A Faithful Rebel

Ramblings on Constitutional Interpretation and Religious Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:36:00 +0000

Law school does take up a lot of time. I am a lot busier than I expected, and I have not had the time to devote much attention to the blog as a result. But I am learning some neat stuff! I am taking a class on Freedom of Religion this semester, and it is just fascinating. We are going through the roots of the Freedom of Religion in America, including the Supreme Court's Free Exercise and Establishment Clause jurisprudence. It strikes me in all of this that courts sometimes forget who is in charge - the Constitution.

If this is a nation of laws and not of men, this must apply as much to the men who make up the judiciary as it does to you and me. I see so many tests, so many "balancing acts" that the Court jumps through... so much artificial tension between the two freedom of religion clauses in the First Amendment.. so much attention paid to Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists and the "wall of separation," that I wonder what principles of Constitutional interpretation is the Court using, and what authorizes them to effectively make this all up as they go, rather than following a clearer line of interpretation of the Constitution.

As I think about how to interpret the Constitution myself, I keep returning to some pretty simple principles that I developed as I read and though about the Federalist writings from Madison, Hamilton, and Jay during my undergrad research on federalism. I'd love emails and comments about this.

It seems to me that the Constititution should be interpreted generally as follows:

1) Look to the text. If the words are clear, take them at their face value.
2) If the words are not clear, look to the intention of the STATES in ratifying the particular text. This is a key point that I believe is missed in the Supreme Court. The drafters of a particular constitutional text are NOT the authoritative interpreters of its meaning. Just because they wrote the words does not mean they have the final say on what it means. The States themselves have reasons for adopting the texts. They have the power to ratify or not ratify, or even to abolish the Constitution and start over. This is where sovereignty rests, in the Madisonian sense of complete and undivided (what I call "resident sovereignty.") So if there is an ambiguity, one should look to the historical context surrounding the framing of the amendment or text and see what power the States intended to give to the Federal Government. (This principle, if followed, would not permit a single phrase in a partisan letter of Jefferson to a Baptist Church to become a driving force in constitutional interpretation.)
3) If there is still an ambiguity, the text should be resolved in favor of STATE power, because it is a safe assumption that the States intend to give away no more power than they explicitly grant in the text.

This system of interpretation makes several assumptions, which I think can be defended from American history and the thought of the founding generation: 1) The States are the lawmakers. The Constitution is a contract between the States in their highest capacity of "resident sovereignty." 2) Law is an ordinance of reason by one who has power of law, that is, one who has power to guide the community to its good as such. 3) The reasoned intention of the lawgiver, as expressed in the text, is law. 4) The States, not the founding fathers, are the lawgivers/lawmakers. Interpretation, therefore, should be centered on the States, their ratification processes, debates, and public utterances regarding a text.

This would radically change our First Amendment jurisprudence. For example, following such a system, it is doubtful that the Establishment Clause would be incorporated against the States as it was in Everson v. Board of Education in the 1940s. It is also certain that things such as abortion, the Ten Commandments in public buildings, public religious displays, etc., would not be ripping our country apart. The States would be deferred to in such matters. When rule is local, there is no need to impose one solution upon all. There is room for diversity and disagreement. This in turn strengthens the nation as one entity, not just a patchwork of States. If this is our goal, it won't be accomplished by trying to mash a hodge podge of interests and problems and passions together into one thing that must be bent into a shape that the Federal government wishes. Such a goal is better accomplished by the founding vision of allowing the great weight of governing to be performed by the States. Such a method of constitutional interpretation as I have proposed here would undoubtedly allow this to happen.

The Funeral of Otto von Habsburg, Crown Prince of Austria, Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:45:00 +0000

I am too tired to post very much right now, but I wanted to end my day with a little mention of the great events I witnessed. I went to Vienna to witness the end of the Habsburg dynasty. The last Crown Prince of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire-and arguably its last Emperor, since his father Karl never abdicated-was laid to rest today here in Vienna.

I could not help as I watched the Mass, in this gorgeous cathedral, with the procession which spanned roughly a mile, with the pomp and ceremony, with the people around me in the square joining in the Mass and singing the pertinent parts, that I must be witnessing something of what Christendom would have been like in centuries past. I had seen the funeral of a man who by right should have been Emperor of Austria, Hungary, Croatia, and Bohemia. Franco even offered him the Crown of Spain, which he refused. His bloodline is as rich as any monarch Europe has ever seen, with a royal lineage stretching back over a thousand years.

As I watched the colored banners and traditional uniforms from every part of his Kingdom, I could not help but feel that today, perhaps only today in all of the twenty first century, the thin veil which separates, perhaps one could say "blinds", Europe from its Christian past, was torn enough to glance through at centuries past.

May his royal soul rest in peace.

I shot this video in the plaza outside of Stephansdom Cathedral, where the Requiem Mass took place. This video shows the Imperial Anthem, as the traditional guards salute with their swords:

The Scene Inside Kapuzinerkirche Church Tonight - Archduke Otto von Habsburg Lies in Repose

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:35:00 +0000

It was a moving scene at Kapuzinerkirche Church in Vienna tonight, as I paid my respects to Otto von Habsburg and his wife, lying in repose. There was a long line of people outside the Church waiting to pay their respects when I left, just as there was when I arrived. Mourners are able to sign a book of condolence.

Tomorrow, I will be arriving in Vienna early to get a good position, possibly in the mangnificent Stephansdom Cathedral, where the funeral service will be conducted, before the great procession back to Kapuzinerkirche where the Archduke will be entombed along with the other members of the Imperial Family.

God grant mercy to the soul of this great Catholic leader and to the continent he so loved and served.

Habsburg Funeral

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:34:00 +0000

I will be in Vienna for the funeral of Archduke Otto von Habsburg, once Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary and heir to four thrones, as well as father of the European Union, this weekend in Vienna. I will post pictures and reflections upon that event by early next week. May this great Catholic soul rest in peace.

My Summer in London

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:30:00 +0000

I have been spending my summer in Europe, based in London, since June 21. I will be here until early August. I am studying in Notre Dame Law School's summer program. I have been to Europe before, but never for such an extended period of time. I had planned, before I arrived, to see everything. I wanted to go to the countryside of England and see all of the outlying towns and cities, and I had hoped to travel to Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, and just everywhere else. Well, that's not going to happen, because the knowledge that I am here for an extended period has actually kept me from exploring as much, knowing that I will have more time to do it!

I have seen some amazing things, though. To the point of this blog, I have seen some of the signs of Medieval and Renaissance period Catholicism. Some of the Churches in England are very old, dating back to the period before Henry VIII seized the Church's land and abolished the monasteries in the sixteenth century. One thing that has struck me is how many such locations I have noticed. As I was on my way back from the Central Criminal Court at Old Bailey in London a few days ago, I noticed a monastery that had been in place from the fourteenth until the sixteenth century, ending at the time Henry VIII abolished it.

In Bath, the site of the ancient Roman baths in southern England, I saw Bath Abbey, the Church of the old monastery there that started in the eighth century. I asked the gentleman who was watching over the Church to tell me if the cloisters could still be seen, where the monks had lived. I knew that there was almost certainly no trace left of them, but I was interested to see his reaction. "No, there are none of those." He looked as if he wanted to continue, but he hesitated. I added, "Destroyed by Henry VIII?" He looked surprised that I know the story, given my obvious American accent. "Yes, exactly," he said.

Before seeing this old monastic Church, I toured the Tower of London on July 6. I was very interested in finding out where in the Tower the good Sir Thomas More was held before his execution. I started looking up as much information as I could find on the internet, and a chill went down my spine when I noticed that the date I had chosen to visit the tower was the 476th anniversary of Saint Thomas More's execution there in 1535. What timing! I saw the very site within the Tower grounds where Queen Anne Boleyn was executed and the spot inside the chapel of Peter ad Vincula where she was buried, near the altar.

