Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Cardinal George: ND's honoring, hosting of Obama an "extreme embarrassment"

From LifeSiteNews.com:

Speaking as the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, this weekend Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said that the University of Notre Dame's decision to host and honor President Obama at their commencement ceremony this year was an "extreme embarrassment" to Catholics.

"Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation," George told the crowd at a conference Saturday on the Vatican document Dignitatis Personae. The conference was hosted by the Chicago archdiocese's Respect Life office and Office for Evangelization at the Marriott O'Hare hotel.

In a video obtained by LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Cardinal George prefaced his remarks by noting that as USCCB president he does not have jurisdiction or authority over other bishops, but nonetheless has "some moral authority, without any kind of jurisdiction or any sort of real authority."

"As president of the U.S. bishops' conference I have to precisely speak for the bishops and not in my own name, as I could as Archbishop of Chicago," he added.

Read the entire piece.

Well, you know what this means (tongue firmly in cheek): The president of the USCCB is a narrow-minded GOP operative controlled by a small network of what some describe as "the noisiest Catholic bloggers." Or it could be that he is simply stating what is obvious to Catholics who think ostensibly Catholic schools should be, well, Catholic.

The Purple Haze of Public Education...

... in San Francisco (via San Francisco Chronicle):

"Remember the first time you heard Jimi Hendrix?" reads the cover of the district's new 51-page education guide. "Our plan is as transformational now as his music was then!"

The manifesto is aimed at transforming the educational "experiences for every child in each of our schools."

To drive home the point, a portrait of the '60s rocker - looking somewhat pensive, somber and perhaps stoned - graces the cover and every page of the manual.

The book also comes with a Hendrix poster and Hendrix-emblazoned canvas bag, which were handed out to a couple hundred administrators at Superintendent Carlos Garcia's back-to-school confab in September.

<snip>

Garcia says he is just trying to "revolutionize" San Francisco's schools, in the same way Hendrix's guitar playing transformed music.

As for Hendrix's druggie image?

"Hey," said Garcia. "We're in San Francisco."

Far out, man. Here's hoping that kids there can learn to write the same sort of brilliant lyrics created by Jimi:

Actin funny, but I dont know why
scuse me while I kiss the sky
Purple haze all around
Dont know if Im comin up or down
Am I happy or in misery?
What ever it is, that girl put a spell on me
Help me
Help me

Transformational! Ah, to be stuck in the Summer of Love forever...

Dr. Beckwith: Notre Dame is honoring a man committed to keeping...

"a segment of the human population, the unborn, ...  permanently outside the protections of the law." From a piece, "Barack Obama and Notre Dame: Juris Doctor Honoris Causa?", posted today on the First Things site:

So, this is the man on whom the University of Notre Dame wants to bestow an honorary doctorate of laws? But, as we have clearly seen, Obama, in spite of all his personal talents and accomplishments, explicitly and unapologetically rejects the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the proper subject of the natural and canonical laws on which the university’s jurisprudential patrimony rests. It is a jurisprudential patrimony that the university not only claims to believe, it claims both to believe that it is true and that it knows that it is true.

I have no doubt that Notre Dame would never bestow an honorary doctorate in science to an astronomer who vigorously advances the agenda of geocentricity or a chemist who refuses to teach his students the periodic table, or award an honorary doctorate in divinity to a theologian who is an unrepentant apologist for racial apartheid and white supremacy, regardless of what these three individuals may have accomplished or how well their celebrity may be received by the wider culture and its influential institutions.

Why then would the University of Notre Dame bestow an honorary doctorate of laws on someone who for his entire public life has enthusiastically fought for a segment of the human population, the unborn, to remain permanently outside the protections of the law? Not only that, he has also demanded that our legal regime require that his fellow citizens, including Catholics, underwrite the destruction of these prenatal human beings. And not only that, he is right now preparing to remove by executive order protections that were put in place so that pro-life physicians, nurses, medical students, and others in the health care field may not be forced to participate in abortions or be discriminated against for refusing to do so or even harboring such beliefs.

• The Case Against Abortion: An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith, author of Defending Life (Ignatius Insight, Dec. 2007)

The Holy Father's message for World Day of Prayer for Vocations

From Vatican Information Service:

FAITH IN THE DIVINE INITIATIVE - THE HUMAN RESPONSE

VATICAN CITY, 31 MAR 2009 (VIS) - Made public today was the Message of Benedict XVI for the 46th World Day of Prayer for Vocations, which is due to be celebrated on 3 May, the fourth Sunday of Easter, and which has as its theme this year: "Faith in the divine initiative - the human response". The Message has been published in Spanish, English, French, Italian, German, Portuguese and Polish.

