DEVOLVING OBAMA

Posted on May 12, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

Both Vice-President Joseph Biden and President Barack Obama have said that their positions regarding same-sex marriage have evolved. When you are “evolving,” you should really watch your grammar. Otherwise, people might suspect you are devolving instead.

Take for instance, the hapless Joe Biden’s pronouncement of why he supports same-sex marriage. It’s all a matter of “who do you love.” His statement is both substantively and grammatically incorrect. It should, of course, be “whom do you love”. “You” is the subject and “whom” is the object of the verb “love.” Biden’s grammatical error reveals the problem with same-sex marriage. It has two subjects without an object.

What is the object of marriage? It is for two to become one flesh. Anatomically and morally, only a man and a woman can do this. Only spousal love is properly sexual for only it provides for the protection of that at which the marital act aims both in its unitive and procreative senses.

But what about “love”? Isn’t it a bit mean-spirited not to allow people who love each other to get married, even if they are of the same gender? Love always seeks the well-being of the loved one. This is true in all sorts of love, whether between parents and children, between children themselves, or between friends. Sexualizing the love in these relationships would be profoundly mistaken since none of these loving relationships is or could be spousal in character.

Therefore, sex between parents and children, between siblings, or between unmarried friends, or between friends of the same gender is objectively disordered and will inflict harm on the parties involved no matter how they “feel.” This is the opposite of seeking the loved one’s well-being.

Biden is now telling the country that this is not so – that if one man loves another man, sexualizing that love in the form of an act of sodomy is not only not harmful, but provides a sound moral basis for marriage. That is why Biden is in favour of sanctifying sodomy.

How does one evolve into this curious position? One undertakes what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values. In other words, you take Christianity and dump it on its head and turn it into its opposite, while calling it the same thing. Let’s consider how President Obama “evolved” in this way. On September 25, 2004, Obama said:

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Indeed, that is what Christianity teaches. One wonders what in Christianity is inconsistent with his political views. How are his political views formed? Are they consistent with moral philosophy? Is the judgment of moral philosophy, as in a work like Aristotle’s The Ethics or in Socrates’ condemnation of sodomy, inconsistent with Christian teaching on same-sex marriage? Why doesn’t Obama’s moral reasoning lead him in the same direction as his Christian faith?

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama gives us a clue. He writes that:

“Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or ‘ism,’ and any tyrannical consistency that might block future generations into a single, unalterable course…”

In other words, truth leads to tyranny. Truth does not set you free; it imprisons. Moral relativism sets you free. Then you can do what you want.

But it is absurd for him to say that the Founders of the United States did not believe in absolute truths. Had this been so, there would have been no Declaration of Independence (“we hold these truths…”) and no Constitution. Obama is reading his own moral relativism back into the document and then trying to use it to legitimize the very opposite of what it proclaims.

Here is another example. On January 28, 2010, during a town hall meeting at the University of Tampa, Obama said:

“My belief is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples.”

Only a moral relativist would or could read same-sex marriage back into the Constitution. What Obama is really proposing to do is change the rules so that those who are not following them can have their own special set of rules. So, in the name of equality before the law – a sound constitutional principle – he denies equality before the law.

This all leads to Obama’s striking statement on Wednesday, May 9. Here it is with the personal pronouns italicized:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbours when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Ten personal pronouns or the word “my” in one sentence. That is an impressive feat of solipsism that undergirds the moral relativism that authorizes what “is important for me” as the standard by which to judge what is right and wrong. Abraham Lincoln said that there is no right to do what is wrong. Obama and Biden are complicit in making a wrong a “right.”

The transvaluation of values requires more than the denial of objective morality. It requires that the negation – the transvaluation – becomes the new religion. It is the sanctification of nihilism, the Church of Nada. It needs to be sacramentalized, as in same-sex marriage. That is why Obama and Biden insist upon it.

Listen to this final, breathtaking part of Obama’s rationalization. Just as he used the Constitution to justify its opposite, he now employs Christianity in the same way. Christianity, which has unambiguously condemned sodomy for more than 2000 years, is enlisted to endorse it:

“The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule – you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”

After all, Christ died to make the world safe for sodomy…

In other words, if you would like your moral misbehaviour to be rationalized, you should be willing to rationalize the moral misbehaviour of others. That way, we are all equal. That’s equal opportunity. This is Obama’s new golden rule. The transvaluation of values is complete.

Fear for the Republic. For the truths for which it stands have been taken away by this president.

Robert Reilly has worked in foreign policy, the military, and the arts. His most recent book is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis.

