.
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.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Chuck Colson Teaches Catholics About Abortion
.
The Faith, Given Once for All
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.”
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture
.
Father Richard John Neuhaus, First Things:
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.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
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 atSt. Augustine ’s Catholic Church, 408-3rd Street North South St. Paul
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
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
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 21st continuing until May 8th. 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]
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
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?
"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?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
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.
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.
Douglas Bushman, STL
Catholic Theologian and
Director of the Ave Maria University
IPT - Institute for Pastoral Theology
“How Dare the Church Tell
Me What to Do?”
"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."
Date: Tues. Feb. 12
Time:
Rowan Hall
Tuition: $5.00
Complementary tickets are available by phoning:
(612) 729-7321
Douglas Bushman, STL
Catholic Theologian and
Director of the Ave Maria University
IPT - Institute for Pastoral Theology
Catholic Theologian and
Director of the Ave Maria University
IPT - Institute for Pastoral Theology
Two Part Series on Evangelization:
Part I: Ongoing Conversion: the Foundation
and the Evangelized Community
Thurs. February 7th
Part II: Witness, and the Dialogue of
Salvation in an Evangelizing Community
Tues. March 11th
Time for both: 7:00 p.m.
Part I: Ongoing Conversion: the Foundation
and the Evangelized Community
Thurs. February 7th
Part II: Witness, and the Dialogue of
Salvation in an Evangelizing Community
Tues. March 11th
Time for both: 7:00 p.m.
St.Charles Borromeo Parish, Doran Hall
2739 Stinson Boulevard, N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418
2739 Stinson Boulevard, N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418
"The Saturday Meme": Three Weeks Late
.
Well, it's probably been obvious by now that after a couple of years of doing this blog thing, I kinda ran out of gas after Christmas and pretty much took the month of January off, without any explanation. But, not that I'm rarin' to go, but at least I'll jump back into the saddle (poor horse) and see what I can do about holding up my end of the deal. I suppose the fact that nominations for "Best Catholic Blog" are coming up might have something to do with it.
And I just heard some great Catholic gossip, but sorry, if I told you the details, I'm afraid that would be the end of you. You just couldn't handle it.
Anyhoooo, the patient (and extremely funny) Ironic Catholic tagged me with one of those irritating memes a few weeks ago and that as much as anything (other than a promise to Adoro) has got me back in the traces. Lots of metaphors, too.
Book: The Book of Days, a Miscellany of Popular Antiquities in Connection with the Calendar including Anecdote, Biography & History, Curiosities of Literature and Oddities of Human Life and Character, edited by R. Chambers, in Two vols., Vol. I, 1888 [Boy, they sure knew how to write book titles in the olden days, didn't they?]
P. 123, January 16, tidbit on Sir John Moore who achieved some bit of fame at the Battle of Corunna, January 16, 1809, which must have been some naval engagement between Napoleon and England: [5th sentence] "At thirteen he danced, fenced and rode with uncommon address; his character was a fine compound of intelligence, gentleness and courage."
"The connection with the Duke of Hamilton had cost Moore very nearly his life. The Duke, though only sixteen, was allowed to wear a sword. One day, 'in an idle humour, he drew it, and began to amuse himself by fencing at young Moore, and laughed as he forced him to skip from side to side to shun false thrusts." [For the sum of only 50 cents, I'll give you the fourth sentence if you can't stand the suspense.]
I'm not sure who has been tagged with this, but it would be interesting to see who owns books, and what kind: How 'bout Mitchell Hadley, Judith Hadley; Laura the Crazy Mama, Swiss Miss; and Sanctus Belle.
Well, it's probably been obvious by now that after a couple of years of doing this blog thing, I kinda ran out of gas after Christmas and pretty much took the month of January off, without any explanation. But, not that I'm rarin' to go, but at least I'll jump back into the saddle (poor horse) and see what I can do about holding up my end of the deal. I suppose the fact that nominations for "Best Catholic Blog" are coming up might have something to do with it.
And I just heard some great Catholic gossip, but sorry, if I told you the details, I'm afraid that would be the end of you. You just couldn't handle it.
Anyhoooo, the patient (and extremely funny) Ironic Catholic tagged me with one of those irritating memes a few weeks ago and that as much as anything (other than a promise to Adoro) has got me back in the traces. Lots of metaphors, too.
Rules: Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages).
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.
