Pope Francis Approves of LCWR Reform

Hermeneutic of continuity, folks!  Excerpts:

...Archbishop Müller told Sr. Deacon that he “recently discussed the Doctrinal Assessment with Pope Francis, who reaffirmed the findings of the Assessment and the program of reform for this Conference of Major Superiors,” an April 15 statement from the congregation said.

“It is the sincere desire of the Holy See that this meeting may help to promote the integral witness of women Religious,” the communiqué stated, and this requires “a firm foundation of faith and Christian love, so as to preserve and strengthen it for the enrichment of the Church and society for generations to come.”

Since it was his first time meeting with the leadership of the group, Archbishop Müller thanked the sisters for their “great contribution” to the Church in the United States, “as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor” that have been founded and staffed by religious.

He also “emphasized that a Conference of Major Superiors, such as the LCWR, exists in order to promote common efforts among its member institutes as well as cooperation with the local Conference of Bishops and with individual Bishops.

“For this reason, such Conferences are constituted by and remain under the direction of the Holy See,” he stated, citing canons 708-709...

Why the reform? See here.

Beautiful City: "Yes We Can" Build the "City of Man"

Godspell's weirdest song.

Does this remind anyone of, you know, a certain politician's 2008 election slogan?

And did the people writing this have any knowledge of Augustine's classic work The City of God? Apparently not. Excerpts:

...[T]he human race...we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil...For this whole time or world-age, in which the dying give place and those who are born succeed, is the career of these two cities concerning which we treat. Of these two first parents of the human race, then, Cain was the first-born, and he belonged to the city of men; after him was born Abel, who belonged to the city of God...

Another commentator: Augustine weeps.

What Difference Did Roe Make?

Mark Steyn talks Gosnell back in February 2011. Many links and graphic details in original.  Excerpts:

With Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child prostitution, my friend Rich Lowry argued that the back alley is back:

Legal abortion was supposed to end "back-alley abortions," both their dangers and their entanglements with shady characters. But the practice and the mores of the back alley are with us still, tolerated by people for whom the ready provision of abortion trumps all else.

Rich is right. Ever since Roe v Wade, proponents of a woman's "right to choose" have warned us against going back to the bad old days of rusty coat hangers and unsterilized instruments from money-grubbing butchers on the wrong side of town. Now, happily, the back alley is on the main drag, and with a state permit framed on the wall...

For years, the supposed regulators averted their gaze - as a matter of policy. For abortion's ideological enforcers, the official euphemisms trump reality. For those on the receiving end of infection, mutilation, sterilization and death, reality has a way of intruding...

The back alley is back, and supersized: The above New Jersey clinic performs 10,000 abortions a year. When the pro-choice rally ends and Cameron Diaz, Ashley Judd and other celebrities d'un certain age return to Hollywood, and the upper-middle-class women with the one designer baby go back to their suburbs, a woman's "right to choose" means that, day in, day out, the blessings of this "right" fall disproportionately on all the identity groups the upscale liberals profess to care about - poor women, black women, Hispanic women, undocumented women, and other denizens of Big Government's back alley.

A government back alley, licensed and supposedly regulated, is worse than the old kind, because it implies the approval of the state, and of society. That's what Gosnell thought he had, when he murdered those babies and mutilated those teenage girls. That's what Planned Parenthood think they have, when they facilitate the sexual exploitation of Third World children. And, given the silence of the PC media, maybe they're right. Aside from the intrinsic evil of not only Gosnell but a state that knowingly colludes with him, these "little" abortion stories reveal an almost totalitarian mindset in the "pro-choice" movement's determination to brook no intrusion of reality upon the official myths. You may be one of those wealthy suburban "feminists" or "new men" indifferent to the fate of eight-pound "blobs of tissue" or 14-year old "women", but the gulf between propaganda and truth, between the fatuous feelgood bumper stickers and the rusty crochet hooks, is profound - and, in a world where statists and social engineers serve as ruthless enforcers for the prevailing ideology, its deep moral corruption will eventually swallow you, too. America should be at the very minimum deeply disquieted by these revelations. That it is not - that it is dismissed as a "little thing" - is even more disquieting.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, once discussed the reason why abortion tends to attract the worst doctors--why the Gosnell case is unlikely to be the last such.  He listed a number of reasons, both personal and professional, including the technical ease of the procedure, the distaste amongst many younger physicians who'd rather not perform it, the effect of ultrasound on people who could now see what it was that they were killing, and the high profits to be made by those willing to perform abortions quickly.  Gosnell is not alone.  Update:  Gosnell is not alone.

