Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

"Can the killing of abortionists be justified?"

That's the title of this 1994 article in The Wanderer (ht: Raving Papist) by moral theologian Charles Rice, long-time professor at Notre Dame Law School and author of Fifty Questions On Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It.

The very short answer is, "No!"

Dr. Rice wrote, in part:

The only situations in which anyone ever has the right intentionally to kill anyone are the just war, capital punishment, and a justified rebellion (or what the Catechism calls "armed resistance to oppression by political authority" (N. 2243, emphasis in Catechism). The just war and capital punishment are decreed by the state, which derives its authority from God. Armed rebellion involves an assumption by private persons of that authority of the state. The death penalty is inflicted on a person judged guilty of a capital crime and a just war or justified rebellion is subject to the mandate of noncombatant immunity, which forbids the direct and intentional killing of innocent noncombatants. See the Catechism, NN. 2312-2314. Whether in a just war or any other circumstance, no one ever has the moral right intentionally and directly to kill an innocent human being.

In self-defense or defense of others, against an aggressor, the intent must be to defend, rather than to kill. Consider two situations. In the first, Able, an abortionist's assistant in the killing room, suddenly has a change of heart moments before the abortion begins. He has a right and even a duty to use force to defend the child, not to kill the abortionist. In the second situation, Baker, an opponent of abortion, shoots the abortionist in the parking lot as he is approaching the building to do abortions a few minutes later.

One difference between the two cases is imminence. Able engages himself in the immediate defense of the child; he has no intent but to defend that child; he has no separate intent to harm or kill the abortionist. Recall that, in justified self-defense or defense of others, the intent cannot be to kill the aggressor, but rather to stop the attack. Baker, by contrast, is not in the heat of a physical struggle to save the child. He thinks, "I can get no closer than this. If I do not stop him he will go in there and murder babies. So I will shoot him in the head." His purpose or motive is to save children. But his intent in the act he performs that moment is to blow the baby killer's head off in order to achieve that purpose of saving children. Apart from the just war, capital punishment, or the justified rebellion, which derive from the authority of God, no one may ever intentionally kill anyone. Baker is intentionally doing an intrinsically evil thing to achieve a good end. He assumes the authority of God, to decide when that person will face the final judgment of God. His act cannot be justified. St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, said that "`a man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evildoer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him"' (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 3).

Some may argue that killing the baby killer in the parking lot is defense of the child because that is as close as Baker could get. But if Baker may kill the abortionist when he is not actually performing an abortion, why does he have to limit himself to the parking lot? Why can he not conclude that the only practicable way he can get a clear shot at him is to shoot him on the golf course? Or at the video store? St. Thomas speaks of the justified defender as one who "repels force." See the Catechism, N. 2264. Unless we are to declare open season on abortionists, so as to justify their intentional execution by anybody so inclined wherever practicable, the right to defend the child must be restricted to the immediate performance of the abortion. Even then it is practically inconceivable that lethal force would have to be used.

The first of the above two examples is academic, because opponents of abortion, practically, do not find themselves in abortuary killing rooms. The issue is simply whether it is justifiable to kill abortionists, wherever and whenever an opportunity to do so presents itself.

The intentional killing of an abortionist could be justified only if it were incidental to a justified rebellion, which would itself be a just war, in which the abortionist was rightly regarded as a combatant and therefore a legitimate target. However, "Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution" (Catechism, N. 2243; emphasis in Catechism). These criteria do not justify the intentional killings of abortionists. Michael Griffin was not resisting an immediate, unjustified attack by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. By no stretch of the imagination can one reasonably conclude that we are in an insurrectionary situation in the United States today such as to justify his intentional killing of a person who was not then attacking anyone. A justified rebellion involves the assumption by private persons of the prerogative of the state to wage a just war. In a rebellion the war is waged against the state itself. In Roe v. Wade, and later cases, the Supreme Court, with the cooperation of Congress and the Executive Branch, has precipitated an unraveling of the American civic fabric. It cannot, however, be legitimately concluded that the situation has disintegrated so far beyond other means of correction that armed rebellion is justified in whole or in part.

Rebellion, incidentally, is not something to be lightly sanctioned. The just war waged by a government has the limiting feature that it can be waged only by the duly constituted public authority. A rebellion, by contrast, involves an assumption of all or part of that public authority by private persons who themselves decide that they are justified in taking over the power of the state in whole or in part. And if one can so decide, so can another. In Populorum Progressio, in 1967, Pope Paul VI said that "a revolutionary uprisingþsave where there is manifest long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country produces new injustices, throws more elements out of balance, and brings on new disasters. Real evil should not be fought against at the cost of greater miseries (Populorum Progressio, N. 31).

Definitely read the entire essay.

Already, within the span of a few hours, a standard line by some abortion supporters/providers has become, "Those who call abortion murder are implicitly or indirectly responsible for Tiller's death." It's a nifty bit of rhetoric, but one that is inherently flawed. It rests on the very shaky premise that if you believe someone has committed murder, you will be inclined to kill them if you have a chance. But both logic and experience say otherwise. The vast majority of people—even those with intense emotions about the matter—seek justice through lawful means, even if those means are often frustrating and, in some cases, deeply flawed. The vast majority of Christians rightly recognize that murdering a murderer is not only a false solution, it is an evil one, as Dr. Rice explains very well in his essay. The statement, "Abortion is murder," is either objectively true or false; how someone chooses to act based on that statement can be either lawful or unlawful, good or evil.

(By the way, what of the matter of those liberals who have accused George W. Bush of being a murderer? Shouldn't they be considered hate-mongers who are potentially inciting acts of violence? Or what of those who say the Catholic Church is responsible for the death of thousands in Africa because it opposes the use of contraceptives?)

This disingenuous rhetoric of convenient blame is used because abortion supporters (oops, I mean reproductive justice advocates) know who it is resisting the mythology of a Brave New World built on contraceptives, abortion, euthanasia, fornication, and "gay marriage." And the best way to undermine and even destroy those folks is to portray them en masse as domestic terrorists, religious extremists, and lawless theocrats. Trying to portray everyone in the pro-life movement in such a way is aided greatly by the slaying of Tiller. The fact that the act was immediately condemned by numerous pro-life groups and leaders is either ignored or described as "hypocritical," as if it is somehow impossible to accurately describe abortion and then peacefully work to end it.

In the hours and days immediately following 9/11, a host of moderate Islamic groups loudly denounced the attacks, and Americans were assured by the media and the government that the horrific events had nothing to do with true Islam. What's that? You don't remember the many statements by moderate Islamic groups? Well, regardless, you surely remember being told—even by President Bush—that Islam is a religion of peace. Surely the same benefit of the doubt will be extended to pro-life groups, won't it? Won't it? No? Of course not. Such are the deep and difficult challenges facing those staring into the darkness of the culture of death.

