Letter to Phyllis

Easter Sunday, April l2, 2009

HE IS RISEN, INDEED!

Dear Phyllis:

Regarding the enclosed “material” you sent, and a request for a reply.

The crux of so munch of this anti-Catholic material is laughable in a way. It all commits logical fallacies called either the STRAWMAN fallacy, or the fallacy of EQUIVOCATION, or the fallacy of DIFVOCATION (aka “distinction without a difference”).

In the strawman fallacy a false position is raised about something, and then it is shot down. It’s typical of adolescents who says to his parents “You hate me because you never give me anything.” When in fact, the parent has sacrificed left and right, hither and yon, but refuses to give the kids things that would do him or her harm. Well, the tactic plays out in anti-Catholic circles. For example, people that hate Catholicism will claim that the Catholics are taught to worship Mary. Then they quote verses from the Bible that say only God should be worshiped. Well, the fact is that Catholic teaching ONLY allows God to be worshiped, and never anything else, including the mother of Jesus.  So their claim about Catholicism is false, and their argument without validity. Catholics love and honor the mother of Jesus just as Jesus loved and honored his mother. We should be like Christ, right? Then we should do what Jesus did? Did he love and honor his mother?  How simple is this?

In the difvocation fallacy two different words or phrases are pitted against each other (they are vocalized differently) but then they are claimed to mean exactly the same thing. When it comes to the fallacy of DIFVOCATION those that hate Catholicism will say that Catholics are taught to HONOR Mary, which is true. But then the arguers will claim that there is no difference between the concept of HONOR and WORSHIP. But, in fact, there is a huge difference, and to Catholics the concept of “honor” is far different from “worship.” We are told, for instance, to honor our mother and father, but we are not told to worship them, or even obey when instructed to do something immoral.

In the equivocation fallacy two words that sound the same, and perhaps are spelled the same (equal vocalization) are given two different definitions by the different parties. It sounds and looks like they are talking about the same thing but in fact the underlying definitions are different, and so no agreement can be reached. When it comes to the fallacy of equivocation those that hate Catholicism will say that the Eucharist is a graven image because it is made by man. Their physical senses claim that the host (bread) and blood (wine) are bread and wine not the body and blood of Christ. The equivocation involves the term Eucharist, which to the Catholic hater means “just bread and wine, thus a graven image” but to the Catholic Eucharist indicates “a miracle of substance, changed by the power of the Holy Spirit, not caused or made by man.”  Where the writer of the literature you sent has it in his or her mind that MAN made the bread and wine, to the Catholic it is GOD that not only made the substance of the bread and wine, but through a miracle change it’s inherent substance into the real presence of Christ. The Euchrist is a gift from GOD, not a gift from MAN.

Equivocation is also involved with the word “prayer” or “pray.” While pray can mean to “worship” it can also mean to “request” or “communicate” with those in heaven. The material you sent suggest that prayer can ONLY mean worship, so when we pray to Mary or other Saints we are worshipping them. But Catholicism has never, NEVER used the word prayer that way when referring to those in heaven.

By the way, the skeptic will see the host and cup at Mass and using their physical senses (not faith) will claim that these elements of communion are only bread and wine, because the physical senses tell him so. But this is “COMMUNION” with Christ, as well as one another. Think about the deep meaning of that word—communion—as you read the rest of this paragraph. The skeptics at the time of Christ looked upon Christ and saw only a man. Their physical senses told them that Jesus didn’t glow in the night, or walk or air; Christ appeared totally human. Therefore, Jesus couldn’t be God. But you believe Jesus was God and is God still today. If God can become man (think of the size of that miracle) why do you claim that God cannot change wine in to his blood. I mean didn’t Jesus turn water into wine? Why is the miracle of the Eucharist so hard to believe? Are you totally without faith? Is your heart so hard that God’s love cannot penetrate with his gift, his presence? We are called to be “one with Christ”. What better way to have a personal relationship with Christ than to make him PHYSICALLY and SPIRITUALLY part of your body each day during Mass. Do you trust Jesus with your life, or are YOU the one to define the terms of your relationship with God? Are you going to worship God’s understanding of his redemption for you, or does it have to agree with your limited, human, finite, corrupt understanding? Is this about your faith in God’s power? Or is it about your lack of faith in God’s supremacy?

So, Phyllis, avoid such fallacies. They are the source of misunderstandings and misrepresentations, if not outward lies. And they will crush your faith and limited God’s power in your life to work miracles.

Now, let’s go back to the Eucharist for a moment, and the “real presence” of Christ. This is not very hard to understand to a Christian who has faith in God’s miraculous power. DO YOU BELIEVE IN CHRIST’S POWER, AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT’S POWER TO WORK MIRACLES HERE ON EARTH? To the skeptic who does not believe in God’s power to work miracles then the Catholic concept of the Eucharist is entirely ridiculous. But, look at the first part of John 6, where Jesus changes regular food into a miraculous food that feeds not just a young boy, but thousands sitting on a hillside. To the people eating, the food seemed just like regular food. But to the Apostles this was NOT the same substance. It was changed by the power of Jesus’ prayer of blessing upon it and the power of the Holy Spirit. The substance was sacramentally changed. Our senses could not see or taste the difference, but our faith indicates that something is different – miraculously different – because GOD did it, not man. So, this argument that bread made by man can ONLY and EVER be bread made by man and not miraculous changed by God, is entirely ridiculous.

Now, in that same chapter (John 6) Jesus teaches about how it is critically important to eat his body and drink his blood if you will have eternal life within you. He says this sort of thing numerous times, and implies it even more times. Fourteen times in all, I recall.  He’s talking about something that the first Protestants could not fathom. They said to each other: “How can he say this” and “It is hard for us.” (John 6:52, 60) And in John 6:66 these first protestors to the teachings of the Eucharist (the real presence of Christ in the sacramental bread) leave Jesus and never follow him again.

