Valid Matters

From time to time, the Vatican finds it necessary to remind the universal church of liturgical norms which should be observed in uniformity. Such was the case in when Redemptionis Sacramentum was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 2004. There was nothing particularly new here, but Cardinal Arinze apparently saw the need to pull in the reins a bit. At the time, I tried to charitably point out a few things we were not doing quite properly at our parish, but my observations were not welcomed by our pastor, so I backed away.

Years ago, such Vatican pronouncements went largely unnoticed by the laity. Today, the Internet allows us to view Church documents at will. Catholics in increasing numbers are being invigorated in their Faith through the various apostolates which have sprung up over the past couple of decades. Many participate in blogs, message boards, and other discussion groups on a daily basis. The result is a renewed interest and awareness in the matters of the Church. This knowledge can also result in consternation among members of the Body of Christ when certain abuses are recognized or perceived on the local level.

Of course, some abuses are more serious than others. While troublesome to those familiar with the rubrics, we have to decide when it is better to avoid confrontation and keep silent. A few weeks ago, our pastor allowed a lay person to speak in the place of the homily at Sunday Mass. While not permitted by Canon Law, this is a fairly rare occurrence, and probably not worth questioning. Other issues are more problematic.

Our pastor has recently taken a fancy to making his own Eucharistic bread. When asked by a parishioner as we exited Mass, he said it was made with wheat flour, water, and a bit of honey. Redemptionis Sacramentum (48) specifically mentions adding honey is a grave abuse. Judging from the consistency of the bread, I would think it contains more than those three ingredients. The bread is chewy and sticks to the teeth. The question is whether this bread constitutes valid matter. That may depend on the degree of corruption which, I presume, is precisely why the Church prohibits such enhancements.

In our parish, conventional wheat hosts are consecrated at the same time as the homemade bread. The bread cubes and unleavened hosts are arranged side-by-side on the Communion plates for distribution. Which kind one receives is up to the discretion of the priest or extraordinary minister. I have been given the bread cubes for three Sunday liturgies this month. Only by consuming the Precious Blood do I know with certainty that I have received the Real Presence of Our Lord. Even if the bread is validly consecrated, the laity should not be burdened with unnecessary doubt whenever we receive.

I fail to understand why our priest sees the need to introduce such nuances into the liturgy. He is not receptive to anyone questioning what he does, so there is a certain frustration among those parishioners who find this troubling. I am not mentioning the name of my pastor because this problem is not unique to my parish. My son attends another parish in this diocese where similar abuses take place. We sometimes hear of so-called cafeteria Catholics who like to pick and choose which Church teachings to which they adhere. Our parish priests set a poor example when they essentially choose to do the same.

Motu Proprio - no bull

Much talk this month about the Moto Proprio recently issued by Pope Benedict which allows priests to celebrate the Mass of Pope John XXIII (Tridentine) as an extraordinary use. Some of the more conservative Catholics are rejoicing at the news. Some others wonder why the Pope would want to bring back the Latin Mass. Will this bring Catholics closer together as the Pope hopes, or will it cause further division?

Why did the Pope issue this Moto Proprio? In an English translation, he says the following: I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

Why the clamoring among some of the faithful for the Tridentine Mass? I believe it is not so much that older Catholics long for the Tridentine form as much as they long for a return to reverence it promulgated. In the years following Vatican II, the attitude of many Catholics changed. Touching the host was no longer forbidden. Instead of kneeling, we could now receive standing. The lines between mortal sin and venial sin were blurred, so much so that the distinction was seldom mentioned from the pulpit. In fact, we didn’t hear much about sin at all. Artificial birth control became commonplace among many Catholics who continued to line up for Communion even though they no longer made regular confessions. All of these changes affected the way Catholics behaved at Mass. Those who maintained their understanding of the Real Presence, and especially those who experienced the solemnity of the Tridentine form, found this trend disturbing.

Article 5, section 1 of the Pope’s motu proprio says the following: In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

I believe our pastor will consider any group who adheres to the earlier liturgical tradition to be unstable. Once the horse is out of the barn, it is difficult to get it back in. Bringing back the Tridentine Mass will not necessarily mean bringing back the reverence. What happens when contemporary Catholics walk into the extraordinary use (as it will now be called) wearing their tank tops and cutoffs, talking loudly, holding hands or assuming the orans posture during the Pater Noster? Will they receive the Holy Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand as they are now accustomed? Will the parish behavioral norms be different for the extraordinary use from the ordinary use? Can we expect the same priest who takes liberties with the Novos Ordo liturgy to act any differently celebrating the Tridentine form? Will such displays cause even further division among the faithful? I hope not.