You play by the rules and do the right thing the right way and yet you are portrayed as narrow-minded, violent, hateful religious nuts. So imagine what happens when a violent, hateful nut (apparently a "Christian" of some sort) murders an abortionist? Well, unfortunately, we don't have to imagine. Mark Shea laments, "In our present cultural climate, it is quite possible that the man who did this just murdered the pro-life movement." I'm not ready to go so far, but I understand where he is coming from.

The Curt Jester has a good compilation of statements about Tillman's death and what it might mean for the future of the pro-life movement.

Suspect arrested in Tiller slaying

His name is Scott Roeder, and there is speculation that he has had ties with Operation Rescue.

Which is already leading to this sort of rhetoric from left-wing blogs/sites:

 Those people that equate abortion with murder are at least partially responsible for the death of Dr. Tiller and many like him.  They might not have pulled the trigger or even knowingly approved of the act, but is it completely out of the question that if you scream about the slaughter of babies and the righteousness of your cause that someone might actually believe these things and feel it is the right thing to do?  To shoot down the ‘murderers’?  To commit violent acts against women choosing to terminate a pregnancy?  And then afterwards, when they are made into martyrs in the anti-choice community, do you really believe it’s enough to put out a statement that condemns the ‘act of violence’?  ...

That, my friends, is what is known as talking out of one’s ass.  And you know what?  I don’t believe them.  Not for one minute.

Police are now saying the 51 year old suspect in the murder of Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder, (FreeStateDem broke this) was an isolated individual, but I hope the media tears the case apart to be sure of that because if he is connected at all, then we need to demand that the domestic terrorist group he might be associated with is treated like any other group in this country that supports – either directly or indirectly – terrorists.  And if the media doesn't, then I trust some of you will take the case on.  :P

Freeze their assets, interrogate their leadership (sans torture, because that's not what we're about) and bring this person (or people) to justice.

There is will be more of this—much more—in the days to come, I'm certain of it. And, sadly, Randall Terry is not helping matters at all. Not one bit.

Robert P. George has made an excellent statement on the situation.

Despicable. Cowardly. Evil.

Shocking news:

WICHITA, Kan. – Late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, a prominent advocate for abortion rights wounded by a protester more than a decade ago, was shot and killed Sunday at a church in Wichita where he was serving as an usher and his wife was in the choir, his attorney said.

Tiller was shot during morning services at Reformation Lutheran Church, attorney Dan Monnat said. Police said a manhunt was under way for the shooter, who fled in a car registered to a Kansas City suburb nearly 200 miles away.

National anti-abortion groups had long focused on Tiller, whose Women's Health Care Services clinic is one of just three in the nation where abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.

Abortion is evil. The murder of those who perform abortions is evil. Lawlessness and murder is never the answer, regardless of how serious the problem. This is truly sickening.

More to follow, I'm sure, as more facts are made known.

UPDATE: From CNA:

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life expressed his sadness after hearing of the killing of George Tiller this morning.

"At this point, we do not know the motives of this act, or who is behind it, whether an angry post- abortive man or woman, or a misguided activist, or an enemy within the abortion industry, or a political enemy frustrated with the way Tiller has escaped prosecution. We should not jump to conclusions or rush to judgment."

"But whatever the motives, we at Priests for Life continue to insist on a culture in which violence is never seen as the solution to any problem. Every life has to be protected, without regard to their age or views or actions."

Shaun Kenney, executive director of American Life League, explained that leaders within the pro-life movement "often discuss justice in connection with our mission to end the tragedy of abortion. Today, Dr. George Tiller's life ended in an act defying those principles."
"With genuine sorrow, we reflect on today's events in prayer. Justice for all human beings includes the lives of those with whom we fundamentally disagree as well as the victims of abortion. We firmly hope the perpetrators of this act are apprehended, that the facts be made known, and that justice according to the law is preserved and dispensed," ALL spokesperson said.

Read the entire piece.

UPDATE: From the AFP, President Obama's reaction:

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr George Tiller as he attended church services this morning," said Obama.

"However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

Read the entire piece. And this from Politico.com:

Kansas's former Attorney General Phil Kline, an anti-abortion crusader who brought an unsuccessful prosecution against Tiller, denounced the murder this afternoon. "I am stunned by this lawless and violent act which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law. We join in lifting prayer that God's grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller's family and friends," he said in a statement through a spokesman.

Read more.

Pentecost Sunday: The Church made manifest

I wrote the following "Opening the Word" column for Pentecost Sunday, May 27, 2007, for Our Sunday Visitor:

In the Old Testament the feast of Pentecost (from the Greek word for “fiftieth”) was one of the three great pilgrimage festivals of Israel, a celebration of the spring harvest that took place fifty days after the offering of first fruits at Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For Christians, Pentecost marks the fruits and harvest of another sort. It is a celebration of a formative event in the history of the early Church—the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon the newly birthed Church and the first bold proclamation of the Gospel by Peter, the head apostle, among the Jews.

“The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost,” states the Catechism, “by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the ‘dispensation of the mystery’ the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, ‘until he comes.’” (CCC 1076). This outpouring of the Holy Spirit and manifestation of the Church are described in today’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles. A group of men and women who had been afraid and confused in the dark days following the Crucifixion of Jesus were transformed supernaturally into fearless and passionate evangelists, emboldened by the Helper without whom, Paul writes, “No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord.’” (1 Cor 12:3). 

United together in anticipation of the gift promised by the Lord, the apostles and disciples experienced a theophany, or visitation by God. The loud noise and fire is similar to what the Israelites experienced at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:16-18), while the sensation of strong, rushing wind is like preceding God’s visit to Elijah on the same mountain (1 Kings 19:11-12). Fire was a common element in Old Testament theophanies, such as the pillar of fire that led the Israelites through the desert (Ex 13:21-22). Particularly striking is the description found in Psalm 29: “The voice of the Lord strikes with fiery flame” (v 7). The outward signs seen and heard in the upper room fulfilled the prophecy of John of the Baptist, who declared that Jesus “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Lk 3:16). In this way the people of God are purified, empowered, and prepared to go forth and carry out the work begun by the Son of God.

The Christians first witnessed to Jews “from every nation” who either were visiting Jerusalem for the feast or who had moved there from other countries. This miraculous gift of tongues—being able to speak in a multitude of languages—is an undoing of the ancient curse of the Tower of Babel, when “the Lord confused the speech of all the world” (Gen 11:1-9) because of man’s disobedient attempt to create a perfect society without the aid of God. On Pentecost the one body of the society of the Church was created by the Holy Spirit, uniting Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free persons from every tongue and nation.

