The broad, sweeping healthcare legislation passed in the United States last year brings with it some long overdue reforms that are very popular. It puts a halt to a number of abuses by insurance companies that are simply unconscionable. It hopes to make comprehensive coverage available to everyone at an affordable cost while maintaining or improving the current level of care. These goals are compatible with Catholic teaching on social justice and should have the support of every Catholic.

HOWEVER, and very unfortunately, it does much more than that. It provides for a massive increase in support for abortions and sets us firmly on the road to socialized medicine. Regardless of any other benefit this law may provide, its support for the grave evil of abortion alone makes it unacceptable to faithful Catholics.

“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

CCC 1759

Further, socialism is contrary to the catholic teaching of social justice. Around 400 AD Saint John Chrysostom (Doctor of the Church) explained this. More recently, so did Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI and Pope John XXIII as I wrote about last year.

At this time, a majority of the states have joined Florida in suing the federal government to block this bad law.

Last month Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula covered recent developments in an article for Human Life International:

Around the world we are engaged in a fight against the totalitarian tendencies of contemporary democracies that stifle the most basic human rights given to man by our Creator. So we have to celebrate the courageous ruling of Judge Henry E. Hudson handed down on Monday December 13th declaring that a pivotal section of the national health care reform law is unconstitutional. The case was brought by the Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, challenging the constitutionality of the law’s mandate requiring individual citizens to purchase health insurance. It is important to see how the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is the linchpin which provides financial viability to the other critical elements of the overall regulatory scheme.

[…]

We have to keep in mind that these legal maneuvers have the purpose of transforming the constitution into an instrument of social change. These changes in the interpretation of the Constitution make it an instrument for the establishment of an unnatural regime that is contrary to the vision of the framers of the Constitution. This is a type of regime that through the constant growth of the power of the government reduces the rights of the states and erodes the space of freedom of the individual members of society. This erosion creates a clear risk that in the future the government might assault the free exercise of the religion, just as it has been constantly assaulting the rights of the unborn and the rights of families for many decades. As the Judge rightly notes, “The unchecked expansion of congressional power to limits suggested by the Minimal Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

We have to understand well that the National Health Care Reform contained in the Affordable Care Act is evil not only because it allows and abets immoral procedures like abortion, but because it is a step towards the establishment of a totalitarian state. A state that will not only allow, but impose all sort of immoral actions like abortion and marriage between persons of the same sex and will launch a persecution against Christians. These actions by totalitarian “democracies” will be a consequence of the materialist ideology that is at their core.

This legal decision shows also the value of prayer. On the day that the Court heard oral arguments in this case, October 18th, the day of the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, Fr. Frank Papa the chaplain of HLI offered Mass for this intention. His prayers were no doubt united with the prayers of many good Christians all over the United States of America.

Read the whole article entitled Stopping Socialized Medicine.

I do not usually “do” the New Year’s resolutions “thing.” If you do, I respect that – but personally I do not see a point in waiting until then. It is, after all, just a holiday celebrating a calendar event! Being introspective and working on what needs fixing should be on-going as conversion itself is.

So many people are into resolutions that by now you may have seen some online lists. They can be interesting because (if for no other reason) they represent what their authors feel society should work on at the individual level.

The most sound advice on that point has been given before!

Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Mark 12:29-31

Jesus breaks this into two parts so that it is clear to us, but if we really understood the first part then the second part would already be apparent. At least at the intellectual level. In practice, we sometimes fail – at least I do – so it is good to be specifically reminded.

To that end, the best resolution list I have seen recently was a piece written by Patrice Fagnant-MacArthur. Instead of suggesting that we loose weight, recycle more or stick to a budget (not bad things of themselves, but not the “big picture”) – Patrice gives practical advice on qualities necessary to fulfill the commandment of loving your neighbor:

Compassion means to suffer with someone – to be with him in his sorrow and to seek to alleviate it as much as it within our means to do so. Who do you know that is suffering – physically, spiritually, emotionally? What can you do to help? Can you offer assistance in some way? Perhaps there is no way to actually remove the source of suffering, but can you spend time with the person? Listen to them? Pray for them?

