Catholic Bishops, Where Are You?

One senses that our bishops aren’t really too concerned about what’s happening in our nation or, more dangerously, in Washington, D.C., our own version of the ancient Sodom. Oh, they occasionally make a comment or send a “Tsk-tsk” note to our political elites, but all with little effect. So little that President Biden seems to enjoy telling our bishops how wrong they are about the full range of moral issues. For the president, Church teaching is optional, something that must change with the times. 

Of all the issues facing the country today, the most divisive and evident, of course, is abortion. For example, a few weeks ago, at a gathering of Florida Democrats, the president, who proudly claims to be a “practicing” and “devout” Catholic, made the Sign of the Cross during the pro-abortion speech of a fellow Democrat. (Read the article here.) Believe me, he supported everything his colleague said. Several Catholic organizations vehemently objected to this sacrilegious act, but to my knowledge I’ve heard no public comment from our bishops. If any said anything, they certainly didn’t say it very loudly. Often enough, bishops post their comments on diocesan websites, which, sadly, very few Catholics ever view. Why not call a press conference, or issue a statement to the local press, telling one and all what the Church teaches on abortion and other moral issues? Or send a teaching letter to pastors, instructing them to have it read at every Mass? Politicians provide excellent opportunities for teaching moments by our bishops, priests, and deacons. 

Even more despicable, though, the president has made abortion the key issue of his presidential campaign. For him, what it means to be a practicing and devout Catholic seems to have nothing to do with either faith or obedience:

“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” [Mt 7,21].

Let’s face it, abortion is the moral issue of our time. Throughout the world several hundred million children are dead because of abortion. Each was slaughtered, and often painfully, as they were cut into pieces by those supposedly dedicated to healing. I can conceive of no modern crime more evil than abortion, the always willful destruction of the most innocent of human lives. The fact that so many people just accept it, as they would accept an appendectomy, tells us a lot about the moral degradation of our so-called civilized world. 

And yet we hear very little from our shepherds. What are the bishops afraid of? Is it a revenue issue? Can’t tick off the pro-abortion “Catholics” who would likely close their wallets and checkbooks. Or do they fear losing their tax-exempt status by wading into what the IRS considers political waters? But the IRS is wrong, deadly wrong. Abortion isn’t political; it’s moral and religious, two areas about which the Church must speak its mind. And thanks to the Holy Spirit, that mind, at least magisterially, always reflects the mind of God. 

Given the Church’s magisterial rejection of abortion, one would think the bishops might issue a public condemnation or two. Perhaps they believe that going public about the slaughter of millions of unborn children will jeopardize our moving forward on what some wrongfully consider more important issues, like climate change and immigration. After all, just this week Pope Francis warned that climate change has become a “planetary crisis,” and that billions of us earthlings face “an extremely high risk of climate-related devastation.” It would seem, then, based on the time the pope has expended writing and talking about climate change, it’s far more important to him than any other issue, including abortion.

Interestingly, when I read this, I emailed several old friends, all PhD meteorologists or climatologists, and asked them to confirm what they had told me earlier. All three again stated that the evidence for human-induced climate change is so minimal it can be ignored. One suggested that Pope Francis, who likely knows very little about climate change, is listening to advisors and “experts” who are reaping the financial benefits of choosing the politically correct side of the issue. “Follow the money,” he added, “and you can predict what the ‘experts’ will say.”

Sadly, too, the Biden administration has been active prosecuting (and persecuting) pro-life activists. Biden’s justice department brought conspiracy charges against a group of pro-life activists for a 2020 protest at a Washington, D.C. abortion clinic that specializes in late-term abortions. This Tuesday and Wednesday seven of these activists were sentenced to two years or more in federal prison. Just read about these “horrible criminals” that our devout Catholic president wants imprisoned. Here are some relevant links:

Imprisoned Pro-Life Activists Speak Out

Pro-Life Activists Sentenced -- combat veteran, 70-year-olds, and icon Joan Andrews, others

Diane and I were fortunate to meet Joan Andrews-Bell years ago when I chaired our Cape Cod parish's pro-life ministry. She has devoted her life to the cause and spent over 6 years imprisoned for acts of love. Now she will serve more time. Pray for all these courageous people. Joan considers her prison sentence as “a time of prayer and reparation” for the “sin of abortion in America.”

I've always believed that political approaches to life take us in the wrong direction. We must, instead, change hearts and minds, always speaking the truth and doing what is needed to instill once again in the people of this country a fervent love for God and His gift of life. It must always begin with prayer and will conclude when God acts to teach us His will.

Perhaps the bishops should also take a faithful and theological, rather than a political, approach and turn to the Nicene Creed in which the Holy Spirit is described as “Lord and Giver of Life.” If we support abortion, are we not then taking to ourselves the powers of the Holy Spirit, and assuming God-like authority over life and death? To usurp God’s power and authority is intrinsically evil, a form of pride almost beyond belief. Wouldn’t it set a wonderful example for the faithful if our bishops, as we approach the solemnity of Pentecost, turned publicly to the Holy Spirit in prayer? What a perfect time to ask the Spirit to bring about the conversion and ultimately the forgiveness for all those who have destroyed the many innocent lives He has given the world.

George Cardinal Pell, R.I.P.

Cardinal Pell, the Australian prelate whom liberals love to hate, and, along with Joseph Cardinal Zen, is among the most persecuted of modern cardinals, died last Tuesday at the age of 81. His funeral Mass will be celebrated today in Rome. May he rest in peace. 

I won’t offer a eulogy here since those who knew him best will do that far better than I. But if you want to come to a better understanding of this remarkable man, just read his three-volume Prison Journals. I also suggest reading another of his books: Test Everything: Hold Fast to What Is Good.

How influential was Cardinal Pell? The Wall Street Journal, certainly no particular friend of the Church, described him as “the most influential Catholic churchman in the English-speaking world.” I certainly agree.

Since March of 2022 a rather lengthy memo has circulated among the cardinals who presumably will take part in the next conclave. The anonymous author called himself “Demos” (Greek for “people”) and most knowledgeable folks in the Vatican believed it was written by a cardinal. After Cardinal Pell’s death, Sandro Magister, a veteran Catholic journalist revealed that Pell was actually the memo’s author.

