Whispers in the Loggia posts Archbishop Burke's rebuke to his brother bishops who refuse to discipline politicians, like Sen Kennedy, who undermine the Church's positions on life and marriage.  Fr. Jim Martin of America offers some brief comments here.

One part of the Archbishops' Address that I found insightful is the following passage.

"One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church."

I think there is a strong tendency among many in the Church to "blame the victim" when it comes to those who are stung by the behavior of fellow Catholics.  Often, those who are the strongest advocates of compassion--and rightly so--for every and any suffering person have the hardest time summoning more than an, "Oh, grow the hell up already" (e.g., "Be Charitable") for those people who feel spiritually wounded when their fellow Catholics  publicly and unrepentantly undermine the Faith, or harm their ability to pass the faith on to their children, or make it more difficult live their faith in the public square.

People who experience scandal are the least ministered-to group in the Church because few are even willing to acknowledge that their pain is legitimate. The insitutional response to those who are suffering from scandal is often akin to that of the exhausted parent who, upon hearing that one sibling injured another, refuses to get involved for fear of looking as if he is taking sides, and instead simply, impotently mutters, "Why can't you kids just get along!"  This failure-to-parent makes the parent feel like he or she's done something while leaving the kids completely in the lurch.

In the same way, hollow calls for "charity" when one's ability to understand, live, or pass on one's faith is being impeded by the actions of someone who is supposed to be a brother or sister in the Lord simply makes the clergy look gelded at best and callous at worst, and causes the untended wounds of the laity to fester and become uglier.

Only a charitable (defined, not as "niceness," but as a commitment to work for the good of the other) response to both those afflicted by scandal and those causing the scandal will heal the rift in the Church. 

PS.  Full disclosure.  I did not object to Sen. Kennedy receiving a Catholic burial. I did however, object to the Church's de facto rubber stamping of his civil canonization.  And I do object to the dithering about canonical discipline for those politicians who actively and unrepentantly undermine the Church's work to advance the cause of life and defend the traditional family. And, finally, I do spend a great deal of my day ministering to those injured by scandal who feel they have nowhere to go for healing.

Lisa and I are currently working on the 2nd edition of Parenting with Grace.  It will be an updated and expanded edition with much new information.  Parenting with Grace, of course, is the first and only parenting book to apply Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body to parenting and that emphasis, which was implicit in the first edition, will be even stronger in the updated edition. 

Dr. Bill and Martha Sears have very kindly agreed to write the foreword for the new edition.  They came back to the Church in March of 2008 and have been overwhelmed by how the Catholic view of the person and Catholic theology dovetails with Attachment Parenting approaches.  I thought I would share what they had to say about Parenting with Grace (2nd edition--Updated and Expanded).

Foreword:  Parenting with Grace (2nd edition)

Dr. Bill and Martha Sears

We are honored to be asked to write a foreword for this edition of Parenting with Grace. We are in love with this book.  Of course, we are in love with all things Catholic, and for good reason. Though we were both raised and educated as Catholics, we have been away from the Church for 37 years - until a year and a half ago.  On March 11, 2008, we made our way Home.    

We left the Church in the early 70s, looking for spiritual fulfillment elsewhere because our own Catholic faith hadn't matured enough to weather the storms of young adulthood, early marriage, and parenthood.  Not only away from the Church but away from God, too, we got pretty beaten up - our marriage almost ended because we were looking for "God" in all the wrong places.  Only our love for our two boys kept us together (that, and the Holy Spirit in the form of the dictum "Marriage is forever").  We sealed our recommitment to each other by having our third child, another boy.  We got him baptized in a Catholic church, "just in case it is all true" but then we moved away to a place where the local church didn't inspire us.

Still searching for God (somehow we missed Him, growing up in families that were struggling in their own ways to understand Grace), we stumbled onto the Gospel message in another denomination.  The message of salvation for the asking was like water in a parched desert, and it took root and grew into a 30 year "personal relationship" with Jesus.  By this time we had our fourth child (you may know her as "The Fussy Baby"), and we were happy to know that we had our spiritual lives in order.  Our faith grew stronger with each child, eight eventually, and then with two major health crises that came along:  colon cancer for Bill and a 10- year-long struggle with depression and anxiety for Martha.  As we recovered from these trials we learned some important lessons about mental and physical health, and our book count has escalated.  Then, just when we thought life couldn't be fuller or better, we were invited to go with a friend to the Holy Land - with a bunch of Catholics!