If these conditions are persisting, even after abortion is legalized, we need to start asking whether illegal abortions were awful because desperate women were being taken advantage of by people willing to do the illegal for money, or whether they were awful because women were being taken advantage of by people willing to do the unthinkable for money.

Gosnell Coverage, Clinic Regulation, and the Pro-Life Movement

"The picture above, for what it’s worth, is of the reserved media seats at the Gosnell trial. It was taken by JD Mullane, a news writer and columnist for the Bucks County Courier Times, The Intel and the Burlington County (NJ) Times. He says:
Sat through a full day of testimony at the Kermitt Gosnell trial today. It is beyond the most morbid Hollywood horror. It will change you.
I was surprised by the picture and asked 'really?' He responded 'Local press was there, Inky, PhillyMag, NBC10 blogger. Court staff told me nobody else has shown up.'"--GetReligion

Well, coverage is finally picking up, compared to the early days of the trial (see picture of an empty press section above).  A friend recently raised the following concern:

One week ago, clinic regulation represented a political compromise, a half-measure of a defeated movement. Today, discussing regulation would be surrendering on the verge of a route. Admit it, both "sides" used regulation tactically--it is no one's goal, nor should it be. But the value of the tactic has now increased exponentially for one side, and could accomplish its critical need to weather this unprecedented storm.

I think this piece answers that concern quite well. Excerpts:

...Normally, like a game, the media will only admit to this kind of oversight long after it is too late to do anything about it. Worse still, the admission of the mistake is generally just a convenient excuse for the media to talk about their favorite subject -- themselves.

That doesn’t appear to be the case this time. Last night on CNN, Jake Tapper (one of the few who had already covered Gosnell), Erin Burnett, and Anderson Cooper devoted extensive time to the story. And as you can see above, the media are promising to do more next week than just navel gaze.

And I for one am very grateful for that, because even marginally bad coverage, like what we saw from CNN's Erin Burnett last night, is a win. (Anderson Cooper's segment was flat-out outstanding and a must-watch.)

Regardless, let the left-wing media spin the Gosnell horrors into a pro-choice argument for safer abortion clinics. As someone who considers abortion a moral abomination, as long as it is legal, I don't want to see that abomination made worse with unsafe clinics and the horrific exploitation of desperate women.

But that is the worse-case scenario (which is still a plus). What is also likely to happen is an increased  public knowledge of the act of outright infanticide known as partial-birth abortion. For over a decade now, the media has tried to turn that horror into a "right-wing myth." But now we not only have an example of a doctor eagerly engaged and made wealthy by the practice, but other doctors referring patients to him.

New Media has a responsibility now, as well. We need to use this opportunity to do our own reporting on Gosnell, not just to peck away at the mainstream media for not covering the story in the way we would like...

More shame-faced acknowledgements that the story deserves coverage from Bloomberg and Politico.  My main post on the case.  And we need to keep asking:

If these conditions are persisting, even after abortion is legalized, we need to start asking whether illegal abortions were awful because desperate women were being taken advantage of by people willing to do the illegal for money, or whether they were awful because women were being taken advantage of by people willing to do the unthinkable for money.

Pope Francis, Eight Cardinals, and Curial Reform

Interesting news out of Rome today.  Excerpts:

...This morning, the pontiff announced the establishment of a group of eight cardinals with the sweeping remit "to advise him in the government of the universal church and to study a plan for revising the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, 'Pastor Bonus.'"

Said to have been inspired by "a suggestion that emerged during the General Congregations preceding the Conclave," as relayed in the move's formal notice, the membership of the group is:

–Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, president of the Governorate of Vatican City State;
–Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, archbishop emeritus of Santiago de Chile;
–Cardinal Oswald Gracias, archbishop of Bombay;
–Cardinal Reinhard Marx, archbishop of Munich and Friesing;
–Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, archbishop of Kinshasa;
–Cardinal Sean Patrick O'Malley OFM Cap, archbishop of Boston;
–Cardinal George Pell, archbishop of Sydney;
–Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, SDB, archbishop of Tegucigalpa, in the role of coordinator;
–and Bishop Marcello Semeraro of Albano, Italy, who'll serve as the group's secretary...

