Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

"The Surrender upon Sex": If G.K Chesterton were writing today...

Chesterton may not have been able to foretell the future but this essay—"The Surrender upon Sex"—indicates that he was surely prophetic. From the collection In Defense of Sanity: The Best Essays of G.K. Chesterton:

I have explained that these are sketches of six separate occasions, on which I should have become a Catholic, if I had not been the one and only kind of human being who cannot become a Catholic. The excitement of conversion is still open to the atheist and the diabolist; and everybody can be converted except the convert. In my first outline, I mentioned that one of the crises, which would in any case have driven me the way I had gone already, was the shilly-shallying and sham liberality of the famous Lambeth Report on what is quaintly called Birth Control. It is in fact, of course, a scheme for preventing birth in order to escape control. But this particular case was only the culmination of a long process of compromise and cowardice about the problem of sex; the final surrender after a continuous retreat.

There is one historical human fact which now seems to me so plain and solid, that I think that even if I were to lose the Faith, I could not lose sight of the fact. It has rather the character of a fact of chemistry or geology; though from another side it is mysterious enough, like many other manifest and unmistakable facts. It is this: that at the moment when Religion lost touch with Rome, it changed instantly and internally, from top to bottom, in its very substance and the stuff of which it was made. It changed in substance; it did not necessarily change in form or features or externals. It might do the same things; but it could not be the same thing. It might go on saying the same things; but it was not the same thing that was saying them. At the very beginning, indeed, the situation was almost exactly like that. Henry VIII was a Catholic in everything except that he was not a Catholic. He observed everything down to the last bead and candle; he accepted everything down to the last deduction from a definition; he accepted everything except Rome. And in that instant of refusal, his religion became a different religion; a different sort of religion; a different sort of thing. In that instant it began to change; and it has not stopped changing yet. We are all somewhat wearily aware that some Modern Churchmen call such continuous change progress; as when we remark that a corpse crawling with worms has an increased vitality; or that a snow-man, slowly turning into a puddle, is purifying itself of its accretions. But I am not concerned with this argument here. The point is that a dead man may look like a sleeping man a moment after he is dead; but decomposition has actually begun. The point is that the snowman may in theory be made in the real image of man. Michelangelo made a statue in snow; and it might quite easily have been an exact replica of one of his statues in marble; but it was not in marble. Most probably the snow-man has begun to melt almost as soon as it is made. But even if the frost holds, it is still a stuff capable of melting when the frost goes. It seemed to many that Protestantism would long continue to be, in the popular phrase, a perfect frost. But that does not alter the difference between ice and marble; and marble does not melt.

The same sort of Progressives are always telling us to have a trust in the Future. As a fact, the one thing that a progressive cannot possibly have is a trust in the Future. He cannot have a trust in his own Future; let alone in his own Futurism. If he sets no limit to change, it may change all his own progressive views as much as his conservative views. It was so with the Church first founded by Henry VIII; who was, in almost everything commonly cursed as Popery, rather more Popish than the Pope. He thought he might trust it to go on being orthodox; to go on being sacramentalist; to go on being sacerdotalist; to go on being ritualist, and the rest. There was only one little weakness. It could not trust itself to go on being itself. Nothing else, except the Faith, can trust itself to go on being itself.

Now touching this truth in relation to Sex, I may be permitted to introduce a trivial journalistic anecdote. A few years before the War, some of my fellow-journalists, Socialists as well as Tories, were questioning me about what I really meant by Democracy; and especially if I really thought there was anything in Rousseau’s ideal of the General Will. I said I thought (and I think I still think) that there can be such a thing, but it must be much more solid and unanimous than a mere majority, such as rules in party politics. I applied the old phrase of the Man in the Street, by saying that if I looked out of the window at a strange man walking past my house, I could bet heavily on his thinking some things, but not the common controversial things. The Liberals might have a huge majority, but he need not be a Liberal; statistics might prove England to be preponderantly Conservative, but I would not bet a button that he would be Conservative. But (I said) I should bet that he believes in wearing clothes. And my Socialist questioners did not question this; they, too, accepted clothes as so universal an agreement of common sense and civilisation, that we might attribute the tradition to a total stranger, unless he were a lunatic. Such a little while ago! To-day, when I see the stranger walking down the street, I should not bet that he believes even in clothes. The country is dotted with Nudist Colonies; the bookstalls are littered with Nudist magazines; the papers swarm with polite little paragraphs, praising the brownness and braveness of the special sort of anarchical asses here in question. At any given moment, there may be a General Will; but it is an uncommonly weak and wavering sort of will, without the Faith to support it.

As in that one matter of modesty, or the mere externals of sex, so in all the deeper matters of sex, the modern will has been amazingly weak and wavering. And I suppose it is because the Church has known from the first this weakness which we have all discovered at last, that about certain sexual matters. She has been very decisive and dogmatic; as many good people have quite honestly thought, too decisive and dogmatic. Now a Catholic is a person who has plucked up courage to face the incredible and inconceivable idea that something else may be wiser than he is. And the most striking and outstanding illustration is perhaps to be found in the Catholic view of marriage as compared with the modern theory of divorce; not, it must be noted, the very modern theory of divorce, which is the mere negation of marriage; but even more the slightly less modern and more moderate theory of divorce, which was generally accepted even when I was a boy. This is the very vital point or test of the question; for it explains the Church’s rejection of the moderate as well as the immoderate theory. It illustrates the very fact I am pointing out, that Divorce has already turned into something totally different from what was intended, even by those who first proposed it. Already we must think ourselves back into a different world of thought, in order to understand how anybody ever thought it was compatible with Victorian virtue; and many very virtuous Victorians did. But they only tolerated this social solution as an exception; and many other modern social solutions they would not have tolerated at all. My own parents were not even orthodox Puritans or High Church people; they were Universalists more akin to Unitarians. But they would have regarded Birth-Prevention exactly as they would have regarded Infanticide. Yet about Divorce such liberal Protestants did hold an intermediate view, which was substantially this. They thought the normal necessity and duty of all married people was to remain faithful to their marriage; that this could be demanded of them, like common honesty or any other virtue. But they thought that in some very extreme and extraordinary cases a divorce was allowable. Now, putting aside our own mystical and sacramental doctrine, this was not, on the face of it, an unreasonable position. It certainly was not meant to be an anarchical position. But the Catholic Church, standing almost alone, declared that it would in fact lead to an anarchical position; and the Catholic Church was right.

