Pro-Abort Squabbles: New Republic Whines Because NYT Newsroom's Getting Squeamish About Abortion

.
The New Republic: What is The New York Times' problem with abortion? The editorial page consistently supports sex education, birth control, and the right to legally end unwanted pregnancy. The rest of the Times, however, often seems uncomfortable with concrete applications of these principles. Not a season goes by that a news item or magazine feature doesn't imply that women who get abortions are acting with egotism, unhealthiness, and cruelty.

The most recent instance of this is Annie Murphy Paul's "The First Ache," in last Sunday's Magazine. "When does the experience of pain begin?" the subtitle asks. "Anti-abortion activists aren't the only ones to argue that it may be in the womb."

Paul's article, which runs over 5,000 words, begins with a doctor in Arkansas claiming that fetuses as immature as 20 weeks after gestation suffer agonies when prodded and cut during, say, prenatal surgery. And--the point of the piece--when they're aborted.

But then other doctors start discussing the Arkansas physician's claim, and their opinions are all over the map. One insists that fetuses feel no pain until at least 29 weeks. Another pushes the pain date all the way forward to 18 weeks. Someone else says that even born babies can't feel pain until they're one year old. Clearly, there's no consensus on the issue. But the lack of agreement is lost amid the article's looming intimation that women who end their pregnancies are hurting their fetuses. Paul never specifies that the vast majority of abortions--more than 96 percent--are performed before 18 weeks' gestation, the earliest date being claimed for the beginning of fetal pain. Nor does she mention that American women are getting abortions earlier and earlier in their pregnancies: The rate occurring in the first eight weeks has increased sharply in recent years, with many now done in the sixth week of pregnancy or earlier. Without these statistics, the article's main effect is to make female readers feel guilty and confused about abortion.

Paul's is not the only problem piece to run in the Sunday Magazine. Another, by Slate senior editor Emily Bazelon, appeared last January and looked at "post-abortion syndrome" (PAS). A takeoff on PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), PAS is not recognized by the psychiatric or psychotherapy establishment because there's no scientific evidence it exists. But moral conservatives out to overturn Roe v. Wade have popularized the purported malady among women who've had abortions. And last year, the Supreme Court cited affidavits submitted by people claiming they've suffered from PAS. The court said the risk to women of contracting the risk of "severe depression and loss of esteem" was one reason to ban "dilation and extraction"--better known as "partial birth" abortion. If for no other reason than this politicking, PAS is well worth exploring.

Problem is, Bazelon skips lightly over politics, focusing instead on fuzzy profiles of self-described PAS sufferers. One is Rhonda Arias, an evangelical minister who runs PAS-support groups in Texas women's prisons. Bazelon follows Arias as she holds forth in one facility, reading from the New Testament, playing gospel music, and handing dolls to inmates who weep as they mourn their aborted offspring. Then Arias asks these prisoners to send her testimonies about their PAS to her so she can submit them to places like the Supreme Court.

To be fair, Bazelon spends a long time discussing the piled-up scientific evidence showing that PAS doesn't exist, with many interviews from respected researchers illustrating the consensus that it's just a right-wing talking-point. Still, Bazelon writes that Arias's audience members "drink in [her] preaching," and about how Arias "ministers from the heart" with her face "alight." We read that Arias conducted a study with data culled from prisoner reports of psychological trauma from abortion (which she later sent to the Supreme Court). But Bazelon does not remind us that prison inmates are considered a terrible source of data for psychology studies. They are a captive population at great risk of saying whatever they think people in authority--including researchers--want to hear. Nor are we told that one facility where Arias does her PAS data collection has been cited by inmates as lacking access to work and substance abuse programs. Another prison houses all nine women on Texas's death row and is among the state's ten most violent prisons. No wonder inmates might exchange PAS testimonials for hugs and music.

And Bazelon only glances over the Justice Foundation, a Texas group that funded the collection of those PAS affidavits for delivery to the Supreme Court. The article calls the foundation "a conservative law center," but doesn't say that it was founded by, and gets its money from, James Leininger, a Christian right winger and one of the richest people in Texas. Leininger has used the Justice Foundation and other groups, also funded by him, to pack the Texas school board with members who oppose sex education and favor censoring textbooks. He has bankrolled political campaigns in which candidates who don't toe his line have been smeared with charges that they promote illegal drug use and homsexuality to school children. And he is staunchly anti-choice: Using the Justice Foundation, he almost single-handedly has enabled the gathering of PAS affidavits to erode Roe v. Wade. Rhonda Arias would be a nobody without this man's fortune and political designs. He's as important as she is--if not more so--to understand the PAS push.

Magazine articles aren't the Times's only problem. News stories also sometimes issue strange and conflicting messages about abortion. Last spring, for instance, a long piece appeared on the front page: "Today's Face of Abortion in China is a Young, Unmarried Woman," by Jim Yardley with Lin Yang contributing. The article's point seemed to be that, back when China coerced married women to have only one child, it wasn't their fault they had to get abortions--but now, single young women are obtaining them voluntarily. And this is bad.

Why bad? The article reeks with veiled references to selfishness and irresponsibility. The first paragraph says, "it was her second abortion in 18 months." Indeed, most patients sitting at a clinic with this woman have already had an abortion; one is on her sixth! And how did they find the clinic? The article notes that private abortion clinics proliferate in China now, and newspapers there run "sensational" ads promising "Painless Abortions." (The reporters seem unaware that ethnic papers in New York City, such as El Diario, are stuffed with identical ads, and that most abortions in this country are done at private facilities.)

Again, numbers are used out of context. The Times cites the number of abortions per year in China, and the number in this country: 7.1 million there, 1.29 million here--an alarming differential until you recall that China's population is over four times that of the US. The article never mentions this basic data.

A headline was the problem in another front page story, which ran on January 31. The article reported that Shanghai Hualian, a big pharmaceuticals manufacturer in China, made a contaminated leukemia drug that sickened patients in that country. The same firm produces all the RU-486 distributed in the U.S. (the drug is used to induce non-surgical abortions). But the FDA said the company's RU-486 factory had passed many inspections and is safe. The Times reported this at length. So why was the articled titled "Tainted Drugs Linked to Maker of Abortion Pill"?

To be sure, Times stories are not always pursed-lipped about abortion. Spring 2006 saw a national scare about a deadly bacterial infection associated with RU-486 abortions. In a follow-up article in May, reporter Gardiner Harris pointed out that infection with the same bacteria might be a risk for pregnant women who intend to have their babies. Harris even quoted two New York woman who'd had multiple abortions, some done surgically and some with RU-486. They discussed the pros and cons of each procedure, and one woman allowed publication of her name: Anne Hawkins. The whole thing was refreshingly matter of fact and devoid of cryptic moralizing. But the article was buried near the back of the A section.

Then there was the disturbing flap at the Magazine two years ago, after a cover piece about illegal abortion in Latin America reported on a woman in El Salvador who supposedly was criminally convicted for aborting her 18-week fetus. Post publication, it turned out the woman was actually judged guilty of murdering her newborn, full-term baby. The reporter had never bothered to read the court records, and the Magazine's factcheckers hadn't either. In its eagerness to champion abortion rights in a country that has none, the paper had gotten sloppy. And on its own national turf, where long-established rights are being chipped at, sloppiness runs in the other direction.

So, what's going on at the Times? Maybe only what's happening in the whole culture. Liberals and even feminists have bought into the reasoning that abortion is basically immoral, and if women could just be educated and dosed with birth control, we wouldn't have to terminate any pregnancies. Bill Clinton's famous formulation, that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," has become conventional wisdom.