Put bluntly, by calling in figures who have clashed to a considerable, highly-public degree with the Establishment he's inherited, Francis is bringing the Curia's chickens home to roost...

Father Z has some interesting thoughts. Excerpts:

...First, the G8 (the group of 8 Cardinals) won’t meet until October. That means that not much will be done for about a year or so into this Pope’s pontificate. He has been Pope for about a month. The G8 meets for the first time over half a year from now. They won’t be leaping into action on the day after there meeting. They will have to ponder and consult and listen some more. They will have to draft proposals, which will need study and reflection and more consultation.

A lot can happen in a year of a pontificate. Consider, for example, what happened in Benedict XVI’s first year after the famous Regensburg Address. Benedict was set to launch a reform of the Curia. He had even started in motion the combination of offices into a new location, hoisted the head of the dicastery for inter-religious dialogue, etc. After Regensburg, that crawled to a halt. A lot can happen in a year of a pontificate. Even six months.

Second, when people start talking about structural reformation, they usually think about term limits. Term limits sweep out the undesirable chaff. That’s what we want in curial reform, right? Out with the chaff? The problem with term limits is that the wheat is also term limited. In the Roman Curia clerics are generally given 5 year appointments. They are appointed ad quinquennium, with possibility of renewal…or not. Fine. The problem with giving pretty much everyone the heave-ho after 5 years is that you lose both institutional memory and you lose competence. If takes about 5 years to learn some of these complicated positions well. Moreover, it takes a while to get language skill up to speed. If anyone is under the illusion that just because a man studied in Rome he speaks Italian well (much less writes it well), well… get over that. They live and study and work in their own little national ghettos where they don’t have to speak or write in Italian. In most of the universities, profs accept exams and papers in the major languages, since Latin is all but lost. Furthermore, and this is not a secret, bishops are not always eager to let their brightest and best go: they are needed in the diocese. There is, therefore, a fairly small pool of men who can fill the jobs competently and they need time to get up to speed. In addition, if they are swept out every few years, it may be hard to motivate them.

Some might accuse me of defending “careerism”, which they will identify as a root of problems in the Curia. Term limits, however, might not produce the desired results: a lean but still competent, well-motivated Curia...

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, and the Low Quality of Abortion Doctors

Warning: graphic images and descriptions.

3801 Lancaster from 3801Lancaster on Vimeo.

So there's finally beginning to be a rumpus about the Kermit Gosnell trial, than which a more perfect storm of horrors could not be imagined.  (Update:  The grand jury report here.)

Elizabeth Scalia points out avenues in for media coverage and calls on Christians to seize the moment in a Gospel fashion. Excerpts:

...Embracing this moment with a Christlike heart and mind means no hateful postings on Facebook. No hashtags on twitter meant to insult, demean or cast down. Try #pro-abortion instead of #pro-murder.

Let me put it another way: if you’re a Christian who hates abortion and you see a sliver of light in this 40 years of darkness — which is exactly what this hushed admission from the press might be — and you repel the light with your anger instead of widening it (and its pathway) by taking a gentler, more merciful tone, then you will have to answer to the God of Justice about it. You’ll have to tell God why you thought it was more important to beat his wounded sheep rather than heal; you’ll have to explain why you thought your immediate “justice”, which can never be as informed as God’s, was preferable to waiting for his, which (for others) might come well after some years of regret, and contrition and penance and (for others) may be wholly beyond our comprehension.

We may be in a moment of grace, standing at the advent of a great gift. It’s not time to put a nail through a bat and start swinging...

Catholic World Report's Catherine Harmon has more on the coverage of the story and brings up Dr. Bernard Nathanson's documentary The Silent Scream , pointing out that the silent scream of the fetus in the abortion depicted in that documentary has now become rather less silent in the Gosnell case.  Warning to the weak-stomached.  Excerpts:

This week we have reports of another tiny victim of abortion screaming—not silently this time:

A Delaware woman who worked for abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell recalled hearing one child “screaming” after it was delivered during an abortion procedure at Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic.

