“Social justice” is a term that is Catholic in its very origin. It was first employed in the 1840’s by an Italian priest in a book that he wrote to address some of the challenges faced by rural people as they moved into cities and towns in order to provide labor for industry.

It would be some fifty years later that Catholic social doctrine as we now know it came to real prominence in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, in which he set about defining “social justice” without ever employing the phrase.

With all of the confusion surrounding social justice these days, now seems a very good time to examine what it is, as well as what it is not. Now, I don’t propose to give an exhaustive treatment of how social justice is most properly applied in the details; rather, I’d like to offer a sense for what social justice properly understood demands of us, and how its demands are often distorted by today’s secular interests.

Those inclined to do so will find the task of deciphering the truth from the deceptions that are so commonplace in current political discourse as it applies to social justice fairly easy from here.

Okay, so what is social justice?  First, let’s consider the word “social;” it means of or relating to cooperative, interdependent relationships and associations among human beings. Remember that word “associations.” It will come up again. Simple enough, right?

It is in considering the word “justice” that we most need to make sure we are focused on the Church’s understanding as opposed to the secular world’s definition.

In His Lenten message, Pope Benedict XVI said:

The term ‘justice,’ in common usage implies ‘to render to every man his due.’  In reality, however, this classical definition does not specify what ‘due’ is to be rendered to each person.

So the question remains, what is man’s due?

The world will tell us that man’s due is a function of absolute freedom, and it manifests itself largely in the so-called “right” to seek pleasure without moral restraint or judgment. At its worst the notion of absolute freedom for one man becomes the weapon by which another man’s freedom is taken; extending even so far as to consider it “justice” to take an innocent life through abortion, euthanasia, or the destruction of human embryos for medical purposes.

“Justice” in this view is also sometimes invoked for inflicting an artificial equality (also labeled as “fairness”) upon society in a way that attempts to override the legitimate uniqueness of individual human persons.

This can be discerned in social systems that attempt to downplay the connection between skill, effort and outcome; e.g., in educational systems that shun traditional grading methods, or in “competitions” that take an “everyone’s a winner” approach, or in economic systems that divorce production from remuneration. At its most egregious we see it in statist systems of governance that seek to redistribute temporal goods in the name of fairness, sometimes even going so far as to reject the right to private property.

The secular view of justice-as-fairness also manifests itself in radical feminism — embraced as it is in varying degrees by both men and women alike – in which the unique qualities that are proper to males and females are eschewed as mere cultural constructs that only serve to restrict and confine human potential.

All of these initiatives misnamed as “social justice” have a common theme; they are built on the assumption that rendering to every man his due is ultimately defined, though not always explicitly so, in terms of the avoidance of suffering.

The challenge in maintaining clarity in the matter for Catholics lies in the fact that the secular view of social justice as we’ve discussed it thus far presents what seems like rather admirable ideals: freedom; equality; fairness and the avoidance of suffering… In other words, it doesn’t really seem at first blush to cry out for rejection.

It is helpful to recognize that the secular view of social justice is untenable at its root because it is born of an unwillingness to embrace the fact of the human condition; i.e., it is unwilling to accept who we truly are.

We are created beings, body and spirit, beholden to the Creator in whose image we were made. We are endowed with a free will indeed, but one that is duty bound to the Divine law above all else. We are beings of equal dignity one to the other, but we are also uniquely endowed with God’s gifts such that no two are alike.

Furthermore, we are uniquely dignified among all creation thanks to our unique relationship with the Creator, and we are therefore of inestimable worth, but we are also fallen and sinful and destined without exception – in this life – to suffer and die.

This last truth of the human condition – that all must suffer and die – is of paramount importance in conceiving of “justice” rightly. When we embrace the reality of human suffering as it relates to justice, not only are we coming to terms with who we are; we are also coming to terms with who God is.

Human suffering has always had this effect on humanity, moving us to question, why do we suffer?  How can God allow such things? Is God not just? What is the meaning of life?

The reason the world struggles so mightily to understand justice is simple; the world has rejected the reality of sin. Is God not just? Yes, of course He is just, and His perfect justice allows suffering in order to redeem the sinner. It’s simple; failure to recognize sin is failure to recognize justice.

Our Holy Father, Benedict XVI, tells us in his Lenten message that, Christ is the Justice of God. It follows, therefore, that failure to recognize Christ is failure to understand justice.

“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely” (Proverbs 28:5).

Christ is justice. This means that mercy, love and truth as revealed in Him is justice.

Still seem like a vague concept? Don’t feel bad. Pope Leo XIII said of social justice:

The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men’s judgments and to stir up the people to revolt (RN 2).

The teaching found in Rerum Novarum is as relevant now as ever in combating the errors of the world. The agitators are agitating with remarkable tenacity!

Pope Leo went on to give us valuable core principals that form the basis for Catholic social teaching. We need to embrace these core beliefs or we’re going to be misled. Ultimately, in the interest of space, the heart of the matter is this:

The true worth and nobility of man lie in his moral qualities, that is, in virtue… 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 (RN 24, 28).

Our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, tells us in his Lenten message that “Above all, justice comes from grace…”

Get that? Social justice lies in the fullness of morality as defined by God, not as calculated by majority rule. It is a function of grace, not government.

The last point I want to leave you with is this: the oft overlooked principle of subsidiarity tells us that human needs are best met by the smallest possible unit of society — the individual, the family, the parish, the community, etc… We must therefore be wary of excessive government control.

On this point, know this: in Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII pointed to the freely formed associations of men in response to the demands of social justice no less than 48 times, and he pointed to the State as the servant of the people who form them.

Keep these thoughts in mind the next time someone calls for social justice and ask yourself, is the “justice” they invoke according to the world, or is it authentic justice — that which is made manifest in Christ?

