Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 336

"Rediscovering Courage and Conviction": Interview with Bishop Thomas J. Tobin

Rediscovering Courage and Conviction | Interview with Bishop Thomas J. Tobin by Jim Graves | Catholic World Report

An American bishop with a penchant for plain speech explains how—and why—he has become involved in public controversies.

Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, was born and reared in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the youngest of four children from an observant Catholic home, and his father was a manager at Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Tobin was attracted to the priesthood from a young age, and remembers pretending to celebrate Mass at home as a small child. "God was interested in having me be a priest," he recalled. "And it was nourished by the Catholic faith in our household."

Tobin has fond memories of the priests and Benedictine nuns who were his teachers at the Catholic schools in which he was enrolled as a child. He attended seminaries both in Pennsylvania and Rome, and was ordained a priest in 1973. In 1992 he was ordained an auxiliary bishop for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and went on to serve as bishop of the Diocese of Youngstown, Ohio from 1996 to 2005, when he became the eighth bishop of Providence.

Bishop Tobin has been an outspoken defender of Catholic teaching, and has tangled with prominent political figures over such hot-button issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. He regularly pens a column, "Without a Doubt," for his diocesan newspaper, and has written two books on faith, Without a Doubt: Bringing Faith to Life and Effective Faith: Faith that Makes a Difference. He recently spoke with CWR.

CWR: You have been a leader against the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in your state of Rhode Island. Who is behind this effort, and what arguments do you make in opposition to them?

Bishop Thomas Tobin: Rhode Island is a very liberal state politically. The vast majority of our General Assembly in both houses are Democrats. The question of gay marriage has been on the horizon for many years. Fortunately, in recent years, we had a governor, Governor Donald Carcieri, who promised to veto it.  Governor Carcieri is a practicing Catholic. Also, both our previous Speaker of the House and the president of the Senate kept the lid on same-sex marriage in the General Assembly.

That scenario has changed.

Our newly elected governor, Lincoln Chafee, is an Independent. He made promotion of same-sex marriage one of his priorities, even mentioning it in his inaugural address. And the new Speaker of the House, Gordon Fox, is an openly gay man who has also made it one of his priorities.

The arguments we've been making against same-sex marriage are well known. While the Catholic Church has respect, love, pastoral care, and compassion for people with homosexual orientation, we believe that homosexual marriage is wrong because it gives state approval of an immoral lifestyle involving immoral sexual activity.

Also, it is an attempt to redefine the institution of marriage as it has been understood since the beginning of time. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman and is meant to foster life and love. Homosexual marriage can never do that. It is an ill-advised attempt to redefine something God has given us and what is one of the building blocks of human society.

Additionally, the passage of homosexual marriage presents a challenge to religious freedom and conscience protection, as has been the case in other places in the country. Our neighbors in the Archdiocese of Boston in Massachusetts, for example, had to get out of the adoption business because they were being forced to place children in situations where there were two gay people living in a home in an alleged marriage. The Archdiocese of Washington had to stop giving family medical benefits because they were being forced to provide them to gay couples who tried to get married in civil marriages.

And there are situations where ancillary Catholic facilities such as reception halls must be made available to gay couples as they attempt to marry. All these things are on the radar screen if you go down this road of approving homosexual marriage.

Read the entire interview on www.CatholicWorldReport.com...

Jesuit philosopher and legendary rock vocalist agree on something about nothing

The Catholic Herald (Archdiocese of Milwaukee) reports on a recent lecture by Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.:

The need to confront atheism is high, according to the former Gonzaga University president who founded and heads the California-based Magis Center of Reason and Faith.

In a presentation titled, "What Is Contemporary Physics Saying about Creation and God?" he delivered Marquette University's Ciszek Lecture, at Marquette's Weasler Auditorium on Monday, Feb. 28, Jesuit Fr. Robert Spitzer, 58, offered new proofs for the existence of God. ...

As he did last September on "Larry King Live," Fr. Spitzer took issue with physicist Stephen Hawking, whose previous writings had been open to the possibility of a creator, and who contends in his latest book, "The Grand Design," that the universe is capable of creating itself from nothing.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," wrote Hawking in his 2010 book.

"There's no such thing as nothing," Fr. Spitzer countered in his lecture. "Nothing can't do anything because nothing is nothing. If the universe is nothing, then where does the law of gravity … fit in?"

