The Black Madonna

How can we Catholics fight the War on Terror?

The Holy Father is looking for ways.

moto gp download crack

By now you must have heard that Benedict "insulted Islam". But you probably haven't heard anyone ask why he did, nevermind gotten an answer to that question. Here's one:

I repeat the question I posed yesterday: what did the Pope intend to achieve by saying what he said? Tucked away in Jon Meacham’s predictable isn’t-there-enough-religious-anger critique for Newsweek lies this passage:

[W]hy did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation” about the role of faith in the life of the world. “He knew exactly what he was doing,” says Weigel. “He is saying that irrational violence is displeasing to God. The question Benedict is putting on the table is: ‘Does a significant part of Islam have the capacity to be self-critical?’”

Precisely. And in choosing to do so in such blunt terms, he’s injected himself into the central cultural conflict of the age. For this week, at least, the papacy is relevant to non-Catholics (and many Catholics, too) in ways it hasn’t been in years. He’s risking life and limb, but it’s a brilliant political maneuver.

Remember that our dear Father Ratzinger was a theologian before he became the Vicar of Christ. And so while it is very possible for him to take the role of the pastoral shepherd and spiritual advisor (roles so preferred by John Paul the Great, many of us may have forgotten that's not always what a pope is about), Benedict is probably quite a bit more proficient in identifying the temporal needs of the physical church and her people right now.

John Paul - Great though he was - was no longer prepared to arm the Church to defend herself. The former anti-Nazi Polish partisan had guided us to the end of the Cold War, and upon the triumph of Our Lady of Victory, had turned his - and our - reflections inward. The champion of peace through strength began preaching the gospel of the strength of inner peace.

Benedict is not burdened by 25 years of the papacy growing to envelop him. He saw the devastation of 9/11, the bloody conflicts perpetuating the War on Terror, and the hopeful message of freedom offered by the President in his second inaugural as a member of the curia and not as a pontiff. He has watched as Islamic radicals have blown up mosques and burned churches. He may be willing to risk martyrdom, but may not be fond of the idea of allowing Islamofascism to establish an empire through which it can oppress - and more importantly, defile - the entire Church. And in order for him to justify the offering to Caesar what belongs to him, he has to clearly establish the credentials of the enemy as enemy of the whole Church and the freedom-loving States entrusted with the defense of Her people.

I suspect this is just a beginning.

UPDATES: Kathy is all over the story. (scroll back for earlier posts)

Rod Dreher takes on the Left, and it's sometimes non-reaction, sometimes anti-Catholic response.

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza defends the Holy Father.

On Gibson and anti-Semitism

Just to prove to our friends on the Left that TBR and TBM are not simply an organ of right-wing-never-does wrong propaganda (as The Ugly American jokes), and to rebut the inevitable anti-Catholic rhetoric (thanks heaps Dahvid), I must take note of a disgraceful episode Thursday night regarding Mel Gibson. Apparently, the actor/director got blinding drunk, got caught DUI, and during the arrest repeatedly spouted anti-Semitic remarks. I'll let others get more detailed, and for my part simply and completely repudiate all Gibson's insane nonsense.

Unfortunately, those of us - especially we Catholics - who defended Gibson in the past will be hurt by association here, regardless of what we say. His tirade makes it appear that all the evil designs that he denied while making The Passion of the Christ were actually true. He brings scandal to the Church, and our cries that Catholics aren't really secret anti-Semites - despite some terrible things we've been associated with in the past - will fall on even more deafened ears.

We can only repeat that this is not the case, renounce Gibson's drunken antics, and beg the forgiveness of the Jewish people for any real or perceived insults of the past.

Myth-busting

Chris Burgwald at Veritas reprints a post with an apparently well-established - if not widely-disseminated - debunking.

If you asked anyone who knows anything about Church History in the West to pinpoint a specific moment or event which can be considered the beginning of the Reformation, the answer would probably be Martin Luther's posting of his 95 theses on indulgences on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. By this act, Luther is seen as rejecting the whole medieval system of indulgences and their associated doctrines and practices; in so doing, he makes his break from Rome, or at least begins to do so in a definitive way. In fact, many Protestant churches celebrate October 31st as "Reformation Day", indicating the importance of that date and Luther's actions on it in 1517 vis. the Reformation churches and communities. This date, then, has been widely regarded as the beginning of the Reformation. However...

