Speaking of "fifth columnists," Proposition 8 has certainly clarified positions within the Archdiocese of San Francisco. While Archbishop Niederauer has written and spoken in support of the victorious amendment, that's not the case throughout the Archdiocese. We've already posted about the donations made by Brian Cahill, Executive Director of Catholic Charities, and Fr. Cameron Ayers, SJ, Pastor of St. Agnes Church, to the "No on Proposition 8" Campaign. We can now add Most Holy Redeemer Church to the mix. Three current members of the MHR Pastoral Council donated to the "No On Proposition 8" campaign. A past President and past Vice-President of the MHR Pastoral Council have done so as well. (Go here for links to donation records). This is no surprise.
Back on August 28, 2007, we reviewed Fr. Donal Godfrey's book "Gays and Grays: the story of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church." Our review was called: "MHR and How it Got That Way" . We argued that Fr. Godfrey's book shows that the true organizing principle at MHR is not Catholicism, but homosexuality. We also showed how this could be proven by examining what happened whenever Catholic teaching and the celebration of homosexuality came into conflict. Whenever that happened, Church teaching was abandoned.
On November 25, Salon did an interview with Richard Rodriguez "Why Churches Fear Gay Marriage." Mr. Rodriguez is a well known TV commentator, and a parishioner at MHR. His interview once more undercores our point. He completely rejects the Church when it is in conflict with his own sexual desires:
"I belong to a Catholic parish in San Francisco (Most Holy Redeemer), where my partner and I are acknowledged by the other people in the parish as a couple. We take communion together, the priests know who we are, they're supportive of who we are, and what we are, and they see us in various roles -- giving eulogies to dead friends but also helping to baptize little babies. We're very much a part of that community. That's why I'm not prepared to lose it because some archbishop in Colorado or cardinal in Los Angeles is behind Proposition 8. It is not my church that they're talking about, it's not even my experience of love."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
What should we do?
Here’s a note from Joan L. Roccasalvo, C.S.J., Bronx, NY
Isn't it curious that our young people overwhelmingly support pro-life activities, yet they support homosexual marriages? Our educators must be clear in their teaching about this issue. Youth are concerned about civil rights. It is here that the Church needs to make clear and cogent distinctions so that the emotional arguments are replaced with rational reasons for marriage between one man and one woman.
Isn't it curious that our young people overwhelmingly support pro-life activities, yet they support homosexual marriages? Our educators must be clear in their teaching about this issue. Youth are concerned about civil rights. It is here that the Church needs to make clear and cogent distinctions so that the emotional arguments are replaced with rational reasons for marriage between one man and one woman.
What About It?
Observations made by George Weigel in a Catholic Education Research Center's recent publication:
*The people of the United States have elected the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in American history, and by the largest popular vote percentage garnered by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson.
*The people of the State of Washington have adopted, in a landslide, an act permitting the euthanizing of the sick, elderly and burdensome under the Orwellian rubrics of "death with dignity" and "physician-assisted suicide."
*The people of California have exercised their sovereign will to prevent the parents of minors from being notified if their daughter intends to have an abortion -- although you may be quite certain that said parents would be consulted before said minor's school nurse administered an aspirin tablet.
*And the people of Michigan have decided to authorize a wholesale slaughter of human embryos for research purposes -- at precisely the moment that embryonic stem-cell research has lost much of its scientific luster, thanks to developments in the reprogramming of adult stem cells.
And we sit by and take it?
*The people of the United States have elected the most radically pro-abortion presidential candidate in American history, and by the largest popular vote percentage garnered by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson.
*The people of the State of Washington have adopted, in a landslide, an act permitting the euthanizing of the sick, elderly and burdensome under the Orwellian rubrics of "death with dignity" and "physician-assisted suicide."
*The people of California have exercised their sovereign will to prevent the parents of minors from being notified if their daughter intends to have an abortion -- although you may be quite certain that said parents would be consulted before said minor's school nurse administered an aspirin tablet.
*And the people of Michigan have decided to authorize a wholesale slaughter of human embryos for research purposes -- at precisely the moment that embryonic stem-cell research has lost much of its scientific luster, thanks to developments in the reprogramming of adult stem cells.
And we sit by and take it?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
THANKFUL!
HE'S GIVING HIS ALL FOR US!What are we doing for his Creator?
May your Thanksgiving be a celebration of life and family!
God's bessimg be yours.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING !
Set them free!
Enough is enough! With less than two months left before he leaves office, time is running out for President Bush to free two imprisoned American heroes, Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos!
The Washington Times had hard words for President Bush: "It's both baffling and disappointing that President Bush has not already pardoned two U.S. Border Patrol agents imprisoned since 2007... Time is running out for Mr. Bush to act to correct what one Congressman [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher] calls 'the worst miscarriage of justice that I have witnessed in the 30 years I've been in Washington.'"
