Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

The definitive history of apologetics, written by Avery Cardinal Dulles

The revised, expanded, and updated edition of A History of Apologetics by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., is now available from Ignatius Press. I received a copy of the book this week and have been enjoying reading the new material. Any Christian interested in apologetics and the defense of the Faith owes it to themselves to read this excellent book. We are fortunate that a scholar and theologian of Cardinal Dulles's stature has written what will surely be recognized as the definitive history of apologetics.

This weekend I'll be posting an IgnatiusInsight.com interview I recently had with Cardinal Dulles about the book and about apologetics. I'll also be posting an excerpt from the book and possibly the table of contents. In the meantime, here is the opening question and answer from the interview:

IgnatiusInsight.com: Why write a history of apologetics?

Cardinal Dulles: I wrote the first edition, published in 1971, because I was asked to do so by the editors of a projected multi-volume theological encyclopedia, tentatively entitled Corpus Instrumentorum. I wrote the present revised edition because the editor of Ignatius Press asked my permission to reprint the first edition. I took time to do a thorough revision and updating because I felt that there were some gaps in the original and there was a great deal of important new literature.

The editors who asked me to do each edition rightly discerned that such a book was really needed. Hardly anything like it exists in any language, and certainly not in English. Most apologists are shamefully ignorant of the history of their own discipline, and for this reason they overlook important distinctions that have been worked out over the centuries and fail to build on the best achievements of the past.

The history of apologetics holds a certain fascination because it exhibits the Christian faith confronting a whole succession of cultures, religious and secular. The unchanging gospel gives unity to apologetics, but the variety of cultures makes each era unique.

Reason #287,255 we wrote The Da Vinci Hoax

Oh my. I like to think that I've seen too much nonsense, read too many lies, and heard too much stupidity to be surprised by remarks such as those made by one Ann Marie Chandy, writing in The Star, a Malaysian paper. But it's truly cringe-worthy. Here we go:

• "Reading Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code was an exhilarating experience for me." Augh!
• "I couldn’t put the book down, and I was provoked to think hard about a lot of things I had assumed about my religion." Get outta here!
• "It was also thrilling learning so much about history, art and famous places around the world." Sigh.
• About a National Geographic television special about the novel: "While the show does explore the credibility of the claims in the book ... it does so in a rather tedious, academic way." What, too many footnotes in the program?
• "The good news is that you’ll get to see Dan Brown being interviewed." No comment.
• "...as well as get glimpses of some of the great architectural and art works mentioned in the novel..." No library where you live?
• "The interviews featured are also very academic or religion-based and tend to get a bit boring after the first half hour." Yes, that's surprising since the novel was all about academic claims and religious subjects. Go figure.

I'd say more, but...I....won't. I musn't.

Evangelicals evangelizing Catholics in Iraq

At least that's the impression I get from this CharismaNews.com article, which states:

National Evangelical Baptist Church draws a couple of hundred worshipers on Sundays who like the lively music and focus on the Bible. "I'm thirsty for this kind of church," Suhaila Tawfik, a veterinarian who was raised Catholic, said at a recent service. "I want to go deep in understanding the Bible."

Yeah, it's a real bummer that the Mass/Divine Liturgy doesn't focus on the Bible, isn't it. Sheesh. Well, at least we know that such sad silliness isn't just an American problem. Nor is the confusion about the different rites in the Catholic Church, described in the article as "denominations":

Iraq's Christian population has been organized for centuries into denominations such as Chaldean Catholicism and Roman Catholicism. While Hussein's secular regime allowed freedom of worship, it limited new denominations, particularly if backed by Western churches.

"For Christians, it's now democratic," said Nabil Sara, 60, the pastor at National Evangelical Baptist. "It's not like before. There is freedom now. Nobody can say, 'Why do you start a new church?'"

Nobody? Don't tempt me. Meanwhile, here's a great article about rites and related matters...

New Book Reviews at HPR

Three new book reviews to scope out at HPRweb :

Metaphysics, by D.Q. McInerny
The Theology of the Passion of Christ, by Monica Migliorino Miller
Saint Gianna Molla: Wife, Mother, Doctor, By Pietro Molla and Elio Guerriero

Enjoy! 