Sherry West, of Bear, said she was loyal to Gosnell – who is now facing multiple counts of murder for allegedly killing children after they were delivered alive at his clinic – but said the incident “really freaked me out.”

When Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore pressed the 53-year-old West for specifics about the incident, West struggled to answer, clearly uncomfortable with the memory.

“I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” West testified, telling a judge and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at Gosnell’s clinic.

West said she saw the child, whose face and features were not yet completely formed, lying on a glass tray on a shelf and she told a co-worker to call Gosnell about it and fled the room...

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, once discussed the reason why abortion tends to attract the worst doctors--why the Gosnell case is unlikely to be the last such.  He listed a number of reasons, both personal and professional, including the technical ease of the procedure, the distaste amongst many younger physicians who'd rather not perform it, the effect of ultrasound on people who could now see what it was that they were killing, and the high profits to be made by those willing to perform abortions quickly.  Gosnell is not alone.  Excerpts:

...Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, former employee said, "It was just unsafe. I couldn't tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was."

Werbrich alleges conditions inside the facility were unsanitary.

"He didn't wear gloves," said Werbrich.

Another former employee, Joyce Vasikonis told Action News, "They were using instruments on patients that were not sterile."

The former nurses claim that a rush to get patients in and out left operating tables soiled and unclean.

Werbrich said "It's not washed down, it's not even cleaned off. It has bloody drainage on it."

"They could be at risk of getting hepatitis, even AIDS," added Vasikonis.

Both of these nurses said, they quit to protect their own medical licenses, stunned by what they called a meat-market style of assembly-line abortions...

Gosnell is not alone.

Gosnell is not alone

Go hunt through pro-life websites, and there's no shortage of links to other stories about abortion clinics being shut down for unsanitary conditions, injured patients, and more.  Listen to the testimony of Carol Everett in Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman's Right to Choose.  Read Dr. Nathanson's The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind, or Abby Johnson's Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line (Focus on the Family Books) to learn that abortion clinics are usually first and foremost businesses.  All too often, the bottom line is the bottom line, not women's health and safety.

Update:  CNN is on the job!

If these conditions are persisting, even after abortion is legalized, we need to start asking whether illegal abortions were awful because desperate women were being taken advantage of by people willing to do the illegal for money, or whether they were awful because women were being taken advantage of by people willing to do the unthinkable for money.

God, Miracles, and Belief

The logical positivists show up in Mark Shea's comboxes:

...You cannot prove or demonstrate the existence of a thing by slipping it in through a philosophical back-door, because philosophy is only a self-referential logic game. You need observation...

Plenty of other commentators respond with philosophical reason, but we can answer the second part of the challenge as well as refuting the premises of the first.  You want observation? We've had observation. Will it prove anything to you? Not necessarily. Why? Because they are not your personal observations; because it is possible to doubt anything one is presented with, even an appearance of God himself right in front of you; because the inquiry must be an honest one, made with an open mind, before one can permit oneself to see what's right in front of them. But if you truly want to know when God or his supernatural agents have been observed, here--I give you a small smackeral:

John Wright's Conversion
The Apparitions at Fatima
The Apparitions at Kibeho
Conversion of Roy Schoeman
Conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne
Apparitions to St. Faustina
The Christian mystical tradition
Lourdes

And there's lots more where that came from. But again, as C. S. Lewis portrayed with the dwarves of the Last Battle in Narnia, people could be in paradise and refuse to accept the evidence of the world around them, of God at their back and imperishable heaven at their feet.  John Wright summed it up best:

...You might wonder why, if God can convince atheists to worship Him merely by dropping by for a visit, He does not do it more often. The reason is that it does not help, not at all, not a bit. When I suffer doubts, when my faith gets weak, my faith in my memory gets weak too. Faith and faithlessness have NOTHING TO DO with evidence presented to reason or senses. It has to do with a humble will and an upright heart. If God presented evidence to skeptics, all that would happen is that skeptics would doubt their evidence. If God gave a logical argument to prove His own existence, all that would happen is that skeptics would doubt the power of logic to prove anything.

Skepticism pretends it is all about open-mindedness and evidence. Not so. Skepticism is about suspicion and pride and self-will. It is about pretending you are smarter than people who, if you only knew, are actually wiser than you and your sneering questions and foolish word-tricks. The only place we ever see a humble skeptic is in the physical sciences, because scientists are willing to let their conclusions be ruled on by nature...