Whoa! Did you see what just happened? The people today that claim the Eucharist is NOT the real presence of Christ are direct descendents of those that left Christ in John 6:66.  This is where the Eucharist began, and it’s been in the Church ever since. (And I guess the Protestants have been “in” the church ever since, as well. Woe is me!)

Notice, there was plenty of time for Jesus to say, “Hey, this is only a symbol” it isn’t REALLY ME. But he persists, and because the skeptical Jews think Jesus is talking about real body and real blood, they are grossed out and leave. But Jesus doesn’t change his teaching, and neither do any of the Apostles in their writings later in the NT, nor does the Early Church fathers in their writings. In fact, Paul and some early bishops point out that those that don’t believe in this gift are to be shunned.

Even the word “remembrance” is an equivocation to the uninformed, uneducated Protestant Bible “scholar”. They are totally ignorant of what the concept of “remembrance” means to a Jew celebrating the Passover. When the Jews “remember” they are living out the actual events. It is NOT like looking at a picture album and remembering a birthday party. It is very, very different. To Jews reliving the Passover, and to Catholics reliving the crucifixion of Jesus, this is no picture album remembrance, but we are reliving the actual event, by participating in the eternity of God WHERE THERE IS NO TIME. Thus, the term “remembrance” has two entirely different meanings, and those that hate Catholicism can’t use their fractured definition to take the place of the real thing that Christian teachers have used since the first century. 

Now, I will take time to inform you of one more thing about Catholics and the Bible. And then you need to find a good priest to talk to. (There are bad priests out there whom you need to stay away from.)

First off, you would not have a Bible if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church. Who do you think gave you the Bible, approved the books in it (although Protestants ripped out 7 books in the 1800s), and through numerous councils of the Early Church defended and defined such things as the deity of Christ and the Trinity against heretics, and gave us the creeds that explain what it means to be a Christian? Jesus wasn’t literally around, so who did all that? Was your Church around to defend these basic Christian principles?  

Then, you have a problem that has developed into a scandal. Where Christ prayed for us Christians to be one with no division (John 17), now there are thousands (one source claims 35,000) different Protestant denominations. And it’s funny how each one uses the Bible to prove the “church” down the street is wrong. They can’t possibly agree on the basic doctrines among themselves but then they have the arrogance to attack the Catholic Church.  Have you heard the expression “the pot calling the kettle black?” It’s what Protestants do to Catholics.   They all use the same Bible but they can’t agree on what Jesus taught.  What’s missing here? 

Here’s what’s missing: SCRIPTURE!  They ignore those Scriptures that would tell them how to resolve their differences. But of course those Scriptures point to an institution that was present at the time of the Apostles and is present today, that was given by Jesus and the Holy Spirit infallible power to know what is right and wrong… and well, Protestant leaders just can’t bury their pride to accept WHAT THE BIBLE CLEARLY TEACHES. So they ignore it, and they ignore the Church Christ established, an institution that Jesus said would never fail and would never teach anything wrong. Yes, the Bible says that, clearly.

So, the material you sent claims that “Jesus” is the authority. (Matthew 18) as if Jesus was sitting on a throne here on Earth making decisions. Jesus isn’t on an Earthly throne today anymore than God was on the throne at the time of Moses. But Moses was on the throne and telling the people what God was saying. Moses sat in “the chair” and governed the people as God spoke to them through Moses. God has always used earthly people to be his spokesperson here on Earth. There was Noah, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, the Apostles, and the bishops, and today the pope. It all follows a Biblical pattern.

And that pattern is in the material you sent. The first section REGARDING AUTHORITY quotes Romans 13:1 that points to an authority on Earth “which God has established.” So where is that authority, Phyllis?

And then Colossians 1:16ff says there are rulers and authorities created by Christ and even mentions the “church” as under Christ’s rule. Hello?! Are you paying attention?

Then you quote Titus 2:15. This is a letter by Paul to Titus (a Catholic bishop) and what does Paul say to the bishop Titus “TEACH. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.” PHYLLIS, WHAT IN HEAVEN’S NAME DOES THAT MEAN?  It means that Christ set up a Church, and then appointed bishops like Titus, and then encouraged Paul to tell Titus to act in Christ’s stead and be His authority on earth.

But don’t be confused, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would protect his bishops from teaching false things. It’s a miracle of God that the Catholic Church is still around and going strong in spite of the error in the personal lives of the men that hold positions of leadership. Remember, just as fallible men wrote infallible Scriptures, so fallible men today (who are ordained by the laying on of hands) interpret those Scriptures (through the power of the Holy Spirit) infallibly. But that power and promise has only been handed down through the one church that has never changed a single doctrine through it’s 2,000-year history. Why? Because Jesus said it would be so.  More on that in a moment…it’s in your Bible. Like you say you have to listen to Jesus in the Bible. The whole Catholic thingy is based on that premise.

But let’s get back to your material. It’s so interesting how it supports Catholic teaching.

In Hebrews 13:17 your material says “OBEY YOUR LEADERS AND SUBMIT TO THEIR AUTHORITY. THEY KEEP WATCH OVER YOU AS MEN WHO MUST GIVE ACCOUNT. OBEY THEM…..” Phyllis, why are you not obeying the in-line authority that these verses are telling you to obey?

Here ARE some more Bible verses that your preacher friends obviously ignore for fear that if they took Jesus’ words seriously they’d have to become Catholic. Phyllis, if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church over the centuries you would know nothing about Christ. It is the Catholic Church that protected the teachings and traditions of Christianity, and gave you the Bible, and decided the great heresies over the centuries, and yet today defends Christians again the skeptics and confronts presidents who would kill babies, et al. The Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed came from the Catholic Church. We recite those creeds every Sunday in Mass, does your church?  When you recite the Apostles Creed and you come to “we believe in the communion of saints”  …. What do you think that means? Does it matter what you think it means, or what the writers of that sentence intended it to mean?

