On Burning Books

Much has been made of Terry Jones' trial and immolation of a Koran. Many people thought the act distinctly un-Christian. While Terry Jones is most assuredly not Catholic, and while good Christians can certainly hold different opinions about the prudence or utility of the act, it is undeniably the case that his act is well within the bounds of Catholic faith.

Of the 21 ecumenical councils of the Church, at least five of those councils were directly associated with the burning of books - the penultimate, Constance, is not only associated with the burning of books, but also the burning of the heretic who wrote several of them:

1^st council of Nicaea - "Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria."

Council of Ephesus - Although the 431 AD Council did not itself require the burning of Nestorius' works, "The bishops who were suspected of being favourable to Nestorius were deposed. An edict of Theodosius II, 30 July, 435, condemned his writings to be burnt. A few years later Nestorius was dragged from his retirement and banished to the Oasis."

Council of Chalcedon - "The writings of the Eutychians were to be burned; their authors, or those who spread them, were to be punished with confiscation and banishment. Finally Eutyches and Dioscurus were both banished."

Council of Constance - "In this session forty-five propositions of Wyclif, already condemned by the universities of Paris and Prague, were censured as heretical, and in a later session another long list of 260 errors. All his writings were ordered to be burned and his body was condemned to be dug up and cast out of consecrated ground (this was not done until 1428 under Bishop Robert Fleming of Lincoln)....

John Hus’ books were burned by order of the council (24 June)…. He refused to retract anything and so was condemned as a heretic, deposed, and degraded, and handed over to the secular arm, which in turn condemned him to perish at the stake, at that time the usual legal punishment of convicted heretics. He suffered that cruel death with self-possession and courage and when about to expire cried out, it is said: "Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on us!" His ashes were thrown into the Rhine."

Council of Trent – The council (1545-1560) did not need to expressly order Luther’s writings burned, because, following the pontifical bull Exsurge Domine (15 June 1520), book burnings of Luther’s writings took place in Louvain, Antwerp, Ghent, Utrecht, Bruges, Hertogenbosch, and Deventer. The pontifical vice-chancellor of Rome, the Legate of the Low Countries, Jerome Aleander, boasted of having burnt 400 of Luther’s books, 300 of which were seized in bookshops and 100 from individuals. Tyndall’s Bible was similarly burned. And no wonder: Exsurge Domine confirmed that heretics can licitly be burned, and ordered that all heretical works, where ever they might be found, also be burned.

(If it's any consolation, the Protestants burned books and heretics with equal zeal. Consider the fate of Michael Servetus, for instance, who was burned along with his book by Calvin, or Martin Luther, who famously burned the papal edict condemning his heresies. And it isn't just a Christian thing. The Buddhist emperors of China burned Taoist books with the same zeal).

And the Church didn't restrict Herself to burning just quasi-Christian people or books. During the Spanish Inquisition, thousands of Muslim theology books were burnt, including hundreds of copies of the Koran. Indeed, in celebration of the removal of the Moors from Spain, there was a grand book burning of at least 5000 Muslim volumes at Bibarrambla.

And it wasn't just the Koran that burned. During the Middle Ages, the Talmud was frequently targeted for the fire by Church authorities precisely because of the numerous blasphemies concerning Christ and the Blessed Virgin that it contains. Throughout Europe, the book was formally put on trial and censored or burnt, in much the same way Terry Jones tried and burnt the Koran.

As the Renaissance unfolded and the printing press dramatically increased the number of books, the number of book burnings carried out by the Catholic Church also dramatically increased.

Of the 15 to 20 million books printed before 1500, 12 million were in Latin. By 1530, there were more books in the vernacular than in Latin. The printing press permitted a modern Tower of Babel. Politically, it fractured Europe into various vernacular "nations" which contributed to the rise of the nation-state. Theologically, it allowed pretty much anyone to set out their own musings in an easily disseminated format. The Church tried to crack down on this via book burnings, but without much success.

The Point of the Flames

And here we must entertain the question of prudence. When there is no printing press, where there is no such thing as paper, a book is a very expensive undertaking. It requires much vellum or papyrus, both of which require intensive labor for production - vellum not only requires labor, but large herds of sheep or cattle, for vellum is made from their skin. Even today, real vellum is expensive and hard to find. And, once the vellum is located, you have to find someone literate to hand-copy the book that you want made.

In a society in which even the leaves of books are expensive, the skill it takes to inscribe those leaves with the correct encoding of ink is a very expensive and arcane hobby, much like the skill of flying a helicopter is today.

Most people don't know how to pilot a helicopter because they have no likelihood of ever owning or using one. Helicopters are too expensive. Similarly, in a pre-printing press society, books are simply too expensive, they require too much labor to produce for most people to own one or even learn the skills associated with correctly using one.

So, when a book is burned in such a society, the ideas expressed in the book will probably not long survive the fire. That was the theory, but it rarely worked in practice.

As we can see from the examples above, the very first ecumenical council of the Church burned Arius' writings, but that really didn't stop his ideas from spreading. The Church spent the next several hundred years trying to stamp out the heresy, and never really succeeded. Today's Jehovah Witnesses teach pretty much what Arius taught all those centuries ago.

How Effective?

So if book burning didn't even work back then, how effective is it going to be today, when printing presses around the world can turn out books faster than anyone can burn them? Indeed, what is the point of book burning at all, given that the Internet makes it literally impossible to touch the source text?

Book burning, both then and now, is a statement, a declaration of war against a specific idea. Just as certain people fight hard to keep "unsuitable" books out of the science classroom, so other people fight hard to keep "unsuitable" books out of other classrooms. Whether we are talking about the banning of a textbook on intelligent design or the burning of a book by Mohammed, we are ultimately discussing the attempt to condemn a certain set of ideas.

Now, many people say that, rather than burn or ban books, we should engage and refute the ideas expressed within them. And we should, indeed, engage and refute ideas. But engagement and refutation have many aspects.

Know Your Enemy

For instance, to someone raised in a Western Judeo-Christian culture, an idea is engaged and refuted by using Aristotelian logic. But for someone raised in an Eastern non-Judeo-Christian culture, Aristotelian logic has no special compulsion.

Islam, for instance, famously teaches that Allah is not rational, that rationality is beneath Him. Allah is greater than rationality, He is not bound by laws of any kind, not even His own word. In the war to maintain His glory - and all Islam sees it as a war between Allah and the forces of darkness - Allah is the greatest of deceivers.

So, when we demand that Westerners should "engage and refute" Islam, we implicitly demand that Muslims adopt Western Judeo-Christian standards of debate, that they adopt and treasure Western Judeo-Christian concepts of value and culture. We imagine seriously orthodox Muslims use the same Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian standards we use.

They don't.

Now, sure, Islam preserved the Greco-Roman heritage for us (although, it should be noted, they did not preserve Aristotle's Logic for us - we always had that book), but Islam never really used any of those books. What time they spent with the Greco-Roman classics was largely spent trying to make those works cohere to Islamic thought, much as Aquinas spent years trying to baptize Aristotle.

The difference? Aquinas ultimately showed that Aristotle's work could, indeed, be baptized. Muslims never managed that for Islam. That's why they ultimately never really did anything with the foundations of Greco-Roman thought. Islam stagnated because it couldn't think it's way out of the hole its theology had placed it in.

Precisely because Islam does not see Allah as a rational being, it is irrational for us to assume that logical debate will win over orthodox Muslims. The natural law may, indeed, be written on their hearts, but as Aquinas points out, that doesn't mean it is easy to discern or clear.

A priest friend once told me, "In order to start a conversation with some people, you must first break green lumber over their heads." Burning a Koran is certainly the theological equivalent of that attention-getting action.

Becoming a Soldier of Christ

But it isn't just a matter of getting attention. Given the Muslim propensity for irrational violence, the act of burning the Koran is a very personal declaration of war. It places the person doing the burning at very real and central risk of becoming a target for Muslim violence.

