Religion in Public Life « Stepping Out Of The Boat

Archive for the ‘Religion in Public Life’ Category

Hate Mail and What it Means

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

The other day, we received an email in the office that is such a perfect example of the state of our culture that I had to share it, and offer a few comments.

Here it is:

Dear Sister –
Aren’t you tired of being a “second class” citizen in your Church?
The American public is getting so tired of the Catholic Church’s
bigotry. You should pay your taxes, mind your business and
keep you noses our of the rest of the Country’s. You have
become one of the main road blocks to health care. Shame
one you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are beginning to think of you all as a bunch of PARASITES.

Now, you should bear in mind that this email was not sent to me. I’m the public policy coordinator in the Family Life/Respect Life Office, and I’ve been in this business long enough to be pretty thick-skinned. I’m used to this kind of stuff. It’s actually fairly mild, in comparison to some other things that have been sent my way. After all, I once had condoms thrown at me at a public meeting of the Board of Education.

But no, this love letter was sent to a religious sister, a professed member of the Sisters of Life. Their special charism is to protect and defend the sacredness of human life. The fact that this screed was sent to her demonstrates the level of hostility that many people bear, not just to faithful professed religious women, but also to the very concept of defending the unborn.

It is also a testament to the abiding intolerance towards the Catholic Church that runs deep in American society.

I’m not sure which part of the Constitution denies the right of Catholics and the Church Herself to free speech on political affairs, or requires us to refrain from any effort to influence legislation. It must be written in invisible ink in the same penumbras and emanations in which the Supreme Court found the right to kill unborn children. Or maybe it’s like one of those adventure movies where you can use your Tom Mix decoder ring to find the real meaning of the First Amendment.

Seriously, though, this letter reflects a strong drive aimed at the secularization of the public square — the complete exclusion of religious persons and religious-based arguments. Driven by an ideological commitment to such things as abortion and “gay rights”, it seeks to tell persons of faith that they should, as our correspondent says, “mind your business and keep you [sic] noses out of the rest of the Country’s”.

Twenty-five years ago, John Cardinal O’Connor confronted this same attitude when he stepped boldly into the public square to defend the unborn. Here is what he said in response:

Bishops have every right and duty to be involved in public policy, which is a different thing altogether from politics, both because they are bishops and because they are American citizens.

All citizens should express themselves on the moral dimensions of public policy issues. Those citizens who are generally perceived as “moral leaders,” such as the bishops, have a special obligation to do so. People expect bishops to denounce unjust war and aggression, to plead for the homeless, to denounce drug traffic, racism and so on. Bishops are criticized if they remain silent about such issues.

…Actually, many bishops find that local political leaders want to involve them, the bishops, in various public policy matters, rather than vice versa. Political leaders want bishops involved in community action. It is, again, only when abortion is involved that some political leaders complain about bishops.

In short, no, we will not mind our business — even if people consider us to be “parasites”, even if they put lots of exclamation marks in their emails. We will continue to work in the secular and political arena, so that, in the words of Lumen Gentium 36, “the world may be permeated by the spirit of Christ and it may more effectively fulfill its purpose in justice, charity and peace.”

Posted in Intolerance, Religion in Public Life, Same-Sex "Marriage" | Comments Off

Bigotry, “Tolerance” and the Same Sex “Marriage” Vote

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

So, my State Senator thinks that I’m a bigot. Some “tolerance”.

Today, in the New York State Senate, the same-sex “marriage” bill finally came to the floor for a debate and vote. The essential argument by the supporters of the bill was that it is a matter of equality, and that the advance of history demands that the bill be passed. But mixed in with that rhetoric is a deep level of intolerance towards those who disagree.

The worst example of it came in the addresses of several Senators, including my own. He rose to the floor and directly compared opposition to same-sex “marriage” to the bigots who enacted the ugly Jim Crow laws requiring racial apartheid in the South. He even said that his parents, who survived the Holocaust, would not understand our position, implying that we are in the same category as Nazis.

This is precisely what we have been warning about all along. With the passage of laws radically redefining marriage, will inevitably come the branding of those who disagree as bigots and haters. We will be harassed and oppressed with the use of anti-discrimination laws, and the open expression of religious beliefs will be designated as hatred and even, perhaps, prosecuted under “hate crimes” laws. Catholic institutions and individuals will be pressured and will be harried out of business unless they conform to this new regime.