But here…

Try Matthew 18:17ff  where Jesus says to the Apostles during instruction on how to deal with a belligerent church member who is sinning: “If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or tax collector.” Jesus does not say, if he refuses to listen to ME, Jesus. And there’s that nasty word “CHURCH” in that verse. Yes, Jesus established a Church to ride herd on those of us who couldn’t tell right from wrong, and then promised that the Church would NEVER make a mistake in its teachings of faith or morals. Notice that there was no promise that the leaders of the church would never make mistakes in their personal lives. (I’m told the pope goes to confession frequently.) Don’t confuse the personal behavior of a church leader with the teachings of the church. Certainly the presidency of the United States is different than the behavior of some of our recent presidents.

Okay, you wanted Bible, so let’s get back to the Bible. How well do you know it?

Matthew 18:18 Jesus says to the Apostles: “Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Sounds like Jesus is giving them AUTHORITY, Jesus’ authority to make rules about what is right and wrong. Are you obeying Jesus, Phylllis? If you want to, you better be obeying the Church.

Lookie here: Luke 10:16 “those who listens to you listen to me… those who reject you reject me…and the one who sent me.”  If you are going to listen to Jesus, you better be obeying those he left in charge.

Phyllis, there are dozens of verses like these that put the onus on YOU to obey the CHURCH, because only the Church that Jesus established is infallible enough to INTERPRET what Jesus meant.

Could the Church ever be wrong about what it teaches on faith and morals?  Well, DO YOU BELIEVE JESUS?  In John 16:13 Jesus says the Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles and their successors into ALL TRUTH. Not some truth. ALL TRUTH. The Church is pronounced by Christ to be infallible.  In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says that “my church (there’s that nasty word again) … the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it.”  That is the CHURCH is perpetual, never ending.

So, Phyllis, where is that Church that existed at the time of Christ and Jesus says will never error in its teaching, and will be around until the end of time? Where is that Church? Was your church or denomination around at the time of Christ? How old is it? Can your pastor be traced back, through the laying on of hands, to one of the Apostles? Only Catholics, Orthodox and a few Anglicans do claim that, and frankly I think the Anglicans that could claim that died off.

In John 16:26 Jesus says, “the Holy Spirit…will teach you everything and remind you of all.”  That dang infallibility thingy. Jesus said this. You wanted to obey only Jesus, well, pay attention. He’s talking to you.

And there are many, many more Scripture passages that your preachers ignore. Like Eph 3:10 where it says that the wisdom of God comes through the Church. And 1 Tim 3:14-15 that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (not the Bible, which didn’t exist for several hundred more years).

So, next time TBN airs Common Ground, you would do yourself an eternity of good to pay attention, and not challenge the Holy Spirit like you are currently doing.

In the meantime, find a good priest and get to confession. Jesus said to the first Church leaders, “Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins you do not forgive, they will not be forgiven.” (John 20:23)  And don’t give me this crap about how you won’t confess your sins to a man. A priest is the representative of CHRIST. Did you learn absolutely NOTHING as a child growing up in The Catholic Church? Were you sleeping or goofing off the whole time and ignoring the instruction you were given?

Phyllis, do not blame the church for your own lack of attentiveness.

Finally, if I am completely wrong, then the Bible, Jesus and the Apostles and the great saints of old are wrong, and I guess only Phyllis is right. How amazing could that be?

Get to the real Church Phyllis.

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.

Executive Producer - Director

My Aggrivation with Uninformed Anti-Catholics

Recently, TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) aired one of our specials: "Common Ground". Although the airing was in the middle of the night (3:30 AM ET) we received approximately 100 direct orders, and our wholesalers also supplied perhaps another 100 units to customers. Almost universally we receive many compliments, astonishment and even a few tears from people who are thankful for this Kensington Church Production.

But occasionally we receive a dismissive letter (long and stuffed into a number 10 envelop) of how "completely wrong" Catholicism is. The infallible tenor of these letters is always amusing, as if the writer was part of the universe's creation. Universally, the letters (and ancillary material stuffed in with it) are textbook examples of three fallacies evident in 99% of all anti-Catholic literature. It's amazing that such writers, and even authors of such books can ignore such basic knowledge about reason, logic, and true Catholic teaching.

I try to ignore the letters, insofar as I often feel compelled to take these people seriously (and they are serious) and provide thorough responses. But experience has taught me that the writers are usually not interested in truth, but only venting their prejudice, and occupying my time from more worthwhile endeavors.

Over the Easter weekend, however, I took some time to respond to one lady, Phyllis (her real name), with the intention of posting it on my Catholic Articles page back on StanWilliams.com. Here's the link Letter to Phyllis.

My aggravation with the fallacies used by anti-Catholics is modestly evident in this response to a Nineveh's Crossing "customer" who requested a catalog. The letter begins with an explanation of the three major fallacies anti-Catholics use in their frail attempt o debunk Catholicism. It then goes on to explain the Bible to someone who told me to study my Bible more closely. This is also a person who claimed to have been raised in the Catholic Church, so some chastisement is necessary.

COOL AND CONNECTED: THE HIPNESS OF STEM CELLS, MONEY, AND POWER.

My friend and editor from Catholic Exchange.com responded to my PREVIOUS POST about Dr. Oz, Michael J. Fox, on Oprah. This is my response to her.

----

Mary, you are right when you suggest that embryonic stem cell research is connected to the hip with a thirst for power, and that such power dwarfs any concern for the lives of tiny humans. And while to some "players" the argument is not really all about "therapeutic good" -- that is the horse to which they've strapped their saddle. Thus, revealing their true motives (power and greed) may be a more productive strategy for pro-life researchers and pundits.

Let me explain.