In short, the burning of a Koran makes you a soldier in the current war. Just as the Internet has made burning books old hat, so Islam has made travel to the Army recruitment center unnecessary. In this war, you don't have to pass a government physical or train in a government boot camp to become a combatant. Just burn a Koran, and you're in.

In fact, you don't even need to do that. Simply being a living, breathing non-Muslim makes you a combatant. In this sense, there is a real logical consistency, a real and positive motivation for burning a Koran. Muslims have already demonstrated that every non-Muslim is a target, that civilian casualties are not only not to be avoided, civilian casualties are to be encouraged.

So, when a civilian burns the Koran, he or she is not just saying, "The Koran is a blasphemous book", rather, he or she is saying, "I realize that you recognize me as an enemy combatant. I realize that you consider me worthy of nothing but enslavement and slaughter unless I convert to Islam. I refuse to convert."

Now, in agreeing to see themselves as a soldier, the civilian who burns the Koran has, in a very real sense, accepted at least some of the premises of Islam. Such a person essentially agrees that there is such a thing as the Dar al-Harb, the House of War. Such a person agrees that we who are non-Muslims are in that house.

So, in this sense, the burning of a Koran is a very Muslim act. And, for this very reason, a Christian might say "I cannot burn a Koran, for I do not accept that there should be such a House of War. I do not accept the Muslim worldview." And this is a view that is also accurate. It cannot be discounted or downplayed.

Still, for a people who feel themselves rendered impotent by a series of wars against Islamic radicals that are never-ending, by a president whose pro-Muslim sympathies are painfully and frighteningly clear, by a level of Muslim violence which cannot be controlled or managed, the burning of the Koran is an act by which any Christian can symbolically center themselves. It is a declaration of war against an increasingly chaotic universe, a Mahdi-inspired universe.

By burning a Koran, we tell the Muslim radical, "Here I stand. You shall not pass."

It may not be prudent, it may not be useful, but it is a stand worthy of respect.

A Short History of the USCCB

Follow this link, and see what the USCCB says about itself.

Then read below and discover a few of the details the USCCB omitted from its own history.

To understand how the USCCB came into existence, we must first understand the spiritual background of the man who essentially provided the impetus for the foundation of the organization. Father John J. Burke was a Paulist priest, and therein lies a tale. Whether rightly or wrongly (and here the reader should research and judge for himself) the Paulist priests have a history that is closely associated with scandal.

Fr. Isaac Hecker founded the Paulists in 1858, and Father Hecker himself was a definitely controversial figure, but a discussion of his life is outside the scope of this essay. The Paulists, like most religious orders, like to believe they were founded by an extremely holy person, a saint. And like most religious orders, they worked hard to demonstrate the sanctity of their late, great founder after he passed away in 1888. By 1897, his biography had both been translated into French and been given quite an eye-opening foreward. For various reasons peculiar to the age, his biography became quite popular in France, and French priests were urged to take up the ideas Father Hecker was said to espouse.

Word of these ideas reached Rome.

Pope Leo XIII was so struck by them that, by January 22, 1899, he felt compelled to compose an encyclical letter, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, in which he condemned seven of the propositions that seemed to emanate from America – a suite of ideas Pope Leo condemned as "Americanism":

The condemned ideas:

1. The Church should shape her teachings in accord with popular custom, relax her disciplines or omit or de-emphasize doctrines that non-Catholics find scandalous, that is, a tendency towards silence that omits or neglects Catholic doctrine;
2. The Church should grant to the faithful the same kind of freedom in spiritual matters that the state grants in civil matters;
3. Catholics need only adhere to infallible teachings of the Roman pontiff;
4. License is coterminous with liberty;
5. External spiritual guidance is not necessary;
6. Active virtues are superior to "angelical virtues, erroneously styled passive" virtues;
7. Religious life and vows are harmful to human perfection and/or society.

The American bishops agreed with one voice that such heretical ideas could never be found in America. Yet, despite the bishops' protestations, the ideas seem somehow rendolent of Father Hecker's "social justice" spirituality. In fact, Americanism was the first heresy in 300 years to be named after a specific geographic region.

In any case, events at home and abroad were moving forward. The mainstream Protestant churches formed the Federal Council of Churches in 1908, and many Catholics looked with a certain degree of envy upon the organization. The Federal Council seemed to have a certain amount of clout and Catholics were desirous of emulating their success.

With the start of what turned out to be World War I, Paulist Father John J. Burke decided to create a Catholic analog to the Protestant model, the National Catholic War Council (NCWC). The National Catholic War Council organized after two meetings in April/August 1917 at the Catholic University of America (CUA) in Washington DC had several purposes, for it simultaneously:

• represented Catholic interests in the U.S. Congress,
• addressed the needs of soldiers at home and overseas,
• promoted the Americanization of recent immigrants, and
• developed a Program for the Social Reconstruction of American society after the war.

If you see no particular aspect of liturgy or sacrament addressed, you would not be the first to notice. In November 1917 the National Catholic War Council was reorganized to give the bishops more direct operational responsibility. The Knights of Columbus did most of the footwork. The council even produced a nice little handbook.

In August 1918, the War Department recognized the National Catholic War Council as part of the United War Work Campaign of 1918. It received $36 million dollars as its share of the fund drive, most of which went to the Knights of Columbus and the NCWC overseas units.

On 24 September 1919 the American bishops created the National Catholic Welfare Council (NCWC) and three months later it took over War Council work with its headquarters remaining in Washington, D.C. Bureaucracies die hard. The National Catholic War Council, which the Welfare Council had now displaced, would not finally officially dissolve as a corporation until April 30, 1931. But, back to the story of the Bishops' shiny new Welfare Council.

Pope Benedict XV died on January 22, 1922.

Cardinals O'Connell and Dougherty arrived in Rome on February 6 to help elect a new pope, only to learn that a new pope had been elected only a half hour before. As Dougherty was leaving Rome, he was handed a decree of the Consistorial Congregation, signed by Cardinal Gaetano De Lai, one of O'Connell's friends, and dated February 25. It ordered the immediate disbanding of the NCWC.

In response, the members of the administrative committee of the NCWC immediately petitioned the new Pope Pius XI to delay publication of the decree until they could make a representation in Rome.

Bishop Louis Walsh of Portland, Maine, a member of the administrative board, saw in the Consistorial Congregation's action "a dangerous underhand blow from Boston, aided by Philadelphia, who both realized at our last meeting that they could not control the Bishops of this country and they secured the two chief powers of the Consistorial Congregation, Cardinals De Lai and Del Val [sic] to suppress all common action."

Walsh hoped to enlist the support of Archbishops Curley of Baltimore and Hayes of New York in the effort to ward off the order to disband. As O'Connell told Cardinal De Lai, he regarded this circularizing of the bishops as a "plebiscite" designed:

"to annul the force of the decree. The customary maneuver demonstrates again more evidently the wisdom of the decree. Today we are in full 'Democracy, Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism.'" And now it seems more than ever that this N.C.W.C. shows more clearly that not only does it tend little by little to weaken hierarchical authority and dignity, but also wishes to put into operation the same tactics against the Consistorial [Congregation]. It is incredible that Rome does not see the danger of conceding today in order to have to concede much more tomorrow.

In Rome, the American delegation learned that the Consistorial Congregation was inclined to accept the attacks of O'Connell and Dougherty against the NCWC because of a concern about a resurgence of Americanism and an anxiety regarding the implications of such a large hierarchy meeting on an annual basis.

The Consistorial Congregation's decree, moreover, reflected tension between Gasparri, who was supporting the Americans, and those cardinals who wanted a return to the policies of Pope Pius X. Ultimately, however, the American delegation won the day.

On July 4, 1922, the Consistorial Congregation issued a new instruction. The NCWC could remain in existence, but the congregation recommended, among other things, that:

• the meetings of the hierarchy take place less often than every year,
• attendance at them be made voluntary,
• decisions of the meetings not be binding or construed in any way as emanating from a plenary council, and
• the name "council" in the title be changed to something like "committee."