The Times also called President Bush's failure to act, "blindness." Congressman Tom Tancredo recently wrote: "These are the kinds of men whose government failed and destroyed them - all while they were serving a cause greater than themselves. These men deserve justice. I, and many other members of Congress, have repeatedly called upon President Bush to exercise his power to pardon - but he has not done so.” There are many who believe that Agents Compean and Ramos were wrongfully prosecuted.
Congressman Ed Royce stated: “Ramos and Compean have been living in the torture of solitary confinement for almost two years for something they never should have been prosecuted for in the first place. We are pleading with the Pardon Attorney to make a favorable recommendation of commutation to the President so he can finally do the right thing by these men and their families." But, as Royce's statement indicates, there is hope for Compean and Ramos. Apparently the commutation of their sentences is presently under consideration.
According to CNSNews: "The case is now before the DOJ’s Pardon Attorney Donald Rodgers. The Office of Pardon Attorney works in consultation with the attorney general’s office to assist the president, who has sole power of clemency in federal cases under the Constitution." More details however, are not available. According to CNSNews , the Justice Department is not responding to inquiries and the White House refuses to comment on the matter: At a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino stated: “We never comment on pardons or people who are eligible to apply for a pardon. That goes to the Office of Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice, and we don’t comment on those deliberations.”
Compean and Ramos are running out of time! It is NOW or NEVER when it comes to securing the release of Mr. President... Free These Border Agents NOW!
There are numerous other problems that we can point to about how the prosecution and sentencing of these two brave Border Patrol Agents stunk from the get-go. Not the least of which was the fact that nearly the entire prosecution by our government of Ramos and Compean was based on the perjured testimony of an illegal alien drug smuggler who received immunity in return for his testimony.
As Congressman Ted Poe told the Daily Bulletin: “When you give deals to witnesses like immunity, the government usually gets the testimony (it wants)… This case is a perfect example.” As time goes by – as Agents Compean and Ramos sit in federal prisons for attempting to do their jobs by securing the border against illegal alien drug smugglers – more and more information comes to light about this travesty of justice.
That may be why Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said: “The Ramos and Compean case is the worst miscarriage of justice that I have witnessed in the 30 years I have been in Washington.” So much so that more than 100 Members of Congress have co-sponsored a resolution calling for Ramos and Compean to be freed. It makes no sense to let these brave Border Patrol Agents spend even one more day in prison. these brave former Border Agents. Now may be your last chance to make your voice heard!
http://www.GOPUSA.com/
The Washington Times had hard words for President Bush: "It's both baffling and disappointing that President Bush has not already pardoned two U.S. Border Patrol agents imprisoned since 2007... Time is running out for Mr. Bush to act to correct what one Congressman [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher] calls 'the worst miscarriage of justice that I have witnessed in the 30 years I've been in Washington.'"
The Times also called President Bush's failure to act, "blindness." Congressman Tom Tancredo recently wrote: "These are the kinds of men whose government failed and destroyed them - all while they were serving a cause greater than themselves. These men deserve justice. I, and many other members of Congress, have repeatedly called upon President Bush to exercise his power to pardon - but he has not done so.” There are many who believe that Agents Compean and Ramos were wrongfully prosecuted.
Congressman Ed Royce stated: “Ramos and Compean have been living in the torture of solitary confinement for almost two years for something they never should have been prosecuted for in the first place. We are pleading with the Pardon Attorney to make a favorable recommendation of commutation to the President so he can finally do the right thing by these men and their families." But, as Royce's statement indicates, there is hope for Compean and Ramos. Apparently the commutation of their sentences is presently under consideration.
According to CNSNews: "The case is now before the DOJ’s Pardon Attorney Donald Rodgers. The Office of Pardon Attorney works in consultation with the attorney general’s office to assist the president, who has sole power of clemency in federal cases under the Constitution." More details however, are not available. According to CNSNews , the Justice Department is not responding to inquiries and the White House refuses to comment on the matter: At a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino stated: “We never comment on pardons or people who are eligible to apply for a pardon. That goes to the Office of Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice, and we don’t comment on those deliberations.”
Compean and Ramos are running out of time! It is NOW or NEVER when it comes to securing the release of Mr. President... Free These Border Agents NOW!
There are numerous other problems that we can point to about how the prosecution and sentencing of these two brave Border Patrol Agents stunk from the get-go. Not the least of which was the fact that nearly the entire prosecution by our government of Ramos and Compean was based on the perjured testimony of an illegal alien drug smuggler who received immunity in return for his testimony.
As Congressman Ted Poe told the Daily Bulletin: “When you give deals to witnesses like immunity, the government usually gets the testimony (it wants)… This case is a perfect example.” As time goes by – as Agents Compean and Ramos sit in federal prisons for attempting to do their jobs by securing the border against illegal alien drug smugglers – more and more information comes to light about this travesty of justice.
