Commentary: If Liberal Catholicism is Dead, then the Youth Killed It

Last weekend, David Van Biema posed the question "Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?". It's a very interesting essay, and has already received much comment, but I think there is a major flaw in his account of where things stand that I'd like to point out.

Bear with me as this will require a few lengthy quotations from his article. Don't worry, it's all on topic....

To begin, Biema claims that the trend towards liberalism started with the youth:

Vatican II meant even more to a generation of devout but restless young people in the U.S. Rather than a course correction, Terrence Tilley, now head of the Fordham University's theology department, wrote recently, his generation perceived "an interruption of history, a divine typhoon that left only the keel and structure of the church unchanged."

They discerned in the Council a call to greater church democracy, and an assertion of individual conscience that could stand up to the authority of even the Pope. So, they battled the Vatican's birth-control ban, its rejection of female priests and insistence on celibacy, and its authoritarianism.

One could dispute his historical claim, but let's move on for the moment with what he says (underlining mine):

To some extent, liberal Catholicism has been a victim of its own success. Its positions on sex and gender issues have become commonplace in the American Church, diminishing the distinctiveness of the progressives. More importantly, they failed to transform the main body of the Church: John Paul II, a charismatic conservative, enjoyed the third-longest papacy in church history, and refused to budge on the left's demands; instead, he eventually swept away liberal bishops. The heads at Call to Action grayed, and by the late 1990s, Vatican II progressivism began to look like a self-limited Boomer moment.

I would argue that what the liberals most faileded to transform was the next generation of the youth - the "JP2 generation" which followed the pope that Biema mentions. And not only did the heads at Call to Action gray, at the same time no young heads of hair were to be seen interning in the cubicles.

But my point gains more force as Biema unfolds his vision of the future:

The familiar progressives-versus-Vatican paradigm seems almost certain to be undone by a looming demographic tsunami. Almost everyone agrees that the "millennial generation," born in 1980 or later, while sharing liberal views on many issues, has no desire to mount the barricades.

Notes Reese, "Younger Catholics don't argue with the bishops; they simply do what they want or shop for another church." And Hispanic Catholics, who may be the U.S. majority by 2020, don't see this as their battle. "I'm sure they're happy that the celebration of the Eucharist is in the vernacular," says Tilley, "but they don't have significant issues connected to Vatican II."

Reese makes his point negatively, but I think it is more accurate to say that many young Catholics simply "agree with the bishops." It's not an issue of "not disagreeing with the bishops", as Reese claims. Young Catholics are active and passionate, and when they stay in the Church, they stay because they want to, because certainly they must resist a great deal of external pressure nowadays if they do.

Now here's the clincher (again, underlining mine):

And so, unless Benedict contradicts in Rome what he said in New York, the Church may have reached a tipping point. This is not to say that the (overhyped) young Catholic Right will swing into lay dominance. Nor will liberal single-issue groups simply evaporate. But if they cohere again, it will be around different defining issues.

"It's a new ball game," admits Steinfels. As Tilley wrote recently in Commonweal regarding his fellow theologians, "A new generation has neither the baggage nor the ballast of mine. Theirs is the future. Let's hope they remember the Council as the most important event in twentieth-century Catholicism."

That underlined sentence is what got me to write this post. Why, exactly, does Biema feel the need to claim that the young Catholic Right is "overhyped", I wondered? Frankly, I think it's underhyped.

I mean, how many times have you heard the mainstream presses clamoring about the young Catholic Right? Even once before the pope arrived, and a couple times (amidst thousands of headlines) when he was here? How can Biema predict that the young Catholic Right won't swing into lay dominance (whatever that means, exactly) when he has just noted, as we recall, the greying heads of Call to Action and the fact that Young Catholics who have stayed in the Church don't argue with bishops (again, I prefer to say: "agree with bishops")?

Biema, normally full of explanations, gives no reasons to support this hypothesis.

Instead, the ending quote admits that "it's a new ballgame" and that "[ours] is the future."

