Some of Msgr. Pope’s choicest observations:

What political party is the Catholic Church?  Neither of course. But depending on what is in the news you can count on labels being applied. If the issue is abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual “marriage” detractors will say the Church and bishops are “in bed” with the Republicans. But if the issue is immigration reform, capital punishment, concerns about war, or care for the poor, then they’re all “just a bunch of Democrats …”

The fact is that the real goal for the Church is to be Catholic, across the board: vigorously pro-life and clear on the sexual and life issues, working to strengthen marriage and the family,  vigorously advocating for the poor and immigrants, aware of and advocating all the social teachings, fully embracing subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, standing four-square against the violence that so permeates our culture, generous, merciful and forgiving; and willing to work in communion with those who authentically advocate these Catholic Principles, even if they focus on  some of them in particular. Pro-life Catholics should rejoice that others work for and advocate for the poor, and advocates for the poor should rejoice that some fight for life and to end abortion. Together we can cover all the bases …

Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:

1. I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
2. I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
3. I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
4. I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
5. I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
6. I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
7. Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
8. Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!… dyed in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”

Hmm, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party as currently defined …

In the end we are called to be those who are “simply Catholic.” Every other party affiliation, membership, alliance, or connection must yield to the Faith and be judged by it. No worldly thought should ever trump the Faith which God has revealed through the Church. And, even in some matters (e.g. how best to care for the poor) that are prudential in nature, our alliance to the Church founded by Jesus Christ ought to win the day when it comes giving the benefit of any doubt.  And while staying in a dialogue with our Bishops, we must also accept their leadership and respect their insights as those designated to teach, govern and sanctify. In the end we should be simply, plainly and essentially Catholic.

Genesis 15:5

And he [God] brought him [Abraham] outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

Psalm 19:1-4

The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; Yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Luke 19:37- 40

As he was now drawing near, at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory to God in the highest!” And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.”

 “The Heavens Are Your Kin”

I

As a child, I loved to read my illustrated Bible through its pictures. My three favorites—the only ones I can really see in my memory today—were all built around rocks and stones. Boulders, really. Abraham kneeling beside a tortoise-shell-looking rock, gazing up at the cosmos; Moses standing on the jetties of the Red Sea, arms outstretched, parting the waters; Jesus kneeling, like Abraham, in Gethsemane, in agony.

II

In C.S. Lewis’ book The Discarded Image, our modern scientific vision of the heavens is contrasted with the “discarded image” of the incorrect, but deeply enchanted, Ptolemaic celestial model of the middle ages. What is at stake in this contrast is a threefold revelation, a threefold reality: our vision of God, creation, and the human person.

III

Today’s readings reveal a more radical contrast and richer religious insight than Lewis’. To see through the eyes of Abraham and the Psalmist is neither an option nor a historical trend: if we feign at blindness and remain silent, our next of kin, the stones and the heavens, will cry out and tell the glory of God—ad majorem Dei gloriam!

Now, Steve Forbes seems to suggest this is one of the good things which comes out of right to work laws. Employers now have the option to fire much easier with little to no responsibility to the workers. Indeed, what is not brought up here is the ramification of this: employers will be free to tell employees they will not be rehired unless they take a cut in their wages. Don’t think that won’t happen: if you are reapplying for a job it suggests other applicants will be considered alongside you. Indeed, it might be required. So if you want to keep your job (and health benefits) you must accept lower wages.

It’s been said right to work wages are about breaking unions and making sure there is no protection for employees. Those supporting “term limits for workers” act like there are no other ways to encourage laborers to work for success. If the company doesn’t give merit based raises, perhaps that is true — but is that not a better way to motivate them than to make their very livelihood always at risk?  If someone is really bad, are not annual reviews good enough without having to make someone reapply for their job (and take pay cuts to keep it)? How can you expect loyalty and a desire for the good of one’s employer if there is no sense of loyalty to the worker?

Hopefully this idea will not take off. I fear it will. If it does, we will be one step closer to the servile state.

That’s right. Saint Photius. He’s recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, and has a feast day on the Byzantine Catholic calendar. For many, this might come as a surprise. St. Photius is remembered by many as being a staunch critic of Roman authority and the filioque. Many think, wrongly, that he died in schism from Rome, and so think he cannot be a saint. But this is not true. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople, Photius reconciled with Rome.

It is true Saint Photius fought against Rome, and that he thought Rome backed the wrong claimant to the See of Constantinople. However, when his rival died, he had his rival canonized. Holiness is spread around, and it often found in people who, for one reason or another, have harsh words of criticism for each other during their temporal lives. One can recognize holiness without having to agree with everything the holy person said.  One can even be wrong about the holiness of others and still be holy oneself: all one has to do is look to the harsh criticism St. Cyril of Alexandria had for St. John Chrysostom and one can see how the saints sometimes behave badly. Holiness is a gift of grace given by God which has been taken in and acted upon by the saint. St. Cyril, like his uncle, Theophilus, fought long and hard for the authority of Alexandria over Constantinople similar to the way St. Photius fought for the autocephalous authority of Constantinople over Rome. Political fights can sometimes lead people away from grace, but it does not always do so. We must not confuse holiness for infallibility, nor expect impeccability for the saints.

