Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

L.A. Times columnist misuses Jesuit Murray to defend Senator Biden

Tim Rutten has worked for the Los Angeles Times for thirty years. Along the way he has made known his irrational and rather unhinged dislike for those who would dare to criticize prominent Catholic politicians who support abortion. And in his most recent column, "The Catholic Choice" (August 27, 2008), he attempts to come to the defense of Senator Joe Biden by using—or, I am convinced, misusing—some quotes from the writings of John Courtney Murray, S.J. (1904-1967), the influential theologian who wrote extensively on the relationship of Church, State, culture, and society.

But, first, to give you a sense of the low level of discourse engaged in by Rutten, here is his opening paragraph:

Every four years, an astonishing array of conservative commentators and Republican campaign strategists suddenly discover an intimate concern for Catholic consciences and an overriding preoccupation with the Roman church's sacramental and liturgical norms.

This is pure silliness. This is akin to saying, "Every four years, an astonishing array of liberal commentators and Democrat campaign strategists suddenly discover an intimate concern for religion and showing how they are just as spiritually-oriented and heavenly-minded as the average American." So what? Is Rutten amazed that important political, social, and religious issues garner loads of attention during the final months of the presidental election year? If so, perhaps he needs to start editing the comic strip page and criticizing Garfield's eating habits. But his remark is also silly because this issue, for many Catholics and non-Catholics, is important regardless of the date, month, and year. Rutten the Ideologue is clumsily trying to say that Catholics are being used by "conservative commentators and Republican campaign strategists," but the reality is quite different, especially when you consider how many Catholics apparently won't vote for either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain. Such remarks say much more about the commentator than the commentatees.

Rutten goes on to suggest that Archbishop Charles Chaput is simply a shill for the Republican Party because of Chaput's strong denunciation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wildly inaccurate depiction of Catholic teaching on abortion. But it is clear that Rutten's real issue, when all of his spleen-splitting hubris is analyzed, is with the Catholic Church's clear and consistent stance against abortion. Which is why he tries the old "theologians know better than the Magisterium" approach, which is both pandering and pathetic:

If Pelosi had half a wit about her, she might have done what most U.S. Catholics instinctively do, which is to rely on a tradition of moral reasoning that stands athwart Chaput's novel reductionism. Nearly five decades ago, the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray offered this classic appraisal of the real matter at issue:

"The American Proposition makes a particular claim upon the reflective attention of the Catholic ... in the matter of the 'pluralist society ... ' " Murray wrote. "By pluralism here I mean the coexistence within the one political community of groups who hold divergent and incompatible views with regard to religious questions -- those ultimate questions that concern the nature and destiny of man within a universe that stands under the reign of God. Pluralism therefore implies disagreement and dissension within the community. But it also implies a community within which there must be agreement and consensus. There is no small political problem here."

Murray went on to argue that the "working out" of that political problem is itself "an exercise in civic virtue" -- and a theological imperative.

It is this older line of Catholic moral reasoning that allows Biden, who has voted to ban late-term and so-called partial-birth abortions, to say he is "prepared to accept" the Catholic Church's teaching that life begins at conception while supporting Roe vs. Wade because, for now, it "is as close as we're going to be able to get as a society" to accommodating all religious views on the issue.

Now, I readily admit that I've read very little by Murray and am the furthest thing from an expert on his thought and work. He was (and is), of course, very controversial, and his ideas continue to be strongly critiqued by people much smarter and well-learned than myself. This is not a defense or critique of Murray's thought, but something much simpler: an examination to see if Murray is accurately being quoted and referenced.

The quote given by Rutten comes from the foreword to Murray's famous book, We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition (Sheed and Ward, 1960). Rutten seems to be saying that Murray's approach would allow for the support of abortion since there is always and necessarily debate and disagreement within communities about the nature of God, man, and society. In other words, the work of a politician is to uphold pluralism and to work toward a consensus that is healthy for the political community. And this means, he seems to think, that a politician must support abortion, otherwise he somehow rends the fabric of the public order. But Rutten fails to quote this, which comes immediately after the above quote:

If society is to be at all a rational process, some set of principles must motivate the general participation of all religious groups, despite their dissensions, in the oneness of the community. On the other hand, these common principles must not hinder the maintenance by each group of its own different identity. The problem of pluralism is, of course, practical; as a project, its "working out" is an exercise in civic virtue. But the problem is also theoretical; its solution is an exercise in political intelligence that will lay down, as the basis for the "working out," some sort of doctrine.

