Energizing Scripture

When I saw the announcement that the 2008 Synod of Bishops will focus on Sacred Scripture, I thought: “Didn’t the Church just issue a major document on that recently?” It turns out that the document I had in mind was issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission fifteen years ago, in 1993. Does that qualify as recent? Tempus fugit.

The earlier document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, was an outstanding exposition of the Bible as the Church’s book, a book that can be understood only in the context of the Church and her authority. The 2008 Synod will attempt to carry this a step further by having the world’s bishops reflect on how to foster prayerful reading, deep understanding, and faithful proclamation of the Word of God. The outline, or lineamenta, for this year’s topic was released at the end of last year’s Synod: The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church.

The final results, which will be written up and published some months after the 2008 Synod is held in October, can’t come too soon. Modern Biblical scholarship has had an unfortunate tendency to reduce the meaning of Scripture not only to the literal sense but to whatever aspect of the literal sense is thought to have been widely understood in the culture of the time in which it was written. So much for reading the Old Testament as a book which points to Jesus Christ. So much for seeing connections and themes which persist from one book to another even though the human authors never knew each other. So much for the authorship of the Holy Spirit, Who presumably had all times and all peoples in mind. And we might as well forget altogether the various spiritual senses, discarding the allegorical (typical), tropological (moral) and anagogical (eschatological) meanings contained in God’s richly layered Word.

Happily, in recent years interest has been growing in reading Scripture again as the Fathers read it, not abandoning modern critical methods but integrating them into a much larger and more spacious vision. The most fundamental fact of Biblical exegesis is that it is impossible to comprehend Scripture without Faith. We need Faith in the Father as the One with an eternal Plan, Faith in the Holy Spirit as the ultimate author, and Faith in the Son as the author’s subject. We also need Faith in the Church as the authoritative body to which Scripture has been entrusted, because the Church alone possesses the magisterial power of the Blessed Trinity to ensure that we know what books make up the inspired text and, when confusion arises, what the inspired text means and does not mean.

Apart from such Faith, Scripture is dead. With even a little Faith, it becomes a living book, speaking to us here and now, across the ages, teaching us about our relationship with God. So I look forward to the work of the 2008 Synod. Indeed, the Synod’s secretary-general, Archbishop Nikola Eterovic, says that the Church will make use of the Synod to fight “Biblical illiteracy” among Catholics, and notes that the Synod discussions are intended to have a “pastoral and missionary character”, especially in light of the current Year of St. Paul.

Clearly it is time to read Scripture with fresh eyes and fresh energy: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, and that preacheth peace: of him that sheweth forth good, that preacheth salvation, that saith to Sion: Thy God shall reign!” (Is 52:7)

Divisions in the Body of Christ: Four Examples

Up until June 23rd, it was expected that conservative Anglican prelates meeting in Israel this week would announce a break with the Anglican communion. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCon), convened primarily by African Anglican bishops, is being held at the same time as the traditional Lambeth Conference in England. Many Africans bishops, and other conservatives throughout the world, believe that there are irreconcilable doctrinal and moral differences within the Anglican communion, especially since the elevation of an active homosexual, the American Gene Robinson, to the episcopacy.

But on June 23rd at the opening session of GAFCon, Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, announced that there would be no schism, that secession would not solve the problem, and that the conservative bishops were “Anglican by conviction” and did not intend to start another Church. After that, divisions emerged even at GAFCon, and the whole affair fizzled into the latitudinarianism so characteristic of the Anglican mentality.

Meanwhile, the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church recently proposed to the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople that Ukrainian Catholics would be interested in maintaining “dual unity.” Under this plan, Eastern Catholics (already in communion with Rome) would also enter into communion with the Byzantine Church under the Patriarch of Constantinople. At a superficial level, it is technically possible to conceive of such dual unity if the requirements of Constantinople are simply a subset of the requirements of Rome.

But color this unlikely. If the Ukrainian Catholic Church is truly Catholic, then it really cannot be in communion with Constantinople if there are impediments to Constantinople’s communion with Rome. Moreover, concern for precedence and exclusive recognition on the part of the Orthodox Churches is legendary, rivaling that of Rome with far less warrant. Look for politics in the Patriarchates. Communion is far more than a checklist of minimal conditions.

