Fr. Hesburgh and Health Care

I've been so busy recently, I've barely had the chance to even read articles that could make their way to this weblog. Today, though, I saw a headline that was too provocative to pass up: Pelosi Invoked Fr. Hesburgh to Turn 'No' Health Bill Vote to 'Yes'.

This saddens, but doesn't surprise me. Though it is worse than I thought. The headline made me think she said something like "what would Fr. Hesburgh do?" but, it turns out, he actually was asked to make a phone call

Hesburgh was called in to persuade U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) to vote for the health care bill despite the vast expansion of abortion funding embedded in it. Donnelly had been a member of the group of Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who opposed the bill without Hyde-amendment restrictions on abortion funding.
...

Elizabeth Shappell, Donnelly's press secretary, claims Hesburgh did not tell Donnelly how to vote but only advised him to "vote your conscience."

A well formed conscience should have been able to see clearly what the issues at hand were. In fact, it really would be the role of the episcopate and presbyteriate to help form the consciences of those considering this bill. There was no pressing need to pass this bill now, on that day, as it stood. After all, people weren't dying in the streets; the current system works, though perhaps imperfectly, and we thus should have done such a massive reform correctly, even if it took a little more time.

If only Fr. Hesburgh had forgotten all about the Land O' Lakes statement, and just told Congressman Donnelly to listen to the Bishops.

Kimec on Marriage

Doug Kimec, a "Catholic" theologian famous for his dissent, has recently said that the state should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether, rather replacing them with something he would call "civil licenses". Article

Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be “awkward,” it would “untie the state from this problem” by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. “Call it a ‘civil license’,” he said.

A rose by any other name...

Kmiec argued “civil licenses” would address the question. He proposed the state withdraw from “the marriage business” and do licensing “under a different name” to satisfy government interests for purposes of taxation and property.

Under his proposal, “the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community,” he added, saying that the proposal would reaffirm the significance of marriage “as a religious concept,” which has a much fuller understanding than is found in civil marriage.

A civil marriage is a contractual agreement, essentially, and a Christian marriage is a Sacrament, this is true, but renaming the institution does not change, at essence, what it is. Many years ago, I decided that this was the ideal solution to the civil union/marriage disagreement. This opinion was inspired by my then secularism and libertarianism. I couldn't fathom what the problem would be with this solution, it was win-win. Churches could keep their marriages, homosexuals could get their civil unions, and we wouldn't have a separate but equal situation.

The question is, though, why does the government even recognize marriages in the first place; we must consider this and understand it before we can see the problems here. Married people get a tax break over two separate people, even if they live together. The tax break is given because the government wants to encourage marriage over just casual cohabitation. The institution of the family is, therefore, encouraged. This change, therefore, would shift the focus from the family to simply monogamous relationships, for which there is no necessary gender complementarity.

So, why is Kmiec wrong here? The Catechism says that "Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered... Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC 2357) I seem to recall reading that the state had an obligation to protect marriage, though I can't find a reference. Either way, it is clear that a Catholic politician or theologian ought not support state policies which could be construed to support homosexual acts, at the very least.

This was not the best story to wake up to.

The Catholic Court

So it would seem that President Obama wants to appoint another Catholic to the Supreme Court, which would give us a 6-3 majority, leaving only one protestant on the high court. It makes me wonder how it is possible with so many Catholics on the court that we still have federal legal protections of abortion.

It has made me want, like any good blogger, to comment on something I am neither qualified nor informed to.

Is it possible for a Catholic jurist in good standing to find a legal protection for abortion? It would seem to obviously violate natural moral law in all but the most difficult of cases. So then, let us consider some specific cases. Must a Catholic jurist in this country find in favor of abortion rights if they, for instance, serve on a lower court and are thus subject to the case law developed in Roe? What if they are on the Supreme Court itself; is it proper to vote against finding the right to abortion when Roe is established case law, or on the contrary, would it be improper to vote in favor of a Roe-like case?

