As I've said before, Our Lady at Fatima spoke of the errors of Russia, not simply the errors of Communism.
Let me add a quick note: I am not here saying that Communism is not an error, that the Fatima secret does not refer to Communism as among the errors of Russia, or in any way trying to rescue the reputation of the murderous Soviet regime. Not at all.
Again, our touchstone for truth, our way of testing to see what is erroneous and what is real is the teaching of the Church, and the Church has condemned, fought, and often overcome Communism.
However, I reiterate: Our Lady spoke of the errors (plural) of Russia (not the Soviet Union). To presume that the errors of Russia referred to in Fatima must only refer to Communism, one must overlook the way that "anything in the name of" also characterized tsarist rule in Russia.
And perhaps the easiest way to make the point that there was something dramatically wrong with pre-revolutionary Russia is simply to point to Rasputin.
Mistaken in his own lifetime for a holy man, Rasputin slept his way through Russian high society, held enormous sway over Tsarina Alexandra because she believed him the only person who could heal her son of hemophilia, and before he died, had so hollowed out the Russian government through his control of the royal family that the revolutions of 1917 followed.
How did such a man not just gain access to the ruling classes, but to the imperial family itself? How did such a strange figure become so immensely consequential in Russia?
"Anything in the name of."
The tsarina would do anything in the name of her son's health. The tsar would do anything in the name of his wife. And under the absolutist rule of the tsar, the whole of Russia would do anything in the name of the tsar...until they'd suffered beyond endurance, and turned to do anything in the name of eating; anything in the name of survival; anything in the name of changing the status quo.
It should be a matter of fascination for historians that the Russian Orthodox hierarchy wasn't able to serve as an immune system against Rasputin's ascent. Indeed, his place in the royal family exposes another toxic element of the pre-revolutionary period: There was a lot of occultism extant in Russia at the time. In "Occultism as a Response to a Spiritual Crisis," Dr. Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, professor emeritus of history at Fordham University, writes:
The occultism of prerevolutionary Russia is important, firstly because aspects of the most popular doctrines—Spiritualism, Theosophy, and Anthroposophy—became embedded in the wider culture; secondly because occultists
who emigrated after the Bolshevik Revolution gained European and American admirers who disseminated their ideas; and thirdly because ideas drawn from the above doctrines were recycled (with some modifications) in the 1960s and after in both the Soviet Union and the West. ...
And a few more notes, working from the teachings of the Church.
Tsarism, like the royal absolutism of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I in England, claimed for the secular monarch authority over the sacred, over the Church, in a way that the Catholic Church has made clear is illegitimate.
Further, such centralization of power in, essentially, a despot leads to the creation of a national church, an ecclesial community that quickly attaches to its membership criteria of patriotism, and membership in a particular ethnicity or nation.
That means that on both theological and political grounds, any sort of communion with the bishop of Rome, let alone abiding under his authority as the Vicar of Christ, becomes difficult to impossible for nationalist churches or ecclesial communities.
It was just such vesting of all power in a single figure in Nazi Germany; just such a fascination with the occult; just such an ethno-nationalism and a co-opting of Christianity (or purported Christianity) into the service of narrow nationalist interests that characterized the Third Reich. The errors of Russia certainly had spread to many nations, and certainly caused the destruction of many nations.
But the rot didn't stop with World War II. Rather, World War II was both caused by the errors of Russia and helped launch the errors of Russia into geo-politics as the ordinary means of policy and statecraft. More on that to follow.
The heart of the errors of Russia, and the error behind all the errors that would spew forth into the world, causing WWII and then being spread across the globe by WWII, was diagnosed by the creator of Hobbits, Ents, and Middle-Earth.
J.R.R. Tolkien was a rare genius. Among his greatest achievements is the core moral theme at the heart of The Lord of the Rings: do not do evil so that good may come of it.
Or, to put it another way, always refuse to do "anything in the name of."
Saruman was willing to do "anything in the name of" bringing about the rule of the wise in Middle-Earth, and so he became a fool.
Denethor was willing to do "anything in the name of" victory over Sauron, and so he destroyed himself and almost destroyed his line.
Character after character is tempted to take up the One Ring, the Master Ring, the Ring of Power, and usually, they are tempted to do so for some particular good. Gandalf was tempted to take it to do good. Galadriel, the same. Sam, to establish the garden to end all gardens.
Again and again and again, the characters of Lord of the Rings are tempted to take up the ultimate weapon in order to serve a good cause, home, family, justice, the common good. They are tempted to do evil so that good may come of it, tempted to accept any cost in the name of a particular good.
They are tempted by the oldest temptation in the world, in other words, and by the temptation that undergirds all ideologies and excuses that led to WWII.
Nazism? A system built around doing anything in the name of the Volk, the German people, the Fuhrer; anything in the name of power, of strength, of appetite. In the end, this led to slaughter, to extermination of scapegoats, of the weak. Anything in the name of Germany turned into a willingness to destroy Germany.
Communism? A system built from Marx's ideology, an ideology with an absolute faith in historical processes in place of God, a system looking to the Revolution to do atheistically what Judaism and Christianity look for in the day of the Lord. And at the heart of the expectation of the Revolution as the day when all wrongs shall be made right, all injustices corrected, all inequities remedied, is the essential willingness to do anything in the name of justice. Anything in the name of the Revolution. From there flowed every other evil of Communism enacted in Russia--anything in the name of Lenin, for he was the bringer of the Revolution. Anything in the name of the Party, for they bring the Revolution. Anything in the name of Comrade Stalin, for he is synonymous with the Party. Anything in the name of the Soviet Union, for that is the place where Communism has been made real, the Revolution has occurred, where all is just, because it must be just, because the Revolution has occurred...
But don't stop there. Look also at Tsarism. Of that, more tomorrow.
So in 2016-2017, I did a bunch of reading, research, and writing about Fatima. It was the 100th anniversary of the apparitions, it was timely, and it was interesting.
As I was doing this work, one thing came into clear focus for me: World War II was an optional event.
I mean, living in the world that World War II created, it can easily be mistaken (by American eyes like mine) an inevitable, apocalyptic clash in which the Allies took on the forces of Anti-Christ, goodness won, and a free world was reborn. The world was saved, and blessed are we if we have leaders as great as those who then strode the earth.
But I realized that's not the view of the world given by Our Lady of Fatima.
Rather, the second part of the secret of Fatima indicates that World War II was avoidable if her requests were heeded, if the Church reacted in a timely fashion, making the First Saturdays of reparation and the consecration of Russia. If the requested devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart had spread, then the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart would have come before the start of World War II. Indeed, there never would have been a war. Millions of lives could have been saved. An ocean of suffering could have been avoided.
Studying Fatima further, I even encountered the turning point in history, the year when the Church could have redirected the world away from war, according to Our Lady of Fatima. As Fr. Apostoli's excellent book Fatima for Today lays out, drawing on Sr. Lucia's own writings, the apparitions of Fatima didn't just come in 1917. There were the apparitions of the angel of peace, the angel of Portugal in 1916, and there were a number of subsequent apparitions to Sr. Lucia--as of course there had to be.
When you read the 1917 secret, look at it as though for the first time, as though we didn't know anything more than the events up to July 1917. You'll notice that she promises she will come again (emphasis added):
... If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. ...
Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of Russia in 1917, nor did she then ask for the first Saturdays of reparation. 1917 was not the turning point toward or away from World War II.
When, then?
She came in 1925 to ask for the First Saturdays, and for the first time explained what they entailed. The Church could not have responded to this request until then. And Our Lady came to ask for the consecration of Russia in 1929.
