Catholic Exchange Articles

“As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.” ~John 17:19

“Why am I still surprised when things go wrong, when tragedy strikes, or when failure brings me to my knees? Why do I keep thinking earth should be heaven? O Lord, shine your light into my mind. Give me the mind and heart of a pilgrim, a sailor, a missionary. Remind me everyday that this life is a journey, a battle, and a mission. Remind me that with you in my heart I can travel and fight and work with joy and peace, no matter what…”

~An excerpt from Fr. John Bartunek’s “The Better Part”

We know that there is evil in the world. Just look around and see the
state of our country. You won’t miss the marks of poverty caused by
corruption and greed. There’s desperation, lack of education and
extreme destitution. What makes this scenario even worse is the apathy
of those, including ourselves, who are too caught up in their/our own
lives. It seems the plight of the rest of the country is too much of a
burden for us to take on. Or is it because we couldn’t care less
because it’s not something that affects us directly?

An email was once circulated telling a story of how Satan found the
best way to infiltrate humanity. He gave up on blatant temptation
because that was passé (and way too obvious). Instead, he chose
something quite creative. Rather than leading humanity to apparent
evil, he decided to bring too much work into our lives, work that will
make us too busy to spend time with our loved ones, too busy to be of
help to others, too busy to live our own lives, and of course the
clincher, too busy to pray to the Lord.

The sad thing about this is that we do not recognize his evil plans
because we believe that we are busy for noble reasons. But what
happens is that we lose valuable time which we can never take back. We
also lose the all-important connection not just with our families but
especially with the Lord through people who need our help.

If we find ourselves in this trap, it isn’t easy to bail out
especially when we have so many responsibilities riding on our
shoulders. If we take to heart, however, what Jesus has said, “It is
more blessed to give than to receive,” we can channel our business
elsewhere. Think instead of what we can give to our family – time with
them might top their list. Think of what we can give to our neighbors.
Think of what we can give to our country. Then be happy that through
all this giving of ourselves, we have done something special for our
Lord.

The Italian priest St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) was known for his preaching and his popularity with ordinary people. As a young man, he cared for an elderly woman on her deathbed; she constantly pronounced the name “Jesus” with great devotion. Bernardine was profoundly affected, and decided to make the name of Jesus the theme of his own life.

When Siena was struck by a plague, Bernardine nursed the sick until he himself became ill. After recovering, he became a Franciscan monk, and was ordained a priest in 1404. Bernardine spent a dozen years in solitude and prayer, and was then sent forth as a preacher. For many years he traveled on foot throughout Italy, preaching to crowds as large as 30,000 — accomplishing all this with a weak and hoarse voice (though, according to legend, it later miraculously improved because of his devotion to Mary).

Bernardine was especially known for his devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus, and he devised a symbol — IHS (the first three letters of the name Jesus in Greek) — to represent it. As this devotion spread, the symbol began to replace the superstitious signs and symbols of the day. When a manufacturer of playing cards complained that the saint’s preaching against gambling was depriving him of his livelihood, Bernardine told him to start making medallions with the symbol IHS. The man took this advice — and ended up making more money than ever.

Some of Bernardine’s teachings were criticized, and three attempts were made to have the pope discipline him, but the saint’s obvious faith and holiness overcame all opposition. St. Bernardine helped strengthen the Franciscan Order, and he contributed to a great increase of piety among the laity. He died soon after attending the Council of Florence in 1444, and was canonized only six years later.

Lessons

1. As St. Paul stated, “God bestowed upon Jesus the Name that is above every other name” (Philippians 2:9). As St. Bernardine realized, honoring the Holy Name of Jesus is the sign of a true Christian.

2. God will provide for those who, even at financial cost to themselves, seek to do what’s right; St. Bernardine helped the maker of gambling equipment find a better and holier way to make a living.

3. Bernardine followed the advice of St. Francis of Assisi to preach about “vice and virtue, punishment and glory.” His success shows that many people are willing to listen to the proclamation of the truth.

Do you pray with confidence to your heavenly Father? Jesus often taught his disciples by way of illustration or parable.  Here he speaks not in “figures” (the same word used for parables), but in plain speech.  Jesus revealed to them the hidden treasure of the heavenly kingdom and he taught them how to pray to the Father in his name.  Now Jesus opens his heart and speaks in the plainest of language: ”The Father himself loves you!”  How can the disciples be certain of this?  Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, Jesus makes it possible for his disciples to have a new relationship with God as their Father.  No one would have dared to call God his Father before this!  Because of what Jesus has done for us in offering his life for our redemption we now have a new relationship as the adopted children of God.  Paul the Apostles says that “when we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:15- 16). We can boldly approach God as our Father and ask him for the things we need.  In love he bids us to draw near to his throne of grace and mercy.  Do you approach the Father with confidence in his love and with expectant faith in his promise to hear your prayers?