It's the line on the Times editorial page. In other sections, awkward reality intrudes, making reporters and editors skittish. Women--particularly young and poor women--don't take their contraceptives, and when they get pregnant many wait to go to the abortion clinic. Then they get pregnant again. Their behavior seems mysterious and threatening. They become scapegoats, not just for the Right, but for older and more educated liberals, too. That's the demographic who work at the Times, and a good percentage of its readership. But the Gray Lady is powerful way beyond New York liberal circles. And by making anti-woman moral judgments and obsessing over "problems" with no good evidence they exist, she's abusing her nation and the world.

Debbie Nathan is a New York City-based journalist. Her latest book, Pornography (Groundwood Press), explains the subject to teenagers and young adults.

The title of Ms. Nathan's "latest" pretty much tells you of her perspective on life.

Finally: Top Homosexual Organization Comes Clean: "HIV is a gay disease."

.
(LifeSiteNews.com) - In a public statement last Friday, Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, rattled the homosexual activist community by joining the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pro-family organizations and a growing number of homosexual activists willing to admit that homosexual behavior is both extremely high-risk and primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.

Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the "gay" lobby's party line by admitting, "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."

A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the "gay" community by stating that, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it."

Foreman's admission comes on the heels of a letter from Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's (CWA) Policy Director for Cultural Issues, inviting Foreman and other homosexual activists to work together in discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the "gay" community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.

Matt Barber addressed Foreman's admission: "It's extremely encouraging to see Matt Foreman, a homosexual activist who has for so long been in denial about the dangers of the lifestyle he has promoted, publicly coming to terms with the undeniable perils of that lifestyle.

"I only hope he will now stop promoting homosexual conduct and push for other liberal elites, especially those running our public schools, to do the same. Educators must truthfully address the 'gay' lifestyle's potentially deadly consequences.

"It's criminally reckless for the National Education Association and liberal educators to put political correctness and a deceptive political agenda above the lives, health and well-being of America's children. The evidence is there for all to see. 'Gayness' is not about 'who you are,' it's about 'what you do.' The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has now, in effect, acknowledged that reality. Their honesty is refreshing and unexpected," concluded Barber.

In defense of Catholic teaching on homosexuality

.

In concluding her Jan. 30 column about homosexuality and the Catholic Church ("It's not a mortal sin to work for justice"), Mary Jean Smith writes: "The archbishop and others are wrong on this issue. I am not guilty of mortal sin. It is not a sin to love my daughter and work for justice on her behalf."

Here is what Archbishop John Nienstedt actually said:

"Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin," he wrote. "They have broken communion with the church and are prohibited from receiving Holy Communion until they have had a conversion of heart, expressed sorrow for their action and received sacramental absolution from a priest."

What Smith fails to see (or at least acknowledge) is that we can, we may and we must judge actions. It's not the person who is attracted to the same sex whom the church says is bad. The church, in fact, demands that all persons love and respect all other persons as reflections of God himself. It's the surrender to the impulse to act, sexually, on that attraction. That surrender is what the church judges to be wrong. We must love our children and others, but not the sins they commit. Any form of sexual action between two people of the same sex is inherently wrong. It obviates the purpose for which that faculty is intended, procreation.

The author finds "it strange that any reference to persons of homosexual orientation is always reduced to sexual acts." That's because it's not being attracted to the same sex that is wrong, but homosexual acts.

The author's story touches the heart, truly. However, it would be no less touching to hear of a son or daughter who had some other condition. The affliction does not justify taking actions that are inherently wrong. At the same time, we (everyone who responds to Christ's call to love and respect all people) are saddened at the injustice and persecution of people, particularly children, who have same-sex attraction. It is not easy to tell them that they must remain chaste, but as Nienstedt said in a further article:

"As a priest and bishop, I have the responsibility before God and in the name of Jesus Christ to call all men and women to conversion, the first step of which is recognizing sinful activity for what it is. Sometimes that is not a comfortable thing to do, but it is always the compassionate thing to do."

Smith has her facts wrong about priests. Only a very small percentage of Catholic priests, about 4 percent, abused children. And 80 percent to 90 percent of the priestly abuse attacks of minors were committed by priests (males) on post-pubescent males. See the report from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice titled "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States."

There are good priests, of course, who are afflicted with same-sex attraction, probably some of the most caring and concerned. The vast majority do not give in to the desire for sex with another male, let alone a minor.

Nienstedt, in admonishing those who advocate and condone homosexual activity, either for their children or others, does not act on his authority alone. He is conveying the teaching of the church's magisterium, its teaching authority, as that teaching has existed since the church's inception. We are thankful for him and his insight into and readiness to take on those who, while calling themselves Catholic, misrepresent this important teaching of the church. Pioneer Press

Pat Phillips of Roseville is president of the Catholic Defense League.

Sanctuary O' The Day: St Mary's, Salem, South Dakota

.

.

Church of St Mary

Salem, South Dakota

How come the Vatican doesn't have a Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice? The Saudis do!

.
So England wants Sharia Law to be enforced! No Roses For You, England!

Saudi Arabia's religious police have banned the sale of red roses ahead of Valentine's Day. Crimson items - from roses to wrapping paper - have been banned from the shelves of florists and gift shops in Riyadh until Friday by the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

	Look out Cupid: No roses in Riyadh

Every year officials visit florists a few days before Feb 14 to issue warnings on red items, which are widely seen as symbols of love, according to local newspapers.

The Commission raids shops on the eve of Valentine's Day, which it sees as an encouragement of relations outside of wedlock, to ensure that the ban is being carried out.

According to the Saudi Gazette, the ban has resulted in a blossoming black market for red roses. One man, who claimed to run an underground flower shop out of his flat, said he could make as much as SAR20-30 (£2.70- £4) per rose, when the normal price is SAR5-7 (68p - £1).

He told the paper that he sometimes delivers bouquets in the middle of the night to avoid prying eyes, and that his loyal customers place orders weeks before the Feb 14 holiday.

Relationships outside marriage are strictly prohibited in the conservative Muslim state and are punishable by law.

"As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women," Sheikh Khaled al-Dossari , a scholar in Islamic Studies and sharia law, told the paper.

However, there is some hope for hopeless romantics. This year Valentine's Day coincides with mid-term break, so many Saudis have already left the kingdom on holiday.

The ban came into force in Riyadh on Sunday and red items remain forbidden until after February 14. The Telegraph

St Joseph Cathedral, Sioux Falls, Renovation Could Take Three Years and $15 Million

.
Sioux Falls Diocese Bishop Paul Swain wants to restore the beauty of St. Joseph Cathedral through a $15 million renovation project that could begin this year. Swain laid out preliminary plans for the project before members and nuns Monday night in the cathedral's church hall.

The renovation would do more than put paint on the walls, he said. It would create an atmosphere that would bring more people to the church and help spread the word of God. "We'll have some opportunities to invite others in," he said. "I'm not going to be satisfied if all we do is restore a beautiful place. ... I'm hopeful that we also enliven this place in a new way."

Swain said the project could take three years. He emphasized being respectful of what members have inherited and doing the project right. "We need to do it well so what we do will last for the next 90 years," he said.

He envisions restoring the side altars, repainting the walls and ceiling and refurbished pews, among other tasks. There also is electrical and air-conditioning work to be done, he said. Swain said the church will need to raise money for the project. He said the cathedral must do what it can afford and avoid heavy debt.

