Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Settle for nothing less than the infinite mystery and infinite delight

The sky at the Cerro Tololo in the Valle de Elqui, Chile, is seen Oct. 11, 2015. (CNS photo/AURA Observatory of Chile via EPA)

Settle for nothing less than the infinite mystery and infinite delight | Carl E. Olson | Catholic World Report

The recent March for Science was a sad and sorry exercise in a view of reality that is flattened, dreary, and ultimately inhuman

Back in the early 1840s, John Henry Newman observed that physical philosophers—that is, scientists—"are ever inquiring whence things are, not why; referring them to nature, not to mind; and thus they tend to make a system a substitute for a God..." The "tending" has been, as they say, trending ever since. About a hundred years later, in 1948, Fulton Sheen remarked in his outstanding study Philosophy of Religion, that:

Science cannot give us a philosophy, not can it give us an ethics; it cannot give us a philosophy, because it immerses man in nature and avoids the important subject of his destiny. It cannot give us an ethics because science by itself is amoral. Morality comes from its ends, and science is indifferent to ends.

Lest it be thought that Sheen was anti-science or the enemy of scientists, consider his remark, from his 1928 book Religion Without God, that the "rock-surenes of 'Science' does not exist in the mind of the scientists themselves, although it does love and throb in the minds of publicists and propagandists. Scientists themselves disclaim they possess ultimate truth; rather they look upon it as a horizon toward which they are proceeding." Sheen was indicating that when a scientist begins to make metaphysical or philosophical assertions, he is no longer speaking as a scientist. Of course, a great number of famous scientists—Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking come to mind immediately—have used their scientific reputations in order to wade into waters that are better described as ideological and polemical. And even political.

All of those elements were obvious in the silly "March for Science" event that took place this past Saturday. I was blissfully unaware of the event until a friend sent a link to the local newspaper's coverage of the March for Science in Eugene, which featured some 1500 or so true believers. And I don't say "true believers" with any sarcasm or snarkiness; on the contrary:

“We teach science and we believe in science,” said Carrie Ann Naumoff, a fifth-grade teacher at Edison Elementary in Eugene. “We’re concerned that science is being blocked and interrupted. “We’re concerned about the EPA and concerned that ­scientists are being harassed for what they’re publishing. We want our students to have access to real information.”

"We believe in science." Whatever does that mean? What if the seventh-grade home-ec teacher (if such a thing still exists) exclaimed, "We believe in the culinary arts", or the 10th-grade French teacher solemnly explained, "We believe in language." Huh? But we do know what Ms. Naumoff means: she and the enlightened educating class are the guardians of science, which is the one, true source of truth and goodness, leading us into a future of, well, more science. However, such a belief is not really about scientific research and fact, but about a particular ideological perspective, generally called scientism, which is not about following physical evidence where it might lead, but flattening all of reality into the narrow confines of materialist proofs and premises.

Dr. Austin L. Hughes, a professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, described it well in an 2012 essay titled "The Folly of Scientism":

Continue reading on the CWR site.

On dogma, "Amoris Laetitia", immigration, bishops, and much more

Another edition of "Carl's Cuts", featuring the sporadic and always scattered observations, bloviations, opinions, and non-magisterial musings of the Editor of CWR

• So much to discuss, and I won't come close to getting to it all. But, first, I suggest we observe a moment of respect for Dogma, which is so often treated shabbily and disdainfully, especially by cowards, fools, and sycophants:

From the age of fifteen, dogma has been the fundamental principle of my religion: I know no other religion; I cannot enter into the idea of any other sort of religion; religion, as a mere sentiment, is to me a dream and a mockery. As well can there be filial love without the fact of a father, as devotion without the fact of a Supreme Being. What I held in 1816, I held in 1833, and I hold in 1864. Please God, I shall hold it to the end. ...

Secondly, I was confident in the truth of a certain definite religious teaching, based upon this foundation of dogma; viz. that there was a visible Church, with sacraments and rites which are the channels of invisible grace. I thought that this was the doctrine of Scripture, of the early Church, and of the Anglican Church. Here again, I have not changed in opinion; I am as certain now on this point as I was in 1833, and have never ceased to be certain.

That from Apologia Pro Vita Sua by Blessed John Henry Newman, who was not a coward or a fool, or anything resembling a sycophant.

• Back on January 8th, on the Epiphany of the Lord, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago was "presiding over the opening mass for National Migration Week at Holy Name Cathedral. People from more than 40 countries participated in the service, many dressed in their native garb. The service was meant to answer Pope Francis’ call 'for a culture of encounter with all immigrants and refugees.'" This stood out:

In his homily, Cupich compared the strife of present-day migrants to the magi who sought Jesus Christ after his birth. Cupich said “there is great joy that the church experiences day after day as it works with migrants and immigrants,” helping them find jobs or places to live.

The comparison is curious. The magi from the East were not migrants; they were not fleeing their country; they were not looking for a place to live; they did not require assistance in finding a permanent residence. And, having visited the Christ Child and the Holy Family, we read, they were "warned in a dream not to return to Herod, [and] they departed to their own country by another way" (Matt 2:12). This is not to express some partisan point about immigrants and refugees, but to note the misuse of Scripture for political ends by certain Church leaders. Cardinal Cupich refers to "following the light of diversity", as if the magi's decision to follow the star can be crammed into a discussion about immigration policy that appears to have only two sides: the enlightened, loving side that welcomes everyone regardless, and the bigoted, fearful side (equated somehow with Herod's fears) that seeks to shut down borders altogether. (Here is the full homily; more on the Cardinal in Chicago below.)

• Following the Trump administration's executive order on immigration—which inspired the New York Times to deem President Trump a Christian theocrat and the U.S. bishops to question if he possessed any Christian virtues—Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles wrote an essay for CNA that had a little bit of everything in it.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

On conversion, CWR, journalism, Pope Francis: My recent interview on EWTN

On conversion, CWR, journalism, Pope Francis: My recent interview on EWTN | Carl E. Olson | The Dispatch at CWR

This past Monday I was at EWTN to guest on "At Home with Jim and Joy". I always enjoy my time at EWTN: the folks there are warm and down to earth. Plus, I get to spend some time with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ, who I first got to know in the late '90s, when he taught several courses in the University of Dallas MTS program I was in from 1997 to 2000. On this visit, Fr. Mitch cooked me some venison steak, told me some new hunting stories, and shared his wise observations on a whole host of current events.

