The petition at NotreDamedScandal.com has been signed by 210,000 visitors.

Cardinal DiNardo stated that the decision to honor Obama deserves a "charitable but vigorous critique."

Archbishop Dolan (Archbishop-Elect of NY) stated, "They [UND] made a big mistake."

AmericanPapist has the latest developments.

Rachel - I'm so glad you brought up this topic - it IS so important, especially in the current climate where Catholics and faithful Catholic positions seem to be the subject of repeated criticism in the media.

I want to share one of my all-time favorite resources on persuasion, and "sympathetic engagement" with those who disagree with us strongly - an article by law professor Sherman Clark, published some years ago in the Ave Maria Law Review.  Professor Clark was (and maybe still is) a professor at the University of Michigan Law School (hardly a pro-life, pro-faith bastion but an excellent academic institution), when I used to work there (before kids) as a career service counselor.   He used to speak at both the U-M and the (politically and culturally pretty-much-diametrically-opposed) Ave Maria Law School, then still in Ann Arbor.    His point was that in order to successfully persuade an opponent, you have to understand the  "other side" from the inside.  I found it so insightful, and helpful. 

His article starts out with a quote from Cardinal George, and he ends up discussing the application of his principles to arguments involving abortion. Good stuff (and increasingly important).

Ken Woodward, religion correspondent for Newsweek explains why UND is right in giving Obama the honor of an honorary degree.

An example:

On the dais at Notre Dame, Obama will find a familiar face: Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, Bush's ambassador to the Vatican, who will receive this year's Laetare Medal in part for her peerless defense of human life. It's important that the president hear her message as well as deliver his own. It is equally important that this kind of engagement take place at a university devoted to both faith and reason. Where else but in a university setting should we expect this kind of principled presentation of issues?

Mr. Woodward clearly has not been thinking this through.  No one would object if UND scheduled a debate between President Obama and Mary Ann Glendon.  That's exactly the kind of thing UND should be doing.  But a commencement is not an engagement of anything. Its a totally one-sided affair. It's a collective monologue.  There is no debate.  Obama is honored by a Catholic university with an honorary degree and given pride of place as a keynote and the pro-lifers get one of Glendon's bones thrown to them as a way of maintaining plausible deniability.  Anyone who can't see this is either an idiot or disingenuous in the extreme.

Considering we're talking about someone who writes for Newsweek, I'll say "both" is probably more true.

With some of the recent legal attacks on homeschoolers, I found this list of 10 famous homeschoolers encouraging:

There is ongoing fallout from a 2007 study on the effectiveness of Ritalin and Concerta for the longer term treatment of ADHD.  According to this article in WaPo, meds do not work after about 3years, and kids on these meds are, on average, an inch shorter and 6lbs lighter than ADHD kids who are not treated with these medications.

Some of the authors of the study have attempted to explain away the data, causing a stinging rebuke from other authors of the study.

The upshot, to parents, is that meds cannot and should not be the first line treatment for ADHD.  First, because they do not work long term (and have serious side-effects) and just as importantly, they create a disincentive to parents to seek more effective long tern behavioral strategies. 

According to PsychCentral...

One of the original researchers in the study, psychologist William Pelham, is leading the charge for behavioral treatments over medication treatments — especially for long-term behavioral change in children. In a recent presentation, he outlined the following ADHD treatment recommendations for children:

• Behavioral Parent Training — Use always
  
• Behavioral School Intervention — Use always
  
• Intensive Behavioral Child Intervention — Use when needed
  
• Medication — Use when needed

In the same presentation, Pelham persuasively argues that dose and sequencing of treatments for ADHD are very important considerations, too often overlooked. When behavior modification techniques are used, they reduce the need for high doses of stimulant medications. What order treatments are provided — called sequencing — is also important. Providing behavioral treatment first reduces need for medication; providing medication first reduces parental desire to pursue behavioral treatments. According to Pelham, “Parents strongly prefer psychosocial or combined treatment approaches. Parental preference is important because it affects long term adherence.”

