Terry Jones on the Iranian Prisoners

Terry Jones comments on the display by Iran of their British prisoners. Via Mark.

An Apology for Adventism

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, reviewing a recent book on the Branch Davidians, calls on the Seventh-day Adventist Church to “acknowledge some responsibility on the part of their tradition for the developments” that led to the Waco conflagration.

One matter that impressed me particularly as an evangelical reading Newport is his insistence that the tragic errors in David Koresh’s understanding of the Bible do in fact have a history, a history that can in turn be traced to a perspective that was birthed by Ellen White, whose denomination has by now rightly earned considerable respect in evangelical circles and beyond. …

…Now is a good time for Adventist theologians to acknowledge at least some responsibility on the part of their tradition for the developments chronicled by Newport, since those developments do in fact draw on important elements in early Adventism. …

It is a fact, for example, as Newport points out, that the Davidians share with the early Adventists an expectation that some sort of violent cleansing in the end-time is a necessary preface to the coming Kingdom. And this scenario was often connected, in early Adventism, to the notion that in the last days America would function as the second beast of Revelation 13, a deceptively “lamb-like” collective entity that would foster false worship and persecute the faithful remnant of Sabbath-keepers.

The crux of Mouw’s plea for a mea culpa is twofold: 1) “an expectation that some sort of violent cleansing in the end-time,” and 2) prophetic “anti-Americanism.”

Mouw’s call is certainly in keeping with the mea culpas of liberal Protestants of the last few decades, who have apologized for sins real and imagined, committed by their ancestors and the ancestors of other white Americans and Europeans. But it is neither fair nor just in the case of Adventism and the Branch Davidians.

He faults Adventists for, in essence, daring to judge earthly governments in the light of God’s Word–for suggesting that earthly governments will not create God’s kingdom on earth, but in fact are doomed to judgment.

He faults Adventists for expecting evil to disguise itself in a gentler form, for expecting evil powers to attempt to eradicate the good, and for expecting God to vindicate them.

Were Adventists wrong to find these positions in Scripture? Or are we to find in America some “manifest destiny” to place it on the vanguard of God’s plan for an earthly kingdom, which shall come, not through catastrophe but “through deeds of love and kindness”?

Seventh-day Adventists did not get their fundamental perspective from Ellen White. She was but a teenager when the Second Advent Movement of the 1830s and early 1840s reached its climax in 1844. This was a movement associated with William Miller in the northeastern United States, but which was paralleled by the preaching and teaching of others around the world, including the missionary Joseph Wolff. These Adventists tried to establish the date of the Second Coming of Christ through study of Biblical prophecy. As the time approached, they gathered in prayer and study of Scripture. They did not gather weapons; they did not wait in fear of government forces; they did not provoke conflict. They prayed and sang songs of joy and hope and expectation.

Yes, they were disappointed, and in that grief some continued to study. A small group were inspired by visions received by Ellen G. Harmon of Portland, Maine. Under the influence of Joseph Bates they became Sabbatarians. Under the leadership of James White (who married Ellen Harmon) they came to see the Sabbath as having a key role in the final conflict. But as this teaching developed, and as it was reinforced by experience of persecution, especially in the American South, particularly in the 1880s and 1890s, they maintained the same outlook as the early Adventists: they did not gather weapons; they did not wait in fear of government forces; they did not provoke conflict. They prayed and sang songs of joy and hope and expectation. And they advocated in the courts and in the legislature for religious liberty for themselves and all others.

Some fanatics were not content with this. Various teachers and small groups split off here or there; one of the most long lasting of these offshoots was the “Shepherd’s Rod” movement, or the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, which broke off in the 1920s. Like Adventists before him, Victor Houteff, the founder of this movement, was a pacifist. But he called for a withdrawal, a purification. After his death the group splintered, and Ben Roden took over leadership of one of these sub-groups, the Branch Davidians, as well as control of the Mt. Carmel Center in Waco, Texas. In the early ’80s his wife, Lois, was the head of the group and was getting some press for saying strange things about the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit. Their son, George, began to make fantastic messianic claims, and engaged in a shoot-out with a rival, Victor Howell, who eventually emerged victorious as the sect leader, and took the name David Koresh (and took Lois Roden as a wife). He departed from the Adventist (and even Branch Davidian) teachings on pacifism, and began stockpiling weapons. He departed from Christian teaching (shared by Adventists and Davidians) on the uniqueness of Jesus, and made divine claims. He departed from Christian teaching (shared by Adventists and Davidians) on personal holiness, and engaged in various sexual sins and crimes. [Source for much of this summary].

The Adventist roots of this sect were in no way to blame for the end that came to Koresh and his followers, for the unique teachings of Koresh that led to his violent end were in fact deviations from both Adventism and the teachings of Houteff offshoot. There is no one to blame but those who were in Mt. Carmel at the time, and no one who should apologize except the survivors who are still teaching Koreshism.

Can We Remain Silent in the Face of Antisemitism?

Five years ago I documented the plagiarism of antisemitic sources by apologist Robert Sungenis. Since then, several men who worked for him at that time and since (Michael Forrest, Jacob Michael, Ben Douglass), and who once defended him, have left his organization and are making their own criticisms of his anti-Jewish writings, building upon what I had established. I have stayed away from the issue as, from my standpoint, there was little to add; when he issued an apology and said he would no longer write about the Jews, I took down my earlier web page. Now he’s decided to bring me back into it, in the context of articles he has written against his former associates. He claims that they (and I) are really Jewish and are basing our actions not on factual grounds but because of “tribal loyalty.” In my case, he bases his comments on something I wrote in 2002. For the record, to refresh his memory, here is what I said. I, of course, stand by this.

Can we be silent?

As I mentioned, I spent the evening with a hundred young adults at “Theology on Tap” who were discussing issues of ecumenism and interfaith dialogue.

In my introduction of the speaker, and illustrating why this was a relevant topic, I shared briefly, without mentioning names, the outline of the present issue, and these young professionals reacted with disbelief and disgust.

I then came home and saw my children finishing their homework. They may be blond haired and blue-eyed, but their mother’s maternal grandmother was a woman named Minnie Levy, descended from the first Jew to go to Nova Scotia in the 1750s. He, in turn, was descended from Spanish Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492.