The Pintos are salt of the earth folks. Converts from Episcopalianism (actually, I think Jim said he's a revert, having been raised Catholic), they've been running a crisis pregnancy center in Birmingham for many years. And as good as I think our on-air conversation was (see below and judge for yourself), the off-air conversation was even better.

Anyhow, we discussed a number of things: how my wife and I became Catholic, my work as an editor and author, Catholic World Report, journalism in general, and Pope Francis. Here it is:

Mother Angelica: America’s Nun

Mother Angelica, founder of the Eternal Word Television Network, is pictured in a 1992 photo. She died March 27 at the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration monastery in Hanceville, Ala. She was 92. (CNS files)

Mother Angelica: America’s Nun | Paul Kengor | CWR's The Dispatch

If we’re looking for the most influential American Catholic at the turn of the century, and at least into the young 21st century, male or female, I would vote for Mother Angelica.

The first time I encountered the unforgettable person of Mother Angelica was the mid-1990s. I was in graduate school, a former Catholic-turned-agnostic, but searching. I was coming back to the Catholic faith, it would turn out, but first through the arms of Protestant Evangelicalism.

Whether in my car or living room, I would flip through the channels on my radio or TV in search for Christian programming. As for the radio, there were no Catholic stations. Not one. They were all “Christian” stations, meaning Evangelical. As for TV, there were, much like still today, “Christian” stations comprised of a vague Protestant programming, most of it very poor quality and extremely loose theology—often wild, embarrassing, and thoroughly unconvincing (if not repellent) to a skeptic searching for answers. In fact, to this day, when you check your DirecTV or Dish Network guide, you can find a half-dozen or so such stations (all non-Catholic), which my Protestant friends and colleagues are embarrassed by.

And then one day I found Mother Angelica on my TV. She had a strikingly blue-collar style, reminding me of my Western Pennsylvania/Italian family roots. That was fitting, really, since she was raised not too far from me. I’ve driven through her so-called Akron-Canton region many times. This folksy nun from the town that houses the NFL Hall of Fame was tough. She was no sophisticate. That wasn’t her desire or approach—quite the contrary. That’s a bit ironic, because the television and larger media network that she was growing is today very sophisticated. The EWTN media conglomerate is distinctly theological, thoughtful, orthodox, polished, high-brow—from the TV channel to the mass network of radio affiliates, which I can pick up in the car almost anywhere, or via Sirius radio, my computer, and my phone.

That was what this little nun from Canton bequeathed. And it is no small achievement.

Today, I watch EWTN television more than any other channel.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

The Spiritual Legacy of Mother Angelica

Mother Angelica, founder of Eternal Word Television Network, died at age 92 March 27 at the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration monastery in Hanceville, Ala. She is pictured in an undated photo. (CNS photo/courtesy EWTN)

The Spiritual Legacy of Mother Angelica | Bishop Robert Barron | Catholic World Report

While the critics of the founder of Eternal Word Television Network have largely faded away, the impact and influence of the nun from Canton, Ohio are incontestable.

Mother Angelica, one of the most significant figures in the post-conciliar Catholic Church in America, has died after a fourteen-year struggle with the after effects of a stroke. I can attest that, in "fashionable" Catholic circles during the eighties and nineties of the last century, it was almost de rigueur to make fun of Mother Angelica. She was a crude popularizer, an opponent of Vatican II, an arch-conservative, a culture-warrior, etc., etc. And yet while her critics have largely faded away, her impact and influence are incontestable. Against all odds and expectations, she created an evangelical vehicle without equal in the history of the Catholic Church. Starting from, quite literally, a garage in Alabama, EWTN now reaches 230 million homes in over 140 countries around the world. With the possible exception of John Paul II himself, she was the most watched and most effective Catholic evangelizer of the last fifty years.

Read Raymond Arroyo's splendid biography in order to get the full story of how Rita Rizzo, born and raised in a tough neighborhood in Canton, Ohio, came in time to be a nun, a foundress, and a television personality. For the purposes of this brief article, I would like simply to draw attention to three areas of particular spiritual importance in the life of Mother Angelica: her trust in God's providence, her keen sense of the supernatural quality of religion, and her conviction that suffering is of salvific value.

The accounts of the beginning of EWTN read like the stories of some of the great saintly founders of movements and orders within the Church. Mother had a blithe confidence that if God called her to do something, he would provide what was needed.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Robert Royal offers insightful overview of vast Catholic intellectual tradition in the 20th century

Comprehensive book examines philosophy, theology, literature, history, and more
 
San Francisco, November 17, 2015 – In this wide-ranging and ambitious volume, A Deeper Vision, author Robert Royal, a prominent participant for many years in debates about religion and contemporary life, offers a comprehensive and balanced appraisal of the Catholic intellectual tradition in the twentieth century. The Catholic Church upholds both faith and reason, and Catholicism has given risen to extraordinary ideas and whole schools of remarkable thought, not just in the distant past but throughout the troubled decades of the twentieth century.
 
Royal presents in a single volume a sweeping but readable account of how Catholic thinking developed in philosophy, theology, Scripture studies, culture, literature, and much more in the twentieth century. This involves great figures, recognized as such both inside and outside the Church, such as:

• Philosophers Jacques Maritain, Bernard Lonergan, Joseph Pieper, Edith Stein, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor
• Theologians Romano Guardini, Karl Rahner, Henri du Lubac, Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, and Hans Urs von Balthasar
• Literary artists Charles Peguy, Paul Claudel, George Bernanos, Francois Mauriac, G. K. Chesterton, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Christopher Dawson, Graham Greene, Sigrid Undset, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Czeslaw Milosz
• Historian Christopher Dawson, and many more

Royal argues that without rigorous thought, Catholicism – however welcoming and nourishing it might be – would become something like a doctor with a good bedside manner, but who knows little medicine. It has always been the aspiration of the Catholic tradition to unite emotion and intellect, action and contemplation. But unless we know what the tradition has already produced – especially in the work of the great figures of the recent past – we will not be able to answer the challenges that the modern world poses, or even properly recognize the true questions we face.
 