I think behind Biema's mistake is an underlying assumption that the only way for lay people to build up the Church is to resist the authority of the bishops and pope. However, the goal is not to "liberalize" the Church, but instead to perfect her, and that can be best done through following the authentic teaching and leadership of the bishops united with the pope. Liberals thought perfecting the Church meant one thing, and the young Catholic Right apparently think differently.

To make my main point once again: the youth are not ignorant and lazy if they are in the Church. They do remember the importance of Vatican Two, and they've learned from the mistakes of those who took it upon themselves to implement it their own ways.

And if they don't know about the Council itself, they have grown up suffering its effects. At the same time, however, they've discovered something else, something deeper, and something that keeps them coming back to Mass on Sundays. Not all of them, but enough to make a start. And they're having babies or becoming priests.

So, in other words, the future is bright, even if it's underhyped. Just give it a chance and some time.

As a postscript, I thought this news story today about a beatification cause being opened for a 21 year-old Spanish martyr was very much applicable to what I'm talking about. His dying words:

“I want nothing of this world. I belong to God and I live for God. If I die I will be totally God’s in heaven, and if I don’t die, I want to be a priest. We need saints!”

Now that doesn't need any hype.

Commentary: Cardinal Mahony says he is a "different disciple" after pope's visit

A changed man?

Cardinal Mahony writing in The Tidings - italics are my own:

For me personally, the two most memorable moments of grace with our Holy Father were ones shrouded in quiet prayer, silence and few public words: his meeting with victims of sexual abuse in Washington, D.C., and his visit to Ground Zero in New York. Both of these events had the dignity of silence, the depth of sadness, and the promise of hope-filled prayer - and both captured deeply the most wounded parts of our Church and of our country.

Yes, the great outdoor Masses were inspiring, the meetings with ecumenical and interfaith leaders were moving, and the gathering with young people and seminarians was memorable. But the power of those times of quiet healing moved me more deeply than all the rest of the Holy Father's many public appearances.

At first, I didn't know why. After all, concelebrating Mass with the Pope and tens of thousands of people was surely uplifting and a source of joy for us all. Slowly the realization became real: those times of quiet healing grace were exactly what I needed at this time in my own journey of faith. My own mistakes and failures over the years had continued to burden me - a weight that I failed to realize was holding me down.

The gentle and quiet manner of Pope Benedict touched me in the most vulnerable depths of my soul. I felt uplifted by our Shepherd and my heavy burdens somehow seemed lighter. How did our Holy Father accomplish this? Through his consistent call to faithful discipleship in Jesus Christ, and his reassurance that we are truly saved by hope in our loving God! His recent Encyclical Letter, Spe Salvi [Saved by Hope], continues to point us forward and upward on our journeys. He does not allow us to remain mired in our sins and faults, but instead, kept repeating the call to "true freedom" in Jesus who has come as "the way, the truth, and the life" for each one of us.

I return to Los Angeles a different disciple of Jesus than when I left a week ago. Thank you, Lord, for sending us not only the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter, but also a brother and friend who knows Jesus personally and gave us six extraordinary days of grace and hope!

I dearly hope that Mahony's change of heart is authentic and bears fruit through internal and external reform.

Mahony, regular readers of this blog know, has a long history of doctrinal selectivism, allows and and promotes liturgical abuse, by many accounts has been deeply involved in abuses related to clergy sexual misconduct (during which he has often thrown the interests of the Church under the treads of civil law to protect himself), and is guilty of such deeply imprudent things as the construction of an ugly, vacant, $200 million cathedral in an archdiocese which could ill-afford such expenditures.

Has Mahony learned that it's never too late to begin acting for the best interest of the Church? Has he internalized the full range of Pope Benedict's teachings and exhortations? I hope so, on both counts.

If not, this letter is an empty lament, and a sounding gong. More than that: it's a crying shame.

Ph/t: Gerald Augustinus.

The pope's impassioned speech on global warming ... that wasn't

British tabloids and other less-than-reputable news organizations claimed last year, early in the papal visit planning process, that Pope Benedict would use his speech at the United Nations to "deliver a powerful warning over climate change." At the time of these rumors, I published a lengthy rebuttal of their accuracy and likelihood.

