26 December 2012
19 December 2012
A Man for This Season, and All Seasons | Public Discourse
A Man for This Season, and All Seasons | Public Discourse
Given the grand sweep of British history, those are harsh words from a former Londoner. An English Catholic convert and author, Pearce is now a resident Fellow at Thomas More College in New Hampshire. But he merely said what many people thought: that the Olympic closing ceremony they watched on global television was one long liturgy of overripe vulgarity, a jamboree of cheesy and offensive pop culture. In effect, it showcased a nation grasping to reinvent itself by escaping back to adolescence while ignoring its own real past.
This shouldn’t surprise us. Europe’s work of reinvention, or self-delusion, has been going on for decades, not only in Britain but across the continent. One of the key obstacles to the process is the depth of Europe’s Christian roots. As recent popes and many others have pointed out, there really is no “Europe” without its historic Christian grounding. Anyone wanting a new Britain, or a new Europe, needs to get rid of the old one first. So diminishing Christianity and its influence becomes a priority. And that includes rewriting the narrative on many of Christianity’s achievements and heroes.
By way of evidence: Consider the case of Thomas More, lawyer, humanist, statesman and saint; martyred by England’s King Henry VIII in 1535; canonized in 1935; celebrated in Robert Bolt’s brilliant 1960 play A Man for All Seasons; and more recently trashed as proud, intolerant, and devious in Hilary Mantel’s best-selling 2009 novel, Wolf Hall, now set for release as a 2013 BBC2 miniseries.
Critics of More are not new. His detractors had a voice well before his beheading. As Henry VIII’s chancellor, he earned a reputation as a hammer of heretics and a fierce opponent of Martin Luther and William Tyndale. Yet Erasmus of Rotterdam revered More as a scholar and friend. Jonathan Swift, the great Anglo-Irish writer, described him as “a person of the greatest virtue this kingdom [of England] ever produced.” When Pope John Paul II named Thomas More as patron saint of statesmen in 2000, he cited More’s witness to the “primacy of truth over power” at the cost of his life. He noted that even outside the Church, More “is acknowledged as a source of inspiration for a political system which has as its supreme goal the service of the human person.”
Ten years later, speaking to leaders of British society in Westminster Hall, Pope Benedict XVI returned to the same theme. Benedict noted that More “is admired by believers and non-believers alike for the integrity with which he followed his conscience, even at the cost of displeasing the sovereign whose ‘good servant’ he was, because he chose to serve God first.”
So which is it: More the saint or More the sinner? Was he the ruthless, sexually repressed rage addict suggested by historians like G.R. Elton, fearful of change and driven by helpless fury? Or was he the humble and generous “man for all seasons” praised by his friend Robert Whittinton and so many others among his contemporaries? Were there really two Thomas Mores: the young, open-minded humanist, and the older royal courtier, gripped by religious fanaticism?
The moral integrity of More’s life has been argued with persuasive skill in the various works of Gerard Wegemer, among many others. And Peter Ackroyd’s fine biography, The Life of Thomas More, vividly captures the whole extraordinary man—his virtues, his flaws, and the decisive nature of his moment in history. Travis Curtright has now added to the luster of the real More’s legacy with his excellent new book The One Thomas More.
As the title suggests, Curtright sees Thomas More’s life as a consistent, organic record of Christian witness, start to finish; a thoroughly logical integration of humanism, piety, politics and polemical theology. There is only “one” Thomas More—a man of tender nobility, subtle intellect, and forceful conviction, all rooted in profound fidelity to the larger commonwealth of Christendom outside and above Tudor England. For Curtright, More embodied “the Erasmian ideal of wedding learning with virtue,” lived through a vigorous engagement with temporal affairs. He treats More’s scholarly critics with proper respect while methodically dismantling their arguments; and he does it by carefully unpacking and applying three of More’s most important written works: The Life of Pico Mirandola, The History of Richard III, and Utopia.
Curtright correctly sees that More’s real source of annoyance for many modern revisionist critics is his faith. If revisionists like Elton implicitly define “humanism” as excluding religious faith, then a man like Thomas More and the whole vast Christian tradition of integrating faith and reason become serious irritants. As Curtright observes:
The One Thomas More is not a book for beachside browsing. While it’s well-written, modest in size and rich in content, it is a scholarly effort. Some casual readers may find it heavier than they bargained for. But as a resource on Thomas More, it’s invaluable. Curtright’s final chapter, “Iconic Mores on Trial,” has special importance. It directly challenges Mantel’s loose treatment of facts, for which it deserves wide circulation.
Having said all this, Thomas More has been dead nearly 500 years. Why should his legacy matter today?
Barring relief from the courts, Christian entities, employers, and ministers in the coming year will face a range of unhappy choices. As the Affordable Care Act takes force and the HHS contraceptive mandate imposes itself on Christian life, Catholic and other Christian leaders can refuse to comply, either declining to pay the consequent fines in outright civil disobedience, or trying to pay them; they can divest themselves of their impacted Christian institutions; they can seek some unexplored compromise or way of circumventing the law; or they can simply give in and comply with the government coercion under protest.
Good people can obviously disagree on the strategy to deal with such serious matters. But the cost of choosing the last course—simply cooperating with the HHS mandate and its evil effects under protest—would be bitterly high and heavily damaging to the witness of the Church in the United States. Having fought loudly and hard for religious liberty over the past year, in part because of the HHS mandate, America’s Catholic bishops cannot simply grumble and shrug, and go along with the mandate now, without implicating themselves in cowardice. Their current resolve risks unraveling unless they reaffirm their opposition to the mandate forcefully and as a united body. The past can be a useful teacher. One of its lessons is this: The passage of time can invite confusion and doubt—and both work against courage.
