Deal W. Hudson

Back from Scotland

Deal Hudson

Sorry to be out of touch for nearly a week.  I spent the last six days with three chums trying to keep the golf ball out of the wind in a land where the wind hardly ever stops blowing. 

The first two days we endured what the Scots call the "arctic wind" from the north, which was unusual for late June.  These winds, 30 to 40 mph, drove the temperatures into the high 40s (I don't know how to calculate the wind chill factor).

Even the members of the courses we were playing decided to stay in the pub, while we slogged our way around the links (36 holes per day). 

One of my travel mates, call him R, called this part of the trip the "Bataan death march," but to his credit he stuck it out. 

The last three days were a typical combination of sunshine, rain, and normal Scottish wind, 10 to 25 mph.  When the sun comes out over the wet green links at the end of the day (June sunset is around 10 pm), the scene surely has to rank among the most beautiful sights in the natural world. 

OK, so a golf links isn't natural in the strict sense, but they're nothing like the more fabricated designs of the typical American golf course. Links are basically strips of sandy grass and dunes between the sea and coastal roads that were considered good only for sheep grazing until some shepherds invented the game of "gowlfe."

So I am home again, after my week of male bonding and golf foolishness.  Both my eyes are infected, my face is red and blotchy, and I can hardly straighten my legs. 

Ten hours each day we trudged up and down the dunes judging the effects of wind, rain, grass, sand, gorse, height, and distance on the flight of a 1.620 ounce ball.  (I did start humming the theme from "Bridge Over the River Kwai" several times: Da DAT, da da da DAT DAT da, da DAT, da da da DAT DAT da....

And then, of course, there  are the all-too-human elements, the golf swing itself and the player's mental state at the moment of taking a whack.  What makes golf so interesting, so compulsively addictive, is not the swing itself but the challenge of dealing with your own fears and expectations just prior to taking the club back. 

I prepared for this trip quite a long time, learning how to hit my drives and irons low into the wind.  More importantly, I prepared for the shock of watching a well-struck shot driven out of the sky by the unseen hand of the wind and fall into a bunker so deep the only the way out is backward.   

At the end of the day, a golfer doesn't relish merely the sight of the ball tracking toward the target, it's knowing all he had to overcome -- inwardly -- to paint that white slash across the blue sky. 

The number on the card is a legitimate matter of pride and public recognition, but the moment when self-command banishes doubt and the trembling hand for once makes its perfect mark is a satisfaction never to be forgotten.

Canon Law and Me

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Five years ago, I began classes toward a licentiate in canon law at Catholic University in Washington, DC - one of 2 schools in North America authorized to award this pontifical degree.  Then, CUA had devised a 5-year summer program to cover the 3-year regular curriculum - a program expanded by the Congregation of Catholic Education the year I entered.  At the time, I felt lucky to avoid the new requirements.

Now, I'm not sure.  I've completed my course work and must sit for a one-hour, oral comprehensive exam administered by 3 of the Canon Law faculty the end of July.  I feel reluctant, and would rather continue taking the interesting courses that have enriched my summers.  But all good things must end.  I have to give this ineludible exam my best try.

I will post study highlights over the next few weeks.  When I began my canonical adventures, I knew little about Church governance and why - at that sad time - so many disordered clergy had, somehow, eluded the effective management that internal systems try to provide.  What happened - or failed to happen - left me curious to learn the dimensions and dynamics of the ecclesiastical legal system.  As the Church has, during this time, learned much about the sexual abuse scandal that cost all so dearly, I have (I hope) grown familiar with the contours of our law and procedure which will be better utilized to prevent future travesties.

Today's post offers a basic intro to my now-favorite book:  the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  The Code is comprised of 1752 canons contained in 7 books.  This is the most current codification of Church law - the oldest functioning legal system in the Western World.  The post-Vatican II revision of the Church's law draws upon divine and natural law, as well as that generated and perpetuated though pontifical legislative authority across the centuries.  The 1983 Code of Canon Law took effect November 27 of that year, supplanting the now-retired 1917 Code.  "Canon", by the way, derives from the Greek "kanon" which means more measurement than law as translated from nomos or lex.  This appropriately reflects the role of law within the Church serving the salvation of souls above all else.

And that's today's "Canon Law and Me."

