Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

How about vows against stupidity?

Based on several pieces I've read, this post on the RantRave.com site sums up well the stupidity flying around out there about celibacy and the priesthood:

The time has come, too much has gone wrong for too long, Catholicism needs to change. This most recent story involving a priest and sexual infidelity has sparked national attention, though this time not the type that could land you behind bars, and cost the church millions in legal fees and settlements. This time, it merely involved a priest giving into his natural attraction and sexual desires, and being caught on camera doing a little kissing and hugging.

Rev. Alberto Cutie is the object of all of this drama. Cutie was the head of Miami archdiocese's international radio network and the head of his parish until he was removed last week after "the Spanish-language magazine TVnotas ran photos of Cutie embracing a woman at a bar and at a beach." Cutie was so well known and liked on the broadcast that he even earned the nickname "Father Oprah" for his superb relationship advice. It turns out that his advice was aided by some research and not simply instincts, as he has admitted that he has had a romantic relationship with the woman in the photos for about two years, involving sex. Outrage!

I've written already about what I call the "animal view" of vows, noting:

In the animal view, whatever seems to keep someone from fulfilling their natural desires—often described as "personal fulfillment"—is unnecessary and likely "unhealthy." A vow of chastity or celibacy is seen as a cage and a form of imprisonment; in addition, it is understood as demeaning or even antagonistic toward sex. Since sex is understood (correctly) as something good and natural, it is assumed (incorrectly) that abstaining from sex is bad and unnatural.

Of course, if we are simply complex animals whose passions and natural desires point us unerringly to what is most important and vital for us, the animal view makes sense. The animal view would say that vows are fine and dandy to the degree that they help us find "personal fulfillment" and, perhaps, aid us in getting along with others. Wedding vows, then, are nice because they express a certain romantic sentiment and help us feel good about ourselves and our spouses; naturally, if those feelings and needs change (as, alas, they often do), the vow goes to the wayside. ("We love each other very much," someone I know recently said about getting divorced, "but when it comes to being in a relationship with each other, we aren't compatible.") It served a purpose, but it makes no sense to force yourself or someone else to adhere to it if it threatens to stifle or thwart your desires.

Perhaps this situation with Fr. Cutie needs to be put into different terms—terms understandable (hopefully) to people who think sex is a commodity along the lines of soft drinks, summer apparel, and iPods. How about this:

Fr. Cutie lied. He broke public promises. He claimed, by virtue of his freely given vows and by being a priest, that he would abstain from sex. By carrying on a two-year-long affair, he betrayed trusts and he lied to his superiors, his fellow priests, his family, his friends, and those who looked up to him as a virtuous man of God. He even lied to the woman he was carrying on with. He was, put simply, being selfish and putting himself before others.

I wonder if those who think it is no big deal that Fr. Cutie was having this sexual relationship would change their minds if they learned the woman he was romantically involved with was their girlfriend or wife. If that were the case, I'd like to ask: "Why does it bother you? She was just giving into her natural attraction and sexual desires. Ah, you feel betrayed? So what? Stop being a baby! You need to get over your backwards, old-fashioned notions about promises and commitments and realize that this is the twenty-first century! Who cares about promises of fidelity and vows of love when natural attraction and sexual desire is in charge of one's libido? Just how stupid are you?"

I don't think I'm naive about the self-serving, blind nature of humanity (hey, I'm human too!), but why don't people see that if vows are empty, promises are pointless, commitment is transitory, and loyalty is dead, a civilized and humane society is toast? Is it so difficult to comprehend the connection between solemn vows—whether religious or secular in nature (think, for example, of the oaths sworn by police officers, politicians, judges, etc.)—and social stability? Without trust, relationships cannot exist, grow, or thrive. Without authentic commitment, the bonds that hold together families, communities, and social institutions rot and break, creating the sort of semi-anarchic, corrosive, and cynical public square that is fast becoming the norm.

In short, if you are going to act like an animal, don't be surprised when other animals prey upon you. And don't be surprised if no one cares when it happens. In the words of the head-banging gang of sociologists known as Guns N' Roses:

Welcome to the jungle
It gets worse here everyday
Ya learn ta live like an animal
In the jungle where we play
If you got a hunger for what you see
You'll take it eventually
You can have anything you want
But you better not take it from me

Christopher West: "I never said Hugh Hefner is a hero, never..."

A cautionary tale, as reported by CNA:

CNA spoke with West in a Friday interview to follow up on ABC’s report, asking him to give his opinion on the report and to explain his view of the Theology of the Body and Christian marriage.

"The Theology of the Body is the vision of what it means to be human," West said. "The Theology of the Body teaches us that our bodies as male and female are a sign here on earth of the eternal mystery of the Trinity. Ultimately the mystery of the Trinity is revealed through Christ and the Church.

"Pope John Paul II says that, right from the beginning, the holy nuptials of man and woman are a primordial sacrament, a foreshadowing, a sign that points us to the love of Christ and the Church. Love is sacramental, revelatory."

He said it was "very important" to understand that the Theology of the Body is not only for married people.

It is "for everybody, married, single, or consecrated celibate, because it provides a vision for us of what it means to be human. That was very lacking of the story."

"The story [by ABC] sensationalized some of the sexual aspects," West said.

"Certainly the Theology of the Body provides a beautiful vision for us of marital love. But to reduce the Theology of the Body to its teaching on sexual morality, or to some kind of Catholic version of a sex manual is terribly missing the mark."