Which immediately brought to mind an interesting song by Chris Cornell titled, "No Such Thing", which is sung from the perspective of a man struggling to make sense of reality and existence:

I saw the world, it was beautiful
But the rain got in and ruined it all
Then I tried to be invisible
It was impossible
Even for me
I laughed at love
It was a big mistake
In the absence of
I filled it with hate

Cause there's no such thing as nothing
Yeah there's no such thing as nothing at all

And:

So what gives me the right
To think that I could throw away a life?
Even mine
And what makes you believe
That you could get away with getting old?
Overlapping me
Maybe to lose or to save your soul
Is a choice of how you fill the hole

Many of Cornell's other songs explore similar themes, often opaquely, but with some apparent input from his Catholic upbringing (it's not clear if Cornell is now a practicing Catholic or even considers himself a Christian). Which brings me back to Fr. Spitzer's remarks:

There is considerable scientific evidence, Fr. Spitzer indicated, of an intelligent design to the universe – a universe that has undergone "infinite fine-tuning without any apparent reason."
 
The balance in forces and the many variables that came together "so that life forms could exist," said Fr. Spitzer, are evidence of a super intellect.
 
"There is something out there besides the universe that brought it into existence," he said. "There is something really powerful out there that is also really smart."

Fr. Spitzer's book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, published by Eerdmans, is available for purchase from Ignatius Press. For more about Fr. Spitzer's work, visit the Magis Center of Reason and Faith website.

A Short History of the "Left Behind" Theology

A Short History of the "Left Behind" Theology | Carl E. Olson | Ignatius Insight

Editor's note: This article is adapted from material in Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"? A Catholic Critique of the Rapture and Today's Prophecy Preachers (Ignatius Press, 2003).

In a January 19, 2003, BBC news article, "Armageddon fiction grips the US," reporter Justin Webb struggled to come to grips with the best-selling Left Behind books (with sales of around 50 million copies at that time), created and co-authored by leading Fundamentalist Tim LaHaye. Webb was apparently bewildered by the topic, and he didn't help matters by misspelling LaHaye's name ("LeHaye").

Even worse, in seeking to criticize the political message of the novels, he completely missed the theological core of the books. Yet this isn't too surprising, for the theological belief espoused by the Left Behind novels--known as premillennial dispensationalism--is a strange and complex one, with a relatively short, but eventful history.

The French (and English) Connection
While dispensationalism and the "Rapture"--the heart of the "left behind" theology--are now almost as American as apple pie, their story began in France and England just over two centuries ago. In his seminal study, The Roots of Fundamentalism, historian Ernest R. Sandeen states, "The French Revolution was directly responsible for the revival of prophetic concern. To live through the decade of the 1790s in itself constituted an experience in apocalypticism for many of the British. The violent uprooting of European political and social institutions forced many to the conclusion that the end of the world was near." [1]

This sense of a rapidly approaching end was further heightened when some students of "Bible prophecy" calculated that the Papacy would last 1,260 years and that it was, at last, coming to an end in the late 1700s. This calculation was based on Daniel 7:25 ("a time, two times, and a half a time") and Revelation 12:6 ("one thousand two hundred and sixty days"), combined with the belief that whenever a passage of Bible prophecy referred to a "day" it really meant a "year" -- a premise still common in contemporary dispensationalism. When Catholic power in France was destroyed during the Revolution and French troops marched on Rome in 1798, many interpreted those events to be the "deadly wound" of Revelation 13. A simple (and convenient) computation "revealed" that the Papacy had first emerged in A.D. 538, a date still used by groups such as the Seventh-day Adventists.

Anti-Catholicism was not a secondary issue, but was at the heart of British and American millenarianism. "Millenarians without exception were stoutly anti-Catholic", notes Sandeen, "and viewed every agitation [for emancipation] by English and Irish Catholics as confirmation of the increasing corruption of the world and thus of the increasing likelihood of the second advent." [2]

Read the entire article on Ignatius Insight...

Anne Rice likens Catholic Church to the Mafia; says Church is "one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world"

We interrupt Reality to bring you this message from Anne Rice:

When I left the RCC last year, I still had faith in the "people in the pews." I thought they were good people. But from what I've seen in these discussions, I think I was sadly mistaken.

When are rank and file Catholics going to stop supporting the worldwide crimes of the RCC against children and victims of clergy abuse?