Back in the Latin Rite, I also note that the Society of Saint Pius X was given until the end of the month to respond to new terms from Rome for the SSPX to come back into full communion. In addition to acceptance of the legitimacy of the teachings of Vatican II and the validity of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite (Novus Ordo), the SSPX must agree to avoid portraying itself as a rival magisterium, to respect the authority of the Pope, to avoid personal attacks on the Pope, and to refrain from public comments that offend against “ecclesiastical charity.”

Over the past few days, the SSPX repeatedly indicated that it would not even respond to what it regards as an ultimatum. But today the Society offered a minimal negative response, in advance of the deadline, so it is at least possible that the Society wishes to keep negotiations alive.

Finally, the vote is still out on the new liturgical translations slated for approval at the June meeting of the US Bishops in Florida. These translations of the Proper prayers of the Roman Missal were done in accordance with Rome’s current guidelines. Their purpose is to restore fidelity to the Latin and to revive the Scriptural and liturgical vocabulary which was lost when the Novus Ordo was first translated into English. While two-thirds of those present voted for the translations, the oldline coalition of theological minimalists with tin ears voted in opposition, still claiming that only flat, banal language is suitable for Americans because a more formal liturgical style sounds “archaic” and “stilted”.

Since many bishops were not present, the required two-thirds majority of the entire body was not obtained, and the remaining balloting must be done by mail. There are undoubtedly pros and cons to the discussion, but it is distressing to see the same old iconoclasts still so hard at work. This time, however, they are in the minority. Regardless of this particular vote, the smart money says they cannot stop the reform of the reform for long.

Defining Beauty

Looking out over Smith Mountain Lake in southwest Virginia when the humidity is low is like looking out over C. S. Lewis’ Narnia. Everything stands out in welcome relief, crisp, clear, and alive. Sky and clouds, mountains and trees, birds and branches, shoreline and water, docks and boats—it is a world made suddenly young and new. It is achingly beautiful, with an almost framed perfection that brings peace.

But there is also beauty in a storm, wild and relentless and perhaps even catastrophic. There may be peace in a storm, too, if you’re not threatened by it, but the power of the storm transcends peace. Instead it is evocative of something stronger and deeper: majesty perhaps, which is always beautiful and only rarely consoling. How can such a cacophony of wind and water be beautiful? What, then, is beauty?

This is a question I’ve argued over the years, sometimes with colleagues, more often with teen-aged children who so often like the ugliest imaginable music, and who are impossible to persuade that it is ugly. It is said that beauty is in the eye (or the ear) of the beholder, so perhaps, like the storm, what may appear ugly to myself on the surface is not, in its own objective essence, ugly at all. I have my opinions, sometimes strong opinions, but as I enter my seventh decade, I confess I don’t really know.

Too many conservative Christians (in whose number, in many respects, I count myself) are certain that they can distinguish beauty from ugliness as easily as they can distinguish truth from error. This seems tied to the recurring pattern by which each new generation tends to condemn as certainly and obviously ugly whatever breaks its own inherited molds. Thus was jazz pronounced ugly by many of our grandparents well before we turned our guns on rock. To minds so predisposed, the case is always obvious; and the arguments are equally obvious—but only to those who already agree with the conclusion.

Indeed, those of us with dogmatic personalities are quite capable of weaving a thousand arguments to prove our opinions absolute. This or that particular “beat” is intrinsically disordered; the lack of correspondence with how we see things proves that an abstract painting is ugly; only neo-classical theory—which seeks to discover and portray the principles of beauty which are actually enshrined in nature—is capable of producing true beauty; moreover, the former exorcist of the diocese of Rome (how often has he been cited!) has said a particular type of music or art is both ugly and evil, and so the case is closed. Please.

The so-called transcendentals (among which truth, beauty and goodness are most frequently cited) are very hard to grasp, and beauty is by far the most elusive. We Christians have the wonderful advantage of Divine Revelation with respect to truth and goodness, but this advantage works primarily at a different level of consciousness and, in any case, it is an advantage which we utterly lack with respect to beauty. Therefore, it is important for us to avoid talking about beauty with the same dogmatic assurance that rightly characterizes our discussions of revealed truth, including moral truth.

With beauty—and at the deepest levels of our exploration of truth and goodness—we are attempting to grasp the intrinsic “thisness” of things, in which we perceive the harmonies and correspondences invested into reality by God, or we may even learn that the breaking of some harmonies reveals others. This sort of penetration of reality is different from our response to the Revealed Word. It is another matter—not another matter entirely, but enough of another matter to give pause to all but the proud.

