PC No-Nos: Religious Liberty and Relgious Freedom

The United States Commission on Civil Rights in its latest report castigates those who dare to use such expressions as "religious liberty" or "religious freedom." Indeed, according to the report these phrases, in themselves, are discriminatory. The report, entitled Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties is a remarkable document that seems completely unaware of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United State.

Martin Castro, the chairman of the commission and presumably no relation to the Cuban dictator, stated: 

"The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.” 

Ah, yes, we must suppress the speech of those who use those evil "code words." My questions to Mr. Castro are many: What words may I use to describe the persecution of Christians simply because they are Christians? Since Islam, like orthodox Christianity, also considers homosexual activity to be sinful, are Muslims guilty of homophobia? And if so, if one accuses Muslims of being homophobic, is he then Islamophobic? It's all very confusing, Mr. Castro, but I'm sure an intelligent man like yourself can clear it up for us intolerant Christian supremacists.

Interestingly, the commission's report, while accusing Christians of discrimination because they don't accept as good the behavior of everyone and anyone (excect, of course other Christians), goes on to do to Christians exactly what they accuse Christians of doing. Yes, indeed, it's all extremely confusing. For example, in the report's executive summary, the commission stated:

“The appropriate balance between religious liberty and nondiscrimination principles in some conflicts arises as a concern when religious institutions and organizations claim the freedom under constitutional and statutory law to choose leaders, members or employees according to the tenets of their faith, even if the choice would violate employment, disability, or other laws. It arises also when individuals claim the freedom to adhere to religious principles regardless of otherwise applicable law governing their conduct.”

Wow! Can you imagine? Let's punish those pesky Christians. After all, they expect their leadership and membership to accept the "tenets of their faith." It's simply outrageous that all those bishops and priests in the Catholic Church have to be Catholic. Does this mean that laws in direct conflict with the rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution supersede those rights? According to the commission, it would seem so.

The commissioners went on to question religious exemptions -- you know, those rights  that stem from the First Amendment -- as infringing on a person's civil rights. They endorse the protection of one's religious beliefs, but not religious conduct, the ability to act on those beliefs or, in Constitutional language, to freely exercise those beliefs. And to make sure we understand what this means they listed several conclusions (see the Report, p. 20-21):

• schools must be allowed to insist on inclusive values,
• throughout history, religious doctrines accepted at one time later become viewed as discriminatory, with religions changing accordingly, 
• without exemptions, groups would not use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate, 
• a doctrine that distinguishes between beliefs (which should be protected) and conduct (which should conform to the law) is fairer and easier to apply, 
• third parties, such as employees, should not be forced to live under the religious doctrines of their employers, 
• a basic right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs, and 
• even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties.

When one reads the entire report it becomes clear that the commission believes federal and state governments should interpret the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) as narrowly as possible. In other words, religious freedom may be claimed only by individuals and churches, and even then only in the most limited sense. According to the commission, other religious-based or sponsored organizations should not be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs freely. This, the commission believes, will ensure those intolerant religious folks can't discriminate against those who don't accept the tenets of their faith.

It's all very Orwellian, and I can assume it will only get worse. 

By the way, just a point of interest: when one searches the commission's extensive website for the word, "sharia", there are no results.

A Few Thoughts

Some of these thoughts might not sound very charitable, but sometimes we must speak the truth.

Patriots and Cowards. Colin Kaepernick, Brandon Marshall and the rest of the NFL's spoiled brats who have chosen to sit or kneel or to display clenched fists during the National Anthem are simply cowards. They have all reaped the benefits of life in this remarkable country, and done so to the extreme, all for playing a children's game. Most were coddled from the time they entered high school because of their athletic ability. Little was expected of them off the field, and a few might actually have fulfilled those minimal expectations. And now, because they have fame and fortune and a near-global public forum, but little or no sense, we are supposed to pay attention to them. They receive millions for playing their games while those who actually matter, those who defend this country and willingly sacrifice their lives for the rest of us, are paid very modestly, receive little thanks, and must try to survive health care from the VA. I wonder how many military funerals Kaepernick and Marshall have attended. I wonder how many wounded warriors they've visited at Walter Reed or Bethesda. Brandon Marshall says he's a patriot. Uh, Brandon, just an FYI: patriots stand for the National Anthem, at least those who haven't lost their legs in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Normandy, Iwo Jima...