The problem is not the Novos Ordo Mass or the vernacular language. I believe the issue is reverence. The Holy Father does not want us to believe one Mass is superior to the other. EWTN televises a very reverent Novos Ordo Mass, but one rarely finds such reverence in the real post Vatican II world. If parishes using the Tridentine form are able to bring back the strong vertical element of worship, and if this attitude carries over to the Novos Ordo Masses, then this effort by the Pope will be beneficial.

Wedding Bell Blues

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household.' "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. – Matthew 10:34-39

... It would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believe in me, to be drowned by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes!" (Mt 18:6-7).


A few months ago, my niece announced that she would be getting married next September. The wedding was to be held in a small parish church that she had been attending since moving away from home several years ago. Her betrothed was baptized Catholic but not raised in the faith. They were attending marriage preparation classes, and the entire family was excited at the news. My wife and daughter immediately offered to host a bridal shower and plans were made.

Recently, my sister informed us of a change in the plans. The parish priest was refusing to marry the couple. Apparently, situational disclosures made during the pre-marital instructions led the priest to find impediments to a sacramental marriage. Instead of being married in the Church, they couple decided to be married outdoors by a non-denominational minister my sister knew. My sister and her husband were supporting this decision in the hope that the marriage would be blessed in the Church at some time in the future.

My sister and I exchanged a number of messages by email in which I expressed my dismay at this situation. I thought she failed to grasp the seriousness of a Catholic marrying outside the Church. At one time during the discussion, she proposing the idea that her daughter might still be able to receive the Eucharist since they would be legally married. I felt like I was walking on eggs in trying to convey the implications of such an action without driving a wedge in our relationship. My wife and daughter also took the news with some indifference. They continued planning the bridal shower. When family members began to ruffle at my protests, I decided to take some time to review the Church’s stance in such matters.

Canon law, like civil law, can be difficult for the layman to understand. From what I have read, a Catholic marriage requires canonical form (Canon 1108) which says that the marriage must take place before a priest or deacon, and there must be two witnesses. The wedding celebration must also take place inside a church (Canon 1115). Lacking canonical form, a marriage is invalid. Dispensations from canonical form can be granted by the bishop, but only in the case of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. Strange at it may seem at first glance, the marriage of two baptized non-Catholics by a non-denominational minister in an outdoor setting would be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Only Catholics are subject to Canon law.

In the case of my niece, she is Catholic. She is subject to Canon law. It is my understanding that her fiancé was baptized Catholic. If he were not Catholic, it might be possible for a dispensation to be granted by the bishop so a valid marriage could take place. The wedding is not taking place in a Catholic Church, thereby also requiring a dispensation. Since no dispensation has been granted, or even requested as far as I know, the marriage cannot be valid. I am encouraged to know that a priest in our diocese had the courage to do the right thing. He recognized an impediment to receiving the sanctifying grace given in a sacramental marriage. Too often, couples are improperly disposed to enter the marital covenant. It is no wonder so many decrees of nullity are issued these days.

So, how does a Catholic family-member who loves his faith and tries to practice it react to this situation? Is it permissible for me to attend the wedding? Several Catholic apostolate websites have forums where such questions can be addressed to priests. The ones I value most are thoroughly orthodox and generally conservative. One can search the Catholic Answers website or EWTN and find numerous questions about invalid marriages. The consensus seems to be that attending an invalid marriage ceremony is scandalous. Father Mark Gantley of EWTN’s question and answer section says, “One should not be present to support and give witness to an invalid marriage ceremony. This is a moral matter, not a matter strictly of canon law.” His stance is typical of many others I found.

My niece’s wedding is less than three months away, and this dilemma is eating away at me. I cannot attend her wedding ceremony in good conscience. I also do not want to cause a rift in the family. I do not want my absence to be interpreted as snobbish or self-righteous. On the other hand, I feel a moral obligation to express my concern. The difficulty is in doing so in a way to achieve the best possible result. Responding to someone in similar circumstances, one priest suggested writing a loving letter to the couple explaining the problem for a faithful Catholic. It is this approach I will likely take, addressing my sister first.