There we were, in the Holy Land, attending daily Mass and seeing Catholics whose faith had matured, (having weathered the storms of life), believing what they said "Amen" to.  We were drawn irresistibly back to the Eucharist and now, two years later, have never been happier spiritually.  Our marriage, good as it was before, has never been better.  We've had many "Aha" moments in these past two years, learning all over again what it means to be Catholic. And one very big "Aha" came as we read this book.

It seems that all we've been writing about  Attachment Parenting fits right into not only God's design for babies but into a uniquely Catholic concept, that of self-donation,  something Pope John Paul II wrote extensively about.  We started seeing the term "self-donation" in books about the Theology of the Body – an odd-sounding term at first, but one that makes perfect sense when you think about it.  This is exactly what we have experienced as we have come back to the Sacraments:  God reaching out to us and giving us his very Self in the Eucharist and in Reconciliation.  No wonder we are so happy - we are being Attachment Parented by God! 

And now we are reading, in Parenting with Grace, about the Catholic vision of the family as a "self-donative community of love".  We are seeing so much more than just the scriptural basis for Attachment Parenting – we are seeing the spiritual basis for it, and for all of family life.  Since we have come back to our Catholic faith, through this amazing reversion experience of God's grace, we have had not only our individual lives and our marriage revitalized, but our family life, too.  The Theology of the Body is truly a gift from God (who would ever have thought that a Pope would know so much about this), and what the Popcaks show us from that body of work, about parenting, is so important.  And now there is new information on the effect of attachment on the developing brain – science (Aquinas’s Book of Nature, they point out) is showing, over and over, that attachment-based parenting practices and positive discipline really are what is best and most effective for the child.

One final thought, from Martha:  Her aunt, Mary Bea, was a religious sister of the Sacred Heart order, a teacher/librarian.  The times that she visited us, she made many observations that affirmed our parenting practices.  Sr. Mary Bea always did her best to convey that loving guidance was what our children needed.  This helped us see that we were on the right track, and it gave Martha the affirmation she needed from this respected Auntie.  Now looking back, and seeing those memories in the light of Parenting with Grace, we see that Catholic teaching really did inform us all those many years ago, despite what our own rearing had been, and that we can thank Holy Mother Church for being our inspiration, and our saving-grace, all along the way.          

We wish you many blessings,

Dr. Bill and Martha Sears

Authors of The Sears Parenting Library

I absolutely agree with this.  I can't believe that rabid anti-Catholic Whoopi Goldberg (who, on The View said, "it was rape, but it wasn't rape-rape" ) together with directors like Scorcese, David Lynch, and Woody Allen and others are shilling for Roman Polanski.

Longtime readers of this blog know that I, along with Mark Shea, were among the first people calling for Cdl. Law's resignation.  I was particularly criticized in some quarters for my stinging criticisms of priest abusers and the bishops who shielded them.  That said, if Polanski was a priest the world would be shouting for him to be strung up. But as a director, well, apparently artsites and rape and pillage at will.  These Hollywood High Priests who are defending Polanski's shameful drugging and rape of a 13yo girl is unacceptable. 

Even the French Culture minister and politicians throughout Europe are in Polanski's corner.  In a moment of dark humor, I was reminded of the scene in Inglourious Basterds where the Nazi soldier asks the French cinema owner if she respected even German directors.  She responds, "This is France.  We respect directors."

That was a big laugh line in Cannes.  It isn't so funny now.

There really should be a public boycott of the work of these child-predator-harboring entertainers.  Disgusting.

(Oh, and for good measure, "If only directors could be men!  If only they were allowed to get married!")

A few weeks ago in The Lancet, population control advocates trying to make the decisions of the 1994 Cairo conference relevant attempted to make a link between overpopulation and climate change.  Claiming that 200 million women not having access to “modern contraception” last year, resulted in 76 million unintended pregnancies.  The article did not say where these 200 million women live but with modern contraceptives wholly available in every developed and developing country one can only surmise that these advocates are talking about third-world nations.  The Lancet’s conclusions came to the fact that for every $7 spent on sexual and reproductive health 1 metric ton of carbon is prevented from entering the atmosphere.  While this statement might be factual it is far from true as David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development reasons in this article from publication Climatewire.