   

Sen. Santorum interviewed by our very own Valerie Schmalz...

Mark Steyn: The state church has died in Europe; the state is now the church

Whatever you might think of columnist Mark Steyn's views on political matters, he's never boring to read and he often makes excellent observations on the passing scene. In this online interview with blogger John Hawkins of "Right Wing News", Steyn has this to say about secularism in Europe and Christianity in America:

John Hawkins: In your opinion, why is it that Europe has become so much more secular than the United States, where Christianity is still strong?

Mark Steyn: The short answer is separation of church and state - and I use that phrase as it was intended to be used: The founders’ distaste for "establishment of religion" simply means that they didn't want President Washington also serving as head of the Church Of America and the Archbishop of Virginia sitting in the Unites States Senate - as to this day the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church Of England and the Archbishop of York sits in the House Of Lords. Most European countries either had de jure state churches, like England, or de facto ones, like Catholic Italy. One consequence of that is the lack of portability of faith: in America, when the Episcopalians and Congregationalists go all post-Christian and relativist, people find another church; in Britain, when Christians give up on the Church of England, they tend to give up on religion altogether.

So the dynamism of American faith exemplifies the virtues of the broader society: the US has a free market in religion, Europe had cosseted overregulated monopolies and cartels. The other salient point is that obviously Europe does have a religion: radical secularism. The era of the state church has been replaced by an age in which the state itself is the church. European progressives still don't get this: they think the idea of a religion telling you how to live your life is primitive, but the government regulating every aspect of it is somehow advanced and enlightened.

For more on these differences, check out this recent IgnatiusInsight.com interview with Dwight Longenecker, an American who has now lived in England for many years and a former Fundamentalist->Evangelical->Anglican who entered the Catholic Church a few years ago.

So what does it take, in the nation of Canada, to get...

... in trouble with your bishop? Be pro-American? Try to kill the Pope? Support tax cuts? Perhaps all of these, but apparently not being a driving force behind the passage of the "gay marriage" bill. LifeSiteNews.com reports:

As Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin began in earnest his final push for the passage of the same-sex 'marriage' bill last week, he had the audacity to go on radio and say "I'm actually a very strong Roman Catholic" while at the same time justifying his imposition of homosexual 'marriage' on Canada.  LifeSiteNews.com asked for comment on the matter from Martin's bishop, Ottawa Archbishop Marcel Gervais. ...

In response, Gilles Ouellette the Director of Communications for Archbishop Gervais wrote, "The Archbishop has asked me to inform you that his position on this topic remains unchanged and that he stands by his previous comments on the issue."  

Those previous comments sent to LifeSiteNews.com via Mr. Ouellete on March 23, 2005 had the Archbishop saying about the Prime Minister "To me he is also a faithful member of my cathedral parish."  The Archbishop's comments concluded, "While I do not agree either with his argument or his conclusion on same sex marriage, I do not think, at this time, his position merits refusing him communion."

Meanwhile, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) used strong—nay, harsh—language in denouncing Bill C-38. Well, not really. The CCCB actually said that with the passage of the bill "Canadians take another unfortunate step toward eliminating civil and social recognition and appreciation for the unique importance of the committed relationship of a man and a woman in marriage." Yes, very unfortunate—much like the problems with Canadian health care. No, that's not my wiseacre comment, but another remark from the CCCB:

The passage of Bill C-38 by the House of Commons, like the difficulties in health care, are indications that Canadians are witnessing a dangerous deterioration of their communal values. This worrisome decline in shared concern and care for the common good is also evident in the continuing high rates of marriage breakdown, the annual number of abortions, and the declining number of births.

Very true, of course, but it seems to lack a bit of urgency. However, it is far better than what Archbishop Marcel Gervais is doing, which is apparently waiting for PM Martin to do something really rotten, like say that U.S. health care is better than Canadian health care.