In other states where these laws have been debated, like Maine and California, there have been well-documented cases of retaliation against same-sex “marriage” opponents, including economic boycotts, destruction of property, and physical violence. In other states, religious institutions have been forced to close rather than recognize “marriages” that are deeply offensive to their religious beliefs.

These legislators are the same ones we would have to turn to for legal protection of our religious liberties. How sympathetic do you think they will be, having publicly compared us to haters and bigots? How sympathetic will their judicial colleagues be when we seek recourse in the courts?

Fortunately, the Senate defeated the bill today, by a wide margin. That margin reflects the general opposition of the public to the radical re-definition of marriage. This is evidenced by the fact that the issue has come before the voters of 31 other states, and authentic marriage has been upheld each time.

But this struggle will go on, and the effort by same-sex “marriage” advocates to brand us as bigots will continue.

Expect more of the same “tolerance” as the battle moves forward.

Posted in Intolerance, Religion in Public Life, Religious Liberty, Same-Sex "Marriage" | Comments Off

Still Wrong After All These Years

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

In 1984, then-Governor of New York Mario Cuomo gave a famous address at Notre Dame University that, in essence, defended the notion that a Catholic could in good conscience be a public official who defends the legal destruction of unborn children. His argument rested on the assumption that the defense of human life from conception was a merely sectarian doctrine, unique to Catholics, which should not be enacted into civil law.

Twenty-five years have passed, and the Governor’s position has been thouroughly rejected by Pope John Paul II (see, for example, Evangelium Vitae), the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the United States Bishops (see, for example, Living the Gospel of Life), and every single Catholic bishop who has ever spoken on the subject.

My favorite quote from Cardinal Egan, in response to remarks by the Speaker of the House that were the direct descendent of the Governor’s Notre Dame sophistry, makes it clear:

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they 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.

In these instances, and in many, many others, the Church has unhesitatingly and with one voice defined that the the destruction of innocent unborn human beings is always gravely immoral, and that all persons are obliged to protect them, including by enacting civil laws to prohibit abortion. This is not merely a sectarian doctrine unique to the Catholic Church, but is an elementary tenet of the natural moral law that is common to all persons of every age. Enacting this moral principle into civil law is no different from prohibiting slavery, murder, or rape. It is a fundamental principle of justice.

In the face of such a steadfast and universal proclamation of doctrine, one would think that the normal reaction by a Catholic would be to accept the fraternal correction by his Church and offer a humble submission of faith to the correct doctrine (see Lumen Gentium 25).

But not our former Governor. Instead, he decided to comment on the statement by Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island, directing Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the pro-abortion Congressman, not to present himself for Holy Communion until he repents of his immoral public statements and acts. Displaying the classic modern tendency to hold oneself up as the highest teaching authority in matters of faith and morals, the Governor was quoted in a news report as saying:

Cuomo said there are two positions a politician can take: They can oppose church doctrine outright or, as he did, accept church teachings personally but refuse to carry them into the public arena where they would affect people of every faith. ” Don’t ask me to make everybody live by it because they are not members of the church,” Cuomo said. “If that were the operative rule, how could you get any Catholic politician in office? And would that be better for the Catholic church?”

These comments make no sense, either for a Catholic or for anyone else.

All laws reflect moral judgments of right and wrong. If a public official rules out the influence of their religious faith in making such judgments, on what basis does he act?
Why would anyone vote for a politician who was so unprincipled or cowardly that he checked his religious faith at the door of the government office he holds? How could you trust him to do anything according to principle?
The prohibition against killing the innocent is not an inside Catholic rule, but a principle of the moral law. How is it an improper imposition of a religious teaching to prohibit inherently immoral acts like rape or theft?
The choice to accept Church teaching privately but to live another way publicly is morally irresponsible and reprehensible. It is a gross violation of the fundamental rule of Christian morality — treat others as you would wish to be treated.
And, the highest value in life is not to make Catholic politicians more electable, or to make things better for the Church, but to live a life of holiness. Holiness is not a private thing — it must infuse every part of our lives, or we are poor excuses for followers of Christ.

Today is the feast day of Blessed Miguel Pro. This great and holy priest defied the unjust laws of Mexico that outlawed the celebration of the Mass and proscribed priests. He was martyred for his opposition to the immoral laws of his nation. He didn’t hide behind a distinction between private belief and public acts. He understood. If only more of our public officials understood.

