Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

So you know how some people (like, OK, me) occasionally say they’d like to hear the bishops speak out on this pro-choice Catholic politicians taking communion thing? 

Well, thank God, they finally have, in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) theological stupidity.

What the Speaker said, on Meet the Press: (emphasis and comments mine) 

REP. PELOSI:  I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.  And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months (that would be St. Thomas Aquinas, not St. Augustine).  We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.  Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.  There’s very clear distinctions.  This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.  And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.  As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW:  The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI:  I understand that.

MR. BROKAW:  …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI:  I understand.  And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.  So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.  But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.  And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.  That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.  My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think.  But that is not the case.  So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

(we’ll forget the fact that she confused St. Augustine with St. Thomas Aquinas for one minute)

And I guess 70 AD is, um, 50 years ago. (this link also has a video! and h/t dad for the linkage)

Well apparently this travesty of theology could not go unremarked upon by the higher-ups. So:

First, from my cousin (family love flying high right now). Here’s the press release

The following statement is from Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl: 

On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect. 

Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition…” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads: 

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)

The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death. 

And then, from Cardinal Egan in NYC: (h/t Corner)

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN

CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008.  What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age. 

            We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers.  No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb.  In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.  They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.  Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

                                                            Edward Cardinal Egan

I guess the real key to getting an episcopal reaction is to go on National TV and really, really flub up Catholic theology. 

I also liked Archbishop Chaput’s call for V-P candidate Biden not to receive communion. 

As Archbishop Chaput said, “BE CATHOLIC.” You have to take what the Church believes hook, line and sinker if you’re going to be Catholic, the way we’re supposed to be, if our faith is our “North Star” (Arch. Chaput). You can’t just muddle the theology and hem and haw to try to make it support your position if it doesn’t. 

#mce_temp_url#, in his homily last night (as reported by KLO)

The message? BE CATHOLIC. Don’t “pretend.” 

More on Obama and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (which would do exactly what it says) can be found here. 

He supports infanticide, folks. Plain and simple. 

But wait…there’s more! (As the Count on Sesame street says…)

Here are two awesome interviews with Archbishop Chaput of Denver, who is a hero of mine. If any American could be Pope, I’d pick him (well, and my cousin, naturally.). 

The first is from NRO

Some choice bits (but you really need to read the whole thing) (emphasis mine):

LOPEZ: What should it mean when someone says, “I’m Catholic.”

ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT: It should mean that we love Jesus Christ as our redeemer, love the Catholic Church as our mother, and give our hearts to what she teaches, because she teaches in Christ’s name.

LOPEZ: What should it mean when I’m “voting Catholic?”

ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT: We should see ourselves as Catholic first — not white or black, or young or old. or Democrat or Republican, or labor militant or business owner, but Catholic firstas the main way we identify ourselves. Our faith should shape our lives, including our political choices. Of course, that demands that we actually study and deepen our Catholic faith. The Catholic faith isn’t a set of clothes that we can tailor to a personal fit. We don’t “invent” our faith, and we don’t “own” it. If we really want to be Catholic, then we’ll live by Catholic teaching. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves and abusing the belief of other Catholics who really do try to practice what the Church teaches.

And: (emphases mine)

LOPEZ: Whenever I write about Catholics and abortion, I am immediately asked, “What about war? What about the death penalty?” What about them? Can a Catholic vote for Senator “Surge”? We have killed people in Iraq, after all.

ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT: I’ve written and spoken against the death penalty for more than 30 years. And along with most other American bishops, I opposed our intervention in Iraq. But these issues are different in kind, not merely degree, from the violence involved in abortion. Anyone rooted in Scripture and Catholic tradition will understand the distinction if he or she reasons honestly. Genocide, euthanasia, abortion, and deliberately targeting civilians in war — these things are always grievously wrong. But in Catholic thought, war and capital punishment can be morally legitimate under certain carefully defined circumstances. Abortion is never morally justified. 

Last: 

LOPEZ: If there is one single point that every Catholic reader of your book could take away from it and pray about and make their own, what would you pray it be?

ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT: Again: Don’t lie. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to back it up with proof. Our faith needs to be the North Star of our lives. Our behavior needs to match our words, including in our political choices.

Here’s the Archbishop’s interview with radio host (and Catholic) Hugh Hewitt

And, of course, here’s the book: Render Unto Caesar. 

