The Visit of HRE Marcus I to St. Joseph

A Photo Memoir

Last week, my humble parish of St. Joseph, in St. Joseph, Michigan, was graced by a visit from His Plenipotentiary Excellence, The Holy Roman Emperor Marcus Sheavius I. We were particularly blessed in that he deigned to spend two days with us, and give two talks to the faithful. He edified us with his thoughts on the Eucharist on one night, and his thoughts on the Blessed Virgin on the second. In between his talks, we enjoyed the local scenery, some fine meals, and quaffing various heady potations.




This is His Excellence in front of the Royal Bulk Freighter, "Alpena", which brought him to our fair burg, on the
lovely Southeastern shore of Lake Michigan.




This is His Excellence whilst giving his talk on the Blessed Mother,
"An Evangelical Discovers Mary".




While he was with us, I had the privilege of offering a
private Mass for His Excellence.




In touring these dominions, His Excellence was shown the wide vistas from the bluffs overlooking Lake Michigan.




Here His Excellence surveys the beach adjacent to our famous pier and lighthouse, which has from time to time
graced our nation's postage stamps.




We also made a trip to Notre Dame University, and had lunch with the bright and fun folks from The Shrine of the Holy Whapping. Here we are in front of "Touchdown Jesus" on campus.




Here are His Excellence and I, at the Grotto of Notre Dame.




Upon our return to St. Joseph, His Excellence inspected (and lounged against) the Eleven-inch Dahlgren guns which overlook the bluff, waiting in readiness to repel any miscreants or Canadians who might dare attack our shores.

His Excellence was a boon companion throughout his visit, and spread much cheer and mirth wherever he went. He also confuted many heresies and errors in his talks, both comforting those who love True Doctrine, and confounding those who would try to tickle our ears with false teaching. He is a blessing to all whom he touches with his presence.

Update On Terri Schiavo


The Real Significance of Terri's Law

By now most of you know that last week, Judge Douglas Baird issued a decision ruling "Terri's Law" unconstitutional. Terri's Law is the legislation which gave the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, the authority to intervene on her behalf and restore her feeding tube. Judge Baird's decision is a setback, but not an unexpected one.

Given the dedication which Judge Baird and his colleague on the Pinellas County bench, George Greer, have shown in making their courtrooms a congenial forum for Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, it is surprising to no one that Baird ruled the way he did. It is even less surprising, given that Judge Baird revealed that he had already concluded that Terri's Law was unconstitutional before briefs were filed or arguments heard in the case. Normally such clear evidence of judicial prejudice would cause a judge to recuse himself, or be removed from the case. But oddly enough in this case, though Governor Bush sought Baird's removal, it didn't happen. Apparently Pinellas County judges are considered so godlike in their intuitive powers that they don't have to consider things like arguments or evidence when they prejudge cases before they're even heard.

So Judge Baird ruled Terri's Law unconstitutional. I've read Judge Baird's ruling, and while I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), it seems to me that Judge Baird's arguments are these (any lawyers out there feel free to jump in and clarify!):

(a) Judge Baird argues that "Terri's Law" is an unwarranted usurpation of the powers of the Legislative Branch, because it grants the governor the power to intervene without any standards or guidelines as to how that intervention should be carried out. Now, this seems to me a fairly weak objection. After all, if the Legislature decides to grant a power to the Governor, and that power is the Legislature's to grant, then who's to complain about it? Legislatures do this all the time. Given that the power to intervene only applies in a very narrowly defined and rarely occurring situation, I don't see how this give the governor the unbridled power that, oh, say, judges routinely exercise.

(b) Judge Baird argues that "Terri's Law" is an invasion of Terri's privacy. As the right to privacy is construed, it includes the right to make decisions about end-of-life issues such as what "extraordinary measures" one will and will not allow. These decisions, generally speaking may not be overruled or obviated by the State. And so, since Judge Greer ruled that Michael's story about Terri not wanting to be kept alive was "clear and convincing", protecting Michael's "right" to end Terri's life is considered a defense of Terri's rights. While this reasoning is perhaps the most perverse in its outcome, it is also, perhaps, legally the strongest. Since the Griswold Supreme Court decision, and it's monster stepchild, Roe v. Wade, a large and increasingly unassailable body of case law has grown up around the "right to privacy", with all its emanations and penumbras.

Of course, this line of reasoning hinges upon Judge Greer's ruling of fact that Terri did tell Michael (and his brother and sister-in-law) that she wouldn't want to go on living if she required anything approaching extraordinary care. As I have discussed before (here and here), this is perhaps Judge Greer's most tendentious and biased ruling. It was based on little more than Michael's assertion, was contradicted by substantial and credible evidence, and was only allowed through Judge Greer's own procedural sleight of hand, in disregarding the usual rules for presenting and deposing witnesses. That Florida is one of the few states where such half-assed legal bootstrapping as Felos' is admissible may, in the end, cost Terri her life. But our judicial system does not like to revisit rulings of fact, no matter how egregiously misbegotten such rulings may be.

And that brings us to argument (c). Here Baird argues that Terri's Law is an unwarranted intrusion into the power of the judiciary. The courts, Baird says, have ruled on Terri. They have ruled that she is in a Persistent Vegetative State. They have ruled that Terri wants to die. They have ruled that Michael may in fact starve her to death. So no one, not even the legislature, certainly not the governor, may gainsay our robed masters. The courts, in effect, are omniscient, omnipotent, and inerrant.

What this ruling is really all about is apparent further on, where Judge Baird once again rules that Governor Bush may not introduce new testimony or new evidence in this case. Above all, Baird does not want his and Judge Greer's dubious deliberations subjected to impartial scrutiny. They do not want the evidence that Greer ignored in previous hearings, and advances in the understanding and treatment of brain-injured patients, to come out into the light of day. They do not want another court to consider facts such as the 43% error rate in diagnosing PVS patients. Because if they were, it might become apparent that they are wrong, and have been culpably wrong all along.

This case is, at the legal level, about more (and less) than Terri Schiavo. It is about judges protecting their power to decide who may live and who may die. They will do almost anything to protect that power.

And if the price of protecting their god-like power is Terri Schiavo's life, that's a price they're willing to pay.


What's Next?

I spoke with the Schindlers the other night, and, as I mentioned above, they were not surprised by Judge Baird's ruling. They and their legal team were expecting it. Governor Bush's attorneys immediately appealed Baird's ruling. What remains to be seen is whether or not George Felos attempts to short-circuit the appeals process and get Judge Greer or Baird to lift the stay brought about by Bush's appeal and issue another order to remove Terri's feeding tube. This is not considered likely, but it is possible. Right now, we're waiting to see what will happen with Gov. Bush's appeal. Bush is hampered by the fact that the appeals are going back up before the very courts that, time and again, have shown themselves to be very protective of Greer and Baird. The governor has tried to get the cases moved to Tallahassee, under a state law granting the governor the right to have cases involving him moved to courts in the state capitol. But those attempts, though a matter of statute, have failed as well.


Schindlers Prevented From Visiting Terri for 44 Days

What is most upsetting to Bob, Mary, and Terri's family is that Michael has successfully prevented them from visitng Terri for six weeks. After the bizarre allegations in March that needle marks had been found on Terri, the Schindlers have been kept from her. Of course, Michael's denial of visitation also happened at about the time that reports of neglect and poor care of Terri came to light.

The Schindlers are being treated as though they were the ones who were responsible for the purported needle marks. Of course there is no evidence to support that supposition, and no one has come right out and claimed that, perhaps because if such a claim were openly made, it would be dismissed as the absurdity it is. In fact, the existence of the purported needle marks is itself dubious. Investigators from the Florida office of civil rights have investigated the claim and examined Terri, and found no evidence of any needle marks. And the Pinellas County Sheriff has also supposedly investigated the allegation, but has so far not made any statement or issued a report, much less named a suspect or brought charges.

But the Schindlers, and Msgr. Malanowski as well, have been prevented from visiting Terri. To add insult to injury, Michael's other lawyer, Deborah Bushnell, has stipulated that the Schindlers may be permitted to visit Terri only if they pay for "additional security" on their visits.

The Schindlers have filed a motion before Judge Greer demanding to be allowed to visit Terri. Judge Greer has declined to hear that motion on an expedited basis. So how long it will be before they are allowed to see Terri again is anybody's guess.

I'm Catholic & Enjoying It!

Mark Shea is here, honoring our parish with his faith, wisdom, and trenchant wit. Last night he spoke to a group of over 100 people in our parish church, on "Discovering the Real Presence". He described his experience of finding the fullness of the Faith, and the fullness of Christ's presence, in the Holy Catholic Church. Along the way he handily disposed of common objections to Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and generally edified the faithful while confounding error.

Today I'll be showing Mark around a little, and we'll be making a trip to Notre Dame. Then, tonight, Mark will be speaking at our neighboring parish, St. Bernard's in Benton Harbor, Michigan. His topic will be "An Evangelical Discovers The Blessed Virgin Mary". That talk will also begin at 7:30 PM.