And then she and Jesus both came to Sr. Lucia in 1930, complained that "they"--the hierarchy--were not listening. They said that the consecration would be made, but it would be made late.
And here we have the crucial year, the hinge, the turning point. 1929-1930. Perhaps the progress toward war could still have been arrested till the predicted unknown light shone in the sky Jan. 25-26, 1938. Perhaps we had our chance for several years.
But these are the crucial years when we could have averted WWII.
And that forced me to another conclusion: The errors of Russia can't have merely been the errors of Communism. More on that tomorrow.
It's always interesting encountering people with whom one disagrees on fundamental things in everyday life.
On the one hand, there's the option of simply ignoring the differences, focusing on the things held in common, and moving on.
On the other hand, there's more and more an insistence that everyone else be in accord on certain fundamentals, whether those be the priorities of the left or of the right, before a person may be accorded any kind of respect or treated with any dignity.
It's a tricky thing--of course, human dignity is intrinsic and inalienable. Fundamental respect and love for our neighbor is essential, in the full, philosophical sense.
And yet that doesn't mean every opinion can be allowed to pass unremarked, can it?
Certainly people in power need to be challenged on matters of fact, on areas where they jeopardize other peoples' well being. Certainly we now look back and wish for a world in which Hitler had been greeted by an outraged uprising of the whole world, an utter refusal to countenance his racial and nationalistic insanity, and a swift and certain challenge that could have headed off Holocaust and the slaughter of war.
So there are certain opinions, certain attitudes, that ought bring out a resolute opposition from us, reflecting perhaps the example of Dietrich von Hildebrand, recognizing certain evils as fully incompatible with Christianity or civilization.
And yet in an era where the errors of Russia influence almost all of us; when our first premises are so often out of whack in ways of which we are completely unconscious, what gives us the right to decide that we have accurately discerned whose opinions we must repudiate utterly? Left and right justify dehumanizing policies, governing choices that do actively lead to the deaths of innocents. We are faced with a world looking more and more like the milieu of the Caesars than the city of God.
How are we to oppose when we are so often, unconsciously, part of the problem?
They have a good instinct in appreciating the past, and refusing to abandon ways that have worked before, ways that have led to sanctity, to true communion with God. Often, once the fashions of the age have swung around a few times on their axis, we come to appreciate the folkways preserved by those whom fashion had derided, had called out of date or passed by on the way to today.
“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” – New York Times Magazine, Feb. 11, 1923
I have a great gratitude for the traditionalist/conservative/whatever label promotion and preservation of the Rosary especially, but a whole host of traditional devotions, in spite of a faddish disdain for them in the wake of Vatican II. I share some of the same instincts, in fact, as a number of conservatives and traditionalists. I tend to like primary sources, for instance. Want to know how to be holy? Let's look to the saints. Why would their witness ever be out of date? True, they practiced the faith in a whole different context, but humanity hasn't changed that radically in 2,000 years such that there's no such thing as perennial wisdom. Why not listen to the great masters and mistresses of prayer, of mercy?
And so when I see a lot of traditionalists and conservatives having a real problem with Pope Francis, I'm inclined to be sympathetic--up to a point.
I understand that Jesuits can be disconcerting. Heck, from the time of St. Ignatius of Loyola, their founder, up to the present day, the Society of Jesus has been reliably followed by a certain cloud of consistent criticism, fear, and misunderstanding, largely occasioned by St. Ignatius' remarkable spiritual genius in spawning an order of incredibly effective, incredibly brilliant, incredibly potent men. Further, those men have all been formed according to the first principle and foundation, which at its best leads them to do all ad majorem Dei gloriam--all for the greater glory of God. That has meant several centuries of men willing to go anywhere, take up any style of life, preach to anyone, practice the works of mercy for anyone under any circumstances, and, chameleon-like, accommodate themselves to any environment in order to bring Jesus to people.
At their best, they've been anchored by their obedience to their legitimate superiors, and in a special way, their obedience to the Holy Father. Rooted by that tether, they've been able to go to the ends of the world, to the furthest reaches of the lands of unbelief, in order to draw people from the furthest periphery into the center, which is Jesus Christ. They've been modeled on the Good Shepherd, who leaves the 99 to find the one lost sheep; the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep, who leaves Heaven to come to earth and even harrows the depths of hell in order to draw up to eternal life all those saints who lived and died before the Incarnation.
The Jesuits are, then, the ones who go farther than anyone else; who have historically provoked protests and outrage from the other religious communities in mission lands; who have run afoul of the Inquisition; who were shut down by the Holy See for a time, and later restored; who, if they go wrong, go almost farther wrong than any other, and who, when they're good, are better than any others.
The Jesuits, at their best, embody dreaming the impossible dream.
And for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church, a Jesuit is the pope.
This was not ever really envisioned by the Society of Jesus. The Jesuits are bound to report any of their brethren whom they hear "ambitioning" to be made a bishop, or who seek any sort of ecclesiastical preferment. They are meant to be priests, and that's it. They've given the Church a number of outstanding bishops and cardinals over the years, rather against the will of their founder. And Francis is the first Jesuit pope.
So of course, in some ways, it should be expected that he might provoke a certain amount of fear and trepidation. Compound that with his habit of giving impromptu press conferences on the papal plane or interviews to secular journalists who don't take notes and reconstruct what they thought the pope said from memory. Yes, that can certainly be a recipe for disconcerting headlines, for strange claims about Church teaching, and for confusing news stories, clarified by Vatican releases that the average person never sees.
That's as far as I go in my sympathy with the traditionalist and conservative concerns about Pope Francis.
After that--well. We've been here before.
We should have learned, after long experience across a number of pontificates (for me personally, it's been the pontificates of St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis), that if you want to know what the pope has said on any given subject, you really must search out the primary source text or the transcript of the words spoken. The media coverage invariably ranges from the well-informed to the utterly uncomprehending. GetReligion does a great job of chronicling that range of coverage.
Under St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, that coverage usually made it sound like the popes were always and forever hidebound, reactionary conservatives, against everything modern, progressive, and new. Oh, sure, there were occasional stories about papal concern for immigrants, the environment, and other topics that in the Anglosphere fall on the liberal side of things, but somehow that didn't penetrate to the average reader or media consumer. No--what came through confirmed American conservatives in both the media hostility to religion, conservatism, and them personally, as well as that the media didn't hear or understand what was coming from the Vatican.
Under Pope Francis, that same media reports everything the pope says or does that supports a narrative of him as a major liberal reformer--and those same American conservatives who should know better, given the decades of bad coverage of previous popes, tend to follow that line, as well.
The whole controversy--or at least 99.99999999% of the controversy--over Amoris Laetitia is a controversy over a few footnotes.
Footnotes.
I object to the level of controversy erupting over the contents of several footnotes. Whether or not there's dubious expressions in those footnotes, this sort of scandal being taken by Catholics is grossly disproportionate to the import of a footnote. If the Holy Father had attempted some sort of doctrinal definition of error, excommunication of holders of the perennial teaching of the Church for so holding that perennial teaching, or had anathematized irreplaceable elements of the teaching, then I get the reaction.
But for a footnote? Even a few footnotes? No. Grossly inappropriate, remarkably overblown, and a greater contribution to confusion in the Church than Amoris Laetitia itself.
Poor liturgical choices? Those have happened before, under a variety of popes, and they'll happen again.
Poor personnel decisions? Same.
Poor prudential decisions? Yup.
Has Francis made those sorts of decisions? I dunno. I distrust snap judgments about popes and other world leaders. Maybe; maybe not. But no matter what, I can guarantee you this: We've been through far worse than Pope Francis.
