Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

My response to Father Martin's response to my post...and so forth

Here is my response to Fr. James Martin's response; the response of other readers can be read here. And here is the initial post that set it all in motion.

Dear Fr. Martin,

First, thank you for taking the time to visit the Insight Scoop blog and to post your comment. It doesn't matter much to me that you posted the same remarks elsewhere. I've done the same from time to time—and I don't suffer from carpal tunnel as you do. I am sorry to hear of this affliction, and I fully understand that it limits your ability to respond to every post, comments, etc. made here or elsewhere.

Also, I don't have any doubts about you being unabashedly pro-life. Although I am not always successful, I do my best to address stated positions and arguments, and to avoid figuring out motives or attitudes that I am not privy to. And, in doing so, I can be a bit blunt, as my first post on your CNN appearance indicates. But please know that my criticisms are not personal in nature.

A number of folks have already make many excellent points and asked some good questions. I don't want to belabor matters too much, despite the importance of the topic, but will focus on two or three of your remarks. The first is this: "However, as you could see from the CNN show, I also believe that some in the pro-life movement (defined broadly) sometimes downplays the non-abortion parts of the pro-life tradition: that is, the death penalty, war, feeding the hungry, euthanasia, and so on."

Father Robert Barron on the "fetishism of dialogue"

Another excellent piece by Fr. Barron:

What I sensed in both Jenkins’s and Obama’s speeches was a sort of fetishism of dialogue, an excessive valorization of the second stage of the cognitional process. The conversation, they seemed to imply, should remain always open-ended, the dialogue on-going, decision or judgment permanently delayed. But dialogue is a means to an end; it is valuable in the measure that it conduces toward judgment. G.K. Chesterton said that the mind should remain open, but only so that it might, in time, chomp down on something nourishing. The Church has come to the considered judgment that abortion is morally objectionable and that Roe v. Wade is terrible law, as bad as the laws that once protected the practices of slavery and segregation in our country. To suggest, therefore, that a Catholic university is a place where dialogue on this matter is still a desideratum is as ludicrous as suggesting that a Catholic university should be the setting for a discussion of the merits of slavery and Jim Crow laws. I would like, actually, to stay with these last examples. Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, the legendary retired President of Notre Dame, was mentioned several times in President Obama’s speech as a model of the dialogue and openness to conversation that he was extolling. Does anyone think for a moment that Fr. Hesburgh, at the height of the civil rights movement, would have invited, say, George Wallace to be the commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree at Notre Dame? Does anyone think that Fr. Hesburgh would have been open to a dialogue with Wallace about the merits of his unambiguously racist policies? For that matter, does anyone think that Dr. Martin Luther King would have sought out common ground with Wallace or Bull Connor in the hopes of hammering out a compromise on this pesky question of civil rights for blacks? The questions answer themselves.

Read the entire essay.

• Dialogue Is Never Enough | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. (Ignatius Insight)

Newt Gingrich...

... opens up a bit to U.S. News & World Report about some of the reasons for his recent entrance into the Catholic Church:

That's part of what led to my conversion is the first time we [he and Callista] went to St. Peter's together. It's St. Peter's. I mean, you stand there and you think, this is where St. Peter was crucified. This is where Paul preached. You think to yourself, two thousand years ago the apostles set out to create a worldwide movement by witnessing to the historic truth they had experienced. And there it is. The last time we were there we were allowed to walk in the papal gardens and you get this sense that is almost mystical.

The moment that finally convinced me [to convert] was when Benedict XVI came here [to the United States] and Callista in the church choir sang for him at the vespers service and all the bishops in the country were there. As a spouse, I got to sit in the upper church and I very briefly saw [Benedict] and I was just struck with how happy he was and how fundamentally different he was from the news media's portrait of him. This guy's not a Rottweiler. He's a very loving, engaged, happy person.

Read the entire piece.

Father James Martin, S.J., responds...

... to my post of yesterday about his appearance on CNN (from the comments section):

Dear Mr. Olson,

Many thanks for your frank comments, which certainly calls for a friendly response.  And I hope you don’t mind if I take a few paragraphs to do this, as I feel obliged to do, especially on a blog named after the founder of my religious order.  I think it's always healthy when, to paraphrase St. Paul, we can call another Christian to give an explanation for himself and his faith, so that's what I'll do. 

First of all, I am unabashedly pro-life.  And in case people think I’m being artfully evasive I mean this: I believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. 

However, as you could see from the CNN show, I also believe that some in the pro-life movement (defined broadly) sometimes downplays the non-abortion parts of the pro-life tradition: that is, the death penalty, war, feeding the hungry, euthanasia, and so on.  These are also important “life” issues.  Moreover, I believe that you can be firmly pro-life, as I am, and not agree with the precise strategies, noble as they are, of every quarter of the pro-life movement in reaching our common goals. 

That is, you don't have to violently disagree with the Notre Dame decision in order to be pro-life.  Nor do you have to speak the use the same language, pursue the same political goals or, in general, do the same things, in order to sincerely and ardently work for an end to abortion.

Also, what I mean by a litmus test is this.  Abortion is certainly the pre-eminent life issue these days, but it is not the only one.  To my mind that is pretty much a litmus test, and so I think our understanding of what constitutes Catholic moral teaching needs to be broadened.  Also, I question the notion of requiring non-Catholic politicians to be covered by the same strictures for honors, since they already do not agree with fundamental ideas like the papacy, church authority and so on.  That would also lead to us never honoring (or even having on our boards) non-Christians.  That is, could we ever honor a Jew, since he doesn't believe in the Resurrection--another Catholic teaching.  At least that is how I see it.

Now, you might disagree with that analysis, which is all right.  Because overall, what I was trying to call for--and perhaps I could have done this more articulately--was what we called for in our America magazine editorial, which was charity towards not simply those who are not in the pro-life camp, but perhaps more importantly, charity and fellowship with our fellow pro-lifers who disagree on how to reach our common goal. Only in this way will we all reach that goal, with God's help.
 
In any event, I hope you take this friendly comment as a sign of our common reverence for the sanctity of all life that God has created. 

Please do keep me in your prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Fr. James Martin, SJ

My thanks to Father Martin for his thoughtful remarks. As I do disagree with some aspects of his analysis above, I'll respond a bit later with a few thoughts.

UPDATE: You can read my response here.

Some things to consider when it comes to the "D" word

That would be "dialogue." Here are some thoughts from an excellent essay, "Dialogue Is Never Enough," written by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., in October 2005 for Ignatius Insight:

The term "dialogue" is, of course, of classical origin. Literally, it means a conversation, particularly an organized written conversation between two or more people. The dialogue is about a given subject usually of some gravity or consequence, though playful dialogues are certainly part of the literature. The word comes from Greek and means "to gather," "to speak," "to reason." Logos, of course, is the philosophic word that refers to Christ in the Prologue of the Gospel of John. It signifies that a meaning is to be found in things. Each being has its measure or rule according to what it is, by which we know it to be this thing and not that thing. Logos always refers to intellect or reason, not to will. Dialogue will be the disciplined, engaged exchange of ideas. Its purpose is to become more articulately reasonable. The end of dialogue is truth now spelled out in the light of all feasible objections to it, themselves manifested in the exchange. The knowledge of what is true includes the knowledge of what is not true.