If you support the Mafia, are you not complicit in its crimes?

What does it take to get Catholics to

1- apologize personally to the victims of clergy exploitation.
2- refuse to support their diocese unless the diocese comes clean about complicity with abusers, and efforts to shelter them and enable them.
3- Publicly demand that the Vatican come clean on clergy abuse, and begin some worldwide moral reform to see that this kind of blatant criminal behavior is never enabled and protected again?

Some of the posts by Catholics in these discussions are positively nauseating. You'd think these people didn't belong to one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world.

The utter failure of the Vatican to admit its own wrongdoing is appalling.

The Pope and his assistants have zero credibility.

The idea of moral leadership by this church is very simply outrageous.

That was posted two days ago by Rice on an amazon.com "Catholic Discussion" under the heading of "Are Rank and File Catholics just as guilty as their hierarchy of worldwide sexual abuse?" (ht: J.V.). There's plenty more to read in the discussion, and some of the key points ("accusations", really) are, in summary:

• Very few Catholics care about the priestly sex scandals, except to defend accused priests. Rice, in another post, writes, "It would be so easy for Catholics to stand up and say, 'We deplore this scandal, and we too want the truth.' But they really just don't do it." I'm not sure which is more mind-boggling: her omniscience or her ignorance (how about "omnignorance"?). Which leads to:

• No matter what the Pope or bishops or other Catholics do, it is never enough, it is never good enough, and it is seen as either implicitly or explicitly intended to cover up sins, crimes, and failures. After all, if the Catholic Church is just like the Mafia and is "one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world", it will surely continue to find ways to do what Rice and Co. insist it exists to do: molest, abuse, lie, and destroy.

• Catholics who defends the Church and who see bias or worse in the media when it comes to the scandals are either unwitting dupes or devious hatchetmen. Rice grudgingly admits that while some Catholics may have stood up and complained at some point, "the Catholic press is filled with defensiveness, attacks on the papers, attacks on the critics, excuses and platitudes. These discussions are filled with defensiveness and attacks on critics. I wonder: wouldn't the rank and file feel better if they stood up for the victims? Can't they be loyal to their pastors and their parishes and still speak up against people like Fr. Donald McGuire, and Marcial Maciel and other abusers?"

At this point there are already a couple big breaches in logic—the sort of breaches that Rice seems given to whenever she attempts to piece together her various "arguments" against the Catholic Church. One, for example, is that she insists the Catholic Church is essentially rotten and criminal in its very nature and that most Catholics are complicit in some way or another, but then insists that those same Catholics should be able to stand up against said criminal activities while remaining loyal to "their pastors and their parishes". Apparently she doesn't grasp that if she says that the Catholic Church is rotten through and through, it follows that every parish and priest (as well as lay person) is either tainted or corrupted and should be abandoned immediately.

Benedict XVI has addressed the scandals at many points in his pontificate (and was deaing with it years prior) and he has done more to directly confront the issue than anyone else (given his position, but also his awareness of the seriousness of matters). He has met with victims on several occasions; he has uttered very strong words about "the filth" that has been a vile cancer in the Church for several decades. He has dealt directly with specific situations, as in his letter to Catholics in Ireland just over a year ago. There is much more to it, as you can see here. But, of course, that will never be enough—not even the start of enough—for folks such as Rice. After all, she says: "The utter failure of the Vatican to admit its own wrongdoing is appalling."

In this, Rice sounds very much like another artistically-inclined, theologically-confused ex-Catholic, the singer Sinéad O'Connor, who recently wrote a piece with the modest, cautious title, "We Need a New Catholic Church". O'Connor refers to the Pope's 2010 end-of-the-year address at the Vatican to the Roman Curia, an address that she has both badly misunderstood and misrepresented before:

I thought the Vatican might be moved eventually, if enough people kept up the pressure. But after over 30 years of knowledge and pressure, at Christmas pope Benedict addressed his cardinals on the matter using the following words: "in the 1970s it was theorized that pedophillia was fully in conformity with man and and with children." He went on to say "nothing was considered either good or evil in itself." I can tell you that's not what the chemist told my granny when she asked for condoms.

