Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 221

Pres. Obama invokes the Golden Rule in support of "same-sex marriage"

From excerpts taken from Obama's ABC News interview, on the WSJ site:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married. ...

This is something that, you know, we’ve [he and his wife, Michelle Obama] talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.

I'm trying to follow the dizzying and complex logic employed here and I arrive at the following: Christians, according to Obama, are supposed to be nice, and it isn't nice to forbid homosexual couples from marrying. Of course, one problem of many is that it's not as though Jesus, in uttering the Golden Rule (a descriptive not found in the Gospels, as a note of trivia), was saying: "Everyone should be allowed to have whatever they wish, especially if not allowing so will hurt their feelings!" Yet that seems to be the interpretation given by the President. As always, the larger context is informative; in the Gospel of Matthew, it is within the Sermon on the Mount, which is filled with all sorts of moral injunctions:

Read the entire post on the CWR blog.

St. Bonaventure, Benedict XVI, and the New Evangelization

St. Bonaventure, Benedict XVI, and the New Evangelization | William L. Patenaude | Catholic World Report

For Benedict XVI, evangelization is what takes place when revelation slips through history.

The timing and intent of Pope Benedict XVI’s call for a “New Evangelization” have as much to do with his theological and pastoral pedigree as they do with the state of affairs in which the Church lives. His early contributions to the topics of revelation, human history, and the relation between the two—which brought the young Joseph Ratzinger both praise and charges of championing “dangerous modernism”—today assist the Church in engaging modern ills with the enduring truths of the Gospel.

Of course, with a mind as expansive as Pope Benedict’s, no one event, or even a series of them, can be said to be “the” development that defines him. Certainly, his upbringing in Catholic Bavaria, his forced participation in World War II as a teenager, and his days among bomb-damaged seminary buildings studying St. Augustine, Henri de Lubac, Romano Guardini, Martin Buber, and so many others all influenced who the man is today. Still, not every encounter with the past has equal influence.

Joachim of Fiore, St. Bonaventure, and salvation history

In the mid-1950s, Father Joseph Ratzinger began work on his second doctoral thesis—a standard requirement of the German theological academy. The study would introduce him to a dramatic moment in Church history, when rumors of the world’s end and the coming of a new age clashed with Christian orthodoxy. The players in this drama were Joachim of Fiore, an eccentric 12th-century Italian abbot; St. Bonaventure, a 13th-century leader of the Franciscan Order; and an overly idealistic group of Franciscans known as Spiritualists.

Ratzinger concluded that Joachim, Bonaventure, and the events of the 13th century brought to the Church a “new theory of scriptural exegesis which emphasizes the historical character” of Scripture. This new theory was, notably, “in contrast to the exegesis of the Fathers and the Scholastics which had been more clearly directed to the unchangeable and the enduring.” In finding value in such a view, Ratzinger aligned himself with a school of theologians that sought fresh approaches to orthodox Christian theology.

Read the entire essay at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

The Hypostatic Union

by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. | Editorial | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

The Hypostatic Union had a profound effect on Jesus’ human nature, as he is both true man and, also, God. Jesus is not a human person like us, but a divine Person.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the founder and object of the Catholic Church.   He is both true God and true man.  Because he is God, we worship him as our Creator and Redeemer; because he is also man, he is our brother and like us in all things, sin alone excepted.  In Catholic theology, the union of the divine nature and the human nature is explained as taking place in the Person of Jesus, who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God.  This is known as the “Hypostatic Union.”   The word, hypostatis, is a Greek word which means “person.”

The Hypostatic Union had a profound effect on Jesus’ human nature.  Jesus Christ is a true man, but, because he is also God, he is no ordinary man. It is important to remember that Jesus is not a human person like us; he is a divine Person.  Because of the Hypostatic Union, Jesus’ human nature was endowed with an abundance of supernatural gifts; in fact, he has the perfection of all the virtues; St. John says that he is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).  This raises questions about his human knowledge, human will, and human power.

