Today, the White House issued a tweet that provided the observant reader a couple of very troubling insights into this administration. I present the tweet – quickly (but not quickly enough) deleted for the consideration of the reader….

How is this disturbing? How is it not? Let the Citizen elaborate….

It is a given that in this media rich environment, everything is politicized and this administration never passes an opportunity to bludgeon the public with it’s ‘successes’. Especially those  - like the ACA – that is failing miserably.  This tweet is touting the ACA as a law that has enriched the lives of  mothers – by providing birth control. This phrase is telling:

“…access to preventive care – like birth control…” is telling. What else is preventive care? According to Mr. Obama, abortion is preventive care. His budget included funding for abortions for Peace Corps members, immigration detainees, prison inmates, and military personnel – as well as support specifically targeted for Planned Parenthood.  For Mr. Obama, preventive health care is obviously abortion.

The ACA is designed to support abortion, using a shell game approach. With the exception of the 15 or so opt-out states, all states are required to create exchanges. The ACA requires two accounts – one that includes abortions and one that includes everything else. All federal dollars must go into the fund that does not permit spending on abortions (save those covered under the Hyde Act). How do abortion procedures get funded? Every individual in that state will be contributing some of their premiums into the account that pays for abortion on demand. In reality, this is a case of the government claiming their hands are clean and forcing you to pay for abortions. To be fair, these exchanges should be set up so I can buy into a plan where NONE of my money goes to fund abortions – but that would likely cause a problem when the abortion plans run dry. And they would.

This is the same shell game the government plays when they claim that Planned Parenthood grants don’t go to paying for abortions. Sure, that may be technically true, but they pay for a lot of other things, freeing up dollars to pay for abortions. My local Birthright agency relies wholly on the generosity of supporters – if PP is such a vital part of the lives of Americans, why not allow the citizen to fund it without infusions from the federal government?

The final striking irony is a quote that Mr. Obama proudly and loudly proclaimed at a campaign stop touting Planned Parenthood.

I have two precious daughters – they are miracles… Look, I got two daughters – 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.

To this day, I am sure he does not understand how hypocritical his statement truly is when one applies a modicum of reason. Yes, his daughters are miracles – all children are. I am gratified he tries to instill morals in his children – again, this is the job of a father or mother. We part ways when he calls a child a mistake or punishment. Having casual sex is a mistake. One night stands are mistakes. The child – or to use his own words – that miracle – growing in a woman’s womb is not the mistake.

To tout a practice that inhibits the state of motherhood is the height of hubris. It is evidence of the thread of narcissism and entitlement that permeates this president and his administration.

Happy Mother’s Day for all women. And to those who have endured abortion and feel pain, I recommend Rachel’s Vineyard. They will help you find peace and the grace to accept that choice.

May God bless you all – especially Mothers.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 John Martin

The FDA decision to make the ‘Morning After” pill available over the counter to all women – and girls over the age of 15 – is troubling to Catholics. Actually, considering the lack of research on potential health consequences of this abortifacient, this should be troubling to any rational person. That has not stopped professors of schools of pharmacy from championing this decision. Unfortunately, one of the professors trumpeting this as a triumph for ‘women’s health’ is a faculty member of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Saint Joseph in Connecticut.

Professor Maria Summa, a professor of pharmacy, endorsed this drug, saying that there were no harmful side effects…and then stated that it should not be used on a regular basis. She then went on to endorse other forms of contraception.  I don’t often side with this administration, but the Justice Department filed an appeal on the judge’s ruling. Oddly, this is not only circumventing the FDA and Kathleen Sibelius  it is also acting contrary to the endorsement of the president. Not surprisingly, the president who blithely asserted he didn’t ever want his daughters to be ‘punished with a baby’ is a big fan of a drug that essentially is a massive infusion of hormones that shock an egg (fertilized or not) into oblivion.  And if you are a Catholic – like Ms. Sibelius claims to be –  you believe as an article of faith that life begins at the very instant of conception. When a sperm and egg meet in the womb, a new life has begun. Plan B prevents that child from attaching to the uterus. For Catholics, this is nothing more than a miscarriage – and a miscarriage that is purposely created is properly referred to as an abortion.  Interestingly enough, drugs.com’s entry on this drug warns that a woman shouldn’t take this if she is already pregnant as it will not dislodge an embryo from the uterine wall. They neglect to share what side effects might result for the mother or the child.

Plan B creates a problem not solely for religious reasons but for health reasons. This is yet another example of the real perpetrator of the war on women – the liberal humanist.  There is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest that this massive amount of levonorgestrel has no harmful effects on a child – and if you think a 15 year old girl is anything but a child, I pray for you and for any children that you have access to on a regular basis. Even sites like webmd and drugs.com have a lengthy list of warnings and precautions.  In fact, the drugs.com entry includes a particularly sobering warning.

Call your doctor right away if you vomit within 1 hour after taking either dose of Plan B. Do not take another dose until you talk with your doctor.

You should be examined by your doctor within 3 weeks after taking Plan B. The doctor will need to confirm that you are not pregnant and that this medication has not caused any harmful effects.

In states like Connecticut, I assume that a 15 year old girl can go to Planned Parenthood and get that examination. I am quite sure that PP would be more than happy to ‘assist’ the mother of an unborn child if the pills failed to perform their task. In other states, girls will have to wait and see or rely on home pregnancy tests.

Let’s look at the incidental side effects. Sexually transmitted infections (SDI) are on the rise. As are incidences of HIV. A visit to the CDC site reveals some disturbing data about youth sexual activity in 2011.