It has become common, as I’ve noted in previous columns, for some Christians to pit the Holy Spirit against “the Church,” as though the Third Person of the Trinity will only be hindered by structure and organization. But that is contrary to what Luke and Paul wrote about the early Church, which was not only animated by the Holy Spirit, but organized by Him as well. There is one body, Paul explained to the Christians at Corinth—a rather rowdy and disorganized group of believers—and that body, the Church, has been formed by baptism into Christ through the Holy Spirit. “What the soul is to the human body,” wrote St. Augustine, “the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church” (CCC 797). The Church is both charismatic and Catholic, a single body of many parts, united in and through the Holy Spirit.  Drink deeply, then, of the one Spirit!

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Excerpts, and Interviews:

• 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
• Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L.
• The Trinity and the Nature of Love | Fr. Christopher Rengers
• Approaching the Sacred Scriptures | Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch
• 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

"I just don’t think Sonia would fit in with Roberts, exactly, and certainly not Scalia."

"I think they’re very different Catholics.”

So says a Jesuit priest who knows Judge Sonia Sotomayor, as reported by The New York Times in an article which also states:

There are indications that Judge Sotomayor is more like the majority of American Catholics: those who were raised in the faith and shaped by its values, but who do not attend Mass regularly and are not particularly active in religious life. Like many Americans, Judge Sotomayor may be what religion scholars call a “cultural Catholic” — a category that could say something about her political and social attitudes.

Yes, it sure could...

Pope Benedict XVI, the ecclesiastically incorrect" pontiff

Dom Alcuin Reid has an excellent essay, "We are lucky this Pope is 'ecclesiastically incorrect'", in the May 22, 2009, edition of The Catholic Herald (ht: the excellent blog, New Liturgical Movement). He writes:

We now have world figures such as Alain Juppé presuming to assert that "this Pope is becoming a real problem', and Catholic journals publishing articles lamenting that Benedict XVI stands "like a solitary monarch in a curia that has lost its bearings". Why? Yes, one can point to some real mismanagement of papal initiatives in the Vatican which do require urgent remedy. The handling of the Regensburg address and of the recent lifting of the excommunication from the SSPX bishops was unsatisfactory. The appointment of Fr Wagner as an auxiliary bishop in Austria may not have been wise (less unwise, though, than Pope John Paul II's 1986 appointment of Hans Hermann Groër to Vienna). And perhaps the Pope should have addressed the "condom question" in an extended discourse rather than in a brief reply on an aeroplane.

But these matters of management are not the root cause of the discontent. When Pope Benedict freed the older liturgical rites from legal restrictions in July 2007, one Catholic commentator stated that "this is the strongest indication so far that the theological conservatism of Cardinal Ratzinger... is still in place in the papacy of Benedict XVI". Until then it was hoped that it was not. "A secret liberal at heart he is not," they lamented.

Indeed. That much ought to have been clear from his seminal and apparently programmatic address of December 2005 in which he distinguished an acceptable "hermeneutic of reform in continuity" from the unacceptable "hermeneutic of rupture" espoused By many following the Second Vatican Council. What Cardinal Ratzinger had been arguing for years was proposed by the Pope.

If we understand this - that the Pope is concerned that all aspects of the Church's life are in (or, where necessary, are restored to) clear continuity with her Tradition, without excluding legitimate development that does not break from her past - we can see why he acted so decisively on the older liturgy, why he does not fear to re-assert the Church's unpopular but life-giving teaching on human sexuality, why he did not hesitate to show real paternal mercy to the SSPX bishops in the hope of reconciliation and why he does not shrink from substantial dialogue with other faiths, even when he may be misunderstood.

We also need to understand that the Pope has a pretty clear understanding of his role. As Cardinal Ratzinger he observed that "the Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy". Pope Benedict is prepared to suffer the price of misinterpretation and even ridicule in his battle against relativism. That's his job.

Dom Reid is a Benedictine monk of St. Michael's Abbey in Farnborough, England, and the author of The Organic

Development of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2005), which has a foreword written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The foreword can be read on Ignatius Insight. It contains this remark, which is quite interesting in light of Benedict's pontificate and the comments by Reid:

From my own personal point of view I should like to give further particular emphasis to some of the criteria for liturgical renewal thus briefly indicated. I will begin with those last two main criteria. It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The "rite", that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living Tradition in which the sphere using that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition.
 
It is important, in this connection, to interpret the "substantial continuity" correctly. The author expressly warns us against the wrong path up which we might be led by a Neoscholastic sacramental theology that is disconnected from the living form of the Liturgy. On that basis, people might reduce the "substance" to the matter and form of the sacrament and say: Bread and wine are the matter of the sacrament; the words of institution are its form. Only these two things are really necessary; everything else is changeable. At this point modernists and traditionalists are in agreement: As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable. Many priests today, unfortunately, act in accordance with this motto; and the theories of many liturgists are unfortunately moving in the same direction. They want to overcome the limits of the rite, as being something fixed and immovable, and construct the products of their fantasy, which are supposedly "pastoral", around this remnant, this core that has been spared and that is thus either relegated to the realm of magic or loses any meaning whatever. The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of Tradition that had taken concrete form, that cannot be torn apart into little pieces but that has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone who, like me, was moved by this perception at the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.

Read the entire preface by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

Kind of funny and sort of weird in an off base way

Robin Robert Wright, the author of The Evolution of God—which I know little about except what is on amazon.com—is interviewed by The New York Times:

Your approach to religious history is so nakedly materialist. For instance, you claim the Apostle Paul was a kind of marketing guru who dropped the more demanding requirements of Judaism, like circumcision and dietary restrictions, to attract more followers.
Do the math. How many Christians are there today and how many Jews are there? If his goal was to gain a large following, he seems to have made the right tactical decision there.

Do you have to make Christianity sound like a pre-electronic Facebook?
Institutions thrive when they can serve the interest of a bunch of people, and there’s no reason to think the church is different. None of this is to say Paul didn’t feel divinely inspired.

O.K., but where is the transcendence in your book?
Well, I wind up arguing that the drift of history, however materially driven, has enough moral direction to suggest that there’s some larger purpose at work, and I guess you can call that transcendence.

And:

Were you a churchgoer as a child?
Southern Baptists don’t fool around. At age 8 or 9, I chose to go to the front of the church in response to the altar call and accepted Jesus as my savior.

When did you begin to doubt?
I think it was roughly sophomore year in high school. I encountered the theory of evolution, and my parents were creationists. There was a clash. They brought a Baptist minister over to the house to try to convince me that evolution hadn’t happened. He was not entirely successful, I would say.