The 2,000-word memo consists of two sections — “The Vatican Today” and “The Next Conclave” — in which Pell provides a detailed and rather intense description of the papacy of Pope Francis. It is not complimentary. Cardinal Pell, who had been a close collaborator of Pope Francis, had been brought in to clean up the Vatican’s messy financial operations. Pell, however, came to believe Francis’ papacy was trying to take the Church in the wrong direction. In another article, apparently written shortly before the cardinal’s death, he expressed his growing concern about what he sees as serious moral lapses and wokeness on the part of the Vatican:

“...deepening confusion, the attack on traditional morals and the insertion into the dialogue of neo-Marxist jargon about exclusion, alienation, identity, marginalization, the voiceless, LGBTQ, as well as the displacement of Christian notions of forgiveness, sin, sacrifice, healing, redemption.”

In the memo Cardinal Pell pulls no punches and states that “Commentators of every school, if for different reasons … agree that this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe.” He also declares that “The Holy Father has little support among seminarians and young priests and wide-spread disaffection exists in the Vatican Curia.”

The memo’s first section describes a litany of problems affecting the Church today, largely, Pell believes, resulting from decisions made by Pope Francis. The second section, addressing the next conclave, focuses on what the kind of pope the Church will need in the near future. Cardinal Pell’s description is clear and concise:

“The Pope does not need to be the world’s best evangelist, nor a political force. The successor of Peter, as head of the College of Bishops, also successors of the Apostles, has a foundational role for unity and doctrine. The new pope must understand that the secret of Christian and Catholic vitality comes from fidelity to the teachings of Christ and Catholic practices. It does not come from adapting to the world or from money.”

I could include the entire memo here, but it is readily available elsewhere. You may or may not agree with Cardinal Pell's assessment of Francis' papacy and the current state of the Church, but it is still worth reading. It certainly shouldn't be swept under the rug. Read it and, as you always do, pray for Pope Francis and for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Here’s the link to the original memo: A Memorandum. (Note that the memo was posted on the site before the author's identity was revealed.) 

Pope Francis, Giorgia Meloni, and Me

Every so often, probably more often than I would like, someone will ask me, "Deacon, what do you think of Pope Francis?" The questions come from across the entire spectrum of Catholic opinion. But most who ask me about the pope are simply looking for direction and understanding. Occasionally, though, I suspect I am being baited by those few who intend to argue a point, whether theological, ideological, or simply political. They hope to hear me state either my total agreement with the Holy Father or my complete disagreement. I always disappoint them because I'm never in complete agreement or disagreement with any mere man or woman, even the pope. I try to weigh what others say against what I know to be the truth, particularly the revealed truth given to us by Jesus Christ and taught to us by the Church He founded. 

Do I agree with everything Pope Francis has said and written? Probably not, but this might well be the result of a lack of understanding on my part. This came to mind today when I read some of the comments made by the newly elected Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni. Many on the left, including our president, have accused her of fascist sympathies. This, of course, is completely absurd and demonstrates either their ignorance -- they don't know what fascism is -- or their willful dishonesty by accusing their enemies of their own ideological beliefs, a common tactic of the left.

Here's how the new prime minister describes her beliefs that center on the family, her Christian (Catholic) faith, her patriotism:

"Why is the family so frightening?  There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is an identity, and for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and simply be perfect consumer slaves.”

Then, describing those she calls "financial speculators," she says: 

“They attack national identity, religious identity; attack gender identity and family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother. Now I must be citizen X, gender X, parent one, parent two. I must be a number because when I’m only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators.

We will defend the value of the human being -- every single human being.”

If these are the words of a fascist, then I guess I'm one too. Of course, what she said really represents the core beliefs of a Christian society. And I especially liked what she had to say about herself, a self-appraisal summed up in a few choice words:

“I am Giorgia, I am a woman, I am Italian, I am Christian. You can’t take this away from me!”

As you might expect, such a simple, straightforward self-description drives the woke crowd in Washington and Brussels to distraction. She actually cherishes her unique identity: the name she received at her Baptism; the sex with which God blessed her at conception; the nation and culture in which she was born and raised; and the Christian faith that rules her life. As she stated, "You can't take this away from me" because they are all gifts from family, from God, and from a culture.

In her autobiography Giorgia Meloni waxed eloquently on the evil of political correctness:

“You see, political correctness is a shockwave, a cancel culture that tries to upset and remove every single beautiful, honorable, and human thing that our civilization has developed...It is a nihilistic wind of unprecedented ugliness that tries to homogenize everything in the name of One World. In short, political correctness – the Gospel that a stateless and rootless elite wants to impose – is the greatest threat to the founding value of identities.”

I've included all this just to give you a sense of who Giorgia Meloni truly is, so you won't be led astray by the woke, mainstream media, a media that truly despises this woman. But now let's look at what she has said about her Catholic faith and Pope Francis. The following brief comments are sufficient. 

She said this about Pope Francis:

“Maybe it’s age, maybe the memories, but even though I’m Catholic and I’ve never allowed myself to criticize a pope, I admit that I haven’t always understood Pope Francis...Sometimes I feel like a lost sheep, and I hope one day to have the privilege of being able to talk to him, because I’m sure that his big eyes and his direct words can give meaning to the things I don’t understand.”

When I read those words, I almost fell out of my chair, because they reflect my own sentiments almost exactly. I have found so much that is good and valuable in what the pope has said and written, and yet, like Giorgia Meloni, there is much that I simply do not understand. I, too, will not openly criticize the Holy Father, but perhaps in an upcoming post I might share some of my misunderstandings. In the meantime, all of us should pray daily for Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ, and successor of St. Peter. And pray, too, for Giorgia Meloni. I suspect she might need a lot of God's help as she tries to drain the Roman swamp.

“Catholic” Universities

Every so often I come across news stories about some aspect of the Church, stories that too often lead to scandal. And if they scandalize me, a deacon of the Church, I can only imagine their effect on others, regardless of their religious affiliation. This past week presented me with a pair of these offensive stories, each centered on a university that defines itself as Catholic.

Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles provides us with our first story. It seems this Catholic, Jesuit university permitted a student group to hold an on-campus fundraiser for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. In fact, in 2020 Planned Parenthood performed more than 354,000 abortions — that is, they murdered that many innocent unborn babies — a total representing nearly 40% of all abortions in the U.S. last year. Yes, indeed, Planned Parenthood seems to enjoy profiting off the killing of babies.