Mark Shea Is Coming to St. Joseph!

He's coming here to give a couple of talks at St. Joseph Parish (my parish) in St. Joseph, Michigan, and SS. John and Bernard Parish, in Benton Harbor, which is across the river from here.

Mark will be here on Monday and Tuesday, May 3-4.

Monday, May 3, 2004

"This is My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence."

St. Joseph's Parish, 211 Church St., St. Joseph, Michigan.
7:30 PM

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

"Behold Your Mother: An Evangelical Discovers the Blessed Virgin Mary."

St. Bernard's Parish, Delaware at Ogden Streets, Benton Harbor, Michigan.
7:30 PM

Any questions, phone: (269) 983-1575

Come hear and meet Mark!

And As If that Weren't Enough Wonderfulness...

Mark and I are leading a pilgrimage to France! Do all kinds of cool Catholic stuff in France with us!

September 21 to September 29, 2004.

Pilgrimage includes trips to Lourdes, Paris, Chartres, and Lisieux. Lots of cool things like Mass (celebrated by yours truly) at the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Our tour director is Mark Windsor. To make arrangements, e-mail him at yawper1 [at] comcast.net. For more information, go here or here.

Also, Mark Windsor tells me that the deadline for signing up and putting down your money is July 15, 2004 (unless we sell out first). That's going to come sooner than you think, so if you're a procrastinator (like me), get going! Another thing to keep in mind, he tells me, is that the Olympics this summer are going to drive up the costs of airfare throughout Europe, even into the fall. So better to make your arrangements sooner rather than later.

Come one, come all!

Mark Shea Is Coming Here!

To St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, Michigan, that is.

Mark, otherwise known as His Serene Munificence, the Holy Roman Emperor, is deigning to bless our fair burg with his Grace, Wisdom, and Wit.

In other words, he's coming here to give a couple of talks to St. Joseph Parish in St. Joseph, and SS. John and Bernard Parish, in Benton Harbor.

Mark will be here on Monday and Tuesday, May 3-4.

Monday, May 3

"An Evangelical Discovers the Eucharist"
St. Joseph Catholic Church; St. Joseph, Michigan
7:30 PM

Tuesday, May 4

"An Evangelical Discovers Mary"
St. Bernard Catholic Church; Benton Harbor, Michigan
7:30 PM

Come one and all!

Once In a Lifetime Opportunity!

Go on a pilgrimage to France with Mark Shea and I! Not only do you get to see all this cool Catholic stuff in France, you get to do it with us!

September 21 to September 29, 2004.

Pilgrimage includes trips to Lourdes, Paris, Chartres, and Lisieux.

Our gracious and competent tour director is Mark Windsor. To make arrangements, e-mail him at yawper1 [at] comcast.net. For more information, go here or here.

Hope to see you!

A Belated Happy Easter to You!

I hope you and yours are enjoying every good spiritual fruit of Our Lord's resurrection. Remember, this whole week is Easter!

Regina Coeli, laetare, Alleluia!
Quia quem meruisti portare, Alleluia!
Resurrexit sicut diixt, Alleluia!
Ora pro nobis Deum, Alleluia!
Christos Anesti! Alleluia!

Good Friday




Sano di Pietro, The Crucifixion, c. 1450


O Sacred Head, surrounded by crown of piercing thorn;
O Bleeding Head so wounded, reviled and put to scorn!
The pow'r of death comes o'er Thee, the glow of life decays,
Yet angel hosts adore Thee, and tremble as they gaze!

I was the celebrant today for my parish's Good Friday service, and it always affects me very deeply. I usually cannot get through all the verses of the Passion Chorale above without choking up, and sometimes weeping. I am struck by my priestly identity as Alter Christus, and by my profound unworthiness for that distinction and privilege. Nonetheless, I am grateful for it, and for my Savior's infinite mercy towards me.

At my parish, we have a large wooden cross that the celebrant carries into the church for the Veneration of the Cross. It stands about 6 feet high and 3 feet across, and weighs about 100 pounds. So I really felt it as I carried it in, and cried out "This is the wood of the cross, on which hung the savior of the world!" And as I carried it, I thought and prayed, "O Lord, how unworthy I am to carry Your cross. How unworthy I am." Never have I felt more deeply how much Jesus has given me. I weep for my sins, and for the immensity of Christ's saving gift of Himself.

We all show our faith and devotion in different ways. But today, even the strongest, most self-disciplined man should have no shame or self-consciousness in weeping at the foot of the cross. Weep for Christ, and for His mercy on us, who merit it not.

For today, God Himself died for you.


What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest friend,
For this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever; and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.

Update On Terri Schiavo

And, unfortunately, the news isn't good.

Yesterday, Judge George Greer handed down a ruling denying a motion filed by Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri's parents. The motion requested that Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian, be held in Contempt of Court for failing to comply with a 1996 order issued by another judge. That order required Michael to keep Bob and Mary apprised of Terri's medical condition.

I'll have more to say about the ruling itself later, but first I'll put this in context. The fact is that Michael has consistently withheld information about Terri's condition from the Schindlers since he vowed in 1993 that Bob and Mary would "never see [their] daughter again." When Terri nearly died of a urinary tract infection in 1993, due to Michael's refusal of treatment (which would have consisted of a $10.00 course of antibiotics) the Schindlers only found out about it after the fact from sympathetic medical workers who told them in spite of Michael's gag order, as he himself admitted in a guardianship hearing:

Attorney: When you made the decision that you were not going to treat Terri’s infection and you were, in effect, going to allow her to die, did you think that you had any obligation to tell her parents?

Michael: To answer that question, I probably would have let them know sooner or later.

Attorney: You never did let them know, though, did you?

Michael: No.

This behavior of Michael's continued, which led the Schindlers to seek and, successfully obtain, a court order from Judge Thomas E. Penick, requiring Michael Schiavo to provide the Schindlers with copies of Terri's annual medical reports, as well as apprising them of any "significant change" in Terri's condition. Unfortunately, Michael persists in stonewalling the Schindlers' requests for medical information and records, and maintains instructions to Terri's caregivers to do the same.

In a conversation with Bob Schindler Monday night, he told me that up until last year, they had never really pursued the enforcement of that order because he and Mary were focused on simply keeping her alive, which fight in the courts and in the organs of public opinion has occupied almost all of their energy for the last 6 years. But recent problems with Terri's health and the deterioration of her level of care had brought this problem to the fore.

Several weeks ago Terri began to have bouts of vomiting. Bob and Mary, understandably concerned, asked personnel from Woodside Hospice for an explanation. They were refused, hospice personnel stating "we can't tell you anything."


Terri's Care Deteriorates

This situation comes on top of a general decline in the quality of care that Terri has been receiving. Many people think that Terri is in a nursing home. She is not. Until recently, she was at Woodside Hospice, in Pinellas Pines, Florida. Hospices, by definition, are dedicated to caring for terminally ill patients in the final stages of life. Hospices offer only basic care to keep the dying person comfortable. They don't offer the same level of care as a nursing home.

The Schindlers have always objected to Terri being kept at the hospice, because Terri is not terminally ill. Furthermore, the Hospice Patients Alliance has also forcefully condemned the placing of disabled people in hospice facilities, saying that such a policy "endangers all disabled citizens of the United States and directly violates their Constitutional rights".

In addition to the inappropriateness of putting Terri in the hospice, the Schindlers have also been unhappy with the lower standard of care Terri has received there. "Before, when Terri was at the nursing home," Bob Schindler said, "the care there was great. They took very good care of her." But nursing homes are a lot more expensive than a hospice, and a look at the summary of expenses from Terri's trust fund (which is solely controlled by Michael), shows that the vast majority of that fund has gone to pay for Michael's lawyers, particularly George Felos. Michael's high expenditures on legal fees explain the apparent need for economies elsewhere. George Felos formerly was on the board of directors of the organization that runs Woodside, Hospice of the Sun Coast, a regional organization that manages Woodside and a number of other hospices in the Tampa - St. Petersburg area. Felos retains close ties to that organization, which doubtless gives him a high degree of control over Terri and her care.

Terri was moved some time ago from the Woodside Hospice to another facility, which, although in a different location, is nonetheless also run by Hospice of the Sun Coast. The move was explained to the Schindlers as motivated by the desire to give Terri a private room. Whatever the reason for the move, it wasn't to provide better care for Terri, as there are now signs that the minimal level of care given by Hospice has declined to outright neglect.

Bob told me Monday night that Terri has not been kept clean at the new facility. He and Mary have noticed on a number of occasions that her hair was greasy and obviously unwashed for days at a time. One employee of the facility, when asked by Mary why Terri had not been bathed, said that the hospice would not supply the toiletries necessary, and asked Mary for money to get shampoo, etc. for Terri. Mary gave the employee $20.00, but the money was returned the following day by a manager, who informed Mary they couldn't accept it. However, Terri is still not being kept clean.