In all likelihood, it never happened.

Interesting read - and the comments are quite amusing.

Copernican Coincidence

On the same day a cardinal at the Vatican made a statement that "the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer", a team of Polish archeologists say they have found the grave of Nicolaus Copernicus.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

--

(Jerzy) Gassowski (head of an archaeology and anthropology institute in Pultusk, Poland) said police forensic experts used the skull to reconstruct a face that closely resembled the features - including a broken nose and scar above the left eye - on a Copernicus self-portrait. The experts also determined the skull belonged to a man who died at about age 70.

The grave was in bad condition and not all remains were found, Gassowski said, adding that his team will try to find relatives of Copernicus to do more accurate DNA identification.

Ironic isn't it, that while Cardinal Poupard was trying to bury the ghost of all the trouble Copernicus caused the Church, today's scientists were digging him up.

Aren't all those guys in the white beanies pretty much the same?

Ken Shepherd, posting at NewsBusters.org, links to a "writers notebook" at CBS News that covers the goings-on at World Youth Day in Köln. Shepherd likens it to political convention coverage, but I think it reads more like a concert review.

(Pope Benedict's) homily was a contrast to those of his predecessor. John Paul II’s were generally dense in prose style, littered with Biblical quotations. Today’s had only four direct references that required annotation in the official text. The tone, too, was less finger-waving than JPII’s, even if it did take several minutes to get to the part of the speech that might strike a chord. Journalists call that "burying the lead."

How well it went down is still not clear. It is widely held that one-third of the people at such gatherings are deeply religious, one third are as curious as they are faithful, and the rest came because their friends did.

This is how a secular reporter describes attendance at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - a "speech" where the curious show up. The vapidity required to describe in this way the daily event where Our Lord appears in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is utterly breathtaking.

That aside, what seems to come across in the piece is how clueless the reporter is to the circumstances surrounding the event he's covering.

Benedict XVI's arrival for the open-air mass that culminated World Youth Day was the most subdued any of the reporters who cover the Vatican could remember....

Benedict gets the adoration and professed love and respect one would expect for a man in his position, with a sense that there is also a "but..." hanging in the air.

Allen Pizzey never completes the thought, leaving Catholics aghast and non-Catholics confused, I'm sure. I'll complete it for you: "...but he's no John Paul II." That's right he's not, but thank you for doing the Holy Father the disservice of comparing him to someone who may soon be declared a saint, then insinuating that he doesn't measure up.

Has it ever occurred to you, Mr. Pizzey, that World Youth Day was a bit "subdued" because John Paul II himself accepted the invitation to attend, and Pope Benedict has arrived on his behalf as the reigning pontiff? That the crowd, who until recently thought they were going to one of JPII's "rock concert" hyped events, are essentially in mourning? That this is BXVI's very first introduction to the millions who gathered for these events under JPII's shepherding, and they're basically still getting to know one another?

When you come from a culture dominated by cheap sex and vulgarity, I guess it's hard to understand why following one old guy in a little white beanie isn't just as good a ride as the last one.

Pope is Catholic... American heterodox majority hardest hit

Mark Finkelstein, posting at Newsbusters.org, saves us a trip to the confessional by watching the Today show for us. Finkelstein does such a good job lampooning the MSM, I don't really have anything left to say, but: "Read it".

Interviewed by Katie Couric, Dickey first claimed that Europeans view Benedict "with some skepticism right now. People are looking at this Pope and saying what does he want to do by re-Christianizing Europe?"

Gee, and here I thought that was a Pope's job.

Dickey then added, with breathtaking condescension, "on the other hand he isn't creating the kinds of problems people thought he would. There was a lot of suspicion that he would be so emphasizing Christianity that it would alienate Muslims, that it would alienate Jews in Europe."

What a relief. We certainly can't have a Pope creating problems with that Christianity stuff.

Where to get episcopal news?

