Tag: Faith & Current Events

Posted on

The Story of Hosea and What It Says About God

The story of the Prophet Hosea and his troubled marriage are a powerful testimony to us of our own tendency to be unfaithful to God but also of God’s passionate love for us. The precise details of Hosea’s troubled marriage are sketchy and we are left to fill in some of the details with our imagination. But here are the basic facts along with some of the “fill in” required:

  1. Hosea receives an unusual instruction from God: Go, take a harlot wife and harlot’s children, for the land gives itself to harlotry, turning away from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim (Hosea 1:2)
  2. Together they have three children each with symbolic names: Jezreel (for God is about to humble Israel in the Jezreel valley), Lo-Ruhama (not pitied), and Lo-Ammi (not my people). It is also possible that these children were not of Hosea but rather of Gomer’s various lovers for, although they are born during the marriage, God later calls them children of harlotry.
  3. At some point, though the text does not specify when or under what circumstances, Hosea’s wife Gomer, leaves him for a lover and enters into an adulterous relationship with him. We can only imagine Hosea’s pain and likely anger at this rejection. The text remains silent as to Hosea, but as we shall see, God’s reaction is well attested.
  4. After some unspecified period of time God instructs Hosea: Give your love to a woman beloved of a paramour, an adulteress; Even as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and are fond of raisin cakes (Hosea 3:1) Now, while the quoted text is not clear to specify that this is the same woman he is to love, the overall context of chapters 1-3 of Hosea demand that this is the same unfaithful wife, Gomer. God tells Hosea to redeem, to buy back Gomer and re-establish his marital bonds with her.
  5. Hosea has to pay a rather hefty price indeed to purchase her back from her paramour: So I bought her for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley. (Hosea 3:2) The willingness of her paramour to “sell her back” indicates quite poetically that the apparent love of the world and all false lovers, is not a real love at all. It is for sale to the highest bidder.
  6. Prior to restoring her to any intimacy a period of purification and testing will be necessary: Then I said to her: “Many days you shall wait for me; you shall not play the harlot Or belong to any man; I in turn will wait for you.” (Hosea 3:3)

This story is both difficult and beautiful. It’s purpose, as you likely know, is not merely to tell us of the troubled and painful marriage of Hosea. It’s truer purpose is to show forth the troubled marriage of the Lord who has a bride, a people, who are unfaithful to him. We, both collectively and individually, have entered into a (marital) covenant with God. Our vows were pronounced at our baptism and renewed by us on many other occasions. But all too often we casually sleep with other gods and worldly paramours. Perhaps it is money, popularity, possessions, or power. Perhaps we have forsaken God for our careers, politics, philosophies or arts and sciences. Some have outright left God, others keep two or beds, still speaking of their love for God but involved with many other dalliances as well. Yes, this is a troubled marriage, not on God’s part, but surely on ours.

And through it all, what does God decide to do? In the end, as Hosea’s story illustrates, God chooses to redeem, to buy back, his bride and a quite a cost too: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect (1 Peter 3:19-20). Yes, God paid highly to draw us back to him. Even still we stray and often show little appreciation of his love. An old Gospel song says, “Oh Lord I’ve sinned but you’re still calling my name.”

A deeper look at Hosea also reveals a look into the grieved heart of God. Reading these Old Testament passages requires a bit of sophistication. The text we are about to look at describes God as grieved, angry, and weighing out his options; also as loving and almost romantic. At one level we must remember that these attributes are applied to God in an analogical and metaphorical sense. God is said to be like this. But God is not angry like we are angry. He is not grieved like we are grieved not romantic like we are. Yet though we see these texts in terms of analogy and metaphor we cannot wholly set them aside as having no meaning. In some sense, God is grieved, angry, loving and even “romantic” in response to our wanderings. Exactly how he experiences these is mysterious to us but He does choose to use these metaphors to describe himself to us.

With this balanced caution. Let’s take a look at excerpts from the second Chapter of Hosea wherein God describes his grieved heart to us and also his plan of action to win his lover and Bride back. All of these texts are from the Second Chapter of Hosea.

  1. Thoughts of Divorce! – Protest against your mother, protest! for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. The text here suggests a God who is weighing his options. But perhaps the better explanation is that this line is for us who read so that we will consider that God could rightfully divorce us. But he will not. For though we break covenant He will not. Though we are unfaithful God will not be unfaithful. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)
  2. The bitter charge against her – Let her remove her harlotry from before her, her adultery from between her breasts….., “I will go after my lovers,” she said, “who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.” Since she has not known that it was I who gave her the grain, the wine, and the oil, And her abundance of silver, and of gold, which they used for Baal. God’s charge here is not merely that we are unfaithful but also that we are ungrateful. God is the giver of every good thing. But so often we do not thank him. We run after the world, and after the powerful, thinking it is they who provide our wealth. No. It is God. But instead we love the world and forget about God. We sleep with the world. We give credit to medicine, science and human ingenuity, but do not acknowledge or thank God. Our ingratitude contributes to our harlotry for we are enamored of secondary causes and not God who is the cause of all. So we get into bed with the world and its agenda and adulterously unite ourselves with it. God is grieved at our ingratitude and adultery and is presented here as a wounded and jealous lover. Is God this? Remember these things are said by way of analogy and metaphor. God is not grieved or angered in the way were are. And yet, we cannot wholly dismiss these words as having no meaning. God has inspired this text and wants us to understand that, though he is not passionate as we are, neither are we to regard him as indifferent to our infidelity.
  3. Grief-stricken but issuing purifying punishment – I will strip her naked, leaving her as on the day of her birth; I will make her like the desert, reduce her to an arid land, and slay her with thirst. I will have no pity on her children, for they are the children of harlotry. Yes, their mother has played the harlot; she that conceived them has acted shamefully……., I will lay bare her shame before the eyes of her lovers……I will bring an end to all her joy, her feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her solemnities……I will punish her for the days of the Baals, for whom she burnt incense…..If she runs after her lovers, she shall not overtake them; if she looks for them she shall not find them. This text could be seen as descriptive of God in a jealous rage. But as we shall see, God has a result in mind. He does not punish as some uncontrolled despot cruelly exacting revenge. He punishes as medicine. He punishes as one who loves and seeks to restore. We are not merely sinners in the hands of an angry God we are sinners in the hands of a loving God who seeks reunion.
  4. The hoped for result: Then she shall say, “I will go back to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now.” God’s intent was to bring his bride back to sanity. To bring her to a place where she is ready to seek union once again. For without this union she will perish, but with it she will be united with the only one who ever did love her and can save her.
  5. Passionate lover – So I will allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak to her heart. From there I will give her the vineyards she had, and the valley of Achor as a door of hope. She shall respond there as in the days of her youth, when she came up from the land of Egypt. On that day, says the LORD, She shall call me “My husband,” and never again “My baal.” Then will I remove from her mouth the names of the Baals, so that they shall no longer be invoked. See how God wants to get alone with his bride and woo her once again! God will speak lovingly to her heart and declare again his love for her in a kind of marriage encounter weekend. She, now repentant and devoted, will renew her love as well. There is also an image of purgatory or purgation here. It is likely that, when we die, we will still have some attachments to “former lovers” in this world, lovers known as creature comforts, power, pride, poor priorities and the like. So as we die, God lures us into the desert of purgatory, speaks to our heart and cleanses us of our final attachments. After this he restores to us the vineyards of paradise that once were ours.
  6. Renewed Covenant – I will make a covenant for them on that day……I will espouse you to me forever: I will espouse you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the LORD. ….and I will have pity on Lo-ruhama. I will say to Lo-ammi, “You are my people,” and he shall say, “My God!” God renews the marriage bond with us, both corporately in the Church and individually!

