Junipero Sierra Statue: 50 Years Was Enough

What he's pointing at is a mystery (Macor/S.F. Chronicle)

Father Junipero Serra is a major figure in California history. From 1769 to 1782 the Franciscan priest founded nine missions, some of which became major metropolitan areas [e.g., Mission San Diego de Alcalá, Mission San Gabriel Arcángel (Los Angeles), Mission San Francisco de Asís, aka Mission Dolores].

Schools, roads, and monuments have been dedicated to Junipero Serra, but none stranger than the 26-ft-tall statue that was erected in 1975. Caltrans quietly removed it in August.

Caltrans officials disputed claims made by the San Francisco Archdiocese that accused the transportation agency of neglecting to inform the church of its decision to destroy a polarizing statue of Junipero Serra at an Interstate 280 rest stop near Hillsborough.

The colossal freeway icon — a 26-foot tall monument to the Roman Catholic saint who is remembered by many Indigenous communities as an enslaving colonizer — was a landmark for the last 50 years before the transit agency removed it in August.

Caltrans officials said the statue, created by artist Louis DuBois in 1975, did not meet current criteria for its Transportation Art program, which installs graphic or sculptural artwork that expresses “unique attributes of a community’s history, resources or character.” The agency reviews applications for proposed artworks by cities, counties, incorporated towns, tribal governments or non-federally recognized tribes.

Caltrans officials did not respond to direct questions about what criteria the statue failed to meet. Officials told the Mercury News that the statue was “frequently targeted” with vandalism and graffiti.

The I-280 rest stop became known for its views of the reservoir. It was also rumored to be a place for gay hookups in the 1980's.

I won't be mourning the statue's removal; it's big and not beautiful, and Caltrans had good reason to take it down quite apart from the prevalence of anti-settler ideology in academia and progressive government. A 50-year run was probably long enough.

Endangered Seal

(Image from ncronline)

The State of Washington wants Catholic priests to break the seal of the confessional: [bold added]

A new law, signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson in May, would require clergy to violate the confessional’s seal of confidentiality if they hear about potential child abuse. Failing to break the seal and report suspected abuse to authorities carries a penalty of up to 364 days in jail and a fine as high as $5,000.

Catholic clergy in the state sued, and U.S. District Judge David Estudillo of the Western District of Washington blocked the law with a preliminary injunction on July 18. Judge Estudillo ruled the law likely violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion because it denies priests the confidentiality extended to other professions. The state has until Aug. 18 to appeal.

Confession is an essential practice of the Catholic faithful, who believe it reconciles a sinner with God. In the sacrament, the penitent admits wrongs and receives God’s forgiveness through the priest’s prayer of absolution. The seal of confession is so crucial to the Catholic faith that any priest who violates it is automatically excommunicated.

“For us, that’s a matter of spiritual life and death,” says Bishop Robert Barron, an American Catholic evangelist who filed an amicus brief in the case. The bishop says even “the slightest suspicion” that one’s confessed sins might be repeated elsewhere is an obstacle to the sacrament. Any law that might discourage a repentant sinner from seeking God’s forgiveness would hinder the free exercise of religion. Washington’s law is “the most egregious violation of religious liberty” in the U.S. right now, Bishop Barron said.

Child abuse is a heinous crime but is not so horrible that lawmakers want attorneys to break confidentiality with accused clients:

Washington lawmakers passed another bill this year exempting higher education attorneys from reporting abuse related to clients they represent. For these legislators, sins confessed to a priest don’t merit the confidentiality of what is said to an attorney. That “appears to be a textbook example” of targeting religious conduct, Judge Estudillo wrote.

Attorney-client privilege originated from English common law and does not derive from the Constitution, while confessional confidentiality is protected by the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). The latter would seem to have a stronger pedigree constitutionally, but your humble blogger is no lawyer.

“Americano…”

Pope Leo XIV stands in front of the altar at the Sistine Chapel (Sforza/Reuters/WSJ)

Against expectations, the conclave of cardinals elected a Pope who was the first ever to be born in the United States:

The election of the first-ever American pope stunned the crowds gathered in St. Peter’s Square, defied betting markets and shattered an assumption that the church would never hand its highest office to a citizen of the world’s leading superpower.

But by Thursday, the 69-year-old Prevost had become the natural choice for the cardinals secluded in the Sistine Chapel. For weeks, they had searched for a successor who offered continuity with the late Pope Francis’ dream of an inclusive and humble church—but who showed more deference for Catholic tradition and stronger managerial skills to run a financially strained city-state of global reach.

