Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 263

The King and His Kingdom

The King and His Kingdom | Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar | From You Crown the Year with Your Goodness: Sermons Throughout the Liturgical Year | Ignatius Insight

"Pilate said to Jesus, 'Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesus answered, 'Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?' Pilate answered: 'Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?' " (Jn. 18:33-35).

A strange, inconclusive dialogue. Questions are met with counterquestions. The governor's question can only be asked from within the perspective of Roman politics and administration. Jesus could have answered with a straight "No": he raised no claim to authority in this area. But how could Pilate have arrived at such a question in the first place unless there were, in the background, a third factor, God's chosen people, for whom the phrase "King of the Jews" had an entirely different religious and messianic import? "Did others say it to you about me?" Is there something of their view, their problems and their questions in your question to me? For if both of you, Jew and gentile, together ask this question, it acquires a new and far greater scope. Then the whole world is asking who I am and what is my authority.

Pilate gives a strange answer. Indirectly he admits that he is not asking of his own accord: "Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me", evidently on account of the word king, which has a messianic ring as far as Jews are concerned and is meant to sound political to the gentiles. But Pilate says, "Am I a Jew?" He rejects any kind of solidarity with the Jews. He is not interested in the associations the word king has for them. He is Rome's representative. Thus he falls into the trap laid by the Jews and operates on the basis of the secular-political implications of Jesus' kingship. And after all, was that not what interested the Jews too? Anti-Roman politics? Israel's liberation struggle? What else did they want from the promised Messiah? And why had they handed Jesus over to the Roman governor? Because Jesus' whole approach was not secular, not political, not messianic enough for them. The people had long wanted to proclaim him king when he distributed bread to the multitude. Only a few days earlier, at his entry into Jerusalem, the people had greeted him with hosannas. But to the leaders' of the nation he was a maverick idealist, merely an obstacle to their realistic political goals; he came bringing ethical demands that were of no use, for he put forward no political theology of any kind. What good to them were his miracles of healing, which placed him in the line of the old prophets? Basically they needed no prophets now, only resolute, ambitious men of orthopraxy. Of course, Jesus had deeds to his credit, but as far as Israel's pundits were concerned, they were not the right ones. On the basis of his deeds they insinuated to Pilate that he was a troublemaker, stirring up the people. "What have you done?" Pilate asked him.

Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice."

When asked, "What have you done?" Jesus replies, "My kingship is not of this world. " He leaves much unsaid. He does not say that he has done nothing, nothing in this world. For he came into this world for the express purpose of doing something, something in it. His deeds are performed in this world. And they are intended for this world. The world is to see and apprehend the testimony he gives in it. We need to realize the whole tension that lies between, on the one hand, the words "not of this world" and, on the other hand, the expression "for this I was born, and for this I have come into the world" . He is not someone who happens to find himself in the world and, oppressed by its narrow confines, strives to extricate himself from it. He is not someone who flees the world. He is not a Buddhist. For him, the world is not the starting point of his yearning transcendence toward some higher life; on the contrary: "For this I have come into the world." The world is the destination of a movement, a journey. He comes from outside and from above in order to show the world something, in order to proclaim something of which it is unaware, something that is not simply a confirmation of its longing for escape. He came because he had something to do on this earth, something the Jews would gladly have exploited for political ends, something Pilate is at pains to understand and evaluate in political terms, but something that, as Jesus says, "is not of this world".

Continue reading on Ignatius Insight...

Michael Gerson thinks Obama's "Catholic strategy is in shambles". I think he's wrong.

In fact, I think that from the perspective of President Obama and his most ardent supporters (that is, those who will vote for him no matter how bad the economy is), this administration's "Catholic strategy" has been quite successful.

Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, writes the following in a November 16th column for The Washington Post:

 In 2009, Notre Dame University set off months of intra-Catholic controversy by inviting a champion of abortion rights to deliver its commencement address. When the day arrived, President Obama skillfully deflated the tension. He extended a "presumption of good faith" to his anti-abortion opponents. Then he promised Catholics that their anti-abortion convictions would be respected by his administration.

Catholics, eager for reassurance from a leader whom 54 percent had supported, were duly reassured. But Obama's statement had the awkward subordinate clauses of a contentious speechwriting process. Qualifications and code words produced a pledge that pledged little.