This is a reflective, non-polemical work that brings together various strands of Catholic thought in the twentieth century. A comprehensive guide to the recent past - and the future.

Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University, explains, “There is no better expositor of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition than Robert Royal. Intimately acquainted with its sources, history, and contours, Royal offers the reader a compelling account of the tradition and the role that it plays, and ought to play, in the Church’s encounter with the world.”
 
Fr. Matthew Lamb, Professor of Theology at Ave Maria University, calls A Deeper Vision, “A pivotal book. Royal shows how each generation in the great Catholic intellectual tradition processes down the centuries in millennial long conversations with those preceding them. This ongoing procession contributes to a vast and complex cathedral of mind and heart, far more enduring than those of stone, wherein human dignity is discovered to be a gift, a finite participation, in the very mystery of the Triune God.”
 
“This masterful book makes clear that the past century, for all its terrible horrors, was also a time of extraordinary Christian fruitfulness” says Matthew Levering, Professor of Theology, at Mundelein Seminary. He continues, “Royal is a cultural commentator with rare scholarly breadth and balance.  His judgments regarding major 20th century theologians and theological movements should be required reading for all graduate students and seminarians. Royal is even more in his element when he assesses the great Catholic poets, historians, and novelists who graced the past century.  This masterful book comes as a much needed encouragement in the midst of the deepening storms of our own time.  For if the twentieth century shows that where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more, surely this too will be the ultimate story of our own century.”
 
About the Author: Robert Royal is the president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington DC and editor of the online column series The Catholic Thing. He is the author, editor, and translator of more than a dozen books, and he writes and speaks frequently on questions of culture, religion, and public life. His work has appeared in a wide variety of publications in the United States and abroad.
 
Robert Royal, the author of A Deeper Vision, is available for interviews about this book.
To request a review copy or an interview with Robert Royal, please contact:
Rose Trabbic, Publicist, Ignatius Press at (239) 867-4180 or [email protected]
 
Product Facts:
Title: A DEEPER VISION
The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century
Author: Robert Royal
Release Date: November 2015
Length: 619 pages
Price: $26.95
ISBN: 978-1-58617-990-8 • Softcover
Order: 1-800-651-1531 • www.ignatius.com

Pope Francis and True Mercy

Pope Francis poses with clergy and women religious during his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican Oct. 7. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

Pope Francis and True Mercy | Bishop Robert Barron | CWR

Why I balk at the suggestion that the new Pope represents a revolution or that he is dramatically turning away from the example of his immediate predecessors

Having just returned from a week covering Pope Francis's triumphant journey to the United States, I can confidently tell you that the news media are in love with the Vicar of Christ. Time and again, commentators, pundits, anchorpersons, and editorialists opined that Pope Francis is the bomb. They approved, of course, of his gentle way with those suffering from disabilities and his proclivity to kiss babies, but their approbation was most often awakened by this Pope's "merciful" and "inclusive" approach, his willingness to reach out to those on the margins. More often than not, they characterized this tenderness as a welcome contrast to the more rigid and dogmatic style of Benedict XVI. Often, I heard words such as "revolutionary" and "game-changing" in regard to Pope Francis, and one commentator sighed that she couldn't imagine going back to the Church as it was before the current pontiff.

Well, I love Pope Francis too, and I certainly appreciate the novelty of his approach and his deft manner of breathing life into the Church. In fact, a number of times on the air I commented that the Pope's arrival to our shores represented a new springtime after the long winter of the sex abuse scandals. But I balk at the suggestion that the new Pope represents a revolution or that he is dramatically turning away from the example of his immediate predecessors. And I strenuously deny that he is nothing but a soft-hearted powder-puff, indifferent to sin.

A good deal of the confusion stems from a misinterpretation of Francis's stress on mercy.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

"The Ignatius Press books have been indispensable ..."

From a National Catholic Register article, "Ignatius Press and Its High-Profile Authors Still Inform Synod Debate", by Joan Frawley Desmond:

SAN FRANCISCO — In October 2014, on the eve of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family at the Vatican, Ignatius Press organized a fast-track printing job for a new title, Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church.

The book featured essays by Cardinal Raymond Burke and four other cardinals who defend Church discipline that bars divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics from receiving Communion.

In order to get the book out in time for the start of the 2014 synod, the publishing house printed hundreds of copies in Rome and then sent them to the mailboxes of synod participants.

But Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the synod, claimed the books had arrived “irregularly” and ordered their removal. Few of the intended recipients received a copy in time.

Leaked to the press, Cardinal Baldisseri’s action sparked headlines and raised questions about whether the extraordinary synod, the first in a two-step process, would be as transparent and collegial as Pope Francis had promised.

Now, as the ordinary synod commences just a year later, a fresh batch of Ignatius titles are poised to inform the debate inside and outside the proceedings at the Vatican.

“The Ignatius Press books have been indispensable in creating the open conversation for which Pope Francis called in convening the two synods on the family,” George Weigel told the Register in an email message from Rome. “Their impact will be felt not only throughout the synod, but long afterwards.”

The new titles run the gamut, starting with God or Nothing, a book-length interview with Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? An Investigation Into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, an e-book by Edward Pentin, the Register’s Rome correspondent, examines claims that the 2014 synod was manipulated to favor changes in pastoral policies for Catholics with same-sex attraction or those who are divorced and civilly remarried.

“Pentin’s is probably the first breaking news e-book we have published,” Mark Brumley, the president of Ignatius Press, told the Register.

Some of the publisher’s authors probe arguments calling for a relaxation of Church practices that affirm the indissolubility of marriage, and others present the biblical and historical foundations of Catholic teaching on marriage.

Read the entire feature on at NCRegister.com.

"The Curious Case of the Intercepted Book" by Edward Pentin

Images via us.fotolia.com

The Curious Case of the Intercepted Book | Edward Pentin | CWR

Copies of a controversial book were mailed to participants in last year’s synod, yet only a fraction of them were received. Was this due to a simple error or was something else going on?

