The Catholic Thing The Catholic Thing

By David Warren
But first a note from Robert Royal: I'm extremely grateful to everyone who responded to the first day of our mid-year fundraising yesterday. Thanks to every one of you for your commitment and generosity. I wish I could respond to each of you individually but numbers make that impossible. We received donations from every state in the union and foreign countries from New Zealand to Ireland to the Czech Republic. One donor was kind enough to say, "Thanks for holding true to our Catholic values. It's getting difficult to find that anymore."
Yet the phrase, or some near variant, may be found in the Hebrew Book of Proverbs, and here and there over the many intervening centuries. The difference was that Bacon, and his secretary, Hobbes, used it like thugs. They meant political power - the power over others. They did not mean the power to fuel virtue.
Another wrote: "With love and thanks for all your contributions to our knowledge about the greater Catholic community (locally & overseas) and encouraging our development in Faith, Hope and Love!!!" From a third: "I and my family read your articles daily and then discuss them among ourselves. Priceless!" I know that many more of you share those sentiments. So, let's keep at this funding thing until we're where we need to be for our Catholic Thing. You know the drill. Click the button below and follow the simple instructions. Make sure that TCT is here this year and well into the future.
That "information" is power was a decisive step down, into mediocrity. It seems to have come about when the generations of advertising salesmen co-opted the phrase, and began using it in their promotions.
Now for today's column...
Scientia potentia est - "Knowledge is power" - was launched upon the world by Francis Bacon, and entered flight with Thomas Hobbes. The phrase was among the watchwords of the new, post-Catholic, "scientific" order, or "Reformation" as its exponents came to call themselves. They had a new, nominalist, appreciation of technology.
"Information is power" was among the clichés by which my little mind was poisoned, when I was very young. This was towards the end of the 1960s, and for a few years thereafter. Even today, I still hear it - this deathless cliche - though often from a speaker who is trying to be droll.
I will concede some specialized application. When a piece of information is discovered, that can serve as blackmail bait, I must allow that the knowledge has potential power. If the victim is Christian, however, he may refuse to pay, to save the blackmailer from Hell - making the knowledge useless.
The contrary assertion, that "power is information," usefully reveals the essential nonsense in the phrase. These are two things located on different planes, and the "THIS is THAT" does not work, even metaphorically - except in the Blakean sense, that when you have power over someone, he knows you.
My own first attempt at defending myself against the cliché was to ask, in a high school class of all places, a simple question of the teacher who used the phrase: "Does it make any difference if the information is true?"
(I was then accused of being a smart-aleck, and had to explain that I wasn't being one, for a change. For I had recently learnt that Socrates was NOT a know-it-all.)
In my subsequent thinking on the topic, I realized that the truth didn't matter to the user of such a phrase; and moreover, that it still doesn't matter to his kind. For, like any glib statement, it only matters that a truth-alleging noise be uttered, which will evaporate before it can be examined.
The relation between "information" and "truth" is an irrelevance except for those who take life seriously. To those who do, however, it is a source of vexation.
The "big lie" (which has now become a popular phrase among little liars) would "theoretically" work as well, as any truthful information, but only if those who hear the "big lie" let it pass by. This they may do from fear of punishme

By Robert Royal
But first a note: Be sure to tune in this evening, Thursday, May 16th at 8 PM Eastern, to EWTN for a new episode of 'The World Over.' TCT Editor-in-Chief Robert Royal and contributor Fr. Gerald E. Murray will join host Raymond Arroyo to discuss the latest developments in the Church in Rome and in the U.S. Check your local listings for the channel in your area. Shows are usually available shortly after first airing on the EWTN YouTube channel.
Or, in line with the Church's longstanding cultivation of our God-given capacities, we stubbornly insist on the truths discoverable by the interplay of Faith and Reason.
Now for today's column...
A faithful Catholic finds him or herself in a complicated situation these days. It's not just the age-old opposition from "the world." Too many people, including Catholics in the pews and even in the Vatican, now seem to think that the world's opposition arises because of something we've done wrong - e.g., offending LGBT activists or actually believing what's been revealed by God. Or, in line with the Church's longstanding cultivation of our God-given capacities, we stubbornly insist on the truths discoverable by the interplay of Faith and Reason.
By contrast, a Certain Person warned us from the beginning: "If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15:18-19) And there's a clear reason for this: "it hates Me, because I testify that its works are evil." (John 7:7)
It's a troubling feature of the postmodern condition that talk of Good and Evil is regarded as "simplistic" by many people, even - the horror! - judgmental. At least when Christians are concerned. Yet at the same time, our culture is full of very poorly formulated, but quite absolute, condemnations of people judged to be engaged in evils like racism, sexism, patriarchy, "colonialism," Western civilization, transphobia, Islamophobia - all usually regarded as, in some vague way, connected to traditional Christianity.