It's worth repeating some of the claims that were circulated:

The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following....

....It will act as the centrepiece of a US visit scheduled for next April – the first by Benedict XVI, and the first Papal visit since 1999 – and round off an environmental blitz at the Vatican, in which the Pope has personally led moves to emphasise green issues based on the belief that climate change is affecting the poorest people on the planet, and the principle that believers have a duty to "protect creation".

Today, now that the speech has been delivered and made available, I went looking for the pope's "centrepiece" to complete the Vatican's "environmental blitz" making it a "moral cause for the Catholic Church." This is what I found:

"....questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet. I am thinking especially of those countries in Africa and other parts of the world which remain on the margins of authentic integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization."

"... international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation. This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives."

Note what the pope is actually worried about: environmental and climate protection are one among many moral imperatives facing the international community, with his eye especially on regions of Africa that suffer underdevelopment (as opposed to the "overdevelopment" of industrialized nations).

Furthermore, this entire project must possess a "rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation", which necessarily implies a union of "science and ethics." The authentic image of creation which the Church reveals is always connected to the idea that creation is meant to serve the human person, who receives the fruits of creation as a reward for his labor.

Of course, abuses of the environment, which may have ill-effects on the climate, are against the image of creation, but this is so because the ultimate meaning of creation is tied up with the image of man who is the steward and custodian of creation. That's why the pope talks about "ethics," because it is only human persons who are bound to act "ethically" and see that their actions do not impinge upon the rights of the global community.

If the UK tabloids were looking for their "moral cause" - they've found it: preservation of the image of creation by those who are made in the image of God on behalf of those made in the image of God. People first!

Reactions to Pope Benedict's Speech to U.S. Bishops

In a phrase: it's turning heads.

I've posted the full text here for you to read yourself. John Allen summarizes here.

Pope Benedict also held a Q&A session with the bishops, which CNA has posted here.

As far as reactions go, Tim Drake starts us off with some comments from lay people and bishops.

Russell Shaw at OSV, meanwhile, calls the speech "A bit of a bombshell" and says "If the bishops were looking for an agenda, they have one now." Alehandro Bermudez, the editor of CNA blogging for the New York Times, takes Pope Benedict to mean "Catholics Should Be…Catholics."

Goodness, if that's what the pope had to say to the U.S. Bishops today - I wonder what he'll have to say to the U.S. Catholic Educators tomorrow when he addresses them. Stay tuned, I'll have the latest.

Commentary: Filling in the "generation gap" in the Catholic Church in America

Catholic bloggers have been doing an excellent job pointing out some of the fallacies and false oppositions being set out by the media in the advance days before Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States.

One uneven treatment that I think this blog is uniquely suited to address is well represented by this story by the Associated Press: "Generation Gap Shapes Catholic Church in America".

From the introductory paragraphs:

In his visit this month to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI will find an American flock wrestling with what it means to be Roman Catholic.

The younger generation considers religion important, but doesn't equate faith with going to church. Many lay people want a greater say in how their parishes operate, yet today's seminarians hope to restore the traditional role and authority of priests.

Catholic colleges and universities are trying to balance their religious identity with free expression, catching grief from liberals and conservatives in the process.

There is a little good mixed in with a great deal of bad here. That little good is the part about seminarians. But it makes them out to be an isolated phenomenon. Young lay persons, at least the hundreds I've encountered in my life, also want to see the traditional role and authority of priests upheld.

And while, on the whole, the younger generation (which I presume, must also include non-Catholics), "doesn't equate faith with going to church", there are also certainly hundreds (again) of youth that I have personally met who do. See the uneven picture emerging?

The article tries to broadly suggest a great deal of interest on the part of American Catholics in the figure of Pope Benedict, but a generally lax approach to following the teachings of the Church.

Again, my experience says otherwise, and while I'm limited to what I know (which is a good deal considering my years of blogging these issues), and is supported by the sheer numbers of individuals I know who actually subscribe both to the truth that Pope Benedict preaches and the life which results from the teachings of Christ.

