Day Nine Of The Novena For Terri

Holy Mary, Mother of God, and our Mother, hear our prayers on behalf of Terri Schiavo, and all whose lives are in danger from the Culture of Death. By your gracious intercession, may the Florida Supreme Court be guided by the Spirit of Justice, Counsel, and Fear of the Lord. May the people of Pinellas and Pasco Counties choose judges who will respect life, and use their power for the vindication of the innocent. Amen.

C-SPAN To Broadcast Terri's Law Oral Arguments

According to the C-SPAN website, C-SPAN 2 will broadcast the Oral Arguments in the "Terri's Law" case LIVE, tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM EDT.

Attorney George Felos will represent Michael Schiavo in arguing that Terri's Law is unconstitutional. Ken Connor will represent Florida Governor Jeb Bush, arguing that Terri's Law provides necessary protection for the disabled who are unable to speak for themselves, and that crucial issues and facts were never heard in the original court case which ruled, among other things, that Terri is in a Persistent Vegetative State. He will also argue that Circuit Judge Douglas Baird should not have ruled against Terri's Law without a trial.

I'll be tuning in and praying. I hope you do too.

In Spite Of His Advantage, Judge Greer Can Be Defeated

As I mentioned last week, Judge Greer has the advantage over challenger Jan Govan in organization and money. But good voter turnout in this election is almost certain to help Govan far more than Greer.

A reader writes to tell me:

The election on the 31st is a primary. Florida judicial elections are non-partisan. If no one wins a clear majority in the primary, then the general election in November is essentially a run-off. If someone gets a clear majority in the primary, then they're automatically elected.

Judge Greer has never been opposed in an election before. While the media and a portion of the legal community are behind him, by no means could he be called a popular jurist. There is no groundswell of "pro-Greer" sentiment out there. And, as a recent article on LifeNews.com reports, " pro-life advocates and disability rights activists...have rallied around Terri and are supporting Govan. They've distributed thousands of brochures and fliers on his behalf."

The bottom line is this: judicial elections traditionally have pretty low voter turnout. So mobilizing pro-lifers to get to the polls tomorrow can put Govan over the top. If you live in Pinellas or Pasco County, get out to vote tomorrow! If you know someone who does, get them out to vote! And if you don't, then pray that tomorrow is a day of victory for Govan, and the cause of the dignity of human life.

Day Eight Of the Novena For Terri

Tomorrow, of course, is the decisive day. The Terri's Law case will be heard by the Florida Supreme Court. Judge Greer's fate will rest in the hands of Pinellas County's voters. Let us pray for the triumph of Mercy and Justice!

Holy Mary, we beg you intercede for Terri Schiavo, and all those whose lives are in danger due either to their disability or the fact that their lives are considered meaningless or burdensome. By your prayers, and those of all the faithful united with you, may the Florida Supreme Court see the justice of Terri's Law, and see it as the protection of the weak and innocent it truly is. May Judge Greer be defeated in tomorrow's election, and the courts again become a place where the voiceless and defenseless can be vindicated. Amen.

Day Five Of The Novena For Terri Schiavo

Let us pray today for Terri and her family:

Holy Mary, you are the refuge and comfort of all who seek relief in distress and solace in the midst of hardship. We beg your intercession for Terri Schiavo. Make your loving presence known to her. May she also gain strength from the support of the many people praying for her. Look with favor on Terri's parents, and her whole family, who have steadfastly fought to save her life. Help them to persevere in hope, and to trust in the Mercy and Providence of God. Amen.

I probably won't be able to post again 'til Sunday or Monday. But keep praying!

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Found Unconstitutional

In a decision which really surprised no one, a New York District Federal Judge handed down a ruling declaring unconstitutional the ban on Partial-Birth Abortion, which President Bush signed into law last year.

In his opinion, Judge Richard Casey stated that the Supreme Court has made it clear that a law that prohibits the performance of a particular abortion procedure must include an exception to preserve a woman's life and health.

However, the law already has language in it granting an exception for the life of the mother:

According to the text of the law, the form of abortion is not banned if it is "necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Judge Casey's ruling is pure legal legerdemain. Firstly, this grisly procedure, which involves delivering the unborn child into the birth canal, thrusting a scissors into its skull, using a suction cannula to suck out its brain, and then crushing its skull, has been repeatedly declared, by the American Medical Association and other medical bodies, to be completely unneccesary, whether to save the mother or for any other reason whatsoever. So providing a "life exception" for the mother in this instance is utterly superfluous.

But the real reasoning for this ruling is contained in the phrase "women's health". The pro-abortion forces have always sought and used a definition of "women's health" that is so broad that practically anything can be used to justify abortion. Particularly slippery are the justifications based on a woman's emotional or mental health. Under this specious reasoning, many of the common inconveniences and burdens of pregnancy can be used to justify abortion. For example, the hormonally-induced depression that many women experience at different points of a pregnancy has been used to justify abortion based on the negative impact it will have on a woman's "emotional health".

The lack of a health exception deprives the pro-abortion movement an end run which would reduce the law to meaninglessness. They cannot allow any abortion, no matter how gratuitous or barbarically accomplished, to be challenged, because that would expose the lies, distortions, and base motives which undergird the abortion license.

Ultimately, this case is about two things: judges preserving their power to legislate from the bench, and their power over life and death. And they will, if necessary, defend those powers at the expense of innocent lives.

This case is also about defending the sexual license which has become the defining and core value of our society. We will have sex with who we want, when we want, and however we want. And we will pretend not to notice, and shout down any who point out, that the bed of our lusts is built on the mangled and disfigured bodies of innocent children.

Thanks to Amy Welborn for the link.

Day Four Of The Novena for Terri

Please join with me in praying for our nation, that we may always recognize the dignity of life in everyone, even those who seem "useless":

Holy Mary, Patroness of America, we beg you to intercede for our country. So many of our citizens have been misled by those who would judge which lives are no longer "worth" living. Lead our country back to a reverence for life. Help us to see that death is never a solution to problems, and that true compassion lies in protecting and cherishing life. Amen.

A Couple of Blugs

Firstly, I am overdue in acknowledging the dedication and yeoman work of Earl E. Appleby, contributor to the Catholic Kerry Watch blog, and author of Times Against Humanity. Earl is seemingly inexhaustible in his efforts on behalf of the innocent and defenseless, whether they be unborn, disabled, or in the final stages of life. Earl is also the motive force behind CURE, Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia, which also maintains a blog, Life Matters.

Earl is a passionate advocate for Catholic teaching on the dignity and inviolability of human life. He should be on your list of regular blogs. He is on mine.

I also want to direct your attention to Oswald Sobrino's always excellent blog, Catholic Analysis, and in particular this post, Pharaoh's Egypt or a New Israel?. He reflects on the thought of Jewish philosopher Leon Kass, in his book The Beginning of Wisdom [Free Press, 2003], and an article, "L'Chaim and Its Limits: Why Not Immortality?" from the May 2001 issue of First Things. In it he expands on Kass's parallel between modern American culture and that of ancient Egypt:

...We are certainly obsessed with avoiding any dangers. We allow the unborn to be killed at will, but mount severe campaigns against smoking. We are willing to create and kill human embryos--human life-- at will in the hope of defeating the natural process of human aging marked by chronic health problems and disease. People who have no problem with casual and promiscuous sexual intimacy assiduously shop at organic food stores. (So do very chaste and honorable people!)

Behind all of this concern with preserving our own lives lies the desire to freeze time...

Like the Egyptian Pharaohs of old, we seek to extend our pleasures and extend our lives, even if we do so at the cost of thousands or millions of innocent lives. And like the Pharaohs, our efforts will ultimately be futile. Their tombs are empty and dead, covered in desert sands.

What will cover the evidence of our self-indulgence and folly?

Day 3 of the Novena For Terri Schiavo

Sorry I didn't get to post anything yesterday. I hope all of you were able to offer a prayer for Terri, and all those whose lives are in danger because they are considered burdensome.

Please join me in a prayer for Terri, that the forces arrayed to end her life might be thwarted, and her human dignity recognized and respected.

Holy Mary, protectress of all the weak and defenseless, we beg your gracious intercession for Terri Schiavo, and all those, sick and disabled, who are neglected or pushed aside. By your prayers, may God reach the hearts of the judges, attorneys, and Terri's husband, that they may embrace true mercy and compassion for Terri and all like her. Amen.

What We Can Do For Terri

As I explain below, August 31^st is going to be a momentous day in the fight to save Terri Schiavo's life, for two reasons:

Firstly, the Florida State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Terri's Law.

Secondly, Judge George Greer, the "unjust judge" who has, seemingly, worked less hard to bring about Terri's death than only George Felos himself, is up for re-election that day. Thank God, he is being opposed by attorney Jan Govan.

