Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

"I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."

So says Francis Cardinal George about President Obama, as reported by CNS:

In a question-and-answer session that followed his keynote speech to priests on offering compassionate ministry to people who are hurting, Cardinal George offered a candid assessment of his 30-minute meeting with the president at the White House March 18.

"I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," the cardinal said. "I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."

Cardinal George said his conversation with the president was polite but substantive.

"It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you," he said. "Maybe that's political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, 'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).' But we can agree on a lot, and we do, and that's why there is so much hope. I think we have to pray for him every day."

Cardinal George said he told the president he was concerned about his decision to rescind the Mexico City policy, which resulted in providing taxpayer money to fund abortion overseas.

"He said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."

It seems that President Obama has a way of dashing hope when it comes to life issues. But, then, I'm still not sure why anyone had such hopes in the first place. Perhaps part of the answer is found in Cardinal George's remark, "It's hard to disagree with him because he'll always tell you he agrees with you." Combine that with the appearance of sincerity, which is also vital, and you have the makings of something Josef Pieper warned about in his little classic, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power:

Gorgias could have said the same thing, as he in fact expressed in a similar idea: What is decisive is not what you say, but how you say it—its composition, its expression, its form. On the surface he is right, of course. It is not the subject matter but the creative form that constitutes the linguistic piece of art. Still, Plato's concern points toward something else, and he insists on it, and he challenges us with it, even challenging himself and his own profound sensitivity for linguistic form: the possibility that something could well be superbly crafted—that it could be perfectly worded; brilliantly formulated; strikingly written, performed, staged, or put on screen—and at the same time, in its entire thrust and essence, be false; and not only false, but outright bad, inferior, contemptible, shameful, destructive, wretched—and still marvelously put together.

And, a few lines later:

[Socrates] forces Gorgias to admit that such sophisticated language, disconnected from the roots of truth, in fact pursues some ulterior motives, that it invariably turns into an instrument of power, something it has been, by its very nature, right from the start. .... The very moment, as I have stated, that someone in full awareness employs words yet explicitly disregards reality, he in fact ceases to communicate anything to the other. ... Whoever speaks to another person—not simply, we presume, in spontaneous conversation but using well-considered words, and whoever in so doing is explicitly not committed to the truth—whoever, in other words, is in this guided by something other than the truth—such a person, from that moment on, no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person. From that moment on, to be precise, all conversation ceases; all dialogue and all communication comes to an end. (pp 19, 20, 21).

Cardinal George states that Catholics "can agree on a lot, and we do" with President Obama. Perhaps. We certainly agree on the need to pray for President Obama and all political leaders. But I think Cardinal George, for whom I have great admiration, surely appreciates why I and many others are so doubtful about agreements on substantial points. Unfortunately, President Obama has proven to be adept at often using sophisticated rhetorical skills to misdirect and to disrespect. The spin is in and it is ongoing. Yes, the President has political debts to pay and he does seem to be paying them, as evidenced by his many radically pro-abortion nominees. Our debt, as Pieper notes, must be to truth, for it is the basis of all that is good, decent, respectful, and authentic.

On the culture of death and "single-issue anti-abortion zealots"

Bill McGurn's talk at Notre Dame, given last night, is available online in PDF format (ht: Francis Beckwith). A small taste of an excellent address:

In the past few weeks, we have read more than once the suggestion that to oppose this year’s speaker and honorary degree is to elevate politics over the proper work of a university. In many ways, we might say that such reasoning lies at the core of the confusion. As has become clear with America’s debates over the destruction of embryos for scientific research, over human cloning, over assisted suicide, and over other end-of-life issues, abortion as a legal right is less a single issue than an entire ethic that serves as the foundation stone for the culture of death.

With the idea that one human being has the right to take the life of another merely because the other’s life is inconvenient, our culture elevates into law the primacy of the strong over the weak. The discord that this year’s commencement has unleashed – between Notre Dame and the bishops, between members of the Notre Dame community, between Notre Dame and thousands of discouraged Catholic faithful – all this derives from an approach that for decades has treated abortion as one issue on a political scorecard. This is not the road to engagement. This is the route to incoherence, and we see its fruit everywhere in our public life.

Someone else once wrote something similar, worth quoting at length:

Q: What is a "pro-choice pro-lifer"?

A: A "Catholic" governor who says, "My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong," and then does this, as reported by The Kansas City Star:

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas stayed true to her record Thursday, vetoing legislation that would have imposed new rules on abortion providers.

The veto could be Sebelius’ last as governor — and perhaps her boldest.

The Democrat awaits a final vote in the U.S. Senate next week on her nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Critics have seized on her support for abortion rights and her ties to late-term abortion provider George Tiller of Wichita.

“While I agree that we should try to reduce the number of abortions, it cannot be at the increased risk to the life or health of women,” Sebelius wrote in a statement announcing the veto.

The vetoed bill would have required late-term abortion providers to report the specific diagnoses used to justify the procedure. Abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy are illegal in Kansas unless necessary to prevent serious health threats to the woman.

