Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 139

The Decline of the Family and the Death of Faith

The Decline of the Family and the Death of Faith | Christopher White | Catholic World Report



An interview with Mary Eberstadt, author of How the West Really Lost God

Traditional theories of secularization maintain that religious decline led to the deterioration of the family. Not so, argues Mary Eberstadt in her new book How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization (Templeton Press, 2013). Eberstadt is a leading cultural critic and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. Her books include Adam and Eve after the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution (2012); The Loser Letters: A Comic Tale of Life, Death, and Atheism (2010); and Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes (2005). Recently, Catholic World Report caught up with Eberstadt and discussed the book and the theory of secularization it presents.

CWR:  Why did you set out to write this book—what initially triggered your thinking on secularization in the West? 

Eberstadt: Like other Americans who’ve travelled to Europe, I’ve been impressed repeatedly by how secular and non-Christian and sometimes anti-Christian the Continent has become. Empty pews and sparsely attended Masses; cathedrals that house far more tourists than pilgrims; elderly altar-servers in childless churches: these are just a few snapshots of what some call the ongoing de-Christianization of Europe.

The question of why this dramatic decline has happened seemed worth some time and thought, so I started looking into it. And the first interesting fact to emerge was that the standard ways of explaining secularization don’t hold up, as the opening chapters of the book go to show.

Affluence alone doesn’t drive out God, for example, and neither does education or rationalism or other purported causal factors that don’t hold up upon inspection. The very phenomenon of secularization came to feel more and more like a great and intriguing jigsaw puzzle. How the West Really Lost God is an attempt to re-arrange the pieces into a better fit.

CWR: Your argument is essentially that faith and family make a double-helix and that traditional theories of secularization in which religious decline leads to the deterioration of the family are neglecting large pieces of the puzzle. Can you expand on this?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com

Artfully Battling the Giants of Black Genocide

Artfully Battling the Giants of Black Genocide | Carrie Gress | CWR



An interview with Ryan Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation

“I’m passionate about messaging that’s fearless, factual, and freeing,” says Ryan Bomberger, the founder of the Radiance Foundation. Bomberger, whose mother was raped and gave him up for adoption, is challenging those who, he says, are ignoring history and logic and refusing to defend the most defenseless.

Bomberger spoke with Catholic World Report about his work at the Radiance Foundation, which uses high-quality ads to convey pro-life messages, especially to the black community.

Catholic World Report: What is the Radiance Foundation and how did it come about?

Ryan Bomberger: Through creative ad campaigns, powerful multi-media presentations, and compassionate community outreach we address a myriad of social issues in the context of God-given purpose. We tackle issues of poverty, family disintegration, fatherlessness, pop culture, purity, character development, liberal feminism, civil rights, abortion, and adoption.

My wife, Bethany, and I created the Radiance Foundation in the spring of 2009 to help people understand and embrace their intrinsic value. Both of us have worked in urban environments most of our adult lives and have a heart to reach the broken. Bethany served as an educator in the public school system for years, and I was a creative director in the ad agency world before we embarked on this incredible journey.

The organization name comes from our daughter’s name, Radiance. Bethany was a single mom for a year, painfully finding herself in a situation she had encouraged her own students to avoid. Contrary to the abortion industry’s mantra, though, her “unplanned” pregnancy was not an unwanted or unloved child. Radiance changed Bethany’s life and my own. I became her daddy when she was one, and adopted her when she turned five. Today, Bethany and I have four children, two of whom are adopted. 

My own story, too, serves as the foundation of our life-affirming efforts through the Radiance Foundation. I’m the 1 percent that’s used to justify 100 percent of abortions. My biological mother was raped, yet courageously chose to go through nine months of pregnancy. She chose life for me and allowed me to be adopted into an amazing multi-racial family of 15. Though I’ve never met her, millions around the globe have been touched by her singular decision that continues to reverberate. As my song “Meant to Be” says, “Now I can love and be loved…all because of you!” She made me possible. And it is this same possibility that the Radiance Foundation fights for with every ad campaign, speaking engagement, community outreach or social media interaction. We love sharing the transformational power of hope.

CWR: What has been the general response to your work?

Continue reading on the CWR site.

 

Satan and the Saint | The Feast Day of St. John Vianney

Satan and the Saint | The Feast Day of St. John Vianney | August 4th | Carl E. Olson



Imagine a saint – a priest – so dedicated to God that he often
went days without eating, and when he did eat, it was a boiled potato
or a piece of hard bread.



Although many considered him unfit for the priesthood, he revived the
crushed faith of an impoverished village and often spent eighteen hours
a day hearing confessions, often sleeping only an hour or two each night.




As the reputation of this holy man of God spread, pilgrims began to seek
him out, sometimes waiting days for him to hear their confession, heal
their illnesses, and speak directly to their deepest needs. But not everyone
was so pleased. This priest began to be attacked, sometimes physically
and, at other times, emotionally and psychologically. He was verbally
mocked, scorned, and abused. At night he was subjected to loud and violent
noises for hours on end. He was pulled from bed in the middle of the night
and, on one occasion, his bed was set on fire.



