O'Malley, Bishop Lennon, and the HHS Health Mandate: Part Two

Hello again!  Here's the next installment of my analysis of Mr. O'Malley's article concerning Lennon and the HHS mandate; Part One is here.

O'Malley continues:

 “On the books, church teachings say that birth control is not allowed,” said Schenk.  “But the vast majority of Catholics have not accepted the church’s teaching on contraception.

Okay, STOP.  It just keeps getting worse.

This seems to be a common enough tactic amongst the ‘Catholic’ relativists of our time.  They enjoy appealing to ‘the people’ – the common folk who believe Z instead of the X that the Church teaches.  Their reasoning seems to go something like this:

1.       The belief of the majority is the sole criterion of truth.

2.       The majority of Catholics believe that contraception is acceptable.

C.    Therefore, contraception is acceptable.

Well, they manage to break from reality right at premise 1.  Truth is not determined by the will of the majority, as any novice student of philosophy would attest.  It’s a classic case of the fallacious argumentum ad populum.  The beliefs of the majority are incidental to the truth of any proposition, as the precepts of reason and logic dictate.  The pro-abortion advocates that I've seen on the internet make use of this fallacy a lot, sadly enough, and in particular misguided Catholics who don't pay heed to the Magisterium; I'll record some of my musings regarding why that might be in the final post of this series.

“So, you have to ask yourself,” she added, “’Who are the bishops speaking for?’  It sounds like they’re speaking for themselves rather than the Catholic people.”

Schenk questioned why bishops, who don’t raise children or give birth, should be issuing statements on birth control without input from other Catholic voices.  “There’s a big disconnect on where most people are with the issue and where the bishops are,” she said.

As the colloquial exclamation goes: Newsflash!  Sister, you’ve got the role of bishop all wrong.

Bishops in the church are exceptional priests who have been appointed to shepherd and guide the people under their supervision.  They are not a democratically elected representative, as Schenk so foolishly seems to think.  They are appointed under the direction of the Pope – the Vicar of Christ – and are tasked with, among others, the following duties:

All their efforts must aim at preserving the true faith and a high moral tone among the people; they attain this end by good example, by preaching, by daily solicitude for the good administration of the diocese, and by prayer. Bishops, in effect, are bound by the Divine law to implore the help of God for the faithful committed to their care. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

And from the Catechism:

1558 "Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. . . . In fact . . . by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative (in Eius persona agant)." "By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors."

In other words, they aren’t there to represent and enforce the will of the people.  They are appointed to guide the people, to uphold the will of Christ for His Church as manifested in the teachings of the Magisterium.  It is the obligation of the people to conform themselves to Christ’s Truth, as transmitted through Christ’s ministers on earth.  Christ tells us: “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:31-32) Adhering to the truth is more important than conforming to societal mores; the Catechism tells us that “Since God is ‘true’, the members of his people are called to live in the truth.” (CCC 2465)

Unfortunately, the misguided idea that the Church ought to be governed by the People rather than the hierarchy established by Christ and His apostles seems to be a darling amongst Schenk and like-minded folk (as briefly seen earlier in Part Two of my article about women priests).  Fortunately for the Church, Scripture and Tradition emphatically do not bear this out; in fact, they directly contradict it.  As a quick example, one need only look at the Council of Jerusalem, where Church officials met, discussed, and, under the aegis of St. Peter, decided that circumcision was not mandatory for Gentiles who had converted to Christianity. (cf. Acts 15:1-31)  Of course, one can also look at the hierarchy that Christ Himself instituted when He appointed the apostles, and the further developed hierarchy that the apostles in turn continued after Christ’s Ascension (CCC 880-86).

As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, the holy government of the Church is, in a word, monarchical.  The democratic paradigm is not the model that Christ and His apostles based the Church on.  Who are we to dare to contradict His will?  To insist on ‘democratizing’ the Church, as Schenk and her compatriots wish to do, is to impose one’s subjective whims upon the divine institution; it is, barring ignorance, to demonstrate a blatant disregard for truth and the virtue of obedience.

With regard to the idea that “other voices” ought to be given a say: that’s all well and good, but the issue is ultimately up to the Magisterium, or really, the Holy Spirit.  Concerning the issue of birth control, it has already been definitively settled.  It had already been settled, with regard to abortion, all the way back to the time of the Apostles – I refer Sr. Schenk to the second chapter of the Didache, where it is set forth that “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”  Of course, the Church has set forth that abortion is absolutely wrong in every circumstance and can in no way be justified.  Regarding contraception in general, it has always been condemned, with particular reference to Scripture for justification. (cf. Gen. 38:9, Deut. 23:1)  I’d write more on the subject of contraception and abortion, but it’s not the focus of this post; for concise treatments on the subjects, check out these helpful links. 

The next bit from Sr. Schenk is more of the same, but in a more flagrant manner:

“We’re really suffering from this little oligarchy, a small number of men.

In a sense, Schenk is right; the Church is sort of oligarchic, and it does seem like a small number of men (!) govern the Church, but that outright ignores both the position of the papacy and the authority vested in it, which point in turn to a monarchy, as stated previously.  But again Sister misses the whole point of this system, the whole reason why we still have it: because the apostles and their successors all instituted it and maintained it for a reason.  This was done not because of the cultural prejudices of the times, but because it was the model that Christ set, through his ordination of the apostles, his elevation of Peter over the other apostles, and through his establishment of the Church in general. (Again, see CCC, sections 880-86)  The Church is called a kingdom, modeled after the Kingdom of Heaven:

It was the Son's task to accomplish the Father's plan of salvation in the fullness of time. Its accomplishment was the reason for his being sent. "The Lord Jesus inaugurated his Church by preaching the Good News, that is, the coming of the Reign of God, promised over the ages in the scriptures." To fulfill the Father's will, Christ ushered in the Kingdom of heaven on earth. The Church "is the Reign of Christ already present in mystery."