Now the conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services. And Obama's Catholic strategy is in shambles.

Gerson assumes, rather understandably, that a first-term President who received the majority of the "Catholic" vote should be interested in maintaining that support in order to be re-elected. Which is why Gerson, after recounting some of the recent conflicts between the HHS and the USCCB over conscience clauses and related matters, concludes:

It is also politically incomprehensible. Obama's Catholic outreach is being revealed as a transparent ploy a year before he faces re-election. A portion of the Democratic coalition, including civil libertarians and abortion-rights activists, has decided to attack and marginalize Catholic leaders and institutions. And HHS is actively siding against Catholic organizations.

How will the White House respond? More specifically, how will the Catholic chief of staff and America's first Catholic vice president respond? They gave up their own adherence to Catholic teaching on abortion long ago. But are they really prepared to betray their coreligionists who still hold these beliefs?

Sebelius is becoming a political embarrassment at an inconvenient time. It will be significantly harder for Obama to repeat his appeal to Catholic voters while a part of his administration is at war with Catholic leaders and Catholic belief

Some on the left, such as TIME's Amy Sullivan (whose loathing of Catholicism is not a secret), have downplayed Gerson's concerns, saying that the Obama administration has simply been the victim of various officials "bungling policy decisions and basic communications strategy". But I think that bungling and bias (or bigotry, as the case might be) are not only compatible, they are often smitten lovers skipping through the insular meadows of political hubris. Arrogance has a way of blinding us to our weaknesses and faults, as well as causing us to disdain the positions of others and to be dismissive of their positions without taking them seriously. Need I point out that the Obama administration has earned a reputation for arrogance and hubris that is impressive, even at a time when such faults are common to the point of being taken for granted within the realm of politics?

Over against Gerson's puzzlement, here is what I think has happened and is happening:

• A young and fast-rising politician who had demonstrated few obvious ideological loyalties, with the notable exception of consistent homage paid to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the god of "choice", ran for the Presidency. (For instance, in Sen. Obama's 2007 speech to PP: "I've stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito...")

• Candidate Obama recognized that, first, he needed to get a significant portion of the Catholic vote and that, secondly, the Catholic Church is the most visible opponent of abortion in the United States. But he also recognized that a majority of Catholics do not actually adhere to the Church's teaching that the most fundamental of human rights is "the right to life, from conception to its natural end..."

• Although not a Catholic, he saw he could take up and tweak the playbook employed so successfully by the late Ted Kennedy and other "pro-choice Catholics", who use the language of "social justice" and "choice" and "freedoms" and "privacy" to deflect from his core stances, which added up to the most pro-abortion platform ever held by a presidential candidate.

• In addiition to facing a weak opponent and being able to feed off deep frustrations with the out-going President, he was able to cast himself as a moderate and balanced candidate who, miraculously, was above the fray of competing, extremist positions; in fact, this rhetorical appeal to moral superiority became a constant feature of his campaign and presidency. As Gerson notes, assurances were given, but the words and the actions (as Gerson also observes) were not in synch; on the contrary, the rhetoric was cover for actions that are overtly pro-abortion and anti-life.

• Candidate Obama used and employed Catholics who, for whatever reason, bought into the image and posturing of his campaign. Douglas Kmiec, who assured Catholics that Obama was almost as Catholic as the Pope, and Fr. Thomas Reese, who gave cover to Pres. Obama prior the 2009 visit to Notre Dame, come to mind. (Toss in the entire staff of National "Catholic" Reporter for good measure.)

• Candidate Obama knew—and this is essential—that he could not and would not win over serious, practicing, orthodox Catholics, but he also didn't care, because he knew the majority of Catholics in the U.S. are not serious, practicing, orthodox Catholics.

• He also knew that if he had enough "Catholics" singing his praises, he could pass himself off as "Catholic friendly"—even a close and abiding friend of the Catholic Church. He surely saw this method work with Senator Kennedy, who continued, even after death, to be lauded as a great Catholic politician despite stomping constantly on Catholic teaching with an impunity, recklessness, and arrogance that is as breathtaking as it is scandalous.

• Put simply, I believe that a key part of candidate Obama's "Catholic strategy" was to appeal to those Catholics who either doubt or deny the Church's teaching on life issues. And, frankly, it was a smart political strategy. It worked. It certainly helped that Sen. McCain was not an attractive option to many Catholics (both "liberal" and "conservative"), but it would have a been a good strategy regardless.

