Tuesday, August 13, 2002

A story on my old parish priest


This is courtesy of Amy Welborn's blog: an accuser has come forward against my deceased former pastor. Read the story here. Then read my comments, as I posted them on Amy's blog: I'm comment #3. Or you can read the following.


Fr. Ruffalo gave me my first communion and heard my first confession, and prepared me for confirmation.

He was my parish priest until I went to college. I remember the Komp family as well, although I am not sure if I ever met Jim Komp--he is a bit older than I am. I think I remember him serving as MC up on the altar.

Here are my memories: Fr. Ruffalo liked to lead the good life, for sure. We all knew he went to Vegas for vacations, and we did figure that his family must have had money. He was unfailingly orthodox in his teaching from the pulpit, and gave wonderful, concise, and insightful homilies.

Both of my brothers and I were altar boys, and never experienced anything weird from Fr. Ruffalo.

I note that only one accuser is named in the story, and that he only came forward when Ruffalo was dead, and that he is estranged from his family because of the accusations. Like I said, I don't know Jim, and I don't know what really happened at St. Mary's in the 70's and 80's, but it is very easy to kick a dead body. Perhaps this dead body deserves to be kicked, but it would have been better to come forward while he was alive.

If in fact the stories of Ruffalo's misbehavior are true, I pray that he repented and was forgiven by God. But we never caught a whiff of it while we were there.



Mrs. Malaprop will serve as lector today. . . .


At daily mass this morning, as Ezekiel received the scroll from the Lord, I was startled to hear that on the scroll was written "Laminations and wailing and woe."

This woman needs a bigger imagination!


There is a couple that is planning to clone the wife in order to have a child. You can read the transcript of the interview here, if you want a primer on how to be absolutely selfish. But of interest is the bad theology displayed by the woman:


KATHY: No, no, I don't think there is any immaturity here. I mean, come on, this is the future, and you know something? If God didn't want us to learn how to do all these things, then God would not have enabled the scientists to be able to move on and learn and do.

GUILLEN (voice-over): In fact, Bill and Kathy believe it's their divine destiny to have a cloned baby.

KATHY: I think that God really wants us to do this, that it is the next step. I can't imagine any other reason why we haven't had a child, other than this is what we were meant to do.

She can't imagine any possible reason why God wouldn't give her a child, except that God wants them to have a clone. Let me give you some suggestions, honey: God may not give you a child because you and your husband are selfish jerks, who have already killed several children through your attempts at in-vitro fertilization (they make more embryos than they need, and discard the excess), who are quite willing to abort the clone if she doesn't turn out just right, who apparently have never considered the possibility of adoption.



Monday, August 12, 2002

While you are waiting


for my tome on Why Artificial Contraception is a Bad Thing, you can go look at Tim Drake's writing on Natural Family Planning.

A Letter from Cardinal George--Bishops will pray for forgiveness on August 14



Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

In the midst of summer, the Church celebrates the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ and, because we are members of Christ's body, the Church, Mary is also our mother. Jesus is not jealous of his mother. He gives her to us to love us and protect and pray for us (Jn. 20: 26-27).
Mary not only protects us as our mother, she also goes before us on the path of discipleship. Mary points us to Jesus (Jn. 2:5). If you really want to know a son, you should get to know his mother. Because she knows Jesus so well, Mary knows what it means to strive every day to take up the cross and follow him. She followed him more perfectly than any other of his disciples. She has completed the path we are still on. Christ promised all his disciples that they would rise from the dead on the last day, as he rose from the dead after his crucifixion. We live in that promise. The Blessed Virgin Mary, alone of all Christ's disciples, has already been assumed bodily into heaven. The Church celebrates this mystery of faith on August 15. Mary's assumption should give us the courage to live fully, until our last day, as Christ's disciples in his body, the Church.

Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary is part of every Catholic's life. The rosary is a chain which unites us from generation to generation (Lk. 1:48), meditating on the mysteries of Christ's life, death and resurrection, uniting ourselves to Christ in our prayer to his mother. If your children do not know the "Hail Mary" by heart, this August 15 is a good time to teach them. Other prayers that are part of our lives are the Angelus, the Memorare, and the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On August 14, the vigil of the feast of the Assumption, the bishops of the United States will pray and do penance to atone for our sins and to intercede for the Church. We will ask the Blessed Virgin to protect the children of the Church and to "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." From seven to nine p.m. this August 14, the auxiliary bishops of Chicago and I will be in Holy Name Cathedral, praying to Mary to heal the Church. I invite you to join us, if that is possible; but I would ask you, no matter where you attend Mass this August 15, to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary, assumed into heaven, to make of us a holy people, better disciples of her divine Son.

You and those you love are in my prayers; please keep me and our Archdiocese in yours.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

Archbishop of Chicago


[Boldface mine. KCS]


Mea culpa


Last night I posted that the outrageous situation at a parish in Michigan was in the diocese of Lansing. I was wrong: it is in Detroit. I have fixed the previous blog.


Sunday, August 11, 2002

Our Lady of Good Counsel must be crying


If you haven't heard about the pro-choice, pro-late-term abortion gubernatorial candidate for governor of Michigan who is also a member in good standing at a Catholic church in the diocese of Detroit, you should go look at this blog. The pastors at the parish have been supportive of her, indeed have written letters in the bulletin supporting her pro-choice position, and have been very hard on the pro-life protestors who are protesting at the church.


Yes, you heard me right. Pro-life protestors are protesting a CATHOLIC CHURCH!


Now is a time for bishops to stand up and be counted. Where are you, Cardinal Maida?

Friday, August 09, 2002

Deal Hudson summarizes the case against Voice of the Faithful


Check the link here.


Natural Family Planning


Kathryn Lopez over at National Review has a nice article on NFP: there is a Protestant couple who have written a book saying, in essence, the Pope isn't crazy, and that artificial contraception is indeed a bad thing. I'll post on this topic one of these days. Nutshell version: I agree. The only thing artificial contraception has helped are men who wish to behave like teenage boys wish they could behave.


What if Bertie Wooster were a bishop?