Untangling this mess of half-truths and outright fictions presents one of the greatest challenges to Christian life in our time - an urgent task, not just for the scholars but for all of us on a daily basis. Jesus was not afraid to speak of Good and Evil - as valid distinctions for all people in every place at all times. He didn't think that there was liberation or sophistication in speaking of "my truth" and "your truth" as the most up-to-date marker of your personal dignity, as if there were no overarching common and real Truth.
Speaking that Truth is why we're here at The Catholic Thing, something we've been trying to do, humbly but faithfully, since our inaugural column, laying out our hopes and goals, appeared on June 2, 2008. Since then (I'm reliably informed by Brad Miner) we've had over 60 million "pageviews" and are read on every continent. Our articles are regularly translated into five foreign languages (check it out on the upper-right corner of the homepage.) And we're read intensely, first thing in the morning, by thousands, not least - as I often discover when I'm there - in Rome.
Since then, we've grown in other ways as well. Our coverage of major and minor events in Rome has made TCT one of the trusted sources for accurate, sober news and analysis at a time when both are in short supply on matters Catholic. We've published these in addition to the daily TCT column under the rubric "The Vatican Thing," as well as in regular podcasts with distinguished commentators such as Fr. Gerald Murray, Fran Maier, Fr. Raymond de Souza, Diane Montagna, Edward Pentin, Larry Chapp, Fr. Robert Sirico, among others.
We've been especially focused recently on goings on in and around the Synod on Synodality, which will be reaching its concluding stage during the whole month of October later this year. In many ways, that

By Bishop James D. Conley
But first a note: Be sure to tune in tomorrow, Thursday, May 16th at 8 PM Eastern to EWTN for a new episode of 'The World Over.' TCT Editor-in-Chief Robert Royal and contributor Father Gerald E. Murray will join host Raymond Arroyo to discuss the latest developments in the Church in Rome and in the U.S. Check your local listings for the channel in your area. Shows are usually available shortly after first airing on the EWTN YouTube channel. Now for the column...
Eleven years into his pontificate, Francis remains popular among Americans who identify as Catholic. Some 75 percent of self-described Catholics in this country have a positive view of the Holy Father. This shouldn't be a surprise. His care for the poor and marginalized, his concern for the environment, and his witness to peace have widespread appeal.
But as with all modern leaders, Francis is not without critics. His past comments about "backward-looking" and "reactionary" attitudes in American Catholic life have caused resentment among some faithful Catholics. And his view of Church leadership in the United States - often perceived as negative - has perplexed American bishops who, as a body, have a long record of loyalty and generosity to the Holy See.
A possible pastoral visit to the United States in the Fall, recently reported in a French Catholic newspaper, would be welcomed and could be an opportunity for the Holy Father to see the Catholic Church here in a different light.
On the matter of bishops, I have some experience. A Catholic con vert in my college years, I went on to be ordained a priest and served for a decade in Rome as an official in the Vatican's Congregation (now Dicastery) for Bishops, the office tasked with evaluating and recommending men for the episcopate. The work was largely bureaucratic. It consisted of research, reports, meetings, correspondence, and related staff duties. But it was a thorough education in the strengths and potential problems in the selection process for ministry as a bishop.
Based on what I saw and staffed, the process was and remains sound; not perfect, but nonetheless objective in essence, with plenty of checks and balances along the way. It's strictly confidential, which precludes public lobbying, campaigning, and political maneuvering - at least in the manner so common in the secular world. It's also highly consultative, involving 25-40 clergy, and consultations with lay men and women familiar with a candidate under consideration. All of this is governed by canon law and directed by the Apostolic Nuncio, the papal ambassador, in each country.
I've been away from Rome now for nearly two decades. I've experienced the selection process from its other end. I've served as a bishop in the United States for the past 16 years, both as an auxiliary and now as an Ordinary, the bishop in charge of a diocese.
No matter what a man knows in advance, the ministry of a local bishop is a surprise and a challenge. Whatever social prestige Catholic bishops once enjoyed is long gone. The clergy abuse crisis buried it. Today the reality can be quite the opposite. But this is not finally a loss, because true Christian leadership is a "privilege" only insofar as involves service to others in a spirit of humility.
In my case, life as a bishop has been a blessing, because my brother U.S. bishops have been overwhelmingly good, committed men. They have very different skills and personalities. All have strengths and weaknesses. None of them is close to perfect. But they're faithful to the Church and devoted to their people. They're also unquestionably loyal to Pope Francis, which makes his ambiguities and seeming criticisms difficult to understand.
So what's the point of these thoughts?
