The Gaming Question - A Missed Opportunity

I think we Catholics on Guam have missed an important opportunity in the gaming debate to witness to the unique Oneness of the Catholic Church. I think that it would have been much better for us to say we opposed gaming simply because we respect both the office and the pastoral concern of our Archbishop.

Such a stance, I believe, would have served us much better, both in protecting us from misusing the Church’s authority and its sacred symbols, and in signifying to all other forces, both pro and con, the singular authority and respect that a Bishop alone can lay claim to by virtue of his apostolic pedigree.

Instead we have launched a retaliatory attack from a multitude of directions that is uncoordinated, overly defensive, and in some cases, intellectually dishonest or severely uninformed, and even demeaning to the sacred symbols of our Faith. Almost anyone with a story about a relative who lost his house playing a poker machine, or who has learned how to google, has become a spokesperson for the opposition.

We can’t stop people from speaking their mind. However, if our local Church is going to publicly oppose gaming (and there will certainly be more opportunities), then I recommend that we let the Archbishop lead and that we simply back him without panic, without fanaticism, without public condemnations in the name of Santa Maria Kamalin and Divine Mercy, BUT WITH the “hope that is in within us” (1 Peter 3:15)


Now, for those who are serious about opposing this issue, I would like to discuss honestly what I believe are serious flaws in our opposition.

The "Gambling is Immoral" argument

I have personally confronted priests who said from the pulpit “gambling is a sin”. And it WAS said. I also publicly challenged media personalities who used this error to highlight alleged hypocrisy.

While other (non-Catholic) religious communities are free to generate their own moral code and promulgate its latest version, we are not. We are not in the business of making new sins. As you are aware the Catechism states the following:

"Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant." (2413)

There are some who quibble over the meaning of the words “contrary to justice”. However, the sentence about cheating clarifies the whole paragraph. In identifying “cheating at games” as constituting “grave matter”, it’s obvious that games (of chance), i.e. gambling is not the issue for cheating could not occur if the game was not being played. It’s also amusing to note that the Church even “winks” at cheating in the last sentence.

To our credit, I have not heard this refrain (gambling is a sin) during the current campaign. I’m even hearing some opponents preface their remarks with the truth that “gambling is not a sin”. However, in the absence of an official disclaimer, there remains a heavy implication that even though we cannot say directly that gambling is evil we can certainly claim that those associated with it are. This leads to my next point.

The argument that "Greed is at the root of gambling"

Sorry, but we don’t get to judge the motives of others. My father enjoys gambling. He is a self-made businessman who provided for eight children and is even now providing for the education of several grandchildren. He has no need of gambling winnings. He enjoys the game, as I suspect many others do.

Gambling is a legitimate form of entertainment. I personally fail to see its entertainment value, but I would throw video games, most movies, and almost all of TV into the same sinking boat. I happen to think that more corruption enters the family home through the “black wall snake” (cable) than a casino could ever bring. However, I don’t get to “pull thy neighbor’s plug”. (By the way, my idea of a good time is an evening home with my children or spiritual reading without interruption.)

I could list a myriad of social ills that we already entertain quite readily without the help of a casino in our so-called “Keep Guam Good loving family culture”, ills that we not only for the most part ignore, but even celebrate (gluttony - and the diseases that accompany it - comes to mind), and I’m sure you could add to the list.

No one seriously contends that our island is “good”. Most casino opponents readily admit that we have huge problems but consider a casino as adding to those problems. Their contention is that gambling is never good. Let’s take a look at that claim.


The "Gambling is never good for society" argument

I recommend that in future campaigns we "refrain from this refrain". Gaming proponents missed an incredibly easy chance to discredit the opposition by simply highlighting the fact that the destination of choice for many local families who have left Guam since our recession began in the mid 90’s is Las Vegas.

Ask these new residents of “Sin City” why they choose to live there and they will tell you “better schools”, “better jobs”, “better everything”. The fact is, Vegas has only one industry. And while there are many associated industries, if it wasn’t for the crap table and the slot machine, Vegas would be nothing more than the assemblage of desert shacks and dilapidated trailer homes that typify many remote southwestern towns, and it would certainly not be the “destination of choice” that it now is.

Opponents will recount the stories of shattered lives but will leave out the very obvious evidence that many people, many Chamorro people, are, by their own testimony, better off there than they were here…which is why they are there and not here.

Keeping locals out

I'm not Chamorro, but if I was, I would be extremely irate as the opposition seems to be aimed at Chamorros as if Chamorros had a genetic predilection towards gambling addictions. Sadly, in our panicked defense, motivated mostly by bad memories, we implicate the whole of the Chamorro people as irresponsible and imply further that they must be protected from themselves.

But casinos are not just gambling parlors. Usually they include restaurants, shops, shows, etc. Many people rightly desire more opportunities and venues for relaxation and entertainment. The argument that the irresponsibility of some should not dictate the availability of choices for others is valid.

Prop A will benefit only Greyhound?

This is simply not true and evinces a deep ignorance on the part of those who continue to repeat it. How often have I heard that Prop A will give a sole license to a sole entity for the sole benefit of that entity?

Every business gets a sole license for a sole entity for the sole benefit of that entity. No business gets in business for the primary purpose of benefiting others. That’s called a charitable organization. But the nature and genius of free enterprise is that no business can benefit itself until it first benefits another.

With the recent passing of Mr. Ken Jones , we have the opportunity to review the life of a man who got very rich. His contribution to Guam is immeasurable. Try to imagine a Guam without Payless Supermarkets, the Cliff Hotel, the Hilton. All told, Mr. Jones started around 70 businesses on Guam. How many people have benefited as employees, customers, associates, suppliers? It’s incalculable.

How was he able to do this? First and foremost his businesses made money, lots of it. From the moment Ken Jones sold his first product and made his first penny Ken Jones made money FOR HIM. To his credit, and to our benefit, he took that penny and made 2 pennies…and so on. Regardless of his motives, be they selfish or philanthropic or just because he enjoyed the process, the reality is that because of Ken Jones and his profits, many people are eating today.

Regardless of Mr. Baldwin’s motives, Guam has already been the beneficiary of the almost one million dollars that Greyhound has invested in this election alone. Lots of children of people who work for the media are eating a little better just now. And families of contractors and construction workers, engineers and architects, future employees and suppliers, will all benefit before Greyhound makes a red cent.

Another bad argument is that that there is something wrong with Greyhound keeping 90% of net profits with the other 10% going to Rev & Tax. In case you didn’t know, most other business on Guam get to keep 96% as they only pay 4% to Rev and Tax. Greyhound will pay MORE to Gov Guam than most other businesses, including the strip clubs, massage parlors, porno shops, and abortion clinics that we allow to go unchallenged.

