Needing the Needy

I have a long-standing interest in Catholic Social Teaching, and particularly in exploring how Faith can and should shape our ordering of the economic sphere of human action. I've written about these issues in the past: Most notably, I was the first place winner in the 1996 Acton Institute Essay Competition, with an essay entitled "Poverty, Virtue, and Grace".

My interest in the matters has allowed me to meet and get to know some thoughtful, very faithful people, one of whom is my friend Jenny Roback Morse. She's an economist and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a regular contributor to the National Catholic Register and has appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. She's the author of Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work. Most importantly, she's a mother and faithful Catholic.

She has contributed a chapter to a new book published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Wealth, Poverty
and Human Destiny. Her chapter is titled "Making Room in the Inn: Why We Need the Needy", and she has allowed me to post this excerpt here:


The self-sufficient, autonomous individual is at the heart of America's economic and political institutions. But some people are legitimately dependent on others. Children are profoundly, if temporarily, dependent on their parents. The elderly and the sick are dependent on others. The seriously disabled, and the mentally ill are permanently dependent. The problem of the legitimately dependent can not be finessed or argued away...This ubiquity of unavoidable helplessness points to the possibility that dependency is not peripheral to the social order, but is somehow central to it.

I maintain that we are afraid to look too closely at dependent people because they remind us that our own independence is fragile. The rational faculty is a gift that allows us to think and to choose, which in turn, makes our freedom and autonomy possible. But our rationality is not a necessary fact about us; any one of us could get a bump on the head that would make us radically dependent on others. This is why we should not view our rationality or independence as the source of our value or dignity as persons. It is also a mistake to view people exclusively in terms of what they do for us, unless we expand our understanding of service. ...

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to find out just what kind of unconventional service the radically dependent person can provide for us. My husband's mother became seriously ill. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, at about the same time that we (finally) realized that she had Alzheimer's. Her judgement, her memory and her ability to take care of herself were deteriorating rapidly, at exactly the time that her illness made her even more needy. We told ourselves that we wanted to honor her independence as long as possible. That was only part of the truth. We also did not really want to admit that the mind of this wonderful person was fading away before our eyes. It finally became clear to us that she needed to move in with us.

Our son and daughter got to help take care of Grandma during those last six months of her life. She was a lovely, delightful person, easy to take care of. I made a game of it for the kids. I would summon them by clapping my hands and calling, "Elves, I need some elves. Grandmama needs a tissue," or whatever it was she needed. The kids would come running, tumbling over themselves to be the first one to bring Grandma whatever it was. She never failed to laugh at this, and the kids never failed to be pleased with themselves.

Grandma took a turn for the worse while my son and I were away on a trip to Switzerland and Washington D.C. My husband called us to tell us to be prepared for the worst. When we got home, it was unusually hot and humid, and the family was keeping wet towels around Grandma's neck, and trying to f eed her ice chips to suck on. Nico went right to her room, and began talking to her about our trip. She couldn't say much, but she smiled at him. I stayed with her, and watched as the kids went outside to play together. Nico showed his sister his favorite souvenirs, a noisy cow horn from Switzerland, and a kazoo in the shape of a duck's beak from "D.C. Ducks."

These kids just happened to play right outside Grandma's window, where she could see and hear them. She was happy just to watch them and listen to their noise. They just happened to bring their board game into Grandma's room and play at the foot of her bed. I didn't tell them to do it. They didn't talk about what they were doing. But it was obvious: they wanted to be near Grandma because it would make her happy to see them there. Somehow, the two of them intuited that it was good for them to be near a dying woman whom they loved.

It might seem that they were doing her a service, and that she got all the benefits in this situation. She plainly took pleasure just in being close to these children. She didn't look very good, in fact, her appearance was alarming. She was dying, she couldn't do anything for herself. She would never be able to do anything for them.

But she did give them something: They got to know that they were of value to her, simply by being there. They didn't have to do anything to be important to her and be loved by her. They got to have the experience of being valued simply because they exist. That is as close to unconditional love as a person can get this side of heaven. Surely, this experience of unconditional love is crucial for the foundation of a healthy personality, and sense of self-worth. Certainly, that is how a mother wants her children to feel. What could I have done that could convey that message any more powerfully than their grandmother did on her deathbed?

This is ultimately the contribution of the dependent to the rest of us: they teach us how to love, and be loved.

Ave Maria Radio on XM Satellite Network

Greg Popcak writes to tell me that Ave Maria Radio is trying to get the XM Satellite Radio network to add Ave Maria to its lineup:

Ave Maria Radio has a chance to be carried on the XM Satellite Network. They are currently considering our proposal and things look good.

We are attempting to get St Blog's to help us out by publicizing our petition drive to get Ave Maria on XM.

This would get Ave Maria Radio broadcast nationwide and available to all Americans over the XM network. So visit the Ave Maria Petition site and sign on to get XM to pick up Ave Maria. There is no commitment to purchase XM equipment. This is just about asking them to carry Catholic Radio.

Quote for the Day

America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.

Georges Clemenceau

Georges Clemenceau was the Prime Minister of France during and immediately after World War I. He openly and heartily despised President Woodrow Wilson, saying of Wilson, "He believes himself to be a combination of Socrates and Jesus Christ."

Feast of the Queenship of Mary

Back when I was in college, I got into an argument with a fundamentalist about Mary. Needless to say, he was against the whole business. He thought he had the clincher for his argument. He said "You Catholics say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, right?"

"Right," I agreed.

"Well, is Jesus the Lord and King of Heaven?", he asked.

"Of course," I answered.

"Well, then," he said triumphantly, "you Catholics can't be right about Mary. If she was Queen and Jesus is King, then they'd be having an incestuous relationship!" The sad thing was that he really thought he "had" us.

I have to admit I was flummoxed for a moment. How do you respond to someone whose imagination is at one and the same time so pinched and yet so bizarre? But I explained that, even on earth, King and Queen are not always husband and wife.

I explained that Mary was the first disciple of Our Lord, and by her fiat, which was given not only once at the Incarnation but characterized her whole life, she is the exemplar of discipleship. Not only that, but by the privilege of her Immaculate Conception she enjoys a unique place among all created beings.

Mary's Queenship is not one of rulership: Rulership belongs to Christ alone. He is Lord and Master, by virtue of His Divinity and His sacrifice on the Cross and victory over sin and death. But in earthly courts the mother of the King is given honor and first place in dignity. She is honored with the title of "Queen Mother".

By celebrating Mary's Queenship, we are acknowledging the foremost place among the saints and angels of she who is "more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim...".

Quote For the Day

I'm beginning a new feature on my blog, the "Quote For the Day". This will be semi-regular: Not necessarily every day, but perhaps 2-3 times a week.

Back when I was in graduate school at Catholic University, I lived in the graduate residence hall for two years. I began putting quotes up on my door almost every day. It became a popular feature of dorm life: many people made a point of checking my door every day to see what I'd put up. Sometimes people would take exception to it, which is fine.

But I'll say now what I always said then when someone would berate me for putting a particular quote up: These quotes do not necessarily represent the opinions of Fr. Rob Johansen. My posting of a quote does not mean that I endorse or agree with the opinion expressed therein. (You'll have to guess whether I agree or not - unless I happen to say so...) I post the quote because it seems to me thought-provoking, challenging, interesting, or sometimes merely entertaining.

It's my hope and intention that these quotes would spark conversation and/or debate. So weigh in!

Here's today's quote:

Fame is a vapor; popularity an accident; the only earthly certainty is oblivion.

Mark Twain

When Worlds Collide!

or,

RadTraddyLand Meets St. Blogs!


If you've been following Mark Shea's blog of late, you'll recognize this latest fracas:

The scene: a typically quiet evening in St. Blog's. Mark Shea has been poking gentle fun at Leftists and self-appointed Hollywood arbiters of moral opinion. He turns his attention to the latest depredations of the RadTrad Alliance, and they unleash their fury!


Mark Shea: Will you look at these wacky RadTrads! Nuptial language as an analogy to God's relationship with us? "Eww! Gross!" Never mind that it's scriptural... "And how dare that Greg Popcak advocate that horrible Theology of the Body! We RadTrads all know that Theology of the Body is just an effort to open the floodgates of lust!"

Curious Girl: So if I wonder about some things Greg writes does that mean I hate the Pope?

Mark Shea: No, but those RadTrad Freepers do hate the Pope and are using this distortion of Greg's writing as their latest excuse to beat up on him. And they don't even know what they're talking about.

Curious Girl: Well, that Greg Popcak has said some strange things. Maybe those Freepers are just raising good...

RadTraddy-Daddy [jumping up and down, shouting]: All those NFP people are WEIRDOS! Everyone knows that! Greg Popcak is a PERVERT who practically advocates incest! How could a sicko like that get on EWTN?

RadTraddy-Laddy: And Popcak is friends with Scott Hahn! And Scott Hahn has written bizarre stuff comparing the Trinity with the family. Can you believe that! I don't recall reading that in the Decrees of the Council of Trent (Family Edition [TM]).

RadTraddy-Daddy: Sounds like Heresy to me! You know [whispers], Scott Hahn is still secretly a Protestant... Do you see the connection?