Reflection written by Don Schwager of www.rc.net

“I have told you this in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures but I will tell you clearly about the Father.” ~John 16:25

“I am never alone. You have made sure of that by giving me your friendship. I am sorry for being so closed in on myself at times. I spend most of my day living as if I were alone. In my heart I monologue with myself, while on the outside I bustle and chat. And where are you? I don’t want to relegate you to a few minutes in the morning and a few at night. I want to live in your presence, because I know that’s what you want…”

~An excerpt from Fr. John Bartunek’s “The Better Part”

Peter was born in 1210 in Isernia in the Abruzzi, Italy, the eleventh of twelve children of peasant parents. At the age of 20, he became a hermit on Monte Morrone in the Abruzzi hills. He left his hermitage to study for the priesthood and was ordained in Rome and later became a Benedictine monk. In 1251 he was permitted to return to his hermit’s life in the mountains, but his holiness eventually attracted great crowds. Seeking further solitude, he retired with two companions to Monte Majella, but was persuaded to return to Monte Morrone where he organized the hermits into a community and eventually a monastery with a strict rule. In 1274, he received papal approval of his order, which he called the Celestines.

Peter would have been happy to spend the rest of his life with his religious community in the mountains, but an extraordinary occurrence took place in the history of the Church, and his relatively peaceful life was disrupted, never to be the same again. After the death of Pope Nicholas IV, more than two years passed with the papacy remaining vacant because of political rivalry in the college of cardinals. Peter, 84 years old at this time, reputedly sent the cardinals a message telling them that God was not pleased with the delay and that they must elect a successor quickly or the wrath of God would be upon them. To his horror, the cardinals immediately decided upon the elderly hermit himself.

Despite grave misgivings, Peter, deciding that it must be God’s will, accepted and was consecrated Bishop of Rome in August of 1294, taking the name of Celestine. The results were disastrous because Peter was completely unfit for the office of pope in every respect except for his holiness. He immediately fell prey to the schemes of King Charles II of Naples who took advantage of Peter’s simplicity, otherworldliness, and naiveté. He committed many serious blunders in his short time in office; we do not have detailed records of all of his mistakes because his official acts were annulled by his successor.

Heartbroken and overwhelmed by the burden of the office he had not sought and was incapable of filling, Peter abdicated his office in December 1294. He had been pope for less than five months.

Boniface VIII was immediately elected as pope. Because he feared that the popularity of his predecessor might lead some plotters to attempt to put Peter back on the papal throne and cause a further split in the Church, he ordered Peter to be confined to the castle of Fumone. St. Peter is said to have declared, “I wanted nothing in the world but a cell, and a cell they have given me.”

After nine months of fasting and prayer, closely watched by guards but attended by two of his own religious, he died at the age of 86.

1. Some consider Peter Celestine the most pathetic figure in the history of the papacy, but we should look at his failure as pope as yet another proof of Jesus’ promise to Peter concerning the Church: “The gates of hell will never prevail against it.” No matter how imperfect or incompetent a pope may be, Christ will always protect His bride, the Church.

2. Peter may have failed as a pope, but he certainly cannot be faulted for his love of God and the Church. When the cardinals elected him pope, he was known to have wept at the news, but after prayer felt that this was indeed a call from God to leave behind the monastic community he had spent his life building and nurturing. How many of us would be willing to give up our seemingly established lives to take on a what appears to be an impossible burden? Let us pray to St. Peter Celestine for the grace to do as our Blessed Mother Mary instructs: “Do whatever He tells you.”

Other Saints We Remember Today

St. Prudentiana (160), Virgin

St. Ivo (Yves) (1303), Priest, Patron of lawyers

I’m writing another article for Catholic Digest, this time about how the internet and all related gadgets can help our prayer life (e.g. online breviaries) or hinder it (we spend so much time on the internet surfing  catholic websites that we don’t have time to pray).

I’d love your comments on this. How has living on the “digital continent” helped you? Or does it keep you from prayer at times? If the latter, what is the solution? A digital fast?(how often and  for how long?) Do online prayer aids help give you quality prayer time, or does making prayer one more chunk of time spent  screen-staring leave you feeling something isn’t quite right with it?

Your thoughts please!  I assume permission to publish them, by the way. I’ll use just your first name, or make up a pseudonym for anyone with  usernames that don’t sound like ordinary names. (e.g. Mr.CelticHunkyCoolness, AthanasiusAgainsttheWorld, etc.)

As we wind down the feast of the Ascension of the Lord,( or head toward  it depending on what diocese you live in)  I’ll share my recent digital prayer experience from Thusday evening. I am now using my new ipod touch, rather than the Kindle, for the Liturgy of the Hours. I realized   that my music playlist will keep going while I use other apps, so… I said Evening Prayer II for  Ascension Thursday with the theme music for the 1961 biblical epic King of Kings as a background. This particular piece of music always moves me. It helps me to “see” Jesus better than almost any other piece of music, with the possible exception of Handel’s Messiah. This is a slightly embarrassing admission, because I was trained in classical music, and therefore should have the good  taste to get my religious/emotional highs from the works of Bach, Palestrina, Gregorian chant, etc. But somehow, nothing sends me to the vestibule  of heaven quite as well as this piece of Hollywood bravura. Here’s a bit from YouTube. The music is easier to hear starting around 00:44. The actual movie is somewhat less inspiring to me than the music. But the footage below is appropriate for the feast of the Ascension:

watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gyXeq3gbfXU

You know what’s a huge pain?  Sacrifice.  I mean the real kind, where you have to actually sacrifice something.  Man, I pretty much totally hate it.