As much as I felt sorry for this queen, she was not the purpose of my visit to the chapel. I wanted to see where Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher were entombed. I knew that they were in a mass, unmarked grave, but I didn't know where this was. I spoke with the Beefeater to find out the information. They were entombed in the crypt, he said, below the chapel and not open to the public. How disappointing! I had come all the way from the United States, and who knows when I would be visiting this site again. I pressed. I asked about the cell within which Sir Thomas was held, and the Beefeater advised me that it was the lower room in the bell tower, behind the Queen's House, where the Governor lives. This is why the room is not open to the public. I already knew this, but I wanted to make the Beefeater feel useful, so I seemed surprised and asked more questions.

Finally, I prevailed upon the Beefeater to allow me access to the crypt, within which the remains of this great saint, martyred 476 years ago to the day, lay in quiet slumber. The Beefeater even offered to close the chapel a little early (it was supposed to close in about ten minutes) to allow me to visit! I had prayed to Saint Thomas that I would be able to visit his tomb before I left the Tower, and he came through! I was led into the burial chamber by this kind guard and allowed time alone there. But before he left me alone, he offered me two possible spots along the wall that he believed the body of the saint was buried. The first was the wall opposite where we had entered, where a number of memorial plaques were affixed, to the left side of that wall.

The second was to the left of the shrine to Saint Thomas, raised about 4 or 5 feet from the floor.

The Beefeater told me that there are two traditions as to where the bones of Saint Thomas and Saint John Fisher rest, one for each of these positions. But the accounts differ as to which saint is in which position. Obviously, these accounts are not always accurate, but the room was small, so I knew the bodies of both saints were nearby, even if not exactly in these spots. The Beefeaters have a bit of a reputation for stretching the truth to impress tourists, but this one was honest. He told me straight away that Saint Thomas was not buried in the shrine to him, as other tourists have been told.

This shrine to Saint Thomas was at the head of the room, adorned with an arrangement of wilted white roses, and I knelt in front of it.

As the moment was personally very touching for me and rather unexpected, I did not know what to say. All I could think of was "Thank you!" Thank you, Saint Thomas, for being an undying witness to the Catholic Faith in England. Thank you for giving your life, for giving up your many comforts and high station, to remain in communion with the See of Peter. I prayed for my family, for myself, and for England. I prayed aloud, as if his headless corpse could hear and answer. I noticed toward the end of my prayer that a Beefeater was behind me in the crypt, obviously entering from the back of the crypt. I didn't care! I was not embarrassed. This Tower may for some visitors be just another tourist attraction, but for a Catholic who visits it, it is a site of great importance, where Saints suffered for the Faith and lie in repose, alongside enemies of the Church, the wheat lying down with the tares, to be sifted out at the Lord's Return. This room was not just history, but a passageway of Grace.

The visit to the Tower is rather expensive, close to 20 Pounds if one does not have some sort of discount. But this visit, had it been my only time at the Tower, made the entry fee a bargain.

After I left the Tower, I walked past the shops and admissions booths across the street to visit Tower Hill. In such an odd location, with so little fanfare, is the site of the scaffold where Saints Thomas More and John Fisher suffered martyrdom.

"I die the King's good servant, but God's first." - Saint Thomas More, July 6, 1535

I stood with a friend, who had not visited the Tower for the same reason as I, and pictured the scene from 476 years earlier: The gentle Sir Thomas ascended the scaffold, resigned to his fate and placing all within God's hands, joking with the one who led him: "See me safe up: for my coming down, I can shift for myself." He was allowed a final address to the crowd, which he said would be brief. I pictured him, thin and frail after his long imprisonment, standing without a touch of fear or bitterness, before the assembled crowd, almost all of whom had considered themselves faithful Catholics at some point, saying: "I die the King's good servant, but God's first." At some point, the Saint moved his gray beard out of the way of the chopping block, noting calmly that it should not be chopped off, as "It has done no heresy." The executioner, no doubt knowing that he was about to strike down one of God's Saints, asked for More's forgiveness, which More readily offered.

Once the deed was done, More's head was placed on a pike alongside London Bridge, as a warning to those who dared put their God before their King. It was later bought by More's daughter, before it was scheduled to be thrown into the Thames River, and was probably placed in the family vault in Canterbury:

http://www.apostles.com/thomasmorehead.html

Back On Line

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:44:00 +0000

I changed the settings of the blog to allow it to be publicly accessible again. I had reasons that I didn't want it to be around for awhile, but those reasons have disappeared. I should say that it has been quite awhile since I started this blog and began posting. I have mostly covered issues in the Catholic Church. I have covered some issues relating to politics and other issues as well.

With this, as with anything, I believe it is important that I evolve, as my experience increases and, hopefully, my understanding does as well. Were we to remain static in our outlooks, we would be closing the door to growth. I cannot say that my opinions are necessarily the same now as they were in any of my previous posts, but my Catholic faith has remained. In some posts, I have been too judgmental and too reactionary. In some cases, I may have come across as bigoted or even anti-semitic. That was never my intention, but as I look back on some posts, I realize that it may seemed this way.

As I am now a law student, I hope to add some of my perspectives on law school and the cases I read, ponder on the philosophy of law, and continue to comment on the Church and society. I hope the posts are of interest to some and may in some small way contribute to personal growth and edification in those who read them. If so, my time will have been well spent.

Cardinal O'Mally's Message to American Catholics: Do any Damned Thing you Want and Still Get a Catholic Funeral (and Honors Galore)

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:02:00 +0000

Words cannot express my disappointment with the Archdiocese of Boston. Ted Kennedy was the most vocal proponent of abortion in the U.S. Senate. To give him a Catholic funeral, and not only a Catholic funeral, but one where he was eulogized for sixteen minutes by a radically pro-abortion President, is so scandalous as to defy belief. I am sickened. Shame on Cardinal O'Mally for allowing this to happen. Shame!

Just for the record, here is my "two cents worth", which I just sent to the Archdiocese of Boston:

"Your Eminence,

I am so disgusted that your Archdiocese so scandalously behaved after the death of Ted Kennedy. I am scandalized, I am angry, and I am sick. This man has been the most vicious proponent of abortion on demand in the US Senate for decades, and you not only give him a Catholic funeral (which by rights he does NOT deserve as a public sinner who never publicly repented), and then you issue a glowing praise of the man in a statement, while allowing the President, the most avidly pro-abortion President ever elected, to deliver a sixteen minute speech (called by some a "eulogy") in the midst of a Catholic funeral Mass (where it is prohibited both in the GIRM and in the burial rite itself), where the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ was just feet away. How dare you? Have you no Catholic sense whatsoever?

Is the Kennedy money that important to you, more important than your souls, as St. Paul warns that the shepherd must give an account for his sheep? How dare you? When there are Catholics this country over who face the tough choices they have to face, in the midst of a sea of relativism, to do the right thing, the Catholic thing... and you reward this man, this unrepentant public sinner, with all of these honors. How dare you so diminish the Catholic name? Is a man such as yourself, who daily holds in his consecrated hands the Lord of the Universe, star struck at the name of "Kennedy"?

You will answer, no doubt, "but he did much for the poor"; "he tried to get everyone health care"; or perhaps, "nobody is perfect." Had Ted Kennedy helped to enact a law that allowed two-month-old babies to be summarily executed in the light of day in the streets of Washington, in the shadow of the Capitol building, would you have allowed these honors while saying, "but he tried to help the poor"? The fool who has said in his heart that there is no God and the man who lives his life as if God did not exist may make make this mistake and fail to equate the children in this example with the unborn children in the wombs of their mothers. They thus confound the moral order, but you, a Prince of the Catholic Church? I am ashamed, as I was ashamed of Ted Kennedy, who was raised by a pious Catholic mother and should have known better.

Your Eminence, you were ultimately responsible for this farce. You have thus committed a public act of scandal, and I urge you, as a subordinate and as one who prays for you and your office, to repent. May God, who is Just but Merciful, have mercy upon you and the Archdiocese of Boston, which you have so disgraced."

If I had it to do over, I may have been more gentle. This is a Prince of the Church I am speaking to, and he deserves our utmost patience. This case, however, is as clear cut as they get. Even giving the benefit of the doubt, there's no way to defend this.