They have frequently visited her and found that she had not been dressed. Terri is frequently not taken out of bed for lengthy periods, and she is not being turned regularly, as is necessary with bedridden patients. This lack of turning has led Terri to develop a decubitus ulcer on her buttock. Decubitus ulcers, commonly known as bedsores, are almost entirely preventable with the most basic of nursing care. Every nursing student learns how to prevent them early in training. Their presence is commonly taken as a sign of neglect.

In addition to the lack of hygiene and the development of the ulcer, Terri has also recently lost a tooth. Bob and Mary have long complained that Terri has not received a dental examination in years, and that she frequently has not had her teeth brushed for lengthy periods. Last year they brought to the attention of the hospice staff that one of Terri's teeth appeared seriously decayed, and had turned black. When several weeks passed and no action was taken, they pressed the hospice staff, who told the Schindlers that they had given Michael recommendations of dentists and oral surgeons, but that apparently he had done nothing. Well, several weeks ago the Schindlers noticed that this tooth was now missing, but that a decayed stump still remained.

The unexplained vomiting, the issue with Terri's tooth, etc., finally got to be more than the Schindlers could bear, and they filed a motion asking that Michael be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with Judge Penick's 1996 order requiring that he keep the Schindlers informed of Terri's condition.


The Unjust Judges Strike Again

Judge Penick's order is rather brief, and seems quite clear. It orders Michael to instruct facilities caring for Terri that they may discuss Terri's condition with Bob and Mary Schindler. It further orders Michael to notify the Schindlers of any "significant change" in Terri's condition.

Judge Greer, who has consistently ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo all along, sometimes despite the evidence and any semblance of logic, did not hand down his ruling last Friday, on the date he had initially set. But he gave a clear indication of how he was going to rule, by making a Clintonian remark about the need to revisit the phrase "significant change" and interpret what it meant. Apparently Judge Greer, when rulings made by other judges are inconvenient, sees his role as helping George Felos to "interpret" them into meaninglessness.

So Judge Greer's decision to deny the Schindlers' motion did not surprise them. "He's been protecting Michael all along," Bob Schindler said, "he almost has to keep doing it now." What is at stake, ultimately, is Michael's guardianship. "If Michael were found to be in contempt," Bob said, "he'd be finished as Terri's guardian." Such a ruling would be new grounds to challenge Michael's guardianship, and any judge would practically have to remove Michael. And once Michael was removed for cause, that would give Governor Bush additional grounds for taking new testimony, re-opening Judge Greer's "findings of fact", upon which his whole history of tendentious decisions is based. For these reasons, one could have reasonably predicted that Judge Greer would do almost anything to avoid finding Michael in contempt. The only good news is that Judge Greer issued his decision "without prejudice", which means that the Schindlers can re-introduce the issue at a later date.

Governor Bush also is seeking to have the venue of the Terri's Law case changed to the Florida circuit court in Tallahassee, the capital of Florida. Florida statute provides that, in any case involving the governor in litigation, the governor can change the venue of that case to that of the county of the Capital. Such a change, since it is statutory, is granted almost as a matter of course. However, Judges Greer and Baird are opposing that change of venue. What their legal rationale may be, I don't know. But it's clear that they don't want to lose their control over this case. A fresh judicial nose might sniff out the odor, no, the outright stink emanating from Greer and Baird's chambers regarding Terri's case.

Speaking of doing almost anything, you'll recall that last month, a Florida appeals court issued a ruling overturning Pinellas County Judge Baird's decision barring the Schindlers from joining the litigation regarding the constitutionality of Terri's Law, and rejecting Governor Bush's petition to take new witness testimony. The appellate court ruled that Baird's decision was erroneous. But that hasn't stopped Baird from re-issuing those same orders, in spite of the Appeals court's rulings. This will necessitate another legal challenge by Gov. Bush and the Schindlers.

Finally, Judge Greer is up for re-election this November. Unfortunately, at this time he's running unopposed. Is there anyone in Pinellas County willing to stand up and oppose Judge Greer?

That's something to pray for...

An Oversight Corrected

I just realized that I forgot to add a permalink over on the right to my Crisis Magazine article, Killing Terri Schiavo.

If you haven't read it, please do so!

Charmingly Irascible, I would say...



Saint Jerome is praying for you! To learn more
about this irascible saint go to the Patron
Saint Index at http://www.catholic-forum.com


Which Saint Would You Be?
brought to you by Quizilla

Today Is the Solemnity of The Annunciation



The Annunciation
Fra Angelico, c. 1430
Prado Altarpiece

At this day's Mass, we are to genuflect during the Creed, at the words "he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." Bending our knee, we pay homage to the Son, who condescended to become one of us for our salvation.

Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia caeli
Xporta manes, et stella maris, sucurre cadenti,
surgere qui curat populo: tu quae genuisti,
natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem,
Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore
sumens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere.
You can hear a sample of the ancient Gregorian Chant of this antiphon here ( ".au" file). Or you can listen to a sample of John Dunstable's (c. 1370-1453) polyphonic setting here (RealAudio file).

The Truth About "Goddess" Theology

Words of wisdom today from Kathy the Carmelite at Gospel Minefield. "Goddess Worship" and all the other Mists of Avalon and DaVinci Code nonsense are just "the whole Eve deception all over again", or:

The only hope women have of ever being treated like humans and not objects is in the Kingdom of God...

Women, who will you serve? Will you serve God, or will you serve Man? Because, in reality, those are the only options.

Mark Shea and Me Lead The First St. Blog's Pilgrimage

Mark Shea and I will be leading a Pilgrimage this September to Lourdes and the Shrines of France!

Mark Windsor at Vociferous Yawpings will be our gracious pilgrimage director.

Here is a summary itinerary:

2004 Pilgrimage to Lourdes and the Shrines of France

Hosts:

Fr. Rob Johansen (Thrown Back), Mark Shea (Catholic And Enjoying It)

Trip Coordinator: Mark Windsor (Vociferous Yawpings)


Departs September 21, 2004 and returns to on September 29, 2004. This is a 9 day, 7 night trip to France with scheduled visits at Lourdes, Paris, Chartres, and Lisieux. Each day we will celebrate mass at some of the most significant shrines and cathedrals in Europe.

The trip includes:

* Mass celebrated daily
* Breakfast daily
* Dinners as noted below (no lunches are included)
* Hotel accommodations, tax and VAT
* Small group; minimum 20 passengers, maximum 30
* Baggage transfer (1 bag per person)
* Services of a professional and fully licensed tour manager
* Motorcoach service throughout
* Paris Metro tickets
* All prearranged entry fees (there are some optional tours that travelers may choose to take at additional cost)
* Roundtrip 2nd class TGV rail service between Paris and Lourdes


Tour Costs

* For 20-29 passengers the fare is $2215 per person, based on double occupancy
* For 30 passengers, the fare drops to $1978 per person, based on double occupancy
* Deposit for the land portion of the trip is $200 per person due at the time of booking. This deposit is fully refundable up to 90 days before departure; 50% refundable 89-45 days before departure; nonrefundable within 45 days of departure.

Airline Tickets

* Roundtrip airfare available on American Airlines at additional cost. Air costs vary based on departure city. Space is EXTREMELY limited, so book early!
* Deposit for the air portion of the trip is $100 per person due at the time of booking. This deposit is fully refundable 120 days before departure. Deposit is nonrefundable within 120 days of departure.


Itinerary:

Day 1 - Sept 21 - Tuesday
Depart US

Day 2 - Sept 22 - Wednesday - Paris & Lourdes

Arrive Paris DeGaulle airport
TGV rail service from Paris to Lourdes

Day 3 - Sept 23 - Thursday - Lourdes

Mass at the grotto in Lourdes
Half day guided tour of Lourdes
Visit to the sanctuaries of Lourdes

Day 4 - Sept 24 - Friday - Lourdes & Paris

Half day orientation tour of Paris
Visit to Chapelle de la Medaille Miraculeuse (St. Catherine)

Day 5 - Sept 25 - Saturday - Paris & Chartres

Morning mass at Sacre Coeur or Shrine of the Miraculous Medal
Visit to Chartres Cathedral
N.B. This is also my birthday!

Day 6 - Sept 26 - Sunday - Chartres & Lisieux

Morning Gregorian Mass at Chartres Cathedral, Visit to the Chapelle du Sainte Therese

Transfer to Caen by motorcoach

Visit Normandy D-Day landing beaches and American Cemetery

Day 7 - Sept 27 - Monday - Lisieux & Paris

Day 8 - Sept 28 - Tuesday - Paris

Visit Notre Dame Cathedral - guided tour if no mass scheduled
Farewell dinner at hotel

Day 9 Return air to the US Wednesday Sept 29


For more details go to Mark Windsor's announcement, or e-mail him at yawper1 [at] comcast.net

This is looking like a great trip. I hope you can come!

I Never Thought of Myself As Being "Cool"




Magister Mundi sum!

"I am the Master of the Universe!"
You are full of yourself, but you're so cool you
probably deserve to be. Rock on.