If we even begin to add in the tax revenues generated by the payroll, the increased sales of suppliers, the associated corporate income taxes, and the whole range of increased revenues due to the multiplier effect of a successful industry, the amount injected into the local economy would be many times more than the 10% being ridiculed by the opposition.

No control over where the 10% goes

Opponents of Prop A fret that the 10% tax that Greyhound will pay and earmark for education , healthcare, and public safety will go into the General Fund and disappear. Well whose fault is that? Ours! What we’re saying is that we don’t trust ourselves to elect people we can trust to do what we elect them to do.

This is actually our NUMBER ONE problem on Guam. I have been actively interviewing many people on who their top choices are in this election. I then ask them why. The number one reason is “He/She is nice”. That’s it.

As many of you also know I have been behind the campaign to identify the true positions of the candidates on abortion. When I confront the “He’s nice” people with the fact that their candidate of choice refused to sign a formal commitment to pursue anti-abortion legislation on Guam, the response is usually apathy or “don’t worry, he’s pro-life”.

Need I say more?

Pseudo religious ads

The use of sacred images to promote a political point of view on an issue that Catholics have a legitimate right to support or oppose is at best an act of ignorance and at worst an offense against the sacred.

While individuals are totally entitled to a personal view, they are not entitled to take that which belongs to all of us and use it as their personal property. Santa Maria Kamlin is the patron saint of all Catholics on Guam, not just the opponents of gaming. All Catholics have the prudential right to decide for themselves on this issue.

Use of church property and liberties at the pulpit

I also take personal issue with using the Catholic churches and schools to display anti-gaming signs. Since Catholics are free to choose in this regard, the use of church property to display those signs is an infringement on our freedom and a disregard for our financial support of our parishes and schools.

The same is true for the employment of Catholic school students to “wave” against gaming. This is an infringement on the rights of parents. Something tells me that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I also reject the use of the pulpit to bully congregations. Catholics must attend Mass under pain of mortal sin. While “Father” is free to teach about those things that really are sins, he is not free to lobby against Prop A for reasons stated already above or to slander the people who support it. A more appropriate approach would be to hold a prayer service after Mass that people are free to attend.

The “ends does not justify the means” and this is already backfiring on us. I know of several people who were willing to vote no on Prop A but who changed their minds after being “bullied” at Mass or saw those offensive ads.

Abuse of "Love thy Neighbor"??

This assumes that you know what's best for your neighbor. If we finish the instruction ("as thyself") then we would have to conclude that those who enjoy gaming and find it beneficial liesure would rightly want the same opportunity for others. As Catholics we don't get to decide what's best for our neighbor in matters that are prudential. Again, though well intended, it is a usurpation of the Faith that belongs to all.

A recent entry in the local newspaper claimed that if one life is negatively affected by a casino on Guam then that's one life too many. Sounds nice, but such an argument is simply futile in the real world. Every action has a reaction of some sort. The proposed military buildup will affect Guam both positively and negatively. Should we tell the military now to get lost because at least one life will be negatively affected? Some think we should.

Conclusion

The sad thing is that none of this had to happen. The Archbishop has decided that a casino is not good for the island. He has stated his reasons, and as faithful Catholics we can simply state that we back him. We can also add our personal reasons. We can state that we also think that a casino will not be good for the island and give our personal reasons for why we think that.

But the emphasis is on “personal” and prudential. We don’t get to make new sins. We don’t get to pronounce judgment on others. We don’t get to be economic experts. And while we can question the findings of the likes of Fr. Richard McGowan, S.J., we certainly do not get to publicly impugn or question his priestly integrity - as was publicly done by some well-known Catholics

Perceived or real, the public sense is that groups like “Keep Guam Good” and “Lina’la sin Casino” are front groups for the Catholic Church on Guam. Despite the efforts of their spokespeople to deflect the implication, it is quite obvious that all roads lead to the Archbishop.

As stated at the outset, I see this is an excellent opportunity to witness to the Oneness and Apostolicity of the True Church. I do believe that the Archbishop has stated his opposition in a clear and reasonable manner. But there is a disconnect between his leadership and the many factions within the opposition.

It is these factions, this lack of coordination, this scattered message, along with the obvious ignorance inherent in the standard positions and tactics of the opposition enumerated above, that give the proponents reason to keep trying.

It is my opinion that only the Archbishop can coordinate the message and the opposition. For the record, I would support a Casino on Guam (though not necessarily Prop A) save for the wishes of the Archbishop. I have no personal issue with gaming and I'm all for the rights of others to enjoy legitimate entertainment even though I myself would not imbibe. I believe that despite the estimated “social cost”, a free people should not be denied access to something they enjoy that is not in itself a bad thing regardless of the potential for addiction (e.g. alcohol, smoking, etc.).

And that's what this should be about, letting a free people, freely decide. There is no problem with laying out the arguments and standing by them. But we in the opposition have allowed legitimate arguments to be manipulated and misaligned to achieve our ends. We have also maligned, defamed, and judged the hearts of those who don't agree with us. Yes, some of them may have done that to us, but need I remind you that we don't get to do that to them?

If you’ve read this far, I thank you for honestly engaging my positions and accepting my right to prudential judgment. I know that I’m probably just asking for trouble by releasing this. But I also know that there are intellectually honest Catholics, though they may disagree with me, will not let their disagreement interrupt our relationship and cooperation in pursuing the true cancer on our island.

How the Bishops Are Helping Obama

If the Bishops are willing to pay attention, they could learn much from the results of the upcoming election about the effectiveness of their words.

While McCain's record on life issues is not perfect, there is simply no comparison between the Obama-Biden ticket and McCain-Palin.

While the McCain-Palin camp have not stated any outright pro-life strategy, or even stated their pro-life stance definitively, the pro-abortion voting records of both Obama and Biden, combined with their campaign pledges to not only uphold abortion rights but to radically expand them, leave little doubt as to what an Obama presidency would bring.

The USCCB and individual bishops throughout the U.S. have compiled and distributed many words regarding the responsibility of Catholics at the voting booth. The fact that this race is even close with Catholics comprising 25% of the vote shows us just how much attention Catholics are paying attention to their Bishops. But then what's new?

It's hardly news that the American Catholic Episcopate is virtually ignored by its subjects. Any investigation into why would reveal a list ranging from episcopal aloofness to the priest abuse scandal.