 Extracts from the text are given below:

Benedict XVI sending Apostolic Visitors to the Legionaries of Christ

From a letter written by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State to His Holiness, and posted today on the Legion of Christ website:

The Holy Father is aware of the noble ideals that inspire you and the fortitude and prayerful spirit with which you are facing the current vicissitudes, and he encourages you to continue seeking the good of the Church and society by means of your own distinctive initiatives and institutions. In this regard, you can always count on the help of the Holy See, so that with truth and transparency, in a climate of fraternal and constructive dialogue, you will overcome the present difficulties. In this respect, the Holy Father has decided to carry out an Apostolic Visitation to the institutions of the Legionaries of Christ through a team of Prelates.

As I unite myself with the Holy Father’s sentiments, I entrust all Legionaries and Regnum Christi members to the motherly protection of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and I take the opportunity to express to you once more my best wishes and esteem in Christ.

Read the entire letter, as well as a letter from Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, LC, General Director of the Legion.

More from the Associated Press.

Tuning in...

Yesterday was one of those days, when nothing seems to get done, unless it is done wrong, and so forth. Ugh. A true Monday. And so, in the wee small hours of the morning (or close enough), I'm going to lighten the mood a bit with one of my random, for-the-sake-of-the-song musical posts, consisting of three parts (or movements, I suppose):

Twenty Completely Randomly, Blindly Chosen Songs from Songs Added to My iTunes in 2009:

1. "Stand Up Comedy", by U2 from No Line On The Horizon
2. "Meet You In The Middle", by Joan Osborne, from Little Wild One
3. "Some Other Day", by Tina Dico, from A Beginning / A Detour / An Open Ending
4. "He's Always Been Faithful", by Sara Groves, from Conversations
5. "Dark Moon", by Chris Isaak, from B Sides, Rare & Bonus Songs
6. "We Ride", by Fiction Family, from Fiction Family
7. "Love Is Gone", by Peter Cincotti, from East Of Angel Town
8. "Pocket Of A Clown", by Raul Malo, from After Hours
9. "um samba (sofa mix)", by tempo rei, from Cafe Lounge (Rose Hip Tea)
10. "Learning How To Die", by Jon Foreman, from Limbs And Branches

11. "Space And Time", by The Verve, from Urban Hymns
12. "Abandoner", by Steven Wilson, from Insurgentes
13. "Fém (Etude No. 8)", by The Bad Plus, from For All I Care
14. "Ballade At Thirty-Five", by Carla Bruni, from No Promises
15. "Bright Lights (Losing Control)", by Rocco DeLuca & The Burden, from Mercy
16. "Rhapsody for Harp [Marcel Grandjany]", by Jon Gillock & Kathleen Bride, from 99 Perfectly Relaxing Songs
17. "Leucocyte: III. Ad Mortem", by Esbjörn Svensson Trio, from Leucocyte
18. "Fall Out", by Roland Kirk, from Talkin' Verve: Roots of Acid Jazz
19. "Weird Friendless Kid", by Emiliana Torrini, from To Be Free
20. "Friend Like You", by Joshua Radin, from Simple Times

Favorite Ten Albums from 2009 So Far:

1. Astral Weeks: Live At The Hollywood Bowl, by Van Morrison. He still has it. Beautiful.
2. Scream, by Chris Cornell. Widely reviled, wildly misunderstood, wonderfully insane.
3. Mercy, by Rocco DeLuca & The Burden. Haunting and gorgeous. Produced by Daniel Lanois.
4. Insurgentes, by Steven Wilson. A little masterpiece from Porcupine Tree mastermind.
5. A Beginning / A Detour / An Open Ending, by Tina Dico. More polished, mature pop from the Scandinavian chanteuse.
6. 99 Perfectly Relaxing Songs, by Various Artists. 99 classical and sacred songs for just .99 from amazon.com!
7. Compass, by Joshua Redman. Another top-notch disc from a fine reedman.
8. Lucky One, by Raul Malo. Country, lounge, pop, and Cuban rolled into one satisfying combination.
9. With Arrows, With Poise, by The Myriad. Adventuresome, thoughtful alt-rock, with a nod to Radiohead.
10. Midnight at the Movies, by Justin Townes Earle. Steve's son makes another fine album of trad country.