Church member Tony Bour asked whether the project would conflict with O'Gorman High School's building project by asking the Catholic community for more donations. Swain said some are willing to give to both causes. Historic preservation funds are not available for churches, he said.

Church member Ken Schulte of Renner asked whether the cathedral would be closed during the work. "In the '70s, I remember the church being closed for a while," he said. "The scaffolding was huge."

Swain said some dioceses have closed cathedrals for two years, but he isn't inclined to do so. The church might be closed briefly for safety, and scaffolding will be up for Mass at times.

Sister Donna Brown of Sioux Falls asked whether the sound system would be replaced. "If you can't hear the Word, then people miss the boat," she said. Swain agreed the sound system is a problem. He mentioned new technology that puts a speaker in every pew.

Bour said afterward that the maintenance tasks are needed. "There's a lot of major peeling going on - on the walls, around the windows and up the sides," he said. "It's been many, many, many years since it was painted."

His wife, Lorraine, pointed out water damage on the basement's south wall. "We do need some improvements made," she said. "This is such a gorgeous building. I would hate to see it in disrepair."

Swain said renderings will be created in two to three months. Argus-Leader

Vandals strike cemeteries in Winona diocese with malice over a ten year period. Bishop Harrington hints at satanism!

. Vandalism at Calvary Cemetery in Rochester last month seems more than just a prank and was a hostile act that showed "perhaps even a satanical attitude toward our Catholic religion," said Winona Diocese Bishop Bernard Harrington, who noted a series of destructive acts at Catholic cemeteries in southern Minnesota.

In January, intruders beheaded a statue of the Virgin Mary at Calvary Cemetery and tried to chisel the head off a statue of Jesus. The incident is the most recent in a 10-year string of vandalism at diocesan cemeteries, said Harrington.

In a statement released this month on the Rochester incident, Harrington listed cemeteries where vandals have desecrated statues, headstones and graves. The list includes Calvary Cemetery in Austin (2003 and 2006), St. Columba Cemetery in Iona (2005), St. Aloysius Cemetery in Elba (2002), St. Charles Cemetery in St. Charles (1999) and Holy Trinity Cemetery in Rollingstone (1996).

Damage also was caused by reckless or drunken drivers at cemeteries in Austin (1995, 1999 and 2006), Hammond (2000), Owatonna (2003) and Iona (2005).

Harrington said he's sure police are pursuing all reasonable leads, but "at the same time, I wonder how much a sense of loss and true compassion is present in our local Catholic and church communities."

Statewide, vandalism in recent years appears to be on par with what it's always been, said Ron Gjerde, director of the Minnesota Association of Cemeteries.

The Rochester Franciscan Congregation owns the damaged statues at Calvary Cemetery in Rochester and likely won't decide until spring whether to replace them, said Sister Ramona Miller. Rochester Post-Bulletin

I bring you tidings of great joy: Can I say Alleluia in Lent? I will anyway! Alleluia! We Have a Nun!

.
.

Our very own blogger, the Roamin' Roman, Ms. Veritatis Splendor herself, Mary Gibson, native born cheesehead, UST Grad (just about), stalwart of the Cathedral Young Adults, etc. will be entering the Convent of the Order of Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles (Priory of Our Lady of Ephesus ((where the Blessed Mother probably was assumed into Heaven)) ) in Kansas City, Missouri, on this coming June 11. The Feast Day of St Barnabas, an early convert and aide to St Paul in his conversion work among the gentiles.

Of course this was not to be doubted, but from the photo it is obvious that Mary won't have to worry about color coordinating her outfits in the future as "black and white" seems to be the norm for those Missouri Benedictines, as evidenced by the 75 pounds of garments enshrouding each of them.

That gives us plenty of time to party after Lent, folks.

Other than St Paul-Minneapolis, she couldn't have picked a finer diocese which is under the wonderful shepherding of Bishop Robert Finn, who is a member of Opus Dei.

See Mary's web page, Veritatis Splendor! Go visit there and give her your prayers and God Speeds and best wishes.

A couple or years ago, Mary spent her final year at UST at their Rome campus and took 172 kazillion pictures of every church and shrine within 1,000 miles of the Vatican. Check out her "Roamin' Roman" blog for those pictures and wonderful descriptions that are still posted.

We need a committee to start planning a big send-off. Does anybody know if there is a list of bloggers who became nuns. I know that there are some Nuns who became bloggers, including Sister Edith, a member of the Benedictine Monastery of St Scholastica in Duluth.

God Bless You, Mary. We're going to miss you. And pray for me and the rest of us.

Haven't made a Lentan Resolution Yet? It's Not Too Late!

.
The English bishops (what would we do without merrie olde Englande?) of Liverpool and London have declared this year to be a "Carbon-Free Lent."

As the non plus ultra of Lenten self-denial, participants in the Carbon Fast are to remove one prominent light bulb and live without it for 40 excruciating days. On Easter, they will screw in a low-energy bulb, thus saving 60kg of carbon (1). . . .

Instead of fasting for Lent, the bishops are urging their faithful to reduce their carbon footprint a fraction each day. Instead of giving up snacking on chocolates, they are told to avoid using plastic bags. Instead of giving up lolly-gobbling, they are told to unplug their mobile phone charger. Instead of giving up alcohol, they are told to check the house for draughts (2). . . .

Chesterton is reported to have said that those who stop believing in Christianity don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. This is not an epigram which the readers of spiked, a generally godless publication, are likely to assent to. But it does seem to apply to certain clerics. Having abandoned traditional practices of Christian piety in a desperate search for relevance and fuller pews, the bishops have resorted to touting an activities list which treats the environment with the respect they once paid to God. . . .

Above all, the privations of Lent were supposed to be an imitation of the 40 days Christ spent in the desert fasting before beginning his ministry. Fasting and penance are essential to Christianity because its founder commanded them: ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.’ It is a strange sales pitch in the Penguin’s godless world, but at least it is a distinctive one - unlike the bishops’ commonsense message of thrift, which appears to have been cribbed from a list of handy household hints by Tesco’s public relations department.

However, one of the bishops’ suggestions is more demanding than anything the Penguin would ever have recommended to us. On the thirty-ninth day of Lent, Good Friday, the day when Christendom contemplates the betrayal, the scourging, the crucifixion and agonising death of Christ, they want their flock to talk to church leaders about making their churches greener.

Only a saint could possibly do that. Give me a hairshirt any day. Spiked

The Generally atheist writers for Spiked seem to have a much better idea of what Lent is about than do some English bishops.

The full list of pledges for the carbon fast:

Day one
(Ash Wednesday.) Remove one light bulb and live without it for the next 40 days.

Day two
Check your house for draughts with a ribbon or feather. If it flutters, buy a draught excluder.

Day three
Tread lightly – whether that's by foot, by bike, on to a bus or on the gas as you drive. Find a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when you travel today.

Day four
Are you recycling everything possible? Really – everything? Look into it today.

Day five
Can you talk about your Carbon Fast at church today? Encourage others to join in.

Day six
Turn your central heating thermostat down by one degree.

Day seven
Say au revoir to standby. Check that all electrical equipment is switched off when not in use. The TV alone will save a hefty 20kg of carbon dioxide per year.

Day eight
Unplug your mobile phone charger: it uses electricity even when it's not charging.

Day nine
Climate change isn't a distant threat – it's affecting poor communities now. Pray for Tearfund's work to help vulnerable communities adapt to the changing weather.