Even before the conclave began on Wednesday, a geographically and ideologically diverse bloc had come to understand that they had among them an all-rounder who checked those boxes.

The longtime bishop of Chiclayo in Peru was from the U.S., but of the global south. Many of his supporters described the polyglot prelate with the same four words: “citizen of the world.” Years of missionary experience had lent him a reputation as an advocate of the poor and marginalized. He had served in the heart of the Vatican, but not long enough for its frequent scandals to taint him.

A person who checks all the boxes rarely makes the best leader. Let's hope that Pope Leo overturns those expectations as well.

Conclave: Life Imitates Art

Figuring that a fictional account of a papal conclave would be more entertaining than real life, I watched the movie Conclave on Amazon's Prime Video this weekend. The film had political intrigue, dirty tricks, messages from the late Pope and deep diving into cardinals' personal histories. One by one the leading candidates withdraw because of these revelations.

Luis Antonio Tagle

Pietro Parolin

Apparently I was too quick to dismiss real life.

There have been whispering campaigns against the front-runners—Cardinal Pietro Parolin, a 70-year-old Italian and career diplomat, and Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, 67, of the Philippines. The aim is to make them living proof of a conclave adage: He who enters a pope, leaves a cardinal.

Parolin, for good measure, has shown he won’t be pushed around. Since the deliberations began, he has revealed the existence of not one but two letters from beyond the grave by Pope Francis, excluding one of the cardinals from the sacred vote.

By the end of the movie a Pope is elected, but only after some twists, turns, and an inspired speech. I doubt that we will experience such drama at the real conclave, but as we have seen so far, life is full of surprises.

Francis Among the Wolves

Pope Francis in Krakow, 2016 (CNS/Paul Haring)

Although Pope Francis espoused political positions that were the opposite of President Trump's--against border enforcement and fossil fuels, and for "social justice"--both leaders had similar obstacles to overcome.

Both were outsiders who tried to turn their organizations in a drastic new direction (according to their critics);

Both insisted that they were just trying to return to founding principles (the Gospels, the Constitution);

Both met resistance from an entrenched bureaucracy.

To make lasting change in an institution, you need institutional skills. Francis’ disposition was pastoral, not administrative.

In the Catholic Church, political power is concentrated in the Roman curia—the practically invisible coterie of busybodies, many of them high-ranking clergy, who administer the vast Vatican bureaucracy. The curia is staffed largely by Italians. Francis was an outsider from faraway Argentina, which put him at a disadvantage in his own house. He had no interest in the material trappings of power, forswearing the famous bling of the papacy. He preferred to live not in the luxurious papal apartments but in a simple room in the hotel on the Vatican grounds.

Francis was a shepherd. He had the smell of his sheep about him. The manipulators and inside players of the Roman curia ate him for lunch. He didn’t reform them; they reformed him.

Pope Francis eschewed the trappings of office and walked the walk. R.I.P.

Pope Francis (1933-2025)

Pope Francis (left) with his predecessor Benedict XVI in 2016 (Osservatore Romano/Reuters/WSJ)

Pope Francis, who died today, served for 12 years. His papacy was marked by controversy as he tried to steer the church in a "social justice" direction:

Pope Francis, who sought to refocus the Catholic Church on promoting social and economic justice rather than traditional moral teachings but presided over growing divisions in the church and struggled with the lingering scandal of clerical sex abuse, has died. He was 88.

The pope’s death, announced by the Vatican, came after he spent weeks in the hospital earlier this year to treat a serious bout of pneumonia. His health remained fragile after he returned to his residence in the Vatican.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a pope of firsts. He was the first pope from the Americas, the first from the Jesuit order, and the first to take the name Francis. He was the first in almost six centuries to become pope after his predecessor resigned. Francis also gave the papacy a less formal and more approachable image by spurning regal attire, riding in compact cars and making headlines with blunt comments at news conferences.

He was openly political, urging grassroots activists around the world to bridge the gap between rich and poor while calling on wealthier countries to better protect the environment. As Western politicians moved to close their borders to refugees, Francis advocated for them and other migrants. In February, he criticized President Trump’s plan for mass deportations.

The most influential popes of the 20th century, for example John XXIII and John Paul II, modernized the church while leaving doctrinal matters largely unchanged. Pope Francis was an exception; he seemed more tolerant of same-sex marriage and communion for divorced catholics. He was not politically neutral; he spoke against capitalism and border enforcement.

