The UFL Conference: Terri Schiavo Panel

As I mentioned in my previous post, last Friday I participated in the annual conference of the University Faculty For Life. I was invited by the conference organizers to present a paper on the Terri Schiavo case, as part of a panel with Dr. Mark Latkovic, professor of Moral Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, and Richard Myers, a professor at Ave Maria School of Law.

My paper dealt with the Terri Schiavo case as a cultural indicator, that is, how the discussion of the issues surrounding Terri's right to life indicates where our society has gone, and where it may be going. The abstract of my paper is this:

The Terri Schiavo case illustrates an ongoing shift in American culture away from what might be called a "reverence-for-life" philosophy, in which human life would be seen as worthwhile in se, to what I tentatively describe as a "justification-of-life" mindset, in which the social presumption (or at least the presumption in the academic/intellectual elite) is that Terri's life, and the lives of those like her, is "not worth living", and that the burden is upon those who would "prolong" Terri's life to justify it. This shift in attitudes has been abetted by changes in medical-ethical language and terminology: Even the use of the word "prolong" is significant, as it connotes something being extended longer than is necessary or natural. Other examples are the widespread adoption of a definition of food & water as "treatment", or the change in legal classification of certain groups of incomptetent persons, such as the change in Florida statute which specifically denied those diagnosed as vegetative from certain legal protections, such as the right to a guardian ad litem. The misdiagnosis of Terri's condition, as documented by my NRO piece "Starving For a Fair Diagnosis", and the characterization of her condition by those in the "right-to-die" movement, was carefully tailored so as to place Terri within the "penumbra" of these changes in attitudes and changes of definition, so as to present a justifiable case for ending the life of a non-terminally ill patient. The origins of these shifts in understanding and attitudes is part of what may be called a "culture of hopelessness", which is a corollary of the Culture of Death.

I was gratified by the turnout for our panel: there were about 40 people there, and they had some good questions and remarks during the question-and-answer period. I met some great people and saw some old friends, such as Dr. Latkovic (one of my former professors from Sacred Heart) and Dr. Janet Smith. I was especially honored in that pro-life pioneer Dr. Jack Wilke (one of the founders of the NRLC) was present for our panel.

My paper, along with the others, will be published as part of the Proceedings of the conference. Once I have submitted the final edited version, I will see about having it posted online.

I'm At The UFL Conference

No, the UFL is not another football league. It's the University Faculty For Life. And their annual conference is this weekend at the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Here is a description of the conference: http://www.avemarialaw.edu/news/events/Events_ufl.cfm

And here is the conference schedule: http://www.avemarialaw.edu/news/events/Events_uflSchedule.cfm

As you can see in the schedule, I'll be presenting a paper on the Terri Schiavo case. Once I know whether the papers will be published or not, I'll post mine here.

The Stem-Cell Bill Hall of Shame

As you all know, on Tuesday the House of Representatives passed a bill that would expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Embryonic stem-cells are harvested from human embryos in the first stages of cell division, and destroys them in the process.

The justification for these vampiric efforts to extend and improve our lives at the expense of innocent human beings is the promise of cures for every manner of disease and defect, from Alzheimer's to Diabetes. Of course, none of these supposed benefits is even close to materializing. And, of course, these justifications ignore the fact that embryonic stem-cell research is simply unneccesary. As I have written before, adult stem-cell research is rapidly reaching the status of proven technology that is producing results, without sacrificing unborn human lives.

All of the arguments for permitting ESCR boil down to "let us do evil so that good may come of it." And the temptation to do so is powerful. The good of eliminating all these diseases is so desirable, and the beings whom these experiments would obliterate are literally invisible. But the moral law is quite clear: The end cannot justify the means. It is bad enough that our national conscience has become so vitiated that a majority of our Representatives could fall for the temptation, but it is especially painful that a large number of Catholic congressmen would do so. They ought to know better. In fact, they have no excuse for not knowing better, as our bishops and the Holy See have repeatedly condemned ESCR. Those who voted for this bill have the blood of innocents on their hands.

