An apt video.

I have posted before about how our consumer culture creeps into people’s attitudes toward religion.  Recently I had another insight into how this consumerism works with religion.  When faced with multiple choices in the consumer world, we try to search for the choice that best fits our ideal.  For example, I have in my mind what features the ideal car would have.  When shopping for a car, I look at the market and try to find the make and model that best fits this ideal.

People do this with religion as well.  Rather than having religion being focused on objective truth, it is instead focused on individual ideals.  In this model, when people are searching for a religion they do not ask themselves which religion contains the Truth.  Rather, they have preconceived notions about what features a religion should have, and then they search for the religion that best fits their own desires.  Thus, the search no longer is focused on Truth, but rather on the self.  The question becomes: What religion best suits me?  Unfortunately, many people do not even realize they are doing this.  They have confused objective Truth with personal “truths”.  Thus they may think they are searching for the Truth when in fact their search is based on personal desires.

I meant to post on this some time ago, but for a variety of reasons it kept getting put off.  The upside is that now that the Notre Dame commencement ceremony has taken place, I can comment on things in their totality.

First, I want to be clear that I am very angry with the university for allowing President Obama the opportunity to speak at the commencement ceremony in addition to awarding him an honorary doctorate of law.  That being said, I also want to express my displeasure and disappointment with some of the attacks leveled against the university.  I think Matt of the Holy Whapping put it best:

For a lot of us, it was a bit like discovering our dear old mother had a drinking problem. Something must be done, but watching others gleefully taunting her was a bit hard to handle, as right as they might have been in the abstract to rebuke her. She is still someone’s mother, after all.

To be blunt, the name calling of the university (e.g. “Notre Shame”) is just downright juvenile.  You might as well add “Nanner, nanner, nanner” and be done with it.  It adds nothing constructive to the issue at hand.

In regards to the protests, I must commend the student groups, organized under ND Response, for their prayerful and constructive response to this decision by the university.  I firmly believe that the primary response should be with the students.  This is a matter of their university administration making a very poor decision.  Furthermore, the students have the best information about what the atmosphere is on campus as well as how a university works.  While outside groups wanting to protest is commendable, I believe the best they could have done is followed the students’ lead and joined with them rather than staging their own protests.  Third party groups, while they may be well-meaning, can be woefully ignorant about the university and end up setting back the work the students have accomplished with the administration.

In the end, of course, the awarding of President Obama with an honorary doctorate of law is a gross violation of the 2004 USCCB document “Catholics in Political Life”.  Aside from that, as Arizona State University said, what has the president done during his term in office to merit such an award?  His term is just beginning.  Unfortunately, what he has done is enact policies that are detrimental to the culture of life.  These policies violate the Natural Law, and as such should automatically disqualify someone from receiving any legal award, especially one from a supposedly Catholic university where the Natural Law should still be recognized and upheld.  A law is an ordinance of reason, and violations of the Natural Law are unreasonable.

The university tried to couch this decision by speaking of “dialogue” or “debate”.  I have problems in using the word debate in reference to abortion.  There is no debate on abortion — it is intrinsically evil.  A debate implies that there are two different approaches to an issue, each one valid, and we are trying to decide which is best.  We can debate the best way to reform the health care system, if at all.  We can debate the best ways to help mothers care for their children.  Regarding abortion though, even if the pro-abortion/pro-choice side makes what appears to be a more convincing argument in a “debate”, they are still wrong because abortion is intrinsically evil and contrary to the Natural Law, which is written on the heart of every person (even if they try will not admit it).  Dialogue might be a better word to use, but even that can be misconstrued.  I think these terminological concerns are particularly important in a society steeped in relativism where the prevalent idea is that I have my truth and you have your truth and never the twain shall meet.  The goal about talking with the opposing side regarding abortion is to convert their hearts and help them see the truth that it is human beings that are being killed.

Obama in his speech at commencement, as Bishop Finn pointed out, ended any real hope for dialogue when he described the positions on abortion as “irreconcilable”.  While he spoke about the opposing sides working together to try to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, his plan for that involves promotion of a contraceptive mentality.  So long as contraception is practiced mainstream in this country there will always be a push for abortion because it is viewed as the “fail-safe” should the contraception inevitably fail.

In this whole Notre Dame fiasco, there has been much focus on the negative aspects of Notre Dame.  I am telling you from experience that Notre Dame is not all bad.  There is a yearly Eucharistic Procession at which 600+ people have been attending the past few years.  There are something like 150 Masses that are said on campus each week.  Campus Ministry is heading in the right direction.  Right to Life is the largest student group on campus, and there are several hardcore Catholic groups on campus.  There is daily adoration on weekdays, and numerous opportunities for Confession throughout the week.  The Catholicism of Notre Dame is in her students.  Granted, some students live what would be considered the stereotypical college student lifestyle, but there are many good Catholic students who are on fire for their faith.  There are also many strong priests within the Congregation of Holy Cross.  This is where the future of the Catholicism at Notre Dame lies.  The University is not beyond redemption, and I firmly believe that this future redemption will come about through the grassroots witness of the Catholic students on campus.  While all these good aspects do not excuse the bad, they show that Notre Dame is not as far gone as some other so-called “Catholic” schools in this country.

