John Allen: "Francis Vows to Press Benedict's Fight vs. 'Dictatorship of Relativism' " [UPDATED]

As I type this, heads are no doubt exploding at the publication for which John Allen works. Allen, who writes the only column I bother reading at NCReporter, has this report today:

For those tempted to draw an overly sharp distinction between Pope Francis and his predecessor, the new pope offered a clear reminder Friday that he may have a different style than Benedict XVI, but on substance, he's cut from much the same cloth.

In a speech to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See on Friday, Francis lamented not only the material poverty of the early 21st century but also its "spiritual poverty," meaning a rejection of God and objective standards of morality.

In that regard, Francis quoted Benedict's famous critique of a post-modern "dictatorship of relativism," delivered during a homily for the Mass in 2005 that opened the conclave that elected him pope.

[More]

Here's the text of what the Holy Father said:

... As you know, there are various reasons why I chose the name of Francis of Assisi, a familiar figure far beyond the borders of Italy and Europe, even among those who do not profess the Catholic faith. One of the first reasons was Francis’ love for the poor. How many poor people there still are in the world! And what great suffering they have to endure! After the example of Francis of Assisi, the Church in every corner of the globe has always tried to care for and look after those who suffer from want, and I think that in many of your countries you can attest to the generous activity of Christians who dedicate themselves to helping the sick, orphans, the homeless and all the marginalized, thus striving to make society more humane and more just.

But there is another form of poverty! It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the “tyranny of relativism”, which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples. And that brings me to a second reason for my name. Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth...

God bless Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI!

(Hat tip: Elizabeth Scalia)


UPDATE
Be sure to read Robert Moynihan's "Letter #56: Holding to Benedict" on this topic:

Folks, Pope Francis has done it.

He has taken his stand.

He did it this morning, about three hours ago.

And his stand is with… Pope Benedict, his predecessor, with whom he will meet tomorrow.

The importance of Francis’s words today cannot be overestimated.

Francis today took his stand with the essential spiritual vision of Pope Benedict...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis in original)

The "Myth" of Persecution?

A couple of my friends over at The American Catholic - Don McClarey and Darwin - have some excellent posts about a recently released book by a professor of theology at Notre Dame (of course) that attempts to call into question the history of the Church's early persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. Read them both here and here.

As I said in my comments at The American Catholic, this professor's motivation appears quite clear (and she pretty much confirms this in her promotion of the book):

If the Church and individual Christians suffer government and/or legal sanction because their beliefs and how they practice those beliefs are at odds with cultural “norms” – be those norms abortion-on-demand, the HHS mandate, or same-sex “marriage” – they are not REALLY being persecuted. In essence, the Church and individual Christians can either get on board with the agenda or not; but if they choose not to, they wouldn’t be able to legitimately cry “persecution” if the legal fallout is not to to their liking.

Moss’s motivation, as with the motivation of many on the religious left who are critical of the Church's teachings, is actually quite transparent: political ideology trumps religious dogma.

Obama Plays His Liberal Catholic Allies for Fools [UPDATED]

Michael Gerson writes in The Washington Post:

... There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

[...]

The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.

Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-­clericalism.

My Comments:
Not really a surprise to those of us Catholics who were opposed to Obamacare that those Catholics who sold out their faith for a mess of Obama pottage got played for the useful idiots they are.


UPDATE
It appears that at least some of Obama's duped Catholic allies are still willing to provide cover for the President: "Vox Nova Still Covering for Obama Even After Anti-Catholic HHS Mandate".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
CatholicVote Asks “Catholics for Sebelius” to Disown HHS Secretary Whom They Supported With Letter Campaign

Obama Culture of Death Update™: Obama's HHS Makes Persecution of Church Official Administration Policy [UPDATED]

Victory for Free Exercise Clause - Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds "Ministerial Exception" to Employment Discrimination Laws [UPDATED]

From the blog of The Federalist Society:

The Supreme Court just published its decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a case regarding the "ministerial exception" in employment discrimination law. As FedSocBlog previously noted, for 40 years, lower courts have held that the First Amendment forbids the government from deciding who may be a religious minister--despite the fact that federal statutes outlawing employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, and disability contain no express exception.

In its decision, the Court unanimously upheld the ministerial exception in the case at hand. SCOTUS thus ruled against the position of the Obama Justice Department, which had asked the court to disavow the ministerial exception altogether.

[More]

UPDATE
Justices Thomas and Alito each wrote concurring opinions. Although I generally find myself in agreement with the constitutional philosophy espoused by Justice Thomas, in this instance I find that I am most in agreement with the concurrence authored by Justice Alito, in which he was joined by ... Justice Kagan of all people:

I join the Court’s opinion, but I write separately to clarify my understanding of the significance of formal ordination and designation as a “minister” in determining whether an “employee” of a religious group falls within the so-called “ministerial” exception. The term “minister” is commonly used by many Protestant denominations to refer to members of their clergy, but the term is rarely if ever used in this way by Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists. In addition, the concept of ordination as understood by most Christian churches and by Judaism has no clear counterpart in some Christian denominations and some other religions. Because virtually every religion in the world is represented in the population of the United States, it would be a mistake if the term “minister” or the concept of ordination were viewed as central to the important issue of religious autonomy that is presented in cases like this one. Instead, courts should focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of religious groups to engage in certain key religious activities, including the conducting of worship services and other religious ceremonies and rituals, as well as the critical process of communicating the faith. Accordingly, religious groups must be free to choose the personnel who are essential tothe performance of these functions.