Kaepernick Sits During National Anthem

I haven't attended or watched a major league baseball game since the strike in 1994. Remember when those millionaires had the chutzpah to declare, "We're doing this for the working people of America." Yes, all those thousands of low-paid working people who lost their jobs because the entire season was cancelled. Now I have to decide if I've  watched my last NFL game as well.

Brandon Marshall Kneels During National Anthem

Syrian Christians: persona no grata. Before the civil war in Syria, Christians made up approximately 10% of the country's population and were able to live in relative peace and practice their religion freely. Because of the war they have suffered more than any other religious group, largely at the hands of ISIS and other Islamic extremists. The war has not only led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, but it has also created a much larger number of refugees. Our president decided to aid these displaced Syrians by allowing thousands to immigrate to the United States.

Syrian Refugees: Christians Need Not Apply

According to the government's latest figures, the United States has admitted a total of 13,364 Syrian refugees since the civil war began. Of these, 13,019 (97.4%) are Sunni Muslims, while only 102 (less than 1%) are Christians. In other words, the religious group that has suffered the most and been persecuted the most has been virtually excluded. It's also important to note that ISIS is led by Sunni Muslims who follow the fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrines. These same ISIS leaders have stated that they intend to infiltrate terrorists among the Syrian refugees admitted to both Europe and the United States. Pray for the Christians of Syria; indeed, pray for all the people of that troubled country.

Dismemberment AbortionBan. Abortion is so horrific that I sometimes find it difficult to write about it. But for this very reason it's important to ensure the truth is told. For example, many people quite simply don't know exactly how abortions are performed, particularly late-term abortions. If they knew, support for abortion would likely drop considerably. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) has decided to introduce legislation in the Senate that he hopes will not only educate the public about the horrors of late-term abortions, but also ban these procedures nationwide. 

The legislation, called the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act defines a dismemberment abortion as one that uses “clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments” to “slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off or crush it,” with the purpose of causing death to the unborn child. Senator Lankford reminds us, “We know now that children who are in the womb in late-term can feel pain, At least we should agree that in the womb when a child can feel pain, we shouldn’t pull them apart limb by limb.” Identical legislation was introduced earlier in the House by Reprsentative Chris Smith (R-NJ).

A man of faith, the senator stated, “I do pray, not only for those that are yet to be born, but I pray a lot for moms that have had an abortion and the grief that they experience based on that after the fact. I pray for those that actually perform abortions that they will at some point awaken to what’s happening right in front of them.” We should all join the senator in his prayer.

Homily: Monday, 24th Week of Ordinary Time (Most Holy Name of Mary)

Readings: 1 Cor 11:17-26, 33; Psalm 40; Luke 7:1-10
___________________

“I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” [Lk 7:9].

What a surprise it must have been to the Jews who heard Jesus say those words. For the centurion was not only a gentile, he was also an officer of the hated Roman legions that had occupied the Holy Land for 100 years.

Was he a pagan as well? Probably not, for we are told “he loves our nation and he built the synagogue for us” [Lk 7:5].  And there were many gentiles, especially among the Romans, who were drawn to the monotheistic faith of the Jews. This centurion seems to be among their number.

And the fact that he had sent the Jewish elders to ask for Jesus’ help indicates he clearly understood the demands of any relationship between Jew and gentile. He knew that by approaching Jesus personally and publicly he might place him in an awkward position. He also knew that Jews were forbidden to enter the house of a gentile.

But one thing about him is certain: he was a man of faith, for Jesus tells us so. In fact, Jesus’ miraculous healing of the centurion’s servant is given unique treatment by Luke. The miracle itself is hardly mentioned. Instead Luke focuses on the centurion and his faith. And his is a remarkable faith.

It’s a faith of abandonment and perfect trust, a faith that lets go completely and turns everything over to God.

It’s a faith that places no limits on God, a faith that accepts God’s omnipotence.

It’s a faith that allows God to heal and forgive whenever and however He wants, that allows God to rewrite the laws of nature because they are His laws.

Yes, Jesus was “amazed” by the centurion’s faith, a faith greater than any in Israel.

Throughout the Old Testament, the history of God’s relationship with His people, we encounter men and women of great faith – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Moses and David; Ruth and Esther; Elijah and the prophets. But they all have their moments of doubt, their crises of faith, the times when they turn away from God and try to rely on their own devices.

