False Saviors

In my junior year of high school I took a course in American History. Late in the semester our teacher discussed World War II and Nazi Germany. Many of the students sat dumbfounded as he explained how Germany fell under the spell of Adolf Hitler. We couldn’t understand how a nation could deify a man and follow him as if he were the return of Jesus Christ.

As I watch people embarrassingly fawn over Barack Obama I begin to understand how this can happen.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting Obama is another Hitler. I am merely commenting on the ridiculous Messiah-like attention many Americans are showering the presidential candidate with. Think I’m exaggerating?

The July 27 edition of the Sunday NY Daily News published a story about former Cincinnati Bengals linebacker Reggie Williams, who is trying to recover from multiple operations to replace his right knee. A photo of Williams walking in a leg brace accompanied the article. Written in marker across the straps of the brace is “Obama Heals”.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein jokingly explained what happened when two Obama supporters visited his house: “’When two activists rang my doorbell, I wondered whether they had taken Ecstasy. I was afraid that they might hug me.’"

· In a February 13, 2008 article entitled, “Obama-The Savior Superstar”, Le Monde journalist Corine Lesnes declared, “The United States is a country that prides itself on its insistence on the merits of individualism. Nothing is more embarrassing to this country than these great moments of collective obsession (shared, of course, with Super Bowl frenzy), where every critical faculty appears to have been abandoned in the service of a universal pursuit.

Mark Steyn, in his column for the blog Falling Panda, quotes Ezra Klein of The American Prospect: "Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair."


And let’s not forget Oprah Winfrey who at a December 2007 campaign rally in Iowa referred to Obama as “The One”.


There are many, many other examples. These are just a few.

I suppose this was inevitable given the secular society we’ve become. A secular society will yearn for secular heroes and saviors. For years many have compartmentalized God in their lives—that is those who haven’t outright rejected God as irrelevant or non-existent. We have figuratively pushed God from His throne and installed Man in His place. Whether it has been through worshipping New Age spiritualities that promise to unlock your inner god, or through embracing pseudo-psychologies that preach self-empowerment and self-actualization, our society’s self-worship has risen to levels never before seen in our nation’s history.

And now we have reached a new plateau: American citizens looking to a politician to lead them to the Promised Land.

Unbelievable.

How many times does history need to repeat itself before people realize that salvation is not of this world and that it will not be brought by any human other than he who was both God and man, our Lord Jesus Christ. Americans need to be reacquainted with John’s Gospel:

But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any should give testimony of man: for he knew what was in man. (John 2: 24-25)


Donald Tremblay

Time to Clean House

The current issue of the New Oxford Review examines Leon Podles latest book, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church. (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0708-bower) Podles is also the author of The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. Reviewer Paul Bower describes Sacrilege as “thoroughly researched and painstakingly detailed” and adds that it “inspires anger and disgust”. Among the more shocking allegations in the book is that there has been “networks of child-abusers in the priesthood, some of which spanned entire geographic regions and crossed several diocesan borders. The most notable of these were in New Mexico and Iowa .” According to Podles it is a desire for power, and not sexual gratification, that drives these abusers. They are classic narcissists in his view.

At 675 pgs Sacrilege should provide a wealth of information. I am eager to read the tome since Podles take on the sexual abuse crisis differs so widely from my own.

A Feb 2007 article in the National Catholic Register (http://ncregister.com/site/article/1876) states that “between 75% and 80% of the abuse involved adolescent male victims”. Some argue that the reason so many of the victims are males is because the abusers had greater access to boys than to girls. Possibly. But I tend to agree with the analysis of Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital , who argues that “the abuse crisis wasn’t pedophilia but ‘homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.’” Why homosexual predation and not pedophilia? The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescent males, not prepubescent children of both sexes. There is a major psychological difference between the two. Acknowledging this distinction is essential because only by properly defining a problem can you expect to solve it.

So what should the Church do to prevent this disgrace from happening again?