Well, being that I'm in the early stages of reorganizing my desk, it happened to be full of piles of books (well, it has been that way for a considerable period of time, actually, being in my library area) and I had to decide which book was "nearest at hand." Would it be "as the crow flies", or would it be in a "linear" mode, taking into consideration the five books, the magnifying glass, the daytimer, the ring binder and the assorted papers that were piled on top of the book only two inches from my right paw. If I chose the "linear method", it would have been a Webster's Dictionary. That would have been no fun. So I chose the crow's method:
Book: The Book of Days, a Miscellany of Popular Antiquities in Connection with the Calendar including Anecdote, Biography & History, Curiosities of Literature and Oddities of Human Life and Character, edited by R. Chambers, in Two vols., Vol. I, 1888 [Boy, they sure knew how to write book titles in the olden days, didn't they?]
P. 123, January 16, tidbit on Sir John Moore who achieved some bit of fame at the Battle of Corunna, January 16, 1809, which must have been some naval engagement between Napoleon and England: [5th sentence] "At thirteen he danced, fenced and rode with uncommon address; his character was a fine compound of intelligence, gentleness and courage."
"The connection with the Duke of Hamilton had cost Moore very nearly his life. The Duke, though only sixteen, was allowed to wear a sword. One day, 'in an idle humour, he drew it, and began to amuse himself by fencing at young Moore, and laughed as he forced him to skip from side to side to shun false thrusts." [For the sum of only 50 cents, I'll give you the fourth sentence if you can't stand the suspense.]
I'm not sure who has been tagged with this, but it would be interesting to see who owns books, and what kind: How 'bout Mitchell Hadley, Judith Hadley; Laura the Crazy Mama, Swiss Miss; and Sanctus Belle.
What the "Jebbies" are Talking About
.
John Allen, National Catholic Reporter:
Millions are waiting to read the final document.
John Allen, National Catholic Reporter:
This morning the Jesuits offered a press briefing in Rome on the ongoing work of their 35th General Congregation. The session was conducted by Fr. David Smolira, former Provincial of the British Province and currently director of the Jesuit Institute in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Smolira began with an overview of the congregation and then responded to questions on a range of topics. . . .Millions are waiting to read the final document.
Cardinal Martini's 'preemptive strike' ahead of Synod on the Bible
.
John Allen, National Catholic Reporter Looking ahead to next October’s Synod of Bishops on the Bible, a cardinal and one of the most noted experts on scripture in the Catholic hierarchy has launched what amounts to a “preemptive strike” – appealing to his brother bishops to concentrate on practical matters, rather than revisiting theological questions settled by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
John Allen, National Catholic Reporter Looking ahead to next October’s Synod of Bishops on the Bible, a cardinal and one of the most noted experts on scripture in the Catholic hierarchy has launched what amounts to a “preemptive strike” – appealing to his brother bishops to concentrate on practical matters, rather than revisiting theological questions settled by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former archbishop of Milan and a former rector of the Pontficial Biblical Institute in Rome, published his recommendations in the Feb. 2 issue of La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit-run journal that enjoys a semi-official Vatican status.
Martini, a Jesuit, is widely regarded as a leading voice for the progressive wing of the Catholic church. His essay on the Synod suggests concern that next October’s Synod could be an occasion for reconsidering, or even reversing, choices about scripture made by the progressive majority at Vatican II. . . .[Snip]
Martini urges the synod to become an occasion for “a great examination of conscience by the entire church on the fruits it draws from sacred scripture.” In general, Martini counsels a focus on pastoral applications rather than theological underpinnings.
The majority of Catholics, Martini writes, “have not yet reached that level of familiarity with scripture that was hoped for by Vatican II.” He cites an Italian study, for example, which found that 70 percent of Italian Catholics have never read the four gospels, and another 15 percent have done so only once.
Yet paragraph 25 of Dei Verbum, Martini recalls, asserts that “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Those words, he writes, should constitute “a goal, and an important moment in the pastoral planning of every bishop.”
Observing the explosion in Catholic Biblical commentaries and study aids in the years since Vatican II, Martini says that “it’s inexcusable that a Catholic lay person, and much more a priest or religious, should claim that they don’t use scripture because they don’t have adequate supports.”
Martini also argues for a distinction between scripture study and catechesis, arguing that it’s desirable for catechetical materials to utilize scripture, but that nothing substitutes for direct contact with the Bible itself.
In that connection, Martini voices “a desire, perhaps a bit Utopian, but nonetheless important”: During every daily Mass, he proposes, a three-minute explanation of the scripture readings for the day should be offered.