Which Weird Latin Phrase Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I've never posted my results for one of these things before, but since this one is Latin, I had to make an exception.

Blugging Some Great Blogs

Some of you may recall that a while back, I coined the neologism "Blug". To "blug" is to give a blog a plug.

The fact that absolutely no one else seems to have picked up on this new term will not, in the slightest way, dissuade me from using it.

At any rate, here are some great blogs:

I have blugged The Great Commandment before. The author, Fr. David Hudgins, is my friend and classmate from Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. His most recent post is on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and is spot on. Also, his recent post "From Chaos back to Civilization" is a must-read if you want to get to the heart of the culture wars.

Another great blog by priests is Catholic Ragemonkey. Don't let the odd name throw you off. These guys are great, and once you get to know them, the name makes sense. This blog is the product of the fevered intellects of Frs. Shane Tharp and Stephen Hamilton. Fr. Hamilton is a sometime commentor here and on other blogs, and always has thoughtful things to say. Fr. Tharp was my classmate for the two-and-a half years I was at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia. Because Fr. Tharp was there longer, the damage on him is more pronounced. He may very well have an even lower threshold for suffering fools than I do. Fr. Tharp and Fr. Hamilton make a good team.

Oswald Sobrino's Catholic Analysis is just that: thoughtful examinations of all manner of things - events in the news, social problems, and culture - from a Catholic perspective. His principal concern seems always to be "what does it mean to look at 'X' through the eyes of the Faith."

Pansy and Peony (those are their hobbit names) are the Two Sleepy Mommies. Their blog is a great place for thoughts on family life, being a Catholic woman, and living one's faith in the world. They're also pretty funny. They're two reasonably-well-adjusted Catholic women who take their faith seriously. They're now on my list of blogs I check every day.

Homily for The Third Sunday of Lent

Cycle C

Exodus 3:1-8a,13-15
1 Corinthians 10:1-6, 10-12
Luke 13:1-9


I want to begin with a question for all of you. I'd like to a see a show of hands to answer this. How many of you want to be Holy? Good. Almost everyone, it looks like. Now, how many of you want to be Saints? Hmmm. Not as many hands... I think some of you are getting suspicious; you're wondering what I'm going to get you into here...

Well, I think most of us, when asked, would answer "yes" to those questions. Most of us, at some level, want to be Holy, or at least we know we're supposed to want to be Holy. But if we mean what we say, that means we have to be serious about repentance.

Jesus makes that clear. He said, "If you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!" Now, Jesus was talking to good Jews. They were people who kept the Law. These were people who went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and went to the Temple on Holy Days. These were people who probably thought "hey, I'm doing what I'm supposed to do." But He says to them "If you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!"

These words of our Lord present a challenge to us. They were not merely addressed to his hearers 2,000 years ago. They're in the gospel because they're addressed to us as well. And we're like those good Jews Jesus was addressing: we're the people who go to Mass on Sunday; we're the people who try to raise our kids Catholic; we're the people who support the parish. We're the people who might be tempted to think, "I'm doing what I'm supposed to..."

Once I knew man, I went to college with him. He was pretty successful: married, had a couple of kids, nice house, made good money. He had what you might call the "prototype" life of middle class comfort and respectability. He wasn't very religious at that time: he went to Mass once in a while. Well, one time I visited him shortly before I was to go to the seminary, and he asked me "come on Rob, you're not really serious about this priesthood stuff...?" I told him I was totally serious. And that got us to talking about faith, and he shared with me his view on things. He said "I'm a pretty good guy. I try to be decent to people. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't steal. I try to be good to my kids. I think God will give me credit for that."

Well, I think sometimes we're all tempted to think that way. I know I have been at times. And so St. Paul warns us against that: "whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care..." Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, "it's at those times when I feel most confident that I'm doing right, and all is well with my life, that I am probably at my worst." So I had to burst my friend's bubble, and perhaps ours too.

Those things he mentioned are all good and necessary, but they're not Holiness. Jesus didn't say "Be decent to people." He said "Be Holy, even as I am Holy."

We get a glimpse, a hint, of what Holiness is like in our first reading. Moses was afraid to look at God! He hid his face. Holiness is not warm and fuzzy: it is not a "Tender Moments" figurine. It is something in whose presence we feel awed.

And in the presence of holy people, we feel awed: A friend of mine knew Mother Theresa. He worked with her quite a bit, and helped her found a couple of her missions in the U.S. One time, he told me, he had spent a day working very hard in helping to move sick people into one of these new missions, and Mother Theresa, in gratitude, gave him a hug. Now my friend is a big guy, like me. And Mother Theresa was a tiny woman. He said to me, "Rob, it was like hugging an oak tree. She's that solid, that substantial. You could just feel the strength in her, like she's rooted to the ground."

If we are to be Holy like that, we have to be people of repentance.

Repentance not about big things: most of us aren't bank robbers or adulterers or swindlers. If we're looking for big changes, we're looking in the wrong place. Repentance is about little things. It's about bringing all the little details of our lives in conformity with God's will and plan.

Repentance is about doing penance for the times we swore at people in traffic. Repentance is about doing penance for the times we said "yes, dear" to our spouses without really listening. It's about doing penance for the times we were with people who belittled the faith, but sat silently and allowed it to go unchallenged. Repentance is about doing penance for our kid's school play that we "attended", but all the while we were on the cell phone with work, or thinking about what we had to get done at the office the next day.

Repentance is about doing penance for the times we've gossiped or backbitten one another. It's about doing penance for the indecent movie we watched at the hotel when we were away on business. It's about doing penance for the times we've given to the parish or to charity out of what's "left over", and not from our substance. It's about doing penance for the times we've attended Mass, but were here in body only, and not in mind or spirit. It's about desiring God more than anything else.

Now, if we don't feel that sort of desire, we can ask God to give that to us. He will, if we ask Him. We are called to be Holy, but we're not on our own. We don't have to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. We have God's grace, given to us through Jesus. We have it through prayer. We have it in the support of our brothers and sisters. And we have it, most powerfully, through the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. God will give us whatever we need to be Holy, if we but ask for it.

If we ask for holiness, and become people of repentance, we will be like the fig tree in the parable. The gardener gave it an extra year: we have been given the time and opportunity for repentance. By repentance we will become like that tree: watered, nurtured, and fertilized, and we will bear rich and abundant fruit.

My Prediction Fulfilled

My prediction of yesterday was fulfilled almost as I uttered it.

A reader calls our attention to a CNN.com story of the vandalism of a Denver synagogue.

When asked who might have been responsible for spraying Nazi graffiti on the synagogue, only one answer leapt to mind:

Rabbi Daniel Cohen said the vandalism may have been sparked by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which just finished its second weekend as the No. 1 movie in the country. The movie, which some believe wrongly blames Jews for the death of Christ, has been criticized as anti-Semitic.

That's right, rabbi. We've all seen those mobs of angry Christians leaving the movie theatres looking for Jews to beat up...

Of course, we all know how much Hitler and the Nazis loved the Catholic church... And we all know how modern neo-nazis are mostly church-goin', bible-totin', scripture-quotin' folks...

But who needs evidence when you're sure:

Elise Zakroff said she was sure the film inspired the graffiti.

"What Mel Gibson did is terrible," Zakroff said. "It is happening all over. We are tired of anti-Semitism. All we want is peace."

Why look for the actual culprit and punish him when you can blame a movie?

I amend my prediction: from here on out, any sort of anti-semitic activity anywhere will be linked to "The Passion" and Mel Gibson. The Lawsuit, as one reader also predicted, will not be far behind. Also not far behind will be rehashing of claims that the Vatican aided and abetted the Nazis, and renewed demands that the Catholic Church condemn Gibson and his movie. When Rome fails to acquiesce, this failure will itself be hailed as proof that the Catholic faith is inherently anti-semitic.

A Prediction

In my previous post, I alluded to the noticeable lack of any actual anti-Jewish reaction among Christians resulting from Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ". Of course, that hasn't prevented some pundits from continuing to wring their hands about the anti-semitic "potential" of the movie.

Well, bookmark this post, because I am making a prediction: Sooner or later, someone, somewhere will make an anti-semitic remark or engage in some form of anti-semitic behavior which will make the news. That person, on further investigation, will be revealed to be or to have been at one time a member of a Christian church. Further probing will reveal that this person, in fact, saw "The Passion of The Christ". It might have been a month, or a year, before the incident. But that will make no difference. In the minds and in the op-ed columns of the professional axe-grinders and hand-wringers, their thesis will be proved: "See!" they will shout. "We said all along that 'The Passion' was anti-semitic." And there will be a renewed burst of lamentation at this beginning of the foretold "wave" of anti-semitism resulting from the movie.

Mark this well, also: There will not be any disclaimers (commonly granted to Islamofacists) about how that person's extremism can't be taken as "representative" of Christians or the Christian faith. The problem, they will say, is clearly Christianity's fundamental and irremediable anti-semitism. There will be renewed demands that Christian churches reshape their doctrine to satisfy the hand-wringers. And some Christian leaders and churches, long-schooled in tremulous acquiescence to any charge of anti-semitism, no matter how absurd, will comply.