"This Kingdom shines out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ." […]

The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head. Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem. The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ's mission and his power, but also in his lot. By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church. (CCC 763-5)

I think that’s enough said about the kingdom.

More to come later; there isn't much left of the article that's worth commenting on, so I'll post the rest of it, along with my closing thoughts, in a day or two.  As always, feel free to leave your thoughts.

Pax Christi,

Aloysius

O'Malley, Bishop Lennon, and the HHS Health Mandate: Part One

Greetings!  I realize it’s been a ridiculously long while since I posted anything; poor Elizabeth has been carrying the burden of updating the blog on a sort-of regular basis.  I don’t really have an excuse for this laxity on my part; however, in my defense, I originally started writing a post about modern romantic relationships – and have nearly finished it – but I got distracted by other stuff (read: books, books, more books – I made a trip to a used book shop in Oberlin and picked up six more volumes of the Britannica Great Books series – and a good deal of drawing).  Anyway, I was at breakfast again with my father, Elizabeth, and her parents after morning Mass on Wednesday, Feb. 1st, and I saw in the Plain Dealer that a journalist had written an article concerning the Catholic response to the unconstitutional and frankly totalitarian Health and Human Services mandate (for more on that travesty, I recommend hearing Fr. Robert Barron’s thoughts on the issue, seen here; the National Catholic Register also has a number of excellent articles about it).

Wouldn’t you know it!  The journalist was our friend Michael O’Malley: the very same man whose article in the PD spurred me to write that lengthy four-part post about women priests (Part One here).  His article about the bishops’ response to the mandate will be the subject of this post.  All boldings are mine for the sake of emphasis, with the exception of the title of the article, below:

Lennon decries U.S. rule on contraceptives

MICHAEL O’MALLEY, Plain Dealer Reporter

Cleveland Bishop Richard Lennon has joined a chorus of Catholic bishops across the country in condemning a new federal requirement that employers, including Catholic institutions, offer insurance plans providing free contraceptives to their employees.

Starting next year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will require plans such as those at Catholic hospitals colleges, and charities to cover birth control without employee co-payments.

The health department sees the new rule in terms of health and medical issues.  But the Catholic Church sees it as a violation of its religious rights under the Consitution.

It’s a simple enough start; O’Malley provides a concise summary of what has happened, and he gets it right, although with one troubling omission.  I’ll address that glaring omission towards the end of this series.  With regard to the Church’s position concerning the mandate, She is absolutely correct; it is an egregious infringement on religious liberty and a shocking and blatantly aggressive move on the part of the Administration.  However, I am confused by one bit of O’Malley’s piece here: The health department sees the new rule in terms of health and medical issues.  Well, what is that supposed to mean?  Might he elaborate more?  “Health and medical issues” could mean anything, but it seems to suggest that they think the mandate to be essential to the health of patients.  Meanwhile, here I am thinking that contraception, abortion, and sterilization have almost nothing essential to do with the health of a patient and everything to do with trying to artificially manage one’s life via unnatural means.  But that’s a discussion for another time.  Onward:

“Unless this rule is overturned, Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health care coverage for our employees,” Lennon wrote in a letter read by priests throughout the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland during last weekend’s Masses.

The bishop wrote that the Obama administration is “denying to Catholics our nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.”

“We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law,” the bishop wrote.

Lennon’s letter echoed statements by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C.

O’Malley is making one mistake here, as far as I can see.  He is misattributing the letter to Bishop Lennon, when, as far as I know, it is a letter that was read in every Catholic church in the United States.  It was not written by Lennon, as O’Malley seems to think: I’m reasonably certain that it was written by the USCCB, and U.S. Catholic bishops all had it read at the Masses in their name (with their signature at the end, in other words).  So that’s one problem O’Malley has here: a failure to properly investigate the issue.  Given the rest of the article though, I don’t think that’s the biggest problem, as you will see.

On the actual parts of the letter quoted, I am still inspired by the firm resolve illustrated in its words.  We need so badly a strong resistance to this ridiculous and unmitigated attack on religious liberty and conscience, and this letter fills me with hope that that resistance will be unflagging on the part of the bishops.  I only hope the people respond in that manner as well.

But Sister Christine Schenk, a local nun and certified nurse midwife, says the bishops are being disingenuous because the new rule does not force anyone to use contraception.  Schenk heads FutureChurch, a Lakewood-based organization working to liberalize the church.

“No Catholic is being coerced into using birth control,” she said.

All right, stop.  I can just hear the thunderous whoosh as the point of the whole issue flies over Sister’s head.

The point is not that Catholics are being forced to use birth control - that's a ridiculous notion, and also not what the bishops said.  The point is that Catholics are being forced to materially cooperate with evil.  Catholics are being forced to pay for the distribution and/or administration of intrinsic evils – namely: contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization.

All three of these are unequivocally condemned by Holy Mother Church as intrinsic evils.  For Catholics to support any of them is intrinsically wrong, because they directly violate the natural law with regard to sexuality.  So for Sr. Schenk, a radical in her own right (more on that in a bit), to manage to miss that and instead say that it’s not forcing Catholics themselves to use contraceptives is just perplexing.  I mean, she is a Catholic nun, yes?  Unless one is completely ignorant of the dogmatic teachings of the Church – willfully or no – there is no excuse for this kind of oversight.