The student group sponsoring the fundraiser call themselves Women in Politics and obviously support abortion. A group of alumni and students petitioned the university, urging it to cancel the event, calling it “an egregious violation of LMU’s Jesuit, Catholic identity.” The petition went on to state that “As a Catholic university, LMU has a responsibility to stand up for Catholic values.” Samantha Stephenson, an alumna involved in preparing the petition, said Women in Politics should support charities that “more effectively support women’s dignity…not at odds with the Catholic Church.” Stephenson also quoted Pope Francis, a Jesuit, who recently stated:

“Is it right to eliminate, to take a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? That’s what abortion is.”

Thank you, Pope Francis, for showing us that Planned Parenthood and their ilk are nothing more than a collection of hitmen whose victims are the most innocent among us.

In response, a statement from the university’s administration argued that the fundraiser, although held on campus, was not a “university-sponsored event,” and went on to state that “The events, actions, or positions of student organizations, including Women in Politics, are not endorsed by the university.” The university’s statement also informed the world that it remains fully committed to its “Catholic, Jesuit, and Marymount heritage, values, and intellectual traditions.” Its demonstration of this commitment is apparently carried out in secrecy because it’s certainly not done publicly. Oh, yes, the school’s statement continued by declaring the activities of its student groups as “living examples that LMU embraces its mission, commitments, and the complexities of free and honest discourse.” 

To read more about this travesty, click here: Loyola Marymount University and Planned Parenthood.

I think we can dismiss the idea that Loyola Marymount University remains a Catholic university. It has instead caved to the reigning zeitgeist, a culture of death supported by far too many Catholics on the political left, including more than few Jesuits. As a result, this Catholic university is actively supporting the nation’s largest abortion provider. One recalls Jesus words…

“He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin” [Lk 17:1-2].

And that’s just for those who cause little ones to sin. What about those who murder the most innocent little ones among us?

St. Louis University is a Catholic university that is also — surprise, surprise! — a Jesuit university. The school’s Students for Life chapter made a pro-life, cross-shaped, flag memorial on the campus of this Catholic university. Although the memorial was approved by the university, some students apparently did not agree. As always today, there are videos. They’re rather disturbing, so I won’t include the videos here, but if you like you can watch them on other sites. 

The students who objected to the memorial decided they had to destroy it. Two young women, identified by the media as Fiorella Michelis and Olivia Jarrell, began to kick the flags, pull them up out of the ground, and stomp on the memorial. They also confronted Nick Baker, a Students for Life member who objected to their actions. 

When Baker told them the Students for Life had created the memorial, one responded with, “So, you just love disrespecting women.” The other added, “Yeah, a man who has absolutely no right telling women what to do with their bodies or trying to shame them or trying to make them feel guilty about their decisions that they have absolutely all the right to do.” 

They objected also to the effects of the memorial on those women who have had abortions: “If a woman was walking by who had an abortion, how do you think she would feel about this?” 

A male student replied saying, “I’m sure she wouldn’t feel great, but that’s why we need to reach out to them and help them.”

The two women students also demonstrated that their remarkable vocabularies matched their destructive actions and the ideology behind them. One of the students approached Baker and said, “People hate you. You’re a disgusting misogynist, and you know karma is going to f*****g get you. You’ll see that when you die and hopefully you f*****g go to hell.” She then added, “You can see my pictures, you can see how pretty I am, how good a life I have. And what do you have? You’re a f*****g loser, and you think you can tell other people what to do with their f*****g bodies.”

When Baker told her that most Students for Life members were women, she replied with a remarkable non-sequitur, “You just really enjoy your life, ‘cause I’ll enjoy mine. And I’ll f*****g keep killing babies.”

“…keep killing babies.” I don’t know about you, but all I hear here is Satan speaking through these young women. How very sad. 

Several other students tried to destroy the memorial but left when confronted by Students of Life members. 

The university issued a statement: It is conducting an investigation, and it “takes seriously any alleged violation of our Community Standards, and has policies and processes in place to address concerns when they are reported.” Hmm…after reading that little piece of administrative cover, I suspect nothing will happen.

Kill the Babies Or Else…

President Biden and his increasingly far-left regime, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and most Democrat politicians have all proven one thing: they hate children. Why else would anyone actively promote the slaughter of unborn children and strive to stop any attempts to limit abortions? Remember, back in 2011, when President Obama threatened to cut off all Medicaid and related funding to Indiana when the state legislature and governor passed legislation to stop state funding of Planned Parenthood? Just think about that. If you don’t kill the unborn, Obama declared, we will cut medical funds to the poor. How nice...

Today is no different. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to overturn the Texan law that severely limits abortion in the state, Joe Biden has pledged a “whole of government” response. He has called on his evil but feckless attorney general, Merrick Garland, to “protect abortion rights” of all Americans by applying the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra also chimed in saying, “…we are telling doctors and others involved in the provision of abortion care, that we have your back.” 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, reminds us that “There are no lengths the Biden administration won’t go to in their drive to prop up the abortion industry and impose abortion on demand up to birth nationwide, on a public that resoundingly rejects their agenda.” But note the change in the pro-abortion forces’ language. Once they wouldn’t utter the word, “abortion,” but instead used such euphemistic phrases as “reproductive health.” But no longer. Now they openly declare their intention to support “abortion rights” and “abortion care.” I find the latter particularly disgusting. For whom are they providing “care”? Certainly not the unborn child who is torn apart during this “safe procedure.”

\What disturbs me most, however, is the cowardice of our bishops. Few seem willing to openly and consistently confront the Catholic politicians who support abortion. There are, of course, exceptions and Nancy Pelosi’s bishop, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, has been a true stalwart. The archbishop recently stated, “A conversion of heart of the majority of our Congressional representatives is needed on this issue, beginning with the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.” He then continued with more than mere words, but called for spiritual action on the part of the faithful: “I am therefore inviting all Catholics to join a massive and visible campaign of prayer and fasting for Speaker Pelosi: commit to praying one rosary a week and fasting on Fridays for her conversion of heart.” I intend to join Archbishop Cordileone and in my own small way, ask all those who read this blog to do the same. 