You read it here first.

"The Passion" Provides Opportunities for Hand-Wringing

Many churches are sponsoring guided discussions of "The Passion of The Christ", to help people understand the meaning of the movie and what Jesus did. This is a good thing.

Some churches and synagogues are sponsoring interfaith "dialogues" about the movie, to bring Christians and Jews together to help each other understand the different reactions they may have to the film, and the religious beliefs and assumptions underlying those reactions. This too can be a good thing, as long as the fundamental beliefs of each "side" are expressed honestly and respected.

But, based on what I have read, all too many of these "dialogues" turn out, like this one at a suburban Chicago synagogue, to be exercises in collective handwringing over how "anti-semitic" the movie is, or how it is "too violent", etc, ad nauseam.

The more I read about these things, and the statements made by those professed Christians who dislike the film and trot out the two canards I just mentioned, the more I am convinced that such people simply subscribe to a different religion than I do.

Now, if a Jew dislikes the movie because he objects to the Christian message within it, I don't have a problem with that (except insofar as I'd like him to become a Christian). After all, if he accepted the Christian claim, he'd be a Christian.

But if a Jewish person fundamentally misunderstands the Christian message, or uses the "anti-semitic" charge as a club with which to pummell Gibson or those Christians who have found the movie inspiring, I do have a problem with that.

One participant in the "dialogue", Alison Kinard, realized what was going on, and said:

"It saddens my heart that you're missing the whole essence of the movie," she said. "It's the message that Jesus came and he did what he did for us."

She said she did not leave the theater blaming Jews. "If anything, I left saying, `Woe is me,'" she said.

Richard Liebman, 54, a member of B'nai Torah, said he appreciated Kinard's comments, but the issue of anti-Semitism is too personal. "If everyone saw the movie through your eyes, we wouldn't have a problem," he told her afterward.

Apart from being patronizing, Liebman's remarks are also insulting to Christians. The overwhelming evidence is that Christians who have seen the movie react in much the same way as Kinard: with a feeling of personal responsibility for Christ's sufferings, and a conviction of the weight of their own sins. I have yet to meet or hear of a Christian who has emerged from this movie motivated to do violence to Jews. But Liebman nonetheless says "If everyone saw the movie through your eyes, we wouldn't have a problem".

What exactly is " the problem", Mr. Liebman? Where are the hordes of Christians coming forth from the movie to attack Jews or mount a pogrom? The fact is that there is no "problem". But the absence of any actual anti-Jewish response resulting from the movie does not faze the Liebmans, Foxmans, or Krauthammers of the world. That is the power of Ideology. Ideology enables one to sustain a position in spite of its manifest contradiction to the actual state of reality. The real problem is that such people are Ideologues.

And when self-professed Christians seem to miss the entire point of the movie, and distort its content, I have to wonder what went awry in their catechesis. The Rev. Mark Lund's bizarre reaction to the conclusion of the movie illustrates my point:

Rev. Mark Lund of Zion Lutheran Church in Deerfield, [IL] another panelist, criticized the film's origins, faithfulness to Scripture and anti-Semitic overtones...

Lund especially criticized the movie's final resurrection scene, which he said was accompanied by a cadence resembling a battle march.

"With a new hardness not seen before, Jesus jumps up to seek revenge on those who killed him," Lund said. "In Gibson's version, that can only be one group of people. The [first] two hours and five minutes of the film make it clear just who is going to be in trouble now."

Talk about reading into something! Lund's reaction provides an interesting glimpse into his own psyche, but little else. I suppose the Rev. Lund imagines that after Jesus rose from the dead, he went and apologized to the Sanhedrin for causing so much trouble.

Here are two "litmus-test" questions I suggest we propose to all the objectors to the movie's "violence" or "anti-semitism", especially the self-proclaimed Christians:

Do you believe that Jesus, according to the will of the Father and his own will as the Son and Second Person of the Trinity, offered Himself up for all mankind for the forgiveness of sins? Do you believe that Jesus' death on the cross was in some way expiatory for your sins and the sins of the whole world?

The answers to those questions will tell you where people are really coming from.

The Passion – Part II

I am away right now, visiting my Dad in Texas, where he has taken up wintering since his retirement. So in addition to visiting with other relatives and seeing the sights of the Hill Country, he and my stepmom and I went to see the "The Passion of The Christ", which is the second time for me. I almost never see a movie twice at the theatre, but I was happy to do so in this case. And, of course, that second viewing is the source of some further reflections about the movie:

Satan: This is, as far as I am concerned, one of the most theologically insightful depictions of Satan I have ever seen on screen. (Another one - though of a lighter, and utterly different character - is in the original Dudley Moore version of "Bedazzled".) Satan's malevolence in "The Passion" is utterly cold. Not even Satan himself derives any satisfaction from it. Satan’s hatred for us is almost palpable: he drives Judas to his death after using him, discarding him like a soiled, useless rag. He is all negation: At the beginning, in the Garden, his "temptation" of Christ is negative: You can’t do this. No one can do it. It isn’t worth it. Give up. And on the Via Dolorosa, Satan mocks Christ with another negation: after being comforted by His Mother, who is the archetype of all motherhood, Satan carries a hideous and grotesque man-infant in caricature of what Christ just experienced and what Mary just remembered. Mel Gibson clearly understands that while Satan is, in a sense, clever and devious, he nonetheless is ultimately a one-trick pony.

Violence: On the second viewing, the violence has less sheer punch-in-the-guts impact, but it is still gripping. It is gripping because it is Real. I am not an “expert” in Roman punishments and crucifixion, but I do have an M.A. Classics and have read quite a lot about such things in both primary and secondary sources. I have given presentations on the topic to parish groups and high school classes. I have to say that in most ways, Gibson’s depictions of the scourging and crucifixion are accurate in their brutal detail. To complain that it is "unnecessary" is to miss the point. It happened. Obviously, in some sense, God thought it was necessary because He asked His Son to endure it. Jesus thought it was necessary because He willingly chose to undergo it. He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. He had power to come down from the cross, but he chose to stay on it.

Peter Nixon at Sursum Corda comes closest to offering a substantive objection to the violence, but I find his points fall short. He seems to think the violence is gratuitous, and compares it to a hypothetical "film depicting a concentration camp victim choking to death on gas and then having his skin removed by Nazi doctors", and asks whether such a movie would really tell us "a truth about the Holocaust that we don’t already know?" I think the holocaust movie analogy falls short, because, as horrific as what they endured was, nonetheless they weren't bearing all the weight and burden of all human sin and evil. Jesus was. The scourging and crucifixion were ugly and brutal because sin is ugly and brutal. The Christian can never become complacent or forgetful of this fact. Peter complains that the violence is the "stuff of nightmares". Yes, and Sin is nightmarish. If only more of us had nightmares about our sins! Seriously, how many people do you suppose these days have nightmares about their sins? And if they do, they're more likely to go to a therapist and medicate them away than they are to go to confession. Our salvation was purchased at a terrible price, and "The Passion" brings that point home.

Peter also compares the movie to devotions such as the Stations of The Cross, which obviously don't have the same level of brutal realism as Gibson's movie. But this comparison is also false. The movie isn't a prayer or devotion, though I, and I believe many others, prayed during it. The movie is Art. And there is ample precedent in Sacred Art for making depictions of Christ's passion as "realistic" and "brutal" as the artist's medium and technique would allow. Just look at much of medieval and baroque art, or the paintings of Gibson's claimed patron, Caravaggio.

Is the violence of the film "necessary"? Obviously, in a literal sense, no. The violence is not logically or morally necessary. Gibson could have made a powerful movie that did not feature such a graphic account of the Lord's suffering. But the fact that it could have been done that way doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done in the way Gibson has. Gibson's movie is a powerful antidote to the many inside and outside the Church who would say that Jesus was all about "preaching a message of love." This sentiment is insipid and false. Jesus came to die for us and our salvation, "and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)

The Critics: Amy Welborn has rightly cautioned us not to equate criticism of Gibson's movie with hatred of the Church or the Gospel. I can disagree with Peter Nixon about the merits of the movie and still respect his opinion, because he is trying to look at it and think about it as a Catholic and from "within" the faith. He also shows that he is at least trying to meet the movie on its own terms. So I have no doubt that there are very good Catholics and others who will not like the movie for all sorts of credible reasons.

Nonetheless, there are critics of the movie who I think can justly be accused of bad will and/or bad faith. One such critic is Andrew Sullivan, whose criticisms are a monument of intellectual dishonesty. Sullivan's entire life-project revolves around overthrowing the Christian tradition regarding his "one little thing". In that light his denunciation of Mel Gibson for his "heterodox" theology is rather rich. Of course, Sullivan is also wrong: "The Passion" is clearly based on a "substitutionary atonement" theology which is not only mainstream, but may even be considered normative for the Western Christian tradition. And for Sullivan, whose enjoyment of his "lifestyle" revolves around making the scriptural condemnations of homosexual behavior "go away", to upbraid Gibson for his artistic liberties with the Gospels is almost comical in its irony.

