The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it. And therefore seeing the matter is thus begun, and so faintly resisted on our parts, I fear that we be not the men that shall see the end of the misery.
–St. John Fisher, replying to the bishops who urged him to submit to Henry VIII
Am I being melodramatic? Perhaps. I do not expect to be executed. But I feel, and fear, that we have passed a turning point. The whole reply is here.
Brave man. Made me wonder if isn’t time our bishops took some unequivocally tough stands that would require nothing like death by hanging.
Today over at First Things, there’s a post, Reality Check, that points out that even though the U.S. bishops issued many statements about the HHS mandate, Obama still won the Catholic vote.
One of the commenters on the post had this to say about that:
1) The issue always lacked a certain stickiness among church-going Catholics precisely because the many, weekly in-the-pew Catholic sees no moral problem with contraception. So while they might understand the threat to the church and sympathize with it, if that moral teaching means relatively little to them personally it simply might not move them.
2) Those outside Mass-attending Catholics and conservative blog-reading audiences had really little-to-no knowledge of the depth of importance of this issue. This isn’t to say many people didn’t fight hard, but the message did not seem to reach the general public, who I think, on the whole might be sympathetic to the religious freedom plight. Of course, in light of point 1, the net impact and passion of that might not be the case. Which is why what was needed was not a focus-tested message but a bit of leadership on the issue from the top-of-the-ticket.
The commenter’s second point about lack of knowledge of the issue made me question why, for instance, Cardinal Dolan made all nice-nice with Obama at the recent Al Smith dinner rather than calling him out on the HHS mandate, or why he even invited Obama to the event at all. Here’s LifeSiteNews on the evening:
Many pro-life activists opposed Obama’s presence, citing fears that the light-hearted tone of the evening as well as the inevitable photo-op of the president yucking it up with the cardinal risked leaving the impression that all is amicable between the Catholic Church and the Democratic candidate. Dolan stated about the two candidates, “I’m privileged to be in the company of two honorable men, both called to the noble vocation of public service, whose love for God and country is surpassed only by their love for their own wives and children…”
There’s much more at the link that’s worth reading. Anyway, it all left me thinking we’ve got to stop keeping up the pretense that friendly discourse makes any difference to the secularists. If nothing else, it would make the issue very clear to Catholics. All the current joking and false camaraderie must be very confusing to many.
I didn’t pay much attention, but I did see a bit of back-and-forth about the propriety of the Al Smith deal. Some–and I don’t mean your standard liberal Catholics but pro-life conservatives–took the “keep the lines open,” “be civil,” view. I missed that yucky quote. There’s a fine line to be walked there but under the circumstances the happy talk sounds very misplaced to me.
As for Catholics going for Obama, I don’t even register surprise at stuff like that anymore. You have that old tribal Catholic-Democrat stuff among older people, and just plain indifference among younger. I’ve been proud of our bishop, who has spoken out very strongly, and continues to. And Romney was going to carry this state no matter what, and Catholics are pretty scarce outside a couple of cities, so I don’t know how they voted.
But anyway–yeah, I agree, the time for being jovial on this particular matter is way past. Obama lied to the bishops and continues to think an utterly empty promise is all it will take to shut them up. I’m sure his goal is to get at least some large Catholic institutions to go along and thus divide the Church, as liberals have been doing on this sort of issue for decades.
Anyway, it all left me thinking we’ve got to stop keeping up the pretense that friendly discourse makes any difference to the secularists.
Indeed. It really does seem to me that this is a duel to the death. (The death, at least, of one or other of the world views). It is quite possible for the Faith to utterly die out in just one more generation in the state where I live and in two generations elsewhere. The Church can never be destroyed, but she can be driven out of a nation.
I’m not convinced I can be real friends with any secularist who isn’t at least a little sympathetic towards the Church in one way or another. It goes right against the grain for me to be aloof from (some) others, but I think it’s now necessary, for my own and my children’s salvation if nothing else. And even when I am willing to continue a friendly acquaintance from the past, often the other is not. Sad.