I don't think a Catholic jurist could, in these situations given, vote in favor of Abortion rights. I'm not sure that recusal is in order, but careful consideration of the cases at hand must be undertaken to find justly in keeping with this country's legal system and the natural law. As a higher court justice, your primary consideration is usually seeing to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the constitution, which is normally called "interpretation". That natural law is foundational for our country was always assumed, and should be restored.

Again, I find the fact that we will have 6 Catholics (who must oppose abortion) 2 Jews (who, as I understand, really should oppose abortion) and one Protestant (without a Pope, who knows what they believe) on the High Court, and still have the decisions that stand.

Should Catholics on the Supreme Court be denied communion if they find for Abortion in their tenure? This, I think, is a much dicier issue than the question of legislators who make laws in favor of abortion. I do not think this possible action should be sought by the Bishops unless there is something very clearly written into one of their opinions which is obviously opposed to natural law, and a scandal. In that case, and perhaps only then, should this be considered for the justices on the court. I'm not even sure if it makes sense in that case either.

I believe this issue, regarding communion to justices and to politicians, will be important moving forward.

Memorial Day

This is the day where we, in the United States, recall the memory of those who have served our country in the armed services, especially those who have died in the service of the country. It really is more than that, though, at least back home. My grandfather's grave, for instance, is covered in flowers this day, despite his never having served in the Armed Forces.

The phenomenon is a good one, I think. I don't mean to lessen the honor due those who have laid down their life in defense of the country. Those who did not serve in the armed forces did, in their own way, serve the country. My grandfather both volunteered and was drafted, and was turned away both times. His service, therefore, was as a mechanic, a father and a husband.

I don't know that the extending of this honor is universal, or if it is simply a local phenomenon, but it is essentially a secular "All Souls Day" with a special focus on those who gave their lives in the service of the country.

I find myself away from those who I would normally remember today, but the beauty of prayer is that it transcends space and time.

New Restrictions

I noticed on one of the news headlines that there are some new regulations regarding credit cards. I think much of this is foolish, but I don't want to make this a political weblog. What struck me was this point included in the law:

Restrictions designed to restrict credit card companies from pushing their wares on college students without the knowledge of mom and dad.

Credit cards.

So, parents can know if their kids are getting sold on credit cards, in college nonetheless, but not if they want to get abortions even as minors.

Asinine.

The Great Parish Quest

I have, for the past half-year, or so, been wandering through the desert, or at least through the county. When I moved to my current location I set out on a quest to visit all the parishes in my city. I have since completed this quest and further, have visited the parishes in two neighboring cities. I have yet to visit a parish more than once since I moved here. I would like to set down some reflections on this quest, propose a set of criteria to evaluate a parish and finally attempt to lay out what I personally seek in a parish.

I have seen many different parishes in the recent months. They have ranged quite widely, from modern churches built within the last decade, to the cookie cutter buildings from the postwar boom times, to the great turn of the century gothics that served the spiritual needs of some of the earlier settlers in the area. Churches packed full and quite empty. Music in Latin, music from the Gather hymnal, and even things I had only heard in Protestant services, preformed with solo voices, full choirs, the Organ, piano, drums, tambourine, guitar and bass, and just this Sunday a string trio. Smells and bells, altar boys, altar girls, anywhere from zero to maybe a dozen extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, simple humble services, a grand pontifical mass, and unfortunately at least one made up creed. Communion under the form of bread only, communion under both forms, communion with substantial (read: crumbly) bread, one place where a full quarter of the parishioners didn't approach the altar to receive Communion, and numerous where maybe one or two did not approach to receive.

In all of this, there were only two parishes which I strongly considered returning to the next week. There were also two parishes where I considered leaving before the liturgy was completed. I shall reflect on some of these.

