Today is Spy Wednesday, which is considered the day on which Judas Iscariot betrayed the Lord to the chief priests.

One of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot,
went to the chief priests and said,
“What are you willing to give me
if I hand him over to you?”
They paid him thirty pieces of silver,
and from that time on he looked for an opportunity to hand him over.
(Matthew 26:14-16)

Today let us repent for all the times we have betrayed the Lord by our own sins and beg the Lord’s forgiveness.

Back in the late 1990’s I changed jobs and rolled-over my (minuscule) 401k into a self-directed IRA. I did some basic research and chose a mutual fund to put the IRA money into. Every quarter I got a statement from the mutual fund company and I would usually scan it briefly. Imagine my surprise one day when I noticed that they added Playboy to the list of companies they invested in. I wrote the company asking them to stop investing in Playboy. I received a very professional response respecting my position, but telling me that they would remain invested in Playboy as it was good for their investors.

So what was I to do? I figured I had five options:

1. Invest in another mutual fund with the possibility that it too would eventually invest in a morally-objectionable company.
2. Invest in a “socially-responsible” mutual fund which respected my worldview but could very well lag other mutual funds in performance.
3. Invest the money in individual stocks instead of a mutual fund I couldn’t control.
4. Invest the money in federal bonds or another non-stock vehicle which didn’t involve morally problematic firms.
5. Leave the market.

These are the choices the Catholic faces when involved in the stock market, either directly or through mutual funds. I came to the conclusion that option (1) wasn’t a viable choice for me, as I didn’t want my money being invested in companies that engaged in explicitly immoral activities. I also don’t think option (5) is a good option for those who wish to be good stewards of their money, and option (4), while viable, definitely limits one’s ability to grow their money over time. So that leaves options (2) and (3), both of which have serious downsides: a “socially-responsible” fund usually performs worse than comparable mutual funds because of its restrictions, and do-it-yourself investing has a whole host of potential problems associated with it.

In the end I made my choice and it has worked out fine for me over the years. But these are the type of questions every Catholic must make while living in a culture which increasingly disrespects our values. And with the advent of government-funded abortion, the conceit that our money isn’t directly used for evil is quickly slipping away. What type of choices will the Catholic have to make in the future?

According to Italian journalist Sandro Magister, the current leadership in the Legion is the problem, not part of the solution, and he urges the Vatican to replace them in order for reform to really happen.

Another solution would just be to shut it all down and consider criminal charges against anyone who might have aided or abetted the fraud Maciel over the years.

Now this is a great use of the Internet: the Vatican has made all official records from 1865 to 2007 available for free in PDF format.

I can remember just 15 years ago doing research for a paper on Catholic ecumenism from the early 1900’s and spending hours and hours at the library trying to dig up anything I could find. Now it would take me a few minutes and I’d have more than I could ever use!

We are very fortunate this year that Easter is being celebrated on the same day in both the East and the West. I think it is one of the more tragic consequences of our division that most years all Christians do not celebrate the most holy day of the year together. But this year we get lucky.

If you have an opportunity, you should try to make it to an Eastern Christian liturgy this week; they are quite moving and really help you enter into the Pascal mystery. Orthocath has some good resources to get you started:

Holy Week Resources

The Scandal has erupted again, this time in Europe, and the media is of course having a feeding frenzy. This is the “perfect storm” of stories for them: scandalous behavior by religious people, including sexual misbehavior, reaching possibly to the highest levels of the Church. They are like kids at Christmas.

Understandably, many Catholics are angry at the media for their attacks. The media clearly has an anti-Church agenda, and it is frustrating to many faithful Catholics to see our Holy Father maligned in such a way. But the media is not the problem. I remember when the media first broke the story about Fr. Maciel in the late 1990’s and about abuse in Boston in 2002, I quickly blamed the media. But since then I have realized that the media did not create these problems, they just exploit them. The real problem is the sins of members of the Church, not the media. To complain about the media, in my opinion, is like a kid who complains when he is called in on a summer day because it is now dark. For the media to attack the Church at every possible opportunity is a force of (fallen) nature: we cannot expect anything different.

The problem, instead, has been self-inflicted: going back at least to the 1950’s (and probably before that), there has been widespread abuse by clerics and cover-ups by bishops. To say that the rate of abuse is no worse than society as a whole is no defense, either: we are the Body of Christ, our standards are not to be “no worse than the world”, our standard is Christ, who is perfect. Even one case of abuse and cover-up is a scandal which cries out to heaven for justice. But it has been far more than one case, as it is clear that the sexual problems which have afflicted society as a whole have run rampant throughout the Church as well.