Despite this constant abuse, the priest never called the police or requested
security. It wouldn’t have mattered, for the abuse and taunts did
not come from another human, but from Satan. The priest, of course, was
St.
John Vianney (1786-1859), the Curé of Ars, whose feast is celebrated
August 4.



Although rightly renowned for his holiness, asceticism, and spiritual
insight, the Curé of Ars was also remarkable for his courage and
steadiness in the face of the Devil. For some thirty-five years (1824-1858)
Satan assaulted the Saint in a nearly endless number of ways, seeking
to break the will and resolve of the great man of God: making harrowing
noises, singing in a wicked voice, meowing like a cat, or shouting, "Vianney!
Vianney! Potato eater!"



Living being or scary symbol?



Many people today would understood St. John Vianney's struggles with Satan
to simply be the result of psychological problems that weren’t understood
or properly identified in his day.  They would explain
that in a less scientific age people often attributed behaviors they
didn't understand to the work of the devil, but now we can treat
many such illnesses with proper medication and therapy.  Behavior
that once was deemed demonic or caused by spiritual oppression can be
explained by science and psychology, as newspapers, magazines, and television
programs instruct us on a regular basis.



While it’s not surprising that non-Christians or non-religious people
might make such assessments, there’s evidence that more and more
Christians are rejecting the ancient belief that Satan is a real, living
being.



In his 1991 book, What Americans Believe (Regal Books; page 26),
Evangelical pollster George Barna reported that a survey of 1005 Americans
found that 60% of respondents, regardless of religious affiliation, believed
that Satan was "only a symbol of evil," while 35% believed he
is "a living being." Just over half of the respondents who described
themselves as "born again Christians" believed Satan is a living
being, while only 26% of Catholics agreed, with almost 7 out of10 Catholics
saying Satan is only a symbol of evil.



In December 1993, Time magazine featured a story and an opinion
poll on angels. The poll revealed that 69% of respondents believed in
the existence of angels, but only 49% believed in the existence of fallen
"angels or devils." Two years later, in 1995, another
Barna survey revealed that about 58% of American adults believed that
Satan is "not a living being but is a symbol of evil."



And, finally, an October 2002 study by the Barna
Group ("Americans
Draw Theological Beliefs From Diverse Points of View") found
that 59% of Americans reject the existence of Satan, instead believing
he is merely a symbol of evil. The study stated: "Catholics are much
more likely than Protestants to hold this view – 75% compared to
55% – although a majority of both groups concur that Satan is symbolic."
The study also noted that the rejection of Satan’s existence apparently
conflicted with the fact that 54% of respondents believed that "a
human being can be under the control or the influence of spiritual forces
such as demons." The religious group with the highest percentage
(59%) of members who believe that Satan is a living entity was Mormon.
The group with the lowest percentage, at 17%, was Catholic.



For some people, the path from denying Satan is a living being to denying
his existence in any form – even an impersonal and abstract one –
is a short one. As many have noted, this is probably how Satan would prefer
it. The French poet Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867) is credited with the
saying that "the Devil's cleverest wile is to convince us that he does
not exist." In his book, The Eternal Galilean, Archbishop
Fulton Sheen warned readers: "Do not mock the Gospels and say there
is no Satan. Evil is too real in the world to say that. Do not say the
idea of Satan is dead and gone. Satan never gains so many cohorts as when,
in his shrewdness, he spreads the rumor that he is long since dead."



Even though there are priests, catechists, and Catholic educators
who may never speak of Satan, and who – either directly or indirectly
– apparently deny his existence, Satan is not dead, nor has the Church
demoted him to a vague, impersonal force. While a growing number of people,
including an alarming number of Catholics, are being convinced (or have
convinced themselves) that the Devil is just a figment of primitive imaginations,
the Church’s teachings today about him are just as robust and clear
as ever.



For example, the Catechism
of the Catholic Church contains numerous references to Satan,
or the Devil, explaining that he was originally a good angel who rebelled
against God (CCC 391), he is a creature of pure spirit who is powerful
but not infinite (CCC 395), and that his goal is to destroy man by turning
him against God (CCC 414). Especially striking is the Catechism’s
explanation that the petition "Deliver us from evil" in the
Our Father does not refer to evil as "an abstraction, but refers
to a person, Satan, the Evil One, the angel who opposes God. The devil
(dia-bolos) is the one who ‘throws himself across’ God's
plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ" (CCC 2851).
So even those who deny the personal, creaturely nature of Satan unwittingly
acknowledge it whenever they recite the Our Father.



The names and the fall of Satan



In a general audience titled "Confronting the Devil’s power,"
(November 15, 1972) Pope Paul VI said that it is a departure from "biblical
Church teaching to refuse to aknowledge the Devil's existence; to regard
him as a self-sustaining principle who, unlike other creatures, does not
owe his origin to God; or to explain the Devil as a pseudo-reality, a
conceptual, fanciful personification of the unknown causes of our misfortunes."
Here are expressed three major truths about Satan, all of them found in
the Bible: the Devil exists, he is a creature who was created by God,
and he is very real.