Day 10
Give your dishwasher a day off or promote it to a Grade A energy efficient appliance.

Day 11
Use local shops or farmers' markets (farmersmarkets.net) instead of driving to out-of-town shopping parks. They will thank you; supermarkets won't notice your absence.

Day 12
Tell politicians to take action on climate change today. Check out Tearfund's campaign work at tearfund.org/climate.

Day 13
Put the heat on your electricity or gas suppliers and ask them if they have a green plan. Make the switch and feel cosy.

Day 14
Take a shower instead of a bath: you'll heat less water.

Day 15
Snub plastic bags. Get into the habit of taking your rucksack to the supermarket or go retro with a trolley. Ask your supermarket to remove unnecessary packaging.

Day 16
Switch off lights as you leave the room.

Day 17
Only fill your kettle with as much water as you need.

Day 18
Cut the air miles. Don't consume any food that you know has been imported by plane (apart from Fairtrade products).

Day 19
Grace Maglasey and her husband Andrew struggle to grow enough food because their village in Malawi is caught in a cycle of floods and droughts. Join in with Grace's prayer today: "We pray that those of us who farm should harvest a lot of food so that this year we will not have hunger. In the name of Jesus, Amen."

Day 20
Compost. Put the nutrients from food waste back into the soil – not into a methane-emitting landfill.

Day 21
Only run your washing machine when you have a full load.

Day 22
Find one way to save paper today: re-use an old envelope or print double-sided.

Day 23
Turn the taps off. In one day a hot, dripping tap could fill a bath.

Day 24
Counsel your local council. Thank them for their recycling facilities but ask them if they could provide any more.

Day 25
Who works hardest in the house? Mum? Dad? No, the fridge. It's churning away 24/7. Treat it to a good de-icing to make sure it's running efficiently.

Day 26
"Love does no harm to its neighbour" Romans 13:10. But while our lifestyles consume more and more energy, our poorer neighbours are suffering. Reflect on ways to love our neighbours in our increasingly connected world.

Day 27
Pressure a car owner to check their tyre pressures. Low tyre pressure means high fuel consumption.

Day 28
Do a home energy check at energysavingtrust.org.uk or call 0800 512 012 for a paper copy. You could save up to £250 a year on bills.

Day 29
Run your washing machine at 30 degrees. This uses 40% less electricity than running at 40 degrees.

Day 30
Find out a new fact about the impact of climate change today. Amaze your friends.

Day 31
Fit aluminium foil behind your radiator – allowing you to turn the radiator down and save £10 a year per radiator.

Day 32
Any old iron? If they're on their last legs replace old electrical appliances with energy-efficient models. They could save a third of the energy.

Day 33
Have an embrace-the-silence Sunday. Turn off everything. No TV, no radio, no ringtones, no cars. It'll be good for the soul.

Day 34
Tell the Mailing Preference Service that you want to stop junk mail. Call 0845 7034599 or visit mpsonline.org.uk. Sign up to Tearfund's e-newsletter Twelve at tearfund.org/twelve

Day 35
Put an insulation jacket on your hot-water tank. If everyone does, we'll cut enough carbon dioxide to fill 148,000 hot-air balloons.

Day 36
Re-use an item you would have thrown away – such as a jam jar, an envelope or an ice-cream container.

Day 37
Put a lid on it. That's pans when cooking; and use a kettle to boil water.

Day 38
Draw the curtains to keep the heat in.

Day 39
Could your church be greener? Talk to your church leaders. Tearfund can help – visit the site.

Day 40
Replace your missing bulb with an energy-saving lightbulb. Over its lifetime, you will save 60kg of carbon dioxide per year and up to £60. Make a personal pledge to serve others by pursuing a more sustainable way of life. The Guardian

Archbishop of Canterbury Proposes Dividing Great Britain in Two, Giving Muslims Their Own Laws

.
The Archbishop of Canterbury drew criticism from across the political spectrum last night after he backed the introduction of sharia law in Britain and argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed "unavoidable". Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of England, said that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system. The Guardian

My, yes, social cohesion in "England's Green and Pleasant Land."

England used to have the death penalty for poachers, trespassing on royal property and hundreds of other offenses and wisely effectively dropped all capital punishments in 1965. I wonder what it will be like when muslim sharia magistrates will be chopping off the heads and hands of criminals and Muslim radtrads will be advocating the number of permitted wives to be increased from 4 to 40 based on their reading of the Koran. And of course, the divorce courts will be devoid of lawyers who will all have to retrain as accountants to figure out how to create interest free loans.

What will it be like when the long desired Muslim Caliphate, an institution that will again govern all Muslim religious, civil law and secular activities, is resurrected?

While I do acknowledge that Jesus created one Church and wants everybody to be fully in that one Roman Catholic Church, I regularly wonder about those who press obsessively for ecumenical unions.

Some church leadership just aren't at all interested in union. The Russian Orthodox church barely allows Catholic churches to operate in Russia. The Greek Orthodox aren't much better in Greece and still complain about the the sacking of Constantinople. But they never seem to complain about the subsequent capture of Constantinople, now Istanbul, by the Muslim Turks. Some of the tiny Orthodox Churches do seem to be interested

The Catholic Church as desired by protestants would be unrecognizable.

The Church of England led the charge towards allowing contraception at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, one of their versions of regular Church wide councils. That, divorce and remarriage soon followed in virtually all protestant churches and abortion is also permitted or ignored these days. The number of sacraments has dropped from seven down to two in most of them.

It seems to me that virtually all churches most likely to be targets of an ecumenical movement are abandoning the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church as fast as they can. Only a few of their no doubt powerless prelates remain with nothing else to do but attend meetings and write about how wonderful union would be.

From my limited knowledge, I sense that while many churches talk about union, we Catholics are the only Church that has made any movements towards it. We have added Protestant prayers to the Mass ("For thine is the kingdom. . . ."), We've retranslated the perfectly fine Douay-Rheims bible based on the work of St Jerome and the words of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a simplistic brain-dead translation that consciously mis-translates words to make them easy to understand and avoid conflict. "Hail favored one!" The Pope has just changed a Good Friday prayer to avoid offending Jewish radical Abraham Foxman who is still offended. No surprise there.

We look to be nothing but a bunch of appeasers who just think they possess the fullness of Jesus' teaching and instructions. The protestants are waiting. They are confident that someday we will come over to their beliefs.

And now the Archbishop of Canterbury, of all people, wants to abandon the Magna Carta and the other wonderful documents that created the greatness that has been England.

Do Your Parish Holy Water Founts Look Like Deserts During Lent? They Shouldn't!

.
CONGREGATION DE CULTU DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM

Port. N. 569/00/L Dear Father:

March 14, 2000

This Congregation for Divine Worship has received your letter sent by fax in which you ask whether it is in accord with liturgical law to remove the Holy Water from the fonts for the duration of the season of Lent.

This Dicastery is able to respond that the removing of Holy Water from the fonts during the season of Lent is not permitted, in particular, for two reasons:

1. The liturgical legislation in force does not foresee this innovation, which in addition to being praeter legem is contrary to a balanced understanding of the season of Lent, which though truly being a season of penance, is also a season rich in the symbolism of water and baptism, constantly evoked in liturgical texts.