Here then is the astonishing, undying and pursuant love of God for his bride the Church and for all of us. After all our whoring and infidelity we do not deserve it. But God is a passionate lover. As he said to Hosea to buy back his adulterous wife, so too did God buy us back at a high price. Now to be sure, he did not pay Satan. Rather, the payment he rendered was an indication of high sacrifice he had to make to win back our hearts. We had wandered far and he had to journey far and carry us back.

This song says, Lord I’ve sinned but you’re still calling my name.

Posted on

Archdiocese of Washington Issues a Third Statement Regarding Georgetown University.

Yesterday, Saturday May 19th, the Archdiocese of Washington issued another statement in the form of an on-line Editorial in the Catholic Standard, the official paper of record, for the Archdiocese. The office of the Vicar General has encouraged priests and other leaders to share it.

The editorial was written in response to the an editorial in the Washington Post which alleged, among other things that the Archdiocese was interfering with academic freedom and suggest that a Catholic university should be something more than a voice of the Church.

As with these unsigned editorials in the Catholic Standard in the past, the exact author is unknown, but it is surely written and/or approved by the Cardinal’s senior staff and, as such is an official statement of the Archdiocese.

Since we have followed the events at Georgetown closely, I want to print excerpts of the editorial, by way of keeping us up to date. As is usual I will print the editorial in Bold Black italics and include comments of my own in red normal face type. These are excerpts, the full editorial is here: Catholic Standard On-Line

The Washington Post editorial (May 16, 2012)….missed the point….What this discussion is all about is not academic freedom, university autonomy or disinviting speakers…

When it was announced that Secretary Sebelius was invited to speak at Georgetown University, a Catholic university sponsored by the Society of Jesus, the university stated that [she] was among those “who will provide inspiration for our students as they envision more clearly the impact they can make in the world.”

It is one thing for a Catholic University to permit a vigorous discussion of issues, even permitting those who oppose the Church’s teaching or have different views. This is sometimes an understandable vehicle in the Academic setting to air differences and to engage in the “free exchange of ideas.”

Of course the essential goal, it would seem, on a Catholic campus would be for the Catholic position in such debates to be clearly and vigorously presented in such debates. Indeed, to provide motives of credibility and an encouragement to the students as to why Catholic teaching is both reasonable and superior to various errors of the day.

Georgetown however, speaks of Mrs. Sebelius as an “inspiration” to the students. She is not an inspiration and no Catholic university should speak of her in such a way. She is an unrepentant cheerleader for abortion. As Governor of Kansas she vetoed numerous bills passed by the legislature to secure reasonable limits to abortion, including parental notification, and even modest restrictions on late term abortions. Bishop Joseph Naumann in Kansas suggested she refrain from receiving communion.

She had also been close to the infamous George Tiller, known as Tiller, the baby killer, since he probably killed more that 60,000 babies, most of them late term. She has accepted more than $12,000 in campaign contributions from him and had him as a guest at the Governor’s Mansion.

Now as HHS Secretary, she has chosen to wage war against religious liberty, and is the architect of the HHS mandate currently being opposed by the Bishops and the Church, and credibly described as the greatest threat to religious liberty of our time.

She is no inspiration to anyone, other than fellow enemies of the Church and the unborn. If she has made an impact it cannot be described as good in any Catholic or Christian sense. Georgetown’s boosterism of her is shameful.

There was considerable negative reaction to this decision. [And] when the controversy surfaced, the Archdiocese chose to refrain from any comment until Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, personally could meet with the Provincial Superior of the Society of Jesus and separately with the president of the university.…After hearing both parties, the archdiocese requested only one thing. It asked that since the university presents itself as both Jesuit and Catholic, that the leadership of the Society of Jesus and the president of the university simply state publicly that Secretary Sebelius’ positions do not represent the views and values of Georgetown University.

Many of you alleged that the Cardinal was “doing nothing.” Others demanded he take to the pulpit or at least a podium and denounce Georgetown. Still others demanded swift and sweeping action against the University.

All of this is emotionally understandable, and I share in the anger most of you experience about Georgetown.

That said, the Church seldom addresses inner conflicts in such public ways. The Cardinal, especially, is a careful and methodical man, keenly aware of the powers and limits that Canon Law sets forth for an ordinary.

Georgetown University is not an Archdiocesan organization. It is owned and run by the Jesuits and has its own governing boards. As can be seen here, the Cardinal has currently met with the Provincial Superior and the lay president of the University. What was said in those meetings is not public, but surely among the things the Cardinal insisted on must be what this editorial sets forth. Namely that, in the future, Georgetown University refrain from affirming such figures, and when they do speak, issue that Georgetown issue a clear disclaimer that such speakers do NOT represent the views of the University.

This amounts to a kind of truth in advertising. For the free exchange of ideas can have a place, even on Catholic Campuses, but the position of a Catholic Campus cannot be neutral or equivocal when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

I understand that this is not nearly enough for some of you who read this blog regularly. Many of you have a preference for swift and sweeping action to include: immediate removal of Catholic identity, insistence that leaders at Georgetown be immediately removed and replaced, interdict, etc.