Prayer Request

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:25:00 +0000

I ask that any readers please take the time to offer a fervent prayer to Heaven for the quick and complete recovery of a good friend, a fellow traditional Catholic, who has been diagnosed recently with breast cancer. I humbly urge any priests who may read this blog to please remember her and her son (who may very well have a religious vocation) in your Masses.

Earthquake Just Felt in Ventura County

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:29:00 +0000

I'm not sure how strong (since I don't know how far away it was), but we just experienced a strong jolt here in Santa Paula, California. It wasn't a "roller." It was more of a quick and intense "slam" and then a couple seconds of shaking. I don't think there's any damage.

Update: The earthquake was a 4.2 magnitude, centered about 4 miles east of Ojai, so very close to Santa Paula, which is about 16 miles east of Ojai.

Unconfirmed Report Says ND President Father Jenkins Stripped of His Priestly Faculties (Turned out to be a false rumor)

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:15:00 +0000

See the note at the bottom of this report and the comment from a reader. The rumor turns out to be almost certainly false.

I am hesitant to pass on this information without confirmation, but in this case I don't know what else I can do, since I'm not sure who to confirm it with. However, a few moments ago, I received what is in effect third hand information that Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., President of Notre Dame University, has been stripped of his faculties as a priest after repeated public and private admonishment from Bishops across the United States that resulted from his invitation of President Obama to speak at the upcoming commencement exercises on May 17 and to award him an honorary degree, both in violation of USCCB policies as well as constant Catholic teaching and practice. According to the information, President Jenkins recently received a letter informing him of this.

This report comes from an alumnus of Notre Dame and was passed on to a friend of mine, who mentioned it to another friend, who in turn asked me about it. This is certainly not a reliable way to get news, so I find it to be doubtful. This was the first I had heard of it, and I'll try to confirm it or deny it as soon as possible. Calls to the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend this afternoon were unanswered, because the Diocese has already closed for the day. Does anyone have any contacts in the Diocese who can confirm or deny the report?

I have no idea how accurate it is or whether it will turn out to be true or not, but as a service to my readers, I pass it on as quickly as I can to keep you informed. If it turns out to be true, it will be a clear signal of the disapproval of the Church with Father Jenkins' scandalous invitation. So again, don't take this as certainly true. As a matter of fact, I'd be surprised if there weren't a notice on the Diocesan web page, but we'll wait and see.

There will surely be some critical that I have posted this information. However, I do so as much to stop the rumor if it isn't true as to provide quick information to the public. The rumor already apparently exists, or it would not have reached me. So it's best to clarify things.

I'm still trying to figure out the canon law at work here. Perhaps someone could help me out. Who has power to do this? Wouldn't it be Bishop D'Arcy?

Update: This story is actually a couple days old, and it came about because of an email sent around the net which claimed that Father Jenkins had been suspended a divinis . It turns out that this is not true, or at least is very unlikely true. The Diocese of F.W.-S.B. denies the truth of the report. It looks like someone simply consulted an actual letter of suspension and began a very clever hoax.

Thomas Aquinas College Mourns Loss of its President

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:15:00 +0000

I ask everyone who reads this blog to pray fervently for the repose of the soul of Dr. Thomas Dillon, the President of Thomas Aquinas College, who was killed in a car accident in Ireland today. I pass on the information simply to ask for these prayers for the family and for the entire community here as we mourn a man who dedicated his life to the Catholic education offered here at our school. Please also pray for the recovery of his wonderful wife Terri who was injured in the crash and for the comfort of his mother, children, and the entire family.

He was one of the greatest men I've had the honor of knowing in my relatively short life. I have never seen anyone work harder for a cause than he did. He always had a kind word and a smile, no small thing for a man with his heavy workload and many responsibilities. He guided the school through nearly two decades and saw our new Chapel completed, as well as the development of much of the campus. He often worked late into the night to guide the college and try to provide the funds to keep the operation going. He died while traveling to represent us. The highest compliment that I can pay to him is that he was a man who deeply loved the Truth and that he was truly a good and kind man.

He will be missed more than words can say. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.

Medieval City of L'Aquila Devastated in Quake: Famous Basilica with Papal Tomb Badly Damaged

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:20:00 +0000

Pictured: The facade of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio in L'Aquina

The earthquake in Italy has claimed over 90 victims and the death toll is rising. May God have mercy on their souls. Warnings of the quake given several weeks ago by earthquake experts were apparently disregarded.

L'Aquila (population of about 70,000), which was founded in the 13th century and is lined with Baroque and Renaissance buildings, was devastated in the quake, with reports saying that between 3,000 and 10,000 buildings were damaged, including the gate built in honor of Charles V. The city is uninhabitable at this time and may be so in the near future.

Among the buildings damaged in L'Aquila was the famous Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio, which has the tomb of the 13th century Pope Celestine V, who was coronated there and is also buried there. The apse of the church collapsed, according to local officials, ''from the transept to the back of the church.''

The bell tower of another church in the city, the Renaissance era Basilica of San Bernardino, also collapsed during the quake.

The extent of the damage and the great human toll is still being assessed.

Pictured: The tomb of Pope Celestine V inside the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio in L'Aquina.

Developing...

Four Years Later: Where Were You When Pope John Paul II Passed Away?

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:45:00 +0000

I remember that day well. I was a freshman at Thomas Aquinas College in California. We all knew that the Holy Father's health was quickly deteriorating and that his death was reported as "imminent". The mood on the campus was a heavy one, and this was the chief subject of conversation. We knew the moment was coming when our beloved spiritual father would pass. Of course, we couldn't know when, and like any death in the family, even knowing of it in advance doesn't prepare one for the moment when you get the word, the beloved one has passed from this life and has walked into that most dreaded and unknown path that all mortals must tread. For the Christian, nature is not destroyed by grace. It is elevated. We humans naturally grieve the death of one we love, just as we look with fear at our own passing, which one day must surely come.

While our nature abhors death, we are able to see it as a necessary "gate", purified by Our Lord's own Death which made it sacred, by which we enter eternally into our reward. John Paul II's calm and holy death, after so much suffering in this life, moved us all and weighed upon us. It inspired us, but it left us with a void at the passing of such a man.

It was lunch time at Thomas Aquinas College. When we began our lunch, we did not know that minutes before our beloved Holy Father had passed away in Rome, at what would have been 11:37 am in our time zone. The announcement was made about half the way through our lunch, and the emotion was visible on the faces of those I could see. Heads were hung down; there were tears. Everyone left their seats and knelt in the floor of the commons and offered a moment of silent prayer for the repose of his soul, a silence much needed to collect our own thoughts and restrain our emotions.

Days later, his funeral was broadcast live, in the middle of the night for us, on a projector set up in the commons. Again, the tears came, and we, isolated as we were in our little secluded campus surrounded by the mountains and hills of Santa Paula, were all united with the Church throughout the world in mourning this good man.

And yet with John Paul's passing, not long after, another man took the Seat of Peter, and that day I also remember and will relate in its time. Readers may feel free to share their own remembrances of April 2, 2005. Where were you when Pope John Paul II passed away?

Scandal at Notre Dame Deepens as Strongest Condemnation Yet of Obama Invitation Issued by Bishop Doran of Rockford

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:15:00 +0000

Pictured: Bishop Thomas Doran with Pope John Paul II.

In another sign of how deeply Notre Dame University's recent invitation of President Obama has diminished its reputation, perhaps forever, with orthodox American Catholics, this report just came out from The Cardinal Newman Societ y today. This letter, written by His Excellency Bishop Thomas G. Doran of the Diocese of Rockford to Father Jenkins, President of Notre Dame University (who issued the fateful invitation) expresses the outrage of Bishop Doran and of the Catholic community he represents. The good bishop speaks with some authority on the issue of Catholic colleges and univerisities since he served on the subcommittee to draft the US Bishops' plan to implement Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

Pictured: Nell Newton, Dean of the Hastings College of Law at the University of California and donor to pro-abortion candidates Barack Obama, John Kerry and others, was just named as Dean of Notre Dame's Law School. You'd think they could have picked a more opportune time to make this announcement.