My position on Pope Francis, quite simply, is that the first, foremost, and underlying fact about him is that he is Peter. He is the Holy Father, the bishop of Rome, and so to be in communion with Christ's Church, I must be in communion with him.
Now, given the guarantees given to Peter and his successors, on the one hand, the Holy Father is infallible teaching ex cathedra on matters and faith and morals. On the other hand, he may be wrong on matters of discipline, policy, prudential judgment, and much else. As Scripture shows us quite clearly, Peter screwed up a number of times, both in word and in deed. But Jesus did not deprive him of his office.
... the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) ... The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.(30*)
He's not formally teaching error. All the most dubious stuff has been in interviews, often interviews with no notes taken, or coming from the mouths of those surrounding him. He evinces clear supernatural faith on a regular basis, speaking of spiritual combat, the reality of the devil, the importance of devotions such as the Rosary, praying to the saints, the Divine Mercy message and devotion, and more. His track record in Argentina on orthodoxy was pretty largely unobjectionable.
On everything he's pushed as pope, there may be/have been questions of prudence or whether they're the best policies, but he's never gone near to doing anything a successor could not undo or walk back. He's behaving like a Jesuit from the oldest days of that order--go out to the furthest corners of the world in order to spread the Gospel to those furthest from the Church--and the Good Shepherd--leave the 99 in order to go after the 1 fallen away.
If ever there were a time to put into practice patient, prayerful love of a spiritual father who freaks one out, it's with this guy. And honestly, most Catholics ought easily to be able to just completely ignore most all news from Rome, if they need to, and plug away at their local parish in the Sacraments, prayer, works of mercy, and the new evangelization/growing the culture of life running off Scripture, the Catechism, the Compendium of Social Teaching, and the writings of whichever Doctor or saint most speaks to them. If Francis freaks people out, then just abide in the fullness of the faith and don't look over there. God's got it all well in hand.
So pray for Pope Francis, certainly. Study the teachings of the Church from past ages earnestly, sure--Scripture, Tradition, liturgy, creeds, catechisms, papal magisteria, saints, Doctors, and approved mystics. And no matter the controversies that may erupt or the questions that arise in the course of the Church's pilgrimage here below--the sins or betrayals of the clergy or our fellow Catholics, or even our own sins and preferences--don't ever leave the barque of Peter.
Recently, a number of folks have put their signatures to a letter calling Pope Francis a heretic. Catholic Answers senior apologist Jimmy Akin gives an analysis and response here (minute 29:37):
Akin expanded on his response in a piece for the National Catholic Register. Excerpts:
Many of the Open Letter’s charges deal with the issue of divorce and civil remarriage, as discussed in the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but as Cardinal Gerhard Müller has shown, the relevant statements in this document can be understood in harmony with Church teaching.
Akin replies to the reply from one of the signatories. Excerpt:
... By stating that the definitions I have offered for dogma and heresy are “ridiculous,” Kwasniewski reveals either (1) that he does not know how the Magisterium uses these terms or (2) that he considers the Magisterium’s use to be “ridiculous,” in which case his problem is with the Magisterium, not with me.
The use of these definitions in no way renders “many of the condemnations made by the Church Fathers” pointless. They retain their full force.
Kwasniewski complains about parsing out “canonical niceties,” but this is precisely the area that he and his co-signatories have ventured into by writing—in their words (in the Open Letter)—“to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy.”
You can’t accuse people of canonical delicts and then complain if you are being held to a canonical standard of proof. That is moving the goal post.
As I said before, it’s one thing to ask for clarifications, voice concerns, or express disagreement, but it’s another to start making charges of the canonical crime of heresy. When you do that, you’d better be able to prove your case, but Kwasniewski’s responses indicate that he can’t.
The whole of Jimmy's responses are well worth reading. I think my own reaction may be summed up briefly: When it comes to a theological faceoff between the successor to St. Peter and a handful of academics, no matter how well regarded, my first instinct will be to sit back, examine the arguments, and wait for clarity while continuing to try to live a full Catholic life.
No matter the disputes between bishops; no matter the uncertainty amongst the leadership of the Church; no matter how clearly or not we understand and feel comfortable with what's happening in the broader Church, we know what we are to do. We must live a life of Sacraments and Scripture, of works of mercy and regular prayer, of reading the writings of the saints, councils, doctors, and popes, past and present. We know where we are to stand. We have the creeds. We know what we are to proclaim. We have the Scriptures and the Catechisms. We know where to look for wisdom. Follow the canons of Scripture and of the saints.
We have everything we need. Let time heal all confusion. We have our bedrock with the faith handed on from the apostles. While doctrine develops, while synods sit, while popes legislate, reform, and deal with the crises of the present age, we across the world can simply attend to the perennial things, waiting on the Holy Spirit.
And then ... well, my other main thought is simply that we've been given the successor to St. Peter as our spiritual father of fathers, not academics. We are told that the Holy Father is the bedrock, the one who confirms the brethren in their faith (Lk 22:32; Gal 2:9). Compared to every other authority in the Church, the successor to St. Peter has a unique primacy, a unique standing. There may well be times when people feel in good conscience they must oppose Peter to his face (Gal 2:11), but I would hope that would be done with a certain trepidation, a certain sense of personal danger, and a careful process of discernment. For all of us average Catholics out there, then, I think a safe general rule is: When in doubt, stand with Peter. When everything is clear, stand with Peter. When the world seems to be crashing down around your ears, stand with Peter. Prefer Peter over other authorities on matters of faith and morals. Regard Peter's rulings as superior to the rulings of other authorities within the Church. Trust the gift given to Peter by Christ, and stand.
Matthew 16:13-20 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah
Hell. How can you still be Catholic when you have to believe in hell?
How can you believe that a good and loving God could condemn anyone, no matter how bad, to an eternity of torment? How does that make sense?
It's a good question, and a long-standing one. I think the answer comes from the nature of humans and the nature of God.
You see, human beings are more than just animals, more than just haunted meatsacks, or whatever the dismissive term for us is these days. We're greater than we seem, greater than we often act. In fact, as C.S. Lewis pointed out masterfully in The Weight of Glory, human beings are potential gods or monsters, potential heavenly beings or potential monsters. We are matter and spirit, body and soul. We are persons who will live forever, no matter what, no matter who we are. Once created, always existing--why?
What makes human beings immortal?
Well, there have been a number of theories down through the ages, a number of different ways of addressing what happens to us after we die. I'm going to dismiss the atheist contention that it's night and silence for us upon death, the argument that once the biological machinery ceases ticking over, then it's curtains for the strange combination of electric impulses and chemical reactions that make me who I am. I'm going to dismiss that because it's such a minority view in terms of human history that it barely warrants a mention by the numbers. Across the ages and cultures, you have some notion of an afterlife, some notion of a part of us that endures beyond the grave--even if we may face dissolution and destruction at the hands of gods or devils past that point--that we really ought to be able to take the existence of some sort of soul as well established,
But what is it that makes us immortal?
Well, we are made in the image and likeness of God, originally. God breathed life into us, and with that breath of earthly life also came divine life, at the outset. Since that time, Adam and Eve took a bite out of a forbidden fruit, and so we lost that original inspiration, that original inbreathing of divine life, only to be regained through Baptism, Holy Communion, and retained through Confession and Anointing of the Sick. But we've never lost the image of God.
We are persons. And all persons are immortal.
All persons, divine, human, or angelic (including fallen angels) have spiritual souls. All persons, once created, will never pass out of existence again, though some will experience the "second death," whatever that will entail. The Last Judgment seems a dismal prospect for the goats; but as best we know, people who have once come into existence will never pass away fully and finally.