RadTraddy-Laddy: Yeah! Pretty sinister stuff...

Mark Shea: That's crazy! I know Greg Popcak, and his family...

Happy-Zappy: Oh, right, you knnoowww Greg. Is that somehow supposed to make up for his weirdness and perversity? Let's wait and see how his great-grandchildren turn out before we credit him with being a good husband and father.

NotTraddyEnough: I'm not really comfortable telling teens about all that NFP stuff, charting and temperatures and whatnot...

RadTraddy-Daddy: Well, of course not. If they start thinking about their sister's menstrual cycle or cervical mucus they'll want to have sex! Besides, we know that it's best to tell kids about sex after they've graduated from High School.

Fr. Rob: Mark, just ignore these Freeper RadTrad kooks. There are only 9 people involved in this "discussion". I used to pay attention, but then I realized I was reading the ravings of the same small group of nutjobs.

RadTraddy-Laddy: Ha! Got you, Fr. Rob! There are 10 people in this Freeper thread. [sticking his tongue out] So there! Besides, you're just a Novus Ordo priest (and therefore a dupe of Karol Wojtyla) so we don't have to listen to you!

Mark Shea: Sure, Happy. Why bother to find out what Greg actually said before condemning him?

Happy-Zappy: Mark, do you feed and clothe your children or do you send them out to panhandle and wander the streets, and find what food they can in dumpsters? Will you have your children chart each other?

Ichabod Bayer: Once we have a Catholic Monarch, we won't have to worry about this NFP nonsense anymore! Okay, just kidding. But seriously, did Greg actually advocate brothers and sisters helping each other chart? That sounds kinda icky.

TraddyBard: Dead skunk in the middle of the road

Dead skunk in the middle of the road.

You got yer dead skunk in the middle of the road,

Stinkin' to high Heaven!

BigGunnTraddy: Hey, don't you make fun of Catholic Monarchy! Look at the wonders it's done for Monaco and Lichtenstein. Just you wait till we stage our coup and establish the Duke of Orleans here as King!

GwynnDiesel: Look, these RadTrads just can't deal with any of the mystic imagery in Church Tradition. I mean, in the Middle Ages the Virgin Mary was sometimes depicted barebreasted, nursing the Lord.

RadTraddy-Daddy: Don't you eroticize the Blessed Mother! She didn't have breasts. The Lord was nursed by a bird which gave him to drink milk from a Blessed Coconut. I read about it in the visions of Grunhilde of Thuringia. I have a deep devotion to the Holy Coconut of Nazareth.

RadTraddy-Laddy: Speaking of breasts, you know, when Karol Wojtyla (the erstwhile "Pope" John Paul II) visited Papua, New Guinea, he actually received a native woman there in native garb, bare-breasted! That proves that the Theology of the Body is evil!

RadTraddy-Daddy: And she wasn't wearing a mantilla, either... Modernist!

RadTraddy-Laddy: Heretic! [whispers] Do you see the connection?

RadTraddy-Daddy: Wow! It's worse than I thought.

NonTraddyMommy: In my experience as a parent, I've found it's really important to be open with your kids about sex, so that they learn the true Catholic understanding of it before they hear the world's corrupted version...

RadTraddy-Daddy: Some subjects are better not discussed. The next thing you know, you'll be talking like that pervert Popcak who says we should teach kids that sex is something good and pleasurable and holy.

RadTraddy-Laddy: God Save Us! We all know that all that nonsense about the "unitive" dimension of sex is just giving license to lasciviousness. It's really only holy to want sex when you intend to conceive a child. And even then you should close your eyes and try not to enjoy it too much.

Maddy-Traddy: I always insist that the room be pitch-black and that we be under the covers, so as to preserve modesty.

RadTraddys: A virtuous Catholic woman!

Fr. Rob: Happy, why couldn't you just ask Greg to clarify himself before passing judgment?

Happy-Zappy: Once someone has written something, his statement is what it is. A person always writes exactly what he intends to convey and I am always able to discern fully what he meant. Therefore further conversation is pointless. If you don't want me to pass judgment on your thoughts, then keep them to yourself.

Mark Shea: Will you people please READ what Greg wrote? Look, Greg didn't advocate that brothers chart their sister's cycles, he simply described that some NFP families taught their kids how to do it, and that some families objected to that on the basis of modesty.

Happy-Zappy: Well, then it might not be so bad. But I'm still suspicious. That Popcak is a slippery character.

Maddy-Traddy: All those NFP people are slippery. I'll bet the mucus has something to do with it.

RomanticTrad: Doesn't all that charting and mucus-checking seem unnatural? I mean, how is that stuff a prelude to sex? I prefer romance.

RadTraddy-Laddy: Romance is OK, as long as proper decorum is observed. I've even been known, when in an amorous mood, to dance the minuet or gavotte with my wife.

Happy-Zappy: I've been re-reading Popcak, and he doesn't unequivocally condemn charting between siblings. He must be tacitly endorsing it, then! It is an unfailing rule of logic that whatever you do not completely condemn is at least partially approved. So Popcak really is advocating sexual experimenting on kids!

RadTraddys: You finally have seen the light! We've been saying all along that Popcak is a sicko, and so is his friend Shea.

RadTraddy-Daddy: They're doing it under the banner of JP II's Theology of the Body! And JPII wouldn't do anything about the pedophiles. Do you see the connection?

Rad Traddy-Laddy: Wow! It's worse than I thought. You know who we need here now? Joe D'Hippolito! He'd see how it all fits together!

Cauldron Pyre: And what's all this sunshine-and-lollipops Popcak and Shea are spreading about joy and happiness and love? Doesn't he know that our scowls, frowns, and sour-faced grim looks are just as pleasing to God as smiles and light-heartedness?

ShellyJelly: Could someone explain to me why it would actually be morally wrong for a brother to help his sister with charting?

RadTraddys: Feuh! How dare you try to force us to make an argument! We have expressed our repulsion at such behavior, because it is ICKY. We have condemned such goings-on as WEIRD. There is no provision for anything like it in the Catechism of Trent or in the writings of Marian Horvat, Ph.D (Peace Be On Her!). Our disapprobation is sufficient moral censure. To the Outer Darkness with Popcak, Shea, Johansen, and all the other Neo-Catholic stooges of the false Vatican II regime! Anathemata sint! Damnatae memoriae eorum sint!

Homily for the 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time

Gospel: John 6:51-58


Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life...

In the New York Times a few days ago, an editorial appeared in which the writer dismissed several beliefs that Catholics and other Christians hold as "pious legends". Among the beliefs that he ridiculed were things like the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, and the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven, which we celebrated just this Friday. He said that the Church needs to jettison these pious legends because they're not reasonable; that no modern, up to date person can believe in such things...

No doubt, if the author of that New York Times editorial had been around at the time, he would have been among the crowd who said "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" I'm sure he would dismiss our belief that Our Lord is present really, substantially, under the appearance of bread and wine, as "insufficiently intellectual." I imagine he might analyze our belief in what Jesus did at the last supper as a "myth", something we enlightened moderns no longer "need" to believe in.

But the problem is that it is Our Lord Himself who utters these words: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. If you reject these words of Jesus, on what basis can you accept others? Why would you take Jesus at His word when He says "Love one another, as I have loved you", and not believe Him when He says "the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world"? Because what Jesus says fits in with your own opinions in one instance, and doesn't fit with your opinions in the other? That's hardly very "reasonable", or "intellectual". It's really not even honest.

No, Our Lord meant what He said. He meant it when He said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He meant it when He said, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit." And He meant it when He said "take and eat, this is My body," and "take this and drink from it, this is the cup of My blood." He meant it because the same life that He gave for us on Calvary is the life He wants to give to us in the Eucharist.

Jesus said "I came that you might have life, and have it in abundance." Well, the only true source of life, the only One who has life in and of Himself is God. For us to have abundant life, eternal life, we must have God's own life. And Jesus, God-become-man, has that divine life. The flesh that He subjected to the cross carried God's own life. The blood that he shed on Calvary coursed through His veins with God's own life. It is God's life, living in the flesh of Christ, that He gave for the life of the world.

So when Jesus says, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life", He is not talking in a metaphor; He is not using a figure of speech. He means what he says, and what He is saying is that by partaking of His body and blood we partake of the Divine life, the life of God Himself. We no longer live our natural lives, we live a supernatural, eternal life, because we have partaken of the life of God Himself.

Jesus said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in Me and I in him." Again, this is not a figure of speech. God desires to reunite ourselves to Him, to restore communion between Himself and us. So Our Lord gives himself to us as food and drink: food and drink that contains Himself in all completeness: His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Just as He gave Himself for us completely on Calvary, He gives himself to us completely, every time we receive from this altar. And in giving himself to us completely, He intimately unites Himself to us: Body to body, Blood to blood, Soul to soul, Divinity to humanity. He becomes closer to us than we are to ourselves.

Jesus meant what He said. He meant it when He said "I am the living bread that came down from Heaven." He meant it when He said "the one who feeds on Me will have life because of Me." He offers us life, His life, the superabundant life of God. By eating the Bread He gives us, we will live no longer our own lives, but His life, and so we will live forever.