Evangelism: Many, especially evangelical Protestants, have been touting "The Passion" as a medium of evangelism. If by that they mean converting those who have no faith in Christ, I doubt it will be effective. I think that unbelievers may very well be moved to compassion and pity for Christ, but it is faith which makes one understand the meaning of what He did and suffered. On the other hand, I think that this movie has the potential to reinvigorate the faith of many, and to rekindle fervor for the gospel. I know of many who have been moved to repentance, and to a desire to spread the Good News, by this movie. I think, that followed by a time of meditation and prayer, such as what we are organizing in my parish for a high school Youth Ministry event, it could be a very powerful instrument for deepening one's faith in and love for Our Lord.

The "Ordinary Man's" Reaction: I mentioned that my father went with me to see the movie this time. I think his reaction is instructive. Now, my father is in many ways no "ordinary" man. But he is in this sense: he is not a church professional and has no theological degrees. He is college-educated but has spent his life working very much in the "real world". He does not read blogs. (Not even my own – how's that to keep me humble!) But he knows his faith, and he knows Jesus, and tries to live accordingly. And he was very moved by this movie. He had to wipe the tears from his eyes more than once, not that I'd ever make him feel self-conscious by pointing out that I'd noticed. He was pretty choked up by it. And he observed to me afterwards that nobody came out "looking good" in this movie except Jesus and Mary. Not the Jews, not the Romans, no one. "I suppose that's about right", he said, "none of us [emphasis mine] come out looking good." He got it, and I think most people will as well.

Look What Happens…

When you’re gone for a few days. I left my blog alone for the last few days, trusting that all would be well. But, much to my chagrin, a troll whom I thought would never again befoul this atmosphere with his poisonous exhalations managed to return, another oversight stemming from my switch to SquawkBox for comments.

So I apologize to you readers who had to endure yet another monomaniacal outburst of "every-known-evil-in-the-world-is-the-fault-of-John Paul II" from our favorite advocate of the atomic bombing of much of the Muslim world. He was up to his usual tricks, such as using multiple IP addresses. But this time we were also able to witness yet more staggering theological ignorance from the self-appointed arbiter of the True Gospel, in the form of his call for excommunicating people for grave sin. Never mind that stuff about God desiring not the death of sinners, but that they be saved.

At any rate, my oversight has been corrected.

Veritas? Quid Est Veritas?

Truth? What is Truth?

Those words of Pilate's have been echoing in my mind all last night and this morning, after seeing "The Passion of The Christ" last night. In one scene of the movie, Pilate spoke of "his" truth to his wife. Many in our world today seek to relativize the truth or pretend there's no such thing.

But there is. Ultimately, there is only one Truth.

There is Christ, who IS Truth.

There is Christ, and Him crucified. Everything else, though it may be "true" and important, pales in significance to the Truth of Christ and Him crucified.

That's what the movie left me with. There are many things I could say about the movie, and I'll share some of them here. But no description I could write will do justice to the experience.

You must see this movie. Fr. Robert Sirico, whose Oratory of St. Philip Neri sponsored last night's screening, said in his prefatory remarks that he wasn't sure whether any movie will change people's lives. But, he said, the decision one must make in response to the proposition this movie makes will change people's lives. I think that's an excellent summation of the effect and impact of this movie. It does make a proposition:

He was wounded for our transgressions. By his stripes were we healed.

Some of the the things that hit me the hardest were little things. For example, when Pilate questions Jesus, he begins doing so in Aramaic. But then, without warning, Jesus switches to Latin. The effect was electrifying to me. Perhaps that's because I've studied Latin extensively (M.A. in Classics) and so can follow the Latin dialogue. But just the effect of Jesus doing so (I was so bowled over that I actually missed the first sentence of what he actually said) hit me like a punch in the gut. It struck me, on reflection, as "right". I found myself thinking, "yes, of course he would have."

Another little thing involves a flashback scene with Jesus and His mother, while Jesus was working as a carpenter. I won't say what happened because I don't want to spoil it, but I will say that Mel Gibson managed, in one 3 - 4 minute scene, to capture the real humanity of Jesus and the motherhood of Mary.

Since it is de rigeur in discussing this movie to answer the question, I will: No, this movie is NOT anti-semitic. If one has a problem with this movie, the problem isn't with the movie, it's with the Gospels.

Is this movie accurate? Not in some literalistic, tot-up-the-scripture-references way. Gibson makes use of his artistic imagination to paint a portrait. But this movie is Faithful. Faithful to the Gospels. Faithful to the Tradition. Faithful to who Christ is and what He did.

And it is Faithful to the most profound mysteries of our Faith. I was struck by how Eucharistic the movie is. Not just in the flashback scenes of the Last Supper, but as a whole. I don't think I'm giving anything away here because others have written about this, but there is a scene after Jesus' scourging where Mary wipes up His blood. I was moved to think about the Mass, and every time I look into the Chalice when I say "this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant...". That blood, and the blood at the foot of the Pillar, are the same.

I will never celebrate Mass the same way again.

This movie is Art. Art in the best and highest sense. One of the panelists last night said we tend, in our day, to think of art as a private expression of what is internal to the artist. But of course, that's not what Art is really all about.

The real purpose of Art, he said, is to show us the Truth about things. Art, because it reveals beauty, points the way to Truth. Art at its best shows us the Truth.

That is what this movie does. It shows us the Truth.

I'm Going to See "The Passion" Tonight!

I can hardly wait! I'm going to be one of the lucky 300 or so people who get to see a special preview of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" at an event organized by the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in Kalamazoo.

I will give my reactions and impressions tomorrow.

An Answer to The DaVinci Code Twaddle

Amy Welborn has done the Church, and the Truth, a great service, by writing a book debunking the historical errors, flights of fancy, outright lies, and nonsensical claptrap of Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.

De-Coding DaVinci will be available from Our Sunday Visitor Press after April 1. A pamphlet is also being published.

Pre-order your copy today! Order it from places like Barnes & Noble and Borders, so they'll stock it. Get copies for your friends who've been hoodwinked by Brown's engaging fraud!

In the meantime, read Amy's critique at Our Sunday Visitor or Carl Olson & Sandra Miesel's at Envoy Magazine.

Friday the 13th Is A Lucky Day For Terri Schiavo

TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush and the parents of a severely brain-damaged woman won appellate court rulings in their favor Friday on two legal issues in their quest to keep the woman alive against her husband's wishes.

Last month, I was pretty glum about Terri's prospects, and had written some pretty dire predictions. This is one of those times where I'm very happy to have been wrong!

While the battle isn't over, this is a major victory for Terri and the cause of Life. Now that Gov. Bush and the Schindler's legal team can introduce witness testimony, it may be possible to overturn Judge Greer's tendentious and sometimes bizarre findings of "fact".

Deo Gratias! Sometimes the good guys win!


Speaking of Terri...

I neglected to post this earlier: For those of you who don't subscribe to Crisis Magazine, the January issue, with my article, Killing Terri Schiavo, is now available online.

A Brave New World

Scientists in South Korea announced that they have cloned human embyos and harvested stem cells from them :

Scientists from Seoul National University report they succeeded thanks, they say, to using extremely fresh eggs donated by South Korean volunteers and finding a gentler way of handling the genetic material inside them.

But, the scientists say, this cloning is "not to make babies". Rather, "it's called therapeutic cloning, in which embryos that are the genetic twins of a particular patient are grown in a test-tube to supply master stem cells..."

Yeah, it's sure "therapeutic" for the human beings that are created and then destroyed to get that "genetic material."

The day has arrived where we try to create human beings and destroy them, in order to supply "spare parts."

But the technique still doesn't work very well:

The Seoul team collected 242 eggs, from which they succeeded in cloning 30 blastocysts early-stage embryos containing a mere 100 cells. From those, they harvested just one colony of stem cells.

So 30 human beings were created in petri dishes and then destroyed. Strip away the lab coats and the shiny bright machines, and you've got mass murder. Laurie Zoloth, a professor of medicine, said "The kind of cloning to make human babies is impermissible. Clearly, the (South Korean researchers') intent is to do therapy."

Yeah, we can't have actual babies brought into the world. But manufacturing them in order to kill them is fine and dandy.

But not to worry: they're still "years away" from making this technology usuable. They'll just have to manufacture a few thousand more human beings and kill them in order to perfect their technique.


You shall be as gods... (Genesis 3:5)

Clerical Secrecy

Sorry I've been away for so long. I've had a couple of important projects hanging over my head that I had to get finished up, or else.


A couple of weeks ago, Amy Welborn made some remarks about the different "level of communication" that exists amongst priests:

There is simply a different level of information and conversation among clerics. In other words, they say things to each other and know things that they don't, and never will, say to the rest of us.