[Editor’s note: The following is an exclusive excerpt from Edward Pentin’s new book The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? An Investigation of Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, available now from Ignatius Press as an e-book. To find out what really went on before, during, and after last year’s controversial Synod of Bishops, Pentin spent months speaking to many of those who were there and piecing together what happened behind the closed doors of the Vatican’s Synod Hall.

This excerpt is about the controversy surrounding the book Remaining in the Truth of Christ, copies of which were mailed to the synod participants. Only a fraction of those copies made it to their intended recipients, however, as Pentin reports.]

The Intercepted Book

… Alarmed by the platform Kasper had been given for such a potentially drastic change in pastoral practice, one that critics believed would seriously undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage, a group of Church experts, including five cardinals, would write a riposte in the form of a book.

Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, published by Ignatius Press, was written by five cardinals from Italy, Germany, and the United States, one archbishop, two religious, and one layman (the contributors were Walter Cardinal Brandmüller; Raymond Cardinal Burke; Carlo Cardinal Caffarra; Velasio Cardinal De Paolis, C.S.; Robert Dodaro, O.S.A.; Paul Mankowski, S.J.; Gerhard Cardinal Müller; John M. Rist; and Archbishop Cyril Vasil, S.J.). They felt obliged to write in response to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, which Kasper had published following the February 2014 consistory and which they saw as implicitly inviting a public response.

Among other things, the book contends that Christ in the New Testament unambiguously prohibits divorce and remarriage on the basis of God’s original plan for marriage set out at Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. This is part of the Gospel of the Family, and it goes back to Christ, not simply to the Church’s rules. From this starting point, the contributors carefully and unpolemically outline the theological, moral, and pastoral case for the Church’s pastoral practice.

The book was devised in absolute confidentiality. Although Pope Francis had never publicly endorsed the Kasper proposal, he was widely believed to be sympathetic to it, since he had given Kasper such a prominent platform at the consistory and because of his public support for the cardinal’s other writings and because of Kasper’s claim that the pope fully supported him and rumors that the pope privately thinks it admissible to distribute Holy Communion to civilly remarried divorced Catholics in certain circumstances and did so when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.

That the pope actually did favor Kasper’s position was unclear, but the editors and writers decided it was not worth the risk for the project to become public. Perhaps if the pope found out it was in the works, he would stop it. And he would be free to do so: as pope, he would be at liberty to tell any of the cardinals involved to halt its publication, and they would be duty bound to carry out his wish in obedience to him. But even if the pope did not intervene, others might work to block the work or try to discredit it before it was published.

It is not clear, even today, who originally had the idea for the work. Cardinal Burke took the lead in compiling the contributions, but he may have received direction from someone else, possibly from someone in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which certainly supported the position of the book, as an essay by Cardinal Müller formed one of its chapters.

Burke, in turn, worked with Augustinian Father Robert Dodaro, the American president of the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum in Rome, who served as editor. The cardinal called him a day or two before the Easter Triduum in 2014 and asked if he would write a chapter on patristics. Father Dodaro had fortuitously just written a long text for the CDF on the patristic arguments of Cardinal Kasper’s talk to the extraordinary consistory.

Having found Kasper’s position defective, Dodaro was happy to oblige, but, because marriage and divorce in late antiquity was not his particular field, he recommended Professor John Rist. A classical philosophy professor emeritus of the University of Toronto, Rist is known to be a “top grade” philosopher and one of the world’s foremost experts on the ancient Church. Dodaro thought few would be willing to dispute his analysis. When Rist agreed to participate, Burke invited Dodaro to edit the book.

The book was duly compiled in record time. 

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Reviewers Wanted! Get a free copy of “We’ll Never Tell Them”!

From IPNovels.com:

Do you have an active blog? Ignatius Press is seeking bloggers to help us spread the word about our wonderful new novels! For a limited time, Ignatius Press is offering bloggers a FREE e-book of our new novel, We’ll Never Tell Them by Fiorella de Maria. In exchange for the e-book, we ask that you review the book on your blog and post the review on all social media outlets, Amazon, etc. We will also republish the review on our website www.ipnovels.com

Please email Rose Trabbic at [email protected] if you would like to participate and spread the word about great Catholic literature from Ignatius Press!

About the novel:

Kristjana, a nurse in England, flees twenty-first-century London in order to avoid a decision about her future. While attending a dying man in a Jerusalem hospital, she escapes into another woman’s past and discovers there the courage to embrace her own destiny. Through his vivid storytelling, Kristjana’s cancer patient, Leo Hampton, recounts his mother’s life—her upbringing in colonial Malta, her education in Edwardian England, and her service as a volunteer nurse during World War I.

Captivated by the story of Liljana Hampton, Kristjana is pulled into the agonies and the ecstasies of a previous generation, which almost seem more real to her than those of her own life. Through her vicarious experience of another woman’s personal history, Kristjana discovers the secret of fearlessly embracing her future.

With her passionate and colorful prose, award-winning author Fiorella De Maria seamlessly weaves back and forth between the past and the future. She realistically brings to life the cobbled streets of Old World Malta, the halls of an English boarding school, and the trenches of the Great War as she explores the age-old quest for some sense of security in a dangerous and uncertain world.

And the author:

Fiorella De Maria was born in Italy of Maltese parents. She grew up in Wiltshire, England, and attended Cambridge, where she received a BA in English Literature and a Masters in Renaissance Literature. She is the author of the novels Poor Banished Children and Do No Harm. She won the National Book Prize of Malta.

And what some notable folks are saying about the novel:

"Shows us that the sufferings of one life can be the source of the authenticity that gives life to another."
— Michael D. O'Brien, Author, Father Elijah

"An enthralling historical novel."
— Lucy Beckett, Author, A Postcard from the Volcano

"Moving and beautifully written."
— Piers Paul Read, Author, The Death of a Pope

"Engages from the very beginning to the very end."
— Michael Richard, Author, Tobit’s Dog

"Fiorella De Maria is not afraid of the complexities of life and is capable of mixing its suffering with poetry and love."
— Mother Dolores Hart, O.S.B., Author, The Ear of the Heart

"A story about connecting—heart to heart, mind to mind—even across the years."
— Roger Thomas, Author, The Accidental Marriage

With Papal Visit Concluded, It's Full Synod Ahead

Pope Francis walks near an image of the Holy Family during the closing Mass of the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia Sept. 27. (CNS photo/Rick Musacchio, Tennessee Register)

With Papal Visit Concluded, It's Full Synod Ahead | Carl E. Olson | Editorial | CWR

As the Synod of Bishops approaches, Catholics are faced with contradictory perceptions and pressing questions about Francis' longterm goals

As I watched coverage of the papal visit to the U.S. and waded through the steady—if wildly uneven—stream of articles about the same, I began to wonder: "A month from now, after the Synod, how might perceptions of this visit and this pope be revisited and revised?" It is a question that goes beyond the level of a curious thought exercise. By the end of October we will, I think, have a far clearer understanding of exactly how radical this pontificate is—or is not. 