But with the centurion, we see only constancy, a faith that mirrors the words of Divine Mercy: “Jesus I trust in You.

Indeed, the Church thinks so much of the faith of the centurion that his words are included in the liturgy. At the time during Mass when we celebrate the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist – the Presence Paul preached in today's first reading – we, the faithful, repeat the centurion's act of faith:

"Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed" [See Lk 7:6-7].

I can think of only one other person who exhibits this kind of faith, this total abandonment to the Will of God. Only Mary, Our Blessed Mother, can hear the words that describe the Incarnation, the miraculous event that will change the world forever, and accept it without question:

“May it be done to me according to your word” [Lk 1:38].

And how fitting that today we should celebrate the memorial of the Most Holy Name of Mary, a name which in Hebrew, Miryãm, means lady or sovereign. And so she truly is “Our Lady.” 

The feast was created by Pope Innocent XI in remembrance of the defeat of the Islamic Turks by the Poles in 1683. The Turks has threatened Vienna and all of Western Europe, and the victory was attributed to Mary’s intercession.

A decade ago Pope Benedict, quoting St. Bernard, encouraged the faithful to:

“…call upon Mary…in danger, in distress, in doubt, think of Mary, call upon Mary. May her name never be far from your lips, or far from your heart…If you follow her, you will not stray; if you pray to her, you will not despair; if you turn your thoughts to her, you will not err. If she holds you, you will not fall; if she protects you, you need not fear; if she is your guide, you will not tire; if she is gracious to you, you will surely reach your destination” [Pope Benedict Homily, 9/9/2007].

Although far too often you and I lack the depth of faith displayed by the centurion, we need only turn to Mary. We can lay our doubts and weak faith at her feet, invoke her holy name, and know she will intercede for us.

As we pray Divine Praises in the Eucharistic Presence:

“Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother.”

Homily: 24th Sunday in Ordinary Time - Year C

Readings Ex 32:7-11, 13-14; Ps 51; 1 Tm 1:12-17; Lk 15:1-32
_________________
 
The parable of the prodigal son – it’s a wonderful story isn’t it? Pope Benedict used to call it the parable of the two sons. And I know others who prefer to call it the parable of the merciful father. But I like Benedict’s title, because it seems to go right to the heart of what Jesus was telling His audience.

And to truly understand this parable, we need to look first at exactly who that audience was. Fortunately we don’t have far to look because Luke tells us at the very beginning of this Gospel passage: 

“Tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to Jesus, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain…” [Lk 15:1-2]

And so we find that there were two groups listening to Jesus that day: sinners and the self-righteous. This is who Jesus addresses when He relates this wonderful parable – this Gospel within a Gospel. Jesus tells these two groups, these two brothers, not one but three parables, three stories about loss: one about the lost sheep; one about the lost coin; and one about a father’s sons – two lost sons.

In some respects this story of the brothers is nothing new, because it continues a theme that runs through the entire Old Testament. It begins with Cain and Abel, continues with Isaac and Ishmael, appears again a generation later with Esau and Jacob, and is even reflected in the story of Joseph and his eleven brothers. But as He often does, Jesus gives the familiar story a new twist and in doing so brings it to life for his listeners. He brings it to life by bringing it into our lives, for we can’t help but see ourselves in one or both of the brothers. And what is it that Jesus is telling us? Ultimately, I think it’s an appeal to all of us to say “Yes” once more to the God who calls us.

At the parable’s beginning we meet the prodigal, this impulsive, materialistic, lusty young man. And we also meet the father – the magnanimous father who complies with his son’s wishes and gives him his inheritance and his freedom. He knows full well what the son will do, but lets him go his way “into a distant country.”

In commenting on this passage, the Church Fathers explain this decision by the son as an interior rupture, an estrangement from the world of the father – the world of God – an abandonment of all that is truly his own. The son wants his idea of “life in abundance.” He wants no commandments, no authority, no rules, no claims on his actions. He wants radical freedom, complete autonomy. He wants to live only for himself. Today we’d call him a radical libertarian; he accepts no limits on his behavior. If you asked him, he’d probably say he just wants to enjoy himself. And so he does. He grabs all the gusto he can, until there’s no gusto left…and no inheritance.