Any man with eyes in his head, whatever the ideas in his head, who looks at the world as it is to-day, must know that the whole social substance of marriage has changed; just as the whole social substance of Christianity changed with the divorce of Henry VIII. As in the other case, the externals remained for a time and some of them remain still. Some divorced persons, who can be married quite legally by a registrar, go on complaining bitterly that they cannot be married by a priest. They regard a church as a peculiarly suitable place in which to make and break the same vow at the same moment. And the Bishop of London, who was supposed to sympathise with the more sacramental party, recently submitted to such a demand on the ground that it was a special case. As if every human being’s case were not a special case. That decision was one of the occasions on which I should have done a bolt, if I had delayed it so long. But the general social atmosphere is much the most important matter. Numbers of normal people are getting married, thinking already that they may be divorced. The instant that idea enters, the whole conception of the old Protestant compromise vanishes. The sincere and innocent Victorian would never have married a woman reflecting that he could divorce her. He would as soon have married a woman reflecting that he could murder her. These things were not supposed to be among the daydreams of the honeymoon. The psychological substance of the whole thing has altered; the marble has turned to ice; and the ice has melted with most amazing rapidity. The Church was right to refuse even the exception. The world has admitted the exception; and the exception has become the rule.

As I have said, the weak and inconclusive pronouncement upon Birth-Prevention was only the culmination of this long intellectual corruption. I need not discuss the particular problem again at this point; beyond saying that the same truth applies as in the case of Divorce. People propose an easy way out of certain human responsibilities and difficulties; including a way out of the responsibility and difficulty of doing economic justice and achieving better payment for the poor. But these people propose this easy method, in the hope that some people will only use it to a moderate extent; whereas it is much more probable that an indefinite number will use it to an indefinite extent. It is odd that they do not see this; because the writers and thinkers among them are no longer by any means optimistic about human nature, like Rousseau; but much more pessimistic about human nature than we are. Considering mankind as described, for instance, by Mr. Aldous Huxley, it is hard to see what answer he could possibly give, except the answer which we give, if the question were put thus: “On the one side, there is an easy way out of the difficulty by avoiding childbirth; on the other side, there is a very difficult way out of the difficulty, by reconstructing the whole social system and toiling and perhaps fighting for the better system. Which way are the men you describe more likely to take?” But my concern is not with open and direct opponents like Mr. Huxley; but with all to whom I might once have looked to defend the country of the Christian altars. They ought surely to know that the foe now on the frontiers offers no terms of compromise; but threatens a complete destruction. And they have sold the pass.

-----------

Read more of G.K. Chesterton’s stirring, prophetic, humorous, and profound essays in the book In Defense of Sanity: The Best Essays of G.K. Chesterton, featuring essays selected by Dale Ahlquist, Joseph Pearce, and Aidan Mackey.

Public Order, Identity, and the Church

(us.fotolia.com | oily)

Public Order, Identity, and the Church | James Kalb | CWR

Like the rest of liberal modernity, the current understanding of identity won’t last because it’s ultimately irrational and self-defeating

The age of Jenner, Obergefell, and #BlackLivesMatter puts issues of identity at the center of public life. As Catholics and citizens we need to understand what that means.

Personal identity orients us in the world. As such, it has both individual and social functions. It enables us to order our lives by telling us what we are and how we fit into the world. And it greatly eases social functioning by telling people how they connect to institutions and what they owe them.

For a Catholic his identity includes Catholicism—his membership in the Church and orientation toward God and the world. It also includes his sex, state in life as married, ordained, or vowed, and basic family connections such as parentage. We can’t rightly abandon such things, they are fundamental to who we are, and they determine our most basic relationships and duties, thereby supporting the Church and the natural family as fundamental social institutions.

Other aspects of identity are less basic and more dependent on social conditions. More distant family relationships and the cultural networks into which we are born, for example, are less important today than in the past. Instead of relying on them for learning how to live and dealing with the practical problems of life, people rely on markets, bureaucracies, formal education, and mass culture. If Pete Muldoon goes to Harvard, people identify him more as a Harvard man and someone of his generation than as Irish and a Muldoon. They think those things account for more of his social position and how he acts.

Many people have come to view traditional dimensions of identity as irrational and oppressive and want their suppression: to give weight to family is seen as snobbish, and to do so with inherited cultural community is thought racist and therefore downright evil. That view contrasts with a more traditional Catholic view that sees traditional connections as valuable within limits.

The reason for wanting to suppress such things is that promoting some elements of identity means suppressing others.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Faramir’s Rangers and the 21st-century Church

Faramir, as portrayed in Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings"

Faramir’s Rangers and the 21^st Century Church | Thomas M. Doran | CWR

Today, we don’t know whether the Western democracies will keep drifting away from faith and virtue, or if a turning will occur

I’m not much for writing sequels to my own novels (though I’ve read some good ones by other authors), but feedback from my recent Catholic World Report article, “Denethor’s Ghost”, prompts me to offer a “Denethor’s Ghost” Part 2 that shines a brighter light on the character of Faramir in J. R. R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of The Rings”.

Though they aren’t called rangers in Tolkien’s story—that designation is reserved for Aragorn’s kin in the north—Faramir’s band functions as rangers, ranging far and wide in a former garden land turned wilderness east of the river Anduin, keeping the Ithilien border lands as free and as clean as possible with the few men and resources available to him, all this while Sauron’s forces are on the move and rapidly multiplying. Thus, Faramir skirmishes when he can, retreats when he needs to retreat, and hides when he needs to hide.

What does this have to do with 21^st century Christians? In “Denethor’s Ghost”: “storytelling is altogether different (than rational argument, religious tracts, etc.) in the way it affects our thoughts, emotions, and imaginations. While a story may not say anything new, truths are depicted in a new way, a way that allows us to see them in a different light”, even when the story is drastically different from the here and now, as is Tolkien’s story.

Faramir has a demanding life, with few consolations. He’s realistic about the dire threats he faces but he doesn't let them break his spirit, a mark of humility. His father Denethor’s pride stokes the despair that comes from gazing into a Palantir, while Faramir’s humility ameliorates the darkness that comes from his impossible mission, and even from the Ringwraith’s attack on him on the Pelennor fields.

Likewise for us, when we are confronted with assaults on faith and culture, pride pulls us toward despondency, while humility—not rose colored glasses—keeps us attentive to what we can do and can influence.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Denethor’s Ghost: Lessons from "Lord of the Rings"

A scene from Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King", depicting the character Denethor. (Wikipedia/Photo by Pierre Vinet - © 2003 - New Line Productions)

Denethor’s Ghost: Lessons from "Lord of the Rings" | Thomas M. Doran| Thomas Doran | CWR blog

Can a story about wizards, elves, dwarves, and goblins teach 21st century believers something that Catholic apologetics, devotional books, and reasoned arguments can’t?