The “ministerial” exception should be tailored to this purpose. It should apply to any “employee” who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith. If a religious group believes that the ability of such an employee to perform these key functions has been compromised, then the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects the group’s right to remove the employee from his or her position.

[...]

Religious autonomy means that religious authorities must be free to determine who is qualified to serve in positions of substantial religious importance. Different religions will have different views on exactly what qualifies as an important religious position, but it is nonetheless possible to identify a general category of “employees” whose functions are essential to the independence of practically all religious groups. These include those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation.

Applying the protection of the First Amendment to roles of religious leadership, worship, ritual, and expression focuses on the objective functions that are important for the autonomy of any religious group, regardless of its beliefs. As we have recognized in a similar context,“[f]orcing a group to accept certain members may impair [its ability] to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express.” Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 648 (2000). That principle applies with special force with respect to religious groups, whose very existence is dedicated to the collective expression and propagation of shared religious ideals. See Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 882 (1990) (noting that the constitutional interest in freedom of association may be “reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns”). As the Court notes, the First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations,” ante, at 14, but our expressive-association cases are nevertheless useful in pointing out what those essential rights are. Religious groups are the archetype of associations formed for expressive purposes, and their fundamental rights surely include the freedom to choose who is qualified to serve as a voice for their faith.

When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters. Religious teachings cover the gamut from moral conduct to metaphysical truth, and both the content and credibility of a religion’s message depend vitally on the character and conduct of its teachers. A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful.” Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F. 3d 294, 306 (CA3 2006). A religious body’s control over such “employees” is an essential component of its freedom to speak in its own voice, both to its own members and to the outside world...

There's more to Justice Alito's excellent concurrence (again, which Obama appointee Justice Kagan joined), which you definitely should read in full, along with the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts.


UPDATE #2
At National Review, Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett offers his take on the ruling:

... In today’s opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed what the overwhelming majority of lower federal courts and state courts in the United States have already ruled, and rejected the well-outside-the-mainstream view advanced by the Obama administration’s lawyers. This last point is worth emphasizing: The administration’s lawyers had pressed an extreme view — one that no other court, and few scholars and experts, had embraced — and they convinced no one.

I co-authored an amicus curiae brief in support of the religious school, on behalf of a diverse array of religious organizations and my friend, First Amendment expert Prof. Eugene Volokh. I was delighted by the extent to which the chief justice’s opinion is consistent with the positions advanced in that brief. He and his colleagues answered several key questions clearly and correctly: First, they affirmed that the “ministerial exception” — which limits the government’s role in selecting religious communities’ ministers, leaders, and teachers — is required by the First Amendment. Next, they rejected a crabbed approach to that exception, which would limit its reach only to ordained clergy or to ministers who spend a majority of their time on “religious” activities. And they noted that the ministerial exception constrains the reach of government with respect to religious communities’ decisions about ministers whether or not the employment decision in question was motivated or required by theological reasons.

This case matters for many reasons, but especially because it reminds us all that the separation of church and state — when it is properly understood — is an important mechanism for protecting the religious liberty of all — believers and nonbelievers alike. Church-state separation is often misunderstood and seen as an anti-religious program, or as requiring that “religion” stay out of politics or public life. But this is not the point of church-state separation at all. The idea is to constrain government regulation, not religious expression and practice. Separation is an arrangement that protects religious authorities, institutions, and communities from unjustified interference by governments...

Make no mistake: the Obama Administration's war on faith, which began almost immediately from the moment he took office 3 years ago, was dealt a HUGE blow today. A blow from which we can hope the secularists will not recover.


UPDATE #3
The Catholic League: "HUGE DEFEAT FOR OBAMA".


UPDATE #4 (12 January)
From the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty:

Today the Supreme Court decided its most important religious liberty case in twenty years, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The government lost 9-nothing as the Court unanimously rejected its narrow view of religious liberty as “extreme,” “untenable” and “remarkable.”

The unanimous decision adopted the Becket Fund’s arguments, saying that religious groups should be free from government interference when they choose their leaders. The church, Hosanna-Tabor, was represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia Law School. For years, churches have relied on a “ministerial exception” which protects them from employment discrimination lawsuits by their ministers.

“The message of today’s opinion is clear: The government can’t tell a church who should be teaching its religious message,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “This is a huge victory for religious freedom and a rebuke to the government, which was trying to regulate how churches select their ministers.”

