Thanks to My Patron Saints

March 8th, 2010

So, yesterday was my birthday.  And that got me thinking about my patron saints.

If you’re like me, you have lots of favorite saints, and lots of saints who you think are looking out for you and helping you.  That’s one of the best things about being Catholic — a regular, daily awareness of the communion of saints. And also, if you’re like me, you had the good fortune to be born on a day on which the Church honors the memory of particular saints.

I’m old enough to have been born when the old Roman Calendar was still in effect.  As a result, I was born on the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas.  I have received many graces through his intercession, including a keen interest in theology and my middle name.  Thomas led a fascinating life, and he wrote so beautifully and deeply on all aspects of the faith that he has been a great gift to my faith.  I am particularly mindful of one of his final thoughts, after having some kind of mystical experience.  He ceased work on a project, and upon being asked by his secretary why he didn’t finish the work, replied “all that I have written seems like straw to me.”  That’s a good reminder that nothing that we could do in this life could ever stand comparison to the glory of God.  As St. Paul said, “But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.  Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” (Phil 3:7-8)

When they reformed the Roman Calendar in the Sixties, they decided to move Thomas’ feast to January 28.  Oddly enough, they chose the day that they “translated his relics” — that is, the day they dug up his body and moved it from one resting place to another.

Although I still have some hard feelings about them taking Thomas from me, I have to say that I lucked out again when the Church restored the ancient feast day of Saints Perpetua and Felicity to their proper day.

If you aren’t familiar with Saints Perpetua and Felicity, you should immediately drop all that you are doing and correct this.  Perpetua, a Roman noblewoman, and her slave Felicity, were martyred in 203 A.D., in Carthage.  Perpetua was nursing her baby when arrested, and Felicity was pregnant. Perpetua’s child was taken from her by her family, but Felicity gave birth while imprisoned and the child was adopted by a Christian family.  Perpetua wrote an account of their ordeals in prison with other Christians — one of the earliest written records by a Christian woman.  The story of their witness to Christ is vivid and moving, and should be required reading for all Christians who want a glimpse into the heroism of our ancestors in faith.

The night before their martyrdom, after having celebrated a “love feast” (the ancient name for the Mass) with her fellow prisoners, Perpetua had a dream about being led to the arena by one of the men who had already been martyred, who beckoned her to come and join them.  In the arena, she was beset by a mighty enemy, but vanquished him and was called to enter the Gate of Life.  Realizing the significance of this dream, she wrote, “I understood that I should fight, not with beasts but against the devil; but I knew that mine was the victory”.

The next day, March 7, Perpetua, Felicity and their companions were taken to the arena, whipped, attacked by wild beasts and slain by gladiators.  They have been honored ever since.  As Tertullian said, “the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians”.

I certainly do not consider myself to be in the intellectual ballpark of Thomas, or anywhere near as courageous as Perpetua and Felicity.  But I feel very close to them, as if they were my friends, but just separated from me for a short time.  Perhaps one day, if their prayers for me are heard, I will meet them, and I can thank them for their help and friendship.

Profiles in Courage Needed in Congress

March 5th, 2010

The health care reform debate is coming down to the wire in Washington.  The news is filled with reports about parliamentary maneuvering, speculation about tactics, opinion polls, and political calculations.

The Senate has a bill that guarantees public funding for elective abortions.  The President has a framework for a bill that has the same flaw as the Senate bill.  The House has a bill with good pro-life language in it, but the House leadership seems to have given up on it.

There are so many possibilities and options on the table that you might think that what is needed is a scorecard or a crystal ball.

Actually, what’s needed more than anything else right now is courage.

There is a small handful of pro-life Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who are going to be the key players in deciding what (if any) bill is passed by Congress and signed into law.   It’s likely that the vote in the House will be so close that any defection from that pro-life stand may be decisive.  It’s hard to imagine the pressure these Democrats must feel, and how strongly they are being importuned to change their vote.

And so we need these few pro-life representatives to be courageous, and hold to their principles in defense of life.

We also need to remember what can happen if a public figure fails to show courage.  In 1970, the New York State Legislature was considering legalizing abortion.  The bill was voted on in the Assembly, and it came to a 74 to 74 vote — a tie, thus killing the bill.  Except that one legislator from an upstate district, who had initially voted “no”, rose to ask permission to change his vote.  It was granted, and with that one switched vote, abortion became legal in New York, and thousands of unborn children lost their lives.