A Nice Little Blog on Our Lady's Assumption

Today we celebrate the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven. Why was she granted the singular privilege of being taken up into heaven, body and soul? Well, I couldn't do much better than the Preface for today's Mass puts it:

Today the virgin Mother of God was taken up into heaven
to be the beginning and pattern of the Church in its perfection,
and a sign of hope and comfort
for your people on their pilgrim way.
You would not allow decay to touch her body,
for she had given birth to your Son, the Lord of all life,
in the glory of the incarnation.

Mary is who she is because of and for the sake of Christ and who He is. And the great dignity that is hers, and the privileges and graces she was granted, all flow from and are the result of the Incarnation. If you are to believe that God truly came among us as a real flesh-and-blood man, then the Virgin Birth, far from being a pious legend, is actually pretty much the only way the incarnation could happen. And if the God-Man born of a virgin be truly human, He had to get His human nature from the human nature of his mother (he couldn't get it from anyplace else). But that human nature had to be spotless and pure, without taint of sin. Thus you have Mary's Immaculate Conception. And given that this woman, the mother of God-made-man, is all holy and spotless, and lived her whole life as one great fiat, it would only be fitting that God, who granted her a human nature not subject to the corruption of sin, would not allow her to experience the consequence of sin's corruption, that is, the corruption of death.

The Church's belief and teaching about Mary is profoundly Incarnational, and follows quite rationally from that belief in God-made-man. To believe that Jesus was sent by God to save us and reject things like the Virgin Birth or the Assumption is to swallow a camel and strain at gnats.

I've Been Away On Vacation

Which is why I haven't posted anything for a while. I'm making my more-or-less annual trip to the East coast. I was in Philadelphia for a few days, and in New York last weekend, and now I'm in DC - Northern Virginia. I'll be returning home on Thursday. I'm enjoying myself, catching up with old friends.



Yesterday Was the Feast of St. John Vianney, The Cure of Ars

St. John Vianney is the Patron Saint of diocesan priests. He is also a special patron of mine, because his feast day is also the....


Anniversary of My Ordination!

Yes, as of yesterday I was ordained for two years. I am grateful to Our Lord for the great privilege he has given me by allowing me to share in his Priesthood. I was able to celebrate the day with visits to my good friends, Fr. Jim Gould and Fr. Paul de Ladurantaye. Fr. Gould was the Vocation Director for the Diocese of Arlington for many years, and frequently appears on EWTN. Fr. Gould was my Vesting Priest at my ordination. Fr. de Ladurantaye is the Director of Catechetics and Sacred Liturgy for the Diocese of Arlington. He was also my spritual director for several years while I was a graduate student at Catholic University. I credit both of these priests in large part for the fact that I am priest today.

The priesthood is a gift. It is given to us by God, but, He, as in so many other areas, allows us to cooperate with and be a part of His Providence. What you do or say today can have the effect of encouraging and guiding a young man to become a priest, or whatever his vocation happens to be. By your words and actions, you can cooperate with His will, and be a part of someone's holy Priesthood, or their holy Marriage, or whatever. In Christ we all have great spiritual power. Use It!

Pope Offering "Thought for The Day" to Cell Phone Users

Italian cell phone users (which seemed, in my last visit there, to be pretty much the whole population) have been able, since January, to receive a daily message of hope from the Pope.

The message is delivered daily to cell users whose phones have text-messaging capability.

According to the Vatican Information Service, the service is now being extended to Ireland as well:

The service in Ireland can be subscribed to by sending POPE ON as a text message to 53141. This will result in the Pope's daily thoughts being delivered at 12 noon to the subscriber on a daily basis.

In Ireland, the [messages] with Pope John Paul's "thought of the day," which are taken from his homilies, messages and other writings, is offered through all Irish cell phone operators.

The Irish service is the Vatican's first expansion into offering the Pope's daily message in English. There are plans to introduce service in Portuguese to Portugal and Brazil in the near future.

When will it come to the US, I wonder? It would be kind of cool to get a message from the Pope every day!

I'm Going To Be Scarce For The Next Day or Two...

As I have deadlines for a couple of articles I've committed to write (I'm actually past deadline on one of them...). And that's, of course, on top of my parish responsibilities, which are temporarily a little heavier as my pastor is on vacation.

But in the meantime, here are a couple of things for you to chew over...


Help a Future Seminarian

Steve Schultz, formerly of Catholic Light, has been accepted as a seminarian for the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia. Congratulations, Steve, and may the good work God has begun in you find fulfillment!

He could use your prayers, as well as a little help in finding a good home for his cats. Not being a cat lover myself (I'm more of a dog person), I'm not really suitable to help in that respect. But maybe someone out there is looking for a little bundle of fur?


Chant!

I'm starting a Gregorian Chant schola here at my parish, and we had our first rehearsal last night. Eight people showed up, all eager to learn and give glory to God. So I taught them a little bit about reading chant notation: some of the basic notes (called neums) and basic chant rhythm. Then we started learning the Kyrie Orbis Factor (B), which is one of the more commonly sung settings. They did a pretty good job, and next week I'll teach them a little more, and hopefully we'll have a few more people join up along the way. My goal is to have them sing for the first time at some of the liturgies for the Feast of the Assumption, and so fittingly honor Our Lady. Next week I'll start teaching them the Communio from the Vigil Mass for the Assumption, Beata Viscera. Wish us luck and say a prayer for the success of our Schola!

New Auxiliary Bishops For Detroit

Today the Holy See announced the appointments of three new auxiliary bishops for the Archdiocese of Detroit. The three are Msgr. Walter A. Hurley, pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows Parish in Farmington, MI, Msgr. John M. Quinn, director of the Department of Education of the archdiocese, and Fr. Francis R. Reiss, pastor of St. Frances Cabrini Parish in Allen Park, MI.

Of the three, I know only Msgr. Quinn in any personal sense: He was the professor for my Trinity class at Sacred Heart Seminary. He was a good teacher: he obviously enjoyed teaching and had a deep grasp of theology and the Tradition. He also was highly regarded by many seminarians as a spiritual director.

Msgr. Hurley has been the Archdiocese of Detroit's "point man" in dealing with the priestly sexual abuse crisis. In that capacity he has come under some criticism for not being sufficiently pro-active or aggressive in rooting out pedophiles and other sexual predators from the ranks of the Detroit clergy.

UPDATE [7/07/03 10:20 PM] A well-placed source in the Archdiocese of Detroit has informed me that those aforementioned "criticisms" of Bishop-elect Hurley's handling of the sex-abuse cases in Detroit have been, at best, ill-informed. My source is irreproachable in orthodoxy and integrity, and is in a position to know whereof he speaks. According to my source, Hurley has acted with due prudence and justice in dealing with these cases, and always with respect for Church teaching and Canon law. I for one am glad to hear it.

I simply know nothing of Fr. Reiss.

Detroit has lost 4 auxiliary bishops in as many years to other sees: Bp. John Nienstedt to New Ulm, Minnesota, Bp. Bernard Harrington to Winona, Minnesota, Bp. Kevin Britt to Grand Rapids, and most recently, Bp. Allen Vigneron to Oakland, California. In the meantime it has only ordained two auxiliaries: Leonard Blair and Earl Boyea. Furthermore, Bp. Moses Anderson will be retiring shortly, and Bishop Gumbleton does not take an active part in the administration of the Archdiocese. So that would have left Detroit with only two active auxiliaries.

Whatever the backgrounds or "qualifications" of the bishops-elect may be, I think it is instructive to note their ages: Hurley is 66, Reiss is 63. Given that the mandatory retirement age of bishops is 75, it is unlikely that Hurley's or Reiss' appointments will be "stepping stones" to eventually becoming ordinaries of their own dioceses. In all likelihood, they will stay in Detroit. In my opinion, based stricly on their ages, the only one likely to eventually get his own see is Quinn, who is 58.

There has been some criticism, from quarters as exalted as Cardinal Ratzinger, of an incipient careerism in the hierarchy: part of the "bishop as CEO" mentality afflicting our bishops is the tendency to view the hierarchy as a sort of career stepladder: Msgr. Jones is appointed auxiliary bishop of Greater Podunk; if he does well, or at least doesn't screw up, in about 5 years he is made bishop of Littletown, and if he does well there or makes a name for himself in the USCCB, he gets made archbishop of Bigcity, and maybe even gets a red hat as well. This kind of "career path" encourages bishops to treat their sees as means to advance their own careers, and to make decisions with a view to how it will play, rather than what is best for the diocese. It does not encourage bishops to view their see as their sacred trust, or as the bride to whom they are joined, like Christ, in a nuptial relationship. It may be the case that one way to get around this temptation is to appoint priests as auxiliary bishops who are unlikely, by reason of age, to be "moved up."

Another way to combat careerism (and solve some other problems as well) would be to break up the big mega-archdioceses in this country into smaller dioceses. But that will have to be a subject for another post...

Several People Have Asked

That I post a follow-up to my post on Cohabitation and preparation for marriage. I'll try to do so in the next day or so.



