Bishop Lori's Address on Religious Liberty

"For some time now, we have viewed with growing alarm the ongoing erosion of religious liberty in our country."

"So while religion is indeed a personal matter, it is not a private matter, for there is no religious liberty if we are not free to express our faith in the public square..."

"We also see that the reach of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is being expanded so as continually to narrow the protections offered by the Free Exercise Clause, thus turning the First Amendment on its head. The Establishment Clause was meant to protect the Free Exercise Clause not the other way around."

-Bishop William Lori, Quotes from his address to the Fall General Assembly of the USCCB.


Preface to the Text:

Provided below is an address the Most Reverend William Lori of the Diocese of Bridgeport to the delivered to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on November 16th, 2011 (Courtesty of Catholic On-line). In his address, he candidly speaks about the growing threat to religious liberty in our nation.

Personally, I was impressed with what I read in his speech. I do believe that the U.S. Catholic Bishops are seeing the need to become "watchmen" who must vigilantly look for those forces of evil which undermine the souls entrusted to them. In a few days I will be expanding on some key points Bishop Lori has made in his address.



Bishop Lori's Address:

I. Introduction:

Watchmen for the Church in a homily which we read on his feast day, Gregory the Great comments on the Word of the Lord addressed to Ezekiel: "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel" (Ez. 33:7). The saintly pontiff adds: "Note that a man whom the Lord sends forth as a preacher is called a watchman. A watchman always stands on a height so that he can see from afar what is coming. Anyone appointed to be a watchman for the people must stand on a height, for all his life, to help them by his foresight" (Pope St. Gregory the Great, Homily on Ezekiel, Bk. 1, 11).

Gregory compared his ministry to that of a watchman. So too, we bishops are called to be vigilant heralds of the Word and overseers of the household of God.

For some time now, we have viewed with growing alarm the ongoing erosion of religious liberty in our country. During our last plenary meeting, we decided to make the defense of religious liberty a Conference priority and embraced our responsibility to address head-on threats to this precious freedom.

In consultation with the Administrative Committee, Archbishop Dolan established an Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty now comprised of ten bishops, ably assisted by excellent consultants, and skillfully supported by our new Associate General Secretary, Anthony Picarello, with two additional staff - a lawyer and a lobbyist In addition, we will rely on the collaboration of an extraordinary number of bishops and the expertise of our Conference staff.

So now, brothers, let us ask ourselves: How do we, as pastors and citizens, bring into focus our teaching on religious liberty? What should we be looking for and what do we see? And how should we respond to what we see?

II. Bringing Our Teaching into Focus

The Second Vatican Council calls us "to read the signs of the times" and to do so, as it were, through binoculars equipped with the two lenses.

First is the lens of the Church's teaching on human dignity and religious liberty, a dignity and freedom inscribed on the human heart and revealed fully in Christ.

Second is the lens of that heritage bequeathed by the Founding Fathers: a bold Declaration of Independence that recognizes inherent human rights, "endowed by their Creator"; and the Constitution with its Bill of Rights that accords a certain primacy to our freedom to respond to that Creator, in every aspect of our lives, without undue government interference, along with the indispensable adjuncts of freedom of speech and assembly.

Our experience tells us that it takes a lot of work to keep our binoculars in focus, that is to say, to maintain a critical and accurate understanding of how the vision of our Founding Fathers and the vision of the Church's teaching on religious liberty fit together. As historians in this room know so well, the relationship of the Church and the American experiment came into focus only gradually and will always need careful re-focusing. Nonetheless, both lenses, when allowed to function as intended, offer a remarkably clear vision of human dignity and freedom.

This remarkably clear vision includes the following:

- An understanding that basic human freedoms are inherent to human dignity coupled with an understanding that our freedoms are granted not by the State but rather are given to us by our Creator. As President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, the rights for which our forebears fought "come not from the generosity of the State but rather from the hand of God" . . even as the Church teaches that "the ultimate source of human rights is not found in the mere will of human beings, but in man himself, and in God his Creator."

- If religious liberty is prior to the state and not a privilege the government grants and so may take away at will, then we rightfully look to our government to fulfill its duty to protect religious liberty, to promote tolerance among various religious faiths and those who profess no faith, and broadly to accommodate the place of religion in American life.

- In the vision of our Founding Fathers, religious liberty occupied pride of place. The Bill of Rights ranks it first in the "honor roll of superior rights", (to use the phrase of Henry Abraham, a noted constitutional scholar). So too, Pope Benedict XVI recently stated that "[Religious liberty] is the first of human rights, not only because it was the first to be recognized but also because it touches the constitutive dimension of man, (viz.,) his relationship with his Creator" (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Diplomatic Corps, 2011). And so with Blessed Pope John Paul II we keep in focus a common understanding that religious freedom is the source of all other human rights, and, "a kind of litmus test or 'touchstone' for the protection of human dignity generally" (Mary Ann Glendon, "Religious Freedom- A Second Class Right?" Emory University, 2011). Accordingly, we expect our government not to allow religious liberty to be easily compromised by other claims and interests, in effect, to become a "second-class right" (Ibid.).

- Our vision is sharpened by the wisdom of George Washington, who saw the importance of morality and religion for "political prosperity". and by the observation of Alexis de Tocqueville who saw ".that religion and religious freedom are indispensable supports for our country's great experiment in ordered liberty" (Ibid). Thus we rightfully envision the Church as an actor in society forming not only believers but also citizens equipped to build "a civilization of truth and love". Thus we seek protection by law and acceptance in our culture of intermediate institutions such as the family, churches, and schools which stand between the power of the government and the conscience of individuals, all the while contributing immensely to the common good.

- The lenses of our binoculars equip us to search both law and culture to see whether they respect religious freedom as an individual right, inscribed in our human nature by the Creator, no matter the moral or political trends of the moment. For, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, "[t]he exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary, and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God." and thus no one should ".be forced to act in a manner contrary to [his] conscience" (Dignitatis Humanae, 3).

- While recognizing religious freedom as an individual right, we see that religious freedom belongs also to churches and religious institutions comprised of citizens who are believers, and who seek, not to create a theocracy, but rather to be leaven and light within their culture. We look for a robust understanding of religious liberty extended to all faiths, an understanding that envisions not only the importance of being able to worship freely but also to bring into the public square truths and values that flow from faith and reason, expressed in works of education, healthcare, social services and charity.

In short, religious liberty pertains to the whole person - it is not simply the freedom to believe and to worship but to shape our very lives around those beliefs and that worship, both as individuals and as a community, and to share our lives, thus transformed, with the world around us.

And with clarity of vision we ask whether a genuine understanding of religious liberty still has a chance of shaping our society. For as one distinguished jurist put it, if liberty dies in the hearts of men and women, "no constitution, no law, no court can save it" (Learned Hand). As watchmen we need to see whether or not this fundamental liberty continues to live in the hearts of our fellow Catholics and citizens.

III. What We See

And what is it that we actually see through these dual lenses that give us clear access to reality? We see a Church who, for all her challenges, serves the common good with extraordinary effectiveness and generosity. Think of the tremendous international relief work of our church and its agencies in reaching untold numbers of people in desperate circumstances.

In the dioceses that we serve, the Church is the largest non-governmental source of educational, social, charitable, and healthcare services, offered as an integral part of our mission, offered as an expression of our faith in the God who is love. In a time of economic hardship, the services which the Catholic Church and other denominations offer are not only beneficial but indeed crucial, but it is becoming more and more difficult for us to deliver services in a manner that truly respects the very faith that impels us to provide them.

Indeed, Archbishop Dolan gave voice to what we collectively see: "Never before have we faced this kind of challenge in our ability to engage in the public square as people of faith and as a service provider. If we do not act now, the consequence will be grave" (National Catholic Register, Oct. 23, 2011).

Among the challenges we see is a pattern in culture and law to treat religion merely as a private matter between an individual and his or her God. Instead of promoting toleration of differing religious views, certain laws, court decisions, and administrative regulations treat religion not as a contributor to our nation's common morality but rather as a divisive and disruptive force better kept out of public life. Some invoke the so-called doctrine of separation of church and state to ... to exclude the Church from public policy, thus ignoring the historic role of churches in ending slavery, in securing civil rights, in promoting just labor practices, including the introduction of child labor laws.