His point apparently was to say that there was no more of an accepting attitude of pedophilia within the church than there was in secular society. Nonsense of course to suggest that after laws against pedophilia were enacted in the late 1800s anyone theorized it as acceptable. And there can never have been a child on earth who felt even slightly in conformity with pedophilia. Hardly needs stating that Jesus Christ would never have been in conformity either

This both misses the Pope's obvious point—that moral relativism, wherever it exists, leads to evils such as pedophilia—and the obvious fact that there have been several movements, in both Europe and the U.S., pushing for pedophilia to be accepted as normal and healthy. (It also ignores, strangely, this statement by Benedict: "We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime." The entire address is necessary reading.)

O'Connor, apparently unable to understand the Pope's basic point and quite clueless about what has been going on in the world for the past few decades, jumps on her straw high horse to swipe at the Vatican straw man:

When I heard those words I knew there was no point fighting any more. There is no hope of morality or a fiery cleansing of the Vatican from within on this issue of respect for Christ. Only a headset entirely bereft of morality could have made such an astounding remark. And clearly a phalanx of lawyers added to this lack of morality means those of us who were fighting for a cleansed Vatican may as well throw down our arms. My dead mother has more chance of releasing her debut album.

However, while there are zillions of us who do not identify with the current Vatican's manifest definition of Catholicism, we still identify with the beautiful essence of the Catholicism we grew up with. But the child is being drowned, and the bathwater needs to get thrown out. And no one at the Vatican is going to do that. So we're going to have to run in and rescue the baby and raise it ourselves.

This appeal to the "the beautiful essence of the Catholicism we grew up with" is curious, as it's not entirely clear what O'Connor's experience was with Catholicism while growing up in the mid- to late-Seventies. Her life has been, to put it delicately, complicated: several marriages, several children by different men, admission and then partial retraction of being lesbian and/or bi-sexual; being "ordained" as a "Catholic priest"; a suicide attempt, etc. But there is no need to succumb to psycho-analysis; just look at the bottom line for O'Connor:

We must now start a provisional alternative Catholic Church for all, including present Catholic clergy, who have been let down and disillusioned and who want to see a Catholic Church which honours Christ with truth, honours the sacraments and the people's spiritual needs, has no hierarchy and does not dictate who God can love or not love. Nor whom can be in or out. Nor whether a woman is fit for Christ to make himself manifest through in priesthood. Nor whether the sacrament of sacred marriage and the comfort of children and grandchildren should be denied to priests. ... I don't know how, or what, I just know we need a new Catholic Church. If we stick to the sacraments and honor them fully, the rest will follow.

Two related notions stand out in O'Connor's essay: the distrust of and disdain for hierarchy and Church authority, and the conviction that Catholic beliefs about sexuality and the roles of men and woman must change to fit the times: "In history, people move. They create what they feel they deserve. Times change." The Church's beliefs, in other words, are malleable and should be at the service of our feelings of entitlement. Perhaps it is not so strange, after all, that O'Connor doesn't understand how Benedict's address was a direct denunciation of this deadly form of moral and cultural relativism.

The same two notions are in abundance in Rice's various posts and essays. She writes, "... I do think that the structure of the Roman Catholic Church has involved a particular kind of corruption. And other institutions no doubt have similar problems, related to their structure and their power. This is a worldwide monarchical organization that mixes ideas of religious virtue with its rules and regulations. And a system like that is bound to breed considerable corruption."

Of course, structures of governance can be abused, and its not as if Catholics are immune to corruption and sin; not at all! But Rice is saying something far more problematic: that "a worldwide monarchical organization that mixes ideas of religious virtue with its rules and regulations ... is bound to breed considerable corruption." I wonder: is it the worldwide nature of the Church that botheres her, or the combination of "religious virtue" and "rules and regulations"? I suspect it is more the second, which begs the question: is she opposed to religious virtue or to rules and regulations? (And, while we are at it, does she hold the same strong perspective about the U.S. public school system, which is filled with rules and regulations—and in which close to 10% of children are abused in one form or another?)

The answer, I think, can be found in Rice's strong support of "gay rights" and "same sex marriage". Her Facebook page describes Rice as a "Supporter of gay rights, and Same Sex Marriage" and says she is "Committed to defending the rights of women, children and gays against traditional religions that target them for special persecution and oppression." Now, it might be that Rice has written a great deal about, say, Islamic oppression of homosexuals and women, but it seems she is mostly focused on "one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world", the Catholic Church. It is also fairly obvious that she believes the Catholic Church, by its very nature and structure and beliefs, is focused on molesting children, oppressing women, and persecuting "gays" (incuding her son).