UPDATE: Catholic World News has a short but important piece about how, in the midst of all the ruckus and racket about "gay rights," the real victims of "gay marriage" are being ignored. Those victims are children, specifically children who will be adopted by same-sex parents. The piece quotes Professor Hillary Wilson of the University of Arkansas:

Amidst the rush to "excuse" and "reaffirm" the positive nature of homosexuality, "it seems the original issue that gave rise to this controversy has been lost from sight: Should the right to adoption be granted to same-sex couples or not?" Wilson maintained.

"To deny a same-sex couple the possibility of adopting is not discrimination against persons with homosexual tendencies," she explained. "The problem is not one of sexual orientation, but of the nature and purpose of adoption itself: adoption does not mean giving a child to any couple who wants one, but rather the seeking out a family for a child who needs one."

"A child in need of being adopted is a child who is an extraordinary and abnormal situation: he or she is a child without parents. From a juridical and social point of view, the purpose of adoption is to 'create' a family relationship similar to one that is natural. Not, for example, like two fathers and one mother, or three friends, or a single person, because these do not exist as a natural biological relationship," Wilson explained.

Of course, it shouldn't surprise that "same sex couples" pursuing an unnatural relationship might not care about the "national biological" make-up of marriage. That's not to say they are nasty, mean, or rotten people—just that if you're already committed to something that violates nature, it is that much easier to violate nature again...

Greydanus on the new Batman movie

Summer is supposed to slow things down, but that doesn't seem to be the case for me.  Which is why I am only now getting around to posting this link to Steve Greydanus' review of Batman Begins.   Here is the link: http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/batmanbegins.html. 

Both the review and the movie are worth your time.  Even during a busy summer.

Passing thoughts on Billy Graham...

For a few days now I've planned on writing a brilliant, incisive, and deeply moving piece about Billy Graham, his life, his influence, his crusade in the Big Apple, etc. Since that isn't going to happen, this post will have to do.

For those who don't know, I was raised in a Fundamentalist home and attended an Evangelical Bible College. I've sometimes said, only half in jest, that as a Fundamentalist my understanding of Church history consisted of Jesus/Apostles/Bible in the first century and then Billy Graham/our church/Bible in the twentieth century, with a substantial gap in between. Sure, we thought Billy was a bit soft on Catholics and other so-called "Christians" (Lutherans, Methodists, etc.), but he preached the Gospel with vigor and that was good enough for us. I watched Billy Graham Crusades (BGC) just about anytime they were televised. And in 1992 I finally attended a BGC in person in Portland, Oregon.

In the long run I probably gained more from reading some of Graham's books than I did listening to broadcasts of the BGC. It's not that Graham is a great theologian or writer, but many of his books were solid, helpful guides to topics that interested me, especially in my early teens. The Graham book that I recall most clearly is The Holy Spirit (1978) — a straightforward but somewhat systematic popular guide to who the Holy Spirit is, what He does, etc. The topic was especially engrossing to me since we really didn't talk about the Holy Spirit. As Fundamentalists we were all about Jesus — the Holy Spirit was mostly for the Pentacostals. Graham helped me to appreciate the Third Person of the Trinity and gave me a sense of how the Holy Spirit related to the Father and the Son and (surprise!) to me as a Christian.

There is much to admire about Graham, and I do admire and respect him. Obviously, in his prime he was a riveting and dynamic orator. But I think his great strength is that he knows who he is and what he does well. For the most part, he has avoided complex theological problems and thorny denominational issues and has simply preached the Gospel. If C.S. Lewis is known for "mere Christianity", Graham might be known for "mere Evangelism" — proclaiming an unadorned, to-the-heart message of man's sin, God's mercy, Christ's death and Resurrection, and God's invitation for us to accept the free gift of salvation.

So there is much to admire about what Graham has done and how he has lived his life (he's no Jimmy Swaggert, thank goodness). But I think that his strength — his focus on a largely singular task — was also a big weakness. Put another way, while Graham apparently transcended many denominational lines, it was at the expense of any sort of substantial ecclessiology. And, in a real way, it had to be so; again, I think of C.S. Lewis, although the comparison only goes so far. Graham undoubtedly has introduced thousands of people to Jesus Christ. But I think they often met a Jesus who did not have a Church. Or, they met a Jesus whose Church was vaguely defined, off in the foggy distance. This matter of ecclesiology stands out to me because it is at the heart of why I (and so many other Fundamentalist, Evangelicals, mainline Protestants) became Catholic: I didn't want a vague Church, or a local church without any real connection to something bigger and older, or a denomination without authority, tradition, and weight behind it.

