Truth and Charity Forum

Christian Evangelization is Not Mere Dialogue, It is a Debate

mloesel — Thu, 23 May 2013 05:01:08 +0000

Recently, there was a great brouhaha over an Army Equal Opportunity training briefing on extremism that was presented to Army reservists. Slide twenty-four identified Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and Orthodox Jews as religious extremists on par with Al-Qaeda and Hamas.

The Catholic Archdiocese for Military Services lodged a formal complaint with the Department of Defense and the offending slide was removed. The Army stated this was an isolated incident and in no way reflected an official Army position.

I believe it is true that there is no official military policy that expresses antipathy for religion in general or Christianity in particular. However, the current military culture is enabling an environment that regards religious beliefs with suspicion.

Looking again at slide twenty-four of the Army briefing on extremism, it is enlightening to note that in addition to the list of “extremist” organizations, the slide offers an analysis of religious extremism that explains how Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and Orthodox Jews could be equated with groups like Al-Qaeda and Hamas:

Extremism is a complex phenomenon; it is defined as beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the “ordinary.” Because “ordinary” is subjective, no religious group would label itself extreme or its doctrine “extremism.” However, religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world; every religion has some followers that believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only “right way” and that all others are practicing their faith the “wrong way,” seeing and believing that their faith/religion superior to all others.

As Catholics, we do believe that the fullness of truth is found only within the Catholic Church. While other faiths may have elements of truth and holiness, they also contain errors that are not found within the teachings of the Catholic Church. We believe we have it right and others have it wrong. If conviction alone is enough to be labeled as an extremist, then I am afraid Catholics are guilty as charged.

This fear of such faith and commitment does not originate with the military. Rather, it flows from what the Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, called the “dictatorship of relativism.” It is part of a broader cultural phenomenon that denies the possibility of absolute truth.

In recent weeks, this fear of absolute truth has been evident on our college campuses. Johns Hopkins University Student Government Association (SGA) denied official club status to a group of pro-life students, Voices for Life, because as one SGA senator said, “We have the right to protect our students from things that are uncomfortable. Why should people have to defend their beliefs on their way to class?” SGA members claimed they would feel “violated, targeted, and attacked” if their pro-abortion views were challenged, therefore, such opposition must be silenced. Only after the threat of legal action, did Johns Hopkins University reverse the SGA ruling and approve the official club status of Voices for Life.

Similarly, two homosexual students at George Washington University are seeking to have a Catholic priest removed from the campus Newman Center because he is faithful to Catholic doctrine and teaches that homosexual activity is sinful. These two students, who are not even Catholic, assert, “because of the words and actions from those at the Newman Center, an atmosphere of intolerance and stigma permeates onto our campus.” They cannot tolerate anyone who does not affirm their homosexual lifestyle choice.

We have evolved into a society that embraces lukewarm dialogue, but rejects spirited debate. In the former, we are free to express personal opinions as long as we do not ascribe an exclusive rightness to our views. Any suggestion that others are wrong is labeled as bigoted, hateful, uncharitable, and even extremist. In contrast, debate requires a commitment to the veracity of our principles. We seek through reason to demonstrate the superiority of our position and persuade others to follow.

Christian evangelization is not mere dialogue. It is a debate. Unlike the political election debates, which are nothing more than grandstanding with sound bites in the hopes of scoring a “gotcha” moment against an opponent; evangelization is an act of love and mercy that charitably points out the flaws of non-belief as well as the reasonableness and rewards of believing.

It is an argument offered with both the wisdom of our words and the faithful examples of our lives. We do our neighbor no favors if we allow him to persist in ignorance. Pope Francis highlighted this in a speech to the Vatican diplomatic corps:

It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the “tyranny of relativism”, which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples. And that brings me to a second reason for my name. Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.

Therefore, we must not be cowed by those who quest only affirmation and fear the challenge of debate. We are not called to a dialogue of sharing where we politely nod and applaud each other’s point of view. In the face of pejorative labels like “hater,” “bigot,” and “extremist,” we are called to courageously defend our faith and evangelize in the hopes of drawing others to Christ and His Church.

We must unwaveringly believe and proclaim the Gospel, not as one opinion among many, but as the truth. With joy and charity, our constant purpose must be to lead everyone we encounter to the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

Dr. Denise Jackson Hunnell is a Fellow of Human Life International. She graduated from Rice University with a BA in biochemistry and psychology. She earned her medical degree from The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. She went on to complete a residency in family medicine at Marquette General Hospital, Marquette, Michigan. Upon completion of her training, Dr. Hunnell served as a family physician in the United States Air Force. She was honorably discharged. She continued to practice medicine all over the country as her husband’s Air Force career kept them on the move. In order to better care for her family, Dr. Hunnell retired from active clinical practice and focused her professional efforts on writing and teaching. She has contributed work to local and national Catholic publications as well as to secular newspapers including the Washington Post and the Washington Times. She also teaches anatomy and physiology at Northern Virginia Community College Woodbridge Campus. Her affiliations include the American Academy of Family Physicians, The Catholic Medical Association, The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and the National Catholic Bioethics Center. She received her certification in health care ethics from the National Catholic Bioethics Center in 2009. Dr. Hunnell has been married for nearly thirty years to Colonel (ret) John F. Hunnell, an Air Force test pilot. They have four children and are blessed with two grandchildren so far.

Articles by Denise:

Sparta Revisited

mloesel — Wed, 22 May 2013 05:01:36 +0000

By Don DeMarco, Ph. D.

The ancient city-state of Sparta has been the subject of widely divergent evaluations. Jean-Jacques Rousseau took it as a model for his highly influential book, The Social Contract. He praised Sparta as a “republic of demi-gods rather than of men.” According to Rousseau, Spartans were people of “natural simplicity,” whereas civilized men “have been corrupted in proportion as the arts and sciences have improved.”

To be Spartan was to exhibit valor and discipline to a heroic degree. Spartans are remembered as fearlessly and unflinchingly dedicated to victory on the battlefield. Thus, innumerable sports teams have identified themselves as “Spartans,” while some American towns proudly bear the name “Sparta.”

A closer examination of life in Sparta removes the romantic veneer that has long idealized it. At birth, a young male was presented before a board of elders and examined for physical deformities. If he did not meet certain standards, he was carried to a nearby gorge and left to die of exposure.

At the age of seven, a boy who had survived his initial examination was taken from his mother to begin his formal education in discipline and obedience. He was being trained for military duty and was molded into a standard called the “homoioi” (the “Similars”). Older boys were mandated to whip younger boys. Homosexual relations were regarded as standard. They were encouraged on the belief that they would promote solidarity and bravery in combat.