The complete roll call of the House vote may be found here. But we should take particular note of the Catholic representatives who voted in favor of the measure. These are the Catholic House Democrats who voted for the bill:

Joe Baca (CA) Xavier Becerra (CA) Timothy Bishop (NY) Robert Brady (PA) Mike Capuano (MA) Dennis Cardoza (CA) William Clay (MO) Jim Costa (CA) Joe Crowley (NY) Henry Cuellar (TX) Peter DeFazio (OR) Bill Delahunt (MA) Rosa DeLauro (CT) John Dingell (MI) Mike Doyle (PA) Anna Eshoo (CA) Lane Evans (IL) Charlie Gonzalez (TX) Raul Grijalva (AZ) Luis Gutierrez (IL) Brian Higgins (NY) Maurice Hinchey (NY) Ruben Hinojosa (TX) Paul Kanjorski (PA) Patrick Kennedy (RI) Dennis Kucinich (OH) James Langevin (RI) John Larson (CT) Steven Lynch (MA) Ed Markey (MA)

Carolyn McCarthy (NY) Betty McCollum (MN) James McGovern (MA) Cynthia McKinney (GA) Mike McNulty (NY) Robert Menendez (NJ) Michael Michaud (ME) George Miller (CA) James Moran (VA) John Murtha (PA) Grace Napolitano (CA) Richard Neal (MA) David Obey (WI) Frank Pallone (NJ) Bill Pascrell (NJ) Ed Pastor (AZ) Nancy Pelosi (CA) Charlie Rangel (NY) Silvestre Reyes (TX) Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA) Tim Ryan (OH) John Salazar (CO) Linda Sanchez (CA) Loretta Sanchez (CA) Jose Serrano (NY) Hilda Solis (CA) Ellen Tauscher (CA) Mike Thompson (CA) Nydia Velazquez (NY) Peter Visclosky (IN) Diane Watson (CA)

And here are the Catholic House Republicans (remember, they belong to the "pro-life" party) who voted for the bill:

Sherry Boehlert (NY)
Ginny Brown-Waite (FL)
Mike Castle (DE)
Vito Fossella (NY)
Connie Mack (FL)
Jon Porter (NV)
Clay Shaw (FL)

Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware should fall under particularly heavy opprobrium, as he was one of the chief sponsors and cheerleaders of this legislation.

You may want to call or write to some of these representatives, especially if they're from your state. At the very least you should take note of them for future reference. The mid-term elections are just over a year away...

The Dumbest Argument For Expanding
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

With all of the arguments going back and forth among the pundits and politicians regarding the expansion of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the dumbest justification I've heard yet is this:

"If we don't increase funding for stem-cell research, we'll fall behind other countries!"

Of course, this begs the question of whether or not embryonic stem-cell research is good or bad. If something is intrinsically evil, do we really want to be "leaders" in it? If destroying human embryos in order to extract their stem-cells is killing innocent human beings, do we really want to be in the forefront of such wanton slaughter?

Let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine it's say, 1939. Dr. Mengele and his colleagues are just gearing up some interesting medical research in Germany. Of course, one distasteful aspect of this research is that it involves live human beings, but hey, progress comes at a price. Those in the forefront of science can't afford to be squeamish. Imagine doctors and scientists in the U.S. start demanding to be allowed similar experiments on our own "undesirables". Their rallying cry: "We have to have our own live-experimentation program, or else we'll fall behind the Germans in science! We want Americans to make the first breakthroughs in live experiments!"

Such an argument would have been condemned practically before it was uttered then. But it is actually given a serious hearing today. Thus far have we have fallen, not just morally, but intellectually as well.

Our Relationship with The Trinity

Homily for Trinity Sunday




Today we celebrate the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity: we call to mind and celebrate the mystery of God, who is One God, yet three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Sometimes I've heard priests say that this is their least favorite Sunday to preach, because preaching on the Trinity is so difficult. I know what they mean: certainly the Trinity is not easy to understand or explain. But we must make the effort to understand it, because it is at the heart of who God is. Being a mystery, it is something we cannot completely comprehend. But that does not mean we can't understand it at all - God would not have revealed it to us if it were utterly beyond our understanding.

Now, in the New Testament you will not find the word "Trinity", nor will you find anything like a detailed explanation of the Trinity. but nonetheless, the Trinity is found implicitly throughout the New Testament. Notice, in our second reading, from St. Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians: St. Paul refers to each person of the Trinity in a different way: the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. It's clear that St. Paul understands that somehow, God is One, yet Three.

There is a sense in which it would be accurate to say that God didn’t have to reveal the truth of the Trinity to us. The central tenet of our faith is that Christ, the Son of God, became one of us and was given up as an offering for us, suffering in expiation for our sins, and that he died and rose again so that we too might rise to new life in Him. One doesn’t need to know about the Trinity to understand this. But yet the Trinity is held as one of the most profound and important teachings of our faith. Why is this? Why did God reveal the Trinity to us?

