Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Will the California court decision stand?

(Yes, the May 15th decision about "same-sex marriage.") Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, doesn't think so, as she discusses in a piece for MercatorNet:

This spring NOM California, a project of the National Organization for Marriage which I head, raised almost US$1 million and helped Protect Marriage collect 1.1 million signatures to put a state marriage amendment on the California ballot this November. The signatures are awaiting certification by the Secretary of State’s office.

In other words, California's supreme court has just ruled that the 62 percent of Californians who voted for marriage as the union of husband and wife are bigots.

But thanks to the 1.1 million Californians who signed petitions to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, activist judges will not have the last word in California. California voters will.

But, really, can voters actually stop activist judges? It's a serious question. Can they?

For more information on how to overturn this California court ruling go to www.NOMCalifornia.org.

• Do Boys Need Dads? An Ignatius Insight.com Interview with Maggie Gallagher (Oct. 2005)

Or, as the dissenting Judge Baxter put it...

Commenting on my post about the court ruling in California re: "same sex marriage," (May 15, 2008; #S147999), a reader kindly linked to the court documents, which can be accessed as a PDF document and as a Word document. This is some of what Judge Baxter wrote in dissenting from the majority opinion:

Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today.  So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it.  Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.  California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.  If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.  The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling.  The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute.  I cannot subscribe to the majority’s reasoning, or to its result. ...

The question presented by this case is simple and stark.  It comes down to this:  Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante), they reserve the label “marriage” for opposite-sex legal unions?   I must conclude that the answer is no.
The People, directly or through their elected representatives, have every right to adopt laws abrogating the historic understanding that civil marriage is between a man and a woman.  The rapid growth in California of statutory protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, as individuals, as parents, and as committed partners, suggests a quickening evolution of community attitudes on these issues.  Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about same-sex marriage.  Advocates of this cause have had real success in the marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support.  Left to its own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civil parlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority,  the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration.  The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

Judicial fiat. Judicial oligarchy. Power play. It is all of that and more. With more to come, I think it is reasonable to guess.

If you're not familiar with this term, you should be

The term is "judicial oligarchy".

I first heard it back in 1996, when First Things published a fascinating and sobering symposium titled, "The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics" (November 1996). Authors included Robert H. Bork, Russell Hittinger, Hadley Arkes, Charles W. Colson, and Robert P. George. The introduction to the essays stated:

The proposition examined in the following articles is this: The government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed. With respect to the American people, the judiciary has in effect declared that the most important questions about how we ought to order our life together are outside the purview of “things of their knowledge.” Not that judges necessarily claim greater knowledge; they simply claim, and exercise, the power to decide. The citizens of this democratic republic are deemed to lack the competence for self-government. The Supreme Court itself—notably in the Casey decision of 1992-has raised the alarm about the legitimacy of law in the present regime. Its proposed solution is that citizens should defer to the decisions of the Court. Our authors do not consent to that solution. The twelfth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone (1872-1946), expressed his anxiety: “While unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive or legislative branches of the Government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of restraint.” The courts have not, and perhaps cannot, restrain themselves, and it may be that in the present regime no other effective restraints are available. If so, we are witnessing the end of democracy.

As important as democracy is, the symposium addresses another question still more sobering. Law, as it is presently made by the judiciary, has declared its independence from morality. Indeed, as explained below, morality—especially traditional morality, and most especially morality associated with religion—has been declared legally suspect and a threat to the public order. Among the most elementary principles of Western Civilization is the truth that laws which violate the moral law are null and void and must in conscience be disobeyed. In the past and at present, this principle has been invoked, on both the right and the left, by those who are frequently viewed as extremists. It was, however, the principle invoked by the founders of this nation. It was the principle invoked by the antislavery movement and, more recently, by Martin Luther King, Jr. It is the principle invoked today by, among many others, Pope John Paul II.

The symposium came to mind again (as it has many times over the years) when I read the following news piece from the Associated Press:

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

None of this, of course, is really surprising anymore. It is almost a given. It is a given. But, just in case you weren't sure what to call this sad state of affairs, there it is: judicial oligarchy. Read it and weep. But do so privately; you never know who might sue you for publicly expressing anguish over the demise of traditional, commonsensical morality and governance.

Donahue vs. Obama

Bill Donahue of the Catholic League is not impressed with Barack Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council. On May 2nd he said:

“The best advice I can give Sen. Obama about his Catholic National Advisory Council is to dissolve it immediately. Of the 26 Catholic former or current public office holders he has listed as either National Co-Chairs (5), or as members of the National Leadership Committee (21), there is not one who agrees with the Catholic Church on all three major public policy issues: abortion, embryonic stem cell research and school vouchers.

“Indeed, on the issue of abortion, their record is disgraceful. Consider the scorecard as issued by the most radical pro-abortion organization in the nation—NARAL. Of the two National Co-Chairs who have a NARAL tally, one agrees with the extremist group 65 percent of the time and the other agrees 100 percent of the time. Of the 20 National Leadership Committee members with a NARAL score, 17 have earned a 100 percent rating. Of those who have less than a perfect score, not one is in favor of school vouchers. ...

As CNA reports, the committee members were offended—nay, outraged!—that their failure to support clear Catholic teaching was being used as evidence that they don't support clear Catholic teaching:

The 26 member advisory council, which includes two sisters and one priest, responded to Donahue’s accusation that they are “dissenters” from the Catholic Church by writing him a letter.

In their letter, the council members counter Donahue’s charge that they don’t follow Church teaching on abortion by saying, “Unlike the Catholic League, the U.S. Catholic Bishops advise careful consideration of candidates’ positions on a broad set of issues.” This type of consideration, according to the council, is bolstered by the U.S. bishops’ document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”.