I have no regrets about attending Notre Dame for my graduate studies.  If it had not been for my time at Notre Dame and the people that I met there, I highly doubt I would be in seminary right now.  I think that is a great witness to the good that is still possible at Our Lady’s School.

This is outrageous!  This kid is going to be so spoiled, and his entire value system will be warped.  This is an example of consumerism at its worst.

One of my interests is studying forms of government.  Today I read an article from the BBC that the British Parliament is considering a bill that would reform some laws regarding the monarchy.  Specifically, it would adjust the rules of succession such that women have an equal right of succession as men, and it would also allow the British monarch to be able to marry a Roman Catholic.  There is no legislation under consideration that would allow the monarch to be a Roman Catholic.

Even if Parliament relaxed the restriction on Roman Catholics being banned from being the British monarch, I do not see how any Catholic could even accept such a position.  The monarch is the head of the Anglican ecclesial community, and, as such, it would be paradoxical for a Catholic to head a Protestant community.  The only way to allow a Catholic monarch is to remove the requirement that the monarch head the Anglicans.  This, of course, would partially undo Henry VIII’s temper tantrum in which he formed the Church of England since he made himself the head of Anglicanism so he could basically do as he pleased without a religious leader preventing him.

As for allowing the monarch to marry a Catholic, I foresee practical problems since it would be odd to be married to the head of a Protestant ecclesial community, particularly the head of the Church of England.  This would especially be the case regarding children.  The Catholic party would have an obligation to do what he or she can to have the children raised Catholic.  For all intents and purposes, though, this would never happen since if they are raised Catholic they could not succeed to the throne.  Most monarchs would not want a situation where their children could not be their heirs.  While possible, I do not think a British monarch marrying a Catholic is a probable occurance, and if it does happen, I do not find it probable that the children will be raised Catholic.

Today Bishop John D’Arcy, bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-Sound Bend, announced that he will not be attending the graduation ceremonies at the University of Notre Dame in light of the university’s invitation to President Obama to be the commencement speaker.  The full text of his letter can be found here.

I think this is the right decision to make.  It not only shows that the bishop is willing to take a firm stand against honoring pro-choice politicians (something at which Notre Dame has failed), but it also prevents a photo opportunity for Obama.  Any photos of him with a Catholic bishop at the commencement ceremony can be used by the Obama administration to try to illustrate that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with his anti-life positions.  Photos of Obama at the commencement ceremony will be scandalous enough; there is no need to add a bishop to the mix.

Of course, Bishop D’Arcy will undergo numerous attacks because of his decision.  I pray for him that he stands fast in support of the Truth.

As many in the blogsphere have already noted, the University of Notre Dame has invited President Barack Obama to be the commencement speaker that this Spring’s graduation ceremony.  There has been a great outcry from members in the Notre Dame community as well as Catholics elsewhere.  Because of his grave anti-life policies, President Obama should not have been invited to speak at a Catholic university.  Not only will he be speaking, but he will also be receiving an honorary doctorate of law.  Honoring a pro-choice politician in this manner gives great scandal.

Not only that, but it can further his agenda.  Unfortunately, in this last election a majority of people defining themselves as Catholic voted for Obama.  For him to appear at a major Catholic university merely gives him more ways to attempt to justify himself as in a harmonious relationship with Catholic teaching.  This would especially be the case if there were any bishops at graduation.  At this point, I think it is best for bishops to boycott, especially so they do not give any photo opportunities.

I do not really see any way for the university to get itself out of this mess.  You cannot really uninvite a sitting president, especially one which you invited, without massive ramifications, and I do no think Notre Dame will want a public relations problem like that.  Although, they might change their mind if protests by Catholics over this decision create a bigger PR problem.  Probably the best-case scenario at this point is having, as Thomas Peters at American Papist mentioned, “a frank discussion in the public spotlight about a) the mission and identity of Catholic universities and b) a greater awareness of the anti-Catholic policies and legislation that Obama is currently pursuing.”  The university, for all intents and purposes, has once again boxed itself into a corner.

This is a sad day for Notre Dame.  When I was a student there my friends and I fought for her Catholic identity, at the time in relation to so-called “academic freedom”.  It seems every year that her Catholic identity is whittled away a little bit more.  While she never was a fargone as some “Catholic” universities such as Georgetown or Boston College, she is not perfect.  Notre Dame is worth saving, but it seems that the administration is set at trumpeting her as a research institution rather than as a Catholic research institution.

The Cardinal Newman society has established a website at which people can sign a petition to Fr John Jenkins, the university’s president, espressing great dissatisfaction with this decision of Our Lady’s school.  The URL is: http://www.notredamescandal.com.