There is an ancient tradition in the Church, going back to the early Fathers. The human soul of Jesus is united to the Word of God, possessing the Beatific Vision of God from the first moment of his existence, in the womb of his mother, the Virgin Mary.  The Beatific Vision of God is absolutely supernatural; it is granted to the angels in heaven, and to the saints in heaven.

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

Liberalism, Catholicism, and the Good

Liberalism, Catholicism, and the Good | James Kalb | Ecclesia et Civitas on Catholic World Report

Our political problems today result from confusion about the nature of man and the good.

Many people today find it obvious that what’s good is getting what we want, justice is getting it equally, and social justice is an overall system that promotes those goals in every setting. If you don’t accept this view, people say you’re hateful and oppressive, because you don’t want people to get what they want; you’re greedy and overbearing, because you don’t like equality; and you’re anti-reason, because you’re against rational systems for achieving obviously worthwhile goals. 

That view of justice and the good is nonetheless defective, and the attempt to force it on the whole of life squeezes out better goods and more just forms of justice. The HHS mandate, which absolutely subordinates the integrity of Catholic institutions to the individual desire for free birth control pills, is a case in point.

But if that view is a problem, what do we do about it? The first step toward something better is a better understanding of what is good—that is, what goals are most reasonable to pursue. People today don’t like to raise that question, certainly not in a political setting, because it suggests that law and policy should be based on a particular understanding of how to live. They object to that, because some people will disagree with the understanding, so acting on it would amount to forcing someone else’s ideal of life on them.

The objection seems plausible, at least to people raised in a liberal society. It nonetheless falls apart on examination, because it’s impossible for a political system to avoid taking a view on what things are most worth doing. Liberalism, for example, holds that the point of government is to help everyone get what he wants. That view of government implies that what people should do (or anyway what’s most reasonable for them to do) is to go for whatever they happen to want, as long as it fits a system that gives equal support to all people and their goals. Liberalism thus has an account of the most reasonable goals for societies and individuals, and so an account of the good. The account may seem minimal, but it’s enough to define the way of life the contemporary liberal state promotes, a life based on career, consumption, and political correctness.

There are serious problems with the account of the good that makes that way of life the standard. That account flattens out the human good, since it makes what to pursue a simple matter of desire and manageability. Also, it fails to recognize goods that are not individual and transferable, since it makes justice consist of tallying up Tom, Dick, and Harry’s goods, and making the totals as equal as possible. The result is that the human good becomes very much like possession of a large sum of money, and justice like equalizing bank balances.

Read the entire essay on www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

80-year-old Sister lashes out at Pope; boasts of support of abortion

Yesterday's edition of MinnPost.com has an interview with Sister Bridget McDonald, a nearly 80-year-old sister who (along with two biological sisters) is a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet.  The interview, about the recent CDF document about the LCWR leadership, is very revealing, but it doesn't appear that Sister McDonald is fully aware of how readily she exposes the clueless, wrongheaded, rebellious, contradictory, and sometimes simply confused perspective that she and other dissenting sisters hold to and promote.

Here are a few excerpts from the interview, along with some of my "racist and sexist" commentary.

MinnPost:  What are you hearing in your community about the decision?

Sister Brigid McDonald: Well, some are shocked that he would go that far, you know, to start using his power. To me, it is a misuse of power, a misuse of authority where he can step into religious communities and dictate how they should speak about these issues.

In short, she is apparently saying the Pope (and the entire magisterium) has no authority in the realm of faith and morals. That's a clue. And a problem.

I think they are overstepping their jurisdiction to expect that nuns are going to think as they tell us to think. To me those issues are not spiritual issues; many of them are political issues and some, of course, are social justice issues. I think that our personal spiritual life, it is another matter and that is our private belief.

I can't even begin to imagine what he could say or do that would change religious women's beliefs. I don't know how he plans to change that. That is of concern. That could be scary — what will he do to change our beliefs. You know, that scares me.