The answer is this: God revealed the Trinity because he loves us. In the Gospel we are told that "God so loved the world that He sent his only Son"... Now one of the surest signs of love is the desire to be known. We want to be known by those we love: that is “built-in” to the very nature of love. Think for a moment of your own relationships with your loved ones: Did you ever try to tell your husband or wife something really important, and they didn’t get it? Have you ever felt, or even said to someone you love "You don't understand me"? You know how frustrating and hurtful that can be. That's because we desire to be known by those we love. Well, we are like that because God is like that: God was not content that we know merely what He did: He wants us to know who He is, and the Trinity is at the heart of who God is.

Now, when we think about the Trinity, we tend to get stuck on how God can be one, and yet be three. And we all know that one is not three: If I have three bananas in one hand (I was going to use apples but I like bananas much better than apples) and one banana in the other, no one is going to think they're the same. The key to understanding the Trinity is that it is not a math problem. (And that's a good thing, at least for me, because math was never my strongest subject.) The key is that we're not saying we have three bananas in one banana. Or that we have One God in three Gods. That's just nonsense, and God doesn't want us to think nonsense about the most important mystery of His existence.

No, we say, and the Church has held from the very earliest time, that God is three Persons having One Nature. And if we can get to the bottom of what these words mean, then we'll be well on our way to understanding the Trinity.

Now the nature of something is what it is — it's "whatness". For example, we can see that this [holding up the book of the Gospels] is a book. And we can see that the sacramentary [pointing to a server holding up the sacramentary] is also a book. These two things are different; they are distinct. But nonetheless we recognize each as being a book. They share a common book-nature, the same book-ness. Or look at one another. Each of us is different. In fact, we're each unique. But because we are unique, that doesn't mean that we are all isolated and incapable of relating to each other. No, in fact we do all relate to one another. That's because while each of us is distinct and even unique, we all share the same human nature. We recognize that human-ness in one another. We are all distinct persons, but we share the same human nature.

We can see then that things can be distinct, but yet share the same nature. Well, it's similar with the Godhead. God is three Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Each Person is distinct. But each Person partakes of the same Divine nature. Each Person of the Trinity is equally God: they are equal in Majesty, equal in Glory, equal in Power, and equal in Authority. And through the Son, Jesus, we are in relationship with each of the Persons of the Trinity. We are in relationship with God the Father, who created us and is the source and origin of all things. We are in relationship with the Son, who is God's very thought and Word - God's Word, which is so infinite and profound that is has being as a Person. And we are in relationship to God the Spirit, who is God's own life and love: the life and love of God, which is also so infinite and profound that it has being as a Person.

Now that we know what a nature is, the question is "how do we know a person?" Well, if I were to introduce you to John Smith, I might say, "this is John Smith. He's 36, he's a convert to the faith, he's an accountant, and he's married with 3 kids." After that, you'd feel that you know a few facts about John Smith, but you wouldn't say that you knew him. No, you know someone by spending time with him, by talking to him. We get to know someone by sharing our lives with one another.

It's the same way with God. We are in relationship with the whole God: We are in relationship to the Father, we are in relationship to the Son, and we are in relationship to the Spirit. And we will come to know these three Persons of the Trinity by living our relationship with them. We do that by spending time with God, by inviting the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into our lives and hearts. We do that by talking to God: by prayer. But I would encourage you, I would urge you, from now on to make a point from time to time of praying to each of the Persons of the Trinity: to pray to the Father, to pray to the Son, and to pray to the Holy Spirit. It is by giving our life to the Trinity that we will be taken up into the life of the Trinity. And within that life, we will not just know about the Trinity, but we will know the Trinity itself, living in their communion of love.

Protecting Judges From Criticism!!?

Last week, Federal Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother were brutally murdered in their home earlier this year, testified in congress for better protection of Federal judges (LRR). Among other things, she asked for the government to pay for installing security systems in judges' homes.

Now, I am all in favor of providing better security for judges. I would have no problem with the government providing judges with home security systems, or even personal bodyguards for that matter. Furthermore, I think that anyone convicted of attacking a judge, or attempting or even plotting an attack, should receive a mandatory life sentence, period. I think that actually killing a judge might be one of the rare instances which might justify the death penalty. Why? Because an attack on a judge is, in essence, an attack on society and civilization itself.

But Judge Lefkow, in her remarks to Congress last week, went beyond denouncing outright attacks on judges, saying:

In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous," she said. "It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges in general and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, the fostering of disrespect for judges can only encourage those who are on the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them.

She then characterized remarks critical of activist judges, by christian conservatives such as Pat Robertson, as "lesser attacks" which are also dangerous.

