Monday, November 07, 2005
Isn't this called Modernism?
Reading this report at Pontifications, I was struck by this account, by Rev. Robert Sanders, an Episcopal priest, of the problem in the Episcopal Church (I am sure he would agree it is a problem in many other places as well--and I will say, it shows up in the Catholic Church, too):
I first became aware that something was wrong with the Episcopal Church when I went to seminary in 1973. Some of my professors taught a theology and a way of interpreting Scripture that denied the miraculous, including the fact that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. I could see at once that this teaching would seriously undermine the power of the gospel. I decided to get to the bottom of it and in 1979 went to graduate school and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology. While in graduate school, I discovered that a powerful false teaching had invaded the churches since the early 1800’s. Only in recent decades has it made its way into the Episcopal Church.
This false teaching does not deny the authority of Scripture, or Creeds, or Prayer Book. Rather its partisans revise them from a perspective alien to the Christian faith. Among other things a number of revisionists deny the miraculous, including the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Others accept the miraculous, but conceive of God in mystical categories and thereby deny God the Word as the concrete, objective, verbal, and eternal revelation of God. ...
(snip)
I was only one of a number of writers who clearly documented the false teaching, heresy, and apostasy found among a goodly number of priests, bishops, and seminary professors within the Episcopal Church. At the same time, I attempted to settle my differences with the revisionists....
(snip)
At no point, ever, did I have any sustained engagement with those who disagreed with me. They simply did not want to talk. They were quite apt at producing trivial arguments, but once they encountered someone who could make sense of Scripture, tradition, and have reasoning powers, they simply walked away.
All my individual efforts at resolving these differences failed. Finally, about the year 2001, it became clear to me that one aspect of revisionist teaching is that language, logic, Scripture, words, doctrine, are not persuasive. Revisionists tend to believe that God is a mystical unknown and that language and doctrine are secondary. One of my most important analyses of this understanding was eventually published in Christianity Today.
The results of that insight, that doctrine and language are secondary, ultimately means that “dialogue” is impossible with revisionists. All we can do with them is share feelings and opinions. At that point I realized that my differences with revisionists could not be resolved. We live in two completely different worlds, theoretically and practically. (Emphasis added.)
I first became aware that something was wrong with the Episcopal Church when I went to seminary in 1973. Some of my professors taught a theology and a way of interpreting Scripture that denied the miraculous, including the fact that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. I could see at once that this teaching would seriously undermine the power of the gospel. I decided to get to the bottom of it and in 1979 went to graduate school and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology. While in graduate school, I discovered that a powerful false teaching had invaded the churches since the early 1800’s. Only in recent decades has it made its way into the Episcopal Church.
This false teaching does not deny the authority of Scripture, or Creeds, or Prayer Book. Rather its partisans revise them from a perspective alien to the Christian faith. Among other things a number of revisionists deny the miraculous, including the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Others accept the miraculous, but conceive of God in mystical categories and thereby deny God the Word as the concrete, objective, verbal, and eternal revelation of God. ...
(snip)
I was only one of a number of writers who clearly documented the false teaching, heresy, and apostasy found among a goodly number of priests, bishops, and seminary professors within the Episcopal Church. At the same time, I attempted to settle my differences with the revisionists....
(snip)
At no point, ever, did I have any sustained engagement with those who disagreed with me. They simply did not want to talk. They were quite apt at producing trivial arguments, but once they encountered someone who could make sense of Scripture, tradition, and have reasoning powers, they simply walked away.
All my individual efforts at resolving these differences failed. Finally, about the year 2001, it became clear to me that one aspect of revisionist teaching is that language, logic, Scripture, words, doctrine, are not persuasive. Revisionists tend to believe that God is a mystical unknown and that language and doctrine are secondary. One of my most important analyses of this understanding was eventually published in Christianity Today.
The results of that insight, that doctrine and language are secondary, ultimately means that “dialogue” is impossible with revisionists. All we can do with them is share feelings and opinions. At that point I realized that my differences with revisionists could not be resolved. We live in two completely different worlds, theoretically and practically. (Emphasis added.)
Sam Adams Does the Right Thing
On another thread, I mentioned my unhappiness that, several years ago, Sam Adams Beer allowed itself to be associated with some nasty, on-air behavior that was insulting to Catholics. And I said I'd never heard the company acknowledge error.
I wrote a letter (actually, I had written twice before, but got no response), giving the company another chance. The company seems to have someone on-the-ball checking email: I got a prompt and pointed reply, which follows:
Dear Fr. Fox,
Thank you for sharing with us your concerns about the "Opie & AnthonyShow" in 2002. We are grateful that you took the time to share them and have given us the opportunity to respond to you personally.The Boston Beer Company has formally apologized for our association with that incident. Shortly after the radio show aired three years ago, we ran a public apology in major Boston and New York newspapers, on our website and individually to those offended by the incident.
Our association with the show was a lapse in judgment, and we regret it. While not an acceptable excuse, I want you to know that we had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. Everyone associated with The Boston Beer Company has worked very hard over the last 20 years to build a good company with world-class products and a quality reputation. Your feedback, along with other feedback we receive, is continuously used as we strive to protect and improve our reputation. As a result of the incident, we changed our policy and controls on radio station activities, and significantly decreased our radio spending. We also worked hard with affected groups to apologize and make amends including the Archdioceses of New York and Boston.Shortly after the incident in 2002, we received word that they were satisfied with our apology. Boston Beer is a company that cares deeply about its customers and its reputation with them. We regret that this incident has damaged our relationship with you, and I hope that, over time, we will earn your respect again. Please accept our apology, and again, thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel. I hope you will continue to do so in the future.
Sincerely,
Michelle Sullivan
I'm glad to publish this letter, and say I find it more than satisfactory. I wrote back to Michelle Sullivan saying so.
I wrote a letter (actually, I had written twice before, but got no response), giving the company another chance. The company seems to have someone on-the-ball checking email: I got a prompt and pointed reply, which follows:
Dear Fr. Fox,
Thank you for sharing with us your concerns about the "Opie & AnthonyShow" in 2002. We are grateful that you took the time to share them and have given us the opportunity to respond to you personally.The Boston Beer Company has formally apologized for our association with that incident. Shortly after the radio show aired three years ago, we ran a public apology in major Boston and New York newspapers, on our website and individually to those offended by the incident.
Our association with the show was a lapse in judgment, and we regret it. While not an acceptable excuse, I want you to know that we had no warning that a place of worship would be part of the show. Everyone associated with The Boston Beer Company has worked very hard over the last 20 years to build a good company with world-class products and a quality reputation. Your feedback, along with other feedback we receive, is continuously used as we strive to protect and improve our reputation. As a result of the incident, we changed our policy and controls on radio station activities, and significantly decreased our radio spending. We also worked hard with affected groups to apologize and make amends including the Archdioceses of New York and Boston.Shortly after the incident in 2002, we received word that they were satisfied with our apology. Boston Beer is a company that cares deeply about its customers and its reputation with them. We regret that this incident has damaged our relationship with you, and I hope that, over time, we will earn your respect again. Please accept our apology, and again, thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel. I hope you will continue to do so in the future.