And finally, there's the argument laid out throughout Scripture (alongside, of course, all those accounts of people observing God):

For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.  Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse...--Romans 1:19-20

The world exists--blessed be the One at the back of all things! For more, see New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith.

Gonzaga University Refuses to Recognize Male, Catholic Organization

Oh, don't worry, they still call themselves a Jesuit university!  And Bishop White Seminary is still permitted to operate in conjunction with the university!  There's just one pesky, service oriented, patriotic, faith-suffused organization that only admits male Catholics as members which they've decided they will not permit to exist on campus as a recognized organization: the Knights of Columbus.  Excerpts:

...“The Knights of Columbus, by their very nature, is a men’s organization in which only Catholics may participate via membership,” says a letter obtained by The Cardinal Newman Society written by Sue Weitz, Vice President for Student Life. “These criteria are inconsistent with the policy and practice of student organization recognition at Gonzaga University, as well as the University’s commitment to non-discrimination based on certain characteristics, one of which is religion.”

The letter continued:

The discussion at the meeting touched on formation of a Catholic Daughters student organization at Gonzaga. Such a group would address the gender exclusivity issue. However, it would not address the requirement that all members of a student Knights of Columbus group must be Catholic...

“I …believe strongly in the University’s commitment to non-discrimination and inclusivity,” continues Weitz in the letter. “If Gonzaga was an institution that served only Catholics and limited the benefits of the collegiate experience only to them, the decision-making process may have been different.”

“To embrace the diversity and yet endorse a group based on faith exclusivity is a challenge that cannot be reconciled at this time,” Weitz wrote in closing. “It is a decision about social justice, equity, and the desire of the University to create and maintain an environment in which none are excluded.”

The group is currently examining other alternatives and considering whether it should form a council completely independent of the University. One option that may be available to the group, and that is in practice at other universities, is for the Knights of Columbus council to form under the umbrella of campus ministry...

Speechless? Staggered? It's okay. You're not alone.  A decision about social justice, equity, and embracing diversity will exclude this organization from the life of the campus.  Excerpts:

...The Knights was formed to render financial aid to members and their families. Mutual aid and assistance are offered to sick, disabled and needy members and their families. Social and intellectual fellowship is promoted among members and their families through educational, charitable, religious, social welfare, war relief and public relief works.

The history of the Order shows how the foresight of Father Michael J. McGivney, whose cause for sainthood is being investigated by the Vatican, brought about what has become the world's foremost Catholic fraternal benefit society. The Order has helped families obtain economic security and stability through its life insurance, annuity and long-term care programs, and has contributed time and energy worldwide to service in communities.

The Knights of Columbus has grown from several members in one council to more than 14,000 councils and 1.8 million members throughout the United States, Canada, the Philippines, Mexico, Poland, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Panama, the Bahamas, the Virgin Islands, Cuba, Guatemala, Guam and Saipan...

I could go on about the work of the Knights, but go ahead and do a quick Google search for yourself.

Update: Gonzaga University to review Knights of Columbus status.  Excerpts:

...The Knights of Columbus has a council at Gonzaga University but it is not recognized as a “student club,” the school has clarified, after reports surfaced that it denied the council its application as such.

“The Knights of Columbus College Council is on-campus and is supported by the University currently,” Hahn said.

“There are many ways for student groups to be present and active on campus,” she explained. “The initial decision pertained to recognition by the Student Life division under its current process.”

“They haven't been banned,” Hahn added.

Gonzaga said that “the Knights of Columbus College Council (#12583) is already present within the student body and receives support from the administration.”

“Gonzaga University’s core Catholic and Jesuit identity recognizes, encourages and supports many student organizations that advance faith-related issues,” the school said, citing Gonzaga Right to Life and Blessed John Paul II Fellowship.

Though the Council currently exists, it is not recognized as a “student club” or a “student organization.” The decision not to grant the Knights council recognition as a student group was based on the university's current “club recognition process...”

Present in what way? Active how? Doing what activities? If they were already present and active, then why did they feel the need to apply for status as a student club?  Why is their status as they somehow exist on campus all right, but their existence as a student club is not?  And "many" student clubs that advance faith-related issues?  I suppose if one says that any and all clubs doing anything that can be defined as social justice related are thereby faith-related, that claim makes sense, but citing two clubs is not pointing to "many."

Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity--Extremist Religious Groups?

Well, that's staggering. Excerpts:

...The Archdiocese for the Military Services and Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty recently became aware of a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief that expressly listed “Catholicism,” “Evangelical Christianity” and other religious groups as examples of “religious extremism” alongside groups such as “Al Qaeda”, “Hamas” and the “KKK.”

The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist.

According to an investigation and reply from the Army Chief of Chaplains office, the training in question appears to have been an isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army. The Archdiocese and the Chaplain Alliance explained that the Army can and should take steps to prevent such incidents in the future...

From the presentation itself:

Supremacist: Any person(s) maintaining the ideology, quality, state of being, or position of being superior to all others in something. (pg. 7)

A definition so broad as to appear to include the US military, Olympic medalists, and the Gonzaga Bulldogs in the WCC.

Ideologies justify, legitimize and rationalize one particular version of reality despite other explanations and ideas. (pg. 8)

Like a physics textbook, or this presentation?

Religious Extremism:...Evangelical Christianity (U.S./Christian)...Catholicism (U.S./Christian)...

Extremism is a complex phenomenon; it is defined as beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the “ordinary.” Because ordinary” is subjective, no religious group would label itself extreme or its doctrine extremism.” However, religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world; every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only “right way” and that all others are practicing their faith the “wrong way,” seeing and believing that their faith/religion siperior to all others. (pg. 24)

And we're on a list with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the KKK, Sunni Muslims (Iraq/Islam), the Nation of Islam, Fundamentalist Mormons, and Islamophobia. Oh, ye scholars of religion and religious folk, to me! Is this a slightly incoherent, incredibly broad list, or what? Behold, the dictatorship of relativism in full bloom!

The Law of the Gift

The New York Times asks:

Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead?

Yes--because the dynamic at the heart of the Trinity is utter and absolute self-gift. Since the Trinity is the source all of that is, the universe is set up to sacramentally mediate self-gift through time and space between God and creatures, as well as between created beings. This is why life demands everything from us--either we participate in the dynamic of self-donation and receiving gratefully the gifts of others, or we attempt to control others and retain ourselves.

More simply: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it." (Luke 9:24; Matthew 16:25; Luke 17:33; Mark 8:35; Matthew 10:39; John 12:25)

It's all in John Paul II, all in John Paul II--bless me, what do they teach in schools these days!

Happy Divine Mercy Sunday!

Those Who Preach the Raw Gospel

Often get a raw deal--but then the crucifixion must come before the resurrection.  Excerpts:

...Advocating Civil Rights could be as deadly as revolutionary Russia. She was spit at and called a "nigger lover." At a Catholic women's group, she was berated for eating "with dirty niggers." When a woman told her, "You smell of the Negro," Catherine lost her temper: "And you stink of hell!" Once at a lecture in Savannah, she was nearly beaten to death by a group of white Catholic women.

"You have to preach the Gospel," Catherine said, "without compromise or shut up. One or the other. I tried to preach it without compromise." She always ended her lectures the same way:

Sooner or later, all of us are going to die. We will appear before God for judgment. The Lord will look at us and say, "I was naked and you didn't clothe me. I was hungry and you didn't give me anything to eat. I was thirsty and you didn't give me a drink. I was sick and you didn't nurse me. I was in prison and you didn't come to visit me." And we shall say, "Lord, when did I not do these things?" I would stop here, pause, and in a very loud voice say, "When I was a Negro and you were a white American Catholic." That's when the rotten eggs and tomatoes would start to fly!

One of her key supporters was New York's Cardinal Patrick J. Hayes, who was "always worried" about her. After she organized a study group at Friendship House, the local pastor visited her:

"Listen to me, you Russian nitwit. What are you trying to do? Make them think they are loved just because they have become Catholics? You are giving them the raw Gospel and it isn't getting you anywhere. Stop it!" I said, "Father, would you like to come with me to see the Cardinal? If he orders me to stop, I will stop." "Oh, hell," he said. On the way out he slammed the door and smashed the glass in the window."

