2:31 PM 3/7/2010 — The third Sunday of the Great Fast is, as you know, dedicated to the veneration of the Cross of Christ. And the gospel lesson we hear is well known to us as well:

Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lost it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall find it.

3:35 PM 3/6/2010 — While here at Priestly Pugilist we have had the privilege of giving an extra voice to certain bishops who—uncharacteristically—do the right thing, the simple fact is that, as a group, they still form a collective mess. Case in point, this disturbing report from Politco:

The Roman Catholic bishops signaled Thursday that if agreement is reached with House leaders on anti-abortion language, the church would work to get the votes needed to protect the provisions in the Senate—and thereby advance the shared goal with Democrats of health care reform. “We would strongly urge everyone, Democratic and Republican, to vote to waive the point of order,” Richard Doerflinger, an associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told POLITICO. “Whether it would be enough to get to 60 votes, I can’t predict. We would certainly try.”
     “I think it’s something we should explore,” said Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a longtime opponent of abortion. “It could be something that could carry out the bishops’ objective.”
     [...] With a large network of Catholic hospitals and the church’s gospel of social justice, the bishops have long called for expanded health coverage. As Kathy Saile, director of domestic policy for the conference, said last fall, “The bishops see it as a moral imperative and national priority.”

And what’s wrong with that, you ask? Simply put, it is none of the bishops’ business to support or oppose a piece of legislation. Oppose abortion? Certainly. Point out the dangers in some proposed legislation if it does violence to the moral teaching of the Church and has the potential to compel Catholic citizens to violate the prescriptions of the Gospel? Without a doubt. But to embrace a particular political point of view because they have concluded that it, somehow, expresses in secular terms what they believe? Not on your life!
     There are a plethora of reasons why a Catholic citizen may choose not to support a government reform of health care. He might consider it a statist provision which robs him of his self-determination and chips away at his individual liberties. He may believe that it’s financially irresponsible. Maybe he’s lived for a time in a country that has government administered health care and knows, first hand, the disaster it is. He may be a small business owner who knows how it will destroy what he’s spent his life building. He may even have his own moral reasons for fearing it: the marginalization of the handicapped and elderly; government bureaucrats deciding what is or is not appropriate medical care, etc. All concerns that the bishops—God alone knows how—have determined don’t matter to them, and which they have decided that we, as Catholic citizens, don’t have a right to be concerned about ourselves as they decree otherwise.
     The Second Vatican Council is clear: the duty of injecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ into secular society is the job of the laity, not the clergy. The bishops are right to object to language in the bill which would direct our tax dollars into paying for the murders of the innocent; but to press the resources of the Catholic Church into assisting in the passage of other provisions of the bill in some kind of back-room deal to achieve that goal is meddling in matters in which they have no purview.
     To be fair, I’m reasonably sure that no Catholic bishop—except for the most strident of bleeding heart liberals (and there are some)—would tell me that they have a right to compel me to support legislation simply because they support it. What they don’t seem to understand is that, in supporting it themselves, they not only violate their Divine mandate, but also trivialize their moral authority. A bishop does not belong in politics, even when he thinks being political serves the cause of Christ. And if the USCCB is going to use the money that it collects from Catholic lay people to support the agenda of a political party...well, what’s the difference between that and a labor union using the dues it collects to donate to a candidate for whom some of it’s members do not intend to vote?
     So, the bishops believe that, aside from abortion, health care reform is compatible with the social teaching of the Church. That's nice, but so what? It’s none of their business. It’s the laity’s business. It’s just another example of the hierarchy’s selective reading of Vatican II.

by Priestly Pugilist

4:03 PM 3/4/2010 — Every once in a while, someone who thinks himself or herself to be well informed floats the idea that "socialism" isn't incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ; indeed, that the Gospel in fact presents to us a quasi-socialist (if not completely socialist) view of society, often referencing the description of the early Church found in Acts 2:44-45: "And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." There were pragmatic reasons the earliest Christians lived this way¹; and those who embrace the most simplistic approach to interpreting Holy Writ aren't able to distinguish between that which describes historical fact and that which presents a Divine mandate for all time. Your PP believes it's more appropriate, especially in these days, to consult with a few people who actually were well informed:

PIUS XI (1846-1878):

• "You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.” (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

LEO XIII (1878-1903):

• "...communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin.” (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)

• "...For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists” (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).

• "...We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning—the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, ‘Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.’ (Jud. 8).” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

• "They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is ‘the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith’ (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life.” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

• "...socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations.” (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)

• "...there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due.” (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):

• "But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ ... What are they going to produce? ... A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.” (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique ["Our Apostolic Mandate"] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):

• "It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

PIUS XI (1922-1939):

• "... For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)

• "But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Ibid. n. 117)

• "[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Ibid. n. 120)

PIUS XII (1939-1958):

• "To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations." (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):

• "Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)

PAUL VI (1963-1978):

• "Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.” (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):

• "It may seem surprising that ‘socialism’ appeared at the beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the ‘question of the working class’ at a time when ‘socialism’ was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the ‘question of the working class.’" (Encyclical Centesimus Annus—On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)

• "Continuing our reflections, ... we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.” (Ibid, n. 13)

BENEDICT XVI (2005—present):

• "The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. [...] In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

by Priestly Pugilist

---

¹ Communal life was practiced in Apostolic times because it was necessary to care for all of the new converts who were away from their homes. It may still be appropriate in times of extreme emergency; but to read into this and similar passages a Divine mandate to live a communal life as a necessary mark of an authentically Christian society is to fall into the basest form of historical ethnocentrism, which seeks to claim that everything and anything done by the "early Church" must be done by the Church today (usually expressed by referring to the "early Church" as the "model" for all time). Not only does such an attitude seek to stifle the continual action of the Holy Spirit upon the Church throughout history, but also makes irrelevant the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience embraced by those in professed Religious Life, since it would mandate that every Christian live this way.

2:21 PM 3/4/2010 —

[Denver's Archbishop Chaput has always been a favorite here at Priestly Pugilist, as all seven of my readers know. Not one to shy away from any uncomfortable situation, on March 1st he waded into a bastion of Protestantism to address a common concern: the proper role of Christians in political life. He delivered the following address, titled "The Vocation of Christians in American Public Life," at Houston Baptist University. The footnotes following the text are the Archbhiop's own; and you can read the speech in its original format at CatholicCulture.org.
     His speech attracted your PP because he takes issue with the attitude embraced by JFK when he ran for president (which appleals to my inclination of hatred for all things Kennedy). In fact, your PP recommends that you follow up the Archbishop's speech by reading the speech given by John F. Kennedy on September 12, 1960, to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, which can be viewed in its entirety here: "While the so called religious issue..." —PP]

One of the ironies in my talk tonight is this. I'm a Catholic bishop, speaking at a Baptist university in America's Protestant heartland. But I've been welcomed with more warmth and friendship than I might find at a number of Catholic venues. This is a fact worth discussing. I'll come back to it at the end of my comments. But I want to begin by thanking Drs. Sloan and Bonicelli and the leadership of Houston Baptist University for their extraordinary kindness in having me here tonight. I'm very grateful for their friendship.
     I also want to thank my friend Dr. John Hittinger of the University of St. Thomas. Part of my pleasure in being here is to encourage his efforts with the John Paul II Forum on the Church in the Modern World. The Forum is hugely important – and not just for Catholics, but for the whole Christian community. I'm grateful to the leadership of the University of St. Thomas for supporting him.
     I need to offer a few caveats before I turn to the substance of our discussion.
     The first caveat is this: My thoughts tonight are purely my own. I don't speak for the Holy See, or the American Catholic bishops, or the Houston Catholic community. In the Catholic tradition, the local bishop is the chief preacher and teacher of the faith, and the shepherd of the local Church. Here in Houston you have an outstanding bishop – a man of great Christian faith and intellect – in Cardinal Daniel DiNardo. In all things Catholic tonight, I'm glad to defer to his leadership.
     Here's my second caveat: I'm here as a Catholic Christian and an American citizen – in that order. Both of these identities are important. They don't need to conflict. They are not, however, the same thing. And they do not have the same weight. I love my country. I revere the genius of its founding documents and its public institutions. But no nation, not even the one I love, has a right to my allegiance, or my silence, in matters that belong to God or that undermine the dignity of the human persons He created.
     My third caveat is this: Catholics and Protestants have different memories of American history. The historian Paul Johnson once wrote that America was “born Protestant.¹” That's clearly true. Whatever America is today or may become tomorrow, its origin was deeply shaped by a Protestant Christian spirit, and the fruit of that spirit has been, on the balance, a great blessing for humanity. But it's also true that, while Catholics have always thrived in the United States, they lived through two centuries of discrimination, religious bigotry and occasional violence. Protestants of course will remember things quite differently. They will remember Catholic persecution of dissenters in Europe, the entanglements of the Roman Church and state power, and papal suspicion of democracy and religious liberty.
     We can't erase those memories. And we cannot – nor should we try to – paper over the issues that still divide us as believers in terms of doctrine, authority and our understandings of the Church. Ecumenism based on good manners instead of truth is empty. It's also a form of lying. If we share a love of Jesus Christ and a familial bond in baptism and God’s Word, then on a fundamental level, we're brothers and sisters. Members of a family owe each other more than surface courtesies. We owe each other the kind of fraternal respect that “speak[s] the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). We also urgently owe each other solidarity and support in dealing with a culture that increasingly derides religious faith in general, and the Christian faith in particular. And that brings me to the heart of what I want to share with you.
     Our theme tonight is the vocation of Christians in American public life. That’s a pretty broad canvas. Broad enough that I wrote a book about it. Tonight I want to focus in a special way on the role of Christians in our country’s civic and political life. The key to our discussion will be that word “vocation.” It comes from the Latin word vocare, which means, “to call.” Christians believe that God calls each of us individually, and all of us as a believing community, to know, love and serve him in our daily lives.
     But there’s more. He also asks us to make disciples of all nations. That means we have a duty to preach Jesus Christ. We have a mandate to share his Gospel of truth, mercy, justice and love. These are mission words; action words. They’re not optional. And they have practical consequences for the way we think, speak, make choices and live our lives, not just at home but in the public square. Real Christian faith is always personal, but it’s never private. And we need to think about that simple fact in light of an anniversary.
     Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He had one purpose. He needed to convince 300 uneasy Protestant ministers, and the country at large, that a Catholic like himself could serve loyally as our nation’s chief executive. Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected. And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics. It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong. Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life. And he wasn’t merely “wrong.” His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.
     Now those are strong statements. So I’ll try to explain them by doing three things. First, I want to look at the problems in what Kennedy actually said. Second, I want to reflect on what a proper Christian approach to politics and public service might look like. And last, I want to examine where Kennedy’s speech has led us – in other words, the realities we face today, and what Christians need to do about those realities.
     John Kennedy was a great speaker. Ted Sorensen, who helped craft the Houston speech, was a gifted writer. As a result, it’s easy to speed-read Kennedy’s Houston remarks as a passionate appeal for tolerance. But the text has at least two big flaws.² The first is political and historical. The second is religious.
     Early in his remarks, Kennedy said: “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and state is absolute.” Given the distrust historically shown to Catholics in this country, his words were shrewdly chosen. The trouble is, the Constitution doesn’t say that. The Founders and Framers didn’t believe that. And the history of the United States contradicts that. Unlike revolutionary leaders in Europe, the American Founders looked quite favorably on religion. Many were believers themselves. In fact, one of the main reasons for writing the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause – the clause that bars any federally-endorsed Church – was that several of the Constitution’s Framers wanted to protect the publicly funded Protestant Churches they already had in their own states. John Adams actually preferred a “mild and equitable establishment of religion” and helped draft that into the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution.³
     America’s Founders encouraged mutual support between religion and government. Their reasons were practical. In their view, a republic like the United States needs a virtuous people to survive. Religious faith, rightly lived, forms virtuous people. Thus, the modern, drastic sense of the “separation of Church and state” had little force in American consciousness until Justice Hugo Black excavated it from a private letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association.⁴ Justice Black then used Jefferson’s phrase in the Supreme Court’s Everson v. Board of Education decision in 1947.
     The date of that Court decision is important, because America’s Catholic bishops wrote a wonderful pastoral letter one year later – in 1948 – called “The Christian in Action.” It’s worth reading. In that letter, the bishops did two things. They strongly endorsed American democracy and religious freedom. They also strongly challenged Justice Black’s logic in Everson.
     The bishops wrote that “It would be an utter distortion of American history and law” to force the nation’s public institutions into an “indifference to religion and the exclusion of cooperation between religion and government . . .” They rejected Justice Black’s harsh new sense of the separation of Church and state as a “shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism.”⁵ And the bishops argued their case from the facts of American history.
     The value of remembering that pastoral statement tonight is this: Kennedy referenced the 1948 bishops’ letter in his Houston comments. He wanted to prove the deep Catholic support for American democracy. And rightly so. But he neglected to mention that the same bishops, in the same letter, repudiated the new and radical kind of separation doctrine he was preaching.
     The Houston remarks also created a religious problem. To his credit, Kennedy said that if his duties as President should “ever require me to violate my conscience or violate the national interest, I would resign the office.” He also warned that he would not “disavow my views or my church in order to win this election.” But in its effect, the Houston speech did exactly that. It began the project of walling religion away from the process of governance in a new and aggressive way. It also divided a person’s private beliefs from his or her public duties. And it set “the national interest” over and against “outside religious pressures or dictates.”
     For his audience of Protestant ministers, Kennedy’s stress on personal conscience may have sounded familiar and reassuring. But what Kennedy actually did, according to Jesuit scholar Mark Massa, was something quite alien and new. He “‘secularize[d]’ the American presidency in order to win it.” In other words, “[P]recisely because Kennedy was not an adherent of that mainstream Protestant religiosity that had created and buttressed the ‘plausibility structures’ of [American] political culture at least since Lincoln, he had to ‘privatize’ presidential religious belief – including and especially his own – in order to win that office.”⁶
     In Massa’s view, the kind of secularity pushed by the Houston speech “represented a near total privatization of religious belief – so much a privatization that religious observers from both sides of the Catholic/Protestant fence commented on its remarkable atheistic implications for public life and discourse.” And the irony – again as told by Massa – is that some of the same people who worried publicly about Kennedy’s Catholic faith got a result very different from the one they expected. In effect, “the raising of the [Catholic] issue itself went a considerable way toward ‘secularizing’ the American public square by privatizing personal belief. The very effort to ‘safeguard’ the [essentially Protestant] religious aura of the presidency . . . contributed in significant ways to its secularization.”
     Fifty years after Kennedy’s Houston speech, we have more Catholics in national public office than ever before. But I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work, or who even feel obligated to try. The life of our country is no more “Catholic” or “Christian” than it was 100 years ago. In fact it's arguably less so. And at least one of the reasons for it is this: Too many Catholics confuse their personal opinions with a real Christian conscience. Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy – the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. And too many just don't really believe. Maybe it’s different in Protestant circles. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I say, “I doubt it.”
     John Kennedy didn’t create the trends in American life that I’ve described. But at least for Catholics, his Houston speech clearly fed them. Which brings me to the second point of my talk: What would a proper Christian approach to politics look like? John Courtney Murray, the Jesuit scholar who spoke so forcefully about the dignity of American democracy and religious freedom, once wrote: “The Holy Spirit does not descend into the City of Man in the form of a dove. He comes only in the endlessly energetic spirit of justice and love that dwells in the man of the City, the layman.”⁷
     Here's what that means. Christianity is not mainly – or even significantly – about politics. It's about living and sharing the love of God. And Christian political engagement, when it happens, is never mainly the task of the clergy. That work belongs to lay believers who live most intensely in the world. Christian faith is not a set of ethics or doctrines. It's not a group of theories about social and economic justice. All these things have their place. All of them can be important. But a Christian life begins in a relationship with Jesus Christ; and it bears fruit in the justice, mercy and love we show to others because of that relationship.
     Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Mt 22:37-40). That's the test of our faith, and without a passion for Jesus Christ in our hearts that reshapes our lives, Christianity is just a word game and a legend. Relationships have consequences. A married man will commit himself to certain actions and behaviors, no matter what the cost, out of the love he bears for his wife. Our relationship with God is the same. We need to live and prove our love by our actions, not just in our personal and family lives, but also in the public square. Therefore Christians individually and the Church as a believing community engage the political order as an obligation of the Word of God. Human law teaches and forms as well as regulates; and human politics is the exercise of power – which means both have moral implications that the Christian cannot ignore and still remain faithful to his vocation as a light to the world (Mt 5:14-16).
     Robert Dodaro, the Augustinian priest and scholar, wrote a wonderful book a few years ago called Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine. In his book and elsewhere, Dodaro makes four key points about Augustine's view of Christianity and politics.⁸
     First, Augustine never really offers a political theory, and there's a reason. He doesn't believe human beings can know or create perfect justice in this world. Our judgment is always flawed by our sinfulness. Therefore, the right starting point for any Christian politics is humility, modesty and a very sober realism. Second, no political order, no matter how seemingly good, can ever constitute a just society. Errors in moral judgment can't be avoided. These errors also grow exponentially in their complexity as they move from lower to higher levels of society and governance. Therefore the Christian needs to be loyal to her nation and obedient to its legitimate rulers. But she also needs to cultivate a critical vigilance about both. Third, despite these concerns, Christians still have a duty to take part in public life according to their God-given abilities, even when their faith brings them into conflict with public authority. We can’t simply ignore or withdraw from civic affairs. The reason is simple. The classic civic virtues named by Cicero – prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance – can be renewed and elevated, to the benefit of all citizens, by the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity. Therefore, political engagement is a worthy Christian task, and public office is an honorable Christian vocation. Fourth, in governing as best they can, while conforming their lives and their judgment to the content of the Gospel, Christian leaders in public life can accomplish real good, and they can make a difference. Their success will always be limited and mixed. It will never be ideal. But with the help of God they can improve the moral quality of society, which makes the effort invaluable.
     What Augustine believes about Christian leaders, we can reasonably extend to the vocation of all Christian citizens. The skills of the Christian citizen are finally very simple: a zeal for Jesus Christ and his Church; a conscience formed in humility and rooted in Scripture and the believing community; the prudence to see which issues in public life are vital and foundational to human dignity, and which ones are not; and the courage to work for what's right. We don't cultivate these skills alone. We develop them together as Christians, in prayer, on our knees, in the presence of Jesus Christ – and also in discussions like tonight.
     Now before ending, I want to turn briefly to the third point I mentioned earlier in my talk: the realities we face today, and what Christians need to do about them. As I was preparing these comments for tonight, I listed all the urgent issues that demand our attention as believers: abortion; immigration; our obligations to the poor, the elderly and the disabled; questions of war and peace; our national confusion about sexual identity and human nature, and the attacks on marriage and family life that flow from this confusion; the growing disconnection of our science and technology from real moral reflection; the erosion of freedom of conscience in our national health-care debates; the content and quality of the schools that form our children.
     The list is long. I believe abortion is the foundational human rights issue of our lifetime. We need to do everything we can to support women in their pregnancies and to end the legal killing of unborn children. We may want to remember that the Romans had a visceral hatred for Carthage not because Carthage was a commercial rival, or because its people had a different language and customs. The Romans hated Carthage above all because its people sacrificed their infants to Ba’al. For the Romans, who themselves were a hard people, that was a unique kind of wickedness and barbarism. As a nation, we might profitably ask ourselves whom and what we’ve really been worshipping in our 40 million “legal” abortions since 1973.
     All of these issues that I’ve listed above divide our country and our Churches in a way Augustine would have found quite understandable. The City of God and the City of Man overlap in this world. Only God knows who finally belongs to which. But in the meantime, in seeking to live the Gospel we claim to believe, we find friends and brothers in unforeseen places, unlikely places; and when that happens, even a foreign place can seem like one’s home.
     The vocation of Christians in American public life does not have a Baptist or Catholic or Greek Orthodox or any other brand-specific label. John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” – which is so key to the identity of Houston Baptist University, burns just as hot in this heart, and the heart of every Catholic who truly understands his faith. Our job is to love God, preach Jesus Christ, serve and defend God’s people, and sanctify the world as his agents. To do that work, we need to be one. Not “one” in pious words or good intentions, but really one, perfectly one, in mind and heart and action, as Christ intended. This is what Jesus meant when he said, “I do not pray for these only, but also those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn17:20-21).
     We live in a country that was once – despite its sins and flaws – deeply shaped by Christian faith. It can be so again. But we will do that together, or we won’t do it at all. We need to remember the words of St. Hilary from so long ago: Unum sunt, qui invicem sunt. “They are one, who are wholly for each other.”⁹ May God grant us the grace to love each other, support each other and live wholly for each other in Jesus Christ – so that we might work together in renewing the nation that has served human freedom so well.