• 47% of high school age respondents reported being sexually active and 15% of all respondents reported having 4 or more sexual partners. This is high school, people. 
• Of the 40 states who report this data to the CDC, there were 8,300 people from the age 14-24 who were infected with HIV through sexual intercourse.
• Nearly half of the 19 million people infected by sexually transmitted diseases were in the 14-24 age group as well.

Professor Summa’s position is buttressed by the Center for Reproductive ‘Rights’.

We are deeply disappointed that just days after President Obama proclaimed his commitment to women’s reproductive rights, his administration has decided once again to deprive women  their right to obtain emergency contraception without unjustified and burdensome restrictions…

This statement from  Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights demonstrates how far certain organizations want to take society. It seems that 15 is setting the bar too high for the Center of Reproductive Rights – they think that any girl should be able to get this drug. Perhaps we can put it in the candy aisle, next to the bubble gum and sour patch gummy worms, Ms. Northup. Girls menstruate as young as 11 and 12 these days, which means that they have the potential to become pregnant. Groups like the CRR seem to advocate for sexual activity and ‘protection’ against unwanted pregnancies for children. A lot of pedophiles will be huge fans of this position. Frankly, I can see them being the primary purchasers of Plan B.

Ms. Northup’s statement is less distressing – the CRR is not an institute of higher learning purporting to be a Catholic university.  And this is the crux of the matter. Let’s dispense with the possibility that this drug can have serious physical effects on a child who is maturing. Let’s ignore the fact that the massive dose of hormones will most certainly influence the development of a girl maturing into a woman. Let’s ignore the fact that despite the warnings, girls who are sexually active will certainly use this medication on a regular basis, especially considering the fact that the CDC indicates that sexually active high school children have unprotected sex about 40% of the time.  Let’s ignore that this medication, if not taken correctly, could result in a girl becoming pregnant – and we have no clear idea how this drug will effect the child. Let’s ignore that Planned Parenthood will eagerly offer pregnancy testing and abortions – in fact, this drug will likely be a financial windfall for them.  Let’s take every perfectly valid reason that I have just listed, to oppose this drug’s availability on demand for children as young as 15 (and likely younger ones will have access to it).

A professor at a Catholic University endorses this drug. A drug that will be taken by children. A drug that increases their chance for sexually transmitted disease, for the likelihood of abortion, for increased business for Planned Parenthood. A drug that will give men who prey on adolescent girls another tool to prevent evidence of their crimes against children from manifesting.

The Citizen spent two days trying to speak with someone at the University of Saint Joseph. I actually spent about 45 minutes on hold – this is a tactic that is used to avoid dealing with people that are inconvenient.  A very nice lady from the Office of the President offered to pass a message to the Office of Communications – it seemed that at 2:00 in the afternoon, there was no one who could answer my questions.  Saint Joseph missed the deadline that I imposed for a response, so I have to report that they were unwilling to indicate if they adhered to Catholic teachings as laid out in Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

Can. 807 The Church has the right to erect and direct universities, which contribute to a more profound human culture, the fuller development of the human person, and the fulfillment of the teaching function of the Church.

Can. 810 §1. The authority competent according to the statutes has the duty to make provision so that teachers are appointed in Catholic universities who besides their scientific and pedagogical qualifications are outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life and that they are removed from their function when they lack these requirements; the manner of proceeding defined in the statutes is to be observed.

Canon 807 has a clear injunction for Catholic colleges to be extensions of the ‘teaching function of the Church’ as well as to contribute to a human culture. For Catholics, a human culture is the culture of life – all life, born and unborn.

Canon 810 charges Catholic colleges and universities to not only possess superior scientific and pedagogical qualifications but to possess characteristics that respect the ‘probity of life.’  This means that not only should students in a Catholic institute of higher learning have teachers who are well-versed in the art of teaching and experts in their field, they must also exhibit the integrity and respect for life as taught by Holy Mother Church.  I am not sure about her teaching ability or her scientific acumen, but Professor Summa seems to have dropped the ball on the appropriate regulations as explained by Catholic Canon.

Perhaps this shouldn’t be too surprising. The sitting president of the University, Patricia Trotman Reid, endorsed the candidacy of Mr. Obama in 2008 in an article published in the Hartford Courant with the following statement:

And the next president is likely going to make appointments to the Supreme Court. That could affect the right of women to make choices about their own health. These are issues of incredible importance.

Making ‘choices about their own health’ in reference to women is invariably referring to abortion. In 2011, Ms. Trotman Reid, in an event co-sponsored by the University, Planned Parenthood, and other groups, accepted an award from the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Defense Fund. This group has devoted most of its resources over the years to fighting to expand abortion.

Even the University’s core statement concerning it’s Catholic identity is conveniently vague.

Catholic Identity: University of Saint Joseph is grounded in its heritage as a Catholic institution, expressing the Catholic tradition in an ecumenical and critical manner.

When the Citizen attempts to reach someone and gets no cooperation, I have nothing to go on but my research and the available evidence. To me, ‘heritage’ is a term that indicates that they like using the name but aren’t terribly interested in holding themselves to the expectations of a Catholic institution of higher learning.

An attempt to contact the Sisters of Mercy, the order that the university is affiliated with, resulted in an invitation to leave a message on voice mail. As of the time of posting, my call has not been returned.