The name Satan appears numerous times in the Bible, in both the Old and
New Testaments. The Hebrew word satan refers to an adversary, or
to someone who plots opposition to another. It is used several times in
the Old Testament to describe the work of both human and heavenly beings
sent to stop, or oppose, the actions of a wrongdoer and to act as an agent
of judgment on behalf of God. Eventually, in the decades immediately prior
to the time of Christ, the word began to be used as a proper name –
Satan – for a heavenly creature who is in complete opposition to
God and who seeks to ruin His work. In Jewish apocryphal writings he is
understood to be the prince of evil spirits whose expulsion from heaven
was due to his refusal to recognize man as the image of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27).




Throughout the New Testament he is referred to by many other names, including
Beelzebul (Mk 3:22; Matt 10:25; 12: 24), Belial/Beliar (2 Cor 6:15), the
evil one (Matt 13:19; Jn 17:15; 1 Jn 5:18, 19), the enemy (Matt 13:25,
28, 29; Lk 10:19), the ruler of the demons (Mk 3:22), the ruler of this
world (Jn 12:31; 14:30), the great dragon (Rev 12:9), the serpent, or
serpent of old (2 Cor 11:3; Rev 12:9, 14, 14; 20:2), and the tempter (Matt
4:3; 1 Thess 3:5). And, of course, he is called "the Devil"
(Matt 4:1; 25:41; Lk 4:2; Jn 13:2; Acts 10:38), which derives from the
Greek word diabolos (Latin, diabolus), which means "slanderer"
or "accuser."

Satan, like all creatures, was created by God – and created naturally
good. He was an angel, a being of pure spirit created for the glory of
God and do the Creator’s work. But something went horribly wrong
with Satan and some of the other angels. Possessing free will, they chose
to rebel against their Maker. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) stated
that although they were created "good according to their nature"
by God, they fell from heaven because "they made themselves evil
by their own doing." As the Catechism notes, this action,
God’s allowance of it, and the resulting evil are a "great mystery"
(CCC 395). Quoting St. John Damascene, the Catechism also explains
that this sin of Satan and his angels is unforgivable, having a permanent
and irrevocable character (CCC 393).



This mysterious, cosmic event is referred to in passing in 2 Peter, which
mentions the angels who had sinned (v. 4; cf. Matt 25:41; Job 4:18) and
John’s first epistle, which states that "the devil has sinned
from the beginning" (1 Jn 3:8). The twelfth chapter of the Book of
Revelation describes the tail of "the great red dragon" sweeping
away "a third of the stars of heaven" (vs. 3-4), commonly understood
to refer to the fall of Satan and his angels. The same chapter also describes
a war in heaven between those fallen beings and the archangel Michael
and his angels:

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against
the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they were defeated
and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great
dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil
and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to
the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Rev 12:7-9)



That scene from the final book of the Bible serves as a bookend of sorts
with the first mention of "the serpent" in Genesis 3 and the well-known
story of the temptation in the Garden of Eden and the subsequent Fall.



The serpent, described as the most cunning of the animals (Gen 3:1) tempts
Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which she eventually
does. Some biblical scholars doubt the author of Genesis had Satan in mind
when he wrote about the serpent. However, in the ancient Near East the serpent
was often believed to be a cosmic figure who is identified with a monster
of chaos and who represents the powers of evil and darkness. In later Jewish
thought the serpent of Genesis 3 became identified with Satan, either as
a symbol of Satan or as his mouthpiece (cf. Wisdom 2:24).



That identification is also explicit in the New Testament, especially in
Revelation 12, which identifies the dragon as "the ancient serpent,"
the Devil, and Satan. Jesus described the devil as being "a murderer
from the beginning" and "a liar, and the father of lies"
(Jn 8:44) and St. Paul writes of the serpent who "deceived Eve by his
cunning" (2 Cor 11:3). Likewise, the Catechism explains that
behind the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the garden "lurks a seductive
voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture
and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called ‘Satan’
or the ‘devil’" (CCC 391).



The witness of the New Testament



If ever there was a person who believed in the existence of Satan, it was
Jesus. It is easy to forget, especially since it isn’t mentioned often
these days, that Jesus understood that Satan is the "ruler of this
world" (Jn 12:31), a murderer, a liar, and the father of lies (Jn 8:44).
In fact, Jesus plainly stated that a key aspect of the salvation He offered
the world involved the destruction of Satan’s power in the world:


Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world
be cast out and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men to myself." He said this to show by what death he was to die. (Jn
12:31-33; cf. Jn 16:11; 1 Jn 3:8)



To that end, Jesus often cured people suffering from demonic possession
(Matt 9:33; 17:18; Mk 7:26-30; Lk 4:33-35; Lk 9:38-42), demonstrating His
power over evil and the "prince of demons" (Matt 9:34; 12:24;
cf. Eph 2:2). And while Satan is not the focus of the Gospel, there were
important moments in Jesus’ ministry when He either spoke of Satan
or to Satan.



