Today's Gospel from John is the great story of the woman caught in the very act of adultery and presented for Jesus' judgment. The story is cryptic. We all know the ending that the men holding the stones drop them after Jesus commands: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (RSV). Here is the great teaching of radical mercy and forgiveness by humans who recognize their own need for mercy and forgiveness. No one knows what Jesus was writing in the sand. The cryptic nature of this action and the cryptic nature of the sin of the stone throwers is an irresistible invitation to speculate. So what follows is speculation, but hopefully it is responsible speculation because it is based on human experience and on other biblical texts.
The background for the stoning lies in the Jewish law. The Law provided that a man and woman caught in adultery were to be stoned. Not the woman alone, but also the man (see Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). In addition, as implied by the gospel story, the Law appeared to require more than one witness. The witnesses were to be the ones to throw the first stone, followed by the other assembled people (Deuteronomy 17:7). And so Jesus says: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (RSV; emphasis added). The first stone thrower had to be an actual witness. No one struck first. That means that the actual witnesses-- remember there had to be more than one witness-- were not without sin.
Who were the actual witnesses? Were they persons who happened to come across, by accident, the woman and her partner in adultery? Or was her adulterous partner himself one of the those who came forward as a witness? Were the additional witnesses also past partners in adultery with the very same woman? How did more than one man come to be an actual witness of her adultery? And where is the male partner in adultery who should also have been stoned?
It is indeed possible that the witnesses before Jesus were themselves the men involved in adulterous relations with the woman. I suspect this possibility because the entire episode has a "kangaroo court" atmosphere to it, even though the proceeding was in accordance with the law and the woman's guilt was undisputed. The kangaroo court ambience arises from the fact that the real target was not so much the woman but Jesus himself. The gospel makes clear that the purpose for the entire spectacle was "to test him [Jesus], that they might have some charge to bring against him" (Jn 8:6).
In Luke, the same ambush tactics are also attempted in raising the issue of paying tribute to Caesar. In that episode, the scribes and chief priests "sent agents to pose as upright men" (Lk 20:20 New Jerusalem Bible). So it is quite possible that imposters posing as upright men showed up as the witnesses to the adultery. They were imposters because the Law required that the male partners in adultery also be stoned to death. By presenting themselves as witnesses before the community, these men were implicitly claiming that they had certainly never committed adultery with this woman or any other woman for that matter.
The pressing and practical need to speedily round up a woman to trap Jesus would make it tempting to grab a well-known and easily located adulteress. The convenient thing to do would be to find a woman with "a bad name" as in the story of the woman anointing Jesus' feet with ointment (Lk 7: 36-50). The male partners of the adulteress were in the best position to efficiently locate her and catch her in the very act and thus provide the legally required witnesses.
In other words, it is quite plausible that the woman was set to be stoned by the very men who had exploited her in the past. The witnesses were implicated in her adultery. They could not cast the first stone as required by the Law. Again, this scenario is speculation, but it is plausible. In any event, the scenario outlined above does not contradict the thrust of the story: there were in fact no upright witnesses present to stone her first as required by the Law.
Jesus knew this. The gospels affirm Jesus' ability to know what lurked in people's hearts. He could see through them. And so Jesus upheld the Law and freed the woman: no witness was upright enough to cast the first stone. Jesus brought justice to an illegal kangaroo court.
As said in the reading from Isaiah, Jesus is "doing something new": only the law of forgiveness is really workable in our fallen condition. So Paul can say in today's reading that he considers all things "so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ." Jesus by fulfilling the Law surpasses the Law and introduces a New Law of faith and forgiveness.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Heretic, Heterodox, or Liberal?
In my own writings, I find it necessary to use an informative label for those Catholic theologians who reject the Church's teachings on abortion, birth control, the all-male priesthood, and homosexuality. If I merely refer to these Catholic theologians as "Catholic theologians," I am misleading my readers. Yet, some say that by using the label "liberal" we are dividing the Church. The argument is wrongheaded because the division pre-exists any label. These particular Catholic theologians reject one or more of the Church's teachings on the issues listed above or on other issues mentioned below. So an olympian aloofness from informative labels is not a viable alternative if we do not want to be misleading. In my opinion, there is an element of denial lurking in some who eschew useful and necessary labels. Denial has deeply harmed the Church in the current homosexual scandals. Denial can cause even further harm on theological matters. In fact, a strong case can be made that denial about loss of theological fidelity is what laid the foundation for the current homosexual scandal in the first place.
So I think it is indeed obligatory for writers to use labels such as "liberal" to signal to readers that the theologian under discussion is a pick-and-choose or "cafeteria" theologian. To do otherwise is to participate in the very deception that these liberal theologians espouse by calling themselves Catholic.
In my opinion, one label that should be used with care is that of "heretic" which in Catholic usage has a very specific meaning. As Fr. Hardon says, "heresy" refers to the denial or doubt of any truth "that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith" (Modern Catholic Dictionary, s.v. "Heresy"). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that these truths of divine and Catholic faith are those truths "contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgement as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra', or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (CDF, Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei,' section 5, June 29, 1998). Those who doubt or deny such truths are guilty of heresy (Ibid.).
Some examples of truths whose denial is heretical include: "the articles of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; . . . the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; . . . [and] the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being" (Ibid., section 11). The full list is available at the CDF document cited above (see CDF document at ewtn.com). But even from my partial and incomplete listing, we can make some reasonable judgments. Theologian Hans Küng holds heretical views because he does not fully accept the Christological teachings of the Council of Nicaea and does not accept "the ecumenicity" of Vatican I which defined the primacy and infallibility of the pope (Aidan Nichols, O.P., The Shape of Catholic Theology [Liturgical Press, 1991], pp. 15-16). Theologian Roger Haight, S.J., is currently under Vatican investigation for possible heresy because of his Christological writings which seem to deny the divinity of Christ. In my opinion, based on what I have read, Haight does in fact deny the divinity of Christ (see Catholic Analysis archives for 2/16/04 & 10/6/03). Feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson of Fordham University also holds heretical views because she does not view the passion and death of Christ as willed by God, as is plainly taught in the Scriptures (see Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J., She Who Is [Crossroad, 1993], pp. 158-59).
So the label "heretic" or "heretical" has its place when used with precision. Yet, to call someone a "heretic," does not imply that the person is knowingly a heretic. The person may be merely a "material heretic" who acts out of ignorance, as opposed to a "formal heretic." But I submit that Catholic academic theologians who hold heretical views are more likely than not formal heretics because of their specialized training.
The heretical label also applies to those arguing that abortion is moral and/or legally appropriate. Thus, we can say that Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion hold heretical views. In my view, since Scripture plainly teaches that homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil, those viewing homosexual activity as moral also hold heretical views and that judgment obviously includes those Catholic theologians and clerics who favor gay marriage.
As to the teaching on the all-male priesthood, the appropriate label is that those who deny this Church teaching are not "in full communion with the Catholic Church" because it is an example of a truth necessarily connected to the truths of divine and Catholic faith that we have just discussed (Ibid., section 6). Such truths necessarily connected to the truths of divine and Catholic faith form a second distinct category. (The first category includes the truths of divine and Catholic faith proper). Thus, those Catholic theologians who favor the ordination of women are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. What do we call them? They do not technically fit under the label "heretic" as defined above, although in the future they may appropriately come under the label "heretic" if the Church goes even further and proclaims this already definitive teaching on the priesthood as a dogma "of divine and catholic faith" (see Ibid., sections 6, 7). In the meantime, I favor referring to them as "heterodox," literally meaning those who hold a "different opinion or teaching" from that of the Church.
As to the issue of birth control, in my view and that of some others, this is a truth of divine and Catholic faith and thus its denial is heretical because it is a truth that has always been taught by Tradition (cp. Lawler, Boyle, & May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, 2nd ed. [OSV, 1998], pp. 148-51). Others would at least place it as a truth of the second category discussed above, like the teaching on the all-male priesthood. So a theologian denying the Church's teaching in Humanae Vitae is at least heterodox, if not a heretic. Such a theologian in my view is not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
So "liberal" theologians usually come in two varieties: heretical or heterodox. The word "liberal" is useful because it can cover both categories without involving the general reader in fine distinctions. So, for my part, as a writer for the general public, I cannot practice the olympian disdain for labels such as "liberal" or "conservative." They are necessary to speak accurately to a wider audience-- a necessity created by the heretical and heterodox views of some so-called Catholic theologians and even of some clerics. The use of the label "liberal" is also more charitable in the sense that it reflects prudent restraint in applying the label of heresy.
So I think it is indeed obligatory for writers to use labels such as "liberal" to signal to readers that the theologian under discussion is a pick-and-choose or "cafeteria" theologian. To do otherwise is to participate in the very deception that these liberal theologians espouse by calling themselves Catholic.
In my opinion, one label that should be used with care is that of "heretic" which in Catholic usage has a very specific meaning. As Fr. Hardon says, "heresy" refers to the denial or doubt of any truth "that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith" (Modern Catholic Dictionary, s.v. "Heresy"). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that these truths of divine and Catholic faith are those truths "contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgement as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra', or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (CDF, Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the 'Professio fidei,' section 5, June 29, 1998). Those who doubt or deny such truths are guilty of heresy (Ibid.).
Some examples of truths whose denial is heretical include: "the articles of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; . . . the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; . . . [and] the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being" (Ibid., section 11). The full list is available at the CDF document cited above (see CDF document at ewtn.com). But even from my partial and incomplete listing, we can make some reasonable judgments. Theologian Hans Küng holds heretical views because he does not fully accept the Christological teachings of the Council of Nicaea and does not accept "the ecumenicity" of Vatican I which defined the primacy and infallibility of the pope (Aidan Nichols, O.P., The Shape of Catholic Theology [Liturgical Press, 1991], pp. 15-16). Theologian Roger Haight, S.J., is currently under Vatican investigation for possible heresy because of his Christological writings which seem to deny the divinity of Christ. In my opinion, based on what I have read, Haight does in fact deny the divinity of Christ (see Catholic Analysis archives for 2/16/04 & 10/6/03). Feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson of Fordham University also holds heretical views because she does not view the passion and death of Christ as willed by God, as is plainly taught in the Scriptures (see Elizabeth Johnson, C.S.J., She Who Is [Crossroad, 1993], pp. 158-59).
So the label "heretic" or "heretical" has its place when used with precision. Yet, to call someone a "heretic," does not imply that the person is knowingly a heretic. The person may be merely a "material heretic" who acts out of ignorance, as opposed to a "formal heretic." But I submit that Catholic academic theologians who hold heretical views are more likely than not formal heretics because of their specialized training.
The heretical label also applies to those arguing that abortion is moral and/or legally appropriate. Thus, we can say that Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion hold heretical views. In my view, since Scripture plainly teaches that homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil, those viewing homosexual activity as moral also hold heretical views and that judgment obviously includes those Catholic theologians and clerics who favor gay marriage.
As to the teaching on the all-male priesthood, the appropriate label is that those who deny this Church teaching are not "in full communion with the Catholic Church" because it is an example of a truth necessarily connected to the truths of divine and Catholic faith that we have just discussed (Ibid., section 6). Such truths necessarily connected to the truths of divine and Catholic faith form a second distinct category. (The first category includes the truths of divine and Catholic faith proper). Thus, those Catholic theologians who favor the ordination of women are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. What do we call them? They do not technically fit under the label "heretic" as defined above, although in the future they may appropriately come under the label "heretic" if the Church goes even further and proclaims this already definitive teaching on the priesthood as a dogma "of divine and catholic faith" (see Ibid., sections 6, 7). In the meantime, I favor referring to them as "heterodox," literally meaning those who hold a "different opinion or teaching" from that of the Church.
As to the issue of birth control, in my view and that of some others, this is a truth of divine and Catholic faith and thus its denial is heretical because it is a truth that has always been taught by Tradition (cp. Lawler, Boyle, & May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, 2nd ed. [OSV, 1998], pp. 148-51). Others would at least place it as a truth of the second category discussed above, like the teaching on the all-male priesthood. So a theologian denying the Church's teaching in Humanae Vitae is at least heterodox, if not a heretic. Such a theologian in my view is not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
So "liberal" theologians usually come in two varieties: heretical or heterodox. The word "liberal" is useful because it can cover both categories without involving the general reader in fine distinctions. So, for my part, as a writer for the general public, I cannot practice the olympian disdain for labels such as "liberal" or "conservative." They are necessary to speak accurately to a wider audience-- a necessity created by the heretical and heterodox views of some so-called Catholic theologians and even of some clerics. The use of the label "liberal" is also more charitable in the sense that it reflects prudent restraint in applying the label of heresy.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Terrorists and Pro-Abortion Forces: One Culture of Death
In what the New York Times is calling ruefully the "second major victory" in this Congress for pro-life forces, the Senate approved a bill treating an unborn child as a separate crime victim when a pregnant woman is attacked. Pro-abortion Democrats, including presidential nominee John Kerry, voted against the measure for the obvious reason that it treats the unborn child as a legal person with legal rights. The pro-abortion activists are pulling their hairs and tearing their garments over this codification of what they view as blasphemy. The first major victory for pro-life forces in this Congress occurred when President Bush signed the ban on partial birth abortion. President Bush has already announced that he will sign this new bill to protect the unborn child as a crime victim.
The pro-abortion forces are right in this sense: this legislation is a step toward exposing the contradiction in our legal house in which the unborn child's obvious humanity and life are ignored. Just as a house divided against itself cannot stand, so a legal system in self-contradiction cannot stand. Either the unborn child is human and therefore has an inviolable right to life, or the unborn child is not human and is a mere commodity to be disposed of as adults see fit. The Republican Congress and Republican President have made their choice for life. John Kerry and the pro-abortion Democrats have said no to life. In my opinion, any informed Catholic still hesitating about whom to vote for in November should have his head or his theology examined.
This legislation is a major defeat for the culture of death. It would never happen under a presidency controlled by the Democratic Party, the proudly self-proclaimed Culture of Death party. So let there be no doubt: a vote for John Kerry is a vote for the Culture of Death.
Here is a crucial excerpt from the article:
Source: Carl Hulse, "Senate Outlaws Injury to Fetus During Crime," N.Y. Times online (free reg'n required), Washington section, Mar. 26, 2004 (emphasis added).
Here is the detailed Democratic response:
Source: Hulse, N.Y. Times (free reg'n required) (emphasis added).
Sen. Feinstein is right in this limited sense: this is indeed the first strike against abortion. The self-anointed party of social justice, the Democratic Party, is shocked and troubled that self-evident truth is codified by this bill. Indeed, the unborn child is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." That definition is absolutely undeniable, and it represents the most basic and fundamental form of social justice. What should really trouble the pro-abortion forces is that their own position requires them to deny this obvious truth.
All of which brings us back, surprisingly but relevantly, to the issue of the war of terror. The United States is at war over its survival. Our enemies wish to destroy us, not to "dialogue" with us. But the battlefields are not only in the deserts or mountain ranges of the Middle East or even at the site of the now destroyed World Trade Center. The battlefield for the survival of American civilization is also in the halls of Congress and our courts.