The Court rejected the government’s extremely narrow understanding of the constitutional protection for religious liberty, stating: “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

“This is a huge win for religious liberty,” said Professor Doug Laycock. “The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders.”

“It is amazing when a church from Redford, Michigan stands up for its rights and ends up going all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Reverend Paul Undlin of Hosanna Tabor. “Praise God for giving the Justices the wisdom to uphold the religious freedom enshrined in our Constitution!”

The Court found that the ministerial exception is rooted in both Religion Clauses—the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito joined by Justice Kagan also filed a concurring opinion.

“For six years I fought the government, sacrificing my practice and livelihood because I believed the government had no right to choose teachers for our small school,” says Deano Ware, local attorney for the church. “In the end, we showed up at the steps of the Supreme Court with our sling and stone, in the company of the Becket Fund and the greater community of faith, fought the government and won. This is a great day for all Americans of every of faith and all freedom-loving citizens.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 17-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law.

UPDATE #5 (12 January)



Thanks to Catholic Cartoon Blog.

Democrats Attack Church in Disgusting Ad

Matthew Archbold reports at National Catholic Register that the Democrat Party isn't even trying to hide its disdain for the Church anymore:


Matt's piece is mistaken about one thing: the Democrat Farm-Labor Party is not some "Democrat Party supporting independent non profit group"; the DFL is THE official Democrat Party in the state of Minnesota. This is the Democrat Party in Minnesota blatantly attacking the Church.

This is what you tacitly support when you vote for Democrats. That doesn't mean you should vote for Republicans (who aren't exactly paragons of Catholic virtue either), but when you vote for the Democrats, you're voting for an ideology inherently hostile to the Catholic faith.

And this is just the first step, believe me. As our old friend Regular Guy Paul has noted, "Liberalism Leads To Religious Persecution".


(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


UPDATE
I'm hearing that what appears on the other side of this mailer is aimed at a Protestant clergyman. Once I have confirmation of that, I will update this post with the information.


UPDATE #2
Here is Matt Archbold's response to the suggestion that this ad specifically targets a particular Protestant clergyman:

Nobody doubts that the piece hits Tim Pawlenty and Dan hall on the other side but there can’t be any doubt that it uses the image of a Catholic priest to deliver its messsage. The other side is about healthcare for the poor and who the Democrats blame for holding up Obamacare? The bishops. It’s that simple.

On the other hand, Commonweal provides the reverse side of the mailer in an effort to bolster the argument that it is not aimed at the Catholic Church.

But I'm not buying the argument. "Preacher Hall" doesn't wear a Roman collar. "Preacher Hall" is shown on the reverse side in a coat and tie. So why the Roman collar on the front? I agree with Matt that it is to represent a Catholic priest.

Matt is correct that the reverse side of the flyer is an attack on those who opposed ObamaCare, like Governor Tim Pawlenty. "Preacher Hall" is attacked in the ad for "remain[ing] silent" over alleged health care cuts and for endorsing someone else who "stands with Pawlenty in rejecting over $1 billion" in ObamaCare funds.

C'mon! This ad isn't about "Preacher Hall". This ad is about ObamaCare and the people of faith who don't support it. People like the USCCB. How stupid do you think we are? "Preacher Hall" is merely a stand in for all the people who oppose ObamaCare because of its abortion funding. Again, people like the USCCB.

Since "Preacher Hall" doesn't wear a Roman collar, and since the ad is a targeted attack on people of faith who oppose ObamaCare - "Don't pass this off on God" - I think it is quite appropriate to conclude that the image on the front of the mailer represents a Catholic priest and to see this ad as an attack on the Church for its opposition to ObamaCare.


UPDATE #3 (27 October)
Kathryn Lopez offers her take at The Corner:

... I think it’s safe to say it’s unholy politics. That’s a bipartisan problem for sure. But there is reason for bipartisan, ecumenical offense here. It’s an insult to suggest there isn’t some convenient anti-Catholicism here. But more so, it’s an insult to intelligent debate. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t “Ignore the Poor,” and I don’t know many men of the cloth who do either.

The Democratic party in Minnesota disagrees with cuts the governor made and this candidate won’t throw under the bus (to use the most overused phrase in politics). Democrats can easily make that point without the use and abuse of clerics.

UPDATE #4 (27 October)
Ed Morrissey, who lives in Minnesota, has more on the story:

If the Minnesota DFL intended to make a splash in an otherwise-obscure state Senate race, well, they succeeded. The party, which is the Minnesota version of the Democratic Party, sent out a mailer attacking Republican challenger and Christian minister Dan Hall by accusing him of ignoring the poor for opposing ObamaCare. However, the front of the postcard shows a headless man wearing the traditional shirt and collar worn by Roman Catholic priests, with a button that proclaims “Ignore the Poor” — which has a large number of Catholics in Minnesota angry over a perceived attack on their church. KSTP reported on the mailer and the DFL silence last night...

