The Church Cannot “Dialogue” With Satan

By JAMES MONTI

Recently, I was looking through a biography of St. Patrick (+461) penned by the nineteenth-century American prelate Bishop Michael O’Farrell (+1894) when I came across the following remarkable passage regarding what is considered to be the one and only likely encounter between Patrick and Ireland’s most illustrious woman saint, Brigid of Kildare (ca. 525). Brigid was still a child when Patrick died, so this incident would have transpired close to the end of his life. At the time, Brigid was a girl of about ten.
As she was attending an instruction given by the bishop, she fell asleep and had a strange dream. When she awoke, Patrick, who by some inner light knew that she had just experienced something out of the ordinary, called upon her to reveal her dream:
“Patrick, I say, enjoined Bridget [Brigid] to make known what she had heard or seen in her vision. She, obeying the command of the saint, replied: ‘I beheld an assembly of persons clothed in white raiment; and I beheld ploughs, and oxen, and standing corn, all white, and immediately they became all spotted, and afterward they became all black; and in the end, I beheld sheep and swine, dogs and wolves, all fighting and contending together.’ Then St. Patrick expounded the vision, and said that the whiteness pertained to the state of Ireland, as it then was; for all the prelates and servants of the Church were then fruitful and diligent in faith and in good works, according to the doctrine of the gospel.
“The things which were spotted, belonged to the succeeding generation, which would be pure in faith, but stained by evil works. The blackness, he said, was the season of following generations, when the world would be profaned, not only with evil works, but with the renunciation of the Christian faith. The contest of the sheep and the swine, of the dogs and the wolves, he pronounced to be the controversy of the pure and impure prelates, of good and of bad men, which, after the lapse of many years, would at length come to pass” (Bishop Michael O’Farrell, The Life of Saint Patrick, New York, P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1901, pp. 289-290).
Brigid’s dream as interpreted by Patrick spoke of something that for many generations of Irishmen must have seemed unthinkable — that Ireland, Catholic Ireland, would someday descend into a “renunciation of the Christian faith.” Yet in our own age this mysterious dream of Brigid is no longer just a frightening vision, for contemporary Ireland is largely dominated by just such a wholesale renunciation of Christianity.
Moreover, this “blackness” of unbelief is by no means confined to Ireland; much of what used to be called “Christendom” — Christian Europe and the Americas — has suffered a similar fate.
But there is one further aspect of Brigid’s dream that strikes us as uncannily familiar, especially right now in 2022: “…the controversy of the pure and impure prelates, of good and of bad men, which, after the lapse of many years, would at length come to pass.” In America as in Europe, and elsewhere too, we see bishops taking starkly different positions in addressing the key moral and ecclesiastical issues of our time.
Now more than ever, faithful Catholics are looking to, depending upon, and rallying around faithful bishops who are willing to uphold and defend the timeless beliefs and observances of the Church at a time when some of their brother bishops are talking and acting as if they want to reinvent the Church and what it means to be a Catholic. Moreover, some of these “progressive” prelates are even resorting to harsh tactics to impose their ideas upon the faithful. So much of what is at stake comes down to whether the Church should conform to the spirit of the world or not. The Apostle St. John teaches us the answer:
“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever” (1 John 2:15-17).

Intrinsic Evils

There have always been and there will always be integral parts of this handed-down faith of ours that the world will hate and aggressively oppose. In the face of such opposition, our Lord did not back down or seek to reach a compromise with His foes. He went to the Cross rather than make such compromises. The Church cannot make deals with the secular world that jeopardize the integrity and credibility of her teachings. The Church cannot signs peace treaties with the Devil or his disciples.
The Church must unabashedly speak the truth to power; she must be a prophetic voice ready to confront the high and mighty whenever and wherever they attempt to impose intrinsic evils upon those they govern. And abortion is among the very worst of those intrinsic evils, akin to the monstrosities and war crimes of Nazi Germany.
When the high and mighty do these things and then dare to call themselves “good Catholics” and present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion, the Church must oppose them to their faces until they cease doing such things. We hear it said that we mustn’t “weaponize” or “instrumentalize” the Holy Eucharist by refusing to give it even to rabidly pro-abortion politicians.
The truth is quite the opposite. Can the Church be seen as implicitly condoning high and mighty politicians who avidly and aggressively promote the deliberate slaying of untold thousands upon thousands of unborn children? Would the prophets have condoned such men? Would St. John the Baptist have condoned such men? Would our Lord have condoned such men? Is it that we mustn’t make these individuals “feel bad” about themselves “or “look bad” in the sight of others? If the Church shrinks from delivering a clear, coherent, and consistent message about the gravity of the evil of abortion for fear of making anyone “feel bad” about themselves or others, how will she ever bring anyone to a genuine and lasting change of heart, to conversion, to repentance and salvation?
When such evil is not confronted, when there is a refusal to challenge it in any tangible way, we ourselves run the risk of becoming desensitized and indifferent to such evils. Subtly, almost imperceptibly, we begin to half-believe the lie that these evils aren’t so evil after all. We run the risk of losing our own moral sense. We run the risk of losing our Catholic identity.
We live in a time that sorely lacks clarity, or rather, a time that deems clarity a social vice devoutly to be eradicated. The world tells us that we are no longer to make black and white, absolutist distinctions between good and evil, between right and wrong, between truth and falsehood, or even between male and female.
Within the Church too, we hear it said that making sharp black and white distinctions between what is moral and what is immoral, between what is true and what is false, between what is holy and what is unholy, is formalistic, judgmental, and pastorally insensitive. Yet it was Our Lord Himself who said, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matt. 5:37).
Linked to this relativism is a “now versus then” narrative which pits the present against the past, with the great traditions of the past and even the doctrinal formulations of the past seen as time-bound and no longer relevant, as if the present has essentially canceled the past.
Our Catholic faith has not come to us as some sort of spontaneous newly minted revelation given to us by the present age. It has been handed down, from generation to generation, across the centuries, its doctrines and its practices, its professions of faith and its forms of sacred worship, the revealed Word of God and the corpus of tradition, handed down in its purity and integrity, in its unity and integrity, in its immutability and its timelessness.
At a time when Catholics who love the Traditional Latin Mass are being marginalized and treated as outcasts whose very presence on parish grounds is being circumscribed lest they “contaminate” their fellow Catholics, those who openly reject the most fundamental moral values of our faith are being invited to have a say in discussions as to what the future of the Church ought to be. Is this by any definition of the word “communion”?
No, the purveyors of heresy and moral depravity should not have any say in the formulation of Church doctrine. Abortion advocates and same-sex marriage propagandists do not deserve a place at the table in deciding what we as Catholics ought to believe. When our Lord dined with sinners, it was not for the purpose of making a compromise with them, of cutting a deal with them that would legitimize their life of sin and pass it off as just a different form of discipleship.
Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI taught us that there are immutable dogmas that are non-negotiable, that heresy must be called out for what it is and refuted, and that the Church’s engagement with the world will often require challenging and confronting the world.
It cannot be otherwise. The blood of the martyrs testifies to this. By the grace of God and the intercession of our Lady, let us all stay the course and persevere in fidelity to our Lord, to His teachings and to His Church.

Read ’Em And Weep

By DEACON JAMES H. TONER

(Editor’s Note: Deacon James H. Toner, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of Leadership and Ethics at the U.S. Air War College, a former U.S. Army officer, and author of Morals Under the Gun and other books. He has also taught at Notre Dame, Norwich, Auburn, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Holy Apostles College & Seminary. He serves in the Diocese of Charlotte, N.C.)