It seems quite evident to me that, first, Murray's statements in no way excuse or allow for a Catholic politician to uphold policies and laws that are contrary to Catholic social and moral teaching. On the contrary, Murray refers to the right of various groups (which would, of course, include Catholics) to maintain their own identities. The issue is simply this: in a pluralistic, democratic society, how do groups with opposing viewpoints work out principles and consensus for the common good? It must be noted that the final chapter of Murray's book is titled, "The Doctrine Lives: The Eternal Return of Natural Law," and is a strong argument for the use of natural law to guide such actions. The conclusion of that chapter states:

Finally, it does not bow to the new rationalism in regard of a sense of history and progress, the emerging potentialities of human nature, the value of experience in settling the forms of social life, the relative primacy in certain respects of the empirical fact over the preconceived theory; at the same time it does not succumb to the doctrinaire relativism, or to the narrowing of the object of human intelligence, that cripple at their root the high aspirations of evolutionary scientific humanism. In a word, the doctrine of natural law offers a more profound metaphysic, a more integral humanism, a fuller rationality, a more complete philosophy of man in his nature and history.

I might say, too, that it furnishes the basis for a firmer faith and a more tranquil, because more reasoned, hope in the future. If there is a law immanent in man—a dynamic, constructive force for rationality in human affairs, that works itself out, because it is a natural law, in spite of contravention by passion and evil and all the corruptions of power—one may with sober reason believe in, and hope for, a future of rational progress. And this belief and hope is strengthened when one considers that this dynamic order of reason in man, that clamors for expression with all the imperiousness of law, has its origin and sanction in an eternal order of reason whose fulfillment is the object of God's majestic will.

I quote that at length because I think it is safe to say that folks such as Rutten are not only dismissive of natural law, they find it manifestly ridiculous and of no value when it comes to debates over, say, abortion. (Indeed, there are Catholic theologians who sniff in disdain at the natural law tradition, or at least the natural law tradition upheld by recent popes.) They prefer to insist that those who oppose abortion are doing so as irrational religious believers, not as logical and syllogistically-minded men of good will. But the argument against abortion, as Dr. Francis Beckwith and many others have shown, can be made very well without any recourse at all to divine revelation, Scripture, Magisterium, or thunderbolts from on high.

Now, did Murray's various writings help promote a division between public action and private morality? Some have argued so and, again, I plead ignorance on that count. But I would point readers to an October 7, 1994 article in Commonweal (yes, I just recommended a Commonweal article), "What would John Courtney Murray say? On abortion & euthanasia," by Todd David Whitmore. Whitemore appears to be addressing the same sort of misuse of Murray engaged in by Rutten, and states:

One might argue that official Catholic teachings on the status of the embryo-fetus and the morality of taking its life are wrong, and Segers suggests as much in her article. However, the question is what can we say within the context of the concepts that Murray has provided us. In such a context, there are real difficulties in making the case that official Catholic teaching on abortion is wrong. For example, in his writings on churchstate relations, Murray was quite careful to shape his argument so that he could say that Leo XII was not wrong on religious freedom. The pope was simply writing in a different historical context. Because of the presence of the imperita multitudo ("illiterate masses") in Leo's time, a paternalistic government linked to the Catholic church was necessary. However, with the increase in literacy rates and the concomitant rise in people's awareness of their human dignity such a government is no longer necessary. Murray's account of doctrinal development was shaped by an understanding of historical consciousness that allowed him to argue for a change in Catholic teaching on churchstate relations without saying that Leo was wrong. It would be very difficult to make a similar case on abortion: one would have to say, flat out, that popes as different as Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are all wrong. The understanding of doctrinal development offered in Murray's writings leaves little--if any--room for such a claim.