by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM, Cap

---

¹ Paul Johnson, “An Almost-Chosen People,” First Things, June/July 2006; adapted from his Erasmus Lecture.

² Full text of the Kennedy Houston speech is available online from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

³ John Witte, Jr., “From Establishment to Freedom of Public Religion,” Emory University School of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 04-1, 2003, p. 5.

⁴ Ibid., p. 2-3.

⁵ U.S. Catholic bishops, pastoral letter, “The Christian in Action,” No. 11, 1948; see also Nos. 12-18; reprinted in Pastoral Letters of the American Hierarchy, 1792-1970, Hugh J. Nolan, editor, Our Sunday Visitor, 1971.

⁶ Mark Massa, S.J.; quotations from Massa are from “A Catholic for President? John F. Kennedy and the ‘Secular’ Theology of the Houston Speech, 1960,” Journal of Church and State, Spring 1997.

⁷ John Courtney Murray, S.J., “The Role of Faith in the Renovation of the World,” 1948; Murray’s works are available online from the Woodstock Theological Center Library.

⁸ Robert Dodaro, O.S.A.; see private correspondence with speaker, along with Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine, Cambridge University Press, 2008 (first published in 2004), and “Ecclesia and Res Publica: How Augustinian Are Neo-Augustinian Politics?,” collected in Augustine and Post-Modern Thought: A New Alliance Against Modernity?, Peeters, editor, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium , 2009.

⁹ Referenced in Murray, “The Construction of a Christian Culture;” essay originally delivered as three talks in 1940, available online as noted above.

12:41 PM 3/2/2010 — Last week, you’ll recall, we ended on the note that the Great Fast was a time to “man up,” as I put it; the meaning being that, instead of brooding about our sins and vacillating about whether to or when to go to confession, we should just do it; especially, as the account of our Lord’s meeting with Nathaniel teaches us, he’s sees everything in our hearts anyway. Today, faced with the Gospel of the Palsied Man, we can look once again into our Lord’s words, and see very a striking allegory of the same message.
     In previous years on this Sunday, I had spoken to you about the conduct of the palsied man’s friends: how, when they couldn’t get into the house where Jesus was, instead of blaming our Lord for not being acceptable enough, they looked into themselves and found a way to reach our Lord, performing the gymnastic feat described in the passage. The lesson then was that the grace we need from our Lord to better ourselves and free ourselves from sin may not come easily or without effort on our part, but is there for taking none the less; that sufficient grace to do the right thing is always there: maybe not without pain, maybe not without some sacrifice, maybe not in the manner in which we may prefer; but it is always there.¹
     Today I wish to look at a different aspect of this Gospel, which continues the message I had shared with you last week; and it comes from the last two sentences of the passage. Keep in mind that, whenever our Lord performs a cure, it isn’t just a physical malady he’s dealing with, but the spiritual illness as well. When he says to the palsied man, “Stand up...and go your way,” it’s more than just a command to get off the floor.
     Some of the most frustrating confessions you hear as a priest come from people in a very emotional state. They will blubber and snivel over how bad they feel about whatever it is they think they’ve done; and, of course, you have to be very kind and consoling and let them go through what they have to go through because those feelings are genuine. But it is hard sometimes to resist the temptation to reach through the screen and grab them by the scruff of the neck and just say, “Get over it! You’ve confessed it, and it’s done. Why are you torturing yourself?” And I end up giving them a very light, almost meaningless penance since, if they’re going to insist on brooding about it, they’ve already imposed on themselves a penance far worse than anything I could give them.
     Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m just not an emotional person, so I have a hard time relating. And maybe I’m reading too much into our Lord’s words; though I do tend to view every word spoken by our Lord as profound. In any case, having witnessed everything the palsied man and his friends went through just that day,—and certainly mindful of the hard life the palsied man himself has lived up to that point—our Lord, having cured him, looks at him and says, “Stand up!” Don’t just lie there waiting for an emotional resolution to everything that has brought you to this wonderful day of forgiveness. Get up, get out, and get on with it.
     And as peculiar as it sounds, I think that this, as well, could be a good point of meditation for us during the Great Fast, especially for those who are mustering the courage to go to confession after many years. Remember two years ago during Philip’s Fast, when we discussed some of the reasons people like to give themselves for not going to confession.² We all have a tendency to make life harder than it needs to be. And that’s why I believe that what we discussed last week can be a good resolution for some of us during this holy season: to just “man up” and do what needs to be done.³

by Father Michael Venditti

---

¹ See last year's post, "Prayer is not payment for services to be rendered."

² See the posts from 2008 entitled "Confession, part 3: There's no such thing as forgiveness without confession" and "Confession, part 4: Don't be a moron."

³ The icon shown above is Maronite in origin, hence the inscription in three langauges: Greek (reflecting the original language of Eastern Christianity), Aramaic (that hybrid of Hebrew and Greek which was the language spoken by our Lord, and which remains the primary Liturgical language of the Maronite Catholic Church) and Arabic (the vernacular langauge of most Maronite Catholics).
     By contrast, the fresco shown at right, depicting the same scene, is the oldest image of Christ ever discovered. The painting was found in 1921 on the left-hand wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria. It is now part of the Dura Europos collection at the Yale University Gallery of Fine Arts.
     On the right, the paralytic is on his bed. At the center on the top, Christ points in a commanding way to the paralytic, saying, "That you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins: rise up, take up your bed and walk." On the left, the man takes his bed and walks away. The right-to-left scheme is typical of icons written in cultures where the language is read from that direction. To the right of this scene, out of view of this picture, Christ is stretching his arm out to Peter, saving him from the waves of the sea. These Gospel accounts are appropriate for a baptismal chamber, in that they represent the forgiveness of sins.
     The figure of Jesus in this fresco, the oldest picture of our Lord ever discovered, sharply contrasts with more modern images of our Lord in that it shows him as a young, manly intellectual, with close-cropped hair and clean shaven face. Images of the Savior with a beard do not occur until the 4th Century, and then only occasionally. It would not be until the middle ages when pictures of Christ with long flowing hair and beard—not to mention a more "womanly" appearance—would become typical.