Prodigal Feeding the Swine

Luke uses an interesting word to describe the property that the son dissipates. Luke dips into the vocabulary of Greek philosophy and uses the Greek word for essence. And so what we really have is the son dissipating his essence; that is, himself. Until, finally, he who thought he was completely free is nothing more than a slave, living in conditions worse than the lowest of animals. And that’s what radical freedom, that’s what license, always does. It leads only to slavery. But it’s in this slavery, in this state of extreme alienation and destitution, that conversion occurs.

Through this conversion the prodigal recognizes that he has wandered far, not just from his home, not just from his father, but from himself. He knows now that true freedom was what he left behind. And now, like all of us, he’s on a pilgrimage – one that involves suffering and inner purification.

Of course, conversion can’t happen, it can’t even begin, unless we expect forgiveness. And forgiveness awaited the younger son, didn’t it? The father, in his wisdom, expected his son to return. Why else would he wait and watch for him? Seeing his son in the distance, the father runs out to meet him with an embrace and a kiss. Through one loving gesture, the father forgives the son – and the son hasn't even made his confession yet! 

When the confession comes, the father hardly listens, because the important thing isn’t the confession, but the repentance that brought it about and the fact that his son has returned. The son doesn’t need to beg for forgiveness, he’s already been forgiven. The Father is merciful. This, brothers and sisters, is the glorious Good News! God's forgiveness, His mercy, just like His love, doesn't stop. This is the loving God Jesus reveals to us: the loving God who can’t not forgive!

And remember, Jesus uses this parable to justify His actions, His goodness toward sinners. And in doing so He reinforces His claim that He and the Father are one; both welcome sinners. Of course His Passion and Resurrection reinforce this point still further. How did St. Paul put it?

“…while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” [Rom 5:8]

And so, in this parable, Jesus justifies His actions by relating them to and identifying them with the Father’s. It’s in the figure of the Father that Jesus places Himself right in the heart of the parable.

Ah, but there’s another son, isn’t there? – the elder son, who seems so perfect. He honors his father. He works hard. He doesn’t ask for favors. Yes, he’s the perfect young man, the kind we’d all like our daughters to marry. Yes, he certainly seems respectable, but beneath that veneer of perfection there’s a hardness, a simmering hatred, that bursts through the surface when his sinful brother receives the royal treatment.

Son...all that is mine is yours

What does he do? He becomes angry and stays outside, pouting in the darkness. It’s always in the darkness where the worst sins are committed. He hates his younger brother, the foolish one who took the money and ran, the son who spent his birthright on sin. But he hates someone else as well. He also despises his father, because he can’t stand the thought of his father’s forgiveness.

Like the Pharisees and scribes he’s unable to let go of his own sense of justice – the justice of the world, of humanity – and accept the justice of his father. He’s also motivated by selfishness, but it’s a darker kind because it hides under the cover of respectability, the kind that says, “I’m better than you. I’m holier than you. I deserve more than you.”

Oh, the elder son was a sinner all right; he just didn’t think he was. He despises his father for being so forgiving, but it never crosses his mind that he needs that same forgiveness. He sees only injustice, and perhaps envy that his brother has gotten away with so much. And so his obedience to his father has left him inwardly bitter, lacking any awareness of the true freedom he enjoys as a son.

“Son you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours” [Lk 15:31], the father explains, using almost the same words Jesus uses at the Last Supper when in His high-priestly prayer He describes His relationship with the Father:

“…everything of mine is yours and everything of yours is mine…” [Jn 17:10]

The parable ends here, telling us nothing of the older brother’s reaction. It ends because it now crosses over into reality. It’s now up to His listeners – to the tax collectors, the sinners, the scribes, the Pharisees – to finish the story in their own hearts.

Yes, like the two brothers they too are sinners, just as you and I are sinners. But the question each of us must ask today is: Which kind of sinner am I? And once we answer that question, once we know who we are, only then can we come to realize not only that we need forgiveness, but also that we need to forgive. It’s this knowledge, or the lack of it, that determines where we go from here.

Brothers and sisters, forgiving is no big thing for God. On the contrary, He delights in it, because forgiveness completes God’s love. In forgiveness, love is at its strongest. In forgiveness, love, especially God’s love, generates new life. Yes, God’s delights in forgiveness; and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?

But the other question is: Do we delight in it as well?

Libertarian Suicide

The folks who call themselves libertarians today confuse me. And even more confusing are those who jump aboard the libertarian bandwagon under the assumption that libertarians are the true conservatives who will return the United States to its foundational roots.