The advisors quote from paragraph 29 of the bishops’ document, where the bishops explain that Catholics cannot be against abortion and simultaneously ignore other offenses against human life.

They advisors point out that this means, “particular issues must not be misused ‘as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity’ such as ‘racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care or an unjust immigration policy’."

Read their entire response here (PDF format). Donahue responded on May 8th:

“The reason I mentioned only public officials who are part of Sen. Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council is the same reason I chose just three public policy issues: voting tallies are available on these advisors (but not on the others) and on these three issues. If I knew more about the others, no doubt some would have made the cut.

“It is more than embarrassing—it is shocking—to read how these Catholics view abortion. The Catholic Church regards abortion, as well as embryonic stem cell research, as ‘intrinsically evil.’ But not these folks. For them, abortion is merely ‘a profound moral issue.’

“Sadly, it has been apparent for years that many who fancy themselves ‘progressive’ Catholics do not treat abortion the way they do racial discrimination. No one in his right mind says that the best way to combat racial discrimination is by changing people’s hearts and minds, not the law. Which is why we do both. But when it comes to abortion—including partial-birth abortion—the progressives settle for dialogue.

“It is so nice to know that Obama thinks abortion ‘presents a profound moral challenge.’ Is infanticide another ‘profound moral challenge’? To wit: When he was in the Illinois state senate he led the fight to deny health care to babies born alive who survived an abortion. That, my friends, is not a moral challenge—it’s a Hitlerian decision.”

• Sen. Barack Obama: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion." (Jan. 24, 2008)
• That's why Catholics should vote for Sen. Obama? (Feb. 15, 2008)
• Catholic reporter defends his support for Obama, stating: "bishops be damned" (Feb. 15, 2008)
• The soul of Senator Barack Obama (Feb. 28, 2008)

Archbishop Naumann to Governor: Stop receiving Holy Communion

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas has been dealing with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius  for a while now regarding her scandalous and unrepentant support, as a Catholic, of abortion. He has now taken further action. The Kansas City Star reports:

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius should stop taking Communion until she repudiates her support for the “serious moral evil” of abortion, the Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas says.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, also criticized the governor Friday for her recent veto of a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers.

The Archbishop, in his weekly column, wrote:

Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.

It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.

Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.

Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.

Read the entire column. Dr. Ed Peters comments:

Canon 915 as a tourniquet to staunch the wound that Gov. Sebelius has inflicted on the Mystical Body of Christ. But Canon 915 is only designed to keep a bad situation from getting worse; what is ultimately necessary here is repentance by a prominent Catholic of her grave pro-abortion activities. In the meantime, if Canon 915 doesn't stop the bleeding, the archbishop's only alternative would be surgery under Book Six of the Code of Canon Law, "Sanctions in the Church."

And no one should want that.

Read his entire post.

Edwin Meese III praises "true insider’s account of the life and presidency of Ronald Reagan"

In a piece on TownHall.com, the former Attorney General of the United States praises The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius, 2007), co-authored by Paul Kengor and Patricia Clark Doerner:

Thanks only to the persistence and diligence of authors Paul Kengor and Pat Clark Doerner, only now has Clark’s fascinating story—a true insider’s account of the life and presidency of Ronald Reagan, and especially Reagan’s effort to undermine Soviet communism—at long last been revealed. Clark would never have written the story himself. Only by appealing to Clark’s ongoing sense of duty to Ronald Reagan were the authors able to convince Clark to share what he knows. They prevailed by insisting, correctly, that if Clark did not go on the record, many crucial nuggets on Ronald Reagan and his governorship and presidency would never make the history books.

I know this story as well as anyone. In 1969, I was the one tapped by the governor to replace Bill Clark as Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff. Clark and I were both little younger then—he was 37 years old, I was 38, and he left some big shoes to fill. He had stepped into the spot during an emergency situation when the governorship was faced by a serious sex scandal involving the sitting chief of staff. Clark set the ship back on course. Between us in that first term, we helped pave the way for the successful governorship that followed, and which would eventually provide Ronald Reagan a stepping stone to run for the presidency.

Read the entire column.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Excerpts:
       
• The Mission: The Introduction to The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand | Paul Kengor and Patricia Clark Doerner                
• William P. Clark: The Quiet Catholic Who Changed the World | An interview with Paul Kengor
• Visit The Judge website for further information, praise, and more.              

The Swiss battle the horrors of "species-ism," upholds "plant dignity"

You just can't spoof the Swiss, especially not the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology. Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, writing for The Weekly Standard, reports:

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

However silly this all seems, there is a deadly serious, anti-human perspective behind it:

Eschewing humans as the pinnacle of "creation" (to borrow the term used in the Swiss constitution) has caused environmentalism to mutate from conservationism--a concern to properly steward resources and protect pristine environs and endangered species--into a willingness to thwart human flourishing to "save the planet." Indeed, the most radical "deep ecologists" have grown so virulently misanthropic that Paul Watson, the head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, called humans "the AIDS of the earth," requiring "radical invasive therapy" in order to reduce the population of the earth to under a billion.

MercatorNet has a good piece about the Swiss nonsense. Editor Michael Cook writes:

Switzerland’s passion for the dignity of all creatures great and small, however, rings hollow in view of its treatment of human beings. It is one of the few countries in the world where assisted suicide is legal. The best-known agency for DIY euthanasia, a Zurich-based group called – what else? – Dignitas, recently opened its thanatorium in the same building as Switzerland’s biggest legal brothel. Surely that violates one of the numerous provisions in the constitution guaranteeing human dignity. As it is now, there seems to be about as much bureaucracy involved in killing a Swiss goldfish as there is in killing a human being. (Special chemicals are required since flushing fish down the toilet has been deemed undignified.)