10:01 AM 2/26/2010 —

[A portent of things to come? Jeannie DeAngelis writes for the American Thinker; the original of her article is linked below. I especially liked the analogy explaining why politicians won't have to wait in line or accept sub-standard care. They're like the banks in the bailout: too big to fail. As for the rest of us, well.... —PP]

Danny Williams, esteemed premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, left the Canadian health care system far behind to receive minimally invasive mitral valve heart surgery in the United States. The people of America should send Mr. Williams a combination get well/thank you card for inadvertently divulging how politicians, regardless of country of origin, view themselves in relation to those they govern.
     Newfoundland and Labrador may be considered the "Far East of the Western World, renowned for friendly people, marine wildlife and stunning seacoasts." Of late, thanks to Danny Williams, the scenic region has also become notorious for long medical wait times and archaic cardiac surgery.
     That may be why Newfoundland and Labrador's premier chose to forgo Canada's government Medical Care Plan, pay out of pocket, and head south of the border to place his life in an American heart surgeon's care. Premier Williams was well "aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but concluded personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision." In defense of Williams, Newfoundland and Labrador's deputy premier Katy Dunderdale said, "He's doing what's best for him."
     Canadian critics expressed their sentiments toward Williams' decision. One person, in a post to the Globe and Mail website, railed, "Gee, it must be nice to be able to afford to bypass Canada's crappy health-care system and its dangerously long waiting lists for surgery. Some people are more special than others I guess?" Williams claimed that the surgery he needed was unavailable in Canada and defended his choice to obtain what prisoners of public health care systems never have access to.
     In an attempt to quell controversy, Williams tried to put Newfoundlanders at ease with reassuring words, saying, "We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation." This is true...unless, of course, one is independently wealthy like Danny Williams and in need of "a very specialized piece of surgery." In that case, going to Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami to see cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Joseph Lamelas is a much better option. In fact, entrepreneurial companies in Newfoundland sponsor medical tours to the United States for procedures like mitral valve surgery.
     Consummate politicians touting socialized medicine are an interesting phenomenon because typically, when it comes to personal well-being, they always choose the finest private care. Champion of the public option Ted Kennedy did, as does the always-vigorously virile Bill Clinton. When in need of emergency care, neither politician subjected his major organs to anything but the optimum attention only American doctors can provide.
     In an interview with the Canadian Press, Williams said, "This was my heart, my choice and my health. I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics." Yet politicians pushing socialized health care are the ones responsible for depriving the people they govern of obtaining what they demand for themselves.
     In the next few years, if Barack Obama manages to implement his sweeping vision for government run health care, Williams' words about politicians "not signing away rights" may very well become a mantra in defense of elitists receiving care far superior to the general population's. Why? Because legislative changes do not affect the powerful. Regardless of Obama's proposed measures, Washington's privileged will retain a better-quality benefit package at taxpayers' expense, while those financing the plan will be herded toward substandard care.
     Mr. Williams argued that he "wanted to get in, get out fast, and get back to work in a short period of time," maintaining unselfish motives as a public servant drew him to the United States for surgery. If given the opportunity, recipients of Washington Cadillac plans will likely employ Williams' explanation to justify health care inequity by using the "banks are too big to fail" excuse. Like banks, American congressmen in need of heart surgery and senators with a diagnosis of glioblastoma are just too big to be denied the finest medical care America has to offer.
     Williams' eloquently articulated concern about maintaining "fairness" provides Washington Democrats further cues, if need be, to defend exclusive dispensation. Danny Williams stated that one reason he came to America for minimally invasive heart surgery was not merely to circumvent the Canadian option of having his sternum cracked open to access his heart, but to avoid being unfairly perceived as "jumping a line or a wait list." Newfoundland and Labrador's premier, while recuperating comfortably in his Sarasota, Florida condominium, can rest in the knowledge that equality prevailed when he received the specialized care denied the people he governs.
     After having successful surgery and in true elected official manner, the recovering mitral valve heart patient reiterated that the decision to travel to Miami for enhanced health care "did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province's health care system." Premier Danny Williams said, "I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people."
     Williams citing the sparsely populated province's five hundred thousand inhabitants as a barrier to his ability to obtain adequate health care is a concern that a nation of three hundred million people should seriously consider whenever President Obama insists that health care reform changes nothing.
     If the president gets his way, Americans needing surgery may have to follow Premier Danny Williams' lead. For the first time ever, those fearing death at the hands of Obama health care reform may be forced to cross the border into Mexico.

by Jeannie DeAngelis at The American Thinker

2:15 PM 2/21/2010 — The liturgical celebration of the First Sunday of the Great Fast has gone through an evolution over the centuries; and we've spoken about that in years past. Originally it was a commemoration of the Old Testament prophesies concerning our Lord; hence Philip telling Nathaniel, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote...." Then, following the iconoclastic controversy, the focus of this Sunday changed, and became a celebration of the restoration of the veneration of icons throughout the Church; hence it's still popular title, "The Sunday of Orthodoxy" or "The Sunday of the True Faith." But, as you know from years past, I always like to focus on this meeting of our Lord with Nathaniel.
     And, again, as we’ve discussed in the past, what’s interesting about it is the fact that Jesus is able to see into Nathaniel’s heart, and is able to declare him free of animosity: “There is an Israelite in who there is no guile”; which dovetails nicely with our Lord’s warning at the end of last week’s Gospel: “If you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you.”
     The season of the Great Fast is a time for looking into our hearts; but, more important than that, it is a time for realizing that someone else is looking into our hearts, and that person is Christ. We have no privacy from Christ; we can’t hide anything from him. View your heart and your mind like they were your personal computer. You can update your anti-virus software and make sure your fire-wall is working properly; but you can’t keep out Christ. He sees everything that’s in there, even things long since buried and forgotten by you.
     It’s funny how we are able to rationalize the evil we do. If it’s the case of an habitual sin, we sometimes become so comfortable with it that it becomes a part of us; then we either declare ourselves a slave to it and give up trying to deal with it, or, what’s more common I think, we cease to believe that it’s a sin at all. In the case of a one time indiscretion, once we realize that we’ve escaped any pragmatic consequences of our actions, we let it pass from memory.
     But sin is like a kind of cancer that starts at a place in your body where you can’t feel it. It eats away at your soul without you realizing it. Maybe you’re a little irritable, maybe not sleeping well, maybe a little depressed and can’t figure out why; but then, also, maybe not. And the descent into moral relativism is so gradual that you don’t recognize that it’s happening; and before you know it you’ve reach a point in your life where your religion and your faith just don’t seem as important as they did before. The simple acts of practicing the faith—going to church, saying your prayers, keeping the fasts—have suddenly become burdensome; and you shrug off the little pang of guilt you feel from time to time, and chalk it up to having a bad day.
     About four or five months ago I started to have pain in my mouth. And I know exactly what it is: a tooth has been cracked and the nerve is exposed. The same thing happened about 20 years ago, and the solution was a root canal. But I don’t want a root canal; so, I chew on the other side of my mouth, I don’t drink anything cold; and if it hurts I take an Advil. But I can’t do that forever. I know it’s only going to get worse; so, why don’t I just man-up and march into the dentist’s office and say, “I cracked a tooth?” you may ask. Well, probably for the same reason that many of us won’t just march into the confessional and say, “Father, I haven’t been to confession in 20 years.” It’s onerous; it’s uncomfortable; it’s unpleasant, even though we all know we’re much better off if we do it. And, for some of us, this may the best way to view the Great Fast: as a time for us to take stock, be honest with ourselves about where we’ve been and where we’re headed, and to just man-up and do what needs to be done.¹

by Father Michael Venditti

---

¹ Homilies during the Great Fast are typically shorter due to the length of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. —PP

2:31 PM 2/20/2010 — This is going to be one of those annoying posts where you have to read through a whole bunch of background material before you get to the punchline—unless you just skip to the bottom; but all seven of my readers are people of integrity whom I know would never do that.
     2007 was an active year for Priestly Pugilist on the stem cell front. Michael J. Fox was pulling everyone’s heart strings trying to convince them that he needed more dead babies to stop shaking so much; and your PP had a bunch of posts on the subject—which he is now going to repeat because he knows darn well you won’t go back and search for them. Besides, it'll give you an idea of how acerbic your PP was in those days.

1:29 PM 2/20/2010 —

[Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Washington, has been featured here before (cf. Dusting off the manual on excommunication). He's proven himself a man who pulls no punches in his words. So are a lot of people now days. But now he's proven he's prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
     While other bishops are squirming and bobing and weaving to try to avoid clashing with local and state governments over new laws that require hospitals to provide immoral "health services" (like killing babies and rendering people sterile), performing all manner of legal and canonical gymnastics to avoid confrontation at all costs (even at the cost of human life), Bishop Vasa has decided enough is enough. When St. Charles Medical Center in Bend, Washington (founded by the Sisters of St. Joseph), started drifting away from the teaching of the Church, Bishop Vasa just...well...let it go: pulling out the chaplains, closing down the chapel, removing the Blessed Eucharist, and announcing to the faithful of his diocese that St. Charles is no longer a Catholic hospital.
     What your PP finds interesting about this incident is that it is such a clear departure from the paralysis of most men who become bishops, particularly when faced with the choice of alienating a rather large chuck of property from church control. The patern, up until now, has been to do whatever is necessary to “find a way” to work things out. The result, of course, is a compromise which may technically keep the hands of the Church out of immoral activities, but which gives scandal to the faithful nontheless by tacitly approving of the immoral acts.
     Case in point: Some years ago, when your PP was serving as a priest in another diocese, the bishop of the place “struck a deal” regarding his large diocesan medical center by which people who “needed” abortions would go across the street to a facility that was not owned by the diocese and legally separate from the corporation of the hospital. The scandal, of course, came from the fact that the bishop was OK with the abortions so long as the diocese was not performing them. How disappointed he must have been when the Holy See finally stepped in and put an end to the arangement for him.
     Read Bishop Vasa’s statement carefully, especially the last sentence. This is a man who believes! What was it our Lord said? "Feed my sheep!" —PP]

In the course of the past several weeks I have focused on what it means for individuals and institutions to be Catholic. I have done this, in part, because of a concern about Catholic colleges and hospitals in general but also, in part, because of very specific discussions I have been having with the administration of St. Charles Medical Center, a Catholic health care institution, in Bend. Over the course of the past several years I have struggled with the difficulty of trying to reconcile some practices ongoing at the medical center with clear Church teaching. In January I wrote: "It is not uncommon for faithful Catholics to question the Catholicity of these public institutions especially when they seem to be expressing and holding public views which are, or strongly appear to be, contrary to the clear teachings of the Church. At what point are these institutions no longer 'in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth?'" I have come to the very difficult conclusion, after much discussion and discernment, that it is time to acknowledge that which has become very clear to me, namely, that St. Charles is a community hospital and should no longer be identified as a Catholic institution.
     A little history: In the 1970s St. Charles became a community nonprofit organization with the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Tipton, Indiana as the Catholic Sponsors. In 1992 an Association of the Christian Faithful was established with the specific goal of “preserving the unique Catholic character of St. Charles.” This was done because the Sisters determined that they could no longer provide Catholic Sponsorship. Most notable among the Sisters was Sister Kathryn Hellmann, who personally oversaw the progress of St. Charles for many years. In 1992, the Sisters transferred control of the hospital to the board of directors and the Sisters were instrumental in helping establish the Association of the Christian Faithful as the vehicle by which the hospital’s Catholic sponsorship could be maintained.
     A specific part of the role of the Association of the Christian Faithful was to assure that there was a clear adherence to both Catholic principles and approved Catholic practices at St. Charles. These specific practices, as well as a summary of the principles, are contained in a document published by the Catholic Bishops of the United Sates titled: “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” (ERDs). The adopted statutes of the Association of the Christian Faithful, however, did not allow sufficient control over the implementation of the directives at St. Charles and thus the association had no real means of insisting upon adherence to the ERDs. Consequently, the ERDs were viewed as “guidelines” or “suggestions” and compliance with them was understood by the board as both voluntary and optional.
     In 2007 the diocese was presented with a report on the level of compliance with the ERDs and that report indicated that there were a couple of areas of grave concern. While the commitment to adhering to Catholic principles was clearly present the same could not be said about adherence to or avoidance of certain immoral medical practices.
     I have noted elsewhere that while adherence to the principles in a general way is commendable, that alone does not identify an Institution as Catholic. There must also be an adherence to those practices which are also a part of what it means to be a Catholic institution. Sadly, after having functioned in a particular way for a large number of years the board did not see how it could now align the medical practices of the hospital with the ERDs to a degree that would justify an ongoing sponsorship relationship between the Diocese of Baker and St. Charles.
     As bishop, I am responsible for attesting to the full Catholicity of the hospitals in my diocese, a responsibility I take very seriously, and I have reached the conclusion that I can no longer attest to the Catholicity of St. Charles. The board is responsible for the operation of the medical center and for its compliance with the ethical guidelines it deems suitable for St. Charles. The question the board faced was whether it could alter its present practices to the degree required for continued identification as “Catholic.” It was the board’s determination that it could not meet that standard.
     I see before me two distressing options. I must either condone all that is being done at St. Charles and its affiliates by continuing a sponsorship relationship or I must recognize that those practices are absolutely contrary to the ERDs and distance myself from them. It would be misleading to the faithful for me to allow St. Charles to be acknowledged as Catholic in name while, at the same time, being morally certain that some significant tenets of the ERDs are no longer being observed there.
     This is not a condemnation of St. Charles. It is a sadly acknowledged reality.
     I believe the board has acted in good faith over the years because of its understanding that the ERDs were voluntary. The diocese has always presumed full compliance with a proper interpretation of the ERDs until the revelations of the 2007 report.
     St. Charles has gradually moved away from adherence to the requirements of the Church without recognizing a major possible consequence of doing so. That consequence is a loss of Catholic sponsorship. Since I see no possibility of St. Charles returning to full compliance with the ERDs and since such full compliance with the ERDs is essential to “Catholic Status,” St. Charles will now be considered solely as a community nonprofit organization, not a Catholic one.
     In practical terms there should be very little change in how St. Charles presently functions. One major shift will be the absence of the Blessed Sacrament at the hospital. The chapel will no longer be a Catholic chapel and Mass will no longer be celebrated there. In our secular culture most do not recognize the extreme grace of our Lord’s Real Presence but I suspect his absence from the chapel will be deeply felt.

Most Rev. Robert Vasa, Bishop of Baker

3:10 PM 2/16/2010 — Your PP has found what he believes to be the quintessential definition of a religious liberal, though the man who wrote it clearly didn't intend it for that purpose. It's from Robert Musil's epic, three-volume novel, The Man Without Qualities (1930-42; German: Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften), a disturbing story of personal moral decay set during the last days of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy:

He is a man without qualities. [...] There are millions of them nowadays. [...] What he thinks of anything will always depend on some possible context—nothing is, to him, what it is; everything is subject to change, in flux, part of a whole, of an infinite number of wholes presumably adding up to a superwhole that, however, he knows nothing about. So every answer he gives is only a partial answer, every feeling only an opinion; and he never cares what something is, only “how” it is.