• + + The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently posted a message about the Church’s “synod on synodality,” promoting seven attitudes “we can all adopt as we continue our synodal journey together.” Readers were asked which of the seven attitudes inspired them the most. The ill-considered post was greeted, however, by an understandable chorus of response ranging from confusion to anger.
  One might see this ludicrous episode as only another hiccup in the episcopal euremia of the day. After all, the seven “attitudes” cheerfully, if vacuously, promoted by the USCCB were “innovative outlook,” “inclusivity,” “open-mindedness,” “listening,” “accompaniment,” “co-responsibility,” and “dialogue.”
  Isn’t that nice?
  No. No, it isn’t “nice” at all. In poker, the one holding the cards which seem to have won the pot will sometimes burst out with the triumphant declaration: “Read ’em and weep.” The seven “cards” promoted by the USCCB are not simply puerile. Rather, they point to an officious cast of mind — grounded in social caprice rather than in moral constancy — something which is, and ought to be, deeply troubling to anyone who considers these silly shibboleths anointed, ostensibly, to help us on our “synodal journey.” We read the USCCB “cards,” and we weep.
  Any attempt to reduce serious subjects to bumper sticker slogans — “Marriage equality,” “My body — my choice,” “Love First” — invariably results in moral confusion rather than mere condensation. As the late columnist Sydney J. Harris (1917-1986) once put it: “Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there.”
  An innovative outlook: To “beg the question” means assuming the truth of a proposition which is under examination. We commonly commit this fallacy by asking which innovations we ought to embrace. In fact, perhaps no changes are warranted; or perhaps such changes should be minimal.
  Pope St. Pius X taught us that many are often “under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, [and embracing] other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself” (Pascendi Domenici Gregis, n. 13; italics in original).
  Perhaps we need a conservative, not innovative, outlook.
  Inclusivity: All are welcome into Christ’s Church, which is the most inclusive body in the world. All of us, though, are sinners, and it is by our own words and works that we decide to excommunicate ourselves from Our Lord and His Church. Our Lord accepts our decision, saying to us, “thy will be done” if and when we choose to exclude ourselves from His grace. That is why Mass always begins with the penitential rite, in which we sorrowfully acknowledge our sin and beg His mercy upon us. We are inclusive when we conform ourselves to His will, not to our own (Romans 12:2).
  Open-Mindedness: To have an open mind is admirable. To have an empty head is not. We must try to discover (and conform to) truth as archaeologists, not invent truth as architects.
  Listening: To whom do we listen? The madding crowd, or Christ the King (Matt. 17:5/Mark 9:7/Luke 9:35)?
  Accompaniment: In Robert Bolt’s play, A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More, who refused to sign a statement saying that King Henry was head of the Church in England, was asked by a friend to sign it “for fellowship.” Bolt has More reply: “And when you go to Heaven for following your conscience and I am consigned to hell for not following mine, will you come with me for fellowship”?
  Whom do we “accompany,” and how far do we go? Can it be that St. Paul was right in agreeing with the admonition: “Bad company corrupts good character”? (1 Cor. 15:33).
  Co-Responsibility: The first effort at “co-responsibility” was Adam’s – “The woman you put here with me gave me the fruit” (Gen. 3:12). The words of the penitent – “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned” — are often obscured today by a welter of weak-kneed and “co-responsible” excuses: “Society made me sin.” “My parents did this to me.” “I needed the money.” Besides, is there any sin today for which we even need forgiveness?
  Dialogue: When we raise our minds and hearts to God in prayer, we are not — or should not be — telling Him what to do. “Were you there,” God responds to Job, “when I made the world?” (38:4; cf. 36:15). The first public opinion poll — the ultimate “dialogue” — led to the crowd’s choice of Barabbas over Jesus. There is a point at which desirable discussion must yield to legitimate authority.
  St. John Paul taught us that “Faith and Reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of Truth.” But if inchoate faith leads to flawed reasoning, then so does weak reasoning lead to wounded faith. Rather the Ten Commandments, the eight Beatitudes, the four cardinal virtues (Wisdom 8:7), and the three theological virtues (1 Cor. 13:13) than the seven myopic “attitudes” of the USCCB: read ‘em and weep.

A Beacon Of Light… Sacramentals Prepare Us To Receive Grace

By FR. RICHARD D. BRETON JR.

(Editor’s Note: Fr. Richard D. Breton Jr. is a priest of the Diocese of Norwich, Conn. He received his BA in religious studies and his MA in dogmatic theology from Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Conn.)

• + + For the past several weeks we have explored the second pillar of the Catechism which consists of the Celebration of the Christian Mystery. In this second section of the Catechism we had the privilege of exploring the various aspects of the Church’s liturgical life, like the Paschal Mystery and the Church, the Church’s liturgy, the Holy Trinity in the liturgy, the particular details of liturgy, liturgical diversity and unity, and the seven sacraments. All of these are necessary in our understanding of the Church’s celebration of her liturgical life.
  With this foundation in place, today we turn our attention to other liturgical celebrations, which are for us, the links that keep us constantly united to the Church’s celebration of the sacred mysteries. What are these other liturgical celebrations or “sacred things” that keep us united to the liturgy? We call them sacramentals!
  Holy Mother Church, in her love for us, has defined sacramentals as: “…sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1667). In other words, sacramentals are sacred signs that remind us of the importance sacramental grace plays in our lives.
  What makes something a sacramental, or what is its characteristic? The Catechism expounds on this in n. 1668:
  “Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to man. In accordance with bishops’ pastoral decisions, they can also respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).”
  Although similar to the sacraments, “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.
  “For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God” (CCC, n. 1670).
  What are some of these sacramentals? Sacramentals are blessings that have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use. Among those blessings which are intended for persons — not to be confused with sacramental Ordination — are the blessing of the abbot or abbess of a monastery, the consecration of virgins, the rite of religious profession. This also includes the blessing of certain ministries within the Church (readers, acolytes, catechists, etc.).
  Among sacramentals we also find the dedication or blessing of a church or an altar, the blessing of holy oils, vessels, vestments, bells, and other objects used for popular devotion can be mentioned as examples of blessings that concern objects. Many forget that upon entering church, a sacramental is used to remind us of our Baptism. The custom of dipping our fingers in the Holy Water and making the Sign of the Cross is considered a sacramental. Why? Precisely because this action reminds us of the cleansing water that flowed over us in Baptism and of the sacramental grace received.

Rescued From Darkness

Among other sacramentals in the Church, there is one that is often overlooked or even forgotten. We call it an exorcism. Sadly, this most important and necessary sacramental has seemed to fall by the wayside. This sacramental also became the means through which a 1973 movie was made called The Exorcist. Sadly, the seriousness and great importance of this sacramental was turned into a cinematic fiasco, which further diminished its sacred importance.
Exorcisms are distinguished in two forms, simple and solemn. By simple we mean exorcisms that occur every day in the life of the Church. Some of these include the exorcism performed during the Rite of Baptism. During the celebration of Baptism there is a moment where an exorcism occurs. Following the Liturgy of the Word and the invocation of the litany of saints, the priest prays the following prayer of exorcism:
“Almighty ever-living God, who sent your Son into the world to drive out from us the power of Satan, the spirit of evil, and bring the human race, rescued from darkness, into the marvelous Kingdom of your light: We humbly beseech you to free this child from Original Sin, to make him the temple of your glory, and to grant that your Holy Spirit may dwell in them, through Christ our Lord” (Revised Rite of Baptism).
The second form of exorcism called the solemn form, or “major exorcism” can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to His Church.
Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not a psychological illness.
It would be important here to include the position popular piety plays in the life of the Church. Both the effects of the sacraments and the uplifting nature sacramentals play in our lives unlock the door that allows the faithful an opportunity in expressing the love and devotion they have for the Church’s liturgical life.
Thus, the faithful have always found expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church’s sacramental life, such as the veneration of relics, visits to sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the Stations of the Cross, the recitation of the rosary, the various chaplets and the wearing of medals and scapulars. These expressions of piety, extend the graces of the liturgical life into the daily lives of the faithful.