He also took steps to strengthen the likelihood that the church will continue to move left:

Francis’ decisions over whom to appoint as cardinals—the men who will elect his successor—were notably strategic. He passed over prominent conservative bishops installed by his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI in dioceses such as Los Angeles and Venice, and appointed others from places such as Tonga and Laos, far from the church’s major population centers. By the time of his death, the pope had named about two-thirds of the cardinal electors. A two-thirds majority of electors is required to select the next pope.

My own personal sense is that the zeitgeist will lead the church to elect a more traditional, non-political Pope. We'll see.

Simply a Return ro Mainstream Liberalism

(Image from US Catholic)

Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Erika Bachiochi pushes back against the extremes (radical feminism to women's inferiority) of Catholic views about women by asking Catholics to take another look at the "feminist" Pope John Paul II (1920-2005): [bold added]

As a Catholic legal scholar, I have been an outspoken critic of a radical feminist ideology that treats transgenderism and elective abortion as core elements of “gender equality.” I agree with ["The Case for Patriarchy" author Tim] Gordon that those ideas are antithetical to Christianity. But by misreading fringe views as central to the early cause of women’s rights, he and other like-minded reactionary Catholics now claim that all feminism is “diabolical” or, in the words of the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, “one of the worst things to ever happen to Western civilization.”

John Paul II would beg to differ. Thirty years ago he called on women to “promote a ‘new feminism’ ” and thereby transform “culture so that it supports life.” Seven years earlier in his apostolic letter “On the Dignity and Vocation of Women,” he corrected historical interpretations of Scripture that had assumed women’s inequality. Affirming husbands’ responsibility as leaders, the pope wrote that “in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.” The “new feminism” he described wouldn’t imitate “models of ‘male domination’ ” but rather work to “overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.”

It would be disrespectful of the thought that went into Pope John Paul II's letter to excerpt a phrase or two, so your humble blogger won't do that. Let's just say that the apostolic letter spends some time on Genesis 3:16 ("Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you") and why the interpretation that women are inferior to men is incorrect.

In politics, religion and culture much of what people call "conservatism" is simply a return to mainstream liberalism as it was 15 to 30 years ago.

On a Higher Plane

Guillaume Bodinier, The Good Samaritan,
1826 (Wikimedia Commons)

Today's Gospel from the Episcopal lectionary has some relevance to current politics. The applicable verses are Luke 6:32-36:

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

I've listened with half an ear to this passage (and Matthew's version in Matthew 5:46) dozens of times. It's about Jesus telling us to love our enemies, which sounds great in the abstract but which anyone with life experience knows is difficult in reality. But this is Jesus, who is always asking us to do hard things.

Looking past His main command, Jesus makes the point that it's no big deal to love those close to you ("even sinners do the same"), and to be His follower one should love those who are more distant.

But back to politics. Grok summarizes the timeline of the debate between Pope Francis and Vice President Vance over immigration and loving those who are close vs far, drawing on the Catholic concept of ordo amoris:

The debate between Pope Francis and J.D. Vance over the concept of "ordo amoris" (Latin for "order of love") unfolded in early 2025, centered around differing interpretations of this Catholic theological principle in the context of immigration policy. Here’s a timeline based on available information:

Late January 2025 (circa January 30): The debate began when U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, a Catholic convert, invoked "ordo amoris" during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. Vance argued that compassion should prioritize one’s family, neighbors, community, and fellow citizens before extending to the rest of the world. He framed this as a traditional Christian concept to defend the Trump administration’s immigration policies, particularly its focus on mass deportations. Following criticism on X from Rory Stewart, a former British parliamentarian who called Vance’s take “less Christian and more pagan tribal,” Vance doubled down on January 30, posting on X: “Just google ‘ordo amoris.’ … Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away?” This sparked widespread discussion among theologians, Catholic figures, and social media users about the meaning and application of "ordo amoris."

Early February 2025 (circa February 3–4): Vance’s comments gained traction, igniting a theological debate. Some, like Jesuit Father James Martin, criticized Vance for missing the universal call to love in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, while others, such as Michael Sirilla of Franciscan University, praised Vance for summarizing the "order of charity" accurately. The controversy grew as Vance’s remarks were linked to his broader critique of U.S. bishops and their involvement in refugee resettlement, amplifying attention on Catholic social teaching.