US Defense Spending and Cultural Imperialism

Posted on May 5, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

Whatever may be said about national defense against direct attack and the defense of American citizens against terrorist acts (two subjects which I will not address), I believe that American foreign policy tends to consistently violate both Catholic social teaching and prudence in three important ways:

Hedonistic Cultural Imperialism: The United States, along with the secular West in general, labors under a profound illusion that the proper—indeed the only—way to secure the common good is to eliminate the influence of tradition, religion and family so as to encourage a secular individualism which enables everybody to do exactly as he pleases. There are enormous flaws in our culture deriving from our blindness in these matters, all of which tend to break down many positive beliefs, habits and institutions which hold society together, foster strong intermediary organizations, strengthen the family, and promote virtue. Yet we export our own brand of individualistic hedonism everywhere we have cultural, economic or political influence. This is not only damaging; it also creates bitter enemies.
A World Safe for Democracy: The United States also believes that the only solution to the question of polity in any nation or region is the implementation of Western-style secular democracy as it has evolved in our own culture over the past thousand years. As a result, whenever we do enter a particular country militarily, we are reluctant to depart until we have remade that country in our own political and cultural image, short-circuiting modes of expression and organization common to the surrounding culture, and leaving people with a form of government they are unprepared to understand, let alone implement and sustain. Our idea of “stabilization”, therefore, necessarily involves massive transformations and long commitments to seeing that things are done our way—projects which extend far beyond whatever threat induced us to take military action in the first place.
Enforcing Our Own Self-Interest: While the United States seeks to portray itself as altruistic in its foreign policy (and may at times actually be altruistic), the justifications we offer for particular policies and interventions abroad are generally selectively implemented. For example, we may claim to act to eliminate some tyranny, but in fact we generally do not attempt to eliminate all tyranny but select as our targets those countries where some particular self-interest is at stake. Not only do these special interests often give the lie to any motives which might justify an intervention, but the overall impact is to display a remarkable hubris—an assurance that we are always sacrificing ourselves for the good of the rest of the world—which most people in most places find laughable, even on the occasions when it is at least partially true.

These three problems contradict Catholic social teaching in that they misconstrue the nature and ultimate good of the human person, they fail to respect both deeply ingrained human customs and religion itself, and they make of American power an excuse to police the world in ways which demean the equal rights of other peoples. Moreover, sometimes these failures result in a tortured use of just war theory to justify foreign adventures of an extremely dubious and imprudent nature. Finally, our hubris in these matters often causes our nation to overreach what it is really capable of achieving—to overreach, indeed, what any nation is ever capable of achieving.

Please note this important point. We are not wonderfully sensible, noble and good abroad and just the opposite at home, nor vice versa. The same tendencies which result in ill-considered utopian schemes at home lead to ill-considered utopian schemes abroad. The result is that we frequently increase enmity abroad in the name of friendship and support, while overburdening ourselves at home by investing far too much in situations which seem, to a more prudent intelligence, to be beyond our legitimate scope. I am very sad to note, as a Catholic, that too many conservatives in the United States have never met a war they did not like. I often wonder what friends we might have abroad if our foreign policy could be altered to have just the opposite effects!

I have painted these matters with a broad brush. I do not mean to oversimplify any question that arises out of the complexities of peace and security, any more than I mean in my discussion of domestic policies to oversimplify any question that arises out of legitimate human need here at home. Each issue must be examined on its merits. But in the United States, the economics of our perpetual spending on defense makes its own significant contribution to draining us dry. And to a large extent, I think the same argument applies that I have made about domestic concerns. Just as I am convinced we have arrived at a point when it will be almost universally wiser to cut back government intrusion here at home, so too am I convinced that the same is true of our foreign policy.

The world is not our oyster. And even if it were, an overweening, secular, hedonist America would only lose the pearl.

US Defense Spending and Cultural Imperialism.

…And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4: 12

Posted on April 29, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

El Greco‘s depiction of Pentecost, with tongues of fire and a dove representing the Holy Spirit’s descent.

4th SUNDAY OF EASTER

FIRST READING: Acts 4:8-12.

Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

This excerpt from Acts is a sequence of what was described in last Sunday’s first reading. Peter had cured a cripple-from-birth. He told the people that it was not by his own power that he did this, but through the power of Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews had, in ignorance, crucified. But the God of the Jews had raised Jesus from the dead. While the ordinary Jews were very impressed, and many of them accepted the faith of the Apostles, the leaders, the priests and Pharisees of the Sanhedrin, were anything but pleased. They had Peter and John arrested and kept in prison overnight. Next day they were interrogated and Peter answered for them both.

filled…Spirit: This was as Christ had promised his Apostles while he was still with them: “they will hand you over to the Sanhedrin . . . do not worry . . . the Spirit of your Father will be speaking in you” (Mt. 10:17-20). Before the highest authorities and in the highest courtroom of the Jews in Jerusalem Peter, who only a short while before had locked himself, together with the other Apostles, in the upper room “for fear of the Jews,” now fearlessly proclaims his belief in the Risen Christ.

done…cripple: This was the miracle that started it all. The healed cripple is evidently produced in court—”this man is standing before you healed.”