Over at Disputations there is a very funny parody of P. G. Wodehouse. (You might have to scroll around to find the installments.) I eagerly await further chapters. If you haven't discovered Wodehouse yet, you are in for a treat. I find his writing to be hilarious, with a good-natured and gentle humor. Also, Wodehouse wrote the lyrics to one of my favorite songs, "Bill." (He's just my Bill, an ordinary guy. . . .) You can probably find an anthology of the Jeeves and Wooster stories at your bookstore. In a nutshell, Wooster is a dimwitted but unfailingly good hearted upper-class Brit who is saved from repeated deadly encounters with marriage-hungry women and wicked Aunt Agatha by his brilliant butler Jeeves.


Happy St. Edith Stein Day!


As you may or may not know, I did my doctoral dissertation on Edith Stein, and so feel a duty to blog about her today. Most people know something about her life, but I will summarize. She was born and raised a Jew in 1891, and by her teenage years had decided that God did not exist. A brilliant girl, she decided to go to college to study psychology, but she became disgusted with the lack of scientific rigor in that science. (A problem that remains today: As Walker Percy points out, every method of psychotherapy works about as well or as poorly as every other one. And a recent study showed that Prozac works almost as well in curing depression as sugar pills.) Edith read a book called Logical Investigations by Edmund Husserl, and decided that she needed to study philosophy. Husserl was the founder of a major philosophical school of thought known as phenomenology.


The motto of phenomenology is "Back to the things themselves!" Philosophers had been too much cut off from the genuine and primary experiences of reality, according to Husserl. Sciences were developing that had no original founding insights, like psychology, or that were unclear as to what these insights were, like mathematics. Husserl thought that all science could be grounded and clarified by a careful, rigorous inventory and description of the content of human consciousness. For example, a scientist might say that we see by means of light waves bouncing off an object into the eye, where they form an image on the retina that is interpreted by the brain. A phenomenologist will say that we see by means of the immediate presentation of an object. We don't interpret light waves, we see objects. The light wave explanation is certainly true, but it is not what we do, it is only the material condition for what we do. We see things!


Stein studied under Husserl, following him from Gottingen to Freiburg (a beautiful town, by the way) and working as his first graduate assistant (a post later held by a guy named Martin Heidegger). She graduated summa cum laude, and published some very good phenomenological works on empathy (quoted by Scheler) and on the relationship of psychology and the humanities, as well as the phenomenology of the state.


She had a dear friend named Adolf Reinach, a philosopher of note himself, who died in the trenches in World War I. Stein went to visit his widow in order to gather his papers for posthumous publication, and she dreaded the visit. Edith thought that it would be horrible to be around a grieving widow. But amazingly, Frau Reinach was peaceful, almost cheerful. She was a Christian (later Catholic) and had faith in the resurrection. The death of her husband was not the end, and she was peaceful. This gave Edith for thought, and while visiting a friend's house she cae across St. Teresa of Avila's autobiography. She stayed up all night reading, finished the book, and said "This is truth." Shortly after this she became a Catholic.


I have named Edith Stein the patron saint of philosophy Ph.D.'s seeking jobs, because despite having her doctorate with highest honors from Edmund Husserl, she never got an academic position, and taught high school until she entered the Carmelites. Being Jewish and a woman in Germany made it very difficult. But she continued to write. She did a German translation of Newman's letters, translated Aquinas' De Veritate into German (quoted by Karl Rahner), and continued to write and think, especially about the problem of the meaning of being.


Her final major philosophical work was Endliches und ewiges Sein, or Finite and Eternal Being, a large and difficult book that is an attempt to ascend to the meaning of being. It is noteworthy because it is a phenomenological and Thomist ascent. Stein uses all of the tools at her disposal, from Husserl and Hering to Aquinas, Aristotle, and Augustine, in order to get closer and closer to an understanding of what it means to be. She begins with the being of consciousness itself, and shows how this consciousness is contingent and dependent on sources outside itself for both its being and the meaning that fills it. She then gives a detailed analysis of how meanings can be reduced to basic units of meaning. So the first Being is seen as both the source of being and meaning, which finally leads her to conclude that the first Being must be not only the Prime Mover or the Demiurge, but is rather a Person. Since Being itself (God) is a person, we have a basis for understanding God: persons can be asked about themselves. So the second half of the book examines the relationship of the divine person to human persons, which turns out to be an intimate indwelling in the core of each human being.


But, as I said, this is a difficult book. If you want to more you could look up my dissertation, "Faith and Reason in the Philosophy of Edith Stein."


Edith Stein and her sister Rosa (who had converted as well) fled Germany to a Carmel in Echt in Holland to avoid the Nazis. In an episode that should give pause to the many modern critics of Pope Pius XII, the bishops of Holland issued a pastoral letter condemning the deportation of Jews. In retaliation, the Nazis rounded up all of the religious in Holland of Jewish origin and sent them to Auschwitz. Stein and her sister were arrested and taken from their convent, and were murdered on or around August 9, 1942. From the little we know of the last days of her life, it is apparent that Edith showed heroic compassion in comforting and caring for her fellow passengers, much as did another saint of Auschwitz, Maximilian Kolbe.


Pope John Paul II canonized her in 1998, and she is now St. Teresia Benedicta a Cruce (her religious name). Pray for us!


(Unfortunately, few of her philosophical works have been translated, but her spiritual writings and her work on the nature of women are well worth reading, and are available here. In fact, I made use of her thought in my blog on the ordination of women.


Thursday, August 08, 2002

Yet another study confirms the obvious


A recent study says that fathers with religious convictions spend more time with their children. This is surprising to no-one except to W. Bradford Wilcox, the researcher, who says "Evangelical Protestant fathers, including Southern Baptists, are very involved with their children, which I found surprising, given their tendency to embrace traditional gender attitudes." See, by traditional gender attitudes, what the researcher really means is that religious men are more likely to say to the wife "Wyleen, take care of Billy Bob, Bobby Sue, Cletus, and little Boo, while I abandon you to go drink beer, hunt, and listen to George Jones with my buddies."


In order to explain the paradox that such men actually spend more time with their children, Wilcox attributes it to scheduled church functions. Perhaps. But it is much more than that. What they need to understand is that if there is no God, children are no longer a blessing to be treasured, but an annoyance to be avoided. Religious men see their children as a sacred trust, given by God to be raised up as saints. Non-religious men see children as a threat to their free time and money.


Wednesday, August 07, 2002

Slip of the lips at AP


Look at the headline for this story about the woman who recently won the right to abort her child over the objections of the father. Abortion Case Winner Loses Her Baby.