Finally, what Rice, O'Connor, and Co. don't seem to fathom is that many "rank-and-file" Catholics are able to make some basic distinctions that are necessary for comprehending why they remain Catholic. First, they believe the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, is necessary for salvation, and is both the holy Bride of Christ and on earth a communion with members who are sinners—sometimes horrific and even unrepentant sinners. The Catechism states:

"Christ, 'holy, innocent, and undefiled,' knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. 300 In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time. 301 Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:

The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (CCC, par. 827)

Secondly, this means that Catholics can (and should!) be both outraged and horrified by the sins of certain priests and love the Church. Some Catholics, sadly, have been burned and badly wounded by their instictive trust in the innocence of this or that priest. But most Catholics that I know understand that pedophilia, homosexual acts, and other sins committed by priests are not caused by Church teaching or "the structure", but by free, sinful choices made in a fallen world. (In a similar way, they understand that the traditional, true understanding of marriage should not be ditched because so many people commit adultery, get divorced, etc.) They understand the parable of the sheep and the goats; they know about the wheat and the tares. And many Catholics have and do stand up to demand accountability, from bishops who have failed to deal rightly with guilty priests, with bishops who fail to call sin "sin", and bishops who would rather appease the critics than say, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexual acts are disordered and sinful. Fornication is a grave sin. Adultery is evil. Abortion is murder. Using contraceptives is a sin." And so forth. It's not that some of us Catholics fixate on those sins because we ignore the sins of molestation, abuse, stealing, and ignoring the poor; no, it's because everyone agrees those sins are evil—even while a whole swath of Catholics refuse to acknowledge the sinfullness of abortion. homosexual acts, fornication, and using contraceptives.

Thirdly, this is part of the reason many serious, practicing Catholics are so frustrated with the way the Catholic Church is portrayed in the media; they tire of hearing how celibacy or the male priesthood or "traditional attitudes" are somehow responsible for actions are that, put bluntly, the evil acts of men who trangress God's law, Church law, and natural law when they engage in homosexual acts or pedophilia or fornication. As Philip Lawler shows in his book, The Faithful Departed, there is indeed corruption—but it is not the product of a system of governance or hierarchy but of a failure to admit and repent of sin, very often that involving homosexuality. Of course, in a culture that celebrates homosexuality as not just normal but the pinnacle of evolution and enlightenment, such facts simply cannot be allowed. Alternative explanations, both convenient and unconvincing, must be given: Church teaching is repressive, celibacy is unnatural and leads to molestation, chastity is a quaint stupidity, following Catholic moral teaching is for nostalgic, puritanical fascists.

I'll conclude this overly long post (yikes!) with something I wrote about Rice many months ago, which I think sums up many of the serious problems with her opinions about the Catholic Church:

So, in addition to being fairly clueless about Catholic history and theology, Rice is equally clueless about the uneasy and complex relationships between Church and State, Christianity and secularism, and tradition and modernity that have shaped the culture we swim in, the society we live in, and public square we meet and debate within. And, in fact, she has become the very thing she sincerely but wrongly caricatures: a judgmental fundamentalist (secular in perspective, with a subjective sprinkle of magic Jesus dust) who damns the Church for not sleeping with the secularists, embarrassed that some Christians won't bow and worship the State that would be and wishes to be lord, life, and eternal ruler.

Related Insight Scoop posts:

• Anne Rice: Catholic Church is "dishonorable...dishonest...an immoral church..." (Feb. 7, 2011)
• More Anne Rice: "Christians have lost credibility in America as people who know how to love." (Aug. 17, 2010)
• Anne Rice blasts Benedict XVI; says Bishop Olmstead was "the very last straw" (Aug. 11, 2010)
• Yep, earth-shattering, cosmos-quaking (side-splitting) news (Aug. 10, 2010)
• Fr. Barron on Anne Rice and a proper ecclesiology (Aug. 6, 2010)
• Anne Rice talks about "final straws" (Aug. 3, 2010)
• A Cautionary Tale: Augustine, Aquinas, and Anne Rice (July 29, 2010)
• "Revert" Anne Rice: Pro "gay marriage," pro women's ordination, and pro contraceptive. What gives? (Jan. 3, 2006)

Pope reflects on St. Alphonsus Maria of Liguori, bishop, Doctor of the Church

From the Vatican Information Service:

VATICAN CITY, 30 MAR 2011 (VIS) - In this Wednesday's general audience, celebrated in St Peter's Square, the Pope spoke about St. Alphonsus Maria of Liguori, bishop, Doctor of the Church and "outstanding moral theologian and master of spiritual life".