name…crucified: It was through the power of Jesus that this miracle was worked—through the power of one whom this Sanhedrin had thought was silenced forever when they forced Pilate to crucify him. Peter courageously tells this to the archenemies of Christ and of his followers, and he wants all the Jews of Palestine to hear of it.

whom God raised: Their plan to put an end to Christ was in vain, for God had raised him from the dead.

stone…builders: Peter says that by rejecting Christ as the true Messiah they had fulfilled the messianic prophecy of Psalm 108, verse 22. This stone, rejected by the builders, the leaders of the Jews, has become the cornerstone which would unite firmly the two walls of the house, the Gentiles and the Jews.

salvation…else: There is only one Savior, one Messiah, sent by God.

no other name: “Name” stands for person, and also the name Jesus, or Joshua in Hebrew, means “God saves.” There is no salvation for those who will not accept and follow Jesus.

As clear and logical as was this discourse of Peter, and moved as he was by the Holy Spirit to deliver it, it fell on deaf ears as far as the vast majority in that Jewish high court was concerned. They had long since desired a political Messiah who would set up a worldwide kingdom for them. Not only did they want to be free from the hated Romans, but they were ambitious to govern all the Gentile nations. Their ambitions and desires were of this world—worldly. Christ’s talk of repentance, mortification, and preparation for the world to come found no responsive chord in their hearts. He was not the Messiah they wanted; hence he was an impostor, a perverter of the people, and so they called on the hated Romans to nail him to a cross.

Now his followers were claiming that God had proved that he was the Messiah and, what was more, that he was divine, by raising him from the dead. They were working miracles to back up this claim, and surely it is well known that God does not work miracles for impostors and sinners (see Jn. 9:31). The reasonable attitude for them to take, even at this late hour, would surely have been to check the evidence. But no, they had already made up their minds and would not change them. No evidence could shift the wall of personal pride which they themselves had built. “There is none so blind as he who will not see,” was surely verified in the case of the leaders of the Jews.

Let us leave their judgement to God and turn our scrutiny on ourselves and on our acceptance of Christ. Do we ever allow temporal interests and worldly ambitions to come between us and our Savior? Are all our dealings with our neighbor strictly according to the commandments of God? Do we ever succumb to the temptation to make an easy dollar to the detriment of our neighbor, forgetting our Christian obligations? If we are employers, do we pay our workers a just wage and respect their rights as fellow men? If we are workers, do we work honestly and fairly, giving a right return for the wages paid us? Do we accept all men as our brothers, as sons of God, who like ourselves are on the road to heaven, and are we always ready to give them a helping hand when and if they need it? Finally, are we, by our faithful observance of the Christian life, a lamp shining brightly, helping the many unfortunate ex-Christians who have left the path of Christ to return to their Savior and to the true road to heaven?

“There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved.” We Christians are dedicated to the sacred name of Jesus Christ by baptism, but it is only those who live up to the obligations of their Christian baptism who are worthy to bear that name and to share in the eternal salvation which it guarantees.

SECOND READING: 1 John 3:1-2.

See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

St. John here sets out in a couple of sentences the basic effect of the incarnation. Already in this life men are made children of God. Because we are God’s children here below we shall see him as he is in the future life.love…given us: The infinite love of God is beyond the comprehension of our finite minds. Why should God love us since he does not need us? Our love has always something of the selfish in it; that is, even we find it difficult to recognize absolutely unselfish love.

called children of God: “Called,” because we are. God decided, before creating us, to share his own eternal home with us—to adopt us. To do this he decreed the Incarnation of his Son: “Yes, God loved the world (mankind) so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). By joining our human nature to his divine person Christ united us all in a special relationship to God the Father. We are the adopted children of God, as John emphatically says.

would…know us: Christians need not be surprised that the world, that is, the forces of evil in the world, does not recognize them nor show any inclination to imitate or respect them, for this world (of evil) treats God in the same manner.

God’s…now: Already on this earth we are numbered among God’s adopted children. This we realize only through faith. When this life is over we shall have a more direct and intimate knowledge of our good fortune.

when he appears: John is referring to this perfect stage of our sonship here. When the Parousia, or the second coming of Christ, takes place, we too shall be glorified like Christ. We shall be raised to a higher supernatural state.

we shall…he is: Referring to God the Father, John says that in our glorified state we shall see God “as he is.” St. Paul expresses the same truth thus: “For our knowledge (of God) now is imperfect . . . once perfection comes all imperfect things will disappear . . . Now we are seeing a dim reflection in a mirror (the bronze mirrors used in those days) but then we shall be seeing face to face. The knowledge that I have now is imperfect, but then I shall know as fully as I am known” (1 Cor. 13:12). After our resurrection we shall see God as he is, face to face.

