Choice?

Christina links to a small town newspaper op-ed which asserts, “Replacing public education with private schools would allow parents a choice.”

Choice? Parents have a choice. They can choose to send their schools to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can choose to send them to any of a number of private school options, secular and religious. Plenty of private schools, religious and secular, would never think to ask for state money–because they know it comes with strings.

Contrary to the article, church/state separation isn’t a liberal idea. It’s an old, conservative idea. It protects both the church and the state. And it’s best for schools, as Catholic bishop Thomas J. Curry agrees.

And the article’s suggestion that we turn schools over to corporations? They’d do to education what they did to food.

McSchool, anyone?

“Wall of Separation”

Americans United dissects a program being marketed to PBS stations which misrepresents American history.

The Baptist Heritage of Religious Liberty

We have the Baptists to thank for religious liberty in this country. Yesterday, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, representing fourteen Baptist denominations, held a Baptist Unity Rally for Religious Liberty at the U.S. Capitol. They remembered a 1920 address on that location by Baptist pastor George W. Truett, by having various public officials and others read selections from that speech. It’s a long speech–9200 words–about 90 minutes worth. So they edited it.

Now, Baptist commitment to religious liberty arose in a particular context, on the heels of persecution by Catholics, by Anglicans, and by Puritans and Separatists. It arose because of specific theological beliefs that are contrary to the beliefs of Catholics and some other churches. Truett laid it all out in 1920. Some of this was edited out.

Catholic revert Francis Beckwith is appalled that they would edit it. He thinks it represents some kind of fraud. He says,

If you read the speech carefully and in its entirety, it is clear that Truett saw his views of religious liberty as seemlessly connected to his rejection of Catholicism and even Protetsant [sic] theological traditions that take eccesiology and creeds seriously. Thus, for the BJC to offer an abridged and thus incomplete presentation of Truett’s sermon, ironically, limited its audience’s liberty to be fully informed of the conceptual connections that grounded Truett’s understanding of theology and its support of religious liberty.

Beckwith would muzzle Truett completely.

But Truett would not muzzle Beckwith:

Although the Baptist is the very antithesis of his Catholic neighbor in religious conceptions and contentions, yet the Baptist will whole-heartedly contend that his Catholic neighbor shall have his candles and incense and sanctus bell and rosary, and whatever else he wishes in the expression of his worship. A Baptist would rise at midnight to plead for absolute religious liberty for his Catholic neighbor, and for his Jewish neighbor, and for everybody else.

Truett will defend every person’s right to believe and practice according to his conscience, even though history shows that Catholic and Protestant alike did not share this belief in liberty. He had harsh words for the Reformers as well:

These mighty reformers turned out to be persecutors like the Papacy before them. Luther unloosed the dogs of persecution against the struggling and faithful Anabaptists. Calvin burned Servetus, and to such awful deed Melancthon gave him approval. Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, shut the doors of all the Protestant churches, and outlawed the Huguenots. Germany put to death that mighty Baptist leader, Balthaser Hubmaier, while Holland killed her noblest statesman, John of Barneveldt, and condemned to life imprisonment her ablest historian, Hugo Grotius, for conscience’ sake. In England, John Bunyan was kept in jail for twelve long, weary years because of his religion, and when we cross the mighty ocean separating the Old World and the New, we find the early pages of American history crimsoned with the stories of religious persecutions. The early colonies of America were the forum of the working out of the most epochal battles that earth ever knew for the triumph of religious and civil liberty.

And from those battles emerged the crystal clarity of the Baptist teaching of separation of church and state and religious liberty.

Now Catholic Carl Olson comes along and brands this Baptist Joint Committee, upholding this teaching, as “liberal.” I’m not sure what that means in this context, but regardless, it’s a red herring.

A better point to underscore is that this Baptist committee remembers something that some of their cousins in other Baptist denominations have forgotten: religious liberty is for all, separation of church and state is a good idea, the state’s role is not to enforce Christian beliefs. See the blog of Americans United for more on this.

