“Chuck was not perfect,” said Timothy George this morning in his homily at Chuck Colson’s memorial service at the National Cathedral, “but he was forgiven. He never got over the wonder and surprise of having encountered Jesus Christ as a real person, a living reality; the one person in human history who passed through the gossamer veil of death and came back to tell us what was on the other side and how we should prepare for that journey by living every day in the light of eternity.”

Chuck, who was a friend of many of us here and of the magazine’s, and most notably of the magazine’s founder Richard John Neuhaus, lived an extraordinary life and was (this doesn’t always follow) an extraordinary man. I first met him after I’d heard people who knew him speak of him, and not very kindly either. These were Christians who sniffed at his conversion, his prison work, and his religious and cultural conservatism, as all a little dubious and maybe a little simple-minded.

Then I met him at some meeting and realized I’d just met the Real Thing. Chuck Colson had a personal coherence and a kind of transparent solidity that’s much less common in powerful people than you’d think. But him, he was It. Which Timothy’s homily captures.

One quote from the homily, which I found striking, and a little convicting:

Of all the tributes that have been written about Chuck in recent days, the one that touched me most deeply was by Mr. Lanny Davis, who served as Special Counsel to President Clinton, the same title Chuck Colson had in his work at the White House with President Nixon. Mr. Davis described his meeting with Chuck several years ago at a dinner before the National Prayer Breakfast. They greeted one another, and Chuck said to Mr. Davis, “I’ve wanted for a very long time to say something to you: I am sorry, may God forgive me.”

“I looked at him, stunned,” Mr. Davis wrote. Chuck continued, “You know, I’m the guy who put you on the enemies list – that was wrong, please forgive me.” Mr. Davis said, “I looked into his eyes and I felt a strange and deep peace. It was eerie. I also saw a profound goodness and spirituality. My eyes teared up. ‘Of course I forgive you, Mr. Colson.’”

Mr. Davis then asked for Chuck’s forgiveness, as years before he himself had spoken with hatred about Chuck. Immediately, Chuck hugged him. “I learned an important lesson that night,” Lanny Davis said. “I vowed that I would never use the word ‘hate’ about people in politics with whom I disagreed.”

Read the whole homily here.

Last week the American Enterprise Institute’s Eric Kaufmann posted an article dissecting global demographic trends with an eye toward birthrates among the religious and the secular. His conclusion? The future is likely to be far more religious than many imagine–and not just because of the much-discussed ascendency of the southern hemisphere. Western cultures, where religious practice has long been in decline, will themselves see a revival of faith as a combination of immigration and consistently high birthrates among traditionalist believers simply outlasts the selfish ideals of sexual liberationism and perpetual singlehood. A culture with more leashes than strollers is simply unsustainable in the long run, Kaufmann argues. His essay should pique the interest of anyone concerned about these things, and it merits a careful read. Were it more widely circulated and digested, it would go a long way towards piloting the discourse on the future of religion and secularism away from intellectual shorthand and tired, simplistic tropes.

But there’s room for disagreement. AEI’s Andrew Rugg, in a response posted this morning, challenges Kaufmann’s thesis with data on “Milennial” religious practice, like frequency of church attendance. It’s important to note that Rugg’s rejoinder is specifically considering the American scene, while Kaufmann’s original piece looked at both domestic and international trends. In some of Kaufmann’s cases (the unnoticed steadiness of Christianity in Britain thanks to Eastern European and African immigrants; the resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Israel’s army, schools, and public arena) both the data and the anecdotes are undeniable–religion is ascendent. But when it comes to the United States, Rugg thinks there may be an important difference: (more…)

George Weigel on his late friend, Charles W. Colson;

Back in the days when Chuck Colson was willing to run over his grandmother for Richard Nixon, I would have happily done the same to Mr. Colson. Well, that was then, and this is now. And over the past 20 years, I never met a more thoroughly converted Christian, a more ecumenically serious Christian, or a more tenacious Christian than Chuck Colson, who died on April 21. He was a man whom I came, not just to respect, but to love.