When Bob speaks of “the Jews” — he speaks of my children, and of generations of their ancestors who suffered from ideas such as those on his page.

My 13-year-old is reading the “Diary of Anne Frank.” We were talking about hate the other night, and I told my son about the kinds of things I was reading from a “Catholic apologist” on the Internet. I told him of the Nazi quote disparaging Roosevelt for having a Jewish ancestor sometime back a couple centuries.

I reminded my son of what I had told him when we visited the Houston Holocaust Memorial, that if he lived in Germany in 1940s — that name on the wall, “Levy,” could be his. He would have been condemned not for what he did or said, but for who his ancestors were.

Why do I continue to write this evening about this?

I do it for my children. I do it for the young adults who don’t have the knowledge to tell an authentic Catholic site from one that is not.

CAI has made little cosmetic changes, but has not removed completely the anti-Semitism on its site. And someone at CAI is telling people who inquire, “Mr. Sungenis has never been and never will be anti-Semitic. He just has a difference of opinion as to the goals and aspirations of Israel.”

As long as the articles are there, and CAI is putting out that line, I have to do what my conscience tells me.

Silencio qui tacit consentire.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead some men to make the right decision.

Missing the Forest for the Trees

Bill Donohue. What a job he has. To get paid looking for anti-Catholicism. To have to read student newspaper opinion pieces in the quest.

“Penelope” is writing a sex column for the Ohio State Lantern–a paper that is rather tardy in getting on the student-sex-columnist bandwagon.

In her introductory piece, she describes the kinds of incongruent things she hears among her friends.

My friend Megan grew up Catholic – Catholic school five days a week, and church every Sunday morning. Along with her Catholic traditions, she held Catholic beliefs. Megan believes pre-marital sex is a sin and she will go to hell if she ever has it.

Well, Megan has been dating a very non-Catholic guy, John, for a year now. That is, John hasn’t had sex in a year, but he won’t break up with Megan because he said it’s the best head he’s ever had in his life.

Is Megan still a Catholic because she hasn’t had sex? Or is she just as guilty as the rest of us – specifically, former President Bill Clinton?

Catholics can’t do a lot of things: eat meat on specific Fridays, listen to Marilyn Manson or vote Democrat, so pre-marital sex is just another item on the list. But when did God say it’s OK to give a blow job so long as that’s as far as you go?

Very perceptive! Her Catholic friend thinks she’s being true to the moral teachings of her faith, but Penelope sees through her hypocrisy, yet sees it as symptomatic of her generation.

Most interesting though, all of my friends decided oral sex doesn’t count, probably out of convenience. In “Unhooked” by Laura Sessions, she states, “Oral sex isn’t even considered sex anymore.”

Who decided that? Sex is right there in the description – oral sex.

I’m glad a secular college student can see that, and is pointing it out to her Catholic peers. That’s quite something.

But Bill Donohue doesn’t see it. All he sees is that, in the process, she makes some off-color references. And he shrieks: Ohio State is supporting Anti-Catholicism!

After 500 Years …

John Allen asks, “Why hasn’t Catholicism had a more positive effect in Latin America?“

The most frequent explanation I heard boils down to this: For most of the 500 years since the arrival of Columbus, Catholicism in Latin America often has been skin-deep. People were baptized into the faith, married and buried in it, but for a variety of reasons there was precious little else.

New Cork

Jason’s first.

A Fearmonger’s Manifesto

Michelle Malkin shows us how freedom dies. It is strangled by the fearful, who interpret acts of piety and prayer and devotion as threat, subversion, and terrorism.

As a child, I heard graphic apocalyptic narratives of an America turned upside down, where, in the name of freedom and faith, a faithful remnant would be persecuted and hated; their humble steadfastness to their beliefs would make them the object of scorn and suspicion.

As a smartass college student, I ridiculed such tales. That could never happen here.

Michelle Malkin and others like her show that not only could it happen here–but it has. It’s happening now (to quote one of those apocalyptic tales).

It happened to Chaplain (CPT) James Yee.

They want it to happen to more. They are determined to destroy freedom, particularly religious freedom, to save … what, exactly?

Adventists and Islam

Tompaul has links, and comments, on a new SDA statement on Islam.

Business in Today’s World

Tompaul Wheeler: Happy employees means happy customers.

Things to Come …

I’ve said little about the much rumored, speculated, and bally-hooed Motu Proprio that will allegedly free the Tridentine Mass and, if some rumors are to be believed, inaugurate the eschaton.

But this from CWN leads to a discussion on that page that I must draw attention to.

DV: Remember that even the very traditional-minded young priests coming out of the several good seminaries are unlikely to know Latin. I know one excellent young priest who would LOVE to say the Trid Mass — except that he does not know Latin! …

G: Whenever I have said that I and most Catholics don’t understand Latin so Trid Mass will be hard to hear or implement, folks on this site have told me to buy a Latin-English Missal, with Latin on one side and English on the other. Buy your priest one of these and write out the Latin for him phonetically. Then he’ll be good to go! If it’s apparently not important for us to understand Latin to attend the Trid Mass, maybe it’s not important for the priest to know Latin to say the Mass. …

S: Una Voce has teamed with FSSP to form an intensive study program designed to “re-train” priests in the TLM. …

C: There are many videos and books explaining how to offer the Traditional Mass. Get some for your priests.

So, there seem to be a lot of folks who think you don’t need to learn the language. Just be able to pronounce it. Just make the noises and go through the motions.

This reminded me of a time some years ago when I was speaking with someone who teaches Latin, and though he is on the more liberal side of things, he was happy when a younger, more conservative, priest came to him asking to learn Latin from him. So the older priest prepared, had Wheelock’s open, and got into the first lesson with enthusiasm. The younger man, somewhat flummoxed, finally managed to say, “No, I don’t want to learn the language, with all that grammar and vocabulary. I just want to know how to pronounce it so I can celebrate mass in Latin.”

In a previous era, some Protestants referred to the mass as “mummery.” Seems like that could well apply to the situation some folks are so excited about.

mum·mer·y (mŭm‘ə-rē)
n., pl. -ies.

1. A performance by mummers.
2. A pretentious or hypocritical show or ceremony.

[French mommerie, from Old French momer, to wear a mask, pantomime.]