During this holy season of Easter, while our thoughts center on the glorious Christ who rose from the dead and returned to heaven, our thoughts should follow him there, and dwell for a while on that happy place for which we were prepared by God and elevated by the Incarnation of his divine Son. St. John gives us a little glimpse of that future home of ours in today’s reading: we shall be glorified like the Risen Christ, he tells us, and we shall see God as he is, not through the veil of faith as we now see him, but in reality. In another book, “Revelation,” John gives us a further glimpse into the heaven which awaits us: “Behold the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them and they shall be his people and God himself will be with them” as a Father among his children, “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying, nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:3-4).

Heaven, therefore, as St. John describes it, is a state wherein every happiness a man can desire will be attainable, the vision of the infinitely perfect God is the guarantee of this, and every sadness and cause of sadness will be forever removed. In heaven man will have no sorrow, no pain, no regrets; instead he will have everything that is pleasing, beautiful, and good. We all have experienced some moments of happiness in our lives, moments when everything was going smoothly and happily for us, when we had no pain or sorrow or fear. We knew, however, that these were but fleeting moments, they could not, and they did not, last, for that is of the very nature of our temporary life on earth. In heaven, however, these happy moments will be turned into an eternal state, a state that will have no end.

It is hard for us, in fact it is impossible, to form any complete concept of the joys of heaven. All our ideas, all our images are derived from our earthly surroundings. St. Paul, who was given a vision of heaven, tells us that he could not describe to his converts in Corinth what he had seen, because human language had no words or images to describe it. “I knew a man in Christ,” he says, “who fourteen years ago, was caught up into paradise and heard things which must not and cannot be put into human language” (2 Cor. 12:2-3). That vision of St. Paul, that glimpse of what awaited him, made him willing to sacrifice everything on earth, even his very life, in order to reach the heaven God had prepared for him. “For Christ I have accepted the loss of everything and I look on everything as so much refuse if only I can have Christ and be given a place in him . . . I have not yet won but I am still running, trying to capture the prize for which Christ Jesus captured me” (Phil. 3:8-12).

Without having the privileges which St. John and St. Paul had we have a sufficient idea of heaven to make us all desire it. But, like these Apostles, and all the other millions of saintly men and women, we know that we must “work our passage” to reach that abode of God. We must stay on the path of the Christian commandments, ever ready to count as nothing any earthly thing that would lure us off their path. During our earthly life we must keep God and Christ daily before our eyes if we hope to live in perfect happiness with them in the hereafter.

GOSPEL: John 10:11-18.

Jesus said to his disciples: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

The Jews were a pastoral people, and it was only natural that their literature, the Old Testament books, should have many references to pastoral life. Our Lord and his Apostles continued this tradition and used pastoral images familiar to the people to illustrate for their hearers the spiritual truths of Christianity. In today’s reading, St. John gives us Our Lord’s description of himself under the well-known image of the good shepherd who not only cares for his flock but is willing to die to protect the life of that flock.

I am…shepherd: He was the owner of the flock; they belonged to him, and he would prove himself a worthy leader and defender of his flock.

lay…life: In those days, wolves, lions and robbers often raided the sheepfolds. The true shepherd should and would defend them with his life. Jesus laid down his life for his flock.

hireling…flees: The hired hand who does not own the sheep will flee when danger threatens. He thinks only of his own safety; he leaves the helpless flock to its fate. It was in Jerusalem, the stronghold of the scribes and Pharisees, that Our Lord preached this sermon. His cure of the man born blind (mentioned in the previous chapter of John) had caused an uproar among the Pharisees. When they could not deny the miracle, they said that Jesus worked it by some demonic power. The blind man, now healed, answered this very tellingly: “We know that God does not hear sinners . . . if this man (Jesus) were not from God he could do nothing” (Jn. 9:31-33). The scribes and Pharisees were the legal shepherds of the Jews, but actually they were far more interested in their own gain and glory than in the spiritual welfare of their flock. The mass of the people were being attracted to Jesus; there was a danger that these leaders would lose their position and the substantial profit it entailed. Hence one of the reasons for their fierce opposition to Jesus. In this sermon, quoted by St. John, Jesus contrasts himself, the true, good shepherd, with these hirelings who were working only for personal gain.

I know my own: As the true shepherd knows every sheep in his flock, and every sheep knows him, Jesus knows each of his followers with a knowledge arising from love, and his followers likewise know him. Unless they do, they are not true followers.

Father…the Father: The mutual knowledge of the Father and Son is infinite, since each is a divine Person. The Christian’s knowledge of Christ can never be infinite, but it can and should be as great as possible. Based on true love, it will be as complete a knowledge as the finite mind is capable of reaching. On the other hand, Christ’s knowledge and love for his followers is infinite because of his divine nature.

I lay…sheep: He said the good shepherd would defend his flock with his life. Now to prove that he is such a shepherd, he states that he is about to do just that.