And the real scandal, I believe, is the response of the hierarchy over the years. There are three possible responses that a bishop could make to a case of sexual abuse by one of his clerics:

1) Effectively ignore the problem, cover it up, and transfer the priest to another location where he can abuse again.

2) Keep the problem quiet, send the priest to treatment and then move the priest to somewhere he cannot abuse again.

3) Aggressively handle the situation by removing the priest from the ministry and doing anything possible to bring about reparation and healing to the victim(s).

Obviously, the first possibility is sinful and scandalous, the second not ideal but not necessarily sinful, and the third the ideal. But unfortunately, until earlier this decade, the best we could hope for from our bishops would have been the 2nd response, and many bishops seemed to be engaged in the tactics of response (1). There is no evidence that any bishop was handling these cases aggressively and with a mind to the healing of the victims before this decade.

Because of this, it would be naïve to think that anyone who has been a bishop for any length of time from the 1950’s until this decade would not have cases in their past in which their response would be seen as inadequate at best. So it should not be a surprise that a pope who had previously been a bishop of a large diocese and a long-time Vatican official which handled some of these cases would have some cases in his past. And from what we know so far, it appears that although then-archbishop and Cardinal Ratzinger did not handle the cases aggressively by today’s standards, he also was not engaged in shuffling abusive priests to situations in which they could abuse again.

In other words, in defending the Pope against the attacks he is undergoing, let us not pretend he was a crusader against priestly abuse either. Until this decade, he was not. Because of the lack of response by Church officials over the decades to the abuse crisis, there is a wide open hole for enemies of the Church to exploit. But the irony here is that Cardinal Ratzinger eventually was one of the first Vatican officials to see the scope of the problem and work to deal with it decisively, both as head of the CDF and as Pope, as John Allen’s excellent article shows. So those calling for his head do not seem to have the health of the Church or the protection of the innocent in mind, as he is the best friend of abuse victims the Church has today.

In many ways, the Pope has had all the sins of the past decades placed on his shoulders. As the Pope, he is truly where the “buck stops” and therefore all the sins of bishops and priests for the past 60 years are his responsibility. As Catholics, we must pray fervently for our Holy Father this Holy Week that the attacks against him and his sufferings might be used in a way to bring healing and salvation to all those victims of abuse over the years, as well as to those who would attack him today.

I have always been a great lover of books. I can remember reading Lord of the Rings in 6th grade and just being enchanted. Most of my leisure time these days is spent reading some book or another. I also have my first book being published later this year. So, needless to say, I am very interested in the publishing industry.

Technology has had two major impacts on publishing in the past 20 years. First, the rise of the Internet has led to the dominance of Amazon in the book-selling world. The days of going to your local mom-and-pop book shop for your latest read is becoming a thing of the past. Instead, books are bought online. Second, e-books have recently started making inroads in the bibliophile world (again, led by Amazon and their Kindle device), which has changed the book-reading experience itself.

But another technology, called the Espresso Book Machine, has the potential to reverse both of those recent trends. Take a look:

So with the EBM, anyone who can afford this machine (which is quite pricey right now), can have an almost unlimited inventory of paper-bound books. Imagine going to your local bookstore and having any book available to buy! Furthermore, this machine doesn’t create e-books, it creates traditional paper-bound books.

It will be interesting to see if this technology takes off in the market and what kind of impact it has on Amazon and other modern booksellers.

This is what I love about the Internet. Earlier this morning I had a post about lying, and I mentioned that the Catechism (in paragraph 2483) stated, “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” No more than a few hours later an observant reader said that the part about “someone who has a right to know” is NOT in fact in the Catechism. Although I copied it straight from my Catechism sitting on my bookshelf, when I looked it up online, sure enough, paragraph 2483 stated “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error.” But in my copy of the Catechism DOES state “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” So what is the story here?

It looks like this paragraph was actually changed between the original 1994 version of the Catechism (which is what I own) and the official version which was released in 1997. If you look at this page, you will see a large number of updates were made, including the following:

2483 The second sentence of this paragraph presently reads:

“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.”

This sentence will be modified to read:

To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

Obviously, this change makes a major difference, and my whole argument in my previous post is based on the (removed) section of that sentence.