I purposely use the word "radical" since it is, by my entirely unscientific gauge, the most used adjective for this pope and his pontificate. To hear some pundits tell it, Francis is the first pope to walk, talk, hug babies, and chew gum at the same time. Nearly everything he does (or doesn't do) or says (or doesn't say) is construed as radical, unprecedented, unique, unusual, and new. It's an approach worth reflecting on for a moment because for it dominates how so many people view and interpret Francis' actions and words. 

A fine example of this breathless approach is found in the handsome coffee table book Pope Francis and the New Vatican, published a few weeks ago by National Geographic. Take note of the hyperbolic quality of this descriptive copy:

Since his ascent to the papacy in 2013, Pope Francis has electrified the world and infused the Vatican with unprecedented energy. ... The Vatican finds the pope to be a paradox. Known as the “available pope,” a contradiction in terms, he is hailed by the press as a reformer, a radical and a revolutionary. Those close to him in Rome say he is all of these things, and yet none of them. The answer to the question reverberating around the world remains a mystery: Will Pope Francis change the Vatican, or will the Vatican change him? ... Timely and poignant, POPE FRANCIS AND THE NEW VATICAN reveals this spiritual revolutionary through a new lens. 

Other words that regular appearances in the book are "change", "revolution", "contradictory" (as in Francis' "seemingly contradictory subtleties..."), "new", "remarkable", and—well, you get the picture. And if you want actual pictures, the book is loaded with them: beautiful, exceptional photos, as one expects to find in a National Geographic book. But what is also remarkable, besides the regular use of "remarkable", is a deep but unaware thread of incongruity and contradiction in the effusive essays, all written by Robert Draper. Writing about the early months of Francis' pontificate, Draper recounts how the Pope had said to a small group of visiting friends: "I really need to start making changes right now":

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

"Conservative" Catholics, Pope Francis, and CNN Spin

Pope Francis talks with U.S. President Barack Obama during a private audience at the Vatican March 27, 2014. (CNS photo/Stefano Spaziani, pool)

"Conservative" Catholics, Pope Francis, and CNN Spin | Carl E. Olson | CWR Editorial

It's an unfortunate fact that secular media outlets so often resort to sensationalism, shallow reporting, and partisan rhetoric when addressing the complexities of Catholicism

As longtime readers know, I tend to have a rather dour view of the mainstream media in the United States. However, I will give credit where such credit is due: when they latch onto a particular hook or angle, they will latch onto it with a sort of zealous fervor and focus that is quite fascinating. And frustrating. For example:

• 5 new ways Pope Francis is sticking it to the Christian right (Salon)
• Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics... (Newsday)
• Eight times Pope Francis riled conservatives in the Catholic Church (Washington Post)
• The Republican Party's war with Pope Francis has finally started (The Week Magazine)
• Pope drawing criticism from US conservatives (San Angelo Standard Times)
• 5 Ways Pope Francis Has Shocked Conservative Christians (EcoWatch)
• Pope Francis agitates conservative U.S. Catholics (USA Today)

There are numerous similar pieces, many of them inspired in large part by news this summer that Pope Francis' popularity in the U.S. had faltered, dropping to 59% from a high of 76% in 2014. Since then I've been interviewed by a number of non-Catholics news outlets (including NewsMaxTV, Al-Jazeera, and CNN) about this topic, and my July 16th post "The hyperbolic and exhausting papacy of Francis" has been quoted in various articles as an example of "conservative" insurrection, even dissent. Never mind that my post does not touch on matters of faith and morals but instead focuses on rhetoric and tone. Never mind—well, I'm getting ahead of myself. 

This past Tuesday, CNN.com published a feature titled "The 'Obamification' of Pope Francis", which contained some comments from my July post. The reporter, John Blake, had contacted me by e-mail at the end of August, asking me if I would talk to him about "conservative reaction to Pope Francis’ economic message – and how some even see similarities between his message and President Obama’s worldview." I agreed, and a few days later we spoke for a half hour or so. Mr. Blake began by asking me I had any questions; I responded that I had two questions. 

First, I asked if he knew if any pieces had been written back in 2008 about "liberal reaction to Pope Benedict's message" on this or that topic. Put another way, while there was plenty of liberal (and conservative) commentary on Benedict, where there any pieces that delved into real or possible liberal criticisms of Benedict? I noted that I had done various searches and found nothing of the sort. Hmmm. 

Secondly, I asked what he meant by "conservatives" since there are at least three large but fairly distinct groups that might be described as "conservative":

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Pre-Synod Conference unites Cardinals and men and women living with homosexual tendencies

Living the Truth in Love conference and resource event  to be held Oct 2 in Rome, Italy

For More Information:
Lisa Wheeler
Carmel Communications
1-866-777-2313, ext. 700
[email protected]

NORWALK, CT, and SAN FRANCISCO, Sep. 9, 2015 – Courage International and Ignatius Press announce their first Rome conference to address the pastoral needs of men and women who experience homosexual tendencies. Living the Truth in Love is a conference and resource event, which will be held October 2, just before the start of the Ordinary Synod on the Family at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (“The Angelicum”) in Rome, Italy.
 
The theme of the conference will be “The Ways of True Love—Pastoral Approaches to Welcome and Accompany those Living with Homosexual Tendencies.”
 
The conference will feature Cardinal Robert Sarah, Cardinal George Pell, Monsignor Livio Melina, as well as experts such as Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins; Dr. Timothy Lock, a clinical psychologist; and Dr. Jennifer Morse of the Ruth Institute. A panel discussion will be held featuring the real life testimonies of faithful Catholics living the reality of homosexuality in their everyday lives.  
 