As for the fact that she heads FutureChurch…well, I’ll cover that part in a bit.  Suffice for now to say that FutureChurch is not a Catholic group in anything other than the nominal sense of the word.  Their website, and their mission statement, are what could charitably be called full of tripe - I am reminded forcefully of the National Catholic Reporter, which you will find to be anything but Catholic if you have the stomach to read the things they have to say about contraception, women "priests", abortion, et cetera.

That's all for now, but there's much more to come.  My original response to this article, somewhere in the realm of two or three pages, has now ballooned to six - I'll be cutting it up into two or three more posts as a result.  For now, feel free to tell me what you think: suggestions, questions, disagreements - have at it!  This Catholic is still in need of help when it comes to blogging - thank the Lord I at least have Elizabeth to help me out there - so input is very welcome.  In the meantime, I'll do my best to get the rest of this article up promptly.

Pax Christi,

Aloysius

Video: Father Barron on the HHS Contraception Mandate

Here's a fantastic video that Father Robert Barron, a Chicago-based priest and favorite commentator of mine, posted quite recently.  It's in response to the Department of Health and Human Services' mandate that employers, including religious institutions, pay for and provide contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations for their employees.

Father Barron also has a supplemental video on another channel of his that speaks about the mandate:

In addition to the videos, I have here in a handy link the letter that my diocese's bishop, Richard Lennon (Diocese of Cleveland), signed and sent out to all the parishes, as passed down by the U.S. bishops.  This letter was (as most U.S. Catholics ought to know) read at all Catholic Masses in the United States this past Sunday (January 29th) and spoke about both what the Obama administration has imposed and what we as Catholics must do about it.  I encourage you to read it several times: it's a wonderful letter, and it really rams home the fact that we Catholics, along with our fellow brethren in Christ and all other religious objectors, are facing up against a blatant attack on our religious liberty and right of conscience.  We must do everything we can to prevent this mandate from taking effect.

Oh, and I have an article currently incoming that relates directly to the bishops' response to the HHS mandate.  Expect it to be up in a few days - preferably by Saturday.


Pax Christi,

Aloysius

In Remembrance of Roe vs. Wade

Neither Aloysius or I were able to attend the March for Life in Washington DC this year, but it is heartening to see the hundreds of thousands of faithful people in the current photographs of the 2012 March.

Although I did not go to Washington, I wanted to make my own contribution to the Pro-Life movement.  So the day before the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, I made and posted the following video to YouTube:

Humbly and gratefully, I'd like to call myself a survivor of Roe vs. Wade.

Thanks to all the folks out there who labor ceaselessly to promote the rights of the unborn.

What's Wrong With These Papists? - Part I

             With all the misconceptions and unanswered questions about the Catholic Church floating around, it’s important that we Catholics clearly explain what we believe and address all the fingers pointed at the Church.  If only those who criticize the Church would give us a chance to explain ourselves fully, we just might soften some stony hearts.  As Servant of God Fulton Sheen stated so perceptively, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” 

                I would like to begin this series with some Catholic basics.  For Catholics genuinely interested in their faith, these “basics” might be old news; for doubtful Catholics, they might prove a much-needed reminder; and for non-Catholics, they will hopefully refute some common allegations.  Overall, I hope I will inspire a deeper appreciation of what the Catholic Church is all about.

--

Question #1: Why the name “Catholic”?

                Answer:  The word “catholic” comes from the Greek kat’ holon or katholou and it means “universal”, as in relating to the whole.  There is a rather rich array of symbolism within the name, but only one or two explanations will be necessary:

1.       The Church is universal because She obeys Christ’s command to “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” – Matthew 28: 19

2.       The Church is whole because She believes that Christ resides very really with Her, in His fullness (“Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” – Matthew 28: 20); and because Christ handed on to the Church His Truth – that is, the whole truth.  “I gave them Your word, and the world hated them … Consecrate them in the truth.  Your word is truth.”  – Jesus’ prayer to His Father, John 18: 14, 17

The word “catholic” was first applied to the Church – what was then simply known as the Christian Church – in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrnaeans, about the year 110 A.D.  Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 A.D.) later stated, “Both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one.”

Misconception #1: Catholics worship Jesus’ mother, Mary.

                Refutation:  By honoring Mary, we are following the example of the early Church.

The respect and distinction granted the Mother of God by the Church is an ancient, ancient custom.  Before any theological decisions were made officially by the Church regarding such issues as Mary’s virginity, her freedom from original sin, and her merited right to be called the Mother of God, devotion to Mary was common in the early Church.  One of the earliest known paintings of Mary was found in the catacombs, dating from the late 2^nd century. (See picture at the end of the post.)

Many of the Church Fathers, great men who were active in the Church from its beginnings to 750 A.D., wrote tracts in defense or in praise of Mary.  One of the earliest references to Mary among the writings of the Church Fathers is from Irenaeus, who wrote in 189 A.D., “The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God.”  Ambrose of Milan wrote in 377 A.D., “The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher.  What is greater than the Mother of God?  What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?”  Cyril of Jerusalem wrote, “The Father bears witness from heaven to His Son.  The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove.  The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary.  The Virgin Mother of God bears witness.”  (350 A.D.)

It is also worth mentioning that one of the famous early councils of the Church, the Council of Ephesus held in 431 A.D., was convened because the early Church was fighting one of the many heresies then plaguing it.  A bishop named Nestorius – of Greek nationality, and therefore inclined to be a Platonist – believed that created things were imperfect and sinful.  He thus tried to make the claim that Christ was not God, and therefore Mary was not the Mother of God, but simply the mother of a great human being.  The council, of course, made the decision that Christ must be God, and so Mary must be the Mother of God – or the Theotokos, Greek for “God-bearer”.  It is interesting to note that this decision was made based on logic more than anything else, and that shortly thereafter, the first church dedicated to the Virgin Mary was built in Rome around the year 435, Saint Mary Major.  This basilica still stands in all its glory in Rome.  (see picture)

By honoring Mary, we are following the examples given to us in Scripture.