That’s the cost when public officials lose their nerve.  Perhaps now would be a good time to offer a few prayers to St. Thomas More, the patron saint for profiles in courage among those in public office.

The Exasperating Speaker

February 28th, 2010

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is an exasperating person.  Her public statements on abortion show an appalling lack of familiarity with the truth.   And, although she has been consistently corrected by more knowledgeable people, she continues to spread misinformation about abortion in the health care reform plans.

The most recent examples of this came in connection with the President’s vaunted health care summit.  Speaking about the Senate health care bill and the President’s proposal, she said:

… the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills.

Then, in a follow-up interview, she again said:

I talked to the Catholic Bishops about this and people on all sides of the choice issue. Law prevents federal funding; federal law prevents federal funding of abortion. There is no federal funding of abortion in this bill.

All of this is utterly and completely false.  And it is hard to believe that anyone of any degree of intelligence could fail to see it as such.

I’ve blogged before on the Senate bill and the President’s plan (if you’re interested, check here), and the U.S. Bishops have an abundance of information on their website.  To put it in a nutshell, both proposals would:

  • provide direct federal funding of abortion through Community Health Centers (i.e., Planned Parenthood clinics);
  • give taxpayer-funded subsidies for private plans that cover abortion (including plans administered by the federal government),
  • require every American to make a direct payment to their insurance carrier that would pay for elective abortions; and
  • leave the door open for federal bureaucrats to mandate direct payments for elective abortions.
  • Richard Doerflinger, who works tirelessly on pro-life issues for the U.S. Bishops, said in response to the Speaker:

    We do not know how anyone who has spoken to the bishops could conclude that the Senate health care bill does not fund abortions.  As the bishops have said in their letters to Congress, abortion problems in the Senate bill are so serious that, despite our strong support for expanding access to health care, we will have to oppose the bill unless they are resolved.

    Which brings us back to the exasperating Speaker.  What can be said about a person who says things that are patently untrue, is publicly corrected, yet continues to say the same things?

    I think the best comment was made by Cardinal Egan, in response to an earlier absurd statement on abortion by the Speaker:

    Anyone who dares to defend that [unborn children] may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

    Turning the Tables on the Culture of Death

    February 27th, 2010

    In the last several weeks, two women have given us fine examples on how to turn the tables on the Culture of Death by doing a very simple thing — exposing the truth about abortion.

    Our first truth-teller is Catherine Davis, the minority-outreach director for Georgia Right-to-Life.  An African-American, Ms. Davis looked into the impact of abortion on blacks and was horrified at what she found — although blacks make up only 13% of the American population, they have almost 40% of abortions, and almost 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion.

    Her response was to start going to black churches and communities, and talking about this little-known truth.  The reaction has been striking, as blacks have reacted in horror to what is happening in their families.

    Her most recent effort has garnered a lot of attention, even in the mainstream media.  A series of billboards have been put up in the Atlanta with the provocative statement, “Black children are an endangered species”, and a Web site, www.toomanyaborted.com.  The news media has reacted by reporting on the “racial controversy”, but it has enabled Ms. Davis to get her point across.

    Good for her.

    Our second truth-teller is Lila Rose, who has released the latest of her series of video exposes of what goes on in Planned Parenthood abortion clinics when she goes in, posing as a pregnant teenager made pregnant by an adult. You can view her videos at her website, Live Action.

    She has consistently found that the clinic workers tell teenage girls to lie about the age of the men who got them pregnant, to evade laws requiring them to report incidents of statutory rape.  They also give advice on how to evade laws requiring parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion.  These exposes have actually led to some investigations of Planned Parenthood clinics.

    Good for her.

    Unfortunately, the rampant lawlessness of Planned Parenthood hasn’t stopped them from enjoying public favor and large amounts of government funding.  Maybe that would change if they were a car maker with faulty accelerators instead of an organization that corrupts young people with wicked “sex education” and kills a quarter of a million children each year.

    These incidents highlight once again that our greatest weapon in fighting the Culture of Death is the truth.  And that individuals can make a difference in the cause of life by standing up and speaking the truth.

    The President Misses on Health Care Reform

    February 23rd, 2010

    The President has finally presented his own version of a health care reform bill.  Well, not so much as a bill as a proposal, but without detailed legislative language or enough specifics to allow the experts to figure out how much it will cost.  Maybe we should call it a framework for a bill.