The Catechism points out that the Evil One, the ruler of this world,
has "mendaciously attributed to himself the three titles of kingship,
power, and glory" (CCC 2855). Satan wants to rule all things, to have
power everywhere and over everything, and steal and destroy the glory of
all that exists.



This is dramatically shown in Satan’s temptation of Jesus in the wilderness
(Matt 4:1-11; Mk 1:12-13; Lk 4:1-13; CCC 540), which inaugurated Jesus’
public ministry. Satan tempted Jesus to show His power by turning stones
into bread. He tempted Jesus to reveal His heavenly glory by throwing Himself
from the top of the Temple and having angels carry Him to safety. And the
Evil One offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if He will fall down
and worship him. However, Jesus knew that His kingdom could only be established
through suffering and death. He understood that true power comes through
love and sacrifice, not fear and arrogance. And He knew that His glorified
body would result from rising from the grave, not by avoiding it. These
temptations echo the temptations that Adam and the people of Israel underwent.
But while they failed to resist the work of Satan, Jesus is victorious over
the tempter (CCC 538-540).



Jesus’ rejection of Satan’s temptations showed the heart of the
Messiah who was intent on establishing His Kingdom. But Jesus’ also
knew that His Church and the Kingdom would come under severe attack from
Satan and his angels. He told St. Peter that the powers of hell would seek
to destroy the Church but would not prevail (Matt 16:18). He also told the
chief apostle, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that
he might sift you like wheat" (Lk 22:31), indicating some of the hardships
the apostles would have to endure. While St. Peter denies Jesus, he repents
of his sin; Judas, on the other hand, is seduced by Satan and betrays Jesus
(Jn 13:2, 27).



The apostles also recognized the reality and power of Satan – and of
the Savior’s victory over him. St. Paul mentions Satan in several of
his epistles, often in the context of temptation (1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11)
and spiritual conflict (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 12:7; Eph 4:27; 6:11;
1 Thess 2:18). He draws a careful distinction between Satan’s ability
to tempt and man’s free will to reject or accept the temptation. In
other words, the apostle does not confuse Satan and sin. Satan wants us
to sin, but we choose sin on our own, using our free will. St. James makes
the same point when he writes, "Submit yourselves therefore to God.
Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7). Vivid descriptions
of Satan include "angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14), a "roaring
lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Pet 5:8), and "the great red
dragon" with seven heads and ten horns (Rev 12:3-17).



Finally, the Bible says a few words about the fate awaiting Satan. Just
before His arrest, Jesus tells his disciples that the Devil and his angels
are destined for "eternal fire" that has been prepared for them
(Matt 25:41). And at the end of time, after being allowed to test the faithful
for a time (Rev 20:7), Satan will be "thrown into the lake of fire
and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be
tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Rev 20:10; cf. CCC 677).




The work of Satan today



In 1972 Evangelical author Hal Lindsey wrote a book titled Satan Is Alive
and Well On Planet Earth. It was full of descriptions of occult activities,
bizarre behavior, debauchery, and paranormal activity, all intended to convince
readers that Satan is even more active and successful than ever before.
On one hand, such a book helps people to recognize that Satan is alive,
he is active, and he does seek to destroy lives in a multitude of ways.
On the other hand, such sensationalism can lead to an imbalanced view of
Satan, even to a dangerous preoccupation.



There are much better guides for Christians looking to learn more about
Satan without losing perspective. One such work is "Christian Faith
and Demonology," (June 26, 1975) found in Vatican II: More Post
Conciliar Documents (Vatican Collection, Volume 2), edited by Austin
Flannery, O.P. (The Liturgical Press, 1982). It provides a helpful list
of truths to consider when it comes to the reality and work of Satan in
the world today. They include:



• Satan and demons do exist, they are real, and they are created beings.
This is the clear and consistent teaching of the Church and to deny it is
to actually call into question the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and his
consciousness and understanding of Satan, evil, and sin. Be humble in the
face of the mystery of evil and pursue a life of holiness, including the
rejection of Satan and all of his ways, by God’s grace.



• Man is responsible for the evil he commits. The Church does not
allow us to say, "The devil made me do it!" Man has free will
and liberty; he is also able to call upon God, who is far more powerful
than Satan can ever dream of being.



• Have a critical and prudent attitude about claims of demonic
possession. Demonic activity is real and there are people who suffer
from demonic infestion and even possession. But don’t be taken in by
sensational reports that might be inaccurate or poorly communicated. Discernment
comes from knowing what the Church teaches about demonic activity and from
careful investigation of claims.



• Modern man is often naïve about the supernatural. He can
also be incredibly arrogant in his denial of things that cannot be explained
by science or reason alone. Again, humility is essential. Let Scripture
and the teachings of the Church be your guide.



• Never underestimate the importance of faith. Satan desires to
destroy man and he is deadly serious in his ceaseless quest to do so. Through
faith in God, we can resist Satan. It’s true that he can tempt us and
that he looks for opportunities to cause us to sin. But though he can tempt
us, Satan cannot force us to sin. And by faith we can have assurance about
his end and the triumph that God grants over him.