As it happens, from today until August 31 is 9 days. Thus, we have a perfect spiritual opportunity.

I urge all of you to commit yourselves to making a Novena to Our Lady, Health of the Sick, as patroness of Terri and all those who are afflicted with disease or debility, and suffer the further indignity of neglect or maltreatment. The Feast of Our Lady, Health of the Sick, falls on the Saturday before the last Sunday in August. Thus it will fall this coming Saturday, August 28.

I would suggest the following intentions:

That the Florida Supreme Court would rule in favor of protecting the weak, innocent, and disabled from those who seek to end their lives.

That Jan Govan would prevail over Judge Greer in the upcoming election.

That Terri herself would be granted some degree of healing and recovery, and that she know of the love and support of all those praying for her.

That Judge Greer, George Felos, and Michael Schiavo would have their hearts softened, and that they embrace true mercy and compassion for Terri and all like her.

That our nation would turn from its infatuation with death as a solution to human problems.

Of course, if you have suitable additional intentions to add, please do so.

You might offer up a rosary every day for this novena, or even just a Hail Mary each day. You might attend daily Mass and offer your communion for these intentions. The important thing is to pray, pray, pray!

I will offer a Novena of Masses for these intentions starting today till the 31^st, and a rosary daily.

Please join me in this spiritual offering. In Christ we can do all things and achieve all things!

Terri Schiavo's Case Nears Critical Point

As many of you will recall, the Florida Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on the case of Terri's Law on August 31. Terri's husband Michael Schiavo, through his attorney George Felos, has challenged the constitutionality of the law, passed by the Florida legislature and signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush last October.

The nominal grounds for Felos' challenge is that it violates the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, by granting the governor the authority to usurp what is normally considered the prerogative of the courts. I've written at some length about the legal issues here and here. But what is really at stake, as I have also argued before, is the god-like power of judges, such as Pinellas County Judge Greer and Appellate Court Judge Baird, to decide who may live and who may die.

Michael has failed to comply with a 1996 court order compelling him to disclose changes in Terri’s medical condition to her parents and to notify the staff that they may do just that. On a visit to Terri on July 30, the Schindlers noticed a wrist band on Terri from a local hospital and inquired as to when and why their daughter had been hospitalized. The staff refused to provide the information. A phone call was placed to Michael to ask permission to disclose details to Terri’s parents. He denied permission. Michael's defiance to this court order is ongoing. So far, he continues to deny the Schindlers information about their daughter’s medical condition.

The Schindlers are still contesting Michael's guardianship of Terri. Michael has demonstrably failed to meet the standard for guardians specified under Florida law, and so the Schindlers filed their petition challenging Michael's guardianship on November 15, 2002. But Judge Greer has yet to rule on it. As I reported in March, Michael has so allowed Terri's care to deteriorate that she had developed bedsores, and had five teeth decay to such an extent that they had to be extracted. Also, Michael failed to submit the annual care plans for Terri required under Florida statute for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Failure to file the care plans is a clear breach of Florida law, and should be sufficient cause to remove Michael as guardian. Michael's failure to comply with the law, and the growing evidence of Terri's neglect, led the Schindlers to file a "Writ of Quo Warranto", demanding that Michael show cause why he should not be removed as guardian. Judge Greer dismissed the Writ, stating that the Schindlers had ample legal remedy in their 2002 Petition (which he has not ruled on), and that "extraordinary relief will not be granted in cases where the granting of it will result in confusion and disorder." In a further display of judicial toadyism, Judge Greer actually allowed Michael to "back file" the aforementioned care plans for 2001, 2002, and 2003, while the Writ of Quo Warranto (not to mention the original 2002 Petition) was before him for consideration. We could all wish that the courts, and other government agencies, were so accommodating to the rest of us when we fail to comply with legal mandates in a timely fashion.

In a related note, on August 2^nd Michael Schiavo failed to show up for a scheduled Deposition in the 2002 Guardianship matter. This is not the first time that Michael has resorted to "no show" tactics in order to delay progress in Terri's case. Judge Greer himself ordered that both Michael and Jodi Centonze, his live-in girlfriend and mother of his two children, be deposed. But Judge Greer has in no way sanctioned Schiavo or his attorney, George Felos, for failing to comply with his own order. A new date for the deposition is scheduled for today, August 23^rd. We'll see if Michael can be troubled to show up for this one.

It seems that Judge Greer and Michael are engaging in similar stalling tactics. Why? Well, the obvious answer is that the Supreme Court arguments are looming on the horizon. Most legal experts expect the Court to uphold the ruling that Terri's Law is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Schindlers' legal team expects that, if the Supreme Court rules as expected, it will do so relatively quickly. Michael, George Felos, and Judge Greer are, in all likelihood, hoping that a quick Supreme Court ruling will render the whole guardianship matter moot. Once Terri's Law is ruled unconstitutional, Felos will, almost certainly, immediately apply for a new order to remove Terri's feeding tube and a new death date. As I have written before, "once Terri's Law is declared unconstitutional, that puts an end to the inconvenient questions and demands of Gov. Bush and the Schindlers. Against the fact of Terri's death, none of those problematic issues will have much actuality. Felos and his comrades at the Hemlock Society and 'Death-with-Dignity' will have their test case, and the legal means to continue apace their offerings to Death The All-Embracing. "

August 31^st Could Be A Day Of Victory!

In addition to the Supreme Court arguments on Terri's Law being heard on that day, August 31^st is also the day of Judicial Elections in Florida. And, as I mentioned in June, Judge George Greer is being opposed in this year's election! Local attorney Jan Govan is courageously opposing Judge Greer, and promises to stand up for the innocent and powerless.

Govan is fighting an uphill battle, and now it's crunch time. Contributions to Govan's campaign, with only 9 days till the election, total only $20,896.

Judge Greer, on the other hand, has a well funded campaign, with $153,589 in his war chest. He has plenty of support from local attorneys, who apparently are either equally allied with the Culture of Death, or cowed by his reputation for vindictiveness from the bench.

According to Florida Division of Elections records, even the legal firm representing the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg, DiVito & Higham, has contributed to Judge Greer's re-election campaign. In addition to representing the Diocese, firm principal Joseph DiVito is also St. Petersburg Bishop Robert Lynch's personal attorney and close friend.

Show your support for Jan Govan! If you haven't made a contribution, please do so TODAY!

And say a prayer for Govan's victory. For his victory will be a victory for Life!

A Bishop Weighs In On The Questionnaire

Bishop Rene Gracida has also studied the USCCB Presidential Candidate Questionnaire, and found it wanting:

STATEMENT OF BISHOP RENE HENRY GRACIDA
ON THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE

I have had an opportunity to review a copy of the 2004 Presidential Questionnaire submitted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to President George Bush and Senator John Kerry. I am disappointed that the Questionnaire is so broad and covers so many issues that are before the American public today that its value in helping to show the differences between the positions of the two candidates on the really important issues will be minimal.

While certainly there could be and should be a "Catholic" position on most, if not all, of the issues covered by the Questionnaire, from the perspective of the Church's teaching some issues far outweigh others in importance. For instance, there is no moral equivalence between the issue of abortion-on-demand and farm subsidies. The Questionnaire should have been much shorter and should have been limited to questions on those issues on which there is a clear unequivocal teaching of the Church, e.g., abortion, cloning, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and marriage.

There is no clear unequivocal position of the Church on such issues as the minimum wage, immigration, farm subsidies, etc. The inclusion of questions in the Questionnaire can only result in confusion in the minds of Catholic voters who do not understand that there is no moral equivalence between these two groups of issues. I can only hope that both presidential candidates will refuse to reply to the Questionnaire, or, if they do reply, that the leadership of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will recognize the danger to Catholic voters and will publish those replies with a clear teaching on the greater importance which should be attached to the replies to the first group of questions I have listed above that have far greater moral implications for the Nation.

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi
10 August 2004

From Deal Hudson's Crisis E-Letter

Christ Makes Us Worthy

My friend, Fr. Brian Stanley, reacted about as strongly to some comments on women's ordination and "modern priestly formstion" over at Amy Welborn's blog as I did Tuesday. Fr. Stanley sent me the following note, with his observations on the matter:

As a priest, I take, too, take offense at the question of worthiness that has been raised, however "unintentionally". Am I to understand that the comments were intended to criticize the institution, but not the individuals who have given their lives over in service to God through that institution? I'm not buying it. That's a little too neatly compartmentalized. And it would seem that since the question of personal worthiness is an internal one, but evidently fair game for blogger commentary, wouldn't the question of intentionality be similarly fair game? Bottom line, how many priests have to blog and say that they were insulted before a comment is acknowledged as an insult? I think that the effects of a statement have as much weight as the intention behind it.