Since so many Catholics have but limited knowledge of Vatican II, the first half of the presentation dealt with the basics – the what, when, why, and how of the Council.

Of these four basic questions, the “why” of the Council is the one I consider to be the most important, because if we don’t know why the Council was called — or put another way, if we don’t know what the Council hoped to accomplish — we are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to interpreting its teachings correctly.

For insight on the Council’s mission, it is helpful to turn to the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII:

The salient point of this Council is not a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church,” the Holy Father told the bishops present in Rome for the Council’s inaugural session. “The sacred deposit of faith has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

OK… So the sacred deposit of faith is presumably well known by all, but that’s not enough, is it? The answer is no, it’s not. You see, our Catholic faith isn’t just meant to be known, it’s meant to be lived!

And so the Second Vatican Council was called in order to take the timeless truths of our Catholic faith as defined by popes and councils past, and to present them to the world anew; expressing them in ways that modern men and women from all walks of life could most readily understand, and most importantly would find relevant and be able to employ amidst all of the distractions, all of the challenges and indeed all of the new opportunities that exist in the world as we know it.

Now it’s very important we get this right; the Council was called to present the deposit of faith to the world anew — not to present a new deposit of faith to the world; a very big difference and a mistake that far too many people make.

The second half of the presentation was the one that really hit home for those in attendance. It was dedicated to the Council’s view of liturgical reform; a topic that easily could have taken up the entire hour and then some. So getting right to the point I offered the following:

• Removing the altar rails and kneelers from so many of our churches
• Stripping our sacred places of sacred statues, sacred art and other ornamentation
• Getting rid of Gregorian Chant
• Introducing the Folk Mass, and instruments like tambourines and drums
• Inviting parishioners to receive the Most Holy Eucharist in their hands
• Turning the priest around to face the people
• Building new churches to resemble theatres in the round
• Moving the tabernacle from the high altar to places of relative obscurity
• Stripping the Liturgy of the Latin language

What do all of these things have in common? None of them — not one — was even remotely suggested much less encouraged by the Second Vatican Council. Not one.

Some individuals were clearly taken aback to discover that the Council didn’t author these innovations, in fact, one very kind and sweet lady approached me afterwards in tears saying that she was “blown away” by what she had learned.

So why have we moved so far away from the Council’s view of liturgical reform in general — from the elimination of the Latin language, to the introduction of pop music, to a veritable army of laity putting on robes, crowding our sanctuaries, and calling themselves “ministers?”

The reason I suggested to those in attendance is largely this:

We haven’t taken the time to understand what the Council Fathers truly meant by encouraging “fully conscious and active participation on the part of all the faithful in the Sacred Liturgy.”

Given that the Liturgy is “the summit toward which all of the Church’s activity is directed, the font from which all of Her power flows,” (cf SC) and the very centerpiece of our Catholic lives, we spent a little more time on this one topic than any other — more than I can fully relate in this space — but here are some highlights.

The Council Fathers tell us very plainly that pastors of souls “must zealously strive” to promote active participation through “the necessary liturgical instruction” of the faithful.

Now, this instruction does not entail things like telling Agnes to put on the white robe and to join in the opening procession while Walter reads the parish welcome statement. That’s not liturgical instruction; that’s choreography! Yet isn’t this the extent of the instruction that most of us have received in many places over the last forty years?

Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his 2007 Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, that the kind of instruction the Council had in mind is most properly considered “mystagogical catechesis;” a catechesis that illuminates for us — to the extent that it is possible — the Mass as sacred mystery. It is a liturgical instruction that aids in drawing us in and conforming us in a personal way to the mystery being celebrated; a mystery which is nothing less than the saving action of Jesus Christ Himself.

I think the part that really struck a chord with so many of those present was in learning that fully conscious and active participation in Holy Mass is not a matter of doing things at all; but rather it is participation in nothing less than sacred mystery.

That is why Pope Benedict said in Sacramentum Caritatis, “The active participation called for by the Council must be understood on the basis of a greater awareness of the mystery being celebrated…”

You see, when we boil our participation in Holy Mass down to “doing” alone — and let’s be honest, this has been done ad nauseam since the Council closed – getting caught up in things like reading at the lectern, singing in the choir, carrying up the gifts, serving as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, offering the sign of peace to 27 of our closest neighbors right in the middle of the Mass…

If we confine our understanding of participation to these externals alone, it cannot be said that we are truly engaged in fully conscious and active participation.

Why? The answer is simple; because sacred mystery by its very nature cannot be so confined.

Based on the attendees’ reaction I can say that the Holy Spirit is prodding the “sleeping giant,” as John Paul II often called the laity. Catholics want to know the truth about Vatican II. They want to know what Holy Mass really is. They want to rediscover a sense of the sacred, and they are willing to take steps to do so. There is great reason for hope!

Of the literally hundreds of individuals that spoke with me after the presentation, only one was unhappy with what he heard; a white haired aging little priest who shall remain nameless. He let me know that he found my presentation “very slanted,” but when I asked him if he meant to say “slanted toward what the Council actually taught,” pointing out to him that the Holy Father himself would concur with everything I suggested, he put his cards on the table.

“I don’t agree with the pope; John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not Vatican II popes,” he exclaimed!

I have to say, it really was refreshing. If all dissenters, especially those among the clergy, would only do the same we’d all be better off. At least that way the battle lines would be clearly drawn for all concerned.

In the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Media of Social Communications, Inter Mirifica, the Council Fathers spoke of the “inherent right of the Church to have at its disposal media as necessary or useful for the instruction of Christians, and all its efforts for the welfare of souls” (cf IM 3).