“Experience shows that it’s possible in three minutes to give an ‘input’ that will help shape the day,” Martini writes, arguing that to be effective this presentation has to be well-prepared. . . . [Snip]
Cardinal Martini, retired, and one of the rear guard of the progressives from Vatican II, has other aspects of Dei Verbum that he wants to protect. I'm not competent to speak with respect to those, but I sure do appreciate it when, rarely, it seems, a homilist really explains the day's readings. They seem to concentrate on giving a message. But if they want to send a message, as Sam Goldwyn once said, they should "use Western Union." It seems to most often happen during the short homilies on the week days. But few go to Mass during the week. The "three minute explanation" should mostly be concentrated on Sundays and Holy Days.
"Fred Heads" Shave to Support their Pal
.
Six-year-old Fred Tilbury likes math, Hot Wheels and snowmobiling. He also likes his hair. Has a thing about it, actually.
Once, his mom, Naomi, cut it too short, and "you would have thought it was the end of the world," she said.
So when Fred learned that the radiation he was undergoing to treat the inoperable cancer spiderwebbed across his brain would make his hair fall out, he was very scared and very sad.
His best friend, Noah Vicich, agreed to shave his head with him. Then some classmates agreed to shave theirs too. Then some teachers, some friends and some neighbors joined in.
On Friday afternoon, they filled the cafeteria at Fred's school, St. Helena School in south Minneapolis for a show of solidarity and a fundraiser.
The about 200 students at the private Catholic school had covered one wall with red hearts. "Dear Fred," one said. "We love you and you rock, Fred!" Another: "Dude your too cool for school! Get well soon dude!" Parents sold T-shirts that read "I shaved my head for Fred," and "Friends for Fred."
The Tilburys first realized something was wrong when Fred fell at school in May. Doctors found a growth but said it didn't appear to be cancerous, so they took a wait-and-see approach, Naomi said.
Six months later, Fred was seeing double from his left eye. Just before Christmas, he was in the hospital for an MRI and a biopsy.
Doctors diagnosed a rare, aggressive form of cancer that had branched across his brain and wrapped around his brain stem. Doctors give him 18 months to live, maybe more with treatment.
Although he began radiation two weeks ago, Fred has remained upbeat.
On Friday, he was happy and playful, as friends say he always is. He dared people to get Mohawks: "You gotta do a Mohawk!" he told his dad, Dave. "If you do too, I'll do one," his dad said.
At 4 p.m., the electric clippers of four hair stylists began buzzing. Watching his dad's white-blond hair disappear in a few long strokes, Fred got quiet; then upset. Soon, he had to leave the room.
But dozens of people remained crowded around the impromptu barber shop. Ten-year-old Ben Murray -- who lives three houses from Fred and met him "when I was born" -- smiled as they buzzed his hair. "I'm proud," he said afterward.
The crowd stood on tiptoes and chairs to see one teacher shave off her hair and another his moustache.
Soon, a third of the room was bald.
After some tears, some time in the stairwell in his mom's arms, a chocolate cupcake and a temporary tattoo and some time rubbing his dad's newly shaved head, Fred joined them.
His mother took the clippers and slowly, carefully shaved her son's head to reveal a thick scar running from one ear to the other. Fred kept his head low, eyes down.
"Freddy, Freddy, Freddy," the crowd cheered. Fred looked up at them and smiled. StarTribune
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Homosexual Collective Meets Once Again to Declare that they Have No Free Will and are Pre-Destined to be Homosexuals Forever
.
Clayton Emmer who used to live in the Twin Cities and who has taken his blog, The Weight of Glory, to Hollywood, has posted a snippet on the activities of the "homosexual collective" here in years past. They have a rally tonight at their world headquarters at Lake Street and 13th Avenue S. in Minneapolis.
Clayton defends Courage, the Catholic spiritual support group for those with same sex attraction, against the dogmatic teachings of homosexuals that it is impossible for a homosexual to cease participating in homosexual activities. They find themselves to be akin to fruit flies, things whose activities can be predictably forecast.
What a sad belief system: they think they are trapped in the bodies of creatures that are slaves to behavior whose primary goal in life is to pursue sexual pleasure. Just like animals, but usually without the procreation.
Yet some profess to believe in God. But they don't believe that "all things are possible with God."
Read Clayton's post here.
Clayton Emmer who used to live in the Twin Cities and who has taken his blog, The Weight of Glory, to Hollywood, has posted a snippet on the activities of the "homosexual collective" here in years past. They have a rally tonight at their world headquarters at Lake Street and 13th Avenue S. in Minneapolis.
