Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Archbishop Vlazny calls Gov. Kulongoski's support of NARAL an "embarrassment" and "scandal"

From the "Very Pleasantly Surprised, Nay, Even Shocked" department, this curt statement from Archbishop John G. Vlazny of the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon (in which I reside) about Governor Ted Kulongoski—a Catholic—hosting a NARAL event:

It has come to my attention that Governor Ted Kulongoski will be hosting a NARAL Pro-Choice political gala two days before our Respect Life Mass at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. This is a source of embarrassment for our church and a scandal for the Catholic community. For a Catholic governor to host an event of this sort seems a deliberate dissent from the teachings of the Church. As I wrote in the Catholic Sentinel in August “the very core of all Catholic moral and social teaching is respect for the dignity of everyone. Ours is a rich heritage of social teaching which forms the basis of what it means to be a faithful citizen as a Catholic.”

While the grave evil of abortion continues to be promoted as a legitimate moral choice by Governor Kulongoski and NARAL, I invite Catholics to attend holy Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral at 5:30 p.m. the evening of this event, Friday, October 3. I also invite Catholics to attend the Respect Life Mass on Sunday, October 5, at 11:00 a.m. at the Cathedral.

I call upon our Catholic people to express their displeasure to the governor and to remind him of the demands of personal integrity as a member of our faith community in the exercise of his office and public activities, 503-378-4582.

The Oregonian reports further:

Kulongoski is a longtime supporter of a woman's right to choose an abortion.

"The archbishop is the governor's pastor, and he has only respect and admiration for the archbishop," Kulongoski spokeswoman Anna Richter Taylor said. "They obviously disagree on the issue of choice."

Kulongoski and his wife, Mary Oberst, are the honorary hosts of Friday night's fundraising dinner for NARAL Pro Choice Oregon. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is among those scheduled to speak. The event is to be held at a Portland hotel.

Kulongoski has attended various fundraising events for the group over the years.

Gotta like the statement from Taylor, as if this were a mild disagreement over highway funds or who will win the annual Ducks-Beavers football game, not a blatant disregard for the clear teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is a "moral evil" and a "criminal practice gravely contrary to the moral law" (CCC 2271-72, 2322).

But Kulongoski's actions aren't surprising; his actions as governor have made it clear that for him political power and expediency always trump love of truth and loyality to Church teaching. In 2006, for example, he stated, "As Governor of Oregon I am ready to be the last line of defense for a woman’s right to choose, but I certainly hope it never comes down to that.” How sad to consider that he was raised, from the age of 4 until adulthood, by nuns in a Catholic orphanage. Kudos to Archbishop Vlazny for finally calling him on his deadly hypocrisy. Better late than never.

Archbishop Burke: "the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death'"

From Catholic News Service:

ROME (CNS) -- The Democratic Party in the United States "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death,'" said U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Vatican's highest court.

An interview with the former archbishop of St. Louis was published in the Sept. 27 edition of Avvenire, a daily Catholic newspaper sponsored by the Italian bishops' conference.

The newspaper asked the archbishop, the new head of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, for his reaction to reports that his Vatican job was designed to get him away from St. Louis.

"I have too much respect for the pope to believe that in order to move someone away from a diocese he would nominate him to a very sensitive dicastery like this one," said the archbishop, whose office is in charge of ensuring that lower church courts correctly administer justice in accordance with canon law.

Archbishop Burke was asked if he knew that the August Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a guest appearance by Sheryl Crow, a musician whose performance at a 2007 benefit for a Catholic children's hospital the archbishop had opposed because of her support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

"That does not surprise me much," the archbishop said. "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, 'The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.'"

Read the entire news piece.

In related news, another "high profile Catholic legal scholar who is staunchly anti-abortion" makes his case for voting for Senator Barack Obama, arguing that a vote for Obama is a vote for reducing abortion. Senator Obama, you might recall, has stated, "I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case." Go figure.

Former ND president Fr. Hesburgh: "I have no problem with females or married people as priests..."

From a September 30th article and interview in The Wall Street Journal about Father Theodore M. Hesburgh, who was president of Notre Dame from 1952 to 1987:

WSJ: In your day, the Church produced figures such as Bishop Sheen and Father Drinan and Pope John XXIII. Who are the Catholic leaders today of their caliber? Are there any?

Father Hesburgh: That's a fair question. I'm not in a position to come up with an answer, but I have my ideas about it. I think somehow, either in the educational system for clergy or in the kind of people we attract to the clergy, we are going to have to take a very close look at that, because whatever we're doing, let's say it's not working. The number of Catholic clergymen is going down, and the same is probably true of many other churches. It's one of the key problems that exists in our country, and we ought to find a way of getting at that problem.

The Catholic Church, like any other human organization, depends on leadership, and leadership depends on performance. If you look for leaders in a given group and you don't find them, something is wrong. When you had leaders, such as you just mentioned, a few decades ago, I have to say the Church seemed more vital to most people, even to people outside the church.

Is the lack of leadership why the Church ended up in the priests' scandal?

Father Hesburgh: Everything is part of an organic whole, and the scandal is one aspect. I wouldn't want to be personally buffaloed about whether there was a scandal, because there is no question there was. The answer is to find a different caliber of training and of selection and of inspiration of young men going into priesthood. And I think, more and more, women have to be involved in this, and I suspect that in the long run, married people are going to be a lot more involved in this whole problem than we have today.

It has to evolve over time. I have no problem with females or married people as priests, but I realize that the majority of the leadership in the Church would. But what's important is that people get the sacraments. You have to remember, there were married priests, even married popes, in the first 1,000 years of the church.