While a list of such accusations may be valid, I think, that at least in this case - influencing the Catholic vote - the answer is simple, obvious, and self-destructive. As a matter of fact, almost every episcopal statement has lent justification to Catholics looking for an excuse to overlook the radical pro-abortion platform of Obama/Biden. Here’s why:

While every episcopal statement includes the requisite reference to the primacy of the "life" issue, there exists within every statement (that I have read) two obvious factors which immediately nullify the theme. I will state those factors and then illustrate.

1. The context of the statement is clouded in such a way that a Catholic looking for justification to vote for a pro-abortion candidate immediately finds what he is looking for.

2. The issue within the issue, which is the moral gravity of each life issue, is never explained or prioritized, thus all life issues become level, and again the pro-Obama Catholic voter finds what he's looking for.

Consider the following excerpts from a recent statement by the Bishops of New York entitled "Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty.”

"It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue," they acknowledged. "But […] not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all."

The problem is the phrase: "The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person..." Why is this phrase a problem? Because it is used without qualification. Both an aborted child and a 6 year old child who is killed in a war are “innocent human person(s)”.

The voter is led to believe that abortion and war are moral evils of equal weight. Thus we have Catholics believing that it is okay to support a pro-abortion candidate as long as he opposes the war.

Some Catholics stretch this even further to include economic policy: Innocent people are dying around the world due to the economic policies of the United States. Therefore, we need a president, despite his commitment to make abortion even more available, who will change those policies.

The true moral view is that while innocent people may die due to wars and economic policies, so long as the death of innocent people is not the intention of a war or a policy, such actions do not qualify as “objective evil”; whereas procured abortion would qualify as objective evil as it is a direct attack on innocent life.

The failure of the Catholic leadership to spell this out has created a flood of pro-abortion legislators, some of whom are Catholic themselves (Biden, Pelosi, Kennedy…)

My 2nd point - that there is a moral priority within the life issues and that this also is not spelled out - is illustrated in the next paragraph:

"The right to life is the right through which all others flow. To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholics should consider them less acceptable for public office."

This, by itself, is a true statement. But within the context of the current election, it is simply a pass for Obama. Here's why:

The Bishops do absolutely nothing to morally weigh each of these issues. At face value, this statement gives each of these issues the same moral weight. Thus the pro-Obama Catholic will think like this:
- Yes, Obama supports abortion
- But, McCain “supports” embryonic stem cell research (1)
- Both of those, according to the Bishops, are objectively evil
- So they cancel each other out
- Let’s disregard the life issues since both candidates are on the wrong side and let's move on to gas prices.

You think this is a "stretch"? You ought to talk to the Catholics I talk to. Clergy and laity alike walk this through step by step and straight to a clear-eyed, rational Catholic vote for Obama.

The correct moral view is that Abortion outranks all other life issues. It must be considered pre-eminent (2). Here’s why:

Abortion must remain the pre-eminent life issue because it involves two objective evils: the intentional killing of an innocent human being and torture.

50% of all abortions occur after the 9th week when the nervous system has formed sufficiently for the child to experience pain. How much the child feels before the 9th week is conjecture, but there is always the possibility that the child experiences pain.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research does not rank with abortion because it does not directly entail the torture of a human being, though the abortion that provided the fetus and thus the stem cells may have.

Euthanasia also normally does not directly entail torture, though it may as in the case when victims are starved to death. Euthanasia also differs from Abortion in terms of the "defenselessness of the victim". While in some cases the victim is truly helpless (Terry Schiavo), often the person being euthanized has some control over the situation whether in a will or with a direct request.

The fact is that while Euthanasia MAY involve the true "defenselessness of the victim", Abortion ALWAYS involves the "defenselessness of the victim". Thus, from a purely objective standpoint, ABORTION must rank as the life issue with the greatest moral weight and thus the one issue upon which every other issue must hinge.

The bottom line is a failing grade for most of the class. When most of the class fails it is really an indictment of the teacher. Bishops must do more than disseminate statements. What can they do? I’ll get to that in my next post.


(1) McCain’s support of ESCR is limited to existing embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. While this does not change the objective nature of the evil, it is worth noting as a matter of moral degrees.

(2) To it’s credit, the USCCB document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship does reference the issue of abortion as “pre-eminent” (par. 90), but the impact is immediately lessened by an list of other issues that quickly dwindles into concerns over economic justice and health care.

Conscience and the Catholic Voter??

A friend of mine recently forward to me an article from America Magazine entitled Conscience and the Catholic Voter, written by Mary Ann Walsh, R.S.M., director of media relations for the USCCB.

I've been reading quite a few articles like this lately and I can't help but notice a trend, or even a "template".

It goes like this:

1. Clear statement of authentic Catholic moral teaching (i.e. "Not all issues are equal")

2. Followed by words, more words, more and more words, words, words, and more words…(i.e. the rest of the article)

3. Along the way, a plethora of issues are mentioned that by the time you get to the end the initial statement is so diluted and blurred that either the average reader just gives up and votes his/her gut (as item 6 even suggests), or the Catholic, looking for justification to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, finds what he/she is looking for.

Actually this article doesn't wait long to reveal it's pro-Obama bent. It gets right to it in item #1.

Item 1 begins with the lofty "Not all issues are equal" and identifies "life" issues as paramount. But then opts for singling out Embryonic Stem Cell Research as an example of a life issue.

It's not a coincidence (in my opinion) that ESCR is selected and isolated. This is the only issue that McCain is at odds with Church teaching on.

The author's intention is clearly suspect in selecting ESCR as the demonstrable issue. Here's why:

The debate over ESCR is divided between:
1. Harvesting new embryos for research
2. Using existing embryos for research that would otherwise be destroyed. (McCain ONLY supports this option)

Also in the moral gradation of Life Issues, procured abortion would trump ESCR because abortion involves another intrinsic evil: torture. (That abortion is NOT EVEN mentioned in the article is EXTREMELY ODD especially coming from an office within the USCCB.)

While neither option a nor b is morally acceptable to a Catholic, a non-Catholic, like McCain, may not have the moral foundation to clearly understand the nuance (most Catholics don't either). The author makes no attempt to define the debate.

As for point 2 above, the fetal spine and brain (and thus sensitivity to pain) are usually developed between 5-9 weeks. About ½ of all abortions happen after the 9th week. Almost all abortions after the 9th week involve surgical dismemberment, crushing of the skull, burning the child in the womb, or some form of mutilation of a living, feeling human being. Obviously we are speaking of torture here- something that wouldn't apply to ESCR.

