus. Phillips had battle-tested experience with faux conservatives in Republican administrations who put the stiletto in the back of constitutional initiatives at the critical moment. Their number is legion. And so he alone, of all the conservative and pro-life leaders who had worked so closely and loyally with President Reagan, took the bull by the horns and went to the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify in opposition to Souter’s confirmation.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />If He Walks Like A Duck …</span><br /><br />It required a sense of bravery, as well as conviction, for Phillips to make his case. After all, the National Organization of Women had testified against Souter the day before, because Souter’s support of abortion was not sufficiently brazen for them. Furthermore, Phillips knew that this was the very same committee, still dominated by Democrats and chaired by Joe Biden, that had savaged Judge Robert Bork when President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1987. (Pennsylvania Republican, now Democrat, Senator Arlen Specter was indispensable in that assault).<br /><br />Phillips began his testimony where he always has in the forty years and more that I have known and admired him: “The Declaration of Independence asserted that ‘we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights,’” he told the committee, “and that, ‘among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ The Declaration rested on the assumption that there exists ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God,’” he continued. “Our law system is necessarily rooted in and legitimated by that fundamental recognition of higher authority.” <br /><br />Based on that bedrock preamble of principle (after all, the truths that Mr. Phillips cited are supposed to be “self-evident”), Phillips zeroed in on the critical issue:<br /> <br />“One moment of truth for Mr. Souter came in February 1973, when, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital, he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at that hospital,” Phillips recounted. “It is one thing to intellectually rationalize the case for permitting legal abortions, while still opposing the exercise of such legal authority. It is quite another—something far more invidious, morally—to actually join in a real world decision to cause abortions to be performed, routinely, at a particular hospital.”<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />For Souter, The Self-evident Truth Isn’t True</span><br /><br />But didn’t Roe v. Wade, issued just the month before Souter’s assent to abortions in the Concord Hospital vote, require him to “follow the law”? No way, said Phillips:<br /><br />“Those abortions whose performance was authorized by David Souter were not mandated by law or court opinion. In fact, laws have remained to this day [1990, 17 years later] on the books in New Hampshire which provide criminal penalties for any ‘attempt to procure miscarriage’ or ‘intent to destroy quick child.’ Indeed, section 585:14 of the New Hampshire Criminal Code establishes the charge of second degree murder for the death of a pregnant woman in consequence of an attempted abortion. Nor were those abortions which Mr. Souter authorized performed merely to save the life of the mother, nor were they limited to cases of rape or incest.”<br /><br />But might Souter’s Concord vote just have been an isolated mistake? No way. “Similarly, Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, which is associated with the Dartmouth Medical School, of which Judge Souter has been an overseer, has performed abortions up to the end of the second trimester,” Phillips testified. <br /><br />The inescapable verdict? “One must conclude that either Mr. Souter accepts the view that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the convenience and profit of those who collaborate in the killing of that child, or that, despite his recognition of the fact that each unborn child is human, a handiwork of God’s creation, he lacked the moral courage or discernment to help prevent the destruction of so many innocent human lives, when he had the authority, indeed the responsibility, to do so.”<br /><br />In an ironic and ultimately malevolent way, the pro-abortion committee members were probably heartened by Mr. Phillips’s testimony. Yesterday’s confused and wayward harridans of NOW could not be sure that Souter was their man, but Mr. Phillips’s precise, logical presentation made that conclusion inescapable. <br /><br />In the years since Roe v. Wade, support for abortion has been demanded of virtually every Democrat: now they are solidly entrenched throughout the government. Self-evident truths have not swayed them. Prayer can. “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-31484905819973940252009-05-27T07:56:00.000-07:002009-05-27T07:58:32.213-07:00It Hurts To Talk About It<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Torture Hurts</span><br /><br />Like a master jeweler who carefully studies the crystalline structure before cutting a beautiful diamond, Obama is applying stress to all the Republican fault lines. Meanwhile, the GOP “leadership” flops on the beach, supine, incapable of resuscitation, and all too willingly cooperating with its own vivisection. <br /><br />Obama’s jiu jitsu is magnificent. Here we have the Democrats, notoriously and publicly advocating free abortion worldwide and free euthanasia as the calling card of government health care at home. Yet they have maneuvered events so that the Republicans are defending torture. But wait – can’t honest people differ? Well, that doesn’t matter, because the discussion we’re getting isn’t honest. It hardly touches on morality – in fact, it often mimics sheer buffoonery. <br /><br />Now comes Dick Cheney, who was even more unpopular than George Bush as their second term ended, insisting that torture works, and demanding that secret documents be declassified to prove it! Torture is a sure loser for the dwindling number of Republicans still in office, but Cheney doesn’t care. Trotting Cheney out now is the kiss of death, so Democrats naturally welcome his histrionics. He is playing into Obama’s hands. <br /><br />Republicans have by default allowed Obama to orchestrate an exquisite array of threatening scenarios – torture hearings run by Democrats? Special prosecutors? Perhaps a blue-ribbon torture commission? Meanwhile, Republicans are stuck defending the very Bush policies that destroyed their old majorities, when they should be busy building new ones. They hurl the usual catcalls – “witch-hunt” and “partisan politics” -- but all the public notices is desperate Republicans defending torture. <br /><br />Last winter, George Bush told an interviewer that he hadn’t admitted mistakes during his presidency because it might have demoralized his people in a time of war. Well, could conservatives be any more demoralized than they are today? Maybe it’s time for the GOP to admit its mistakes after all. Conservatives should certainly admit the mistakes of those leaders we supported, for good or ill. But why do so many resist?<br /><br />Conservatives are, well -- conservative. They seldom change their spots – or their leadership. Remember how Bill Clinton was on the ropes in 1996 and the GOP ran – Bob Dole? The groans in the Republican cloakroom were audible: “Well, it’s Bob’s turn,” the gloomy senators would mutter, shaking their heads. In 2000, the GOP went looking for a non-Clinton, and chose the scion of the very family that had betrayed Reaganism when it took over the White House in 1989. Again in 2008, the party went with another war-horse, John McCain, who split what was left of the coalition instead of uniting it. Admit mistakes? Get real. During the primaries, no Republican but Ron Paul would even mention George Bush, much less own up to his mistakes. <br /><br />For years, many conservatives just couldn’t bring themselves to criticize President Bush when he was being unconservative. It wasn’t long ago that one David Keene, a long-time conservative operative and Beltway trough-dweller, threatened to fire Don Devine, who had been a high-ranking Reagan official, because Devine had the temerity to criticize Bush to columnist Robert Novak. Would Keene do so today, or would he finally be willing to face reality? No one knows -- and that ambivalence plagues the entire “conservative movement.” It represents the conflict between nostalgia and loyalty, on the one hand, and timeless principle, on the other. <br /><br />And there’s an element of pride involved too. Some key Bush supporters have changed their mind, but it wasn’t easy. Ken Adelman, famous for predicting a “cakewalk” in Iraq, later turned savagely on Bush and Cheney as the war dragged on (they always blame somebody else). But true conservatives also bear a burden. Being betrayed by someone you trust is a humbling, often bitter experience. The long and short of it is that Obama has diagnosed this infirmity in the GOP and is making the most of it. Meanwhile, what he is bringing about has, in the past, been called a variety of names – fascism, national socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism – but whatever history calls it, it is bad news, and Republicans are powerless to stop it. The fault lies not in their stars, but in themselves. If the Barry Goldwater of 1960 reappeared on the scene today, the GOP would probably run him out of town. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">“Catholics For Torture”?</span><br /><br />Catholics believe in admitting our mistakes – we have to: why else do we go to Confession? But the torture fiasco has made troubling ripples in Catholic ranks. Perhaps it was predictable, but it is nonetheless deplorable. Karl Rove, President Bush’s political director, was very skilled technically, but principles were not his strong point. Early on, he put together several ethnic and religious coalitions -- of Jews, of Catholics, and of Evangelicals, among others – and smothered his selected leaders with face-time in the Oval Office and other political lollipops. As George Bush changed from an advocate of a humble foreign policy in 2000 to a crusader for international wars to bring democracy to the world in 2004, Rove expertly kept his lapdog Catholic and Christian “leadership” groups in line. Seldom did they complain publicly about the plight of Christians in the Middle East, abut the martyrdom of Catholic priests and prelates in Iraq, or the devastation of Christian Nazareth and Bethlehem in Israel. They defended Bush down the line.