The bill also would have allowed a woman or her husband — or the parents of a girl under 18 — to sue the provider if they suspect the abortion violated the law. And it would have given prosecutors greater power to file charges against abortion providers.

Forget about protecting women (especially the unborn baby girls who will never get to be grown women), this is obviously about protecting abortionists. Joseph Lawler of American Spectator writes:

Prior to yesterday, Sebelius's history of vetoing abortion restrictions and her history of close association with Tiller showed that abortion was one of her priorities. She was close enough to the abortion industry for the Washington Times to suggest that nominating her to the bureacracy that would regulate that industry constitutes a conflict of interest, much like nominating the head of an investment bank to regulate his competitors.

By casting an unpopular veto during a closely-watched nomination, though, Sebelius has shown that her stance on abortion is not just one item on the agenda -- she prioritizes abortion even above her own political future. Access to late-term abortions in Kansas is apparently something she is willing to sacrifice for.

So, again, what is a "pro-choice pro-lifer"? A pro-abortion pro-choicer."Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish? Can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh" (James 3:11-12).

The Challenge of Being a Serious Historical Novelist

The Challenge of Being a Serious Historical Novelist: An Interview with Lucy Beckett, Author of A Postcard From the Volcano: A Novel of Pre-War Germany | Carl E. Olson | April 24, 2009 | Ignatius Insight

Ignatius Insight: What was the inspiration for your novel and its main character, Max von Hofmannswaldau?

Lucy Beckett: The inspiration for my novel was complicated. When I was at school in the 1950s some of my most interesting teachers were, one way and another, still  recovering from the consequences of Hitler's regime and the war. I was taught music, German and Greek by a German refugee from a Junker family in Silesia who had left home for England in the 1930s because he couldn't bear the Nazi government and what it was doing to his country. He died when I was 18 and I never discovered much about his past. I have been interested ever since in the project of imagining his life at home, in a part of Germany that was ravaged by the war—his university city of Breslau, now Wroclaw, was ruined by the Russians in 1945 because the Germans, already beaten, used it in vain as a last stronghold. Secondly, my mother's family has German-Jewish roots and I wanted to explore the different kinds of Jewishness still flourishing in Germany east of the Elbe before Hitler came to power.

Ignatius Insight: The novel opens in 1914 and concludes at the end of the second World War. What attracted you to that era? What sort of research was necessary to write about it?

Read the entire interview...

Who knew federal funds were more devious than the Jesuits?

The headline is a bit tongue-in-cheek, of course, drawing on the old stereotype of Jesuit agents carrying out shadowy deeds and pulling invisible strings as they worked diligently to shape and control world events. But as John Norton of Our Sunday Visitor reports, at least one Jesuit school is struggling simply to change its health insurance:

If you work for the Jesuit University of San Francisco, no matter which USF health insurance you choose, it will pay for an abortion, sterilization, artificial contraception and some infertility treatments. And that is unlikely to change anytime soon, despite a report here earlier this year.

The USF Faculty Association president, Elliot Neaman, said today that if the university tries to remove the abortion benefit, it would file an unfair labor practice complaint.

Whether abortion involves the killing of a child is “not relevant,” Neaman told OSV. “You are mixing up morality and contractual obligations,” he said.

So, part of the problem is contractual. Fair enough, it seems. But the deeper problem is far more troubling:

Removing the abortion benefit because it is in the Blue Cross PPO agreed to in the labor contract “would be something like abolishing tenure. It is a point of law,” Neaman said. “It would make everything else in the contract vulnerable. ... If you have a contract with someone you can’t break it.” Neaman said the Blue Cross PPO has included abortion and contraception for many years: “It probably goes back 20 years,” and the university just noticed it when it was brought to their attention by journalists, he said.

Neaman said the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is irrelevant, Neaman said, because USF is not legally a Catholic university. "A long time ago, to get federal funding, the Jesuits divested themselves of the university so it is basically run by the board of trustees. They cannot apply for an exemption as a Catholic university because they could lose federal funding because of that," he said.

The selling of birthrights, trying to serve two masters, and all of that. At the very least, a cautionary tale and a sad reminder of what often happens when funding becomes more important than faith.

An "ecclesiastical thriller" that is "a thoroughly satisfying read"

That's how the Curt Jester (aka, blogger Jeff Miller) describes The Death of a Pope, the soon-to-be-available-to-all novel written by the very accomplished Piers Paul Read. Miller writes:

The novel starts with a trial for a laicized priest who had been working for an international Catholic charity and had been arrested for trying to buy nerve agent. The plot builds from there in the last weeks of Pope John Paul II's life and it follows a serious threat as you might expect from the thriller genre. The main characters follow a range mainly along a faithful Catholic and lapsed/liberal Catholic divide that includes a Cardinal, priests, a reporter, and various personnel from security agencies.

The split between faithful and less than faithful Catholics is part of the plot of the book and some of the dialogue concerns hot issues of the day such as condom use, women priests, etc. Though the book never lapses into just a vehicle for apologetics that is artificial and the issues raised are totally consistent with the plot. One thing I liked though is that the more liberal or fallen away Catholic characters were not described as unlikable stereotypes. They were treated as real people as where all the characters in the book. As you would expect from a novel published by Ignatius Press the sympathy of the book is certainly in an Orthodox Catholic direction - but again I liked it focusing on plot and characters and not making the novel a soapbox which is always a disastrous decision.

