After initially intending to complete this series in three parts, it appears that it may be useful to tie up any remaining loose ends with an overview of the propositions put forth in the Declaration on Religious Liberty of Vatican II, followed by Fr. Murray’s own reflections dated the year after its promulgation. (Note: A bibliography follows.)

First, a recap of the salient issues beginning with a brief outline of the Church’s traditional teaching, which states the following:

• Man enjoys religious liberty on the individual level, not properly considered a “right to err” (as all rights come from the God who is truth); but rather as freedom from coercion.
• Though he may not be coerced, man has the duty to seek the “true religion” and to adhere to it once found; it is “namely, the Catholic faith, the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate” (cf Immortale Dei – 7).
• Freedom from coercion is not a license to practice and propagate religious falsehood in the public arena (which can do harm to society); rather, such things can either be tolerated or suppressed by the legitimate public authority as necessary in service to the common good.
• The Catholic Church, by the merits of Her Founder, “is a society eminently independent, and above all others, because of the excellence of the heavenly and immortal blessings towards which it tends” (Pope Leo XIII – Officio Sanctissimo).
• Christ is King, therefore, “everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. ‘There is no power but from God’” (Immortale Dei – 3).

Vatican II largely adopted Murray’s ideas on church-state relations in the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, departing from the traditional teaching via the following propositions:

• No one is to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs (even those that are false and opposed to Christ), neither privately nor publicly, within due limits as the “public order” may demand (cf DH 2).
• This freedom to publicly disseminate and practice even the false religions is founded on the dignity of the human person, in his very nature; i.e., the suggestion being that this so-called “right” to lead others away from God comes from God Himself (ibid.).
• The Church, therefore, calls upon States to recognize this broad-based religious liberty as a “civil right” (ibid). In short, the freedom once insisted upon by the Church as uniquely Her own is now demanded of States as “the Constitutional right of all men and communities,” even those that oppose the reign of Christ the King (cf DH 13).
• The State transgresses the limits of its power if it attempts to inhibit “religious” acts (DH 3).

In the year after the Second Vatican Council closed (1966) Fr. Murray wrote, “Dignitatis Humanae is a document of very modest scope. [It attempted] to show that a harmony exists between religious freedom in the juridico-social sense, and Christian freedom in the various senses of this latter concept as they emerge from Scripture and from the doctrine of the Church. The Declaration merely suggests that the two kinds of freedom are related; it does not undertake to specify more closely what their precise relationship is.”

To his credit, Murray doesn’t attempt to exaggerate the Declaration’s heft; rather he tells us that it only goes so far as to “suggest” that a harmonious relationship exists between the Council’s novel treatment of religious freedom on the one hand, and the well-established papal magisterium of the previous centuries on the other. More noteworthy still is his candid admission that the Council didn’t even venture to substantiate this “suggestion” by addressing “what their precise relationship is.”

“The Declaration,” Murray continues, “does not undertake to present a full and complete theology of freedom.”

Based on these reflections alone it would appear that Murray – the chief architect of Dignitatis Humanae – imputes far less doctrinal weight to the document than many of his contemporaries seem eager to do.

Furthermore, Murray’s statements are a stunning indication that the document’s authors – living and working in those heady conciliar days during which all things seemed possible and all things “new” were just assumed to be “improved” – proceeded undaunted in spite of an awareness that the theological principals upon which their assertions are presumably founded were not as yet fully developed.

So why did the Council neglect the due diligence of first constructing a solid theological foundation?

“This would have been a far more ambitious task,” Murray tells us, even going so far as to admit that establishing harmony between the Council’s conclusions and the traditional teaching “would have been a far more satisfactory method of procedure, from the theological point of view.”

According to Murray, the Council deliberately chose not to do so for the five reasons quoted below, followed by a reflection on each by the present writer.

“1. The Declaration is the only conciliar document that is formally addressed to the world at large on a topic of intense secular as well as religious interest. Therefore, it would have been inept for the Declaration to begin with doctrines that can be known only by revelation and accepted only by faith.”

This is yet another stunning admission! It suggests that the Council went about drafting Dignitatis Humanae under the self-imposed restriction that it dare not present an argument of such great “secular” concern within the framework of the Catholic faith and Divine Revelation.

Is it not, however, the Church’s very mission to do precisely this on all matters? Furthermore, is it not the voice of Christ that should resonate in the decrees of every ecumenical council in such way as to call out to those wandering in the desert of falsehood, that they may come to be nourished by truth at the bosom of the Church? As such, is not every conciliar decree in some sense addressed to the world at large, even if not explicitly so?

“2. What the world at large, as well as the faithful within the Church, wants to know today is the stand of the Church on religious freedom as a human and civil right. It would be idle to deny that the doctrine of the Church, as formulated in the 19th century, is somewhat ambiguous in itself, out of touch with contemporary reality and a cause of confusion among the faithful and of suspicion throughout large sectors of public opinion.”

Setting aside the richness (and none-too-subtle arrogance) of the accusation that the traditional teaching is “ambiguous” and causes “confusion,” one cannot help but wonder to what extent, if any, Murray and company attempted to reconcile the traditional doctrine with “contemporary reality” before simply setting about replacing it with something new. His reflections on the process of debate leading up to the Declaration (which will be quoted shortly) indicate that it was perhaps very little.

“3. The theological structure of the argument, as proposed above, would give rise to historical and theological problems which are still matters of dispute among theologians. There is, for instance, the problem of the exact relationship between Christian freedom and religious freedom. There is, furthermore, the whole problem of the development of doctrine, from Mirari Vos to Dignitatis Humanae personae.”

Once again, Murray plainly admits that the theology that presumably anchored Dignitatis Humanae to the sacred deposit of faith was “a matter of dispute” as the Council met (and so it remains today).

Based upon this, it would seem that the propositions put forth in the Declaration amount to little more than what we might call “credit card theology” as its authors chose to immediately lay hold of the doctrinal innovations they desired, but with no firm intention of paying the theological debt until later.

Evidently, they just assumed that someone would eventually come along with the capital necessary to settle the debt, but here we are more than 45 years hence and still it remains unpaid. And at what cost!

“4. Christian freedom, as the gift of the Holy Spirit, is not exclusively the property of the members of the visible Church, any more than the action of the Spirit is confined within the boundaries of the visible Church. This topic is of great ecumenical importance, but the discussion of it would have to be nice in every respect, and therefore impossible in a brief document.”

Note well the degree to which a fear of offending non-Catholics held sway in the process of debating Dignitatis Humanae. This sense of apprehension (apparently driven by a distorted notion of ecumenism) seems to be what led Murray and his supporters to shy away from explicitly acknowledging the exclusive rights of Christ the King and the hard truth (or “good news” depending on one’s outlook) that the fullness of the Spirit’s gifts are present in the Catholic Church alone.

“5. Christian freedom is indeed asserted over against all earthly powers… It is, however, also asserted within the Church… and it is also the basis of prudent protest when the exercise of [ecclesial] authority goes beyond legitimate bounds… Hence the Declaration is at pains to distinguish sharply the issue of religious freedom in the juridico- social order from the larger issue of Christian freedom. The disastrous thing would be to confuse the two distinct issues. Obviously, the issue of Christian freedom [within the Church itself]—its basis, its meaning, its exercise and its limits—will have to be clarified by free discussion, conducted carefully and patiently in a sustained dialogue between pastors and people over many years. However, this dialogue will be the more successful now that the Declaration has settled the lesser issue of the free exercise of religion in civil society.”

Several things stand out here. First, one notices a contradiction as Murray plainly admits in one breath that the theology that presumably forms the foundation for Dignitatis Humanae remains undeveloped, yet in the other breath he declares the matter of religious liberty as articulated therein “settled.”

Secondly, Murray states (as if giving a nod to Tradition), “Christian freedom is indeed asserted over against all earthly powers,” but it’s important to recognize that this statement is only true provided that by “Christian” he is referring specifically to the Catholic Church and not to every heretical community that calls itself “Christian.”

Lastly, Murray insinuates that it was necessary for the Council to address the matter of religious liberty in society at large while walking on eggshells, as it were, in order to avoid the risk of inviting discord within the more perfect society that is the Church. This should have served as a red flag to the authors.

Is it not true that every authentic service to society (and likewise to human dignity) is by its very nature that which moves all concerned toward a greater degree of unity with the Lord? As such, how could such a service possibly pose a threat to the peace of the Church ad intra?

In any event, Murray gives us a very interesting glimpse into the debate that preceded Declaration’s final form saying, “The [traditional] concept of the common good, and—what is much the same—the concept of the purpose of society, had been advanced in the first two conciliar schemata.” (The “schemata” to which Murray refers are the preliminary outlines that dictated the overall scope and direction of the conciliar debate; ultimately forming the content of the document itself.)

“Neither of them was acceptable,” Murray reflected, “given the notion of society and government adopted in the Declaration from the doctrine of Pius XII. In this doctrine the common good itself and the purpose of society require the fullest possible free exercise of all human and civil rights, and government has the primary duty, not of limiting, but rather of promoting the freedom of the human person as far as possible.”

God bless Fr. Murray for his candor! Remarkably, he is telling us that the conciliar process was essentially inverted as the schemata were altered, twice no less, to downplay the Tradition in order to “grease the skids” for the outcome desired!