Tomberg on Ghosts and Reincarnation

Heretical nonsense

Valentin Tomberg’s Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism, discussed earlier in connection with the Afterword by Hans Urs von Balthasar, is, as Theodore Parker once said of another work, “a curious farrago of sense and nonsense.”

And it is most certainly nonsense of a heretical nature, denying fundamental Christian teachings of the nature of the human person and his relationship with God.

This becomes most evident in Letter XIII, on Death, which includes arguments on the reality of ghosts and the mechanisms of reincarnation.

Here are some extracts:

… Ghosts exist. This is not a question of belief; it is a matter of fact. There is an immense literature, without speaking of facts that one can find in the sphere of personal experience, which bears witness to the existence of ghosts. Now it is no longer a matter of believing or denying; now it is a matter only of understanding and explaining. Ghosts exist therefore. Thus it happens from time to time after someone’s death that this person or “something” of him or similar to him manifests in an outward and physical way (noises, movements, etc.) in the guise of an active energy. It is as if a certain quantity of energy, freed through death, but remaining condensed and not dispersed, manifests as an entity or as an individual “body”. … (p. 358)

What, then, is a ghost? It is exactly what Gurdjieff teaches concerning the product of psychic crystallisation effected from within the physical body, and which can resist the death of the latter. …

A ghost is always constituted as a consequence of crystallisation, i.e., crystallisation of a desire, a passion, or a purpose of great intensity, which produces a complex of energy in the human being. … (p. 359-360)

And the same thing that happens with human beings who are possessed by strong desires, passions and intentions can be achieved methodically by making use of the scientific method of the “construction of the tower of Babel”. Then one could not only animate the double crystallised from a desire, a passion or a dominant intention, but also equip it with an intellectual apparatus of very developed functioning and a mechanical memory in which all the facts of experience on the physical plane are accumulated. The “self” of such an occultist would then be allied to this double, who is the bearer of his memory and intellect, and could incarnate himself anew–avoiding purgatory and the whole path of purification, illumination and union which is the lot of the human soul after death. … (p. 360)

[The serpent of Genesis] did not lie. … He advanced the bold programme–but real and realisable–aiming at a mankind which would be composed of the living and of ghosts, with the latter reincarnating almost without delay and avoiding the way which leads through purgatory to heaven.

You see now, dear Unknown Friend, why the Church was hostile to the doctrine of reincarnation, although the fact of repeated incarnations was known–and could not remain unknown–to a large number of people faithful to the Church with authentic spiritual experience. The deeper reason is the danger of reincarnation by way of the ghost, where one avoids the path of purification (in purgatory), illumination and celestial union. (p. 361)

Similar statements are scattered through the work.

As we have already mentioned, reincarnation–successive lives of the same human individuality–is a fact of experience, as are the successive periods of wakefulness belonging to the day, which are interrupted by sleep at night. (p. 104)

Elsewhere, he becomes enraptured of the glories of paganism (well, of the good paganism of some pagans vs. the bad paganism of other pagans).

With this distinction made, one can say that the “pagan” initiates and philosophers knew of the unique God–the creator and supreme Good of the world. The Bhagavad-Gita, the books of Hermes Trismegistus, Plato, Plutarch, Plotinus and many other ancient sources prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt. The difference between the religion of the so-called “pagan” initiates and philsophers and that of Moses is simply the fact that the latter made monotheism a popular religion, whilst the former reserved it for the elite, for the spiritual aristocracy …. (p. 426)

The “paganism” of the poets–symbolic and mythological paganism–was, in so far as it was not a symbolic version of the wisdom and magic (theurgy) of the mysteries, a universal humanism. Its “gods” were, truth to tell, human personages–heroes and heroines, divinised or poetised, who were prototypes of the development of the human personality, i.e. planetary and zodiacal types. Thus Jupiter, Juno, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Diana, Apollo, etc., were not at all demons, but leading prototypes of the development of the human personality who, in their turn, corresponded to cosmic–planetary and zodiacal–principles. (p. 427)

His discussion of The Judgment (Letter XX) toys with the possibility of a final apokotastasis (p. 584). The judgment will be

… the experience by mankind of awakened conscience and completely restored memory. It will be mankind itself who will judge itself. … God will not accuse anyone. He will only acquit, justify and forgive. … The last judgement will be the sacrament of penance on a cosmic scale, comprising universal confession and universal absolution. (p. 584)

Tomberg has produced an eclectic work drawing upon a wide variety of pagan and occult speculation, throwing in a dash of Christian thought from time to time. But is this a Christian reflection? I say, “No.” This is confused spiritualism, with belief in ghosts, zombies, and reincarnation.

Again, I ask, How could a Christian theologian survey such a book and not draw attention to these things? Von Balthasar’s Afterword, like Tomberg’s Last Judgment, delivers a general absolution. Had he done the job of a Christian theologian, he would have countered Tomberg’s stories of ghosts and reincarnation with a simple “Thus saith the Lord”: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.”

Von Balthasar’s Occultism

Valentin Tomberg (1900-1973), a Russian emigre, was the “Anonymous” author of Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism, written in 1967, but published over a decade after his death. Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a foreward to the 1983 German edition, and this is included as an afterward in the 2002 English edition published by Tarcher/Penguin.

Tomberg writes to enable the reader–”the Unknown Friend”–to acquire “definite knowledge, through the experience of meditative reading, about Christian Hermeticism”, that is, esoteric medieval reflections on the themes of Hermes Trismegistus (see the Corpus Hermeticum), in this case through reflection on the Major Arcana of the Tarot. The Tarot cards are for him

authentic symbols, i.e. they are “magic, mental, psychic and moral operations” awakening new notions, ideas, sentiments and aspirations, which means to say that they require an activity more profound than that of study and intellectual explanation. It is therefore in a state of deep contemplation–and always ever deeper–that they should be approached. And it is the deep and intimate layers of the soul which become active and bear fruit when one meditates on the Arcana of the Tarot (p. 4).