"They" vs. "nuns". "They" vs. "our private belief". "He" vs. "religious women's beliefs". "He" vs. "our beliefs". This sort of language speaks volumes. I wonder: has she read the document? Is she aware there are certain Catholic beliefs that are not matters of "personal opinion"? Does she understand the basic structure of the Church and the nature of genuine authority? 

Other than control, I don't know what his motivation is.

This is either clueless or disingenuous. Both options are disturbing.

Read the entire post on the Catholic World Report blog.

Effects of the Annunciation

From a new essay on the Homiletic & Pastoral Review site:

Mary’s “yes” at the Annunciation achieves the central truths of the Incarnation, as it is here God becomes flesh and thus redeems the fallen children of Adam.  Sections §457-60 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] provides four main consequences of Our Lady’s fiat.

The first is the reasoning from the forfeited goodness brought about by our disobedience: “The Word became flesh for us ‘in order to save us by reconciling us with God’”(1 Jn 4:10), who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4:14); “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world,” and he was revealed to take away sins. Then, quoting Gregory of Nyssa: “Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us” (§457).

The second reason (§458) is more epistemological in nature: the Son became human to manifest the otherwise invisible love of God to our senses. “The Word became flesh so that we might know God’s love: In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him” (1 Jn 4:9).

Thirdly, the Word became flesh so as to become a model of holiness, a new model for the Beatitudes, and the norm of the new law. “Love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12).  “This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example” (§459).

Finally, “The Word became flesh to make us ‘partakers of the divine nature’” (2 Pet 1:4), to deify us, and elevate our human nature into God’s own life.  Or as St. Athanasius put it most pithily: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God”(On the Incarnation §52 as at CCC §460).

While these four main reasons are treated so succinctly and systematically here, the effects of our Lady’s “yes” are difficult to extinguish.  Without doubt, the Incarnation is a most extraordinary event.  Yet, given its familiarity, have we forgotten what it accomplished?  St. Paul writes that Our Lord came to “restore all things” (Eph 1:10).  What did Our Lord restore?  Why did God become a man?  What do we celebrate at the Nativity?  Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil (cf. 1 Jn 3:8).  We wish to enumerate, yet even more, reparative effects wrought by the Divine Physician.

Read the entire essay, which was written by Robert Wenderski.

The Vine, the Branches, and "Eternal Security"

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for Sunday, May 6, 2012, the Fifth Sunday of Easter | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• Acts 9:26-31
• Ps 22:26-27, 28, 30, 31-32
• 1 Jn 3:18-24
• Jn 15:1-8

Several years ago I exchanged a couple of letters with a Fundamentalist pastor who had given a lengthy and openly anti-Catholic sermon at the largest Baptist church in the state of Oregon. Having listened to a tape of the sermon, I was sufficiently perturbed to write and send a response, which led to a discussion about several issues.

One of those issues was the nature of salvation, specifically the security of one’s salvation. The Baptist took the position, common among many Fundamentalist and Evangelical groups, of “once saved, always saved”; that is, once a person has made an authentic profession of faith in Jesus Christ, they are guaranteed entrance to heaven upon death. He stated in his sermon that Catholics, believing salvation can be lost through sin, never know if they are saved or not. Therefore, he concluded, Catholics simply wander through life hoping—fingers crossed!—to make it to heaven.

“No doubt there are Catholics who think this way,” I wrote to him, “but it is only because they do not understand the Church’s teaching. On one hand, we can have a moral certainty of our salvation. That is, we can know that we are right with God and that we have no mortal sin in our lives (cf., 1 Jn 5:16). But we never say that we ‘know’ we are going to heaven for certain, for the simple reason we do not know what might happen between now and death. We cannot presume to know that we will remain in right relationship with God, even if we strongly desire to do so.”

Put another way, we can know for certain if we are in a state of grace at this very moment, but we cannot presume we’ll remain so. As Paul wrote, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12) and “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us” (2 Tim 2:12).