If behavioral treatments are started first and continued, Pelham suggests that 50 to 75 percent of children with attention deficit disorder will not need medication (fewer at school and more at home). For children who do need medication, doses will generally be lower. So Pelham argues that most children diagnosed with ADHD should very nearly always start with behavioral treatment first, and only add medication when impairment is not minimized and parents prefer medication or resources limit more intensive behavioral treatments.

Check out this site and have some good clean fun on April Fool's day. Disclaimer : I have not read all of the tricks some are harmless fun but some are rude and not advised. Please use good discretion.

Calendar Shenanigans

Perfect trick for fooling your kids! Simply tell them that today is March 32nd, so they should get ready to play some fun pranks “tomorrow on April 1st.” If you can trick them for the whole day, then surprise them with an “APRIL FOOL’S” and let them know they missed the whole day.

To increase profits, insurance companies instituted “managed care” in psychiatry and transferred to shareholders a great deal of the resources that had formerly been spent for health care. Managed care employs many techniques to discourage the use of mental health services. One approach is to have reviewers decide whether patients’ problems meet criteria for “medical necessity” before approving payment for “procedures,” such as psychotherapy. To do this they often demand very personal information, compromising confidentiality. This demand for information, because it threatens confidentiality, can lower quality of care just by existing. Who can talk freely when unseen reviewers are eavesdropping? And, unfortunately, too many therapists are willing to go along with this system.

These same insurance companies made me a Provider. I believe they use the word “provider” as a way to address doctors, nurses, therapists of every variety, even syringe suppliers, with the same form letter. Because a “provider” need not be a doctor, the term also includes the numerous “physician-extenders” who do things that doctors used to do. Many Americans have insurance that obligates them to choose a doctor from a company list or “provider panel.” Even though I don’t participate on insurance company “provider panels” (they rarely allow for confidential, insight-oriented psychotherapy), I have received many a “Dear Provider” letter—impersonal, bureaucratic and, typically, unsigned.

Then came the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which made me an Entity. HIPAA was intended to help workers maintain their insurance when they changed jobs. It also directed the executive branch to develop regulations to protect medical privacy. While the rules provide new protection for psychotherapy notes, they also allow large companies (including pharmacies) to use personal health information for all sorts of nonmedical (commercial) purposes—without patients’ knowledge or consent. (Perhaps you have received a phone call from a company attempting to sell you products for an illness you thought was confidential?) In addition, the rules require hospitals and most doctors to carry out a lot of bureaucratic paperwork to make a display of privacy protection. You’ve probably signed forms at your doctor’s office to satisfy the rule that the office show you its privacy policies.

If I were to send patient information electronically—such as sending a bill to an insurer online—I would become a Covered Entity and would be forced to have my patients sign the useless forms. But, concerned about these electronic transmissions as an additional risk to confidentiality, I choose not to use them. This makes me a Non-Covered Entity. I’d prefer to be a doctor, but as an Entity, I’d much rather be Non-Covered than Covered.

Not everyone feels as I do. My internist now types on a notebook computer as we talk. Although electronic records are lost, stolen, and sold every day, he does not believe that the electronic record jeopardizes my privacy. If my records were accidentally or maliciously posted on the Internet, would they even be accurate? The problems listed on my billing slip are not necessarily those I consider important. They seem more oriented to justify to a potential third-party reviewer the substantial amount of time my doctor spends with me than an accurate description of my concerns. Would I tell him of problems about which I felt deeply embarrassed?

Now health care reform is in the wind again, and with it many questions. Will insurance companies still be allowed to skim 20% from each health care dollar? Will doctors still be reimbursed huge sums for procedures but pennies for talking with and understanding patients and their families? Can medicine be personal and private? Will people be taken care of by a doctor, a provider, or an entity?