First of all, I think it's important to realize that conservatives and libertarians actually have very little in common. Yes, they both abhor big government of the sort that tends to evolve into the authoritarian or totalitarian state. But true libertarians take this abhorrence to an extreme, and tend to distrust government of any sort. There is, in the true libertarian mind, an anarchist bent, that rejects any limitations on human freedom. I think it's fair to say the libertarian worships license rather than liberty.

John Stuart Mill

I first recognized this when, as a midshipman at the Naval Academy, I took a course that ostensibly addressed our nation's political roots. Among the reading assignments was John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859), a book written long after our nation's founding, but one that seemed to look backward rather than forward. The professor who taught the course was enamored of Mill and declared him to be the modern founder to libertarian thought. He also tried to claim that our nation's founders were, like Mill, both true libertarians and conservatives.

But as I read Mill's tract, I came to realize he wanted to conserve nothing. Custom, tradition, religion, revelation, natural law -- everything that formed a culture and a people, everything worth conserving, were to Mill dispensable and essentially meaningless because they acted as restraints on individual freedom. Indeed one of his most telling paragraphs can be found in the middle of his book's first chapter when he relates his purpose. It's a rather lengthy quote, but worth including in its entirety, because it so clearly sums up libertarian thought:

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

That final sentence is telling and lies at the very core of libertarian thought. The individual, not the people, and certainly not God, is sovereign. Once this sovereignty is accepted as gospel, cultural and religious restraints are tossed aside. But in truth, these cultural, traditional and religious values are the very things that define a culture, that allow it to continue and thrive because they are the moral, legal and ethical glue that bind the people together as a society. Without them the society moves toward anarchy and ultimately collapses.

This, of course, assumes it actually gets that far. Libertarians, in their extreme toleration of all opinion, tend not to realize that many of those opinions are deadly. In a world populated by those who slavishly follow other ideologies that oppose freedom in any form, a more likely outcome is societal destruction by external forces.


Yes, libertarianism is just another suicidal ideology.

Bill Weld and Gary Johnson-Libertarian Ticket

The Libertarian Party in the USA is right in tune with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty. Like Mill, today's Libertarian Party enthrones liberty as its god. And like Mill it makes the "one very simple principle" the sole guide to human behavior. Indeed the party platform clearly states this in its Preamble:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others...Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

One can only assume God falls under that catchall phrase "authoritarian power." This is why libertarians are naturally "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion; why they are permissive when it comes to assisted suicide; why they are "progressive" when it comes to same-sex marriage; why they have no problem with any activity chosen by the individual. Why the very concept of sin is anathema to them.

And what exactly constitutes "peaceful and honest" activity or behavior? Without any guiding principle, other than liberty, who decides what is honest and what isn't? And where does morality come into play? For the libertarian it doesn't.

For example, the effects of drug addiction on the family of the addict are ignored by the libertarian because the use of addictive, mind-altering drugs is a "peaceful" activity, one chosen by the individual. From this we also see how the family itself -- counted, no doubt, among those cultural, authoritarian powers -- is cast aside as a hindrance to individual liberty.

I, personally, do not understand how any Christian, especially any Catholic, can support the Libertarian Party. I also find it rather interesting that Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, selected Bill Weld, former Massachusetts governor as his running mate. Weld's political history is aligned with the liberal wing of the Republican Party, a crowd more likely to support Hillary Clinton than Gary Johnson. This can be seen by Weld's current support for extensive gun control legislation, not a very libertarian stance. Maybe Weld, lonely in his semi-retirement, simply felt ignored and needed to get back in the spotlight.

We certainly live in interesting times.

Phyllis Schlafly, R.I.P.

Yesterday we lost a great American, a woman who did more for the resurgence of conservative thought in late 20th-century America than any other. Phyllis Schlafly died in her St. Louis home at the age of 92, but she kept on working and influencing this nation up to the very end. Some of you might remember her appearance at this year's Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Despite her obvious weakness and frailty, she was determined to be present at what turned out to be her final public appearance.  

I met Mrs. Schlafly only once. When we lived on Cape Cod, every January Diane and I would join our pastor, Fr. Gerry Shovelton, and others from our parish and go to Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life. And every October we would make the much shorter trip to Boston for Respect Life Sunday. This latter event included a gathering with speeches and entertainment on the Boston Common followed by a walk of several miles through the streets of the city. It was at this gathering in October 2001 that Diane and I met Phyllis Schlafly. She kindly posed for this photo during our meeting.

