Lex Credendi

As the Christmas season quickly approaches (no, we’re not there yet!) I pause to observe how Christmas has been commercialized to the point where a truly traditional Christmas celebration would seem archaic to most people in the USA today.  Also, many stores have eliminated all references to Christ, Christmas, and in a few cases, even Santa Claus.  Presumably this is done in an attempt to not offend those who are not Christian, yet this is wrong-headed.  First of all, probably 80-90% of people in the USA are at least nominally Christian, and would certainly not be offended by religious imagery.  Of those, half are offended that companies eliminate the reason why it is that we should be buying their products this time of year.  Also, most people of other faiths (Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) are well aware that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus.  Many of them, despite not being Christian, celebrate Christmas anyway and do not complain that we Christians would dare wish someone “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays” or some other lukewarm greeting.

So why is the removal of Christ from Christmas so pervasive?  The real reason, is because we have allowed Him to be removed.  I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t buy presents for each other, or anything like that.  What I am saying, is that we have allowed Christmas to be watered down in all realms of life.  At stores, we purchase things that say “Seasons Greeetings”.  At schools, we allow “winter programs” instead of Christmas plays.  What other season is celebrated?  Most schools don’t have spring, summer, or autumn programs, so having a “winter program” is a clear veiled reference to Christmas without having to face the reality of the birth of Christ.

If a Jew or Muslim were to wish me a happy Yom Kippur or Eid al Fitr, I would not be angry with them.  Also, they would be within their rights to do so.  If an Asian person wishes me a happy Lunar New Year, there is no problem.  To object to these acts would not only be wrong, they would not be politically correct, as these are minority religious or ethnic groups.  Given that the majority of Americans are Christian, there should be no question that wishing someone a Merry Christmas or having a Nativity scene are allowed, even in the public square.  To do less would be to deny the Christian heritage of most Americans.  While there is some debate about how Christan the Founding Fathers were, and while the Puritans did not like Christmas due to its Catholic origins, Christians of virtually all stripes celebrate Christmas in 2008.  Let’s make sure that we all have a Merry Christmas, and not just a Happy Holiday.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31127

Given the usual news about radical Muslims in the news, this is quite an uplifting story!  It’s also quite promising to see pro-life sentiments being propogated in Europe - a continent where abortion has been licit for quite some time longer than in the USA.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814

Every now and then, a story about PVS comes out and I am reminded of Terri Schiavo.  Terri Schiavo suffered from PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) and was allowed to die from dehydration.  Regardless of whether or not she was conscious, allowing her to die in such a manner has uneqivocally been denounced by the Holy See as incompatible with Catholic medical ethics and morals. 

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30736

Sadly, there has been an upsurge in violence against Catholics and other Christians in India, a country often associated with religious tolerance, rather than religious persecution.  Catholic Online has a petition for support of Catholics in India: http://www.catholic.org/catholicaction/india/.

Please pray for all Christians in India, that they may be free from persecution, and that they may spread the Gospel of Christ freely.

It is interesting to see how the pro-abortion / pro-licentiousness crowd often frames these discussions as tirades by irrational old men, when the arguments put forth by the Church are, in fact, quite rational and logical.

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30665

I am glad to see that our priests are beginning to speak out on these issues.  In the last few years - especially since the 2004 election - bishops are priests alike are using the threat of excommunication for abortion and abortion-related acts.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94EB4BO0&show_article=1

A 33-year old man in Jensen Beach, Florida attempted to steal consecrated Hosts from a parish church during Communion, assaulting a priest and several parishioners in the process.

It is assumed by some that he intended to use the Hosts for some diabolical purpose; perhaps a Black Mass or something like that.  It should be noted that such a crime, if committed by a Catholic, incurs automatic excommunication that can only be lifted by the Pope himself (or presumably, a delegate).  Deliberate desecration of the Eucharist is the most serious crime in canon law, as it is an attempted assault on Jesus Christ Himself.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30514

One of the big complaints that Catholics who prefer the traditional Latin (Tridentine) Mass had regarding the Novus Ordo Missae (Mass of Paul VI, 1970) had more to do with the English translation of the official Latin text than the Latin text itself.  In Latin, as it was in the old Mass, the prayer of consecration said that the Blood of Christ was poured out “pro multis”, which means “for many”.  The Council of Trent had declared that “for all” was not to be used, and “for many” was to be retained in the prayer of consecration.  In the Latin original of the 1970 rubrics, it was.  However, the ICEL (International Committee on the English Liturgy) translated pro multis as “for all”.  (This was not the only error in translation - the 1970 rubrics had over 400 errors from some reports.)  It seems that with each consecutive GIRM (General Instruction on the Roman Missal) comes a new translation that is slightly better than the last.

The USCCB has released a new version of the Mass that has restored “for many” in the English translation.  It will likely be a few years before it is officially promulgated, but it’s a good sign that our bishops are becoming more concerned about the prayers of the Mass.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/liturgy/missalformation/index.shtml

According to Catholic Online, Preseident-Elect Obama is preparing to undo virtually all ofthe Executive Orders put in place during eight years of President Bush’s two terms.  Unfortunately, many of these orders are pro-life edicts, such as the Mexico City Policy and bans on Federal funding for embyonic stem cell research.  Let us pray that our new President will convert and embrace the culture of life, instead of the culture of death now espoused by the Democratic Party.

In this last week before the election, I’ll add my voice to the din.  Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic VP nominee and a professed Catholic, says that one can be “personally opposed” to abortion, and yet be pro-choice.  It is becoming ever more clear that the Church does not agree with this position.  The USCCB has recently put forth a document that says the one can vote for someone who is pro-choice as long as one is not voting that way because the candidate is pro-choice and that there must be proportionate moral reasons besides.  The problem here is this: what in our political landscape could possibly be worse than supporting the legal murder of ~1.5 million unborn children in America every year?

Several bishops have already said that the USCCB is being too lenient in its document by not explicitly condemning pro-abortion politicians, even if not by name.  Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and currently serving in the Vatican as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, specifically labelled the Democratic Party as the “party of death” for its open support of abortion and other anti-life stances.  Few American bishops and priests seem willing to be that outspoken, though it does seem that they are speaking up more than they have in past elections.

The Holy Father and other bishops have confirmed that a Catholic politician who votes to advance abortion “rights” are automatically excommunicated and therefore forbidden to receive Holy Communion.  How then, as orthodox Catholics, can we vote for those same politicians with a clear conscience?  If an election were between two pro-choice candidates (say, an election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani), perhaps we could vote against the one that is more obviously pro-abortion and at least feel like we were trying to advance the pro-life movement.  However, when one candidate stands for virtually unlimited abortion “rights” and the other if for heavily restricting, if not outlawing abortion outright, the choice should be clear that voting for the blatantly pro-abortion candidate is unacceptable.

That does not mean that one must vote for the other major party member, if he/she supports issues that may raise ire amongst Catholics (such as support for the Iraq war).  One is free to vote for an acceptable third-party candidate or write in someone (like Rep. Ron Paul).  This, I think, is a matter of conscience in the sense that the Church has not said that we must vote in whatever way that will defeat the pro-abortion candidate.  The message I take from that is that it is more important who we vote for than who we vote against.

My question was this: Can a Catholic be faithful and vote for Obama?  I would have to answer in the negative, given his extreme pro-abortion “rights” positions.  While some of his social policies may be palatable to Catholic social justice (perhaps even more so than McCain’s), his support for abortion offsets any good positions that he may hold otherwise.