Posted in Catholic Public Officials, Catholic Teaching, Pro-Life, Religion in Public Life | Comments Off

Not Just Bigoted, but Insane — That’s Me

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

As a defender of the authentic definition of marriage — one man, one woman — I’m used to being called a “bigot” by advocates of same-sex “marriage”. After all, calling someone a “bigot” is easy. It reduces the debate to the schoolyard level of name-calling, and frees one of the need to actually engage in rational debate about real issues. Given the ease with which the term “bigot” is thrown around these days, it also has virtually no meaning whatsoever. It basically now means “someone whom I disagree with and dislike so much that I won’t even dignify their arguments with a response, so there”.

I’m also used to same-sex “marriage” advocates calling the defenders of authentic marriage “irrational”. Because, don’t you know, no reasonable, rational human being could possibly believe that marriage has the meaning that every human society has ever undertood it to have, and that nobody ever doubted until about twenty years ago. And forget about the fact that several high courts — including the New York State Court of Appeals — has held that there was a rational basis for holding to the real definition of marriage. In the lexicon of the same-sex “marriage” advocates, “irrational” now means “an argument that I disagree with so much that I won’t dignify it with a response, so there”.

Well, now a new phase of the “debate” has been reached, in which defenders of authentic marriage are suspected of being insane. People have suspected that of me for years, but now it is being confirmed.

It started with a profile in the Style section of the Washington Post of a man named Brian Brown, who is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, the leading advocacy group that defends authentic marriage. Mr. Brown was given a reasonably fair treatment by the WaPo, including this back-handed compliment: “The reason Brian Brown is so effective is that he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane.” The headline of the piece follows the same theme: “Opposing Gay Unions with Sanity & a Smile”.

Well, then all hell broke loose from the forces of “tolerance”. The WaPo was deluged with outraged letters from same-sex “marriage” advocates, who were enraged that the paper could possibly portray such a “bigot” in a positive light. Finally, the “ombudsman” of the paper (the man with the thankless job of reviewing the fairness and professionalism of the journal’s stories) published a response. The details are not worth talking about, but here’s the most important line:

Finally, the headline: “Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile.” To many readers, The Post was saying Brown’s views are sane. The headline, written by editors, not Hesse, should have been neutral.

So, one of the leading newspapers of the mainstream media thinks that it should be neutral about whether or not defenders of authentic marriage are insane. Read that again — they’re not sure that we’re sane to insist that “marriage” means a man and a woman, joined in a union that is dedicated not just to their well-being but to the procreation and education of children. They think it’s entirely possible that all of us — Pope Benedict and every Catholic bishop, President Obama, the great majority of public officials in our country, the vast majority of other religious communities, solid majorities of citizens, and every human being until twenty years ago — are bonkers, loony-tunes, loopy, crazy, wacko. An entire nation and world of insane people.

What a state of affairs that we can no longer have a rational discussion of this issue, but must instead deal with slurs on our sanity and integrity. This bodes ill for what will happen if same-sex “marriage” advocates get what they want. We will be attacked by discrimination cases, our licenses to practice our professions and operate institutions like schools and charity agencies will be endangered, and we will all be stigmatized as “bigots”.

When the entire world goes insane, sanity will be re-defined as insanity. I guess the final step will be for them to go to court and have us all involuntarily committed.

Posted in Intolerance, Media, Religion in Public Life, Same-Sex "Marriage" | Comments Off

What Is to be Done?

Monday, June 15th, 2009

In his important book, Render Unto Caesar, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver explores the challenges facing Catholics as citizens in modern America. Every Catholic should read this book, and wrestle with the issues he raises. We are, I believe, approaching a watershed moment in American history, where we Catholics — and we as a Church — must confront some hard questions about the legal regime under which we live.

To that end, I would like to reflect on a quotation from Cardinal Avery Dulles that Archbishop Chaput cites:

“the greatest danger facing the Church in our country today is that of an excessive and indiscreet accommodation.”

There is a strong movement afoot, typically couched in terms of finding “common ground”, that calls upon us Catholics to seek ways of dealing with our government on public issues, despite our differences over abortion, same-sex “marriage”, and other intrinsic moral evils. In many ways, we are being asked to set these issue aside, and to “dialogue” about other matters.