Also today, Austin Ruse and Stefano Gennarini issue a strong note of caution on reproductive health and family planning:

In two recent papers, Meghan Grizzle argues that the phrases “reproductive health” and “family planning” are perfectly acceptable and that pro-lifers should fight for them. She argues that abortion is not a part of reproductive health in international law and contraceptives are not a part of family planning.

In response, Meghan Grizzle claims that “Reproductive health” and “family planning” are not poisonous terms:

As the World Youth Alliance’s white paper on reproductive health demonstrates, international law is clear. No international human rights treaty includes abortion as a component of reproductive health. The first and primary international consensus document to define reproductive health, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), does not include abortion in the definition.

As we await the results of the Holy See’s talks with the Society of St. Pius X, a prominent Catholic priest has issued an important statement about Vatican II, which is at the center of the discussions.

Msgr. David Jaeger, a judge at the Roman Rota, cautioned against looking “leniently upon stray groups that are marginal but well-publicized who denounce the doctrine of the Council, including the declaration Nostra Aetate on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions.”

Speaking at Rome’s Holy Cross University earlier this month, Jaeger underscored that the Church needs to guard against– and oppose with all its strength–the plague of anti-Semitism, which has darkened the hearts of numerous Christians: “The extreme gravity of the counter-witness of those who have, for centuries, abused the name of Christ and the term Christian to persecute and oppress the Jews must never be forgotten or underestimated in any way.”

This is a welcome statement. At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to think that anyone who champions the Latin Mass and Catholic Tradition inevitably falls into the sin of anti-Semitism. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979), who headed the Holy Office, and became known as the “traditionalist’s traditionalist,” realized the ideology’s destructive nature and protected persecuted Jews (more…)

An Update on the Anglican Ordinariates
Rocco Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia

In the Beginning Was “Power”?
Anne Barbeau Gardinier, New Oxford Review

Inside Turkey’s Secretive ‘Gulen’ Movement
Justin Vela, The Atlantic

Summarizing Obama’s “Evolution”
Thomas Haine, Public Discourse

Death of a Salesman & The Vanishing Middle Class
Lee Siegel, New York Times

Kenneth B. MacIntyre launches what can only be called an, er, exoteric assault over at The American Conservative, one which may portend an internecine debate: he blasts Leo Strauss and his followers as ideological “false prophets.” Taking Paul Gottfried’s recent biography of the man as a starting point, he winds up arguing that:

The results of the Straussian method read like they were written by the intellectual offspring of Madame Blavatsky and Edgar Bergen. It may seem difficult to distinguish between the oracular pronouncements and the intellectual ventriloquism, but that’s because there is no real distinction to be made. As Gottfried notes, there is uncanny similarity between the Straussian reading of texts and the postmodern deconstruction of language. The esoteric claims provide cover for Straussian interpretive preferences and shield against criticism from anyone outside the clique. Cleanth Brooks once imagined what postmodern literary critics could have made of “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” and it makes just as much sense to ask what the Straussians could do with the nursery rhyme.

The two primary conclusions associated with Strauss’s esoteric reading of past texts are that all philosophers from the time of Plato onward were atheistic hyper-rationalists and that the United States emerged fully formed from the forehead of John Locke. Both of these conclusions are historically false, but it is inaccurate to call Strauss or his epigones bad historians because they are not historians at all.

To be fair to MacIntyre, the bulk of his criticism is filtered through the book he’s ostensibly reviewing (which, according to other reviewers, seems to be a more balanced survey), and isn’t that direct.

But still. This is a bomb-tossing review by design, (more…)

Christian author and speaker Dawn Eden recently interviewed on Fox News about her new book My Peace I Give You: Healing Sexual Wounds with the Help of the Saints. The book explores the effectiveness of grace and prayer to heal deep emotional wounds caused by sexual abuse, reminding that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of words but of power.”