Inclusive Prayers

Orthodox priest, Fr. John Parker, writes at Touchstone about prayers in public settings that are expected to be “inclusive.” I’ve always had misgivings about praying in such settings. I have done them, and prayed “with sensitivity,” but I think the best approach for me is just to decline invitations if there is any expectation, spoken or unspoken, that I must pray in accord with someone else’s conscience, and not my own.

Cognitive Dissonance

The Catholic Church has for centuries been seeking to influence the affairs of state in one way or another. It has excommunicated kings and emperors when they would not do its bidding (e.g., Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, King of England Henry VIII). Cardinals like Wolsey and Richelieu were advisers to kings. In the 17th and 18th century Jesuits in South America and Franciscans in New Mexico sought to create millennial kingdoms. In recent decades, Jesuit and Maryknoll priests have carried weapons in Central America revolutions in the name of “liberation theology,” priests of Opus Dei have encouraged lay people, through spiritual direction, to be faithful in their secular apostolate, and state and national conferences of bishops have issued letters on topics from economics to immigration, and testified before legislative committees.

The church’s justification for its guidance of society has been laid out in documents like Pope Pius XI’s encyclical, Quas primas (1925), which created the yearly feast of Christ the King:

18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.”[28] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.”[29] He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. “For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?”[30] If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”[31]

The Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, reiterates the church’s concern for social affairs:

Therefore, while we are warned that it profits a man nothing if he gain the whole world and lose himself,(22) the expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age.

Hence, while earthly progress must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ’s kingdom, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the Kingdom of God.(23)

All this explains, in our era, the aggressive role played by a Polish pope, John Paul II, in challenging Communism, supporting those movements which would topple it in Europe, and opposing those movements which would spread it in Latin America.

It is no wonder the Chinese government felt threatened by anti-Communist comments by him, and by the attempts of the church to assert its authority in China.

But now comes a theological tsunami from the hand of Pope Benedict XVI–a long awaited letter to China. It follows upon, and concretizes, his encyclical, Deus caritas est. That letter should have served as a slap in the face to bishops conferences and church bureaucrats who have been seeking to create the kingdom of God on earth. He said,

This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.

The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church’s immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

He said, “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful”; the church’s opus proprium, on the other hand, is to carry out the work of charity, which is distinct from justice.

In this new letter to China, Benedict steps back from political confrontation with Communism. He quotes from his own encyclical and says,

… the Catholic Church which is in China does not have a mission to change the structure or administration of the State; rather, her mission is to proclaim Christ to men and women, as the Saviour of the world, basing herself – in carrying out her proper apostolate – on the power of God. …

In the light of these unrenounceable principles, the solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church. The civil authorities are well aware that the Church in her teaching invites the faithful to be good citizens, respectful and active contributors to the common good in their country, but it is likewise clear that she asks the State to guarantee to those same Catholic citizens the full exercise of their faith, with respect for authentic religious freedom.

He roots this approach in the example of Jesus:

Regarding the delicate issue of the relations to be maintained with the agencies of the State, particular enlightenment can be found in the invitation of the Second Vatican Council to follow the words and modus operandi of Jesus Christ. He, indeed, ‘‘did not wish to be a political Messiah who would dominate by force ²⁵ but preferred to call himself the Son of Man who came to serve, and ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’ (Mk 10:45). He showed himself as the perfect Servant of God ²⁶ who ‘will not break a bruised reed or quench a smouldering wick’ (Mt 12:20). He recognized civil authority and its rights when he ordered tribute to be paid to Caesar, but he gave clear warning that the greater rights of God must be respected: ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s’ (Mt 22:21). Finally, he brought his revelation to perfection when he accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which he achieved salvation and true freedom for the human race. For he bore witness to the truth ²⁷ but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke out against it. His Kingdom does not establish its claims by force,²⁸ but is established by bearing witness to and listening to the truth and it grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the Cross, draws people to himself (cf. Jn 12:32)”.²⁹

So, there’s some cognitive dissonance here. This approach of Pope Benedict XVI, which is indeed rooted in the example and teachings of Jesus and the apostles, is at odds with the example and teachings of the Catholic Church in the post-Constantinian era. The Church has interfered in the world of politics, has manipulated directly and indirectly the affairs of governments, has done so in the name of creating a just society, has done so in the name of Christ the King, has pushed forward its own legislative agendas.