When she wanted to abort the baby, it was a "fetus." When she lost it in a miscarriage, it became a baby.


I have a bit of a blogging block


I apologize. This is a hazard of blogging: some days one just doesn't have anything to say. I will blog more tomorrow, I promise! Meanwhile, if you'd like to send me your favorite Lord of the Rings characters and why, I would like to read them.


Tuesday, August 06, 2002

One more thought on the Transfiguration


If you have the New American Bible, take a look at the footnote to Mark 9:1. In the verse, Jesus says "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." The footnote says that this is "more likely, as understood by others, a reference to the imminent parousia." Parousia means the second coming of Christ at the end of the world.


There is a constant thread in scripture scholarship that says that the writers of the New Testament got it wrong: they expected Jesus to return almost immediately, but then had to regroup when he didn't come back. This verse Mark 9:1 is used to support this position: none of the apostles are alive anymore, and Jesus hasn't returned. Therefore the gospel writers must have been wrong.


But look at what comes immediately after: the Transfiguration! Peter, James, and John indeed do see that the kingdom of God has come in power. Mark 9:1 seems clearly to refer to the Transfiguration. The gospel writers were right, as usual.

I got my copy of Lord of the Rings today!


Tolkien, as you may or may not know, was a devout Catholic and daily communicant whose faith shines through every page of his work. He didn't work by allegory, as his friend C.S. Lewis did in Narnia (Aslan=Christ in Narnia, but nobody=Christ in Lord of the Rings), but through the recognition that the only real drama in the world is the drama of sin, grace, and redemption. If a story is to be written that truly captures hearts, it will be a story of the eternal drama of salvation, even if it is about hobbits, elves, and orcs.


I have a request from you, my loyal readers: If you haven't seen the movie or read the books, do so. If you have, drop me a line and let me know who is your favorite character (one whom you identify with) and why. I will post a few of these later, and tell you who my favorite is. Or you could try to guess.


I follow the Welborn protocol here, and will feel free to post your email with name included unless you tell me not to.

Transfiguration in the Eastern Catholic Church


I had the pleasure of going to my home parish for daily Mass (we call it Divine Liturgy) today, and got to hear some of the lovely hymns about the transfiguration from the Byzantine tradition. Byzantine hymns are invariably doctrinal, so that even if the priest doesn't give a homily, you get one, just from the music. Let me give you a few samples:


[At vespers] O Lord, when You were transfigured before being crucified, Mount Tabor was made to resemble heaven, for a cloud was extended as a canopy and the Father bore witness to You. Peter, James, and John were present there, the same three apostles who were to be with You at the time of Judas' betrayal, so that having seen You in glory, they would not be dismayed at the time of your suffering. Likewise, O Lord, makes us worthy to recognize You as our God in these same sufferings You endured in your great mercy, and to adore you.


This hymn answers the question: Why transfigure? Jesus showed some of his divine glory to the apostles in order to prepare them for the horrible suffering that would befall his human nature. One could very easily have doubted Christ seeing him suffer, unless one had seen a foretaste of his risen glory on Mt. Tabor.


[At Divine Liturgy] You were transfigured on the mountain, O Christ our God, and your disciples beheld as much as they could of your glory, so that when they would see You crucified, they would understand that You suffered willingly. They would preach to the world that You are truly the reflection of the Father.


This hymn tells us more: we know that Christ suffered willingly, for surely one who becamed transfigured as Christ did, talked to the dead heroes of Israel (Moses and Elijah), and had God the Father say "This is my beloved Son," could have come down from the cross or given the Jews the slip when they tried to crucify him. Jesus suffered on purpose, for our sake, and the Transfiguration is evidence of that.


The Transfiguration: the Miracle of Laundry?


With the recent discussion on the catholig blogs (Mark Shea and Amy Welborn)about priests who say the multiplication of loaves and fishes is the "miracle of sharing," I wonder if anyone is bold enough to say that the transfiguration never happened, and the reason that Jesus' clothes became dazzlingly white is because he did his laundry. Washing clothes is a rare occurence in the water-poor Middle East, and so his disciples were startled by the cleanliness of his clothes and recorded it as a miracle.



Monday, August 05, 2002

Ethics does not equal compliance


I was browsing the job listings for philosophers at the Chronicle for Higher Education, and I saw an ad for a Director of Ethics Policy at the American Medical Association. I quote:


Ethics: Director, Ethics Policy. American Medical Association is seeking qualified applicants for the position of Director, Ethics Policy in Chicago. Qualified applicants must possess a JD degree, or its equivalent, and at least 5 years' work experience in a position requiring the practical application of medical ethics.


Notice that they don't look for someone with a philosophy degree in ethics, but rather for someone with a law degree. This is a big clue that what they mean by ethics isn't what most people mean by ethics, that is, what humans ought to do. The AMA, like many in the business world, view ethics as what one can get away with. Why else would you need a lawyer to direct your ethics policy?


Stories of Martyrdom


This weekend I was reading some history of the early Church (I really am a church nerd), and came across a description of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp. He was the bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and was burned at the stake as an old man. I had heard the story before, but something struck me this time:


St. Polycarp asked that they not fasten him to the stake! He just stood there, unrestrained, as the fire burned. Imagine this. He could have been safe if he would just sacrifice to the Roman gods, but rather than do that, he willingly stood in place as they burned him.


Consider your own faith. Would it stand up to this? True faith always involves a death, a death to sin. This is why old baptismal fonts look like graves. We must be willing to give up everything for Christ. Meditation on the deeds of the martyrs is can allow us to realize that clinging to life rather than embracing the Lord of Life is silly. Anything that we may need to give up for Christ will be given back to us.


Saturday, August 03, 2002

Voice of the Faithful Unmasked!


They have taken to silencing anyone who questions the direction of the organization. Lately, discussions of Deborah Haffner, the speaker who is a past president of SIECUS, have been deleted. For detail on this, go to Peter Vere's blogspot.


If any of you gave any money to Voice of the Faithful, your penance is to listen to "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the Who ten times at full volume.


Friday, August 02, 2002

Is Voice of the Faithful Faithful?


The group invited a woman named Deborah Haffner to speak at their recent conference, on how to make parishes a sexually safe place. Haffner is a past president of SIECUS, an organization that promotes sex education. You should take a look at their website to see what sort of organization it is. It is certainly not Catholic, and in fact opposes the teaching of the Catholic Church on such issues as contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and masturbation.