I have a brother, less than a year younger than I, who absented himself from the Mass for my ordination, because he and his wife considered me "unworthy" for ordination. To be fair, he also absented himself from my sister's wedding, my brother's wedding, and my mother's funeral, all because those people were “unworthy.” I tend to have a purely personal reaction when I hear the question of "worthiness" brought up, mainly because I think such question reveals more about the person asking the question than it does the actual object of the question.

Now to the actual object of the question, from my own story. I spent seven years in priestly formation with the Holy Cross Fathers in South Bend, from age 18 to 25. At no time did I ever hear that I was worthy of breakfast, lunch or dinner, let alone ordination to the priesthood. When I left the community of my own volition, my self esteem was pretty low. Who is worthy? No one. Fortunately, Christ makes us worthy. And like it or not, the Church is the instrument of grace for ordination.

Then I went to teach with the Jesuits in Wilmette, IL, for five years. I had a good experience teaching and coaching there. I also had a department chairman who liked to remind me that I was easily replaced, and frequently quoted General DeGaulle: The cemeteries are filled with indispensible men. Who is needed? No one. Fortunately, Christ calls us, not the department chairman. And like it or not, the Church is the instrument of that calling to ordination.

At Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, I had further priestly formation that emphasized service, humility, self-sacrificing love, self examination, frequent confession, peer evaluation. I was grilled, questioned, prodded, examined, stretched, gutted, stuffed, and then we went through the process again... for five years. That anyone gets through that without becoming a complete cynic is the real miracle of formation. I know my flaws and failings better than most know their own, if there is indeed even the slightest inkling of self examination in the modern world. The bald fact of the world today is that, as the blog commentary shows all too clearly, we're far more comfortable challenging others' worthiness than questioning our own worthiness. In a world that has promoted ultimate rebellion in questioning authority (and yes, Joan Chittister does exactly that, and not as logically as has been asserted, either), there are some who are seeking to authorize the questions first. I applaud Fr. Johansen’s responses, which promote the historical record, the hardest thing for liberals to overcome (they generally prefer to ignore that record). For the record, I am with the Centurion: Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. But only say the word and my servant will be healed. Only say the word, Lord, and I will be healed.

Has recent seminary formation somehow failed to address the issue of worthiness? I suppose if one confuses confidence in the Church’s teachings with personal pride, one might come away thinking that many newly ordained priests are full of themselves. I assure you, they are not. They are filled with the Good News, and proclaim it confidently, boldly. Some hearers take exception to that, because they want their gospel meek and mild. They do not want to hear of authority or objective truth or historical record. Such things do not fit into their preconceived notions, their ideas of ministry which come to resemble themselves rather than resemble Christ.

I think something has to be acknowledged here, a difficult matter of fact -- those who promote women’s ordination will not accept any argument against women’s ordination based on the Tradition of the Church. I have read so many specious arguments for women’s ordination which blithely sweep away Tradition, because they claim the Tradition on this subject is unreasonable, irrational, illogical. They do not substantiate the claim – they merely state it, as if saying it is irrational makes it so. No argument by Fr. Johansen or Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope John Paul II will sway these people, regardless of the soundness of their logic, the accuracy of their history, or the passion and sincerity of their presentation. It is a shame that the defense of male ordination is deemed insufficient, and that according to its critics, no worthy effort has been made in two thousand years.

One gets the sense that Our Lord Himself could return and proclaim the Church’s teaching on television clearly and plainly, and the feminists would respond with, “But that’s not logical,” and would ask Our Lord to defend His statement. The other difficult matter of fact is that Our Lord Himself has indeed spoken clearly and plainly on this topic, in the magisterial teaching of the Church. And it is just as clear and plain that the critics do not acknowledge that Holy Presence in the Church hierarchy, and that they are taking advantage of the incompetent administration in the midst of the Scandal as rationale for their rejection of Tradition.

And they fail to address the problem of precedent: if the Church changes this substantial discipline and doctrine, which discipline or doctrine will be next? This is the program that Fr. Johansen describes, this is the program that the Joan Chittisters of the world promote. And it is a program that is most destructive to the Church.

Fr. Brian Stanley is Pastor of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Coldwater, Michigan. He can be reached at frstanley at cbpu dot com.

The Eternal Banquet of The Lamb

Fr. Jim Tucker over at Dappled Things has an outstanding post on the Eucharist, based on a talk he gave to a monastery of the Poor Clares.

The issue for him, and for all of us, is how do we come into "real contact" with Christ's saving act on Calvary? The answer is: through the Eternal Sacrifice of the Mass. He explains:

In some way that cannot be explained, the Christian who takes part in the Mass finds the walls of the church dissolving and the hands of the clock stopping and the familiar faces around him being lost amid a multitude of faces of people who have lived the Faith throughout the centuries. He finds himself beneath a Cross as bread and wine lose their reality, and crucified Flesh is held aloft, and sacrificed Blood comes streaming out of a Heart that was pierced 2,000 years ago. With the eyes of his Faith, he sees, as John saw in the Apocalypse, a slaughtered Lamb that lives again. And he is offered a chance to be a part of that Sacrifice, to eat and drink the Death of Jesus, which is the only way to win the promise of a share in His Resurrection. "Blessed are those who are called to the wedding feast of the Lamb."

Read the whole thing. Fr. Jim is one of the best.

"My Grace Is Sufficient For Thee"

I would have preferred to narrate the following experience according to the promptings of a spirit of peaceful reflection or the like. But recent events have induced me to relate it in almost a spirit of self-defense, or perhaps more importantly, in a spirit of defense of the priesthood, as it is and has been understood by the Church, and lived out by some of the best men I know: the priests whom I attended seminary with and are products of "modern" priestly formation.

I have been reticent about sharing the following, except with a few close friends, because intense spiritual experiences, experiences which hindsight reveals to be turning points in one's life, are initimate matters. To reveal them too widely risks a sort of spiritual nakedness, which can perhaps render one more vulnerable than the physical variety. I am also reluctant to share this because I do not want to be seen as "tooting my own horn".

I am prompted to share this now as a result of some comments made by another commentor over on Amy Welborn's blog (You'll have to scroll fairly far down to find the relevant comments). He and I were carrying on a running debate on various issues relating to feminism and women's ordination, and at one point he wrote:

We have too many instances of people following the way of the reluctant Biblical figure or Christian saint: aware of unworthiness, they respond anyway. (Hardly the model of modern priestly formation, I might add.) [emphasis mine]

This remark that the awareness of unworthiness is "hardly the model of modern priestly formation...", carries with it the implication that I and other recently ordained priests somehow think of ourselves as worthy or deserving of the privilege of the Priesthood, as though we see ourselves as some sort of elevated Brahmin caste. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I found the remark and the implication deeply offensive. Knowing the years of trial, purification, and sheer hell that many of my confreres went through to be ordained makes the remark all the more offensive. While the author didn't intend it this way, it seems to impugn the priesthood of all of those good men with whom I am privileged to serve as brother priests.

No doubt, there are some men who enter the seminary with some twisted idea that they are "worthy" of the priesthood, or that they are doing God some sort of favor by offering themselves for ordination. I met a few along the way during my formation. But those guys usually didn't last long, and I'm glad to be able to say that not one of those losers I encountered made it to ordination. The fact is that the difficulties and trials of seminary life simply won't permit that sort of nonsense to survive long. Furthermore, a man's classmates are usually the best bullshit detector in the seminary. I recall once, during my time at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia, I heard a classmate complaining over dinner about being made to do work at his Apostolate assignment which he felt was "beneath" him. He said "these hands were meant for chalices, not callouses." I felt sickened upon hearing his remark, and at that moment lost any respect I had for him. I seriously considered "reporting" his comment to the seminary Formation Team, and believe me, that was the sort of thought I rarely entertained. But I felt that a man who harbored such an attitude was simply unfit for ordination. I was dissuaded from reporting this seminarian by my spiritual director, who advised me to hold off, and assured me that the Formation Team was "onto him". When, later that year, that seminarian was dismissed, his departure came as no surprise to, and was greeted with a sense of relief by, his classmates.

Now, after that long preface (I'm sure that purgatory for me will consist mainly of having to endure the ramblings of people as long-winded as myself), on to the narrative of an experience I had in the seminary which I think is relevant to the above-mentioned comment:

Because I transferred both dioceses and seminaries, my reception of the ministries of Lector and Acolyte (two "stepping stones" on the way to ordination) was delayed. This meant also that my admission to Candidacy for Holy Orders was also delayed. Candidacy is the formal recognition by the Church's authority that a man is in fact considered a candidate for Orders. It is, in a sense, the Church's "seal of approval", that in due course of time, when a man completes his studies, he will be ordained. Normally, at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, where I completed my formation, Candidacy is received in a man's third year of Theology. Because of my transfer, I did not receive Candidacy until the fall of my fourth year.