Can the Catholic Church in America improve? Yes. Are the youth especially called to fidelty? Absolutely. But is it really such a lost cause? I would strongly disagree with intimations that it is. Consider:

Older Catholics who remember the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s are still debating its modernizing reforms. The council changed everything from the role of lay people to the direction priests face while celebrating Mass.

Benedict has revived some traditions and prayers that had been largely abandoned since Vatican II, refueling the debate.

But young adult Catholics are fed up with the fight, according to James Davidson, a Purdue University sociologist of religion who studies American Catholics.

This line of argument especially irks me, because it dismisses Catholic youth as being either uninvolved, uninterested or uninformed about these debates, or normally - all three. Well, try telling that to the "Whapsters" , or the kids at PhatMass, or me (frankly), or the amazing and brave young men studying for the priesthood, or the thousands of kids attending education at orthodox Catholic colleges, or the dozens (if not hundreds) of youth blogs who I've come across in these past years.

I'm not saying there's a silent majority here, I'm saying there's a very vocal minority. But passionate, creative minorities change culture too, and often, sooner. And my thousands of young readers don't waste time.

The article's explanation of the next generation of priests is especially lacking:

Monsignor Thomas Nydegger, vice rector of the Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology at Seton Hall University, said seminarians today are reaching back in Catholic tradition — like Benedict does — for rituals and clerical garb they find inspiring.

But they blend that interest with modern church goals: to serve parishioners and the larger community and to reach out to people of other faiths, he said.

The author reveals his impoverished understanding of the landscape by using "but" to start the second paragraph. In fact, this interest in "modern church goals" is part-and-parcel with their devoted reclamation of traditions that were falsely discarded by the previous generation. And the mentioned goals aren't modern, they're ancient.

Moreover, this new generation has seen the projects of their predecessors, and has decided what works - not always the innovations of the last twenty years, but always the tradition that has inspired the Church to proclaim the gospel for the past twenty centuries. And yes, that can even include distinctive clerical garb.

The truth of what I'm saying is born out by the phenomenon of recent priestly vocations - the men coming into the priesthood are attracted to orthodoxy and tradition; and the same applies to catholic youth who stay within the Church. In other words, if you don't think being Catholic is important, you aren't very likely to stay. If you do stay, especially in today's hostile climate, it's a good bet you believe in what she teaches and strive to live it.

Before this gets too lengthy - okay, it probably already is - I'll respond to the final paragraph of the article:

One visit from Benedict won't solve the problems of the American church. But by coming to the U.S., he can show Catholics — even briefly — what it might be like to be truly united by faith.

Without realizing it, the author has stumbled upon a very true insight. Yes, one visit from the pope won't overcome the challenges facing Catholic youth in America in the 21st century. But guess what? You can listen to the pope when he isn't physically in your country. Some of us - *cough* - make rather a habit of following what he says, year round, even when he's Rome-bound. It's a good way to bridge the gap this author points out.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, bookmark AmericanPapist, and get the wider picture. Fill in the gaps!

Commentary: Pope Benedict and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election

As we approach the "Ides of April", when Pope Benedict will begin his five day visit of the United States, we can expect political commentators to closely scrutinize what the pope has to say in an attempt to determine which candidate or party the pope supports. This is a fool's quest, in many ways, because Pope Benedict has more important things to talk about than - yes, even politics.

At the same time, it is a healthy opportunity to evaluate the candidates and their positions from the perspective of Catholic social teaching, and the particular pastoral priorities of the pope.

Robert Reilly, writing for Inside Catholic, starts us off:

Senator McCain not only needs Catholics who will vote for him, but who will each find ten other Catholics who will do the same. That is not going to happen unless he galvanizes the Catholic electorate. He has an opportunity to do this when Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States during April 15 to 20.

... So what should Senator McCain do when Benedict XVI visits in April? This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the significance of the pope's thought as it relates to the institution of the family, the sanctity of human life, and the threat of radical Islam. [more.]

Reilly provides several more helpful and important talking points, including that McCain should appear in and be interviewed by Catholic media outlets (I, for one, would be happy to do so).