My practice remains personal and private. Most of my patients address me as “Doctor,” but some call me Larry. I’m not particular about this: more important is that the patient be comfortable. If the patient has a strong preference about what to call me, we have the chance to learn from it. The patient’s feelings about addressing me may shed light on his or her feelings in other relationships.

Recently, the federal government has required all doctors (including this Provider/Non-Covered Entity) to have a National Provider Identification (NPI) number. It is 10 digits long, so it’s not easy to address me by it. But even if you are the bureaucrat who created NPIs, your secret will be secure with me.

People with more conscientious personalities, who have greater ambition and discipline, live longer. That's according to Margaret Kern and Howard Friedman who combined data on this topic from over 20 previous studies, involving more than 8,900 participants in the United States, Canada, Germany, Norway, Japan and Sweden - many of whom had illnesses like heart disease or cancer.

On average, people who scored higher on measures of conscientiousness (agreeing, for example, with statements like "I plan ahead" and disagreeing with statements like "My house is a mess") tended to live between two and four years longer than low scorers.

This influence of conscientiousness on longevity was found to be as large or larger than many better known factors affecting longevity, such as socio-economic status. Read more

Among the sub-factors of conscientiousness, it was ambition and discipline that were particularly important for longevity, whereas responsibility and self-control were less important.

I should probably let Kevin do the heavy lifting on this.  I'm not a moral theologian and I don't even play one on television.  But I think the issue here is the different use of the same technology.

My understanding is that the Church tells us that any technology that cures disease and enables to human person to function as fully as God intended him to is a good thing. 

By contrast, any technology that treats our humanity or normal bodily function as a disease is a bad thing.

As I understand her--and again, my understanding is basic--Janet is arguing that the treatments she outlines, because they are life preserving and, in the cases she cites, may be medically necessary to save life, they may be appropriate.

I think your struggle is that you're getting caught up a little bit in the "accidents" or rather, things that look the same being used in two different contexts. 

For instance, we might say, "A coma is a terrible thing.  You should never put someone in a coma."  Generally, you'd be right.  But there are times when a medically-induced coma is the only way to save a life (that is, unless House episodes I watched mislead me. ;-)

Similarly, as I understand it, the Church doesn't argue that freezing embryos is bad because there is something objectively wrong with freezing them  The Church opposes the practice because these embryos are created in a lab (treating reproduction as production--bad) and kept in cold storage so that they can be used when the parents want them instead of loved as they deserve to be.

By contrast, in the scenarios Janet describes, the embryo would be frozen to save its life--and the mother's life as well as her ability to carry the child to term.  And in a similar way, surrogacy, in Janet's example, might be justified as a technique for saving the life of the child.  In these contexts, life is being honored rather than treated as a disease or a commodity.

For what its worth, while I don't have a fully formed opinion on the matter, I think Janet's points make a lot of sense.

Hope that helps.

Edward Peters, canon lawyer extraordinaire, for whom I have a great deal of respect, asks and answers the question:

What's so special about Notre Dame anymore?

In short, nothing. It's an undisciplined child that has run through the inheritance (moral and perhaps even financial) that was bequeathed to it by my parents' and grandparents' generation (most of whom could never go to Notre Dame), and has made almost no new friends among their children and grandchildren (most of whom went somewhere else). Well, at least, it's made no new friends among those who care for Notre Dame's once-robust Catholic identity.

It seems there are two attitudes towards Notre Dame.  One, it is just a school like any other school.  If it wishes to move away from its Catholic identity and become a Georgetown, so what? I think Greg is of this camp.

The other attitude is, there is something special about Notre Dame.  I, of course, am of the latter camp.  But, then, I think, precisely because they are Catholic, there is something special about any Catholic college or university that makes any of them worth trying to save.  I am reminded of the story of the prodigal son.

