My Prediction Fulfilled

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who needs evidence when you're sure:

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

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

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

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

A Prediction

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

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

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

You read it here first.

"The Passion" Provides Opportunities for Hand-Wringing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Passion – Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look What Happens…

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

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

At any rate, my oversight has been corrected.

Veritas? Quid Est Veritas?

Truth? What is Truth?

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

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

There is Christ, who IS Truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will never celebrate Mass the same way again.

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

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

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

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

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

I will give my reactions and impressions tomorrow.

An Answer to The DaVinci Code Twaddle

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

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

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

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

Friday the 13th Is A Lucky Day For Terri Schiavo

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

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

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

Deo Gratias! Sometimes the good guys win!


Speaking of Terri...

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

A Brave New World

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

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

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

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

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

But the technique still doesn't work very well:

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

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

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

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


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

Clerical Secrecy

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Empty Chair

Homily for the Third Sunday of Ordinary Time

Cycle C





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

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

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

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

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

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

We've broken up their families with divorce.

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

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

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


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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We heard Our Lord say in the gospel today:

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

(Luke 4:14-21)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explorare Googles Ope!

Google has a Latin Version!

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

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

Even the "Vincula sub Patrocinio" are there.

Make it protocollum tuum!

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

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

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



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



Nahh, there's no bias in the Media.

The March For Life



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Thought Experiment

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

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

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

Now Here's a Celebrity With Some Depth And Substance



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

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



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



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



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



Britney says "It's a Snap!"

Just Honoring Her Wish

"A Conversation With Michael Schiavo"


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


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

MS: just honoring her wish.

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

MS: just honoring her wish.

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

MS: just honoring her wish.

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

MS: hey, but she never said that.

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

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

Update On Terri Schiavo,

or,

Being a Judge Means Never Having to Say, "I was Wrong"

My article titled "Killing Terri Schiavo" is now out in the January issue of Crisis Magazine. If you don't subscribe to Crisis, you might buy, beg or borrow (don't steal) a copy of it. In the article I examine some of the legal and medical issues in her case, and demonstrate how Terri has been the victim of a judicial and medical establishment that has embraced the pro-death agenda. In my research for the article, it became plain to me that a serious miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated by Judge Greer et al. One notable way in which the Florida courts have ridden roughshod over Terri's rights is in the manner they have handled the guardians ad litem in her case: Several attorneys have informed me that the normal procedure is to have such a guardian appointed to represent the person's interest. But Terri's court cases have consistently gone to trial without an independent guardian ad litem to represent her. As I write in my Crisis article, the first guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, said some things in his report which George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, didn't like, so Felos tried to get rid of him:

In February of 1999 George Felos filed a "suggestion of bias" against Pearse, and demanded he be removed as guardian ad litem. The judge then hearing the case, Bruce Boyer, took no action on Felos' "suggestion of bias" nor on Pearse's report. In April of that year, after waiting four months without hearing from the judge, Pearse filed a request that he either be given further instructions or discharged. He reiterated his concerns about Michael's guardianship, and also noted that there would be due process difficulties if the case proceeded to trial without Terri having an independent guardian ad litem. Judge Boyer's response was to discharge Pearse without appointing a successor. The case then proceeded to trial before Judge Greer, without him appointing a new guardian ad litem .

Well, now it looks like the same thing is happening again. In the latest proceeding, Governor Bush asked the most recent court-appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson, to investigate 10 issues related to Terri's case, including such things as the circumstances of the injuries which led to her brain damage. Governor Bush also asked Wolfson to make a determination as to whether Terri and Michael could be divorced. Mr. Wolfson had also, in his report to the court, advocated that swallowing tests be done on Terri, as well as other measures to determine whether there is any likelihood that therapy could improve her condition.

All of these questions, and the request for a swallowing test, are highly inconvenient to Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos. If Michael and Terri can be divorced, then Michael is sunk, and Felos loses the pro-death test case he longs for. If a swallowing test is conducted by honest and independent doctors, then Michael will almost certainly be sunk as well, because such a test will reveal that Terri already is swallowing her own saliva (about 2 to 2.5 liters per day, like most normal adults) and can therefore swallow liquids. If she can swallow liquids, then she can probably re-learn to swallow solid food.