That being said, I’m not going to change my underlying argument that telling an untruth can be moral in certain extreme circumstances, such as saving the life of another. We have examples in Scripture of this occurring, and I do not think anyone in their right (moral) mind would condemn someone who deceived Nazis while hiding Jews. I do not think the new wording of the Catechism eliminates the possibility that one can tell an untruth to someone without the right to the truth, just that it does not explicitly condone it either and most likely wanted to avoid confusion in this area. Perhaps also those in charge of the Catechism wanted to prevent the possibility of the abuse of this condition; as I mentioned myself, it could be easily abused. But the very fact that the clause was in the first edition (which was vetted and edited by hundreds of bishops and theologians) shows that the concept is not against Catholic teaching.

Note also that I am not saying that someone is morally obligated to tell an untruth in those situations, just that it would not be immoral to do so (although if I was the Jew hiding in your basement I’d rather you did tell the untruth).

Update: My argument in this post is based on the wording of the original version of the Catechism, which was later changed. See this post for more details.

One of the classic moral dilemmas of the 20th century was the case of hiding Jews during Nazi Germany. If a Nazi officer comes to the door asking if any Jews are in the house, are you morally permitted to lie to the officer in order to protect the lives of those Jews hiding within? Unfortunately, this is not just a theoretical or historical question, but has real-world applications in today’s abortion-satiated world. Case in point:

Lila Rose, the 21-year-old leader of the group Live Action, posed as a 14-year-old seeking an abortion who was told by a clinic employee that she could have someone with the same last name approve the procedure. State health officials subsequently determined that nine minors had received abortions from the clinic without proper verification of parental consent.

Rose, who converted to Catholicism last year, has been criticized by abortion groups for using deceptive tactics. In reply, she cited Europeans hiding Jews during the Holocaust and the biblical example of Rahab hiding Israelite spies.

I can tell you that in my own pro-life activism experience, I encountered similar situations in which we had to be less than truthful in order to successfully work against abortion clinics. So, was Ms. Rose justified? Is it moral to lie in order to save lives?

The answer is that telling an untruth in such a situation is not a lie, and therefore it can be moral to be deceptive in such situations. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a “lie” in the following way:

To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who as the right to know the truth. (CCC 2483)

So there are three conditions that have to be in place to make a statement a lie:

(1) “Speak or act against the truth”: In other words, the words or actions have to be not true.

(2) “In order to lead into error”: A misspoken word or erroneous statement said in ignorance is not a lie.

(3) “someone who as the right to know the truth”: Here is the key component for the situation we are discussing: does a Nazi guard or Planned Parenthood employee who plans to kill an innocent life have the right to the truth? Of course not.

So we cannot “lie” to save a life, but we can tell an untruth if necessary, but in doing so, that is not a lie.

Now we need to be careful with this definition. It can too easily be used to justify almost any untruth: “My parents didn’t have the right to know that I was out at that party.” “My wife doesn’t have the right to know what I’m doing on my computer in my free time.” I would posit that only extreme situations really call for even the possibility of that third condition being applicable. But if saving the innocent life of an unborn baby is not an “extreme situation”, what is?

God bless you, Ms. Rose, and keep up the good work!

Probably the most important virtue needed when it comes to ecumenism is patience. It has taken 2,000 years for us to get into this mess of divisions and schisms, so it might very well take that long to get out of it. Even when it appears that we’ve reached a breakthrough, it is good to remember that reunion never comes quickly or easily.

The recent news that “100 U.S. Anglican parishes petition to become Catholic” is a good case in point. As was reported widely (including on this blog), the American branch of the Traditional Anglican Communion supposedly requested formal entrance into the Catholic Church. On closer inspection, however, this is actually not what happened. According to a document (PDF) on their website, what actually happened was that the Anglican Church in America requested that the Catholic Church create an Anglican Ordinariate here in America. But that is not the same thing as them petitioning to become Catholic. As the document states:

2. Does this mean ACA parishes will be going immediately to Rome?

No. In fact, no one is “going to Rome.” Once a US ordinariate (the structure defined in the Apostolic Constitution) has been established, each of the ACA dioceses and its constituent parishes will decide whether or not they wish to join the ordinariate. Establishing the ordinariate (the “implementation” requested by the Bishops) is thus the next step in an ongoing process, with discernment at each step.

6. Will the parishes of the ACA decide individually regarding following the national church in the final arrangements between the TAC and Rome?

Yes, and providing continued pastoral care and oversight to parishes which need time to discern their course of action is a high priority for the ACA Bishops.

In other words, after the Ordinariate is set up here in America, each and every parish in the ACA will vote whether to actually join the Catholic Church. It might be that they all vote to enter the Church, but that has not yet happened.