An attorney, more accurately, a constitutional lawyer, she was a woman of uncompromising beliefs who nevertheless expressed those beliefs with charity and understanding toward those who disagreed with her. I believe it was this attitude, driven by love, that made her such a successful champion of the causes that were important to her. She would simply and clearly explain the facts relevant to a particular issue and do so without rancor or accusation, and then wait for your response. She always had the truth on her side, so it was extremely difficult to disagree with her and not look foolish. A woman of great faith, she was also one of our nation's most passionate defenders of the unborn, and through her writings will continue to change minds and hearts for years to come.

When I think of Phyllis Schlafly I place her on the same stage with such truth-seeking and truth-speaking conservatives as Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan. A firm believer in conservative principle and "the permanent things," she certainly had as much impact on conservative thought over the past 50 years as did these luminaries.

She is perhaps best known for her almost single-handed defeat of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) after it had passed overwhelmingly with strong bi-partisan support in both houses of Congress. Mrs. Schlafly convinced enough Americans, mostly woman, that the ERA would actually remove many of the protections women had in our society and add very little benefit. I've included below a brief video of her appearance on William F. Buckley's Firing Line to discuss ERA.

She was a prolific author and, indeed, continued writing even in her infirmity. Her most recent book (She is one of three co-authors.), the most timely of all and already a pre-release bestseller, is The Conservative Case for Trump. Coincidentally, I was lent an early released copy of the book just a week ago and read it over the holiday weekend. Like everything she has written it is persuasive and thought-provoking. It deserves wide readership. I believe it was officially released for sale today.

We will miss the wonderful words of Phyllis Schlafly, but mostly we will miss her.


May almighty God bless her; may His face shine upon her and be gracious to her; may He look upon her with kindness and give her peace.

And may she rest eternally in the loving embrace of the God she served so well.

Mother Teresa and the Unborn

Like Pope Francis, I know I'll have trouble now calling Mother Teresa "Saint Teresa." She has simply been Mother Teresa to the world for too long, and given her radical humility, I suspect the Church's newest saint won't mind if we continue to call her what we've always called her. Yes, she is a saint, but during much of her 87 years on earth she was also a loving mother to so many of God's forgotten children. Whenever I read that unique description of the last judgment found in Matthew's Gospel [Mt 25:31-46], I think of Mother Teresa who devoted her life to loving and caring for the least brothers and sisters of Jesus. "Jesus in disguise" she called them. She was truly a loving mother to all God's children.

If you happened to watch her canonization Mass on television yesterday, you will have heard the pope's wonderful homily in which he particularly stressed Mother Teresa's commitment to what she often called "the weakest, smallest, and most vulnerable" among us, the unborn. Sometimes, when I actually take the time to consider the truth about abortion, I find it almost inconceivable that such a horror can exist in a civilized society. To accept abortion as anything other than an intrinsically evil act demands a level of moral ignorance or outright depravity that is beyond comprehension. And yet millions of our fellow citizens seem to have little difficulty accepting this evil as a kind of human right. Imagine that! It becomes a human right to destroy another human being simply because he or she is inconvenient.

People speak today about the many evils that plague our world, but Mother Teresa knew that all these pale in comparison to abortion, the world's greatest evil. Abortion is really the overt rejection of God's love; for what is the gift of life if not the most obvious manifestation of God's love for us? And what is abortion if not its repudiation? I don't see how anyone who believes firmly in the right to abort an unborn child can accept the existence of a living, loving God. To believe in both demands some extraordinary moral and intellectual gymnastics. God's love and His command that we carry that love to others cannot coexist with abortion.

Mother Teresa, of course, knew that love is at the heart of God's call to humanity. In her own brief commentary on Matthew's last judgment, she once said:

I am not sure exactly what heaven will be like, but I do know that when we die and it comes time for God to judge us, he will not ask, "How many good things have you done in your life?" Rather he will ask, "How much love did you put into what you did?”

I remember my own mother once telling me, "What you do is important, but how you do it is even more important." It must be something mothers understand.

Among the more remarkable moments of Mother Teresa's life were those prophetic moments when she confronted the world's elites and revealed God's Word. I've included a few here.