That means that beatitude for the blessed will last forever, and damnation for the damned will last forever.
But why must it be so?
Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that God is not Harvey Weinstein. That is, God respects human free will. He is a gentleman, and will take no as the refusal for a relationship that it is. He comes to us, sacred Scripture tells us repeatedly, like a bridegroom seeking His bride; like a lover seeking His beloved. He comes to us, in other words, pursuing a love affair with the created order, a union that marriage only resembles in a shadowy, distant sort of way.
Marriage is the union of two lovers; the union God is pursuing with us is the union between Love Itself and--well, us.
But of course, true love seeks freely willed, freely chosen love. Love Itself must be met with love, or else it will go away. God created us free in order to allow our love to be free. So there is the option to say no to Him.
Now, during our lifetimes, we may be saying yes and no to Him at different points along the way; just as in an ordinary relationship, sometimes things can get rocky. Couples break up, get back together, and go through all sorts of ups and downs together. But with God, there comes the time of a definite choice, where all the lesser choices of a lifetime culminate, or are overcome by grace.
That is to say, one day we die.
There are a few options for last minute interventions, of course--Our Lady can step in, as St. Alphonsus Liguori details in story after story in The Glories of Mary. Jesus comes to the soul in its final moments three times, as St. Faustina details in her Diary (1496; see also 1698). But at a certain point, our destiny is fixed--for spirits, such choices are all or nothing affairs. Human spiritual souls will experience this, just as it was for the angels and the demons at the time of their testing.
And then--well, we remain in our choices forever after. We choose either the company of God, His angels and His saints, or we choose the company of those who cannot stand company, those for whom the existence of others is a burden and a bore, whose egos reign supreme, whose vices have overtaken them and swallowed any goodness in them. We choose God and an afterlife of radical self-giving and receiving love, or we choose ourselves and an afterlife of radical selfishness, of closed mindedness, closed heartedness, closed soul.
If we choose ourselves rather than loving ourselves and opening ourselves up to God and His beloved creation, we choose to become the Dead Sea, salt, stagnant, and blocked off, rather than the Sea of Galilee, receiving new water and giving out water. We choose to become misers, neither spending nor receiving, neither welcoming others nor seeking out the true good for ourselves. We choose hell--as C.S. Lewis pointed out, the gates of hell would of course be locked from the inside, would be furiously closed off against anything outside of hell's control, blocking out light, life, and the unwanted, intolerable intrusion of other people, other ways of being, other ways of living.
But must it be forever?
Yes--because God is love, and God is eternal. God creates and sustains all that is through His love. You exist right now because of God's love, because God knows and loves you, remembers you and pours out His heart to you, shares His being with you, and calls you good.
You exist from moment to moment because God chooses you. God loves you. God calls you worthy.
And God can never stop loving His creation. It's not in His nature. He is love, not hate; wisdom, not forgetfullness. God is eternal life and love, and so He holds His beloved fellow people in existence for all eternity.
As Diane Duane puts it so well in the Young Wizards Series, nothing that is loved is ever lost.
So even the devils in hell are loved by God. He must, or else they would cease to exist. He loves us so much that He sustains us even in our furious rejection of Him, even in our sins. He loves us and remembers us even as we lash out against Him, even as we doubt His existence, forget our obligations to Him, fail to show Him gratitude, and do evil against God and neighbor. God loves us so much that He lets us choose freely what to do. He loves us so much that there are consequences to our choices, even eternal consequences.
And He can never stop loving us, because that would demand that God ceases to be God.
That is to say, He can never stop sustaining us; He can never stop holding us in existence, even if we have rejected Him, even if we have chosen life without Love, Truth, Goodness, Beauty, and Being--life without God.
He can never stop loving us into existence, even if we have chosen hell.
That is how eternal damnation and divine love make sense in my head, at least.
We're reading Madeline Miller's book Circein one of my book groups. It's nicely written and certainly evocative, but there's one underlying assumption that I find peculiar--the notion that magic could come as a new power, one even mightier than the gods themselves.
It's a notion I've encountered in my brushes with the show Supernatural, as well, a show that, for all its ostensibly Christian angels, satanic devils, and showrunner God, is essentially a story of pagan deities and Greek heroes. The angels and demons may be "slain," God can run out of power or even be threatened--indeed, he has a sister, darkness to his light--and the throne of hell is unsteady indeed.
And in that world, magic again rules supreme.
The runes on Michael's spear are what make it so powerful, for instance. The heroes use magic to defeat apparently immortal foes.
So, too, with Circe, daughter of the sun and a nymph, and her siblings. Their power can threaten even the gods themselves, a power drawn from the earth and her fruits.
I assume that on some level both works show that high regard for the products of human ingenuity, of reason and science, that characterizes modernity. In a universe where magic works, after all, with reliable results and precise formulas, it would seem to be less the magical arts and more another branch of the natural sciences. So in some sense at the back of both works of art, there's simply one more modern valorization of reason over faith, of trust and belief when one can seize power. Indeed, Prometheus is the wise God to Circe, the first to make her think, to seize her own divine fire and challenge the gods.
The thing is, the cosmos isn't built that way.
Oh, sure, the Greek gods could have been threatened by mortals. As Socrates pointed out, they weren't real gods after all. Surely we all know on some level what we mean by divinity, he pointed out, and the gods of the Greek myths do not consistently live up to that standard.
But God--the source of all being; Being itself--could not be so threatened by its own creatures. The source of all that is must be outside of and independent from creation, or else it would be incapable of giving rise to creation. That which is the source of time must itself be outside of time, in eternity, native to eternity, to timelessness. The source of all cannot be threatened by all, or manipulated by all. When Aslan speaks of the deeper magic in the Chronicles of Narnia, he's speaking of a deeper reading and understanding of himself, for he is Logos, he is Word, he is God.
And yet here we find the root of attempts at magic, and the difference between magic and true religion: Magic is the attempt to manipulate God. Religion is right worship, logika latreia, rational worship, liturgy, the work of the people.
Magic is fundamentally an attempt at seizing divinity; worship is receiving divinity in the palms of open, trusting, generous hands.
Magic is a matter of power; worship, rightly understood and done, of love and trust.
You see this voluntaristic character of magic in the attempt to rule things through the knowledge of the Tetragrammaton, the supposed secret, hidden name of God, or the longing to know the language of creation, to be able to exercise the same power that God used when he spoke all things into being, that Adam perhaps possessed when he named the animals before the fall. You see the endless gnostic, occultic desire to be like God through consuming the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
And there is the fatal error. There is the misunderstanding of hell.
For to be like God isn't simply to be powerful, or to be able to create, or to be able to shape things with a word, a movement of the will. That isn't God in his essence, in his own nature, eternal, outside of time. God is Creator in relation to creation; God is lord of angels, of the heavens and the earth, upon his creation of them.
No, to be like God in his eternity, as he always has been and always will be, as he would have been even if he had chosen not to create, if he had rested satisfied in his own perfect beatitude, is to be family, to be love, to be communion, to be. To be like God, we must eat of the fruit of the tree of life. We must embrace trust. We must live love, and self-gift.
That is the font of his power--that he is constantly giving it all away. He is endlessly self-emptying, endlessly generous, and endlessly receiving everything back again. The dynamic of the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the One who gives life; the One who receives life; and the Life that they are constantly, endlessly giving to each other.
God is not subject to our manipulations, nor do we need to manipulate him. He gives us life every moment of every day. Indeed, we cannot cease to exist now that we have begun to exist because he loves us into existence, moment by moment. Our continued existence endlessly depends upon him remembering us and loving us. God is eternal, and unchanging in his perfection--he can't stop loving us, can't stop remembering us. He can never let us go out of existence now--thus the eternity of hell. We have free will. We can reject the gift, reject the love, but he can't stop loving us; can't stop remembering us; can't stop holding us in being.