Simply this. Before the Holy Father makes his next visit to the United States, I'd ask him to spend a little time familiarizing himself with the real terrain of American Catholic life, because so much of it is hopeful and good despite t

By Randall Smith
Did you get caught in the student riot?" asked a friend. "What riot?" "The Pro-Palestinian demonstration at the University of Texas." I am at UT on a sabbatical. "We don't have student riots in Texas," I informed him; "we have temporary misunderstandings between students and state troopers about who controls public spaces. The students learn." The authorities in Texas are not as feckless as those running the East Coast Ivies.
As Wilfred McClay points out in a recent article in The New Criterion, demonstrations aren't "speech." They may be "expressions" - of anger, frustration, sometimes boredom. But they're not "speech" in the classic sense of logos, "reasoned discourse."
In speech, you express an idea; you make an argument; and you invite others to respond. The demonstrations on college campuses are not invitations to dialogue; they are the opposite. They demand that dialogue stop and obedience begin. In this, they are similar to groups shouting down speakers with whom they disagree. It should be no surprise, then, that both have become standard practice together.
It's not as though the demonstrators are inviting reasoned responses to their position. They're not willing to hear contrary opinions. They have "demands" and those demands must be met. They are a mob, and mobs are something, along with tyranny, that the Founders of the country feared most.
When demonstrators are pretending to be engaging in free speech when what they are really doing is showing the power of a mob to get others to conform to their will, they shouldn't be surprised if authorities respond to their demonstration of power with a demonstration of power of their own. Those Texas state troopers weren't on campus to argue. But neither were the demonstrators.
Perhaps the most ridiculous feature of these recent protests is the shock the students evince when, having violated repeated orders to disperse, they are finally arrested. That many must be hauled away because they've "gone limp" belies their wide-eyed innocence, since it shows they've received training in "what to do for the cameras when the police haul you away." Perhaps we can all agree that it's no way to run a republic.
Some years ago, a bright student of mine had a complaint about something on campus. "Okay," I said, "so what are you going to do?" After a moment's thought, she said: "Gather people together to demonstrate?" "How about getting elected to student government, writing an op-ed in the paper, seeking to convince others of your position?" I replied. Those options either hadn't occurred to her, or she had no faith in them.
Democracy is a messy business; it requires patience and skills of its own. It's not like driving a car that moves in the direction I steer, accelerates to the speed I want, and stops when and where I determine. It means dealing with other people. And other people have ideas and concerns of their own.
Show no interest in the ideas and concerns of others, and they are likely to return the favor. Like you, they want to drive the car in the direction they want. And as everyone who spends time on America's highways knows, this highly individualistic lack of concern for others is bad for everyone.
As we need "rules of the road" to provide the order that ensures everyone can get to their destinations "freely" and in relative safety, so too if speech is to be "free," if it is to be a "common good" and not merely the privilege of one powerful group, speakers must observe a set of procedural norms meant to preserve this freedom for everyone.
At the University of Texas, the Provost sent out a note outlining the rights and duties of the members of the community. Among the rights were the right to "assemble peacefully to protest," to "hand out flyers and brochures," and to "invite guest speakers to present in common outdoor areas." But with this freedom comes responsibility. Thus individuals, said the Provost, may not "disrupt the operations of the university, inc

By Casey Chalk
The New Testament begins with a story about an unmarried, pregnant teenage girl. Yet far from being shamed or shunned, she is portrayed as a virtuous, contemplative heroine, capable of articulating the desires and expectations of her entire people in poetry so brilliant and beautiful that today, more than 2,000 years removed from that event, it's daily prayed by millions of Catholics the world over.
The contemporary feminist critique of Catholicism, however, claims it's a misogynist institution: whether it be the Church telling women what to do with their bodies (abortion and contraception), or prohibiting them from positions of ecclesial authority.
In response to this criticism, many Catholics claim that, far from being antiquated and sexist, the Church has always been the impetus for religious and social change that elevates the status of women. They're not wrong. Nevertheless, apologetics that aim to argue that the Church was the first feminist institution - or similar rhetoric approaches - risk adopting the very same false premises that underlie the entire modern feminist project with its emphasis on power, autonomy, equality.
Bronwen McShea's otherwise excellent brief history Women of the Church: What Every Catholic Should Know, flirts with this feminist tendency, practically right out of the gate. "This book is also for anyone interested in the history of Catholicism - to demonstrate that the history of the Church's women is the Church's history, just as much as the history of her men is." Fair enough, though who, exactly, has said otherwise? And is this a competition?
McShea offers fascinating anecdotes of the many Catholic female saints and martyrs from the third-century Perpetua and Felicity (whose Passion is probably the earliest, first-person account from the perspective of a female) to the great medieval monarchs such as Jadwiga of Poland, to modern mystics such as Thérèse of Lisieux. Yet there also seems a forced need to convince the reader of women's indispensability.