February 10, 2025: Pope Francis entered the fray with a letter addressed to U.S. bishops, released on this date. While primarily expressing concern over President Trump’s “program of mass deportations,” the Pope appeared to indirectly rebuke Vance’s interpretation of "ordo amoris." Without naming Vance, Francis wrote: “Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. … The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’ (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.” This was widely interpreted as a correction to Vance’s hierarchical view, emphasizing a broader, inclusive love rooted in human dignity rather than a prioritized order based on proximity or nationality.

February 11, 2025: The Pope’s letter was published and reported widely, with outlets like Religion News Service and USA Today framing it as a direct response to Vance. The pontiff’s intervention escalated the debate, drawing attention to the theological and political rift. Vance had not publicly responded to the letter by this date, but the discourse intensified online and in Catholic circles, with commentators like Father Raymond de Souza suggesting the disagreement was more about rhetoric than theology.

February 13–20, 2025: The debate continued to ripple through media and theological discussions. On February 13, Catholic News Agency and National Catholic Register covered the ongoing clash, noting support and criticism for Vance among Catholic thinkers. By February 19, outlets like the Catholic Herald reflected on the broader implications of "ordo amoris," while on February 20, La Croix International published Jesuit theologian Jean-Marie Carrière’s challenge to Vance’s exclusionary rhetoric, advocating an "ordo justitiae" (order of justice) instead. Posts on X during this period, such as from @BurtRigg on February 19, misstated Francis’s position but reflected the public’s engagement with the issue.

The timeline shows a rapid escalation from Vance’s initial remarks in late January to a papal response by mid-February, with the debate evolving from a policy defense into a theological and moral controversy. As of February 25, 2025, no further direct exchanges between Vance and Francis have been reported, but the discussion remains active in Catholic and political spheres.

Quite apart from who is right or wrong, I appreciate how this debate is on a higher plane than the usual sound bite exchange that we see on Twitter or the evening news. I do, however, note that there have been calls for the Vice President to "stay in his lane" and not debate theological matters with the Pope. In response, one of the tenets of the Protestant Reformation was that the individual stands before God, and, contrary to Catholic teaching, no intercession is needed by priest or Pope. Your humble blogger finds much to admire in the Catholic church, but he is not a member.

Easy for Him to Say

2017: only one man looks joyful. (Vucci/AP/WSJ)

Pope Francis condemns the U.S. "program of mass deportations."

For years [Pope Francis and President Trump] have sparred over immigration, which both have chosen as their signature issue. On Monday Francis wrote a letter to the American Catholic bishops denouncing Mr. Trump’s “mass deportations.” It is extremely rare for a pope to condemn a particular policy of a particular government. Principles are usually made explicit with the application left implicit.

The administration left the response to the papal letter to border czar Tom Homan. “I’ve got harsh words for the pope,” Mr. Homan said. “I say this as a lifelong Catholic. He ought to focus on his work and leave enforcement to us. He’s got a wall around the Vatican, does he not?”

Hardly. There are no controls at the Vatican City State border. No one scales the ninth-century Leonine Walls when the arms of Bernini’s colonnade surrounding St. Peter’s Square are open to all. Tens of thousands of people walk in and out without presenting any documents each day. Mr. Homan knows that, but there was a rhetorical attack to be made.

Given that mass deportations aren’t yet a reality—and, in any case, may not exceed the number of deportations during previous administrations—there are good reasons that the pope and president ought not take each other’s bait.

The writer, Ontario priest Raymond J. de Souza, goes on to talk about the emerging debate over Catholic public theology between converted Catholic J.D. Vance and the Pope. The immigration dispute is worthy of an extended discussion, harkening back to Catholic politicians' past differences with the Church on abortion and capital punishment.

Returning to the subject of border controls, I have one comment on Father de Souza's assertion, "There are no controls at the Vatican City State border.....Tens of thousands of people walk in and out without presenting any documents each day."

If it is also true that every inch of public space is not subject to video surveillance, facial recognition, etc. to head off trouble, then I will believe in the Vatican's openness. If the U.S. had such tech at the southern border (and fewer outward and visible signs of physical controls), the U.S. would appear more open, too.

After the break is the Pope's February 10th letter to American bishops.

Priests: Out of Limbo Soon?

Limbo of the Infants: destination of unbaptized infants.
Pope Benedict abandoned the doctrine in 2007.