I affirm that beauty is objective, and that we are designed by the Creator to perceive it. But I deny that we see it very clearly or understand it easily. Ultimately, beauty reveals an aspect of the Divine (which is why aesthetes must beware of the temptation to turn art into a religion). For the moment, however, locked in our own frail and mortal deficiencies, our understanding of beauty tends to be both fleeting and highly subjective. We have to work very hard and very carefully to render our perceptions more valuable than this. We rightly enjoy beauty when it glances off our consciousness, but we dogmatize about beauty only at our peril.

If one of beauty’s great purposes is to shift our gaze to something beyond ourselves, then this is as it should be. We should be slow, very slow, to condemn the particular appreciations of others, to set strict limits on what may be called beautiful, or to define beauty down, attempting uselessly to imprison it within our own eyes and ears.

Mary of Nazareth, the Musical

A new musical on the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary will debut at the Vatican in Paul VI Hall on June 17th. The musical is being jointly sponsored by a number of Italian organizations, including the Italian Senate, and also by the Pontifical Secretariat of State and the Pontifical Councils of Culture and Social Communications. This marks the first time a work of this character has had official Vatican sponsorship.

Directed by Maria Pia Liotta, who was an actress in Italy in the 1980’s, the musical will feature Liotta’s daughter, operatic soprano Alma Manera, who is also an actress and former Miss Italy contestant. The music was written by Stelvio Cipriani, a jazz pianist and composer who has been writing film scores since the 1960’s. Cipriani was given his first music lessons by his pastor on the church organ, studied at the Conservatory of St. Cecelia, and has composed music for Pope John Paul II. The production includes some forty actors, a dozen ballet dancers and the orchestra of the Calabrian Theater “Francisco Cilea” (named for a famous Italian composer who died in 1950).

The production seeks to emphasize Mary’s continuing relevance for people today, and so it is entitled “Mary of Nazareth: A Continuing Story”. When Archbishop Claudio Celli, President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, announced the musical today, he stated: “"We are all aware that Mary is known for her role in the life of Christ the Lord and in the life of the Church, but it pleases me to highlight how she has presented and communicated to us the Word of God made flesh among men…. It is Mary who continues to carry out this role—in the world and in the Church—of communicating her Son to men.”

A statement released by the producers (AIRAM: Cultura e Comunicazione) notes that the musical does take “some poetic license” in telling the story of Mary as daughter, spouse and mother, but emphasizes that it does so without misinterpreting Scripture. In order to ensure fidelity, the producers employed Father Stefano Di Fiores, a Marian theologian, to oversee the musical’s doctrinal content. Father Fiores was surprised by the interest of the media in the musical, and he sees it as a work that may appeal not only to Christians but to Muslims, who also revere the mother of Jesus. “Mary is truly the most famous woman in history,” said Fr. Di Fiores, noting that the Blessed Mother has “filled art with her person” as well as inspiring countless souls in several different religions.

“If we wonder how we should respond to a God who reveals himself,” Fr. Di Fiores continued, “we cannot but go to Mary, who is…an example of the Lord's poor and an example of total self-giving to God…. We respond through faith, and Mary is blessed because she believed.” He also urged audiences to take a cue from Pope Benedict’s second encyclical, viewing Mary as the “star of hope” that reflects the light of Christ, who “with her ‘yes’ opened the door of our world to God himself.”

The priest noted that the musical takes a contemporary approach, concerning itself less with the “glories of Mary” and more with “Mary, woman of our days” who is close to us:

This line of ‘humanization’ of the figure of Mary is perceived in the musical Mary of Nazareth according to the intuition of Maria Pia Liotta, who with extreme sensitivity, has captured the need to bring the figure of the Virgin closer to our time, showing her historical image of humble Jewish woman.

Fr. Di Fiores emphasized that the production does not trivialize Mary, but enables the audience to “perceive her mystery as a woman who lives according to the rhythm of God and of His Word”, singing “Your voice is my life.”

This is a bold new undertaking in which Catholic audiences can expect to find both a moving story and a reverent treatment of the Mother of God. After their Vatican opening, the cast will undertake an international tour, beginning with Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. It is not clear whether or when the musical will be performed in English-speaking countries, which may well depend on its success elsewhere. CatholicCulture.org intends to follow the progress of the production and to keep readers informed.

Bardot and Free Speech in Europe

Brigitte Bardot, a French film star of the 1960’s who was arguably the world’s first sex symbol, is now 73 years old. She is back in the news because she was fined nearly $25,000 by a Paris court yesterday for hate speech against Muslims. This resulted from an open letter she wrote to French President Nicolas Sarkozy in December of 2006 in which, referring to Muslims, she stated: “I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts.”