The poor, befuddled Swiss have clearly lost the plot on what dignity is and who is entitled to it.

Read the entire piece.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go mow my lawn. Twice. With dull blades.

"In Europe and in Italy, such questions are not even raised."

So writes Italian journalist Sandro Magister of Chiesa in reporting on the controversy about certain politicians receiving Communion at the Papal Mass in Washington, D.C.:

A loud and unexpected backlash erupted in the United States one week after the pope's return to Rome.

The cause was the reception of Eucharistic communion during the papal Masses by some important "pro-choice" Catholic politicians, supporters of the free right to abortion.

In Washington, at the Mass in Nationals Park, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and the senators John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, and Christopher Dodd received communion, while in New York, at the Mass in Saint Patrick's Cathedral, former city mayor Rudolph Giuliani received communion. Their actions were highlighted by the media in part because some of them had announced it beforehand.

<snip>

In early June of 2004, from Rome, then-cardinal Ratzinger sent to cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop of Washington and head of the "domestic policy" commission of the United States bishops' conference, a note with precise indications on the question.

The note was private, but www.chiesa released the complete text.

That note from Ratzinger is again reproduced below. Its point is unequivocal: no Eucharistic communion for Catholic politicians who systematically campaign for abortion.

But the bishops of the United States, meeting in general assembly, decided by majority that it is up to each individual bishop whether or not to give communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Ratzinger did not oppose this way of applying the norm. On the contrary, he wrote that he thought this was "very much in harmony" with his guidelines.

When George W. Bush was reelected to the White House, the question faded into the background again. And it had not reemerged during the current campaign for the new presidential election, since none of the candidates is Catholic.

But now that it has exploded once again, the impression is that a more strict approach is taking hold among the bishops of the United States. It was striking that cardinal Egan did not limit himself to recalling general principles, but directly criticized a famous political figure, and moreover accused him of violating a private agreement made with him.

In Europe and in Italy, such questions are not even raised. The fact that "pro-choice" politicians should receive communion does not raise any particular reactions. Their decision is left to their personal conscience.

The fact that in the United States, on the other hand, this question is so inflammatory is another sign of the differences in the political-religious landscapes on either side of the Atlantic: a diversity repeatedly emphasized by Benedict XVI during his visit and in the concluding audience on Wednesday, April 30.

In the United States, religion is a public reality to a much greater extent and in a different way than in Europe. With the consequences that follow from this.

This helps explain, I suppose, why politicians such as Kerry and Co. think the U.S. would be much better off if it were more like Europe.

Read the entire piece, which includes the 2004 statement by Cardinal Ratzinger.

CNS reports on CWR's concerns about CRS

Confused yet? The short of it is that Catholic News Service has a piece about Catholic Relief Services and questions asked about CRS in this April 2008 Catholic World Report article, written by moral theologian Germain Grisez. From the Catholic News Service report:

In a letter to U.S. bishops, the chairman of the board of Catholic Relief Services said the agency's HIV/AIDS programs practice church teachings on condom use and abstinence before marriage.

"In no cases does CRS promote, purchase or distribute condoms," said Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of Milwaukee, CRS chairman, in the letter obtained April 29 by Catholic News Service.

Saying that "all HIV programs supported by CRS promote abstinence until marriage and mutual fidelity within marriage," Archbishop Dolan noted that CRS' positions "are fully in keeping with (U.S. bishops') conference policies."

CRS is the U.S. bishops' international relief and development agency.

The archbishop wrote the letter, dated April 23, in response to an article by The Catholic World Report which said that CRS was not adhering to church teaching because it was promoting condoms and omitting its logo on a Zambian HIV informational tool.

Read the entire piece.

• "A Church Betrayed?" | Germain Grisez | Catholic World Report, April 2008
• CRS, HIV, and condoms | Insight Scoop | April 1, 2008
• Further clarification from Dr. Germain Grisez | Insight Scoop | April 3, 2008

The significance of Cardinal's Egan's rebuke of Giuliani...

... is analyzed by Phil Lawler of Catholic World News:

By emphasizing the gravity of support for the legalized killing of the unborn, the cardinal takes a strong stand in defense of human life. Since Giuliani is not currently a candidate for political office, the cardinal's statement cannot be misinterpreted as a partisan gesture. Rather, he is using an opportunity to instruct the faithful.

At the same time, the cardinal is protecting the Church from further scandal. And as a pastor he is showing his concern for Giuliani, who is endangering his own soul by receiving the Eucharist improperly. The cardinal's message should not be lost on countless other Catholics who are receiving Communion while in a state of serious sin; in that respect, too, his is a valuable pastoral statement.

In all these respects, Cardinal Egan's statement stands in stark contrast to the official silence from Washington's Archbishop Donald Wuerl after several prominent pro-abortion Catholics-- most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy-- received Communion during the papal Mass in that city. Although these prominent politicians had indicated beforehand that they planned to receive the Eucharist, the archbishop made no statement to discourage them or to indicate to the public that they would be receiving Communion in violation of Church law. A spokesman for the US bishops' conference issued only a lame statement: "People go to church and people go to Communion if they feel in their heart they are prepared to receive Communion.”

Read the entire piece.

The Holy Father reflects on his visit to the United States

From the Vatican Information Service:

POPE RECALLS HIS RECENT VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES

VATICAN CITY, 30 APR 2008 (VIS) - In today's general audience, which was held in St. Peter's Square, the Pope dedicated his remarks to his recent apostolic trip to the U.S.A. and the headquarters of the United Nations, from 15 to 21 April.