This letter comes to our attention just as we find out that the scandal is actually deeper than we had believed. As American Papist reported today, Notre Dame just appointed as Dean of its law school Nell Newton, who has consistently made contributions to pro-death candidates, including the maximum allowed amount to Barack Obama's campaign as well as a donation to John Kerry's campaign for President.

Given Notre Dame's disregard for Catholic morality, as exhibited by its invitation of President Obama and now this appointment of a prominent supporter of pro-abort politicians as Dean of its school of law, it's great to see that Bishop Doran's letter doesn't beat around the bush. His Excellency severely chastises Notre Dame's hypocrisy in using the name Catholic and especially the name of our Blessed Mother while engaging in such a scandal. It references personally Father Jenkins and his allowing the obscene "Vagina Monologues" to take place on the campus in the past:

Though promotion of the obscene is not foreign to you, I would point out that it is truly obscene for you to take such decisions as you have done in a university named for our Blessed Lady, whom the Second Vatican Council called the Mother of the Church.

OUCH! Bishop Doran is, according to my count, the tenth Bishop who has condemned Notre Dame's scandalous invitation. It may even be significant that he addresses Father Jenkins as "President Jenkins" rather than as "Father" Jenkins-another sign of contempt for his horrible service at Notre Dame?

He even goes so far as to suggest that Notre Dame change its name to “The Fighting Irish College” or “Northwestern Indiana Humanist University.” God bless this good bishop! Some may object that this sort of language is beneath the dignity of a bishop. Not so! We just aren't used to bishops acting like bishops anymore. What Notre Dame deserves right now is scorn from the Catholic Community in the U.S. and from its alumni base. Bishop Doran's condemnation, which joins a chorus of other bishops (with more statements coming out daily), shows just how deep that scorn is. ND certainly didn't expect it. This public derision is the only way to perhaps correct them and return them to the Faith. It may already be too late for that, and the damage may already be done. But it's never too late to pray.

Following is Bishop Dolan's full letter:

March 31, 2009
Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Dear President Jenkins:
I wish to express in my own name and on behalf of the Catholic community of this Diocese, my dismay and outrage at your decision to invite the current President of the United States to address the 2009 graduates of the University of Notre Dame and to receive an honorary degree.
This decision of your flies in the face of the expressed directive of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the year 2004, that Catholic institutions not so honor those who profess opposition to the Church’s doctrine on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
I would ask that you rescind this unfortunate decision and so avoid dishonoring the practicing Catholics of the United States, including those of this Diocese. Failing that, please have the decency to change the name of the University to something like, “The Fighting Irish College” or “Northwestern Indiana Humanist University.” Though promotion of the obscene is not foreign to you, I would point out that it is truly obscene for you to take such decisions as you have done in a university named for our Blessed Lady, whom the Second Vatican Council called the Mother of the Church.
I sign myself

Very truly yours,
The Most Reverend Thomas G. Doran, D.D., J.C.D.
Bishop of Rockford

Cardinal George Says Notre Dame Obama Invitation 'Extreme Embarrassment'

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:05:00 +0000

In a major development in the ongoing Catholic backlash against Notre Dame University's invitation of President Obama to give their commencement address in May, Cardinal George, President of the United States Catholic Conference, issued a very strong statement against Notre Dame's action today.

According to Lifesitenews.com, Cardinal George had some of the harshest words yet for Father John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame University, who issued the invitation. He called the decision an "extreme embarrassment to Catholics" and even said that, ". . . whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation . . ." [Stinging!]

Bravo! Take off the gloves.

The funny thing is that just this morning, I wrote a rather harsh criticism of Cardinal George and the USCCB based upon a letter that Cardinal George sent to someone who wrote him complaining about the scandal. At that time, he said that the letter was misdirected, since ND was not located in his Archdiocese and didn't come under his authority as head of the USCCB.

With this latest statement, everything is set aright. Let's hope that more forceful statements are forthcoming from more U.S. Bishops. Cardinal George by issuing the statement has become the ninth U.S. Bishop to speak out against Notre Dame.

Unfortunately, Cardinal George said that the President would not be disinvited, saying: "you just don't do that (disinvite the president of the United States)."

Well to that I have one thing to say to Father Jenkins in hopes that he will do just that (disinvite the President): We ought to obey God rather than men. - Acts Chapter 5

USCCB Shamefully Silent on Notre Dame Scandal as Cardinal George Says USCCB Has No "Authority" Over ND (Update: Cardinal George Issues Statement)

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:15:00 +0000

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Cardinal George just today issued a strong statement in opposition to Notre Dame's unwise and scandalous invitation of Obama to be their commencement speaker. Please read the details at the bottom of this post.

Developing...

Here is my original rant on the USCCB, which now is outdated, almost as quickly as I published it:

A hat tip to American Papist for scanning a letter from Cardinal George, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in response to a complaint about Obama's scheduled commencement address at Notre Dame University. In the letter, Cardinal George states:

Your comments, while appreciated, are misdirected; the University of Notre Dame is not located within the Archdiocese of Chicago and I have no authority over it, either as Archbishop of Chicago or as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This is sorely disappointing. Obviously the USCCB doesn't have jurisdiction, but it could at least issue a statement. Bishop Olmsted doesn't have authority over Notre Dame, but he issued a statement. Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersberg and Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison don't have authority over Notre Dame, but they issued statements. Archbishop Timothy Dolan doesn't have authority over ND, but he made a statement. Daniel Cardinal DiNardo doesn't have authority over ND, but he made a statement as well.

A brief scan of the USCCB web site shows the following statements from Cardinal George and the USCCB:

USCCB Calls on Administration to Retain HHS Regulation on Conscience Protection

Cardinal George Urges Catholics to Tell Administration: Keep Conscience Protections for Health Care Workers

USCCB Calls on Administration to Retain HHS Regulation on Conscience Protection

USCCB Congratulates New Mexico on Repeal of the Death Penalty

USCCB President Urges President Obama to Designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status

Last time I checked, the USCCB also doesn't have "authority" over the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Congress, the Obama administration, the government of New Mexico, or Haiti, and yet they issued statements on these. But they can't issue a statement on a Catholic University in the United States engaged in a major scandal?

In 2004 the USCCB issued a statement by the title "Catholics in Political Life," which stated that pro-abortion politicians ". . . should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." And yet the USCCB has not yet issued any statement on the ND scandal. If they don't, what relevance does the body have? If it ignores violations of its own guidelines, what's the point of issuing the guidelines?

It's time for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to forcefully and officially speak out against Notre Dame's invitation and honoring of the most pro-death President in American history. Anything less will be a scandal of its own.

p.s. It's a real shame that we have to ask the USCCB to issue a statement on something like this.

You know what to do:

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E.
Washington DC 20017-1194
(202) 541-3000

Cardinal Francis George, President of the USCCB
Archdiocese of Chicago
phone: 312-751-8200
email: mfox@archchicago.org

IMPORTANT UPDATE 3/31/2009: Just in from LifeSiteNews, Cardinal George has spoken out and called the ND invitation of Obama an "extreme embarrassment".

And the quotes seem to be from the Cardinal acting in his role as head of the USCCB. He is quoted as saying,

As president of the U.S. bishops' conference I have to precisely speak for the bishops and not in my own name, as I could as Archbishop of Chicago.

Further, the Cardinal repeats his assertion that he has no authority in this matter, except moral authority. Quoting the article:

In a video obtained by LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Cardinal George prefaced his remarks by noting that as USCCB president he does not have jurisdiction or authority over other bishops, but nonetheless has "some moral authority, without any kind of jurisdiction or any sort of real authority."

And this is a strong rebuke of Notre Dame:

"So whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation, and didn't anticipate the kind of uproar that would be consequent to the decision, at least not to the extent that it has happened," said George.

The Cardinal then urged the protest against this scandal to continue:

The Cardinal urged concerned Catholics "to do what you are supposed to be doing: to call, to email, to write letters, to express what's in your heart about this: the embarrassment, the difficulties."

This is a very positive development, and it means that the head of the USCCB is now on record as strongly against Father Jenkins' very unwise decision to invite President Obama.

