Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

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)

The Feast of the Transfiguration and the "deificum lumen"

On this great Feast Day, some thoughts on the Transfiguration of the Lord from Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis:

The event of the Transfiguration is essential for us to understand that life in Christ is about fullness of life now. Christianity is not a religion of the continual postponement of joy and delight, as some would like to caricature the Christian virtue of hope. The Transfiguration is the experience of the fullness of divine Presence, action, communication, and glory now, in our very midst, in this world of passingness and disappointment. ...

No longer do we have thunder and lightening as at Sinai: "The appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire on top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel" (Ex 24:17). Instead, a serene light now shines from Jesus' person as from an uncreated sun. It is an important feature of this theophany that Jesus is not an object reflecting light from any other source; rather, light is flowing directly from him and out of him, as text says, "His face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light." In this way the divine nature indwelling the humanity of Jesus becomes fully manifest.

When Jesus says, "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12), he does not mean it in a metaphorical way. In his person habitually resides the uncreated light of God's glory, the deificum lumen—the Light that, being divine, divinizes all it touches. And this Light is so at home within Jesus' humanity that the glory can penetrate the humanity harmoniously as a most perfect instrument for the communication of the divine life, without any harm coming to Christ's created nature. Here on Tabor we have before us the living and perfect icon of human nature divinized by being taken up into divine life.

There is a dramatic intertwining here of the necessity of the Cross and the reality of suffering (16:21-26) with the divine glory of Jesus, which bursts out most dazzlingly, thought only momentarily, in the Transfiguration and which will become fully and permanently revealed only at the Second Coming (16:27-28). The mention of Jesus' "coming in his Father's glory" at the end of time is the immediate textual prelude to the account of the Transfiguration, just as this event is itself the historical anticipation of both the Resurrection and the Parousia. In both his teaching about suffering and in his transformation before their eyes, Jesus is confirming the faith of this inner nucleus of the Church, represented by Peter, James, and John, against the coming Passion.

From Fire of Mercy, Heart of the World: Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Volume II (Ignatius, 2003), 551-2.

• Readings for today (USCCB site)

• The Gospel of St. Matthew: The Unity of the Life of Jesus | Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis | An excerpt from the preface to Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word (Vol. II).

Yawn. Speak for yerself.

A June 24th opinion piece in The Age bears the title, "Catholicism should lower the drawbridge", and the subhead, "Some changes to church doctrines would make it more appealing."

That should read: "Some changes to church doctrines would make it more appealing to me."

Any guesses what changes should be made according the author, Barney Zwartz, who is religion editor of the newspaper?

1. More reverent Masses with increased number of Latin hymns.
2. Improved catechesis that stresses objective truth over subjective responses.
3. Better homilies and an emphasis on vocations and improvements in seminaries.
4. Priestettes, condoms, and more power for anti-Vatican laity.

Hey, how'd you know it was #4? Yep:

They want to curb papal power and the Curia — the Vatican bureaucracy that is virtually all male, all clerical and unaccountable to the wider church — and to re-examine certain doctrines, peripheral accretions over time, that could be readily changed. These include allowing married priests, contraception and greater involvement by laymen and women.

Ah yes, greater involvement by laymen and women. Like a certain typical parish I attended a couple years ago that featured some 12 to 15 women up front along with one man, the priest. He was allowed to say a few things here and there, but it was obvious who running the show—and it was a show, complete with fourth-rate music and fifth-rate banners draped on the wannabe-Costco walls. At times the only way I knew I wasn't at a Protestant service was because Protestant music is never that bad. Ugh.

One more nugget of knowledge from Zwartz:

Despite all this, there is a strong similarity (not coincidental) between Christian and democratic values, such as equality, freedom, conscience and human dignity. Politically, these values are protected by the constitution, universal suffrage and an array of checks and balances. Why shouldn't the church operate the same way? Why not let laypeople vote for the Pope? They did for the first 1000 years. And it took centuries for today's authoritarian structure to emerge out of a variety of local systems.

That's right, the Acts of the Apostles doesn't even exist. Don't bother reading, say, chapter 15. Or what the early Christians actually said. After all, none of that is as appealing as creating one's own Catholicism For Me, shouting the motto: "Our kingdom for condoms!" 

• The Role of the Laity: An Examination of Vatican II and Christifideles Laici | Carl E. Olson

Who Is "The Universe" And Why Does It Care What I Think?

Who Is "The Universe" And Why Does It Care What I Think? | Mary Beth Bonacci | Ignatius Insight

"The Secret" is about a lot more than just positive thinking.

So Oprah knows "The Secret."

Of course, nothing remains a secret for long once it's been discussed on Oprah, what with her 80 jillion daily viewers and all. And so it is with The Secret, a million-selling movie and book about The Universe and its "law of attraction" that will grant us whatever our hearts desire, provided we think positive thoughts and believe that they will come to pass. The Universe hears our thoughts and delivers. According to the movie, "It works every time, with every person."

