Below is a rather, um, caustic piece that I wrote in early 2004 in response to the "un-church" rage (what? you missed that rage? you're so uncool!). The "un-church" movement was/is essentially a riff on the old-but-ever-new silly spouting about Jesus being wonderful and relevant, while religion, Church, and wearing ties are oppressive, dull, and anti-"spiritual". Some of this is a bit dated and I would change a few things if I re-wrote it. Still, perhaps of moderate interest.

The Un-Church Phenomenon: Some Observations and a Lexicon | Carl E. Olson

When my final Protestant pastor (a good man and dear friend) saw that I was becoming deadly serious about entering the Catholic Church, he made one last, desperate pitch. "Why don't you found your own church?" he asked. "Wouldn't that be better?"

Um, no. I certainly didn't think so. Still don't. But it is very appealing to many, many people. The result? Some 35,000 or so Christian denominations in the world, a large number of them in North America.

A January 2004 article, "The Un-churches," [no longer online] in the Denver Post, provides a revealing excursion into the world of small groups that are springing up in the Denver area and, more importantly, into the thinking and beliefs of the twenty and thirty year olds who are founding them.

The names of these "churches" offer some clues as to the general approach: The Journey, Pathways, The Next Level, Connected Life Church, The Crossing, New Life Church, Pierced Chapel, and (I'm not making this up) Scum of the Earth Church.

My thought, upon reading this article, is that those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it. There is much that is good about the intentions of these groups and there is much that is near-sighted and theologically-skewed. Not surprisingly, there is a strong emphasis on the individual, rejection of structure, love for "freedom," and "expression." That's not too original, as anyone who's older than, say, twenty-eight can tell you. On the other hand, there is some talk of connecting with the past and of knowing history. But it seems that this "connecting" takes on rather shallow and pretentious forms: lots of candles, Celtic crosses, and some neo-Gregorian chanting. As though wrapping yourself in the flag of the past makes you wise to the reality of the past.

Just this last week I had a lengthy conversation with Mike, a 22-year old who attends a "Christian Center" (which is Assemblies of God) and who has been "saved for two years and five months" (he mentioned this fact at least four times). We spoke of many things, but the comment that stood out the most was one that I've heard so many times, albeit in slightly different forms: "I'm all about loving Jesus. I'm not into theology or religion." As in: Jesus is good, dogma is bad. Jesus is great, Church is stuffy. Jesus rocks, ritual blows.

Gary Clark, senior pastor at Eugene Christian, says it didn't take long after arriving in 1980 to figure out that many people here are skeptical of mainline churches. "They don't like being told what to do, and they don't like that heavy-handed approach to religion," he says. "Churches that are just there to defend the faith and perpetuate the traditional past—people are staying away from those churches in droves."

Ah yes, those stick-in-the-mud, uptight Christians who are concerned about defending what they believe and think that tradition and the past are important. You know: Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Aquinas, and Co. What a bunch of losers and morons those guys were, huh?

Since many Catholics—and perhaps a few non-Catholics—aren't familiar with "un-churches" and their lingo, I thought I'd provide a short, but hopefully helpful, lexicon of "un-church-ese." Here we go….  

"A sign from God" I have a good feeling about this un-church. Plus, the refreshments after the worship service were tasty.

"Anointing" I cried during the worship service for no reason.

"Communion" Crackers or pizza. Add soda or juice. Read John 6:63. Celebrate at the end of the service, taking no more than seven minutes.

"Contemporary" Lots of lights, loud music, t-shirts, and a sixteen-year-old pastor

"Dynamic" Killer bass and guitar riffs during the "Mosh With the Messiah!" worship service.

"Freedom" The pastor doesn't wear a tie, and he doesn't use notes or a pulpit when he shares the special word that God has laid on his heart.

"Authentic" I don't feel compelled to wear nice clothes.

"God told me…" I'm more spiritual than you.

"No structure" Nobody appears to be in charge or know what's going on. Ain't that great!?

"Non-conventional" My parents don't attend with me. Ain't that even greater?!

"Non-denominational" My un-church was established three years ago. We're just like the first Christians.