Along with this right, the Council tells us, the Catholic media has the duty “to instill a fully Christian spirit into readers” (cf IM 14) and for this purpose the Council Fathers envisioned, “A truly Catholic press with the clear purpose of forming, supporting and advancing public opinion in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts” (ibid).

Enter your official diocesan newspaper; a weekly publication that is loaded with news items and editorial pieces that reflect directly on matters of importance to Catholics everywhere. Mission accomplished, right? Well, not necessarily…

While it seems like a given that Catholics should be able to read their diocesan newspapers with utter confidence that the content is beyond reproach, the reality — as you may have noticed — can be very different. Consider, for instance, the following “real world” examples:

Did you know that editorial pieces ran in diocesan newspapers from coast-to-coast applauding the Obama Administration’s nomination of pro-abortion Catholic Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services even as her Archbishop, Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, was urging her to refrain from receiving Holy Communion due to her anti-life stance? It’s true.

Did you happen to read in your own diocesan newspaper praise for President Obama’s decision to overturn the “Mexico City Policy” thereby forcing American taxpayers to fund overseas abortions? I did.

Or how about that particularly memorable piece that hailed the National Institute of Health’s proposal for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as an “ethically sensitive move in a noticeably more Catholic-friendly direction?”

All of these shocking examples appeared in numerous diocesan newspapers throughout the U.S. and beyond in 2009, but this is by no means a new problem…

You remember the controversial 2005 movie “Brokeback Mountain” don’t you? Well did you know that glowing reviews of this homosexual propaganda piece ran in scores of diocesan newspapers lauding the film as “a serious contemplation on loneliness and connection, suitable for adult audiences?” Difficult to fathom, I know, but it did.

The problem isn’t exclusive to moral issues, however, as diocesan newspapers can sometimes be just as unreliable in matters of faith as well.

For instance, in a widely run feature on the origins of the Bible an erroneous claim was offered to readers of diocesan newspapers worldwide, saying, “The Catholic version of the Bible is actually a library of books specifically chosen to reflect Catholic teaching.” This, however, is an error that was specifically condemned by the First Vatican Council!

In fact, the Second Vatican Council very explicitly reiterated the long held Catholic teaching that the books of Sacred Scripture are canonical — not because they say what we want them to say — but for the solitary reason that they have God as their Author. Don’t you think it’s important for our “official” Catholic newspapers to get this right? I certainly do.

In April of 2009, another questionable piece ran in multiple diocesan newspapers that offered praise for a priest who possessed the “scholarly acquiescence to nuance our church sometimes forgets” for having the high-mindedness to invoke the Holy Spirit as “She.” One small problem — the Congregation for Divine Worship clearly forbade such un-Traditional acts of Divine gender-bending, but those who placed their trust in their diocesan newspaper, however, might never know it.

Lastly but unfortunately not finally, consider a December 2009 piece that also ran in official Catholic newspapers nationally that offered the following twisted stab at catechesis: “The Church’s teaching of subsidiarity insists that higher levels of government and social organizations must take action and do what individuals and smaller groups cannot do for themselves.”

In reality, the principle of subsidiarity states that matters impacting the human person should be addressed by the smallest; least centralized; most localized, personal authority possible. In other words, subsidiarity as the Church understands it is not a mandate for government action at all; it’s a warning against government interference! Quite an important difference, especially here in U.S. where a federal takeover of healthcare is being debated, no?

So, how on earth did we get to this point where so many diocesan newspapers are so shamefully unreliable? The answer in a word is “complacency,” but before you point an accusatory finger at your bishop, realize that this is no more true than in case of individual Catholics.

If the examples provided describe the newspaper in your diocese, the far more important question to consider, therefore, is how will you respond?

For starters, all of us need to start behaving as responsible consumers of Catholic media; spending our time and our money wisely. Sounds simple, but doing so in this case will require more effort than simply choosing brands at the grocery store.

Why? Because many parishes “force feed” subscriptions to the diocesan newspaper upon their parishioners; paying for them with parish funds and then making special appeals for reimbursement at a later date. In some places, there are even diocese-wide collections undertaken specifically to raise money for the local official newspaper.

Now don’t get me wrong; diocesan newspapers can be wonderful tools for information, evangelization and catechesis, but only when they uphold their duties well as some most certainly do. Some, however, do not.

That’s why we the “people in the pews” need to soberly consider whether or not our diocesan newspapers are truly worthy of our support based upon the quality of their content alone. Understand this, however; before you can presume to determine what constitutes quality content or not, you must first know and embrace your Catholic faith well enough to be able to discern the difference. Remember; the issue here is not one of personal preference, but “Catholic teaching and precepts” (IM 14).

If you do possess the requisite competency of faith, and you determine that your diocesan newspaper is not upholding its duty well; just don’t allow yourself to be quietly forced into supporting it. Offer respectful but candid feedback to the editors, pastors and bishops involved letting them know that you will not fund media content that misrepresents our Catholic faith.

In fact, you should kindly insist that the diocesan newspaper not even be sent to your home; otherwise, potential advertisers will count you among the willing subscribers thereby bolstering the publication’s revenues and perpetuating the problem.

Make no mistake about it; leveraging your purchasing power is the most effective way to force our local diocesan newspapers to offer real value in the marketplace of authentic and reliable Catholic content. If those in charge of content are complacent now, they won’t be for long if the money dries up, and remember — diocesan newspapers are not charitable organizations that deserve our financial support as a matter of Christian duty; they must be made to earn it.

Most of all, we must pray for all who disseminate information in the media, especially those who do so in the name of the Church; that they will be endowed by God with the grace and the courage necessary to protect the faithful from falsehood in all of its many forms.

I’m the kind of guy who can flip through the television stations on a Saturday afternoon and land on a football game between two no-name colleges, or a ping pong match or a skateboard race– it doesn’t much matter — and before I know it, I’m way more involved than I should be.