“Dialogue” and “civility” are important, and we are morally bound to respect our rulers and to do our civic duty. But this is a very dangerous road to proceed along, for it leads to the “excessive and indiscreet accommodation” warned against by Cardinal Dulles.

All too often, this “common ground” approach is an inducement to have us shake our heads sadly and say, “alas about this injustice about abortion and so forth, but let’s move on to talk about immigration, or some other more interesting thing”. All too often, Catholics in the public square, especially those who are putting forward this “common ground” approach, fail to emphasize enough — or even state at all — that the laws permitting abortion (and same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and other intrinsically evil things) are not laws at all. They are contrary to the natural moral law, they are not valid, we cannot accept or acquiesce in them, we must never cooperate in them or aid in their enforcement.

This “common ground” approach is an attempt to seduce us to consent implicitly to an illegitimate legal regime, in which an entire class of human beings is excluded from basic justice, in which the reality of marriage is being replaced by a sham, and in which the religious liberties of the Church and of individuals is being gradually diminished. What “common ground” can we have with injustice, with iniquity, with cruelty? How can we accommodate ourselves to that?

You may remember, several years ago, the magazine First Things hosted a symposium entitled “The End of Democracy?”. It was an effort to raise some difficult questions about our legal and political system, in which momentous decisions about life and justice were being made by non-democratic means, in violation of the natural moral law. This is a discussion that really needs to be re-visited in these days.

To put things bluntly, the question raised by that symposium, and implicitly by Archbishop Chaput, is this: to what extent are we permitted in conscience to continue to give our consent to a government that has enacted profoundly unjust and wicked laws, especially when it has done so in an illegitimate way (i.e., through judicial fiat rather than through the democratic process)? When faced with that situation, what is to be done?

In his great encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II wrote:

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection… In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”… Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. (73-74)

The proper response here is not accommodation to a legal regime that offends against the moral law, but resistance by all lawful means. This includes refusing to support candidates or public officials who are supporters of the status quo, and refusing to be apologists for them. It means that the defense of fundamental moral norms has to be the primary, and uncompromising, priority for the Church and for individual Catholics. These issues are not bargaining chips to be traded away, or extras to be added once we get government funding for our institutions. They have to be on the table all the time.

This is an essential part of having an authentic Catholic identity. We are not called by Christ to accommodate ourselves to the culture in which we happen to live. Rather, we are called to transform our culture in light of the Gospel of Christ.

Posted in Catholic Teaching, Discipleship, Religion in Public Life | Comments Off

Prophecy and Notre Dame

Monday, May 18th, 2009

Well, the President got a rock-star greeting from the graduating seniors at Notre Dame University, and much back-slapping from the president of the university.

Here is an institution named for the Mother of God to our nation’s most prominent apologist, facilitator, and advocate for the modern-day slaughter of the innocents.

I understand the requirement of our faith to show respect for the ruling authorities, which is clear from Christ’s words to “render unto Caesar”, and Paul’s admonition in Romans 13 to show respect for the governing authorities. But what went on yesterday in South Bend went far beyond mere respect, and went way into the boundaries of adulation.

Is this how the early Church Fathers would have related to Caesar? How about the Prophets — anybody recall back-slapping by Isaiah to Ahaz? All Christians are all called to be prophets by virtue of our Baptism and Confirmation. We certainly didn’t see much of that in South Bend on Sunday – except at the prayerful response meeting that was held on the campus by those who were opposed to the President’s anti-life policies.

What is it about this man who temporarily holds the office of President that merits this kind of reaction? Even if you are totally behind his domestic and foreign policy agenda, how can that possibly outweigh his absolute, unalterable commitment to legalized abortion? Remember, this is the man who said that he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished” with a child if she got pregnant out of wedlock — calling his own grandchild a “punishment”.

The Catholic blogger, Amy Welborn, puts the question this way:

That’s the basic question, with all of its many implications. Do you recognize the preborn baby, even in the midst of the complexities of its young life, dwelling within the body of another, living with her own complexities in a complex, pluralistic society – as “the least among us” worthy of civic protection or do you not?

It is abundantly clear from the President’s record, agenda, and statements that he does not view the pre-born baby as worthy of any civic protection whatsoever, and that he is fully committed to advancing the power of others to destroy those lives for any reason at all.

