In today’s Enquirer (article by Dan Horn)–my emphases and comments.

Catholics stand together during Sunday Mass to recite the “Profession of Faith,” a creed that defines precisely what it is that makes them Catholic.

“We believe in God … We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ … We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

The prayer covers a lot of ground, from God’s creation of the Earth to Christ’s birth and crucifixion to the promise of life in heaven. Most churchgoing Catholics memorized the words as children and consider the creed a statement that unites them in a common belief.

And yet, when they walk out of church at the end of Mass, they still find plenty about their faith to argue about.

The arguments have been passionate in recent weeks as Cincinnati’s Catholics debated Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk’s decision to punish Sister Louise Akers for publicly supporting the ordination of women priests.

Pilarczyk told Akers she could not teach in archdiocesan schools until she renounced her stance on the issue. A week after she refused, a parish priest in Westwood dismissed a volunteer religion teacher, Carol Egner, for writing a letter to The Enquirer supporting Akers and her position on women priests.

The decision to punish the teachers not only rekindled debate over the ordination of women, but also highlighted a long-running tug-of-war between traditionalists and progressives over the future of the Catholic Church.

“What’s happening with Akers is not an isolated case,” said John Allen, an author and columnist who covers the Vatican for the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly newspaper. “It’s a small piece of a much bigger picture.”

The struggle within the church has intensified in the past few years as conservative Catholics, energized by the appointment of Pope Benedict XVI, pushed for stricter adherence to church teaching. They have praised a Vatican investigation of women’s religious orders, welcomed a return to traditions such as the granting of indulgences and cheered Pope Benedict’s declaration that Catholics must “not seek to adapt the faith to the fashions of the age.”

They also supported Pilarczyk’s decision to get tough with Akers over the ordination of women, which some consider a vestige of a liberal theology that took hold in the 1960s and 1970s after the Second Vatican Council.

The council, also known as Vatican II, launched reforms that some theologians now say were misinterpreted as an invitation to change the central teachings of the faith to better mesh with the changing secular world.

“Vatican II wasn’t intended to set off a liturgical civil war, but that’s what we got,” said Rich Leonardi, a Cincinnatian who writes the conservative Catholic blog Ten Reasons. “There was a tendency to think the church should just go with the flow, to move with the world rather than to move the world.

“That ship has sailed. There’s no intensity around that movement any more.”

Catholics who favor reform dispute Leonardi’s take on their views, saying they remain active and committed to changing their church from within. They acknowledge, however, that they face more challenges today than they did just a few decades ago.

“I do think there seems to be a trend among bishops around the country to get much more hard-line about women’s issues,” said Christine Schenk, director of FutureChurch, which favors a “discussion” about women’s ordination but has not endorsed the idea.

“It’s a mystery to me, but talking about women’s equality in the church is threatening at some level.” (Oh. Puh-leaze. Genesis doesn’t say “male and female he created equally” It says, “Male and female he created them.” Each gender is unique, and each has unique gifts. They are not interchangable things. For more–read the Theology of the Body. Even a brief summary will suffice.)

Dealing with dissent

Conservatives have gained momentum in the past decade among the laity, in seminaries and in the church hierarchy. They have taken to blogs, TV and radio and have become more active in church affairs and in secular politics.

That was evident earlier this year when bishops and thousands of lay Catholics publicly opposed President Barack Obama’s speech at the University of Notre Dame on grounds that his pro-choice stance conflicted with Catholic teachings.

“What we’re living through right now is a kind of reaction against what was seen as an excessively liberal period,” Allen said.

From the outside looking in, divisions within the church are not all that visible because polls show America’s 70 million Catholics tend to hold views similar to those of the general population.

But those polls also show that Catholics who describe themselves as “orthodox” or who attend Mass regularly are more closely aligned with their church’s teachings on issues such as abortion, homosexuality and embryonic stem cell research.