[...]

The flip side of the mailer is a classic case of a cheap-shot, last-minute attack campaign that both parties indulge in the final stretch of an election, but the front picture goes way beyond anything in recent memory in attacking a church of any kind in a political campaign. The full context in which this was issued makes it difficult to believe the archdiocese’s expressed hope that this was just a poor decision. A few weeks ago, the Catholic bishop issued DVDs with the Catholic Church’s arguments on same-sex marriage, which the DFL and its supporters decried as interference in the election. This looks suspiciously like payback...

[More]

TIME to President Obama: Avoid "Piety Trap" of Church Attendance

At least TIME Magazine is an equal opportunity offender. Not only is the publication anti-semitic, but it is anti-Christian, as well:

Time executive editor Nancy Gibbs, the writer of many ridiculously gooey leg-thrill sentences about Democratic politicians, is now begging President Obama to avoid going to church -- it's "The Piety Trap." Her headline continues: "Sure, we want to know what a president believes in...but that doesn't always mean he should tell us." Obama is much more likely to end up in a sand trap than a piety trap on Sundays, but Gibbs doesn't want him to go to church anyway:

Many a pundit has predicted that we are sure to see the Obamas attending some nice, safe church one day soon, the girls in their Sunday best, Obama with a big Bill Clinton Bible under his arm or explaining what Glenn Beck calls Obama's "version of Christianity." I devoutly hope the President resists this advice or, if he feels the call to worship, that he finds a way to do it that meets his private needs rather than his political ones.

This is a funny passage coming from Gibbs, who found some poetic equivalence two years ago between the birth of Jesus Christ and the birth of hopes for Obama after the election: "Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope." It won our "Obamagasm Award" as the gushiest pro-Obama quote of the election year.

[...]

Gibbs clearly doesn't like her presidents to be overtly religious. She declared "We've seen what happens when it serves a president's interest to flaunt his faith -- which is almost inevitably does, since every poll affirms that Americans want their leader to submit to some higher power." So what happens? She never elaborated. She lamented "Religious tests, a constitutional taboo, are a political tradition."

Her liberal hero, naturally, is John F. Kennedy, who declared in 1960 that he came to Protestant pastors to talk about "now what kind of church I believe in , for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in." She insisted "That was an America where church and state were absolutely separate and priests and preachers did not tell parishioners how to vote."

Clearly, Gibbs doesn't really mean that progressive Reverends like Jesse Jackson (or even Reverend Wright) can't tell their parishioners how to vote. She simply doesn't like it when priests and preachers tell parishioners not to vote straight-ticket Democrat, like most well-coached Time magazine staffers.

[Read the whole thing]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Media Leftist: Mention of God Inappropriate for "Sacred Spot" Like Lincoln Memorial

Bill Press has never been the sharpest media tool in the shed. But this is just rank ignorance:



What a maroon!

Somebody should have notified the REVEREND Martin Luther King, Jr. back in 1963 of the inappropriateness of his speaking at the Lincoln Memorial:

... I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

[...]

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

(emphasis added)

Hell, somebody needs to inform the National Park Service that they must sandblast the following quotes by that religious zealot Abraham Lincoln from the walls of the Lincoln Memorial:

... Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. [ED.: Well, there, at least, is a biblical sentiment with which every liberal seems to be in accord and can quote back to you at the drop of a hat. In fact, it appears to be only one of 3 Bible verses the typical liberal seems to know.] The prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.

~ From Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address (inscribed on the interior of the Lincoln Memorial)

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

Nope. No place at all for God at "sacred" sites, especially not at the Lincoln Memorial.


UPDATE (31 August)
See Pat Archbold's similar take at National Catholic Register (Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Archbishop Chaput: "Systematic Discrimination Against Church Now Seems Inevitable"

From LifeSiteNews:

SPISSKE, PODHRADIE, Slovakia, August 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - MUST READ Excerpts from Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput's address to the 15th symposium for the Canon Law Association of Slovakia on Tuesday:

Today's secularizers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely. A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering.

We face an aggressively secular political vision and a consumerist economic model that result - in practice, if not in explicit intent -- in a new kind of state-encouraged atheism.

To put it another way: The Enlightenment-derived worldview that gave rise to the great murder ideologies of the last century remains very much alive. Its language is softer, its intentions seem kinder, and its face is friendlier. But its underlying impulse hasn't changed -- i.e., the dream of building a society apart from God; a world where men and women might live wholly sufficient unto themselves, satisfying their needs and desires through their own ingenuity.

This vision presumes a frankly "post-Christian" world ruled by rationality, technology and good social engineering. Religion has a place in this worldview, but only as an individual lifestyle accessory. People are free to worship and believe whatever they want, so long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not presume to intrude their religious idiosyncrasies on the workings of government, the economy, or culture.

[...]

