This just in . . . .

A press release from the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist; What splendid language! Message follows:

Regarding the so-called compromise by President Obama on the Department of Health and Human Services rule for “preventative” services that mandate coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and artificial contraception for their employees, the mandate still compromises religious, economic, and political liberty.

Despite the assurances by President Obama that separating the premiums paid by religious institutions to insurance companies somehow protects the religious liberty of Catholic and other religious institutions, the bottom line is these institutions will still have to pay the insurance company that is mandated to provide these services for free to any employee who wants these services.  It is insulting for President Obama and his administration to suggest the so-called compromise “should be net cost neutral.” It is simply impossible to ensure that the insurance companies will not pass on those costs to the organizations and individuals who conscientiously object to their insurance policies covering abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and artificial contraception. In short, not only does the Administration not comprehend Catholic moral reasoning and the full-meaning of the principle of religious liberty, it does not even understand the basic economics of health-care insurance. The fact that Planned Parenthood has so quickly expressed satisfaction with these arrangements only confirms that nothing has changed in substance.

As the Second Vatican Council declared in paragraph four of its Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae:

“religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.”

Moreover, as citizens of the United States we are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to fully and vibrantly live our Catholic faith according to the teachings of the Church.  We as Catholics demand that our institutions not be required to formally or materially cooperate in acts that the Church has always taught to be intrinsically evil.

The Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist plead with God to protect the ability for all Americans to freely exercise their religious liberty.  The Dominican Sisters of Mary will offer up daily prayers with the intention that this unjust mandate be overturned, and we will do so until it is overturned.”

If y'all are looking for a good convent/religious order to contribute to, I heartily recommend this one. They're doing a great job. (And I'm proud to say that one of my former students is a nun in Ann Arbor. I take all the credit. :-)

Speaking of homosexuality . . .

People think that because I’m Catholic I must be a gay-bashing homophobe. Not so. Whenever anyone accuses me of that I ask the accuser if he and his wife have ever gone on a weekend trip to the mountains with another couple—and the other couple happened to be lesbians? Well, my wife and I have (and please, no speculation on kinky group sex. Nothing remotely like that happened. Whatever the lesbians did in their own bedroom was something I didn’t ask about.) I then submit that such a trip isn’t something a gay-bashing homophobe would be likely to do.

True, that trip was before I was Catholic, and today, before going on it, I would have to discern whether such a trip would be seen as condoning of a lesbian lifestyle, because that lifestyle is something the Church declares to be a sin. There are arguments on both sides, and I won’t go over them right now, but consider: On the one hand, I couldn’t attend a “wedding” of these friends (they’ve long since broken up anyway). That’s pretty clear. But on the other, am I supposed never to speak to them again because (Horrors! Ick!) they happen to be gay? Where, exactly, is the line? (And for those of you who would say never to speak to them again—what about all your straight friends that are undoubtedly sicko, un-American, pinko commie perverts within their own marital bedrooms? Given the influences of the sexual revolution, you know that some of them must be doing unnatural, unspeakable things in there, right? Seems to me like you’d better just ditch all of your friends to be on the safe side.)

As understood and taught for two thousand years by the Church, sexuality is bound up both in terms of unity and fertility. If God is love, and God created the heavens and the earth, then love created the heavens and the earth. The Church has always understood this creativity to be the creation of actual, biological life. That’s why sex must therefore always be open to the creation of new life; intentionally contracepting or separating sex from reproduction, by use of a device, a drug, a sexual practice, or a misuse of NFP/FAM is a perverting of what sexuality is designed to be from the ground up.

It used to be that all Christian traditions believed and taught this. Not until the Lambeth Conference of the 1930s did the Anglicans carefully say that there might be some very few circumstances when contraception was allowed. That was the crack in the dike. Within a generation, every other Christian tradition except Catholicism had abandoned this constant teaching of Christendom. Today only Catholicism agrees with two thousand years of Christian history on this point. Individuals in other Christian communities may agree, but not because their doctrine tells them they must.

So here’s the problem with homosexuality. By its very nature, by virtue of the facts of biology and anatomy, it is not fertile. And no, technological or legal replacement of the natural biological function isn’t sufficient. So the Church lacks the authority to say that homosexual relationships are acceptable, or that gay “marriage” is in fact a marriage.