Ms. Summa is not the disease, she is a symptom  of the moral and intellectual decay that permeates so many of the colleges and universities that were founded by dioceses and orders. Schools created to provide higher education for Catholics in a time when such education was not readily available for Catholic children.

The Citizen would urge parents seeking to provide their daughters  a quality Catholic education look elsewhere. There are many excellent colleges and universities that do follow the mandatum and have agreed to Ex Corde Ecclesiae.  To assist parents and young people seeking a Catholic collegiate education, the Citizen has included a link to the National Catholic Register’s 2012 College Guide. Not surprisingly, the University of Saint Joseph seems to have missed the cut.

UPDATE:

While performing maintenance  the Citizen noticed that the University of Saint Joseph might not return phone calls or speak to me, but they will check out the site.

I hope you learned something. The Citizen is a professional educator and public speaker who would be more than willing to address your faculty on Catholic issues and higher education. Feel free to contact me using the provided form, Saint Joe’s!

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 John Martin

Whenever the Chair of Saint Peter is vacant, the crows begin to buzz and bicker and snipe at the Church and the Papacy. The abdication of Benedict XVI has stimulated even more excitement among that murder of crows – joined by any number of so-called Catholics.

The Citizen has been absent from writing lately for a variety of reasons, but I am thankful for those who have roused me from my slumber to enter once more into the fray against heresy and heterodoxy and just plain ignorance.

There is a young man whose acquaintance has sparked my musings today. He professes to be a Catholic – and a fourth year seminarian at that – and has questioned the legitimacy of the Papacy. Falling to the words of those anti-Catholic ‘sola scriptura’ heterodox preachers, he insists that there is no biblical justification for the Papacy, that the Vatican is nothing more than a human construct, and he has intimated that the Holy See interferes with a person’s ability to have a personal relationship with Jesus.  Alas, he is not alone – so let us explore this issue.

To understand the protestant abhorrence to Catholicism, you have to understand the concept of ‘sola Scriptura’ – Latin for ‘by Scripture alone’. This is the tactic they use to attempt to put Catholics on the defensive on every tenet of our Faith from transubstantiation to the sacrament of Reconciliation to the legitimacy of the Papacy.  To the Protestant, every word of the Bible is inspired and inscribed directly by the will of God and that all knowledge of God’s will for mankind can be found completely within the pages of the Bible. There is no wisdom, no legitimacy, no truth that does not emanate explicitly from the Bible. Period.

Well, that would be wonderful if we lived in a perfect world where man cannot commit error or Free Will interferes with the writers of the various books that comprise Scripture – not to mention those who compiled them into the New Testament – from being compelled to be robots transcribing the Word. This is why we have the Tradition and the Magisterium to support Scripture. And while many Doctors of the Church place tremendous significance – and rightly so – on Scripture – we as Catholics also rely upon the other two gifts from Jesus. Tradition and the Magisterium.

Let’s set Tradition and the Magisterium aside for a moment and focus on Scripture. The New Testament is studded with references and injunctions for the Apostles to establish the Church – and the hierarchy.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19-20

This established the office of priest – but the Scripture did not stop there.  John 21:15 – 19 establishes the hierarchy and the role Peter was to play.

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.[18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me”

Matthew 16:18 reinforced that position that Christ had entrusted Peter to assume:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[a] and on this rock[b] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Now, there are those who like to quibble about the masculine or feminine usages of the word ‘rock’ – I find that when a debating partner starts quibbling over the esoteric, they have no substantive argument.

In his History of the Church, written in 324, Eusebius (260-339), wrote:

After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.

Paul’s letter to Timothy mentions a Linus. A coincidence? Likely not.

“…Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.” (2 Timothy 4:21)

Linus would assume the office of Bishop of Rome upon the martyrdom of Peter. Sometime around the 8^th century, the title Pope – once used by bishops – became a title reserved for the heir of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

These passages consist of the first leg of the ‘tripod’ – Scripture. We have the Tradition and Magisterium as well…something that Protestants do not want to admit as relevant, because it would invalidate their theological constructs. Yet the very Scriptural passages I cite clearly demonstrate that there is – within the Scripture itself – legitimacy for the teaching authority and the establishment of the Church.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 states “Hold fast to the traditions which we gave you whether by word of mouth or in writing.” Christ lived among the apostles for three years, Paul lived among the people in the communities he preached in. Our Catholic faith is steeped in tradition inspired by Scripture and confirmed by Dei Verbum. We live a scriptural life that is supported and enriched by  the Traditions of our Faith. The Rosary, Stations of the Cross, novenas, and other practices do not supplant Scripture. Indeed, like salt enhances the flavor of soup, Tradition enhances our understanding and enjoyment of a scriptural life.

Thus when Catholics refer to the Throne of Peter, we are cleaving to that tradition of the line of succession, established in Matthew, confirmed in the writings of Eusebius, and continued by the customs, usages, and traditions of our Church.

Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of our bishops – the heirs of the apostles and the Pope – the heir of the first Bishop of Rome, Peter. In Councils and through the writings of early Doctors of the Church, the legitimacy of the Papacy was established. It was through these councils and discernment, the books of the New Testament were recognized as inspired and thus Scripture.  In like manner, the Magisterium has articulated that the injunction places upon Peter in Matthew imbued him – and his brethren and their appointed successors – with the responsibility of guiding the community of believer through the exercise of discernment, grace, and faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was written as an instrument of the Magisterium, explicitly stating the doctrines, practices, and teachings of our Faith and justifying them using the authority not only of scripture but of tradition and the legitimately recognized teaching authority of our bishops.

