St. Andrea Santoro, Priest and Martyr

So far, I've been silent on the firestorm over the anti-Muslim cartoons published in the Danish press. The reason I've been silent is that until now I've seen no reason to involve myself in the controversy; many of my liberal readers will likely disagree over one part of my opinion, while many of my conservative readers will likely disagree over another -- because my opinion is neither liberal nor conservative.

Essentially, there are three points to my opinion:

1. As a rule, the press should refrain from publishing intolerance -- especially religious intolerance. And that is most certainly what the Danish cartoons were.



2. With that said, I strongly believe in freedom of the press. I believe that the Danish press had a right to publish the cartoons, and I strongly disagree with any international attempts either by the Vatican, the European Union, or the United Nations to limit freedom of the press. I believe that the United States should exert all of its influence in the UN to prevent such a limitation from occurring.



3. Finally, no efforts should be undertaken to appease the Muslims who have reacted violently. It is time for the world to tell Muslim radicals that it is unacceptable for them to react with violence and terrorism every time some group of people, some religion, or some nation does something with which they do not agree. The governments of the nations in which violence has arisen must bring violent protesters back under control; blame for this cannot be placed upon the shoulders of the Danes or the Europeans just because they are unwilling to sacrifice their freedom of the press. We should not be forced to sacrifice freedom of the press on the altar of radical Islam. If we sacrifice this freedom, what other freedoms will we be required to sacrifice?

Why am I bringing this up now? I'm bringing it up because of Sr. Joan Chittister's most recent column in the National Catholic Reporter, with which I profoundly disagree. In the column, Sr. Chittister makes the case that Fr. Andrea Santoro, an Italian priest in Turkey who was killed recently by a young Muslim radical who was violently protesting the Danish cartoons, should not be recognized as a martyr. I couldn't disagree with Sr. Chittister more.

First of all, Sr. Chittister takes a very restrictive approach to martyrdom. She limits it to martyrdom of Christians at the hands of a political establishment which will not tolerate Christianity, but there is no basis in Catholic tradition for limiting martyrdom in such a way. Martyrdom occurs whenever a Christian is killed out of hatred for the faith (odium fidei), not just by a political establishment but by anyone. The question is: Was Fr. Santoro killed out of hatred for the faith? The answer is most certainly that he was. This boy walked into his church and shot him, reacting to the anti-Muslim cartoons in the Danish press. Why else would a Muslim boy walk into a church and shoot a priest, any priest, even if that priest were an Italian rather than a Dane? He did it because the priest was Christian, and at the moment he hated Christians because of the Danish cartoons published in the "Christian" West.

Some, Sr. Chittister included, have alleged that the boy was psychologically unstable. So what? Are we making the case that anyone killed for his or her faith by someone who is psychologically unstable cannot be a martyr? If so, we had better take some of those martyrs killed by the Emperor Nero off the books -- unless, of course, we are making the case that Nero was psychologically balanced.

It seems that Sr. Chittister's primary concern is avoiding more violence, and with this concern I can sympathize. But it would be wrong to deny the sanctity of a man who clearly was killed out of hatred for his faith just to avoid more violence. What would that say about our Church's commitment to faith and truth? As I've already pointed out, I also think it's a bad idea to do anything to appease violent Muslims. What kind of message do we send if we refuse to recognize a martyr for who he is because we don't want to provoke violence from Muslims? We send the message that violence can quiet us and lead us to attempt appeasement, that we will give them what they want if they kill enough of us. We send a message that we are ready for them to make more martyrs who we will not recognize as martyrs. It would be far better to send a message to the Muslim faith that we believe one of their people killed one of our priests out of hatred for his faith, that we're going to recognize his faith and that he was killed for it, and that we expect better from them. We expect to be tolerated and respected as we have tolerated and respected them.

Perhaps my biggest problem with Sr. Chittister's column, however, is that she compares Fr. Santoro's martyrdom with the "martyrdom" of Muslim terrorists:

In the third place, the world is already dealing with a passle of Islamic fundamentalist martyrs for the faith, called jihadists, all of them almost universally condemned by moderate Muslim communities and leaders everywhere. The world doesn't need Christian ones, too . . . From where I stand, this does not seem the time to elevate the present political situation to the level of religious warfare by incorrectly declaring our own dead, like those of Islamic fundamentalists, to be "martyrs." All we need is to trigger another century of Crusades by beginning a competition of martyrs.