That may be why Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said: “The Ramos and Compean case is the worst miscarriage of justice that I have witnessed in the 30 years I have been in Washington.” So much so that more than 100 Members of Congress have co-sponsored a resolution calling for Ramos and Compean to be freed. It makes no sense to let these brave Border Patrol Agents spend even one more day in prison. these brave former Border Agents. Now may be your last chance to make your voice heard!
http://www.GOPUSA.com/
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Catholic Charities Director's Going-Away Party
This Monday, December 1, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will hold a farewell reception for its outgoing Executive Director Brian Cahill. That's Mr. Cahill (right) with openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty at a 2008 Catholic Charities event.We remind the reader that under Mr. Cahill’s leadership, Catholic Charities, among other things:
Formed the disastrous partnership with “Family Builders by Adoption,” which saw Catholic Charities staff an organization whose mission included "Increasing the number of children adopted by Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) adults." Thankfully, the partnership will be dissolved next year.
Invited male transvestite, same-sex “marriage” activist, and Equality California Institute borad member “Donna Sachet” to be a featured entertainer at one of their parties;
Honored Mr. George Marcus at their 2008 “Loaves and Fishes” dinner, ignoring the fact that Mr. Marcus had given over $175,000 to political campaigns in California promoting the culture of death, and which were unwaveringly opposed by the Catholic Church;
In between time, Mr. Cahill found time to personally donate $600 to "Equality for All" and “Equality California --No on Proposition 8.”
It’s no secret that “A Shepherd’s Voice” is glad to see Mr. Cahill leave, and a look at the “Honorary Committee” for Mr. Cahill’s going-away reception just underscores why.
Committee members include:
San Francisco Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Ross Mirkarimi, and Gerald Sandoval, all of whom voted for Resolution 168-06 on March 21, 2006, which called the Catholic Church “hateful” and “discriminatory” for daring to say that a child should be raised in a home with a mother and a father;
Senator Dianne Feinstein, who made a television ad supporting same-sex marriage, and who has throughout her career garnered a 100% pro-death rating from NARAL;
Dr. Sandra Hernandez, CEO of the San Francisco Foundation, who personally donated $1,000 to the Campaign opposing Proposition 8, and whose webpage states “The San Francisco Foundation endorsed a No on 8 position and in the coming weeks and months we will be tracking closely the next steps to continue the strategy for justice.”
Dennis Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, who is currently suing the State of California to outlaw the definition of marriage and the will of the voters by invalidating Proposition 8;
Jim Illig, Director of Government Relations for “Project Open Hand,” who gave $300 to oppose Proposition 8;
Father Anthony McGuire, former pastor of Most Holy Redeemer parish, of whom an admiring Fr. Donal Godfrey wrote: "Under Father Anthony McGuire—‘Fr. Tony—the parish was reborn…” The “reborn” Most Holy Redeemer Church now has “married” lesbians serving as lectors, acolytes, and Eucharistic Ministers, and a Liturgy Planning Group Coordinator who participates at events that are pictured on a website requiring an obscenity disclaimer.
San Francisco City Assessor Phil Ting, who in June, 2008 officiated at at least one same-sex “wedding.” From Sing Tao Daily: “Phil Ting spoke after the ceremony and said that he is very glad to marry gay and lesbian couples and very happy to see the day that the California government will allow their gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.”
We are glad to see the last of Mr. Cahill, and we pray Catholic Charities can find a way to fulfill its mission while being true to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Christ and Antichrist
Another fine homily, given yesterday, by our friend Fr. Anselm Ramelow, O.P. Fr. Anselm is a Dominican Priest and Professor of Philosophy at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology here in the Bay Area.
Martyrdom, the Antichrist and the Christian Witness
(Feast of the Vietnamese Martyrs)
Today we celebrate the Vietnamese Martyrs, many Catholic faithful, priests and laity who have given their life for their faith throughout several centuries, be it the political persecutions of the 19th century or the communist persecutions of the 20th century. These persecutions are ongoing. We know them through the many Vietnamese brothers and sisters who are living in this country. Their strong faith has lead many of them also to embrace vocations to the priesthood and religious life, including the Dominican Order. With that they are an important witness to all of us.
Their primary witness, though, was and is not for us, but before the powers of the world. That is what we call martyrdom. That Church has always considered martyrdom to be primarily a public and political act. You are not a martyr, if you die through an accident, or as a victim of a criminal act of private persons. Martyrdom is the outcome of a confrontation with political authority, with those who hold public office.
This is true even today in Vietnam, or also in Orissa, India. I am sure you have followed that in the news. There the government might hide behind the criminal acts of violence and murder by organized mobs or gangs. But their public refusal to take legal and police actions against the perpetrators is a clear endorsement of these acts. Standing by where it is your authority and duty to act, is itself an official statement.
At times the confrontation will be more explicit. This we see among the early Christian martyrs, who were arrested and killed by the authorities of the Roman Empire. They were brought before the courts and legally tried. That is why we get some of our documentation of these martyrs from the archives of the Roman Empire. Again, martyrdom is not death through a criminal act, but death through the very legal system itself that is meant to protect us from criminal acts.