So while religion is indeed a personal matter, it is not a private matter, for there is no religious liberty if we are not free to express our faith in the public square and if we are not free to act on that faith through works of education, healthcare, and charity . . . just as there is no freedom of speech if one is free to say what he or she believes only privately but not publicly through the media, the arts, libraries, and schools.

We also see that the reach of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is being expanded so as continually to narrow the protections offered by the Free Exercise Clause, thus turning the First Amendment on its head. The Establishment Clause was meant to protect the Free Exercise Clause not the other way around. The result has been that both individual citizens with strong religious convictions and also religious institutions are less broadly accommodated and even marginalized on the grounds that any minimal accommodation somehow constitutes the "establishment" of particular religions in our land.

For example, the Conference has been defending against an ACLU lawsuit claiming that HHS's recently abandoned policy that allowed us to serve trafficking victims without also providing them abortions and contraception- a policy that respected our freedom of religious exercise - actually violates the Establishment Clause!

But let us make no mistake. Aggressive secularism is also a system of belief. In failing to accommodate people of faith and religious institutions, both law and culture are indeed establishing un-religion as the religion of the land and granting it the rights and protections that our Founding Fathers envisioned for citizens who are believers and for their churches and church institutions. In addition, over time, the barriers preventing government from interfering in the internal life of religious groups have been lowered.

This aids and abets the erosion of religious liberty, which is expressly recognized and protected by the First Amendment, by the imposition of courtmandated "rights" which have no textual basis in the Constitution such as those that pertain to abortion and same-sex marriage. Refusal to endorse the taking of innocent human life or to redefine marriage is now portrayed as discriminatory. As a result, the freedom of religious entities to provide services according to their own lights, to defend publicly their teachings, and even to choose and manage their own personnel is coming under increased attack.

This and more have led to dramatic and immediate threats to religious liberty across our land, in various states, whether it is an Alabama law and court ruling that criminalize the "good Samaritan" services which religious entities provide to the undocumented; or a county clerk in New York State who faces legal action because she refuses to take part in same-sex marriages; or the 2009 attempt of members of the Judiciary Committee in Connecticut to re-organize parishes in a manner utterly opposed to Catholic teaching and law; or the sad reality that many diocesan Catholic Charities have had to withdraw from adoption and foster care services because of our fidelity to the Church's teaching on marriage.

We see the problem at the federal level. Some federal agencies, absent legislative and judicial oversight, threaten religious freedom.

As we know, the Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations that would mandate coverage of sterilization and contraception, including abortifacients, in all private health care plans. The religious exemption was far too narrow, requiring Catholic employers to hire mainly Catholics, serve mainly Catholics, and exist mainly to inculcate religious values - all these conditions must be met in order to qualify for the exemption.

As Sr. Carol Keehan noted, the exemption is so narrow that it scarcely covers the parish housekeeper! And there is no conscience protection for insurers or individuals with religious or moral objections to the mandate. While there is a real possibility of a broader exemption, it remains to be seen whether it 7 will indeed protect all religious organizations and the conscience rights of individuals and insurers.

Contrary to conscience protections that are already a matter of law, CRS and MRS were told that a new condition for the renewal of cooperative agreements was the provision of a full-range of so-called reproductive services, a condition we hope may soon be dropped. The Department of Justice has created additional problems. It has attacked DOMA as an act of "bias and prejudice", akin to racism, thereby implying that churches which teach that marriage is between a man and a woman are guilty of bigotry.

The Department of Justice has also argued before the Supreme Court for the virtual elimination of the First Amendment's "ministerial exception" which protects the freedom of religious denominations to choose their own ministers without state interference to say nothing of court decisions which have severely curbed the religious freedom of students to organize and maintain religiously based groups on college campuses.

IV. How to Respond to What We See

We see these and other threats no longer from afar but immediately on the horizon so the Ad Hoc Committee has begun its work in helping us in our dioceses to defend and promote religious liberty with and among our dioceses.

As bishops our first duty and instinct is to teach, and so, among other things, the Committee will provide multi-media resources to help us all in teaching about religious liberty.

As pastors, we recognize that we have a critical role to play in leading our people in prayer and in instructing and inspiring them, so that they will cherish their God-given freedoms and work to shape a society marked by respect for the transcendent dignity and freedom of each human being.

As watchmen, we will continue to flag threats to religious liberty and to speak out against them, to engage public officials, whether elected or appointed, not in a partisan fashion, but in a manner entirely consistent with the deepest values of our democracy.

But this we cannot do alone. We need to join with our ecumenical and inter-faith partners. We need to involve our closest co-workers, our priests, who are on the front lines of parish life, and who enjoy the respect and esteem of their parishioners. Their voice will be vital in the struggle that lay before us.

But we bishops and priests cannot do it alone. We must stand united in calling forth the lay men and women of the Church to put their gifts and expertise on the line in defense of religious liberty - whether experts or hard-working lay Catholics who simply want to raise their families and hand on their Catholic faith in a land that is free, in a land that is just.

It is not a question of creating new structures or new bureaucracies, but of utilizing what is already in place - parishes, schools, communications networks - so as to refocus and reenergize the people we serve, so as to bring this message and mission to every corner of our land.

Together, we will do our best to awaken in ourselves, in our fellow Catholics, and in the culture at large a new appreciation for religious liberty and a renewed determination to defend it.

V. Conclusion

When Archbishop Dolan asked to me give this talk, he called it a stemwinder, and standing before you today I am very grateful for the invention of selfwinding watches! Thank you for seeing the urgency of defending religious liberty for our Church and for all believers. I hope that the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty will be of greatest service to all of us in our dioceses, in our role as teachers, as pastors, as lovers of truth and freedom - as watchmen!

I have already testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and yesterday the new Ad Hoc Committee met for the first time. On behalf of this Committee, I warmly invite your pastoral wisdom and seek your input as we move forward. This Committee will strive to do its work in your behalf effectively and efficiently and will consult you and report to you on a frequent and regular basis. Thanks for listening, may God bless our Church and our Nation!

A Letter to Jenna: God's Compensation for Pain

Preface:

On July 23rd of 2011 a man by the name of Rob, a relative of mine, sustained a severe head injury. Tragically, two days later he passed on to a better life. Rob had a heart for God and he was known across the country for his kindness. He was the oldest of three kids. The youngest of the three, Jenna, was his only sister. As Rob and Jenna had reached their young adulthood years, their relationship strengthened as they grew closer to one another. Rob was only 35 years of age when he died. Jenna, his sister, was 30 years old.

To make a long story short, in addition to trying to process her grief, Jenna was trying to come to terms with the intellectual or philosophical questions she had about God and why he would allow such a terrible thing to happen, not only to her, but to so many people who know nothing but suffering all of their lives. As an example she made reference to the sick and dying children at St. Jude's hospital. She also asked the age-old question of why God allows good men like Rob die early while others who are not so virtuous live to a ripe old age.

Time and time again I have come across people who struggle with these questions; especially during times of great crisis. For that reason, I wanted to post it on Sky View. The letter was dated August 8th, 2011.


No Time To Think:

Jenna:

I am glad you have been asking God about why some good people die early and others, who are not so good, are permitted to live to a ripe old age. Whenever this question is given the attention it deserves it can lead to great insights about life. Most people, however, when confronted with this question shrug their shoulders and think no more about it. Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America (I highly recommend this book to conservatives; especially the second half of the book), wrote in the 19th century that Americans are doers and industrious- always on the move. And to be sure, that is a good quality. However, every strength has a corresponding weakness.

The weakness of Americans, according to Tocqueville, was that they give too little time to meditation; but in the place of wisdom or depth of knowledge he said that Americans want ready-made opinions from other people; opinions which required little thought. And to an extent, I think that characterizes a lot of us. We’re only forced to think about the deeper things in life when we experience a crisis. At least that is what happened to me.


A Life of Suffering Then Death:

As for myself, there were times when I tasted despair and helplessness; believing at times that the unfavorable circumstances in my life were never going to end. When the rug was pulled out from under me, I began to ask questions and search for the meaning behind the painful circumstances. My thoughts then went from “what might happen to me” to “what has actually happened to other people.” That is, I began to think about other people who knew nothing but suffering, having never known the love of another human being, only to die at an early age.