The Secret is very, very popular. Oprah helped make it so, having devoted several shows to discussing its various manifestations. I saw one of those shows recently. The discussion was about relationships and The Secret Apparently The Universe is a matchmaker. If we just imagine the perfect mate and focus our thoughts on him or her, we'll soon be planning a wedding. It works every time, for every person.

Except when it doesn't.

Read the entire column...

Watch Dr. Paul Kengor on C-SPAN 2 this weekend...

Kengor, co-author of The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand, has been interviewed by C-SPAN's "Book TV"; the interview will air several times this weekend, on both Saturday, June 14th, and Sunday, June 15th. Go to the "Book TV" schedule page and do a search for "Kengor" for times when the 13-minute interview will air.

• 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
• Roman Catholics for Obama '08 | Paul Kengor | Some Catholics are insisting that Senator Barack Obama is "the best and right candidate for Catholic voters." Are they correct?

Chaos. Order. Music.

Next to getting married, having kids, going to Confession, and reading every single Bloom County comic strip ever created by Berke Breathed, one of the best ways to learn a few things about yourself—both good and bad—is to build a house. Two summers ago my wife and I did just that (co-general contractors ofsorts), despite being warned that embarking on such a mad course of action would test our marriage, destroy our sanity, and completely obliterate any semblance of normality in our lives.

I'm happy to say our marriage is fine (my wife says, "No comment." Just kidding. I hope.) and my therapist insists all of my personalities are doing great, despite what they sometimes tell me at odd hours of the night—like right now, at 4:36 a.m.

Long story made short, we looked at about 5 trillion house plans and finally settled on one in which my office would be on the bottom story, near the front door, by the foot of the stairs. Hmmm...now that I put it like that, I see that I didn't understand a few things about myself: namely, that having an office in such a  location, combined with the presence of very active young children, is not really conducive to long stretches (10 minutes or more) of quiet work time. Far from it. Don't get me wrong: I really like working from home. Why, this month alone I estimate I'll save roughly $26,160 on gas. (However, since I am self-employed, I do have to pay about $300 a year in taxes for the city's bus system—a bus system I've never used.). It's also great being able to see my wife and kids throughout the day. And, of course, I love working in my pajamas. For days on end. Without shaving.

All of which leads to a dramatic announcement that will have absolutely no affect on you or the price of gas where you live: I am moving my office from the bottom floor to the second floor of my house. In fact, I'm already in the process. Simply put, it's a chaotic pain in the knees and back. And it is, unfortunately, taking some time, what with numerous book cases, some 5,000 books, a large desk, and my huge collection of lava lamps (okay, I don't have any lava lamps. No one should.). So if I'm a bit scarce on the blog for a few days, I hope you understand. My other hope is that this move will help life in the Olson household flow a bit more smoothly. Not only should it help my work, it should prove better for homeschooling the young 'uns and for hiding from those relentless Mormon missionaries.

That's it for chaos and order. Now, music.

As a reader astutely noted, I recently purchased a new iMac. It is, as best I can figure, the eighth or ninth Mac I've owned over the years, having been a happy Apple user since 1985. (Our family is now in full communion with Mac, my wife having ditched her Dell a couple of years ago.) Now that I actually have a hard drive with a few free gigabytes, I'm attempting to digitize most, if not all, of my music. This has led to me saying all sorts of deep and insightful things, such as: "I forgot I owned that CD!" and "Oh, there's that Chicago 14/15/16/17/18/etc. disc I've been looking for!" and "Why did Chicago put out 527 albums, but Boston only produced 5?"

Currently, my iTunes now has 17,974 songs. And I only have about a thousand CDs to go! Of course, I'll save time by not loading anything by Britney Spears, Ozzy Osbourne, Yanni, Slayer, the cast of "Cats," and Kenny Chesney, made all the easier because I don't own anything by those artists people. Since it has been a while (March 26, 2008) since I've "played" the "Random iTunes Playlist' game, I thought this might be a good time for it. Why? Because it is 5:17 a.m., that's why. And getting earlier by the minute.

But first, speaking of music, a couple of quick remarks on the recently concluded season of "American Idol." (Surely you were hoping for these very important remarks?) Last week I asked my good friend, Dr. Anthony Clark, what he thought of this season of AI. And he said, with a nearly angelic honesty, "What is 'American Idol'?" And I thought, "I envy you and how clueless you are about popular culture. Your reward lies in heaven." And then we went back to talking about Derrida, Chinese martyrs, and my new iMac.