These are the Catholics who have embraced what some call the “Catholic identity movement,” which calls for closer adherence to the traditions and teachings that separate Catholics from other Christian faiths.

“A watered down Catholicism that asks nothing of its members shouldn’t expect to get anything in return,” Leonardi said.

One of those teachings is the all-male priesthood. While not referenced in Scripture, it is based on sacred tradition passed down over 2,000 years and is specifically referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In other words, the male priesthood is non-negotiable.

“The church has no authority to ordain women,” said archdiocese spokesman Dan Andriacco. “It is not an open question.”

He said the discipline imposed on Akers and Egner is not part of a wider crackdown on dissent, as some fear, and the archdiocese has no interest in rooting out rank-and-file Catholics who don’t agree with everything the church does, including the 60 percent who tell pollsters they support ordaining women.

“There is no witch hunt,” said the Rev. Earl Fernandes, dean of Mount St. Mary’s Seminary. “We’re a big church. We try to help each person to grow in faith.”

‘Spirit of openness’

Dissent is nothing new for Catholics. The church’s positions on birth control, celibacy for priests, the Latin Mass and a host of other traditions and teachings have been argued for decades, or even centuries.

Priests and bishops know not every Catholic will adhere to every teaching of the faith, and most say there is room on some issues for healthy debate, or at least for disagreement.

“We want to have a fundamental spirit of openness,” Fernandes said.

Church officials say Akers and Egner crossed a line because they are teachers who publicly challenged church teachings. Their argument goes something like this: Religion is about belief, and those who believe women should be priests don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches. They believe what Methodists teach. (Ha!)

That doesn’t mean they have to quit the church, but it does mean they aren’t permitted to teach. (Exactement!)

“We want our teachers to be authentic,” Fernandes said. “We want our teachers to believe what they teach.”

Both Akers and Egner say they would not express their views on women’s ordination in their classes, and they consider themselves loyal to their church and to the core beliefs recited every Sunday in the Profession of Faith.

They say there should be room in their church for them to do the work they love, even if they disagree on the ordination of women.

“Catholics have a very long tradition of various beliefs and the ability to talk about them,” Egner said. “Sometimes things change.”

Surrender is hard.

OK , we knew that. If anything about Christianity was easy, then a lot more people would be good Christians–myself included.

Today at Mass we heard the end of John Chapter 6, which we’ve been reading all month, also known as the “Bread of Life” discourse, where Jesus gives us great Eucharistic theology–”My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”.

John tells us that many of the disciples stopped following Jesus after this–the saying was “too hard”. But when Jesus spoke to the twelve–”Do you also wish to go away?” Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”

Peter is an interesting apostle. He can be brilliant–here, and when he says that Jesus is “The Christ, the son of God”, in Matthew, –and he can also be breathtakingly stupid–telling Jesus not to go to Jerusalem, “thinking as men think”–or just way out of it–wanting to build the booths for Moses, Jesus and Elijah on Tabor.

But the thing I like about Peter is that he falls, and then gets back up and does it all again. He denies Jesus three times, but then goes on to be Pope, and to be crucified. Peter is entirely, wonderfully human.

When I think about surrender, I think about what Peter said in today’s gospel. Where else can we go? If you are Christian, you believe that Jesus is “The way, the truth, and the life.” That’s it. No other way. Only Jesus can take us to the Father. So we follow him, because he has the words that Peter was talking about–the ones of life.

But to really follow him, we have to give everything, and follow him. Sell it all, leave family and friends, and, most importantly, leave behind self.

But we like ourselves, don’t we? For the most part, anyway. There are things I don’t like about myself, but for the most part, I like how God made me. And if God made me this way, then why do I have to give it up, to follow him?

Again, we get Peter and Jesus:

[Jesus] said to [Peter] the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.  Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” (Jn. 21:17-18, NAB)

Where you do not want to go.

That’s the thing. It’s not that we mind “dying” to self, if that means giving up those irritating habits, and becoming a “nicer” Person, someone who “does what Jesus would do.”