Because of the many lives lost through exposure and in wars, the Spartan population became greatly diminished. Sparta was vanquished in 371 B.C. at the Battle of Leuctra and never recovered. In the words of one historian, “It is important to remember that the real, original Sparta broke with a snap because it could not bend.” Sparta, for all its dedication to discipline and might, truly defeated itself.

Do we learn anything from the past? George Santayana famously said that if we do not learn anything from history we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

America doesn’t leave babies outside to die of exposure, but her concern for removing the disabled— babies with Down syndrome, for example—is left to technicians who perform abortions.

Sports have become more important than religion, and many believe that any means is justified in the pursuit of winning. “Winning isn’t everything,” one celebrated coach exclaimed, “It’s the only thing.” Being a “loser” bears the social stigma of failure.

Homosexual relations are condoned, praised, and celebrated in America. Same-sex marriage is now politically correct, and those who oppose it are routinely vilified.

In science, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is enshrined. In society, it is applied. The prevailing belief in America is that the future belongs to the healthy and the strong. One American eugenicist has captured the essence of Social Darwinism when he speaks of the “dysgenic effect of charity.” Survival belongs to the fittest. The number of people deemed “unfit” appears to be increasing dramatically.

Is America revisiting the mindset of ancient Sparta?

Sometimes a philosophical question is most effectively answered in a way that is so sufficiently straightforward and compelling that it can be easily grasped by 9-year-olds.

A most enterprising teacher by the name of Ursula Hennessey gave her students an ingenious assignment. She had talked to them about Sparta and its absolute commitment to strength. Then, Hennessey asked her fourth-graders to go home, find out their birth weight, write it down and bring the information to class the next day. The unexpected discovery was astonishing. It turned out that those males who had been delivered prematurely or had spent the first weeks of life in the ICU because of low birth weight and underdeveloped organs were among the biggest and strongest boys in the class. The teacher looked at these boys and asked, “What would have happened to you guys in Sparta?”

The lesson is existential as well as philosophical, personal as well as universal. The boys were glad that they were not left to die of exposure (or aborted). This is the existential side. In addition, they understood that aborting for Spartan reasons was invalid and counterproductive. It also seemed contrary to charity.

Perhaps a commitment to love is more practical than a commitment to power. The power of love turns out to be stronger and more humane than the love of power. It may now be difficult to disabuse these fourth-graders of what their teacher has taught them.

Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. Doctor DeMarco is a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and he is Professor Emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College & Seminary in Cromwell, CT. He is the author of 22 books, including; Architects of the Culture of Death, The Many Faces of Virtue, The Heart of Virtue, and New Perspectives on Contraception. He has authored several hundred articles in scholarly journals and in anthologies, and articles and essays appearing in other journals and magazines and in newspapers; and innumerable book reviews in a variety of publications. His education includes: B.S. Stonehill College, North Easton, MA 1959 (General Science); A.B. Stonehill College, 1961 (Philosophy); Gregorian University, Rome, Italy, 1961-2 (Theology); M.A. St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY, 1965 (Philosophy); and Ph.D. At. John’s Univ., 1969 (Philosophy). His Master’s dissertation was “The Basic Concept in Hegel’s Dialectical Method” and his Doctor’s dissertation was “The Nature of the Relationship between the Mathematical and the Beautiful in Music”. He is married to Mary Arendt DeMarco and they have five children.

Articles by Don:

Dare We Hope for Gosnell?

mloesel — Tue, 21 May 2013 05:01:54 +0000

By Marie Meaney, Ph.D.

A few days ago, the news broke that a deal was struck between Kermit Gosnell and the prosecutors. Gosnell waived his right to appeal the verdict. In return the prosecutors dropped their demand for the death penalty. Up until this point, the question was still very much in the air whether he should receive this extreme punishment or not.

In a short article for First Things, Robert George was asking for mercy for Gosnell, who had among other things, snapped the spines of children born alive after abortions, kept their body parts in jars, put the lives of women at risk by operating in filthy conditions and employing people as nurses without any medical diplomas.

The Gosnell saga was a sensation in the prolife community far and wide. The story was finally covered, at least marginally, by the mainstream media after they were shamed into reporting it by numerous denunciations. The media hated the Gosnell case, which contradicted their predominantly pro-abortion ideology with its soothing lies about safe, rare and legal abortions.

Gosnell could have received the death-penalty under Pennsylvania law. This raises the question whether his execution would have been a good thing or not.

Robert George mentions a number of arguments against the death-penalty in Gosnell’s case: one of them (which he doesn’t support himself, though he says it could be used) is that the logic of legalized abortion leads to infanticide. The Planned Parenthood Federation, among other groups, has defended the practice of infanticide as a back-up plan for a botched abortion!

Whether a child is killed in the womb or outside of it is de facto the same: an innocent life is directly and intentionally taken. One could argue that there is a double-standard in condemning Gosnell to the death-penalty while allowing other abortionists to go scot-free, simply because they stay within the boundaries of an unjust positive law.

Of course, one could also reason that the law is not unjust when punishing Gosnell and should therefore be carried out to its full extent. That others are not punished is a shame, but at least he gets what he deserves. But Professor George doesn’t actually embrace this line of argument.

Gosnell is our brother, is one of George’s main arguments. As such, he deserves our hope for his conversion. We see the horror of what he has done, but we should pray that he will repent and change. One could object that this is not yet an argument against the death penalty in and of itself.

In the Middle Ages, when people at large were much more concerned about their eternal fate, no contradiction was seen between executing a man and hoping for his eternal salvation. A priest was generally present at the execution and the criminal could turn to him for the last sacraments and spiritual support until the end. Apart from the general opinion that the death penalty was seen as being the just punishment for certain crimes, the hope was that such a strict punishment would shake the criminal out of his moral blindness and awaken him to his misdeeds, let him turn to God and repent. For the eternal punishment expecting him in the next life was going to be much worse than any punishment he could receive in this life.

Punishment, as the French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil, following Plato, has rightly said is a need of the soul. Therefore, the criminal has – strange as this may sound — a right to punishment, since it puts him back in touch with the realm of justice out of which he has propelled himself through his crime. Punishment helps him access again the truth about his deeds.