Another disturbing event, related to the slaughter of these modern day innocents, took place just the other day when Nancy Pelosi visited the Vatican on October 8. How ironic that this was the feast day of St. Simeon, who greeted the newborn infant Jesus when He was presented in the Temple in Jerusalem by Mary and Joseph. How many infants have never been presented in a church for Baptism, thanks to the child-hatred of Nancy Pelosi. 

More disturbing, however, was the reception the Vatican gave Pelosi. The Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development stated, “We welcome Speaker Pelosi from the U.S. House of Representative. We talked about caring for the environment, in the light of [Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical] Laudato si, migration issues, human rights, health in times of pandemic, and the work of the Vatican COVID Commission.” Note the one subject that apparently went undiscussed: abortion. Apparently the "human development" of the unborn does not merit any attention. This was especially troublesome given that Pelosi, along with the president, is among the most prominent Catholic politicians and has done all in her power to advance and encourage abortions in the U.S. 

Pope Francis and the Pelosis

Pelosi and her husband also had a private audience with Pope Francis, but the Vatican had no comment about any subjects discussed during their meeting. One can only hope the Holy Father explained Church teaching to this self-proclaimed “devout Catholic” who seems to consider herself holier and smarter than the Church. One wonders what Archbishop Cordileone thought of her Vatican visit.

Brothers and sisters, pray for the unborn, pray for those who seek and perform abortions, pray for those politicians who further the culture of death, and join the Archbishop of San Francisco by praying the Rosary and Fasting every Friday for the conversion of all.

German Bishops: Paganism and Schism

Did you hear the latest out of Germany? A Synod of German bishops and lay leaders of the Catholic Church, perhaps predictably, voted overwhelmingly (168 to 28) to approve the blessing by Catholic clergy of what the synod calls “same-sex partnerships.” This vote was in response to a Vatican decree that explicitly prohibited such blessings. Of the 196 who voted at the synod, I don’t know how many were bishops. I believe there are 27 German dioceses, but there are certainly a greater number of bishops. But even so, this vote is a definite step toward schism. I find it especially troubling that the synod apparently believes, unlike Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, that truth is determined by majority vote. I certainly cannot confirm my suspicions, but I wonder how many of the voters are active homosexuals. 

To read a more detailed discussion of the synod’s vote, see the coverage by CATHOLICVOTE.ORG. There you will also learn that the synod went even further on related issues:

Friday’s statement included not only the approval of blessings for homosexual couples, but also advocacy for “more tolerance for contraception and masturbation,” Rocca reported. The statement amounts to “an appeal to the pope, acknowledging that many of its proposals ‘essentially fall within the teaching competence of the Bishop of Rome and can therefore not be undertaken by the Church in Germany.’”

The vote, of course, is openly heretical, since it contradicts 2,000 years of Church teaching. In a very real sense it returns us to the pagan world faced by the apostles as they fulfilled Jesus’ command to preach the Gospel throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. In those days homosexuality and the sexual abuse of women and slaves was for many a way of life, especially among the upper classes. But St. Paul didn’t hesitate to challenge the zeitgeist by preaching the Gospel teaching that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacramental and sacred bond and that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. The difference today is that members of the Church in Germany are siding and sinning with the pagans while denying the truth of the Gospel. 

Where this will lead, I cannot say. But one hopes the Holy Father will be firm in repudiating the conclusions of the German synod. We shall see. I find myself thinking again of the words that a German theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, wrote in 1970, long before he became Pope Benedict XVI:

"From the crisis of today, the Church of tomorrow will emerge. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes, so will she lose many of her social privileges…she will be seen more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision…Undoubtedly she will discover new forms of ministry and will ordain to the priesthood approved Christians who pursue some profession…Alongside this, the full-time ministerial priesthood will be indispensable as formerly. But…the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Chris, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world…

"The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to be the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness and well as pompous self-will will have to be shed…But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret."

Pope  Benedict’s view of the future Church is probably close to what we can expect in the years to come. Prepare your children and your grandchildren because they will have to live through it.

Francis and Urban

Last week on the Marian Solemnity of the Assumption, Pope Francis addressed the faithful: 

"I join in the unanimous concern over the news coming from Afghanistan. I invite you to pray with me to the God of peace so that the din or arms may cease and solutions may be found at the table of dialogue. Only in this way will the tormented population of that country -- men, women, elderly and children -- be able to return to their homes and live in peace and security in full mutual respect."

Based on his words, it would seem the Holy Father believes the Taliban will be just fine so long as we sit down with them "at the table of dialogue." He appears not to accept that the Afghan population is "tormented" because of the murderous intent of the Taliban. They kill all -- "men, women, elderly and children" -- who refuse to accept their rule and evil ideology, and they do so with particular brutality. As for "mutual respect," I doubt we can achieve this in a relationship with a terrorist organization like the Taliban, and definitely not through appeasement. 

Given the situation President Biden has created, prayer is certainly needed. It is always needed, so Pope Francis is absolutely correct in asking us to pray that the "God of peace" will led us to real solutions that will result in better lives for Afghans and for all who face the threat of terrorism. But the Church has also long taught that nations, like individuals, have the right to self-defense, and "just war" can be a valid, moral option. Indeed, I can think of few situations that would justify its application more than the current situation in Afghanistan. 

Previous popes have understood this and even gone so far as to instruct the Christian world to wage war against those whose evil intent and actions represent a distinct threat. Almost a thousand years ago, specifically on November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II addressed a large gathering of clerics and noblemen at the local Council of Clermont in France. He hoped to call the often bickering, evolving nations of Europe to unity of purpose. He called them to join together in a righteous war to protect Christians in the East and to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims. For several hundred years Islamic armies had overrun Christian nations across North Africa and throughout the Middle East. They had even entered Europe and claimed much of Spain for Islam. And despite how they are sometimes depicted by revisionist historians, often enough they were too much like the Islamist terrorists we encounter today. 

As he spoke, Pope Urban described the atrocities committed against Christians and urged his audience to take action. From contemporary reports of those who heard and quoted him, Pope Urban made an impassioned, rousing plea. Ashamed that the knights of Christianity had shed blood fighting each other, he challenged them to "liberate fellow Christians from pillage, fire, rape, and tortures." He continued:

"You should shudder...at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens [i.e., Muslims]. It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers."

Pope Urban likened the Crusade to a pilgrimage, a holy act of penance in which the knights would save their souls if they gave their lives battling the Saracens. For the  pope, therefore, the knights were pilgrims doing God's work. He begged the warriors to reject selfishness and relieve the holy city of Jerusalem.