Pope Benedict’s apology on behalf of the Church and his willingness to confront the issue is an excellent first step. In addition, the standards spelled out in 2005 by the Congregation for Catholic Education are a very important step in preventing future abusers from entering the clergy:

“In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.” (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40891)

But the cleansing of the seminaries should not end here. The Church needs to purge the seminaries of those ecclesiastics who have allowed or encouraged the gay subculture to exist in seminaries. Numerous articles and books have been written about this subculture. Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose is probably the most recognizable. Among the sickening tidbits exposed by Rose are the nicknames given to some American seminaries: “Notre Flame” for the Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans ; “Theological Closet” for Theological College at the Catholic University of America in Washington , D.C. ; and the “ Pink Palace ” for St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore .

After classifying the church sexual abuse crisis as “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth,” Dr. McHugh added, “’I’m astonished that people throughout America are not talking about it, thinking about it, and wondering about what the mechanisms were that set this alight.’” We the laity need to assume this responsibility. Stiff resistance can be expected from entrenched ecclesiastics who favor the status quo, so we need to actively and zealously support the clergy who want to enforce these “changes”. In a society where Catholic doctrine and dogma is anathema, reform-minded clergy desperately need our reinforcements.

“Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) Although we may take comfort in knowing that the Lord is protecting His Church, we cannot use this knowledge to absolve ourselves of responsibility. We are soldiers of Christ and we are called to defend His Church against the gates of hell.


Donald Tremblay

Click here to hear what the Pope is talking about

Who Are You?

A disturbing article has been posted on the Christian Newswire (http://christiannewswire.com/news/568387358.html) There is a group called the Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc (CRCOA) who are accusing the Knights of Columbus of failing to “to expel pro-abortion and pro-homosexual politicians” from their midst. Boston CRCOA member John O'Gorman accuses the Knights of Columbus of the following:

“On June 14, 2007, at least 16 members of the K of C in the legislature defeated the efforts of 170,000 signatories to put traditional marriage on the 2008 ballot. 170,000 signatures far exceeded the required number to place the question on the ballot! Seven of these K of C politicians have the highest ratings from the USA 's biggest abortionists, Planned Parenthood, who performed 289,000 abortions in 2006. On 4/May/08, Supreme Advocate (lawyer) Paul Devin, who gave money to Pro-Abortion politicians Ted and Joe Kennedy (OpenSecrets.org), ruled that a State Convention resolution by Grand Knight Joe Craven to suspend pro-abortion and pro-gay politicians was 'unconstitutional'."

This is a disgrace should any of it be true; though, I am hardly surprised by it. Groups like the Knights of Columbus may have been relevant in the 1950s and 1960s, but by the late 1970s and the 1980s they were virtually non-existent in many neighborhoods. The people of my generation probably knew more about Ralph Kramden’s raccoon lodge then we did about Catholic men’s clubs like the K of C. In fact, despite being a loyal Sunday churchgoer, I wasn’t even aware that the Knights of Columbus was a Catholic organization until I was in my late teens. What does that tell you about how it promotes itself as a Catholic organization?

Come to think of it I cannot remember a single time when the words “Knights of Columbus” were ever uttered by a priest before, during, or after Mass.


Donald Tremblay

Sin and Mental Illness

ABCNews.com has an article about a man who is obsessed with trains—so much so that he has been arrested over 20 times for various acts involving trains, none of which were intended to harm anyone. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AutismNews/story?id=5483969&page=1) On June 14 Darius McCollum was arrested for the 14th time in NYC for criminal trespassing in the subways. Since the age of four McCollum has been fixated on trains, says his mother: "He knew about tracks, and could tell you about yardage and everything. It's unbelievable. ... He knew that underground system better than he knew his name." McCollum has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, a condition that “’is a close cousin of autism,’ says Ami Klin, director of the Autism Program at the Yale Child Study Center at Yale University School of Medicine.” Klin adds that the “disorder makes it difficult for people to judge others' feelings, thoughts and intentions.” The question asked in the headline of the piece, “Can Stealing Buses, Trains be a Sickness?” is an appropriate one considering how today’s scientific advancements have blurred our ability to distinguish between sin and mental illness.