As one who loves both history and theology, I wondered about the multitudes of people throughout history who were born into slavery only to die as a slave. Having known nothing but slavery and cruelty, how can such a life have redeeming value? There were also civilizations such as the Canaanite and Aztec civilizations that reared human beings, and even children, just for human sacrifices. The same applies for the gladiators in Rome. All of these people were treated as cattle. Their lives were deemed by others to have no value. (You’ll get a sense of this if you ever watched the movies The Gladiator and Apocolypto)

Due to the thoughts my suffering inspired- that is, about the hopeless plight of other people -I decided to work with sexually and physically abused children (before I went to graduate school to pursue a degree in theology). Some of these kids knew very little love and acceptance in their lives. I thought to myself, “If I were to be made aware of all the pains of this nature that take place around the world [especially now that I am a father of five children] I would be overwhelmed and literally die.” I wouldn’t be able to take it.


How Does God Tolerate It?

But how does God do it? How does he endure it or even tolerate it? Even Jesus- who was a divine person in human flesh -had to know all the sufferings, the injustices and cruelty of humanity. But there is a reason why he wasn’t in constant agony over this. There is a reason why the Lord can tolerate such a sad spectacle of events. This is where the answer to your question begins to surface Jenna. This may explain and give some meaning to the pain of having your heart torn over the loss of Rob.

If you would indulge me for just a little bit longer- and I do appreciate your patience -I would like to share two very brief stories that will lend towards the answer that I have for you; and the answer any Saint would give you. The first story has to do with finding peace and making sense of her suffering in hindsight. The second has to do with finding peace and making sense of his suffering as it was occurring. These two examples will help explain, in a small way, why God can tolerate suffering and why he allows some good people to die young while letting evil men or women live much longer.


Kissing the Hands Who Harmed Me:

It has something to do with what a former Sudanese slave who converted to Catholicism had to say about her torturers. Her name was St. Josephine Bakhita. She was bought by an Italian merchant (around the turn of the 20th century), brought to Italy and was introduced to the Catholic Faith. If I remember correctly, she then became a consecrated sister in a religious order. She died in 1947 and was canonized a Saint just recently. As a slave in Sudan, she was tortured, beaten and neglected. But after she found Christ in Italy, she discovered a love and a kind of liberation she never knew. This gave context and a whole new meaning to her past sufferings. As such, she was inspired to say the following: “If I were to meet the slave-traders who kidnapped me and even those who tortured me, I would kneel and kiss their hands, for if that did not happen, I would not be a Christian and Religious today.”

For her, the suffering and the injustices she endured were not only meaningful but they were, ironically enough, the very instruments God used to bring about her conversion and salvation. To the world, Jenna, this is utter folly. But she understood that even the most of painful of circumstance could be life-giving.


The Work of God is Not God:

And then there was a Catholic bishop in Vietnam by the name of Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan (he was cardinal when he died in 2002). He was taken prisoner in 1975 by Communist North Vietnam. For thirteen years he lived in squalid and inhumane conditions. Nine of those years he spent in solitary confinement…in a hole. He recounts how such horrible circumstances were reconciled with his faith. In fact, he believed God spoke to him in his cell. He said:

"Alone in my prison cell, I continued to be tormented by the fact that I was forty-eight years old, in the prime of my life, that I had worked for eight years as a bishop and gained so much pastoral experience and there I was isolated, inactive and far from my people.One night, from the depths of my heart I could hear a voice advising me: 'Why torment yourself? You must discern between God and the works of God - everything you have done and desire to continue to do, pastoral visits, training seminarians, sisters and members of religious orders, building schools, evangelizing non-Christians. All of that is excellent work, the work of God but it is not God! If God wants you to give it all up and put the work into his hands, do it and trust him. God will do the work infinitely better than you; he will entrust the work to others who are more able than you. You have only to choose God and not the works of God!'”

This divine message of reproof, he went on to say, gave him a peace that never left him in that prison. He simply trusted that God would make up and compensate for his absence; that he, the Lord, would take care of the people who were formerly entrusted to the care of the bishop. The peace this good bishop enjoyed (later to be cardinal) during that difficult time was only had by trusting God; that God would take care of everything; that God’s plan was in his best interest. The good bishop ended up ministering to and converting some of the Communist prison guards and comforted those prisoners who were in utter despair. There was a reason why God allowed him to be there.


There is Something Better:

St. Josephine Bakhita and Cardinal Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan experienced a joy and peace that was just a small foretaste of heaven; a fraction of the real thing. It is no exaggeration to say that heaven begins here, in this life, on earth. But it does not end here. The fullness of that joy is only to be found in heaven. By the Lord allowing the good to die an early death and evil people to live a longer life takes on the appearance of injustice only if we see this world/this life as the best it ever gets- as the pinnacle of our happiness. In this context, Rob’s death at the age of 35 years of age would appear to be most unjust if there really is a God. But Scripture, our Catholic Faith and the Saints tell us that this earthly abode ours is but the vestibule to a much more beautiful house. Life really begins when we give up our body. This is why I sent you those links [Beyond and Back near death testimonies]. Whether or not you believe in those particular accounts (and we are certainly not obligated to believe them), hospice nurses from all over the nation/world will tell you similar stories; that those who lived a life of faith, love and sacrifice anticipated and even reached out to the great joys that awaited them. Indeed, countless people who had experienced the “light of God” on the threshold of death didn’t want to come back! It is a recurring theme in these stories.


And this addresses the very heart of your question: The worst of human suffering and cruelty on earth is far outweighed by the reality of eternity. Eternity- and here I refer to heaven –is so full of compensation, so all-encompassing, so permanent and so full of happiness that people who go there would gladly endure a life of suffering. I know that is tough to imagine. But as Scripture states, human life is but a vapor, appearing one moment and disappearing the next. God sees our life on earth- with our trials and joys –simultaneously with our life in eternity. He knows exactly what we need and allows only what is in our best interests. And our best interests, Jenna, is that our eternal happiness is secured in heaven. If the soul is not saved, nothing is saved.

But for the atheist and the liberal who gives no thought to the supernatural order, when confronted with those cases of people who knew nothing but suffering, are forced to shrug their shoulders and say, “It sucks to be them. They got the short end of the stick.” However, when we suffer and we find ourselves in desperate situations, this attitude does not suffice. It doesn’t satisfy a heart that longs for happiness.


Rob's Greatest Gift:

Rob’s greatest gift is our greatest pain. But our greatest pain will turn into our greatest gift when it comes time for us to enjoy what Rob is now enjoying. And yet, at the same time, our entry into eternity will be a cause of pain for others. And the cycle goes on.

I will pray that you can, over the coming months, entrust the gift that God has given you, namely, Rob, your love for Rob and all that you feel deprived of. Entrust this, as best you can, to the care of the Lord. It may take time.

I will be in touch. Write me any time. Joe

Slouching Towards Gomorrah

Preface:

Before Judge Bork's conversion to the Catholic Church, he wrote a book entitled, Slouching Towards Gommorah. Published in 1996, this book prove to be at least a decade ahead of its time. As a side note, you might recall that he was nominated to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice by President Reagan in the late eighties. However, Senator Ted Kennedy was successful in making a case against his nomination. According to Kennedy, Robert Bork was a threat to the liberal values. In 2001, I had the privilege of meeting Justice Bork in Washington D.C. at a George Weigel speech.

At any rate, in the 14th chapter called Trouble in Religion he discusses the close relationship between religion and morality. I provided a few excerpts from his book that are worth considering for today's discussion about America's future:


Morality without religion?

"If morality can be created and maintained independently of religion, if it is prior to religion, then the decline of religion need not be a matter of overwhelming concern; religion becomes a matter of individual salvation after death, of overwhelming importance to the individual, but of little social concern. Yet, it is observable that religion and morality have declined together."

Comment: Between 1962-63, the U.S. government forbade prayer and reading the bible in public schools. Unfortunately, there was not much of an outcry by Americans because the Christian religion, during the previous three decades, had enjoyed considerable growth. Perhaps, they counted it as a minor setback. In any case, the most pressing concerns teachers had went from students gum chewing, running in the halls and talking in class in 1960's, to drug use, sexual harassment and even gun shootings in the 1990's. In light of the social developments which occurred throughout history, this change in the school environment is remarkable. Few (even Christians) connect the dots. But if prayer is truly a spiritual activity which brings about good results, like many believe, then its absence must be counted as a negative. Perhaps this is why, unlike in previous decades, school administrations require security or police to patrol their hallways.


Virtuous atheists?