Herself a Catholic and the victim of childhood sexual abuse, her interest in religion as a source of healing is becoming increasingly more common. The perceived long-standing polarity between clinical therapy and orthodox religious beliefs is becoming less of a stumbling block for patients, and many are eager to recover from emotionally traumatic experiences with the help of someone who shares their theological vision:

America has always accommodated a push and pull of secular and religious impulses. It may be that the rise in Christian counseling is “a way for religion to regain the role it lost to doctors and therapists” in the mid-20th century, says John Portmann, associate professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “After all, religion has always been about suffering.” But whether people are looking to overcome depression, relieve anxiety or address a family problem, they may prefer faith-based counseling simply because it’s in a language that fits them and their culture most snugly.

See Eden’s interview here.

Elizabeth Scalia on marriage as an Office:

We talk about vocations and “one’s state in life,” but I wonder if we would not better serve both clarity and charity by considering that beyond baptism we are called to an Office. Since all Offices are callings, then all servants are equal within them and each office is lived within the fundamental calling of all baptized people, which is to chastity, first and foremost.

Also today, the June/July issue of First Things has arrived:

In the Opinion section, you’ll find a professor’s provocative reflection on her friendship with both a devout Catholic mother of six and the CEO of the local Planned Parenthood facility, an art historian’s call for reviving true religious art, and a prospective medical student’s surprise at the contrast (and the similarities) between the religious concerns of Georgetown University Medical School and Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein School of Medicine.

Readers may be interested in perusing the text of Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s remarks to the graduating class at the Catholic University of America, delivered this past weekend. In what was likely one of the more important addresses of this commencement season (and anyone who’s attended a university-level graduation knows these locutions can sometimes be stunningly vacuous and irrelevant to the education a student has just completed), Dolan’s speech was also something of an historical remembrance. Celebrating the 125th anniversary of of CUA’s reception of papal approval from Leo XIII, his remarks range over a variety of subjects, but broadly engage issues of academic, religious, and personal liberty, and the need to anchor “freedom” in enduring truths.

As might be expected at “the bishops’ university,” ”The Law of the Gift” directly addresses the purpose and mission of Catholic universities, blending a defense of the liberal arts with the sustenance of the Gospel message and the need to treat Church teaching on educational matters seriously (including a not-so-subtle nod to the document Ex Corde Ecclesiae):

The Holy Father showed a somber realism, though, when he expanded that need to include “ . . . ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate, becoming all the more evident when we consider the confusion created by instances of apparent dissidence between some representatives of Catholic institutions and the Church’s pastoral leadership . . .”

Is not a big part of our gladness and pride this happy morning of graduation a grateful recognition that this university does indeed exude such “ecclesial communion and solidarity?” That this university is bothCatholic and American, flowing from the most noble ideals of truth and respect for human dignity that are at the heart of our Church and our country? That a university’s genuine greatness comes not from pursuing what is most chic, recent, or faddish, but what is most timeless, true, good, and beautiful in creation and creatures? That the true goal of a university is to prepare a student not only for a career but for fullness of life here and in eternity?

Some might wonder if Pope Benedict’s description of a university is way too impractical; if a university can be really Catholic and American; if the genuine freedom a university demands can flourish on a campus whose very definition includes a loyalty to Holy Mother Church . . . well, to them I say, as you and I did, “Let them come to Brookland!” This university you can now, with me, call alma mater, at the heart of our nation, is also ex corde ecclesiae, at the heart of the Church. For that I am most proud.

While some of the praise for CUA is simply due to it being Dolan’s alma mater, there’s also an unmistakable subtext of counter-argument against other recent Catholic commencement controversies. Specifically, the night-and-day contrast of Dolan’s place of honor here with Kathleen Sebelius’ presence at a certain other nearby university makes it all the more remarkable.

The Rev. Dr. Amy C. Schifrin, pastor of Mission in Christ and Faith Lutheran Churches in Iowa, writes about the time she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to get a pregnancy test:

Lacking a home physician, we made an appointment at the local Planned Parenthood clinic where I could have a pregnancy test.