Even at an early age, however, I knew there was something more to the Olympics than just mere competition; the games always seemed to communicate something far bigger.

As a kid growing up during the Cold War, it was particularly striking to witness the unifying quality inherent to athletic competition. It was as though the images on our television sets effectively, if only temporarily, reminded us of the undeniable truth that people are people. The Olympics somehow managed to show us in true living color (black and white in my house) that the athletes representing the USA had more in common with their Soviet counterparts than we ever stopped to imagine.

It wasn’t all sweetness and light, however. There was yet another aspect to the Olympic games of my youth that spoke to us on an equally deep level, but in this case it hinted at a truth that a great many people nowadays would prefer to ignore.

The Cold War Olympics stirred something inside of Americans that went way beyond national pride alone and a natural desire to emerge victorious; rather, it drew many of us into the realm of the spiritual as the competition between the USA and the Communist nations became a metaphor for the battle of good versus evil, right versus wrong, and truth versus lies.

That this analogy was implied in the events more so than deliberately crafted made it no less poignant and no less tangible, in fact, its very sublimity rendered the message all the more forceful.

Given its powerful ability to communicate on such a deep level, it’s no surprise that the Olympic games have in fact at times been deliberately leveraged as a tool for social, cultural and political commentary, if not outright propaganda. The Berlin games of 1936 come to mind, as does 2008 in Beijing, and several others in between.

This time around, however, other than those diehard global warming enthusiasts who insist that my pick-up truck is to blame for the rain in Vancouver, the Winter Olympics of 2010 have been relatively low key on this front. But that doesn’t mean these Olympics aren’t talking…

Watching the men’s figure skating competition the other night, I couldn’t help but marvel at the blatant “in-your-face” nature of the regrettably common yet profoundly dangerous message that has become a hallmark of this once proud sport.

What on earth is it, the naïve are still wondering?

The message, as the Kinks put it in their 1970 hit song, Lola, is “boys will be girls and girls will be boys, it a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world,” and guess what? If you buy into all the hype, it’s positively delightful!

I have to tell you; I for one am not even close to being delighted with what I saw.

There seems to be an unspoken competition-within-the-competition among many of the male figure skaters these days. It’s as though each one is trying his level best — be it through make-up, hair-dos, mannerisms or costumes — to out gender-bend the next guy.

Now I won’t lie; I’ve never been a big fan of men’s figure skating. I’ve always kind of figured that any guy that can skate like that should have a hockey stick in his hand and a few less teeth than the rest of us. Even so, back in the day it seemed like breakthroughs in the sport were measured in terms of acrobatics, now they seem to be measured in terms of histrionics as these grown men prance about like little drama queens determined to take flamboyance to here-to-for unseen heights.

It truly is an amazing thing to witness. Now, I may be showing my age here (as though reminiscing about the Cold War hasn’t already sealed it) but the other night’s competition was so surreal it was like watching one of those Saturday Night Live parodies from when I was a teenager.

How far is this spectacle going to go, I wonder? Seriously, is there anyone who watched the telecast the other night that would be even remotely surprised if four years from now one of these guys comes skating out in an evening gown and a tiara?

Even the announcers were not entirely comfortable it seemed, but they dutifully did their jobs as they forced feigned laughter and tried their best to put a positive spin on the clearly bizarre; as if they were laboring to convince themselves as much as anyone else; “isn’t this wonderful!”

If you detect a dash of humor in some of my observations you’re not mistaken. As I watched this folly-of-the-fabulous unfold I was admittedly semi-amused by the sheer ridiculousness of it all, but even though it’s difficult to take a man in chiffon seriously – make no mistake about it – something very serious is going on here and you better be paying attention.

Let’s face it, the current popular culture is hell bent and determined to promote the view that the Creator-given characteristics that define us as male and female are little more than shackles that limit us; imposed as they were by a society that is inherently unfair.

Ours is a world in which little boys are all-too-often trained in the ways of liberal feminism; a place where big boys not only cry but are praised for their sensitivity. As a result, many of our schools have replaced recess and the natural competition that should be expected among little men-in-training in favor of “everyone wins” activities that require no sweat.

As for that natural male aggressiveness; no longer is it guided toward its good and useful application, it’s just treated with Ritalin and deprogrammed away.

And what do we have to show for it now? A metro-sexual class of soft-bellied fellas who are inept at taking charge and making decisions, yet are strangely proficient at plucking their own eyebrows in traffic as they head to their 4 o’clock pedi.

My daughters are now young ladies and — please God — neither one of them seems very likely to become one of those overwhelmed moms who lie awake at night staring at the ceiling after coming to the horrible realization that they married their best girlfriend. Even so, I worry for all of those little boys out there whose parents have bought into the lie and just don’t get it.

If I had had a young son sitting next to me watching the Olympics you can bet he wouldn’t be left to witness the charade of men’s figure skating without some much needed observations from his dear ol’ Neanderthal Dad.

If you’re forty-five years of age or older, the catchy little tune that accompanies these playful lyrics is undoubtedly already playing in your head while the image of a dancing Baloo is flashing through your mind’s eye. As for you younger folk – the above quote is taken from the lyrics to a hit song, “The Bare Necessities,” that comes from the soundtrack to the 1967 animated Disney classic, “The Jungle Book.” It was sung by one of the movie’s leading characters, Baloo – a lovably lazy bear – and it’s definitely on the childhood Top 10 list for my generation.

That oldie-but-goodie hadn’t played in my own head for a very long time; that is, until around 6:15 this morning when I read a Catholic News Service story saying that Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had suggested “an ecumenical catechism that would be written in consultation with our [Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.] partners.”

An “ecumenical catechism” such as this would be intended to meet what Cardinal Kasper dubbed “the need for an ecumenism of basics that identifies, reinforces and deepens the common foundation.”