That is also, why traditionally the role of the Antichrist is associated with a political power, as one can see in the book of Revelation, but also in much of the later literature, e.g. in Michael O’Brien’s Father Elijah or Robert Hugh Benson’s The Lord of the World or in the writings of Vladimir Solovyev, all of whom rely on much older perennial wisdom in the Church.
Political power is not, of course, something bad in and by itself. Indeed, Paul’s letter to the Romans says that all political authority is from God. But political power is always deeply ambivalent. (Even if it is in favor of the Church it tends to corrupt her.) The Antichrist is traditionally conceived of as a political ruler, and even a ruler that aspires to world rule.
Jesus promised us as much: he said that they will bring you before governors and courts. He also said that we are not worry, because at this point the Holy Spirit will take over. He will be the one who will give us the right words to answer.
And why is that? It is because we are giving a public witness for the Christian faith. We are not just giving witness for our own subjective opinions before some other equally subjective private individuals, but we are giving witness before public authorities to an equally public faith that is not just ours, but ultimately comes from God himself. It is the faith of the Church that the creator of the universe has established for this public witness. We are speaking not for ourselves, but for the Church, and therefore we will be able to speak with the authority of the Church, i.e., with the Holy Spirit.
But we will also speak for Jesus Christ himself. Jesus himself was put on trial. He was brought before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. He witnessed to the truth before the public authorities of the Roman Empire – only to receive the cynical answer: what is truth? He received a court sentence from these authorities, a death sentence, as an expression of a perverted political and judicial system that had replaced questions of truth with the questions of power.
Ever since, public authorities and courts have frequently put themselves in that position, not realizing that the ones who are really on trial are the judges themselves, because they are attempting to judge the king of the universe, who judges them by becoming a witness, a martyr.
Whenever Christians are in those situations, they should realize that they are standing in for Jesus himself, or rather that Jesus is standing there for them, giving witness in and through them in the Holy Spirit. We might suffer, but we will have his support and power for our witness.
But why this conflict in the first place? Why is there a perpetual struggle between Church and State, with the Roman Empire and then its successors in the Middle Ages and finally throughout modern history and in all parts of the world? Why is the public square never a neutral arena, but will always bear witness to either Christ or Antichrist?
For one, because God is different from the world; he is not identical with it, but its creator. God transcends this world, stands over against it in total freedom. He has created it freely and governs it according to his gracious will. That is why Jesus can tell Pilate in his trial that his kingdom is not of this world.
Pope Benedict has also pointed out that the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount would probably not work, if you would make them into state laws. Turning the other cheek and not caring for tomorrow are more likely to be realized by individual Christians aspiring to something greater than the secular government, and rightly so. He sees this as opening up the legitimately different directions and purposes of Church and secular state, something unique to Christian history.
So far, so good. But why would we then have a conflict? After all, if the state cares about the world, and the Church about heaven, they should be able to coexist peacefully. No reason for court trials and martyrdom here.
The reason is that we are monotheists. We do not believe that God is responsible only for heaven and its kingdom, and another god would have made the earthly world and rules that kind of kingdom. We are not dualists. Both heaven and earth were made by God. The world is not a bad place; it is made by God, too. And we are meant to live in it and shape it as well. We have a responsibility for heaven and earth. In our own personal lives and for others it will matter what we do in this world and in the realm of the powers that have authority over it. This is what leaves us in the tension of being citizens of the kingdom of heaven and of living in this world at the same time. (It was already St. Irenaeus of Lyon who made this point in the 2nd century; he claimed that martyrdom is in this way specific to the Christian faith, and later became a martyr himself.)
Again, Jesus is the model: Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity, existing from all eternity. But he is not staying far away; rather, he takes our human nature, lives a human, earthly life, preaching the Sermon on the Mount to people who continued to lead lives in their particular circumstances. Jesus did so himself. And just as this brings him into conflict with political authority, it will also do so for all those who follow him. (As he promised: “the servant is not greater than the master.”) So, while the Church is not all about politics and a social Gospel, it is impossible that the message of the Church will not have political implications and will raise eyebrows, if not persecutions.
That might be, why the letters of St. John describe the Antichrist as the one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh. He fears the unavoidable interference in his own political realm. He does not want another power besides himself. A Church that has a special, legally guaranteed status through concordats, that is a “perfect society”, complete in its own right, with its own laws (canon law) does not fit the neat logical of a purely earthly realm. Early modern political philosophy has always taken exception to this (e.g., Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Hegel), and so does the Antichrist. That is why he wants world rule. It is a total rule, and it is an international rule, where no other international power like the Vatican can interfere in the affairs of national states. Nation states will not be able to control an external authority like the Vatican, but a World-government might. It is the direct competition to the universal spiritual authority of the Church.
Ultimately, however, the witness of the Church does not just challenge national authorities or even international authorities, but the ultimacy of the world as such. It is a witness, sometimes a martyrial witness, to the fact that this life, this world is not all that there is. And this is the true scandal that provokes persecution.