Kindness is a general goodwill towards others. Do you wish others good things, or do you get jealous when others lives seem to be better than yours? Do you indulge in gossip? Do you treat service people with respect? What about the homeless? Do you greet others with a smile?

Humility is to see ourselves as we are before God. It is to realize that we are totally dependent on God for all the blessings and gifts we have received. It also calls us to serve others. How can you better serve those you come in contact with?

Gentleness, sometimes known as meekness, goes together with kindness and humility. It calls us to be slow to anger. It also means to care about God and others more than we care about ourselves.

Patience means to be willing to wait, whether that be something as simple as waiting in line at the grocery store without complaint, or something more difficult, such as waiting for God to come through on a long time prayer request. How can you be more patient with the difficult situations you encounter in life? How can you make good use of those times when you must wait?

Forgiveness asks us to not hold another’s wrongs against them. We all make mistakes. We want God to forgive us. So, too, must we forgive others, even when it is hard – especially when it is hard. What wrongs are you still holding on to? Who do you need to forgive?

Love means wanting whatever is best for another person, even when it hurts you – it requires us to put other’s needs before our own. How can you better love the people in your life?

A good list of qualities to strive for that even anti-“New Year’s resolution” me can get behind!

Read the whole article Qualities to Work on for the New Year.

The Catholic Church is bigger than ever. In some areas of the world it is growing rapidly. Here in the southern US, the Protestant Bible Belt, we are flourishing.

I mentioned back in June, a project of mine to visit 1 different church per week for daily Mass. Some friends sometimes tag along too (Tony, Daryl, Tom, Joe, Carol, Helen, Gema and my wife). So far I have visited 23 and have 20 more on my schedule, all within driving distance in the Archdiocese of Atlanta. Three things demographically jump out: that is a lot of parishes, they tend to be large, and they are quite new – many built or rebuilt in the last decade or two.

For all of our growth, we know there are Catholics here in Georgia who rarely or never attend Mass or receive the sacraments. We have embarked on a program with the excellent Catholics Come Home.org apostolate to reach out to them.

Way up in Rhode Island, Bishop Thomas Tobin is also reaching out to who he calls “inactive Catholics.”

Did you leave the Church because you disagree with some of the Church’s teachings and practices; or because you found it boring and “didn’t get anything out of it”; or because someone in the Church offended you or disappointed you; or because you just got a little complacent, spiritually lazy, in the fulfillment of your obligations? Let’s look at each of these reasons.

If you left the Church because you disagree with the fundamental teachings of the Church I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to help you. The essential teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals aren’t negotiable – they weren’t made up arbitrarily by human beings but, in fact, were given to us by Christ. They can’t be changed, even if they’re unpopular or difficult to live with. I hope that you’ll take some time to really understand what the Church teaches and why. Sometimes, we find, good folks get bad information and that leads to confusion and then alienation.

If you left the Church because you found it to be boring and “didn’t get anything out of it,” well, I understand. Sometimes, it’s true, leaders of the Church haven’t fed the flock very well – sometimes we haven’t provided sound and challenging teaching and preaching, and sometimes our worship has been banal and bland. Perhaps we haven’t been very kind or welcoming. I apologize for that; we can and should do better.

On the other hand, when you attend Mass it shouldn’t be all about you – the focus is God! You should attend Mass to give, as well as receive – to worship the Lord, to ask forgiveness of your sins, to thank Him for His gifts and to pray for others. And for Catholics the most important reason to attend Mass is to receive the Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, the Bread of Life. You can’t do that anywhere else!

If you left the Church because another member of the Church offended or disappointed you, I’m truly sorry for that offense and in the name of the Church I sincerely apologize. I hope you’ll forgive us and give us another chance. Members of the Church – including priests and bishops – are completely human. Sometimes we say things and do things that are totally unacceptable, even immoral. But let’s face it – we belong to a community of sinners – that’s why we begin every Mass by calling to mind our sins and asking for God’s forgiveness. The virtue of forgiveness is an essential part of the Christian life – we all need to seek and grant forgiveness now and then.

Finally, if you left the Church because of your own spiritual laziness – complacency – I guess the ball’s in your court. I can only encourage you to start over – to think about your relationship with God and try to understand how important the Church is in helping you fulfill your God-given potential and, more importantly, helping you achieve eternal life.