Now, it is worthwhile to take notice of these restrictions. Apparently, the American bishops of the Welfare Council had begun to take on airs. The styled themselves a true council of the Church, apparently thought they could require attendance, and felt their own decisions were so important that all America's bishops were bound by them. It took a congregation of Rome to knock them off their high horse and dash their high sense of self-esteem. Does this sound like Democrats at work?

In 1922, after nearly being suppressed by both the dying Pope Benedict XV and the new Pope Pius XI, the administrative board did, indeed, change the name of the National Catholic Welfare Council to the National Catholic Welfare Conference (now the USCCB). It had 5 departments each run by a bishop:

• Education,
• Legislation,
• Social Action,
• Lay Organizations, and
• Press and Publicity.

The "social justice" Welfare Council - now Conference - was the basis for the 1966 formation of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and the United States Catholic Conference (USCC). The NCCB was responsible for internal affairs of the Church, the USCC was responsible for its external relationships.

In 2001, both organizations merged together to become what we now call the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Thus concludes the short history of the USCCB, but a further word can be said.

Again, for reasons known only to itself, while the USCCB's own history of itself takes care to quote documents of Vatican II and various popes which authorized its existence, it somehow fails to make any mention of the papal documents and canon law which describe the extent of its authority.

Though we are sure this is merely an oversight which will soon be rectified, we thought it apropos to discuss the authority the USCCB wields.

Apostolos Suos Christus Dominus, authored by Pope John Paul II, not only expresses the hope that the venerable institution of Particular Councils would be revitalized (cf. No. 36), but also dealt explicitly with Episcopal Conferences, acknowledging the fact that they had been established in many countries and laying down particular norms regarding them (cf. Nos. 37-38).

The document is well worth reading, if only because it constantly reiterates a single theme:

10. At the level of particular Churches grouped together by geographic areas (by countries, regions, etc.), the Bishops in charge do not exercise pastoral care jointly with collegial acts equal to those of the College of Bishops.

11. In fact, only the faithful entrusted to the pastoral care of a particular Bishop are required to accept his judgement given in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a religious assent of soul.

12. Nonetheless, this territorially based exercise of the episcopal ministry never takes on the collegial nature proper to the actions of the order of Bishops as such, which alone holds the supreme power over the whole Church. In fact, the relationship between individual Bishops and the College of Bishops is quite different from their relationship to the bodies set up for the above-mentioned joint exercise of certain pastoral tasks.

19. This provision is found explicitly in the Code of Canon Law where we read: "A diocesan Bishop in the diocese committed to him possesses all the ordinary, proper and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral office except for those cases which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme authority of the Church or to some other ecclesiastical authority"

20. In other cases "the competence of individual diocesan Bishops remains intact; and neither the Conference nor its president may act in the name of all the Bishops unless each and every Bishop has given his consent".

In short, the Pope took enormous pains, indeed, almost unheard of pains, to make clear that organizations like the USCCB's authority over any particular lay Catholic is:

• Zero
• Nada
• Zilch
• Zip
• Goose Egg
• Empty Set
• Non-Existent
• Completely Absent
• A sounding brass and tinkling cymbal signifying nothing

According to the infallible ordinary Magisterium, the teaching authority of the USCCB does not exist. Fifty cents and any USCCB document would not buy a candy bar, unless the cashier didn't want to charge sales tax. The USCCB is a purely consultative body whose opinions aren't worth rust in the scales. The only person a Catholic is required to at least listen to is his own bishop.

No decree of the USCCB has any weight unless the local bishop endorses it.

And the Pope felt it necessary to knock the USCCB off its high horse by creating a document that the USCCB officially refuses to notice on its own website.

Why does this matter?

Because within the USCCB there is a fight between bishops who wish to promote the Catholic Faith and bishops who wish to promote secular "social justice." We must pray for the bishops of the USCCB, that all of them eventually gain the mind of good Catholics, or at least retire so they can be replaced by those who have such a mind.

Rent-A-Ranger

Well, everyone is asking the same question: is there a method to Barack's madness? Why does he ignore one Middle East revolution while involving US forces in another?

There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to what he's doing.
Historic US allies are thrown overboard while opportunities to assist in the overthrow of historic enemies are completely ignored.

There is a key.

We have several instances to compare:

• The Iranian revolution
• The Egyptian revolution
• The Libyan revolution
• The Syrian revolution
• The Yemen revolution
• The Bahrain and Saudi revolutions

Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, feeding arms and training into their networks. When the Iranian people rose up against the mullahs of Iran, Barack did nothing.

Mubarak, whatever his other failings, was not a fan of either Hamas or Hezbollah. He expressed deep concern over the growing strength of Hamas and worked hard to keep them from winning elections. Barack pushed hard to get Mubarak out of office.

While Gaddafi supported Barack for US President, Gaddafi was no particular friend of Hamas or Hezbollah. In recent weeks, both organizations condemned Gaddafi, voicing concern that he would begin a slaughter of their Libyan-based operatives.

Syria, on the other hand, supports Hamas and Hezbollah, feeding arms and training into their networks. Barack has vowed to leave Syria alone.

Yemen backs Hamas and Hezbollah; it serves as a key transit hub for Hamas armaments. Barack has said there should be no demonstrations against the Yemeni government.

In Bahrain, Hamas approves of Obama's policies of non-intervention. Saudi Arabia, which provides the financial support for nearly all the Wahhabi Muslim mosques throughout the world, can roll in with tanks and Obama merely bows obsequiously and stands silent.

Palestinians gave enormous amounts of cash to Obama's election campaign.
Barack gave Hamas $1.3 billion of US Taxpayer money and he wasn't just paying jizya.
Barack listened to his pastor. He's actively courting Hezbollah.

So, who stands and who falls when Barack is calling the shots?

Re-phrase the question: who does Hamas and Hezbollah want dead?

When you have the answer to that question, you have the answer to who Barack will order the US military to support, and who he will leave hanging to twist in the wind... assuming he doesn't come with rope to help the hangman himself.

As Barack himself put it, "it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions..."

Or, as a Hamas spokesman might put it, why buy an air force when you can rent one for free?
We have become mercenaries for Middle East terrorists.

Pope Benedict Spouts More Private Opinion

Much as I hate to link to the National Catholic Distorter, there's no way around it this time. John Allen reports that a private theologian thinks we shouldn't be evangelizing the Jews. The problem is, this particular private theologian is the Pope. Now, keep in mind that - in the entire history of the Church - we have had only two Popes who have ever written books for the general public as private theologians. Historically, a Pope writes two kinds of communications - either he writes a Church document (encyclical, papal bull, constitution, etc.) to the universal Church, in which case he is infallible, or he writes a private letter to one or more people as a private theologian, in which case he is not infallible. In the latter case, he's as likely to make a fool of himself as anyone. Only two Popes - Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict - have turned their hands to writing books for the general public. These books are not Church documents, they're just ways for some publishers to make money and for these two Popes to make their private theological opinions known. As if anyone cares what the opinions of a private theologian might be. Private theological opinion is not part of the Magisterium, and it bears no more necessary weight than this post. In this man's private theological opinion, we shouldn't be evangelizing the Jews:

"For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles." ~Galatians 2:8

Does this mean Peter was NOT an apostle to the Jews? Or does it mean the apostle to the Jews has decided he shouldn't do that anymore? In the same book, he said violence has no place in Christianity.

"Violence does not build up the kingdom of God, the kingdom of humanity. On the contrary, it is a favorite instrument of the Antichrist, however idealistic its religious motivation may be," Benedict wrote. "It serves, not humanity, but inhumanity."