“Look for the bare necessities. The simple bare necessities. Forget about your worries and your strife…”

In an address delivered at the opening to a three-day ecumenical symposium at the Vatican on February 8^th, Cardinal Kasper told representatives of the various ecclesial communities present, “We have affirmed our common foundation in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity as expressed in our common creed and in the doctrine of the first ecumenical councils,” and he underscored the importance of “keeping alive the memory of our achievements.”

Not to rain on the Cardinal’s parade here, but isn’t faith in Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity — along with Baptism, of course — the rock-bottom requirement for those who dare to claim the noble name of “Christian?” In other words, isn’t this really just the price of admission for a seat at the ecumenical table, for crying out loud?

At any rate, if this is the sort of “achievement” that one might expect to find enshrined in an “ecumenical catechism,” the notion that such a publication might one day be issued by “the competent Catholic authority,” as Cardinal Kasper envisions, strikes me as fanciful as best.

With all due respect, coming as this suggestion does on the heels of his recently published memoir-style book (of which John Allen of NCR reported, “Vatican sources say the primary reason the book came out under Kasper’s name was to short-circuit the normal lengthy review process for official Vatican texts,”) I’m beginning to sense a near Clintonesque concern for legacy as the Cardinal’s retirement date draws near.

How else can one explain a Prince of the Church suggesting such an idea as an “ecumenical catechism?” It really is downright embarrassing.

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, offers some sober words of caution that seem to be going unnoticed:

It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded (UR 11).

Pope Pius XII offered much the same warning more than a decade earlier in the Encyclical, Humani Generis:

Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an ‘eirenism’ according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma (Humane Generis 11).

Codifying a whittled-down version of the faith in a so-called “ecumenical catechism” – in this case, beneath the mask of “achievement”– is exactly the sort of danger of which Pius XII warned, and the potential pitfalls are substantial.

It seems to me that a little worry and strife should accompany separation from Holy Mother Church, no? Yet needless to say, such frivolity as an “ecumenical catechism” would be a great disservice to those non-Catholics, who finding the differences ignored therein, might be lulled into a false sense of unity that will breed complacency. There’s no telling how many souls might otherwise continue to labor in true ecumenical dialogue with the Church only to one day embrace “a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in Eucharistic communion” (UR 22).

A danger also exists for those who are already part of the Church’s visible structure in that some will no doubt be tempted to treat an “ecumenical catechism” as a meal ticket to the express lane at the Catholic Café; an “official” manifesto for a faith of bare necessities.

I can almost see the sign in front of the Frank Lloyd Wright style church now: “Welcome to the Catholic Community of Baloo.”

Cardinal Kasper, no doubt meaning well, expressed concern for the future of the ecumenical movement should the members of ecclesial communities fail to hold firmly to the shared basics of Christian faith (presumably the content of his proposed “catechism”) at which point the dialogue cannot move forward.

Fair enough, but I have a better idea:

How about providing both marginal Catholics and members of ecclesial communities alike with a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a highlighter, inviting each to mark the tenets they already accept. That way, not only will they know what we hold in common; but just as importantly, they will know how far they’ve still to travel.

Newman was born in 1801 into what has been described as an ordinary Church of England home — his father; a London Banker and Freemason, his mother; a descendent of French Protestants who had become famous engravers and paper makers in England.

Newman’s earliest formation in faith took place at his mother’s knee, and apart from a love for reading the Bible, he had little concretely formed religious convictions as a child.

At the age of fifteen while away at school, however, Newman experienced what he called a “conversion” that sprung in part from his reading. This marked the beginning of his search for a more doctrinally ordered faith, and he soon focused his energies on exploring an early Church creed on the Trinity and the Incarnation and its relationship with Sacred Scripture.

Now don’t get me wrong; Newman wasn’t on the Church’s doorstep at this point – heck, he wasn’t even on the parking lot! — but a seed had been planted nonetheless.

At the age of 21, Newman abandoned his plan to study law and decided to pursue a religious vocation. He was ordained an Anglican priest at the age of 23.

In his late twenties, Newman became involved in what was called the Oxford Movement which attempted to demonstrate that the Church of England — along with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism – was one of the three branches that form the one true Church. His studies and his writings at this time were largely dedicated to portraying Anglicanism as a Via Media, or “middle way,” between what was considered the excesses of Rome on the one hand, and an unbridled Protestantism that admitted of heresy on the other.

Things began to fall apart for Newman and his convictions when he studied the Nestorian heresy which claimed that Jesus was born a mere man and only later became imbued with Divinity; a heresy condemned in the year 431 at the Council of Ephesus.

As his studies continued, Newman discovered that a very vocal opponent of Nestor, an Eastern Rite Catholic priest named Eutyches, had also erred by proposing an opposite extreme that claimed the human nature and the divine nature were at all times combined into one single nature in the person of Christ.

Then came the real eye opener in the saga; the case of the Monophysites who envisioned themselves as a “middle way” between Nestor and Eutyches. Theirs was the view that Christ has only one nature, but His humanity was simply absorbed by His divinity.

Newman discovered that both Eutyches and the Monophysites were rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 when it definitively taught that the one person of Christ maintains two natures; one human and one divine. This was a doctrine that Newman had already accepted from his scrutiny of early Church doctrine on the Incarnation, and it was then that he began to see the necessity of an infallible authority in order to guide the development of doctrine along a sure path.

His misgivings about Anglicanism as a “middle way” represented but a small crack at this point in 1839, but it only grew from there, even as Newman continued to labor to serve the Movement.

In 1841, Newman — ever the historian and scholar — began work on translating the writings of St. Athanasius, at which time he encountered the history of the Arian heresy, and it was here that Newman’s Anglican convictions, already wavering from his encounter with Monophysitism, were dealt another serious blow.