I don’t know the first thing about Cdl Dolan, but that photo of him with Obama made me feel ill.
I ought to point out that people I know and love who really struggle to live by the Church’s teaching on contraception (which would be a lot easier in the first place if everyone else weren’t using it and shoving their anti-baby ideas down our throats)feel very angry at the pot shots at “Rome” from the pulpit, or the sneers against “conservative” Catholics in our Church media etc. I’m so sick of the liberal clergy et al, who are still so wretchedly vocal. For pity’s sake! We are just trying to live by the Church’s own catechism – and this is the treatment we get even in the Church.
Which really proves that the Church is much much smaller than it actually looks (at least where I live).
And don’t get me started on annulments.
Wolves everywhere and not many sheep left.
I sound really miserable, but apart from these particular reflections, I’m actually very much at peace. God the Father feels very close to me. I hope that is, or soon will be, the case for all those who are trying to live the Gospel.
Here’s St. John Fisher’s prayer. I think when I get a minute, I’ll put it on the blog somewhere besides just in the post.
Prayer for Holy Bishops by Saint John Fisher
Lord, according to Thy promise that the Gospel should be preached throughout the whole world, raise up men fit for such work. The Apostles were but soft and yielding clay till they were baked hard by the fire of the Holy Ghost. So, good Lord, do now in like manner with Thy Church militant, change and make the soft and slippery earth into hard stones. Set in the Thy Church strong and mighty pillars that may suffer and endure great labors–watching, poverty, thirst, hunger, cold and heat–which also shall not fear the threatenings of princes, persecution, neither death, but always persuade and think with themselves to suffer with a good will, slanders, shame, and all kinds of torments, for the glory and laud of Thy Holy Name. By this manner, good Lord, the truth of Thy Gospel shall be preached throughout the world. Therefore, merciful Lord, exercise Thy mercy, show it indeed upon Thy Church.
Now where’s the prayer for evil presidents?:-)
Hmm, that came out wrong–not the one asking for evil presidents, but the one asking that they not be evil.
Thanks for posting this, btw. I had kind of forgotten about it after it scrolled off your blog.
I’m not convinced I can be real friends with any secularist who isn’t at least a little sympathetic towards the Church…
I certainly know what you mean. It sounds intolerant when one says it, but that’s not it. The problem is that secularism is a religion which is fundamentally at odds with Christianity, so it’s more than just a difference of opinion. It’s a difference that permeates everything, and has an edge of hostility, because at some level you both recognize that the two can’t coexist, or can only coexist in perpetual tension. Most secularists don’t realize that theirs is a religion, which maybe makes for more hostility–when they meet genuine difference, they just can’t comprehend it, and don’t want to. It’s like a very isolated Christian fundamentalist meeting someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible.
It’s good you can be at peace. At the moment I’m certainly not. I feel like a balance has been tipped decisively the wrong way.
Well Maclin, my husband and I have been praying a novena to St. Martin de Porres for Obama over and over again every day on the way to work since election day 2008. It’s not specifically for presidents, of course, but since St. Martin and the President have a lot in common, I thought he would be the ideal saint to pray to for his conversion. I’m planning on putting that on a page, too.
AMDG
In fact, I said to St. Martin this morning before we started praying that I guess he just needed another four years to work on the guy.
Also, it’s very difficult to hate someone that you pray for everyday. I find this very helpful.
This is all in response to your question about a prayer for presidents, not your last comment.
AMDG
“whose love for God and country is surpassed only by their love for their own wives and children…”
This is even worse than the “two honorable men” line. Since when does a cardinal think it’s honorable to love someone more than God?!
I didn’t even notice that! Wow. Let’s hope it was just an off-the-cuff lapse…although in the context you would think it was at least semi-prepared.
Janet, as you probably know, the converse is also true: it’s hard to pray for somebody when you’re hating him.