And so if we put ourselves out of heaven, the endless dance of life and love, by refusing to take part, we are trapped outside of the meaning and goal of our existence.
One last thought--in some sense, the idea of Prometheus put forward in Circe resonated with me as an intense foreshadowing of Christ. Prometheus, Miller points out, is a god of prophecy. He knew, then, what would happen when he brought fire to mankind, and chose to do it anyway. He chose to accept the torment of being chained to a rock, of his liver being plucked out by an eagle each day, of endlessly regrowing the organ only to repeat his torment again in swift succession.
In Christianity, we understand that what happens to an eternal person takes on an eternal character, to a certain extent. So Christ in eternity, in some sense, is always the Lamb who was slain. Good Friday is always present in the life of the Trinity. That day of absolute self-donation, self-emptying, is outside of time because the protagonist is a person whose native world is outside of time.
And even with that, Jesus chose us. He chose fidelity to his own divine nature, to the Father's life and love that he had always shared in and would always share in, of utter self gift for the lives of others.
That gift of life is more powerful than the knowledge of good and evil. Knowing what is means you will be able to discern what is not. Knowing God on his terms means a greater knowledge of the devil than the most dedicated satanist, the most eager devourer of the forbidden fruit. Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Devour the lies, and your darkness shall be great indeed.
So the sex abuse scandal in the Church is an absolute, world historic, hellish mess of tragedy, betrayal, hurt, and confusion. Lots of people in and out of the Church are furious; the bishops are (at top Ent speed) scrambling; and there's a lot of talk right now about reform, renewal, and how to get there. I even threw in my two cents on a few things.
But one key, essential element that's not necessarily being remembered in the midst of the mess is this: In the life of the Church, true, lasting, transformative reform comes about through the grace, inspiration, and strength of the Holy Spirit, or it doesn't happen at all.
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, after all. And yes, that can sound all too abstract and metaphorical. It's easy to believe that references to prayer, grace, and the Sacraments are all a subtle way of saying, "Laity, sit down, shut up, and keep praying, paying, and obeying. Be good little sheep. Don't do anything to rock the boat."
Yeah. That's an incredibly secular read on the call to prayer.
Karl Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, when in reality, it's more like medicine that heals, energizes, transforms. It makes us superhuman, because it opens us up to the divine life, to grace and God, to live and love with the strength from beyond the stars. It's all part of sanctification, of making us saints, which is to say making us sons and daughters of the loving God, which means more than human. Superhuman. Divinized.
Prayer can certainly calm a storm, it's true, but it can also kick up a storm. It can work like Jesus rebuking the storm in the boat, or it can work like Moses praying to God, and God sending the plagues on the Egyptians. Prayer can send off accusers, or prayer can raise up accusers pursuing justice.
Prayer is powerful, as powerful as the One who is receiving the prayers, as powerful as the Being sustaining the universe, as strong as Love, as Truth, as Goodness, as Beauty. Prayer brings justice and peace, which means mercy and goodness. Prayer invites in light and love. Prayer sets us free.
Prayer is, at its best, saying, "I love You, God, and I trust You. Come in. Do whatever You will." That's the most powerful prayer--not my will be done, but Thy will be done. Not begging for the outcome that I believe to be right, just, and proper, but rather setting aside all preconceived notions, all expectations, all plans, and simply being like Mary. Simply saying to God, "They have no wine," and then saying to the world, "Do whatever He tells you."
Prayer at its height is radical openness to God, radical communion because you allow Him in, no matter what He wants or plans. Oh, you can certainly come to Him with requests, with expectations, with problems and solutions--but you cannot come to Him as though He was your servant, as though He was in your employ, as though He's a grace and miracle dispensing machine, controllable by your hand.
But you can come to Him as a love, a spouse, and a friend. You can come to Him as a son or daughter to a Father. You can come to Him as you would to Goodness Itself, Beauty Itself, Being Itself, Truth Itself, Love Itself, and expect of Him what you would of those transcendentals. You will never be ultimately disappointed.
Oh, we will be disappointed at times in the short term, because God is the Lord of Heaven and earth, and of history. God is outside of time, and has all the time in the world, and tends to work in patient, subtle ways. Perseverance in prayer and patient expectation, in opening the door of your will, your heart, and your mind to His Holy Spirit--His Love, His Truth, and His Power--is indispensable, We are being trained for eternity, for an endless, steady way of being in love, of living in love. We are being prepared for eternity, and so part of that preparation is training in abiding in communion with God. Abide in prayer. Come to the place where all your life is a prayer, all your works are a dance of delighted love of God and neighbor, all has its place in the giving and receiving that is the life and love of God, and you are doing well, and you shall see miracles.
All of that is a long, wordy way to say--prayer is powerful, but often in unexpected ways.
How do we know this for sure? Look at the lives of the saints. Look at the consequences of lives and hearts radically open to God, open to Truth and to Love, to Beauty and to Being, to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Look at their miracles, their impossible triumphs. Historically, Joan of Arc makes no sense, unless she really was hearing God in prayer; unless her voices really were the saints; unless she actually was sent by heaven
Look at Padre Pio and Jean Vianney, two men whose lives are redolent with the supernatural. They make no sense without the Holy Spirit, without the spiritual combat, without the reality of God.
Look at the Apostles, facing down the world and all opposition to launch a 2,000 year project of faith, hope, and charity.
Look at the saints. The deeper you go, the more you'll understand everything above.
All of this is a long way to say--writing to the bishops, making pointed remarks about "reform now or no more checks," and supporting independent investigations and consequences for malfeasance all have their place. They're all important.
But they must all be accompanied by, preceded by, and followed by prayer.
The Church is more than just those of us walking about on the face of the earth. The Church also includes the Holy Souls in Purgatory and the saints of Heaven. If you want reform of the Church on earth, best get the rest of the Church involved as soon as possible, and continue to hold open the door to their involvement throughout the process.
How?
Take seriously the patron saints, especially the patrons of your parish, your diocese, and your nation. Celebrate their feast days with Masses and devotions, and ask their intercession (perhaps with votive candles, prayers from the treasury of the Church's Tradition and tradition, and regular conversations with them as you go about your day). Get them involved in the problems of your parish. They can act. They can help. They can make change happen in ways that currently seem impossible. They can overcome anything. But they tend not to act unless they're asked, and tend not to remain involved if they are forgotten. As with the Lord, so with the disciples. Free will matters. Invitations matter.
Take seriously the devotions in the treasurehouse of the Church, Take seriously the enormous promises attached to the Rosary and other great devotions to Our Lady. Take seriously the promises attached to the Divine Mercy message and devotion. And use them! Something or someone frustrate you in regard to the crisis? Pray a Rosary for them. Faced with insurmountable problems? Bring out the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Pray it before the Divine Mercy Image. Do it at 3 p.m. Jesus promised that the Chaplet could obtain all things; that venerating the Divine Mercy image meant victory over enemies in this life and the next; and that at 3 p.m., the hour of His death for the salvation of the world, the floodgates of Heaven were open so that every grace and blessing could be obtained--well, no problem stands a chance, no matter how big it is.