"The Death of a Pope" was a thoroughly satisfying read from the start to the end and totally satisfying how the plot resolves. While it is an enjoyable read for Catholics, the novel is quite well written and should see a large audience.

Acclaimed novelist Ron Hansen writes:

Piers Paul Read has managed to combine sheer storytelling power with great learning and insight about the inner workings of the Church to fashion an entertainment of the highest order. If John LeCarre took on Vatican politics, his book of suspense might aspire to be much like this one.

And the inimitable Peter Kreeft states:

If you love the Catholic Church, you will probably love this book whether or not you love a good story. If you love a good story, you will probably love this book whether or not you love the Catholic Church. But if you love both the Church and a good story, you will certainly love this book.

In an interview on the book's website, Read remarks:

Writing is a vocation and, as in any other calling, a writer should develop his talents for the greater glory of God. Novels should be neither homilies nor apologetics: the author's faith, and the grace he has received, will become apparent in his work even if it does not have Catholic characters or a Catholic theme. The question of "the complicity between the author and his characters" can sometimes pose a dilemma: a novelist might show more empathy for, say, Potiphar's wife, or the elders who spied on Susanna, than the devout might think proper. But it is important for the Catholic writer to demonstrate that he is fully human; that he does not flee from evil but confronts it and disarms it in his imagination with the help of that holy wisdom that comes from faith in Christ.

Visit the site for more about the author, the book, and a U.S. book tour, which begins in early May.

"Scripture must be read in the context of the living Tradition of the entire Church."

From Vatican Information Service:

BIBLE: DIVINE INSPIRATION AND CHURCH TRADITION

VATICAN CITY, 23 APR 2009 (VIS) - This morning the Pope received thirty representatives of the Pontifical Biblical Commission who have just held their plenary assembly, dedicated to the theme: "Inspiration and truth in the Bible". The president of the commission is Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 Benedict XVI began by underlining the importance of the chosen theme, which "concerns not only believers, but the Church herself, because the Church's life and mission necessarily rest upon the Word of God, which is the soul of theology and, at the same time, the inspiration of all of Christian life". Moreover, "the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is of vital importance for Christian faith and for the life of the Church".

 "From a correct approach to the concept of divine inspiration and truth in Sacred Scripture derive certain norms that directly concern its interpretation", said the Pope. "The Constitution 'Dei Verbum', having affirmed that God is the author of the Bible, reminds us that in Sacred Scripture God speaks to mankind in a human manner. For a correct interpretation of Scripture we must, then, carefully examine what the hagiographers really sought to say and what God was pleased to reveal with their words".

 The Pope then recalled how Vatican Council II had identified "three perennially-valid criteria for interpreting Sacred Scripture in accordance with the Spirit that inspired it. In the first place, great attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture. Indeed, however different the books it contains may be, Sacred Scripture is one by virtue of the unity of God's plan, of which Jesus Christ is the centre and the heart.

 "In the second place", he added, "Scripture must be read in the context of the living Tradition of the entire Church. ... In her Tradition the Church carries the living memory of the Word of God, and it is the Holy Spirit Who provides her with the interpretation thereof in accordance with its spiritual meaning. The third criterion concerns the need to pay attention to the analogy of the faith; that is, to the cohesion of the individual truths of faith, both with one another and with the overall plan of Revelation and the fullness of the divine economy enclosed in that plan".

 The task of scholars, the Holy Father went on, "is to contribute, following the above-mentioned principles, to a more profound interpretation and exposition of the meaning of Sacred Scripture. The academic study of the sacred texts is not by itself sufficient. In order to respect the coherence of the Church's faith, Catholic exegetes must be careful to perceive the Word of God in these texts, within the faith of the Church".

 "The interpretation of Sacred Scriptures cannot be a merely an individual academic undertaking, but must always be compared with, inserted into, and authenticated by the living Tradition of the Church. This norm is essential in order to ensure a correct and reciprocal exchange between exegesis and Church Magisterium. Catholic exegetes do not nourish the individualistic illusion that biblical texts can be better understood outside the community of believers. The opposite is true, because these texts were not given to individual scholars 'to satisfy their curiosity or to provide them with material for study and research'. The texts inspired by God were entrusted to the community of believers, to the Church of Christ, to nourish the faith and to guide the life of charity".

 "Sacred Scripture is the Word of God in that its is written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Tradition, on the other hand, integrally transmits the Word of God as entrusted by Christ the Lord and by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and their successors so that they, illuminated by the Spirit of truth, could faithfully conserve, explain and spread it through their preaching".

 "Only within the ecclesial context can Sacred Scripture be understood as the authentic Word of God which is guide, norm and rule for the life of the Church and the spiritual development of believers. This means rejecting all interpretations that are subjective or limited to mere analysis [and hence] incapable of accepting the global meaning which, over the course of the centuries, has guided the Tradition of the entire people of God".