    Actually, the President’s framework amounts to little more than a warmed-over version of the bill that was rushed through the Senate to a vote last Christmas Eve.  And, as such, it has all the essential flaws as that bill had.

    All along, the bishops have been insisting that a health care reform bill must retain the longstanding requirement that federal funds are not used for elective abortions or plans that include them, and that any bill must adequately protect conscience rights of individuals and institutions.

    So, it’s not hard to see how the President’s framework falls short:

  • Fails to include the strong Stupak Amendment to the House bill, which retained the current legal status quo, banning the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions.
  • Retains the weak Nelson Amendment from the Senate bill, which would allow federal money to pay for and subsidize elective abortions, and would require everyone to pay for them.
  • Fails to include strong conscience protection language that was part of the Stupak Amendment to the House Bill, thus leaving the conscience rights of faith-based health care providers at risk.
  • Permits direct taxpayer funding for elective abortions through the federal health program that serves Native Americans.
  • Contains language (the Mikulski Amendment) that would permit federal regulators to define abortion as “preventative care”, which would force every insurance plans to cover elective abortions.
  • Provides $11 billion dollars for so-called “community health centers” (even more than the original Senate bill);  without any language preventing these funds from paying for elective abortions, it is likely that they would wind up going to groups like Planned Parenthood.
  • In September, the President made the following statement to a joint session of Congress:

    under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions

    Even by his own standards, the President’s framework for a health care bill has failed.  Instead, it would lead to an unprecedented expansion of abortion in our nation and massive federal funding for elective abortions.

    It must be defeated.

    Oh, Yes, So Very, Very Tolerant

    February 20th, 2010

    The forces of “tolerance” are on the move again, and have found their most recent victim.  The Archdiocese of Washington, faced with an unjust law that would have required them to recognize the validity of same-sex “marriages”, has been forced to withdraw from foster care and adoption services.

    The basic facts are very simple.  The District of Columbia government was dead set on recognizing same-sex “marriages”, and had little regard for anything that stood in their way or any of the consequences.   Remember, the City government refused to allow the proposed bill to be voted on as a referrendum, refused to grant a reasonable religious exemption despite repeated requests by the Archdiocese, and imposed such a rigorous schedule for compliance with the law that Catholic Charities had little choice but to close down their program.  This was accompanied by a propaganda campaign that accused the Church of turning her back on the poor, even though, all along, it was the City government that was shoving the Church out the door.

    This is not unprecedented.  Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to surrender its adoption services in the face of the Massachusetts same-sex “marriage” law, after the state legislature refused to grant an exemption.  And a few years ago, here in New York, we were lucky that the Court of Appeals struck down a New York City law that would have required all city contractors to recognize same-sex “marriages” — but they rejected the law on technical grounds, not because of the infringement of religious liberty.

    Nor will it be the last time that it happens.  Other cities and states are likely to try similar tactics.   The legal community is unlikely to help.  After all, the Administration has nominated a person to serve on an important federal civil rights panel who believes that when “gay rights” and religious liberties collide, the rights of churches should lose.

    In his famous letter in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, President George Washington pledged that the government of the United States would respect the religious liberty of all, demanding only that they be good citizens.  The letter is worth quoting here:

    The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.  It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

    President Washington’s promise is not being honored, in the city that bears his name.  Will it be honored elsewhere?

    Bury Me With Christ

    February 17th, 2010

    And so, once again, we will follow the ancient custom tomorrow and have ourselves marked with the Sign of the Cross in ashes.  We will remind ourselves of the inevitability of our own death, but silently assert our faith in the salvation that has destroyed death.  We will put on Christ (Gal 3:27) in a very real and visible way.

    I have never been good at Lent.  I am very bad at fasting (partly for health reasons), nor am I particularly faithful to the old tradition of giving things up for Lent as a spiritual sacrifice.

    But this year I want Lent to be different.  For some reason, the passion of Christ has been very much on my mind in my daily recollection and prayer.  It seems very real and present to me.  Not that I’ve been suffering, but the quiet, uncomfortable spiritual voice within me (thanks, Guardian Angel!) has been steadily leading me to Calvary.

    So, this Lent, I’ve decided to follow that impulse, and set my foot on the road to the tomb.   I’ll do a few practical things to help me along that way — I’m going to try to pray the Divine Office this Lent, and I will be re-reading (for the first time in many years) the great spiritual classic, The Imitation of Christ.