The author then descends into the normal litany of issues such as health care, poverty, right to a job, just wage, immigration, discrimination, etc.

All of these are important issues in themselves and must be dealt with but the author's design seems an obvious attempt to scurry away as quickly as possible from the the Life Issue.

There is also the requisite back handed slap at the Bush administration, most evident in the health care and economic issues.

What's sad is that traditionally the Church did not wait for the government to provide health care, She provided it. She invented the medical missionaries, the hospital, the orphanage, the soup kitchen. This is the way the Church USED to work for justice and human rights.

Taking care of the poor, the stranger, the downtrodden ourselves was our FIRST order of business. Campaigning for legislative change was secondary. We now (not all of course) excuse ourselves from doing this dirty work because the "grant didn't come through" or "the Republicans took away the funding".

I could go on point by point but it just gets thicker.

Catholics: Beware the "Common Good"

Catholics form the single largest voting block in the United States (approx 25%). Indeed we could say “As the Church (in America) goes, so goes the country.”

However, Catholics are given very little direction as to how to vote according to a “properly formed Catholic conscience”. As a matter of fact, Catholics are given very little direction as to how to properly form a Catholic conscience in the first place.

Consequently, politicians and candidates who support laws and social programs that are diametrically opposed to Catholic moral teaching have little to worry about.

What little official direction is given is often inaccessible to the average Catholic, or is difficult to decipher. An example would be the recent (2003) statement from the USCCB: Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

While the statement contains all the essential facts for Catholics, one could read it and still be left wondering on who to vote for as the document assumes some degree of moral formation on the part of the reader.

Private organizations and political action groups have entered into the confused milieu of Catholic voters and offered help. Two known voter guides for Catholics are:

1. Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics published by Catholic Answers
2. Voting for the Common Good – A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics published by TheCatholicAllilance.org

Both claim to present Catholic teaching…and both do. But there’s a difference Catholics should know about.

The Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics approaches the issue by delineating 5 moral issues upon which the Church’s teaching is clear and “non-negotiable” as the guide so calls them. (Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Homosexual Marriage)

Voting for the Common Good mentions some of the same issues as does the “Serious Catholics” guide, but also mentions several other issues such as Immigration, Jobs, and Worker’s Rights, and makes no attempt to note any of them as “non-negotiable”. Nor does the guide infer a moral ranking. (In other words, the reader is left to decide whether abortion and the right to work carry the same moral weight.)

The question then is: While there are many issues of concern for Catholics, does the Church regard some issues to be more important than others and thus impose a greater claim on our consciences?

The answer is “Yes”. Par. 37 of the USCCB document states:

“…all issues do not carry the same moral weight and ….the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.”

The fact that Voting for the Common Good completely ignores a moral priority in the list of issues is a “red flag”. The “flattening” of the moral landscape or what is called the “seamless garment” approach is a common tactic amongst pro-abortion Catholics who pander to the Catholic vote.

They use this approach because it is the only tool they have at their disposal. A clear reiteration of the Church’s teaching on moral matters would show that the Right to Life, ESPECIALLY AT ITS INCEPTION, always takes precedence.

The reason this is so is because of the degree of the defenselessness of the victim. It even trumps euthanasia to a degree since there are times when the person euthanized may have played a role in the decision. Not so, the unborn child.

The issue of procured abortion as a direct attack on human life even trumps the closely related issue of embryonic stem cell research, since, with abortion, we must include fetal pain.

Critics are quick to point out that the Church also condemns genocide, poverty, starvation, racism, attacks on non-combatants, etc. Yes, this is true. But no Church document ever lists any of these FIRST! Abortion is ALWAYS listed first.

As RED as this “flag” was, a bigger red flag shows up on page 9. The guide says:

“Catholics must look at a candidate’s position on other life issues. Can one really claim to be ‘pro-life’ and yet support the death penalty…”

This is a direct attack on George W. Bush, who of course is “pro-life” and does support the death penalty. But more so, with this question, the guide reveals not just its partisan intent, but the authors’ real intent to misrepresent Catholic teaching.

The answer to their question is in fact “Yes”. A Catholic CAN BE “pro-life” AND support the death penalty. While John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, came as close as any Pope could come to calling the death penalty immoral, he stopped short.

He stopped short, because he had too. A Pope can create no new doctrine. He can clarify it. He can attach disciplines to it. But he can make nothing new.

In fact, the Church has always allowed for the death penalty under certain conditions. The Pope’s only new move was to question as to whether those conditions exist any more in today’s world. You can read it for yourself in paragraph 56.

The “Common Good” guide irresponsibly equates abortion with the death penalty, not just a mistake, but a dishonest political ploy, and a direct attempt to misrepresent authentic Catholic teaching and mislead Catholic voters.

Further investigation reveals that the publisher, TheCatholicAlliance.org, was conceived and is led by Alexis Kelley, a well-known democrat and supporter of pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

While Ms. Kelley is welcome to her political views and support whatever party or politician she chooses, she is NOT welcome to interpret and misrepresent Catholic moral teaching.

The real question that arises is why there is so much effort to diminish the abortion issue. I will offer an opinion.

Abortion is the ultimate way of covering one’s tracks. People, lots of people, lots of married people, are having sex out of wedlock. While birth control is the first line of defense in covering this sin, abortion is the last line.

But nothing is hidden from God. Adultery is bad enough to have to answer for. But the murder of a defenseless child to cover for adultery…? I’ll let you fill in the answer.

My Letter to EWTN

Dear Friends,

I watch your program often (Life on the Rock). The other day you were discussing Pelosi's obviously uninformed statement on abortion. Your program is probably not the program to get into this, but I believe EWTN needs to address the reason behind the reason why so many Catholic politicians...and Catholics in general believe they can have an independent opinion on abortion.

The problem is so pervasive that our Church must stop addressing the smoke and start dealing with the fire.

I believe Pelosi's own statement gives us a clue. She mentioned that while other politicians had been denied communion for the public pro-abortion positions, her bishop had not denied her communion.

It's easy to see how one might get the idea that the moral teaching is up for grabs when the application of the penalty appears to be..

The real culprit in the constant problem we have with Catholic pro-abortion politicians is the Church leadership in America.

When Mother Angelica was around she didn't hesitate to go after this. I've noticed that, now that she is not around, EWTN doesn't seem to have anyone with the guts to go arter this as she did.

She suffered for it, too. But that's what made EWTN. I don't see a future for EWTN unless you find someone who has the guts to do what she did. The problem is not the people. The problem is the Church leaders who continue to disobey. Mother Angelica knew that, said that, and paid the price for saying that. Will anyone follow her?