Sitting together in the waiting room anxious for the results, a healthcare worker called me in and said that my husband would have to stay in the waiting room. I didn’t understand; couldn’t he come in with me? No, she said, they wanted to talk to me alone first. I didn’t understand. Even more anxious and worried that something was terribly wrong with me, I was finally given the news that I was pregnant. Overjoyed, I wanted my husband to hear, and that’s when I found out from Planned Parenthood that they always tell the mother alone first in case she does not want to continue the pregnancy. In fact, she was surprised that I did, for I had been the first woman in many weeks for whom the news was heard as good news.

Word spread like wildfire among the doctors, nurses, and technicians, who then treated us like royalty. Even those who dealt in death could yet be surprised by life, and in that moment our joy was contagious. I can only hope that in some small way it had a lasting effect to help turn their hearts to life.

The rest can be found at the website of the Christian Leadership Center, a very impressive project headed up by frequent First Things contributor Leroy Huizenga.

When Catholics Were Cristeros
Nicholas G. Hahn, RealClearReligion

Religion, Reality Television Influence American Baby Names
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press

How Do We Develop the Cultural Sensibilities of Children?
David Clayton, New Liturgical Movement

First Italian March for Life Exceeds Expectations
Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register

I Hate the Culture War, Too
Luke Moon, Juicy Ecumenism

The Washington Post runs a weekly feature in its Sunday “Outlook” section, examining “Five Myths About” something new each week.  Of course the whole point about such a feature is to have a guest writer debunk some notions that are widely believed to be true but aren’t.  Therefore it isn’t surprising if someone says of an attempted debunking, “but that isn’t a myth at all–it’s true!”  The weekly feature is also fairly space-constrained, so the guest debunker has to give a concentrated dose of truth if he is going to get his argument across.  Either that, or he has to choose some easy targets, with the obvious risk that he will appear to have chosen straw men in which no one really does believe.

Jonathan Rauch cannot be accused of picking straw men, in his contribution from the latest “Outlook,” titled “Five Myths About Same-Sex Marriage.”  But he has not delivered on the concentrated dose of the truth that this demanding format requires.  Four out of his five “myths” are plainly true, completely true, unassailably true, and all Rauch accomplishes is to run aground on the hard shoals of the truth.  Only one of his myths, the last one, is in any way a “myth” at all.  (It’s also the one that relatively few people believe, as well.)  Let’s take them each in turn.

1.  Rauch’s first “myth” is that “letting gay couples get married redefines marriage.”  He accepts as a “true premise” the proposition that “with few exceptions, marriage has always been about uniting the two sexes and linking mother and father to children.”  But he calls it a “false conclusion” to say that changing this means that “marriage ceases to be marriage.”  Why is that false?  Because, Rauch says, “marriage multitasks.”  It’s an institution that does lots of other things, and has various “social benefits” for those brought within its boundaries.

This is true but not exactly on point.  Marriage has historically been about many things–about legitimacy of offspring, and inheritance, and the acquisition and transmission of property, and the alliances of families, and even about international relations in the case of royalty. (more…)

Over the weekend, a prominent psychologist argued in the New York Times that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, alterations to which have sparked numerous bitter and divisive controversies over the past few decades, has outlived its usefulness and should no longer be taken as the definitive authority in its field. Arguing that it’s past time to “break up the psychiatric monopoly,” Allen Frances writes:

I was heavily involved in the third and fourth editions of the manual but have reluctantly concluded that the association should lose its nearly century-old monopoly on defining mental illness. Times have changed, the role of psychiatric diagnosis has changed, and the association has changed. …

[While the third edition] caught on with the general public and became a runaway best seller, with more than a million copies sold, many more than were needed for professional use. Psychiatric diagnosis crossed over from the consulting room to the cocktail party. People who previously chatted about the meaning of their latest dreams began to ponder where they best fit among D.S.M.’s intriguing categories.

