• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Teutonic Warrior on Reflecting Upon the Abuse…
    Shauna Weber on QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
    Shauna Weber on QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
    Sabrina T on Ask a Priest
    Julio on Ask a Priest
  • Advertisements

The Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh & Facebook

153814159378034468I had two posts on Facebook about the nomination and proceedings around Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  The first began simply as a posting of a letter from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson urging the members of the Knights of Columbus to contact their senators in support of a potential Justice who believes in interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written.  Given the escalating controversy, and not wanting to bring any embarrassment upon the Order, I removed the letter.

Along with this letter there was a CNS news report wherein Msgr. John Enzler (the president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington) acclaimed the virtues of a man he had known since Kavanaugh was 12 years old.  Kavanaugh was one of his altar boys at Little Flower in Bethesda, MD. He thinks he may have baptized his two daughters, he still sees him monthly at his evening Mass, and he works with him at St. Maria’s Meals (a program that serves meals to low-income individuals and families).  He belongs to the Catholic John Carroll Society and helps out with other lawyers and professionals.  Kavanaugh also coaches the girls’ basketball team at his parish and tutors at the Washington Jesuit Academy and J.O. Wilson Elementary School. “His faith really shines through in who he is,” Enzler said. In addition to his volunteer work, Kavanaugh also reads as a lector at his church, the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Washington.  After his nomination, he stated, “members of the vibrant Catholic community in the D.C. area disagree about many things, but we are united in our commitment to serve.”  Msgr. Enzler praised him as a man: “This is your neighbor next door. He’s a great husband, a wonderful father to his daughters, and has lots and lots of friends. He’s very intellectual, of course, but you wouldn’t know it by his demeanor.”

153815243296950393

After the allegations of assault were made, Msgr. Enzler did not back off from his recommendation:  “I know Brett Kavanaugh to be a man of honesty and integrity. My opinion of him is based upon a 40-year relationship in which he’s never given me any reason to doubt his veracity and character. Hopefully the facts concerning the recent allegations will bear out my trust in him.”

One of the few civil comments of disagreement to the endorsement from Supreme came from my dear friend Robert White.  He wrote:

“Fr. Joe, I can’t do that. I think that this is the wrong man for the bench not because of the sexual allegations against him but because I believe that he is coming to the bench with a predetermined mind on other issues relating to the powers of the executive branch of government which will have far lasting negative impact on our freedoms. ‘Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790).”

15382396499043188

My response followed:

“(I have to admit that I was a bit surprised by the letter from Supreme.) I have no issue with those who have their own logical and concrete reasons for opposing the nomination although I think every potential Justice has a view of some sort about the separation of powers. My preference is for one that fully respects the demarcation of powers and jurisdiction between the Judiciary, Legislative and Executive branches of government. I think we have seen the alternating expansion of the Executive and Judicial branches due to the unfortunate ineffectiveness of the Senate and Congress to get things done. The Justices should neither create laws nor ‘trump’ those already passed and the President should not rule as a king or despot.”

It was an agreeable exchange.

Next there was a link to a recent television news story with a dear friend and teen that I knew from St. Ann’s in NW DC back in the 1980’s and 90’s.  I thought it was a good interview.  Bettina asserts that whatever the vote, the role of women in the public forum, their presence, rights and needs are in ascendancy and that we are going to have to take more seriously the treatment of women. I may disagree with her about many important issues of the day but none of that takes away from the fact that she is one smart lady. Bettina also notes that this is a lesson or wakeup call for teens that what they do now in high school (and I would add in college) will have lasting repercussions in the days ahead.

https://www.wusa9.com/video/opinion/editorials/off-script/local-women-react-to-brett-kavanaugh/65-8265062

I also posted a link about the Jesuit magazine AMERICA retracting its endorsement for the judge.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/09/28/catholic-jesuit-paper-rescinds-its-endorsement-of-kavanaugh-n2523399

Partisanship and the “party first” mentality, regardless of which side of the aisle, is toxic.

153818999257476767

Turning to the second deleted post, I tried to be creative and used an analogy or story of two children playing in a sandbox where one child throws a bucket at the other.  I was soon thereafter told that I was making light of rape.  Indeed, the initial comment was particularly vicious. Knowing that I was a priest one offered the slur that my remarks were typical since the bishops were hiding boy-rapists. This remark pained me terribly, not only given the recent scandals, but because it was written by someone I care about.  I do not see him very often but I could not love him more if he were my own son.  I deleted the comment.  But it did not take away the sense of pain and betrayal I felt.