    But, more importantly, I’m going to try to orient my heart, mind and soul to towards the tomb, to get myself ready to be buried with Jesus, so that I may emerge on the other end with him.  I want to be with St. Paul, who wrote,

    We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

    And so, my Lent will begin tomorrow.  I will present myself to be marked with the sign of life, made with the material of death.  I will take on my spiritual shroud, and begin the slow walk to the tomb.

    Bury me with Christ, O Lord, that I may walk with him in the newness of life.

    Back to Torture Again

    February 12th, 2010

    There was a horrendous report of child abuse in the news today — a man has been arrested for waterboarding his 4-year-old daughter because she couldn’t recite the alphabet.

    After reading this horror story, I made a comment about it in an email I send out to some of my friends.  I said, “This is where it leads when one obfuscates the moral law, and shades the truth about intrinsically evil acts…  So, it’s criminal if you do it to a child, but permissible “enhanced interrogation” when you do it to a prisoner?”

    Well, one of my friends challenged me for making this argument about my “hobby horse” of torture, and I thought that the exchange would be interesting to share more generally.  In his reply, my friend noted that there is a significant difference between the way that we treat children in the law and the way we treat adults, in particular where moral and legal culpability and punishment are concerned.   For example, we are legally and morally permitted to inflict punishments on adults (e.g., imprisonment and even execution) that we would never impose upon children.  He also noted that waterboarding is similar to the training we give to soldiers, which tends to undermine the argument that it is always “torture”.

    My response began by pointing out that the starting point of any discussion of morality is to remind ourselves that there are three fonts of morality — the moral object (the objective nature of the act), the intention of the actor, and the relevant circumstances. (Catechism 1750)

    The problem with the debate over torture is that the focus is not on the moral object of torture, but has instead concentrated on other factors — the intention of the actors (some writers’ theme that the waterboarders are “honorable men”), or the usefulness of torture (the Jack Bauer, er, I mean Dick Cheney consequentialist argument that “it works”).  But none of those factors will render the act good, since the moral object of torture is intrinsically evil.

    Remember, the moral object is not just the physical act alone.  It represents the object that is freely chosen by the actor, and thus involves not just a physical act but also an end that is chosen. (See Veritatis Splendor 78)   The distinction between the physical act and the moral object is essential.

    Here’s the definition of the moral object in question: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred” (Catechism 2297), in violation of the affirmative duty that “Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely” (Catechism 2313).  In Veritatis Splendor 80, Pope John Paul listed  torture among those acts that are “”intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances”.

    Once we recognize the intrinsic evil of such an act, the intentions of the actor (honorable or otherwise) and the circumstances (the victim is a really bad person, the bomb is ticking, etc.) are irrelevant to the moral analysis — they cannot render an intrinsically evil act good or neutral.  Using the physical and moral violence of inflicting the sensation of drowning and the terror of dying upon a bound prisoner in order to extract information cannot, under any circumstances, be a good or neutral act.

    Other moral objects are morally neutral or good, and are not intrinsically evil.  Thus the circumstances and intention must be consulted to see if the act is good or evil.  So, a parent’s striking a child to teach them discipline (i.e., the infliction of corporal punishment) can be a good act (but can also be evil if overdone, or done for the wrong reason).

    We also have to be precise in how we define our moral objects, especially in situations where two physical acts are superficially similar.  For example, what happens in military training may resemble the physical act of waterboarding, but it is not the same moral object as waterboarding, because the end that is sought by the actor is fundamentally different.  This training is not “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred” in violation of a duty to treat a prisoner humanely.  It is instead the consensual infliction of physical distress in order to prepare a soldier to endure mistreatment (i.e., torture) by an enemy.  It is a different moral object entirely, and cannot be used to justify torturing a prisoner.

    This may seem like splitting hairs in the way we define acts, but it is essential to a comprehensive analysis of moral activity.  We must keep in mind that there are some acts that are always intrinsically evil, regardless of the circumstances or intention of the actor.

    The Power of Witness

    February 12th, 2010

    I’ve been teaching a class in Church history lately (one of the reason my blogging has been infrequent — lots of work!).  It’s led me to think a lot about the way the early Christians lived, and how they interacted with the world.