The fourth edition of the manual, released in 1994, tried to contain the diagnostic inflation that followed earlier editions. It succeeded on the adult side, but failed to anticipate or control the faddish over-diagnosis of autism, attention deficit disorders and bipolar disorder in children that has since occurred.

Indeed, the D.S.M. is the victim of its own success and is accorded the authority of a bible in areas well beyond its competence.

Worries about psychology’s permeation into the culture in are nothing new (Philip Reiff’s Triumph of the Therapeutic was published in 1966), but the way this particular medical manual has become a touchstone over the last couple of decades–a kind of holy writ whose influence has burst out of the profession it was intended to serve and crept into politics, family life, and moral argument–does seem to represent a further development of that infiltration. Which is why it’s refreshing to see such a highly-qualified, serious observer of psychology air these concerns–it makes it far more difficult to dismiss the substance of these criticisms as marginal or reactionary, the usual hyperventilations of an “anti-science” crowd.

Read Frances’ argument in full here.

Robert P. George explains why the Constitution doesn’t settle the marriage debate:

A key question, perhaps the key question, this Court is being called on to address is whether the Constitution of the United States chooses between competing moral understandings of the nature, value, and social purposes of marriage, thus settling the question of how marriage is to be defined. On reflection, I believe your honor will see that it does not. Rather, the Constitution leaves the matter, as it leaves most matters of substantive law where choices between competing moral understandings must be made, for resolution in the forums of democratic deliberation and decision-making, including, in the case of federal law, the Congress of the United States.

Those who pine for the importation of European-style “hate speech” restrictions to the United States but have always found the proposal blunted by American courts’ almost-total deference to the First Amendment have an ally in Jeremy Waldron, a Harvard legal theorist. His argument, which began as a 2009 Holmes Lecture and will be expanded and presented in a forthcoming book, attempts to skirt First Amendment objections to “hate speech” laws by arguing that such speech causes actual, demonstrable harm to those receiving it. According to Kirkus Reviews Waldron offers “an eloquent reply to free-speech advocates” in which he:

…moves step by step in building the argument as to why hate-speech laws are good for a well-ordered society. In many enlightened democracies in Europe, as well as in Canada, the use of threatening, abusive speech or behavior to stir up racial hatred is prohibited by law. Americans, on the other hand, are vociferously more guarded about the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has opposed regulation on free speech only since 1931, when it struck down a California law forbidding the display of a red flag as an oppositional symbol. Subsequently, the government, Christian Church and public officials were deemed sufficiently strong enough not to need regulation of attacks on them, while even the Ku Klux Klan could indulge in hate speech “unless it is calculated to incite or likely to produce imminent lawless action.” But racial and ethnic minorities are vulnerable, Waldron writes, and a liberal democracy’s “assurance” of their protection from attack and denigration are not secure when hate speech is allowed free rein, such as in the time of public hysteria after 9/11. The author argues that the damage caused by hate speech is like an “environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison” that robs the intended victims of their dignity and reputation in society.

I can’t speak fully to the constitutional argument being made here, although reports from various quarters seem to indicate that this is something of an untested attempt in the context of today’s jurisprudence–or that it at least cuts against the current grain of thinking. Over the last few decades, (more…)

Increasingly, the name of the game is, according to David Gibson, “Golden Rule” Christianity: love your neighbor as yourself. This is what President Obama cited in explaining his support for same-sex marriage.

Of course, the gloss both Gibson and Obama give on this injunction is contestable. For them, respecting someone means endorsing or tolerating their choices and demands. (I recognize the difference between endorsement and toleration, but equivocate here because they equivocate.)

But cannot loving one’s neighbor as oneself also require that we hold them accountable for their sins and bear witness to them about the truth? In this context, by the way, toleration doesn’t require endorsement. It simply recognizes that in some instances the way to correct sin or error is not through punishment, but rather through admonition.