And now Benedict XVI says, in general principle and in specific application, “That’s not our role.”

If he’s sincere, this should be extremely unsettling to lots of Catholics, liberal and conservative.

Cohabitation

A liberal Catholic magazine, U.S. Catholic, published by the Claretian order, has an article saying the Catholic church needs to get with the times and approve of cohabitation. Michael G. Lawler and Gail S. Risch are both on the staff of the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University in Nebraska (“a university in the Jesuit tradition”).

Recent focus groups of young Catholic adults on “problematic aspects of church teaching” found that they disagreed with church teaching on premarital sex and cohabitation and do not see a fundamental difference in a loving relationship before and after a wedding. Our experience with young adults leads us to doubt the claim that they are living in sin. It would appear closer to the truth that they are growing, perhaps slowly but nonetheless surely, into grace. …

Although only non-nuptial cohabitation is linked to an increased likelihood of divorce after marriage, the fact that many Catholics believe otherwise leaves current pastoral responses to cohabiting couples both uninformed and outdated. It also raises questions about church documents based on old research and the pastoral approaches they recommend. Church documents continue to lump all cohabitors together, focus narrowly on the sexual dimension of relationships, and ignore the variety and complexity of the intentions, situations, and meanings couples give to cohabitation and its morality.

Their solution? Let’s just go ahead an bless their cohabitation! Here’s their proposal:

In the canonical words of the received tradition, their engagement or betrothal initiates their marriage; their subsequent ritual wedding, before or after the birth of a child, consummates their marriage and makes it indissoluble. Since their betrothal—however expressed, preferably in a public ritual—initiates their marriage, their cohabitation is not premarital. It is certainly pre-ceremonial, though that could be remedied by the introduction of a church betrothal ceremony. … For those nuptial cohabitors who do not proceed to a wedding, their martial relationship begun at betrothal would not be consummated and would therefore be dissoluble according to Canon 1142.

Guided by society, justified by legal loopholes, not a mention of what Scripture says.

Fisking by Carl Olson and by Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver. The latter dubs the authors’ approach “bafflingly naïve.”

If the Church, in her reflection on the Gospel, has always taught that sex outside marriage is morally wrong, then for the Church to now bless “nuptial cohabiters” amounts to colluding in sin. Ritualizing a sinful behavior, or calling it a nicer name, does not change its substance. The very last thing we need in a society already awash in confused sexuality is a strategy for accommodating it.

The greatest irony of the U.S. Catholic article comes in a comment by the authors that many young adults “cite confusion about Church teaching because Church leaders send mixed messages about sex, contraception, and divorce/annulment.” I very much agree. And one of the sources of that confusion might be Catholic publications, theologians and researchers who help feed it.

We need more support for marriage in society and the Church, not alternative arrangements. Cohabiting couples deserve the understanding and patience of the Catholic community, but above all they need to hear the Christian truth, persuasively offered, about the nature of marriage, the meaning of their sexuality and the importance of the family. We waste words and time when we focus on anything else.

Rutgers gives us a summary of recent research on the subject.

Between 1960 and 2005 … the number of unmarried couples in America increased more than tenfold. Unmarried cohabitation—the status of couples who are sexual partners, not married to each other, and sharing a household—is particularly common among the young. It is estimated that about a quarter of unmarried women age 25 to 39 are currently living with a partner and an additional quarter have lived with a partner at some time in the past. Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago.