Here are some of my favorite Ignatius Press books on Scripture and Tradition:

 

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links:

• Introduction to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office | Peter Hünermann and Thomas Södin
• Historical-Critical Scripture Studies and the Catholic Faith | Michael Waldstein
• God, The Author of Scripture | Preface to God and His Image: An Outline of Biblical Theology | Fr. Dominique Barthélemy, O.P.
• Going Deeper Into the Old Testament | An Interview with Aidan Nichols, O.P.
• The Pattern of Revelation: A Contentious Issue | From Lovely Like Jerusalem | Aidan Nichols, O.P.
• Origen and Allegory | Introduction to History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen | Henri de Lubac
• How To Read The Bible | From You Can Understand the Bible | Peter Kreeft
• Introduction to The Meaning of Tradition | Yves Congar, O.P.
• The Bible Gap: Spanning the Distance Between Scripture and Theology | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
• The Divine Authority of Scripture vs. the "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" | James Hitchcock
• Enter Modernism | From Truth and Turmoil: The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church | Philip Trower
• Singing the Song of Songs | Blaise Armnijon, S.J.

Well, at least she's probably against poverty...

... and thus very much simpatico with Catholic social doctrine.

"She" is the Secretary of State, who was asked the other day about her admiration for Margaret Sanger and her religious devotion to a secular doctrine often called "reproductive health". Via Catholic News Agency:

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about whether the Obama administration is seeking to weaken or overturn pro-life laws and policies in other countries. Secretary Clinton responded to his questions, affirming that the U.S. government’s definition of reproductive health includes access to abortion.

Rep. Smith began his comments by criticizing Secretary Clinton’s reception of the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in Houston in March. Secretary Clinton said she was in “awe” of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and claimed her “life and leadership” was “one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.”

Secretary Clinton also said that Sanger’s work was “not done.” Rep. Smith said Sanger’s work was indeed “transformational,” but “not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn child, or among the many so-called undesirables Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.”

“Sanger’s prolific writings drip with contempt for those she considers to be unfit to live,” Rep. Smith said.

Noting that he had read many of Sanger’s articles and books, Rep. Smith characterized Sanger as an “unapologetic eugenicist and racist” who said “the most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it” and also characterized eugenics as the “most adequate and thorough avenue” to solve “racial, political and social problems.”

Goodness, Rep. Smith, aren't words such as "exterminate" and "kill" a bit direct and forthright for such a personal, private matter? How about "human-induced life-culminating event" or "facilitated involuntary exsanguination", or, for those with a more metaphysical bent: "sudden soul transference transaction"?

Meanwhile, World magazine reports:

Inglis then questioned Clinton on why she didn’t condemn human rights abuses like forced abortions on her most recent trip to China. “They heard me say it already,” she said, referring to a trip there 14 years ago.

Yes, I'm sure the same government that is forcing 60 million Chinese to change their names in order to facilitate a government database is playing those fourteen-year-old tapes on a daily basis. Clinton also stated, "There is always and must be a moral dimension to our foreign policy." Which surely means she is against poverty, right?

About James Carroll's "witty disposal" of the Church's stance...

... on women's ordination:

Rich Harlow, writing in The Boston Globe, revels in the wit and wisdom of former Catholic priest, James Carroll, whose new book, Practicing Catholic, apparently could have been titled Practicing, Part-time Catholic:

"Practicing Catholic" could just as easily have been titled "Conscience of a (Theological) Liberal." It distills its religious outlook from its author's personal history: his Catholic youth, ordination, his excitement over Vatican II's reforms and disillusion with the church's backpedaling therefrom, and finally his decision to trade the priest's collar for the writer's pen.

As a Catholic of Carroll's persuasion, I find the intellectual ammo he brings to bear potent. Traditionalists will have a big problem with him, though thoughtful ones will recognize the need to confront his arguments, since on many matters the majority of American Catholics stand with Carroll, not the Vatican. He wittily disposes of the argument against women's ordination, which is premised on the fact that the Twelve Apostles were all men: "No Celts were among Jesus's Apostles, but the Irish can be ordained."

I guess Harlow has a rather generous definition of "dispose"; or maybe he is simply disposed to facile arguments. Perhaps he will be dazzled by the following argument:

1. Peter was a fisherman.
2. Peter was chosen to be one of the Twelve Apostles.
3. Therefore all of the Twelve Apostles had to be fisherman.

And, to carry on the silliness:

4. Only fishermen can be ordained.

Of course, these brilliant and stunning lines of argumentation would stand up to scrutiny only if the Apostles and their successors in the early Church (and to this day) had ordained exclusively fishermen or Jewish men. But ethnicity obviously was not an issue in the matter. However, whether or not you were a man was an issue. Why? The simple answer is articulated clearly by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the document Inter Insigniores ("Declaration On The Question Of Admission Of Women To The Ministerial Priesthood") issued on October 15, 1976:

The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: This innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.7 It is true that in the writings of the Fathers, one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to woman, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influences on their pastoral activity, and still less on their spiritual direction. But over and above these considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed -- especially in the canonical documents of the Antiochan and Egyptian traditions -- this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.8

The same conviction animates medieval theology9, even if the Scholastic doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the data of faith, often present arguments on this point that modern thought would have difficulty in admitting, or would even rightly reject. Since that period and up till our own time, it can be said that the question has not been raised again for the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance.