21^st century Catholicism is up against it, not the first time in history but the first time for many living Catholics. The glorification of the lesbian-gay-transgender lifestyle is the newest commandment of the new religion of the land, and any objections make you a bigot, and sometimes a pariah. There are fewer abortions, but the “right to choose” is still the entrenched law of the land, and euthanasia is gaining greater public acceptance. Gluttonous consumerism has many admirers. The ghetto-izing of traditional Christian beliefs is underway. Human life keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, at least those human lives that are less equal than others, as George Orwell might say. Even Atticus Finch has gone off the rails.

In response, many Christians think that the only options are retreat, resignation, or rebellion.

Can a story like The Lord of The Rings teach us anything important about humanity’s present age and Catholicism’s present challenges? Lest we think that he was just an ivory tower storyteller, J. R. R. Tolkien lived through two terrible wars where the lust for power threatened to destroy the world, with Tolkien experiencing World War I firsthand in the European trenches. Because we moderns know that the world and liberty weren’t utterly destroyed in these wars, we forget that victory was by no means certain to those who lived through those cataclysmic years, with many, like Denethor in Tolkien’s story, succumbing to hopelessness or the accommodation of evil.

Though Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, and Aragorn are inspiring characters, the most instructive characters for our age are Denethor and his son, Faramir.

Tolkien’s Denethor ruled the chief city in Middle Earth. Though ostensibly a steward awaiting the return of the rightful king, so many centuries had passed since the city had a king that Denethor ruled as king and considered himself as such. Steeped in pride, he told himself that he was strong-minded enough to gaze into a Palantir, a seeing stone that revealed events far and wide. Unfortunately, Sauron was the lord of the Palantiri, and he gripped Denethor’s mind and twisted it, showing the Steward exactly what he wanted him to see—Sauron’s irresistible power, the devastation his armies were inflicting, the weakness and fickleness of his enemies. Thus, the combination of Denethor’s pride and his lust to use Sauron’s own devices against him drove the Steward to despondency and madness. “The Enemy has found it (the One Ring), and now his power waxes; he sees our very thoughts, and all we do is ruinous…Pride and despair,” he (Denethor) cried. “Didst thou think that the eyes of the White Tower (Minas Tirith) were blind? Nay, I have seen more than thou knowest, Grey Fool (Gandalf). For thy hope is but ignorance. Go then and labor in healing! Go forth and fight! Vanity. For a little space you may triumph on the field, for a day. But against the Power that arises there is no victory. To this City only the first finger of its hand has yet been stretched. All the East is moving. And even now the wind of thy hope cheats thee and wafts up Anduin a fleet of black sails. The West has failed. It is time for all to depart who would not be slaves.”

See how his mind has been turned to despair?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

How Same-Sex Marriage Won Out in Ireland

How Same-Sex Marriage Won Out in Ireland | Michael Kelly | CWR

Intense pressure from political and cultural elites, together with millions of dollars in foreign funding, resulted in a victory for gay rights activists in the majority-Catholic country.

Ireland, once dubbed “the most Catholic country in the world” by the future Pope Paul VI, has become the first country in the world to adopt same-sex marriage by means of a popular vote.

For months, opinion polls had been consistent is showing huge levels of support for the constitutional amendment to re-define marriage.

On the day, 62 percent of people voted “yes” for same-sex marriage. It was not the absolute landslide pundits had predicted, but it was an emphatic rejection of the traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman.

David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute and de facto leader of the “no” campaign, was magnanimous, conceding defeat just over an hour after the counting of votes began and the pattern was clear.

Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin described the result as a “social revolution.”

“We [the Church] have to stop and have a reality check, not move into denial of the realities,” Archbishop Martin said. “We won’t begin again with a sense of renewal, with a sense of denial.”

The archbishop—a former Vatican diplomat who has headed Ireland’s largest diocese for more than a decade—had been criticized during the campaign by some for being too timid in presenting the Church’s teaching on marriage. In the final days, he did take to the airwaves to make a plea for a “no” vote. However, he angered some “no” campaigners for refusing to say Catholics ought to vote “no.”

The bishop of Elphin, Kevin Doran, was among the most vocal opponents of the redefinition of marriage in the Irish hierarchy. He led a robust campaign and frequently engaged in media debates in an attempt to have the proposal defeated.

Responding to the result, he said: “The outcome of the marriage referendum is clear and decisive.”

Bishop Doran got to the heart of why the “yes” campaign proved so convincing in the end. “It seems that many people voted ‘yes’ as a way of showing their acceptance and their love for friends and family members who are gay,” he said.

“Large numbers obviously believed that they could vote ‘yes’ without in any way undermining marriage.”

How has it happened that a country in which 84 percent of people describe themselves as Catholic has become the first state in the world to enact same-sex marriage by means of a popular vote?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

‘Wolf Hall’ and Upmarket Anti-Catholicism

Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell stars in a scene from "Wolf Hall," which premiered on PBS last Sunday. (CNS photo/PBS)

‘Wolf Hall’ and Upmarket Anti-Catholicism | George Weigel | CWR

The PBS series, based on Hillary Mantel’s novel, is brilliant television—and a serious distortion of history, rooted in the last acceptable bigotry

“Wolf Hall,” the BBC adaptation of Hillary Mantel’s novel about early Tudor England, began airing on PBS’s “Masterpiece Theater” Easter Sunday night. It’s brilliant television. It’s also a serious distortion of history.

And it proves, yet again, that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable bigotry in elite circles in the Anglosphere.

The distortions and bias are not surprising, considering the source. Hillary Mantel is a very talented, very bitter ex-Catholic who’s said that the Church today is “not an institution for respectable people” (so much for the English hierarchy’s decades-long wheedling for social acceptance). As she freely concedes, Mantel’s aim in her novel was to take down the Thomas More of “A Man for All Seasons”—the Thomas More the Catholic Church canonized—and her instrument for doing so is More’s rival in the court of Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell.

Hillary Mantel does not lack for chutzpah, for Cromwell has long been considered a loathsome character and More a man of singular nobility. In the novel “Wolf Hall”, however, the More of Robert Bolt’s play is transformed into a heresy-hunting, scrupulous prig, while Cromwell is the sensible, pragmatic man of affairs who gets things done, even if a few heads get cracked (or detached) in the process.

All of which is rubbish, as historians with no Catholic interests at stake have made clear.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

The Reign of Gay and the RFRA: Round-up and Reflections

The Reign of Gay and the RFRA: Round-up and Reflections | Carl E. Olson  | CWR blog

A dizzying but rewarding "Carl's Cuts" tour through the madness of the past couple of weeks

• A year ago today, I posted what was probably my most controversial editorial: "Welcome to the Reign of 'Gay'". With that in mind, it seems fitting that my first "Carl's Cuts" in several months takes a look at recent controversies over the spreading Reign.