I had deliberately tried to steer clear of sexual connotations and was instead focusing upon the issue of timeliness.  The question I was hoping people would ask was how far back do we search to find incriminating evidence for present allegations of wrong doing?  A dangerous precedent was being set.  Allegations without evidence from any moment in a person’s developmental trajectory (even childhood) might suffice to discredit a person’s good name and a lifetime of credible and worthwhile service.  One person commented with a joke about the time of birth.  I took it even further where the unborn child is sometimes wrongly accused as an unjust aggressor.  (It is still my conviction that the ultimate abuse of women is abortion.) A few critics were utterly incensed by the post and comments.

It grieved me that I could be so thoroughly misunderstood.  Both posts and my accompanying comments were about treating people (everyone) with respect. I did poke fun at the investigation into the judge’s youth and yearbook, as well as the somewhat odd but fortuitous keeping of a calendar-diary. But people hear or read what they want hear. I accept blame for a failure to communicate more clearly.  I am saddened more than I can say, especially by the “ad hominem” attacks against me.  President Trump may be the master of that manner of debate, but his critics on the other side of the political divide are also quickly mastering this manner of attack— targeting persons instead of ideas.  Ideas are frequently not discussed; the winner is deemed to be the one who interrupts and shouts the loudest.

In any case, the second Facebook post on Judge Kavanaugh is gone because I got tired of misunderstandings and personal attacks. If I erred in my remarks, I apologize. It was never my intention to hurt anyone or to trivialize either the fear that women feel or the personal violation that is signified by assault.  I would have hoped that people for whom I care and love would have privately messaged me their concerns instead of publicly threatening and condemning me.  (Note that in return I will not share their names here.) I do not have words for how I feel.  I guess that is one of the crosses that come with real love— the pain of discovering that loving and caring is not returned.  The message that some communicate is this, if you disagree with me then you are a bigot, that you are mean and hateful, that you are insensitive, and then may come alienation and disassociation.

It was within the second post that a fellow Knight and I were criticized (should I say condemned) as “middle-aged white males” as if our maturity, gender and ethnicity were crimes. My motives were questioned and emotionally it challenged my own Christian civility. I want to apologize to my brother in the Knights of Columbus for the treatment he received.

It seems to me that sometimes a few words or a posting might touch something deeper and unseen.  It still seems to me that much of what was written in the post and comments was fairly innocuous and cautiously circumspect.  Again, there was no intention or real effort to be offensive or hurtful. There was never any assertion that Christine Ford was lying, just as there was no possible certitude either way about Judge Kavanaugh.  However, it should ultimately matter if an error might bring about the destruction of a person’s good name.  Calumny is still a sin and the possibility of any crime does not negate the wrong of hurting innocent people.  That is what makes this situation so very complicated.  While some critics view the issue of the abuse of women as the only important matter; in truth, we must have a commensurate perspective of the situation.  One of my Facebook friends actually argues that the allegation alone is enough to have the nomination dismissed.  This is not dissimilar from the situation faced by innocent clergy in the face of false charges.  While we want to protect our children and women, are we willing to do so by destroying the innocent along with the guilty?  One of my friends was in the newspapers and she seemed to apply the argument of guilt by association.  In other words, since such parties did happen and boys did misbehave then all boys are probably guilty.  This is not good reasoning.

There was nothing in my post or comments about “sweeping the issue under the rug.”  It was here that a critic cited the bad witness of the Catholic Church.  I guess at this point I was supposed to shut up because given the scandals, priests are presumed by many as no longer having any moral authority whatsoever.

It is true that one of the persons making a comment (man or woman) did make a joke about the culpability of a naked boy baby in a room of nurses.  But that was not my comment.  I did however reference it to speak about the very real bias that some have about men, even from the womb.  Here is what I wrote precisely: “Planned Parenthood could top that, literally arguing that before he was born he was violating a woman’s body as a fetus and thus caused her to question her right to choose. But critics rarely consider that abortion is the most prevalent abuse of women. This mentality is no joke. There was a NOW advocate back in the 1990’s who stated in a rally on the DC Mall that sex between a man and woman was always rape and that to give birth to a male child was to be raped again. As a militant lesbian, she promoted abortion so that male children could be terminated.” This perspective is an extreme, but it is real.  Further, this mentality is just as heinous as the disproportionate numbers of aborted female children in India so as to avoid paying a dowry.