You see, I once was a fan of AI, the only "reality show" I've ever watched, for the simple reasons that I like singing, I like (good) pop music, I like singing competitions, and I like watching caustic people (Simon Cowell) and strange people (Paula Abdul) and people who say "Doooggggg!" (Randy Jackson). But AI has run its course; it needs to be shut down. Pronto. Here are five reasons why:

1. Because it's no longer about discovering talent. It's now about rediscovering talent who once had record contracts with major labels and have performed professionally for years.

2. Because Clive Davis takes every winner and/or runner-up and creates an over-produced, maudlin pile of sonic mush that has no redeeming value whatsoever. "Pop" and "schlock" don't have to be synonymous, even if they often are.

3. Because it simply isn't right that a contestant performed a mediocre rendition of Jeff Buckley's version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" and was told by Simon—who should know better!—that it was "brilliant!" No, it wasn't. It was mediocre. This was brilliant.

4. Because it was very wrong that a contestant (David Cook, the eventual winner) performed a decent note-for-note take of Chris Cornell's dark, rather startling rendition of Michael Jackson's "Billy Jean," and then was treated as though he was some sort of revolutionary genius, since the judges are apparently clueless about what is going on in the world of pop/rock music. Not a good sign. (The funny thing is that Cornell apparently did the cover initially as a joke, but then discovered a decent song underneath all of that thrilling production.)

5. Because Seal should not be doing this. Please stop the madness. Please. (For the record, I saw Seal in concert in 1995, and he was exceptional. One of my favorite all-time pop artists.)

Okay, here are randomly selected songs from my iTunes, with no skipping, waffling, or wiggling, along with appropriate comments:

1. "Mourning Air", by Portishead. Trip-hop torch music, beautifully and a bit creepy.
2. "My Buffalo Girl," by Bill Frisell. Atmospheric Americana jazz guitar.
3. "Take The Coltrane," by John Coltrane. One of 'Trane's more light-hearted cuts, from "The Impulse Years!" retrospective set.
4. "Sacred Ground," by Living Colour. I like their first couple of records much better, on which the message and music weren't so unrelentingly heavy.
5. "If Only You Knew," by Yes. From "The Ladder," a really solid CD from 1999. Jon Anderson is in fine voice.
6. "Ki - Gen," by DJ Krush. From a compilation ("Global Grooves"). Pretty good, especially since there isn't any rapping, something that mars some of his work.
7. "You Again", by Kate Havnevik. From "Melankton," an excellent electronica album, similar in sound to early Björk, but not nearly as, um, whacky.
8. "My Little Town," by Simon & Garfunkel. I have never heard this S&G song before. Pleasant. Gets a bit funky toward the end.
9. "Choralpartita Sei gegruBet, Jesu gutig BWV 768 (3)," by J.S. Bach. I'm not much for organ music, but it's Bach, so it's good.
10. "Mission Impossible," by Joe Locke. Well-known theme song by jazz vibraphonist. Fun!

And ten more:

11. "Cat Eyes," by A.C.T. Swedish progressive rock with finger snaps and big guitar hooks anyone?
12. "Stella By Starlight", by Ellis & Branford Marsalis. Beautiful playing by father (piano) and son (sax).
13. "I'll Never Get Tired Of You," by King's X. From "faith hope love," arguably the best album produced by a criminally underrated band.
14. "Glad Tidings," by Van Morrison. Pure bliss. From "Moondance," one of my favorite albums.
15. "Big Top," by Chris Potter. One of the finest sax players around; from "Underground," his most "fusion-y" album to date. Exceptional.
16. "There She Goes," by Chris Isaak. He's known for his voice, but his songwriting is just as good, even if he sticks to three basic themes: new love, heartbreak, and lost love.
17. "Come a Day," by Beth Hirsch. Lovely voice.
18. "Original Fire," by Chris Cornell. A live, acoustic cut recorded in the BBC studios when Cornell was with Audioslave.
19. "Got A Suitcase, Got Regrets," by Tom McRae. The English folk singer is a very good lyricist.
20. "Try A Little Tenderness," by Frank Sinatra. Early Sinatra is sometimes ignored, but his tone and phrasing were phenomenal.

And now, back to moving the office.

George Weigel, In Depth

George Weigel, author of many excellent books, is the guest on the June 2008 edition of C-SPAN2's "In Depth" program, a three-hour interview in which he discusses a wide range of topics: Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Europe, Islam, and much more. The entire three-hour program can be viewed online (click the "Watch" button on the upper-right hand of this page). The show apparently will air on television on Saturday, June 7th, at 8:00 a.m. (EST). More info here.

• George Weigel: Man of Letters: A July 2004 Ignatius Insight interview with Weigel about his book, Letters to a Young Catholic.

Books by George Weigel available from Ignatius Press:

• Letters to a Young Catholic
• Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II
• The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God
• The Courage to Be Catholic
• God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church
• Faith, Reason and the War Against Jihadism

Cardinal Kasper: It's time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity"

From The Catholic Herald:

Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".