"Minister" (n.) The sixteen-year-old up front.

"minister" (v.) I talk one-on-one about myself, my feelings, my needs, etc.

"Personal lord and savior" You know, Jesus. Sheez, are you Catholic?

"Religion" The evil attempt of man to reach God. Invented by the Vatican in 325 A.D.

"Spiritual" Good. I'm very spiritual, by the way.

"Testimony" I talk in front of the entire group about myself, my feelings, my needs, etc.

"Theology" Boring. Invented by sadistic monks during the Dark Ages, which was a long time ago, even before MTV.

"Tradition" Very, very bad. Invented by a Pope in 666 A.D.

"Word of God The Bible. I read it and the Left Behind books every day.

"Worship" Jesus meets rock n' roll.

(Disclaimer: This lexicon has not yet been approved for ecumenical use. Anyone offended by it may send their complaints to jackchick@lightenup.com.)

... in truth and justice. Yesterday, I wrote, "All this talk about conscience, however, means nothing if there is no recognition and admission that we as humans are not only capable of knowing truth, but have an obligation to pursue and uphold truth." There is nothing unique or original in the remark, but there is a danger to appealing constantly to "rights" and "religious freedom" without reference to truth.

E. Christian Brugger, the J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Chair of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, takes up this point in this helpful essay for ZENIT:

Opponents of the mandate are crying foul: "Obama has waged a war on religious liberty!" "Conscience rights are being trampled!," and so on. Because I hold the Obama administration in such disdain, I feel sympathy for these battle cries. But I fear the problem is deeper; and that if we don't take a harder look at what's going on around us, we'll all end up like Dr. Seuss' North-going Zax and South-going Zax, puffing out our chests, standing nose to nose with our enemy, barking out disagreements devoid of understanding of the deeper problem. Easy as it is to blame the liberals for this appalling state of affairs, I think the problem to a certain degree is that none of us any longer believe in truth.

This wasn't always so. Once upon a time, "reasonable laws" were the aims of lawmakers. "Reasonable" in the eminent tradition of English common law -- the seedbed for our Anglo-American legal tradition -- meant "in accord with right reason," which meant "true." So reasonable standards were true standards. And true standards were something that stood over and above the standard-bearer. They corresponded in some primordial way with reality, to which republicans and monarchists, conservatives and liberals alike were subordinate. Everyone knew, of course, that error was possible and no one was brash enough to hold that every policy proposed or adopted was timelessly true. But the standard toward which political discourse aimed was a standard of truth.

We are now embarrassed by the term "truth." As an artifact of language ("We hold these 'truths' to be … "), the term is still occasionally heard in the public sphere. But as a normative term affirming the correspondence of some proposition with reality, the term in the public sphere has been dead and buried for decades. It connotes being inflexible and uncompromising, a genuine threat to pluralism, an offense against dialogue, and an insult against inclusivity -- American virtues all. Down deep in our democratic soul, we suspect -- yes, even conservatives -- that those who assert "truth" in the public sphere are dangerously slouching toward tyranny. After all, we rejected in 1776 Britain's Erastian politico-religious system of the "divine" right of kings.

So we talk rather about opinion, consensus and party platforms. We reduce moral judgment and religious belief to sectarian "rights," with the full implication that no moral judgment or religious doctrine is timelessly true.

Read the entire piece, posted yesterday. Also, it's worth going back and re-reading Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (2005), which reflects at length on the proper relationship of Church and State, as well as politics, faith, and justice:

a) The just ordering of society and the State is a central responsibility of politics. As Augustine once said, a State which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves: “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?”.[18] Fundamental to Christianity is the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God (cf. Mt 22:21), in other words, the distinction between Church and State, or, as the Second Vatican Council puts it, the autonomy of the temporal sphere.[19] The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

Justice is both the aim and the intrinsic criterion of all politics. Politics is more than a mere mechanism for defining the rules of public life: its origin and its goal are found in justice, which by its very nature has to do with ethics. The State must inevitably face the question of how justice can be achieved here and now. But this presupposes an even more radical question: what is justice? The problem is one of practical reason; but if reason is to be exercised properly, it must undergo constant purification, since it can never be completely free of the danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power and special interests.