The case took nearly eighteen months, so it must have been a tough one for the court. Presumably there was no doubt that Bardot’s remarks constituted “hate speech”. Could there be anything worse than self-describing oneself as “fed up” with some group of people? Really, one is surprised she didn’t go to jail. Truth to tell, she almost did get a 60-day suspended sentence. It was her fourth offence, after all.

Ah, but perhaps we should ask why she said what she said? Well, she’s a member of the glitterati, so naturally she was defending animal rights. Undoubtedly that’s why the case took so long, and why she only got another fine. Talk about your tough decisions. It turns out that Bardot has been very critical of Muslim religious festivals at which sheep are slaughtered as a sacrifice. It was the festival of Eid al-Adha that prompted her open letter. As her attorney said, “She has the impression that people want to silence her. She will not be silenced in her defense of animal rights.”

Sic transit gloria mundi!

Ownership and the Simple Life

Christians are always called to put God first, and very often this means we need to have fewer possessions to simplify our lives, so that we are not distracted from our top priority. Yet while we live in the flesh, we do need to provide for the material needs and legitimate desires of both ourselves and our families. While some may manage this without personal ownership (either by relying on Providence or by becoming inveterate sponges), for most of us ownership lies at the center of how we prudently behave as composite beings, possessing not only souls but bodies.

For this reason, significant ownership decisions typically involve a little angst. Do I really need this? If it isn’t strictly necessary, does it fill a reasonable emotional, psychological or spiritual need? Is a given expenditure consistent with my state in life? Does it conflict with more important priorities? Will it prevent me from fulfilling charitable obligations? Will it cause me to lose spiritual focus? Is it contrary to God’s will? How much is too much? Recently I’ve been thinking hard about several significant transactions, so I’ve been going through every one of these considerations. And I have found, once again, that the answers do not always come easily.

I should avoid specifics. It is one of the perils of sometimes begging for financial support that those solicited may be unreasonably critical of the fund-raiser’s list of possessions. Whenever I mention something I’ve purchased in a message or a blog entry, someone invariably sends me an angry note: “What! You bought a toothbrush? I can’t even afford teeth!” This is, admittedly, an exaggeration, but I’ve found it doesn’t matter much what one purchases: Somebody will feel abused. All of this reminds me of a delightful television commercial (for McDonald’s, I think) in which two old guys are comparing the hardships of childhood. Part of the dialogue runs something like this: Old guy 1: “I used to have to walk through the snow for miles in my bare feet to get to school.” Old guy 2: “Feet? You had feet?”

So let me just recount what happened last night when I was driving home from my youngest son’s high school graduation ceremony in an automobile which was just nine days old. During the car’s first week, several warning lights would light up about half the time after the car was started, though restarting always solved the problem. But while I was driving last night, the warning indicators for four wheel drive, vehicle stability control, and the engine itself all came on and stayed on. I hoped to make it home, but a mile later, the battery warning illuminated, and soon the headlights were noticeably dimmer. Then the power-steering disappeared, leaving me wrestling with the wheel. A few seconds later, the brake warning light came on, and I wondered whether I was going to lose hydraulic braking too. Finally, the car stopped responding to the accelerator, though the engine was still running. At that point, about three miles from home, I decided to coast to the side of the road and call for a tow.

I had the car towed to the dealer. But when I called this morning to get repairs started, the service department had no knowledge of the car! They said they hadn’t received a key for it in the night-drop box, and had no “paperwork” on it. (Not having accompanied the tow-truck, I didn’t know what procedure had been followed.) The service department said they’d “look for the car”, which apparently consisted of one member of the service team asking all the other members whether they knew anything about it. Nobody ever looked outside where the cars are parked. So I finally drove the twelve miles to the dealer only to find (as I certainly hoped) that the new car was right where I expected it to be. I told the service rep where the car was, gave him a new key, and returned home. (Later, the service department called to explain that the original key had been deposited without paperwork, and that the person who had picked it up in the morning, not knowing what the key was for, had given it to the new car sales department.)

You may laugh, but I bet you won’t, because you’ve been there too. It is the nature of ownership to be highly distracting. Ownership brings responsibility, and that responsibility may well interfere with other, more important things. In general, we find it impossible to simplify our lives by owning more. In fact, ownership nearly always has the opposite effect. To one degree or another—and in extreme cases to a completely unacceptable degree spiritually—we are possessed by our possessions. This is no small problem.

