Movie Review: The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight was a very fine effort. Everything you've heard about it is probably true. The cast is great. Heath Ledger's Joker is one of the best performances I've ever seen. The movie is probably a bit long, though. Nolan and Goyer deserve a lot of credit on this one because it's the story that really makes the whole thing go.

There have been some efforts, mostly recent, to paint Batman as little more than a high-tech paranoid whackjob whose ethics are derived from a sort of cobbled-together personal code that he imposes upon himself, rather than a guy driven by a morality outside himself that he is subject to by nature. This former characterization is largely due to a botched attempt by modern writers to follow-up on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Why does Batman refuse to kill? Because killing is wrong. Why is killing wrong? Is it because Bruce has simply concocted a moral code stating that he shouldn't do it? No. It's because he acknowledges rules higher than himself. No matter how much he might want to kill a given criminal, he will not do so, nor come up with a rationalization that would give him permission to do so, nor attempt to hold himself out as some sort of "higher law." He is not the Nietzschean overman, as so many attempt to claim.

The Dark Knight does a good job of bringing this forward. The crux of the story in TDK is that Bruce does submit to authoritative values that are above him. He expects others to follow those values as well and must adapt when confronted by a villain who doesn't just have a different set of values (like Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins) but who has no values at all. The plot then takes the natural turn into a game of chicken between the three (yes, three) main characters who each take turns escalating the conflict to see who is going to flinch first. The Joker, of course, is not bound by any limits whatsoever and therefore will never flinch. Dent tries it Bruce's way, then flinches and takes the path that there is only value in the "fairness" of chance. He even admits this isn't really some sort of higher law, but rather all that he's left with. Only Bruce acknowledges a true higher moral order and consistently adheres to it.

The other significant element that TDK brings up but that has gone by the wayside in many modern Batman portrayals is the central role that sacrifice plays in what Bruce does. He lost his girlfriend in Batman Begins, sure, but he's faced with the reality in TDK that folks can still come after him personally even if they don't know who he really is. How do they do that? By picking apart his soul which is so devoted to the higher cause he has pledged himself to. Batman's sacrifice is therefore not strictly limited to the "I'll never live a normal life" sort of whining that is so often bandied about as the real burden he must bear. The real sacrifice is carrying the cross of his virtue. His choices get people killed all the time, and he has to live with it. Alfred's takes on this throughout the movie are excellent. It would be easy for Bruce to become The Punisher, but then he wouldn't be Batman. It would be even easier for him simply to seek self-justification and acknowledgment of his goodness. Instead, we have his sacrifice at the close of the film. Simply marvelous stuff and highly recommended for all over the age of, say, 15.

Coming soon: Why Batman is Catholic and an exploration of the religious faith of other super-heroes.

The Cure of Ars

I'm still running a day or so behind on feast days, which is a shame, because St. John Vianney is one of my favorite people. Most folks know him as the Cure of Ars, Ars being the small town in France where he was stationed as a parish priest.

More priests should reflect upon his life. In a time when confession is at an all time low, the Cure would spend sometimes 16 hours a day in the confessional. This is not merely a comment on the holiness of the man. It also shows the effect of such priests on their parishes since people would stay lined up to receive the sacrament of Penance, whether they were from Ars or from some nearby (or faraway) town. Holiness births holiness. Of course, it didn't hurt that St. John was blessed with supernatural gifts ranging from clairvoyance to the reading of hearts. Regardless, we shouldn't get too caught up on those things. The real miracle in the confessional is the restoration of sanctifying grace to the soul. His belief in the horrors of sin made the work of Penance the hallmark of his work:

So many crimes against God are committed that they sometimes incline us to ask God to end this world! . . . You have to come to the town of Ars if you really want to learn what an infinite multitude of serious sins there are. . . Alas, we do not know what to do, we think that there is nothing else to do than weep and pray to God.

He's another guy like St. Anthony of the Desert and the aforementioned St. Alphonsus who had a severe problem with demonic attacks. Most biographies are quite blunt in recounting how the Devil would physically abuse him on a regular basis. This article from EWTN gives a good summary of the saint's battles with diabolical forces. It makes for another point to reflect on Christ's elect being called to a life of suffering. Being holy does not mean that you are somehow impervious to the assaults of the Evil One. Granted, you might be more open to grace for resisting such attacks, but outstanding holiness is more likely to put a target on your back than anything else. St. John did not fear suffering, though, and neither should we. Consider that:

Our Lord is our model, let us take up our cross and follow Him. Let us do like the soldiers of Napoleon. They had to cross a bridge under the fire of grapeshot; no one dared to pass it. Napoleon took over the colors, marched over first and they all followed. Let us do the same; let us follow Our Lord, who has gone before us.

Blessed John XXIII devoted an entire encyclical to the Cure of Ars. In one particular section, he focuses upon mortification and penance, two subjects that are regarded as signs of insanity in modern society (see any news program that discusses Opus Dei):

John M. Vianney was an outstanding model of voluntary mortification of the body as well as of detachment from external things. "There is only one way"—he used to say—"for anyone to devote himself to God as he should through self-denial and the practice of penance: that is by devoting himself to it completely." Throughout his whole life, the holy Cure of Ars carried this principle into practice energetically in the matter of chastity.