2. The encouragement of the Church that the faithful avail themselves frequently of the [sic] of her sacraments and sacramentals is to be understood to apply also to the season of Lent. The "fast" and "abstinence" which the faithful embrace in this season does not extend to abstaining from the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church. The practice of the Church has been to empty the Holy Water fonts on the days of the Sacred Triduum in preparation of the blessing of the water at the Easter Vigil, and it corresponds to those days on which the Eucharist is not celebrated (i.e., Good Friday and Holy Saturday).

Hoping that this resolves the question and with every good wish and kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ, [signed]

Mons. Mario Marini Undersecretary [Tip O' the Hat to Dr. Jack]

I think that the Pope should have his officials wear numbers on their cassocks and chasubles, like they do in professional sports. Especially if they have a last name of "Marini."

Those of you avid readers of the small print and appointments in L'Osservatore Romano are no doubt aware that Archbishop Piero Marini, considered to be a controversial Vatican liturgist by some, was recently replaced by Monsignor Guido Marini, from the archdiocese of Genoa.

Critics of Marini 1 are ecstatic by the appointment of Marini 2. Many old chasubles and papal thrones and candle holders have already been removed from the Vatican closets and put back into use. A semi-load of incense was recently seen pulling into the Vatican delivery dock with a load for Holy Week. Marini 3, Mario, apparently is not related to the others.

Chuck Colson Teaches Catholics About Abortion

.
The Faith, Given Once for All

Chuck Colson writes "A few years ago, novelist Anne Rice, famous for her vampire stories, recommitted herself to her Catholic faith. She then announced that she was dedicating her writing talents to Christ. One result was the wonderful book, Christ the Lord, a story that imagines the childhood of Jesus.

It is apparent that Rice’s beliefs are deep and genuine—which is why I was so surprised to learn she is endorsing a staunchly pro-abortion presidential candidate.

As Rice explained on her website, “My . . . vote must reflect my deepest Christian convictions. For me, these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ . . . which include feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors.”

In response, my friend, Princeton professor Robert George, also Catholic, gently reminded Rice of the teachings of Mother Teresa: “We cannot fight credibly against other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, while we tolerate mass killings by abortion.”

George is right. Now, some of you may be thinking, “There Chuck goes again, mixing religion and politics.” But as I write in my new book, The Faith, Christians did not leap into politics five minutes after Roe v. Wade was decided. Christian doctrine on the sanctity of life, coupled with the Church’s involvement in politics, began 2,000 years ago.

For instance, the Didache, a first-century manual of Christian discipleship, teaches: “In accordance with the precept of the teaching, ‘you shall not kill,’ you shall not put a child to death by abortion or kill it once it is born.”

Church father Justin Martyr put it equally bluntly: “We have been taught that it is wicked to expose even newly born children” to die in the elements, for “we would then be murderers.”

And in the Church’s first political appeal in the second century, Christian apologist Athenagoras wrote this to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “We say that women who use drugs to bring on an abortion commit murder.”

Medical advances confirm what ancient Christians took as a matter of faith—that the essential identity of every human life remains the same from conception to natural death.

Whether we believe this and accept responsibility for the unborn child depends on our view of humanity. Do we believe that humans were created in God’s image? Or do we believe, as the secularist does, that humans are just one more example of evolution’s chance handiwork, no different in kind than lice and lungfish?

If we believe that life evolved by chance, humanity must invent its own reasons for being, and the ethics by which we govern ourselves. That means, whose lives we value become a matter of what can be done to produce the greatest happiness for everybody, but that is a deeply dangerous view—for unborn children, the handicapped, the elderly, or the simply inconvenient.

I hope you will read my new book, The Faith, because in it you will learn what Christians believe, why we believe it, and why it matters. We have defended, as you will see in the book, the sanctity of life at every stage through the centuries, including leading all the great human-rights campaigns. It may sound harsh, but in the book I say, “Christians who are pro-choice are denying the Gospel and have to question whether they have not separated themselves from the company of Christian discipleship.”

The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture

.
Father Richard John Neuhaus, First Things:

One might suggest that the book is really two books, one about what has happened to Catholicism in Boston and the other about the sex abuse scandal in the Church in America. Boston is the synecdoche [def: often considered a subclass of metonymy -- thanks Father N.; I thought I might have trouble figuring out what that meant] for the telling of the much larger story. It is admittedly a very big synecdoche, but much of the book takes leave of Boston altogether in order to examine what happened and is still happening in dioceses around the country.

The account offered is devastating and the blame is clearly laid at the door of the American bishops. Lawler is outraged, but, to his credit, his outrage is controlled. His judgments are sometimes harsh, but, in view of the evidence, they could hardly be otherwise. Throughout, one senses his palpable love for the Church, his solid orthodoxy, and his yearning for spiritual and moral renewal. Lawler was long the editor of Catholic World Report and for several years, under Bernard Cardinal Law, editor of the archdiocesan newspaper The Pilot. His treatment of Law, who was compelled to resign as Archbishop of Boston in December 2002, strikes one as an exemplary exercise in trying to put the best possible construction on the indisputably indefensible.

“The thesis of this book,” writes Lawler, “is that the sex abuse scandal in American Catholicism was not only aggravated but actually caused by the willingness of church leaders to sacrifice the essential for the inessential; to build up the human institution even to the detriment of the divine mandate.” Bishops again and again responded to the crisis as institutional managers, employing public relations stratagems to evade, deceive, and distract attention from their own responsibility. Lawler several times invokes the terse observation of St. Augustine, “God does not need my lie.” The bishops lied, says Lawler, and many of them are still lying. This is offered not as an accusation but as a conclusion that he believes is compelled by the evidence.

“The first aspect of the scandal, the sexual abuse of children, has been acknowledged and addressed,” Lawler writes. “The second aspect, the rampant homosexuality among Catholic priests, has been acknowledged but not addressed, and later even denied. . . . The third aspect of the scandal has never even been acknowledged by American church leaders.” The third aspect, the malfeasance of bishops, “is today the most serious of all.”

Over 80 percent of reported cases of abuse were with teenage boys. That does not include, of course, uncounted instances of sex with men who are of age, since those cases, as several bishops have opined, constitute no problem for the Church, meaning no legal or financial problem. Spiritual and moral problems apparently do not enter the equation. The name for this is corruption. Lawler quotes at length an article, published in 2000, before the scandal in Boston made national headlines, by Father Paul Shaughnessy:

If we examine any trust-invested agency at any given point in its history, whether that agency be a police force, a military unit, or a religious community, we might find that, say, out of every hundred men, five are scoundrels, five are heroes, and the rest are neither one nor the other: ordinarily upright men who live with a mixture of moral timidity and moral courage. When the institution is healthy, the gutsier few set the overall tone, and the less courageous but tractable majority works along with these men to minimize misbehavior; more importantly, the healthy institution is able to identify its own rotten apples and remove them before the institution itself is enfeebled. However, when an institution becomes corrupt, its guiding spirit mysteriously shifts away from the morally intrepid few, and with that shift the institution becomes more interested in protecting itself against outside critics than in tackling the problem members that subvert its mission. For example, when we say a certain police force [diocese] is corrupt, we don’t usually mean that every policeman [priest] is on the take—perhaps only five out of a hundred actually accept bribes—rather we mean that this police force [diocese] can no longer diagnose and cure its own problems, and consequently, if reform is to take place, an outside agency has to be brought in to make the changes.