Reforming the Reformers

Craig Richardson

As is often said, the primary mission of Pope Benedict XVI is to "reform the reformers."  In other words, to undo much of the shenanigans that occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the interpretation of the Vatican II changes.  Having read many of these documents myself, it is clear that what was implemented in this sorry chapter of the Church (and the world's) history did not accurately reflect the true intent of Vatican II.

The Associated Press is reporting today that our Holy Father has approved a much wider use of the Tridentine Mass in a document soon to be released.  This is good news because again, the intent of Vatican II was not to wipe Latin off the face of the earth but to seek ways to provide opportunities for people to hear the Mass in their own native tongue. 

Unfortunately, the AP story plays it up as the Pope's attempt to get the Lefebvrists back into the Church.  Which, not surprisingly coming from a secular source, completely misses the big picture.

The beauty of the Church is that it has something for everyone.  Our parish, for example, conducts one High Mass a weekend (not an official Tridentine Mass) and four in English.  For those who like a traditional Mass with some Latin, bells, and incense, can go to the High Mass. Others can choose from the other four. 

Accomodation, as long as it's not contradictory to the faith and morals taught by the Church, is a wonderful thing. 

Good News for the Unborn

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Like the little old wizard in Oz, radical feminists seem, at times, deafening and overwhelming in proportion to their actual stature back there behind the curtain.  It's easy to get scared, lose heart and question whether you know what you know.  Shout-backs do come along, however - like this June 7 2007 report entitled "Turnaround on Abortion". 

Researchers Christopher Blunt and Fred Steeper, compiled and reviewed over 30,000 survey responses in Missouri regarding abortion attitudes from 1992 to 2006, compared alongside national Gallup results for the same period. 

"In the mid-1990s, the pro-choice label enjoyed a 56% to 33% advantage over the pro-life label. The two labels reached a rough parity in 1998, and today the prochoice label’s advantage is only four percentage points (49% to 45%). This is a net swing of 19 points in the pro-life direction; the net pro-life swing of 24 points in Missouri was only slightly larger."  (Read more).

Some of the most dramatic changes in this notable shift of public opinion have occurred among women with the best access to truthful information about abortion, its effects and consequences.  For example: "Among post-graduates, the proportion strongly pro-life nearly doubled (from 18% to35%), while the strongly pro-choice proportion dropped from 42% to 28%." 

"Today’s 18-29 year olds are as strongly pro-life (36%) as older voters, and are less strongly prochoice(18%) than their elders. This youngest cohort’s passage into adulthood coincided with the ascendance of partial-birth abortion as the issue’s dominant frame; for them, the “abortion wars” of the 1980s and early 1990s were a dim memory at best. This is also the generation for whom fetal ultrasound images (often of a very high quality) have become ubiquitous, which has doubtlessly increased the sensitivity of many to the possible humanity of the unborn child. Furthermore, these voters have come of age with legal abortion, perhaps with the realization that they themselves could have been aborted had their parents “chosen” differently. As a result, today’s young voters have had their perceptions of the abortion issue shaped by many considerations other than a self-interested desire to divorce sex from its consequences. Indeed, particularly for those who may have reflected on the narrowness with which they themselves escaped abortion, the whole notion of self interest seems to have been stood on its head."

Such good news for the unborn!  Such good news for women!

The Future of the Faith-Based Initiative

Craig Richardson

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative.  According to Catholic World News (CWNews.com), that in "the case of Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation the court ruled that the atheist organization did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the White House program."

While I certainly applaud the Supreme Court's decision generally to allow religion and the state to co-exist, which they did just fine until the late 1940s, I've always had real concerns about a "faith-based" approach as put forth by President Bush.

The reason?  It ok now while a Christian President sits in office, but this cannot be guarenteed moving forward.  It is not specifically necessary for faith-based initiatives to be Christian or Jewish, but at a minimum they must be rooted in a Judeo-Christian understanding of morality, which is also shared by other faiths.  As Marjorie pointed out recently, however, there is a serious rise in "religions" like Wicca, so who is to say that a President Hillary Clinton won't appoint a "witch" to be the next Faith-Based Director? 

The goal of the program is laudable -- using faith-based communities to address social problems.  In reality, however, there is no longer a consensus about what is right and what is wrong, which makes it virtually impossible to find consensus on what "religious" vehicles to employ since so many directly contradict each other on basic moral principles.

A Pause: Women in Art

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

I would love to know your thoughts on this amazing YouTube sent to me by a friend.