This wonderful example of chastity seems to have special application to the priests of our time who—as is unfortunately the case in many regions—are often forced by the office they have assumed to live in the midst of a human society that is infected by a general looseness in morals and a spirit of unbridled lust. How often this phrase of St. Thomas Aquinas is proved true: "It is harder to lead a good life in the work of caring for souls, because of the external dangers involved" To this We might add the fact that they often feel themselves cut off from the society of others and that even the faithful to whose salvation they are dedicated do not understand them and offer them little help or support in their undertakings.

St. John Vianney, pray for us, especially our priests.

Can you digg it, suckaaaaaa!

Many props to Booker T for supplying the subject line.

If you'll notice, there's a new button on the site here. It's the Digg button. Near as I can figure, it allows folks to submit posts here to the Digg site, which is sort of like a YouTube for articles and such. So if you find something you like, Digg away.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori

Yesterday was his feast day. If you know any Redemptorists, St. Alphonsus is their spiritual patriarch. He is yet another promising lawyer plucked by grace from that vile profession for service in the Church. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a lawyer.)

He is regarded as the Doctor of Moral Theology, and his treatment of the subject is regarded as the most thorough produced by any Church writer. Pastoral experience, especially in hearing confessions, taught him the dangers of rigorism and legalism when dealing with the penitent. His teaching therefore made a strong counter to those who might be attracted to the rigidity of Jansenism. The really crappy aspect of all this is that you can't find a single English copy of his moral theology work anywhere. You'd think that since it's his primary contribution to the patrimony of the Church that somebody would have come up with one by now. I'm finding this to be a common problem with the Doctors.

A couple of things I always think of when St. Alphonsus is brought up. First, if you'll notice in most of his pictures, he is usually very stooped over at the neck. His neck problems were so bad in his old age that his chin actually rubbed a raw spot on his chest. This was the least of his sufferings, considering that he was pretty much abandoned by his own order after he was tricked into signing a bogus rule. Not only that, but his last days were wracked with the worst sorts of temptations ranging from scrupulosity to demonic apparitions. This is a valuable lesson for those who think that holiness and grace mean a life free from suffering. Such notions make for a mass following these days, considering the en vogue "prosperity gospel, but it is anathema to the reality of the Christian life.

Second, St. Alphonsus might well be the patron saint of anti-Catholic polemic. Having an amazing devotion to the Blessed Mother, he wrote a book called The Glories of Mary. I'll admit that I've never read it, but any time you find yourself in a discussion with a hardcore bigot, they inevitably bring up this book. Most of the stuff they come up with is pretty easily disposed of, but it's a shame that this holy man is having his writings abused in such a way. I have a plan to read it at some point, and I'll post about it when I finally accomplish it.

Anyways, you can still find lots of stuff by him in the interim including old sermons, a marvelous History of Heresies, and his very well-known (even if folks don't know where it came from) Way of the Cross. This last item is the most effective method I know of for meditating on Our Lord's Passion. I highly recommend it.

St. Alphonsus, pray for us.

As if the Dissent Against Humanae Vitae Couldn't Be More Repulsive

We get this from Catholic World News:

Yesterday LifeSiteNews.com published a recently unearthed letter which was sent to bishops with a pre-release copy of the encyclical. The letter, dated July 19, 1968, is signed by the late Amleto Giovanni Cardinal Cicognani, who was then the Vatican Secretary of State.

So in other words, the bishops who thumbed their noses at Pope Paul were basically ignoring a personal plea to uphold the Church's teaching on this issue. I know it probably shouldn't make a difference, but it just seems like defiance of an infallible teaching is compounded and made even worse when folks just slap away the hand of brotherly affection extended by this letter. Listen to this:

The letter begins: "When directing me to transmit to Your Excellency the enclosed document, publication of which is imminent, His Holiness strongly recommended that I draw your attention to its importance, and to the necessity of a concerted effort on the part of the entire Catholic Episcopate."

In the letter the Pope can be seen to plead for the world's bishops to stand with him on the matter, which is described as "one of the most delicate questions of Catholic morals."

Regarding the Pope, the letter says, "And now He turns to His Brothers, the Bishops of the Catholic world, asking them to stand beside Him more firmly than ever in this circumstance, and to help Him present this delicate point of the Church's teaching to the Christian people, to explain and justify its profound reasons."

The letter adds, "The Pope counts upon the attachment of His Brothers in the Episcopate to the Chair of Peter, upon their love for the Church, upon their concern for the true good of souls."

"Finally," concluded the letter, "it is necessary that both in the confessional and in the pulpit, in the press and by other means of social communication, every necessary pastoral effort be made that no ambiguity exists among the faithful or in public opinion concerning the Church's position in this serious matter."

From this, all the reports about how Pope Paul was shocked by the reaction to HV should be reexamined. This letter makes it sound like he had some idea of what was about to go down and was trying his best to mitigate the damage on the front end.

The Situation With the Anglicans Just Got Real

Per Zenit:

The Holy See is following with "serious attention" the request from the Traditional Anglican Communion for "full, corporate, sacramental union" with Rome.

Let's pray that this goes well. The Traditional Anglican Communion is just shy of half a million folks who are in dire need of the Church to rescue them from the shipwreck of Anglicanism.