Bishop Olmsted Rebukes Notre Dame for "Public Act of Disobedience": Calls on Fr. Jenkins to Recant His Error

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:10:00 +0000

Pictured: The email sent by Bishop Olmsted to Father Jenkins. It was made publicly available on the Diocese of Phoenix's web site today.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix has joined a growing outcry against Notre Dame University's invitation of President Obama to speak at its commencement in May. In an email yesterday, Bishop Olmsted blasted Father John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame University, for what he calls "a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States." He calls upon Father Jenkins to recant his error by writing, "I pray that you come to see the grave mistake of your decision, and the way it undercuts the Church's proclamation of the Gospel of Life in our day."

Bishop Olmsted took the rare move of releasing the private email to the public because of the grave and public nature of the scandal Notre Dame has committed by inviting President Obama to speak there and awarding him an honorary degree.

Notice the paragraph quoting John Paul II. It shows very forcefully that the U.S. Bishops aren't buying Notre Dame's excuse that they invited Obama because of his stand on other issues important to Catholics. As John Paul II clearly said, if you don't respect the most fundamental right of all, the right to life, all of the outcry on those issues is "false and illusory."

We need more clear and forceful statements like this from other courageous bishops. God bless Bishop Olmsted for speaking the truth so clearly!

Update: Over 170,000 people have signed the petition at NotreDameScandal.com demanding that Notre Dame withdraw the invitation for Obama to speak there. Also, check out this blog post where I call upon Bishop D'Arcy (and other good bishops like Bishop Olmsted) to offer a public Mass of Reparation on May 17, where people may go (especially ND students) who refuse to attend the scandalous commencement address.

Let's ask Bishop D'Arcy to Offer Public Mass of Reparation for Notre Dame Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Recently, the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese in Indiana, Bishop James D'Arcy, condemned the outrageous choice of Barack Obama to be the commencement speaker at Notre Dame University, a self-described "Catholic" university, and has pledged not to attend the commencement. The choice of Obama as commencement speaker has led to a huge outcry of opposition, with www.notredamescandal.com now having over 160,000 signatures on its petition to ask Notre Dame to rescind its invitation and the switchboards at Notre Dame reportedly are overwhelmed with phone calls of protest. The web site is very slow this morning too. Is there a connection? Probably.

Well I have an idea that I'd like to propose to Bishop D'Arcy, and I urge all of my readers to spread the word about this and to contact Bishop D'Arcy. On May 17, the date of the scandalous commencement address by President Obama, Bishop D'Arcy should offer a public Mass of reparation for the offense against Our Lord's Sacred Heart that is being committed by Notre Dame (or if he's afraid of ruffling feathers at ND, a Mass of reparation for the grave crime of abortion). He should further use his authority to offer an indulgence for all faithful who attend this Mass. In this way, students who are unable in conscience to attend Mr. Death's commencement address can be in our Lord's Presence instead. I'd say that's a good trade.

To contact Bishop D'Arcy, please do so with the following contact information and with all of the respect due to His Excellency:

Fort Wayne Chancery
1103 S. Calhoun Street
P.O. Box 390
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801

(260) 422-4611

No Constitutional Rights for Pro-Lifers: Oakland Pastor Jailed for Peacefully Protesting Abortion - Video Proof Shows Accusers Lied

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:04:00 +0000

Pictured: Walter Hoye holds a sign reading "God loves you and your baby. Let us help you". For this offer to help young women out of the horrible "choice" of abortion, Mr. Hoye is now serving an unjust jail sentence.

A tip of the hat is due to Catholics for the Common Good for their excellent coverage of the outrageous actions being taken against an Oakland pastor for his peaceful sidewalk abortion counseling.

Mr. Walter Hoye, respect life activist, and Executive Elder at the Progressive Baptist Church in Berkeley, was arrested in May of 2008 while holding a sign outside of an abortion clinic that read: "Jesus [God] loves you and your baby. Let us help you."

Catholics for the Common Good provides excellent coverage of this illegal persecution of this good man. Here is a description of what happened:

Walter was arrested in May 13, 2008, under Oakland's new "bubble law". It states that pro-life demonstrators or sidewalk counselors must not move closer than 8 feet from any individual within a 100 foot radius of an abortion clinic.

Walter Hoye is supported by Catholics for the Common Good (CCG) Pro-life activist
Walter was unjustly convicted – he did not break any law. Clinic workers and escorts, bothered by his presence, approached him, crowded him, and held up cardboard placards to block his sign. They made false accusations against him and had him arrested. Because of the new “bubble” law, Walter had the foresight to have his presence video-taped just in case there was an incident.

At the trial in January, clinic workers misrepresented the facts on the witness stand – testifying that Walter was aggressive and threatening, and that two unidentified clients had complained about him. There was no supporting evidence provided and the video tape proved their testimony false. Inexplicably, the jury found him guilty of moving closer than 8 feet to the two unidentified, unseen clients. The case is being appealed. Life Legal Defense Foundation is representing Walter.

After the trial, the judge told Walter that he was considering remanding him into jail pending sentencing for this misdemeanor. How could anyone treat such a kind, gentle, and loving person, as I know Walter to be, like a common criminal? The behavior of the judge has us concerned that he will give him the maximum sentence.

And here is the latest update from CCG, which sadly reports that Walter Hoye has been actually jailed! This is a travesty of justice, and the judge ought to be punished for his abuse of power.

Judge Exceeded Authority
Walter and Lori Hoye Courageous Witnesses for Life

This afternoon, Friday, March 20, appearing slight and gaunt from his 40-Days-for-Life fasting, Rev. Walter Hoye was calmly led from the Alameda County courtroom to begin a thirty day jail sentence. The judge denied the defense's motion to stay the sentence pending appeal and remanded Walter into custody. Even people convicted of serious felonies facing long prison sentences are routinely granted bail or released on their own recognizance pending appeal. This case involved a simple misdemeanor -- an unjust conviction with no victim or evidence.

Rev. Hoye's crime was standing outside of an abortion clinic with the sign reading "Jesus [God] loves you and your baby. Let us help you." See the background details on the case.

Last month, the judge initially gave Walter three years probation with the condition that he stay more than 100 yards from the abortion clinic where he was arrested. When he told the judge that he would not be willing to forfeit his first amendment rights, Judge Hing added a 30 day jail sentence with the option for alternative community service, and a $1,130 fine. The judge was stymied when both the prosecution and defense lawyers told him he could not impose a condition of probation unless Hoye accepted it. The sentencing was continued until today.

What happened today, stunned everyone in the courtroom. Even though both the prosecution and defense agreed that Judge Hing could not impose a condition of probation on Walter without his consent, he insisted on giving him the same sentence anyway. He said the jail time, the fine, and the conditions of probation are all in effect -- immediately -- something that will surely be overturned on appeal (but unfortunately after Walter has already served his time in jail). This is an outrage.

The District Attorney tried to support the stay-away order with outlandish reasoning that compared it those issued in domestic violence cases to protect victims. Allison Aranda with Life Legal Defense Foundation responded that there was no victim in this case and the judge was asking Walter to stay away from public streets and sidewalks, forfeiting his first amendment rights. In addition, his lawyers made the point that judge did not have authority to impose restrictions on him that are more stringent than those contained in the anti-sidewalk-counseling ordinance under which he was charged.

Before the sentencing, a crowd of about 80 supporters prayed over Walter and his wife, Lori, in the hallway outside of the courtroom. We also prayed lovingly for the abortion clinic owners, staff, and supporters who jeered and mocked as we prayed.

The way Walter has been treated by the DA and the Judge is starting to awaken the African-American clergy in Oakland to the targeting of Black babies for abortion. Additional African-American pro-life leadership is starting to emerge.

It is important to spread the word about this injustice across the nation by forwarding this email. A broad coalition of organizations will soon have "Free Walter Hoye" tee shirts available help publicize this injustice. There will be more information available on next steps over the next few days. Stay tuned.

We continue to pray for the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe for Walter and his family.