Her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (December 11, 1979) was a remarkable plea to the world to turn to God and accept His love and mercy. It was also a plea on behalf of the unborn:

"The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child - I will not forget you - I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that the  unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible - but even if she could forget - I will not forget you. And today the greatest means - the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion."

How interesting that this recipient of the Peace Prize would equate abortion with war and murder, and label it the "greatest destroyer of peace." I suspect that more than a few in the audience were squirming in their seats as they listened to this tiny, humble woman who commanded no armies but did not hesitate to remind them that they too would have to face God's judgment. Here is a video of her acceptance speech:

There were many similar occasions when Mother Teresa lovingly confronted those who had forgotten or neglected God's Word, but perhaps the most memorable was her appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on February 3, 1994.  Her words to President and Mrs. Clinton and that gathering of politicians must have created a great deal of discomfort that morning as she called them to task. Many, perhaps most, were pro-abortion.

"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

"By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

"And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

I've included a video of her talk here:

And today, two decades later, just look at our world and how violence has for too many become the means to getting what they want.

As the Church celebrates the heavenly canonization of Mother Teresa, another woman is hoping for a worldly celebration as a result of our presidential election on November 8. She too holds some strong, if radically different, beliefs about abortion. Here's what Hillary Clinton said earlier this year in a campaign speech to Planned Parenthood (Januay 6, 2016), the nation's largest abortion provider:

"Politicians have no business interfering with women's personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women's access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I'll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion."

Ah, yes, safe for the mother; deadly for the child. It would be interesting to hear Mother Teresa's response...

Saint Teresa of Calcutta

People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.

If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.

For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

― Mother Teresa

Storm, Soup Kitchen, Funerals and more

It's been a remarkable week, one that has surprised us with the unexpected and taught us much and  blessed us through everyday experiences.

The most unexpected event was the storm that someone named Hermine. It's a rather odd name, isn't it? Do you actually know anyone named Hermine? I certainly don't. I'm not sure how they decide on these stormy names, but in recent years they have definitely changed, become far more exotic. Most people don't realize that earlier -- much earlier -- major storms were named after saints, most often the saint on whose feast day the storm first appeared. And then, for many years, storms went unnamed. For example, I was born in the midst of a storm that was called simply, "The Great Hurricane of September 1944." It wasn't until the early 1950s that the National Weather Service began to assign female names to hurricanes and major tropical storms. I remember well some of the storms that roared up the East Coast when I was much younger -- for example, Carol, Edna, Diane, and Donna -- all given rather common female names. It wasn't until the late 1970s that nascent political correctness led to the assignment of both male and female names to major storms. This change actually surprised me. I would have thought that the more radical feminists would approve of these impressive, mighty storms being given feminine names as a kind of metaphor reflecting the power of women. But no, political correctness trumps all and male storminess must be recognized as equal to that of women. But I digress...

Hermine made its appearance in the Gulf of Mexico early last week as the cleverly named Tropical Depression #9. It wallowed about in the gulf for several days before it began to display some organization and direction. By Tuesday the weather-guessers called for it to strengthen into a tropical storm and ultimately a hurricane, predicting landfall on Florida's west coast sometime early Thursday.

This forecast was particularly disturbing because Diane and I are the Thursday cook and captain at the Wildwood Soup Kitchen, and Wildwood, Florida was on the storm's predicted path. On Wednesday morning we finally decided to close the soup kitchen for Thursday, not wanting to subject our drivers who deliver meals or our walk-in guests to the dangers of a major storm. As it turned out, Hermine changed both course and speed, drifted to the north and west, and finally made landfall early Friday just south of Tallahassee. We were, therefore, spared its most damaging effects. We experienced gusty wind and heavy rain but nothing too exciting. Hermine has since moved up the East Coast and once again is wallowing about, this time in the Atlantic. And so we are able to share this storm with three of our children, who live in coastal New England.

In the midst of all this storminess, I have been asked to conduct two funerals, one vigil service, and one committal service, all in the space of four days. The committal will be at the National Cemetery in Bushnell, Florida. As you might expect, because of our large retired-age population in central Florida, funerals, vigils and committals are common, much more common than baptisms and marriages.