Sincerely,
Michelle Sullivan
I'm glad to publish this letter, and say I find it more than satisfactory. I wrote back to Michelle Sullivan saying so.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Bad Sunday Night Television (reprise)
This may be my first regular feature.
Tonight, it's "Category 7: the End of the World."
Now--who can resist a title like that?
I couldn't. The first few minutes center on Paris, France--clearly marked out for destruction. Who doesn't like that idea? Then we have the first stereotype: an earnest expert whom the powerful scoff at. Well, we know they'll die--and sure enough, one of them does, pretty quick. In the meantime, we learn how "thin" the expert's evidence is: why, a whole spate of cities in the U.S. have been plastered--but why worry?
Meanwhile, folks are having a time on the streets of Paris, while Armageddon brews in the sky--but why worry?
After Paris gets stomped, we cut back to D.C. An officious bureaucrat declares: "sorry, vacations are cancelled." Oh, what dialogue!
This is pretty entertaining, actually--I've been laughing pretty hard.
For a funny review, see this.
Update: just when you think, it couldn't get better, it did! KILLER FROGS! And not just killer frogs, but exotic, poisonous KILLER FROGS! At a political wine-and-cheese party! The frogs on display (oh, the oppression!) begin jumping out of the cases, and leap at the guests!! The hapless victims fall to floor, quivering and foaming at the mouth!
Is this great television or what?!?
Tonight, it's "Category 7: the End of the World."
Now--who can resist a title like that?
I couldn't. The first few minutes center on Paris, France--clearly marked out for destruction. Who doesn't like that idea? Then we have the first stereotype: an earnest expert whom the powerful scoff at. Well, we know they'll die--and sure enough, one of them does, pretty quick. In the meantime, we learn how "thin" the expert's evidence is: why, a whole spate of cities in the U.S. have been plastered--but why worry?
Meanwhile, folks are having a time on the streets of Paris, while Armageddon brews in the sky--but why worry?
After Paris gets stomped, we cut back to D.C. An officious bureaucrat declares: "sorry, vacations are cancelled." Oh, what dialogue!
This is pretty entertaining, actually--I've been laughing pretty hard.
For a funny review, see this.
Update: just when you think, it couldn't get better, it did! KILLER FROGS! And not just killer frogs, but exotic, poisonous KILLER FROGS! At a political wine-and-cheese party! The frogs on display (oh, the oppression!) begin jumping out of the cases, and leap at the guests!! The hapless victims fall to floor, quivering and foaming at the mouth!
Is this great television or what?!?
Time for a picture
...and if you think this picture has nothing in common with the previous two posts, you need to re-read your Thomas Aquinas.
Grace, Devotions, Indulgences etc.
(I'm taking a risk talking about this subject for two reasons, because I want to keep this simple, and someone is bound to find fault, and because this is a subject I enjoy and can go on and on about -- but here goes...)
We often talk about grace, either not being clear about what grace is, or we talk about graces, different sorts of grace, different means or characteristics of grace -- and lose sight of the big picture.
So a few key ideas:
Although we talk about different sorts of grace, essentially grace is one reality, which we experience in a variety of ways. What is grace? Grace is a sharing in God's own life; St. Thomas Aquinas said, profoundly, "Grace is God's eternal love, acting in time."
Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has, in its glossary:
GRACE: The free and undeserved gift that God gives us to respond to our vocation to become his adopted children. As sanctifying grace, God shares his divine life and friendship with us in a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that enables the soul to live with God, to act by his love. As actual grace, God gives us the help to conform our lives to his will. Sacramental grace and special graces (charisms, the grace of one's state of life) are gifts of the Holy Spirit to help us live out our Christian vocation (1996, 2000; cf. 654).
(On the distinction between "habitual" or sanctifying grace, and actual grace, I'll say more below.)
In my experience, I cannot, at present, think of an instance where what one says about grace cannot be said about the Holy Spirit, even though there is legitimate reason, in refined theology, to distinguish them, insofar as we understand grace as a created reality, and an effect; yet it equally important to understand grace as sharing God's own life, as the Catechism says.
Perhaps a helpful analogy would be the incarnation: In the Incarnate One, we recognize both uncreated God, and a created human being, united to the Divine Person. God's purpose in the Incarnation is the same as his purpose in sharing grace: to divinize us! To make us partakers of the divine nature, as our very first pope, Peter, wrote in Scripture.
Therefore, in the end, the distinctions disappear: grace, accomplishing its end, will unite us, not with some created reality, but with the Triune God himself! Update: I ought to added "merely," in the blue-highlighted text, because our union with the Trinity will include union with the "created reality" of the Son's human nature.
We look for grace, we pray for it, we hunger for it--thank God! (Hint: that seeking, desring, it itself grace at work!) We seek God's grace through various prayers, devotions and practices.
But the fact remains, grace is, essentially, one--and grace is more abundant, infinitely moreso, than water in the oceans, and air in the sky.
So don't fall into the thinking that we have to "hunt" for grace, or, God forbid, work for it!
So what about devotions, practices, not to mention the normal means of grace?
As Catholics, we believe the Lord instituted the sacraments as normal means of grace, for our sake -- they teach us about him, and conform well to our needs -- beginning with baptism. But to cite St. Thomas Aquinas again, while God certainly works in the sacraments, he is not limited to them. So any discussion of other ways to grow in grace presuppose living the life of a Christian -- receiving the sacraments in faith.
So then come various devotions, and there is no end to the list of them. Do we receive grace in them? Sure (I assume we're talking about legitimate, well-attested devotions, rooted in sound tradition). Is one better than the other? I have no authority to say that! I can think of particular devotions (which I won't name, because I don't want irate devotees to come after me), that hold no attraction for me. But if they draw you into God's presence? Wonderful!
But if a devotion becomes a drudge, a burden -- I'm not saying don't do it; but I'd say, step back and ask yourself if something is wrong with that picture.
May I point out that all devotions, indeed, the sacraments themselves! exist for our benefit; not the other way around! After all, God had no need to come to earth -- he did it, as we profess: "for us men, and for our salvation..."
Certain devotions are connected, or promoted, in relation to specific graces, or promises: I think of First Friday, First Saturday, and scapulars, among others.
I think if you look very closely at these devotions, which I applaud, you'll see that all these promises, or hopes, are premised -- as indicated earlier -- on living the life of a Christian, fortified by the sacraments. These devotions are helps -- there's no gift or grace they bring that we cannot find apart from them. (This is true even of the sacraments: while they are normal means of grace, God can and does save souls apart from the sacraments.) As I said in a recent homily: God commands us, he doesn't command himself.
So for heaven's sake -- don't worry! I think St. Magaret Mary, and the Blessed Mother, do not want the devotions associated with them to become a chore, and for folks to fret because they omitted something: "will I get the grace?" Brother, sister, if you can ask the question, you've got the grace!