I think Reilly is absolutely correct. The pope's visit is an invitation to all high-profile political leaders to (re)commit themselves to the common values of human dignity and sanctity to which Pope Benedict witnesses.

On the democratic side, Michael Sean Winters, writing for America, hopes Hillary will make a similar move:

... the combination of Benedict's visit and anti-immigrant hostility in economically depressed areas of the Rust Belt gives Clinton a chance to move past her greatest liability: her previous support for NAFTA, support that received new credence from the release of her White House schedules which show she was involved in lobbying for the trade bill.

Note the disparity here: Clinton's best hope for political capital from the papal visit is ... NAFTA-related.

And even this might be too much to hope for, in discussing her role as a "change" candidate for instance:

I doubt Clinton will embrace such a proposal. The polls in Pennsylvania show her with a solid lead and why rock the boat? In the time-honored playbook of American politics, look for Clinton to go increasingly negative on Obama in the weeks ahead, trying to shift the fundamentals of the race. Still, until America realizes that it needs vibrant economic growth throughout the hemisphere, that NAFTA was not only bad policy that needs to be reversed, but that good policy needs to be put in its place, then and only then will we be approaching comprehensive immigration reform.

If "comprehensive immigration reform" is the best she has to offer as common ground with the pope's priorities, it's going to be a uneventul visit for her, at best. Too little, too late, in my opinion.

As for Obama, earlier this week he picked-up the endorsement of the former dean of the Catholic University of America's law school, Douglas Kmiec. Alisa Harris, writing for the Huffington Post:

But as Kmiec has noted before, Catholics do hold views that make them uncomfortable in either party. They’re pro-life, anti-death penalty, often anti-Iraq war, and concerned about global warming.

Will other Catholics follow Kmiec’s lead? So far, they’ve been voting for Hillary Clinton over Obama, but the New York Times says they’re a fickle group: “No other large group has switched sides so often, or been so consistently aligned with the winners.”

Kmiec's own position:

Kmiec noted that as a Republican and as a Catholic, he supports preserving traditional marriage and believes that "life begins at conception" -- and he acknowledged that Obama may differ with him on those issues. However, he said he is convinced that Obama "is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and … will respect and accommodate them." (UPI)

Unfortunately, Obama has actually demonstrated a complete unwillingness to understand opposing points of view on life issues, let alone respecting or accomodating them.

Deacon Fournier has written the definitive refutation of Kmiec's argument at Catholic Online:

On many important public policy issues I agree with my friend Professor Doug Kmiec. I also admire him and believe that he is sincerely pro-life. However, I respectfully and strongly disagree with his decision to support Senator Barack Obama.

In the application of issues in accordance with the hierarchy of values, I choose to hear the cry of the ones whom Blessed Teresa of Calacutta called the "poorest of the poor", the children living in the wombs of their mothers. After all, they have no voice but ours....

.... I am whole life, pro-life. I absolutely oppose the taking of innocent human life in the first home of the entire human race, the womb. Science has confirmed what our conscience has long known; the child in the womb is out neighbor. It is always and everywhere intrinsically evil to take innocent human life. Senator Obama is wrong in his support of legalized abortion. It is also intrinsically evil to “manufacture” human embryonic life to then kill that life for spare parts. Senator McCain is wrong in his support for deadly research on human embryonic life.

Note in that last sentence, a question that McCain also to has to answer, and has not yet done so satisfactorily.

And that, not-so-briefly, is where the candidates stand in respect to the pope, 19 days before the Ides of April.

My comments on the "Seven Deadly Social Sins" published at Inside Catholic

Read my latest piece for Inside Catholic, this one on the so-called "Seven Deadly Social Sins" here.

AmP contributes to InsideCatholic Pew Forum Survey symposium

InsideCatholic:

"Last week the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study on the changing religious habits of Americans. Among many things, the researchers found that the Catholic Church has experienced the greatest net loss in membership.

We asked 34 prominent Catholics from various backgrounds to answer the question, "Why Are So Many Leaving the Catholic Church?"