Not only does the Catholic Church have innumerable writings of the Church Fathers to turn to for guidance in this matter, but She also has the authority of Scripture.  I would like to reference five Scripture passages which maintain Mary’s position as honored Mother of God:

1.       Luke 1: 26-28.  “The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.  And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, full of grace!  The Lord is with you.’ ”

2.       Luke 1: 41-42, 46, 48.  “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice, ‘Most blessed are you among women’ …  And Mary said ... ‘Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.’ ”

3.       John 2: 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10.  “There was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there … When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’  And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, how does your concern affect me?  My hour has not yet come.’  His mother said to the servers, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ … Jesus told them, ‘Fill the jars with water.’ … And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine … [he] called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Everyone serves good wine first … but you have kept the good wine until now.’ ”

4.       John 19: 25-27.  “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister … when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son.’  Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother.’  And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.”

5.       Acts of the Apostles 1: 13-14.  “When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.  All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus.”

The first two passages are in many ways self-explanatory, but I would like to briefly explain the great significance of the latter three. 

• ·         At the wedding feast, Mary first informs Jesus of the bridal party’s plight – no wine – and then she, in a sense, disregards His rationalization and orders the servants to pay attention and follow whatever directions Jesus gives them.  (She is gently, but subtly, ordering Jesus to help the bride and groom out.  Sounds like a mother, doesn’t it?)  And then – Jesus listens to her.  One could argue that Jesus was merely testing Mary, that He was planning all along to change the water into the needed wine, that she “pressured” Him to work a miracle; and perhaps all these were factors, but the point is that Jesus listened to her, and obeyed her.  He offers to us an example of the respect and obedience we should give to Mary.
• ·         At the Cross, Jesus sets before us a most tender symbol: that of giving His Church to the care of His Mother, as her own children.  St. John the Disciple, perhaps pointedly unnamed (although John the Evangelist insists on calling himself the disciple whom Jesus loved throughout his Gospel), stands on one side of the Cross, representing the Church.  Mary stands on the other side.  Jesus, who seems concerned not only for the welfare of His Church, but also for that of His Mother, gives Mary to the disciple and the disciple to Mary.  At Jesus’ last dying moment, the Church is bequeathed to an ever-loving mother.
• ·         In the upper room, where the beautiful Descent of the Holy Spirit will take place in a few moments, the Apostles of Jesus gather with the women who followed Jesus, and with His Mother.  St. John seems to have taken his role as Mary’s adopted son quite seriously, and all the other Apostles as well.  Her presence among the closest disciples of Jesus during the very beginnings of the Church (Pentecost) indicates her personal and guiding role in the early Church.  One can imagine the love she showered on them as the dear friends of her Son, and how much the Apostles must have been devoted to her as the Virgin Mother of their Lord.

 It can thus be gathered from these examples that devotion to Mary is not something new.  The practice of honoring the Mother of God has been around since the Church began.  Before the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church split, before Islam was formed (even centuries before Muhammad was born), the Virgin Mother held a cherished place in the heart of the Church.  That is why we honor her today.

But don’t you pray to Mary?

For the sake of convenience, we say “praying to Mary”, which is something of a euphemism, although we are indeed asking her for her motherly help during times of trouble.  But we are not praying to her as a goddess, or as some deity equal in omnipotence to the Triune God.  We like to call it “praying to Jesus through Mary”, and in that sense we are referencing the Scripture passage where the wedding feast at Cana takes place.  (The significance of that passage has been mentioned already.)  It is as if we were asking our own mothers to pray for us, and like Monica, the mother of St. Augustine, God listens with special attention to the prayers of a mother.  How much more so will He listen to the requests of His own Mother, when she presents Him with the needs of the Church.

Pax Christi,
Elizabeth

Movie Review: Juno

Greetings!  Welcome to the first of (hopefully) many movie reviews by Al+El.

My name is Elizabeth, and the movie I am reviewing today is Juno.

I’ve been eager to watch the movie Juno for a long time, ever since it first came out.  Although I was not allowed to see it at the time (with very good reason, which will be seen later), I knew lots of people who did, and over the years I’ve heard many and conflicting opinions of this movie.   Initially, I was surprised that the pro-abortion/liberal media didn’t persecute Juno, because of what I thought was its pro-life message.  After watching the movie, however, I can see how wrong my original impression was, and why the pro-abortion party would not make such a hype over this movie as they might over, say, Bella.   

Summary

Juno is not your everyday girl who finds herself in a situation which is, sad to say, something of an everyday occurrence in our culture:  she’s 16 years old, still in high school, and facing an unplanned pregnancy.  Confused and unsure, she confides in her best friend, Leah, who suggests a visit to the abortion clinic to “get rid of it”.  On her way inside the clinic, Juno spots a girl from her high school protesting outside the clinic.  The girl immediately attempts to change Juno’s mind, but nothing seems to get through to her until the girl squeaks desperately, “Your baby has fingernails!”  Puzzled by this new idea of her baby’s humanity, and turned off by the brashness of the lady at the front desk of the abortion clinic, Juno recants and decides to keep her baby.  She is, however, determined not to raise the baby herself, and thus sets off to find the perfect adoptive parents for her unborn child.