Clayton defends Courage, the Catholic spiritual support group for those with same sex attraction, against the dogmatic teachings of homosexuals that it is impossible for a homosexual to cease participating in homosexual activities. They find themselves to be akin to fruit flies, things whose activities can be predictably forecast.
What a sad belief system: they think they are trapped in the bodies of creatures that are slaves to behavior whose primary goal in life is to pursue sexual pleasure. Just like animals, but usually without the procreation.
Yet some profess to believe in God. But they don't believe that "all things are possible with God."
Read Clayton's post here.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The March for Life and the Religion of Abortion
.
t goes without saying that the annual March for Life is one of the most exciting and unifying events in the international movement to defend life. 100,000+ pro-lifers converged on our nation’s capital this week, more than half of whom were under the age of 25, and declared that the slaughter of the innocents is never going to be accepted as a permanent institution in our nation. Abortion-promoters would be hard-pressed to show the world that they could sustain such a massive public movement in their favor for 35 straight years. I can only say, “Bravo!” to all the people—especially the kids—who made great sacrifices to join us in Washington this week. It also goes without saying that the little tin gods in the media did their level best to ignore and obfuscate this colossal event. When the homosexual propaganda film star, Heath Ledger, died of a drug overdose on two nights before the March, that provided the hedonistic media the perfect reason to wail and gnash their teeth for a prolonged period of time about their immoral agenda and derail coverage of the life event. I will pray for Mr. Ledger’s immortal soul, but at the same time his death is a study in contrasts with the March for Life. The Brokeback Mountain star was only 28 at the time of his demise. It was his massage therapist who discovered his body that morning. A thumbnail sketch of his adult life might look something like this: Hollywood glitter, money and status, cohabitating with a girlfriend, a child out of wedlock, an activist for an immoral lifestyle, drug overdose and then death at a very young age. It’s a real tragedy, but the culture of hedonism and death was dramatically played against the culture of life and life in Washington DC that day. Not to be outdone by the godless media, the Planned Parenthood in Schenectady, NY also staged its own drama of the absurd. They dedicated a new 18,000 square foot killing center that day and had three members of the abortion “clergy” come out and “bless” it! What I have always said about abortion as a demonic religion was on graphic display in NY as we were marching for life in DC. Two “ministers” came to do the blessing from a “reformed” church—their view of “reform” is obviously different than ours. The (male) reverend used the occasion to proudly announce a new doctrine to the three dozen devotees of sacred abortion: the right to privacy is endowed by God, he said. Now, we cannot even find the “right to privacy” in the US Constitution and yet this fellow makes a new religious right out of whole cloth. Don’t ask the demonic religion for a good grounding in history or logic. The other abortion clergyman was a rabbi who blew the shofar as a way to show support for reproductive rights. Our friend Rabbi Yehuda Levin who blows the shofar most years at the March for Life will have a field day with that one. The most absurd aspect of the blessing ceremony, however, was when the Rev. Larry Phillips of Schenectady's Emmanuel-Friedens Church led the congregation outside to lay hands on the brick and mortar and to declare that the killing center was “sacred ground.” Ugh. The hierarchy (Planned Parenthood), the acolytes (clinic workers), the congregation (supporters) and the ministers were all at the abortion temple that day worshipping the god of abortion. And the demons were so pleased. St. Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6 that our battle is not against flesh and blood. It is against the principalities and powers of this world of darkness. The darkness is spreading, but the Light of Christ shines forth in all those wonderful kids and their parents that showed the world that life will win in the end. “The light shines on in darkness, a darkness that did not overcome it.” (Jn 1:5) | ||
Sincerely Yours in Christ, |
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Kissling, Michelman: Pro-Aborts Have Lost the High Ground
.
Frances Kissling, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, is the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Kate Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of "Protecting the Right to Choose."
LA Times: Thirty-five years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed in Roe vs. Wade that women have a fundamental right to choose abortion without government interference. Now, on this anniversary of that landmark decision, the United States has some of the most restrictive policies on abortion in the developed world. In contrast to Europe, the U.S. forbids the use of federal funds for abortions, and the Supreme Court has upheld state laws that require parental consent or notification, mandatory waiting periods and antiabortion counseling. The court's 2007 decision on so-called partial-birth abortions was an unprecedented infringement on physician autonomy.