Again: Why does Thomas More still matter? Why does he matter right now?
More’s final work, scribbled in the Tower of London and smuggled out before his death, was The Sadness of Christ. In it, he contrasts the focus and energy of Judas with the sleepiness of the Apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane. He then applies the parable to his own day and the abject surrender of England’s bishops to the will of Henry VIII: “Does not this contrast between the traitors and the Apostles present to us a clear and sharp mirror image . . . a sad and terrible view of what has happened through the ages from those times to our own? Why do not bishops contemplate in this scene their own somnolence?"
More urges the bishops not to fall asleep “while virtue and the faith are placed in jeopardy.” In the face of Tudor bullying, he begs them, “Do not be afraid”—this from a layman on the brink of his own execution.
Of course, that was then. This is now. America 2012 is a very long way, in so many different ways, from England 1535.
But readers might nonetheless profit in the coming months from some reflection on the life of Sir Thomas. We might also take a moment to remember More’s friend and fellow martyr, John Fisher, the only bishop who refused to bend to the king’s will; the man who shortly before his own arrest told his brother bishops: “. . . the fort has been betrayed even [by] them that should have defended it.”
Charles J. Chaput, a Capuchin Franciscan, is the archbishop of Philadelphia and the author of Render Unto Caesar.
Receive Public Discourse by email, become a fan of Public Discourse on Facebook, follow Public Discourse on Twitter, and sign up for the Public Discourse RSS feed.
Support the work of Public Discourse by making a secure donation to The Witherspoon Institute.
Copyright 2012 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
A Man for This Season, and All Seasons
There is only one Thomas More: A man of tender nobility, subtle intellect, and forceful conviction, all rooted in profound fidelity to the larger commonwealth of Christendom outside and above Tudor England.
A day after the 2012 Summer Olympics closed in London, Joseph Pearce wrote that he felt like his “body had been covered in slime. I also felt a great sense of gratitude that I had shaken the smut and dirt from my sandals and had left the sordid culture of which I was once a part.”Given the grand sweep of British history, those are harsh words from a former Londoner. An English Catholic convert and author, Pearce is now a resident Fellow at Thomas More College in New Hampshire. But he merely said what many people thought: that the Olympic closing ceremony they watched on global television was one long liturgy of overripe vulgarity, a jamboree of cheesy and offensive pop culture. In effect, it showcased a nation grasping to reinvent itself by escaping back to adolescence while ignoring its own real past.
This shouldn’t surprise us. Europe’s work of reinvention, or self-delusion, has been going on for decades, not only in Britain but across the continent. One of the key obstacles to the process is the depth of Europe’s Christian roots. As recent popes and many others have pointed out, there really is no “Europe” without its historic Christian grounding. Anyone wanting a new Britain, or a new Europe, needs to get rid of the old one first. So diminishing Christianity and its influence becomes a priority. And that includes rewriting the narrative on many of Christianity’s achievements and heroes.
By way of evidence: Consider the case of Thomas More, lawyer, humanist, statesman and saint; martyred by England’s King Henry VIII in 1535; canonized in 1935; celebrated in Robert Bolt’s brilliant 1960 play A Man for All Seasons; and more recently trashed as proud, intolerant, and devious in Hilary Mantel’s best-selling 2009 novel, Wolf Hall, now set for release as a 2013 BBC2 miniseries.
Critics of More are not new. His detractors had a voice well before his beheading. As Henry VIII’s chancellor, he earned a reputation as a hammer of heretics and a fierce opponent of Martin Luther and William Tyndale. Yet Erasmus of Rotterdam revered More as a scholar and friend. Jonathan Swift, the great Anglo-Irish writer, described him as “a person of the greatest virtue this kingdom [of England] ever produced.” When Pope John Paul II named Thomas More as patron saint of statesmen in 2000, he cited More’s witness to the “primacy of truth over power” at the cost of his life. He noted that even outside the Church, More “is acknowledged as a source of inspiration for a political system which has as its supreme goal the service of the human person.”
Ten years later, speaking to leaders of British society in Westminster Hall, Pope Benedict XVI returned to the same theme. Benedict noted that More “is admired by believers and non-believers alike for the integrity with which he followed his conscience, even at the cost of displeasing the sovereign whose ‘good servant’ he was, because he chose to serve God first.”
So which is it: More the saint or More the sinner? Was he the ruthless, sexually repressed rage addict suggested by historians like G.R. Elton, fearful of change and driven by helpless fury? Or was he the humble and generous “man for all seasons” praised by his friend Robert Whittinton and so many others among his contemporaries? Were there really two Thomas Mores: the young, open-minded humanist, and the older royal courtier, gripped by religious fanaticism?
The moral integrity of More’s life has been argued with persuasive skill in the various works of Gerard Wegemer, among many others. And Peter Ackroyd’s fine biography, The Life of Thomas More, vividly captures the whole extraordinary man—his virtues, his flaws, and the decisive nature of his moment in history. Travis Curtright has now added to the luster of the real More’s legacy with his excellent new book The One Thomas More.