Hmmm... now, what are we to do with Jesus in the Temple with a whip, overturning the tables of the sellers? Were the Popes who called for Crusade all doing the work of the anti-Christ? Lots of people say they were. Indeed, lots of people would say the office of the Pope is the anti-Christ, and this fruit is one example. What do we do with the literally dozens of Catholic religious orders whose vows or training included military practice, like the Knights Hospitaller or the Knights Templar? Were the numerous Popes who approved their vows and their work all wrong? Did the orders do the work of the anti-Christ? Was the Council of Constance, which denounced John Hus as a heretic and degraded his status so that the Emperor Sigismund could burn him at the stake, was that council in error? We already know his opinion on condoms. As a Pope, when he teaches as the Pope, Pope Benedict is infallible. As a private theologian, who is teaching as any simple person might, the man Benedict does not seem to be measuring up. We have had popes with problems in the past - Pope Honorius was even declared by the Church (though after his reign) to have been a heretic during his reign. We have had two men simultaneously claim to be Pope, each elected by the same set of cardinals, each supported by a doctor of the Church. It's not unusual for the Church to experience a Pope that has certain problems. The current Pope is not nearly as bad as some we have had in the past. But he certainly could explain himself better.

Muslims, Jews and the CCC

Over the last few months, several people have written to me expressing concern about the way the Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the Church's relationship with the Muslims.

Specifically, the following section is seen as problematic:

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."³²⁵

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,³²⁶ "the first to hear the Word of God."³²⁷ The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",³²⁸ "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."³²⁹

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

First, take a look at #839 and #840, the discussion of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. It says the Jewish People were "the first to hear the Word of God." That's pretty clear - they definitely heard the Word of God.

The Jewish faith "unlike other non-Christian religions is already a response to God's covenant." Hmmm... What other non-Christian religions might that be a reference to (hint: see CCC #841)?

The Jews are already sons, already in irrevocable covenant with God. They have very similar expectations to Christians. They get two paragraphs of discussion, quite a bit more than everybody else gets.

Contrast this treatment to how the Muslims are treated in CCC #841.
Especially, notice two things about that particular article:

1) It doesn't say Muslims DO hold the faith of Abraham, it just says that THEY profess to hold the faith of Abraham. The Catechism in no way says they are correct in their allegation - it just notices that they say it, and then - with a deafening silence - fails to confirm that they are correct.

2) It also says - without being obvious about it - that Muslim theology about Jesus is completely wrong.

You'll only notice point two if you know a little something about Muslim theology (keep in mind that the Church has been dealing with Muslims, sometimes at the point of a sword, since at least 632, so She has some passing acquaintance with Muslim theology).

You see, both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus is the Judge on the Day of Judgement.
But, of course, Muslims don't think Jesus is God while Christians know He is.

So, when CCC #841 says "together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day", the CCC affirms that Jesus is God and essentially says that the God the Muslims worship MUST be Trinitarian (or He wouldn't be God).

To put it another way, since Jesus is God, He is necessarily Judge.
Muslims believe Jesus is Judge, then insofar as they understand that He is Judge, while they may not realize it (because they aren't too bright), by saying Jesus is Judge they admit that He is God.

In short, the CCC says Muslim theology and Christology is terminally screwed up. The CCC is slamming the Muslims for being ignorant slobs, but it's doing it in the nicest possible way.

And, since it is in the CCC, this statement that Muslim Christology is WRONG is a point of Catholic doctrine - that is, all Catholics must accept and believe that Muslim theology is wrong.

Conclusion
Now, why would the CCC be so delicate in how it phrases things?

Keep in mind that in 2000 years, there have been a total of TWO(2) - count 'em, TWO - universal catechisms. The first came after the Council of Trent and served for nearly 400 years by itself. It is still considered an authoritative reference on doctrine - nothing in it is abrogated.

This new catechism will undoubtedly be in service for centuries as well. Who knows who will read it in the future or what chips may be on which shoulders when it is read? So, the newest CCC figures discretion is the better part of wisdom.

It says as many nice things as it can about non-Christian faiths. There's a lot of nice things that can be said about Jewish theology and... well... what can be said nicely about Muslim theology was said as nicely as possible, considering what theological schlubs Muslims are.

You have to be REALLY careful when you read Church documents.
They often say things in a way that is not obvious until you get into parsing the exact way a thing is said.

Seder It Ain't So

So, I'm at Mass yesterday and the FSSP priest's homily is about Catholic participation in seder meals.
He's agin' it.
And I agree with him - it's simply stupid.

The desire to participate in the seder once is, perhaps, understandable. People who don't know or understand much about their own Catholic ritual think that doing a seder meal will somehow help them understand the Mass more fully - a laudable goal. Everyone should desire to understand and participate more fully in Mass.

However, the desire to engage in the seder repeatedly, year after year, in order to somehow "more fully celebrate Easter" is so stupid as to border on dangerous. it demonstrates an abiding misunderstanding of the relationship between the seder and the Mass. It also demonstrates that modern Catholic liturgy is a thin gruel that Catholics feel the inchoate need to augment by bringing in rituals from other worship systems.

That desire for authentic ritual in itself is not sinful - it is what we are made for. But the paucity of Catholic worship which creates such a desire certainly is sinful - a glaring set of omissions. If there is any single, telling aspect of just how emasculated the Novus Ordo rite is, one need only look at the explosion of alternate ritual among Catholics since Vatican II, whether it be Judaism's seder meal, a New Age centering prayer, Hindu trantric yoga or the Wiccan wonderland. The Novus Ordo is perfectly valid, definitely licit, it's just not particularly bright. It is, to put it bluntly, a wasteland.

So, I understand where the priest is coming from - typical Catholics really shouldn't spend time at seder meals any more than they should regularly spend time at Protestant worship services. Ok. No argument there. And if that was all he had to say, I would have had no problem with it.

But that was just the beginning.


The Seder Meal is Mortal Sin?
He starts by quoting Thomas on false worship, and points out that early Christians refused to throw a pinch of incense into the fire because everyone knew it meant you thought Caesar was a god. Participation in non-Catholic ritual can be mortal sin. He points out that Thomas agreed Jewish rituals were ok for the Jews because they were looking forward to the Messiah, but such rituals would be sinful for Christians because we already know the Messiah is here.

Alright. I'm good with all that.

Then he says that participation in the seder meal constitutes false worship and, while he's not judging interior dispositions, he says it is "objectively a mortal sin." He repeats this several times.

Now, I begin to be puzzled.

How on earth do you not judge interior disposition yet still judge an action "objectively a mortal sin"?

I can see judging an action objectively evil.
I certainly agree that this particular action is objectively stupid.
But is it objectively a mortal sin?

Given that mortal sin requires fully informed consent, what is his statement - "it is objectively a mortal sin" - except a judgement of the interior disposition which generated the necessary consent?


Is Eating Dinner A Mortal Sin?
As for evil of a ritual action, doesn't context have something to do with it?

After all, we burn incensed candles before the saints, but the burning of incense to honor someone does not automatically incur the pain of mortal sin, no matter what Caesar once required.

Similarly, the popularity of "re-enactments" is well-known. Indeed, many priests of my acquaintance (including FSSP priests) have attended the local Medieval Times restaurant, where you get dinner and a floor show in which real men dress in real armor with real weapons that do real damage and they watch a joust, apparently without incurring mortal sin.

Now, keep in mind that the actors involved in this presentation really do hurt one another. A common complaint of these actors is precisely that they cannot avoid injury during the performance, but their medical coverage is so lousy that they are often paying for the injuries out of pocket.

Also, keep in mind that the Church has condemned jousts and duels (they were considered essentially the same thing) as precisely mortal sin for almost a thousand years. In 1884, She went so far as to say that any witness to a joust or duel communicated in the sin to such an extent that a Catholic doctor who was not present at the duel could not even knowingly agree beforehand to treat the patients whose wounds resulted from a duel lest he become entangled in its evil.

So, if participation in a seder meal is "objectively a mortal sin", then what about witnessing a joust? Even a faux joust? And given that we know the Messiah has come, how does a faux joust differ from a seder meal, especially - as is so often the case - a seder meal put on entirely by Catholics?

But our good priest isn't done.