Robert suggested I send along a heads-up for CardinalRating.com for keeping abreast of the news about your favorite cardinals. (I remembered seeing it linked somewhere else before, but I can't recall where.) I also recommend Episcopal Spine Alert for inspiring (though infrequent) reports of U.S. bishops showing signs of orthodoxy. Recently I stumbled on The Pope Blog for the latest news reports featuring the Holy Father.

I've got one more site about the Papacy I'd like to recommend, but I can't find the link right now. When I find it, I'll add it here, and on the blogroll to the left.

Blogs for Benedict

As some of you may already know, shortly after the election of Pope Benedict, I ran across this post at Dom Bettinelli's blog, and it gave me the idea to go looking for another domain that popped into my own head. Initially I'd intended to offer it to Christopher Blosser from The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club - and I still may do just that - but I thought I'd best give a try to organizing the thing myself.

So without further ado...

I've just finished flipping all the required Internet switches to redirect the domain name www.blogsforbenedict.com back here to The Black Madonna, for lack of a better place. (Ironically, it was only because I was rushing to get the "blogsforbenedict" domain that I bothered to finally buy "theblackmadonna", even though I've been thinking of picking up the latter for a couple of weeks.) For now, I'd like to blogroll as many sites as are willing to join, but maybe in the future we can set up a mob-blog with the best contributions from orthodox Catholics around the blogroll, a la Blogs for Bush. At least, that's a thought.

(EDIT: Come to think of it, that's what Catholics in the Public Square is for, isn't it? Maybe they'd like to be the host site and I'll just manage the links.... Stay tuned.)

If you're interested in joining the blogroll, please send me an email.

TECHNICAL UPDATE: I suppose I should say that I've currently got the blogroll managed as a random sample of 20 links, so aside from the pure sentiment of belonging to a list of bloggers who support the Holy Father, it's a relatively small block of links that can give your site more exposure. For those of us trying to gin up enough ad revenue/donations to pay for our passion, exposure can be a good thing.

Site makeover: The Black Madonna

Some time ago, I decided that my religious ravings at my other blog, The Black Republican, were getting a little too Catholic for my own taste. On that site, I may talk about anything at any particular time, but TBR always returns to issues of politics and culture as they are tinged by prejudice and racism. While there's nothing inconsistent in this day and age about being both Republican and Catholic, when I talk about the Faith there it feels like I'm trying to do too much in too small a space. The Catholic "angle" is overload, and detracts somewhat from the intended topic.

So I eventually decided to start another blog, and Ex Parte Fide was born. Naturally - as nothing good is ever easy - new problems arose. Actually, two interconnected problems: other than reflections about my Catholic faith, I wasn't sure what the new blog was about; and as a result, I tended not to post much, when I posted at all.

Several times, I thought of shutting this space down, as it was too underused. Even when I finally found something to say, I would feel compelled to post in both places, so that readers of TBR wouldn't be left wondering what I was thinking about some religion-inspired issue. Of course, that simply defeats the purpose of having a separate blog. Things were definitely spiraling downward.

But Our Lord had other plans. Pope John Paul II was due for a promotion (one day to Saint John Paul the Great, perhaps), and finally succumbed to the strain of his illnesses and an amazing and arduous 26 years on the throne of St. Peter. My interest in posting something to the religious blog increased, but I still wasn't sure what to say. I wanted to comment on my personal favorite to be the new pope, Francis Cardinal Arinze, a strongly orthodox bishop from Nigeria, but that would be unseemly before his election, wouldn't it? Yet, how our Holy Mother Church would be blessed by showing the world that the love of Our Lord knows no color! Besides, I reasoned, it's not like the College will choose someone too well-known and too orthodox, like Joseph Ratzinger....

As pope, I believed Cardinal Arinze would cause quite a stir with the press and the world, as they tried to grasp why Catholicism didn't feel scandalized by the selection. Surely Europe, of all places, can't embrace such an image... right?

The answer to that question is revealed in the faces of the mother and Child now adorning the masthead of this site. While I knew well of the Catholic tradition of veneration of The Black Madonna, and that inspirational thought drove me to look more closely into a new companion site for TBR, I must admit I'd forgotten that the monastery of perhaps the most famous of these Madonnas (Our Lady of Czestochowa) is in Jasna Gora, Poland. This would be the perfect complement to The Black Republican, I thought: a site that honors both our dear departed Holy Father, a new Holy Father from an unexpected place, and last but certainly not least, operating under the gaze one of the oldest and most beloved images of Our Lady.