More on Being Pro-Life and Politically Active

A friend of mine, who is also an occasional commentor on my blog, holds that Catholic Pro-life efforts, whenever they are conducted in the name of the Church, whether by priests or lay people, should always be scrupulously non-partisan. He believes that nothing is to be gained by identifying a politician's party affiliation when criticizing him/her for being pro-abort or supporting him/her for being pro-life.

He has reminded me, more than once, that there are plenty of pro-abortion Republicans, and they dishonestly benefit when all the opprobrium is heaped on Democrats for being the Abortion Party [TM]. And what he says is true: There are high-profile Republicans such as Christine Todd-Whitman, Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), and Sen. Susan Collins (ME) who are commited pro-aborts. And we Catholics should be just as critical of them, and work just as hard to oppose them, as we should against someone like Sen. John Kerry.

And so I am brought to remind you of a point I made before: That by saying that the Democrats have become the Party of Abortion [TM] or the Party of Sin[TM] I am not saying that Catholics can never vote for a Democrat or that the Republican Party is somehow anointed by God. There are Democrats out there who are pro-life, though their party seems to be working very hard to drive those people out or force them to knuckle under. And we should do everything we can to encourage and support Democrat pro-lifers, as that will be the only way to break the stranglehold that the pro-aborts currently have there.

But it seems to me that to point out the fact that the entire national Democratic party leadership is ardently pro-abortion, and that every single Democratic presidential candidate has vowed his/her support for abortion-on-demand, is not partisan. It seems to me to simply be an acknowledgment of reality. My friend thinks that politicians can and should be criticized and even "shamed" for their pro-abortion positions individually, but that all mention of party affiliation should be avoided when speaking and acting as Catholics, especially the clergy. But it seems to me almost absurd to observe such a distinction, when, in the current environment, that distinction is meaningless in any practical sense. It seems to me that to point out that the Democratic party is vehemently pro-abortion, and demands lockstep conformity on that issue from any politician who aspires to any high office, is not partisan. It is simply telling the truth.

I am aware of the temptation that my friend wishes to avoid: we cannot allow the Church to identify itself or it's mission with the agenda of any political party. The Republican Party is NOT the "Catholic" party. It so happens at present that Republicans tend to hold positions compatible with Catholic teaching on certain core issues, such as abortion, whereas Democrats do not. That was not always the case, and no doubt someday the situation will again be different. The Republicans were much more pro-abortion 25 years ago than they are today, and they may again become so. The Republicans have certainly not "delivered" for Catholics and other pro-lifers in anything like the way they should have, considering they have controlled the Oval Office for 20 of the last 30 years since Roe vs. Wade was decided. So I am not counseling that Catholics sell their souls to the Republicans. No political party will bring about the New Jerusalem.

But if, as the Holy Father has said, abortion is the pre-eminent moral issue of our time, then to ignore that an entire political party has been captured by the Culture of Death seems to me to be blind to the elephant before our eyes.

While So Many Catholics Are Arguing (again) About Harry Potter...

Some of us actually have real problems to deal with:

Like how to deal with lapsed, semi-Catholic, cohabitating couples, who either to please the parents or out of some vestigial traces of unformed faith, nonetheless want to get married in the Church.

Like many (if not most) priests, I am in the thick of wedding season. Lots of weddings, and lots of couples coming to me wanting to get married in the next year or so. For every couple who come to me wanting to really celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage, and want to make their wedding an expression of their faith, I'd say there are five who fit the above description. I am grateful for those "good" couples when they come along: without them to provide encouragement (and relief), things could get really discouraging.

While I was in the seminary, I would sometimes get together with priests and the subject of weddings would come up. I was initially shocked and a little scandalized at how priests would complain about weddings: they looked forward to impending weddings the way most people look forward to a root canal or a colonoscopy. Now that I am a priest I understand. And Catholic priests aren't the only ones who complain: Once I was visiting some friends on vacation, and at a cook-out I met an Anglican priestess who was my friends' colleague at the college at which they taught. Of course, we talked "shop" and discovered, that while we could agree on practically nothing theologically (though we were on safe ground with the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ), we were of almost one mind at our dismay and discouragement over weddings. She vituperated at some length on how the brides treated the wedding as a big show, how the grooms were almost disinterested, and how no one semed to appreciate the sacred covenant which the wedding is supposed to represent.

Now, aside from the horror stories of brides who want to re-shape the liturgy to fit their own "fashion show" fantasy of their wedding (it's supposed to be MY day, isn't it, one bride whined), and requests for bizarre, let alone merely inappropriate music, I have one specific issue I am trying to grapple with:

I'd say that approximately 50% of the couples that come to me wanting to get married are constructively cohabitating. That is, even if they in some sense maintain separate residences, they more-or-less live together a substantial part of the time. One dead giveaway is when I call the phone number given for one of the parties and I get an answering machine which says "Hi, Bill and Suzy aren't home right now..." Now, all of the couples I have dealt with thus far have been surprisingly candid about it: they genuinely don't see that there is a problem with cohabitation, much less pre-marital sex.

So how do I deal with them? How do I minister to them, re-evangelize them? Many of them, like most of our generation, have been woefully under-catechized. I recognized right away that I really have to start from scratch with many of these couples: they don't know their faith, they aren't practicing it. So, while I know that they really should separate and be chaste during their engagement, I know that's not the point at which to begin: I try to get them back to Mass, back to confession and the sacraments, to rekindle their faith. Only then do I bring up the issue of cohabitation and the need to separate. I give them material to read by good Catholic authors. I talk to them about the meaning of sex in the marriage covenant and I require them to attend an NFP introductory class. But it's an uphill battle: I can't make up, in 8-10 meetings over as many months, for little or no formation in their youth.

But there always comes the moment of truth: after I've talked to them about the sacramentality and covenant of marriage, and the sanctity of sex; after I've given them the articles and explained to them why cohabitation is bad preparation for marriage, etc, etc. After all of that, they have to decide. And so far, the decision has always been, "well, Father, we understand what you're saying, but we've decided we really can't/won't separate."

At that point, I feel as though I am at a loss. I know of some priests who simply refuse to perform the wedding if the couple won't separate. But they always make the issue of cohabitation the first thing addressed "out of the gate" and I think this is a mistake, for the reasons I explained above. This approach also seems to go beyond what the Church itself says, because Canon Law is quite clear and firm about Catholics having a right to marry in the Church. And I can't imagine it being fair to a couple to work with them for 4-6 months and then announce that since they won't separate I won't do the wedding.

So what to do? I'd be interested in hearing suggestions both from married Catholics and from any priests out there who have more experience in these things than I do. One concern I have is that I don't want to contribute to people entering invalid marriages. Given, as Canonist Extraordinaire Pete Vere pointed out last week, that the majority of people who seek annulments were in fact sexually active with their ex-spouses prior to marriage, I think this is a legitimate concern. I can say that, in my own experience in dealing with people seeking annulments, this is universally the case: literally every person I have talked to about seeking an annulment turned out to have been sexually involved with his/her former spouse prior to marriage. I find it hard to imagine that's a coincidence.

So, any pearls of wisdom out there?

The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity






An Offering to the Most Holy Trinity



We offer to You, Most Blessed Trinity, the merits of Jesus Christ in thanksgiving for the Most Precious Blood which He shed in the garden for us; and through those merits we beseech Your Divine Majesty for the remission of our sins. 

Our Father ... Hail Mary ... Glory Be...

We offer to You, Most Holy Trinity, the merits of Jesus Christ in thanksgiving for His Most Precious Death endured on the Cross in our behalf and through those merits we beseech Your Divine Majesty for the remission of the punishment due to our sins.

Our Father ... Hail Mary ... Glory Be... 

We offer to You, Most Blessed Trinity, the merits of Jesus Christ in profound gratitude for His Infinite Love in descending from Heaven to become Man and suffer and die for us upon the Cross; and by those merits we beseech Your Divine Majesty to bring our souls to the glory of Heaven.

Our Father ...Hail Mary ... Glory Be...

Thrown Back Is One Year Old!

As of yesterday, that is. Things got pretty busy yesterday, and I wasn't able to blog on it.

Does the one-year anniversary still count in my case, seeing as I had to take two "time-outs" from blogging? Well, here is my first post, if you're interested in going down memory lane...

Leave It To Blogspot!

To lose my entire blog! I entered a couple of posts, and hit "publish", and the result was an all-but-blank page.

Oddly enough, all my posts were visible in the Blogger editing window, but for some reason buried in the incomprehensibilities of Blogger, they didn't show up on the page.

I discovered that some sort of JavaScript error had corrupted the comment code in the template, so I had to reconstruct it.

All appears to be working normally again, including the comments.

Have I Ever Mentioned...

What a good blog Catholic Light is? They've recently moved to a new server, so update your bookmarks!

Today there are two good posts, one by Sal Ravilla on how the "big tent" of the Democrats has become the "big brothel."