It is inexcusable that the legal immigration system is so broken that it takes years to process an application. Whatever one's views on immigration, it can't be right or fair to a petitioner, his prospective employer, or his family to keep him in limbo seemingly interminably.

Speaking of limbo ("the border place between heaven and hell where those souls who died without being baptised"), the term's Roman Catholic origins have an ironic contemporary meaning due to the plight of immigrant priests, without whom the American Catholic church would not be able to function.

The Catholic Church in the U.S. doesn’t have sufficient vocations and increasingly relies on immigrants. “We used to send missionaries to other parts of the world,” Bishop Edmund Whalen of New York says. “Now, in a sense, we’re becoming the mission country.” Of the 356 active archdiocesan and extern priests in New York, the bishop says 183 are foreign nationals. The U.S. bishops’ conference recently took stock: With responses from 70% of dioceses and eparchies, it learned that 90% rely on foreign-born religious workers.

Solving the problems specific to Catholic priests is more manageable than fixing the entire immigration system:

Practical relief to the logjam could come in two ways. David Spicer, a lawyer with the U.S. bishops’ conference, says Homeland Security could modify or scrap its regulation—which isn’t mandated by statute—that foreign-born priests have to exit the U.S. for a year once their R-1 visas lapse. The Biden administration informed the conference that it contemplated doing so last fall but failed to follow through. The Trump administration has indicated it may propose a rule in September to offer religious workers more flexibility.

A more durable fix could come through Congress. Sens. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine) plan to introduce a bill allowing religious workers with pending green-card applications to stay on their R-1s beyond five years. Both Catholic, the senators learned of the issue as it began to affect priests in their states’ parishes. The senators believe their colleagues would overwhelmingly support the measure, but passing any immigration bill has become difficult. They may try fitting the provision into a larger vehicle, say on border security or appropriations.

Presidential Executive Orders being the exception, change in Washington is never instantaneous. However, resolving this issue appears to have bipartisan agreement. Immigrant priests aren't displacing anyone. Let them in. It is abundantly clear that not enough Americans are willing and able to do the job.

Gaudete Sunday

Today the Advent candle is rosy pink:

The third Sunday of Advent in the Roman Catholic calendar of the church year. The term is derived from the Latin opening words of the introit antiphon, “Rejoice (Gaudete) in the Lord always.” The theme of the day expresses the joy of anticipation at the approach of the Christmas celebration. This theme reflects a lightening of the tone of the traditional Advent observance. It was appropriate for the celebrant of the Mass to wear rose-colored vestments on this day instead of the deeper violet vestments that were typically used in Advent. This Sunday was also known as “Rose Sunday.” This custom is not required in the Episcopal Church, but it is observed by some parishes with a traditional Anglo-catholic piety. This custom is reflected by the practice of including a pink or rose-colored candle among the four candles of an Advent wreath.

The beauty of the rose candle on Gaudete ("rejoice") Sunday shines in a darkened world, foreshadowing the Light to come.

The Restoration of Notre Dame

The 2019 fire at Notre Dame (WSJ/AFP/Getty images)

Like many who watched in horror five years ago, we thought that Notre Dame Cathedral had been lost forever to fire. Yesterday it re-opened, radiant and gleaming.

The limestone facade of Notre Dame Cathedral is radiant. Its ornate gargoyles and angels show no signs of the smoke and flames that once billowed from the church. The cavernous interior is immaculate, the soot having been meticulously scrubbed from its arches.

By almost any metric the restoration of Notre Dame has been a success, coming five years after a fire swept across the masterpiece of Gothic architecture, nearly destroying it. On Saturday, a host of global figures, including President-elect Donald Trump, gathered inside the cathedral for a solemn ceremony to mark its reopening.

Notre Dame’s revival is nothing short of a miracle to many, a sign that cooperation across France and beyond to achieve a singular goal is still possible.

We marvel that the skills necessary for the restoration had not been lost, that there was little dithering over what the "new" church should look like, that funds were raised quickly, and most of all, that beauty came back into the world.

Kamala Harris Goes to Church

(Atlanta Journal-Constitution photo)

Kamala Harris has had trouble attracting Christian, particularly Catholic, voters due to her pro-abortion stance, so she began the day at a Black church in Philadelphia:

Vice President Kamala Harris started her Sunday at services at the Church of Christian Compassion in West Philadelphia. She told the largely Black congregation that the “next nine days will test us—they will demand everything we’ve got.”