Funniest/Scariest Musical Anecdote for the First Quarter of 2009:

My four-year-old son and I were in Target last week picking up a few items. As we walked past a blaring television set, he stopped and said, "Daddy, that's ABBA!" Sure enough, an ABBA song was playing in a commercial for something or another. He looked at me very seriously and informed me, with a matter-of-fact tone:  "That's 'Dancing Queen.' I really like that song." Satisfied, he started walking again, singing, "You can dance, you can jive..."

Needless to say, the current musical curriculum in our home is undergoing some changes...

"The basic form of Christian faith is not: I believe something, but I believe you."

From Faith and the Future, by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), recently published by Ignatius Press:

Today at the most sensitive points of society, that is in literature and its portrayal of man, we are beginning to find an unexpected verification of the gruesome visions of Dostoyevsky of a world without God, and of how that world turns into a madman's dream.

The man who wants to limit himself to what is knowable in exact terms is caught up in the crisis of reality: he beholds the withdrawal of truth. Within himself he hears the cry of faith, which the spirit of the hour has not been able to stifle, but has only made all the more dramatic. There is a cry for liberation from the prison of positivism, as there is, too, for liberation from a form of faith that has allowed itself to become a burden instead of the vehicle of freedom.

This brings us at last to the point at which the question can be put: How is such a faith to be created? First let us remark: faith is not a diluted form of natural science, an ancient or medieval preparatory stage that must vanish when the real thing turns up, but is something essentially different.

It is not provisional knowledge, although we do use the word in this sense also when we say, for example, "I believe that is so." In such a case "believing" means "being of the opinion." But when we say, "I believe you," the word acquires quite another meaning. It means the same as, "I trust you," or even as much as, "I rely upon you."

The you, in which I put reliance, provides me with a certainty that is different from but no less than the certainty that comes from calculation and experiment. And it is thus that the word is used in the Christian Credo. The basic form of Christian faith is not: I believe something, but I believe you. Faith is a disclosure of reality that is granted only to him who trusts, loves, and acts as a human being; and as such it is not a derivative of knowledge, but is sui generis, like knowledge, although it is indeed more basic and more central to our authentically human nature than knowledge is.

'This insight has important consequences; and these can be liberating, if taken seriously. For this means that faith is not primarily a colossal edifice of numerous supernatural facts, standing like a curious second order of knowledge alongside the realm of science, but an assent to God who gives us hope and confidence.

A bit about the book:

Increasingly, the future is becoming a theme for theological reflection. In the background we can detect a growing concern among many people for the future of faith. Does faith have any future at all, and, if so, where in all the confusion of today's trends will we discover its embryo?

But the problem of the future assails not only the believer. In the ever more rapidly advancing process of historical evolution, man is confronted with enormous opportunities, but also with colossal perils. For him, the future is not only hope, but sorrow—a nightmare, indeed. He cannot avoid asking what part faith can play in building tomorrow's world.

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, approaches this problem of universal concern from a variety of angles, bringing his deep personal faith and theological brilliance to bear on these serious questions.

Order online and save 15%.

Learn more about some other newly released books by Joseph Ratzinger.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan: "They made a big mistake."

No, he wasn't talking about the Buffalo Bills signing Terrell Owens, or the Yankees signing this or that player (I don't follow baseball, so...):

Archbishop Timothy Dolan appeared on Today's TMJ4's "Sunday Insight" with Charlie Sykes, and was asked if the University of Notre Dame made a mistake by inviting President Barack Obama to speak at the school's graduation ceremony.

Dolan didn't hesistate a bit, responding "They did, and I say that as one who loves and respects Notre Dame.  They made a big mistake."

"There's a lot of things that President Obama does that we can find ourselves allied with and working with him on, and we have profound respect for him and pray with him and for him," Dolan said. "But in an issue that is very close to the heart of Catholic world view, namely, the protection of innocent life in the womb, he has unfortunately taken a position very much at odds with the Church."

A "Catholic world view," you say? Is that something you might expect to be addressed or expressed or otherwise delineated at a Catholic school?