The Antichrist is not primarily someone who is a bad person in the usual sense. He is not a criminal. He is not even the usual kind of selfish tyrant. In fact he is usually expected to be humanitarian, self-less, ascetic, sometimes a vegetarian, a compassionate friend of man and animal.
The conflict is not selfishness or immorality of the usual kind, but it is primarily a conflict of authority and a conflict over the question where true authority comes from. Even political authority comes from God, yet the Antichrist will speak in his own name.
Implied in this is also the question where our ultimate hope comes from: If there is no hope and no God beyond this world, then we will have to play God ourselves. That is what the snake promised: you will be like God, knowing good and evil for yourself. Yes, one can and should promote politically humanitarian goals, but if it is in the spirit of the Antichrist it will be in the name of inner-worldly goals and authorities; it will argue with the logic of the needs of this world and make individuals and religions subservient to the survival of the planet, arguing, e.g., for eugenics, euthanasia and population control. While indeed it will be Christianity that defends the sanctity of life in the human person as an image and likeness of God – an image, which just like the God it represents, transcends the earthly goals and ends of this world.
If religions, however, refuse to serve the goals of the Antichrist and disrupt the process, they will be treated like another pest in the organism of humanity that is to be exterminated. Already in the Roman Empire Christians were singled out in this way as being “anti-social” or being filled with an odium humani generis – a hatred of the human race.
So we see some perennial features emerging, which writers of various kinds of pointed out throughout the ages.
And this scenario should sound familiar to our own experience as well: in a time, when these inner-worldly goals and measures are more and more codified in our legal system, trying to coerce the Church and its individual members into its very structures, this conflict will be increasingly unavoidable. Not just in the U.S., but in the whole western world, if not globally, we might in the near future find ourselves in the position of being brought before the courts. Cardinal Stafford recently said in Washington (at the Catholic University of America) that in the next few years Gethsemane will not be marginal for American Christian. “We will know that garden.” While we might not lose our lives as the Vietnamese martyrs did, we might sometimes lose our jobs, our freedom, our money and our institutions (especially in teaching and healthcare).
This is why we have reason to recall some of the perennial wisdom of the Church about the principles that rule this world and govern history. This is not the first time and it probably will not be the last time that shows some more apocalyptic features. The Vietnamese martyrs show the same situation, and indeed it is something that we will find whenever we are called to a public witness for our faith before the political powers of this world.
Martyrdom, the Antichrist and the Christian Witness
(Feast of the Vietnamese Martyrs)
Today we celebrate the Vietnamese Martyrs, many Catholic faithful, priests and laity who have given their life for their faith throughout several centuries, be it the political persecutions of the 19th century or the communist persecutions of the 20th century. These persecutions are ongoing. We know them through the many Vietnamese brothers and sisters who are living in this country. Their strong faith has lead many of them also to embrace vocations to the priesthood and religious life, including the Dominican Order. With that they are an important witness to all of us.
Their primary witness, though, was and is not for us, but before the powers of the world. That is what we call martyrdom. That Church has always considered martyrdom to be primarily a public and political act. You are not a martyr, if you die through an accident, or as a victim of a criminal act of private persons. Martyrdom is the outcome of a confrontation with political authority, with those who hold public office.
This is true even today in Vietnam, or also in Orissa, India. I am sure you have followed that in the news. There the government might hide behind the criminal acts of violence and murder by organized mobs or gangs. But their public refusal to take legal and police actions against the perpetrators is a clear endorsement of these acts. Standing by where it is your authority and duty to act, is itself an official statement.
At times the confrontation will be more explicit. This we see among the early Christian martyrs, who were arrested and killed by the authorities of the Roman Empire. They were brought before the courts and legally tried. That is why we get some of our documentation of these martyrs from the archives of the Roman Empire. Again, martyrdom is not death through a criminal act, but death through the very legal system itself that is meant to protect us from criminal acts.
That is also, why traditionally the role of the Antichrist is associated with a political power, as one can see in the book of Revelation, but also in much of the later literature, e.g. in Michael O’Brien’s Father Elijah or Robert Hugh Benson’s The Lord of the World or in the writings of Vladimir Solovyev, all of whom rely on much older perennial wisdom in the Church.
Political power is not, of course, something bad in and by itself. Indeed, Paul’s letter to the Romans says that all political authority is from God. But political power is always deeply ambivalent. (Even if it is in favor of the Church it tends to corrupt her.) The Antichrist is traditionally conceived of as a political ruler, and even a ruler that aspires to world rule.
Jesus promised us as much: he said that they will bring you before governors and courts. He also said that we are not worry, because at this point the Holy Spirit will take over. He will be the one who will give us the right words to answer.
And why is that? It is because we are giving a public witness for the Christian faith. We are not just giving witness for our own subjective opinions before some other equally subjective private individuals, but we are giving witness before public authorities to an equally public faith that is not just ours, but ultimately comes from God himself. It is the faith of the Church that the creator of the universe has established for this public witness. We are speaking not for ourselves, but for the Church, and therefore we will be able to speak with the authority of the Church, i.e., with the Holy Spirit.