Of course, there are some obvious ways in which Amy's statement is true. Obviously, anything revealed to me in the confessional, whether by priest or layperson, stays there. The seal of the confessional is "absolute and inviolable". Period. (Canon 983)

If I am unsure how to address a certain type of sin or fault in the confessional, I will go first to one of my brother priests (hopefully one older and wiser) to seek advice. Priests are going to have an understanding of the sacrament of confession, from the standpoint of confessor, that laypeople don't. But even this isn't absolute. I am fortunate to have several good friends who are prudent and thoughtful laymen, who take their faith and call to holiness seriously. I have, on occasion, sought their perspective on such matters.

Also, if I'm struggling with a difficult situation or person in my parish, I might "vent" about it with my brother priests in a way I wouldn't with my parishioners. In general, a priest doesn't and shouldn't air his gripes or misgivings about parishioners or parish problems with other parishioners. I should think the reason for that would be obvious.

On the other hand, I have, from time to time, gone to parishioners whom I've gotten to know and whose judgment I trust, and asked them things like "I seem to notice problem X in our parish. Do you see that? What do you think the problem is? How do you think we could fix it?"

I would hope that these sorts of things wouldn't particularly surprise anyone.

However, the idea that priests have a different "level of conversation" amongst themselves, combined with the fact that some bishops and diocesan personnel actively conspired to cover up clerical abuse, has led some to speculate that perhaps there is some sort of widespread "conspiracy" in the entire priesthood to cover up clerical malefactors. The blunt and simple response is that I, and the brother priests of my acquaintance, certainly weren't "in the know" about the abuse scandal and keeping that knowledge to themselves. No one ever sat me or my classmates down in the seminary and told us "OK, here's the real story about the Church (or priesthood), but you need to keep it to yourselves, and never ever tell laypeople about it." And no experience I ever had in seminary or beyond ever implicitly conveyed any idea like that to me.

Furthermore, nothing in my formation ever communicated the idea that "if you discover that a brother priest is involved in wrongdoing, you have to keep it secret, no matter what". If anything, the opposite was conveyed to us.

At Sacred Heart Major Seminary, where I completed my studies, seminarians have to do "peer evaluations" of one another at least twice during Theology. The thing that impressed me was how seriously the vast majority of the guys took them. Many men spent long hours thinking and praying over them. And I was further impressed at how forthright and insightful those evaluations were. My classmates were quite candid about my shortcomings, and the comments in peer evaluations were the source of many long, difficult, but often fruitful discussions. If a man's classmates thought he was unfit for the priesthood, they would say so, and give reasons. And the seminary Formation Committee took those evaluations seriously. I knew several men during the course of my formation who were asked to leave the seminary because they had bad peer reviews.

Furthermore, when the time came during our final year of Theology to submit our petitions for Orders, we were all charged very strictly by the Rector that if we had any knowledge about a seminarian petitioning for Orders, bearing upon his fitness for ordination, we had the most serious obligation to report that information to the Rector.

My point in explaining the above is that everything in my formation taught me and my classmates precisely that problems were not to be hidden or swept under the rug.

How does that play out today, now that I am ordained? Well, again, at least among the priests of my own generation, we feel perhaps even more betrayed by the bishops' cover-ups and shufflings of priest-predators than many laypeople. That's because such behavior by bishops is a failure to live up to their reponsibility to shepherd and be spiritual fathers to their priests. Presbyterorum Ordinis, the Second Vatican Council's document on the life and ministry of priests, teaches that the "burden of sanctifying their priests" falls particularly on the "bishop's shoulders." A bishop who looks the other way at clerical misconduct is woefully neglectful of his duty to sanctify his priests, not to mention his duty to protect the faithful.

And that, as I see it, is the crux of the matter. It seems to me that the scandal, apart from some bishops' seemingly obstinate refusal to recognize sin (or even criminality) for what it is, is the result of a wholesale failure of fraternal correction. If I'm going off in the wrong direction or doing something dumb, I want my brother priests to tell me. I want them to come to me and say "Johansen, what the hell do you think you're doing?" Luckily, I have brother priests who will do that for me. For that matter, I want my parishioners to do the same. But what we see, over and over again, in Boston, Phoenix, Cleveland, and elsewhere, is that no one seems to have done that with the bishops. There seems to have been a total failure of bishops to exercise fraternal correction of one another.

There's an old saying: Once you become a bishop, you never have a bad meal, and no one ever tells you the truth. It appears that this lack of truth-telling has applied to bishops amongst themselves as well. And it seems to me that part of the explanation for this is an exaggerated and mistaken exercise of collegiality. Now, collegiality among bishops is important. In fact, it is essential. Bishops have a duty to work together to advance the work of the universal Church, and to take care for the Church beyond the boundaries of their own dioceses. The documents of Vatican II, particularly Christus Dominus and Lumen Gentium, have a lot of important things to say about collegiality. But they have even more to say about the bishop's primary role of Teaching, Sanctifying, and Governing. And the bishops have a responsibilty to do that for one another as well as for us.

It seems as though collegiality, in the U.S., has devolved into the attitude "Never ever say anything critical about or to another bishop." But this attitude is simply insupportable either in Scripture or Tradition. St. Paul recognized St. Peter's office as Head of the Apostolic College, but he didn't shy away from calling Peter to account when he began to waver on a matter of settled doctrine (Galatians 2:11-14). St. Augustine and the other Church Fathers frequently corrected brother bishops on matters of church teaching or discipline. It's easy to play the game of "what if", and I can't know what might have happened. But I have a feeling things might have turned out differently if a couple of Cardinal Law's peers had taken him aside, when he wanted to shuffle another priest-abuser, and said "Bernie, what the hell do you think you're doing?"

The Scandal has prompted many people to call for "reform", and "change". Certainly reform is needed. Certainly openness is needed. But the problem isn't some clerical "code of secrecy". The problem isn't that the teaching of the Church, and the role of the bishop, as defined by Church tradition, has been tried in the U.S. and found wanting. The problem is that it hasn't really been tried at all.

The Empty Chair

Homily for the Third Sunday of Ordinary Time

Cycle C





Earlier this week, I read an article which brought home to me in a vivid and disturbing way just how dangerous it is to be a young person today. All sorts of dangers and temptations surround them, and powerful forces are working hard to corrupt and mislead them. To be blunt, our youth culture has become degenerate.

The fact is, we don't have to look very hard or very far to see the evidence of this. The most popular kind of music among young people today is "gangsta rap", which glories in violence, degradation, and exploitation. It assaults the very idea of social bonds. One of the biggest fads today is body piercing: It's no longer enough for some people to wear one or two, or even three earrings, but now some young people pierce their noses, their eyebrows, their cheeks, and even less mentionable parts. But it goes even farther, to things like branding, or something called "tongue splitting", in which people have their tongues surgically split in two, so as to resemble that of a snake. A serious problem among young women today is "cutting": these girls cut themselves deliberately, mutilating their bodies.

All of these kinds of self-mutilation, all of this degradation, is symptomatic of something. It didn't just come out of nowhere. These things are symptoms of deep emotional and spiritual pain. According to pychologists and therapists who have worked with these young people, the thing that is universal among them is a feeling of total disintegration, a feeling that the world is meaningless, that their lives are meaningless. They feel that everything is random, and nothing really matters. Another thing these young people have in common is rage: uncontrollable, almost inexpressible rage. And these feelings of meaninglessness and rage are so overpowering, so overwhelming, that the only way they feel they can get relief is to inflict physical pain on themselves.

Now, some of you parents here this morning might be thinking "hey, my kids aren't doing any of that stuff." And some of you young people here today might be thinking "I'm not doing any of that stuff." Well, good! Thank God for that! Thank God for preserving you or your kids from that kind of spiritual poison. But, I bet that many of you wouldn't have to think very long or look very hard to discover that you know some young person who is caught up in those things.

Where are these things coming from? Why are some of our young people caught up in this soul-destroying behavior? There are several reasons for this, I think:

We all know that kids need stability. They need firmness, limits, structure. They need guidance. They need to know where the boundaries are. And have we, as a society, given them those things? I'd have to say, in all too many cases, the answer is no.

We've broken up their families with divorce.

We've confused them about sex by creating a society in which anything goes. We've told them "you're going to do it anyway. We're not going to bother teaching you about virtue and self-control and the preciousness of sex." We've just thrown contraceptives at them.

In too many cases they've learned that their lives are meaningless, because they've never heard of the One who gives life meaning.

We've told them, and we've shown them, that their worth lies not in who they are, but in how much stuff they can collect; whether they're wearing the right clothes, or the right shoes. Whether they listen to the right music, or drink the right soft drink.


But one of the greatest reasons for this underlying sense of meaninglessness, for this rage among so many young people, among the "Gen-X'ers" (those who are under 30), is the fact that our young people, those under 30, as a Gen-X'er recently wrote, are the first generation that our society has systematically tried to wipe out through the holocaust of abortion. If you think I'm exaggerating, if you think I'm being "extremist" by saying something like that, consider this: since 1973, when abortion was made legal by the Supreme Court, we have killed 38 million children through abortion. 38 million! That's more people than Hitler and Stalin managed to kill.