The question would rather be whether the death penalty is ever the appropriate answer to a crime. Robert George does not think that it is ever required or justified as a matter of retributive justice, and thus puts himself in line with Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Except in cases of not being able to protect society against a criminal, Pope John Paul stated in Evangelium vitae that the death penalty was not justified. Since the value of an individual person is infinite, to ask for his death is therefore incommensurate even if the criminal himself has many lives on his conscience.

That human justice is furthermore fallible and lacks the knowledge of another person’s soul and his responsibility (which would require the omniscience of God) could be used as further arguments against the death penalty. However, my goal is not to debate the question of the death penalty as such, which would require much more space, but to look at George’s plea for mercy for Gosnell and its significance as a pro-life witness to the world.

George obviously agrees that Gosnell must be punished; he is now condemned to multiple life-sentences without parole, and rightly so. Justice is met imperfectly either way. One could argue that not even the death penalty is an adequate punishment for some horrific crimes. It is “only” one life against many others, and furthermore we will only be rightly judged in the next life by a judge who alone is capable of doing so. But by being merciful and not discontentedly complaining that he should have been executed, we are sending a message to Gosnell and to the world which is singularly powerful.

True mercy is not separate from justice or from the truth. Life in prison without possibility of parole does not let Gosnell off the hook easily. Nor does this sentence send the message that his deeds weren’t horrible after all or that he is getting off lightly. But it provides time for him to convert; we wish his ultimate good which requires his repentance. The mercy he is experiencing is a severe and a demanding mercy requiring a painful transformation for him.

Mercy is the expression of the ultimate victory of the good; it shows how superabundantly the good can make up for all possible evil that has been committed. Only God can bring this about, therefore human mercy will merely be an expression of this divine mercy. His mercy which makes all things new can transform murderers like Gosnell and make them participate in the joy of Heaven, though it does presuppose his repentance and making reparation for his deeds as far as that is possible.

Perhaps this message of mercy and the hope it expresses in his capacity to change won’t reach him. But it would be a fine gesture if the pro-life movement tried to contact him and made this clear. It would not just be an important message to him, but also to the world. This gospel of mercy may resonate with all who have been involved in abortions and have repented but have a hard time forgiving themselves and truly believing in God’s forgiveness.

Perhaps former abortion doctors or former abortion clinic directors like Abby Johnson could send such a message to Gosnell. As St. Thérèse of Lisieux exclaimed, even if she had committed the worst sins, she would still throw herself into the merciful arms of God. Let us hope the same for Gosnell.

Marie Meaney, Ph.D. is the author of the booklet “Embracing the Cross of Infertility” which has also come out in Spanish, Hungarian, Croatian and German. She is furthermore a specialist on the French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil, and her book Simone Weil’s Apologetic Use of Literature: Her Christological Interpretations of Ancient Greek Texts appeared with OUP in 2007. She was an Arthur J. Ennis teaching fellow at the University of Villanova in Philadelphia before moving to Italy due to her husband’s work in 2010. Dr. Meaney received her doctorate and an M. Phil. in Modern Languages from the University of Oxford. She also obtained an M. Phil. in philosophy from the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein and a D.E.U.G. from the Sorbonne in Paris.

Articles by Marie:

Euthanasia Supporters Must Learn True Meaning of ‘Dignity’ and ‘Compassion’

mloesel — Mon, 20 May 2013 05:01:55 +0000

By Bishop James D. Conley

When the nation of Belgium formally abolished the death penalty in 1996, it hadn’t executed anyone in peacetime for more than one hundred years. The Belgian government passed the abolition law because, it said, the “death penalty is a serious assault on human dignity.”

The Belgian government was right—unnecessary execution is an assault on human dignity, and an erosion of our humanity. All unjust killing is. This is why, when a pair of twin brothers died by lethal injection in Belgium last [year], it was a tragedy from which we should learn.

The twin brothers weren’t put to death for crimes. They died in a state-supported hospital, by choice. Born deaf, when the brothers discovered that they would also soon go blind, they chose to be put to death at age 45.

Media reports did not disclose their names, but newspapers did describe the moments before the injections. The doctor who directed the killing told a news program that the brothers were “very happy.” He described that they said goodbye to their parents and another brother, with “a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.”

The doctor’s comments have been used by supporters of euthanasia to promote the idea that all people should be free to “die with dignity.” In media reports across Europe and the United States, the doctors who assisted the Belgian twins are regarded as agents of compassion. But compassion does not seek just to alleviate all suffering. Compassion seeks to understand suffering, and to join it in solidarity.

Suicide is never a dignified way to die. Assisting in suicide is never an act of compassion. But we cannot put an end to tragic acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide if we do not learn and proclaim the meaning of human dignity, and the meaning of human suffering.

Many have praised the decision of the Belgian brothers because they were deaf, and would soon be blind. In disability, they would be unable to work—to produce something useful. For many, lives which are not useful are not valuable. But in the eyes of God, the value of a life is not determined by the ability to produce wealth or consumer products.

In the eyes of God, the value of a life is determined by the ability to love. And suffering, like the suffering which comes with disability, helps us to love as God Himself loves.

The suffering of the elderly, or the ill—the suffering of any of us—is a gift from God. Suffering allows us to share in the mystery of Christ’s crucifixion. By joining our sufferings to Christ, we join ourselves to His redemptive work. The power of suffering which the elderly or the disabled experience is the power of deep spiritual union with Jesus Christ. “The redemption of the world,” said John Paul II, “is rooted in suffering.”

In a culture of life, the Belgian brothers would have learned that the suffering of their disability was a chance to grow in love – for one another, for their other family members, and for God.

Widespread support for euthanasia and assisted suicide speaks to a worldview that fails to understand suffering. Support for the dignity of the elderly or disabled is a casualty of the culture of death. The witness of Christians bearing suffering joyfully is my hope for rebuilding a culture of life. When we embrace our suffering with the love of Jesus Christ, we proclaim to a lost world what authentic dignity we have.

In the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we find the true meaning of life and suffering, and the fullness of God’s compassion for us.

I pray that all people may reject suicide and euthanasia, and come to know Jesus Christ, our Suffering Servant.

This column originally appeared online in the Southern Nebraska Register the newspaper of the Diocese of Lincoln, 25^th January 2013. Reprinted with permission.

The Most Rev. James D. Conley is the Bishop of the Diocese of Lincoln. Originally, ordained for the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas, in his more than 25 years as a priest, Bishop Conley has served the Catholic Church in a wide variety of ways—as pastor, college campus chaplain, director of respect life ministries, theology instructor, and a Vatican official. On April 10, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI named him auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Denver and he was ordained on May 30, 2008. On September 14, 2012, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Bishop Conley the ninth Bishop of the Lincoln Diocese in Nebraska.