A couple of days ago I was reading this Christian Science Monitor article about Graham and I was struck by this comment:

Now that Graham's career is at its close, few see any other ministers able to match the charisma and widespread appeal that made him such an important figure in American religious history. "The reach of his preaching - nobody has ever come close, and I suspect no one else ever will," says [Randall Balmer, professor of American religion at Barnard College in New York]. "His people claim that he has preached to more people than anyone else in history, and I don't know anyone who would seriously dispute that claim."

Has Graham "preached to more people than anyone else in history"? He has had 417 crusades, dating back to 1947, and it is estimated that 83 million people have seen him preach in person, with many more having watched him on televison. That's very impressive, but I wonder if Pope John Paul II rivaled those numbers, especially taking into account that he was on the world stage for 26 years, compared to over 50 years for Graham. How many millions watched the Jubilee? Christmas Mass every year? How many have read one or more of his 14 encyclicals, 15 apostolic exhortations, 11 apostolic constitutions, 45 apostolic letters, and various books of essays, audiences, poems, prayers, etc.? I suppose it comes down, in part, to what we mean by "preaching."

Of course, it isn't a contest; both men benefited from modern technology and both knew how to utilize it. Both men proclaimed that Jesus Christ is Lord. Indeed, I do respect Billy Graham. But, I must confess, that when I turn to reading about the Holy Spirit these days, I no longer look for Graham's book, but instead pick up Dominum et Vivificantem...

The Axis of "Gay Marriage"

The Netherlands, Belgium, and now Canada. LifeSiteNews.com reports:

At 9 p.m. June 28, Canada's Liberal government passed, without significant amendment, third and final reading of it same-sex 'marriage' bill C-38 by a vote of 158 for to 133 against. Canada now joins Holland and Belgium as the only three countries in the world to have legalized this radical redefinition of the institution of marriage. The bill must still be passed by the Senate and then receive Royal Assent before being promulgated into Canadian law. The Liberal dominated Senate is expected to swiftly pass the law.

The New York Times reports that the vote came down to that most powerful, if constantly abused, four-letter word: L-O-V-E:

Though the vote was largely symbolic, advocates for gay rights hailed it as a milestone because it was the first time a Canadian legislative body had voted to change the traditional definition of marriage beyond a union of a man and a woman.

"It's about the right to love," Réal Ménard, a Bloc Québécois lawmaker who is gay, said after the vote. "When you are in love, things are different, and everyone is entitled to that." The Conservatives promised to revoke the legislation if they won power in elections, which are expected early next year, setting up a potentially divisive political campaign in the winter.

Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary, one of the most visible and vocal opponents of the bill, wrote a withering column in Sunday's edition of The Calgary Sun, in which he stated, "The most overlooked and disenfranchised group in the current debate about marriage are children." The bishop wrote:

According to the government's agenda, Bill C-38, the social institution that has always symbolized our society's commitment to the future -- our children, will be transformed into an institution that symbolizes our commitment to the present -- the needs and desires of adults.

Marriage will have a new primary purpose, to validate and protect sexually intimate adult relationships.
Legislation which redefines marriage cannot achieve the impossible. It cannot alter the simple reality that there is a fundamental difference between a relationship that, by its nature, has the potential to create a child and a relationship, that by its nature, absolutely does not.

The proposed re-invention of the institution of marriage means that marriage must be disconnected from procreation, and the traditional family, the only institution that honours a child's natural right to know and be cared for by his or her parents, must be dismantled.

More info can be found on the LifeSiteNews.com site.

