Jubilation festival

Last night was the second night of the Jubilation/Elizabeth Stuart Choir Festival V, and appearance of the Mary Queen of Peace Chamber Choir, the Little Choir That Could. In the end, we couldn’t, but we gave it our best shot.

It had been pretty stressy going in. The Thurs. rehearsal was a workout; I had throat discomfort the next day. When you’re 1-2 on a part, there’s not much of a lifeline if you fall off the tightrope, you can hear every little imperfection, there were the usual suspects adding stress. Even warming up downstairs, we were changing things like performing pitch (though thankfully, we finally had the notes in hand).

Then upstairs to hear the competition. I’d heard 2 groups on the radio the night before and wasn’t worried, but tonight’s competition was stiffer, alarmingly so. Hudson UCC was pretty damn good… fine blend, dynamic range, diction and rhythm. And I sat there thinking, “We are screwed.”  Their gospel tune rocked pretty hard for a bunch of white folk from the ‘burbs. Processing to the back to that tune seemed a bit too much like a victory lap for me.

Next up was St. Noel Willoughby, in their first competition. They were big – about 70 – and also good, though not as consistent as Hudson, with some blend issues in the men, mushy diction and the occasional intonation lapse. And they HAD enough men, unusually for an OF Catholic choir. And the very able accompaniment of the amazing Eric Charnofsky.

And then it was our turn, and we sang at about 96% of potential. There were a few little lapses, but no disasters, and we were VERY well received by the audience. Praise afterwards, from other choir members, about our diction, our voices, expressivity, and repertoire (especially the Iain Quinn Vidi Aquam, which had been a controversial repertoire choice, particular for the closer. It’s beautiful, but pretty crunchy harmonically, and not at all a “big finish”.) All this we heard from people while we waited for the judges.  Fr. Doug showed up, which meant a lot to me. It is SO important to have the pastor in your corner, if you’re going to do traditional Catholic music.

Finally the judges came out, they got people shushed and cut back from the station, and they brought Robert Page up to read the results and give out the prizes. He was saving the winner for last (they don’t rank anyone else). So they named off yesterday’s choirs, then Hudson, which I somehow didn’t notice. Then #5, Mary Queen of Peace. Oh shit, we didn’t win. Shocked silence in the room as it dawns on St. Noel that if we’re #5, they’re the winner. BIG applause for us, and then of course big applause for St. Noel. After things quieted down, we approached Dave onstage. We’d gotten some amusement from Hudson’s choir motto, because Dave’s motto for us had been, “If you don’t win, you’d better find another choir director to go home with.” So Majersic said, “You SUCK! I’m quitting!” and I said, “OK, Hudson IS closer to home.” He was amused, and was happy with our performance.

I don’t know how the judges judged, and how subjective the process was. In purely objective terms, I thought Hudson was the better choir. But I’m really glad that a Catholic choir won, because most of them suck so badly (when they exist at all). And their repertoire was middle-of-the-road, which is an improvement on so many parishes. We got judged harder because we were obviously professional…but we predicted that going in. We just weren’t professional enough, what with that bass with the breathing issues (that would be me). I don’t feel very bad about being beaten by a choir 10x our size. And I’m not sure how we compared, since what we did was so different from anybody else. Our program was 50% Renaissance, and 50% Latin (not the same 50%), and was radically traditional-Catholic except for the obligatory African-American piece (and the Stainer maybe, though it’s hard to define a setting of John 3:16 as sectarian)  and we were the only group to perform exclusively a cappella. We got to show the world the best of what happens musically at MQoP… which is mainly why we did it.  That, and making some money to pay us with.