Make up your own mind. Also check out the message board on their website, where David Alexander has been doing wondeful work pointing out the problems with the organization.


I've added a few blogs to my list on the left.


As you may know, Catholic blogistan is growing so quickly that it is very difficult to have a complete list. Fortunately, Gerard Serafin has been keeping track here.


I've added Cacciaguda, who was kind enough to link to me, and who is a fellow Wagnerian as well, Shawn Tribe, who is a fellow Byzantinophile, and Chris Hart, who has the best URL.

Welcome to my blog!


If you are new here, welcome. I hope that you find my stuff interesting and enjoyable. Be sure to check out the archives, as well as my list of favorite articles on the left. Also check out the links to other bloggers. Feedback is always welcome.


There is story on St. Blog's in the Chicago Tribune


Go here to see the story (link requires registration). If you get the print edition, you can see my picture!


Thursday, August 01, 2002

Karl’s Practical Guide to Finding a Priest to Hear Your Confession



Earlier I wrote a plea that priests would offer confessions more often than half an hour on Saturdays. Today I want to give a practical guide for those of you who may have a need for the sacrament on Sunday or Monday, and might not know how to go about finding a priest to hear your confession. If you are unsure if you need to go, find a good examination of conscience. I recommend this prayer book from Scepter Press, but National Catholic Register has an online version. Read the examination of conscience in humility, and realize that generally our actions are a lot more sinful (sometimes mortally) than we realize.

The first thing to realize is that if you make an appointment with a priest, you likely won’t be able to go anonymously. The priest is going to see your face and watch you as you confess. I realize that this is a deterrent, but it is necessary. If you wish to retain some degree of anonymity, you will have to travel to a parish that is not your own.


Next, do a little research. There may be some parishes or religious organizations that offer confessions throughout the week. I live in Chicago and can give you some examples. St. George in Tinley Park offers confessions on Thursday nights at 7:00pm, although there is usually quite a line. St. Mary of the Angels in Bucktown hears confessions twenty minutes before each Mass. In fact, I have stopped at St. Mary of the Angels many times, and have never found a time when there wasn’t a priest in the confessional. Holy Name Cathedral offers them before the 5:30 Mass on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday, as well as on Saturday from 3-5pm, from 6-7pm, and after the 7:30pm Mass. St. Peter’s in the Loop has confessions during the day from 7:30am to 6:00pm, and on Saturday from noon to 4:30. So if you are willing to travel, you may be able to find a place to go. When I lived in Albany, the Franciscans had a chapel in a shopping mall. One could go to Mass there and could also go into the confessional, ring a bell, and wait for a priest. It was very nice.


In addition, monasteries generally will provide someone for you. They exist to serve the spiritual needs of their communities, and as long as you give some warning and don’t show up during lunch or liturgy, they should be able to find a priest. There are two monasteries that I know of in the Chicago area: St. Procopius in Lisle, and a Benedictine monastery near Comiskey Park (www.chicagomonk.org). You may have similar resources near you. (If you do, you should go hear Vespers sometime.)


If you don’t have these options, you will have to find a parish priest. The first thing to try is to go to morning Mass. Get there early, perhaps half an hour. When you see the priest, say “Father, I wonder if you might have time to hear my confession?” If you give him plenty of time, he likely will not refuse you. He may ask if you can wait until after Mass, since he does have to prepare himself.


If this isn’t possible, then call the rectory. Say “I was wondering if there is anyone who can hear my confession sometime in the next day or two?” Be polite, and be understanding if the priest’s schedule is too busy. They have many responsibilities these days. What you want to do is to be flexible, and give the priest options when he can see you. Fr. O’Neal points out in a letter to me that you just can’t expect a priest to hear your confession instantly. The only time that you can’t possibly wait a few hours to go to confession is if you are dying. If you are dying, then by all means insist that you need to see a priest as soon as possible. Otherwise, be willing to wait a little bit.


Confession is one of the greatest sacraments, and is certainly the least appreciated. Think what you can get: your soul can be wiped clean of every stain of sin, as pure and as innocent as a newly baptized child. If you sin, and we all sin, you’ve just got to go. Don’t let the restriction to a half hour on Saturdays keep you away.

Shameless Self Promotion


Dear readers,
You may be interested to know that I will be slightly famous on Friday. The Chicago Tribune is running an article on Catholic bloggers and the scandal. I am told the story will be in the Metro section, on the religion page. They took pictures of me, so you might get to see what I look like. The byline should be Darlene Stevenson.


Wednesday, July 31, 2002

How many scandals are too many?


I had this thought the other day, and since I have a blog, every thought must be published! Here it is: there have been lots of people recently who claim that they just can't belong to a church which has so many abusive clerics. But what if there were only one priest who abused a child? Would that be enough to get you out of the Church? How about two? Three? If not three, then maybe ten? How about fifty? If one isn't enough, then how come fifty or a hundred is enough? Where is the limit? If one scandal is not enough to destroy your faith, but a hundred is enough, then we can put a value on your faith. John Doe's faith is strong enough to withstand 49 scandals, but no more. Mary Jane's faith can only withstand 10 scandals.


But faith is not a deal made with God: "I'll believe in You and follow You as long as less than 49 of Your ministers don't betray me!" It is a personal relationship with God which involves putting all of one's eggs into God's basket. We accept the free gift of salvation from God. But like all gifts, we can't put conditions on it. We can't say to Grandma that she can give us Christmas presents as long as it's an electric train and not a sweater. We just have to accept what we are given. We can't have faith in God and then reject it if difficulties arise. It would be bad manners. It wouldn't really be faith.



Juan Diego is to be canonized today


You can watch it on EWTN. Deo Gratias!

Further evidence we live in a warped culture


The new Reader's Digest describes Susan Sarandon (age 55) as "Still sexy as ever!" If I were a 55 year-old woman, I would much rather be recognized for intelligence, wit, charm, perhaps beauty, hopefully sanctity, but not "sexiness."

Tuesday, July 30, 2002

Upon reflection


Perhaps my post on Leon Panetta is a bit shrill in tone. Maybe the bishops have some good reason for appointing pro-partial-birth abortion politicians to their National Review Board. I wish someone would explain it to me.


What are you doing reading me when Emily Stimpson has this wonderful post?