  After recalling how the motive for his U.S. visit was the bi-centenary of the elevation of the country's first diocese, Baltimore, to the status of metropolitan archdiocese, and the foundation of the sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville, the Holy Father affirmed that his aim had been "to announce to everyone the message that 'Christ is our Hope', the phrase which was the theme of my visit".

  During the meeting with President George Bush in the White House, said the Pope, "I had the opportunity to pay homage to that great country, which from its beginnings was built on the foundation of a harmonious union between religious, ethical and political principles, and which still constitutes a valid example of healthy laicism, where the religious dimension, in the diversity of its expressions, is not only tolerated but turned to advantage as the 'soul' of the nation and the fundamental guarantee of the rights and duties of human beings".

  The Holy Father then went on to explain that he had supported his "brother bishops in their difficult task of spreading the Gospel in a society marked by no small number of contradictions, which also threaten the coherence of Catholics and even of the clergy. I encouraged them to make their voices heard on the moral and social questions of the day, and to form the lay faithful so they become good 'leavening' in the civil community on the base of that fundamental cell which is the family. In this context, I exhorted them to re-present the Sacrament of Marriage as a gift and an indissoluble commitment between a man and a woman, the natural environment in which to welcome and educate children.

  "The Church and the family, as well as schools", the Pope added, "must co-operate in offering young people a solid moral education. ... Reflecting upon the painful question of sexual abuse of minors by ordained ministers, I told the bishops of my closeness, and encouraged them in the task of binding wounds and strengthening their relationships with their priests".

  During the Eucharistic celebration held in the Nationals Stadium in Washington, said Pope Benedict, "we evoked the Holy Spirit" upon the Church in America that she "may face current and future challenges with courage and hope". And when meeting with representatives of other religions "in what may be considered as the homeland of religious freedom, I recalled how such freedom must be defended with congruous efforts to avoid all forms of discrimination and prejudice. I also highlighted the great responsibility religious leaders have, both in teaching respect and non-violence and in upholding the deepest questions of the human conscience".

  On the subject of his visit to U.N. headquarters in New York, the Pope pointed out that "providence gave me the opportunity to confirm" - on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "the importance of that Charter, recalling its universal foundation, in other words the dignity of the person who was created by God in His image and likeness in order to co-operate in ... His great plan of life and peace".

  In St. Patrick's Cathedral the Pope had celebrated Mass for priests and consecrated people. "I will never forget", he said, "with how much warmth they congratulated me for the third anniversary of my election to the See of Peter. It was a moving moment, in which I particularly felt the support of all the Church for my ministry. And I could say the same about my meeting with young people and seminarians".

  At Ground Zero "I lit a candle and prayed for all the victims of the terrible tragedy" of 11 September 2001, said the Pope. And he concluded his reminiscences of his U.S. visit with the Eucharistic celebration in New York's Yankee Stadium which he described as "a feast of faith and of brotherhood. ... To that Church which now faces the challenges of the present time, I had the joy of announcing "Christ our Hope', yesterday, today and forever".

  Prior to the audience, the Pope blessed a statue of St. John Leonardi (1541-1609), founder of the Clerks Regular of the Mother of God, which has been placed in a niche on the exterior wall of the Vatican Basilica. On 8 august 2006, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by virtue of the powers granted by Benedict XVI, proclaimed him patron saint of pharmacists.

Pastor John Hagee: "Thank you, Pope Benedict"

Perhaps you've already seen this column in The Washington Times, written by John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and author of several "end times" books based in premillennial dispensationalism. Hagee has been accused of being anti-Catholic, but he takes pains to counter those accusations:

During his recent visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI not only conducted mass and met with the Catholic faithful, but he made a series of public statements about the role that our Judeo-Christian faith can play during these challenging times. As an evangelical Protestant I happen to disagree with Pope Benedict on many issues of Christian doctrine and ritual. But when it comes to his moral vision for America and the world I have one thing to say in response to the Pope's visit: Amen. <snip>

My reaction to Pope Benedict"s visit may surprise some who have come to accept certain caricatures of my views of the Catholic Church. But as I have noted from the start, my critics have ignored the real point and strong emphasis of my words. I have indeed been quite zealous about condemning the past anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church. But I have been equally zealous in condemning Protestant anti-Semitism. Furthermore, as I noted in my 2006 book "Jerusalem Countdown," I have long viewed Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI as partners in this "righteous work" of overcoming our shared legacy of Christian anti-Semitism.

For decades I have taught that we Christians need to recognize that our roots are Jewish. As Christians we can only understand ourselves if we understand the Judaism from which we sprang. Pope Benedict made this very important point when he visited the Park East Synagogue in New York and shared that: "I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this." With visits and words such as these, Pope Benedict is continuing the important work of recognizing our enormous Christian debt of gratitude to the Jewish people.

Fair enough. I have no interest in questioning Hagee's sincerity, and his ecumenical attitude here is a pleasant surprise; after all, it's not something you'll likely find in the writings of, say, Tim LaHaye or Hal Lindsey. But a couple of things should be kept in mind:

• Hagee's beliefs, which flow from what might be called a "traditional" form of premillennial dispensationalism (as opposed to "progressive dispensationalism"), lead to the conclusion that the Jewish people have no need of the New Covenant because they already have a sufficient and equally valid covenant. Which means, strangely enough, that Hagee has more in common with Abraham Foxman than he does with many or most Evangelicals when it comes to the issue of evangelization and Jews. But Hagee's position is rooted in a rather logical take on John Nelson Darby's teachings, which were based on a heavenly-earthly dualism that insisted on a radical distinction between Christians (the heavenly people, according to Darby) and the Jews (who he called the earthly people of God). (See this June 2003 ZENIT interview for more.)