Articles by Bishop Conley:

Euthanasia Supporters Must Learn True Meaning of ‘Dignity’ and ‘Compassion’

President Obama’s Planned Parenthood Address: Part II

adamcassandra — Thu, 16 May 2013 05:01:06 +0000

By Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

Read Part I of this article here.
Whenever President Obama spoke in his recent address to Planned Parenthood about the principal activities of their organization, he talked about dealing with “contraceptive services.” Now let it be stated that, if all that the Planned Parenthood organization were doing was searching to cure diseases in women, like cancer, we would all be delighted to join them. Many other organizations exist for the purpose of treating medical issues that do not imply abortion in their work.

When the president includes a good or neutral activity along with the evil (albeit unnamed), he wants us to believe that both were in the same acceptable moral category. Who would want to be against helping women with cancer?

Here, however, we are asked to believe that finding cancer is equivalent to having an abortion. But pregnancy is not a sickness, while cancer is. We are meant, by the president’s rhetoric, to glide over these two different things as if they are the same worthy moral act. This is a deception. It seeks to puts a lie in our souls about what is.

President Obama, in his lecture, ridicules states like Mississippi and North Dakota for their efforts to limit abortion. He implies that these efforts are wrong because they are “out-of-date.” This is his argument: “So the fact is, after decades of progress, there’s [sic] still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s, than in the 21^st century … When you read about some of these laws, you want to check the calendar, you want to make sure you are still living in 2013.” The criterion of truth here seems to be chronology, based on “progress,” which is always what we do now.

The president, to be sure, does not always eschew the language of right and wrong. “Forty-two states have introduced laws that would ban or severely limit access to a woman’s right to choose.” He calls the North Dakota and Mississippi initiatives to restrict abortion (i.e. “woman’s right to choose”) “absurd” and “wrong.”

If it is “wrong” or “absurd’ to seek to limit or ban abortion, then what the president is doing must be right, namely fostering and providing facilities for abortion. God’s “Thou shalt not kill” now means “Thou shalt kill certain designated groups according to the time or year in which they live.” It is evil to say of what is right that it is wrong, and of what is wrong that it is right. The more subtly we do this, the more effective.

With regard to whether something is right or wrong because of the time in which it was enacted, we recall Chesterton’s comment about those who say something can be right in one century but wrong in another. “It’s like saying something can be right on Tuesday but wrong on Wednesday.” It is striking that President Obama’s logic would allow him to invoke such a dubious chronological principle to justify what he wants.

Moreover, as Robert Reilly pointed out, if we go back not to the 1950s, but a hundred years ago to the founding of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger’s influence, the whole impetus of that organization was based on Darwinian eugenics. It was to weed out inferior races by preventing them from breeding. With this background, the president’s own genetic origins would have been the object of Planned Parenthood concern.

Whether a thing is right or wrong does not depend on the time in which it appears but on the truth—on the validity of the argument that establishes it.

What the president evidently calls wrong is anything that disagrees with his own conception of what the law, in the service of his ideology, can do. But by his own chronological logic, if states finally succeed in limiting or forbidding abortion, since that would take place after the time when it was available to everyone, it should be accepted as up-to-date, and the abortion position as outdated.

Mr. Obama is a clever rhetorician but not a careful thinker. Hitler and Stalin were once up-to-date. One needs more than chronology to challenge them. Perhaps this is the reason the Declaration of Independence was not cited during the Planned Parenthood meeting.

The final point that needs to be made concerns the starting point of the so-called “right to choose” rhetoric. What should govern this whole question is not the woman or the man but the child. Neither a woman nor a man by him or herself has any “right” to choose to have or not have a child. What they have is a freedom to marry. If a child is begotten of them in this relationship, it is their duty to bring it to birth and care for it in a home.

A child is always a gift, not a “right,” nor the product of a contract or a scientific process. The primary focus is the child, not the parent. The logic works in exactly the opposite manner from the way we insist on thinking of children. Every child thus has the right to have both a mother and a father (not one mother or one father or two mother s or two fathers) bound together in an exclusive relationship in which the family is formed. We should be speaking not of a “woman’s right to choose” but of a “man and a woman’s duty” to accept and care for what they beget as a gift in their personal relationship. This arrangement is what is best and normative for the child and its parents and the society in which they live. When this principle is violated, everything in the society itself begins to unravel.

Thus, in answer to the initial query, “Why was this the most evil speech of an American president?,” in my opinion, it is because the speech systematically lies to us about what is really happening when the “right to choose” or “contraceptive services” are put into practice.

The words are chosen carefully with full knowledge of what they are intended to convey and full knowledge of what actually happens. C. S. Lewis, following the Socratic tradition, said that evil is to call what is good evil and what is evil good. This is basically what Genesis said of the sin of the First Parents who wanted to place the distinction of good and evil in their own hands, not God’s.

Stripped of all the rhetoric and masked words, this address told the American people, probably too ready to listen, that what was evil was really good, a “right” in fact. Why this speech is particularly heinous is not that it was spoken by some professor or distraught lady, but by a president pursing public policy. He maintained that what was proposed was worthy of God’s blessing. It was right, not wrong. These are not ordinary confusions. They follow, knowingly or not, a logic and force determined to overturn, in the name of progress and being up-to-date, all the proper relations of man, woman, child, family, and society.

The second century Epistle to Diognetus, cited in the beginning, already affirmed that Christians marry like other men, have children, but, it added, do not “expose,” that is, abort, them. This criterion is still what defines a human being and a Christian. We are told that such “teaching” is backward and not current. We are asked not to think about what we are doing but only to ask about our “right to choose.” But we all know what we choose when we exercise this oft-cited “right.” We do not have the courage to call evil what it is.

We must hide our evil in obscure language. This hiding tells us better than anything else that, when we so lie to ourselves, we know that we do so lie. We prefer the power that this lie gives us to the truth of what happens when we exercise this very strange “right,” with no acknowledged object. We are asked officially to deceive ourselves about the most innocent and wondrous act in human reality—the conception and birth of a human child. We are asked to do this so that we will be “up to date,” because our only criterion of truth is what we choose, not the proper question, of whether what we choose is good or evil.

Read Part I of this article here.

Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., taught political science at Georgetown University for many years. His latest book, The Mind That Is Catholic, is published by Catholic University of America Press. His forthcoming book Remembering Belloc will be available from St. Augustine Press in the spring of 2013.