However, as I have stated, this is not usually the way the Church proceeds. Canon Law is very methodical and carefully delineates the rights of all parties, not just bishops. And bishops who do act in such swift and sweeping manners do not usually prevail when things are appealed.

The Cardinal is a careful and a thoughtful man, with deep respect for Canon Law. He is also, certainly, no media hog. He prefers quiet, persistent, and behind the scenes actions that follow proper procedures.

There are some of you who have opined that souls are being lost. Perhaps, but it is possible that many souls would  also be lost if swift and sweeping were the Church’s normal mode. As I tried to show in a post last week (HERE), there are different scriptural traditions about Church discipline, and great prudence is required as to when and how to proceed in uprooting sin and error from the Church scene.

But the point here is to note that discussions are on-going, behind the scene. We get only a glimpse of them here in the editorial, but it is false to say the Cardinal is doing “nothing.” He is proceeding with care, but he is moving the ball, and call the issue.

The archdiocese never asked Georgetown to rescind its invitation. All that the archdiocese proposed – and did not require – was a statement, by those who represent to the public and to the Church both the Jesuit and Catholic character of the university, that the commencement event speaker does not speak for or represent the values of Georgetown University.

To those wanting swift and sweeping action, this aspect of the editorial will likely infuriate. But here again, Georgetown University is owned and run by the Jesuits. And, while they do have responsibilities to the Archbishop, final conflicts, where they exist between the Jesuits and the Cardinal, are adjudicated in Rome.

Some years ago, Cardinal James Hickey finally referred a conflict to Rome wherein Georgetown had approved and funded a pro-abortion student group. This took place presumably (I do not recall the full sequence of events) after conversations with the University leadership. And when the proper results were not obtained the matter was taken to the Jesuit superior in Rome and to several Roman congregations. Together they ruled that Georgetown must remove the status and funding from the group.

Perhaps, this will happen here if troubles continue. I am no prophet, but Cardinal, careful and methodical man that he is, is clearly working the steps necessary, from the standpoint of subsidiarity,  and, if troubles continue, I have little doubt it will go to the next necessary level.

It is the responsibility of the archbishop to relate to both the provincial superior and the president of the university in matters that affect the life of the Church in this archdiocese. While the archbishop does not engage in the internal affairs of governance of the Society of Jesus or Georgetown University, in Church teaching and law he is obliged to relate to both communities as they exercise public ministry as a part of the life of the Catholic Church. [And] Georgetown University as a Catholic university does have a relationship and a responsibility to the archbishop. This is true because it exercises its activities in the context of the overall mission of the Catholic Church.

Here too we see illustrated both subsidiarity and responsibility. While the Cardinal rightfully refrains from micro-managing Georgetown University (subsidiarity) he does expect Georgetown to maintain and fulfill its relationship to him as the local ordinary (responsibility).

While diplomatically stated it seems clear to me that the Cardinal does not expect in the future to read about such controversial invitations with significant impact on the “overall mission of the Catholic Church” in the newspaper.

Admittedly, ecclesial relationships that respect and deal with various levels of responsibility and autonomy in the Church are not always readily understood by secular media. … And, I would add, many of us Catholics who struggle to see the Church differently from a political or civic entity.

Finally, just a personal word from me about the Canon “lawsuit” that has been brought by William Peter Blatty, who graduated from Georgetown in 1950 and is author of The Exorcist.  I am personally in favor of anyone turning up the heat on the Georgetown administration. I also know several good students and faculty over there at Georgetown who welcome the overture.  And, while no expert in Canon Law myself, I presume Mr. Blatty has availed himself of good counsel and thinks he is able to bring such a suit and prevail. I have great respect for the  Cardinal Newman Society, that, among others is assisting him in this matter.

Time will tell of the specifics of his case. But here too, I think expecting quick results may be unrealistic of readers. Church Tribunals, as I have said, are “methodical.” But what Mr. Blatty will hopefully illustrate, is that Catholic Laity have power too. Not only can they bring formal grievances, and canonical suits in certain circumstances, but they can also hit what they consider  “Catholic in Name Only” institutions (not only colleges) hard through reaching out to alumni, donors and other interested parties.

I do think however, one must remember that even places like Georgetown are not wholly bad. They still do have faculty and students highly dedicated to God and the Church. Groups like the Cardinal Newman Society are careful in their analysis, and when there is an rare error in a report of theirs, they correct it and publicize the correction. So, while Catholics are free to engage in advocacy for their concerns, Charity and justice are an important element.

With that in mind, comments are open (Caritas!)

In this video, I am amazed that though the singers look so young, their voices are very mature. The deep bass is especially amazing since the deep and rich bass voice does not usually develop in a man until much later in life. Younger basses usually can hit the notes, but have a kind of “buzzing” sound on the lower notes. Not so here! A deep rich sound.

Posted on

Lust in Toyland – A Poignant and Powerful Portrait of Lust in an old Pixar Video

The video below is an old (1989) Pixar “short” reel depicting, in a darkly humorous way, the sin of lust. As is often the case in Pixar movies, toys come alive, and tell us more about ourselves than we might have known. You might want to view it before reading my commentary.

As the video opens we scan the shelf of toys and spy upon a toy woman too good to be true. Indeed, like Barbie, her figure is impossible, or possible only by way of surgery. Yes, here is the woman of Hollywood, or worse, the woman of the pornographers: surgically altered, photographically airbrushed and Photoshopped. She is meant to make normal women feel inadequate, and to make men fantasize about unreality, such that real women seem inferior to them. Yes, here is Satan’s tactic in lust, to shift normal attraction, meant to draw us to one another, into distorted attraction, which turns us inward to fantasy, and away from each other and reality.

Now meet the snowman, cold on the outside but burning with lust on the inside. As we meet him, he is clearly bored with what he has, bored with his reality. Scripture says, All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccl 1:8).

And then he sees her! Too good to be true (she is in fact not real, not true, as we have discussed). And now the fires of lust are kindled in him, and he engages in a series of destructive, and self-destructive actions, all to satisfy his lust.

Is this not often what lust does? Those trapped by it will often throw everything overboard to possess its object. They will endanger and inflict harm on their very self, they will throw loved ones overboard, they will squander, use up and destroy their wealth and all they have. Some have destroyed marriages and families, forsaken children, and brought disease and poverty on them self, all for what lust promises: the latest voluptuous one, “Baby if you’ve got the curves, I’ve got the angles.”