There were choirs (at least half) who brought instruments besides piano with them. Do they usually have that in their services? Was it an attempt to curry favor? I don’t know. I was amused by St. Noel’s flute piece though. It’s funny; flutes had never been part of the Catholic church music tradition, and were actively discouraged in Papal documents (which means they WERE used occasionally) — until Vatican II. Now they’re everywhere, the sackbuts and violins of the 21st century. Now, I don’t have a problem with that, as they don’t have those noisy theatrical lascivious associations for me, and the V2 docs are more permissive in that regard. I should have a problem, maybe, as flutes, harps and drums are the primary neo-pagan instruments. I just note that it’s yet another 180 from tradition.

So, it’s over…and there’s planting and composing to do.

The inalienable right of Luigi Taparelli

When I read this, I wrote: “What the FUCK did His Holiness mean?” I’m sure that it’s a sin to have the f-bomb and “His Holiness” in the same sentence. And it’s definitely bad form to swear on somebody else’s Facebook page (sorry, James). But James is a confirmed Democrat and is perfectly comfortable with enforced-charity theocracy, but not enforced-chastity theocracy, and having gone around the barn there several times, I am not as patient as I should be to another Christian and human.

Quoting from a slightly less biased site, I see a less definitive pronouncement than at Think Progress, and I also notice that this is very old news. I haven’t yet found Benedict’s exact words, but it is by no means certain that he actually called health care “an inalienable right”.

But let’s pretend that he did, and that such a position is actual Church doctrine (remembering that not every word that falls from the Pope’s lips is infallible). Here are the problems. First, this “inalienable right” does not exist in a state of nature, so how can it be a natural and inalienable right?. Second, if the right exists, it has been violated through most of the world through most of history. Third, if it is a right which is an obligation of government, it is one that the Church has been silent on through most of its history. Was there ever a Church campaign to get the Holy Roman Emperors to provide free leeches and midwives for their subjects? Did anyone say of Diocletian, “He hates Christians, but at least he supports public nutrition programs”?

Now, this is not to say that medical care is no concern of the Church. Jesus healed people (go thou and do likewise). And the Church has provided medical care through history. It’s only now, in the face of the HHS mandate, that the Church has suggested that it will stop doing what it has done since the beginning. Either that’s a bluff, or the Church is abandoning a core historical practice in the face of politics…which is virtually unheard of. No right exists without a corresponding responsibility, and it can be argued that we are obligated to the corporal acts of mercy. But to make that obligation binding on the non-Christian through force of arms is a very Muslim thing to do. It also seems that the US pre-Obamacare was providing the sort of basic medical care under discussion.  Regardless, it’s very confusing to have to pick the social teaching of the Magisterium  from the social teaching of the Comintern.

Religious liberty rally post-mortem.

We were off Saturday in the pickemup truck, pickemupping a new used washer, and we had on a rebroadcast of Friday’s rally for religious freedom (Cleveland version), which I couldn’t go to without screwing Stephen. Most of what I heard was boilerplate, until I heard somebody talking about how the bishops had been working for “a fair and equitable health care system”, and I turned the radio off in disgust.

Here are my observations:
1. You don’t get to cite natural rights in defense of religious freedom and at the same time advocate the violation of the natural right of man to retain the fruit of his labor. You don’t get to choose between natural rights; you’re all-in, or you’re out, or as Ken Kesey would have put it, you’re on the bus or off the bus. You may disagree whether something is in fact a natural right, but you’d best have a good argument. One that I’ve heard about material wealth is that everything comes from God anyway. True, but irrelevant; if it’s OK for the armed mob called the State to take God’s stuff, then it’s OK for me too, 7th Commandment be damned. I have to support the bishops’ position in this, not only in unity with the Church, but because some liberty is better than no liberty, but the fact remains that a lot of the bishops were in support of “health care reform”, and they really need to apologize publicly for the extent to which they supported socialized medicine and called the Obamacare abortion into being (an act I don’t expect to happen any time before their particular judgement). The simple fact is that one does not merely have a religious right not to pay for sin; one has a right to not pay for anything. There is no moral obligation to provide health insurance, or to buy anything else. there’s a moral obligation to treat your employees right, which in this society could be stretched to include health care, but that’s an obligation between you and God, and the state has no place in it, unless you’re really a theocrat.