Most funerals are celebrated in the church during Mass, but sometimes, for any number of reasons, a family wants a funeral outside of Mass in a funeral home. Because no Mass is celebrated we deacons are usually called on to conduct these funerals. I have always considered them among the most important liturgies I am privileged to conduct. For most people this is a time of real need, a time when confusion, emptiness, and doubt overwhelm the mind and heart. It is a time calling for the affirmation of faith, a time for the proclamation of God's Good News in the midst of man's bad news. But most importantly, it is a time to listen. And in the listening I have found these difficult times to be wonderful opportunities for evangelization. It's not unusual to encounter family members who have drifted away from the Church and are simply awaiting a call to return.

Anyhow, because of all this, I spend a considerable amount of time preparing for funerals and vigils and committals. I always try to meet with the family in advance, not only to learn about the deceased as a person, but also to get a sense of the relationships within the family. Out of this, the family's  spiritual needs become more evident, important considerations when selecting the Scripture readings and preparing my homily.

I conducted two of these services -- a funeral and a vigil service -- yesterday, while the other two are scheduled for early next week. I am truly humbled by the remarkable faith I encountered yesterday among the family and friends of the man and woman who had died. Even in their grief, they were aware of God's presence and His enduring love. How often this happens! How often do I come to realize the true holiness of God's people, a holiness that often far exceeds that of the clergy, of priests and deacons.

Just as I finished writing the last sentence we suffered a lightning strike. It was the closest and loudest strike I've ever experienced. The flash was right outside our master bedroom window, and the crash of thunder, being so close, was instantaneous and deafening. The circuit breaker for the bedroom electricity flipped off, the smoke detectors all sounded, and Maddie, the wonder-dog, was greatly displeased. Our neighbor just called on her cellphone and said their telephones are out and their PC was fried. We apparently are in better shape. Telephones and computers all seem to be working. I checked the attic for signs of fire, reset the circuit breaker, and gave the house a blessing. 

All seems well. God is good.

Lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord;

praise and exalt him above all forever.

[Dan 3:73]

God's peace

Interview with an Exorcist

"My dear brethren, do not ever forget, when you hear the progress of lights praised, that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!" -- Charles Baudelaire, The Generous Gambler (1864)

For the believer, Satan seems to be extraordinarily busy these days. Since the onset of the First World War just over 100 years ago, humanity has suffered more than in all previous history, and all as a result of our sinfulness. The two world wars, the cold war with its threat of annihilation, the ongoing battle against Islamist terrorists, the increased persecution of Christians in every corner of the world, the slaughter of God's most innocent, the unborn, by the millions -- these and other modern horrors are all symptoms of the spiritual war being waged by Satan.  

I suppose the unbeliever would attribute the chaos of the past century to a variety of other causes. After all, if one does not believe in God, he can hardly accept the reality of sin. For the same reason the unbeliever cannot logically accept the existence of Satan. When the only reality is a material reality, the spiritual must be consigned to the fanciful.

Jesus Casts Out Satan

Over the years I've encountered many Christians, both lay and clergy, even a number of well-known theologians, who do not accept the existence of angels and devils. The idea of spiritual beings, a personal reality outside of our material world, seems to upset them. I suspect some even question the existence of a personal God and would probably prefer a Star Wars-like "force" to the Holy Trinity. Many do not accept such basic Christian beliefs as the truth of the Gospels, the miracles of Jesus, His bodily Resurrection, etc., etc.  And sadly, they teach and preach these distorted beliefs as if they come from the heart of the Church.

While these pseudo-believers work tirelessly to persuade God's people that the devil doesn't exist, Satan is roaming the earth doing his work. Fortunately the Church has not abandoned its beliefs. Pope Francis, for example, has repeatedly warned the faithful of the reality of the devil.

"The Prince of this world, Satan, doesn't want our holiness; he doesn't want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: 'But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!' But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here...even in the 21st century! And we mustn't be naive, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan." [Pope Francis Homily, 10 April 2014].

Fr. Gary Thomas

Recently a Vatican-trained and formed exorcist, Father Gary Thomas, of the Diocese of San Jose, California, was interviewed by Wesley Baines of Beliefnet. It's a fascinating interview that deserves to be read by all Christians, especially those who question the existence of Satan. Here's the link: Interview With an Exorcist

And here's another brief article about Fr. Thomas and his ministry as exorcist: The Devil Hates Latin, Says Exorcist 

Even better, I've included the video of a talk by Fr. Thomas on his ministry. It's well worth watching.