Not a few of the actions of this toy snowman are of great symbolism:

1. Spying upon her, he fixes his eyes. For everything in the world–the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does–comes not from the Father but from the world. (1 John 2:16).

2. Conscience speaks – Suddenly there is a sound from above and he looks up. Is this the voice of his conscience, or the voice of God? Thoughtful, he looks down, and considers for a moment. Scripture personifies lust, and the voice that our snowman must hear as he looks up and down.

My son, pay attention to my wisdom, listen well to my words of insight, that you may maintain discretion, and your lips may preserve knowledge. For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to hell, her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths are crooked, but she knows it not. Now then, my sons, listen to me; do not turn aside from what I say. Keep to a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house, lest you give your best strength to others (Prov 5:2-8)

(Pardon the quote ladies, for it lays the sin sin at the feet only of the woman. But remember lust is being personified here, and it is a father speaking to his sons in the passage).

3. But lust wins, he looks up angry and curses the glass “boundary” that prevents his fulfillment of his lustful desire. The boundary must go! The same Scripture says,  The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast. He will die for lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly. (Prov 5:23-25)

4. Lust, the home wrecker – The first thing he throws away is his home. He hurls it at the glass boundary. With it, we can presume goes his wife and family. Again scripture says,  You give your best strength to others and your years to one who is cruel. Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer— may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? (Prov 5:9, 15-20)

5. He goes on a reckless path of self destruction. He cuts off his nose to spite his face, literally. We also see his face become increasingly distorted as he wreaks havoc on himself and his world. His whole world, and everything and everyone in it, is shaken. For, like Jonah who brought storms to others when he ran from God, so does this snowman make the world around him shake and storm by his lust. He sows in the wind and reaps the whirlwind. And this is quite literally illustrated as a great storm swirls in his little world.

6. He descends deeper into sin. And because he has affected others, his whole world descends with him. So too for us, whom lust has brought low together. Our whole culture has descended, and lust is a huge reason for this. Scripture says of lust personified: Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to hell (Prov 5:4-5). And so this snowman and his world slide off the shelf and descend deeper into sin, while lady lust looks on.

7. The downward cycle continues and he is imprisoned in his lust. Quite literally drowning in his lusts, our snowman spies on a lusty mermaid and lunges for her. But his prison finds him, and once again, he discovers the truth with which we began, The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccl 1:8). Indeed he is locked in his lusts. Again as Scripture says,  The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast. (Prov 5:22)

And so we leave our snowman locked in his lust. He has lost his home and family, disfigured himself and fallen mighty low, taking his world and others with him. Such can be the toll of lust.

A rather serious post, I suppose, especially given the rather light fare of the video. But I hope you can see that the humor has a dark side, and that this little movie goes a long way in giving a poignant portrait of lust. “Enjoy” the video.

Posted on

Pondering the Great Reversal That Is Coming

One of the strong traditions of Scripture is of the great reversal that will one day come for many. I have often been sobered by it when I consider how blessed I have been in this life. I have also been consoled by it when I struggle to understand why some people in this world seem to suffer so much more that I do, or others do.

Life seems a very uneven proposition if we only look at this side of the equation. Only God sees the whole picture, but to some extent, he has revealed that those who have suffered much in this life will be more than rewarded in the life to come and that there will be a great reversal.

The theme of the great reversal is most fully developed in the New Testament where the understanding of the life to come is also most developed.

Consider the following texts:

  1. [Jesus said], “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.” (Matt 19:30 & also Matt 20:16 & also Mark 10:31)
  2. [Mary said], “He has cast down the mighty from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; but the rich he has sent away empty.” (Lk 1:52-53)
  3. Abraham replied [to the rich man], ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. (Luke 16:25)
  4. Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way. (Luke 6:21-26)
  5. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more. (Luke 12:48)
  6. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. (Rom 8:18)
  7. For this momentary light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal. (2 Cor 4:17-18)

There are other texts, and I am grateful if you will add to this list. But, for now, let these suffice. As I have said, I am both challenged and consoled by these texts.

I am consoled for I, like others, have suffered in this life and experienced set backs. In regards to this, the Lord promises that sufferings and set backs, if endured with faith, produce ultimate profit, not loss. Much of this profit may wait till heaven, but surely sufferings endured with faith are like treasure stored up in heaven. First the cross, but then the crown. Hallelujah.

I am also consoled on account of others. I, like you, know people who have suffered far more than seems fair. Loss after loss mounts up, grief after grief. My humanity recoils, and I often cry to God on behalf of others who seem to suffer so much more than others. Lost health, lost jobs, lost home and family members. Why, O Lord?!

I think of my poor sister who was mentally ill and horribly afflicted by demons and voices who spoke to her, haunted her, and robbed her increasingly of any touch with reality. Ultimately her life ended tragically when she died in a fire. She was surely among the “last” in this life. But she loved God and wanted desperately to get well. The day after she died I offered Mass for her, and I heard her speak to me in the depth of my heart and she said “I’m OK now, Charlie.” And somehow I knew that God was taking care of her, purifying and clearing her mind.

And I also knew that she who was among the last but believed, I would one day see as among the first in the glory of heaven (pray God I get there). I suspect that she will be close to the throne and that I, who have been among the first here in this world, will have a “mansion” far less spacious than hers.

I am consoled for my sister’s sake and also for those who, unlike me, live in great poverty in other parts of the world. The bounty of American living is but a dream to them. Perhaps there is war. Perhaps there is famine or natural disaster. Perhaps they are victims of despotic and corrupt governments. They are less free, less blessed, in greater stress and often in desperate need. They are among the “last” in this world. But, if they have faith, they will be blessed to be among the first in the great reversal that is coming when the Kingdom fully breaks in. Faith IS essential. Jesus did not say all the last shall be first but that many who are last shall be first. I am sure that it is living faith that makes the difference.

But I am also challenged. I am among those who are first. What does this say for me in the great reversal that is coming upon this world? I have good health, I enjoy bountiful blessings. I am more blessed that I deserve. I live in the greatest, richest, and most powerful country in the world. My needs are largely provided for. I am here in my air-conditioned room with time enough to write and ponder things. I am far beyond mere subsistence. I am surely among the first, the rich. Even the poorest in this country are blessed compared to many others in the world.

Where shall I be when the first trumpet sounds, when the great reversal sets in?

Not everything is as it appears. We crave wealth, power and access and call it a blessing. We want to be first. But God warns it may well be a curse:

Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains. (1 Tim 6:9-10).