In the confessional, I often say this: it is not God's agenda to induce anxiety and fear in us. I mean: if grace prompts us to be fearful or anxious, it is to lead us to the next step, conversion: confess sin, change direction. And that means not anxiety but peace. I also say this: you would not be in the confessional without God's grace already at work--your presence here is a certain sign of God's love and care for you.
(This seems to be news to some folks when they hear it, so let me say it again: grace precedes the first moment of conversion in our hearts; i.e., it would be heresy to say, we convert, then grace is working in our lives; rather, grace must be active in order for us even to consider conversion. This is what we call the "grace of conversion.")
I'm not saying be passive and presumptuous, but I am saying, be hopeful and confident. Ours is a God of salvation, not hide-and-seek: it was God who, after Adam sinned, came into the garden and called out, "Adam, where are you?"
A word about indulgences (I wish I'd run this last Monday on "Reformation Day"!)...
An indulgence, to speak simply, is a means of grace: it is one more way God, through his Church, helps us to salvation. No indulgence is, strictly speaking, "necessary": that is to say, everything we can gain via an indulgence, we can gain without one.
Like the sacraments themselves, indulgences exist, not for God's sake, but for ours -- they're designed to fit our needs and dispositions.
Just what is an indulgence? It is a spiritual benefit (the remission of any penalties or purification associated with purgatory) which God gives in relation to our doing some particular good work: a prayer, or a pilgrimage, or such.
What actually "gains" the indulgence? Nota bene: not the work per se, but faith--which is proved by noting that the spiritual benefit can be obtained without the indulgence!
Now, our Protestant sisters and brothers say, "then omit the works and stick to the faith!" To which I respond, from Sacred Scripture: "Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works" (James 2:18). Put it another way--God understands we human beings need to be doing something. And he knows it helps if we have a "buy-in"--as opposed to being passive, inert recipients. But grace precedes.
In the case of indulgences, let us be clear about something. An indulgence is not salvation -- indulgences are gifts for the saved! I.e., the remission of penalty is not for anyone in hell, but for anyone undergoing purification in "purgatory," the foyer of heaven. No one goes through this purification who is not saved.
An indulgence is essentially an answer to prayer! We pray to assist someone's purification, and indubitably, that prayer is answered! (The very term, "indulgence," reveals what it is: a gift.)
Another thing: an indulgence is not a "get out of jail free" card! I confess, I have described it this way, but this is misleading. Why?
Because here is what happens in us to allow the indulgenced "work" to be effective: CONVERSION! Look carefully at each and every indulgence: it speaks of confession of sin, conversion of heart, faith in Christ, reception of him in the Eucharist. (Obviously, this prior sentence presupposes...GRACE.)
Guess what? If you do those things, without ever seeking any particular indulgence, whaddya think? Think you might be fully purified in this life, and thus have no need of final purification at the gate of heaven? I think, YES! The point of the various indulgences is the same as the various devotions -- they are helps to us to find our way to what we fundamentally need: conversion through the grace of Christ, that we might fully partake in God's life. It really is that simple.
Am I speaking against, or discouraging, indulgences? Not at all. But I think any experience of them needs to be grounded in a right understanding of grace, what an indulgence is (and is not), and what is truly "necessary." Recall Our Lord's words to Martha: "only one thing is necessary, and Mary has chosen the better part." Being in relationship with Jesus is the "better part," the one thing necessary, from which all else flows, including each and every grace there is.
A word about habitual or sanctifying grace, and actual grace(s). Actual graces are those ways God prompts and helps us, whether or not we have sanctifying, habitual, or indwelling grace, which is the grace that justifies us, the grace of salvation. (I am aware of various distinctions we can make with all these terms; I am simply trying to simplify this matter.)
The distinction is valid, insofar as it helps us to see that while everyone whatsoever receives actual graces, that doesn't mean everyone receives, or rather, has, habitual grace; though we believe God is eager to give the saving grace to anyone and everyone, and we hope and pray, that that is what will happen. It may, but we don't know; we don't presume all are saved, but we also don't presume that anyone, but the devil and his cohorts, is in hell. Or, to say it another way, sanctifying grace is available and offered to all; that doesn't mean all respond to it, or persevere in it.
Hence, the grace that precedes conversion is an actual grace, leading to habitual grace. While I won't deny the validity of making distinctions, in the end, one must remember that grace, at its source, is One, namely God himself, as he acts for our salvation and pours himself into our lives.
We often talk about grace, either not being clear about what grace is, or we talk about graces, different sorts of grace, different means or characteristics of grace -- and lose sight of the big picture.
So a few key ideas:
Although we talk about different sorts of grace, essentially grace is one reality, which we experience in a variety of ways. What is grace? Grace is a sharing in God's own life; St. Thomas Aquinas said, profoundly, "Grace is God's eternal love, acting in time."
Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has, in its glossary:
GRACE: The free and undeserved gift that God gives us to respond to our vocation to become his adopted children. As sanctifying grace, God shares his divine life and friendship with us in a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that enables the soul to live with God, to act by his love. As actual grace, God gives us the help to conform our lives to his will. Sacramental grace and special graces (charisms, the grace of one's state of life) are gifts of the Holy Spirit to help us live out our Christian vocation (1996, 2000; cf. 654).
(On the distinction between "habitual" or sanctifying grace, and actual grace, I'll say more below.)
In my experience, I cannot, at present, think of an instance where what one says about grace cannot be said about the Holy Spirit, even though there is legitimate reason, in refined theology, to distinguish them, insofar as we understand grace as a created reality, and an effect; yet it equally important to understand grace as sharing God's own life, as the Catechism says.
Perhaps a helpful analogy would be the incarnation: In the Incarnate One, we recognize both uncreated God, and a created human being, united to the Divine Person. God's purpose in the Incarnation is the same as his purpose in sharing grace: to divinize us! To make us partakers of the divine nature, as our very first pope, Peter, wrote in Scripture.
Therefore, in the end, the distinctions disappear: grace, accomplishing its end, will unite us, not with some created reality, but with the Triune God himself! Update: I ought to added "merely," in the blue-highlighted text, because our union with the Trinity will include union with the "created reality" of the Son's human nature.
We look for grace, we pray for it, we hunger for it--thank God! (Hint: that seeking, desring, it itself grace at work!) We seek God's grace through various prayers, devotions and practices.
But the fact remains, grace is, essentially, one--and grace is more abundant, infinitely moreso, than water in the oceans, and air in the sky.
So don't fall into the thinking that we have to "hunt" for grace, or, God forbid, work for it!
So what about devotions, practices, not to mention the normal means of grace?
As Catholics, we believe the Lord instituted the sacraments as normal means of grace, for our sake -- they teach us about him, and conform well to our needs -- beginning with baptism. But to cite St. Thomas Aquinas again, while God certainly works in the sacraments, he is not limited to them. So any discussion of other ways to grow in grace presuppose living the life of a Christian -- receiving the sacraments in faith.