Nor do I have a solution. Major ownership decisions, for Christians, ought to involve consultation and prayer, but there are no guarantees that the best decision will be made—and even the best decisions will rarely be trouble-free. Nor is there any ready-made, clear-cut model to follow. No two persons or families will have exactly the same combination of needs, desires, interests, resources, capabilities and callings. The benefits of ownership will be weighed very differently by different people. But there is one thing that is fairly constant: Ownership will add complexity. I’m more aware of that today than I was a few days ago and—for the moment, at least—I’m not particularly happy about it. Decidedly, this is one more thing to think and pray about before deciding to buy.

The Numbers Game

I’ve noticed a lot of numbers in the news lately, and I only trust about half of them.

For example, I don’t believe Economy magazine’s estimate that Padre Pio’s shrine will consistently outdraw the Marian shrine at Lourdes in future years. The shrine may outdraw Lourdes while Padre Pio’s largely incorrupt body is on display. But this won’t go on forever, and I don’t think Padre Pio will be too happy if his shrine outdraws Mary’s.

On the other hand, I do believe the demographic data in the Church’s statistical yearbook which shows the Catholic percentage of world population holding steady at 17.3%. Europe and Asia are in relative decline; most of the rest of the world is on the rise. It is also noteworthy that Catholics in general aren’t having as many children as some other groups, such as Muslims.

I believe the recent Los Angeles Times survey which showed that Californians favor a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage by a 54 to 35 percent margin. Though the popular will has not had much influence on these matters lately, I applaud the effort to hold off approval for same-sex unions until a referendum can be held. It is predictable that the strength of the pro-marriage numbers was downplayed. Nonetheless, a nineteen percent margin is highly significant politically.

At the same time, I don’t believe police estimates that nearly four million people participated in the 12th Gay Pride parade in Sao Paulo, Brazil. That would mean gays can draw almost four times as many people as Pope Benedict XVI, which is highly doubtful. Nor do I credit the math of tourism minister Marta Suplicy who, having estimated that visiting gays spent about $115 million during their stay, asserted: “This is the diversity that this country wants.”

Sadly, I very much do believe that the UN Population Fund sent 250,000 condoms, along with oral and injected contraceptives, as emergency relief for cyclone victims in Myanmar. This is exactly what UNFPA could be expected to do for people who are in desperate need of food, clothing, shelter and medicine. It is a sad commentary on the genocidal tendencies of the very rich when faced with the problems of the very poor.

It all proves once again that numbers don’t lie—sometimes.

Would the European Union Rather Die than Switch?

The European Union finds itself in a dilemma. Ideologically it is almost viciously anti-family. But as a practical matter, the decline of family life is destroying Europe. The most recent study to bear this out is the second annual report released in mid-May by the Institute for Family Policy in Spain. Here are some of the IFP’s findings and recommendations.

Surveying nation-by-nation demographic trends, the study shows that lower birth rates, higher divorce rates, increasing abortion rates, and later marriages are combining to destroy the populations of Europe, leaving country after country with an aging population sustained only by rising immigration. These problems afflict both Western Europe (where secularization has led to a steep decline in Christian influence) and Eastern Europe (where decades of Communist rule also led to a steep decline in Christian influence). There were a million fewer births in 2007 than twenty-five years earlier in 1982. Mere population replacement requires 2.1 children per family, but all European countries fall below that rate, with Poland and Slovakia at the bottom with 1.3.

Worse, abortion is one of the two leading causes of death in Europe (cancer is the other). An abortion is performed in Europe once every 27 seconds, for a total of about 1.2 million abortions each year. Spain, where same-sex marriage has just been legalized, has the highest abortion rate. Meanwhile, out-of-wedlock births and divorce are both on the rise. There were 700,000 fewer marriages in Europe in 2007 than in 1980, a 25% decrease, but there were 365,000 more divorces. One in three children is born out of wedlock. Those who do marry are also on average marrying later in life.

The IFP study recommends that European Union member states allocate 2.5% of their gross national products for direct family assistance programs, and to amend tax laws to make them more supportive of families with children. Interestingly, formerly strong Catholic countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy and Poland) are at the bottom of the family support list. Finally, the report urges the European Union to make pro-family policies a major political priority as a simple matter of survival. It even calls for the EU to promote the family as a universal institution, complete with special rights, including the right of parents to educate their children.