CCC 877 states:

Likewise, it belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as “the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.”395 Chosen together, they were also sent out together, and their fraternal unity would be at the service of the fraternal communion of all the faithful: they would reflect and witness to the communion of the divine persons.396 For this reason every bishop exercises his ministry from within the episcopal college, in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college. So also priests exercise their ministry from within the presbyterium of the diocese, under the direction of their bishop.

This establishes the legitimacy of the Apostles as the first council of bishops and sets the Bishop of Rome paramount among them, a chief priest among priests.  CCC 881 confirms this position of Peter and his successors:

The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.”401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

And in CCC 882, the Pope acts as the  ’…Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Brothers and sisters, we have a Pope whose authority emanates not solely from Scripture but from Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching authority – or Magisterium - of the Apostles and those men who have followed in their office from the pontificate of Peter to that of Benedict.

I salute and thank Benedict for his service and devotion and inspired leadership. I accept the wisdom of his decision and marvel at the humility that he must possess to renounce one of the most powerful, influential, and important offices in the world.  God bless you, Papa, and I pray the our Cardinals will listen to God as they discern and elect the man who will take the throne of Saint Peter and accept the awesome responsiblity of being the next Vicar of Christ and Keeper of the Keys of Heaven.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 John Martin

Today’s Gospel is one I’ve always enjoyed hearing – it gives me a taste of the sheer joy that is Christmas for Christians.  Today, it served a different purpose.  For some time, the Citizen has been concerned about a schism not only among Catholics but Christians as a whole – and that great divide is abortion. Now, how does the first Chapter of Luke become a lesson for the straying members of the flock?

39 And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda.
40 And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

And the infant in my womb leaped with joy. Babies feel joy. People feel joy. Things that are alive, conscious, and possessing awareness feel joy. In this reading from Luke, John, a child still unborn, recognized the presence of the Messiah and his joy is so profound his mother felt it. This raises a couple of issues for the ‘pro-choice’ Christian.

Pope Leo XIII wrote the encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893.  This was a thorough review of the history of the Bible from the time of the Church Fathers to the modern era. As part of this encyclical, Pope Leo articulated the Catholic doctrine that the Bible in all its parts were – and are – divinely inspired and that the ‘whole Bible is the word of God.’  Dei Verbum, coming some 70 years later, stated

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.

This clearly establishes that the Bible is divinely inspired and that such an important event as Mary’s trip to visit Elizabeth clearly falls under the precepts of Providentissimus Deus and Dei Verbum.  For Catholics, it is an article of faith the John leaped in his mother’s womb.

While our protestant brethren don’t often hold the Pope to be an authority, they have their own beliefs on biblical accuracy. In 1978, a group convened and drafted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. While signed by evangelicals, even a number of ‘mainstream’ protestant denominations have articulated positions that support at least the concept of infallibility. The concept of infallibility in the Bible is one that maintains that in matters of faith and Christian practice, the Bible is complete, useful, and true.  Even by this lukewarm test, the passage that John ‘leaped in the womb’ certainly passes muster.

So, then, today, when countless Christians who support the genocide that is abortion, sat in their pews and listened to this Gospel passage as it was read, did they understand what they heard? Did they have an epiphany and allow the joy of that most blessed of events leap in their own hearts?

Probably not – and there is the pity. About half of all Catholics who voted this past November supported men and women who openly and aggressively advocate for abortion. My own congressman swept to an easy victory in a district with a substantial Catholic population. The gentlemen considers himself to be a practicing Catholic – and likely heard this Gospel in one of the parishes of the Diocese of Norwich.

You see, brothers and sisters, blobs of tissues don’t leap for joy. Cells don’t leap for joy. “Potential humans” don’t leap for joy. None of those cute little buzzwords that the pro-abortion crowd loves to trot out to salve their conscience applies to this Gospel reading. None.

One last thing I ask of you, gentle reader.  Think about a time when you saw a little baby chortle with joy, their eyes lit, their arms and legs flailing, that infectious grin and giggle filling the room not just with sound but with a palpable sense of pure delight. That is what John expressed and Elizabeth felt.

If you believe in the Bible, if you hold the stories of the Gospels to be articles of faith, how can you read or listen to this passage and still support abortion?

You can’t – not and be true to our Christian faith.

God Bless you and Merry Christmas to you all

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

A state senator in North Dakota is taking a page from Nancy Pelosi’s playbook and enthroning himself as a Doctor of the Church and learned theologian. He is obviously neither – and – if I were a constituent, I would contemplate his suitability for office. His understanding of the First Amendment is chilling for any person who would seek to speak his mind.  The letter he issued can be found here. Today, the Citizen will dust off his recollection of logic and try to explain the myriad flaws in Mr. Mathern’s epistle.

The primacy of conscience has become a darling of those who embrace the ‘balancing scales’ Christianity inherent in liberation theology and ‘progressive’ Christian thought. In 1968, Father Ratzinger, then the Chair of Dogmatic Theology at Tübingen wrote:

Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of church authority stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of church authority.

In 1991, Cardinal Ratzinger presented a compelling lecture at a conference for Bishops in Dallas.  He spoke at length of the ‘erroneous conscience’, arguing that

…it will not do to identify man’s conscience with the self-consciousness of the I, with it subjective certainty about itself and its moral behavior. On the one hand, this consciousness may be a mere reflection of the social surroundings and the opinions in vogue.