These Arcana, he writes, “stimulate us and at the same time guide us in the art of learning,” they provide “a complete, entire, invaluable school of meditation, study, and spiritual effort–a masterly school in the art of learning” (p. 5). As a tool, they are not a rival of religion; “they do not have the pretension … of elevating themselves above the holy faith of the faithful,” they do not hold a secret religion or science: “what they possess is only the communal soul of religion, science and art” (p. 6).

So much for Tomberg’s introduction–I wish to look at the Afterword by Hans Urs von Balthasar. And this, when we turn to it, is more illuminative of the purpose of the book than those introductory remarks by the author.

A thinking, praying Christian of unmistakable purity reveals to us the symbols of Christian Hermeticism in its various levels of mysticism, gnosis and magic, taking in also the Cabbala and certain elements of astrology and alchemy. These symbols are summarised in the twenty-two so-called “Major Arcana” of the Tarot cards. By way of the Major Arcana the author seeks to lead meditatively into the deeper, all-embracing wisdom of the Catholic Mystery (p. 659).

And this attempt “is to be found nowhere in the history of philosophical, theological and Catholic thought,” though some Christian thinkers, starting with Origen, did explore the writings of pagan philosophers, the “secret wisdom of the Egyptians” (i.e., the writings of Hermes Trismegistus) , and Babylonian and Indian astrology in search of “veiled presentiments of the Logos” (p. 659). In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Islamic and Jewish mystical traditions (e.g., the Kabbalah) became additional sources for reflection.

Here the important point is that although this penetration into the secret teachings of pagan and Jewish origin was pursued in the spirit of humanism, in the hope of bringing new life into rigidified Christian theology through collecting such scattered revelation and illumination, no one for a moment doubted that despite the disparities everything could be accommodated into the true Christian faith. That Pico, in particular, did not aim at syncretism, he himself made quite clear: “I bear on my brow the name Jesus Christ and would die gladly for the faith in him. I am neither a magician nor a Jew, nor an Ishmaelite nor a heretic. It is Jesus whom I worship, and his cross I bear upon my body.” The author of these Meditations could also have affirmed this oath of allegiance (p. 661).

Let us grant that neither von Balthasar nor Tomberg intended syncretism. It nevertheless remains unproven how a “penetration” into pagan or Kabbalistic “secret teachings” could bring “new life” into Christianity.

I also question von Balthasar’s assertion that a “gathering and accommodation of Hermetic and Cabbalistic wisdom into Biblical and Christian thought” is not, by definition, syncretistic. He might not “intend” to do so, but I suggest that if you believe these sources contain “revelation and illumination,” and that they can bring “new life” to Christian theology, that any “gathering and accommodation” of them “into Biblical and Christian thought” will, of necessity, change the latter.

The mystical, magical, occult tributaries which flow into the stream of [Tomberg's] meditations are much more encompassing [than efforts by Franz von Baader and Pico della Mirandola]; yet the confluence of their waters within him, full of movement, becomes inwardly a unity of Christian contemplation (p. 661).

The sources are admittedly “magical” and “occult”–is such water safe to drink?

Von Balthasar senses the question will come to the mind of his Christian reader. He therefore backs off a moment. He acknowledges it “remarkable” that Tomberg would choose the Tarot as the object of his meditations. “Naturally the author knows about the magical-divinatory application of these cards.” But, says von Balthasar, he’s not interested in “laying the cards,” only in interpreting “the symbols or their essential meaning … individually or in their mutual reference to one another.” They are more like Jungian archetypes, “principles of the objective cosmos” (p. 661).

He refers to various others, of dubious orthodoxy, who have also sought to “accommodate the Cabbala and the Tarot to Catholic teaching”– “occultists, theosophists and anthroposophists–with whom the author of the Meditations enters into dialogue.” Tomberg, he says, picks and chooses from them and from various Christian and non-Christian philosophers and poets. With these as his sources and foils,

He immerses himself lovingly and with deep earnestness in the symbols of the Major Arcana of the Tarot. They inspire him; he allows himself to be born aloft on the wings of his imagination, to behold the depths of the world and of the soul (p. 663).

Von Balthasar claims Tomberg isn’t seeking a despotic magic, “which seeks by way of world forces to gain dominion in the realm of knowledge and in the sphere of destiny.” Rather, he says he seeks “subjugation of the cosmic powers to Christ.” He admits there could be dangers, but Tomberg “is able to enter into all the varieties of occult science” with “sovereignty, because for him they are secondary realities” (p. 663).

All this is enticing. The thought of being in control of “cosmic powers” instead of controlled by them; the thought of seeking knowledge from forbidden sources, in the belief that these can safely mingle in the chosen container. “Oh, I’m not trying to control other people; I’m not trying to do them harm, therefore it is OK,” seems a weak defense. Von Balthasar here appears as a moth drawn to the flame of occultism, confident in his ability to be able to draw back before he gets burned.

It’s a subtler form of power and knowledge he seeks.

But it seems to me to still fall under the caution of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others – even if this were for the sake of restoring their health – are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity.

Von Balthasar and Tomberg strike me as snake charmers, confident that the snake will dance to their tune. Could they be opening the door to demons, particularly as they suggest that it is safe for Christians to dabble in these things, through the means of a book that is sold in bookstores alongside other works of Wicca, Magic, Sorcery, New Age, and divination? A more prudent pastor and theologian would have made clearer statements about the dangers inherent in such things.

I’m disturbed by the ease with which von Balthasar enters into these waters, oblivious to the dangers that he or others may face.

Recent defenders of von Balthasar say they only seek self knowledge through study of the occult–or Jung, or Myers-Briggs, or the enneagram, or the Ouija board. But was that not the temptation of the serpent in the garden?

I’d suggest being wary of any proposed knowledge that comes from secret sources that acknowledge they are “occult.” Better to let the clear light of the Word of God be the guide of the Christian; safer to shine it into the dark places, than to obscure that light with shadows.

Von Balthasar’s Casta Meretrix

Meretrix: prostitute, harlot, whore, woman of ill repute.

In a recent Spero News commentary, Susan Beckworth expressed shock that the (to all reports) conservative theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, friend of popes, would use such a term to describe the church.

She said,

In Hans Urs von Balthasar’s 1950’s published work, “Casta Meretix” [sic], he states the prostitute is the symbol of the Church, “The figure of the prostitute is so appropriate for the Church…that it…defines the Church of the New Covenant in her most splendid mystery of salvation.”