He said the ABC correspondents were generally "very professional" and "very interested" in giving a fair hearing to the Theology of the Body. However, the two hour interview and four hours of speaking footage had to be reduced to a 7-minute interview.

"I can understand why they put it together the way they did. They did a decent job," he told CNA, but his concerns prompted him to encourage people to read his articles and books for "the very important context."

Responding to ABC’s characterization of Hefner and Pope John Paul II as "heroes," West said the statement was not given proper context.

"I never said Hugh Hefner is a hero, never," he remarked, explaining that Hefner said he started Playboy as a personal response to the hurt and hypocrisy of Americans’ Puritan heritage.

"The point I was making with ABC was that we as Catholics agree with Hefner’s diagnosis of the disease of Puritanism, a fearful rejection of the body rooted in heritage of Manicheanism. Sadly, that very important point did not come out in the interview."

"Let the record stand very clearly: the pornographic revolution that Hugh Hefner inaugurated, the medicine that he suggested, proves to be in many ways more dangerous than the disease itself."

Read the entire piece.

At the Service of the Church: A CWR interview with the American Papist

At the Service of the Church | Thomas Peters discusses his popular blog | Interview by Jeremy Lott | May 2009 issue of Catholic World Report

Thomas Peters is the owner of the popular Catholic insider blog American Papist, which recently received its two millionth visitor. Peters has attracted a large audience by regularly giving readers smart, quick news and analysis of all things Catholic: from papal appointments to scandals to new ministries. Peters talked with CWR about blogging, Notre Dame, Barack Obama, and the “Papist Picture of the Day.”

CWR: The title of your blog is interesting. Many Catholics would not use the term “papist” to describe themselves, or would do so half jokingly. You provide an actual definition for readers. (“n. A Catholic who is a strong advocate of the papacy.”) Are you trying to rehabilitate the term?

Thomas Peters: I’m not necessarily trying to rehabilitate the term, I’m trying to rehabilitate the idea that following the pope is, in the final analysis, a really good idea. “Papist” is, of course, historically a term of derision used against Catholics. Using the term to describe myself is both a way to send a clear message about who I am, and it challenges the world to confront and (ultimately, I pray) discard the anti-Catholicism that has dogged the Church, particularly since the Enlightenment. Give us a second look—we’re nice people.

CWR: Why do you blog? What do you hope to accomplish with your website?

Peters: I blog because the topics I cover interest me, and people tell me that it’s useful to them. My set of goals for American Papist has developed over time as my circumstances have changed and its popularity has increased. I hope American Papist is a service to the Church, and specifically to Catholics in America.

I don’t necessarily have a plan for where it’s going to go next, but whatever decisions I’ve made so far, in general, seem to have been for the good. I’ve tried to embrace the flexibility of the blog format that lets me go where the story is, and change course quickly to focus on something that’s important at the moment. Long-term I think I’ve retained readers because of focusing on highly important stories, providing reliable commentary that is hopefully at least a tad more informed, and well, the Papist Picture of the Day seems to keep people smiling.

Read the entire interview...

Is Piers Paul Read speaking at an event near you?

Is Piers Paul Read speaking at an event near you? Find out below! USA Book Tour 2009 He's the bestselling author of the dramatic non-fiction title Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors, later made into an acclaimed film. As a biographer, he was chosen to write the official account of Sir Alec Guinness's life. His novels have won praise and awards. And now he's headed back to the bestseller lists with his new novel of suspense, The Death of a Pope -- and he'll be touring the USA May/June 2009. Now's your chance to meet the author at over 20 appearances across the US, or tune in to national and regional broadcast interviews! Find out what it's like to be a Catholic novelist in today's world, how the hot-button issues of social justice and liberation theology affect his latest work, and his great respect for Pope Benedict XVI. Visit the book tour listing to find an event near you. Get the word out! Calling all book lovers, devout Catholics, and aspiring writers! Let's give a warm welcome to this British author, and have a good time doing it. You can help spread the word in a few ways: If you're on Facebook, become a fan and invite your friends. Find an event in your area and get the latest updates! Print and post flyers You can download flyers for any venue online from the tour page by clicking on the PDF icon next to the listing. Your parish, your book club, the more the merrier! Forward this email If you know anyone that might be interested, see about going together, or just forward this email to let them know about it. For more on information on the book and its author, visit the book's website at: www.deathofapope.com Save 15% when you order online from Ignatius Press.

Fr. James Schall on "The Burke Lecture"

The Burke Lecture | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Ignatius Insight | May 11, 2009

"Over the past several months, our nation has chosen a path which more completely denies any legal guarantee of the most fundamental human right, the right to life, to the innocent and defenseless unborn... Those in power now determine who will or will not be accorded the legal protection of the most fundamental right to life." — Archbishop Raymond Burke, Keynote Address at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., May 8, 2009.

I.

Raymond Burke is a canon lawyer, the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, a technical name for head of the Holy See's legal system. He was formerly the Archbishop of St. Louis. He was invited to address the annual "National Catholic Prayer Breakfast," held on Friday, May 8, 2009, in Washington, D.C.

Archbishop Burke has the unusual quality of being very clear. He minces no words. Some, I suppose, think we should never be clear and always mince words, so that no one know exactly where we stand or what is going on. We are, no doubt, to be "diplomatic," which too often means that we do not say everything that needs to be said, or we say it in such convoluted language that we need it de-codified.

The first thing Burke said in his Washington lecture was that he was a patriot, that what brings "great strength to the country" is to live a faithful Catholic life. We forget that a life faithful to the truth is a strength, not a weakness, to the country. We should pray for the land. Yet, Burke is deeply "concerned for our nation." Many are afraid to say just how concerned they are at the new policies and movements of the present elected government. Too few have thought about what these extraordinary measures of government expansion really imply.