• Since taking office, Pres. Obama has aggressively pursued the few issues that he was consistent on prior to his election, including (or even especially) abortion "rights". He has purposelessly chosen pro-abortion Catholics such as Kathleen Sebelius (who one pundit tried to pawn off as a "pro-choice pro-lifer"), because it provides cover for his direct attack on life; that is, his direct attack on Catholic beliefs and teachings. Nancy Pelosi and Sebelius, in particular, have proven to be instrumental in this destructive work.

In other words, the actual, long-term "Catholic strategy" of this administration is to undermine and dismantle the witness and work of the Catholic Church, which works on the behalf of protecting life from the moment of conception to the grave. Pres. Obama has proven time and time agaoin that he is committed to a pro-abortion agenda that will not and cannot pay respects to those who believe life begins at conception, that it is sacred, and that abortion is a "moral evil" and a "criminal practice" (CCC, 2271-4). There is no middle ground. Unfortunately, the disciples of death have always understood this, even while many of those who are disciples of life have been slow to admit this stark truth.

Finally, Gerson, like so many others, mistakenly talks about the "Catholic vote" as if it were some sort of monolithic, cohesive entity. It is not. The majority of Catholics are not guided by Church teaching, at least not in a consistent and demonstrable manner; they vote, in general and at best, like liberal Protestants. Many of them vote just like their pseudo-sophisticated, neo-pagan neighbors. Gerson wonders how it is that Vice-President Biden and other Catholics in the Obama administration might actually "betray their coreligionists" by siding against the USCCB on these issues of conscience clauses and so forth.

The naivity of the question is, well, embarrassing. Let's be blunt: if a man is willing to sell the lives of the unborn for political gain, why would he hesitate to sell out the "coreligionists" whose beliefs he obviously rejects? Or, in more eschatological terms: if a man is willing to sell his soul for earthly power, why would he give a damn about the judgment of heaven? The Catholic strategy of the current administration, I submit, is not in shambles, but is simply out in the open. It is politically comprehensible exactly because it has, so far, been politically successful.

New: "In Memory of Me: Meditations On The Roman Canon"

Now available from Ignatius Press:

In Memory of Me: Meditations On The Roman Canon

by Milton Walsh

• Also available in electronic book format

Foreword by Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia, O.P., Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

The Roman Canon, also known as the First Eucharistic Prayer, holds a privileged place among the texts used in the Mass. With the release of a new English translation of the Latin Roman Missal, Milton Walsh's timely meditation on the Roman Canon can help priests, religious, and laity deepen their understanding of the text that for centuries was the only Eucharistic prayer used in the Roman Rite. 

Drawing on the biblical and liturgical scholarship of the twentieth century, Walsh provides spiritual reflections on each of the prayers that make up the Roman Canon. This ancient prayer took shape during the golden age of the Fathers of the Church, from the fourth to the sixth centuries, and it is rich in biblical allusions and theological meaning.

In Memory of Me explores the themes of thanksgiving, offering, and intercession that recur throughout the prayer.  It explains the centrality of sacrifice in the Eucharist, not only Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass, but also the offerings of the Old Testament and the self-offering of the martyrs. The trinitarian nature of the Canon, in particular the question of the role of the Holy Spirit, is also treated, as well as the relationship between earthly and heavenly worship. 

"In Memory of Me combines liturgical scholarship, theological reflection, and liturgical piety in a way that will deepen your understanding of the Eucharist and nourish your spiritual life."
— Most Rev. J. Augustine DiNoia, O.P., Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

"With a revised English translation of the venerable Roman Canon, many Catholics will be hearing it with new ears. This book will help them hear it with a new heart. Don't just study the new words, step into the soul of Eucharistic Prayer I."
— Rev. Paul Turner, Former president of the North American Academy of Liturgy

Theology, Sanity, and the Trinity

by Carl E. Olson

Frank J. Sheed was an Australian law student who, after moving to London in the 1920s, became one of the most famous Catholic apologists of the century. He was an outstanding street-corner speaker who popularized the Catholic Evidence Guild in both England and America (where he later resided). Along with his wife Maisie Ward he founded the Catholic publishing house of Sheed & Ward in 1926, publishing some of the best Catholic literature of the first half of the twentieth century. A cradle Catholic, Sheed was a central figure in what he called the "Catholic Intellectual Revival," an influential and loosely knit group of converts to the Catholic Faith, including authors and apologists such as G.K. Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, Arnold Lunn, and Ronald Knox.