As the title suggests, Curtright sees Thomas More’s life as a consistent, organic record of Christian witness, start to finish; a thoroughly logical integration of humanism, piety, politics and polemical theology. There is only “one” Thomas More—a man of tender nobility, subtle intellect, and forceful conviction, all rooted in profound fidelity to the larger commonwealth of Christendom outside and above Tudor England. For Curtright, More embodied “the Erasmian ideal of wedding learning with virtue,” lived through a vigorous engagement with temporal affairs. He treats More’s scholarly critics with proper respect while methodically dismantling their arguments; and he does it by carefully unpacking and applying three of More’s most important written works: The Life of Pico Mirandola, The History of Richard III, and Utopia.
Curtright correctly sees that More’s real source of annoyance for many modern revisionist critics is his faith. If revisionists like Elton implicitly define “humanism” as excluding religious faith, then a man like Thomas More and the whole vast Christian tradition of integrating faith and reason become serious irritants. As Curtright observes:
The entire structures of the two Mores and real More theories congeal around [critics’] notions of a "true" humanism that excludes the possibility of faith and reason working together, a position transparently stated by [G.R.] Elton and one that influences contemporary condemnations of More as a "fanatic."
Bickering over the “real” Thomas More has importance beyond the scholarly community. Why? Because just as the nutty premises of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code confused millions by reinventing the backstory of Christian belief, so too the novel Wolf Hall offers a revisionist Thomas More wrapped in popular melodrama. The author, Hilary Mantel, a lapsed Catholic whose disgust for the Church is a matter of public record, drew her portrait of More in part from the work of Elton. The “hero” of her novel is Thomas Cromwell—More’s tormentor, and in reality, a man widely loathed by his contemporaries as an administratively gifted but scheming and vindictive bully. Unlike the widespread European shock that greeted More’s judicial murder, few wept for Cromwell when he finally followed More to the scaffold.The One Thomas More is not a book for beachside browsing. While it’s well-written, modest in size and rich in content, it is a scholarly effort. Some casual readers may find it heavier than they bargained for. But as a resource on Thomas More, it’s invaluable. Curtright’s final chapter, “Iconic Mores on Trial,” has special importance. It directly challenges Mantel’s loose treatment of facts, for which it deserves wide circulation.
Having said all this, Thomas More has been dead nearly 500 years. Why should his legacy matter today?
Barring relief from the courts, Christian entities, employers, and ministers in the coming year will face a range of unhappy choices. As the Affordable Care Act takes force and the HHS contraceptive mandate imposes itself on Christian life, Catholic and other Christian leaders can refuse to comply, either declining to pay the consequent fines in outright civil disobedience, or trying to pay them; they can divest themselves of their impacted Christian institutions; they can seek some unexplored compromise or way of circumventing the law; or they can simply give in and comply with the government coercion under protest.
Good people can obviously disagree on the strategy to deal with such serious matters. But the cost of choosing the last course—simply cooperating with the HHS mandate and its evil effects under protest—would be bitterly high and heavily damaging to the witness of the Church in the United States. Having fought loudly and hard for religious liberty over the past year, in part because of the HHS mandate, America’s Catholic bishops cannot simply grumble and shrug, and go along with the mandate now, without implicating themselves in cowardice. Their current resolve risks unraveling unless they reaffirm their opposition to the mandate forcefully and as a united body. The past can be a useful teacher. One of its lessons is this: The passage of time can invite confusion and doubt—and both work against courage.
Again: Why does Thomas More still matter? Why does he matter right now?
More’s final work, scribbled in the Tower of London and smuggled out before his death, was The Sadness of Christ. In it, he contrasts the focus and energy of Judas with the sleepiness of the Apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane. He then applies the parable to his own day and the abject surrender of England’s bishops to the will of Henry VIII: “Does not this contrast between the traitors and the Apostles present to us a clear and sharp mirror image . . . a sad and terrible view of what has happened through the ages from those times to our own? Why do not bishops contemplate in this scene their own somnolence?"
More urges the bishops not to fall asleep “while virtue and the faith are placed in jeopardy.” In the face of Tudor bullying, he begs them, “Do not be afraid”—this from a layman on the brink of his own execution.
Of course, that was then. This is now. America 2012 is a very long way, in so many different ways, from England 1535.
But readers might nonetheless profit in the coming months from some reflection on the life of Sir Thomas. We might also take a moment to remember More’s friend and fellow martyr, John Fisher, the only bishop who refused to bend to the king’s will; the man who shortly before his own arrest told his brother bishops: “. . . the fort has been betrayed even [by] them that should have defended it.”
Charles J. Chaput, a Capuchin Franciscan, is the archbishop of Philadelphia and the author of Render Unto Caesar.
Receive Public Discourse by email, become a fan of Public Discourse on Facebook, follow Public Discourse on Twitter, and sign up for the Public Discourse RSS feed.
Support the work of Public Discourse by making a secure donation to The Witherspoon Institute.
Copyright 2012 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
28 November 2012
Catholics Don't "Believe" Life Begins at Conception
Catholics Don't "Believe" Life Begins at Conception
We Catholics do not "believe" life begins at conception, also called fertilization. We instead know that it does because it is a cold hard fact of nature that a new, distinct, human organism, identifiable by his or her unique DNA, is created at the completion of fertilization. That is not a belief. That is a fact.
A fact bolstered by embryology:
So why do we debate the question of "when human life begins?" I believe it is because the debate about when life begins is actually focused on the wrong question or rather questions. It is not a matter biologically of when a new human organism begins. That is an established fact.
The real debate is about whether or not human life has value, whether or not an embryo or fetus has moral worth simply because he (or she) is human. And whether or not every human life, despite it's point of development, deserves respect and protection.