Newman later said, “In the Arian history, I found the very same phenomenon which I had found with the Monophysites. I saw clearly that the pure Arians were the Protestants, the semi-Arians were the Anglicans, and Rome is now what it was then.”

The final blow came when the Church of England decided to, in Newman’s words, “admit maintainers of heresy to communion without formal renunciation of their errors…  heresies that are repugnant to Scripture.”

Even without exploring the details of the controversy, who can read Newman’s words and fail to think of modern Anglicans who have witnessed the same phenomenon in their own day, finding themselves drawn to Rome which is the same today as it always has been — the very heart of the one true Church?

In 1843 — while still an Anglican priest — Newman retired to an ascetic life where he studied the ways in which doctrine develops authentically, and over the course of the next two years he wrote his famous “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” in which he defends of certain kinds of growth in doctrinal statements as a sign of vitality in the Church that is to be expected.

Right from the very outset of his work, Newman excludes the possibility of doctrinal reversals; insisting upon what he called “preservation of type” and “continuity of principles.” He wrote that later expressions of faith in the Catholicism are simply fuller expressions of the same truth that had been present in the Church from the very beginning.

Newman realized that as time goes on, the Church expresses doctrine in a way that clarifies earlier formulations, but it does not contradict them. This, incidentally, is precisely how we should view the teachings of Vatican II.

Prophetically, Newman said that those who think that Christianity can simply model itself after what is fashionable usually end up abandoning the supernatural claims of the Faith. How often we see this today in the musings of those who misunderstand what the Council meant by “the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times” (GS 4).

Newman ultimately concluded that the test for determining what constitutes authentic development of doctrine  –  as well as what constitutes an authentic interpretation of the same — lies in its continuity with the past; a notion that Pope Benedict XVI has often repeated in urging “an hermeneutic of continuity and authentic reform” when interpreting the documents of Vatican II.

A number of Newman’s insights found greater expression in the conciliar decrees, some seven decades after his death. Among them:

• The Church as an organ of Divine Revelation
• Conscience as the voice of God in the soul
• The unity of faith and reason
• The sensus fidei as an authentic organ of infallibility
• How certain things that exist outside of the Church – religious, cultural, literary, artistic, etc. – can in some way, through the good within them, be considered modes of spiritual growth that serve as preparation for the fullness of the Gospel as it dwells within the Catholic Church

Newman, at great personal cost, made the journey home and was received into the Catholic Church in 1845 and he was ordained a priest in Rome one year later at the age of 45. At the age of 78, in recognition of his vast contribution to the Church as one of the preeminent theologians of the 19^th century, Pope Leo XIII made him a Cardinal.

Later this year, the invisible Father of Vatican II will be raised to the altar as Pope Benedict XVI declares him among the Blessed. May his influence on the Council continue to bear fruit in its reception, interpretation and implementation through his most valuable intercession.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, pray for us!

The question most commonly asked by participants at this point is not about the Council’s intent but “what do we do now?”

You see, the more they learn about the Council’s view of Holy Mass and its true intentions concerning liturgical reform, the more frustrated they are getting. One woman even told me that the price she is now paying for being “armed with the truth” is a “perpetual state of agitation!”

Why? Consider the following:

- Removing altar rails and kneelers from so many of our churches

- Stripping our sacred places of sacred statues, sacred art and other ornamentation

- Getting rid of Gregorian Chant

- Introducing the Folk Mass and instruments like tambourines and drums

- Relegating the Tabernacle to relative obscurity

- Inviting parishioners to receive the Most Holy Eucharist in their hands

- Turning the priest around to face the congregation

- Constructing new church buildings that resemble theatres in the round

- Crowding our sanctuaries with an army of laypeople and calling them “ministers”

- Eliminating the Latin prayers from the Mass

What do all of these things have in common? None of them — not one — were even remotely suggested by the Council Fathers, much less encouraged .

And so these good people want to know what they should do now… They want to know how they can influence the “powers that be” in their parish to celebrate Holy Mass in a way reflects the Council’s true intent, and perhaps even bring back that awe inspiring sense of the sacred that is all-too-often missing from our liturgies.

Americans like us are a want-it-now kind of people. We’re used to movies on-demand, liposuction and buying on credit. Add to that the fact that we’re talking about a group of people who truly love the Lord, and that the liturgy is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed and the font from which all her power flows” (SC 10) and the desire for immediate results is understandable.

I must admit, however, I don’t have a very satisfying answer, but here’s what I told them.

Step one for laity who wish to contribute to an authentic “reform of the reform” is partaking of “the necessary liturgical instruction” that the Council encouraged “pastors of souls” to provide “zealously” (SC 14). My advice? Take the initiative and do it yourself.

In addition to discovering what the Council Fathers actually encouraged by exploring Sacrosanctum Concilium by the light of Tradition, we also need to engage in what Pope Benedict XVI called “mystagogical catechesis;” a catechesis that delves into the nature of Holy Mass as Sacred Mystery.

We should read papal decrees, like the 2007 Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist, Sacramentum Caritatis, and documents promulgated by the Congregation for Divine Worship, like the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum — all available online at www.vatican.va .

From there I think we simply need to pray and then pray some more. We must ask the Lord to open doors that will allow us to do His bidding, and we must pray for the humility to do so in charity. If we do this, the Lord will indeed open those doors for us; perhaps through a place on the parish liturgy committee or maybe just through some grace filled conversations with our pastor. Ask the Lord to lead the way and let Him do it.

Beyond this, we must ask — no, beg for that elusive fruit of the Holy Spirit; patience. The reform of the reform is in fact happening slowly but surely, albeit not quickly enough to quiet the unrest that comes from an awareness of the disconnect between the Council’s view of Holy Mass and our most common experiences.