I have…sheep: Most of the Jews had the erroneous idea that they alone would be God’s flock always, that the messianic kingdom would be for them only. The universality of the promised messianic kingdom was frequently foretold in the Old Testament. Abraham was called to bring a blessing not only on his descendants but on all nations (Gen. 12:3). The Gentiles, therefore, were also to be part of the good shepherd’s flock.

will…voice: This prophecy of Christ began to be fulfilled within a short time after his resurrection. St. Peter received the first Gentile, Cornelius of Caesarea, into the Church within a year of the resurrection. Before the last of the Apostles died, the Church had been firmly established in the principal cities and towns of the Roman Empire.

one flock…shepherd: Allthe followers of Christ form one fold, one Christian Church. As St. Paul puts it to the Colossians: “here (that is, in the Christian Church) there is no Gentile and Jew, no circumcised and uncircumcised, no barbarian and Scythian, no slave and free man; but Christ is all things and in all” (Col. 3:11).

reason…loves me: The Father’s love is poured out upon the Son because, in obedient love, he lays down his life for mankind in fulfillment of the Father’s design.

I may…again: By his death he nailed our sins to the cross; by his resurrection he opened the door from death to heaven for us and proved that he was the Son of God and the Messiah.

no one…from me: He chose death freely, his enemies did not take his life from him (as they thought they were doing) against his will. This freedom is frequently emphasized by Jesus during his public life (17:4, 18:4, 19:30).

this…Father: His voluntary death followed by his glorification in his resurrection was the Father’s purpose in sending him on earth. He freely and willingly accomplished this mission.

The image of Christ as our Good Shepherd has always appealed to human nature. One of the earliest paintings of Christ in the Roman catacombs represents him as carrying an injured sheep on his shoulders. This is a manifestation of love which touches our innermost feelings. We do not mind being likened to sheep in this context. There is something innocent about a sheep, and at the same time a lot of foolishness. Does not this describe the vast majority of men, even many of those who openly oppose Christ? Is there not something very sheep-like about the man who, because God gave him a limited intellect, thinks he knows all things and needs no further help from God? The sheep who thinks it knows as much, and even more, than the shepherd and sets out to fend for itself is no more foolish than the man who thinks he can do without God’s revelation and God’s Church.

Indeed we all act like sheep on many occasions, when it comes to the things that concern our spiritual welfare. We often ramble off from the flock to nibble at little bits of forbidden pasture. However, we have a Shepherd who understands us, one whose patience and love are infinite. He is always ready to go after us when we stray too far; his voice is constantly reaching out to us—in missions, retreats, sicknesses, crosses, and other various ways. How many times have we already felt his loving grace calling and helping us back to the safety of his fold?

There are many who are not so fortunate as we, who either through no fault of their own or through their own fault do not hear his voice and do not know or follow him. This is an opportunity he gives us to show how we appreciate all he has done for us. He died on the cross for all men. He wills all men to profit by his death, and his statement “them also I must bring” is a direct appeal to us to cooperate with him in this work. Every Christian is a missionary. The very fact of living the Christian life in its entirety, in the midst of our fellow man, is of itself a powerful example to outsiders. It influences for good the lax Christian and the non-Christian. It makes them stop and think and look into their consciences. This is generally the first step on the road back to God.

The devout Christian will not stop at good example only. If he truly loves God, he must truly love his neighbor and must want him to have a share in his own good fortune. He knows there is welcome and room in heaven for all men, and he knows that the greater the number there the greater will be God’s eternal glory. He will strive then by every available means to help his neighbor into Christ’s fold.

After good example, prayer will be his most potent weapon. Day in and day out, the devout Christian must pray for the conversion of his fellow men who are wandering aimlessly in the barren desert of this life far from God. He must also learn all he can about the truths of his faith in order to be able to help honest enquirer’s. He must also cooperate with any parochial or diocesan societies for the propagation of the Faith, insofar as his family and financial state allow him.

The sermon preached by our Savior nearly two thousand years ago is still echoing and re-echoing around the world, calling on his faithful flock to do all in their power to help those other children of God who are still outside the fold. Do not shut your ears to this call of Christ today. Give him a helping hand by helping your fellow man to see the light of the true faith.-b182

+++

Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year B

Citazioni di
Ac 4,8-12: www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/9ammlod.htm
1Io 3,1-2: www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/9abrwoc.htm
Io 10,11-18: www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/9arb00j.htm

Today we celebrate the fourth Sunday of Easter, commonly called Good Shepherd Sunday. The Risen Lord is presented in the liturgy as the Shepherd of our souls, who “lays down his life for his sheep” (John 10:11). As we look at Christ the Good Shepherd we are called to pray especially for those who Jesus has placed as shepherds in His Church and also for young people who are called to this mission.

The verb ‘to know’ appears repeatedly in today’s readings. When the Holy Scriptures talk about knowledge – especially knowledge between people – it means something much deeper than our how we use the verb in everyday language.