  "St. Alphonsus was born in 1696 to a rich and noble Neapolitan family", and undertook a brilliant career as a lawyer, which he abandoned in order to become a priest in 1726.

  The Holy Father explained that the saint "began his work of evangelisation and catechesis at the most humble levels of Neapolitan society, to whom he enjoyed preaching and whom he instructed in the basic truths of the faith".

  In 1732 he founded the religious congregation of the Holy Redeemer. Its members, "under the guidance of Alphonsus, were genuine itinerant missionaries, who travelled to the remotest villages exhorting conversion to the faith and perseverance in Christian life, above all by means of prayer".

  Benedict XVI recalled that St. Alphonsus died in 1787, was canonised in 1839 and declared a Doctor of the Church in 1871. This title was granted for a number of reasons. Firstly, for his valuable teachings in the field of moral theology, which accurately expressed Catholic doctrine and on account of which Pius XII proclaimed him as "patron of all confessors and moralists".

  "St. Alphonsus", continued the Pope, "never tired of repeating that priests were a visible sign of the infinite mercy of God, Who pardons and illuminates the minds and hearts of sinners that they might convert and change their lives. In our age, in which there are clear signs of a loss of moral conscience and - it is necessary to note with some concern - a certain lack of respect for the Sacrament of Confession, the teaching of St. Alphonsus remains valid".

  The Holy Father explained that, "along with his theological works, St. Alphonsus composed many other writings which contributed to the religious formation of the people, such as 'Eternal Maxims', the 'Glories of Mary' and the 'Practice of the Love of Jesus Christ'. This last work represented a synthesis of his thought and is his masterpiece".

  The Pope emphasised that the Neapolitan saint "insisted on the need for prayer", and remarked that "among the forms of prayer recommended by St. Alphonsus, most important was the visit to the Blessed Sacrament or, as we would say nowadays, adoration - brief or sustained, personal or communal - of the Eucharist".

  "Alphonsus' spirituality was eminently Christological, centred upon Christ and His Gospel. Meditation on the mystery of the Incarnation and of the Passion of the Lord were frequently subjects of his teachings. ... His piety was also markedly Marian. Personally devoted to Mary, he emphasised her role in the history of salvation".

  Benedict XVI concluded his catechesis by commenting that "St. Alphonsus of Liguori was an example of a zealous priest who won souls by teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, and by his own gentle and mild manner which originated from his intense rapport with God's infinite goodness. He had a realistically optimistic view of the resources the Lord grants to every man, and gave importance to affections and sentiments of the heart, as well as to the mind, in loving God and others".

• Benedict XVI: "St. Lawrence of Brindisi teaches us to love Sacred Scripture..." (Mar. 23, 2011)

Dr. Mirus: The Pope's new book "raises the bar for Biblical exegesis"

From a new article, "Ratzinger's Gift: Faith-Filled Exegesis", on CatholicCulture.org, by Dr. Jeff Mirus:

Perhaps the most important thing about Pope Benedict XVI's second volume, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, is that it raises the bar for Biblical exegesis. Scholars may be shocked by this statement, but I'll say it again. Benedict XVI is giving us a remarkable example of how reading, reflecting and commenting on Sacred Scripture should be done.

Before explaining exactly what I mean, it may be helpful to review the Magisterial status of the book. Simply stated, this is not an act of the Magisterium. It possesses no ecclesiastical authority. As Benedict himself said in the foreword to the first volume: "It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search 'for the face of the Lord' (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me" (pp. xxiii-xxiv). Whatever impact the grace of office has on Benedict the writer, it is not the impact of Authority. That is why I have entitled this essay "Ratzinger's Gift".

But it is precisely this raising of the bar in Scriptural exegesis that constitutes Ratzinger's great gift. Some have suggested that the Pope has revived "lectio divina", the traditional habit of reading Scripture prayerfully to seek the joy and nourishment of God's presence in His word. But when you or I engage in lectio divina, it does not generally involve attention to the original languages, a study of what other great commentators have written, and the deliberate unraveling of obscure and possibly even disputed themes. These things are the work of exegesis (the critical explanation or interpretation of a text).