Knowing this and other texts like it, we still want to be rich, on top, first. We are very obtuse.

And so, I must say I am challenged. I am not defeated however or fatalistic. God has not utterly forsaken the “first.” He has left us a way and given us instruction on how to avoid the “curse” of our wealth and good fortune. Simply put, that we should use our status as “first” to bless others. That our many gifts would be placed at the service of the human family. A few texts come to mind:

  1. [Jesus said], “I tell you, make friends for yourselves with deceitful wealth, so that when it fails, they [likely the poor whom we befriended] will welcome you into eternal dwellings.” (Luke 16:9)
  2. Tell the rich in the present age not to be proud and not to rely on so uncertain a thing as wealth but rather on God, who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, ready to share, thus accumulating as treasure a good foundation for the future, so as to win the life that is true life. (1 Tim 6:17-19)

And so it is that the Lord instructs us who are “cursed” to be first to store up our true treasure in heaven (Matt 6:19). Of course we do not store up our treasure in heaven by putting it in a balloon or rocket. Rather we store it up by generously dispensing it to the poor and needy. Perhaps by simple gift, or by providing jobs and economic opportunity for others. Perhaps by sharing our gifts of knowledge, or time or other talents. In so doing perhaps our curse of being among the first will be overcome and the challenge will be met.

The great reversal is coming! Where will I be when the first trumpet sounds?

This Chant of the funeral Mass refers to the great reversal but prays that the deceased will be found with Lazarus who once was poor. The text says: In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem. Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.(May the angels lead you to paradise and at your coming may the martyrs receive you and may they lead you into the Holy City Jerusalem. May a choir of Angels receive you and with Lazarus who once was poor, may you have eternal rest).

Posted on

Make Haste…Slowly! – On Balancing two texts of Scripture about the use of Discipline in the Church

We’ve had a good amount of debate on the blog about the question of Church discipline. Specifically, what should bishops do to discipline prominent Catholics and Catholic institutions who stray from Church teaching and/or practice, and do so in a rather public way.

The issues revolve around abortion, especially voting to fund abortion, homosexual “marriage,” and religious liberty. Names and Institutions such as Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Sr. Carol Kegan, John Kerry, the late Ted Kennedy, Georgetown University, Notre Dame University, etc., et al.

Prudence – I have argued that the best way forward in such things is often a matter of prudential judgment. A prudential judgment is the judgment, rooted in the virtue of prudence whereby a person, recognizing his moral duty in a given matter, discerns and then chooses the best means to accomplish it. A prudential judgement is also one in which the circumstances must be weighed to determine the correct action. And since circumstances may vary, there are situations where two people could weigh the circumstances differently and ethically come to different conclusions. Further there are, often times, different paths to the same goal.

It would seem that the essential goals for a bishop in matters like these would be the salvation of souls, the good of individuals, the common good, unity of the faithful in the truth of Christ and the gospel and of holding souls as close to Christ as possible.

How best should this be accomplished? There seem to be two basic camps in the discussion with very different views of what the Bishops should do in terms of discipline, when and to whom. In a way I am mindful of the old Latin expression: Festina Lente: Make haste, slowly! Hence I will term these two schools of thought: Festina! and Lente! Lets look at each school and see the scriptural roots behind each.

I. FESTINA! Swift and firm action – This view holds that the individuals and institutions like those above should be strongly and publicly warned by their own bishop, and, in the case of Federal politicians, also warned by the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington. Further, they should be denied Holy Communion and also warned of formal excommunication if they do not repent. Such procedures should be begun soon after it is discovered that repentance is unlikely.

It is argued that this approach is necessary, both for the good of their own souls, but also for the common good of the Church. As for institutions, such as the universities listed, they should loose their status and identity as Catholic institutions in short order, if they fail to comply with the document Ex Corde Ecclesiae and other relevant norms. Again, this, it is said, will prevent them from doing further harm.

Scandal – For the Bishops, pastors and other Church leaders to fail in this regard is to give wide and public scandal and to allow evil and error to proliferate.

Fraternal correction – This sort of conclusion is strongly rooted in the need and call for fraternal correction spoken of in scripture. Jesus himself says,

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:15-18)

There are numerous other passages in the Scriptures about fraternal correction (which St. Thomas numbers as an act of charity) in a lengthier article I wrote on the topic here: Correcting the Sinner

The point of fraternal correction, even up to, and including excommunication, is that it is like a medicine meant to heal. It’s purpose is not simply to shame or exclude, but to illustrate the seriousness of something and call forth repentance and ultimate reintegration into the community of faith. A second purpose of fraternal correction, even including excommunication is to protect the community from the effects of sin and sinners.

Here then is approach number one to the situation before us: swift and firm action by the bishops, pastors and other Church leaders, for the reasons stated, against offenders such as those listed above.

II. LENTE! Careful, deliberative discussion with the purpose of keeping doors of communication open and avoiding the alienation of either offenders or third parties. This position usually gives greater weight to the circumstances of our time, wherein disciplinary actions are often misunderstood and misrepresented by a hostile media, and other third parties. For example, it is thought that the refusal of communion to a pro-abortion politicians, will not be seen as a matter of the Church engaging a member in a matter of internal discipline. Rather it is seen and portrayed as a politically based attack by a Church that is increasingly conservative and only “selectively outraged.” These charges are not true but are widely accepted as such. There is also the fear that the disciplined public figures will become martyrs for their cause, and the whole thing becomes a backfire for the Church.

This approach also gives greater weight to the wish to keep the doors of discussion open and to avoid the risk of alienation either of the individual, the institution, or the people people closely associated with them. It emphasizes that Christ called sinners more than he repelled them, that it is better to hold sinners close, than repel them.

The approach is strongly rooted in the Scripture of the wheat and the tares:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’” (Matt 13:24-30).

It is also argued that this second approach, articulated here by Jesus, is also the usual approach of God, who is patient with sinners and often very slow to punish. Indeed, his patience often makes the patience of Catholic bishops seem pale by comparison. For God was “slow” to bring an end to the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and many other genocidal maniacs. He has allowed many heretics and heresies to flourish.

God’s delay is deeply mysterious to us. Why does he allow such things, knowing many will be hurt, killed, misled, and confused? It is not easy to say. But this is God’s usual way, and the way described by Jesus in the parable of the wheat and tares. In that parable the “owner” (God) sees greater risk in harming the wheat by pulling up the weeds, than by letting them grow together to the harvest. There is a wisdom that we can grasp here, but it also remains mysterious to us that God allows evil and error to go on so long.