The explosive population growth experienced by developing countries won't necessarily contribute to a large rise in emissions of heat-trapping gases unless also accompanied by an increase in wealth, according to a new study.

The report challenges recent claims that spending billions of dollars on contraception in the developing world would benefit the climate. The new study, which focuses solely on greenhouse gas emissions, says instead that wealthy nations should focus on reducing their own consumption.

The study, by David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development, a think tank, analyzed changes in population and emissions growth for all countries from 1980 to 2005.

Sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5 percent of the world's population growth but only 2.4 percent of the total rise in CO2 emissions; conversely, the United States accounted for 3.4 percent of the world's population growth but 12.6 percent of the rise in CO2 emissions. China, meanwhile, saw its population growth decline, while it still accounted for 44.5 percent of global emissions growth.

"A child born into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do," Satterthwaite wrote in the journal Environment and Urbanization.

"A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and who enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more -- thousands or even tens of thousands of times more."

Last month, the Optimum Population Trust called for population restraint policies to be adopted worldwide to combat climate change, receiving support from environmentalists like David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt (Ben Webster, London Times, Sept. 29). – PV

The overpopulation crowd has been ineffective in convincing the world’s poorest countries that it is in their best interest to take on the modern Western mindset about children and families even before the Cairo conference.  The UN and other developed nations have used all means of coercion including substantial cuts in foreign aid for not adopting the contraceptive mindset.  As Satterwaite attests, the resources used by these peoples pale in comparison to those used by modern and developing society yet the we refuse to curb our materialistic excesses and continue to deride their meager existence.

Our Mass readings this Sunday include the Gospel account of Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' question about divorce, which refers to the Genesis passage that is our first reading. The full Gospel reading (a shortened version may be read instead) continues with Jesus' embrace of the children brought to him, with the warning that "whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." As a brief reflection, I would like to consider what these two incidents - concerning divorce, and concerning children - have to do with each other. I think that there are, in fact, at least two connections between them.

First, living the full truth about marriage, as instituted, restored and elevated, and revealed by God, can be hard. The saving grace obtained for us through Jesus Christ's suffering, to which our second reading, from Hebrews, refers, and which is given in the sacraments, including Holy Matrimony, heals "the hardness of our hearts" by freeing us from sin, but does not free us from suffering and temptation. It is sad, but not entirely surprising, that many Christians do not accept or live the full truth about marriage. To many people, even many Christians who are nonetheless experience the effects of original sin in their souls and in our culture, this truth does not seem "realistic." Indeed, it is a truth that requires childlike acceptance, involving childlike trust in our loving Father, a share in the trust that was shown by his divine Son, our Savior and brother.

Second, Jesus' response to his disciples begins, "Let the little children come to me ..., for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." Jesus is the Kingdom in person. Those to whom it belongs because they accept it properly will not be prevented from coming to him. But we must allow little children to come to us as well, so that we might embrace them and bless them by showing them God's love. In order to let them come to Jesus, we must show them God's love in Jesus Christ as it works in and through us. And in order to accept the kingdom like a child, we must accept those others who do so. This call to love children bears on the matter of divorce. Divorce entails a failure of spouses to love each other as human beings deserve to be loved by one another; it also - and inseparably from this - reflects a failure of spouses who are also parents to love their children (on love, marriage and sexuality and parenthood, and practical moral questions like the one concerning the indissolubility of marriage, see Wojtyła's Love and Responsibility). It is therefore at odds with Jesus' command to his disciples about the children.

In fact, the frequency of divorce - in cases in which the (usually) wife does not need to leave the (usually) husband for her safety and/or that of their children, and/or in which divorce is understood by one or both spouses as the dissolution of the marriage, permitting remarriage - in our culture is a horrible thing. It hurts women, men, and children. It makes more difficult the task of defending marriage against further aberrations that are at odds with the love of God and the good of the person. And it is not necessary. God's grace is infinitely more powerful than human weakness. Let us accept his grace and truth like trusting children. Let us practice and effectively promote, through deed and word, true, faithful love between spouses and for children.

Greg, just a comment regarding your post. I agree with the substance of what you're saying. I think, however, that you're misusing the word "scandal." This word has a fairly precise meaning in Catholic thought - explained, in fact, in the Aquinas and Catechism texts that I linked in my commentary on last Sunday's readings. Causing someone to be shocked or dismayed or the like - or to experience difficulties in convincing others to live rightly - does not equal giving scandal to that person. To give scandal is, in a nutshell, to set a bad example and thereby to cause someone to commit sin.

This is not, of course, to say that Kennedy and his fans (including among the clergy) aren't giving scandal to anyone. Clearly, they are - they're giving some people the idea that it's perfectly fine to be pro-abortion, etc.

The point is that those who are objecting to this are not the ones who have been given scandal. Rather, they are objecting to the fact that Kennedy & Co. have (among other things) been giving scandal to others.

Also a comment on another post by Greg. First, I also agree that the defenses of Polanski are shameful. Second, I think that this is yet another piece of evidence (I've cited various such pieces over the years) in support of one of the things that I said in reaction to the episode involving Card. Law et al.: It's the culture, stupid!

The bishops who protected priests who committed sex abuse were generally following the culture's lead, and much of the condemnation they received was hypocritical. This is not to excuse them. They should have known, and done, better. But anyone who criticizes them while letting the culture off the hook is either as myopic as Mr. Magoo, or as hypocritical as Tartuffe.

There's an old joke that goes like this. A little old lady comes into a lawyer's office and asks him to help her write her will. Her financial situation is very simple, so the lawyer fills out a standard form and then charges her the minimum fee of $100. She reaches into her purse, pulls out a nice, new, crisp $100 bill, hands it to the lawyer, and leaves. Only after she's gone does the lawyer realize that she'd actually handed him two $100 bills stuck together. So he pulls out his legal ethics textbook to help him make the necessary decision: Should he, or should he not, report the extra $100 to the IRS?

I thought of that joke one night last week. I turned the TV on briefly and caught a segment of a documentary on life at the U.S. military academies. Among other things, they showed a brief portion of a discussion in a (required, I think) ethics class. The instructor asked the students what the right thing to do would be if they were on a mission to bomb an enemy convoy and arrived to discover the convoy halted and the enemy personnel waving white flags. The instructor seemed fairly clearly to be steering the students in the direction of concluding that, of course you can't automatically refuse to drop the bombs in such a case; the enemy might be feigning surrender precisely in order to avoid being bombed (with the intention of then continuing on their way as soon as the planes leave).

It seems to me that if the evidence points in the direction of someone being a noncombatant - and a former combatant who has surrendered is now a noncombatant - then you can't target him.

What? It isn't feasible to think that way in planning operations involving bombing missions?

Then maybe we have to rethink what kinds of tactics we plan to use in military operations.

The extent to which, and the manner in which, that's so, strikes me as the real ethical question, the one that future officers ought to be discussing.

A liberal runs for a seat on the Wisconsin state Supreme Court, and loses.

A few years later, the Democratic governor appoints him to fill a vacancy on the same court.

When the term ends, he runs for re-election, and loses - just half a year before Obama is elected president.

Now, at the recommendation of Wisconsin's Democratic U.S. senators, Obama has nominated him for a Federal judgeship.

Those interested should read Schindler's piece carefully.

That's one of the discoveries mentioned on a NOVA episode from a couple years back that was recently rebroadcast. This has something to do with why Greg is right about attachment parenting. I'm happy to hear about the new edition of his book.

The other day, we celebrated the feast of the Archangels, Sts. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. Tomorrow we observe the feast of the Guardian Angels.

Last week, an NPR show about science featured an appearance by They Might be Giants (famous for "Istanbul, Not Constantinople"), playing songs from, and discussing, their new album, Here Comes Science. One track (the first, I think) is "Science is Real."

To say that I was annoyed when I heard those lyrics would be a serious understatement.

I think I appreciate science. I've found it fascinating since I was a very young kid. My parents were science teachers. In college I majored in biochemistry and molecular biology (with a math minor). I still try to keep up with some of what's going on in molecular bio (and also in physics).

I would go so far as to say that someone who thinks that you have to deny religion in order to affirm science thereby reveals himself as someone who doesn't have a decent understanding of science or religion.