Read the entire essay...

This is getting to be ridiculous

No, it is ridiculous. And, frankly, a bit creepy, coming as it does from from a "journalist":

"May I change the subject," said a prominent Washington theologian at a recent dinner. The conversation had been high-minded -- religion, philosophy, the nature of evil. "I'd like to talk about Michelle Obama's arms," he said.

He is a big fan of those arms. We then began a discussion about the significance of the first lady's arms. Actually, it turned out to be equally serious. Michelle Obama's arms, we determined, were transformational. Her arms are representative of a new kind of woman: young, strong, vigorous, intelligent, accomplished, sexual, powerful, embracing and, most of all, loving.

Today is Mother's Day. Today we should celebrate Michelle Obama's arms as the arms of a mother.

And some people wonder why major newspapers are struggling? Has The Washington Post become People magazine? Oh, sure, it's in the "Style" section, but perhaps it should have been in the "Religion" section, filed under "Idol Worship/Secular Spirituality". By the way, I wish Quinn would have mentioned the identity of the "prominent theologian". Any guesses?

Also, what does it say of Quinn and Co. that they think Michelle Obama is a "new kind of woman" when, in fact, millions and millions of women before her have been "young, strong, vigorous, intelligent, accomplished, sexual, powerful, embracing and, most of all, loving"?

I also have a quibble with this statement: "She also has a husband who is facing more crises than any president we have had in more than half a century." An argument can be made, I suppose, for the veracity of that statement, but it does not stand easily as an assumption. What about Ronald Reagan in January of 1980, facing a horrible economy, the fallout of the disastrous Seventies, the bazillion messes created by Jimmy "The Sweater" Carter, the Evil Empire and the super chilly Cold War, the Iran hostage situation, the disco era, etc., etc.?

Big, Bold, and Bloody Lie of the Week

Author and "activist" Judy Blume, (who wrote a ton of kid's books that I skipped in favor of Dickens, Dumas, and "Franklin W. Dixon" while growing up), gets all sweet and sickly about an organization that is simply sickening:

Say thanks this Mother's Day with a gift that honors her courage by making a donation to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in her name. I guarantee you that she'll be pleased. I know I would be.

I'm a mom, and I'm also a writer and an activist. Nothing has made me prouder than seeing my own children — and really, all young people — grow up to be healthy, educated, and in charge of their bodies and their lives. That's where Planned Parenthood comes in. There is no organization that I know of that supports motherhood and all that it means more than Planned Parenthood. That's why I'm honoring moms everywhere with my gift to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund today.

It's not easy to be a mother these days. And right now — with more and more women seeking care from Planned Parenthood health centers — we need to do all we can to support them. By honoring a mother in your life with a gift to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, you'll be making a gift that protects and advocates for the health of millions of mothers and families. That's a gift any mother will appreciate. [emphasis added, with dumbfounded amazement]

If you think being a mother is hard (and, of course, it certainly is), think of how hard it is to be born these days when an organization such as Planned Parenthood is facilitating 305,310 abortion and 0 (as in NONE) births (2007/2008 numbers). "Uh, ahem, we're sorry: we don't deliver babies—we, um, well, nevermind..."

This from The Christian Post:

Janet Morana, co-founder of Silent No More Awareness Campaign, pointed to the overall hypocrisy in Planned Parenthood's fundraising letter.

"Honoring mothers by giving money to Planned Parenthood, though, is like honoring our troops by sending care packages to al-Qaeda," Morana said in a statement Friday. "It makes no sense and it's highly offensive."

It's like saying, "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion," as you rack up one of the most ardently pro-abortion voting records in U.S. history. It's horrific enough that they folks are so devoted to abortion, but then they have to rape language, pillage truth, and spit in the faces of those women who are mothers because they rejected having an abortion, some of them despite being pressured to do so.

Amy Welborn comments. Hat tip to The Catholic Key.

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke's full address...

... at yesterday's National Catholic Prayer Breakfast can be accessed on the LifeSiteNews.com website.

Imagine

From CatholicVote.org:

Q&A with Pope Benedict on his way to Amman

I'm not going to attempt on this blog to document every move or word of the Holy Father during his time in the Holy Land. But I will likely point out a few items, beginning with this transcription, from the Vatican Information Office, of a Q&A session Benedict XVI had with journalists during the flight to Amman:

PRAISE FOR THE WORK OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES

VATICAN CITY, 8 MAY 2009 (VIS) - This morning, during his flight from Rome to the Jordanian capital city of Amman, Benedict XVI granted a brief interview to journalists accompanying him on the papal plane. A transcription of the questions and answers is given below.

 "This trip takes place at very delicate moment for the Middle East: There are strong tensions - during the Gaza crisis it was speculated that you would not make this visit. At the same time, a few days after your trip, the political leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority will meet with U.S. President Obama. Do you think that you can contribute to the peace process that currently seems to be running aground?"