Are these contradictory statements? Not at all. The first argued that a person needs to understand the Magisterium of the Church and be willing to stand up to defend those doctrines, teachings, and traditions against the actions of men who may be in positions of authority. I can think of more than one instance where I have encountered a priest who was wrong – including one who incorrectly argued that abortion and contraception was less of a sin than permitting poverty to exist. In such a case, Father Ratzinger, argued, it was not only right but a necessity for a good Catholic to take a page from Saint Thomas Moore and stand up against unjust authority in the person of that priest.

The second passage quoted explained that is essential for an individual’s conscience to be more than a reflection of what is popular, expedient, or championed by many. Our conscience – in order to be a tool we can rely upon – must be carefully nurtured and formed by the cultivation of moral virtue in the form of the Catechism. Furthermore, conscience needs to be informed by the Magisterium and our traditions in order to make choices that are truly right and just.

This is the major failing of Mr. Mathern. He has taken a concept that is trotted out by those who seek to dilute the authority of the Magisterium and replace it with intellectually and morally flexible progressivism that fails to assert any moral or intellectual standards of thought or behavior.  Mathern quotes Richard Rohr, a Franciscan with a particularly strong bent towards liberation theology, as justification. According to Rohr, a good Catholic will listen to his priest or Bishop. If their words  march with their own perspective – on any level – than that is acceptable. If the message from the pulpit is contrary to that of the listener, than it is perfectly acceptable to march to your own drum. There is a name for Catholics who follow this practice.

Unitarians.

The Citizen is not arguing that as Catholics we must blindly obey the pronouncements from the pulpit as if they were the very words of our Lord and Savior. That is patently absurd. The Citizen has written a number of essays disagreeing with priests and prelates speaking from positions of authority. The difference between my actions and that of those who would agree with men like Mathern is that my conscience is guided by the Magisterium and not by my political or personal leanings.

This is the essence of the ‘primacy of conscience’. It is action guided by doctrine and principles, not by the men preaching from the pulpit. In the instance of Bishop Kagan’s letter, there is no conflict between the well-formed conscience and the arguments articulated by the Bishop.

There are other elements of this letter that may need addressing, but I am not convinced I need to give Mr. Mathern any more ink on this matter.

May God bless you all.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

“In God We Trust.”

This motto has it’s roots in the work of Francis Scott Key. In the fourth stanza of the Star Spangled Banner was this line :  ”And this be our motto: ‘In God is our Trust.’” In 1836 and again during the Civil War, our coinage has been stamped with that motto. In 1883, it disappeared from our coins but between 1908 and 1938, the motto returned to all coinage.

Until 1956, we had no official national motto. ‘E Pluribus Unum’ – Latin for ‘out of many, one’  has adorned our Great Seal since 1782, but it was never adopted in a formal sense – despite the beliefs of such luminaries as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.Mr. Obama has taken to celebrating diversity over unity by using the ‘out of many one’ slogan.  Ms. Pelosi actually cut the ribbon on a Congressional Museum which proudly displayed the nation’s motto – E Pluribus Unum.  Oh my, I guess she missed 36 USC 302, the Act of Congress that made In God We Trust our official motto.

This act was passed at a time when Americans were probably looking for comfort from God. World War Two levied a tremendous cost on us as a nation and as a people. The mantle of world leadership weighed heavily on us as the only democratic nation capable of supporting a world shattered by years of brutal conflict. And we were a nation facing the rising might of two powerful Godless empires – the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China.  That silent affirmation – one that many people whose freedom was paid for by American might and American sweat, tears, and blood shared – continues to be a reassurance for many of us.

What’s the problem with God? Well, if you are a democrat, your party leadership seems to think that there is one. This year’s Democratic planning committee has carefully excised any and all reference to God from the 2012 presidential platform. And I have two questions:

Question the first: Why would a political party go to such lengths to remove God from their platform?

Question the Second: How can any Christian in good conscience support this?

I hope that this is something that all Catholics – indeed all people who hold that there is a God in Heaven, whether you call him Jehovah, God, or Allah – consider and pray on their support these next several weeks.  This is not the work of a tolerant party – it is the work of a party that seeks to supplant God with State.

And history has proven that such an act never turns out terribly well for anyone.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

The Citizen has been engaged in a forum discussion that has turned to the debate on ‘rightwing’ Catholics and ‘leftwing’ Catholics. There should be no such thing. There are only orthodox Catholics and heterodox Catholics. Any Catholic espousing positions or supporting politicians who embrace policies contrary to the Magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the traditions of our Faith are heterodox. Unfortunately for some, the Democratic party strongly supports several issues that place them outside of Catholic teachings. Embryonic stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage – all of these platforms directly contravene Catholic principles.

The Citizen has written any number of essays on intrinsic evils, the discipline of being Catholic, and the need to be compassionate and loving but draw the line on tolerating or supporting behavior that is contrary to the Magisterium. I have hyper-linked to some of these essays if you are interested. Some things simply cannot be supported, even if the party or person in question support any number of worthy causes. With the current Democratic party, those issues – abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research – are non-negotiable.

But isn’t there ‘room’ in Catholicism for all types? Sorry, no. Christ Himself illustrated that this would be a problem in Matthew. In the Parable of wheat and weeds (Matthew 13:24-30), Christ tells a story that reminds the Citizen of the predictment the greater Catholic community in the United States faces.

The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well.

The parable tells that the servants tending the fields tell their master of the weeds growing among the wheat. He knows that there is little he can do but to allow the weeds to grow among the wheat, and – when the time was right – to pull out the weeds and harvest the good crop. The enemy? Satan – or those seeking to divide us by misusing our teachings in a heterodox manner.