For the Common Good,

Bill May, Chairman
Catholics for the Common Good
(415) 651-4171
http://ccgaction.org

Notre Dame Student Groups Condemn Plan for Obama Commencement Address and Honorary Degree

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:29:00 +0000

Contact:
Chris Labadie
NDresponse@gmail.com
www.NDresponse.com

NOTRE DAME STUDENT GROUPS DENOUNCE UNIVERSITY’S CHOICE FOR COMMENCEMENT SPEECH

Statement follows

NOTRE DAME, IN, 25 March 2009 — A number of student groups at the University of Notre Dame issued a statement today repudiating the University’s selection of President Barack Obama to deliver its 2009 Commencement Address. The statement criticizes the president’s position on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other life issues, and chastises University administration for apparently looking over what they termed "fundamental moral principles."

The statement responds to Friday afternoon’s announcement of Obama as the speaker for the University’s 164th Commencement. Citing Catholic teaching on abortion, as well as the US Bishops’ 2004 document "Catholics in Political Life," which deals with issues surrounding a Catholic response to politicians who advocate abortion, the student statement expresses “deepest opposition” to the decision. "This is not a partisan issue; rather, it’s an issue of respect for human life, and our Catholic character. We want to emphasize that we are not attacking the office of the President, but taking issue with his moral stances. I think the statement makes it clear that the student body of Notre Dame is not unequivocally in favor of this decision,” said senior Emily Toates of Notre Dame Right to Life.

An Ad Hoc committee sponsored by a coalition of University-sponsored student groups has been organized to lead student response. These groups include Notre Dame Right to Life, College Republicans, Jus Vitae (Notre Dame Law School Right to Life), the Irish Rover independent student newspaper, Notre Dame College Republicans, The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society, The Identity Project of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Knights of the Immaculata, Notre Dame Children of Mary, the Orestes Brownson Council, Notre Dame Law St. Thomas More Society, and the Federalist Society of the Notre Dame Law School.

STUDENT COALITION STATEMENT ON THE 2009 UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME COMMENCEMENT CEREMONIES

In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.’s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame’s principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree. Our objection is not a matter of political partisanship, but of President Obama’s hostility to the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sanctity of human life at its earliest stages. His recent dedication of federal funds to overseas abortions and to embryonic stem cell research will directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. We cannot sit by idly while the University honors someone who believes that an entire class of human beings is undeserving of the most basic of all legal rights, the right to live.

The University’s decision runs counter to the policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against honoring pro-choice politicians. In their June 2004 statement Catholics in Political Life, the bishops said, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Fr. Jenkins defends his invitation by saying that it does not honor or suggest support for the President’s views on abortion, but rather support for his leadership. But our “fundamental moral principles” must be respected at all times. And the principle that requires us to refrain from the direct killing of the innocent has a special status even among the most fundamental principles. President Obama’s actions have consistently shown contempt for this principle, and he has sought political gain by making light of its clear political implications. Leadership that puts the lives of the most innocent at risk is leadership we must disdain. In the face of President Obama’s actions, Father Jenkins’ words ring hollow.

It is a great irony that the University has chosen to award President Obama an honorary law degree. As the oldest Catholic law school in the country, the Notre Dame Law School states that its mission is “to facilitate greater understanding of and commitment to the relationship between law and social justice.” The social justice issue of our day is the deliberate, legal attack on the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn. To award a Notre Dame law degree to a lawyer and politician who has used the law to deny equality to the unborn diminishes the value of the degree itself.

Additionally, Fr. Jenkins has placed some of his students in a moral dilemma as to whether they should attend their own graduation. Many pro-life seniors, along with their families, are conflicted about whether to participate in the commencement ceremony. The lack of concern for these devoted sons and daughters of Notre Dame, who love this University and the Catholic principles on which it was built, is shameful.

In response to the University’s decision, we pledge ourselves to acts of witness that will be characterized by respect, prayerfulness, outspoken fidelity to the Church, and true concern for the good of our University. It is appropriate that only members of the Notre Dame community lead all such protests, and we ask outside groups to respect our responsibilities in this regard. Over the next several weeks, in response to this scandal, our organizations will host various academic and religious events to engage the University community. We request any groups who are committed to respectful actions to support our efforts, thereby ensuring a unified front and a more compelling public witness.

In Notre Dame,

Notre Dame Right to Life
The Irish Rover Student Newspaper
Notre Dame College Republicans
The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society
Notre Dame Identity Project
Militia of the Immaculata
Children of Mary
Orestes Brownson Council
Notre Dame Law School Right to Life
Notre Dame Law St Thomas More Society
The Federalist Society at Notre Dame Law School

Great News: Bishop Salvatore Cordileone Appointed Shepherd of Oakland Diocese

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:15:00 +0000

Pictured: His Excellency Bishop Salvatore Cordileone receives the Kiss of Peace from the Subdeacon during the Extraordinary Form Mass offered at Thomas Aquinas College on March 8.

Salvatore Cordileone, the auxiliary Bishop of the San Diego Diocese, has been elevated by the Holy See to become the next Bishop of Oakland. This is great news for the Diocese.

A Faithful Rebel recently reported on Bishop Cordileone's participation at the Thomas Aquinas College dedication weekend. He participated in a Solemn High Mass and then offered the Ordinary Form of Mass liturgically ad orientem and in Latin.

It is great to see the elevation of a good and holy Bishop to the See of Oakland. He is a man who respects the Traditions of the Catholic Church and fully understands the Pope's initiative to correct post Vatican II problems in the liturgy and overall life of the Church, a program known as the "hermaneutic of continuity."

This appointment is a sign of hope for the Church in California, with Cardinal Mahony's retirement from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles expected in under two years due to his age. It is a sign that this Pope takes episcopal appointments to the Catholic Church in America very seriously. With a number of other prominent sees open, including St. Louis which should be getting a new Archbishop any day now, we can take great heart from this appointment.

As Bishop Cordileone assumes this new role in the Church, at such a time of confusion and sometimes outright rebellion within the ranks, he has great need of our prayers and support. May God grant him many years. Ad Multos Annos!

Chief Harvard AIDS Researcher Says Pope Is Right on Condom Use

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:20:00 +0000

It's remarkable how little is being said in the mainstream media about recent comments by the director of Harvard University's AIDS Research project, Dr. Edward Green, comments that back up Pope Benedict's recent statement in Africa that handing out condoms only makes the AIDS problem worse. According to Dr. Green, evidence shows that those who use condoms compensate by engaging in riskier behavior, actually making the spread of the epidemic worse. I had to search for awhile to find this report from a secular news agency, on the religion blog of the Dallas Morning News. I then stumbled across another report at the conservative journal National Review.

All of the reaction against the Pope is being fueled by an orchestrated media attack similar to the recent one we saw over the lifting of Bishop Williamson's excommunication. The media is criminally negligent in its reporting on this matter, as usual, and utterly ignorant (or willfully ignorant) of the Church's longstanding teachings, which the Pope was merely repeating. No wonder they're not going to report on a widespread basis what one of the leading AIDS researchers in the world has to say on the subject, because it shows how ridiculous and one sided their own coverage has been.

I found this excerpt from the CNA story absolutely fascinating. It completely shows what a lie the recent press coverage has been. Dr. Green had this to say:

One country, Uganda, recognized these issues and said, “Listen, if you have multiple sex partners, you are going to get AIDS.” What worked in Uganda, a country that has seen a decline by as much as 2/3 in AIDS infections, was that officials realized that even aside from religious and cultural reasons, “no one likes condoms.” Instead of waiting for “American and European advisors to arrive,” Ugandan officials reacted and developed a program that fit their culture; their main message being “stick to one partner or love faithfully.”
However, in 2004, Uganda’s AIDS infection rates began to increase once again, due to an influx of condoms and Western “advice”, Green recalled. Western donors also came to Uganda and said behavioral change doesn’t work and that, “most infections nowadays are among married people.” Green said these claims are “misleading,” pointing out that “married people always have lower HIV infection rates than single or divorced people of the same age group.”

There is absolutely NO reason to continue tuning into the mainstream media. They have lost all credibility, and they have shown themselves partisans in the war against our Holy Father and our Faith. This time, as usual, it is shown that the Catholic Church is the defender of reason and even of true science against a hostile world and a hostile, utterly biased media.