For many, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage, for others, simply an alternative to living alone, and for a small but growing number, it is
considered an alternative to marriage. Cohabitation is more common among those of lower educational and income levels. Recent data show that among women in the 19 to 44 age range, 60 percent of high school dropouts have cohabited compared to 37 percent of college graduates.2 Cohabitation is also more common among those who are less religious than their peers, those who have been divorced, and those who have experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood. A growing percentage of cohabiting couple households, now over 40 percent, contain children.

The belief that living together before marriage is a useful way “to find out whether you really get along,” and thus avoid a bad marriage and an eventual divorce, is now widespread among young people. But the available data on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm this belief. In fact, a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage. This evidence is controversial, however, because it is difficult to distinguish the “selection effect” from the “experience of cohabitation effect.” The selection effect refers to the fact that people who cohabit before marriage have different characteristics from those who do not, and it may be these characteristics, and not the experience of cohabitation, that leads to marital instability.

There is some empirical support for both positions. Also, a recent study based on a nationally-representative sample of women concluded that premarital cohabitation (and premarital sex), when limited to a woman’s future husband, is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. What can be said for certain is that no evidence has yet been found that those who cohabit before marriage have stronger marriages than those who do not.

The Rutgers study also notes that though the national rate for divorce is 50%, not all marriages are the same; not all carry the same risk factors.

… [I]f you are a reasonably well-educated person with a decent income, come from an intact family and are religious, and marry after age twenty five without having a baby first, your chances of divorce are very low indeed.

So the “recent research” is not as black and white as the authors of the article state, and their pastoral approach fails to deal with the human reality and the teachings of Scripture.

Update: An article yesterday says that the Archdiocese of Omaha has severed ties with the Creighton Center for Marriage and Family.

Wrong Polarities

Mark Shea has forgotten the basics of Evangelical faith, suggesting that the only options are 1) authoritative pope or 2) relativism. If you don’t have a magisterium, he argues, all you have is private judgment, and thus any discussion between, say, a Mormon and an Evangelical must be a toss-up (and for that, he says, Luther is to blame!).

First, what did Luther say? He pointed to the fact that “it is as clear as the day that popes and councils have frequently erred and contradicted each other,” and thus the individual conscience must be bound by the Word of God, and that this, and the overarching principle of the Gospel, must be the criteria judging popes, councils, and the individual pronouncements of all teachers, whether Christian or Schwaermer. That’s not relativism–it’s the evangelical response to the arbitrary swings through history of magisterial positivism.

Card, the Mormon, muddles two different issues–what should other Christians think theologically of Mormonism, and what role religion should play in secular political debates. He thinks that the definition of Christian should be based on American democratic values–everyone gets a vote. He acknowledges Mormon beliefs are different from everyone else, that they don’t accept anyone else’s baptism or authority or teachings. He wants the criterion of political discussion, religious tolerance, to be the criterion of theological discussion as well.

Mohler, on the other hand, says there’s nothing subjective about the matter. There are objective criteria to guide us, including Scripture and the ecumenical creeds. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Knox, Oecolampadius, Melanchthon, Cranmer–all the Reformers held to the same criteria, by which they judged both Rome and those Luther dubbed the Schwaermer.

Pace Card, these are criteria that Catholicism also accepts as distinguishing between Christian and non-Christian; thus, while the Catholic Church regards Luther, et al., and their heirs as heretical, it still accepts them as Christian. The Catholic Church is able to make this distinction because of its acceptance of the “hierarchy of truths”–there are some non-negotiables which constitute the sine qua non of Christian faith–in particular, the Trinity and Christology. Other Christians may be off on many things, but if they have a valid baptism (water and the Triune name), and orthodox Theology and Christology, they are Christian. That’s the starting point for ecumenism.