I was talking today to a friend who is currently a student at Notre Dame, and he asked this interesting question: "Why is it that Pope Pius XII is regularly denounced by many cultural and political liberals for allegedly not standing up to Hitler, not doing enough to save Jewish lives, and not speaking out more vehemently in the face of evil, while many of those same people are so offended and aghast that some Catholics are protesting Obama being honored with a law degree at Notre Dame, speaking up about Obama's pro-abortion voting record, and speaking out loudly about how evil abortion really is?"

His point might be readily dismissed or misunderstood. But it shouldn't be, because it was at the service of this basic truth: objective evil is always objectively evil. One doesn't have to engage in over-the-top language and histrionics to simply note that killing people due to their ethnicity and killing people because of their developmental status are both equally wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It's wrong in the eyes of anyone with a decent sense of reality and a bit of moral clarity. The killing of innocents is murder, and the support of such killing, no matter how you spin it, fluff it up, paint it pretty, and dowse it in perfume is wrong.

But let's face it: it's easy to condemn Hitler. Goodness, it's easy for people to condemn Pope Pius XII, and he played a part in saving (at least) close to a million Jewish lives! It's easy to pontificate about evil when it is in the abstract, or when it has been suitably packaged and marked, "Fit for condemnation by influential people and self-appointed cultural elites, as seen on network news."

Perhaps most significantly, it's easy to not recognize or name evil when it is hidden away, hushed up, dampened down, and otherwise stuffed into a tidy, sterile little box called "choice" or "reproductive justice" or "a woman's right to choose." Why did so many ordinary Germans, including some Christians, simply go along for the genocide ride and not protest at what was happening to millions of Jews and Christians? One reason, I'm quite certain, is because what was happening was "out of sight, out of mind." But, hey, that sort of thing would never happen here, to us, would it? Naw. Of course not.

Obama at Notre Dame: Weigel vs. Kmiec

I don't have time to comment at the moment, but Christopher over at Catholics In the Public Square has the pertinent links and some remarks.

A bit more on Holy Communion and non-Catholic Christians

A reader responded to my post, "Holy Communion and Non-Catholics," with this following comment:

As someone who prayerfully considered entering the Catholic church and found I could not for this very reason, I do not think it an odd or absurd objection. Since I was not a full member of any church at the time, I granted the church every right to say "no, not yet" to me. However, the Eucharist is Christ's feeding of His people, and we are one body who partake of Him. Thus by excluding all other Christians from her table, the Catholic church is denying their status as Christians and saying that none of them can possibly be serving Christ, and further that Christ is not allowed to accept them as His own. I was not able to declare that all the devoted Christians I know did not really belong to Christ, nor could I ignore the grace I had experienced through the sacraments in Protestant churches. I think we may all be surprised by who we meet at Christ's eternal banquet in heaven, and how then can we turn our fellows away from its foreshadowing?

My response:

First, no one here, least of all myself, said it was an "absurd" objection. "Strange," yes, but not in the sense of "absurd," but in the sense that it simply doesn't make sense in the context of someone who claims they accept everything else taught by the Church.

You wrote: However, the Eucharist is Christ's feeding of His people, and we are one body who partake of Him.

Your remark hints at the real issue, the same issue I attempted to address in my post: ecclesiology. By saying "one body," you imply that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ is in full and visible communion with one another. But they aren't. The Catholic Church, in "excluding all other Christians from her table" is simply saying that those other Christians are not full and visible members of herself. If you are not a full and visible (public) member of the Catholic Church, why does it follow that you should be able to receive the sacrament which states, in the very reception of it, that you are a full and visible member of the Catholic Church?

Thus by excluding all other Christians from her table, the Catholic church is denying their status as Christians and saying that none of them can possibly be serving Christ, and further that Christ is not allowed to accept them as His own.

But surely you know that is NOT what the Church states about other Christians; quite the contrary:

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (Unitatis Regintegratio ["Decree on Ecumenism," Second Vatican Council, Nov. 21, 1964], par 3).

So non-Catholic Christians are indeed Christians in the eyes of the Catholic Church. But:

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. (par 3)

Also worth noting, from the same document:

Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue. (par 22)

In other words, sadly, the reason you give above for not entering the Catholic Church is not one based in an accurate and fair understanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

As I've indicated elsewhere, I believe the vast majority of disagreements or misunderstandings between Catholics and most Protestants are ultimately rooted in disagreements or misunderstandings about matters of ecclesiology. One of the best documents to read for those who have questions about Catholic ecclesiology is Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church; it was an essential text for me when I was working though many questions in my journey to and into the Catholic Church.