• Hagee has stated that Jesus was not the Messiah. This is apparently one of the key positions he defends in his recent book, In Defense of Israel. I've not read that book, but I suspect that his argument is simply a continuation of the first point: namely, (according to Hagee) since Christians and Jews have radically different covenants with God, it is wrong to say that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews—that is, until they accept Him as such after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming. Other dispensationalists have adopted similar views. For example, Charles Ryrie, author of the very influential work, Dispensationalism Today (first ed., 1965), wrote this in his 1986 book, Basic Theology:

“Gabriel announced to Mary that her Baby would have the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32-33). Throughout his earthly ministry Jesus’ Davidic kingship was offered to Israel (Matt. 2:2; 27:11; John 12:13), but He was rejected. . . . Because the King was rejected, the messianic, Davidic kingdom was (from a human viewpoint) postponed. Though He never ceases to be King and, of course, is King today as always, Christ is never designated as King of the Church . . . Though Christ is a King today, He does not rule as King. This awaits His second coming. Then the Davidic kingdom will be realized (Matt. 25:31; Rev 19:15; 20)” [Basic Theology, 259].

Ryrie's position is both confusing and untenable, but it is made necessary by the presuppositions of the dispensationalist system, at least in its older forms.

• Finally, the dispensationalist system is not only contrary to many key Catholic doctrines, it has often understood the Catholic Church as either being a system of antiChrist, or at least being the sort of global institution/religion that will facilitate the rule of antiChrist and a false, "one world religion." This perspective is not understood by those who hold it—as I once did—as being "anti-Catholic," but as simply being realistic about "Bible prophecy" and the world we live in. For Hagee and like-minded folks, salvation is about having a "personal relationship with Christ," which they believe has little or nothing to do with being a visible member of this or that church.

There is another, closely related radical dichotomy at work here, which is that between the spiritual and the material realms—itself based on the heavenly-earthly distinction noted above (I examine this at length and in detail in my book, Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?). For the typical dispensationalist (and most fundamentalists), the "Church" consists of all those who are spiritually united in saving faith in Jesus Christ (here's a good example of what I'm referring to). The church you attend is a secondary issue. And so there exists the notion that one can be perfectly saved and yet belong to an imperfect, local church. Thus, from this perspective, a Catholic can be "saved," (by the skin of his teeth!) even if the Catholic Church is not just flawed, but even apostate and blasphemous.

Hagree is absolutely right to denounce anti-Semitism. But there are some serious problems with his theological ideas, especially how he understands the relationship between the Old and the New Covenants, the person of Jesus Christ, and the nature of the Church. For me, frankly, the key issue is not if John Hagee is anti-Catholic. Rather, it's whether or not some of his core beliefs are actually Christian, even in the most general, "mere Christianity" sense of the word.

• Eschatological Fact and Fiction: Catholicism and Dispensationalism Compared | Carl E. Olson
• The Jews and the Second Coming | Roy H. Schoeman
• The End Times: The Secret Hidden From the Universe | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality

The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality | Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J. | Ignatius Insight

An ecclesiastical inquisition in Europe was a court system adapted from Roman law. It was an institutional tribunal charged with protecting orthodox religious doctrine and church discipline. From 1414-1418 (Constance) and 1438 (Basle), the church was shaped by lawyers who were consulted for the councils. Canonists were needed for church order and to make crucial distinctions.

Jurists keep good records, clean records and abundant records. Curialists write neatly. Scribes are taught to be legible. Because of this legal infrastructure, we can today study the inquisitions, unlike some other institutions which are lost to us due to a lack of quality documentation. Fortuitously, inquisition material survived European wars. We should also use the plural and speak of "inquisitions" since there were a number of them in different times and places. We now use the capital letter "I" to refer to a specific historical inquisition, such as the Venetian or Spanish, or even the earliest one during the Albigensian era in southern France. For the Inquisition and its procedures in Italy during Galileo's time, we have John Tedeschi's The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (1991).

Due to the work of newer historians, such as Edward Peters in his Inquisition (1988), we use The Inquisition to speak of the mythology surrounding these institutions. Such mythology passed down to us as folklore, the result largely of successful Protestant anti-Roman propaganda, particularly coming from the Spanish Netherlands.

Read the entire article...

Cardinal Egan criticizes Giuliani for receiving Communion

UPDATE: Dr. Ed Peters gives Cardinal Egan four cheers.

From The New York Post:

Rudy Giuliani should not have received Holy Communion during the pope's visit to New York because the former presidential candidate and mayor supports abortion rights, Cardinal Edward Egan said Monday.

Egan, head of the New York Archdiocese, said he had "an understanding" with Giuliani that he would not take Communion. He said Giuliani broke that understanding when he received Communion while attending Pope Benedict XVI's Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Giuliani's spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, said he is willing to meet with the cardinal but added that his faith "is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential."

Well, his "faith" might be a "deeply personal matter," but reception of the Eucharist is not just a "personal matter," but a public act of worship and a declaration that one is in right relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church:

Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance. (CCC 1415)

Funny how certain beliefs and actions are always "deeply personal," while others aren't. For example, if a Catholic man—any Catholic, not just a politician—was seen hot-tubbing and drinking with a group of teenage girls, would that be considered out of bounds to take him to task for it? I hope not. So how is it that publicly supporting abortion, which is clearly condemned by the Church (both abortion and support thereof), is magically safe from scrutiny, while other actions aren't?