When people say that life does not begin at conception what they are really saying is that they do not believe that embryonic life has value and that it does not deserve to be protected.
The Catholic Church teaches that the new human life that begins at conception has dignity and worth simply because it is human. Catholics know that human life is present from the moment of fertilization. We also hold that all human life is intrinsically valuable.
Even in a increasingly secular world, society understands that the taking of an innocent life is a moral trespass that cannot be allowed. Hence the prohibition of homicide in secular law. The basis of this understanding is the reality that human life does indeed have value simply because it is human. (Even France, where creating embryos for research is banned, has a law regulating research on embryos that lists the following core principles as guidelines, "Respect for the dignity of the human embryo" and "Respect for all stages of life.")
There are others who want to qualify and restrict which human lives are considered valuable because of a particular agenda. We know who they are. But the Catholic Church does not make any qualifications. Irregardless of point of development, Catholics acknowledge the inherent dignity in every human organism. To assign value to human life at some developmental point after conception is simply arbitrary.
Lee M. Silver, professor of Molecular Biology at Princeton University, wrote in his book Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family:
So the next time someone says to you, "Human life does not begin at conception," correct them and tell them that life indeed does begin at conception and what they really mean to say is "I don't believe the life that begins at conception has value." (And then explain to them why that stance is totally illogical.)
And if you must use the word "believe" when discussing the beginnings of life, please do not say, "I believe life begins at conception." Say instead, "I believe the life that begins at conception has moral worth simply because it is human."
Rebecca Taylor blogs at Mary Meets Dolly
Catholics Don't "Believe" Life Begins at Conception
I don't know how many times I have heard it. Well-meaning Catholics who say, "As a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception." I have decided that my mission in life is to correct this miscommunication because it is that very line that lets everyone who is not Catholic dismiss everything we have to say about stem cell research, cloning and reproductive technologies.We Catholics do not "believe" life begins at conception, also called fertilization. We instead know that it does because it is a cold hard fact of nature that a new, distinct, human organism, identifiable by his or her unique DNA, is created at the completion of fertilization. That is not a belief. That is a fact.
A fact bolstered by embryology:
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, p. 8 )Even a secular children's book on human reproduction from my local library is clear:
"But nine months before, when you first began, you were just one little cell, even smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. Half of this cell came from your mother's body, and the other half came from your father's body."I am not alone in my distaste for that common "I believe that life begins at conception" phrase. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson also took umbrage with the word "believe" when discussing the facts of life. He wrote in his "Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist":
"Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy....As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception." [emphasis mine][And for you sticklers for nomenclature, in recent years, practitioners of in vitro fertilization (IVF) have redefined conception as the implantation of an embryo in the uterus. This allows them to say that prior to implantation, an embryo has yet to be conceived. This implies that a new human organism begins at implantation instead of fertilization which is scientifically incorrect. The Catholic Church uses conception in its correct and traditional usage, meaning fertilization.]
So why do we debate the question of "when human life begins?" I believe it is because the debate about when life begins is actually focused on the wrong question or rather questions. It is not a matter biologically of when a new human organism begins. That is an established fact.
The real debate is about whether or not human life has value, whether or not an embryo or fetus has moral worth simply because he (or she) is human. And whether or not every human life, despite it's point of development, deserves respect and protection.
When people say that life does not begin at conception what they are really saying is that they do not believe that embryonic life has value and that it does not deserve to be protected.
The Catholic Church teaches that the new human life that begins at conception has dignity and worth simply because it is human. Catholics know that human life is present from the moment of fertilization. We also hold that all human life is intrinsically valuable.
Even in a increasingly secular world, society understands that the taking of an innocent life is a moral trespass that cannot be allowed. Hence the prohibition of homicide in secular law. The basis of this understanding is the reality that human life does indeed have value simply because it is human. (Even France, where creating embryos for research is banned, has a law regulating research on embryos that lists the following core principles as guidelines, "Respect for the dignity of the human embryo" and "Respect for all stages of life.")
There are others who want to qualify and restrict which human lives are considered valuable because of a particular agenda. We know who they are. But the Catholic Church does not make any qualifications. Irregardless of point of development, Catholics acknowledge the inherent dignity in every human organism. To assign value to human life at some developmental point after conception is simply arbitrary.
Lee M. Silver, professor of Molecular Biology at Princeton University, wrote in his book Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family:
“Once fertilization is complete, there are no isolated moments along the way where you can point at an embryo or fetus and say that it is substantially different from the way it was a few minutes, or even hours earlier.”Everyone one of us is a continuous organism from the moment we are conceived to the day that we die. It is illogical that we be valued and protected under the law only for a part of that continuous process.
So the next time someone says to you, "Human life does not begin at conception," correct them and tell them that life indeed does begin at conception and what they really mean to say is "I don't believe the life that begins at conception has value." (And then explain to them why that stance is totally illogical.)
And if you must use the word "believe" when discussing the beginnings of life, please do not say, "I believe life begins at conception." Say instead, "I believe the life that begins at conception has moral worth simply because it is human."
Rebecca Taylor blogs at Mary Meets Dolly
15 November 2012
Quo Vadis – O, Bishops?
Quo Vadis – O, Bishops?: Robert Royal offers some suggestions to the bishops meeting in Baltimore: begin kindling some fires – an be prepared to suffer for the faith.