Resources will be available to conference attendees, particularly a collection of books recently released by several of the participants, including Cardinal Robert Sarah and Cardinal George Pell. A press event will take place in conjunction with the conference for members of the media.
 
The event will take place just days before the opening of the Ordinary Synod on the Family that begins at the Vatican on October 4 and extends through October 25. The conference offers a response to the important question before the Synod regarding how the Church should give pastoral care to persons with homosexual tendencies and their families.
 
The conference approaches homosexuality not as a cultural or political issue of the day (without forgetting that it is so), but rather as a personal reality in the life of individual men and women. The speakers will address the complex reality of homosexual tendencies through the lenses of the empirical and social sciences, the personal experience of homosexuality, the testimony of Sacred Scripture, as well as Sacred Tradition—the bi-millenial wisdom of the Catholic Church.
 
Conference organizers intend the event and its resources to help those responsible for pastoral ministry to better understand each of these dimensions and to be better equipped to welcome and accompany men and women with homosexual tendencies, and ultimately to help them find the fullness of joy in their journey with and to Christ.
 
Fr. Paul Check, Executive Director of Courage International, explains that the Living the Truth in Love conference distinguishes itself from other conferences by offering a fuller and more precise understanding of the human person. “Through His Church, Christ invites everyone to the abundant life (Jn 10:10).  He offers His mercy (‘neither do I condemn you’), and then He calls us to conversion of heart (‘now go and sin no more’), and He gives us the grace to make this possible. In the Gospel, Jesus not only offers his compassion but He also calls us to conversion because He knows we will only be truly joyful and fulfilled when we live as He created us to be.”
 
“So many of the current approaches to homosexuality do not include this fuller perspective of the human person,” said Check. “Rather they seem to limit themselves to ‘acceptance’ without recognizing Jesus’ call to conversion. And they defend a ‘right’ to sexual intimacy, but they do acknowledge God’s design for marriage to which Jesus Himself refers in Matthew 19.”  
 
Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., Founder and Editor of Ignatius Press adds: “Genuine compassion and mercy require that we support all those who desire to live authentic Christian discipleship. We are pleased to join with Courage not only in holding this conference, but also in providing a range of pastoral and personal resources that will provide practical guidance long after the conference—and the synod—are over.”
 
This event is open to the public. Registration is free but lunch is included for an additional fee. Those interested in registering can visit www.TruthandLove.com.
 
Media representatives can acquire press credentials to attend the conference and press event and arrange interviews with conference speakers and panelists or a Courage or Ignatius Press spokesperson by contacting Lisa Wheeler of Carmel Communications, [email protected] or 1-866-777-2313, ext. 700.

"The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?" | Exclusive excerpt from new book by Edward Pentin

Images via us.fotolia.com

The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? | Edward Pentin | CWR

The release of the “explosive” interim report during last year’s synod provoked allegations of a rigged process—but that was just the beginning. An exclusive excerpt from a new investigation into what went on at the headline-making meeting of bishops.

[Editor’s note: The III Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family that took place in October 2014 was controversial not only for the subject matter it discussed, but also for the way it was run. To find out what really went on before, during, and after that heated fortnight, renowned reporter and analyst Edward Pentin spent months speaking to many of those who were there and piecing together what happened behind the closed doors of the Vatican’s Synod Hall. His findings have been published in a new book, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? An Investigation of Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, available now as an e-book from Ignatius Press.

In this exclusive excerpt, Pentin examines one of the most controversial aspects of last year’s synod: the notorious Relatio post disceptationem, or interim report, released half-way through the synod discussions.]

The Interim Report

What had provoked many to allege rigging of the meeting, both inside and outside the synod hall, was the publication on October 13 of the Relatio post disceptationem, or interim report, on the first week of the synod’s discussions.

Many synod fathers were angry that the Relatio did not represent the majority view of the synod’s participants or the discussion that had occurred during the week and was issued without them seeing it.

George Cardinal Pell, prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, was the first to protest in a debate in the aula on the day of the Relatio’s release, followed by a number of heated interventions. Concerned that the report would go out without anyone remarking on it, he pointed out what was good about the report, but he also noted some serious deficiencies in the text. The Australian cardinal had to persist in his protest in the face of the synod managers who would have liked him to be quiet, sources who were present said.

In a television interview on October 16 with Catholic News Service, Cardinal Pell said the document was “tendentious, skewed, it didn’t represent accurately the feelings of the synod fathers.” He said “three-quarters” of those who discussed it afterward “had some problems with the document”. He added that “a major absence” in the document was scriptural teaching and “a treatment of the Church tradition”.

“It was as though there was an idealized vision of every imperfect situation”, Cardinal Pell said. “One father said to me…that he wouldn’t want his young adult children to read it because they’d be confused, and that was said in some of the working groups.”

The interim report “created an impression that the teaching of the Church has been merciless so far, as if the teaching of mercy were beginning only now”, said Polish Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan.

At issue were three controversial paragraphs the contents of which had been barely, or not at all, discussed by the synod fathers. One of these paragraphs referred to proposals, supposedly made by some of the synod participants, for readmission of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to Holy Communion, and two other paragraphs dealt with the pastoral care of homosexuals and cohabiting couples.

The most contentious paragraphs were under the heading “Welcoming homosexuals”. The section started off by saying homosexuals “have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community”, adding: “Are our communities capable of providing (a welcoming home), accepting and valuing their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

It continued: “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”

Critics pointed out that there was no reference to Catholic doctrine that sexual relations between people of the same sex are “intrinsically disordered”, that the acts are gravely sinful (or sinful at all), or that homosexual orientation was “objectively disordered”.

In an interview on October 17, Cardinal Burke described the interim report as a “gravely flawed document that does not express adequately the teaching and discipline of the Church and, in some aspects, propagates doctrinal error and a false pastoral approach”.