Their responses follow (or read them all here in printer-friendly form).

Most Reverend Thomas Wenski
Most Rev. Robert Vasa, D.D.
Most Rev. Jose H. Gomez, S.T.D
Most Rev. Salvatore Cordileone
Robert Novak
Sam Brownback
Ray Flynn
Mother M. Assumpta Long, O.P.
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J.
Rev. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
Russell Shaw
Mary Jo Anderson
Rev. Frank Pavone
Robert Lockwood
Eve Tushnet
Tom Hoopes
David CarlinArthur Brooks
Todd M. Aglialoro
Ronald J. Rychlak
Mark P. Shea
Jeffrey Tucker
Rev. Dwight Longenecker
Elizabeth Scalia
Monsignor Steven D. Otellini
Rev. Phillip W. De Vous
Rich Leonardi
Thomas Peters [AmericanPapist]
Steve Skojec
Marjorie Campbell
John Jakubczyk
Laurance Alvarado
Zoe Romanowsky
Margaret Cabaniss

I'll look forward to reading (and commenting upon) the other submissions to the symposium later today.

Cheers to IC for orchestrating this response to the serious challenges the Pew Forum Survey presents.

Commentary: A sadly common collusion of bigotry and idiocy

One of the first rules of debate is that the person you are debating should be able to recognize their own opinions when you try to characterize them. Otherwise, all you've managed to do is construct a charicature of the other person's position.

With that little tip in mind, see if you can recognize your beliefs as an orthodox Catholic about a current sensitive issue well represented (or not) in the cartoon below, which I found on the Feministe blog:

Yeah, I didn't think you would.

In fact, the rest of the short post only confirms my suspicion that the author Jill couldn't identify the "Catholic" position if her life depended on it, which is ironic considering her choice to categorize the post under "Crazy Conservatives."

Maybe it's me, but I didn't realize you could call someone crazy unless you understood what they were suffering from, or had proven you weren't yourself suffering from a severe case of altered perception.

Consider her argument:

Democrats may be against wars that kill millions, in favor poverty alleviation, and supportive of international policies that save millions more, but so long as they don’t think women should be forced into continuing pregnancies, they’re going to Hell. And you’re going with them if you vote for Obama or Clinton:

Well, let's think about this a moment. Yep, Catholics are against wars that kill millions, are in favor of relieving poverty, and - oh wait, I think the "international policies" that would "save millions more" which she is referring to actually constitute forced abortion, sterilization and contraception. On that topic, we do indeed disagree. But these tactics which she claims save millions of lives, actually take more, and hurt the survivers.

Regarding forcing women to continue pregnances, I can't think of a single pro-life individual who would describe their goal that way. More like,"Allowing human beings to live." That's what we're trying to do, and it doesn't sound so bad.

As for sending people to hell, we don't have that authority on our own. But from what I hear, it's sure not a place I'd like to see my friends visit. And if I were doing things that put me in danger of going there, I'd hope that my friends would have the kindness to tell me.

Now, all this that I've just gone through constitutes nothing new to folks used to debating ignorant, anti-Catholic individuals. There's something tediously predictable about their arguments, which sound all the more shallow each time they more vocally proclaim them.

Which is why it should also come come as no surprise that the source Jill used for her flawed and hackneyed script was none other than ... a National Catholic Reporter journalist writing an op-ed for the Washington Post. This journalist (Joe Feuerherd) , we are told, "covered the U.S. bishops and the 2004 presidential race as Washington correspondent [for the Reporter.]"

If you wonder how fair and accurate that coverage probably was, you have only to read his piece.

But since I don't like distressing my readers unduly, I'll reprint his summary paragraph:

"So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned."

Quite an argument, there. Is it me, or is there an elephant in the room he's ignoring?

I thought so.

To conclude, it is fascinating to watch how desparately Mr. Feuerherd sees his Catholic faith in this election as a political issue, nay, as the validation for his ultimate pick. And here, I thought all the folks telling me I didn't have to vote my faith were doing so on the premise that voting is not a religious issue.

I hope Mr. Feuerherd has quite an effect with his line of reasoning, just not the effect he intends.