And remember, as with any politician, you have to pay closer attention to what the President does than to what he says. You have to realize that when the President speaks of reducing abortions, he’s talking about supporting bills like the “Prevention First Act”, which involves funneling money to Planned Parenthood, flooding the country with contraceptives, and polluting the minds of the youth with biased sex education. He does not support authentic measures to directly encourage women to keep their babies, like the Pregnant Women Support Act.

Sadly, I think the problem is that far too many Catholics just don’t care about abortion, or don’t care enough. Sure, many of them will say that they’re pro-life, but when it comes to doing anything about it, or saying anything about it, they’re nowhere to be found.

As Archbishop Charles Chaput has written:

If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics really cared about their faith and cared about what it teaches, neither political party could ignore what we believe about justice for the poor, or the homeless, or the unborn. If 65 million American Catholics really understood their faith, we wouldn’t need to waste one another’s time arguing whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow balanced out or excused by other social policies… We cannot talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and admit what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves, and to God by claiming to oppose personally some homicidal evil – and allowing it to be legal at the same time.

That’s prophecy, that’s what a modern-day Isaiah sounds like. And that’s what should have been said to Caesar yesterday in South Bend — and to the Catholics in attendance — in place of the standing fawning ovation and craven backslapping.

Posted in Catholic Identity, President, Religion in Public Life | Comments Off

Catholic Culture and Abortion

Monday, May 11th, 2009

In the upcoming edition of First Things magazine, editor Joseph Bottum takes up a very important theme — Catholic culture and identity — in light of the scandal over Notre Dame University granting an honorary doctor of laws degree to the President. A shorter version of the article can be found already at the Weekly Standard website. I think it’s a must-read article for those who wish to understand what it means to be a Catholic in the public square in this age.

Mr. Bottum’s theme is really very simple. He argues that the leadership of NDU, along with many, many other prominent public Catholics, particularly the leaders of Catholic universities, have found themselves on the other side of a cultural divide from mainstream Catholics. He summarizes it as follows:

…they live in a different world from most American Catholics. Opposition to abortion doesn’t stand at the center of Catholic theology. It doesn’t even stand at the center of Catholic faith. It does stand, however, at the center of Catholic culture in this country. Opposition to abortion is the signpost at the intersection of Catholicism and American public life. And those who — by inclination or politics — fail to grasp this fact will all eventually find themselves in the situation that Fr. Jenkins has now created for himself. Culturally out of touch, they rail that the antagonism must derive from politics. But it doesn’t. It derives from the sense of the faithful that abortion is important. It derives from the feeling of many ordinary Catholics that the Church ought to stand for something in public life — and that something is opposition to abortion.

I think that is absolutely dead-on correct. To be Catholic in this age is to be pro-life. The two are inextricably interwound. All of the most dynamic parts of the Church today — the new religious orders and ecclesial movement, the emerging Catholic colleges, the World Youth Day alums — are more orthodox and more pro-life than the generation that passed throught the 1970′s. That’s where the future of the Church is going.

Meanwhile, in a perfect illustration of Bottum’s thesis, Peter Steinfels wrote last week in the Times on the “civil war” in the Church over abortion, as illustrated by the NDU situation. Mr. Steinfels has been writing these same kind of articles for many years now, and this latest example is pretty much the usual kind of stuff you would expect.

He just doesn’t get it. He seems to think that a division on this point is a bad thing, that it threatens the unity of the Church unnecessarily. He manages to interview or quote several sources who take that position, but he just wasn’t able to find anyone who disagreed with the decision by NDU to honor the President. All he managed to do was to find a public address by a bishop, and use that as the example of all the opposition. Are people like George Weigel, Deal Hudson, Mark Shea, et al. really that hard to find? Or is that he just didn’t think he needed to look for them?

It seems clear to me that Mr. Steinfels (like a lot of Catholics of his and my generation) is living in a culture that is far removed from the average American Catholic. Perhaps he should put down his copy of America Magazine or Commonweal and get out into the parishes or youth events or Knights of Columbus councils or Rosary Convocations more often, to get a better sense of where the Church is today. Hint — it’s not 1975 any more.

What I think is particularly valuable, though, is the cultural mindset revealed by Mr. Steinfels’ use of the “civil war” analogy. Let’s play that one out for a moment. One side believes in the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings and that all human beings should be protected by the law (think of Abraham Lincoln here); the other side thinks that private parties should be able to treat some human beings as if they were mere property and that those human beings should have no legal protection at all (think of the Dred Scot decision here).