Actually, the Catholic Church continues to ordain married men, most often in the Eastern Catholic Churches. As for the Church ordaining women, I do hope that Fr. Hesburgh is aware that although he might "have no problem with females...as priests," the Magisterium has been fairly clear and consistent about the matter.

The article, by the way, notes that Fr. Hesburgh "holds the record for the most honorary degrees: 150 to date."

UPDATE: Mark Brumley made some excellent comments, which I'm adding to the post for wider readership:

1. With all due respect, Father Hesburgh's comments regarding women priests help us to understand why Notre Dame for so long had some of the problems it had.

2. Indeed, he comes across as if the question of the male-only priesthood does not have deep theological import, as if it were simply an institutional policy issue. The majority of the leadership of the Church, says Fr. Hesburgh, has a problem with women priests but Fr. Hesburgh doesn't. Whether you reject the 2000-year old Catholic Tradition on the matter, along with the theological underpinings of the Church's teaching regarding the nature of gender, the nature of ordained ministry, and the divine authority of the Magisterium, or whether you hold to all of these things as the Church understands them, the issue is not a "some say yes, some say no" matter. If women can be priests, then it seems that a grave injustice has been done and, even worse, continues to be done to them. If women cannot be priests, because the priesthood is an essentially male reality, then it is wrongheaded and destructive of the Catholic faith to push for women's ordination. Either way, it is no small matter; it should generate more than an "I have no problem with" it outlook.

Let's hope that Father Hesburgh has been misquoted or taken out of context.

3. Why, one wonders, is it most important, as Fr. Hesburgh states, that the people get the Sacraments? It is not a self-evident proposition or a deduction from universally accepted philosophical premises or a matter of scientific induction that this is so. Whether it is so rests on revelation and the reliability of the Church's claim faithfully to convey that revelation. The same Church that says, as a matter of revelation, that it is important for people to receive the Sacraments also insists that the objective reality of the gift of the Sacraments is dependent upon, in various ways, the validity of the ordination of priests. What's more, that same Church also authoritatively and definitively teaches that the validity of the ministerial priesthood depends on the maleness of the one who would be ordained.

Now, you may reject that proposition but it is not at all clear that, having done so, you can still consistently and coherently maintain the rest of this supposedly revealed business about the important thing being that people get the Sacraments. As Christopher Derrick observed in Church Authority and Intellectual Freedom [Ignatius Press, 1981], the question is not, "What would happen if a bishop attempted to ordain a women as priest?", but, "What grounds have we for thinking anything happens when a bishop attempts to ordain a priest?".

4. Interestingly enough, some radical feminists who still associate themselves, however vaguely, with the Catholic Church, recognize, in their own way, the force of this problem. Which is one reason some of them have ceased advocating the ordination of women to the priesthood. They now regard the whole notion of a ministerial priesthood, in the traditional sacramental sense, as erroneous and as reinforcing hierarchy, which they judge to be inherently wrong and oppressive.

Having repudiated any theological grounds for thinking Christ established a ministerial priesthood or if he did that his decision in the matter should be determinative for us, they now have little reason to desire that women be priests or think that priesthood is a position worthy of being sought.

Some would see such radical feminists as extremists; others would seem them as simply working out the logic of their premises.

Thank you

A short and very inadequate note of thanks to all of you who have commented on my post about Elanor, and who have prayed for her and our family. Thank you. It means a great deal to us; we know that we wouldn't be able to deal with this difficult situation without the prayers of so many people.

Another request for prayer, if I might. Yesterday I received a phone call from Marshall Fritz, founder of Alliance for Separation of School & State. He told me he is making his "Goodbye calls" as he is nearing the end of his battle with pancreatic cancer. I'm honored that he called me; we've talked and e-mailed a few times and met in person back in 2003. We spoke for a few minutes and then said goodbye.

You and your family are in my prayers, Marshall.

Message On a Bottle | An Interview with Tim Busch of Trinitas Cellars

Message On a Bottle | An Interview with Tim Busch of Trinitas Cellars | Carl E. Olson | September 30, 2008

Tim Busch and his wife Steph co-founded Trinitas Cellars in Napa Valley in 2000. Tim is also co-founder of the Magis Institute, which sponsors retreats, ethics training, and wealth stewardship forums. Additionally, he serves on Boards for The Catholic University of America, Patrons of the Vatican Arts, John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington DC and the Papal Foundation. Tim and Steph live in South Orange County and enjoy traveling, relaxing, golfing and wine. Carl E. Olson, editor of Ignatius Insight, recently spoke by phone with Busch about his passion for wine and his work with Magis Institute.

Ignatius Insight: Is it correct to say that Trinitas Cellars and the "Trinity of Wine" are evangelistic tools?

Busch: Well, it is ending up that way, yes. It started out with the idea of putting on the back label with the word "Trinitas," which is a Latin term from which comes the word "Trinity." And that is a fundamental principle or belief of the Christian faith. In addition, wine has been used in the Christian faith, in the liturgy, since the time of Jesus.

Through that we received some resistance from some of the distributors and buyers of wine, who felt offended by the fact that there was a Christian or religious or "God message" in what they thought should be a secular world. This is a symptom of our society and our culture these days. From there we thought that we either had to retract our message or really go out and promote the message and distinguish ourselves as a faith-based winery, and to associate our faith and our beliefs with the product. So that's how it went. Studies show that some 90% of Americans believe God exists and that some 80% of them are Christian, but the problem is that Americans have developed the belief, over the past fifty years or so, that God should be nowhere within the product or within the business world.

So we now have faith-based wines that we target for specifically Catholic and other Christian groups. But our other wines still carry the message on the back of the bottles. And while there are some who don't like it, there are others who really like it.

Read the entire interview...

"It really bothers me when people impose their moral beliefs on others."