What a revolting insult to Christ’s spotless bride, the Catholic Church!

It appears certain that Ms. Beckworth never read the essay, “Casta Meretrix” (Hans Urs von Balthasar, Spouse of the Word; Explorations in Theology II. Ignatius, 1991). Had she done so, she surely would not have been so surprised, because the essay is an exploration of how the term was used by Christian thinkers throughout history.

Von Balthasar sets the stage with his introductory sentences.

When Luther dares to equate the Roman Church with the whore of Babylon, it strikes us as the height of blasphemy. But he was not the first to coin the phrase. Similar things can be found in Wycliffe and Hus, and their language was not a complete innovation but the violent simplification and coarsening of a very old theologoumenon. This in turn has its origins in the Old Testament, in the words of judgment spoken by God, the betrayed Husband, against the archwhore Jerusalem, and in the New Testament’s application of these texts, which are so fundamental to the old (p. 193).

In the Old Testament, we’re probably most familiar with the image of God’s people as a whore in the book of Hosea; the foundations for this lie in Exodus 34:14-16, where “playing the harlot” is used in reference to following after the idols of the Canaanites. Hosea is not alone in expanding the theme, as it also appears in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

In the New Testament, unfaithful women feature prominently in the Gospels, not only in stories of forgiven women who became faithful disciples, but also in the women included in the genealogies of Jesus.

One of those, Rahab, was the subject of much reflection in the early Church. She was an ancestor of Jesus, and was used as both an example of justification by faith (Hebrews) and justification by works (James). In contemporaneous Jewish writings, she represents the Gentiles who would be joined to the people of God; she is regarded as a prophet, and one who shows that good works can save. Among the fathers, Clement sees the cord she let down as a symbol of the blood of the Paschal lamb and of the blood of Jesus. Justin Martyr regards her house, like the ark and the Paschal lamb, as a symbol of salvation. Hippolytus goes further, making her house a symbol of the Church. Origen builds upon all of these allusions and sees “the transformation of Rahab from whore to holy Church as the engrafting of the Gentile Church into the Jewish Church” (p. 216). He also coins the phrase, “outside Rahab’s house, the Church, no salvation” (p. 217). This was the basis for Cyprian’s maxim, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Jerome: “Rahab, the justified whore, contains us” (p. 217).

The use of the figure of Mary Magdalene by the fathers parallels their use of Rahab.

Most of the texts referring to Rahab and Mary Magdalen stress the transition in time: once she was a whore; now she is a saint. Secondly, they place special emphasis on the Gentile Church: once she played the harlot with idols; now she is chaste and faithful to Christ (p. 225).

Origen and Augustine see the figure as having continuing relevance. Said Augustine, referring to the story of the two women arguing over the dead child before Solomon,

The two women are the synagogue and the Church. … Both were harlots, for the Apostle says that Jews and Greeks are all equally in a state of sin, for any soul that turns away from eternal truth to indulge in earthly filth goes whoring away from God. … But one mother woke up and realized, not by her own merits, for she was a harlot, but by God’s grace, that a son had been given her–the work of evangelical faith. … Yet both were harlots, because all had been converted from worldly lust to the grace of God (pp. 225-226).

Rabanus Maurus says, similarly,

There can be no doubt that the Scriptures call both the synagogue and the Church adulteresses and prostitutes. At first sight, this seems blasphemous, but then we turn to the prophets. … The attentive listener will ask how a prostitute can represent the Church, who has neither spot nor wrinkle. But we are not saying that the Church remained a prostitute, but simply that she used to be (p. 226).

But not all the fathers confine the image to the past. “For St. Augustine and the exegetes who follow him, … the really pure Church is an eschatological concept” (p. 227). For St. Dionysius the Carthusian,

She is always both “spotless Church” and “disfigured Church”, always both “virgin” and “harlot”, for “the whole, through the diversity of its parts, can get conflicting names”. “Thus the Church is called disfigured, estranged, bloodless, or whorish with regard to believers without charity or good works, yes, those who have been befouled by vice, whose souls are not brides of Christ but adulteresses of the devil” (p. 227).

So it is possible to speak of the Church as harlot also in the sense of the unfaithfulness of its members, including through heresy (pp. 238ff) and through sin (pp. 244 ff)–in particular, the sins of teachers and leaders of the Church. And, says Origen, sometimes the heretics can be holier in life than the leaders of the Church.

The prudent person is not tricked by the heretics’ meekness into accepting their teaching, and my sins do not cause him to stumble. He considers the dogma, concerns himself with the faith of the Church. He recoils from me in horror, but he accepts the teaching … (p. 252).

In the story of Tamar, there is no prostitution, but Tamar appears in the form of a harlot (pp. 264ff).

There is something about the essential form of the Church … that is reminiscent of sin, conditioned by sin, something that in the present context always means infidelity and fornication. And yet it is not guilt but assimilation to the form of the sinner assumed by her head. … She is closest to Christ when she assumes the same kenotic form. …

… [W]e must say that the forma meretricis adheres so closely to the Church that, having been, so to speak, in its final aspect transfigured and rendered harmless, it becomes one of the marks of the Church of the New Covenant in all the beauty of her salvific mystery (pp. 271-272).

Now in the middle ages, as we saw at the beginning, various individuals and groups who were critical of the papacy and Catholic teaching identified the Catholic Church with the whore of Babylon in Revelation. But so did orthodox Catholic thinkers like Dante and William of Auvergne (pp. 193-198). In Purgatory, Dante sees the Church as a carriage, in which Beatrice sits. Its form changes over the centuries; it is attacked by an eagle (Roman persecutions), a fox leaps out of it (early heresies), the eagle covers the carriage (Constantine’s patronage).

Finally, emerging from the carriage, come the seven heads and ten horns of the Beast of the Apocalypse: the Church appears as a monster. In fact, the whore of Babylon herself replaces Beatrice in the carriage and flirts with a giant (the King of France), who out of jealousy abuses her and finally abducts her: Avignon becomes the Babylonian captivity of the Church (p. 194).

So, how can the orthodox see the Church as the Babylonian harlot? Von Balthasar finds the solution to this puzzle in Augustine’s understanding of the Church as a community of wheat and tares (pp. 275-276).

For Gerhoh of Reichersberg, the spirit of the city of God coexists in the Church with the spirit of Babylon, and the latter can erupt at any moment. The Church can become a victim of a Babylonian captivity by heresies within, by corrupt clergy, and by Christian rulers who tempt her to simony (p. 277). The Church’s hope and salvation is in conformity to her head, in clinging to Christ, in always adopting the posture of a penitent (p. 279).

For all the realists among the fathers and the medieval theologians, the persistence of sin and sinners means that the purity of the Church must be an eschatological reality. The Church prays, “forgive us our trespasses,” and will until the consummation. Until then, said St. Isidore of Seville, “the one and only house of Rahab, the one and only Church, … remains as a whore in Jericho” (p. 285).

To sum it up, we can consider this discussion in light of Lumen Gentium 8: “the Church, embracing in its bosom sinners, at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, always follows the way of penance and renewal.”

Plato’s Purgatory

How much does the traditional understanding of purgatory owe to Plato? Consider this selection quoted by Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica (ch. 38):

For [Plato] speaks as follows in the dialogue Concerning the Soul:

‘…As soon as the dead have arrived at the place to which each is conveyed by his genius, first of all they undergo a trial, both those who have lived good and holy and just lives, and those who have not. And those who are found to have led tolerable lives proceed to Acheron, and embarking on such vessels as there are for them, they arrive on board these at the lake; and there they dwell, and by undergoing purification and suffering punishment for their evil deeds they are absolved from any wrongs they have committed, or receive rewards for their good deeds, each according to his deserts. But any who are found to be incurable by reason of the greatness of their sins, having either perpetrated many great acts of sacrilege, or many nefarious and lawless murders, or any other crimes of this kind—-these are hurled by their appropriate doom into Tartarus, whence they never come forth.

‘But those who are found to have committed sins which are great though not incurable, as for instance if in anger they have done any violence to father or mother, and passed the rest of their life in penitence, or have committed homicide in any other similar way, these must also be thrown into Tartarus, but after they have been thrown in and have continued there a year, they are cast out by the wave, the homicides by way of Cocytus, and the parricides by way of Pyriphlegethon: and when they arrive all on fire at the Acherusian lake, there with loud cries they call upon those whom they either slew or outraged; and having summoned them they intreat and beseech them to let them come out into the lake, and to receive them kindly: and if they persuade them, they come out, and cease from their troubles; but if not, they are carried again into Tartarus, and thence back into the rivers, and never have rest from these sufferings, until they have won over those whom they wronged; for this was the sentence appointed for them by the judges.

‘But any who are found to have been pre-eminent in holiness of life—-these are they who are set free and delivered from these regions here on earth, as, from prison-houses, and attain to the pure dwelling place above, and make their abode upon the upper earth. And of this same class those who have fully purified themselves by philosophy live entirely free from troubles for all time to come, and attain to habitations still fairer than these, which it is neither easy to describe, nor does the time suffice at present. But for the sake of these things which I have described we ought, Simmias, to make every effort to gain a share of virtue and of wisdom in our lifetime: for fair is the prize, and great the hope.’

St. Gregory’s Ghost Stories

Move over, Alfred Hitchcock. St. Gregory the Great was telling spine-tinglers 1300 years before you were born.

You’ll find much of his collection of ghost stories in his Dialogues, many of which were quoted by F. X. Schouppe, SJ, in his Purgatory. And it is to warn the reader of the punishments of purgatory, and to solicit masses to be said for the dead, that St. Gregory tells the stories.

But he begins with a further warning–don’t think you can live like you want now and hope to be purged then:

Yet we have here further to consider, that none can be there purged, no, not for the least sins that be, unless in his lifetime he deserved by virtuous works to find such favour in that place.

Gregory admits immediately that these are not stories of things that he has seen or heard. No, he’s just passing on stories that were told to him, from folks he trusted. These are sixth century Urban Legends, in other words.

After telling the first tale, a typical story of a ghost begging for penitential acts to be done on his behalf, Gregory’s interlocutor, Peter, asks,

What, I pray you, is the reason, that, in these latter days, so many things come to light, which in times past were not known: in such sort that by open revelations and manifest signs, the end of the world seemeth not to be far off?

In other words, “Why are we hearing of these new teachings, that come from the mouths of the dead?” And Gregory goes on to say that at the border between two eras there’s going to be a little spiritual bleed-through, as it were.

The stories go on, stressing the value of offering sacrifice on behalf of the dead. But nowhere does Gregory quote the passage from 2 Maccabees that is usually offered as the justification for this. Instead, he does it because the ghosts of the dead asked for it.

One of the stories is of a monk Justus. It seems he hid three coins from his fellow monks, and only told his brother where they were. But the monks had found them, and Gregory just couldn’t fathom how this faithful monk could have committed such a sin. So he decided to teach a lesson to one and all. None of the monks were to visit Justus in his final agony to comfort him–and his brother was to tell him why, so that hopefully he’d die with some remorse.

and when he is dead, let not his body be buried amongst the rest of the monks, but make a grave for him in some one dunghill or other, and there cast it in, together with the three crowns which he left behind him, crying out all with joint voice: ‘Thy money be with thee unto perdition’; and so put earth upon him.”

They then waited 30 days, after which Gregory offered a daily mass for Justus for 30 days. And after 30 days, the ghost of Justus appeared to his brother and said he was now at peace.

And that custom of offering a 30 day series of “Gregorian Masses” for the dead is still available (examples: here, here, here, and here), usually as a source of revenue for missionary orders, with prices ranging from $150 to $500. (By way of comparison, the dioceses of Texas have set mass stipends at $5 per mass, and the intention is not to be refused if someone cannot pay).

Thoughts?

Medjugorje

And now let us say some thankful words to Catholic traditionalists. Yes, sometimes they are a conspiratorial bunch, but as wise folks have said, “Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”

There’s one area where the traditionalists have been very vigilant and have done all Christians a great favor–and that is in their tenacious criticism of Medjugorje.

Here are two examples.

• E. Michael Jones, The Ghosts of Surmanci: Queen of Peace, Ethnic Cleansing, Ruined Lives.
• Michael Davies, Medjugorje after Twenty-One Years: The Definitive History.

Now, to be even-handed, let me also acknowledge that the extreme left, represented by the National Catholic Reporter, have also made a valuable contribution to this discussion:

• Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, Mary, Queen of Peace, Missing amid Medjugorje Nationalism.

Reformulating Eschatology

While reading Ratzinger on eschatology, I came across a reference to a 1979 statement of the CDF (under his predecessor, Franjo Cardinal Seper), Letter on Certain Questions Concerning Eschatology.

The document emphasizes the need for solid formulation of key aspects of Christian faith, at a time when theologians are confusing people and leading them to doubt. 

Given that context, consider how it describes heaven, hell, and purgatory:

In fidelity to the New Testament and Tradition, the Church believes in the happiness of the just who will one day be with Christ. She believes that there will be eternal punishment for the sinner, who will be deprived of the sight of God, and that this punishment will have a repercussion on the whole being of the sinner. She believes in the possibility of a purification for the elect before they see God, a purification altogether different from the punishment of the damned. This is what the Church means when speaking of Hell and Purgatory.

Absent shepherds

From AMDG: Terri Schiavo’s brother has written an open letter to Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg in anticipation of the second anniversary of his sister’s murder. He notes recent comments by Lynch on the homeless, and sees a terrible irony therein. And he writes to explain why he holds the Bishop more responsible for her death than either her husband or the judge.

In the opening paragraph of your commentary, “The Homeless Are Challenge To Our Cities And Our Faith,” you said “The challenge of the homeless in St. Petersburg has made national news and it has been embarrassing to many people. I am convinced that both on Judgment Day and in history, we will most likely be judged not by the things which we might have considered personally important to ourselves in life but how we took care of others less fortunate.” A prophetic statement indeed — and one in complete conformity with the words of our Lord in Matthew 25:31-46.

You then went on to say in the beginning of the next paragraph, “The faces which may haunt each of us on Judgment Day may well be those of people who have approached us for assistance and were turned away.”

Bishop Lynch, I couldn’t have said it better myself. …

… Sadly, your legacy will be that of the shepherd that stood silently by as one of his innocent disabled lambs was slowly and needlessly slaughtered by removing her food and water—while you persistently ignored the cries of her family for help (“her family” being the ones who merely wanted to care for her.) …

Your behaviors … have brought scandal to the Universal Church and to the faithful, particularly here in Florida. Your indifference toward the Truth is appalling, but seems to be indicative of the all-too prevalent corruption of priestly formation in the 1960’s and 70’s, so perhaps your culpability is somewhat mitigated. Even so, the fact of my sister’s murder under our “pastoral care” is a fact you should acknowledge publicly.

This season of Lent is one well suited to seek public forgiveness and make public reparation for public scandal.

At least until that happens, I regret that I must remain, as you said, the face that haunts you as someone that did approach you for assistance and was turned away.

Lynch hasn’t responded. But he has had quite a bit to say about how Catholics should vote on a tax issue.

The Pope and the Press

The Times reports:

Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.

Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, Benedict XVI said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to “admit blame and promise to sin no more”, they risked “eternal damnation — the Inferno”.

Hell “really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more”, he said.

Here’s the homily (in Italian). But guess what? It appears to have only that one statement about hell. Nothing more. Must be a slow news day.

The more interesting questions–what is the nature of hell, and what does “eternal” mean–aren’t dealt with in the homily or the articles. And if it is “eternal” in the sense of God punishing the damned for ever and ever for a short human life’s worth of sin, then is this proportionate? Is this just? Does this not then make evil an eternal reality that God will never be able to cleanse the universe from? These are some interesting questions that he doesn’t get around to discussing in this homily. He did deal with some of them in Eschatology.

Mel Gibson Makes More Friends

If you go to a university, and show a movie, and open the floor to questions from academics who specialize in the subject, you should not be surprised if they ask tough questions. Mel Gibson, however, could only cuss out one such professor, who was then escorted out by campus police.

Alicia Estrada is an assistant professor of Central American Studies at Cal State Northridge. She asked questions about his depiction of the Maya, then handed the microphone to a Maya community leader, Felipe Perez, translating his Spanish. At that point the crowd started getting restless and uncivil. According to the campus newspaper,

While Estrada and Perez spoke, CTVA [Cinema and Television Arts] students and others in the audience booed, yelled, “This is America, speak English!” and shouted for them to sit down and shut up.

At that point Gibson, apparently playing to the crowd, reportedly shouted,  “F— off lady, get a history book and read.”

Estrada is demanding an apology to herself and the university.

“I asked about his sources, which is a common question in academia. It’s a question you would expect in a university setting, especially in a Q&A portion of a screening.

Sobrino & von Balthasar

Grant Gallicho posts a letter written by Nicholas Lash to The Tablet regarding the Sobrino affair. Lash quotes some statements from Hans Urs von Balthasar that appear to advocate the same ideas for which Sobrino was reprimanded (Christ being a man “assumed” into God and having “faith”). Lash accuses the CDF of sloppiness in its methodology and wonders, “Is he being accused of heresy or merely holding opinions unpopular in Rome?”

In the comments, Robert Imbelli expands the von Balthasar quote, with the intention of keeping readers from misunderstanding. But I think he just raises more questions. Here’s the quote:

“But, as a man assumed into God, Christ necessarily participates in the self-consciousness of the eternal Son in his eternal procession from the Father and his return to him, and this becomes reflected in the human self-consciousness of Christ to the extent that he experiences this self-consciousness of the Son interius intimo suo and that he possesses it by opening himself to it.”

Moreover, “because he is genuinely man only as assumed man, he understands even his genuinely human experience of God as an expression and function of his divine person.

Here’s the passage about Sobrino in the CDF notification:

5. Father Sobrino writes: “From a dogmatic point of view, we have to say, without any reservation, that the Son (the second person of the Trinity) took on the whole reality of Jesus and, although the dogmatic formula never explains the manner of this being affected by the human dimension, the thesis is radical. The Son experienced Jesus’ humanity, existence in history, life, destiny, and death” (Jesus the Liberator, 242).