by Priestly Pugilist

9:22 AM 2/16/2010 — Watching the Olympics? I'm not, but someone I know is: "Boy, those Chinese skaters are good, aren't they? And look how happy they are! Communism can't be that bad." And this is from someone who knows your PP well. Go figure. I attribute it to nothing more than the fact that whenever people turn on the televisions, their brains shut down temporarily. Well, I'm trying to be generous in my judgements during Lent.
     Besides, in celebration of the Lunar New Year, the CPR (Chinese Peoples' Republic—that's the new-wave way to say it) has given us all a new year's gift: they're going to keep Bishop Julius Jia Zhiguo sequestered, along with two other troublemaking prelates, so they can't ruin our new year's celebration for us. And—let's be frank—few things can ruin a good new year's bash than a successor of the Apostles telling everyone not to drink too much.
     Bishop Jia was arrested back in March 2009. Oddly enough, the Holy See lodged a protest, which is uncharacteristic of the Vatican, which likes to pretend the underground Church doesn't exist on the grounds that it helps to keep "dialog" alive. Of course, one could argue that the Holy See had no choice this time, since Bishop Jia was arrested right in front of them, during a closed-door meeting between the Vatican's Commission on China and the government's Bureau of Religious Affairs.
     Julius Jia Zhiguo, the Bishop of Zhengding in Hebei province, comes from a large family (another China "no no"): his nephew is a priest of the same diocese. The Vicar General, Fr. Hu Baoguo, and another priest, Fr. Ma Hong'en, were arrested with him, but were released on January 6th of this year. They report that the bishop is being allowed to offer Mass privately;—you see, the government isn't so bad after all—but, at the age of 74, and suffering from "health problems" stemming from past imprisonments, they fear this last incarceration may be fatal. Meanwhile, police have occupied the Cathedral just to make sure...oh, I don't know...that all the services begin on time and the altar boys are properly vested(?).
     The CPR has reason to fear a free Bishop Jia. It seems that, prior to his arrest, the Bishop of Shijiazhuang in Hebei province, the government-approved CPA (Catholic Patriotic Association) diocese for the same region, Bishop Jang Taoran, secretly reconciled with the Holy See after several clandestine meetings with Bishop Jia, and had worked out an arrangement by which Jang would renounce his pretended, government-approved diocese and secretly become Bishop Jia's auxiliary. The two met several times to work out a pastoral plan, unaware that the government had them both under police surveillance 24 hours a day (so it seems the government doesn't trust it's own bishops, either). But, as I keep saying, the government isn't all that bad: prior to arresting him, the government told Bishop Jia that they weren't opposed to unity between the two dioceses at all, but that they thought the roles should be reversed, with Bishop Jia joining the CPA. After all, a government communique said, unity outside the CPA was something desired by a "foreign power" threatening China's security. Yeah. A real power, that Vatican City State! I'll bet they have all their missiles targeted on the Forbidden City as we speak.
     The silver lining in this cloud is that, for the first time in years, the Holy See has been forced to recognize that Rodney King doesn't live in China, and that everyone isn't just getting along. Not long ago your PP fired an angry e-mail at the webmaster of a semi-official site that monitors every appointment regarding every diocese in the Catholic Church, demanding to know why every legitimate diocese in China is listed on that site as being "vacant." The bishops may be old, and they may be sick, and some of them are in prison; but their dioceses are by no means vacant! His reply: that he had been advised by the Holy See itself to avoid listing anything at all in China. To be fair, he doesn't list any CPA dioceses, either; and one can charitably presume—at least I choose to do so—that the reticence to list anything their is motivated by the desire to protect the clerics involved. After all, when one is running an underground anything, it's important to keep it...well...underground. That doesn't explain the failure of the Holy See to say anyting at all about the passing of Bishop Leo Yao Liang (cf. The old Lion has passed, and we are all less for it) or even publish an obituary on the Vatican web site—after all, he's dead, and there's no one to protect.
     Well, as President Obama once said, this is all above my pay grade; and, since no one in authority is asking my opinion, there's nothing more to be said. If memory serves, Obama also reminded us how wonderful China was because the trains all run on time and the bridges aren't falling down (not to mention that one-child policy which just has to be near and dear the president's heart). I owe my vocation, in part, to a Chinese layman; so, I think China is wonderful, too. Somehow, however, I don't think Mr. Obama is anxious to join me is wishing the real Church in China a Happy New Year.

by Priestly Pugilist

5:44 PM 2/15/2010 — I confess that today’s homily is the same that I have preached for every Cheesefare Sunday since I’ve been here. The day after Cheesefare is, as you know, the first day of the Great Fast; and I simply haven’t found a better way to say what needs to be said.
     When I was younger, I had an inkling to try my hand at the monastic life. I had tried my hand at the seminary once and it didn’t work out, so I thought I would escape from it all into the seclusion of a Carthusian monastery. Now, the Carthusians, founded by St. Bruno in the 11th century in France, are probably the strictest order of monks in the world; and I went to their place in Vermont for a month long stay to look them over and let them look at me. And one of the things I did while I was there was to read the rule of life that St. Bruno wrote for them in the year 1050. And it struck me that every aspect of that rule is focused on this idea that we are here to please God and no one else. And he even addresses the idea that we have to presume this about everyone else, not just ourselves. For example, there’s a passage in the rule where he says that if you observe a brother doing something you were told was wrong, whatever it may be—whether it’s conversing with a woman, or entering a shop, or eating something forbidden on a fast day, or doing anything that is ordinarily forbidden—always assume he has permission; this way, you will never sin by judging another unjustly.
     I never forgot that, and have often speculated how much anxiety we could eliminate from our lives if we could only find a way to live that principle in all our lives. Of course, we have no control over the spiritual lives of others;—except perhaps by example—but we do have control over our own; but even that can be a hard sell, sometimes. How often have we heard a sermon or read something that strikes a chord in us, and our first thought is to apply it to someone else? How many times have we heard the priest say something about how to behave and the first thing that pops into our heads is, “I sure hope so-and-so heard that”?
     This principle of doing the right thing to please God and not caring whether anyone else understands—or even if they misunderstand—is addressed very directly in that section of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans we just heard; but it is also presented to us in the today’s Gospel in a veiled way—in a way that requires us to look deeply into the meaning of our Lord’s words. He says, "When you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matthew 6:16,17). What St. Bruno understood, and what we have to understand as well, is that by fasting our Lord is not simply speaking of abstaining from food for spiritual reasons; fasting here is interpreted as anything that we do that pleases God, even if it is not understood by anyone else. And when we realize that, all of a sudden we see that this has not to do simply with personal acts of mortification, like giving up food, but with everything that touches on our relationship with one another. A person who consistently does what is right in his daily life will end up disappointing more people than he pleases in this life, if he is truly doing what is right. Sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that what is pleasing to others is what is right. And that’s almost never the case. If it were, life would be a breeze; but we know it isn’t.
     And that is, in fact, the reason that this Sunday, Cheesefare Sunday, is sometimes referred to as the Sunday of Forgiveness; for on this Sunday we are seeking forgiveness, not just from God, but also from one another. Because if we are true to the spirit of Lent, and make a serious effort to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ in those areas where we had not been before, we’re going to be disappointing someone somewhere, because we will be living to please God and not each other. So we begin Lent by recognizing that those around us will no longer be existing to make us happy; that not only should we now start to do what is pleasing to God, but that we should give the other people in our lives the freedom to do the same, and stop expecting everything they do to meet with our approval.
     It is a twisted fact of human nature that the people who set the highest standards for themselves are the most miserable because no one around them lives up to their expectations. And it’s not simply a matter of excepting the failures of others—that’s too easy a rationalization—because it may not be a failure at all: the standards by which we think everyone should live may not apply to someone else because we don’t know the circumstances of that person’s life. Even if we were to completely eliminate personal sin from our lives, it would mean little if we still stood in judgment over someone else, or allowed someone else to be held accountable for making us happy. It’s like our Lord says in the very first sentence of today’s Gospel: "If you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive yours" (Matthew 6:15).
     Now, that raises a question: does this not put us on the track of becoming moral relativists? After all, right and wrong are determined by God, not by us; so, how do we “forgive” (to use our Lord’s own word) someone whose life or actions departs from the Gospel of Jesus Christ? And here’s where the other Liturgical texts for this day are instructive. They focus us to contemplate God’s supreme act of judgment upon man: the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. The sin of Adam was the sin of wanting to be God. How does the Serpent in Genesis describe the "apple" to Eve?¹ "The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil." Eat it, and you become the one who decides what's right and wrong. And that sin is repeated in each one of us every time we set aside God’s law and decide for ourselves what’s right and wrong. That’s why it’s called the “Original Sin,” because all sin stems from it. And man paid a penalty, as the Book of Genesis tells us: our food and livelihood are no longer supplied by God, but by the sweat of our brow; the nakedness of our bodies ceases to be a thing of beauty and becames a source of temptation; even the pain of a woman in childbirth, Genesis tells us, is the result of that one first sin. So terrible is that sin—usurping the authority of God and deciding for ourselves the difference between right and wrong—that its effects are passed on through every generation.
     And, yet, in spite of this, God still judged man worth saving: he loved his creation so much that, instead of allowing man to suffer the price for that sin, he became a man himself and suffered it for us. That’s why on the Sunday’s of the Great Fast we celebrate the Liturgy of St. Basil. We groan about it every year and tell each other it’s much too long; but its anaphora recounts the history of our salvation, from the fall of Adam to the Passion of Our Lord, reminding us that God, instead of simply forgiving us—which would have obfuscated the very concept of his justice—choose instead to become one of us and pay the penalty of death himself. If God has chosen to do that, then how can we continue to harbor ill thoughts against another whose wrong against us is so petty in comparison?
     So, as we prepare for the beginning of the Great Fast, I would recommend the following exercise, which I seem to recommend every year and will continue to do so: count the number of people in your life that you will have nothing to do with—because they once did something to hurt you and never asked forgiveness, or because you don’t like their personality, or because they’re not living the way you think they should, or maybe because you just don’t like the looks of them—count them, and realize that that’s the extent to which you have made yourself unworthy of what God has done for you. And if, by the end of Lent, you can succeed in lowering that number, that’s the extent to which you have become more pleasing to God than you were before.

by Father Michael Venditti

---

¹ It should be noted that the word "apple" never appears in the Book of Genesis, in spite of the fact that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been frequently depicted as such in popular art. As stated, the fruit, which plays an important role in the Genesis parable, represents man's desire to usurp the authority of God in determining moral good from moral evil: an authority that man, as a creature of God, does not possess. Thus, the act of disobedience is, in actuallity, man's rejection of his Creator; and one cannot reject the Creator without rejecting his own existence, with the understanding that creation, far from being a "one time" historical event, is a continual act; i.e., the creature continues to exist because the Creator is contstantly willing his existence. The existential outcome of this is for man to cease to exist the instant he rejects his Creator; a logical eventually which God nullifies by becoming man in the person of Jesus and suffering the logical penalty of death himself.
     For those Protestants who ascribe a literal meaning to the Genesis parable, this entire book of the Bible looses it's meaning; and the "apple"—or whatever kind of fruit they think it is—represents nothing more than an arbitrary prohibition by God which man disobeys, and not the symbolic representation which explains concupiscense and man's fallen nature.

12:25 AM 2/12/2010 —

[Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster). His column appeared on InsideCatholic.com, dated Feb. 11th. —PP]

Over 750 "tea parties" were held on April 15 of last year, protesting the excesses of the Obama administration—in particular, the pork-stuffed stimulus bill. Initially, the mainstream media tried to ignore the movement. They downplayed its size and influence, until the steady slide of President Obama's popularity, the growing opposition to Congress's health-care reform proposals, and Republican victories in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts forced them to acknowledge its influence.
     Since then, the media strategy has been to portray the tea party as a gathering of disgruntled extremists, in spite of the fact that the limits on government spending they advocate would have been considered common sense in both political parties only a decade ago.
     For American Catholics, the equivalent of centralized federal power is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The USCCB, the kind of episcopal conference authorized by Vatican II, has no canonical authority of its own. But its voice is considered authoritative by the media, and it is treated as such by those who applaud its lobbying efforts in Congress and the White House.
     Criticism of the USCCB among lay Catholics, as well as many priests and bishops, has been a constant since its march to the political left in the years after its creation in 1966. Pastoral letters, including the ones on the economy (1986) and war and peace (1983), created a clear line of demarcation between the liberal politics of the conference (aligned with the Democratic Party) and the Catholics, both lay and religious, who interpreted the Church's social teaching differently (in a way inclining them toward conservatism and the GOP.)
     The pro-life advocacy of the conference, along with its opposition to same-sex marriage, has always set it apart from other politically liberal institutions. Unfortunately, the USCCB's choice of coalition partners and memberships often threaten to undermine the clarity of its witness.
     Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the series of reports from the Reform CCHD Now Coalition. These reports show two things clearly:

1. Bishops have given Catholic money to organizations advocating abortion and same-sex marriage (two such organizations were defunded last November).

2. The bishops have joined coalitions, like the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, that also advocate abortion and same-sex marriage.

     These reports differ from previous attempts to address the politics of the USCCB in two ways: First, their Internet links allow anyone to read the various smoking guns unearthed by the research. The second factor is timing—the reports come after both the 2008 presidential election and the furor surrounding Notre Dame's decision to bestow an honor on a pro-abortion president.
     The Notre Dame incident brought home to thousands of Catholics, in a way they had never understood before, that many venerable mainstream Catholic institutions were strongholds of dissent.
     Yet the Notre Dame story might not have gone so far if many Catholics were not already furious with the role a bishops' document played in the election of Barack Obama in the first place. The 2007 version of the bishops' "Faithful Citizenship" document, prepared in advance for distribution for the 2008 election, contained several passages that, if taken out of context, gave the green light to Catholic voters to ignore Obama's aggressively pro-abortion stance. (Obama won the self-identified Catholic vote over Sen. John McCain 54 percent to 44 percent, though among religiously active Catholics he lost by 1 percentage point.) That document did not emerge from the USCCB without a fight—a number of bishops opposed it; I am told that Archbishop Raymond Burke, then still in St. Louis, was literally shouted down when he tried to explain his opposition to the problematic passages. The best any bishop has been able to say to me regarding "Faithful Citizenship" is that "it was difficult, it was a compromise." But such compromises are brewing a tempest for a potential tea party revolution among the faithful. In some ways, the very notion of a tea party goes against the grain for Catholics, with their inbred sense of deference to authority. Those same Catholics, however, are beginning to realize that there are some matters where they can speak out without acting in disobedience to the authority of their bishop. In response to my recent story on the USCCB's membership in a pro-abortion civil rights organization, a Notre Dame alumnus from the class of 1965 sent me this message: "Is it time for us to start throwing tea bags at the USCCB?" This is a man who, ten years ago, would not tolerate a word uttered against either Notre Dame or the bishops. The times may be changing.