Reaction

My initial reaction to Juno was a wish that it wasn’t so crass, and possessed more charm.  In the uptake, Juno is rather a charming movie – it possesses unique and endearing characters, moments of dry humor, and a certain quirky-cutesy edge.  It is essentially the story from Juno’s perspective, that is, the perspective of a cynical, laid-back, witty, and confident teenager.   There is much to admire in her personality, much to love.  (Her pipe made me fall in love with her instantly, if only because I also am in possession of a pipe and chew it on occasion.)  She is an acute and unique individual, refreshingly original, and possessing a free and undaunted spirit.  In short, she is “an old soul”.  But what is sad and disappointing about her are those streaks of raunchy humor and disrespect – particularly for the older generation – that darkly color her otherwise sunny nature.  This is reflected in the film.  In context, a little taste of juvenile crudity is to be expected, but the amount of dirty humor presented to me was a bit shocking – all the more so because this was the way in which the filmmakers presented a story about the beautiful choice of life. 

The overall message of Juno is a negative one (and most likely the reason for its acceptance among the liberal side of the media): Juno fails to take her pregnancy as the price – or penalty – of her immoral behavior, and instead seems to flaunt her baby bulge with pride.  This is not so terrible in itself, but I think the crux of the problem lies in Juno’s angry, accusatory words to Paulie, her on-and-off boyfriend: “Do you regret that we did it?” (i.e., had sex).   What Juno is saying here is that she does not regret what they did, and she is mad at Paulie for not feeling the same way.  Perhaps we should consider the scene in which this encounter takes place.  Paulie has just told Juno that he has asked another girl out to the prom, and emotionally, Paulie and Juno seem to be drifting apart.  So is Juno merely feeling dumped by Paulie?  Are her built up frustrations and hormones from her pregnancy manifesting themselves?  Or do her words present a deeper insight into her character, and the character of the film?

It is surprising to me how many people (even good Catholics) seem to fail to look beyond the endearing charms of Juno and see how many things are disturbing about it.  (Don’t even try to pull that trite “Oh, it’s just a movie” excuse.)  The film is about serious occurrences, and the attitudes of its characters need to be considered.  Some of the most crucial points in the movie, as we saw in the last paragraph, revolve around Juno’s commentary.  At the end of the film, she tells the viewers that she and Paulie “got started early” – that is, growing up, having children together.  But the fact is that neither one of them grew up.   Juno didn’t learn anything from her unplanned pregnancy.  Instead, her final words suggest that she rather liked growing up early and entering into a “serious” relationship at 16.  (However, neither she nor Paulie mention the future possibility of marriage.)  Juno’s last bits of commentary suggest that she would do it all over again.  Let me just mention here that the only reason the whole thing happened is that Juno and Paulie got bored on a Friday night while they were hanging out.  How spontaneous – how immature.  And how sad.

So far, I have only mentioned Juno and Paulie.  What about the adults?

Unfortunately, the adults presented in Juno are in want of extreme character reform.  Juno’s father, Mac, hardly seems to know what’s going on in his daughter’s life; her stepmother, Bren, while presented as being uptight and no-nonsense, barely challenges Juno’s screwy behavior (although she is very supportive of Juno during her pregnancy – beautiful unconditional love!); the hopeful adoptive parents-to-be of Juno’s baby are, on the one side, insecure, and on the other side, “messing around” (or unfaithful), and both are hoping for the perfect child to fit their eggshell perfect life; and various other high school teachers and parents are made out to be flirting with the students, or silly to the point of being idiotic, or just plain juvenile.  Out of all these, Bren seems to be the most solid character, for although she is the stepmother of Juno, she seems to take better, firmer disciplinary action than Juno’s actual father (if you can really call it disciplinary).

Perhaps it is no wonder, then, that Juno has such an urge to be grown up, and yet is unwilling to let go of her immature habits – such as disrespect for her elders.  She is seriously lacking role models in her life.  However, there are moments of connection between Juno and some of the adults.  She has something of a heart-to-heart talk with her father Mac.  She develops a cautious friendship with Vanessa, the anxious but gentle prospective mother of Juno’s baby.  Her stepmother Bren supports her during her pregnancy with words of wisdom and prenatal vitamins.  During some of the connections, though, the bizarre attitudes of some of the characters and the filmmakers become apparent.  Juno’s friendship with Vanessa’s husband Mark – founded on a mutual love for punk rock and horror movies – takes a sour turn when Mark begins dissolutely falling for Juno and ultimately decides to leave Vanessa.  (Juno rejects him with horror, but in this lies another negative element.  Bren had warned Juno not to visit Mark alone so often, and Juno blew her off.)  At an earlier point, Juno is having an ultrasound done, and the technician makes an insensitive remark about teen mothers raising children themselves.  Bren responds indignantly and shuts the technician down, but one can’t help feeling during the scene that the filmmakers are merely making a bow to the pro-abortion party.

It seems apparent throughout Juno that the filmmakers want to please both sides: pro-abortion and pro-life.  They were afraid of making an overtly pro-life movie, so they made it pro-sex and pro-immaturity instead.  Attempting to produce a happy medium, they failed to fully satisfy both sides.  But perhaps this was their goal.

In conclusion…

…there are two major things wrong with this movie.  1): the flippant presentation of some of the most serious things in life (such as sex and abortion).  2): Juno’s half-adult/half-naïve take on it all.  We see lots of suggestive content, and lots of sexual implications, and Juno and her friends talking casually about it all. 

Sadly, it is all taken casually now.  Have sex, get pregnant, have an abortion (get rid of it), recycle.  Meantime, let’s go on with our lives as if nothing has happened.  The movie truly does present “a day in the life”, of a teenager.  But perhaps one of the movie’s good points lies in this, that it can present a somewhat positive message on human life in the womb to a desensitized generation who understand the crassness that is in front of them.  It’s gloomy to have to admit that.