In the United States, a nation that is still 80 percent Christian with a high degree of religious practice, government agencies now increasingly seek to dictate how Church ministries should operate, and to force them into practices that would destroy their Catholic identity. Efforts have been made to discourage or criminalize the expression of certain Catholic beliefs as "hate speech." Our courts and legislatures now routinely take actions that undermine marriage and family life, and seek to scrub our public life of Christian symbolism and signs of influence.

In Europe, we see similar trends, although marked by a more open contempt for Christianity. Church leaders have been reviled in the media and even in the courts for simply expressing Catholic teaching.

The West is now steadily moving in the direction of that new "inhuman humanism." And if the Church is to respond faithfully, we need to draw upon the lessons that your Churches learned under totalitarianism.

[...]

Relativism is now the civil religion and public philosophy of the West. Again, the arguments made for this viewpoint can seem persuasive. Given the pluralism of the modern world, it might seem to make sense that society should want to affirm that no one individual or group has a monopoly on truth; that what one person considers to be good and desirable another may not; and that all cultures and religions should be respected as equally valid.

In practice, however, we see that without a belief in fixed moral principles and transcendent truths, our political institutions and language become instruments in the service of a new barbarism. In the name of tolerance we come to tolerate the cruelest intolerance; respect for other cultures comes to dictate disparagement of our own; the teaching of "live and let live" justifies the strong living at the expense of the weak.

[...]

Writing in the 1960s, Richard Weaver, an American scholar and social philosopher, said: "I am absolutely convinced that relativism must eventually lead to a regime of force."

He was right. There is a kind of "inner logic" that leads relativism to repression.

This explains the paradox of how Western societies can preach tolerance and diversity while aggressively undermining and penalizing Catholic life. The dogma of tolerance cannot tolerate the Church's belief that some ideas and behaviors should not be tolerated because they dehumanize us. The dogma that all truths are relative cannot allow the thought that some truths might not be.

The Catholic beliefs that most deeply irritate the orthodoxies of the West are those concerning abortion, sexuality and the marriage of man and woman. This is no accident. These Christian beliefs express the truth about human fertility, meaning and destiny.

These truths are subversive in a world that would have us believe that God is not necessary and that human life has no inherent nature or purpose. Thus the Church must be punished because, despite all the sins and weaknesses of her people, she is still the bride of Jesus Christ; still a source of beauty, meaning and hope that refuses to die -- and still the most compelling and dangerous heretic of the world's new order.

The full 12-page talk can be read here.

Definitely read the whole thing.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Pope Critical of Labour’s "Unjust" Equality Laws Ahead of UK Visit

Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Bork Predicts “Terrible Conflict” Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom

Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Persecution of Civil Society

InsideCatholic on "The Unintended Consequences of Gay Marriage"

Secularist Attacks on the Catholic Church in Britain

Regular Guy Paul on What's Next for Same-Sex "Marriage"

Catholic Provocation?

Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church

San Francisco's Hateful Anti-Catholic Resolution Prompts Lawsuit by Thomas More Center

Catholic League Says Gay Adoption Issue Spurring Anti-Catholic Bigotry

9th Circuit Rules Okay to Censor Terms "Marriage" and "Family Values" as Hate Speech

UK Catholic Schools Endangered by Sexual Orientation Regulations

Official Anti-Catholic Bigotry Returns to British Parliament

"A Charter for Suing Christians"

A Catholic Londoner on "The Last Acceptable Prejudice"

British Bishops: U.K. Sex Equality Law "Threatens Catholic Adoption Agencies"

UK: Churches "Could be Forced to Bless Gay Weddings"

The Coming Persecution of Churches Over "Gay Marriage"

The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Teen Suspended for Bringing Rosary to School

Check out the reasoning:

A devout Catholic teenager was suspended for the crime of bringing his rosary beads to school. The school claimed it could be showing gang affiliation or endangering “the safety, health, morals or welfare of himself or others”.

[...]

Yeah, this kid belongs to a gang all right. It’s called “the Catholic Church”, and those thugs are dangerous. They’ll shank you if you don’t watch your back!

In all seriousness, how could rosary beads, of all things, endanger the morals of others? The health and safety part will obviously get the typical school administration double-speak about how they could offend some poor non-Christian and cause violence (just like wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo!). But morals?! I really want to know where they got that one from. One would think that being a devout Catholic, and showing it by wearing rosary beads, would speak well to this boy’s morals. But not at this high school!

[More]

(emphasis added)

The Secular Inquisition

This piece somehow escaped my notice when it came out a week ago. Writing at Spiked, Brendan O'Neill rips the Dawkins-Hitchens cabal a new one:

The New Atheist campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism. There is nothing remotely positive in the demand that British cops lock up the pope and then drag him to some international court on charges of ‘crimes against humanity’. Instead it springs from an increasingly desperate and discombobulated secularism, one which, unable to assert itself positively through Enlightening society and celebrating the achievements of mankind, asserts itself negatively, even repressively, through ridiculing the religious.

[...]