• I first read about Indiana's Senate Bill 101—aka, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—via a sports news feed on my iPhone. The headline referenced "Indiana's anti-gay law", but the article did not explain what the law actually stated. Instead, it had quotes from sports commentators gravely uttering banalities and clichés—something, admittedly, they do constantly in their daily work—that also shed no light on the RFRA. Charles Barkley, the Round Mound of Unprofound, stated: "America's always had a racial problem. Now we have a homophobic problem. Any form of discrimination, you have to check it." Any, Chuck? Even discrimination against child molesters, KKK members, and looters? Barkley's logic here is about as sound as the defense he used to never play while starring in the NBA.

• The first dozen news articles I looked at online also managed to say little or absolutely nothing about the contents of the RFRA, and so I finally looked up the actual law and read it. At that point, having seen the approach taken by various "news outlets", I knew the usual Reign of Gay tactics were already in place:

1). Emote: The use of passion, anger, and outrage is a tried-and-true way of obscuring details and pushing people to make a knee-jerk judgment based on sentiment, not sober, sane thought.

2). Demonize: Insist the law in question is "anti-gay" and then hammer home the point that those who wrote it and voted for it are haters, pure and simple.

3). Harangue and Insult: Don't argue the actual points in question, but immediate threaten to boycott. Call people names, preferably "bigots" and "homophobes". (One Reuters blogger, to his credit, wrote, "On the LGBT side, it’s time to stop calling religious people bigots and homophobes." Good luck with that.) Talk endlessly—often in 140 grammar-challenged characters or less—about people "loving each other", an example of such being Hillary Clinton's March 26th tweet: "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love." (Personally, I find it a bit comical to be lectured on the nature of love by either Bill or Hillary Clinton.)

• President Obama, in his speech at Easter Prayer Breakfast yesterday at the White House, went off script for a moment and said:

On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned. But that's a topic for another day.

Goodness, whatever or whoever could he be talking about? Tis a mystery. But keep in mind that even before he famously "evolved" on the matter of "gay marriage," Obama had made it clear that any sort of opposition to the Reign of Gay would not, in the long run, be tolerated. In a 2009 address at a "LGBT Pride Month Reception" at the White House, he said:

Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made.  There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop.  And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted.  And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking. ...

So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality.  (Applause.)  We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love. ...

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open.  For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet.

Not yet. Ah, the inevitability of being on the right side of history and all that clichéd nonsense. Which is not to deny, of course, that many Americans really, really like clichéd nonsense—super sized and with extra whip cream, please!

• As many conservative (that is, not mainstream) news outlets explained, in varying detail, the RFRA was very similar to the 1993 law passed by Hillary's soulmate, former President Bill Clinton.

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

My Ways or Your Ways?

My Ways or Your Ways? | Fr. David Vincent Meconi, SJ | HPR

What do ISIS, the Chinese government, and many Catholics have in common? It begins like a bad joke, I know, but none of them allows Christ’s Church to carry out her mission fully.

Reading the papers these past few weeks only confirms a convergence between the Church’s enemies: ISIS takes 300 of our faithful as hostages and threatens their martyrdom unless they recant the Faith, Beijing rebels against Vatican-appointed bishops, and so many of our so-called Catholic institutions are fighting the removal of abortion coverage from their insurance policies.

In talking about these instances with a dear friend, I learned that all of this reminded her of the line from Ezekiel when the chosen people are grumbling against God: “But the house of Israel says, ‘The Lord’s way is not fair!’ Is it my way that is not fair, house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not fair?” (Ezekiel 18:29). Who is not being fair? By definition, two contrarily-opposed parties cannot both be right. The bishop who teaches one thing, and the people who demand another cannot both be correct. Who, then, is being fair?

While the popular media are loathe to report it through this particular religious lens, a large part of ISIS’s pattern of violence is unarguably against Christians and particularly Catholics. Most recently, over 300 members of ancient Christian families in Assyria were taken hostage in Northeastern Syria. Extremist groups are slowly, systematically aiming to eradicate all who disagree with their interpretation of the Quran (including other Muslims), and the Church’s faithful are the most obvious targets. God is in no way done in these lands that deny him, and one day, these terrorists will come to see what Tertullian (Apology §50, around AD 197) meant, when he said “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.” These otherwise unknown men, women, and children will hereafter be prayed for and remembered at every Christian liturgy throughout the world as, “blessed Apostles, martyrs, and all the saints …”.

Some 3,500 miles farther to the East, the Chinese government is also helping the Church mystically grow.

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

Feminist "Logic": Misogyny’s Ironic Ally

[Photos: Wikipedia and us.fotolia.com | © igor]

Feminist "Logic": Misogyny’s Ironic Ally | Carrie Gress, Ph.D. | CWR blog

When feminists sacrifice common sense for "reproductive choice," they deform the feminine genius and destroy the most vulnerable among us

A “deformed male”—that was Aristotle’s definition of women nearly 2400 years ago. For centuries, women have tried to conquer the misconception that they were mis-conceived, as Aristotle described it, and to prove they are as good as men. The feminist movement was suppose to finally drive that point home into the hearts of women who doubted themselves and of the men who had long propped up the lie that women weren’t smart enough to compete with them.

Somewhere during their hasty effort to prove men wrong, modern-day feminists allowed a misconception to guide them: that children ensnare women and keep them from realizing their dreams, therefore women alone can determine when their very small children should live or die. As a result, it has never been harder to be a child. Feminists have encumbered children with so many restrictions and loopholes that it makes the head spin.

A brief look at feminist arguments (which, unfortunately, far too many men also accept) to justify which of their tiny children live or die does little to highlight women’s intellectual dexterity. Instead, we encounter head-scratching realities that will—hopefully—cause people decades from now, when common sense has returned to this issue, to wonder what (or if) we were thinking. Feminist arguments, ironically, lend credence to much of the misogynist argument about the overly-emotional irrationality of the weaker sex.

Take, for example, last week’s brutal attack on Michelle Wilkins, the young mother in Longmont, Colorado, who was lured to a home through a CraigsList advertisement for children’s clothing.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

History, Truth, and Politics

Left: Monument of Junípero Serra on plaza de San Francisco de Asis in Havana; right: Mission church of Jalpan de Serra, Querétaro, Mexico, built by Junípero Serra between 1751 and 1758 (Images: Wikipedia)

History, Truth, and Politics | Catholic World Report

Researcher and archaeology professor Reuben Mendoza seeks to clear the record on Father Junipero Serra

Los Angeles, Calif., Mar 29, 2015 / 04:22 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- California missionary Father Junipero Serra’s canonization is “long overdue,” says a university professor concerned that the priest’s history has been politicized and misrepresented.