While I agree that ND has squandered its inheritance, I do not agree that it has not made new friends.  I know many young people, some of them much more traditionalist than I'll ever be, who love Notre Dame as Our Lady's University. If you want to pick a fight, say something about how worthless ND is to my son, who just got accepted for next fall.

I do not know whether Notre Dame will return to its robust Catholic identity. I hope it will. Unless Fr. Jenkins has a substantial change of heart, I doubt that it will be under his leadership. Stephen Barr, who has a son graduating from ND this year, attests his own lack of surprise that Jenkins has done this.  I had the same reaction: I was not surprised considering how Jenkins handled the V-Monologues controversy.This event has been a serious blow to efforts in that direction.

What I do know is that to me it is worth fighting for and that many people feel the same, even if we lose. Our Lady of the Lake, pray for us!

In yesterday evening's Steubenville paper, there was an article about the March of Dimes. Their local fundraiser is being promoted by a couple who, after "fertility treatments," had triplets, born prematurely. The article explains that the March of Dimes helps make sure that every baby has a "healthy start."

Should you support the March of Dimes? I don't think so. First, the MoD has been involved in anti-life stuff for a while now. And second, the HS article doesn't specify the nature of the "fertility treatments" the couple received. Maybe they didn't involve intrinsically evil methods (like IVF) - maybe they involved only the administration of drugs to stimulate ovulation. In any case, though, they were pretty clearly the sort of treatment that increases the risk of multiple births - hence, of premature births. In other words, they were, at least, questionably prudent. Maybe the MoD should focus more on cautioning couples about such treatments. Otherwise, we have another reason to regard them as not especially deserving of support.

has been posted!

A reader wrote again:

Boyles followed up with a post stating that Tiller was found not guilty on all counts.

Worse than the (first) OJ verdict.

Last week I offered yet another comment on the phenomenon wherein every news report about another breakthrough in non-embryo-destructive stem-cell research includes a ritualistic disclaimer to the effect that the breakthrough doesn't mean that we don't need to keep doing embryo-destructive research.

A reader emailed with this thought: "I've heard the reason is that patents = $ to be made from embryos, and that you can't patent adult stem cells." I'm no patent lawyer, but that sounds plausible as part of the explanation.

Meanwhile, I happened to notice in yesterday morning's paper that Michael J. Fox was going to be on Oprah, along with some doctor of whom I'd never heard and who is apparently somewhat controversial, to talk about Parkinson's disease.

Readers will recall that my dad has Parkinson's, so for that reason, as well as because I have some background in molecular bio and now do some bioethics, I'm quite interested in the topic. I'd never watched an episode of Oprah before, but I decided to DVR yesterday's program and I watched it later in the evening.

Inevitably, the topic of stem cells came up. Fox lauded Obama for his action regarding funding for embryo-destructive research.

Interestingly, the doc then weighed in with something significantly less than unqualified support for Obama's and Fox's position. He said that "adult" stem cells are far more likely to be therapeutically useful because they're far less likely to cause tumors, and that we've made years of progress with "adult" stem cells in just the past year, and that a stem-cell-based Parkinson's therapy is probably less than a decade away.

Fox, however, responded that we might be even closer to a cure if we'd been pursuing more embryo-destructive research prior to now.

Now, again, I know more than a bit about Parkinson's. It's an awful disease. I pray very frequently that my dad - and other Parkinson's patients - will be cured.

But, objectively, support for embryo-destructive research is sinful, and I can't help but think that Fox's response is an example of sin making one stupid.

I mean, let's review this. "Adult" stem cells are more likely to be curative - but we'd be closer to a cure if we'd been doing research with embryonic stem cells?

I'm not saying that there's no possible logic whatsoever underlying Fox's claim. One might consider, for example, the fact that some scientists admitted several years ago now that embryo-destructive research is more about basic science than about the development of therapies making direct use of stem cells. Embryonic-stem-cell lines might indeed be useful for such research. And such research into the mechanisms at work in, say, Parkinson's might move us in the direction of figuring out how to cure the disease - for example, using adult stem cells.