<br /><br />In recent weeks a considerable amount of evidence has emerged about the U.S. government’s use of torture during the past eight years. Even now, however, a rump core of Bush supporters nonetheless continue to defend his policies, including torture. This is not surprising, since a lot of careers are at stake, a lot of prestige, and, frankly, a lot of money. Maybe some of them really believe in torture. But what is distressing is the Catholics! A dwindling coterie of Catholics who stuck with Bush through thick and thin now find themselves trying to justify not only Bush, but torture! Suddenly torture is becoming an ingredient of Catholic “Just War” theory. Permissible in wartime only, of course – but wait: didn’t Dick Cheney say that the Global War on Terror would last through the lives of our grandchildren? <br /><br />Meanwhile, as Americans are subjected to the public spectacle of these wayward Catholic Republican “leaders,” they might unfortunately have good reason to wonder, “if Republicans aren’t even serious about torture, are they really serious about abortion? Maybe those ‘Catholics for Obama’ were right after all.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Black Eye For The Irish</span><br /><br />One of those Catholics dazzled by Obama just got run over by reality. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., thought he could use an award for a pro-life leader as cover for inviting Obama to Notre Dame’s graduation on May 17, but former Ambassador to the Holy See Mary Ann Glendon wasn’t buying. After being told she was to receive the prestigious Laetare Medal, Glendon learned that Notre Dame was trumpeting her appearance as a “balance” to Obama. No sale.<br /><br />Admittedly, I was hoping that Glendon’s address at Notre Dame might have been as excruciating for Obama as Mother Teresa’s address to the National Prayer breakfast was for Bill and Hillary many years ago. But she did not like the odds: “"It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dames decision,” she wrote.<br /><br />Jenkins has received hundreds of thousands of protests against the invitation, but this is the one that is most likely to help him come to his senses.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-44837116293205864362009-05-27T07:54:00.000-07:002009-05-27T07:56:29.648-07:00California Beauty, Notre Dame - Not<span style="font-weight:bold;">Pin The Tail On The Bigot</span><br /><br />“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”<br /><br /> John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn <br /><br />When the Culture of Death attacks the Catholic Faith, it attacks all of it. That every spear-carrier in the cultural death squads has his assignment was recently demonstrated in – of all places -- the recent Miss USA pageant.<br /><br />Precedent does not encourage us to expect much of such endeavors. In 2007, a Miss Teen South Carolina was asked why some American schoolchildren could not locate the United States on a world map. Blonde Caitlin Upton was clueless, and came unglued: <br /><br />I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., er, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.<br /><br />But they’re not all ditzes. In 2009 Miss California, Carrie Prejean was on track to win Miss USA until a judge noticed that she attended San Diego Christian College. So he asked her, ““Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”<br />Prejean did not fall prey to the South Carolina syndrome. Her answer was direct: “In my family, I think that … a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be -- between a man and a woman.”<br /><br />Little did Miss Prejean know that her questioner was a “celebrity blogger.” In California that apparently means flaming homosexual -- in this case a Mr. Perez Hilton. And Hilton wasn’t Carrie’s only problem on the five-judge panel. “Holly Madison” is a Playboy bunny. Another judge, Alicia Jacobs, later admitted that Prejean would have won if she hadn’t forgotten that “at least two people on the judges panel are openly gay. Another judge has a sister in a gay marriage. Her very own state pageant director, Keith Lewis is an openly gay man.” <br /><br />Phew! Well, Mr. Hilton later observed that Prejean’s answer had “offended millions of Americans,” so naturally MSNBC and CNN immediately invited him to pontificate further on her bigotry. He obliged, calling her a “dumb b***,” asserting that she had “half a brain,” and said he “would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara if she had won.” He topped off assorted vulgarities with this: “I don’t want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, because that's offensive.” <br /><br />After “celebrity” Perez’s performance, the “gay rights” crowd cheered him as a hero. Which brings to mind a few timely truths. First, Satan hates truth and beauty. Perez’s foul-mouthed “justifications” are reminiscent of the vile epithets channeled by the demon in The Exorcist through the possessed Regan MacNeil. Secondly, homosexuals are unusually violent in their relationships, according to medical personnel in gay communities; they are also petty and vindictive. This is not a “homophobic” observation, but a clinical acknowledgement of reality that Catholics (including bishops, alas) need to understand when confronting the “gay rights” crowd. One must bear in mind that, like other intrinsic evils that the bishops address with more frequency, sodomy has profound consequences. Third, “gays” are rank cowards. Perez later insisted that “Yes, I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct.” But Miss Prejean sees it differently. She told the Today show that “it's not about being politically correct; for me it was being biblically correct.”<br /><br />Miss Prejean’s sentences more than parse. She is just the kind of woman that homosexuals hate: smart, beautiful, talented, grounded, and Christian. Perez’s routine is just the latest national outburst of gay cowardice. Miss Prejean, on the other hand, stood her ground. “This happened for a reason,” she said after the contest. “By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Another Looming Threat Awaits The Bishops </span><br /><br />As a generation of pro-abortion politicians who were raised Catholic approach old age, the prospect of death – memento mori! – rears its ugly head. And therewith arises a question that vexes even the most prudent prelate: where do we bury these people?<br /><br />This is not a merely hypothetical question. Back when Joe Biden was running for president in 1988, he was lifting weights in the Senate gym and thought he had pulled a muscle. Fortuitously, his doctor discovered that Biden had suffered a near-fatal injury and was able to save him in the nick of time. Ditto Teddy Kennedy, who escaped an untimely death not once but twice – first, when Indiana Senator Birch Bayh pulled him from a fatal plane wreck in the wilds of Alaska in 1964, and then five years later, when Kennedy managed to free himself from a sinking automobile and make it safely ashore after a tragic accident in Massachusetts. <br />So the grim reaper haunts us all – and, when the roll is finally called up yonder for all the Catholic pro-aborts, what will the bishops do to -- shall we say -- address the question of the disposition of their remains?<br /><br />Canon Law is clear on the subject: “Church funeral rites are to be denied to the following, unless they have given some sign of repentance … Apostates, heretics schismatics … [and] Other manifest sinners to whom a church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.” [1184.1, .3]. <br /><br />On the one hand, public supporters of the “intrinsic evil” of abortion [USCCB, Faithful Citizenship, 2007] are certainly “manifest sinners to whom a church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.”(Please note that the 1983 Code of Canon Law prudently adds the helpful phrase, “to the faithful” in order to distinguish Catholics who embrace the Magisterium from the editorial board of the New York Times, or the panel of judges at the Miss USA contest). <br /><br />On the other hand, the death of some of these political luminaries might occasion a funeral so grandiose that bishops will be fighting for seats in the bleachers. <br /><br />What to do? Again, we turn to Canon Law. “If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted and his judgment followed.” [1184.2]. <br /><br />Well, I think we’d all agree that that makes it perfectly clear.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Not Exactly Henry At Canossa</span><br /><br />Notre Dame’s spokesman admits that the university owns its own jet, but assures me that University president John Jenkins, C.S.C., did not use it to fly to Washington on April 21 to meet with Obama at the White House. Rather, Fr. Jenkins was in town for a “development” meeting. However, other developments are not so innocuous. Bishop John M. D’Arcy, in whose Indiana diocese Notre Dame is located, has written a stern letter admonishing Father Jenkins to correct the errors which Fr. Jenkins distributed to the public regarding his justification for the invitation of Obama to the university’s commencement exercises. Moreover, the good bishop chides Fr. Jenkins for a “serious mistake” – specifically, in extending the invitation, Jenkins “fail[ed] to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and law-giver in the diocese.”Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-37701266922213878702009-05-04T12:48:00.000-07:002009-05-04T12:49:45.785-07:00Faith Of Our Fathers<span style="font-weight:bold;">Is The Faith Of Our Fathers Not Ours?</span><br /><br />On his recent trip to Europe, Barack Obama boasted to Turkish President Abdullah Gul that “one of the great strengths of the United States [is that ] …we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens.” <br /><br />For Obama, speaking for all of us in the Jacobin language of the French Revolution, Americans are merely creatures of the state. But is he right? Enter Dr. John Howard, decorated veteran of World War II, longtime college president, and one of the first American cultural critics who rallied to defend the family as a key to the survival of a free society when the traditional, natural family first came under attack over thirty years ago.