There are two arguments in the embryonic stem cell debate that to the thinking Catholic are attached at the hip, but to those less insightful (and innocent in their ignorance) are separate issues. The first is the search for cures to protect adult life, the second is the protection of embryos, tiny human life. Yes, there is the obvious connection that to kill a life to protect another is evil. But to accept that argument you have to believe that embryos are indeed human life, and most people don't believe that because it is not common sense—that an embryo is human life is not a commonly observable phenomenon. Thus, embryos as human life becomes more an article of faith even with scientific evidence.

I get the sense that the former argument (the search for cures) is more important to one group (those of improperly formed faith), and the latter (protecting embryonic life) is more important to the other (those with properly formed faith). The ratio of importance to these two groups is so large that the other argument is lost in the shadows. And I believe that people like Oprah and Michael J. Fox are at heart not sinister killers of the innocent. In their ignorance they want what is good for the common person. I suggest that they would enjoy supporting life in all its forms as long as it does not seem to conflict with their understanding of life in the throes of battling deliberating diseases. Understand that the effects of Parkinson's Disease is far more a common sense thing than embryonic life. One is easily observable on national television, and the other is essentially invisible and not available to our common senses. Thus, I think the segment with Dr. Oz was a huge (although stealth) stake in the ground for the "hip" -- that is where the two arguments are connected.

The common terminology for that "hip" (which to us "moralists" is "cool" as well as "connected") is NATURAL LAW. No matter what any liberal, atheist, corrupt politician, or demonic figurehead does, they cannot beat natural law. In a big way USSR's dissolution resulted from the slow but real discovery of natural law. Obama can pontificate, and the liberal congress can legislate, and Tony (hypocrite) Blair can "Catholicgate" as much as they want, but in God's timing, (not mine, dang it) they will all come to kiss the feet and the feats of Natural Law. You can't beat it in the long run.

The embryonic stem cell debate occurs on these two levels—health and morality. Many of us yell and scream on the moral side, but the other side of the coin is the physical science of how man is still incapable of manipulating DNA and impersonating God in creating and growing life. When man does mess around with the moral side of things, he simultaneously messes around with physical science (as God knows it, not man's marginalized understanding). The result is cancer. (Pun intended for there is both a moral and a physical cancer, and Dr. Oz mentions the physical, but we "moralists" see that his mention is simply the metaphor for the moral. You cannot separate the psychological and spiritual dimension from the physical—as all good sacramental Christians should fully understand, as well as readers of my book, "The Moral Premise" -- an unabashed plug).

It is King David that proclaimed time and time again, "I love Your law O Lord. I study it all day long. Your command makes me wiser than my foes, for it is always with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers, because I ponder your decrees ...." (Ps 119:97 ff). When David says he studied God's laws "all day long" he is not referring to pouring over the text of the Mosaic Law, but rather to observing how Natural Law wins out in every case throughout his vast kingdom, especially in his own moral life. It is entirely possible that Nathan (David's prophet in residence) saw the guilt that riddled David after destroying Uriah & Bathsheba's marriage, and confronted David after hearing the roar of the palace rumor mills. Did Nathan hear from God directly? Possibly. But, 2 Samuel 12:1 says that "the Lord SENT Nathan to David". It doesn't say that the Lord had to explain to Nathan what was going on. Natural Law would have prompted a blanket of guilt upon David and the officials that assisted David in his immoral task. And Natural Law would have fostered the kingdom's rumor mill to the hilt (and most of it was probably not rumor). When it came time to write Psalm 51 and Psalm 119 there was plenty of evidence that you can't beat natural law, and in it we have ultimate faith that what is right will prevail.

Thus, Dr. Oz, with Oprah and M. J. Fox at his side, on national TV, is like Nathan popping his head up and saying, "You can't beat Natural Law." Submit you fools! (Except Oz is nice about it... he wants to be invited back to the Queen of daytime television. Which makes me wonder if Nathan came to the King of the daytime court, where all the world was watching and listening.)

BUSINESS vs. NON-PROFIT UNIVERSITIES

Getting back to the sinister debate. There is another force at work that I have never heard mentioned, but I suspect is actively driving the embryonic stem cell argument from a lack of salience or knowledge about the division in medical research groups. In the medical research profession there are at least two groups that could not be more different, yet may appear to have the same credentials. There are medical researchers who look to business models to fund their livelihoods. Their research creates a product (e.g. drugs and therapies) that meet needs, and then they sell their products for a profit. These are profit (not necessarily prophet) oriented companies that get their funding from business investors and enter the free market to make their money.

The second group of medical researchers look to a grant model to fund their livelihoods. Their first step is to create public awareness of a need (real or invented), and then ask the public, through government grants, to fund the research. If this group is successful, their work may result in patents and make the researchers and research institutions where they work, richer. These institutions are university research centers, who have far less money, less sophisticated apparatus, and an inferior infrastructure to support their research desires. The university researchers cannot generally go to the business community for funding unless the business investors see the likelihood of success and a return on their investment. In the case of embryonic stem cell research my guess is that investors are going to fund adult stem cell research because of the vast disparity in success between embryonic and adult stem cell prospects. There are over 70 successful therapies developed from adult stem cells, and utter failure, along with cancerous tumors, resulting from embryonic research.

But the university researches have the "benefit" of a monopoly on the embryonic public debate since no good business will come near it. And further we need to remember that the liberal politics of public universities are attached at the hip to state funding, and a public that is currently sensitized to liberal policies. Thus, liberal university medical researchers are having their moment in the lime-light. What they don't realize is that lime is dumped on corpses to stop the spread of contagious disease. Ah, well, it will take them time, but someday they'll realized that you can't beat natural law, even if it does take time for the cancer to spread a ways.

My instinct is that pro-life pundits should follow the money, and reveal the greed and thirst for power and prestige that university researchers are lusting after. Their celebrity status will be short lived, for sure, as Dr. Oz suggests when he says, "the stem cell debate is dead." But even in a short time lives will be lost, and public dollars squandered.