Tim Rohr
Guam

Humane Vitae's 40th Anniversary - A Tough Reflection

You would be hard pressed to find a more ardent advocate of Humane Vitae than myself. Not only am I extremely vocal about this issue, I have 11 children to prove that I walk the talk. I could also list a dozen reasons as to why our medical, physical, financial, emotional, psychological, and even geographic situation all could have sufficed for a serious reason to limit the number of our children.

Add to this the counsel from (some) clergy, friends, relatives, and doctors to do exactly that (stop having children) and we find ourselves truly alone in our desire to persevere. But we perhaps find ourselves most alone witihin the pro-life community itself. Let me explain.

There is a plethora of literature, audio & video programs, and support groups of all kinds that gush over the wisdom of Humane Vitae and the beauties of Natural Family Planning, etc. But there are two major points that I've never heard addressed, even when I've directed these questions directly to the sources of said "gushing".

The first question has to do with the much lauded example of Paul VI, standing up to the commission that studied the birth control question, going against the majority opinion, and releasing Humane Vitae anyway. While Paul VI is heralded as a hero by the pro-life community for his action, the question I have asked and never had answered is:

 WHY DID PAUL VI ALLOW THE STUDY IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THE TEACHING COULD NEVER BE CHANGED.

It was the very fact that the Vatican authorized a commission to look into the birth control question that sent ripples throughout the Catholic world that there could be a possibility that artificial contraception would be allowed. Given the times (1960's), such a thought fell right in line with the current climate and expectation of change.

The bottom line is that the creation of the commission created the expectation of change. And for a Catholic populace that was both still very attuned to Church Authority (i.e. "whatever Father says...") and at the same time on the verge of a cultural implosion (at least in the West), it is natural to see how the Catholic world could have gotten quite exercised about this. (After all, it was the Pope himself who was looking into it!)

It is the Church, and specifically John XXIII (who initially created the commission), and Paul VI (who expanded it) that must take the blame for the crisis of Faith that has plagued the Church since July 10, 1968 (the date Humane Vitae was released).

While hindsight is 20/20, and it was certainly never the intention of the Popes (John XXIII, who created the commission, and Paul VI, who expanded it) to create the havoc and crisis of faith that has plagued the Church since July 10, 1968, the damage was done, is still with us, and in my opinion, the blunder was huge.

Even Paul VI's rational for overriding the commission's majority findings ("the findings were not unanimous") created even more room for doubt and havoc since saying that the findings were not unanimous gives the impression that,, had they been unanimous the Pope would have changed the teaching. This leaves us thinking that all we need is another commission and a unanimous decision, that the teaching itself is subject to a vote!

Want to know what the numbers were? Of the 72 members on the commission, the dissenters (opposed to the liberalization of birth control) included 4 theologian priests, 1 cardinal and 2 bishops. From the impression Paul VI gave, we were only 7 votes away from the change that the world had been breathlessly led to hope for.

I only bring this up because despite the major efforts and resources devoted to the promotion of Humane Vitae and NFP and all the associated issues, I believe we are making little headway. And why is that?

2 reasons:

1. Already mentioned.

The creation of the commission was a papal error. That has to be admitted. As long as we're apologizing for the Inquisition, the Crusades, and whatever else, we might as well apologize for this. The Church needs to let people know that this (the creation of the commission) was a mistake, that it falsley raised hopes, and that we are sorry for doing so.

(My feeling is that Paul VI was aware of his mistake and was sorry for it as he would never again release another encyclical.)

The Church also needs to aplogize for the Pope's second mistake of giving the impression that a unanimous decision might have led to a different encyclical. This is even more damaging as many continue to live in hope that eventually a change might come if another commission might come up with a unanimous decision.

And why not? The "people" have seen disobedience (communion in the hand, altar girls, eucharistic ministers, etc.) rewarded over and over by an indult from the Vatican.

(Note: "NFP'ers" referred to in the following does not mean those who employ NFP according to the strictures of Church teaching. With this term I am primarily referring to those who promote NFP in the Catholic media with a type of positiveness that seems to avoid any discussion of the cross and even leans towards positioning NFP as a norm for marital relations. The ensuing will give the context to this term which I do not intend to use in a demeaning way, but perhaps skeptical.)

2 "NFP 'ers" need to get off their high horse and talk about the Cross.

Ultimately NFP is allowed because it is still open to life. Notwithstanding that perhaps many, if not most, NFP advoates use it as a form of "Catholic birth control" (spacing or limiting births without serious reason as required by the Church), the reality is that, for most couples, another child represents an unimaginable burden at every level of life. I know.

The bottom line is that the use of NFP may, regardless of the best kept charts, lead to another baby. Because the majority of NFP-ers (in the Catholic media) are busy gushing over its glories and congratulating themselves for their "openness to life", we hear little about the actual cross that comes with the child..

While some may wonder how I could dare equate a child with a cross, I would say that it is ignorant and uncharitalbe not to. It is only in understanding and taking up the cross that the cross (the child in this case) can begin to be a source of grace. For with every cross comes sufficient grace.

But because all we hear about is the warm fuzzy stuff about being open to life, parents who actually are open to life, and who continue to bring new life into the world despite staggering hardship, are left to wonder "What am I doing wrong?" "How come this doesn't feel good?" "What am I going to tell my doctor now that I'm pregnant again and I still owe him for the last one?"

No, that's the stuff we don't get to hear about...and THAT'S WHY WE ARE NOT GETTING ANYWHERE.

The NFP-ers have made the same mistake as the liberal liturgists. They have taken what is essentially an indult, a permission, and a permission only granted for the gravest of reasons, and made it the norm. In fact, that is why non-Catholics snuff off NFP as simply Catholic birth control. They are closer to the truth than we are ourselves.

What Catholicism uniquely understands is the Cross. In the end, that is all we have to hold onto anyway. It is terribly uncharitable to pretend that this isn't so.

An account of the history of the commission as found on Wikipedia

With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, some voices in the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population.[3][4] After John's death in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and over three years expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and 5 women, with an executive committee of 9 bishops and 7 cardinals).[3][4] The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[3][4][5][6]

One commission member, American Jesuit theologian John Ford (with the assistance of American theologian Germain Grisez) drafted a minority report working paper that was signed by Ford and 3 other theologian priests on the commission, stating that the Church should not and could not change its long-standing teaching.[3][4][5][6] Even though intended for the Pope only, the commission's report and two working papers (the minority report and the majority's rebuttal to it) were leaked to the press in 1967, raising public expectations of liberalization.[5][7] However, Paul VI explicitly rejected his commission's recommendations in the text of Humanae Vitae, noting the 72 member commission had not been unanimous (4 theologian priests had dissented, and 1 cardinal and 2 bishops had voted that contraception was intrinsically evil--significantly Cardinal Ottaviani, the commission's president and Bishop Colombo, the papal theologian).[3][4][6] Humanae Vitae did, however, explicitly allow the modern forms of natural family planning that were then being developed.