We are now seeing the absurd legal spectacle of a misguided atheist father obsessively pushing to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. We see one major party, the Democratic Party, and its presidential nominee embracing the Culture of Death with gusto. In my view, these internal forces for moral chaos are more dangerous than any terrorist attack. The country will always recover even from the most terrible attack the terrorists can mount or imagine. But what is mortally dangerous is a country's moral self-destruction. The terrorists in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not blind. When they see a nation embracing its moral self-destruction, they see an omen of weakness spurring them on in their quest to destroy a weakening America. The message sent to the Middle Eastern terrorists when the courts and the Democrats seek to dismantle morality is a message of weakness. For the terrorists, as for criminals in general, weakness is a red flag. Weakness urges the terrorists never to give up their quest to destroy American civilization. These are times when fundamental issues are coming together in rapid and surprising ways. Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear heed the signs of the times.
The pro-abortion forces are right in this sense: this legislation is a step toward exposing the contradiction in our legal house in which the unborn child's obvious humanity and life are ignored. Just as a house divided against itself cannot stand, so a legal system in self-contradiction cannot stand. Either the unborn child is human and therefore has an inviolable right to life, or the unborn child is not human and is a mere commodity to be disposed of as adults see fit. The Republican Congress and Republican President have made their choice for life. John Kerry and the pro-abortion Democrats have said no to life. In my opinion, any informed Catholic still hesitating about whom to vote for in November should have his head or his theology examined.
This legislation is a major defeat for the culture of death. It would never happen under a presidency controlled by the Democratic Party, the proudly self-proclaimed Culture of Death party. So let there be no doubt: a vote for John Kerry is a vote for the Culture of Death.
Here is a crucial excerpt from the article:
The Senate's action was the second major victory in the Republican controlled Congress for the anti-abortion movement, which had sought this legislation since 1999. Last November, Mr. Bush signed into law a ban on the procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion. He strongly supported the latest legislation, referred to as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, voted against the measure and was criticized by family members of crime victims on hand for the debate.
Source: Carl Hulse, "Senate Outlaws Injury to Fetus During Crime," N.Y. Times online (free reg'n required), Washington section, Mar. 26, 2004 (emphasis added).
Here is the detailed Democratic response:
Opponents of the proposal, while saying they sympathized with the desire to severely punish anyone who would attack pregnant women, said they were troubled by the definition of the "child in utero" covered under the bill as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and others said they believed that once that definition was written into federal law it would ultimately be used as an argument to overturn existing laws protecting abortion rights.
"This will be the first strike against all abortion in the United States of America," Ms. Feinstein said. She said a federal statute declaring that life begins at conception could ultimately lead to a court finding that "embryonic stem cell research becomes murder and abortion in the first trimester becomes murder as well."
"That's where this debate is taking us," Ms. Feinstein said, "that's the reason for this bill."
Source: Hulse, N.Y. Times (free reg'n required) (emphasis added).
Sen. Feinstein is right in this limited sense: this is indeed the first strike against abortion. The self-anointed party of social justice, the Democratic Party, is shocked and troubled that self-evident truth is codified by this bill. Indeed, the unborn child is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." That definition is absolutely undeniable, and it represents the most basic and fundamental form of social justice. What should really trouble the pro-abortion forces is that their own position requires them to deny this obvious truth.
All of which brings us back, surprisingly but relevantly, to the issue of the war of terror. The United States is at war over its survival. Our enemies wish to destroy us, not to "dialogue" with us. But the battlefields are not only in the deserts or mountain ranges of the Middle East or even at the site of the now destroyed World Trade Center. The battlefield for the survival of American civilization is also in the halls of Congress and our courts.
We are now seeing the absurd legal spectacle of a misguided atheist father obsessively pushing to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. We see one major party, the Democratic Party, and its presidential nominee embracing the Culture of Death with gusto. In my view, these internal forces for moral chaos are more dangerous than any terrorist attack. The country will always recover even from the most terrible attack the terrorists can mount or imagine. But what is mortally dangerous is a country's moral self-destruction. The terrorists in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not blind. When they see a nation embracing its moral self-destruction, they see an omen of weakness spurring them on in their quest to destroy a weakening America. The message sent to the Middle Eastern terrorists when the courts and the Democrats seek to dismantle morality is a message of weakness. For the terrorists, as for criminals in general, weakness is a red flag. Weakness urges the terrorists never to give up their quest to destroy American civilization. These are times when fundamental issues are coming together in rapid and surprising ways. Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear heed the signs of the times.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Conduct Belies the Rhetoric
The latest media storm or news cycle is the focus on former counterterrorism bureaucrat Richard Clarke who has written a book focused on painting the Bush administration as weak on terrorism. The immediate gut check you must make is this: to protect your children from future terror attacks, would you rather have George W. Bush or John Kerry in the White House? With Kerry, you will get more of what you got with Clinton: a "law enforcement" response to open war declared by the terrorists and an extreme reluctance to take bold military action against terrorists. Clarke's attacks will go down as another news cycle footnote because they contradict the gut check that most Americans will make on the issue.
But Clarke's attacks look even worse when examined closely. Richard Lowry in the New York Post dismembers the Clarke case in lawyer-like fashion and makes clear that the Clarke book is a woefully misleading exercise in anti-Bush spin. It is also becoming increasingly clear that this bureaucratic prima donna had a real problem with a new administration coming in and changing how things were done. In my view, he also appears to have a problem with working under Condoleeza Rice. The question is inevitable: could it be that he had problems working for an African-American female who is vastly more accomplished than the aging career bureaucrat whose career rise had plateaued? Scratch the surface of stridency without basis, and you will usually find the real curse of Cain that has brushed the lives of all of us: envy. Sometimes we are the envious, and sometimes we are the envied. In many ways, it is the most prominent mark of our fallen condition.
Beyond the hand-by-hand election year political combat, there is a wider drama going on: the drama of honor. In some other cultures, public servants with strongly held and honest views who see those views contradicted by policymakers do the honorable thing: they publicly resign. This option is especially appealing in the face of an urgent public danger such as terrorism. A resignation of honor serves two purposes. First, it is the natural reaction of a person of integrity who does not wish to compromise his honor by knowingly standing by while the common good is being ill-served. If Clarke was so troubled by what the Bush administration was doing, why didn't he resign prior to September 11th? I doubt he was under any economic duress to keep his job.
The second and more important reason for a public servant's resignation of honor is to put a crucial issue on the public agenda. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Clarke was a man of honor and integrity and if we in addition assume that he was honestly, genuinely, and extremely disturbed by the Bush approach to terrorism, Clarke's public resignation should have followed before September 11th. Yet, it did not. To make matters worse, the record shows Clarke making statements to the press directly contradicting his present criticisms of the Bush administration.
Some of us have resigned lucrative private sector positions because we felt that the work did not live up to our personal standards and ideals even when it meant a significant decrease in present and future income. Surely, a career public servant with plenty of government pension points already accumulated could have done the same. The wider lesson to learn from this news cycle footnote is that the concept of honor is indeed an archaic one in modern America. If we assume Clarke is sincere, then Clarke's silence and refusal to endure a public resignation of honor at the appropriate time confirm that honor has beome an outdated concept. But then again who can blame Clarke, who was just a bureaucrat? His boss for eight years, President Clinton, proved definitively that honor is dead in American public culture.
Update: Another interesting question that must be asked is why the Democrats are so eager to destroy the credibility of Bush National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Is it just a way to get Bush, or is it also a way to derail the future political prospects of Rice? The worst Democratic nightmare would be a Republican ticket in 2008 with a highly accomplished African-American woman of sterling reputation as the vice-presidential nominee. That nominee could only be Condoleezza Rice.
In any event, the Clarke potential to hurt Bush politically is slipping through the anguished fingers of John Kerry who, after initially remaining conveniently aloof, is now (as of March 28th) mournfully protesting the exposure of Clarke's lack of credibility. As usual, Mark Steyn of the UK Telegraph newspaper incisively buries the fiction book penned by Richard Clarke (Mark Steyn, "Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction," Telegraph online, Mar. 28, 2004).
But Clarke's attacks look even worse when examined closely. Richard Lowry in the New York Post dismembers the Clarke case in lawyer-like fashion and makes clear that the Clarke book is a woefully misleading exercise in anti-Bush spin. It is also becoming increasingly clear that this bureaucratic prima donna had a real problem with a new administration coming in and changing how things were done. In my view, he also appears to have a problem with working under Condoleeza Rice. The question is inevitable: could it be that he had problems working for an African-American female who is vastly more accomplished than the aging career bureaucrat whose career rise had plateaued? Scratch the surface of stridency without basis, and you will usually find the real curse of Cain that has brushed the lives of all of us: envy. Sometimes we are the envious, and sometimes we are the envied. In many ways, it is the most prominent mark of our fallen condition.
Beyond the hand-by-hand election year political combat, there is a wider drama going on: the drama of honor. In some other cultures, public servants with strongly held and honest views who see those views contradicted by policymakers do the honorable thing: they publicly resign. This option is especially appealing in the face of an urgent public danger such as terrorism. A resignation of honor serves two purposes. First, it is the natural reaction of a person of integrity who does not wish to compromise his honor by knowingly standing by while the common good is being ill-served. If Clarke was so troubled by what the Bush administration was doing, why didn't he resign prior to September 11th? I doubt he was under any economic duress to keep his job.
The second and more important reason for a public servant's resignation of honor is to put a crucial issue on the public agenda. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Clarke was a man of honor and integrity and if we in addition assume that he was honestly, genuinely, and extremely disturbed by the Bush approach to terrorism, Clarke's public resignation should have followed before September 11th. Yet, it did not. To make matters worse, the record shows Clarke making statements to the press directly contradicting his present criticisms of the Bush administration.
Some of us have resigned lucrative private sector positions because we felt that the work did not live up to our personal standards and ideals even when it meant a significant decrease in present and future income. Surely, a career public servant with plenty of government pension points already accumulated could have done the same. The wider lesson to learn from this news cycle footnote is that the concept of honor is indeed an archaic one in modern America. If we assume Clarke is sincere, then Clarke's silence and refusal to endure a public resignation of honor at the appropriate time confirm that honor has beome an outdated concept. But then again who can blame Clarke, who was just a bureaucrat? His boss for eight years, President Clinton, proved definitively that honor is dead in American public culture.
Update: Another interesting question that must be asked is why the Democrats are so eager to destroy the credibility of Bush National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Is it just a way to get Bush, or is it also a way to derail the future political prospects of Rice? The worst Democratic nightmare would be a Republican ticket in 2008 with a highly accomplished African-American woman of sterling reputation as the vice-presidential nominee. That nominee could only be Condoleezza Rice.
In any event, the Clarke potential to hurt Bush politically is slipping through the anguished fingers of John Kerry who, after initially remaining conveniently aloof, is now (as of March 28th) mournfully protesting the exposure of Clarke's lack of credibility. As usual, Mark Steyn of the UK Telegraph newspaper incisively buries the fiction book penned by Richard Clarke (Mark Steyn, "Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction," Telegraph online, Mar. 28, 2004).
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Taking Care of the Body: Why?
As an observer, I have been puzzled for some time whenever I visit a "health foods" co-op store. It is intuitively obvious from the leftist symbols at the one co-op store I usually, but infrequently, visit that the clientele is very culturally liberal--they are still selling "Peace" yard signs and protesting the Iraq war, they are still living the "sixties." Although, from happy experience, I know that it is dangerous to generalize too much from attire and demeanor, it seems a safe bet that most of the clientele in this unabashedly liberal enclave doesn't have much of a problem with the rest of the sixties legacy of sexual license and the freedom to experiment with various substances.
But something seems contradictory. The presumably liberal shoppers are quite concerned with what they eat as shown by their shopping habits. Yet, according to the sexual philosophy of liberalism, they are probably not overly concerned with whom they physically unite in the most intimate and intrusive way possible. Likewise, in this presumed sixties outlook, there is no "hang up" about experimenting with substances that are clearly harmful to both body and mind. The contradiction seems inescapable: pure vegetables and greens, impure acts and substances.
Is it just a matter that, like all of us, the liberal clientele is just a mixture of good and bad mired in confusion, and that the concern for healthy eating is merely an isolated and accidental island of sanity? Or is there a deeper connection between the serious concern for healthy food and the indifference to unhealthy unions and substances? A social science researcher armed with a clipboard could possibly find the answer-- but maybe not, given that any revealing answer by those surveyed would require significant self-reflection about an issue that they are likely to dismiss as irrelevant.
If the shoppers in fact view their strong interest in eating healthy products as consistent with promiscuity and substance abuse, what kind of reasoning would make it seem so to them? My own guess takes me back to the gospels, and, of all people, the much-maligned Pharisees. Like the health food store clientele, the Pharisees were not devils. In fact, they were laymen committed to a rigorous and idealistic following of the Law. Their project was noble. And surely we can grant that most of us have some noble aspirations, however confused the implementation of those aspirations may be.
In Matthew, Jesus gives the famous response to the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes that his disciples violated the tradition of the elders by not washing their hands when they ate:
Matthew 15:11, 17-20 (RSV).
While as Christians we are called to take reasonable care of our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of Christ points to a higher priority: how do we actively use our bodies. Out of the heart emerge the evil thoughts that issue in the bodily actions condemned by Jesus: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. As John Paul II's theology of the body teaches us, the reference to false witness and slander is not just a reference to that small but mighty member, the tongue (James 3:5), but can also be a reference to the language spoken by our bodies as a whole, especially in sexual acts.
So it seems that the Christian emphasis is on our bodily actions, not so much on how "clean" or pure our food is. The reason is that anyone can wash their hands as the elders did. To update the analogy, anyone can shop for organic food. What makes the crucial difference is the heart, and the bodily actions that emerge from the heart. So, in the end, why take care of the body? In my view, Christians should take care of the body so that it can be a vehicle for the expression of a pure and clean heart. Yet, there is nevertheless an element of eschatological detachment about the body: the Christian priority is on what we do with the body from the heart, and not so much with the strict physical or medical condition of the body.
So I submit that the true child of the sixties has things backwards. The true children of the sixties, like the Pharisee, view what they eat as defiling the body--or as they would say "toxic"--rather than focusing on their use of the same body. This backwards view is what makes the pursuit of pure eating ostensibly consistent with impure acts. If the cultural ambience at the liberal health food store is taken seriously, then my guess is that, surprise of surprises, the unreflective countercultural obsession with organic food may be a modern version of the Pharisaical excesses condemned by Jesus. Today's culturally convenient and exclusive identification of religious traditionalists with the Pharisees may be quite off base. You will see advertisements for "detoxifying" products at the co-op, but the most important toxicity is ignored. And so Pharisees, albeit with noble aspirations, may lurk even in easy-going countercultural enclaves.
But something seems contradictory. The presumably liberal shoppers are quite concerned with what they eat as shown by their shopping habits. Yet, according to the sexual philosophy of liberalism, they are probably not overly concerned with whom they physically unite in the most intimate and intrusive way possible. Likewise, in this presumed sixties outlook, there is no "hang up" about experimenting with substances that are clearly harmful to both body and mind. The contradiction seems inescapable: pure vegetables and greens, impure acts and substances.
Is it just a matter that, like all of us, the liberal clientele is just a mixture of good and bad mired in confusion, and that the concern for healthy eating is merely an isolated and accidental island of sanity? Or is there a deeper connection between the serious concern for healthy food and the indifference to unhealthy unions and substances? A social science researcher armed with a clipboard could possibly find the answer-- but maybe not, given that any revealing answer by those surveyed would require significant self-reflection about an issue that they are likely to dismiss as irrelevant.
If the shoppers in fact view their strong interest in eating healthy products as consistent with promiscuity and substance abuse, what kind of reasoning would make it seem so to them? My own guess takes me back to the gospels, and, of all people, the much-maligned Pharisees. Like the health food store clientele, the Pharisees were not devils. In fact, they were laymen committed to a rigorous and idealistic following of the Law. Their project was noble. And surely we can grant that most of us have some noble aspirations, however confused the implementation of those aspirations may be.
In Matthew, Jesus gives the famous response to the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes that his disciples violated the tradition of the elders by not washing their hands when they ate:
[Not] what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. . . . Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.
Matthew 15:11, 17-20 (RSV).
While as Christians we are called to take reasonable care of our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of Christ points to a higher priority: how do we actively use our bodies. Out of the heart emerge the evil thoughts that issue in the bodily actions condemned by Jesus: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. As John Paul II's theology of the body teaches us, the reference to false witness and slander is not just a reference to that small but mighty member, the tongue (James 3:5), but can also be a reference to the language spoken by our bodies as a whole, especially in sexual acts.
So it seems that the Christian emphasis is on our bodily actions, not so much on how "clean" or pure our food is. The reason is that anyone can wash their hands as the elders did. To update the analogy, anyone can shop for organic food. What makes the crucial difference is the heart, and the bodily actions that emerge from the heart. So, in the end, why take care of the body? In my view, Christians should take care of the body so that it can be a vehicle for the expression of a pure and clean heart. Yet, there is nevertheless an element of eschatological detachment about the body: the Christian priority is on what we do with the body from the heart, and not so much with the strict physical or medical condition of the body.
So I submit that the true child of the sixties has things backwards. The true children of the sixties, like the Pharisee, view what they eat as defiling the body--or as they would say "toxic"--rather than focusing on their use of the same body. This backwards view is what makes the pursuit of pure eating ostensibly consistent with impure acts. If the cultural ambience at the liberal health food store is taken seriously, then my guess is that, surprise of surprises, the unreflective countercultural obsession with organic food may be a modern version of the Pharisaical excesses condemned by Jesus. Today's culturally convenient and exclusive identification of religious traditionalists with the Pharisees may be quite off base. You will see advertisements for "detoxifying" products at the co-op, but the most important toxicity is ignored. And so Pharisees, albeit with noble aspirations, may lurk even in easy-going countercultural enclaves.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
What Our Culture Hates: Talk of Sin and the Devil
Our culture does not hate sin per se, but it surely hates talk of sin. Yet, some writers are still ready to give us the truth whole and unvarnished, however impolitic or "imprudent." In his writings in the theological specialty of Christology, Roch A. Kereszty, O.Cist., does just that:
Kereszty, Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology (N.Y.: Alba House, 1991), p. 162 (emphasis added).
Of course, we want to be our own norm of action. It means that no desire goes unfulfilled, regardless of the cost. Once you enter this process of self-justification, the possibilities are unfortunately endless:
Kereszty, p. 162.
In some form or another, we have all been there. Yet, Kereszty does not stop there. He is even more impolitic. He brings in Satan:
Kereszty, p. 163.
Padre, now Saint, Pio of Pietrelcina had direct and violent encounters with the devil. Most of us have not. But does the devil really need to confront us so visibly if we are already his instruments? If he confronts us visibly, most of us would turn our lives around on a dime. He obviously knows what he is about.
In discussing the redemption, Kereszty discusses what we desperately don't want to face: the consequences of sin. Here is what Kereszty describes:
Kereszty, p. 175.
Even after we are justified and forgiven, the consequences of sin remain in our world. Just ask the person with AIDS or those whose relationships are irreparably broken because of sin. By the redemption, Christ has broken the dominion of the devil and guaranteed the possibility of salvation. Yet, the devil still exacts his price from us even though we pretend he does not exist. Maybe he does so precisely because we love to tell ourselves that he does not exist.
Update: A Catholic Analysis reader informs me that other interested readers can find information on the second and enlarged edition of Kereszty's book at the Alba House website.
In whatever concrete way it is manifested, every sin is a freely committed disobedience against God. According to St. Augustine, the sinner attributes to himself what belongs to God; he wants to possess himself in a false way, as if he did not depend on God; he wants to be his own norm of action.
Kereszty, Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology (N.Y.: Alba House, 1991), p. 162 (emphasis added).
Of course, we want to be our own norm of action. It means that no desire goes unfulfilled, regardless of the cost. Once you enter this process of self-justification, the possibilities are unfortunately endless:
Not being at peace with himself, he [the sinner] turns frantically to created goods in a futile attempt to satisfy himself. The more he becomes attached to the goods of this world, the less fulfilled he feels and the more he keeps dissipating himself in a multiplicity of goods. In this way he is skidding down-hill from higher goods to lower ones and thereby intensifying his self-alienation and his alienation from his fellowmen.
Kereszty, p. 162.
In some form or another, we have all been there. Yet, Kereszty does not stop there. He is even more impolitic. He brings in Satan:
It is Satan or the devil who tempted and led into sin the first human couple, and henceforth, as a result of sin, exercises dominion over mankind. Being under the power of the devil means that sinful man becomes the instrument of the devil's projects; the evil effects of his deeds far exceed man's comprehension and intention.
Kereszty, p. 163.
Padre, now Saint, Pio of Pietrelcina had direct and violent encounters with the devil. Most of us have not. But does the devil really need to confront us so visibly if we are already his instruments? If he confronts us visibly, most of us would turn our lives around on a dime. He obviously knows what he is about.
In discussing the redemption, Kereszty discusses what we desperately don't want to face: the consequences of sin. Here is what Kereszty describes:
Sin has necessary consequences. It alienates man from his own nature, deprives him of the freedom to change the direction of his life, results in death, subjects one to the dominion of Satan. Because by its very nature sin implies a diminishing of freedom, man cannot free himself from it. Without God's initiative, mere moral self-improvement is doomed to failure. But, in his plan of redemption, God respects the order of reality he has created. If he is to act justly and wisely, he cannot ignore the situation man's sin has caused and cannot, by a sovereign act, abolish the consequences of sin.
Kereszty, p. 175.
Even after we are justified and forgiven, the consequences of sin remain in our world. Just ask the person with AIDS or those whose relationships are irreparably broken because of sin. By the redemption, Christ has broken the dominion of the devil and guaranteed the possibility of salvation. Yet, the devil still exacts his price from us even though we pretend he does not exist. Maybe he does so precisely because we love to tell ourselves that he does not exist.
Update: A Catholic Analysis reader informs me that other interested readers can find information on the second and enlarged edition of Kereszty's book at the Alba House website.
Monday, March 22, 2004
The Prophet Wojtyla
In 1960, Auxiliary Bishop Karol Wojtyla of Kraków, Poland, now John Paul II, published his book on sexual morality, Love and Responsibility (see Catholic Analysis, Mar. 19, 2004, for prior commentary on this book). In 1960, when my own parents married in a Hispanic country, they did so after a courtship which involved being chaperoned in public by my maternal grandmother. Even in the United States, in 1960, the conventional expectation was that at marriage at least the bride would be a virgin. Most people in 1960 probably could not have anticipated the collapse of sexual morality that would soon follow, a collapse that involved pulling the rug on centuries of Western consensus on the relations between men and women. In a way, the inner life, the heart, of our civilization collapsed while on the outside we enjoyed unprecedented power and affluence. The gospel image of the whited sepulchres comes to mind.
But in 1960, an auxiliary bishop and university professor in an isolated and economically backward Eastern European country captured perfectly the new paradigm of immorality that was rising in the West: the ethic of sexual utilitarianism. That ethic of sexual utilitarianism is today openly and blithely defended with a smile in internet discussions, assumed by "how-to" magazine articles targeting female readers, preached by the apostles of "safe sex," and lived out in widespread and accepted "shacking up" and in short-lived marriages. This sexual utilitarianism is celebrated in popular music so much so that, in truth, to refer to the genre of "romantic" music today is a laughable anachronism. We are in an age of sexual cynicism in which the ethos is perfectly captured by the refrain in one popular song that is a mindless staple of popular radio: "What's love got to do with it?"
The Kraków prophet analyzed this new paradigm for what it is-- old-fashioned egoism:
Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility (Ignatius Press, 1993), p. 37.
This egoism is the pursuit of pleasure by using another. The "gap" between utilitarianism's focus on the ego's pleasure and any concern for another must then be closed by resort to "a fiction, a semblance of altruism" (p. 38). The fiction is then that the noble fornicator is concerned about the pleasure of his partner:
Wojtyla, p. 38.
You will see this new paradigm of "mutual pleasure" peddled even by some high-minded liberal Christian leaders, such as Rowan Williams, the current spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion (see link).
But a problem arises when the myth of the noble fornicator is put into practice:
Wojtyla, p. 38.
The utilitarian will then try to "invoke something called the harmonization of egoisms" (p. 38). But the problem remains:
Wojtyla, p. 39 (emphasis added).
The above excerpt is a devastatingly accurate phenomenological description of our "hook-up" culture with its inevitable "un-hooking." And all of this chaos is masked with the terminology of "love": fornication becomes "making love," and the fornicator becomes a "lover," while the reality is simply egoism. We use each other, but love to mask it in the inapplicable vocabulary of love. After all, part of egoism is maintaining a healthy self-image and one's essential self-esteem. And so, like Rousseau's eighteenth century myth of the noble savage, we now live with the myth of the noble fornicator, while the casualties mount.
But in 1960, an auxiliary bishop and university professor in an isolated and economically backward Eastern European country captured perfectly the new paradigm of immorality that was rising in the West: the ethic of sexual utilitarianism. That ethic of sexual utilitarianism is today openly and blithely defended with a smile in internet discussions, assumed by "how-to" magazine articles targeting female readers, preached by the apostles of "safe sex," and lived out in widespread and accepted "shacking up" and in short-lived marriages. This sexual utilitarianism is celebrated in popular music so much so that, in truth, to refer to the genre of "romantic" music today is a laughable anachronism. We are in an age of sexual cynicism in which the ethos is perfectly captured by the refrain in one popular song that is a mindless staple of popular radio: "What's love got to do with it?"
The Kraków prophet analyzed this new paradigm for what it is-- old-fashioned egoism:
[T]he utilitarian mentality and attitude must be a heavy liability . . . [and especially] a particular threat in the sphere of sexual relations. The great danger lies in the fact that starting from utilitarian premises it is not clear how the cohabitation or association of people of different sex can be put on a plane of real love, and so freed from the dangers of 'using' a person . . . and of treating a person as a means to an end. Utilitarianism seems to be a programme of thoroughgoing egoism quite incapable of evolving into authentic altruism.
Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility (Ignatius Press, 1993), p. 37.
This egoism is the pursuit of pleasure by using another. The "gap" between utilitarianism's focus on the ego's pleasure and any concern for another must then be closed by resort to "a fiction, a semblance of altruism" (p. 38). The fiction is then that the noble fornicator is concerned about the pleasure of his partner:
If, while regarding pleasure as the only good, I also try to obtain the maximum pleasure for someone else-- and not just for myself, which would be blatant egoism-- then I put a value on pleasure of this other person only in so far as it gives pleasure to me: it gives me pleasure, that someone else is experiencing pleasure.
Wojtyla, p. 38.
You will see this new paradigm of "mutual pleasure" peddled even by some high-minded liberal Christian leaders, such as Rowan Williams, the current spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion (see link).
But a problem arises when the myth of the noble fornicator is put into practice:
If, however, I cease to experience pleasure, or it does not tally with my 'calculus of happiness' . . . then the pleasure of the other person ceases to be my obligation, a good for me, and may even become something positively bad. I shall then-- true to the principles of utilitarianism-- seek to eliminate the other person's pleasure because no pleasure for me is any longer bound up with it-- or at any rate the other person's pleasure will become a matter of indifference to me, and I shall not concern myself with it.
Wojtyla, p. 38.
The utilitarian will then try to "invoke something called the harmonization of egoisms" (p. 38). But the problem remains:
Egoism will remain egoism in this type of harmony [that is, "the greatest possible pleasure for each of the two persons"], the only difference being that these two egoisms, the man's and the woman's, will match each other and be mutually advantageous. The moment they cease to match and to be of advantage to each other, nothing at all is left of the harmony. . . . 'Love' in this utilitarian conception is a union of egoisms, which can hold together only on condition that they confront each other with nothing unpleasant, nothing to conflict with their mutual pleasure. Therefore love so understood is self-evidently merely a pretence which has to be carefully cultivated to keep the underlying reality hidden: the reality of egoism, and the greediest kind of egoism at that, exploiting another person to obtain for itself its own 'maximum pleasure'.
Wojtyla, p. 39 (emphasis added).
The above excerpt is a devastatingly accurate phenomenological description of our "hook-up" culture with its inevitable "un-hooking." And all of this chaos is masked with the terminology of "love": fornication becomes "making love," and the fornicator becomes a "lover," while the reality is simply egoism. We use each other, but love to mask it in the inapplicable vocabulary of love. After all, part of egoism is maintaining a healthy self-image and one's essential self-esteem. And so, like Rousseau's eighteenth century myth of the noble savage, we now live with the myth of the noble fornicator, while the casualties mount.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
4th Sunday of Lent: Joshua 5:9a, 10-12; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; Luke 15:1-3, 11-32
The reading from Joshua captures the moment when Israel definitively leaves the wilderness and begins to live in the Promised Land. Henceforth they "ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan." God removed "the reproach of Egypt."
St. Paul enthusiastically proclaims that in Christ "behold, the new has come." In The Passion of the Christ film, there is a singular moment when Jesus meets his Mother, our Mother, on the way of the cross and says to her in so many words, "I make all things new." As Paul says, in Christ we are new creatures. That is why we have to be ready for great surprises in our Christian journey. Our old sins and habits will be made new and transformed from weaknesses into strengths, into virtues. Such an amazing transformation means that we are entering the Promised Land. The reproach of Egypt has been removed.
In Luke, we have the familiar parable of the prodigal son who wasted his inheritance on "harlots." Well, the father in the parable was also prodigal in giving the confused son his inheritance, knowing full well of the risk that it would be wasted on harlots. Yet, the father continues to be prodigal. When the prodigal son returns from his desert of sin, the father unhesitatingly puts together a lavish and splendid feast. It is true that in our sins, ignorance, and confusion, we have freely wasted the extravagant gifts that the Father originally gave us. But it is also true that when we return to our Father, the Father continues to be generous and prodigal in making all things new in our lives. What awaits us upon our return to the Father are new things we could never imagine for ourselves after our long stay in the desert of sin, new things that may even be unnerving in their newness. God Himself is prodigal. He is generous. He is not a miser.
St. Paul enthusiastically proclaims that in Christ "behold, the new has come." In The Passion of the Christ film, there is a singular moment when Jesus meets his Mother, our Mother, on the way of the cross and says to her in so many words, "I make all things new." As Paul says, in Christ we are new creatures. That is why we have to be ready for great surprises in our Christian journey. Our old sins and habits will be made new and transformed from weaknesses into strengths, into virtues. Such an amazing transformation means that we are entering the Promised Land. The reproach of Egypt has been removed.
In Luke, we have the familiar parable of the prodigal son who wasted his inheritance on "harlots." Well, the father in the parable was also prodigal in giving the confused son his inheritance, knowing full well of the risk that it would be wasted on harlots. Yet, the father continues to be prodigal. When the prodigal son returns from his desert of sin, the father unhesitatingly puts together a lavish and splendid feast. It is true that in our sins, ignorance, and confusion, we have freely wasted the extravagant gifts that the Father originally gave us. But it is also true that when we return to our Father, the Father continues to be generous and prodigal in making all things new in our lives. What awaits us upon our return to the Father are new things we could never imagine for ourselves after our long stay in the desert of sin, new things that may even be unnerving in their newness. God Himself is prodigal. He is generous. He is not a miser.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Feminist Confusion at Fordham University
Sister Elizabeth Johnson is a well-known and widely published feminist theologian at Fordham University. The problem is that she is peddling theological misinformation. A major example can be found in her writings on the priesthood. In 1996, she wrote a Commonweal article denying the teaching that reserves the priesthood to male candidates only. In the article, she speaks with the triumphalism of the Zeitgeist that the defenders of the all-male priesthood are losing the intellectual arguments on this issue. Her triumphalism is based on her own superficial engagement with the issue, not on reality.
In the Commonweal article, she makes three major arguments against the Pope's declaration in 1994 that the Church cannot, even if she desired to do so, ordain women to the priesthood. These are her three arguments:
1.) that Jesus Christ never ordained the twelve apostles as priests;
2.) that the Church has changed her official teachings on issues such as usury, slavery, the morality of pleasure in the marital act, "killing infidels as a way to salvation," discrimination against Jewish people, and the use of the historical critical method in biblical studies ;
3.) and that men are not exclusively the image or icon of Christ.
Source: Elizabeth Johnson, Commonweal, vol. 123 (Jan. 26, 1996): 8-10.
If we focus on each of her arguments, we see a pattern of superficiality and overblown rhetoric worthy of the defense lawyers at the O.J. Simpson trial. Let us take each argument in turn.
Johnson says that it is an anachronism to say that Jesus "ordained" the twelve apostles as "priests." This type of argument is not unusual among theological liberals. They will take a later term that evolved in Church history and claim that, because that term is not found in the New Testament, that the reality behind the term never existed in the New Testament. The fallacy involved here is the confusion of form with substance. The vocabulary of the Church changes-- after all, like Jesus himself, the Church is "incarnated" in a particular historical setting-- but that does not necessarily mean that the reality behind differing terms has not always been present.
In the gospels, Jesus sets the Twelve apart from the wider group of disciples for special instruction and mission (Mt. 10; Mk 3:13-19; Lk 6:12-16; Jn 6:67-71). And, of course, in the Synoptic Gospels, we have Jesus instituting the Eucharist and commanding its celebration by the Twelve. In the Gospel of John, Jesus in addition breathes the Holy Spirit on the apostles (except for Thomas who was absent) and grants them the power to forgive and retain sins (Jn 20:19-24; cp. Mt 16:18-19 and Lk 24:45-51). In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands the Eleven to baptize new disciples. Clearly, Jesus sets apart the apostles with a special and distinct mission with special powers. To say that this special appointment of the Twelve is not "ordination" is just playing word games.
And, of course, our term "priest" refers to that reality, and as Johnson surely knows our English word "priest" derives from the New Testament Greek word "presbyter" which refers to an "elder" in the church. Yet, she plays a semantic sleight of hand by telling the reader that the reality encompassed by the English word "priest" is absent from the New Testament. Yet, not only is the reality and substance of the priesthood present in the New Testament, but the Apostle Paul even explicitly refers to himself as a priest in Romans: "But on some points I have written to you boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 15:15-16 RSV). In this passage, Paul uses a Greek verb referring to acting as a priest; one reference source translates the passage as meaning to "serve the gospel as a priest" (see Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 373). In addition, Peter refers to himself as an elder or "presbyter" in 1 Peter 5:1.
Possibly sensing that she may be skating on thin ice, Johnson wraps up her first argument by saying that, even if Jesus did ordain the apostles, the Church can always change this practice. Well, now Johnson is raising the issue of sacramental matter. If Jesus did ordain the apostles, then we have a sacrament instituted by Christ Himself. In each sacrament, the sacramental matter refers to "that part of a sacrament with which or to which something is done in order to confer grace, e.g., water in baptism, chrism in confirmation, bread and wine in the Eucharist" (Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary under "Matter of a Sacrament"). The "matter" of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, by Christ's own sovereign choice, includes only males as candidates. The Church has no more the power to change the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders than she has the power to substitute rice cakes for bread in the Eucharist or oil for water in Baptism.
In sum, Johnson's first argument that Jesus did not ordain the apostles to the priesthood is contrary to the Scriptural witness, let alone the tradition of the Church.
In her second argument, Johnson argues that, because the Church allegedly changed her teachings on ethical or practical issues such as interest-bearing loans, slavery, killing infidels as a way to salvation, religious discrimination, the moral character of sexual pleasure in marriage, and the historical critical method, the Church can change her teachings on the composition of the priesthood. A full response to this laundry list would require many pages. Yet, any reader can see that she has overextended herself and is comparing apples and oranges. To my knowledge, none of the specific practical resolutions of the issues she raises was ever declared a matter of divine revelation, and none of those highly specific and concrete applications is necessarily connected to matters of divine revelation. As to economic interest, the Old Testament did prohibit the taking of any interest from a fellow Israelite in Deuteronomy 23:19, but Jesus himself reflected the development of the Jewish tradition on this monetary matter by referring, in a matter of fact fashion, to interest paid by bankers in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:27 (see The Revell Bible Dictionary under "usury"). Moreover, Johnson's crude characterization of the crusades as teaching that "killing infidels [was] a way to salvation" is clearly a distortion. The focus of the crusades was not killing, but the recovery of the Holy Land precisely from those who did indeed (and many of whom still) believe that killing infidels is a way to salvation. Johnson even claims that the Church officially taught that sexual pleasure in marriage was evil. Frankly, I do not know what official Church teaching she is talking about. All I can say is that the great Church Father St. Augustine, who heavily influenced Catholic teaching on sexuality, viewed "sexual pleasure, sought temperately and rationally" as moral (See Lawler, Boyle, & May, Catholic Sexual Ethics [OSV Publishing, 1998], p. 52).
In contrast, the issue of Holy Orders relates directly to the matter of a sacrament instituted by Christ and thus is necessarily connected to the divine revelation of the New Covenant by Jesus Christ himself. The issue of women's ordination is not just an issue of concretely applying a broad ethical norm or principle, as is the case in virtually all of the items in Johnson's laundry list of allegedly changed official teachings. The only item on the laundry list not involving an ethical norm is that of the historical critical method in biblical studies, and, clearly, that is an issue of the acceptability and scope of a particular and contingent scholarly technique that certainly does not rise to the level of theological importance held by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As said before, she is comparing apples and oranges and hopes that the jury won't notice.
Johnson gives as a final example of the Church's alleged ability to depart from Scripture (a sign that she is not so sure that Scripture is on her side) the notion that we must ignore Paul's view that Adam was a single individual in order to evaluate properly the scientific hypothesis of polygenism. In general, polygenism holds that human beings had multiple origins instead of a single origin in Adam. In sharp contrast to Johnson's argument implying that we must reject St. Paul in this matter, Pius XII and Paul VI have taught that polygenism is highly suspect in this broadly defined sense and discouraged its embrace by Catholics. These popes certainly did not contradict or ignore St. Paul.
But the more significant problem with Johnson's argument is that she is using "polygenism" in an ambiguous sense which, true to form, she leaves undefined.
Even if one feels compelled to accept polygenism as a valid scientific theory, an argument has indeed been proposed by which Catholics can reconcile some form of polygenism with the idea of a single human ancestor as affirmed by St. Paul. But what is meant by "polygenism" must be precisely defined:
Earl Muller, S.J., "The Magisterium and Human Origins," The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003: 510 (bold emphasis added).
As I understand the argument by Muller, polygenism does not necessarily mean that we had several different primordial or founding human ancestors each endowed with immortal souls who initiated different lines of descent for humanity--what Johnson must assume in order to say that polygenism contradicts St. Paul's insistence that Adam was a single individual. Polygenism can merely refer to a "process of bodily formation" which does not exclude true humanity as having one true single human ancestor who was the first creature endowed with a "divinely created immortal soul" and from whom all humanity in turn descends (Muller, pp. 507, 510). Again, Johnson inflates and overstates matters in order to conclude that the Church is required to depart from or ignore Scripture by modern developments. (In any event, no one is required to affirm polygenism. As noted above, Pius XII and Paul VI warned that polygenism in its general outlines is highly suspect. It is a matter of scientific speculation and is not set in stone. The paleontologists proposing polygenism could change their minds tomorrow.)
Johnson's final argument is that women are as much the image of Christ as men. Here Johnson is making a general statement that cannot carry the conclusion she wishes it to carry. What does she mean when she says that women are also in the image of Christ? Well, I assume that she means that women are created, as males, in the image and likeness of God who is Christ. With that, there can be no argument (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 369). But to draw from this general statement the conclusion that the male priest does not have a special and distinctive iconic role in representing Christ is unjustified and requires ignoring a decisive and ubiquitous theme in the rest of Scriptural revelation. In the Old Testament, God is the Bridegroom of Israel and Jerusalem. In the New Testament, Christ reveals himself to be that Bridegroom as an essential aspect of his identity. Paul affirms that the relation of Christ to the Church is that of Bridegroom and Bride (Ephesians 5: 31-32). Thus, the priest as male does have a unique and distinctive iconic role in representing Christ as Husband and Bridegroom. That distinctive iconic role is a matter of direct divine revelation in the Scriptures and cannot be conveniently ignored.
In sum, the three legs of Johnson's feminist argument for ordination of women collapse one by one if you take a hard look at her ambiguous and misleading use of terminology and if you take a hard look at Scripture. Her arguments have more to do with contemporary sociology than with theology and Scripture. My final advice to Johnson is that she walk over to Fordham's law school and learn to carefully define her terms of argumentation. That is a better aspect of legal rhetoric to imitate than the "smoke and mirror" style of argument found among some celebrity trial lawyers.
In the Commonweal article, she makes three major arguments against the Pope's declaration in 1994 that the Church cannot, even if she desired to do so, ordain women to the priesthood. These are her three arguments:
1.) that Jesus Christ never ordained the twelve apostles as priests;
2.) that the Church has changed her official teachings on issues such as usury, slavery, the morality of pleasure in the marital act, "killing infidels as a way to salvation," discrimination against Jewish people, and the use of the historical critical method in biblical studies ;
3.) and that men are not exclusively the image or icon of Christ.
Source: Elizabeth Johnson, Commonweal, vol. 123 (Jan. 26, 1996): 8-10.
If we focus on each of her arguments, we see a pattern of superficiality and overblown rhetoric worthy of the defense lawyers at the O.J. Simpson trial. Let us take each argument in turn.
Johnson says that it is an anachronism to say that Jesus "ordained" the twelve apostles as "priests." This type of argument is not unusual among theological liberals. They will take a later term that evolved in Church history and claim that, because that term is not found in the New Testament, that the reality behind the term never existed in the New Testament. The fallacy involved here is the confusion of form with substance. The vocabulary of the Church changes-- after all, like Jesus himself, the Church is "incarnated" in a particular historical setting-- but that does not necessarily mean that the reality behind differing terms has not always been present.
In the gospels, Jesus sets the Twelve apart from the wider group of disciples for special instruction and mission (Mt. 10; Mk 3:13-19; Lk 6:12-16; Jn 6:67-71). And, of course, in the Synoptic Gospels, we have Jesus instituting the Eucharist and commanding its celebration by the Twelve. In the Gospel of John, Jesus in addition breathes the Holy Spirit on the apostles (except for Thomas who was absent) and grants them the power to forgive and retain sins (Jn 20:19-24; cp. Mt 16:18-19 and Lk 24:45-51). In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands the Eleven to baptize new disciples. Clearly, Jesus sets apart the apostles with a special and distinct mission with special powers. To say that this special appointment of the Twelve is not "ordination" is just playing word games.
And, of course, our term "priest" refers to that reality, and as Johnson surely knows our English word "priest" derives from the New Testament Greek word "presbyter" which refers to an "elder" in the church. Yet, she plays a semantic sleight of hand by telling the reader that the reality encompassed by the English word "priest" is absent from the New Testament. Yet, not only is the reality and substance of the priesthood present in the New Testament, but the Apostle Paul even explicitly refers to himself as a priest in Romans: "But on some points I have written to you boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 15:15-16 RSV). In this passage, Paul uses a Greek verb referring to acting as a priest; one reference source translates the passage as meaning to "serve the gospel as a priest" (see Arndt & Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 373). In addition, Peter refers to himself as an elder or "presbyter" in 1 Peter 5:1.
Possibly sensing that she may be skating on thin ice, Johnson wraps up her first argument by saying that, even if Jesus did ordain the apostles, the Church can always change this practice. Well, now Johnson is raising the issue of sacramental matter. If Jesus did ordain the apostles, then we have a sacrament instituted by Christ Himself. In each sacrament, the sacramental matter refers to "that part of a sacrament with which or to which something is done in order to confer grace, e.g., water in baptism, chrism in confirmation, bread and wine in the Eucharist" (Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary under "Matter of a Sacrament"). The "matter" of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, by Christ's own sovereign choice, includes only males as candidates. The Church has no more the power to change the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders than she has the power to substitute rice cakes for bread in the Eucharist or oil for water in Baptism.
In sum, Johnson's first argument that Jesus did not ordain the apostles to the priesthood is contrary to the Scriptural witness, let alone the tradition of the Church.
In her second argument, Johnson argues that, because the Church allegedly changed her teachings on ethical or practical issues such as interest-bearing loans, slavery, killing infidels as a way to salvation, religious discrimination, the moral character of sexual pleasure in marriage, and the historical critical method, the Church can change her teachings on the composition of the priesthood. A full response to this laundry list would require many pages. Yet, any reader can see that she has overextended herself and is comparing apples and oranges. To my knowledge, none of the specific practical resolutions of the issues she raises was ever declared a matter of divine revelation, and none of those highly specific and concrete applications is necessarily connected to matters of divine revelation. As to economic interest, the Old Testament did prohibit the taking of any interest from a fellow Israelite in Deuteronomy 23:19, but Jesus himself reflected the development of the Jewish tradition on this monetary matter by referring, in a matter of fact fashion, to interest paid by bankers in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:27 (see The Revell Bible Dictionary under "usury"). Moreover, Johnson's crude characterization of the crusades as teaching that "killing infidels [was] a way to salvation" is clearly a distortion. The focus of the crusades was not killing, but the recovery of the Holy Land precisely from those who did indeed (and many of whom still) believe that killing infidels is a way to salvation. Johnson even claims that the Church officially taught that sexual pleasure in marriage was evil. Frankly, I do not know what official Church teaching she is talking about. All I can say is that the great Church Father St. Augustine, who heavily influenced Catholic teaching on sexuality, viewed "sexual pleasure, sought temperately and rationally" as moral (See Lawler, Boyle, & May, Catholic Sexual Ethics [OSV Publishing, 1998], p. 52).
In contrast, the issue of Holy Orders relates directly to the matter of a sacrament instituted by Christ and thus is necessarily connected to the divine revelation of the New Covenant by Jesus Christ himself. The issue of women's ordination is not just an issue of concretely applying a broad ethical norm or principle, as is the case in virtually all of the items in Johnson's laundry list of allegedly changed official teachings. The only item on the laundry list not involving an ethical norm is that of the historical critical method in biblical studies, and, clearly, that is an issue of the acceptability and scope of a particular and contingent scholarly technique that certainly does not rise to the level of theological importance held by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. As said before, she is comparing apples and oranges and hopes that the jury won't notice.
Johnson gives as a final example of the Church's alleged ability to depart from Scripture (a sign that she is not so sure that Scripture is on her side) the notion that we must ignore Paul's view that Adam was a single individual in order to evaluate properly the scientific hypothesis of polygenism. In general, polygenism holds that human beings had multiple origins instead of a single origin in Adam. In sharp contrast to Johnson's argument implying that we must reject St. Paul in this matter, Pius XII and Paul VI have taught that polygenism is highly suspect in this broadly defined sense and discouraged its embrace by Catholics. These popes certainly did not contradict or ignore St. Paul.
But the more significant problem with Johnson's argument is that she is using "polygenism" in an ambiguous sense which, true to form, she leaves undefined.
Even if one feels compelled to accept polygenism as a valid scientific theory, an argument has indeed been proposed by which Catholics can reconcile some form of polygenism with the idea of a single human ancestor as affirmed by St. Paul. But what is meant by "polygenism" must be precisely defined:
What one would have to affirm in faith in the polygenetic case is that the creature first endowed with a divinely created immortal soul bred true, however much there may have been continued mating with other nonhuman primates to produce the final human bodily form. This creature's offspring were likewise true humans who shared the fallen state of their progenitor as were their offspring in turn.
Earl Muller, S.J., "The Magisterium and Human Origins," The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003: 510 (bold emphasis added).
As I understand the argument by Muller, polygenism does not necessarily mean that we had several different primordial or founding human ancestors each endowed with immortal souls who initiated different lines of descent for humanity--what Johnson must assume in order to say that polygenism contradicts St. Paul's insistence that Adam was a single individual. Polygenism can merely refer to a "process of bodily formation" which does not exclude true humanity as having one true single human ancestor who was the first creature endowed with a "divinely created immortal soul" and from whom all humanity in turn descends (Muller, pp. 507, 510). Again, Johnson inflates and overstates matters in order to conclude that the Church is required to depart from or ignore Scripture by modern developments. (In any event, no one is required to affirm polygenism. As noted above, Pius XII and Paul VI warned that polygenism in its general outlines is highly suspect. It is a matter of scientific speculation and is not set in stone. The paleontologists proposing polygenism could change their minds tomorrow.)
Johnson's final argument is that women are as much the image of Christ as men. Here Johnson is making a general statement that cannot carry the conclusion she wishes it to carry. What does she mean when she says that women are also in the image of Christ? Well, I assume that she means that women are created, as males, in the image and likeness of God who is Christ. With that, there can be no argument (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 369). But to draw from this general statement the conclusion that the male priest does not have a special and distinctive iconic role in representing Christ is unjustified and requires ignoring a decisive and ubiquitous theme in the rest of Scriptural revelation. In the Old Testament, God is the Bridegroom of Israel and Jerusalem. In the New Testament, Christ reveals himself to be that Bridegroom as an essential aspect of his identity. Paul affirms that the relation of Christ to the Church is that of Bridegroom and Bride (Ephesians 5: 31-32). Thus, the priest as male does have a unique and distinctive iconic role in representing Christ as Husband and Bridegroom. That distinctive iconic role is a matter of direct divine revelation in the Scriptures and cannot be conveniently ignored.
In sum, the three legs of Johnson's feminist argument for ordination of women collapse one by one if you take a hard look at her ambiguous and misleading use of terminology and if you take a hard look at Scripture. Her arguments have more to do with contemporary sociology than with theology and Scripture. My final advice to Johnson is that she walk over to Fordham's law school and learn to carefully define her terms of argumentation. That is a better aspect of legal rhetoric to imitate than the "smoke and mirror" style of argument found among some celebrity trial lawyers.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility
In the past, George Weigel has noted the explosive potential impact of the Pope's theology of the body. Recently, the Catholic media noted that the Pope's theology of the body has become so popular that lay people have even started study groups to pour over his writings. Having read the Pope's Wednesday audience addresses collected and published as the Theology of the Body by the Sisters of St. Paul, I knew that portions of the Pope's addresses made for quite difficult reading. But then I came across what Karol Wojtyla wrote back in 1960 well before he became pope. As I began dipping into Love and Responsibilty, I could now understand what Weigel was referring to. The writing is much easier to understand than that in the papal addresses; and the subject is, to say the least, gripping. In a modern world, where pornography is now so ubiquitous that even advertisements in respectable newspapers are unmistakably pornographic in character, it is a relief to read something deeply interesting about our sexuality that is not oriented to our basest instincts of using the bodies of others for our own pleasure.
Here are a few selections from Love and Responsibility. They resonate with the truth of our human experiences. They lift the vision to a horizon that many of us have been miseducated to think is a fiction. They propose a liberating challenge.
In commenting on carnal concupiscence, Wojtyla points us beyond the mere sensual reaction:
Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility (Ignatius Press, 1993), p. 150 (originally published in Polish in 1960).
We have always known what Wojtyla is referring to, but think of the last time you heard anyone in our secular society refer to this fundamental distinction. It is amazing to see advice columnists peddle counsel in newspapers that makes no mention of this crucial distinction between viewing a person truthfully as a person and viewing a person as just "body and sex."
But Wojtyla is careful to point out that mere concupiscence is not itself sin:
Wojtyla, pp. 160-61.
No wonder our secular ways are so dysfunctional. We do not recognize actual sin, much less the background of original sin. So it is not surprise that many of our interactions and marriages end in disaster. What is surprising is that the divorce rate is not greater than 50%. But then again many do not even bother with marriage any more.
And then there is the great lie we and our culture love to tell: love is what feels good. Wojtyla unmasks the great lie:
Wojtyla, p. 163.
And so our emotional subjectivism "is commonly the origin of egoism--though this egoism (egoism of the senses)-- is experienced as 'love', and is often so called, just as what is only a particular form of 'enjoying' the person was called 'loving' " (Wojtyla, p. 165).
In contrast to a purely negative view of chastity, Wojtyla views as mistaken the view that chastity is "one long 'no' " (p. 170). Rather, he points to the opposite:
Wojtyla, p. 171.
In the end, our society with its intentional and manipulative bombardment of sensual images in fashion and in all forms of media is focused on submerging us in concupiscence and emotionalism run amock:
Wojtyla, p. 124.
Anyone reading the words of Wojtyla knows how providential it was that he is today the third longest serving pope. He is surely the pope for our times. If Catholic high schools would dare to put Love and Responsibility in the hands of their students, the true and authentic sexual revolution would begin.
Here are a few selections from Love and Responsibility. They resonate with the truth of our human experiences. They lift the vision to a horizon that many of us have been miseducated to think is a fiction. They propose a liberating challenge.
In commenting on carnal concupiscence, Wojtyla points us beyond the mere sensual reaction:
It [the sensual reaction] substitutes for what should be the object of love, the person, a different object, namely the 'body and sex' of a person. The sensual reaction, as we know, does not relate to the person qua person, but only to 'the body and sex' of a concrete person, and to these specifically as 'a possible object of enjoyment'. This means that a person of the other sex is discerned by active desire resulting from carnal concupiscence not as a person but as 'body and sex'.
Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility (Ignatius Press, 1993), p. 150 (originally published in Polish in 1960).
We have always known what Wojtyla is referring to, but think of the last time you heard anyone in our secular society refer to this fundamental distinction. It is amazing to see advice columnists peddle counsel in newspapers that makes no mention of this crucial distinction between viewing a person truthfully as a person and viewing a person as just "body and sex."
But Wojtyla is careful to point out that mere concupiscence is not itself sin:
[I]t must however be emphasized that neither sensuality nor carnal desire is in itself a sin. Catholic theology sees in concupiscence only the 'germ of sin'. [It is] . . . a consequence of original sin. . . . The truth of original sin explains a very basic and very widespread evil-- that a human being encountering a person of the other sex does not simply and spontaneously experience 'love', but a feeling muddied by the longing to enjoy, which often overshadows 'loving kindness' and robs love of its true nature, leaving only the outward appearance intact. . . . There is in this a certain hardship, since any human being would like simply to follow his spontaneous inclinations, to find love fully present in all of his reactions which have another human being as their object.
Wojtyla, pp. 160-61.
No wonder our secular ways are so dysfunctional. We do not recognize actual sin, much less the background of original sin. So it is not surprise that many of our interactions and marriages end in disaster. What is surprising is that the divorce rate is not greater than 50%. But then again many do not even bother with marriage any more.
And then there is the great lie we and our culture love to tell: love is what feels good. Wojtyla unmasks the great lie:
'Sinful love' is often very emotional, saturated in emotion, which leaves no room for anything else. Its sinfulness is not of course due to the fact that it is saturated with emotion, nor to the emotion itself, but to the fact that the will puts emotion before the person, allowing it to annul all the objective laws and principles which must govern the unification of two persons, a man and a woman. 'Authenticity' of feeling is quite often inimical to truth in behaviour.
Wojtyla, p. 163.
And so our emotional subjectivism "is commonly the origin of egoism--though this egoism (egoism of the senses)-- is experienced as 'love', and is often so called, just as what is only a particular form of 'enjoying' the person was called 'loving' " (Wojtyla, p. 165).
In contrast to a purely negative view of chastity, Wojtyla views as mistaken the view that chastity is "one long 'no' " (p. 170). Rather, he points to the opposite:
It [chastity] is above all the 'yes' of which certain 'no's' are the consequence. The virtue of chastity is underdeveloped in anyone who is slow to affirm the value of the person and allows the value of sex to reign supreme . . . . The essence of chastity consists in quickness to affirm the value of the person in every situation, and in raising to the personal level all reactions to the value of 'the body and sex'. . . . the value 'body and sex' must be grounded and implanted in the value of the person.
Wojtyla, p. 171.
In the end, our society with its intentional and manipulative bombardment of sensual images in fashion and in all forms of media is focused on submerging us in concupiscence and emotionalism run amock:
[S]ensuality is a shifting response to many 'bodies' in the presence of which awareness of a 'potential object of enjoyment' is aroused. For this very reason love cannot be founded on sensuality alone or on sentiment alone. Each of these bypasses, so to speak, the real person, prevents, or at any rate is not conducive to, the affirmation of the person. This in spite of the fact that emotional love appears to bring one so close to another human being, and that human being so close to oneself. But even emotional love while bringing the 'human being' closer can easily miss the 'person.'
Wojtyla, p. 124.
Anyone reading the words of Wojtyla knows how providential it was that he is today the third longest serving pope. He is surely the pope for our times. If Catholic high schools would dare to put Love and Responsibility in the hands of their students, the true and authentic sexual revolution would begin.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Ohio Episcopalians Throw Down the Gauntlet
With media attention understandably focused on the general presidential election which has already begun with early ferocity and international events, the mainstream media will not give much space to the continued civil war in the Episcopal Church. The latest event in that war is the gauntlet recently thrown down by traditional Ohio Episcopalians who gathered, 800 strong, to celebrate the confirmation of about 100 persons from several congregations in an Eastern Orthodox church. The gauntlet was that the service was presided over not by the local ultra-liberal Ohio Episcopal bishop but by several conservative bishops, including one from Brazil (see story from Cleveland's Plain Dealer newspaper).
In the small world of American Episcopalianism, that is a big deal because it defies the territorial supremacy of the local bishop. The local liberal bishop, Clark Grew, voted to approve the first openly gay bishop in the denomination in 2003. In the past, the same liberal bishop approved the installation of an openly lesbian dean to be in charge of the Episcopal cathedral in Cleveland (see the recent public statement of Dean Tracey Lind in support of pioneering "Domestic Partnership" legislation in a liberal Cleveland suburb; scroll to page 7 of linked document). That is what is going on in a supposedly Christian denomination.
And for Catholics it is disturbing that, at least in the past, Cleveland's Catholic bishop, Anthony Pilla, was proud to point out that he met frequently for friendly discussions with his liberal Episcopal counterpart. If that is still going on, it should certainly stop. In my opinion, such closeness was inappropriate to begin with given the clear anti-Christian tendencies of the local Episcopal bishop. Even worse, in 2000, Bishop Pilla signed an ecumenical "covenant" with the local liberal Episcopal bishop (and the local Lutheran bishop) (see parish bulletin announcement). That covenant has been broken by Episcopal Bishop Grew, and should be rescinded. Yet, the so-called "covenant" is still on the official website of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland. The language of the covenant is quite disturbing because it foresees close cooperation even on theological matters such as liturgy.
But the news is even worse. In an astoundingly Orwellian twist, the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland recently bestowed on liberal, pro-gay Episcopal bishop Clark Grew an award for promoting Christian unity-- in January of 2004, even after his clear support for revising Christian teaching on homosexuality (see Catholic Diocese of Cleveland website). All of this after the highly publicized approval by Grew and others of the new gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire in 2003. Grew has not promoted Christian unity. He has broken it. The Catholic Diocese of Cleveland has some explaining to do.
It is all a question of betrayal. If you visit the Episcopal cathedral in Cleveland, located across the street from the local state university, you will find a beautiful, old, and grand gothic church built generously by prior generations. The faith and piety of those prior generations have been rejected, but the assets retained. The Episcopal revisionists have broken faith with those who invested their lives and resources for the glory of God. From all indications, they will continue on that course. It is a sad spectacle to see the earnest faith of prior generations so radically betrayed and gutted.
Yet, it is inspiring to see the brave souls who defy the established powers in a denomination that has traded its Christian tradition for a new Gnosticism misusing Christian labels. All Christians have a stake in their bravery, and we should applaud them.
In the small world of American Episcopalianism, that is a big deal because it defies the territorial supremacy of the local bishop. The local liberal bishop, Clark Grew, voted to approve the first openly gay bishop in the denomination in 2003. In the past, the same liberal bishop approved the installation of an openly lesbian dean to be in charge of the Episcopal cathedral in Cleveland (see the recent public statement of Dean Tracey Lind in support of pioneering "Domestic Partnership" legislation in a liberal Cleveland suburb; scroll to page 7 of linked document). That is what is going on in a supposedly Christian denomination.
And for Catholics it is disturbing that, at least in the past, Cleveland's Catholic bishop, Anthony Pilla, was proud to point out that he met frequently for friendly discussions with his liberal Episcopal counterpart. If that is still going on, it should certainly stop. In my opinion, such closeness was inappropriate to begin with given the clear anti-Christian tendencies of the local Episcopal bishop. Even worse, in 2000, Bishop Pilla signed an ecumenical "covenant" with the local liberal Episcopal bishop (and the local Lutheran bishop) (see parish bulletin announcement). That covenant has been broken by Episcopal Bishop Grew, and should be rescinded. Yet, the so-called "covenant" is still on the official website of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland. The language of the covenant is quite disturbing because it foresees close cooperation even on theological matters such as liturgy.
But the news is even worse. In an astoundingly Orwellian twist, the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland recently bestowed on liberal, pro-gay Episcopal bishop Clark Grew an award for promoting Christian unity-- in January of 2004, even after his clear support for revising Christian teaching on homosexuality (see Catholic Diocese of Cleveland website). All of this after the highly publicized approval by Grew and others of the new gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire in 2003. Grew has not promoted Christian unity. He has broken it. The Catholic Diocese of Cleveland has some explaining to do.
It is all a question of betrayal. If you visit the Episcopal cathedral in Cleveland, located across the street from the local state university, you will find a beautiful, old, and grand gothic church built generously by prior generations. The faith and piety of those prior generations have been rejected, but the assets retained. The Episcopal revisionists have broken faith with those who invested their lives and resources for the glory of God. From all indications, they will continue on that course. It is a sad spectacle to see the earnest faith of prior generations so radically betrayed and gutted.
Yet, it is inspiring to see the brave souls who defy the established powers in a denomination that has traded its Christian tradition for a new Gnosticism misusing Christian labels. All Christians have a stake in their bravery, and we should applaud them.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Through Mary's Eyes
The Mel Gibson moving is opening the eyes of many to the role of Mary in our own Christian journey. It reminds me of an old religious print showing Jesus and Mary side-by-side with this Latin inscription underneath: "Cor Jesu Adveniat Regnum Tuum * Adveniat Per Mariam"-- in English, "Heart of Jesus, May Your Kingdom Come * May it Come Through Mary." Many Protestants and Catholics are re-awakening to this crucial aspect of the Christian revelation.
It is not simply a matter of homespun piety and custom. It is not even a matter, as many are now realizing, for Catholics alone. Hans Urs von Balthasar thought it crucial to our Christian discipleship:
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mary for Today (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 44-45 (emphasis added).
Those words were first published in German in 1987, about seventeen years before the movie opened. The movie's resonance with the words of one of the greatest theologian of the twentieth century again shows the depth of the movie as a work of art, contrary to carping and ill-informed critics. (I include in this class of criticism some portions at least of the official movie review posted by the U.S. Bishops' conference, a review which strains at a gnat in making some of its criticisms of the movie, while the bishops' conference as a whole tends to swallow a camel on so many other more pressing matters under its jurisdiction.)
Yet, we need not have looked so far and for so sophisticated a source for the theological background for Gibson's masterful depiction of the relationship between Mother and Son. It was there all along in the old religious print. It was there all along in the much maligned old Baltimore Catechism which urged its young readers to:
Source: The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism (N.Y.: Catholic Book Publishing, 1964) (back cover).
In an era when the Archbishop of New Orleans, in his capacity as head of a committee reviewing catechetical texts, recently commented that most religion texts used in Catholic high schools are inadequate presentations of the faith and when I myself as a parent can testify to the "fluffy" and mediocre nature of some of the textbooks used for first communicants, we could do (and have done) much worse than to re-introduce an updated version of the Baltimore Catechism. If some publisher takes up the challenge, I think we would see a boom in sales for the simple reason that people want and yearn for substance. The same yearning for substance evident in the numbers paying to see The Passion.
The cinematic phenomenon we are now witnessing also confirms the ecumenical teaching of Vatican II. Any Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran who looks at Jesus as Mary did is closely linked, however imperfectly, to the one Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter.
It is not simply a matter of homespun piety and custom. It is not even a matter, as many are now realizing, for Catholics alone. Hans Urs von Balthasar thought it crucial to our Christian discipleship:
Our eyes are bleary and dull: if you will forgive the metaphor, we must put on Mary's spectacles in order to see exactly. "He who was scourged for our sake": what this means only becomes to some extent clear to us if we are aware of the effect this scourging had on Mary's mind and heart. It is not a question of a little bit of sympathy: the weeping daughters of Jerusalem were turned back on the way to the Cross. But his mother walked alongside unrecognized and veiled, in complete strength and at the same time weakness: her heart is the true napkin of the legendary Veronica. What Christ is for her, what God is for her, becomes the primal and primary image of what he should be for us, and this takes place when in simplicity we try to look through her at the mysteries of our redemption.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Mary for Today (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 44-45 (emphasis added).
Those words were first published in German in 1987, about seventeen years before the movie opened. The movie's resonance with the words of one of the greatest theologian of the twentieth century again shows the depth of the movie as a work of art, contrary to carping and ill-informed critics. (I include in this class of criticism some portions at least of the official movie review posted by the U.S. Bishops' conference, a review which strains at a gnat in making some of its criticisms of the movie, while the bishops' conference as a whole tends to swallow a camel on so many other more pressing matters under its jurisdiction.)
Yet, we need not have looked so far and for so sophisticated a source for the theological background for Gibson's masterful depiction of the relationship between Mother and Son. It was there all along in the old religious print. It was there all along in the much maligned old Baltimore Catechism which urged its young readers to:
Look at Jesus as Mary Did
See his bleeding wounds.
See the nails in His hands and feet.
See the thorns in His head.
See His side open for us to enter.
See how much he loves us.
How do you think our Lady felt?
How should we feel?
If Jesus loves us so much, what are we going to do for Him today?
Source: The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism (N.Y.: Catholic Book Publishing, 1964) (back cover).
In an era when the Archbishop of New Orleans, in his capacity as head of a committee reviewing catechetical texts, recently commented that most religion texts used in Catholic high schools are inadequate presentations of the faith and when I myself as a parent can testify to the "fluffy" and mediocre nature of some of the textbooks used for first communicants, we could do (and have done) much worse than to re-introduce an updated version of the Baltimore Catechism. If some publisher takes up the challenge, I think we would see a boom in sales for the simple reason that people want and yearn for substance. The same yearning for substance evident in the numbers paying to see The Passion.
The cinematic phenomenon we are now witnessing also confirms the ecumenical teaching of Vatican II. Any Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran who looks at Jesus as Mary did is closely linked, however imperfectly, to the one Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Faculty Positions at Nashville's Aquinas College
Sister Mary Justin, Academic Vice-President of Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee, has asked me to post a notice to our readers interested in applying for an academic or administrative assistant position at her college. The college is committed to the vision of John Paul II as set forth in Ex Corde Eccclesiae. There may be other faculty positions available in addition to the business positions described below. Please contact sister directly for more information.
Below is the relevant descriptive and contact information:
About Aquinas College
Aquinas College, a small Catholic institution located on a beautiful
92-acre campus in west Nashville, was founded in 1961 by the Dominican
Sisters of St. Cecilia ("Nashville Dominicans"). The Dominican
Sisters have more than 140 years of experience providing education in a
value-centered, Christian learning environment permeated with faith.
At Aquinas College, liberal arts are at the heart of all of our
programs of study. In addition to studies in Liberal Arts, we have
concentrated our professional degree programs on three areas in which we
believe our students can make a tremendous impact on today's culture:
business, education, and nursing. Encouraged by the Church's message
to colleges and universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Aquinas desires "to
determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various
disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the
world that is enlightened by the Gospel, and therefore by a faith in
Christ, the Logos, as the centre of creation and human history" (#16).
Thus, we consider it important that candidates be committed to the
Catholic moral tradition. Catholic applicants are preferred, but all
applicants are expected to uphold this moral tradition and the Mission
of Aquinas College.
Business Positions
Aquinas College is currently accepting applications for full-time
faculty positions for the Bachelor of Business Administration Degree, a
young program that seeks to fulfill the challenge of Ex Corde Ecclesiae
by 'providing an education in a faith context that forms men and women
capable of rational and critical judgment and conscious of the
transcendent dignity of the human person with professional training that
incorporates ethical values and a sense of service to individuals and to
society' (ECE #49).
Requirements: Applicants must be doctorally prepared in business or a
related field and have significant coursework in management. Those who
are currently in pursuit of doctoral studies may be considered.
Teaching experience is preferred.
Interested candidates should submit the following: 1) resume, 2) cover
letter outlining specific qualifications for the position, teaching
philosophy, teaching experience and specific interest in Aquinas
College, 3) unofficial transcripts of graduate coursework, and 4) name
and contact information for three references.
Reply to Search Committee, c/o Sister Mary Justin, Aquinas College,
4210 Harding Road, Nashville, TN 37205.
haltom@aquinas-tn.edu
615-297-7545 ext 425 fax: 615-279-3892
Below is the relevant descriptive and contact information:
About Aquinas College
Aquinas College, a small Catholic institution located on a beautiful
92-acre campus in west Nashville, was founded in 1961 by the Dominican
Sisters of St. Cecilia ("Nashville Dominicans"). The Dominican
Sisters have more than 140 years of experience providing education in a
value-centered, Christian learning environment permeated with faith.
At Aquinas College, liberal arts are at the heart of all of our
programs of study. In addition to studies in Liberal Arts, we have
concentrated our professional degree programs on three areas in which we
believe our students can make a tremendous impact on today's culture:
business, education, and nursing. Encouraged by the Church's message
to colleges and universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Aquinas desires "to
determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various
disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the
world that is enlightened by the Gospel, and therefore by a faith in
Christ, the Logos, as the centre of creation and human history" (#16).
Thus, we consider it important that candidates be committed to the
Catholic moral tradition. Catholic applicants are preferred, but all
applicants are expected to uphold this moral tradition and the Mission
of Aquinas College.
Business Positions
Aquinas College is currently accepting applications for full-time
faculty positions for the Bachelor of Business Administration Degree, a
young program that seeks to fulfill the challenge of Ex Corde Ecclesiae
by 'providing an education in a faith context that forms men and women
capable of rational and critical judgment and conscious of the
transcendent dignity of the human person with professional training that
incorporates ethical values and a sense of service to individuals and to
society' (ECE #49).
Requirements: Applicants must be doctorally prepared in business or a
related field and have significant coursework in management. Those who
are currently in pursuit of doctoral studies may be considered.
Teaching experience is preferred.
Interested candidates should submit the following: 1) resume, 2) cover
letter outlining specific qualifications for the position, teaching
philosophy, teaching experience and specific interest in Aquinas
College, 3) unofficial transcripts of graduate coursework, and 4) name
and contact information for three references.
Reply to Search Committee, c/o Sister Mary Justin, Aquinas College,
4210 Harding Road, Nashville, TN 37205.
haltom@aquinas-tn.edu
615-297-7545 ext 425 fax: 615-279-3892
Appeasement in Spanish: "Apaciguamiento"
David Brooks, the semi-conservative columnist for the New York Times (who also regularly appears on the Friday evening Lehrer News Hour on PBS) has delivered the undeniable bad news (see David Brooks, "Al Qaeda's Wish List," Mar. 16, 2004, Opinion section, free reg'n required). The victory of the socialist party in Spain rewarded the terror attack of March 11th. Now, the terrorists will likely seek to target Britain in a pre-election attack in an effort to unseat Tony Blair--although that will be more complicated given that Blair is the leader of the Labor or "socialist" party in Britain, and I doubt that the return to power of British Conservatives will better serve terrorist aims. But I also doubt that Al Qaeda will bother with such fine points. Other countries like Italy and Poland that have troops supporting the reconstruction of Iraq will also likely be targeted at election time. And, of course, we in the United States are not immune, and we are in an election year.
The new Spanish socialist leader Zapatero is the Iberian Neville Chamberlain. His public comments show a recklessness that is playing to the script ruthlessly dictated by the terrorists. On September 11th, Al-Qaeda opened the way to its eventual destruction as the U.S. methodically removed the terrorist controlled government of Afghanistan that sheltered Al-Qaeda. The emergence of a free and democratic Iraq will also be a major blow against the appeal of the Islamist extremism of Al-Qaeda in the Middle East and will address the root causes of such extremism. This effort is, as President Bush says, a "forward strategy" in the war on terrorism.
In contrast, after the March 11th attack, the Spanish public responded with embarrassing appeasement. Mr. Brooks asks in his column what the Spanish word for "appeasement" is. As a Hispanic, it pains me to give him the answer: apaciguamiento.
The best hope at this point is that political reality, pressure, and common sense will lead the new Spanish leader to realize that appeasement is making the rest of Europe a target for more attacks. The leaders of the rest of Europe must stop the Spanish retreat into appeasement. It is ironic that the new Spanish leader who boasts of "rejoining" Europe is the biggest danger that European security now faces. If the other Europeans can reign him in and pressure him to continue to cooperate with the reconstruction of Iraq, Europe and the rest of the world will be more secure, and Al-Qaeda will be denied a major victory.
As to Spain itself, as an observer of Spanish society, I expect that the socialists will mismanage the economy by retreating from the economic policy of the outgoing party that has resulted in a good economy. The immediate post-election decline in the Spanish stock market signals the continuing lack of confidence in socialist economic policy. The voters will eventually throw the disappointing socialists out again, as they did in 1996. In the meantime, Al-Quaeda will relish its biggest victory so far in the war on terror and launch other attacks.
There is something ugly and base going on here, as Mr. Brooks points out. Apparently, many voters in Spain are seeking a "separate peace" with the terrorists: attack others but leave us alone. Such an approach does not work with homegrown criminals. It will not work with international terrorists. It is a delusion that the delusionary politicians of the Spanish left are only too willing to encourage in order to attain their dreams of political power.
In the face of this appeasement, is there any special contribution to enlightening this situation that a Catholic perspective can make? In the gospels, Jesus teaches non-violence (Matt. 5:38-42; Luke 6:27-30) in a clear elevation of prior stages of biblical teaching on the treatment of enemies. But what does Jesus' teaching mean in the face of ruthless terrorism?
Let us take a look at a very mainstream and moderate Catholic biblical commentary, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary commenting on the part of Matthew in which Jesus speaks of turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies:
Benedict T. Viviano, O.P., Commentary on "The Gospel According to Matthew," The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall, 1990), p. 644, section 36 (commenting on Matthew 5:38-48)(emphasis added).
Gandhi faced a democratic Great Britain in the 1940s in India. Martin Luther King, Jr., faced, with the increasing sympathy of the federal government and the assistance of federal courts, federal marshals, and even the national guard, segregationists in a South that was a regional minority in a free society with a free press. Al-Qaeda is not on the same moral level as the British administration in India in the 1940s or the U.S. government in the 1960s. As a result, the appeasement evident now in Spain--which in the long run engenders more violence-- is not the appropriate response.
The new Spanish socialist leader Zapatero is the Iberian Neville Chamberlain. His public comments show a recklessness that is playing to the script ruthlessly dictated by the terrorists. On September 11th, Al-Qaeda opened the way to its eventual destruction as the U.S. methodically removed the terrorist controlled government of Afghanistan that sheltered Al-Qaeda. The emergence of a free and democratic Iraq will also be a major blow against the appeal of the Islamist extremism of Al-Qaeda in the Middle East and will address the root causes of such extremism. This effort is, as President Bush says, a "forward strategy" in the war on terrorism.
In contrast, after the March 11th attack, the Spanish public responded with embarrassing appeasement. Mr. Brooks asks in his column what the Spanish word for "appeasement" is. As a Hispanic, it pains me to give him the answer: apaciguamiento.
The best hope at this point is that political reality, pressure, and common sense will lead the new Spanish leader to realize that appeasement is making the rest of Europe a target for more attacks. The leaders of the rest of Europe must stop the Spanish retreat into appeasement. It is ironic that the new Spanish leader who boasts of "rejoining" Europe is the biggest danger that European security now faces. If the other Europeans can reign him in and pressure him to continue to cooperate with the reconstruction of Iraq, Europe and the rest of the world will be more secure, and Al-Qaeda will be denied a major victory.
As to Spain itself, as an observer of Spanish society, I expect that the socialists will mismanage the economy by retreating from the economic policy of the outgoing party that has resulted in a good economy. The immediate post-election decline in the Spanish stock market signals the continuing lack of confidence in socialist economic policy. The voters will eventually throw the disappointing socialists out again, as they did in 1996. In the meantime, Al-Quaeda will relish its biggest victory so far in the war on terror and launch other attacks.
There is something ugly and base going on here, as Mr. Brooks points out. Apparently, many voters in Spain are seeking a "separate peace" with the terrorists: attack others but leave us alone. Such an approach does not work with homegrown criminals. It will not work with international terrorists. It is a delusion that the delusionary politicians of the Spanish left are only too willing to encourage in order to attain their dreams of political power.
In the face of this appeasement, is there any special contribution to enlightening this situation that a Catholic perspective can make? In the gospels, Jesus teaches non-violence (Matt. 5:38-42; Luke 6:27-30) in a clear elevation of prior stages of biblical teaching on the treatment of enemies. But what does Jesus' teaching mean in the face of ruthless terrorism?
Let us take a look at a very mainstream and moderate Catholic biblical commentary, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary commenting on the part of Matthew in which Jesus speaks of turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies:
Is it [that is, Jesus' teaching on loving one's enemies] lacking in ethical sobriety, as its critics have suggested? It can be quite effective (Gandhi). It need be no more unsober than a general strike is. The question that remains is: Is it the only legitimate rule of conduct for Christians in conflict situations? Are the earlier [more limited] stages of biblical teaching [such as the idea of "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" reflected in Tobit 4:15)] simply cancelled out? No. Rather, the earlier stages represent a permanent resource for believers when appropriate. It depends on the moral level of the opponent which level of biblical ethics should be employed.
Benedict T. Viviano, O.P., Commentary on "The Gospel According to Matthew," The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall, 1990), p. 644, section 36 (commenting on Matthew 5:38-48)(emphasis added).
Gandhi faced a democratic Great Britain in the 1940s in India. Martin Luther King, Jr., faced, with the increasing sympathy of the federal government and the assistance of federal courts, federal marshals, and even the national guard, segregationists in a South that was a regional minority in a free society with a free press. Al-Qaeda is not on the same moral level as the British administration in India in the 1940s or the U.S. government in the 1960s. As a result, the appeasement evident now in Spain--which in the long run engenders more violence-- is not the appropriate response.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Sudden Death and the Gospels
Last Sunday's Gospel is quite thought-provoking in light of the March 11th train bombings in Madrid. The gospel passage is from Luke 13:1-9, and consists of two parts. The first part shows Jesus using two recent tragedies to urge his audience to timely repentance to avoid perishing. The second part is the parable of the fig tree in which the unfruitful fig tree is given one last chance to bear fruit before being cut down.
The two tragedies referred to by Jesus are: 1.) Pilate's killing of Galileans "while [they were] sacrificing in the temple at Jerusalem," as noted by the New Oxford Annotated Bible; and 2.) the collapse of a tower killing eighteen people. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that these two catastrophes "did not overwhelm these folks [the audience] because they [the dead] were notorious sinners." (I do not know why the commentator seems so sure that the dead were "notorious sinners," other than Jesus' own words of warning to his audience which imply that his audience held that view.)
In any event, the commentaries I have checked seem pretty clear on the basic meaning of the passage. The New Jerusalem Bible states the meaning tersely: "The meaning of both [tragedies] is clear: sin is not the immediate cause of this or that calamity (cf. Jn 9: 3), but such disasters as these are providential invitations to repentance." (John 9:3 is the story of the healing of the man blind from birth.) The Navarre Bible states that the "two tragedies . . . should not be blamed on the sins of those who died; no, they are a call to conversion."
Yet, the Oxford Annotated Bible diverges somewhat from this consensus by stating that:
The Oxford Bible's point that Jesus is not necessarily arguing that moral evil does not lead to natural evil or catastrophe seems to contradict the gloss from the New Jerusalem Bible which sees a continuity between Jesus' words here and Jesus' healing of the man blind from birth in John 9. In that healing of the blind man, Jesus responds to a question from his disciples about whose sin was responsible for the man's being born blind. Jesus replies that "[n]either he [the man blind from birth] nor his parents sinned, . . . he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him" (John 9:3).
So the question about this passage can be narrowed to this: were the sudden catastrophe and suffering that befell these people a judgment on their sins? In Matthew 5:45, Jesus' statement that the Father "causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike," weighs against viewing the catastrophe itself as a judgment on the sins of the dead. As to suffering, Jesus' words from John 9:3 that the man was born blind so that "the works of God might be revealed" also weighs against viewing the suffering involved in the tragedies as being in itself a judgment for sin. In the case of unexpected tragedies, we have no choice but to read Scripture as a whole and in the context of all the canonical gospels. Even lawyers do that in interpreting their statute books. We owe at least the same care to a statement from the gospels. Yet, we must be careful to note that we do not know exact details about the activities of the Galileans executed by Pilate. Some catastrophes are indeed connected to our moral behavior: violent or arrogant behavior tends to provoke retaliation, and promiscuity can result in sexually transmitted diseases. So our sins can and do create unnecessarily early death and suffering.
In sum, what then can we conclude after seeing that not even erudite commentators are of one mind on all the aspects raised by last Sunday's Gospel reading? In my view, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary seems to get it right when it focuses on the parable of the unfruitful fig tree: "[I]t is a parable of crisis, which should light a fire under procrastinators and other unproductive disciples." A sense of crisis permeates the gospels. Jesus is preaching an eschatological message, at times with apocalyptic imagery.
For each of us, our individual death is an eschaton or last thing. The traditional Catholic listing of the "Four Last Things" as Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell is instructive. Nowadays, you will rarely find Catholics referring to the "Four Last Things." The only time I recall seeing a recent liturgical reference is in a missal for an approved Tridentine liturgy. We do not need to speculate about the date when the world will end. My individual earthly world and existence will end at my own death at an unforeseen time (unless we are alive at the time of the Second Coming and undergo some other kind of transformation). That is the realism behind traditional Catholic prayers for a "good death."
It is fitting that for free, intelligent, but fallen creatures that the timing of the end is uncertain for most of our lives. Otherwise, we would naturally seek to misuse that information to accommodate through manipulation our inherited tendency to sin. In my view, when Jesus points out the two recent tragedies to his audience, he does not appear to be saying that the tragedies in themselves are judgments for sin, but that the tragedies are the setting for that judgment. Our unforeseen moment of death is not a punishment for our sins, but the setting for judging our sins. Death itself is an effect of original sin and so falls on all of us. But death is the setting for judging our individual actual sins. That moment, more or less, comes to both the good and the wicked by surprise. Some deal with illness as a journey to that final moment. Others, such as both the good and the bad who filled the trains in Madrid on March 11th do not undergo or complete that journey of illness. The unexpected tragedies of others that those rail commuters had witnessed or heard about during their own lives had already, or ought to have already, taught them that the same could happen to them. The message then is indeed clear: living is an urgent matter.
The two tragedies referred to by Jesus are: 1.) Pilate's killing of Galileans "while [they were] sacrificing in the temple at Jerusalem," as noted by the New Oxford Annotated Bible; and 2.) the collapse of a tower killing eighteen people. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that these two catastrophes "did not overwhelm these folks [the audience] because they [the dead] were notorious sinners." (I do not know why the commentator seems so sure that the dead were "notorious sinners," other than Jesus' own words of warning to his audience which imply that his audience held that view.)
In any event, the commentaries I have checked seem pretty clear on the basic meaning of the passage. The New Jerusalem Bible states the meaning tersely: "The meaning of both [tragedies] is clear: sin is not the immediate cause of this or that calamity (cf. Jn 9: 3), but such disasters as these are providential invitations to repentance." (John 9:3 is the story of the healing of the man blind from birth.) The Navarre Bible states that the "two tragedies . . . should not be blamed on the sins of those who died; no, they are a call to conversion."
Yet, the Oxford Annotated Bible diverges somewhat from this consensus by stating that:
Jesus does not argue here (as in Mt 5.45) for a disconnection between natural and moral good and evil. Here suffering represents God's judgment and is a call to repentance lest spiritual catastrophe overtake his hearers.
The Oxford Bible's point that Jesus is not necessarily arguing that moral evil does not lead to natural evil or catastrophe seems to contradict the gloss from the New Jerusalem Bible which sees a continuity between Jesus' words here and Jesus' healing of the man blind from birth in John 9. In that healing of the blind man, Jesus responds to a question from his disciples about whose sin was responsible for the man's being born blind. Jesus replies that "[n]either he [the man blind from birth] nor his parents sinned, . . . he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him" (John 9:3).
So the question about this passage can be narrowed to this: were the sudden catastrophe and suffering that befell these people a judgment on their sins? In Matthew 5:45, Jesus' statement that the Father "causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike," weighs against viewing the catastrophe itself as a judgment on the sins of the dead. As to suffering, Jesus' words from John 9:3 that the man was born blind so that "the works of God might be revealed" also weighs against viewing the suffering involved in the tragedies as being in itself a judgment for sin. In the case of unexpected tragedies, we have no choice but to read Scripture as a whole and in the context of all the canonical gospels. Even lawyers do that in interpreting their statute books. We owe at least the same care to a statement from the gospels. Yet, we must be careful to note that we do not know exact details about the activities of the Galileans executed by Pilate. Some catastrophes are indeed connected to our moral behavior: violent or arrogant behavior tends to provoke retaliation, and promiscuity can result in sexually transmitted diseases. So our sins can and do create unnecessarily early death and suffering.
In sum, what then can we conclude after seeing that not even erudite commentators are of one mind on all the aspects raised by last Sunday's Gospel reading? In my view, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary seems to get it right when it focuses on the parable of the unfruitful fig tree: "[I]t is a parable of crisis, which should light a fire under procrastinators and other unproductive disciples." A sense of crisis permeates the gospels. Jesus is preaching an eschatological message, at times with apocalyptic imagery.
For each of us, our individual death is an eschaton or last thing. The traditional Catholic listing of the "Four Last Things" as Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell is instructive. Nowadays, you will rarely find Catholics referring to the "Four Last Things." The only time I recall seeing a recent liturgical reference is in a missal for an approved Tridentine liturgy. We do not need to speculate about the date when the world will end. My individual earthly world and existence will end at my own death at an unforeseen time (unless we are alive at the time of the Second Coming and undergo some other kind of transformation). That is the realism behind traditional Catholic prayers for a "good death."
It is fitting that for free, intelligent, but fallen creatures that the timing of the end is uncertain for most of our lives. Otherwise, we would naturally seek to misuse that information to accommodate through manipulation our inherited tendency to sin. In my view, when Jesus points out the two recent tragedies to his audience, he does not appear to be saying that the tragedies in themselves are judgments for sin, but that the tragedies are the setting for that judgment. Our unforeseen moment of death is not a punishment for our sins, but the setting for judging our sins. Death itself is an effect of original sin and so falls on all of us. But death is the setting for judging our individual actual sins. That moment, more or less, comes to both the good and the wicked by surprise. Some deal with illness as a journey to that final moment. Others, such as both the good and the bad who filled the trains in Madrid on March 11th do not undergo or complete that journey of illness. The unexpected tragedies of others that those rail commuters had witnessed or heard about during their own lives had already, or ought to have already, taught them that the same could happen to them. The message then is indeed clear: living is an urgent matter.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
John Paul Is 3rd Longest Serving Pope: Amen
Brooklyn Bishop: Voters Can't Support Immoral Laws
The Catholic News Service reports that Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn, New York, has already written to his flock warning them that the American idea of separation of church and state has misled some into thinking that they can cast their votes without considering Church teaching. The bishop makes clear that no Catholic should vote for a candidate promoting immoral laws. The bishop also states that Catholics have "a basic obligation" to participate in political life-- the approach of washing one's hands of the matter is not an option. It is good to see a bishop getting the message out early. Let us hope that many more will follow. Any Catholic with any minimal knowledge of our political parties understands the message the bishop is sending in the abstract language that bishops use in discussing an upcoming election.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Spain Weeps and Demonstrates
Demonstration at Plaza Colón ("Columbus Square"), Madrid, Spain. Source: AFP/File/Pierre-Philippe Marcou.
The terror bombings of rail commuters in Madrid have sparked an extraordinary series of peaceful demonstrations by millions in all regions of Spain, even in the Basque and Catalan regions which have traditionally had a tense relationship with the central government in Madrid. There have also been demonstrations in the rest of Europe, in the U.S., and in Latin America, especially among the Spanish diaspora in Latin America. For many Hispanics in the U.S., there remains a deep emotional tie to Spain. For many of us, when we think "mother country," we think Spain, la madre patria, not England. So for many in the U.S., an attack on Spain is an attack on an extended family member. For the papal reaction, see the Zenit article recounting the Pope's communications with the cardinal archbishop of Madrid who interrupted his work in Rome to return to his archdiocese in the wake of the bombings (see "Pope Calls Condolences to Cardinal of Madrid," Mar. 12, 2004). As is typical with spectacular terrorist attacks, the nation targeted becomes more united, even overcoming past internal quarrels in the face of grief.
U.S. Delegation Pushes to Remove Pro-Abortion U.N. Language
Catholic World News features an article (availabe to non-subscribers) hailing a pro-life victory in the U.N. The controversy involved proposed language seeking to protect the so-called "reproductive rights" of women and girls. That phrase is code language for abortion. Apparently, the pro-life forces have won the fight to omit this language from the text of a document on gender equality, with the U.S. delegation playing a key role on the pro-life side. You can take it to the bank that, in contrast, a Kerry administration delegation, following the precedent set by the Clinton administration, would instead have been on the pro-abortion side of the debate. This episode is another reminder of the growing number of reasons for Catholics to vote Republican in November.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Bush Reaffirms Support for Marriage Amendment and Pro-Life Stands
In an address to a gathering of Protestant evangelicals, President Bush strongly reaffirmed his support for a federal marriage amendment that would be immune to tampering by the U.S. Supreme Court, in contrast to state measures and state constitutional amendments that can always be invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. You can read the story at the N.Y. Times online, Washington section, "Bush Assures Evangelicals of His Commitment to Amendment on Marriage," Mar. 12, 2004 (free reg'n required). In addition, the Bush administration is considering requiring the addition of a warning to condom packaging stating that condoms do not protect users from all sexually transmitted diseases. The concern centers around a widespread virus called HPV that can cause cervical cancer. For more details, see this A.P. story, "Bush Administratin Weighs Condom Warning," Mar. 11, 2004.
These stories remind me why, if Clinton can be called by some the "first black President," we can appropriately call the evangelical George W. Bush "the first Catholic President," especially in light of the disappointing Kennedy legacy and its heirs like John Kerry.
These stories remind me why, if Clinton can be called by some the "first black President," we can appropriately call the evangelical George W. Bush "the first Catholic President," especially in light of the disappointing Kennedy legacy and its heirs like John Kerry.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Next Major Update: Monday, March 15, 2004
Due to other writing projects, the next major update will be on Monday, March 15, 2004.
Aramaic Is Alive & Well in the United States
Editor's Introduction: Mel Gibson's movie on the Passion has brought attention to the language spoken by Jesus--Aramaic--which was and is closely related to Hebrew. News articles have tended to focus on Aramaic as a dwindling language hanging on by its fingernails in a few remote villages in present-day Syria. But the truth is not so negative and not so far from home. The following article is by an Aramaic-speaking Chaldean rite Catholic living in the United States who notes that, contrary to the impression made by some news reports, the language of Jesus used in the movie is alive and well in the United States. It is with great pride and devotion that many Chaldean rite Catholics have flocked to see the movie.
The Passion of the Christ has brought Protestant evangelicals and Catholics closer together by fostering a greater appreciation for our common Christian identity and for the role of Mary in our salvation. It can also bring Western or Latin rite Catholics closer to some of their Eastern rite Catholic brothers who are also in full communion with the Pope. John Paul II has urged the Church to breathe with "both lungs," that is, to make use of both her Western heritage and her Eastern heritage. An appreciation of the living reality of Aramaic brings us closer to that Eastern heritage as present in the Chaldean Catholic rite.
For those not familiar with Catholic rites, a rite refers to a distinct group within the one Catholic Church in full communion with the Roman Pontiff. These distinct groups "are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites" (Vatican II, Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches, 2). Vatican II also noted that these "individual churches both Eastern and Western, while they differ somewhat among themselves in what is called 'rite,' namely in liturgy, in ecclesiastical discipline and in spiritual tradition, are none the less all equally entrusted to the pastoral guidance of the Roman Pontiff" (Decree on Catholic Eastern Churches, 3). In other words, an Eastern Catholic church, such as that represented by the Aramaic-speaking Chaldean Catholic rite, is just as Catholic as the Latin rite that encompasses about 90% of the world's Catholics.
The following article was written by a Chaldean Catholic living in the United States and pursuing graduate studies at Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary. The Chaldean Catholic rite traces its origins to the missionary work of St. Thomas the Apostle.
Feature Article:
Aramaic Is Alive & Well in the United States
By Imad Thomas Jonna
Aramaic is one of the oldest languages known to the civilized world. It is alive and well in the United States and is being used by Chaldean and Assyrian Americans everyday as their first or second language. Their retention of this language does not reflect any hostility toward American English. English is rightfully our nation's national language, but our mother tongue is Aramaic. It truly gives the Chaldean and Assyrian Americans a proud Christian identity. The Chaldeans and Assyrians residing in the United States have taken advantage of their religious freedom to extensively use Aramaic at home, in the community, and in their places of worship as a hidden jewel. Although Aramaic was used by many nationalities, it was kept alive by the ancient Christian people of modern-day Iraq and Syria. The Christian inhabitants of these lands have found a refuge in Aramaic as their very own and dear language, the language of Christ, the voice of Christianity, in the midst of the Middle East, a part of the world that does not always look at Christianity in a favorable light.
Aramaic is a Semitic language that most likely developed in Aram, a country that was located in southwest Asia. Aramaic became the official language of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, and it became the official language of the entire Middle East and Persian region. “It gradually became the lingua-franca of the ancient Near East from India to Egypt” (New Catholic Encyclopedia s.v. "Aramaic" [1967 ed.]). It is the sweet language spoken by the holy lips and tongue of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Linguistic historians usually break Aramaic down into four categories: 1) old Aramaic (900-300 B.C.); 2) Middle Aramaic (300 B.C.-200 A.D.); 3) late Aramaic (200 A.D.-700 A.D.); and 4) modern Aramaic (700 A. D. to the present). The Aramaic language has developed numerous dialects, but the most prominent dialect that is alive and well and used in the United States is the Syriac dialect. The Syriac dialect is usually associated with the Eastern form that was spoken by the Assyrians and Babylonians and the Jews who were in exile. The Syriac that is spoken by well over 100,000 Chaldeans and Assyrians is mostly associated with the late and modern Aramaic that sprang from Edessa in southern Turkey. Edessa was one of the centers from which Christianity spread to Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. Syriac is also the language of St. Ephraem of Syria (306-73 A.D.), one of the most brilliant Doctors and Fathers of the Church (see Catholic Encyclopedia article). Tradition has it that he wrote one million pages of poetry and hymns for our Lord Jesus and His Most Blessed Virgin Mother. Syriac is also the official language of the Chaldean Rite Catholic Church, one of eighteen Eastern Rites that are in union with the Holy See, Rome.
Many modern scholars believe that Aramaic is no longer widely spoken, and they believe that the few remaining Middle Eastern villages that retain it use it only as a liturgical language. But nothing could be further from the truth. Aramaic is alive and well in the United States, in the Middle East, and in virtually every continent because the Chaldeans and Assyrians have migrated to all parts of the world. But the majority of Aramaic-speaking people still reside in the villages north of Mosul, in Nineveh, and in Baghdad, as well as in other parts of the Middle East. The Chaldeans and Assyrians are very proud of their native Aramaic language, but unfortunately the governments of these Middle Eastern countries do not recognize the Aramaic language, frown upon its use, and label it as a peasant language.
The Aramaic language found its way to the New World, specifically the United States, in the first decade of the 20th century, when a handful of Chaldeans emigrated to the United States and settled in the Detroit metropolitan area. The first Chaldean immigrants were very few in number, but by the mid-seventies there where a great number of Chaldeans coming to the United States, helped by the lifting of quotas by the U.S. government. The Chaldean and Assyrian population in the United States is well over 100,000, but unfortunately this number can never be verified by the U.S. census due to a faulty census process. However, the Vatican recognized the swelling numbers of the Chaldean, Aramaic-speaking community when His Holiness Pope John Paul II in 1982 established the Apostolic Exarchate for the Chaldean faithful residing in the United States of America, and appointed Rev. Ibrahim Ibrahim as the new bishop of the eparchy or diocese. The Chaldean community has since then been granted by the Holy Father a second diocese covering the western part of the United States, with the Rev. Sarhad Jammo appointed to serve as bishop in California for the newly created diocese.
Finally, I myself am living proof that Aramaic is alive and well in the United States. I came to the United States with my family from Iraq at the age of two, and Aramaic Syriac is commonly spoken in my own home. My Latin rite friend and I often pray the Holy Rosary in both Aramaic and Latin. Ironically, these two languages are both considered by many scholars to be dead languages, yet they are alive when we pray, because God’s Church is universal and uniting. The Church unites all from east to west, and it unites all languages as the whole Church celebrates one Holy Eucharist which is Christ Himself who speaks all languages to all Christians. In closing, I sincerely ask all who read this article to please pray for all the inhabitants of the Middle East and especially for the Christian people living in the Middle East.
The Passion of the Christ has brought Protestant evangelicals and Catholics closer together by fostering a greater appreciation for our common Christian identity and for the role of Mary in our salvation. It can also bring Western or Latin rite Catholics closer to some of their Eastern rite Catholic brothers who are also in full communion with the Pope. John Paul II has urged the Church to breathe with "both lungs," that is, to make use of both her Western heritage and her Eastern heritage. An appreciation of the living reality of Aramaic brings us closer to that Eastern heritage as present in the Chaldean Catholic rite.
For those not familiar with Catholic rites, a rite refers to a distinct group within the one Catholic Church in full communion with the Roman Pontiff. These distinct groups "are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites" (Vatican II, Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches, 2). Vatican II also noted that these "individual churches both Eastern and Western, while they differ somewhat among themselves in what is called 'rite,' namely in liturgy, in ecclesiastical discipline and in spiritual tradition, are none the less all equally entrusted to the pastoral guidance of the Roman Pontiff" (Decree on Catholic Eastern Churches, 3). In other words, an Eastern Catholic church, such as that represented by the Aramaic-speaking Chaldean Catholic rite, is just as Catholic as the Latin rite that encompasses about 90% of the world's Catholics.
The following article was written by a Chaldean Catholic living in the United States and pursuing graduate studies at Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary. The Chaldean Catholic rite traces its origins to the missionary work of St. Thomas the Apostle.
Feature Article:
Aramaic Is Alive & Well in the United States
By Imad Thomas Jonna
Aramaic is one of the oldest languages known to the civilized world. It is alive and well in the United States and is being used by Chaldean and Assyrian Americans everyday as their first or second language. Their retention of this language does not reflect any hostility toward American English. English is rightfully our nation's national language, but our mother tongue is Aramaic. It truly gives the Chaldean and Assyrian Americans a proud Christian identity. The Chaldeans and Assyrians residing in the United States have taken advantage of their religious freedom to extensively use Aramaic at home, in the community, and in their places of worship as a hidden jewel. Although Aramaic was used by many nationalities, it was kept alive by the ancient Christian people of modern-day Iraq and Syria. The Christian inhabitants of these lands have found a refuge in Aramaic as their very own and dear language, the language of Christ, the voice of Christianity, in the midst of the Middle East, a part of the world that does not always look at Christianity in a favorable light.
Aramaic is a Semitic language that most likely developed in Aram, a country that was located in southwest Asia. Aramaic became the official language of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, and it became the official language of the entire Middle East and Persian region. “It gradually became the lingua-franca of the ancient Near East from India to Egypt” (New Catholic Encyclopedia s.v. "Aramaic" [1967 ed.]). It is the sweet language spoken by the holy lips and tongue of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Linguistic historians usually break Aramaic down into four categories: 1) old Aramaic (900-300 B.C.); 2) Middle Aramaic (300 B.C.-200 A.D.); 3) late Aramaic (200 A.D.-700 A.D.); and 4) modern Aramaic (700 A. D. to the present). The Aramaic language has developed numerous dialects, but the most prominent dialect that is alive and well and used in the United States is the Syriac dialect. The Syriac dialect is usually associated with the Eastern form that was spoken by the Assyrians and Babylonians and the Jews who were in exile. The Syriac that is spoken by well over 100,000 Chaldeans and Assyrians is mostly associated with the late and modern Aramaic that sprang from Edessa in southern Turkey. Edessa was one of the centers from which Christianity spread to Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. Syriac is also the language of St. Ephraem of Syria (306-73 A.D.), one of the most brilliant Doctors and Fathers of the Church (see Catholic Encyclopedia article). Tradition has it that he wrote one million pages of poetry and hymns for our Lord Jesus and His Most Blessed Virgin Mother. Syriac is also the official language of the Chaldean Rite Catholic Church, one of eighteen Eastern Rites that are in union with the Holy See, Rome.
Many modern scholars believe that Aramaic is no longer widely spoken, and they believe that the few remaining Middle Eastern villages that retain it use it only as a liturgical language. But nothing could be further from the truth. Aramaic is alive and well in the United States, in the Middle East, and in virtually every continent because the Chaldeans and Assyrians have migrated to all parts of the world. But the majority of Aramaic-speaking people still reside in the villages north of Mosul, in Nineveh, and in Baghdad, as well as in other parts of the Middle East. The Chaldeans and Assyrians are very proud of their native Aramaic language, but unfortunately the governments of these Middle Eastern countries do not recognize the Aramaic language, frown upon its use, and label it as a peasant language.
The Aramaic language found its way to the New World, specifically the United States, in the first decade of the 20th century, when a handful of Chaldeans emigrated to the United States and settled in the Detroit metropolitan area. The first Chaldean immigrants were very few in number, but by the mid-seventies there where a great number of Chaldeans coming to the United States, helped by the lifting of quotas by the U.S. government. The Chaldean and Assyrian population in the United States is well over 100,000, but unfortunately this number can never be verified by the U.S. census due to a faulty census process. However, the Vatican recognized the swelling numbers of the Chaldean, Aramaic-speaking community when His Holiness Pope John Paul II in 1982 established the Apostolic Exarchate for the Chaldean faithful residing in the United States of America, and appointed Rev. Ibrahim Ibrahim as the new bishop of the eparchy or diocese. The Chaldean community has since then been granted by the Holy Father a second diocese covering the western part of the United States, with the Rev. Sarhad Jammo appointed to serve as bishop in California for the newly created diocese.
Finally, I myself am living proof that Aramaic is alive and well in the United States. I came to the United States with my family from Iraq at the age of two, and Aramaic Syriac is commonly spoken in my own home. My Latin rite friend and I often pray the Holy Rosary in both Aramaic and Latin. Ironically, these two languages are both considered by many scholars to be dead languages, yet they are alive when we pray, because God’s Church is universal and uniting. The Church unites all from east to west, and it unites all languages as the whole Church celebrates one Holy Eucharist which is Christ Himself who speaks all languages to all Christians. In closing, I sincerely ask all who read this article to please pray for all the inhabitants of the Middle East and especially for the Christian people living in the Middle East.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Political Blockbuster: 325,000 Michigan Voters Petition to Ban Partial Birth Abortion
Last year, pro-abortion Michigan Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm vetoed a bill to ban partial-birth abortion. But Michigan Right to Life and the Catholic bishops of Michigan did not sit on their hands. They initiated this past January a petition drive to override the governor's veto. About two months later, they have had stunning success. Today's Detroit Free Press reports that the petition drive has garnered 325,000 signatures of registered Michigan voters, well above the approximately 255,000 signatures needed to override the governor's veto. Now the measure to ban partial birth abortion will go back before the state legislature. If it passes again, as it surely will, the ban becomes law automatically without the governor's approval.
This scenario is a stunning populist defeat of an extremely pro-abortion governor who even dares to claim to be Catholic. Hopefully, the same registered voters who signed the petition will remember her stand when she comes up for re-election in the future. Hopefully, the same registered voters will remember the extremist pro-abortion position of the Democratic Party in this November's presidential election. We also hope that the Catholic bishops will follow up with a ban on Governor Granholm's receiving the Eucharist and distributing the Eucharist as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion (as she has done in the past; see story). Such action by the bishops is all the more needed because she is openly claiming in the media that her Catholicism is consistent with her pro-abortion views: she is usurping the teaching role of the bishops by publicly teaching her own version of Catholicism. She has pushed her views by acting in effect as a heretical countermagisterium. It is a direct challenge to the role of the bishops.
It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media gives any prominence to this story. Imagine if 325,000 voters had overridden the veto of abortion rights legislation by a conservative pro-life governor. The New York Times would be trumpeting the populist surge in pro-abortion sentiment. I doubt the New York Times will trumpet Michigan's populist surge in pro-life sentiment. Yet, the surge in pro-life sentiment in Michigan, an important Midwest swing state in the presidential election, is a fact.
This scenario is a stunning populist defeat of an extremely pro-abortion governor who even dares to claim to be Catholic. Hopefully, the same registered voters who signed the petition will remember her stand when she comes up for re-election in the future. Hopefully, the same registered voters will remember the extremist pro-abortion position of the Democratic Party in this November's presidential election. We also hope that the Catholic bishops will follow up with a ban on Governor Granholm's receiving the Eucharist and distributing the Eucharist as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion (as she has done in the past; see story). Such action by the bishops is all the more needed because she is openly claiming in the media that her Catholicism is consistent with her pro-abortion views: she is usurping the teaching role of the bishops by publicly teaching her own version of Catholicism. She has pushed her views by acting in effect as a heretical countermagisterium. It is a direct challenge to the role of the bishops.
It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media gives any prominence to this story. Imagine if 325,000 voters had overridden the veto of abortion rights legislation by a conservative pro-life governor. The New York Times would be trumpeting the populist surge in pro-abortion sentiment. I doubt the New York Times will trumpet Michigan's populist surge in pro-life sentiment. Yet, the surge in pro-life sentiment in Michigan, an important Midwest swing state in the presidential election, is a fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)