Is it really that hard to see which side of this “war” Christians and all people of good will should be on? Why would anyone want to be on the other side? And isn’t it a “war” worth fighting and winning?

It seems obvious to me that this “war” — which is ultimately over the importance of human dignity and the value of every single human life — is the struggle that God has given to our generation, in order to test our fidelity. And we will be judged based on how we wage it.

Posted in Abortion, Catholic Identity, Catholic Teaching, Discipleship, Pro-Life, Religion in Public Life | Comments Off

The Drama of Our Lives

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

Those of us who are lucky enough to be able to attend daily Mass have been listening to two great and challenging dramas recently, courtesy of the Scriptures presented in the Lectionary.

Since it is Easter Season, we are currently working our way through the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, together with the Sixth Chapter of John’s Gospel. The two stories lead up to crisis points that challenge us in our every day lives.

In Acts we’ve been hearing about the early days of the Church, immediately after Our Lord’s resurrection. This week in particular, the readings have treated us to the great story of St. Stephen, the first martyr, one of the towering figures of the early Church. The early Christians, struggling against the opposition of the religious authorities, are being persecuted and harassed, yet they are still boldly preaching the Name of Jesus and attracting new followers. From this group emerges Stephen, a man strong in the Holy Spirit, who bravely explains to the powers-that-be and the people that Jesus is the Righteous One promised to the people of Israel. The tension in the story built until finally, in today’s reading, as Stephen proclaimed the vision of Jesus, the Son of Man, seated at the right hand of God, and in doing so he challenges them to accept Jesus as Lord. For this, he is brutally murdered, stoned to death by the people.

In John’s Gospel, the drama is equally palpable. Jesus, having just fed the multitude and walked on the water, has narrowly avoided being carried off and crowned king. In response to their misconception of who he is and what he is about, he proclaims to the people what in many ways is the central mystery of his mission — that he himself is the Bread of Life, and that to attain eternal life, we must eat the true Body an drink the true bloog of the Lord. In response to the crown’s murmurring and doubts, he makes clear to them that he is not imagery, but reality. The tension builds as the people’s doubts persist, leading finally to the crisis point. Some cannot accept the Lord’s words and leave, perplexed by these “hard sayings”. And Jesus then asks the question that goes straight to their hearts: “Do you also wish to go away?”

The drama, seen so compellingly in these daily Mass readings, is also playing out in our time. Are we not in exactly the same position as those who were listening to Stephen and to the Lord? Are we not also called to see the reality of the Lord and the truth of his message?

The drama can be seen on the large national stage. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, confronted with the opportunity to sign pro-life legislation, chooses instead to veto it. Mary Ann Glendon, facing a choice of worldly honor or integrity in her faith, and choosing to faithful to the teaching of the Apostles Among Us. The President, having an unparalleled opportunity to promote human dignity, instead promotes and facilitates the destruction of unborn human life.

It also plays out in the secrecy of private lives. The frightened woman, uncertain of what to do with her unexpected pregnancy, must decide whether or not to keep the appointment at the abortion clinic. The young man and woman, excited in their new-found romantic love, must struggle to choose chastity. The business man must elect for honesty in the workplace, even at the cost of his job or his fortune.

God is speaking to us in these daily Scriptures. He is speaking about the drama of our own lives. He is reminding us that life involves choices. And he is asking us to choose him.

Posted in Discipleship, Pro-Life, Religion in Public Life | Comments Off

Public Catholicism As it Should Be

Monday, April 27th, 2009

As we look at Catholics who are actively engaged in the public square, we are all too often disappointed that so few seem to be willing to stand up for Catholic principles. Far too many seem perfectly willing to compromise on essential issues of morality for the ephemeral advantages of party politics, fame, or prestige.

Then again, every so often a Mary Ann Glendon comes along.

You may be familiar with Professor Glendon, the former Ambassador to the Holy See, distinguished professor at Harvard Law School, and author of a number of books about bioethics, human rights, family law and abortion. She is an authentic pro-life Catholic feminist.

She was scheduled to receive the “Laetare Award” at the upcoming commencement exercises at Notre Dame University. There, she would have shared the stage with the President as he received his honorary degree as Doctor of Laws, and delivered the commencement address. Quite a bit of prestige for Prof. Glendon, a chance to bask in the reflected glory of the President, to receive a very nice prize, and to hear her praises sung by others.