Should I be going to Saturday "evening" Mass?

It struck me one Saturday afternoon, as I drove past several churches, that there are a lot of people who attend Saturday "evening" Mass.

As an aside, I put "evening" in parentheses because that's the actual word used in Canon 1248 where we find the permission for this "evening" Mass. However, as I drove around in very broad daylight, it was certainly not "evening".

In justifying Saturday night Mass, there is a common appeal made to the "Jewish day" (sundown to sundown) when finding justification for the Saturday "evening" Mass. (1)

The appeal is understandable but then what about actually waiting until "sundown". A literal interpretation would also negate any Mass on Sunday after sundown which would mean most Sunday evening Masses.

Actually, the Church did not make this appeal to the "Jewish day" when making the concession for the fulfillment of the obligation on the previous evening.

Here is what the Church actually said:

Where permission has been granted by the Apostolic See to fulfill the Sunday obligation on the preceding Saturday evening, pastors should explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured. The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord. (Eucharisticum Mysterium, Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 25, 1967)

There are a couple things to note:

1. There is a singular emphasis on the significance of Sunday and the fulfillment of the "Sunday obligation".

2. The allowance for the Saturday evening fulfillment of that obligation is in fact only a "concession".

"Concession". That means that it is not the desire of the Church that the faithful fulfill the Sunday obligation on Saturday but only an allowance. But an allowance for what?

The key is in the words "Christians of today". The Church recognizes that the modern world is not a Christian world and that we nevertheless have to live in it. Work responsibilities on Sunday make it difficult for some to attend Mass on Sunday. The Church, in her charity and desire that all the faithful assist at Holy Mass admits a concession for the fulfillment of the obligation on Saturday evening.

In other words, you should NOT be going to Saturday "evening" Mass, unless for reasons beyond your control, you cannot attend Sunday Mass.

In the same document we find this unswerving emphasis on Sunday:

Whenever the community gathers to celebrate the Eucharist, it announces the death and resurrection of the Lord, in the hope of His glorious return. The supreme manifestation of this is the Sunday assembly. This is the day of the week on which, by apostolic tradition, the Paschal Mystery is celebrated in the Eucharist in a special way.75

In order that the faithful may willingly fulfill the precept to sanctify this day and understand why the Church calls them together to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday, from the very outset of their Christian formation "Sunday should be presented to them as the primordial feast day,"76 on which, assembled together, they are to hear the Word of God and take part in the Paschal Mystery.

This portion of the document is presented before the "concession" so that there can be no mistake that Saturday evening Mass is in fact a "concession".

And there is also the additional appeal to pastors to safeguard Sunday:

...pastors should explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured.

Should there be any doubt over the concessionary nature of the Saturday evening Mass consider Cardinal Arinze's recent (December 1, 2005) directive to the leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way requiring that:

”at least one Sunday per month, the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community”

In addition to the problem presented by the Neocatechumenal Way celebrating Holy Mass apart from the parish community, the NCW also had been celebrating exclusively on Saturday evening.

I am not challenging the practices of the NCW, I am pointing out a contemporary application of how the Church views the Saturday evening Mass as only a concession.

If the Church at the highest levels has restated its desire that Sunday Mass remain paramount or the "primordial feast day" as the document states in regards to the practices of this one ecclesial community, then should not this desire be applicable to all of us?

Of course.

Given the actual words of the Church herself:

1. Catholics must reexamine their reasons for attending a Saturday evening Mass and must assure themselves that attendance at this Mass in lieu of Sunday is for reasons beyond their control.

2. Pastors must "explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured." And they must periodically remind the faithful of the nature of this permission.

One final note on the time of the Saturday "Evening" Mass. While the biblical definition of "evening" varied, the contemporary definition of "evening" is normally considered that period which is "just before twilight" until "astronomical sunset" or the time when the sun no longer illuminates the sky.

Because the Church authorized the "evening" Mass for the "Christians of today" we should assume the contemporary usage of the word "evening". But as you can well see, the majority of Saturday "evening" Masses do not occur in the "evening". There is one Mass I know of that occurs as early at 3:30pm

However, Eucharisticum Mysterium gives the authority to the local ordinary to determine the allowable times for Saturday evening Masses.

Notes:
(1). It's interesting to note that Canon Law actually defines a day as follows: In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made... (Can. 202 §1.) Obviously, the Church does not consider the day to start the evening before.

Eucharistic Ministers

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

Important Features of the Extraordinary Form: Eucharistic Ministers Not Used

In the extraordinary form, the distribution of Holy Communion is confined to the ordained priest (or, in rare cases, to deacons who are on their way to becoming priests). Lay ministers of the Eucharist are not used.

This aspect will no doubt seem jarring to those who have grown accustomed to the sight of laymen flocking into the sanctuary in order to function as "Eucharistic ministers." But for one thing, this practice was supposed to be rare even in the ordinary form of the Mass-hence the official title "extraordinary [in the sense of unusual] ministers of the Eucharist." More importantly, the beautiful practice of receiving Holy Communion at the hands of a priest plays an important role in reinforcing priestly identity and gives meaning to the discipline of celibacy observed throughout the Roman Rite.

Father James McLucas, former Christendom College chaplain and a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, wrote an extended and important reflection on this subject in 1998. The celibate Catholic priest, who gives up the holy estate of marriage and an exclusive relationship with an earthly spouse in order to devote himself to God's service, was traditionally consoled by an exclusive relationship of his own; he alone could touch God." The traditional role of the celibate priest as the sole administrator of the sacred, "Fr. McLucas explained, "assisted him in sublimating his natural desire for exclusivity with another in marriage, and preserved his orientation toward his spiritual espousal to the Church and his spiritual fatherhood." (10)

The priest does not lose his normal human need for an exclusive relationship with another simply because he is a priest. But while other people satisfy this need through marriage, the priest finds it in his exclusive custodianship of the Eucharist-"an incomparable and unparalleled intimacy", with God, as Fr. McLucas put it. When laymen touch the Host, they (unwittingly, no doubt) deprive him of this exclusivity, which is supposed to ground and give strength to his celibate commitment.