It was at this point that I was genuinely angered by Sr. Chittister's column, and it is over this that I demand, in the name of all Christian martyrs, a retraction and apology from Sr. Chittster and the National Catholic Reporter. How can Sr. Chittister possibly compare the martyrdom of Fr. Santoro -- as she did, explicitly -- to the murder-suicide committed by Muslim terrorists? Fr. Santoro was kneeling in his church at prayer when he was shot by a Muslim radical; Muslim terrorist "martyrs" end their lives by exploding bombs attached to their bodies in order to kill non-Muslims, usually Jews or Westerners. There is no comparison, and the Muslim men and women who commit murder-suicide are not "martyrs," they are terrorists and murderers.

Sr. Chittister and NCR must apologize for associating Fr. Santoro and other Christian martyrs with Muslim terrorists who have committed murder-suicide, and they must do so without delay. They have now engaged in the same religious intolerance that the Danish press has engaged in, and they have done so against their own co-religionists. I urge other Catholics, other Christians, and other people of faith to join me in demanding a retraction of and apology for these scandalous remarks.

Long Live the "Truce of 2005"

Fr. B (Bartimaeus' Quest) drew my attention to an article from The Tablet, discussing the recent installation of "liberal" +George Niederauer as Archbishop of San Francisco. Although I suspect that Archbishop Niederauer is not quite liberal according to my standards and is probably more of a moderate, there are some encouraging signs for the many GLBT Catholics who live and serve in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Archbishop Niederauer has indicated that Pope Benedict XVI's recent encyclical on love, Deus Caritas Est, will guide his pastoral service of the San Francisco Archdiocese. He has drawn criticism from American Catholic conservatives (more on them in a minute) for his liberal interpretation of the recent Vatican instruction on the admission of gay men to seminaries, refusing to accept the instruction as a blanket ban against gay seminarians and also refusing to place the blame for the sexual abuse scandal on the shoulders of gay priests. Archbishop Niederauer has also acknowledged that he saw Brokeback Mountain, referring to it as "very powerful." Finally, as Bishop of Salt Lake City, Archbishop Niederauer opposed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The conclusion that one comes to is that Archbishop Niederauer may be the most pro-gay archbishop in the United States, if not in the whole world, which means that Pope Benedict XVI seems to have made a good pastoral choice for the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Of course, as I mentioned, some American Catholic conservatives are quite unhappy with recent developments. Their jubilation over the election of Pope Benedict XVI and his apparent laying the smackdown on GLBT Catholics has subsided, and now Fr. Richard John Neuhaus says that "there is a palpable uneasiness" among those who reacted favorably to Pope Benedict XVI's election. Fr. Neuhaus first cites as a matter of concern Pope Benedict XVI's appointment of former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, primarily because Archbishop Levada did not sufficiently bash GLBT citizens of a city Fr. Neuhaus (probably accurately) refers to as "the gay capital of the world." Fr. Neuhaus then launches into a litany of concerns he has about the appointment of Archbishop Niederauer.

Finally, Fr. Neuhaus concludes as he started, lamenting the possibility that Pope Benedict XVI will allow a "Truce of 2005," in which those who disagree with the strict interpretation of the Vatican's ban on gay seminarians may not be punished -- much like what happened with the "Truce of 1968," when Pope Paul VI refused to punish those who disagreed with Humanae Vitae. Commonweal has responded to Fr. Neuhaus extensively, but I would like to offer my own thoughts.

I believe that Pope Benedict XVI has accepted a "Truce of 2005." And I think he's accepted it because he knows that punishing those who disagree with the recent instruction would mean more than just punishing a few dissenting priests and laypeople. It would mean punishing a number of bishops and religious superiors who have also publicly criticized the instruction, or who have interpreted the instruction in a liberal manner. What is currently a debate about gays in the priesthood could quickly become a debate that Pope Benedict XVI would welcome with less enthusiasm: a debate over papal authority.