The weeds are those ‘Catholics’ who espouse heretical and unorthodox teachings who dwell among us and claim that they are like us. The fact is that the weed bears no grain, no sustenance and actually chokes out the healthy and life-giving grain. For some reason or another, the Church in America has allowed these weeds to flourish, weakening and dividing us.

It is time to prune the fields. We will lose the weeds, but we may lose some good grain as well. Better this then to allow the field to run wild with weeds that will never yield comfort to those in need. It is my prayer that this will not be so or that those we may lose will return to us when they see that the wisdom of Matthew 7:13:

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Hopefully, it is clearer that it shouldn’t be a ‘right’ thing or a ‘left’ thing – it should be a Catholic thing. That road is hard and the gate is narrow.  But those who brave that path and suffer through that gate will reap great rewards – not only for themselves but for countless others.

I pray that there are democrats who will take the party back from those who seek to choke the field with weeds. There must be solid democratic candidates who are in Communion with the Holy See. Find them. Support them. And don’t be surprised if other Catholics ignore the letter after their name and vote for them because they are good Catholics and good citizens.

May God bless you all.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

Today in Mass, I sat next to a lady who has an issue with the new Missal. As the mass progressed, her ‘and also with you’ got louder. She also seemed to enjoy looking around while the rest of us responded with the correct ‘and with your spirit.’  And it wasn’t just this response.

She also doesn’t seem to want to take ownership for sins that she committed ’through our fault, through our fault, through our most grievous fault.’  The Gloria? Naah. The Creed? Again, loud and proud – and wrong.  I have to admit it was disturbing and more than a little annoying. Mass should be about a choir of believers speaking in one voice, not a cacophony.

If it weren’t for her defiant looks, I would have chalked it up to confusion or perhaps a lack of attendance. Recently, I heard someone ask when ‘they changed everything’ at Mass, so I guess it’s not that uncommon. No, she knew what she was doing and she was goading people into calling her out, reveling in her disobedience.  I don’t see where such a thing is good – after all, Lucifer was one of God’s top angels before his disobedience cost him everything.

I wasn’t about to disturb my enjoyment of partaking in the Blessed Eucharist by indulging her, so I said a quick prayer for her, another for the resentment I felt (I usually ask Joseph to help give me patience, and he is always willing to lend a hand), and restored some measure of grace before I left. Besides,  I couldn’t have confronted her if I wanted to – she was one of the ‘grab and go’ folk…those who treat communion  like it’s drive-though food and make a beeline for the nearest exit.

I did leave wondering what her problem was. So I did a bit of digging. And I found that she is likely not alone. Here are a few gems I uncovered from discontented Catholics.

“It’s a huge mistake.”

“Consubstantial? What is that word?”

“It’s ridiculous. I’ve been a Catholic for 50 years, and why would they make such stupid changes? They’re word changes. They’re semantics.” This same woman also was quoted by the AP reporter as refusing to ”learn the damn prayers.” Nice.

So what is the problem? Is it that some people fear change? I don’t think so. We have seen change before without such controversy. No, brothers and sisters, I think it goes deeper than this.

A half century ago, a ecumenical committee wrote the English missal. Yes, indeed, ecumenical – this means that non-Catholics had a hand in our Missal.  There was a lot of emphasis on ‘feel good’ and ‘gender non-specific’ language.  The new missal used a translation that cleaves much closer to the Latin.  So “Lord have mercy” became “for we have sinned against You’. Oh my.  How dare the new Missal actually impugn the community of being sinners?

‘One in being’ was replaced with ‘consubstantial’. Isn’t that just word-smithing? Nope. The ‘one in being’ is very ecumenical, lot’s of things are ‘one in being’ with God. That is what we all hope for, isn’t it? Isn’t that what Heaven truly is – a state of being one with the Father? Of course it is.  Because God the Father is the source of all Creation, all things are ‘in being’ with Him. So, if all things are in being with the Father, why is Christ anything special? He is, which is why the committee fixed the sloppy – and wayward language to consubstantial. Consubstantial comes from the Latin consubstantialem which means ‘of the same substance’. So, they could have said ‘, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father’ – but that doesn’t just have a good meter.  Inevitably, people complained about using a word ‘nobody’ understood. Well, I actually did, and I am sure I wasn’t alone, but that’s another story. What did we used to do when we had a word we didn’t understand? We asked someone or looked it up. How sad that people have become so accustomed to having everything – even the Liturgy – spoon-fed to them that a little mystery was intolerable.

One older gentleman made a cogent remark:

Being that this is only the third time in our church history that a new Roman missal is being issued, it tells me that we are truly blessed with the treasure of always growing in the faith and the Holy Spirit is guiding us to deeper and deeper for Christ and his church.

So it’s not wholly a case of ‘Grumpy old Catholics’ – though a nationwide survey conducted in 2011 indicates that this sentiment was not universal among older Catholics:

• 62 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds say they are “excited” about the new missal, compared with 39 percent of single Catholics who are 51 and older.
• Twice as many Baby Boomers as Gen Yers say they are “disappointed” by the change in missal: 9 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds vs.18 percent of those who are 51 and older.

Overall, the sentiment for the new Missal was as follows:

• 48 percent of single Catholics are “excited,” saying, “It’ll deepen our understanding of the sacred liturgy.”
• 34 percent of single Catholics are “neutral, trying to keep an open mind.”
• 14 percent are “disappointed,” saying, “Why scrap something so deeply ingrained in us?”
• 4 percent say they “couldn’t care less.”