This biblical ‘knowledge’ isn’t limited to the external or superficial information that we can know about another person. Instead, it refers to an intimate communion and mutual possession that engages the whole of our intelligence, freedom and will.

In the Gospel reading the Lord says “I know my sheep and my sheep know me” (John 10:14), and in the second reading St John says “the world refused to acknowledge him,therefore it does not acknowledge us” (1 John 3:1).

These verses written by St John speak of two different types of knowledge. There is the knowledge that is given to us and there is a knowledge that is not possible, and therefore fruitless, to search for or to pursue directly.

Let’s firstly consider that knowledge of Christ that was given to us by grace as Christians. That knowledge of Christ which is an intimate communion and reciprocal possession of Him is a gift that was granted to us and that inspired St John the Apostle to exclaim: “think of the love that the Father has lavished on us, by letting us be called God’s children; and that is what we are” (1 John 3:1). Knowing Christ cannot be reduced to a simple acquaintance with what the four Gospels narrate about Him, or even with the truth that the Church teaches. Although these things are necessary and also urgent especially in our epoch that is so marked by religious illiteracy. (c.f Pope Benedict XVI Homily Chrism Mass 2012)

The knowledge that Christ gives us is an intimate communion with His own life. It is a communion which transforms us and lifts us up to the reality of being the children of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit who we receive at Baptism. We are truly “called God’s children and that is what we are”. This knowledge, moreover, engages the whole of our person – but it doesn’t depend on us. In fact, it comes as a gift which is rooted in the sovereign initiative of God that takes flesh in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the true Good Shepherd who gives His life for us, His sheep (cf. John 10:17-18).

Christ laid down his life for us, and he took it up again. What does this mean that He ‘takes up’ his life again? There is the obvious meaning: Jesus offered Himself up voluntarily to death on the cross for us, and then He rose from death to live forever. But we can also see a further meaning. By rising, Christ take up the life He gave for us on the cross, bringing us to heaven with Him, and inviting us into His relationship of love with the Father. We become sons just as Christ is the Son, and participants in the same love that Christ has for the Father and for humanity.

This has a special significance for those called to the priesthood. Those who receive the gift of a Vocation are taken up into the life of Christ and made a partaker in His own saving work. The priest becomes a sharer in Christ’s love and mercy who is able to make present in his own person Jesus, the Good Shepherd.

As to that other knowledge, that of the world, St John tells us that it isn’t for us because the world “does not acknowledge us”. Those who have met Christ and possess knowledge of Him should know that this treasure is fundamentally incompatible with the acknowledgement of the world. The Lord himself taught us that we cannot serve two masters (cf. Luke 16:13). The only way to ensure that the world can acknowledge us is for us to attract it once more to the knowledge of Christ so opening itself to God.

Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, Gate of Heaven and Queen of Apostles, that, like her, we will fully open ourselves to the true knowledge of Christ – the Shepherd who leads us to the pastures of heaven. Amen.

A prayer for the Church and for Priests

Posted on April 28, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

A prayer for the Church and for priests, and a special examination of conscience for priests. This priceless letter for you here: Letter to Priests.

Pell, Dawkins wage battle of belief

Posted on April 14, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

Easter is for bishops what spinach is for Popeye, so you have to admire Richard Dawkins for accepting an invitation on Australia’s ABC TV (see the transcript) to debate Cardinal George Pell yesterday. Both have PhDs from Oxford and both are old hands with the media. It promised to be a clash of the Titans.

Dawkins is in Sydney for the 2012 Global Atheist Convention, which is like Sydney’s World Youth Day in 2008, but much, much smaller. And much older. He was jet-lagged and a bit tetchy, like a new teacher in front of a class laughing at a joke he doesn’t understand. “Why is that funny?” he asked his audience several times in genuine perplexity. He was beautifully coiffed and coutured but he was not in peak form.

Pell, a massive, imposing man, looked weary. But he had eaten his spinach and landed a few jabs to the solar plexus. At one point Dawkins denied vehemently that Darwin was a theist, but Pell was able to jab his finger at his notes and say, “It’s on page 92 of his autobiography.” Hell is a reality, said Pell in response to a question from the audience, but I hope nobody’s in it – a compassionate position for which Dawkins appeared to have no riposte.

On the other hand Pell’s grasp of evolution appeared sketchy. He said that its engine was random natural selection, whereupon Dawkins triumphantly trumpeted non-random natural selection as his own “life’s work”. Dawkins then gave Pell a lecture on Australopithecines and Neanderthals.

Neither landed a KO, but I would have awarded the belt, on points, to Pell. A clash of the Titans it was not.

It was a pity that the debate was too short to draw little more than shop-worn jests and caustic platitudes out of Dawkins. There were no surprises in what Pell had to say. After all, the Catholic Church’s stand on fundamentals has not changed in 2,000 years. But Dawkins, to my surprise, seemed brittle and vulnerable. After the debate I was left scratching my head: is this man really the world’s leading propagandist for atheism? At 71, is it time for a golden parachute? Perhaps they can pass the hat at the Convention.