by Deal W. Hudson

12:06 PM 2/9/2010 — This period called the Triodion, during which we ease ourselves into the rigors of Lent, can be mysterious for those not familiar with it. This year, I was on vacation when the Triodion began; so, I didn’t have the opportunity to discuss it with you; but, you might recall that last year I attempted to explain for you the theory behind this ancient practice we call the Lenten Triodion—a preparation for the preparation, I called it—in which we ease ourselves into a both a spirit and a practice of self-denial. The week of Meatfare, through which we just passed and which culminates on this day we call Meatfare Sunday, is part of it. It was—and is for those who keep to the Traditional Fast—the last day until Easter on which meat was eaten.
     To our ancestors in the faith, this all made perfect sense. The spiritual children of Cyril and Methodius lived an agrarian life where the winters were long and harsh. There wasn’t a lot of hard manual labor that could be done; so, it wasn’t difficult for them to turn their minds and hearts to spiritual things. The Great Fast—or Lent, whichever you choose to call it—was not simply a token symbol which recalled something that happened in the Early Church in a more concrete way; the tradition of the Church is alive and dynamic, as contradictory as that may sound. It is not something to be recalled and remembered; it is something to be lived.
     Of course, even with the best of intentions, our circumstances are different today. Our winters may still be long and harsh;—at least from our perspective—but life goes on no matter how much snow falls or how impossible the frozen soil is to turn. We have to get up, we have to go to work, we have to cook the food, we have to clean the house, we have to yell at the kids, we have to yell at our spouse, we have to do all the things we normally do. We are not naturally drawn by the season to retreat into ourselves and contemplate the things of God more. ...Which, when you think about, makes these traditions of which we’ve been speaking even more important today.
     These weeks before Lent, especially Meatfare and Cheesefare, call us to focus on very concrete things for a reason. Jesus didn’t just sit down and think about what it would be like to fast for forty days in the desert, and then contemplate how that might change him; he actually went there and actually fasted. If my Lent consists of: “I’ll give up desserts; I’ll cut an hour of my TV time; I’ll say an ten extra minutes of prayers each night....” That’s wonderful; but it’s not Lent, because it’s all just symbolic. A symbol—whether it be a picture or a word or a symoblic act—no matter how meaningful it may be, is still just a ghost. If it has no substance, it cannot change me concretely. But if my Lent is not just a symbol—if it is something which I allow to completely reorient my life, turning me away from the things of this world toward the things of God to the extent that my state if life permits—then, over the course of a lifetime of Lents, it can make the difference between heaven and hell. And that—at the risk of sounding amusingly tempered—is not insignificant.
     Which brings us to the Liturgical texts for the Sunday of Meatfare: the Troparia of the Divine Liturgy, the chants of Vespers, and especially the Holy Gospel in which Jesus describes allegorically Terrible Judgment. It shocks us to read it, because we want to think of Jesus as this lily white quiet sort of man, who never gets angry, who always understands and who never requires anything;—like a schmaltzy painting on black felt—and here he is talking in graphic detail about the punishments that await those who do not repent. It probably isn’t far off the mark to presume a program to the course of the Triodion Gospels: The Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee showed us the efficaciousness of admitting our sins; the Sunday of the Prodigal Son showed us the willingness of God to forgive no matter what; but, just in case there’s somebody out there who isn’t getting the message, here’s what happens to you if you weren’t paying attention.
     What’s important to remember is that, in the parable which the Lord tells us today, those who are damned are not sent to hell by God; they send themselves there by their actions, or, in this case, their lack of action: “When I was thirsty you gave me no drink.” And then they’re so surprised in the end to find out that someone actually was going to hold them accountable. And those who are saved are shown mercy precisely because they were the ones who showed mercy to others: “Whatever you did for the least of my brothers you did for me.”
     In contemplating the last judgment, we are led to hope for mercy if we have been faithful and merciful ourselves. Our Lord is merciful in the highest degree, but He is also just; and His judgment is grounded in the truth: the truth about Who He is, who we are, what we’ve done with our lives and what we have yet to do. If, when we emerge from Lent, we have a clearer vision of these things than we did before, then Lent will have done its job, because we will have done ours.

by Father Michael Venditti

10:51 AM 2/9/2010 — For some time now, the good folks over at CatholicCulture.org have been chronicling the disturbing phenomenon of Catholic Colleges who entertain the participation of Planned Parenthood on campus. These reports have come sporatically, week by week, as they are discovered. Your PP thought it might be valuable to collect some of them into one place:

• A Catholic college in California has named its Vanessa Bedient and Molly Reidelberger Scholarship for Excellence in Poetry after a Planned Parenthood director and a longtime Planned Parenthood volunteer. Mrs. Bedient “served as the director of Planned Parenthood in Santa Barbara, where her two children were raised, and later in San Francisco,” according to the web site of St. Mary’s College of California. “She loved literature and the arts, and was the soul of goodness.” Ms. Reidelberger, in turn, “volunteered at Planned Parenthood for 15 years.”
       According to the college’s web site, Dr. Shawny Anderson, the college’s Associate Dean for Liberal Arts, received an award in 1992 “for continuing social and political service for the completion of the ‘Choice’ project to benefit Planned Parenthood.” She was responsible for “Choice, a 2-song ‘cassingle’ (one song on each side of a short cassette tape), produced as a fund-raiser for the Tecumseh Area Planned Parenthood Association.”
       In addition, Planned Parenthood is included on two of the college’s job web sites.
       Founded by the Brothers of the Christian Schools in 1863, St. Mary’s College of California has 3,840 students, 2,621 of them undergraduates.

• A Jesuit college in Buffalo has helped “maximize [the] personal and company performance” of Planned Parenthood of Buffalo and Erie County, according to the college’s website. Planned Parenthood has taken part in Canisius College’s management development program (MDP), which offers participants “powerful tools and techniques to maximize personal and company performance.” Planned Parenthood is also a past participant in Canisius College’s Fundamentals of Fundraising course.
       Founded in 1870, Canisius College has 4,916 students, 3,346 of them undergraduates.

• The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is listed as a “career and professional resource” within the women’s and gender studies discipline on the University of Detroit Mercy’s web site.
       “The Women's Studies Mission is global in its pursuit of equality, justice and humanity for all,” according to the web page, which lists Planned Parenthood as one of nine “career and professional resources” and describes it as the “best known pro-choice organization in the U.S. Provides information about planned parenthood, AIDS, Congressional action, and more.”
       The web page on which Planned Parenthood is listed “is endorsed by the University of Detroit Mercy (UDM) and supports the views, values, and mission of UDM,” according to a note at the bottom of the web page. “The University of Detroit Mercy web site provides links to other web sites, both public and private, for informational purposes. The inclusion of these links on UDM's site does not imply endorsement by the University.”
       Founded by the Jesuits and the Sisters of Mercy, the university, which dates back to 1877, has 5,725 students, 3,272 of whom are undergraduates.

• NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood Votes! Washington, and the VOX (Voices for Planned Parenthood) are among the “family services” listed on a web page at Gonzaga University’s web site. Also listed is the DSHS North CSO Clinic, which provides abortion referrals. The web page is located at figtree.gonzaga.edu. According to Gonzaga University’s student life office, The Fig Tree

  is an independent, nonprofit media covering stories of people living their faith and values … The Fig Tree provides a crucial, alternative voice for these times … The Fig Tree’s newspaper, website and TV show inform, inspire and involve people to strengthen their caring, commitment and cooperative action. When people are aware of how others live their beliefs, they are heartened and motivated to take a step in faith, hope, love and unity.

  The Fig Tree maintains an office at Unity House on the Gonzaga University campus.
       Founded in 1887 by the Jesuit Fathers, Gonzaga University has 7,272 students, 4,517 of whom are undergraduates.

• Dr. Gary Lewis Filerman, who chaired the Department of Health Systems Administration at Georgetown University until 2008, is a former Planned Parenthood vice president, according to the university’s web site. Dr. Filerman, who began to teach at Georgetown in 2000, served as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s vice president for international development from 1993 to 1996, as president of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington from 1990 to 1991, and as a member of the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington from 1986 to 1992.
       Explaining the work of his department in a 2007 interview, Dr. Filerman said that “we’re trying to attract people to careers in the management of health systems who are committed to making them more effective-- more efficient and safer. The issue of the day is quality of [patient] care, and we teach our students about quality and our faculty do research related to quality. The gap in quality is the difference between doing what we do and doing what we know, and it’s a serious gap.”
       Earlier this month, Dr. Filerman was named senior vice president and chairman of the Health Management and Policy Group at Atlas Research. According to Atlas Research, Dr. Filerman “has been a consultant to 38 countries, the World Bank, International Finance Corporation, World Health Organization, United States Agency for International Development, and to more than 100 universities.”
       Founded in 1789 by the Jesuits, Georgetown University has 15,318 students, 7,092 of whom are undergraduates.

• The web site of the Student Health Services office at Loyola University New Orleans includes Planned Parenthood among its list of local clinics and offers a link to Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Misssippi Delta. The university’s web site also notes that students who have taken the sociology department’s capstone course (Sociology Internship/Practicum) “have interned at Planned Parenthood.”
       Founded in 1912 by the Jesuit Fathers, Loyola University New Orleans has 4,474 students, 2,658 of whom are undergraduates.

• Two Planned Parenthood board members—one current, one former—teach at one of the nation’s oldest Jesuit universities.
       Linda Raclin, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law, has served a board member of Planned Parenthood of St. Louis since 2007, according to the university’s web site. Ms. Raclin, a member Planned Parenthood’s Working Group on State Ballot Initiatives, is assistant professor of legal research and writing and moot court at the law school.
       Dr. Christine Jacobs, associate professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, served on the Planned Parenthood Chicago Area Board of Directors from 2003 to 2006, according to the university’s web site.
       Other faculty members and programs at the Jesuit university have ties to Planned Parenthood. Dr. Terri Rebmann, associate director for curricular affairs at the university’s Institute for Biosecurity, worked from 1996 to 1997 as patient services supervisor for reproductive health services at Planned Parenthood in St. Louis and has served as infection control consultant for the Planned Parenthood Federation since 2005.
       In addition, the capstone project of one St. Louis University’s women studies major was “Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood.”
       In 2008, two university offices published “Beyond the Classroom: Men and Women for Others, A Celebration of SLU Service and Outreach.” “Saint Louis University’s stated mission is to form men and women in service for others,” the report notes. “Service for others is a fundamental component of the University’s Jesuit and Catholic identity.” Listed among the “organizations, events, and others served by faculty and staff respondents” is Planned Parenthood.
       Founded by Jesuits in 1818, St. Louis University has 16,086 students, 11,187 of them undergraduates.

• Three Planned Parenthood clinics are included on the “referrals and resources” list of the health and wellness services office at a California Catholics college. Founded by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur in 1851, Notre Dame de Namur University has 1,478 students, 801 of them undergraduates.

• Classifying Planned Parenthood among “family and children services,” the College of Notre Dame of Maryland lists Planned Parenthood among the “research opportunities that are available, or have been available in the past, to students studying Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics/Engineering or Nursing.”
       Founded in 1873 by the School Sisters of Notre Dame, the College of Notre Dame of Maryland has 2,935 students, 1,338 of them undergraduates.

• A Planned Parenthood presentation on “reproductive health” took place last year at Our Lady of the Lake University, according to the university’s web site. The presentation was conducted by Karina Gil, advocacy manager at Planned Parenthood Trust of San Antonio and South Central Texas.
       The event appears to have been hosted by a university program that assists students from migrant worker families. Students with disabilities and other special needs were also invited.
       “Feb. 16—Planned Parenthood. CAMP program invites PSE to attend a presentation regarding reproductive health,” according to the web site of the university, which is based in San Antonio.
       CAMP—the College Assistance Migrant Program—“is a federally funded program aimed at helping students from migrant or seasonal farm worker families,” notes the web site. “CAMP at OLLU offers effective and integrated first-year personal, academic, and financial support to 25 qualified full-time freshmen.”
       Project Student Excellence (PSE), in turn, seeks to “provide an Integrated Student Support Service Program, which will enhance academic achievement through utilization of Comprehensive Educational Services for students who demonstrate academic need and are first-generation college students, students with disabilities, or have financial need.”
       Founded in 1895 by the Sisters of Divine Providence, Our Lady of the Lake University has 2,642 students, 1,563 of them undergraduates.

• The psychology department of a Jesuit university in Colorado notes that it has placed students in internships with dozens of local agenices, including Planned Parenthood.
       “Psychology majors can gain ‘hands on’experience of the discipline through the internship program at Regis University,” according to the university’s web page. “This experience can complement the instruction students receive in the classroom, broaden the student's perspective of psychology, and help students make career decisions.” Planned Parenthood is listed among the agencies with where students have gained this "hands on experience."
       In addition, nursing professor Dr. Diane Ernst once served as an advisory committee member of Planned Parenthood of Mid-Iowa, according to her CV, which is posted on the university’s web site.
       Founded in 1887 by the Jesuits, Regis University has 11,040 students, 5,706 of them undergraduates.

• A Catholic college in Pennsylvania lists Planned Parenthood among the “career paths and opportunities” available to its women’s studies majors. Founded in 1921 by the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, Rosemont College has 903 students, 518 of them undergraduates.

• A prominent administrator at a Kentucky Catholic college has served on the board of Planned Parenthood, according to the college’s website. Dr. Diane Tobin, who serves as Dean of the College of Business and Communication at Spalding University, is “an active community volunteer” who has served on the boards of the “Louisville Theatrical Association, Stage One, St. Francis High School, Jewish Family and Career Services, Planned Parenthood, Glassworks Foundation and the Arts and Cultural Council.”
       In July, Spalding University and an organization funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development jointly hosted a conference that featured a speaker from Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest.

• A Milwaukee Catholic college has placed an intern with Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, according to its most recently published statement of financial giving. Founded in 1888 by the School Sisters of St. Francis, Alverno College is a women’s college with 2,782 students, 2,371 of them undergraduates.

• The career and counseling services office of a Michigan Catholic college is publicizing a job opening at Planned Parenthood. Aquinas College’s career services office posted the position of registered nurse at Planned Parenthood on November 12; the phone number listed as a contact number is that of Planned Parenthood of West and Northern Michigan.
       Aquinas College’s career services office “aids students in identifying unique skills, abilities, interests, and values in order to establish productive career paths and goals.” Founded in 1922 by Dominican sisters, the Grand Rapids-based college has 2,159 students, 1,872 of whom are undergraduates.
       In 2005, the college’s newsletter had urged readers to “check out the following job opportunity publications available in Career and Counseling Services … Planned Parenthood Centers of West Michigan, Vice President of Resource Development.”
       Aquinas College in Grand Rapids is not associated with Aquinas College in Nashville or Thomas Aquinas College in California, both of which appear on the Cardinal Newman Society’s list of 21 faithful Catholic colleges.

• The assistant chair of the nursing department at one of the nation’s most prominent Catholic colleges has been associated with Planned Parenthood in two states. The career of Dr. Allyssa Harris, professor of nursing at Boston College, “has included positions at...Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and North Carolina,” according to her website. Dr. Harris received her bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees from the Jesuit institution.
       Dr. Harris is the coauthor of “The Latest Advances in Hormonal Contraception,” an article that appeared in the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing in 2008. In the abstract of her dissertation research, Dr. Harris wrote that “African American women represent a unique group of women in the United States and have a long history of lack of reproductive freedom. Slavery and forced procreation, sterilization abuses, the Eugenics movement, and federally mandated contraception have all impacted on African American women's independence in contraceptive decision-making … Nurses have a significant role to play in providing appropriate contraceptive information and education in a culturally competent context that will meet the needs of these women and their families.”