Here politics and faith meet. Faith by its specific nature is an encounter with the living God—an encounter opening up new horizons extending beyond the sphere of reason. But it is also a purifying force for reason itself. From God's standpoint, faith liberates reason from its blind spots and therefore helps it to be ever more fully itself. Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.

The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply. (par 28)

And that precedes one of the "money quotes" from that great encyclical:

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.

• Liberal Catholic stalwart angrily admits, "President Barack Obama lost my vote..." (January 24, 2012)

... we’ve needed for decades, and it’s also entirely accessible, even winsome, in its prose."

That is Joseph Bottum, praising Mary Eberstadt's new book, due out in March from Ignatius Press:  Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution.

More from Bottum here. More about the book:

Secular and religious thinkers agree: the sexual revolution is one of the most important milestones in human history. Perhaps nothing has changed life for so many, so fast, as the severing of sex and procreation. But what has been the result?

This ground-breaking book by noted essayist and author Mary Eberstadt contends that sexual freedom has paradoxically produced widespread discontent. Drawing on sociologists Pitirim Sorokin, Carle Zimmerman, and others; philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe and novelist Tom Wolfe; and a host of feminists, food writers, musicians, and other voices from across today's popular culture, Eberstadt makes her contrarian case with an impressive array of evidence. Her chapters range across academic disciplines and include supporting evidence from contemporary literature and music, women's studies, college memoirs, dietary guides, advertisements, television shows, and films.

Adam and Eve after the Pill examines as no book has before the seismic social changes caused by the sexual revolution. In examining human behavior in the post-liberation world, Eberstadt provocatively asks: Is food the new sex? Is pornography the new tobacco?  

Adam and Eve after the Pill will change the way readers view the paradoxical impact of the sexual revolution on ideas, morals, and humanity itself.

"With the skill of a literary surgeon, Eberstadt slices through the chimera of political correctness to lay bare the facts, statistics, and cultural realities of life after the sexual revolution. A compelling and provocative look at why an about-face is needed now to save Western Civilization from a cultural Doomsday, and is the solution to re-establish a healthy and moral cultural ethos."
- Johnnette S. Benkovic, Founder of Women of Grace®, Television & Radio Show Host, EWTN

"Mary Eberstadt  is intimidatingly intelligent."
- George Will, The Washington Post

"Mary Eberstadt is our premier analyst of American cultural foibles and follies, with a keen eye for oddities that illuminate just how strange the country's moral culture has become."
- George Weigel, Ethics and Public Policy Center

"If you want to learn what the Pill and the ensuing sexual revolution really accomplished, you must read Adam and Eve After the Pill. Of course, neo-Malthusians talk up the Pill's benefits: the freedom from having children made it possible for women to pursue serious careers and in the process offered men a new kind of freedom, too. But as Eberstadt writes, how about the increasing unhappiness of women despite their liberation from the chores of raising children? Or husbands' loss of interest in their wives and the corresponding increase in male pornography addiction? Not to be ignored, either, is the effect of the sexual revolution on college campuses by date rapes, hookups, and binge drinking, all of which directly flow from the sexual revolution mandate that women must be sexually available."
- Dr. Raymond Dennehy, University of San Francisco

Mary Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, consulting editor to Policy Review, and contributing writer to First Things. Her articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, Commentary, the Los Angeles Times, the London Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Her previous books include The Loser Letters and Home-Alone America.

Do you think it is a coincidence that this is happening immediately prior to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade? As reported by TheHill.com:

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday.

The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services."

The "balance" being along the lines of "Heads we win, tails you lose"?

The provision has attracted more than 200,000 comments, HHS said — most of them in favor of access to birth control, which the vast majority of healthcare plans already cover. Some religious institutions, however, said they would sooner close their doors than cover birth control, which they liken to abortion in some cases.

"What war and disease could not do to the congregation, the government of the United States will do," Nashville's Dominican congregation said. "It will shut them down."