I suspect I could find many priests who would say to go to the wedding in the belief that maintaining an open relationship with the couple may lead them to realize the importance of a sacramental marriage and seek to eventually have their union convalidated. They might say that attendance does not mean one approves of the wedding. It is likely that many Catholics will attend this wedding without giving it much thought, and any behavior to the contrary on my part will appear uncharitable.

In trying to explain myself to my sister and her family, words must be chosen carefully. I am not refusing to go to my niece’s wedding. Rather, I am unable to stand in witness at the ceremony performed contrary to canon law. I am not trying to make a statement by my absence. I would prefer that my absence go unnoticed. I must do what my own conscience tells me is right, and I cannot take responsibility for other Catholics who may attend either through ignorance or defiance of Church teaching.

Our spiritual journeys are life-long, and we are all at different points on that journey. Some will not be in a position to yet understand what others have come to understand. Great peace comes to those who embrace complete submission to the teachings of the Church Jesus established. I pray that someday, my niece and her husband will find that joy. Above all, I want them all to know I love them unconditionally and will continue to pray for them each day. I wish them much happiness. In fact, I wish them eternal happiness, the happiness we will all gain if we embrace the loving truth of our Catholic faith.

My Mission Statement

As part of the fiftieth anniversary celebration for the diocese, our parish hosted a four-night mission earlier this month. Billed as Called by the Spirit to Mission, the event featured “Four evenings of inspirational song, prayer and reflection with Father Daniel J. Mahan.” Nine area parishes gathered to participate in the mission. All sessions were held in our recently-renovated church.

We belong to the Diocese of Gary, a city historically besmirched by racial tension, high crime, and urban blight. The Church has taken an active role in trying to bring people together through various ministries. Our diocesan initiative generally revolves around various themes of diversity awareness. This always struck me as being a bit counterproductive. Most people seem well aware of the diversity. It is our common bond as members of the Body of Christ that we sometimes fail to acknowledge.

Father Mahan is an excellent speaker who preaches about stewardship. Each session consisted of two movements. A movement was made up of a song, a scripture reading, Father Mahan’s talk and a few minutes of reflection. Including fellowship and refreshment time, the event lasted about two hours each night. Attendance was disappointing. I would estimate about 100 people came each night and the average age was probably well into the sixties.

If I had to summarize Father Mahan’s four-day mission statement in one sentence, I would say he told us to allow the light of Christ to shine through us each and every day as we serve others and grow in holiness. His message was inspirational and well received by those in attendance. Of course, those who needed to hear this message the most were not there. As I sat during the moments of reflection, I could not help but wonder why so many stayed home. Looking around the church, I think I know at least part of the answer.

While Father Mahan’s message may have been very Christ-centered, the structure of the mission itself did not seem so. Years ago, special events such as this were more devotional. We had annual 40 hour devotions which included Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction, along with homiletic presentations. This mission was much different from what we older Catholics are accustomed to seeing. People conversed in the pews before the start. A few knelt to pray, but most did not. Though the pastors of all the participating parishes were in attendance, one would be hard-pressed to pick them out in the crowd. Only three or four wore collars and one showed up in shorts. Snacks were served, not in the church hall, but in the rear of the nave.

The “Gathering Hymn” on Monday was As a Fire is Meant for Burning by Ruth Duck. The opening verse reads as follows: “As a fire is meant for burning with a bright and warming flame, so the church is meant for mission, giving glory to God’s name. Not to preach our creeds or customs, but to build a bridge of care, we join hands across the nations, finding neighbors everywhere.” If Dana Carvey were here dressed as the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live, this would be an appropriate time for her tag line, “Well, isn’t that special.”

At one point during the mission, Father Mahan spoke about the importance drawing people to know Jesus through the Catholic Church. Our creeds, both the Nicene and the Apostles’, profess what we believe as Catholics. We cannot lead people to the truth of the Catholic Church if we cannot preach our creeds. One of the reasons so many people are outside the church is that it has become politically incorrect to tell others what we believe and why we believe it.

So, how do hymns such as this find their way into Catholic worship? One might say this was not part of a liturgy, so we can bend the rules a little when it comes to appropriate Catholic music, but my son reported this very same hymn was sung at the Mass he attended in another parish last Sunday. Do those who select these songs not read the lyrics? Do they not understand enough Catholic teaching to see the conflict? Are they deliberately choosing these songs as a form of protest? Our Mission booklets containing these songs were prepared by the Office of Worship, Diocese of Gary, 2007.