Speaking of Anglicans, I watched The Other Boleyn Girl this past weekend. Towards the end, the movie remarked that Henry's decision to break with Rome "changed the face of England." One could ask, "Is that supposed to be good or bad?" Is anyone willing even to attempt an argument for the former anymore?

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

For the Greater Glory of God.

It's the motto of the Society of Jesus, aka the Jesuits, who are the spiritual children of the saint we honor today. St. Ignatius Loyola was a soldier whose leg was shattered by a cannonball during combat. During his recovery, the only books available to him were biographies of Christ and the saints. Having a lot of time on his hands to reflect on his own sinfulness in light of these holy models, especially that of The Master, he began a remarkable journey of conversion that climaxed with a vision of the Blessed Mother and the Child Jesus. In the aftermath of this mystical experience, he wrote his classic Spiritual Exercises, which have become a staple of Catholic spiritual life. It's difficult to put the Spiritual Exercises into words, except to say that you will come to a definite realization of how bad a sinner you are and what precise things are obstacles to your spiritual advancement. Do not attempt this without a spiritual director, by the way.

After a brief segue to the Holy Land, from which he was rather harshly kicked out, Ignatius began to attract a number of companions. These, of course, would be the founding member of the Company (later the Society) of Jesus. Initially wanting to go to the Holy Land and live a life mirroring that of Christ, they would instead become famous for taking the "fourth vow" of obedience to the Pope. The Jesuits would be the backbone of the Counter-Deformation movement, immovable foes to Protestants and worldly monarchs, and a cradle for saints ranging from Francis Xavier to Peter Canisius to Robert Bellarmine.

Here's my favorite bit about St. Ignatius. After he was ordained, he spent the next year and a half preparing to offer his first Mass. That's how seriously he took the Eucharist.

Here we are, 450 years after this great man's death, and the company he founded is in something of an upheaval. Jesuits have become known more for theological wackiness than orthodoxy. Sure, you've got some good ones: Mitch Pacwa, John Hardon, Vincent Micelli, and so forth. Let's be honest, though. John Paul II actually suspended the election of the Superior General in the early 80s out of his concerns. More recently, Cardinal Rode and Pope Benedict have specifically reminded the Society of their obligations to the Church and the papacy. Such reminders are born from an uneasiness with the heterodox direction many of St. Ignatius's sons have taken. Let us pray for them and ask that God restore them to their former glory.

St. Ignatius Loyola, pray for us and your spiritual children.

The Feast of the Golden-Worded

Today is the feast for one of our lesser known Doctors of the Church. St. Peter Chrysologus was the bishop of Ravenna back in the early to mid-5th century. He was a good friend of Pope Leo the Great. When the Monophysite heresy broke out into full ferocity, he was actually condemned by a synod in Constantinople for failing to back the heretics. This was a few years before the Council of Chalcedon.

His nickname, Chrysologus, meaning "golden-worded," was given as a tribute for his marvelous sermons, over a hundred of which are still around these days.

Here's one remark that was sent in response to Eutyches, the chief of the Monophysite dissenters, who was looking for Peter to back him against the orthodoxy of Pope Leo. Perhaps Fr. McBrien could take note:

We exhort you, honorable brother, to listen obediently to what was written by the blessed pope of the city of Rome, for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it.

St. Peter Chrysologus, pray for us.

Theological Prostitutes Speak Out on Humanae Vitae

The first is Fr. Richard McBrien, who is an embarassment to the Church and to the University of Notre Dame. His article in The Tidings basically lacks anything in the neighborhood of honesty or reason, and instead focuses on his view that the resulting dissent in the Church regarding contraception is some sort of proof that the Magisterium got this one wrong.

"On the birth control issue," the column pointed out, "the Pope's present position does not seem to reflect the consensus of the Church, and static fills the air. The encyclical is at odds with the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the Pope's own commission of experts, the public resolutions of the Third World Lay Congress in Rome, the majority of Catholic moral theologians, the consciences of many Catholic married couples, and the pastoral and theological judgments of the large majority of non-Catholic Christian churches which participate in the life of the Body of Christ and in his Spirit."

Note the numerous errors in just this one snippet. First, he conveniently ignores the previous 1900 years of "static-free" assent and constant affirmation of this teaching. Somehow, I suppose, we have evolved beyond the ignorant and oppressive morality of our Fathers. This is a pretty indefensible stance he's taking without publicly announcing his Modernism (which, yes, I know he's essentially done a billion times, but just bear with me).

Second, this idea of popular opinion being the gauge for Truth is entirely heretical. At the time of Nicea I, 80% of the world's bishops were Arian. It took centuries to flush this poison out of our ecclesiastical system. Or we could just examine the opinion of all the parties he lists above from 60 years ago and see what they say. Tell us, oh wise McBrien, was the Holy Spirit lying then by keeping the static out, or is He lying now by allowing such static?

Similarly asinine statements have been uttered courtesy of the National Catholic Reporter. While appealing to popular opinion, the article basically outright rejects anything amounting to an infallible magisterium:

After all, he (Paul VI) reasoned, how could the Holy Spirit have allowed the church to be wrong for so many years on an issue of such importance? His decision, in the end, was more indicative of church hierarchical dysfunction -- the institution’s inability to look at matters, particularly sexuality, in light of new understandings and insights -- than it was seemingly of any movement of the Holy Spirit.