I thought this aspect of Judge Lefkow's remarks problematic, but I was prepared to let them go. After all, I can't fault her for being sensitive to attacks on judges. But in today's Chicago Tribune, another pundit weighs in, demanding greater protection for judges, and compares those critical of judicial activism to racist extremists and the crazed killer of Judge Lefkow's family:

Recently our judges have been endangered not only by litigants and racist ideologues like Matthew Hale, who was convicted of soliciting Lefkow's murder. They have come under attack by people who ought to know better.

Prominent members of Congress have launched intemperate and personal attacks against individual judges and against the judiciary in general, holding them responsible for rulings with which they disagree--rulings about abortion, the right to die and same-sex marriage, for example. Most recently Christian Coalition founder and former presidential candidate Pat Robertson, on a national talk show, compared judges to terrorists.

So now, criticizing a judge's decisions, or the tendency of some judges to engage in activism from the bench, is the same as plotting a judge's murder. And notice the issues the author lists: abortion, "right-to-die", and same-sex marriage. If you're one of the benighted rubes who think that suctioning a baby out of its mother's womb is wrong, or that starving and dehydrating an innocent woman is inhuman, and that marriage is by its nature something between a man and a woman, then you are a problem. Any minute now, you're going to descend on courthouses in bible-thumping mobs, demanding judges' heads.

As I said before, I'm all in favor of protecting judges, and of severe punishments on those who actually attack them. But this op-ed is a not-very-thinly veiled attempt to use Judge Lefkow's tragedy to advance an ideological agenda. And to protect judges we don't need to turn them into a special mandarin class who are beyond all criticism.

Schindlers In Rome, Meet with Cardinal Martino

The Schindler family is in Rome this week. They were invited to accompany Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, as part of a pilgrimage affiliated with that organization.

Yesterday, they met with Cardinal Renato Martino, the Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Cardinal Martino had denounced the removal of Terri's feeding tube in the strongest possible terms, calling it "tantamount to murder", and "a violation of the principles of Christianity and civilization." In their meeting yesterday, Cardinal Martino said that Terri's death was "an insult to human dignity."



The Schindlers With Cardinal Martino

Today, the Schindlers attended the general audience of Pope Benedict XVI, and were able to greet him:



Hat tip to Amy Welborn

Cardinal Martino told the Schindlers yesterday, "We can expect from Benedict a very great and convinced defense of life".

For The Real Traditionalists

A reader directed me to the Society of St. Pius I, which was formed to promote the real Roman tradition, as exemplified by their Patron of happy memory, Saint Pius I.

From their website:

Unlike other wimpy neotraditionalist groups who attach themselves to various other Piuses, we at the SSPI make absolutely ZERO compromises with modernism. We reject not just one, but BOTH “Novus Ordos”—the Novus Ordo of 1970 promulgated by Paul VI, and the Latin Vulgate Mass of 400 A.D. promulgated by Innocent I and Pope Gregory I, which we call the “Vulgar Mass”...

Fact: Latin is NOT the original language of the Church!

It’s a VERNACULAR language that was foisted on the Roman church by Pope Victor I (A.D. 190-202), who was an AFRICAN priest--NOT a Roman!!!

The earliest liturgies at Rome as described by St. Justin Martyr were in GREEK. But once Victor made the change in language, that OPENED THE DOOR a century later to a barrage of changes in the rite of Mass itself, from which the Roman Rite has NEVER recovered.

They are currently looking for Greek-speaking priests "who may have said the liturgy of St. Justin Martyr in their youth."

The Society of St. Pius I - “To be any more Trad, you’d have to be Jewish!"

Corporate Welfare?

When it comes to economic matters, I'm pretty conservative. I'm pro - Free Market: I think government regulation of business ought to be kept to a bare minimum, and that most taxation of business is foolish (because, in reality, businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do) and counterproductive.

But, on the other hand, I think businesses have certain duties and obligations towards their employees, their customers, and to society as a whole. Among them is the duty to honor their word and their obligations.

So I am appalled that a Federal bankrupcty judge has allowed United Airlines to simply abandon its pension plan (and in consequence, it's current and future pension benificiaries) and dump it off on the Federal Government, that is, on the taxpayers. Yes, I know that United has had problems - mostly caused by the blindness of its own management, and the avidity of its employees' unions - but how is it that the obligations of its underfunded pension plan are the government's responsibility?