See, I like the kind of “sacrifice” that makes me feel…awesome.  You know, like fasting (but only when I’m not pregnant.  Of course.  See?).  Or getting up super early and powering through my day on very little sleep and saying “look what I accomplished!  Go me!”.  Because those things aren’t, and I’m giving myself away here, actually that hard for me to do.  So I can wear my “Check me out with all my awesome sacrifices” t-shirt and strut all over town without actually having to feel very put upon at all.

But then the time comes for me to make some kind of sacrifice for my family or others that actually inconveniences me and BOY HOWDY do I throw a fit.  Usually not in front of my children (anymore.  Thank you Jesus the power of grace) but in my head all day, and then in the general direction of my poor husband and night, yes sirree.

Like right now.  Right now I’m throwing a complete and utter tantrum in the back of my mind.  Because do you know what sucks and irritates me and seems so unfair and makes me wanna throw stuff?  Having only one car.  UGH!  It’s starting to drive me crazy!  4.85 kids, homeschooling, lots of neat field trip opportunities, classes for the girls to sit in on or participate in and we’re stuck at home. And if it weren’t for CCD at church in the evenings during the school year and the incredible generosity of one of my dear friends here (you know who you are!) who’s willing to come and pick up my big ones and let them tag along with her to the above-mentioned fun events, or another friend who let us use her car to take two other kiddos to a pediatrician appointment, I’d have thrown this fit a loooooong time ago.

Because it’s a sacrifice that I don’t like.  It’s the kind of sacrifice that’s actually, like, a sacrifice.  Have I mentioned how much I totally hate doing things that don’t make me feel awesome?  And see, I know there are so many families who also have just one vehicle.  Or worse, zero vehicles.  There are so many families with one or zero vehicles who don’t have the kind of supportive, generous friends that I have.  And those people might not have beautiful land to play on or animals for their kids to take care of or a gorgeous garden to tend, either.  And they’ve probably been managing it a lot longer than I have.  But because I’m kind of a jerk, I’m throwing a fit about it anyway.

Can’t I just do the hard things that I would choose to do if I had the choice?  Can’t all my sacrifices be totally geared toward my aptitudes and personality so that it will seem like I’m giving something up without forcing me to cope with the irritation of actually giving something up?

The other day my daughter was frustrated by a math problem.  She’s very strong analytically and academically, so she rarely has to manage frustration or set-backs when it comes to school work.  Everything is supposed to be easy.  She gets it done quickly.  She does extra work.  She pats herself on the back.  So when this happens, these “I have to stop and think and learn something new before I can move on” moments, it drives her crazy.  And I said “It’s good when things are hard.  It means we’re being given a chance to grow.”

Pot, meet kettle.

Here I am with this perfect chance to grow, and it’s driving me crazy.  I just want things to be easy and for this to be over quickly.  I promise I’ll do some extra work, even.  You know, right before I pat myself on the back.

I am regularly asked by parents how they can teach an appreciation of good traditional art to their children. One father recently went further than that and asked me if there was anything I could do to unculturate them in such a way that their sensibilities are in tune with a catholic culture in its broadest sense. These are the  ideas that I offered to him as personal thoughts. I do not have a family so cannot say that I have direct experience of this.

1. All traditional training in art involves drawing by copying from nature and then copying the works of Old Masters. Ideally children would do both but precisely what they try to draw depends on how old they are. Very young children could colour in line drawings based upon traditional forms – I illustrated a couple of books with this in mind, see Meet the Angels and God’s Covenant with You. The more sophisticated might be able to try some tonal work on a copy of a baroque painting. A great start for anybody would be gothic or Romanesque illuminated manuscripts. These are line drawings with limited modelling.  They are great fun to draw and my experience is that Catholics relate to these Western icons more readily than to Eastern iconographic forms. If you to get hold of examples type ‘psalter’ into the Google Images search engine. You don’t need to feel bound to sacred imagery. The psalters of this period contained pictures of the everyday life at the time. All the examples shown here are from the Westminster Psalter.

Drawing from nature, even for the most simple subject is more difficult. When the child is prepared to gie it a go start with simple but interesting forms that don’t require the child to summarise. So drawing a tree is very difficult, because it presents the problem of how to deal with thousands of leaves, but drawing a single daffodil is a bit easier.