This is followed with the remarkable statement that:

The surveys have confirmed Rome’s worst fears, causing at times even more thunderous condemnations that have failed to win many converts.

So it seems that Truth can go out the window, just as long as we rope in some converts. It would be so great to have a bigger market share by succumbing to relativism! After all, it's just too dang hard to actually believe in something. Give me the house built on shifting sands any day.

If you'd like an article untainted by heretical ideas, check Mary Eberstadt's shpiel over at First Things. It is a thorough vetting of the entire topic.

Famous Brits clamoring for the TLM

Damien Thompson continues keeping us in the know:

As the Catholic Herald reveals this week, leading Catholics including Lord Alton of Liverpool, Bianca Jagger and Dom Antony Sutch have signed a petition asking the bishops of England and Wales to provide more Latin Sunday Masses in the extraordinary form (Tridentine rite).

Hey, it worked for Agatha Christie, so why not?

Famous Quotes On Contraception

See if you can guess who said the following:

1. The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all sexual perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it.

2. Contraceptive methods are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and women reckless. Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any such violation of her laws…If contraceptive methods become the order of the day nothing but moral degradation can be the result. As it is, man has sufficiently degraded woman for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well-meaning the advocates many be, will still further degrade her.

3. Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. [Genesis 38:9, 10].This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, Yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates; and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment ... He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him...

4. Besides [Onan] ... preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother's name....It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. ...Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, (contraception) then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, ....

5. Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, ... he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile actions. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord--And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

See, what most folks don't know is that every Christian on the planet agreed that contraception was sinful for the first 1900 years or so after Christ. No heresy or schism was sufficient to break this unified belief until 1930 at the Seventh Lambeth Conference. Yep, leave it to the Anglicans. Even then, it was approved of in limited circumstances only. Of course, once it got its foot in the door, there was no stopping the race to the moral bottom here.

Give up on those quotes above? Here are the answers.

1. Sigmund Freud

2. Gandhi (thanks to Amanda from my sophomore core class at Notre Dame for these quotes, even though I've lost the primary references)

3. Martin Luther

4. John Calvin

5. John Wesley

Thanks to David McDonald for those last three.

And for those of you who laughed at Paul VI's concerns about the government taking over contraceptive decisions, guess who said this:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Why that's none other than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, heralded by many as one of the greatest jurists ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Think about that and the legacy of Margaret Sanger, a well-known eugenicist who promoted "racial hygiene" and "racial regeneration" by specifically targeting black citizens for birth control and abortion. Think about such views when modern politicians bask in 100% ratings from her spawn at Planned Parenthood. Yep, it's a brave, new world folks, and we really don't seem to care.

Miraculous Cure for a Florida Baptist = Sainthood for Blessed Karl?

The Florida Catholic is on the scene:

Blessed Karl of Austria, also known as Charles I, Emperor of Austria, was the last of the Habsburg monarchs. He died in 1922. Known for a life of holiness and advocacy for peace, he was beatified in Rome in 2004.

Thousands of miles away in the Kissimmee area of central Florida, a woman, in her mid-50s, who received a diagnosis of breast cancer began what seemed an endless cycle of hospitalization and treatment. The cancer had metastasized to her liver and bones. Medical opinion deemed the disease terminal. She was bedridden. Nothing more could be done. Nothing more on earth, that is.

Soon, a network of prayer began, asking for heavenly intercession through Blessed Karl. One miracle has been attributed to him by the Vatican since his death, clearing the way for his beatification. A second miracle must be confirmed before he can be canonized.

Bottom line- she's recovered and none of the docs can figure out the how or why. I wonder if she'll be converting after this. Regardless, let's pray for the cause of Blessed Karl and hope that more people will come to know about him and the holy life he led.

The Humanae Vitae Q&A

My attempt to imagine an exchange between the ill-informed joe and Pope Paul.

So just what's the deal here, Pope? Do you just not "get it"? Didn't you even consider the difficulties posed by large families?

The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kinds. In the first place, there is the rapid demographic development. Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources, with growing distress to many families and developing countries, so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great. Moreover, working and lodging conditions, as well as increased exigencies both in the economic field and in that of education, often make the proper education of a larger number of children difficult today. A change is also seen both in the manner of considering the person of woman and her place in society, and in the value to be attributed to conjugal love in marriage, and also in the appreciation to be made of the meaning of conjugal acts in relation to that love.

So on what basis did you make his decision? Shouldn't you have paid attention that commission's report?

The work of these experts, as well as the successive judgments and counsels spontaneously forwarded by or expressly requested from a good number of our brothers in the episcopate, have permitted us to measure more exactly all the aspects of this complex matter. Hence with all our heart we express to each of them our lively gratitude.

The conclusions at which the commission arrived could not, nevertheless, be considered by us as definitive, nor dispense us from a personal examination of this serious question; and this also because, within the commission itself, no full concordance of judgments concerning the moral norms to be proposed had been reached, and above all because certain criteria of solutions had emerged which departed from the moral teaching on marriage proposed with constant firmness by the teaching authority of the Church.

Therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions.

Just tell me, Pope Paul, what the hell were you thinking?

Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communion of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives.

Then, this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself. Again, this love is faithful and exclusive until death. Thus in fact do bride and groom conceive it to be on the day when they freely and in full awareness assume the duty of the marriage bond. A fidelity, this, which can sometimes be difficult, but is always possible, always noble and meritorious, as no one can deny. The example of so many married persons down through the centuries shows, not only that fidelity is according to the nature of marriage, but also that it is a source of profound and lasting happiness.