 Benedict XVI: "Certainly I intend to contribute to peace, not as an individual, but in the name of the Catholic Church, of the Holy See. We are not a political power, but rather a spiritual force, and this spiritual force is a reality that can contribute to the progress of the peace process. I see [a contribution to be made on] three levels: As believers, we are convinced that prayer is a real power. It opens the world to God. We are convinced that God listens and that He can act in history. I think that if millions of people - of believers - pray, this really is an influential power that can contribute to the advancement of peace. Secondly, we try to help in the formation of consciences. The conscience is the capacity of mankind to perceive the truth, but particular interests often block this capacity, and it is difficult to free ourselves from these interests, to open up to truth and to real values. One of the Church's duties is to help us recognise true criteria, true values, and free ourselves from particular interests. As for the third point, let us draw reason in as well: ... precisely because we are not a political institution it is perhaps easier for us, also in the light of faith, to see the true criteria, to help people understand what contributes to peace, to speak to reason, to support truly reasonable positions. This we have already done, and we want to do so now and in the future".

 "As a theologian, you have reflected in particular on the shared roots that unite Christians and Jews. How is it possible that, despite the efforts of dialogue, misunderstandings often occur? How do you see the future of dialogue between the two communities?"

 Benedict XVI: "The important thing is that in reality we have the same roots, the same Books of the Old Testament which is - for the Jews as for us - the Book of the Revelation. But naturally, after 2,000 years of different, even separate, history, it is not surprising that misunderstandings should arise. Highly diverse traditions of interpretation, language, and thinking have been formed - what we could call very different "semantic universes" - so that the same words have different meanings for each tradition. With the use of these words, which over the course of history have taken on different meanings, misunderstandings are obviously born. We must do everything to learn one another's language, and it seems to me that we are making great progress. Today it is possible for young people, the future professors of theology, to study in Jerusalem, in the Hebrew University; and the Jews have academic contact with us. Thus these "semantic universes" meet. We learn from one another and we progress along the path of true dialogue. We learn from each other and I am convinced we are making progress. This will also help peace, and what is more, reciprocal love".

 "Your Holiness, this journey has too principal dimensions of inter-religious dialogue, with Islam and with Jews. Are they completely separate from one another or will there be a shared message that concerns all three Abrahamic religions?"

 Benedict XVI: "Certainly there exists a shared message, and there will be a chance to highlight this. Despite the difference of origins, we have shared roots, because, as I have said, Christianity is born of the Old Testament, and the writings of the New Testament would not exist without the Old. ... Islam too was born in an environment where Judaism and various branches of Christianity, Judeo Christianity, Antiochean Christianity, Byzantine Christianity co-existed, and all these circumstances are reflected in the tradition of the Koran. Thus we have much in common from our origins, in the faith in the one God. Hence it is important to maintain dialogue with the two sides - with the Jews and with Islam - as well as a trilateral dialogue. I myself co-founded a foundation for dialogue between the three religions which included such figures as Metropolitan Damaskinos and Rene-Samuel Sirat, chief rabbi of France. This foundation also published an edition of the books of the three religions: the Koran, the New Testament and the Old Testament. For this reason the trilateral dialogue should go forward, it is very important for peace, and as well for living one's own religion well".

 "A last question. Your Holiness, you have often mentioned the problem of the decline of the Christians in the Middle East, and also in particular in the Holy Land. It is a phenomenon that has various political, economic and social reasons. What can be done to help Christians in the region? What contribution do you hope to make with your trip? Is there hope for these Christians in the future? Do you have a particular message for the Christians of Gaza who will come to see you in Bethlehem?"

 Benedict XVI: "Certainly there is hope, because, as you have said, this is a difficult moment, but also a moment of hope, of a new start, of a new impulse in the path toward peace, and we want to encourage Christians in the Holy Land, and in all of the Middle East, to stay, to make their contribution to their countries of origin. They are important components of life in these regions. In concrete terms the Church, beyond her words of encouragement, has schools and hospitals. In this sense we have a very concrete presence. Our schools form a generation that will have the possibility to be present in public life. We are creating the Catholic University in Jordan, and I feel this offers great prospects for young people - both Muslims and Christians - to meet and learn together, for forming a Christian elite specifically prepared to work for peace. ... Furthermore, there are many Christian associations that help Christians in various ways, and with specific help they encourage them to stay. In this way I hope that Christians are able to find the value, the humility, the patience to stay in these countries, to offer their contribution to the future of these countries".

For much more about the Pope's trip, see this blog, operated by Christopher Blosser:

One of my pet peeves...

... is addressed by Dr. Ed Peters in his most recent post over at his blog, In the Light of the Law:

Concerns about swine flu have prompted many parishes to discontinue the routine administration of the Precious Blood. Okay, fine.* But there's another Communion rite practice that should also cease if only out of concerns for public health. This time, however, it's a practice that (unlike distribution from the Cup) is an abuse per se, namely, that of lay ministers of holy Communion purporting to confer "blessings-in-lieu-of-Communion" on every Tom, Pat, and Harriet who comes up in line.

Lay ministers of holy Communion (by definition, extraordinary ministers thereof), in response to people approaching them without the intention to receive Communion (maybe such folks are non-Catholics** or are Catholic kids prior to First Communion), currently do one of three things: they (1) speak and gesture a sign of the cross over such folks, or (2) lay hands on such persons' heads or shoulders while voicing a blessing, or (3) waive the Eucharist over them while purporting to confer a blessing. I think all three actions are liturgical abuses.

Let's consider them in order of gravity:

Continue reading...

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

Why "The Clash"?

Not the punk/rock group by that name (that'll have to wait for another post, I suppose), but the clash over Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama. Joseph Bottum, contributing editor of The Weekly Standard and editor of First Things, provides some interesting analysis (ht: Francis Beckwith) that seeks to put the situation in a broader context:

What all these critics of Glendon share is a sense that Catholic unhappiness with Notre Dame must be about politics. "There is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison," Fr. Kenneth Himes, chairman of the theology department at Boston College, complained to the Boston Globe. As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal noted, this was the same Fr. Himes who in 2006 wrote the faculty a letter objecting to an honorary degree for Condoleezza Rice--a letter that read, "On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work."