“In this moment, we do face a real question: What kind of country do we want to live in? A country of chaos, fear and hate, or a country of freedom, justice, and compassion?” Harris asked, adding, “The great thing about living in a democracy is we, the people, have the choice to answer that question.” Harris is spending the day in the Philadelphia area as polls show a tight race in Pennsylvania, the nation’s largest battleground state.

Vice President Harris is also trying to counter the anti-Christian impression of her "you guys are at the wrong rally" riposte when hecklers shouted "Jesus is Lord" and "Christ is King." (Her campaign asserts that she was responding to cries of "Lies! Lies! Lies!").

Despite her warm reception by the congregation, I doubt her appearance changed anyone's mind.

The Greater Intolerance

Bob Casey and Josh Shapiro (WSJ photo)

Two successful, popular, Pennsylvania governors have been sidelined by the Democratic Party because of their religion:

Bob Casey Sr. was one of the most prominent Catholic Democrats of his time. He was also a proven vote-getter in a key state. In 1990 he won his second term as Pennsylvania’s governor by a margin of more than 2 to 1 and carried every county in the state but one.

Yet in 1992 his party didn’t permit him to deliver a speech at its national convention. The problem: Casey wanted to express his pro-life views. The snub came to symbolize the left’s turn away from Catholics, who had once been dependable supporters. While today’s party still includes prominent communicants—including Joe Biden and Sen. Bob Casey Jr.—they have found it necessary to abandon their support for unborn life.

Perhaps Gov. Josh Shapiro’s fate is a sign of a similar turning point. When Kamala Harris on Tuesday announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, some worried she’d passed over Mr. Shapiro because he’s Jewish and Zionist, much as Casey was slighted for being Catholic and pro-life.

Mr. Shapiro is remarkably popular in Pennsylvania, an even more crucial state now than in 1992. His public acts—from spearheading a grand-jury report on sex abuse in the Catholic Church as state attorney general to making a conciliatory statement after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump—have revealed sure political instincts.

Yet many on the left were scandalized that he was on Ms. Harris’s shortlist. They viewed his support for Israel as disqualifying. Activists have labeled the governor—who attends Beth Sholom Congregation in Elkins Park, Pa., and has sent his children to Jewish day school—“Genocide Josh” owing to his criticism of anti-Israel protest mobs and the boycott, divest and sanctions movement. Critics have also pointed to a 1993 college newspaper article that described Palestinians as “too battle-minded” to coexist with Israel.

Mr. Shapiro, who has disavowed that column, holds views that were mainstream within the Democratic Party until very recently. He supports the Jewish state’s right to defend itself but has denounced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “one of the worst leaders of all time” and accused him of making Israel “less safe.” That isn’t exactly hard-edged Zionism, but some nonetheless perceived Mr. Shapiro as too extreme.

Christianity has been a whipping boy--not without justification--through most of American history. From the Salem witch trials to Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, from the Scopes monkey trial to the current pro-Life movement, Christianity has been vilified as a white, patriarchal religion. (The key role of Christians in the abolitionist movement is ignored or played down.)

Now the greater intolerance is coming from the left, which has excluded pro-Life Catholics and supporters of Israel from positions of power. Instead Progressives welcome pro-Palestinians who call for the eradication of Israel and its people "from the river to the sea."

I hope the latter is not what the Democratic Party believes and hope VP Harris denounces this point of view; if she doesn't and becomes the next President, then God help the Catholic and Jewish peoples.

The Arrogation of Godly Language

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's"
----Rubens' The Tribute Money

Catholic priest Brian Graebe of the New York Archdiocese decries the secularization of "godly language": [bold added]

[The] arrogation of godly language for civil matters follows a recent trend in political discourse. That was perhaps most notable after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. In condemning the attacks, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to the building as a “temple of democracy.” A temple is a place to worship God and, in a specific Judeo-Christian understanding, to offer him sacrifices. The U.S. Capitol is famous, iconic, and worthy of protection and respect. But it isn’t a temple, and democracy isn’t a religion.

Other examples abound, from Donald Trump’s declaring himself the “chosen one” to congressmen condemning anti-Israel demonstrators for “desecrating” various landmarks, not simply defacing or vandalizing them.

Jesus warned against confusing the things of God with the things of Caesar. Yet an increasingly irreligious culture seeks to adopt these orphaned words. In so doing, many give an outsize importance to the things of this world, to civic monuments and political processes. Scripture reminds us that we have no lasting city here and that the world as we know it is passing away.