Lawler adds: “Homosexual influence within the American clergy was not in itself the cause of the sex abuse crisis. The corruption wrought by that influence was a more important factor.” He very gingerly addresses a theory proposed by a number of commentators on the crisis, namely, that bishops engaged in cover-ups and other deceptions because they were threatened with homosexual blackmail. He cites a number of instances in which this appears to be the case and bishops were permitted to resign when their misdeeds could no longer be denied. “The blackmail hypothesis,” he writes, “provides a logical explanation for behavior that is otherwise inexplicable: the bishops’ willingness to risk the welfare of the faithful and their own reputations in order to protect abusive priests.”

The subject of the sex abuse crisis lends itself to sensationalism, but Lawler strives to resist that temptation. His is a generally sober account of a crisis that brought to light a larger pattern of episcopal fecklessness in the Church’s accommodation to, and complicity in, the forces of cultural decadence. As readers know, the sex abuse crisis—its sources and ramifications—is a subject regularly addressed in First Things. And I will likely be returning to The Faithful Departed in the magazine.

I differ with Philip Lawler on a number of points in his telling of the story. For instance, his treatment of the 1940s conflict between Father Leonard Feeney and Cardinal Cushing is, I think, too uncritical of Father Feeney. Feeney was out of line in the way he pressed the claim that only Catholics can be saved. And, despite his critique of cultural accommodationism, Lawler betrays a nostalgia for the old Boston Catholicism that has “collapsed,” even though it was, in its way, a massive instance of cultural accommodation, albeit an institutionally successful instance.

Those and other caveats aside, The Faithful Departed is the best book-length treatment of the sex abuse crisis, its origins and larger implications, published to date.

Argument of the Month Club, Feb 12, 6:30 p.m.: Dale Ahlquist on "Catholic Social Teachiing: Why Liberals AND Conservatives Get It Wrong

.
February 12, 2008: The Argument Of The Month Club, a men’s forum for Catholic Apologetics, is hosting Dale Ahlquist, whose topic is,” Catholic Social Teaching: Why Liberals AND Conservatives Get It Wrong.” The social is from 6:30 pm, with Dinner at 7:00 pm, followed by the talk.

Men and Boys Only; No Salads

The event is being held at St. Augustine’s Catholic Church, 408-3^rd Street North in South St. Paul, Mn at a cost of $12 at the door. For information, call: Kent Wuchterl at 612-722-8444.

Jeff Cavins Teaching on "First Corinthians" at Holy Name of Jesus, Medina and St Elizabeth Ann Seton, Hastings

.

February 21, 2008: Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church in Medina, Mn will host Jeff Cavins live lecturing on his “First Corinthians” Bible Study, which begins February 21^st, continuing through May 8^th. Meeting times are from 10:00 am to 12 noon every Thursday, at a cost of $50. Please register prior to February 7^th.

The video of Jeff Cavins study of “First Corinthians” will be held on the same dates from 7:00pm to 9:00pm at a cost of $40. For information contact: Joan Roozendaal at 763-473-7901.

February 21, 2008: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church in Hastings, Mn is hosting Jeff Cavins live lecturing on “First Corinthians” on Thursday evenings beginning February 21^st continuing until May 8^th. Meeting times are from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm, at a cost of $50 for the course. For information, contact: Jill Skaife at 651-437-42544

The Collapse of the Religious Orders in the U.S. After Vatican II

.
Father George Welzbacher, formerly of St Agnes, now pastor of St John's on St Paul's east side, always has an interesting "Pastor's Page" column in his Sunday Bulletin. Today's is an interesting bit on the decline of the religious orders since the Second Vatican Council. Here is a snippet, but you'd be best off reading the whole essay.

. . . . The [recent] collapse of the large religious orders of men and women in the Church can be attributed to a variety of factors that coalesced at the same time. The disaster has been well described by the well-known anthropologist Fr. Gerald Arbuckle, S.M. in two important books: Strategies for Growth in Religious Life and Out of Chaos: Reforming, Religious Congregations. Religious life, Arbuckle argues, was drawn into the same cultural revolution that undermined family life and higher education in the late 1960s. Unfortunately, the Catholic religious, who had been taught not to think for themselves, followed like sheep. Many of the most strident voices, which demanded the removal of the foundations of religious life, departed after eviscerating the life and constitutions of their communities. Those who sincerely attempted to lead a spiritual life found themselves with little effective leadership.

I once heard a well-meaning and well-educated sister of a respected teaching order tearfully observe at a seminar, "We did what we were told to do." The obvious question "Who told you?" must be asked. Christian religious are called without exception to lead a gospel life and to follow the Scriptures and the traditions of the Fathers, the Church, and the saints. These sources, which were always there, were almost completely ignored. Instead, many shaky theories of psychology, most of them now gone over the waterfall of time, were substituted for the gospel and sacred teaching. Alien and awkward things were introduced into the spiritual life, some of them borrowed from totally misunderstood Asian traditions. We have only to look at the offerings of retreat houses run by some religious congregations to discover how silly people intending to be serious can sometimes become. [One thinks of the cult of labyrinths.] [Several times in the olden days I attended "retreats" in the archdiocese where I looked forward to finding out what "labryinths" were all about. The Holy Spirit made sure that I never found out. I'm no longer interested.]

Along with this came the impact of psychotherapy, which as a result of the discoveries of Sigmund Freud focused almost entirely on undoing what were seen as repressive mechanisms in the personality. Contemporary positive psychology has rejected the general intellectual and emotional bankruptcy of this position. Although some people did get to feel better, they did not necessarily do better or come closer to their eternal goal. As one founder of positive psychology, Aaron Beck, has pointed out, there was an almost complete lack of common sense in psychotherapy from the 1940's to the 1980s. [One of the smartest guys I've ever known majored in psychology and mathematics at the U of MN; he got his PhD from Stanford and has been Chair of the Psychology Department at UCLA for some time now. I instinctively knew that what he talked about was "wrong", but I didn't know why. It must have been "grace."]

The necessity of grace for the spiritual life was also ignored. Semipelagianism, or even full-blown Pelagianism, practically denying the necessity of grace, was observable on all sides. Thus, for example, the widespread popularity of the therapy and petagian assumptions of Carl Rogers, one of the creators of client-centered therapy, practically wiped out a large and respected congregation in California in a single summer.

On top of this, the two major underpinnings of Catholic religious life were seriously weakened in their presentation. The first was the credibility of Sacred Scripture. The rules of many religious orders say explicitly that they are founded on the gospel. As a result of skeptical and rationalistic criticism of the New Testament, the scriptural foundation of religious life was undercut. The rule of life of the Franciscan order, for example, is to observe the gospel-but if the popular scholars are telling us that Jesus didn't do this, didn't say that, didn't mean the other thing, what are we to do?

There was also what Pope Benedict XVI has referred to as the "collapse" of liturgical life. The intellectually and spiritually impressive liturgical movement that was growing in the United States after the Second World War-a movement founded on insights cultivated in the Benedictine abbeys-gave way to misunderstanding of the liturgy as primarily entertainment. The goal was to get everybody involved, but the question remains: Involved in what? In religious communities and parishes across America, liturgical committees were suddenly filled with people who had never studied anything of substance about the Church's liturgy. Eminent liturgical writers such as Romano Guardini and Louis Bouyer deplored this popular and often well-intentioned debasing of liturgy.

In addition, a general theological confusion prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s, undisciplined and unrestrained in nature, which deeply penetrated religious communities and seminaries. I am well aware of it because I was thrown out of four seminaries during these years for the offense of being a Catholic, even though I was only teaching, pastoral counseling. This period of theological confusion has largely come to an end and is roundly rejected by today's young candidates for religious life or the priesthood.