Some other good resources:

• Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church As Communion, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology, Fundamentals of Ecclesiology | Maximilian Heinrich Heim
• Loving the Church: Spiritual Exercises Preached in the Presence of Pope John Paul II, by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
• Theology of the Church, by Charles Cardinal Journet
• The Motherhood of the Church, by Henri de Lubac, S.J.
• The Splendor of the Church, by Henri de Lubac, S.J.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links/Articles:

• Motherhood of the Entire Church | Henri de Lubac, S.J.
• The Church Is the Goal of All Things | Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
• Excerpts from Theology of the Church | Charles Cardinal Journet
• On the Papacy, John Paul II, and the Nature of the Church | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Peter and Succession | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• "Primacy in Love": The Chair Altar of Saint Peter's in Rome | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Church Authority and the Petrine Element | Hans Urs von Balthasar
• Mater Ecclesia: An Ecclesiology for the 21st Century | Donald Calloway, M.I.C.
• Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May
• Exploring the Catholic Faith! | An Interview with Diane Eriksen
• Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L.

Do We Really Need Gardasil To Protect Teen Girls?

Do We Really Need Gardasil To Protect Teen Girls? | Mary Beth Bonacci | Ignatius Insight

The vaccine is unnecessary, it's dangerous, and it's disabling and killing young women.

I'm usually not the kind of person to say "I told you so." But in this case, I'm more than happy to make an exception.

Two years ago, I wrote an article called "A Virus that Causes Cancer?" In it, I discussed the then-new vaccine Gardasil, which helps protect women against the HPV virus, a sexually transmitted organism that can lead to cervical cancer. Several states were in the process of mandating the vaccine--for girls as young as 11--under intense pressure from Merck's lobbying efforts. I pointed out that early sign were not good, with a high number of reported side effects including fainting, loss of vision and seizures. More important, I noted that there had been absolutely no studies on the long-term safety of the vaccine. Given the highly preventable nature of HPV-related cervical cancer, I thought it was senseless--downright dumb--to expose young girls to these kinds of risks.

Read the entire column...

Bishop Thomas Tobin!

The Most Reverend Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of Providence, addresses the Myth of the Cuddly, Sweet, and Always Nice No Matter What Jesus:

Inspiring healthy dialogue in the Church is one of the goals of my columns. I hope, though, that critics can always distinguish between my personal opinions and the essential teachings of the Church which, as Catholics they are obliged to accept.

I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children. (And now to engage in the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research.) But it still seems to me that if the President’s anti-life actions don’t stir up moral outrage in you, nothing will; if they don’t offend your conscience, you need a conscience transplant, my friend.

The other premise of my critics seems to be that because we are Christians we should never be angry or challenge others. We should always be charitable, tolerant, kind and nice, they suggest. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?

Well, in fact, no. The Gospels are very clear that in confronting moral evil Jesus wasn’t at all nice or kind. We usually think of Jesus as a prophet of peace, and indeed He was. But His preaching also created bitter controversy and division. “I have come to set the earth on fire . . . Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Lk 12: 49, 51)

Bishop Tobin wrote his column after getting a wide range of feedback—much of it very angry in nature—concerning his February 12, 2009, column, "My Interview with President Obama," which was a fictional dialogue between himself and the newly elected President:

TOBIN: Is it safe to assume that you consider the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions overseas to be good foreign policy?

OBAMA: I believe that people overseas should have the same rights we Americans have – the right to kill their children and use abortion as a form of birth control.

TOBIN: But shouldn’t we be using foreign aid for more positive reasons – for example, to provide food, clothing, shelter and medicine to impoverished children?

OBAMA: Bishop, obviously you’re missing the point. If you control the population and eliminate the children, you don’t have to worry about giving them food, clothing, shelter and medicine now do you?