But the thing that most people—including a lot of Catholics—forget is to hate the sin but love the sinner. Can you imagine how hard it must be to have a strong same-sex attraction—just as strong as your own heterosexual sex drive—and never be able to licitly satisfy it, in any way, for your whole life? Can you imagine what torture that must be? Could you manage that, my friend, even as a heterosexual? Truly, if someone achieves that goal then it’s massive time off from Purgatory—shoot, a complete bypassing of Purgatory. And if someone isn’t able to manage it but gives in, perhaps even repeatedly—well, go ahead. Cast that first stone. Make it a good big one. Go for the kill shot. You know you want to. He’s just a homo, right?


The fact is that the Church can never accept homosexual behavior. It’s another fact that if someone is dealing with same-sex attraction, he deserves every bit of friendship and support we can give him within the context of the previous fact. If he is able to deal with his homosexuality only in an imperfect way, we don't just ditch him for that reason (or else, get that first stone ready). And if he’s a flat-out apologist and advocate for gay rights and a Catholic basher? Well, in that case, treat him as you would any other rage-filled irrational anti-Catholic, however that may be. Ignore him, reason with him, or issue a corrective. But there’s no reason to get into the gutter with any such people.

Squeal Like a Pig

A lot of news sites allow visitors to comment on posts. I read such comments way too often; they generally reinforce my belief that Americans are generally too stupid to govern themselves, and, by extension, you and me. (As an aside, whenever I see or hear something exceptionally stupid occur, especially if it’s group stupidity, I am wont to turn to whoever is nearby and remark “These people elect your president,” regardless of which party holds the White House at the time.)

            Anyway, I read with great interest Archbishop Chaput’s column in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. (Having spent a year or two reading Philadelphia papers of the 1790s while writing my doctoral dissertation/first book, I’m always at home doing so.) While his commentary was generally good, I wish he’d used even stronger language. But as for the comments . . .  it’s a tragic thing that any such editorializing by a bishop is met these days with scores of comments along the lines of “Why should we listen to a bunch of perverts who sodomize altar boys?”

            The tragedy is that despite the many inaccuracies in that statement, there’s just enough truth in it—exacerbated by the fact that America’s bishops have grossly and recklessly mishandled the sex abuse problem—that I can’t flat-out condemn such a crack as this, much as I want to. And in this, as in the matter of adherence to doctrine in birth control and all matters, the bishops have brought this upon themselves (and thus us, the laity).

For more than forty years, in their desire to be open and groovy and non-confrontational and accepted, the bishops have retreated, compromised, capitulated, and generally been spineless—when not actually complicit—in the face of secular attacks intended to cripple or destroy the Catholic Faith. (I have long held that the two groups most responsible for abortion on demand today are the Republican Party and the Catholic bishops.) Had they stood up to the world earlier, they would have had a more cohesive group of clergy and laity behind them, as well as much more moral force and raw political power. Now they are, in the view of a great many Americans (including a ton of dissident so-called Catholics), irrelevant at best, contemptible at worst, as such “pedophile” comments show. This is true of even the relatively few solid bishops such as Archbishop Chaput, since the world lumps all of them together.

With the HHS ruling, the ultimate defining moment has come for “AmChurch.” There’s no place left, doctrinally, left for the Church to retreat to. If the bishops cave on this, there is no hope for the Catholic Church in this country, for the bishops will have shown that even when they mount some opposition, it’s a paper tiger. The government could, in time, force the performance of surgical abortions in Catholic hospitals or the performance of gay/lesbian weddings in actual parishes. And these ineffectual, timid, peace-at-any-price bishops, who are at long last finding their voices and beginning to ride into battle, are feeling the drag of forty-five years of their own sordid history on their reins. They sowed the wind; now they’re reaping the whirlwind.

Large and Startling Figures

Reading back over my posts, I see that I have used harsh terms and a very (some would say) uncharitable tone to describe my opponents and their views. I have a simple explanation for why I do so.

            I grew up being taught to be reasonable, and to find common ground and merit among all sides in discussions with people of good will. But at heart I’m a very black and white, or as lawyers say, bright-line sort of person. If you give me a thoughtful, nuanced position that is not obviously adversarial, I automatically respond in kind. If you’re argumentative, I am argumentative in return, usually playing (or not so much playing as being) devil's advocate no matter whether I agree with your position or not. It’s instinctive. I’m a teacher, and I use the Socratic method. This is how I do things.