I was reading The Observer, Notre Dame’s student-run newspaper, and today there was an article about indulgences.  According to the article, there is a resurgence of emphasis being placed on indulgences, a practice that a good number of people in the post-conciliar Church believe ended after Vatican II.  To get the teachings of the Catholic Church, once again the media has turned to the heterodox theologian Father Richard McBrien.

McBrien begins his interview well; he accurately describes what an indulgence is.  He said, “An indulgence is the partial or full remission of spiritual penalties, or punishments, which still apply to sins that have already been forgiven.”  These “spiritual penalties” remitted by an indulgence are the temporal punishments of sin, i.e. time in Purgatory.  Towards the end of the article, however, is where McBrien shows his agenda.

When asked why bishops are starting to emphasize indulgences more than they had in the recent past, McBrien responded, “In my opinion – and it is only that – those bishops who wish to emphasize indulgences once more are concerned with the diminishing of clerical authority in recent years.  This may be an attempt on their part to reassert clerical, and especially episcopal, authority.”  Rather than the care of souls, McBrien boiled it all down to a power grab by the bishops (at least he said this is only his opinion).  He continued, “By making themselves once again the bestowers of great spiritual benefits which only they have the power to confer.  The problem is that most Catholics have no interest in indulgences.”  Do they really have no interest, or have they just forgotten about the indulgences and/or are poorly catechized as to what they are?  I suspect the latter.

McBrien made certain to point out that even though the Pope and the bishops are promoting indulgences, “The rest of the Church, however, is free to ignore them.”  While true, since indulgences are optional, this comment is highly dismissive of indulgences.  “When asked if he thought the renewed tradition would distract people from the church’s ministry, McBrien said, ‘no, because most Catholics will pay no attention to them, and those Catholics who are involved in social justice ministries will continue to be involved, without reference to the renewed attention to indulgences.’”

A ha!  There!  It has finally come out: social justice.  I see no reason why he would bring up this specific example except to try the much-hacknied dichotomy between the hierarchical Church and a church based solely on social justice.  There is, of course, no such false dichotomy.  One can be active in social justice and still be Catholic in all its fullness.  To treat the Church as focussing primarily on social justice, is to ignore all the rich treasures Catholicism has to offer for a specific aspect of the Church’s mission.  The implication of his comment is that those interested in caring for others realize there is no need for indulgences whereas those who are interested in such things do not really care about the lot of others.  The very question itself is loaded implying that indulgences are a “distraction” to people who really want to do good and help others.

But enough of listening to McBrien’s version of Catholicism.  Since there is much misunderstanding (and misinformation) about indulgences, here is a brief catechesis.  The Church has the authority to remit the temporal punishment of sin through indulgences because Christ gave His apostles and their successors, the bishops, the power to bind and loose sins.  This authority to forgive sins is the basis of the sacrament of Confession.  Since the Church can remit the enternal punishment of sins (in Confession), she can also remit the lesser temporal punishment (Catechism §1477).

There are several conditions that must be met for an indulgence:

• Performing an act that the Church, in her authority, has attached an indulgence
• Being in a state of grace (free from mortal sin) when one performs the action to which an indulgence has been attached

For a plenary (full) indulgence there are these additional requirements (if any of these are not met, the indulgence is partial):

• Performing an act to which a plenary indulgence has been attached
• Going to Confession (best on the day one performed the act, but can be +/- about 20 days)
• Receiving Communion (best on the day one performed the act, but can be +/- about 20 days)
• Praying for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff (can be a simple Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be)
• When performing the act, one must be free from all attachment to sin, even venial sin (but one does not necessary need to be free from any venial sin on one’s soul, just not attached to sin)

There is also confusion in people’s minds about the Church “selling” indulgences in the past.  The Church has NEVER had the official policy of selling indulgences.  Certain corrupt individuals, who misunderstood/twisted the theology of indulgences, have tried to sell them in the past.  The Church has tried to stop such individuals when she learned of them.

I read a news report today about a botched abortion in which the 23-week-old baby was delivered alive (the abortionist did not arrive in time to kill her before she was born).  One of the owners of the abortion clinic, who has no medical training, placed the live baby in a biohazard bag, sealed the bag, and threw the baby into the trash.  The decomposing remains were later found by police.  Another report said this owner knocked the baby onto the floor before throwing her out.

I had written some time ago about the paganization of society such that the abortion mentality is reverting us back to the days in which unwanted children were left to die of exposure in the wilderness (I am thinking most notably of ancient Sparta).  This abortion clinic owner has taken the next “logical” step brought about by an abortive mentality, namely, throw away living babies when the abortion fails.  While many are expressing shock and outrage over this, I ask: what did you expect?  While I am saddened and angered by this repulsive incident, I am in no way shocked.  I called it some time ago.

I have often found that the mantra of those in support of disordered things such as homosexual “marriage” is that those against are “intolerant”.  Yet with the passing of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay “marriage”, I have seen news stories tell of harrassing and sometimes violent responses from those against Prop 8.  Here is another article in which some of those people who donated money in support of Prop 8 have been receiving harrassing letters and phone calls, some of which threaten them.