I received Candidacy at a regular Sunday Mass at the seminary, from the then-Rector of Sacred Heart, Bishop Allen Vigneron (now bishop of Oakland, California). I was the only man to receive Candidacy then, so I felt particularly "on the spot". I was also both touched and challenged by the fact that, as it seemed to me at the time, Bishop Vigneron's homily was directed to me personally. His admonitions and exhortations seemed to be tailored specifically to my shortcomings, strengths, and weaknesses. I did not feel threatened or oppressed by this, so much as I felt a growing sense that this was serious business.

The ritual for Candidacy includes a prescribed Instruction, with which Bp. Vigneron concluded his homily. These words seemed to leap up and challenge me:

Day by day you [the candidate] will learn to live the life of the Gospel and deepen your life of Faith, Hope, and Love. In the practice of these virtues you will gain the spirit of prayer and grow in zeal to win the world to Christ.

I began thinking, "OK, I've got the zeal, but that's about all that I have. My Faith is weak, my Hope struggles, and I can think of a dozen people who are much better than me at exhibiting the Love of Christ. Why me, Lord?"

Then, a little later in the ceremony, the bishop asks the candidate two questions:

Bishop: In response to the Lord's call are you resolved to complete your preparation so that in due time you will be ready to be ordained for the ministry of the Church?

Candidate: I am.

Bishop: Are you resolved to prepare yourself in mind and spirit to give faithful service to Christ the Lord and his body, the Church?

Candidate: I am.

At this point, my mind started whirling. I asked myself, am I really prepared? Am I really ready to give myself to Christ and His Church?

The enormity of what I was doing struck me. I realized at that moment that I was standing before the Church - the whole Church, the Church in Heaven and the Church here on earth, and saying "Ordain me. I will serve." And it seemed to me at that moment that I was no longer standing in just that seminary chapel. I felt as though the space had opened up, and I was in the midst of some vast space, surrounded by a multitude. I looked up at Bishop Vigneron, and realized that I had addressed my words, those two simple "I am's" not to Bishop Vigneron, not even to my assembled brothers, but to Christ Himself.

And the thought came to my mind "Who do you think you are? Who are you to be standing here? You're not worthy of this great calling. You're a fraud, a poseur."

And my heart sank, as I began to feel that I was committing some great effrontery.

Then, as if welling up from some great depth, I heard in my heart a voice. That voice was not my own mind, my own thought. It had a different quality than my questions and self-reproach. The voice seemed to be both from the very center of my self, and yet from somewhere else.

And the voice said "My grace is sufficient for thee. (2 Cor. 12:9) My grace, my life, my body and blood, are sufficient for thee, Rob."

And the weight, the reproach, vanished. I knew once again that this wasn't about me. It wasn't about me, my strengths or my weakness. It was about Christ. He had called, and I would say "yes." Christ was the one who would remedy my unworthiness. He was the one who would supply the sufficiency for my lack.

After the Mass, I went back to my room and looked up Second Corinthians. The full verse is this:

"My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me.

This verse has been a constant part of my prayer ever since.

The Pope As Ignorant Schoolboy

I Respond To Fr. Tuohey's Commonweal Article

Amy Welborn linked to an article by Fr. John Tuohey published in last week's Commonweal magazine titled "The Pope On PVS", in which he critiques the Holy Father's teaching regarding care of PVS patients as expressed in his Address to the Participants of the International Congress on Life Sustaining Treatments and the Vegetative State. Fr. Tuohey's article begins in this vein:

In brief, you propose to show there is a moral obligation to maintain nutrition and hydration, “even artificially administered,” for the PVS patient, saying that doing so is “necessarily ordinary and proportionate.” You affirm that this is “not a medical act,” but a “natural means of preserving life.” In short, you say it is required whenever it works to maintain life.

While we are pleased to accept your proposal, we would like to bring up some issues to which you will want to pay particular attention as you continue your work. Our brief comments below will refer only to the 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, the most authoritative statement by the church to date on the topic; the 1995 Pontifical Council’s Charter of Health-Care Workers; and some older traditional references that represent the long-held moral tradition on this subject. Other sources will, of course, also need to be explored as you continue your work.

As this is an issue of great moment today, and Fr. Tuohey's article is so problematic in certain respects, I felt obliged to reply.

To the Editor:

Fr. Tuohey's article "The Pope on PVS" is problematic on several levels, and requires rebuttal. Firstly, though this is perhaps a concern of style rather than substance, I cannot pass over the condescending tone in which the article is written. Had I received a similar letter from my advisor or thesis committee during my own graduate work, I would have immediately sought new ones, who demonstrated the ability to offer criticism without being patronizing and insulting. The Holy Father has demonstrated more than adequate knowledge of the Church's moral tradition in several encyclicals. It is quite certain, for example, that the Holy Father is familiar with the distinction between probabilism and tutiorism. It is especially offensive that a priest should address the Vicar of Christ as though he were an ignorant schoolboy.

Apart from the tone, however there are even more serious difficulties with Fr. Tuohey's article. The first is his statement that the "1980 Declaration on Euthanasia" and the "1995 Pontifical Council’s Charter of Health-Care Workers" represent the most recent authoritative teaching regarding the care of PVS patients. But, of course, he ignores the teaching authority of the Holy Father's address, which certainly constitutes the most recent pronouncement of Church authority on the issue. While the Holy Father's address does not rise to the level of an encyclical, it nonetheless represents the Holy Father articulating and explicating what has previously been said by the Church. I would compare it to the pronouncement of another pope on another moral issue, Pius XII's address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives in 1951. Pius XII's address was an elaboration and reinforcement of Catholic teaching on conjugal morality, built on the work of his predecessors. It is now considered part of authoritative papal teaching, and is standard reading for any student of Church teaching on the theology of marriage and sexuality. So here John Paul II is enlarging upon previous pronouncements on life issues. This is the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, and as such must be considered authoritative. The Holy Father's pronouncement last March must be taken as part of the data from which moralists reason, and not merely another theological opinion.

Fr. Tuohey takes issue with the Pope's evaluation of "the clinical reality of PVS", in which he stated "that PVS is not a diagnosis, but 'only a conventional prognostic judgment.'" Fr. Tuohey then opines that "PVS refers to a medical condition, defined by specific clinical indications..." But, in fact, as I wrote in last January's Crisis Magazine, the diagnosis of PVS is notoriously difficult and unreliable. Indeed, a 1996 study, "Misdiagnosis of the Vegetative State", published in the British Medical Journal discovered that the diagnosis of PVS was inaccurate 43% of the time. They found that the misdiagnosed patients had severe communication problems as a result of their disabilities, but, with the proper clinical measures, "nearly all were able to communicate...some to a high level." They concluded that:

The vegetative state needs considerable skill to diagnose, requiring assessment over a period of time; diagnosis cannot be made, even by the most experienced clinician, from a bedside assessment [emphasis is mine]... Recognition of awareness is essential...to avoid inappropriate approaches to the courts for a declaration for withdrawal of tube feeding.

The difficulty in diagnosing PVS, and the widespread errors in making the diagnosis, has led many leading hospitals, such as the Northwestern University Rehabilitation Institute, to routinely re-assess patients referred to them as PVS.

Furthermore, the criteria themselves for a diagnosis of PVS are highly problematic. Cindy Province, MSN, of the Bioethics Center of St. Louis, has criticized the reliance for a diagnosis of PVS on judgments regarding a patient's "thought" or "awareness", things which are not medically measurable. One speaker at the Rome conference, Dr. D. Alan Shewmon, observed that "the PVS literature suffers from an oversimplified notion of 'consciousness' and from conflating consciousness with responsiveness." Province also observes that doctors are realizing that "consciousness is a continuum, not an all-or nothing phenomenon. In general terms, human brains aren't light bulbs with an 'on' and 'off' switch, but instead are more like irons, with 'warm' settings all the way up to 'hot'."

Fr. Tuohey also criticizes the Pope's understanding of prognosis in evaluating artificial nutrition/hydration for PVS patients. He seems to take for granted a moral certitude that PVS patients will almost certainly never recover. However, the difficulty and inaccuracy of diagnosis makes reliable prognosis all the more problematic. There is ample empirical evidence that people supposedly diagnosed as PVS recover with an unsettling frequency: the cases of Rus Cooper-Dowda and Sgt. Richard Mack are recent examples. Perhaps the most chilling recent example of a supposed PVS patient recovering is Kate Adamson, who, once diagnosed as PVS, had her feeding tube removed. But she was in fact fully conscious, aware of what was going on around her:

I could see and hear everything going on around me, and I had no way... of communicating with anyone. I knew what I wanted to say.  I had -- I was completely paralyzed. I had no way of communicating at all. When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I was -- thought I was going insane. I was screaming out [in her mind] "don't you know I need to eat." ... Michael [Schiavo] on national TV [the infamous Larry King interview last October] had mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed. It is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture...