Sheed wrote many books, including Theology and Sanity, A Map of Life, Theology for Beginners and To Know Christ Jesus. He and Maise also compiled the Catholic Evidence Training Outlines, which included his notes for training outdoor speakers and apologists and is a valuable tool for Catholic apologists (and is available through the Catholic Evidence Guild). His writing was marked by rare erudition, strong philosophical knowledge, and a comprehensive grasp of Catholic doctrine.

Theology and Sanity (orig. 1946; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993] is arguably Sheed's most important book. It is especially helpful for apologists since every part of it had been, Sheed states, "tried out on forty or fifty outdoor audiences before I got it down on paper." (p 9). The result is an enjoyable and filling theological meal, served with the natural ease and clarity that characterizes Sheed's writing.

Part of that meal is what apologist Karl Keating has rightly described as "the clearest explanation of the Trinity ever put to paper." In the course of forty pages, Sheed provides a precise and accessible apologetic for the belief in the Triune God. This defense and explanation of the central doctrine of the Christian Faith is carefully structured, composed of three major steps.

The Meaning of Mystery

Early in Theology and Sanity, before ever broaching the subject of the Trinity, Sheed explains the limitations of man's imagination and intellect and how that relates to "what we call Mysteries in religion" (p 37). A religious or theological Mystery is not a puzzle or sheer darkness, nor is it "something that we can know nothing about: it is only something that the mind cannot wholly know" (p 38). He uses the analogy of an art gallery into which the visitor walks deeper and deeper—never reaching the end but finding the visit to be completely satisfying.

"A Mystery, in short," Sheed continues, "is an invitation to the mind." The well of Truth has no bottom and we can drink from it endlessly, our minds never going away thirsty. A Mystery is revealed by God—it cannot be known by human reason, nor fully explained by logic or argument. "Thus in the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, we cannot see how God can be Three if He is infinitely One" (p 38). The human mind balks at such a statement, seeing an apparent contradiction. Or, by faith, man can simply accept the Mystery of the Trinity. But while this might make for a quiet life, Sheed dryly observes, it does not make "for any growth in the knowledge of God" (p 39).

Another temptation is to overemphasize one part of the Mystery. This ultimately leads to heresy or stunted spiritual growth. In the case of the Trinity, focusing only on the three Persons can lead to polytheism. Setting aside the three Persons to focus only on the Oneness of God means missing out on the great riches found in the knowledge of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and what it means for man. 

We are to have a balanced perspective when it comes to Mystery. "Thus a Mystery," Sheed explains, "is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness" (p 42). We must use our intellectual powers and rely on God's grace so that the light will grow. God revealed the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity "because He wanted us to know it," Sheed writes, "We must try."

Mathematical Misunderstandings

Essential to helping the light grow and knowledge increase when it comes to the Trinity is the removal of impediments. Based on his countless hours spent defending Catholicism, Sheed states that the main obstacle for the apologist is what he humorously calls "the mystery of mathematics." 

How is it, the Christian is asked, that one can equal three? All to often the resulting dialogue is destined for disaster. Sometimes the frustrated Christian informs the questioner that the Trinity is a mystery revealed by God and it must be accepted by faith. Such a statement, Sheed points out, is true enough: the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery and it can only be known by faith. But more often than not, what has been described by the Christian is not the Mystery of the Trinity, or the mystery of anything at all: it is "wretched nonsense" (p 89) and wholesale confusion.

Essential to addressing the mystery of mathematics is recognizing that "three persons in one nature" is not a slogan, but a starting point. And we must start by attaching meaning to the word person and the word nature. If we don't "then both the nouns have dropped out of the definition, and we are left only with the numbers three and one, and get along as best we can with these" (p 90). 

Defining "Person" and "Nature"

Defining these two terms, as challenging as it is, is vital to making any significant progress is a cogent explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. As Sheed writes, "It is a decisive stage of our advance into theology to get some grasp of the meaning of nature and the meaning of person" (p 92). Although I cannot do full justice to Sheed's masterful explanation here, I will point out some of his essential points.