This is awfully speculative, though. Furthermore, do we know that there are no other - maybe even better - ways to do the research - or even that such research is entirely necessary to bring us a cure? And furthermore, if adult stem cells are likely to produce a cure, and fairly soon - and if putting more resources (our supply of which is, after all, finite) into embryo-destructive research would likely have meant less effort toward, and fewer breakthroughs in, the development of non-embryo-destructive stem-cell work - then isn't it at least equally reasonable to conclude that we're closer to a cure than we would have been but for Bush's policy?

The most important reason not to do embryo-destructive research is that it's intrinsically evil. But it's also worth noting (again), I think, that it probably has little to do with curing diseases like Parkinson's.

A reader emails:

I don't know if you have seen it, but Maggie Gallagher has been running a series on the Corner addressing the same-sex marriage issue by detailing the important impact culture has on marriage. I was going to wait until she was done to send you the links, but she is up to Part 10 and still going, so I thought passing along a first installment would be in order: The Amazing Power of Culture; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10. And this short post was not officially part of the series, but I think the self-quote she includes is worthy of note.

I read Rachel's and Greg's posts, and here are a few thoughts.

First, I think I largely agree with Janet's practical conclusions, and with Greg's way of explaining them.

Second, I would nonetheless maybe state and explain at least one of those conclusions in a way a little bit different from Janet's and Greg's.

Janet writes: "Couldn’t some forms of 'surrogacy' be permissible?" And Greg writes of "things that look the same being used in two different contexts."

I would say that the (hypothetical) procedure Janet has in mind ought not be called "surrogacy." And I would emphasize especially strongly that what she's describing, and "surrogacy" properly so-called, only "look" the same. They are in fact different actions - which is why they ought not share the same name. Thus - put slightly differently - they differ in themselves, not only in their "contexts."

In a footnote to Donum Vitae II.A.3, the CDF offers the following important definition:

By "surrogate mother" the Instruction means:

a) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of "donors." She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

b) the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo to whose procreation she has contributed the donation of her own ovum, fertilized through insemination with the sperm of a man other than her husband. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the child once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.

I don't think that the practice Janet envisions - "A pregnant woman discovers she has cancer and could survive the cancer with immediate treatment; otherwise, both she and her unborn child will die. Suppose it were possible to transfer the unborn child to the womb of her sister or friend so that she was able to receive the treatment and the child could live" - exactly fits that definition. Certainly it doesn't fit part b. Nor, it seems to me, does it exactly fit part a. Above all, there were no gamete "donors" as that term is usually understood (because there was no IVF or the like - and also there was not, at the start, a "commissioning" of the pregnancy). There was a pregnancy initiated in the normal way.

So I would say that what Janet is describing might be morally licit (and even good) - precisely because it isn't exactly "surrogacy."

This isn't just a matter of semantics. The point is that the basic choice being made in what the CDF calls "surrogacy" (and rejects - as intrinsically evil, I'd say) is different from the basic choice being made in what Janet describes.

I hope that helps.

By the way, those interested in the Church's teachings on these matters should read not only Donum Vitae, but also the more recent Dignitas Personae.

Please take a moment to say the prayer.

The site is running a poll on whether homeschooling is sufficient grounds to seek asylum.  The German consul thinks not. 

"I guess if you say that taking children away from their parents, fining parents tens of thousands of dollars, or sentencing them to prison isn't persecution -- I suppose I'd have to agree with the consul member," he says. "Perhaps he's not aware of what's happening to homeschoolers in Germany, but those are the things that are happening to homeschoolers in Germany. And I consider it persecution, and I think any immigration court here in America ought to as well."

As is often the case, I have to take issue with rejoicing at current developments at the UN that are being celebrated at the Sexuality and Religion blog .