            The reason I’m being harsh on this blog is that, based on what I’ve seen and heard in the last decade or so, I do not believe my opponents to be people of good faith. Their belief is ideological, their tactics revolutionary, their objectives subversive, and their exercise of power fascistic. They have long since poisoned the well of true dialogue. When they themselves appeal to the importance of “dialogue,” it usually means, at least in my experience, that they may talk while dissenters must be silenced.

            There is no real dialogue with these people. You can’t reason with an unreasonable person. All I can do, therefore, is show the fallacies in their arguments and the inconsistencies in their behavior in the clearest, and thus harshest, light possible. 

            There are a great many people in the Church who are people of good will who have nevertheless unwittingly been exposed heavily to modernism. My quarrel is not with them. In fact, I consider them as being a major component of my audience, whom I hope to convince by reason that my views are correct. Perhaps they’ll find my tone off-putting. If so, I would remind them of why Flannery O’Connor—one of the most Catholic of all twentieth-century novelists--wrote her Southern Gothic in such a way as to make her readers uncomfortable. “When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do,” she once wrote, “you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock-to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.”

More on Historicity (and a liturgical matter for my EF friends)

In my last post, I discussed the historicity—or rather, the lack thereof—of what I referred to as The People’s Catholic Church, the assumption underlying the idea that one can claim to be Catholic while rejecting the Magisterium and the Catholic hierarchy that has promulgated it. In this post I want to look a little further into historicity, especially as regards liturgy—specifically, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand, as is common in the Novus Ordo Mass.

            The practice of Wicca claims to be very ancient, even though it admits many—perhaps most—of its rituals to be of recent invention. Gerald Gardner, one of the first modern Wiccans, claimed to be passing on ancient secrets that had survived Christendom’s destruction of Europe’s witch cult--a lot of this stuff is very dubious scholarship—but most other Wiccans tend to say that because of this destruction (again, of rather doubtful accuracy), modern neopagans have had to re-invent their rituals. Therefore, I imagine they would say that the spirit of these rituals, though not the details of these rituals, connects them to the old pagan religions of Europe.

            I find that a refreshingly honest position compared to the adherents of The People’s Catholic Church. The latter make up stuff and attempt to pass it off as history. For instance, here’s Nancy Pelosi’s take on the Real History Of the Church, from an interview she did with Tom Brokow in 2008:

“PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe vs. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child — first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and — to — that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided.…”
BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...
PELOSI: I understand that.
BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.
PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.

I won’t digress to discuss how grossly Pelosi misrepresented both Catholic history and Catholic doctrine here. Others have already done that—including, miracle of miracles, her own bishop (although in a rather mild way). This is an example of The Big Lie, and it isn’t the point of this point to refute the absurdities she uttered. But, by the way, isn’t it ironic how She Who Declares That Bishops Should Stay Out Of Government only all too happily jumps squarely into the middle of the bishops’ business of teaching the Faith? Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode of Nancy Pelosi, Master Theologian.

            Now, as to communion in the hand. The modernists of the last fifty years who have attempted—like the above Wiccans—to re-connect us with the early days of our Faith have gone most Wiccans one better. They, like Gardner, claim that Communion in the hand is actually an ancient practice, and therefore older and more correct than receiving Communion on the tongue. They quote an early Church Father, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, to prove their point. Here’s the quotation, taken from Catechesis Mystagogica V, 11-22: “Approaching [the Eucharist] therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding ‘Amen’.”

            So far so good, right? Just like today’s practice. The problem is, the modernists have taken this quotation out of context. Here's the whole thing:

Approaching [the Eucharist] therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding ‘Amen’. Then. carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?
Then, after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, come forward only for the cup of the Blood. Do not stretch out your hands but bow low as if making an act of obeisance and a profound act of veneration. Say ‘Amen’. and sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ’s Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs. Finally, wait for the prayer and give thanks to God, who has deemed you worthy of such mysteries.

So I ask you, as long as we’re being all early church and historical and are receiving Communion in the hand, why don’t we go the whole hog and rub the Host on our eyes and pour the Precious Blood all over ourselves? Answer: because the modernists don’t actually want to be historical. They just want to force everyone to receive Communion in the hand. They use history (sort of like some guys use prostitutes) to get what they want, and for no other reason.