Take seriously the divine element of the Church. The Church isn't just an organization. It's not just run by men on earth. It's not the property of the cardinals, bishops, and pope. It's the Mystical Body of Christ. That means that the very life and strength of the institution, its very spirit--the Holy Spirit--is a Spirit of Life and Truth, of light in the darkness, of salvation, of conversion. So the organism is self-correcting, if only we open the doors to the Holy Spirit. God loves to send prophets--ask for a few! God loves to overcome the gates of hell--ask Him to do it in our generation! Evil sits uneasily within the Church--very active and present throughout our history, but the Church is sustained and abides through the Holy Spirit. Face down evil. Follow Christ's lead. Accept the Cross and the Crucifixion; the Resurrection is only a few days away.
The Church is a supernatural reality. Any attempts at reform that forget that fact will keep running into brick walls. Reforms and renewals grounded firmly in that reality? Well, they can renew the face of the earth.
So I've been pondering the role of women in the Church for some time. One oddity I've noticed: There is no role for women in the Church on earth that quite fits the Gospel portrayals of Mary and the women disciples of the early Church. So I've come up with a few possible ways to rectify that.
Note: I submit absolutely to the Church on all matters of faith and morals. This is speculation only. I am ready and willing to stand corrected. But given present circumstances, it seemed like this might be worth sharing.
There are two main ways I think women might play broader roles in the Church: in the workings of the processes of the canon law system, and in handling the finances of the Church.
The Mother of Mercy
If you read any of the excellent works of apologetics that have come out in the past couple of decades, seeking to explain and defend the role of Mary in the Catholic faith, you will probably have encountered the title of gebirah, referring to the role of the Queen Mother in the Davidic Kingdom. That role meant she served as an advocate, as a one-woman court of appeals, for the poor and the weak of the kingdom. And ordinarily, she would not be denied whatever she asked.
It is the understanding of the Church that Our Lady, the Advocate (so named, at least in part, because she is joined in a special and unique way to the Holy Spirit, Sanctifier and Advocate), continues to exercise the role of Advocate from Heaven. Indeed, in the writings of great saints such as Alphonsus Liguori (The Glories of Mary) and in near death experiences right down to the present day, we read again and again of Our Lady interceding for souls as they are judged by Jesus. We hear of souls who are condemned to hell, only for that sentence to be overturned at the request of Our Lady, who says to her Son that she wants that soul. That soul offered some small act of love or devotion to the Blessed Virgin in life; now, she wants them in Heaven with her in death.
She is not denied.
There is no comparable role for women in the Church on earth. Oh, sure, everyone knows of the church ladies, the indispensable women without whom nothing would run. Everyone's aware of the parish secretaries who see to the needs of the parish, of the religious women who teach, nurse, and serve in any and every capacity under the sun. There are more and more roles for wise women, theologians and lawyers, accountants and chancellors, sure. But there are no women with gebirah-like roles, and given that Israel and the Church have recognized female judges and queens in the past, there seems no reason to assume that there cannot be women with gebirah-like roles in the future.
Women cannot be ordained priests, that is for certain. But why would we assume that women could not constitute a sort of court of appeals in the canonical structure of the Church? Call them the Mothers of Mercy, to be established at the diocesan and the Roman levels. Perhaps they would constitute a religious order, or perhaps they would be something akin to the modern movements, open to qualified lay women and women religious of unimpeachable integrity, orthodoxy, and skill. All the women would be trained and professionally prepared canon lawyers and/or theologians, empowered to serve both as counsel and as judges in canonical cases. Canonical sentences could be appealed with the Mothers of Mercy. The rulings of the Mothers of Mercy would be like the rulings of Our Lady--requests made of her Son, phrased as requests, but never denied.
Further, some of the Mothers could perhaps also serve as advocates, as defense counsel to the poor and the weak, to those who would not otherwise have canonical representation--abuse victims; students; religious who are challenging their communities, or laity who do not have resources, but who need redress of liturgical, theological, or other issues.
Perhaps there could even be Mothers of Mercy with investigative powers when they were called upon to advocate for those with no other advocate, with no other recourse in the ordinary structure of the Church, or after the usual avenues were exhausted, who could look into financial, theological, liturgical, or other issues raised by laity, priests, seminarians, or others who would not normally have clout or power in the structure of the Church. They would have the ability to see whatever documentation they sought, speak to whoever they needed to speak to, all bound by the rights guaranteed by canon law, but otherwise, plenipotentiary.
And at the international level, why not have either a sort of supreme appeals court of Mothers of Mercy or a Mother of Mercy at the top? A last court of appeal, who could even, in certain cases, request and obtain clemency or even overturn certain juridical rulings of the Holy Father? And at the Roman level, an investigative service, prepared to come to the assistance of local Mothers who were confronted by cases of such size or with so many victims in need as to make broader assistance necessary.
Again--this would simply match the structure of the Church on earth to that of the Church Triumphant, of Our Lady's role in the Kingdom of God. She is Advocate for all; the Refuge of Sinners; the Mother of Mercy; the hope of the oppressed. She is the Queen Mother, the gebirah, the voice of the voiceless, the defender of the defenseless. She can efficaciously plead clemency for even the guilty, for those who would otherwise be damned, be condemned by the fairest, most just court in existence. And she vindicates the powerless, the innocent, the oppressed. She comes to the aid of those under attack, as Fr. Donald Calloway, MIC, makes abundantly clear in his Champions of the Rosary. Why shouldn't some of her daughters here on earth serve in the same way?
I leave it to the canon lawyers to determine what is feasible here and what is not. There would certainly be limits on the powers of the Mothers, as there are limits on the powers of the Holy Father and the bishops. All would be bound by ex cathedra teaching, by infallible teaching, by Scripture and Tradition. I do not propose the impossible. But given the role of the Blessed Virgin in the Church, I see no reason to say that the sort of system I lay out here is impossible or unthinkable.
The Money
Simply: The rich women supported Jesus and the disciples, and were faithful to Calvary and the tomb. Judas held the purse; Satan entered in; Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. There may be something charismatic or vocational, then, about women in the Church being the best and most reliable hands in which to place the Church's money.
Why not prioritize having women handle the money as CFOs or stewards or whatever other such role there may be in dioceses or perhaps even parishes? Hire qualified female accountants.
Of course, women may fall just as men have fallen in the past. This is no guarantee against criminality or corruption. But one of the great successes of the American experiment in governance has been the division of powers into a number of different hands, of checks and balances. Given recent experience of what happens when all power is gathered into one set of hands, into the hands of the hierarchy, and that hierarchy loses its way, perhaps it's time to take a very serious look at what sort of division of power may be appropriate and possible, given the witness of Scripture, Tradition, and the nature of the Church. Putting the finances into female, lay hands is one relatively easy and painless form of division of power, one that does no harm to anything fundamental about the Church.
It's Just an Idea
Again: I put this out there as a proposal. It will need nuance and thought by those whose competence is the canon law of the Church. But it seemed worth sharing, given the present crisis.
We're back in the heart of darkness, back in the midst of the abuse scandal.
First, we hear about the credible accusations against the former Cardinal McCarrick. That same day, we learn of the settlements made by dioceses in New Jersey over misconduct with adults. Shortly thereafter, bloggers and religion journalists announce that all this and much, much more was an open secret.
So that was bad enough, and led toward some sort of reckoning, especially coming as it all did at the same time as the Honduras, Chile, India, and African #metoo moments in the Church.
And then the Pennsylvania grand jury report was released.
Others have been and continue to comment well on all of this. I doubt I have anything of any originality or interest to add, save one thing. One question keeps coming to mind: Where was the canon law system? Where were the ecclesiastical courts and forms of oversight?
Don't we have in the Church a system that guarantees justice for all, laity as well as clergy? Then how come, time after time, did abusive priests end up with a lifetime system of benefits, silence from the Church about their crimes, and, it seems, a fair amount of protection from accountability to the civil courts or their victims? Canon law seems to have protected the clerics quite nicely. What of the rest of the Church?