“When he died, many native peoples came to the mission for his burial. They openly wept. Others of his colleagues and even colonists, believed that he would be made a saint, because of the way he had lived his life, a self-effacing life of a martyr,” said archaeology professor Reuben Mendoza of California State University, Monterrey Bay.

“Because of what he had achieved in his life, even then they had talked about his impending canonization,” Mendoza told CNA March 26.

Fr. Serra was born in 1713 on the Spanish island of Majorca in the Mediterranean. He left his position as a university professor to become a missionary to the New World, helping to convert many native Californians to Christianity and teaching them new and vital technologies. The Franciscan priest founded several of the missions that would go on to become the centers of major California cities.

The priest’s mission work often took place despite a painful ulcerated leg Mendoza said was caused by a spider bite soon after his arrival in Mexico. He died in 1784 at Mission San Carlos Borroméo del Carmelo in what is now the state of California.

St. John Paul II beatified Fr. Serra in 1988. In January, Pope Francis praised the missionary as “the evangelizer of the West” and announced his intention to canonize the Franciscan missionary during his scheduled 2015 visit to the U.S.

Mendoza learned from other researchers that Serra was “a very humble man and a man who had a great sense of humor.”

He said the “self-effacing” priest would sometimes insist on doing the work of young Indian boys who cleaned the Convent of San Fernando in Mexico City.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Confusion in Ireland as 'Marriage Equality' Referendum Approaches

Couple at sunset on Irish Cliffs of Moher [Photo: us.fotolia.com | © Patryk Kosmider]

Confusion in Ireland as 'Marriage Equality' Referendum Approaches | Michael Kelly | CWR

Changes in ambiguous wording, tepid warnings from Catholic bishops, and deep concerns about children are part of the tense lead-up to May 22nd vote

Just two months before a May 22^nd 'Marriage Equality' referendum, many commentators predict Ireland will become the first country in the world to insert a constitutional amendment permitting civil marriage between two people of the same gender.

A distinctive feature of Irish democracy has been frequent recourse to constitutional referendums. May’s referendum will be the 35th time voters have been asked to amend the constitution in less than 80 years. The origin of this state of affairs may partly be traced to the unhappy split in the 1920s over a treaty with Britain, which led to a civil war after it was narrowly passed by a parliamentary majority. Prime Minister Éamon de Valera, who framed the 1937 constitution, felt strongly that future decisions on fundamental questions required more than a simple parliamentary majority.

Misleading polls?

Opinion polls currently predict that 77% of voters will back the constitutional redefinition of marriage while 22% of people say they will vote ‘no’. However, opinion polls on constitutional questions are notoriously unreliable in Ireland.

In 2013, for example, a referendum on children’s rights – which enshrined individual rights for minors in the constitution and granted the state greater powers to intervene in families – was just narrowly passed. An opinion poll had said just 4% of voters would oppose the motion, on polling day a significant 42% of citizens decided to vote against the children’s rights amendment.

There’s also the fact that many of those saying they are inclined to vote in favor of same-sex marriage have reservations.

According to John Downing, a political commentator and former government adviser, much of the apparent support for same-sex marriage in opinion polls is soft and many voters are not entirely convinced.

Only 59% of those who said they will vote ‘yes’ said they strongly held that opinion. The other 18% were more tentative about their voting intention. The pollsters also asked further questions about matters related to the issue of gay marriage. One-third of those prepared to vote ‘yes’ said they had reservations about gay couples adopting children.

Those who said they would vote ‘yes’ were further asked if they had reservations about the concept of the same-sex marriage referendum. In this case, 42% said they had reservations about the idea of the referendum.

When the question is a simple yes/no on whether the voter intends to support same-sex marriage the results are strongly in favor of a ‘yes’. However, when a series of more detailed questions are put into the mix, this number falls eventually to 44%.

Confused wording, last-minute changes

The Government’s ‘yes’ campaign has also been criticized by legal experts after Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald was forced to make a last-minute change to the proposed wording after fears the move could inadvertently ban traditional marriage.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Keeping Catholic schools Catholic

Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco carries a monstrance in St. Mary's Cathedral at the beginning of the fourth annual rosary rally Oct. 11, 2014. (CNS photo/Dennis Callahan, Catholic San Francisco)

Keeping Catholic schools Catholic | George Weigel | CWR

We should be grateful for the courageous leadership shown by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, whose San Francisco archdiocese is arguably ground zero of the culture war

There seems to be some dispute as to whether the original Trotskyite—that would be, um, Leon Trotsky—ever said, “You may not be interested in the dialectic but the dialectic is interested in you.” One quotation-archaeologist, digging deeply, claims to have found the origins of Trotsky’s alleged bon mot in that unforgettable treatise, “Petty-Bourgeois Moralists and the Proletarian Party;” but, while this is Lent, excavating such rocky soil and farther would transform penance into masochism. So let’s just assume that Trotsky, as a good dialectical materialist, believed that there was no escape from history as it was being driven by “the dialectic.”

Or, to put it less dialectically-materialistically, you can’t duck some fights, try as you may.

Like, for example, the intensification of the culture war that will follow the Supreme Court’s anticipated discovery that the 39th Congress, passing the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1866, included within the amendment’s guarantees a “right” to so-called “same-sex marriage.”

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Catholicism and Secular Media: 10 Questions for Bill Donohue

William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. (Photo courtesy of CL: www.catholicleague.org)

Catholicism and Secular Media: 10 Questions for Bill Donohue | Sean Salai, S.J. | CWR

“I am a civil rights leader who is expected to combat injustice,” says the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, “so being sensitive to bigots is not a priority.”

William A. Donohue is a New York-based author, sociologist and political activist who has been president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights since 1993. He holds a PhD in sociology from New York University and is an adjunct scholar at the Heritage Foundation. His last book was the 2012 best-seller Why Catholicism Matters: How Catholic Virtues Can Reshape Society in the 21st Century.

Mr. Donohue took over the Catholic League after the death of founding president Father Virgil Blum, S.J., in 1990. As president of the organization, he seeks to counter anti-Catholic bias in the secular media. I recently interviewed Mr. Donahue about his work by email.

You’ve spent much of your career fighting “defamation and discrimination” against Catholics in the American secular media. How do you understand these words?

We spend most of our time defending the institutional Church against defamation, and much less time defending individual Catholics against discrimination. Since the time of President John F. Kennedy, Catholic men and women have made great progress, but the defamation against the Church has grown much worse.

By defamation, I do not mean criticism; I mean insult. I do not have a problem with those who criticize the Church's positions on public policy issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, school vouchers, and the like. But if the comments hit below the belt—this is obviously a judgment call—that is a different issue.

What does defamation mean to you in the context of today’s public discourse?