The word sin is judgmental and in today’s climate that label is akin to wearing the Scarlet Letter. But the truth is that sin is very real and it is important that we define it correctly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

“Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.” (Catechism, 1860)

So how do we determine imputability? In the case of a kleptomaniac who feels an irresistible urge to steal a blouse from Walmart, the stakes aren’t high. However, there are instances when an individual’s soul hangs in the balance between eternal torment and eternal happiness. As an extreme example, take the cases of madmen like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Most would consider these men psychotics or psychopaths. Would these men have done what they did if they’d had access to the psychiatric drugs available today? Or were these men simply evil and regardless of psychiatric assistance they would have still committed their crimes against God and humanity. Years ago I read a book by Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler, in which various historians and journalists tried to explain why Hitler became the man he did. The problem many of these intellectuals found is that it is almost impossible to explain Hitler without in some way excusing Hitler. As Emil Fackenheim says, “There will never be an adequate explanation . . . The closer one gets to explicability the more one realizes nothing can make Hitler explicable.” (Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of his Evil - Random House, 1998, pg vii)

I don’t know how to determine imputability. Nevertheless, I do believe that finding the solution is probably the greatest ethical and moral challenge of our time because without it we are left morally adrift, as can be seen today by the virtual absence of all-too-real concepts like sin and evil. How can we expect people to walk the straight and narrow path if we can’t even locate the path?


Donald Tremblay

What a Difference a Year Makes

The “California Catholic Daily” has posted an article that everyone should read. The article (http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=2782389d-da2c-40ce-8d7f-071d2345291c) is written by Cardinal James Francis Stafford, who recalls the reaction to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae in August 1968. The cardinal discusses the American clergy’s rejection of the encyclical and the persecution he himself suffered as a supporter of the papal document.

A few days after the encyclical was released, Cardinal Stafford was invited to join other Baltimore priests in a meeting at the St. William of York parish in southwest Baltimore to discuss the pope’s encyclical. “After welcoming us and introducing the leadership, the inner-city pastor came to the point. He expected each of us to subscribe to the Washington ‘Statement of Dissent.’” All of the priests in attendance, except then-Father Stafford , agreed to sign the letter. (One priest did change his mind later in the evening). The inner-city priest’s response to Stafford ’s refusal reads like an excerpt from a 1950s’ Teamsters Union meeting:

“The leader’s reaction to my refusal was predictable and awful. The whole process now became a grueling struggle, a terrible test, a Peirasmòs. The priest/leader, drawing upon some scatological language from his Marine Corp past in the II World War, responded contemptuously to my decision. He tried to force me to change. He became visibly angry and verbally abusive. The underlying ‘fraternal’ violence became more evident. He questioned and then derided my integrity. He taunted me to risk my ecclesiastical ‘future,’ although his reference was more anatomically specific. The abuse went on.”

Cardinal Stafford believes that the dissent directed at the Vatican today by the American clergy has its roots in the events surrounding the release of Humanae Vitae. He may be right.

Read the article.

Donald Tremblay

Knock and the Door Will Be . . . Locked

I am someone who didn’t finished college until I was an adult. Prior to getting my degree I worked an assortment of miserable jobs that I credit for giving me the motivation to go back to school. One of these depressing jobs, which I quit after three months, was Accounts Receivable Clerk for a jewelry manufacturer. The company was located near Madison Square Garden in NYC. I hated the job and dreaded getting up in the morning. Often my only saving grace was that at lunchtime I could walk to Saint Francis of Assisi Church and pray for the strength to get through the rest of the day. On those days I would eat quickly and hurry to the church to participate in what was left of the midday mass. When it ended I would just sit in the pew and reflect . . . and pray.

I was lucky. Had I worked somewhere other than Manhattan , chances are the churches in the area would have been closed. The days of arbitrarily walking into a church to light a candle or to just pray are a memory. Very few churches leave their doors open anymore. It’s unfortunate. Being able to visit St. Francis of Assisi Church when I needed spiritual inspiration was invaluable during those trying months. And I know I am not alone. Years later when I worked uptown, I would sometimes stop in St. Patrick’s Cathedral during the afternoon. After I passed the tourists milling around the doors, I would often see people intensely praying or even crying because of some hardship in their lives.

It’s a sad fact that in today’s world churches cannot leave their doors open for fear that relics may be stolen, or worse, that violent criminals will use the church as a means to attack people:

· The Houston Chronicle (http://www.nacssm.org/houston_churches_lock_door.htm) published an article on June 13, 2007, about how crime was forcing that city’s churches to lock their doors during non-mass hours: “Faced with thievery and violence, churches increasingly have adopted security measures that, in some cases, are so stringent that the Messiah might face obstacles gaining entry.”