First, nature refers to the question: "What am I?", while person answers the question, "Who am I?" Each being has a nature, but not every being is a person since "only rational beings are persons." An inanimate object has a nature, but is not a person.

Secondly, my nature is the source of my actions, but "it is not my nature that does them: I do them, I the person" (p 93). It is in our nature to do certain things, but is not my nature that does them—I do them. So "there is a reality in us by which we are what we are: and there is a reality in us by which we are who we are." The difficulty is that we struggle intellectually to perceive the clear distinction between the what and the who, even though it obviously exists. 

Thirdly, while man's nature is finite, God's nature is infinite. And while I have one nature and I am one person, I cannot limit God to the same. In other words, if God reveals (as He has) that He is three distinct Persons with one nature, it goes beyond our full comprehension, but it is not, in fact, contrary to what we can grasp about person and nature. "Thus," Sheed argues, "since the nature of any being decides what the being is, each person is God, wholly and therefore equal with the [other Persons]." And so, since the nature decides what the person can do, "each of the three persons who thus totally possess the Divine Nature can do all the things that go with being God" (p. 97).

There is, of course, more to Sheed's explanation and apologetic. He goes on to describe the relationship between the Persons of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. And he provides some further "precisions" about terms and concepts, concluding with more observations about the relationship between reason and revelation. "The difficulties in extending the area of our understanding," he concludes, "do not in the least affect the certainty of what we do know of the Blessed Trinity" (p 115). And thanks to Frank Sheed, many people know a bit more about the great Mystery of the Triune God.

[This article originally appeared in The Catholic Answer with a different title.]
Related Links on Ignatius Insight and Insight Scoop:

• Frank Sheed author page
• Sheed on the Trinity
• St. John the Baptist, Forerunner | Frank Sheed
• The Incarnation | Frank Sheed
• The Problem of Life's Purpose | Frank Sheed

The Preface to Gertrud von le Fort's "The Song at the Scaffold"

The Preface to Gertrud von le Fort's   The Song at the Scaffold: A Novel  

The outbreak of the French Revolution led to wholly unexpected manifestations of hatred for the Christian faith. During the space of a few months, veritable throngs of priests and religious were led to the guillotine and executed. Among the victims were sixteen Carmelites belonging to a convent in Compiègne which had enjoyed special favors under the old regime. The present story is based upon their history and legend. It has been written in the form of a letter purporting to come from an observer of events in Paris to a noblewoman living in exile. The correspondents are familiar with the philosophical tendencies which flourished prior to the Revolution, and these are commented upon by the writer. While it will be easy for readers to follow the progress of the narrative, some introductory remarks of a general character may not be taken amiss.

First, a word concerning the Carmel. Everyone had heard of this community, to which Saints as well-known as Teresa of Avila and Thérèse of Lisieux have belonged. The sisters who elect to live according to the difficult Carmelite rule devote their lives to contemplative prayer and in particular to acts of expiation of evil done by other persons living in the world. Indeed the Carmelites have often been known to think of their community as a kind of "spiritual lightning rod" down which what would otherwise be wrathful flames of retribution pass harmlessly. Cloistered from the world and publicly engaged in no active tasks, these sisters are likely to be treated with malicious contempt in ages weak in faith.

And such was the period immediately preceding the French Revolution. Fraulein Gertrud von le Fort, the keenness of whose intuitive insight into religious psychology was appreciated by such a master as Ernst Troeltsch, presents in Sister Marie de l'Incarnation a woman possessing virtues which the time in which she lived almost completely lacked—nobility of soul, in which were fused both ability to govern and tactful knowledge of how to govern; and profound, clear, unshrinking faith, to which God was always the most self-evident of beings. To observe the outline of this Sister's character as it is here traced by an imagined contemporary is to share in one of the greatest pleasures art can afford—contemplation of the human in genuinely heroic form.

Nevertheless there is a sense in which such contemplation cannot suffice for the modern mind. Our current study of psychology, which in a way is also the recovery of knowledge which rationalistic psychologists mistakenly crowded out of their formulae, is persistently aware of the universal mysteries hinted at in our own and others' subconscious minds.