<br /><br />The enemies of the family have mounted a second front attacking Christianity, an attack in which Obama serves as a powerful adjutant. To dispel Obama’s pathetic obituary of a Christian America, Dr. Howard has responded with an important book whose title is as clear and forthright as its author: Christianity: Lifeblood of America’s Free Society (1620-1945) [Summit Press: (719) 685-9103, www.summit.org). With a keen eye for the golden thread that binds our freedoms, Dr. Howard illuminates the Christian preambles that are indispensable to American liberty. From the first words of the Mayflower Compact – “In the Name of God. Amen,” America has been a religious nation, a fact confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892. And whatever religious faith that individual Americans might profess, it is Christianity that supplied the vital traditions, principles, and “Self-Evident Truths” without which we would be not only a nation of mere citizens, but a nation of sheep.<br /><br />Dr. Howard’s little gem offers a clear and concise roadmap of our liberties since Plymouth Rock. It reflects years of wisdom and research, unearthing countless pearls of Christian wisdom long ignored by secular historians. The frosting on the cake are the wonderful quotes from each period that Dr. Howard has assembled at the end of each chapter. It is a bright light in a dark landscape, and is an especially commendable resource for home-schooling families.<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Ruminations Amidst the Ruins</span><br /><br />As the country sinks into a socialist swoon, liberal commentators are having a field day laughing at Republicans. The party is in disarray, its is floundering, it is hypocritical, it is bereft of principles, it is bereft of leaders and leadership – in brief, it is in ruins. Their conclusion? Obama gets to do whatever he wants. <br /><br />Now the liberals have good reason to distract us from their malevolent crowd behind the curtain. Their two most prominent governors have been forced from office for malfeasance. The scandals in the Obama Administration are quickly acquiring Clintonian proportions, with a cavalier attitude (“We don’t have to pay taxes because we’re raising yours!”) as brazen as that of an entrenched tinhorn dictator. Moreover, Obama has betrayed millions of his antiwar supporters without whom he would never have been nominated, much less elected. And, lest we forget, he has betrayed those credulous Catholics who thought (or pretended to think) that he really meant it when he said he wanted to reduce abortions. <br /><br />Obama’s approach is matter-of-fact: the unborn cannot vote. The aborted never will. But his Peanut Gallery nonetheless realizes that the best defense is a good offense, so they raise the cry defending his spending against his Republican critics: “So’s yer old man!”<br /><br />Long ago, when clocks had hands and went “tick-tock,” we had a saying: “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” And once in a blue moon (that was another oldie but goodie), the liberals, whose clock stopped long ago in the mire of smug collectivism, stumble onto truth. And right now, unfortunately, they are correct about the GOP.<br /><br />This liberal epiphany should not surprise us. For centuries, the method of leftism has been the “total critique” – the destruction (these days termed “deconstruction”) of history, tradition, and truth under the withering fire of ideological scrutiny. Karl Marx was a hopeless ideologue, to be sure, but he also rendered brilliant sociological observations (his description of society as a beehive in Das Kapital is a revelatory case in point). Liberals are often very good at moralizing. It’s the morals that fail them. <br /><br />So it is painful for conservatives to watch the Left mock Republicans – accurately -- for their profligate spending during the Bush years. But then follows the granddaddy of non sequiturs – that we therefore have no grounds on which to object to the wholesale bankrupting of the country by Obamanomics. <br /><br />Republicans are slowly coming around. Even the once-revered Heritage Foundation is awakening from its eight-year slumber, sponsoring a colloquium entitled “Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis.” The day will undoubtedly come when Heritage is willing to have the same conversation about foreign interventions. After that sobering conversation, the GOP might have a shot at revival.<br /><br />Even George Bush finally admitted his role in destroying the GOP’s congressional majorities. Last winter he recounted that he had been besieged by congressional Republicans in 2006 to announce the drawdown of the unpopular war in Iraq. He refused, and the Democrats swept into power on Capitol Hill that year and ruined pro-lifers’ hopes for dozens of appointments to the federal courts. By 2008, Bush’s administration was so drained of principle that it embraced the trillion-dollar bailouts that Obama has been glad to perpetuate and to enlarge. Thus, the GOP gave the Left all the ammunition it needed to needle Republicans endlessly. <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />A Lesson For Conservatives and Pro-Lifers</span><br /><br />If there is a primordial lesson here for conservatives and pro-lifers amidst the ruins, it is this: we should never again abandon our principles to please or to promote the fortunes of a political party or personality. It is only the truth that will make us free. Look at Congressman Ron Paul: he was the only Republican in the 2008 primaries who was willing publicly to criticize President Bush. Had John McCain stopped rolling his eyes long enough to embrace Dr. Paul’s criticism of the Federal Reserve (forget his support of the crazed Armageddonites), McCain would be president today. <br /><br />During the Bush years, The Wanderer often observed that profligacy at home and Wilsonian Wars abroad would bring in their wake collapse and calamity. Some Catholic neocons who had found favor with Bush – recruited by Karl Rove and masterfully stroked in Oval Office love-fests – resented that realism and said as much. Truth be told, they had, to put it bluntly, allowed their principles to be drowned by the cult of personality. Today the wreckage wrought by their misguided zeal now surrounds us all.<br /><br />Unlike the Catholics they manipulated, the core neocons – that is, the secular leftists of the 60s who later became anti-Communists but not conservatives -- are consistently more loyal to their private agendas than they are to any American party. Witnessing the success of this very effective minority faction, conservatives and pro-lifers – especially those who once were wooed by their siren song -- should take note, and resolve to maintain our principled political independence from this day forward. The neocons today trash President Bush, now that they have safely abandoned the ship they have scuttled. In Washington it’s called the “If Only He Had Listened To Me!” syndrome.<br /><br />Of this we can be sure: the neocons will never apologize. And they will always blame somebody else.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-55272034076088221672009-05-04T12:46:00.000-07:002009-05-04T12:48:15.033-07:00Beauty And The Beasts<span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Pin The Tail On The Bigot</span><br /><br />“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”<br /><br /> John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn <br /><br />When the Culture of Death attacks the Catholic Faith, it attacks all of it. That every spear-carrier in the cultural death squads has his assignment was recently demonstrated in – of all places -- the recent Miss USA pageant.<br /><br />Precedent does not encourage us to expect much of such endeavors. In 2007, a Miss Teen South Carolina was asked why some American schoolchildren could not locate the United States on a world map. Blonde Caitlin Upton was clueless, and came unglued: <br /><br />I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., er, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.<br /><br />But they’re not all ditzes. In 2009 Miss California, Carrie Prejean was on track to win Miss USA until a judge noticed that she attended San Diego Christian College. So he asked her, ““Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”<br />Prejean did not fall prey to the South Carolina syndrome. Her answer was direct: “In my family, I think that … a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be -- between a man and a woman.”<br /><br />Little did Miss Prejean know that her questioner was a “celebrity blogger.” In California that apparently means flaming homosexual -- in this case a Mr. Perez Hilton. And Hilton wasn’t Carrie’s only problem on the five-judge panel. “Holly Madison” is a Playboy bunny. Another judge, Alicia Jacobs, later admitted that Prejean would have won if she hadn’t forgotten that “at least two people on the judges panel are openly gay. Another judge has a sister in a gay marriage. Her very own state pageant director, Keith Lewis is an openly gay man.” <br /><br />Phew! Well, Mr. Hilton later observed that Prejean’s answer had “offended millions of Americans,” so naturally MSNBC and CNN immediately invited him to pontificate further on her bigotry. He obliged, calling her a “dumb b***,” asserting that she had “half a brain,” and said he “would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara if she had won.” He topped off assorted vulgarities with this: “I don’t want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, because that's offensive.” <br /><br />After “celebrity” Perez’s performance, the “gay rights” crowd cheered him as a hero. Which brings to mind a few timely truths. First, Satan hates truth and beauty. Perez’s foul-mouthed “justifications” are reminiscent of the vile epithets channeled by the demon in The Exorcist through the possessed Regan MacNeil. Secondly, homosexuals are unusually violent in their relationships, according to medical personnel in gay communities; they are also petty and vindictive. This is not a “homophobic” observation, but a clinical acknowledgement of reality that Catholics (including bishops, alas) need to understand when confronting the “gay rights” crowd. One must bear in mind that, like other intrinsic evils that the bishops address with more frequency, sodomy has profound consequences. Third, “gays” are rank cowards. Perez later insisted that “Yes, I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct.” But Miss Prejean sees it differently. She told the Today show that “it's not about being politically correct; for me it was being biblically correct.”