Chances are that when you read or hear something along those lines, it is a preface to bold inanity and philosophical vapidity. This letter to the editor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer doesn't disappoint:

A letter-writer criticized Ramon Tulfo’s well-meaning attempt to help a girl, raped by her own father, abort her three-month-old pregnancy. (Inquirer, 9/8/08) [Read column]

The writer and the people who share his view should understand that the “status” of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion; and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being, her very own flesh and blood, a welcome and highly anticipated member of her family. She names her fetus, refers to it as a baby, talks to it, sings to it, and so on.But an unhappily pregnant woman, like the girl who was raped by her father or any other woman who does not welcome her pregnancy, might view her fetus with utter dismay, close to revulsion. She might be anxious to get rid of this unwelcome intruder and feels great relief when she does. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural.

The belief that a mother can do whatever she likes to an unborn child is, dear letter writer, a moral belief. Why must you seek to impose that belief on others? Because, of course, you hold to certain dogmatic beliefs—beliefs offensive to commonsense and simple logic:

People say life begins at conception. What constitutes life anyway? When there is life in every cell of our body? Or, maybe, the appropriate question would be, “What constitutes a human being?” Most of us still confuse ourselves with the words “human” and “human being.” Human is an adjective and human being is a noun. Our set of muscle tissues and our cells are human, but they are not human beings. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to consider a fetus as merely human, and not a human being? ...

We still identify ourselves with the fetus, we consider it human life because we all started as fetuses, hence the phrase “life begins at conception” could only be translated as “the life of a human being begins at conception.” Still, even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. Our nation’s law does not force us to donate our kidneys even to save someone’s life. We are not obliged to risk our life in order to save people from a burning building, however noble the act may be.

I hope those people who call themselves pro-life can one day grasp the idea that the choice to terminate a pregnancy belongs solely to the pregnant woman and that the health and welfare of the pregnant woman are more important than their personal comfort level.

Let's say someone believes that people with dark or brown skin are only considered "human" because they have arms and legs and heads and such—therefore resembling real humans—but that they in fact aren't human because only those with light skin are really human. And how do they know? Well, because those with light skin say so. They feel it is true. It's how they see matters. Would that be agreeable? I hope not. But I suppose that saying people of all colors are equally human and should have equal rights constitutes a moral belief, and we can't have that, can we?

Bishop Jaime Soto speaks the truth in love about love...

...and sexuality and marriage. Bishop Soto, who is Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Sacramento,  gave  a keynote speech to the National Association of Diocesan Gay and Lesbian Ministries meeting in Long Beach on September 18th. Catholic California Daily reports:

When two Catholics from Southern California learned that Sacramento Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto was to be the keynote speaker at the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries conference in Long Beach on Sept. 18, they decided to attend themselves to see and hear the talk in person. They say what they witnessed was a bishop who “courageously but gently” gave a clear presentation of Church teaching on sexuality.
 
After California Catholic Daily reported on Bishop Soto’s plans to attend and speak at the conference (“Birds of a feather?” Sept. 15, 2008), many readers expressed disapproval or worry over how to interpret the soon-to-be Bishop of Sacramento’s decision. Bishop Soto will take over the diocese from retiring Bishop William Weigand on Nov. 30. The National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, based in Berkeley, is a network of local ministries that has the reputation of taking, at best, an ambiguous stance on the moral character of homosexuality and homosexual acts.
 
But there was noting ambiguous about Bishop Soto’s remarks to the group. “Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,” Bishop Soto said. “For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression."
 
At least five members of the audience walked out during the bishop’s address. When he finished speaking, there was general silence -- with only a very small number applauding.
 
The chairman of the conference then announced that the bishop would answer questions at a reception that would be held in another room. That led to widespread expressions of disapproval from members of the audience, who said they wanted to be able to express their responses immediately. It was agreed that those who wanted to speak would line up. The bishop was told twice by the chairman that he was free to leave if he wanted -- or to stay and listen. Bishop Soto stayed and sat quietly listening to every response.

Read the entire report.

Be sure to read Bishop Soto's complete address, which is excellent.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:        
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Introduction to The Conjugal Act as a Personal Act | Donald P. Asci
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• Authentic Freedom and the Homosexual Person | Dr. Mark Lowery
• Homosexual Orientation Is Not a "Gift" | James Hitchcock
• Can I Quote You On That? Talking to the Media About Homosexuality and the Priesthood | Mark Brumley

Schall on "The Meaning of Dogma"

The Meaning of Dogma | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Catholicism has always taken dogmatic statements seriously because it realizes that the failure to state the truth properly often leads to error.

“If the average man is going to be interested in Christ at all, it is the dogma that will provide the interest. The trouble is that, in nine cases out of ten, he has never been offered the dogma.” — Dorothy Sayers, “Creed or Chaos?” [1]

    “I suppose I have got a dogmatic mind. Anyhow, even when I did not believe in any of the things called dogmas, I assumed that people were sorted out into solid groups by the dogmas they believe or disbelieved.”  — G. K. Chesterton. The Autobiography. [2]

Contrary to popular assumptions, the terms “dogma” and “doctrine” are not intrinsically bad or evil words. No doubt, they can, in popular parlance, stand for a kind of rigidity in which careful consideration or reconsideration of an argument or a truth is rejected. The motive of this refusal is often traced to an unwillingness to frankly admit that problems concerning the presentation or meaning of a subject are at issue. But essentially, a dogma is intended to clarify, to state what can be stated about an ultimate issue or with something connected to it. We not only long to behold reality in itself, to see God “face to face,” and know that we do, but we long to understand, to make sense of what it is we behold or hold in faith or in observation. The world of reality and the world of mind are parallel to each other, but the latter depends on the former for its truth. Truth, as Aquinas said, is the conformity of the mind with what is, not the opposite, not the conformity of reality with whatever the mind wants it to be. Dogma, its statement, and what the dogma is about, its object, are not contradictory to each other. If they were, we could know nothing about anything. Our minds and the world would never meet or check one another. The latter, the dogma, depends on the former, on what is. The what-is-to-be-known always stands as prior to and as the basis of our statement of what is known. A dogma is simply the stating accurately, in the best way we can, in the language we know, what we know. The mind is, as Chesterton said, a “dogma-making” faculty. To deny the mind this capacity to state what it knows is to deny what it is to be mind in the first place. We are the rational animals, the mortal beings in the universe who both are and know what is not ourselves.