My Knights of Columbus friend and I were singled-out as “middle-aged white males” who because we did not have the worries of women, especially about rape and kidnapping, could not possibly understand.  I wanted to scream, “How dare you— how dare you?”  The post and comment are gone but I was wounded and furious.  “My friend has a family and daughter for which he would lay down his life.  Do you think he never worries about her?  I bought the mace for my goddaughter when she went to college.  I prayed and worried about her every day.  Were you there when I spent the night crying with and counseling a young woman assaulted by her boss?  Were you there when a woman sobbed in my arms after being beaten by her husband?  Were you in the courtroom when I stood by a mother’s side for support as she tried to insure punishment of a man that had abducted her daughter?  Were you there when I held hands with a husband and wife in prayer when we learned that her therapist had taken advantage of the wife?” Were you there when I tried to reaffirm a woman’s self-worth when she equated her boyfriend walking away and not wanting sex with her as rejection as worthless?  Were you there when I received a call after midnight from young teenage girls under the influence of alcohol (after one of those nefarious parties) and needing a ride to get home safely?  Were you there when a man threatened to kill me unless I told him where I had sent his wife and child for shelter against his drunken abuse?  No you were not.  But you think you can judge me.”

Women seemingly have a heightened religious sense.  Priests are surrounded by women.  If I were utterly insensitive to their needs, they would quickly let me know.  During my priesthood I have counseled and aided many women who were mistreated by boyfriends and husbands. I have fought for both the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons. Balancing both compassion and justice, no one should make light of charges of assault or rape, but neither should we presume guilt without evidence. The fact that a senator dissected the meaning of innocuous high school yearbook posts struck me as beyond ridiculous and misplaced. That was the catalyst for the attempt at satire with children playing in a sandbox.

While the posts were still active, I have had to delete a few comments. I reserve the right to do so toward anything that I feel is malignant toward me and/or to the Church. I must ask forgiveness for the deletion of supportive comments in the missing posts. (The upset was ironic as I have never personally expressed either support or opposition for the nominee.)

It is true that I made fun of the wayward process and what I viewed as unfair treatment toward the judge. However, as a pastor of souls I also feel for women who have suffered at the hands of men and who sympathize with his accuser over her allegations. She came across as quite convincing. The judge said that he had no reason to doubt her sincerity in that something happened to her; however, he maintained throughout that it did not involve him. Unless one can read souls, we have no way of knowing for sure. These “he said, she said” debates are often quite hard to resolve. I would urge fairness and justice to all parties. Just as the judge’s little girl urged prayer for her dad’s accuser, we as believers should pray for all involved. Senator John Kennedy had some forceful words for his colleagues, a day after he asked Kavanaugh to “swear to god” that he did not commit the assault against Dr. Ford. “There were no winners in this room,” he said. “All I saw were two people, two human beings in pain.” Very true, but I suspect that if he could see beyond the room, he would also see a whole nation in pain.

ALLEGATIONS

  • Julie Swetnick issued a statement in which she claimed she’d observed Kavanaugh at alcohol-fueled parties where women were mistreated.
  • Deborah Ramirez told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drunken dorm party 35 years ago at Yale.
  • Christine Blasey Ford made against Kavanaugh related to a period when she and the judge were in high school. She told The Washington Post that a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed during a party and put his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams as he tried to take off her clothes.
Advertisements

Stuck Between the Rock & a Hard Place

art13

Who are we going to punish? I worry about this as a priest in reference to the distribution of Holy Communion, absolution in the sacrament of Penance and in terms of preaching a faith message from the Scriptures that might immediately be interpreted as “hate speech.” Passivity and toleration is not enough to appease certain people… it is being demanded that conventional Christians become advocates for sinful behavior. If a priest gives the sacraments to anyone, no matter what their views and lifestyle, then does he not become an accomplice in their sin? Would he forfeit his own immortal soul for causing scandal and violating conscience, the commandments and his sacred duty? For the sake of accompaniment, can a bishop or even pope force a priest to say or do something that he views as sinful and wrong?

The Spread of ISIS Terror into Asia

phil

ISIS now has a foothold in the Philippines. Pray for our Catholic brothers and sisters.

Interfaith Pollution of the True Faith?

I thought it was a joke or exaggeration, but when I visited the website for the Catholic diocese of Hallam in the UK under Bishop Ralph Hesket I was shocked to see that charges of religious relativism or indifferentism might have merit.  As part of a national interfaith outreach, Christian believers were encouraged to visit and honor pagan shrines.  I fail to fathom how this is either genuine dialogue or true ecumenism.  Despite the directions given, Catholics should not bow to pagan images or eat the food that has been offered to idols.  Christians were persecuted and even martyred in the early days of the faith for refusing such acts that compromised the true faith and pampered superstition.