I’m tempted to argue that the position the President has taken represents the triumph of John Locke, who defined toleration as “the chief chracteristic mark of the true Church.” Locke meant in the first instance (more…)

Just Sayin’
Thomas Howard, Touchstone

Romney’s Speech to Evangelicals Ramps Up Cultural Rhetoric
Paul Mirengoff, Powerline

The Problem of Selective Christianity
Msgr. Charles Pope, Archdiocese of Washington Blog

A Generation Hobbled by College Debt
Andrew Martin and Andrew W. Lehren, New York Times

Are Dads the New Moms?
Susan Gregory Thomas, Wall Street Journal

Christianity Today asks three contributors whether Christians should shut down their social service programs when the state commands them to act against Christian belief. In line with my advice in response to Obama’s gay marriage announcement, Ryan T. Anderson offers a stirring “no”:

Christians should not stop their adoption and foster-care programs, but neither should they comply with laws that would force them to place children with same-sex couples. Christians should continue operating their charitable organizations according to their principles, and they should continue serving the least among us until the state coercively shuts them down.

But why should Christians take a stand here? It is not as though authorities won’t allow us to celebrate the sacraments: (more…)

One doubts whether Christ observes America’s great civic holiday for celebrating and thanking our mothers, but it’s surely a fitting day for American Christians to think of that lady, Mary.

Only three years ago, Evangelical and Catholics Together released the momentous statement, “Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life,”  which affirmed the shared evangelical Protestant and Catholic love for the mother of our Lord:

Since the sixteenth century, the subject of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been a primary point of differentiation, and even conflict, between Evangelicals and Catholics. While figures such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli retained a special reverence for Mary, this dimension of their teaching and piety was largely lost by their followers in the course of growing animosity between Protestants and Catholics. On the Catholic side, the determination to draw a clear line against Protestantism sometimes led to exaggerations and distortions in Marian devotion.

In our time there is among Evangelicals a renewed interest in Mary, and among Catholics a determination to make clear that the greatness of Mary is in her faithfulness to Jesus Christ, her Lord and ours. In the words of the Second Vatican Council, “No creature could ever be counted as equal to the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. . . . The Church does not hesitate to profess the subordinate role of Mary” (Lumen Gentium 62). Whatever is said about Mary is ever and always in the service of what must be said about Christ.

The drafters of the statement offer some particularly appropriate thoughts for today:

Agreeing on the miracle of the virgin birth, we would also encourage a fuller reflection on the maternity of Mary. As the mother of Jesus, she was the first to learn of his nature and mission, and she was the first to give faith’s assent: “Let it be with me according to your word.” We picture her nursing him at her breast, teaching him his first words, kissing his bruises when he fell, introducing him to Israel’s understanding of the ways of the Lord—the mother who helped him memorize the psalms and say his prayers, even as he grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man (Luke 2:52).

What does it mean for a woman to be the Theotokos, the bearer and mother of God? This is the question at the root of Christians’ longstanding reflection on, and devotion to, the the woman we all confidently can call “mother.”

Here’s a report about Danish teens using modern Vampire stories as platforms to think of spiritual matters. Given their immense popularity in the U.S., I also think that these stories can be drawn on to consider theological concepts with teens (and teens at heart) such as the Real Presence in the Supper, the relationship between the New and Old Testaments, and the work of Jesus Christ.

Both Vampire stories and the Christ story center on the identification of life with blood. This starts with Noah in the Old Testament. God tells Noah that he can eat animal flesh, but not animal blood, “You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gn 9.4). Still, even in the OT, fallen humanity desperately needs the life that is in the blood. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement” (Lev 17.11, cf., Lev 11.14, Dt 12.23). 

While the Old Testament flatly prohibits the eating of blood with the flesh, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the New Testament commands the practice, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6.53-54). (more…)

Over at Books & Culture, Halee Scott reviews Craig G. Bartholomew’s Where Mortals Dwell–a book on the importance of place in Christian theology. I won’t rehash all of her points, but this struck me:

Bartholomew notes that place has a formative influence on the lives of individuals throughout the Scriptures. Central to the Abrahamic narratives and much of the Pentateuch is the theme of journeying and the land; Abraham journeys through the wilderness to the land God promised, and the people of Israel wander through the desert after their release from Egypt. Likewise, God uses the desert as a formational place in the lives of Moses, the Israelites, and Jesus.