But we will also speak for Jesus Christ himself. Jesus himself was put on trial. He was brought before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. He witnessed to the truth before the public authorities of the Roman Empire – only to receive the cynical answer: what is truth? He received a court sentence from these authorities, a death sentence, as an expression of a perverted political and judicial system that had replaced questions of truth with the questions of power.
Ever since, public authorities and courts have frequently put themselves in that position, not realizing that the ones who are really on trial are the judges themselves, because they are attempting to judge the king of the universe, who judges them by becoming a witness, a martyr.
Whenever Christians are in those situations, they should realize that they are standing in for Jesus himself, or rather that Jesus is standing there for them, giving witness in and through them in the Holy Spirit. We might suffer, but we will have his support and power for our witness.
But why this conflict in the first place? Why is there a perpetual struggle between Church and State, with the Roman Empire and then its successors in the Middle Ages and finally throughout modern history and in all parts of the world? Why is the public square never a neutral arena, but will always bear witness to either Christ or Antichrist?
For one, because God is different from the world; he is not identical with it, but its creator. God transcends this world, stands over against it in total freedom. He has created it freely and governs it according to his gracious will. That is why Jesus can tell Pilate in his trial that his kingdom is not of this world.
Pope Benedict has also pointed out that the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount would probably not work, if you would make them into state laws. Turning the other cheek and not caring for tomorrow are more likely to be realized by individual Christians aspiring to something greater than the secular government, and rightly so. He sees this as opening up the legitimately different directions and purposes of Church and secular state, something unique to Christian history.
So far, so good. But why would we then have a conflict? After all, if the state cares about the world, and the Church about heaven, they should be able to coexist peacefully. No reason for court trials and martyrdom here.
The reason is that we are monotheists. We do not believe that God is responsible only for heaven and its kingdom, and another god would have made the earthly world and rules that kind of kingdom. We are not dualists. Both heaven and earth were made by God. The world is not a bad place; it is made by God, too. And we are meant to live in it and shape it as well. We have a responsibility for heaven and earth. In our own personal lives and for others it will matter what we do in this world and in the realm of the powers that have authority over it. This is what leaves us in the tension of being citizens of the kingdom of heaven and of living in this world at the same time. (It was already St. Irenaeus of Lyon who made this point in the 2nd century; he claimed that martyrdom is in this way specific to the Christian faith, and later became a martyr himself.)
Again, Jesus is the model: Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity, existing from all eternity. But he is not staying far away; rather, he takes our human nature, lives a human, earthly life, preaching the Sermon on the Mount to people who continued to lead lives in their particular circumstances. Jesus did so himself. And just as this brings him into conflict with political authority, it will also do so for all those who follow him. (As he promised: “the servant is not greater than the master.”) So, while the Church is not all about politics and a social Gospel, it is impossible that the message of the Church will not have political implications and will raise eyebrows, if not persecutions.
That might be, why the letters of St. John describe the Antichrist as the one who denies that Jesus came in the flesh. He fears the unavoidable interference in his own political realm. He does not want another power besides himself. A Church that has a special, legally guaranteed status through concordats, that is a “perfect society”, complete in its own right, with its own laws (canon law) does not fit the neat logical of a purely earthly realm. Early modern political philosophy has always taken exception to this (e.g., Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Hegel), and so does the Antichrist. That is why he wants world rule. It is a total rule, and it is an international rule, where no other international power like the Vatican can interfere in the affairs of national states. Nation states will not be able to control an external authority like the Vatican, but a World-government might. It is the direct competition to the universal spiritual authority of the Church.
Ultimately, however, the witness of the Church does not just challenge national authorities or even international authorities, but the ultimacy of the world as such. It is a witness, sometimes a martyrial witness, to the fact that this life, this world is not all that there is. And this is the true scandal that provokes persecution.
The Antichrist is not primarily someone who is a bad person in the usual sense. He is not a criminal. He is not even the usual kind of selfish tyrant. In fact he is usually expected to be humanitarian, self-less, ascetic, sometimes a vegetarian, a compassionate friend of man and animal.
The conflict is not selfishness or immorality of the usual kind, but it is primarily a conflict of authority and a conflict over the question where true authority comes from. Even political authority comes from God, yet the Antichrist will speak in his own name.
Implied in this is also the question where our ultimate hope comes from: If there is no hope and no God beyond this world, then we will have to play God ourselves. That is what the snake promised: you will be like God, knowing good and evil for yourself. Yes, one can and should promote politically humanitarian goals, but if it is in the spirit of the Antichrist it will be in the name of inner-worldly goals and authorities; it will argue with the logic of the needs of this world and make individuals and religions subservient to the survival of the planet, arguing, e.g., for eugenics, euthanasia and population control. While indeed it will be Christianity that defends the sanctity of life in the human person as an image and likeness of God – an image, which just like the God it represents, transcends the earthly goals and ends of this world.
