Distinctly Catholic

I will be heading out shortly to a conference on religious liberty sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Why these start these things so early, and all the way across town is beyond me. I will file a report early afternoon.

But, here is some food for thought on the issue.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl has an article at the Washington Post explaining the archdiocese's decision to file a lawsuit against the HHS mandate. It is worth noting that Cardinal Wuerl focuses on the same objection Bishop Blaire highlighted - the still-extant, four-part definition of what is, and is not, a religious organization for purposes of exemptions from the new HHS mandate. I am sure there was some gnashing of teeth at the idea that bishops were taking different positions in public on this issue but I don't think the positions are that fundamentally different. The differences are ones of emphasis and context. All agree on the heart of the matter.

Yesterday, the dam broke. In comments made to Kevin Clarke at America magazine, Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, with carefully selected words and a persuasive and important argument, explained his differences of opinion with some of his brother bishops regarding the best way to address the religious liberty concerns the bishops all share.

Zenit reports on the establishment of a newly endowed chair at a Roman University in memory of Pope Paul VI. The chair will look at the pontiff's early life and work as well as his later years as Archbishop of Milan and then as Pope. I have long nurtured a profound esteem for Papa Montini, not only because he was the Pope of my youth, but because the more I learn of him and of his writings, the more I see how difficult a job he had of it, steering the Second Vatican Council to its conclusion and overseeing the early years of its reforms. What is emerging clearly is that he was intensely concerned that all the reforms keep the Church focused on Christ. His apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi paved the way for what we now know as the New Evangelization. His contributions to the social teachings of the Church were exemplary. And, even his most controversial encyclial, Humanae Vitae, reads better every year in its prescient concern about the eugenic potential of human tinkering with nature.

Reading court filings is not exactly fun, but it is often very clarifying. And, as is clear from several comments on this blog and elsewhere, and from conversations and emails, people would do well to actually read one of the lawsuits filed yesterday before pontificating on its merits. Or am I the only one tired – oh, so tired – of people blowing off steam, ignoring evidence that does not fit neatly into their prior narrative about whether Obama is hateful or the bishops are hateful, and failing to ask the kind of basic questions that should be asked when evaluating a lawsuit: Is this frivolous? Are the arguments compelling? Are there legal precedents? What are the relative values at stake?

In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Tom Monaghan, rightwing Catholic extraordinaire, had this to say about Catholic schools: "The worst thing you can do is send your kids to a Catholic school if you want them to retain their faith.” Really? Mr. Monaghan should come to the Catholic schools here in Washington, or to the Catholic school in Connecticut where my niece is getting a fine education, or to Catholic schools nationwide that do a wonderful job helping young Catholics retain their faith. He should have come with me to St. Bernard's Catholic High School in Connecticut, where I spoke with a group of very bright and engaged students, and note how many vocations that school has produced. Maybe he should go to one of the dioceses where Catholic schools are closing and suggest to the devoted parishioners fighting to keep their school open, and explain to them why their efforts are misguided.

I suppose if you recently ran into a burning building to save a neighbor, as Newark Mayor Corey Booker recently did, you do not have to prove your courage. Still, it was interesting to see him walk back his comment, made yesterday morning on Meet the Press, that the attacks on Bain Capital, like the attempts to revive the Jeremiah Wright issue, are "nauseating." Here is the link to the video Booker released yesterday afternoon walking back is comments.

I knew that it was strange to hear the President of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Father Terence Henry, fret so much about cooperating with an intrinsic evil regarding health care on EWTN last night, when his university had just hosted the former CIA Director who perpetrated his own set of intrinsic evils. But, I had not realized just how fraudulent Henry's indignation was. Grant Gallicho at Commonweal has done the heavy lifting on this one.

While here in Washington, attention has been focused on the speaking gig given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Georgetown's School of Public Policy, I was surprised to see that the Franciscan University of Steubenville invited retired Air Force General Michael Hayden to give the school's commencement address and receive an honorary degree. Hayden, of course, as Director of the National Security Agency and also of the CIA not only authorized the use of torture, he had openly defended such use again and again.

Last night, on EWTN's "The World Over," the President of Franciscan University at Steubenville, Father Terence Henry, talked about the school's decision to cease offering health care to its students rather than comply with the HHS mandates regarding contraception. At least twice he vowed that the university would never, never, never cooperate with and intrinsic evil. But, isn't torture an intrinsic evil? Did I miss the inaptly named Cardinal Newman Society's petition protest against Hayden's appearance? Or is Catholic outrage now to be reserved only for Democrats?

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Archbishop of Vienna, gave an interview to Vatican Insider that they have posted here. If your Italian is passable, read it in that language because the English translation is not very good.

The entire interview is interesting, but his remarks about homosexuality bear scrutiny. He considers it along side other things considered sexual sins, such a divorce and remarriage. This is not the Vatican line since 1986, which argued homosexuality was its own kind of sin, an "intrinsic disorder." That way of looking at it always seemed strange to me. The CDF seemed to be saying that homosexuality was not a specific act, like sex outside of marriage between two heterosexuals, nor was it like one of the seven deadly sins, to which all human beings are tempted, but an entirely new category of sin. It will be curious to see what kind of responses Schonborn gets.