The tenuousness of the PVS diagnosis, the consequent uncertainty regarding the prognosis of PVS patients, and the fact that a disturbing number of supposed PVS patients seem to "recover", has led some doctors, especially those who regularly treat brain-injured patients, to describe PVS as a "meaningless diagnosis". Given these difficulties, it strikes me as almost absurd for Fr. Tuohey to speak of "moral certainty" in this regard. If there is uncertainty surrounding whether or not a patient is PVS, and uncertainty surrounding whether or not such a patient can recover, it makes no sense to assert "moral certainty" in making a decision to withdraw treatment. Under these circumstances, and given the overriding nature of the dignity of human life, the only responsible position to take is the tutioristic ["more cautious"] approach Fr. Tuohey so readily dismisses.

In asserting Gerald Kelly's conclusion regarding the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from patients in "terminal coma". Fr. Tuohey either is using sloppy language or is engaging in semantic sleight of hand. The PVS condition (when it has actually been accurately diagnosed), is not what would ordinarily be called "terminal", that is, approaching death within a reasonably foreseeable amount of time. The PVS condition is not a disease process which in se causes death. PVS patients can and frequently do live for years in that condition, if they are given proper care. The proper care required of PVS patients is normally quite minimal, and does not require hospitalization: ensuring sufficient food and water, regular turning to prevent bedsores, and basic hygiene. This basic level of care can be provided by any nursing home. When PVS patients do die, it is usually as a result of some secondary disease or trauma. To apply the diagnosis "terminal" to PVS patients is simply unwarranted.

Hence the sleight of hand employed by Tuohey in defining terminal as "a condition from which he or she was unlikely to recover." Surely Fr. Tuohey does not mean this? For there are many conditions from which a person will not recover, but no reasonable person would call "terminal". For example, Down's Syndrome is congenital, and no one "recovers" from it. Is Down's thereby a "terminal" condition, which could justify the withdrawal of food and water from those afflicted with it? Congestive Heart Failure is a degenerative condition from which patients do not recover. Indeed, it can even be called "terminal", because eventually it will lead to death, and the only cure is a heart transplant Would Fr. Tuohey argue that a diagnosis of CHF would justify the withdrawal of food and water from its sufferers? Fr. Tuohey's definition of the "terminal" condition provides easy justification to end the lives of all manner of patients.

Fr. Tuohey also implies that the use of a feeding tube to supply nutrition and hydration to PVS patients may be unduly burdensome, and therefore licitly denied. He even quotes Pope John Paul's use of phrases like “therapeutic tyranny,” and "artificially prolonged agony". But if Fr. Tuohey is referring to the Holy Father's remarks in his 1992 "Address to An International Congress on the Care of the Dying", it would seem that Fr. Tuohey is taking the Pope's remarks out of context, for they in fact do not signify what Tuohey implies. The Pope did in fact refer to "'aggressive therapeutic care' which refers to the use of treatments which are particularly wearing and burdensome for the sick person, condemning him or her in fact to an artificially prolonged agony." [emphasis is mine] But he prefaced this remark by reiterating the CDF's 1980 Declaration On Euthanasia:

Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. [emphases mine]

Furthermore, he followed his remark about "artificially prolonged agony" with this statement, also from the CDF's Declaration:

When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted."

John Paul's statement, then, was made in the context of patients who are imminently dying, for whom medical treatment will no longer avail. As I have stated above, PVS patients cannot be considered "terminal" or in danger of imminent death. Furthermore, the Pope clearly has in mind what most people would regard as "treatment": surgery, medications, etc. There is nothing in the Pope's statement which could be construed as applying to the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from PVS patients. Indeed, I would argue that the Pope's 1992 address, elaborating on the CDF Declaration, when taken in conjunction with his remarks last March, strongly indicate that authentic Catholic teaching cannot be interpreted as permitting the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from PVS patients.

And the fact is that use of feeding tubes for PVS patients cannot reasonably be considered "unduly burdensome". The percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG) is most commonly used in PVS patients. It consists of a plastic tube inserted directly into the stomach through the abdominal wall and sutured into place. Once surgical wound has healed, it is a stable and low-risk device. This method has been in use for nearly a century, and cannot by any reasonable stretch be called "high-tech", and is considered a minimally invasive measure. As long as proper hygiene is maintained (a basic nursing task), it presents very minimal risk of complication. Furthermore, it normally occasions little to no discomfort in the patient. Many people are misled by the general fear of "tubes" to think that the use of the PEG is more burdensome than it really is. Indeed, in the treatment of the various forms of dysphagia, procedures even more invasive than the PEG tube are routinely tolerated. Why would a low-tech intervention such as the PEG tube be considered "unduly burdensome" in PVS patients, but even more aggressive treatments be accepted in otherwise "normal" cases? It would seem that for some, the PVS patients are considered somehow less worthy or deserving than others.

Finally, Fr. Tuohey's discussion of such things as "basic" or "normal" care reflects a shift in the thinking and language about the place of food and water in the overall care of a patient. Twenty to thirty years ago, no clinician would have classified food and water as "treatment". They were considered part of the routine care which were given to all patients. But as Cindy Province points out in her essay "Hungering and Thirsting After Righteousness: Providing Nutrition and Hydration to Patients in the Persistent Vegetative State", there has been a redefinition of food and water as "treatment" by a growing number of clinicians and ethicists. But, Province points out, the actual arguments in favor of this redefinition are "relatively weak." Fr. Tuohey appears to have adopted this redefinition, saying that whether intervention is justified or not depends not on whether it achieves its purpose, but on "its ability to offer what McFadden called 'the sound hope of providing benefit'". Of course, the question Tuohey begs is "what benefit does one expect food and water to provide?' The answer is that no reasonable person would expect that food and water would have some kind of "benefit", in terms of producing a cure. They are simply the fundamental prerequisites of maintaining life. If we are going to label food and water as treatment, we may as well define providing sick people with shelter from the elements as such. But no one, at least as of today, is advocating exposing PVS or terminally ill patients, because we implicitly understand that shelter, too, is one of the basic prerequisites of maintaining life.

Indeed, underlying Fr. Tuohey's position, and that of many who advocate removing food and water from PVS patients, is a further redefinition of what constitutes "futile" treatment. It is a commonplace of medical ethics, as well as Catholic teaching, that one is under no obligation to continue, and may indeed be obliged to withdraw, treatment that is "futile." A treatment has typically been considered "futile" if it has no benefit or desired effect whatsoever. Thus food has not been considered treatment because no one expects food to have any "direct curative effect". Furthermore, Province explains, in PVS patients tube feeding can be considered effective because it "clearly achieves the objective of maintaining a good nutritional state." But this kind of common-sense thinking has been rejected by much of the medical community:

...This view has been largely replaced by a more general view of the nature of nutrition as treatment... in that it has not enabled the patient to recover from his underlying condition.

Now, since food and water, redefined as treatment, do not help the patient to recover from his underlying condition, it can be labeled as "futile." Having deemed feeding the patient, by this sleight-of-hand, as "futile", it is a short step to justifying its withdrawal. By means of these redefinitions, Fr. Tuohey and others have provided those want to help the sub-functional to depart this life a little more quickly with an infinitely fungible, increasingly meaningless and arbitrary set of boundaries within which to do so.

The Holy Father, in his address last March, demonstrated that he has a very sound grasp of the current clinical realities in dealing with PVS patients. Furthermore, when taken in context, his remarks are quite clearly emerging from the magisterial teaching on caring for the sick and dying that the Church has articulated both recently and historically . Finally, analysis of Fr. Tuohey's remarks, as well as its implicit assumptions, reveals that they rely on a misreading of the authoritative pronouncements of the Church, as well as on certain dubious trends in contemporary bioethics. Perhaps it is he who needs to exercise "greater care" in his "use of sources".

Why Is Mary Crying?

Probably because ignoramuses like Jack Chick and those who hand out his tracts so ridiculously misrepresent what the Church her Son founded actually teaches about her.

Just a couple of examples of the errors in this tract: Firstly, the confusion of an offering to cleanse one of ritual impurity (Leviticus 12:6-8) with an offering to atone for personal sin. Also, the misunderstanding of the phrase "Mother of God", the doctrine concerning which, is, in actuality, about safeguarding the doctrine of the divinity and humanity of Christ.