In this passage, the Author introduces a distinction between the Son and Jesus which suggests to the reader the presence of two subjects in Christ: the Son assumes the reality of Jesus; the Son experiences the humanity, the life, the destiny, and the death of Jesus. It is not clear that the Son is Jesus and that Jesus is the Son. In a literal reading of these passages, Father Sobrino reflects the so-called theology of the homo assumptus, which is incompatible with the Catholic faith which affirms the unity of the person of Jesus Christ in two natures, divine and human, according to the formulations of the Council of Ephesus,[7] and above all of the Council of Chalcedon which said: “…we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man composed of rational soul and body, the same one in being with the Father as to the divinity and one in being with us as to the humanity, like us in all things but sin (cf. Heb 4:15). The same was begotten from the Father before the ages as to the divinity and in the latter days for us and our salvation was born as to His humanity from Mary the Virgin Mother of God; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation”.[8] Similarly, Pope Pius XII declared in his encyclical Sempiternus Rex: “… the council of Chalcedon in full accord with that of Ephesus, clearly asserts that both natures are united in ‘One Person and subsistence’, and rules out the placing of two individuals in Christ, as if some one man, completely autonomous in himself, had been taken up and placed by the side of the Word”.[9]

It does appear that there is equal basis for making the same charge of assumptionism of both von Balthasar and Sobrino. So why the focus on Sobrino? Is he being unduly harassed–or is von Balthasar being unduly shielded? Theologians are tasked with writing lucidly, and do not have the luxury of saying things that sound like ancient heresy and then saying, “I didn’t really mean it,” or “It’s a mystery.” If you know the ancient heresy, you should be competent enough to write with sufficient lucidity so that your views are not confused with that ancient heresy.

Anachronistic Art

The calendar on our refrigerator, which I got from Holy Cross Chapel, has a different work of art for each month. For March, it is “The Communion of the Apostles,” by Justus of Ghent. Jesus stands before the table with a paten in his hand, bearing small hosts, and he places one on the tongue of a kneeling disciple. I suppose in the 15th century it inspired folks to devotion. It just strikes me as anachronistic.

Of course, Leonardo’s “Last Supper” was anachronistic, too, depicting Jesus and the twelve as if they were in the same Dominican refectory as the viewers. But at least Leonardo realized it was a supper they were eating.

Among “Last Supper” paintings, I’ve always been partial to Ford Madox Brown’s, “Jesus Washing Peter’s Feet,” for its depiction of the reactions of the disciples to Jesus’ act of humility.

Maguire responds to Bishops

Dan Maguire of Marquette responds to the US Bishops’ denunciation of his recent statements.

A Meaningless Victory

If you lock up a man for five years without charges, subject him to what you may claim is not torture but what everyone else in the world calls torture, should you be celebrating his guilty plea?

Forthcoming publications

So.

Amy appears excited. With links.

Disputations impresses Mark.

But I’m more excited about The Children of Hurin.

The evil that men do

“Now scientists create a sheep that’s 15% human“–created to make it easier to transplant animal organs into humans.

Albacete on Evangelization

Jim had a post a while back on evangelization, quoting Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete:

… Some insist on the need to promote or recapture Christian doctrinal orthodoxy, that is, the need to emphasize and teach the intellectual convictions that properly proclaim the Christian faith. For others, what matters is promoting and defending Christian morality as an ethical orientation (“liberal” or “conservative”), a system of “moral values” to guide our behavior. From this perspective, the relationship between the Christian faith and contemporary culture is seen as a culture war to be won, or a cultural contribution to be made by looking for a common point of departure for dialogue. Both “tactics” are in fact useless. …

Instead, we must place our hope not on cultural proposals but on the event of Christ, on something that has already happened. Evangelization is to give witness to the fact–to the verifiable fact–that this event can and does still happen today because it has happened to us as something unforeseen, something amazing that surprises us, something that is not the result of our efforts or our particular ethical and spiritual predispositions. It is this that gives rise to concern, because an event is something that touches the heart, that changes us, that gives us a new vision of life’s possibilities.

… To believe that one becomes a Christian through the proper philosophy, theology, spirituality, morality, or cultural project, is a presumption; it is to see our efforts as the cause of our belonging to Christ. Instead, we become Christians because the Incarnation happened in history, because the Paschal Mystery happened, because Pentecost happened, and because those events continue to happen in the world today. They happen now because they happened then and because the Church exists in the world as the life of a communion of persons created by these events, and making them present today through the sacraments. They happen because Christ has risen from the dead and can be encountered today with exactly the same results experienced by Andrew, James, John, Peter, Mary Magdalen, the Samaritan woman, the man born blind, Zaccheus, and the criminal at the cross next to His. Something happened to them. It was an event. The key to the Christian life, the point of departure, is not an intellectual or cultural proposal. It is this event. This is what creates the concern which post-Christian man has so tragically lost.

Update: Catholic School and MySpace

St. Hugo of the Hills Catholic School in Michigan has not just banned student use of MySpace. Rather, the ban extends to any “personal internet site.”

The school’s webpage states:

At the beginning of each school year, students and a parent are required to sign the school’s Internet Use Policy.  The policy discussed the expectations of the school regarding the students’ use of the Internet at school and at home.  It also acknowledged that, “ultimately, parents are responsible to set and convey the standards their children should follow when using all media and information sources.”  It was STRONGLY encouraged that parents monitor the students’ home Internet use.  It was also stated that the following behaviors are not permitted:

• Sending or displaying offensive messages or pictures ON OR OFF the St. Hugo network.
• Using inappropriate language to harass, insult or attack others.

The “myspace.com” sites of many of the students violate these rules.  Therefore, it is the RULE of St. Hugo School that NO ENROLLED STUDENT SHALL have a “myspace.com” webpage or any similar type personal internet site.  Students were informed on March 20, 2007 that they must delete their “myspace.com” accounts if they wish to continue to attend school at St. Hugo.  If a family chooses to allow their children to continue their “myspace.com” account, they will not be allowed to continue as students at St. Hugo.

Easter Bunny vs. Peter Rabbit

Bill Donohue can be very funny at times, as in his recent statement on a Rhode Island rabbit ruckus.

Ave Maria Controversies

Washington Post has a round-up of the controversies swirling around Tom Monaghan’s college-building enterprises.