When Did The Rabbinate Start?
He goes on to say rabbinic Judaism was invented in the first or second century AD after the destruction of the Temple, and that modern Judaism is no longer really Jewish, but something entirely different because the Temple sacrificial system is gone. His argument is that the destruction of the Temple "extinguished the Jewish priesthood" - I guess because the priests could no longer offer sacrifice, although he didn't really say. His point was that the Mass is the only valid "Seder meal" now. In a minor point, he said the real Jews of the first century were pro-Catholic, while "fake Jews" are anti-Catholic.

While I don't disagree with his point about the Mass being the only real Seder, and I've often pointed out that Judaism post-Temple is a substantially different way of being Jewish than Judaism pre-Temple, it is simply wrong to say that the destruction of the Temple extinguished the Jewish priesthood.

It didn't.

If it had, the Jewish priesthood would have been extinguished along with the First Temple in 586 BC, well BEFORE the Incarnation, which would create all kinds of problems for Catholic theology. From 586 BC to 515 BC - a period of roughly 70 years - the Jews had no Temple and for much of that time they weren't even allowed to live in the land of Israel.

Our priest apparently forgot about the Babylonian Exile, the destruction of the First Temple, and the ensuing interregnum which established the rabbinical system. Rabbis came into use during the Exile. The extinguishment of the Levitical priesthood did not occur as a result of the destruction of the Temple, rather, it was extinguished by Christ Himself at the Last Supper when He established the new priesthood in His blood.

The presence or absence of a Temple and it's sacrificial system has exactly NOTHING to do with the status of the Levitical priesthood. That priesthood, like the priesthood Christ established, exists because God established it. In both cases, it gives the priests the capacity to offer sacrifice, but the inability of the priests to offer sacrifice (due to, say, the lack of a Temple or the lack of elements to consecrate) does not strip either Jewish or Catholic priests of their respective priesthoods. Only God can do that.

In other words, the only way you can reach his conclusion is if you don't know the history of the rabbinate and you confuse the physical ability to offer sacrifice with the ontology of being a priest.


Conclusion

Sigh....

Catholics, don't bother with seder meals.
They're stupid.

I will reiterate the good priest's final point: If you want to participate in a Catholic seder meal, go to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It has all the ritual anyone could need, and infinitely more Godhead. Don't accept imitations.

Managing Risk

It is being breathlessly reported in the press that UK "doctors" have said abortion is safer than pregnancy.

This just goes to show that doctors aren't mathematicians, much less statisticians.
That's why we have Meadow's Law, after all.

Now, let's consider the facts:

Given any particular point in pregnancy, no matter which point you choose, it is safer to simply be pregnant than it is to be pregnant and have an abortion.

Indeed, both drug-induced and surgical abortion are so dangerous and the risks rise so rapidly that by the fourteenth week, the risk of the woman's death or disablement from having the abortion is actually higher than the total risk for all the months of the remaining pregnancy.

That is, if you took all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth for the last six months, wrapped them up in one ball, and compared that single ball of risk to the risk from having an abortion on any given day during those last six months, the entire pregnancy is still safer than the abortion.

Slamming Ed Peters

Alright, it's time to call some people out.

All of you who have been slamming Lila Rose and Live Action for lying... we have another serious issue on our hands, and we need your august opinions.

It seems canon lawyer Ed Peters has been saying Gov. Cuomo should not receive the Eucharist.
Albany's bishop was quite wroth:

The bishop in Albany agreed, saying to pass judgment on others, even those in public life, is inappropriate.

"There are norms of the church governing the sacraments which Catholics are expected to observe," said Albany Diocese Bishop Howard J. Hubbard. "However, it is unfair and imprudent to make a pastoral judgment about a particular situation without knowing all the facts. As a matter of pastoral practice, we should not comment publicly on anything which should be addressed privately, regardless if the person is a public figure or a private citizen."

So... Mark Shea, Dawn Eden, William Doino... when are you all going to slam Ed Peters for having sinned by committing rash judgement?

Ironically, the WSJ does what Catholic commentators won't, calling out Ed Peters:

Peters' opinion may conflict with church law.

The Vatican states Catholics may receive Communion if they confess their sins or intend to confess their sins and that "church custom shows that is necessary for each person to examine himself at depth."

In other words, as I'm sure the bishop of Albany would agree, canonist Ed Peters is bringing scandal to the Church by engaging in judgement so rash that even the secularists at the WSJ noticed...

But who will call him out?

(Hint: No one - he's part of the Catholic glitterati, so his sins are forgiven before they are committed.)

And, for the record, I tend to agree with Eddie on this one, but what difference does that make? Why should my opinion, or Ed's opinion, or the opinion of "a large number of unnamed Catholic theologians" (Dr. Janet Smith's oft-invoked bloc) rate as important?

The question I'm asking here goes a little deeper than just pointing out that Ed is engaged in behaviour at least as "reprehensible" as Lila Rose and Live Action. After all, I'm quite, quite certain that no one is going to yell at Ed except Catholic bishops.

I'm trying to point out that the post-Vatican II involvement of the laity is a very mixed bag.

Sure, we get people like Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, etc., teaching Catholic laity what priests won't, but are they really helping anyone?

Let me explain.

Back around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, preaching had fallen into a terrible state. Priests were often essentially illiterate, barely able to say the Mass, not much knowledge of Scripture, engaged in sexual promiscuity and the chase for wealth. Lay people were scandalized, heresies like Albigensianism spread wildly.

How was the situation rectified?

New religious orders, like the Franciscans and Dominicans, were founded dedicated to preaching and to imitating the life of Christ in daily life. Indeed, this is a constant refrain throughout the life of the Church - whenever She has been in need of reform, a new religious order has been founded to administer the healing balm of reform.

Now, we only remember the orders that survived the tumultuous times, but we must recall that a lot of orders were attempted and didn't survive. For instance, we can recall the Waldensians, founded by Peter Waldo, and dedicated to a very Franciscan-style charism. The Waldensians failed and became heretics precisely because they ultimately refused to place themselves under the rule of the Church.

Many more orders did place themselves under the Church's rule, but foundered and failed because their charism was ultimately a phantasm.

In the post-conciliar era, we have again been faced with a failure of preaching, of good priestly example and a loss of holy understanding.

Unfortunately, in this era, we have not founded any new religious orders, we have founded business models designed to enrich the founders. From Karl Keating to Scott Hahn, from Chris West to Pat Madrid, we have seen men and women work to establish not religious orders, but Protestant-style personality cults.

Sure, they all attempt in some way to place themselves within the body of the Church, but have they succeeded? Can we find, in the whole history of the Church, examples like theirs to show that what is being done is good? Bless me for a fool, but I can't recall a single instance in the whole two millennia of the Church in which the situation we have spawned today has turned out to be good for Catholic spirituality.

Preaching is terrible. We should be founding religious orders.

The liturgy is in terrible shape. We should be founding religious orders.

If Karl, Scott, Chris, Pat, Mark and company really wanted to promote Christ instead of themselves, they would be founding lay religious orders.

Instead, they are founding LLCs and S-Corporations, promoting their opinions via the Wall Street Journal and Twitter. Heck, am I not doing the same thing right now by blogging?

There is no precedent for this. At least, no good precedent.

When we do what the priests are supposed to be doing, we make them co-dependents in exactly the same way that the priests eviscerate and emasculate parents when those same priests try to take over parental roles. We strip priests not only of their power to change, but of the desire to change. Why should they do any work if the parishioners can get the teaching elsewhere?

Just as priests and their employees shouldn't be doing the sacramental prep that is the parents' duty, so lay Catholics and their employees really shouldn't be doing the preaching that priests and bishops are supposed to do.

But, precisely because parents don't do their jobs, the parish tries to take over and makes a hash of it, inadvertently fueling the estrangement of children from their parents.

And precisely because priests and bishops don't do their jobs, lay Catholics try to take over and make a hash of it, inadvertently estranging parishioners from their pastors via the personality cults they have to establish in order to make a living.