You see, the Church isn’t just another human organization, some sort of social club. We believe that the Church has divine elements – that it was founded by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. You need the Church – you need the teachings of the Church, the life-giving sacraments of the Church, and the support of a community that shares your faith and values. But the Church also needs you – we need the gifts of your time and talent, your faith and commitment. The Church has an awful lot to offer you, but if in fact we’ve been imperfect fulfilling our mission, in serving the Lord and caring for one another, perhaps you can help us to do better.

The whole article is very good. Read it on the Rhode Island Catholic website. Thanks go to Marcel at Aggie Catholics for finding this.

Back here in Georgia, our Catholics Come Home campaign is well under way. There are many videos online that are part of it. Of those, there are testimonials of Catholics from local parishes who have returned home. Here are some moving examples:

In case you have been living under a rock for the last week or so, the mainstream media and blogosphere are abuzz with analysis of what our Holy Father said in a new book Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. In the book, the Pope responds to questions last summer from a German reporter. He spoke of the morality present when a male prostitute chooses to use a condom to protect his partners.

Modeling our public relations strategy on the keystone cops, L’Osservatore Romano excerpted a section out of context and without proper explanation of Catholic doctrine. As the mainstream press jumped on it trumpeting a sea-change in doctrine (to what they wanted the Pope to say), official Catholic PR channels “clarified” in Vatican-speak thus insuring 99.99% of the world would continue to misunderstand. Sigh.

On the other hand, the Holy See is quite amazing and some have commented that he may have designed the whole incident as a teaching moment. That it may be, as the important point is what people eventually learn from this, not the initial fog.

Pope Benedict actually spoke of condom use by homosexual male prostitutes as a first step toward their moralization. He was speaking of the first flicker of a moral conscience in what they are doing as a good thing. He did not endorse use of condoms in general, in special circumstances, or even take the “first step” toward doing so. The mainstream press, of course, reported this very differently.

Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, wrote one of the best explanations in a “guestview” for Reuters:

It is important to note that there are two very serious mistranslations in the Italian version of the Pope’s remarks, upon which many early reports were based, since the embargo was broken by the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. (That’s another story.) First, the German speak of “ein Prostituierter,” which can only be a male prostitute. The normal German word for prostitute is “[eine] Prostituierte,” which is feminine and refers only to a woman. The Italian translation “una prostituta” simply reverses what the Pope says.

Equally problematically, “giustificati” = justified, was used in the Italian translation of “begründete, and arbitrarily resolves the ambiguity one-sidedly.

The Pope responded: “She [the Church] does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality” (italics mine [Fr. Fessio]).

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified.” That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end. Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

But the crucial distinction here is between the “intention” of the male prostitute, viz. avoiding infecting his client, and the act itself, viz. using a condom. Since this distinction has been missed in almost every report I’ve read, it calls for some elaboration.

This distinction, in moral philosophy, is between the object of an act and the intent of an act. If a man steals in order to fornicate, the intent is to fornicate but the object is the act of theft. There is no necessary connection between stealing and fornicating.

In the case of the Pope’s remark, the intent is preventing infection and the object is use of a condom.

Here’s an example of this distinction that parallels what the Pope said. Muggers are using steel pipes to attack people and the injuries are severe. Some muggers use padded pipes to reduce the injuries, while still disabling the victim enough for the mugging. The Pope says that the intention of reducing injury (in the act of mugging) could be a first step toward greater moral responsibility. This would not justify the following headlines: “Pope Approves Padded Pipes for Mugging” “Pope Says Use of Padded Pipes Justified in Some Circumstances,” “Pope Permits Use of Padded Pipes in Some Cases.”

Of course, one may morally use padded pipes in some circumstances, e.g., as insulated pipes so that hot water flowing through them doesn’t cool as fast. And one may use condoms morally in some cases, e.g. as water balloons. But that also would not justify the headline “Pope Approves Condom Use,” though in this case it could be true. But it would be intentionally misleading.

In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been – both before and after the Pope’s statements.

Read the whole article at Reuters.

Prior to the changes implemented in response to Vatican II, the presider at Mass as well as the congregation faced east together, toward the Lord. This is known as “ad orientem,” Latin for “to the east.”