Today’s Epistle and Gospel offer further insight into this truth. The Apostle John emphasizes that mere words are not enough when it comes to demonstrating a right relationship with God. Talking a good game means nothing if, as the old saying goes, we don’t walk the talk. Rather, we must examine our hearts and “keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” This commandment is a matter of both faith and love. Faith alone, without charity, is not enough.

“Shall we say,” wrote Cyril of Alexandra, “that faith bare and alone is sufficient for one to attain the fellowship that is from above—will even the band of demons rise up to fellowship with God, since they acknowledge God’s unity and have believed that God exists?” Mere knowledge is useless, he adds; abiding in Christ requires the wholehearted and transforming “confession of piety.”

In employing the metaphor of the vine and the branches, Jesus drew upon imagery very familiar to his disciples.  In the Old Testament, Israel was often depicted as a vineyard (cf., Isa. 5; Jer. 5:10; 12:10-11), sometimes fruitful, sometimes not. He used this imagery in parables to describe the Kingdom of God (Matt 20:1-16; Lk 13:6-9). His use of it in John 15 is notable for its intimacy: “I am the true vine,” Jesus explains. “Remains in me,” he exhorts the disciples on the eve of his Passion, “as I remain in you.”

One of the apostles, of course, did not remain in Christ; the danger of cutting oneself off from the vine and eternal life is real. It can happen; tragically, it does happen. It is why we have recourse to Confession, which restores us to full communion with Christ and the Church. And, after confessing mortal sin, joined again to the Vine, we are able to receive the fruit of the Vine, the cup of salvation, the “sacrament of love” (CCC 1323).

He is our salvation; he is our security. For without him, we can do nothing.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the May 10, 2009, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Our Sunday Visitor celebrates 100th anniversary this weekend

Our Sunday Visitor (OSV) marks its hundredth anniversary this weekend:

On Saturday, Our Sunday Visitor will celebrate the centennial of the first issue of its now-nationwide Catholic newspaper, “Our Sunday Visitor Newsweekly,” with a free open house.

The paper first came out on May 5, 1912, started by the late John Francis Noll, a Fort Wayne-born priest who would become archbishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Catholic Diocese.

Noll’s aim was to counter what he viewed as rampant falsehoods about Catholicism, including those circulated by another weekly publication, “The Menace,” and publicize accurate Catholic teachings.

Greg Erlandson, president of Our Sunday Visitor’s publishing division, says the independent non-profit company remains true to Noll’s vision, even while embracing new means of communication, from the Internet to e-books and smartphone apps.

“I think that one of the great strengths of the company is that it serves the church in a variety of ways,” he says.

“We’re linked back to Archbishop Noll’s vision to form Catholics and inform Catholics and are operating in whatever the appropriate medium of the day is.”

Today, Our Sunday Visitor, with 380 full-time employees, publishes much more than the 50,000-circulation newsweekly – down from its heyday of 500,000 around 1960 but still the largest of four national Catholic newspapers.

On its roster are periodicals, books, textbooks and curricula, resources for parish educational resources, bulletin inserts and offering envelopes.

Read the entire article, "Catholic publisher marks 100 years", in The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN).

The OSV website has information about the May 5th open house; it also has a timeline of notable events from the history of OSV.

OSV will also mark its 100th anniversary with a September 28, 2012, symposium featuring a number of special guests:

Future plans for the celebration of Our Sunday Visitor’s 100th anniversary include a symposium on September 28 at the Grand Wayne Center featuring Cardinal Francis George of Chicago; Dr. Scott Hahn; and Dr. Helen Alvare. It will be followed by a Mass of Thanksgiving and Rededication celebrated by Bishop Kevin Rhoades at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception; and a reception and dinner that will feature keynote speaker Archbishop Claudio Celli, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

More information here.

Congratulations to OSV on this remarkable milestone!

Are psychology and religion fundamentally incompatible?