Canonist Pete Vere weighs in with an excellent post on the root cause of many, if most annulments: pre-marital sex. I can confirm the truth of Pete's assertion: My own experience in dealing with people seeking annulments is that in most cases the problems which led to the marriage's failure were apparent from the courtship. But the couple, blinded by the false feelings created by pre-marital sexual intimacy, was unwilling or unable to see those problems at the time. Many such people have said to me that they learned the hard way the truth of the Church's about sexuality. That's paying a very high price for knowledge.

Update

I have reloaded smaller versions of my rocket launch pictures so they should be a little more manageable on the page, and should download more rapidly for those of you who aren't blessed with a broadband connection. I still haven't been able to do anything about the appearance of the pictures with old versions of Netscape. It appears that Netscape isn't interpreting the JavaScript properly, but I don't know how to fix that.

Fr. Rob is Blasting Off!


As promised, here are some pictures of me launching rockets with some of the kids at our elementary school, Lake Michigan Catholic. I discovered, in testing this page, that it may not display properly in older versions of Netscape. Sorry!





Here I'm explaining how the rockets work.
These are solid-fueled model rockets: the one in this picture can fly up to 800-1000 ft.





This is that same rocket being launched.






The rocket being launched in this picture is larger, standing about 3 ft. tall. It is called the Honest John and is a scale model of an artillery missile of the same name used by the Army during the Cold War. It will fly up to 300-500 ft.




This is that same rocket being launched at a different location. Don't worry about those power lines! They're actually farther away than they look.


Needless to say, the kids had lot's of fun, and they even learned something. doing things like that isn't the reason I became a priest, but it's one of the great fringe benefits!

Finally, here's a bonus picture: This is me preaching at one of our all-school masses.




This is the reason I became a priest!

Well, I'm back...

From retreat, that is. I enjoyed the hospitality of the monks at St. Benedict's Monastery in Oxford, Michigan, which is about an hour north of Detroit. I had a good time of prayer and a sort of "taking spiritual inventory." One thing that becomes ever more apparent to me is the incredible grace and power of Christ. That Christ could take someone as flawed and limited as me and use me as his instrument speaks to the truth of St. Paul's words about power being "made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor. 12:9)

I don't know about other people, but after a retreat I frequently experience, especially if it's been particularly good, what I have come to call a "post-retreat letdown". It's something I've experienced enough to recognize and no longer be surprised by. I attribute it to a reaction to being re-immersed in the day-to-day ordinariness of life after enjoying a period of "holy leisure." The experience is a feeling of overall malaise, sometimes accompanied by suspicions or fears that my ministry is an exercise in futility. And, if I'm keeping my head screwed on straight, this leads to some reflection on the truth that in fact, anything I do is an exercise in futility. It's all about what Christ does in and through me. I find that truth very liberating. It's NOT about ME! Deo Gratias! Hopefully, every day it's a little more of Christ coming through in my priesthood and a little less of me.

Well, yesterday was my "reaction" day. I felt kind of "blah" and I was in rampant "futility" mode. These apprehensions were, in no small part, fueled by the stories of stunning episcopal cravenness and misgovernment coming from Phoenix. It's hard to believe you're making any headway in the trenches when it seems like your superiors aren't working for the same side...

Luckily, I went to visit our parish elementary school yesterday. I find that when I'm starting to get discouraged, the kids will quickly snap me out of it. I love spending time with the kids at the school. I try to go there at least one day a week and visit the classes and talk to the kids. The teachers really appreciate it, too. I don't always visit to talk to them about religious subjects. For example, one of my hobbies is building and launching model rockets. So I've taken classes out to teach them about how rockets work and launch some of them. The kids think that is way cool. I'll even let the kids fire off some of the rockets, which gets them even more excited. I'll try to get some pictures up sometime soon of the last time I launched rockets with the kids.

Anyway, I visited the school yesterday, and it struck me again how privileged I am to be able to teach these kids about Jesus, and to be able to BE Christ to them. It's really amazing: These kids just have to see me in my clerics, even before they know me, and they're ready to love me. Not because of Me, but because of Jesus, and knowing that I represent Jesus in a special way. Shortly after I was ordained I was greeting parishioners after Mass, and a girl, around 6-7 years old, spontaneously came up to me and threw her arms around me in a big hug. I hadn't ever spoken to her before, but somehow she was drawn to me, or I should say, drawn to whatever of Christ she saw in me. It was both very moving and very humbling. Now, when I visit the school, lots of kids want to hug me when I come in or when I leave. When that happens, whatever fears of futility I may have had vanish: Some bishops may be cowards or fools, and some liberal nitwits may be trying to water down the Faith, but I know these kids are meeting Jesus, and putting their faith in him. That, in the long run, is what it's really all about.

No More Blogging 'till Next Week

I'm on retreat this week, enjoying a few days of prayer and meditation with the Benedictines of Oxford, Michigan. So the blog below is all you'll get till next week!




The Tridentine Mass at St. Mary Major

I know I'm a few days behind on this, but I'll chime in anyway. As many readers already know, last Saturday, May 24, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, celebrated Mass according to the Tridentine Rite at the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome for the first time in over 30 years.

The public celebration of the Mass at one of Rome's major basilicas, by the Cardinal in charge of implementing of Pope John Paul's mandate to "generously" provide the traditional Mass to the faithful, has to be seen as sending a clear signal by Rome of how it sees the place of the Old Mass.

Several sources, particularly CWNews.com, have quoted the Cardinal as saying that the old rite "cannot be considered defunct". But the remark acquires more significance if it is seen in its entirety, for the Cardinal said (as quoted in Zenit): "The old Roman rite preserves its right of citizenship in the Church and cannot be considered extinguished..." This strikes me as more than a mere acknowledgment that the Old Rite is clinging on to life: it seems to me that this is a definitive statement that the Tridentine Mass belongs in and to the Church, and has a rightful place in the Church. Furthermore, it seems to me that the Cardinal is addressing those "progressives" who would derogate the old Mass to being of mere antiquarian interest, and try to dismiss the Ecclesia Dei indult as just a temporary concession to the elderly and to unreconstructed throwbacks in the Church.

If you take the above quotation with this remark by the Cardinal: "What unites the variety of rites is the same faith in the eucharistic mystery," then one can see that he is placing the Old and New rites on an even par, as embodying the same faith. While some Traditionalists might quarrel that the Novus Ordo does not express the Catholic Faith in the same way as the Old Rite, what is important about the Cardinal's statement is that it removes the possibility of relegating the Tridentine Rite to a "second-class citizen" status: something to be only grudgingly tolerated. The subtext of the Cardinal's remarks may be read as "The Tridentine Rite is a venerable and authentic expression of Catholic Faith, and it's not going anywhere."

Dom Bettinelli at Bettnet thinks that the Cardinal's failure to announce a Universal Indult allowing any priest to celebrate the Old Mass means that the "rumors appear to have been untrue". I think Dom may be jumping to conclusions here, for several reasons. Firstly, after more than two weeks of public speculation about such an indult, no Vatican official has said a word refuting or denying that an Indult is in the works. Secondly, none of the initial stories published, especially the first one published in the Catholic Herald, actually claimed to know when such an announcement would happen. Simon Caldwell, the author of that story, never said that the Indult was due to be announced at the Mass at St. Mary Major. The idea that the announcement would come at this Mass was second-order speculation (that is, speculation of those who read the story) based only on the plausibility of such a move. I personally didn't think it would happen at this Mass, since the story only said it would happen "before the end of the year". That it didn't happen now doesn't prove that it won't happen at all.

Finally, sources such as Inside The Vatican report that a document is in the works which could go so far as to "mandate" the celebration of the old Latin Mass "more widely, even on a weekly basis, in every parish in the world..." The source for this information is the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship himself, Francis Cardinal Arinze. So I'm going to keep an open mind, and wait to see what this promised document actually provides.

I think it is clear, since the promulgation of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal in 2000, that Rome is moving to curb the abuses of the Novus Ordo and to tighten up liturgical discipline in general. It may very well be the case that Rome sees the rehabilitation of the Tridentine Rite as a desirable, or even necessary, part of securing the patrimony of Faith as it is expressed in our liturgy.

OK, People, Very Funny, Ha Ha...

I suppose it was a mistake for me announce the imposition of The Johansen Protocol at the end of my blog "Reforming The Culture, Part II". And some of you have leapt upon the opportunity to exercise your wit in pointing that out.

Of course, by posting things the way I did, everyone was drawn to comment on that rather than the more substantive post on the culture that preceeded it. So I've re-arranged it: If you want to wax wittily on the Johansen Protocol, feel free, below. But I'm putting the Culture II post here, and hopefully that will encourage more substantive commentary.

The "Burma Shave" bit was pretty funny...