New articles from July 2005 HPR

Two new articles are now available from the July 2005 issue of HPR:

Priestly Identity and the Danger of Democratism, by Michael Hull:

The late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century phenomenon of reducing philosophical and, concomitantly, theological discourse to political discourse—a reduction summarily exposed and refuted long ago (1)—continues to menace right thinking even in the twenty-first century. An off-shoot of such ill-reasoned conviction is the contemporary trend of radical egalitarianism, which purports that principles of political theory, especially democratic political theory, are applicable, not only in the political sphere, but in every sphere, including the Church. This is, of course, alien to Catholic ecclesiology, in which the mystici corporis Christi evidences an essential difference between her priests and laity.

and Literary Evidence for Peter's Primacy, by W. Patrick Cunningham:

So what came first, Mark’s account of the Petrine confession of faith, or Matthew’s? There are many approaches to this question, using principles of textual, redaction and source criticism, but a simple examination of the literary form that appears to have been used by Matthew, and of texts from St. Paul, shores up the claim of Matthew to be closer to the original words of Jesus than Mark.

"Action!" — The steady growth of Christian filmmakers in Hollywood

A NYTimes piece, "On the Right Side of the Theater Aisle," describes (in somewhat breathless, "ohmygoshwhataretheydoing?!" tones) the growing influence of political, social, and religious conservatives in Hollywood:

More recently, these familiar faces have been bolstered by new players from both inside and outside the system, many intent on using the documentary form to promote their conservative message. One, Stephen McEveety, 50, who struck gold as a producer of "The Passion of the Christ," recently left Mr. Gibson's Icon Productions to start his own film company. According to two people who have worked with him and who spoke anonymously to protect their industry relationships, Mr. McEveety, who declined to be interviewed, controls a $100 million fund devoted to making and promoting family-oriented movies. (Mr. McEveety did note in an e-mail message that his criterion for making films is whether "my kids would be able to see them," not politics.) He is collaborating with Mr. Bannon, 51, on two new Catholic-themed documentaries, one on cloning, and another on Pope Benedict XVI, which is budgeted at about $1 million.

The piece quotes Barbara Nicolosi, well-known in the world of St. Blogs for her "Church of the Masses" blog. She is described by the NYTimes as a "Catholic activist." Nicolosi is, understandably, less than thrilled by the description and provides a humorous (but telling)  account of her conversation with the NYT reporter about the description.

de Lubac on the Papacy and Particular Churches

Pontifications has posted a lengthy excerpt, "Petrine Office and Particular Churches," penned by Henri de Lubac, S.J. (see author page) It seemed familiar and I finally figured out why — it is part of a longer piece, "The Center of Unity," which is a chapter in de Lubac's outstanding book, The Motherhood of the Church. Anyhow, de Lubac writes:

There has never been a Christianity without Church, and there has never been a universal Church without particular churches. Wherever the Eucharist is celebrated, the Catholic Church is present whole and undivided. The bishop of the most insignificant market town is in this respect, as St Jerome observes, the equal of the bishop of Rome.

But there were never any autonomous particular churches which then joined together in a federation to form a universal church, any more than the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus subsequently came together on their own initiative. In its multiple realizations the Church is fundamentally one. In the multiplicity of its members, the college of bishops is fundamentally one. These truths have often been reiterated. Since the last Council in particular they have been the subject of a series of excellent expositions. Consequently I have no intention of lingering over them.

I want simply, first of all, to clarify a few points regarding the idea of collegiality, which seems to me rather important, and on its possible relation to the idea of bishops’ conferences. Next, I want to emphasize the role of the successor of St Peter as bond of the college of bishops and center of Catholic unity, as it follows from the Gospel. In conclusion, we shall examine some new tendencies or suggestions on this point.

Read rest of the excerpt here.

Sparkling, informative interview with Joseph Pearce now available...

If you hadn't completely given up on the Supreme Court...

... the confusing/confused rulings about displaying Ten Commandments might push you over the edge. An AP story states:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that displaying the Ten Commandments on government property is constitutionally permissible in some cases but not in others. A pair of 5-4 decisions left future disputes on the contentious church-state issue to be settled case-by-case.

"The court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Breyer was the only justice to vote with the majority in both cases: One that struck down Ten Commandments displays inside two Kentucky courthouses and a second that allowed a 6-foot granite monument to remain on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.