Giuliani's response is a perfect summary of an essential problem among Catholics in the U.S. today: many of them believe that faith is "private," while the rest of their lives are public and essentially disconnected from their "private" faith. Amy Welborn touches on this in an excellent post today, in which she reflects on what the Pope's visit meant and what should come from it:

And why? What has disconnected us? That’s another blog post, but it all goes back to the last fifty years - not as any purposeful thing, but as the almost inevitable consequences of the confluence of circumstances both within and outside the Church.  Circumstances in which sincere and well-meaning initiatives and movements to help people connect more intimately with Christ happened in a context that ended up leaving us more at sea, in many ways. There’s no blame - it’s just what happened. Perhaps it was even necessary. But the point is, when you take a rather urgent sense that perhaps there were some areas of Church life that were functioning as obstacles to Christ, rather than doors, combine that with Scriptural and historical studies which had the ultimate effect of casting doubt on the trustworthiness of anything we think we know about what the Scriptures or the Church tells us about Christ, and then combine that with ideological battles and then mix all of that up in a culture in which authority is a bad word, relativism reigns and the Catholic Church is not, to its great surprise, the only game in town…you have massive confusion as to why we are doing what we are doing and what we are doing at all.

In other words…the “new evangelization” called for by these last two Popes is not about reaffirming Catholic identity in some abstract or institutional sense. It’s about confidently believing that Jesus Christ is the answer and then just as confidently helping people see and experience Christ in the Church: in its spiritual tradition, sacramental life, teachings, artistic heritage and sacrificial service to the poor, sick and dying.

In other words: Cultural Catholicism,  RIP.

Read Amy's entire post.

Was it Benedict's fault that pro-abort politicians received Communion?

In today's edition of The Washington Post, Robert Novak asks the question:

In the aftermath of the U.S. visit by Pope Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics are asking a troublesome question: Did pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal Masses indicate the pope had softened on the abortion question?

Read the entire article.

A welcome shot across the bow of the bloody ship...

... Planned Barrenhood, fired by Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland, Oregon:

Most of us have already learned that Planned Parenthood of Columbia-Willamette hopes to move its headquarters to a site on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Beech Street in Portland. Considerable opposition to this project has been voiced by many of our fellow citizens, people of all faiths, including Catholics. More than a year ago an organization entitled Precious Children of Portland was started with the very specific goal of stopping Planned Parenthood from building a new facility on MLK Jr. Boulevard. The larger goal is to remove Planned Parenthood from all our neighborhoods. Some thirteen PPFA (Planned Parenthood Federation of America) facilities can be found in Portland’s metropolitan area.

Why all the opposition? Frankly, too many of our people, including Catholics, fail to understand the disingenuous approach of PPFA in promoting its cause. I fear that many of our Catholic people have been taken in by the propaganda. I believe it is important for us to support the efforts of Precious Children of Portland and to stop the killing of unborn children in our community.

Read the entire column, which appeared in the April 24th edition of The Catholic Sentinel. The location chosen by PPFA for its new headquarters is in an area of Portland with a high percentage of black residents. The Precious Children of Portland website offers these sobering numbers:

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America.

Planned Parenthood is putting a huge abortion center in this area (Beech St. and MLK) with over 43% African Americans.  The average African American population for all of Portland is under 7%.

Planned Parenthood performs more abortions in their facilities than any other organization in our country and admitted they performed 264,943 abortions in 2005.  They will probably perform over 1000 abortions a year on MLK.

Visit the Precious Children of Portland site for further info. For more on how Planned Barrenhood targets blacks and other minorities, visit the BlackGenocide.org website.

Don't agree with the Pope? Here are some "solutions"

It's common knowledge that Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, is less than taken, shall we say, with the Catholic Church. (Note, for example, his insistence that Catholics refrain from talking about the Gospel with Jews, an activity that Foxman apparently believes is "proselytizing".) And he's certainly entitled to his opinion, although I think he's a bit cranky about things, as evidenced by his remarks about Pope Benedict's inter-religious meeting in Washington, D.C. last week (as reported by the New Jersey Jewish Standard):

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, who attended a meeting with the pope at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., last Thursday, called it "more show that substance, but for the Vatican even show is substance."

The fact that the pope invited the approximately 50 Jewish representatives to meet with him in a private room was an important gesture, said Foxman, because he "greeted us on the occasion of a Jewish festival, which basically was a recognition of religious Jewish life, Jewish faith, and Jewish rituals, and had that significance."

But there was no real dialogue, in Foxman’s view.

And we know Foxman is all about dialogue! But when he tries to rewrite history and Church teaching by misrepresenting the actions and words of Pope John Paul II, well, that's a bit much:

According to Foxman, the pope’s visit to the synagogue was more significant than the private meeting with the Jewish representatives, which he saw as a continuation of a policy began by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, when he visited the Great Synagogue of Rome in 1986.

"When Pope John Paul went to that synagogue he changed the dogma of Catholicism, which believes that Christianity superseded Judaism and that it was the new Judaism," Foxman said. "It was a public statement that Judaism exists, that Judaism lives, and that it has vitality."

Whoa! John Paul II "changed the dogma of Catholicism"? Problem #1: Not possible. Problem #2: It didn't happen. Problem #3: It definitely didn't happen.  Here is John Paul II's speech, given on April 13, 1986, and here is the key section:

We are all aware that, among the riches of this paragraph no. 4 of Nostra Aetate, three points are especially relevant. I would like to underline them here, before you, in this truly unique circumstance. The first is that the Church of Christ discovers her "bond" with Judaism by "searching into her own mystery" (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.) The Jewish religion is not "extrinsic" to us, but in a certain way is "intrinsic" to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.