I know — patience in this case is difficult, but it helps to realize that we’re living in the very shadow of Vatican II, and the liturgical reform is as yet work in progress. Perhaps a little historical perspective will be useful.

The following quote has been very influential in my work – in fact, it gave rise to the title of the Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II Faith Formation Series — and it goes like this:

“A new season is opening before our eyes, the time to go profoundly into the Council’s teaching — the time of the harvest of what was sowed by the Council Fathers…”

Now, if you were to stumble upon the above quote not knowing a thing about its origin, you may very well assume that it was uttered in the years immediately following the Council’s closing; perhaps 1968 or maybe at some point in the early nineteen-seventies.

A reasonable guess, but you wouldn’t even be close!

Pope John Paul II spoke those eloquent words in the early days of the new millennium; February 2000 to be more precise.

“Wait just a minute,” you might say, “the time to go into the Council’s teaching is now? Isn’t it just a little bit late in the game for that?”

Absolutely not! Church historians have long recognized that it takes several generations for the teachings of any ecumenical council to fully begin to weave their way into the fabric of Catholic life. Several generations.

With this in mind, let’s consider carefully what the Holy Father was telling us.

According to our Venerable Holy Father, the “new season” envisioned by Council Fathers like himself was not quite a reality in the early days of the year 2000; but with the eyes of faith he could see it taking shape just in the offing.

In comparing the work of the Council to the act of sowing, the Holy Father was telling us that the ups and downs of Catholic life in the decades after Vatican II — including as it pertains to liturgical reform — have not been without progress. Rather, he is suggesting that the seed planted by the Council has been quietly germinating in our midst.

With roots now firmly anchored in the rich soil of the Master’s vineyard, what was once just a humble sapling had become a “majestic tree” — an image the Holy Father used often to describe the Council — and it was visible in the near distance to our visionary Pontiff, its fruit clearly ripened and ready for harvest.

If we take Pope John Paul II’s words to heart, we can hardly fail to recognize just how blessed we are to be alive at this very moment in time. Future generations of Catholics will one day reflect back on our age as a truly momentous, blessed and exciting time in the history of the Church. How they will look back upon us is not yet determined; but the good news is the answer is very much up to us.

We are literally among the very first laborers called into the fields of the Council – into the Council documents themselves — to harvest the fruit of Vatican II. So, are you willing to accept the invitation?

My adult faith formation group in the Archdiocese of Baltimore accepted the invitation, and they’re discovering that being armed with the truth, while absolutely necessary, isn’t always easy. Then again, the Lord who said “pick up your cross and follow me” never promised it would be.

NOTE: If you would like to learn more about the Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II Faith Formation Series and its treatment of Sacrosanctum Concilium , you may email a request to info@HarvestingTheFruit.com .

If you’re an American and you’re unfamiliar with subsidiarity in this day and age in which the federal government is about the only segment of the economy that’s growing; you better find out in a hurry.

In a nutshell, the principle of subsidiarity states that matters impacting the human person should be addressed by the smallest, least centralized, most localized, competent personal authority possible. The opposite situation is realized when personal affairs are managed by larger; more centralized and detached public authorities.

At the heart of the matter lies a concern for the protection of individual freedom as an inalienable right associated with human dignity, and a prime example of how crucial it is to understand subsidiarity (and to demand that it be duly observed) is staring Americans directly in the face as I write.

Case in point; when it comes to making decisions about which medical treatment options are best pursued in a given circumstance, the principal of subsidiarity states that these are best left to individuals, families and caregivers to the extent that the demands of necessity and the competency of each party makes it possible.

Where the principle of subsidiarity is well observed, public authority is exercised in a limited, supporting role; i.e. it recognizes and “subsidizes” the authority of individual persons; it does not usurp it.

Did you get that? Memorize it and share it with every Catholic you know, because a full court press is on to tell you otherwise as it relates to government run healthcare, and not just from our friends in the White House.

Yes, it seems as though every new election and legislative cycle brings politicians eager to secure the support of Catholic voters by painting their agendas as fitting expressions of the Church’s social doctrine, even when such isn’t necessarily the case. Unfortunately, we have come to expect as much from politicians, but when the bamboozlement comes to us courtesy of Catholic News Service — a wholly owned official organ of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, funded by faithful Catholics — it’s high time we sat up and paid attention.

Reading my local diocesan newspaper last week, I encountered an editorial piece written by a notoriously liberal CNS columnist who in an effort to sell the benefits of a government takeover of healthcare informed readers, “The Church’s teaching of subsidiarity insists that higher levels of government and social organizations must take action and do what individuals and smaller groups cannot do for themselves.”

I am certain that this struck many a Catholic reader as believable enough; after all, it came from Catholic News Service in a column syndicated for distribution to diocesan newspapers from coast-to-coast. It must be true, right?

The well-informed reader (of whom you are now one) will have noticed immediately that the writer has twisted it almost exactly backwards — subsidiarity properly understood is not a mandate for government action; it is a warning against government interference!

Pope John Paul II, echoed his predecessors in warning about the dangers of an overbearing public authority in his Encyclical Letter, Centesimus Annus, saying:

Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good (CA 48).

There is certainly a place for public authority to be exercised within the framework of subsidiarity; the challenge is striking a balance between a collective effort — assisted by government only to the extent truly necessary — and individual prerogative as demanded by the pursuit of the common good. This would necessarily preclude, however, any proposal that would rob individuals of the freedom and responsibility that naturally flow from human dignity. As the Second Vatican Council warned:

Citizens, for their part, either individually or collectively, must be careful not to attribute excessive power to public authority, not to make exaggerated and untimely demands upon it in their own interests, lessening in this way the responsible role of persons, families and social groups (Gaudium et Spes – 75).