<br /><br />Miss Prejean’s sentences more than parse. She is just the kind of woman that homosexuals hate: smart, beautiful, talented, grounded, and Christian. Perez’s routine is just the latest national outburst of gay cowardice. Miss Prejean, on the other hand, stood her ground. “This happened for a reason,” she said after the contest. “By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Another Looming Threat Awaits The Bishops </span><br /><br />As a generation of pro-abortion politicians who were raised Catholic approach old age, the prospect of death – memento mori! – rears its ugly head. And therewith arises a question that vexes even the most prudent prelate: where do we bury these people?<br /><br />This is not a merely hypothetical question. Back when Joe Biden was running for president in 1988, he was lifting weights in the Senate gym and thought he had pulled a muscle. Fortuitously, his doctor discovered that Biden had suffered a near-fatal injury and was able to save him in the nick of time. Ditto Teddy Kennedy, who escaped an untimely death not once but twice – first, when Indiana Senator Birch Bayh pulled him from a fatal plane wreck in the wilds of Alaska in 1964, and then five years later, when Kennedy managed to free himself from a sinking automobile and make it safely ashore after a tragic accident in Massachusetts. <br /><br />So the grim reaper haunts us all – and, when the roll is finally called up yonder for all the Catholic pro-aborts, what will the bishops do to -- shall we say -- address the question of the disposition of their remains?<br /><br />Canon Law is clear on the subject: “Church funeral rites are to be denied to the following, unless they have given some sign of repentance … Apostates, heretics schismatics … [and] Other manifest sinners to whom a church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.” [1184.1, .3]. <br /><br />On the one hand, public supporters of the “intrinsic evil” of abortion [USCCB, Faithful Citizenship, 2007] are certainly “manifest sinners to whom a church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.”(Please note that the 1983 Code of Canon Law prudently adds the helpful phrase, “to the faithful” in order to distinguish Catholics who embrace the Magisterium from the editorial board of the New York Times, or the panel of judges at the Miss USA contest). <br /><br />On the other hand, the death of some of these political luminaries might occasion a funeral so grandiose that bishops will be fighting for seats in the bleachers. <br /><br />What to do? Again, we turn to Canon Law. “If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted and his judgment followed.” [1184.2]. <br /><br />Well, I think we’d all agree that that makes it perfectly clear.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Not Exactly Henry At Canossa</span><br /><br />Notre Dame’s spokesman admits that the university owns its own jet, but assures me that University president John Jenkins, C.S.C., did not use it to fly to Washington on April 21 to meet with Obama at the White House. Rather, Fr. Jenkins was in town for a “development” meeting. However, other developments are not so innocuous. Bishop John M. D’Arcy, in whose Indiana diocese Notre Dame is located, has written a stern letter admonishing Father Jenkins to correct the errors which Fr. Jenkins distributed to the public regarding his justification for the invitation of Obama to the university’s commencement exercises. Moreover, the good bishop chides Fr. Jenkins for a “serious mistake” – specifically, in extending the invitation, Jenkins “fail[ed] to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and law-giver in the diocese.”Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-78205533924936577042009-04-27T20:11:00.000-07:002009-04-27T20:12:40.967-07:00Pelosi Power<span style="font-weight:bold;">Pelosi: We’re Third World Too</span><br /><br />House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Catholic San Francisco Democrat and pro-abortion communicant, has discovered how “to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.” It’s simple: have fewer people. So in the near term, Pelosi supports over a billion taxpayer dollars in the aptly-named “stimulus package” for contraception and sex (pro-sex, anti-child) education. In the long term, as Humanae Vitae predicted, her logic will lead to government health care, rationing of medical treatment, and eventually the need to eliminate the portion of the population on which the government spends the most money – the old, the sick, and the infirm. <br /><br />Pelosi’s Law is nothing new: in fact, the U.S. has had the same attitude towards the developing world for over fifty years. Pelosi’s only novelty is that she now treats the United States like any other Third World country. Since the 1950s, the U.S. Government has transmitted a simple message to the poor of the world: “There are too many of you.” In the name of doing good, the U.S. has funded contraceptive family planning programs throughout the Third World, costing tens of billions of dollars. By all appearances, these programs should help the world’s poor obtain clean water, basic health care, food, and agricultural assistance. The reality is less attractive: these programs usually require the host country and cooperating organizations to include contraceptives, Depro-Provera, even (at times) abortion and sterilization as mandatory ingredients of any “health” program – whether the host country wants it or not.<br /><br />How did this come to pass? For decades, foreign aid has had two constituencies. “National security” assistance was designed to prevent the spread of communism during the Cold War, and was traditionally supported by conservatives. “Economic and humanitarian” assistance was designed to give aid to “developing countries,” and was traditionally supported by liberals. With that broad coalition, foreign aid always seemed to sail through congress. <br /><br />Foreign aid has always had its opponents among taxpayers and conservatives, but their efforts were miniscule compared to the real beneficiaries of the programs: U.S. defense manufacturers, which supplied most of the “military assistance”; U.S. agricultural firms, which supplied the food assistance; U.S. nonprofits, which received and distributed the lion’s share of the humanitarian assistance; lobbyists for corrupt foreign governments, which always took a generous share off the top for themselves; and U.S. drug firms, which provided the medicines and contraceptives. (It was a sad specter to watch conservative senator Jeff Sessions in 2006, as he opposed outsourcing condom production to Asia. It turned out that the sole supplier of billions of prophylactics for U.S. foreign aid programs was located in his home state of Alabama.)<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">A “Conservative” Constituency For Family Planning? </span><br /><br />During the Reagan Administration, lobbyists for the U.S. companies that profited from foreign aid programs dreamed up a new approach: suddenly, they were conservatives. The suppliers used products from every state in the union – and lo! elected official everywhere had a local “private sector” constituents strongly supporting foreign aid. No longer were those officials “handing out of billions of taxpayer dollars to the Third World.” Now could be praised for “providing good jobs, right here at home.” <br /><br />So what constituency are Obama and Pelosi pleasing in pushing the anti-Humanae Vitae envelope? Well, as always, there are the profiteers: the “family planning” business in America rakes in billions a year, and its in-house partner, the abortion industry, is close behind (Even before the “stimulus,” contraceptive services alone received $1.6 billion a year from the federal government annually). But there are also the ideologues who simply oppose the traditional family and will do anything to destroy the values that sustain it. Domestically, we see this with Pelosi’s elimination of “abstinence education” funding, even as she advocates “sex education.” Internationally, the situation is best reflected in a report I heard on National Public Radio (NPR) after 9-11, when the U.S. forces invading Afghanistan entered Kabul. U.S. foreign-aid agencies were close behind, and NPR interviewed one of them, a woman who was supposedly bringing health services to Afghan women.<br /><br />“These women are twenty-eight years old and they already have eight children,” she screamed into her satellite phone. “They won’t even listen when I try to offer them contraceptives. And the men are even worse!!” <br /><br />So those who benefit from U.S. family planning programs, either financially or ideologically, do not complain. But another important voice is also silent: the U.S. bishops. On January 19, USCCB President Francis Cardinal George wrote President Obama, urging him to preserve conscience rights for health workers, and to oppose funding for abortion in foreign-aid programs. But he did not mention contraception at all:<br /><br />“Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased,” he wrote, “the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect.”<br /><br />Dare I point out that Humanae Vitae does not draw the line there, Your Eminence? <br /><br />No wonder that, over the past thirty years, countless Latin American Catholics, including dozens of bishops, have complained to me that U.S. population programs are an insult to their people, their families, and, yes to the Catholic Church itself. I’m sure Cardinal George meant to say “natural family planning” in his letter, but the absence of any meaningful effort on the part of the USCCB to convince its allies in the liberal wing of congress speaks for itself. It sounds an uncertain trumpet, at best. At worst, it delivers a message of silent approval, an abdication of Humanae Vitae, and a warm welcome for the Pelosi-Obama agenda in Washington. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Education: Control In The Long Run</span><br /><br />Pelosi’s law relies on the unspoken assumption that children are the wards of the state, and grouses that funds could be more wisely spent elsewhere. This is hardly a new view, but never before has a presidential administration been so close to bringing us to a Brave new World. “Governments Line Up For [Stimulus] Dollars,” crows the Washington Post. As the private sector economy shrinks, Obama sees prospects for growth only in government. Behind all the prattle about “repairing infrastructure” lies a plan to federalize not only every aspect of the economy, but of education as well. The $900 billion stimulus bill contains over $150 billion for “education” – all of it for government schools, of course, with nothing for the eleven percent of American students who do not attend public schools. But with funding comes control, and we can only imagine what horrors the most pro-abortion administration in history will introduce into what will soon become a national social studies curriculum. <br />Ideologues abound in government education, and they are ever more gay-friendly and family-averse. Obama’s educrats will train children to expect the government to feed them (in the “school lunch” programs, which often include breakfast), to give them medical care (through the Medicaid S-Chip program), to monitor their parents and family life (through Child Protection Services), to give them training for life (through sex education), and, of course, to feed them the party line in whatever time is left for “class.” <br /><br />If you think that we can defeat these efforts in court, consider: those pupils are also the future members of the juries who will hear our case.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-69626480642026390652009-04-27T20:10:00.000-07:002009-04-27T20:11:33.081-07:00The Old School And The New One<span style="font-weight:bold;">A Dying Breed?</span><br /><br />Senator Claiborne Pell, who represented Rhode Island forever, it seems, died at the age of ninety on New Year’s Day. He was an old-fashioned liberal and an old-fashioned gentleman, two dying breeds on Capitol Hill. One of the richest men in the Senate of his day, he is famous for having authored legislation for taxpayer subsidies of students paying college tuition – which rose even faster than the rate of inflation, thanks to endless spending sponsored by – Senator Pell. Of course, like the government grants named after Senator Fulbright, not a penny of those billions ever came out of the private pockets of the senators. So goeth government “charity.”<br />One facet of Senator Pell’s senatorial demeanor is instructive: I worked with him often, and his staff hated the fact that their boss refused to make me work through them (they were, shall we say, not gentlemen). Senator Pell was always receptive. They were always belligerent. (Of course, I told them that they were welcome to work directly with Senator Helms any time they pleased. None took the dare.)<br />Fast forward to (you knew it was coming) our beloved bishops. During the Reagan years, a variety of “Catholics” in the U.S. (think “Catholics for Obama”) supported the communist movements that were ravaging various Latin American countries. Left-wing nuns came to see me all the time (and left as soon as I started asking about the founding principles of their orders: they sought ignorant ears). To balance the ledger, the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) started bringing to the United States bishops from Latin America to offer a different view: most USCC (later USCCB) staffers supported the revolutionaries. Most Latin American bishops did not.<br />One day, AFPC brought a Salvadoran bishop to see Archbishop William Borders of Baltimore (over his staff’s objections, of course). The archbishop was visibly moved to hear the views of his brother bishop, and kept extending the conversation. “My staff hasn’t told me any of this,” he said. But eventually the visiting bishop had a plane to catch. “Let me drive you to the airport myself,” said Archbishop Borders. “I want to hear as much as I can from you.” <br />Hardly an isolated incident. Once a Catholic staffer from the Reagan White House was visiting Archbishop Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo in Managua when the Sandinistas were in power. He asked the Cardinal why his brother bishops in the United States did not seem to be aware of the persecution of the Church in Nicaragua and why they were not speaking out. “They must not be reading their mail,” the Cardinal drily responded. <br />American bishops are very busy men (just try to see one). They rely on their staffs for information, which their staffs happily supply. That helps to explain why so many people in the pews are bewildered when the USCCB embraces so much of the Clinton-Obama agenda. In fact, even mustering opposition to the “Freedom Of Choice Act” seems to make many bishops uncomfortable. Well, a stroll through the USCCB parking lot of 2000 and 2004 would explain the problem: Gore and Kerry for President bumper stickers abounded (in 2008, the bishops themselves gushed with praise for Obama– most notably former USCCB president Wilton Gregory, now Archbishop of Atlanta.)<br />Let’s face it – especially since the scandals erupted, many bishops are gun-shy about the laity. After all, that’s where all the abuse victims and their families were, and a lot of them were pretty mad. Many bishops appear to trust their lawyers more than they do the laity. That has made reconciliation very difficult. Too many chanceries have retreated behind “policies and procedures” which are, alas, useless. Their silly “child protection” courses refuse even to call abortion child abuse! Nonetheless, when you get by their staffs, there are undoubtedly bishops, successors to the apostles, many of whom are like Claiborne Pell – true gentlemen. Let’s hope that, in the case of Holy Mother Church, at least, they are not a dying breed.<br />Competing Histories<br />Since Christmas, President Bush and many of his supporters have given interviews designed to defend his “legacy,” with the common theme that “history will vindicate” the president, even though he is unpopular now. Most of the defenders focus on the Iraq War, not on the economy or on social issues. In fact, that latter topic always seems to come in last. One of the most troubling observations came from David Kuo, who was deputy director of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: <br />“The reality in the White House is—if you look at the most senior staff—you’re seeing people who aren’t personally religious and have no particular affection for people who are religious-right leaders…. in the political-affairs shop in particular, you saw a lot of people who just rolled their eyes at … basically every religious-right leader that was out there, because they just found them annoying and insufferable.”<br />Once more, pro-life voters have been taken for a ride by powerful cliques with private agendas (mostly money, influence, and power). As the last few months demonstrate, those people still run the GOP, and will, long after Bush leaves office. Don’t expect them to lift a finger to help us save one life from Obamanation’s Culture of Death. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The $100,000 Question</span><br /><br />The bailout has cost eight trillion dollars already, we are told, and the “stimulus” will cost another trillion. Now Obama says that “trillion-dollar deficits may last for years.” Of course, this violates the Seventh Commandment, big-time. But, putting that aside, a question: why let the government spend all that money?<br />Here’s an idea. The Census Bureau says that there are 116 million households in America. Why doesn’t Obama merely give each head-of-household $100,000 and let them spend it any way they want? Total cost, $11.6 trillion – less than what Bush and Obama are spending right now. Just one problem: that lets the people, not government bigwigs, decide where the money will go. The beleaguered banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, and automakers are still going to get the money -- but they’ll get it from the people, not the government. Folks will pay off credit cards, mortgage balances, auto loans, insurance premiums, new cars – even (gasp!) open savings accounts! No Beltway lobbyists will be needed. <br /> Right now, Mr. Paulson and the Federal Reserve are giving trillions secretly to their chosen cronies. The 116 million American households, still mired in hard times, aren’t getting a cent. After all that money is handed out, foreclosures and bankruptcies and collapses will continue unabated. The special interests will get trillions in taxpayer dollars and still be able to collect on all those additional trillions of consumer debt. Maybe, just maybe, that’s the way bankers like Paulson and politicians like Obama want it: they want everybody – the special interests and the beleaguered masses -- to depend on the government. Once again, freedom comes in last. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Love, Obama Style</span><br /><br />My mailbox has been overflowing with invitations to purchase the “Obama Commemorative Dollar -- Washed with Gold and an Instant Collector’s Item!” As “Change” turns history upside down, I am tempted to take my precious coin of great price to Obama’s Sermon on the Hill on Inauguration Day. Perhaps, if I stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and hold it high, Obama will bless it for me from the Banks of the Reflecting Pool. After all, as our Latinist daughter observes, “Obama” spelled backwards means “I Will Love.”Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-71182107805295221542009-04-27T20:09:00.000-07:002009-04-27T20:10:08.170-07:00Winners, Losers -- And Power<span style="font-weight:bold;">The Rubble On The Right</span><br /><br />The Obama juggernaut has done more damage to the country in a month than LBJ could do in five years, and Republicans seem powerless to stop it. They can’t even harness serious grass-roots opposition to the trillions of dollars that have flowed out of Washington since October. This is nothing new. The GOP has been losing credibility ever since it started backing George Bush’s “big government conservatism” years ago. Bush’s spending spree, coupled with the Iraq War, rivaled LBJ’s “guns and butter” policies during the Viet Nam War for profligacy. By last fall, when Bush bailed out the banks and bankers who (along with their political supporters) had gotten us into this mess, the Republican brand was virtually worthless.