So where do these reflections and camps leave us? It would seem that they lead us back to the understanding that knowing the best course in given circumstances, involves prudential judgements and the weighing of many factors. It would seem that we are led to greater humility and away from certain and sweeping condemnations of Bishops or other leaders who do not follow our exact plan and judgment, and also of those who think more aggressive measures are needed today. Reasonable people will differ on what is best.

Note the balance demonstrated by both Scripture and orthodoxy. Both these very different courses of action are taught and displayed in Scripture. Both are needed. Both can be applied depending on circumstances. The Jesus who said of the unrepentant sinner refusing correction of the Church, “Treat him as a Gentile or tax collector,”  also said of the weeds,  “No, don’t tear them out, let them grow together until the harvest.”

Which is it? Orthodoxy says both. And it is a prudential judgement about which course of action to apply when, on whom, where and to what extent.

Comments are open. I realize you may favor one approach or the other. It is fine to say what you prefer to be done by Church leaders. But try to avoid denunciations of either side. As I hope can be seen, both traditions have a place in the Church, and reasonable men and women can, and do, authentically differ on which course to take. And they differ both generally, and in specific cases.  Again, it is Okay to say what approach you favor, but avoid name calling and judgements about the personal character of those who may have different approaches or understandings, including our leaders. It might be interesting to note not only why you favor one course over another, but also, why you think the parameters of the other course of action do not apply.

In this movie scene from The Mission two brother priests have chosen very different ways to address an impending threat to the community. One chooses to confront the evil,  the other chooses the way of prayer. Sadly both end up dying and destruction comes upon the community despite the best (and different) efforts of both. Who was right, who was wrong? The frustrating and ambiguous ending reminds us that it is not always clear what is best. Yet somehow in the terrible wake of this battle, the faith survived, for God can make a way out of no way.

Posted on

Happiness is an inside job – As seen in Scripture.

In the first reading for Tuesday’s daily mass there is a remarkable description of an event in the life of Paul and Silas. And, even more remarkable than the event itself is their reaction to it. Let’s pick up the story as told in Acts:

The crowd in Philippi joined in the attack on Paul and Silas, and the magistrates had them stripped and ordered them to be beaten with rods. After inflicting many blows on them, they threw them into prison and instructed the jailer to guard them securely. When he received these instructions, he put them in the innermost cell and secured their feet to a stake. (Acts 16:22-25)

It is so easy for us to read passages like this and miss the severity of what happened. The two are beaten with rods. Such beatings might vary in some degree, but the overall severity of the passage (e.g. having them cast into the deepest part of the prison and the jailer later having to bathe their wounds) leads to a reasonable conclusion that the beating was also severe. Such beatings lead to deep bruises and contusions, both external and internal bleeding, and often included broken ribs and possible trauma to the kidneys and other internal organs.

After this severe beating, and likely bloody and in severe pain they are ordered bound by leg shackles and cast in the deepest and darkest part of the prison. In this inner part was deep darkness, rats, snakes, mice, vermin. There was likely also dank water, along with urine and feces.

No matter how we look at it, the external dimensions of both the prison and their pain are grave. It would be enough to have the average person in despair, self pity and perhaps, even a semi-conscious state.

Yet what do we find?

About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. (Acts 16:26)

Yes! despite an awful beating, severe pain, and terrible conditions, they are singing and praising God. It is loud enough that the other prisoners in other parts of the prison hear them.

And here is a remarkable teaching: happiness is an inside job. Paul and Silas, despite every outside discomfort, and the worst physical pain of bleeding contusions and broken or bruised ribs, have a joy that cannot be taken away. They have a connection to God that cannot be severed.

It is too often the case today that we strive to root our happiness in external matters such as money, esteem, creature comforts and the like. And yet, it remains true that many who have these things in abundance are still unhappy, and, also, that many who lack these things in abundance are happy.

There is something deeper about happiness than mere comfort, riches or externalities. I remember some years ago talking with the personnel director of the diocese about an impending transfer. I told him of my fear that they might send me somewhere where I would not be happy. He told me, “Charles, you have been in four assignments now and have been happy at every one. The fact is, you’re going to be happy wherever you go, because that’s the way you are. Happiness is an inside job.”

I have come to discover he was right, and I’ve never been unhappy wherever they sent me. There’s a joy I have that the world didn’t give to me and the world cannot take away.

Sure, there are moments of sorrow and tension in every life. But deeper down there is a stable serenity that the Lord has given me for which I am exceptionally grateful. And I have come to discover that deep inner place of peace, of joy, and contentment, and I have further discovered it is largely unaffected by external realities.

There is a Greek word: μακάριοι (makarioi) which describes a kind of stable happiness or blessed state. The pagan Greeks used the verb to refer to the happiness of the gods, unaffected by worldly matters. Jesus takes up this verb in the beatitudes: Blessed (μακάριοι – happy) are the poor in spirit, the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs. In other words, “Stably blessed and happy are those who have their treasure in heaven, rather than this passing and unstable world.”

Here then is a gift to be sought: the gift of an inner and stable happiness, the gift to be like Paul and Silas, to bless the Lord at all times, what ever the circumstances. This of course is the “normal Christian life.” As Scripture says,

I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth. (Psalm 34:1)

And Paul himself says,

Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. (2 Cor 4:16-18).

And again he said, Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! (Phil 4:4).

Yes the normal Christian life is to be one of joy, a joy largely unaffected by external events, and accessible even in moments of sorrow where a consolation, difficult to describe is always at work.

Two final things to note of this passage about Paul and Silas, is how their joy and confident disposition affect others. There is an old saying “When I get better, others get better too.” In other words, we have important effects on others around us.

The first thing is to note its liberating power. For the text says, there was suddenly such a severe earthquake
that the foundations of the jail shook; all the doors flew open, and the chains of all were pulled loose (Acts 16:27). It is the role of the Christian to exude a joy and a confidence that liberates others from the prison cells of despair, sin and depression. Do people see you as a person of hope? Does your joy liberate and give confidence?

Secondly note the love that is manifest by Paul and Silas, and how that love moves the jailer to repentance and conversion. The text tells us: When the jailer woke up and saw the prison doors wide open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, thinking that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted out in a loud voice, Do no harm to yourself; we are all here. Now consider that the jailer may well have been one of the men who beat them with rods. And, at a human level, the average person might rejoice to see the jailer try and kill himself. But Paul, not wanting him to lose his life, calls out and, even at possibly being re-imprisoned, seeks to save him. So moved is the jailer by this love and faith, that he seeks immediate conversion. How has your love and reverence for life won the hearts of others?