I suspect the law is far better than the facts of the last 70 years would suggest. I suspect that post-conciliar anti-nominianism (a repugnance to law) that became quite common in the Church opened the door to this situation, to ineffective application of canon law. There have been, after all, a cavalcade of theological, liturgical, and other abuses over the course of the decades since the Council. At least on the front of canon law, the refusal of the Church to police herself, to consistently apply her own law has contributed to and exacerbated the sex abuse crisis, as well as every other form of crisis that we've been confronting.
Law can be abused by the powerful to oppress, it is true. But the failure to enforce the law can also be a means of oppression. Equal treatment before the law is the last safeguard of the weak against the strong. If it goes away,we get exactly the sort of behavior that's evidenced in the grand jury report, in McCarrick's career, and in all too many Catholic institutions of higher learning.
There's been a serious shortage of ease of reporting canonical crimes or violations of the Church's law by those in the hierarchy; a serious shortage of investigative follow through; and a serious failure to consistently, fairly, and publicly apply that law. Imagine how much different the Church's present situation would be if there'd been a full, rigorous, fair use of the Church's canonical remedies for the many and varied ways in which her law had been broken since the Council!
So among the many other questions and investigations going on right now, I would hope there would be someone asking what happened to the Church's law, and its application.
One of the most neglected parts of the New Evangelization is using the library.
There's a limited amount of shelfspace. Decisions are made on what to purchase based on client demand--that is, what will be used and checked out consistently.
If we are not checking out and reading good Catholic books, libraries will not stock good Catholic books.
If we are not eagerly requesting good Catholic books, libraries may not know said books exist.
If good Catholic books are in a library, you haven't just made a difference to one library in one town. You've introduced a witness for the faith into a network, a system. Most public libraries these days participate in some form of inter-library loan. If one library has a book, the potential audience can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.
How do we make a difference? Several ways:
Acquire and use a library card regularly.
Make reading good books a habit. Cut the screeen time! Read an old-fashioned ink and paper book. I believe it's better for your eyes, and it certainly leaves you feeling more satisfied, more like you've accomplished something, if you actually turn pages and close a cover when you're finished.
Add at least one Catholic book a month to your reading pile. There're a ton of interesting, engaging, excellent writers out there, pumping out a ton of quality Catholic content. Explore them! Read them!
Ideally, be getting your Catholic books from your local library. If they don't have them, ask if they can get it via inter-library loan. If that's not possible, ask how you can recommend they purchase a copy!
Always be polite and appreciative for the librarians' efforts. Never get belligerent--if they can't afford a book, then they can't afford it. If no one besides you has ever expressed an interest, pass on to your friends, family, and fellow parishioners this plan. Build the audience--don't get mad at the librarians if one doesn't exist. Catholics are notoriously bad at reading Catholic books!
Start a book club at your parish! Get other people reading good Catholic books, both literature and nonfiction. There's an endless wealth of books waiting to be discovered.
... more than anything, Tillis wants to take a stand against what he calls “situational ethics”: Politicians changing their stances based on who is in the White House without sticking to any deeply held philosophical moorings.
“The only way you get these things done [is] when you have somebody who is willing to take the heat when you’re in the majority,” Tillis said. “You see it all the time. Hammer the table when it benefits you, not when it disadvantages your guy that has the same jersey on. There’s no rational explanation except being duplicitous.” ...”
One of the most aggravating parts of paying attention to politics these days is to watch Democrats assail Republicans for the sort of behavior they were just defending and promoting from their own party members an administration or three ago, and vice versa.
The imperial presidency was a threat to all that we hold dear as Americans, said Republicans under Clinton, while Democrats said all was well.
The imperial presidency is a threat to all that we hold dear as Americans, said Democrats under Bush, while Republicans said all was well.
And the wheel turned, and turned again.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, testimony he was compelled to give because he had had sexual relations with that woman. Such immorality cannot be tolerated, said Republicans. Now, somehow, Trump is their president, and all of our president, and we should rally behind him because he is our president, and, well, maybe he's a public and self-professedly unrepentant sinner, but that's all right. Because he's our president.
This is why the place of religion is to stand for timeless principles in season and out; to speak truth to power, no matter the party, no matter the president; to applaud actions that serve universal truths, and justice, and mercy, and peace, while speaking out against injustice, evil, and threats to all that is good and true.
We are not meant to have a permanent home on this earth; we are not meant to get comfortable with power and wealth. We are meant to be strangers and sojourners, to be charitable in every sense. We are meant to resemble our Master.
It's hard. I fall as much as anyone. But we all need to keep our eyes fixed on Christ as our standard, not a politician or a party. The Scriptures are very clear:
Put no trust in princes,
in children of Adam powerless to save.
Who breathing his last, returns to the earth;
that day all his planning comes to nothing. (Ps 146:3-5)
It's time and past for us all to set aside bad religion and take up the fullness of the faith again, to stand athwart the path of American history crying, "Repent!"
In one of the most inexplicably awful cases of bureaucracy apparently getting in the way of common sense and mercy I've ever heard of, the British NHS decided to end life support for the infant Alfie Evans against the express wish of his parents. By life support in this case is apparently meant "ventilation," that is, assistance in breathing. Further, they are refusing to allow the infant Alfie Evans to be transferred to Bambino Gesu hospital in Italy, despite the pleas of the Evans couple, the Holy Father, the Italian government (which has granted Italian citizenship to Alfie), and to Bambino Gesu itself.
Bambino Gesu has offered to pay all costs associated with transferring the child.
The British courts are prohibiting the parents from moving their child.
The Evans are being treated as a flight risk.
I'm slightly speechless. This is the same sort of thing that has apparently happened in the case of Charlie Gard and Isaiah Haastrup: life support removed by decision of the hospital, against the wishes of the family.
Please pray the Rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet for everyone involved in this case, especially those making these rather unspeakable decisions about the life of a little boy.
This is an awful meme. Awful logic and an awful understanding of law’s role in society.
We ban murder, even though people still get murdered.
We ban theft, even though people still steal.
Laws aren’t shown to be pointless or irrelevant simply because people break them. Nor is law enforcement pointless because there are still criminals.
I do not advocate for guns to be banned, but rather for an end to this culture among Second Amendment defenders to mock the notion that gun control laws could ever possibly do any good. First, just laws are always worth passing and enforcing—that is part of the heritage of the natural law tradition and our Catholic faith. Secondly, laws teach. Proper regulation of firearms that balances access and safety help create a culture of safe use of them.
Antinomianism isn’t conservative, Catholic, or a service to our nation.
... Among the most serious wounds of society today is the separation of legal culture from its metaphysical objective, which is moral law. In recent times this separation has been much accentuated, manifesting itself as a real antinomianism ... .
This antinomianism embedded in civil society has unfortunately infected post-Council ecclesial life, associating itself, regrettably, with so-called cultural novelties. ...-- Cardinal Raymond Burke
One of the things you often hear from people is that the news is so sad. Doesn't matter their political persuasion; doesn't matter their taste in music or movies; doesn't matter where they're from.
The news is enough to depress the hardiest soul.
Now, some of that is the nature of the medium itself. People in entertainment know that in order to keep eyes on screens, what's on the screen needs to compel your attention. It needs to be hard to look away from. So actors tend to either be awe-inspiringly beautiful, or eye-catchingly otherwise. Spectacle is important, and often used to the exclusion of story or anything else.
So some of the daily darkness of the news is the result of commercial calculation.
But some is simply the result of living at the end of an age, a hinge moment in history, the prelude to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
So what do we do, we who believe, in the face of darkness, death, and destruction? What do we do in the face of tragedy and loss?