First of all, to everyone’s astonishment, Dawkins admitted that he is not an atheist. This was jaw-dropping, at least for those who know him only by reputation. Dawkins has become famous for scoffing at God, mocking believers and comparing religious education to child abuse. Only the other day he addressed a “Reason Rally” in Washington DC at which he urged the cheering faithful to “ridicule and show contempt” for the Catholic Eucharist.

Yet he now says, with some hemming and hawing, that he is not a simon-pure unbeliever. On a scale of 1 to 7 of belief in God, he ranks himself at about 6 — because a scientist cannot prove the non-existence of anything, from the Easter Bunny to God.

So hasn’t he been invited to the Global Atheist Convention under false pretences? He’s only another mushy spread-your-bets agnostic, for heaven’s sake. If I had purchased a A$310 ticket to the convention (plus a $150 dinner), I would be as dismayed as a Christian who learns that Mother Teresa had a very large Swiss bank account, six kids, and a taste for Johnnie Walker Black Label.

Another revelation is that he is not a simon-pure Darwinian either. He believes “passionately” that natural selection explains the existence of life. But the struggle to move up the evolutionary tree involves unbearable, unacceptable, suffering and it would be unthinkable to take The Origin of the Species as his Bible. “Survival of the fittest” is no guide to politics and morality. “Very unpleasant” indeed, he said, even Thatcher-ite. So the source of his morality is something other than evolution.

Finally, Dawkins is literally a killjoy. Perhaps his central message was the morose assertion that life has no purpose whatsoever. None at all. Zero. Purposes are done and dusted after Darwin. “Why? is a silly question. What is the purpose of the universe? is a silly question,” he said in a moment of exasperation.

Whatever the truth of this, meaninglessness is not a meme which has survival value. Thousands of years of human culture show that man is the only animal who has ever asked Why? The key to a culture’s survival is how successfully it can answer that question. The joy for which we all long comes when we discover meaning, even in the midst of suffering. But Dawkins’s vision is one of unrelieved bleakness. It would come as no surprise if his car sports the famous bumpersticker, “Life’s a bitch and then you die”.

What the rather rambling conversation between the two tired men suggested to me was that Dawkins may be a gifted demagogue but he is a mediocre philosopher. “It’s a cop-out to say that anything exists outside of time and space,” he said testily. In this assumption are summarised all of his arguments and mockery. But it is no more than an unproved assumption. If only what can be touched and measured is true, there may be no God, but neither is there justice, or beauty, or love, or consciousness, or mathematics. As Cardinal Pell said, with great insight:

“If I get a chance to say to ask a question when I die I think I will ask the good God why is there so much suffering. That’s a problem for us… [But] I think it’s a much greater problem for the atheist to explain why there is goodness and truth and beauty. Our problem is to cope with suffering. One of the unique… features of Christian teaching is the value of redemptive suffering and that is the significance of Christ suffering with us and dying on the cross. That helps people.”

People fret more about coping with suffering than with how to make ever-more-vicious sneers at God. After last night’s debate, my chips are on Christianity rather than atheism as the philosophy most fit to bring humanity through the challenges of the 21st century.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

THE CROSS OF SOLIDARITY: WE ARE BROTHERS IN CHRIST

Posted on April 7, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

Cardinal Keith O’Brien. Picture: Jane Barlow/TSPL

CHRISTIANS should wear a cross on their clothes every day as “a symbol of their beliefs”, according to the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland.

In his Easter Sunday homily on Sunday, Cardinal Keith O’Brien will call on Christians to make the cross “more prominent in their lives”.

Speaking at St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh, he will tell them to “wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ on their garments each and every day of their lives”.

He will say: “I know that many of you do wear such a cross of Christ, not in any ostentatious way, not in a way that might harm you at your work or recreation, but a simple indication that you value the role of Jesus Christ in the history of the world, that you are trying to live by Christ’s standards in your own daily life.”

Two women who claim they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the cross are fighting to get their cases heard at the European Court of Human Rights.

Nadia Eweida, 59, of Twickenham, south London, was suspended by British Airways for breaching BA’s uniform code in 2006.

Shirley Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after refusing to hide the cross she wore on a necklace chain.

During his Sunday sermon, Cardinal O’Brien will quote Pope Benedict XVI, who said Christians “need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles”. The cardinal will say: “I hope that increasing numbers of Christians adopt the practice of wearing a cross in a simple and discreet way as a symbol of their beliefs.

“Easter provides the ideal time to remind ourselves of the centrality of the cross in our Christian faith.

“A simple lapel cross pin costs around £1. Since this is less than a chocolate Easter egg, I hope many people will consider giving some as gifts and wearing them with pride.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Wearing a religious symbol is entirely a matter for individual members of staff. We have no policy as an employer.”