I wondered how many of these songs were written by Catholics. I was particularly interested in Ruth Duck, who apparently thinks the Church’s mission should not be to preach creeds or customs. That particular text did not sound very Catholic to me. Her Internet biography says she is professor of worship at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois. She is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. Her bio lists eight denominations who have selected her songs for their hymnals, all of them Protestant. It also says she lives with her partner. Is this what the diocese means by diversity acceptance?

One of the problems of using Protestant music in the liturgy is that it needs to be filtered to insure its compatibility with Catholic teaching. Of course, Catholics are also capable of writing bad music, but are less likely to do so if they are knowledgeable and orthodox in their thinking. At least two of the mission songs were composed by Marty Haugen. He purportedly writes for a number of different denominations, as well as the Catholic Church. He serves as a composer in residence at a United Church of Christ. It seems to me that anyone having sufficient understanding of Catholic theology to write Catholic hymns would be Catholic!

Liturgical hymns are intended to be a form of prayer and worship. Father Mahan stressed the importance of being Christ-centered. Most of the songs selected for the mission were peppered with first person references. We are many parts, We are learners, What do you want of me Lord, O Lord with your eyes set upon me, We are called, Let us build a house, We are a pilgrim people, We are the Church of God – the list goes on. Granted, this mission was about stewardship so one would expect the songs to be reflective on our duty as Catholics, but have we become too self-centered, and in doing so, are we losing our catholicity? Apart from the Catholic-relevant material in Father Mahan’s talks, this mission had a very Protestant feel.

I love watching Marcus Grodi’s program, The Journey Home, each week on EWTN. I love seeing the excitement in the eyes of converts who have recently discovered the truth of the Catholic faith. Many can barely contain the joy that fills their hearts, minds and souls. Why is it then that so many well-intended Catholics think it necessary to tap Protestant elements into our services?

Father Mahan told a cute story about Pope Benedict’s affection for pizza. When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, he liked to dine at a pizza restaurant owned by a man named Gino. One evening, Gino got a call requesting that a pizza be delivered to the Vatican for the Pope. He put together his best pizza and wanted to deliver it personally. On his was to the Vatican, he was stopped by a policeman wanting to know why he was speeding. Gino explained that he was delivering a pizza to the Pope, and wanted to get it to him before it got cold. The officer was skeptical, but he offered to escort Gina to the Vatican. Upon their arrival, the policeman watched as Gino went up the stairs and was allowed to enter the Pope’s residence. After he came out, the policeman told Gino that he should be entitled to half of the tip since he was instrumental in getting the pizza to the Pope while it was still warm. Gino said okay, raised his right hand, and brought it down vertically as if to give the police officer half a blessing.

Sometimes I feel like we are getting half a blessing also, except that we get the horizontal half instead of the vertical half. The social or communal aspects of church have become dominant over the spiritual elements. Father Mahan spoke of the wonderful gift of reconciliation. Despite the presence of numerous priests each night of the mission, no opportunity for confession was offered. There were scripture readings but no Liturgy of the Eucharist until the last night. There was no Eucharistic Adoration or Benediction. Apart from the Catholic aspects of Father’s talk, the first three nights of this event could have taken place in any Protestant church. The unique gifts we possess as Catholics were cast aside in favor of something mundane.

Father Mahan often referred to the imagery of the vine and branches. Our communal relationship with one another is through Christ. If we are cut off from the vine, we die. Father Mahan recognized the importance of nourishing our relationship with Christ if we are to function as stewards. I am not sure the mission organizers from our diocese really understand this.

I have a Confession to make

Catholic Answers’ founder Karl Keating writes a periodic newsletter to which I subscribe. Last month, he told of a Los Angeles parish where four priests hear confessions every night of the week plus Saturday afternoons. The lines are long as hundreds and hundreds of parishioners attend regularly to receive absolution for their sins. Amazed at the sight, Mr. Keating asked the pastor how they manage to attract so many regular penitents. His answer was quite simple:

"From the pulpit we tell our people that they are sinners, that they know they are sinners, and that they need to go to confession. We tell them that God loves them and wants to forgive them. We tell them that we will be waiting for them in the confessionals each night and on Saturday afternoon. We tell them this often and always gently, and so they come to confession. Lots of them."

Mr. Keating cited a recent article from the Religion News Service which stated that only fourteen percent of Catholics go to confession once a year, and forty-two percent never go at all. Here in our little parish, I doubt the numbers are that good. The reasons are many.