Read the entire piece. Also see Dr. Mirus' previous essay, "Benedict's Second Volume and the Historical Critical Method" (Mar. 24, 2011).

Related on Ignatius Insight:

• Historical-Critical Scripture Studies and the Catholic Faith | Michael Waldstein
• Introduction to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office | Peter Hünermann and Thomas Södin
• God, The Author of Scripture | Preface to God and His Image: An Outline of Biblical Theology | Fr. Dominique Barthélemy, O.P.
• Going Deeper Into the Old Testament | An Interview with Aidan Nichols, O.P.
• The Pattern of Revelation: A Contentious Issue | From Lovely Like Jerusalem | Aidan Nichols, O.P.
• Origen and Allegory | Introduction to History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen | Henri de Lubac
• How To Read The Bible | From You Can Understand the Bible | Peter Kreeft
• Introduction to The Meaning of Tradition | Yves Congar, O.P.
• The Bible Gap: Spanning the Distance Between Scripture and Theology | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
• The Divine Authority of Scripture vs. the "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" | James Hitchcock
• Enter Modernism | From Truth and Turmoil: The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church | Philip Trower

"The Judge", the story of Ronald Reagan's "top hand", just $5!

Former Reagan National Security Advisor Judge William Clark is making news again—calling on President Obama to draw [image error]on the example of President Reagan to deal with Libya.

Who is Judge William Clark? Find out in The Judge by Paul Kengor. It is the inspiring story of Clark, an outstanding Catholic layman whose faith motivated and guided him to serve his country. Reagan deeply trusted Clark because he was a devout, orthodox, staunch Catholic who always put his faith first in life. Clark's strong Catholicism is the rock of his whole life, and Reagan recognized and deeply respected that.

Get your copy today at the incredible low price of $5!
Very limited time special sale offer - order now!

The most important biographical record of the Reagan years—from the Reagan governorship to the 40th president's period in the White House—has not been written, until now: it is the story of Ronald Reagan's indispensable man, confidant, and single most important adviser: William P. Clark, known to many as simply The Judge.

Reagan biographers such as Edmund Morris and major publications like the New York Times Magazine and Time all agree: Bill Clark was Ronald Reagan's single most trusted aide, perhaps the most powerful national security advisor in American history.

Order your copy today, and read for yourself  why Judge William Clark was so important to Ronald Reagan and many others. For more information about The Judge, visit the book website here. To read some sample pages, view them here.

Also see, on Ignatius Insight:

• The Mission: The Introduction to The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand | Paul Kengor and Patricia Clark Doerner
• William P. Clark: The Quiet Catholic Who Changed the World | An interview with Paul Kengor

For Additional Sale Items Click HERE!

The Mysteries and Eastern Christianity

After I had posted a few photos taken during the Baptism, Chrismation, and first Communion of my youngest son (age three), a reader asked:

I always wondered about the tradition in Eastern Christianity (both Orthodox and Catholic) of administering all three sacraments of initiation at once. Will your son then be able to receive Holy Communion whenever he attends Mass from now on, or will he have to wait until the "age of reason" (approximately age 7-8) before he can receive it again? Also, would it be correct to assume that in the Eastern tradition, there is no separate sacrament of Confirmation at a later age, since Chrismation was already conferred at baptism? It would be interesting to know how and why the Eastern and Western traditions diverged regarding the conferring of the sacraments of initiation.

Once a child receives the three mysteries—"mysteries" being the more common name for the sacraments in the East—he can receive Holy Communion from that time forward. The age of reason has nothing to do with the reception of Holy Communion in the East. Chrismation is the sacrament of confirmation: "The symbolism of anointing with oil also signifies the Holy Spirit, to the point of becoming a synonym for the Holy Spirit. In Christian initiation, anointing is the sacramental sign of Confirmation, called "chrismation" in the Churches of the East" (CCC, par. 695).

Why do the East and West differ as to when the sacraments of confirmation and Holy Eucharist are given to children? In the early Church, it was common practice for babies to be baptized, chrismated, and then receive Communion (however, it should be kept in mind that the sacrament of christmation/confirmation has a long and complicated history). Two different customs developed: in the West, bishops generally became the ministers of confirmation, while in the East, priests were generally the ministers of the the sacrament, using the chrism oil blessed by the bishop. There was also the issue of the "age of reason" as it related to the sacrament of confession; in the West, this eventually led to children not receiving first Communion until they had gone to confession, which meant they had to be of a certain age (usually seven) before reception of Eucharist.