From a recently posted Homiletic & Pastoral Review article, "Positive Psychology and Pastoral Practice", by Dr. Christopher Kaczor:

Are psychology and religion fundamentally incompatible? Certainly, some forms of psychology are inconsistent with Christianity, as Paul Vitz pointed out in Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship. Freud’s atheistic materialism, and reduction of theism to a childish desire for a father figure as a savior from helplessness, exemplifies this conflict. However, the full history of psychology and Christian belief is more complicated and interesting. For example, in his recent book Psychology and Catholicism: Contested Boundaries, Robert Kugelmann addresses the ways in which psychology and Catholicism have, in various ways, collaborated, co-mingled, and, only at times, contradicted each other. The time period highlighted in this fascinating study ends in the mid-1960s, before the advent of what is called “positive psychology.” This contemporary development in the study of behavior and mental processes, opens the door to new ways of conceiving the relationship of psychology to Christianity. Traditionally, psychology has focused on pathologies, such as: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression. In 1998, Martin Seligmann, of the University of Pennsylvania, dedicated his term as president of the American Psychology Association to the study of the positive: optimism rather than helplessness, signature strengths rather than pathology, and growth in happiness rather than depression.

Seligman’s recasting of psychology opened up a flourishing new field. Tal Ben-Shahar, author of Happier: Learn the Secrets to Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment, began teaching about positive psychology in what would become Harvard’s most popular undergraduate course. The University of Pennsylvania, and Claremont Graduate University, now offer advanced degrees in positive psychology. Of the many books on the topic for lay people, perhaps the best introduction is: The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want, by Sonja Lyubomirsky, professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside. Unlike the power of positive thinking, advocated Norman Vincent Peal, researchers in positive psychology stress that their approach is empirical and scientific. Like new medications, the various strategies for increasing happiness are tested via double blind, replicated studies that make use of placebos.

The interventions advocated in positive psychology show, not just a surprising overlap with pastoral theology, but can also be used to deepen and aid Christian practice.

Read the entire artice at HPRweb.com.

Remembering St. Josemaria Escriva

Remembering St. Josemaria Escriva | Jim Graves | Catholic World Report

As the 20th anniversary of Escriva's beatification approaches, a former colleague discusses the life and legacy of the Opus Dei founder.

John Coverdale is a law professor at Seton Hall University Law School in New Jersey and has been an Opus Dei numerary (celibate member) for more than 50 years. He worked for Opus Dei in Rome from 1960-1968 and had regular contact with St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei.

Coverdale wrote Uncommon Faith: the Early Years of Opus Dei, and is considered the leading American expert on Escriva’s life and work. He was contacted for input for the 2011 film There Be Dragons, which he said offered a “quite accurate” depiction of Escriva.

May 17 will mark the 20th anniversary of Escriva’s beatification, and the 10th anniversary of his canonization is this coming October. In light of these coming events, Coverdale reflected on his time as a member of Opus Dei, and shared stories of its founder.

John Coverdale

CWR: How did you get involved with Opus Dei?

John Coverdale: I lived in Milwaukee in the mid-1950s, at the time when Opus Dei was first getting started there. At the invitation of a friend, I began attending Opus Dei activities. Although the events were held in modest homes in not-particularly-nice neighborhoods, the priests and people I met had an attractive faith, which I found appealing.

Like most Catholic organizations, Opus Dei had a world headquarters in Rome. I studied…there, and earned a degree in philosophy from the Pontifical Lateran University. After I completed my studies, I was asked to work in our public relations office, and I agreed.

CWR: How did you get to know St. Josemaria, and what was he like?

Coverdale: I saw him at the public relations office daily. I found him to be a man of great faith, who loved God, loved Our Lady and those around him. He had a great personal concern for each person with whom he interacted, which surprised me, considering that we were a large international organization.

He was also quite funny. It wasn’t so much that he told jokes, but had that particular turn of phrase or lifting of the shoulders and eyebrows that could get the room laughing. If you watch old movies of him talking to groups, you’ll notice that people laugh a lot.

CWR: And didn’t he remain cheery despite having some significant health problems?

Continue reading on www.CatholicWorldReport.com.