Dr. Oz made that point, discreetly with Fox and Oprah. So, let's follow the money and reveal the financial and prestige motives of embryonic stem cell researches, which I claim are closer to the surface and more exposed to common sense. Greedy researchers can hide behind their moral claims of improving life for the common good by finding cures of diseases, but they can't hide easily behind their bank accounts and the prestige that running a large state funded research facility offers.

Dr. Oz with Michael Fox and Oprah - Stem Cells

Finally, the liberal media and pundits hear from one of " their own" about the problem with embryonic stem cells and what the natural solution is. You can't fight Natural Law, and the sooner we embrace it, the sooner we'll cure diseases like Parkinson's. Click on image for clip from show.

Jenkins and Obama: Promotion of the Obscene

I've been praying for:

a) Unity of our bishops on publicly moral matters (by their silence on public issues they appear Protestant, e.g. of different or ambivalent minds).

b) Evidence that my hours of prayer have some effect...although no doubt joined with thousands of other prayers.

DEAR GOD: YOU NEED TO PROVE TO US THAT PRAYER REALLY DOES WORK.

----Thanks to Tony Ryan for sending this out------

March 31, 2009
Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556


Dear President Jenkins:

I wish to express in my own name and on behalf of the Catholic community of this Diocese, my dismay and outrage at your decision to invite the current President of the United States to address the 2009 graduates of the University of Notre Dame and to receive an honorary degree.

This decision of your flies in the face of the expressed directive of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the year 2004, that Catholic institutions not so honor those who profess opposition to the Church’s doctrine on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

I would ask that you rescind this unfortunate decision and so avoid dishonoring the practicing Catholics of the United States, including those of this Diocese. Failing that, please have the decency to change the name of the University to something like, “The Fighting Irish College” or “Northwestern Indiana Humanist University.”

Though promotion of the obscene is not foreign to you, I would point out that it is truly obscene for you to take such decisions as you have done in a university named for our Blessed Lady, whom the Second Vatican Council called the Mother of the Church.

I sign myself

Very truly yours,

The Most Reverend Thomas Doran, D.D., J.C.D.
Bishop of Rockford

Other Vocies on the Terry-Burke Controversary

At CatholicCulture.org there's an editorial by Phil Lawler that criticizes Randall Terry, making judgments about Terry's motivations that are, well, inaccurate to put it nicely. You can read Phil's opinion HERE. There are no com boxes on their site, but below is what I wrote to Phil. Diane K. links to this on my com box on an earlier post.

Phil:

Your spin on the Randall Terry - Ap. Burke event has its roots in a Catholic Cultural "ideal" that (having come to Catholicism out of Evangelicalism) I see differently. Indeed Randall Terry is a different personality than Ap. Burke and most of our Catholic bishops. Please see my two blog posts (below) in response to this situation and Diane Korzeniewski's posts, who (I still love her) takes your position. I know Randall Terry personally, and while I've not been involved in his many activities over the years (although I've been invited) I will attest that he is not after any self-aggrandizement as you so indelicately put it. A more accurate representation regarding Randall's character is that of total selfishness for for cause of life and truth. He is not the kind of person to seek fame, although he does seek attention for the cause. He would rather be ridiculed and poverty stricken for the issues of life and truth--and he has been both. For Randall, his reputation can be torn apart if in the end the lives of babies are saved. And his life has been thus torn several times. Yet, like Jeremiah, he perseveres. As I point out in my posts, there is a fallacious carefulness on the part of American Catholic Culture that has marginalized the Catholic Church and made it ineffective. I explain how in these posts. Here are my responses, the second is perhaps more directly put, but both have examples of how God's men (Biblical and Saints) of old have acted more like Randall than like Ap. Burke.

http://crossingnineveh.blogspot.com/2009/03/archbishop-burke-chastises-randall.html

http://crossingnineveh.blogspot.com/2009/03/cardinal-george-archbishop-burke-at.html

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D. (Stan)

(I advertise on your site, by the way, and get good response to my ads. Keep up the good work.)
http://www.CrossingNineveh.blogspot.com
http://www.NinevehsCrossing.com

Cardinal George and Archbishop Burke at the National Press Club

This is a response to Diane Korzeniewski's excellent post in response to mine of hers, etc. See her post Te Deum laudamus!: Continuing discussion on Catholic dissidence, Archbishop Burke and Randall Terry.

Likewise, this inning of our constructive dialogue on this most important topic, is too big for her com box. I'll put a link there to this.

Perhaps the encapsulation of this post can be stated as my title hints: Cardinal George AND Archbishop Burke need to appear at the National Press Conference, in person, and make statements, take questions, and do a little fire and brimstone preaching in the process. That of course is not their style, unfortunately. Because they didn't do that, Randall Terry did the next best thing. I'm sure Randall Terry would kiss their feet and back off, if they were to do what he, me and a host of others (I'm including the heavenly hosts in that reference) think they should do.

Let me give you some more examples of what I mean.

Did you see any of the March for Life video coverage this past January of the speeches? There was a juxtaposition that was very telling of my point that we need some on-fire preaching and public confrontation of this very public issue. Check out Rev. Luke Robinson's "talk." Trademark speech! Best Practice preaching! Watch it here and cry. He (a black evangelical Protestant) even begins with quotes from Mother Theresa. WE NEED CHANGE NOW MORE THAN EVER.



Moments after he was done (interrupted by frequent cheering of the crowd) a group of Catholic bishops took the podium and also spoke of their support for Life. It was so forgettable that I don't think it even made it to YouTube among the dozens of other videos posted there. If someone knows if it got posted, please let me know where it is. The juxtaposition with Robinson quoting Mother Theresa and the polite response of our bishops was telling of why Catholicism is not as effective in the public forum as it could be.

My call for some revival preaching, as opposed to polite dialogue, is hilariously exampled in Patrick Madrid's book "SEARCH AND RESCUE: How to Bring Your Family and Friends into or Back into the Catholic Church." Madrid's mantra is that of quiet persuasion, and the quote before his Table of Contents is the always present Catholic adage "Evangelize always. When necessary, use words." (St. Francis of Assisi).