As everyone knows by now, Our Lord surprised me again. My joy at the election of His Holiness Benedict XVI is almost beyond description, but some of our friends in the media world have apparently decided that Germany is enough of an unexpected place for them, and have generated some rather dark (though sometimes humorous) caricatures of him.

I know the Holy Catholic Church is "ready for a black pope". But I'd forgotten that perhaps the rest of the world might not be - some still aren't ready for any pope at all. This site will be devoted to the task of that preparation, and so we dedicate our work here to Our Lady of Czestochowa, that she might sway the hearts of the unready.

Habemus Papam!

I am so overwhelmingly happy. I had others in mind, but those have been burned away with the white smoke. I can't believe it. May his papacy be long and fruitful, and may our beloved Church and the whole world be blessed by his reign.

VIVA BENEDICT XVI!

We Catholics are a patient lot

For those of us who can't possibly wait to hear word of our next pope, Yahoo! News now has a Chimney Cam. Enjoy!

The Orthodox Reformer

When I was a lad of ten, I'd lived my whole life to that time under just one pope. Living in the hills of New Jersey, I was far enough removed from my own bishop let alone the pope, that I didn't yet understand the difference. One day, I was watching a rerun of Gilligan's Island on the television when they interrupted with the news: "The pope is dead." My mother and sister ran into the room in shock and asked, "What did they say?!" I responded, "Some pope died."

Within the span of two months, I'd see three different popes govern the Church. It was a very quick introduction to the papacy, High Mass, and papal elections. And before I could even get old enough to be accustomed to the idea of Italians always being pope, hundreds of years of precedent was thrown on its head by a charismatic young man (for a cardinal, at least) from Poland.

I won't bother going into a tale of his life - that's better done elsewhere. But I'll tell you a story about his death, long before it happened.

When I was at Seton Hall University, trying to complete my bachelor's degree, attending ROTC classes to earn my Army commission, and contemplating entrance into the priesthood, I was required to take a course in Catholic theology. Being Catholic, I not only thought this would be easy, but perhaps fun and informative. Catholic Theology turned out to be the only class I enjoyed going to, the only class I got an A in, and the only class where I made a friend of the professor.

Jaimie Vidal was an almost perfectly round Hispanic man in his 40s, with a bright, smiling face and a contagious laugh. I asked him a question at the end of the first class, and he invited me to his office so he could explain his in-depth answer to me. Two hours later, he left me stumbling out of the office on my own, because he was running as fast as his stubby little legs could carry him: our conversation was so much fun for each of us, he'd missed the start of his next lecture.

Jaimie was a liberal, I'm certain damn near a socialist. But his politics was a reflection of his almost naive view of the world through the prism of his Catholic faith. He taught me what it was like to see the world through liberal glasses, something that was completely foreign to me to that time. And he wanted to see the pope dead.

From the time of his election, I revered John Paul. I never understood the rock-star hold he had on many people, especially the young adults who frequently worked as youth counselors and the like, but then again I never understood that mentality even when those revered were really rock stars. But as an historian and a faithful Catholic, it was undeniable that he was both a genuinely loving and pious servant of God and an earthquake of change and reform in the Church and the world. The pope wasn't from socialist, modernist Italy, but from communist, orthodox Poland. His impact on the Cold War was immediate and undeniable, but his effect on dogma and church culture was a bit more subtle. He would continue some of the reforms of Vatican II, but also encourage us to a new orthodoxy. While some bishops wanted to tear out all ties to the old Latin Mass, John Paul slowly, quietly allowed Latin Mass to be a choice for those who still wanted the older form. He strongly defended Church teaching and unswervingly promoted the Gospel of Life over the Culture of Death, but refused to adopt policies that did more than quietly disagree with those holding opposing views, like pro-abortion politicians.