Trying to explain how the document came to be, Cardinal Erdö told Vatican Radio that the sixteen officials who drafted the report struggled to synthesize the positions of thirty to forty bishops on any given topic and rushed to finish it on time.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

A Synod Is Not a Council—and Other Canonical Facts

(CNS photo)

A Synod Is Not a Council—and Other Canonical Facts | David Salvato | CWR

Vatican II instituted the Synod of Bishops in order to provide, more adequately and more effectively, for the increase of the Faith and the maintenance of discipline in the particular Churches

Since the 2014 Synod of Bishops a growing theological divide has become apparent. This divide, evident among a small minority of cardinals and bishops present (and not present) at the Extraordinary Assembly, has been recognized through their views on how to “pastorally” apply Catholic teaching regarding marriage, family and sexual relations. It has also come to light that a so-called secret planning group, seemingly consisting of this small minority together with some theologians and journalists, has been meeting to discuss such progressively theological opinions before the October Synod of this year.

The Church, since its inception, has been forced to define, and at times reiterate, the objective truth of the Faith in relation to error, hence the deposit of Catholic doctrine which has guided us for nearly 2000 years. Such definitions, in the face of error, have primarily been discussed and defined in Ecumenical Councils. Due in part to the media buzz the Synod of Bishops has received, the Synod's role in relation to Church teaching has become inflated and even exaggerated. One of the primary guarantors and promoters of the true Faith is, and has always been, the College of Bishops (in communion with and under the Roman Pontiff) as ontologically always existing and governing the Body of Christ. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council affirmed the three ways by which the Church can pronounce her teaching infallibly: through the College of Bishops spread throughout the world (when the Pope, having consulted all bishops’ opinions regarding a topic, declares a particular dogma; for instance when Pope Pius XII declared the corporeal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a dogma of the Faith in 1950); in an Ecumenical Council (in which the entirety of the College of Bishops, with and under the Pope, is present); and by the Pope ex cathedra.

With the upcoming Synod of Bishops pronounced by Pope Francis to discuss issues related to the family and evangelization, and with confused understandings of what a Synod is, even among Catholics, it seems very timely to look at how the Church has officially defined it and what power it actually holds according to her own law.

The Synod of Bishops was instituted by Paul VI in 1965¹ in order to offer a more “efficacious collaboration” with the Roman Pontiff on the part of the entire Catholic Episcopate from all areas of the world.²

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

What Kind of Evil?

(us.fotolia.com | fresnel6)

What Kind of Evil? | Thomas S. Hibbs | CWR

Planned Parenthood supporters are progressive, instrumentalist rationalists, intent on implementing enlightenment policies of science and freedom

"The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered… in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.” — C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas once posed the following question concerning fetal tissue to a medical researcher: If it were a delicacy, could you eat it? Beyond the horrifying “medical” practices described in the Planned Parenthood videos, their most disgusting feature is not the nonchalant tone, for which Planned Parenthood issued an apology, but the fact that at least some conversations took place over a meal. Aside from calling to mind Hannibal Lecter’s predilection for liver, fava beans and a nice chianti, the setting of the videos makes clear that however refined may have been the upbringing of the Planned Parenthood employees, they apparently did not have parents who said of this or that topic, “Not at the dinner table!”

Disgusting? Disturbing? How about barbaric and evil? Even some who reject the pro-life cause describe the content of these videos in dark terms indeed. But what kind of barbarism?

A number of commentators have made analogies to the Nazis. Some of it is darkly humorous twitter commentary. Riffing on Molly Ivans’ comment about a Pat Buchanan speech, National Review’s Kevin Williamson tweeted: “I thought Planned Parenthood's explanation sounded a lot more convincing in the original German”. Some have noted the connection between Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s support of eugenics and that of the Nazis. Others have cited interesting historical facts such as Mengele's post-Holocaust employment as an abortionist. Perhaps the most telling similarity is a shared philosophy of what the Nazis called "life and unworthy of life."

And yet, I’m not sure the Nazis analogy is entirely apt. There are broadly two dominant strains to modernity. There is the original myth of modernity, which is that of an enlightenment liberation from the evils of tradition; this strain is progressive, universalist, technocratic, and rationalist. The Nazis come from the other side of modernity, the romantic-nationalist reaction against progressive, universalist enlightenment.

Whatever might have been the historical roots of the organization, contemporary Planned Parenthood supporters are not nationalists; they are not reacting against modernity; they are not asserting the superiority of one race over another.  They are implementing enlightenment goals. They are progressive, instrumentalist rationalists, intent on implementing enlightenment policies of science and freedom.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Concerning the "Ecological" Path to Salvation

(Photo: us.fotolia.com | f9photos)

Concerning the "Ecological" Path to Salvation | Fr. James V. Schall, SJ | CWR

The most problematic issue that Pope Francis’ earth-warming advocacy brings up is its scientific status; at best, it is opinion backed by some evidence 

“For Christians, all creatures of the material universe find their true meaning in the incarnate Word, for the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world, planting in it a seed of definitive transformation.” — Pope Francis, Laudato Si', June 17, 2015.

“But Christian utopia is a spiritual concept, for Christians have the insight to grasp that man, in his earthly existence, is an incorrigibly flawed creature, that his earthly constructs invariably end up in disappointment at best; that he cannot, in fact, attain satisfaction and fulfillment on earth, and that the utopian kingdom is not of this world. Christians, therefore, should be in no danger of first supposing that perfectibility can be attained in human societies, and then advocating the appalling measures which invariably mark efforts to erect earthly utopias… Environmental policies are also on the progressive agenda…. But it is significant that those who have made it their business to wage environmental politics have sought to associate pollution and other anti-social effects of modern industry exclusively with capitalism and the profit motive, and have virtually ignored the often far more serious ravages of state-owned industries in the Communist block and third world socialist states.” — Paul Johnson. “Is Totalitarianism Dead?” (Crisis, Feb. 1, 1989)

I.

The first public reaction that I saw to the new Encyclical was in some web site, I forget where. Two initial comments were identical: “I am leaving the Church”!

“This will never do!” I thought. A New York Times editorial, contrary to its usual practice, chided Catholic politicians for not obeying the Pope now that he appears to agree with policies the Times approves.