Articles by Fr. Schall:

President Obama’s Planned Parenthood Address: Part I

adamcassandra — Wed, 15 May 2013 05:01:37 +0000

By Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

“One in five women in this country has turned to Planned Parenthood for health care. One in five. (Applause.) And for many Planned Parenthood is their primary source of health care—not just for contraceptive care, but for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer screenings and health counseling.”

–President Obama to Planned Parenthood Convention, April 26, 2013

“They (Christians) play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them.”

–Epistle to Diognetus, 2d Century A.D.

The morning after President Obama gave his bemused lecture to an enthusiastic Planned Parenthood Convention in Washington, a friend of mine wrote to me. This man is experienced in political things and a man of good sense. He stated that this address to the Planned Parenthood Convention was the “most evil” speech ever delivered by a sitting American president. At the time, I had not yet heard or read the speech.

But one can hardly not be curious about why a good man would call this speech simply evil. What was his exact point?

One other item has been striking to me in recent years. It is the number of people from various angles of life who have spontaneously wondered about the similarity of the president to the anti-hero in Robert Hugh Benson’s 1913 novel, The Lord of the World.

The similarity is not just in the sudden rise of an obscure American senator to the highest of earthly powers, but in the agenda that he advocated in reaching it. The Benson novel falls into the tradition of Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 with its systematic effort not to name things what they really are so that we are never faced with what we are actually doing.

Be that as it may, I read President Obama’s upbeat urgings that the Planned Parenthood ladies get into the “fight” against those backward, out-of-date types who would work against the “woman’s right to choose.” The latter is a phrase that comes up suspiciously often in the address. It lingers in our minds because we know that it really means something else than what the words specifically indicate.

The president’s speech was full of warmth and affection. The head of Planned Parenthood was addressed by her first name, “Cecile.” Mr. Obama said that the effusive welcome there made him “blush.” Someone in the audience called out, “I love you.” The president responded: “I love you back.”

At the end, President Obama thanked Planned Parenthood, after telling them that the “President is going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way.” He even asked God to “bless” them, presumably for their “good” works. What Planned Parenthood is set up to do is to kill human babies on a massive scale. It is difficult to imagine why such a request of God is not, in fact, blasphemous.

Human life begins at conception. At any pre-natal stage what is at stake is an already begun human life. Most commentators on this address have remarked that the president was scrupulous never to pronounce the word “abortion,” as if that “service” were not an essential part of the Planned Parenthood agenda.

In Planned Parenthood clinics, over 300,000 abortions are performed per year. The vague phrases “reproductive services” along with “right to choose” are preferred over using the word abortion. The reason for this preference is a clue to why the president’s speech might be considered evil.

The “service” provided is the elimination of a child. The president’s address studiously contains no mention of what it is that is in fact eliminated when the “services” are provided, usually with government funding.

If the President has no problem with the rightness of the deed, why would he not want to use the proper word, abortion, to describe that deed?

The further question is this: “Why would a reasonable man consider this friendly Planned Parenthood address to be the ‘most evil’ address ever given by an American president?” The first approach to this consideration is, I think, grammatical. The oft-repeated phrase “right to choose,” which is said to underpin the whole rationale of abortion without mentioning its name, does not, in itself, really tell us anything about what is going on. That is why the phrase is used.

Let us suppose I spoke of a “right to hear” or a “right to eat.” Hearing, eating, and choosing are powers found in certain living beings. The fact that I have a power that enables me to hear, eat, or choose tells me nothing about what I hear, eat, or choose. I did not give myself these powers. They come with the kind of being I am. To say that I have a “right to choose” means only that I have, as part of my being, a free will, a faculty. It says nothing about what I do with this free will.

What I do with my choice or free will is the whole issue here. These capacities belong to what I am. Does my “right to eat” mean that I may eat poison? The capacity of eating may be abused by deliberately eating poison. We usually call it suicide. But the capacity itself enables us to eat what we need for our well-being. The capacity does not mean that we may eat whatever we want, with no restrictions about what it is we eat and its relation to the kind of being we are.

We do not know anything about the so-called “right to choose” until we have put an object to the infinitive. To choose what? It is a verb and needs an object. Until that object is stated, we do not know what this “right to choose” means in practice.

The “right to choose” does not give me a “right” to choose to kill someone. All it does is to tell me that I can kill someone if I choose. I have the power to do so, not any “right,” unless, like many moderns, by “right” we only mean “power.” But if I so choose, I am responsible for the act that, because it was a choice, came out of my freedom and power. What we have here, then, is the deliberate use of bad or incomplete grammar to cover up what we are actually promoting.

In the context of the president’s speech, the “right to choose” is cagily used to avoid stating what it is that, in every case, is chosen when this so-called “right” is exercised. The question is: “Why does President Obama not want to say this word?” Evidently, it is not because he has any problem with approving abortion itself or what it actually is. He does not deceive himself about what happens. He just does not want everyone to know what he is doing. Hence words are used that obscure what is happening, at least to those unwilling or unable to catch what is actually meant by these words.

No one can doubt that President Obama knows what is chosen to happen when this “right” is exercised. A child’s life is terminated in her mother’s womb. By the judicious way he avoids calling abortion what it is, the president implies that he does not want to name in public what it is that happens when the “choice” is exercised. What can we conclude from these observations?

Plato often said that the worst thing that can happen to us is to have a lie in our soul about the most important things, to tell ourselves something is good when it is evil. Even though it takes place in millions of instances yearly throughout the world, the fact is that objectively every abortion is the killing of an already begin, innocent human life. In using the phrase “right to choose,” we never simply talk of the “woman’s right” as if it had no object chosen.

The child about to be aborted has a prior claim to be protected and cared for. That is implied in the begetting itself and that to which a woman’s (and man’s) being is directed. We cannot separate the two by stressing only a natural faculty (power of choice) and not the complete act that results in another actual human being.

The direct consequence in every instance of the exercise of the “right to choose” is the killing of a begotten human child. It is clear that the “right to choose” really means “freedom to kill the human child.” No wonder no one wants to speak what it is. But if we won’t admit in public what we do, we must latch on to words that obscure, confuse, or deny what we do and know that we do.

Read Part II of this article.

Articles by Fr. Schall:

Single, Yet United With God

adamcassandra — Tue, 14 May 2013 05:01:49 +0000

By Melissa Prazak

Sitting alone in a corner, I relaxed into the ambience of a cozy coffee shop. I sipped my coffee, pulled out my Bible, and waited for a friend to join me for breakfast. The room was filled with tables of new couples and old friends. Time passed slowly as I emptied and refilled my cup but my friend never arrived. As I paused to enjoy the jazz overhead I smiled to myself about the irony of this situation. I had recently begun pondering the unique witness of the Christian single person, and this moment was testing my hypothesis.