Trying to punish bishops and religious superiors for disagreeing with the recent instruction would bring up a number of unsavory topics, left largely unresolved by the Second Vatican Council and certainly left unresolved by the postconciliar teaching authority. For instance, does the pope even have the authority to tell bishops and religious superiors who they can or cannot admit to seminaries and ordain in their dioceses and provinces? This particular question could have implications for ecumenism as well, because other Christians (particularly the Orthodox) would look upon the continued expansion of papal authority over and against episcopal collegiality with great dissatisfaction. Exacerbating the problem would be the unresolved question of the Roman Curia and how it fits into the collegial scheme of things. Are bishops bound to follow even curial documents to the letter? Do they have no authority and discretion of their own? If the answer is no, then the charge that Catholic bishops are no more than the pope's glorified altar boys would seem to be a valid one.

On the same page with the article about Archbishop Niederauer in The Tablet, there is another article discussing how the Orthodox Churches could come to accept the doctrine of papal primacy. Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk, the president of the theological commission of the Russian Orthodox Church's Holy Synod, laid out what he believes would be necessary. Rome would have to recognize the "full plentitude" of local Churches, and "genuine bishops" should not be made subject to papal jurisdiction but instead their "equal dignity" should be recognized. He went on to say:

"The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, the sacrament of sacraments -- wherever it's celebrated by a legitimately consecrated priest, the Church is present and it's possible to live the fullness of the church experience," Metropolitan Filaret continued. "No primacy can be exercised at the expense of this catholic fullness of the local Church. Yet in the Catholic Church, the Pope projects his ecclesiastical power over the whole earth. This complicates relations with Orthodox sister Churches."

If Pope Benedict XVI were to punish bishops and religious superiors who disagree with the recent instruction, he would be confirming the kind of authoritarian primacy that the Orthodox can never accept. But if he does not punish the bishops and religious superiors who disagree with the instruction, then punishment of priests and laypeople who disagree with the instruction would not only be unfair but also meaningless. It seems that Pope Benedict XVI has no choice but to accept a "Truce of 2005" if he intends to keep the Church committed to principles of collegiality and ecumenism as Vatican II demanded. Something tells me that the mandate of the Second Vatican Council, the affirmation of collegiality, and the continued evolution of our ecumenical relationship with the Orthodox will all weigh more heavily on Pope Benedict XVI's mind and heart than punishing bishops, religious superiors, priests, and laypeople who disagree with a low level and ill-advised document.

In other words, long live the "Truce of 2005." The Congregation for Catholic Education's instruction has gone the way of Humanae Vitae, and the Church is better off for it.

Hopes for the Pope

A friend of mine from the Esoteric Theological Seminary forwarded an article to me entitled, "Hopes for the Pope." Although I didn't agree with the whole thing (I thought that excommunicating American bishops and cardinals who support the war on terror was a bit extreme, for instance), I especially liked the parts about declaring a worldwide effort to end capital punishment and opening the priesthood to women. My favorite quotes from the article? "I don't love myself with napalm or atom bombs, so I won't love my global neighbors that way, either" and "Maybe Jesus was so chill because he burned blonde Lebanese hashish."

The Lisping Lector: Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time

Reading I: Isaiah 43:18-19,21-22,24b-25
Responsorial Psalm: Psalm 41:2-5,13-14
Reading II: 2 Corinthians 1:18-22
Gospel: Mark 2:1-12

- - -

In today's Gospel, Jesus reveals a different kind of paralysis: the paralysis of sin. It is sin that paralyzes us and prevents us from moving toward God and closer to one another. It is sin that breaks up our partnerships and marriages, freezing us in place and blocking us from meeting the other halfway. It is sin that divides queer and straight and sin which impedes any move toward unity. It is sin that keeps us from going back to church or from receiving Eucharist, stuck in the quicksand of despair or indifference.

But in Jesus Christ, God boldly fulfills his promise: "See, I am doing something new!" Jesus Christ is the one who removes the hold sin has over us, enabling us to once again move toward him and toward one another. Jesus replaces the sin which has so stubbornly kept us apart with his own love, which draws all things together in the Holy Spirit.