Furthermore, the paternal dimension of the priesthood-the priest's role as spiritual father-is undermined when the priest is in effect told that after the consecration he is really no longer needed; the laity can take things from there. "The act of the priest 'feeding' the faithful with the Bread of Life incarnates his role as Its sole provider and, far more than the eye cans see, forms his and his people's perception of his spiritual fatherhood," wrote Fr. McLucas. And young boys are less likely to pursue priestly vocations, or indeed to be intrigued by and attracted to the priestly office in the first place, if the priest is not a figure of awe, who alone brings his people the divine gifts. If Mrs. Jones can do practically everything he can, young men will be less likely to be willing to make the sacrifices associated with the priesthood.

(10) This section is deeply indebted to an extraordinary article: Fr. James McLucas, "The Emasculation of the Priesthood," The Latin Mass, Spring 1998, available at http??www.latinmasmagaizne.com/articles/articles_emasculation.html

Male Altar Servers

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

In 1994 female altar servers were suddenly permitted for use in the ordinary form of the Roman rite. But the concession...came in the form of an indult - that is, an exception to a general rule - and one that bishops were at liberty to forbid in their dioceses. "The implication is that the general liturgical norm prohibiting female altar servers remains in existence, so that in general women may not serve at the altar undless a local ordinary intervenes by a positive act and grants permission for his territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the Congregation [for Divine Worship] has clarified the authentic interpretation to mean that an indult is given to diocesan bishops to permit the use of female servers." Instruction number 2 of the indult itself urges that "it will alway be very appropriate to follow the noble tardtion of having boys serve at the altar."

[While Rome of course is within its right to do this, I have always felt that such "indults" place the bishop in an awkward position, evidenced by the fact that most of the bishops eventually "cave". However, today's bishop is the one clamoring for more autonomy and local authority in manners of church discipline. So with that freedom has come the responsibility to be the "bad guy" once in awhile. Much praise to the bishops who stand up to popular opinion and, despite indults, continue with what the Church actually prefers.]

...The very fact that the exclusively male preserve of altar service can be traced back to the beginning of the Church weighs very heavily in the equation, particularly for a Church that values Tradition as one of its pillars. ..."In the case of religious tradition which has not only existed, but has been consciously, continuously, and emphatically reaffirmed and insisted upon for two millenia, there must be an enormous and overwhelming presumption that such a traditon reflects the will of Christ." ... the "general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West."

Many of the arguments against female altar servers are similar to those that justify the reservation of the priesthood to men alone, particularly since altar servers are often considered extensions of the priest (Arguments in defencse of a male-only preisthood are well summarized in Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Congreagation for the Doctirine of the Faith's 1976 document Inter Insigniores, both of which are available online.) We see this close relationship between altar service and its culminationtion in the priesthood not only in that both the priest and altar servers wear the cassock and surplice, but also in certain linguistic conventions. The Spanish word fo altar boy is monaguillo, which means a "little monk." In Italian, ... "the word for altar boy is chierichetto - a "little cleric," which means that the term used naturally for "altar girs" in Italian is in itself an affront to Catholic doctrine: they are called donne chierichettoa, "little female clerics."

A married person, according to Catholic teaching as well as common sense, may not flirt or become involved romatically with a member of the opposite sex even if their relationshiop should remain technically chaste. Their behavior toward each other is logically ordered toward physical consummation even if such consummation does not in fact occur.

..."From this perspective...we could say that a woman or girl serving at the altar, no matter how devout her personal intentions, no matter how reverent, recollected and modest her deportment and dress, is by her very presence in the sanctuary engaging in what is objectively a kind of spiritual immodesty. She is flirting, as it were, with priestly ordination-mimicking it, drawing as near as she can to it with an indecorous familiartiy and an intrusive intimacy. Her liturgical role insinuates and suggests ordination as its proper goal or fulfillment, even though this is absolutely excluded by the Law of Christ."

Female altar service, in short, introduces a deep tension, an inner contradition, into the sacred litrugy. It makes an ideological statement which both politicizes and secularizes our Eucharistic worship. Instead of reflecting the sublime harmony of the communion of saints, a foretatste of Heaven itself, the sanctuary comes to symbolize an earthly battlefield in the new cold war against "patriarchy."

Kneeling for Holy Communion

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

The abandonment of this pious practice is of very recent origin - four decades ago it was still the common manner of receivng Holy Communion.

Why shouldn't we receive Christ on our knees - as was (and in some places still is) even the the traditional Lutheran posture when receiving Communion? A parish bulletin insert from several years ago employed a common argument to justify the change: "We should remember that standing itself is a gesture of reverence. It is our cultural custom to stand when a dignitary enters a room or when we sing the national anthem."

[This comment is incredibly ignorant. But I withhold comment because the author says here what I would say.]

To be sure, at some times and in certain places, standing was the posture that indicated the highest form of reverence. But that is not the case in modern Western culture, and so appeals to the practice of the early Church are irrelevant to the situation in the West here and now. It is surely unwise to disrupt traditional Catholic piety for the sake of intruducting a gesture that is less suggestive of the kind of reverence that is owed to God alone, and more suggestive of the reverence we show when a a mere "dignitary enters a room." Jesus Christ is rather more important than the ambassodor from Liechtenstein.

[I would add that this goes for the standing after Communion, and in some places, standing through the consecration as well.]

In practice, having people receive the Eucharist in an ordinary way - we stand all the time, after all - rather than an unusual one (how often do we kneel, except before Christ?) can make them think that what they are receiving in Holy Communion is relatively unremarkable. This principle has often been summed up by the Latin phrase lex orandi lex credendi, which is normally translated as "The law of prayer is the law of belief." How we pray influences what we believe. If the words and postures by which we pray leave some question about the nature of the Mass, the offering of sacrifice, and the Real Presence of Christ, then our belief in these things is likely to grow less certain and more confused.

Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks about the value of kneeling in the liturgy are worth recalling here. Kneeling, he said, "may well be...alien to modern culture," which has "turned away from the faith, and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is th eright, indeed instrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core." He also pointed out the numerous biblical examples that emphasize kneeling as the proper posture for adoration and prayer. How appropriate, then, to kneel at the moment of Holy Communion.

Communion on the Tongue

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue was the norm throughout the Latin Rite until 1969, when the Holy See issued an indult permitting the practice in the most difficult and disobedient Catholic countries. Later the indult was expanded. Italy did not have it until the 1980's - and Poland only two years ago.