I think the single person, through their visible solitude, witnesses to the fact that every person is called to intimate communion with the Trinity. What is more, it is the single person’s desire for communion that witnesses to man’s longing for communion with God.

When God created us He made us for communion: “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen 2:18). However, it is clear that the communion we experience on earth cannot fulfill us completely. Our relationships with loved ones are only a foretaste of the perfect communion we will have in heaven.

It is important to note that solitude is quite different than simply being alone. Being alone is a very isolating experience in which there is a lack of relation with anyone. Yet, in solitude one has a connection with others or God but is by oneself.

Blessed John Paul, in his general audiences that comprise A Theology of the Body, examines the second creation account in Genesis and suggests that God created Adam and delayed the creation of Eve to promote Adam’s self-discovery, namely, his desire for communion and his true relationship with creation and God. Blessed John Paul calls this experience “original solitude.” He writes, “without that deep meaning of man’s original solitude, one cannot understand…the situation of man…[He is] set into a unique, exclusive, and unrepeatable relationship with God himself”(6:2). For the purpose of this article, I am relating the single person’s state to original solitude.

It is because of the single person’s solitude that his or her longing for communion is more apparent. This longing is itself a great witness for mankind because it illustrates for us the longing we should have for communion with God. The single life reminds the world that from the moment we were baptized we entered into a covenantal relationship with God.

We must build this relationship now and long for complete fulfillment with God in heaven. In marriage, the spouse is God’s gift as a means to prepare one for the definitive communion with the Trinity.

The consecrated person has a slight taste of this relationship on earth through his or her consecration or ordination.

The single person is made ready for the heavenly nuptials by living in a state of longing for communion—a communion that will not be satisfied on earth.

Additionally, the solitude of the single person enhances the beauty of communion in the married and consecrated life. The choice of the single person to avoid intimate relations with another outside of marriage witnesses to the dignity of each human person. It “keeps alive in the Church a consciousness of the mystery of marriage and defends it from any reduction and impoverishment” (Familiaris Consortio, no.16). Also, because the single person is unconsecrated, the spiritual communion of the consecrated person is all the more “a particularly profound expression of the Church as the Bride” (Vita Consecrata, no.19) and a sign of dedication.

Furthermore, the single person’s solitude is a reminder for each of us. At some point every person passes through the single state. It is meant to be a time of self-discovery, preparation, and purification as it was for Adam.

This time of solitude gives us the opportunity to discover how the Trinity is truly our complete fulfillment. It also helps us to purify our motivations and to embrace with understanding the fullness of the commitment we make in choosing our vocation. Thus the single person’s solitude brings to mind this fruitful time in our life.

All of this passed quickly through my mind as I sat in the café and smiled at God’s humor. I could have sat there annoyed, embarrassed, or sulking because my friend did not show up. I could have been standoffish, pretending I did not want company. But in reality I desired companionship, and that desire sprang from my deeper longing for eternal communion with God.

Was I a witness to anybody there that morning? I honestly doubt anyone noticed me or gave a value to my solitude; maybe the experience was just for me. It is unfortunate that few notice the significance of the single state for it is a gift. The next time you talk with someone living the single state, allow their present vocation to stir your own longing for communion with God.

Melissa Prazak is currently a student at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. She was a cloistered-contemplative religious with the Holy Spirit Adoration Sisters for seven years. Following the charism of the congregation, she devoted her life of prayer to the missionary activity of the Church. She continues to dedicate her life to the service of the Church through study and volunteer work. Melissa has a particular interest in the New Evangelization.

Articles by Melissa:

Pope Francis and Our Lady of Fatima

adamcassandra — Mon, 13 May 2013 05:01:26 +0000

By Father Peter West

With Pope Francis’ announcement that his pontificate will be consecrated to Our Lady of Fatima on May 13, it is fitting to join the Holy Father in recalling the significance of Fatima, and the importance of repentance if we are to know true peace as a society.

Pope Francis joins his predecessors in acknowledging the importance of Fatima. When the Blessed Mother appeared to three shepherd children almost 100 years ago, it was shortly after an urgent prayer to the Blessed Virgin as the Queen of Peace by Pope Benedict XV for the end of World War I.

Blessed John Paul II credited Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life after an assassination attempt on May 13, 1981. In a 2010 visit to Fatima, Benedict XVI expressed his hope that the (then) seven years until the 100^th anniversary of the apparitions would “hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.”

Pope Francis honoring an altar of Our Lady at the Basilica of Maria Maggiore

There is also precedent in the Old Testament for what Pope Francis and previous pontiffs ask of us in calling for repentance and for intercession: the Book of Esther. Indeed, many scholars over the years have portrayed Queen Esther as a prefigurement of Mary, and the Book of Esther as a prefigurement of the Book of Revelation.

You will recall that the king of Persia was asked by a scheming administrator to destroy the Jewish people since the administrator had been personally offended by Mordecai, Esther’s uncle who was also a servant of the king. The king, unaware that his young and exceptionally beautiful wife Esther was Jewish, consented to the attack. Before she dared to approach the king to ask that her people be spared, Queen Esther clothed herself in sackcloth and ashes, and asked her people to join her in fasting from food and water for three days.

When Esther entered into the king’s presence, something she was forbidden to do without invitation, he extended his scepter, thus sparing her life. Esther also rather audaciously invited the King and Haman to a banquet, where she revealed that she was a Jew and begged the King to spare the life of her people.

The King was angered by his administrator’s schemes against Mordecai and the Jewish people, and dealt with the administrator accordingly. But since royal orders could not be annulled, the attack was allowed to continue, though the Jewish people were allowed to defend themselves and defeated their enemies in battle. The Jews celebrate this triumph each year as their Feast of Purim.

The date set for destruction of the Jews had been the 13^th of the month of Adar, a month that corresponds more or less to February, which is when Purim is now remembered. This date is also significant in Jewish history for another reason: It is the day that the Maccabees liberated Israel after a four-year battle with the Seleucid Empire.

The significance of this for faithful and pro-life Catholics who seek greater understanding in what Scott Hahn calls Catholics’ “away game” of the Old Testament, is this: Just as the Jewish people were saved through the intercession of Queen Esther, so Mary intercedes for the Church throughout history, and now.