Well, we pray, or at least we ought to. When we see the dead on the screen, the celebrities and the unnamed victims of war, disease, and disaster; when we see the body bags and the body counts from the latest school shooting; when we're confronted once again with a disaster, we should be praying.
And we should be praying for everyone involved. We don't get the easy way out of saying, "Oh, those poor victims! I'll pray for them. But I can't possibly pray for those monsters who did this to them!"
Nor do we have the luxury of praying for "our" politicians, for "our" side to win, and never offering a prayer for our enemies. Oh, our prayers may be for their conversion, for them to change their minds, but we must always be wishing them well, praying for their good. We must always be loving them, because they are our brethren, our family. The whole of humanity are brethren to us, are family to us. Some are closer than others, true; some must be opposed in order to defend the defenseless, true; but all are one in Adam, if not in Christ. And all are to be loved, according to the Gospel (see Mt 5:44; Lk 6:27-36).
And so we should pray, especially the Divine Mercy Chaplet, "for mercy on us, and on the whole world." We should adore the Eucharistic Lord on behalf of all, especially on behalf of those who "do not believe, do not adore, do not hope, and do not love" Him. We should live Fatima and Divine Mercy, praying for those most in need of God's mercy, and so seeking to save as many (or all) from hell, if our prayers and God's grace will make it so.
Pray for everyone. Pray for all the situations. We're given infinite power in the Mass, in the Rosary, in the Divine Mercy Chaplet. If we don't use it, many people will be the poorer.
I can't believe it's almost time for the March for Life--where does the time go?
Yet here we are again (in this 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Birth), interestingly enough). There's so much to be said, and many people will be saying it. But there's one subject I think has been widely overlooked, and that's the connection between the media's coverage of the annual March for Life in D.C. (as well as their coverage of similar marches and pro-life events across the country) and the way in which the pro-life movement has always taken very seriously President Trump's dismissal of most of the mainstream media's coverage of anything as "fake news."
That is, there isn't coverage of the annual March for Life, as this piece by Terry Mattingly over at the reliably informative and always interesting Get Religion blog indicates. Not serious coverage, at least, and certainly not coverage comparable to that given to the Women's March in 2017, or the coverage given to pro-choice marches and events.
This has been the case for decades, to the point where it's a regular joke amongst pro-lifers and Catholics. We talk about the "ninja march," watch to see just how non-existent the coverage is, and then are confirmed in our belief that the media, when it wants to, can do an impressive job of pretending that tens of thousands of people don't exist; that the country is solidly behind Roe v.Wade as settled law; that there's nothing to see here.
We watch the coverage or the lack of coverage, and we all know that the mainstream media at times offers us fake news.
And it's not just the March for Life. People have been grumbling about media bias or misinformation for at least as long as the media has failed to properly cover subjects in which the average person may have some deep experience.
Catholicism, for instance. Media coverage of Catholicism regularly sucks. And Catholics notice. We often come to distrust or at least trust less those media outlets that regularly get the faith wrong.
Now, some of the errors aren't really their fault. After all, when "fake news" has been handed down in history textbooks and classrooms as the way things are, it's no wonder that it gets reported as fact. And yet supposedly skeptical, objective journalists ought to be able to do better. The resources exist, after all, to discover that what "everyone knows" or "everyone believes" isn't true. For a start:
If the media would fix its coverage of pro-life events, people, and organizations--that is, be as objective about them as they claim to be, and as (I truly believe) they actually aspire to be--then a great deal of trust could be restored in the reading, viewing, and listening public. Get your coverage of Christianity right--not that you must be orthodox, but merely that you have the sort of factual accuracy, insight, and objectivity that journalists such as the excellent John Allen bring to bear--and a great deal more trust could be restored. Cover all religious news with true objectivity and rigor, and you could change the world.
Anyway. All this was spawned by the upcoming March for Life. One other note on pro-life affairs, then, before I conclude.
I've heard it said several times, "Pro-life people care so much about the child in the womb, but can't be bothered to help take care of the child after birth!"
And I'm always amazed that somehow, no one has shown them Mother Teresa's talk from the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C, on February 5, 1994. Among many other things well worth reading, she said:
We are fighting abortion by adoption — by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: “Please don’t destroy the child; we will take the child.” So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: “Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child.” And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child — but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said, “Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me.” By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.
Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child. From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy.
I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. ...
And it's not just Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity, as Helen Alvare and her coauthors explain:
In the United States there are some 2,300 affiliates of the three largest pregnancy resource center umbrella groups, Heartbeat International, CareNet, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).
Over 1.9 million American women take advantage of these services each year. Many stay at one of the 350 residential facilities for women and children operated by pro-life groups. In New York City alone, there are twenty-two centers serving 12,000 women a year. These centers provide services including pre-natal care, STI testing, STI treatment, ultrasound, childbirth classes, labor coaching, midwife services, lactation consultation, nutrition consulting, social work, abstinence education, parenting classes, material assistance, and post-abortion counseling.
Religious groups also provide crucial services to needy mothers and infants. John Cardinal O’Connor, the late Archbishop of New York, famously pledged to assist any woman from anywhere experiencing a crisis pregnancy, and the current Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, recently renewed Cardinal O’Connor’s pledge.
The Catholic Church–perhaps the single most influential pro-life institution in the United States–makes the largest financial, institutional and personnel commitments to charitable causes of any private source in the United States. These include AIDS ministry, health care, education, housing services, and care for the elderly, disabled, and immigrants. In 2004 alone, 562 Catholic hospitals treated over 85 million patients; Catholic elementary and high schools educated over 2 million students; Catholic colleges educated nearly 800,000 students; Catholic Charities served over eight-and-a-half million different individuals. In 2007, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development awarded nine million dollars in grants to reduce poverty. And in 2009, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network spent nearly five million dollars in services for impoverished immigrants. ...
So as we approach the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, take some time to read up on the history of the debate, the arguments on both sides, and the accounts of those who have taken an active role in the abortion industry only to leave it all behind for pro-life causes.
Welcome to 2018! As we start this (extremely cold) New Year, let's make a resolution: Let's resolve to work especially hard in this New Year to end the many, many myths about Catholicism left over from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
Now, I'm not saying all criticisms of the Catholic Church and Catholics are invalid--far from it! The truth is the truth. Where sins have been committed, we must acknowledge them, and repent, and resolve never to repeat them. I say as much in How Can You Still Be Catholic? 50 Answers to a Good Question. But there are a great many crimes, sins, and scandals that common knowledge and "everybody" indicts the Church with that simply didn't happen, that have no connection to fact, and that simply are myths and "mythconceptions" that have been floating around for centuries. In the name of truth, honesty, and an end to "fake news" of all kinds, we owe it to ourselves and to the common good to get rid of those myths as yesterday's rubbish. Let's start fresh in this New Year. Let's start with a clean slate, with a mind freed of falsehood and a clearer view of history and the world.
Let's start with this one:
The medievals knew perfectly well that the earth was round. Heck, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) repeated the common consensus bluntly and casually in his Summa Theologiae:
The astronomer and the natural philosopher both conclude that the earth is round, but the astronomer does this through a mathematical middle that is abstracted from matter, whereas the natural philosopher considers a middle lodged in matter.
The myth of the medieval belief in the flat earth arises from a few sources:
The nigh-impregnable modern belief in medieval backwardness, ignorance, and refusal to use reason, and
And more, of course—the workings of memory are rarely simple. But there’s a start to getting rid of some of the old, false baggage of the past, pursuing a truer perspective on one of the world’s most enduring institutions, and allowing us a better understanding of where we come from in order to better decide where we’re going.