Yes, it has been a million years, but–for my posting here, I like to be “inspired”, so to speak, and not just post dribble. So here we go with link-o-rama; specifically, Obama and abortion. 

These first two are about Obama’s performance on Sat/Sunday night with Pastor Rick Warren:

Bill Krystol in the NYT

Michael Gershon in the WaPo

My comment: Anyone who says that abortion decisions, or when life begins, is “above his pay grade”, then I don’t want him making life and death decisions. Besides, if you aren’t sure, shouldn’t you err on the side of life? 

Next, Rick Lowry of NR on Obama and “born-alive” abortions

Carl Anderson on Catholics and voting (NRO) 

This is worth some quoting: 

Building a culture of life and a civilization of love means truly transforming our politics. In this process, dealing with the abortion rights issue is fundamental. While there are certainly many issues that are important to Catholic voters, none has caused more damage to our society than this taking of innocent human life.

It is time that Catholics demand real change — and real change means the end of Roe v. Wade. Real change is possible, but it is difficult. First, the political manipulation of Catholic voters by abortion-rights advocates needs to end. It is time to stop creating excuses for voting for pro-abortion-rights politicians. It is time that Catholics shine a bright line of separation between themselves and all those politicians who defend the abortion-rights regime of Roe v. Wade.

During the Pope’s visit to the United States in April, he urged those gathered at Yankee Stadium to protect “the unborn child in the mother’s womb.” That statement drew the loudest, longest applause of his trip. In this election year, when the Catholic vote is crucial, politicians who choose to ignore that thunderous response do so at their peril.

Imagine the effect if this year millions of Catholic voters simply say “no” — no to every candidate for every office of every political party who supports abortion rights. 

It’s time Catholics stop accommodating pro-abortion-rights politicians and it’s time to start demanding that they accommodate us. This is the only decision that offers the real chance for real change, because no candidate or political party can withstand the loss of millions of Catholic voters in this — or any other — election. In this election, if a Catholic cannot vote for the pro-life candidate, then not voting for that office may be the sincerest expression of faithful citizenship.

This year, Catholic voters have the power to transform politics. As faithful citizens, Catholics can build a new politics — a politics that is not satisfied with the status quo, but one that is dedicated to building up a culture of life. If they stand together and demand better from politicians, Catholics can transform politics, and that would be real change. 

And then, one from the “I can’t believe this makes sense” pile: 

Pat Buchannan

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby’s skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, “comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary.” 

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be “tireless” in keeping legal this “legitimate medical procedure.” 

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying “equal rights for women.” 

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, “The Case Against Barack Obama,” the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the “culture of death.” 

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste. (EMD: emphasis mine) 

 

Obama has a 100% voting record with NARAL. Think about that for a minute. 

Be proud of being Catholic!

But to make up for it, here is a really great Fr. Z post!
Oh, and news at the Bucket, if you’re interested.

Reviewing WDTPRS bullet points
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 9:50 am
Over time I have developed some ideas which guide most of what I post here regarding liturgy, liturgical translation, use of the older form of Mass, etc.

Let’s review some of the aphorisms and basic starting points I use here which are like helpful pegs upon which we can organize our thoughts when talking to people.

Think of a tool shop, where you see pegs on the wall with the shape of the tool that belongs their painted around the beg.

Liturgy is the tip of the spear

There is a reciprocal relationship between how we pray and what we believe. Change our prayer, we change our understanding of doctrine. At the same time, if you believe a certain thing, that will affect how you pray. Our identity begins to shift. The Latin phrase lex orandi lex credendi expresses this… the “law of praying is the law of believing”.

The older Mass exerts a “gravitational pull”

Use the image of gravity or “cross-pollination”, “harmonic resonance”, whatever.

The use of the older form of Mass will exert an influence on the way the newer form of Mass is being celebrated. First, younger priests (and older too) will discover new dimensions to Holy Mass by learning or refreshing the older form. This will change their self perception and how they say Mass. In turn, this will influence how people in the pews see them and understand Holy Mass. Since the Eucharist (Its celebration and the Sacrament Itself) is the “source and summit” of our Christian life, identity, mores, etc., everything about our Church will begin to shift because of these changes of self-perception.

Say The Black Do The Red

The “Black” means the texts written in black ink on the pages of liturgical books. The “Red” means the rubrics which explain the actions to be done.