But dying to self means just that–dying to it. In Peter’s case, he would be led to a cross, just like Jesus.

And I think we know what surrender means. And we don’t want to go.

It’s hard to surrender. I haven’t done it. I might think I’ve done it, but then someone reminds me that everything comes in God’s time, and God is in control, and then I sit there going, “yup. I’m dumb.”

He knows everything. And I know just about nothing. But I always think I know better. Just like Peter.

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?

For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.

Can be found here.

More thoughts later, after I’ve read it.

Today is the annniversary of the first apparition. 

If you’re new to Fatima, go here. 

If you’ve got young children (or want a good movie about it), this is what you want. (Note: The vision of Hell might scare very young kids.)

And, of course, there is the Warner Brothers (WARNER BROTHERS!) classic film, “Our Lady of Fatima”, which my family loves. (If you can believe it—this link takes you to the 1952 New York Times Review. The New York Times!) 

Our Lady of Fatima was a source of a lot of devotion in my family. Jacinta, the youngest visionary, is my sister’s patron saint; for my first communion I received a statue of Our Lady of Fatima, surrounded by Lucia, Francesco and Jacinta. Fatima is also probably the only place my dad would actually get a passport to visit. 

And don’t forget–John Paul the Great credits Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life after the 1982 assassination attempt. 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

What do you mean self-control is something we should practice? (My emphases)

Pope Benedict XVI: condoms make Aids crisis worse

Pope Benedict XVI said that the distribution of condoms ‘aggravates’ the Aids crisis, as he embarked on his first trip to Africa.

By Nick Squires in Rome
Last Updated: 7:58PM GMT 17 Mar 2009

Pope Benedict XVI gestures from the airplane before leaving from Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport for a trip to Africa that includes stops in Cameroon and Angola Photo: AP

While en route from Rome to his first stop, Cameroon, the Pope said that the condition was “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”

Speaking on board his official plane, the pontiff insisted that the Roman Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against Aids, advocating sexual abstinence and fidelity within marriage as a way of fighting the disease.

During the seven-day visit, which will take Benedict to Cameroon and Angola, he said he would address the continent’s “grave problems and painful wounds”.

Africa is crucial to the Vatican because of its growing number of believers. Within 15 years around a sixth of the world’s Catholics, or 230 million people, are expected to be African. The continent also produces a large proportion of the world’s Catholic priests.

But it also presents huge challenges for the Pope, including tension with Islam in some countries, competition from evangelical churches and opposition to the Church’s ban on condoms in countries where Aids is rife.

Pope Benedict, who has mostly confined his travels to Western countries during his four-year papacy, will first visit Cameroon during his week-long trip, and then Angola.

His only previous visit to Africa was to Kinshasa in 1987 when he was a cardinal.

He will appeal to rich countries which are grappling with the global financial crisis not to forget Africa’s acute needs.

An estimated 800 million Africans suffer from chronic hunger and the crisis is already affecting the level of remittances sent from abroad as African immigrants in Europe lose their jobs.

Although he will only visit two of Africa’s more than 50 countries, he hopes that his visit will “embrace the entire African continent”, he said on Sunday during his weekly blessing in St Peter’s Square in Rome.

He referred to Africa’s “ancient cultures and its difficult path of development and reconciliation, its grave problems, painful wounds and enormous potential and hopes”,

He is expected to meet African bishops, Muslim imams, politicians and women’s advocacy groups.

The six-day tour will be the 81-year-old pontiff’s 11th foreign trip.

He is scheduled to visit Israel and Jordan in May.

(from The Telegraph)

Oh, my goodness. AIDS is not a reason to disband Church doctrine! Whatever will the Pope say next?