• Evil is a mystery. The culture often doubts evil and acts as
though evil, if it does exist, is a vague, impersonal force. Yet the culture
is also fascinated by evil, as the success of horror films, literature about
Satan and demonic possession, and endless newscasts about evil acts (kidnappings,
murders, violent crime, etc.) indicates. We must work to show that the mystery
of evil should not attract us, but repulse us. The challenge is to show
that the Cross is about true life and victory, while acts of evil are indicative
of death and defeat.



Resist the Devil!



It is said that the Devil told St. John Vianney, "If there were three
such priests as you, my kingdom would be ruined." The Saint, for his
part, developed a remarkable sense of humor about the supernatural assaults,
saying, "Oh! the grappin" – his nickname for the Devil –
"and myself? We are almost chums."



It's not likely that we'll ever have to struggle with Satan the way St.
John Vianney did, but we should be familiar with who he is and what he does
– and why he must be resisted. That begins with acknowledging
that he exists and that he wants to destroy us. It means knowing that although
he is powerful, Satan is limited and he is already defeated (CCC 2852, 2864).
Imagine a person so dedicated to God that he becomes likes St. John Vianney.
That saint could be you.



(This article was originally published in a slightly different form in
the July 31, 2005 issue of Our
Sunday Visitor.)

St. John Vianney's Pastoral Plan

St. John Vianney's Pastoral Plan | Fr. John Cihak, S.T.D. | Ignatius Insight





"St. John Vianney's ministry gives parish priests a fundamental blueprint for a pastoral plan for any place and time."



St. John Vianney (1786-1859) is regaining popularity among diocesan
seminarians. After a generation of being ignored, if not ridiculed,
the patron saint of parish priests is once again finding his way into
the hearts and minds of seminarians and priests.
The Church names him as patron because this humble priest, assigned to
the backwaters of southeastern, post
revolutionary France, reveals things perennial about the priesthood and
priestly ministry. The pioneering Pope Blessed
John XXIII even wrote an encyclical letter on St. John Vianney
recommending him as a model for diocesan priests to
follow. The new generation of American priests is not discovering St.
John Vianney because it simply has nostalgia for
what is old, rather because it has a hunger for what perdures. This
article is the fruit of this search and the summary
of a discussion I had with a group of transitional deacons on the cusp
of ordination. By the time this article is
published, these men will already be priests.

Their assignment was to examine the beginning years of St. John
Vianney's ministry in Ars through the lens of two questions: 1) What was the cultural landscape of his time? 2) What are
the basic contours of his pastoral plan? How was it that within eight years of the Curé's arrival to Ars many of the
people who were living indifferent and nominally Christian lives became fervent and committed believers? The biography
used was Father Francis Trochu's The Curé D'Ars, whose research was based on the Curé's process of canonization.
Notwithstanding the literary style of his time, the work is still the most comprehensive treatment of his life in
English, and fortunately still in print [Trochu, Francis. The Curé D'Ars, tr. Ernest Graf (Rockville, IL: TAN,
1977)].

The group discovered that St. John Vianney's ministry gives parish priests a fundamental blueprint for a
pastoral plan for any place and time. This assertion may strike some readers as naive, but I invite them to risk reading
what follows. After all, if we are honest with ourselves and the current spiritual state of our parishes, we know that
the various approaches of the last forty years have not borne much fruit, and we often feel that we are grasping at
straws in knowing what to do. Perhaps we have settled into mediocrity and have allowed ourselves and our people to drift
into lukewarm waters which deep down we know have drastic consequences (cf. Rev. 2:15 16).

Similar Cultural Landscapes

Although separated by
thousands of miles, the topography around Ars is quite similar to that of mid Willamette Valley, Oregon where Mount
Angel Seminary is situated. Both areas are largely agricultural, green with trees and fields spread over rolling hills
and dotted with small towns. Even today, Ars is little more than a crossroads among farms.

Though separated by
nearly two hundred years, the cultural landscape between 19th century France and 21st century America is also similar.

Continue reading on Ignatius Insight.

The “Spirit” of the Pope's Return from Rio | James V. Schall, SJ

The
“Spirit” of the Pope's Return from Rio | James
V. Schall, SJ | CWR

Reminiscent of the
immediate post-conciliar era, we're seeing a battle between the
“spirit” and the actual words of Francis

“Pope
Adopts a Milder Tone toward Gays and Women”
— Headline,
San Francisco Chronicle July 30, 2013.

“Shift
in Tone on Gays Thrills Local Catholics”
— Headline,
San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2013.

“Stunning
Remarks on Gays: Pope: ‘Who Am I to Judge?’”
— Headline,
San Jose Mercury-News, July 30, 2013.

I.

In the
struggle between illusion and reality, illusion (even delusion) often
gains the upper hand. Images can overshadow an idea thought to be
fixed. The above three headlines are taken from local papers suddenly
paying careful attention to remarks of the Holy Father. Though none
of the editorials or news columns actually said that the Church had
changed its teaching on homosexuality, the unavoidable impression
from the headlines and the articles was that finally the stubborn old
Church was on its way to doing so. This reaction was what these
varied writers made of the Pope’s remarks on homosexuality, the
ones that they thought most important from the papal trip to Brazil.