That brings me to these young people sitting up here this morning. You see, since 1973, in our nation, abortion claims the life of 1 out of every 4 children conceived. One out of four children conceived today will not survive to birth because of abortion. One out of four. And that child, that fourth child, would have been sitting in in that empty chair. That empty chair would have been filled by a child, by a young person, if it hadn't been for abortion. That child might have been your neighbor, your own child's classmate. He or she might have been your nephew, or your cousin, or your niece. That empty child might have been filled by a child who'd be your paperboy, who'd grow up to be a doctor, a teacher, a missionary, a mother, or even a priest. But that child won't be any of those things, because he isn't here.

Now, the supporters of legalized abortion like to use phrases like "women's rights", or "freedom of choice." Those phrases are deceptions; they're smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors designed to hide that empty chair. Smoke and mirrors designed to obscure the child who isn't there.



Phrases like "reproductive rights" and "the right to choose" are abstractions. But that empty chair is very concrete, it's very real.

Whenever you hear phrases like "abortion rights", or "a woman's right to choose", I want you to think of that empty chair.

At any moment from conception to birth, a child's life can be snuffed out by abortion. That fact sends a message to our young people, a disturbing and corrosive message.

It says "You're only here because we decided to allow you to be here."

It says "You aren't supremely valuable, you aren't of inestimable worth." Because if you were, we would have done a better job of protecting your unborn brothers and sisters.

It tells our young people, "life is cheap, and easily thrown away."

Frankly, I'm not surprised that a lot of our young people feel meaninglessness and rage. I'm not surprised at all.

We heard Our Lord say in the gospel today:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me,
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives,
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable the Lord.

(Luke 4:14-21)

Our society is captive to the embrace of Death. Our nation is in poverty: Poverty, in the midst of the richest nation on earth! For as Mother Theresa said, "it is a great poverty to decide that a child must die so that we might live as we wish."

Our nation is blind to the dignity and humanity of the weakest and most vulnerable among us: the unborn child.

Every year, in our nation, millions suffer the ultimate oppression at the hands of abortionists.

In St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, we heard that we are the members of Christ's Body. As Christ's voice, it is for us to bring glad tidings to the poor. It is for us to proclaim liberty to captives.

Our challenge is this: Will we proclaim liberty to those captive to the Culture of Death? Will we be Christ's eyes, and see the dignity and humanity of the unborn child? Will we be Christ's hands, and reach out to protect those innocent lives?

Will we say to our young people, and to the world, "I WILL choose life!"?

Explorare Googles Ope!

Google has a Latin Version!

There you can "Favente Fortuna" in your web searches.

Everything is there, like your hints: "navigabulis plerisque inserendi clavem pulsare satis est, ne potius in tessera strepites".

Even the "Vincula sub Patrocinio" are there.

Make it protocollum tuum!

It's Not Like the Media Is Biased Or Anything...

The media is always trying to assure us that it's fair, balanced, objective, etc. So I'm sure that those objective professionals at KATU in Portland, Oregon, can explain how their coverage of today's March for Life is objective and balanced and accurate.

Today, hundreds of thousands of people went to Washington, D.C. to express their support for the dignity and humanity of the unborn. The scene in Washington looked something like this:



So, in their fair, objective, accurate report on the March, KATU provides this:



Nahh, there's no bias in the Media.

The March For Life



And I mean not just the annual March today in Washington, D.C., but the struggle, the battle, for the dignity of human life, which we are waging against the Culture of Death in which we are immersed.

Where are we, 31 years after Roe v. Wade?

I hate to say it, but it seems to me, as far as the nation as a whole goes, not much progress has been made. The organs of the dominant culture are just as implacably anti-life as they were 10-20 years ago. Catholics themselves, according to the surveys, are just as likely to support Abortion-On-Demand, and even have abortions, as the rest of society. If we can't get our own people "on board", how can we hope to change the broader culture?

And in the political sphere, I am beginning to think that Pro-lifers have been led down the garden path. I have labelled the Democratic Party the "Party of Death", and I still think that's the case: Their one and only real commitment is to the Slaughter of Innocents. But the Republicans can hardly be called the "Party of Life". The Republicans have managed to fob off pro-lifers with promises and platitudes for years now, while delivering next to nothing. And Republican commitment to the Pro-life cause is shaky as it has never been before. For the first 2 years after George W. Bush was elected, I thought that he was waiting to "solidify" his base before taking substantive pro-life action. But I don't think so anymore. I don't think he's going to deliver anything else. His behavior today tells the story. Pro-lifers should take cold comfort in his phone call to the March today: He could not have signalled his intent to keep pro-lifers at arms length any more clearly. He wasn't even physically in Washington today. And I don't believe for a moment that was an accident. It's not like the date of the March wasn't known well in advance.

So where, if at all, are signs of hope to be found? Well, it seems to me, that there is hope in our youth. I watched a little bit of the Mass for Life in Washington on EWTN last night, and I was struck by how many of the faces in the crowd were under 30. My own experience leads me to have hope: The Gen-X'ers and younger people are beginning to catch on to the fact that their generation has been savaged by abortion. Victor Lams put it bluntly last week:

... [T]he Boomer generation was the first generation to really selfishly turn on the next generation (my generation) and try to wipe it out through the holocaust of abortion and contraception. The boomers looked/do-look at the very existence of the Gen Xers as a threat to their youth ("Who are these youngsters? I'm the kid! I get the sex and the toys!")...

When young people get wind of what has been perpetrated on them, they're horrified and angry. I find that the following exercise brings the point home, especially with 12-14 year olds: When I talk to them about abortion, I'll have them sit so that every third or fourth chair amongst them is empty, but in it is either a name tag with the name left blank, or a cutout drawing of a face, with no features drawn on it. Then I tell them about what happened in 1973, and how, since then, we've been killing 1 out of 4 unborn children by abortion. I then point at those empty chairs, and blank nametags, and tell them: Those chairs are empty because the people who would have been there never had the chance to live. And those kids, the kids who died before they were born, would have been your classmates, your friends, your cousins, maybe even your brothers or sisters. That gets the message across. And it's a message that sticks. It's a sobering thought to realize that you exist only on the sufferance of society.

If enough of those kids get the message, then one day abortion will be ended, because they won't be party to murdering another generation.

A Thought Experiment

Several people have either sent me e-mails or left comments defending The West Wing against my criticisms of yesterday.

I readily grant that the show is well-written and acted. But a show can be well-written and acted and still have an agenda. And the agenda is the engine driving TWW.

But imagine this: What if "The West Wing" had a conservative President as protagonist, and an equally smart, beautiful, dedicated band of people striving to bring about School Vouchers, an end to Affirmative Action, opening up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and a Human Life Amendment? And imagine that the president's opponents, in that case liberals, were portrayed in a manner similar to the way conservatives are portrayed in the current show. The hue and cry from the outraged Left would reach the heavens. Critics would be having fits of apoplexy, and would demand the show's cancellation, and the immediate banishment or execution of its cast, writers, and producers.

Now Here's a Celebrity With Some Depth And Substance



Did you know that Britney Spears was an expert in Solid-State Physics?

Well, never underestimate what a girl can do when she sets her mind to it. She won't rest on her accomplishments in singing and acting. At Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics, she will guide you in learning about the vital laser components that have made it possible to hear her super music in a digital format.



At first, Britney admits, it was hard to understand things like valence bonds or n-N and p-P Heterojunctions:



But pretty soon, she was able to rattle off radiative transmission calculations off the top of her pretty little head:



Don't let phrases like "Finite Barrier Quantum Well" or "plane wave electric field" scare you! With a little hard work, anyone can understand semiconductor physics.



Britney says "It's a Snap!"

Just Honoring Her Wish

"A Conversation With Michael Schiavo"


A reader sent this to me, and I thought it amusing and worth passing on:


Q: Michael, you stated your wife Terri said "I wouldn't want to live like that". Yet, she is breathing on her own, not dying, not suffering from any terminal disease. Do you realize if you pulled her feeding tube, she would die from starvation and dehydration? What do you call that?

MS: just honoring her wish.

Q: Let me put it another way, Michael. Suppose Terri said she wanted you to put a loaded gun to her head and pull the trigger, would you go ahead? What do you call that?

MS: just honoring her wish.

Q: Perhaps we should try this .... Michael, suppose Terri said she wanted you to give her a push into the path of a moving freight train, would you go ahead? What do you call that?

MS: just honoring her wish.

Q: Alright Michael, suppose Terri said she wanted you to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, would you go ahead? What do you call that?

MS: hey, but she never said that.

Q: Don't worry about it Michael, go ahead anyway. We'll tell the world you were "just honoring her wish".

This conversation is fictitious, but, unfortunately, that doesn't mean it isn't true.