You could cut the irony with a knife: It's only demonizing when conservatives do it. Still Fr. Himes joins Douglas Kmiec, and America, and Commonweal, and the administration of Notre Dame, and most of the newspaper columnists who've weighed in on the controversy, and a surprising number of conservatives. They all look at the Notre Dame protests and think it must be about politics. Bad politics or good politics, take your pick. But politics all the way down.

As it happens, they're wrong. Politics has very little to do with the mess. This isn't a fight about who won the last presidential election and how he's going to deal with abortion. It's a fight about culture--the culture of American Catholicism, and how Notre Dame, still living in a 1970s Catholic world, has suddenly awakened to find itself out of date.

The role of culture is what Fr. Jenkins at Notre Dame and many other presidents of Catholic colleges don't quite get, and their lack of culture is what makes them sometimes seem so un-Catholic--though the charge befuddles them whenever it is made. As perhaps it ought. They know very well that they are Catholics: They go to Mass, and they pray, and their faith is real, and their theology is sophisticated, and what right has a bunch of other Catholics to run around accusing them of failing to be Catholic?

But, in fact, they live in a different world from most American Catholics. Opposition to abortion doesn't stand at the center of Catholic theology. It doesn't even stand at the center of Catholic faith. It does stand, however, at the center of Catholic culture in this country. Opposition to abortion is the signpost at the intersection of Catholicism and American public life. And those who--by inclination or politics--fail to grasp this fact will all eventually find themselves in the situation that Fr. Jenkins has now created for himself. Culturally out of touch, they rail that the antagonism must derive from politics. But it doesn't. It derives from the sense of the faithful that abortion is important. It derives from the feeling of many ordinary Catholics that the Church ought to stand for something in public life--and that something is opposition to abortion.

Fr. Himes went on to tell the Boston Globe, "Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation." Of course, here, too, there's a level of irony: Out at Notre Dame, the president, Fr. Jenkins, has defended his choice of Obama on the grounds of "conversation," but, now in full-lock down mode, the school hasn't actually scheduled any conversations or debates on the topic. They did invite the 82-year-old Judge John T. Noonan to take Mary Ann Glendon's place on the platform, and he is not, by any means, an unfaithful Catholic or a supporter of abortion. He has the reputation, however, of being one of the dullest speakers in captivity, and the school can't really expect him to provide much "conversation partnership," as Notre Dame calls it, for Barack Obama and his quicksilver rhetoric.

Still, in a peculiar way, Himes is right that "some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue." It is a horrifying fact, in many ways, that Roe v. Wade has done more to provide Catholic identity than any other event of the last 50 years. Still, for American Catholics, the Church is a refuge and bulwark against an ambient culture that erodes morality and undermines families. Catholic culture is their counterculture, their means of upholding the dignity of the human person and the integrity of family--and, in that context, the centrality of abortion for American Catholic culture seems much less arbitrary than it first appeared.

This is what the leaders of Notre Dame need to grasp. They do not necessarily have bad theology when they equate the life issues with other concerns. They do not necessarily have bad faith just because they say that war and capital punishment outweigh the million babies killed every year in this country by abortion. But they lack the cultural marker that would make them Catholic in the minds of other Catholics. Abortion is not the only life issue, but it is the one that bears most directly on the lives of ordinary Catholics as they swim against the current to preserve family life. And until Catholic universities understand this, they will not be Catholic--in a very real, existential sense.

Read the entire piece.

5 years, 5,000 posts, and 5 million gallons of Pepsi later...

Five years ago this month I embarked upon a job that has inspired various people to ask this deep, challenging, and sometimes perplexing question:

"What is it, exactly, that you do for a living, Carl?"

Most of the time, I admit with some chagrin, that question has come from my boss, Mark Brumley. And I hope to some day give him a good, truthful answer. I'm working on it!

But, in all seriousness, it was in May 2004 that I began work as editor of Ignatius Insight. On June 15, 2004, Mark Brumley delivered the first post to the Insight Scoop blog. To his credit, the message of that post is just as fresh and meaningful today as it was then:

Everybody Needs to Read Theology of the Church

Let me be absolutely unambiguous about this. Everyone who is reading my words right now should read Theology of the Church by Charles Journet. This is a first-rate book on ecclesiology (the study of the theological nature of the Church). Don't worry about it being over your head. Most things are. So why let that bother you when it comes to theology? Buy the book. Read the book. Share it with your friends. You'll be so happy you did. And so will they.

Yes, do read Journet's book; it is excellent. The many excellent books published by Ignatius Press are reasons enough to enjoy the work I've been doing these past five years on both Insight and Scoop. But there is much more, of course, including the opportunity to talk to and interview many fascinating and engaging people, and to read about and comment on and converse about a wide range of topics, ranging from vital (the Gospel) to the important (current events in the Church and the world at large) to the less significant but always interesting (prog rock, television shows, and beer).

A few weeks ago—during Holy Week, actually—the Insight Scoop blog passed the 5,000 post mark. (This post is #5,130.) The blog has now had over 2.5 million visits in those five years, with about a third of those coming in the last year alone. I deeply appreciate the support of the many readers who make Ignatius Insight and the Insight Scoop blog regular stops on the Internet highway. (If you don't know, every time you purchase something from Ignatius Press through the links on Insight or Scoop, it helps to make me look valuable and productive. Hint, hint!) Please keep coming back and please let others know about the articles, interviews, posts, and commentary you've read and enjoyed.