Reforming The Culture, Part II

Against my better judgment, I'm going to respond to a commentor on Monday's blog. I've been advised by several other bloggers to simply ignore this person, but I'll indulge him with a response this one last time. This commentor has been wont to excoriate me and others, like Mark Shea, who assert that the Laity have some responsibility for The Situation. Firstly, nowhere have I ever said that the laity is "fundamentally" responsible for The Situation. Both clergy and laity have been to a certain extent compromised by the dominant culture. It is taken for granted in the dominant culture that there is, at bottom, nothing wrong with giving in to Appetite. And as I've said before, the problem is that once I've made it OK for me to give in to my appetite, I have no logical leg to stand on to say that it isn't OK for you to give in to yours. Hence it shouldn't surprise us that priests (some of whom eventually became bishops) who've made it OK for people to contracept, cohabitate, or engage in homosexual activity, were unable to muster the moral fortitude to condemn and punish pedophilia. To say that either bishops or laity are "fundamentally" responsible is a chicken-and-egg scenario. Both are influenced by and to have some extent accomodated themselves to the culture. And the bishops that some are so fond of denouncing came from the same generation that either welcomed or passively accepted the wholesale embrace of appetite that characterized the 70's and 80's.

The culture does influence attitudes and behaviors. Not that we're "amoebas" who simply absorb everything. But to counteract a poisonous environment requires constant care and vigilance, a vigilance which has been lacking at all levels in Catholic society. The priests and bishops who gave us things like Building Your Own Conscience have been walking in lockstep with lay "catholics" like those in Boston who have decided that the church needs to be more "up to date" on issues like contraception, homosexuality, women's ordination, etc. Both the clergy and laity imbibed the culture and have been poisoned by it. They enabled one another to be lulled into torpor and complacency.

As to the "powerlessness" of the laity with regard to their pastors: Poppycock! While the laity may have no "formal" say-so in the appointments of pastors or bishops, anyone with any experience of the real world knows that formally defined power isn't the only kind of power. I know priests who were transferred by their bishops when groups of disaffected parishioners banded together to complain about that priest's insistence on preaching the hard truths of church teaching. I know priests who were not allowed into their own parish or diocesan schools because the feminist nuns who ran the place didn't want the priest infecting the kids with sound doctrine. I have heard priests tell me that they "used to" preach or teach about things like contraception, but "don't bother" anymore because, after being shouted down too many times, they realized that "people won't receive that sort of thing."

Why is the culture important? Because, as I wrote before, it is the "incarnation" of, the way people live and experience, their beliefs and ideals. It can either re-inforce and augment the Faith, or undermine it. People learn not only by formal instruction or catechesis, but by picking up on the cultural cues around them regarding what's Really Important. It is a tone-deafness of the first order to deny the importance of those cultural cues. For example, I think it can be convincingly demonstrated that the practice of slavery is contrary to the Gospel. It is not specifically condemned in the gospel, but surely the gospel's message about humanity's redeemed nature and dignity in Christ implies the rejection of slavery. Yet we do not see the apostles or their immediate successors demand the abolition of slavery. Why? I would contend that, being immersed in a Greco-Roman culture which took slavery as given, they didn't even think to question it. It took the society's steeping in the Gospel for some 1300 years (which is when the explicit questioning of slavery begins in earnest), and the development of an explicitly Christian culture, for people to begin to figure out that slavery was contrary to the Faith.

Do we need culture to keep people Catholic? Strictly speaking, I suppose not. People obviously can and do remain steadfast under the most dire circumstances. But it requires heroic virtue to maintain the faith under those circumstances, and the Church has always made it clear that in a just and well-ordered society, it should not require heroic virtue simply to persevere in the Faith. Did the martyrs of the first two centuries need a Catholic culture to keep the faith? Obviously not, but alongside the martyrs who gave their lives for Christ were many lapsi who caved under the pressure of persecution. There were so many of them that St. Cyprian of Carthage had to write a treatise about the situation called De Lapsis. Did the magisterium fail those lapsi? I think not. On the contrary, the Church worked hard at inviting those people back into the fold. But how many, once having been lost, stayed that way? The Church has taught consistently that a well-ordered society, both in it's governance and in its cultural order, should aim to make it easier for Joe Six-Pack to live a holy life. A Catholic culture does this by providing the raw material for a Catholic imagination.

If anyone doubts the desirability of Catholic society with a Catholic culture, look at the culture around you. Do you really want more of the same?

The Johansen Protocol

Amy Welborn's policy that any correspondence directed to her about her blog is per se bloggable is known in blogland as the "Welborn Protocol". Well, I don't know if Amy called it that herself (I suspect not), but I have no qualms, after the latest round of comment-box bloviation, about naming this new policy after myself:

Henceforth, any commentor in my blog's comment box whose comments elongate into more than two consecutive comment boxes will be warned. A second infraction will result in that person being BANNED from my comment box. Consistent and habitual running over into two consecutive boxes will also raise my hackles, earn my ire, or otherwise incur my displeasure. Once someone is banned, I will have to be highly mollified to re-admit the offending commentor, as I will be exceedingly wroth. If you have more extensive comments to make, send them to me in an e-mail and I will gladly consider publishing and responding to them. If you habitually have more than that to say, do us both a favor and get your own blog. They're free, after all.

The comment box is there as a convenience for my readers to offer their reactions and observations. When one person monopolizes the comments with lengthy excurses upon favorite hobby-horses, it violates the intention of the comments function, inconveniences other readers and commentors, and generally annoys everyone.

So let it be written, so let it be done!

Reforming the Church Means Reforming the Culture

Last week, Mark Shea asked "how we get these eminently practical ideas for reform off the pages of a blog...". I am all in favor of authentic "reform" (eliminating cronyism in the selection of bishops, allowing more consultation of the laity, etc.). But if we think that any sort of tinkering with structures or mechanisms is going to solve the problem, we're deluding ourselves. As I pointed out last year and as Mark points out today, we have the bishops and priests we've got today because that's what many of us wanted. Vatican II was supposed to "open the windows" of the Church so that it could more effectively be a leaven in the world. But the result has been that we, in all too many cases, have simply accomodated ourselves to the dominant Culture.

There used to be, even in the U.S., an identifiable Catholic culture. It wore different ethnic faces, but there was a common thread throughout it all. Can it be said, in any meaningful sense, that there is an identifiable Catholic culture today? I think one would be hard pressed to adduce the evidence.

Movies like "The Song of Bernadette" or "The Scarlet and the Black", which were identifiably Catholic, were made by major studios and put into general release. Books like "The Devil's Advocate" (by Morris West), which dealt with Catholic themes, were best sellers. I would submit that there is nothing comparable going on today.

Why is this important? Because culture is the way our beliefs and ideals are "incarnated" in our lives. Our beliefs and ideals are shaped by our art and literature, and in turn shape them as well. And it seems to me that in the seventies that Catholics in the U.S. simply turned over the Culture to forces at best indifferent to, and at worst hostile to, the Faith.

I am not simply waxing nostalgic here. I know that some of the cultural expressions of the Faith a generation or two ago were mawkish or sentimental. But much of it was also profound and insightful. Books like "The Devil's Advocate" (yes, it's one of my favorites) treated the Faith with complexity and intelligence. Even movies like Otto Preminger's "The Cardinal" dealt with moral dilemmas in a nuanced way. And nothing like this is available today.

I think the only reason that can be given as to why Catholic culture has atrophied is that in large part Catholics stopped wanting it. And in large part our priests and bishops stopped encouraging and promoting it. It doesn't even occur to many Catholics today that the Faith can be interesting and engaging in their movies and literature. And so we have at least one, and possibly two generations of Catholics who do not have a Catholic cultural imagination. And that has profound effects in how they live their faith. Remember: the culture shapes our beliefs and ideals as much as it is shaped by them.

So, to return to Mark's question, how do we reclaim and reform the Culture? Well, by supporting and promoting arts and entertainment that are informed by a truly Catholic vision. One excellent opportunity to do so is by getting the word out about the upcoming movie "Therese : The Story of St. Therese of Lisieux". St. Therese, as the movie's trailers say, is an ordinary girl, who became an extraordinary soul. She is a saint who, I think, still speaks to our world today.

I received this e-mail about the movie today:

"As you may be aware, our friend Leonardo Defilippis has produced a delightful family motion picture called Therese, about the "Little Flower," St. Therese of Lisieux.

His plan is to release it to U.S. theaters in October, around St. Therese's feast day. However, the number of theaters in which it's shown - and thus the impact that St. Therese can have on people's lives through this movie - will largely be determined by the popular interest shown in the film NOW. In other words, the more interest Catholic families demonstrate in the movie at this time, the more widely Hollywood is likely to distribute the film in October. So if you'd like to help, here's what you can do.

Hollywood is monitoring the film's website closely to see how many visits it attracts. The site is exceptional and even contains video clips from the movie. So please visit it often, and also email this article to your friends so they can do so as well. It's important that we Catholics show our support right now for this particular kind of filmmaking.

St. Therese is an incredible patron for our time, and many souls worldwide are likely to be touched by seeing this movie...But its power to inspire the mainstream public will only be realized if Hollywood sees a level of interest in the film that warrants the widest possible theatrical release in October.

...So please, now that God has blessed Leonardo's vibrant apostolate and opened the door to the production of a major motion picture on the life of a Catholic saint, let's do what we can to help promote it. Many more such films will likely follow if this first one generates sufficient interest by the movie going public."

The website for this upcoming film is http://www.theresemovie.com/ . The site is beautifully done and shows great promise for the quality of the film. If we want to help bring about the "New Springtime" for the Church, we need to support efforts such as this to take back the Culture. Visit the Therese site often, and spread the word! If we Catholics can't be bothered to leaven the culture, who will?