It’s worth asking why otherwise fairly intelligent thinkers get so dementedly exercised over the pope and the Catholic Church. What exactly is their beef? What are they objecting to? Very few (if any) of the pope-hunters were raised Catholic, so this isn’t about personal vengeance for some perceived slight by a priest or nun. And despite their current lowdown, historically illiterate attempt to equate a priest fondling a child with a state’s attempt to obliterate an entire people – under the collective tag ‘crime against humanity’ – the truth is that some of these pope-hunters don’t really think child abuse is the worst crime in the world. In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.

[...]

Yet despite the lack of any obvious, sensible reason why they break out in boils at the mention of the words ‘Benedict’, ‘priest’ or ‘Catholic’, the pope-hunters’ campaign has acquired a powerfully pathological, obsessive and deafeningly shrill character. It is screeching and emotional. It talks about ‘systematic evil’ and discusses the pope as a ‘leering old villain in a frock’. It uses up almost all the intellectual and physical energies of men and women who consider themselves to be serious thinkers. What is going on here?

The reason this crusade is so hysterical is because it is not really about the pope at all – it is about the New Atheists themselves. The contemporary pope-hunting springs from a secularist movement which feels incapable of asserting a sense of purpose or meaning in any positive, human-centred way – as the great atheists of old such as Marx or Darwin might have done – and which instead can only assert itself negatively, in contrast to the ‘evil’ of religion, by posturing against the alleged wickedness of institutionalised faith. It is the inner emptiness, directionless and soullessness of contemporary secularism – in contrast to earlier, Enlightened and more positive secular movements – which has given birth to the bizarre clamour for the pope’s head.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
A devastating indictment of the intellectual lameness of the modern-day secularists and the "new atheists".

(Hat tip: Eric Scheske)

Ralph McInerny and the Tragedy of Notre Dame

George Weigel eulogizes Ralph McInerny (and the Notre Dame that no longer exists):

... Ralph McInerny was arguably the most distinguished scholar ever to work at Notre Dame. His scholarly publications outstrip those of other Notre Dame philosophers by orders of magnitude—and that’s before we get to his popular fiction, his magazine work, and his encouraging of generations of younger Catholic academics. Yet a university that does not hesitate to boast of its accomplishments as measured by the U.S. News and World Report ratings seemed curiously reticent about celebrating the life and accomplishments of Ralph McInerny. The university Web site posted a nicely written obituary three days after his death, but there was little sense in the university’s official recognition of its loss that a gigantic figure had left the scene.

One cannot help suspect that this has something to do with the fact that Ralph thought Notre Dame had gone off the rails in its dogged and relentlessly self-promoting attempts to measure itself against what it likes to term “peer schools,” such as Dartmouth and Yale. What Ralph understood, and what the man who brought him to Notre Dame, the legendary Father Theodore Hesburgh, has never seemed to understand, is that that’s the wrong plumb-line by which to measure a Catholic university’s accomplishment. Or indeed any university’s accomplishment, given the intellectual chaos, political correctness, decadence, and madcap trendiness that has afflicted those “peer schools” since the late Sixties.

Ralph McInerny knew, and could demonstrate with acute philosophical rigor, that there are truths built into the world and into us: truths we can know by exercising the arts of reason; truths that, known, lay certain moral obligations on us, personally and in our civic lives. With the rarest of exceptions, they don’t know that, and in fact they deny that, at the “peer schools” to which Notre Dame is addicted to comparing itself. And therein lay the tragedy of Notre Dame and Catholic institutions of higher education of a similar cast of mind, as Ralph saw it: they had sold their intellectual and moral birthright—the true excellence that comes from an immersion in the Great Tradition of western higher learning—for a mess of pottage.

I’ve long thought that all of this had something to do with the misreading of a 1955 essay by Father John Tracy Ellis, “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life,” which justifiably criticized the shabby condition of too much of Catholic higher education in the United States in those days. Father Hesburgh and others influenced by one reading of Ellis’s critique decided that the thing to do was for Notre Dame to become Harvard, so to speak. Ralph McInerny thought that this didn’t make much sense at a time when those “peer schools” were awash in pragmatism and utilitarianism. Rather, he believed (and I think this was the more accurate reading of Ellis) that Notre Dame and other premier Catholic universities should play to strength, emphasizing a demanding liberal arts education while bringing the best of the mid-20th century Catholic philosophical, theological and literary renaissance to bear in the U.S. Doing that, Catholic universities would model a form of higher learning that was truth-centered, character-building, and life-inspiring...

(Hat tip: Don McClarey)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Notre Shame Fails the "Catholic" Test Yet Again

Ralph McInerny (1929-2010) [UPDATED]

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 2: Why the Catholic Faithful WERE Scandalized

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 1: "Why I Was Not Scandalized"

What Happened to Notre Dame?