2. There were too few people, and I do feel some guilt for not being there. 1000 or so is not peanuts; it’s enough to get you noticed by the press. But it’s not enough to induce fear, which is the only language the government knows. These are the folks who can shrug off hundreds of thousands of pro-life marchers in DC. If all the ambulatory Catholics of Cleveland and half the committed Protestants filled Public Square, and that was repeated at each rally, the powers that be would get nervous.

3. Kresta complained that the press was getting the message of the rally wrong, saying it was about the HHS mandate instead of religious freedom. Reporters report what they see, and based on the signs and the speeches, they were exactly right in what they reported. I’m not sure the message could have been controlled, even by the most organized movement, without draining the blood from it; it’s this specific act that makes folks angry. Yes, the bigger principle has to be articulated (though as I pointed out above, there are big principles that the Church just isn’t going to touch). But abstractions don’t fill the streets.

Somebody invited Barnhardt, and they got what they expected.

LDS or LSD?

Martin McPhillips is going all conspiratorial about Clear Channel’s conservative talkers and the Mormon Church, claiming that it’s because Bain Capital bought out Clear Channel.

I don’t so much know about all that. If Romney is the putative front runner, then it makes sense not to load the liberals guns for them. But the silence also makes that “front-runner” status possible. I have relatives who were RLDS (now Community of Christ) so yes, I may be prejudiced. They all seemed like God-fearing people, which is all I require of a politician. But yes, it’s dodgy, and if Martin wants to beat up on it, that’s his right. There are some distinct issue of doctrinal orthodoxy there; it’s not just the quaint Early American backstory. But I don’t care to have personal religious litmus tests for office, at least not ones that specific.

And in Laurens Co. SC…

…they’re getting serious about Republican orthodoxy and character issues.

This has freaked a lot of folks out. Even our own guys over at Ace of Spades are overreacting. MOst of this stuff I have no problem with: pledge to uphold the platform, or don’t run. The sexual stuff is a little silly, unenforceable, and even un-Christian; if Jesus can forgive your past infidelities, why can’t the Laurens Co. Republicans?

And since there’s no legal way to enforce any of it, one has to ask: WTF were they thinking in pushing this, given that it plays directly into the Progressive libel that Republicans are theocrats?

Lawrence O’Donnell’s war on Americans

I don’t usually care about what media hacks say about religion, but every once in awhile one finds a case that’s so egregious that it demands comment. I heard the audio here on Al Kresta’s program yesterday, and as far as I can see with a web search, Kresta is the only guy who has picked up on this. Lawrence O’Donnell, on his program The Last Word analyzed the question put to Ohio voters, “How much does it matter to you that a candidate share your religious beliefs?” (1. A great deal; 2. Somewhat; 3 Not much 4. Not at all) He claimed first that in Afghanistan, 100% of the population would have chosen “A great deal”, thus equating those who gave that answer with Islamism. He claimed that in a country which valued the separation of church and state, 100% would choose “not at all”, but in fact only 18% “got it right…THAT’s the American ideal…over 80% of Ohio Republicans registered varying degrees of agreement with the Taliban on this one.”  Then he demonstrated that those who answered “not much” “weren’t good enough”, by changing the question to “voting on racial identity.”  Then he piled on the media for not understanding that the results were “utterly scandalous”, that the media ignored the “religious bigotry” of Ohio voters, and criticized the religious pandering of candidates, implying through a clip from “The West Wing” that it’s “the easiest lie to tell.”

The thing that most shocked me was the utter contempt O’Donnell expressed for something like 40% of the electorate. Granted, virtually none of those people were watching his show; why should they, given that they would be insulted and belittled? MSNBC has become a boutique station for progressives, a bigger slicker Current TV, and they wonder why Fox gets the ratings. Do the media pander to viewers by asking candidates questions about their religion? Sure, if by “pander” you mean “tell viewers what they’re interested in”. TV is a business, not a government educational establishment.