Just as the owners of the company (the shareholders) are the ones who reap the benefits when a company does well, so too should the owners of the company bear the responsibility for meeting the company's obligations when things go badly. The rewards and the risks go together. For the company and its shareholders to have reaped their profits over the decades when United was profitable, and then to shift its obligations off onto the taxpayers when things go bad, is despicable.

How can anyone, especially conservatives, look at this and call it anything other than corporate welfare? How can one possibly square this sort of thing with free-market principles?

Do-It-Yourself Wedding Vows, Redux

My previous post about do-it-yourself wedding vows seems to have sparked some dismay, and even disbelief. Apparently the idea that the Church can and should define the manner in which its members ought to be married seems oppressive and unreasonable to some.

One commenter asked, very reasonably, whether the Church would "discount" the marriage and lives of those putatively married with self-created vows "because of a technicality". Another commenter worried that we could go back to the era of "Gosh, Father, I got a couple of words out of order in the 47th Hail Mary! Does my rosary still count..." .

Firstly, neither the Church nor I advocate the sort of rubricism envisioned by the comments excerpted above. But the sort of thing I was referring to in my previous post was much more serious than slipping up on a technicality or two. We're not talking about how many candles are lit on the altar, or whether Dad gets to walk the bride down the aisle. I was trying to convey my point in a humorous, tongue-in-cheek way, which I suppose is always prone to misinterpretation.

The Rites of the Church are intended to confect or minister sacraments, and the sacraments are the principal source of sanctifying grace for the Church. The Church, as custodian of the sacraments, which were entrusted to Her by Christ, is very concerned that their integrity be safeguarded. This is for your own good, so that you in fact receive the very sacraments instituted by Christ, and not some counterfeit. Therefore, the Church's rites are normative for the manner of receiving or ministering the Sacraments with which they are associated. The instructions contained in the liturgical books of the Church, and their associated rubrics, have the force of law and are binding upon all Her members. The Church has the right to bind her members in this way, because she has been entrusted with the sacraments, and because of the Power of the Keys given to the apostles. That is why the duty to marry according to the laws of the Church is one of the Precepts of the Church.

The Sacrament of Marriage, like all other sacraments, has certain essential ingredients. They are Fidelity & Indissolubility, Communion, and Openness to Children. A couple must give consent to one another publicly, before the Church's designated representative and witnesses, in a manner expressing sincere intent to undertake those essential ingredients, in order to validly enter into a sacramental marriage. If one or both parties does not intend the good of Fidelity, for example, then the marriage is not valid. An essential ingredient is missing. The Marriage Rite of the Church is designed to contain or embody all of these aspects, so that all of the necessary ingredients, or goods, are represented. If the couple sincerely intends what the vows given by the Church contain, there can be certainty on their part and among the faithful that they are indeed sacramentally married. This kind of certitude is a Good Thing.

Now, if you start monkeying around with the Rite, you risk obscuring the essential goods. If you go too far, you can obscure them so much that they're indiscernible. In the example of self-written vows I gave below, I defy any of my readers to find the good of fidelity and the good of openness to children within them. Those vows would be patently invalid. If a couple got "married" with such vows, the Church would judge the marriage invalid, not because it wants to "discount" whatever good the couple has lived in their life together, but because an essential ingredient is missing. The lack of that essential ingredient must be remedied. Fortunately, such things can readily be remedied. One such way is the procedure known as convalidation.

Is it possible to come up with other formulations of marriage vows which would contain the same meanings as those supplied by the Church? Of course it is. That is why, as some commenters noted, Catholics can, with permission from their bishop or his designate, get married in non-Catholic churches. But the permission is required. Why? To make sure that (a) the couple is properly prepared and disposed to enter a sacramental marriage, with all its essential ingredients, and (b) to make sure that the marriage rite celebrated in some way actually reflects the goods contained in the sacrament. If a Catholic man wants to marry his Baptist fiancee in her Baptist church, such permission will be readily granted, because we know (at least so far) that, while the Baptist church does not share our view that a christian marriage is sacramental, nonetheless the rite expresses the goods contained in a sacramental marriage. If you ask for episcopal permission to get married by a Wiccan priestess in a sunset ceremony invoking Gaia and the spirits of the four winds, you'll be disappointed.

But the real question is why would you want to use "do-it-yourself" vows in your Catholic wedding ceremony? To express your individuality? Sorry, but that's not what a wedding ceremony is about, at least for Christians. To make the ceremony "more personal"? Sorry, but wrong again. Such an attitude is indicative of the modern American privatistic attitude about marriage, rather than a Catholic understanding. The wedding is not about "me & thee", it is about the couple being united in Christ through the Church, which is the only way we are brought into union with Christ in any form.