Since Roe, U.S. public opinion has been relatively stable and favorable to legal abortion. Early efforts to overturn Roe failed miserably. Given this reality, the anti-choice movement changed tactics. It no longer focused primarily on banning abortions but concentrated on restricting the circumstances under which abortion would be available. It succeeded in shifting public attention from broad support for legal abortion to strong support for restricting access. Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view.
How did this happen? Did the pro-choice movement fail? Or did those opposed to abortion simply respond more effectively to the changing science as well as the social shift from the rights rage of the '60s to the responsibility culture of the '90s?
In the 1970s, the arguments were simple and polarized: Abortion was either murder or a woman's right to control her body. The fetus, however, stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women's bodies to the "who decides" question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding.
Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed.
These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into "the human community." Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?
Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and "life-affirming" lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term "culture of life." President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.
At the same time, women and their decisions have come under ever more powerful microscopes. The specter of women forced into back alleys as a result of a one-time "mistake" has been replaced with hard questions about why women get pregnant when they don't want to have babies.
In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion. Likewise, we haven't convinced people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions.
Let's face it: Disapproval of women's sexuality is a historical constant. So our claim that women can be trusted still falls on deaf ears. And when the choice movement seems to defend every individual abortion decision, rather than the right to make the decision, it too becomes suspect.
If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed from 1973.
Frances Kissling, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, is the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Kate Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of "Protecting the Right to Choose."
LA Times: Thirty-five years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed in Roe vs. Wade that women have a fundamental right to choose abortion without government interference. Now, on this anniversary of that landmark decision, the United States has some of the most restrictive policies on abortion in the developed world. In contrast to Europe, the U.S. forbids the use of federal funds for abortions, and the Supreme Court has upheld state laws that require parental consent or notification, mandatory waiting periods and antiabortion counseling. The court's 2007 decision on so-called partial-birth abortions was an unprecedented infringement on physician autonomy.
Since Roe, U.S. public opinion has been relatively stable and favorable to legal abortion. Early efforts to overturn Roe failed miserably. Given this reality, the anti-choice movement changed tactics. It no longer focused primarily on banning abortions but concentrated on restricting the circumstances under which abortion would be available. It succeeded in shifting public attention from broad support for legal abortion to strong support for restricting access. Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view.
How did this happen? Did the pro-choice movement fail? Or did those opposed to abortion simply respond more effectively to the changing science as well as the social shift from the rights rage of the '60s to the responsibility culture of the '90s?
In the 1970s, the arguments were simple and polarized: Abortion was either murder or a woman's right to control her body. The fetus, however, stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women's bodies to the "who decides" question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding.
Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed.
These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into "the human community." Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?
Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and "life-affirming" lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term "culture of life." President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.
At the same time, women and their decisions have come under ever more powerful microscopes. The specter of women forced into back alleys as a result of a one-time "mistake" has been replaced with hard questions about why women get pregnant when they don't want to have babies.
In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion. Likewise, we haven't convinced people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions.
Let's face it: Disapproval of women's sexuality is a historical constant. So our claim that women can be trusted still falls on deaf ears. And when the choice movement seems to defend every individual abortion decision, rather than the right to make the decision, it too becomes suspect.
If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed from 1973.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Supreme Incongruity: Chief Justice Warren Burger's daughter is Pro-Life
.
Dawn Eden, author of the book, "The Thrill of the Chaste", and the blog, "The Dawn Patrol", encountered a pro-life volunteer in Washington D.C. who was there for the Pro-Life March tomorrow. The volunteer, Mary Margaret, is a convert to Catholicism and is the daughter of Chief Justice Warren Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court, a St Paul native, who presided over the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Abortions at any time during the gestation of the fetus were approved on a 7 to 2 vote of the justices (if that incongruous word might be used).
Dawn's post is HERE.
It is extremely interesting that "Jane Roe", the plaintiff in the case, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, also became a Catholic convert and is also now a pro-life activist.
Dawn Eden, author of the book, "The Thrill of the Chaste", and the blog, "The Dawn Patrol", encountered a pro-life volunteer in Washington D.C. who was there for the Pro-Life March tomorrow. The volunteer, Mary Margaret, is a convert to Catholicism and is the daughter of Chief Justice Warren Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court, a St Paul native, who presided over the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Abortions at any time during the gestation of the fetus were approved on a 7 to 2 vote of the justices (if that incongruous word might be used).
Dawn's post is HERE.
It is extremely interesting that "Jane Roe", the plaintiff in the case, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, also became a Catholic convert and is also now a pro-life activist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)