Maybe the Cardinal was offering a very gentle criticism of the candidates? “Your loves are not properly ordered, my dears.” Or is that too much of a stretch?
Maclin, your comments above about secularism being a religion remind me of Chesterton’s comment about there being two types of person: those who adhere to dogmas and know it, and those who adhere to dogmas and don’t know it.
I don’t understand why it’s hard. You just will yourself to say the prayers.
AMDG
Right. That’s hard for me.:-)
Craig, I was going to post exactly that same basic idea on Facebook a day or two ago (or was it here?–anyway I never did). Should have known Chesterton had gotten there first.
yeah, I do think your reading of the cardinal’s comment is overly generous.
I didn’t even notice that! Wow. Let’s hope it was just an off-the-cuff lapse…although in the context you would think it was at least semi-prepared.
I didn’ notice it either, although maybe I was just feeling quite nauseous by then.
1. What exactly is so honourable about either of these men?
2. Do these men love God? It certainly seems that Obama does not.
I think I have decided that tolerance has just limits. Thus, I do not think it right to provide lots of abnormal families for my children’s socialisation – a certain number can be tolerated (e.g. certain close relatives who are living in abnormal domestic situations).
Tolerance should apply, certainly, towards such minor things as housekeeping styles, domestic issues, likes and dislikes, styles of child-rearing etc, but not to major breaches of the natural law – at least when committed by those who are ideologically opposed to the natural law and are unrepentant.
I’m happy to minister to hardened sinners, but I won’t socialise with them much any more. It’s not like either party enjoys it. I ruin their social time just by being God’s representative and before I have even done or said anything.
I must sa
(oops!) I must say, though, that there are some people who are at least a bit more open to God and His Church, so one can socialise a bit more readily there.
I have no idea what Obama really believes but I doubt it’s anything close to “mere Christian” orthodoxy. That church he went to for ten years before he was shocked by what its pastor teaches is certainly not a typical black church, from what I’ve seen. Seems to be a “social justice” political deal with a religious overlay.
Surely “honourable men” is an allusion to Brutus?
No doubt! And it went right past them.
Aha! That must be it.
I can make myself pray for people I don’t like, but it’s hard to feel like I mean it. But then again, my feelings are irrelevant.
My sister posted something on Facebook about “feelings being irrelevant” (you just have to get on and do it, regardless of how you happen to feel right now!) and all our secular cousins rallied round to ooze concern about what was clearly an incipient depression.
(Presumably “If it doesn’t feel good, don’t do it!” is a maxim of weight? Or is it “If it doesn’t feel good, you should probably see a doctor about getting some pills.”?)
But it did set me thinking about emotions, and I am tempted to deprecate the Stoical “my feelings are irrelevant”. Perhaps “my feelings are not the main, and certainly not the sole, consideration” would be better? But being a victim of emotional hypersensitivity, I am perhaps tempted to set too much store by feelings.
It’s one thing to say that one must often carry on in spite of one’s feelings, another to say feelings are irrelevant. I think the former is true, the latter not.
At the moment, for instance, I must leave to go and spend most or all of the day painting the unused chapel that is going to be the home of our little Anglican Use group. I’m going in spite of the fact that I really don’t want to. But it would be better in some respects if I wanted to–more appropriate.
“If it doesn’t feel good, don’t do it” definitely wouldn’t apply here.
That’s just the sort of thing my sister meant (not “I am emotionally alienated from my own life”, but “I really have to get on with this even though I’d rather not”). I thought it odd that it should be taken so seriously (and well-meaningly) as a sign of personal breakdown, and somehow revealing, although I can’t quite put my finger on what it reveals.
There’s a lot of Carmelite spirituality which is definitely of the “If it feels good do it” variety, but I take it that this is intended for people far further along the road of sanctity (and far less disordered in conscience and desire) than I ever expect to be.
Yes, it seems to me one would have to be not just a saint but a saint in heaven for that to be good counsel.
I’m not quite following your first paragraph. What exactly is the “it” being taken seriously? At any rate I hope this incipient depression doesn’t bear down any further.