Many may be surprised to learn that nowhere in the Council documents was it even suggested that the priest should be turned away from God and toward the people. To my mind, this changes (at least to some degree) the focus from Him to us. It is some of the over-reaching, not of Vatican II itself (of course!), but of its implementation. I would definitely put this on the list of things to be considered for the “reform of the reform.”

Recently, Father Richard Simon celebrated Mass in the Ordinary Form (a/k/a “Novus Ordo”), but with a change – he did so partly ad orientem. This surprised the by-the-book part of me. I realize that EF (Extraordinary Form – a/k/a the Tridentine Mass, TLM, or the Latin Mass) is properly celebrated this way but I suspected it might be a liturgical abuse to do so with the OF. Not so! Father Simon explains:

I did it as an experiment. I suspect that the Council Fathers of Vatican II never envisioned Mass facing the people. I wanted to know what the Mass of Vatican II would really be like, some English, some Latin, Gregorian chant, unaccompanied singing and a balance of facing toward people when addressing them and facing the altar with them when addressing the Father. I think this is what is called in the rubrics of the Missal when it indicates that the priest should face the people six times during the Mass:

1. When giving the opening greeting (GIRM 124).
2. When giving the invitation to pray at the end of the offertory, “Pray brethren” (GIRM 146).
3. When giving the greeting of peace (GIRM 154).
4. When displaying the Host and Chalice before Communion and saying: “Behold the Lamb of God” (GIRM 157).
5. When inviting the people to pray before the post communion prayer (GIRM 165).
6. When giving the final blessing (Ordo Missae 141).

The fact that these rubrics exist, seems to assume that the priest is facing away from the people at some time during the liturgy.

Very interesting. Father goes on to describe his impressions:

I, however, wish I had not said Mass facing away from the congregation, and not because of the anger directed at me. I am a Catholic priest. I am used to people being angry with me. I wish I had not said Mass in what I believe to be the posture assumed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, because it was one of the most beautiful experiences of my priestly life. You cannot imagine what it was like to say words like “we” and “our Father” and “us” while standing at the head of a congregation that was turned together in a physical expression of unity. No matter how one might argue to the contrary, it is impossible to say “we” while looking at 500 people and not be speaking to them.

The Mass is a prayer addressed to the Father, and despite our best intentions, we clergy address it to the congregation at whom we are looking. You cannot help it. The human face is a powerful thing. Last Saturday night I realized for the first time that I was part of a family of faith directed toward the same heavenly Father. I felt as if I was part of a church at prayer. It was not my job. It was my church. I never realized how very lonely it is to say Mass facing the people. I am up there looking at you. I am not part of you. For 13 or 14 minutes. You weren’t looking at me. We were looking at God.

I love the Tridentine Mass, or as we are supposed to be calling it now, the “extraordinary form.” I think that the Holy Father has been very wise in allowing its revival for those to whom it is meaningful. Its sense of solemnity is very beautiful and enshrines an essential dimension of the mystery of worship. I taught Latin for about 25 years, I understand the complex rituals of the old Mass. They mean a lot to me. Still, I don’t think that we should return to the exclusive use of Latin. I think the Council Fathers were right to simplify the mass.

The Holy Spirit anticipated the difficulties of our times. The simplification of the complex and beautiful gestures of the Tridentine Mass are entirely appropriate for the times we live in. In the same sense, there should be a pastoral balance between the common language and a “sacred language.” People pray best in their own first language. Remember that Latin was the vernacular when the Mass was in Greek. Latin itself was a concession to the popular mind. This being said, we the clergy should admit that we enshrined the liturgical abuses that were at the heart of the rebellion against tradition. We have become stuck in the 1960’s and are unable to look without prejudice at the hemorrhaging of our congregations. We have failed to inspire them with a sense of the sacred and sublime and generations have been lost to the Lord and the Gospel.

Read the whole article at Reverend Know-It-All.

I discovered this through Father Z’s coverage. Margaret Cabaniss over at Crisis Magazine also has some good thoughts on this.

Finally, Father Fabian Duggan wrote a brief, but very good, overview of the symbolism of facing east.