Shocking: Pro Abort President Obama to Give Commencement Address at "Catholic" Notre Dame

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:32:00 +0000

Pictured: A Statue of Our Lady atop Notre Dame University's Chapel. This will serve as backdrop as militantly pro-abortion President Barack Obama is given an honorary degree by the University in May.

In a shocking announcement today from once proudly Catholic Notre Dame University, President Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion President ever, will be giving the commencement address there AND receive an honorary degree from the university at its commencement exercises in May. This is one of the most outrageous examples yet of the serious problem in Catholic education, as many Catholic colleges and Universities continue to distance themselves from the teachings and magisterial authority of the Catholic Church. Such institutions are all too happy to use the name "Catholic" when raising funds from alumni, however.

My proposal to Notre Dame University:Stop using the name "Catholic" and rename your institution Notre Infidélité.

According to the Press release from Notre Dame University:

President Barack Obama will be the principal speaker and the recipient of an honorary doctor of laws degree at the University of Notre Dame’s 164th University Commencement Ceremony at 2 p.m. May 17 (Sunday) in the Joyce Center on campus.

Mr. Obama will be the ninth U.S. president to be awarded an honorary degree by the University and the sixth to be the Commencement speaker.

Of course, such a commencement address is highly scandalous and offensive to Catholics the world over who have pledged to fight Obama in his radical attempts to push abortion through the U.N., through U.S. funding, and by even wiping away all State abortion laws.

Let's just say that my opinion of Notre Dame just fell many notches down. Shame on them.

Check out the new web site set up to protest this scandal, which will keep you updated and give you an opportunity to sign an online petition: NotreDameScandal.com

Normally out of courtesy I think it best to complain about such matters by email. In this case, however, I say they deserve our phone calls. The President of the University is Rev. John Jenkins. They know better, so LET 'EM HAVE IT (observing Christian charity of course). Following is the appropriate contact information:

To contact Notre Dame:
Phone: (574) 631-5000
email form: http://president.nd.edu/contact-us

Notre Dame Fellows:
Rev. E. William Beauchamp, C.S.C., President, U. of Portland
(503) 943-7101

Patrick F. McCartan, Senior partner, Jones Day
(216) 586-7272
Email: pmccartan@jonesday.com

William M. Goodyear, CEO, Navigant Consulting
main: (312) 583-5700

list of all Notre Dame Fellows: http://www.nd.edu/leadership/fellows/

To contact the USCCB:

Cardinal Francis George, President
Archdiocese of Chicago
phone: 312-751- 8200
email: mfox@archchicago.org

Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Chairman, Committee on Education
Diocese of Worcester
phone: 508-791-7171
committee email: catholiceducation@usccb.org

To contact Notre Dame's bishop:
Bishop John D'Arcy, Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese
Fort Wayne Chancery
phone: (260) 422-4611

Developing...

Cardinal Pell Speaks in Favor of Return to Ad Orientem Posture for Priests at Mass

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:15:00 +0000

His Eminence, George Cardinal Pell of Australia, in an interview with the Catholic Herald, has boldly spoken in favor of a return to the ad orientem posture for priests at Mass. He made his comments in the midst of a very interesting interview that includes comments on the negotiations between the Society of Saint Pius X and Rome. He joins a growing number of heirarchs who have spoken in favor of a return to the ad orientem posture, the most notable of which are Pope Benedict XVI (when Cardinal) and Archbishop Malcom Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Here are a few excerpts from the interview that I found interesting, with my own commentary in bold and key observations in bold/red:

Question: You're very familiar with Pope Benedict. Is there anything that he's done since his election that's surprised you?

I was very pleasantly surprised that his first encyclical was on love. I thought that was very good. I wasn't surprised by his interest in the liturgy. I regret the way the whole lifting of the excommunications of the Lefebvrist bishops has been set out of context by the controversy over Bishop Williamson. [VERY interesting it is that His Eminence chose to bring up this controversial subject regarding Bishop Williamson even though he wasn't directly asked about it. He no doubt sees the attacks on the Pope recently for what they are, unfair and malicious, and is willing to publicly defend him. Bravo.]

Question: So you think it was correct to lift the excommunications of the four?

Yes, I do. I think it's certainly a worthy goal to try to reconcile that wing of the Church. [I'm a little uneasy with the phrase, "that wing of the Church." But he seems to not be using it in any demeaning way.] But as I've said, and the Vatican has said, if they are to come back they have to accept basically the teaching of Vatican II, especially the teaching that the state can't coerce belief, [To my knowledge, the SSPX has never said that the state has the authority to coerce belief. They have said that the State has a right, and even a duty in certain cases, to suppress religious error. So I'm very skeptical that this is a fair criticism of the Society.] even if it happens to be a Catholic state (not that that exists anymore). [And we ought to be asking ourselves if this is a good development.] And they have to accept the condemnation of anti-Semitism. [Again, this doesn't seem like a fair criticism. It makes it sound as if the Society is anti-semitic. They have said over and over that they are not, and the words of one renegade bishop don't say anything about the official position of the Society, which has always been against anti-semitism, the dislike or hatred of Jews on account of their Jewish blood.]

Question: So you do believe that Vatican II contains certain teachings that all Catholics must sign up to?

Yes. Basically we have to accept the Creeds and there's a hierarchy of truths. But I think it'd be quite incongruous wanting to be formally reconciled with the Church if you explicitly disavow key elements of Vatican II. [The way he puts this is interesting. Obviously the Society would say that you have to accept the Creeds, and it does accept all of the Creeds of the Church. The Society would agree that there is, even in Vatican II, a "hierarchy of truths." Not all of the "truths" of Vatican II carry equal weight or even bind the faithful in the same degree. Some of them were truths that are pastoral in nature, and thus change with the changing times. What is true of media and social communications in the 1960s, other than the principles themselves perhaps, may not be true today. That's just one example. Vatican II is primarily pastoral, and so it has many statements that have to be taken in that context.]

Question: As opposed to merely thinking that some of them need more explanation.

Or more development, yes. [This is a very Newmanlike of him to say, isn't it? It shows at least that in his mind (unlike many of his brother bishops), Vatican II is not some super development or super dogma that trumps everything that came before.]

I mean, you either agree or disagree with the condemnation of anti-Semitism. It would be quite inappropriate for somebody to be formally reconciled with the Church who was seriously and explicitly anti-Semitic.

Later in the interview he volunteers another observation regarding the ad orientem position of the priest in the Mass:

Question: Where do you think the liturgical development is heading?

I don't know. I'm not a professional liturgist. I am keen that we strengthen the vertical dimension of the liturgy, if we can, in the popular understanding, so that it's very obviously not just community-centred, it's God-centred, it's an act of worship. I'm very sympathetic to that. I'm even sympathetic for the Canon of the Mass that the priest has his back to the people. [Notice how he just threw that in there without being explicitly asked. Does he see something coming from Rome on this matter? Perhaps. He says something in the next question that I have said for awhile, and which would indicate that papal legislation on the matter may be forthcoming rather than to allow the ad orientem posture to "develop" back into the liturgy.]
As something obligatory?

Yes. Now there's nothing like a consensus in favour of that at the moment. I think I would be in favour of it because it makes it patently clear that the priest is not the centre of the show, that this an act of worship of the one true God, and the people are joining with the priest for that. [Right! There's no consensus on the matter right now because people are confused. The versus populum posture, where the priest faces the congregation rather than the East, which represents Christ, was hastily imposed on the Church on account of bad scholarship and the rush to change for the sake of change that marked the late 1960s. How can the two "forms" of the Roman Rite, the Traditional and the Novus Ordo, influence each other if there are such striking differences, ones that have no basis in liturgical history and which were imposed on account of erroneous scholarship? Such vast differences between the two rites must be removed by legislation, that is by "obligation", before the two rites can seriously begin to develop together, which I am convinced is Pope Benedict's aim. So this seems to me a sign that legislation on this matter is likely to come from Pope Benedict.]