First, Our Lady of Hungary. This was a beautiful building, established in 1916, with the current Church built in 1949. Although many of the parishes I visited which were built in this era were bland, and lacking beautiful sacred art, this parish was an exception. The mass I was at was almost empty, the neighborhood has taken a downturn in the last couple decades, and the Parish is probably just barely getting by. The pastor was an African born priest with a thick French-African accent. What struck me was the utter humility with which the Pastor celebrated the mass. Despite having a nearly empty house, it was a simple, though beautiful liturgy. The music was provided by a soloist and accompanied by organ. The Priest had only male servers (on this day at least) and they held patens for him and the deacon when distributing Holy Communion. They rang bells at the consecration. The priest spent considerable time carefully cleaning all of the altarware, presumably "caring for the crumbs". About one quarter of the parishioners didn't approach the altar to receive the Blessed Sacrament, though there weren't a large number of people there. Perhaps this meant that the priest had delivered catechesis on Sin and the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confession. Finally, after mass was over, the congregation kneeled and recited the prayer to St. Michael as a congregation.

Second, Queen of Peace. This parish was founded in the late 50s post war boom. The building was decidedly not beautiful. It did have some stained glass, but it was otherwise a typical large '50s or '60s era building. Though not half-circular, it was closer to "L" or "T" shaped, and pews pointed 3 different ways (as far as I can remember). The tabernacle was front and center, you couldn't miss it. The pastor had 4 servers, all boys, in cassock and surplice. They used lots of incense and rang the bells at consecration. They played the organ, and the only time they used the piano was to set the note for the choir when singing without musical accompaniment. The mass was beautiful, reverent and full. There seemed to be an extensive "parish life", lots of bible studies and catechesis, some sort of reading group, a regular speaker series, etc.

Finally I mention St. Augustine Parish. This was located in a bad part of town, and in the neighborhood of a Baptist and some other protestant church. It turns out this is a predominately black parish. The church was completely sideways, "short and fat" rather than "long and narrow", with only 4 or 5 rows of pews. The Choir was set above the parish and to the left. My guess is that the parish once was oriented toward where the choir was, and this, being higher than the rest, had been the sanctuary at one point. I immediately felt uncomfortable. Before mass even started, the pastor asked for any newcomers to identify themselves (I did not, though it was probably obvious). The music was all from "Lead Me Guide Me". They used solely substantial bread, including in repose in the tabernacle. The creed they used modified the wording significantly (in a vertically and horizontally inclusive way). I felt like leaving at that point, and might have if it were a larger space. The sign of peace was completely out of hand, which is surprising considering how small the space was. At the final blessing, the priest remembered that he hadn't asked anyone if they had a birthday, and so after asking us to bow our heads to ask for God's blessing, but before the blessing, we had to sing happy birthday and clap. Never returning there again.

It is amazing the plethora of expressions of the Faith seen in but one fairly narrow geographical area. This underscores the identity crisis in the Church today. When almost everything is mutable, it becomes very hard to identify with uniquely Catholic things, which can help to develop a Catholic identity, giving us an anchor in the faith. When even the form of the bread and the words of the creed can change, these things which should define a Catholic identity now define identity with a parish only. "We go to St. Augustine. They use the cleaned up version of the Creed."

This quest has served to give me a view of American Catholicism that I would not have been able to have in any other way. It has also given me a chance to objectively observe some of these liturgical actions. Parishes where I grew up, because I know the pastors and the history, etc., are hard to evaluate objectively. It's much easier to overlook some of the deficiencies in the liturgies in my home diocese because of the history I have with them. That said, I really am only interested in evaluating the liturgies, I'm not qualified as a one-time visitor to evaluate the parish as a whole, or the Pastor. And, of course, it is possible that I wandered in for an aberration which is not representative of the normal liturgies of the parish.

One thing I noticed that surprised me was the lack of obvious correlation between atypical practices (meaning not my preferred practices, laid out below) and strange or flaky theology. I would never have expected to hear a homily all about the evils of abortion at a parish where they had drums and guitars and hand holding. It was not what I expected to hear. I have no idea what the other homilies the parish has had since were about, nor how orthodox all other parish practices and activities were. The questionable liturgies, by and large, were not accompanied by questionable preaching. A larger, longer term sample would be needed to see more of these correlations.