2. Pray the Liturgy of the Hours in the family. This is perhaps the single most important item. Where possible the father, as head of the family, should lead the prayer and it should be sung. Wherever possible the psalms should be sung and the prayer should be oriented towards sacred image or images. o I have written about the creation of a domestic church and the importance of the father in family prayer, here. I have written about how to create an icon corne as a focus for prayer at home, here. I have written articles about the importance of the liturgy of the hours in general, here. Interestingly, I made some suggestions to this person who asked my about how he might sing compline with his children. I sang some very simple tones which he recorded on his laptop so that he could learn them (they were from the selection developed for the students to sing at the liturgy at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts). Then I showed him how to point any psalm so that any of these tones could be applied to them. He told me late that his children loved to sing the psalms and were competing for turns to sing on their own.

3. As soon as possible learn to chant. Even if it is the simplest form chant the introduction of the child to the eight modes that we get in chant, I believe. The intervals and harmonious relationship that are traced out in music impress upon the soul the essential patterns that comprise the beauty of the cosmos and which ultimately point, to use the phrase of Cardinal Ratzinger in the Spirit of the Liturgy, to the ‘mind of the Creator’. Conventional music contains only two of the modes and so if the child is only exposed to the major and minor keys, no matter how beautiful the music, they will have a limited education.

An architecture student who attended a drawing class in last summer’s the Way of Beauty program at Thomas More College tells how what he learnt about traditional proportion has improved his designs and enabled him to get a prestigious scholarship.

Last summer an young Catholic architecture graduate, Geoff Yovanovic attended one of the Way of Beauty Atelier drawing classes. As well as improving his drawing, he hoped that what he would learn might give him insights in to how architecture can conform to a culture of beauty; and give him an edge in his search for placements with architecture firms that had more traditional work. He was recently graduated from university, looking for a placement to work towards full profession qualification.

The lectures and talks were given helped him, but also because he expressed this interest to me, I did my best to give him as much additional reading as I could. You can find out about this year’s program of summer retreats and the iconography classe here. I also encourage him to believe that using traditional proportion would allow his work to stand out in the pack even if he was doing mundane projects, as I wrote in the article Proportion Adds Value to Property. He took what I said seriously, did work to learn more about his (even writing an article for this blog during the year, here). Then just this past week I got the following email from him describing his latest success which he attributes, in part, to what he learnt on the course. Here it is:

‘Dear David

Last fall I did a little design exercise for a local priest friend who’s parish is relocating.  At the time, there was no real design concept so he gave me permission to work on a conceptual design for a church and school on the stipulation that it was an exercise.  Having learned about Oxford University courtyards last summer from your
class, I integrated into the design the academic courtyard with the chapel and cafeteria opposite from each other.  I explained to him the philosophy/ theology behind the arrangement.  I also integrated a garden into the design.  He loved the design, especially the courtyard and garden, and wanted to bring me on as the design architect for the project.  Unfortunately, once the diocese got involved, they brought in their “approved” architect and dismissed any idea the priest had of me as architect.

Tonight, I visited the church and saw the design which the architect had done, and there was no mistaking the influence that my exercise had.  The design, in particular, the site plan is quite different from the ordinary work in this architect’s online portfolio.  The entire church campus in his design is built around the idea of the courtyard and garden. (I have attached my design exercise) And where the diocese and the earthly church did not compensate me, Christ has made sure that I was paid monetarily and spiritually.  I put this church design in my portfolio for graduate school, and I was awarded a fellowship with full scholarship and teaching stipend to
Notre Dame.  I will begin at the end of July with a one month watercolor and hand drafting crash course.  Last summer, this course was taught by David Mayernik, who in emailing back and forth last fall suggested that I should apply to ND.

I hope you are doing well as the semester wraps up.  I just wanted to share with you how rewarding last summer has and continues to be.

Best Regards,

Geoff Yovanovic’

It is fitting to celebrate Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.  We rejoice to see the holy city roll out the red carpet and hail Jesus as the promised Messiah.

The problem is, however, that the only crown they gave their king was a crown of thorns.

This week the Church recalls a far more important victory procession.  The Solemnity of the Ascension celebrates the triumphal entry into the heavenly Jerusalem, the true and eternal City of God.  The inhabitants of that city did not cry “hosanna” one day and “crucify him” the next.  Suffering is over.  Death has been defeated.  There is nothing left for Christ but glory.

All during his public ministry, he had spoken of some mysterious “Kingdom of God.”  He was speaking not so much of a place, but of a new era, the period of the “Reign of God.”  But a new reign must begin with a coronation, just as a new presidential administration must begin with an inauguration, though the election had been won months earlier.  The prince may be heir to the kingdom from birth, but until he puts on the crown and takes his seat on the throne, he cannot exercise his authority.

The Ascension celebrates this momentous occasion.  Myriads of angels sing a new song of indescribable beauty as the one who is both son of God and Son of Adam takes his seat at the right hand of the Father and is crowned King of heaven and earth.