I can’t remember the last time I heard our priest talk about the necessity of confession from the pulpit. We seem to have lost our sense of sin and the lack of its mention by the clergy reinforces the notion that we no longer need to burden our consciences with guilt. When the conventional wisdom says we do not need to confess to a priest unless we have killed someone, people are not going to go.

In our parish, the confessional was actually removed to make room for a new restroom. Cleansing the body became more important than cleansing the soul. Confessions are now heard in the Sacristy where anonymity is not assured. Penitents have the right to confess behind a screen. Anyone uncomfortable with having the priest recognize them will shy away from confessing in our church.

Despite the fact that we should all experience great joy in receiving the graces of sacramental reconciliation, let’s face it. For most of us, going to confession is not something we generally look forward to. It’s not necessarily a pleasant experience, nor should it be. Verbalizing our sinful behavior to a priest forces us to acknowledge our faults, and serves as a deterrent for repeating this behavior in the future. The Protestant who says he confesses directly to Jesus gets off way too easy. Jesus already knows our sins. He commissioned his apostles, the first bishops of His Church, to be ambassadors of His work of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:17-20) We confess sorrow for our sins to a priest and receive absolution because that is clearly what Christ wants us to do. “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”? (John 20:19-23)

Our parish holds a communal penance service the Wednesday before Holy Week. This is one of only two days a year when a person may have to stand in line to confess. As I entered the church for the service this year, I was greeted by firefighters who were evacuating the building. Someone had struck an underground natural gas line in the block next to the church causing a leak. I decided to go inside anyway. Five priests and about a dozen would-be penitents were chatting in the vestibule. Our pastor offered a communal absolution and told us the service was canceled. We all left at that point, and the service was not rescheduled. I suspect a natural gas leak is not sufficient reason to extend a communal absolution. Despite the slight risk of a small explosion half a block away, I don’t think any of us were in immediate danger of death.

Another opportunity to stress the importance of sacramentary confession came and went on Divine Mercy Sunday, the Sunday after Easter. On August 3, 2002 came the announcement from the Apostolic Penitentiary that a plenary indulgence would be granted on Divine Mercy Sunday under the usual conditions of sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father and a few other simple stipulations.

In addition, the Apostolic decree requires that parish priests "should inform the faithful in the most suitable way of the Church's salutary provision. They should promptly and generously be willing to hear their confessions. On Divine Mercy Sunday, after celebrating Mass or Vespers, or during devotions in honor of Divine Mercy, with the dignity that is in accord with the rite, they should lead the recitation of the prayers that have been given above. Finally, since ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy' (Mt 5,7), when they instruct their people, priests should gently encourage the faithful to practice works of charity or mercy as often as they can, following the example of, and in obeying the commandment of Jesus Christ, as is listed for the second general concession of indulgence in the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum. (http://divinemercysunday.com/packet.htm)

Indulgence has apparently become a taboo word in some catholic circles. Just because indulgences have been misunderstood and often criticized by Catholics and non-catholics alike, some priests treat them as though they no longer exist. The Church, through the power of the keys, has the authority to remit the temporal punishment due to sin. This is a wonderful gift that Our Lord, in His Divine Mercy, has given us. What does it say to us when the parish priest makes no mention of this opportunity? Does he not believe in the authority of the Church to grant indulgences? Does he not believe in the necessity of purgation? Is he lazy? Is he unaware? Doesn't he care? Silence can speak volumes.

What a great teaching opportunity to explain indulgences and temporal punishment, the importance of dying in a state of grace and the power of confession! On the third Sunday of Easter, the week after Divine Mercy Sunday, we hear Our Lord telling Peter to feed his sheep. It is the responsibility of our priests, acting in the person of Christ in union with the successors to Peter, to nourish us, not only in the Eucharistic sense, but by instructing us on the path to salvation.

Catholic Democrat – an Othodoxymoron

I live in a blue county in a red state. The local population is so strongly entrenched in the Democratic Party that county Republicans rarely field a slate. Our city and county officials are generally determined in the primary. We have some very qualified Republicans who would make great leaders, but they feel running for office would be an exercise in futility.