Happy Mother's Day!

I hope that all of you were extra-special nice to your mothers! My Mom came up from Florida and she's spending the week with me.

I introduced her to the congregation at Mass yesterday (which she said was "sneaky" on my part). Lots of parishioners welcomed her and made her feel very much at home.

This morning I took her with me to our elementary school. I am teaching the 4th graders the Gregorian chant "Ave Maria" and my Mom was impressed (as am I) at how quickly they're picking it up. We then went to visit a couple of classes, and the kids were all wanting to ask her questions about me. When she started telling them stories about me as a child (like how I was a terrible liar and could never get away with anything), I thought it best to move on...

Always remember Mom!

Universal Indult for the Tridentine Mass?

A report in the British Catholic weekly The Catholic Herald claims that the Pope is soon going to grant a Universal Indult for the Old Mass. According to the report by Simon Caldwell:

John Paul II is understood to be ready to grant a "universal indult" by the end of the year to permit all priests to choose freely between the celebration of Mass in the so-called Tridentine rite used up to 1962 before the disciplinary reforms of
the Second Vatican Council and the novus ordo Mass used after 1970. It will mean that a priest who wants to celebrate old rite Masses will no longer need to apply for an indult to Ecclesia Dei...

This report has, as of now, not yet been confirmed by any Vatican officials. And given the recent furor over the false rumors of reconciliation with the schismatic traditionalists of the Society of St. Pius X, this report has to be taken with a grain of salt. But the Catholic Herald is sober and reliable, and Britain's national Catholic weekly. Caldwell seems to have access to some inside information, as he cites Vatican inquiries of Scottish and English bishops regarding their provision of the Old Mass.

Rome has given the Old Mass a higher profile in the last year or so: The holy father celebrated a Tridentine Mass last year, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos will celebrate a Tridentine Mass at St. Mary Major in Rome on the 24th of this month, and the Pope just issued an instruction granting permssion for any priest possessing the indult to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V at St. Peter's. All of these things taken together make the granting of a Universal Indult quite plausible.

What would the effects of such a grant be? Well, it would certainly cause great consternation among those more "progressive" types who have been attempting to redefine the Mass as a "celebration of community" or a "sacred meal" for the last 30 years. The grant of such an indult, with the Pope's most recent encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, could only be seen as a ringing re-affirmation of the Church's traditional understanding of the Mass as first and foremost the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. Conversely, such a move would be a great source of consolation for many Catholics who have been discouraged and dismayed by the perceived "dumbing-down" of the Mass in recent decades.

The grant of a universal indult would also end the "second-class citizen" status of the Old Mass and its adherents. It would put an end to the efforts of a few still-hostile bishops to thwart the "generous" application of the Ecclesia Dei indult by obstructing the Old Mass. This would probably, over the course of time, help to further stem the tide of liturgical abuses. It may also further efforts toward a "reform of the reform" of the post-conciliar liturgy.

Finally, it would in all likelihood be a big step towards reconciliation with the Lefebvrists and other traditionalist schismatics. As such, it would help us to fulfill Our Lord's prayer that "they all be one."

The Divine Emmylou Harris

I was cleaning my office this morning, with my mp3 collection playing at random on my computer in the background. The computer started playing Emmylou Harris' version of the old country-gospel standard, "Satan's Jewel Crown", and I had to just sit down and listen again.

I could, by no means, be called a "fan" of what we know as "Country" music, at least of the variety you hear on country radio stations. Travis Tritt, Shania, The Dixie Chicks (even before their repulsive conduct) etc., leave me cold. Most country music seems to me sappy, canned, and ersatz. It has all the authenticity of a Hostess Fruit Pie.

However, I very much like traditional Bluegrass and country-gospel music. It is music that actually has some depth and history: it is a music from a real tradition of real people. And like all true folk music, it contains the expressions of a people's collective soul.

Perhaps the best exponent of that folk-gospel music today is Emmylou Harris. Whatever she has produced in the country genre, I assure you, is far outclassed by her work in folk and gospel music. When she does folk music, she is wonderful. When she sings gospel, she is sublime. Emmylou has a voice of haunting purity, and lets the beauty of the music come through unencumbered.

Unfortunately, her folk and gospel offerings don't have as high a profile as her standard country output, which is too bad. And some of her best gospel performances are scattered in collaborative collections or commercially unreleased. But anyone interested in hearing her sublime voice performing this wonderful music could start here, with Angel Band. It's one classic after another, performed with an elegant simplicity.

Why Do People Leave?

I may be a little late in blogging on this, but it seems to me that one benefit of being Catholic is that the world already thinks we're backwards, so one doesn't have to worry about being au courant. And since Blogger ate this when I tried to post it yesterday, I have a double excuse.

Last Saturday, Fr. Andrew Greeley, in a column in the Chicago Sun-Times, discussed the reasons why many people "leave the church," and why he is unimpressed with those reasons:

However, most of the reasons I hear advanced these days are not of this sort. They are rather tales of what some priest did or said, of what some nun taught you, of some lunacy propagated by a bishop, of what some RCIA [Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults] director tried to impose upon you, of what some chancery office bureaucrat told you, of some rule that a liturgist said you had to obey, of the moronic failure of the church to deal with the pedophile crisis, of the denial by so many priests that there is a sexual abuse crisis, of the failure of the pope to support our eminently moral president, of the failure of bishops to speak out against the war (which they have, of course, though no one hears them anymore), of the pastor who is spending huge sums of money on a church the parish doesn't need. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Since I have already had to deal with this sort of thing in my not-quite-two-years of priesthood, it seems apropos for me to throw my two cents in. I think Fr. Greeley is on to something here: I know a man who "left the Church" when the priest he and his fiancee talked to about getting married had the audacity to point out that their cohabitational relationship was not a good preparation for marriage, and was objectively sinful. He then had the further gall to suggest that the best thing for them to do was to separate for the remainder of their engagement. This man had to make a choice between seriously examining his life in light of the Faith, or going it on his own. He decided to go it on his own (he is now on marriage number 3) rather than admit that this priest, or the Church, had anything to say to him about his moral decisions. In college and graduate school I knew many people who would provide elaborate rationales for why the Catholic Church was backwards, or "medieval"; or for why Faith was beneath their superior intellects. But when I got to know the people, and got "underneath" their rationalizations, I discovered that what really motivated them was the desire to live as though they were morally unaccountable.

Most of us do not want to hear hard sayings about sin, and our own culpability in it. Last year, after I gave this homily about The Situation at one of our Sunday Masses, a woman approached me, quite angry about it: she said that it was "hateful" and that I "obviously had contempt for women" (I had criticized one of Anna Quindlen's vapidities in my homily), and vowed that she would never attend one of my Masses again. She was evidently so wrapped up in her own agenda that she couldn't hear the message of my homily. All I could say in response was that I was sorry she was so upset that she had missed the whole point of my homily.

But at least she had the honesty to confront me face-to-face with her displeasure. I have occasionally heard "through the grapevine" that this or that parishioner has complained about something I said or did. I have even been told once or twice that someone has left the parish and begun attending Mass elsewhere over something I said. Unfortunately, these people have done so without ever talking to me about their complaints. While I will never apologize for preaching the Whole Faith boldly, nor for speaking unpopular truths, it nonetheless pains me that people may have acted so precipitously, as I never intend to wound. But I confess to a certain amount of frustration over these situations, as I think such behavior is cowardly and unjust. It is cowardly to speak critically of a person when one is unwilling to voice that criticism to the person's face. Furthermore, it is unjust, because the person has formed a judgment without giving me the opportunity to clarify myself or dispel any misunderstandings. If I have a serious issue with someone, I believe I have a moral obligation to speak to that perosn face-face about my concern. That is my obligation under Christian charity and justice. That's the way adult Christians are supposed to behave. I expect adult Christian conduct from people who profess to be Catholic. I admit that it's hard for me to believe in the good will of someone who is unwilling to even deal with me honestly.

That being said, I recognize the truth in Amy's concern for those who have been wounded by "the church":

It's not simply that people's feelings are hurt. It's that their faith is shaken. If a person who has been entrusted with passing on the Faith lies to you or hurts you or teaches something that is wrong, it is difficult for many to separate that relatively small moment in the present from the weight and breadth of Tradition.

That is why it is so important for us to reach out to people (and most of us know such people) who feel in some way alienated from the Church. The Church's central message is the Mercy and Grace of Christ, given to us through His passion, death and resurrection. That is why it is so important for priests to preach on the power and meaning of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and to avail ourselves of it frequently. The more we confront our own sinfulness and need for God's mercy, the more authentically and convincingly we can witness to it for others.

I HATE @@$^*(&%$$^) BLOGGER!!! $%()*%#@$!!

I just spent 45 minutes working on a post only to have it disappear into the Ether when I hit the "Post" button and was greeted with the message "www.blogger.com has refused your connection. Please try again later." I have other things to do, so I'll have to come back later and try to re-construct it. In the meantime, this gives me new impetus to find a different hosting service than the increasingly-flakey Blogger.