Today, Prof. Glendon wrote to the President of NDU and declined the Laetare Award. In her letter, she wrote:

… as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

She went on to note that NDU had used her appearance at the commencement to try to blunt the storm of criticism that has arisen over the award to the President. She observed that NDU was holding out her speech as the kind of “dialogue” they were hoping to generate with the President on abortion. In response, Prof. Glendon stated:

It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

That is precisely the kind of public witness that we need as Catholics. Being willing to stand up for the teachings of the Church, and for our fundamental moral duties, even at a personal cost.

Bravo to Prof. Glendon. May her example lead to many more such acts. No doubt St. Thomas More, patron saint of Catholic lawyers, is smiling upon his daughter in faith today.

I would also like to note an interesting juxtaposition of events today. On the same day as Prof. Glendon gave her notice to NDU, a fine Catholic man who long battled in the public square for the cause of human life and dignity, John Marchi, passed away into eternal life.

When he retired in 2006, he had served as a New York State legislator for 50 years — the longest of any New York lawmaker and one of the longest in America. He was an opponent of abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty, and was always proud to bring his Catholic faith into the public square.

He was a fine witness of our faith, and a true Catholic gentleman.

Please, God, send us more Mary Ann Glendons and John Marchis.

Posted in Catholic Public Officials, Discipleship, Religion in Public Life | Comments Off

The Ugly Face of the Future

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

I’m not much for watching beauty pageants. My wife is beautiful, talented and congenial enough for me.

But I can’t help but be interested in what happened at the Miss USA pageant the other day. You may have seen the report in the media. Miss California was apparently a finalist in the competition, and the time came for her to answer a question from the judges. Usually, I think this consists of soft-ball questions and bland answers about world peace and helping others. This time, though, Miss California was asked a pointed question about her opinion on same-sex “marriage”.

The young lady gave what appeared to be a perfectly ordinary answer. After affirming how grateful she was for the liberty we enjoy in the United States to have a diversity of opinion, she went on to say that in her view, based on the way she was raised, marriage was between a man and a woman. She even offered a “no offense” apology in advance for anyone who disagreed with her. You would think that would be the end of the matter, and we’d move on to the baton-twirling competition, or some such thing.

Well, not in the New World. Apparently this is now a controversial opinion, and poor Miss California has been publicly derided and pilloried for giving voice to a view that everyone would have accepted implicitly as recently as ten years ago. In fact, according to some commentators, it led to her losing the pageant.

You might think this was a trivial moment, and not worth much attention. But it is actually very important, because it reveals the face of the future, and it’s not as pretty as Miss California.

One of the tactics of the same-sex “marriage” movement is to stigmatize everyone who disagrees with them, to brand them as bigots, and to silence their voices by intimidation. This is not an exaggeration. After the passage of Prop 8 in California, the names and home addresses of donors to that campaign to preserve the definition of marriage were posted on the Internet, boycotts were arranged of businesses owned by donors or that employed donors, and some donors reported receiving threats and intimidating communications. Think about that for a second — you give some money to a cause you believe in, and next thing you know your personal information is posted online and you’re a target. Tolerance? Diversity? Hah.

The goal of that movement is not to tolerate or to “celebrate diversity”, but to make same-sex “marriage” opponents sit down and shut up.

All for committing what has now become a “thought crime”, namely to favor the authentic definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Make no mistake about it. A “soft persecution” is coming. Institutions and individuals that support real marriage will be denied access to government programs, licenses and contracts, and professional’s ability to practice their avocations will be limited or denied, based on their opinions on same-sex “marriage”. We will be social outcasts, pariahs because of our religious beliefs.

Think I’m exaggerating? Then listen to what Frank Rich wrote the other day in an op-ed in the Times, the arbiter of acceptable opinion among our ruling elite: “It is justice, not a storm, that is gathering. Only those who have spread the poisons of bigotry and fear have any reason to be afraid.”

He’s talking about us. And that’s not the voice of reasoned discourse or civil disagreement. That’s the voice of thuggery.

Miss California has already seen the face of the future. More of us will, and soon.

Posted in Free Speech, Intolerance, Religion in Public Life, Same-Sex "Marriage" | Comments Off