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Parliament said: “The Scottish Parliament does not have a specific policy for staff displaying religious symbols in their work attire.”

NHS Scotland advises individual health boards to “conduct a full risk assessment” to ensure that their local dress code policy “is appropriate for different categories of staff and should look to support staff in complying with both the needs of the service and any religious or cultural requirements”.

economic crisis reflects moral crisis

Posted on March 31, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

“Religious perspectives on the current financial crisis: vision for a just economic order” was the theme of the eleventh meeting of the Bilateral Commission of the Delegations of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, which was held in Rome from 27 to 29 March. The event was presided by Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, and by Cardinal Peter Kodwo Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

In an English-language joint statement issued at the end of the meeting, the two sides highlight that, “while many factors contributed to the financial crisis, at its roots lies a crisis of moral values in which the importance of having, reflected in a culture of greed, eclipsed the importance of being; and where the value of truth reflected in honesty and transparency was sorely lacking in economic activity”.

“At the heart of Jewish and Catholic visions for a just economic order is the affirmation of the sovereignty and providence of the Creator of the world with Whom all wealth originates and which is given to humankind as a gift for the common good”, the text adds. Therefore “the purpose of an economic order is to serve the well being of society, affirming the human dignity of all people, each created in the divine image”. This concept “is antithetical to egocentricity. Rather, it requires the promotion of the well being of the individual in relation to community and society”. It also “posits the obligation to guarantee certain basic human needs, such as the protection of life, sustenance, clothing, housing, health, education and employment”. The commission also identifies certain particularly vulnerable categories of people, among them migrant and foreign workers “whose condition serves as a measure of the moral health of society”.

Jews and Catholics: The Economic Crisis is a Crisis of Moral Values (VIS)

The statement recalls the obligation on countries with developed economies “to recognise their responsibilities and duties towards countries and societies in need, especially in this era of globalisation”. In this context the participants in the meeting recall “the universal destination of the goods of the earth; a culture of “enough” that implies a degree of self-limitation and modesty; responsible stewardship; an ethical system of allocation of resources and priorities”. They likewise mention the “partial remission of debts on national and international levels”, highlighting the need “to extend this to families and individuals”.

The members of the bilateral commission underscore the role that faith communities must play in contributing to a responsible economic order, and the importance of their engagement by government, educational institutions, and the media. Finally they note how “the crisis has revealed the profound lack of an ethical component in economic thinking. Hence, it is imperative that institutes and academies of economic studies and policy formation include ethical training in their curricula, similar to that which has developed in recent years in the field of medical ethics”.

Marriage and Natural Law

Posted on March 17, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

Marriage, the Only Worthy “Place” In Which to Produce Children.

At the heart of all these issues are significant questions of natural law and medical ethics. We’ve just reviewed two excellent journals on that can help. The Catholic Medical Quarterly covers life issues, and Right Reason analyzes court cases in light of the natural law.

The betrayal of Father Guarnizo

Posted on March 17, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

When she launched her campaign for vindication, Barbara Johnson warned Father Guarnizo, “I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.” Now the lesbian activist has had her way; the priest who rebuked her is sidelined. Even if every charge against him is completely accurate—even if he is imprudent and intemperate and intimidating—Father Guarnizo could have been reassigned quietly, without ceding such a thorough propaganda victory for the homosexual cause.

The betrayal of Father Guarnizo sends a chilling message to every priest in Washington: that if he is zealous in defending the Eucharist, he cannot count on support from the archdiocese. Since other radical activists will no doubt follow Barbara Johnson’s example, we can expect another test case soon. Let’s hope and pray that the next time, the archdiocese will show at least as much solicitude for the Eucharist (not to mention the accused priest) as for the critics of the Church.

the betrayal of Father Guarnizo.

The Tyranny of Misunderstood Freedom

Posted on March 3, 2012 by John Brian Schuettler

The word prove means not only to establish but to test, as in the famous expression that the “exception proves the rule”. Both meanings are certainly involved when it comes to “proving ourselves”.

In a similar way, seeking proofs for the existence of God can be a way of putting God to the test. Nonetheless, in the right spirit I hope, I review an excellent book that updates the scientific and philosophical proofs in my latest In Depth Analysis. See Proving God.

But acting contrary to God’s will is an even worse test. In the ongoing war for religious freedom in the United States, a number of allegedly Catholic senators have done just that. Phil Lawler provides the list in My conscience rules. Your conscience is ruled out.

The abuse of our freedom is certainly another test, and a proof of another sort. We’ve just added to our library an excellent article by James Kalb entitled The Tyranny of Misunderstood Freedom.

THE HONOR OF GOD

Defending the Honor of God in a culture of death by renewing a Judeo-Christian Living Foundation

Category Archives: Secular Hegemony