Judging
by the local press, very little went on at World Youth Day in Rio
until the Pope’s interview with the Press on his return flight to
Rome. Then, like a clap of thunder, the news arrived that the Church
had suddenly changed. Instead of opposing gays, the Pope was
welcoming them. A new day had dawned. The San Jose Mercury-News
editorial affirmed: “What a heartening declaration from the Roman
Catholic pontiff. We hope it helps open the minds of some vocal
Christians opposed to gay rights.” The Chronicle editorial,
entitled “Reboot for Catholicism,” continued: “While he (the
Pope) hasn’t gone as far as many liberal-minded Catholics would
like, he’s clearly aiming to move the church in the direction of
both modernity and radical empathy—the very direction it needs to
go after so many years of scandal and turmoil.” We have little
doubt about “how far liberal-minded Catholics” and others would
like to see the Church go in this area—to full-scale acceptance of
the gay life and all it implies.

All the
things that the Holy Father said to the millions of youth in Rio
about belief, prayer, concern for the poor, humility, and other basic
Catholic themes paled by contrast to the remarks about gays. The
casual reader of these newspaper accounts could not help but thinking
that some radical change of Church doctrine had taken place on the
flight back to Rome, one almost the equivalent of denying the
validity of the Incarnation.

In
context, as even the headlines in Huffpost Gay Voices (July
31) noticed: “Pope Francis Against Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption.”
What changed, evidently, was not the doctrine but the “mood” or
perception of it. The Pope specifically said: “No overt homosexual
activities” are possible or moral. From now on, however, as a
friend suggested, we are in for a period not unlike the post-Vatican
II era. We then saw a war of words between “the spirit” and the
“meaning” of the Council. Now it will be between the “spirit”
and the wording of WYD Rio, Return Flight.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Money, Vanity, and Eternity

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for August 4, 2013, the Eighteenth Sunday in
Ordinary Time | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Ecc 1:2; 2:21-23
• Ps 90:3-4, 5-6, 12-13, 14, 17
• Col 3:1-5, 9-11
• Lk 12:13-21

I know Christians who believe that
people should be able to be as wealthy as they can possibly be, as
long as they acquire their wealth fairly and squarely. And I know
Christians who believe that any evidence of wealth—a nice car, a
big home, or expensive vacations—is clear evidence of spiritual
failing and moral corruption. I’ve even heard Christians misquote
Paul and say, “Money is the root of all evils” Of course, Paul
actually warned against the “love of money” (1 Tim. 6:10).

The
Catholic tradition, rooted in teachings such as those heard in
today’s Gospel reading, takes a direct, even simple, approach to
wealth. “Riches are not forbidden,” wrote St. John Chrysostom,
“but the pride of them is.” He also warned, “Nothing is more
fallacious than wealth.” St. John Baptiste de la Salle, the patron
saint of teachers, stated: “It is not a sin to have riches, but it
is a sin to fix our hearts upon them.” The question we need to ask
ourselves when it comes to wealth is the same question we need to
consider when it comes to talents, abilities, and opportunities:
“What am I going to do with it? And, why? For what end?”


Today’s reading from Ecclesiastes provides a stark reminder
of the ultimate issues at stake. “All things are vanity!”
declares the teacher Qoheleth, and it might seem, at first glance, as
though he is advocating or giving into despair. But he is simply
following materialism to its logical end, which is emptiness, sorrow,
and grief. The man who seeks comfort, distraction, and ultimate
meaning in material possessions will be left holding sand at the
edges of eternity. This approach to life is without foundation. “The
materialist,” quipped G. K. Chesterton, “is one who will serve
anything visible for no reason.”

Yet wealth and possessions are not, in
themselves, bad. It is just that they cannot give meaning, offer true
happiness, or provide comfort in the face of suffering, death, and
the afterlife. That is the essential point of the parable told by
Jesus. The rich man has more than enough food and wealth for himself;
he has physical comfort and a surplus of harvest. But what is his
first thought upon seeing the surplus? Does he think of how he might
share it with others? No, he turns further into himself and turns
away from others. “He does not raise his eyes to God,” reflected
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “He does not cherish love for the poor or
desire the esteem it gains. … Still more irrational, he settles for
himself the length of his day, as if he would also reap this from the
ground.”

So we see that the love of wealth is,
ultimately, the love of self—or, better, the lust of self. There is
no gratitude, no thanksgiving, no humility, only the desire to “rest,
eat, drink, be merry!” Contrast those four actions—all of them
aimed at the rich man’s physical comfort—with four actions and
attitudes expressed by Paul in his letter to the Christians living in
Colossae, in Asia Minor. 

First, he states, we have been “raised
with Christ.” This is entirely God’s gracious gift, granted
through baptism (cf. Rom. 6:1-11). Secondly, having been raised with
Christ, we are to “seek what is above,” that is, the things of
God. Thus, in the “Our Father,” we say, “Thy will be done, on
earth as it is in heaven.” Third, we are to “think of what is
above, not of what is on earth.” This is an exhortation to both
intellectual reflection and spiritual contemplation. And, fourth, we
are to “put to death” those parts of us that “are earthly,”
for we have, by God’s power, “put on the new self.”