">

Annulment Procedure and Rauch-Kennedy

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

The recent ruling from the Roman Rota regarding the marriage of Sheila Rauch and Joseph Kennedy constitutes a "second instance" ruling in the canonical annulment process - a process that is, at best, "difficult to explain", as you aptly put it Deal, both theologically and procedurally.  Unless the case is abandoned or renounced, we have not heard the last of these sparring spouses because it takes conforming decisions in two instances - or two substantially equivalent conclusions - for the matter to be more-or-less resolved for good.  The two decisions in this drama are opposed.  Expect round three.

As a canon law student at Catholic University, I've waded through the canons of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that govern marriage - both its celebration and demise - so I can readily understand why the media - even Catholic media - so often misreport annulment processes.  Deal, over the month of July I will be preparing for my comprehensive exams - an onerous one-hour oral grilling by a panel of three professors from the Canon Law faculty - and I hope to share the pain by occasional posts on points of canon law that may be of interest.

In the meantime, if you would like to know more about the annulment process, the Rauch-Kennedy case and what canon lawyers find noteworthy in this most public of marital pronouncements, I refer you to a blogging canon lawyer who not only survived oral exams but went on to his doctorate, Dr. Ed Peters.  I am so impressed.  Ed's In The Light Of The Law:  a Canon Lawyer's Blog on Current Issues is a favorite webstop for those of us who consider the Church's 1752 canons an interesting read.

Now, as near as we can figure (oh, how I hate relying on the secular media here), Joseph Kennedy petitioned for, and received, at first instance a declaration of nullity regarding his marriage to Sheila Rausch. But Rausch apparently exercised her right under 1983 CIC 1417 to appeal directly to the Roman Rota, which would mean that the Kennedy-Rausch annulment case was not completed when it went to Rome. Thus the Rota sat as a tribunal of "second instance" (JPII, Pastor bonus, a. 128, 1) in which capacity it rejected Kennedy's petition. This annulment, then, was not so much "reversed" by the Rota, as it failed to win completion therein. Granted, the effect is the same, no second marriage is permitted Kennedy (or Rausch), but it's not as if Kennedy "had" his annulment for ten years, and then mean old Rome took away. Kennedy, it seems, never had his annulment in the first place.

An Important, Preliminary Issue

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Deal, Your interesting post on the upcoming election and the role of our bishops - individually and collectively - raises an important preliminary issue that should not be summarily dismissed by any Catholic.  But I fear you - and other orthodox Catholics - do so with assertions like this one:  "The bishops are tired of being viewed as lacking the courage to address the issue, although some of them have. They are also tired of being shackled by "collegiality" with other bishops when all that means is "don't hurt the Democratic Party."  Deal, while you may be correct that timidity and politics motivate some bishops at some level, I know - and you know - there is another prevailing episcopal concern that every bishop must address:  the unity of the Church.

Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco summarized this critical component of pastoral care in comments he issued after attending a recent Saturday meeting of the "Northern California Lay Convocation."  This cloaked event proved to be - in reality - a Voice of the Faithful gathering, where "we spoke out about lay people as pastors and administrators, women as deacons, and the role of the laity in naming/calling our own pastors and bishops."  In his comments, Archbishop Niederauer expressed concern about the group's "confusion and misunderstanding . . . about what is changeable in the Catholic Church and what is not, " noting, for example, "we cannot, as was suggested, develop a democratic constitution for the Catholic Church in America, with executive, legislative and judicial branches, nor can we ordain women to the priesthood. "

But, note, the Archbishop gave them meeting space at the Cathedral, attended their meeting and praised "the participants' genuine love for the Church and for their Catholic faith."  Now, I confess a certain queasiness being forced into the same tent of "Catholic faith" as the Voice of the Faithful, whose "confusion" about core Catholic teachings used to be called "heresy".  BUT, I get the point, at least, from his point of view.  Deal, isn't he (and the other like-minded bishops) right that his primary job is to herd this sorry flock of sheep - anxious to go their own direction no matter how foolhardy the course - back into some semblance of a slowly, moving coherent group - despite mistakes, misjudgments, sins, warts and all?

Here's how the Archbishop explains this important, preliminary issue: 

Unity, of course, is not uniformity.  Any parent knows that there will be tensions among

siblings, and God knows that about His Church. Still, tension is one thing and rupture is

quite another. Parents will often hear sisters and brothers complaining about one another.