So when Jaimie Vidal said he hoped John Paul II would go to heaven as soon as possible, I was stunned. He explained, he wasn't fond of the pope's conservatism, and he wanted to get back to the reforms that John XXIII had begun and Paul VI had only halfway endorsed. Liberal Catholic theology suggests that anything not strictly dogma is still open to interpretation, but John Paul wanted to reduce the number of issues left up to such interpretation. Liberal theologians reasoned that when the pope died, they had a good shot getting a new liberal reformer elected pope who could give them the freedom to go where they wanted to go. Jaimie wished John Paul health and long life, but wouldn't be opposed to the notion of the saintly man from Wadowice going on to heaven, either.

I don't know if Jaimie is still around - last I heard he'd gotten a job at Notre Dame, and we sort of lost touch with one another. He wasn't too adept with computers, so I was not surprised to see very little reference to him on the Internet when I looked. But I'm certain of one thing: for almost twenty years since he expressed the idea to me, the man born as Karol Wojtyla has frustrated Jaimie Vidal's greatest wish in ways that the latter could scarcely have imagined at the time. And in disagreement with my mentor, I think that has yielded great things for the Church in many, many ways. Some, like his ecumenical outreach to Orthodox Christians and Jews, have made progress in a few years that were unsolvable for centuries. Many others turn away from some misconceptions of Vatican II and lead us forward in a better way - not the Latin church of old, but not the kind of liberal transformation Professor Vidal wanted to champion.

Soon, Jaimie will get his wish for a new pope, albeit later than he would have liked. I hope wherever the good professor is, he continues to be disappointed. He of all people should know I mean that only in a good way.

UPDATE: As the timestamp indicates, this was posted early in the day on Saturday, just before the Holy Father passed away. Dom Bettinelli - as usual - has some insightful things to say, including a post on the pope's detractors that mirrors what I have to say here.

It should also be noted that some people - including his own Secretary of State, Angelo Cardinal Sodano - are already beginning to refer to him by the title, "John Paul the Great". A most fitting tribute.

Who says Catholics have no sense of humor?

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

The Curt Jester got hold of the cover letter the Church's chief theologian attached to his instructions to the American bishops regarding Catholic politicians and communion.

What? Okay, so maybe you only find it mildly amusing, but to us this is ROTFL.

Meanwhile, what's not funny is being taught how to be a good Catholic by... the Anglicans?

The Catholic bishops had an opportunity to take an important and courageous political position, but instead they adopted a position of pragmatic cowardice. If the Catholic understanding of abortion truly expresses the divine will, then any Catholic who actively supports a public policy that supports abortion must be counted as a traitor to the faith of Christ. The Catholic bishops should have come clean on this years ago. The chickens of catechesis-failure are coming home to roost, and now the Catholic bishops are confronted with the sad spectacle of Catholic politicians who publicly advocate public policies that the Catholic Church deems as intrinsically evil. And the bishops are unsure how to respond. One thing for sure. The problem ain't going to go away. What are they going to do a year from now when President Kerry shows up for Mass!

That's pretty sad.

(hat tips to Catholic[?] Kerry Watch, here and here)

I'll see impeachment and raise you HERESY

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

A Los Angeles canon lawyer has filed suit against John Kerry for heresy in ecclesiastical court.

Mr. Balestrieri said he filed the heresy charge - plus an additional complaint charging "harm" to himself as a result of Mr. Kerry's pronouncements on abortion and related issues - because canon law entitles Catholics to "possession of the faith unharmed."

"By spreading heresy, he is endangering not just mine by every Catholic's possession of the faith," he said.

"I am inviting all baptized Catholics who feel injured by Kerry to join the suit as third parties" by reading the document on the Web site and then sending a certified letter of agreement to the Boston Archdiocese.

"People are saying you can be pro-choice and be a good Christian, that it is not contrary to the faith to support aborted murder," Mr. Balestrieri said. "This is a life-threatening heresy."

"Bishops have had 31 years [since the Supreme Court made abortion an individual right] to do something on this matter, but they've done nothing," he said.

You can view the complaint and join the suit at De Fide.

(hat tip Mark Shea, good analysis by Fr. Rob Johansen)

Somebody get me a band-aid

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Regardless of your personal faith, you really should read this funny post and its comments.