The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. But each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest itself, it witnessed to the Church's desire to conform to the model left her by the Lord. The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East. Their unanimity on this point is all the more remarkable since in many other questions their discipline admits of a great diversity. At present time these same Churches refuse to associate themselves with requests directed towards securing the accession of women to priestly ordination. (par 1)

Sister Sara Butler, MSBT, once a supporter of women's ordination, makes an important distinction in her book, The Catholic Priesthood and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church (Hillenbrand Books, 2007), between this "fact of sacred history" (or "fundamental reason"), and various theological arguments, such as theories of complimentarity (pp 48-50). She notes that while in recent decades, especially since the Second Vatican Council, there has been much focus on theological arguments (especially nuptial symbolism; see part 5 of Inter Insigniores), the fact of Jesus' decision has often been downplayed or simply ignored. This, in turn, has muddied the waters and led to an imbalanced, skewed perspective.

Carroll's argument, of course, is hardly new. Fr. Manfred Hauke, in Women In The Priesthood? (Ignatius Press, 1988), notes its use by Herbert Richardson, Hans Küng, and Gerhard Lohfink, and states, "The widening of the office is already implicitly contained in Jesus' missionary commandment, which initiates the program for extending the Church to all peoples [Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47; Act 1:8]. Therefore, there was never any controversy about the pros and cons of admitting Gentile Christians to apostolic office but only about the question of observance of certain Jewish customs by new members [Gal 2:3, 7-9; Acts 15]." (p 334).

Carroll has made it clear that the deeper issue for this and all of his other objections is Church authority: what is it? who has it? how should it be used? under what circumstances? and so forth. But as Hauke points out, it goes even deeper than that—and in doing so comes full circle, back to the "fundamental reason"—for the essential issue at hand is the veracity and meaning of Jesus, his actions, and his teachings. At stake are matters such as the divinity of Christ, the divine knowledge of Christ, and the nature of the authority granted by Christ to the Apostles and their successors.

"To the early Church," writes Hauke, "it was thus self-evident that the law from the hand of Jesus was also binding on the new religious community. It is not Christ who has to conform to the Church but rather the Church to Christ. Obedience to a command of the Lord is not dependent on ever-changing sociocultural circumstances, but is obligatory until the Day of Judgment" (pp 476). (Unless, I suppose, you decide that the Day of Judgment is only for Jews since there were no Gentiles present at the Olivet Discourse.) In the words of Inter Insigniores:

In the final analysis it is the Church through the voice of the Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what can change and what must remain immutable. When she judges she cannot accept certain changes, it is because she knows she is bound by Christ's manner of acting. Her attitude, despite appearances, is therefore not one of archaism but of fidelity: it can be truly understood only in this light. The Church makes pronouncements in virtue of the Lord's promise and the presence of the Holy Spirit, in order to proclaim better the mystery of Christ and to safeguard and manifest the whole of its rich content.

The practice of the Church therefore has a normative character: in the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the East and in the West, and alert to repress abuses immediately. This norm, based on Christ's example, has been and is still observed because it is considered to conform to God's plan for his Church. (par 4).

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Excerpts:

• Women and the Priesthood: A Theological Reflection | Jean Galot, S.J. | From Theology of the Priesthood
• Who Is A Priest? | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
• The Real Reason for the Vocation Crisis | Rev. Michael P. Orsi
• Pray the Harvest Master Sends Laborors | Rev. Anthony Zimmerman
• Priestly Vocations in America: A Look At the Numbers | Jeff Ziegler
• Clerical Celibacy: Concept and Method | Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler | From The Case for Clerical Celibacy
• The Religion of Jesus | Blessed Columba Marmion | From Christ, The Ideal of the Priest
• The Priest as Man, Husband, and Father | Fr. John Cihak
• The Role of the Laity: An Examination of Vatican II and Christifideles Laici | Carl E. Olson

Bill McGurn to talk at ND on Obama and a Notre Dame Witness for Life

From Francis Beckwith:

This lecture is sponsored by the academic unit at Notre Dame in which I hold my visiting appointment, the Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture. If you are interested in attending, here are the vitals:

Thursday, April 23 - "A Notre Dame Witness for Life"

William McGurn, Notre Dame alumnus (Class of 1980) and former chief speech writer for George W. Bush (2005-2009), will be lecturing on Thursday night on the topic, “A Notre Dame Witness for Life.” Mr. McGurn, currently a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, will be speaking in Room 155 DeBartolo Hall and there will be a reception following his lecture. The lecture will be open to the public.

In his talk, Mr. McGurn will be exploring the ways in which the University of Notre Dame is of special significance for the pro-life cause globally. Mr. McGurn offered the following comments on what he plans to talk about:

“President Obama's invitation to speak at Notre Dame comes at a moment when the nation's most prominent Catholics -- our Vice President, our Speaker of the House, the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services -- are all strong and unequivocal advocates for enshrining abortion into the law as a constitutional right. For the prolife community, the issue is not so much opposition to a commencement speaker as what we long to see at Our Lady's university: affirmation for the premier civil rights cause of our day. In a nation wounded by Roe, in a culture that sets mothers against their own children, we know this: Our church, our culture, and our country are poorer without the life witness of Notre Dame."

Meanwhile, LifeSite News has posted an e-mail written by Fr. Peter Jarrett of the Congregation of the Holy Cross; Fr. Jarrett is the religious superior of University of Notre Dame President and Holy Cross priest Fr. John Jenkins. He writes, in part:

My prayer is that the President's visit here will in the end result in some positive engagement on the issues surrounding the sanctity of life. While Commencement itself may not provide much of an opportunity, I hope that a positive experience at Notre Dame will allow us to be heard in the future on this vital issue. I do not think that President Obama was raised in a pro-life tradition, so the opportunity to engage and possibly dialogue with him on these issues in the years to come could be a positive outcome of this event.

Hmmm: "some positive engagement," "may not provide much of an opportunity," "will allow us to be heard in the future," "possibly dialogue," "could be a positive outcome." Now that is some highly qualified language. Forget audacity; this sounds like the gullibility of false hope.

Especially strange to me is the comment about Obama not being "raised in a pro-life tradition." So? Didn't he spend twenty years attending a church that should have been upholding a culture of life? Has he not had an opportunity—as a lawyer, professor, community organizer, senator, candidate—to grapple with the issue of abortion and other life issues? And, if not, is it going to happen because he gives a commencement address and receives an honorary degree at Notre Dame?

And how, exactly, is praising President Obama endlessly for vague and dubious accomplishments (Father Jenkins: "we recognize this remarkable leader and this remarkable person who has accomplished so much") and then hoping there might possibility be a chance of some opportunity of potential dialogue going to communicate to him the need to take seriously those claiming to be the defenders and promoters of a culture of life? Have we forgotten what then-Senator Barack Obama said to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, less than two years ago, on July 17, 2007?

I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito [Applause]
 
So, you know where I stand. But this more is than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work together on.

Obama is playing offense. Notre Dame is playing defense. This game may only be in the third quarter, but right now it's a blowout.

Tom Dillon vs. the Relativists

Tom Dillon vs. the Relativists | Dr. Paul Kengor | April 22, 2009

Last week, as we at Grove City College held a conference on "Faith, Freedom, and Higher Education," in which we underscored the struggle against rampant secular relativism in our universities, American higher education lost a true apostle of faith and freedom. A continent away, Thomas Dillon, the remarkable president of the remarkable Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, Calif., was tragically killed in an auto accident while visiting Ireland. He was 62 years old.

I did not know Dillon well, though I interacted and corresponded with him a number of times. We were introduced by Judge Bill Clark, the close Reagan adviser who, among his many roles, is a longtime supporter of Thomas Aquinas College. I first met Dillon and his gracious wife, Terri, at Clark's office in Paso Robles, Calif.

A few weeks later, the Dillons took time from their busy schedule to host me and my family--all the kids included--at their college. They served us lunch, even preparing "kid food"--chicken fingers, spaghetti and meatballs. (My son, Mitch, when I asked him last week if he remembered that lunch, responded: "Yeah, they gave us Cherry Coke and Dr. Pepper.")

Read the entire column...

Fr. Robert Barron: Pursue assimilation, not capitulation

From Metro Catholic:

“All my life I’ve heard spirited advocacy for the dialogue between the Church and the wider culture, but this call has come, almost exclusively, from the Church and not from the culture,” Fr. Robert Barron said in his talk entitled “From Correlation to Assimilation: A New Model for the Church-Culture Dialogue” given to the students and faculty of Christendom College on April 20. “It is this one-way quality of the conversation that is, I submit to you, problematic.”

Fr. Robert Barron, a prominent theologian and podcasting priest, is one of the world’s great and most innovative teachers of Catholicism. His global media ministry called Word on Fire has a simple but revolutionary mission—to evangelize the culture. His numerous books and essays serve as critical educational and inspirational tools for seminarians, priests, parishioners and young people worldwide.

Fr. Barron explained that this one-way conversation, coupled with a false humility, results in “a Catholicism that is too culturally accommodating, excessively apologetic, shifting and unsure of its identity.”

<snip>

Fr. Barron proposed that the Church be assimilating—not defensive or acquiescent, but capable of rejecting what it must and taking what it can. This “assimilating Church” is inline with the teachings St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Newman, and the Second Vatican Council, he noted.

Read the entire piece.

• A Conversation with a Post-Liberal, Post-Conservative Evangelical Catholic Priest | Interview with Fr. Robert Barron | Carl E. Olson | October 15, 2007
• Seven Deadly Sins, Seven Lively Virtues (DVD) | Fr. Robert Barron
• Untold Blessings | (DVD) | Fr. Robert Barron

Benedict XVI on the other Ambrose

From Vatican Information Service:

AMBROSE AUTPERT DISCOVERED THE CHURCH'S TRUE FACE

VATICAN CITY, 22 APR 2009 (VIS) - In his general audience, held this morning in St. Peter's Square, the Pope proceeded with his series of catecheses on the great writers of the Eastern and Western Churches in the Middle Ages, focusing his attention today on Ambrose Autpert.

 Ambrose Autpert, the Holy Father explained, "is a little-known author of the eighth century. His works have, in fact, largely been attributed to other more famous figures, from St. Ambrose of Milan to St. Ildephonsus".

 Born to a high-ranking family in Provence, Ambrose Autpert entered the court of the Frankish King Pepin the Short where he was tutor to the future emperor Charlemagne. He subsequently travelled to Italy where he entered the Benedictine monastery of St. Vincent in the duchy of Benevento. Having been ordained a priest in 761, he was elected as abbot sixteen years later and died on 30 January 784.

 "He was monk and abbot during a time marked by great political tensions, which also had repercussions on the internal life of the monasteries", something also reflected in his writings, said the Holy Father. "He decried, for example, the contradiction between the splendid outward aspect of the monasteries and the tepidity ('tepiditas') of the monks themselves". In his ascetic tract "Conflictus vitiorum" (Conflict between the Vices and the Virtues) he seeks "to teach monks how to face the spiritual struggle in daily life".

 "Observing the lust for profit of the rich and powerful members of the society of his time, he felt moved to write a tract especially for them, 'De cupiditate' in which, with the Apostle Paul, he denounced greed as the root of all evil", said the Holy Father, highlighting how, "in the light of the current world economic crisis, this still has great relevance. From this root, from greed, this crisis was born".

 Autpert's teaching also has relevance "for mankind in this world. The rich have the duty to struggle against greed, against the desire to possess, to show off, against a false concept of freedom understood as being able to dispose of everything in accordance with one's own will. The rich must also discover the authentic path of truth, love and a just life".

 The Pope went on: "Ambrose Autpert's most important work is his ten-volume commentary on the Book of Revelation, ... the first in-depth commentary in the Latin world on the last book of Holy Scripture". In this work Autpert makes it clear that "the Church cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. He is the Mediator and the Church participates in such mediation because she is His Body".

 Autpert also "looks to Mary as a model of the Church", recognising that the Virgin has "a decisive role in the work of Redemption". Thus, "with good reason is he considered the first great Marian theologian of the West. Mercy, which he felt must free the soul from attachment to worldly and transitory pleasures, must be united to a profound study of the sacred sciences, especially meditation on Holy Scripture".

 "In Ambrose Autpert we see a person who lived in a time of great political manipulation of the Church, a time in which nationalism and tribalism disfigured her face. Yet amidst these difficulties, which we too also experience, he was able to discover the true face of the Church in Mary and the saints, and thus he understood what it means to be Catholic, to be Christian, to live from the Word of God, to enter into its profundity and so experience the mystery of the Mother of God. ... Let us listen to this message and ask the Lord to help us live the mystery of the Church, also in our own time", the Pope concluded.

Previous general audiences of Pope Benedict have been published by Ignatius Press in three books:

"Protestantism is dangerous. ..."

It is an explosive and ultimately uncontrollable force that can destabilize and undermine church and government. It can reject time-honored truths, traditions and institutions—including its own—and posit new ones in their place, only to repeat this process again and again. Protestantism is infinitely restless, constantly moving in many divergent directions at the same time. Like evolution, it possesses astonishing power to create highly adaptive religious organisms and equally astonishing power to destroy them if they fail to develop appropriately.

No, that isn't from a Catholic apologist; it is from Ronald K. Rittgers, who teaches German Reformation studies at Valparaiso University in Indiana, in his review, for The Christian Century, of Alister McGrath's recently published Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution—A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First:

Rebuilding the economy requires restoring the traditional family...

... to its proper place. So argues David P. Goldman (aka, "The Author Formerly Known As 'Spengler'"), in the March 2009 issue of First Things:

Unless we restore the traditional family to a central position in American life, we cannot expect to return to the kind of wealth accumulation that characterized the 1980s and 1990s. Theoretically, we might recruit immigrants to replace the children we did not rear, or we might invest capital overseas with the children of other countries. From the standpoint of economic policy, neither of those possibilities can be dismissed. But the contributions of immigration or capital export will be marginal at best compared to the central issue of whether the demographics of America reverts to health.

Life is sacred for its own sake. It is not an instrument to provide us with fatter IRAs or better real-estate values. But it is fair to point out that wealth depends ultimately on the natural order of human life. Failing to rear a new generation in sufficient numbers to replace the present one violates that order, and it has consequences for wealth, among many other things. Americans who rejected the mild yoke of family responsibility in pursuit of atavistic enjoyment will find at last that this is not to be theirs, either.

It will be painful for conservatives to admit that things were not well with America under the Republican watch, at least not at the family level. From 1954 to 1970, for example, half or more of households contained two parents and one or more children under the age of eighteen. In fact as well as in popular culture, the two-parent nuclear family formed the normative American household. By 1981, when Ronald Reagan took office, two-parent households had fallen to just over two-fifths of the total. Today, less than a third of American households constitute a two-parent nuclear family with children.