My own pet peeve is the gross over-use of the phrase "existential threat," as in "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" or "climate change is an existential threat to the planet." Why the apocalyptic language for these problems--indeed, if these are problems at all?

Mr. Trump, even if he does become President, will be gone in four years, and there are no signs that his political philosophy--supposedly the ruin of America's constitutional order--has a cohesiveness that will last years beyond his term in office.

As for climate change--it appears that the elites who say that it's urgent we solve the problem now or we're all doomed don't behave as if that's true.

My humble advice is not to panic, don't give the Chicken Littles more power over our lives, and go to church (or study the Cold War's mutually assured destruction philosophy) to learn what a true apocalypse might look like.

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

(Image from Today show)

Kansas City Chiefs placekicker Harrison Butker gave the commencement address at Benedictine College, a private Catholic college in Atchison, Kansas, on May 11th. He espoused traditional Catholic values in a way that offended America's dominant secular culture. For example, [bold added]

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

Thousands called for his firing by the Chiefs from other statements:

Bad policies and poor leadership have negatively impacted major life issues. Things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values in media, all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.

Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the Sign of the Cross during a pro-abortion rally. He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.

Some commentators cited the NFL's apparent hypocrisy in not firing Harrison Butker while it blackballed Colin Kaepernick for kneeling when the National Anthem was being played. For the record, I supported the former 49ers quarterback then, but there is a clear difference between the two: CK expressed his views in full uniform while millions had to watch, but HB was speaking as a private citizen on his own time to a Catholic audience. Most Americans agree that employers have the right to fire employees for workplace behavior that could damage customer relationships.

(To be fair, there were liberal celebrities, like Bill Maher and Whoopi Goldberg, who came to HB's defense while disagreeing with the content of his speech.)

To this humble blogger, what was most interesting about the speech was the importance he placed on the traditional Latin mass:

I've been very vocal in my love and devotion to the TLM and its necessity for our lives. But what I think gets misunderstood is that people who attend the TLM do so out of pride or preference. I can speak to my own experience, but for most people I have come across within these communities this simply is not true. I do not attend the TLM because I think I am better than others, or for the smells and bells, or even for the love of Latin. I attend the TLM because I believe, just as the God of the Old Testament was pretty particular in how he wanted to be worshipped, the same holds true for us today. It is through the TLM that I encountered order, and began to pursue it in my own life. Aside from the TLM itself, too many of our sacred traditions have been relegated to things of the past, when in my parish, things such as ember days, days when we fast and pray for vocations and for our priests, are still adhered to. The TLM is so essential that I would challenge each of you to pick a place to move where it is readily available.

Three years ago Pope Francis gave local bishops the authority to ban the Latin mass. Even this non-Catholic sees the benefit of a tradition that has great meaning to some, so why not keep it optional? Is Pope Francis on "the other side" in the culture wars?

After the break is the text of Harrison Butker's speech from the National Catholic Register:

Cafeteria Catholics

The 2013 Time Person of the Year

I disagree with the Catholic Church about some fundamental doctrines (which is why I never considered joining it), but I do admire the Catholic Church for its consistency. Its views on same-sex relationships, transgenderism, abortion, and capital punishment are all principled, if unpopular. And certainly Pope Francis' views on "unfettered capitalism" as the "new colonialism" and instigator of climate change haven't endeared himself to political conservatives.

Earlier this month the Church published a declaration of "Dignitas Infinita" (on the infinite dignity of individual human beings) that unifies the Church's teachings. It's a salutary effort, and what does seem clear after its publication is there's a point at which one can go overboard in picking out the teachings that one agrees with and rejecting others that don't suit one's preferences. In other words Pope Francis shuts down cafeteria Catholism: [bold added]

On an Easter Sunday appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Cardinal Wilton Gregory, archbishop of Washington, lamented that President Biden is a “cafeteria Catholic” who “picks and chooses dimensions of the faith to highlight while ignoring or even contradicting other parts.”

This week the Vatican published a “declaration” from its doctrinal office titled “Dignitas Infinita,” or “infinite dignity,” in which Pope Francis strongly affirmed the “inherent” dignity of every human being and identified a list of assaults against it: abortion, surrogate childbearing, euthanasia, capital punishment, poverty, war, the travails of migrants, human trafficking, sexual abuse, marginalization of the disabled and digital violence.