Raider Girls and Human Nature


I got up this morning and flipped on ESPN to check out baseball trade reports. My favorite team, the White Sox, are currently conducting a fire sale. While I was watching, commercials for a show called "The Season" came on, in which a bunch of scantily-clad young lovelies bounced across the screen. ESPN will be showing a documentary on women who try out to be Raiders cheerleaders. I needed to avert my eyes. There have also been commercials on Fox for a new series that consists of nothing, so far I as I can tell, other than fast cars and softcore pornography.


In philosophy classes I would bring up the sexual content of television and ask whether it was a good thing or not. I argued that due to the fact that human beings have settled dispositions of character, or habits, which are acquired by the actions we do, that watching such things could be damaging. In other words, if chastity is a virtue, one needs to act chastely in order to make that virtue a habit, to become chaste. The constant exposure to sexually licentious material can be very damaging to one's character. If I sit and watch Raider girls, I am likely to do more than experience aesthetic appreciation of their dancing skills; I am probably going to start thinking unchaste thoughts.


The response from the students in class was something like this: "You can't blame TV for how people act. People are going to do what they want to do. TV doesn't make people bad." In other words, the content of entertainment has no effect on character. This is why someone like Britney Spears can produce explicit teasing videos but still can preach virginity to teen girls: the videos don't affect the behavior of the girls, Miss Spears probably thinks. People will do what they do, and what they see won't change that. Very few of the students were willing to admit that some content should be censored, and they defended their opinion by erecting a brick wall between entertainment content and human behavior.


But this wall can't stand. I asked the students how many of them wore Nike shoes. About 75% of the class raised their hands. Did they research shoes and find out that Nikes were the best? Of course not. They saw Nike advertisements, and the content of the ads changed their behavior. If Nike ads can change behavior, then why not a sexually charged music video or a documentary on Raiderettes? Advertising clearly works, which is why so many millions of dollars are spent on it. What we see does affect what we do.


The consequence of this is that those who work in the entertainment industry ought to exercise restraint. Yes, one can make more money by showing a bit of skin, but there will be damage done to the viewers.

Monday, July 29, 2002

Leon Panetta? Shame on you bishops!


Kathryn Jean Lopez has written an article on the appontment of pro-late-term abortion Leon Panetta to the U.S. bishops' oversight committee. She quotes a letter that Panetta wrote to a constituent on the subject of abortion. Panetta relies on an old Jesuit ethicist named Austin Fagothey, who said: A state, especially the pluralistic state of today, must operate within the framework of popular consensus. The argument for the immorality of abortion, the theory of rights on which it rests, and the philosophy underlying the ethics there outlined is not accepted by a large part of the population. I can be convinced of it beyond the shadow of a doubt and steer my own life by it, yet be unable to convince my fellow citizens of my views. Do I then have the right to impose my philosophical convictions any more than my religious convictions on others who disagree with me? I think not, and this is the reason why I think there should be no laws on abortion. I believe the best way to cope with abortion is not by punitive legislation but by a persuasive program of moral education aimed at building up a respect for life.


This is blatant idiocy. We are supposed to refrain from legislating about certain things because not everyone agrees that abortion is wrong. How many people have to agree that a law is needed before we can make a law? 100%? If we need to wait until 100% agree that abortion is wrong, we won't need the law. How about 51%? 43%? 10%? When does it become permissible to make such a law?


The idea that we can't legislate morality is also ludicrously stupid. We legislate morality all the time: there are laws against murder, fraud, perjury, and any number of other morally bad acts. Fagothey and Panetta are working from the notion that morality is a simple matter of taste, something like preferring vanilla to chocalate ice cream. Who am I to impose my love for vanilla on the chocalate-lovers? But destroying life in the womb is not a matter of taste. There is an objective reality here: the child who is killed, the mother who kills her child, the doctor who takes her money to kill it, and the father who approves. These are moral realities, and no difference of opinion on the rightness of abortion can make these terrible acts right. Wrong actions have bad effects whether we know they are wrong or not. A child who sticks his hand in a fire will be burned, whatever his opinions on the power of the fire to burn him. Those who participate in the abortion will be terribly damaged, whether or not they know the wrongness of the act. Legislation to prevent abortion is not the "imposition of philosophical views," but is an act of charity to prevent people from ruining their lives by committing a horrible crime that will affect their lives for the worse forever.


Fr. Fagothey should have had his teaching faculties revoked for this sort of poppycock that allows pro-abortion Catholic politicians to take cover. This is what Ex corde ecclesiae would have stopped, were it ever implemented. Perhaps the fact that Panetta is on the panel gives a clue why the bishops won't reign in the Catholic schools: they don't want to! Too many of the bishops do not accept the authoritative teachings of the Church, and so see Leon Panetta, notorious abortion promoter, as a perfectly acceptable person to be on a panel to protect children.


Note to the bishops: if you need practicing Catholics to serve on a panel to make sure that you are complying with your policy on priestly sex abuse, may I nominate Amy Welborn or Emily Stimpson or any of the numerous members of St. Blog's?



Friday, July 26, 2002

The Holy Spirit isn't the only spirit that speaks


Garry Wills has been ubiquitous recently, promoting his new book Why I am a Catholic. Generally his arguments are that since a sufficiently large number of the Catholic laity believes X, then the Church ought to teach X. For example, in a recent interview in the Boston Globe, he says Catholics have now reached a very large consensus that on certain things, the Vatican is simply nutty. To say that women cannot be priests because they don't look like Jesus is nutty. It's nutty to say, as the Vatican does, that a husband who is HIV-positive, and loves his wife, cannot use a condom. Catholics have no problem recognizing that it is nutty, and that hasn't disturbed their faith over the last 30 years, so I don't think their faith will be disturbed now. In other words, if enough people think it is crazy, the Church ought to change. In another recent article in the Chicago Tribune, Wills claimed that women would be ordained soon, because "The Spirit is talking."


His thinking is based on a false understanding of a theological concept called the sensus fidei, which Lumen Gentium explains:"The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals." Folks like Wills and his allies take this to mean that if the body of the faithful shows general consent on something, such as the use of contraception or women priests, then this consent must be evidence of the supernatural sense of the faith, or in other words "The work of the Holy Spirit."