Archbishop Chaput: JFK Speech Distancing Religious Views from Public Life "Sincere, Compelling, Articulate – and Wrong"

Fr. Z has the details:

... Recounting the historical context that led to the current state of affairs, Archbishop Chaput referred to a speech that the late John F. Kennedy made while running for president in 1960 which greatly effected the modern relationship between religion and American politics. At his speech almost fifty years ago, President Kennedy had the arduous task of convincing 300 uneasy Protestant ministers in a Houston address that his Catholic faith would not impede his ability to lead the country. Successful in his attempt, “Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected,” he recalled.

“And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics,” the prelate added.

“It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong. Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life.”

“And he wasn’t merely ‘wrong,’” the archbishop continued. “His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.”

(Hat tip: Fr. Finigan)

Coming to the Supreme Court: "Religious Liberty’s Battle of Hastings"

At Southern Appeal, Quin Hilyer reports on an important religious liberty case that will be coming before the Supreme Court this spring:

Imagine a law school that refuses to recognize a Christian student group because it requires its officers to be… yes, Christian. We at the Washington Times editorialized on it today. More on the case available here. A key paragraph from the masterful lead brief for the Christian Legal Society by the peerless Michael McConnell is here:

A “variety of viewpoints” is far more likely to beachieved when students are allowed to sort themselves out by interest and viewpoint—Republicans in one club, Democrats in another; Muslims in one organization, Lutherans in another. Without such sorting, all viewpoints are blurred. The Democratic Caucus becomes the Bipartisan Caucus; the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clubs become the Ecumenical Society; and every other group organized around a belief becomes a Debate Club. Each group becomes no more than its own diverse forum—writ small. The all-comers rule thus defeats the very purpose of recognizing any group as a group in the first place. Preventing students from organizing around shared beliefs does not foster a robust or diverse exchange of views.

This is a crucially important case. Free speech, free religion, and free association all hang in the balance.

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Victory for Religious Groups as Labour Gives Up on Equality Bill Clause Condemned by Pope

From The Telegraph:

Ministers had tried to include a new definition of a priest in the flagship anti-discrimination law, but church leaders complained that it was far too narrow.

They said it would mean religious organisations could no longer opt out of equality rules, and so would face prosecution unless they went against their beliefs by employing homosexuals. Roman Catholics feared they would be forced to admit women to the priesthood for the first time.

In an unprecedented intervention in British politics, on Monday the Pope declared that Britain’s equality laws are imposing “unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs”.

The controversial clause was struck out of the legislation during committee stage in the House of Lords last week, but clergy feared Labour would try to put it back in before the law entered the statute book.

However the Equality Bill is seen by Gordon Brown's allies as Harriet Harman's bill and party startegists are anxious that contentious parts of the bill do not become a part of the election attack against Labour.

Mr Brown visted the Pope while he was Chancellor and has enjoyed good relations with the Vatican on issues such as world poverty. Number 10 also points out that there are many Catholic Labour MPs who wil be upset that the new Bill has provoked such strong recation from Rome.

Downing Street is anxious that relations remain cordial and has now indicated that they will drop the contentious parts of the Bill...

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Pope Critical of Labour’s "Unjust" Equality Laws Ahead of UK Visit

Democrat Iconoclasm

Matthew Archbold reports that the Obama Administration is considering forcing faith-based recipients of federal money to cover or hide religious iconography:

According to OnFaith blog, Obama's faith council is debating forcing religious charities to cover up any and all religious icons if they receive federal funding.

OnFaith reports:

Obama's faith council is finalizing its draft report this week, and one of the key debates that emerged from the phone conference yesterday was whether there should be rules requiring religious groups to cover up religious symbols if they receive federal funding for services. For example, if a church gets money for a soup kitchen, would it have to remove or put a cloth over all crosses, pictures, etc., every time it gets ready to feed the hungry?

[...]

So remember when Obama said he decided to continue President Bush's funding of faith based organizations, I'm pretty sure that this White House continued it only so that the money could be used as a Trojan Horse that could destroy or at least secularize religious organizations.

My Comments:
Just more proof that, for all its bluster about reaching out to people of faith in the last election cycle, the Democrat Party remains openly hostile to, or at the very least, very uncomfortable with, overt demonstrations of religious faith.

Deacon Keith Fournier: "What Truths Do We Still Hold?"

Deacon Keith Fournier writes at Catholic Online:

... Those courageous men were influenced by the great treasury brought to Western Civilization by the Christian Church. They believed there actually were truths to be held and that those truths are self evident. Those truths include the existence of unalienable rights which are given to all men and women by a Creator. They believed that those truths and those rights can be discerned by all men and women because they are revealed by the Natural Law which is written on all human hearts and is a participation in God’s law.

The question which we need to ask ourselves in the United States of America as we come to the celebration of our Independence is a sobering one, What Truths do we Still Hold?

***
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 I will join with leaders from throughout the United States who represent broad sectors of the Christian community. We will gather in Washington, D.C. Together we share a common belief in what the late CS Lewis called “Mere Christianity.” The term is sometimes misunderstood to mean a kind of lowest common denominator approach to Christian cooperation. Lewis actually meant the basic “kerygma” of the Gospel message which all orthodox Christians should hold in common. That is what I mean as well.