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."

Where did you get that last crap from?

II Vat. Council, Pastoral const. Gaudium et Spes, No. 50.

Vatican II? Really? Oh, ok. Please continue.

These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy," and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.

That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.

But wait. There's all sort of problems that folks might have if they opt for big families. Isn't it just better to contracept and avoid all those potentially negative consequences?

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

You don't really believe that, though. Look, the Church says that this Natural Family Planning what-not is Ok. That's the same thing! You just don't like pills and don't want people having sex!

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

So wait a minute. You're saying that the end of something can be rendered bad simply by the means used to achieve that end? Hmmm. Look, Your Holiness, can't you just cut us some slack on this one?

It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices -- amplified by the modern means of propaganda -- which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a "sign of contradiction", yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.

But we're in the mood! How is a couple supposed to make a marriage or shacking up work if they can't do it with impunity?

The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties.

Ahem. Excuse me? Asceticism? Self-denial? That's just crazy talk. After all, what's the worst that could happen if contraception becomes the cultural norm?

Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

Really? What are the odds of all that happening?

Oh wait. . .

Humanae Vitae- Forty Years Later

I had previously mentioned that Mysterium Fidei was like setting off a stick of theological dynamite. If I was to stick with the principle of that analogy, I can only compare Humanae Vitae to a global thermonuclear warfare. It was that bad.

For those who don't know, the topic of contraception was already a big deal during Vatican II. John XXIII had actually convened a commission of theologians, scientists, and other experts to study the matter. Paul VI would later expand this commission but also take conciliar discussion of the issue off the table and reserve a decision on the matter to the authority of the Holy See. The commission came back with the recommendation that the Church's stance on birth control be modified. This got leaked to the press, and folks everywhere were ecstatic over the idea of (a) sexual license without regard for child-bearing and (b) the Catholic Church caving to secuar pressures.

The problem with all this was that they forgot that the gates of hell shall never triumph over the indefectible Faith preserved by the Successor of Peter. So it sucked to be a member of this mob when Paul VI had the temerity to reiterate the constant and infallible Christian teaching that contraception is immoral. The liberal rage that followed the promulgation of Humanae Vitae can only be described as Satanic in its intensity. The entire world was swept with a chorus of voices shrieking "Non serviam!" with all the zeal that their embrace of heresy could muster. Entire groups of bishops publicly defied the Holy Father's decision. Famous theologians like Karl Rahner, Bernard Haering, and Charles Curran accused Paul VI of betraying the "collegiality" promoted at Vatican II. Even cardinals weren't afraid of blasting the Holy See's upholding of orthodoxy. Speaking of orthodoxy, it's ironic that the Patriarch of Constantinople fully supported the Pope here and that now the Easterners are starting to fall prey to the seduction of illict birth control.

Pope Paul was shell-shocked by this hostile response. His dreams of being well-liked ended that summer of 68. In the aftermath of the encyclical, he would take almost no steps at all to enforce it. Dissent was basically legitimized by his inaction, and it continues to this day as self-proclaimed Catholics will invoke the word "conscience" in an attempt to justify their sins. Shame.

If you are looking for a good resource on this topic, I recommend Notre Dame professor Ralph McInerny's book What Went Wrong With Vatican II? Don't let the title fool you. It's all about the Humanae Vitae blow-up. As I post on this over the next few days, I am going to follow Prof. McInerny's example by reminding everyone of a little ditty from Vatican II found in Lumen Gentium # 25:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that Humanae Vitae is clearly infallible by virtue of its principles being taught with absolute consistency for the last 2000 years. Let's also ignore that there are some very good arguments (that we'll examine later) for it being infallible as an ex cathedra statement. Just by examining the statement above from (gasp!) Vatican II, on what legitimate basis do the heretics of yesteryear and modern times justify their dissent?

The answer, of course, is that there is no legitimate basis.

Pope Paul's Great Stand for the Blessed Mother

I've mentioned here before about how Pope Paul got rooked into a bunch of the Vatican II shenanigans out of naivete and a misguided desire for people to like him. However, even he had his limits on compromise.

For example, a previous post discussed Mysterium Fidei and how it completely ticked off the conciliar liberals. Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at the Council, tells it this way in his book The Ecumenical Revolution:

On the eve of the fourth session, he issued an encyclical on the Eucharist, Mysterium Fidei, that seemed to most interpreters to be at best a backward-looking document and at worst a repudiation of many of the creative insights of the already-promulgated constitution on the sacred liturgy.

Here we see a perfect example of conciliar ambiguity leading prominent someones to think that there had been some sort of doctrinal shift. Another such example occurred after the liberals had managed to squash a separate proposed document on the Blessed Mother. Discussion of her would instead be included as a chapter in Lumen Gentium, the constitution on the Church. As the discussion on the Blessed Mother became more heated, the topic was raised about her being regarded as Mother of the Church. Naturally, the liberals had kittens over the very thought of such a thing. The title was taken off the table as "inappropriate."