            As for reconnecting with the Early Church: we already have that. It’s called the Catholic Church, and it is a natural extension of the early Church just as the mustard plant is a natural extension of the mustard seed from which it sprang. This idea of cutting out all the intervening stuff in order to get back to the REAL Church, well, there’s a name for people who believe that: “Baptists.” (Not slamming my Baptist friends here. If you want to be Baptist, fine, be the best Baptists you can. I hope and expect for a great many Baptists to go to heaven, while I fear for the souls of a great many Catholics. My qualm here is with Baptists who insist on passing themselves off as Roman Catholics, because I think they’re intellectual frauds who are misleading people by their fraudulence.)

            And, while I’m on it—isn’t it odd that bishops and priests have on the whole remained very quiet in the face of so-called “pro-choice Catholics,” and all but canonized Ted Kennedy at his funeral, and generally refuse to criticize them publicly at all, but when people have the effrontery to kneel for Communion—even though the Vatican says that’s OK—these bishops/priests deny them Communion and even sometimes threatened with excommunication? This denial-of-Communion business isn't a  characteristic of Catholics, but of insecure ideologues who are afraid that the revolution will fail.

            Harsh words? Probably. But there’s so much confusion these days about what Catholicism is and what it isn’t, that very clear language is needed.

What, exactly, is a Catholic?

There is a great deal—a great deal—of confusion these days as to what constitutes “a Catholic.” This is due in large part to very prominent individuals in our society who hold themselves out as Catholics, and whose religious views the media cover extensively, but who expressly dissent from doctrines of the Catholic faith. Ted Kennedy; John Kerry; Joe Biden; Kathleen Sebelius; the Cuomos; and Nancy Pelosi are such figures. Pelosi, in particular, in recent years has undertaken to teach theology, declaring that the Church has always been uncertain about abortion and when life begins, which earned her a rebuke from several bishops. In the last few days she declared that she will “stick with [her] fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration” in its decision to force the Church to pay for birth control and abortifacients. This, despite the fact that the vast majority of bishops in America have now denounced the recent HHS ruling.

            There are many other examples. Just today I found a blog entry on CNN in which a religion professor who claims here (

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/my-take-real-catholics-not-opposed-to-birth-control/ ) that there are bishops, and there are “real Catholics” (presumably the ones Pelosi is siding with) and that “real Catholics” are fine with birth control. I read another blog here (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/10/my-take-why-im-a-catholic-for-contraception/ ) from a young woman who takes pride in her Catholicism and says it’s a huge influence in her life, but that she’s fine with being on the Pill since none of her Jesuit teachers ever said there was anything wrong with that. Quite the opposite: they encouraged her and her fellow students to be careful about spreading STIs (although there’s no indication that they told her that monogamy would solve that problem).

            These bloggers have a point. Huge numbers of people claiming to be Catholic do use birth control, and no priest or bishop ever told them not to. I myself have heard at least one priest publicly say he has given a parishoner “permission” to contracept. Does that make the practice OK? Does that mean that these people can be Catholics in good standing with the Church?

            Well, since Jesus created a hierarchy and gave its members power to do things like baptize and forgive sins, and to hold the keys to the kingdom, and from their very first days they did authoritative things like choose successors (Matthias in the book of Acts) and write books that the Church has always accepted as authoritative, we would have to say that adherence to this authority is kind of key to being Catholic. Unless, that is, you see this whole thing as a bootstrapping conspiracy theory designed for power aggrandizement and concentration in the patriarchal elites. If you take that view, then real Catholicism was a folk movement from the days of Christ’s ministry—we’ll call it The People’s Catholic Church--that was suppressed, or at best co-opted, by this evil authority from the very beginning.

            There are a few problems with this theory. The first is that most of the early Church leaders—including nearly every apostle and nearly every early pope--suffered torture and death for his faith. So if you were after power, there were probably better ways to gain it that to become an apostle or bishop.

            The second problem is that there’s no documentary evidence to suggest that The People’s Catholic Church ever existed. Of course, goes the theory, the bishops could have destroyed these documents, as they did the writings of heretics. But the early bishops didn’t have the kind of infrastructure necessary to carry out a program like that. Even when the Church became legal in the 300s, and thus more open and structured, it didn’t have these types of resources. We still have evidence of a whole bunch of early heresies that the Church tried like crazy to stamp out; Gnosticism, Montanism, Arianism, Modalism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Nestorianism, you name it. Is it likely, then, that there would be no evidence at all, not even a whisper, of The People’s Catholic Church?

            There’s no way around it. In terms of authority, teaching, doctrine, and structure, the Catholic Church was from the beginning hierarchical. (Even Nancy Pelosi presumably confesses, or at least pays lip service to, a belief in a Church that is “apostolic” unless she clams up during that part of the Nicene Creed.)

            So what has this hierarchy taught about membership in the Church? Wouldn’t that teaching be authoritative, since I hope I’ve shown to your satisfaction that there never was a People’s Catholic Church? Or, to put it another way, if you depart from the teaching of the Church hierarchy, are you really a member of the same religion as that hierarchy?

            It’s fine if you aren’t. I’m a firm believer in the idea that conscience can’t be coerced, and that there can logically be no such thing as a forced conversion. If you want to profess a religion in which  birth control is ok, then fine, go ahead, be my guest. I merely argue that if you do so, then you profess a religion that’s not what the Catholic Church—the real Catholic Church—has taught from the beginning. But if that’s the case, wouldn’t it be best for you not to refer to yourself as Catholic? Then people—me, you, your friends, the media, everyone--would be less confused.

            In my experience—and I borrow this from a homily I once heard from a great Jesuit ,Fr. Ray Gawronski—if you say “I’m a good Catholic, but . . .” followed by a statement that you dissent from one or more doctrines (such as social teaching, contraception, the Real Presence, etc., etc., etc., left-wing, right-wing, doesn’t matter) then you’re not a good Catholic, because you don’t hold the Catholic faith as passed down through the ages. Catholics can have hugely different opinions on a very great number of things, but the doctrines of the Church aren’t, collectively, one of those things. Dissent from that, or even any part of it, and you aren’t Catholic.

            That’s not me talking. That’s what the Church teaches, no matter how silent today’s group of mealy-mouthed American bishops are on the subject for fear of alienating someone (and thus seeing their collection plate revenues suffer). If you want a more complete definition, take a look at this excerpt from the article Church in the Catholic Encyclopedia, available at www.newadvent.org . You’ll note the importance of adherence to the teachings of the faith in this definition.

Members of the Church

The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it. He still belongs to Christ. Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.

1. In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches. He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away, thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus 3:10 sq.). The Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God (Ephesians 1:13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it. Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that "he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16; cf. Matthew 28:19).
2. It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays it down in his Letter to the Church of Smyrna (no. 8): Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there is the universal Church". In regard to this condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. Those who are not joined to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God.
3. The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offences. Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (1 Corinthians 5:3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the heathen and the publican". It casts him out of God's kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as "delivering him over to Satan" (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20).

Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn.

1. Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God's will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally. Even in regard to those who have themselves fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other. Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. The majority of theologians agree with Bellarmine (de Ecclesiâ, III, c. x), as against Francisco Suárez, that secret heresy has not this effect.
2. In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret repudiation of the Church's authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority.
3. Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as "to be shunned" who are cut off from God's kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118). (See EXCOMMUNICATION.)

So, whenever you hear somebody say—either in so many words or in essence—“I’m a good Catholic, but . . .” take it from me—and the Church—he probably isn’t. Maybe that will help clear up the confusion.

A Meditation on "Compromise"

            This blog will begin as a spinoff to Southern Orders,  to which I’m a frequent comment poster. In  the last few days I've had a couple of thoughts I've wanted to post there but which haven't  been exactly on point to any of the posts Fr. McDonald has made there. So I' decided just  to post them here.

            The main issue I wanted to post about is one of compromise on the recent HHS ruling  that requires Catholic institutions to provide health insurance coverage that includes  abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception. The President of Notre Dame, a priest by  the name of John Jenkins, has recently floated a compromise that he believes all sides  will find acceptable: since it's a bit technical, I won't summarize it on this blog, but you  can read about it here http://blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2011/12/20/notre-dame- cha-propose-dangerous-compromise-on-religious-liberty/

            and here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-health-assn-notre-dame-pushing- dangerous-compromise-on-birth-contr/

            I have never referred to a Catholic priest, or anyone else, as a Judas before, but Notre  Dame's president is rapidly proving his qualification for the term. Three years ago,  despite massive protest as well as objections from the local bishop, he not only invited  President Obama to speak at Notre Dame commencement ceremonies, but conferred an  honorary degree on the man, saying it would further the dialogue between pro-life and  pro-abort groups. To which I responded: What dialogue? If there is a single, unshakable,  non-negotiable issue of the far left, it's unlimited, publicly-funded, abortion on demand  for everybody. There is no dialogue on the issue, nor will there ever be.