It is at the transition between facts and policies, of course, that the report will meet resistance. The ideology of the EU is thoroughly anti-life and anti-family. And when you combine all this with recent studies which show a strong correlation between religious conviction and family size (see the last part of my April 30th blog entry, On Telling the Good News), the European Union’s dilemma is thrown into stark relief, for the EU is unrelentingly secular and anti-Christian as well. Some readers may recall the old cigarette advertisements showing smokers with black eyes saying they’d “rather fight than switch” brands. Non-smokers (nowadays an intensely moral breed) used to joke at the time that such people would also rather die than quit smoking. Whatever the case with smokers, more recently the AIDS epidemic, with its overwhelming links to homosexuality and drug use, shows that many people would truly rather die than change their behavior.

We may find that the same is true also in the larger cultural context that is—or was—Europe. For even in the face of undeniable demographic facts, the European Union is intent upon expanding homosexual “rights”, including gay marriage—on the right road, so to speak, but deliberately going in the wrong direction. As of this moment, then, it really does seem that most Europeans would rather see their civilization die and their traditional populations disappear than convert back to the values of faith and family—that is, the Christian values—which originally made Europe strong, healthy, and even great.

Archbishop Naumann: No Communion for Governor Sebelius

Archbishop Joseph Naumann has instructed Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to refrain from receiving communion until she repents for her support of abortion. Though the order was given in August of last year, Archbishop Naumann made the matter public in a column in the diocesan newspaper on May 9th. The public disclosure was prompted by Sebelius’ veto of the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act.

Archbishop Naumann said he had met several times with Governor Sebelius to convince her that her support of abortion was contrary to God’s law. Sebelius, who claims to be a Catholic, had vetoed several other efforts by the Kansas legislature to more effectively regulate abortion, making the State something of a haven for late-term abortions. She has also accepted campaign contributions from George Tiller, described by the Archbishop as “perhaps the most notorious late-term abortionist in the nation”, and she has benefitted from Tiller's political action committee. As Archbishop Naumann put it: “The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the Church.”

Archbishop Naumann stated that he had hoped through their discussions that the Governor would grow to understand her obligation to take the “necessary moral step” of “repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion” so that in the future she “would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.” Unfortunately, when Archbishop Naumann arrived home after meeting with Benedict XVI in Washington on April 21st, he learned that Governor Sebelius had vetoed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act because, in Sebelius’ words, “ the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion.”

Archbishop Naumann had this to say about the veto:

From her veto message, I received the impression the governor considered it a waste of the Legislature’s time to pass a statute that attempts to protect some women by making certain they have the opportunity to be well-informed: 1) about the development of their unborn child; and 2) about abortion alternatives available to them. Evidently, the governor does not approve of legislators devoting energy to protecting children and women by making it possible to enforce existing Kansas laws regulating late-term abortion.

In consequence, Archbishop Naumann made it public that last August, after consulting with the other bishops of Kansas, he had written to Governor Sabelius “requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life.” The Archbishop said this would have to “include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.” After recently learning that Sebelius had received Communion at one of the parishes in his diocese, he wrote to her again insisting that she “respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.”

Archbishop Naumann has asked the Catholics of Kansas to pray for Governor Sebelius, and I hope that they will also pray for their bishop. It is now necessary to enforce the matter on the parish level in the hope, as Archbishop Naumann has expressed it, that this will cause Governor Sabelius “to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions.”

See the complete text of Archbishop Naumann’s statement.

On Being Bubba

Politics is important, certainly, but it is also frequently ugly and even more often amusing. Thus the cover story in a recent issue of Newsweek was devoted to the question of whether Barrack Obama has a sufficient “bubba” quotient to be elected President. With arugula serving as Obama’s symbol and beer as the symbol of, well, “bubba”, the essay revolved around the question of whether the Democratic leader was perceived as too much of an upper-crust snob to garner support among the working classes. Image, as the saying goes, is everything, or at least mostly everything in contemporary politics.

The bubba analysis has no less merit than any other perceptual issue which afflicts those running for public office in a mass culture in which almost nobody knows the candidates. But it is humorous all the same, and it points out one of the many weaknesses of democracy—or at least of large democracies in which almost nobody knows the candidates. In some documents, I think, the Church has gone on record as identifying democracy as the form of government most consistent with human dignity. I would have to check carefully to see precisely what has been said and with what Magisterial weight, but in any case the following caution is required: The political system most theoretically consistent with human dignity does not thereby become the only acceptable political system. And all systems must adapt themselves to the exigencies of time, place and people.