In approaching the Church for any sacrament, a certain degree of humility is required. We need to recognize that we are in need of Grace, Grace which only Christ can give us, Grace which He has chosen to give us through his Church. To say, in effect, "I can come up with something better than Christ's Church", does not speak of such humility.

Are You Reading The Anchoress?

If you aren't, you should be.

Today at the The Anchoress there are two excellent posts: one is on the increasingly incredible mythology concerning Hillary Clinton being propagated by the MSM.

The other is a great essay combining themes concerning the vigor and growth experienced by orthodox dioceses, as compared to the moribundity of "progressive" ones, the left's constant drumbeat about "theocrats", and Terri Schiavo. If you wonder how these ideas could be combined into a coherent essay, then you really ought to read it, and be impressed.

Planned Parenthood:
Why Let The Law Get In The Way Of Giving Out Contraceptives?

John Bambenek has a story about the local (Champaign, Illinois) Planned Parenthood chapter planning an Emergency Contraceptive giveaway next Wednesday:

Free Emergency Contraception!!

Emergency Contraception is for you when you want it.

The Great EC Giveaway
May 11 5:30-7:00 p.m.

At Planned Parenthood Of East Central Illinois
302 East Stoughton
Champaign

No exam, no hassle, and NO MONEY!!

Fill out a short application and receive a box of Plan B - absolutely free!

Tell your friends, bring them with you, and come yourself.

Hey, why bother with things like prescriptions and other burdensome, oppressive stuff like that? We just want to give away contraceptives. Don't worry about things like risks and side effects. Stock up on some "Plan B" for the next time you have casual sex and that "emergency" strikes.

Lovely, isn't it?

Do-It-Yourself Wedding Vows

In the '70's and '80's it was all the rage for couples to write their own wedding vows. While I've never personally been subjected to it, some of you out there have no doubt witnessed couples getting up in front of their wedding guests and embarrassing themselves with this kind of drivel:

You are the sunshine of my life, the star around which my world turns. I wake each morning with your name on my lips. I want to make you complete, to actualize your potential. I want to energize you the way you energize me. I love you just the way you are. I promise to always give you space to be yourself. I promise to be your equal, your partner. We will walk side by side, as co-discoverers in our journey. I promise to keep on truckin' with you down the road of life. I will give you the best of me, all of my positive energy, and I will always be open to receive your positive energy. We will be Peace for each other.

Well, if your wedding vows consisted of this kind of maundering, and you were permitted to do so by Fr. Feelgood at an allegedly Catholic wedding, guess what? You're probably not married, after all.

That's right. Using vows of your own composition, rather than those prescribed by the Church, potentially invalidates the wedding. Acccording to the canon lawyers I have spoken to, unless the self-composed vows are a fairly close approximation of those provided in the Ritual (in which case, why bother with writing your own?), they are quite possibly defective, thereby rendering the marriage invalid.

So, if you, or someone you know, got married in a ceremony which featured such "groovy" vows, it might be a good idea to talk to your parish priest and see if you need a convalidation.

Wedding - Bell Blues

According to this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, brides in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia are singing the blues because the Archdiocese is discouraging the cherished tradition of the bride's father walking her down the aisle at the wedding.

Apparently, the prospect of proscribing this custom had one mother "nearly choking on her astonishment at the suggestion of change". One father was described as getting "teary just thinking about it."

There's quite a bit of high dudgeon at Amy Welborn's as well. Commenters on the story are ascribing this change, variously, to "Feminazis", and "liberals".

As at least one commenter there correctly pointed out, the tradition of the bride's father walking her down the aisle at a wedding is of English origin, and is, generally, not observed outside of English-speaking countries. The whole business of the bride making a grand entrance last of all is part of the whole "it's bad luck for the groom to see the bride before the wedding" superstition. Needless to say, neither element is at all Catholic, nor even particularly Christian.

But the one thing missing from the Inquirer article, and something I'd be surprised at if Fr. Dan Mackle (head of the Office of Worship for the Archdiocese) actually omitted from his discussion, is what the Rite actually says. Fr. Mackle taught the Introduction to Liturgy course in my first year of Theology at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, and we discussed this matter in class.

The Instruction from the "Rite For Celebrating Marriage During Mass" provides:

ENTRANCE RITE

19. At the appointed time, the priest, vested for Mass, goes with the ministers to the door of the church, or if more suitable, to the altar. There he greets the bride and bridegroom in a friendly manner, showing the that the Church shares their joy.