Into The Heavenly Kingdom

Among the most memorable moments in the lives of the faithful, none is more known and celebrated than the Rites of Christian Burial. The Christian funeral confers neither a sacrament nor a sacramental. Both are conferred on the living. This in no way however diminishes the importance the funeral plays in the life of the faithful. It is the Church’s fervent desire to unite herself in prayer with the deceased in the moment of death.
This is especially done in celebrating the finality of the earthly life, by assisting the deceased in the journey to the Heavenly Kingdom.
The Order of Christian Funerals assists in the journey by offering three distinct yet connected types of celebration. This first begins in the home. It is usually in the home, and sometimes in the hospital, where the news of death occurs. It is here that the Church’s funeral liturgies find their beginning. Through the prayers after death, and gathering together in the presence of the body, the deceased begin to make the final journey.
This is also an important time for the family because the words of the prayers offer hope and encouragement. The second aspect of the funeral liturgies take place at the Church. This is most profound because it corresponds to the deceased’s day of Baptism. On the day of Baptism, we are received into the family of the Lord and into the community of faith, and so, appropriately in death there is one last time we are received by the earthly Church. This is particularly connected to the Sacrifice of the Mass as we offer prayers to God that His mercy and forgiveness release the deceased from the bonds of earthly sin, and open the gates of Paradise.
The third, and final moment, of the funeral happens at the cemetery. At the cemetery we say our final farewell. This farewell is not forever, but just for a time. The cemetery is a place of hope, a place our mortal bodies await the promise of reunification with our souls on the day of the Last Judgement.
Well, we have completed the second pillar of the Catechism dedicated to a better understanding of the Church’s liturgy. Next week we will start the third pillar that deals with our Life in Christ. This pillar will present us with reminders of man’s vocation, human dignity, free will, morality and virtues, sin, the Church as Mother and Teacher, and The Ten Commandments.
I hope to see you all next week!

Guess What Happened At School Today?

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

Apparently, at a Michigan high school, school authorities have taken the position that even if a student is speaking in private, either in-person or by text, if that conversation can be heard by an eavesdropper who might be offended, the student can be suspended from school.
And adding to the student’s burden, while he is allowed to have his own religious and political views, they cannot be expressed on any social media platform.
You see, at this particular school, there is no such thing as free speech. At least until the lawyers finish with it.
According to the federal lawsuit filed by the Great Lake Justice Center in Lansing, Mich., on behalf of the student’s parents, their son was a typical high school junior; a member of the band and the football team, a good student, and a “great kid,” as even the school administrators conceded.
So what was the problem? Well, in this era of woke culture and overbearing and — quite frankly — controlling school administrators, it’s not hard to see how the plaintiffs’ scenario plays out.
The young student involved, David Stout, was expressing his Christian beliefs in a text message with a friend. According to the lawsuit, one such conversation was started when another friend texted David for his opinion on the subject of homosexuality. David responded via text. However, school authorities were concerned that the texting might have occurred on school property where it could be seen or overheard (a text message, really?) by someone who might be offended by David’s reply.
According to the lawsuit, the school’s band director told David that “because the school is a public place, [David] could not express his Christian beliefs or political opinions in private conversations, for the very reason that someone overhearing such beliefs and opinions could be hurt or offended.”
He was also accused of not objecting to and possibly laughing at a racially insensitive joke, and by not reporting same to school authorities, he was “stealing others’ happiness.”
When the student told the band director that he “felt all of this was very one-sided and a method to shame, intimidate, and silence conversations about Christians,” the band director “admitted that [David’s] observation was correct.”
The matters came to a head when David was suspended for three days and told he could no longer speak of or text anything about his religious or political beliefs on school grounds, or present his views on social media, on or off campus.
David A. Kallman, David’s attorney, said in a press statement: “My client’s religious speech and beliefs should be treated with tolerance and respect. Public schools may not violate the Constitution and enforce a heckler’s veto of student speech. Nothing David did caused any disruption or problem at the school. He has the right to express his opinion in accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs, without vilification or punishment from the government for holding to those beliefs.”
The petition claims the school district, Plainwell Community, and several administrators, including the principal, assistant principal, and two band directors, have violated David’s First Amendment Rights of free speech and religious expression; and companion provisions of the state constitution as well as several state and federal laws.
A second federal lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia by another Michigan firm, the American Freedom Law Center, against the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. The gist of the complaint is that Garland’s recent announcement that the Justice Department will treat complaints to school boards as “threats” chills their First and Fifth Amendment rights. The suit was brought on behalf of parents in Salina, Mich., and Loudoun County, Va.
The lawsuit contends: “America’s public schools are failing because ‘progressive’ school officials are more concerned with promoting a particular agenda than properly educating the children under their charge.
“Many parents and legal guardians do not have the capacity or resources to educate their children at home or at a private school and are thus compelled to send their children to public school.”
It continues: “Plaintiffs believe, and it is the law in many states, including Michigan and Virginia, as well as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, that it is the natural, fundamental right of parents and legal guardians to determine and direct the care, teaching, and education of their children. . . .
“Unfortunately, many public schools, including those in [the districts represented by the plaintiffs], have come under the influence and power of ‘progressives’ who are using these publicly funded schools to promote the divisive, false, harmful, immoral, and racist agenda of the ‘progressive’ left.
“Rather than focusing on core subjects such as reading, writing, arithmetic, and science, these schools are using their power of compulsion to indoctrinate children with a divisive, false, harmful, immoral, and racist agenda.”
The petition notes that Garland has publicly stated that he will use the Justice Department to “use its authority and resources to discourage threats…and other forms of intimidation and harassment.” And he is opening a “snitch line” for people to file reports against those that are confronting school boards for their policies and who threaten political and legal action to have them removed. The effect is to chill free speech and criticism of the government.
The suit also mentions a conflict of interest Garland has. Many of the parents the attorney general’s warning are directed at are concerned about the “teaching” of critical race theory:
“The Attorney General has a family financial conflict of interest…[his] son-in-law, Alexander ‘Xan’ Tanner, the co-founder and president of Panorama Education, has a lucrative business promoting some of the objectionable indoctrination materials . . . purchased by public school districts throughout the country . . . race-focused surveys and conducts trainings on systemic oppression, white supremacy, unconscious bias, and intersectionality — all under the rubric of ‘Social-Emotional Learning [(SEL)].’ Some of the relevant indoctrination materials include SEL as Social Justice — Dismantling White Supremacism within Systems and Self.”
The suit identifies one of the parents suing as Xi Van Fleet, a Chinese citizen before immigrating to the United States. She had endured Mao’s Cultural Revolution while in China and thinks that the tactics being used by the attorney general are the same as those used by the Chinese Communists to prevent parents from speaking out on behalf of their children against the government.
Ms. Van Fleet, who spent her school years in China, is very familiar with the tactics of government suppression, say her lawyers.
The suit alleges that “the government is without authority to criminalize First Amendment activity.”
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