Yes, we can point out that pastors aren't doing their jobs. But we should remember that we can't do those jobs either.

You Gotta Be Kidding Me

Peter Kreeft is wroth with Lila Rose's detractors, arguing that anyone who takes Live Action to task is simply daft, engaged in moral legalism, and perhaps not entirely sane. He begins by saying:

On some other occasion I may take the time to argue logically against the serious arguments of the pro-life critics of Live Action, and about the proper definition of “lying.” But in this short piece I want to appeal to something that I think is prior in importance, in clarity, and in time, namely our immediate, intuitive moral experience.

So, he essentially says he intends to appeal to emotion, and then goes on to do just that. While this is undoubtedly deeply satisfying for him on some level, it is unclear why an emotive argument is supposed to be compelling (it is one of the major logical fallacies, after all). Keep in mind that I essentially support the idea that Lila Rose and Live Action have not committed moral error in making their videos. I agree with Kreeft's ultimate position. But Peter Kreeft has committed both moral and logical error in attempting Live Action's defense. 

Straw Man Argument 

He begins by saying :

If we do not begin with experience, we become nominalists, not realists; we have nothing real to argue about, only names and the logical relationships between them—like a computer.

Well, yes. And, for the record, I, too, like motherhood, apple pie and Chevrolet. What I'm not particularly fond of is straw-man arguments. Can Peter Kreeft really identify any argument made by men which is not somehow grounded in experience? The arguments laid out against Lila Rose and company are grounded in experience, the experience of people who have been exposed to lies, who don't much like them, and who are deeply concerned about the effect of lying on the one who commits the lie and on the larger society as a whole. For Kreeft's argument to hold, he has to demonstrate that the people giving a critique of Live Action are actually engaged in the positions he asserts, and this he manifestly does not do. Indeed, the very example he brings forward to demonstrate "moral common sense" demonstrates that his "moral common sense" is not quite so common as he makes out.

A good example is Euthyphro, the young man in the Platonic dialog by that name who is impiously prosecuting his own father for murder while professing to be an expert on piety....Until we read Socrates’ arguments, we don’t clearly know why Euthyphro is wrong, but we know that he is wrong.

That's particular logical fallacy is called "assuming the conclusion." Is Euthyphro wrong? Euthyphro has come to lay manslaughter charges against his father. One of his father's workers killed a slave belonging to the family estate. His father ordered the worker bound and gagged and left in a ditch (3e–4d) while he waited to hear from the expounders of religious law about how to proceed against his worker. Unfortunately, the opinion didn't get back to him in time, and the worker subsequently died of exposure. 

Now, according to all the laws of modern society, since Euthyphro's father had the accused murderer bound and gagged, left unable to care for himself, he was responsible for the man's care. That is, he is responsible for the man's death. Euthyphro's father is absolutely worthy of prosecution in any modern court of law. If Euthyphro's description of events is correct, his father is, indeed, guilty of manslaughter. Thus, Euthyphro is absolutely right to bring charges against his father for manslaughter. The charges may bring "instinctive astonishment" to a pagan Greek, who holds duty to one's father a much higher obligation than duty to some non-family member, but it is absolutely in keeping with Christian sentiment, which holds that all men are brothers and that even claims of fatherhood do not trump the duty of justice one owes one's fellow man and God. 

Far from accomplishing what he intends, Kreeft's first example amply demonstrates why first instincts are often wrong - exactly the reverse of what he claims. For someone who says "I teach Logic, I have written a Logic textbook, and I value logic very highly", Kreeft's is a remarkably bad argument to bring forward. One might even say Kreeft's first argument is "wrong not just logically but “you gotta be kidding”ly" wrong. 

Versus Anselm 

As an aside that has nothing to do with this particular post, Kreeft apparently suffers from the impression that Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God is wrong.

...just as most students, when confronted by St. Anselm’s ‘ontological argument,’ instinctively know it is wrong somehow, though they cannot refute it logically.

Unfortunately, one of the most brilliant mathematicians of the 20th century, Kurt Godel disagrees with Kreeft. Godel demonstrated that St. Anselm's argument is valid (that doesn't mean it is true, but it means Anselm's argument is at least logically consistent). 

Given a choice between the two, I think I'll put my money on two men, the brilliant mathematician and the saint, not on the 20th-century Boston college philosopher. That is, my first instinct is that St. Anselm's argument is correct, even if I would not be able to defend it to Kreeft's satisfaction. When a college philosopher goes up against a pair like Kurt Godel and St. Anselm, he needs to bring more ammunition than just a passing swipe. The statement does nothing but detract from Kreeft's credibility. 

Seventh Son of a Seventh Son 

Kreeft then makes a couple of short statements that sound like they could be developed into credible arguments (passing references to the role of spying, investigative undercover work, and Aquinas on the moral acceptability of torture), but instead of actually doing that, he immediately abandons them in order to continue to drum up emotional frenzy:

If you were watching your son or daughter being raped while you were disarmed and tied up and had only words as weapons, and if there was some lie you could tell to the rapist that would stop him, do you really mean to tell me that you would not tell that lie? If so, I thank God that you were not my father.

Oh, for Pete's sake... Let's make it a little more simple. Let's say all I have is words for weapons, and it was not a question of my son or daughter being raped, but rather, it is the case that my son or daughter were simply being asked to eat a Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwich (where the lettuce is really crunchy, and the tomato is garden-fresh, with a little mayo - I love those) or be immediately killed. Should I encourage my son to eat the sandwich? Or should I encourage him to defy the man trying to force him to eat it, knowing full well that the man would kill my son and myself? 

Be careful how you answer, for the answer has already been given. A mother trapped into exactly that situation encouraged not one son, but all seven of them to die rather than eat the pork. Every one, from the eldest to the youngest, and the mother with them, all died rather than transgress God's laws. It's Scripture, Peter - 2 Maccabees 6:18–7:42. This family is held up as an example of pre-Christian sanctity by the Church. They are considered martyrs for the Faith.

In the above horrible scenario, if the rapist could be deterred only by watching you rape or murder some other victim, or defecate on a crucifix, you should not do it—and your child, his victim, would probably understand that. But your child would certainly not understand why you could not save him by lying to the rapist.

Is the mortal sin of lying somehow not as likely to send you to hell as defecating on a crucifix (which action is NOT necessarily a mortal sin, by the way, and you would think an orthodox Catholic professor would know that). Is a lie not a mortal sin? 

Look, I know full well that there are different degrees of mortal sin, just like there are different degrees of venial sin. Fornication is not as bad a mortal sin as adultery, which is not as bad as masturbation or homosexuality, which is not as bad as necrophilia or bestiality. Sure. But every one of those sins is you choosing hell over salvation. What kind of idiot is my child if he thinks lying is ok? Worse, what kind of an idiot am I to teach my child that committing one mortal sin is acceptable in order to avoid committing a different mortal sin? WTF? 

Dr. Kreeft, I have great admiration for you, your endorsement sits on the front cover of one of my books, but your essay here is not just wrong, it's stupid-wrong. "You gotta be kidding me" wrong. If you really wrote this, and it wasn't promulgated under your name by someone just pretending to be you (i.e., a liar), then I think you've been at Boston College a little too long. If this is the kind of crap you intend to continue writing, I think you should retire now, while your reputation is still intact. 

Conclusion 

There is no question that experience is a foundation for moral argument, but as Kreeft rightly points out, while experience may be foundational, it is not complete, it is not sufficient. God gave us minds not only so we could feel, but also so we could think. As Kreeft himself points out, our intuition is often wrong, which is why we must marry logic to it. Simply spewing emotion without attempting to reconcile what we feel to what we know leads us to the kinds of morally stupid arguments that Kreeft uses in his summation in this essay. 