And let's not even get into all of the well-trodden nonsense linking Mary with Semiramis...

To paraphrase Archbishop Sheen, there aren't 1 in a 100 people who actually hate the Catholic Church, but hate the slanders and distortions circulated about her by the ignorant and dishonest.

Evangelical Catholicism

Fr. Jay Scott Newman is the pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, South Carolina. He's a convert from the Episcopal church, in the line of John Henry Newman and Ronald Knox. He's also a passionate advocate of "Evangelical Catholicism", about which he says:

Responding to our Holy Father's call to the New Evangelization means that we must become Evangelical Catholics. By our Baptism, we are called to be men and women of the Gospel who are Christian disciples by conviction rather than Church members by convention. Being Evangelical Catholics requires that we know the Gospel, believe the Gospel, live the Gospel, and share the Gospel with others. Becoming Evangelical Catholics is a lifelong adventure of letting go of cafeteria, casual, and cultural Catholicism by accepting the liberating truth of the Word of God and living by grace through faith in the Son of God.

Fr. Newman (great name to have...) has outlined Seven Principles of Evangelical Catholicism, such as number four:

Through Word and Sacrament we are drawn by grace into a transforming union with the Lord Jesus, and having been justified by faith we are called to sanctification and equipped by the Holy Spirit for the good works of the new creation. We must, therefore, learn to live as faithful disciples and to reject whatever is contrary to the Gospel, which is the Good News of the Father's mercy and love revealed in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Fr. Newman has some great ideas, a great parish, and a great website. While I've never met him, I'm sure he's the kind of priest I'd love to meet.

Thanks to Pontifications for the link!

Another Spineful Bishop!

Bishop Victor Galeone of St. Augustine, Florida published a powerful statement on CINO politicians and Holy Communion in his diocesan paper.

Bishop Galeone reiterates Church teaching that "the right to life is the foundation fo all other rights." He also points out that abortion is not a sectarian issue for Catholics, but an issue of fundamental human rights.

But his strongest language is directed at those who claim to be pro-choice and Catholic:

“Can an avid proponent of abortion-on-demand be at the same time a Catholic in good standing with the church?” I answer that question by asking another: Can an avowed racist be a member in good standing of the NAACP? For similar reasons, there are some positions so extreme that they would bar one from being considered a good Catholic, not because a specifically Catholic teaching is being denied, but because a basic tenet of the natural law is being trashed. As members of the human family, we must obey the natural law, written on our hearts: “You shall not take an innocent life.”

Go forth and read it!

(Thanks to Amy and Michael for the link.)

Pilgrimage Cancelled

I'm sorry to have to announce that the Mark Shea - Fr. Rob Pilgrimage to France has been cancelled.

The go/no-go deadline was today, and we fell short of the minimum number required to make it economically feasible.

However, Mark and I have not given up on the idea of doing a Pilgrimage. We are going to revisit the idea and see if we can come up with something next year.

C'est la vie...

Judicial Nominee Deemed "Unacceptable" to Women

That's what Sen. Dianne Feinstein said regarding J. Leon Holmes, a candidate for a federal judgeship.

Even some female Republican senators, like Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, denounced Holmes, saying he does not have a "fundamental commitment to the equality of women in our society."

Why is Holmes such a threat to women? Does he have a track record of unfair rulings about women from the bench? Apparently not. Is he a wife-beater or sexual harasser? Nope.

The problem is that he and his wife actually try to take seriously the Christian teaching about marriage, as expressed by the New Testament and Tradition. They wrote an article together in a Catholic publication in 1997, in which they discussed what it means when St. Paul says that "wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord..." (Eph. 5:21-27). Wonder of wonders, the Holmes' actually try to take St. Paul seriously. That's enough to disqualify Holmes in their book.

Now, the Holmes' article isn't available on-line, but anyone who has given the matter more than cursory study knows that St. Paul didn't intend, nor has the Church ever taken him to mean, that women should be treated as second-class citizens in the Church, as though they should be barefoot-and-pregnant. But why go into all those inconvenient details when you can seize on the word "subordinate" and use it as a club?

J. Leon Holmes' problem, it seems to me, is that he does not bow before the idol of gender feminism. That makes him a threat. Furthermore, I think it is no accident that the senators mentioned in the article are all pro-choice (though Hutchinson and Murkowski are less ideologically committed than Feinstein or Collins). Perhaps they suspect that Holmes, as a serious Catholic, is also pro-life? They couldn't pin that on him though, for lack of a public track record. So instead they use this rather thin reed to flog him. "Watch out", they're saying, "we know what kind of guy he really is." Wink, wink, nudge nudge.

Thank God a majority of the Senate didn't buy this nonsense, and voted (barely) to confirm him. Or he may have been another victim of "Serious Catholics Need Not Apply".

Federal Marriage Amendment Failing

Both ABC News' Nightline and FoxNews are reporting that the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would effectively ban same-sex marriage throughout the country, is about to die in the Senate for lack of the 60 votes needed to go forward.

In spite of a deluge of e-mails and phone calls in the last few days, apparently too few Senators, even those who oppose same-sex marriage, are willing to get off the dime to put a stop to the gay activists' assault on the family.

Of course, one of the more shameful aspects of this situation is the fact that some of the most outspoken and energetic supporters of gay marriage are - you guessed it - Catholics - or at least so they would call themselves.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is a leading Catholic-In-Name-Only politician, who is also noteworthy for his service at the Democratic Party's altar of Abortion. He attacked the Republican conspiracy to make those defending "the love that dare not speak its name" be honest about where they stand:

"They want to put senators on the spot. Ads will be running. Trust me," said Durbin, who added that the Republicans were trying to "change the subject" of the election away from the war in Iraq and the economy.

Indeed, Senator! How dare those evil Republicans try to call people's attention to your ideological compatriots' efforts to reshape the very foundation of human society!

I'm sure the Senator will be grateful for the chance to skulk back into the shadows now that the Amendment is all-but-dead.

Of course, if the 15 Catholic senators opposing the protection of marriage actually were doing their duty both as Catholics and good legislators, their votes would probably put the Amendment "over the top" and ensure the measure's progress. Mark Windsor has posted a list of these senators over at Vociferous Yawpings, as well as a sample letter for you to use as a model for your own letters to these pols. Perhaps letters from Catholic constituents will move them in a way that their apparently malformed and atrophied consciences have not.

One interesting statistic mentioned on the Nightline program is that only 28% of Americans surveyed think gay marriage is an "important" issue. But of those people, 20% say that a candidate's opposition to gay marriage is essential for them to vote for him, while only 8% say that a candidate's support for gay marriage is essential for them to vote for him. The lopsidedness of those statistics, I think, is evidence that the opposition to gay marriage is very wide and deep.

But why are seemingly so few people sufficiently concerned about the issue? One possible reason is that issues like terrorism and the war are front and center in their minds.

But another possible reason is this: Gay marriage is, like so many other liberal initiatives over the past 30 years, largely being foisted upon us through the agency of activist courts and judges, rather than by any actual democratic deliberative process. I think many people, seeing our black-robed masters once again exercise their judicial diktat, are simply giving up on "the process". I have heard a number of people express an attitude of resignation about this. They see themselves as powerless to stop the onslaught, and given the history of the last few decades, such an attitude is not entirely irrational.

But despair and apathy are never counsels for the Christian. So write, speak out, and pray!

Who Is My Neighbor?

Homily for the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Cycle C

Deuteronomy 30:10-14
Colossians 1:15-20
Luke 10:25-37

The scholar of the law asked, "Who is my neighbor?" And we're told that he asked this "in order to justify himself". That reminds me of something the Catholic writer Mark Shea once said: People ask questions for one of two reasons: We can ask a question either because we want to know the truth, or we can ask because we're hoping to avoid the truth. So, for example, someone might ask "What does the Church say about our duty to pay taxes? Or, he might ask, "it's not a big deal if I fudge a little on my taxes, right?" Those two questions are about the same issue, but betray much different attitudes. Well, the Lawyer here is asking the question "who is my neighbor" so as to find a "loophole" in the moral law.

And Jesus shows us in the parable that there is no loophole. Our neighbor is anyone we encounter who is in need, anyone who is downtrodden, anyone who is weak, or cannot speak for himself. Our neighbors, in fact, are all around us. The weaker or more defenseless a person is, the more he is our neighbor.

If we want to know what loving our neighbor looks like, if we want to know how we're supposed to live that out in the real world, we have to look to Christ. We must look to the Gospel, to the teaching and example of Christ. We must "put on Christ", as St. Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans. That means Christ must guide our judgments, Christ must guide our priorities, Christ must guide our values, and Christ must guide our decisions.