If religions, however, refuse to serve the goals of the Antichrist and disrupt the process, they will be treated like another pest in the organism of humanity that is to be exterminated. Already in the Roman Empire Christians were singled out in this way as being “anti-social” or being filled with an odium humani generis – a hatred of the human race.
So we see some perennial features emerging, which writers of various kinds of pointed out throughout the ages.
And this scenario should sound familiar to our own experience as well: in a time, when these inner-worldly goals and measures are more and more codified in our legal system, trying to coerce the Church and its individual members into its very structures, this conflict will be increasingly unavoidable. Not just in the U.S., but in the whole western world, if not globally, we might in the near future find ourselves in the position of being brought before the courts. Cardinal Stafford recently said in Washington (at the Catholic University of America) that in the next few years Gethsemane will not be marginal for American Christian. “We will know that garden.” While we might not lose our lives as the Vietnamese martyrs did, we might sometimes lose our jobs, our freedom, our money and our institutions (especially in teaching and healthcare).
This is why we have reason to recall some of the perennial wisdom of the Church about the principles that rule this world and govern history. This is not the first time and it probably will not be the last time that shows some more apocalyptic features. The Vietnamese martyrs show the same situation, and indeed it is something that we will find whenever we are called to a public witness for our faith before the political powers of this world.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Cardinal Stafford and Doug Kmiec
From The Tower:
Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, is standing by controversial comments he made about President-elect Barack Obama during an on-campus lecture last Thursday. In an address hosted by the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family, Stafford called President-elect Barack Obama’s policies “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,” said that his election was “a cultural earthquake” and that Obama campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform...
Stafford told CNN he does believe Obama’s stance on abortion rights condones violence towards unborn children, and he does not understand how a Catholic voter could look favorably at the president-elect when “he is hostile to the life of an unborn child."
The Cardinal is absolutely right. Professor Douglas Kmiec attempted to answer His Eminence and defend Obama. Kmiec's defense included this unbelievable statement:
"Quite obviously, and quite sincerely, President Obama shares with our Church a concern for the most vulnerable..."
Obama, when he served in the Illinois Senate spoke against and voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. That act was introduced because babies, the victims of live birth and induced labor abortions were simply left to die. They were the most vulnerable, helpless people on this planet. This is all a matter of public record. Let's listen to Professor Kmiec again:
"Quite obviously, and quite sincerely, President Obama shares with our Church a concern for the most vulnerable..."
Kmiec is willingly separating himself from reality. Pray for him!
Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, is standing by controversial comments he made about President-elect Barack Obama during an on-campus lecture last Thursday. In an address hosted by the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family, Stafford called President-elect Barack Obama’s policies “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,” said that his election was “a cultural earthquake” and that Obama campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform...
Stafford told CNN he does believe Obama’s stance on abortion rights condones violence towards unborn children, and he does not understand how a Catholic voter could look favorably at the president-elect when “he is hostile to the life of an unborn child."
The Cardinal is absolutely right. Professor Douglas Kmiec attempted to answer His Eminence and defend Obama. Kmiec's defense included this unbelievable statement:
"Quite obviously, and quite sincerely, President Obama shares with our Church a concern for the most vulnerable..."
Obama, when he served in the Illinois Senate spoke against and voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. That act was introduced because babies, the victims of live birth and induced labor abortions were simply left to die. They were the most vulnerable, helpless people on this planet. This is all a matter of public record. Let's listen to Professor Kmiec again:
"Quite obviously, and quite sincerely, President Obama shares with our Church a concern for the most vulnerable..."
Kmiec is willingly separating himself from reality. Pray for him!
Sunday, November 23, 2008
FOCA and our Shepherds
Canon lawyer Ed Peters discusses FOCA, and possible episcopal responses:
"The final wording of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has yet to be set, but there is every indication that it will be the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed at the federal level. The near certainty that FOCA will be re-introduced (compounded by the increased likelihood that it will pass and be signed into law) means that, ready or not, Catholic bishops will have to face squarely the problem of well-known Catholic legislators supporting a specifically and gravely evil bill."
Mr. Peters discusses the options here.
H/T Ignatius Insight.
"The final wording of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has yet to be set, but there is every indication that it will be the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed at the federal level. The near certainty that FOCA will be re-introduced (compounded by the increased likelihood that it will pass and be signed into law) means that, ready or not, Catholic bishops will have to face squarely the problem of well-known Catholic legislators supporting a specifically and gravely evil bill."
Mr. Peters discusses the options here.
H/T Ignatius Insight.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Common Ground with Theorists of Murder?
Surprise, surprise. Today news from CNA:
"As President-elect Obama builds his new administration, his list of new appointees makes it even more apparent that he is comfortable with the pro-abortion lobby. This became even more clear on Saturday when Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY’s List, was named White House communications director.
Moran currently serves as executive director of EMILY’s List, where she oversees the national staff and charts the overall strategic direction of the organization. EMILY's List, one of the most important Democratic constituency groups, says it is "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing Democratic pro-choice women to office."