<br /><br />For a while, GOP party regulars avoided that unhappy subject, but the tide is turning. One sign of candor comes from Newt Gingrich, who recently launched a salvo at “the Bush-Obama big government, big bureaucracy, politician-empowering, high-tax, high-inflation and high-interest-rate system.” Clearly, Gingrich recognizes that he risks alienating some pro-Bush stalwarts in the GOP, but two factors are on his side: first, Obama is going to keep on blaming Bush, so Gingrich may as well try lumping them together. After all, rhetoric aside, their approaches to the economic “rescue” do have a lot in common, and Newt wants to appear as the independent voice of reason. Second, in spite of the best efforts of Democratic spinmeisters, Newt knows that any alienation will fade as 2010 approaches and new faces come onto the scene (along with his old one, of course).<br /><br />Gingrich is astute. As early as 2005, he privately acknowledged that 2008 would be a very tough presidential year. He told friends then that he was looking instead at a run in 2012 – seven years away. Candidate Gingrich would sound the “don’t blame me” mantra, since he had left congress long before Bush and congressional Republicans doubled the national debt by 2008. But he will have some serious explaining to do. For example, while he now insists that we turn our attention homeward from Iraq, he was once an ardent supporter of expanding the American war into Syria and Iran, in an effort to revolutionize the entire Middle East. Moreover, while his criticism of big government is appealing, he will have trouble attracting pro-family types. For one thing, every time he stages a political comeback, he seems to have a new wife. But he’s not ignoring the religious right: he just sent me an autographed copy of his “Discovering God In America.” <br /><br />Sure, Newt’s trying to cover all the bases. But his frontal attack on Bush’s contributions to big government certainly confirm the widespread desperation in the GOP as it seeks new leaders and what’s left of its principles. Frankly, I wonder if any of the “old guard” Republicans can lead the GOP out of the desert where it now wanders. Only time will tell.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">There Must Be Something In The Water</span><br /><br />A Boston Globe series, oozing oceans of sympathy for the ailing senior senator from Massachusetts, sports a revealing headline: “Ted Kennedy had to weather the death of Mary Jo Kopechne,” it moans, and he thus lost an easy shot at the presidency.<br /><br />Poor Teddy. All that bad weather. Tears all around, I’m sure. How thoughtless, really, of dying Mary Jo to ruin the career of a Kennedy. Imagine how much better off we’d all be if that senseless girl just hadn’t climbed into the back seat of Teddy’s car! Why, we could be enjoying five-cent Havanas, ten-cent gas, and years of peace and prosperity orchestrated by generations of benevolent Kennedys. <br /><br />Instead, we’ve just had forty years of Ted’s bearing the baleful burden of bad weather, all because of that selfish Mary Jo. <br /><br />So has the rest of the country, thanks in large part to liberals like John Kerry, the junior senator from Massachusetts, for whom last week was not his finest hour. The man who has serially wed increasingly wealthy women has harsh words for those who have earned their own money and want to spend it themselves:<br /><br />"I've supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal,” Senator Kerrey reportedly said on the senate floor. “But a tax cut is non-targeted. If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there's no guarantee that they're going to invest that or invest it in America. They're free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest."<br /><br />Apparently our families can be “guaranteed” that our money is being spent wisely only if we let Senator Kerry spend it for us. I can imagine him proposing to his wealthy wives…. “Let me show you how to spend your money wisely, my dear.” His approach does go a long way to explain why Massachusetts, with some of the highest taxes in the country, has one of the lowest per-capita charitable contribution rates of any state in the union. <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Useful Idiots<br /></span><br />Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson recently observed that Obama "has the makings of a great president." When Rush Limbaugh said “I hope he fails,” Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News asked Robertson to comment. <br />“That was a terrible thing to say,” replied Robertson. “I mean, he's the president of all the country. If he succeeds, the country succeeds. And if he doesn't, it hurts us all. Anybody who would pull against our president is not exactly thinking rationally.”<br />Well, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what your meaning of “succeed” is.<br />Long ago, Soviet overtures of “peaceful coexistence” appealed to many Americans in the midst of a tense Cold War. It even took some time for our own State Department to realize what that concept meant to the USSR: “be so kind as not to interfere while we continue our conquests.” The sense of urgency created around the passage of the recent “stimulus” bill invites similar scrutiny. The bill was not an emergency measure written to solve the immediate financial crisis; it was a catch-all for every crackpot initiative ever conceived by left-wing senate offices and liberal lobbying firms, unions, and the rest of the tax-consumer peanut gallery, outrageous bills that would never have passed on their own merits. All over Capitol Hill, staffers rifled through old filing cabinets, looking for last year’s losers, because this year they could be winners. The “stimulus” was Christmas in February for special interests everywhere. <br /><br />Health-care rationing is there, even though Hillary’s plan could not get a single vote in 1994; gun control is there, even though it could never pass on its own, no matter what party runs the congress. There is even four billion dollars for community agitators who have pledged “civil disobedience” on behalf of the poor. It is part Juan and Evita Peron, who ruined Argentina but were loved by “the poor,” and part Salvador Allende, whose shock troops (call them “community organizers”) I watched in 1973, marching through Santiago’s streets, menacing the citizenry and threatening violence to any critics. <br /><br />Gerhart Niemeyer, America’s foremost scholar on Marxism-Leninism, wrote that “what Lenin demanded was that Communists use bourgeois institutions without keeping faith with them, that they participate solely with the intent of destruction, and that they obtain the institutions’ power but deny their order.” <br /><br />Obama has used the congress, our most revered constitutional institution, to seize and maintain more power. He will not give it up lightly.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-83722513697333810732009-04-27T20:06:00.000-07:002009-04-27T20:08:24.173-07:00Nobody Here But Us Criminals<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CTERIMA%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on"><b style="">Clinton</b></st1:city></st1:place><b style=""> Without the Criminals?</b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">
<br /><b style=""><o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">When Obama promised “change,” and then hired virtually the entire Clinton Administration, I was admittedly confused. I thought the age of “change” would avoid inviting the countless scandals that permeated those happy times when Bill Clinton was a Master of the Universe, and impeached. But already we are confronted with a classic Clinton Moment: “A full-court press by Obama’s team is likely to keep ethical questions from sinking the nomination of Treasury Secretary-designee Timothy Geithner,” reports the <i style="">Politico</i>. After all, Geithner only owes tens of thousands of dollars in back income taxes. He also had an illegal domestic servant, an offense which was considered to be so serious even in the Clinton years that two Clinton nominees for Attorney General were bounced on that account (Hillary Clinton, who was running that show, wanted a woman, so she finally found one who was unmarried and thus unencumbered by children who would need a nanny: Janet Reno). <span style=""> </span></p> <p>The Clinton Administration was so rife with crime that America eventually yawned at reports several times a day of new malfeasance, enough special prosecutors to staff the Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn, and stonewalls that would stretch to Rome if put end to end (OK, maybe Alcatraz). The current case of Mrs. Clinton, soon to be another thoroughly unqualified Secretary of State, is instructive. Hillary’s rap sheet would be as long as the waiting list for Redskins season tickets if she were a private citizen, but that did not deter senators of both parties from gushing over her at her confirmation hearings. </p> <p>Their reception was a far cry from John Ashcroft’s experience eight years ago. The fact that Ashcroft was probably the most qualified Attorney General candidate in recent history did not deter the Democrats – we’re talking about his <i style="">colleagues</i> – from raking him over the coals at his confirmation hearings, goaded by the usual suspects -- left-wingers and the garden variety pro-aborts. Had Ashcroft exuded even a whiff of impropriety, his nomination would have been dead, of course. Witness the contrast to Hillary, who fairly reeks of criminality in every rehearsed smile. The only conclusion we can draw is that the Democrats are not going to change the beltway rule that has now, alas, become bipartisan: “Criminals Welcome!”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I worked for a major Chicago bank right out of college forty years ago, and was assigned to do some records research in the office of the Cook County Treasurer. Yes, this is the same <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Cook</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> that Barack calls home, and the same Daley machine was in power then. A dozen or so patronage employees sat at the huge conference table that dominated the records room, but I was apparently the only one working. Everyone else was just hanging out -- smoking, talking, reading, or talking to Mo, the bookie who ran the newsstand on the ground floor. Well, one day a new, smiling face came in the door. “Steve,” yelled my favorite hack. “When’d you get outta jail?” </p> <p>“Yesterday!” Steve answered.</p> <p>“Where ya workin’?” </p> <p>“Here!” </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Apparently, Obama has brought <st1:city st="on">Chicago</st1:city>’s ways to <st1:place st="on"><st1:state st="on">Washington</st1:state></st1:place>, masquerading as change. They won’t last, of course, but you sure can fool some of the people all of the time. Take Harry Reid, who is called the senate’s “Democratic Leader.” Mr. Geithner’s lapses bothered Harry none at all. “There's a few little hiccups, but that's basically what they are,” he said. “I am not concerned at all.” </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Geithner will be handing out trillions, much of it in secret, to his banking pals. But hey, why worry? Isn’t that what change is all about? </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b style="">Elvis And The Kings</b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">