What irritates me is that this quote is used (by many in Catholicism) as if it was Scripture. But, that quote is NOT ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. Yet you'll find quite the opposite attitude in the lives of both OT prophets and NT apostles. What if Jeremiah, Isaiah, or Moses were to have followed St. Francis' adage? DISASTER -- and probably no Old Testament. Let me remind you that Jeremiah was killed for getting in the face of kings and other church leaders. And there was another man, in the NT whose first name began with "J" who suffered the same consequence. Can you imagine Jesus following St. Francis' adage: "Hey, Jesus, Evangelize always, but only when necessary use words." PLEASE folks STOP using this idiotic adage. It has caused Catholics in this country to be silent NOT evangelize, and to NOT confront culture, and for bishops to NOT publicly challenge public officials on very public policy.

The second thing about Madrid's book that is contrary to his thesis is the title, and the drawing on the cover of a life ring being thrown to a guy in a small row boat supposedly overcome by big waves (not depicted). In water rescue situations "Search and Rescue" is NOT a quiet operation, there is, NECESSARILY a lot of yelling. Duh!

The third thing about Madrid's thesis (and the thesis of Catholics who think that reverence before the Blessed Sacrament is the proper attitude when confronting public evil) is Madrid's quoting of Pope Pius XI who wrote in admiration about another St. Francis. St. Francis de Sales was successful in converting a large segment of France formerly controlled by John Calvin. Ironically Madrid cites Pius XI evidence that contradicts Madrid's thesis. Here are two quotes (the first from Pius XI, the second from Madrid)... hardly the quiet or non-confrontational man this guy was (emphasis of Pius' words, quoted by Madrid, mine):

It is almost unbelievable with what vigor and constancy he defended the cause of Jesus Christ... If they fled him, he pursued, calling after them loudly... When during a sermon, almost the entire audience one after another left the Church, he would continue preaching. At no time did he ever lose his mental poise or his spirit of kindness toward these ungrateful hearers. It was by such means as these that he finally overcame the resistance of his most formidable adversaries. (Pius XI, Rerum omnium peturbationem, sec. 8, Madrid's SEARCH AND RESCUE, page 6-7.)

Early in the morning, before the townspeople got up, Francis slipped his tracts under the door of each home, Catholic and Protestant. He knew that if, free from peer pressure, the people would just read for themselves the biblical and historical case for the Catholic Church, they would be more likely to consider the Catholic message. And that's precisely what happened. (Ibid, pg 13)

Now, toning down my "rhetoric" let me respond more directly to Diane's last post:

For the most part I think we've done our part to generate some thought and discussion on this topic. In many respects we agree on substance. We're perhaps disagreeing on "degree" of how justice, correction, or tolerance and trust is played out in the public square. We both trust the Holy Spirit... although I'm not sure how any of us, without taking 120 years, know what the H.S. actually wants. Look how long it has taken bishops to decide certain beliefs. (I have a bone to pick with God about that one.)

My rebuttal for contemplation:

a. Throughout history popes, bishops and laymen have felt they were led by the H.S. to become militant when quiet dialogue (in the face of grave evil) was not making progress at saving civilization. The Civil War is an example, as is WWI and WWII. I have sensed we're on the cusp of another such time with the abortion issue.

b. I knew W. Edwards Deming. Did a documentary about him, interviewed him, read his books. Your citation of his comment about incremental change (as opposed to sweeping change) only works in situations where the output is being constantly evaluated for quality. (e.g. Statistical Processes, I know them well.) When there is no such systemic evaluation present, sweeping change (of the process) may be necessary. I posit that is the case with the American Catholic Church. See my essays on Best Practices of Faith Formation.

c. You can't compare the motivation of a homeless waif stealing bread for food with an educated prince of the Church living in comfort. Canon 915, as Ab. Burke points out, is easy to understand...perhaps even by the homeless waif who can't read. I discount, therefore, that we cannot judge a bishop's motivation for ignoring something so clear. We're not taking about confronting an ignorant lamb, sheep (or waif) here, but supposedly head shepherds who are educated and hand selected: "PROTECT THE LAMBS, FEED THE SHEEP" (c.f. John 21).

d. If we can't judge the motivation of a bishop, we are certainly not in a position to judge the motivation of Randall Terry. It's a matter of historic speculation, but I suspect that if there were 12 bishops in this country who had the fire in their belly Randall Terry demonstrates, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE LEGAL TODAY IN THIS COUNTRY. What if the Apostles (with Mathias, not Judas) had been around during the last 100 years? Do you think Margaret Sanger would have had a pulpit in the public forum? I think she would have been converted or chased off the public map by indignation of St. Paul's preaching. I'm looking at this with the perspective that unlike Protestant preachers like Billy Graham (as great as he was during that time) Billy did not have the apostolic (e.g. historic and infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit) that our bishops have, and have had, had they chosen to rise up and use it.

e. I challenge us all to think more carefully where the line is drawn between what is "charitable" speech and "tolerance of evil." I struggle all the time (after reading scandalous news reports on the web) whether or not to comment to the contrary in the article's com box. Most of the responders are illicit fools, and there needs to be more salt out there. My solution is for Catholic business men and women to buy up the newspapers and control the com boxes. Free Speech is a misnomer when people are led to destruction. And it's still against the law to yell (falsely) "FIRE!" in a crowded building or darkened theater. But is it just as illicit to not yell FIRE when there truly is one.

Archbishop Burke Says It Again - Are Other Bishops Listening?

On the Catholic Action for Faith and Family's site is an interview between Archbishop Burke and Thomas J. McKenna (March 10, 2009) mostly dealing with Obama's nomination of Governor Sebelius to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The content is very similar to the one with Randall Terry, and reported to have occurred only 8 days later.