Outside of his controversial fight for the See of Constantinople, St. Photius was a great religious scholar. His work and contributions can be seen, in a way, similar to St. Jerome. God allows even grumpy, antagonistic men to be saints. Their work, their contribution, their willingness to follow the direction of God in a way God wanted them to work in this life allows for their holiness to be manifest despite their personal failings. Photius’s scholarship brought a humanistic overtone to theological endeavors. His interests, it is said, were more of practical matters than theory, something which we should remember even today. Theory is important, but prudence is also important. We must strive to find the right praxis, not content on pistis (faith) alone.  But perhaps the greatest lesson is the way God works in the world, the way God promotes people to sainthood: God is full of surprises as he elevates rivals to a common brotherhood. This should help keep our feet firmly on the ground, realizing that many of our debates with one another often are unimportant on a soteriological level. Striving for the truth through a path of love is what is important. We might err, but if we are open to grace, it can and will perfect us.

Follower of the Apostles’ way
And teacher of mankind:
Intercede, O Photius, with the Lord of all,
To grant peace to the world
And to our souls great mercy!  (Troparion of Saint Photius)

This may sound like an idealistic description, but I believe we have a handful of voices here at Vox Nova that have sometimes succeeded at fitting it.  For instance, Kyle Cupp’s and Mark Gordon’s critiques of drone warfare and citizen assassinations, respectively, under the current administration are illustrative examples of the kind of prophetic denunciation that partisanship too often obscures.  If President Obama were a Republican, Democrats would be all over these things, just like they (rightly) criticized the Bush administration for overreaching its power in similar ways.  But they are for the most part too busy trying to keep Obama aloft on his tottering pedestal and protect him from the attacks of Republicans, who, between their absolute hatred of Obama on the one hand (which would otherwise have them denouncing his every move) and their hawkish tendencies on the other (which would otherwise have them praising such policies), are reduced to silence on such matters.  The same general principle is also true in the other direction, as Henry Karlson pointed out in a comment on his recent post:  “I still find it funny how many forget Bush promoted himself as the first president to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Of course, he was GOP so it’s ok.”  And the Democrats of course are paralyzed by the same dilemma.  This is how partisanship obscures prophecy: what would be intolerable action on the part of the opposing party – or in its own right, for that matter – becomes permissible when coming from one’s own.

A truly Catholic (or catholic, if you prefer) perspective, while it may have occasion to share a stance with adherents to a political ideology on a particular issue, must never presume any party as being either above critique or beyond hope.  This principle, when applied well, can lead to a nuanced double-edged critique that keeps the focus on the underlying principles at stake.  This is just what Morning’s Minion has done by critiquing both Obama and his “Catholic right” critics from a Catholic Social Teaching perspective on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity – a critique even further rounded out by arguing for a still broader application of freedom of conscience.  And a few months ago Brett Salkeld, perhaps the most solid centrist I’ve met in cyberspace, brilliantly challenged one-sided “cafeteria Catholic” accusations in a way that could only be done from a centered perspective.

Now, this is not to say that it is always necessary to go to great lengths to find a two-sided critique for absolutely everything.  Some things must simply be repudiated outright.  Still, there is a crucial difference between a prophetic repudiation and a knee-jerk reaction.  Discerning this difference is not always easy, but thinking uncritically along party lines makes it impossible.  Very often the prophetic vision cannot be seen but from the center.

The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1). In what follows, each White House claim is quoted with a response.

Some highlights:

Claim: “No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible.But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

Response: The statement that no one will be forced to buy it is false.Women who want contraception will be able to obtain it without co-pay or deductible precisely because women who do not want contraception will be forced to help pay for it through their premiums.This mandate passes costs from those who want the service, to those who object to it.

Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”

Response: False.The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects.  RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.

Read the whole thing here.

Several things can be said in response.  The first is to note that this is a translation change, not a theology change.  Nobody has changed the creed.  We simply don’t have the authority to do that.  And it has nothing to do with the Council.  Vatican II did not abolish the theology of hell.  Furthermore, we can ask, are those people wondering why Jesus would need to go to hell implying that they know why he descended to the dead?

My guess is that they don’t.  My guess is that this is one of the many things we say over and over again and never really think about.  One advantage of the change is that it forces us to sit up and take notice of what we profess each week.  We do believe that Christ descended to the dead/to hell.  But what does this mean?  And why are both “descended into hell” and “descended to the dead” liturgically acceptable?  I mean, the simple fact that both have functioned as English translations of the same Latin phrase seems to indicate that their meanings are intimately related.

In this regard, I can think of nothing better than to recommend you pick up Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity for yourself or anyone you know who might be struggling with this question.  As you may know, this classic text is a mediation on the creed.  There are a beautiful 8 pages or so near the end of the book where Ratzinger addresses the descent into hell.  Here are the final two paragraphs:

In truth – one thing is certain:  there exists a night into whose solitude no voice reaches; there is a door through which we can only walk alone – the door of death.  In the last analysis all the fear in the world is fear of this loneliness.  From this point of view, it is possible to understand why the Old Testament has only one word for hell and death., the word sheol; it regards them as ultimately identical.  Death is absolute loneliness.  But the loneliness into which love can no longer advance is – hell.

This brings us back to our starting point, the article of the Creed that speaks of the descent into hell.  This article thus asserts that Christ strode through the gate of our final loneliness, that in his Passion he went down into the abyss of our abandonment.  Where no voice can reach us any longer, there is he.  Hell is thereby overcome, or, to be more accurate, death, which was previously hell, is hell no longer.  [Emphasis added]  Neither is the same any longer because there is life in the midst of death, because love dwells in it.  Now only deliberate self-enclosure is hell or, as the Bible calls it, the second death (Rev 20:14, for example).  But death is no longer the path into icy solitude; the gates of sheol have been opened.  From this angle, I think, one can understand the images – which at first sight look so mythological – of the Fathers, who speak of fetching up the dead, of the opening of the gates.  The apparently mythical passage in St. Matthew’s Gospel becomes comprehensible, too, the passage that says that at the death of Jesus tombs opened and the bodies of the saints were raised (Mt 27:52).  The door of death stands open since life – love – has dwelt in death.  (p. 301)

You might also like:  Why I Believe in Hell (and Purgatory too!)

Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of three (so far) and husband of one.

How Far Can We Go?

She really captures the spirit of the book well in her review.

Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of three (so far) and husband of one.

I’m told that heaven is the state of supreme, definitive happiness, but I must confess that the ideas of a sad God and sadness as part of heavenly experience appeal to me.  Perhaps this appeal is due to the meaningfully rich sadness I’ve experienced in my own life, sadness that I cannot help but believe and hope will define who I am for all time and beyond.

Way I see it, the insistence that eternal union with God will wash away all sadness plays into the notion that religion functions as a fictitious comfort and hope of escape from the harsher aspects of the human condition.  It’s akin to the nonsense people spout that some tragedy or sorrow is all part of God’s plan.

God weeps, folks.  God suffers with us.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter.

One of those core areas is immigration, where some states are enacting laws that basically outlaw the practice of core tenets of the Christian faith. Think of Alabama. Here, the Catholic Church is suing – alongside some key Protestant denominations – on the grounds that the law violates religious freedom. On this issue, the Obama administration is on their side, and the Department of Justice has opened a lawsuit against Alabama. But here, as noted by Michael Sean Winters, Catholic candidate New Gingrich is on record saying that he would stop this lawsuit. Gingrich, true to form, is calling out the Obama administration for being anti-Catholic on the issues of religious freedom. Gingrich needs to look in the mirror. If Obama is anti-Catholic, then so is he. Religious freedom is a universal principle, not something to be applied selectively based on ideology.

And then there is the military. It is a well-established position of the Catholic Church that armed forces should recognize the right to conscientious objection – not just as a general principle, but for particular military encounters. Here is how the USCCB puts it in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: “Our Church honors the commitment and sacrifice of those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, and also recognizes the moral right to conscientious objection to war in general, a particular war, or a military procedure”. Not recognizing this right is an attack on conscience, and implicitly an attack on religious freedom. This is especially pertinent for the United States military, which is engaged in so many foreign adventures of doubtful and dubious value. And yet which president or presidential candidate has the courage to stand up for this principle? No, religious freedom is an important issue, and it goes far far beyond healthcare.

But I hope Mr. Romney and his culture warrior friends (whether on the Right or Left) won’t be surprised if some of us find it hard to believe in Americanism and its God of liberty. Some of us just can’t muster faith in the generic theism that is preached on the campaign trail, whether from the Right or Left. Some of us Christians have a hard time reconciling the Almighty, all-powerful, law-giving God of liberty with the crucified suffering servant born in a barn and executed at the hands of the elite. Some of us are trying to figure out what it means to be a people who follow one who relinquished his rights rather than asserted them, who considered submission a higher value than freedom. We serve a God-man who wasn’t concerned with “preserving leadership” and the hegemony of the empire’s gospel of freedom, but rather was crushed by its machinations for proclaiming and embodying another gospel.

-James K.A. Smith, “Mitt Romney’s ‘Faith in America‘”