Read the entire essay...

St. Paul and Relativism

Nice piece from Christopher Cuddy in the National Catholic Register:

Among the Catholics surveyed, 77% claimed that “there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion,” and 57% of these said that Catholic teaching should “adjust to [fit] new circumstances” and that the Church needs to “adopt modern beliefs and practices.”

As I read the findings of the Pew survey, followed by the Pope’s Pauline homily a few days later, I was struck by how fitting it is that in God’s sovereign timing these two things should coincide. How remarkable that at the beginning of a year dedicated to the great Apostle to the Gentiles — the apostle who spared nothing in his efforts “to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth” (Titus 1:1) — that we should be reminded of the rampant relativism which remains malignantly entrenched in our society.

Ours is a culture antagonistic to (or, at least, inconsistent about) the notion of objective truth. And yet, we have embarked on a year dedicated to a man who sacrificed his life for love of the truth.

Ironic? Perhaps. Coincidental? Hardly. For what better person is there than St. Paul to liberate us from what Pope Benedict has referred to as the “dictatorship of relativism”? After all, was it not St. Paul who exhorted his readers to “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit” (2 Timothy 1:14)?

Read the entire column.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links, Articles, and Book Excerpts:              
      
• Ignatius Press resources for the Year of St. Paul
• Faith in the Triune God, and Peace in the World | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | An excerpt from Europe: Today and Tomorrow
• Pope Benedict XVI On Natural Law | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• The Temptation of the Earthly City: Tolkien's  Augustinian Vision | Dr. Jose Yulo
• Relativism 101: A Brief, Objective Guide | Carl E. Olson
• What Is Catholic Social Teaching? | Mark Brumley

Selling Stem Cell Snake Oil

From "The Catholic Key" blog:

John McCain and Barack Obama are selling “cures” this week in Kansas City and Saint Louis, but nowhere in between. No cures for Springfield!

First Senator Obama ran radio ads saying he supports “stem cell research” which is going to cure diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer’s. He said John McCain opposes “stem cell research” – McCain just “doesn’t understand” that millions of people need these cures.

Now McCain is running an ad saying he supports “stem cell research,” and that this has something to do with being a “maverick.” And McCain’s support for “stem cell research” is apparently even more promising than Obama’s because in addition to diabetes and cancer (he doesn’t mention Alzheimer’s, sorry) his is going to cure heart disease, spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns, stroke and even the “fear and devastation” of illness.

“Stem cell research” as a political, medical or moral category is a useless term – sort of like “transportation.” If Candidate A supports a particular light rail project, it’s not uncommon in politics to hear him castigate his opponent as being against “transportation.” It’s a much scarier charge than just stating the truth, eg., “My opponent is against my $5 billion plan to run a railroad from just outside town to just outside the airport.” We all know the opponent isn’t against planes and trains and buses – just one particular boondoggle.

Read the entire post.

Benedict XVI makes changes in the Office of Liturgical Celebrations...

... for the Supreme Pontiff. Wholesale changes, as they say. From the California Catholic Daily:

Pope Benedict XVI has made a low profile but significant move in the direction of liturgical reform by completely changing his liturgical consultants.

A hardly noticed brief note from the Vatican Press Office on Sept. 24 announced the appointment of new consultants for the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff. It did not mention, however, the importance of the new appointees.

The new consultants include Monsignor Nicola Bux, professor at the Theological Faculty of Puglia (Southern Italy), and author of several books on liturgy, especially on the Eucharist. Bux recently finish a new book, Pope Benedict’s Reform, printed by the Italian publishing house Piemme, scheduled to hit the shelves in December.

The September 24th press release from the Vatican Press Office states:

The Holy Father appointed ... As consultors of the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff: Msgr. Nicola Bux, professor at the Theological Faculty of Puglia, Italy; Fr. Mauro Gagliardi, professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum "Regina Apostolorum", Rome; Fr. Juan Jose Silvestre Valor, professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome; Fr. Uwe Michael Lang C.O., official of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and Fr. Paul C. F. Gunter O.S.B., professor at the St. Anselm Pontifical Athenaeum, Rome.

Fr. Lang is the author of Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer, published in 2005 by Ignatius Press; the foreword to that book was written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. "The Hermeneutic of Continuity" blog has a bit more information about the other appointees.

Go here for more information about the Office for Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

A five-part interview series with Archbishop Charles Chaput...

... is available on National Review Online. Archbishop Chaput is interviewed by Peter Robinson for the "Uncommon Knowledge" program about his recently published book, Render Unto Caesar (ht: Catholics In the Public Square).

A summer of agony and the mystery of loss

This post is easily the most difficult one that I've ever written. I've been trying to put it together for three days now and I've had very little success. But here goes.

Regular readers have likely noticed that my presence here has been rather intermittent and sporadic the past couple of months. That's because these past two and a half months have been the most difficult months that we—my wife and children and I—have ever experienced. Not that this is really about us. It is about an eight-month-old baby girl named Elanor.