Finally, a quick shout out to Thomas Peters, the American Papist, who recently passed the 5,000 post mark as well. Congrats!

Let me be absolutely unambiguous about this. Everyone who is reading my words right now should read Theology of the Church by Charles Journet. This is a first-rate book on ecclesiology (the study of the theological nature of the Church). Don't worry about it being over your head. Most things are. So why let that bother you when it comes to theology? Buy the book. Read the book. Share it with your friends. You'll be so happy you did. And so will they.

Yes, do read Journet's book; it is excellent. The many excellent books published by Ignatius Press are reasons enough to enjoy the work I've been doing these past five years on both Insight and Scoop. But there is much more, of course, including the opportunity to talk to and interview many fascinating and engaging people, and to read about and comment on and converse about a wide range of topics, ranging from vital (the Gospel) to the important (current events in the Church and the world at large) to the less significant but always interesting (prog rock, television shows, and beer).

A few weeks ago—during Holy Week, actually—the Insight Scoop blog passed the 5,000 post mark. (This post is #5,130.) The blog has now had over 2.5 million visits in those five years, with about a third of those coming in the last year alone. I deeply appreciate the support of the many readers who make Ignatius Insight and the Insight Scoop blog regular stops on the Internet highway. (If you don't know, every time you purchase something from Ignatius Press through the links on Insight or Scoop, it helps to make me look valuable and productive. Hint, hint!) Please keep coming back and please let others know about the articles, interviews, posts, and commentary you've read and enjoyed.

Finally, a quick shout out to Thomas Peters, the American Papist, who recently passed the 5,000 post mark as well. Congrats!

Archbishop Burke weighs in on ND-Obama situation

From Fox News:

One of the Vatican's highest ranked clerics and a frequent critic of President Obama said Friday that Notre Dame is causing a "scandal" by giving the president an honorary degree and a platform to address graduates at its commencement next weekend. 

'The proposed granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our president, who is so aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda, is rightly the source of the greatest scandal," said Archbishop Raymond Burke, who is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court.

Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis and vocal opponent of giving communion to politicians who support abortion rights, told Catholics at a national prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., that "with unparalleled arrogance, our nation is choosing to renounce its foundation on the faithful."

And:

"The appointment of a Catholic as secretary of health and human services who has openly and consistently cooperated with the industry of procurative abortion in our nation is necessarily the source of the deepest embarrassment to Catholics and a painful reminder of the most serious responsibility of Catholics to uphold the moral law, which is the irreplaceable foundation of just relationships among the citizens of our nation," Burke said. 

He added that it "grieves me to say that the support of anti-life legislation by Catholics in public office is so common that those who are not Catholics have justifiably questioned whether the church's teachings regarding the inviolable dignity of innocent human life is firm and unchanging. It gives the impression that the church herself can change the law that God has written on every human heart since the beginning of time."

Read the entire piece. And then be prepared to hear from The Usual Suspects that Burke is one or all of the following:

• A Republican hack, hit-man, enforcer, drone, errand boy.
• An arrogant, out-of-touch, power-hungry, anti-choice Church leader fearful of losing power.
• An ultra-right-wing, hyper-traditionalist Catholic stuck in the 1950s.
• An enemy of moderation, dialogue, and respectful conversation about issues that divide Catholics.

The best critique yet of Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons"...

... has been penned by Stephen Greydanus, and is titled, "Lies, Damned Lies and Dan Brown: Fact-checking Angels & Demons." Greydanus, who runs the Decent Films site, has written about Brown's novel and the upcoming movie for Catholic World Report, Our Sunday Visitor, and National Catholic Register. His critique is thorough, well-written, and judicious—and often quite humorous:

“Brown’s writing is not just bad,” writes Dr. Geoffrey K. Pullam, Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh, in the first of a number of blog posts on Brown at Language Log. “[I]t is staggeringly, clumsily, thoughtlessly, almost ingeniously bad. In some passages scarcely a word or phrase seems to have been carefully selected or compared with alternatives.”

Among other things, Pullam calls out Brown’s penchant for opening action scenes with clumsy “curriculum vitae details” in sentences like “Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery” (the first sentence of The Da Vinci Code) and “Physicist Leonardo Vetra smelled burning flesh, and he knew it was his own” (the first sentence of Angels & Demons). Pullam delights in debunking Brown’s literary non sequiturs: a voice “chillingly close” yet fifteen feet away; a “mountainous silhouette” with visible pupils and irises as well as skin and hair color.

Pullam’s examples are from The Da Vinci Code; similar instances from Angels & Demons aren’t hard to find. On the first page of chapter one of Angels & Demons, we read that “Langdon sat up in his empty bed”; two pages later, “Robert Langdon wandered barefoot through his deserted Massachusetts Victorian home … ” But he’s still in the bed on the first page, and obviously occupying his Massachusetts Victorian home; you can’t sit up in an empty bed or wander through your deserted home, barefoot or otherwise.

This, of course, is Brown’s inept way of letting us know that Langdon lives and sleeps alone — which perhaps partly explains the author’s embarrassing eagerness, two paragraphs later, to establish his hero’s virility and attractiveness. “Although not overly handsome in a classical sense,” we read, “the forty-year-old Langdon had what his female colleagues referred to as an ‘erudite’ appeal — wisp of gray in his thick brown hair, probing blue eyes, an arrestingly deep voice, and the strong, carefree smile of a collegiate athlete.”