    In particular, I’ve been fascinated by accounts of the early martyrs.  Remember, the word “martyr” means “witness” in Greek.  What strikes me is not just the heroism and horror of the stories, but of the way that the martyrs were regarded by their fellow Christians.  These were the superheroes of the early Church, people who were revered and who were held up as models to follow.  Even now, you can’t read the accounts of great early saints like Perpetua and Felicity, Agatha, or Cyprian without being moved by their willingness to put their Christian faith on the line.

    Nor can you read them without seeing the effect on others.  In the ancient account of the martyrdom of Cyprian, after he was condemned to death, other Christians came forward to ask to be beheaded along with him.  That’s how powerful was the witness of that great bishop.  The sufferings of the martyrs were seen by the ancients as the “seed” of new Christians, to use the phrase of the theologian Tertullian.

    Here in America, it’s easy for us to be complacent about our faith.  None of us will likely ever be asked to suffer significantly for out faith.  In other nations, of course, that’s not the case — just ask any of our Indian, Nigerian or Vietnamese priests about that, and they will tell you stories that would curl your hair.

    But there are still many, many opportunities to give public witness to our faith.  People notice when Christians profess their faith boldly, and people find it attractive when we demonstrate our faith by the love in our lives.  Two recent examples drove this point home for me.

    First was the “controversial” Superbowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom.  Pre-Superbowl buzz said that the ad was supposed to be a big deal because of its pro-life message, and in that respect it was a bit of a disappointment.  It was pretty bland and indirect in promoting the cause of human life.  But it was an excellent message for another reason — here were two professed Christians, talking about and demonstrating their love for each other.  A great witness to what Christian faith means in everyday life.

    The other was the story on Oprah’s show about the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist.  The reporter and film crew went into the convent to get a glimpse of the lives of these remarkable young women, and the result was extraordinary.  Here were a group of joyful, smart, and dedicated Christian women who had dedicated their lives to serve the Lord and others.  The love they have for God and His people radiated from their faces, and nobody could fail to see it.  Again, a great witness to the way Christians live.

    All too often, Christians are seen in our culture as narrow, judgmental scolds.  But the reality, as shown by these public witnesses, is quite different.  True Christian witness is powerful and attractive, precisely because it shows people how love is at the heart of the lives of faithful people.

    Tertullian, living in a time of persecution in the Second Century, saw this clearly.  He once wrote to a Roman official to explain how Christians lived, in order to debunk some of the myths and rumors that were making the rounds at that time.  He remarked about how the pagans were astonished by the way Christians lived: “Look, they say, how they love one another and how they are ready to die for each other.”

    That’s the way the ancient world looked upon the martyr/witnesses.  And we should all make sure that that’s the way our world looks at us.  If they fail to remark on how we love one another, what does that say about what kind of witness I am?

    What Does the Word Mean?

    February 2nd, 2010

    The debate over same-sex “marriage” continues to roil our politics.  It regularly appears in legislatures, and there’s an important court case going on in California over it.

    But a new study should make us ask a key question:  Just what do we mean by “marriage”?

    Traditionally, marriage was defined as a life-long, sexually exclusive covenant between a man and a woman, directed to the procreation and education of children and to the personal good of the spouses.

    When seen in that light, same-sex “marriage” just isn’t “marriage” – it’s something completely different.

    Some same-sex “marriage” advocates have even rejected the idea of monogamy, and assume that their “married” relationships will not be sexually exclusive.  This has been confirmed by a new study of same-sex relationships, conducted in San Francisco.  The study found that the majority of the same-sex couples assume that they will not be sexually exclusive, they approve of such outside sexual relationships, and they have no intention of being faithful and monogamous.

    So let’s take stock of how same-sex “marriage” fits into the definition of marriage.

  • “Life-long”?  Nope.
  • “Sexually exclusive”?  Nope.
  • “Man and woman”?  Nope.
  • “Procreation and education of children”? Not naturally.
  • “Good of the spouses”?  Well, maybe, but in what way is it different from any romantic relationship, or a “friends with benefits” relationship?
  • This has long been one of the unspoken truths behind the push for same-sex “marriage”.  The advocates want the legal rights that go along with marriage, they want the social acceptance of the term, and they want to force us to accept their relationships as “normal”.

    The only thing they don’t actually want is, well, marriage itself.

    It seems clear to me that the insight of the philosopher Inigo Montoya is relevant here:  “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”