We do not, should not, renounce heroism; but every great soul is only a pillar, however magnificently tall, and based upon discernible but never entirely measurable foundations of spiritual experience and purpose. All this is of special importance from the point of view of religious psychology. Here the center is forever God, never man. The valiant human soul thinks (too easily) that it sees all, comprehends us, can do all. Yet the Eternal Cosmos has a knowledge, a vision, a teleology which eddies round the isolated and so self-conscious individual as does the sea about a single ship. Therefore the life of Blanche has a peculiar significance. The Divine purpose, we seem to understand, could not have been achieved without the service of the weakness of fear. A timid girl seeks refuge in flight, and out of that running away come victory and unforgettable beauty. Did not the Lord's final redemptive achievement depend upon His leaning against a broken stave, and upon His coronation with a fool's garland?

The artist's gaze here scans deeps and heights. Nevertheless she does not content herself with unintelligible jottings—the shorthand of one who has strayed into the land of vision without the gift of sight. Everything is limpid, everything composed. This again is quite as it should be. The narrator etches by the steady light of his own illumination. He sees two worlds in conflict:—the human, which the philosophers had overestimated and which had again been broken, as in Greek myth, by its own aspirations; and the Divine, wherein man is always clay in the Potter's hands, sometimes breathtakingly lustrous. Quod semper, quod ubique. This is the story of the French Revolution. It is also a vision of our own age, in which the spear of heedless, irreverent adventure has once more splintered against the wall.   

G.N.S.

The Song at the Scaffold: A Novel
by Gertrud von le Fort

• Also available in Electronic Book Format

"The point of departure for my creation was not primarily the destiny of the sixteen Carmelites of Compiègne but the figure of the young Blanche. . . . Born in the profound horror of a time darkened by the signs of destiny, this figure arose before me in some way as the embodiment of the mortal agony of an era going totally to its ruin." — Gertrud von le Fort

Set during the French Revolution, this classic novella is based on the true story of the Carmelite nuns of Compiègne, who offered their lives for the preservation of the Church in France.

The story unfolds around the fictional character of Blanche de la Force, an excessively fearful aristocrat who enters the Carmelite convent in order to flee the dangers of the world. As the Reign of Terror begins, Blanche is no safer in the convent than in the streets of Paris, and some of the sisters begin to doubt her ability to endure persecution and possibly martyrdom.

The fates of Blanche and the other Carmelites take several unexpected turns, leaving the reader with an inspiring witness not only of martyrdom but of God's power being glorified in human weakness.  

"One of the great Christian classics of all time." — Michael O'Brien, Author, Father Elijah

"A poignant reminder that, for the Christian, fearlessness lies on the far side of Gethsemane and the Cross." — George Weigel, Author, Witness to Hope

Gertrud von le Fort, a convert to Catholicism, attended the universities of Heidelberg, Berlin and Marburg. She was a prolific writer whose poetry and novels, which have been translated into many languages, won her acclaim throughout Europe. She also wrote The Eternal Woman, published by Ignatius Press.

Fr. Schall says "Ten Universal Principles" is a book that "deserves special attention"

From Fr. James Schall's November 15th essay, "Spitzer on Roe v. Wade", a review of Fr. Roebert Spitzer's Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues:

Robert Spitzer, S. J.'s new book, Ten Universal Principles, deserves special attention. Spitzer takes up arguments that were used in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court to justify its position that an unborn child was not a "person" under the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. He is not the first to articulate the flaws in the Court's arguments. Hadley Arkes, Robert George, Leon Kass, Gerald Bradley, Charles Rice, among others, have addressed this issue.

But Spitzer uses his own philosophical and scientific acumen to clarity the reasoning of the Court's own arguments. Similar erroneous decisions have been made by executives, legislatures, and courts of other nations and international organizations. Spitzer is concerned with the "intelligence" of the justices. If their justifications were valid, the justices could hold their heads high to stand on principles of reason. If not, they violate their primary duty as justices.

All justices know the similarity between Roe v. Wade and the Dred Scott Decision. Spitzer shows the difference between these equally erroneous decisions. The Court, in the Dred Scott Case, used positive law (a provision in the Constitution) to justify the lack of full humanity to the slaves. The Court restricted their natural liberty. The Roe v. Wade decision used lack of Court precedent to justify the legal permission to kill real human beings by finding no mention of the word "person" in previous legal cases.

Read the entire review on The Catholic Thing website.

Today is the feast day of St. Giuseppe Moscati...