Juno’s attitude, then, is probably not that much different from your average teenager.  High school kids seem to think that they’re mature enough to have sex, but when faced with other adult situations -- pregnancy, coping with annoying people, having a relationship -- they seem to fall back on their adolescence.  (In fact, not many adults seem to do a better job; but maybe this is because they acted this way when they were kids.)  The truth is, they are kids.  They’re not adults.  They’ve got so much life to live, so much to learn…why rush it? 

This is what irks me about people who say that Juno is all about Juno learning to grow up.  It’s not.  She has tried to grow up already, and it hasn’t worked.  Her youthfulness is so lovable.  It makes her react the way she does.  But the film’s overall message includes this element: it’s okay to “take a detour into adulthood”, as the Juno DVD synopsis says.  It’s especially okay if you’re a “cool, confident teenager” like Juno.  After it’s all over, you can get back on the road and continue merrily on your way.  There are no consequences for your actions.

In the real world, this is not okay, nor is it an easy thing to get over and forget.  It’s sad.  It impacts you for life, whether you believe it or not.  It’s unfortunate.  It’s unfortunate that Juno forces herself into an adult situation, because frankly, she is not ready for it.  She’s still a kid.  And until she has experience enough to change, that’s how she will remain.

--

Pax Christi,

Elizabeth

On Women Priests: Part Four

Finally, the last part is up!  Here's Part Four of my essay on women priests and O'Malley's PD article; here are Parts One, Two, and Three for your viewing pleasure if you missed them.

The article continues:

The Women's Ordination Committee, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for women priests, said it has 10,000 supporters on its mailing list, half of whom are dues-paying members. The committee estimates there are about 125 women priests in the United States.

The committee's director, Erin Hanna, said her organization does not ordain women, but there at least four groups that do.

One hundred and twenty-five women “priests?”  I’m torn between being depressed that there are so many and being glad that there are so few - does that even make sense?  I’m not sure which one it is.  Anyway, I would like to know just how these “four groups” go about “ordaining” women – ordination requires a bishop, after all, and any bishop who simulates ordination of women is reprimanded and/or excommunicated, as far as I know.  And besides, I thought that bishops had no authority?  In that case, there isn’t even a simulation of ordination by a bishop.

Ann Klonowski, 62, of Independence, was recently accepted into one of the groups, Roman Catholic Women Priests, to study for the priesthood. She expects to be ordained within two to three years.

"A lot of people say, 'This is ridiculous,' " said Klonowski who has a graduate degree in theology from John Carroll University. "Well, it might be, but there won't be any changes unless people stand up on their hind legs.

"I'm reconciled to be a voice in the desert. I don't have to worry about what the institutional church thinks of me. I have to worry about what God thinks of me."

Klonowski must prepare herself not only for the priesthood, but for the excommunication that the Catholic church says is automatic.

Two to three years?  Whatever happened to the requirement that priests need at the very least a four-year degree in Catholic philosophy, plus four more years studying theology?  Perhaps I’m jumping to conclusions here, but I think that this “two to three years” of education is going to be woefully inadequate – not to mention distorted, seeing as they have so many issues with Church authority and Her central teachings.  Yes, it is ridiculous – not only because of the heretical nature of this whole situation, but also because of the obviously woefully deficient education in Church theology and philosophy that they have received or will be receiving, which is never a good thing in any situation.

Moving on!  Ah yes, the whole “voice in the desert” nonsense.  It has a nice ring to it, what with the quoting from the Bible, and it evokes an image of them as the sole voice of Truth in a whirlwind of lies and injustice.  The problem here, however, is that she is simply letting herself be taken by that whirlwind of falsehood that she thinks she is standing up to.  As was already established earlier, she is going up against the Truth itself – the teaching of the Holy Spirit as passed on to us through the Magisterium – and she will never be able to change the Truth as given by God.  In this particular case, standing up to the “institutional church” and its infallible teachings is tantamount to standing up to Christ Himself – a situation no one should ever want to find themselves in.  The very fact that she is prepared to take the excommunication as an acceptable consequence of her actions only highlights the depth of her error.   For her, it seems that the excommunication means nothing, which makes her opinion of Church authority even clearer than it was before – if that was even possible.  But I'm beating a dead horse, really, so: moving on.

The Rev. Roy Bourgeois of Georgia, who has worked with Zeman, supports women priests and has participated in their ordinations. The church considers him excommunicated and he is facing dismissal by his religious order the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers.

The Maryknolls have repeatedly ordered him to recant his position on women priests, but Bourgeois has refused.

"I will not recant," he said in a recent telephone interview. "I will not lie.

"Who are we as men to say that our call to the priesthood is authentic, but God's call to women is not?" he added. "This movement of gender equality is rooted in justice. You can't stop this movement. It's like trying to stop the women's suffrage movement."

Oh, Mr. O’Malley, you’re really making me giggle here.  In the words of a commenter on the PD site: “Not a single (non-heretical) Catholic quoted in the article.  Good job, P-D!”  O’Malley can only find people who support women’s ordination in the fringes of Catholic liberalism; orthodoxy, which is the mark of true and faithful Catholicism, is firmly against his and Zeman’s beliefs and agenda.