Dietrich von Hildebrand, one of the twentieth-century's great moral theologians and Catholic writers, and deeply admired by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, warned that Communion in the hand could have the effect of undermining people's faith in the Real Presence. "To be allowed to touch the consecrated host with unannointed hands is in no way presented to the faithful as an awe-inspiring privilege," he wrote in a 1973 article called "Communion in the Hand Should Be Rejected." "It becomes the normal form of receiving Communion. And this fosters an irreverent attitude and thus corrodes faith in the real bodily presence of Christ." The late theologian Father John Hardon, S.J. , urged in 1997 that "whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God."

In the same way that a deeper understanding of the theology of the Eucharist and the extraordinary gift God has given us helped to foster the practice of Eucharistic adoration, a fuller appreciation of Christ's Real Presence also led over time to the rejection of Communion in the hand and the adoption of Communion on the tongue. As the Congregation for Divine Worship noted in 1969, "Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant."

[It is a fashion of the age to resurrect some ancient practice and claim it to be the ideal or "pure". However, Catholics should want to know how and why we came to have what we have. To not do that is to deny the action of the Holy Spirit who has led us over the centuries into the "way of all Truth". In other words, to deny the product of genuine and venerable tradition is to deny the authority of the Church and the action of the Spirit. Rather than throw out what the centuries have given us, we must strive to understand the beauty of what the Church has so long labored to give us.]

It was no accident that sixteenth-century Protestants like Martin Bucer, insisted so strongly on the reception of Communion in the hand. Although Protestant opinion varied, the consensus held that Catholic teaching on the Real Presence amounted to gross idolatry. Encouraging Communion in the hand, they believed, undermined two Catholic teachings at once: the ministerial priesthood and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. First, the distribution of Communion in the hand implied that there was nothing special about the ordained priest, since laymen had just as much right to touch the Eucharist as he did. Second, receiving the Host in the hand emphasized that the Eucharist was ordinary bread - for if it is nothing more than ordinary bread, why shouldn't a layman be able to receive it directly in his hand?

That the practice of Communion in the hand was observed well over a millennium ago is virtually irrelevant. As Pope Pius XII explained in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, the desire to introduce novel practices into Catholic worship when the existing practice is venerable and hallowed by tradition is at odds with a normal and healthy sensus Catholicus. May we apply this reproof to those Catholics in the 1960's who disobediently resurrected the discarded practice, centuries after Communion on the tongue had become the established norm?

In fact, Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina, who announced in 1996 that Communion in the hand was to be forbidden in his diocese, drew this very conclusion, citing this teaching of Pius XII in support of his policy. The bishop's decision was subsequently approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which informed him that "in deciding to maintain immutable the tradition of distributing Holy Communion in the mouth [you] have acted in conformity with the law and therefore have not broken with ecclesial communion."

When Paul VI grudgingly allowed Communion in the hand in 1969, his permission came in the context of a letter urging that the traditional practice of Communion on the tongue be retained. Allowance for Communion in the hand was made as a concession for parts of the world where disobedience on this point had already reached epidemic proportions. The Pontiff thus allowed the bishops to permit the practice if they thought it the best way to cope with the situation.

We read in Memoriale Domini, the Congregation for Divine Worship's 1969 Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, that a "change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine. "For these and other reasons, the Congregation explained, "the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the faithful. "The Congregation's warnings continued:

This method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist.

Further the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually." Lastly it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

These were the urgings and warnings that preceded the Holy See's reluctant allowance for Communion in the hand in those countries where this forbidden practice had become widespread.

...the 1962 Missal contains an edifying and very beautiful instruction to the priest: from the moment of consecration until the final ablutions, he is to hold thumb and forefinger together, in order to prevent the profanation of any particle of the Sacred Species. If for centuries the Church taught her priests to show such fastidious devotion to Christ, then Father Hardon's desire to discourage Communion in the hand becomes a matter of simple common sense - for if priests were once concerned about Eucharistic fragments just between their thumbs and forefingers, so much greater is the problem presented by the layman who takes the entire Host into his outstretched hand.

Wake up, Guam!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and insert myself simultaneously into the two "no-no's" of polite conversation: Religion and Politics.

When it comes to politics I am neither Republican or Democrat. I am a Catholic. By that I do NOT mean that I vote for the Catholic candidate...if there is one. What I mean is that I vote for the person who best represents the moral positions of the Catholic Church.

I do this not because I'm pro-life or anti-choice or any other label, but simply because I know that I WILL have to one day stand before THE JUDGE and answer for my every action. In short, I don't want to go to Hell.

Both Obama and Clinton have consistently shown that they have and will oppose Catholic Teaching on the evil of abortion. Of the two, Obama gets an even lower score for his incredible refusal to support the "Born Alive Bill", a bill that would have mandated care for babies who survived an abortion. (It happens.)

Not even some of the most virulent pro-abortion groups opposed the bill, but Obama did.

I don't have time to document all this. You can see a copy of my previous email on the subject at: http://timothyrohr.blogspot.com/search/label/Abortion or you can just google the info yourself. You will see that in fact:

"Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever"!

I'm staggered, appalled, bewildered, etc. over the "Guam gone ga-ga" over Obama simply because he is talking about throwing Guam a bone. While you may not think war reparations is a "bone", that's the way politocs like Obama see it: bones for votes. They do it all the time.

What a sad commentary on our island when we are willing to throw (sometimes still alive) babies in the trash in return for a phone call from a presidential pretender who knows how to pronounce the word "Chamorro" and claims to know our needs because he spent his boyhood in Hawaii. Just amazing!


I believe God has spared our island from disaster after disaster as a sign of his merciful appreciation for the steadfast centuries of Faith on Guam. I also believe that the ancestral Faith of Guam is fast disappearing, and in time, so will the unique protection of heaven that we have enjoyed.

While religious leaders cannot officially back a particular candidate they can:

1. Officialy present and represent and represent the Church's official teaching on such matters AND (most importantly) present to their flocks the consequences of supporting evil;

and,

2. Personally share their opinions on the candidate that best represents Catholic moral teaching, so long as it is not in an official capacity or from the pulpit.

Let us encourage our religious leaders to do just that!

It amazes me the resources we mobilize to combat gaming and yet we say nothing about the rallying of support for those who openly support the killing of our babies.

Christ could forgive the Roman soldiers who crucified him because in fact they, as pagans, knew not what they did. But the Sanhedrin was another story. They did know. And so do we.

Perhaps a reminder of what happened to Jerusalem in 70 A.D. would be appropriate...in case you're wondering whatever happened to the Sanhedrin.