So then come various devotions, and there is no end to the list of them. Do we receive grace in them? Sure (I assume we're talking about legitimate, well-attested devotions, rooted in sound tradition). Is one better than the other? I have no authority to say that! I can think of particular devotions (which I won't name, because I don't want irate devotees to come after me), that hold no attraction for me. But if they draw you into God's presence? Wonderful!
But if a devotion becomes a drudge, a burden -- I'm not saying don't do it; but I'd say, step back and ask yourself if something is wrong with that picture.
May I point out that all devotions, indeed, the sacraments themselves! exist for our benefit; not the other way around! After all, God had no need to come to earth -- he did it, as we profess: "for us men, and for our salvation..."
Certain devotions are connected, or promoted, in relation to specific graces, or promises: I think of First Friday, First Saturday, and scapulars, among others.
I think if you look very closely at these devotions, which I applaud, you'll see that all these promises, or hopes, are premised -- as indicated earlier -- on living the life of a Christian, fortified by the sacraments. These devotions are helps -- there's no gift or grace they bring that we cannot find apart from them. (This is true even of the sacraments: while they are normal means of grace, God can and does save souls apart from the sacraments.) As I said in a recent homily: God commands us, he doesn't command himself.
So for heaven's sake -- don't worry! I think St. Magaret Mary, and the Blessed Mother, do not want the devotions associated with them to become a chore, and for folks to fret because they omitted something: "will I get the grace?" Brother, sister, if you can ask the question, you've got the grace!
In the confessional, I often say this: it is not God's agenda to induce anxiety and fear in us. I mean: if grace prompts us to be fearful or anxious, it is to lead us to the next step, conversion: confess sin, change direction. And that means not anxiety but peace. I also say this: you would not be in the confessional without God's grace already at work--your presence here is a certain sign of God's love and care for you.
(This seems to be news to some folks when they hear it, so let me say it again: grace precedes the first moment of conversion in our hearts; i.e., it would be heresy to say, we convert, then grace is working in our lives; rather, grace must be active in order for us even to consider conversion. This is what we call the "grace of conversion.")
I'm not saying be passive and presumptuous, but I am saying, be hopeful and confident. Ours is a God of salvation, not hide-and-seek: it was God who, after Adam sinned, came into the garden and called out, "Adam, where are you?"
A word about indulgences (I wish I'd run this last Monday on "Reformation Day"!)...
An indulgence, to speak simply, is a means of grace: it is one more way God, through his Church, helps us to salvation. No indulgence is, strictly speaking, "necessary": that is to say, everything we can gain via an indulgence, we can gain without one.
Like the sacraments themselves, indulgences exist, not for God's sake, but for ours -- they're designed to fit our needs and dispositions.
Just what is an indulgence? It is a spiritual benefit (the remission of any penalties or purification associated with purgatory) which God gives in relation to our doing some particular good work: a prayer, or a pilgrimage, or such.
What actually "gains" the indulgence? Nota bene: not the work per se, but faith--which is proved by noting that the spiritual benefit can be obtained without the indulgence!
Now, our Protestant sisters and brothers say, "then omit the works and stick to the faith!" To which I respond, from Sacred Scripture: "Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works" (James 2:18). Put it another way--God understands we human beings need to be doing something. And he knows it helps if we have a "buy-in"--as opposed to being passive, inert recipients. But grace precedes.
In the case of indulgences, let us be clear about something. An indulgence is not salvation -- indulgences are gifts for the saved! I.e., the remission of penalty is not for anyone in hell, but for anyone undergoing purification in "purgatory," the foyer of heaven. No one goes through this purification who is not saved.
An indulgence is essentially an answer to prayer! We pray to assist someone's purification, and indubitably, that prayer is answered! (The very term, "indulgence," reveals what it is: a gift.)
Another thing: an indulgence is not a "get out of jail free" card! I confess, I have described it this way, but this is misleading. Why?
Because here is what happens in us to allow the indulgenced "work" to be effective: CONVERSION! Look carefully at each and every indulgence: it speaks of confession of sin, conversion of heart, faith in Christ, reception of him in the Eucharist. (Obviously, this prior sentence presupposes...GRACE.)
Guess what? If you do those things, without ever seeking any particular indulgence, whaddya think? Think you might be fully purified in this life, and thus have no need of final purification at the gate of heaven? I think, YES! The point of the various indulgences is the same as the various devotions -- they are helps to us to find our way to what we fundamentally need: conversion through the grace of Christ, that we might fully partake in God's life. It really is that simple.
Am I speaking against, or discouraging, indulgences? Not at all. But I think any experience of them needs to be grounded in a right understanding of grace, what an indulgence is (and is not), and what is truly "necessary." Recall Our Lord's words to Martha: "only one thing is necessary, and Mary has chosen the better part." Being in relationship with Jesus is the "better part," the one thing necessary, from which all else flows, including each and every grace there is.
A word about habitual or sanctifying grace, and actual grace(s). Actual graces are those ways God prompts and helps us, whether or not we have sanctifying, habitual, or indwelling grace, which is the grace that justifies us, the grace of salvation. (I am aware of various distinctions we can make with all these terms; I am simply trying to simplify this matter.)
The distinction is valid, insofar as it helps us to see that while everyone whatsoever receives actual graces, that doesn't mean everyone receives, or rather, has, habitual grace; though we believe God is eager to give the saving grace to anyone and everyone, and we hope and pray, that that is what will happen. It may, but we don't know; we don't presume all are saved, but we also don't presume that anyone, but the devil and his cohorts, is in hell. Or, to say it another way, sanctifying grace is available and offered to all; that doesn't mean all respond to it, or persevere in it.
Hence, the grace that precedes conversion is an actual grace, leading to habitual grace. While I won't deny the validity of making distinctions, in the end, one must remember that grace, at its source, is One, namely God himself, as he acts for our salvation and pours himself into our lives.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Get filled up! 5 minutes a day (Sunday homily)
Our first reading raises the question:
What is true wisdom-
and who is truly wise?
When I was kid,
there was a TV show called “Kung Fu.”
It was about a fellow
who wandered all over,
and basically, some bad guys
always tried to jump him,
and he ended up wiping the floor with them,
using “Kung Fu”—martial arts.
It was the same story every week:
can you see how this
would appeal to a 10-year old boy?
But while you waited for the showdown,
there would be flashbacks,
to when our hero was himself a boy:
and he was being trained by this old man,
who would give him lectures about “wisdom”
that never made a lot of sense:
“Ah, grasshopper,” he said:
“can you snatch a cloud
down from the sky?
Can you snatch this pebble
from my hand?
No? Ah—that is wisdom…”
Sometimes that’s what
we think wisdom is:
Beyond our reach,
a mystery we can’t penetrate.
But what do the Scriptures say?
“Resplendent and unfading is wisdom,
and she is readily perceived
by those who love her,
and found by those who seek her.”