Where it is desirable that the rite of welcome be omitted, the celebration of marriage begins at once with Mass.

20. If there is a procession to the altar, the ministers go first, followed by the priest, and then the bride and bridegroom. According to local custom, they may be escorted by at least their parents and the two witnesses. Meanwhile, the entrance song is sung.

The instruction for the "Rite For Celebrating Marriage Outside Mass" has identical provisions on these points.

Note that the actual rite presupposes that the bride and groom process in together and are greeted at the entrance of the church together. If you've ever been to a Catholic wedding in a non-Anglo country, that's usually what you'll see.

So, what the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is trying to do is bring the practice of weddings into consistency with the Universal Church.

Admittedly, it would appear that they have done so in a hamfisted and insensitive way. You can't expect people, conditioned by decades of American custom, TV shows and movies, etc., to just accept such a change overnight.

Personally, I think the entrance rite of the Catholic rite of marriage, as indicated above, is a much better exemplar of the sign and meaning of the whole marriage ceremony and the sacrament of marriage than the Anglo-Saxon custom. As many others have pointed out, the Anglo-Saxon custom has led to a diminution of the groom's role to that of mere appendage in the rite. It has also led to the distortion of the wedding becoming "the bride's day", with the bride as "Princess" whose every whim must be honored.

What I do, when I meet with a couple I am preparing for marriage, is to point out to them that the American custom is not actually part of or really consistent with the Catholic rite. I show them the part of the instruction I excerpt above. I tell them that I would really prefer that they use the Catholic rite as provided, for all the reasons explained above. Then I leave the decision up to them.

Of the 20 or so weddings I've done, two couples have decided to celebrate their wedding according to the Catholic entrance rite. Interestingly, they were two of the more seriously "gung-ho" Catholic couples I've married. Which suggests to me that the place to start in getting Catholics to follow the authentic Catholic rite isn't in preparing them for marriage, but in evangelizing and instructing them to be truly faithful Catholics.

Habemus Papam!

Today, in Rome, the College of Cardinals assembled in conclave elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as the 264th successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

He has chosen Benedict XVI as the name by which he shall now be known by the Church and the world. At about 6:40 PM Rome time he came out on the central loggia of St. Peter's to impart his first blessing urbi et orbi, upon the Church and the whole world.

Just as there has been a torrent of idle speculation regarding who would be the next pope, we'll now see another bout of speculation as to what our new Holy Father is going to do. Given Cardinal Ratzinger's reputation, we soon can also expect to see a stream of complaints from those for whom he will be too "conservative" and "traditional". Of course, to call a Pope "conservative" is no pejorative, as the Pope's whole office and charge is to conserve the Tradition, the Deposit of Faith.

I think that the relative speed with which the cardinals elected Pope Benedict XVI is an indication that the cardinals were of relatively the same mind. Divisions between "conservative" and "liberal" (such as they may be) didn't seem to manifest themselves in this conclave. What Cardinal Ratzinger was most concerned about, as indicated in his homily yesterday, is fidelity to Christ and His teaching, as handed down to us through the Church. That is also foremost in the minds of the cardinal electors, as they chose him to be the Successor to Peter.

Let us pray for Pope Benedict XVI, for this "humble worker in the Lord's vineyard", that he will lead us ever closer to Christ, and to greater fidelity to the Lord's call in our lives.

I Was In Philadelphia Yesterday

Last night, Friday April 15, I was in Philadelphia, for a Memorial Mass for Terri Schindler Schiavo. Terri and the Schindlers are originally from the Philadelphia area, and still have many family and friends there.

The Mass was held at Our Lady of Good Counsel parish in Southhampton, which is the parish in which Terri grew up. The Schindlers were there, as well as long-time Schindler friend Msgr. Ted Malanowski. Fr. Frank Pavone was also there, and I was honored to meet him for the first time.

Several of Terri's old friends offered remembrances of her at the end of Mass, and they were quite moving. It is amazing how this woman, who could not speak for the last 15 years, nonetheless touched the whole world.

Fr. Pavone also spoke powerfully, at the reception following Mass. He concluded by saying that Terri's death "is not the end of Terri's fight, it is the beginning of a new chapter! Death wll not have the last word!"

Indeed, it will not. Neither for Terri, nor for the rest of us.

As I'm Sure Most of You Know by Now...

Mae Magouirk is in the hospital, receiving re-hydration therapy and treatment for her heart condition.

I spoke to Ken Mullinax, Mae's nephew, on the phone yesterday, and he's very grateful for the outpouring of support and assistance from pro-life bloggers and our readers.