• A major administrator at a Catholic college in Pittsburgh formerly worked for Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, according to the college’s web site.
       Before being appointed dean, Dr. Carol Caliendo—who has served as Dean of the College of Professional Studies at Carlow University since 2005—worked as a part-time nurse practitioner and nurse midwife for Planned Parenthood and as a nurse practitioner and operational consultant at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh. Dr. Caliendo has also published several articles on intimate body piercing.
       Founded in 1929 by the Sisters of Mercy, Carlow University has 2,128 students, 1,515 of them undergraduates.

• The Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program of the Georgetown University Law Center has placed two fellowship winners with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America since 2007, according to the university’s web site.
       Typically, organizations such as Planned Parenthood must apply to the Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program of the Georgetown University Law Center in order to host a fellow. Once the university’s fellowship program approves the organization’s application, a grant is awarded to the organization so that the fellow can be paid a stipend.
       In 2007-8, fellowship winner Marya Torrez was placed with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Prior to winning the fellowship, Ms. Torrez helped found a Law Students for Choice chapter at Georgetown University and had interned at the National Abortion Federation. During her year as a fellow in Planned Parenthood’s legal and litigation department, Ms. Torrez, according to a university web page,

  conducted extensive legal research and analysis, examining numerous state and federal statutes, investigating proposed legislation, and analyzing federal and state cases that are winding their way through the courts. She has studied state referendum initiatives, conducted interviews, and explored potential litigation strategies in conjunction with her colleagues. Marya has also undertaken research projects concerning regulatory and administrative law, the use and effect of executive orders, and various constitutional law provisions. In addition, she assisted one of her colleagues in preparing for oral argument in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and she also attended the hearing in Cincinnati, Ohio.

  In 2008-9, fellowship winner Meredith Asay was placed with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. According to a university web page:

  Through her work with the legal and litigation department at PPFA, Meredith has helped prepare a legal response for the possibility of a very restrictive ban on reproductive health services via a state-level referendum. Meredith was intensively involved in researching the relevant legal issues and meeting with many attorneys working on the issue, as well as obtaining testimonials from women who opposed such bans based upon their personal experiences. Meredith has also been responsible for overseeing the legal and litigation department’s submissions to PPFA’s “Now What” newsletter, which is sent to affiliates, other offices, and organizations … In December, the Department of Health and Human Services published the final rule on “Ensuring that Department of HHS Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law.”
       PPFA had previously submitted comment s on the HHS proposed rule in September, Meredith and her colleagues were waiting to see if the final rule incorporated any of the suggested changes or comments. Meredith researched various issues relating to potential harm to PPFA and its affiliates that may have been caused by the rule, as well as how the rule addresses other matters. More recently, Meredith has been conducting research into President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by retiring Justice David Souter this summer.

  The university’s Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program has awarded fellowships to others whose background included advocacy for legalized abortion.
       Founded in 1789 by the Jesuits, Georgetown University has 15,318 students, 7,092 of whom are undergraduates.

• The psychology department of a Catholic college in California lists Planned Parenthood among its “strategic initiatives and partnerships” with which it has placed students in the field. Founded in 1890 by Dominican sisters, Dominican University of California has 2,071 students, 1,445 of them undergraduates.

• In recent years, the law school of one of the nation’s leading Jesuit universities has repeatedly posted Planned Parenthood job openings.

  “The Public Policy Litigation and Law Department of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world’s oldest and largest voluntary reproductive health care organization, is looking for law student interns in its New York and Washington, D.C. offices,” according to one job posting. “Our litigation docket includes federal and state court challenges to laws and policies that restrict access to abortion and other reproductive health services, and cases designed to expand access to reproductive health services and to protect providers of those services. Intern responsibilities will likely include legal research, drafting memos, pleadings and briefs, and communicating with clients.”

  Founded in 1841, Fordham University has 14,666 students, 7,994 of whom are undergraduates.

• Students at a Catholic college in Minnesota who are conducting research on contraception and sex education are steered to the web sites of Planned Parenthood and other blatantly biased sites, according to the college’s web site.
       Students at St. Catherine’s College who are researching insurance coverage of contraception are directed to the web sites of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Cover My Pills, the National Organization for Women, and Planned Parenthood. They are not directed to any pro-life or Catholic sites that discuss the abortifacient nature of many contraceptives or that offer other principled objections to insurance coverage.
       Likewise, students at St. Catherine’s College who are researching sex education in the schools are not directed to any Catholic, pro-life, or pro-family resources on the topic, but are instead directed to the web sites of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and other sites that favor comprehensive sex education.
       Founded in 1905 by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, the College of St. Catherine has 5,201 students, 3,727 of them undergraduates.

• A Milwaukee Catholic university has helped two employees of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin to “enhance their leadership capacity, sharpen their management skills, and strengthen their commitment to the Latino community in southeastern Wisconsin,” according to the university’s web site.
       Cardinal Stritch University’s Latino Nonprofit Leadership Program “has offered more than 75 committed and passionate individuals the opportunity to develop their leadership capacities, sharpen their management skills, create collaborative networks and engage in advocacy on issues important to Latinos.” The two employees of Planned Parenthood to whom the university has offered leadership training are JoCasta Zamarripa (community outreach coordinator) and Maria Barker (multicultural programs manager).
       Founded in 1937 by Franciscan sisters, Cardinal Stritch University has 6,242 students, 3,063 of whom are undergraduates.

• Two Georgetown University law professors have served as legal counsel to Planned Parenthood, according to the university’s web site.
       Professor Peter J. Rubin, according to his web page, “served as counsel in the U.S. Supreme Court for, among others, Dr. Timothy Quill and two other doctors in Vacco v. Quill, a challenge to the constitutionality of New York's ban on physician assisted suicide, and Planned Parenthood in Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court challenge to the abortion ‘gag rule’ imposed in the 1980s upon family planning clinics that received federal funding.”
       Professor Julie E. Cohen, who has taught at Georgetown since 1999, was a “member of pro bono team that represented Bay Area Planned Parenthood affiliates in abortion clinic access litigation” from 1992 to 1995, according to her curriculum vitate.
       Founded in 1789 by the Jesuits, Georgetown University has 15,318 students, 7,092 of whom are undergraduates.

• The women’s studies department of a Catholic college in Illinois lists Planned Parenthood as a potential employer for majors interested in health care.
       Founded in 1932 by the Christian Brothers, Lewis University has 5,536 students, 3,960 of whom are undergraduates.

• A Catholic university in Pittsburgh includes Planned Parenthood on its “partners list” for community engagement.
       “While Duquesne’s community engagement efforts vary widely in whom we serve and what we do, common themes emerge,” notes the page on the university’s web site that lists “our partnerships.” Community groups may create a partnership with Duquesne University by approaching Spiritan Campus Ministry, Duquesne University Volunteers, or the Office of Service Learning or by approaching a school or institute to create a school-based or research partnership.
       In addition, the university’s alumni job bulletin in 2003 publicized an open legal position at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The staff attorney’s primary responsibilities were to “defend reproductive health rights in court” and “to expand and/or maintain access to reproductive health care in the United States.”
       Founded in 1878 by the Holy Ghost Fathers (Spiritans), Duquesne University has 10,106 students, 5,656 of whom are undergraduates.

• Discussing career opportunties available for psychology majors, a Buffalo Catholic college’s web site mentions many generic positions-- “activity director, addictions counselor, administrative program assistant”-- and one job tied to a specific employer: “planned parenthood educator.”
       Founded in 1908 by the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart, D’Youville College has 2,943 students, 1,748 of whom are undergraduates.

• The web site of a Catholic college in Montana advises students who wish to obtain an abortion to contact Planned Parenthood.
       “How can I obtain an abortion?” asks an anonymous "ask-a-nurse" advice column for Carroll College students. The response—“thoughtfully prepared by Health Services”—is

  Carroll College does not offer abortion counseling based on its Catholic Tradition. There is a Planned Parenthood in Helena or you can talk with any health care provider concerning your options.

  In addition, the college’s official “Summer Job Finding Guide” asks students to consider applying for employment at Planned Parenthood.
       In 2005, a controversy erupted at the college after a Planned Parenthood representative was invited to be part of a panel discussion on end-of-life issues. When the college’s president withdrew the invitation, “many members of the faculty, as well as others, voiced their concern that this act limited academic freedom,” according to a college report to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
       In 2004, Ashley Oliverio—then and now the college’s public relations coordinator—blasted the Cardinal Newman Society [CNS] and “other Papist apologists” for criticizing the school’s association with the Vagina Monologues.
       “I am one of the 14 local actresses who will buck the Catholic Taliban by co-starring in the Helena ‘Vagina Monologues’ production, and as an American, a lawyer, a Catholic and a spiritual person, I am proud to do so,” wrote Ms. Oliverio. “I auditioned for a role in direct response to the medieval ravings of the CNS and its sheep who have assailed this and other colleges with hostile letters revealing their utter ignorance of the play or the issues involved, foremost of which is the CNS’s own hostility toward women and the free marketplace of ideas.”
       Founded in 1909 by the Diocese of Helena, the college has 1,409 students, all of them undergraduates.

Believe it or not, this is only a "small" sampling of the on-going list that Catholic Culture provides. Were I to list them all, we'd be here all day.
     One personal observation: It's interesting to note that, with three or four exceptions, all the schools listed above are run either by communities of nuns or by the Jesuits. At the moment, religious sisters in the United States are upset that the Holy See has ordered an investigation of their theological opinions—I can't imagine why. As for the Jesuits, well, let's just say that, in the history of the Church, they've been surpressed twice. I say "Third time's a charm."

by Priestly Pugilist

4:47 PM 2/1/2010 —

[Well, sort of. A friend of your PP sent along this, which he found on someone else's blog. Unfortunately, he has a habbit of cutting and pasting stuff into his e-mails without providing any info about the source; but, it's too good to leave off. —PP]

We did not know until this week that the word "blog" was in the Holy Father's vocabulary, but there it is—tucked away in his message for World Communications Day.
     The Pope writes: "Priests can rightly be expected to be present in the world of digital communications as faithful witnesses to the Gospel, exercising their proper role as leaders of communities which increasingly express themselves with the different 'voices' provided by the digital marketplace. Priests are thus challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources (images, videos, animated features, blogs, websites) which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelisation and catechesis."
     The secular media have interpreted this as a papal invitation to priests to "get blogging". We suspect they are right. Pope Benedict XVI is unlikely to spend much of his day online, but he is almost certainly aware that blogging has become a powerful phenomenon in Catholic circles. Many of the world's most engaged Catholics visit blogs several times a week, to pick up information and rumours about the Church, and also to air their views. One might protest that some of the information is inaccurate, that some of the rumours are false and that some views aired are contrary to Church teaching—but the fact remains that blogs fill a vacuum created, in part, by ecclesiastical structures that have lost the knack of communicating with the laity.
     It is no accident that among the most successful blogs are those run by individual priests, rather than dioceses. Not only do the faithful like to know what their parish priest is up to, but a seasoned and witty evangelist can build a cyber-parish that extends for thousands of miles.
     Many priest-bloggers are conservative in their liturgical preferences; but there is room in cyberspace for clerical writers who embody many different authentic Catholic approaches. The internet can empower priests who have felt their influence decline as vocations and congregations decline. Indeed, it has the ability to reverse these trends.
     We should therefore welcome it for what it is: a gift to the Church.

posted by Priestly Pugilist

4:12 PM 2/1/2010 — You may have noticed, in watching the news, that atheist groups recently have been ratcheting up their attempts to convince us all that there is no God. They point to things like the earthquake in Haiti, and they say that a God such as we believe in would not allow such things to happen; therefore, there is no God. They set up a litmus test for God, and then dismiss him when he doesn't fit their requirements.
     Real faith in God requires that we believe in him simply because he is God, not because he has proven himself to us. A lot of people approach the whole question of God the same way they would approach a political election: they listen to what a candidate has to say, and if he says enough things that they agree with, then they vote for him. But God isn't running for anything, and he does not require our votes in order to exercise his office. So often a priest will meet someone in confession who has been away from the sacraments for a long time because something terrible happened to them—they lost a spouse or a child or had to suffer some terrible illness; and this shook their faith in God, as if, somehow, God let them down. "I lived a good life, so why would God let this happen to me?"
     I always recommend them to read the book of Job; and many of you have heard me preach from it at funerals. It begins by saying how there was no man in all the world more pleasing to God than Job, and how God allowed Job to be tested by Satan by having everything taken from him, including his children, and finally being afflicted with a horrible chronic illness. And his wife thinks he's crazy because he continues to praise and worship God. And Job's response to her is probably the most famous verse in the Old Testament: "Naked I came forth from my mother's womb, naked I shall return. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."
     Now, we don't see that kind of faith very often, do we? Our faith is not unconditional like Job's. We put in the hours by living a good life, then we expect God to pay the wage—in spite of the fact that Jesus told us, on more than one occasion, that reward and punishment are not in this life, and that God allows it—to use our Lord's own words—to “rain on the just and unjust alike.” But we ignore all of that. We still believe that God should reward us for our good life now; and, if he doesn't then there's something wrong with him.
     That's part of the message of the Second Sunday of the Triodion in which we read the parable of the Prodigal Son which is so familiar to us. Yes, it is a story about forgiveness; and we should feel comforted by the fact that God is always willing to forgive as long as we are willing to repent. But there's a lot more to the story than that. We often overlook the fact that in having the father in the story react the way he does to the older son, Jesus has completely thrown out every notion of human justice there ever was.
     We always overlook the older son in this story. We always focus on the younger son, the prodigal son. But the older son is important, too. He's the one who comes to his father and says, "What the heck are you doing? This son of yours takes your money, wastes it on high living and loose women, then when he's broke comes crawling back asking for mercy; and you give him more than you've ever given me, who never once disobeyed you my entire life. It's not fair!" And he's right! In doing what he does for the prodigal son, the father is unfair; he has done a gross injustice to the older son. And isn't the reaction of the older son exactly how we react to God when we think he's been unfair to us? We lose a loved one to death, for example—a child or a spouse or a parent—and we don't care that God has taken that person to himself; we only care what we think he's done to us. Or we or someone we love is forced to suffer a long or painful illness.... We don't care that he's given that person a great opportunity to avoid Purgatory by allowing them to sacrifice here on earth; we only want him to be nice to us now.
     The use of this familiar parable as the Gospel lesson of today's Liturgy gives us an opportunity to reflect on the fact that God doesn't deal with any of us according to the rules of human justice. God owes us nothing. And even if we live a perfect life of perfect virtue, God owes us nothing. Living the way God wants us to live is what we owe to God; and, salvation—which is the only goal of the Christian’s life—is a gift; it is not payment for services rendered.
     So let us use the opportunity of this Divine Liturgy to reflect on whether we have placed conditions on our love and worship of God. Let us look at the cross, on the body of our Lord, unjustly murdered for sins that we committed, and then ask if it is ever possible for God to be unfair.