Later Catherine would remarry and move back to Canada, where she continued to be involved in apostolic work. But wherever she worked, she sought to actualize the Gospel message in the present moment. As she once told a Fordham University Jesuit: "I have never read anywhere in the gospel where Christ says to wait twenty years before living the gospel. The Good News is for now..."

Then there's the life and ministry of Father Augustus Tolton, a black Catholic priest in a day and age where that meant living martyrdom. There's the teaching of Father John Hugo, which spiritually guided the Catholic Worker Movement.  Preaching and living the raw Gospel means sowing yourself fully, pouring yourself out to the last drop, allowing yourself to be buried so that God can raise you up again.  Welcome to Christianity--it's a path to glory through utter gift.  The saints testify that the reward is worth it.

GLBT Rights, Tolerance, and Religious Freedom

Dawn Eden explains.  Excerpts:

...I’ll let Deacon Greg tell you the details about the outrageous effort by gay-rights activists to put a stop to the phenomenal work this holy priest is doing for the Kingdom. But I will state the obvious, that the motive of the persecution is truly not about gay rights, nor is it about the right of people who have same-sex attraction to be treated as human beings possessing human dignity. It is about destroying the Church.

The agitators are unable to silence their own conscience, so they seek to silence the “meddlesome priest” who brings them the truth of Christ.

And when I say that, I’m thinking of this quote from the student leading the assault on Father Greg, who, after Father Greg told him that his homosexual behavior would prevent him from having a priestly vocation, became a priest in a schismatic sect:

“[Father Shaffer] is making me choose between the church and my sexuality, but my sexuality isn’t making me choose between it and the church.”

That tells you to whom, or rather what, the student bows. It also tells why he and those who share his concept of “gay identity” are compelled to see the Church’s moral authority removed from every place where it might trouble their conscience. These people subscribe to what Frank Weathers termed the mainstream-media Catechism:

“Who made you?”

“My sexuality made me.”

Pray for Father Greg, for his persecutors, and for courage for all Catholics as we enter further into this era of martyrdom...

The GW student newspaper gives a rundown of the situation. I have to say, this is a very thoroughly organized campaign they're aiming to run to get Father Shaffer removed. I'm impressed. Of course, the difficulty they're going to run into is that he's following the teachings of the Church in his preaching. I can't speak to his pastoral style, but if they want a Newman Center that is not run according to the teachings of the Church, they're going to have to break off the Newman Center from the Church.

And a sidenote on gay marriage.  Excerpts:

Last month, at a Sydney Writers Festival panel discussion on the question, “Why get married when you could be happy?” Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen had this to say about same-sex marriage:

It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist [cheers from the audience].

That causes my brain some trouble. And part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally….

[After my divorce,] I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three…. And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality. And I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage...

On a related note, Terry Nelson on the hazards of blogging about gay issues. Excerpts:

...First, why do I hate writing about gay stuff?

Because no matter what I say, it will be opposed.  I will be accused of self-hate if I refuse to identify as gay.  If I use the word gay, I will be corrected that I need to use the term SSA.  If I say I'm against homosex... well, you know ...  If I question anything the 'new gay and Catholics' write, I'm stuck in a former generational mindset, unduly influenced by Catholic bigotry.  I hate writing about the subject because I'm not scholarly enough, and I can't hold a candle to the experts. I also don't want to offend people who are being called to repentance, or come off like Michael Voris and others even more severe, who insist they hate the sin but refuse to accept the person they deem disordered.  Likewise, the "new still-queer and Catholic" keep coming up with new explanations why gay is normal. And people are buying into it. It's almost as if a new species has been discovered.

Recently, another blogger excused himself from writing about gay marriage because he might lose his straight friends - and gay ones - who approve of same sex marriage.  I laughed to myself because it is not uncommon for formerly active gay people, who return to the Church - to lose all of their gay friends in the process, and have trouble keeping their new Catholic ones - when and if the new friends find out they were, are, or maybe always will be - gay - even if they don't identify as such, or experience the same temptations.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  (The same guy has posted snarky comments on this blog.  God love him.)

BTW.  The friends who approve of same sex marriage usually approve of divorce and remarriage, contraception and abortion, euthanasia, IVF, gender reassignment surgey, embryonic stem cell research, and a wide variety of other practices condemned by the Catholic Church.  It's a package deal usually...