Note that in our first reading from Acts, Jesus, right before he ascended, tells them to wait for the promise of the Father.  They think this means a political coup is about to take place whereby Israel regains the dominance it formerly enjoyed under David and Solomon.  Jesus corrects them gently.  He has in mind something much greater.  He is about to receive the authority to pour out upon them the very power of God, the same power that had raised him from the dead (Eph 1:19-21).  These ministers were about to be empowered to help their King build a far wider and more long-lasting empire than Solomon’s.  The Kingdom of God would be a worldwide, eternal reign of freedom and joy for all those who would accept the king’s sovereignty and be washed in the saving waters of baptism (Mark 16:15-16).

Talk, as they say, is cheap.  Jesus did not just talk about Good News, he was good news changing sadness around him to joy, darkness to light.  So his preaching was accompanied by signs and wonders.  In this week’s gospel, Jesus describes signs that will accompany those who believe and carry the good news to others.

Some have claimed that such signs and wonders were necessary in the early church to get things the ball rolling during those dark days of paganism and brutality, but are no longer to be expected today.

Several fathers of the Second Vatican council took issue with this idea, noting that there is as much brutality, darkness, and opposition to God today as there was in the first century.  The council therefore taught (LG 12) that the Holy Spirit still pours out his gifts upon the faithful of every rank, and that these gifts are to be received with eager gratitude.

Some of these gifts empower us to be like Christ.  We call these virtues.  Others empower us to serve others as He did.  These are called charisms.  Whether remarkable, like healing, tongues, and prophecy, or humble, like hospitality, they are all moving signs of the Kingdom of God.  It is not ours to determine which charisms we’d prefer to have.  Our job is simply to use the authority and power that has been given to each one of us to the very best of our ability, remembering that to those faithful in small matters, even greater things are given.

Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio writes from Texas.  For his info on his resources and pilgrimages to Rome and the Holy Land, visit www..crossroadsinitaitive.com or call 1.800.803.0118.           

Economists and pundits alike are going wild over the United Kingdom’s recent “double dip” recession. The 2008-09 recession prompted the election of a conservative coalition led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron decided the best path for economic recovery was “austerity,” a program of reduced government spending and smaller government debt. The new coalition—with the aid of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne—sought to drastically slash the government budget. With the addition of increased taxes, the plan was dubbed “Tax and Axe.”

Two years later, the United Kingdom is back in recession. Keynesian economists are enjoying a savory “I told you so” moment, as many pointed out the dangers of austerity during troubled times. The logic runs as follows: when businesses, households, and governments all try to pay back their debts at the same time, they spend less. As they spend less, national income falls, leading to even less spending. This sets off a cycle of decreased spending and economic collapse.

The Keynesian solution is government spending. It goes like this: Governments can increase spending during recessions to keep national income up, preventing the spending collapse. In short, more stimulus is the answer.

In turn, many progressives in the United States are arguing that any similar austerity here (such as Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan) would have equally bad results: another recession.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is based on a faulty premise. Here is the reality: There is no austerity in the United Kingdom.

Quite the contrary, government spending in Britain has increased in the last two years, and will continue for the foreseeable future. In real terms (based on estimated inflation and GDP growth), spending was set to decrease this fiscal year. Unfortunately, this prediction was made on the assumption of positive yet small GDP growth. As we now know, this assumption was bad and GDP shrank, heralding a recession.

Public debt in the United Kingdom continues to rise. The 2012 budget clearly outlines increases in public debt all the way until 2016 (when the predictions stop). To top it all off, these numbers exclude the 2008-09 emergency financial interventions. The financial sector in the United Kingdom took a hit in the previous recession and was promptly bailed out in 2009. Since then, the government has borrowed an additional 124 billion pounds to keep banks afloat.

Furthermore, some British think tanks estimate that only around 6 percent of Cameron’s cuts have been implemented, with the remaining 94 percent still waiting to actually be cut by 2016-17. Is this “austerity” (itself a loaded term) in any sense of the word? Suppose you were driving towards a cliff. Is it enough to ease off the gas pedal, or do you need to hit the brakes?

Economists such as Paul Krugman are already branding Europe’s approach a failure. In many ways, it is. But what is really at stake is the real reason things are failing. We cannot allow history to think that the United Kingdom tried austerity. It is simply not true. If we interpret this wrong, we will get the wrong historical lessons.

In fact, something similar happened during the onset of the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover was in office when panic struck and the history books claim he tried free-market principles, which failed. In the first year of the depression, 1931, federal expenditures rose from $4.2 billion to $5.5 billion. The federal government incurred a $2.2-billion deficit the same year. In 1932, Hoover raised taxes.

Sound familiar? Despite the fact that President Hoover increased government spending and debt, his approach was labeled “free market.” The exact opposite is true. When running against Franklin Roosevelt, Hoover actually argued that Roosevelt would make things worse by lowering taxes and decreasing spending. Roosevelt responded by accusing Hoover’s administration of being a profligate spender.