by Father Michael Venditti

3:51 PM 1/10/2010 — We can breath a little more easily now, that most of the holiday activity is behind us. The Liturgy of the Church changes, too. Having presented to us the great mysteries of faith—the incarnation, the nativity, the Theophany of the Lord—now we see the focus of the liturgical texts change in character, as the lessons begin to present to us an account of what Jesus said and did. St. Matthew, in this morning’s Gospel lesson, gives us just one more dose of the theological—by reminding us of some of the Old Testament prophesies which Christ fulfilled—before leaving all that behind with the very down-to-earth and matter-of-fact statement, “From that time on, Jesus began to preach....”
     And what did he preach? “Reform your lives, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” With this simple message, the public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth begins. What is worthy of our reflection today, as we struggle to recover from the turmoil and hyperactivity that the holidays impose upon us, is the brevity and practicality of our Lord’s message. The Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, the Theophany, the Circumcision.... Contemplating these lofty truths of the faith taxes our intellects to the point that we might mistake Christianity for an esoteric collection of theological dogmas about the nature of the Christ, with our principle duty being to believe in them. But who and what Jesus is, is meaningful only in the context of what it is he does; and Christianity, while it certainly contains a set of dogmatic truths to which our minds must conform, is much more than that: it is also a way of life, to which our lives must conform. One is not a Christian simply by reason of what he believes, but by reason of how he lives.
     We can venerate the Mother of God as she receives from the Angel the Divine commission to be the portal of salvation; we can adore the Infant in the cave at the Nativity; we can marvel and rejoice at the appearance of the dove and the announcement of the Father’s approval at the glorious Theophany of Christ. But the Gospel doesn’t stop there, and neither must we. Having experienced all of these things, bringing them about by his Divine will, Jesus the man now puts sandals on his feet, throws a pack on his back, and begins to trudge the width and breadth of Galilee preaching the evil of sin and the need to do good. And if we want to be counted as his followers, which we must, then we have to go along. The word, “Christian,” doesn’t mean “believer in Christ,” although that is implied; what it really means is “follower of Christ.” And one cannot follow simply by believing and standing still. Following requires movement; it requires doing; it requires living.
     To believe is easy. It doesn’t cost anything simply to believe. The Disciples of the Lord were all too eager to believe in him in the beginning. Having lived all their lives in subjection and destitution with nothing to give them hope, he could have told them he was Popeye the Sailor Man and they would have believed him. But there’s an interesting thing that happens in chapter six of St. John’s Gospel. Jesus begins there to go into some detail about what following him will entail, and outlines exactly what the consequences are for choosing to follow him, as he speaks about his own death and the persecutions to come. St. John sums up the whole episode with his characteristic and poetic economy of words, saying, “Many who had followed him, followed him no longer.”
     That’s a temptation that we all share. We can come here Sunday after Sunday, Holy Day after Holy Day, chanting beautiful hymns to God, performing glorious and complicated rituals, swearing to everything believed and taught by the Church of Christ, and all the while thinking that these are the things that make us Christians. But how are we living? What is it that we do when we’re not here? Do we actually live the way Jesus showed us and taught us to live—the way his Church continues to show us in his name through the Apostles? Are we really followers of Christ, or are we simply spectators in the bleachers, watching the world go by, contenting ourselves with the false security that we believe in all the right things?
     The world in which we live does not make it easy to be a follower of Christ. Maybe we’re not under threat of being arrested, tortured and executed like our Lord’s own disciples were;—like all Christians were for the first 300 years of Christianity—but certainly the values our Church believes and teaches, and the way of life we are supposed to follow as Christians, are not the values and the ways of the world around us. Christ asks us to live in the midst of this world without being a part of it; and that’s not easy. We are tempted every day, and often we fall. The Lord’s first words as a preacher should ring as clearly for us now as they did over 2000 years ago: “Reform your lives, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”

by Father Michael Venditti

10:15 AM 1/9/2010 —

Most Rev. Robert Vasa is the Bishop of Baker, Washington. His column appeared in the Catholic Sentinel, the oldest Catholic newspaper on the West Coast, and is dated January 7th. —PP]

During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.
     The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.
     I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.
     When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very discouraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.
     It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.
     In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.
     Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.
     The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
     The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.

by Bishop Robert Vasa

12:02 PM 1/8/2010 — The reason there aren't daily updates on Priestly PUgilist is because your PP doesn't like to chime in unless he has something to say;—that, and the fact that I have a day job—otherwise this would be just like every other self-serving blog, with the blogger posting anything resembling an idea that happens to occur to him. Today, however, I'm going to break that cautious rule, and post something that just occured to me.
     I was reading the CNN web site, and came across the following sentence in a story:

With up to half a million football fans expected to visit South Africa for the World Cup, and up to half of South Africa's prostitutes carrying the HIV virus, there have been calls for the country to decriminalize prostitution to help tackle the spread of HIV.

I've re-read it about 12 times. There has to be something I'm missing, right?

by Priestly Pugilist

11:02 AM 1/6/2010 — This week we celebrated the Feast of the Theophany, as you know. There is probably no feast on our Byzantine calendar more loaded with mystery than the Theophany. There’s certainly nothing else like it in Christendom. The feast goes far beyond just the commemoration of our Lord’s baptism: it is a mystical celebration of the very essence of Christianity, using the event of our Lord’s baptism as a launching pad from which to contemplate all of the spiritual and theological consequences of the incarnation of God into Man.
          Today, however, it’s enough to concentrate on what this feast should mean for us as Eastern Christians; which, all by itself, is a tall order. I don’t think you could say everything there is to say about this feast anymore than you could say everything there is to say about God himself, only because everything there is to know is infinite. But we can say what we know as long as we never forget that it is the nature of mystery to never be fully understood.
          The word Theophany is Greek and means “the showing of God,” or, to put it more precisely, “God showing himself.” In the Gospel account of our Lord’s baptism by John, after the baptism, there is an announcement from heaven which is heard by everyone present: “This is my beloved son...” Here, God the Father shows Jesus to be his Son, thus showing him to be God as well. The Holy Spirit is also seen in the form of a dove, so it is also the first public appearance of the Holy Trinity together in one place. It is God showing himself to man. The Theophany. And from its earliest days the Church, particularly in the East, began to express this in a liturgical way. At the beginning of our Liturgy, when the Royal Doors are opened, it is a symbol of the Theophany: the opening of the doors opens the barrier between heaven and earth and reveals the Holy of Holies where God lives. The priest walks through the Royal Doors in order to proclaim the Gospel, which symbolizes God showing himself to us in order to deliver to us his word. Just before Holy Communion, the priest stands at the threshold of the Royal Doors, holds up the chalice and sings “Approach with fear of God and with faith.” It is God showing himself to us in his own body and blood in the Eucharist. When the priest turns to give a blessing, he doesn’t simply stand at the altar and turn around and bless, but he walks down through the Royal Doors to give the blessing, because even the blessing is a symbol of God showing himself to man.
          Theophany means that the veil that hides heaven from us is taken away and we see God as he is. Of course, on this side of the grave none of us has a true vision of God—we only get that on the other side of the grave—so, we have to see God through the eyes of our faith; and during the Divine Liturgy, while we are singing together the Creed, the priest holds up the Aer or large veil and waves it over the gifts because our vision of God in this life is veiled; but when the creed is almost complete he removes the veil and sets it aside because it is through the profession of our faith that we can see God face to face even in this life. When a priest dies, just before the service ends the bishop pours oil over the face of the priest and then covers it with the Aer or large veil, only this time the veil faces the other way ‘round from the way it is usually held up during the creed, because the priest who has died is now on the other side of that veil and sees God face to face.
          So, you see how the Theophany has effected so much of what we do in the Eastern Church. In fact, the Theophany is really what our religion is all about. When Christ was born, God became man ... it was a Theophany. When Christ rose from the dead he appeared to his disciples ... it was a Theophany. The feast of the Theophany is really every other feast of the Church rolled into one. It could just as easily be called the feast of Revelation itself. And it is symbolized in that one event which the Church presents to us today: when God, in the person of Jesus, went to the River Jordan and was baptized by John, and the Father announced his love for the Son, and the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove. But it is not simply the one event of our Lord’s baptism that is being celebrated. It is the whole phenomenon of God showing himself to man: in his birth, in his life, in his passion, in his death, in his resurrection, in his Church, in his Holy Mysteries, and most particularly in the Holy Eucharist.
          In the early Church, in the East, it was on Theophany Day that converts were baptized, inspired by the example of our Lord’s own baptism by John. And to this day we mark the feast of the Theophany with the blessing of water. The priest blesses the church and then blesses us with the water, then we take the Theophany water to our homes as a means of taking God with us into our lives. But that water is not meant to be some kind of lucky charm that we take home to protect us from evil. That would not be faith, that would be superstition. We take the water home with us as an expression of our desire that God make his home within us, which only happens when we live Godly and holy lives. Being blessed with the water of the Theophany does not make us holy. It’s being holy that makes the blessing with the water of the Theophany mean something. The whole idea is that, since God has shown himself to us in all these different ways celebrated by our Church, we will now go forth and show God to everyone we meet through living holy Christian lives.

by Father Michael Venditti

1:03 PM 1/5/2010 — It’s been a number of years now since Pope John Paul II issued his important clarification regarding the so-called Persistent Vegetative State, to wit, that food and water are always to be cosidered Ordinary Means regardless of how they are administered, and may not be withheld from any patient, even if requested by the family or indicated in a “living will.” His statement, which was issued, in his words, “with the full weight of my authority” (the "full weight" of the Pope's authority being infallibility), didn’t make much news at the time, since the Terri Schiavo case had already passed out of the news cycle.
          This story is old (from November 23rd, 2009), but is important for obvious reasons. It’s authored by Allen Hall, and was posted on the web site of The UK Daily Mail. It speaks for itself.

A car crash victim diagnosed as being in a coma for the past 23 years has been conscious the whole time. Rom Houben was paralysed but had no way of letting doctors know that he could hear every word they were saying. "I dreamed myself away," said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state. He added: "I screamed, but there was nothing to hear."
     Rom Houben was trapped in a coma for 23 years and had no way of letting anyone know he could hear what they were saying (picture posed by model). Doctors used a range of coma tests before reluctantly concluding that his consciousness was "extinct". But three years ago, new hi-tech scans showed his brain was still functioning almost completely normally. Mr Houben described the moment as "my second birth". Therapy has since allowed him to tap out messages on a computer screen. Mr Houben said: "All that time I just literally dreamed of a better life. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt."
     His case has only just been revealed in a scientific paper released by the man who "saved" him, top neurological expert Dr Steven Laureys. "Medical advances caught up with him," said Dr Laureys, who believes there may be many similar cases of false comas around the world. The disclosure will also renew the right-to-die debate over whether people in comas are truly unconscious. Mr Houben, a former martial arts enthusiast, was paralysed in 1983.
     Doctors in Zolder, Belgium, used the internationally accepted Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his eye, verbal and motor responses. But each time he was graded incorrectly. Only a re-evaluation of his case at the University of Liege discovered that he had lost control of his body but was still fully aware of what was happening. He is never likely to leave hospital, but as well as his computer he now has a special device above his bed which lets him read books while lying down. Mr Houben said: "I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me—it was my second birth.... I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead."
     Dr Laureys's new study claims that patients classed as in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed. "Anyone who bears the stamp of 'unconscious' just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again," he said. The doctor, who leads the Coma Science Group and Department of Neurology at Liege University Hospital, found Mr Houben's brain was still working by using state-of-the-art imaging. He plans to use the case to highlight what he considers may be similar examples around the world. Dr Laureys said: "In Germany alone each year some 100,000 people suffer from severe traumatic brain injury. About 20,000 are followed by a coma of three weeks or longer. Some of them die, others regain health. But an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 people a year remain trapped in an intermediate stage—they go on living without ever coming back again."
     Supporters of euthanasia and assisted suicide argue that people who have lain in persistent vegetative states for years should be given the opportunity to have crucial medical support withdrawn because of the "indignity" of their condition. But there have been several cases in which people judged to be in vegetative states or deep comas have recovered. Twenty years ago, Carrie Coons, an 86-year-old from New York, regained consciousness after a year, took small amounts of food by mouth and engaged in conversation. Only days before her recovery, a judge had granted her family's request for the removal of the feeding tube which had been keeping her alive. In the UK in 1993, doctors switched off the life support system keeping alive Tony Bland, a 22-year-old who had been in a coma for three years following the Hillsborough disaster.
     Dr Laureys was not available for comment yesterday and it is not clear why he thought Mr Houben should have the hi-tech screening when so many years had passed.

          I thought the last line of Mr. Hall's article was interesting: he seems to be somewhat indignant that Dr. Laureys would interfere in this way. As for the assisted suicide crowd, I would suggest that the "indignity" of someone's supposed "vegetative state" doesn’t compare to the indignity of death. Just ask Mr. Houben. He seems expressive enough now to comment on the situation. Perhaps that’s why this story was so long in making it onto the page of any newspaper.
          So, what's your guess? Is this new, expensive high-tech screening—available three years ago but only now being revealed to the public—going to be available in the Obama plan? One thing Dr. Laureys said sticks in my mind: "Anyone who bears the stamp of 'unconscious' just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again." Is this the road we are now traveling? that being uncoscious is now a stigma—like being black in Alabama in 1930—that can get you killed if you're not lucky?
          But there's something else that this story brought to mind: a question that's been bothering your PP for some time now. Back when Terri Schiavo's life was being debated (and she was not unconscious, by the way), her husband, who had been in court trying to kill her, was already "keeping house" with a girlfriend whom he married in the Catholic Church within weeks of his wife's death. Yet, the Code of Canon Law clearly states:

Can. 1090 §1 One who, with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed that person's spouse, or his or her own spouse, invalidly attempts this marriage.
     §2 They also invalidly attempt marriage with each other who, by mutual physical or moral action, brought about the death of either's spouse.