True wisdom is a “mystery”:
But when we say something is a “mystery,”
That doesn’t mean
we can’t say anything about it;
it means, we can never
say everything about it.
See the difference?
The mystery of God’s Wisdom
is like a water-fountain:
Drink all you want;
there will always be more.
Now, we look at the Gospel passage,
and the Lord himself
teaches us about wisdom:
He shows us five foolish virgins,
and five wise ones.
What’s the difference?
The foolish brought no oil with them;
but the wise had an extra store
of oil for their lamps.
Now—let’s focus on those lamps, and the oil.
The lamps are their lives—
remember what Our Lord himself said:
“Let your light shine” before humanity.
But what keeps the lamps lit? The oil.
So: what is that oil?
Well, it can’t be ordinary, natural oil—
because then, the difference
between the wise and the foolish,
is just a matter of time:
sooner or later,
everyone’s oil would run out.
That also means the oil
is not something we go and “buy.”
The five foolish tried that—
and it didn’t work!
So what is that oil?
Maybe you recall a story
from the Old Testament,
the prophet Elijah
visits a family during a famine:
and there was a miracle:
the mother’s supply of grain and oil
miraculously did not run out:
when she went back
to the bottle of oil, she found more.
The oil in the lamps of the wise
does not come from ourselves;
it does not come from our efforts—
we don’t buy or earn it—
it is a gift from God.
The Oil in the Gospel is the same
as the Wisdom in the first reading!
It is the Life of God Himself:
the Holy Spirit.
When did you or I ever “buy” the Holy Spirit?
We don’t earn God’s indwelling Spirit
by good works;
it’s the other way around:
The more we open ourselves
to the Spirit in our lives,
the brighter the lamp of our lives will burn!
And that’s why it doesn’t matter
how long we wait for the Lord:
the lamp of our lives will burn bright
with the Flame of God’s Fire!
Wisdom is God’s Holy Spirit,
aflame in our hearts:
The Holy Spirit doesn’t play
“snatch-the-pebble” with us.
This Divine Wisdom is readily available
for those who seek it.
There’s only one way
to fill our lamps with this Oil:
Prayer—time with the Lord—
this is how we allow God to fill us up.
The tank of my car will run out,
unless I stop for a fill-up.
It’s just something we need to do.
Are you stopping
to fill up with the Spirit of God?
This is a reason to be faithful at Mass,
a reason to bring your kids to Mass—
don’t worry about what anyone says:
they need to learn where to fill up as well.
Beyond the duty of Mass
on Sundays and holy days,
is the opportunity
for daily Mass. More “fill-ups.”
For those who can’t do that,
we have our chapel.
Open all night, all day, every day:
Jesus waits there to fill you up.
If we can’t do that,
we can pray where we are.
The rosary, time with scripture
or other reading,
Time when the noise is turned off,
the door is closed,
time to be filled up.
Just five minutes a day
of real quiet and peace—
with the Lord—will make a revolution!
And yet how many of us
never do that for ourselves!
I challenge our younger parishioners:
Make sure you get quiet time
to fill your lamps!
If we seek from God
the Oil of his Holy Spirit,
He’ll keep our light burning,
to find our way,
especially when all other lights go out!
And that, grasshopper, is Wisdom!
What is true wisdom-
and who is truly wise?
When I was kid,
there was a TV show called “Kung Fu.”
It was about a fellow
who wandered all over,
and basically, some bad guys
always tried to jump him,
and he ended up wiping the floor with them,
using “Kung Fu”—martial arts.
It was the same story every week:
can you see how this
would appeal to a 10-year old boy?
But while you waited for the showdown,
there would be flashbacks,
to when our hero was himself a boy:
and he was being trained by this old man,
who would give him lectures about “wisdom”
that never made a lot of sense:
“Ah, grasshopper,” he said:
“can you snatch a cloud
down from the sky?
Can you snatch this pebble
from my hand?
No? Ah—that is wisdom…”
Sometimes that’s what
we think wisdom is:
Beyond our reach,
a mystery we can’t penetrate.
But what do the Scriptures say?
“Resplendent and unfading is wisdom,
and she is readily perceived
by those who love her,
and found by those who seek her.”
True wisdom is a “mystery”:
But when we say something is a “mystery,”
That doesn’t mean
we can’t say anything about it;
it means, we can never
say everything about it.
See the difference?
The mystery of God’s Wisdom
is like a water-fountain:
Drink all you want;
there will always be more.
Now, we look at the Gospel passage,
and the Lord himself
teaches us about wisdom:
He shows us five foolish virgins,
and five wise ones.
What’s the difference?
The foolish brought no oil with them;
but the wise had an extra store
of oil for their lamps.
Now—let’s focus on those lamps, and the oil.
The lamps are their lives—
remember what Our Lord himself said:
“Let your light shine” before humanity.
But what keeps the lamps lit? The oil.
So: what is that oil?
Well, it can’t be ordinary, natural oil—
because then, the difference
between the wise and the foolish,
is just a matter of time:
sooner or later,
everyone’s oil would run out.
That also means the oil
is not something we go and “buy.”
The five foolish tried that—
and it didn’t work!
So what is that oil?
Maybe you recall a story
from the Old Testament,
the prophet Elijah
visits a family during a famine:
and there was a miracle:
the mother’s supply of grain and oil
miraculously did not run out:
when she went back
to the bottle of oil, she found more.
The oil in the lamps of the wise
does not come from ourselves;
it does not come from our efforts—
we don’t buy or earn it—
it is a gift from God.
The Oil in the Gospel is the same
as the Wisdom in the first reading!
It is the Life of God Himself:
the Holy Spirit.
When did you or I ever “buy” the Holy Spirit?
We don’t earn God’s indwelling Spirit
by good works;
it’s the other way around:
The more we open ourselves
to the Spirit in our lives,
the brighter the lamp of our lives will burn!
And that’s why it doesn’t matter
how long we wait for the Lord:
the lamp of our lives will burn bright
with the Flame of God’s Fire!
Wisdom is God’s Holy Spirit,
aflame in our hearts:
The Holy Spirit doesn’t play
“snatch-the-pebble” with us.
This Divine Wisdom is readily available
for those who seek it.
There’s only one way
to fill our lamps with this Oil:
Prayer—time with the Lord—
this is how we allow God to fill us up.
The tank of my car will run out,
unless I stop for a fill-up.
It’s just something we need to do.
Are you stopping
to fill up with the Spirit of God?
This is a reason to be faithful at Mass,
a reason to bring your kids to Mass—
don’t worry about what anyone says:
they need to learn where to fill up as well.
Beyond the duty of Mass
on Sundays and holy days,
is the opportunity
for daily Mass. More “fill-ups.”
For those who can’t do that,
we have our chapel.
Open all night, all day, every day:
Jesus waits there to fill you up.
If we can’t do that,
we can pray where we are.
The rosary, time with scripture
or other reading,
Time when the noise is turned off,
the door is closed,
time to be filled up.
Just five minutes a day
of real quiet and peace—
with the Lord—will make a revolution!