She argues that without Helena, Constantine's mother, there wouldn't have been freedom for Christianity in the late Roman Empire, and no Nicene Creed, given that Constantine called the council that created it. True enough, but aren't mothers behind every great person?
The text is unnecessarily sprinkled with this kind of language. "Women played an important part in the beginnings of Christian monasticism." Christian queens and noblewomen "played leading roles in establishing new monastic communities." Isabella of Spain was a "formidable Catholic woman without whom important episodes in the Church's history cannot be fully understood." Maria Theresa of Austria was "one of the most powerful figures in the Enlightenment era."
This ritualistic reiteration of women's power and influence is a drag on an otherwise interesting summary of female roles in Christian history. In the preface, McShea admits that as a child she was more drawn to male saints who appeared more "dynamic," which seems to be an attempt to appeal to feminist readers suspicious of an oppressive, patriarchal Church.
The celebrated Catholic writer Patricia Snow underscores that objective in her foreword when she writes, somewhat bizarrely: "the woman moves to the center and the dimensions of the female project become clear."
Undoubtedly, McShea is correct regarding women's critical role throughout Church history. The Bible and the early Church were quite radical in their respect for the human dignity of women, as well as for giving them unprecedented degrees of influence and autonomy. It was women who funded Jesus' ministry (Luke 8:30); who comprised most of His followers at His crucifixion (Mark 15:40-41); and who first saw the risen Lord (John 20:1-18).
Controversy notwithstanding, McShea writes beautifully about women - saints and not - across two millennia of Church history. We learn of Dihya, a Berber queen in what is today Algeria, who fought against the armies of

By St. John Henry Newman
The Ascension of our Lord and Savior is an event ever to be commemorated with joy and thanksgiving, for St. Paul tells us in the text that He ascended to the right hand of God, and there makes intercession for us. Hence it is our comfort to know, that "if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins." (First John Chapter two verses 1 and 2)
As the Jewish High Priest, after the solemn sacrifice for the people on the great day of Atonement, went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the victim, and sprinkled it upon the Mercy-Seat, so Christ has entered into Heaven itself, to present (as it were) before the Throne that sacred Tabernacle which was the instrument of His passion - His pierced hands and wounded side - in token of the atonement which He has effected for the sins of the world.
Wonder and awe must always mingle with the thankfulness which the revealed dispensation of mercy raises in our minds. And this, indeed, is an additional cause of thankfulness, that Almighty God has disclosed to us enough of His high Providence to raise such sacred and reverent feelings.
Had He merely told us that He had pardoned us, we should have had overabundant cause for blessing and praising Him; but in showing us somewhat of the means, in vouchsafing to tell what cannot wholly be told, in condescending to abase heavenly things to the weak and stammering tongues of earth, He has enlarged our gratitude, yet sobered it with fear.
We are allowed with the Angels to obtain a glimpse of the mysteries of Heaven, "to rejoice with trembling." Therefore, so far from considering the Truths of the Gospel as a burden, because they are beyond our understanding, we shall rather welcome them and exult in them, nay, and feel an antecedent stirring of heart towards them, for the very reason that they are above us. . . .
First, Christ's Ascension to the right hand of God is marvelous, because it is a sure token that heaven is a certain fixed place, and not a mere state. That bodily presence of the Savior which the Apostles handled is not here; it is elsewhere - it is in heaven. This contradicts the notions of cultivated and speculative minds, and humbles the reason. Philosophy considers it more rational to suppose that Almighty God, as being a Spirit, is in every place; and in no one place more than another.
It would teach, if it dare, that heaven is a mere state of blessedness; but, to be consistent, it ought to go on to deny, with the ancient heretics, referred to by St. John, that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," and maintain that His presence on earth was a mere vision; for, certain it is, He who appeared on earth went up from the earth, and a cloud received Him out of His Apostles' sight.
And here again an additional difficulty occurs, on minutely considering the subject.
Whither did He go? beyond the sun? beyond the fixed stars? Did He traverse the immeasurable space which extends beyond them all? Again, what is meant by ascending? Philosophers will say there is no difference between down and up, as regards the sky; yet, whatever difficulties the word may occasion, we can hardly take upon us to decide that it is a mere popular expression, consistently with the reverence due to the Sacred Record.
And thus we are led on to consider, how different are the character and effect of the Scripture notices of the structure of the physical world, from those which philosophers deliver. I am not deciding whether or not the one and the other are reconcilable; I merely say their respective effect is different.
And when we have deduced what we deduce by our reason from the study of visible nature, and then read what we read in His inspired word, and find the two apparently discordant, this is the feeling I think we ought to have on our minds - not an impatience to do what is beyond our powers, to weigh evidence, sum up, balance, decide, and reconcile, to arbitra