Indeed, the early apologists argued that despite the generosity of the pagans toward the poor, Christians should not eat the food of pagan sacrifices because the pagan deities were actually demons.

buddhist2

Moses was commanded to remove his sandals when he encountered God in the burning bush. But what we have here is an image of Buddha and a pagan shrine.  While these locations may hold anthropological interest for learned Christians, most would best avoid such places. As Christians we may honor persons and give deference to religious liberty that also protects our rights in a multicultural society, but we should not underestimate the general ignorance and tottering faith of many Christians.  Already many are adopting Eastern ideas about the yin and yang of the Tao, the transmigration of the souls, the spirituality associated with yoga, and a pantheistic view of creation.

The removal of shoes may be a small concession but the added flower presentation and material sacrifice of money, mimics or parallels the offertory at Mass.  Christ and the Church he instituted is the one way that God has established for our salvation.  No one comes to the Father apart from Jesus Christ.  A confession of faith can be made both in words and with gestures.  We must be wary of making a wholesale compromise of the truth. Buddhism is incompatible with the Christian kerygma.  Pope John Paul II was criticized for his assessment in CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF HOPE.

Do we draw near to God in this way? This is not mentioned in the “enlightenment” conveyed by Buddha. Buddhism is in large measure an “atheistic” system. We do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad. The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world. To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil. This is the culmination of the spiritual process.

While some might note Buddhism as more a philosophy of negation than a deistic religion, the diocesan guidelines also threaten to taint the faith of believers under an effort to show respect to the adherents of Hinduism.

hindu

The early Christians were put to death for refusing to throw the smallest fleck of incense into the fire for an idol of Rome and its emperor. Just as we would not expect Hindus to bend the knee and cross themselves in our churches; neither should Hindu shrines be honored by Christians with bowing before the idols of false deities. This act impugns the heroic sacrifices of the early martyrs. Such concession signifies a cowardice to accusations of intolerance where there should be a brave act of witness that promotes the missionary spirit within the scope  of both understanding and charity.

Christians need to respect the Eastern effort to discern truth while not abandoning our own rich inheritance.  The missionary effort, going back to the days of St. Francis Xavier, had many successes.  But we must admit that the faith also suffered from the stigma of being Western and foreign.  Right or wrong, the saint regarded all the Hindus as devil worshipers.  This is part of our historical faith inheritance.  Doors were closed where the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes might have opened them.  There is said to be an evolution in Hinduism toward monotheism; but this truth is already realized in Christianity.  We must be careful that weak Christians do not embrace Eastern religion due to an attraction to the strange or exotic.

Pope Paul VI stated in NOSTRA AETATE the following:

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.

We would not deny any elements that are true in such religions, but there are also wrong turns and false understandings (error).  All salvation truth subsists in the Catholic Church.  We do not have to look elsewhere. People who are largely ignorant of their own rich Christian faith inheritance might be lost if we are passive to their involvement in other religions.

Catholics should bow or genuflect before the Christian altar, or the Crucifix or the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle but NOT before the image of alien gods.  Definitely they should not eat the food given to them, demons or not.

1 Corinthians 10:18-22 – Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he?

At a time when exorcisms are on the rise, this is the height of idiocy.   We can respect persons and work together for a more civil and caring society; however, we should not do so at the cost of our immortal souls.  Ignorance of the truth may save some from the full weight of judgment.  However, our Catholic and Christian community will be judged according to our understanding and fidelity to the revelation of Christ that is passed down to us in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

moslem
Catholics and other Christians might visit such sites for educational purposes. They should do nothing that suggests worship. Pope John Paul II argued that the Allah of the Muslims is the same Father God of the Christians. This may be, but there remains much that divides us, particularly the role of Jesus as Lord and Redeemer. The Pope states:

Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.

A gesture for peace is also fine, as long as we do nothing to undermine or apologize for our identity as Christians. We should also insist that the Islamic community become more pro-active against discrimination and violence against Christians throughout the world.  Otherwise, gestures of human respect (not divine worship) become empty.