So, with all of this laid out, what cues are there to look for in a parish visit?

First, there is the architecture. Where is the tabernacle? Is there a high altar? Is the altar rail intact? Is the sanctuary set apart from the congregation? Are there any stained glass windows? Stations of the Cross? Statues, paintings, shrines etc? Can you find the confessionals, and do they look like they're used at all? These things are important especially the tabernacle placement. Sacred art, though important, doesn't necessarily reflect on liturgical or theological soundness of the parish, it may just be due to the era in which it was founded, the shortsightedness of a previous generation, or the financial situation of the parish.

Next, there is the congregation. Is the Church full or empty? How are people dressed? How do people act during Mass? Do they sing along if the choir is singing? Do they show proper respect for the Eucharist, i.e. bowing before receiving the Blessed Sacrament, genuflecting to the Sacrament reposed in the tabernacle, etc.? Do at least some people refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament (at least on Sundays)? Do they hold hands during the Our Father? Do they maintain decorum during the sign of peace? Does anyone kneel after mass to pray? Many of these sorts of actions are systemic to the parish and independent, generally, of the specific parishioners in attendance at this particular mass. It is probably indicative of the catechesis in the parish.

Now, notice the liturgical ministers. How are they dressed? How many lay people does it take to do _____? Are there Altar servers? How many? Are they mixed gender, only boys, or only girls? How are the servers dressed, are they wearing slacks and nice dress shoes? Do they have cassocks, surplices, albs, or are they wearing their street clothes? How many extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are there? Do they gather around the Altar before the priest's communion, or wait outside of the sanctuary? The actions of these ministers tell a lot about their training and disposition to their positions.

If the parish has music at this mass you will surely encounter it. Is there an Organ here? If so, is it used? A piano? Guitar? Tambourine? Drums? Anything more exotic? Is there a choir? A choir loft? Is the choir in the loft, or where? What sort of hymnals do they have? Is the music resplendent with beauty or in a tawdry, folksy style? Do you sing in the voice of God?

Now to the priest. Does he start mass on time? How are the vestments? Does he follow the texts of the liturgy carefully, or change certain parts? Does he chant anything? During the Eucharistic Prayer, where is his focus? Does he genuflect after the consecration of the bread and of the wine? Does he leave the sanctuary after the consecration (for instance during the sign of peace)? Does he hold his thumb and forefinger together after the consecration until communion is completed? Does he offer communion under both forms? (I realize here that a single trip doesn't indicate a habitual parish action, but if it is an ordinary Sunday for the parish, you could extrapolate.) Does the priest (or a deacon) purify the vessels during Mass, does he do it after, or does he leave it to an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion? Does he care for the crumbs and drops carefully? Is the homily Orthodox? Interesting? Too long or short? Does he seem rushed? Does he greet people coming in or leaving the Church? Did the priest at any point ask you to clap for any reason?

Finally, there are some subjective parish-wide things to notice. Does the environment seem uniquely Catholic, or could you see some of it (architecture, music, liturgy) at a protestant service? Do you feel uncomfortable about things? Is it easy to fit in as a visitor? Are there any particularly obvious local traditions, like different sorts of gestures or postures, particular parish prayers, praying the prayer to St. Michael after mass, the rosary before, etc.? Do you get a sense that the parish does things together (announcements at the end of mass and the bulletin can help with this). These are much more subjective than the previous observation, and will definitely vary from person to person. That said, they tell you about the parish in ways that can't be quantified in the other ways.

These are the things that I generally notice when I go to a parish. Many of them are passive observations that I just happen to make. Some of them I make a point to look for. So the only question remaining is what I want to see in a parish.