"We all know persons without religious belief who nevertheless display all the virtues we associate with religious teaching. That might seem to suggest that religion is unnecessary to morality; but the counter argument is that such people are living on the moral capital of prior religious generations."

Comment: Countless philosophers and politicians in the 1700's and 1800's believed that reason alone or even the goodness of human nature alone was sufficient in maintaining a civil and virtuous society. What they didn't factor in is that the social and political experiences they relied upon had rested on generations of Christian capital; that is, the civil and virtuous society they were surrounded by had been put in place by centuries of the preaching of the Gospel and the sanctification of souls. Before Christianity, the continent of Europe was far from being civilized. This is true even for highest form of pagan civilizations of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire which followed.

Keep in mind that it is easy for a child to brag about the nice house he lives in. But in reality, everything he enjoys is the result of his parents hard work.


American Voters: A problem

"While most people claim to be religious, most are also not comfortable with those whose faith is strong enough to affect their public behavior."

Comment: Christopher Dawson once noted in the 1930's that it is not the anti-religious which poses the greatest threat to Christians, but it is the subreligious. The subreligious are those who have some affection for the church they were raised in; as a married couple, they may have been married in their church; and they might have had their kids receive the Sacraments and catechesis there too; nevertheless, they settle for half measures or they completely omit a faith-life during the week. What is more, they call those who take their faith seriously "fanatics" and "extremists." These are people who Christian in outward form only. But when compared to the non-religious or even the anti-religious of the world, there is not that much difference in terms of their values and behavior.

What was said by Bishop Fulton Sheen in 1948 can be more fittingly applied to Christians of today:

"Our Lord intended that His followers should be different in spirit from those who were not His followers. 'I have taken you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.' (John 15:19) Though this is the Divine Intent, it is unfortunately true that the line of demarcation between the followers of Christ and those who are not is often blotted out. Instead of black and white, there is only a blur.

Mediocrity and compromise characterize the lives of many Christians. Many read the same novels as modern pagans, educate their children in the same godless way, listen to the same commentators who have no other standard than judging today by yesterday and tomorrow by today, allow pagan practices such as divorce and remarriage to creep into the family…There is no longer any conflict and opposition which is supposed to characterize us. We are influencing the world less than the world is influencing us. "

Catholic and Constitutional Fiction: The Fatal Theory of Separation

“There are others…who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State…

For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments…

[A]lthough the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet.”

-Pope Leo XIII, On the Nature of Human Liberty 1888

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The following blog was originally posted in 2010 but has been revised for new Sky View readers:


Preface:

Does it matter what book our elected officials swear an oath over? Can it be just any book? Can the Koran, the Origin of Species, or even the Book of Mormon be binding on the conscience of those who represent us in government? Many supporters of Secular-liberalism say that it does not matter. They might even wonder what the point is in swearing an oath at all. The opinion that there should be a total separation of Church and State is certainly consistent with their indifference to religion. But for those Americans who are not willing to go as far as saying that any book will due in oath swearing have to be just as consistent as their counterparts. Indeed, if the bible is sacred and therefore should be binding upon the conscience of elected officials, then logically the rejection of the radical separation between Church and State should follow. In other words, if using the bible in the swearing of oaths is acceptable, then Christian principles ought to have an influence on judicial proceedings and legislation.

But sadly, many Americans defend absurd and contradictory positions. Many elected officials, for instance, swear an oath on the Christian bible but turn around an attempt to purge every last vestige of Christianity from the public square. What is even more harmful to our Republic is the taxpayer supported public school systems which, if not in theory certainly in practice, indoctrinated American children with Secularism in most cases and an anti-Christian bias in a good many cases.

The Catholic Church, to the contrary, has always taught the following truth: Just as the union of the body and soul of any given individual is necessary for the sustenance of life, likewise, the collaboration between Church and State is necessary for a nation's longevity. This truth is at the heart of whether the United States of America will recover from what seems to be a decline. No doubt, the separation between Church and State as it is currently conceived is a fatal theory of separation as Pope Leo XIII warned in 1888. More on that below.


First Amendment and Separation:

The First Amendment reads as such: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The fact is that both the wording and the modern usage of “separation of Church and State” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The prohibition of the Federal government to “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a far cry from separating and excluding the Christian religion from the State. After all, at least 6 States of the original 13 States of the Union had government sponsored churches up to 1830.

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, Roy Moore wrote a compelling article called, Putting God Back into the Public Square in August of 1999. In it he provided at least five historical precedents which effectively refuted the secular idea that the First Amendment requires the exclusion of religion from the public square:

• Every president of the United States (with only one possible exception) has been administered the oath of office with his hand on the Bible, ending with the words “so help me God.”

• The Supreme Court begins every proceeding with the ringing proclamation, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

• Throughout our history, the executive and legislative branches have decreed national days of fasting and prayer.

• Public offices and public schools close in observance of religious holidays.

• United States currency bears our national motto, “In God We Trust.”


Catholicism on Separation:

What is the longstanding Catholic teaching on the separation of the Church and State? It might scandalize Catholics who subscribe to Secular-liberal principles (and even orthodox Catholics for that matter) that as recent as 1862, Pope Pius IX denounced the following proposition: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” One might be tempted to chalk this up to some kind of an anomaly; that is, an isolated incident. But Pope Leo XIII confirmed twenty-six years later in his encyclical, On the Nature of Human Liberty, that the separation between Church and State is a “fatal theory.”

State neutrality with regard to Christianity as mandated by the Constitution is not only legal fiction, but it finds no sanction in Catholic doctrine; especially as it pertains to the two thousand years of papal writings. I would even argue that the statements of Pope Pius IX and Leo XIII represent the vast majority of the popes, Church Fathers and General Councils as it pertains to the relationship between Church and State.


Effects of Separation:

The fruits of a long held secular understanding of the separation between Church and State are before us. The worries and concerns over jobs and the economy among the voters and the growing worries by Catholic bishops over religious liberty can be traced to banishment of the Christian religion from our public institutions. As Tocqueville said, religion is the guarantor of morality, and morality, in turn, is the guarantor of freedom. Is it any wonder that the free market has come under assault in recent years? Freedom, even as it applies to the economy, is simply unintelligible without Christianity. But throughout world history, freedom has been the exception, not the rule. It is precarious and for that reason it requires discipline and prudence among the citizenry. However, with all the focus on jobs and the economy- a legitimate concern, no doubt -I am afraid that the public is missing the bigger picture.

And the question of Church and State goes to the heart of the matter: Does God have a role in our public institutions? The answer to this question, in itself, holds the key to the future of America.


Framers and Catholic Teaching:

Allow me to propose that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the Catholic Church’s teaching on separation of Church and State bear much resemblance. Suffice it to say there are differences. Nevertheless, the theological principles which underscore the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution also have been articulated by Popes, Bishops and Councils of the Church long before the American Revolution.

One excellent source representing the Catholic position on Church and State matters is a treatise St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote in the seventeenth century entitled, On Civil Government. Not only is this treatise a reliable summary of Catholic doctrine pertaining to the purpose of the State, but it can be argued that St. Bellarmine’s writings had influence on the Framers of the Constitution such as Thomas Jefferson (see link at the bottom of the blog). Below, are four basic principles from the treatise on On Civil Government which provides us a Catholic (and American) understanding of the State:

• Human nature was created by God in such as way as to require civil authority its well-being, order and protection. As such, the authority of the State originates from the wise counsel of God. Human beings cannot co-exist without these higher principles of civil authority.

• Although civil authority finds its origin in God, it is not directly communicated to any one particular individual as we find when a Bishop or priest is ordained; in the latter case, the sacramental grace of Holy Orders is communicated to particular individuals directly from the “hands of God.”

• Rather, the authority of the State resides in human nature, that is, in the people because it is for them that this authority exists to begin with.

• Since the people or the citizens of a nation are the purpose or end for which civil authority is ordained, it follows that it is the people’s prerogative to choose not only the form of government they see fit but the system through which their leaders are determined or chosen.


Understanding Civil Government:

Now, from this Catholic perspective, if the State exists for the citizen then the citizen can be also considered to be the customer of the State. A customer chooses what kind of services it wishes to receive and from whom it wishes to receive it. According to Catholic political theology, people have the inherent right to choose what form of government they wish to be subject to. Furthermore, depending how they want to be ruled, they also have the right to elect who political rulers.