But notice the definition is more restrictive than that. All it means is that the whole Church won't fail, and that if the whole Church believes something, we can be sure it is true. Pope John Paul II has a wonderful explanation of this concept of sensus fidei in his exhortation to Christian families, Familiaris Consortio. According to the Pope, the sense of the faith gives the Church the ability to discern the truth about theological matters. But this discernment doesn't come from a mere taking of a poll: it is the work of the whole Church according to the diversity of the various gifts and charisms that, together with and according to the responsibility proper to each one, work together for a more profound understanding and activation of the word of God. We don't count heads (64% for birth control? Then repeal Humanae Vitae!), but we use discernment, judgment done by the appropriate people in the appropriate ways. The pope adds, and this is most important, Following Christ, the Church seeks the truth, which is not always the same as the majority opinion. Yes, opinion polls can be useful tools for bishops, but they are not the ultimate determinant. Rather, we always discern according to the rule of faith, and the most proper guardians of the faith, despite all their failings, are the bishops.


It is a very grave mistake to take majority opinion to be the voice of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit talks, certainly, but he always speaks through the Church Christ founded. The spirit that speaks through majority opinion may very well be the spirit of the age, the rince of this world, who Jesus says was a murderer from the beginning.

Wednesday, July 24, 2002

Two Old Priests


I was watching EWTN today and saw the pope speaking to the young. As he was speaking, a little river of saliva dripped out of his mouth. Without stopping his speech, the pope reached up with a cloth and wiped his face, while he continued. He looked like any other 82 year old man. He should have been at home resting, but here he was in Toronto, bringing the hope of Christ to the world. No-one would blame him if he stayed in Rome. But he has a duty to fulfill, and he is doing so, heroically.


I saw Fr. Ray at daily Mass today. Fr. Ray recently celebrated his fiftieth anniversary as a priest. He is a small, frail, old man. Today he concelebrated and read the gospel. After reading the gospel, the priest or deacon is supposed to lift the book and say "The gospel of the Lord." Fr. Ray cannot lift the book easily. In order to lift it, he has to pull the book down a little over the edge of the lectern. Then he pushes down with a sharp movement in order to rotate the book off the lectern. Quickly he has to shift his arms to get them underneath in order to have leverage to lift the book. The entire procedure looks painful. No-one would blame him if he left the book on the stand. But there is a right way to do things, and Fr. Ray is apparently willing to sacrifice his comfort in order to say Mass correctly.


I think the witness of both these old priests speaks for itself.


My wife is reading the Little Flower's book


Her reaction so far to St. Therese's writings is, "I'm nothing like she is."

Me neither.

Voice of the Faithful is all about power, power power


VOTF has set up a fund, the Voice of Compassion, to allow Catholics who don't like Cardinal Law to donate money to the poor without going through the diocesan administration. On the surface this may seem to be a good thing--after all, who wants his money to go to paying abuse settlements? But upon closer view, this becomes clearly a power grab.


Just the other day, the VOTF brought their money to the archdiocese, and said, in effect, "You can have this money, but you can't spend it on administration, development, or indirect costs of the charities." In other words, there are strings attached. Here are the details from their website:

- 90% of net donations will be distributed, on a quarterly basis, to the Archdiocese of Boston to support ministries traditionally funded by the Cardinal’s Appeal. The distribution will occur after receipt of detailed information regarding the expected allocation of the funds, which will be in the same proportion that the total cost of each program is to the total cost of all supported ministries. However, the funds will be applied only to direct costs of these ministries, not to their indirect costs or to development or general administrative expenses of the Archdiocese.

- The Archdiocese will be asked to provide to NCCF an accounting of the use of the distributed funds. If adequate information regarding the use of the funds is not made available, distributions will instead be made to Catholic Charities. If Catholic Charities does not accept the donation, NCCF, in consultation with VOTF, will determine the distribution of the assets to Catholic programs in the Archdiocese such as lesser-advantaged parish schools and programs for women religious.


So the archdiocese can have the money as long as they don't spend it on the costs of running the archdiocese. It reminds me of the old western: "I'll let you live, but you gotta dance first. Now dance! " The cardinal quite properly rejected the money. Imagine what would happen if Cardinal Law did take the money: there would be a precedent of targeted donations. Who wants his or her donation to be used to pay administrative costs? We all want our money to go directly to the poor. Nobody wants to pay for salaries. If we can all earmark our donations, we all would, and there would be no money to run the diocese. Whatever you think of Cardinal Law, he has a duty to the archdiocese and to his successor not to make it impossible to run the archdiocese.



There is no need for this Voice of Compassion fund. If you don't want to give to the Cardinal's Appeal, don't. Give your money directly to the charities themselves. Don't take a bag of money to the cardinal and say "You want it? You can have it if you surrender power to us!"


Tuesday, July 23, 2002

Giving compliments where they are due


Recently I have been running to morning Mass. It is about 2.5 miles away, and so makes for a good 5 mile run. The priests at the parish, St. George in Tinley Park IL, have tended recently to take their homilies from the Office of Readings. If you don't know, the Office of Readings is part of the Liturgy of the Hours, the daily prayer of the Church. All priests and deacons are obliged to say this prayer, which consists of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer (Vespers), Daytime Prayer, Office of Readings, and Night Prayer. The various "hours" consist of psalms, antiphons, scripture readings, intercessory prayers, and the Our Father. The Office of Readings has longer readings from Scripture and from Church Fathers and the saints. The laity are also encouraged to pray these prayers, which have their root in the temple prayer of the Jews. Aquinas called the psalms the gymnasium of the soul, and Jesus himself prayed the psalms daily. We have evidence in his words on the cross, "My God My God why have you forsaken me?" which is from Psalm 22. If you want to get started saying the prayers, you can buy the books in a Catholic book store, or you can get started at the Universalis website. It is a bit complicated, but well worth the effort.


Back to St. George: they have been taking daily mass homilies from the Office of Readings. This is a wonderful practice. There is so much treasure in the teachings of the Church, many of which are present in the daily office. Today, for example, is the feast day of St. Bridget of Sweden. The office includes her wonderful prayerful reflection on the passion of Christ. So the priest mentioned the life of Bridget and the prayer she wrote in the homily. On the way out of the church, the assistant pastor was handing out xeroxed copies of the prayer. What a wonderful thing! The priests care so much about the spiritual life of their parishioners that they take the time to make copies of a prayer of a great saint and hand them out.