The next paragraph goes on to tell us how Langdon’s friends “had always viewed him as a bit of an enigma” — a bohemian classicist who could be seen “lounging on the quad in blue jeans, discussing computer graphics or religious history” as well as “in his Harris tweed and paisley vest, photographed in the pages of upscale art magazines at museum openings where he had been asked to lecture.”

Literarily, the problem with this preoccupation with Langdon’s credentials as a fascinating, virile, maverick man of the world is that in this scene Langdon is — as Brown has clearly if clumsily established — alone in his home; there’s no one else in the scene for Langdon to impress with his erudite appeal, or through whose eyes we might experience the Langdon effect. So either Langdon himself is sitting around meditating on his own personal mystique — or else, if no one in the scene is thinking about it, we have the author transparently telling (rather than showing) what he wants us to know about his hero, which is to say, indulging his own authorial enthusiasm for his hero’s mystique (with the implication that readers will be equally fascinated).

All of this would be embarrassing enough if Brown merely admired his hero — but in fact it’s pretty obvious that Brown views Langdon as a fictional version of himself. Five minutes into my first experience of Brown’s writing, a few pages into The Da Vinci Code, having read about Langdon’s “scholarly allure,” his voice that female students described as “chocolate for the ears,” and his general “Harrison Ford in Harris tweed … and Burberry turtleneck” look, I suddenly knew that if I flipped to the back dust jacket flap, I would find a picture of the author wearing precisely that tweed and turtleneck look. (Sure enough, there it was.)

Read the entire piece.

And speaking of Dan Brown and humorous, John C. Wright has a great post on Brown's "whoppers" about history and such.

No, really, I swear—I didn't write this headline...

... for Sandro Magister's newest piece for Chiesa:

Angel or Demon? In the Vatican, Obama Is Both

 Magister writes:

ROME, May 8, 2009 – At the end of April, "L'Osservatore Romano" surprised everyone a little with the admiration it expressed for Barack Obama after his first hundred days as president of the United States. It was wide-ranging admiration: not only for his strategy in international politics, but also on ethical questions "that are very pressing for the Catholic bishops."

The amazement arose from the contrast between the Olympic calm of the Vatican newspaper – according to which Obama's first hundred days not only "did not shake the world," but even gave encouraging signs "in support of motherhood" – and the outspoken criticism of Obama on the part of a growing number of American faithful and bishops, led by Cardinal Francis E. George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the United States episcopal conference.

The criticisms concern the measures that have been taken or announced by the new president in regard to unborn life, as well as the decision of the Catholic university of Notre Dame to give Obama a degree "honoris causa"on May 17: many view this honor as unjustifiable, given the new president's pro-abortion positions.

An important part in the latest controversy was played by Mary Ann Glendon, a very prominent Catholic scholar and a professor of law at Harvard University – where her students included Obama himself – and the United States ambassador to the Holy See during the last part of the Bush administration. Glendon, who is staunchly "pro-life," refused to receive an award from Notre Dame University on the same day on which Obama will be given his honorary degree. And she explained her refusal in a letter to the president of Notre Dame, Fr. John I. Jenkins, in which she says she is "dismayed" by the Catholic institution's decision to honor someone who acts "in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."

***

But immediately after the pro-Obama article in "L'Osservatore Romano," something diametrically opposed came out of the Vatican: radical criticism of the new American president.

From May 1-5, in the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican gardens, the plenary assembly of the pontifical academy of social sciences was held on the theme "Catholic social teaching and human rights."

The academy is made up of about three dozen scholars from many different countries, and of different viewpoints. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University, is a member of the academy, and spoke at the assembly. At the end of the sessions, the members of the academy were received by Benedict XVI, who gave a speech to them.

But who is the president of the academy? Mary Ann Glendon. She was its president before she was made the United States ambassador to the Holy See, and was reinstated after the end of this mandate.

So on the morning of May 1, it was Glendon's responsibility to open the working sessions. She also gave one of the introductory addresses.

But the first to speak were French archbishop Roland Minnerath and Belgian priest Michel Schooyans.

The two coordinated their remarks. Minnerath addressed the issue of the "subjective rights" of the person, stressing the contrast between the tradition of the Church and that of secularist Enlightenment thinking. Schooyans attempted to "demonstrate the effectiveness of the ideas presented by Minnerath when they are applied to an analysis of contemporary problems." He specifically applied them to the Obama presidency and to the European leader who most resembles him, Tony Blair.

Schooyans dedicated the entire second half of his address to analyzing and demolishing the "messianism" of Obama and Blair. In his view, this is devastating not only in the area of human rights, but also in the religious sphere.

His radical criticism is perfectly clear in the text of his remarks. The second part of these are reproduced below in their entirety.

Read it all.

To a world desperate for heroes, I offer...

... the courageous Dan Brown:

Hats off to Brown. For any writer, it would be a frightening prospect asked to come up with a book to match probably the biggset surprise monster hit in publishing history. The temptation to quit while he was ahead and never try and match 'The Da Vinci Code' must have been enormous, but I admire his courage at having a crack at it.

Neill Denny (thebookseller.com/blogs)

The psychologist Erich Fromm once wrote, "Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties." Understood in the right (or, better, wrong) way, that seems to fit here.

What's the difference between Hillary Clinton and Fr. Thomas Reese?

First, the obvious: He's a Jesuit priest and she's the Secretary of State. But, more to the point here, I'd hazard the guess that Mrs. Clinton just might have more respect for serious, orthodox Catholics than does Fr. Reese, whose latest screed moves him from the latter stages of inane shrillness into the realm of outright irrationality.