There is no common ground possible with a person who believes it is acceptable behavior to murder another person, until they renounce that position. The position itself precludes common ground, because it is a denial of common humanity. That's what being "pro-choice" on abortion means--it's a denial of common humanity.
To those "Catholics" like "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good," who say:
"In an effort to promote more productive ways to reduce the abortion rate, Catholics in Alliance just released a groundbreaking national abortion reduction study that offers compelling findings pro-life and pro-choice leaders can unite behind to reach common ground solutions on this profound moral issue. "
Or like Professor Douglas Kmiec, who says:
"The central hope of the Obama campaign is to find common ground—not by "favoring" that which can never be acceptable, the taking of innocent unborn life, but by dealing with the legal reality in a way that at least reduces the likelihood of abortion."
We reply with Lord Acton's words: "The greatest crime is Homicide. The accomplice is no better than the assassin; the theorist is worse." A person who is "pro-choice" on abortion is a theorist of murder. There can never be "common ground."
"As President-elect Obama builds his new administration, his list of new appointees makes it even more apparent that he is comfortable with the pro-abortion lobby. This became even more clear on Saturday when Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY’s List, was named White House communications director.
Moran currently serves as executive director of EMILY’s List, where she oversees the national staff and charts the overall strategic direction of the organization. EMILY's List, one of the most important Democratic constituency groups, says it is "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing Democratic pro-choice women to office."
There is no common ground possible with a person who believes it is acceptable behavior to murder another person, until they renounce that position. The position itself precludes common ground, because it is a denial of common humanity. That's what being "pro-choice" on abortion means--it's a denial of common humanity.
To those "Catholics" like "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good," who say:
"In an effort to promote more productive ways to reduce the abortion rate, Catholics in Alliance just released a groundbreaking national abortion reduction study that offers compelling findings pro-life and pro-choice leaders can unite behind to reach common ground solutions on this profound moral issue. "
Or like Professor Douglas Kmiec, who says:
"The central hope of the Obama campaign is to find common ground—not by "favoring" that which can never be acceptable, the taking of innocent unborn life, but by dealing with the legal reality in a way that at least reduces the likelihood of abortion."
We reply with Lord Acton's words: "The greatest crime is Homicide. The accomplice is no better than the assassin; the theorist is worse." A person who is "pro-choice" on abortion is a theorist of murder. There can never be "common ground."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Proposition 8 Goes to Court
It will be upheld. But we have to prepare for ballot initiatives launched by those who would destroy marriage, as early as 2010.The "Protect Marriage" attorneys are happy about this, because otherwise litigation would have gone on forever in lower courts.
And according to the San Francisco Chronicle this morning:
"...Kennard's vote a bad sign?" (of course, what's considered "bad" by the San Francisco Chronicle is generally considered to be good by a normal human being).
"While both sides cheered the court's decision to take up the cases, Kennard's lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.
Kennard is the court's longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples' rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.
"It's always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn't warrant review," said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.
For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, "I would not think it would be encouraging," said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Providence can be painful
This follows up on Fr. Malloy's recent post on the speech othat James Francis Cardinal Stafford gave at the Catholic University of America. This article is from today's LifeSiteNews
The Coming "War" Between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church
The possible signing of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) by President-Elect Barack Obama would be "the equivalent of a war" an unnamed senior Vatican official recently told TIME magazine.
The focus of the Vatican’s concern, FOCA, is a bill that would do away with state laws on abortion, including laws mandating parental involvement, or banning partial birth abortion. FOCA would also compel taxpayer funding of abortions, and, of greatest concern to Bishops, would force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
"To put it differently, were FOCA to become law (it needs to be reintroduced in the House), the culture war that the Vatican official was referring to would come to a boiling point," he warned. "In practical terms, this would mean the closure of every Catholic hospital in the nation: No bishop is going to stand by and allow the federal government to dictate what medical procedures must be performed in Catholic hospitals. Make no mistake about it, the bishops would shut down Catholic hospitals before acquiescing in the intentional killing of an innocent child. Were this to happen, it would not only cripple the poor, it would cripple the Obama administration."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The Coming "War" Between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church
The possible signing of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) by President-Elect Barack Obama would be "the equivalent of a war" an unnamed senior Vatican official recently told TIME magazine.
The focus of the Vatican’s concern, FOCA, is a bill that would do away with state laws on abortion, including laws mandating parental involvement, or banning partial birth abortion. FOCA would also compel taxpayer funding of abortions, and, of greatest concern to Bishops, would force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
"To put it differently, were FOCA to become law (it needs to be reintroduced in the House), the culture war that the Vatican official was referring to would come to a boiling point," he warned. "In practical terms, this would mean the closure of every Catholic hospital in the nation: No bishop is going to stand by and allow the federal government to dictate what medical procedures must be performed in Catholic hospitals. Make no mistake about it, the bishops would shut down Catholic hospitals before acquiescing in the intentional killing of an innocent child. Were this to happen, it would not only cripple the poor, it would cripple the Obama administration."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