By virtue of this right of choice, the citizen can elect to create a government which invokes God and one that observes the principles of his Catholic Faith. After all, he is the customer of the State and the very purpose of the State is to serve his needs. Just as important, every man has spiritual needs that cannot be compartmentalized apart from his civic life. If the authority of the State comes from God- which the Catholic Church affirms that it does -then like the individual, the State is obligated to pay homage to its Creator. Yes, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God. What is commonly overlooked, however, is that Caesar belongs to God too!

Human nature is composed of both body and soul. And in the end, the common good of society must be of a material and spiritual nature. The Catholic Church does hold to a “kind of separation” of Church and State in that they are distinct from one another. However, these two entities, like the body and soul, are to collaborate and interact with each other so that the common good of society may be brought about. As Pope Leo XIII said, “[A]lthough the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet.” Nevertheless, the proposition that there should be a radical separation between these two institutions is what the same pope referred to as a "fatal theory." Like the total separation between body and soul for an individual, a radical dichotomy between Church and State leads to the death of the commonwealth as well.


Man not Created for the State:

Now, if civil authority is a mere invention of man without any inherent God-given purpose, then it can be defined by the powerful or the rich as they see fit. Instead of the authority of the State having the welfare of its citizens as its goal, the State can turn into an end in itself. Indeed, the purpose of government can be defined to mean that the people exist for the State; that the multitude ought to serve the interests of the few. As Pius XI said, “There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system.”

This perversion of power- so common in world history -explains why the twentieth-century was riddled with atheistic or Communistic dictators who killed more of its own people than all the wars put together during that same century. In the absence of God then, the State becomes supreme and rules according to its own whim. Cardinal James Gibbons, in his pastoral letter to the US Bishops in 1919, issued the following warning about the State taking the place of God:

“It lies in the very nature of man that something must be supreme, something must take the place of the divine when this has been excluded; and this substitute for God, according to a predominant philosophy, is the State. Possessed of unlimited power to establish rights and impose obligations, the State becomes the sovereign ruler in human affairs.”


The Check and Balance:

From this state of affairs, joblessness, a down trodden economy, and serfdom are but the sad result. This is where the Catholic Church has historically played a vital role. In centuries past, she has mediated between the State and the citizen; reminding the State it is a servant to the citizen and reminding the citizen that it owes both loyalty and obedience to civil authority for the common good. The Church has also assumed a prophetic role in holding the State accountable; accountable to the divine and natural law. Indeed, in ages past she was the “check and balance” against the overreaching arm of the State. With this, St. Thomas Aquinas’ saying is wonderfully fulfilled: A government which governs least, governs best. But a government can only govern least if the laws of God are daily impressed upon it.

The following question is indeed important: "Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State?" If the passage, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" continues to be interpreted to mean that the Christian religion has no place in public education and in State institutions, then the State will possess unlimited power and will cease to see itself as the servant of its citizens. From this, who can doubt that the Catholic Church in America will at least lose some of her religious liberties? Indeed, her ministries will be closely monitored by the State and her mission to preach the fullness of the Gospel will be hindered.

Hemmed in From All Sides: Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Gospel Reading for November 17th, 2011
Lk 19:41-44

As Jesus drew near Jerusalem,
he saw the city and wept over it, saying,
"If this day you only knew what makes for peace? but now it is hidden from your eyes.
For the days are coming upon you
when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides. They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
________________________________________________________________________________

In the 70 A.D., forty years after these fateful words uttered by our Lord, Jerusalem fell to the Roman army, led by the Roman General Titus. An insurrection by Jewish Zealots (nationalists) broke out in 66 A.D., several months before Jerusalem was leveled to the ground. About a hundred years before, the Roman Empire had already annexed the land of Judea (part of the greater Palestine region)where the city of David was located. The Jews wanted their land back; they wanted to govern themselves; and they wanted the Romans out! Originally, their campaign to oust the Roman administration was successful. However, in 70 A.D. the Zealots became acquainted with the full might of the Roman army. The results were devastating. The Roman army not only crushed this revolt but they also surrounded the city of Jerusalem, preventing any food from entering into the city. As such, hundreds of thousands of Jews starved to death. Many people resorted to cannibalism.

What was even more pivotal was that the Jewish Temple, the second one to be built since the days of King Solomon, was burned to the ground. This would change the religion of Judaism to this day. With the Temple gone, there could be no more sacrifices; and without any sacrifices there can be no priesthood. Hence, the emphasis in worship went from the Jewish Temple to the Synagogue; from the ritual of sacrifice and offerings to the the reading of the Torah; and from the altar to the pulpit. As a side note, when Christians left the Catholic Church during the Reformation, a similar transition took place. Protestant Christianity, in large part, left the altar behind and placed exclusive emphasis on the Word of God at the pulpit; this, much like the Jews in the post-Temple era.

In any case, it was reported in the early years of the Church that there was not a single Christian killed when Jerusalem was besieged. From tradition we learn that the followers of Christ fled to a town named Pella. Evidently, much like the star on Christmas night that led the Magi to the baby Jesus, there were signs in the sky which alerted Christians to get out!

Here is the irony of the story. Jesus Christ, as predicted by the Old Testament prophets, came to inaugurate a spiritual kingdom, known as the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. The first-century Jews had interpreted these passages through a political lens. In other words, they had been trained to look for a political Messiah to liberate them from Roman domination. But Jesus did not come to offer political solutions as such, nor did he have political power. As the prophet Isaiah wrote about him 700 years prior to his coming, "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him." On this account, he was rejected by his own people. Christ simply did not fit the profile. As such, he needed to go!

But here is my point I wish to draw your attention to: The preaching of the Gospel and the Revolution of the Cross would end up conquering Rome, not by committing acts of violence but by enduring them with the blood of martyrs. To make a long story short, in 313 A.D., after years of persecution, Christianity was legalized and then in 382 A.D. it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It should be pointed out that the Jewish Zealots had never come close to accomplishing what Christianity accomplished. Sadly, the Jewish people were wanderers with no homeland from 70 A.D. to 1948 A.D.

It really is true that to seek the kingdom of God first everything else will be given to you. And yet, many within our Church look to the State for the answers or they pursue political solutions in response to our daily problems. Within our own ranks, unfortunately, there are some who search for that political Messiah. But like our Lord, we have to communicated that the only sure foundation is a solid spiritual foundation. Everything else proceeds from this!

America does not have to learn the hard way like Jerusalem did in 70 A.D. The vulnerability of our political and economic climate, and the uncertainty it brings, exists because spiritual truths are not our highest priority.

Again, to quote Fulton Sheen: "If a time ever comes when the religious Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have to suffer under a totalitarian state denying them the right to worship God according to the light of their conscience, it will be because for years they thought it no difference what kind of people represented them in Congress, and because they never opposed the materialistic lie with spiritual truth."

Reformers and Prophets: For the Reform of the Reform

“Because zeal for your house has consumed me.”

-Psalm 69:10


Preface:

This post is dedicated to every bishop who toils to reform his diocese but faces opposition and obstacles; to every pastor who endeavors to set his parish on fire with the love of Christ but meets with resistance and even rejection; to every teacher who hands down moral truths to a student body marked by apathy and skepticism; and finally this post is dedicated to discouraged parents who compete against many secular forces in our culture in rearing their children.

There were many prophets and reformers who seemed to have struggled in vain to renew their religious order, parish or diocese against the status quo. They were beset with the temptation that all toil and sacrifice was in vain. But God works through weakness. That is why he will anoint our efforts with success just when all seems lost. To this effect, the prophet Isaiah said, “Though I thought I had toiled in vain, and for nothing, uselessly, spent my strength, yet my reward is with the LORD, my recompense is with my God.”

And for everyone who is willing to sacrifice himself to a righteous and just cause, the Lord says, “See, I have refined you like silver, tested you in the furnace of affliction.” That’s right! The struggles, sacrifice and suffering required in renewing families, institutions, nations and the Church herself is the very means through which Christ sanctifies and builds-up his disciples.


Benedict's Reform of the Reform:

Pope Benedict XVI coined the term, “The Reform of the Reform.” Sometimes the solution to problems needs refining and realignment. On the eve of the Sexual Revolution of the late 1960’s, the Holy Spirit inspired the Second Vatican Council to convene from 1962 to1965. From the Council came a return to the simplicity of Gospel truths so effectively communicated by the Apostles and Church Fathers. Yet in the midst of applying these principles of renewal, the Church and her institutions were rocked by the rapid cultural changes that were taking place in society. So taken back by the abrupt changes in society and the confusion it caused, even within the Church, Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said that the city of man was beginning to strike terror in their hearts! Indeed, Mass attendance, priestly and religious vocations plummeted. One can even proffer that what was gained by the Catholic Church doubling in size between 1940 and 1960, was lost between 1970 and 1990.