Our sacred rites have their own interior force and power. Remember that the true Actor in every Mass is the High Priest Jesus Christ. He speak in every word. He acts in every gesture.

By our baptism, we have a share in Christ’s priesthood. Thus, when we united our heart, mind and will with the sacred action, He takes our voices and hands and makes them his own, each according to our proper role. The priest acts as Christ, Head of the Body. The congregation is His Body in union with the Head.

When we simply do what the Church asks and provides in our sacred rites, Christ is more easily discerned, His graces are more easily mediated, His voice and teaching more clearly heard.
We must get ourselves out of the way and simply do what Holy Church asks and offers.

Save The Liturgy Save The World

The Eucharist, its celebration and itself as the extraordinary Sacrament, is the “source and summit of Christian life”.

If we really believe that, then we must also hold that what we do in church, what we believe happens in a church, makes an enormous difference.

Do we believe the consecration really does something? Or, do we believe what is said and how, what the gestures are and the attitude in which they made are entirely indifferent? For example, will a choice not to kneel before Christ the King and Judge truly present in each sacred Host, produce a wider effect?

If you throw a stone, even a pebble, into a pool it produces ripples which expand to its edge. The way we celebrate Mass must create spiritual ripples in the Church and the world.

So does our good or bad reception of Holy Communion.

So must violations of rubrics and irreverence.

Mass is not merely a “teaching moment” or a “celebration of unity” or a “tedious obligation”. Our choice of music, architecture, ceremonies and language affect more than one small congregation in one building. We are interconnected in both our common human nature and in baptism. When we sin we hurt the whole Body of Christ the Church.

If that is true for sin, it must also be true for our liturgical choices. They must also have personal and corporate impact. Any Mass can be offered for the intentions of the living or the dead.

Not even death is an obstacle to the efficacy of Holy Mass. We offer Mass for the living and the dead.

Celebrate Mass well, participate properly – affect the whole world. Celebrate poorly – affect the whole world. This is another reason why we must Say The Black and Do the Red.

Already but not yet
Christ died and rose again. Thus our humanity, taken by Christ into an indestructible bond with His divinity, died, rose and ascended to the Father’s right hand.

Christ’s work is complete. But its fullness has not yet been realized.

In this world, in our Church, in our lives, we are “already” enjoying the first fruits of Christ’s redemptive work. But we have not received the fullness of what Christ has done.

Even the Eucharist is a foretaste of what is promised to us.

But we obscure the promise and place obstacles before what Christ offers us in the Church, in the liturgy, etc., when we places ourselves, our self-centered designs, in the way.

We must get out of Christ’s way, so that His will may be brought to fruition.

We are already “there”, but we still have a long way to go.

The stakes are very high indeed. What we do here is very important.

We are dealing with choices questions of life and death for ourselves and our children.

Ad intra et ad extra
When we consider large questions about the Church and who we are as Catholics, it is useful to make distinctions about who we are in ourselves and who we are in the world.

Catholics, Christians, are both of in the world and yet not part of the world, removed. We are living in a state of “already but not yet”. What we have here in the Church is a foretaste of the world to come.

But it is Christ’s will that Holy Church shape the world.

It is especially the role of Christian Catholic laymen to shape the large world. For this lay people need clergy to do their jobs, according to their vocations, to shape them and their identity, to sanctify, teach and govern them, so that Christ can act through their words and actions in the world.

So we must consider who we are as Catholics, within our Church, as ourselves, in relation with Christ the Lord. This is the ad intra angle. Then we also must consider who we are in the world around us, what our role is in the world we influence. This is the ad extra dimension.

This can be applied, for example, in the liturgical choice we make? What does doing X mean to ourselves as worshiping Catholics? What does it say to the world? When the College of Cardinals meets in conclave to choose a Pope, they must consider the man they choose in light of the Church’s needs in Herself and also how the Church interfaces with the world now and in the future. Ad intra et ad extra. This is not a chronological distinction but rather a logical distinction, helpful merely to get our thinking and planning organized.
Pope Benedict has a “Marshall Plan”

After World War II Europe was devastated. That devastation made it more likely that the enemies of humanity promoting Communism would find a good foothold. Also, Europe was in no position to engage in useful trade. More importantly, people were suffering. So the United States began to help rebuild Europe.