I would have put myself in the “somewhat” category. It’s important to me that a politician fear God. because most don’t fear men too much, and somebody has to keep them in line.  Beyond that, I’m not too persnickety. All things being equal, I’d vote for one of the Catholic candidates…but all things are never equal. Both of those guys are way too eager to use the power of government. In addition, Mr. Gingrich has a history of generating ideas without the foresight to see where they will go (e.g., the individual mandate for healthcare). As for his love life, the only thing I have over Newt is that I never left somebody for somebody else, and I don’t think that cuts much ice with God.  He has presumably repented and been forgiven, and if God can do it, so can I. Mr. Paul received my vote, because I agree with his political philosophy, and he is a man of demonstrated (if imperfect) character, and his Protestantism is sufficient. Mr. Romney is of course a Damned Heretic, but his faith is also sufficient for me, and it’s probably a good thing for religious liberty to have a President whose spiritual ancestors were martyred for their beliefs. As for Mr. Obama, while he has done a minimal Christian public confession, I am not convinced that Jeremiah Wright’s church meets my criteria for religion, and his non-attendence as President leads me to wonder whether God is a factor in his life.

The race thing is even more of a hoot.  I will freely admit that, all things being equal, I am “somewhat” more likely to vote for the white guy.  But there’s that “all things” caveat again. I’d vote in a heartbeat for Walter Williams over Barack Obama, even though genetically the mulatto Obama “looks like me” more. I would have considered a vote for Herman Cain. The problem here is that O’Donnell thinks it’s a problem. Last time out, all things were not equal; many black people and not a few whites voted for Obama because he was black…yet somehow, that’s not racist.  And people vote for candidates for all kinds of stupid reasons, conscious and unconscious: physical looks, the sound of the voice, their spouse. But mostly, people do a pretty good job overall of prioritizing their responses to various aspects of the candidate. If I base .01% of a decision on a candidate on whether he looks like me, am I a racist? Apparently the hicks in Ohio think this is American Idol or something, that they’re going to vote based on what Jayzuss tells them while they’re handling snakes. That doesn’t describe any Republican I know, but then I doubt O’Donnell knows any Republicans. And after this, I doubt there are many Republicans who would want to know him.

Barnhardt, Dolan, schism

Ann Barnhardt had another conniption fit, this time over Timothy Dolan. Now, I agree with Ann about the general emasculation of the Church. I don’t get as dramatic about it as she does…sometimes she gives the impression that if she actually met the priest of her dreams, built like Carpenter Jesus driving teh gayz and heretics out with a whip, she’d spread ‘em like a randy Randian heroine…which would be embarrassing for both parties I’m sure, not to mention a mortal sin. I figure that in this culture, even to become a priest requires quite a bit of fortitude, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt when possible. Here’s one doing it right. And here are some folks who aren’t.

Likewise, “barefooted lesbian wannabe-witch-priestess does a pagan dance on the altar with a bowl of incense” makes a lot of assumptions about intent. Yes, that’s what it looks like, and yes, that’s not a woman’s job or physical place, but you don’t know. [UPDATE: more info submitted...and "4 directions" and "Zen meditation" = not Catholic, period. If it looks like a priestess, and calls quarters like a priestess... but if they just spent umpteen dollars to create sacred space, why is somebody doing it the low-rent way?]. Likewise, I have no trouble with the notion of a GLBT ministry; they’ve got a problem, and they should be ministered to. Realistically, I know it’s quite likely that said ministry isn’t offering aids on how to be celibate or deal with same-sex attraction. In that case, the problem is heresy. But that’s always the problem. There they are singing the hideous “All are welcome” (instead of the Introit, no doubt…what IS the Introit for the re-dedication of a church?). The liturgy is weak, and the rest follows from that, particularly the emasculation. In the two Extraordinary Form parishes I’ve sung in, men outnumber women in the Schola, while in Ordinary Form parishes, you practically have to bribe men to sing (as I’m being bribed.). Now, the problem with heresy is that it needs to be fought with catechesis and liturgy. You can’t just assume that people are heretics by looking at them, and you can’t throw them out for being heretics; if we did that, any more, there’d be no Church. You have to keep the poison from spreading, and correct the problem (something that the bishops have been most lame about in re Pelosi, Sebelius, et al). But unlike a blogger, a bishop can’t go off half-cocked and make assumptions about where people are at. That’s not kissing the world’s heinie; that’s making the most charitable assumption about a soul in need.