The transition from the old way of doing things to new ways made the Church vulnerable to the influence of secularism and to many misinterpretations about the transition itself. What the Church was left with in many of her venues was a watered-down Faith which struggled to attract new converts and form cradle Catholics. This, of course, had to change. And to be sure, after the dust had settled it was clear that the fruits of the Second Vatican Council had not been fully applied.

It was then that then-Cardinal Ratzinger came up with, “The Reform of the Reform.” But fifty years is a long time. People- clergy and laity alike –got used to the new ways of how the affairs of the Church were being carried out. Going back to the founding principles, that is, from the era of the Apostles and the Church Fathers, and using them to give new life to the Church, is not only a difficult task but it comes at a high price. In years past, pressing forward amid opposition, resistance and misunderstanding was the cause of many tears shed by prophets and holy reformers.


Tears of a Pope: A Thousand Years Ago

Take, for instance, Pope St. Gregory VII. He was a great reformer of the Church a thousand years ago (1073 A.D.). In order that the fruits of the vineyard might grow more abundantly, this holy pope realized that the weeds had to be pulled out by the root. The weeds, just to name of few, were State officials controlling the elections of popes and bishops, simony (the selling of offices) and more specifically, sexual abuse within the priesthood. This latter vice had reached epidemic proportions in his day. And to be sure, the purification of the Church, he found out, was a painful but necessary process.

On January 22nd, in the year 1075 A.D., he wrote a letter to St. Hugo, Abbot of Cluny, expressing his anxiety and toil that was daily afflicting him in his role as the Head of the Catholic Church. He writes, “If it were possible, I should greatly desire you to understand fully what anxiety oppresses me, what toil renewed day by day wearies and disturbs me by its increasing burden, so that your brotherly sympathy might incline you toward me and cause you to pour out your heart in flood of tears before God, that Jesus, the man of poverty, through whom all things were made and who is ruler over all, might stretch forth his hand and deliver me from my misery with his wonted mercy.”

The Holy Father continues in his lament: “Often I have besought him, according to his word, that he would either take me out of this life or show favor to our common mother [the Church] through my service. Yet up to the present time he has not delivered me from my great suffering nor has my life been of value, as I had hoped, to that mother in whose chains he had bound me.” Indeed, a heavy Cross was laid upon the shoulders of St. Gregory VII; sometimes, as is evident from his letter, his trials overwhelmed him.


The Burden of Reformers:

Tears had streamed down the cheeks of many prophets and reformers as they looked upon God’s people in disarray. In order to reform and make things better, in any given situation, whether it be the Catholic Church or even one’s nation, the prophet must be willing to shed tears, to experience loneliness and to make himself vulnerable to hate. Quite often, in the bible and in the lives of the Saints, such adversity was the very instrument our Lord used to bring about something new, something better from something bad. Every prophet or reformer had his or her Good Friday; not just once, but many times throughout a life time. And it is the willingness on the part of the Christian, with the motive of glorifying God and saving souls first and foremost, which is that pleasing aroma to the Lord; but not only to the Lord but to those that are seeking him. As. St. Paul said, “For we are the aroma of Christ for God among those who are being saved...” (II Cor. 2:15-16)

History shows that prophets and reformers share common characteristics and experiences. One such characteristic was that they were twice-born, that is, born again to a new set of convictions and values. But while these values were new to their generation, they were nonetheless rooted in tradition. Quite often such a disposition was nurtured in monasteries or at least where the discipline of prayer and penance were to be found. From this background, holy men and women were better prepared to carry out their mission without being tainted by human applause or intimidated by the threat of persecution. Insisting on these values and principles, they were a blessing to some people and a source of consternation to others. There was no getting around that fact! But let there be no doubt, those who winced from such a challenge failed to reform.


The Book: True and False Reform

Originally published in 1950, the book “True and False Reform in the Church” by the Dominican theologian, Yves Congar, identified some traits of those reformers who made a difference. If you are a cleric, teacher or parent who is willing to change things for the better but face what seems to be insurmountable odds, perhaps these considerations will be helpful.

In Chapter 3, entitled "Prophets and Reformers," it says the following: “So that the sap of Christianity can still thrust its shoots through the crust of history, the Holy Spirit, watching over the Church, raises up servants whose fidelity goes beyond conformity to the status quo.” How true! When we come across a prophet like Jeremiah or Ezekiel or Saints such as St. Gregory VII, we find that they had risen above their social or even religious milieu. Quite often, their convictions differed greatly from their peers. As such, they were misunderstood and even slandered. Alone they stood with God. Nevertheless, their core convictions remained.

Unfortunately, every generation has its blind spots. Throughout history there is a human tendency in each era to emphasize certain truths at the expense of other truths. But the messengers of God refused to be locked into a box of fads, trends or partial truths. In fact, Congar said, “Religious prophets are those who are detached and thus able to bear witness to the totality of the truth over against partial truths, to integral truth over against accommodations.” They recognized that the Holy Spirit speaks through his Church in every century. And in every century the voice of God had something unique to offer. This, to be sure, liberates them from the narrowness that the present generation holds as absolutes.

An openness to this divine voice, not just through personal inspirations which may visit the soul in the moment, but through the utterances of Prophets and Saints of old, leads to an epiphany or awakening for God's servant. “Some people have experienced a kind of revelation, a new birth; they have discovered a new personal set of values and a kind of change have come over their lives.” They see, with more clarity, both the good and bad habits of their contemporaries. With this realization, they set out to fulfill their calling with the purpose of glorifying God. Being unhindered from conventional practices and limitations, their anointed work becomes an occasion of reform and renewal.

Invariably, however, there are obstacles and opponents to any holy campaign. As Yves Congar put it, “There are those who simply live according to the expectations and habits of their social group. They maintain the established ways of the milieu." Then he adds this: "There are lazy believers in the Church- clerics and laity alike –who do not believe in anything by themselves but remain sprawled out in the barn where they have been cooped up in front of a manger full of convenient beliefs that they only have to take and chew on.” That's right! In every age there are the "establishment types" who do certain things simply because that is the way things have always been done. They obediently receive ready-made-opinions from their peers as a soldier receives orders from his commander.

Indeed, ineffective reformers tended to be bound to the structures of the system and conventional practices. All too often they refused to go back to the beginning; back to the founding principles which inspired greatness.


Two of the Greatest Reformers:

Every so often the Catholic Church, much like an individual Christian, needs renewal. As the letter by Pope St. Gregory VII indicated, he felt overwhelmed by the troubling circumstances of his day. But this was God’s way of working through his weakness. With that said, reform not only comes with tears, it can also be inspired by a righteous indignation or anger. The cleansing of the Jewish Temple by our Lord is one such incident. Another incident is by a contemporary of St. Gregory VII by the name of St. Peter Damien, a cardinal of the Church.

In response to the sexual abuse within the Church and the lack of resolve from his brother bishops, St. Peter Damien delivered to them a fiery message. This, no doubt, would shock today’s Catholic sensibilities. He said, “Listen, you do-nothing superiors of clerics and priests! Listen, and even though you feel sure of yourselves, tremble at the thought that you are the partners in the guilt of others; those, I mean, who wink at the sins of their subjects that need correction and who by ill-considered silence allow them license to sin. Listen, I say, and be shrewd enough to understand that all of you alike are deserving of death, that is, not only do such things, but also they who approve of those who practice them.”

Strong words! But this shouldn't surprise us if we are familiar with the Gospels. There are many times when our Lord deviated from etiquette and conventional diplomacy. In the Gospel of John, for instance, he was engaged in many confrontations with the Pharisees and many of his critics. On one occasion he said to them, "You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world. That is why I told you that you will die in your sins." Yet, further on he makes the following accusation: "You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires." And again, "If I should say that I do not know him [God], I would be like you a liar." Again, strong words! But this cannot be anything but divine love in action coming from our Savior. What is so often missing from today's narrative in the Church is that divine love includes, in addition to tears, righteous indignation.