While we can respect others, we should not be giving directions to Christian believers on how to commit idolatry.

sikh
The Sikh religion is inherently pantheistic.  We believe that God maintains creation but he cannot be identified with it.  While its tenets include reincarnation and various Hindu teachings; it is monotheistic, rejects the caste system and the use of idols.  It also espouses a syncretism where it tries to unite various beliefs from disjointed sources.  Christianity might adopt elements of culture and even the symbols of others (as it did in the Roman and Greek world) but the content is always that of the Gospel.  The blunt matter is that, no matter how interesting, this still constitutes a false religion for Catholics.  Ours is a jealous God.  He will not share us with others.

While certain traditionalists would attack overtures toward the Jews, we must always acknowledge that Judaism is a true, albeit natural religion.  While they have yet to embrace the revelation of the Trinity, the Jewish faith was called into existence by Almighty God.  Pope John Paul II insisted:

The New Covenant serves to fulfill all that is rooted in the vocation of Abraham, in God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai, and in the whole rich heritage of the inspired Prophets who, hundreds of years before that fulfillment, pointed in the Sacred Scriptures to the One whom God would send in the “fullness of time” (cf. Gal 4:4).

We have a genuine historical and faith relationship with the Jews that we do not share with other religions. Interfaith efforts should not be so diffusive that we lose sight of this fact.  The Jews are our elder brothers and sisters in faith.  Their story is part of our story.  The truths of the faith preserved and passed down by the Hebrews made possible the coming of Christ and his kingdom.  While we believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah and the fulfillment of the covenant, God has not forsaken his first people.  God keeps his promises.  There are NOT two covenants.  Both Pope Benedict XVI and the late Cardinal-priest Dulles clarified that there is ONLY one covenant. The covenant of old now embraces (in Jesus Christ) both the first and the new People of God. We pray and hope that those first called will one day come to a full awareness of the fulfillment in Christ.

Muslim Terrorism Does Not Exist?

popemuslim

Muslim terrorism does not exist

Is it true?

Back in 2006 Pope Benedict XVI urged that the concept of holy war or conversion at the edge of the sword be repudiated. Immediately the summons went out for Muslims to kill the Holy Father. Even the more liberal critics were surprised at the apparent millions of enemies of Western civilization and our cherish rights and freedom. The call went out for the execution of the Pope. Many moderate Muslims remained quiet or on the sidelines. Salman Rushdie could go into hiding, but Pope Benedict XVI could not. He showed his courage, with an abiding faith and confidence in Christ.

It was not a few words taken out of context that caused all this turmoil. This was a volcano growing beneath us for some time. Christianity and Islam never made a true peace, but rather had maintained a truce centuries long. The problems and conflicts remained. Both are missionary faiths. While they share certain religious elements, with each other and the Jews, they are in their core identities quite different. The Church has learned the hard lesson of tolerance and patient endurance; many in world-Islam have not. A Christian martyr dies for the faith loving and forgiving his murderers. A Muslim martyr sacrifices his life as well; however he is driven by hatred to take his enemy with him. There is a physicality and coarseness to Islam that distresses Christians, especially things like the seven virgins that wait to be despoiled in the afterlife as a reward to righteous Islamic male adherents. There are many personal things about Mohammad that repulse Christians, and yet any honest historical appraisal (not to mention real criticism) earns immediate rebuke, threats and maybe even death. This makes dialogue very difficult, if not impossible.

The Pope spoke about the Muslims as our brothers and sisters, and fellow sons and daughters of Abraham. He said that violence cannot be used in the cause of furthering religion. There was no way radical Muslims could agree to this. The signs they carried in protest said it all, Jihad was a basic tenet of Islam as they understood it. Despite the naysayers, the worldwide protests seemed to indicate that it was this form of Islam, and not the tempered version we usually see in the U.S., that was the true face of this worldwide religion.

Despite apologies from the Holy Father for any misunderstanding, events escalated. There was no more pretense. While men gathered at the mosque in Southern Mogadishu, a powerful Islamic cleric of Somalia, Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, declared on a Friday night at prayers: “We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion. Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim. We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope.” The Mujahideen Army of Iraq threatened a suicide attack on Pope Benedict XVI. They wanted revenge for his daring to quote a historical figure that criticized their religion and the violence of Jihad. Their website posted this command, “smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome.”

Given current tension and this crisis of a decade ago, is Pope Francis right in his assertion? What is his evidence in a terrorized world that “Muslim terrorism does not exist”?

Mother Teresa’s Nuns Executed

12828529_10153477889533435_7491433776954450931_o

Mother Teresa’s nuns have a charism to tend the needs of the poorest of the poor. Friday, March 4, 2016, Muslim terrorists executed them.