The people who are concerned with Live Action's methods have real, valid concerns, concerns that are not just experiential but also and simultaneously logical. Kreeft's hand-waving to the contrary is a long non sequitor. If you want a decent defense of Lila Rose and Live Action, read Dr. Monica Migliorino Miller. She actually deals with the issues raised, instead of going on an emotional rant and coming to a morally erroneous conclusion. Dr. Kreeft, if you have a scintilla of orthodoxy in you, pull your essay. 

UPDATE: 

There's a piece at the New Liturgical Movement which attempts to refute Dr. Miller's essay based on her failure to discuss broad versus strict mental reservation (the first is permitted, the second is not). I highly recommend it for the clarity of the distinctions it draws between the two kinds of mental reservation, but I cannot recommend it's conclusion. 

To see why, consider the following statement. Is it a lie? Here is the statement: "I am lying." Is that statement a lie? I would say no. It is broad mental reservation, a statement that could be interpreted as either the truth or a lie, since it is self-referential and its meaning is therefore ambiguous due to the problems inherent in the English language. 

Is Lila Rose saying "I am a prostitute" a lie? By the same reasoning, it is not. After all, you can "prostitute" many different things. If the listener assumes Lila means she gives sex in exchange for money, so much the worse for the listener. After all, Lila's statement would really be identical to the statement "I am prostituting the truth" which is identical to the statement "I am lying." 

Same goes for the pimp. Many different things can be "pimped." When he says "I am a pimp" he may mean "I am pimping out the truth." So, although it may be mistaken for strict mental reservation, which is prohibited, it is arguably broad mental reservation, which is permissible, because the self-identification of the actors depends on ambiguities in the English language peculiar to those words. 

UPDATE II: 

As an interesting juxtaposition to this story, we have the example of doctors giving out fake medical excuses to Wisconsin teachers protesting against the government. If we get upset about the doctors, how do we distinguish what they are doing from what Lila Rose is doing? By not revealing who she is, Lila Rose gives Planned Parenthood an opportunity to explain who they really are. By not revealing what they are doing, Wisconsin doctors are giving Wisconsin teachers an opportunity to not explain who they really are.

Denial - It Ain't Just A River

And Egypt, while it may one day be a democracy, is never going to be a US-style democracy.

Let us cast our minds back to the beginning of democracies and republics, back to the civilizations on which our Founding Fathers consciously modeled the current republic which we inhabit.

In short, let us meditate on the Greco-Roman empires.

As you may recall, Greek city-states had the first known examples of democracy in the world. When we think of the democracy of Athens, our hearts warm and smiles light up our cute little faces. It stays that way as long as we aren't reminded of the details.

Out of a population of perhaps 300,000 Athenians, only 30,000 adult males - that's 10% of the population, folks - were eligible to vote. Fully one-third of the population was enslaved. Half of the population were resident foreigners. Women and children under 18 were not eligible to vote.

Strictly speaking, only men who had both trained as soldiers and who owned property had the right to vote. Although the property clause was often ignored, the soldier's life was not - this was democracy run by the army. To be a citizen, you also had to be descended on both sides from citizens. The Athenian democracy ran in fits and starts, constantly descending into oligarchy or outright tyranny, and generally not lasting longer than the life of the man who managed to impose it for a time.

Given all this, even during the height of its democracy, were the Athenians "free"?
Did Athens ever subject itself to "majority rule"?

Hmmm....

Well, what of the vaunted Romans?
Ah, yes, the Roman Republic...

To begin with, Rome started with the rule of kings, dallied for roughly 450 years with the workings of a republic, and then, through a series of civil wars, returned to the rule of caesars (emperors). Rome's Republic looked very much like Athen's democracy. Unlike Athens, Rome granted many different degrees of citizenship, but only full citizenship granted the right to vote or hold office.

Again, roughly 40% of the population was enslaved. 90% of the population were not citizens. By the time of the Second Punic war, most of the citizens were (or had been at some time) under arms. Only about 10% of the population had the right to vote. Again, it was a democracy run by the army.

Egypt is run by its military.
It is perfectly positioned to have a Greco-Roman style democracy.

A country can have a democratic republic yet not give everyone the right to vote.
A country can have a democratic republic and not consider everyone equal under the law.
A country can have a democratic republic and still be ruled be ruled by a small percentage of the population, especially if that small segment has all the military training.

The idea that all men are created equal, with divine rights endowed by their Creator... this idea is not central to a democracy. It is central to Judeo-Christian thought, but has no necessary bearing on a republic.

The genius of the Founding Fathers was not in establishing a republic or a germinal democracy. Their genius was in wedding the idea of a democratic republic to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

American democracy is unique because it is both a democratic republic and Judeo-Christian.
Jews are uniquely wedded to the idea of God as Lawgiver, and society as a system of law. Christianity, as a child of Judaism, adds the unique idea of the equality of all men, man or woman, Gentile or Jew, slave or free, before God.

Together, the idea of equal and inalienable rights, rights inalienable by even the most powerful of governments, makes Western democratic republics fundamentally different from anything that has gone before. The United States is the oldest such democratic republic on the face of the earth, and we evangelized the world in this concept, we built it up on the back of the theological work on human rights pioneered by the Catholic Church.

By definition, countries which do not have this Judeo-Christian heritage will not be able to establish what we have.

A Muslim country cannot be an American-style democracy - it doesn't have a worldview which says all men are created equal and all are endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. Insofar as America has successfully managed to export American-style democracy to non-Judeo-Christian cultures (e.g., Japan), it has generally been at the point of a gun against a polytheistic society.

Egypt may, indeed, get democracy.
But that chances that it will look much like ours are pretty grim.

A Rose By Any Other Name

"A Rose by any other Name would smell as Sweet."

So spoke Shakespeare's Juliet to Romeo, but do we all agree?

Jill Stanek highlights two columns, one by Christopher Tollefson, and another co-authored by Dawn Eden and William Doino in which all three excoriate Lila Rose, a fresh convert to Catholicism, for lying in order to film her Live Action videos. Together, the three aver that the bloom is off this particular Rose, that her acting is not acting at all, but a lie, and therefore morally prohibited.

Tollefsen argues that Lila Rose and her friends are not actors, but liars; their work is not loving: "it is predicated on a form of falsity, which is exercised in an unloving way."

Eden and Doino highlight a different dilemma: before his fall, Father Euteneuer denounced a pro-choice film group that got pro-lifers at a CPC on film by telling them that the film-makers were interested in telling the pro-life story. Eden and Doino point out that this is not morally acceptable for pro-choicers, so why would it be for pro-lifers? Their argument is much more tightly reasoned than Tollefsen's and ultimately much more compelling.

Counter-Examples
Stanek, a non-Catholic, dismisses all three by bringing forward three examples of (presumably approved) prevarication in Scripture: the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharoah (Exodus 1:15-21), Rahab the prostitute, who lies to protect Israel's spies (Joshua 2, Matthew 1:5, Hebrews 2), and Michal and Jonathan lie to King Saul in order to save young David's life (1 Samuel 19 and 20).

Stanek also quotes the wise men disobeying King Herod as a form of lying, but that example is really not on point. They just refused to obey the king, they didn't lie to him.

Furthermore, all of Stanek's examples involve coercion - the Hebrew midwives, Rahab and Michal and Jonathan were all asked point-blank by a powerful man (or armed soldiers) to provide information that would prove fatal to someone if that information were revealed. The modern equivalent to this would be lying to a Nazi soldier about the disposition of Jews. There's quite a bit of Scriptural hay that could be made in the moral legitimacy of refusing to divulge information to someone who intends to use it to commit evil.

Lila Rose and company, on the other hand, are voluntarily walking into the clinics to tell false stories. No one asked them anything, and the information they reveal will not put anyone's life at danger since it is all manufactured.

In short, Lila Rose and company aren't lying in the same way Rahab and company lied.


A More Accurate Example
The example Stanek should have brought forward, for it is the closest to being on point, is that of Nathan before David:

The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. ² The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, ³ but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

⁴ “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

⁵ David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this must die! ⁶ He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

⁷ Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!" (2 Samuel 12)

Here we have a prophet of God who tells a story that is literally false - there is no sheep, there is no traveler. Nathan tells the story in a way designed to make David believe it is true, and designed to provoke David's anger. David falls for the lie and condemns the man.