            Now Jenkins floats this so-called compromise. Additionally, new sources this morning  are reporting that Obama will announce a compromise this afternoon, possibly one based  on the Hawaii Plan, by which the Church would have to refer women to outside  healthcare providers who would give them the services in question.  

            Well, what's the problem with that? American politics has always been an exercise in  compromise. In the American political scheme, "compromise" is a good thing, a positive  term.

            Here's the problem: The Catholic Church isn't just some political player. It's the Catholic  Church. It has a moral duty to follow both the Divine and Natural Laws and to preach the  truth. When the truth compromises with evil, the result is like what you get when you mix  dirt and ice cream. It doesn't improve the one, and it completely ruins the other.

            The so-called compromise here, if adopted, wouldn't be a compromise at all, but a victory  for secularism and government power. It would be a disaster for the church, both  tactically and strategically.

            Tactically, a compromise would still either require at least some Catholic institutions to  supply the objectionable services (the Jenkins plan) or else would require Catholic  institutions to cooperate materially, or perhaps even formally, in the evil (the Hawaii  plan). In other words, we would compromise (in a bad sense, the sense of departing from  truth and the natural Law) the moral teachings and practices of the Church.

            Strategically, any so-called compromise would also be a disaster. For the first time in  more than 40 years, the HHS rule has produced an outcry of solidarity from a large  number (but by no means all, more's the pity)  of American bishops and well-placed laity.  Non-Catholics and even non-Christians are joining in. This is a defining moment for  Catholicism, when at last it will stand up and say "Thus far. No farther." If it caves now  (and compromising would without doubt be caving), then all the outcry of the last few  weeks will amount to so much sound and fury, and secularism will then know it can have  its way with the Church in America. The Church, having severely damaged its credibility  by its complicity in evil during the last 40 years (including its unconscionable handling o  the sex abuse crisis ten years ago), will have no credibility left.

            Standing up now does bring risks. The biggest one is from within. Having refused to  catechize its own members for two generations, having refused to make examples of so- called Catholics who have scandalized the faith (such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry,  Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden (who's also touting compromise, btw), and yes, Kathleen  Sebelius), the Church now has a laity who largely follow the lead of the secular world in  terms of birth control and abortions. All of the studies I have read--and I've read many-- show that the percentage of Catholics on the Pill is roughly the same as Americans as a  whole. So, if told by their Bishops and pastors now that this isn't acceptable, I wonder  what they'll do? Will we see open protest from the pews? Will we see a mass exodus  from the Church?

            We may. And I say let them go. What's in a name? Long ago the Church declared that a  Catholic is one who is validly baptized and who adheres to the faith. If this laity isn't  adhering to the faith, then may they follow their consciences and go in peace. I wish them  the best. But they aren't Catholic.

            Of course, this will mean declining revenues, and I wonder if the bishops will be able to  stomach that. It all comes down to the almighty dollar.

            But what's the alternative? For the Church to say "Oh, wait. We've been wrong. All of  Christendom was wrong about birth control and abortion for 2000 years. The Didache got  it wrong. The Church Fathers got it wrong. Aquinas got it wrong. Thank God the  American government came along this last couple of centuries and explained it to us."

            At least that would be honest. But what we'll get is a bunch of hand-wringing  "compromise" instead.

            Two quotations to finish up with. The first from William Lloyd Garrison.

            "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for  severity?  I will be  as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice.  On this subject, I  do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation.  No!  no!  Tell a man whose  house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the  hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into  which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present.  I am  in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch --  AND I WILL BE HEARD.  The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap  from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."  

            The last word I'll leave to Napoleon, as stated in his Military Maxims: "A well- established maxim of war is, not to do anything which your enemy wishes--and for the  single reason that he does so wish."

            Obama is wishing for a "compromise" right now. 'Nuff said.