As Christian queers, we can certainly see the paralyzing power of sin in the Church. But we can also see the mobilizing power of Christ's love. Catholic queers have seen this recently in the bishops, religious superiors, and priests -- gay and straight alike -- who have said that they will not allow the Vatican ban on gay seminarians to translate into blanket discrimination under their jurisdiction, and who have affirmed the ministry of gay priests and the good they have brought to the Church.

We have also seen the mobilizing power of Christ's love hard at work and prevailing in other Christian Churches and Communities. We have seen the United Church of Christ move toward the blessing of same-sex marriages. We have seen the Anglican Church of Canada move toward the blessing of same-sex unions, and the Episcopal Church USA has taken the first challenging steps in this process as well. The Episcopal Church has also consecrated its first openly gay and partnered bishop, Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. We have seen the Religious Society of Friends and the Unitarian Universalist Association widely accepting us and fighting for our rights in the Church and in the State.

We have seen the mobilizing power of Christ's love struggling against the paralyzing power of sin in other Churches and Communities. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, we have watched as an increasing number of straight allies have stood with us to demand an end to the hypocrisy of a church which claims to accept us while refusing to bless our unions and refusing to recognize that God is calling us to ministry. We have watched as an increasing number of straight allies have stood with us against the defrocking of Beth Stroud in the United Methodist Church, and we look forward to the day when justice will visit that church. We have watched as the Church of England, the heart of Anglican Christianity, has been faced with challenging decisions regarding the blessing of civil partnerships -- and they have taken the first tentative steps in the right direction.

Sisters and brothers, the Lord Jesus is again breathing the Holy Spirit into the Church. And the wind is picking up!

We would be remiss, however, if we didn't acknowledge that we too have been paralyzed by sin. How often has sin mired us in hatred for the sisters and brothers who persecute us, even as Christ's love has tried to guide us toward love for our enemies? How many times has sin paralyzed our own hearts, trapping us in despair and blocking us from moving toward a place where we can see the hope that the Holy Spirit is pouring out on the Church of God? How often has sin prevented us from joining in common mission with those who do not entirely agree with us? How many times have we allowed sin to keep division alive while love has been striving for unity?

As we contemplate the Gospel reading today, let us hear Christ's words spoken to us: "Child, your sins are forgiven." And let us know that this is an exhortation to abandon our paralysis, to rise, to pick up our mats, and to walk back toward God and one another. Let us glorify God, saying: "We have never seen anything like this."

NCC Urges Closure of Gitmo

From Chuck Currie: Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, is urging Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to comply with a UN report which calls upon the United States to bring all Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial or release them, to close Guantanamo Bay, and to refrain from torture and other violations of human rights. Rev. Edgar's letter to Secretary Rice is also being circulated as a petition by NCCCUSA and Faithful America. It reads, in part:

These recommendations are consistent with a February 23, 2004 resolution of the Executive Board of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, which states, "Our concern is based on the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person created in the image of God, and on the rights accorded all persons by virtue of their humanity" . . . and the belief "that indefinite detention of persons without due process is a violation of their dignity and worth as children of God."



The American bishops(www.usccb.org) have not yet responded to the UN report.

Lent With St. Benedict

As Lent approaches (it is now less than two weeks away), I find myself trying to prepare myself spiritually for the penitential season. It seems kind of odd to prepare for Lent, I know, since a major part of the Lenten Season is preparation for Easter, and yet the importance of Lent itself almost demands some preparation. I sometimes feel like every liturgical season is a season of preparation; that Ordinary Time prepares us for Advent and Lent, which in turn prepare us for Christmas and Easter respectively, which in turn lead us to the Epiphany and Pentecost experiences and prepare us for Ordinary Time.

But I digress. Having become Catholic not by infant baptism but by the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), I find Lent very important because it is for me a reliving of that intense preparation to meet the Risen Lord during my reconciliation with the Church and confirmation. I feel like I'm preparing to meet him for the first time each Lent. This Lent, however, I think I'll find it a bit more challenging to observe the season of penitence since the end of Lent coincides with the beginning of my college classes. New academic challenges and social experiences are sure to distract me at least a little, and there's no preventing that.

