5540

"My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine."

$5,540 out of $379,035? Really? Now in fairness, maybe the VP has given $100,000 secretly and doesn't report it on his income tax statement. On the other hand, maybe his adherence to Catholic social doctrine is as faithful as his adherence to Catholic moral teachings.

Understand I'm not criticizing how much he gives compared to anyone else, I'm pointing out his hypocrisy.

Read More

The Great Divorce

I am really getting frightened for our country, and our kids. I hear our dear leader being called Caesar, and I don't think of Julius, but Nero. Bread and circuses, fiddling, Christian persecution, he seems to have it all. Worse yet, he seems to have done his homework on how to cause a schism in the Church, or at least exploit the latent schism in American culture.

It's enough to make one think the end times are here. Well, perhaps not, but I do hear everything from (premature) triumphalism to (hopefully premature) despair. There are certainly small triumphs, but also small defeats every day. I do think it's fairly plain if you look without bias that four more years on this same track, and the good cardinal's fears will become fact, and that thought sobers me. From the USCCB letter referenced above:

Consider the following:

• HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services has received wide attention and has been met with our vigorous and united opposition. In an unprecedented way, the federal government will both force religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching and purport to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty. These features of the “preventive services” mandate amount to an unjust law. As Archbishop-designate William Lori of Baltimore, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, testified to Congress: “This is not a matter of whether contraception may be prohibited by the government. This is not even a matter of whether contraception may be supported by the government. Instead, it is a matter of whether religious people and institutions may be forced by the government to provide coverage for contraception or sterilization, even if that violates their religious beliefs.”
• State immigration laws. Several states have recently passed laws that forbid what the government deems “harboring” of undocumented immigrants—and what the Church deems Christian charity and pastoral care to those immigrants. Perhaps the most egregious of these is in Alabama, where the Catholic bishops, in cooperation with the Episcopal and Methodist bishops of Alabama, filed suit against the law:

It is with sadness that we brought this legal action but with a deep sense that we, as people of faith, have no choice but to defend the right to the free exercise of religion granted to us as citizens of Alabama. . . . The law makes illegal the exercise of our Christian religion which we, as citizens of Alabama, have a right to follow. The law prohibits almost everything which would assist an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant. Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches.

• Altering Church structure and governance. In 2009, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut Legislature proposed a bill that would have forced Catholic parishes to be restructured according to a congregational model, recalling the trusteeism controversy of the early nineteenth century, and prefiguring the federal government’s attempts to redefine for the Church “religious minister” and “religious employer” in the years since.
• Christian students on campus. In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.
• Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.
• Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City enacted a rule that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and sixty other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for scores of other uses. While this would not frequently affect Catholic parishes, which generally own their own buildings, it would be devastating to many smaller congregations. It is a simple case of discrimination against religious believers.
• Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. Notwithstanding years of excellent performance by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require us to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching. Religious institutions should not be disqualified from a government contract based on religious belief, and they do not somehow lose their religious identity or liberty upon entering such contracts. And yet a federal court in Massachusetts, turning religious liberty on its head, has since declared that such a disqualification is required by the First Amendment—that the government somehow violates religious liberty by allowing Catholic organizations to participate in contracts in a manner consistent with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.

Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans.

The above excerpt is just a list of some of the issues discussed. The entire letter is well worth a read. The thing that gives me hope (and despair) are the words of St Francis - "Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society." There is a Church Triumphant, but it is not on this Earth. St. Jude, ora pro nobis.

[N.B. The title of this post is an excellent book by C. S. Lewis - highly recommended by yours truly.]

Read More

It's no joke

Sometimes Pro-lifers can be jerks. Hey, even I have been a jerk (maybe, once). Sometimes in the zeal to be right we want others to be wrong, and we forget that they are people too, and not everything they do is always wrong and evil. And so it is that I can't agree with my fellow pro-lifers in the condemnation of the laughing abortionist.

Yes, there is the 911 call audio, and yes, he laughs during the call. But from the outrage and headlines and accusations you might picture him cackling maniacally over the writhing body of a suffering woman, as he kicks her in the teeth and steals her baby.