According to the film, over half a million priests and nuns have left the church since the early '60s, a loss known among Catholics as "the bleeding."

If you're Catholic, you'll laugh. If you're not, you'll learn the one place you shouldn't get your information about Catholics: the mainstream press.

UPDATE: It just gets better. And in the comments:

What is next? The Bleeding 2: The Bloodening!

Posted by Chris at 02:02 AM

Say 'Abu Ghraib' in Latin

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I guess you should put me into the third class of Catholics according to the Dallas Morning News' editorial excoriating the Church for the sex abuse scandal: I feel powerless. But here's a news flash for you: I always have. What else is new? That's part of being Catholic.

You may be asking, "The sex abuse scandal?" Yes, it's still alive.

In the Romanesque version of the Abu Ghraib story, the abuse goes on and the press is all too delighted to tell us about it. It smells like 1974 all over again... not content to come close to destroying the American Presidency, the press sets its sights on the papal throne.

Don't get me wrong, it's heinous what some priests have done, and it is compounded by the apparent complicity of certain bishops. But the press isn't in this for Truth alone. Nowhere in the editorial does it even suggest that some of these men might not be guilty - even though some of them haven't even had a trial yet. In the midst of a furor over wrongful prosecutions despite DNA evidence proving otherwise, you'd think some people carrying on a crusade for Truth might consider that at least some of the adults pointing the finger of blame for their screwed up lives might just happen to be lying about what happened five, ten and twenty years ago. And we're still talking about a disgraceful minority of the priests and bishops.

That said, many if not most of these cases are not in doubt, and many times bishops have shuttled priests from parish to parish despite knowing full well what they have done. The problems need to be rooted out and excised from Mother Church. But you're not going to get lay Catholics who remain active in the Church to foment a revolution from within. We're the ones who respect and adore the Church for taking hundreds of years to come to a conclusion about something, despite the pressure of a modern age that demands things get done yesterday.

The church will heal, but don't expect it on your timetable. You want "fast"... we'll give you fasting.

UPDATE: Robert Novak offers some (as usual) pessimistic words about freedom of speech in churches.

One man stands by his faith

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I'm tempted to move to St. Louis.

"There's a problem with John Kerry"

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I've discussed before how some of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded have endured the test of time, and how we've outgrown some prejudices that ought never have been a part of the Party of Lincoln in the first place. One of these positions was the initial anti-Catholic stance of most Republicans early in our history. Thankfully, we have outgrown that, and in fact we have long since reversed the trend with more and more practicing Catholics moving from the Democrat Party.

Note my differentiation by saying: "practicing". A good deal of the "Catholic vote" is still going to the Democratic Party. The problem is those people aren't Catholics as anyone should define them. Unlike many other religious or social affiliations, there actually is a simple litmus test for being Catholic: one must be a member of the Body of Christ, and the outward symbol of that membership (if I dare call it a mere "symbol") is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. What is beyond the understanding of many once-a-week and twice-a-year Catholics is even some of them aren't Catholic either. Without this becoming a long theology lesson, suffice to say there's a lot of faith required behind that act, and a lot more action required behind that faith, before your card is punched.

Especially in America today, we Catholics don't spend a whole lot of time talking about this self-amputation of our members, primarily because it would require us to make judgements about the nature and character of the faith of our brothers. But the Church does have a mechanism to shield the faithful from the most egregious of our erstwhile brethren, lest they drag us down with them: excommunication. By saying publicly that someone is not worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist at this moment because of the example of his words or actions, the Church can show the faithful a clearly negative example of what it means not to be in union with the Body of Christ.

Here's where we get back to politics. Any political party not run exclusively by practicing Catholics will have policy positions that may run counter to Catholic teachings. And for many years, the Democrat's concentration on social welfare seemed to be as close a fit as one could make with Catholic doctrine. But those days have come and gone. Liberation theology has been repudiated as a serious economic system, leaving bare many of the Democrats' social positions - abortion primary among them - as seriously anti-Catholic in nature. Not to be rebuffed so easily, many Catholic Democrats have insisted that Rome ignore their voting records and rhetoric, trying to separate their public acts from their "private beliefs". (Nevermind for now the hypocritical concept that one should advocate something they personally disagree with.) But recently, bishops and priests have become more vocal in stating that they may need to use excommunication to chastise Catholic politicians who advocate positions contrary to the teachings of Catholic doctrine.