The language that bothers me the most is:

"We must, as well, foster equal partnerships and sharing of responsibilities in all areas of family life, including in sexual and reproductive life, and promote frank discourse on sexuality, including in relation to sexual health and reproduction. We must also acknowledge the direct link between population rates, fertility, and the ability to reach development outcomes."

What I hear is:

" We must be sure to further marginalize and stigmatize women who choose to become mothers, or who once becoming them, embrace this role, and desire to devote themselves to it full-time, and not necessarily earn an income while doing so.  We must ensure that all women are forced from their homes, and their small children as early as possible - including breastfeeding mothers - so that they will earn at least 50% of the family income for political reasons and not for any reason based on the good of the woman, the good of the child, or the good of society.  We must ensure that no one sees any good coming out of motherhood, and stamp out anyone who in the free exercise of their personal liberty might choose to believe that babies need their mothers and mothers need their babies (much less that both mothers and fathers have a unique and important role to play in the development of a young child - only fatherhood is more to be despised than motherhood).  Believing in the goodness of motherhood - especially the desire to mother more than 1.2 children - is politically subversive and adversely affects those women in power who prefer to work outside the home and need all women to make that same choice in order to feel vindicated in it.  We are "pro-choice" as long as all women make the choices that we ourselves prefer.

We must assume that women in developing countries desire the same things and have the same values as Western women and prefer to find their value in being economic producers and we must make sure that no woman feels fulfilled or valuable as "just" a mother.

We must remember that children - especially children of color or children in developing countries, who often come to the world in disconcertingly large numbers in our own view - are first and foremost a drain on the environment, and secondarily, a commodity that should be only created in the model ordered by wealthy Westerners, only if "wanted" and only if they can be produced economically, raised in what we regard, without any scientific evidence to support our requirements, in an ecologically-sustainable way, and if their numbers are strictly limited.  Otherwise, because all children represent a threat to the adult material lifestyle of Western countries, which is the pinnacle of all good things (we believe), their lives should be seen as generally unimportant and mothers should be further stigmatized because they collaborate in the creation of this threat to our collective lifestyle. 

We must ensure the universal adoption of the aforementioned goals and values by promoting at first voluntary, but then increasingly coercive methods of fertility control, combined with high-quality propaganda ensuring that all women see prospective motherhood as an unworthy pursuit and the threat to everyone's well-being, especially their own, that we, the powers that be, believe it to be."

I'm sure that the folks whose agendas have been stymied by 8 years of the Bush administration (an administration I disagreed with in many, maybe most respects, other than pro-life) feel tremendous intoxication at the power to force their own values on everyone else.  And of course, in a tyranny of the majority, the majority are always delighted with the concept of "majority rule."  But I think that without more dialogue and respect for the viewpoint of people who see motherhood and children as great goods, including those who see large families and stay-at-home motherhood, traditional people, that what we will end up with in the end will be lack of respect for human rights and an impoverished view of humanity that will eventually come back to bite all of us. 

This Sunday is Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week, during which we commemorate the blessed and saving passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. We hear more Scripture this Sunday than is usual in the Church's liturgy; we hear the processional Gospel as well as the other readings in their usual place, and at that usual place, we hear the long account of the Passion where on other days we hear a shorter Gospel reading. By way of a reflection on these readings, I would like to take up again the theme of God's grace, the meaning and manifestations and effects of which I have been considering this liturgical year, first several months ago during Advent and now during this season of Lent, and I would like to note specifically the importance of receiving and accepting as a grace a mission from God.

Especially in our readings during the Mass this Sunday, we hear indications of the fact that Jesus Christ has come to carry out a mission from the Father, and also that we must take up such a mission in our turn. Thus, according to Isaiah's prophecy, the Lord's Servant must first "hear" the words of salvation that he will then speak, even through persecution and suffering. And St. Paul writes to the Philippians that Christ was "obedient" in going to his death for us. There are subtle reminders of this reality in St. Mark's account of the Passion also. Christ says at the Last Supper that "the Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him." And of course during his agony in the garden of Gethsemane, his prayer to his Father concludes with the words, "not what I will but what you will." And at his arrest, he speaks of the need "that the Scriptures may be fulfilled."