That sure sounds familiar. The particular fundamentalist Bible chapel I was raised in didn't really do "altar calls," but I was part of several at summer Bible camp and other outings. (Even as a 12-year-old I thought they were emotionally manipulative and I did my best to avoid participation.) I also watched several anti-evolution videos in high school and heard plenty of anti-evolution talks/sermons. I eventually rejected "Creationism" (that is, the notion that God created the earth 6,000 years ago because the Bible "says so")—and became Catholic. Because, in the end, being a materialist with a vague, Hegelian-lite notion of transcendence isn't satisfying or convincing on any level or in any way. Still, although Wright might not be entirely right, I kind of like his sense of humor.

Pentecost in the East

Specifically, at Mount Athos, the legendary mountain in northern Greece that is home to twenty Orthodox monasteries. Sandro Magister of Chiesa visited there in 1997 and has re-posted a piece he wrote about his experience:

The church itself is highly evocative: It's in the form of a Greek cross, like all of the other churches on Athos, admirably frescoed by Macedonian masters of the 14th century, and with an iconostasis brilliantly radiant with gold and icons. But it's the chant that gives life to everything: harmonic chant, masculine, without instruments, that flows uninterruptedly even for seven, ten hours at a time. The greater the feast, the longer it lasts into the night, chant now robust, now whispered, like the tide that ebbs and flows.

There are two lead choirs: bunches of monks gathered in columns around the lectern of each transept, with the choirmaster who intones the strophe and the choir that catches the tune and makes it blossom in melodies and chords. And when the choirmaster moves from the first to the second choir and crosses the nave with quick steps, his minutely pleated lightweight cloak billows in the form of two majestic wings. He seems to fly, like the notes.

And then there are the lights. There is electricity in the monastery, but not in the church. Here the only lights are fire: myriads of little flames whose lighting and extinguishing and motion is also a part of the rite. In every catholikon on Athos an immense chandelier in the form of a royal crown hangs from the central cupola, and has a circumference equal to that of the cupola itself. The crown is of copper, of bronze, of shining brass; it alternates candles and icons; it carries giant suspended eggs, which are a symbol of the Resurrection. It hangs very low, almost skimming the floor, directly in front of the iconostasis that marks off the holy of holies. Other magnificent golden chandeliers hang from the transepts' vaults.

And there's the moment in solemn liturgies when all the candles are lit: those in the chandeliers and in the central corona; and then the first are made to swing widely, while the great corona is spun on its axis. The dance of lights lasts at least an hour, until little by little it dies down. The glow of the thousand little flames, the shining of the gold, the clinking of the metals, the changing of colors of the icons, the resonant wave of the choir that accompanies these rotating galaxies of stars like celestial spheres: It all makes the true essence of Athos – its glimpse into the superhuman mysteries – sparkle.

What Western, Catholic liturgies today are able to initiate simple hearts into similar mysteries and to inflame them with heavenly thoughts? Joseph Ratzinger, previously as cardinal and now as pope, hits the mark when he points to the vulgarization of the liturgy as the critical point for today's Catholicism. On Athos the diagnosis is even more radical: the Western churches, in trying to humanize God, make him disappear. "Our God is not the God of Western scholasticism," the igoumenos of the Gregoríos monastery on Athos moralizes. "A God who doesn't deify man can't have any appeal, whether he exists or not. A large part of the reasons behind the wave of atheism in the West are found in this functional, incidental Christianity."

Vassilios, igoumenos of Ivíron, another of the monasteries, echoes the sentiment: "In the West, action rules; they ask us how we can stay here for so many hours in church without doing anything. I reply: What does the embryo in the maternal womb do? Nothing, but since it is in its mother's womb it develops and grows. So it is with the monk. He preserves the holy space in which he finds himself and he is preserved, molded by this same space. The miracle is here: We are entering into paradise, here and now. We are in the heart of the communion of saints."

The quote in that final paragraph is wonderful. The comment about the Western churches can, of course, be questioned in several ways (beginning with, "What 'western churches' are we talking about?"), but shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. Ratzinger/Benedict has made a similar critique of "functional, incidental Christianity" a centerpiece of his pontificate.

However, the comment—"the Western churches, in trying to humanize God, make him disappear"—is a bit confusing to me. Since the belief that God became man is central to Christianity, such a remark must be aimed at the various attempts to either reduce or eliminate the mystery of God, often taken to the point where "God" is simply identified as man's projection: "Those who have no desires have no gods either," claimed Feuerbach, "Gods are mens wishes in corporeal form" (quoted by de Lubac in The Drama of Atheist Humanism). Another serious problem, obviously, is the attempt to make Jesus Christ only human, denying his divinity. Neither of those issues are matters of "Western scholasticism," although it can be argued that a philosophical lineage extends from the nominalism of Ockham down to the metaphysics of Hegel and Kant, and then on to the atheism/anti-theism of Marx and Nietzsche.

The comment is most likely a reflection of the long-standing tensions between Eastern and Western Christianity, tensions that have, unfortunately, often led to polemics. But the most famous of the Western scholastics, St. Thomas Aquinas, was hardly a stranger to the doctrine of deification, or theosis, stating, "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods"—a quote that is highlighted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 460). A.N. Williams has written an entire book, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford, 1999), about this issue; St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly stated the book "could prove to be a major step in overcoming misunderstanding between East and West..." (Unfortunately, academic books that cost $80-$125 don't often have large audiences.) I'm convinced that the doctrine of theosis/deification is a necessary and invaluable point of ecumenical discussion and consideration, and the more that Catholics learn about it, the better. After all, it is an essential part of Catholic soteriology. And a great place to start is Deification and Grace (Sapientia, 2007), by Daniel A. Keating, who teaches theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Book Excerpts:

• Theosis: The Reason for the Season | Carl E. Olson
• The Dignity of the Human Person: Pope John Paul II's Teaching on Divinization in the Trinitarian Encyclicals | Carl E. Olson
• The Liturgy Lived: The Divinization of Man | Jean Corbon, O.P.
• Jean Daniélou and the "Master-Key to Christian Theology" | Carl E. Olson
• Are Catholics Born Again? | Mark Brumley

The Truth About Joan of Arc

The Truth About Joan of Arc | The Foreword and Preface to The Retrial of Joan of Arc by Régine Pernoud

Foreword to The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence For Her Vindication by Régine Pernoud | Katherine Anne Porter

In the many hundreds of books in French about the condemnation and retrial of Joan of Arc, the authors invariably base their criticism of the first trial on the evidence given by witnesses in the second. None of these books has been translated into English. The French seem to write them for each other, or perhaps even at this late day the English reader does not enjoy seeing his nation put so soundly and irreparably in the poorest light of its history. Whatever the reason, this is the first book based firmly on the retrial of Joan of Arc to be translated into English, and the whole tremendous history is told again, this time by her childhood playmates and relatives, her royal and noble friends, her confessor, her valet, her squires and heralds, and her fellow soldiers. There are a few of the old enemies of the first court still in Rouen, but they can do her no more harm: and indeed their presence here perhaps lends even a more powerful authenticity to this story than if we heard only from her friends.