1. My Lent has been pretty…uneventful. With the show it’s hard to fit in time for everything. I’m wondering if I can do like some super-charged Lent after the show closes this weekend? I could go to Stations of the Cross this Wednesday, so I think I may do that.
2. For awhile I’ve been feeling a lot of aridity–no desire to pray, no real desire to “be holy”. Not that I’ve become a bad person or anything, but the things of the Spiritual Realm seem to be reduced to sporadic Bible Reading and nighttime prayers. Need to work on this.
3. I really do LIKE Lent. This year just seems–off. But then again, there is a great story about St. Teresa of Avila, who had many great plans for a certain Lent. But she was bedridden for the entire season. I suppose God knows how we can best serve Him, and will use any means to get our attention!
4. Catholic news: This, in Connecticut, is really appalling. S0rry, but lay people don’t get to have this much say in a diocese. Deal with it. And I believe something called the First Amendment makes this totally unconstitutional.
5. Good Lenten reading (when I actually do it): Lent and Easter with JPII and Death on a Friday Afternoon, by Richard John Neuhaus.
6. I did buy, as part of the St. Francis Project, the prayer book “Praying with St. Francis.” I do like it alot and am thinking about using it for evening prayer, instead of my Magnificat. It has morning and evening prayer, plus short articles on St. Francis, prayer in his time, and the role of prayer books. It’s published by Paraclete Press.

The Pope and Nancy Pelosi (h/t–dad)

Pope tells Pelosi: Catholics cannot back abortion

So a lot of the time, when Catholics talk about voting pro-life, they get “well what about War? Because JP II and BXVI were against the Iraq war, etc., etc.” 

First, a quote from the US Bishops: 

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Living the Gospel of Life (1998)–their emphasis: “But being “right’ in such matters [other social issues] can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of the positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community…All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundations.”

 

There are five non-negotiable issues for Catholics when voting: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and human cloning. These are all intrinsically evil and can NEVER be supported in good conscience. 

Note that war is not on that list. The church has a “just war” theory. Good Catholics can disagree with whether or not the Iraq war fits the definition. But the point is that war can sometimes be justified. The five non-negotiable issues above are NEVER justifiable. 

From a WaPo chat today: 

Catholic Bishops: I’m a pro-life Catholic. Obama and Biden’s varying degrees of support for abortion rights is troubling for me. But why in the world are Catholic bishops only issuing press releases and making public statements about the abortion issue?! The Church is against the death penalty when other means of containing prisoners are available, supports treating immigrants with dignity and respect, and two Popes have spoken out against the Iraq War … but there is nothing about any of this from American bishops, who seem to have no problem injecting themselves into the political debate when abortion is the issue. How about the bishops say something about McCain’s divorce or infidelity to his first wife? There’s a commandment about that one, too. Or better yet, maybe they could not use their position in the Church as a launching pad to disseminate their own political ideology!

Shailagh Murray: Well, I’m a Catholic too, and this is certainly a difficult subject these days. We Catholics are just not used to that us vs. them dividing line, especially as it becomes sharper in other demominations. It’s an uncomfortable place for a lot of Catholics and it’s a risky gambit too, when you’re trying to unify millions of people from all walks of life.

(h/t NRO)

What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do
Correcting Pelosi.