The incipient depression was sarcasm.
AMDG
Paul, the oozing concern is not overly surprising, given how prevalent (and real and horrible) depression is.
Also, I’m inclined to think that the general, helpful discussion of mental illness can have a healing effect for those who go through it because it does tend to minimise feelings of shame and reduce stigma.
But, the case you describe looks like overreaction. I mean it’s a pretty tame remark your sister made and doesn’t look like anything depressive to me.
This is what I am currently thinking about feelings. Obviously, most people would prefer to feel good than feel bad, but the fact that we have emotions at all is a wonderful aspect of our humanity. I wouldn’t like living in a world of Mr Spocks would you?
So, feelings are great! (although too much of the bad feelings for too long is not good for the mental health – it is better if our moods shift a bit).
The problem with feelings just now in public discourse is that they have become a tyrannical thing. When they are in accord with right reason they enhance our life experience and even aid us in knowing and doing the right thing. But if our moral compass is broken, they lead us astray. And of course, they are often set up against the natural law as an attempt to legitimise the overthrow of traditional morality.
But during dark times, provided I am not acting immorally, and still attend to my duties, I do take the view that “if it feels good, do it.” In that case, I find it normally helps me. In happier times, I can do extra penance and practice more self-denial.
The “it” was my sister’s remark about feelings being irrelevant when there was a duty to be done.
I simply couldn’t understand how half a dozen people took this remark as a clear “cry for help” from somebody depressed, on the verge of a depression, or heading for some other sort of mental or emotional breakdown. (None of which I would take lightly, if there was any real sign of them.) All I can think is that they must always feel happy to be doing their duty, or they must decide that anything they don’t feel like doing can’t really be a duty after all. Or they actually feel this or something like it often enough themselves, but would be unable to express it in these terms because it would be alien to the maxims that furnish their thought.
Oh, I see. I must have been particularly obtuse yesterday because I really wasn’t getting your meaning. Well, I was in a big hurry in the morning, and distracted by football in the evening. Anyway…I often notice, in general, a tendency to treat one’s emotions as delicate flowers which may wilt at the slightest chill. I think it’s pop-psychology-induced. I have heard people talk about having to do “grief work” about some fairly ordinary setback, or needing to “find closure” about something like a cancelled project.
“the maxims that furnish their thought”–boy, does that cover a lot of What’s Wrong With the World. Not so much that maxims occupy that place, I suppose, but the particular maxims involved.
I simply couldn’t understand how half a dozen people took this remark as a clear “cry for help” from somebody depressed, on the verge of a depression, or heading for some other sort of mental or emotional breakdown.
No, that’s quite puzzling.
I really hope at least one of the comments was RU OK?
In California, a war memorial cross that once stood on a rocky hilltop in a national park before being deemed unconstitutional and ordered removed was being resurrected in the stunningly stark Mojave desert, marking the end of a longstanding legal dispute that had become entangled in patriotism and religion.
Henry Sandoz, who cared for the original cross as part of a promise to a dying World War I veteran, will rededicate a new, 7-foot steel cross on the same hilltop. The site is now in private hands as part of a land swap with the National Park Service that ended the legal battle.
As I read that, I thought of what Maclin wrote above:
The problem is that secularism is a religion which is fundamentally at odds with Christianity, so it’s more than just a difference of opinion. It’s a difference that permeates everything, and has an edge of hostility, because at some level you both recognize that the two can’t coexist, or can only coexist in perpetual tension.
At least in this case, that “perpetual tension” worked out well for our side!
I really admire the guy who saw that through. He must have been really determined.
I have some snark about this kind of thing in the SNJ this week.
It just keeps getting better: Fordham struggles to defend condemning Ann Coulter, while embracing infanticide supporter Peter Singer.
I’m not an Ann Coulter admirer, by the way. But they have no problem with Peter Singer?
Little surprises me from advanced Catholic higher ed circles, but I was just a little shocked by this one. Only a little, though.
