Writing in Anamnesis, Lee Trepanier explores the divide between Kant and Derrida on the issue of cosmopolitanism:

The idea of the open city had been marginalized by the rise of the nation-state and Derrida wanted to recover it as a potential solution to the problem of European immigration. This “confessional” cosmopolitanism differed from Kant’s “triumphant” one in that Kant’s cosmopolitanism was dependent upon the sovereignty of the state, where all values became politicized and ultimately subordinated to the state’s ends. By contrast, Derrida recovered the notion of a “confessional” cosmopolitanism where unconditional hospitality should be offered to all immigrants, while, at the same time, recognizing that some limitation on the rights of residence had to be in place. By identifying the contradictory logic in Kant’s cosmopolitanism, the deconstructionist was able to offer an alternative that, instead of being paralyzed, sought political action and responsibility.

…cosmopolitan values as hospitality would always contain a kernel of violence, e.g., allowing some refugees in while refusing others. The impossibility of an unconditional hospitality meant that any attempt to open the globe entirely to anyone was simply impossible; and attempts that masked themselves as unconditional hospitality could actually be a form of the worst type of violence. For Derrida, the best one could do was practice a conditional and therefore violent hospitality; but this violence would be lessened when one approached hospitality in a religious mode of existence.

An intriguing debate that is certainly worth reading for anyone inclined to reflexive, tout court dismissals of postmodernism. Without minimizing the serious problems this ideology (and it is that) poses for traditionalists of all stripes, it’s worth pondering whether this critique of a rigid universalism can have value for religious believers in an age ‘after’ unbounded progressive optimism and political liberalism (indeed, if it had no value, it’s hard to see why a journal like Anamnesis [dedicated to "tradition, place, and 'things divine'"] took it up). Indeed, whether or not one buys Derrida’s contention that globalization opens up unprecedented possibilities for violence (here liberal theorists might dissent), his suggested ameliorative (religion, with which he became more and more preoccupied in the final years of his life) is alluring.

Ironically for those who find the mere mention of his name repugnant, Derrida’s model may provide one theoretical framework for how an explicitly religious state or society can be fully itself and yet understand and practice charity towards “foreigners.” Indeed, rather than dismiss this type of tribal arrangement as “theocratic” or “provincial,” such a model can ultimately wind up justifying deference to religious attachment as the most natural and plausible alternative when set up against a faithless globalism that seeks merely to “eliminate heteronomies.”

Gabriel Rossman, a sociologist at UCLA and Twitter pro, has compiled an amusing list of fake “First Things pitches” based on the immortal “Slate pitches” meme. Some of the jokes, I’ll admit, hit a little close to home.

Check out Gabriel’s pitches below and suggest your own in the comments: (more…)

William Doino Jr. on imaginary saints:

We tend to love saints—provided they are safely dead.

When they are alive, kicking up a storm, challenging us to live out the Gospel, they act like a thorn in our conscience.

The saints inspire awe. There is nothing more holy—or terrifying—than reading what St. Catherine of Siena wrote about wayward clergy in her searing Dialogue; few sermons in Christendom equal the power of St. Alphonsus Liguori’s on the enticements of the world; and how many of us would have the courage of a St. Charles Borromeo, who, as he implemented the reforms of the Council of Trent, had his life threatened multiple times?

Also today, Matthew Cantirino’s lament for Georgetown University:

There is not much ‘center’ holding at Georgetown; precious little common frame of reference, shared culture and experience, or underlying first principles to which parties can defer debates about ultimate ends. In the absence of that, of course, rush the watery slogans: “dialogue” (nothing is said about with whom, on what terms, or to what goal this ought to be pursued); vague intimations of humanitarianism and globalism; and “pluralism” (a noble word drained of its essential basis in intractable difference).