"This city the Redeemer of the human race has made illustrious by His advent, has beautified by residence, has consecrated by suffering, has redeemed by death, has glorified by burial...This royal city...is now held captive by enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God...She seeks and desires, therefore, to be liberated and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid."

What became known as the First Crusade was by no means a war of aggression, but rather a defensive action by Christendom to protect the Faith from decades of continuous Muslim aggression. At some point in the future, given the vast stores of American weaponry the Taliban now control, the impact of Islamist terrorism might well grow so large that it brings death and destruction to all nations. Perhaps then a contemporary pope will call for a new crusade. I have no problem with that, although I suspect few will listen.

Fr. Reese, S.J. and Pope Francis

There was an old joke that listed a few things the pope doesn’t know about the Church. As I recall (hard to do these days), one of those things was “what the Jesuits will do next.” Presumably this no longer applies since for the first time in history we have a Jesuit pope. Of course, even Pope Francis may not be able to predict what each of his fellow Jesuits decides to say or do or write. 

This week, for example, American Jesuit, Rev. Thomas Reese, S.J., wrote down a few of his thoughts on Pope Francis’ recent hospitalization. Fr. Reese, who writes a column for Religion News Service suggested that the 84-year-old pope’s illness, hospitalization, and surgery formed what might be a key event in Francis' papacy. According to Fr. Reese, “…even with the best prognosis, age is catching up with Francis. Barring a miracle, he will only be expected to continue as pope for five or six years. We may look back at his hospitalization as the moment that marked the beginning of the end of his papacy.”

As you might expect — after all, he is a Jesuit — Fr. Reese has a distinct point of view that does not always coincide with the Church’s teachings on a number of issues. A former editor-in-chief of America, the left-leaning Jesuit journal, and columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, Reese has espoused some interesting religious, political, and moral positions. For example, he really dislikes what he calls the “unreformed liturgy” — aka, the Latin or Tridentine Mass — and says that young people should not be permitted to attend such Masses. 

More troubling, however, were his comments during the 2020 presidential campaign when he declared approvingly that, “A Catholic Democrat might feel impelled to vote for Biden despite his position on abortion and gay marriage because of other morally grave reasons, for example, his positions on racism, immigration, global warming and COVID-19.” Since the Church considers abortion nothing less than murder, the slaughter of innocents, one wonders whether Fr. Reese would consider it okay to overlook a candidate's support for a new Holocaust or for Communist China's enslavement of Uyghurs and Kazakhs so long as his policies were correct when it came to issues like climate change. 

New York's Cardinal Dolan made this case in his public rebuke of Fr. Reese when he wrote that the priest's approach was nothing less than a "...capitulation to the abortion culture, and a grave weakening of the powerful pro-life witness...Thank God, those who believed that slavery was a moral horror, a cancer on our country, and contrary to the higher values of a lawful republic, could never accept this capitulation." 

Over the years Fr. Reese has been consistent in downplaying the Church's teaching on abortion. For example, he likes to quote the U.S. Bishops document, Faithful Citizenship, while avoiding its strong language regarding abortion. He also came out strongly against government defunding of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. In the same way he avoids mentioning Pope Francis' very public condemnation of abortion and abortionists, whom the pope compared to "Mafia hit-men." As the pope said, "Is it legitimate to take a human life to solve a problem? Is it permissible to hire a hitman to solve a problem?...human life is sacred and inviolable and the use of prenatal diagnosis for selective purposes should be discouraged with strength." One suspects Fr. Reese isn't very pleased to hear his fellow Jesuit speaking with such moral clarity.

In this latest column, Fr. Reese again avoids these life issues and seems more concerned that Pope Francis has perhaps not done enough to ensure his successor will follow in what Fr. Reese consider the correct ideological path: "If his papacy is reckoned a failure, it will be because Francis failed to replace or outlast the clerical establishment put in place by John Paul and Benedict. His papacy will only succeed if he is followed by popes who are in sync with his approach to Catholicism, and this is not guaranteed." No, indeed, Father, it is not guaranteed, thanks to the Holy Spirit. Fr. Reese also wrote that "Francis has rebranded the papacy for the 21st century with a pastoral, prophetic and inclusive voice." After the truly pastoral and prophetic papacies of Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI, this seems a rather odd thing to say, and I expect Pope Francis would agree.

Finally, Fr. Reese's comments about the pontiff's illness might also be an indication of the real and perhaps serious nature of Pope Francis' health. The Vatican has rarely been very open about popes and their health issues. Too often a pope must die before the world learns he was seriously ill.

It's all very interesting, though. And Fr. Reese will likely get lots of airtime on those networks that despise the Church and its teachings. But that's just another reason I always tell my friends not to believe a word you hear or read about the Catholic Church in the secular media. 

We are left with an ailing pope for whom we pray daily. We pray for his full recovery and for his wisdom in these times of moral relativism and political and social chaos. We need him to speak clearly and loudly to the world on faith and morals.

Pray for Pope Francis...oh, yes, and pray, too, for Fr. Reese.

Inauguration Confusion Among U. S. Bishops

Apparently the U.S. Bishops are not of one mind when it comes to our new president, Joseph Biden. It also seems the Vatican stepped in as well and created even more confusion. I became aware of all this when I read the statement released yesterday by USCCB President, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, addressing the new president and his administration. I first read the statement not on the USCCB website, but on a diocesan site. It seems, however, the statement was released prematurely because the site later deleted it. I then read reports that the Vatican had requested the USCCB delay its publication, presumably because its language would place limitations on the pope’s future dealings with the new president. As it turned out, the statement was eventually released, apparently in its original form, although a little late.

In his statement the Archbishop waxed eloquently about President Biden’s Catholic faith, adding that "it will be refreshing to engage with a President who clearly understands, in a deep and personal way, the importance of religious faith and institutions." Presumably, the archbishop found President Trump's consistent focus on religious freedom, the right to practice one's faith without government interference, and respect for the lives of unborn children to be less than refreshing. 

 

To his credit, though, Archbishop Gomez went on to criticize strongly the new president's proposed “policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage and gender,” as well as concerns for the “liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers.”