And as for Pope St. Gregory VII, he excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV for being obstinate and for meddling into the most important affairs of the Church- the election of bishops. As the holy pontiff anticipated, however, this would eventually lead to him being run out of Rome into permanent exile. Indeed, he died outside of the Eternal City. His last words were: “I loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore, I die in exile.”


Are You Willing to Pay the Price?

There is something special about the reformers and prophets who give off the aroma of Christ. But as Pope St. Gregory VII and St. Peter Damien discovered, if we are willing to give off the aroma of Christ for those who are being saved, we have to be willing to be an “odor of death for those who are perishing.” (II Corinthians 2:15-16) To snuff out the odor of death so as not to offend is to extinguish the aroma of Christ that saves. The two must go hand in hand or the Gospel will not take hold!

But even the best of reformers and prophets are human. With the odor of death and the offense it naturally provokes among people, comes, as we have seen, loneliness and suffering. So often, our Lord seems to push his servants to the brink; even to the brink of despair. With each push he seems to ask, "Do you consent? Are you still willing to pay the price?" And with each answer in the affirmative, tears sometimes flow. With the prophet Isaiah, they may have been tempted to say, "I thought I had toiled in vain, and for nothing, uselessly, spent my strength." Still, they recall that God's generosity is never outdone. Oh yes! The reward is so much greater than the sacrifice. With a sigh they could say, "Yet my reward is with the LORD, my recompense is with my God."

It must be added that due to the sacrifices of St. Gregory VII, St. Peter Damien and others like them, the Mystical Body of Christ underwent renewal and as such, was put on a better course. Because many of the abuses within the Church were corrected, Catholics- both clergy and laity -were in a better position to attract more souls to Christ. This is in no small measure was due to the Holy Spirit who, watching over the Church, raised up servants whose fidelity went beyond conformity to the status quo.

There may be a turning point in our lives when a costly sacrifice is needed. Quite often, such sacrifices are absolutely necessary to renew a parish, school, religious order, diocese or even the Church at large. At a moment of crisis the Lord may ask us the following question: "Do you consent?" That is, "Are you willing to pay the price?" And to the extent we say, "Lord, may it be done to me according to your word," we give him the permission to act through us in ways that will exceed our expectations. This is how prophets are made! This is how true reform begins…with sacrifice and tears!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Note: The picture above is a statue of Pope St. Pius V (1565-71), who,like his predecessor, Pope St. Leo IX, five hundred years before, showed up at his papal inauguration in bare feet. With such an austere appearance, both men signaled that they meant business! Indeed, during a time when the Church needed reform their symbolic gesture was followed by decisive action; action that included slashing unnecessary expenditures, bureaucracy and favors heaped upon relatives. This, they did, with principally one aim: To glorify God with a holy indifference to human approval!

The Franciscan Voting Guide to the 2012 Elections

What does St. Francis of Assisi have to do with voting in the United States of America? Or to ask the question another way: What does virtue have to do with elections?

In the last two decades you might have heard the saying, "It's the economy stupid!" Indeed, even to this day if the economy does not do well, the President in office does not fare well in the polls. And to a certain extent, that should be a standard- but not the standard -by which we measure the success of our elected officials. Economic growth and low unemployment rates is the highest of priorities to the voter. No doubt, this gauge has a lot to do with how Americans look at results in the arena of politics.

But what about the qualifications they look for in a President or Congressman? It seems to me that political commentators and operatives put a high premium on intelligence and charisma. To be sure, these credentials prove quite useful in political debates, speeches and decision making. Fine and good. However, Americans have found out the hard way how empty and illusory this can be. The erosion of liberty and economic distress have not been abated by politicians who have been noted for their intelligence and charisma. With that said, there needs to be something more. As the saying goes, American can never be great if Americans are not good. This applies to our politicians as well.

This brings us to a snippet of Franciscan wisdom. In his "Admonition to the Brethren," St. Francis of Assisi wrote that learned men who pursue knowledge without, at the same time, furthering virtue "will find their hands empty in the day of tribulation." He goes on to say that he would rather his brothers be strengthened in virtue, that when the day of trial comes, they may have the Lord with them in their anguish; for a time of tribulation will come, when their books will be thrown away as useless. In other words, character and virtue are even more important than intelligence. In fact, a high degree of intelligence can be a handicap. Certainly, this doesn't have to be the case but it often is. Perhaps this is why our Lord chose fishermen as Apostles and not scholars.

We should keep in mind that intelligence without virtue in a time of crisis quite often leads to a paralysis of will. Whether it be the President of the United States, a Senator or a Congressman, there will come a critical time in our nation's future when intelligence or charisma alone will not be sufficient in warding off danger. Good leadership requires the willingness to endure short-term sacrifices in order that a long-term good may result. But if virtue is lacking in our leaders then political pressures and opinion polls could very well serve as a diversion from doing what needs to be done. We do not want them to have empty hands when tribulation comes.

So, you see, the wisdom of a Saint has a lot to do with politics. A virtuous man makes for a good friar and a good politician. Indeed, Franciscan wisdom can be a guide to the 2012 elections.

The Sacrifice of a Soldier & the Pain of War

“A Christian does not look on war in the same way as one who lives by the spirit of the world…The unbeliever can explain the tormentor in war, but he cannot explain the sacrifice of the soldier or the martyr. The believer in God can explain both.”

Fulton Sheen, 1940 Address

“The great French Lacordaire once said the vocation of a soldier is next in dignity to the priesthood, not only because it commissioned him to defend justice on the field of battle and order on the field of peace, but also because it called him to the spirit and intention of sacrifice.”

Fulton Sheen, Wartime Prayer Book




Address delivered on December 29, 1940, by Msgr. Fulton Sheen


A Christian does not look on war in the same way as one who lives by the spirit of the world. His point of view is different in two respects: First, he has a set of basic principles grounded on the Eternal Law of God by which he judges a given situation or problem, as distinguished from those who change their principles to suit a situation or who are guided solely by emotion; second, he believes in a Divine Purpose in history, as distinguished from those who feel the cosmos is the plaything of chance.

There are some who believe in God who will go part way with a Christian belief that a beneficent Providence presides over the universe. They would admit this Providence in the trivialities of life and might even quote the words of our Lord, "Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them” (Matthew 6:26). But in practice they forget that the same Divine Providence is even more solicitous for men: ”Are not you of much more value than they?" "And if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe: how much more you, O ye of little faith” (Matthew 6:30). To such people God is behind the beautiful things of life like the song of a bird and the innocence of a lily; but storms and disasters, which even insurance agents call an "act of God," are considered by moderns as outside Providence or even as the defeat of Providence.

This exclusion of Divinity from the darker aspects of life the true believers in God refuse to accept. Precisely because we do believe that God’s purposes extend even to the fall of nations and the momentary defeat of the good, we are made the object of reproach if not of ridicule in times of war. As nation rises against nation, and as the innocent suffer on all sides we are asked: "Where is your God now?"

That question has been asked in mockery at all periods of adversity. Of old, the prophet Joel pictured the Jewish priests on the one hand praying to God, and the Gentiles, on the other, sneering at their faith. "Between the porch and the altar, the priests the Lord’s ministers shall weep and shall say: Spare, O Lord, spare thy people: and give not thy inheritance to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them. Why should they say among the nations: Where is their God” (Joel 2:17). And before Joel, King David prayed to be saved from the reproach of unbelievers: ”Help us, O God, our saviour: and for the glory of thy name, O Lord, deliver us: and forgive us our sins for thy name’s sake: Lest they should say among the Gentiles: Where is their God?” (Psalm 78:9-10). "Not to us, O Lord, not to us: but to thy name give glory. For thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake: lest the Gentiles should say: Where is their God?” (Psalm 113:1-2).

The taunts of the Gentiles against the Jews who, in Old Testament times, kept their faith in God amidst chaos and defeat, is re-echoed today by atheists, humanists, pagans, and diluted Christians, who at the return of barbarism and the violation of justice, turn to us and sneer as of old: "Where is your God now?" H. G. Wells is their spokesman as he writes: "If I thought there was an omnipotent God who looked down on battles and deaths and all the waste and horror of this war – able to prevent things – doing this to amuse himself, I would spit in his empty face."