America magazine, not generally known for its traditionalist sympathies, has an interesting feature on the resurgence of traditional church architecture. Michael E. Desanctis opens his piece, appearing in the May 28 issue, by asking: “are new church designs taking us backward?” His answer: sometimes, but not necessarily. When it comes to the affirmative answer to that question, he makes clear that he’s wary of those who like to pretend that time and history have no impact on the relevance of certain forms of expression. But he also gives a fair amount of credit to the latter position, even hinting that it may have correctly identified a flaw in overzealous readings of Vatican II:

…[T]o renew or reinvent itself, the church did not need to erase all physical traces of its past.

In recent years, this view has taken physical form in church architecture. Not only has dissatisfaction with the status quo grown. But anticipation of changes to the texts and texture of parish liturgical prayer has also spawned a revival of traditional-looking churches to replace the ubiquitous, Modernist structures of the previous half-century. Perhaps the same impulse within the church that has caused such changes in ritual practice as the decanting of the blood of Christ from “cup” to “chalice”—both literally and in the revised translation of the Roman Missal—is also behind the return to traditional architecture. [...]

Fortunately, the neo-traditionalists stop short of proposing a one-size-fits-all program for converting the physical environment of the liturgy back into a former version of itself. This point is best illustrated by two examples, the first a modification of the conciliar model, the second a departure from it.

Now, given the two examples he explores (St. Michael’s Church in Wheaton, IL and St. John Neumann in Farragut, TN), I think it’s fair to say that we’d have differing views on how much constitutes too much concession (more…)

From Letters of Note, a 6th grader named Phyllis wrote to Albert Einstein on behalf of her Sunday school class, asking “Do scientists pray?”

The Riverside Church

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for? We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis’s class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

———————-

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

Michael Sean Winters reads Sebelius’ speech at Georgetown:

In her speech she, too, referred to JFK’s famous Houston speech, and quoted the single dumbest line of the entire text. Sebelius said: “In that talk to Protestant ministers, Kennedy talked about his vision of religion and the public square, and said he believed in an America, and I quote, ‘where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all.’” Hmmm. Was the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a “religious body” seeking to “impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace?” Of course it was.

I do not expect much from Secretary Sebelius in the way of thoughtfulness. But, I was deeply disappointed that the nearly 100 Georgetown professors and administrators who wrote such a forceful letter to Congressman Paul Ryan in advance of his speech on campus last month could not bestir themselves to write a similar letter to Sebelius. . . . The signatories of the Ryan letter are as morally compromised by their failure to address a similar letter to Sebelius as the USCCB is compromised by its unwillingness to point out that Republicans only care about religious liberty when it suits them.

That last point is the main one of Winters’ piece: that the Catholic bishops are effectively partisan because they’ve failed to agitate forcefully enough against unjust and un-Christian laws like the statute in Alabama that bars the church from serving illegal immigrants. I think that’s a very great misreading of the bishops’ actions, but the larger point still stands: religious liberty is not a partisan issue. It faces threats from the right as well as the left.

‘Exorcist’ Author Prepares Canon Lawsuit Against Georgetown
Michelle Bauman, Catholic News Service

On Christianity & Social Darwinism
Roger E. Olson, Patheos

The Riddle of Gay Marriage Polling
Ross Douthat, Evaluations

A Catholic Looks at a Calvinist Looking at a Mormon
Stephen H. Webb, Books & Culture

The Worst Anglican Article Ever?
George Conger, Get Religion

Speaking at Georgetown, Kathleen Sebelius nods to JFK:

In that talk to Protestant ministers, Kennedy talked about his vision of religion and the public square, and said he believed in an America, and I quote, “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials…”

That’s all well and good, Madam Secretary. But what if we try turning that around? Should America also be a country “where no public official seeks to impose her will directly or indirectly upon a religious body” in a way that interferes with its peaceful public witness?

As an American citizen, I lament that Sebelius has so grossly misread our Constitution and laws (like RFRA). As a Christian, a very imperfect one, I struggle to find love for an official who knowingly and unapologetically persecutes the suffering body of Christ.