In that headline about Fordham, “condemning” should be “deprecating” and “embracing” should be “engaging with”. It does surprise me. I can’t imagine any of the universities I know issuing warning labels for speakers at student clubs. But it doesn’t look at all as self-contradictory as the headline writer wants it to be. For an academy to engage with dangerously misguided academics but deprecate providing a forum for non-academic conspiracy theorists is not much of a self-contradiction.
I half agree, Paul, having read the story (finally). Maybe I use the word “deprecate” in a much milder sense than you, but I think the president’s remarks on Coulter go beyond deprecation. “Hate speech” is just a buzzword, vague enough to cover anything negative that you don’t like. Yes, she says nasty things about people, but I would be surprised if the Fordham administration has not in the past been fully hospitable to people just as nasty but on the other side of the political issues. I wouldn’t be shocked to find some on the faculty.
I agree they are handling Singer’s presence in an academically respectable manner. The real scandal, I guess, is that he is academically respectable.
But a Catholic university shouldn’t be handling Singer’s presence in an academically respectable manner, should it?
The man advocates infanticide and killing old, “useless” people. And he’s made all this seem respectable to many. Why would a Christian give him a platform and enter into a dialogue with him? Is nothing beyond the pale?
…
Oh, just checked Wikipedia and see that Fordham no longer describes itself as actually being a Catholic university:
Fordham University is a private, nonprofit, coeducational research university[4] in the United States, with three main campuses located in and around New York City. It was founded by the Roman Catholic Diocese of New York in 1841 as St. John’s College, placed in the care of the Society of Jesus shortly thereafter, and has since become an independent institution under a lay Board of Trustees, which describes the University as “in the Jesuit tradition.”
Never mind.
Right, your first sentence is what I meant in my last sentence. I doubt any respectable university, Christian or secular, would invite someone who advocated slavery to participate in a polite panel discussion.
You’ll be surprised to learn that that description of Fordham’s governance and relation to the Church is, as far as what you’ve quoted is concerned, true of all the Jesuit colleges. Maybe there’s more to Fordham’s situation, but basically the Jesuits turned all their colleges over to lay boards back in the 1960s or early ’70s. I was thinking Fordham is a member of the AJCU–let’s see–yep. That makes it officially a Jesuit school, still.
Thanks for the clarification, Maclin. I noodled over that last sentence of yours for a while and thought maybe you’d packed that into it, but wasn’t sure.
You’ve got the elegant moves; me, I’m the flat-footed cop on the beat. ; )
I didn’t intend to be graceful. 🙂 Sounds more like I was just obscure.
Jesuit schools, as may be deduced from the above, are not under the governance of either the Jesuits or the Church. I think most, maybe all, of them, have some kind of stipulation that a certain number of Jesuits be on the board of trustees, but that’s it. It is a weird situation. They’ve been constantly asking themselves what “Jesuit” and “Catholic” mean in relation to the schools for 30 years or so now, but still don’t seem to have arrived at a clear conclusion, except that they want to help people. Which is something.
It’s part of the academic mindwarp: somebody who has tenure at a university is automatically somebody there is no shame in engaging with, especially if their publications have “impact”. The only exception I’ve ever come across is if it’s an Israeli university.
As to AnnCoulter, I’d never heard of her before reading the link, and to find out more about her my only source has been her own website, which prominently features an anti-immigrant conspiracy theory.
I guess you mean that “Demography is Destiny” piece that at the moment is the main page? I don’t care for her and won’t defend her, but if you take away that paragraph about the Democrats having planned it all, her description of the situation is pretty accurate factually. And while it’s nasty and inflammatory in tone, it’s not different in those respects from the things American liberals, prominent elected officials, say about conservatives routinely. Fordham’s president is definitely operating on a double standard.
The main problem with Coulter – bless her! – is that she insists on wearing those skimpy black dresses.
Light On Dark Water 
Leave a reply to Janet Cancel reply