<br /><b style=""><o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If you ever want to use Elvis Presley’s image, recordings, or lyrics, be prepared to pay big bucks. His estate jealously guards those crown jewels of the man whom folks in <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Memphis</st1:city></st1:place> simply call “The King.” </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Well, Elvis is not the only bygone king demanding royalties. Over the years, the family of Martin Luther King, Jr., has made untold millions from licensing his works, sending a hefty <st1:personname st="on">bill</st1:personname> to every media outlet that uses them. That effort can sometimes border on the tawdry: when the controversial decision was made to erect a memorial to King on the Washington Mall, King’s heirs immediately demanded a cut in the action, according to the Atlanta Constitution, or they would not permit his “name and likeness” to be used to raise money for it! I can see the fundraisers now: “Please help us honor you-know who!”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’ve always gotten a kick out of this charade because I was teaching in <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Boston</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>’s Department of Religion when BU finally admitted that “Doctor” King had plagiarized, word for word, more than half of his doctoral dissertation in our theology department years before. In fact, Theodore Pappas, who has done the most extensive research on the subject, found that King plagiarized all the time, even in the popular “I Have A Dream” speech for which his family has demanded – and received – a king’s ransom. So it’s hardly surprising to read that the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Atlanta</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">University</st1:placetype> <st1:placetype st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> has paid the King Family $32 million for King’s papers, which were placed online for the first time in early January. Not surprisingly, readers are cautioned that, while they can <i style="">read</i> the papers, they are not allowed to <i style="">quote</i> them without paying a licensing fee (“please read silently: do not move your lips.”)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The observation of Eric Hoffer, the Longshoreman-philosopher, is probably most appropriate here: “Every great movement begins as a cause, becomes a business, and ends as a racket.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><b style=""><o:p> </o:p></b></p> <p style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b style="">Henry's Last Gasp<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p>Henry Kissinger just won’t quit. Since 1957, he has advocated a New World Order, and he has seen every crisis since as a perfect opportunity for us all to join hands and leap into his one-world future. His latest piece is a conspiracy theorist’s dream, where he resonates his international <st1:personname st="on">bill</st1:personname>ionaire clients (whose identities he has always refused to reveal), and demands that every country, including ours, must "redefine its national priorities." Or else.</p> <p>Henry probably thinks that would be less work than cleaning house and throwing out the bipartisan gang of self-serving third-raters who have hijacked the American dream for their own power and profit. Instead, the virtuous people of Federalist 57 should relent, honor the hijackers' claim to superiority, let Henry trash the Constitution, and then hire him to write a New One.</p> <p>You gotta hand it to Henry, he's got chutzpah. He has lived a life of self-indulgent, studied megalomania. “The alternative to a new international order is chaos,” he writes. Well, <i style="">another</i> alternative is the Constitution, but that’s pretty passé, isn’t it? </p> <p>Henry’s logic is pretty simple: whatever he and his decadent pals can't control is, by definition, evil. It can be surmounted only by a "global agreement" with new "general rules" that everybody must follow. Big Brother, call your office. </p> <p>Henry, meet the Leviathan. Unfortunately, Hobbes was wrong and Aquinas and Jefferson were right. The alternative to Henry’s nightmare isn't chaos. The alternative is freedom, following "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."</p> <p style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b style="">Two Different Worlds<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p>This year, the March For Life comes just two days after the inauguration. Somehow, I don’t think that many of those “Catholics for Obama” in town for the festivities will be staying on to join us in the March. And what about all those “Catholic” senators and representatives who are “personally opposed to abortion , but …”? </p> <p>Well, I guess they just want to keep it personal.</p> <p><o:p> </o:p></p> Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-24355229774362137062009-04-27T20:04:00.000-07:002009-04-27T20:06:35.076-07:00His Mysterious Majesty<br />Sirs, I here present unto you<br />Queen Elizabeth,<br />your undoubted Queen:<br />Wherefore all you who are come this day<br />to do your homage and service,<br />Are you willing to do the same?<br />The People signify their willingness and joy, by loud and repeated acclamations, all with one voice crying out,<br />GOD SAVE QUEEN ELIZABETH.<br />Then the trumpets shall sound.<br /><br /> [From the British Coronation Ceremony, June 2, 1953]<br /><br /><br />One of my favorite bumper stickers of all time appeared in 1960, when Barry Goldwater first sought the Republican nomination:<br /><br />“Kennedy for King, Goldwater for President!”<br /><br />The lavish love-fest of the media with Jack Kennedy back then was so smarmy that it was laughable. So was “Camelot.” But those poseurs were on to something -- there is something special about the royals. They are exempt from criticism, above the fray, and respected by all as a symbol of the unity of the realm.<br /><br />That might go a long way to explain the magical portrayal of Obama that his handlers have projected to the world, courtesy of a swooning popular culture and a media in sheer rapture. There are some distinctions, of course: while Elizabeth’s coronation was followed by an Anglican Mass, Obama’s secular coronation was acclaimed by the masses on the Mall. But religious symbols fairly oozed around him: ministers anointed the Capitol doors; Oprah produced an elaborate YouTube video, featuring a Hollywood cast of thousands, chanting in unison, “I pledge, to be a servant to our president, and all mankind.”<br /><br />This is nothing new in our collapsing culture, where secularism has long vied to displace religion not only in practice and principle, but in symbol. Why else would John F. Kennedy’s grave boast an “eternal flame” (probably the only one he ever had), than to anoint him as a secular saint, even a martyr?<br /><br />These Manichees know what they are doing. Why else did George Washington, who could easily have been acclaimed king of the liberated colonies had he so desired, reject all trappings of royalty and serve only two terms in office? Our Founding Fathers believed that a republican government had no place for royalty. It was our Constitution that was revered – if we obeyed it. But Obama adroitly stakes his majestic claim by pretending to rise above politics: “we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington.” In the past, these tired words were just pleasant banalities; but Obama, who is a cross between a secular savior and Lady Di, employs them to make his “change” not only irreversible, but unassailable – by secular divine right.<br /><br />Hence, thou shalt not defy Our Dear Leader. However, if you want to deify him, no problem! On the Left, the full-court press is well under way. At New York University, a medieval literature professor urges her students to consider who is the most likely person in our time to receive the stigmata: it is Obama, she assures them. At George Mason University in Virginia, a history teacher surprises the students in her “Introduction To American History” course. “You’ve probably studied all this in high school, so we’re going to concentrate on Obama this semester,” she coos. Quiz at eleven.<br /><br />The message is plain: Obama’s pedestal is so high that to criticize him is tantamount to a secular sin against the civil society that he so benevolently deigns to save and to rule. That is what “change” is really all about.<br /><br />Maya Angelou is a laughable poet, but she has a zealot’s grip on the secular scripture: “We needed him. We the race needed him. We the American people, we needed him. And out of that great need, I believe he came. Barack Obama, Senator Barack Obama came,” she told the BBC.<br /><br />Obama came. Oprah and Maya are his prophets. This is what we’re up against.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Tell It To The Judge</span><br /><br /> “Thou Shalt Not Steal. The Government Hates Competition”<br /><br /> [Sign in Dr. Ron Paul’s Congressional Office]<br /><br />“The [ethical] bar that we set is the highest that any administration in the country has ever set,” says Obama’s White House, echoing Bill Clinton’s unforgettable promise to produce “the most ethical administration in history.” In order to fulfill that pledge, Obama has apparently hired every Clinton retread still living -- but it hasn’t helped.<br /><br />“The problem with socialism,” Maggie Thatcher once said, “is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Well, Obama’s administration wants socialism, all right, but they sure don’t want to pay for it with their money. The ethical bloom has come off the royal rose as one leading Democrat after another has suddenly discovered, to his surprise, that, they simply forgot to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of back taxes that they owed.