What alarms a mother or father, however, is the angry, dismissive writing off of others,

the impugning of motives, and the suggestion that the parent will have to choose: “It’s

him or me!”

At moments like that parents realize how the father of the prodigal son must have felt, in

Luke’s Gospel, at the end of the parable, out in the field, trying to convince his angry,

judgmental, self-righteous older son to open his heart and his life to his younger brother.

As Archbishop, I hear those “older son” voices within the Church too often. Because one

of my most important duties as shepherd is to keep the flock together, those voices

concern me, whether I hear them on my right or on my left, from traditionalists or

progressives.

Bishop's Conference Loses Control of Bishops

Deal Hudson

As I argue in my upcoming book Onward Christian Soldiers (Simon & Schuster, Oct 2007) the biggest loser in the 2004 was the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

The USCCB lost control of its bishops on the issue of abortion and politics. 

Bishop Raymond Burke opened the floodgates when he publicly criticized John Kerry. Instead of suffering the fate of the Lone Ranger, like Bishop Bruskewicz in the past, Burke found himself joined by at least a dozen other bishops, even after he kept up his criticism from his new post in St. Louis.

Cardinal McCarrick did his best to damp down criticism of the Democratic nominee with his awkward, at best, handling of a Ratzinger letter that supported bish0ps like Burke. McCarrick's attempt to misrepresent the letter was exposed and McCarrick lost his clout with the Vatican. 

Now we have pro-abort Catholics running the House of Representatives and seeking the GOP presidential nomination. 

Thus far only Giuliani has drawn direct fire (Bishop Tobin of Providence, RI), but Bishop Serratelli of Patterson, NJ, took more general aim, saying pro-abortion Catholics should not get communion, period . 

And, when 18 of the pro-abort Catholic Democrats in the House sent a letter criticizing Benedict XVI for his comments on abortion and communion, it fell flat. Even the USCCB had to distance itself. 

Look for more and more individual bishops to make their views known.  If Giuliani gets close to the nomination he will get the Kerry treatment, and maybe more, because he is a Republican.

Archbishop Chaput's recent Associated Press interview is a warning shot portending what is going to happen in the 2008 election.

The bishops are tired of being viewed as lacking the courage to address the issue, although some of them have. They are also tired of being shackled by "collegiality" with other bishops when all that means is "don't hurt the Democratic Party." 

Bishops like Chaput have been strong leaders but they have also held their tongues, trying to be team players. 

But that restraint, in my opinion, is coming to an end.  With Skystadt as president of the USCCB and Cardinal George as his successor there is not much that the Conference is going to alter its alignment with the Democratic Party. 

You may recall George's famous public comment from 2004, that the Democrats had "lost their soul," but the Republicans "never had one." 

If you want to know where George and most his fellow bishops are politically, just look at that comment and take it seriously.   

At present there are 30 to 40 of the nation's bishops who are ready to engage on their own -- and they will in the coming political season.

The Decline and Fall of the House of Kennedy

Deal Hudson

The news that a Kennedy annulment had been overturned by the Vatican suggests the clout of the Kennedy clan is coming to an end, finally.

In 1997 Shelia Rauch Kennedy published Shattered Faith as a public protest against the "bullying" she experienced in the annulment process.  She believes that their marriage was "valid" and should not have been recognized as such -- the Church has, nearly 10 years later, confirmed her judgment.

She was married to Joseph P. Kennedy II, the eldest son of the late Robert Kennedy.  After 12 years of marriage and twin sons (now 26), they were divorced in 1991. Joseph Kennedy married Ann Elizabeth Kelly who had been a member of his Washington staff  in 1993.

Joseph Kennedy II and Ann Elizabeth Kelly were married in a civil ceremony at the home of the bride's parents in Brighton, MA.

The annulment process is difficult to explain to people who do not accept the sacramental view of marriage. I regard the criteria the Church uses to determine whether or not to grant an annulment very reasonable but only in the context of a sacramental view.

What is interesting here, of course, is that the Church reversed its own ruling, suggesting the Shelia Rausch Kennedy was right in protesting against the influence of the Kennedys. 

Would that reversal been granted if Joseph Kennedy had been married in the Church? I doubt it. (Perhaps somebody in the Archdiocese of Boston wisely put the kibosh on that idea?)

It look as if the House of Kennedy may be going the way of the House of Usher.