The second point noted by the Council is that no ancestral or collective blame can be imputed to the Jews as a people for "what happened in Christ's passion" (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.) Not indiscriminately to the Jews of that time, nor to those who came afterwards, nor to those of today. So any alleged theological justification for discriminatory measures or, worse still, for acts of persecution is unfounded. The Lord will judge each one "according to his own works," Jews and Christians alike (cf. Rom 2:6)

The third point that I would like to emphasize in the Council's Declaration is a consequence of the second. Notwithstanding the Church's awareness of her own identity, it is not lawful to say that the Jews are "repudiated or cursed," as it this were taught or could be deduced from the Sacred Scriptures of the Old or the New Testament (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.).  Indeed, the Council had already said in this same text of Nostra Aetate, but also in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 16, referring to Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans (11:28-29), that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.

I'm not sure how accurate this translation is (there isn't an English translation of this speech on the Vatican site; here's the Italian translation), as the Vatican's English translation of Nostra Aetate says, "Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." (par 4; emphasis added). Regardless, that description of the Church as the "new people of God" and John Paul II's affirmation of Nostra Aetate expose Foxman's reading as very tendentious, if not downright disingenuous. 

There are other ways to try to get Popes to agree with you. This one, succinctly expressed in a letter to the editor, comes from Florida:

Pope Benedict has returned home with the love of the Roman Catholic faithful still ringing in his ears, as Pope John Paul II did before him.

But I can’t help but think that some of the policies of these two traditionalists must have the pope of the 1960’s, Pope John, spinning in his grave.

If Pope John were alive today and confronted with the scourge of AIDS in sub-Sahara Africa and elsewhere, he undoubtedly would proclaim “Given the spread of AIDS on the one hand and the use of condoms on the other, AIDS is by far the greater evil.”

Pope John was very special. 

Roger M. Sherwood 
Vero Beach 

This could be called "putting words in the mouth of..." or "claiming to know the mind of...", but I'd like to call it the "Argument from Retro-active Ex Cathedra Statements That A Pope Would Have Made If Still Alive and He Agreed With Me." Yes, Mr. Sherwood, Blessed John XXIII was special, but not in the way you indicate.

Finally, there is the more common approach, which is not so much an attempt to rewrite the Church's teachings, but to categorically compare hot button issues of the day with the Church's doctrine—and then congratulate yourself on embracing "the degrading slavery of being a child of [your] age," as Chesterton put it. Case in point, an op-ed in the Louisiana State University student newspaper, which calmly meets a multitude of clichés and politically-correct tropes and eagerly surrenders to each one in turn:

My Facebook.com profile says I am a "Cafeteria Catholic" - I choose the aspects of Catholicism I will actually follow while leaving the undesirable scraps off my plate.

Interpretation: I don't eat my vegetables. Back off, Mom! Who do you think you are?

Nevertheless, I am a confirmed Catholic. I may not attend Mass every week or even feel sorry for all of my sins, but I identify myself with the Church and respect its traditions.

Interpretation: Feed me, Mom! But stop giving me vegetables.

The first problem the Church must change is its approach to abortion. I do not intend to condone the practice of abortion - I personally oppose it - but the Church's past threats to excommunicate any abortion rights political leader is abhorrent.

Yes, it's an outrage that people who support the killing of the unborn and who do so in direct violation of Church teaching should face any sort of criticism or consequences. The horror! The suffering! Hey, where's my steak? Hurry up, Mom! I'm starving!

Sure, approximately 46 million unborn children die each year through abortions, according to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform's Web site.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Numbers. Just numbers, Imagine if he had written this: Sure, approximately [number] minorities are killed on the streets each year... Or: Sure, approximately [number] women are raped each year... Or: Sure, approximately [number] children die of starvation each year... I'm not saying he's flippant about abortion; I'm saying he's intellectually and morally stunted.

But the Catholic Church must address its backward views on contraceptives. Ninety-three percent of all abortions conducted in the United States are because the child is unwanted or inconvenient, according to the Web site.

See, it's the Church's fault that people have sex and women get pregnant. And it's the Church's fault that people choose abortion. And it's the Church's fault that people get cancer, people use meth, people fight at soccer games, people go to soccer games, people eat beef, people breathe air, people watch "American Idol", etc., etc. It all makes sense now.

Abstinence-only sex education is ineffective and unrealistic.

That's true if you think abstinence-only sex education should produce great violinists or help kids learn algebra faster. But teaching children the value of abstaining from sex until marriage does seem to have a better chance of reducing abortion than saying, "Hey, have sex and then blame the Church if you get pregnant!"

While the Church may find premarital sex morally reprehensible, it must face reality and concede that contraceptives can help reduce the number of abortions among women who find their pregnancies inconvenient.

Yes, because if we were able to get rid of everything that was an "inconvenience," the world would be such a great place in which to practice things that are convenient for us, like doing whatever we want without having to be responsible for our actions. Welcome to Hugh Hefner Nation! Mom, bring me more steak! Mom! Mom? Where'd she go?

There's some more of this sorry nonsense (about homosexuality and priestettes), but I'll skip to the end:

As a Catholic, it is not easy for me to doubt the policies of my chosen religion, but I feel the Church must address these questions. ... The Church must improve itself in at least these areas to remain a viable refuge for those seeking more in their lives.

Obviously he really struggled and wrestled and valiantly grappled with these issues, but I suspect he stopped doing so once "Big Brother XVIII" came on at 8:00. If he had really, honestly thought about his "policy" recommendations enough, he would have realized what he had to do: go here.

And that, dear reader, concludes this episode of "How To Avoid Serious Consideration of What the Catholic Church Teaches." Next week: "From Tone-Deaf to Mariah Carey Clone In Eight Simple Steps (Singing Talent Not Required and Plastic Surgery is Optional)."