In referencing Pope Pius XII, Murray is referring to DH 13 which footnotes an address that the Holy Father gave to Italian jurists (entitled, Ci Riesce) wherein he said of the traditional doctrine, “There never has been, and there is not now, in the Church any vacillation or any compromise, either in theory or in practice… No other norms are valid for the Church except the norms which We have just indicated for the Catholic jurist and statesman.”

It truly is nothing short of breathtaking to discover how soundly the very document to which the authors of Dignitatis Humanae claim recourse refutes their propositions! A full reading of Ci Riesce, which I encourage you to undertake, makes it crystal clear that Pope Pius XII was determined to remove all doubt as to his intention to reaffirm the enduring nature of his predecessors’ teachings; the same that rendered the first two schemata “unacceptable” in the eyes of Murray and his conciliar supporters.

In conclusion, perhaps the most useful reflection Murray left us is this:

“It is not necessary to believe that the conciliar argument is the best one that can be made. It did not pretend, in fact, to be apodictic [i.e., a matter of absolute truth necessary to hold]. The Conciliar intention was simply to indicate certain lines that an argument might validly follow. Moreover, the doctrinal authority of the Declaration falls upon its affirmation of the human right to religious freedom, not on the arguments advanced in support of this affirmation.”

Note well that Murray contends that the “doctrinal authority” of Dignitatis Humanae rests not upon the deposit of faith that Pope John XIII had enjoined the Council Fathers to protect as their “greatest concern,” but rather upon the document’s own “affirmation of the human right to religious freedom.”

In other words, the validity of the Declaration’s novelties rests squarely upon the document itself! This is not just poor theology; it’s simple tautology.

Many arguments indeed “might validly follow” including, of course, an argument for the enduring validity of the traditional teaching – yes, even today. On that note, if we accept Murray’s premise that the merits of the Church’s approach to religious liberty must ever be reevaluated in the light of present day circumstances, I think few among us would argue that society, and likewise the Church, has been well served by the conciliar approach.

Bishop William E. Lori, Chairman of the newly established U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, perhaps summed up the current state of affairs best when he recently said, “When we speak about religious freedom as the first of the freedoms, it’s not to aggrandize the Church, but to uphold the first line of defense for the dignity of the human person.”

One may rightly wonder if it is truly possible (for any of the baptized, but especially for a Successor to the Apostles) to defend the dignity of the human person without “aggrandizing” the universal sacrament of salvation that the Lord has given to us; namely, the Catholic Church. Is this not the Great Commission we are charged with carrying out in every age?

Let’s be honest – we, clergy and laity alike, have largely shrunken away from the duty of calling the world’s attention to the unique grandeur of the Catholic Church for more than four decades now, and this is precisely the glaring shortcoming with religious liberty as it has been invoked post Vatican II; it only seeks to assure that in matters of governance the doctrines and rights of Christ the King and of His Holy Catholic Church are granted the same consideration as the idols and errors of the heathens and the heretics.

And yet, when godless rulers find it all too easy to dismiss our calls for “conscience clauses” as though the voice of the Church is just one more opinion among many (as happened this week in the United States) can we really be surprised?

After all, isn’t that pretty much all we’ve mustered up the gumption to say for ourselves lo these past forty years?

Bibliography

Pope Leo XIII – Immortale Dei – On the Christian Constitution of States

Pope Leo XIII – Officio Sanctissimo – On the Church in Bavaria

Pope Pius XII – Ci Riesce – Address to Convention of Italian Catholic Jurists

Dignitatis Humanae – Declaration on Religious Freedom – Second Vatican Council

John Courtney Murray’s reflections written in 1966 (available here and here)

(Note: A more comprehensive bibliography can be found at the conclusion to Part 3.)

“My answer to that: We always need a Jesus candidate,” Santorum responded. “We need someone who believes in something more than themselves and not just the economy. When we say, ‘God bless America,’ do we mean it or do we just say it?”

Wasting precious little time, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, took the bait and issued a press release on January 6 answering Santorum’s rhetorical question with what amounted to a resounding “Hell no, we don’t mean it!”

Little surprise here as anyone even remotely familiar with Foxman’s professional victimhood organization / personal ATM (which according to the Better Business Bureau provided him with nearly $400,000 in salary and benefits in 2009) knows darn well that the ADL doesn’t “believe in something more than itself and the economy,” to borrow Santorum’s phrase.

Well, unless of course that “something” is the faith of godless liberalism and its most cherished of all sacraments, abortion.

According to the ADL release, Foxman said:

“Senator Santorum’s remark comparing himself to a ‘Jesus candidate’ was inappropriate and exclusionary. It essentially says that those of other faiths or of no faith – whether Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, non-believers or others – do not belong.”

Foxman is right about one thing; Santorum’s remarks may strike some folks as exclusionary.

Truth be told, Santorum’s entire candidacy is founded upon principals and positions that are informed by his Catholic faith. Therefore, those who champion the notion that marriage is a merely human construct that can be legislatively redefined to include same-gender unions may in fact feel excluded, as may those who believe that partial birth abortion is just another medical procedure.

In reality, these individuals are more than welcome to attempt a defense of their liberal arguments in an honest exchange of ideas, but let’s be clear – even though Foxman claims to be a defender of Jews – it’s no more possible to reconcile the ADL’s political positions with authentic Jewish thought than it is to do so while invoking Jesus Christ.

You see, the irony is that among those who feel most at home with Rick Santorum’s views, not the least of which concern social issues, are American Jews. No, not simply those whose great-great Bubby was a practicing Jew back in the Old Country while they personally prefer to worship at the altar of the Democrat Party here in the U.S. (albeit while occasionally marching under the Mogen David). I mean those Jewish Americans who proudly embrace the traditional moral values that are common to both Judaism and Catholicism.

The ADL release further quoted Foxman as pontificating, “Religious appeals to voters are simply unacceptable and un-American.”

Really? If Foxman would only take a closer look at the pile of U.S. dollars he has amassed over the years via his ADL antics he’d discover that each one of them says, “In God we trust.” So much for religion being un-American.

The ADL ’s insistence that Santorum’s faith must never rear its (presumably ugly) head in the American political process is as much the height of hypocrisy as their phony concern for inclusion. (Would Jewish conservatives like Marc Levin or Jonah Goldberg feel particularly welcome sharing their views at an ADL fundraiser? I doubt it.)

In addition to being as non-partisan as Emily’ List in practice, Abe Foxman’s ADL is about as keen on keeping faith out of the political arena as Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ was – it’s just that the ADL’s creed is not typically considered a “religious” one; rather, it’s the secular humanist liberal political agenda, the primary articles of faith of which are that mankind is supremely autonomous (at the whim of the cognoscenti) and morality-by-consensus is desirable (provided, of course, the consensus opinion lines up neatly with their own).

Full disclosure – my wife and many of my family members are Jewish. (For inquiring minds, yes, we are validly married in the Catholic Church – thank you very much!) I do appreciate the fact that the ADL has been known to dabble in a worthy effort to combat authentic anti-Semitism every now and again (never mind its shameless track record of shaking the donation tree for fruit by pointing an anti-Semitic finger at the drop of a yarmulke).

The more noble part of the operation, however, appears to be just a means to an end wherein allegations of “anti-Semitism,” both real and imagined, are employed as an emotional trigger intended to produce the publicity and the capital necessary to keep the ADL hypocrisy machine and its Left Wing political agenda running smoothly.

In an official statement released on January 4, Archbishop José Gomez reported, “Bishop Gabino Zavala, auxiliary bishop for the San Gabriel Pastoral Region, informed me in early December that he is the father of two minor teenage children, who live with their mother in another state.

“Bishop Zavala also told me that he submitted his resignation to the Holy Father in Rome, which was accepted. Since that time,” the statement continues, “he has not been in ministry and will be living privately.”

Archbishop Gomez described the news as “sad and difficult,” and it most certainly is.

Any time a clergyman violates his vows (even if the details are never made public) the entire Body of Christ is wounded in a particularly profound way. When indiscretions such as these do become public knowledge, however, the faithful are necessarily scandalized and the reputation of the Church is sullied.

The way in which the aftermath of the Zavala affair is handled moving forward, therefore, is very important, because like it or not, with the eyes of the world now watching it’s going to be a “teaching moment.”

So, how did the Archdiocese of Los Angeles decide to seize the opportunity?

According to Archbishop Gomez’s statement, “The Archdiocese has reached out to the mother and children to provide spiritual care as well as funding to assist the children with college costs. The family’s identity is not known to the public, and I wish to respect their right to privacy.”

“Funding to assist the children with college costs…” Did you catch that? In other words, the Archdiocese has chosen to address this scandal, not so much as a teaching moment, but as a “public relations” moment.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I don’t envy Archbishop Gomez in the least. He had his hands full in Los Angeles well before the Zavala scandal came along.

I also want to make it clear that I genuinely feel for the children, who are clearly innocent victims.

As sinners each and every one, we should also feel true empathy for their mother and for Bishop Zavala too. God knows that all of us will one day stand before the judgment seat in desperate need of His mercy.

So, by all means, let us offer “spiritual care” and prayers on behalf of all concerned, but tuition assistance?

How do us parents-in-the-pews apply for help with funding our children’s college costs?

Let me guess – this particular benefit is being made available only to the offspring of serially unfaithful clergymen while we just get to underwrite the whole thing.  Am I the only one who finds this preposterous?