The court said the key to whether a display is constitutional hinges on whether there is a religious purpose behind it. But the justices acknowledged that question would often be controversial. "The divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable," wrote Justice David H. Souter.

He said it was important to understand the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires the government to stay neutral on religious belief. Questions of such belief, he said are "reserved for the conscience of the individual."

The Constitution's Establishment Clause is not altogether complicated, even if the multitude of endless arguments about how it should-can-must-will be-won't be interpreted are. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, I don't have a law degree nor am I a Constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how having a copy of the Ten Commandments displayed in a public place establishes or prohibits any religion. Note the key word: "establish." Over at The Reform Club, S.T. Karnick makes this very important point:

In his dissent in the Texas decision, Justice John Paul Stevens concurred with Rehnquist's assessment of the religious content of the display, noting that the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God,' in large letters. Stevens interprets the meaning of the display as follows: "The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the full text of one version of the Ten Commandments." However, Stevens parts company with the Rehnquist majority by concluding, "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."

I agree with Stevens in that assessment: the displays do suggest that the government of the State of Texas accepts the Ten Commandments as a divinely inspired truth. Really, that much should be fairly obvious. Such displays do also include historical and perhaps artistic aspects, but the religious on is surely paramount. In addition, I would suggest that these displays often express a more general public commitment to the God of the Bible.

Hence, I would agree that the Court is correct to hold that some such displays do constitute an endorsement of religion, and specifically of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Where the majority of the Court is wrong, in the view of many constitutional scholars and a large minority on the Court itself (and this author), is in ruling that endorsement of religion in general, or even specifically of Christianity, is unconstitutional. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was clearly intended solely to prevent the establishment of an official national church as was the custom in most European nations. The idea behind it was to keep religion strong in the nation by allowing and indeed encouraging free play among religious groups. Consequently, the modern notion that the Establishment Clause requires government to be neutral between religion and irreligion goes against the letter, intent, and spirit of the clause. In fact, it turns the clause on its head and uses it to push religion out of the public square, the very opposite of its intended purpose.

Exactly right. And that was never the intention of the fathers of the American republic. As Russell Kirk notes in his excellent study, The Roots of the American Order (Regnery Gateway, 1991), the two factions (defenders of the established state churches in New England and those who were for complete toleration/foes of any national religious establishment) were satisfied with the "establishment clause" because "this clause of the First Amendment was looked upon as a safeguard of religious convictions, not as an act of disavowing religious principles" (p 436). The sense of the Amendment, Kirk also observes, "was not an arid secularism, hostile toward the religious consecration of the civil social order" and "does not set up those two, State and Church, in fortified camps, at feud" (p. 439). Obviously, the days of arid secularism and feuding are upon us. Kirk's concluding words of warning (echoing the comments of many of the American founders) are sobering:

The Constitution was and is purely an instrument for practical government—not a philosophical disquisition. Yet practical government in the United States, and in every other nation, is possible only because most people in that nation accept the existence of some moral order, by which they govern their conduct—the order of the soul.

For more comments on this topic:

• Charlotte Allen of the Independent Women's Forum: "You're Confused About the Ten Commandments Rulings? So Am I"
• George Will: "Hairsplitting at the Court"
• Bill Murchison: "The Supreme Court, God and us"
• Edward Whelan: "Another Classic Scalia Dissent" (with a link to Justice Scalia's dissent in the Kentucky case)

Pastoral Issues in Cohabitation

Now availble on HPR:  An article dealing with the pastoral issues surrounding the practice of cohabitation by Fr. Michael Orsi, entitled, appropriately enough, Pastoral Issues in Cohabitation.  No, this isn't an article about pastoral issues living together in sin!  Here is an excerpt:

The first reason that little is heard about the negative effect of cohabitation is philosophical and cultural. It ultimately has its roots in the Enlightenment which extolled the virtues and goodness of the individual. Naturally these thinkers presumed behavior would be constrained by the biblical precepts that helped form Western Civilization. An obvious example of this optimistic view of humanity is found in the words of the Declaration of Independence which proclaims the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While these words are certainly true, removed from any restraining context they can very easily lead to license (or the modern excesses of Libertarianism). This reading-out-of-context along with the emphasis on John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of Utilitarianism and its focus on individual rights, effectively freed persons from traditional structures and encouraged what we know today as “alternate lifestyles.”6 Now, the sole criteria for moral propriety resides with the autonomous individual’s perceived needs, which are usually based on a solipsistic pleasure principle. Hence, the present chaos of moral relativism and the erosion of traditional moral structures.