A Matter Of Phrasing

By TOM TAKASH

Not long ago, sipping my morning coffee and checking the Internet for the latest news, I came across the following: “A recent UC Irvine inclusive language guide directs people to stop using the phrase ‘kill two birds with one stone,” and instead use the less violent ‘feed two birds with one scone’.” I just had to read it a second time. Then, I read it a third time.
This suggestion sounded crazy to me. My first reaction was to completely reject it as apparently some academic’s delusional attempt to help direct one’s thoughts away from aggressive behavior toward our “animal friends.” It implied that this rephrasing could result in a kinder and gentler approach to life. Who could believe this nonsense? But then, the thought occurred to me: Hey, this is coming from one of our major universities. Their pronouncements get press. There are many people who trust and respect the ideas coming from our universities. This bit of rephrasing, and others like it, are changing the views of the vulnerable and not in a good way.
After all, haven’t they made many rethink what were accepted norms in our past? Didn’t the introduction of such phrases as “termination of pregnancy” and “reproductive choice” lead to what many now think is an easier and less demanding approach to everyday life, a life without responsibility? Hasn’t the killing of the unborn become, in the eyes of many, actually an act of “selfless love?”
Many, who, at one time, might have agonized over an abortion as an evil act, now due to clever rephrasing, comfort themselves with such phrases as “preventing an unwanted and unplanned child.” Haven’t we heard that “terminating a pregnancy” can be an act of love? After all, it’s an ugly world and saving a child from being born into it is a brave and courageous act! One would think it takes some serious mental gymnastics to accept that logic, but phrase manipulation can work wonders for anyone looking for an excuse to cover their sins. It’s amazing what flipping a few words can do to blind one’s self from truth.
One very effective phrase today is, “My body, my choice.” This mantra has become the sacred prayer of the radical feminists. Abortion is really a very personal decision made by a woman regarding her body. It’s her right to decide. Just like having a “tummy tuck,” we are told that from recent data that abortion is rarely a dangerous surgery, and in the hands of a professional and competent medically educated person, a safe, and most often, a simple outpatient procedure. A woman with this unwanted invasion of her body, can be in and out, and feeling good and on her way. And with the advent of telemedicine, it can be like getting rid of a headache; just swallow a pill and say hello to good times again!
And, if she’s a minor, no need to tell Mom or Dad. Why upset them, and it’s none of their business anyway?
Besides, abortion is, thanks to rephrasing, “an act of love,” a “removal of an impediment to one’s educational plans,” a “necessary career move,” or even “a sacrament.” Different language can cover a multitude of sins, turning a repulsive deed into a gentle and giving act, so that it appears to be good and necessary. By massaging our words, so-called intellectuals are convincing us that we must throw out outdated sentimentality in favor of new and softer views.
We are being dictated to by a frightening and growing community of pseudo-intellectuals who, we often believe, are smarter than we are. After all, they are the most educated and powerful among us. They mingle with our political leaders and attend the best events. No doubt they’re the ones at the really important charity balls and usually can be seen at The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
They tell us that we must let go of our archaic views! We just have to learn to stop letting our consciences interfere with our decisions. We’ve often been misled by outdated and often prejudicial views, or by doctored history, no doubt promulgated by right-wingers and religious fanatics.
And if we still have any doubts about the upside to the abortion issue, we don’t have to rely on the “pro-choice” positions of Nancy Pelosi and other Catholic politicians any more. We now have the kinder and gentler words of the “pro-choice” Jesuit priest, the former chaplain to Pelosi’s House of Representatives, Fr. Pat Conroy. (It was fortunate, because of her, he was appointed to the prestigious chaplain’s position.) Conroy assures us: “Choice is a highly American value, and it’s a church value.”
Once again, with the magic of the enlightened use of the English language, we are being shown the error of our ways. Father tells us that a “pro-choice” Democrat is not a pro-abortion person. Until he pointed that out, it appeared that there was no real difference. What a revelation. Until Conroy enlightened us, many pro-lifers had wondered how these “pro-choice” Catholic Democrats could continue to claim to be faithful Catholics, but now we know better! They’re just defending the constitutional rights of choice.
Again, with proper phrasing and a little twist, and everything is OK. These politicians are just being good citizens. And according to Fr. Conroy, if a woman decides to choose an abortion “it’s our task as fellow Christians, or Catholics, to make it possible for her to optimize her ability to make the choice.” See how when presented with commonsense wording, we can come to know that evil is not so bad, if we just put the right mask on it. Who said, “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.”
And our “Thought Police” will not stop correcting what they know is misinformation until everyone acknowledges the truth as revealed through their efforts. There are many more seemingly harmless phrases that they will want changed for our own good. No doubt the thought of “stoning innocent birds” caused someone many sleepless nights and eventually an awakening to one of the major causes of violence in the world today. We should be thankful that with that discovery, the Thought Police will work all the harder to make our lives better.
Most certainly, after countless hours and considerable research, they will soon address other causes of ill feelings, aggressive thoughts, and violent behavior, and they will issue more directives to save us from ourselves. After all, who does not want “sugar and spice, and everything nice”? There are certainly scores of other phrases that make use of animals without a thought as to the adverse consequences that could result. It’s important that we make changes now, before it’s too late!

More Phrases To Mull

So, I have a few suggestions for UC Irvine’s inclusive language guide, regarding other violent and offensive phrases using our poor defensive animal brothers and sisters trapped in this world often dominated by cruel and uncaring humans. Is there anything less caring than, “There’s more than one way to skin a cat?” Oh, horrors! How about, we substitute, “There’s more than one way to help an animal undress?” Gee, doesn’t that makes you feel like selling all you own and joining a commune? Maybe I’ll send that suggestion to the Thought Police at UC Irvine.
And while we’re discussing dangerous animal phrases, here’s a few suggestion for them to work over: Why do we speak of a bad guy as “a dirty rat”? Why is a sneaky person, “a snake in the grass”? What about a wolf in “sheep’s clothing”? Is it being fair to assume that “a bull in a china shop” is any clumsier than you or I? I could go on, but I’m sure you’re already beating your chest and with tears in your eyes, shouting “Mea culpa, mea culpa.”
Who knows, maybe this restructuring of our language will lead to an awakening throughout the world to the beauty of Humanism, Free Love, and unlimited worldly goods, and as John Lennon and Yoko Ono wrote in the song Imagine: “Imagine there are no countries. It isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too?” All these things can be ours, if we just let the elites in our society restructure our language and our lives.
Thankfully, it does seem that almost every day we awake to more instructions changing our language and inviting us to conform to the feel-good society that is rapidly surrounding our day-to-day lives. Our trusted media, entertainers, politicians, and modern feminists continually monitor our words and actions and assure us that they have a better way.
And they do. I am embarrassed to admit that just recently my eyes were opened to my “white privilege.” For most of my life, I thought that everyone had the same opportunities in America. That racial prejudice was mostly a thing of the past. That Lincoln freed the slaves. That blacks were “. . . free, free at last.” Then Black Lives Matter, our faithful Democratic Party, and their fellow travelers, said: “No Way.” Our white supremacist majority had completely blinded me regarding our past racial relations and those who had fought to eliminate prejudice.
I now know that rewriting history is absolutely necessary to open our minds. The wool had been pulled over my eyes for too long. It’s difficult to admit this, but until recently I thought that Abraham Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents. I admired him for leading the Union though a brutal civil war that ended slavery in our country. Now words from our elite tell me that I am blinded by my “white privilege.” What a fool I have been.
Lincoln was not the man that I thought he was, and I have no doubt that I will witness the just desecration of his statues in the not-too-distant future. I think there are already calls to remove The Lincoln Monument. And what of the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who followed his lead and lost their lives, not to mention the thousands who returned home blind or missing a limb? Shouldn’t we respect their memory?
Well it’s sad to say, but they are, after all, just a footnote in an old and inaccurate history book on a dusty shelf in a library which has long ago been replaced by the Internet. What about another great leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his famous “I Have a Dream,” speech made from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to 250,000 people attending the 1963 March on Washington? I’m sure that the Critical Race Theorists and the Thought Police have dubbed him an anachronism, hardly worthy of a mention.
What Lincoln and King accomplished means little or nothing now that we’ve had a chance to examine them in light of a fresh look at our society. Today we realize that slaves weren’t really made free, but remain victims, second-class citizens still serving the needs of their white masters. The terrible memory of the American slavery experience itself must never be placed on page two. It must be brought up over and over again. After all, if we don’t discuss it every day, won’t it begin again tomorrow?
No matter how often we condemn it, it seems that must still be placed on the highest altar above all other atrocities. The Nazis’ coldly planned Holocaust, the slaughter of millions by Mao, Stalin’s starvation of ethnic Ukrainians, the Turkish genocide of the Armenian people, the Khmer Rouge brutal remake of Cambodia are all just a few of the many shameful tragic incidents of man’s cruelty to man, but none of them must over shadow or minimize our memory of the evil of slavery in America.