Mormonism is an anomaly. Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy nor Protestantism accepts it as Christian. And we all use the same criteria–its theology is not Scriptural, nor is it in accord with the earliest summaries of Christian faith.

Shea, however, doesn’t seem to have the concept of the hierarchy of truths in his theological vocabulary, so is unable to make any meaningful distinction between a Lutheran and a Mormon, as we see in the article to which he links.

Camp Meeting 2.0–The Trinity

Second post is up at Spectrum, by Johnny Ramirez-Johnson (a professor at Loma Linda, specializing in Relational Studies with an emphasis in Psychology & Culture), on the Trinity and human relationships. This is a diverse group of writers, and all kinds of folks from across the blogosphere are entering into the discussion–so don’t judge the writer by the comments of some folks. Know that the folks in the comments box represent neither Spectrum nor the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Comments box is turned off here–comment over there if you wish. I added my own comments. Loma Linda has some good theologians, such as Richard Rice, from whom I took a graduate course on the Doctrine of God, texts for which included Robert Jenson, The Triune Identity, and Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ.

Justifying Theft

Did you know that St. Thomas Aquinas taught that there are occasions when it is OK to steal? Consider this from the Summa (II-II, q. 66, a. 7):

In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common. … [I]f the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

He’s pretty generous with another’s goods! If you have need, take what you want, “openly or secretly,” this isn’t theft or robbery! Well, what thief wouldn’t say he had “need” of it?

Well, perhaps that is making too much of this particular quote, as Jim notes in a comment below. Thomas is talking of cases in extremis. But consider how this principle gets expanded in the 20th century, when it goes from being an exception to the rule to a major principle for Catholic Social Thought. Consider this statement in the Vatican 2 document, Gaudium et Spes:

69. God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.(8) Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others.(9) On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.(10) If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.(11)

John Paul II developed the thought in his encyclical, Laborem exercens. He says that this “principle of the common use of goods” is “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order.”

The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism and put into pratice in various countries in the decades following the time of Leo XIII’s Encyclical. At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism practised by liberalism and by the political systems inspired by it. In the latter case, the difference consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood. Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone. …

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Church’s teaching has always recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

What is the Biblical foundation for this teaching? We can find places where Scripture exhorts those with means to share with those who lack; we find exhortations to care for the widow, the orphan, the poor; there are laws about leaving the corners of the fields unharvested so the poor can glean. But where is there anything like this principle that any person has a “right” to what another owns, and that, in case of “need,” that person can simply “help themselves”?

In light of this, no wonder Liberation Theologians took the stand they did toward social conflict. Perhaps if some of their number hadn’t openly embraced Marxism, John Paul wouldn’t have had a problem with their methods of “redistribution” of wealth.

See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church; its discussion of the commandment against stealing is a philosophical treatise that begins with this “universal destination of goods” and gives greatest attention to its socio-political implications. Contrast with the straight forward explication in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

In this principle, I think we also find the origin of the Catholic Church’s approach to immigration. The Catholic bishops are just extending this economic principle. If Mexican poor have “need,” the “right to common use” stipulates that they should be able to walk across the border and take what belongs to someone else. Consider the legislative agenda of the Bishops of Texas: illegal immigrants must not be hindered by a border fence, they must have the same access as legal residents to health care and education, they should even be able to get a government issued driver’s license. They are not to be called “illegal,” or “criminal,” despite having broken the laws of another nation–they are to be called “undocumented,” as if they simply left their papers at home.

God’s law is clear: “Thou shalt not steal.” The Catholic Church can’t change that. Aquinas, Vatican 2, John Paul II, and the Texas Bishops are as wrong as can be.

Happy Anniversary!

It’s been ten years for Jim and Jessica Cork — and in another week, it will be ten years for Rob and Linda. They made it convenient for us all by having their weddings a week apart, one in Manchester, NH, the other in Essex, NY.