Monday, 12 November 2012
| Quo Vadis – O, Bishops? |  |  |
| By Robert Royal |
| I am not a big fan of taking the long view. It may sometimes be wise, even necessary, in human terms. But I’m far more attracted by what is probably the most neglected of Jesus’ sayings: “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” (Lk. 12:49) The U. S. bishops are meeting in Baltimore this week for their annual get-together. The scuttlebutt is that they will be mostly discussing matters internal to the Church in America. If they were asking my advice – for some reason, they seem to have forgotten to call – I would strongly urge that they begin with a collective session of lectio divina about kindling fires. I’d also suggest a few other things. To start with, forget about being nice. It doesn’t work. Be gentlemen. Be kind. But forget nice. As learned Latinists, you no doubt know that the word comes from nescius, which means ignorant. It came, early in modern languages, to mean foolish. Today, an idiomatic translation might be: clueless. Kindness, of course, is a different matter entirely. Our Lord was kind – kind enough to tell people the truth. His combination of hard and soft is always what we need. Nietzsche, who was brought up among fussing women in a wishy-washy Protestant pastor’s home, emphasized the need to be hard. Like all heretics, he had a point, but rode it a bit too hard to the neglect of other truths. Christianity, as Nietzsche noted, has been becoming overly feminized, as has the developed world. Mary is the model Christian and the people who have been pushing the Communio theology are right: our first orientation has to be passive, to receive what God is telling us as the Virgin received the Word into her womb. Women are quite capable at times of some of the masculine virtues, of course. But forget the politically correct notion that there are no specifically male and female virtues. In the normal course of things, when the refrigerator needs to be moved, it’s father and son, not mother and daughter, who should do the heavy lifting. And in the middle of the night, if there’s a noise downstairs that sounds like a burglar, you don’t nudge your wife and say, “Your turn. I went down to check last time.” Be men. Think big. Act big, too. Play big-league ball. The LCWR, the media, and other softballers will continue to try to thwart you with talk of patriarchy and the old boys’ club. Be true gentlemen. Listen to all sincerely, but listen to God more.  Christ Cleansing the Temple by El Greco, c. 1570 Beware of the two great distortions, bordering on heresies, in our time:
Be clear about this. The person who invented the phrase, “It’s better to light one candle than to curse the darkness,” was no real Christian. Jesus does both, and Catholics are practitioners of the both/and, not the either/or. Do you think Mother Teresa would have thought she’d done enough if she had just picked up beggars in Calcutta and not also talked about the callousness of heart and self-indulgence of the wealthy nations who were – safely, legally, and far from rarely – doing away with their own children in the womb? Be prepared to suffer for the Faith. The world will always play the role it must when it hears the truth. Welcome fair criticism, but accept it in the right spirit. When John Paul II called for a “purification of memory” as we approached the beginning of the new Christian millennium, he was utterly frank about the Church’s past sins. But he never let humility and truth turn into a kind of “Kick Me” sign on the Church’s back. Know that many Catholics, and non-Catholics, are with you. Seek them out. And the best way to do so is to lead from the front. The apostles knew it was a bad idea, in a sense, for Jesus to go into Jerusalem at the end. But they saw who He was, what He was willing to risk, and they were willing to risk much themselves so that at least they could die with Him. I know several of you, and know that some of you know all this. But we need you to inspire even more of your fellow bishops. You have lifetime tenure and jobs that make a real difference. Most people are stuck in humdrum tasks that don’t seem to mean very much. This is an exciting moment in Catholic history that offers opportunities for all the imagination, intelligence, and daring that you can bring to the many challenges at hand. So make the most of it. Cherish it. Blessed are you. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, now available in paperback from Encounter Books. © 2012 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. |
12 November 2012
06 November 2012
03 November 2012
02 November 2012
01 November 2012
31 October 2012
22 October 2012
La Fleur de Lys too: Not the least amongst the Saints
La Fleur de Lys too: Not the least amongst the Saints
Jhesu+Marie Brantigny St Kateri Tekawitha portraits barrowed from the Catholic Illustrators Guild
Not the least amongst the Saints
Kateri Tekakwitha was born in today’s New York state in 1656 to a Mohawk father and a Christian Algonquin mother who gave to her a sense of the living God. She was baptized at twenty years of age and, to escape persecution, she took refuge in Saint Francis Xavier Mission near Montreal. There she worked, faithful to the traditions of her people, although renouncing their religious convictions until her death at the age of twenty-four. Leading a simple life, Kateri remained faithful to her love for Jesus, to prayer and to daily Mass. Her greatest wish was to know and to do what pleased God. She lived a life radiant with faith and purity.
Kateri impresses us by the action of grace in her life in spite of the absence of external help and by the courage of her vocation, so unusual in her culture. In her, faith and culture enrich each other! May her example help us to live where we are, loving Jesus without denying who we are. Saint Kateri, Protectress of Canada and the first native American saint, we entrust to you the renewal of the faith in the first nations and in all of North America! May God bless the first nations!
Jhesu+Marie Brantigny St Kateri Tekawitha portraits barrowed from the Catholic Illustrators Guild
La Fleur de Lys too: Saint Michel Archange
La Fleur de Lys too: Saint Michel Archange
Seigneur, daigne te souvenir que dans les circonstances douloureuses de notre histoire, tu as fait de l'Archange saint Michel l'instrument de ta miséricorde à notre égard. Nous ne saurions l'oublier ; c'est pourquoi nous te conjurons de conserver à notre patrie la protection dont tu l'as jadis entourée par le ministère de cet Archange vainqueur.
Et toi, ô saint Michel, Prince des Milices célestes, viens à nous ; nous t'appelons.