On the subject of Father Roy Bourgeois: as you may have read already in the article by Jimmy Akin on the NCR, Bourgeois has consistently and steadfastly refused to adhere to his priestly vows, recognize his error, and recant; another obstinate and misguided soul to add to that sadly growing list.  Bourgeois’ comparison of women’s ordination to women’s suffrage is a pathetic and fruitless attempt to make the priesthood a right in the same way that voting is (and incidentally, it’s also a perfect example of a bad analogy, for the philosophically-minded reading this post); however, I believe we covered this one earlier with that helpful paragraph from the Catechism (1578).  His arguments for women’s ordination have all already been shot down with gruesome finality by the good Mr. Akin (here’s the link again, in case you didn’t get to it the first time), and I consider him to be exactly the same as Ms. Zeman here: completely wrongheaded and in dire need of our prayers for his soul.  I am reminded of that verse from the Gospel of Luke: 

“He said to his disciples, ‘Things that cause sin will inevitably come, 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’” (cf. Lk 17:1-2).

I shudder to think how many well-meaning Catholics Bourgeois and Co. have misled with their rhetoric about equality and independent interpretation.  They certainly haven't helped when it comes to American Catholics, at least judging by the surveys that Mr. O'Malley cited.  That's not to say that they are the sole cause of the average American Catholic's views, but all the same, I find it hard to deny that they had no part in it at all.

I pray that Fr. Bourgeois and Ms. Zeman will come to see the truth before it is too late; in light of their obstinate refusals to cease their heretical and misleading activities, I think it's clear that only the grace of God can reach them now.  Please pray for all those misguided souls who have gone astray, that they may no longer spread division, strife, and misinformation among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

And that's the end of this essay; I hope you at least found it to be informative and interesting.  In a similar vein, I'm planning on commenting about so-called "Catholic" politicians and whether or not they are true adherents to Church teaching in a later post - not too sure when, but it'll be sometime in the coming month, I should think.  In the meantime, thanks for reading!  Comments and thoughts are thoroughly encouraged and welcomed.

Pax Christi.

On Women Priests: Part Three

Hello again!  I'm back to post the third part of my article on women priests and Michael O'Malley's article in the Plain Dealer.  If you missed the first two pieces, here they are: Parts One and Two.  Again, as previously stated, all boldings are mine for the sake of emphasis.

O'Malley's article continues:

"We don't pledge allegiance to any bishop," said Zeman. "We pledge allegiance directly to God and to the people of God."

Zeman grew up in Gesu Parish in University Heights and graduated from Regina High School.

She has a degree in theology from the Jesuit-run Loyola University in Chicago.

The first thought that popped into my head here was: Oh, how profoundly Protestant.  Seriously!  This is the language of a Protestant, dressed up in a Catholic context.  Once again, our dear friend Barbara is ignoring one of the foundational aspects of Catholicism – the hierarchy of bishops as passed down by and through the apostles.  They serve as successors of the apostles, who were commissioned by Christ to go and preach in His name (the establishment of what is called the episcopate), and as dictated by that position of service are teachers, guides, and shepherds of the faithful.  The CCC reads:

Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church.  He instituted the Church.  He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal…” (874)

This is further expounded upon via Scripture: “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without a preacher?  And how can men preach unless they are sent?” (Rom 10:14-15).  Here we see why the Commissioning of the apostles is so important an event in the establishment of the Church.  The CCC further states:

No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: "Faith comes from what is heard [Rom 10:17]."  No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ's authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty ("the sacred power") to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ's emissaries do and give by God's grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a "sacrament" by the Church's tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament. (875)

It certainly sounds to me like Zeman et al. are giving themselves “the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel.”  They certainly seem to deny that there are “ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ” (i.e. bishops), else they would not be denying the authority of the Church and Her bishops.

With regard to Zeman’s degree in theology from Loyola University, that doesn’t tell me much, except that her teachers must have done a woefully inadequate job of educating her on the precepts and teachings of the Church.  Either that, or she never took much of it to heart, a fact which is plainly manifest in her present behavior.  O’Malley here seems to be covertly arguing that because she has a degree in theology, she must know what she’s talking about.  Problematically for him, this leads one to an absurd conclusion: that all of the theologians and other people who also have degrees in theology and have come down on the Church’s side must be wrong, which in turn implies that a degree in theology doesn’t necessarily say much.  I think you know where I’m going with this.

"I am a Catholic," she said. "And no one's going to tell me I'm not."

I thought I would give this particular quote its own little treatment, because of the peculiar, absurd and silly nature of it.  “…no one’s going to tell me I’m not.”  Really?  Well then, any attempts to the contrary are pointless, of course.  Here’s one from me: “I’m the Duke of York, and no one’s going to tell me I’m not.”  Disagree with me?  Too bad, I say so and it’s final!  So there.

All jesting aside, there is some truth to what she says, if only in the immediate and superficial sense of the word.  She is certainly a Catholic, because “once a Catholic, always a Catholic,” as the saying goes: by virtue of our Catholic baptism, we are given an indelible mark that stays with us all throughout life.  But this is only a nominal title; there is no real truth to it in the deep, meaningful sense of the word, as established earlier in this piece.  One cannot say that one is a true, faithful Catholic and at the same time deny the central tenets of the Church.  It’s logically incoherent, given the true meaning and import of the words “faithful Catholic”; the combination of those words implies certain things which cannot be denied without contradicting the very words themselves.

In Chicago, Zeman works as a nondenominational chaplain in a hospital and performs sacramental services, including Mass, for a gay/lesbian group called Dignity Chicago.

This is another short commentary, but also important.  I find the denotation nondenominational intriguing; if she is so proud of standing up to ‘injustice,’ as she calls it, why not simply claim to be a Catholic ‘priest’ in her capacity as chaplain?  Odd.  Also, the fact that she performs “sacramental services” to a “gay/lesbian group” is very enlightening; given the fact that Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that she celebrates homosexual ‘marriage’ – yet another scandalous and perverse denial of direct Church teaching.  But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this anymore – it’s quite a trend with Zeman, after all.