· Just three weeks ago on July 6, 2008, the Chicago Sun-Times printed, “Church Offers Solace but Some Locked Doors”. In the article a parish secretary explained the need for the church closings: “’It's more or less for security's sake, because there's too many places for people to hide,’ said Alvina Donnelly, the longtime secretary at St. Andrew Church on North Paulina. ‘And especially with altar kids around and things like that, you never know what could happen.’" (http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/1041448,CST-NWS-churches06.article)

Who is to blame for the locked doors? We are.

Don’t blame the bishops or the priests. We are the ones who have created a society where virtually nothing is sacred anymore. What a disgrace.

Donald Tremblay

Thou Hast Hid These Things from the Wise . . .

“I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.” (Matthew 11:25).

As a child these words confused me. Wouldn’t the wise and the learned find it easier to grasp Christ’s teachings? And because of this understanding wouldn’t they be likelier to embrace the Truth? As I aged I realized my assumptions were incorrect: often it is the smarter, more-educated individuals who have the most trouble accepting the teachings of Christ and his Church.

The July 13 issue of the National Catholic Register published a front-page story—“Leaders Weigh in on the Kmiec Controversy”—that indirectly addresses the above issue. (http://ncregister.com/site/article/15383)

Doug Kmiec “is a pro-life Catholic law professor at Pepperdine University who made his name in the Reagan administration, at Notre Dame University and at The Catholic University of America”. To the surprise of many, this past Easter Kmiec announced that he is supporting Barack Obama for president—the same Obama who told a group of abortion supporters last year that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”. As the Register points out, if enacted, the bill “would prevent any federal, state or local government entity from restricting access to abortion.” What is Kmiec thinking you ask?

On www.slate.com’s legal blog “Convictions”, Kmiec says, “’I am convinced, based upon his [Obama’s] public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.’” Kmiec’s conviction is curious considering Obama’s “perfect pro-abortion voting record and his campaigning on an abortion-rights platform with the endorsement of NARAL and leaders of Planned Parenthood.” There doesn’t seem to be much open-mindedness there.

Kmiec adds that in his view Obama is not pro-abortion because “’those who are pro-abortion, as I see it, are those who advocate the practice as a matter of fundamental right or as part of a radical feminist agenda that takes no account of the moral weight or significance of unborn life.’” How’s that for rationalizing? I have one question for Kmiec:

If Obama doesn’t defend abortion-on-demand as a fundamental right for women, then why does Kmiec later state that “Obama believes the decision should be left to the pregnant mother”? I’m not an attorney, but leaving the decision to the pregnant mother sounds an awful lot like giving her the fundamental right to have an abortion.

Finally, this next quote wins the award for Most Convoluted Logic. Kmiec contends that John McCain is also pro-choice, despite his perfect pro-life voting record, because he believes that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and that the abortion issue should be decided by the states. Furthermore, he suggests that “’from a standpoint of subsidiarity and prudence, one can make an argument that the Obama position is preferable since it does not arrogate to a higher level that which can be done more effectively below in direct relationship with the mother.’” Father John Neuhaus describes this argument as “disingenuous”. Deceitful is the word that comes to my mind.

But Kmiec is not alone. Many educated Catholics either dismiss the Church’s teachings outright or perform intellectual gymnastics to prove their views don’t violate Church doctrine and dogma. Why is this antagonism toward the Church so common among the learned?

Education is what you make of it. Knowledge is empowering; understanding builds confidence. Unfortunately, as humans we too easily cross the line from confidence to arrogance. As we gain knowledge we often assume that we are shielding ourselves from errors in judgment. We begin to treat our opinions as if they are declarations from the Oracle at Delphi. As with everything else in life there is no substitution for humility. It is important to remember that when our views conflict with the Church’s, we are disputing principles that have been cultivating for 2,000 years. Some of the most intelligent, most educated, and most holy men and women ever to walk this earth have crafted these teachings—all with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

I may not be as smart as Einstein or St. Thomas Aquinas, but I am intelligent enough to know that believing my wisdom surpasses 2,000 years of Catholic tradition is dumb.

Only a fool would believe that.



Donald Tremblay