It is not defamatory to harshly criticize a particular bishop or priest, but when sweeping generalizations are made about all bishops or priests, that is unfair and the offenders need to be called out on it. There is a difference between disagreement and disdain, and between statements meant to inform and those that are meant to hurt. For example, late-night TV talk-show hosts like to take pot shots at the pope, and when it is done in a light-hearted manner (most of Colbert's jokes are of this vein), then that is fine. But when the host becomes vile (Bill Maher is the classic example), then we are dealing with bigotry.

What do you believe is the biggest example of anti-Catholic bias in the U.S. today?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Will the Other Sleeping Giant Awake?

Left: St. Peter's Basilica (us.fotolia.com | © rudi1976); right: Muslim militants (us.fotolia.com | © Oleg_Zabielin)

Will the Other Sleeping Giant Awake? | William Kilpatrick | Catholic World Report

Despite widespread slaughter of Christians and other religious minorities in Muslim lands, the Church currently seems unable to mount any kind of resistance to Islamic ideology

It is often said that when Admiral Yamamoto ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor, he awakened a sleeping giant. Even though the Nazis had occupied much of Europe, bombed London, and advanced to the outskirts of Moscow, the United States was still slumbering on the morning of December 7, 1941.

Although we were aiding the anti-Nazi forces through Lend-Lease shipments and other forms of support, isolationist sentiment remained strong in America. The mood of complacency was succinctly captured in the 1942 wartime film Casablanca:

Rick: If it’s December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?

Sam: What? My watch stopped.

Rick: I bet they’re asleep in New York. I bet they’re asleep all over America.

America woke up, but barely in time. Our allies were in disarray, a major part of our Pacific fleet lay at the bottom of Pearl Harbor, and the Wehrmacht was well-armed, well-trained, and highly experienced. Another year of delay and the fate of Europe might have been sealed, and our own future made that much more uncertain.

The Cold War which followed on the heels of World War II kept America on its toes for four more decades, but after the fall of the Soviet system, the sleeping giant resumed its slumber. Then came September 11, 2001—an attack which cost more American lives than Pearl Harbor. It was a classic wake-up call. And for a while, the giant awoke. The American homeland went on high alert and forces were mobilized to attack the enemy’s base in Afghanistan. However, with the relatively easy defeat of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the sleeping giant rolled over and went back to sleep. There seemed to be no more threat to our homeland and no serious threat to our military. As a result, the Army is being shrunk to pre-World War II levels, and the Navy to pre-World War I size. Meanwhile, social experimentation has become all the rage. Concern over the strength of the military has taken a back seat to concern over its sensitivity to diversity.

Because we went back to sleep, the Islamic threat to the world is significantly greater today than it was on September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever and active in numerous countries. ISIS controls large parts of Syria and Iraq, millions in Africa live in fear of Boko Haram and Al-Shaabab, Afghanistan looks like it will return to Taliban control, Iran will soon have nuclear weapons, and Turkey, with the second largest army in NATO, appears to have more sympathy for radical Islam than for its NATO allies.

America, the sleeping giant, may yet wake up again, but even if it does, it’s not at all clear that it’s up to the task of combating the ideology that fuels the fighting. The war with Islamic militants is both an armed conflict and a culture war. Some of the militants fight with machine guns and mortars, and some fight using weapons of propaganda and political intimidation. But the most powerful weapon that the jihadists wield is religion. The promises made by Islam to young warriors bring in the recruits, and the fact that Islam is a religion keeps the critics away. Islamic ideology is immune from criticism in a way that Nazism and Communism never were.

The other sleeping giant

And that is where the other sleeping giant comes in. I refer, of course, to the Catholic Church.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Does Religion Really Have a "Smart-People Problem"?

(us.fotolia.com | © aihumnoi © psynovec)

Does Religion Really Have a "Smart-People Problem"? | Fr. Robert Barron | CWR

Philosophy, so marked today by nihilism and postmodern relativism, is passing through a particularly corrupt period

Daniel Dennett, one of the “four horsemen” of contemporary atheism, proposed in 2003 that those who espouse a naturalist, atheist worldview should call themselves “the brights,” thereby distinguishing themselves rather clearly from the dim benighted masses who hold on to supernaturalist convictions. In the wake of Dennett’s suggestion, many atheists have brought forward what they take to be ample evidence that the smartest people in our society do indeed subscribe to anti-theist views. By “smartest” they usually mean practitioners of the physical sciences, and thus they point to surveys that indicate only small percentages of scientists subscribe to religious belief.

In a recent article published in the online journal “Salon,” titled "Religion's Smart-People Problem," philosophy professor John Messerly reiterates this case. However, he references, not simply the lack of belief among the scientists, but also the atheism among academic philosophers, or as he puts it, “professional philosophers.” He cites a recent survey that shows only 14% of such professors admitting to theistic convictions, and he states that this unbelief among the learned elite, though not in itself a clinching argument for atheism, should at the very least give religious people pause.

Well, I’m sorry, Professor Messerly, but please consider me unpaused.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

 

“What is Islam?” Revisited | Fr. James V. Schall, SJ

Firefighters carry a victim on a stretcher at the scene of a shooting at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper, Jan. 7. (CNS photo/Jacky Naegelen, Reuters)

“What is Islam?” Revisited | Fr. James V. Schall, SJ CWR

Within Islam, the world is divided into a zone of war and a zone of peace. Those who are in the zone of war or sympathize with it are enemies who deserve death.

“An aspect of the attack (in Syria) that was not often reported in the media was the way the Islamist invaders tried to remove not only the Christians but the Christianity from the town, a phenomenon that is common now when Islamism expands in the Middle East and in the greater Muslim world. It is not enough that Christians should leave, convert, or die, but all traces of Christianity should be removed as well.” — Michael Coren: Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity (Plattsburg, N. Y. McClelland & Stewart/Random House Canada, 2014), 48

“Seventeen-year-old Ismael said he was ordered this summer by his Islamic State superiors to help behead every male ages 14 to 45 from an enemy Syrian tribe in Deir Essour. The teenager said he balked, but his 10-year-old brother took to the job with zeal. Activists said hundreds were killed.” — Maria Abi-Habib, “The Child Soldiers Who Escape Islamic State: Boys, Teenagers Tell of Lessons in Beheading, Weaponry at Training Camps,” Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2014

“The Islamic State stormed unimpeded through Mosul, Qaraqossh, and the smaller towns of Nineveh province last summer, marking Christian homes with the letter ‘N’ for ‘Nazarene’ and giving residents an ultimatum: renounce Jesus Christ and convert to Islam, or die. The 200,000 Christian faithful in Nineveh, many of whom still pray in Aramaic, refused. For that, they had to flee en masse one August day with little more than the shirts on their backs. Some, including children, were slaughtered, and some may have been enslaved.” — Nina Shea, “Christians on the Run from Iraq,” National Review Online, December 24, 2014

I.

Michael Coren, the Canadian journalist and TV host, has written a sober and frank book, titled Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity. Its basic intent is to survey and accurately recount the extent of Islamic persecution of Christians in particular in every area of the world from the Mid-East, to Africa, Indonesia, Asia, the Philippines, Europe, and America. Others besides Christians are also attacked, but Christians have become the prime target. The goal, now almost achieved in many areas, is the total elimination of Christians from Muslim-held areas. No doubt, for many, this startling phenomenon has certain apocalyptic overtones. As Coren himself stated, one needs a strong stomach just to read about the mind-numbing, brutal Islamic atrocities that regularly occur in every part of the world—beheadings, stabbings, rapes, throat-slittings, eye-gougings, knifings, burnings, and killings of every imaginable sort.

These scenes are not figments of anyone’s imagination. They are often recorded live in various media. Most people cannot even imagine them even when they see them. If the extent and inhumanity of this persecution of Christians are at all reported in the West, they are played down or unstated because of political presuppositions, ecumenical or liberal presuppositions, or because of cowardice and very real fear of Muslim retaliation—the murder of 12 in Paris yesterday being a timely and horrifying example. While Walid Phares, Robert Spencer, Laurent Murawiec, and Andrew Bostom, among others, have presented earlier graphic accounts of Muslim-originated atrocities, Coren has brought this bloody record up-to-date, as the violence has increased measurably in recent months.

When Robert Royal finished his book Catholic Martyrs in the Twentieth Century in 2000, I recall being especially struck by his observation that so many of these martyrs died quietly, unknown except to God.  Usually they lived good lives. In no way were they the cause of their fate, other than for their being Catholics or Christian. A reading of the Coren book leaves one with the same agonizing impression. Catholics and Christians of every denomination are now being slaughtered on a regular basis in various Muslim-dominated lands for no other reason than that they are followers of Christ.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

The Holy Family points the human family to the Heavenly Family

"Rest on the Flight into Egypt" (1597) by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for Sunday, December 28, 2014 | Feast of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Sir 3:2-6, 12-14 or Gen 15:1-6; 21:1-3
• Psa 128:1-2, 3, 4-5 or Psa 105:1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 8-9
• Col 3:12-21 or Heb 11:8, 11-12, 17-19
• Lk 2:22-40

The family today, in so many ways, is under scrutiny and even under attack. Some of the questions are about the very nature of this most ancient and central institution: What is a “family”? What is necessary for a family to exist? For what purpose do families exist?

On December 21, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI gave a Christmas address to the Roman Curia which focused on the family. He noted that “there is no denying the crisis that threatens it to its foundations – especially in the western world.” The family is important, he explained, because within the family exists “the authentic setting in which to hand on the blueprint of human existence. This is something we learn by living it with others and suffering it with others.”

He then said something that is worth pondering on this Feast of the Holy Family: “So it became clear that the question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself – about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human.”

Put another way, the reality of the family is rooted in the truth of man: he is created by God so he can have eternal and life-giving communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The very first sentence of the Catechism makes this clear: “God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.”

And how is God going about the business of saving us? “He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church.” This is why the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, became man. This is why the Holy Spirit, through the sacraments, makes us God's “adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life” (CCC, 1).

God became a man and a member of a specific family so that all men and women might be able to become members of the supernaturally-constituted family of God, the Church. This means that each Christian family is a reflection of an eternal mystery, for it is “a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit” (CCC, 2205).

This is heady stuff, no doubt. Which is one reason the reality of the Holy Family is so important, for it reveals how true theology is lived out in true charity, in the daily work and rhythm of family life. Thus, the exhortation from Sirach: “Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and preserves himself from them.” And similar words of wisdom from the Apostle Paul: “And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Wives are to acknowledge the proper leadership of their husbands; husbands are to truly love their wives; children are to be obedient and respectful.

This is not about simply following “the rules,” but about giving oneself to others in selfless love, for it was the overflow of God's selfless love that brought about creation. This means recognizing the dignity and worth of others, while also recognizing our proper relationship with one another.

Benedict noted that today there is a serious crisis when it comes to “the human capacity to make a commitment,” the sort of commitments essential to true family life. The Son committed himself to the work of the Father and was born of Mary the Virgin. Mary committed herself to the word of God, trusting completely in the divine plan. Joseph committed himself to Mary and Jesus, obeying God despite the efforts it required.

And Jesus, on the Cross, cried out, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Lk 23:46). Christ was willing to die for a lost family, bringing into being a new family, in which we can become authentically human.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the December 29, 2013, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Is Catholicism the "Babylon Mystery Religion"?

"The Adoration of the Magi" by Matthias Stom (c.1600-c.1652) [http://commons.wikimedia.org/]

Is Catholicism the "Babylon Mystery Religion"? | Mark P. Shea | CWR

How the story of the Magi sheds plenty of light on the historical soundness of the Gospel of Matthew and how early Christians viewed paganism

As we saw last time in this space, the notion that Christianity is "really" warmed-over paganism is contradicted by the fact—abundantly in evidence not only in the New Testament but in the writings of the Fathers and the liturgy of the Church—that, well, early Christians just don't care much about pagan things, while both the New Testament and the Fathers are positively drowning in the images, words, ideas, thought forms, questions, and concerns of the authors of the Old Testament. Reading the New Testament in the hope of discovering the secret paganism that it is the real root of Christianity is like reading Shakespeare with the undying conviction that sufficient scrutiny will uncover his massive debt to Korean literature: it just ain't gonna happen. The New Testament is obsessed with the Old Testament, not with paganism. It makes reference to paganism only very occasionally, and to pagan literature only a handful of times.

Meanwhile, the New Testament is soaked in Hebraic thought, imagery, poetry, prophecy, law, and wisdom. The early Christians don't care too much about paganism, seeing it as, variously, 1) a dim hunch about things Jews and Christians were privileged to know by revelation from God; 2) a demonic deception; 3) a source of human wisdom, but not divine revelation. For that, they turn with obsessive fascination to what Paul calls "the oracles of God" (Romans 3: Early Christians will turn to it to illustrate a point, as when Paul quoted a Greek poet or two to connect with the Greek locals, just as a stump speaker might mention the local football team in attempting to connect to his audience). In much the same way, even today modern Christians offer punning riffs on current cultural phenomena (“Jesus: He’s the Real Thing,” “Christ: Don’t Leave Earth Without Him,” etc.).

But exactly what these Christians did not do was take passages of Scripture that referred to Jesus and apply them to Apollo or some other pagan deity. Nor did they look to any pagan deity to tell them about Jesus; they knew perfectly well that Jesus could be represented as the Sun of Justice and Light of the World long before Aurelian invented his pagan festival. That’s because early Christians were behaving in a way perfectly consistent with Scripture, becoming “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22), not “holding the form of religion while denying the power of it” (2 Tim. 3:5).