What I had written was really pretty good, you'll have to trust me on that until I can try again.

I suppose from now on I've learned a lesson: write my posts in a WP program, then cut and paste it into Blogger...

Like a Phoenix...

...My blog arises again! In this season of resurrection, it seemed a fitting time for me to "resurrect" my blog! I am glad to be back, after my Lenten penance.

I won't bother re-stating here what I intend to do in my blog: My purposes remain the same. If you are new to my blog or you want to re-acquaint yourself with my outlook and aims, you can read here or here. I hope that I'm a little wiser now that I've observed a pentiential silence of sorts.

And, just so it's clear, that silence was largely self-imposed: While Bishop Murray had asked me to stop blogging back in February, we met a couple of weeks after that and quickly resolved the issues which had concerned him. He made it quite clear that he was very supportive of my writing, and that he wanted me to continue. He appreciates and supports these purposes of my blog: to defend the Catholic Faith boldly, to defend the truth, and to point out and refute error. His main concern, which I admit that I have sometimes honored more in the breach than the observance, is that I always do so with prudence and charity. And so our meeting concluded cordially, and he gave me leave to return to my blog. But I decided that it would be best if I observed a penance and didn't return until Holy Week or Easter.

Another Clarification

When I posted the announcement that Bishop Murray asked me to stop blogging, many people read into that request some sort of "agenda" on his part to silence support for the "Old" Mass or some sort of hostility on his part to Tradition or traditionalists. I can assure you that that is simply not the case. Bishop Murray is very concerned that liturgy in our diocese be conducted with reverence and respect for liturgical law, and has issued instructions to that effect more than once. Furthermore, about two years ago he granted permission for the Mass of Pius V according to the Ecclesia Dei indult. For a time we had a regular Tridentine Mass here in the diocese. The only reason we don't have it now is that we have no priests here presently who both know the Old Mass and are willing to celebrate it. It's my hope that this deficiency will be remedied soon.

But some of the comments directed at Bishop Murray were, to be blunt, nothing short of scurrilous. I am always amazed at the conclusions that people are willing to draw from scanty evidence, or the entire lack of it. I hope that those who were quick to condemn Bishop Murray will be equally ready to give him their support and prayers. I for one look at the episcopacy as a "combat pay" job: no matter what you do, you will be shot at from all sides. Our shepherds deserve respect for their office, even if we disagree with their decisions. And they, like all people, deserve to be treated with charity.

Where Am I?

Several people have e-mailed me wondering where I've been since my re-introductory posts of last week.

Well, I'm on vacation! Not a blog vacation, a real one.

Right now I'm in Lincoln, Nebraska which, I reluctantly admit, has an almost equally valid claim as my own diocese of Kalamazoo, Michigan to the title "The Rome of The West."

It's not perversity which brings me to Lincoln in February: I'm here visiting my good friend John Pepino, who is on the faculty of the FSSP seminary here, Our Lady of Guadalupe. John teaches Latin, Greek, and Patristics, and very well, I might add.

I'm enjoying the hospitality of the seminary community, who have been excellent and gracious hosts.

I'm on my way to Florida shortly, to pay my Mom a visit.

I promise I'll blog more in the next day or so...

A word of Thanks...

After reading the comments on my re-introductory post below, I want to thank all of you for your words of welcome and encouragement. It's nice to know you have friends...

I'm also grateful to the many people who supported and encouraged me during my hiatus. Many of you contacted me from time to time to see how I was doing: I really appreciate that. I could tell from my occasional looks at the counter that people were still checking out the blog: that's the kind of readership every writer treasures.

I'm particularly grateful to my fellow bloggers Mark Shea, Lane Core, and Dom Bettinelli for the encouragement and advice they have given me at various points. Thanks, guys!

The Dignity of the Offender

A friend of mine, who is a prosecuting attorney, chided me for my comments on Mr. McCaffrey and his attorney below. He says:


"Welcome back to blogging. I enjoyed reading your commentary today. With respect to its contents, I respectfully dissent.

The role of a defense attorney is not well understood. People often equate it with merely getting criminals off on technicalities. The reality, however, is that both defense attorneys and prosecutors, whether they themselves realize it or not, are actually there to uphold and defend what are ultimately eternal truths, i.e., the Moral Law and the Dignity of Man. This occurs most dramatically and eloquently at hearings on sentencing, which, when done properly, can overflow with Beauty and Truth before finally ending with a Just result.

Where the crime is grave, the prosecutor's role, in part, is indeed to impress upon the Court and the public the magnitude of the Evil the defendant has done.

Very significantly, however, this is not the role of the defense attorney. On the contrary, the defense attorney should endeavor to impress upon the Court and the public the dignity of the defendant, lest this important truth be obscured by the seriousness of the offense or by the anger of the victims.

The defense attorney at sentencing is there to say Good things about someone who in some cases has done some very Bad things. Admittedly, "this is a very sad day for my client" is not a particularly effective way to proceed in this regard, in my opinion. Rhetorical mediocrity, however, does not necessarily represent narcissim, self-pity, or any of the other moral defects identified in your commentary, either on the part of the attorney, or, less still, on the part of the client."


OK, I admit I read perhaps too much into the attorney's fatuous statement. And I certainly want to recognize the dignity of the person, even those persons guilty of heinous crimes. But I also think there is such a thing as misplaced compassion. It seems to me that the attorney in this case was seeking to elicit false compassion for Mr. McCaffrey, in order to win him a more lenient sentence. But the fact is that, in this case, McCaffrey is not deserving of leniency. In his case compassion does not equal leniency. He is, in fact, already enjoying leniency, considering he has been sentenced to only 15 years when he admits to the serial molestation of numerous boys on numerous occasions.

Why do so many attorneys, in their necessary efforts to uphold the dignity of the accused and/or guilty, resort to trying to make their defendants out to be victims? That is what is truly ignoble.

I'm Back, and With a New Look!

After a long "vacation", I'm back to blogging! While I was chastened by my experience last fall, I'd say that I'm battle-scarred but wiser. One thing a little time and distance has given me is a chance to look back and see what I wrote last year with a more objective eye. Most of what I wrote I'm proud of, but some of it, I have to admit, doesn't show me at my best.

This time around, I'm going to try to stick closer to the purpose I originally stated when I started this blog. That is, to go beyond commenting merely on the events of the day and "examine what Dr. Russell Kirk would have called 'The Permanent Things'." The Permanent Things are ultimately the only things worth talking about. Also, I recognize the truth of something my friend Fr. Robert Sirico told me: It's relatively easy to react against and refute or poke fun at the inanities propagated by liberals and AmChurch modernists. It's harder to pro-actively address our nation and society's need for perennial Truth in a positive and creative way. But, of course, the latter will have far more lasting impact and importance than the former. So I intend to aim for this higher mark in the future.

But don't worry: my new resolve doesn't mean I'm going to get all "serious". I intend to re-introduce such features as the NCR Watch. While I firmly believe that liberal Catholicism is a dead end and is in the process of withering away, we have to keep an eye on it: it can still do a lot of damage as it flails about in it's death throes. I also intend to introduce several other semi-regular features. My imagination has not been idle in my blog hiatus.

Most of all, I'm going to continue to do what I have always tried to: To witness to the truth of Christ as revealed in and through the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; to witness to the wonder and privilege of the priesthood which the Lord has graciously given me, and to proclaim the joy that is living for and in Christ.

Some Clarifications

As regular readers of my blog are aware, I have criticized some of the content of Michael Rose’s book, Goodbye, Good Men, and also questioned the accuracy of some of its contents. In compliance with Mr. Rose's request, via counsel, and in the interest of laying the controversy to rest, I’d like to make the following clarifications.

In June of this year I sent two e-mails to several individuals. The first e-mail was an announcement that Michael Rose was scheduled to appear on Raymond Arroyo’s show, “The World Over”, on EWTN. My source for that information was a friend, another priest. Several days later I sent another e-mail to the same people as the first, in which I informed them that Michael Rose’s appearance on the Raymond Arroyo Show was cancelled “precisely because of the ‘controversy’ regarding Rose’s veracity.” I also stated that Michael Rose was being sued for libel by two priests. Each of these statements require clarification. First, the statement that “two priests mentioned by name in Rose’s book are suing him for libel”, was furnished to me second hand, by the same source mentioned above. I am not personally aware of the existence of any such suits. Second, is the statement regarding Michael Rose’s appearance on the Raymond Arroyo Show. In fact, the only information I received with respect to this issue was an e-mail from the same friend mentioned above forwarding me an e-mail message from Raymond Arroyo that stated: “We are NOT having Rose on at present, based on the controversy.”

My friends, I also want to take this opportunity to tell you that I am taking a blog vacation for a short time to attend to my pastoral responsibilities and to work on a manuscript for a Catholic magazine. I will return when time and energy permit me.

Something New

If you'll look over to the right, you'll see I've added a new section: "The Best of My Blog."

These are things I've posted which I think were especially significant or about which I have received more than a few compliments.

I'm trying to make some other changes to my page, but the archive function on Blogger is messed up (again).

Enjoy!