I also read reports that some bishops, specifically Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark and Cardinal Blasé Cupich of Chicago, among others, were particularly upset by this criticism of the new president. Both cardinals are among Pope Francis closest allies among the U.S. Bishops. After the USCCB statement was finally released, Cardinal Cupich went public with his criticism of Archbishop Gomez:

“Today, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an ill-advised statement on the day of President Biden’s inauguration...Aside from the fact that there is seemingly no precedent for doing so, the statement, critical of President Biden came as a surprise to many bishops, who received it just hours before it was released.”

I expect, though, had there been a referendum among U.S. Bishops on the release of the USCCB statement, Archbishop Gomez would have won hands down.

 

Here’s a link to the complete statement by Archbishop Gomez on the occasion of President Biden’s Inauguration: USCCB Statement

Strange Times, Stranger Thoughts

Corruption and more. Okay, I’m bothered by odd thoughts during these even odder times. For example, a few weeks ago I told Diane I was pretty sure that, whatever the ultimate outcome of the election, Joe Biden would not be the sitting president two years from now. I simply believed that, should he be elected, corruption or dementia or other health issues would catch up with him and force him out of office. As a long-time resident of The Villages, I know that many 78-year-old men are in excellent physical and mental shape and could no doubt handle the rigors and demands of the presidency...but not all. And Joe...well, he just doesn't seem to be running on all cylinders these days. Should Biden depart office ahead of schedule — something I believe many of the movers and shakers who supported him have planned for — Kamala Harris would become president, a possibility that should frighten anyone with any sense. It should certainly cause serious concern for any believing Christian or Jew. 

Thank God for God, Who remains in charge of our decaying world. We need to pray, folks. As St. Paul reminded us in today's liturgy:

Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything: retain what is good. refrain fro every kind of evil [1 Thes 5:16-22].

Read these words every day, to remind yourself to follow God's will, and that everything in our lives calls for rejoicing and prayers of thankfulness. These words of St. Paul also make an excellent brief examination of conscience.

Oddity in St. Peter’s Square. Did you happen to catch the sneak peek offered to the public of the so-called Nativity scene destined for St. Peter's Square? Only one word can adequately describe it: hideous! Some call it art, but I prefer to label it trash. I have no problem with much contemporary art, and actually have a couple of signed prints from Dali and Chagall, along with works of several other modern artists. But this Nativity display has to be the ugliest ever devised, certainly the ugliest ever displayed publicly by the Church. That the Church founded by Jesus Christ would consider this an appropriate symbol to represent our Savior’s birth boggles the mind. Take a look:

Such a heartwarming a scene! But even more bizarre, and uglier still, is this unique pair of characters who resemble escapees from a low-budget Star Wars wannabe movie.

Okay, that sheep kinda resembles a sheep, one suffering from a disease of his wool coat, but want exactly are the others? I first thought they were an astronaut and an alien, but perhaps they represent those who must wear HAZMAT gear during the current pandemic. Who knows?

Of course the "angelic" figure that towers over the entire scene is especially bothersome:

And to show how deeply affected were those among the faithful privileged to view the preview, one Italian observer noted: 

"Ugliness is the first thing you notice, followed by a lack of familial warmth and the distancing guaranteed by the cylindrical figures. If you wish to judge harshly, the cylinders call to mind the sacred poles of Satanic cults condemned in the Bible." 

Yes, indeed, it looks like something one would expect to find when excavating a pagan Canaanite temple.

I’m pretty sure Pope Francis had nothing to do with the decision to display this ugly collection of weirdness, but he has unfortunately surrounded himself with folks who probably believe it to be a perfect depiction of the familiar scene described by St. Luke. I'll assume the pope has not yet seen it. After all, he recently tweeted:

"Accompanied by the Mother of Jesus on the journey towards Christmas, in these times that are difficult for many, let us make an effort to rediscover the great hope and joy brought to us by the coming of the Son of God into the world." 

In no way does this display bring joy and hope into the hearts of those who encounter it. In early November the pope also published an apostolic letter on the importance and meaning of the Nativity scene first introduced by St. Francis of Assisi. It's quite good and you can read a synopsis of this letter here: Admirabile signum.

 

One would hope the more sensible among the Church's Vatican hierarchy would perhaps decide this display should be discretely removed from public view and tucked away deeply in the Vatican's Secret Archives. Otherwise the children of Rome may be troubled by weeks of nightmares.

Empty Churches? If you've read this blog for a while, you'll know that Maddie and I take a twice-daily walk through the surrounding neighborhoods. Maddie's a remarkable dog and will often lead me to people in some need. One day, early last week, I had decided to go one way, but Maddie wouldn't budge. She finally turned toward the opposite direction and tugged at the leash. Accepting that her sixth sense probably had some purpose, I agreed. After walking perhaps 50 yards, she noticed a man coming towards us, so she sat down and waited for him to arrive. An older man, perhaps in his early 80s, he seemed vaguely familiar. 

As he approached us he smiled and said, "Deacon, can you help me?" Maddie, of course, simply displayed her standard Bichon smile as I said, "Sure, what's up?" 

"I have a new rosary that needs to be blessed. I'd take it to the Church, but my wife won't let me attend Mass. Too dangerous. Can you bless it for me?" Of course I agreed, so he said he'd bring it by the house and let me bless it. Then he added, "I really miss the Eucharist. Not being able to receive Jesus is the worst part of all this."

I didn't want to come between him and his wife, so I thought it best simply to suggest attending a daily Mass on occasion since weekday congregations are usually smaller, and he and his wife might feel more comfortable.

Anyway, he got me thinking, about the pandemic and our response to it. Not long ago I read a Real Clear Science article addressing the pandemic guidelines in the United States. Among their conclusions was this comment, focused particularly on Catholic churches in the U.S.: "For Catholic churches following these guidelines, no outbreaks of COVID-19 have been linked to church attendance." They also discovered no evidence of viral transmission even when tracing systems picked up examples of asymptomatic people who were infected, but didn't know it, and attended Mass. In other words, attending Mass at Catholic churches where appropriate measures have been taken, is probably the safest public activity in which one can engage.

The larger and more troubling issue, however, is the attempt by government officials to decide what kind of worship is permitted in their city or state. Any attempt by government to control religious worship, especially when the church involved takes special precautions to protect their congregations, is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. But apart from this, such actions also disregard basic human rights. 