And yet how many of us
never do that for ourselves!
I challenge our younger parishioners:
Make sure you get quiet time
to fill your lamps!
If we seek from God
the Oil of his Holy Spirit,
He’ll keep our light burning,
to find our way,
especially when all other lights go out!
And that, grasshopper, is Wisdom!
Friday, November 04, 2005
Stare Decisis is for suckas!*
I invite you to see this hilarious cartoon at Southern Appeal (thanks to Confirm Them for giving me a heads up.)
*TM Feddie at Southern Appeal
*TM Feddie at Southern Appeal
St. Charles, Pope Karol, pray for us!
Today we commemorate St. Charles Borromeo, and when I saw it yesterday, there was a sad reminder. It mentioned that today is the feast day of our holy father, Pope John Paul II.
Of course, John Paul -- Karol Wojtywa -- was our holy father when the ordo was published, about this time last year. Since then, we reluctantly allowed him to go to the Father's House.
As happy as I am with our present pope, I remain sad at the loss of Pope John Paul, truly great in my estimation. I miss him, and feel a great personal debt to him.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Glorious St. Martin
Today is my feast day: St. Martin de Porres, whose name I am proud to bear.But not in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. This happens to be the anniversary of the dedication of our cathedral -- and that takes precedence.
So I will keep my feast day next week. I am delighted that, by divine providence, my parents chose to entrust me to the care of St. Martin de Porres, and I consider it a light and pleasant task to make him better known. I am confident that St. Martin has prayed for me ever since my conception, so how can I be ungrateful?
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
What's Oliphant's point here?
Can someone explain this cartoon to me?I used to like Oliphant, even if he is a liberal; I think he's a good artist, and often clever. Sometimes I agree with him.
But...this cartoon. OK: he wants to say Alito is, what? A friendly Scalia? Is that it?
There's something off, something sinister, about this -- and I don't mean about Alito and Scalia.
All Souls Day Homily
Today, All Souls’ Day,
is a day of remembrance,
but also a day full of hope.
This time of year,
the Church bids us consider eternity.
Yesterday was the great feast of All Saints.
The saints give us hope—
We long to join their company;
And it is God’s will that we do so.
There are only two final destinations,
after this life:
Either we go to heaven—
and then we will be a saint—
Or we go to the other place.
What about purgatory?
Purgatory is not a destination—
No one spends eternity in purgatory.
It isn’t really a “place” at all,
but a process:
It’s a stopping point on the way.
Purgatory is the “mud room” of heaven;
It’s the saints’ finishing school.
Some tell me they’re a little afraid of purgatory—
They think of it in terms of punishment.
Our late, beloved holy father, John Paul,
taught us otherwise.
He said, before entering
the perfect glory of heaven,
“Every trace of attachment to evil
must be eliminated,
every imperfection of the soul corrected.
“Those who, after death,
exist in a state of purification,
are already in the love of Christ
who removes from them
the remnants of imperfection.”
They “are united both with the blessed
who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life,
and with us on this earth
on our way towards the Father's house.”
Now, that doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Nothing to be afraid of.
We might wonder, is there pain in purgatory?
C.S. Lewis said this:
If there’s pain in purgatory,
it’s the pain of having Christ so near—
ah, but still something holds us back.
Because it’s the pain of healing,
Lewis said, it’s pain we’ll welcome.
The healing isn’t just about
those who have died;
It helps heal us, the living, as well.
Sometimes people die,
and maybe we have
unfinished business with them.
Or maybe we wonder—
what will become of them
in their moment of judgment?
We might fear for them.
But thanks be to God,
our ability to help them
doesn’t end at their death!
Now, I’m going to say something
a little mind-bending.
Think about this:
You and I live in time:
one day follows another,
Past to present to future—right?
But God doesn’t live in time—
Time in no way limits God.
So, I have a cousin,
who died at his own hand.
What did he believe or understand,
at that moment?
I don’t know.
But when I pray for him now,
That prayer can help him,
not just after he died,
But anywhere along the course of his life!
No, I can’t “go back in time”—but God can!
So all those people
you’ve ever worried about:
Pray for them now—
And who knows just where
along the course of their lives,
God may choose to apply your prayers?
When we remember the dead this time of year,
we remember that our existence, on earth,
is but one slice of reality.
Naturally, we think it’s the most important,
Or the most real, slice of life.
But it’s not.
We’re on our way to the most important,
most real, dimension of life:
Life after this life—
Not only life-after-death,
but life-after-resurrection!
There’s so much more still ahead!
And this is why Christ came,
Christ died, and rose for us:
To open the path and lead us there.
The prophet Daniel foresaw it;
St. Paul rejoices because the Holy Spirit,
poured into our hearts,
makes us long—thirst—pant!—
for this destiny!
In the Eucharist,
we get just a taste of this reality!
Christ leads us there—
there’s nothing to be afraid of.
(Readings: Dan 12:1-3; Ps 42; Rom 5:5-11; John 6:37-40)
is a day of remembrance,
but also a day full of hope.
This time of year,
the Church bids us consider eternity.
Yesterday was the great feast of All Saints.
The saints give us hope—
We long to join their company;
And it is God’s will that we do so.
There are only two final destinations,
after this life:
Either we go to heaven—
and then we will be a saint—
Or we go to the other place.
What about purgatory?
Purgatory is not a destination—
No one spends eternity in purgatory.
It isn’t really a “place” at all,
but a process:
It’s a stopping point on the way.
Purgatory is the “mud room” of heaven;
It’s the saints’ finishing school.
Some tell me they’re a little afraid of purgatory—
They think of it in terms of punishment.
Our late, beloved holy father, John Paul,
taught us otherwise.
He said, before entering
the perfect glory of heaven,
“Every trace of attachment to evil
must be eliminated,
every imperfection of the soul corrected.
“Those who, after death,
exist in a state of purification,
are already in the love of Christ
who removes from them
the remnants of imperfection.”
They “are united both with the blessed
who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life,
and with us on this earth
on our way towards the Father's house.”
Now, that doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Nothing to be afraid of.
We might wonder, is there pain in purgatory?
C.S. Lewis said this:
If there’s pain in purgatory,
it’s the pain of having Christ so near—
ah, but still something holds us back.
Because it’s the pain of healing,
Lewis said, it’s pain we’ll welcome.
The healing isn’t just about
those who have died;
It helps heal us, the living, as well.
Sometimes people die,
and maybe we have
unfinished business with them.
Or maybe we wonder—
what will become of them
in their moment of judgment?
We might fear for them.
But thanks be to God,
our ability to help them
doesn’t end at their death!
Now, I’m going to say something
a little mind-bending.
Think about this:
You and I live in time:
one day follows another,
Past to present to future—right?
But God doesn’t live in time—
Time in no way limits God.
So, I have a cousin,
who died at his own hand.
What did he believe or understand,
at that moment?
I don’t know.
But when I pray for him now,
That prayer can help him,
not just after he died,
But anywhere along the course of his life!
No, I can’t “go back in time”—but God can!
So all those people
you’ve ever worried about:
Pray for them now—
And who knows just where
along the course of their lives,
God may choose to apply your prayers?
When we remember the dead this time of year,
we remember that our existence, on earth,
is but one slice of reality.
Naturally, we think it’s the most important,
Or the most real, slice of life.
But it’s not.
We’re on our way to the most important,
most real, dimension of life:
Life after this life—
Not only life-after-death,
but life-after-resurrection!
There’s so much more still ahead!
And this is why Christ came,
Christ died, and rose for us:
To open the path and lead us there.
The prophet Daniel foresaw it;
St. Paul rejoices because the Holy Spirit,
poured into our hearts,
makes us long—thirst—pant!—
for this destiny!
In the Eucharist,
we get just a taste of this reality!
Christ leads us there—
there’s nothing to be afraid of.
(Readings: Dan 12:1-3; Ps 42; Rom 5:5-11; John 6:37-40)
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Omnium Sanctorum (homily)
St. Thomas Aquinas said somewhere
that so expansive, so complex,
is the goodness of God,
that only through the infinite variety
of his creatures
do all the various aspects of his goodness
become known to us.
And we see that in the saints.
For an example, consider our beautiful windows.
Different colors, different shapes,
the work of human artistry.
But what is their purpose?
To have light pass through them, of course:
Without light, our windows have no purpose.
So with the saints, and with us:
Our lives, made up of our individual gifts
and all that’s special about us,
have no purpose unless light—
the Light of Christ!—
shines through us!
For us in this church,
The Light streams in through these windows—
Even on a cloudy day!—
And reminds us of heaven, our true goal.
From the outside,
if we’re gathered here,
Light also streams out:
a sign of faith and hope to others,
beckoning them to join our fellowship.
This is the vocation
of the saints and our vocation:
To be like these stained-glass windows.
Beautiful; not all the same;
But each in its own way shining
with the light of Christ.
Recall the first reading:
“After this I had a vision
of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue.
They stood before
the throne and before the Lamb,
wearing white robes
and holding palm branches in their hands.
They cried out in a loud voice:
’Salvation comes from our God,
who is seated on the throne,
and from the Lamb.’"
That’s us!
Now, in a moment, we will do this,
Right here, at this Mass!
The whole second part of Mass
is all about adoring Jesus,
the Lamb of God, with the angels and the saints!
And right before communion,
I’ll lift up the Body and Blood,
and I’ll say:
“Behold the Lamb of God,
who takes away the sins of the world;
happy are those who are called to his supper.”
At that moment, we here on earth,
in this parish,
Will truly be joined
with the saints and angels in glory,
Praising God for the salvation
that comes from the Lamb.
St. Bernard said,
“Calling the saints to mind…
arouses in us, above all else,
a longing to enjoy their company.”
That’s true—but already we are in their company—
And we long to be all the way there.
that so expansive, so complex,
is the goodness of God,
that only through the infinite variety
of his creatures
do all the various aspects of his goodness
become known to us.
And we see that in the saints.
For an example, consider our beautiful windows.
Different colors, different shapes,
the work of human artistry.
But what is their purpose?
To have light pass through them, of course:
Without light, our windows have no purpose.
So with the saints, and with us:
Our lives, made up of our individual gifts
and all that’s special about us,
have no purpose unless light—
the Light of Christ!—
shines through us!
For us in this church,
The Light streams in through these windows—
Even on a cloudy day!—
And reminds us of heaven, our true goal.
From the outside,
if we’re gathered here,
Light also streams out:
a sign of faith and hope to others,
beckoning them to join our fellowship.
This is the vocation
of the saints and our vocation:
To be like these stained-glass windows.
Beautiful; not all the same;
But each in its own way shining
with the light of Christ.
Recall the first reading:
“After this I had a vision
of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue.
They stood before
the throne and before the Lamb,
wearing white robes
and holding palm branches in their hands.
They cried out in a loud voice:
’Salvation comes from our God,
who is seated on the throne,
and from the Lamb.’"
That’s us!
Now, in a moment, we will do this,
Right here, at this Mass!
The whole second part of Mass
is all about adoring Jesus,
the Lamb of God, with the angels and the saints!
And right before communion,
I’ll lift up the Body and Blood,
and I’ll say:
“Behold the Lamb of God,
who takes away the sins of the world;
happy are those who are called to his supper.”
At that moment, we here on earth,
in this parish,
Will truly be joined
with the saints and angels in glory,
Praising God for the salvation
that comes from the Lamb.
St. Bernard said,
“Calling the saints to mind…
arouses in us, above all else,
a longing to enjoy their company.”
That’s true—but already we are in their company—
And we long to be all the way there.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Former Pastor Found Not Guilty In Child Rape Case
(This story got a lot of coverage when Father Larger was accused; it's only fair that the acquittal get coverage, as well...)
A Tri-State priest accused of raping a young boy was acquitted Monday, News 5 reported.
Raymond Larger, convicted of sex charges two years ago, had been indicted on three counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery and one count of gross sexual imposition against a minor boy between 1995 and 1997.
Larger was a priest at St. James Church in White Oak at that time.
The 21-year-old man who accused Larger of molesting him is currently serving a sentence for breaking an entering. He testified all morning and most of the afternoon, but Judge Robert Ruehlman found that he contradicted himself several times in his account.
"There is so much doubt here, and before you can convict somebody, you've got to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt," Ruehlman said. "The testimony I've heard from this prosecuting witness does not come even close to that."
Ruehlman found the former pastor not guilty on all counts.
"I said that I was not guilty," Larger said. "It's a completely false accusation."
Christy Miller, of the Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, disagreed with Ruehlman's quick dismissal.
"When it comes to child sexual abuse, there are no witnesses," she said. "It does happen on a one-on-one basis."
After Larger was indicted in August, Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk placed Larger on administrative leave and stripped him of his priestly duties for the second time.
"His position in the Archdiocese will be addressed when the pending civil suit has been resolved," a statement from Pilarczyk said Monday.
Pilarczyk had suspended Larger after he was arrested in July 2003 on suspicion of soliciting a male police officer for sex in a park in Dayton, Ohio. Larger, who was pastor of Our Lady of Visitation Church in Mack, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor public indecency charges. He was fined $100, plus court costs, and placed on probation for one year, court records show.
Larger returned to active ministry in May 2004. He had been assigned to St. Peter in Chains Cathedral downtown.
A Tri-State priest accused of raping a young boy was acquitted Monday, News 5 reported.
Raymond Larger, convicted of sex charges two years ago, had been indicted on three counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery and one count of gross sexual imposition against a minor boy between 1995 and 1997.
Larger was a priest at St. James Church in White Oak at that time.
The 21-year-old man who accused Larger of molesting him is currently serving a sentence for breaking an entering. He testified all morning and most of the afternoon, but Judge Robert Ruehlman found that he contradicted himself several times in his account.
"There is so much doubt here, and before you can convict somebody, you've got to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt," Ruehlman said. "The testimony I've heard from this prosecuting witness does not come even close to that."
Ruehlman found the former pastor not guilty on all counts.
"I said that I was not guilty," Larger said. "It's a completely false accusation."
Christy Miller, of the Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, disagreed with Ruehlman's quick dismissal.
"When it comes to child sexual abuse, there are no witnesses," she said. "It does happen on a one-on-one basis."
After Larger was indicted in August, Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk placed Larger on administrative leave and stripped him of his priestly duties for the second time.
"His position in the Archdiocese will be addressed when the pending civil suit has been resolved," a statement from Pilarczyk said Monday.
Pilarczyk had suspended Larger after he was arrested in July 2003 on suspicion of soliciting a male police officer for sex in a park in Dayton, Ohio. Larger, who was pastor of Our Lady of Visitation Church in Mack, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor public indecency charges. He was fined $100, plus court costs, and placed on probation for one year, court records show.
Larger returned to active ministry in May 2004. He had been assigned to St. Peter in Chains Cathedral downtown.
Alito Papers Demanded by Senate
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats demanded release of previously secret papers, written by Supreme Court-nominee Samuel Alito, early in his career, that may shed light on his true views on matters likely to come before the High Court.
"The American people have a right to know," declared Sen. Charles Shumer (D-NY); "if Mr. Alito's papers can show, for example, how he views the Commerce Clause, and the rights of endangered species, then Mrs. Alito must release them. Just what was 'Furry's Adventure'? Did Furry enter into interstate commerce? The stakes are just too risky."
Mrs. Rose Alito, stood firm. "I intend to invoke maternal privilege. And as far as those pesky Senators are concerned, I just have one thing to say: 'Better not mess with Mamma!'"
Bill Clinton's hand in the Alito Nomination
Kathryn Jean Lopez, at National Review Online, observed: "I just noted Clinton's hand. Couldn't keep his hand off Alito's daughter..."
Dems dusting off original Bork playbook
As everyone pretty much admits openly, the big issue in a Supreme Court nomination is abortion: just listen to the interviews, and see how quickly it -- or "privacy" -- comes up.
Judge Alito's vote to uphold restrictions enacted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the case that eventually found its way to the High Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, will be "exhibit A" in the pro-aborts' complaints about him.
Less noticed is that he also voted to strike down a New Jersey law on partial-birth abortions (the argument in his defense is that he is a lower-court judge, bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions); and he joined a decision that invalidated a stricter standard, enacted by Pennsylvania, deferring to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services' interpretation of federal law in the matter. (The argument in his defense is that he was exercising judicial restraint in an area that belongs to the legislative arena, and in which federal authority legitimately trumps state action.)
Not being a lawyer, I won't attempt to parse these cases; but I'd say there could be reason for concern, on prolifers' part; on the other hand, it would be quite a stretch to expect a justice to ignore all other considerations in law and simply vote to block abortions. Call me a squish, but I don't want judges like that. They should act within the law.
But anyway, the pro-aborts won't say much about these other cases; it will be all-Casey.
But herewith a prediction: the main attack -- that is, the "cover story" -- won't be on abortion. It will come another way.
Why? Because unless I'm very mistaken, I expect Judge Alito will completely dodge any hint of how he'll vote on Roe--and since nothing has turned up, from his record, to reveal that, all the pro-aborts can point to is that he approved some rather modest restrictions, of the very sort that enjoy wide public support.
So the attack will come in a "Trojan Horse." If they can find a way to do it, they'll hit him with the Left's favorite attack: they'll slime him as "racially insensitive." (Recall they tried it on Roberts, but they couldn't make it stick.)
Also, expect the opposition to make something of Alito's vote to strike down the federal "Family Leave" Act. (Apparently, he did so on the basis that Congress trod on the authority and prerogatives of states, under the 11th Amendment.) In such circumstances, facts aren't what matter; what will matter is that the Left will scream that he's such a Neanderthal that he doesn't even think families should get unpaid leave from work in cases of illness or pregnancy!
And so it will go: mining his opinions for any basis to show how coolly, dispassionately, he watches widows and orphans marched to the workhouses, and minorities driven into ghettoes, etc.
In other words, stay tuned for the Left to run its original, classic "borking" play.
Judge Alito's vote to uphold restrictions enacted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the case that eventually found its way to the High Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, will be "exhibit A" in the pro-aborts' complaints about him.
Less noticed is that he also voted to strike down a New Jersey law on partial-birth abortions (the argument in his defense is that he is a lower-court judge, bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions); and he joined a decision that invalidated a stricter standard, enacted by Pennsylvania, deferring to the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services' interpretation of federal law in the matter. (The argument in his defense is that he was exercising judicial restraint in an area that belongs to the legislative arena, and in which federal authority legitimately trumps state action.)
Not being a lawyer, I won't attempt to parse these cases; but I'd say there could be reason for concern, on prolifers' part; on the other hand, it would be quite a stretch to expect a justice to ignore all other considerations in law and simply vote to block abortions. Call me a squish, but I don't want judges like that. They should act within the law.
But anyway, the pro-aborts won't say much about these other cases; it will be all-Casey.
But herewith a prediction: the main attack -- that is, the "cover story" -- won't be on abortion. It will come another way.
Why? Because unless I'm very mistaken, I expect Judge Alito will completely dodge any hint of how he'll vote on Roe--and since nothing has turned up, from his record, to reveal that, all the pro-aborts can point to is that he approved some rather modest restrictions, of the very sort that enjoy wide public support.
So the attack will come in a "Trojan Horse." If they can find a way to do it, they'll hit him with the Left's favorite attack: they'll slime him as "racially insensitive." (Recall they tried it on Roberts, but they couldn't make it stick.)
Also, expect the opposition to make something of Alito's vote to strike down the federal "Family Leave" Act. (Apparently, he did so on the basis that Congress trod on the authority and prerogatives of states, under the 11th Amendment.) In such circumstances, facts aren't what matter; what will matter is that the Left will scream that he's such a Neanderthal that he doesn't even think families should get unpaid leave from work in cases of illness or pregnancy!
And so it will go: mining his opinions for any basis to show how coolly, dispassionately, he watches widows and orphans marched to the workhouses, and minorities driven into ghettoes, etc.
In other words, stay tuned for the Left to run its original, classic "borking" play.
Will 'Hail Mary' replace 'All rise'?
The Volokh Conspiracy notes, as many will, that confirmation of Alito would give the Supreme Court a Catholic majority. (Thanks to Fr. Jim Tucker for the heads up.)
Poor Jack Chick; I can't imagine what the old man's going through right now. And on "Reformation Day," of all days!
Poor Jack Chick; I can't imagine what the old man's going through right now. And on "Reformation Day," of all days!
Alito, Delighto
An excellent choice. Now we have a battle; but it's a battle for something we know is truly worthwhile.One piece of advice (as if the White House cares!):
Tell him to smile...all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)