There are suggestions here that we too must carry out a mission from God. In the original or literal meaning of Isaiah's prophecy, the "Servant" refers to the prophet himself, but also to God's whole people Israel. Likewise, in its fuller or spiritual meaning, discovered in light of the Gospel, the "Servant" is of course Christ above all, but is also his holy Church. The whole Church, in each of her members, must "hear" God's word and then speak it. St. Paul's words about Christ's self-emptying and humility and obedience - and exaltation - follow the exhortation to Christians to have the attitude or mind of Christ, to be obedient to the Father as he was, in our relationships with God and with each other. In his words to Sts. Peter, James, and John in the Garden, Christ hints at the need for them, and so also for all members of the apostolic Church, to follow him in suffering, hence in a mission like his.

Faithful to Scripture and Tradition, the Church in her teaching continues to speak of Christ's mission and our own. In the Catechism, we find references to Christ's "redemptive mission as the suffering Servant," and of his acceptance and embrace of this mission, and of his total consecration to this mission and his expression of this mission with his whole life, and of the participation of the apostolic Church in this mission. We might note also the words about this mission, shared in by the Church, in two of the encyclicals in particular of the Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great, The Redeemer of Man (his first encyclical) and The Mission of the Redeemer. And we might mention that this mission, including Christ's total identification with it and its role in giving us our own identity, is one of the key themes in the writings of one of the greatest twentieth-century Catholic theologians, Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar.

This mission is a grace. It is part of the gift of a share in God's own being and life. It is good for us to be united with God in identifying (in a very concrete and practical way) with a share in the saving mission of the divine Son. And this participation in the Son is something that we could not merit, let alone grasp for ourselves. It heals and perfects and saves us.

How do we discover our particular and distinctive share in Christ's mission? Certainly, it is important that we live lives close to Christ and the Father, in the Church; lives of prayer, lives of charity, lives of holiness. In this way we will be more "attuned" to God's call. Indeed, any mission in Christ begins with holiness; any more particular characteristics of one's mission presuppose holiness. One might also consider the role that the spiritual insights of St. Ignatius of Loyola might play in such discernment. I am thinking of the daily (or at least frequent) examination of conscience, and also the relevant portions of the Spiritual Exercises (these portions are probably most effective when kept in their context in the whole of the Exercises).

It might seem from what I have been saying that there is a close relationship between "mission" and something else of which we often think as Catholics, namely, "vocation." Indeed, I think that this is so. There is at least a difference in emphasis, but there is also at least some overlap. "Vocation" means "call." But one is called by God, not only to come to him, but also, in union with him, to go and carry out some work. "Mission" means "sending." But one does not send oneself; "sending" presupposes a "sender" - someone who calls one to go forth. I would also say, however, that mission tends to be somewhat more "detailed" than vocation. One is called to holiness, and then to priesthood and/or religious life, or marriage, and perhaps also in somewhat more specific ways, but I am not sure that most of the particular things that one then does to serve God in one's state in life are exactly, per se, a matter of vocation. But I think that at least many of them could be part of one's mission. Thus, for example, I would say that I have a vocation to marry, and even to marry a particular person, Kim, but that while some of the particular things that I am to do for her and for others as her husband - and also as a son and a friend and a professor and so on - will be somewhat connected with that vocation, they will be more a matter of mission. Still, because of the connection, discernment of one's mission will have a lot in common with, and will be closely connected with, discernment of one's vocation.

During the conclusion of this holy season of Lent, this final week before the incomparable joy of Easter, this Holy Week, let us continue to reflect on and appreciate and be renewed in the grace that God gives us in the preparation for and eventual reality of the sending of his Son, Jesus Christ (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), in the sacraments (1, 2, 3, 4), as mercy, as law, and as mission. Let us take up anew our Cross and follow Christ where he would lead us - in our distinctive missions in this world, and then into heaven.