Dialogue, moreover–though it can, and perhaps should, be delightful and charming–is not a mere device by which we hear ourselves talk. It is not simply a babbling on. Its eloquence and style serve dialectic and syllogism. The phrase "locked in conversation" is closer to its meaning. Dialogue is for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion, a truth through honorable conversation or exchange of ideas. Dialogue should take place in an atmosphere beyond the threat or coercion, as Plato’s Gorgias reminds us. The rules of logic are themselves guidelines to arriving at the truth that is the purpose of conversation and controversy. But moral virtue, the honesty and courage to seek the truth, must be an intrinsic part of dialogue if it is to achieve its end.

Raymond Arroyo teaches Catechesis 101 on CNN to...

... CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield and Rev. James Martin, S.J., associate editor of America magazine. From the transcript of the conversation, which took place on Sunday following President Obama's speech at Notre Dame:

ARROYO: No, no -- we have to distinguish. Abortion is -- has been identified by both the Vatican and the bishops of the United States as a foundational issue. One can’t get to poverty or climate change or immigration if that person hasn’t been allowed to live. I mean, it’s a -- it’s a very simple rational idea. It’s reasonable.

WHITFIELD: So Reverend Martin, I’d like you to weigh in on this. Are -- are you in concert with all that Mr. Arroyo is saying?

REVEREND JAMES MARTIN, AMERICA MAGAZINE: Not exactly. I mean, I think first of all, if anyone deserves a degree in law, it’s this constitutional law scholar. I think that needs to be kept in mind. But also, I think the pro-life world is a lot broader than simply abortion. I don’t think you can just sweep the death penalty, torture -- things like that under the carpet. The pro-life world is really what Cardinal Bernardin called ‘a consistent ethic of life.’ I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there. I mean, it just cannot be about simply abortion, and I really lament the fact that -- that some of the bishops have turned the Gospel of Jesus Christ into simply abortion. And so, I think we need to look at a broader perspective here.

In other words, the most radically pro-abortion president in U.S. history is deserving of honor and praise from a Catholic university, while those in the "pro-life movement," including several dozen bishops who have criticized Notre Dame for honoring Obama, are narrow-minded, even extremist, in their understanding of Catholic social doctrine and the Gospel. I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people claiming to be pro-life, life begins at conception, but does end there because that life is destroyed before it can come forth from the womb. And then, as Arroyo rightly notes, it's too late for that person to be worried about poverty or clean air or whatever. And, as I noted recently, the mindless mantra that the pro-life movement has no interest in babies once they are born is either a knowing lie or a mindlessly repeated falsehood.

ARROYO: Well, Father -- Father Martin, this isn’t a game of fish. I mean, this isn’t moral fish where you go out and pull the piece of social teaching you like. It all hangs together as you said, but one can’t somehow push abortion to the side. It is -- it is a foundational issue. And the death penalty, obviously, is something the Church has discouraged, but it is at times -- it can be morally justified, as can war. But abortion, under no circumstances, can be according to Catholic teaching. It’s an intrinsic evil. That’s not my opinion. That’s the teaching of the Church immemorial.

WHITFIELD: So Reverend Martin, does it concern you that there is almost a selective understanding about what is permissible and what is not permissible?

MARTIN: No, it concerns me that life issues are being reduced to simply abortion, and I think the Gospel is a lot broader than that. If we’re going to look at someone who accepts or rejects the Gospel, we cannot simply boil it down to one issue, and I really think that does a disservice to all of Catholic moral teaching. It’s certainly the preeminent issue for the Catholic Church, but it’s not the only issue, and it’s certainly not a litmus test upon which we should judge people.

When pro-lifers oppose euthanasia, it's because, we're told, they are too narrow-minded. When they oppose contraception and "reproductive services," it's because they are too focused on one issue. When they express concern about sexual immorality, homosexuality, child abuse, single parent homes, divorce, and the weakening of the family, it's because they have blinders on as to the bigger, broader picture. And when they fight for the lives of the most vulnerable and innocent, they are skewered for "reducing" Catholic social teaching to a single issue—despite having also been criticized for addressing all of those other issues. This is a straw man, and Fr. Martin's entire argument is based on that straw man. Yet he then admits that abortion is "the preeminent issue for the Catholic Church," even while dismissing those Catholics who make it the preeminent issue. That is simply illogical. At best.

As for a "litmus test," I'm not sure what Fr. Martin is getting at since the pro-life movement is simply saying this: If you support abortion as Obama does, you are obviously supportive of abortion. Duh. It's not rocket science. God will judge the soul, but we must, in making all sorts of decisions everyday, judge the public actions of people.

ARROYO: But Father, when you say it’s the preeminent moral issue, is it or isn’t it? I mean, the bishops clearly say it is. Seventy-four bishops have spoken out against this, and let me -- we should be very clear. If Rudy Giuliani were here today, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, there should be and probably would have been just as vociferous an opposition, because the question is not here about the president. It’s about someone representing a pro-abortion policy, and vociferous pro-abortion policies being honored at a Catholic institution --

MARTIN: Yeah, I don’t --

ARROYO: That’s what’s at heart here. The politics is really irrelevant.

MARTIN: I think the politics is very relevant here. I don’t think you can call President Obama pro-abortion. I mean, someone who talked about convening a task force between pro-life and pro-choice people is certainly not someone who is pro-abortion. I don’t know anyone who’s pro-abortion, and I think that label is really very misleading.

And so Fr. Martin takes up, verbatim, the argument used by candidate Sen. Obama: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise." Those, in fact, may be some of the most revealing words spoken by Obama. As I wrote back on January 24, 2008: "Obama's 'premise' is essential, because as soon as you give into the 'argument' that, 'Hey, no one really is pro-abortion,' you are engaged in a highly subjective argument over sincerity and intention, not about whether or not the abortion kills a child."

In his January 2008 interview with Christianity Today, Obama said, "But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors." And the President, in his speech on Sunday, stated, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions." It's a brilliant tactic precisely because we've been taught (in school) and told (by politicians and the media), ad nauseum, that having an abortion is a private, personal decision filled with anguish and agony, so it must not be judged or criticized. But this completely side steps the real, bedrock moral questions: Is abortion wrong? Is it the killing of an innocent? Is it objectively evil? The Catholic Church says, "Yes," to all of those questions. Obama doesn't so much say, "No," but says, "You aren't in a position to make that judgment." And that, to me, is the Big Lie here, or at least one of the Big Lies, right there with, "I don’t know anyone who’s pro-abortion."