Yes, happiness is an inside job. Here is a gift to be sought from God: an inner transformation and peace that is stable and largely unaffected by external things. What a gift this is to us, and to others around us. For, when I get better, others get better too.

Posted on

Concerning Graciousness in Speech and Love for One Another – Yes, even on blogs!

In the last few days I have never had to refuse to post so many comments.

It started last Thursday evening when I posted a reply to the President’s announcement that he now favored gay “marriage.” I opined that I thought his understanding of Jesus and his reading of the Christian moral vision was flawed because it was partial. That it did not respect the often paradoxical nature of Jesus who was able to hold together what the world often cannot reconcile, e.g. love for sinner and yet a highly demanding moral vision without compromise.

Generally the comments were good and did not stray too far into politics, which was not the point.

But then, it would seem, a homosexual site must have linked to the site and there poured in highly negative commentary, much of it respectful, but much more of it so vile I will not describe it, other than to say if it was not riddled with profanity, it was loaded with deeply offensive personal attacks upon the members of the Church, other commenters, et al., and highly unfair, inaccurate and  hateful descriptions of the Church.

To some extent I have come to expect this when posting on the issue of homosexuality. While I remain committed to insisting that the vast majority of the homosexual community is respectful and kind, even if they disagree with the Church, there is a very vocal, and extremely hostile fringe, that does not brook any departure from total acceptance of the homosexual agenda.

That was round one.

Round two was today, when I had to delete and many comments as I accepted. The venom this time came from the right.

The Archdiocese it seems, had not gone far enough, according to many, in denouncing Georgetown University. Many opined that more was required. (And in fact there may be more to come). And while this is a fair enough position to hold, the fact that the strategy was not 100% what some thought should be done, caused some very acidic and bitter comments to come through. Many of these comments contained name-calling and attacks on the integrity and commitment both of Cardinal Wuerl and the Bishops in general. I could not post them. It is not the purpose of this blog to bash the bishops and denounce their leadership.

This is a blog of the Archdiocese of Washington and I am a priest of Jesus Christ and this local Church. It is my mission and purpose to build unity among the faithful and to bind them more closely to Jesus and to the Bishops, who, by His grace, are our shepherds. I hope you can understand that I could never post some of things I read today.

To be sure, we do not shy away from controversial topics here and I DO see a place for conversation that is, at times, frank and edgy. Debate is a fact in the Church and there is a forum for that here. The Archdiocese and the Cardinal permit this, it is after all their blog, not mine. But there have to be limits, and charity is an absolute limit. So is respect for the office of Bishop.

Most of the denunciation of bishops that takes place in this regard is regarding what is know as “prudential judgments,” they do not even involve doctrinal deviations. A prudential judgement is a judgement of the best way to attain a certain goal, say unity, or orthodoxy. Some strategies are long term in nature, others more focus on a swift and sometimes sweeping strike. In prudential judgments, reasonable people will differ on the best means to the end.

It is clear that some commentors on this blog want swift and sweeping action in many, many areas of Church life. But to be honest, that is not the usual approach of the Church, which often thinks in terms of centuries more than days and weeks. The nature of the Church, almost from the beginning is to thoughtfully consider, and move very slowly and cautiously.

Even given this historical perspective, many will still want swift and sweeping action. But the bottom line is, these are prudential judgments and there actually ARE different ways of proceeding. Strategy is as much art, as science.

And, speaking of strategy,  how about a little strategy when it comes to how we speak? I have considered myself,  and been considered a theological conservative by most of my peers. And while I have ministered in diverse settings (from the Traditional Latin Mass all the way to vibrant African American Liturgies), my basic core is what I like to term pastoral orthodoxy. I don’t cut corners and surely won’t water down the faith to be popular.

That said, I shudder of late at the terrible strategy of many of my conservative brethren in the Church who seem to think that bitter criticism and harsh invective is a way to win friends and influence people. It is not. Some people are the worst of ambassadors for conservative or traditional Catholic points of view. I cringe as I see what they write and say. Too often I just have to shake my head and press delete, even if I sympathize with their view. “Gosh,” I think, “Why did they have to say it that way? Why do they have to affirm one thing, by attacking other legitimate options?”

Regarding yesterday’s post I was so discouraged. The editorial in the Catholic Standard was a step in the right direction for those who think the Georgetown situation is egregious. I am in that category. But how sad it was to read, not encouragement, but ridicule, laughter and dismissive comments in large numbers from fellow conservatives, that the Archdiocese did not go far enough according to them.  But it WAS a step in the right direction from that point of view. And how valuable it would have been had conservatives praised the editorial and given encouragement for further action, saying to the hierarchy, in effect, “We’ve got your back if and when you need to move further forward in this. And when others denounce you for it, we will be there with you every step of the way.”

Frankly, fellow conservatives, we have to learn to be something other than a huge pain in the neck and the “complainers in chief” about every single thing. We should do more than make people cringe when they hear we are “on the other line.” Where’s the support, where’s the encouragement that should come when steps, even baby steps, are made in the hopeful directions?

Come on now, work with me on this! Lets combine more praise with necessary critique. Let’s soft-peddle the harshness and season our speech with salt. Let’s show a little more joy and the confidence of those who worship a risen and victorious Lord. And when good steps are made in directions we deem appropriate, let’s turn up the praise and speak with gratitude. Come on Church, work with me on this. Our Bishops need our prayers, encouragement and support. And even when we feel the need to tell them our concerns, lets find a way to curb our temper and speak graciously.

To be fair, some the authors of the comments I had to delete, I contacted by e-mail and explained my reason and they graciously accepted my critique. Others did not. Some resubmitted, others did not. I also am not without sympathy when it comes to the struggle of patiently waiting in a Church that moves slowly and cautiously.

Also to be fair, most readers and those who comment here don’t need to hear me on this. I beg your pardon and patience, if that is the case.

But the past few days have been awful. I expect hate and ridicule from the radical fringe outside the Church. But it really hurts when it comes from within.