Below is a picture of the six of us at Jim’s wedding. From left to right, in order according to age: Pam, Bill, Rob, Jim, Dan, Jason.

Official Announcement of the Upcoming MP

Zadok Romanus directs us to the official announcement on the Vatican webpage of the pope’s meeting yesterday discussing the upcoming publication of the Motu Proprio on the Tridentine mass.

And now secular news services have picked up the scent: AP, New York Times.

Last, but not least, Catholic News Service.

For a refresher, see the text of the 1962 Missal (cf. 1970 Missal).

Barry Black

Barry Black, Senate chaplain and retired Chief of Chaplains for the U.S. Navy, a Seventh-day Adventist pastor, is profiled by Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. Via Ryan Bell. (See also Johnny Ramirez).

Reflections Based on Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua

John Henry Newman published his Apologia Pro Vita Sua in 1864, some twenty years after he became a Catholic, in response to an attack by Charles Kingsley.

I’m not about to write a book, but some attacks do require response, such as that made recently by Dave Armstrong.

Armstrong says statements that I have made about my return home are “postmodernist mush.” He declares I didn’t give reasons for leaving Adventism and I haven’t given reasons for returning to my spiritual home. He says, “He apparently had no theological clue as to why he left Adventism and none for why he adopted Catholicism.” In particular, he attacks me for not being interested in Biblical proof-text apologetics. He says, moreover, that I was “trashing apologetics.”

I never “trashed apologetics.” I did–and do–take exception to the forensic methodology of apologetics, developed in Reformed circles, which was imported into Catholicism through the conversions of conservative Presbyterians like Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, and Robert Sungenis. I have consistently opposed this methodology, both for thriving on debates (as if truth is a matter of scoring points), and for being ahistorical (treating Catholic doctrine as something that can be proved by Scripture alone, despite the fact that the Church has always defended its extrabiblical teachings by rejecting sola Scripture and insisting on the authority of tradition).

To be against this approach is not to be opposed to apologetics. There are other methods of apologetics–for which you don’t have to apologize when the dust clears. I suggest Armstrong read Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics.

When I left the Adventist church, I gave lots of Biblical, historical, and theological justification/rationalization, in long letters to friends and family. I had some of that posted on my webpage at one time. I did the same when I became Catholic. I posted much of that on my webpage, and included it in published writings. My arguments were not based on scriptural proof-texting, but historical and theological reasons for which I accepted the Catholic Church’s authority, akin to those arguments which persuaded John Henry Newman, whose Essay on Doctrinal Development was the single most influential book of apologetics I read.

I have lots of Biblical, historical, and theological arguments (as well as some from personal experience) I can give now for why I could no longer accept that, as well as Biblical reasons for the truth of positions held by Seventh-day Adventists. Some I gave in the weeks and months prior to my decision, on my blog.

I’m choosing not to continue in that path for the present. I chose not to do so in that sermon. I will no doubt say more in the future. But ultimately, conversion isn’t about arguments and reason. It’s about grace. I choose at present to give all glory to God, not to bask in the brilliance of my own arguments.

I’ve given credit to my family, but are they the only reason? No. Someone suggests in Dave’s comments that I left after “someone found out my wife was Adventist.” What a silly thing to say. I worked full-time for the Catholic Church from 1994-2007. Everyone always knew my wife was Adventist, including bishops, archbishops, and cardinals from here to the Vatican. No one ever expressed shock about it. Scott Hahn notes the advice he was given by an Opus Dei spiritual director–use romance rather than reason. That’s the kind of advice I was given, too.

Some say, “Well, he didn’t really know the Catholic faith.” That’s not what folks were saying when I was teaching Church History, Church Doctrine, and Christology in the archdiocesan Formation toward Christian Ministry program. It’s not what my professors at CUA, Dominican House of Studies, Washington Theological Union, and University of St. Thomas said (a total of nine graduate courses over the years, as part of my masters’ programs and continuing education). That’s a kind of knee jerk reaction from those who really can’t comprehend that someone would, upon reflection, be persuaded otherwise.

But enough of that. My bottom line is this: Is anyone ever won to Christ through being defeated in a debate? I don’t think so. Debates stir up contentiousness and pride. They are “near occasions of sin,” if not occasions of actual sin.

My grandfather used to say, “Don’t get into a pissin’ contest with a skunk.” Wise advice. That’s why I steer clear of debates, and why I don’t let my comments boxes get overheated.

I will for now, just proclaim the awesome mystery that is grace, citing as my text that statement by Chesterton quoted by Waugh: “I caught him … with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world, and still to bring him back with a twitch upon the thread.”

Why the Motu Proprio Matters

Carl Olson cites Robert Moynihan.

… It isn’t about the Latin. (And the Latin Mass is, in any case, not the Latin Mass at all; that is a misnomer; it is, rather, “the Latin, Greek and Aramaic Mass,” with “Kyrie eleison” in Greek and “Amen” and “Alleluia” in Aramaic.) And those who think Latin is at the core of this matter do not see fully what is at stake here.

And what is at stake is not a trivial matter. If it were, the Pope wouldn’t have given two years of attention to it, or 25 years as a cardinal to stating repeatedly that there needs to be a “reform of the reform.” Rather, it is an important matter. In fact, the most important one. For the Mass is celebrated for a single reason: for the Eucharist. And the Eucharist is one thing only: Christ with us. And Christ with us is the sole reason for the Church’s being.

So in dealing with the Mass, the Pope is not dealing with a marginal, a peripheral matter. The liturgy is not a “side issue.” It is a central one; indeed, the central one. It is the little matter (and the Orthodox rightly stress this) of… the divinization of man!

When Murder is OK

“I murdered the life within me,” says the Reverend Donna Schaper.

I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. I think the quarrel about when life begins is disrespectful to the fetus. I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to. I did what men do all the time when they take us to war: they choose violence because, while they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives.

But she has no regrets. “I did what was right for me, for my family, for my work, for my husband, and for my three children.”

Touchstone reflects on this, and on Jim Wallis’ efforts to “neutralize” the abortion issue.

Fly the Unfriendly Skies of Delta

Rod Dreher asks, Delta Airlines: Merely incompetent, or plain evil?

He provides YouTube video taken by passenger on a flight stuck for seven hours on the ground at JFK. Family members who inquired were snapped at by employees who told them the plane had left hours ago.

Compare with Dreher’s own experience on the same flight. a couple weeks ago.

Catholic Bishops Endorse Implantation of Chimeras

In a bizarre twist, the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have decreed certain human/animal hybrids, “chimeras,” to be “human,” and declared that it should be legal to implant them in the wombs of mothers.

Anglican Evangelism

Homer Simpson.

Victory in Ohio Union Case

Via Christina: Labor unions have experienced a court loss, and freedom has triumphed, to a degree, in Ohio. Carol Katter, a Catholic, didn’t want to give money to the pro-abortion NEA. She was told only Seventh-day Adventists and Mennonites could claim exemptions, because of their historic anti-union stance. Catholics, as members of a church that has a pro-union reputation, could not. The union’s lawyer told her to pay dues or change religions. She fought, and a federal court has thrown out the law. All individuals have the right to refuse union dues for religious grounds; this right cannot be restricted to members of any specific denomination.

It isn’t a complete victory for freedom, however. Workers are still obligated to belong to an organization they have not chosen to join, and to give up a portion of their salary (albeit to charity) at the demand of that organization. AP story.

The Social Effects of Diversity

John Leo discusses Robert Putnam’s (Bowling Alone) latest research (via Rod Dreher).

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia.

I can see how that happened in southwest Houston over the past twenty years.

But there is a silver lining. There is a rebound in the young, who grow up with diversity, befriend kids of all different races and religions, and learn to trust. I see that happening in churches like the one I am at, which has members from 50 different countries, and is growing and thriving in this diverse community.