Imagine if someone said, "I'm struggling with whether or not I should cheat on my wife," or, "I'm wrestling with how I might get away with molesting a child," or, "I'm making a heart-wrenching decision about killing a co-worker I don't like." Horrific? Sure. But why? Seriously, why?

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34). — Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, par. 20.

Testimony

Available soon from Ignatius Press:

Testimony: The Untold Story of Pope John Paul II (DVD)

Testimony is a groundbreaking feature film documentary event that chronicles the untold story of Pope John Paul II, a man who touched the lives of billions, and was one of the 20th Century's most influential leaders.

Recounted through in-depth interviews with the Pontiff's trusted advisor and right-hand man for 40 years, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz - and blended with recently uncovered and never-before-seen archival footage of John Paul's early career and eventual ascendancy to the papacy, Testimony is a revealing portrait of a man who touched the lives of billions, and changed history.

Lovingly narrated by Michael York, featuring music by Oscar-winning composer Vangelis, filmed in hitherto off-limits locations in the Vatican, the film is full of new and fascinating revelations about the Pope. Testimony is winning converts the world over thanks to massive press and media coverage of the film's premiere screening at the Vatican - attended by Pope Benedict, various heads of state, and thousands of multi-denominational spectators on October 16th, 2008.

Among the many amazing revelations in this ground-breaking documentary:

• Pope John Paul II was stabbed during a second failed assassination attempt that was kept secret by the Vatican...until now.
• Pope John Paul II liked to disguise himself and sneak out of the Vatican to mix with the people incognito.
• The Pontiff began his career as an actor, and had a great talent for Karaoke.
• His Holiness performed an exorcism.

The inspiring story of the Pontiff's life is told through rare archive footage, historical recreations, and key interviews with Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz and others who knew John Paul II.

Thomas Hibbs writes of the documentary:

Narrated by Michael York with commentary by Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, a childhood friend of the pope and his personal secretary in Rome, Testimony has a reverent and personal tone. The film does not delve into Cold War politics, nor does it investigate the origins of the assassination attempt, nor does it mention, let alone assess, the pope’s handling of the sex-abuse crisis in the church. Yet, it is a captivating portrait of the life of Karol Wojtyla. It covers his entire life, from his childhood in Poland, his youthful and abiding interest in art and theater, his time under Nazi rule, his vocation to the priesthood, his elevation to cardinal and eventually to pope, his conflict with the Soviet empire, the birth of Solidarity in Poland, the attempts on his life, his world travels (particularly his trip to Israel), to his declining health in later life and his death.

Is Dan Brown now rewriting the dictionary?

Someone at The Daily Vanguard, the student newspaper at Portland State University (Portland, Oregon), was simply overwhelmed by the sheer, white-hot intellectual brilliance—just writing that nearly made my computer crash—of a novelist named Dan Brown:

There is also an intelligence behind the story that makes a refreshing change. Even though there is plenty of action, The Da Vinci Code is about a very intelligent man solving a very intricate puzzle. The time in between the chases is filled with thoughtful mysteries. Intelligence is very sexy and is not something we see a lot of in films today.

Is this what we've come to? Really? Does this mean we can finally close the curtain on Western civilization once and for all? Are we now in the new (and real) Dark Ages? (Morris Berman says, "Yes," by the way.) And here I thought "intelligence" was related to "smart." That paragraph really should read like so:

There is also a mediocre and overreaching intelligence behind the story that makes a person cringe. Even though there is plenty of action, The Da Vinci Code is about a very annoying, creepy, arrogant man struggling with a puzzle a four-year-old could solve in thirty seconds. The time in-between the chases is filled with people gasping for air and asking for water. Intelligence is very scarce and is not something we see a lot of in films today, espcially films based on Dan Brown "novels".

Much better. At times such as this it is good to know that when we do not know how to pray as we should, "the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words" (Rom. 8:26). Amen. Preach it! Now, deep breath. There is more:

The most disappointing thing about the film is the fact that Howard trips over the finish line and kisses up to the church at the end. The flack that he and Brown received after the first film had the desired effect. The church is seen in a much more positive light and the denunciation of the excesses of the Vatican is absent.

Now, where would the reviewer get a silly notion that Brown was trying to denounce the Church? Not to be outdone, a reviewer for the Philippine Daily Inquirer complains how critics of Brown's novels/movies use reason and facts to undermine Brown's outrageous and false attempts to claim that the Church is superstitious and backwards:

OF course, as with “Da Vinci Code” which created a cottage industry of detractors and explainers, there are those out to throw the cold water of fact and scientific explanation on the juicy details of “Angels and Demons.”  ...

There were also inaccuracies with the geography of Rome and even the use of the Italian language, although these were later corrected.

But what director Ron Howard, who also helmed “Da Vinci Code,” set out to make was a feature film, not a documentary. To fully enjoy the ride, it would be best to park your skepticism at the door, and check with Wikipedia only when you get home.

Yes, I suppose Wikipedia will have to do, especially if you're unable to get your cyber-stained fingers on one of these rare objects.

And the most Islamized city in Europe is (drum roll, please)...

Rotterdam.

Sandro Magister explains:

In 2002, the scholar Bat Ye'or, a British citizen born in Egypt and a specialist in the history of the Christian and Jewish minorities in Muslim countries – called the "dhimmi" – coined the term "Eurabia" to describe the fate toward which Europe is moving. It is a fate of submission to Islam, of "dhimmitude."

Oriana Fallaci used the word "Eurabia" in her writings, and gave it worldwide resonance. On August 1, 2005, Benedict XVI received Fallaci in a private audience at Castel Gandolfo. She rejected dialogue with Islam; he was in favor of it, and still is. But they agreed – as Fallaci later said – in identifying the "self-hatred" that Europe demonstrates, its spiritual vacuum, its loss of identity, precisely when the immigrants of Islamic faith are increasing within it.

Holland is an extraordinary test case. It is the country in which individual license is the most extensive – to the point of permitting euthanasia on children – in which the Christian identity is most faded, in which the Moslem presence is growing most boldly.

Here, multiculturalism is the rule. But the exceptions are dramatic: from the killing of the anti-Islamist political leader Pim Fortuyn to the persecution of the Somali dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the murder of the director Theo Van Gogh, condemned to death for his film "Submission," a denunciation of the crimes of Muslim theocracy. Fortuyn's successor, Geert Wilders, has lived under 24-hour police protection for six years.

There is one city in Holland where this new reality can be seen with the naked eye, more than anywhere else. Here, entire neighborhoods look as if they have been lifted from the Middle East, here stand the largest mosques in Europe, here parts of sharia law are applied in the courts and theaters, here many of the women go around veiled, here the mayor is a Muslim, the son of an imam.