For the fourth time in American history*, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is Catholic (or, at least, he says he is). But John Kerry has suggested that his Catholic faith is his "bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am," even though he takes the standard anti-Catholic Democratic position on euthanasia, homosexual "rights", and (of course) abortion.

* In reverse order, the previous three Catholic nominees for president were: John Kennedy (1960), Al Smith (1928), and Charles O'Conor (1872).

EDIT: I added a line in the sixth paragraph that completes a thought I left floating in the wind.

Enslavement Theology

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Just yesterday I confused Steve for an entire lunch by trying to describe the contradictions of Liberation Theology. I should have waited a day and sent him to the Wall Street Journal.

And yes Steve, I see that "Father Aristide" was a Silesian, not a Jesuit. How could I tell with the hammer and sickle over his vestment? For the record, Fr. Sirico, the author of the op-ed, is apparently a Franciscan.

Then again...

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Charles Krauthammer is a man I greatly respect. So, is it my respect for him or is it his excellent writing skills turning the issue in a slightly different way that creates real self-doubt for the first time since The Passion business all came up?

Trifecta, Part II

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Now we turn - merely as an interlude, of course - to the heart of the matter. Daniel Henninger lays out for us a scene very reminiscent of the last time the Supreme Court made a judgment over the worth of a human soul.

The men who made the American Constitution understood that nothing in the pristine vapors of their nation was so special or unique as to ensure that Jack would never despise the opinions of Tom--and more than anything would like to shut Tom up, for starters. It is clear in the Federalist Papers that the Founders, above all, tried to reduce the destruction often done to civil life by political factions. I don't know that James Madison is spinning in his grave over the factionalism washing through U.S. politics, but surely he is heaving heavy sighs.

Of course, there are also differences. In 1860, the problem had permeated all facets of the two very different cultures that then existed in our country. The problem was resident in our homes, our fields, and our legislatures. Nowadays, it simply exists in our courts, where most people assume they have no rights other than those that are argued by a high-priced lawyer, or adjudicated by a federal judge.

I think many people who don't get paid for waging politics are becoming quite frustrated with dysfunctional legislatures that are now polarized--as in Congress or in California--essentially along the cultural faultlines created by 30 years of allowing judges to pre-empt the broader community's ability to discover, or re-examine, its social beliefs. These legislators have become little more than clerks to judges and the complainants in their courts--the law as not much more than a brief. When this happens, citizens lose their status as voters or electors and become mere courtroom spectators. How can this be good?

The question is, will Americans continue to allow this "war" described by Mr. Henninger to rage in their courts? Or will they rise up in defense of their "public property rights"?

Was apathy one of the teachings of Jesus?

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Almost 1,000 years ago, the Christian Church (as it was a singular institution in those days) passed a requirement that all priests take a vow of celibacy prior to ordination. In the feudal structure of the society at the time, too many young men were left without anything to do, having been deprived of land and position by the strict inheritance laws. Many of them, seeing the potential for power, influence, and upward mobility, were becoming priests as their choice of career, with barely a thought to the spiritual component to the profession. The heirarchical clergy of the time decided the most efficient means to separate the devout from the social climbers was to deprive all priests of the pleasures of the flesh - at least officially. It was a brilliant political maneuver, conveniently supported by Scripture. ("Each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him." 1 Cor 7, 17)

Some of the problems the Catholic Church has today are wholly man's problem, and this is one of them. The very passage that supports the celibacy of its priests makes no requirement beyond that of "continuing as he was". Paul goes on to say that it would be better if a man were unmarried, but admits all the other Apostles did not follow that path as he did, because "It is better to marry than to be on fire."

Oh, how prescient that statement is for us today - yet, the church leaders deny it. Why? They say it is just because we're not holy enough, that if more more Catholics were more devout, we just wouldn't have a problem.

'The problems in the church today are not caused by the teaching of Jesus and of his church, but by lack of fidelity to them,' Archbishop Dolan wrote. 'The recent sad scandal of clerical sexual abuse of minors, as the professionals have documented, has nothing to do with our celibate commitment.'