Reading Sr. Steph's Narrow at the Outset today, though, I came up with a way to keep my Lenten preparation for Easter at least somewhat on track. I'm going to reflect on chapter 49 of the Benedictine Rule, which details how Benedictine monastics should observe the Lenten Season. I don't make any claim to being a Benedictine; at this point, I hardly have the discipline to call myself anything other than a somewhat lazy lay lector (now say that ten times fast). But the Rule of St. Benedict did help me find peace during a time of great turmoil, and I'm confident that it can help me stay focused on Lent even with the hubbub of my daily life. I find that my reflections serve me best when I write them down, so I will also be posting them here beginning on Ash Wednesday and then continuing sporadically throughout the rest of Lent. I hope they'll help others stay focused on the Lenten Season as well.

Tell Your Representative: Vote "No" on H.R. 4694

On February 10, I mentioned the Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act (H.R. 4694), introduced in the House of Representatives by several Democrats. H.R. 4694 would require public financing of congressional campaigns, itself a positive reform, but it would also require a prohibitively large number of signatures for third party and independent candidates -- making it practically impossible for them to run for office.

I thought I would pass along some more information: you can now write to your representative(www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizationsCOM/Greens/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1726) or send a letter to the editor(www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizationsCOM/Greens/pickMedia.jsp?letter_KEY=337). I've already written to my representative. Will you?

What I'm Reading

I recently finished reading Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis by former President Jimmy Carter. I would recommend the book to anyone who is concerned about the direction America is going in, and even those who think they aren't concerned about it. Although I did not agree with everything President Carter had to say (I shuddered when he referred to "sexual preference"), the former President did accurately identify many of the issues comprising America's current moral crisis and offered some concrete solutions to many of our most serious problems.

While waiting for Spanking the Donkey by Matt Taibbi and How the Republicans Stole Christmas by Bill Press to arrive at the library, I'm re-reading Gifted By Otherness.

2006 CBA Endorsements

Voting has begun for the 2006 Catholic Blog Awards, and it will end at noon on February 21. In the meantime, here are my endorsements.

* Most Informative Blog: Happy Catholic

* Most Humorous Blog: Dyspeptic Mutterings

* Most Bizarre Blog: The Curt Jester*

* Best Presentation: Against the Grain

* Best Design: Sollicitudo Rei Socialis**

* Most Devotional: Flos Carmeli

* Best Group Blog: Moniales

* Best Blog by a Man: Catholic and Enjoying It!

* Best Blog by a Woman: Musings of a Discerning Woman**

* Most Insightful Blog: Moniales

* Most Bizarre Blog Post: The Curt Jester

* Best Blog by a Priest or Religious: Dappled Things

* Best Political Blog: Catholic and Enjoying It!

* Best Apologetics Blog: Pontifications

* Most Intellectual Blog: Disputations

* Most Creative: Ales Rarus

* Most Theological Blog: Ad Limina Apostolorum

* Best New Blog: No Endorsement***

* Best Social Commentary: Catholic and Enjoying It!

* Best Blog by a Seminarian: No Endorsement***



* Although I consider both of them friends and love their blogs, I did not endorse Joe Cecil's In Today's News or Eric Williams' Ales Rarus for Most Bizarre Blog because I don't consider their blogs bizarre.

** In the interest of full disclosure, I am a contributing editor for Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (which I've endorsed for Best Design), and Musings of a Discerning Woman (which I've endorsed for Best Blog by a Woman) is edited by Susan Rose Francois, a co-editor at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis.

*** If I did not issue endorsements for any category it's because I'm not familiar with any of the blogs in that category, and it is not a reflection of the quality of those blogs.

Breaking: Democrats Lose 2006 Election

Democrats lose Hackett; Democrats lose spine; Democrats lose credibility; Democrats lose 2006 election. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/0135/82714)

For the record, I do not and will not support the candidacy of Rep. Sherrod Brown for the Ohio Senate seat -- if for no other reason than the strong arm, elitist politics used to make him the candidate. If and when the Green Party has a candidate for the Senate, I will likely support that candidate.