Certainly it is more consistent with human dignity that persons should participate in their own governance than that they should not. It is presumably undeniable that democracy provides the numerically widest possible opportunity for such participation. But worthwhile participation—meaningful participation—is another matter. There are many ways to participate in or influence different kinds of government; voting is only one of them, and it is hardly the most effective. What appears on paper to be most consistent with human dignity may not prove to be so in practice, especially (if I may stress the point again) in mass societies where almost nobody knows the candidates. When citizens have only limited ways of building influential voting blocks, and when so much political information is mere illusion, one can at least ponder the advantages of voting.

All theoretical forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy and democracy, for example) have their own strengths and weaknesses. We who advocate democracy need to understand that it provides no guarantee of having the best possible government. Theoretically, monarchs are raised in constant training to rule and can do so without pandering to anyone, and oligarchies are staffed with the people most fit to rule, so while both may seem foreign to our democratic spirits, they do have theoretical strengths that populist forms lack. Moreover, all the actual implementations of each form of government also have their own strengths and weaknesses, and no two implementations are alike. Pure democracy is impossible except among very small groups, and it always suffers potentially from the tyranny of the majority. The various forms of modified democracies, including our own republican form of government, inevitably include procedures and mechanisms which, when abused, permit repression of not only the minority but sometimes even the majority.

Still, it is not my point to make a case for this or that political form. The two most important things about any government are, first, that the governors understand the natural law and, second, that they desire to govern in accordance with it for the common good. After these comes competence. For this reason, the highest political obligation of citizens is to do their best to ensure that these conditions are met, through whatever means they have. But since such conditions are never perfectly fulfilled, the posturing, strategies, machinations and image-making which constitute the pursuit and exercise of political power remain, as I said, frequently ugly and even more often amusing.

So Barrack Obama will have to boost his bubba quotient. Indeed, his success or failure in doing so may be more important than any issue on which he has (or has not) taken a position, including issues of life and death. Truly, politics is a strange animal, and we respond to the process in odd ways. All citizens, and especially Christians, need to be wary. As a minimum first requirement, we must keep a close eye on our own motives and reactions, lest we render a disservice to the common good through decisions based more on personal affinities or emotions than on reasoned moral judgments. There are all sorts of bubbas, and at every level, just waiting for the right group-centered or self-centered vibes. Not, of course, that any of us would ever admit to being one.

Cardinal Dulles Bids Farewell

I was deeply impressed by Avery Cardinal Dulles’ farewell address as Laurence J. McGinley Professor of Religion and Society at Fordham University. Cardinal Dulles has held this post for twenty years, and has delivered the last thirty-nine of the semi-annual public lectures associated with the position, as well as hundreds of other similar lectures. On April 1st, in attendance but unable to speak due to illness, Cardinal Dulles heard his final lecture read by the former president of Fordham who had appointed him to the McGinley chair, Fr. Joseph O’Hare.

Dulles said that he had deliberately selected controversial topics for the series of lectures, hoping to bring a reasoned resolution to issues that were dividing Catholic thinkers. He described his approach as follows:

In my conclusions I try to incorporate the valid insights of all parties to the discussion rather than perpetuate a one-sided view that is partial and incomplete. I think of myself as a moderate trying to make peace between opposed schools of thought. While doing so, however, I insist on logical consistency. Unlike certain relativists of our time, I abhor mixtures of contradictions.

The Cardinal also stated that he has always spoken as a “theologian”, by which he means that his reasoning has always depended on the Revelation guaranteed by Catholicism:

Christ the Redeemer, who has given the fullness of Revelation, has also made provision for the Revelation to be kept alive in the Church without corruption or dilution. These basic teachings of our Faith, held in common by all believers, are presupposed by Catholic theology. The Faith takes nothing away from what I can know by my native reasoning powers, but it adds a vast new light coming from on high.

Dulles pointed out that respect for the deposit of Faith “should not be called conservatism in the pejorative sense but a simple loyalty to the Word of God.” Therefore, he has never striven for originality: “If I conceived a theological idea that had never occurred to anyone in the past, I would have every reason to think myself mistaken.” For Dulles, the “current confusion in theology is in no small part due to a plethora of innovations, which last a few years only to be overtaken by further and equally ephemeral theories.” It is a poor investment, he said, to try to keep up with the latest theories. Far better to “insert oneself into the great tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of the church. I myself try to think and speak within that tradition.”