Again, clearly, Burke tells other bishops to fall in line. Will they get the message? And why was Randall Terry singled out for a finger waging? Here's my answer: Because some bishops don't like Randall Terry's tactics. They don't like to be told what to do, even when it's right and in accordance with Matt 18. That's it. But was the message the same? Absolutely. Which will create more buzz? Let me rephrase that, which will get noticed by the other bishops? Okay, which DID get to the other bishops? Answer: Randall Terry's. How do I know this? Because Ab. Burke hasn't yet written a letter to Catholic Action for Faith and Family chastising them. Looks to me like Randall is doing his job. I hope Ap. Burke speaks up all the more. I hope Ab. Burke sees the enemy here are the politicans (both elected and appointed, both U.S. Government and Papal.)

Here are excerpts, emphasis mine. Click the title above or HERE for the full interview.

Ab. Burke: It is sad for our nation to have a person who favors the right to kill the unborn in the womb placed in charge of the federal office with responsibility for health and human services… she should not be entrusted with the questions of health and human services for our nation.

As a Roman Catholic, her appointment is the source of the greatest embarrassment because she has publicly and repeatedly betrayed her Catholic faith…

What is more, she has obstinately remained in her moral error after being admonished by, at least, three of her Bishops, including her present Bishop, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas...

Archbishop Naumann proceeded in perfect accord with Canon Law and the sound pastoral practice it embodies. He steadfastly tried to help Governor Sebelius recognize her grave error and to correct herself. When she refused to do so, he had no choice but to remind her that the Church’s discipline requires that persons who publicly and obstinately remain in serious sin must be denied Holy Communion. When the Governor did not respect the Archbishop’s instruction that she not present herself to receive Holy Communion, he was obliged to make it public that the Governor had been instructed not to present herself to receive Holy Communion...

No Catholic who publicly and obstinately remains in serious sin can receive Holy Communion...

Every Bishop is held to the same universal Church discipline which has been in force since the time of Saint Paul the Apostle and is stated in canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law. Whether Governor Sebelius is in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, or in any other diocese, she should not present herself for Holy Communion because, after pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin.

Archbishop Burke Chastises Randall Terry

My friend in the battle for truth, Diane M. Korzeniewski, posts on Te Deum laudamus! this morning (a great blog) her dismay over Randall Terry's (picture at right) manipulation of Archbishop Burke interview to criticize American bishops who do not abide by Canon 915.

My post about the original interview, also with YouTube embeded clips is HERE.

Her dismay comes even as Archbishop Burke issued a statement, also available on Diane's blog, about his dismay at being "used" by Randall Terry.

I say: The Holy Spirit used Randall Terry to get the bishops out of their comfort zone and into the fight, where they should have been all along. That it takes a country western rocker (Randall is very talented in that arena) and layman who has risked all to lead the fight should shame the bishops far more than what Ab. Burke is upset about. Good Grief! They should read Terry's HUMBLE PLEA (available at Nineveh's Crossing's home page for free). Until Ab. Burke has spent as many nights in jail as Mr. Terry in the ProLife battle, Ab. Burke should laugh it off and publicly admit he needs more experiences like this to learn a few things. His position does not make him infallible or above reproach.

Here's my comment on Diane's blog.

Consider this: What will it take for the bishops to grow some backbone? Do we hide the truth, and their cowardice to practice the teachings of Mother Church (e.g. Canon 915), or do we hide behind political correctness, politeness, and the false need to convey "nice" feelings when "guilt" is the virtue needed. I say CONGRATULATIONS to Mr. Terry. He's clever and wise, and yes he's manipulative in the cause of life and truth. I say BRAVO! Ab. Burke would do well to read Mr. Terry's HUMBLE PLEA in which Mr Terry suggests that they might be more ProLife if bishop's lives were being murdered instead of little, helpless babies. And finally, Mr. Terry's tactics are WELL known by ANYBODY involved in the ProLife movement. That Ab. Burke (an American who has been around all the time of Mr. Terry’s trials and tribulations and battles in the ProLife movement) would chastise Mr. Terry over this is clear evidence that Ab. Burke is naive of the struggle and those involved. Finally, let's not blame Mr. Terry for the typical incompleteness of the mainstream press. But then, just perhaps, the Holy Spirit knows what needs to be done. Shame on the bishops who don't follow Canon 915, and shame on Ab. Burke for putting their feelings and his political statue ahead of holiness.

Archbishop Burke Interviewed by Randall Terry

(Pewsitter.com)March 25, 2009 - Washington, DC - Following is the transcript of Randall Terry’s interview with His Excellency, Archbishop Burke, Prefect, Apostolic Signatura on March 2, regarding Canon 915 and the withholding of communion from Catholic politicians that support abortion. The actual video footage of this interview was shown earlier today at a press conference at the National Press Club, in Washington DC. More information can be found at www.humbleplea.com. (Free copies of Humble Plea are available at Nineveh's Crossing's home page.

Here are the YouTube videos, the transcript follows:






Mr. Randall Terry: Your Excellency, it’s a delight to be with you. Thank you so much.

Archbishop Raymond Burke: Pleased to have you come, and to visit with you.

Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?

Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.

Mr. Terry: And so does that apply to politicians of any party that are saying: "Yes, it’s okay to abort children" –to kill children?

Archbishop Burke: Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb—children in the womb—from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins. And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.

Mr. Terry: And if they do approach, the person who is administering Holy Communion should say, “No.”?

Archbishop Burke: Right. In fact, the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion whether it’s the ordinary minister which would be a bishop, a priest, a deacon—or an extraordinary minister—it doesn’t make any difference. It says they’re not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Normally speaking, in my experience, when I have spoken with, for instance, Catholic politicians who have insisted on supporting pro-abortion legislation and told them they should not approach any more to receive Holy Communion, in my experience they don’t. Now, where Bishops have not applied the Canon, often times it’s said that this will cause some kind of disorder at the time of distribution of Holy Communion. That’s not verified. It’s not using Holy Communion to make a statement at all, it’s simply respecting this most sacred gift we have - namely, the Body and Blood of Christ—which can only be received when one has repented of his sins. And I would also make the point—and I believe that it is true that on the contrary - those public figures—Catholics—who are consistently promoting pro-abortion legislation and policies—use reception of Holy Communion to try to justify what they are doing; in other words, to present themselves as devout Catholics, when in fact they are sinning against the most fundamental teaching of the moral law. [Thou shall not murder.]