In a recent interview, Fr. Thomas White, O.P., Director of the Thomistic Institute at the Angelicum in Rome, stated that we cannot separate a person's right to believe from his right to take part in public worship. He argued, correctly I believe, that public officials are attempting "to designate theologically what the Church's internal self-understanding should be with regards to worship, and that's an unsustainable approach with engagement to the Church." In other words, no secular government should decide how we worship. Fr. White goes on to stress that the state must not infringe on the most fundamental human rights; for example, the rights to marry, to work, or to worship. He calls such infringement, "an act of spiritual totalitarianism."

Too many bishops seem to have allowed city and state authorities to call the shots when it comes to worship. It would be nice for the faithful if they would say, "We are taking proper and reasonable precautions, but the decision to do so is reserved to the Church and will not be ceded to the state." No mayor or governor may control the Church's celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. We are a Eucharistic Church and must find ways to ensure the faithful can receive the graces the Holy Spirit extends to us through the sacraments. How did St. Paul put it? "Do not quench the Spirit."

My concern is that the fears that keep people from attending Mass will remain and alter their long-term concept of Mass attendance. Our faith is centered on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the community worship of the Triune God. This simply does not happen with online Masses. Given the attitudes of state authorities, the legal precedents being set, and the acquiescence of the people and too many in the Church, I worry that the future Church in America may more closely resemble the underground Churches that struggle to survive in the world's totalitarian states.

What's Going On?

Too often these days people ask me, “What’s going on, deacon? The Church seems to be self-destructing.” I suppose they ask me this and similar questions because I’m a deacon and they assume I must understand everything that’s happening in and to the Church. Of course, I don’t. My thoughts and my opinions on these and most other subjects are just that, my thoughts, my opinions. I am not a prophet, and I’m certainly not infallible. I do, however, accept and try to teach the truth as it has been revealed to us through Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. But I also try not to be tendentious, and struggle to identify what are simply my opinions and not declare them as revealed truth. What follows, then, are the opinions of a man who happens to be a deacon who loves his God and His Church, nothing more.

Too many Catholics, and almost all non-Catholics, when they think and speak of the Catholic Church, see only the hierarchy: the pope, bishops, priests, and maybe even the deacons. But the hierarchy is not the Church. The Church is the "People of God," the community of all the baptized faithful, coming together in faith to worship, to evangelize, and to love God and neighbor by living the lives that God desires of us. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also reminds us that...

"The Church draws her life from the Word and the Body of Christ, and so herself becomes Christ's Body" [CCC, p. 871].

Yes, we are the Body of Christ, one Body with Christ as its head. And it is from Jesus Christ that the Church was given its mission – “the Great Commission" -- when He instructed the apostles:

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age" [Mt 28:18-20].

In the beginning [Acts 1:15], the Church consisted of little more than a hundred people, and yet it already had a hierarchy. This hierarchy, instituted by Jesus Himself, is a necessary element of the Church. It provides the structure and the avenues of sacramental grace necessary to accomplish the Church's mission in a spirit of unity. Although a divinely created institution, one guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church is made up of human beings who are subject to all human failings and sinfulness. We see vivid evidence of this among the apostles themselves, men who didn't hesitate to reveal their own sinfulness [Lk 5:8]. 

This applies as well to those who, through apostolic succession, make up the Church’s hierarchy today, men who sometimes reject or ignore the guidance of the Spirit. So don’t expect popes, bishops, priests, and deacons to be sinless. They aren’t. Not only aren’t they sinless, they also make mistakes and will proclaim or teach things that simply aren’t true. As do I, they occasionally confuse opinion with truth. St. Paul said it best when he declared:

"There is no one righteous, not even one..." [Rom 3:10]

...and that -- gasp! -- includes even the pope himself. And, trust me, Pope Francis would be the first to agree.

But what about papal infallibility, doesn't that come into play? Isn't the pope infallible? Isn't the Church infallible? The quick answer: Yes, but there are conditions. Once again, we turn to the Catechism, which quotes Lumen Gentium, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys the infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals...The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in Ecumenical Council [CCC: 891; cf. Lumen Gentium 25].

The pope, therefore, is infallible only when "he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals." He must, then, make that proclamation from the Chair of Peter, clearly stating that he speaks infallibly, a rare occurrence indeed. Less rare, however, is the infallibility of the Magisterium -- the pope, together with his bishops -- exercising “the supreme Magisterium.” The 21 ecumenical councils of the Church are the best examples of this form of infallibility, the result of Jesus’ promise to the Apostles:

“And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you…The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” [Jn 14:16-17,26].

This is really wonderful, isn’t it? The Holy Spirit cannot be constrained by men. He can speak to the world through the Church despite the sinfulness of those He calls. In the same way the Holy Spirit showers us with His divine grace through the sacraments, despite the unworthiness of His minister, the state of his soul. No, He cannot be constrained, something of which we should be mindful as we move into what could be a darker time, for He will be with us “until the end of the age.”

Popes, bishops, priests, and deacons can teach error and preach nonsense simply because they are men, very fallible men, who like other men are often driven by personal agendas and not by God's will and the needs of the Church, the People of God.

Many issues that seem to occupy the time and thoughts of some members of the hierarchy – for example, climate change, economic systems, national sovereignty, migration, etc. – are actually for more complex than they seem to believe, and remain open to legitimate debate. One cannot, for example, state with any assurance that it is morally evil for a nation to protect its borders. Such issues are very different from an inherently evil act such as abortion.

How should the faithful respond to the pope or to a bishop who makes what seem to be definitive pronouncements on such issues? First, we should listen. Don’t accept the secular media’s reporting but go to the original words or document and read it. Second-hand reports often focus on the headline-grabbers and miss the truth as well as all the subtle nuances of the teaching. (Note: The secular media is almost always inaccurate or biased in their reporting on the Catholic Church.) Realize, too, that many of these issues are exceedingly complex and generate significant disagreement among recognized experts. We must pay heed to what Church leaders say on such issues, but also understand that they are not speaking infallibly. Your own knowledge, combined with a well-formed conscience, can be a good guide when it comes to issues that fall outside the deposit of faith and definitive Catholic moral teaching.