Report: "Younger Catholics Becoming Increasingly Liberal, Studies Show"

An article published by the Christian Post today summarizes the findings of University of Connecticut Professor William d’Antonio in his recently released book American Catholics Today: New Realities of Their Faith and Church, in which he claims to confirm a consistent trend: "...in every survey since 1987, younger Catholics have become increasingly more liberal and less practicing in their faith and values."

I have a couple reactions to his claims.

First, polls are never a guaranteed guide to assessing intangible attitudes like "liberal," and they normally ignore other salient aspects of the questions they attempt to directly answer. However, I agree that it is reasonable to claim there has been a general trend towards embracing "liberal" points of view among youth.

I have to wonder, however, if the end of this trend isn't already in sight. In many ways these polls reveal the long-term fallout of the sexual revolution and other social events from the 70's and 80's. As a result, the youth who are graduating, attending or entering college nowadays have had to more radically "choose" (and make sacrifices for) their faith. In other words, because of the many challenges leveled against religion nowadays, those who have remained faithful to conservative ideals and orthodox positions now constitute a vibrant, tested - albeit numerically diminished - force in today's world.

So I wouldn't count the battle lost yet. Indeed, they have not yet begun to fight.

One need only witness the active Catholic campuses, youth groups, websites, blogs, seminaries, young professionals and married couples to see the movement flourishing. And frankly, most of them are too busy living their faith to answer pollsters.

Exorcism in the modern world...

... is a topic almost impossible for the modern reporter to accurately present.

Case in point, WaPo's "Ritual of Dealing With Demons Undergoes a Revival."

Quotes from the beginning and end of the article:

POCZERNIN, Poland -- This wind-swept village is bracing for an invasion of demons, thanks to a priest who believes he can defeat Satan.

The Rev. Andrzej Trojanowski, a soft-spoken Pole, plans to build a "spiritual oasis" that will serve as Europe's only center dedicated to performing exorcisms.

...

Trojanowski is a priest in the northwestern Polish port city of Szczecin. He said that he sees as many as 20 people a week who are under the influence of evil spirits, but that he needs more space to treat them properly.

At his exorcism center, he said, people could check in for a few days and receive ministrations.

Plans for the center were announced in December after an archbishop gave approval to build it on church land in Poczernin, a village surrounded by cabbage fields about 20 miles outside Szczecin.

The news came as a bit of a shock to the villagers, who said they hadn't been consulted and weren't sure they liked the idea of demons coming home to roost.

In between these two quotations is a great jumble of the usual:

• confused presentations of Church teaching
• "required" exorcism pop culture references (The Exorcist, etc.)
• wierd claims (e.g., John Paul II was "himself an occasional demon chaser" - huh?)

Now, the article does make a few helpful distinctions and observations, but really, the more I read reports on this topic, the more I'm convinced that accurate summaries are far beyond the average reporter's kenning.

I don't mean they are malevolent, I mean they are ill- (or non-)equipped to discuss the topic cogently.

AmP's Super Election Tuesday peremptory comments

On Tuesday the 6th (also Mardi Gras, which should make for a good party), 21 republican and 20 democratic contests will take place across the United States. It's the closest thing to a "national primary" in the nation's history. Here's my quick summary of the DNC/GOP state of the union.

On the republican side, McCain and Romney are tied in national polling at 30%, with Huckabee trailing 3rd at 21%, and Ron Paul hovering somewhere around 5%, as Rasmussen reports.

However, the nature of most republican primaries is that the winner takes all delegates, leaving nothing for even second place, which is good news for McCain, who holds significant or small leads over Romney in almost every state, as this table illustrates. Romney is closest in California, which is good news because it has the most number of delegates. He is very far behind in New York, but not giving up.

Thus, after Super Tuesday, if McCain is able to hold onto his slim leads and sweep those contests, he will be almost unstoppable through the rest of the voting.