The same classification error is happening again today. The United Kingdom has raised taxes, increased government spending, and taken on more debt. This is the exact opposite of the clear meaning of austerity. What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is being used when “free market” means more government?

Of course, the situation in the United Kingdom is not identical to the United States. Exact comparisons and examples do not translate. One thing we do know, however, is that the British have not attempted to rein in out-of-control government spending. Like many governments, Britain scheduled cuts years into the future and continue to pile on debt. Before we even consider the failure of austerity in England, we must first be convinced austerity has really happened.

Kyle Latham is a contributor to The Center for Vision & Values and a May 2012 graduate of Grove City College who will be pursuing a graduate degree in economics. He is a winner of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation’s 2010 Sound Money Contest with his paper on “Concerns for the Utilitarian and Ethical Characteristics of Money.”

So how did “same-sex marriage” get to be a political issue in the first place — the kind of issue that draws presidents and presidential contenders into the smoke enveloping this extraordinary battlefield?

Does Barack Obama’s opinion on the matter matter in the least? For that matter, does Mitt Romney’s? The issue of whether men may lawfully marry men and women women is religious, is it not? Isn’t it cultural at the very least? Would Teddy Roosevelt recognize the issue? Would James Madison or Thomas Jefferson? Not a chance.

Politics as the key to human happiness was a notion unknown until fairly recent times. Most of life’s concerns and satisfactions were off limits to the political fraternity, which in those times was indeed a fraternity. People tended to work through, without political advice or intervention, the everyday questions of everyday life, starting with how can I be happier and richer than I am at this minute?

It does no good, perhaps, to point this out. The inevitable comeback is that we changed our minds, as a people, due to the disagreeable experiences that freedom sometimes entails. We wanted things we couldn’t get without some powerful help. We told our political representatives what we wanted. They replied, with just a glint of naked ambition in their eyes, OK, here’s what we do…

And here we are today, with the rules and regulations of marriage on the political agenda. President Obama confides that he has come around to the idea that freedom involves the right to marry a person of the same sex, irrespective, he fails to add, of whatever the entire human race said on the subject prior to his coming around. So-called — by a snooty and unfriendly media — “social conservatives” object to the president’s change of heart, as well as to the pressures that brought it about: chiefly, it would seem, the desire to satisfy a crucial and well-heeled element of his re-election constituency.

It’s all about politics, we quickly learn, this business of trying to uproot the marriage canons, from coast to coast. The existing canons don’t give particular influential voters what they want; to wit, marital rights reserved in most states for heterosexuals. That means we have to ready ourselves for a knockdown drag out over an issue that isn’t even properly the province of politicians. The matter is properly the province of those — and they are many, philosophers, theologians, historians, etc. — who think about the meaning, or meanings, of human existence.

Politicians — essentially, vote seekers — are unequipped to evaluate human existence. The regulation, not the meaning, of existence is their business — for better or worse.

What’s marriage for, after all? The propagation of voters? A man of politics might see it thus, but he would in fact be seeing nothing at all. That the sexes are made in particular, and complementary, ways is a fundamental truth about the fundamental human institution of marriage. It might just be — leave the press conferences aside — that this complementarity serves a higher purpose than mere companionship.

One doesn’t have to share a bed with a companion in order to be companionable. A traditional male-female marriage, by contrast, affords the means both of conception and nurture. Not so the union of woman and woman, man and man. If it did, you might suppose humanity would have hit on this piece of wisdom long before Barack Obama, in the run-up to a major election, professed to discover it.

The fundamental truths about us human beings, passed down through the centuries, are best handled delicately, even reluctantly, lest we do them grave injury. To put them up for political bidding is the most disgraceful kind of idea. Philosophers and theologians don’t always agree, even on the largest existential matters, but they outrank in moral authority those who peddle their notions for votes. For one thing, the vote peddlers don’t discern, they accuse. They don’t ponder; they pander. How can we know any such thing? By watching and then weeping.

William Murchison, author and commentator, writes from Dallas. To find out more about William Murchison, and to see features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.Creators.com.

A group of “Catholic” theologians are quoted in today’s online magazine The Daily Beast excoriating the bishops for upholding the Catholic Church’s teaching on same-sex “marriage.” Some even go so far as to advocate gay “marriage” not only as a civil matter but within the Catholic Church.

If one were to read this article called “Do Most Catholic Theologians Support Same Sex Marriage?” you might get the faulty impression that theologians at Jesuit institutions make up the sum total of Catholic theologians. The piece quotes professors of theology at Fairfield, Marquette, and Santa Clara. And that’s it.  Oddly, they didn’t quote any theologians to argue as strongly in favor of the Church’s stance on marriage. The online magazine also spoke to Fr. James Martin,  culture editor of America Magazine, who tepidly stated Catholic teaching but is not quoted arguing for or against it in any meaningful way.

“[W]hile many non-Catholic Americans may take the political position put forward by the bishops as the final word in American Catholic life, progressive Catholic thinkers and theologians say it is time for the church to step back from political arguments about same-sex marriage, and reconsider its own position,” the article states.