After Vatican II there has been terrible devastation of the Church. This is not so much because of the texts issued by the Council but because of the lack of correct reading of those texts, the ideological designs (sometimes malicious) of some few who had great influence in the Council’s implementation, and a deadly reversal of the logical priority which the Church must be given in the ongoing interchange between the Church and the world.

In short, Catholics have by and large lost their identity because of the general rupture created in nearly every aspect of our experience of worship, education, devotions, etc.

Because Catholics lost their identity, we have little or no influence in the public square. Thus, Catholics are easier targets for bigotry or persecution or simple apathy. We are more easily marginalized from public debate, pushed out of the square and given no voice. Sadly, many “Catholics” then compromise Catholic teaching on faith and morals, violate the Church’s laws, for the sake of gaining influence in the public square. Think of some Catholic politicians and even some clergy.

Pope Benedict’s plan is to reinvigorate Catholic identity from within the Church (ad intra) especially through our liturgical experience so that we can begin to claim our rightful role in the public square (ad extra), precisely as Catholics.

If we don’t know who we are, what we think and believe, can’t explain our position, then what could be possibly have to say to the world around us?

Saying the black and doing the red has a wider influence on the whole world, not just on ourselves in an enclosed Catholic ghetto. Liturgy is therefore our crow bar, the tip of the spear. It is the force which draws everything nearer to Christ.

This is why Summorum Pontificum is so very important. It reaches far beyond the desires of some people for older forms of liturgy.

This is why must have good translations for our vernacular Novus Ordo liturgy as well. The vernacular Novus Ordo is here to stay for the long-term, whatever your desires to the contrary may be.

Therefore, we need to have translations which reflect accurately and beautifully what the prayers really say. They will shape Catholics from within and then Catholics shape the world according to how they pray and believe. The prayers themselves begin to draw all things to Christ.

But I’m back! Sometimes I run into dry spells on this blog. I don’t just want to randomly write things–I want them to have some heft, you know? This isn’t the blog where I just mindlessly spill about my day (although I don’t really do that at the Bucket, either..)…

Anyway, here are some links/thoughts…

This is a great piece from Fr. Z on one of my favorite Saints, St. Gianna Molla. If I was getting confirmed today I would pick her. For those unfamiliar with her story, she was an Italian doctor who was diagnosed with a uterine tumor while pregnant, but she would not have a surgery that would remove it, since it would endanger her child’s life. Instead, St. Gianna gave birth to a healthy baby girl, even though St. Gianna died shortly after. The daughter became a doctor, like her mother.

Also from Fr. Z, the Pope’s address to Young People at Yonkers. This was the only speech of his I was able to hear live while he was in the US (since I do not have cable at my apartment, sigh…I could only watch snippets whilst I was at my parents). This was truly a remarkable speech.

Side note re: music. I can’t believe someone complained about the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” being sung when the Pope was welcomed at the White House.
1) The Pope asked for it!
2) It is said to be one of the Virgin Mary’s favorite hymns (as told by the visionaries at Medjuorgje–it’s on the tape “Sounds of Medjuorgje”, which my dad played over and over in the car when I was a kid).
3) (I think it was) The Army Choir sounds AWESOME when they sing this! When it was sung (twice!) at Reagan’s funeral, I just loved it. They do a fantastic job. Why shouldn’t we sing one of the best songs we have?
4) It’s a true, honest-to-God Americanhymn. Let’s give him the good stuff!

And I have to say, I loved watching GW with the pope. He has had so many Catholics on his advisory boards, working in his administration, etc.–and we can’t forget the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito!

And assorted notes.

From the Corner:

Popes Must Speak Out for Peace [Michael Novak]

That is what popes are intended to do — they are to represent Christ, the Prince of Peace, in a world that is and has always been a maelstrom of passions, conflict, and wars. Popes have sometimes been warlike, but that ill becomes their office, and nearly always causes lasting repugnance.

That is why in 2003 many Americans who believed that the war in Iraq was justified, also believed that it was very good for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war. The pope should not be, and should not even be allowed to seem to be, a proponent of war, especially of a war with so many complex religious tendrils, and with so many centuries of conflicted history. It was right and just for Pope John Paul II to oppose the war.
The role and munus (office, burden, duty) of the presidents of nations are different. Presidents must make a probable judgment about the long-run implications both of inaction and action, and about what in the long run will have been the most creative path for them to have taken. These are excruciating judgments, for they usually involve long-run costs, discouragements, and difficulties. Many of us of a certain age remember the long sacrifices and costs of World War II.