... (July 25, 1880—April 12, 1927), "the holy physician of Naples," who was beatified on this day in 1975 by Pope Paul VI and canonized on October 25, 1987 by Blessed John Paul II.

The three-hour-long film, St. Giuseppe Moscati: Doctor to the Poor, tells the story of his relatively short but remarkable life:

Giuseppe Moscati, "the holy physician of Naples," was a medical doctor and layman in the early 20th century who came from an aristocratic family and devoted his medical career to serving the poor. He was also a medical school professor and a pioneer in the field of biochemistry whose research led to the discovery of insulin as a cure for diabetes.

Moscati regarded his medical practice as a lay apostolate, a ministry to his suffering fellowmen. Before examining a patient or engaging in research he would place himself in the presence of God. He encouraged his patients to receive the sacraments. Dr. Moscati treated poor patients free of charge, and would often send someone home with an envelope containing a prescription and a 50-lire note.

When Mount Vesuvius erupted in 1906, Dr. Moscati evacuated a nursing home in the endangered area, personally moving the frail and infirm patients to safety minutes before the roof of the building collapsed. He also served beyond the call of duty during the 1911 cholera epidemic and treated some 3,000 soldiers during World War I.

Moscati was outspoken in his opposition to the unfair practices of nepotism and bribery that often influenced appointments at that time. He could have pursued a brilliant academic career, taken a professorial chair and devoted more time to research, but he preferred to continue working with patients and to train interns.

Giuseppe Moscati died in 1927 at 46 yrs old, was beatified in 1975 and declared a saint by Pope John Paul II in 1987. His feast day is November 16.

More information can be found on www.Ignatius.com.

Benedict XVI reflects on Psalm 110, "a Psalm beloved by the ancient Church and by believers of all times"

From Vatican Information Service:

VATICAN CITY, 16 NOV 2011 (VIS) - During today's general audience in St Peter's Square, attended by over 11,000 pilgrims, the Holy Father imparted the final catechesis of his cycle dedicated to the Psalms. He focused on Psalm 110, which "Jesus Himself cited, and which the authors of the New Testament referred to widely and interpreted in reference to the Messiah. ... It is a Psalm beloved by the ancient Church and by believers of all times", which celebrates "the victorious and glorified Messiah seated at the right hand of God".

  The Psalm begins with a solemn declaration: "The Lord says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool". Benedict XVI explained that "Christ is the Lord enthroned, the Son of man seated at the right hand of God. ... He is the true king who by resurrection entered into glory, ... higher than the angels, seated in the heavens over all other powers, ... and with all His adversaries at His feet until the last enemy, death, is definitively defeated by Him".

  God and the king celebrated in the Psalm are inseparably linked. "The two govern together, to the point that the Psalmist confirms that God Himself grants the regal sceptre, giving the king the task of defeating his adversaries. ... The exercise of power is a task the king receives directly from the Lord, a responsibility which involves dependence and obedience, thus becoming a sign to the people of God's powerful and provident presence. Dominion over enemies, glory and victory are gifts the king has received, that make him a mediator of divine triumph over evil".

  The priestly dimension, linked to that of regality, appears in verse four. "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind 'You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek'". This priest, the king of Salem, had blessed Abraham and offered bread and wine following the victorious military campaign conducted by the patriarch to save Lot from the hands of his enemies. The king of the Psalm "will be a priest forever, mediator of the divine presence among His people, a catalyst for the blessing of God". Jesus Christ "is the true and definitive priest, Who will complete and perfect the features of Melchizedek's priesthood". In the bread and wine of the Eucharist, Christ "offers Himself and, defeating death, brings life to all believers".

  The final verses portray "the triumphant sovereign who, with the support of the Lord, having received power and glory from Him, opposes his enemies, defeating adversaries and judging nations".

  The Church traditionally considers this Psalm as one of the most significant messianic texts. "The king as sung by the Psalmist is Christ, the Messiah Who establishes the Kingdom of God and overcomes the powers of the world. He is the Word generated by God before any creature, the Son incarnate, Who died and rose to heaven, the eternal Priest Who, in the mystery of the bread and wine, grants forgiveness for sins and reconciliation with God; the King Who raised his head in triumph over death by His resurrection".