Tu es l'Ange gardien de l'Eglise et de la France ; c'est toi qui as inspiré et soutenu Jeanne d'Arc dans sa mission libératrice. Viens encore à notre secours et sauve-nous ! Nous mettons nos personnes, nos familles, nos paroisses, la France entière, sous ta protection toute spéciale. Nous en avons la ferme espérance, tu ne laisseras pas mourir le peuple qui t'a é...té confié.
Que Dieu suscite parmi nous des saints ! Par eux, ô saint Archange, fais triompher l'Eglise dans la lutte qu'elle soutient contre l'enfer déchaîné et, par la Vertu du Saint-Esprit, établis le règne du Christ sur la France et dans le monde, afin que la paix du ciel y demeure à jamais.
Ainsi soit-il.
Saint Michel Archange, prie pour nous, pour l'Eglise et pour la France. Saint Aubert, prie pour nous. Saint Louis, roi de France, prie pour nous. Sainte Jeanne d'Arc, prie pour nous. Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus, prie pour nous. Saints et Saintes de France, priez pour nous.See More
Lord, deign to remember that in the painful circumstances of our history, you made the Archangel Michael the instrument of your mercy towards us. We must not forget it; This is why we urge you to keep our homeland protections you have once surrounded it by the Ministry of this winner Archangel.
And you, o saint Michael, Prince of the celestial militia, come to us; We call you.
You are the guardian of the Church and the Angel of France ; It is you who have inspired and supported Joan of Arc in its liberating mission. Still come to our rescue and save us! We put our people, our families, our parishes, the entire France, under your very special protection. We hope farm, you will not let die the people entrusted to you.
That God is with us the saints! By them, o saint Archangel, do triumph the Church in combating it supports against the raging hell, and by the virtue of the Holy Spirit, established the reign of Christ on the France and in the world, so that the peace of heaven remains there forever.
So be.
St. Michael the Archangel, prays for US, for the Church and for the France. Saint Aubert, pray for us. Saint Louis, King of France, pray for us. Sainte Jeanne d'Arc, pray for us. Saint Thérèse of the child Jesus, pray for us. Saints and Holy of France, pray for us.
Saint Michel Archange
Seigneur, daigne te souvenir que dans les circonstances douloureuses de notre histoire, tu as fait de l'Archange saint Michel l'instrument de ta miséricorde à notre égard. Nous ne saurions l'oublier ; c'est pourquoi nous te conjurons de conserver à notre patrie la protection dont tu l'as jadis entourée par le ministère de cet Archange vainqueur.
Et toi, ô saint Michel, Prince des Milices célestes, viens à nous ; nous t'appelons.
Tu es l'Ange gardien de l'Eglise et de la France ; c'est toi qui as inspiré et soutenu Jeanne d'Arc dans sa mission libératrice. Viens encore à notre secours et sauve-nous ! Nous mettons nos personnes, nos familles, nos paroisses, la France entière, sous ta protection toute spéciale. Nous en avons la ferme espérance, tu ne laisseras pas mourir le peuple qui t'a é...té confié.
Que Dieu suscite parmi nous des saints ! Par eux, ô saint Archange, fais triompher l'Eglise dans la lutte qu'elle soutient contre l'enfer déchaîné et, par la Vertu du Saint-Esprit, établis le règne du Christ sur la France et dans le monde, afin que la paix du ciel y demeure à jamais.
Ainsi soit-il.
Saint Michel Archange, prie pour nous, pour l'Eglise et pour la France. Saint Aubert, prie pour nous. Saint Louis, roi de France, prie pour nous. Sainte Jeanne d'Arc, prie pour nous. Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus, prie pour nous. Saints et Saintes de France, priez pour nous.See More
Lord, deign to remember that in the painful circumstances of our history, you made the Archangel Michael the instrument of your mercy towards us. We must not forget it; This is why we urge you to keep our homeland protections you have once surrounded it by the Ministry of this winner Archangel.
And you, o saint Michael, Prince of the celestial militia, come to us; We call you.
You are the guardian of the Church and the Angel of France ; It is you who have inspired and supported Joan of Arc in its liberating mission. Still come to our rescue and save us! We put our people, our families, our parishes, the entire France, under your very special protection. We hope farm, you will not let die the people entrusted to you.
That God is with us the saints! By them, o saint Archangel, do triumph the Church in combating it supports against the raging hell, and by the virtue of the Holy Spirit, established the reign of Christ on the France and in the world, so that the peace of heaven remains there forever.
So be.
St. Michael the Archangel, prays for US, for the Church and for the France. Saint Aubert, pray for us. Saint Louis, King of France, pray for us. Sainte Jeanne d'Arc, pray for us. Saint Thérèse of the child Jesus, pray for us. Saints and Holy of France, pray for us.
21 October 2012
19 October 2012
13 October 2012
04 October 2012
03 October 2012
18 September 2012
15 September 2012
11 September 2012
10 September 2012
07 September 2012
06 September 2012
02 September 2012
31 August 2012
30 August 2012
26 August 2012
V for Victory!: The Party of Civil Rights...?
V for Victory!: The Party of Civil Rights...?
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Party of Civil Rights...?
 |
| Gov. George Wallace, Democrat, tries to prevent desegregation at the University of Alabama in 1963. |
In the age of slavery, the Democrat Party was the home of those who supported, or were willing to tolerate, slavery.
After the Civil War, the Democrat Party was the home of white supremacists, paramilitary groups dedicated to the disenfranchisement of blacks, and politicians who enacted black codes and Jim Crow laws.