I enjoy a church with traditional architecture, beautiful art, especially in the windows, with a high Altar in place and the tabernacle at the center. I have come to no longer expect Altar rails, but am overjoyed when I see them. If there is an organ, it should be played. If they have an organ and play a piano instead, it pains me all the more. The liturgy should be reverent, and by the books. Incense is a plus, and I really love to hear the bells at the consecration. Special care of the sacred vessels is a must, and I am really drawn to places where the priest obviously has reverence for the Eucharist. I don't like it when the parish holds hands at the Our Father, especially when it is essentially mandatory. I wish more places would restrict their offering of communion under both forms to special occasions, and I think that many places would be able to suffice with just the priest offering communion, very few parishes are so unbelievably big that there is not enough time to have everyone come up to one priest. Liturgical innovation is almost always an automatic strikeout for me.

I have yet to find and settle down at a parish. That will likely complete my quest.

Fake Punt!

An update to the earlier reporting. The Catholic News Agency is reporting here that the Bishops are indeed going to publicly discuss abortion and politics as they had planned.

According to bishops involved in the organization of the three-day meeting, which starts this Monday, the agenda, including a public discussion of abortion and politics, is fully on track.

“We plan to set aside time to discuss practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion, an issue that remains problematic for us and our people,” he [Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland] confirmed.

So there you have it folks. Either there was some misquote, or a wishful misquote (villainy is afoot), which ended up with the Bishops punting down field. May the Holy Spirit come upon them!

Obama seeking more power

After these years of President Bush taking perhaps unprecedented executive powers, which many, especially the Democrats, have strongly opposed, I was surprised to see a headline like New President Could Bypass Congress, on Key Issues. My emphasis and [commentary]. (Yes, I have decided to adopt this format, which I am stealing from Fr. Z at WDTPRS)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top aides to President-elect Barack Obama are reviewing some 200 executive orders issued by President Bush, with an eye toward Obama possibly reversing many of them soon after he takes office in January.

Obama's transition-chief, John Podesta, said Sunday that review includes presidential orders involving stem cell research, oil and gas drilling, and other major issues.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that a team of about four-dozen Obama advisers have been working on the review of existing executive orders, to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration on a wide range of issues that also include climate change and reproductive rights [Abortion]. The paper said that team is consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs.

Obama has already signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research -- a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's. [See the slant there? This last line is unnecessary unless you want to introduce a bias into your article. Embryonic stem cells have led to ZERO cures compared to some cures derived from adult stem cells.]

Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives, who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process. [Slant...]

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says the new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups [Abortion groups] that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal.

Well, so much for Obama ruling from the center, like he and his team have said as recently as today on Meet the Press (for instance). Liberal advocacy groups are who he is seeking input on. I hope those people who decided to vote for Obama because he wouldn't actually increase abortions are happy. We could wake up on January 21 with an unparalleled shift away from a pro-life governance (since Roe v. Wade at least), with no legislative input. That the big points he mentioned are stem cells, Abortion here and abroad, and the environment should tell you something. The pro-life fight is going to be an uphill battle each day from January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2013. Maybe there is some legal reason why this won't work. Maybe somehow this will result in fewer abortions and more souls going to heaven in the end. Maybe.

I only wish we had more contemplatives praying for us. The way this country is going we need every little bit we could get. May the LORD have mercy on us.

Hope

My posts have been getting me down recently, we must remember Hope and not despair.

CCC 2090: Hope is the confident expectation of divine blessing and the beatific vision of God; it is also the fear of offending God's love and of incurring punishment.

2091: By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God's goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises - and to his mercy.

In discussing the remnant Church in the United States with a good friend, we came up with this exchange:

ME: So, the question is, can we regain our Catholic identity, and will we ever see numbers of faithful that we have enjoyed in the past?
HE: I guess the answer to that lies with how hard we're willing to work to bring it about.

That describes it perfectly. The way to combat despair is to fight for the kingdom. Let's not mourn the American Church, let's go out and fix it!