  The Psalm invites us to "look to Christ to understand the meaning of true regality which is to be lived as service and the giving of self, following a path of obedience and love 'to the end'. Praying this Psalm, we therefore ask the Lord to enable us to proceed along this same journey, following Christ, the Messiah, willing to ascend with Him on the hill of the cross to accompany Him in glory, and to look to Him seated at the right hand of the Father, the victorious king and merciful priest Who gives forgiveness and salvation to all mankind".

  Finally, the Pope explained that, in the course of his catechesis dedicated to the Psalms, he had sought to focus on those "that reflect the different situations in life and the various attitudes we may have towards God. I would like to renew my call to everyone to pray the Psalms, to become accustomed to using the Liturgy of the Hours, Lauds, Vespers, and Compline. Our relationship with God can only be enriched by our journeying towards Him day after day".

More Fr. Spitzer sightings (and hearings)!

Or should that be "listenings"? Hmm. Anyhow, I have no proof, but I suspect that Fr. Spitzer sleeps only about two hours a night. Or perhaps he has used his knowledge of physics to manipulate the time-space continuum (or whatever it's called), as he seems to be everywhere recently:

• Fr. Spitzer's November 14th interview "Catholic Connection" with guest host, David Palmer, about Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues (interview begins around 19:00):

• And, also yesterday, he was on "Catholic Answers Live" to talk about the existence of God.

• Here is Fr. Spitzer's recent interview with "Inside the Pages" about Ten Universal Principles.

• And here is his interview today on "Morning Air" with Sean Herriott on Relevant Radio: Streaming or Download.

• Last week, Fr. Spitzer spent an hour talking with with Dina Marie of KBVM (Portland, Oregon) about his new book:

• He also appeared on "Kresta In the Afternoon"; the interview begins at the 22:30 mark:

Underpopulation—The Real Problem

Underpopulation—The Real Problem | Michael J. Miller | Catholic World Report

Steven W. Mosher on the world's demographic crisis

Population Research Institute (PRI) is a non-profit research organization with headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia and a global network of affiliated pro-life groups. The president of PRI is Steven W. Mosher. He recently spoke to CWR.

In a weekly online poll called "YouCut"—where US citizens can vote for the wasteful federal program they would most like to discontinue—the United Nations Fund for Population Activities was a candidate in May 2011, and it "won." Representative Renee Ellmers introduced a bill to terminate contributions to the UNFPA, which has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Please comment.

Steven Mosher: More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) is involved with some of the most horrific population control programs the world has ever seen. In China, for example, we at the Population Research Institute have documented that the UNFPA's "model country" program is rife with human rights abuses, including forced abortions and forced sterilizations. Not only that, but couples who have more than one child are hit with crippling fines equivalent to three to five year's income. These "social compensation fees," as they are called, are deliberately set high in order to bully mothers into having abortions.

It gets worse. The UNFPA directly supports and helps to manage China's forced-pace program by supplying computers and sterilization/abortion equipment to China's family planning police. The computers allow the police to track all women of childbearing age and target those who get pregnant "out-of-plan." And [the UNFPA] promotes exporting China's one-child policies to other countries.

I have fought to defund the UNFPA for 30 years, but it has been a seesaw battle all the way. We won the first round when President Reagan and his successor agreed that the UNFPA was illegally supporting forced abortions and forced sterilizations in China, but lost the second when Bill Clinton took office and turned a blind eye to these abuses.

We went on the offensive again with the election of President George W. Bush. Based largely on evidence that we had gathered, on July 21, 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell dropped the ax: "UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time."

There matters remained until the election of Barack Obama who, ignoring the evidence, once again began funneling money to the UN organization. Meanwhile, the population control agency appears determined to mire itself even more deeply in the muck of China's program. The agency continues to expand its program in China, and has signed a new agreement with the government there that will run through 2012.

Even if this UN organization were not complicit in human rights abuses, it would still make no sense to fund it. Overpopulation is one of the myths of the century now past. The reality of our present century is the growing problem of underpopulation. As birth rates continue to fall worldwide, we need to abolish the UN Fund for Population Activities before it does any more harm.

Demographers estimate that in late 2011 the world's population will reach seven billion. It is said to have reached the six billion mark in October of 1999. Doesn't this rapid increase vindicate the population control movement?

Continue reading this interview at www.CatholicWorldReport.com...