Though Protestant denominations have been ordaining women for decades, Zeman said she would never consider joining one of them. "I'm not going to leave my church," she said. "It's who I am."

Traditionally, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has not recognized women priests. The institution argues that Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, therefore, women cannot be ordained.

But proponents of women priests say Jesus had women followers and women played vital roles, including leading faith communities, in the early church.

"This is murky history," said the Rev. Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "It's hard to prove anything one way or another."

But the apostle argument, he said, can be problematic. "They were all Jews, too," he said. "So do all priests have to be Jewish males? If that's the case, we have a real problem."

It sounds like Zeman’s only tangible tie to the Church is her emotional and lifelong connection with it, neither of which are necessarily pertinent.  If, as she says, the Church is “who she is,” why does she consistently and persistently deny essentially every claim to authority that it has?  I am led to wonder whether she even believes that the Church is the sole teacher of the whole Truth; I keep getting the impression that her decision to “stay” in the Church is based wholly on arbitrary and preferential grounds – something which I associate with Protestants, not Catholics.  Obviously, if the Church is wrong on women’s ordination (not to mention the authority of bishops), then She is not possessed of the whole Truth (because She’s obviously lying or mistaken about several important issues), so why remain in it?  Does Zeman even believe in Truth?  If so, of what import is it to her?  Just some thoughts.

Next!  Ah, here we go with the “hierarchy” thing again.  People who criticize the Church – like Mr. O’Malley here – like to emphasize the supposed disconnect between those bad, mean, misogynistic bishops and the poor, innocent laity who suffer under the arbitrary pronouncements of the hierarchy.  O’Malley here employs what might be called a straw man fallacy, wherein he presents the readers with a very watered-down explanation of the Church’s opposition to female ordination and then gives some (contextually, anyway) valid refutations of it.  The whole of his argument, however, is based on the weak proposition that “the institution argues that Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, therefore, women cannot be ordained.”

Well, way to oversimplify!  The Church’s reasons for teaching that women’s ordination is not possible are far more comprehensive and well-grounded than that admittedly spurious-sounding postulation.  See this wonderful article by Mr. Jimmy Akin of the National Catholic Register here, where he picks apart various arguments for women’s ordination as put forth by the obstinately heretical Fr. Roy Bourgeois (who is, funnily enough, mentioned later in O’Malley’s article).  For more information, I also recommend this excellent tract provided by Catholic Answers.  Needless to say, however, this is not the whole picture.  Christ specifically chose men as apostles, who in turn only chose men as successors, etc.  The argument is put forward that Jesus and his disciples only did this because of the patriarchal society of the time.  My response is: Christ was one of the most anti-societal-custom figures of that time, breaking all sorts of axiomatic rules and prejudices.  I refer you to the case of the Samaritan Woman at the well (cf. Jn 4:4-41), where Jesus does something absolutely unthinkable by the mores of that time: he a) approaches and speaks with a Samaritan woman, b) asks for a drink, and c) does so alone with her.  In the Jewish culture of the time, Samaritan women were considered to be "ritually impure"; Jews were "forbidden to drink from any vessel they had handled."  There are other relevant Scriptural examples to be had, but I'd rather not dredge up any more in the interest of space constraints; a reasonably quick perusal of the Gospels will yield results for the more curious here.

The Church teaches that just as men and women are different biologically, being suited to different roles, so too with spirituality.  A man cannot become pregnant; he is not meant to.  Likewise, a woman cannot become a priest; she is not meant to.  Each sex has different but complementary callings.  The priest is by virtue of his ordination wedded to the Church, Christ’s Bride; the nun is wedded to Christ in a similar fashion.  The priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) when he celebrates the Mass; a woman is fundamentally incapable of doing so, by virtue of her being a woman.  Male-only ordination is not an exclusion or discrimination of women, in the same way that motherhood is not an exclusion or discrimination of men; they are simply two different callings that suit the respective genders.  In this sense, equality is not equivalent in meaning to sameness, which is what Zeman and others like her seem to think.  Again, I refer you to Mr. Akin’s marvelous article that was mentioned previously; he puts it a bit more eloquently and comprehensively than I have.

With regard to the existence or nonexistence of females who operated in “vital roles” in the early Church: the language is needlessly vague, unless of course the vagueness is there due to lack of concrete information – in which case why are we using it as justification for a stance on an issue as important as this?  Regarding the Rev. Tom Reese, apparently he is an ardent member of the group Voice of the Faithful, which happens to be a spotty “Catholic” action group that covertly advocates for women priests (how ironic)and the end of priestly celibacy and provides links to explicitly dissident groups such as We Are Church and Call to Action.  In addition to this, many of its members are dissidents within the Church, leading to it being accused of being a “front organization for dissidents” – something that I happen to agree with – and it also calls for radical restructuring of the Church to make it more akin to a democracy.  Furthermore, he was editor of the “Catholic” magazine America for several years – a magazine which was and is known for its criticism of and opposition to Church authority and teaching.  Even ignoring these, his comments on the question of the apostles remains vague and inconclusive, opting instead to use a silly and irrelevant argument based on their ethnicity.

The fourth - and last - part of this series will be up in a few days.  It touches on Zeman's silly but disturbing "Here I stand, I can do no other" stance, some thoughts on the educational qualifications of these "priestesses," and the stubbornly heretical Fr. Roy Bourgeois.  I hope you enjoyed this part (and the others) and I of course encourage you to keep reading and give me your thoughts on it all.