In one of today’s “On the Square” features, Patrick Deneen greets the Secretary by bidding a sad farewell to Georgetown.

Peter J. Leithart on what the Bible is for:

Evangelicals like to quote Paul’s letter to Timothy: “All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, correction, training in righteousness, that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.” Paul affirms that God is the author of the written text, a sine qua non of Evangelicalism. Paul also stresses the usefulness of Scripture, an equally favored Evangelical theme.

Also today, Patrick J. Deneen on Georgetown’s inclusion of Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Georgetown University as part of its graduation exercises:

The presence and display of faculty in this manner at these events—with all attendant academic “pomp and circumstance”—is intended to send a strong signal of approval, blessing, and witness upon such events. We pay honor and respect to our students who have successfully completed their course of education, conferring upon them our collective blessing and congratulation by our presence. Our presence denotes the university’s blessing (indeed, on these occasions we take out the colored robes that reflect that once we were actually “professors”—of the faith).

And in our third article, Matt Emerson on the gift and grace of doubt:

When we doubt, we are reminded that we are the creatures and not the creator. While this sounds like a truism, the consequences are huge. To have the certainty we crave, to truly know everything about the mysteries that leave us on edge, this would impose a burden and responsibility that would crush our psyche. It’s a fair assumption that doubt often arises because we don’t have answers to certain hard questions, questions like “Does God exist?”; “How did the universe come about?”; “How can a loving God allow evil?”

From a letter from W. H. Auden chastising his pastor at St. Marks in the Bowery for changes to the liturgy:

Our Church has had the singular good-fortune of having its Prayer-Book composed and its Bible translated at exactly the right time, i.e., late enough for the language to be intelligible to any English-speaking person in this century (any child of six can be told what “the quick and the dead” means) and early enough, i.e., when people still had an instinctive feeling for the formal and the ceremonious which is essential in liturgical language. . .

I implore you by the bowels of Christ to stick to Cranmer and King James.

Though I walk by St. Mark’s regularly, I’ve never ventured in for liturgy; according to one recent visitor, “It’s like RENT meets church.” I wonder what Auden would say today.

Parsing the Latest Marriage Statistics
Mark Regnerus, Patheos

“Most of the Time I Am Alone with My Ritual…”
Peter Berger, The American Interest

Is Romney’s “Mormon Problem” Exaggerated?
David Leonhardt, The Caucus

Desire and Capitalism–and Sexual Ethics
Cathleen Kaveny, dotCommonweal

Democracy’s Private Places
Philip Bess, Crisis

In a long report on how McDonald’s is seeking to boost its image, Keith O’Brien describes the new “McDonald’s Channel,” which will one day play in its franchises:

The content on the nascent channel is breezy (think Top 10 lists) and anodyne. The objective is “an agnostic view of the world,” according to Lee Edmondson, the founder of ChannelPort Communications, the California company building the channel for McDonald’s (its only client). In the test markets, at least, this means there will be no jarring images from CNN or Fox News. Instead, every few minutes between short features, the company’s catchy jingle — ba-da-ba-ba-bah — serenades the dining room as a reminder that all is right and good.

The next time you’re inclined to dismiss observations about how global capitalism is at odds with traditional belief and social practices, recall this anecdote (remember as well that real agnosticism is something far more serious than what Lee Edmondson has in mind). The company that begins by seeking to serve all does not simply ignore the particularities of its customers, it actually fears them.  The existential commitment involved in religious belief and political solidarity interferes with our role as consumers, and so agnosticism—or at least a very loose and low conception of it– becomes the one true corporate faith.

None of this, probably, will change whether or not one goes to McDonald’s (I do sometimes, for reasons of convenience and economy), but I’d rather get affordable food without the side order of religious and political indifferentism.