To those who are of the spirit of Wells, who deny Providence because sins no longer go unpunished, or because the myth of progress has been exploded, I now address myself. You say: "If there is a God, why does He permit this war?" I should say, for exactly the same reason God allows you to cut your fingers if you wantonly clutch at a razor. Your bleeding fingers are the red witness to your rebellion against the laws of reason, for reason should have told you the razor would cut. Multiply that rebellion against the Divine Reason by millions and you have this war.

But you ask: "Thy does God not stop this war?" Who started this war anyway? Why does God not stop your headache when you over-drink? Why does God not suspend you in mid-air if you throw yourself from the top of the Empire State building? You want God to let you go on violating His laws, but to stop visiting upon you the consequences of your violations. You want God to let you break your promise to love someone until death do you part, but to stop Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini from breaking their promises to live in peace with Albania, Finland, or Austria. Is our government indifferent to the violation of law? Shall we expect God to be indifferent to His laws? You want to put your hand over fire and not be burned ? You want to sow cockle and reap wheat? You want men to forget the Fatherhood of God, and then blame God because they do not act like brothers? If we want to find out who started this war, let us not go to God, but to our consciences, for all nations, in varying degrees, are guilty – for all of us have abandoned God.

As Seneca once told Lucilius: ”No wonder there is so much sickness. Look at all the cooks!” In like manner, man may cook up his own evil; this war may well be the broth of our own making, made from the bitter herbs of our alienation from Divinity.

"Well, why does God not work a miracle and stop the war?” It is indeed curious that you who never before believed in a miracle, not even the Resurrection of the Son of God from the dead, now ask for a miracle! Do you who boasted a few years ago of the omnipotence of science, now want your science to be nullified by a miracle destroying all the laws of nature, so that gunpowder will not explode, ships will not sink, bombs will not fall, and cannons will not shoot? Do you who boasted of freedom as the right to do whatever you please, now want God to take your freedom away? You reproach Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini for destroying personality by uprooting freedom. Do you want God to do the same? That is what He would be doing if He stopped this war in the way you want it stopped. God gave you gas, oil, iron - and now, because those things are used by ungrateful men to destroy one another, you blame God for not miraculously subverting the very uses to which man freely put them. And if the miracle were worked and God stopped this war, what would you do? Go on living as you were before? Would America in gratitude to God break off its relations with anti-God governments like Russia and Germany? Would we in return for the miracle raise our children in the next generation in the love of Him who so preserves us? Would we restore the sanctity of marriage to our national life? The kind of miracle you ask would not save us. Only our conversion to God by prayer and penance can do that - and that would be the real miracle.

"Why does not God punish the Nazis and Fascists and Communists?” This is like the request John made of Our Lord, to "Rain down fire from heaven upon the Samaritans.” God will not destroy them for two reasons: First, all the evil is not in them, and all the goodness is not in us - the cockle was not sown on the right side of the field and the wheat on the left, but together; second, the final adjustments of Divine Justice take place not in time, but at its end. "Suffer both (the wheat and the cockle) to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn” (Matthew 13:30).

Of those who ask "Where is God now?" may I ask: Where are your gods now? Where is your god of science? Your god of progress? Your god of man? In them you trusted, but not in the true God of Justice and Mercy. Did you ever think of God before this war started? Did you just begin to think of Him because you wanted someone to blame? Did you, in the days when He blessed you with prosperity, ever thank Him? Did you ever pray to Him? Did you ever acknowledge your dependence on His sovereign Power? Do you think of Him now only because your heart aches? And do you blame Him now for the heartache that comes naturally because, in better days, you were not clean of heart? But even though you think of God now He will not reject you: "If you turn to the Lord with all your heart, put away the strange gods from among you . . . and he will deliver you . . . ” (1 Kings 7:3).

Finally, you ask: "Why does not your Church do something about the war?" Well, why did you not pay attention to the red light before the auto struck you? Did you accept Leo XIII’s warning over fifty years ago, about Liberalism leading to collectivism and socialism? Did you not do everything you could to prevent the Church’s influence, and now complain because it is not more influential? Did you not try to keep the Church weak by saying religion was for the individual, not for society? Now you blame the Church because it has no control over society. When you say, Now is the Church’s opportunity, you really mean, Let the Church clean up the dirty mess which our godless existence has brought us so that we can go back to our godless living once again. This is not the Church’s opportunity to do something: It is yours!

The same God who permitted nations to be visited with their iniquities, who suffered others to be invaded for their needful reparation, is still the Lord of the Universe, the King of Kings. His wisdom transcends our understanding more than music transcends the sense knowledge of a mouse hidden in a piano. What makes us rise up against God in misfortune is our pride. For the last two decades in our secular education and in our press we have seen the familiar theme: "I cannot accept a God who . . . ” At the close of the last war one professor in a commencement address in a well-known theological school gave fourteen points upon which God would be acceptable to a democracy. If this insane blasphemy became generalized we should soon have the wood telling the carpenter the fourteen conditions upon which it would become a door. Would God mean anything if He were our creation? Is a mother a mother if she is born of us? I am not going to expose the fallacy of such pride, except to express a fear that such blasphemy on the part of some of our educators may - if it becomes common in our national life - draw upon us a humiliation in which God will save us in His way, rather than ours.

Our Declaration of Independence affirms that this country trusts in God. Let us Americans take it literally and never relinquish an absolute trust in the Providence of God even in adversity, sorrow, depression, catastrophe, and war. With Job we cry out: "Although he should kill me, I will trust in him: but yet I will reprove my ways in his sight” (Job 13:15). Starting from this basic trust in God, certain conclusions follow:

We will not start with the assumption that we are innocent, and therefore assert that all our misfortune is undeserved.

Henceforth, instead of asking, "On whose side is God?" we shall look into our own souls and say: ”On whose side are we?"

We shall constantly keep before our minds that the greatest tragedy of war is not economic loss or physical suffering but acquiescence in evil: ”And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

The unbeliever can explain the tormentor in war, but he cannot explain the sacrifice of the soldier or the martyr. The believer in God can explain both. Suffering in all forms is, for the Christian, a mystery not a problem. To get a square peg into a round hole is a problem because one fact does not fit the other fact. Suffering is not like that. It fulfills a purpose; even sin may be a "happy fault” if it brings Redemption.

Given the spectacle of the Son of God Incarnate stretched on a Cross through the corporate evil of men, and yet conquering their hate and sin by rising to a new life and pouring out forgiveness and pardon — I say, given that vision on Calvary, suffering and war and evil can be faced without losing hope either in humanity or in God. It was the prosperous Solomon who complained of the emptiness of life, not the suffering Job. The Cross could once more marry us to God.

Thus we are brought back to the general theme of this series of broadcasts: America must return to God humbly and penitently, f or if we forsake God, God will forsake us. He is not only the God of Mercy, but the God of Justice, and though He suffers some to sneer, "Where is your God now?", He in His turn will answer, "Where are their gods, in whom they trusted . . . let them arise and help you” (Deut. 32:37-28). We will be under Providence either by free response to His love or by submission to His Justice.

_________________________________________________________________________________

-This address was published courtesy of fultonsheen.com. A heartfelt thanks to all of our U.S. veterans from Sky View!

Three Weeks to Live

St. John Bosco, a 19th century priest who took in and cared for orphan boys, one day walked up to three of his boys while they were playing soccer. He stopped to engage them in small talk. But then he asked them a question: “What would you do if you were informed right now that you had three weeks to live? What would be the first thing you would do and how would you spend that time?”

The first boy said, “I would go immediately to the chapel and spend the remaining three weeks praying and repenting.” The second boy said he would do the same. The third boy, however, said he would continue playing soccer. Interestingly enough, the third boy did die at a young age and ended up being canonized a Saint. His name was St. Dominic Savio.

The point of the story is that the road to heaven runs right through the soccer field. This is what St. Dominic’s point in saying he would continue playing soccer. No doubt, the young Saint valued the presence of God in the sanctuary, no doubt he frequented the Sacraments and used to his advantage many of the devotions the Church had to offer. Still, he saw God in the soccer field. For St. Dominic Savio, his whole life, including recreational activities, was a spiritual offering to God.

Seeing everywhere the presence of God is the key to sanctity. He is in the office, on the football field, in restaurants, in the streets, in prisons and at social events. And when we daily acknowledge this truth and act accordingly, our daily circumstances and the environment in which they occur, pave the way to heaven. As such, if it should ever happen that we be notified that death is imminent, we, as St. Dominic, could very well go on living life as normal.