I would love to see this survey duplicated by Catholic Match. I wonder if the Boomers and older are still somewhat more disaffected. And  - while surveys never really answer these questions – I wonder why? Could it be that the ‘liberalism’ of the Catholic church in the United States emanated from the adoption of Vatican II by some left-leaning bishops? Could it be resentment over the recent steps to correct the fundamental flaws that have become endemic to practically two generations of American Catholics – lay and religious? This probably has a lot to do with the refusal to be obedient. Too bad  - because ultimately, Catholics are called to be obedient to the Magisterium, to the Catechism, and to the great and glorious traditions of our Catholic faith.

Like it or not, brothers and sisters, this is our Liturgy, and as that lovely quote asserts, it is an opportunity to grow in faith and to be ‘guided…deeper and deeper for Christ and his church.’ So, pray for the dissenters that their hearts might turn to the beauty, elegant simplicity, and grace of this liturgy.

Me? To misquote Dick Clark…”I give it a ten…you can pray to it.’

God bless you all!

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

In a perfect world, we would always have the Robin Hood choice. One one side is the eminently evil antagonist and on the other is the perfectly good protagonist. Such a thing happens only in film and books. None of us are wholly all one or the other – this is one of the consequences of our fall from Grace.

In an earlier essay, I discussed the ‘principle of double effect‘. Well, that’s great in a perfect world, but what do we do when none of our choices are purely good? And they won’t be; we celebrated the Assumption of the last purely good human to walk the earth just a week ago. This is where the doctrine of proportionate reasoning comes into play.

Imagine you have three candidates for president, each with a running mate. Candidate A is largely against abortion, but has supported it’s use in limited circumstances (the ‘health of the mother’ argument’). His running mate is strongly pro-life. Candidate B has a proven track record supporting abortion and his running mate has a 100% approval rating from NARAL.

The Catholic doctrine of intrinsic evil clearly places Candidate B out of bounds. We believe that life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. If it were a matter of supporting candidate A’s running mate, we would have no moral objections. But Candidate A himself has supported limited use of abortion – something that we cannot accept. Or perhaps he is ambigious about homosexual marriage – another intrinsic evil for Catholics. What to do? Well, there is Candidate C. Candidate C is pro-life and pro traditional marriage and his running mate is even more outspoken on these issues. So, then the only choice a good Catholic has is to vote for Candidate C, right?

Not necessarily.

A vote for Candidate A is a vote for a person who largely – but not totally shares our moral values. Candidate B, through deed and intent, clearly has proven that his candidcy is unacceptable to Catholics. Candidate C agrees with us, but has no chance of winning the election. None. Our final option would be to not vote for anyone. Let’s break this down.

Abstaining to vote. This is inaction, the refusal to accept personal responsibility for doing good when it is possible to do so. That doesn’t work terribly well.

Voting for Candidate C. This is the ‘throwing your vote away’ option. Is it morally wrong? Well, it might be an issue with the principles of double effect in that your vote may increase the likelihood of Candidate B winning the election. Candidate C will never be in the position to do good, and Candidate B will advocate against our beliefs. Candidate A, on the other hand, provides us the likelihood that the good effects will outweigh the evil effects. So, in fact, this option actually violates one of the principles and should be avoided.

Candidate B is clearly not acceptable under several core doctrines.

Voting for Candidate A. Well, he is ambivalent on gay marriage and weak on abortion in some instances. Even if his running mate strongly represents Catholic values, the running mate will not be the president and will not set policy, he will simply support the president and be prepared to assume the office at need. So, Catholics can’t vote for Candidate A under the intrinsic evil and double effect principles, right? Nope – there is a strong justification to permit a vote for Candidate A.

Excuse me, you say? Cardinal Ratzinger provided justification for this in 2004:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” – Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Pope John Paul II also provided a powerful argument for Catholics to consider in this election:

“When it is not possible to overturn or completely a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Pope John Paul II

These two statements help articulate and frame this concept of proportionate reasoning. By not voting or voting for a candidate who cannot possibly win has no value. Luke 10:30-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan, tells us that we are not called to inaction but good works. So this should never be an option for us as Catholics. To refuse to vote or to vote for a candidate who cannot possibly win also can be countered by James 4:17:

“Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.”

Another good reading is Luke 16:19-31; this parable discusses the sin of uselessness.So refusing to take action or taking action that has negative consequences is bad.

Luke 3:12-14 is another scriptural justification. The Roman Empire did a lot of bad things to keep the ‘Pax Romana’ and tax collectors and soldiers wanted to know if they needed to quit – in essence, check out of system. John enjoined them to do their job honestly and do no evil themselves. There is an implicit charge that they should use their position to influence the institution in a positive manner.

How can we justify voting for candidate A? Proportionate Reasoning permits it when a couple of considerations are made:

1. Voting for this candidate will be effective in stopping the candidate whose practices and policies are contrary to our beliefs.
2. Stopping this candidate will not produce disorders or evils that are greater than the other choices.

This is what Pope John Paul II is articulating when he discusses the use of support to ‘limit the harm done’ and ‘lessening negative consequences’.

Am I thrilled about Mr. Romney? Not really. Many people I have spoken to agree that we would be much more enthusiastic if Mr. Ryan was heading the ticket. But I hope that this essay articulates how we need to apply a full battery of reasoning tools, prayer, and discernment in reaching our decisions.