Then there’s her schism prophecy. Here’s the old part:

There will be, at some point, an informal schism. The Catholic Church in America will quietly acquiesce to the Obama regime in order to keep the money flowing and the 501(c)(3) slavery provision intact, and will thus cease to be Catholic. The TRUE Church will then be cut off from the mainstream and go underground. This cleavage will almost perfectly align with the Order of the Mass. The Novus Ordo “new Mass” parishes will surrender to the Obama regime because the Novus Ordo Mass was an invention and a tactical maneuver by the Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators in the 1960s. The Traditional Latin Mass parishes, and those priests, religious and laity who pray the Latin Mass will remain faithful to Our Lord, will go underground, and will eventually be hunted, imprisoned and killed.

This is the latest iteration:

This is why I fear that there will be a quiet schism in the Church, and that it will happen soon. Dolan and his politicking bovine excrement is going to lead the Church in the United States off the edge of the cliff in the name of “compromise” and “tolerant dialog”, and in doing so will render the Church no longer in union with the Chair of Peter, and thus no longer Catholic. Once that apostolic break is made, the churches that go with Dolan will no longer have valid Masses and the Eucharist will not be present in those churches. At that point, there will literally only be a few hundred valid Masses celebrated in the entire United States per week. Many people will be many, many hours drive away from the closest Mass. Satan will run wild in the land.

Now, what’s odd about this is that a while back Ann was warning her readers about Donatism. But here she is making a Donatist argument: that churches that roll over and pay for Obamacare will not confect a valid Eucharist. WTF? (“What’s that, Father?”) As long as there’s a valid apostolic succession, the proper words and the proper material, it’s good. Now, I partially buy her argument about informal schism. It takes a certain seriousness about the faith to do Latin Mass, and in my experience, the EF community is more serious about doctrine…which is not necessarily to say that the OF community are bad Catholics, but if push comes to shove, more are likely to roll over. What makes this less likely, and what I think will be the salvation of the faith, is the new Catholic media, which is by and large doctrinally conservative, and which has take on the job that priests don’t want to do: catechesis. You’ve got folks watching EWTN and listening to Catholic radio, and reading the Catholic blogosphere (and it might just be my sources, but I seldom come across a liberal Catholic blog) … and what they’re seeing is that their priests need some encouragement, so they’re doing the encouraging (even when it means dropping a dime to the Bishop).

There have been times in the Church’s history where survival of the Magisterium was very tenuous. In the early days, being elected Pope was equivalent to a death sentence. Then you had the Babylonian Captivity of the late-14th century, where at one point there were THREE rival Popes. Now, are you sure that all the Ts were crossed in your priest’s line of apostolic succession?  Or do you assume that whatever needed fixed got fixed? For that matter, if Europe turned on Christianity, it could well be that the Bishop of Rome was no longer the Pope (because a bishop would no longer be allowed to LIVE in Rome). The Church and its Magisterium will continue, somewhere, in the jungles of Africa if need be. It’s altogether possible that someday we’ll look at slacker priests and choirs singing David Haas, and think of “the good old days” when there actually were priests and music. And with that bit of conjecture, I’d like to steal Ann’s prayer:

Dear God,
Please, please, please let Jeffrey Quick be totally and completely wrong and make him eat crow by the bucketful every day for the rest of his life.
Amen.