Read that entire piece. Back to the most recent column:

Sometimes as Catholics we’re hesitant to challenge the immoral behavior of others, including public officials, because we don’t want to appear judgmental or uncharitable. Our society urges us to be “tolerant” of other people and their behavior, even if it’s objectively wrong. But it’s precisely because we love others that we should never tolerate immoral behavior. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver has written so well, “Tolerance is not an end in itself, and tolerating or excusing grave evil in a society is itself a grave evil . . . And it is not a Christian virtue.” (Render Unto Caesar, p. 145-146)

In the words of another great bishop, Fulton Sheen:

Tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles; intolerance applies only to principles but never to persons. We must be absolutely intolerant about the truths of mathematics, but we must be tolerant to the mathematician.  ... Nothing is so fearfully exclusive as truth. We must be intolerant about truth, for that is God's making and not ours. We must be tolerant to persons, for they are human and liable to error. (The Mystical Body of Christ)

This highlights, I think, one of the issues with President Obama: legitimate criticism of his actions, words, and principles are sometimes interpreted as attacks on his person precisely because for some ardent Obama supporters the person is the principle. Put another way, it seems to me that quite a few people voted for and support Obama not because he believes in Principles A, B, and C, but because he is Barack Obama. This cult of personality has little or no interest in gauging principles; it is rooted in a nearly religious adherence to a personality. Thus, any criticism of Obama's principles (i.e., support of "reproductive justice") is interpreted as a hatred of the man. Thank goodness for shepherds such as Bishop Tobin who are willing to clearly and firmly describe reality rather than letting reality be bulldozed by false cries of "Intolerance!"

Hillary Clinton: Who painted the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe?

From Catholic News Agency (ht: Hot Air):

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.

Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

Mrs. Clinton was "honored" yesterday by Planned Barrenhood, which bestowed the "Margaret Sanger Award" on the Secretary of State. The award recognizes Clinton's dedication to snuffing out the life of the innocent  women's reproductive rights. The Houston Chronicle reports:

“A society that denies and demeans women’s rights and roles is a society that is more likely to engage in behavior that is negative, anti-democratic and leads to violence and extremism,” Clinton said at Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s national conference in Houston. Clinton spoke to the organization after being honored for her work on behalf of women’s health and reproductive rights. She was endorsed by Planned Parenthood during her unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. She told the conference women’s reproductive and health rights will be key issues in President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

Nothing, of course, about Sanger's passionate support of eugenics and her desire to "exterminate the Negro population." (What, no interest in having a dialogue about that?) Considering how little she seems to know about European history and Our Lady of Guadalupe, and how little her husband knows about basic biology, I almost wonder: do either Bill or Hillary really know what takes place during an abortion? Sigh.

The Anchoress and the Gateway Pundit comment.

CWR editor George Neumayr's latest column...

... for American Spectator is online: "Touchdown Obama."

• Catholic World Report website
• "The Notre Dame Commencement", by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. (Catholic World Report web exclusive)
• Subscribe to Catholic World Report: Just $9.95 for 6 issues!

Just another Rutten bit of editorializing

Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times decides to expose the small cadre of narrow-minded, vicious, Republican drones who are seeking to keep President Obama from visiting Notre Dame in May, and begins his deep cover operation with a poetic flourish:

These days, protests over college commencement speakers herald spring's arrival as surely as longer days and greening leaves.

Of course, Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., had opened his column about the same topic, written four days prior to Rutten's piece, in much the same fashion:

What happens when you read Benedict XVI's writings?

Something shocking. Something astounding. Something incredible.

You learn what he actually thinks and believes.

Yep, that's right. You find out that he's not the nasty, close-minded, ultra-right-wing Catholic coot he is made out to be:

 Out of curiosity, I started to read the writings of this new Pope. I was amazed to discover how well he grasped the complexities of the modern world, and how concerned he was to define the Church’s role in the face of modernity. His reputation as a conservative precedes him, but this label does not at all do justice to the nuances of his thought. Benedict strikes me as a true modern — perhaps the first modern pope — one who understands and recognizes the growing differentiation and autonomy of the various spheres of human life.

And that from a Catholic, who then goes on to write a nice little piece for Inquirer (Philippines) about his new discoveries. Here's hoping others follow his lead. And for those who are wondering where to start, I usually recommend this book by him and this book about him. But there are plenty of options.

Of course, there are other folks who will be satisfied playing the name and blame game, such as the author of a piece, "Pope Benedict XVI is a jackass," (be prepared for an offensive picture of the Pope covered with a condom) published in The Martlet, which is "an independent weekly student newspaper at the University of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada." Independent, it appears, of any semblance of civilized discourse and informed thought. It brings to mind this quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen: "Liberalism defines freedom as the right to do whatever you please, and that is the way freedom is understood by 90% of young Americans [and Canadians] educated in non-religious institutions. If freedom means that, it means anarchy" (from God and War).