We sometimes must choose between
physical comfort and spiritual conversion. And while wealth is not
evil, it should be approached with caution and used with care. The
real riches are those things that matter to God.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the August 1, 2010, issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

The Injustices of the Surrogacy Industry

The Injustices of the Surrogacy Industry | Sister Renée Mirkes | CWR



Catholic teaching on surrogacy is receiving reinforcement from current research.


Mothers have long believed,
cultures have long taught, and research has repeatedly confirmed that an
emotional network links pregnant moms to their babies. If mom is happy, the preborn
baby is content. When mom is anxious, the prenate shows signs of stress. What’s
more, post-birth, this bio-emotional nexus—the gestational link—continues to yoke
mothers to their offspring throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

It’s important, then, to
investigate what happens when an enterprise like surrogacy sunders the
gestational link. For the first time, a 2013 study suggests surrogate children experience
greater adjustment difficulties and levels of stress than same-aged children
born by gamete donation. [1] In other words, severing the gestational link can be even more devastating for
surrogate children than splitting the genetic link can be for children produced
by donor egg and/or sperm.

This report turns to Christian
anthropology and prenatal research to connect the dots of the maladaptation of the
surrogate child to the troubling exploitation that impacts all surrogacy
stakeholders. Predictably, the injustices—the flotsam and jetsam of the
surrogacy industry—don’t just harm the child,[2] they ripple out over the surrogate mother, the commissioning parents, and all
of society.

The surrogacy explosion

Some women cannot get
pregnant. They’re either born without a uterus, or have a non-functioning
uterus, or have been repeatedly unsuccessful at gestating an in-vitro-fertilized
(IVF) baby. Many of these sterile women, invoking the principle of patient
autonomy, deem a contractual agreement with a surrogate carrier as their only alternative,
other than adoption.[3]

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

The sad illogic and embarrassing silliness of womens' ordination supporters

Those who have followed my writings and rantings over my ten or eleven years of blogging (I began blogging, ahem, when I was twelve) know that I have a few pet peeves. They include, but are not limited to, pronouncements from Hans Küng, declarations from Anne Rice, lousy music, Dan Brown novels, burnt coffee, and people who think the Oregon Ducks' (football) offense is "a gimmick".

And then there is the women's ordination movement, which I find to be both completely disingenuous and hysterically ignorant. Or, as I put in a post a few years ago:

Why does this rankle me so? Part of it is simply the brazen illogic, self-obsessive bloviation, and disdainful dissent so readily evident in the priestette movement. Their theology is lousy. Their ecclesiology is incoherent. But there is also the fact that these women, in seeking to "empower" women and pursue "justice," are (unwittingly or not) attacking authentic femininity and making a mockery of not just the priesthood, but of the unique nature of women, especially as embodied by the Blessed Mother.

The 1976 CDF document, Inter Insigniores, stated, "Women who express a desire for the ministerial priesthood are doubtless motivated by the desire to serve Christ and the Church." Perhaps; I'm not so sure. God alone will judge their motivation, but isn't it striking how so many of these women don't seem interested at all in Christ and have only criticism for the Church (or, as noted above, make an artificial, convenient division in the Church so they can appear to be pro-Church while bashing Church authority).

You would think that supporters of women's ordination to the Catholic priesthood might—just might!—try to come up with something better than "the Pope is mean and hates women." But, as Sadhbh Walshe proves, in a Guardian column titled "Thanks for nothing, Pope Francis," it ain't to be. It's so bad, I suspect that embarrassment itself was embarrassed to be seen near Walshe's piece, which was apparently written under the delusion that having no knowledge of what one is writing about is an essential qualification for snotty, whining arrogance. Let's take a look, shall we?

It's hard not to be fascinated by the Catholic church's relatively new Pope Francis. From his opening act washing the feet of Muslim women prisoners
(three no-no's in one) to urging young Catholics to break out of their
"spiritual cages" and "make a mess" in their diocese, to his casual chat this week with reporters on the plane back from his triumphant trip to Brazil, this pope has demonstrated a charming willingness to shake up the conservative institution and to make it a more open and accepting place.

When
it comes to making the church a more equal institution, however, where
roughly half the population (that is women) are not actively
discriminated against, Pope Francis is sadly proving to be as
traditional and conservative as the best of them.

Tradition, bad. Conservative, bad. Not agreeing with Walshe, really bad. Why? Uh. Well. Um. Because. Just because. Don't be a chauvinist, sexist jerk (see below); just accept her premises without questions.

The big takeaway from the plane chat, or at least the big media
takeaway, was the pope's acknowledgement that gay priests exist and that
they have as much right to their affinity with God as their
heterosexual counterparts. When asked about the so called "gay lobby"
within the Vatican, the pope replied:

"When
I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and
being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am
I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized."