***
On Tuesday we will come together as a “Freedom Federation” not to form any new organization but to stand together as Christians who are Americans and pledge, as did the founders of this Nation, our life our liberty and our sacred honor. At the top of our list of common areas wherein we will try to work together are these commitments to common action:

“To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, and for the unborn from the moment of conception. Every person is made in the image of God, and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress;

"To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family; to secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.; To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public institutions and other modes of public expression and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law.”

[More]

Two Statements on What it Means to be a Catholic University

Just to recap, in the past couple of days, we've seen 2 of the most eloquent and thoughful statements regarding the University of Notre Dame's decision to invite President Obama to deliver the university's 2009 commencement address and receive an honorary doctor of laws degree.

First is Bishop D'Arcy's "Statement to the Faithful", which seeks to publicly correct the errors and mistatements Notre Dame President John Jenkins has made in justifying the invitation.

Second is Bill McGurn's speech to the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture and The Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life.

Each, in their own way, seeks to lay out the duties and responsibilities of the nation's premiere Catholic university in living out its Catholic identity in a world that has become increasingly secularized and hostile to a culture of life. If you haven't read both already, I strongly encourage you to do so.

The Catholic Thing: "Church and Sect"

(Hat tip: American Papist)

Robert Royal writes at The Catholic Thing:

Here’s a quick question: Are you Catholic first and American second, or the reverse?

Yes, sometimes this might be a false choice, but just off the top of your head, which is it?

Just to speak for myself, I’m Catholic first and American second. I don’t understand how any believer of any faith could think differently. If you are lucky, you spend eighty or so years in America. Dead is a long time. An American passport or American attitudes may not be ideal for travel into the undiscovered country. Except for those simple souls who think that Americanism is Christianity, a reflective person knows there will be days – in certain periods a lot of them – when a real believer must take a different path than other Americans.

The Catholic Church occupies an odd position in the United States. We are a Church that has survived the rise and fall not only of nations, but of whole civilizations. Along the way, we developed a complex sense of the Church’s social responsibilities. Catholicism is compatible with American-style democracy – and with many other forms of government – yet does not concede that the public arena is properly understood as purely neutral or secularist.

God is Lord of all, including a pluralistic order like our own. The Catholic Church, as other churches once did, teaches that the basic elements of his rule, including universal moral principles, must be acknowledged, even if only indirectly, for any regime to be legitimate. And therein lies the heart of the problem of the Church in America today.

***
Catholics have in recent decades been considered doubly sectarian: just one more private religious association with the added complication of being tied to leaders who wear funny clothes and speak odd languages in a foreign country.

Lots of Catholics today have themselves internalized this attitude. I notice many of our co-religionists are quoted now as saying they don’t pay much attention to the pope or even our own bishops. For them, the Church is, at most, whatever they happen to like that’s going on in the local parish.

Most of the problems we have seen over Catholics criticizing their own Church for getting involved in politics reflect this thoroughly un-Catholic view that churches are really supposed to have no large public role, that they are all supposed to be just sects (unless we are talking about vague aspirations like avoiding conflict, helping the poor, and feeling good about ourselves).

It’s not only non-Catholics now, but Catholics themselves who run through a familiar litany. Opposed to abortion? Don’t have one. Regard homosexual relationships as not the equivalent of marriage? Hate is not a family value. Think experimenting on human embryos cheapens human life? Sorry, religious dogmas can’t stand in the way of science.

These are clever rhetorical ripostes, too clever – and too superficial. But they reflect the deeper disconnect of lots of our own people now. It’s not just the treason of the clerks in events like the recent embarrassments of Notre Dame and Georgetown. It’s a growing number of Catholics who do not realize that, in their sojourn in America, they have not moved into a larger world, as they think, but shifted allegiances from a universal church to a North American sect.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Creative Minority Report's "March to Madness"

Patrick Archbold of Creative Minority Report gives us some bracketology that really matters by identifying the Top 64 People Destroying Our Culture.

Moral Arrogance

ESCR proponent Charles Krauthammer explains why he is glad he declined President Obama's invitation to attend the signing ceremony for the Executive Order lifting President Bush's ban on federal funding of ESCR:

... the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would have made me walk out.

Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

What an outrage. Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."

Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.

Is he so obtuse as not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.

This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics...

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama Culture of Death Update™: President Lifts Ban on Federal ESCR Funding

President Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill

Never Mind Church Teaching, Catholic Nancy Pelosi Says ESCR "a Gift of God"

Bush Vows to Veto Stem Cell Bill Passed in Democrat-Controlled Senate

Senate Approves Stem Cell Bill - Congress Still Short Votes Needed to Override President's Promised Veto

"These Boys and Girls Are NOT Spare Parts"

“Mr. President: Veto This Bill”

What a Bush Veto Would Mean for Stem Cells

Rove: Bush Will Veto Embryonic Stem Cell Bill