Four nuns and ten civilians were killed. Msgr. Paul Hinder, apostolic vicar to Southern Arabia, spoke to AsiaNews about this morning’s “religiously-motivated” attack against the convent of the Missionaries of Charity in Aden, in southern Yemen. At 8:30 AM, the prelate said, “People in uniform stormed the compound where the Missionaries of Charity live. After they killed the security guard and all the employees that stood in their way, they came for the nuns and opened fire, killing four [sisters]. One (the superior) managed to hide and survive. Now she is in a safe place.” The victims are Sister Anselm from India, Sister Marguerite from Rwanda, Sister Judit from Kenya and Sister Reginette also from Rwanda.

The attackers seized Fr. Tom Uzhunnalil, a Salesian priest who lived at the facility. At the time of the attack, he was in the chapel praying. Overall, 16 people lost their life: four religious and ten lay people, employees of the community that also housed senior citizens and disabled people. Msgr. Hinder said: “We knew that the situation was difficult and that the sisters were running a certain risk. They decided to stay no matter what because this was part of their spirituality.” Groups linked to al Qaeda and jihadist militias linked to the Islamic State group are active in the country, which adds to the spiral of violence and terror.

A Courageous or Timid Church?

Msgr. Pope touches a cord on the Archdiocesan Blog that is very dear to my heart, the fact that a “timid” Church is in contradiction to its very nature as a sign of contradiction in the world.

Msgr. Pope speaks of the new secularized faith as “Sad, pathetic, wrong, and cowardly—hardly the revolutionary faith that got Paul arrested. . . . We have got to rediscover how revolutionary our Catholic faith truly is to this world gone mad. And as we proclaim healing and an allegiance to something other than this world, we will become increasingly obnoxious to the world around us. . . . No tame, domesticated Christianity will threaten or change this world. When Paul preached, the people rioted. Modern preaching too often incites only yawns and indifference.”

St. Paul and the other apostles did not qualify the Gospel and so they faced arrest, torture and martyrdom. The early Church was persecuted precisely because the truths of Christ allowed for no compromise or tolerance for participation in false worship. Even a pinch of incense to the Roman gods or to the so-called divine emperor was too much. Today’s world misconstrues the incident of the Roman coin and the likeness of the emperor. When Jesus said give to God what belongs to God and to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, he was avoiding a trick to have him either arrested by the authorities or to be rejected by the crowds as a traitor. Ours is a jealous God. What belongs to him? The answer is everything, even Caesar! Many in contemporary society play games with their Christianity. They create a false image of Christ to follow, one that would have fit in nicely with the pantheon of ancient pagan deities. Indeed, the battle over religious liberty is a symptom of this— as if believers could restrict their faith and values to the inside walls of churches and during Mass. And yet, the dismissal at the end of Mass echoes our commission to take the Good News out into the world. The ideal is not co-existence with the world or evil but rather to plant the seeds for repentance and conversion. Today many Catholics are silent upon important issues. A candidate for the office of governor in Maryland is a “practicing Catholic” and yet he is on the record as pro-abortion, yes even for allowing partial-birth infanticide. How can we reconcile this with the faith? The issues continue to mount: no fault divorce and remarriage, same-sex marriages, lack of support for parochial schools, contraception giveaways in public schools, free contraception, abortion on demand and growing sympathies for euthanasia. Sins are counted as rights and Catholics and their Church are expected to fall in line. Wimpish silence satisfied in the past, and that was bad enough, but today complicity is demanded.

St. Paul would exorcize the demonic, not try to accommodate it. Too often we hear from churchmen that we do not want to alienate politicians on “other issues” that are important to us, like the status of immigrants, or just employment, or the dismissal of capital punishment, or tax breaks for churches, etc. We cower to the power of the secular world when we should bring the authority of Christ to bear on the challenges of our day.

Christianity was persecuted by the Roman Empire precisely because it was viewed as intolerant. Today, much of the faith has lost its teeth. The enablers for the murder of children are invited without sanction to take Holy Communion. Even high level shepherds hypothesize ways to get around or to turn a blind eye to homosexuality, adultery and fornication. We are urged to find a new language, removed from that used in Scripture, so that no one might get their feelings hurt. The fact that these activities might cost people the kingdom and their share in everlasting life does not seem to measure up anymore. Who are we to judge? We are the people given the gift of the Holy Spirit and who follow the Light of the World, dispelling the darkness. What is saving faith? It is courageous obedience to God, qualified by charity. That’s who we are and what we are about!