In a June 17^th column in the San Francisco Chronicle, Debra Saunders compared organized religion to earth warmers. “Climate change alarmism has always had a lot in common with organized religion. What’s the message of hard-core environmentalists? ‘The end is near’. ‘Repent’!.... To the true believer, the most important thing is not whether people stop contributing to greenhouse gases, but that they believe they should.” A lineal relationship between secular eschatology, the transferal of Christian four last things from transcendence to this-worldly projects has been noticed at least since J. B. Bury’s The Idea of Progress (1920). How this phenomenon worked was the central import of Benedict XVI’s Spe Salvi and Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life.

Whether or not we need church leaders also “believing” this ecological doctrine is probably not so clear. Still, the most problematic issue that Pope Francis’ earth-warming advocacy brings up is its scientific status. At best, it is opinion backed by some evidence. The document does not mention contrary evidence. Satellite readings of the planet’s temperature are different from UN computer generated statistics. The planet’s temperature has not changed in recent decades. Most of the controverted issues can plausibly be explained by natural causes. Climate changes have occurred on this planet since its beginning, long before man. The burning of fossil fuels does not produce any significant change in the already very low percentage (0.035%) of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not a few observers draw a parallel between the Galileo case and this one. It is a useful caution. The damage potential to the Church’s credibility is great if all the scientific evidence is not in or considered. The best we can say for putting one’s eggs in the climate warmer basket is that many scientists, mostly those dependent on government subsidies to prove it is true, say it is so. The Pope’s own plea for “humility” in this document would seem to apply here concerning scientific questions that are at best hypotheses subject to change.

II.

What are we to make of this document, now that we see it?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Attacks on San Francisco Priest Aim to Test Abp. Cordileone

Fr. Joseph Illo processes up the aisle at Star of the Sea Church in San Francisco April 25. (Photo by Eva Muntean)

Attacks on San Francisco Priest Aim to Test Abp. Cordileone | Jim Graves and CWR Staff | Catholic World Report

Recent reports about accusations made 10 years ago against Fr. Joseph Illo leave out key facts and misrepresent the subsequent court case.

The embattled pastor of a San Francisco parish has been the target of an unrelenting campaign aimed at pressuring Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone to oust him. At the same time, the charges against Father Joseph Illo are being used as part of a larger effort to lobby Pope Francis to remove the archbishop, according to local observers. This week, the Archdiocese of San Francisco quietly announced that a priest has been assigned as chaplain at the parish’s school.

The connection between the efforts to push out both priest and archbishop became national news when more than 100 “prominent Catholics” published a full-page open letter to Pope Francis in the April 16 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. “Please replace Archbishop Cordileone,” the letter asked the Pope. Many of the signers are known to oppose Catholic teaching on marriage.

Among the letter’s grievances against the archbishop was his selection of Father Illo as the pastor of Star of the Sea Parish. Father Illo “marginalizes women’s participation in the church by banning girls from altar service,” the letter claimed (Father Illo explained his altar-server policy to CWR in January; he later agreed to let girls serve as acolytes at school Masses at Star of the Sea, while retaining his “boys-only” policy for parish Masses, as this move had been welcomed by regular Mass-goers). Father Illo also “inexplicably distributed to elementary school children an age-inappropriate and potentially abusive, sexually-oriented pamphlet,” the letter states (Father Illo apologized for the incident as an “oversight” and said the pamphlet—an examination of conscience—should have been given to the parents instead of the children). Finally, the letter to the Holy Father alleges that Father Illo has a “troubled history of questionable judgment as a pastor outside our diocese.”

It now appears that the “troubled history” ascribed to Father Illo refers to a civil settlement from a decade ago. Certain documents concerning the case were recently distributed to parents and teachers at Star of the Sea School, and a series of local media reports indicate that some parents have renewed calls for Father Illo’s removal in light of this case. This week the archdiocese announced that Father Vito J. Perone has been assigned as chaplain at Star of the Sea School, although Father Illo has not been removed from his post as parish administrator.

In March 2005, a San Joaquin County Superior Court jury found that Father Illo had inflicted emotional distress on an 11-year-old girl who had accused his associate pastor, Father Francis Arakal, of sexual misconduct in September 2001. A criminal investigation after the girl’s accusation had found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Father Arakal, but the following year the girl’s mother filed a lawsuit against Father Arakal, Father Illo, and the Diocese of Stockton, alleging sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other things.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Who really won? The sisters or the Vatican?”

Pope Francis meets with representatives of the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious in his library in the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican April 16.  (CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano)

Who really won? The sisters or the Vatican?” | Ann Carey | CWR blog

The various "LCWR vs. The Vatican" news stories have misunderstood or misrepresented many of the basic facts

A French journalist I know called me for help on an article she was writing about the reform plan for the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) accepted April 16 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

She said she was confused by all the articles on the topic in the U.S. press and wanted to ask me “Who really won? The sisters or the Vatican?”

At first I was stunned by this win-lose terminology, and I wondered why she would have considered the doctrinal reform of a canonically-erected entity to be a conflict of some kind, with the outcome producing a winner and a loser.

My own impression of the outcome was that everyone won because the CDF had helped the LCWR to be a better organization for sisters by refocusing its role to be “centered on Jesus Christ and faithful to the teachings of the Church,” according to the final report.

Then I took time to read several media stories on the topic and discovered that some of the articles made it sound as if the CDF’s reform of the LCWR indeed was adversarial, akin to “Gunfight at the O.K. Corral” or a new “Star Wars” sequel.

Consider, for example, this headline from the April 16 New York Times: “Vatican Ends Battle With U.S. Catholic Nuns’ Group.” Writer Laurie Goodstein then went on to use such inflammatory language as “confrontation,” “vexing and unjust inquisition” and “standoff.”

Several other articles used similar language, saying the reform effort was a “takeover” of the group, and some simply declared that the sisters had won a battle with the Vatican. Miriam Krule writing for Slate called the reform agreement a “victory and vindication for LCWR.”

It seems as if some writers simply shaped the outcome to reflect their own hopes and expectations. No wonder my French friend was confused.

Adding to her confusion were articles that contained downright incorrect information on the topic, making me wonder if the writers had actually read the CDF-LCWR joint final report. Perhaps accurate research is just not their thing.

For example, several articles reported that the reform was ended “abruptly” or “early,” an indication that the Holy See just wanted to be done with the matter.

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

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.