Ken's mother and uncle, who are Mae's sister and brother, are now being allowed to visit Mae, and obviously they are very grateful for that. Mae is recuperating, is lucid, and able to speak in complete sentences. Ken hopes to arrange some sort of joint guardianship for Mae, as he believes that Beth Gaddy and her brother, who are Mae's grandchildren, have shown themselves unfit to retain sole guardianship. He is also concerned that they are not disinterested parties, as they are the beneficiaries of Mae's will.

Keeping checking Blogs For Terri for further updates.

Sorry For the Silence

I'm sorry to have been away for so long. I've been travelling for the past week or so, and I simply haven't had time to keep up on my blog - not to mention the fact that my laptop, which I thought was working properly again, now seems once more to be guasto, as the Italians would say.

Anyway, I'll try to have some more stuff up during the coming week.

More On Mae Magouirk

Mae Magouirk, the Georgia woman who is being starved and dehydrated on the orders of her granddaughter, was lucid when she was admitted to the hospital two weeks ago after suffering an aortic dissection.

But now, according to Mae's nephew Ken, she is no longer. "But who would be since nourishment and fluids have been denied since March 28," he told World Net Daily.

As I wrote yesterday, apparently Mae's granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, believes that it's time Mrs. Magouirk "moved on":

"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

"Who would want to live like that?" We've heard that before, haven't we?

During the last couple of weeks, we've heard a constant drumbeat from the MSM, and seen a constant parade of pundits, telling us to make sure we get a living will, so that what happened to Terri Schiavo didn't happen to us.

But now, it appears that a living will is no guarantee, either. If a relative decides your life is no longer worth living, and a judge is willing to overrule your living will and make him or her guardian, you too could end up dying over 10-14 days, starving and dehydrating to death.

It becomes clearer and clearer: what many among us really want is not for these people to "have their wishes respected", or to "die with dignity". What they want is for these people — the sick, the aged, the disabled, the inconvenient — to just die.

It's Happening Again:

Georgia Woman Being Starved and Dehydrated

85 year-old Mae Magouirk of LaGrange, Georgia, is currently being deprived of nutrition and hydration at the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy. Mrs. Magouirk suffered an aortic dissection 2 weeks ago and was hospitalized. Though her doctors have said that she is not terminally ill, Ms. Gaddy declared that she held medical power of attorney for Mae, and had her transferred to the LaGrange Hospice. Later investigation revealed that Ms. Gaddy did not in fact have such power of attorney. Furthermore, Mae's Living Will provides that nutrition and hydration are to be withheld only if she is comatose or vegetative. Mae is in neither condition. Neither is her condition terminal.

Furthermore, under Georgia law, if there is no power of attorney specifying a health care decisionmaker, such authority is given to the closest living relatives. Mae's brother, A. B. McLeod, and sister, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax, are both still alive and capable of making such decisions. They opposed Mae's transfer to hospice, and are fighting to save her life. But in spite of the lack of a power of attorney, and the fact that there are closer living relatives who should be given precedence by Georgia law, Ms. Gaddy sought an emergency appointment as guardian from the local probate court. The probate judge, Donald Boyd (who, I am told, is not an attorney and does not have a law degree), granted Gaddy's request, thereby giving her the power to starve and dehydrate Magouirk to death, though such an action is contrary to the provisions of the living will.

I have spoken to Kenneth Mullinax, Mae's nephew, and he has confirmed all the above. He also tells me that he believes that Ms. Gaddy has no bad motives, but is simply misguided and mistaken. Mullinax said that Ms. Gaddy has testified in court that she has "prayed over" Mae, and is convinced that it is "time for her to go". Whether the fact is relevant or not remains to be seen, but apparently Ms. Gaddy is also the sole beneficiary of Mae's will.

Kenneth has told me that they need help in getting the word out, and bringing Mae's case to the media's attention. Given the amount of coverage of the Holy Father's death, that may be difficult. But we have to raise the visibility of this case. They have another hearing coming up, and Kenneth indicated that they also may need expert assistance, both legal and medical.

The similarities of Mae Magouirk's situation and Terri Schiavo's are obvious: Once again we have a family divided over what care should be given to a seriously ill relative. And once again, we have a judge playing God with someone's life. But what is different, and in a sense worse, is that Mae is being deprived of food and water in clear contravention of her own stated wishes, and at the request of someone who should have no standing under Georgia law.

More information is available at Blogs For Terri. If you want to contact Kenneth Mullinax to get more information or to offer help, you may e-mail him at mockingbird@compuhelp.net.