Thomas Sowell’s Wise Words

Maybe, I should not admit this, but there are times that I doubt the work of our Thought Police. When I read that white people have even knelt before blacks, begging forgiveness for offenses committed against black slaves who lived over one hundred and fifty years ago, I wonder if the Thought Police have gone too far. These offenses were committed by white people whom today’s “guilt-ridden” white people never knew, against black people whom today’s black population never knew!
How often have we given thought to the possibility that by continually shining light on that past dark time in our history, we are creating generations of people who, until recently, had been demonstrating pride and self-reliance, and may now instead, be considering themselves victims who deserve special privileges? I am reminded of a remark by the brilliant black American economist, Thomas Sowell, who said: “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
And what will this preferential treatment do for blacks? Will it result in a better life for them? Will it bring races closer together? Well, let’s see what it’s doing so far. At the request of some frustrated and angry blacks, we now have special dormitories in some of our colleges and universities that are for blacks only. There are special graduation ceremonies for blacks from some of our colleges and universities, again at their request. We have special award ceremonies for blacks, i.e., Afro-Academics, Cultural, Technological and Scientific Olympics, Black Caucus of the American Library Association Literary Awards, The BET Honors, which celebrate the lives and achievements of African American Luminaries. And there are many other “specials” for blacks. Does anyone think that this is equal treatment? Is it only me that sees this as splitting races apart?
Segregation again, but this time at the demand of the “oppressed.” This is progress? I need clarification from the Thought Police. I had hoped that just a few of their soft and gentle words would lead me to understand that this form of segregation is truly bringing all of us closer together.
But how can the Thought Police comfort me about the doubts I have when I witness a major university waste time and energy rewriting a basically harmless analogy and twisting its meaning into violent thought, and what about the terrible killing of an unborn actually being described as the result of a mother’s love, and even being called a “sacrament,” and the shameful defense of abortion by a priest who offers irrational cover for a political party that promotes and finances millions of abortions?
I guess I’m just a hopeless relic of the past. No matter how much I try, down deep in the depth of my soul, I still know that using the phrase “killing two birds with one stone” has never hurt anyone, that abortion is never an act of love, or a sacrament. It’s always an act of murder. A “pro-choice” Democrat is, in fact, a pro-abortion person.
The charge of white privilege is often used as an excuse to claim victimhood. For the last few years we have often heard the demand, “Defund the Police.” It’s about time that we rephrase that to read “Defund the Thought Police!”

America Needs A Pro-Family Marshall Plan

By CHRISTOPHER MANION

During his general audience on January 5, as Pope Francis addressed the role of St. Joseph in the Holy Family, he paused to address the beauty of adoption and its role in family life.
“I think particularly of all those who are open to welcoming life by way of adoption, which is such a generous and beautiful, good attitude. Joseph shows us that this type of bond is not secondary; it is not second best. This kind of choice is among the highest forms of love, and of fatherhood and motherhood. How many children in the world are waiting for someone to take care of them!
“And how many married couples want to be fathers and mothers but are unable to do so for biological reasons; or, although they already have children, they want to share their family’s affection with those who do not have it. We should not be afraid to choose the path of adoption, to take the ‘risk’ of welcoming.”
The Holy Father continued, addressing the attitude of many in the secular culture who embrace a different view:
“The other day, I was talking about the demographic winter that we have today: Many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one — but they have two dogs, two cats.”
“Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children. Yes, it’s funny, I understand, but it is the reality, and this denial of fatherhood and motherhood diminishes us, takes away our humanity.”
“It is riskier to deny fatherhood or to deny motherhood, be it real or spiritual. A man and a woman who voluntarily do not develop a sense of fatherhood and motherhood are missing something fundamental, important. Think about this, please.”
The Pope’s secular critics responded quickly, citing familiar complaints: Women can’t be priests; homosexuals can’t adopt children from Catholic agencies; having children in this economy is inhumane; there are already too many people. Even some pet owners felt offended. But few addressed the problem that the Holy Father raised: the “demographic winter” and how the dissolution of the family has caused it.
Pope Francis is correct. Today countries throughout the West are facing a “birth dearth” without parallel in recent history. At the same time, and intimately connected, the traditional family is facing unprecedented challenges from an increasingly hostile secular culture. And not only in the West.

“Think About This, Please”

“Birthrates in China are in free fall,” writes China expert Steve Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. “And the all-powerful Communist Party of China seems powerless to do anything about it.
Births in China are at the lowest level in recorded history.
“Many Chinese men in their twenties and early thirties seem to have simply given up on life,” Mosher writes. “Unlike their fathers and grandfathers, who worked long hours at their jobs so they could buy an apartment, attract a wife, and raise a family, these coddled only sons have trouble getting out of bed in the morning. It’s not just indolence; it’s an entire way of life.
“They even have a name for themselves. They are ‘tangping’ers’ — the Chinese expression means to ‘lay flat’ — dedicated to doing just enough to get by in life. Their plans do not include marriage, much less children. It’s just too much work for the flat-layers.”
China’s barbaric one-child program, which Mosher revealed to the world some forty years ago, have had an undesired but inevitable effect. Each mother was permitted only one child. The rest were aborted, by force, if necessary.
The result? Once the program revved up, it meant that four grandparents and two parents all depend on one child to care for them in their old age. So sons, not daughters, were more highly prized.
That’s why “the tangping’ers would have a hard time finding a bride in any case,” he writes. “The traditional preference for sons means that men far outnumber women in China, especially in rural areas. China has more than 30 million surplus men, and the competition for brides is fierce.
“To make matters worse, many young women in China’s cities have taken themselves out of the marriage market altogether. They are focused on building careers, not marriages. Ask them about children and they will point out that they are already responsible for two aging and increasingly childlike parents.
“Few members of either group will ever marry, much less have children, and together they number in the tens of millions.”
Bad news all around. So, in 2020, the Chinese Communist Party leadership decided to abruptly shift into reverse and adopt a “three-child policy…to actively respond to the aging of the population.”
It comes far too late to reverse the coming collapse, Mosher writes.
As Pope Francis points out, the West is suffering from a “demographic winter” as well.
Americans need to renew our faith and fortitude, and encourage our children to marry, to have children, and to contribute to a flourishing culture in charity. As Steve Mosher puts it, “The United States needs a new Marshall Plan” to reverse the birth dearth.
There are many ways to pursue this goal, and we’ll be addressing them in coming weeks.