This background is important to grasp, since Pope Benedict XVI will almost certainly judge that he is duty-bound to call for the violence in Iraq to cease. The edge of his words will be felt more sharply here, where he delivers them, than among Al Sadr and his Shia militias, who are now causing so much of the violence in three cities in Iraq. The Shiites militias very much want the Americans will stop fighting, and to depart.

The pope may also continue saying, as he has often in the last year, that the religious freedom and dignity of every person in Iraq must be protected, and minority populations (in this case, one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world) must be especially respected. He may repeat his deep conviction that violence is contrary to the nature of God.

Benedict XVI may also wish the future of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq to flower fully, and to be long-lasting. He may express the hope that these will bear good fruit for justice and human dignity throughout the Middle East, and all around the world.

The pope is not primarily a political player, and yet the cultural and moral power of his words and actions may this week well have long political consequences. On the record, we are entitled to have confidence in Benedict’s bravery, balance of mind, and concern to do his duty.

Fr. Neuhaus in yesterday’s WaPo:

edict is not a showman, as many – intending praise or blame – said his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was. Benedict is a priest and professor who finds himself in the unexpected position of being pastor of a universal church of 1.2 billion people. This visit to America is a pastoral visit, and he will do what good pastors do: teach, encourage, and gently correct where necessary. The best way to understand Benedict is to listen carefully to what he says.

Many who claim to be perplexed by Benedict wonder how the harsh doctrinal “enforcer” under John Paul II can reinvent himself as the benign father of the family of the faithful. (The word “pope” has its origins in “papa.”) No reinvention is necessary. Those of us who have known him for many years, recognize in Benedict the invariably gentle manner of the learned and intellectually curious Joseph Ratzinger. If there is a surprise in these first three years, it is that Ratzinger, who very much wanted to retire to his scholarly pursuits, seems to enjoy being pope.

Key to understanding the man is that he is much more of an Augustinian than a Thomist. Of all the great doctors (i.e. teachers) of the Catholic intellectual tradition, the fifth century St. Augustine and the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas are the great lights by which most schools of thought are defined. To be sure, there are Augustinian Thomists and Thomist Augustinians, and the distinctions often have more to do with sensibility than substance. Put all too roughly, Thomists are devoted to a systematic presentation of unchanging principles of reason, while Augustinians are given to a discursive account of the complexities of mind and heart in pursuit of the right ordering of love to the truth, and ultimately to absolute truth, who is God.

Perhaps the best known words of Augustine are these: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Benedict’s first encyclical (teaching letter) is titled Deus Caritas Est – God is Love – in which Thomas gets one footnote to dozens from Augustine. Benedict recently said at the funeral of a friend, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moral system. Christianity is an encounter, a love story, an event.”

In Benedict’s telling, it is in the first place the story of God’s unqualified love for and commitment to the human project. He speaks frequently of Jesus Christ as “the human face of God.” While the Church says “no” to this and “no” to that, every “no” is in the service of a much greater “yes.” Against a sometimes dry intellectualism or restrictive moralism, Benedict presents the way of Christ as a high adventure of mind and heart toward the transcendental realities of the good, the true, and the beautiful. In sum, Christianity is an invitation to say “yes” to God’s “yes” in Jesus Christ.

This Augustinian pope has a very high estimate of human reason, and in his United Nations address this week I expect he will address the rational grounds for commitment to human rights and the dignity of the human person. Reason was also the centerpiece of his “controversial” lecture at Regensburg University in September, 2006, where he challenged Muslims to recognize that the use of violence in advancing religion is “to act against reason and therefore to act against the nature of God.”

A constant theme of Benedict’s is that, when rightly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science, faith and reason, heart and mind. Theories to the contrary, he contends, are both unreasonable and de-humanizing because they fail to offer an adequate account of the limits, possibilities, and complexities of the human experience. His message is one of prophetic humanism.

This week Benedict will be addressing many issues, both those internal to the Church and those related to the culture and the world. To understand Benedict, listen to what he says, and listen most closely to what he says about what it means to be a human being fully alive. ++++++++++

Father Richard John Neuhaus is editor in chief of First Things, the monthly magazine of religion, culture, and public life.

And, from Newsweek, two opposing stories:
George Weigel
And this.

is yoga.