The Book of Revelation foretells a great persecution of Christians at the end of time, but it also speaks about the Ark of the Covenant (an image scholars have long used to portray Mary, who bore the Word in her womb) appearing in the sky and the Woman crushing the head of the dragon (cf. Revelation 12).

When the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima, she wore around her neck the Star of Esther. And like Esther, Our Lady of Fatima came as a queen to spare her people from war and persecution. Through the child seers, Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, she asked the faithful to repent of sin, pray the Rosary, go to confession, and receive the Eucharist worthily.

On July 13, 1917, Our Lady said to Lucia:

I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated. … In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and an era of peace will be granted to the world.

As if to put an exclamation mark on the Fatima prophecies, Sister Lucia died on February 13, 2005, the feast of Purim. Our Lady of Fatima’s first appearance to the three shepherd children was May 13, 1917. Her last appearance was October 13 of the same year.

With all of the talk about prophecies lately, especially those centering around the papacy and the persecution of the Church, sometimes it helps to step back and look at the long view of history. Surely Pope Francis is not counseling panic over interpretations of impending doom. This message should not be reduced to a fearful apocalyptic foreboding any more than we can take Pope Francis’ decision to consecrate his papacy as a validation of any particular scenario. That being said, however, the attention that the popes have given to the message of Fatima deserves our notice.

Our Lord certainly speaks to us through Holy Scripture, as well as through history and sometimes through private revelation. It is certainly wise to heed a message so many popes have taught is worthy of our belief and soberly embark on a more urgent effort to grow in faith. Countless saints from St. Thomas More to Blessed Teresa of Calcutta counseled the wisdom of keeping “the last things” in mind, to be mindful of our mortality, the consequences of sin and the great mercy of God the Father.

These gifts of revelation, and our own responses in faith, can have dire real world consequences. Had the requests of Our Lady of Fatima been heeded, the world would have been spared the horrors of World War II, in which over 50 million people were killed, as well as countless other wars and persecutions provoked by Communists throughout the world.

In 1920, Russia was also the first country to legalize abortion, following Lenin’s 1913 demand for “the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures.” There can be little doubt that these and other “errors” of Russia have spread and continue to spread, destroying countless lives and even our ability to live together in society.

Great evils threaten our world. Sin increases. So many hearts are hardened.

Queen Esther asked her people to pray and do penance with her, and the Mother of Mercy continues this call today, with her call echoed by popes, bishops, priests, religious, and the lay faithful. With the Holy Father, we need to call on the Queen of Heaven for her intercession.

Pray and do penance, and ask her to intercede with her Son Jesus Christ that He might spare us, our nation, and our world.

Father Peter West is the vice president for missions at Human Life International.

Articles by Fr. West:

Pope Francis and Our Lady of Fatima

Generous Motherhood

adamcassandra — Fri, 10 May 2013 05:01:56 +0000

By Roland Millare

On Sunday May 12, many people will celebrate Mother’s Day, which gives us an opportune time to think about the gift of motherhood.

Blessed John Paul II in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem reflects upon the various gifts of women throughout salvation history and in the present hour of history. Reflecting on the value of motherhood, John Paul writes:

This mutual gift of the person in marriage opens to the gift of a new life, a new human being, who is also a person in the likeness of his parents. Motherhood implies from the beginning a special openness to the new person: and this is precisely the woman’s “part.” In this openness, in conceiving and giving birth to a child, the woman “discovers herself through a sincere gift of self.” The gift of interior readiness to accept the child and bring it into the world is linked to the marriage union, which – as mentioned earlier – should constitute a special moment in the mutual self-giving both by the woman and the man (no. 18).

Every conception of human life is a precious gift. Both man and woman give of themselves completely to form a new life with God’s help. The recognition of this gift from above is expressed by Eve from the beginning, “I have brought a man into being with the help of the Lord” (Genesis 4:1). Although both man and woman share in the love that comes to fruition in the gift of child, mothers have a unique “gift of interior readiness” that welcomes the blessing of a child.

The statement, “Yo mama was Pro-life,” is one of the few succinct and accurate bumper stickers. Mothers are for life. They have given the gift of human life at birth. Further, they continue to nourish and to tend to the precious life they have received. Beyond the gift of physical life, mothers are called to form the minds and hearts of their children in the Word of God.

In the Gospels, a woman in a crowd addresses our Lord with these words, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” (Luke 11:27). In response, Jesus says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (v. 28). Jesus is not showing ingratitude to the gift the Blessed Virgin Mary’s motherhood. Instead, He is simply highlighting the greater type of motherhood that strives to contemplate the Word of God interiorly. The faithful mother, modeled above all by the Blessed Virgin Mary, carefully caries out the will of the Father.

Now more than ever, there is a need of the witness of faithful mothers like Saint Monica (the mother of Saint Augustine), Saint Macrina the Elder (the mother of Saint Basil the Elder and the grandmother of Saints Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Peter of Sabaste, and Macrina the Younger) or Saint Gianna Beretta Molla (the mother, who freely gave up her life for her child). Saintly mothers and grandmothers have formed and continue to form saintly families.

The culture of our times, which is hostile to life and love, needs the witness of faithful mothers to form future generations in the life of Christ. Further, there is crisis of fatherhood. Many men shirk their duties and responsibilities of raising their children physically and spiritually. Even when there is a father in the home, there are often times when the mother is left alone to bring the children to church and to raise them in the practice of the faith.

The gift of parenthood is natural for mothers. This is why John Paul asserts that a father has “to learn his own ‘fatherhood’ from the mother” (Mulieris Dignitatem, no. 18). The heart of motherhood is a generosity that fathers must learn to embrace as their own. Unfortunately, many men do not seem to pick up on this lesson from faithful mothers.

Although my father loved me, he was absent in many ways. He was a walking “causality” of the Vietnam War and struggled with various addictions. Thankfully, my mother Perla heard and kept the Word of God. As a nurse for twenty years, generosity was my mother’s occupation and vocation at all times.

In June of 2000, my mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer. With five tumors in her brain and metastasis in her lungs, she was not given more than six months to live. Perla faced this poor prognosis with great faith and strength. She embraced this cross as an opportunity to offer it up for my father’s conversion (re-conversion) to the faith, which my mother seemed to embrace naturally.

My sister and I were blessed to receive a Catholic education because of the huge sacrifices of my mother. Our mother took us to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day, while my father joined us only for Christmas and Easter. She modeled for us a life of daily piety and devotion through visits to the Blessed Sacrament, her recitation to the Rosary, and her incessant novenas to the Infant of Prague or Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

Thankfully, with the help of chemo and radiation, and above all the hand of Divine Providence, my mother easily surpassed the six months that the doctors claimed that she had. In 2002, my sister Michelle was murdered. This tragedy broke my mother’s heart and she simply could not fight her cancer and bear the grief at the same time. The cancer began to metastasize throughout her body.