We first heard of Elanor in early April. At that time we were in the process of working toward adopting a third child through an agency. Our first two children, who are now almost four and eight, came to us through private adoptions, both of them in surprising and providential fashion. So when we received a phone call (from the same wonderful lady who had called us years ago about our daughter) we were both surprised and, well, not surprised. Surprised because it was so amazing to have it happening a third time; not surprised since we'd been blessed in unexpected ways before and knew God could do it again.

The story was simple enough: Elanor, born on January 10, 2008, was three months old, her birth parents were struggling and recently wed teenagers, and she needed a family. Were we interested? Absolutely. In short order I spoke with the birth father by phone and arranged for my wife and I to meet him and his wife that evening for dinner. That meeting went very well; they explained their situation and talked of their decision to place Elanor for adoption. At the conclusion of that first meeting, they asked if they could bring Elanor to our home the following Saturday to meet us and our children. Yes, of course—and so they did. And after more time talking, they said they wanted us to be Elanor's family. And, since they were certain about that decision, were we open to taking her into our home right then and there? Yes, we said, we would be happy to.

For those who have never been involved in an adoption, especially a private adoption, this might seem rather strange, abrupt, rash, sudden, impulsive, even surreal. But that in fact, was a rather drawn out beginning compared to the start of our first adoption, which began with a phone call at 6:00 on a Saturday night, which led to us having Felicity Rose in our care 23 hours later. That was sudden! How, exactly, does such a thing happen? Well, it's not "normal," of course, but then there is plenty about the adoption process that is not normal, as any adoptive parent can tell you. What is normal is the recognition that a child needs a home, you are able to provide that home, and you are willing to face the various risks and unknown factors that accompany such a decision. Having already had an adoption (through an agency) fall apart on us three years ago, we knew that such risks were impossible to avoid.

When Elanor came to our home, she was not very healthy. She was undernourished and listless, and three days later she began suffering from extreme respiratory distress, which led to us pulling an all-nighter in the emergency room. Thankfully, it was not serious; she had a condition called tracheomalacia, which is a developmental abnormality of the trachea. She also had troubles keeping down commercial formula, and so my wife eventually found the recipe for a custom, organic formula that she made each day, sometimes twice a day. Within a few weeks, the transformation in Elanor was obvious: she was putting on weight, filled with laughter and smiles, and strongly attached to us, especially to my wife.

The birth parents had said that they planned to come see Elanor a week or two after they placed her, but didn't. We figured it was too difficult at that time, as was to be expected. I spoke several times to the birth father and everything seemed to be on track. Paperwork was going back and forth between lawyers and we anticipated the adoption being finalized in July. Things seemed to going a bit slowly, but we figured that summertime busyness was the cause. Elanor continued to flourish and the two older kids played with her constantly.

On July 10th, Elanor's six-month birthday, the phone rang. It was our adoption lawyer. "The birth parents want her back," he said. "They aren't going through with the adoption."

And so the nightmare began. We were devastated. There had been no previous indication that the birth parents were rethinking their decision or had doubts. Nor that their circumstances had so radically changed in three months that they no longer faced the same serious obstacles they had told us about when we first met with them. I called the birth father and he gave vague, evasive answers about why they were demanding Elanor be returned. Our adoption lawyer told me that we had very little recourse: since no paperwork had yet been signed (although it had been drawn up), we had no legal legs to stand on. It was over. She would have to go back.

If I were to do justice to what transpired between that dark day and now, it would take a book and too many tears. And, frankly, so much has happened that simply shouldn't be put on a public blog. My purpose here is not to vent or bash or air dirty laundry. So I'll try to summarize matters in a way that will convey some small sense of the anxious craziness of those weeks.

First, having spent a week gathering information and coming to the conclusion that Elanor could be in serious danger if she left our home, we hired a new lawyer and were able to get a temporary guardianship petition put together. Amazingly, it was signed by the judge. For several days I was dealing with legal papers and communications for six or eight or even ten hours a day. Then in late July there was a two-day hearing after the birth parents contested the temporary guardianship. The judge withheld a ruling, but ordered that there be weekly parenting visits for the birth parents, and that the birth parents attend parenting classes and see a court-appointed counselor (which never happened).

The parenting visits were stressful and did not go well, even though they were supposed to be part of what was, from a legal perspective, the inevitable transition of Elanor back to the birth parents. Our lawyer was brutally frank with us: the chance of us overcoming the legal presumption that birth parents act in the best interest of their children was not good. At all. Through a series of confusing and complicated legal events that I still don't fully understand, we embarked on the path to indefinite guardianship in mid-August. Legal shrapnel was flying fast and furious; needless to say, the parties weren't getting along too well. A parenting visit at the birth parents' apartment in mid-August went poorly and we were concerned that the visits were causing serious emotional trauma to Elanor.

On August 31st, as we were going to bed around 10:30, there was pounding on our front door. It was three police officers who wanted to talk about the baby in the house. They had been enlisted by the birth parents to remove her from our care; they were apparently frustrated that we hadn't brought her to their home for another visit and decided they had the right to demand her back in such a fashion. They didn't succeed that evening (it took two hours, three policemen and their supervisor, and our lawyer to sort things out), but the writing was on the wall. In the words of our pastor: "DNA trumps everything." Indeed it does, at least in the courts. Our temporary guardianship had expired, the permanent guardianship hearing date was moved out, the birth parents had no interest in agreeing to a stipulated order that would keep Elanor with us until the matter was resolved in court; the result was a large and vulnerable legal gap.

On September 9th the gap became a raw gash. Elanor was taken from our home. Screaming. Crying. Frightened. It was the darkest moment in our married lives. Why would God bring this vulnerable, helpless baby into our lives and then let her be taken away in such a fashion? It seemed as though all of our prayers and the prayers of dozens of others was for naught. The worst part of it, of course, was telling our kids what was going on. That was simply hell.

On September 16th and 17th the hearing for indefinite guardianship took place. We knew the odds were not in our favor; our lawyer gave us a 1-in-3 chance, but we steeled ourselves for what seemed almost inevitable.

The judge, in ruling in the favor of the birth parents, made it clear that the court believed that we had acted in the best interests of Elanor. She also had some strong words for the birth parents. She emphatically stated that this case was not about us or the birth parents. With all due respect, I remain unconvinced; it was clear that the case was simply about parental rights: if you have them, you have them. And it takes a lot to lose them. A lot. It seems as though the balance between those rights and the responsibilities that parents should shoulder is severely skewed. But that, as they say, is a topic for another time and place.

As I mentioned earlier, there is much (so much!) that could be said, but shouldn't be said, and won't be stated here. It would serve no good purpose. I didn't want to say anything publicly about this ongoing situation until after there had been a legal resolution. In addition to explaining my whereabouts, my main reason for writing this is to solicit your prayers on the behalf of Elanor, for her safety, and for her birth parents.

I also want to express my deep appreciation to Mark Brumley and all of the folks at Ignatius Press, whose support and concern has been constant, amazing, and humbling.

Finally, if there is anything that I've learned through our time with Elanor and our attempts to protect her, it is the simple but profound truth that true love is a gift that does not act with the desire to obtain something in return. If love worked like the stock market, we would be a very destitute and impoverished people. In a world distorted and disfigured by the need to control, own, and possess, it is the mystery of authentic, self-giving love that provides wholeness and peace, comfort and perspective. But it only makes sense and really exists in the light of the Cross, in the paradox of death conquering death. Or, in the shocking but true words of Adrienne von Speyr, "The only thing you can say about love of God is: it leaves behind scorched earth."

Why would God allow Elanor to come and go as she did? Why does God allow children to suffer, or even to die? Those devastating mysteries cannot be answered with platitudes, facts, or logic; in this life they likely will not be answered at all, but must be endured, gathered in and held in hands that reach out to the crucified Lord and His blessed mother.

Blessèd sister, holy mother, spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden,
Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks,
Our peace in His will
And even among these rocks

— T. S. Eliot, Ash Wednesday, VI

Mormon physician praises "Humanae Vitae" as "prophetic statement"

From ZENIT:

ROME, SEPT. 25, 2008 (Zenit.org).- For a non-Catholic, Pope Paul VI's encyclical "Humanae Vitae" is not important because it is the Church speaking, but rather because it offers a compelling argument, says Mormon physician Dr. Joe Stanford.

Stanford, a family physician and a researcher in the Creighton Model FertilityCare system and NaPro Technology, was a speaker at the 27th annual meeting of the American Academy of FertilityCare Professionals, held this summer in Rome.

Stanford, a professor in the department of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah, spoke to ZENIT about his take on "Humanae Vitae," as well as the role faith plays in his medical practice.

Q: Have you read "Humanae Vitae"?

Stanford: Yes. I first read "Humanae Vitae" in 1991 and several times since then. I think it is an inspired document. I think it captures fundamental aspects of human nature. He [Pope Paul VI] really hits the nail on the head regarding the dark side of contraception, sterilization and abortion and their effects on society.

Although I do not think divorce, promiscuity, teen pregnancy are exclusively the result of contraception, I also think these are not unrelated to contraception. I think contraception is a heavy part of the fuel behind the sexual revolution and many of the problems in society we are facing.

I think "Humanae Vitae" is basically a prophetic statement.

Q: If more physicians read "Humanae Vitae," do you think their approach to women or the problems married couples face might be different?

Stanford: Yes, but a qualified yes. I think you have to read "Humanae Vitae" with an open mind, which really means with an open heart. You have to be willing to really consider what Pope Paul VI says and not just judge it. In medical training, the culture is so steeped with acceptance of standard medical practices, that to question it is very difficult. And I do not mean just difficult from a peer pressure point of view, although that is part of the difficulty. But it is difficult to even come around to a different way of thinking when you have always been immersed in one way of thinking.

I am not Catholic, so for me it was not an issue of reading the document because it was the Church speaking. It became an issue because many of the Catholic physicians I have come to know and respect -- [Dr.] Tom Hilgers being one of them -- and who have become moral mentors for me in medicine -- told me "Humanae Vitae" was a moral guide in their life. So I wanted to know what the document said and what it means.

So, for me it was not an ecclesiastically binding document. If you are not Catholic, you might be inclined to think "this is for Catholics." Having said that, if you really consider "Humanae Vitae" on its own merits, I think Pope Paul VI really does make a compelling argument that can penetrate the heart and can make a difference.

Read the entire interview.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:

• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae | Reverend Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Focus Groups and Marriage: A Match Made for Heartache | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Entering Marriage with Eyes Wide Open | Edward Peters
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci | Introduction to The Conjugal Act as a Personal Act
• Viagra: It's Not Just for Old Guys Anymore | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Who Is Married? | Edward Peters
• Male and Female He Created Them | Cardinal Estevez
• The Meaning and Necessity of Spiritual Fatherhood | Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, MTS
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley | An excerpt from Sex and the Marriage Covenant

The Ignatius Press Book Meme

One of my first posts on the Insight Scoop blog, dated July 30, 2004, was a wildly unsuccessful attempt to elicit a "Top Ten Desert Island Ignatius Press book list" from readers. Now, it may have been that there were at that time only a dozen or so readers and they, having read hundreds of Ignatius Press books, couldn't limit themselves to just a handful of books, and so despaired of creating such a list.

Whatever the case, I've occasionally thought of attempting something along the same lines once again. This time I'm calling it the "Ignatius Press Book Meme," well aware that the term "meme" is probably hopelessly outdated, having gone out of fashion in late November of 2007 and I failed to read about it in Wired. Still, in a shameless attempt to provoke comments from you, the readers, and elicit some of your thoughts about Ignatius Press books, here is the meme, with questions and my answers. Please leave your own responses and book selections in the comments section:

1. What was the first Ignatius Press book that you read? Sometime in 1993 I purchased and read selections from The Politics of Prayer: Feminist Language and the Worship of God, edited by Helen Hull Hitchcock. It was, if I remember correctly, featured in the Conservative Book Club, which is how it came to my attention. At that time, I had no clue about Ignatius Press, although I was vaguely aware that it was Catholic. The first Ignatius Press book that I clearly remember reading cover to cover was Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, by Henri de Lubac, sometime in 1995 or early 1996.

2. The most recent Ignatius Press book that you read? Part of my job, of course, is to read every single Ignatius Press book from cover to cover, take extensive notes about those books, interview the authors of those books, and, whenever possible, write two-hour screenplays based on those books. Sadly, I've failed miserably at that task (especially the screenplays; I only have written one so far, and it is based on von Balthasar's Theo-Drama. Just kidding.) Anyhow, most recently (just last week) I read Lumina | New Lumina by Adrienne von Speyr, which is a pithy collection of various sayings or reflections by the Swiss author and mystic, just published by Ignatius Press. Read an excerpt here.

3. What are your favorite Ignatius Press books? If I receive some angry e-mails from offended authors after posting this, I will have just one question for them: "How long have you been reading the Insight Scoop blog!? Why don't you ever comment?" Actually, I'm going to mostly stick with my 2004 picks, with a couple of changes:

1. Collected Works, vol. 1 (Orthodoxy, Heretics, Blatchford Controversies) by G. K. Chesterton
2. Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man by Henri de Lubac, S.J.
3. God and the Ways of Knowing by Jean Danielou, S.J.
4. Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
5. The Hidden Manna by James T. O'Connor
6. Literary Converts by Joseph Pearce
7. Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
8. Evangelical Is Not Enough by Thomas Howard
9. Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
10. Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating

In contention: C.S. Lewis For The Third Millennium by Peter Kreeft, The Moment of Christian Witness by Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Mass and Modernity by Jonathan Robinson, Another Sort of Learning by James V. Schall, S.J., Faith, Hope, Love by Josef Pieper, The Belief of Catholics by Ronald Knox, and The Word, Church And Sacrament In Protestantism And Catholicism by Louis Bouyer.

Of course, I have to offer the qualifier that there are many, many Ignatius Press books that I've not yet read, so this list reflects not only my subjective bias, but my limitations as a reader.

4. What is your least favorite Ignatius Press book? Uh...um...what kind of question is that?

5. How many Ignatius Press books have you read? Do you own? I can only give a general estimate, but I've probably read or seriously skimmed 300 or more, and own about twice that many.

6. What book do you wish Ignatius Press would publish? Some will likely mention the remaining volumes of the Collected Works of Chesterton, or the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible series. Personally, I hope Ignatius is able to eventually publish some serious works on Christology and scriptural exegesis, as well as some heavy duty commentaries on key books of the Bible, along the lines of Fire Of Mercy, Heart Of The Word (volumes 1 and 2), the brilliant commentary on the Gospel of Matthew by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis. Oh, and my memoirs. Really, isn't it about time?

7. What are the next Ignatius Press books you plan to read? The Right to Privacy by Janet E. Smith, A Kindly Providence by Fr. Louis L. Renner, S.J., and Church, Ecumenism, and Politics by Joseph Ratzinger.

You?

Ratzinger's Faith and Reason

Ratzinger's Faith and Reason | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | In Appreciation of Tracey Rowland's Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI

"Benedict believes that the Mass is a Holy Sacrifice, offered ritually as worship, not a fellowship meal, that those who attend do so for the purpose of Divine Worship, that music which is based on most contemporary popular musical forms is completely unworthy, and that everything that is related to the Mass and other liturgies of the Church should be marked by beauty. Beauty is not an optional extra or something contrary to a preferential option for the poor. It is not a scandal to clothe sacred words in silken garments. Catholics are not tone deaf philistines who will be intellectually challenged by the use of a liturgical language or put off by changeless ritual forms." — Tracey Rowland, Ratzinger's Faith

"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the 'Logos', as the religion according to reason. In the first place, it has not identified its precursors in the other religions, but in the philosophical enlightenment which has cleared the path of tradition to turn to the search of the truth and towards the good, toward the one God who is above all gods." — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Subiaco Address"

I.

The reading of what is billed as a "theology" book on a pope, of all things, will not seem to be what this book surely is to read, namely, a distinct pleasure. Aristotle warned us that if we do not take proper delight in all things, especially in the things   of the mind, we will not know the highest pleasures that are in store for us when we seek to use that given faculty we call intellect. Well, that is not an exact citation from Aristotle, but pretty close. Clearly the highest pleasures follow from our knowing the highest truths and the reality in which they are founded. The central point of this book is this: "What is the Christian understanding of God?" And what is the relation of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the God of the Philosophers? No doubt our best current guide to the answer to these fundamental questions lies in the work and pontificate of Benedict XVI.

This slim volume by Tracey Rowland is introduced by George Cardinal Pell. He remarks, "It is a sign of the times and a portent of the future that this excellent volume was written by a young, married woman" well on her way to "becoming Australia's leading theologian" (x). Tracey Rowland is from the Brisbane area, currently the head of the John Paul Institute in Melbourne, where her husband Stuart is a lawyer. She earned a Master's Degree in political philosophy at the University of Melbourne and her doctorate at Cambridge University in England.

Read the entire piece...

Roy Schoeman on "EWTN Live!" tonight

Roy H. Schoeman, author of Salvation Is From the Jews and editor of Honey From the Rock, will be on Fr. Mitch Pacwa's guest tonight on "EWTN Live," which airs at 8 p.m. Eastern (5 p.m. Pacific), to talk about Pope Benedict XVI's relations with the Jews and Judaism.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links/Articles:              

• Jews Find the Sweetness of Christ | Preface to Honey From the Rock | Roy Schoeman
• "Jews Demand Signs" | An Interview with Roy Schoeman, editor of Honey From the Rock: Sixteen Jews Find the Sweetness of Christ
• Judaism Fulfilled | An Interview with Roy H. Schoeman
• The Jews and the Second Coming | Roy H. Schoeman

Cardinal Rigali: "Freedom of Choice Act" has nothing to do with freedom

From ZENIT:

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 23, 2008 (Zenit.org).- A proposed "Freedom of Choice Act" is not about freedom at all, says the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia, pointed out the faulty logic in the proposed act in a letter Friday to all members of Congress.

The act "would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA [the Freedom of Choice Act] would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country," the cardinal affirmed.

Cardinal Rigali warned that the act is not a mere codification of the Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion. Instead, it would affect anti-abortion laws and policies that are in effect because they do not conflict with Roe v. Wade. These include such things as policies to protect women's safety, parental rights and informed consent.

"The operative language of FOCA is twofold," Cardinal Rigali explained. "First it creates a 'fundamental right' to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons. No government body at any level would be able to 'deny or interfere with' this newly created federal right.

"Second, it forbids government at all levels to 'discriminate' against the exercise of this right 'in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.' For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women."

Read the entire piece. And here, in PDF format, is Cardinal Rigali's September 19th letter to members of Congress.

Benedict XVI on St. Paul and the Apostles

From today's edition of the Vatican Information Service:

ST. PAUL AND THE APOSTLES

VATICAN CITY, 24 SEP 2008 (VIS) - During his general audience, held this morning in St. Peter's Square in the presence of some 15,000 faithful, Benedict XVI continued his catechesis on the life and work of St. Paul, focusing today on his relationship with the Apostles.

St. Paul, he said, "though he was practically a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, never had the opportunity of meeting Him during His public life. For this reason ... he felt the need to consult the Master's first disciples, who had been chosen by Him to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth".

Thus, in his Letter to the Galatians, Paul speaks of his meetings with Peter, James and John, whom he recognises as "pillars of the Church, while in his Letter to the Corinthians he makes it clear that for him Christ's words at the Last Supper are "the centre of the life of the Church", said the Pope.

"The words of the Last Supper", the Holy Father explained, "on the one hand demonstrate that the Eucharist illuminates the curse of the cross, making it a blessing, while on the other they explain the scope of Jesus' death and resurrection. ... The Church is built and recognises herself as the 'Body of Christ', from and in the Eucharist".

Christ's resurrection affects the present existence of believers, affirmed the Pope. We can say that "He is risen and continues to live in the Eucharist and in the Church".

"The importance Paul assigns to the living Tradition of the Church, which he transmits to his communities, shows how wrong is the view that attributes the invention of Christianity to him. Before evangelising in the name of Jesus Christ, his Lord, he met Him on the road to Damascus and frequented Him in the Church, observing His life in the Twelve and in those who had followed Him along the roads of Galilee.

"In forthcoming catecheses", the Holy Father added, "we will have the opportunity to give deeper consideration to the contributions Paul made to the early Church. Yet the mission he received from the Risen One concerning the evangelisation of the Gentiles needed to be confirmed and guaranteed by those who gave him ... their right hand in a sign of approval and acceptance".

"The more we seek the footsteps of Jesus of Nazareth along the roads of Galilee", Benedict XVI concluded, "the more we understand that He assumed our humanity, sharing it in everything except in sin. Our faith is not born of a myth, nor of an idea, but of a meeting with the Risen One in the life of the Church".

• Benedict reflects on St. Paul and the meaning of apostleship (Sept. 10, 2008)
• Benedict on Paul's encounter with the Risen Christ (Sept 3, 2008)
• Ignatius Press resources for "The Year of Saint Paul the Apostle."

Josef Pieper on Leisure and Its Threefold Opposition

Leisure and Its Threefold Opposition | Josef Pieper | From Josef Pieper: An Anthology

Whoever advocates leisure nowadays may already be on the defensive. We have to face an opposition that at first seems to prevail. Things are not made easier by the fact that this opposition does not come from "someone else" but indeed springs from a conflict within ourselves. Worse yet, when put on the spot, we are not even able to define exactly what we are trying to defend. For example, when Aristotle says, "We work so we can have leisure", we must admit in all honesty that we do not know what this offensive statement means.

This, I think, is our situation.

The first question, therefore, is: What is leisure? How is this concept defined in our great philosophical tradition?

I deem it advisable to attempt an answer in such a way as to deal first with those opposing forces that could be labeled "overvaluation of work". This is admittedly a tentative expression. For "work" can mean several things, at least three. "Work" can mean "activity as such". Second, "work" can mean "exertion, effort, drudgery". And third is the usage of "work" for all "useful activity", especially in the sense "useful for society". Which of the three concepts do I have in mind when I speak of the "overvaluation of work"? I would say: all three! We encounter overvaluation of activity for its own sake, as well as overvaluation of exertion and drudgery, and--last but not least--overvaluation of the social function of work. This specifically is the three-faced demon everyone has to deal with when setting out to defend leisure.

Continue reading...