It is indeed a beautiful book, well translated, with the speed and symmetry and direction of the life it celebrates; and besides its merit as a work of scholarship, there is warmth and sanity in it, often absent from books about Joan of Arc, who inspires strange fervors and theories. In my small collection, out of the hundreds, there is one that proves to the hilt that Joan was a Catharist, that outcropping of ancient Manichaeism in medieval Provence; another, that she and her fellow captain, Gilles de Laval, Sire de Rais, were sorcerers, adept in Black Magic. The fact that Joan's first trial has been exposed in its falseness over and over has no effect on these infatuated minds; nor that Gilles de Rais, though proved a man of bad morals, still was tried and condemned by a court as corrupt as that which condemned Joan. Still a third book has been published to prove that Joan was a by-blow of the blood royal, and that the "secret" she whispered to the Dauphin in proof of her mission was that she was his half-sister, bastard daughter of his father King Charles VI, the virgin sent to save France after France had been betrayed by a woman.

Continue reading...

Quick: Does President Obama support the Pregnant Women Support Act?

That Act, as you might know, is sponsored by Democrats for Life, and some (including America magazine) have mistakenly thought, for whatever reason, it has the support of the President. Not so, says Jack Smith of The Catholic Key, who has been doing yoeman's work on the issue:

It has become commonplace for the president's Catholic supporters to applaud his plan to "reduce abortions" (a phrase he doesn't use) often tying that to his supposed support of the Pregnant Women Support Act.

The myth of the president's support for PWSA is now commonplace in the media and even the generally meticulous John Allen at NCR misreported the president's support of the bill. Commenting on L'Osservatore Romano's "first 100 days" editorial, Allen wrote that the author

also argued that Obama's support for the "Pregnant Women Support Act" represents a "rebalancing" of his abortion policies "in support of maternity."

L'Osservatore did not say the president supported PWSA and I pointed that out to Allen. He went back to the Italian and confirmed I was correct. No correction was ever made to the article however. (I'm not including Allen among those lying for the president. He's simply an example of how widespread the myth has become.)

In a May 1st post, Smith pointed out that President Obama:

has not endorsed it in its current incarnation and neither did he support it as a Senator when it had been introduced in previous sessions. The L'Osservatore article also nowhere lauds the president for seeking to reduce abortions. Indeed, it would be wonderful if the president did endorse the Pregnant Women Support Act, as it would certainly bolster the bill's currently thin support.

For its own part, L'Osservatore demonstrates a certain ignorance of the American political scene when it falsely reports that the Act was "designed by the Democratic party." The act was in fact created by the Democrats for Life of America which no informed observer would confuse with the Democratic Party.

The act has been introduced in three congressional sessions by pro-life Democrat Lincoln Davis with Rep. Chris Smith as lead Republican co-sponsor. In each session it attracted a small group of co-sponsors from both parties. Regrettably, major support for the bill has not materialized from either party. There are currently 26 cosponsors in the House, while a similar sounding but altogether awful bill by extreme pro-abort Rep. Louise Slaughter has 137 co-sponsors in the House. This is why Cardinal Rigali sent a letter to members of Congress seeking additional co-sponsors for the Pregnant Women Support Act.

Smith later, in two posts, compared the Pregnant Women Support Act and the Prevention First Act. The latter's primary sponsor is Harry Reid (D-NV); it was co-sponsored by 34 senators, including then-Senator Obama. Smith reports that it is "supported by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Rights Action League." The Prevention First Act does not contain "a single word about economic assistance or support to women in crisis pregnancies."

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and Chairman of the USCCB's Committee for Pro-Life Activities wrote, in a May 15th letter (PDF format) to senators:

The Pregnant Women Support Act reaches out to women with a helping hand when they are most vulnerable, and most engaged in making a decision about life or death for their unborn children. It provides an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues. For example, it does not raise the entirely separate issue of seeking to reduce pregnancies through government promotion of contraceptives, which recently created so much controversy when it was inappropriately proposed for inclusion in an economic stimulus package. That issue raises serious questions regarding priorities in health care as well as the conscience rights of patients and health care providers, which demand a serious debate of their own. In any case, low-income women already have guaranteed coverage for family planning through Medicaid, with the Federal government assuring States that it will pay 90% of this coverage - yet it is precisely among these women that abortion rates are highest.

That authentic common ground is, as Robert George pointed out in his debate yesterday with Douglas Kmiec, quite different from the common ground espoused by President Obama:

Two days after the meeting, the President spoke at Notre Dame, and he chose his words carefully. In speaking of common ground, he did not propose that we reduce the number of abortions, but rather [and I quote] “the number of women seeking abortions.” Get it? The President and his administration will not join us on the common ground of discouraging women from having abortions or even in encouraging them to choose childbirth over abortion. The proposed common ground is the reduction of unwanted pregnancies—not discouraging those in “need” of abortion from having them. The idea that the interests of a child who might be vulnerable to the violence of abortion should be taken into account, even in discouraging women from resorting to abortion or encouraging alternatives to abortion, is simply off the table.

The President and the people he has placed in charge of this issue, such as Melody Barnes, have a deep ideological commitment to the idea that there is nothing actually wrong with abortion, because the child in the womb simply has no rights. This commitment explains the policy positions President Obama has consistently taken since he entered the Illinois legislature. It crucially shapes and profoundly limits what he and those associated with him regard as the “common ground” on which he is willing to work with pro-lifers. And it explains why he and they reject what we, as pro-lifers, propose as common ground.

Read George's entire statement.

This is exactly what I was talking about ...

... when I wrote my review of Angels & Demons:

The movie, which I saw this past weekend, poses the question that science and religion may be able to join forces, bridge the gap, and come full circle together - a concept I've been pondering for three decades.

In the movie, the scientific properties of "anti-matter" are also labeled as the "God element," even though it's criminally used as a potential weapon of mass destruction against religion - Catholicism namely - and the Vatican City.

Or, on the other hand, will science and religion forever remain as polar opposites, each heading in opposite directions with opposing purposes, agendas, and properties? Something to think about on this back-to-work Tuesday, whether you're among the faithful or not.

Those deep thoughts from Jerry Davich, the metro columnist for the Post-Tribune newspaper (Chicago). In my review I had remarked that "my biggest concern with Angels & Demons has not been with what it proposes as much as with what it reinforces, namely, the convenient but thoroughly false notion that the Catholic Church is an enemy—even a violent, bloody one—of science and reason." Davich's comment hangs on that misconception, but one of Davich's readers provides a more ripe example of a confident assertion based on complete nonsense and delivered with assured condescension:

The problem is that theists require that you acccept their answer based merely on their word while actively ignoring any evidence that may be presented to you. The beauty and power of science is that it allows people to "not fool themselves". I can make any claim I want about science or the natural world for that matter. You don't need to take my word for it, you can perform the experiment yourself. Note that "doubt" in the christian religion is one of the worst sins one can commit. On the other hand, science actively encourages doubt and holds it in high regard.

The track records of religion and science speak for themselves. Science has consistently marched forward since its conception, delivering real tangible gains in the quality of life. The computer that you're reading on, ample food, clean water, and modern medicine are all tribute to the power of science. Since antiquity, religion has opposed science, from murdering Copernicus to opposing the teaching of evolution. The war between science and religion has been largely one-sided since the dark ages, as science has steadily progressed. On the other hand, while the war is being won, battles are being lost, particularly in the Middle East and Texas.

Or, as the character Robert Langdon puts it succinctly in Dan Brown's novel, “[o]utspoken scientists like Copernicus . . . [were] murdered by the Church for revealing scientific truths. Religion has always persecuted science.” That is the standard blueprint for "religion and science" most people are force fed from the time they are sent off to the public propaganda chambers at the age of five (or younger); they hear it repeatedly and so assume it must be true. And then it is reinforced by stupid novels, vapid television shows, and laughable movies. And...

But you probably know all of this. So what can be done? One thing (among others) is to be familiar with some of the basic historical facts and issues. A good starting point, I think, is the just published book, Light and Shadows: Church History amid Faith, Fact and Legend  (Ignatius Press), by Fr. Walter Brandmüller, who is president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences and who taught Church history at the University of Augsburg, Germany, for 27 years. Topics addressed in the book include the papacy, the roots and formation of Europe, historical facts and the Gospels, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the Reformation, the Baroque period, the Enlightenment, Vatican II, and more. Read part of the introduction on Ignatius Insight.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links/Articles:

• Dark Ages and Secularist Rages: A Response to Professor A.C. Grayling | Carl E. Olson
• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Are Christians Intolerant? | Michael O'Brien
• On Adapting to "Modern Times" | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Is Religion Evil? Secularism's Pride and Irrational Prejudice | Carl E. Olson
• Atheism and the Purely "Human" Ethic | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• A Short Introduction to Atheism | Carl E. Olson
• The Crusades 101 | Jimmy Akin
• The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality | Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J.
• The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction | Marvin R. O'Connell
• Were the Crusades Anti-Semitic? | Vince Ryan
• Crusade Myths | Thomas F. Madden
• Urban II: The Pope of the First Crusade | Régine Pernoud
• The Truth About Joan of Arc | Régine Pernoud
• Mistakes, Yes. Conspiracies, No. | The Fourth Crusade | Vince Ryan

Piers Paul Read on EWTN's "The World Over" tonight...

UPDATE: Mr. Read's appearance on EWTN tonight was postponed due to flight delays.

A quick reminder that Piers Paul Read will be on EWTN's "The World Over" with Raymond Arroyo, which airs tonight at 8:00 p.m. EST (other guests include Mary Ann Glendon and Fr. Robert Sirico, so it should be an excellent show).

Also, Frank Wilson, long-time (and now retired) book review editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer, has already written a review of Read's novel, The Death of a Pope, but has also posted some e-mail correspondence he's had recently with the author. Among other things, they discuss the complexity of the novel's characters:

FW: Among the many things I found interesting about the book is how attractive and persuasive Juan Uriarte is. This reminded me of how good Aquinas is at presenting the arguments of those he does not in fact agree with. To do this you have to enter deeply - and sympathetically - into the other's position.

On the other hand, those in the novel who prove to be the instruments of God's providence and thwart Uriarte's scheme - Luke Scott and Monsignor Perez - display nothing of Uriarte's charisma or subtlety.

I found this rather heartening, since many people seem to be always on the lookout for some hero to do God's work, whereas God is fully capable of doing His own work using the people who come to hand, as it were.

So one question, obviously, is this: You must have gone into the idea of of the social gospel rather deeply - and sympathetically. And yet remain or have come to be suspicious of it. Would you care to explain?

PPR: When I was a student at Cambridge I was a zealous Liberationist - partly influenced by some very radical Dominicans at the Cambridge Blackfriars. There was a Catholic Liberationist review called Slant. The view was that you could only help the poor in the Third world with social revolution. I changed my views in later years because 1) I lived for a while in Berlin and saw socialism in practice on the eastern side of the wall 2) studied more history and came to understand that revolutionaries usually turn out to be self-serving and 3) deepened my understanding of the Catholic faith, realising that it was more about saving souls than social welfare. I also went out to Salvador on a journalistic project and heard the criticism of the FMLN and the Jesuits from the 'traditional' clergy there - views which never got through to the Catholic journals in Britain.

But certainly, Uriarte represents to some extent my youthful self and the novel is a debate between the older and one hopes wiser author and his that youthful self.

Here is part one and here is part two of the correspondence.

For much more about the novel, visit DeathOfAPope.com.

Dr. Michael Waldstein: "West's work is uncompromisingly in line with the Church's faith."

Michael Waldstein, Ph.D., the Max Seckler Professor of Theology at Ave Maria University and translator of John Paul II's Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, has penned a piece for Inside Catholic defending Christopher West's work. He begins:

I know that David Schindler is a careful scholar, but I was surprised and taken aback by his recent blanket negative statement about Christopher West in reaction to West's Nightline interview. He cites a few anecdotes, quotes some snippets of texts, recalls some discussions he had with West in the past, and then makes a number of sweeping, massive accusations against West's work as a whole. His West is not the Christopher West I know from studying West's commentary on the Theology of the Body.

Because of my close work with West during the writing of the new translation of John Paul II's original work, I know he has a deep and faithful understanding of the late pope. West's work is uncompromisingly in line with the Church's faith. Perhaps most striking is his humility in approaching the Theology of the Body and the great desire he has to reach broken humanity with this liberating message.

To answer all of Schindler's objections would require a response too lengthy for the moment; the fact that he cites no texts from West's work on which to base his four main objections also makes a response difficult.

Read the entire piece.

George vs. Kmiec at CUA

Yesterday, Robert P. George and Douglas W. Kmiec took part in a debate, moderated by Mary Ann Glendon and held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., titled, "The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by 'Pro-Life" Citizens?" The debate was sponsored by the Catholic University of America's Columbus Law School.

The entire debate can be viewed on the C-SPAN website. Jill Stanek attended the debate (which was invitation only) and has photos and some commentary. And Public Discourse has just posted Prof. George's opening remarks.

Trust This Church?

Trust This Church? | Fr. Walter Brandmüller | From the Introduction to Light and Shadows: Church History amid Faith, Fact and Legend

Occasionally the Church is compared with Noah's ark: only his sons and daughters, only those animals that Noah took with him into the ark were saved from the great flood. In a similar way, the Church is supposed to be man's only rescue from the final catastrophe.

When discussion turns to the Last Things, to man's eternal fate, then the  question assumes the utmost urgency: To whom can he entrust his eternal fate and himself? What can he rely on in life and death? Now, since the Church makes the exclusive claim to be the saving ark, this claim must be so solidly established that it does not mean a leap into uncertainty when man puts his trust in this ark.

Questions About Questions

To many of our contemporaries, such trust in the Church appears to be nothing less than an unreasonable demand upon sound common sense. Aren't there countless facts (the objection goes) that demolish the credibility of the Church? Many people have read the numerous books or seen the television programs that deal with the subject of the Qumran community and seem to offer proof that the beginnings of Jesus of Nazareth and of Christianity ought to be portrayed in a completely different way from what is recorded in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Many have also seen the earthenware receptacle containing human remains that was found in Jerusalem, on which the names Joseph, Mary and Jesus were inscribed. Isn't this compelling evidence that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead and that Mary was not taken body and soul into heaven? With that, however, the foundations of the Christian faith crumble into dust and ashes! Many people today suspect that this is so.

Continue reading...

Is Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., right or wrong...

... when he writes:

Sotomayor and Diaz may truly be the new face of the Catholic Church in America, and Obama wisely wants them to contribute to the image and reality of his administration.

Actually, the second half of that statement is undoubtedly true. It's the first part that is questionable. Come to think of it, the argument could be soundly made that Sotomayor and Diaz are the same old faces of "progressive" and "modern" Catholicism.

From what I've read, Sotomayor attended Catholic schools but now only "attends church for family celebrations and other important events". (Does weekly Mass qualify as an "important event"?) The evidence, however sketchy, points to a lapsed Catholic whose does not see the need to attend Mass every week. Well, that's not "new"; sadly, there are a lot of Catholics out there who only show up for church once in a great while. Is Fr. Reese suggesting we have more Catholics who don't practice the Catholic faith on a regular basis?

Miguel H. Diaz, in case you haven't heard, is a Cuban-American theologian, Hispanic Roman Catholic theologian, a Latino ("This Latino IS Catholic" shouts TIME magazine—sensing a theme yet?) and a liberation theologian who is committed "to moving beyond the politics of fear to the politics of hope." As part of that commitment, he advised the Obama presidential campaign, donated $1,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, and was one of several Catholic academics (Fr. Reese was another, of course) who publicly supported Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. His books are praised by leading liberation and feminist theologians, which indicates he may well be on the cutting edge of the 1970s and '80s. But, more seriously, the constant emphasis on ethnicity/ethnic identity is common within many strains of liberation theology. You might recall that a certain current President's former pastor of twenty years was heavily influenced by Rev. James Cone, the founder of black liberation theology. Coincidental? Doubtful.

Cardinal Ratzinger, in The Ratzinger Report (Ignatius Press, 1985) noted that "Liberation theology is a phenomenon with an extraordinary number of layers..." He also stated:

Initially we said that liberation theology intends to supply a new total interpretation of the Christian reality; it explains Christianity as a praxis of liberation and sees itself as the guide to this praxis. However, since in its view all reality is political, liberation is also a political concept and the guide to liberation must he a guide to political action:

"Nothing lies outside ... political commitment. Everything has a political color." A theology that is not "practical"; i.e., not essentially political, is regarded as "idealistic" and thus as lacking in reality, or else it is condemned as a vehicle for the oppressors' maintenance of power.

A theologian who has learned his theology in the classical tradition and has accepted its spiritual challenge will find it hard to realize that an attempt is being made, in all seriousness, to recast the whole Christian reality in the categories of politico-social liberation praxis. This is all the more difficult because many liberation theologians continue to use a great deal of the Church's classical ascetical and dogmatic language while changing its signification. As a result, the reader or listener who is operating from a different background can gain the impression that everything is the same as before, apart from the addition of a few somewhat unpalatable statements, which, given so much spirituality, can scarcely be all that dangerous.

The very radicality of liberation theology means that its seriousness is often underestimated, since it does not fit into any of the accepted categories of heresy; its fundamental concern cannot be detected by the existing range of standard questions.

In other words, liberation theologians sometimes use traditional, common language to subvert the actual, time-honored meaning of that language; they tend to see everything through the prism of politics and political action; their exact intentions and means of pursuing its goals are often slippery and difficult to pin down. Whether or not that is a fair assessment of Dr. Diaz's beliefs or methods, I have no idea (John Allen, Jr., says it is not, for what it's worth. Fr. Z critiques). But it sure sounds like a decent description of the man who nominated him to be ambassador to the Vatican.

"Padre Oprah" (aka, Fr. Cutie) is leaving the Catholic Church...

.... and becoming Episcopalian. From The New York Times:

A popular Miami priest and media personality known as ''Father Oprah'' has left the Catholic Church and joined the Episcopal Church after he was photographed cavorting on the beach with his girlfriend.

The Rev. Alberto Cutie (KOO'-tee-ay) was removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a Spanish-language magazine earlier this month.

He was received into Episcopal Church in a ceremony Thursday at Trinity Cathedral. He must complete other requirements before serving as an Episcopal priest.

Cutie spoke briefly at a press conference and read a statement in English and Spanish. He quoted from the book of Psalms and said, ''More than ever, I'm assured that God is love.''

He continued, ''I have searched my soul and sought God's guidance for a long time.''

Before walking away without answering questions, Cutie thanked supporters and asked the media to respect his privacy.

Well, I think we all know this means, don't you? Yep, that's right: the Catholic Church desperately needs to revisit its rigid, dogmatic refusal to let Catholics be both Catholic and Episcopalian.

Well, now, isn't that interesting

From a New York Times piece titled, "On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Show Unease" (May 27, 2009):

Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision. In a letter, Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote.

“Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” Ms. Keenan wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin.”

I was under the impression that only certain nasty, mean-spirited, ultra-partisan, right-wing, anti-abortion Republicans were going to "demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views" on matters relating to abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the super-sacred "right to privacy."

Furthermore, I recall reading and hearing again and again and again (multiplied a bazillion times over), often from certain Catholics, that trying to overturn Roe v. Wade is pointless, a waste of time, and even stupid. Apparently Ms. Keenan hasn't received that memo yet (I suspect she might have had a hand in drafting it.)

Could Sotomayer be the "anti-Souter"? Please, let's not get carried away. And let's not forget to ask why NARAL and others in the pro-baby-killing industry are so concerned about protecting Roe v. Wade when everyone knows it isn't going to be overturned any time soon.

Meanwhile, I'm further confused that while most reports have indicated its unclear whether or not Sotomayor is a practicing Catholic, Doug Kmiec seems certain  she is:

I’m certain this is the way she sees her faith, that life means not just the moment of conception, not just the moment of death, but every moment in between. And we have obligations to each other . . . . She sees all of the aspects of the Catholic faith. . . . The Catholic faith has become so identified with a single issue in this country in the last two decades, that even Catholics forget sometimes the fullness of their faith.

The fact that Judge Sotomayor has a fuller understanding of the social obligations of the Catholic church, well, I don’t think means she’s going to be looking for opportunities to write those obligations into the law. But I do think it’s a set of qualities that go into the package that we call discernment, that we call empathy. Someone who recognizes that the law can have pretty serious economic and social consequences and that those consequences need to be fully understood as the law is interpreted.

So, not only is Sotomayor a practicing Catholic, she is—according to Kmiec—a Catholic with a "fuller understanding of the social obligations of the Catholic church." Impressive. Why, I almost expect her to quote from Evangelium Vitae (in Latin!) during her confirmation hearings. But, just to be clear, my criticisms are not aimed at Sotomayor, but at Kmiec, whose track record on these matters and others is, well, embarrassing and worse.

And the nominee to be the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See is...

... Miguel H. Diaz, Ph.D. Diaz "serves on the graduate faculty of the School of Theology • Seminary of Saint John’s University and undergraduate faculty of the Department of Theology at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, has been nominated as the United States Ambassador to the Holy See (Vatican)."

That information from the notice on the St. John's University website (ht: America magazine). The Associated Press reports that Diaz

would be the first Hispanic to serve as ambassador to the Vatican since the United States and the Holy See established full diplomatic ties in 1984. Diaz was born in Havana.

<snip>

Reached at his home Wednesday, Diaz read a brief statement expressing gratitude for the opportunity and saying, "I wish to be a diplomatic bridge between our nation and the Holy See, and if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I will continue the work of my predecessors and build on 25 years of excellent relations with the Holy See."

He declined to answer questions about his positions on issues, saying it would be inappropriate before his confirmation hearing.

One potential point of conflict is Diaz's support for the nomination of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic whose abortion rights record angered conservative Catholics. Diaz was among 26 Catholic leaders and scholars who signed a statement hailing Sebelius as "a woman of deep faith" and citing her a record on immigration, education, health care and reducing abortion rates in Kansas.

Mark Silk of Spiritual-Politics.org notes Diaz "served on Obama's Catholic Advisory Board during the campaign, which puts him firmly in the Kmiec camp. This strikes me as the shrewdest of moves, and one that will cause no end of teeth-grinding on the Catholic right, including the likes of Archbishop Burke. But we await learned commentary from his co-religionists." Silk adds: "Turns out Diaz is a consultant to Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. Big win for social-justice, common-ground Catholics." Sure enough.

Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter remarks, "Diaz is a pro-life Democrat so his mere presence at the Vatican will disprove the contention of some conservatives that there is no such thing as a pro-life [sic] Catholic" (he means "pro-life Democrat"). Or, it could be what is commonly known as "an exception that proves the rule."

Pontifications has more information.

Dr. Janet Smith replies to Dr. Schindler, defends Christopher West

From the Headline Bistro site, this response from Smith, who holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and is the author of The Right to Privacy, published a few months ago by Ignatius Press:

Christopher West’s interview on ABC’s Nightline has sparked some terrific discussion on the Internet. An impressive amount of the interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of that which is seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.

Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David Schindler’s assessment of West’s work. The fact that Nightline got a lot wrong about West’s work is not surprising. In fact, it is surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media know that potential martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West has likely been suffering a kind of crucifixion over the past week.  What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment to issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I have great respect for the work and thought of Schindler and realize that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of criticisms of the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however, he had found another occasion to express his reservations about West’s work.

I think we should be very careful in our evaluation of the work of someone who is on the front lines and who is doing pioneer work. Virtually every pioneering author and presenter has had severe detractors in his own time. Some of them have been disciplined by the Church and eventually exonerated. I would like to give examples and mention names, but I don’t want to ignite a firestorm of "how can you compare Christopher West to X, Y or Z?"!

<snip>

The fact that the dean of the John Paul II Institute in Washington D.C. has issues with West’s approach should not discourage anyone from reading West’s work or attending his lectures. Schindler has serious disagreements with other reputable, orthodox theologians, including professors on staff at the John Paul II Institute. West’s extensive commentary on the Theology of the Body, Theology of the Body Explained, was reviewed for the imprimatur for the Archdiocese of Boston by Prof. May, a longtime colleague of Schindler at the John Paul II Institute, who gave it a glowing endorsement. (I also reviewed and strongly endorsed it.)   Several times in his piece Schindler refers to West’s “intention” to be orthodox which could imply that he has not necessarily achieved orthodoxy.  We should be clear that West’s works have been given an imprimatur, an ecclesiastical judgment that a work is completely theologically sound.

Read the entire response. Not surprisingly, Dr. Smith makes many excellent points. And I think she is correct in saying that the discussion about this controversy has been, on the whole, quite positive and helpful. Let's keep it that way, mindful of the challenges faced not just by Christopher West, but by every Catholic who seeks to shine the truth into the dark and murky corners of the world.

I should perhaps note I've not read any of West's books, but have listened to 2 or 3 of his tapes. Having read John Paul II's theology of the body (over ten years ago), I thought West did a fine job with the material, taking a rather daunting body of theological and philosophical work and presenting it within a popular format for an audience largely without much, if any, training in theology, philosophy, or the exegesis of Scripture. But I've simply not read or heard enough of West's materials to make much of an assessment, so I've followed this discussion with great interest.

Previous posts on this topic:

• David L. Schindler criticizes Christopher West's work with TOTB (May 23, 2009)
• Jimmy Akin on Hugh Heffner's achin'... (May 14, 2009)
• Going to the Source of the Christopher West Controversy (May 13, 2009)
• "The Playboy and the Pope" (May 12, 2009)
• Christopher West: "I never said Hugh Hefner is a hero, never..." (May 11, 2009)
• "Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions." (May 7, 2009)