Considering that his predecessor, Pope Benedict, declared in 2005
that men who had deep rooted homosexual tendencies should not be
priests, the new pope's words can at the very least be viewed as a step
towards cementing gay men's rights to equal status and treatment by the
church, including their right to be ordained. This step in the right
direction would be easier to applaud, however, if it had not been
followed by two steps backwards on the rights of women, straight or gay,
to ever having a chance to enjoy the same equal treatment.

Big breath. (There are times, frankly, when I suspect—based on a wealth of evidence—that only about .000004% of secular journalists have ever read an entire statement or text by Benedict XVI. And then I realize: that estimated percentage is far too high. Then again, the text in question was not penned by Benedict XVI, but was approved by him. Details.) Here is the text of the 2005 document, "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies  in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders," presented by Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect for the Congregation for Catholic Education. I will summarize, for this discussion, the key points:

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Pain, Profit, and Third-Party Conception

Pain, Profit, and Third-Party Conception | Leslie Fain | CWR



Donor conception and surrogacy place the desires of adults over the needs of children, a growing number of donor-conceived people argue.


The day after Stephanie Blessing learned she had been
conceived with the assistance of a sperm donor and that the man she knew and loved
as her father for 32 years was not her father, she went into shock. She
remembers sitting in her rocking chair, staring into space. It was so bad, her
husband had to remind her to do something as basic as changing their baby’s
diaper.

“I was just catatonic,” she said.

The shock turned into depression, as she began to mourn
what she had lost. “I was a daddy’s girl. I had a great childhood, and was the apple of my non-biological dad’s
eye. [I] adored my dad,” said Blessing, a homeschooling mother of five, who
lives in Tennessee.

“It really hurt to
find out [my dad] wasn’t mine in the way I thought he was,” she said.  “I grew up hearing about his dad being a
cowboy. Everybody on dad’s side of the family could tool leather like nobody…my
grandmother, who is about to turn 100…they aren’t mine anymore,” she said.

Then, she began to
mourn the loss of her biological father. “As much as my dad adored me, it hurts
to know that the man who helped create me chose to have nothing to do with my
life,” said Blessing. “People are deceiving themselves if they think they can
love somebody enough to make up for the person who isn’t there.”

She had never suffered
from depression before, and her husband, an evangelical pastor, had no
experience in dealing with an issue quite like this one.

Blessing was
finally told her conception story due to concerns she had over her dad’s
failing health from progressive supranuclear palsy, a condition similar to Parkinson’s
disease. Once in robust health, her father was having an array of physical and
cognitive problems, and his health appeared to decline more with each visit. Was
Blessing genetically disposed to this disease? Would her husband have to take
care of her the same way her mother now had to take care of her father?  

The answer was no,
yet much worse. Blessing learned she was conceived at the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical School in 1976. Following the procedure, “The doctor told my parents to ‘go home, have
sex, and pretend like this never happened, and get on with your life,’” said
Blessing.  Four years later, Blessing’s
parents conceived her little sister naturally.  “This convinced him maybe I really was his
daughter,” she said.

A DNA test she
took proved otherwise.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

On Being a Jesuit and Not Being “In the Center"

On Being a Jesuit and Not Being “In the Center" | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | CWR blog

“We Jesuits and the entire Society are not in the center; we are,
so to say, removed; we are in the service of Christ and of the
Church….” — Pope Francis, Sermon
at the Gesŭ. Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola, 2013.

After returning from his memorable trip to World Youth Day in Brazil,
Pope Francis celebrated morning Mass on the Feast of St. Ignatius
today at the beautiful Church, the Gesŭ, the center of so much
Jesuit history and tradition. We are by now used to this Pope’s
style. He gives simple, straight-forward, brief reflections, usually
with three points, based on the day’s readings or feast. He tells
stories, makes homey remarks, and recalls his own experiences. He
usually has some remark or take on life that is memorable, but that
is not necessary. There is something nice about an ordinary sermon on
an ordinary day.

This was the Pope’s first ceremonial visit to the Order since his
elevation to the Pontificate. Some two hundred Jesuits were there
together with the Father General of the Order, Adolfo Nicolas, and
Archbishop Luis Ladaria, a Spanish Jesuit who is secretary of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Obviously, a pope who is
a Jesuit is first Pope, just as a Franciscan Pope is first a Pope.
The tradition of the respective order will influence a pope’s ways
of teaching and his emphasis. What could we understand of John Paul
II without knowing something about Poland or of Benedict without
knowing something of German university life? In addition, Pope
Brogoglio is from an Italian family in Argentina. When we spread out
the lives of these three popes, we have an amazing glimpse at the
catholicity, the universality, of the Church.

In his sermon, the central theme was precisely “putting Christ at
the center of the Church.” We are to serve Him and to be rather
annoyed by or “shamed” by our “limits and sins.” But this
recollection teaches us the sense of “humility” for which this
Pope already stands in the public eye. One has to be careful not to
be “proud” of one’s humility, a lesson we still recall from
Christ’s dealings with the Pharisees, if not from the fallen angels
themselves.

Among Jesuits, of course, the Pope will recall Jesuit things.

Continue reading on the CWR site.