Reiki: A Disturbing Substitute for Faith

Reiki: A Disturbing Substitute for Faith | Anna Abbott | A Special Report for Catholic World Report

Reiki, a “healing” practice, has gone from the New Age fringe to the cultural mainstream to the insides of convents.

On March 25, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued guidelines for the evaluation of Reiki, a Japanese healing practice based upon "universal energy" that has gained increasing popularity in Catholic retreat centers and other institutions. The USCCB statement said that the therapeutic practice "lacks scientific credibility" and is "inappropriate for Catholic institutions."

Some time ago, in a Napa Valley pharmacy, I came upon 10 people in a circle listening to a woman instruct them on Reiki. She walked around them, resting her hands on their shoulders as they sat with their eyes closed. Afterwards, some said they felt warmth; others, “tingling.”

The demonstration seemed in a way innocuous, yet I sensed something awry and opted out, retreating to the herbal tea samples section. A few years before, that same Reiki practitioner had offered me a free “sample” of her work; I declined then as well. Somehow Reiki didn’t strike me as harmless meditation or healing.

Nevertheless, Reiki has gone from the fringes of the New Age to the cultural mainstream.  Newsweek has highlighted it with acupuncture and other methods. It is offered at hotels and spas. In the Napa Valley Register in November 2005, a woman credited Reiki with curing her of pancreatic cancer, claiming she visualized God as golden energy flowing through her body. Reiki also enjoys the favor of celebrities such as Prince Charles.

Read the entire piece...

Holy Communion and Non-Catholics

A reader—SG—sent a note:

I have a close friend whose primary reason for not becoming Catholic is one of the strangest I can think of.  He agrees with all of the Church's moral teachings, and he's even comfortable with practically all of its theological doctrines ... but the thing that is holding him back is its practice of closed communion.

I once told him that there is an easy remedy to that: Become Catholic, and you can receive the Eucharist daily!  But he says his objection isn't simply because he is personally being deprived, but because he thinks no one should be deprived simply because they aren't Catholic.

So SG put together a little "quiz" to help his friend realize "either that he is not actually being deprived of anything of great value; or that he is being deprived, but justly; or that even if he is being deprived unjustly, there is still good reason to submit to this injustice because the reward is so great." He then asked for thoughts on the soundness of the logic used in the quiz. Here it is:

In search of middle names!

Interesting questions from a reader:

Can you tell me what Fr. Schall's middle name is, and what Joseph Pieper's middle name was?  I am guessing that Fr. Schall's middle name is "Vincent", as I know it starts with a "V".  I am unable to find mention of Pieper's middle name anywhere. I was hoping that with your Ignatius Press connections (and your breadth of reading), that you might know.

He asks, he adds, because he is mulling over possible names for children. I don't know the answer to either question, but do have an inquiry into Fr. Schall. I'm not certain that Josef Pieper had a middle name; I've never seen one or even a middle initial, although that means little enough, I suppose.

UPDATE: Just heard back from Fr. Schall; his middle is "Vincent." Good guess!

"Thinking Epistemologically about Obama and Notre Dame"

That's the title of a freshly posted interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith on the Christianity Today website:

Pope John Paul II issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae in 1990 stressing the importance of the Catholic character of Catholic institutions of higher learning. How has Ex Corde Ecclesiae influenced this current debate?

I think the statement has given them a template to look at the relationship between Catholic theology and the university. If places like Notre Dame took it seriously, an invitation to be the commencement speaker and receive an honorary doctorate would not have gone out. For instance, I would welcome Barack Obama to speak at Baylor. But in this case, the honorary doctorate doesn't go to the office of the President. It goes to Barack Obama, even after he ceases to be president. In a way, that gives an imprimatur on him and his views that I don't think Notre Dame should give him. I think if he were just the commencement speaker and not receiving the honorary doctorate, it would tone down the criticism. How can Notre Dame give him an honorary doctorate for excellence in something that our own theology teaches he isn't excellent in?

The real debate is whether theological claims can count as knowledge. I think that's what the Pope is saying, that if we think theology is true, that means it's no different than what we learn in literature or sociology or philosophy. If that's the case, the university is where we should integrate these areas of knowledge. Theology shouldn't be an after thought. It shouldn't be relegated to campus ministry. It's like in the evangelical world, tagging on a Bible verse. You'll have a book on Christianity and science and it'll be regular science and a section of Bible verses. You think, "This isn't integration, this is weird."

Read the entire interview.