Is the state of healthcare in America in such dismal condition as to merit a government takeover, or will less extreme measures provide the surer path to justice?

Catholics of goodwill can certainly disagree on how best to improve the nation’s health care system, but as we debate this important issue one thing we should all be able to agree upon is this: media organs and others that carry the name “Catholic” — especially those that operate on the faithful’s dime — owe it to their audience to represent the doctrine of the faith clearly and accurately — yes, even when it might undermine the argument for a personal pet political cause.

According to the original research proposal, one of the study’s stated objectives is to “understand, on an individual level, how priests with allegations of sexual abuse differ from other priests.”

By shedding light on the past in this way, such information can help our bishops form future priests according to the Council’s encouragement; “With watchful concern… inquiring into the candidate’s proper intention, his spiritual, moral and intellectual qualifications, his appropriate physical and psychic health, while taking into consideration also possible hereditary deficiencies… even if a deplorable lack of priests should exist” (cf Decree on Priestly Training – 6).

According to Catholic News Service, Margaret Smith, one of two John Jay researchers to address the Assembly, gave the bishops a glimpse at the kind of information they’ve gathered thus far saying, “At this point, we do not find a correlation between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse.”

While the full report isn’t expected until December 2010, it’s not too soon to measure the contents of this preliminary briefing against information that we already have and to ask some common sense questions as warranted. To that end I did some research of my own and here’s what I found:

In a 2002 study conducted by USA Today, it was determined that of the 234 priests that have been accused of sexual abuse of a minor while serving in the nation’s ten largest dioceses, 91 percent of the allegations involved male victims. [1]

The Boston Globe reported similar findings in 2003 saying, “Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims, and the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male.” [2]

Also noteworthy is research conducted by Dr. Thomas Plante of the Department of Psychology at Santa Clara University who found that 80 – 90 percent of the alleged victims of abuse were post-pubescent adolescent boys – not prepubescent children – meaning that the abusers in these cases “are not pedophiles at all but are ephebophiles” (demonstrating sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents.) [3]

Keeping all of this data in mind, let’s now take a closer look at the logical implications of Ms. Smith’s briefing.

If, as Ms. Smith’s report implies, a heterosexual priest is just as likely as a homosexual priest to abuse an adolescent minor, it is reasonable for us to expect the ratio of priests accused of abusing females to those accused of abusing males to mirror the demographics of the priesthood as a ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals.

So, do the researchers at John Jay College really mean to imply that some 90% of the priesthood in the U.S. is homosexual?

The question alone is so preposterous as to border on the offensive, but remember, 9:1 is the ratio of priests accused of abusing adolescent males to those accused of abusing adolescent females. Applying this same ratio to the sexual orientation of the priest population as a whole is simply the logical extension of Ms. Smith’s assertion that both groups present an equal risk of abuse.

If, as I assume, Ms. Smith and her colleagues do not truly intend to imply that homosexual priests outnumber their heterosexual counterparts 9 to 1, it’s only common sense to demand an explanation for the overwhelming preponderance of male victims.

Presented another way, consider the most current data available from the Centers for Disease Control (the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth) which indicates that 4.1% of U.S. males age 18-44 years consider themselves homosexual. [4] If this same percentage is true among the priest population (something we do not know) then Ms. Smith’s assertion suggests that the number of priests accused of abusing adolescent females should outnumber those accused of abusing males by roughly twenty to one. As we know very well; this is not the case. Again, common sense demands an explanation.

Karen Terry, a colleague of Ms. Smith who also addressed the USCCB assembly, may have preempted questions concerning the small percentage of female victims when she cautioned the bishops, “Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity.”

While it is prudent to withhold ultimate judgment on the value of the John Jay study until the report is published in its fullness, a couple of things seem rather certain already.

For one; the only way the final report can possibly substantiate Ms. Terry’s assertion is to provide solid and convincing evidence that a very large percentage of the abuse cases actually involved heterosexual priests molesting adolescent boys — an impossibly tall order if there ever was one. If researchers don’t consider an adult male being sexually attracted to a teenaged boy a flashing neon sign for homosexuality, then I’m not entirely sure I want to know what they do consider proof. Still, it will be interesting to see how the researchers attempt to support this incredible claim.

Secondly, the final report positively must provide rock solid demographic data concerning the incidence of “homosexual identity” in the priesthood; anything less means that Ms. Smith and Ms. Terry have offered nothing more than information built on mere assumption and their “findings” are therefore worthless. Why? Because if researchers don’t know with a high degree of certainty how many priests are homosexual, there is absolutely no way they can speak with any authority whatsoever about the relationship between homosexual identity and the incidence of clergy sex abuse.

Now while we shouldn’t prejudge, that doesn’t mean that we (or our bishops) need to check our God-given gift of reason at the door in the meantime, and let’s be honest; the preliminary briefing doesn’t inspire an awful lot of confidence that the final report will provide anything meaningful.

The simple truth is this; the information offered thus far by Ms. Smith and Ms. Terry is so entirely inconsistent with the cases of reported abuse as we know them on the one hand, and common sense on the other, that it can’t help but raise substantial red flags.

Let’s pray that our bishops — who incidentally have earmarked $1 million for research into the clergy sexual abuse scandal — are sufficiently alarmed to press for some solid answers to these common sense questions right now, not later. As we await the final report, the researchers at John Jay College need to be put on notice that unsubstantiated assertions are unacceptable; in return for our investment we expect correct information, not political correctness.

1. “The Accusers and the Accused,” USA Today, November 11, 2002, p. 7D.

2. Thomas Farragher and Matt Carroll, “Church Board Dismissed Accusations by Females,” Boston.com, February 2, 2003.

3. http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

4. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/abc_list_s.htm#sexualorientation