The Democrat Party was the home of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, in 1942, ordered the forced internment of more than 100,000 Japanese and Americans of Japanese ancestry. (It was Republican President Ronald Reagan who apologized for this action in 1988.)
The Democrat Party was the home of all but one of a bloc of 18 Senators who fought hard to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some of these Senators -- especially former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd of West Virginia -- continued for decades as respected and prestigious members of the Party.
The Democrat Party was the home of Lyndon Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act into law with one hand, and with the other hand created the Great Society, and with it the burgeoning modern welfare state, which has destroyed the black family and trapped many blacks in moral and economic servitude for decades.
The Democrat Party is the home of Barack Hussein Obama, fanatical opponent of the right to life of unborn babies, and launcher of perhaps the most blatant and explicit assault on religious freedom in our time.
Yes, indeed...the party of civil rights.
16 August 2012
04 August 2012
Chick-fil-A still ruffling Proco Joe Moreno's feathers
Chick-fil-A still ruffling Proco Joe Moreno's feathers
Photo: Chick-fil-A 
1st Ward Alderman Proco Joe Moreno proved that by trying to argue, through the media of course, with Cardinal George of Chicago’s Catholic Archdiocese. Proco Joe definitively proved any simpleton could and does get elected to office in Chicago.
“Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the ‘values’ that must be held by citizens of Chicago,” Cardinal George wrote on the Archdiocese of Chicago’s blog Sunday.
“I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?”
To which Moreno responded:
“It’s unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts,” said Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno in response to Cardinal George/Chicago Tribune, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.
“The Bible says many things,” Moreno said. “For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just ingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian.”
All you need is the “blessing of the boys”, an ancient sacrament of the Holy Democratic Crime Family better known as the Democratic Machine. A mind is not necessary in the mindless machine.
It is evident Proco Joe never read the Bible, let alone paid attention in whatever parochial school he claims to have attended. It is apparent that Proco Joe picks and chooses what he believes in, except for the one true faith, the one religion, the one gospel - the Chicago Democratic Machine.
It is the theology of “money power”.
So Proco Joe sold his soul to Beelzebub and converted to the Democratic Chicago Way, the only true religion in Chicago. Their bible preaches vileness, avarice, greed, corruption, and criminality. Those are and always have been the values of Chicago politicians.
Money is power, power is money. That is the Chicago Way. The more money politicians amass they can run for reelection, they can also contribute to each help each other, and they amass more power.
If Chick-fil-A wrote a big check people would be stunned how fast Proco Joe could shove tasty chicken sandwiches down his gullet.
For free, of course. Aldermen do not pay for stuff. A hungry and broke alderman is considered a stupid alderman.
Maybe Cardinal George is right in thinking Alderman Moreno is considering a Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities. People and businesses that do not share amoral Chicago values will be investigated, forced to testify, forced to name others, suffer economic torture, and be blacklisted if they fail to do so.
Of course if they slide a campaign donation the Alderman's way they will be absolved. Money salves all sins.
That’s the Chicago Way. You can be a victim of the Inquisition or you can purchase benediction. It does not matter what you say, think, or believe. It does matter how much you contribute.
Chicago values are not American, Judeo-Christian, or moral values. They are truly unique, rare, and idiosyncratic. Sometimes they are idiotic like the politicians.
Alderman Moreno also never learned one of the first rules of Chicago politics and bureaucracy. Never argue or insult the clergy, especially the powerful clergy, even if it is done obliquely.
Never, ever, ever, forever. You always look dumb and never win.
There is nothing Alderman Moreno will not do in the name of dirty politics, even stooping so low as to insult a Cardinal. Let’s cut to the chase. Moreno wants what he wants, money and the right to pick and choose his family and friends to work at Chick-fil-A. He will get his way or there will be no Chick-fil-A.
Moreno could care less about gays, straights, equality, or civil rights. He only cares about kachingos and taking care of family and friends.
Proco Joe is amassing a campaign war chest and political army so he can go from being a freshman alderman to a sophomore. He will have the aldermanic right and privilege to spout sophomoric platitudes. From there he can pass to junior class alderman. That will give him the aldermanic right and privilege to act like a juvenile.
Last, he will join the graduating class of senior aldermen. He will be granted the aldermanic right and privilege to fall asleep during city council meetings, spout senile silliness between snores, and retire from his part time job with a full pension and Rolls Royce health care benefits.
The position of Chicago aldermen is legally a part time job. They receive an escalating six figure executive salary, premiere health care benefits, generous expense accounts, and a pension. They are allowed to own businesses, operate professional practices, such as law firms, insurance companies, real estate offices, or earn a full time living anyway they can.
Chicago aldermen also have unlimited power.
What part time job in America is so lucrative? Is it no wonder aspiring people of low breeding and minimum intelligence aspire to be a Chicago Alderman instead of President of the United States or any other worthwhile career of accomplishment or achievement?
What’s astounding is the people of Chicago put up with this. They keep voting the dullards in. It proves the stupidity of the voter should never be underestimated.
Maybe Proco Joe Moreno better leave town, keep his mouth shut, and let the storm blow over. He can claim exhaustion and go into hiding to rest ala Jesse Jackson Jr. A high paid part time job can run down even the hardiest greediest people.
When the fiasco he created fizzles out he can return, slinking back into City Hall, refreshed and ready to do something else stupid.
If Proco Joe keeps saying dumb things, insulting the clergy, and showing how simple-minded all Chicago politicians really are he will suffer the punishment of the Democratic Machine. The boys will find someone else to bless and take his place.
Proco will have to actually go out and get a real job at way less pay to earn his living. Maybe Chick-fil-A will hire him to work in one of their restaurants. They do not discriminate against anyone, including intellectually challenged politicians.
Anyone, even a Chicago alderman could learn how to make chicken sandwiches and waffle fries. The hard part will be training him to be nice.
Peter V. Bella is a retired Chicago Police Officer, freelance journalist and photojournalist, cook, and raconteur. He likes to be the irreverent sharp stick that pokes, prods, and annoys. His opinions are his and his alone. Mr. Bella is a member of the National Press Photographers Association and the Society for Professional Journalists.
Photo: Chick-fil-A Peter Bella
“Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the ‘values’ that must be held by citizens of Chicago,” Cardinal George wrote on the Archdiocese of Chicago’s blog Sunday.
“I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?”
To which Moreno responded:
“It’s unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts,” said Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno in response to Cardinal George/Chicago Tribune, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.
“The Bible says many things,” Moreno said. “For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just ingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian.”
All you need is the “blessing of the boys”, an ancient sacrament of the Holy Democratic Crime Family better known as the Democratic Machine. A mind is not necessary in the mindless machine.
It is evident Proco Joe never read the Bible, let alone paid attention in whatever parochial school he claims to have attended. It is apparent that Proco Joe picks and chooses what he believes in, except for the one true faith, the one religion, the one gospel - the Chicago Democratic Machine.
It is the theology of “money power”.
So Proco Joe sold his soul to Beelzebub and converted to the Democratic Chicago Way, the only true religion in Chicago. Their bible preaches vileness, avarice, greed, corruption, and criminality. Those are and always have been the values of Chicago politicians.
Money is power, power is money. That is the Chicago Way. The more money politicians amass they can run for reelection, they can also contribute to each help each other, and they amass more power.
If Chick-fil-A wrote a big check people would be stunned how fast Proco Joe could shove tasty chicken sandwiches down his gullet.
For free, of course. Aldermen do not pay for stuff. A hungry and broke alderman is considered a stupid alderman.
Maybe Cardinal George is right in thinking Alderman Moreno is considering a Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities. People and businesses that do not share amoral Chicago values will be investigated, forced to testify, forced to name others, suffer economic torture, and be blacklisted if they fail to do so.
Of course if they slide a campaign donation the Alderman's way they will be absolved. Money salves all sins.
That’s the Chicago Way. You can be a victim of the Inquisition or you can purchase benediction. It does not matter what you say, think, or believe. It does matter how much you contribute.
Chicago values are not American, Judeo-Christian, or moral values. They are truly unique, rare, and idiosyncratic. Sometimes they are idiotic like the politicians.
Alderman Moreno also never learned one of the first rules of Chicago politics and bureaucracy. Never argue or insult the clergy, especially the powerful clergy, even if it is done obliquely.
Never, ever, ever, forever. You always look dumb and never win.
There is nothing Alderman Moreno will not do in the name of dirty politics, even stooping so low as to insult a Cardinal. Let’s cut to the chase. Moreno wants what he wants, money and the right to pick and choose his family and friends to work at Chick-fil-A. He will get his way or there will be no Chick-fil-A.
Moreno could care less about gays, straights, equality, or civil rights. He only cares about kachingos and taking care of family and friends.
Proco Joe is amassing a campaign war chest and political army so he can go from being a freshman alderman to a sophomore. He will have the aldermanic right and privilege to spout sophomoric platitudes. From there he can pass to junior class alderman. That will give him the aldermanic right and privilege to act like a juvenile.
Last, he will join the graduating class of senior aldermen. He will be granted the aldermanic right and privilege to fall asleep during city council meetings, spout senile silliness between snores, and retire from his part time job with a full pension and Rolls Royce health care benefits.
The position of Chicago aldermen is legally a part time job. They receive an escalating six figure executive salary, premiere health care benefits, generous expense accounts, and a pension. They are allowed to own businesses, operate professional practices, such as law firms, insurance companies, real estate offices, or earn a full time living anyway they can.
Chicago aldermen also have unlimited power.
What part time job in America is so lucrative? Is it no wonder aspiring people of low breeding and minimum intelligence aspire to be a Chicago Alderman instead of President of the United States or any other worthwhile career of accomplishment or achievement?
What’s astounding is the people of Chicago put up with this. They keep voting the dullards in. It proves the stupidity of the voter should never be underestimated.
Maybe Proco Joe Moreno better leave town, keep his mouth shut, and let the storm blow over. He can claim exhaustion and go into hiding to rest ala Jesse Jackson Jr. A high paid part time job can run down even the hardiest greediest people.
When the fiasco he created fizzles out he can return, slinking back into City Hall, refreshed and ready to do something else stupid.
If Proco Joe keeps saying dumb things, insulting the clergy, and showing how simple-minded all Chicago politicians really are he will suffer the punishment of the Democratic Machine. The boys will find someone else to bless and take his place.
Proco will have to actually go out and get a real job at way less pay to earn his living. Maybe Chick-fil-A will hire him to work in one of their restaurants. They do not discriminate against anyone, including intellectually challenged politicians.
Anyone, even a Chicago alderman could learn how to make chicken sandwiches and waffle fries. The hard part will be training him to be nice.
Peter V. Bella is a retired Chicago Police Officer, freelance journalist and photojournalist, cook, and raconteur. He likes to be the irreverent sharp stick that pokes, prods, and annoys. His opinions are his and his alone. Mr. Bella is a member of the National Press Photographers Association and the Society for Professional Journalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)