An NRO Primary Document

EDITOR’S NOTE: Fr. John De Celles, STL, is an associate pastor at Old St. Mary’s Church in Alexandria, Va. This is his homily for the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Aug. 31, 2008), as prepared for delivery.  In last week’s Gospel we heard Jesus’ words to Peter:  I say to you, you are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But this week we find the incredible thing that happens right after that, as Jesus tells Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.”  How does Peter go from being called the “Rock” of the Church to being compared to “Satan”?  First of all, see how Jesus tells Peter about the keys in response to Peter publicly proclaiming: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But Jesus chastises Peter after Peter spoke to Him in private; Scripture says: “Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him.” The keys relate to Peter’s public proclamation, the rebuke pertains to Peter’s private, personal words to Jesus. Also, we see that Peter’s public proclamation was about a dogma of faith: that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. But his private rebuke was about his personal desire for Jesus’ safety: “God forbid [you be killed in Jerusalem].” And again, when Jesus gives Peter the keys, he blesses Peter for listening to God: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” But when he chastises Peter he says: “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” In all this Jesus teaches us that although many Popes would be less than perfect as individuals He, Christ, would always protect them in the public proclamation of the truths of the Gospel. Because of that all Catholics are bound, by Christ, to follow the definitive teaching of the Popes, And when do not hold ourselves bound by the Pope’s teaching the gates of hell will inevitably prevail against us. Of course this can mean personal disaster: sin. But it can also mean social disaster.  For example, in the year 1839 in a document called “In Supremo,” Pope Gregory XVI reiterated the Church’s ancient teaching against slavery, specifically reproaching those who: dare to …reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples…. as if they were not humans but rather mere animals. Unfortunately, some Catholics, in particular, some American bishops — especially Southernbishops— tried to argue that the doctrine didn’t apply to American slavery, because somehow it was “different.” It seems, caught up in the prevailing attitude of the world around them, these bishops twisted the clear teaching of the popes into something that makes us sick to think of today. They fell into the trap that St. Paul warns against in today’s 2nd reading: Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God.” This, shall we say, confusion among the American bishops of course led the laity to be confused as well. And that confusion led to a terrible social disaster just a few years later, when in 1857, a supposedly “devout Catholic” named Roger Taney, writing as the fifth Chief Justice of the United States, wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court case known as Dred Scott, upholding the institution of slavery in the America. This is what happens when bishops — and priests — fail to clearly teach, or purposefully dissent from the well defined doctrine of the Church, handed on and protected by the office of Peter. The gates of hell prevail in society: slavery, the Civil War, and a 100 more years of racial oppression. But when Peter is heard and obeyed, wonderful things can happen. Almost exactly a century after the Dred Scott case, in 1956, an American Catholic bishop humbly accepted the teaching of the popes, and even in the face of the mockery and violence, refused to conform himself to the world he lived in — the world of racial segregation of the deep South. His name was Francis Rummel, the Archbishop of New Orleans, and what he did was desegregate the Catholic schools of his archdiocese. And when large groups of Catholic lay people continued try to block his efforts, after ample warning, he excommunicated their leaders. Imagine if the American Catholic bishops of the mid-1800s had been as obedient and courageous as Archbishop Rummel in implementing the teaching of Pope Gregory: if they had stood united against slavery. Maybe the Dred Scott case would have been decided the same way, but it probably would have been without Roger Taney’s help.  Now, some say if the Catholic bishops and priests in the South had actively opposed slavery they would been both marginalized and actively persecuted. Maybe. But the Prophet Jeremiah records the same problem in today’s 1st reading: “All the day I am an object of laughter; everyone mocks me.” Even so, he felt compelled to proclaim the truth — and did: “I say to myself, I will not mention him, …But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart…” Some say all southern Catholics would’ve been persecuted, or that southerners would have left the Catholic Church in droves. Maybe. But that sounds a little like Peter, when he “rebuked” Jesus because he was afraid that Jesus might be harmed in Jerusalem. And Jesus told him: “Get behind me Satan.” Didn’t Jesus tells us: Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me…. ? I wish I could say this kind of thing is all behind us, but I can’t. Of course slavery is behind us, but unfortunately, many Catholics now accept an even greater social evil. Because while it’s horrible to take away an innocent person’s freedom, it is clearly even worse to take away an innocent person’s life. And so we face the abomination of the 21st century: abortion. #more# Yet the popes in our time have taught very clearly on this as well: the Church has constantly andinfallibly condemned abortion as a grave evil — a mortal sin. From the first century teaching in the book called the Didache: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”To the 20 th century teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae: by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors ….I declare that direct