Lets end with scripture:

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Col 4:6)

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Eph 4:29)

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)

I don’t know, you decide who is who in this video and what it might ultimately mean:

Posted on

Archdiocese of Washington speaks out over choice of Kathleen Sebelius as Speaker at Georgetown University

The Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington, Bishop Barry Knestout forwarded the following editorial from the Catholic Standard, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese. He asked the we priests share it in any way we deem appropriate with the people of the Archdiocese. In this matter.

Many of you write me and ask when and if the Archdiocese will speak out on this or that matter. In this matter, I am able to report that it has. And frankly the editorial pull no punches, as you will see. The original text is below in bold black italics. My comments are in plain red text. The original article is here: Cathstan.org and a PDF of it is here: Disappointed but Not Surprised

Late last Friday, Georgetown University announced that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is the featured speaker for an awards ceremony at the University’s Public Policy Institute. This news is a disappointment but not a surprise.

As is well known, Secretary Sebelius is the architect of the “HHS mandate”, now federal law, which requires all employers — including religious institutions — to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraceptives for its employees and redefines religious ministry to exclude Catholic social services, hospitals and universities if they serve or employ non-Catholics. Given her position, it is disappointing that she would be the person that Georgetown University would choose to honor.

Founded in 1789 by John Carroll, a Jesuit priest, Georgetown University has, historically speaking, religious roots. So, too, do Harvard, Princeton and Brown. Over time, though, as has happened with these Ivy League institutions, Georgetown has undergone a secularization, due in no small part to the fact that much of its leadership and faculty find their inspiration in sources other than the Gospel and Catholic teaching. Many are quite clear that they reflect the values of the secular culture of our age. Thus the selection of Secretary Sebelius for special recognition, while disappointing, is not surprising.

Pay close attention to this paragraph. The editorial, while not using canonical language,  in effect sets forth the view that Georgetown has largely become a secular University, along the line of Harvard, Yale et al. It goes even further, stating that the primary source of inspiration at Georgetown is not the Gospel or Catholic teaching, but instead, is other unnamed sources.

To be clear, there are surely some very fine teachers and students on campus. I know at least several who are striving to maintain some semblance of Catholic identity there. It remains true that Mass is still offered on campus, but that is true of Secular universities as well.

So, what is Catholic about Georgetown? Very little, it would seem by the editorial’s assessment. This assessment, I know, many of you will share, in the wake of one discouragement after another emanating from the campus of Georgetown.

Blessed John Paul II, in his 1990 apostolic constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, invites Catholic universities into a relationship of faith and excellence. He calls them to share in the Church’s task of bringing the Gospel and Christian values into the culture of our day.

He reminds us that a Catholic university is “a living institutional witness to Christ and his message, so vitally important in cultures marked by secularism… Moreover, all the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church,” among them, “dialogue with culture that makes the faith better understood” (ECE I: B.4.49).

Basic Catholic Mission stuff here. Sadly Georgetown and many other Catholic Universities are not clear on “Job 1.”

One can only wonder how the selection of Secretary Sebelius for such a prominent role as a featured speaker can be reconciled with the stated Catholic mission and identity of Georgetown University. Secretary Sebelius’ vision on what constitutes faith-based institutions presents the most direct challenge to religious freedom in recent history.

Yes, I wonder if Georgetown and others who think like this, have any  idea where intrusive government will end? It does not take a prophet to see that if the Federal Government can intrude on a matter like this (Catholic sexual and life teachings) which many at Georgetown sniff at, that the same Government will be back with more demands.

And these demands, the faculty and administration at Georgetown may be less sanguine about. Who is to say and more conservative administration could not demand that Georgetown teach, facilitate, and fund abstinence based programs as part of a healthcare mandate, or perhaps that they require all students and employees to contribute to and pay for a pro-life crisis pregnancy center to help bring babies to term, and that they fund an adoption agency on campus to encourage single moms to adopt their children to intact families. What if all this was in a future health care mandate that sought to preserve and foster the lives of infants and Georgetown was required to pay for all this?

I doubt Georgetown faculty and staff would be so sanguine about this, and say, “Well of course Government knows best, and if Government calls this women, infant and children’s healthcare, who are we to say no?” No, I rather doubt Georgetown would be inviting the HHS Secretary from a conservative administration proposing this. If they did, the protests would be so thick, that he or she couldn’t even get on campus.

But wake up Georgetown! You celebrate a woman who is helping to gut religious liberty. But your religious liberty is just as much on the line as any one else’s. Uncle Sam will be back, and you might not be so pleased the next time. Time for sobriety Georgetown.

On the same weekend that the Georgetown announcement was made, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the importance of Catholic education and the intellectual and cultural challenges of the New Evangelization in the context of contemporary American society. The Holy Father recalled that during his pastoral visit to America in April 2008, in his homily at the Mass at Nationals Stadium, he called on the Church in America to cultivate “a mindset, an intellectual culture which
is genuinely Catholic”. Last weekend he reiterated the need for American Catholic institutions of higher learning to commit to “building a society ever more solidly grounded in an authentic humanism inspired by the Gospel and faithful to the highest values of America’s civic and cultural heritage”.

With all of the people struggling so hard to preserve freedom of religion, and with all that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said in defense of this important value, Georgetown’s choice of the architect of the radical challenge of such freedom for special recognition can only be seen as a statement of where the university stands – certainly not with the Catholic bishops. Clear and unambiguous

Georgetown University’s response to the commencement speaker decision is disappointing, but not surprising. When the vision guiding university choices does not clearly reflect the light of the Gospel and authentic Catholic teaching, there are, of course, disappointing results.

In other words, the fruit does not fall far from the tree. And the editorial could not be more clear, the vision at Georgetown is not the Gospel and it is not Catholic teaching.

So who wrote this? The editorial is unsigned. But the Catholic Standard is the official paper of the Archdiocese of Washington. As such it is a recognized voice of the Archdiocese and editorials like this are not published without review by the Cardinal’s senior staff.

I hope you will agree that the editorial lays out a very serious need for soul searching at Georgetown. And, while some of you may wish that universities like Georgetown would have long ago been censured and/or had their Catholic identity officially removed, that involves extensive and careful canonical procedures. I have no knowledge that any such actions are underway or have ever been tried in the past. And such matters are wholly left to the pastoral discretion of the bishops. I think we ought to allow the bishops their rightful prudential judgements in these sorts of matters and not be too hypercritical of them. They know a lot more than we ever will, and they have a bigger picture in mind as well, as they try to hold everyone as close to Christ as possible.

In your comments please consider charity, and remain prayerful about this matter, as I know most of you do.

This video is from the Cardinal Newman Society