He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?

"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."

He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.

Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.

"We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis."

Read the entire piece.

ABC News = "All Benedict Clichés"

This May 2nd ABC News piece goes looking for the "softer" and "gentler" Pope Benedict XVI, breaks out some burnt out clichés, and produces a vague "story" about how the media responds when the subject of a media-created stereotype fails to go along with that stereotype:

During his recent visit, Benedict showed a side the public had never seen before. He became the first pope to visit an American synagogue and noticeably doted on babies.

Benedict has, however, visited a synagogue in Germany (in 2005), and he has apparently doted on non-American children. If by "the public" is meant the "American public", then this makes some sense. But since this was Benedict's first visit to the U.S., I'm inclined to conclude that nearly everything would be a "first": Benedict takes his first step on U.S. soil. Benedict breathes his first breath of U.S. air. Benedict makes first visit to the White House. Benedict says his first Mass at Yankee Stadium. And so forth.

He's been pontiff for three years, but for many Americans, Benedict was still best known as the pope who followed John Paul II.

Hey, are Americans smart or what? (Raucous laughter.) I bet most Americans also know that Benedict is quite likely the pope who comes prior to the pope who follows him. This is very good stuff!

He seemed to be the very opposite of Paul, who was something of a rock star among Catholics and chipped away at the Iron Curtain and won over the hearts of Catholic youth with his very public warmth.

Seemed to be. Why? To whom? Really now, shouldn't a journalist be interested in getting past stupid caricatures that don't help explain, clarify, or demonstrate anything? Why, I can think of quite a few similarities between the two men: Catholic priests, intellectually gifted, well-educated, theological experts at Vatican II, dialogued with Jews and others, addressed secularism and relativism and numerous related problems, worked closely together for over 20 years, and so forth and so on.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- as Benedict used to be known -- was considered to be a stern hard-liner. He served John Paul II as "defender of the faith," responsible for protecting Catholic orthodoxy, earning the nickname of "God's Rottweiler."

Again, why? Seriously: who was it that labeled Ratzinger as "a stern hard-liner" and named him "God's Rottweiler"? Who is it who comes up with all of the negative, often infantile, nicknames? Who has promoted those nicknames heavily? And honestly, did anyone in the MSM really think that John Paul II wasn't a "hard-liner" who upheld Church teaching? Anyone?

But Benedict's first visit to the United States was one that portrayed him as cuddly and soft. This has led some to question whether the pope so many had written off as a tough guy is really a teddy bear in disguise.

What is this: a news report or a note in a high school yearbook? "hi jimmy. i'm so glad u and i got to no each other this year. at first i thought u were stuck on yerself. but yer actually really cool. yer like a teddy bare! yer friend. xxx ooo, beth." And how, I must ask, does a visit "portray" someone?

Now, however, the world stage has seen this warmer side. Many are watching and waiting, to see whether the soft side of the pope will emerge more frequently, particularly during his trip to Australia this summer -- now that he's seen how well it went over in the states.

What is this: a piece of journalism or a gossip column for People magazine? "The in-demand actor is considered warm and approachable, a spring personality with a summer wardrobe, whose presence melts hearts and brings smiles to the most hardened industry veterans. The emergence of his effusive, sunny side has been a welcome surprise, especially since it was only three years ago that he, in a fit of drunken rage, stormed off of the 'Tonight Show' after being asked if he still tortured small animals and listened to Rush Limbaugh."

Well, enough fun for now. The ABC piece was apparently the print version of a "report" given by reporter Claire Shipman. NewBusters.org has the full story, including audio and a transcript, of Shipman's shipwreck of a report.

Happy Birthday, Papa Benedict!

Joseph Ratzinger was born 81 years ago today, in 1927, in Marktl am Inn in Upper Bavaria,, on Holy Saturday. In Salt of the Earth (pp 42-3), he said this about being born just before Easter:

...I'm please to have been born on the vigil of Easter, already on the way to Easter, but not yet there, for it is still veiled. I find that a very good day, which in some sense hints at my conception of history and my own situation: on the threshold of Easter, but not yet through the door.

Little Joseph was baptized four hours after being born, at 8:30 in the morning.

And the coincidence that I was born at the very moment when the Church was preparing her baptismal water, so that I was the first person baptized with the new water, does indeed mean something to me. Because it situates me particularly in the context of Easter and also binds birth and baptism in a very suggestive way.

Read more about the Pope's childhood, in his own words. Christopher Blosser has another, similar quote, from Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977,  along with a nice gallery of pictures of the Holy Father taken over his lifetime.

On a related note, here are Pope Benedict's remarks given earlier today at the White House. EWTN has print and video coverage of the Pope's visit to the White House; it can be accessed here.