UPDATE 2/22. Looking at her latest, I’ve decided that Barnhardt’s intellectual blind spot is her absolutism. She posts a homily by Fr. Sammie L Maletta Jr. about the HHS mandate, and then says, “He starts out pretty well, gets his hellfire and brimstone on a little – which is good. But then at the very, very end, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he JUST. DOESN’T. GET. IT. The man is totally, completely and thoroughly whipped.” What constitutes “whipped”? Saying, “Obama, let us be Catholics!” She’s right, of course, that there’s no “let” about it; her point about always being free to do God’s will is solid. But…this guy did a whole homily! Most of us just got the reading of the bishop’s letter. He faced the strong possibility of being kicked around by his congregants. Do the times demand more? Surely. Is this guy actually ahead of the curve? From what I’ve heard and seen, I suspect so. But Ann is very “He who is not for me is against me,” (MAtt. 12:30) and I don’t think she has the rank to make such a statement.

To my lady friends, re the Issa hearing

You’ve been punked by the Huffington Post and Planned Parenthood.

They showed you a picture of an all-male panel. That panel was all clergy, of various faiths…which, for various doctrinal and historical reasons, is a male-heavy profession. There was a second panel, after the Democrats walked out, which contained 2 women, one of whom was a doctor.

Still, you say, how do men have a right to tell me whether I can use birth control? Well, they weren’t discussing birth control; they were discussing freedom of conscience. Nobody is talking about restricting access to contraception. It’s an absolute non-starter, politically. If there were enough women interested in making contraception illegal to do so, they wouldn’t be using it, and thus there wouldn’t be an issue worth making laws about. And single men aren’t going to get behind such a law, because contraception makes it possible for them to use you (and vice-versa). Not to mention that there’s a mess of caselaw in the way, and such an attempt would be swatted down faster than you can say Griswold v. Connecticut. However, lying and saying it’s about your rights was a good way to fire up the base, wasn’t it?

Me, I’m pro-choice on everything short of murder. It is your body, after all, so it’s up to you to decide what to put in it: raw milk, cocaine, hormone pills, penises, tobacco, food supplements, Oreos deep-fried in peroxidized fat…it’s all fine by me. I’m even a squish about things like the IUD and the morning after pill that are technically abortifacients but do their thing at or near the time of conception. I wouldn’t use them, but I’m not into your business enough to say that you can’t.

But I’m a little mystified by this notion that you have a “right” to free contraception, and that if you can’t get it free, your rights are being violated. How did you ever survive that violation of rights over the past umpteen millennia?  Yes, you have a natural right to pick leaves off the contraception bush and eat them. (Apparently the ancient Greeks had such a bush, which is now extinct.) But you don’t have a natural right to force me to be a contraception-bush farmer. I’m a 2nd-Amendment fundamentalist; does that mean I have a right to free ammunition, or that I have a right to force Mennonites and other pacifists to buy it for me? Of course not!

And I also don’t understand why (actually I do understand why, but it’s not an explanation you’ll accept) it’s the Catholics who have to finance other peoples’ sins. Where is the outrage over the Amish and Christian Science exemptions in Obamacare? Why is nobody outraged over the Amish not having to pay Social Security tax if they work for other Amish? They might work for English later, or change their minds and take the dole…it’s patently unfair. How come they have their own schools? What about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their exemptions. Why is it that a Wiccan coven can run a church in a residential neighborhood in violation of zoning laws? Why are you so wrapped up in the plight of a few people who can buy their own birth control or quit working for a Catholic employer? It’s not like we’re draftees in our employment, though the current job market makes it seem so at times.

I’m told that the personal is political, or the political is personal, or however it goes. So, ladies… since I and folks like me are the people who fund Catholic institutions…tell me, why must I buy you an abortion? Don’t deal in generalities; get specific. Better still, come to my place and take my stuff and sell it to buy abortions for poor women;  put your bodies where your mouths are.