As the bishops reaffirmed a requirement that has been part of church practice for nearly 1,000 years, priests and laypeople added their voices to those in Milwaukee calling for change. According to the National Federation of Priests Councils, associations of priests in Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Charleston, and in the states of New York and Illinois, are all considering issuing manifestos like the one issued in Milwaukee.

Bishop Gregory and Archbishop Dolan both argued that the shortage of Catholic clergy has little to do with celibacy, and is a problem shared by many Christian denominations and even Jewish synagogues.

However, Dean R. Hoge, a sociologist at The Catholic University of America who has studied clergy in Catholic and Protestant churches for more than 30 years, said that the shortage of priests in the Catholic church is 'far more severe' than any other denomination in the United States. He said that for every 100 priests who die or leave ministry today, Catholic seminaries are now training only 30 or 40 to replace them.

So it would seem that the Church leaders believe we get what we deserve. If no one wants to live under the yoke they say Scripture imposes, we have no one to blame but ourselves for our lack of fidelity to the Word.

I have some different ideas. Too many young Catholic men, who could lead holy and sanctified lives in the Holy Orders, have made a decision that is right for them and better for the sanctity of the Church. Yet they are being held back by a political calculation that hasn't existed in our society for over 400 years. (Meanwhile, too many of those who do conform are rediculously unprepared for the Fire that awaits them, and they submit to the temptation of Satan.) This isn't a problem caused by not having enough faith - it is caused by a combination of apathy and blind adherance to a rule of man. God's people need help, and the changeless culture of the priestly class cares more about maintaining man's rules than doing God's work.

A miter full of denial

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Yet another public Catholic recites his woes, this time E.J. Dionne, who spends an entire column discussing the plight of the post-Keating Catholic lay review board.

But beyond the internal politics is a problem of spiritual leadership. "We're in month 18 of the most serious crisis in the history of the American Catholic Church," says Scott Appleby, a Notre Dame professor of religious history who addressed the bishops last year. "And we have yet to hear from leading figures in the church about how we should make moral, ethical, theological and spiritual sense of what happened."

Lay Catholic leader Peggy Steinfels argues that much of the responsibility for doing this now falls on the lay board: "They have to write a final report that's not just numbers and statistics but also explains to people why this happened -- and tells the truth." The truth may not protect bishops from lawsuits, but, as the New Testament says, it could make them free.

Why is it that after all we've been through, the bishops are waiting until next spring for a bunch of lay people (who they constantly insist are irrelevant) to tell them what to do? Is there no one among the ecclesiastics willing to stand up and - GASP! - preach the Gospel?

Disillusionment doesn't even begin to describe my attitude toward the church these days.

Hope is a Gift

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

Frank Keating has resigned as Chairman of the Catholic lay review board founded after last year's National Council of Bishops meeting. He wrote an op-ed in today's New York Times.

Sadly, a few church leaders, including some in large dioceses, chose to resist and obstruct the board. When we asked valid questions, they gave us few or no answers. Where information and cooperation was called for, we received delay or an outright refusal to help.

These few leaders turned to their lawyers when they should have looked into their hearts � and I expressed my disgust with them. I am a candid person, and that makes some people uncomfortable. So be it. Obstructing justice, excusing and concealing those who victimize innocent children: these are not the actions of holy men. They are sins � and they are crimes. God may hold them accountable in the next world, but we will certainly hold them accountable in this one.

Unfortunately, I don't share the Governor's hopefulness. The child abuse scandal was merely a very public manifestation of a community in serious trouble - a condition that will continue to hang over the Church until something drastic changes.

That drastic change will not come any sooner than the installment of a new pontiff.

I had a theology professor in college who bluntly told us that he looked forward to the death of the current pope. He explained that he prayed for John Paul's health and well-being, but believed as a matter of principle that the pope's administration was running counter to the necessary church reforms begun by John XXIII. At the time, I discounted this opinion as the perverted viewpoint of a notorious (but good-intentioned) liberal.

Little did I know that he would be proven to be the sane one, and our own priests were the perverts.