Cardinal Dulles also pointed out that “the present climate of opinion does not favor tradition and orthodoxy.” But “Catholic believers and indeed all clear thinkers have good reasons not to be engulfed in the superficial trends of the times.” Instead, we need to resume our “original quest for eternal truth and wisdom.” In his own youth, Dulles recalled, he became conscious of the “emptiness of a selfish life based on the pursuit of pleasure.” He gradually came to see that happiness “is the reward given for holding fast to what is truly good and important.” To this task, partially identified by the philosophers of antiquity, “Christian revelation brought a tremendous increase of light. God alone, I learned from the New Testament, was good and true in an unqualified sense.”

And so the young Avery Dulles committed himself to Christ, and has remained committed as a scholar, a priest, a Cardinal. “The most important thing about my career,” he said, “is the discovery of the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in the field, the Lord Jesus himself.” Now eighty-nine, his mind is still sharper than mine will ever be, but his body is no longer cooperating. He suffers from increasing paralysis, and he easily identifies now “with the many paralytics and mute persons in the Gospels.” But he remains supremely grateful for his hope of everlasting life in Christ: “If the Lord now calls me to a period of weakness, I know well that his power can be made perfect in infirmity.”

Telling the Good News

Occasionally it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that some news is good. For example, in mid-April the Congregation for the Clergy launched a campaign to remind priests that prayer must be their first priority, and to remind all of us that we should be praying for our priests. This campaign, complete with excellent supporting materials, is leading up to a new World Day of Prayer for the Sanctification of Priests on May 30th.

It has long been observed that a loss of the habit of personal prayer precedes the abandonment of the priesthood, as well as most distortions of it, in the vast majority of cases. The CC’s renewed emphasis on prayer in the life of priests, if successful, will be one of the most important steps taken to strengthen the Catholic priesthood in decades. Eucharistic adoration is at the heart of the program. This can work a miracle of reconversion for all—priests and lay people alike—who take advantage of it. For more information on this upcoming Day, see the official website at World Day of Prayer for Priests.

While on the subject of miracles, I also note that a miracle has apparently been approved for the final stage in the beatification of John Henry Cardinal Newman, the great 19th century convert from Anglicanism, and one of the finest spiritual writers of the modern period. The miracle occurred in the case of Jack Sullivan, a 69-year-old permanent deacon serving in Massachusetts, who began praying to Cardinal Newman when he was afflicted with a severe spinal disease which forced him to remain doubled-over. Sullivan was healed of the disease on the Feast of the Assumption, August 15, 2001. He attributes the cure to Cardinal Newman, and the Vatican’s medical committee for reviewing such claims ruled on April 24, 2008 that no medical explanation for the cure is possible.

The miracle will now be reviewed by a theological committee, which is expected to rule that it can be used as the miracle required for beatification (by which Cardinal Newman would be named “Blessed”). A second miracle would then be required for canonization at some point in the future. Other miracles have been put forward, but have not yet been studied. One rumor from Rome suggests that Pope Benedict is interested enough in Newman to declare him a doctor of the Church when he is beatified, in which case his final canonization is likely to proceed very rapidly. Meanwhile, after initial confusion and disagreement over how best to protect Newman’s grave in Birmingham (England) from vandalism, local authorities and Newman’s Oratory Fathers are working together to find a solution which will ensure that the site can continue to be a place of pilgrimage without risk to Newman’s memory.

On a somewhat more humorous note, recent news reports have highlighted new demographic studies which link child-bearing to religious fervor. One marvels at the uncanny ability of sociology to prove the obvious, but it is nonetheless useful to have clear evidence from nearly a score of countries that the number of children women bear is directly related to the degree of their self-professed religious commitment. These studies have been increasing in recent years primarily because it has been widely observed that the United States is both more fertile and more religious than Europe, especially Western Europe. Perhaps the best overall review of the evidence may be found in the 2007 study Religion, Religiousness and Fertility in the US and in Europe, published online in both English and French.

Given Europe’s demographic winter, the question of what factors influence parents to have children is far from inconsequential. The alarm over European infertility was raised by no less a figure than Pope John Paul II, and it has become a major concern for many reasons, not least because of the widespread conviction that it indicates a crisis of European morale. Certain American authors, George Weigel among them, have suggested that the state of Europe is also highly relevant to the future state of America. Undoubtedly the thought of John Henry Newman could be used to address this crisis of morale, along with prayer for—and by—Catholic priests. But for now, having further confirmation that religion is positively associated with demographic health is one more piece of good news. Indeed, it is part of the Good News itself.