Mr. Terry: When the election was approaching, Bishop Martino said he would not serve Communion to Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden. There were a handful of other bishops who made similar statements, for which the laity and the faithful were rejoicing.

But the deafening silence from so many other Bishops—and also the bishops who stepped up such as in Washington D.C., Virginia, others …Massachusetts…[and] said that we will serve communion—was so painful for us. What word of encouragement would you give, first to the laity on our struggle to bring orthodoxy back, and then to your brother bishops and priests?

Archbishop Burke: I think simply to say: reflect upon this norm of the Church’s discipline—Canon 915—which is one of the most important canons to safeguard the greatest treasure that we have in this life, namely, the communion that we have with our Lord Jesus Christ, and His true body and His true blood; and to, in every way work so that also public witness is given to the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist. And so I would encourage the faithful when they are scandalized by the giving of Holy Communion to persons are publicly and obstinately in sin, that they go to their pastors, whether it’s their parish priest or to their bishop, to insist that this scandal stop. Because, it is weakening the faith of everyone. It’s giving the impression that it must be morally correct to support procured abortion, in at least in some circumstances, if not also generally. So they need to insist that their parish priest and the bishops, and for the rest…to my brother bishops and brother priests…simply to say: the service of the Church in the world today has to begin first and foremost with the protection of the life of those who are the most defenseless and the most innocent, namely the unborn, and certainly has to extend also to those who are gravely ill, or burdened with serious illness, who have special needs; and also now more and more their lives are being threatened by a culture of death which sadly has infected our nation. So I would just urge my brother bishops and my brother priests to see as the most fundamental witness and service which they can give in leading also the faithful in their pastoral care is the apostolate of the respect for human life.

Mr. Terry: The election of Obama sent shock waves around the world concerning the right to life of babies because of his commitment to pursue FOCA, to try to force hospitals - Catholic hospitals - into giving the morning after pill, other things – [the repeal of the] Mexico City policy. From your vantage point here in the Vatican, what kind of fruit around the world is this poison that’s percolating in America producing?

Archbishop Burke: There is no question, and I certainly see it here, living now here in Europe, and Italy, and also with the kind of communication within all of Europe that Barack Obama—President Obama—is a charismatic figure. And there was a great deal of—especially through the media—a great deal of publicity and so forth regarding the “hope,” the word that he used so much, that he offered—not only for the United States— and for the world. And so you can be certain that the whole world, and especially the English speaking world—which let us recall, is a great part of the world—is following very carefully and attentively what this man is doing—this world leader—which he is. And therefore, it becomes more incumbent upon us then ever, also in our responsibility for the scandal and the harm being done, not only in our own nation which is in itself— which we think about 50 million since the Roe v. Wade decision, 50 million unborn infants murdered—but also to consider the effect that our nation is having on the whole world in this culture of death.

America has the call to lead—to use its influence in the way that will give glory to God and will serve the common good in its most essential element: and that is by turning around this culture of death, and especially protecting the right to life of the unborn. So our responsibility is even greater than just for our own nation - which is in itself such a weighty matter. But we have to see how this is also having, adding a tremendous influence in the English speaking world, but also in the whole world, because of the charismatic nature of our present President. But in any case, no matter who is the President of the United States, here is a world leader with a tremendous capacity to promote the common good, but at the same time sadly, who could—by promoting and implementing anti-life legislation measures—could be an agent of death.

Mr. Terry: If I was a Catholic in another country, I would be watching the news unfold in America hearing the silence of so many Catholics, the debate over communion, and it might have the effect of me just saying, “Well, we have abortion here, they’ve got it there, let’s just all learn to live with it and go on about our business.”

Archbishop Burke: Well, I think this is precisely the effect that it has had. The communications today are instantaneous. The whole world knows that a very high percentage of Catholics in fact voted for this very anti-life candidate and so they watch this very carefully, and what the world needs to see now is a strong witness on the part of all Catholics and we can’t be content with the fact that some 55% - or whatever it is - who for whatever reason, supported this anti-life program. They have to see now that Catholics in the United States are alive and faithful and that they are going to work to protect human life, and above all, to let the President of the United States know that this is the number one issue.

Mr. Terry: There are many Catholics who believed that to vote for Obama - knowing his promises to extend child-killing even further - that to knowingly vote for him under those circumstances was a type of cooperation with moral evil. It was cooperating with evil. Do you concur with that and if so, why?

Archbishop Burke: Well, the fact of the matter is, it is a form of cooperation, because by voting we put a person in office. And people say, “What does my vote matter?” Well, your vote is either a vote to put someone in office who will do what is right and just, or someone who won’t. And so if you, knowing that abortion is a grave crime against human life – is the killing of an innocent, defenseless human life - and you vote for the candidate who says that he intends to make that more available – that practice of infanticide - you bear a responsibility. That is, you have cooperated in the election of this person into office, there’s no question about it.

Mr. Terry: Archbishop, thank you for your time. Do you have any closing comments or exhortations?

Archbishop Burke: President Obama uses this word “hope” in a way that for us is very disturbing. We need to have hope, the hope that is founded in Jesus Christ, alive for us in the Church; Jesus Christ who gave His life for everyone without exception, and with a particular love for the suffering and for those who are the most defenseless. And so we have to be filled with hope and give ourselves more than ever to His work, to His mission of protecting human life, and so I ask God to bless you very much in what you are doing to advance the cause of life.

Mr. Terry: Thank you, Your Excellency; long life to you.