I see it happening in the lives of my children, whose friends are black and white, Hispanic and Filipino, Chinese and Vietnamese, Nigerian and Indonesian, Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist. I tell the story of my daughter, who, a few years ago, on a trip to Vermont, asked after a few days of observation, “Why is everyone here white?”

I’ll be interested to read Putnam’s work, to see who he talked to in Houston.

Eucharistic Adoration

Paul McCain (LCMS) links to a video featuring Fr. Stan Fortuna.

My Catholic readers will love the video.

Protestants will appreciate McCain’s question: “Is this what Christ intended we do with His Supper?” It’s a question rooted in Christ’s command: “Take and eat; this is my body. … Drink from it, all of you.” Lutherans will underscore that he didn’t say put it in a box, he didn’t say carry it about, he didn’t say take what you want, he didn’t say one’s as good as another, he didn’t say restrict the access of some to part or the whole–he said, “Take and eat,” “Drink from it, all of you,” and, in John, “you ought to wash one another’s feet.” Those are the only commands of Christ we have concerning his supper. We should take care to do all that he says to do, and not to impose practices of our own devising.

Camp Meeting 2.0

It’s summer, and camp meeting season in the Adventist world. My wife and kids left this morning for three weeks in Vermont, which will include a detour to Freeport, Maine, for the Northern New England Conference camp meeting. It’s an old-fashioned affair, with folks staying in tents and meetings under the “big top.” (And there will be obligatory side pilgrimages to L. L. Bean).

The folks at Spectrum blog are updating camp meeting for the internet age with Campmeeting 2.0: Bloggin’ the 28 Adventist beliefs. Several of us have volunteered to post articles, and we’ve been asked to look at how these beliefs translate into action. We are each directing our readers to the blog of that day’s contributor, and shutting off our comments so that the discussion is carried out in one place. First up is Ron Osborn on the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

B16 Motu Proprio Reverses JP2!

Pope Benedict XVI issued a motu proprio today–not on Latin, but on papal elections–and reversed an innovation introduced by Pope John Paul II.

Richard McBrien

You’d think a priest would be grateful for folks converting to Catholicism. Not Richard McBrien (whose attitudes I think are typical of liberal academics and curia staff).

Carl Olson comments.

How Churches Grow

Monte Sahlin spoke about urban ministry at Hollywood SDA.

The State of the Catholic Church

Quiz at Catholic World News.

Confused.

Female Episcopalian priest claims to be 100% Christian and 100% Muslim–and she will be teaching New Testament at a Catholic university.

Feeding the Hungry

I’m reading Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker 2005).

Spencer Burke of Newport Beach, CA is quoted:

On one occasion, our community was getting kicked out of a park because of our interaction with the homeless. “You can’t feed the homeless here; you need a permit,” the policeman said. I replied, “We are not feeding the homeless. We are having a picnic. We’re eating with them.”

A Profile in Courage … and Shame

60 Minutes profiled Joe Darby tonight, the MP who broke open the Abu Ghraib scandal when he turned in CDs with photos. He’s considered a hero by most of the world–but not to many vocal people in his hometown of Cumberland, MD. The Army was so afraid for him that they told him not to go home. He’s been called a “traitor” by some, including Colin Engelbach, the head of the Cumberland VFW post, and by others commenting below the article on that webpage.
Traitor? Darby did the right thing. He was an MP who reported a crime.

The 60 Minutes story wasn’t fair to Cumberland, though. Darby’s MySpace page includes a letter from the mayor and city council of Cumberland supporting him. The Cumberland Times-News also reported on support–as well as angry letters the town and newspaper got after the 60 Minutes story first aired in December 2006.

Messing about in Boats

“There is nothing — absolutely nothing — half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats” (from Wind in the Willows).

Bradenton Herald reporter paddles in a canoe with my dad.