One implication of this, Scott notes, is that we should “care for our immediate environment, which begins with our home”:
(more…)

On the cover of this week’s Time magazine, we see a mother breastfeeding her son of nearly four years. In my book, that’s too old for a child to breastfeed.

What I’m really worried about, though, isn’t the child’s age. It’s the baring of a breast on the cover of a mainstream magazine. This is just lurid. How could an image of a breastfeeding mother ever be allowed in public?

Oh, wait . . .

(more…)

Bishop Fellay spoke appreciatively of what he characterized as the pope’s efforts to correct “progressive” deviations from Catholic teaching and tradition since Vatican II. “Very, very delicately — he tries not to break things — but tries also to put in some important corrections,” the bishop said.

Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church’s tradition — a position which many in the society have vocally disputed — Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

“I would hope so,” he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

“The pope says that … the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said. “The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?”

Insisting that “we don’t want to be aggressive, we don’t want to be provocative,” Bishop Fellay said the Society of St. Pius X has served as a “sign of contradiction” during a period of increasing progressive influence in the church. He also allowed for the possibility that the group would continue to play such a role even after reconciliation with Rome.

“People welcome us now, people will, and others won’t,” he said. “If we see some discrepancies within the society, definitely there are also (divisions) in the Catholic Church.”

“But we are not alone” in working to “defend the faith,” the bishop said. “It’s the pope himself who does it; that’s his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it.”

One wonders if the other bishops of the SSPX will accept this view–indeed, in the same interview Fellay acknowledged the possibility of a split within the society. The task of reconciling the traditionalists certainly seems too immense for any human power.

Allison Peller on the photography of Lia Chavez:

Our lives are centered and built upon innumerable complex relationships, which subconsciously we are constantly analyzing, changing, and developing. Although these moments of cross-examination frequently remain unacknowledged, they are the driving forces that shape who we are as individuals. They range from interactions with our physical and metaphysical space, to explorations of the interpersonal and the self. Lia Chavez’s series, 1000 Rainbows, takes on this vast and hazy subject matter, creating minimalist photographs that belie the depth of meaning and work that goes into each image.

Also today, Matthew Hennessey on the gift no one wants until they get it:

To be sure, there is suffering associated with some disabilities. But can Rabbi Shmuley say with certainty that the disabled suffer more than the non-disabled? Can he say that my daughter, Magdalena, will suffer more in this life by virtue of her disabilities than her “normal” older sister will? Her older sister, after all, will probably be betrayed by a close friend. She will surely end up with a boss who makes her feel like a useless idiot. She may alienate those who love her, and spend a good portion of her life fretting about missed opportunities and poor choices.

Yes, Magdalena will miss out on most of that. Is she worse off because of it? Does Rabbi Shmuley know for sure?

And in our third article, Leroy Huizenga on Hildegard of Bingen, Saint of the Universal Church:

It’s an age of widespread cultural and ecclesial malaise: the State encroaches ever more into the affairs of the church; the clergy is indolent and ineffective, oft corrupt and unchaste; the laity is poorly catechized; and Gnosticism advances. It’s the twelfth century, into which a Teutonic prophetess stepped, prepared to confront the spirits of the age with visions from on high. Nihil sub sole novum, and thus it’s worth considering on the occasion of St. Hildegard of Bingen’s feast day (tomorrow, Saturday, September 17) how her sauce for medieval geese might go well with our modern ganders.

Population Change is Reversing Secularism
Eric Kaufmann, AEI

Pope Formally Proclaims Sainthood of Hildegard von Bingen
Catholic Culture

Washington’s Iconic ‘Jewish Letter’ to Be Displayed
Paul Berger, Jewish Daily Forward

“Evangelical” Catholicism?
Micah Murphy, Truth & Charity

Christ the Gentleman
Fr. George W. Rutler, Crisis