According to an article in the National Catholic Reporter, “it appears that one of the factors that brought this story to light was the complaint by the mother that Zavala was not providing for the education of their children, including their future college education.”

Until I read this, I had simply assumed that Bishop Zavala had finally decided that living the lie was just too much to bear. Now, I wonder. Maybe it wasn’t so much the voice of his conscience that brought this matter to a head, but rather the threats of the mother.

In any event, if the Reporter story is true, it would seem that the Archdiocese is operating under the mistaken impression that it needs to go into “full damage control” mode. This, I can only assume, is a knee-jerk reaction fueled by the memory of “clergy sex scandals” past that almost always meant the homosexual molestation of minors and a pending lawsuit.

My guess as to how things progressed? Call me crazy, but I imagine it went something like this:

The brilliant idea to voluntarily subsidize the kids’ college tuition was initially drawn up by the Archdiocesan PR Department in consultation with the Legal Affairs Sexual Scandal Subcommittee, at which point the proposal was then submitted to the Office of the Archbishop who, acting on the advice of the Office of the General Counsel, provided his official “get ‘er done.”

So, what have we learned?

In addition to whatever insight we gained into the episcopal priorities of Bishop Zavala, who was hailed in the Reporter as “a highly progressive liberationist,” we also discovered why so many people tend to view the Catholic Church as just another corporate enterprise.

All too frequently, She behaves like one.

Murray goes on to quote the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, extracting from it what he deems “the decisive proof” that Pope Leo XIII, using this as his guide, was less concerned with the prospect of the Church being “dethroned from its historic status of legal privilege;” asserting instead that was he mainly concerned with assuring a political and juridical system that assured the freedom of the Church, as other religions, in service to human dignity.

“The basic line of battle [for Leo XIII] was drawn by Proposition 39 of the Syllabus” Murray writes. This Proposition condemns the error that maintains that “The state, inasmuch as it is the origin and source of all rights, possesses a power of jurisdiction that knows no limits.”

Murray maintains, “Proposition 39 of the Syllabus was also [concerned with] the destruction of the essential dignity of man, which resides in his freedom. Leo XIII did not greatly attend to this aspect of the matter; it did not lie within his historical problematic. However, by his central emphasis on the freedom of the Church he… opened the way to a widening of the question, thus stated, to include the issue of the freedom of the human person and the issue of religious freedom as a legal institution within a system of constitutional government…”

A close examination reveals yet another flaw in Murray’s approach; namely, he elevates human dignity to the status of absolute, independent of the divine Source in whom all dignity rests.

The “essential dignity of man;” i.e., the very essence of man’s dignity, does not lie in his freedom as Murray insists; rather, it lies in the call to communion with God in whose image and likeness he is created. (See, for example, Gaudium et Spes – 19, which reads, “The root reason for human dignity lies in man’s call to communion with God.”)

Having already labored to elevate “freedom” to the status of the absolute, human dignity as Murray presents it here is a static, unchanging condition that does not exist in degree. This, however, is not the case. Human dignity can indeed be perfected as one’s union with God is perfected. “This dignity is rooted and perfected in God” (Gaudium et Spes – 21).

I won’t belabor the point any further than to call your attention to baptism. Clearly, while the unbaptized person possesses the inherent dignity of one created in God’s image, the person in whom the likeness of God is restored by sanctifying grace, through Baptism, possesses a degree of dignity that is infinitely greater by virtue of the indwelling of the Trinitarian life.

Moving on, Murray falsely identifies freedom as something of a primary resident characteristic of man apart from God, when in fact it is a property that flows from the Divine. It, like human dignity, is likewise possessed in degree according to the relative perfection of our communion with God. That is why the Church alone can lay claim, in the words of Pope Leo XIII, to being “a society eminently independent, and above all others,” for She alone is the Mystical Body of Christ.

To further his claim that historical circumstances alone are enough to justify altering the traditional teaching, Murray turns his attention to Pope Pius XII, whom he claims “read the signs of the times and discerned two that gave direction to his doctrine and pastoral solicitude. The first was totalitarian tyranny on the Communist model. Now the threat was not simply to the freedom of the Church in the traditionally Catholic nations of Europe; the new threat was to the freedom of the people everywhere. An ideology and a system of rule were abroad, ‘which in the end rejected and denied the rights, the dignity, and the freedom of the human person.’”

Here, Murray gives the appearance of quoting Pope Pius XII, however, the footnote in his article calls the reader’s attention to the Encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, which was in fact promulgated by his predecessor, Pope Pius XI.

Substantively, this is of little matter with regard to the point that Murray is attempting to make – a proposition summed up by the claim, “Pius XII abandons completely the Leonine notion of government as paternal,” as though a sense of paternalism alone inspired the “care of religion” as opposed to the divinely imposed obligation to truth.

Murray’s purposes are very clear – to establish a sort of dichotomy between Leo XIII and Pius XII as it concerns the constitution of States, their rights and their duties, so as to substantiate the claim that the traditional teaching is part of an ever-evolving proposition based not upon absolute truths but upon changing circumstances, the composition of governments among them.

It must be noted that Murray bases his assertion at least in part on the rather facile generalization that the Leonine view of government is essentially “paternal” in the first place. This, however, is so incomplete a summation as to represent but a caricature.

It is more accurate to say that the Leonine teaching, which is biblically founded and abundantly clear, is that the rights and duties of the State are similar to those of the individual citizen in that they derive from, and are ordered toward, the One Father of all who is God Almighty. Provided this fundamental truth is duly acknowledged in the way the affairs of the State are conducted, the Church traditionally allows for the existence of many different forms of government (monarchies, democracies, etc.); some of which may arguably be more “paternal” in nature than others.

As Leo XIII wrote, “The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State” (Immortale Dei – 4).

Murray continues, “The freedom of the Church as the community of the faithful is not the sole object of the Church’s concern. The freedom of the human person in his belief in God is also to be recognized and protected against unjust encroachments by legal or social forces. Pius XII accepts this wider problematic of religious freedom. Among the ‘fundamental rights of the person,’ which are to be recognized and promoted by the juridical order of society, he includes the ‘right to private and public worship of God, including also religious action of a charitable kind.’”

By “this wider problematic,” Murray is suggesting  that in response to the repressive regimes that trampled human rights in Pope Pius’ day,  the freedom that the Church had traditionally asserted for Herself alone was then at least implied on behalf of even the false religions in service to the human person. The exercise of “freedom” in the practice of falsehood, however, is more properly understood in a Catholic sense to be a misuse of freedom, and far from a service to the human person, such is in fact detrimental to his dignity.

To make his point, Murray is quoting, and rather selectively so, from the 1942 Christmas Message of Pope Pius XII.

The Holy Father’s comments therein do not in any way reflect tension between his own thoughts and those of his predecessors. In fact, even though the historical circumstances have indeed changed in their details over time (as they always will), the “problematic” itself, as Murray calls it, has not changed (or “widened”) in its essence at all.

Pius XII elucidates the perennial problem thusly:

“Today, as never before, the hour has come for reparation, for rousing the conscience of the world from the heavy torpor into which the drugs of false ideas, widely diffused, have sunk it.”

One clearly sees that among the fundamental concerns common to both Leo XIII and Pius XII are the “false ideas” that the latter decried as having been “widely diffused” to the detriment of mankind in his day, the same which his predecessors had deemed subject to State restriction (or toleration) as the demands of the common good may so dictate, in contrast with the doctrines of the Church that are always and everywhere freely proclaimed.

Murray would have us believe that the Holy Father is at once decrying the regrettable results of those “false ideas, widely diffused” while simultaneously suggesting that their diffusion is a “fundamental personal right.” It should surprise no one to discover that no such contradiction is evident in the text.

The writings of John Courtney Murray that we have examined thus far are by no means all that he had to say on the topic of religious liberty. We have, however, availed ourselves of much of the foundation upon which his arguments must either stand or fall.  At this I would simply encourage you to consider all that we have covered in this series of articles, going more deeply still as you are able, while pondering the question at hand, Was John Courtney Murray right? To that end I have included a bibliography of relevant resources at the conclusion of this article from both the Holy See and from the works of Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J.

Given that the Second Vatican Council largely adopted Murray’s propositions, this critically important question concerns as well the text of Dignitatis Humanae itself. I do realize that many readers may feel a bit uneasy at the very notion of questioning whether or not the conciliar text can withstand scrutiny by the light of tradition, and to those I would simply offer the following.

The Holy See has made it clear that an “examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium is open to legitimate discussion.” (See Vatican Information Service – Communique Concerning Society of St. Pius X – September 14, 2011.)

Make no mistake, Dignitatis Humanae is one of the primary documents of the Council that not only deserves, but demands such scrutiny. Note as well, that the Holy See includes as subject to this examination the “later Magisterium;” i.e., that which attempted to explain the conciliar decrees to the faithful.

This is no small matter! As an indication of just how important this is with regard to the topic of religious liberty, I will conclude by calling your attention to the regrettable situation in which the Catholic Church finds itself in the United States of America as I write.

Here, the majority of our bishops – like many others the world over – have in good faith adopted with vigor the language and the approach laid out in Dignitatis Humanae. As such, they have ceased in overwhelming measure to proclaim the Social Kingship of Christ, His unique privileges, the unique privileges of His Church, and every citizen’s and every ruler’s duty toward Him.

The end result? Rather than condemning out of hand objective evils like abortion-on-demand and contraception repackaged as “healthcare,” our shepherds have largely been reduced to begging a godless Administration for “conscience clauses” and a seat at the table beside heathens and heretics as though we must content ourselves with adopting a policy of “Have it your way, but let us have ours as well.” This is not intended as an indictment of our shepherds, per se; but rather an indictment of the “updated” notion of “religious liberty” introduced at Vatican II and its predictable results.

As I’ve maintained from the outset, this is perhaps the most pressing issue of our day, both for the Church and for the world at large. For the love of God, don’t shy away from the challenge that lies before us! You may perhaps even consider engaging it an obligation.

Difficult though they may be to face, ask the hard questions, boldly holding them up to the light of tradition for clarity, praying the Holy Ghost to bestow wisdom and understanding upon you, your loved ones, and especially those who are charged with leading the Bride of Christ – the Church Militant – on this journey toward Heavenly perfection.

Bibliography

Pope Pius IX – Syllabus of Errors

Pope Leo XIII – Immortale Dei – On the Christian Constitution of States

Pope Leo XIII – Libertas – On the Nature of Human Liberty

Pope Leo XIII – Officio Sanctissimo – On the Church in Bavaria

Pope Leo XIII – Rerum Novarum – On Capital and Labor

Pope Pius XI – Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio – On the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ

Pope Pius XI – Quas Primas – On the Feast of Christ the King

Pope Pius XII – Ci Riesce – Address to Convention of Italian Catholic Jurists

Pope Pius XII – Christmas Message of 1942

John Courtney Murray, S.J. – Published and Unpublished Works – Georgetown University Collection

Dignitatis Humanae – Declaration on Religious Freedom – Second Vatican Council

The first thing a careful examination of Fr. Murray’s arguments reveals is that he takes great liberty (no pun intended) in his treatment of the traditional teaching. He does so, however, in such a way that the casual observer may either miss it altogether, or may perhaps just consider it so subtle as to be irrelevant to the overall discussion. In reality, Murray’s presumptions are profoundly bold, and they deserve intense scrutiny because they serve as the very foundation upon which he will build his entire case for religious liberty as adopted at Vatican II.

“The political criterion, whereby the issue of the possibility of intolerance or the necessity of tolerance is to be decided, is the public peace,” he wrote of the traditional teaching in a 1964 article (published the year prior to Dignitatis Humanae).

In truth, the criterion for state tolerance of religious error most often articulated in the papal magisterium to that point is not the “public peace” (or “public order” — a phrase Murray also tends to employ in this context) but rather the “common good,” and the difference between the two is substantial. Murray, in fact, admitted as much by noting in the very same article that there is indeed a “distinction between the common good and public order.”

“The common good,” Murray rightly maintained, “includes all the social goods, spiritual and moral as well as material, which man pursues here on earth in accord with the demands of his personal and social nature. The pursuit of the common good devolves upon society as a whole, on all its members and on all its institutions, in accord with the principles of subsidiarity, legal justice, and distributive justice.”

By contrast, he continued, “Public order, whose care devolves upon the state, is a narrower concept,” which according to Murray includes “the public peace, public morality, as determined by moral standards commonly accepted among the people, and justice, which secures for the people what is due to them.”

Now let’s examine these propositions more closely.

First, note well that Murray begins his treatment by recasting the criteria for the tolerance of religious error from the “common good” to what he plainly admits is the “narrower concept” of “public order.” Remarkably, he offers precious little justification for this unilateral decision to alter the traditional teaching, but alas, that is precisely what he does.

Secondly, he fails to address the contradiction between his insistence that the purposes of the State belong in a category apart from the “common good,” the pursuit of which he clearly acknowledges as being the very purpose of society and “all its members and on all its institutions” which presumably includes the governing institutions of the state. Contradiction aside, Murray once again makes a unilateral decision to simply recast centuries-held Catholic teaching.

Lastly, his assertion that “public morality” is but a construct of “commonly accepted moral standards” is so entirely irreconcilable with Catholic thought that one can hardly be surprised that it is a central tenet of secular humanism! And yet, this too forms an integral part of Murray’s foundation.

In essence, we can see already that the very basis for the “updated” brand of religious liberty conceived of by John Courtney Murray and adopted at Vatican II (namely, one that calls on states to grant religious freedom as a constitutional civil right without distinction between truth and falsehood) first and foremost requires the substantial removal of God from society, from its moral standards and from its governance; i.e., it rejects the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.

The Holy Fathers invoked the “common good” in the traditional treatment of religious liberty deliberately. Though the phrase is often misused and misunderstood today as pertaining to the temporal order alone; e.g., as having to do with things like economic prosperity, access to natural resources, education, healthcare and the like, in Catholic thought it encompasses both temporal and spiritual realities.

There is but one ultimate good that is common to every man, and that is union with God – He from whom all good things come. The Church, therefore, has always concerned Herself with both spiritual and temporal realities, carefully placing each in its proper perspective.

Pope Leo XIII summed up this synthesis very succinctly in Rerum Novarum, saying, “Neither must it be supposed that the solicitude of the Church is so preoccupied with the spiritual concerns of her children as to neglect their temporal and earthly interests… By the fact that she calls men to virtue and forms them to its practice she promotes this in no slight degree. Christian morality, when adequately and completely practiced, leads of itself to temporal prosperity, for it merits the blessing of that God who is the source of all blessings (cf RN 28).

Having unilaterally redefined some core constituents of the traditional teaching, for example as articulated by Pope Leo XIII, Murray then insists on placing what remains in the context of an “historical problematic” that will presumably neuter whatever remains once placed in the modern setting.

Pope Leo XIII, as Murray tells it, was not so much concerned with the exclusive rights of truth and likewise of Christ and His Church; rather “his central notion was ‘the freedom of the Church’” considered in a much broader context.

In other words, Murray wants us to believe that Leo XIII, if alive today, would alter his teaching such that provided the Church is afforded the freedom that She requires, the State is under no particular obligation to discern religious truth from religious error, nor is the State expected to exercise what traditional teaching called the “care of religion.”

At this it may be timely to note that some “conservative” Catholic commentators have buttressed Murray’s innovations by setting up a straw man argument centered on the “competency of the State” in matters religious.

George Weigel, for instance, during an appearance on EWTN (The World Over – 5/1/2009) said, “A state that could say that Christ is king is a state that could say that Charles III or George VII or whatever is king… or Oprah Winfrey is queen.”

He concluded, therefore, “The state is incompetent to make theological judgments,” the implication being that the state ought to remain utterly silent with regard to Christ’s kingship, as though it should have no concern whatever for religious truth.

Weigel’s intellect is considerable, but this line of reasoning is sophomoric at best. It does not logically follow that a state that is able and willing to recognize and act upon the objective truth of Christ’s kingship is thereby granted license to invoke its authority to proclaim falsehood. It is likewise foolish to summarily draw the conclusion that the state should therefore concern itself with purely secular matters apart from those properly religious. (Those living in the United States, Weigel included, know all too well what this brings.)

States historically do, in fact, at times assume a competency that is not their own by adopting religious falsehood, e.g., as witnessed in the Islamic theocracies of the world. The remedy for this and for any other form of falsehood is truth; it is certainly not religious indifference. That is what moved Pope Leo XIII to state, “So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as something beyond its scope” (Immortale Dei – 4).

In any event, the important thing to recognize before we move on is that “scope” as Leo XIII invokes it does not hint at granting competency to the State at all. Indeed, the Church has always maintained that She is the uniquely competent custodian of religious truth.

Returning now to Murray’s arguments, we cannot help but discern what looks like a subtle attempt to make of “freedom” an absolute that somehow exists apart from its Divine source and the obligations thereto.

“Freedom is the first property of the Church; and freedom is the first claim that the Church makes in the face of society and state” Murray writes. He then goes on to quote (out of context) Pope Leo XIII, “’This freedom is so much the property of the Church, as a perfect and divine work, that those who act against this freedom likewise act against God and against their duty.’”

Again, Murray makes some remarkable claims that demand a closer look.

The very proposition that the Church is best conceived as a collection of “properties” such that one is “first,” and presumably another is “second” and so forth, is far less than compelling ecclesiology, but abiding by Murray’s idiom just the same, if pressed to identify a “first property” of the Church one would most certainly have to say that it is the eternal Son of God in the flesh, the Person of Jesus Christ; not some secular notion of freedom.

Furthermore, the “first claim that the Church makes” wherever She goes is not “freedom” as Murray supposes, it is that She is the “Body of Christ,” and that Jesus who is Lord of all established Her as the unique, universal sacrament of salvation. It is by virtue of this objective and primary truth that She can lay claim to eminent freedom. This, my friends, is Catholicism 101; it goes directly to the very nature and mission of the Church.

The freedom to which Murray refers can only be properly understood as that which fully belongs to the Church alone simply because it is the property of the Lord; He who is the truth in all its fullness.  It is, in other words, a freedom that is uniquely absolute; one that transcends all human attempts to constrain it. This is a singular privilege to which the Catholic Church alone can lay claim, and more than that – She must assert this privilege in Her teaching (regardless of whether or not stubborn men, or godless regimes, will accept it) in order to carry out the Great Commission given to Her.

In any event, Murray attempts to legitimize this elevation of freedom to absolute status apart from the Church’s unique divine institution by quoting paragraph 13 of the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Church in Bavaria, Officio Sanctissimo, and there are several problems that must be noted, not the least of which is his faulty translation.

The Encyclical was originally written in Italian, wherein the operative phrase states with regard to the liberty (or freedom) in discussion that it is “essenziale alla Chiesa, all’opera perfetta e divina;” that is, “essential to the Church, to that institution (opera) perfect and divine.” Indeed, this is how the Holy See renders this phrase in English.

Again, we are dealing with subtlety, but make no mistake; it is noteworthy. In Murray’s version (“This freedom is so much the property of the Church, as a perfect and divine work…”) it appears that the adjectives “perfect and divine” apply to “freedom,” whereas the Italian original text, as the Holy See’s translation, much more clearly indicates that “perfect and divine” refers to the Church.

Remember – Murray is attempting to make the case that Pope Leo XIII was not primarily interested in singling out the Catholic Church and the unique claim to freedom that stems from Her divine institution; rather, he wants us to believe that Leo XIII, if ruling today, would ultimately be content to assert a more broad-based notion of freedom, one that the Church would be content to share with other, necessarily false, religions.

Let us assume in charity that Fr. Murray unintentionally misinterpreted the text, but let us not overlook the central error evident here and elsewhere in his reasoning; namely, he elevates “freedom” to the status of absolute (or perhaps more accurately lowers it to the status of the purely secular) as though in matters religious it exists apart from that divine perfection that dwells in the Catholic Church alone.

In any event, just two sentences later in Officio Sanctissimo, Pope Leo writes of the Church that She “is a society eminently independent, and above all others, because of the excellence of the heavenly and immortal blessings towards which it tends.”

This alone renders Murray’s argument unsustainable, and a full reading confirms no hint whatsoever that this doctrine is subject to change based upon historical circumstances.

Once scrutinized, Murray’s arguments considered thus far have failed to demonstrate that Tradition contains the seeds of a doctrine that would ask no more of the State than the kind of broad-based religious freedom that would simply guarantee the Church an ability to compete in the marketplace of hearts and minds alongside the false religions of the world.

We will conclude in Part 3 tomorrow with a look at what John Courtney Murray called “the decisive proof” that religious liberty as taught in centuries past is subject to radical change at the hands of historical circumstances.

Everyone knows that religion is good, and since no one in their right mind could possibly argue against the inherent goodness of liberty, it only stands to reason that “religious liberty” as it is so often invoked these days must be especially good!

Now, it’s just a hunch mind you, but I suspect that this unspoken logical progression, or one close to it, is subliminally at play in tranquilizing the vast majority of otherwise inquisitive Catholics to the point where very few feel compelled to ask the critically important question, Was John Courtney Murray right?

Of course, it would help to know a little bit about who he is first.

Once censured in the 1950s by the Holy Office (as the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” was known at the time) for his controversial writings on the subject of Church-State relations, the late American-born theologian, Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J., is widely credited with being the primary author of the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae.

This document is perhaps the single most controversial of all the conciliar texts for the simple reason that it represents what both critics and proponents alike consider its stark departure from the Church’s long held, centuries-old teaching that true religious freedom is the exclusive, divinely instituted, right of the Catholic Church alone because it, and only it, has been commissioned by Christ to proclaim the fullness of truth to the world over which He alone is Sovereign.

Theologian Gregory Baum — a Council peritus who participated in the drafting of Dignitatis Humanae — pulled no punches in articulating the tremendous implications of this apparent doctrinal about-face in a 2005 interview with CNS.

“The Catholic Church had condemned religious freedom [as conceived by the Council] in the nineteenth century,” Baum stated, speculating that those bishops and theologians who resisted the Murray-inspired text did so because they “didn’t want to admit that the Church was wrong.”

He went on to portray the traditional teaching as maintaining, “Truth has all the rights and error has no rights.”

Summing up the contrasting opinion put forth by Murray, the same that prevailed at Vatican II, Baum concluded, “But, this is nonsense; truth is an abstract concept. People have rights.”

Already one may sense a fundamental flaw as “truth” is far more than just a concept; rather, it is the Person of Jesus Christ! But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Baum continued by pointing out, and accurately so, that the traditional teaching held that those who profess a non-Catholic creed (or what Pope Pius XI plainly identified as a “false religion”) could at best be tolerated in society.

At this, it would helpful to take a closer look at religious liberty according to tradition.

The Church has long held that man enjoys a certain religious liberty on the individual level. This liberty is properly understood not as a “right to err” (which is entirely irreconcilable with the conviction that all rights come from the God who is truth; in whom no darkness dwells); but rather as a freedom from coercion.

This “right” brings with it, however, the solemn obligation to seek the “true religion” – that which Pope Leo XIII said “cannot be difficult to find if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; namely, the Catholic faith, the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate” (cf Immortale Dei 7).

Traditional Church teaching clearly acknowledges that man often does err in his quest for truth, but the doctrine of freedom from coercion is not an open-ended license to propagate religious falsehoods in the public arena, which not only represents an obstacle at best (an attack at worst) to a society comprised of other human beings who are duty-bound to seek and embrace the true religion, but also an affront to Christ the King who reigns over all things and wills to draw all men to Himself through His Church.

It must also be noted that traditional Catholic doctrine has always made clear the obligation of those who govern to exercise their authority in service to the one true King of all, Jesus Christ.

“No society can hold together unless someone be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. ‘There is no power but from God’” (Immortale Dei – 3).

Does this mean to say that governments are absolutely required by divine law to suppress false religions? No. Even as rulers of nations have consistently been called upon by the Church to exercise their governance in service to Christ the King in all things (at least prior to 1960 or so), She has also traditionally held that it is within the rights of rulers to tolerate false religious practices in public when a greater evil can thereby be averted in service to the common good.

This teaching does not go so far, however, as to give rulers free reign to adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward religion in which all religions are essentially deemed and treated as equals, as though the Church could ever fail to condemn placing the Lord Jesus Christ shoulder-to-shoulder with idols.

Pope Leo XIII summed up the traditional doctrine as follows:

“The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will’” (Immortale Dei 36).

With our feet now firmly placed upon this necessarily brief overview of tradition, we will resume tomorrow with Part 2, an examination of John Courtney Murray’s writings.

As I read them, it seems as though most of the “people in the pews” are either positive about the new text, or they are at the very least willing to approach the changes as an opportunity for spiritual growth.

Some media outlets, however, are doing their level best to trumpet the negative by highlighting the opinions of a disgruntled minority composed largely, it seems, of aging liberals and self-anointed cognoscenti.

The Washington Post Blog, for example, featured the insights of a guest writer who boasted of a “theological degree” and having “studied the liturgy for thirty years” presumably as qualifications for summarily dismissing the new translation as an exercise in “what the hierarchy wants” as opposed to “what the Catholic faithful actually need.”

As compelling evidence that the new text is unacceptably “complex and clunky,” this liturgical-expert-come-blogger highlighted changes made in the Eucharistic prayers, pointing out, “In the story of the Last Supper, retold at every Mass, it used to be that Jesus took ‘the cup.’ Now, instead he takes ‘the precious chalice.’”

O, the horror of it all!

This sort of sophistry would be amusing if not for the sad truth being made plain; namely, not even three decades of liturgical study and a theology degree is enough to guarantee that one is able (much less willing) to conceive of the Mass according to “the mind of the Church.” Neither, does it seem, is Holy Orders.

On this note, one report in particular caught my eye, coming as it did from a bishop in his weekly diocesan newspaper column.

While acknowledging that the faithful’s reaction to the new Missal was “overwhelmingly positive,” he went on to write, “Nearly all the priests I spoke to expressed regrets that the new language made it difficult for them to enter deeply into prayer during the Mass because they were distracted by the book. A change of just one or two words created an obstacle that will take some time before our priests are able to celebrate the Mass in [a] prayer-filled and zestful style…”

With all due respect, this commentary makes it clear that the new translation alone — for all of its poetry, elevated language and faithfulness to the original Latin — isn’t going to do much to deter the liturgical priest-as-centerpiece mindset that has so plagued the Church for the last forty years. Furthermore, it raises some serious questions.

Does the bishop mean to suggest that a priest simply praying the Mass reverently and devoutly, believing and intending what the Church intends and believes, is somehow deficient? It would seem to me that this is all that is truly required (even desired) of the priest; in fact, as far as I’m concerned anything ostensibly “added” on his part can only serve to subtract from the liturgy.

Also, what does “distracted by the book” mean? Distracted from what, exactly? Taken in context, this comment seems to imply that the text in the new edition of the Roman Missal, thanks to our priests’ relative unfamiliarity, is somehow handcuffing their creativity. And this is a bad thing how?

Perhaps the most troubling and revealing questions these comments raise concern the notion of “style.”

What on earth is meant by a “zestful style?” To what end is this necessary or even desirable in the celebration of Holy Mass? Is it imagined to be for the benefit of the assembly — a sign intended to reassure those present that Father is “all-in” with the prayers of the Mass, or is it for the benefit of Father himself –- a way for the priest to reassure himself that he’s giving the liturgy, and the people present, the help they presumably both need?

Taken as a whole, the bishop’s commentary seems to suggest that he and the priests with whom he spoke simply assume, in the manner of Protestant ministers, that it is incumbent upon them to bring a certain stage presence to the Mass wherein “style points” are earned by those clerics who offer (perform, perhaps) the prayers of the liturgy with the kinds of expressive intonations they consider necessary to somehow enhance the celebration.

Well, I have some good news and some bad news for all concerned. The good news is that the pressure to perform that these clerics are feeling is artificial and largely self-imposed; having little to do with what is actually required of them and even less to do with the liturgy’s true nature.

The bad news is that too many of our priests and bishops (and by natural extension, laity) don’t seem to get it.

In the aforementioned column, the bishop chose to highlight the thoughts of a local pastor who offered the following commentary in his parish bulletin:

“My unfamiliarity with the new translation has led to a rupture in my ability to enter deeply into prayer with all of you. I realize now the great gift I have been given in such a community that prays so well together. It is more than simply good liturgy (although we have that in spades) or careful preparation. It is about the way we come together as the Body of Christ to listen to and to support one another in prayer and in sacrifice.”

What inspired the bishop to share this pseudo-catechetical exercise in clerical self-pity with the entire diocese is a mystery all its own, but be that as it may, here’s some more good news; it’s not all about you, Father! The liturgy isn’t even, as you suppose, about the community assembling “to listen to and to support one another,” as though “entering deeply into prayer” at Holy Mass is some sort of Christian group hug abetted by familiarity.

No! It’s about entering into the Redemptive work of Christ; it’s about Divine worship; it’s about sacred mystery.

If my frustration is showing, forgive me. Yes, the new Missal offers the potential of helping the Church take a major step in the right direction, but my God! How much longer must we suffer under the weight of this decades-long liturgical crisis in which so many of our people insist on behaving as though Christ is no more present and operative in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass than He is when two or more Baptist Boy Scouts are praying ‘round a campfire?

And just for the record, I’m not simply talking about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist alone, but rather the transcendent presence of Christ in the entirety of the sacred rite wherein He is uniquely active among us.

Speaking in September of 2010, Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations Monsignor Guido Marini addressed this distorted view saying, “[The liturgy does not] deal with a mere assembly of persons who share an ideal and intend to form a community; rather, it deals with a celebration by which we truly enter into a relationship with the mystery of our salvation…”

He went on to talk about what it means to truly “enter” the liturgy, saying, “To enter into a reality… involves man in his every dimension: intellect, will, emotion, sentiment, action, etc. The external nature of action and its interior foundation result as complementary and necessary. And so it is for the liturgical life…” he continued, “if there is participation that comes about by means of comprehending a text, it is also a form of participation that occurs when the soul is uplifted as it encounters the beautiful.”

As for the erroneous suggestion that liturgical texts must be eminently comprehensible on a merely human intellectual level, Monsignor Marini said, “It seems to me that, according to the law of the pendulum, if at one time the lack of adequate participation [in the liturgy] may have been due to a defect in understanding and action, today such a lack of adequate participation may be due to an excess of rational comprehension and external action, to which there is not always present a sufficient and complementary understanding of the heart and attention to the interior action, so as to re-live in oneself the sentiments and thoughts of Christ.”

With all of this said, it must also be noted that even in the sentiments expressed by those who are largely positive about the new Missal there are red flags waving.

My pastor, for example, said to the assembled faithful following Mass on the First Sunday of Advent, with neither malice nor negativity intended, “Three or four weeks from now, it will be as though nothing has changed.”

I fear he is right, and this is why we must confront head-on the very real danger that the faithful sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church may ultimately find themselves encouraged to accomplish little more than to adopt new words; remaining deprived of the prescription put forth by the Council Fathers who said, “Pastors of souls must zealously strive to promote the full and active participation of all the people in the sacred liturgy by means of the necessary instruction of the faithful” (cf SC 14).

This “necessary” liturgical instruction, according to Pope Benedict XVI, is best considered “mystagogical catechesis;” i.e., teaching that illuminates, to the extent that this is possible, Holy Mass as sacred mystery, that we might deepen our participation therein as we “grow in our awareness of the mystery being celebrated and its relationship to daily life” (cf Sacramentum Caritatis).

If we’re honest, we must admit that in spite of all the Roman Missal workshops, bulletin inserts and homilies over the last year, the official implementation milestone is really just a small first step in preparing the way for the Roman Missal, that it might be the impetus for renewal it has the potential to be.

Sir Winston Churchill’s famous 1942 quote after a decisive WW II battle seems entirely apropos in this case as well: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

1. The Baptism of the Lord

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:13-17).

The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, wrote in his Summa Theologica that the sinless Jesus submitted to the baptism given by John in order to make holy the waters of baptism, that the sacrament may be truly efficacious for mankind. A similar insight was also preached some eight centuries earlier by St. John Chrysostom, who said, “In truth, Christ needed not baptism, neither this nor any other; but rather baptism needed the power of Christ.”

In reflecting further upon this luminous mystery, we should come to recognize by way of the Lord’s example that we too must inaugurate our participation in His saving work through the waters of baptism. As the Catechism tells us (cf CCC 1119), baptism is what “enables” us to participate in the sacred liturgy – that through which the work of redemption is accomplished in the here-and-now.

Indeed, we should be reminded of this truth every time we bless ourselves with holy water upon entering the church to assist at Mass wherein the “heavens will once more be opened up” just as they were when Jesus emerged from the River Jordan. The liturgy on earth is, after all, nothing less than participation in the liturgy of heaven itself (cf SC 8).

We must be careful to note, however, that baptism is not simply the “price of admission” to a community event; rather, it is an incorporation into the Body of Christ; it is that through which we are born again as a child of God the Father and a child of the Church, our Holy Mother. Our participation in the sacred liturgy, therefore, is never fruitfully carried out apart from a posture of profound humility; one that embraces the truth of our childlike status and our utter dependence on the Church in all things liturgical. This awareness should serve to remind us that the Mass is not a venue for personal creativity and individual expression; rather, it is a gift that is offered from a Holy Mother and a Heavenly Father to a child that stands in need.

2. The Wedding Feast at Cana

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” So they took it. When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him (John 2:1-11).

In the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium we are told that Mary “faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice” (cf LG 58). We can rest assured, therefore, that wherever the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered — the Wedding Feast of the Lamb — our Blessed Mother is truly present.

At Cana, it was through Mary’s act of intercession that the glory of the Lord was revealed, drawing the attention of all present to Him who alone can fill our every desire. Other than presenting the needs of the people to Jesus, the only words that Our Blessed Lady speaks are, “Do whatever He tells you.” The Blessed Virgin Mary in this passage, and in all things, simply points the way to her Son; she reveals His authority and makes known His glory.

In our spiritual dryness, at those times when our attention at Holy Mass tends to wander, or when we run the risk of becoming unduly self-focused, we should seek the Virgin Mary’s aid, that she might intercede for us and lead the way to Jesus, the source of living water.

One should notice that the first people at Cana to realize that a great miracle had taken place in their midst were the servants, the lowest of all present; probably the only ones there who were not invited guests. This scene calls to mind a number of Jesus’ teachings. “The last shall be first… He who is the greatest among you shall be your servant…” We might also think of the parable of the tax collector who took up a lowly place in the back of the temple and prayed, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am a sinner.”

The lesson for us is clear; we must always approach Holy Mass with the utmost humility, ever aware that we are entering into something far greater than ourselves, even to the point where the words that we say, “Lord, I am not worthy…” will be coming from the very depths of a humble and sincere heart. It is the Blessed Mother’s good pleasure and deepest desire to intercede in love for all of her children, but it is the humble ones among us and those with a servant’s heart who are first in line to witness the glory of her Son.

3. The Proclamation of the Kingdom

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-45).

The Catechism tells us, “In the New Testament the word ‘liturgy’ refers not only to the celebration of divine worship but also to the proclamation of the Gospel and to active charity” (CCC 1070).

Yes, the sacred liturgy is indeed divine worship; it is the action of Christ; it is the work of redemption being accomplished in the here-and-now – a truth so profound that we call it sacred mystery. Yet it is also the ongoing proclamation of the Gospel and the call to service in charity. It is all of these things, and we need to be careful not to let the pendulum swing so far in one direction or the other that we lose sight of this reality in all of its fullness.

You see, if we tend to look at the Mass as divine worship alone and we miss the ongoing proclamation and the call to service aspects of the liturgy, we might run the risk of thinking of Holy Mass as that self-contained one hour on Sunday morning.  The truth is, however, the liturgy properly understood is not really self-contained at all; its ultimate end is not the dismissal, but rather the fulfillment of all things in Christ.

Holy Mass has, in other words, a direct relationship with daily life; it is a “sending forth” through which we are nurtured in the Blessed Sacrament and strengthened in Christ to follow in His footsteps unto the proclamation of the gospel to the world and to those acts of charity that absolutely must accompany it.

Now that said, the pendulum can (and often does) swing too far in the “proclamation and service” direction as well, and when it does, we lose sight of the fact the liturgy and the mission to which we are sent forth in service is not truly our own – it is the mission of the Church in which Christ Himself is primarily operative. Our role is worthwhile only to the extent that it is co-operative with, and dependent upon, the Lord.

4. The Transfiguration

And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him. And Peter answering, said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. And as he was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him. And the disciples hearing fell upon their face, and were very much afraid. And Jesus came and touched them: and said to them: Arise, and fear not. And they lifting up their eyes, saw no one, but only Jesus (Matthew 17:1-7).

In the sacred liturgy we encounter the Glorified Lord — He who fulfills the Law (as represented in the Transfiguration by Moses) and the prophets (as represented therein by Elijah) — but we must resist the urge to which Peter initially succumbed: the desire to stay encamped with the Lord on that privileged mountain top that is the Mass.

We know that the world at large can often be a place of treachery and a battlefield, but in the sending forth at Holy Mass it is here where we are called to build the Kingdom of God on earth in preparation for His return in glory. On our own we haven’t the courage to take even one step; we must listen for the voice of the Savior who encourages us as once He did His disciples on Mt. Tabor saying, “Fear not!”

And lifting up our own eyes, may we like them see Jesus alone – He in whom our only hope of salvation rests.

5. The Institution of the Eucharist

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins (Matthew 26:26-28).

Even though Holy Mass is not best considered a re-enactment of the Last Supper, as the Eucharistic words of institution are spoken by the priest in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) it may be helpful to consider that when Jesus “blessed and broke the bread” during the Passover meal, He likely prayed the Hamotzi and the Kiddush – the traditional blessings said over bread and wine by the Jewish people even today; versions of which the priest utters during the preparation of the offering at the altar.

For the bread, in Hebrew: Baruch atah Adonai elohaynu melech ha’olam hamotzi lechem min ha’aretz.(“Praised are You, O Lord our God, Sovereign of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.”)

Likewise, when the Lord took the chalice of wine, He prayed: Baruch atah Adonai elohaynu melech ha’olam bor-ay peri ha-gafen. (Blessed are You, O Lord our God, Sovereign of the Universe, creator of the fruit of the vine.)

In this day and age when the priest most often faces the assembly throughout the liturgy of the Eucharist (a very recent liturgical innovation that was neither envisioned nor encouraged by the Council – discussed in more detail in a previous article here) it is important for us to realize that the Eucharistic Prayers at Holy Mass (just as the prayers of blessing uttered by Christ at the Last Supper) are not truly addressed to us; rather they are spoken by Christ Himself to His Father in Heaven.

Regardless of our bodily positioning at Holy Mass, this heavenward orientation should be primary for us throughout Holy Mass. The Eucharist as “meal” has been unduly exaggerated in recent decades, but we must realize that this “meal” is utterly meaningless apart from an awareness that it is first and foremost a “Holy and living Sacrifice”; it is the very source of our communion with God and one another for this very reason alone.

As we reflect further upon the institution of the Eucharist, we should take care to recall that the Last Supper was itself a supernatural, timeless event. Jesus could say, “This is my body… this is the chalice of my blood,” because in some sense the events of Calvary, though as yet unaccomplished in time as He spoke, were prefigured and truly accomplished in that very moment.

As we conclude this reflection on the most holy rosary, let us resolve to take up this “weapon of Mass instruction” often, calling upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as our guide, that we might contemplate its mysteries in such way as to enter ever more deeply into the sacred mysteries that we celebrate at Holy Mass. All glory, praise and honor to Almighty God – Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

1. The Resurrection of the Lord

And in the end of the Sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulcher. And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and coming rolled back the stone and sat upon it. And his countenance was as lightning and his raiment as snow. And for fear of him, the guards were struck with terror and became as dead men. And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you: for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid. And going quickly, tell ye his disciples that he is risen. (Matthew28:1-7).

Our participation in the sacred liturgy is truly nothing less than participation in the very life of Christ – the living Christ who is mystically present and active among us in the holy sacrifice of the Mass in no less substantial way than when He walked this earth with the Apostles.

It is here where we are invited to enter into that glorious reality wherein we stand at once at the foot of the Cross with the Blessed Virgin Mary to join ourselves to the spotless Victim who sacrificed Himself once and for all time, but also to peer with wonder as it were into the empty tomb; called to be one with the Risen Lord, that He might accomplish in us the work of our redemption.

In his excellent treatment of the liturgy, Hidden Treasure, St. Leonard of Port Maurice writes:

“It may be said, with all truth, that in every Mass Our Redeemer returns mystically to die for us, without really dying, at one and the same time really alive and as it were slain — vidi Agnum stantem tamquam occisum, “I saw a Lamb standing as it were slain” (Apoc. 5:6).

Yes, in the holy sacrifice of the Mass we encounter Christ who was truly crucified for our sins; indeed, we are present at that very sacrifice, and yet it is not the crucified Lord that we seek, but rather the resurrected One; He who sends us forth to tell all the world the good news: He is risen!

2. The Ascension of the Lord into Heaven

Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead, the third day: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them. And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them and was carried up to heaven. (Luke 24:45-51).

At His ascension, the Lord Jesus “was taken up into heaven where He sitteth at the right hand of the Father” (cf Mark 16:19). This “sitting,” however, should not be viewed as rest, as though the Lord’s mission is thus completed.

As the Catechism tells us, “Being seated at the Father’s right hand signifies the inauguration of the Messiah’s kingdom” (cf CCC 664) – a work that is yet to be brought to fulfillment in His Body on Earth, the Church Militant.

We are invited to participate in the Lord’s saving work in the sacrifice of the Mass, that He might accomplish in us the work of our redemption in a personal sense, yes, but also as co-operators in the work of building the Kingdom of God on earth. It is here, in the liturgy, where we enter into Holy Communion with the Great Mediator between God and man, “Christ Jesus that died: yea that is risen also again, who is at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us” (Romans 8:34), so that “together with Him and through Him we may make our oblation, and in union with Him offer up ourselves” (cf Mediator Dei – Pope Pius XII).

In Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) the priest prays, “Almighty God, we pray that your Angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in Heaven.”

In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas tells us:

“The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to Heaven; nor that Christ’s true body may be borne thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ’s mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament.”

In other words, you and I – members of Christ’s Body on earth – having consciously placed the sacrifice of our lives upon the altar at Holy Mass, participate in a mystical way in a foretaste of that ascension that will be the lot of all who die in union with Christ.

3. The Descent of the Holy Spirit

And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming: and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were of fire: and it sat upon every one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with diverse tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak (Acts 2:1-4).

Contemplating the ascension of the Lord naturally leads one to recall the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, as Jesus said, “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7).

This promised outpouring the Holy Spirit that took place in a most magnificent way on Pentecost is more than just a singular event; rather, it is an ongoing reality in the life of the Church. At times, we discern the ever-present coming of the Spirit in relatively small, personal ways, like those inspirational moments in prayer when we are tangibly moved by God’s grace. At other times, however, the Spirit is poured out in more profound and public ways, one of the greatest of which is in the celebration of Holy Mass.

The Catechism tells us that the “mystery of salvation is made present in the Liturgy by the power of the Holy Spirit” (cf CCC 1111), a sacred action realized in the entirety of the Mass, but most notably in the Eucharist. The Epiclesis naturally comes to mind, “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts…,” so too does the Elevation; “Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit…”

It is the Holy Spirit that prepares us to encounter Christ in the sacred liturgy (cf CCC 1098) and it is in Him in whom we glorify God as participants “in the heavenly liturgy” (CCC 1112). For laity, this naturally calls to mind our baptism – the gateway to participation in the liturgy, but it should also move us to acknowledge the effects of Holy Orders as we do in the response, “And with your spirit,” for it is that which makes the Eternal High Priest present to His people in the person of the ordained minister who celebrates the sacred mysteries in persona Christi.

The mission of the Spirit does not stop here, however, as He is operative at the dismissal and beyond as we go forth from Holy Mass to proclaim the Gospel to the world such that “the gift of communion bears fruit in the Church” (CCC 1112).

4. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth. Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies. Because he hath so magnified thy name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men who shall be mindful of the power of the Lord forever… (Judith 13:23-25).

Of the Lord’s Day, Pope John Paul II wrote, “This is the day on which the Church, showing forth more clearly her identity as ‘Bride’, anticipates in some sense the eschatological reality of the heavenly Jerusalem. Gathering her children into the Eucharistic assembly and teaching them to wait for the ‘divine Bridegroom,’ she engages in a kind of ‘exercise of desire,’ receiving a foretaste of the joy of the new heavens and new earth, when the holy city, the new Jerusalem, will come down from God, ‘prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.’“ (Dies Domini)

This “eschatological” dimension of the Mass refers to the way in which the liturgy is oriented toward the fulfillment of all things in Christ–nay, more than that; it is actual participation in the heavenly liturgy — a reality wherein the Bride who is already perfected, the Church Triumphant, dwells in perfect unity with Her Bridegroom.

In reading the Holy Father’s words, “Gathering her children into the Eucharistic assembly…” we are well justified in turning our thoughts toward the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother who ever so gathers and leads her children to Christ.

The Catechism expresses very beautifully how our eschatological orientation at Holy Mass is served by contemplating the Blessed Virgin Mary – she who was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven:

After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own “pilgrimage of faith,” and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, “in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,” “in the communion of all the saints,” the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother.

In the meantime the Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God (CCC 972).

5. The Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered (Revelation 12:1-2).

The woman of Revelation 12 is none other than the Blessed Virgin Mother who gave birth to Israel’s long awaited Messiah. She is also, however, the Mother who labors still to deliver her spiritual children – members of the Pilgrim Church, her Son’s Body on earth – into that Heavenly perfection in which God will be all in all.

This is the end to which the sacred liturgy is ordered; it is not the dismissal, but rather the fulfillment of all things in Christ. It is for this reason that Holy Mass entails a sending forth wherein those nurtured in the Blessed Sacrament are implored to “go, announce the Gospel of the Lord, glorifying the Lord by your life.”

And so we are compelled in faith to turn to Mary Our Queen, placing all that the Lord has given us in her Immaculate Heart, that she may guide us and protect us as we go about building the Kingdom of God on earth in preparation for His glorious return. In the words of the Council Fathers:

The perfect example of this type of spiritual and apostolic life is the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Apostles, who while leading the life common to all here on earth, one filled with family concerns and labors, was always intimately united with her Son and in an entirely unique way cooperated in the work of the Savior. Having now been assumed into heaven, with her maternal charity she cares for these brothers of her Son who are still on their earthly pilgrimage and remain involved in dangers and difficulties until they are led into the happy fatherland. All should devoutly venerate her and commend their life and apostolate to her maternal care (AA 4).

We will conclude our reflection next week with a look at the Luminous Mysteries.

“A people who will not be ruled by God are destined to be ruled by tyrants.”

Even though Penn was a Quaker who was harshly critical of other faiths, in particular those that profess a belief in the Blessed Trinity, a great many Americans from all manner of religious confessions – Catholics included – readily accept the underlying truth of this statement.

In 1998, Pope John Paul II sounded a related warning in his Encyclical Letter, Fides et Ratio, and it too enjoys a great deal of cross-denominational appeal:

“Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery.”

While Americans from all walks of life find it easy to embrace statements such as these, coming to agreement as to how best to apply the ideals of truth, freedom and the Sovereignty of God in our governance has proven far more difficult.

For faithful Catholics who are willing to follow the guiding hand of Holy Mother Church, however, the challenge is considerably less daunting.

In 2002, for example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger issued what is called a “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life.”

“Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society” (Doctrinal Note – 3).

In other words, the freedom that is enjoyed by those who govern, and are governed, in a representative democracy such as our own is not absolute; rather, it must be exercised – whether in public office or in the voting booth – in a way that conforms to the objective moral order which comes to us from God.

Even so, opinions can and do at times vary as to how best accomplish this goal, and so a process of discernment is always necessary in weighing our political choices.

“The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality,” the Note continues (ibid).

Even though we are presented, both as voters and as candidates, with a variety of political options as it relates to the challenges we face as a nation, the constant beacon which must guide each and every one of us is the light of truth that comes to us from Christ through His Church.

Straightforward? Absolutely. Piece of cake? Not so much.

It takes true humility, the assistance of God’s grace and an act of the will to conform ones political choices to the mind of the Church, but make no mistake about it – that’s exactly what faithful Catholics are called to do.

Complicating matters further, however, is the fact that the cast of characters on any given ballot – their positions having been measured against the teachings of the Church – can sometimes look a whole lot more like a lineup of scoundrels than a menu of upstanding citizens!

With this in mind, faithful Catholics recognize the need to pray the Lord of the harvest to raise up candidates that not only have the background and experience necessary to lead, but also a sincere desire to apply the ideals of truth, freedom and Divine Sovereignty as the Church understands them in the way they propose to govern.

Kind of like imagining all of the great things we might do if we hit the lottery, improbable as that might be, let’s indulge ourselves for just a moment to consider what that “ideal candidate” might look like.

I would suggest that he or she would first and foremost be an unashamed, fully committed and visible member of the Catholic Church. A humble person whose worldview is informed by faith and by Holy Mother Church and Her teachings; a person who draws strength from Holy Mass and the sacraments that Christ gave us. This individual will not only talk the talk in public, but walk the walk in private; and the life that he or she lives would provide an example that is worthy of emulation and one of which all Americans can be proud. This person will necessarily have the heart of a servant, and the candidacy itself would be an answer to a call; marked not by ambition, but by a willingness to sacrifice.

In sum, this “ideal candidate” would be an individual who is governed in life, and who would govern in office, in full recognition that all authority comes from God and that Christ Himself is King!

Now, just to be clear, we certainly don’t want to belittle candidates of other confessions, but neither should we be timid about our desire for a leader who, like us, recognizes that Christ has chosen to remain uniquely present to His people through the sacred liturgy, the sacraments and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and who is gratefully and willingly nurtured by the same.

Can you even imagine what an incredible blessing it could be if the candidate just described actually existed and ran for president of the United States? Then, it would seem, the Catholics of this great nation would at long last have an opportunity to become the electoral force-to-be-reckoned-with that we really ought to be!

Now, I’m not talking about those “Catholic-in-name-only” types who paved Barack Obama’s road to the Oval Office where he incessantly wages an unholy war against Christ and His Church; neither am I thinking of just raw numbers. No, ours is a spiritual battle, first and foremost.

Imagine the impact it could have if even a modest army of faithful Catholics were storming Heaven daily with prayers of intercession, offering Mass intentions while invoking the Blessed Virgin Mary’s help on behalf of another faithful Catholic who has answered the call to lead our nation back from the brink of godlessness and all of the turmoil that naturally comes with it.

What a blessed and historic moment it would be!

Well, my friends, that time is right now, and the candidate we’ve been praying the Lord to call into service at this critical juncture in our nation’s history is already here; his name is Rick Santorum – a man whose track record as a leader and a legislator speaks for itself much more eloquently than I can.

I’ll be very candid with you – before prayerful reflection altered my outlook, I was initially somewhat ambivalent about Rick Santorum’s candidacy. My thoughts were not entirely unlike those of a devout Catholic friend who shared the following in an email:

“I have mixed emotions. Rick Santorum is one of the smartest, most qualified candidates in the race. His policy ideas reflect a genuine faith, but I’m not sure he has the charisma, you know, the ‘it factor’ candidates seem to need nowadays. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a great choice from a Catholic perspective, but I worry that he may not have enough ‘mainstream’ appeal.”

Thankfully, my friend is also humble enough to consider other points of view, and I’d like to share part of my response:

“There isn’t a faithful Catholic among us who would ever say that an outpouring of prayer and sacrifice joined to the Most Holy Eucharist and offered on behalf of another faithful Catholic can’t overcome the kinds of challenges Rick Santorum’s candidacy faces.”

Well, it’s one thing for us to say we believe in the Lord’s power, it’s another to demonstrate it, and that’s exactly what we’re being challenged to do.

If you recognize the truth Rick Santorum has been given but you believe he needs help in delivering the message, I agree. So did every single prophet the Lord ever asked to speak in His name, and guess what – He never failed to come to their aid through an outpouring of grace, and our prayers can help facilitate it in this case as well.

That, however, is only part of the equation – the hearts and minds of the people to whom the messenger is speaking is the other. There are many sincere, God-seeking people in the “mainstream” who have a real hunger for the truth, even among those who don’t profess Christ.  They too will benefit from our collective prayers for the grace that is necessary to receive the truth when it is presented and to act on it, even when the messenger seems less than titillating by worldly standards.

Barack Obama has shown us exactly what we can expect from a “charismatic” campaigner who denies the Kingship of Christ. We asked the Lord to call forth a faithful candidate, we didn’t ask for a showman, and God delivered. The Lord knows precisely what is needed from here, and that in my estimation is for the people of this country to place their trust in Him.

Think about this; if God had raised up a candidate who is “ready for primetime TV” as ordinary men so conceive of such things, we might just fall into the trap of trusting the person more than the Lord, and isn’t that the bottom line cause of every single problem we have ever had in this world?

My friends, believers and followers of Christ both Catholic and otherwise, as well as God-fearing people of goodwill from various other faith traditions, are painfully aware that we are standing at a crossroads in America. If something doesn’t drastically change, our children’s future promises to be rife with problems that are even graver than our own.

It’s the economy, stupid!

Sure, the “laws of economics” are important, but bumper sticker slogans don’t even come close to telling the real story.  As Pope Leo XIII warned the world over 100 years ago, it’s really about God’s law!

Christian morality, when adequately and completely practiced, leads of itself to temporal prosperity, for it merits the blessing of that God who is the source of all blessings; it powerfully restrains the greed of possession and the thirst for pleasure-twin plagues, which too often make a man who is void of self-restraint miserable in the midst of abundance; it makes men supply for the lack of means through economy, teaching them to be content with frugal living, and further, keeping them out of the reach of those vices which devour not small incomes merely, but large fortunes, and dissipate many a goodly inheritance (Rerum Novarum – 28).

Rick Santorum gets it. He understands that when we strengthen our moral fiber and strengthen our families, we strengthen our economy and we strengthen our country – not on the surface, but from the backbone out.

He’s the only candidate in the race who consistently and without trepidation addresses the great moral issues we are facing and their relationship with everything else that threatens our way of life – be it abortion or marriage, healthcare or jobs, national security or energy.

Rick Santorum understands that our freedom doesn’t come from the government; it comes from God and is the inalienable right of every single human being, created in His image and likeness, from conception to natural death.

He’s the one candidate in the race that isn’t shrinking from the fact the greatest enemy we face is a spiritual one; ours isn’t a battle of Left versus Right, it’s a matter of Good versus Evil and our trust is in the Lord.

In the weeks to come, I’m going to invite you to get to know Rick Santorum better and to join me in an initiative that will allow us to demonstrate our own trust in the Lord’s saving power by supporting his candidacy for President, so that together we might pass along to our progeny a United States of America that once again resembles “One Nation under God.”