This city is Rotterdam, Holland's second largest city by population, and the largest port in Europe by cargo volume.

Read the entire piece.

Boring, unreasonable, whining snoozers

I gather that Charlotte Allen isn't afraid of hate mail, based on this opinion piece in the May 17, 2009, edition of the Los Angeles Times:

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Another example of a boring, unreasonable, and whining atheist is ex-Catholic Susan Jacoby, who pretends to not care a lick about the Catholic Church, but writes ill-informed, poorly considered, condescending columns about how the Church needs to change if its going to survive (it's like those poor souls who say "American Idol" is a rigged, talentless contest of screeching hacks, but they still watch every minute of it):

As an atheist and an ex-Catholic, I cannot claim to be displeased at the spectacle of the Roman Catholic Church continuing to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to ordain women or to allow priests to marry. If I cared about the survival of the Catholic Church, however, I would have to say that the severe priest shortage would end tomorrow if the church simply allowed its preachers to have a normal family and sexual life.

Jacoby appears unaware of the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches do ordain married men, and have done so for centuries. As for ordaining women (which is in the realm of established doctrine, not changeable discipline): wow, great idea! But, just in case it might not work, let's have a bunch of mainline Protestant denominations and the Anglican Communion try it out first. What? They already have? And they're adding members by the bazillions? No? Quite the opposite? What a surprise that is.

In the end, Jacoby sounds just like "Bishop" John "I'm Always Wrong" Spong, an Episcopalian who frets that Christianity must change or die, even while he jettisons everything that is Christian from his essentially atheistic version of "Christianity." So, it's very nice of Jacoby to care about such things, even though she doesn't really care (although she must care, otherwise why does she make such a big deal out of not caring? Follow?).

I'm guessing she's bored. After all, if she's right, life is basically a meaningless, empty joke played on us material accidents called "humans" by an impersonal, cold, and pointless universe/cosmos. If so, I'd be desperate to entertain myself by taking potshots at theists, even if it meant being unreasonable and whiny; it sure beats facing a dull life devoid of mystery and meaning and a certain death stripped of any hope.

Carla Bruni, it's not just your feelings...

Alright, alright, this is silly, stupid stuff. But it really annoys me, so here goes...

The Telegraph reports that Carla Bruni—former supermodel, singer, third wife of French president Nicolas  Sarkozy—is strongly criticizing Pope Benedict XVI for "his approach to contraception in Africa" and that due to the Pope's unwavering defense of Catholic teaching on the matter, "she has allowed her Catholic faith to lapse":

France's First Lady said that the Church's teachings had left her feeling "profoundly secular".

She departed from her post's traditional religious neutrality to accuse the Pope of "damaging" countries like Africa with his stance on birth control.
 
The Italian-born former supermodel risked angering believers in France and beyond by declaring that the Pontiff's proclamations showed that the Church needed to "evolve".

In March, the Pope sparked controversy while on an Africa tour by saying that the AIDs pandemic which has crippled the continent "can't be resolved with the distribution of condoms; on the contrary, there is the risk of increasing the problem".

Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy said: "I was born Catholic, I was baptised, but in my life I feel profoundly secular.

It's curious to me that Bruni-Sarkozy suggests it is Pope Benedict XVI who has caused her to "feel profoundly secular." After all, Cardinal Ratzinger was a number of years from being pope when Bruni was carrying on a torrid love affair in her twenties with geriatric rocker Mick Jagger (she was introduced to Jagger by her then-boyfriend Eric Clapton, and left Clapton to be with Jagger within a few days), which was just one of several high profile sexual dalliances the energetic Italian beauty has pursued over the years. The Independent reports:

She had an on-off affair with Mick Jagger in her 20s and became famous as part of the first generation of supermodels, which also included Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss. She abandoned modelling in her early 30s to re-invent herself with some success as an international pop star. Along the way, she dated an unlikely crowd of rich and famous men, including the US billionaire Donald Trump, film star Kevin Costner and British rock musician Eric Clapton.

Seven years ago, while living with the French publisher, Jean-Paul Enthoven, she fell in love with his son, the philosopher Raphael Enthoven, who was 10 years her junior. They married after he divorced his wife, Justine Lvy, the daughter of a better known French philosopher, Bernard-Henri Lvy. Mme Lvy took her revenge in 2004 by writing a successful novel loosely based on the stealing of her husband, called Nothing Important.

Bruni may have been born and baptized Catholic, but her approach to living has been, to use her apt words, profoundly secular, as described in this December 2007 news piece:

Bruni herself says she does not mind her man-eating reputation. "I’d rather be called a predator than an old flea-bag. Predator — it’s not that bad for a woman."

In February this year she remarked: "I’m monogamous occasionally but I prefer polygamy and polyandry. Love lasts a long time but burning desire — two to three weeks."

Nor is she shy of talking about sex. "Sex, very pleasant. It’s one of the advantages of getting older... age increases sensuality and the pleasure," she has said.

But, amazingly, not a word about Mass, studying the Catechism, considering life in a convent, or praying the Rosary! Are you as shocked as I am?

So there you have it: a baptized Catholic who seems to have had flings with nearly every famous man she's ever met is saying she is now—just now! only now! just today!—a lapsed Catholic because the Pope's/Church's refusal to condone the use of condoms is going to cause AIDS to spread further in Africa. "I think the Church should evolve on this issue. It presents the condom as a contraceptive which, incidentally, it forbids, although it is the only existing protection," she told Femme Actuelle, a women's magazine. Apparently she hasn't heard of abstinence; or perhaps she cannot wrap her profoundly secular lifestyle around the notion. Does she not see that her own rather, um, loose approach to sexual relationships has probably tainted her perspective on such matters? Whatever the case, if I were Mr. Sarkozy I'd think twice about introducing Bruni to rock musicians. Or any man, for that matter; you never know what those profoundly secular, predatorial, polyandrous women will do.

"A Word Addressed by God to His People"

"A Word Addressed by God to His People": Benedict XVI and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Ignatius Insight | May 19, 2009

"The God of the Bible is not some absolute Being who, crushing everything he touches, would suppress all the difference and all nuances. On the contrary, he is God the Creator, who created the astonishing variety of beings 'each according to its kind,' as the Genesis account says repeatedly. Far from destroying differences, God respects them and makes use of them (cf 1 Cor 12:18, 24, 28)." -- John Paul II, "Address on the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church." [1]

"Being faithful to the Church means, in fact, fitting into the current of the great Tradition. Under the guidance of the Magisterium, Tradition has recognized the canonical writings as a word addressed by God to his People, and it has never ceased to meditate upon them and to discover their inexhaustible riches." -- Benedict XVI, "The Life and Mission of the Church Based on the Word of God." [2]

I.