Finally, strange as it may seem, the ideas of Marxism, a philosophy that did untold damage to the lives of hundreds of millions of people, suddenly began to appear in religious communities during this era. I spoke to someone a few years ago who had attended the more avant-garde meetings of religious sisters. I asked what the main topic of conversation was. I was flabbergasted when I was told that it was the teachings of Frederick Engels. (Poor Engels never thought that the last people to take him seriously would be Catholic nuns who had gone off the rails.) [Liberation Theology?] [. . . . Snip]

Just where do they get all those ashes?

.

BURNING PALMS — Cory Green, parish sacristan at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis, burns palms last year in anticipation of Ash Wednesday. Catholic tradition allows for palms distributed during the previous year’s Palm Sunday to be burned and used on Ash Wednesday. This year, Ash Wednesday falls on Feb. 6.

[How many sacristans wear cassocks in our archdiocese?]

Now, in at least one parish that I know of around here, this is where they get their ashes:




These ashes are perfect for the very unique Ash Wednesday service that begins the season of Lent. These ashes have a very consistent texture and color. They are double-bagged for mailing, and this bag has enough ashes for 1000 people. $12.75

Archbishop Raymond Burke on "The Primacy of the Conscience"

.
"Sometimes the primacy of the conscience is misunderstood. If you mean that the conscience has primacy — in the sense that whatever I feel or think becomes then the right thing to do — that’s false. The primacy of the conscience is related essentially to the primacy of the truth. In other words, your conscience has primacy in as much as it is conformed to the truth, and as much as it is properly informed.

For example, let’s say there is someone who espouses a position on procured abortion — that isn’t right. He can’t say that it is right simply because he holds it in his conscience. He has a duty to inform his conscience about the fact that here we are speaking about a human life. And, therefore, the only response we can make to that human life is to safeguard it and protect it. The primacy of the conscience is strictly correlated to the primacy of the truth. "

Archbishop Raymond Burke (former Bishop of La Crosse) was interviewed by his diocesan newspaper, The St Louis Review, after his encounter in the press with the St Louis University basketball coach, Rick Majerus, on the latter's public pro-abortion stand:

Why were you concerned about responding to the comments made by St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus that he favors abortion rights and is pro-embryonic stem-cell research?

There are two levels of concern that I had in addressing the issue. Here is someone who makes a point to identify himself as a Catholic and then takes positions that are contrary to some of the most sacred teachings of the Church — teachings with regard to the inviolable dignity of every human life from the moment of its beginning. It gives scandal to other people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, if they hear a Catholic give an interview to the media, saying that I am proud to be a Catholic but at the same time I hold these views. Then there is a second level, which is that (Majerus) represents a Catholic institution. He is a very prominent member of the St. Louis University community. Whatever his personal positions may be in regard to procured abortion or embryonic stem-cell research, he’s obliged as a public figure from a Catholic university to show respect for the teachings of the Church. For him to say these things brought my concern to a new level.

If he had been of another faith, would this have been different for you?

No, in a certain sense it would not have been different. He still represents a Catholic institution, and so even though he might belong to some faith or belief that accepts procured abortion, he would be obliged to respect the fact that the Catholic Church — and really, this pertains to the natural moral law — teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil; and therefore he would not publicly espouse such positions.

So it comes down to the fact that he made these public statements. But let’s say for example he was of another faith and he said, "I’m for abortion rights," but he was talking among his friends and family. That would be a different scenario, right?

Of course it would. But take for example, what would you think as Catholic parents who have a son or daughter who goes to a Catholic university, and one of the real personalities of the university, a person who is seen to represent the university, is publicly espousing abortion rights? You’d say to yourself, well, this isn’t just.

There are some other things that have come up in the media about you and Mr. Majerus. The Review wanted to provide you the opportunity to set the record straight on this issue. The first issue was whether he should be denied Communion or even excommunicated. Did you bring up any of those things with the members of the media?

I did not raise the questions of denying him Holy Communion or excommunication, but representatives of the media raised them with me. When it was brought up to me, I said that is a matter that first has to be dealt with pastorally with the individual.

So are you suggesting he should speak with you or another priest about the matter? Would you be open to meeting with him?

Oh, of course. The question was asked, "This person who is a prominent figure at a local Catholic university has made these declarations. What do you think?" And I simply said it’s not possible to hold these positions, and I’m deeply concerned about it. But I also said I was confident that the university would address the situation and correct it. I also did not mix myself into the administration of the university. I expressed confidence that the university would do the right thing.

Comments have been made that you were angry or spoke out strongly about what Mr. Majerus had to say. What were you feeling when you heard what he said to a reporter while attending a political rally?

What I felt most of all was just a profound sadness. At a time when in the Church we need to give such a strong witness to the dignity of human life and the Respect Life Apostolate, this counter witness is being given. I was very sad. Did it upset me? Yes, it did. And my main concern was to correct any perception that it’s acceptable for Catholics to be in favor of procured abortion or embryonic stem-cell research. And above all, no Catholic institution could have its representatives espousing such positions. When people take a position at a Catholic institution, there’s a certain sacred trust involved there.

People say it’s a matter of freedom of speech. It’s not a question of freedom of speech. Academic freedom is something quite different. It gives you a freedom to make declarations within your particular area of competence, and according to the canons (laws) for investigation of the truth. It doesn’t give you a kind of heightened freedom to make declarations that are contrary to the truth.

I’d like to use this situation with Mr. Majerus as a springboard to talk about Catholic identity in general. We hear it in other scenarios, like, "I don’t want to be told how to vote." Or, "Why is it so important that we speak out against abortion?" What do you think a Catholic should have done in this kind of a situation, where a Catholic was presented with an opportunity to say something publicly?

First of all, it can be a wonderful occasion for someone from the media to ask you to give a witness to the truth about the inviolable dignity of unborn human life and the dignity of the infant in the womb. If there is a Catholic who for some reason is struggling with his or her adherence to this, then the correct thing to do is to be silent — certainly not to expound error or to air doubts that you’re trying to resolve in your own mind. But to seek the help of a spiritual director to clarify these things.

What if a Catholic were to say, "Archbishop Burke, I’m not struggling with it. I think abortion rights are important." How do you respond to that?

My response to that is you are in a very serious state of error and that you need to get the help to rectify your conscience. Your conscience is wrongly formed. And you need to get whatever help it takes to form your conscience properly in accord with the Church’s teaching, and in this case, with the natural moral law.

What do we need to believe in order to be Catholic? For example, when we recite the Nicene Creed at Mass, that’s something fundamental to our faith. But beyond that, are there other elements of our faith that we are bound to believe in?

We are held to believe whatever has been taught by the Church and declared by the Church to be a doctrine of the faith. All of those doctrines are connected in some way with the fundamental articles of the faith, which we profess in the Profession of Faith. Of course, the Nicene Creed doesn’t contain any of the moral teaching of the Church. Those are all things handed down either in the natural moral law or divine revelation, and further defined by the Church.

Can you give some examples of some of those teachings that go beyond the Creed?

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for instance; the moral teaching on the intrinsic evil of procured abortion; or the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts.

Catholics who seem to hold beliefs that go against the Church’s teachings often say that they are "doing the right thing," or "following their conscience." Does this come down to an issue of free speech?