From Catholic.org

March 31, 2009

Dear Fr. Jenkins,

As President of Wyoming Catholic College, I share and understand the burden of leading an institution of Catholic higher education. These are difficult times in our culture, both morally and spiritually. Mother Church is counting on us to provide authentic Catholic formation to the young men and women who have chosen to entrust their education to our hands.

While I do not doubt your concern for the spiritual and academic welfare of your students, I must say that I am deeply disappointed by your decision to honor President Obama, and by your response both to the criticism of the American Catholic community and to that of your own Bishop.

Your decision to provide President Obama with a national platform -- worse yet, to honor him with an honorary doctorate of law degree -- is truly tragic, and will have disastrous, long-lasting consequences. As Bishop D’Arcy wrote in his statement, you are providing scandal to your students, your alumni, and to all those who look to Notre Dame as the model for Catholic higher education in the United States.

While President Obama may have “spoken eloquently and powerfully about race” and “has taken leadership of the country facing many challenges” with “intelligence, courage and honesty,” his pro-abortion agenda trumps it all. No authentically Catholic organization can rightly honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles, nor should they be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions until they align themselves with the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

As Catholic institutions, we are charged with the serious responsibility of maintaining our Catholic identity in the midst of ever-growing resistance from our society and our world. Wyoming Catholic College is proud to be one of the 21 Catholic colleges selected by the Cardinal Newman Society to appear in their “Catholic College Guide,” in the ranks of authentic, faithful Catholic Colleges.

We are committed to preserving that faithfulness above all else, for it is the key to our very existence as an institution. Furthermore, although our first commencement is two years away at Wyoming Catholic College, I can assure you that we will always adhere to the directives of the 2004 USCCB statement on honoring Catholic politicians. Violating this policy would not only jeopardize the reputation of our college, but more seriously, give scandal to our young Catholic graduates as they prepare to enter the world as living witnesses to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Wyoming Catholic College Board of Directors and I implore you to reconsider your position, no matter how awkward that action may be. You, your administration, and your students remain in the prayers of the Wyoming Catholic College community.

In Christ, Rev. Robert Cook, President, Wyoming Catholic College

why are the microphones wearing a purple tie?

Here's the video clip from NYC News Channel 4.

(I'm the guy behind the mics with the purple tie.)

is online at Zenit.

Four years ago, exactly today, my beloved Predecessor, the Servant of God John Paul II, ended his pilgrimage on earth, after not a brief period of great suffering. We celebrate the Holy Eucharist for the repose of his soul, while thanking the Lord for giving him to the Church for so many years as zealous and generous Pastor. His memory, which continues to be alive in people's heart, brings us together this afternoon, as demonstrated also by the uninterrupted pilgrimage of faithful to his tomb in the Vatican Grottoes. Therefore, I preside over this Mass with emotion and joy, while greeting you and thanking you for your presence, dear faithful coming from different parts of the world, especially from Poland, for such a significant event. ...

Read the whole thing. And please say the prayer.

Every now and then a bishop shoots from the hip.  Here is Bishop Doran of Rockford's letter to Fr. Jenkins, Notre Dame President.

Though promotion of the obscene is not foreign to you [referring to the V-monologues controversy], I would point out that it is truly obscene for you to take such decisions as you have done in a university named for our Blessed Lady, whom the Second Vatican Council called the Mother of the Church.

Amen! Also:

[If Jenkins won't recind the invitation], please have the decency to change the name of the University to something like, “The Fighting Irish College” or “Northwestern Indiana Humanist University.”

Last time I was there was TWENTY years ago this Easter. I can't believe it was that long ago. It seems like just yesterday. I need to get back there (with Kim) before too many more years have passed.