The dealers of death, of course, trumpet the decision as yet another step toward the Promised Land of Choice Without Consequences:

Abortion-rights groups immediately applauded the decision.

"Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. "This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year."

And Nancy Keegan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, praised the administration for standing "firm against intensive lobbying efforts from anti-birth-control organizations trying to expand the refusal option even further to allow organizations and corporations to deny their employees contraceptive coverage.

Cardinal-to-be Timothy Dolan of New York was blunt in his response, as reported by CatholicVote.org:

This morning President Obama called New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan to break the news.

Secretary of Health and Human Services and pro-abortion Catholic Kathleen Sebelius just announced that the proposed mandate requiring all insurance plans to pay for contraception, sterilization and some abortion drugs is official -- and Catholics cannot escape.

...and the fig-leaf exemption for religious groups will not be modified, apart from allowing some groups an additional year to comply.

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan responded minutes ago, saying: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Exactly right. But recall that it was only a three months ago that Abp. Dolan had said, after meeting with Pres. Obama, that he felt “a bit more at peace [about religious liberty] than when I entered” and that he believed the president to be “very open to the sensitivities” of Catholics about religious liberty. But before anyone criticizes the Archbishop for being played by the POTUS, ask yourself, "Who hasn't he played?" The list is short. The CatholicVote.org piece continues:

Beginning August 1, 2012 (less than eight months from today), the insurance premiums we pay, including the insurance premiums paid by Catholics for employees of churches and schools -- will be used to cover drugs and procedures that are in direct conflict with the teachings of our Church.

That's right. Our government will now force us to pay for insurance coverage for birth control, sterilization and even some abortion drugs.

President Obama ignored the organized efforts of Catholics across the country, including bold statements from the Bishops, university presidents (including Notre Dame's Rev. Jenkins), and even his Catholic allies like Sr. Carol Keehan.

Instead, President Obama stood with his real friends -- Planned Parenthood.

As you might recall, it was primarily orthodox Catholics and conservative Evangelicals who kept saying during the last presidential campaign that then-Sen. Obama's record revealed a man with an unswerving, ideological obsession with making access to contraceptives and abortion available to just about anyone, anytime, anywhere—and on the taxpayers' dime. Yet it is those very folks who are continually painted as the extremists and the rigid zealots, blinded by their religious faith. But, really, who are the extremists and zealots here? How much physical, familial, cultural, social, and spiritual damage must take place before the scales fall from the eyes of those who want a drug for every problem, an excuse for every sin, and the government's heavy hand at every turn in the road of life? As Phil Lawler noted in a recent essay about "same-sex marriage":

Since our society embraced the routine use of contraception, the damage to the family—and thus to all of American society—has been far more devastating than anything Al Qaida could have imagined. And while we have arguably made great progress in the war against terrorism, the casualties of the sexual revolution continue to pile up, and the assault on the family is intensifying.

For proof of that, we need look no further than the next question in that New Hampshire debate. Following up on the line of questioning by Stephanopoulos, Diane Sawyer asked for the candidates’ thoughts on same-sex marriage. But rather than pose the question directly, Sawyer eased into the issue with a smarmy introduction. Rather than continue talking about constitutional issues, she said, she wanted the candidates to talk about a “real” issue—the sort of issue that people talk about at home. (She thereby seemed to dismiss the Constitution as a “real” issue, or one that ordinary Americans could be expected to discuss. The authors—and original readers—of the The Federalist Paper were spinning in their graves.) That issue, Sawyer said, is how same-sex couples could form stable, lasting relationships without the benefit of legal marriage.

As William McGurn noticed in his Wall Street Journal essay, Sawyer’s line of questioning had the same purpose as Stephanopoulos’s: to help pigeonhole Republican candidates as extremists. After all, who would dare to say anything negative about those nice homosexual couples, who want nothing more than to live a quiet suburban life? Thus the question was framed in the terms most favorable to the gay-rights movement, and defenders of marriage were on the defensive.