It sure would be nice if things were black and white – unfortunately the world rarely is this cooperative. So, we have tools to use – if we have the knowledge and the wisdom to apply them. Proportionate Reasoning enjoins us to evaluate what the best choice is when we are confronted with an array of bad choices.

Sometimes, you have to make the best choice. And that’s not necessarily evil. After all, the doctrine of just war allows incredibly violent acts. The Catechism even permits the death penalty in extreme circumstances.  We are sometimes called to walk the fine line.

I hope this essay gives the reader some tools to help them walk it in good conscience.

May God bless you all.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin

The Citizen is told that Cardinal Dolan is a nice guy. I’m willing to believe that. I am told that he is highly educated in the Faith – I would hope so. I am also told that he knows exactly what he is doing by inviting Mr. Obama to the Al Smith dinner. Not so sure about that one.  I have even heard it described as ‘the lesser of two evils’. Oh brother!

This issue allows us to look at the history of the event, the acceptability of compromise, and a short primer in why ‘the lesser of two evils’ is never,ever an option for a Catholic.

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole were not invited in 1996 and Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry weren’t invited in 2004. There is certainly a precedent for not inviting candidates with a history of supporting abortion. Clinton was very pro-choice, and Dole avoided commitment, though his staff had articulated a very weak position on abortion until the RNC pushed a more pro-life position as a plank in the platform. Dole was trying to attract moderate women voters – for some reason, moderates seem to think that killing a baby in the womb is a ‘choice’ but breaking the wrong bird’s egg should be a felony.

Bush was personally very pro-life but didn’t use his executive powers to support this position – unlike Mr. Obama who abuses his power to force his pro-abortion agenda. Kerry – the self-professed Catholic said the following:

“I believe that choice is a woman’s choice. It’s between a woman, God and her doctor. That’s why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.”

So he took the coward’s path. ‘If a woman wants to commit a mortal sin, who am I do impose my beliefs on her?” When people are being forced to perform procedures or cooperate with acts considered immoral by the Church, it is a problem, Mr. Kerry. Perhaps he should read my essay on intrinsic evil.

There certainly is a precedent for not inviting candidates when one or more – Catholic or no – behave in a manner contrary to our Faith. Given that Mr. Obama has abused the hospitality of Catholic organizations before – and has used his money and influence to drive a wedge between us – I think it’s not inappropriate to not have the candidates present this year. On top of his policies, he lied to Dolan and others – including Bart Stupak. Remember him? If Stupak hadn’t caved, the PPACA would not have passed. Mr. Obama made a promise…one that he broke in about fifteen minutes.

People keep comparing Cardinal Dolan to Christ. Enough. I won’t get into Cardinal Dolan’s several shortcomings – including a few big ones. Let’s focus on the loving your enemy bit.

Christ met with these people in private (or as private as he got). He never gathered all the sinners and prostitutes and idolaters and so forth and so on to have a public feast in the courtyard in front of the Temple or the Praetorium. And he never gave the Pharisees a chance to shake his hand for the 1st century equivalent of a photo-op that they would use to steal the votes of the apostles and disciples.

At Notre Dame, Mr. Obama abused our hospitality with the collusion of the president of the college. He abused Catholics at Georgetown – to the point of having the Cross covered up. According to an official statement from Georgetown, they “…honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage.” So, we gave him an honorary degree and a platform at two Catholic universities. He met with the USCCB – why, that would have been the Cardinal, wouldn’t it? Yep. During that meeting, the president made a deal, and the Cardinal came out beaming. Was it even a week before Mr. Obama betrayed that deal too?

Mr. Obama is a serial abuser. He is cunning manipulator who will not stop until people stand up to him. And we are helping him fulfill his secular humanist agenda.

Now, let’s take a look at ‘lesser of two evils’ (yep, there is a reason I put it in quotes!)

As Catholics, we don’t do this. We don’t get to choose evil. Ever. (CCC 1732 and 1955) So, if a candidate or politician or policy incorporates an intrinsic evil – abortion being one of the biggies – we cannot play that card. Not and remain in Communion with the Holy See.

What we have is the principle of double effect. It is a formula that allows us to evaluate the moral dimension of complex issues that will certainly have consequences and side effects that are good and bad. There are some guidelines that we as Catholics need to apply in this process of discernment:

1.  The intended act must be good in itself and may not be morally evil.
2.  The good effect must be that which is DIRECTLY intended by the one who carries out the act. Bad effects that result from this good act may be foreseen but not intended.
3.  The good effect can never be brought about using morally evil means.
4.  The good effect must be of greater proportion to any unintended evil effect that occurs as a result of the action.
5.  Acts that have morally negative consequences are allowable only when truly necessary – there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.

If you are still reading, you hopefully realize that abortion invariably fails to satisfy these requirements. Certainly in the case of active advocacy – i.e. Mr. Obama’s aggressive pro-abortion policies – these guidelines clearly indicate that such support is wrong.

Well, what about homosexuality? The Catechism is pretty clear (2357-2359). Marriage is a sacrament between a man and woman only (CCC 2335). All others are called to live chaste lives…yes, that includes unmarried heterosexuals – something that too few priests address these days. What’s the harm in letting them marry? Look at the guidelines. It violates every one of the criteria I have outlined.

Sorry, folks. It’s clear. Catholics are called to a discipline that many others are not. If this is a problem, become an Unitarian – they are good with everything.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 John Martin