We must look to Christ, and to the Church that Christ Himself founded. We say that the Church is the Body of Christ. That means that when the Church teaches, she does so with the voice and with the mind of Christ. So all of us have a duty to form our consciences, to form our judgments about what is right and wrong, and to make decisions, according to the teaching of the Church.

Now, whenever we talk about making moral decisions, we get into an area that moral theologians call "prudential judgment". Prudential judgments are decisions about how we will go about loving our neighbor. Prudential judgments are about deciding what is the best way to carry out our duty or fulfill our vocation. Here's an example: Those of you who are parents, you know that you have a duty to feed your children. It's part of your God-given responsibility to make sure that your kids get enough to eat. You make prudential judgments about when your kids will eat, and what they will eat. You can make a prudential judgment that you will not give your kids chocolate cake and ice cream for dinner, but you can't legitimately make a choice not to feed your kids at all.

Most of the time, if we get into trouble, morally speaking, it's because we decide either to create a loophole for ourselves in the area of who our neighbor is, or we get mixed up in what is or isn't the proper area for prudential judgment.

Today, our society has decided, as a matter of law, that a whole group of persons is not our neighbor, and because of that, they can be deprived of the most basic right, the right to life. I'm speaking of unborn children, pre-born human beings who, through the injustice of abortion, we strip of the most basic human dignity, because they are unseen and unheard.

Those who try to justify abortion come up with clever rationalizations - but they're just like that scholar of the law in Jesus' parable - trying to avoid the truth. They do so in the name of a woman's "right". But what other right is built upon the bodies of the innocent? They do so in the name of "compassion". But abortion is most certainly not compassionate to the child whose life is ended in the womb. And for the woman who has one, abortion is also a cruel and perverse kind of compassion. What sort of compassion is it to tell a woman that the solution to her problems lies in the death of her child? That is why we must always offer the mercy and forgiveness of Christ to women who have had abortions: most often they have been frightened, duped, pressured, or even forced into having the abortion; In doing so, abortion robs them of their dignity as women.

But in addition to denying that the unborn child is our neighbor, the defenders of abortion also try to confuse the issue by making it seem equal in importance to other issues. Unfortunately, there are a number of politicians, some of whom even call themselves Catholic, running for office right now who are doing this: confusing issues in which there is room for prudential judgment with those in which there isn't. You see, there is no such thing as a prudential judgment in favor of abortion. Abortion is always wrong. The Church teaches, and it's really just common sense, that the right to life is the most basic right. So Pope John Paul II has said that all other rights are meaningless if the right to life is not protected and defended. A prudential judgment for abortion makes about as much sense as a prudential judgment to starve your children.

Now things that are always wrong, things in which there is no room for prudential judgment, have a higher moral priority, and a greater moral weight, than things that do. Again, this is just common sense. A murderer cannot excuse himself by saying "I know I killed someone, but hey, I always gave generously to the United Way". But these pro-choice politicians try to do precisely that. Some pro-choice Catholics in Congress released a document in the spring claiming that their support of things like relief to needy families or raising the minimum wage balances out or even outweighs the fact that they support abortion-on-demand. I find it particularly ironic that these same politicians also mention their support of increased funding for Head Start programs for poor students as one of the things in their "plus" column. Apparently they see no contradiction between funding programs to help poor children, while at the same time assuring that many of those poor children will never be born at all on account of their support for abortion.

Of course, such claims by these politicians are just smoke and mirrors. Even the trump card issue they bring out, opposition to the death penalty, is smoke and mirrors. Why? Because here there is also a clear difference between an issue of prudential judgment, and one in which there isn't. As I said before, abortion is always and absolutely wrong. There is never a legitimate choice in favor of it. But the Church's teaching against the death penalty is not so absolute. The Church teaches that the death penalty is usually not warranted, and indeed is to be used only as a last resort when there is no other way to defend society from a criminal. But the Church acknowledges (you can read it in the Catechism, numbers 2266, 2267) that the State has the right, in limited circumstances, to enact the death penalty. And that decision, about whether any particular instance is one of those rare occurences warranting the death penalty, is a prudential judgment. So in comparing abortion to the death penalty, you have on the one hand something that is always wrong, something that can never rightly be chosen, something in which there is no room for prudential judgment. And against that you have something which, albeit rarely, can nonetheless be legitimately chosen, and in which there is room for prudential judgment. The difference between abortion and capital punishment is so great as to be not a difference of degree, but a difference of kind. They are apples and oranges.

That is why the Holy Father and the bishops of the United States have said that abortion is the foremost issue confronting us today. In fact, last year the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome said that whether you are a politician or a private citizen, one's position on other issues, such as helping the poor, the minimum wage, or funding social security, no matter how "right", they may be, "can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life."

Our Lord makes it clear that there are no loopholes in acknowledging and caring for our neighbor. The foundation of any just and moral society is safeguarding the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable. We must hold ourselves to this moral standard, and hold our political leaders accountable to it, especially those who claim to share our faith. In the words of Moses from our first reading, "this command... is not too mysterious and remote" for us. "It is something very near...already in [our] hearts". We have only to carry it out.

No Justification to Fund Embryonic Research

That's the conclusion of a Letter to the Editor in today's Chicago Tribune by David Prentice, a Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University.

He writes in response to another letter, published last week, which regurgitated the current agitprop being circulated in the press in favor of embyonic stem-cell research. Embryonic stem-cell research creates human embryos for the purpose of destroying them in order to harvest the stem-cells, and is therefore morally illicit.

The advocates of embryonic stem-cell research typically either:

(a) engage in dishonesty by failing to differentiate it from adult stem-cell procedures, which are morally licit.

or (b) Justify it by promising all sorts of benefits to be gained in the future, everything from curing cancer, Parkinson's disease, liver disease, etc. What they don't say is that all of these promised gains are purely speculative, and there is little actual scientific evidence to back up those claims.

On the other hand, adult stem-cell research is rapidly reaching the status of proven technology that is already producing results.

This is one of the most important life-issues of our time, so I think it's important to read what Dr. Prentice writes:

David Prentice, Professor of Life Sciences
Indiana State University
Published July 1, 2004

Terre Haute, Ind. -- Jose Javier Otero of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine argued that embryonic stem-cell research offers a promising future while adult stem cells are a myth ("Voice of the people, June 22).

As a scientist, it is sad that Otero is seemingly so uninformed about the facts.

It is simply incorrect to assert that adult stem cells are not capable to become any tissue in the body.

This is repeating an outdated litany.

The most noteworthy of several published papers indicating the extensive transforming abilities of adult stem cells is by Catherine Verfaillie's research group at the University of Minnesota. Her research showed (using the same gold standard experiment used for embryonic stem cells) that a type of bone marrow stem cell called MAPC could generate every tissue in the body.

In fact there are more than 200 other scientific references over the last few years that attest to the fact that adult stem cells cannot only generate other cell types but are effective in repairing tissue damage in animals and in human patients.

The exact mechanism of repair is still unclear.

The repair sometimes occurs by fusing with and reinvigorating the tissue, sometimes by generating new tissue cells from the adult stem cells and sometimes by simply stimulating the tissue to begin its own regeneration.

One of the major difficulties with embryonic stem cells is how to direct them into becoming differentiated and thus suitable for transplant.

Most studies show production of the cells result in a mixture of cell types (rather than producing the one cell type needed) and consequently are totally unsuitable for transplant.
Otero is incorrect in asserting that those few differentiated embryonic stem cells that are able to be produced do not form tumors.

A recent article published in the journal Diabetologia explains how researchers attempting to make insulin-secreting cells showed that such differentiated embryonic cells still formed tumors in mice.

Otero rightly indicated that lifting current restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research would not result in cures tomorrow.

Unfortunately he mistakenly suggested that the current restrictions on funding human embryo research contribute to the misery of suffering patients and their families.

The government has invested in this research, with the Bush administration pouring in more than $20 million to date.

In fact, animal embryonic stem-cell research has been open to funding for more than 20 years, yet there is still little to show for the investments.

The science has demonstrated no justification for putting additional funding or destroying more embryos for such experimentation.

Archbishop Burke of St. Louis Writes This:

The “intolerant secularism,” which tells a Catholic politician that he may not act according to his conscience, characterizes the exercise of the bishop’s pastoral responsibility as a violation of the legitimate autonomy of the political sphere from the church. Right reason, on the contrary, tells us that a bishop, if he truly cares for the flock, must admonish Catholic politicians “who choose to depart from church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life” regarding “the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin” (Living the Gospel of Life, No. 32). Once again, it must be noted that the bishop always has before his eyes the most fundamental good of life from the moment of conception.