Bravo to St. George parish.


Monday, July 22, 2002

Should the faithful vote for bishops?


Sure! But who are the faithful?


Bishops such as Augustine and Ambrose were named by popular acclaim in their cities, and both turned out to be giants of the Church. But here is the problem: in those days, membership in the Church was still somewhat of a scary and dangerous thing. The pagan persecutions of the past had recently been overcome, but the Arian heretics still had political power. Being a Catholic was perilous. What this means is that the faithful, those who self-identified as Catholic, were much more likely in the fourth century actually to believe what the Church teaches, and therefore were also more likely to be good judges in who would make a good defender of that faith. Why would you be Catholic if it could get you killed or exiled (as Athanasius was) if you didn't believe the Catholic faith?


But now, there are no persecutions or political pressure on Catholics. You can call yourself Catholic without any fear of public reprisal. You also don't need to believe anything in order say you are a Catholic, as the Church enforces no penalties. There are lots of Catholic politicians and entertainers who push for abortion rights and sexual "freedom." Less than one quarter of Catholics believe in the teachings of the Church. Would you be comfortable with them voting for a new bishop?


If Voice of the Faithful was really the voice of the faithful, it would be fine. However, if the group represents a cross-section of average Catholics in America, then we should be leary of it.


Saturday, July 20, 2002

I've added links to some of my better postings on the left.
If you are a new reader, go take a look. You will have to scroll through the page to find the article. As always, comments are welcome!

Friday, July 19, 2002

Even the Devil can quote Vatican II documents for his purposes


Steve Mattson (whom you should read) quotes an article by Fr. McBrien in Tidings on the Voice of the Faithful. McBrien argues that VOTF is a good thing, as it fulfills the supposed goals of Vatican II to have the laity take part in Church governance. In fact, he says "the hopes of Vatican II will never be fulfilled without the direct and meaningful involvement of laity in the life and mission of the Catholic Church." By "meaningful" one should understand that McBrien means for the laity to be in charge of the bishops, in other words for the laity to take on the role of ruling.


Fr. McBrien then quotes some documents of Vatican II to support his case, which is good. Most often, people will cite the amorphous "Spirit of Vatican II" without giving sources. However, McBrien quotes these documents in misleading ways. He points out the parts of the documents that call for the laity to participate actively in the sanctifying mission of the Church, but leaves out the parts that specify the obligations of the laity.


For example, he quotes the Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People, n.10, which says that "the laity have an active part to play in the life and activity of the Church." [McBrien doesn't capitalize "church," as it should be. Perhaps he is talking about some other church than the Catholic Church?] But McBrien leaves out quotes such as n.24: "But no enterprise must lay claim to the name 'Catholic' if it has not the approval of legitimate ecclesiastical authority."


McBrien quotes the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, n.31, on how the laity is also charged with the threefold mission of Christ to teach, rule, and sanctify. But he leaves out n.37 on the obedience that the laity is the show: "Like all Christians, the laity should promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ. In this they will follow Christ's example who, by his obedience unto death, opened the blessed way of libery of the sons of God to all men." So obedience is a holy duty for the laity, by which we imitate Christ, who perfectly obeyed the saving will of God the Father.


Finally, McBrien quotes the Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n.9, on the duty of parish priests to listen to their parishioners and to strive to collaborate with them. But he leaves out the part on the obligations of the laity to their priests: "They should treat them with filial love as being their fathers and pastors."


One must be very careful whenever one encounters Fr. Richard McBrien. He is very skilled at making himself seem to be just another faithful priest, but he is no such thing. He uses every opportunity available to him (and they are many, as he is always on the television screen) to tear down the Mystical Body of Christ and replace it with the Elected Body of Man. But we must always remember that the Church is not a democracy, but rather is a monarchy with Christ as the King. We have the current hierarchical structure, as unwieldy and difficult as it may be, because Christ set it up that way. The apostles (sinners all) were entrusted with the role of governing the Church in order to safeguard the precious truths handed on to them by Jesus. If we undergo the kind of structural change supported by McBrien and intimated by the mission statement of VOTF, "Keep the faith, change the church," we will not keep the faith. The faith only comes to us by the Church. If we change the Church, making it more democratic or responsive to the modern age, we run the risk of losing our faith.


Thursday, July 18, 2002

If you are a priest and want to be a saint, hear confessions daily!


I have done an unscientific survey of priests who have been canonized, and one thing that they all have in common is that they were known as good and holy confessors. One does not get such a reputation just by hearing confessions for half an hour on Saturdays: these saints heard them every day. For example. St. Phillip Neri had a reputation as a holy confessor. Likewise for St. Joseph Cupertino, who incidentally is the patron of air travel, since he used to levitate during Mass. St. John Neumann learned French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, and even Gaelic so that he could hear confessions. St. Louis de Montfort encouraged confessions. Finally, St. John Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests, spent sixteen to eighteen hours a day in the confessional.


If I have any priestly readers, they ought to think: what would these saints think of the current Catholic practice of confessions only on Saturday for 45 minutes? If you want to be a saint, as we all should, then you should seriously consider hearing confessions every day. Let me suggest something simple: go sit in the confessional for half an hour every day before daily Mass. If no-one comes in, read the office, say a rosary, or even take a nap. But go sit in the room. You have been given a great gift, the ability to absolve sins, and you should use it. Gifts are given to be used.


Confessions on Saturdays would be fine if people only sinned on Saturday morning. What if someone commits a mortal sin on Sunday? He has to wait a week for the opportunity to confess it. Perhaps he feels ashamed, and doesn't want to ask a priest to hear his confession. After all, the devil works through shame. "Don't bother the priest. Why must you be such a bother?" The line about confessions being available "by appointment" is often not true. So consider that poor person who commits a grave sin on Sunday. All week he must wait, and perhaps he becomes hardened in his sin. His pride tells him that it can't be that bad. He would have confessed it the next day if he could have, but after waiting a week, he may even forget. It may be weeks and weeks before he confesses it. Meanwhile the life of sanctifying grace is dead in his soul, and should he die, he will go to Hell. Confessions on Saturday would be fine if people only died on Saturday night.