ADDENDUM: More details on the circus.

“Holy Love”? Hmm, maybe not.

During this time, Maureen’s husband, Paul Sweeney, was skeptical about the locutions. He was an active parishioner at St. Brendan’s Church and had attended many of the group’s early meetings. Although he was a devout Catholic, he had no interest in becoming more involved with Maureen’s alleged locutions. To resolve this problem, the Blessed Mother prompted one of the group’s members to deliver a message to Donald Kyle, a former police officer, requesting him to join the ministry.

By the early 1990s, Maureen was spending more time with Don Kyle than she was with her husband. After asking Don to accompany her on a trip to Florida, Maureen found herself inseparable from his side. Soon after their trip to Florida in the summer of 1993, Maureen moved out of the house and filed for separation. Several months later, Paul filed for a divorce, which was granted in May 1995. Don and Maureen were eventually married in February 1997.

Hmmm, the “BVM” pimping a new husband for somebody? That’s enough for me. I’ll bet it was enough for Bp. Lennon too.

Kresta v. Rahe, 2012

Al Kresta was fulminating about this article (and another similar one) on his show this afternoon, which suggested that the American bishops got what they deserved with the HHS mandate mess. He was carried away with it enough that I kept clicking the radio off and then back on. I’m going to take his points in no particular order.

1. Kresta says that government was not a result of the Fall. Huh? Yes, man had dominion over the animals, and God had a one-law government in Eden. But perfected man has no need of government, as he won’t violate his neighbor’s rights, and he will help his neighbor. Under King Jesus, our wills will be aligned with God’s; is it government when everyone is doing what the ruler wants anyway? Now, that the Fall made government necessary does not make government a bad thing; far from it. But governments are run by fallen people. So, for that matter, is the Church. But the State does not have the Magisterium.

2. Kresta says “It’s the wrong time” to criticize the bishops. OK, let’s give credit where credit is due. The quality is risen in the past 10 years or so, and the response of the bishops to the HHS mandate has been nothing short of magnificent. I’ve got their backs on the battlefield. But… this is an act of repentance, and while they’re now on the straight and narrow, it is still legitimate to suggest that we got here through specific erroneous beliefs. That “we” applies to the laity as well as the bishops, but I would suggest that the reason the bishops are finding backbone is that the laity is learning the faith through lay evangelization, and are insisting they act like bishops and priests. EWTN and the blogosphere are doing the clergy’s job for them, and that’s not right, but better that than that the job not be done at all, or that “Catholicism” be defined by that well-known devout Catholic, Nancy Pelosi. Yes, the bishops opposed Obamacare as passed. But they supported healthcare overhaul, and did so in a way that led directly to this.

Here’s the problem: a good end can not be achieved by bad means. Per CCC 1903: “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.” How can governments be said to act for the common good when half of all citizens contribute nothing to that government? How can a state be morally licit when it takes wealth from some at gunpoint to give to others, whether they be crony capitalists or the voting poor? What empowers a government to perform acts which would be clearly sinful if performed by any other group of people? How is human dignity served by the financial enslavement of generations not yet born; where is the concern for the unborn at budget time?

The rot goes back to Luigi Tapanelli, who invented the nonsensical term “social justice”. (“Society” is not a moral actor, so how can it be just or injust?) The events of 1848 were much like the events of 1968, and in both cases, the Church tried to accomodate the Zeitgeist. Rahe calls out Cardinal Bernardin and his “seamless garment” (The body is a seamless garment too, but note Matt. 18:8.). I don’t see it at all as an attack on “the bishops” as “these guys sitting in the chairs right now.” but rather as a whole history of failure to act, with a few exceptions (like shutting up Fr. Coughlin?) Indeed, Rahe’s piece ends on a positive note; it’s very possible that bishops will soon “get” personal freedom again. But it won’t happen unless we talk about principles.