I listened to the audio. Despite the fact that he is an abortionist he doesn't sound maniacal. To me he sounds scared. The laughter isn't the snide, contemptuous laughter of someone who despises the woman in their care, nor is the the "nudge nudge wink wink" laughter of someone cavalier about the well being of another. To me it sounds like nervous laughter of someone who feels powerless to help the person in front of them and really wishes they could.

For all I know I am wrong and everyone else is right. But I think rather than condemning this man for his laughter I'll pray that both the doctor on the phone and the woman in distress are OK, and that they experience and know God's mercy and love.

Read More

Where is the US?

I recently came across this news article, "Egypt Remains on the List of Worst Religious Freedom Violators". The article talks about the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's report released on March 20. From the article:

The commission's most recent reporting period was also a time of difficulty for religious believers in the People's Republic of China, where authorities have pursued a policy of nationalistic control over the Catholic Church and other institutions.

In its 2012 report, the commission said the Communist nation “continues to interfere in the religious activities of Chinese Catholics,” particularly through its harassment of both state-recognized and unregistered clergy.

Commission members accused Beijing of blocking Catholic clergy from communicating with the Vatican, and said the government “continues to deny Catholic leaders the right to abstain from activities that contravene Holy See policies.”

[emphasis mine] and

In his announcement of the report's release, commission chair Leonard Leo explained that governments “too often stand idly by in the face of violent attacks against religious minorities and dissenting members of majority faiths.”

He described religious freedom as “inseparable” from other civil rights, noting that it is often “the first human right threatened by tyranny.”

During 2011, the commission's own work was threatened when a bill reauthorizing its existence was stalled in Congress. According to CQ Weekly, which reports on developments in Congress, the re-authorization stalled because of a “hold” placed on it by Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).

The last-minute re-authorization, passed in December 2011, established term limits and travel restrictions on the commissioners. Its provisions called for five of the nine commission members to resign their positions on March 21, one day after the release of its 2012 report.

Interesting, and I could see why the administration would want to remove this committee. If you look at the part in bold above, the Chinese government “continues to deny Catholic leaders the right to abstain from activities that contravene Holy See policies.”

Last I looked, paying for abortion and contraception was against Holy See policy. In fact, the Catechism says:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

...and I believe with the HHS contraception mandate Catholic leaders are not allowed to abstain from paying for abortifacients and contraceptives.

So, where is the US on that list?

Read More

A Special Scout is Born

When my wife was pregnant with her first, we were overjoyed. And so it was quite a shock to us when the doctor told us that preliminary tests indicated our baby might have a genetic defect. Up to that point I had never given it much thought. We asked the doctor what the next steps were. He indicated that we could have another, more accurate test done. OK, then what? Then we could decide to "terminate".

My wife and I talked it over, and given that "termination" was not an option, we saw no reason to have any more testing done. We worried for a while. It turned out that our son was "normal", and we were relived, but it always left me with the nagging thought that of the 90% of Down Syndrome children who are killed before they see the light of day, maybe some of them were "false positives" on the test. I doubt many people who abort have the fetal remains tested and check the results. I doubt many doctors would suggest it, since it would expose them to a potential lawsuit.

Fast forward to the present. I have sons in Boy Scouts. In our troop there is a boy with Down Syndrome. He has made me realize that the reluctance I had (and the world has) to face these people and welcome them is just completely wrong. Although he can't do all of the things the other kids can do, he is a warm loving caring perfectly wonderful human being, and a great asset to our troop. I can't imagine it without him.

Far from teasing him or getting frustrated with him, the other boys respect him and stand up for him. They watch out for him, and make sure he is included in everything. So last week, not only did we win the football game, but the boys made sure he got a chance to score. At Summer camp last year he was sick and had to be hospitalized. The boys visited him religiously, and brought him toys and games. And when he got out of the hospital and came to a troop meeting, he got a standing ovation. He was too weak to stand much that night, so he sat in a chair and the other boys carried him and the chair around all night so he could be in the middle of all the activities.

They don't do this because we tell them to (we don't), or because they pity him (they don't), but because they love him. That's not to say he is a perfect scout, or a perfect person, but he has changed the way I look at the "disabled" for the better. On this World Down Syndrome Day I just wanted to say "thanks."

[N.B. The title of this post is a riff on the book A Special Mother is Born by Letitcia Velasquez. If you are interested in learning more, or helping people with Down Syndrome, check out the Jerome Lejeune Foundation or Reece's Rainbow.]

Read More

An Open Letter

Well, I know this is lazy of me, but I can't come up with anything more clever or cogent than what Marc has written at the Bad Catholic blog. Some excerpts (although please read the whole thing here - it is well worth a few minutes:

Catholicism, an antiquated, dying religion without many members — oh, snap, wait, I meant the largest form of Christianity in America and the largest religion in the world — teaches that the use of artificial contraception and sterilization is wrong, and thus does not allow its institutions to provide it. Here’s where everyone flips out and loses sight of the argument, so let me be absolutely clear: I am not arguing that the use of artificial contraception is wrong. I do believe this, and firmly, but this is neither the time nor place to argue the point.

In fact, it would be best for all of us — Catholics included — to think of this particular Catholic teaching as silly, overbearing, and unfit for the modern mind to contain. Think of this teaching as you might think of the Jewish prohibition on pork, or the Hindu’s holding of the cow as sacred. Why? Because prohibiting the free exercise of religion does not become allowed in cases in which you happen to disagree with the religion, no matter how vehemently, unless that religion is directly violating an individual’s rights.

Marc then goes on (with big steaming chunks of wit and wisdom) to demolish the "reasoning" that is usually used to defend the indefensible.

Really, read it. What are you still looking at this for?

Read More

Offensive

I once belonged to a group that met regularly. The place where we met raised its rates, and we could no longer afford to meet there without significantly raising dues. After a few weeks of calling around, a nearby Lutheran Church offered us a very good deal, and we moved our meetings there. It was wonderful. The church had a huge meeting room, with nice padded chairs and A/V equipment. The pastor bent over backwards for us. We were allowed to use the kitchen and to store our equipment in a storage room, and he even gave us our own key so we could use the place whenever it wasn't being used otherwise.

Two members refused to attend meetings there. The reason they gave was that the building was owned by a church, and they had to see a cross when they went into the building. They mounted a campaign, and when our agreement with the church was up, the membership voted overwhelmingly to move to a different (smaller, more expensive) place (with limited meeting hours). The reason put forth was that the club was excluding people unfairly by meeting in a building owned by a church.

Afterwards I spoke to a friend about it, a practicing Catholic friend. He told me how he felt we had to be inclusive, and of course it was wrong to meet in a church building. I asked him if he thought we should cater to bigotry like that. He said it wasn't bigotry because it was a religious thing. After all, they are entitled to their beliefs.

I had a similar moment with the recent anti-Catholic New York Times ad, and the recent anti-Catholic HuffPo article (I'm not linking to them here, I'm sure you can find them if you want to). Several friends have told me "oh, that's not anti-Catholic, that's just expressing how people feel" and "it's a religion - everybody's entitled to their religious belief." And everybody is entitled to their religious belief. But that still doesn't justify bigotry.

So what's the litmus test for bigotry? Mine is this. If you substitute "black" or "Jew" or "women" or "gay" or any other "protected" group for the group in question, would you say it is bigotry? Suppose the gentleman in my original example refused to go into a building owned by African Americans, specifically because it was owned by them, and because he had to see a picture of a black person when they went into the building. Would you call that bigotry? Suppose the NYT ad was encouraging gays to leave the gay lifestyle and become chaste? And suppose it did so by calling them all the kinds of things they referred to in the anti-Catholic ad. Do you think the NYT would even carry it, let alone survive the outcry that would result? Suppose the HuffPo article was talking about Jews, using all the stereotypes and attitudes of antisemites. Would it still be just a humorous article? Would you laugh?

How is it different when it's Catholics?

Read More