Unusually for Pope Francis, the text quotes extensively from his predecessors—the title is a phrase used by St. John Paul II—demonstrating that concerns for human dignity inform all of Catholic teaching and can’t be neatly aligned with a conservative or liberal political agenda. Mr. Biden likes Pope Francis on immigration but not abortion. He thinks the pontiff is bringing him a menu. Pope Francis, for his part, thinks the president mistakes table d’hôte for à la carte.

Much of the media paid attention to the document’s language on gender theory, which Pope Francis has previously called “the ugliest danger” today. The text was unambiguous: “Therefore, all attempts to obscure reference to the ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman are to be rejected.” That’s broad and would seem to cover not only medical interventions but the use of language, including forms of address and prayers.

Frankly, I don't see why Catholics, or any Christians for that matter, don't leave their church and find one that's more agreeable to their sense of right and wrong. There are plenty of denominations to choose from. But if one chooses to stay, pipe down and let your fellow church members worship in peace.

They Won a Battle in a Long War

St. Mary's College (Bettag/WSJ)

St. Mary's College, a 180-year-old Catholic college for women in Indiana, had announced that transgender women would be admitted in 2024. Several undergraduates started a petition to reverse the decision, then alumnae and parents signed on. Finally the Church weighed in.

“Saint Mary’s departs from fundamental Catholic teaching on the nature of woman and thus compromises its very identity as a Catholic woman’s college,” Bishop Kevin Rhoades of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend wrote in a Nov. 27 statement. The bishop added that his duty is to “promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening” of the college’s Catholic identity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his/her sexual identity.”

The Board of Trustees and President Katie Conboy rescinded their original decision, making St. Mary's one of the few women's colleges that has refused to bow to Progressive theories about gender.

Commitment to Catholic teaching on sex is what distinguishes St. Mary’s from nearly all colleges across the country. Twenty-three women’s colleges admit “at least some” transgender-identifying male students, according to Campus Pride, a national pro-transgender organization, while only three don’t. The outcry over the policy shows there’s demand for a school that’s different because it’s firm in its faith and principles.

One has to admire the two undergraduates, Macy Gunnell and Claire Bettag, who brooked the opposition of many students, most faculty, and the dominant trans-women-are-women ideology to stand up for what they felt was right. They won this battle because there are enough stakeholders at St. Mary's who adhere to Catholic teachings, but it's only a battle in a long war.

Notre Dame:: Continuing the Tradition

1966 windows by Jacques le Chevallier

Four years ago Notre Dame Cathedral miraculously survived a devastating fire. Not unexpectedly there has been disagreement surrounding the reconstruction of the over-800-year-old national monument.

The latest controversy is over the replacement of the Chevallier stained-glass windows that were not damaged by the fire. These windows are grisaille (“shades of gray” accented with color). In addition they do not depict scenes from the Bible or saints ("non-figural"), and didn't have defenders when their replacement was authorized by both the Catholic Church and the government.

Now there are petitions to leave the windows intact. Your humble blogger has no dog in this hunt, but I do think that, based on history, if the windows are replaced they will be beautiful.

Liberal Anglicanism: It's Not for Everyone

Pope Francis at the Synod on Synodality on Oct. 23.
He's the guy with the big chair (WSJ photo)

Religions don't survive long unless they provide answers to basic philosophical questions. Furthermore, the questions should not be limited to those that puzzled its original adherents. To endure centuries, even millennia, they must address the human condition broadly. The trick is to understand which principles are immutable and which are not.

Ontario priest Raymond de Souza laments that Pope Francis is overturning too many beliefs too quickly.

conversations veered off to consider whether Catholicism would do better as a facsimile of liberal Anglicanism: ordaining women, revising sexual morality, enhancing lay governance—and, of course, trying to arrest climate change.

Ouch. We Episcopalians felt that one.

Father de Souza wants more dogma and fewer questions.

The articulation of dogma—traditionally the work of Rome—doesn’t bind the soul as much as it frees it, in the same way that a martyr is free, already living beyond the world’s power. Such confidence and clarity have dissipated in Rome in recent years. Question marks litter the landscape; certainty appears to be the problem, not the solution. Without dogma, we’re left only with our own conclusions, which aren’t truths worth dying for and thus aren’t truths worth living for.

I personally like having the Catholic Church argue articulately for traditional Christian theology and practices. Such voices have been stilled in the Episcopal Church, and they shouldn't be excised from American Christianity entirely.