Apparently, Pope Paul had a very strong devotion to the Mother of God and would have nothing of this attempt to degrade her glorified status. In his closing speech of the third session, he remembered that he was the Vicar of Christ and declared Mary to be Mother of the Church on his own authority. The liberals hit the roof. Brown describes the scene:

It seemed for a while as though either the conservatives had gotten through to Paul, convinced him that the council was getting out of hand, and persuaded him to recapture control after the fashion of pre-Vatican II popes, or that Paul himself had reached a similar decision. The resulting gloom lasted many months, and there were those who, seeing this as a portent of things to come, predicted that the final session would end in disaster, with nineteenth century papalism regnant and collegiality a dead letter.

Of course, this did not happen. Brown credited the fact that "many Catholics (and non-Catholics as well) raised their voices in warning that this was not the way to move forward creatively. Seldom has there been such open and healthy criticism in the Catholic press as after session three."

Woopty-doo. So in the name of moving forward "creatively," Catholics were willing to jeopardize the Faith.

Paul VI made several other timely interventions in the Council's proceedings, ranging from the corrective note preserving Lumen Gentium from heresy to multiple revisions to Unitatis Redintegratio to recognizing "Mediatrix" as a proper title for the Blessed Mother. These would ultimately prove insufficient to stop the post-conciliar pandemonium and the treachery of the liberals in the Vatican II aftermath. Things would be bad for the next few years. In July of 1968, though, all hell would break loose.

Anglican Liberal calls Conservative Push "Demonic"

Oh, those wacky liberals, proving once again that they will tolerate anything except orthodoxy. Here we have an Espicopalian "bishop", John Chane of Washington, telling the Times:

"I think it's really very, very dangerous and I think it's demonic ... the Episcopal Church has been demonised. It has been a punching bag and I'm sick of being a punching bag as a Bishop and I'm sick of my church, my province being a punching bag. Do we deserve criticism, absolutely. No question about it."

Yeah, but John, why do you deserve the criticism? The Times doesn't really shed any light on whether he has considered this question with any depth. My guess is that he has not, judging from this quote, at least:

Chane, whose diocese covers the American capital, said: "I think it's really very dangerous when someone stands up and says, 'I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way.'

This remark comes off as quite stupid for a couple of reasons. First, isn't this precisely what the liberals are doing? Ms. Schori has informed us that those resisting women bishops are misogynists with a poor understanding of Church history. Isn't she saying that she and her ilk know the "way" and that all the misogynists are wrong? Aren't you making the same claim, Mr. Chane, by calling those people's ideas "demonic"? You know better than them, right?

Second, Mr. Chane's comments would completely repudiate the idea of the office of bishop in the first place. What exactly do bishops do, if not teach? To teach, one must make some sort of claim to a superior judgement on what is being taught. Mr. Chane seems to deny this.

Third, Mr. Chane dives headfirst into the well of relativism without appearing to care one whit about the consequences. If you can't say that you have the way, there's nothing to stop the breakaway bishops from striking off to find someone who does.

It's guys like Chane that make sure the Anglicans aren't demonized. People are too busy laughing to get to that point.

St. Mary Magdalene

I'm really not going to delve much into all the controversy on this. Dan Brown has done much more to slander this holy woman than anyone who may have or still does believe that she was a prostitute. Here's what we do know. We know that she had a pretty rough life. Anyone who had seven demons in them would. We know that she stayed with the Master until His death on the Cross and that she was there at the new beginning of His Resurrection.

We also know that there's no chance in hell that she and Christ were married or that any of this other gnostic, Pagels/Brown-spawned garbage is true.

Here's the real lesson that Mary Magdalene has for us these days. We have issues with sexual penitence. The fact that Mary had seven demons in her doesn't faze us at all. Oh, but if the notion of her being a prostitute comes up, everybody is outraged. Let's be honest. She wasn't Immaculately Conceived. She deserved perdition just as much as the rest of us for whatever sins she did commit and made it to heaven through the gift of God's grace. Some seem to think that the penitent prostitute is somehow of a lower order of the blessed in heaven than the penitent thief or the penitent liar or whoever. Of course, the opposite is true. Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the greater (or something like that). We simply do not like the idea of this sort of sinner repenting, reforming their lives, and handing themselves over to God. That particular sin is just TOO bad, think some. The idea gives people the willies, so they blast the idea that Mary ever could have been involved with such a naughty thing as prostitution. She never could have done THAT and made it to heaven, right? How wonderful that Christ thinks otherwise.

St. Mary Magdalene, pray for us.

Still Catching Up on Forgotten Saints

This one is actually another Doctor of the Church, though few have ever heard of him. Despite his obscurity in modern times, St. Lawrence of Brindisi was a genius by any measure. He mastered at least ten languages and was considered a brilliant theologian by everyone who knew of him. Sadly, I am unaware of any readily available (or even rare) compilation of his works, despite the fact that a twelve volume set was assembled by his Capuchin brethren. It's a shame that Catholics do not have better access to treasures such as these. But I digress.

Lawrence got to be really famous by preaching conversion among the Jews of his day. This was critical for him, and he had great success. He was so comfortable in Jewish settings and spoke the various Semitic languages so well that a lot of them actually thought he must have been a Jew himself. This is very telling with regards to another famous Churchman who I have mentioned here previously.