Bishops Get A Border Bundle From Biden

The tidal wave of illegal immigrants continues to flow, not only over the border but into communities all over the country. Joe Biden is sending them in thousands of secret flights that land unannounced in remote airports and unload their human cargo in the middle of the night.
And America’s Catholic bishops are playing a crucial role.
Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark Morgan says that more than three million foreign nationals “have tried to violate America’s sovereignty and illegally enter” the United States under Joe Biden. In an interview at the border earlier this week, he pointed to a bus loading up illegals that had just crossed into Texas.
“Where do they go?” he asked. “To an NGO shelter — and what does the NGO then do? They give them food, clothing — and then they give them a packet that’s got a plane ticket to any city that the illegal alien wants to go. And how are they being funded? Some by donations, but some by the federal government as well. And DHS [Department of Homeland Security] Secretary Mayorkas, the chief architect of the open border policies, has now made it impossible for ICE [Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to actually remove them, even if they remain here illegally.”
And who is the major player in this massive crime wave?
“There are multiple NGOs — Catholic Charities is at the top,” says Morgan. They are “actively facilitating . . . maybe it’s a little harsh to say ‘conspiring’ — the illegal movement of immigrants into this country. And the government is subsidizing what they’re doing . . . on the backs of taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Next Tuesday, February 8, the USCCB will observe the International Day of Prayer for Victims of Human Trafficking.
On the other 364 days of the year, says Commissioner Morgan, the USCCB facilitates and profits handsomely from human trafficking.
“Hundreds of millions,” he says.
Perhaps we might ask our shepherds about this nagging contradiction.
And they’re making it easy. Later this month, we’ll all be getting our various “Bishop’s Lenten Appeals” in the mail.
Why not just use the handy reply envelopes they enclose?
We might tell our bishops that the Coyote smugglers bringing illegals through Mexico charge $5,000 or more per person. And they are sex-and-drug smugglers as well.
Yet our bishops never criticize them. Not even the “good” ones.
Is it perhaps because the Coyotes are the indispensable silent partners of the bishops’ NGOs in the billion-dollar illegal immigration industry?
If you don’t hear back, please remember the hundreds of Catholic schools and charities that refuse taxpayer funding. They have seen what has happened to the USCCB, and they want no part of it.
They’ll write you back.

All We Own

By JOE SIXPACK

I must admit, like most Americans I’ve been living most of my life on the materialistic side. There’s nothing wrong with possessing “things” or having lots of money. In fact, I’ve been rich and now I’m poor, but I know which one I prefer. (HINT: It ain’t the latter.) After all, if we didn’t have fruits from our labors, there would be no way the Church could acquire what she needs to fulfill the mission given her by her Founder. Somebody has to pay the electric bill, among other things.
But materialism is sort of like emotions; both will lie to you every time. When we rely on and trust in our emotions more than relying on and trusting objective realities (and God is the Great Reality), we end up devastatingly disappointed, and oftentimes we get ourselves into trouble. Likewise, when we place trust, dependence, and pride in the material things our labors have provided, we end up buying into a great big lie that causes us to fail to put God first — and rest assured that God must be first in our lives, or we’ll pay for it in the next life.
Chances are that I don’t know you, but that doesn’t mean I can’t tell you a little bit about yourself. What I can tell you about yourself is, after all, just human nature, and I understand human nature. Contrary to the opinion of some, I am a human, so I can relate to human nature. What I can tell you about yourself — whether you’re a top 2 percent earner or living in abject poverty — is that you possess something material you wouldn’t dream of departing with. Maybe it’s a book, or a family heirloom, or a certain car, or a piece of jewelry, or a….You get the picture. You probably also dream of owning a certain thing(s) or having a set sum of money.
There’s nothing wrong with that under normal circumstances. It just means you’re human. And you’ve been given the ability to enjoy your possessions or dream about having other things from God. It’s His way of “wiring” us to think about the great things in store for us that Jesus promised us in the next life.
But where we go awry is when “things” or money begin to be valued by us more than a relationship to our Creator. I’m merely speculating, mind you, as I can’t read what’s in anyone’s heart, but I suspect a relationship to God is way down the list of priorities for many more people than we care to admit. While I can’t read hearts, actions and words and attitudes are pretty good yardsticks to measure where hearts are at.
Are you one of those folks who receive Communion then dart out the door before Father even finishes putting the sacred vessels away? Maybe you grumble about having to get ready for Sunday Mass. How many times have you skipped out on Mass altogether to do something else or go somewhere? Do you attend Mass when you’re traveling? Of the 168 hours in your week, how many of them do you spend keeping Jesus company in the tabernacle?
Hmm. Lots of interesting yardsticks, and these are just a few of the thousands we could use. A meager perusal of the Church’s teachings on the Ten Commandments provides lots of yardsticks!
“You’re being judgmental again, Joe!” No, I’m not. Jesus said not to judge others (Matt. 7:1), true enough. But He also said we’ll know where hearts are by people’s fruits (Matt. 7:20). I’m just being a fruit inspector.
You know, it’s been said God is a jealous God, and I believe it’s true. After all, the Church very plainly teaches the reason God created us is to know, love, and serve Him in this life so we can be happy with Him in the next. Not only is He jealous, but He’s also a perfect parent. If your child isn’t focusing on the priorities you’ve set for him/her because there are huge distractions in the child’s life (and this is especially true of teenagers), what good parent among you wouldn’t remove that distraction for the benefit of the child you love?
You get that sense of parenting as a reflection of the Perfect Parent. And rest assured, He will remove the distraction that keeps you from focusing on Him as your end-all-be-all of human existence one way or another — whether it be through loss of money or possession or . . . death and subsequent judgment. I know; the former happened to me.
At the end of the day, you don’t possess nearly what you think you do. When it comes down to the finish line in the race of life, you really only own your soul and the virtues & vices you’ve acquired along the way. Actually, your soul isn’t a possession, but rather who you are. Virtues and vices? We’re quick to admit ownership of our virtues, but vices not so much. But believe you me, God will see to it that we all admit ownership of our vices when He calls us for our particular judgment. I don’t know about you, but that scares the daylights out of me!
So it behooves us all to focus on acquiring more virtues and doing away with our vices. Believe it; individual judgment comes much quicker than we’d like to believe.
I’ve got good news, though. This little story called Salvation History is told in a best-selling book. I’ve read it all the way through and know how it ends. Guess what? If we persevere in making Him the focus of our lives, we win in the end. Then we can have all we desire. There’ll be no more fears, no more worries, no more tears, no more pain or suffering. Even if you live in a mansion now, it will seem like a shack compared to what Jesus has prepared for those who love Him above all else. So renounce your “things” and money as your priorities and focus on ridding yourself of your vices — even the little bitty ones — and let’s all work toward living in eternity together.
Be sure to listen to the weekly The Cantankerous Catholic podcast. You can access it at https://cantankerouscatholic.com/episodes/.

A Book Review… A Tool For Reinforcing Marriage

By DONALD DeMARCO

Couples, Awaken Your Love by Robert Cardinal Sarah; Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2021, 138 p., translated by M. Miller, $15.95.