They do share a common interest in supporting President Obama, of course, and in spinning the abortion-loving ways of the Obama administration. For example, Fr. Reese writes:

[Obama] has been criticized ...  for being the most pro-abortion president ever, even though he wants to develop programs that will reduce the number of abortions while keeping it legal under most circumstances.

And that is an argument against him being the most pro-abortion president ever? Really? But a most striking similarity is the descent into paranoid (or is it media-savvy? I forget) polemics:

The bishops are being egged on by Republican activists whose presidential candidate lost the election. There is clearly a conservative conspiracy to do whatever is possible (including lying about ambassadorial candidates) to create conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration. They want the Catholic Church to be the Republican Party at prayer. Some bishops are falling for this.

Clinton, you'll recall, famously referred to a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in a January 27, 1998, interview on "The Today Show," in an attempt to address the allegations that her husband had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. (You might also recall the allegations were quite true.) Fr. Reese now takes up the pressing task of defending the President against allegations that his support of abortion has somehow created conflict with Catholics who, adhering to Church teaching (and commonsense), believe that abortion is a grave moral evil, the taking of innocent life.

No, Fr. Reese insists, the real problem is the Republican Party. And, further, any Catholic who urges the bishops to speak out against abortion and for Catholic social justice relating to life issues is a "Republican activist." Spoken like a true Democratic Party hack. Perhaps Fr. Reese is frustrated, mystified why it is that, after some forty years of generally inept and often insipid, leadership (with a few notable exceptions), a rapidly growing number of Catholic bishops are standing up and speaking out. Fr. Reese's response to this turn of events reveals a man enamored with being "in" with the status quo and not so enamored with the truth:

The bishops who oppose the President's presence at Notre Dame are going to be embarrassed by the warm welcome he receives from the commencement audience. Every round of applause will be a repudiation of their condemnations.

The bishops will also be embarrassed when Pope Benedict welcomes President Obama at the Vatican, or are all these people going to tell the Pope that he cannot talk to a pro-choice President?

Why would the 55 or so bishops who have now publicly spoken out against Notre Dame honoring President Obama with an honorary degree be "embarrassed" by the applause that will surely greet the President? I think there is a Freudian term for this...ah, yes: psychological projection. Fr. Reese is embarrassed that some bishops are making a stand, so surely they should be embarrassed.

And surely Fr. Reese knows that the Pope welcoming President Obama or any other pro-abortion politician is not the same as a Catholic university bestowing a significant honor upon the president. Jesus ate with the sinners and spoke to the Pharisees, but the Gospels never depict the Lord praising sinners (unless they were admitting their sins and need for his mercy) or lauding them for breaking the commandments. Why, I bet even Hillary Clinton knows that.

• UPDATE: Fr. Z. has a thorough and blunt dissection of Fr. Reese's absurd column.

Peters gives canon law a Wuerl

Or, more accurately (and with less word pun-ishment): "Dr. Ed Peters gives Archbishop Donald Wuerl some pointers on canon law."

"Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions."

That from Christopher West, who is described as a "sex sermonist" in a profile from ABC News:

"I love Hugh Hefner," said West. "I really do. Why? Because I think I understand his ache. I think I understand his longing because I feel it myself. There is this yearning, this ache, this longing we all have for love, for union, for intimacy."

West said John Paul II took the sexual revolution an extra step, outlining what he called the "Theology of the Body." The pope emphasized how God made Adam and Eve naked and without shame, in his own image. And told them to be fruitful and multiply.

In other words, according to the pope, from the very beginning, sexual love has been at the heart of God's plan for us.

"Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions," said West. "But what do we mean by that statement? Catholicism is a very physical, very sensual religion. And indeed the authentic soundtrack for Christianity is a small book in the Old Testament called the Song of Songs. And what is it? It is glorious erotic love poetry."

Read the entire piece. (Speaking of the Song of Songs, here is a great commentary.)

UPDATE: I should have included this info, sent by the Maximus Group, in my original post:

Christopher West, senior fellow of the Theology of the Body Institute, was interviewed last week for an in-depth feature segment on ABC’s Nightline. The interview was filmed on location in North Carolina during one of his conferences and also in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, near the headquarters of the Theology of the Body Institute.

We were informed today that the piece will air either tonight (May 7) or tomorrow night (May 8). ABC Nightline airs at 11:35 EST. Check your local listing for more information.

Nightline has an average nightly viewing audience of four million. Please pray for those who will be exposed to the message through this medium.

Over eight hours of taped interviews were edited down to seven minutes. We ask for your prayers through the intercession of John Paul II that the message of The Theology of the Body will be presented authentically.

UPDATE: Matt Pinto, president of Ascension Press, which produces and distributes most (all? I'm not sure) of Christopher West's books and other materials, just wrote the following in the comments section:

Everyone,

I was there for 97% of the interview. Although I was pleased with how it came out, I did cringe a few times--not at Christopher, but at the singular focus of the piece on sex (the verb). And, the context with which he referenced Hugh Hefner was incomplete.

That said, this is a forum the Church must play in--even at the risk of being distorted--because much truth will come out. Think of the parable of the talents

I work closely with Christopher and believe he and his work are greatly misunderstood by some in the Church. We're dealing with touchy issues (sex, gender identity, etc) I only ask that you give his material a FULL read rather than just hone in on some soundbites. Christopher is completely within the pale and echoes both JPII's teaching and that of many great commentators of the past.