Any argument on abortion made from within the Murray tradition--that is, within the context of the moral and social theory he provides us--must begin, therefore, with three presumptions: that official Catholic teachings on the status of the embryo-fetus and the morality of taking its life are true, that as a result abortion is a matter of public morality, and that laws limiting recourse to abortion are appropriate. If schools seek to make another argument on any of these points, the burden of proof is on them to show how they are operating within the Murray tradition. Segers's argument would require a different understanding of doctrinal development, a changed epistemology, and an altered understanding of consensus. This makes her case that she is responding from within the context of Murray's moral and social theory rather strained. I do not think that her argument can be sustained in the end.

Which brings me, in the end, to a simple fact I hinted at above: pitting this or that theologian against the clear teaching of the Magisterium, while a favorite form of argumentum ad populum for those who deny or dislike Church teaching, is obvious in both weakness and intent. Even if Murray had boldly stated, "I think every Catholic should decide for himself what he believes about abortion," it wouldn't matter a bit as far as the formal, authoritative teaching of the Church. Archbishop Chaput's stance does not reflect a "novel reductionism," but obvious moral teaching: abortion is evil.

Or, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (par 2271). Period. Dance, jabber, blather, yell, mock, kick the curb, and misuse John Courtney Murray's writings as much as you like, there it is. Anyone with half a wit about them should be able to see it, even if they have written for the L.A. Times for over three decades.

• Biden: "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine..." (Aug. 27, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput chastises and catechizes Speaker Pelosi (Aug. 25, 2008)
• More Archbishop Chaput! (Aug. 21, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput on being Catholic and voting Catholic (Aug. 20, 2008)
• Speaker Pelosi keeps polluting the waters... (Aug. 7, 2008)
• Catholicism, Pelosi style (January 26, 2007)
• Catholics who are shamelessly clueless about the Bible (April 25, 2008)

Roy Schoeman's cinematic musings

Schoeman, author of Salvation is from the Jews: and editor of Honey From the Rock: Sixteen Jews Find the Sweetness of Christ, is interviewed by SoulFoodCinema.com about movies he likes, dislikes, and would like to see made.

Biden: "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine..."

Yet another catechetical moment arrives. This from today's Christian Science Monitor:

Against long odds, Senator Biden aims to be No. 4. He sees faith and values, as well as his own deep experience in public policy, as a key to that race.       

"The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power," he said in an interview with the Monitor. "It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse."

The issues that have most engaged Biden in public life draw on those teachings, from halting violence against women to genocide. At a personal level, his faith provides him peace, he says. "I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It's my time alone," he says.

But the interface of faith and policy has long been problematic for Catholic presidential hopefuls. Governor Smith faced withering criticism over whether Catholic politicians are obliged by their church to take policy orders from Rome. John F. Kennedy famously disavowed "outside religious pressures or dictates," swept the Catholic vote, and won the presidency. By the time another J.F.K. from Massachusetts ran for president in 2004, the ground had shifted. Sen. John F. Kerry lost the Catholic vote because many of his faith questioned whether he was Catholic enough, given his strong support for abortion rights.

But Biden believes he can bridge much of that divide. "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine," says Biden, a six-term Democratic senator from Delaware. "There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that."    

If abortion isn't an abuse of power, I'm not sure what else qualifies. Who are more powerless than unborn children in the womb who, in the poignant words of Cardinal Egan, "smile and wave into the world outside the womb"? And does it really need to be pointed out that the Church is not bigger than the One who founded her? And that the Church was not founded as some sort of political "big tent," but is the household of God, and as such adheres in love and obedience to the teachings of her head, Jesus Christ, and to those He granted authority to teach, shepherd, govern, and guide?