Lawrence was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Blessed John XXIII back in 1959. I would quote from the relevant encyclical, but the Vatican web site only has it available in Latin and my Latin sucks. How strange, though, that this Pope who is regarded as such a radical ecumenist would elevate a saint so devoted to the conversion of others to such a high station. I think it says a lot about Blessed John that he took such an action. In this age where you have Christians of all sorts who are content to leave Jews ignorant of the wonders of Christ, St. Lawrence provides an example of true charity, the sincere willing of the ultimate good (God Himself) for his fellow man.

St. Lawrence of Brindisi, pray for us!

The Seraphic Doctor

St. Bonaventure's Feast Day was July 15. Like a moron, I missed it.

In the haste of my life, I forgot to honor yet another of God's glorified elect. This time, instead of the guy who saved Western Civilization, it was the guy who is probably one of the ten or so greatest theologians of the post-patristic age. Some would probably say of all time. He's a Doctor of the Church, more commonly known as the Seraphic Doctor. He's not a Dominican (being a Franciscan and all), but hey, nobody's perfect.

He was a contemporary and friend of St. Thomas Aquinas, but their thinking was very different. Where Thomas was grounded almost entirely in the thought of Aristotle, Bonaventure took on the concepts of Platonism, mostly as found in Augustine. His is a very mystical theology, rooted more in the heart than the intellect. I recently bought a copy of his own "summa," known as The Breviloquium. I'll post thoughts as I work my way through it.

Needless to say, in an era where so many theologians are little more than whores (see Pope Benedict's comments), we should seek Bonaventure's intercession that those entrusted with theological instruction and research should remember that they should act in service of God's Church, rather than their own egos.

And although this Doctor, St. Bonaventure, be glorious and most celebrated in the Catholic Church, and be greatly respendant in Heaven, where he is crowned with that crown, which God witholds for those who love Him, and although no human thing is lacking to him, who enjoys the good things with Christ, which neither the eye sees, nor the heart expects; nevertheless the charity of Christ and a burning affection of a certain devotion, by which for him We have been perpetually consumed from nearly Our first years, urges Us to consider how to rather propagate and explain his sanctity and to a greater extent his doctrine, as much as We are able with the help of the Lord. Indeed We are moved, that there is a part, of Our seraphic Religion, in holy communion with him, in which We have been educated and versed for many years, and for whom as a for a most worthy mother, We should manifest every honor of piety and gratitude of heart; but much more do the glory of God, the pastoral office which We bear, the so many labors undertaken by this most holy man on behalf of the Church of God, and his so many illustrious merits urge Us, so conjoined as they are with the Roman Church, in whose broadest ranks and Senate he sat with the highest praise. Finally the utility of the universal Church moves Us, which can be always more and more richly captivated by the erudition of such a Doctor, especially when the ambushes and the diabolical machinations of heretics, by which they oppose most vehemently in this sad age that sacred theology, which is called Scholastic, admonish Us greatly, that We should retain, explain, and propagate this same theology, as something which nothing can be more fruitful for the Church of God.

Pope Sixtus V, Triumphantis Hierusalem

St. Bonaventure, pray for us!

Ora et Labora

Pray and work. That's the motto of the Order of St. Benedict. These are the guys who basically saved Western Civilization after the fall of Rome. Oh sure, the Empire endured over in Constantinople, and Byzantine society flourished, but Europe had basically been left to the barbarians.

I mention this because I neglected to post on the Feast of St. Benedict which was on July 11. It is not a good thing to forget stuff like that. Considering that the monasteries that were the product of Benedict's spiritual fruitfulness preserved the whole of Europe for generations, we should be quite thankful that God gave us such a man. Even more than that, though, God has chosen to glorify this hero in His heavenly presence. It seems only just that, here on Earth, we should glorify him and the work he did for God's Church.

Keeping in mind that Benedict wrote his famous Rule for layfolk rather than clergy, I point out this very simple nugget, found in the Rule's Prologue:

To thee, therefore, my speech is now directed, who, giving up thine own will, takest up the strong and most excellent arms of obedience, to do battle for Christ the Lord, the true King.
In the first place, beg of Him by most earnest prayer, that He perfect whatever good thou dost begin, in order that He who hath been pleased to count us in the number of His children, need never be grieved at our evil deeds. For we ought at all times so to serve Him with the good things which He hath given us, that He may not, like an angry father, disinherit his children, nor, like a dread lord, enraged at our evil deeds, hand us over to everlasting punishment as most wicked servants, who would not follow Him to glory.

What has always struck me by this passage is that it immediately takes what we normal conceive as the peaceful and uneventful life of the monastary and casts it in the mold of warfare. not just any warfare either, but rather a war with the highest stakes possible. This continues throughout its contents, as Benedict constantly reminds us that every day life is nothing short of a conflict between good and evil, with us as the combatants.

You can read the rest of the Rule here, at the Order's web site. Would that we all had the internal constitution to incorporate it into our own lives.

Holy Father Benedict, pray for us.

Jews Saved by Pius XII

According to Zenit, a group of Jews will be meeting with Pope Benedict to express their thanks for the Church's saving their lives during the Holocaust.

The Pave the Way foundation is bringing the group to visit the German Pontiff on June 18. It is just one initiative the foundation has undertaken to clear up misunderstandings about the Church and its role during the Holocaust.Another initiative is a September symposium on the papacy of Pope Pius XII.The Pave the Way foundation partnered with TV News Agency Rome Reports to videotape eye witness testimony. They uncovered secret activities of the Pope and members of the papal household to save the lives of Jews during the war.