Paul Lakeland, a professor of religious studies director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University, a Catholic university in Connecticut, is placed “among the theologians who say the bishops are in the wrong.”

Dr. Paul Lakeland

Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest, was the conference organizer at Fairfield University for the “More than a Monologue” conference which The Cardinal Newman Society reported on here. Lakeland’s 2004 book, The Liberation of the Laity, displays how little regard he has for the Catholic bishops: “What we have is an episcopate of men selected more for their commitment to the party line on outmoded ideas about contraception, ordination, and homosexuality, more for their administrative capabilities than for their stature as spiritual leaders.” In 2009 Lakeland  reportedly opposed Bishop William Lori and testified in support of Connecticut State legislation that y would have wrested legal control of Catholic parishes away from the diocesan bishop.

And now he is quoted in The Daily Beast saying:

“That’s not really an argument that has a theological justification,” Lakeland said of the [C]hurch’s opposition to same-sex civil marriages. “It’s an argument that’s based more on fear or repugnance.”

“There is a lot more to be said about these issues than one stream of words from the hierarchy,” Lakeland said.

But wait, it gets worse.  Taking on the USCCB’s latest statement on gay “marriage” which was written by Bishop Salvatore Cordileone which said, “this is not a partisan issue, but a matter of justice, fairness, and equality for the law to uphold every child’s basic right to be welcomed and raised by his or her mother and father together,” a theologian at Marquette blasted the bishops’ position.

That theologian is, of course, Daniel Maguire, a former priest who reportedly once called partial birth abortion “a necessary procedure.” Most recently, Maguire reportedly called the bishops “moral heretics” for their opposition to the HHS mandate.

Maguire is quoted saying Cordileone’s position is dead wrong. Maguire reportedly said the interpretation of Church teaching held by Dolan, Cordileone, and other bishops isn’t representative of the position held by many lay Catholics and theologians.

Archbishop Dolan and the United States Catholic Conference are misrepresenting ‘Catholic teaching,’ and are trying to present their idiosyncratic minority view as the ‘Catholic position,’ and it is not,” Maguire wrote in an email to The Daily Beast. “The bishops will stand with Dolan and the U.S. Catholic Conference, but on this issue, they are in moral schism since most in the Church have moved on [to] a more humane view on the rights of those whom God has made gay.”

“Most Catholic theologians approve of same-sex marriage and Catholics generally do not differ much from the overall population on this issue,” Maguire said.

The Daily Beast also quotes “Frank Parella” of Santa Clara University, yet another Jesuit institution. Since there is no Frank Parella listed at Santa Clara, we wonder if this isn’t Santa Clara Theology Professor Frederick J.  Parrella. Anyway, “Frank” Parella reportedly told the online magazine that he finds “nothing in the Gospels” that should lead the Church to oppose legalization of gay “marriage.”

And according to The Daily Beast, Parrella and Lakeland agree there are “good theological arguments” to not just allow same-sex civil marriages, but also to support same-sex unions in the Church.

The level of one-sided journalism displayed by The Daily Beast is bad enough, but the theologians quoted here are worse. Attention should be paid to avoid them.

Cover Photo Credit: Catholic News Agency

Mitt Romney has pulled a point or two ahead of President Obama in polls of likely voters. In polls of registered voters, Obama has the advantage. The president’s job approval ratings are hovering in the upper 40 percent range, which suggests a close race.

Looking at this information, partisan activists come to wildly different conclusions about what to expect on Election Day. Democrats tend to believe Obama will be re-elected, while Republicans are more likely to think he will be a one-term president.

Some of this is just the nature of being a fan. Even when your favorite baseball team is down a run with two outs in the ninth, you still think there’s a chance.

But something else is at work, as well, and it gets right back to the key issue of the campaign — the economy. Forget same-sex marriage and the host of other buzz issues. If the economy improves, Obama will be re-elected. If it gets worse, he will lose.

The stock market and economic data are giving mixed signals, but partisans on both sides of the aisle think they know what’s going to happen.

Most Democrats (55 percent) believe the economy is getting better. Two out of three Republicans (66 percent) think the economy is getting worse.

The attitudes extend to personal finances, as well. Just 20 percent of Republicans nationwide feel their own finances are getting better, while 53 percent believe the opposite. Democrats are evenly divided on this question.

These wildly differing expectations make sense if you think about the underlying partisan perceptions.

Democrats generally believe a larger government role is needed to help get the economy moving. They support the president’s policies, including his health care plan. Some may be surprised that the benefits of his policies haven’t kicked in yet. Others may believe that he needed an even bigger plan of government involvement to really jumpstart the economy. But 74 percent of Democrats think the president has done a good or an excellent job handling the economy.

Republicans tend to see the government as a burden that is weighing down the economy. They view the president’s health care plan as a nightmare and the increase in spending during the Obama years as a disaster. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans feel the president is doing a poor job handling the economy.