But these questions and the request for a test are also inconvenient to the Florida courts, because honest answers to them will reveal the bias and judicial incompetence, if not outright misconduct, of Judge Greer and, to a lesser extent, Judges Boyer and Baird.

And so, the response of the courts has been, once again, to discharge the guardian ad litem. Once again, there is no independent advocate representing Terri. The Schindlers have petitioned the court to re-instate Jay Wolfson so that he can complete the investigation into Terri's case. Predictably, George Felos opposes the re-instatement, saying that Wolfson had already completed the investigation. Felos has relied upon misinformation and outright deception to make his case, and can't afford to have any further inconvenient facts come to light.

What this case is now about is the combined efforts of George Felos and the judges of this case to prevent Governor Bush and the Schindlers from re-visiting the questions of fact in Terri's case. In my opinion, the maneuverings regarding the constitutionality of "Terri's Law" are just a smoke screen in front of those questions of fact.

You see, Judge Greer made some highly dubious, and indeed almost unaccountable findings of fact in this case. His judgment that Michael's assertion that Terri "wouldn't want to go on living" in her condition met the standard of "clear and convincing" proof is one egregious example of what can only with charity be described as a number of "counter-intuitive" decisions.

But in our legal system, once a judge has made a finding of fact, that finding is all-but unassailable, no matter what evidence might come to light subsequently showing that finding to be erroneous or even absurd. Being a judge means, in a very real sense, never having to say "I was wrong".

Governor Bush and the Schindlers are using the opening given them by "Terri's Law" and the governor's intervention to try to re-open the case and re-visit the rulings that Judge Greer made regarding Terri's diagnosis and regarding her putative wishes. And, as I have written before, there is ample reason to doubt the validity of those judgments.

It is precisely because of the objective weakness of those judgments and the flimsiness of the evidence behind them, that the Florida judiciary will do almost anything to prevent them from being re-examined. A small waft of truth will bring down that house of cards. So the tactic of the judges will be to keep the windows closed on, and the light off of, the matter.

And so the Florida courts, wittingly or not, are locked in common cause with George Felos. They both need the same thing, albeit for different reasons. And that is why I am not at all sanguine about the outcome of Terri's case as long as it is in the Florida courts. Neither the Schindlers nor the attorney for Gov. Bush, Ken Connor, are optimistic, either. Judge Baird has clearly signalled his intentions by refusing to allow a new trial to present or consider evidence in the case.

It is almost a certainty that Judge Baird will rule that Terri's Law is unconstitutional. Judge Baird all but declared himself on the matter before there was even a hearing. That his evident bias didn't disqualify him is appalling, but not surprising. The arguments he gives for his ruling may be of interest to legal pundits, but even if he has no plausible reasons the outcome will be the same. As far as the judiciary as concerned, it is necessary that Terri's Law be found unconstitutional. They will allow no governor nor legislature to brook the unfettered exercise of judicial power. Once Terri's Law is declared unconstitutional, that puts an end to the inconvenient questions and demands of Gov. Bush and the Schindlers. Once Terri's Law is declared unconstitutional, the inconvenient findings and recommendations of Jay Wolfson will be rendered moot.

As soon as that ruling is given, George Felos will ask for an order to again remove Terri's feeding tube. It will probably be granted. Felos will try to get Terri's death order on a "fast track", so as to limit the opportunities for further legal maneuvering. Gov. Bush and the Schindlers will ask for a stay of the death order pending appeal, but many involved in the case think Judge Baird is not likely to grant it. And the Florida appellate courts, in all likelihood, will also decline to issue stays. Their interests also lie the way of Terri's death. At that point the only hope is in a Federal intervention.

Once Terri is dead, then all the inconvenient, unanswered questions lose their interest and relevance. Felos knows that against the fact of Terri's death, none of those problematic issues will have much actuality. Most people will shrug their shoulders and move on. And 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.

I'm back

After the busyness of Christmas and the New Year, I was just exhausted and needed to take a break from blogging. But I'm back, at least for now. I have a couple of big projects looming which will probably result in a curtailment of my blogging later this month. But in the meantime, I'll try to edify and entertain.