...[F]or the Catholic politician to receive Communion when he or she has publicly violated the moral law in a grave matter like procured abortion risks leading others into thinking that they can accept procured abortion with a right conscience. In such a case, if the Catholic politician does not recognize the lack of the proper disposition to receive Communion, then the church herself must refuse the sacrament, in order to safeguard the worthy reception of the sacrament and to prevent a serious scandal among the faithful... After I had set forth the church’s discipline in the matter during my service as bishop of La Crosse, many Catholics and non-Catholics alike wrote to thank me for making clear what had been very confusing for them. The teaching and discipline that I set forth is not in any way new, and it should not be exploited as a political tool by anyone.

And, in response to Archbishop Burke's clear and compelling statement, many people wrote letters to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which noted that "We received an extraordinarily large volume of letters in response to Archbishop Raymond L. Burke's comments last week on Catholics and politicians who support abortion rights. A total of 57 letters were critical of the archbishop; 21 supported him."

Well, there you go! A majority of the letters disagreed with Burke, so he must be wrong!

These letters to the editor exhibited a predictable array of confusion and fuddlement:

As practicing Catholics, we were disappointed to find out we can no longer vote Democrat without being condemned by the church.

No, you just can't vote for pro-abortion zealots who never heard of an abortion they couldn't justify. You're perfectly free to vote for pro-life Democrats, while a few still exist.

...Is Archbishop Raymond Burke telling us to vote Republican?

No. Not even close. Please re-read his statement.

...Many of us, while not necessarily Democrats, believe that the Democratic ideology best expresses the majority of our views and priorities. Among other things, the Democratic Party often excels in areas such as serving the poor and homeless with health care, social services and basic needs - values grounded in our faith and church teachings.

All of those assertions are arguable. And all of them involve issues of prudential judgment on which Catholics can in good conscience disagree. And none of those issues come close to equalling the moral gravity of abortion. Our bishops have made clear that being "right" on other issues...

"can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life...All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the... foundation of the dignity of human life".

In other words we must take the defense and protection of the unborn as the starting point, the sine qua non of our pro-life ethic. Because the protection of innocent human life is fundamental, and the prohibition on abortion so absolute, the US bishops warn that "failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters..."

Has the archbishop overlooked the good these programs do for our community?

I doubt it. But he recognizes that giving kids free school lunches does not make up for slaughtering thousands of other kids daily in the womb.

Of course, there's the de rigeur letter from the "God-is-a warm-and-fuzzy-puppy-dog" set:

After 50 some years, I admit my catechism lessons have gotten a bit fuzzy. However, I recall that Jesus was a loving, caring God who urged us to help each other. That would include fellow adults and children who suffer or die from muscle diseases, cancers, diabetes, paralysis, Parkinson's disease and such.

.
Yes, that's right. God will countenance any sort of monstrosity or outrage as long as you want to "help each other". But don't unborn human beings count as those "others" who we should help? I guess not. Too bad. :-(

The faithful have been fed milk and pablum for thirty years by the go-along-get-along American Catholic^TM establishment. Now that some of our shepherds are giving them the spiritual equivalent of steak, it's not surprising that some are finding it somewhat indigestible. There will be more reactions like this before things improve.

For Freedom Christ Has Set Us Free

Homily for the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Cycle C


St. Paul tells us "For Freedom Christ has set us free". We are meant to be free, but Sin gets in the way of that - it is an obstacle between us and God, like a wall or barrier in our way.

Christ came to conquer sin, so that we would have no more obstacles between us and God. That is the freedom that St. Paul talks about: the freedom to love God and be loved by Him, without our own pride and selfishness getting in the way. Only in Christ are we truly free.

We are given freedom so that we can share in the work of Christ, truly be part of His work in the Church and the world. But freedom can be abused. St. Paul warns us against this, saying "do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love.

St. Paul tells us that the Spirit and the flesh are opposed, and St. Paul tells us elsewhere what he means by "serving the flesh": some of the things he mentions are obvious, like impurity, licentiousness or drunkenness. But others he lists are not so obvious, like idolatry, enmity, anger, or envy.

The fact is, that every time we turn away from God back to ourself, every time we say "me first", we are turning back to the flesh, and away from the Spirit. St. Augustine summed it up when he said "the one who lives according to the flesh is the one who lives for himself".

The fact is, we all live in this tension between living for the Spirit and living for ourselves. We all would like to adjust or "tweak" the gospel, just a little bit, to suit our own comfort or priorities. And that's what Jesus is talking about in our Gospel. Jesus meets these people who say "I will follow you", but then say, in effect, "oh,wait a minute, there's one other thing." They want to follow Jesus on their terms, not His.

We want to submit the Gospel to our judgment, rather than submit our judgment to the gospel. So are we really willing to follow Jesus "wherever he goes"?

This problem is with us today in every aspect of our lives, even our public life. There are a number of politicians who call themselves Catholic, but yet put themselves at odds with the Church in fundamental issues of morality, by supporting things like abortion or same-sex marriage. The Church teaches, and has always taught, that such things are intrinsically and always wrong, and yet they maintain that it is possible to support and work for laws permitting such things, and still be a "good" Catholic. But what they are doing is trying to adjust or "tweak" the Gospel of Christ to suit themselves, or what they think the world expects of them.

In order to justify their position, they frequently appeal to their "freedom of conscience". When they do this, they demonstrate that either they are confused, or that they are dishonest, and hope you are confused.

The way these politicians refer to their conscience, they make it sound as though the conscience is simply "whatever I happen to feel strongly about." And I imagine that many people think of it that way. But that isn't what the conscience is at all. The conscience is a judgment, a judgment about what is right and wrong, made according to reason. The conscience is not just my own strongly felt opinion.

Our consciences have to be formed, that is, shaped and guided. And if we call ourselves Christians, they must be shaped and guided according to the mind of Christ. St. Paul says in his letter to the Romans that we must "put on Christ". That means Christ must guide our judgments, Christ must guide our priorities, Christ must guide our values, and Christ must guide our decisions, whether they be decisions about how we raise our children, spend our money, or order our political lives. And if we want to know the mind of Christ, we must look to the Gospel, and to the Church that Christ Himself founded, through which we have that Gospel.

We say that the Church is the Body of Christ. That means that when the Church teaches, she does so with the voice and with the mind of Christ. So politicians, and all of us, have a duty to form our consciences, to form our judgments about what is right and wrong, and to make decisions, according to the teaching of the Church.

Now, this is sometimes difficult. I know, firsthand. While I was in the seminary, and even before that, I came across teachings of the church that challenged me, that I found difficult to accept. I struggled with a number of issues of Church teaching over the years, and, every time, after study and prayer, I've discovered that it's the Church that is right, and I'm the one who needed to deepen or change my understanding. I've learned that we must approach the Church's teaching with a spirit of humility, as one needing to be taught, rather than as one who is going to teach or "correct" the Church.

So it is not only incorrect, it is in fact absurd, to say "I know the Church says that X is wrong, but I will support it anyway, because my conscience tells me it is right". Such a person hasn't truly formed his or her conscience according to the mind of Christ, within the church, as we are called to. The most charitable thing you can say about such a person is that he is confused.

A Catholic politician, or anyone else, who holds that he can be a "good Catholic" and yet go against Church teaching on such fundamental moral issues as abortion is like the man in the gospel who says "I will follow you wherever you go... but first there's one other thing..." That's giving in to the temptation, a temptation we all face, to try to conform the gospel to ourselves, rather than ourselves to the gospel.

And if someone were to persist in such a course even after being corrected, as some of these politicians unfortunately have, then I can only remind them, and you, of the words of the gospel: "No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God."

Florida Supreme Court To Hear Terri's Law Case

Well, while I was getting ready to go on vacation, the Florida Supreme Court decided to take up the 2nd District Court of Appeals' invitation to bypass the Appellate hearing and rule directly on Terri's Law. As I have written before, this action was sought by George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, and Judge Greer, so as to prevent reconsideration of Judge Greer's dubious rulings of fact, such as that Terri is in a PVS. Numerous doctors have questioned that diagnosis, and the understanding of PVS has advanced since Judge Greer's ruling, but under our legal system, a judge's rulings of fact are not normally able to be questioned on appeal. Governor Bush and the Schindlers have been trying to reintroduce these issues, but the decision of the Supreme Court to take the case and bypass the appellate level effectively precludes that avenue.

This is not good news for Terri or the Schindlers. It would appear that the judges' concern, first and foremost, is to preserve their own power to issue god-like edicts of life and death. Oral arguments on this case will be heard on August 31. I pray that right will prevail.


Listen Up!

I'm going to be on the Kresta In The Afternoon Show this afternoon, at 4:00, to talk about developments in Terri Schiavo's case.

Sorry for the short notice, but I only just got the call. I'll write more later!