Did anybody invite Cornwell and Wills? Will Foxman have the guts to even acknowledge this event's existence? Of course not. Slander is so much easier. For some wild reason, I don't see these guys having the courage to admit to shoddy scholarship, intellectual dishonesty, calumny, lies, and so forth. But hey, the truth is being told by those directly affected by it, so we can be happy about that and continue to pray for Pius XII's cause.

The Ultimate Goal of Ecumenism

Ecumenical work, the Pope continued, involves not merely an exchange of ideas but, more importantly, an exchange of gifts. Ultimately, he insisted, the effort "points toward a common celebration of the Eucharist, which Christ entrusted to his apostles as the sacrament of the Church's unity par excellence."

That's right. If it's not headed towards the full communion of the Eucharist, it's not going anywhere. That means no heresy, no schism. To be less blunt is to be disrespectful of other beliefs and a traitor to Christ.

Patting ourselves on the back for agreeing that God is a Trinity is sound and fury signifying nothing. It doesn't matter how many times we buy the world a Coke and sing kumbaya, until the major differences are frankly discussed, it is all worthless. And of course, the only real resolution is what the Pope is emphasizing in the CWN article. One Eucharist for One Flock under One Shepherd.

Rowan: The Gaffe That Keeps on Giving

I really do pity this man. I pray for him. He just can't win for losing. He gives this whole shpiel about Christian-Muslim relations. Most of it is ecumenical kumbaya-isms that would typically be ignored and passed on with a shrug. Not this time, though. He gives the whole shpiel and the Daily Mail prints this as the headline:

Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'

Yep. So just pile this on top of his "sharia as law" flak from a while ago. He could have just left this part out completely. But noooooo. He just had to say it.

He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'.

Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God.

Dr Williams added: 'It is all the more important for the sake of open and careful dialogue that we try to clarify what we do and do not mean by it, and so I trust that what follows will be read in this spirit.'

Rowan, we all know this. Guess what? Muslim doctrine is offensive to Christians! Yes! Denying that Christ is God is repugnant! The Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith. Guess what? Muslims hate it! So just why are we so worried about their "offended" feelings? This whole subplot in your shpiel just makes you look even more wobbly and less concerned about defending Christianity. Just leave it alone already!

Damien Thompson Refutes the Lies and Damn Lies

And he doesn't even need a lame headline to do it.

Benedict is Encouraging Anglican Converts pretty much says it all.

Here's the basic point that folks are ignoring:

The Pope is supporting moves by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to construct a model whereby a group of rebel conservative Anglicans, the Traditional Anglican Communion, can be received en masse and occupy their own structures inside the Roman Catholic Church. This model – which is being constructed in secret – could serve as a blueprint for mainstream Anglicans wanting to convert as a group.

The very fact that it's the CDF that negotiates this stuff is significant. They want the folks coming in to actually be Catholic, rather than Anglicans just looking for a place with an all-male episcopate. This is a good thing, I think.

For those wondering about some old Ratzinger/Kaspar history on this very topic, Thompson walks us down memory lane:

Always remember: it was Cardinal Ratzinger who sent a personal message of support to conservative Anglicans meeting in Dallas in 2003, thereby horrifying Kasper – who, as a professional ecumenist, probably is unsympathetic to Anglo-Catholics rocking the boat. But he, thank God, is soon to retire.

Some of the comments on this article's site are wary of the Pope's actions in all this. My question is just what the hell else is he supposed to do? Pretend like none of this is happening? There is historic precedent for this sort of action. For example Eastern Catholics were allowed to maintain their liturgical traditions and theological perspectives so long as they were not heretical. Most of them still use the non-Filioque creed. No big deal.

The Successor of Peter cannot act in any other way but to try and receive these poor shipwrecked souls into the Church.

Lies and Damn Lies

The British press just can't help themselves from lying about the Church. Under the title of "Pope Rides to Rowan's Rescue," The Independent wrote the following piece of bad comedy:

In his first public comments on the Lambeth Conference, Pope Benedict XVI has warned Anglican leaders that they must find a "mature" and faithful way of avoiding "schism". On top of this the Pope has:

* Sent three cardinals to the conference in Canterbury, including one of his top aides from the Vatican, to act as personal intermediaries between the two churches;
* Let it be known that he does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church;
* Given behind-the-scenes support to the Archbishop of Canterbury's attempts to hold together the conservative and liberal wings of the Anglican Church, including at face-to-face meetings in Rome.

What do all these bulleted points have in common? That they aren't true. Not even remotely.

Even better:

In a demonstration of the strength of relations between the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, Pope Benedict has sent Cardinal Ivan Dias, the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, and the man who appoints all the bishops in Africa and Asia, to Lambeth from Rome.

He has also sent the theological heavyweight Cardinal Walter Casper who is said to be the "key man" in forging ever-closer relations between the churches.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! I don't know which part of this is funnier. Is it (a) that Pope Benedict, who has a history of dumping on Kaspar's major initiatives (see Joint Declaration with Lutherans), would entrust anything this important to him, or (b), that Kaspar is a "theological heavyweight"? Really folks. Who did you find to give you this "key man" quote? Was this the breaking news at the Vatican barbershop?