Robert Cardinal Sarah’s reliability, orthodoxy, clarity of thought, and his love for people have been well established in his several books, especially, for this reviewer, in his 2019 book, The Day Is Now Far Spent (350 pages). In Couples, Awaken Your Love, he turns his attention from the broad problems of the world and of the Church to something more domestic — marriage.
In the main part of the book, he emphasizes two things. First, the importance of marriage and the family, and a truth repeated so often by St. John Paul II, that “The future of humanity passes through the family.” Therefore, Cardinal Sarah brings to the table a perspective that unites the present with the future. Secondly, the fact that in today’s world, marriage and the family are under attack by secular forces. Marriage is critically important, but it is in peril. A remedy is urgent. This book provides that remedy.
He begins by explaining to married couples that their union is a “chalice” and therefore contains something that is precious. Marriage has been raised to the dignity of a sacrament. Spouses should realize and take advantage of the treasure they are and the abundance of grace that is at their disposal.
The cardinal then goes on to explain how the Eucharist is a source of unity between husband and wife. God instituted marriage and “What God has joined, let no man put asunder.” The themes of mercy and forgiveness, faith, hope, and love, are highlighted and related to Scripture.
Part Two of the book deals with the specific challenges spouses face in today’s world. The great enemy is abortion. When Carlo Cardinal Caffarra was appointed as the first president of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, he received a letter from Sr. Lucia of Fatima. The letter stated that “The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will concern marriage and the family.” Abortion strikes at their very heart of marriage and the family. In addition, the “gender revolution” takes dead aim at the integrity of spousal and family life.
Concerning the mass media, Francis Cardinal Arinze is quoted as stating that it is “used to banalize, secularize, and even commercialize marriage and the family.”
Yet there is always hope. As Cardinal Sarah writes, “Our Christian families are like the multiple cells made by wax, fragile and always in need of reinforcement, which make up the hive, where everyone is called to taste the honey of Truth” (p. 96).
After reading about Cardinal Sarah’s treatment of the sacramental dignity of marriage and the war against spousal union, the reader may very well ask himself, “But what can I do?” In answering such a question, Cardinal Sarah has provided the tools that couples can use to strengthen their marriage, especially those whose marriages are in need of resuscitation.
His two Appendices provide these tools. The first invites husband and wife to pray together in accordance with a specific ritual that is to be repeated each day throughout the week. Prayer is powerful. Reciprocal listening is crucial.
The second Appendix provides a kind of “workshop” in which husband and wife take 10 minutes a day to disclose to one another, without interruption, what is in their hearts. The final prayer in the book closes with the following lines: “With you [Mary], we dare believe that from my suffering the luminous joy of Easter morning can shine forth.” A devotion to Mary permeates the entire book.
I strongly recommend this book not only for those who are married, but also for those who are contemplating marriage. It is a marvelous and harmonious blend of the theological and the pastoral.

Archbishop Lori On Abortion… “This Time We’re Really Serious — Honest!”

By CHRISTOPHER MANION

Last Saturday, January 22, on the forty-ninth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called on the faithful to “pray, fast, and work for the day when the gift of every human life is protected in law and welcomed in love” on the anniversary of the court’s decision. He asks for prayers through “when we anticipate a decision by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.”
His Excellency is correct. This year holds much in store. In fact, we have to go back twelve years to find a critical and decisive time of similar significance.
January 2010 found Capitol Hill in the home stretch of Congress’ debate on Obama’s historic national healthcare takeover, and the USCCB was intimately involved. While today Archbishop Lori recognizes clearly the fundamental issue at stake in Dobbs, twelve years ago our bishops didn’t see the lay of the land so well.
The mood at the USCCB was different in 2010. Bishops, exhausted after fighting the clerical abuse and cover-up scandals for eight years, finally had something to cheer about — the election of Barack Obama. Finally, Archbishop Wilton Gregory exulted, a victory over racism!
The momentum built every day. In June 2009, Obama made his triumphant appearance at Notre Dame, while university police arrested dozens of peaceful pro-life demonstrators for trespassing on campus. President John Jenkins, CSC, connived to sneak Obama into campus by a back way, to avoid the unthinkable scandal of this exalted honoree being insulted by being forced to pass by thousands of pro-lifers lining the school’s main entrance.
And the gift just kept on giving. By the end of 2009, the romance between Obama and the bishops was going strong, and the new administration joined the bishops in devoting their full resources to passing Obamacare.
To be sure, the bishops’ support of Obamacare should not have come as a surprise. The bishops’ conference had supported a broad socialist platform including national healthcare since 1919.
That year, the National Catholic War Council (NCWC), the predecessor of today’s USCCB, published its “Program for Social Reconstruction” — a document as utopian as Wilson’s “War to End All Wars.”
In an interview 94 years later, New York’s Timothy Cardinal Dolan reaffirmed the NCWC’s resolute position: “We, the bishops of the United States — can you believe it — in 1919 came out for more affordable, more comprehensive, more universal health care” (Meet the Press, December 1, 2013).

For The USCCB, Socialism
Is An Honored Tradition

The bishops’ leftward slide came to life with renewed vigor in the years since the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Since the 1960s, Catholic hospitals have come to depend increasingly not only on federal funding but on a growing myriad of government regulations governing health care. By 2009, when Obama introduced the notion of national health care, America’s bishops were eager to get on board and get bailed out of what was a truly distressing consequence of their zealous naiveté.
“Health reform will bring the U.S. closer to a true, coordinated health care system. We need and deserve a solid health care infrastructure that serves everyone and promotes the common good,” chirped the Catholic Health Association [CHA] as Obamacare moved towards adoption. (CHA President Carole Keehan ardently supported Obamacare throughout the negotiations and stood behind Obama as he signed the bill into law. In 2015, Obama told attendees at CHA’s centenary celebration that “We would not have gotten the Affordable Care Act done had it not been for her.”)
But what about federal funding of abortion? Ah — details, details. Yes, bishops opposed taxpayer funding of abortion, and the House version of Obama’s health care bill did so as well, thanks to an amendment by Cong. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). At the time, there were still pro-life Democrats in the House, and the Stupak amendment received 64 Democrat votes.
However, when the Senate passed a version of Obamacare without Stupak’s provision on Christmas Eve, the stage was set for ten weeks of hard-nosed negotiations.
So the bishops went into action.
In January, the USCCB launched a nationwide program designed to “get down to the parish level in every diocese.” Were they asking Catholics across the country to demand that their representatives and senators preserve the Stupak Amendment?
No. They were campaigning for “immigration reform.” On January 6, Bishops John Wester and Howard Hubbard announced that over a million postcards “touting the need for immigration reform have been ordered by dioceses and parishes across the country . . . the cards will be sent to congressional offices. The campaign is being run by the Justice for Immigrants campaign, an official project of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Some “Prime Mandates”
Are More “Prime” Than Others

Why the sudden shift of priorities? According to Catholic analyst Cliff Kinkaid, the USCCB faced more critical issues at the time: Many of the Catholic Church’s hospitals were absorbing costs incurred by their unpaid treatment of an increasing number of indigent patients, and they were feeling the financial pain.
“In a January 13 conference call and briefing,” Kinkaid reported at the time, “Kevin Appleby, a representative of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, explained in frank language why the bishops are so desperate to pass the health care and immigration bills. He said that the bishops want a federal health plan to absorb the costs being borne by the nation’s 600 Catholic hospitals to cover illegal aliens.”
Appleby said, “We have Catholic hospitals throughout the country that experience the same things . . . we serve undocumented immigrants in our emergency rooms and community clinics, et cetera. So we have a stake in this in that the burden will fall not just on our providers but [on] taxpayers throughout the country.”
This was one of the clearest indications yet that support for national health care legislation is a means by which the bishops “can dump some of the costs of operating Catholic hospitals on the American taxpayers,” Kinkaid reported.
But there was even more at stake: The bishops desperately needed a positive issue to champion, and abortion didn’t qualify. After all, the scandals had put a serious dent in bishops’ finances, with $4 billion in payouts to victims alone.
Do the math: While bishops stood to receive hundreds of millions for their hospitals and their NGOs from Obama’s health care and immigration policies, they got zero for their pro-life efforts. So the bishops sought a more harmonious and positive reception not only with the Obama, but with Democrats, who had the White House and majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill.
This was nothing new. Since the days of Roe v. Wade, the USCCB had always concentrated on the Left’s “social justice issues,” ignoring Humanae Vitae altogether and leaving pro-life leadership to the laity.
To grease the wheels for their work with the Obama administration, Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) hired one of Washington’s most radical homosexual public relations firms to lobby for its social justice agenda in Congress. CCUSA never announced the hire, but in 2011, the Gay Blade, Washington’s premier homosexual newspaper, broke the news:
“Lobbying disclosure reports filed with the House and Senate show that Catholic Charities USA paid the Sheridan Group $476,750 between April 2010 and April 2011 for lobbying services and advocacy work related to the Catholic organization’s anti-poverty projects,” the Blade wrote in a story dripping with irony and scorn.
The rest is history. Obama lied to Stupak and the bishops, Obamacare funded abortions with taxpayer money and spawned the HHS mandate that religious groups have spent hundreds of millions fighting to this day. But the USCCB and its NGOs have prospered, working hand in hand with the Obama and Biden teams at the border and beyond.
So here we are. Today, true to form, our bishops support Joe Biden’s agenda on everything except abortion — and on that issue they have chosen to remain silent. And apparently, they’ve been paid very well for it.
So with Prufrock, it’s fair to ask Archbishop Lori: “Your Excellency, has it been worth it, after all?”