As we well know, anybody trying to find where the Church says that abortion is morally acceptable, or can be allowed in certain situations, or is just another issue open to debate, is going to fail miserably. Which is probably why Biden and Co. don't bother to quote from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which leaves no doubt about the Church's stance on the issue of abortion:

155. The teachings of Pope John XXIII,[314] the Second Vatican Council,[315] and Pope Paul VI [316] have given abundant indication of the concept of human rights as articulated by the Magisterium. Pope John Paul II has drawn up a list of them in the Encyclical Centesimus Annus: “the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother's womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child's personality; the right to develop one's intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth's material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one's dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one's sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a person”[317].

The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end,[318] which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia.[319]

The CSM article provides some helpful hints as to why Biden thinks of himself as a good Catholic who has no problem denying core Catholic social teachings:

"My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world comes straight from my religion. It's not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It's the culture," he writes.<snip>

"I was raised at a time when the Catholic Church was fertile with new ideas and open discussion about some of the basic social teaching of the Catholic Church," Biden says. "Questioning was not criticized; it was encouraged."

<snip>

"I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society," he writes in his autobiography.

<snip>

Without taking a position on how Catholics should vote, Biden makes a case for staying connected to the church and its culture. "If I were an ordained priest, I'd be taking some issue with some of the more narrow interpretations of the Gospel being taken now," Biden says. "But my church is more than 2,000 years old. There's always been a tug of war among prelates and informed lay members."

As if all Catholic priests believe and preach exactly what the Church teaches while "informed lay members" are restless free-thinkers pushing at the rigid boundaries of traditional doctrine. Hardly. This is both simplistic and misleading. The line of tension lies elsewhere: between those who accept and understand that certain matters of faith and morals are settled and those who think that it is one's all-powerful conscience that makes the final decision about such matters, even while paying lip service to loving the Church and so forth. The Catechism is quite clear that the latter approach is not the one taken by Catholics seeking to be disciples of Christ and loyal sons and daughters of His Church:

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. ...

A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith." (CCC 1792, 1794)

Perhaps Biden, Pelosi, and others do suffer from invincible ignorance. Or perhaps they are simply denying or ignoring what they know the Church does clearly teach. Regardless, any child receiving decent catechesis and anyone capable of reading the English language should recognize that Senator Biden's beliefs are not "totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine." One suspects, however, that the approach taken by Biden, Pelosi, and Co. will continue, which means the issue of abortion, Catholic politicians, and Church authority will continue to be a major story throughout the 2008 election.

• What Is "Legal"? On Abortion, Democracy, and Catholic Politicians | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• What Is Catholic Social Teaching? | Mark Brumley
• The Case Against Abortion | An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith, author of Defending Life
• Introduction to Three Approaches to Abortion | Peter Kreeft
• The Illusion of Freedom Separated from Moral Virtue | Raymond L. Dennehy
• Excommunication! | An interview with canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters
• Some Atrocities are Worse than Others | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Personally Opposed--To What? | Dr. James Hitchcock
• Mixed Messages | Phil Lawler                                       

Bishops respond to Speaker Pelosi, self-described "ardent Catholic"

In case you've not yet seen these responses:

• The USCCB statement in response to Speaker Pelosi, issued earlier today.

• Statement by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, D.C., issued yesterday.

• Statement by Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, issued today.

Archbishop Chaput chastises and catechizes Speaker Pelosi

A day after Nancy Pelosi revealed to the nation that Tom Brokaw knows more about Catholic teaching than she does when it comes to abortion, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver provides some basic catechesis via an open letter to the Catholics of Denver titled, "On the Separation of Sense and State" (PDF format):

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

<snip>

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO reports on a homily given by Archbishop Chaput at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Denver a few hours after Pelosi's remarks:

“If you’re Catholic and you disagree with your Church. What do you do? You change your mind.”

So said Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of the Catholic archdiocese of Denver, at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception at 6:30 Mass on Sunday night, as the Democratic Convention was set to begin.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop's letter is getting a lot of attention in blogdom.

• More Archbishop Chaput! (Aug. 21, 2008)
• Archbishop Chaput on being Catholic and voting Catholic (Aug. 20, 2008)
• Speaker Pelosi keeps polluting the waters... (Aug. 7, 2008)
• Catholicism, Pelosi style (January 26, 2007)
• Catholics who are shamelessly clueless about the Bible (April 25, 2008)

But I thought "women's ordination" would solve those problems...

From The Telegraph, a piece about a study claiming that women in England are abandoning Christianity in large numbers:

The study comes amid ongoing controversy over the role of women in all   Christian denominations. Last month its governing body voted to allow women   to become bishops for the first time, having admitted them to the priesthood   in 1994, but traditionalist bishops have warned that hundreds of clergy and   parishes will leave if the move goes ahead as planned.

The report's author, Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of   Derby, said: "In short, women are abandoning the church.

"Because of its focus on female empowerment, young women are attracted by   Wicca, popularised by the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

"Young women tend to express egalitarian values and dislike the   traditionalism and hierarchies they imagine are integral to the church.

"Women's ordination, as priests and now bishops, has dominated debate and   headlines – but while looking at women in the pulpit we have taken our eyes   off the pews, where a shift with more consequences for the church's survival   is underway."

Her research, published in a new book called Women and Religion in the West,   cites an English Church Census which found more than a million women   worshippers have left churches since 1989.

Over the past decade, it claims, women have been leaving churches at twice the   rate of men.

Wouldn't you know it, some are saying this proves that more women need to become clergy in the Church of England:

Christina Rees, chairman of the pro-women bishop campaign group Watch, said   the report highlighted the damaging effect that traditionalist attitudes   within the Church of England are having on women.

She added that the introduction of female bishops will lead to a renewed   interest in the church among young people and women in particular, despite   the opposition to the historic step from Anglo-Catholics and conservative   evangelicals who believe scripture and tradition teach that bishops must be   male.

Ms Rees told The Daily Telegraph: "What this research reveals is that a   lot of people are put off by traditional stances and attitudes. We still   have a long way to go before women, particularly young women, feel as   included in the church as men do.

"I'm absolutely convinced that when we have women as bishops that it will   send out a very clear message that women are as valued as much as men."

Let's see: membership and attendance in the CofE has been plummeting for many years now, concurrent with the feverish jettisoning of nearly everything that might be considered traditional and orthodox. The same sort of correlation can be seen in Protestant groups and in various Catholic circles. The essential problem with trying to be "relevant" or "accessible" by tossing out dogma and doctrine, not to mention practice and devotion, was described pithily a few decades ago by the wonderful Anglo-Catholic author Dorothy Sayers:

Christ, in his divine innocence, said to the woman of Samaria, ‘Ye worship ye know not what’––being apparently under the impression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshiping. He thus showed himself sadly out of touch with the twentieth-century mind, for the cry today is: ‘Away with the tendentious complexities of dogma––let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!’ The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular (From Creed or Chaos?).

I think it is misleading to say that Wicca is popular because it portrays female empowerment while Christianity is unpopular because it allegedly denegrates and devalues women. Rather, Wicca and neo-pagan movements are popular because they espouse rebellion wrapped in spirituality, which is really the age-old way of denying God. Atheism may have a niche market, but most people want some form of "spirituality", even if they also wish to deny traditional Christian beliefs. When Christians fail to live, express, demonstrate, and articulate the truth and beauty of Christianity, they provide a default excuse for those who wish to pursue "egalitarian values".

If God didn't know He was God, would He be God?

That question came to mind when I read about the silliness going on in the meditation room of the Universal Solidarity Movement (USM) in India. The room, in the words of Sister C. Lissy, consists of "a small ceiling fan, a tube light and a gigantic mirror on a wall." Sounds a bit creepy, like something you might see in a low budget horror flick. Or sweaty, like something from Rocky XXVII. But the revelatory nature of the room is apparently contained in the magic mantra above the oversized mirror: "God within" and a phrase in Sanskrit, "Aham brahmasmi (I am God)."

The unusual meditation room is the brainchild of 56-year-old Father Varghese Alengaden, who founded USM 16 years ago to combat the sectarianism that was then sweeping across India and leaving more than a thousand dead in riots.

The movement, the priest explained to UCA News, aims to generate responsible citizens to promote harmony among India's various groups by encouraging them to live the values of their respective religions. The "mirror room" is just one of various methods he uses to promote harmony and solidarity, he said.

Father Alengaden said Saint Paul's words, "God lives within you," prompted him to devise the room. People change drastically once they understand they are the image of God, he said, and "we'd then have no problem to accept the other person as also an image of God." In his view, this realization will help people accept plurality and equality, and dissuade them from harming others.

Or, perhaps they'll come to the conclusion that since they are somehow divine by virtue of simply being themselves, they can do whatever they wish. After all, who is going to judge them? God? This is similar to the belief that if only people had good self-esteem, the world would be magically transformed into paradise. The inherently self-absorbed nature of the practice can be seen in these remarks:

According to Sister Lissy, the six-square-meter room appears simple but praying there is tough. Initially, the idea seemed quite outlandish, she recalled, and "I used to laugh seeing me in the mirror." But after a week or so, "I realized God is within me, not in a church. I also realized I was confronting myself and this helped me behave better with others."

She also discovered "more meaning" in praying before the mirror than meditating before the tabernacle or in a church. "God is merciful, beautiful, kind and compassionate, and so am I, because God is within me," she added.

This is, frankly, a form of spiritual masturbation, a thinly veiled neo-pantheism that not only collapses the proper distinction between the creature and the Creator, it turns the creature against both Creator and Mother Church, as the Sister's comments indicate. It's incredibly sad. How can any Catholic say that it is better to stare into a mirror than to gaze upon the Lord in seeking a deeper relationship with God? It is only by gazing upon Christ that we can be freed of illusions about ourselves and be conformed to His likeness:

The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown. (Gaudium et Spes, 22)

Or, from the Catechism:

Contemplation is a gaze of faith, fixed on Jesus. "I look at him and he looks at me": this is what a certain peasant of Ars in the time of his holy cure used to say while praying before the tabernacle. This focus on Jesus is a renunciation of self. His gaze purifies our heart; the light of the countenance of Jesus illumines the eyes of our heart and teaches us to see everything in the light of his truth and his compassion for all men. Contemplation also turns its gaze on the mysteries of the life of Christ. Thus it learns the "interior knowledge of our Lord," the more to love him and follow him. (CCC 2715)

• Diogenes comments over at "Off the Record."

Quotes of the day from Mothers and Sisters

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a piece in the Wall Street Journal, "The Problem with Liberation Ordination," which takes a look at the Womenpriest-ettes movement. But rather than focus, as I usually do, on the angry, man-hating women who engage in sacrilegious, farcical acts, I'd like to highlight two quotes in the column:

Mother Assumpta Long, a statuesque, media-savvy Dominican sister in Ann Arbor, Mich., says that the Catholic Church already recognizes the equality of women -- and that the dissenters confuse equality with identical opportunity. "All people are created by God equal in that we each possess an immortal and individual soul. [But] we are each unique in our talents. . . . Women are called upon to be mothers (spiritually and, for many in marriage, physically as well); whereas men are called upon to be fathers (spiritually and, for many in marriage, physically as well)." These sound like roles in a healthy family -- not the artifact of a stifling, misogynistic patriarchy.

And:

"As an active woman religious working in the field of retreats and catechesis in the Bible Belt South, I have to say that I am far too busy . . . to feel slighted by the fact that the priesthood is not open to women," insists Sister Louise Marie, a member of the order. She suggests that if Catholics and non-Catholics understood what a "powerful role women religious have," they would never "feel sorry for [us]."

In fact, the true power and splendor of the feminine—whether found in a wife, a mother, a religious, a single women—is only blunted and damaged when women try to be men. Believe me, real men are in awe of real women, by which I mean that men who embrace being masculine have a deep respect and love for what is authentically feminine. When women try to "out male" men, contempt, confusion, and chaos quickly follow. And as Lopez rightly notes, the reality of family—the reality of love and communion—flows from the unique and complimentary differences between men and women.