My mother began to use a cane, which was soon replaced by a walker, and eventually, she had to use a wheelchair. Life came full circle when I had to clothe, bathe, and feed my mother. Instead of showing resentment or anger towards the Lord, she continued to embrace her cross with perfect joy. She even laughed and smiled during her final months and weeks.

In her last days, she welcomed death as a bride prepared to meet her bridegroom having received the Lord’s mercy and love in the Sacraments. Through the gift of her generous motherhood, I learned how to love the Lord even under the weight of immense suffering. God willing, if I am blessed with the gift of fatherhood, I will have learned to be a faithful and loving father through her example.

Faithful mothers will be the unsung heroes of the New Evangelization. The Church faces a difficult task as she tries to engage a different type of society. For hundreds of years, missionaries evangelized people who have never heard of Christ. Now, Western society is filled with people who think they know what Jesus has to offer, and they freely reject Him. Generous motherhood will be the key to form future generations of believers among children and fathers.

On Mother’s Day, we should thank our grandmothers and mothers for the gift of life. Above all, we should pray that all mothers answer the call to listen to God’s Word and pass it on to their children, who will impact the direction of our culture as we stand at crossroads between a culture of life and culture of death.

Roland Millare is a Fellow of Human Life International (HLI), and Editor of HLI’s online publication, the Truth and Charity Forum. Roland is the chair of the Theology Department at Pope John XXIII High School in Katy, TX. He has also served as the Director of Middle School CCE at St. Theresa Catholic Church in Sugar Land, TX. He has a BA in Theology from Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH and a MA in Theological Studies from the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College in Alexandria, VA. Roland is a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and an advisory board member to the Pope John Paul II Forum (www.jp2forum.org). Currently, he lives with his wife in Mundelein, Illinois while he pursues his Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) at the Liturgical Institute of the University of St. Mary of the Lake.

Articles by Roland:

There is no Heaven on Earth

adamcassandra — Thu, 09 May 2013 05:01:08 +0000

By Don DeMarco, Ph. D.

Nikos Kazantzakis is best known for Zorba the Greek, considered his magnum opus. The Last Temptation of Christ and The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel brought him additional fame and solidified his literary reputation. He narrowly missed receiving the Nobel Prize for literature, losing to Albert Camus in 1957 by a single vote. On his tombstone on the island of Crete, his birthplace, are inscribed these words: “I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free.”

These are bold words, chosen by a man who lived life boldly. It has a Nietzschean ring to it, not at all surprising since he admired the author of the Will to Power. In fact, he penned his philosophy dissertation on Nietzsche. By contrast, the Jesuit epitaph, marked by dates, is far more modest, inscribed by three simple words: natus (birth), ordinatus (ordination), mortus (death). The implication here is, “let God be the judge of the deceased’s life and character.”

Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957)

The main problem with Kazantzakis’ inscription, dramatic as it may be, is that it is impossible to believe. This Greek writer and philosopher was also deeply involved in politics and was disillusioned with Soviet-style communism. No doubt he had hoped for better things on the political horizon and feared that these hopes might not be realized.

Hope and fear are bound to each other. If I hope to recover from an illness, I also fear that I might not. Not to hope or fear may indicate a condition of apathy, rather than boldness. It seems utterly contrary to human nature to live without either hope or fear. But for Kazantzakis, the avoidance of these two emotions means that he is “free.”

Yet, this freedom seems to be sterile and directionless. It seems to lack content. Kazantzakis was intensely creative and his epitaph reflects a condition that he, nor anyone else for that matter, could ever attain, though he may have desired it with all his being.

Life on earth is a pilgrimage. We are wayfarers, hoping to find direction and meaning in a world of troubles. Our hope is shadowed by the fear that the world might betray us. Life is a struggle filled with uncertainties and hidden enemies. We were made to hope for better things than what defines our present situation.

Only in heaven will we no longer need hope, for our highest hope will be perfectly realized with God. At the same time, we will have nothing left to fear. We will be free to be fully ourselves and be united in the arms of Divine Love.

What we most desire on earth cannot be fully realized on earth, but only in heaven. Kazantzakis boldly attempted to have heaven on earth. He believed in only the heaven he could experience on earth. Nothing else mattered.

In his 1956 novel, Freedom and Death, he expresses his own convictions when he has a character state, “What is all this talk put out by the popes? Paradise is here, my good man. God, give me no other paradise!”

“We come from a dark abyss,” he wrote, “we end in a dark abyss, and we call the luminous interval life.” The searing question, however, remains: how does a luminous light suddenly appear out of sheer darkness, and why is it so quickly extinguished? The mind revolts against this kind of gratuitous discontinuity.

The Christian, whose hopes and fears are his constant companions in his life’s odyssey, firmly believes in continuity. He believes that God knew him in some way from all eternity, gave him birth, and opened the Gates of Heaven for him. The Christian believes that the Son proceeds from the Father and that resurrection follows the sequence of life and death.

Nietzsche advised that since we can save ourselves through our own grace, we do not need God. But if God does not exist, neither does heaven. As a result, we try to create a heaven out of our earthly sojourn. In this way, we cheat ourselves of the real heaven as well as the real value of life. The finite is not an adequate receptacle for the infinite.

Freedom, even empty freedom, is the summum bonum of the atheistic existentialists. Jean-Paul Sartre also proclaimed that, “we must act without hope.” Freedom without connections, however, is both undesirable and worthless. Beatitude is our highest goal, and one that is infinitely more satisfying and enriching than empty freedom.

The world makes an impoverished paradise. The fact of death is ample proof of this. But Kazantzakis was right in describing life as “luminous.” The gift of life is, indeed, luminous, but this luminous quality, as the “Luminous Mysteries” of the Rosary suggest, represents a light that originates in God and illumines man’s path back to Him.

Light does not emerge from darkness. Darkness, which is nothing, has no power to generate anything. God’s light is everlasting. It proceeds from Him—“Let there be light”—and illuminates the mind and heart of man as well as the world around him. Life is luminous only because it originates in God. Life is meaningful because it is a path that leads back to God.

Our world is not a dead-end, but a prelude to a better one, one that is the object of our deepest hope. Heaven is the very last thing we hope to be free from. May Nikos Kazantzakis rest in peace.

Articles by Don: