Baptizing the Children of Sodom

According to a July 18, 2005 report by the Religion News Service (RNS), Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Canada's top Catholic cleric, has announced that “the Catholic Church will refuse to baptize children of same-sex couples if both parents insist on signing the baptism certificate.”

"If I take the example of the ceremony of baptism, according to our canon law, we cannot accept the signatures of two fathers or two mothers as parents of an infant," Cardinal Marc Ouellet told a Senate committee hearing on Bill C-38, the same-sex marriage law that Canada's lower house of Parliament passed on June 28th.

Benoit Bariteau of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops explained that the Church would not refuse to baptize children of homosexual or lesbian couples provided that only one signature appeared on the baptismal certificate. "If the parents insist that the two signatures be on the act of baptism, if we say no, it will be their choice of seeking baptism or not," said Mr. Bariteau.

Cardinal Ouellet told the Senate committee that, once the state "imposes a new standard affirming that homosexual sexual behavior is a social good, those who oppose it for religious motives or motives of conscience will be considered as bigots, anti-gay and homophobes, and then risk prosecution." He said that priests are already beginning to shrink from preaching against homosexual behavior for fear of such prosecution. "There's a type of climate that exists where we no longer feel we can express our opinion," the Cardinal told reporters after his presentation to the Senate committee. "This is an insane atmosphere in our country and our communities and it is not good for religious freedom."

A University of Toronto “expert in same-sex issues” called Ouellet's remarks "rhetorical hysteria," while a leading law professor said they are groundless because those who oppose homosexual marriage will keep their freedom of expression. However, as with any example of hate mongering, "if someone speaks out against same-sex marriage in a manner that foments hatred, then they run a risk of prosecution," said Marilyn Pilkington, the former dean of Osgoode Hall Law School.

Comment: Those who oppose homosexual marriage will keep their freedom of expression. Sure they will. Unless, of course, they speak out against same-sex marriage in a manner that foments hatred. Let us look for a moment at the progression of Canada’s “hate-speech” legislation.

As of September 16, 2003, the "Hate Propaganda" section of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibited the expression of hatred against (Section 319) – or the advocacy of genocide of (Section 318) – four "identifiable groups," namely people distinguished by their "color, race, religion or ethnic origin." Notice there was no mention initially of hatred based upon sexual “orientation.” The Criminal Code permits anyone convicted of “hate speech” to be sentenced to two years in prison, unless the “hate” was expressed during a private conversation, or the person expressing “hate” acted in good faith by attempting to argue a religious opinion (i.e., the clergy).  Otherwise, “hate speech” constituted public speech that was deemed “so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group.” In fact, even if the speech was not likely to incite a listener to violence, a person could still be convicted.

Of course, that wasn’t enough. On April 29, 2004 , Bill C-250 became part of the legal code of Canada. Sexual “orientation” now joined the four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their color, race, religion or ethnic origin. “Openly gay” New Democrat MP Svend Robinson, who sponsored the bill, declared: "This is about homophobia, fundamentally. It's about members of the Canadian Alliance and sadly, a number of Liberal backbenchers, who aren't prepared to say hate propaganda rules should be inclusive.” Advocators of Bill C-250 insisted that it was not a pro-homosexual bill because it offers equal protection to persons of all sexual “orientations.” They also claim that anyone delivering an anti-homosexual speech based upon passages of the Bible is immune from prosecution.

Who are these shysters trying to kid? When was the last time you heard heated tirades against heterosexuality, and since when does it need to be “defended” by law as though heterosexuals were a curious minority? And how long will “Scriptural immunity” last, when each day brings the Biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior closer and closer into the realm of “hate speech,” as defined by activists and legal experts?

The rhetoric is already in place. Notice the phrases used in the above report. Same-sex couples (that’s an oxymoron). Children of same-sex couples (that phrase would have been meaningless to sane men and women not too long ago). Both parents (parents?). Two fathers or two mothers (oxymorons again). The Cardinal himself laments that his timid priests are afraid to express their “opinions.” Not doctrine— opinions. As usual in any revolution, language and the precise meanings of words are the first casualties. In Canada, as elsewhere, the legal and political movers, as well as the press, are taking their cue from Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

A Tale of Two Shepherds; or, Two Shepherd Turn Tail

According to the Associated Press (July 11, 2005), “Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick says Catholics don't have to believe in Creationism – the Bible's account of God creating Adam and Eve and the universe in six days.” McCarrick told reporters at the National Press Club that instead of what he called "the beautiful story of Genesis," Catholics can believe in evolution – as long as it's understood to have been guided by God rather than chance.

Cardinal McCarrick said the Church cannot accept the belief that "this is all an accident." But he added that "as long as in every understanding of evolution, the hand of God is recognized as being present, we can accept that." The Archbishop of Washington said that this was the view of the late Pope John Paul II, which was echoed by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, a member of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education.

Not long after Cardinal McCarrick made these statements, Auxiliary Bishop Christopher Prowse of Melbourne, Australia addressed the Islamic Community of Melbourne at their Conference on the Birth of the Prophet Mohammed. According to CathNews (July 21, 2005), Bishop Prowse told the Muslim Community that the Catholic Church has a high regard for their "manner of life and conduct" and the "precepts and doctrines" which, while different from Catholic teaching, "often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men".

"It is not simply a matter of comparing theological notes with each other, although this does have its place," said the Bishop. "After so many centuries we are really beginning to break down the stereotypes and ignorance we have had of each other. I am beginning to develop strong contacts with Muslims. I am a better human person for this fact. We are becoming friends."

Comment: In a 1996 Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II stated that “new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis.” He gushed over the fact that it is “indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge,” and that this “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” Cardinal Schonborn wrote in the Op-Ed Page of The New York Times that "evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not." Got that? Belief in a common ancestry “might be true.” The link in these messages is simply that, if you cram God someplace into your remarks, all is well.

However, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, we read how Jesus replied to the Pharisees who tried to trap him in a discussion concerning divorce:

Have ye not read, that He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And He said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.  Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.  (Mt. 19:4-6)

Our Lord is quoting directly from the account of the creation of Eve in Genesis:

And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.  (Gen. 2:22-24)

Jesus quotes the Creation story as an actual event. In fact, He bases the Divine rejection of divorce upon it. Had it been merely a myth, how on earth could He have used it in this manner? We are not talking here about parables, which were used to impart moral lessons. We are talking about rock solid doctrine. For Jesus to have grounded the indissolubility of marriage upon Cardinal McCarrick’s “beautiful story” of two fictional people in a fictional Eden would be equivalent to His having grounded the Sacrament of Penance on the story of Peter Rabbit! So, this is where the “New Springtime” has brought us: shepherds who presume to be more educated and sophisticated than Jesus Christ!

And then we have an Auxiliary Bishop who is now “a better human person” (as opposed to what kind of person?) because he now has Muslim pals. Imagine one of  these “shepherds” coming out and saying that he became a better person after he made the Total Consecration to the Blessed Virgin Mary! Bishop Prowse is also quite proud of his “high regard” for the “precepts and doctrines” of Islam. One wonders if that includes the teaching in the Koran that belief in the Trinity is “blasphemy” and that “a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers” who hold such a doctrine.

St. John Eudes, one of my all-time favorite spiritual writers, wrote the following in the 17th century. It sounds as though he was gazing into a crystal ball and viewing the type of “shepherds” quoted above:

The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them.  

Another “Ecumenical” Slap In The Face

On August 28, 2004, the Vatican returned the venerated icon of “Our Lady of Kazan,” which had hung in Pope John Paul II’s papal apartment, to the Russian Orthodox Church.  During the ceremony in which the icon was handed over to Russian Patriarch Alexy II, Papal envoy Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, relayed the Pope’s message that “despite the division which sadly still persists between Christians, this sacred icon appears as a symbol of the unity of the followers of the only-begotten son of God.”

According to Asia News (July 20, 2005), Alexy II will deliver the icon of the Mother of God to Kazan. Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, the deputy head of the Department for Foreign Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate said that representatives of other “religious confessions” will also take part in the celebrations marking the icon’s return. “There will certainly be figures from the Muslim community, with whom we have good relations of cohabitation,” said Chaplin. “I cannot say if Catholic representatives will be present.”

Comment: When Pope John Paul first announced the return of the icon to the schismatic Russian Church, he referred to Our Lady as the “Mother of Unity” and, in his farewell prayer to the icon, he said that the presence in Rome of the holy image “speaks to us of a profound unity between East and West, which endures in time despite the historical divisions and the errors of men."

So, what did Russian Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin have to say on the subject? He said that he “does not think that the shared devotion to Our Lady can help improve relations between the two Churches,” since “the required preliminary condition is that the Vatican put an end to proselytism in Russia.” But that’s not what the Mother of God really wants, is it? What she, in fact, wants is simple: “I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart .... If my requests are heard, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, fomenting wars and persecution of the Church.”

So much for “unity,” as post-conciliar ecumenism would have it.

Archaeological Find Recalls Ancient Human Drama

The BBC News (July 18, 2005) reports that a set of ancient silverware has been unearthed in Pompeii, the Roman city destroyed by the Mount Vesuvius volcano in the year 79 AD. Experts believe that, before attempting to escape from Pompeii, one man bundled his family silverware into a wicker basket and hid the basket in a stairwell in some public baths on the outskirts of the city. Five years ago, archaeologists checking on the building of a new motorway near Pompeii dug up the basket. Experts say it is the most important find of this kind of the past 70 years.

Although the wicker basket and its contents were congealed into a solid block, the tableware was well preserved in ash and mud. Archeologists, working with the latest techniques, have managed to separate the silverware and remove the heavy encrustations caused by the ancient volcanic eruption. Among the recovered items are two finely engraved wine cups, a set of small dishes, a large serving plate with an elaborately chased border, a spoon, plus some tiny, finely worked silver trays for appetizers. The remains of the wicker basket are being treated with chemicals to preserve the vegetable fiber. The silverware and basket will be put on display at the Naples Museum in 2006.

During the eruption of Vesuvius, thousands of inhabitants of Pompeii gathered up what few possessions they hoped to save and tried to escape from the firestorm and the clouds of volcanic ash and mud which descended upon their city. Pietro Giovanni Guzzo, in charge of the excavations at the world's first scientifically excavated archaeological site, told a news conference that the remains of up to 2,000 citizens of Pompeii, out of a population of 10,000 to 15,000 trapped by the eruption, have so far been recovered. "But,” he added, “no one knows exactly how many managed to escape.”

Comment: As Roman Catholics, we are (or should be) somewhat enamored of the past, with its myriad glories and tragedies. In the case of Pompeii and its fate, we are blessed with one of the great documents of recorded history – an eyewitness account of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. This account was written by no less a personage than Pliny the Younger, a Roman senator and governor of Bithynia-Pontus.

When Vesuvius spewed tons of molten ash and sulfuric gas into the atmosphere in 79 AD, Pliny, then eighteen years old, was staying at his uncle’s villa in Misenum. A few years after the event, he described that day in a letter to his friend, the writer Tacitus. An excerpt from this letter will serve as the best commentary on the true value of the recent archeological discovery in Pompeii:

My mother implored, entreated and commanded me to escape as best I could – a young man might escape, whereas she was old and slow and could die in peace as long as she had not been the cause of my death too. I refused to save myself without her, and grasping her hand forced her to quicken her pace.

Ashes were already falling, not as yet very thickly. I looked round: a dense black cloud was coming up behind us, spreading over the earth like a flood. “Let us leave the road while we can still see,” I said, “or we shall be knocked down and trampled underfoot in the dark by the crowd behind.” We had scarcely sat down to rest when darkness fell, not the dark of a moonless or cloudy night, but as if the lamp had been put out in a closed room.

You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.

A gleam of light returned, but we took this to be a warning of the approaching flames rather than daylight. However, the flames remained some distance off; then darkness came on once more and ashes began to fall again, this time in heavy showers. We rose from time to time and shook them off, otherwise we should have been buried and crushed beneath their weight. I could boast that not a groan or cry of fear escaped me in these perils, but I admit that I derived some poor consolation in my mortal lot from the belief that the whole world was dying with me and I with it.