A Beacon Of Light… Sacraments Of Service — Holy Orders

By FR. RICHARD D. BRETON JR.

(Editor’s Note: Fr. Richard D. Breton Jr. is a priest of the Diocese of Norwich, Conn. He received his BA in religious studies and his MA in dogmatic theology from Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Conn.)

• + + Today our journey through the Catechism brings us to the Upper Room. As we gaze inside, we see Jesus seated with His apostles around the table as they celebrate the Last Supper. It is here where we begin our consideration of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. On the night before He was to be betrayed, Jesus gathered with His apostles, took bread, blessed, and broke it.
  Likewise, He gave them the chalice, filled with wine. Then He said, “Do this in memory of me.” At the Last Supper Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders, as a means for us to receive the graces necessary for our salvation.
  The Catechism of the Catholic Church in n. 1536 says: “Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus, it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.”
  Holy Orders includes three degrees: bishop, priest, and deacon. Bishops are chosen and are consecrated as successors of the apostles and are considered to have the fullness of the priesthood. This fullness enables them to ordain new priests and deacons. Bishops also have certain rights and authorities they exercise. There are blessings reserved for bishops that differ from those that may be given by priests and deacons. Bishops govern a particular jurisdiction, called a diocese or archdiocese, and are responsible for shepherding the faithful within that jurisdiction.
  Priests are the second degree of Holy Orders. Priests assist the bishop in his responsibility of shepherding the faithful. As co-workers with the bishop, priests confer the sacraments upon the faithful, assisting them on the journey of faith. Baptism, Penance, Eucharist, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick, and Marriage are sacraments the priest administers to the faithful as a servant of God. Priests also bless sacramentals like religious articles, rosaries, statues, holy water, and will often bless people’s homes.
  The last degree of Holy Orders is that of the deacon. The deacon is ordained to the service of the Church and to live a life of charity. Within the degree of deacon there are two kinds. A transitional deacon is a man bound for the priesthood. This differs from the permanent deacon, who is ordained for life and accepts an assignment from the bishop to minister within the diocese.
  Deacons are restricted in what they can do. They cannot celebrate Mass, hear Confessions, or anoint the sick. They are also limited in their ability to give blessings, and can only impart a blessing within the context of a liturgical celebration: like Baptisms and Weddings.
  Deacons also serve at the altar in assisting the priest at Mass and may preach. We can see that all three degrees of Holy Orders, bishop, priest, or deacon, contribute in their own way to the service of the faithful.

An Instrument Of God’s Grace

If I may be so bold, I would like to share with you my experiences of Holy Orders. As I journey through God’s vineyard of the faithful, every day I am presented with moments where I can reflect on my ministry. Let me begin by sharing my experiences of the Sacrament of Baptism. I love celebrating Baptisms! Each time I baptize I am filled with joy as I prepare and ultimately unite children and adults into God’s family of faith.
Recently, I had the opportunity to baptize my nephew. This Baptism was very moving. My nephew was premature and, due to some health concerns, we quickly planned his Baptism. As we gathered, it was brought to my attention that my nephew was wearing the same baptismal outfit I had worn for my own Baptism.
I too was premature at birth and struggled to live, but, through the grace of God I survived. As I poured the water over my nephew’s head, I thought of how the same had been done to me as I wore the same baptismal clothes. I felt tears well up in my eyes as I prayed the words of Baptism:
“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
I was the instrument of God’s grace in baptizing my nephew the same way as I am in every child or adult that I baptize. I have a custom of writing the names of every person I baptize inside of my Baptismal Ritual. Each time I baptize I remember in prayer all those who were baptized before.
Another moment in the life of my priestly ministry is the Celebration of the Eucharist. Each time I ascend the stairs of the sanctuary I am reminded of my unworthiness, and yet despite this unworthiness, I have been chosen by the Lord to make Christ present to the faithful. As the gifts of bread and wine are brought forward by the faithful, I receive them and offer them up to the Lord. Through the words of consecration at Mass, the bread and wine are transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
What a humbling moment! Amid the most sacred action on Earth, I have the honor of holding God Himself. Through the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the consecration of my hands, I hold God and distribute the food of everlasting life to the faithful.
On March 28, 2004, our late Holy Father, St. John Paul II, wrote a letter to all priests on Holy Thursday. In this letter the Holy Father reminded us that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is born, lives, works and bears fruit “de Eucharistia” (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, canon 2: DS 1752). He goes on to say: “There can be no Eucharist without the priesthood, just as there can be no priesthood without the Eucharist” (cf. Gift and Mystery. On the Fiftieth Anniversary of My Priestly Ordination, New York, 1996, pp.77-78).
The sacraments are living encounters with Christ. Bishops, priests and deacons, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, participate in the living actions of God’s grace. Imagine what the Church would be like without the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Who would baptize the faithful?
Who would forgive sins? Who would make Jesus present in the Eucharist? Who would anoint the sick and dying? Who would witness and prepare couples for Marriage? Who would confer the Holy Spirit in Confirmation? This sacrament is necessary because through it we are provided with the ministers needed to receive the graces of the other sacraments, and thus, restore us to union with Christ.
Today, bishops, priests, and deacons are fighting an everlasting battle of good versus evil. They are constantly under attack as the evil one finds ways to bring down men of God. It is imperative that we pray for those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We must also pray for those whose hearts have been touched by the Lord to persevere in the call to Holy Orders.

Pray For The Clergy

Pray for your bishop daily. He needs prayers to assist him in shepherding the faithful entrusted to his care. Priests need the prayers of the faithful as well. Priests minister as Alter Christus! They are human and make mistakes, but they are the only ones who can make Jesus present to us in the Eucharist. Pray for your priests! Pray that they may be faithful to the responsibility they have been given.
Deacons need our prayers as well! They are living difficult lives. While juggling the responsibilities of family and ministry, deacons serve our communities in both the secular and spiritual worlds. They are examples of how to live a life of service and charity in our times. They too need our prayers!
May Jesus Christ, the True High Priest, continue to send laborers into the vineyard! Pray for an increase of vocations, that, we may always receive the Sacraments of our Faith!
Next week we will conclude our study of the Celebration of the Christian Mysteries and the Sacraments by examining the importance of sacramentals in the life of the Church. We will also look at the role the Rites of Christian Funerals plays in the life of the faithful.