In the apostolic age, great miracles occured as people were raised from the dead and cured of all sorts of diseases. You as a priest today might complain that you don't get to work such miracles. Consider what blessed Josemaria Escriva says of the miracles that priests can do:Today too blind men, who had lost the ability to look up to heaven and contemplate the wonderful works of God, recover their sight. Lame and crippled men, who were bound by their passions and whose hearts had forgotten love, recover their freedom. Deaf men, who did not want to know God are given back their hearing. Dumb men, whose tongues were bound because they did not want to acknowledge their defeats, begin to talk. And dead men, in whom sin had destroyed life, come to life again. We see once more that "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword." And just as the first Christians did, we rejoice when we contemplate the power of the Holy Spirit and see the results of his action on the mind and will of his creatures.


Tuesday, July 16, 2002

Good news from the Divine Office
Psalm 68: "The Almighy has defeated a numberless army
and kings and armies are in flight, in flight
while you were at rest among the sheepfolds."

The Missing El Greco has been found

Thanks to one of my readers, the painting of Christ as a child walking with St. Joseph has been found. Keep in mind that the colors don't really come through your screen, and that the original painting is nine feet tall. As I said before, I stood looking at this picture and felt like tagging along. Don't they look like they are having fun? It makes me think of time with my own father. What a wonderful thing the Incarnation is!

MacIntyre on the brain


I've been reading a book by Alasdair MacIntyre recently, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?. MacIntyre is one of the smartest philosophers working today, and incidentally has recently become a Catholic. (I saw him at a liturgy after a conference a few years ago, and it was neat to see this intellectual giant of a man kneeling in the pews like a pious altar boy.) He is of the opinion that modern moral discourse is unintelligible because, although we use the same words, we don't mean the same things. For example, I would argue that a fetus has a right to life, whereas Patty Ireland would argue that she has a right to her own body. The two senses of "right" are different. I mean that the child has a right in that it deserves respect as a creation in the image and likeness of God, she means that she has a right in the sense of possession and use.


MacIntyre frames the primary issue of moral debate as a conflict between those who seek the good of effectiveness and those who seek excellence or virtue. Effectiveness means success, money, power, pleasure, economic stability. Excellence means duty, honor, temperance, magnanimity, the traditional virtues. Most moral talk these days has to do with effectiveness: how can we make more people happy? How can we give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number? If achieving this effectiveness requires that some excellence be compromised, so be it. Why should we worry about a president who lies about sexual relationships in the Oval Office if the economy is humming along? Effectiveness trumps excellence. The recent business scandals are another example: what if the accountanting shenanigans had not been discovered? The stock market would still be up, Enron and Worldcom would still be in business, and no one would care that the CEO's and accountants were liars and cheats. No harm, no foul, right?


Philosophically speaking, MacIntyre (and Plato and Aristotle) argues that it is impossible to give any coherent view of what effectiveness is without understanding its relationship to excellence. We see this in Mill: he develops his utilitarianism on the basis that pleasure is the highest good. But what if I can get lots of pleasure for you by the minimal pleasure of torturing someone to death in an arena? How do we judge between different pleasures? Without some understanding of the basic excellence of human beings, that is, how good pleasures are different from bad pleasures, we end up in a muddle. Mill himself imports Aristotelian ideas into his philosophy. His utilitarianism is not pure, for the simple reason that a pure utilitarianism would be anarchy.


Did Jesus propose goods of effectiveness or excellence? It is clear that Jesus proposes a virtue/excellence morality: we are to be perfect, as our Father is perfect. Jesus tells us to be good, he doesn't tell us to be successful. So folks like Rupert Everett, Andrew Sullivan, and many squishy bishops who propose that moral rules be changed, either to prevent the spread of a disease, to reduce shame, to increase collections, or to make the churches full again, miss the point completely. We are to do good no matter if the mountains fall, not because by doing good we will accomplish great things, but because by doing good we are acting like God. We may never achieve victory in this life. But we can do better. We can become Christlike.


Monday, July 15, 2002

Say it ain't so, Emily!


Emily Stimpson, who writes my favorite blog Fool's Folly, says that she is going to shut down the blog so she can concentrate on her graduate studies.


Take it from me, Emily: it is possible to get the highest degree in the land even if one has the attention span of a gnat. My entire career in grad school was a desperate search for something to distract me from my classes, my comprehensive exam, and my dissertation. No matter how much you love your topic, you will get sick of it, and you will need a sanity release. A half-hour of blogging a day should be just the ticket, enough to provide us Stimpson-philes with a fix, but not so much that you flunk out of school.


Thoughts on Rupert Everett and the "Middle Way"


Mi esposa and I were in Spain last week, and the only news we could get was the BBC. They reported on the World Aids Day in Barcelona, and give a snippet of comments from Rupert Everett, complaining that "for the Catholic Church, one is either a sinner or a saint. There is no middle way." The Church claims that abstinence is the only acceptable way to combat AIDS. But real people can't be expected to abstain from sexual activity; we can't all be saints. The Church needs to change, in order to conform to the weaknesses of human beings.


What folks like Everett want is more, however: rather than declaring sin to be an understandable and regrettable part of life, they want sin to be declared not to be a sin. All sorts of sexual activity are to be allowed simply because people desire and commit all forms of sexual activity. The reason that this is an attractive option is that it removes responsibility. If I have some habit that I can't conquer, it will be a great relief to me if someone were to say "Don't worry about the habit. It isn't bad after all." In the words of a popular song, if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad! Can't we just relax the sexual rules and make everyone happy?


No, we can't. The problem is that what is sinful is not a matter of personal choice. Sin belongs to the law of the universe created by God. Frank Sheed says that the law against adultery is every bit as solid and permanent as the law of gravity. We cannot just wave our hands and make a sinful activity benign. Homosexuality, a sin dear to Everett's heart, is wrong whether we want it to be or not. Such behavior is always damaging to the human person. Such a change in Church policy as Everett proposes would be like a town reducing the level of people running red lights by having all the traffic lights shine green all the time. Sure, there wouldn't be tickets for red-light running, but there would be lots of deadly accidents.


Finally, Rupert Everett is wrong to claim that the Church has two ways, that of sinners and that of saints. There is only one way, that of sinners striving to be saints. We must do our best to act in accord with God's law, knowing that we will fail, but also having a divine hope: there is forgiveness available! The difference between a sinner and a saint is not that one sins and the other doesn't. It is that the saint gets up after he falls, whereas the sinner stays down in the mud.


Here is a link to the BBC story, although it has been edited down to a mere nugget.