Put it all together, and Democrats are confident of victory in November because they believe the economy will be better by then. To them, it’s just a question of time before the benefits of the president’s policies become visible. Republicans hold the opposite view. For both sides, if they are right about the economy, they are right about the election.

More precisely, of course, it’s perceptions of the economy that matter. Since both party’s voters will support their own nominee, it will come down to how voters not affiliated with either party view the economic situation.

Currently, 31 percent of unaffiliated voters believe the economy is getting better, while 48 percent think it’s getting worse. When it comes to their own finances, 22 percent say they are improving, but 48 percent say they’re not.

As for the president, 30 percent of unaffiliated voters believe he is doing a good job handling the economy. Forty-nine percent give him poor marks in this area. These are the numbers Team Obama needs to change if it wants to win in November.

To find out more about Scott Rasmussen, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

“I am such a product of my times, Lord. I am a coke-machine Christian: I want to put the dollar in the slot, press a button, and have holiness pop right out. I still resist the cross. No more, Lord. You have promises that if I trust in you and follow you, all my sorrows will change into the kind of joy that nothing on earth can taint. I cannot say that I like to suffer, but I can say that I trust in you, Jesus…”

~An excerpt from Fr. John Bartunek’s “The Better Part”

“Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.” ~John 16:23

[On May 14], a state trial court judge overturned an Oklahoma law intended to ensure the safe use of abortion-inducing drugs, such as RU-486.  The law, enacted in 2011 and based upon an AUL [Americans United for Life] model, simply required that abortion providers administer the drugs in the manner approved by the FDA.

The state’s interest in enacting such a law was clear: Since RU-486 was approved in 2000, thousands of women have faced complications, many life-threatening.  Both the FDA and the drug manufacturer have acknowledged the substantial risk of complications following use.  Fourteen women have died.  Eight of those women died of a severe bacterial infection that would not otherwise harm healthy women.  All eight of those women were instructed to use the drugs in a manner that directly contravened the approved FDA protocol.

On the other hand, no women have died from bacterial infection after using RU-486 in the manner approved by the FDA.

With that in mind, Oklahoma adopted a law aimed at ensuring that RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs are administered only in the way approved by the FDA.  Rather than allowing providers to hand out dangerous drugs and send women home to self-administer away from physician oversight and beyond the gestational limit approved by the FDA, the law required that physicians examine women before administering the drugs and instructed that the drugs be administered in a clinical setting within the gestational limit approved by the FDA.

Of course, the law was immediately challenged by abortion providers (backed by the Center for Reproductive Rights), whose main interest is not protecting women’s health but making a profit.  After all, sending women home with the drugs and providing them past the gestational limit allows abortion providers to sell more of the dangerous drugs each day.

During the course of litigation, the state of Oklahoma offered substantial evidence, demonstrating to the court that the misuse of abortion drugs is dangerous:

• The state established that the FDA approved the RU-486 drug regimen under a special code section (known as “Subpart H”) which allows the FDA to restrict the use of the drugs.  The FDA had serious concerns about the safety of RU-486, and wanted to ensure the safest use possible.
• The state established that thousands of women have faced complications following use of RU-486, including the 14 deaths.
• The state established that eight women have died from bacterial infections following the improper use of RU-486, and that no women have died from bacterial infection following FDA-approved use of the drug regimen.
• The state established that FDA documents cite the incorrect use of RU-486 as “unapproved.”
• The state established that surgical abortion is safer than drug-induced abortion.
• The state established that the law imposes no “undue burden” on women, because it is a commonsense regulation protecting women from harm.  The law does not ban abortion; it simply regulates the use of a drug proven to have dangerous—and deadly—consequences.
• And at the very least, the state established that the evidence provided by the plaintiff-abortion providers merely indicated that medical sources might differ on the dangers inherent in misuse of RU-486, and that in such a circumstance the Supreme Court has, under Gonzales v. Carhart, given state and federal legislatures “wide discretion” to regulate abortion for the safety of women.

But the trial court ignored it all.  Not once in the court’s decision does it mention the fact that women have died following use of RU-486.  Not once does the court cite FDA documents or scientific studies.  Instead, the court concludes, incorrectly and without any documentation, that off-label use of RU-486 has been “demonstrated by scientific research to be safer and more effective” than the FDA-approved protocol.

The judge has, therefore, decided he knows better than the FDA.

He has also decided he knows better than the Supreme Court.  He misinterprets Planned Parenthood v. Casey and ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has clearly proclaimed that states have an interest in the outset of pregnancy in protecting maternal health, and that regulations aimed at such impose no constitutional violations.

Moreover, he has decided he knows better than any other state court in Oklahoma, creating for the first time a “right” to abortion under the state constitution.

But that is really what this challenge is all about.  It is about promoting abortion-on-demand, without limits.  It is about creating abortion “rights” which really benefit abortion providers and their profit margins.  It is not about protecting women’s health.