Sebelius, who has now replaced Nancy Pelosi as the face of those are Catholic Without Catholicism or a Conscience, said in her statement, "We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns." Right. And contraceptives are like little bits of candy that magically make women healthy, wealthy, and wise. Abp. Dolan is entirely correct, and his point echoes the remarks made by Benedict XVI a few days ago in his ad limina visit with bishops from the Washington, D.C., area:

In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.

The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. The Pope gets it. Abp. Dolan gets it now. Many other bishops do as well. But, sadly, many Catholics simply don't, or simply don't care. 2012 is going to be a most interesting and challenging year.

From my CWR interviews with Teresa Tomeo and Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.:

CWR: It’s gotten so bad that we are now no longer even trying to defend traditional understandings of male and female, and marriage; we are having to explain what those understandings are in the first place. Are there any positives, however, to this situation?
 
Tomeo: Yes and no. I recently gave a talk on morality to an RCIA group, and it was amazing to see that amount of confusion among those present about what I was presenting. I felt like I was trying to cut through so much fog in their brains—and these were people who were going through the trouble to going to RCIA and were entering the Church or returning to the Church! I was amazed that I didn’t get more of an energetic response. One woman did said, “I’m getting confirmed because my daughter knows more about the Catholic Faith than I do”, which is great, but the rest of the people were looking at me like deer staring into headlights. I could tell they were so steeped in the culture, and that is what really stood out to me. I could see they were overwhelmed, and didn’t know where to begin in processing what I was telling them.
 
So, on one hand it’s good because we can go back to the basics, but on the other hand it’s not as though you have a fresh, clear mind to work with, as though you are working with a young child. These people have had so much garbage go in, you have to clear out the garbage first before you can really begin to build anew.
 
CWR: The challenge is getting people to love and desire truth and to rely on reason to make sense of things.
 
Tomeo: Yes. And the beautiful thing about using reason is that you don’t have to necessarily use theology or Scripture overtly to back everything up; we can appeal to natural law and commonsense. Yet people so often don’t even know how to think or to use reason to process information. So I ask, as I do in the book, if everything the world proposes is so wonderful, why is there so much misery and sadness? If you sleep around, you are going to have problems. “Gay marriage” is going to cause problems. Artificial contraception is going to cause problems. But people often don’t think that way. And people often don’t want to change the way they live, and they also don’t want to be seen as politically incorrect.
 
And Catholics have been so desensitized to so many things. In fact, Catholics are often among the worst in dealing with these issues. I meet so many Catholic parents who say, “Do I really have to tell my kids, ‘No’? How do I say, ‘No’?” Well, it’s not that hard, it’s just that we’ve lost our commonsense. ...

CWR: How do we get people to see that if they want to have all of their rights, that withholding the right to life from the unborn is contradictory to their assumption of rights?
 
Fr. Spitzer: That’s a big question. People need to understand that “rights” is a reciprocal term, and its reciprocal term is “responsibility”. Franciscio Suarez recognized that the moment you have rights, then everyone has rights as well. Rights, by definition, are what are shared by every human being. Therefore, what every human being owes is a responsibility to every other human being. For every right there is an obligation. And if you don’t want to acknowledge that fact, then on what basis do you deserve rights? And that, in a sense, goes back to the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.
 
CWR: What is the relationship between the philosophy and metaphysics covered in your book and the historical basis and context? How important is the historical rootedness of these things?
 
Fr. Spitzer: I want people to recognize that these ten principles are the basis for civilization, and that prior to these principles being understood and acted upon, life was much worse. The application of these principles paves the way from sophistry to science, which is really significant. The three principles of ethics basically defeated slavery, not only in the Roman Empire, but also in the New World. These are so essential for the building of a civilization. The three principles of ethics not only built Europe, but they built the United States. They are the undergirding structure of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which is really the founding document of the United States.
 
CWR: You begin your book by talking about sophistry, skepticism, and cynicism. And while the meaning of those terms have changed a bit over time, they are the three big enemies still today, right?
 
Fr. Spitizer: They are the three big enemies, and the enemies of rationality. And when they have the upper hand, civilization declines. And when they are put in their place, then civilization increases.

Read the entire interview on www.CatholicWorldReport.com.