The major milestones in the Church's official dealing with the methods of interpreting Scripture and what Scripture essentially means have been recently commemorated. In 1893, Leo XIII issued Providentissimus Deus, which dealt with the issue of whether or not modern science has made the material found in Scripture obsolete. It hadn't. Leo XIII established the Biblical Commission in 1902. Pius X founded the Biblical Institute in1909. On the 1500^th anniversary of the death of St. Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, Benedict XV, in 1920, wrote an encyclical on interpreting the Bible.

In 1943, Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu fifty years after Providentissimus Deus was published. At that time, Pius was concerned with a movement that apparently denied that any use of scientific critical method was of value. This encyclical is generally considered to be the mandate summarizing the Church's ideas of Bible scholarship and modern methods of research.

Continue reading...

Two models of hope

Two models of hope |  George Neumayr, editor of Catholic World Report | Editorial for the June 2009 issue of CWR

Notre Dame chooses Obama’s over its namesake’s.

Last September, Pope Benedict XVI visited the original Grotto in Lourdes where Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette. During his visit, Pope Benedict spoke about the West’s need to recover the Marian model of hope: that salvation comes not through obedience to man’s will but through humble obedience to God’s.

The modern world has largely chosen the man-centered model of hope over Mary’s, and this choice, as the grim and unfolding chapters of recent history illustrate, has delivered not salvation but despair. The ideology that promises man’s perfection through the domination of relativized science, technology, and politics—what one might call the false self-sufficiency of secularism—has led once-Christian countries into dystopias of one kind or another, nations so bereft of real hope that they abort thousands upon thousands of their own children.

On May 17, in a sports arena not far from a replica of that original Grotto in Lourdes, Barack Obama received an honorary degree from Notre Dame—a moment of hollow good cheer in which a university founded in Our Lady’s honor extolled an American president not for habitually hoping in God’s promises but in his own. Father John Jenkins, Notre Dame’s president, hailed Obama’s “audacious hope for a brighter tomorrow.”

As the first acts of his administration demonstrate—paying for abortions at home and abroad, rescinding the Bush-era conscience clause for pro-life doctors and nurses, authorizing the over-the-counter sale of abortifacients to teens, placing gay-marriage proponents and aggressive secularists in powerful positions—this “audacious hope” rests not on God’s immutable will but on Obama’s willful rejection of it: that killing unborn children is a “right,” that redesigning marriage and sexuality according to fluctuating human taste and desire is “enlightened,” and that “reason” is not the product of God’s mind but man’s.

Read the entire editorial.

Pres. Obama's ND appearance: Links, commentary, analysis

I've been working my way through a stack (well, a cyber stack) of various news pieces, articles, commentaries, and such relating to President Obama's appearance and speech at Notre Dame and am highlighting some (certainly not all) of them here—and not in any particular order:

• Once again, here is a link to the President's speech. If you're looking for the abridged version, Catholic Culture provides a good overview.

• And here is Fr. Jenkins' speech.

• A lot of video footage and material is available on the "Notre Dame Response" site.

• An obvious headline from the Indianapolis Star: "Reactions split over Obama's Notre Dame visit." It is actually a balanced, solid piece of journalism.

• CNN applauded the President's "courageous" decision to attend and give his speech.

• Amy Welborn has written some of the best Catholic commentary I've read so far, including these posts: "Obama at Notre Dame", "Reax", and "But what about the Response?"

• Amy also has a post about the ridiculous comments made by Patricia McGuire, the president of Trinity Washington University. McGuire said:

"The religious vigilantism apparent in the Notre Dame controversy arises from organizations that have no official standing with the church, but who are successful in gaining media coverage as if they were speaking for Catholicism. . . . They have established themselves as uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize. Theirs is a narrow faith devoted almost exclusively to one issue. They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living. They mock social justice as a liberal mythology."

• Bishop Robert W. Finn is interviewed by The Catholic Key about President's speech:

I think the message of the day was this – that the President of Notre Dame said that they had invited the President of the United States and decided to honor him for the sake of dialogue. And then the President got up and said that the differences that we have on abortion – namely the Catholic Church’s staunch opposition to abortion and his staunch support of abortion were “irreconcilable.” And at that moment, it would seem to me that the dialogue came to a screeching halt. Father Jenkins’ expressed desire for dialogue, whether it was well-founded or justified, at that point got thrown back in his face. The President shut the door on dialogue by saying that there was not going to be any change in his position on abortion and he understood that there was not going to be any change in the Church’s position on abortion. To me, that was the lesson of the day. I am glad that Mr. Obama was so clear.

And then, amazingly, everybody gave him a standing ovation. The perception unfortunately was that this was a completely acceptable position of his and, because he is a bright and talented man, this trumps the destructive decisions that he’s making day after day.

• Patrick Deenan of "What I Saw in America" offers some cautiously optimistic observations:

The President's speech - as could be expected - was quite masterful. He is a wordsmith of first order, but more, has a remarkable rhetorical ability to call for forms of higher reconciliation and transcendence of division that has otherwise been fomented by so many other politicians and opinion leaders of our age. While most on the Right either suspect him of bad faith, or impute such bad faith to him for political advantage, I believe he honestly desires to heal some of the worst divisions of the nation. His call yesterday both to include a "conscience clause" to protect professionals who object to the practice of abortion (and gay marriage?), and his call to reduce the number of abortions - including the commendation of adoption as an option - appeared to have been enthusiastically greeted by nearly everyone at the ceremony.

Yet, actions have too rarely accompanied the best words articulated by Obama. The call to "openness" will quickly be seen as an invitation to join him where he stands, not to reach out to others with whom he disagrees, if he does not act firmly and with determination in these areas that could go some distance to narrowing some divides.

• Dr. Paul Kengor's assessment in The Weekly Standard is blunt: "For a long time in America, the Religious Left, Catholics and Protestants alike, have been duped, played like fiddles. It happened again at Notre Dame yesterday."

• Jill Stanek has video footage of the two-mile protest route from I-80 to the main entrance to the Notre Dame campus, as well as photos and coverage of the alternative commencement service held at the Grotto, which included a service led by Fr. Frank Pavone.

• Russell Shaw has a good post, "Obama at ND: Three Lessons," on the OSV blog.

• LifeNews.com highlights the commencement speakers for Catholic schools such as Ave Maria University, Christendom College, University of Dallas, and others.

• The Cardinal Newman Society reports on the commencement address given by Cardinal Arinze at Thomas More College in New Hampshire:

Cardinal Arinze emphasized the mission of Catholic universities to strive to educate students about the relationship “between faith and reason, on specialization and orientation, and on science and ethics.” He noted that the marker of success for Catholic colleges and universities is having “succeeded in forming and turning out model Christians who are good citizens.”

Arinze continued, “If a Catholic College or University adopts this attitude of ‘courageous creativity and rigorous fidelity,’ it will be able to contribute much to promote a healthy synthesis between faith and culture in society.”

“A Catholic college or university educates students to appreciate that moral rules of right and wrong apply also to science, technology, politics, trade and commerce, and indeed to all human endeavors.”

“In the complicated world of today, where all kinds of ideas are struggling for the right of citizenship, a university student needs a clear and viable orientation on the relationship between religion and life. The Catholic College or University is ideally positioned to help him see the light and equip himself for a significant contribution in society.”

• Context is, of course, a very valuable thing, but often ignored. Two pieces—both written before yesterday's events—worth reading for the context they provide are "Notre Dame: Who, what, when, where, why and how", by GetReligion.org's Terry Mattingly, and "At the Gates of Notre Dame", by Joseph Bottum, for First Things.

• John Aloysius Farrell, writing on the U.S. News & World Report blog is looking for less talk, more action from President Obama when it comes to reducing the number of abortions:

President Audacity needs to take the next step now. Words are important. So is the symbolism of a prominent appointment. But, in the end, talk is cheap.     

Since Bill Clinton and Al Gore started talking about making abortion "legal, safe, and rare" back in the 1990s, the Democrats have done everything they can to keep the procedure safe and legal, and not much at all to make it rare.     

With different wording, Obama used the same formula yesterday at Notre Dame. Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean have tried to defuse the abortion issue in recent years, with similar appeals and promises. "Let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available," Obama said at Notre Dame.

OK, Democrats. We hear you. It is indeed a laudable goal. And now it is time to show us you mean it. Make it happen.   

• Meanwhile, Yael T. Abouhalkah, Editorial Board columnist for Kansas City Star, thinks Obama was the perfect choice (ahem) for the ND commencement address and that he gave the perfect speech:

Mission accomplished on Sunday for President Barack Obama. He addressed the controversy surrounding his commencement address at Notre Dame, making his critics look petty.

In other words, Obama was right on target in delivering an upbeat speech. ...

Notice: A lot of Catholics -- and a lot of students at Notre Dame -- are of the same mindset as Obama. They are pro-choice.

Well, it's hard to argue with that last sentence. The rest is certainly up for debate.

• Fr. Pavone and Fr. Richard McBrien joined Chris Wallace on FOX News yesterday to talk about these various issues. Fr. McBrien, as usual, has no problem holding to contradictory positions, even in the same response:

Well, there's another sentence in that statement of the American bishops that should be quoted, and it said that those individuals should not be given awards, honors or platforms which suggest support for their actions.

And Father Jenkins, our president, has made it very clear that the honorary degree and inviting the president of the United States to address our graduates in no way suggests support for all of his positions, including his position on abortion and on embryonic stem cell research.

However, there are other — there are other positions he has taken, whether it's on immigration or poverty or whatever, which are entirely consistent with Catholic social teaching.

In fact, Mike — I mean, Chris — I'm talking about your dad — in fact, Chris, if we required 100 percent agreement with the Catholic Church's official teaching from everyone who speaks at or gets an honorary degree from a Catholic university, we would then not have any politicians of either party.

Which, of course, misrepresents what the U.S. bishops actually wrote in the 2004 document in question. Fr. Pavone, by the way, blogged about his day on Sunday.

• William McGough, hardly a close pal of pro-life Catholics, is forthright about the problematic stance of some "liberal Catholics" when it comes to abortion:

Getting back to Notre Dame, liberal Catholics who argue that Catholicism  is not a "single issue" faith and that Catholics need to support what the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin (cited by Obama in his speech) called a “consistent ethic of life” comprising opposition to abortion and support for anti-poverty efforts and world peace. But if you really believe, as Catholicism supposedly does, that abortion is the moral equivalent of the Nazis' extermination of the Jews, then a politician who supports legal abortion should be ostracized even if he or she takes the right position on national health insurance or nuclear disarmament. It pains me to say this, but I think at least some  liberal Catholics who wrap themselves in the "seamless garment" of a consistent ethic of life don't believe, deep down, that abortion is the outrage the bishops say it is.

• Holy Cross Father Wilson Miscamble, a history professor at Notre Dame, gave an address at a protest yesterday, stating:

Of late, that rhetoric seems to ring rather hollow. The words have not been matched by deeds. Instead of fostering the moral development of its students Notre Dame’s leaders have planted the damaging seeds of moral confusion.

By honoring President Obama, the Notre Dame Administration has let the students and their parents down. And it has betrayed the loyal and faith-filled alumni who rely on Notre Dame to stand firm on matters of fundamental Catholic teaching – and so to affirm the sanctity of life.

The honor extended to Barack Obama says very loudly that support for practically unlimited access to abortion – and approval for the destruction of embryonic life to harvest stem cells – are not major problems for those charged with leading Notre Dame. They seem easily trumped by other issues, and by the opportunity to welcome the president to our campus. Bishop John D’Arcy, the great bishop of this diocese who so loves Notre Dame, said it well – Notre Dame chose “prestige over truth.” How embarrassing for an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth to settle for temporary attention over eternal honor.

• Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online is frustrated but also hopeful:

The University of Notre Dame used appeals to academic freedom and dialogue to justify a weakening of the school and thereby the Church's public identity. Fr. Jenkins presided over a muddle on Sunday. But there's hope for both Notre Dame and the Catholic Church.

President Obama plugged his book The Audacity of Hope during his commencement address. Let me plug Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict's encyclical on Christian hope. He wrote that "the one who has hope lives differently" — and pointed toward Mary, Mother of God, for whom the University of Notre Dame is named, in a way that could have fit into commencement remarks this weekend:

Human life is a journey. Towards what destination? How do we find the way? Life is like a voyage on the sea of history, often dark and stormy, a voyage in which we watch for the stars that indicate the route. The true stars of our life are the people who have lived good lives. They are lights of hope. Certainly, Jesus Christ is the true light, the sun that has risen above all the shadows of history. But to reach him we also need lights close by — people who shine with his light and so guide us along our way. Who more than Mary could be a star of hope for us? With her "yes" she opened the door of our world to God himself; she became the living Ark of the Covenant, in whom God took flesh, became one of us, and pitched his tent among us (cf. Jn 1:14).

Let me also plug Spe Selvi, a wonderful encyclical about the theological virtue of hope—real hope.

• Dr. Bradley Birzer, a Notre Dame graduate who now teaches at Hillsdale College, drove down to ND to attend the outdoor protest mass and rally:

Not only was yesterday’s experience quite different from my earlier ND experiences, but it was also quite different from how the New York Times reported the day. We witnessed no radicals, no arrests, and no graphic pictures of aborted fetuses on our part of the campus. Much to our surprise, a massive screen greeted us, booming professional pro-Catholic commercials, accompanied by a throbbing beat and deep-voiced narrator. Everywhere we saw concerned and respectful families, children, students. We saw many who understand the importance of Notre Dame for the future of American Catholicism, education, and culture.

He has more comments, along with photos, on his personal website.

• The American Papist has a quick post noting that "a Catholic liberal, a feminist liberal, and a Catholic conservative ... all unsatisfied" with Obama's speech. The conservative is Notre Dame legend Ralph McInerny, who writes, in a piece posted today on The Catholic Thing:

This division among Catholics has been widening for more than forty years. How did it come about that so many Catholics have such a mushy notion of what it means to be a Catholic? The teaching of the faith since the close of Vatican II in 1965 has been scandalously inadequate. In many cases it has been the deliberate substituting of stones for bread. It began with waffling on contraception when theologians, real or self-proclaimed, impudently rejected Humanae Vitae, one of the great encyclicals of modern times. The scandal of the encyclical was that it placed Catholics on one side of a line and the zeitgeist on the other. Yet dissent from it was allowed to flourish. Moral theology went into steep decline and the official body of Catholic theologians issued Human Sexual Morality in which doubt was cast on the long tradition of teaching on pre-marital and extra-marital sex, abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce – a systematic dismantling of Catholic moral teaching.

All that is an old and oft-told story, still largely ignored officially. There grew up the notion that dissent from clear Church teaching was okay. With time, the difference between the moral teaching of dissenters and what was dismissively called "official" teaching blurred. Generations have been given a distorted notion of the faith. It is no wonder that Catholic politicians undertook to support policies in flat contradiction to what they purportedly believed privately. And so it was that on Sunday at Notre Dame faithful Catholics were regarded as dissenters. To such disfavor we have come.

If the Obama invitation has stirred such passionately prayerful reaction from an heroic band of students, from alumni and Catholics across the country, and – mirabile dictu – from more than seventy bishops, it may prove to have been providential, an opportunity for Catholics to recognize that their house is indeed divided.

I commented a bit on this division—a huge chasm, really—in my post, "Straw men by the left, straw men from the left", (written at 2:53 a.m. Sunday morning!)

• Speaking of the chasm, Andrew Sullivan titled his post on Obama's speech, "The Audacity of Humility," and remarked, "I found his Notre Dame commencement speech deeply Christian." Aaron Zelinsky of Huffington Post notes that the President's speech was filled with references to passages in the Bible. And to think some people are concerned that Americans are becoming illiterate when it comes to Sacred Scripture! I, for one, was not aware that quoting the Bible automatically makes a speech "Christian", good, or truthful.

• George Weigel, writing about "Obama and the 'Real Catholics'", makes some excellent points about the strategy employed by President Obama at Notre Dame:

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views. 

<snip>

Whether or not President Obama knew precisely what he was doing — and I’m inclined to think that this politically savvy White House and its allies among Catholic progressive intellectuals knew exactly what they were doing — is irrelevant. In order to secure the political advantage Obama had gained among Catholic voters last November, the president of the United States decided that he would define what it means to be a real Catholic in 21st-century America — not the bishop of Fort Wayne–South Bend, who in sorrow declined to attend Notre Dame’s commencement; not the 80-some bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s decision to invite the president to receive an honorary degree; not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which explicitly and unambiguously instructed Catholic institutions not to do what Notre Dame did. He, President Obama, would settle the decades-long intra-Catholic culture war in favor of one faction — the faction that had supported his candidacy and that had spent the first months of his administration defending his policies.

That is, I think, on the target. I'll probably have some similar thoughts later this week.

• The Susan B. Anthony list argues that President Obama's rhetoric does not match reality when it comes to abortion and the "conscience clause."

• Fr. Dwight Longenecker provides some humor. The problem is that it's hard to tell the spoof from reality.

• Finally (for now!), if you are looking for even more commentary and links, check out this post on the Opinonated Catholic blog.

UPDATE: Archbishop Charles Chaput has written a column "on Notre Dame and the issues that remain" (ht: Amy Welborn):

Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life.  The best have humor.  Some genuinely inspire.  But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time.  Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability.  This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.

Read the entire piece.

• Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican magazine, has written a lengthy piece about yesterday, focusing on a comparison between President Obama's speech and the recent talk given by Archbishop Raymond Burke at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast:

The crux of the issue, the place where the visions of the two men conflict and cannot be reconciled, is simple to understand. It is the question of human life — the life of the unborn baby — and whether that human life has a claim to be protected by law.

Burke's position is that all human life has a right to be protected.

 

In essence, Burke is a defender of the right of every human being to live, and not be murdered by others for no cause. In this sense, he is "pro-life."

 

For Burke, reason (natural law) teaches that all just human societies should provide a benevolent protection for human life through laws.

 

A society that does not do so, a society which allows a class or group of human beings to be killed without any legal sanction, introduces, in Burke's view, a profound injustice into its legal system, with consequences that ripple out in unpredictable ways, undermining the respect for justice throughout the society.

 

Burke further believes that reason (natural law) teaches that it is the purpose of all law to strive for justice.

 

Thus, reason urges us — reason, not the Christian or any other religious faith — to make laws that protect innocent human life, and repeal laws that sanction injustice.

If we are to be true servants of reason (servants of the Logos at the origin of all things), Burke argues, then we must acknowledge that taking the life of an innocent human being is always and everywhere unjust, that is, evil, and can never be described as just, that is, good.

 

Obama presented a different vision.

Moynihan also remarks on the " rather superficial and unsatisfying report" given by L'Osservatore Romano.

"Pope Benedict is the Catholic pontiff, not a Jewish activist."

He is also not a Zionist. Good to know. File for future reference.

President Obama's commencement address at Notre Dame...

... can be read in its White House approved form here.

I've been busy all afternoon, so haven't caught up on the Notre Dame situation. A friend, however, forwarded me this amazing bit of news:

80 Year Old Priest Arrested on Campus of Notre Dame

His crime? Peacefully protesting while singing "Immaculate Mary."

Straw men by the left, straw men from the left

I'd hazard a guess that I disagree with David Gibson on close to 96.2756% of most issues, but he tends to be a fairly sober analyst of those issues and I often read his commentary. But his most recent post, "Who Is a Real Catholic?", is truly horrible. It would take several hours and five gallons of espresso to cover all of it, but here, at the very least, is the opening:

All you need to know to diagnose the state of the Catholic Church in America today is that Pope Benedict XVI -- who has a knack for ticking off Muslims and Jews -- spent the past week wandering the Middle East, yet Catholics here barely noticed. They were too busy fighting over Barack Obama's appearance as commencement speaker at Notre Dame or arguing about the fate of a popular Miami priest known as "Father Oprah," who was caught on camera sharing a seaside embrace with his girlfriend.

Is this what Catholicism in America has come to? Bickering about whether Notre Dame is really Catholic, or whether a priest can make out on the beach with his gal pal? Well, yes. And that should come as no surprise.

This is—what's the word?—shallow. If it were any more shallow, it would be a dust bowl buried beneath the "bodies" of a hundred straw men. It's also misleading. If you are going to make Huge, Sweeping Generalizations about a group of some 65 million people, it might help if you backed up, even in anecdotal form, your essential assumptions:

That...makes...no...sense

From a Huffington Report piece about class valedictorian Brennan Bollman, who will be on the stage with President Obama on Sunday and who is described as a "pro-life biology major":

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Bollman stressed that her peers do not view the president's overall values as inconsistent with Catholicism. In fact, Bollman says Obama is practicing Catholic values in his administration. Like Jesus, Bollman says, Obama is trying to invite "everyone to the table."

<snip>

Some of the strongest words against the Notre Dame invitation came from Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who accused Notre Dame of showing it "didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation."

Bollman called Cardinal George's statement out of tune with Catholicism. "We know exactly what it is to be Catholic because we are inviting President Obama to speak to us." She said the University's President, Father Jenkins, had even sent a letter earlier in the week to all graduates affirming he's proud that campus dialogue had not "led to divisions."[emphasis added]

Bollman, I gather, has not yet taken "Rhetoric 101" or "Introduction to Basic Logic," never mind a course on Catholicism requiring students to study the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. Sad. Meanwhile, the comments section of the article is a veritable freak show of people equally out of touch with reality and commonsense. For example:

Yes, let's talk about the innocent children who are killed, abused, raped. Where is the church and the "right to lifers" then. They want to push there religious and political agendas. If it were about the children they would be spending this time and money helping children, pushing for more laws to protect children, fostering children, adopting children, but that is not controversial enough and it doesn't get you on TV.

This particular line of "argument" is especially angering to me since my wife and I, as life-long "right to lifers" (first as Evangelicals and, for the past twelve years, as Catholics), have adopted two children and have had two other adoptions fall through (due to unstable and irresponsible birth parents). Almost half of my gross income last year was spent trying to help and protect a young baby who was placed with us for several months. We didn't give a damn about "controversy" or scoring media points; we simply wanted to care for children desperately needing a home and family.

The fact is, pro-lifers are continually spending money they don't have and investing endless amounts of time and energy in helping the unborn, the young, the helpless, the weak. But what I've seen, with few exceptions, is that they don't yap endlessly about how much they care, and how much they do, and how wonderful they are for having done so—no, they simply do it, without fanfare and media attention and public acclaim. (For the record, I'm not altogether impressed with how Randall Terry and Co. sometimes handle themselves, especially when Terry shamelessly abuses the trust of a leading American cleric. The ends do not justify the means, regardless of the evil being fought.)

You recognize that these pro-lifers know what it means to be Christian and Catholic because they care far more about the innocent, the unborn, the young, and the vulnerable than they do about the prestige and attention that accompanies a presidential visit. Pro-lifers don't just "invite" people to the table—they actually bring them to the table, feed them, clothe them, hold them, care for them, love them, parent them, raise them. They will get their due, in due time.

Finally, on a somewhat tangential note, Alasdair MacIntyre—a Permanent Senior Research Fellow at Notre Dame—made an observation worth mulling over a bit in light of the current controversy when he wrote, in Whose Justice? Which Rationality? [UND, 1988], "The lawyers, not the philosophers, are the clergy of liberalism." That remark is from a chapter, "Liberalism Transformed Into a Tradition," in which MacIntyre observes that the "liberal individualist order" continually invokes the formal legal system when it comes to handling disputes over any and all significant moral questions. "The function of that system is to enforce an order in which conflict resolution takes places without invoking any overall theory of human good."

His point, in part, is that authentic debate over crucial moral issues never really takes place within the strictures and structures employed by modern liberalism. Liberalism, in fact, insists that it is neutral on matters such as abortion and euthanasia; those decisions, we are told, are to be made by individuals who have a right to privacy. The committed liberal, in the words of one lawyer, just insists that such matters are above his pay grade. This is a farce, a feint that is both condescending and obscurant, for no political system or ideological construct is neutral toward essential questions, and all possess a particular view of man and his end that informs how they legislate, judge, and rule. For those committed to liberalism, there is no need or possibility for dialogue or debate about abortion; it has been settled by the lawyers/clergy (that is, the Supreme Court), and to say otherwise is to utter blasphemy.

"Angels & Demons" is methodical, pedestrian, and quite silly

I believe in the existence of angels and demons, and I marvel at the mystery of the spiritual realm, of the hidden world of principalities and powers.

I also believe in the existence of Angels & Demons, and I don't marvel at all at the mystery—which is laughably stupid—or the movie—which was more bearable than The Da Vinci Code, but just barely. (Just like Ashley Simpson is a better singer than Britney Spears, but just barely. Or is Spears the better singer? Oh, wait, neither of them can sing...)

Yep, I went and saw the second Robert Langdon movie at a late matinee on opening day. There were about ten of us in the theater, and that included me and three friends, who wished to accompany me on the minor purgatorial journey, if only to see a stern Tom Hanks working in anti-laconic fashion to save a CGI-constructed Vatican from destruction by an antimatter bomb. Of the four of us, I was the only one who had read the novel, which should have allowed the other three to enjoy the element of surprise, if only the movie possessed any surprises.

Alas, we were all rather underwhelmed; on the plus side, none of us fell asleep. Where The Da Vinci Code was dull, pretentious, and openly anti-Catholic, Angels & Demons is methodical, pedestrian, and quite silly. The production values are good, the directing is solid, the effects are decent, and the acting ranges from mediocre (Hanks) to above average (Ewan McGregor).

[Spoiler Alert! You know what to do, etc.]

"The death penalty is death and abortion is death. What’s the difference?”

I don't know what is more revealing: that the question was asked by an MSNBC news anchor who, immediately prior to asking the question above, said, "I grew up Catholic", or that she then said, apparently with a straight face, "Why then continue -- advocating a Catholic Church that advocates division," to a Catholic who rightly explained the essential difference between abortion and the death penalty.

Here is my list, based on anecdotal experience, of the "Top 5 Things You'll Likely Hear From Someone Who Just Said, 'I grew up Catholic'":

1. "But I'm a recovering Catholic now."
2. "I'm not into all of that guilt and other nonsense. And I really don't like the Pope. Keep the Pope out my bedroom!"
3. "I stopped going to Mass when I went to college. Then I married an Episcopalian. Neither of us go to church."
4. "I think women should allowed to be priests. The Catholic Church hates women."
5. "I went to twelve years of Catholic school and four years of Catholic college. I'm now [pick one] an agnostic, a Baptist, a Buddhist, a spiritual seeker, a lesbian, a pro-choice activist."

What do you have?

(By the way, I realized, in re-reading this that some folks might think I'm picking on cradle Catholics. Not at all. I'm picking on former Catholics who think they know everything about the Catholic Church despite revealing their overwhelming lack of even basic knowledge of the Catholic Church.)