This matters immensely because it bears directly on the first moment the early Catholic Church really did borrow something from pagans. And not just any pagans, mind you, but actual adherents of Babylonian Mystery Religion. And most amazingly, the early Catholics’ decision to do so receives the complete approval of, and even hearty defense by . . . Bible-believing Christians!

We Three Kings of Orient Are /Astrologers Who Traverse Afar

As a young Evangelical, one of the things I routinely heard from critics of Christianity was that “everybody knows” the story of the Magi in Matthew 2 is a pious fiction invented by the Evangelist.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

ISIS, Assad, and What the West is Missing About Syria

Debris is seen inside a badly damaged church in the Monastery of Mar Sarkis in the ancient Christian town of Maaloula, Syria, April 14. (CNS photo/Khaled al-Ha riri, Reuters)

ISIS, Assad, and What the West is Missing About Syria | Alessandra Nucci | CWR

Syria, once home to a unique, multireligious society, is being destroyed. The West is turning a blind eye to the real cause of the tragedy.

Last year Pope Francis called for a day of prayer and fasting for peace in Syria, the Middle East, and the whole world, setting the date for September 7 and himself presiding over a prayer vigil in Rome. In a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan reports that in September of 2013, “the American people spontaneously rose up and told Washington they would not back a bombing foray in Syria that would help the insurgents opposed to Bashar Assad. That public backlash was a surprise not only to the White House but to Republicans in Congress, who were—and I saw them—ashen-faced after the calls flooded their offices. It was such a shock to Washington that officials there still don’t talk about it and make believe it didn’t happen.”

That, of course, was before ISIS, the Islamic State, appeared on the scene, cutting through a third of Syria and Iraq and advancing rapidly, tragically, into the area with the strongest Christian presence in Iraq. A shocked world witnessed the ghastly beheadings of innocent Westerners, along with the displacement, raping, and murdering of Iraqi Christians and Yazidis, the looting and burning down of churches, and the marking out of Christian homes. The leaders of the Western world all vowed to take immediate action. The president of the United States solemnly committed to “degrade and destroy” ISIS. Yet in a matter of months, even the beheadings seem to have receded into the background. It would seem that if you dither long enough, even the most acute world-wide indignation will fade away, as observers become increasingly inured to outrages. Only days after President Obama’s solemn denunciaton, the anti-government Syrian “rebels” announced a deal with ISIS. What for? To join forces against their common enemy: Bashar al-Assad.

Despite a stunning one-time-only admission by President Obama to a delegation of patriarchs in Washington last September—in which he reportedly said, “We know Assad has been protecting the Christians”—the bipartisan attitude towards the Syrian government has continued to hover between aloof and openly hostile.

The depiction of Assad by credible witnesses is quite different. Speaking at a private meeting held at the Veritatis Splendor Diocesan Center in Bologna, Italy last October, Msgr. Giuseppe Nazzaro, former apostolic visitor to Aleppo and former Custodian of the Holy Land, had this to say:

[Assad] opened the country up to foreign trade, to tourism within the country and from abroad, to freedom of movement and of education for both men and women. Before the protests started, the number of women in the professional world had been constantly increasing, the university was open to all, and there was no discrimination on the basis of sex. The country was at peace, prosperity was on the rise, and human rights were respected. A common home and fatherland to many ethnicities and 23 different religious groups, Syria has always been a place where all were free to believe and live out their creed, all relationships were characterized by mutual respect. The freedom that is purportedly being brought to us by the rebels is precisely what this rebellion has taken away from us.

Msgr. Nazzaro was also among the heads of the Churches of the Middle East who were invited to speak at the UN headquarters in Geneva on September 16, where he denounced the “massacres and the atrocities, together with the crimes against humanity” committed  by the Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq. The Syrians pinned great hopes on this meeting, but were bitterly disappointed.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Normality Is Not Hatred

People wave banners as they demonstrate against France's planned legalization of same-sex marriage in Paris in April 17, 2013. (CNS photo/Benoit Tessier, Reuters)

Normality Is Not Hatred | James Kalb | CWR

Today’s politics has no place for legitimate authority based on higher standards, so power must base itself on Choice, otherwise known as the Triumph of the Will

Very recently the view that homosexuality is entirely normal has become not only widespread but compulsory in secular public discussion.

Leaders of thought tell us the change has been part of a general deepening of moral insight and improvement in the art of living. The older outlook oppressed millions out of fear, bigotry, and ignorance. We have learned better now, except for a few haters and dimbulbs who need to be re-educated or else shamed and shut up until death frees the world from their presence.

Many Catholic clergy, theologians, and ordinary believers more or less agree. We have been wrong, and if we don’t get with the program and accept the world’s guidance we’ll become irrelevant and vanish except for a few weirdoes no one sensible would want to associate with.

Such or allied views have led to very high level suggestions that the Church “accept and value” the homosexual orientation and ramp up opposition to “unjust discrimination,” which now seems to include suggestions that there is something wrong with homosexuality. So any statement of the general objection to the orientation, that it is objectively disordered, is now to be out of bounds. Inconsistent doctrine is to be treated as a hangover from the past to be dealt with in such a way as to neutralize it and effectively make it disappear.

To exacerbate the problem, most of those attached to the traditional view have difficulty arguing for it effectively. It seems plainly right to them, but why it is right cannot be stated in the terms on which public discussion is now carried on, which treat equal preference satisfaction as the highest good. The traditional view therefore comes to seem an irrational prejudice.

Still, the issue doesn’t go away. The older view continues to have distinguished proponents, and the vehement reactions to doubters suggests that supporters of the new view are conscious of a certain weakness in their position. Is something being overlooked? Can a sudden and total change of longstanding deeply-rooted understandings be trusted?

The change looks very much like an attempt to invert reality, an effort that once started becomes all-consuming and requires an ever more comprehensive system of lying to maintain. And the demands of correct thought are indeed becoming ever more far-reaching. Insistence that a relationship between two men is a marriage if they say the necessary vows has been followed by insistence that the men immediately become women if they announce they have. And that demand has been accompanied by attempts in the schools and elsewhere to get rid of indications of grammatical gender and other inflammatory expressions when dealing with children.

These supposed advances have been led not by saints and sages but by ideological activists, media propagandists, and other dubious characters. Supporters claim to speak for the “marginalized,” but are preferentially found among the rich, powerful, and well-placed, who evidently speak for themselves and those to whom they feel an affinity.

In that respect the movement is typical of modern politics, which promises liberation but delivers new forms of domination. The problem is basic.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.