Furthermore, we should also remember that these parishes – and all the members of these parishes – are going to be diverse in their history, their spirituality and their receptivity to the Catholic Church. They will also have varying levels of understanding and acceptance of Catholic teaching. For example, one of the ACA parishes here in Maryland, St. Stephen’s Traditional Episcopal Church, has the following statement on their website: “Everyone is welcome to St Stephen’s and to its altar rail” (emphasis added). This, of course, is contrary to the closed communion practice of the Catholic Church. So obviously if this parish is to be accepted into the Catholic Church it will have to understand and accept the teaching of the Church in this area.

None of what I say here should be taken as opposition to the reception of these churches into the Catholic Church. I am extremely excited about the members of the TAC coming into the Church, and I welcome them warmly. But it is important to be patient with the process and make sure that everyone who is received into the Church comes in with eyes wide open and hearts full of joy. In other words, it is vitally important that we pray in earnest for this process and all involved that this might be one small step that leads us to be one again, as Christ prayed we would be.

Today is the Feast of the Annunciation and it seems a good time to promote the wonderful little devotion called the Angelus.

"The Angelus," by Jean-Francois Millet

The Angelus, for those who are unaware, is a short set of prayers and Scriptural reflections related to the Annunciation. It is traditionally said three times a day: at 6am, 12noon, and 6pm, but many people just choose one of those times to say it each day (my family says it at noon each day). It is a beautiful way to interrupt the hustle and bustle of the day to reflect on our Lady’s perfect submission to the will of the Lord, thus reminding us of our call to submit our own daily lives to His loving will.

Here is the whole prayer:

V: The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.

R: And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.

All: Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death.

V: Behold the handmaid of the Lord.

R: Be it done unto me according to thy word.

All: Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death.

V:  And the Word was made Flesh. (genuflect)

R:  And dwelt among us.

All: Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death.

V: Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.

R: That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

V: Let us pray. Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that, we to whom the Incarnation of Christ, Thy Son, was made known by the message of an Angel, may by His Passion and Cross, be brought to the glory of His Resurrection. Through the same Christ our Lord.

All: Amen.

(Note: During the Easter season, the Regina Coeli is said instead of the Angelus).

I’ve always been a strong proponent of aggressive evangelization, but this might be taking it a bit too far:

H/t: Byzantine, Texas

First Avatar, now CatholicTV:

CatholicTV rolls out shows in 3-D to attract youth

Check it out here.

As we near the end of the Lenten Fast, I’d like to draw our attention to the differences between fasting in the Eastern church and the Western church. Actually, I’d like to draw attention more than anything to the differences between the attitude towards fasting in the East and the West.

Some people might know about the vast difference in the fasting regulations between the two great churches. In the West, we are told to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (which means one normal meal and two small meals not to equal that one normal meal) and abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesday. In the East, on the other hand, a common tradition is that every day of Lent is a day of fasting and abstinence, and abstinence applies not only to meat, but also includes items such as fish, wine and oil. Why such a difference in these practices? Is it because the East is just more holy or more serious about Lent? I think the reason is due more to the underlying attitudes towards rules and regulations in the East and the West.

- In the West, a regulation is seen as the minimum requirement and failing to follow it is perceived as a serious failure, perhaps even a sin.

- In the East, a regulation is seen as an ideal to strive for and failing to follow it is perceived as an opportunity to do better in the future.

So in the West, the regulations for fasting are much less stringent than in the East, because a failure to follow them is seen as a more egregious action. In the East, the regulations are much more strict, but failing to live up to them is not seen as serious of a failure.

I do not think that either attitude is necessarily better than the other – both have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of the Western attitude is that regulations are always taken seriously, but the disadvantage is that one can become legalistic or even prideful if he follows the law. The advantage of the Eastern attitude is that one always sees the ideal as something to strive for and this keeps you humble, but the disadvantage is that the wide gap between practice and regulation might be so wide as to seem insurmountable or make the regulation appear unrealistic.

All Christians should work, with the help of God’s grace and a good spiritual director, to make sacrifices that are in keeping with their state of life. The worst thing to do, at any time, is to compare one’s own sacrifices with anyone else’s. But as we near the end of Lent, ask for God’s help in persevering in your own resolutions so that you might be properly prepared for the resurrection of our Lord at Easter!

The founder of Human Life International, and one of the most committed pro-lifers of our lifetime, has died:

Fr. Paul Marx, O.S.B., 1920-2010

I am confident that the first words Fr. Marx heard after his death were, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into your reward.”