• Was Pope John Paul II Anti-Woman? | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Male and Female He Created Them | Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez

The Kinda Great Eight: 1968

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza is writing a series of columns on the "Great Eights"—1968, 1978, 1988, and 1998—for National Catholic Register. First up, 1968:

Nineteen Sixty-Eight: The year itself summons images of upheaval.

The Paris student riots.

The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy.

The riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention.

The Tet Offensive and the My Lai massacre.

The Prague Spring.

The Black Power salute at the Mexico City Olympics.

The sexual revolution.

It was not a time amenable to authority. Yet, in 1968, Pope Paul VI chose to exercise his authority in the most dramatic way imaginable. The resulting earthquakes are still shaping the Church.

The first earthquake was Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth), the papal encyclical affirming traditional Christian orthodoxy on the immorality of artificial contraception. Published in July 1968, the teaching met with widespread rejection from theologians, an equivocal reception by bishops’ conferences, lukewarm support even in the Roman Curia — and outright ridicule from the mainstream culture.

Forty years later, many now praise the courage of Paul VI in taking a lonely stand for orthodoxy, but at the time, it was widely judged a disaster. The Holy Father was so traumatized by the open dissent that he did not write another encyclical in the remaining 10 years of his papacy.

Read the entire column.

Personally, despite all of the turmoil that took place in that momentous year, I think 1968 was great for another reason: I was born in April 1969.

More Archbishop Chaput!

And that, in my opinion, is a very good thing. Here is a transcript of the Archbishop's recent appearance on  Hugh Hewitt's radio program. And here is an excerpt:

HH: Now Archbishop, let’s dive into the book. Again, for the benefit of people tuning in, it’s Render Unto Caesar: Serving The Nation By Living Our Catholic Beliefs In Public Life. And I want to emphasize, it’s not just for Catholics, though that’s obviously the intent of this. I was trying to figure out your motive, and then I came across a quote from a Vietnamese bishop, later made a cardinal, which was, “The greatest failure in leadership is for the leader to be afraid to speak and act as leader.” Is that part of the motive, Archbishop?

CC: Well, I have a responsibility as a bishop to clearly proclaim the Gospel in its entirety, even when people don’t want me to do that, and even when it’s difficult. So I wouldn’t claim to be particularly courageous, but I feel responsible. And if I don’t speak on the issues that I think the Lord calls me to speak, I feel guilty about that. So for me to be quiet on these issues would have been a harder burden for me to carry, perhaps, than speaking about it. Actually, I mentioned two reasons why I wrote the book. One is some Catholic political folks asked me to, people who ran for office, and were having struggles because of that. But more importantly, I’ve grown tired of so many people in our culture saying to believers that they ought to be quiet, that there’s no place in the public square for the voice of faith. I wanted to make a distinction between separation of Church and state, and separating our faith from our politics. You can embrace the concept of separation of Church and state, but that’s not at all the same thing as separating our faith from our actions, from our political actions. 

HH: Was it times to appear prior to the presidential election consciously?

CC: Well, people have asked me that. You know, I finished the book a year ago this month, and gave it to Doubleday, and it takes a long time for it to get through the process of being published. I personally had hoped that it would come out in the early spring so it wouldn’t be seen as something that was aimed particularly at this election. But the publisher is the one who controls that. And some people have told me they think it’s a blessing both in terms of the message of the book, and for the people of our time, for the people of this moment, that it’s coming out this close to the election. 

HH: You know, I think it’s going to discomfort not just liberals, but a lot of conservatives as well. I don’t think you could pigeonhole this as a conservative or liberal book, and I’ve been through it in quite detail. I hope that’s what your assessment is.

CC: Well, you know, people sometimes pigeonhole me as a conservative, and I hope what I am is a Catholic. And I preach the Gospel honestly without compromise, and that cuts to the right and to the left, because the Truth is supposed to set all of us free from our parties and from our prejudices or whatever. So I think people who want to follow the Gospel will offend people on all sides of the political spectrum.

Read the entire transcript.

Order a copy of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.