<br /><br />Among this veritable multitude, three deserve particular notice.<br /><br />Obama’s nominee for Treasury, Timothy Geithner, apologized, then apologized deeply, for his “careless mistake” of not paying the IRS tens of thousands of dollars, and was then confirmed, thus putting a successful tax cheat in charge of the IRS. Even more reprehensible are Chris Dodd and Tom Daschle, who deserve a category all their own. Dodd, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, got a secret sweetheart deal worth $75,000 from a bank that he bailed out. Because he is a pro-abortion Catholic Democrat, the media have not called it a bribe. He will continue to be in charge of handing out taxpayer money to some banks, but not others.<br /><br />Then there’s “Catholic” Tom Daschle. Twenty years ago he dumped his first wife and married a young Washington lobbyist. In 2003, when his bishop told him to stop identifying himself as a Catholic, Senator Daschle (who lost his bid for re-election in 2004), took to the Senate floor to denounce his bishop as a member of the ‘religious right.’ Since 2004, he has made five million dollars as a Washington insider. He just forgot to pay taxes on a lot of it.<br /><br />None of these frauds will go to jail, of course. Meanwhile, one Randall Bradley Jones, who ran six houses of prostitution in Houston (which means that he is in a similar line of business), faces five years in federal prison. His crime? Not paying his income taxes.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Losers Claim Victory</span><br /><br />Conservatism is up for grabs these days, and so is the GOP. So now appears a crowd of “experts” who support a “broader” Republican Party (Nelson Rockefeller, call your office). That new, improved party needs the thirty million or so votes that pro-family forces have delivered in the past, of course but it suggests that, well, maybe we can just shut up about our principles, because, well, that’s why we lost.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, the touted “reformers” are actually the same crowd that advocated the worldwide crusade for democracy abroad and “big government” conservatism at home that brought the GOP crashing to defeat in 2006 and disaster in 2008. Life has never been their priority, but during the Bush years they held their nose and put up with us. Now, through a constant barrage of “broadening,” they want us to believe that a pro-life GOP would just be too “narrow” to win. They have a lot of support in the media and, naturally, among Democrats, since their success would condemn the GOP to permanent minority status.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994919346196168886.post-44818070215617852402009-04-27T20:02:00.000-07:002009-04-27T20:03:19.727-07:00Can You Hate Your Dictator (And Still Go To Heaven)Can You Hate Your Dictator?<br /><br />Did the Russians hate Stalin? Did the Germans hate Hitler? <br /><br />Let’s be more specific: did the 13 million killed in the Nazi camps hate Hitler? How about Stalin’s twenty million? Mao’s tens of millions? Castro’s? Pol Pot’s? Kim Il Sung’s? <br /><br />And what about tyranny’s Catholic victims? When we read about the martyrs, we marvel at the way they forgive their torturers. But they were saints. What should we run-of-the-mill, uncanonizable Catholics do when tyranny closes in? <br /><br />Not everybody thinks – or lives, or loves -- with the Catholic mind. In fact, hate seems to be getting more popular in recent years. “Evil currently stalks the earth because there isn't enough hate,” writes Shmuley Boteach on a conservative website (Boteach has been called “one of the world's most prominent rabbis”). Upon hearing that Yassir Arafat had died, when President Bush said “God bless his soul,” conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby countered, “God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity." And in a long-winded article in First Things, Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik celebrates “The Virtue of Hate” – grounded, apparently, in the Talmud, not the New Testament.<br /><br />The Catholic call to love and forgiveness does not resonate universally. Of course, it’s not always easy for Catholics, either. Yes, we are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. But aren’t we sometimes sorely tempted to hate not only the diktat, but the dictator? As George Orwell’s 1984 brilliantly reveals, loving Big Brother is a tall order. Yet, in the past few years our country has been brought to the brink of ruin by a band of profligates. The blame game is in high gear. At the moment, our attention is drawn by the media and politicians to the bankers and financiers as the villains who have brought on this collapse. But just as much ire could be directed at the politicians who pursued their private priorities, at home and abroad, instead of serving the common good and honestly administering the laws and the government to protect the common man. Their number could be legion. What they do is hateful. Are they? <br /><br />“It Can’t Happen Here”<br /><br />Riots are currently plaguing in the capitals of various European countries with troubled economies. Will they find their way to our own streets? An uncomfortable number of my neighbors in rural Virginia are not taking any chances. They are buying ammunition -- by the case, not the box. If past is prologue, in the case of insurrection (of which Jefferson was a big fan), our political leaders are not likely to come out on the balcony of the presidential palace like Romania’s Nicolae Ceauşescu and get taken to the wall by a firing squad. No, they will call out the troops to “restore order,” pass ever-larger “stimulus” bills to rob anyone who still has any money, and waste it on their politically-connected friends and supporters. After all, virtually every other country in the world has experienced such convulsions. Why not us?<br /><br />This is the way of the world. We Americans have, in fact, been miraculously spared from many (but certainly not all) of the effects of domestic corruption in our brief history. Worldwide, corruption is the rule, not the exception. I have lived in corrupt countries. There the sun still comes up in the east, and the basics of life can go on -- you just have to bribe everybody to get anything done. And if you pay your prescribed taxes, you are certifiably insane, since the corrupt politicians will take everything you have if you let them.<br /><br />When I was growing up in Cold War America, children often heard, “it can’t happen here” – a stern and possibly Pollyanna assertion, given that the most educated population in Europe in the early twentieth century was Germany’s. The “it” referred to the revolutionary devastation that was then convulsing the world. It couldn’t “happen here,” we were told, because we were protected by our traditions, our history, our common faith, and the Constitution.<br /><br />Today, more than fifty years later, it’s fair to ask, why can’t it happen here? Faith, tradition, history, and the Constitution have been tossed in the back seat, and eventually thrown out the window, by the regnant ideology that now predominates in both political parties, the intelligentsia, and the permanent (and ever-expanding) government. The Obama government leans so hard to the left that the Catholic Church, Catholic institutions, and Catholic families are in real danger: they could come under attack at the drop of an Executive Order. So Catholics have to ask, “what is to be done?” <br /><br />Over the past 30 years or so, many Catholics have been loyal defenders of the GOP because it became increasingly identified as the pro-life party. That might have been true of the Republican Party of the past, but it is true no longer. Today, both parties are trapped in the mire of socialism. The more ignorant they are of the dire circumstances our country faces, the more power they reflexively accrue to themselves. The Culture of Life is not high on either party’s agenda, alas. The economic decline and rampant inflation that the government’s latest “rescue” measures virtually guarantee will challenge Catholics for decades to come. Young families will have to make major sacrifices if they want to conform to Humanae Vitae in such hard times – if they want to be saints! One need only recall that the average Russian woman in the USSR had eight abortions during her lifetime. Ever since the publication of Humanae Vitae in 1968, American bishops have been reluctant to preach this dimension of the Gospel of Life. Will harder times make them more vocal? Or even more silent?<br /><br />Change We Can Believe In<br /><br />The Catholic approach to politics has changed before in American history, and it will soon have to change again. Recent trends are curious: while the people in the pews have gravitated towards the GOP, our bishops have gravitated towards the Democrats, and have drifted effortlessly with them to the left. We should declare both of these alliances obsolete. Today, neither party is the “Catholic” party. As Catholics, we must sunder our party ties and regain the independence from government which we have not enjoyed for over 100 years.<br /><br />Catholics must abjure our past loyalty oaths to the party of our choice. The worst politicians prosper and the best throw in the towel. Yes, we must render unto Caesar, but we don’t have to canonize him. Nor must we submit to a shotgun marriage with his regime. Catholics are called on now to take a firm stand, independent of the state, and reject the state’s attempts at bribery (with other people’s money, of course) that has muzzled the Catholic Church’s voice on the most important moral issues that confront our country. <br /><br />If the Church begins sounding a firm and certain trumpet, we cannot expect politicians to repent and change their ways. In fact, many are likely to become hostile to the Church that they have, up until now, been able to con. Assume, for instance, that a couple of dozen of the most prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are formally excommunicated. Don’t expect them to fall on their knees and repent like Henry at Canossa. No, expect them to react like Senator Patrick Leahy, who has “always thought also that those bishops and archbishops who for decades hid pederasts … should be indicted.” Even harder times are coming.Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09451282942088992811noreply@blogger.com1