Give the Heave-Ho to Kelo!

For those of you following the Kelo v. New London fiasco, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the powers of eminent domain can now be stretched to the point where private property can be seized by a city to turn it over to commercial developers, below are some good sources that cover what this may mean for Church property as well as religious owned property (ie, convents, monasteries). 

This isn't just a threat to people who own homes.  Property owned by churches and religious is tax-exempt. Therefore, this property is very very vulnerable to confiscation by the state for purposes of redevelopment.  There is a LOT of very valuable property owned by churches and religious... prime real estate...and the history of eminent domain abuse is literally peppered with seizures of church property.

Mirror of Justice; The Reality Check; Professor Bainbridge; The Seventh Age;

Here are some pertinent legal docs:

Amicus Curiae filed with the Supreme Court by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Supreme Court Collection (Opinion, Concurrence and Dissent)

If you need convincing that this might happen, here's an example, pulled from the Amicus:

In Normandy, Missouri, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd own a large parcel that serves as a convent, retirement home for aged sisters, and a shelter for drug-addicted women. The city, however, was not content with the good deeds of the sisters and instead sought to take the religious complex and replace it with a $53 million retail and commercial development. See D. Paul Harris, Nuns in Normandy Get Ready for Fight Over Redevelopment; Sisters Say Their Area Is Lovely and City’s Plan Seems “Ill-Conceived,” ST. LOUIS POST- DISPATCH , July 29, 2002 at 1

Legislation is reportedly being proposed in the US Senate (as of today, the 27th) to nullify this madness... so we really need to keep our eyes on this one.

"A worldly Catholicism cannot compete with the world,"

writes David Mills, editor of Touchstone magazine, "The world has all the advantages in being worldly." That is the final sentence of an excellent editorial titled "Paper Tiber: How Pope John Paul’s Critics Would Tame the Church of Rome." Mills takes on a number of contemporary and oft-stated criticisms of the Catholic Church and politely, but firmly, tears them to shreds. He begins:

Perhaps the most interesting of the responses to the death of John Paul II   were those of critics who used his death to offer their vision for the Catholic   Church, and by extension for Christianity in general. It may be useful to look   at what they said, because they followed a pattern used whenever a major orthodox   religious figure needs taking down a peg.

Highly recommended. (Hat tip to Against the Grain.)

Compendium of Catechism to debut...

... but only in Italian for now, reports Catholic World News:

Pope Benedict XVI will unveil a compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on June 28, at a solemn liturgical celebration in St. Peter's Basilica.   

The Compendium was prepared by a special Vatican commission, chaired by Pope Benedict himself in his previous capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The book, offering an abridged presentation of the teachings found in the full Catechism, will be made available only in an Italian-language edition. The world's episcopal conferences have been charged with the responsibility of preparing translations.

For Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts on the Catechism, see his book, Gospel, Catechism, and Catechesis, an excellent intro to the CCC.

Ominous E-mail of the Month

From a soon-to-be-reader of The Da Vinci Hoax who enjoys the art of capitalization:

Sir,

I know the Da Vinci Code is an Engrossing Work Of Fiction... But to say that the Catholic Church does not have Blood on its hands is Dishonest... History is replete with Church Sanctioned Murders in the Name of God, which makes the Insurgency in Iraq look tame... And they have Paid Out Over a Billion Dollars for Pedophile Priests. The fact that they belittle and denigrate Women is Obvious to me as well.

No Offense, and I will read your book...

Eddie

PS. The Catholic Church is Dying... I was in Puerto Rico recently and talked to several young Catholics how no longer have Faith in the Church.

That is sobering news, especially since vague anecodotal "evidence" from Puerto Rico has been a steady barometer of the vitality of the Church since at least the Council of Chalcedon...