I’ve encountered Catholics who are considering leaving the Church (or have already left) because they are disgusted by the sins of a bishop or priest, or disagree with something a member of the clergy has taught. At the risk of insulting them, let me say only that this is the height of foolishness. We don’t leave Jesus Christ because of what men have said or done. And that’s what is done when one leaves the Catholic Church: he or she leaves the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council weren’t kidding when they stated that the Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” Jesus confirmed this with His words to the doubters in Capernaum:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me” [Jn 6:53-57].

Yes, members of the clergy, from deacons to cardinals, have committed horrendous sins. Sexual abuse of children, blatant homosexual relationships and not just between “consenting adults,” greed and theft, and so much more.

But there are also spiritual sins, including teachings that lead God’s people astray. One that’s’ near and dear to my heart involves some modern biblical scholarship. Far too many biblical scholars do not accept the Gospels as true descriptions of Jesus’s life and teachings. To be blunt, they assume the evangelists did not tell the truth, but that the Gospels were rewritten, edited…whatever by later redactors to fit the evolving beliefs of the Christian community. In other words, the Gospels as we have them do not really reflect the reality of Jesus’s life and teaching. Of course, by taking such an approach they undermine our belief of everything in Sacred Scripture. If the Gospels aren’t true, well, then, what is? As you might guess, some of these same scholars reject Christ’s divinity, His bodily Resurrection, and many other tenets of the Faith.

But, again, these are the sins of men, not the sins of the Church. Let’s assume, then, that you’re not planning on leaving the Church, and return to our original question: Is the Church self-destructing?

No, it’s not. But there are people in the Church, even some in its hierarchy, who think not of the Church, but of themselves. I've known more than a few. They want the Church to change its foundational beliefs, its immutable deposit of faith, or to loosen its firm grasp of morality, so it will conform to their beliefs or support their sinful lifestyle. They will, of course, fail. They will fail as all previous heresies have failed to change that which makes the Church what it is: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Believe me when I say the Church has encountered many serious challenges in the past. For example, probably half of the Church rejected the truth and accepted the false teachings of the Arian heresy, and this lasted for centuries. I expect we will encounter similar, probably greater challenges in the future, perhaps the near future. The Church, however, will survive, although I expect it will look very different. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote back when he was a young priest:

“The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy, It will make her poor and cause her to be the Church of the meek” [Faith and Future, p. 116-118].

St. Paul, writing to Timothy, is a bit more explicit as he relates what we will face in these last days:

“But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days. People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them” [2 Tim 3 1-5].

Are we in the “end times”? I don’t know. But we must all live as though we are, so we will be ready to greet the Lord, either when He returns or when He calls us.

As one writer (I’ve forgotten who) once wrote: “We will not be able to live in the time that is to come.” That might well be true for those days of tribulation will certainly be worse than anything humanity has suffered so far. But take faith in the fact that the Church, the Body of Christ, will survive until Jesus Christ brings all of Creation to completion.

Homily: Monday 20th Week in Ordinary Time

Readings: Ez 24:15-23 • Dt 32:18-21 • Mt 19:16-22

________________

Our readings are especially meaningful today, not only because of the troubles plaguing our world and yes, even our Church, but also because here, in this community, we are far more likely to experience deep loss in our lives.

We first encounter the prophet Ezekiel, who faced a personal loss, the sudden, unexpected death of his wife, whom God lovingly refers to as "the delight of your eyes" [Ez 24:16]. Aren’t those beautiful words? – “the delight of your eyes” – words that offer a glimpse into the love that must have bound these two.

God tells Ezekiel not to mourn her death openly; more sadness is coming; he must be the example:

“You shall be a sign to them, and they shall know that I am the Lord” [Ez 24:27].

This exchange between God and prophet brought to mind a close friend who died several years ago.

On our way north to visit our children, Diane and I stopped by to Scott and his wife, Marnie. Scott was a retired admiral and he and I had flown together back in our Navy days and remained good friends. But now Scott was dying of cancer and we wanted to see him once more.

That day, as we ate lunch together, Scott’s drawn face suddenly filled with peace. He smiled and said, “You know, Dana, I’m so looking forward to seeing our Lord, I can hardly stand it.”  Scott died exactly one week later. And that comment, made over a salad at a Longhorn restaurant, was a gift. Several weeks later, Marnie told us, “Scott saved me from a lot of grief because he was so joyful about the life to come.”

Do you see how our lives, and how we live them, how our faith, and how we profess it, can have a deep impact on others. Ezekiel ultimately accepted his wife’s death as a blessing that spared her from the calamities about to befall God’s People. It also freed him to do God’s work in the world, to approach his calling worry-free, unaffected by the world and the troubles it so often brings.

Babylon’s long siege of Jerusalem would end in the slaughter of God’s people, the destruction of the city, and the desecration of God’s Temple. The survivors would be carried off into exile. God gave Ezekiel the task of leading the people as they faced these tragedies. “What does this mean for us?” they asked him.

Today as we look at our world, we find ourselves asking the same question. But then God answers with Moses’ words in our responsorial.

“You have forgotten God who gave you birth" [Dt 32:18].

Yes, too many in our world have forgotten God; and we, who are faithful but still sinners, turn to our God and ask, “What does this mean for us? What shall we do?” I can only repeat what Ezekiel told God’s People: Continue to turn prayerfully to our merciful God and ask for the strength to begin again. That’s right! We must begin again as the Church has many times over the past 2,000 years.

800 years ago, our Lord commanded St. Francis: “Go and repair my house which, as you see, is falling into ruin.” It was a time to begin again. The Church has faced many calamities, but Jesus promised:

“I am with you always, until the end of the age” [Mt 28:20].

Today we are led by another Francis, a man who must continue the ongoing task of rebirth. Pray that God gives him and his fellow bishops the will and the strength to confront the challenges to this one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Sadly, some in the Church will turn away. Like the rich young man, they will turn away in sadness, others in anger, unable to accept the Gospel without compromise.

50 years ago, when Pope Benedict XVI was a young Father Joseph Ratzinger, he made some prophetic comments in a radio broadcast:

“From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge — a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.

“But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world.

“The Church will be a more spiritual Church… It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek.”

We’re on our way, brothers and sisters. We must become the Church of the meek, a Church of the humble that approaches God in repentance. It’s what we’re called to do.

We, the faithful, are called to “start afresh…from the beginning,” to forgive sinners and embrace and console the innocents, to share the Good News, and do so in faith, in humility, and in love.