Housing prices are collapsing in part because single-person households are replacing families with children. The Virginia Tech economist Arthur C. Nelson has noted that households with children would fall from half to a quarter of all households by 2025. The demand of Americans will then be urban apartments for empty nesters. Demand for large-lot single family homes, Nelson calculated, will slump from 56 million today to 34 million in 2025—a reduction of 40 percent. There never will be a housing price recovery in many parts of the country. Huge tracts will become uninhabited except by vandals and rodents.

Read the entire article, titled, "Demographics & Depression."

If true...

... very interesting.

Ron Howard, Angry & Demeaning?

When it was announced, years ago, that Ron Howard—a one-time television thespian turned movie director whose roles as Richie Cunningham and Opie Taylor endeared him to millions of fans—would direct The Da Vinci Code, it surprised some people. I was asked repeatedly, in the course of giving talks about Dan Brown's infamous novel, why sweet Ronnie would direct a movie that was based on a nearly endless list of falsehoods about the Catholic Church (not to mention those about Italian art, medieval architecture, and much more). Some folks, apparently, did not understand that one's role as a boy does not make the man.

Now Howard has penned an apologia, aimed mostly at The Catholic League, on The Huffington Post, and it reveals, I think, why the Howard-Brown "creative" marriage is a match made in, uh, Hollywood heaven. The two men are essentially twins, possessing mediocre and modest talents, a hamfisted way with complex and challenging material, a drive to be taken seriously at what they do even while they often hide behind the "It's only entertainment!" barricade, thin skin, and an apparent inability to comprehend why Catholics are so upset that they shamelessly truck in anti-Catholic muck.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Howard's statements and then offer some "FACTS" in response:

Spengler, revealed

The identity of the mysterious and very readable "Spengler," who wrote frequently for The Asian Times (300 articles since 1990, has been revealed. Turns out he has taken a position as associate editor of First Things magazine.

The new Archbishiop of St. Louis

From Vatican Information Service:

Appointed Bishop Robert James Carlson of Saginaw, U.S.A., as metropolitan archbishop of St. Louis (area 15,451, population 2,177,000, Catholics 566,000, priests 737, permanent deacons 248, religious 2,176), U.S.A. The archbishop-elect was born in Minneapolis, U.S.A. in 1944 he was ordained a priest in 1970 and consecrated a bishop in 1983.

Dr. Ed Peters writes:

Mixed feelings, of course: Bp. Robert Carlson will be sorely missed here in Michigan, but he's a terrific choice for the Archdiocese of Saint Louis. While others can better describe his work with, say, the Institute for Priestly Formation, Cursillo, or Charismatic Renewal, it's Carlson the canonist who interests me.

Carlson's licentiate thesis (written at CUA in 1979*) was entitled "The mission of the diocesan priest to preach in light of the Second Vatican Council." I've not read it, but it seems an earlier indicator of what would be an abiding interest for the future arch/bishop: helping priests become, among other things, more effective preachers in a world that desperately needs to hear Good News.

Read more.

Dead Men Stay Dead ... Almost All the Time, Then and Now

Dead Men Stay Dead ... Almost All the Time, Then and Now | Al Kresta | Ignatius Insight

"Jesus' resurrection shattered the after-life expectations of the ancient world," I told a friend last week. He replied that "people back then believed in resurrections—resurrections weren't that incredible." Feeling superiority over past generations is a form of self congratulation that C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." Could my friend really think that Roman executioners didn't really believe that dead men stayed dead? That those crucified bodies on the roadsides were not regularly eaten by dogs, or dumped into a grave to rot, or the bones polished and placed in an ossuary?

Electromagnetism, string theory and stem cells haven't changed our fundamental human confidence in direct sense perception. When we and the ancients notice that a person hasn't been breathing for a few hours and feel his body grow cold, we both know that he's dead, not merely sleeping. Crypts and corpses formed as firm a union in the 1st as in the 21st century.

Why do we patronize the ancients? Wouldn't you think that life without refrigeration, anesthetics, flush toilets, and first class travel would incline a person to adopt a tough-minded approach to life's likely outcomes? Don't deprivation and suffering hedge against holding extravagant expectations of what life ultimately holds for you? The hardships of ancient peasant life, I'm sure, seemed pretty good prima facie evidence to many that life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" in the famed phrase of David Hume. Our first century ancestors were probably less Pollyannaish than we are about the material world's stern refusal to fulfill our fondest desires when and where we want. It's hard to imagine a smiley face bumper sticker urging us to "Expect a miracle today" decorating the rump of a jackass in 70 A.D. Jerusalem. Prayers were not more commonly answered, miracles were not more commonly performed in olden days. Far more than ourselves, the old holies found themselves companions to infant mortality, famine, drought and disease despite their prayers and because of God's economy of miracles. The Psalms and Qoheleth as well as Christ's warnings and the Apostles' betrayals leave no doubt that unbelief about God's control of human history is an equal and chronic temptation for the antique and the modern.

Read the entire piece...