Sometimes the primacy of the conscience is misunderstood. If you mean that the conscience has primacy — in the sense that whatever I feel or think becomes then the right thing to do — that’s false. The primacy of the conscience is related essentially to the primacy of the truth. In other words, your conscience has primacy in as much as it is conformed to the truth, and as much as it is properly informed.

For example, let’s say there is someone who espouses a position on procured abortion — that isn’t right. He can’t say that it is right simply because he holds it in his conscience. He has a duty to inform his conscience about the fact that here we are speaking about a human life. And, therefore, the only response we can make to that human life is to safeguard it and protect it. The primacy of the conscience is strictly correlated to the primacy of the truth.

Should Catholics make public statements against Church teachings, such as speaking at a rally?

When you make a public statement at a rally for instance, or any other kind of public forum, you lead other people astray with regard to what the Church teaches. You can lead astray Catholics, and you also can lead nonCatholics into error about what the Church teaches. And you even can influence them to do things that are gravely wrong. And this is what we call scandal: when you do something which leads other people into error or even into committing a sin. This is a very serious matter when a Catholic publicly espouses a position contrary to the faith.

And how does that differ from private statements made to friends and family?

With regard to conversations with family and friends, there, too, one must be careful if a person is having doubts or questions about something and is discussing this privately with another family member whom he trusts and can help him to deal with this doubt. But if you’re in a family gathering, and say there are young people there for example, and you espouse a teaching or a moral doctrine contrary to the Church, you can lead other people astray — either influence them to think wrongly about either a doctrine or a moral issue, or even lead them to do something wrong. We have to be very attentive in all of our conversations — that our words give glory to God and express our love of God and neighbor at all times. And if something we are saying is not giving glory to God and not expressing the love of God and our neighbor, then it shouldn’t pass our lips.

What do you think about the responsibility of Catholic public figures when speaking in the public arena?

Public figures, they really have so much more possibility to give a strong witness and an effective witness to the truth of the faith. I think for instance during the battle to defeat Amendment 2, those (Major League) baseball players took out an ad to say this isn’t fair to treat human embryos in this way. It had a terrific impact. Or the physicians who went around the state and talked to people, explaining to them what’s involved in embryonic stem-cell research. This is so important, because we look up to our public figures.

It seems now, more than ever, it’s difficult to be a Catholic. I think people are now starting to see that, especially with your presence here. Do you want to speak on that?

Oftentimes, members of the faithful have commented to me that it’s really a challenge these days to be a Catholic. For instance, they’ll be in social settings, even settings where a greater part of the people are Catholic, where there’s some discussion that is contrary to the Church’s teaching. And it isn’t easy for them to speak up and to defend the Church’s teaching. And yet, that’s what they’re called to do. I have had doctors, lawyers, workers of all kinds who say in their workplaces that people come in and say, ‘What is this about the Catholic Church?’ They might be the only person in the conversation who is upholding the Church’s teaching. And it isn’t easy.

I think many people are beginning to reflect on the fact that these are precisely the moments to give witness to Christ and his teaching. And maybe the people at the time ridicule you or simply reject what you say or even say that your position is medieval, but nevertheless you have given a witness. And that witness remains.

People sometimes say to me, ‘I’m not very eloquent,’ or, ‘I never studied theology,’ and these people are talking about things like the ordination of women for example. I say to them to use whatever words you have, but defend what you understand to be the Catholic faith. That’s what you’re called to do. That’s how witness is given to Christ, and that’s how people hear the truth and are led to change their thinking. It isn’t easy, and I understand that.

People laugh when I say this, but basically, I’m a quiet person. I’m not a person who likes to be making all kinds of public declarations; and yet I know that as archbishop that’s my responsibility. If I, who am supposed to be a sentinel for the faithful and to guard them against error, don’t give a warning when gravely wrong things are being said in public, I have a lot for which to answer. All of us, we have occasions in our homes, in social settings, in our work, to give this witness. It’s critical today, because the world is so confused about so many of the most fundamental truths. And if we as Catholics remain silent, we’re failing at a service we’re called to give the world — to speak the truth with love.

Finally, you mentioned it’s your responsibility as the shepherd of your flock to guide situations where there’s some kind of confusion about the teachings of the Church. We don’t always see that with all of our bishops. I know a number of people who have said, "Why is our archbishop saying this, but another bishop somewhere else isn’t doing anything at all?" What do you say to that?

I don’t know what all those other situations are (personally), and that’s strictly speaking not my business. I think what we ought to do in the archdiocese and I have to do as archbishop is say, ‘Are these situations that need to be addressed in our archdiocese?’ If they are, the archbishop better be addressing them, or he’s failing in his duty. And he shouldn’t worry about whether he appears to be different from some other bishops. We don’t know what all those situations are and what judgments those bishops are making. But sometimes people say to me, you seem to be unusual, and I’m not. I don’t think I am. I say to myself, let’s look at the situation. Is there something unusual about a bishop saying that it’s wrong to be in favor of procured abortion? I’m a Roman Catholic priest and bishop. What else would you expect me to say?

Friday Stations and Seminars at St Helena's

February 8
John F. Boyle, Ph.D.,
"The Father and Spiritual Childhood"

February 15
Fr. Christopher Beaudet, J.C.L.,
“Redemptive Suffering: How Misfortunes Can
Contribute to Our Sanctification”

February 22
Fr. John Gallas, S.T.L.,
"The Holy Spirit and the Virtue of Fortitude"

February 29
Arthur Hippler, Ph.D.,
“Charity or Justice—Which Matters Most?”

March 7
Fr. Randal Kasel, M.Div.,
"'Spe Salvi,' Pope Benedict XVI's New Encyclical on Hope"

March 14
"Fr. James Reidy, Ph.D.,
"Doing Penance and the Sacrament of Penance"
"Lenten Series on the Spiritual Life"


Friday evenings, February 8 through March 14.
7:30 to 9:00 P.M., Rowan Hall, $4 per talk

(Stations of the Cross are celebrated at 7:00 P.M.
in St. Helena Church before the series begins.)

Church of St Helena's Lenten Seminars

The Church of St. Helena

will present a series of eight classes on
"Basic Teachings of the Catholic Faith"
taught by Fr. James Reidy, Ph,D.

Mondays, February 11 through March 31, 2008,
from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
No charge except $14.95 for the textbook (complimentary textbooks are
available). Call 612-729-7321 to register.


"How Dare The Church Tell Me What To Do?"
by Douglas G. Bushman, S.T.L.

"Prof. Bushman will explain the underpinnings of Part III of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and show why Catholic moral teaching is not imposed by an authority that is foreign to us but is God's answer to the deepest questions about the meaning."

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
7:30 to 9:00 P.M.
Tuition: $5 per person


"Bible Study—
The Last Supper, Crucifixion, and Resurrection
of Our Lord According to St. Matthew's Gospel"
taught by John Martens, Ph.D.

Saturday mornings, February 16, 23, March 1, & 8
9:00 to 10:30 A.M.
Parish Office Building; $5 per session. Please bring your Bible.
Saturday morning Mass in Church at 8:00 A.M.


Cana Dinner for Married Couples

(Cana refers to the Wedding Feast of Cana)
Guest Speaker: Christopher Ruff, S.T.L., M.A.
Saturday, February 23
Rowan Hall $30 per couple
6:00 - Social, 6:30 - Dinner,
7:30 - Talk "As I Have Loved You" by Christopher Ruff


Church of St. Helena
3204 East 43rd St.
Minneapolis, MN
telephone: 612-729-7321.



For all talks and programs,
complimentary tickets are available
by calling 612-729-7321.