The bishop of Palm Springs said a lot of stupid things leading up to Mrs. Schiavo's murder, then bolted to Sri Lanka during Holy Week, probably at the demand of the Holy See before he got anyone else killed. But I'm surprised he let this marriage take place. Oh well.... Should the marriage not work out, Mr. Schiavo and his new bride will have ample grounds for that annulment.

by Priestly Pugilist

10:42 PM 1/4/2010 — It's certainly a bad omen to have to include an obituary so early in the new year, but.... The following story appeared today on AsiaNews. There is no byline. I have cleaned up the translation a bit, and corrected some punctuation errors common in this particular news source.

Beijing (AsiaNews) — Coadjutor Bishop Leo Yao Liang of Xiwanzi, Hebei province, died in hospital Dec. 30 at the age of 86, almost one year after his release from a 30-month detention. Authorities have tightened security ahead of his funeral.
      Meanwhile, the Ordinary, Bishop Hou Jinli, 93, is quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Both prelates are not recognized by the government-sanctioned open Church in China.
      The death of Bishop Yao has left 94 bishops alive in mainland China—38 from the underground and 56 from the official Church, according to Anthony Lam, senior researcher of Holy Spirit Study Centre in the Hong Kong diocese. Speaking to AsiaNews, he adds that seven bishops in China—three from underground (including Yao) and four from the official Church—passed away, in 2009.
      Despite heavy snow in northern China, thousands of local Catholics are expected to attend Bishop Yao’s funeral Mass at Xiwanzi town church, Chongli county, Hebei province, on Jan. 6. Local sources say public security has been tightened, preventing people from outside the county from attending the funeral.
      Government officials only recognized Bishop Yao as a priest and, as such, will only permit the funeral for a priest and not for a bishop. Only three priests of the diocese are allowed to celebrate the funeral Mass, and local Catholics are not allowed to issue a Church obituary on the prelate.
      Bishop Yao was arrested in July, 2006, along with 90 other Catholics from the underground Church, and was returned to the church on Jan. 25, 2009, the Chinese New Year's Eve, after a 30-month detention. Since then, the prelate had been under close surveillance. Bishop Hou in near by Zhangbei county is also closely monitored. Despite this, Bishop Yao had started to build a church in Xiwanzi, and its foundation has just been laid.
      Born in 1923, Yao was ordained a priest in 1948 and clandestinely ordained coadjutor bishop in 2002. His body will be buried in the clergy graveyard, about 10 minutes from the Xiwanzi church, in which the last Bishop, Melchior Zhang Kexing of Xiwanzi, who died in 1988, and other priests were buried.

For those who are not regular readers of Priestly Pugilist, we occasionally focus on news items from Catholic China for personal reasons.¹ The "underground Church" referred to is the Catholic Church in China which remains in union with the Holy See. It is now outnumbered by the Catholic Patriotic Association, a rival Church set up by the Communist government, and led by priests and bishops who have elected to acquiesce to the regime's insistance that all Catholics in China renounce their allegiance to the Pope, and take no stand against the country's birth control and abortion policies (which means they probably share the same moral outlook as about 60% of the Catholic Church in the U.S.).
          May God grant to his faithful servant, the Bishop Leo, blessed repose and eternal memory! "Well done, good and faithful servant."

by Priestly Pugilist

---

¹ See last year's post, "The palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise (remembering June 4th, 1989)."

7:04 PM 1/7/2010 — As usual, this story highlights the courage of Chiniese Catholics in displaying the love of their faith and the love for their bishops who suffer the prison stripes for the faith. And, unfortunately, just as usual, the leadership of the Catholic Church remains totally unmoved, and continues to play the world's game according to the world's rules.

Xiwanzi (AsiaNews) — Some 4000 believers, under the snow and polar temperatures (-30°), yesterday morning attended the funeral of Mgr. Leo Yao Liang, coadjutor bishop of Xiwanzi, who died on 30 December. Bishop Yao spent 30 years in prison for not joining the Patriotic Association. From 2006 to 2009 he was again arrested by the police for the same reason.
     People participated in the mass despite prohibitions and restraints by public security which for days has stopped people from outside the county coming to town and take part in the funeral. As the bishop was an underground pastor, he was not recognized by the government, thus local authorities obliged no use of Episcopal insignia in the Church ceremony, and to refer to the deceased prelate only as "Pastor Yao" not "Bishop Yao". But at the time of burial in the cemetery of Xiwanzi, and in the days leading up to the funeral, the faithful always prayed for "Bishop Yao”. According to witnesses, during the burial one of the faithful inserted the Episcopal insignia of the bishop into the coffin. The ordinary bishop of Xiwanzi, Mgr. Hou Jinli, 93, being very sick, could not attend the funeral. Out of about 15 priests of the diocese, only 3 were allowed to celebrate mass.
     A woman who attended the funeral of the bishop, told AsiaNews: "Our faithful loved Mgr. Yao for his dedication to God and the Church. He often told us that his greatest suffering during the long years of imprisonment were not the hard, physical labour, but the pain of not being able to lead his flock". Sobbing with emotion, she says, "Bishop Yao was a really great personality. We all want to follow in his footsteps and continue his work, especially finish the construction of the church". Months ago Mgr. Yao blessed the first stone of a church in the town of Xiwanzi and its completion was one of his greatest desires. To clear the path many local faithful shovelled the abundant snow fall of recent days all the way from the church to the cemetery (a 10 min walk), to ease the path of the coffin.
     The faithful say there has been no message of condolence from the Vatican. So far, Osservatore Romano has not published any obituary about the deceased bishop. Bishop Yao was born in 1923, he was ordained a priest in 1948, and from 1958 to 1984 he was jailed for his refusal to join the official Church. The Patriotic Association is a control body of the Communist Party, which wants to build a Church independent from the Holy See. Bishop Yao was clandestinely ordained underground bishop coadjutor in 2002. He was seized by police in July 2006 and was able to return to his church January 25, 2009, after 30 months of captivity. His body was buried in the cemetery for priests in Xiwanzi.

When corruption infects even the highest authority in the Church to the point that political correctness outweighs truth, then we are all lost. As for the faithful Catholics in China who cling to the true faith, I guess they're just inconvenient, and too ignorant to understand the complexities of diplomacy. Note to our bishops here in the U.S.: Want your faithful to love you? Try placing yourself on the line for the truth of the faith rather than for what some editorial page will think and for what one of you called recently "the realities of the modern information age." Sure. Had Bishop Leo behaved as you do he wouldn't have spent most of his priesthood in prison. Likewise, had Jesus behaved as you do, he wouldn't have died. Then, we wouldn't have been redeemed.
     Well, at least we can say we've found a bishop who actually behaves like Christ. We had to go halfway around the world to find him; but at least we found him. Now, we'll see if Pope Benedict takes time out of praising environmentalists and pretending he's still a college professor on an intellectual adventure to acknowledge that such a bishop ever existed. Meanwhile, the cause for the beatification of Pope John Paul II, who also seemed embarrased by the Christ-like behavior of faithful priests and bishops in China (and who was equally embarrased by the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches during his attempt to woo the Orthodox), barrels ahead at full steam. As for whether the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has started a file on Bishop Leo Yao Liang...who am I kidding? What did Bishop Leo ever do for the public image of the Church in socialist Europe's secular press? For goodness sake! He didn't even have an advanced degree, and looked awful on TV (or would have had he ever been on TV). All he did was put his life on the line for the souls of the faithful entrusted to his care. You don't see any bishops around here doing that, do you??? Cripes, he didn't even own a suit! Thank God we don't live in the third world. We've got real bishops! They look good on TV. And they never offend the press or the government.

by Priestly Pugilist

3:18 PM 1/3/2010 — If you have cable TV then I'm sure you're familiar with some of the many Christian evangelists who ply their trade there on the various channels. It seems that whatever your tastes or inclinations or opinions may be, there's a TV preacher for you. And you don't even have to believe in anything in particular: if you look hard enough you'll find one that will seem to be saying what you want him to say, or think you want him to say.
          This situation is nothing new in the history of religion. In fact, this sort of thing was going on full force at the time Jesus began his public ministry. Palestine, at the time of our Lord, was a hot bed of holy men, so much so that the commander of the Roman Legion in Jerusalem once remarked that if he had as many troops in his legion as there were prophets and saints running around in the desert, he could conquer the whole world. I'm certain that that's an exaggeration on his part.
          Knowing this history should give us a different kind of perspective when we read our Gospel lesson; because, it alerts us to the fact that when John the Baptist—and, later, our Lord—appear on the scene and begin their preaching, they are not unique, at least not in the fact that they are in the desert preaching. The Palestinian Jews and their Roman guests were well used to seeing wandering prophets in the desert. This was a fairly common phenomenon. It should give us pause to think about it because, if itinerant holy men were so much a part of every day life, and if the people were so used to seeing them, then what was it that made John the Baptist stand out so clearly in history? He isn't just mentioned in the Bible: the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote a history of the Jewish people during the reign of Claudius, mentions John quite prominently, and also our Lord. For some reason, John made an impact, so much so that he was arrested—something that had never happened before—and was ultimately executed, as the Holy Gospel testifies.
          What made John stand out from among the ranks of Palestine's corps of desert preachers was what he had to say. Most of the desert prophets spent a lot of their words addressing the situation at hand, namely, Roman occupation. Some of them even had bands of followers committed to various political agendas formed around the preaching of their chosen prophet. Judas Iscariot, so the Gospel tells us, was a member of one such group before he met our Lord. Normally, these kinds of people focused on the problem of the military presence in what the Romans called the province of Galilee. But John was different. He didn't talk about the Romans, or about freedom for Israel, or about liberation from military rule. Instead, he preached that people should repent of their sins and change their lives. His message did not address the global situation such as it was, but the situation within each man, the state of his soul, how he stood personally before God. And he targeted the leaders of his own religion, not because he challenged their authority, but because he felt they had, themselves, focused so exclusively on the political situation that they had neglected the spiritual realities which he believed were so much more crucial. His baptism of repentance became a symbol for those who had cast aside the affairs of this life to focus on what our Lord would call, a couple of years later, the "one thing necessary;" the state of one's soul before God. And the reaction of many of these people to John's preaching is typical, and we often see remnants of it today, especially when someone criticizes the religious point of view as trite, or some "pie in the sky" stuff that is not relevant to the modern situation nor answers the needs of today. And for those who could not see beyond the practical concerns of life, John's preaching was very confusing. They did not understand it; and, typical of men in authority, what they don't understand or can't figure out they ultimately begin to fear as a threat. This is what led to John's death, and what ultimately contributed to our Lord death on the cross three years later.
          And as we celebrate this Sunday Before Theophany, the life and death of the Baptist is a good subject for our meditation. We know that the Theophany is the beginning of our Lord’s public life;—his active presence among men—and, in celebrating it, we must be mindful of preparing ourselves for the second coming of our Lord as the divine judge who will separate forever the living from the dead. The coming feast is designed to remind us that, as we prepare ourselves to celebrate Christ’s first Theophany, so we should prepare our souls to receive his second. And this means making ourselves right with God; and, making ourselves right with God means going to confession, where, in the person of the priest, Christ hears our sins and gives us forgiveness.
          Very soon we will begin the Triodion, that brief period before the Great Fast which eases us into the rigors of Lent; and the words of the prophet Isaiah, quoted to us by Mark in today's Gospel lesson, make a perfect motto for us during this time: "Prepare a way for the Lord. Make straight his paths." Prepare for him a way into our souls. Make straight for him a path through the hardness of our hearts. For he is, indeed, far greater than we. Are we yet worthy to lose the straps of his sandals?

by Father Michael Venditti

12:52 PM 1/2/2010 — Ha! Last year Father Venditti showed me up by posting his homily for the Sunday before Theophany before I got a chance to post anything for the new year. So, even though I've nothing at the moment to say, your PP snags the first post award at last. It gives me the chance to engage in the usual New Year's set of disclaimers, which all of you—all seven of you (yes, I've decided this year that I have seven readers rather than just six)—should know by heart:
          First of all, the posts from 2009 are not gone; take a look at the box at the bottom of the page and you'll see a link to them. Of course, as the page gets longer and longer as the year goes on, that box gets further and further down; and a lot of my seven readers forget it's there. So, in some future post, when I say "Refer to last year's post entitled blah blah blah," that's where you go. You may recall that when the previous post referred to is on the current year's page, I provide a convenient link; but when it's from a previous year, I make you go there and search for it. That's because I don't know how to provide a link to a post in another page. I suppose I could study up and find out. Yes, I suppose I could do that. The fact that I could does not mean that I will.
          As the seven of you may have noticed, at the very end of last year, I retooled the links in the title box above; so, to get to a post from there, you click on the date, not the title. That was the result of a suggestion of one of you that the titles be dated. I'm not sure why that was important to him, but I did it and I like it so that's the way it is. Last year I codified the color scheme for the posts, with frames in purple, red, green and blue for anything from me, and all of Father V's homilies framed in gold. That scheme continues this year (I had experimented briefly with orange, but it hurt my eyes so I dropped it.
          Now for the important part: Your Priestly Pugilist will be away for most of January, starting the second week of the month. Vacation times for priests come few and far between, due primarily to the fact that, when you're stationed by yourself, you can't go anywhere unless you have someone to take your place. Getting a priest to cover for you is a lot more difficult for priests in an Eastern Catholic Church, since you just can't get any priest to fill in for you. It has to be a priest who (1) has faculties to function in the Constantinopolitan Rite; and (2) has faculties to minister in your particular Eparchy, since the universal faculties enjoyed by Roman Catholic priests do not extend into other Catholic jurisdictions. In other words, an opportunity came up because a priest was available; so I took it. Since all the site updates are made by me for the moment, you'll be deprived of Fr. V's homilies as well, at least until I come back. But that doesn't mean we will leave you with nothing to do here.
          Toward the end of November, we introduced The Priestly Pugilist Radio Theater. I say "we" because it pleases me to have you picture your PP behind an aircraft carrier-sized desk surrounded by a bevy of pretty and totally inefficient secretaries. To date, we have received absolutely no feedback of any kind about the PPRT, which leads us to believe that it's so popular that no one can bring himself to put his praise into words. So, during our absence, we'll leave you with a whole series of yarns from one of the best detective radio dramas ever made. They'll be posted before we leave.
          So, have a happy new year and a grace-filled Theophany. Why not make a New Year's Resolution to get a friend to read Priestly Pugilist? You know, if each one of you got just one friend, that would make 14 readers. Never forget: Truth over tranquility! Faith over fellowship!

by Priestly Pugilist