Sandro Magister recounts the fascinating story of Jean Daniélou, a French Jesuit cardinal whom he calls one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century. Daniélou, who managed to succeed at both popular and scholarly commentary, died under questionable circumstances in a bordello in 1974 after having been silenced by superiors in 1972. The result has been that:

Today, few of his books are still available for purchase. And yet they are still of extraordinary richness and freshness. Simple and yet very profound, as few theologians have been able to do over the last century, apart from him and that other champion of clarity named Joseph Ratzinger.

Daniélou stands alongside the current pope because of the historical rather than philosophical framing of his theology, his expertise in the Fathers of the Church (the one enamored with Gregory of Nyssa, the other with Augustine), the completely central role given to the liturgy.

Daniélou, together with his Jesuit confrere Henri De Lubac, was the brilliant initiator in 1942 of the series of patristic texts entitled “Sources Chrétiennes,” which marked the rebirth of theology in the second half of the twentieth century and paved the way for the best of Vatican Council II.

An author, in short, absolutely to rediscover.

But the mystery of his death and of the taciturn explanation that followed it must also be resolved.

Very recently, more details have begun to emerge about Daniélou’s life and death. For Magister, the secrecy surrounding his death (which, it turns out, may have occurred during his involvement in a furtive act of charity) can also partially be attributed to his strong criticism of misinterpretations of the Second Vatican Council. In one radio interview (conveniently excerpted at the bottom of Magister’s post), for example, he warned that “in many cases the directives of Vatican II have been replaced with erroneous ideologies put into circulation by magazines, by conferences, by theologians.” This sprung, he said, from “[a] false conception of freedom that brings with it the devaluing of the constitutions and rules and exalts spontaneity and improvisation.”

Of course, many of the holiest men and women in the Church’s history faced internal obstacles and even suffered vicious defamation during their lives on earth. But truth has a way of prevailing, in time. Daniélou’s hour may have finally arrived.

Writing for the New York Review of Books, the indefatigable Garry Wills asks, “Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage? Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament.”

Wills goes on to offer a host of distortions of the history of Christian marriage, to which Brandon Watson offers a conversation-ending response:

Wills confuses marriage as a religious ritual with marriage as a sacrament. A sacrament is, at its most basic, a sign of spiritual things. There is no getting around the fact that marriage is a sacrament or mystery in some sense, since Ephesians 5 explicitly treats of it in those terms, and, contrary to Wills, calling marriage a sacrament goes back as far in Christian history as we can find explicit statements on the subject, not just to the eleventh century. Augustine, for instance, writing well before the eleventh century, explicitly discusses the sacramental character of marriage.

There is much, much more. Please read all of Brandon’s piece.

Some years ago David Brooks wrote a column, “Who’s John Stott?,” that challenged the parochialism of our secular elites. As Brooks observed, John Stott, unknown to nearly all New York Times readers may have been one of the most influential intellectuals of the second half of the twentieth century. His books have been translated into many, many languages, and are read by millions of Christian evangelicals around the globe.

Well, if you are in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend—which, by the way, I can recommend on the basis of my ample experience in that fine city—check out a lecture by Dr. Alister Chapman, Westmont College professor: “John Stott and the Renewal of the Church.” The lecture will be on Satuday, May 19th at 2pm at West Hills Church, 3015 South 82nd Ave, Omaha NE. Free admission.

Leroy Huizenga on the White House’s contraceptive Kulturkampf:

Franciscan University of Steubenville just dropped health insurance for its undergraduates, thus becoming one of the most prominent early victims of the Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring all health plans to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs. Today the Catholic Church has found itself engaged in a new Kulturkampf, a cultural struggle initiated by State aggression against the libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the Church to manage her own affairs so that her members might flourish in virtue and serve their fellow citizens freely.

Also today, Joshua Gonnerman says that Dan Savage was right:

But recall Savage’s original point. It was not “the Bible is wrong;” his incendiary remarks were meant to build up the over-arching concern of Christian non-response to the gay community. He recounts a hypothetical Christian who claims, “I’m sorry, we can’t do anything about bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, in Timothy, in Romans that being gay is wrong.” Christians have appealed far too quickly to their traditional moral views to avoid offering support to gay people. Here, if nowhere else, Dan Savage has a point.