While the East has maintained the older practice of chrismating immediately following baptism, confirmation in the West was/is administered at different ages, with the sacraments of initiation given in the same order: baptism, confirmation, and Holy Communion, with the latter two delayed to a later age. About a hundred year ago, Piux X desired for children to receive Communion at an age earlier than was typical at the time (early teens). So Communion was moved to an earlier age ("age of reason"), while confirmation was not moved. The usual practice has been to administer the sacrament of confirmation during the teen years, but there is increased interest in administering it at a much younger age, in part because it makes more sense theologically for confirmation to follow baptism and precede first Communion.

"Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority" by Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo

Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority | Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo | Ignatius Insight | March 29, 2011

Keynote address presented at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest co-sponsored by The Institute for Priestly Formation and Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary Philadelphia, PA on March 18, 2011

Christ's Authority in the Gospels
As we begin this morning, let us quietly in our hearts turn to Jesus and let him speak to us. "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10:11)....I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep (Jn 10:14-15)....For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father (Jn 10:17-18)....I and the Father are one (Jn 10:30)."

Jesus identifies himself as the good shepherd who is in union with the Father. We know in faith that his mission comes from the Father. He reveals the love of the Father for the world by laying down his life for all humanity (Jn 3:16). Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise given by God in Jeremiah, "I will give you shepherds after my own heart" (Jer 3:15). Jesus is the shepherd whose heart is one with the heart of the Father. His very food is to do the will of the Father (Jn 4:34). Jesus is the shepherd who teaches, us as bishops and priests and future priests, how to shepherd, how to live his own pastoral authority bestowed upon us by him and the Holy Spirit on the day of our ordinations.

We know from the Gospels that Jesus conferred his authority on the twelve. "[Jesus] called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out and to heal every disease and every infirmity" (Mt 10:1 and see Mk 3:14-15; Lk 9:1). Further, in Luke's Gospel Jesus shared his authority with the 72, who rejoiced upon returning from their mission that "even the demons are subject to us in your name" (Lk 10:17)! While Jesus acknowledges the authority he has given to them, he also reminds them "...do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you (emphasis added); but rejoice that your names are written in heaven" (Lk 10:20). He takes their eyes away from themselves, "the demons are subject to us", and places them on heaven, on the Father, from whom all authority comes because their names are written in heaven. He reminds them to keep their eyes on the gift they have received, their salvation and communion with the Father in heaven.

Jesus' authority comes from his Father. In John 14, when Philip asks him, "Show us the Father" (Jn 14:9), Jesus replies, "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves..." (Jn 14:10-11). The authority that Jesus exercises is received from the Father. He is at the service of the Father.

Jesus faithfully proclaims what he has received from the Father. His teaching comes from the Father. "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood" (Jn 7:16-18). The teaching authority of Jesus stems from his intimate union with the Father. Even Jesus, the Son of God, did not act and speak in his own name, but in the name of the Father. His authority is received from the Father.

Read the entire address on Ignatius Insight...

"Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week" moves up to #5...

... on the New York Times bestseller list:

SAN FRANCISCO, March 28, 2011 – After debuting as an instant bestseller, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week has moved to No. 5 on the April 3 New York Times bestseller list. The book also made the bestseller lists published by The Wall Street Journal and "Publisher's Weekly."

Pope Benedict XVI's second volume on Christ's life was released worldwide March 10 and covers the last week of Jesus' earthly life – from his entrance into Jerusalem to his resurrection and appearances to his apostles and other followers.

"It's great to see Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week move toward No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list," said Ignatius Press President Mark Brumley. "This book presents Jesus in a powerful way, so we're excited that so many people are getting the book and getting to know Jesus Christ better through it. During Lent, this is especially important for believers. But it's also important for nonbelievers and seekers to encounter the real Jesus."


Here is the New York Times hardcover nonfiction list for April 3, 2011.

For more about the book, visit www.JesusofNazareth2.com . And:


• "The Mystery of the Betrayer" (from Chapter 3)
• "The Dating of the Last Supper" (from Chapter 5)
• "Jesus Before Pilate" (from Chapter 7)