abortion… always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” Fortunately, virtually all the American bishops see this very clearly. Maybe they don’t all always speak up about it as they might. Still, one wonders if they imitated Archbishop Rummel, acting a bit more forcefully, if there wouldn’t be less confusion among Catholics about this terrible evil. But the bishops are not silent. This last week I counted at least 13 bishops who, in very strong and unambiguous terms, publicly condemned abortion and corrected those who support abortion. Unfortunately, or providentially, their hands were forced. They had to react to the public remarks made by a Catholic Politician,Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, as she publicly defended abortion on “Meet the Press” last Sunday. She argued “over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.” and disingenuously sought to defend herself by twisting the teaching of the greatest theologian in the history of the Church, St. Augustine.  For the record, and summarizing the bishops’ responses: this is a load of bunk. Now, it is true that St. Augustine did wonder when the soul entered the body of the baby, andguessed that that occurred at about 3 months gestation. But 2 things to remember. First, Augustine lived in the 4th century and worked with 4th century biology: he had no clue about the development of the fetus. So he thought the soul entered the baby’s body sometime around the “quickening” — when the mother first feels the baby begin to move. But a careful reading of Augustine shows that he knew he was only guessing and working with limited science, and that if he had today’s science he would have agreed with the clear conclusion of medical science today that the embryo is alive at conception.  Second, even so, Augustine, like all the Fathers, condemned abortion from the first moment of conception, not merely after quickening. It’s true that there was a greater penalty for abortions committed after the quickening, but that was mainly because in those days, before the marvel of ultrasound, the movement of the baby was when there was absolutely certainty that the baby was alive. And with greater certainty comes greater culpability.  Finally, even if there was “a controversy” in the past, which is there was not, there can is nocontroversy today. Again, turn to Peter, and see the absolutely unambiguous language of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae that I quoted earlier, and that Pope Benedict XVI quotes over and over again in his writings: “direct abortion…always constitutes a grave moral disorder.” And consider John Paul’s equally unequivocal words later in that same document: Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … [I]t is therefore never licit to … “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.” In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion. Now, some will want to say that these bishops—and I— are crossing the line from Religion into to politics. But it was the Speaker of the House who started this. The bishops, and I, are not crossing into politics; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine, And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.  But there’s something more than that here. On Sunday, before the whole nation, she claimed to be an “ardent, practicing Catholic.” Imagine if someone came in here and said “I’m a mafia hit man and I’m proud of it.” Or “I deal drugs to little children.” Or “I think black people are animals and it’s okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children’s school.” Are these “ardent practicing Catholics”? No, they are not.  And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. Especially if that person is in a position of great power trying to get others to follow her. Someone, for example, like a Catholic Speaker of the House, or a Catholic candidate for Vice President of the United States, or a Catholic senior Senator who is stands as the leading icon his political party. Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics. But the reason I say all this is not because I want to embarrass them or even correct them — they’re not even here. It’s because of you. Because back in the 1850’s when Catholic bishops, priests, and politicians were either silent or on the wrong side of the slavery debate, they risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Catholic they influenced. I cannot do that, and Iwon’t do that. Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens, Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?  Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems. But some things leave no room for debate. One of these is that it is always gravely evil to enslave human beings as if they were animals. And another is that it is always gravely evil to kill an innocent human life being — particularly the unborn. So, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the American bishops just 10 months before he became Pope Benedict XVI: There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion…. Now, all this is not about bashing a politician, or about politics. And it’s not about telling you how to vote. Its about the truth and the teaching of Christ and his Church. About learning from the terrible mistakes of the past in order not to repeat those mistakes today. It’s about warning you against following those who would lead you to believe that you don’t have to love your neighbor because she’s still in her mother’s womb. It’s about following Christ in perfect union with his Church and his Pope, even when it’s difficult, even when it means picking up your cross.  As we enter more deeply into the mystery of Christ’s Cross and Resurrection in this Holy Mass, let us pray for ourselves, and for one another, and for our leaders in the Church and in public life. That each one of us may never conform ourselves to this age, but may be transformed by the renewal of our minds, always discerning the will of God. That we may be true followers of Christ, and in the most honest sense of the words, “ardent practicing Catholics.”