Dr. Peters: Rome has four options re: Bishop Lugo

I'm glad Dr. Ed Peters is all over this situation in Paraguay. He writes:

To his credit, Lugo attempted to give up his clerical status by petitioning a return to the lay state. But, to its credit, Rome said no, observing that clerical status at the episcopal level is not something that can be surrendered. Lugo refused to stand down for election, but even then Rome did not respond with its heaviest censure, excommunication; instead, Rome suspended Lugo from ministry, leaving his status as a member of the clergy intact. For now.

The recent apology from Lugo (again he seems to be desirous of minimizing the ecclesiastical harm his actions have caused) is not yet sufficient for this problem, though a superficial reading of Canon 1347.2 might suggest otherwise: Lugo's apology amounts to "I am truly sorry that I have caused scandal by gravely violating ecclesiastical law; I will continue violate it." That, folks, is simply not an apology. However "sincerely" it is said.

Read the entire post and find out what four options Rome has in addressing this situation.

Suspended prelate/president-elect of Paraguay, asks Pope Benedict XVI...

... for forgiveness. ZENIT reports:

The president-elect of Paraguay, a suspended Catholic bishop, asked forgiveness from the Church for the sorrow his disobedience of canon law has caused.

Fernando Lugo asked forgiveness particularly to Benedict XVI on Monday after having been elected Sunday as Paraguay's next president. "If my attitude and my disobedience of canon law caused sorrow, I sincerely ask forgiveness to the people of the Church. In particular, I ask pardon to Pope Benedict XVI," Lugo said on the radio channel Fe y Alegria (Faith and Joy).

According to canon law, clerics cannot run for political offices.

<snip>

Lugo was named a bishop in 1994. He had since asked Benedict XVI to be able to "renounce his ecclesial ministry […] to take up again the condition of a layperson in the Church."

The petition was not accepted because, as Cardinal Re noted, "the episcopacy is a service accepted freely forever."

"With sincere sorrow," Cardinal Re announced his duty of placing on the bishop "the penalty of suspension 'a divinis,' according to Canon 1333 §1" of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon 1333 §1 states:

Can. 1333 §1. Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits:

1/ either all or some acts of the power of orders;
2/ either all or some acts of the power of governance;
3/ the exercise of either all or some of the rights or functions attached to an office.

Dr. Ed Peters has much more over at "In the Light of the Law."

Is Benedict going to expell Lugo from the clerical state?

From Dr. Ed Peters:

Pope Benedict XVI is believed to be mulling over the possibility of expelling a bishop, Fernando Lugo, from the clerical state. That would certainly be a first under the 1983 Code (the Jacques Gaillot case in 1995 was not a precedent; Gaillot was removed from office, but not from the clerical state), and I'm pretty sure it never happened under the 1917 Code.

Read the entire post on the "In the Light of the Law" blog.

What will be the long-term impact of Benedict's visit?

From an Associated Press piece titled, "Impact of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to US to be seen" (April 21, 2008):

Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. visit left behind the impression of a compassionate and candid leader who has made a successful transition from professor to pope.

But it's uncertain whether the pontiff's six-day pilgrimage, which ended Sunday, will make a lasting imprint on a country he obviously admires.

"In the short term, the trip was an enormous success, probably beyond anyone's expectations, including those of the pope himself," said Russell Shaw, a Catholic writer and former spokesman for the U.S. bishops' conference. "Whether the trip is going to have a significant outcome regarding the large problems facing American Catholicism, that's anyone guess."

Shaw, of course, has some experience with papal visits, having helped organize two of Pope John Paul II's visits while working for the American bishop's conference. From later in the report:

Shaw, however, is skeptical that Benedict's first U.S. visit as pope, however well-received, will reverse U.S. Catholicism's troubling trends: declines in Mass attendance, a priest shortage, hemorrhaging membership and struggles to meet the needs of a fast-growing Hispanic population.

"I saw the same phenomenon at the time of John Paul II," Shaw said. "The big crowds, the enthusiasm, the charisma. Looking back 20 or 25 years later — in terms of anything you can quantify in American Catholicism — it's all been downhill."

Two others sections of this AP piece caught my attention. First:

John Allen Jr., a senior correspondent with the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly, said Benedict came off as candid, kind and comfortable with the adoring crowds.

"Basically, he seems like a nice guy," Allen said, "which already is an advance over what some of his publicity was three years ago when he was elected."

Allen does much fine reporting, for which he should be commended, but it shouldn't go unobserved, I think, that some of the publicity—decidedly negative publicity—that greatly influenced perceptions of Ratzinger/Benedict came from Allen, whose 2000 book, Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith (Continuum, 2000), was strongly criticized by many close to Ratzinger as being badly skewed and often quite unfair. For instance, Fr. D. Vincent Twomey, author of Pope Benedict XVI: The Conscience of Our Age, took Allen's book to task in a review published in Homiletic & Pastoral Review:

For Ratzinger, in the final analysis, remains for Allen the bogeyman that frightens most liberals, the main source of division and demoralization in the contemporary Church. He is the power-wielding churchman whose later theological views, in contrast with his earlier "liberal" stance, has had the effect, inter alia, of "legitimizing the concentration of power in the hands of the pope and his immediate advisors in the Roman curia" (p. 309). In other words, despite all his efforts to be fair, and Allen does make considerable efforts in that direction, the Cardinal remains the ogre.

I mention this, in part, because it has been pointed out over on the Catholics In the Public Square blog that Allen, in the wake of the Holy Father's visit, has made some dubious observations about Benedict's views of pro-abortion Catholic politicians. I also mention it because it's more than a little annoying when some in the media somberly judge the Pope to be a "nice guy" when they were responsible, to a significant degree, in creating the perception that he was not only not nice, but a reactionary nasty.

Secondly, the AP piece makes a rather misleading observation:

Benedict also lamented divisions within the church. Some American Catholics emphasize the church's conservative moral stances on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage; others champion