The County Democratic Chairman is a member of our Catholic parish. He is very active in the church as a Lector and Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. This is not unusual. Catholics have historically been Democrats. The only Catholic President was a Democrat, but much has changed since JFK was elected in 1960. Back then, nobody had heard of Roe v. Wade, or embryonic stem cell research, or legal same-sex marriage. Now, the Democratic Party, at least on the national level, stands in support of all these issues. How can an orthodox Catholic remain a member of today’s Democratic Party?

There was a time in my life I probably would have considered myself a Democrat. I actually voted for George McGovern the first time I was eligible to vote. I thought the Democratic Party cared more for the little guy. As I got a little older, I called myself an independent, disavowing allegiance to either party. I thought it was possible and even desirable to stay in the middle of the road.

I heard somebody say if you’re not a liberal when you’re twenty, you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative when you’re forty, you have no brain. I guess, in my experience, it is true! Today, I immediately look for a candidate’s stand on abortion before I ever even consider lending my support. Being wrong on that one important issue speaks volumes about that candidate’s moral character, and if the moral character is lacking, so is the basic foundation necessary for making responsible God-centered decisions in other areas. As we approach another presidential election next year, all of the Democratic hopefuls are pro-choice. So much for caring for the little guy. Even the currently leading Republican thinks a woman should have the right to kill her unborn baby.

I realize that abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage are not likely to come up at the town council meeting. One can certainly be a good Catholic and still serve the Democratic Party on the local level, but doing so has repercussions. The radical platform of the Democratic Party could not stand without support from the grass-roots level. Those Democrats who make policy on the national level have to be elected. When Catholics actively support the Democratic Party even locally, it adds legitimacy to the national stand on abortion rights and other positions diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching.

Even worse is the number of Democrats calling themselves Catholic. While a Catholic calling himself Democrat helps to mainstream Democratic policy, a prominent Democrat calling himself Catholic helps to undermine Church teaching. If Ted Kennedy can support abortion and still receive Holy Communion on Sunday, then it must be okay for me to do the same. Right? Many contemporary Catholics think that way.

Democrats may argue that the Republicans are no better. They support capital punishment and an unjust war. It’s a point well taken, but there is a difference. While the Church has taken a stronger stand against capital punishment in recent years, the Catechism does not rule it out. (CCC 2267) Regarding the war on terror, CCC 2265 says the following:

“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”

Contrast freeing the Iraqi people from the aggression of a ruthless dictator, or hunting down those who would perpetrate another 9-11 with piercing the skull of an unborn baby to make certain it is not pulled from the mother’s womb alive. Contrast defending innocent life with taking innocent life. The choice is clear. Today, the Democrat Party is being pulled even farther to the left by their radical base. The only remedy is a mass-defection of God-fearing Christians from party lines. Next year’s election will be hotly contested and critically important. The Christian right must be united as happened in 2004 to elect candidates with a strong moral character.

One obstacle to unification is the issue of illegal immigration. Christians are divided on what to do with Mexican immigrants who entered the country illegally. Some have been here working for a long time. Their children were born here and they are making a life for themselves.

I receive an unsolicited email almost daily from a group, purportedly Catholic, who calls for strict enforcement of immigration laws, including the deportation of those who entered illegally. The Republican Party would tend to take a similar stance while Democrats would be more sympathetic to their plight. In many cases, these Mexican immigrants have integrated themselves into the Christian communities, receiving assistance from religious organizations in adapting to life in the United States. They have beautiful families and perform difficult manual labor to support themselves in conditions that most of us would find intolerable. Should these people be treated as criminals or are they merely trespassers? Did our immigration laws even apply to them before they entered our country, and if not, is it fair to label them as criminals if they committed no crimes after crossing the border? Seems I heard somewhere we are to forgive those who trespass against us.

I raise these questions only in seeking common ground where strict conservatives and sympathetic people of faith can bond together. By re-electing George Bush in 2004, we were able to get two presumably conservative justices placed on the Supreme Court. Had a Democrat made those nominations, the chances of overturning Roe v. Wade any time in the near future would have diminished considerably. Allowing the immigration issue or the war in Iraq to shift our nation back to the left would be a major step backward in protecting human life.

The events of 9-11 have made us aware of the importance of knowing who is entering our country. Our borders must be protected, but we must also find a way to give new people opportunities to share in our bounty. Perhaps some sort of sponsorship could be allowed where employers having jobs to offer could arrange to accept immigrants with certain restrictions. I certainly don’t have all the answers. What I do know is this: If we want to preserve what remains of our moral backbone in this country, it is imperative that God-fearing Americans stand united in 2008.