On the democratic side, as a switch from the earlier trends, the race actually has the potential to remain more cloudy and undecided than the republican situation. This confusion is caused by the fact that democrat primaries grant delegates proportional to votes, and so while Obama trails Clinton in national polling 37-45%, those numbers are tightening up, and a string of second place finishes for Obama would not disqualify him to the degree it would in the republican system. Indeed, he is making fast gains in delegate-rich California, while far behind in New York. Get the full breakdown of the polling here.

Therefore, after Super Tuesday, Hillary would still have to fight very hard to establish herself definitively as the democratic nominee. Matters are further occluded because the democrats allow certain "superdelegates" to vote at the convention who are not tied to any particular state, making them essentially free agents (I personally don't understand how this system doesn't get close to disenfranchising the democratic voter, but that could be purely my own ignorance). These delegates count for 800 votes.

To review: McCain, barring a 11th-hour surge by Romney, can have the nomination all but won, while Clinton can at best hope to re-establish herself as the default choice over Obama.

Something to consider before we put all this out of our mind and receive our ashes the day after.

By the end of today, a significantly clarified presidential race

Florida's role as a political weathervane has once again been confirmed.

Last night, John McCain overcame Mitt Romney 36-31 and won all 57 of Florida's delegates.

Guiliani's dismal 3rd place showing confirms the end of his campaign, and the beginning of the ignominy.

The AFP indulged in some classic media "20-20 hindsight-ism" in its remarks on Giuliani's exit:

In retrospect, Giuliani had few options.

As a thrice-married pro-abortion, pro-gay rights baron of liberal New York, he was always an odd fit with the religious conservative Republican base that swept Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to power.

That's nice to hear, after months of being told his positions didn't matter. I guess they maybe did.

Giuliani is expected to endorse McCain. McCain is now the man to beat on Super Tuesday (in 6 days). This even more so because Thompson has dropped out, and Huckabee is broke. Romney has enough personal income to campaign, but he is now facing a long, uphill fight. He really needed to win Florida.

On the Democrat side, in a surprising decision, John Edwards is also getting out of the race.

Surprising not because anyone thought he had a chance of winning, of course, but instead because many folks were widely expecting him to stick in the race in order to win delegates and stay influential in the convention. His exit, it would seem, will help Obama in Super Tuesday more than Clinton.

Ron Paul has vowed to continue campaigning.

So, to recap: Hillary vs. Obama (with some added Edwards support) and McCain trying to push out Romney (with Paul doing his thing in the wings, and Huckabee looking for a place back at the table).

update: as a little more grist for the comment mill, Rob Vischer at Mirror of Justice notes some complimentary things about McCain. Meanwhile, Rasmussen tracks McCain ahead of both Hillary (8%) and Obama (6%) in a potential general election match up.

What really angers the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy

Amid news that, in preparation for Brazil's Carnival celebrations, the government will be handing out millions of free condoms, Reuters indulges in some editorializing:

Recife city also plans to distribute morning-after contraceptive pills -- a move that has angered the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.

The church opposes Brazil's much lauded anti-AIDS campaign on the grounds that it promotes contraception.

Wait a minute. How exactly does the morning-after pill prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS? That's right, it does not. Therefore, the distrubtion of morning-after pills can in no way be taken as being part of an "anti-AIDS campaign."

Furthermore, the church does not oppose anti-AIDS campaigns "on the grounds that it promotes contraception." This is a woefully inadequate account of the Church's position. The quotation from Bp. Duarte sheds some light on the situation:

"... while the church was not against people having fun in Carnival, the morning-after pill and condom campaign "will only serve to diminish inhibitions and encourage orgiastic behavior."

... and that's just a start. After all, the President of Brazil (whom the article notes, is known as a"gregarious character" who "enjoys a drink") has been on the radio asking people to not go overboard, and "His dour warning appeared to be partly prompted by a rise in deaths and accidents from drunken driving during the Christmas holidays."

So, to review: when the President tells people to behave more responsibly while simultaneously distributes condoms, it's a wonderful government innitiative. When a Catholic Bishop speaks out and notes how giving people the means towards a bad end does not help the situation, he's out to lunch.

It's going to be a long Lent.

Amp's Primary "Super-Saturday" wrap-up