We cannot argue that Nathan was merely telling a parable.
King David's own response demonstrates that he thought Nathan was relating an actual event.
Indeed, it is only after Nathan's explanation of the lie that David discovers he has condemned not some unnamed rich man, but himself.


Differences to Note
Now, there are disparities between the two examples:

• Nathan is a prophet of God, Lila Rose and Live Action are not.
• Nathan was lying to one man (and, indeed, nearly all of the Scriptural examples brought forward involve mis-representing the facts to one powerful person), while Lila Rose is trying to expose an entire movement.
• The prophet clarified the story immediately after he got the response he wanted, and King David repented of his actions to boot. Lila Rose has gotten a response but no repentance from the group she and her friends lied to.

How should we address this particular moral problem?

After all, as Eden and Doino point out, it is never the case that we can argue "the end justifies the means."

Furthermore, Old Testament examples such as those brought forward by Jill Stanek or myself, should always be treated with caution, because Jesus changed the rules on many Old Testament situations: "You were allowed writs of divorce because you were a stiff-necked people, but I say to you.... (and) Let your 'yes' mean 'yes' and your 'no' mean 'no'." Polygamy and divorce were allowed in the Old Testament, but aren't any more. The affirmation that we should speak clear "yes" and "no" is quite un-nuanced.

Christ did not abrogate the Ten Commandments, and there is a commandment against lying.
But the prophet Nathan has never been considered a liar, even though his story is at least as clearly a lie as the stories told by Michal, Jonathan and the Hebrew midwives (whose moral positions have never been as clear as Nathan's).


Nathan and Paul
Nathan clearly manufactured a story, told it to someone who had never asked for it, then hit that someone with the public "gotcha!" All of this bears close correspondence to Lila Rose's actions.

Indeed, if we were to take a New Testament example, one could be found, although it is not as on-point as Nathan's story. In Acts 23:6, Paul claims he is being put on trial because he has hope in the resurrection of the dead - a claim he knows will cause dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In fact, as Acts 21:27ff demonstrates, he was on trial to discover if he had brought Greek Gentiles into the Temple.

Indeed, Paul was taken into protective custody precisely because his speech to the Jewish crowd about his mission to the Gentiles caused that same Jewish crowd to believe he had actually brought unclean Greeks into the Temple (Acts 21:27-Acts 22:22). So Paul clearly and deliberately mis-represented the facts in order to cause dissension amongst his enemies.

Live Action videos has done no less to the pro-abort movement.


What Is A Lie?

So, what is the status of Lila Rose and Live Action?
Several CCC articles have been brought into play on both sides, but the one that is most on point has been ignored by everyone.

Let's look at the definition:

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord. [emphasis added]

There are two parts to a lie:
1) speaking or acting against the truth
2) in order to lead someone into error.

Both parts must obtain in order for the speech or action to be morally illicit.

This is why acting is not a sin (although actors are frequently publicly implicated in sin).
Everyone knows the movie is just a movie.

Similarly, undercover agents and spies may only act as such as long as they don't lead anyone into error. Even an undercover agent may not participate in a gangland "hit" in order to protect his cover - if he does, he is charged with murder along with the rest.

These are not minor points.

For those of us with long memories, it should be recalled that the original CCC had its wording revised in several sections, including the section on what constitutes a lie. The original wording (I'm going from memory here, since I no longer have one of the original brown cover CCCs) said something like "It is permissible to withhold the truth from those who would mis-use it." That wording was considered problematic, and was replaced (whether with this exact article or not, I cannot recall).

The point is, we should remember that the CCC's phrasing on lies and lying received unusual care, since it even required the publication of a little pamphlet revising the text in this (and a few other areas), and eventually brought about a whole new edition (the current "green" cover CCC available in the US).

So, when we examine the CCC articles on lying, we must examine every word.
Nuance and careful reading is key here.

Did Lila Rose and company:
(a) misrepresent the truth simply (in which case they have not lied in a morally culpable way),
or
(b) did they misrepresent the truth in order to lead someone into error? (in which case, they have).

It is certainly not the case that they misrepresented the truth in order to bring about the immediate conversion of the people to whom they lied. So, they didn't lie about the Faith, about God's love or the works of salvation. They didn't misrepresent the truth of God's life or our relationship to Him.

In charity, I think we can say they also didn't misrepresent the truth in order to intentionally cause someone to sin.

Rather, they suspected that a group of people were already sinning and they presented themselves as co-sinners in this same area in order to draw out the nature of those who were sinning.

Now, Lila Rose and company hadn't committed the precise sins they presented themselves as having committed (and in this way, their story also differs from the prophet Nathan's story, although it is not so clearly different from the apostle Paul's story) but that is the only part of Lila's conversation that wasn't true.

So, now we reach a very fine point indeed.

Is the sin committed by the Planned Parenthood people as a result of the conversation a new instance of sin for them?

If it is, then Lila Rose and company are guilty as charged by Tollefsen, Eden and Doino. After all, just as each new abortion takes a human life, each new sin is an offense against God.

Or, is the sin committed by the Planned Parenthood people part of an already-established habit of sin that has infected and infused their thoughts and lifestyles?

If this latter is the case, Lila Rose and company's lie was neither designed to, nor did it, lead the Planned Parenthood employees into a new sin.

Here are a few additional CCC articles which seem to have bearing on the problem:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."⁵⁹ In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

If I haven't reached a firm and vociferous conclusion in this column, it is because I can see the force of the arguments on both sides, and it is not entirely clear to me that I have reached a correct conclusion. Eden's and Doino's argument and evidence is strong (Tollefsen's not so much).

However, I lean towards thinking Lila Rose is not misrepresenting the truth in a morally culpable way. Rather, she is acting in the tradition of the prophet Nathan and the apostle Paul to expose the thinking of the people involved even to themselves, as Nathan did to King David.

And insofar as that is her motive, insofar as her actions conform to accomplishing that motive, then I endorse them.

Whether or not these actions actually do conform to that motive, I leave up to you, O Gentle Reader.

A Sad Day

Today is February 11, World Day of the Sick.
A plenary indulgence is available today, but almost no one in the United States will be able to get this indulgence.

You see, in order for the faithful to obtain this plenary, your church or cathedral has to be having some kind of liturgical celebration (Mass, Liturgy of the Word, or something like it) and you have to attend it.

The plenary is available only for those who participate in the celebration of the world-wide observance.

If no parish near you is celebrating the World Day of the Sick, you can't get the plenary.

This problem doesn't just exist for this day - indult #5 in the Handbook of Indulgences states:

A plenary indulgence is granted to the faithful who, on days universally designated to foster certain religious intentions (e.g., the promotion of priestly and religious vocations, the pastoral care of the sick and infirm, strengthening the profession of faith in young people, and assisting others to lead a holy life, etc.), piously assist at celebrations of this kind; however, those who pray for these same intentions may gain a partial indulgence. [emphasis in the original].

There are several similar celebrations of the universal Church scattered throughout the year.
But that's the problem with this particular indult - it requires your pastor to know about (and care about) the days enough to put them on his calendar.

The Church establishes days of plenary indulgences and prayers with plenary indulgences in order to encourage us to participate in these days and in these prayers. It's her way of enticing us to live a liturgical life in conformance with Christ's vision for us.

But these and other indulgences aren't just an encouragement to parishioners to participate in the life of the Church, it's also an encouragement to priests and to bishops to live the life of Faith.

Unfortunately, very few priests realize that they are supposed to be doing this.

Most priests don't even know an indulgence is available today, and even if they did, many wouldn't care because they think indulgences are old-fashioned.

So, for want of a good, knowledgeable priest, an opportunity for an indulgence is lost...

In that respect, in the midst of the universal celebration, it is a day of sadness for all of us who are not able to participate as the Church intends us to.