Another way of acknowledging that: I'm very much in favour of having a crucifix in front of the celebrant during the Mass when we're facing the people. [This is exactly what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy. Until the posture is changed at Mass, the crucifix should be right in front of the priest, between him and the people, so that they are, at least semi-liturgically oriented toward Christ. The Novus Ordo celebrated as most of the western world has known it in the last four decades smacks of protestant liturgy for the principle reason that it focuses upon the personality of the celebrant rather than the Presence of Christ and the Sacrificial nature of the Mass. ]

Question: Between the priest and the people, in front of the altar?

Yes, sometimes it might be flat, sometimes it might be vertical. But that distracts attention away to some little extent from the main celebrant. I think also I find the figure of Christ is a great aid to recollection and prayer while you're saying the Eucharistic Prayer. [Yes, the crucifix may indeed "distract" from the main celebrant, but so what? I don't think that he sees this as a negative thing. It orients congregation and priest toward Christ at least somewhat. Of course, this is far less effective than having the priest and people face together toward the East, but it is a good temporary measure.]

HT: Thanks to the excellent blog, New Liturgical Movement, for bringing this Catholic Herald story to my attention.

Media Attack on Pope Benedict Continues: This Time on Condoms Comment

noreply@blogger.com (Aristotle) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:15:00 +0000

The orchestrated, relentless media attack on the Pope, which reached its height during the flap over his lifting of the excommunications of the four traditionalist Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, continues today in full force. The Holy Father is in the midst of his tour of Africa, and he responded to a question regarding the Catholic Church's position on fighting AIDS. His words have been reported in the media around the world as somehow claiming that condoms are an ineffective way to prevent disease transmission in individual cases, as if an individual using a condom makes it more likely for him to transmit AIDS. That, not surprisingly, is not at all what he said. The Pope, rather, was speaking, as usual, in a deeper manner than the liberal media is able (or perhaps willing) to comprehend (although his meaning is very clear to those who don't have an agenda and a desire to attack and discredit him).

Following is a transcript of the Holy Father's actual comments in context, with my own commentary in brackets:

The Pope received a question about whether, "The Catholic Church's position on the way to fight against AIDS is often considered unrealistic and ineffective," and he replied:

I would say the opposite. I think that the reality that is most effective, the most present and the strongest in the fight against AIDS, is precisely that of the Catholic Church, with its programs and its diversity. I think of the Sant'Egidio Community, which does so much visibly and invisibly in the fight against AIDS.

I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money -- which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, (money) doesn't help. [This is a key sentence to understanding the Holy Father's meaning. He is speaking of MAN, not only the material body but a composite of body and soul. This is the Catholic understanding. Speaking of AIDS transmission and its "prevention", as the UN does, in only material terms, does not address man as a composite of body and soul. It does not deal with the reality of sin. Keep this in mind with what the Holy Father says next.]

One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem. ["the problem . . ." What problem? Obviously here he is still speaking about the overall attempt to prevent the transmission of AIDS, which is what the reporter's question was asking. Not carefully that he is NOT, as some media is claiming, questioning the effectiveness of condoms in individual transmission of the AIDS virus. In other words, if you have AIDS and you use a condom during sex, you are certainly less likely to transmit AIDS in that individual sex act. The Pope doesn't deny that. The question though is how to combat the AIDS epidemic as a whole. Is it through handing out condoms, which promote a view of human sexuality that is warped and far beneath the dignity and beauty of Christian love? The Holy Father says no. Handing out condoms increases the idea of sex as an end in itself, of pleasure as the supreme act of man. THIS is what the Holy Father is saying, and it's something that the Church has always said. Why is it surprising to anyone? It isn't. The media knows what he's saying, and they are looking at every possible opportunity to discredit this Pope, because he stands for a vigorous defense of Christian hope and orthodoxy in the face of an increasingly liberal, secular society.]

The solution can only be a double one: first, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; second, a true friendship even and especially with those who suffer, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices and to be with the suffering. [See what a difference context makes? When the media rips his previous comment out of context, it can look like he means that condoms just don't work, materially. What he's saying, instead, is undoubtedly true. If people had a proper view of human sexuality, on the very deep plane of Benedict's thought, there would be no AIDS epidemic. Instead, the world, lost in lust and sin, rails against Benedict for repeating the clear doctrine of Jesus Christ. ]

Therefore I would say this is our double strength -- to renew the human being from the inside, to give him spiritual human strength for proper behavior regarding one's own body and toward the other person, and the capacity to suffer with the suffering."

I'll take one report from the Telegraph and another from AFP as good examples of the media's maliciousness and/or incompetence:

From the Telegraph Article:

Lisa Power, corporate head of policy at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "We deeply regret the continued misinformation around condoms, which remain the most effective way of preventing the spread of HIV. [Note: this makes is look like the Pope is questioning the questioning the material effectiveness of individual condoms in preventing AIDS transmission. This misses the whole point the Pope is making.]

The World Health Organisation believes that a "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent. [Again, the article tries to focus on the wrong issue and distort the Pope's words. In an individual case, a person indeed may be 90 percent less likely to transmit AIDS if he uses a condom. But overall, do you think AIDS will be less transmitted under A) the condom plan, with people using sex as an end in itself, lost in lust, with no concept of sin, having sex as a mere means for pleasure, with multiple partners OR B) The plan of Christ, where people realize and respect the spiritual reality, where sex is seen as a pure expression of the love between a man and a wife committed in a monogomous relationship ? If you think about it that way, which is the way the Pope is thinking as head of the Church founded by Christ, then who would doubt that he's correct?]

The AFP article, like the Telegraph Article, repeats this same mistake, while also trying to gather dissenting "Catholic" voices in the attack on the Pope:

On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods," said Harry Knox, head of the religion and faith program at Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for equal rights for the gay, lesbian and trans-gender communities.
The pope's rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community," Knox said. [Again, they miss the Pope's point, and they know it. This statement hints that the Pope is contradicting science on the material effectiveness of condoms. Again, that's not what he said. Read my comments on the Telegraph article above. ]

The article continues:

O'Brien of Catholics for Choice [Surprised? These people never miss an opportunity to contradict the Pope. They ought to be excommunicated so that they won't be able to hide behind the name "Catholic."] said condoms were "a critical part of the campaign to reduce the impact of the virus.
Citing a recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice in Ghana, Ireland, Mexico, the Philippines and United States, O'Brien said Catholics overwhelmingly support condom use.
Ninety percent of Catholics in Mexico, 86 percent in Ireland, 79 percent in the United States, 77 percent in the Philippines and 59 percent in Ghana agreed with a statement in the poll that "using condoms is prolife because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of AIDS." [First off, notice how slanted this question is. It is LEADING people to give a positive reply. Nevertheless, if this is true, it's all the more evidence that a clear statement by the Vicar of Christ upon the true nature of human sexuality, as it relates to condom use, is urgently needed.]

Do these people think that the Church is part of the dictatorship of relativism? Should Christ in Heaven change His teachings because 79 percent of Catholics in the U.S. disagree with them or find them too hard to live up to?

What does the media think of the Pope? Is he no longer seen as the Successor of Peter and guardian of the integrity of the Catholic Faith? Don't they see that his words, like Christ's, will often confuse and strike pain in those who, for personal reasons of their own sinfulness, do not wish to live up to them? And yet they react in surprise when he repeats what the Church has always repeated, and what it will always repeat until the end of time. The media in even recent memory may not have agreed with that, but they at least showed some respect to it. That is continuing to change, as the liberal media becomes more aggressively anti-Catholic and anti-religion.

At first, I may have been a little naive, and I thought that the media just simply didn't understand Benedict. But then, when I look at the reporting like this, his Regensburg address, the Bishop Williamson affair, and other episodes, I'm now convinced that it just takes too much effort to get things so very wrong. In most cases, I tend to the opinion that they simply hate Benedict because they see him as too doctrinaire and as representing the "old Church" which of course can't be tolerated in our "enlightened modern world."

Look for these attacks by the media to continue throughout Benedict's papacy. There will be no rapproachmont. They hated the Savior first, and they will ever hate those who speak clearly of His Truth. In the end though, I predict that these shallow attacks will contribute to the growing lack of trust in the media.