St. Paul’s medical advice to his disciple Timothy, “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments,” holds up pretty well according to some recent studies:

Scientists have found that components of red wine seem to improve intestinal health, promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria. Research on human subjects is limited. But one recent study that examined the claim was published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

In it, a small number of healthy adults were instructed to avoid all alcohol for two weeks — a so-called washout period.

Then they went through three separate phases of 20 days each. In one, the subjects drank red wine, about a cup daily. In another, they drank the same amount of red wine daily, but this time with the alcohol removed. In the third, they drank up to 100 milliliters a day of gin each day.

In the end, the researchers found that both types of red wine produced improvements in the bacterial composition of the gut, lowered blood pressure and reduced levels of a protein associated with inflammation. Slight improvements in gut flora were seen among gin drinkers, but the effects in the wine drinkers were much more pronounced.

Luke may have been the apostle with medical training, but science is vindicating Paul’s homespun remedy.

Via @davidschaengold

What is the Supreme Court’s overarching thinking on the constitutionality of pro-life legislation? Does it even exist, or is it more of a tendency which ebbs and flows over time? It’s a fair question given the Court’s maintenance of Roe and Casey alongside limiting decisions like Webster and Gonzalez v. Carhart.

Teresa S. Collett, writing for Public Discourse, attempts an answer and argues that incremental steps like fetal pain laws are the surest way to clear pro-life legislation with the court system. She then asserts, rather intriguingly, that the justices of the Supreme Court are now ready and willing to take these opportunities:

I believe a majority of the Court, including Justice Kennedy, is looking for an exit strategy from the cultural combat surrounding abortion. In Gonzales v. Carhart, Justice Kennedy echoed the longstanding critique that Roe had transformed the Supreme Court into “the country’s ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.” And earlier this year Justice Ginsburg, the most outspoken defender of abortion rights on the Court, is reported to have said that Roe was mistimed, moving too fast in its usurpation of the political dialogue over abortion that was occurring in the states in the 1970s.

Even if a majority of the Court wants to return the question of abortion to the normal legislative process, some justices are reluctant to be seen as abandoning the field entirely. It is important to remember that Justice Kennedy joined in the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey characterizing access to abortion as necessary to “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” Upholding Pain-Capable Child Protection Acts allows the Court to make incremental progress toward restoring full state authority over the question of abortion, while retaining control, for now, over restrictions dealing with ninety percent of the abortions in this country.

See the rest of Collett’s article here, and read a rejoinder by Paul Benjamin Linton, who delves into the psychology of one-man social issue decision machine Anthony Kennedy, here.

A Startling Thesis on Islam’s Origins
Malise Ruthven, Wall Street Journal

I’d Rather Be a Catholic Than Be Respectable
Catherine Pepinster, The Guardian

Archdiocese Rebukes Georgetown over Sebelius Speech
Dan Merica, CNN

Marilynne Robinson on Democracy, Religion, and Reading in America
Joe Fassler, The Atlantic

Why So Many Ph.D.s are on Food Stamps
NPR

Speaking of traditionalist Catholics, the subject of William Doino’s earlier post, in the English weekly newspaper the Catholic Herald William Oddie notes that The SSPX is apparently about to go into schism over its leading bishop’s plan to return to full communion with the Church. The dissenting group, which includes the notorious Bishop Williamson, have declared their “formal opposition” to any accord with the Catholic Church.

The leader of the SSPX (the Society of St. Pius X), Bishop Bernard Fellay, seems inclined to return if his group’s concerns are met and reportedly has a reasonable idea of what “met” will mean. It will, for example, include the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council’s statements but not necessarily a particular and narrow interpretation of the ones, like that on religious liberty, that bother the SSPX. But, Oddie reports, “The three dissident bishops,” (more…)

“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