Miami Priest “Outs” Archbishop Favalora?!

Dear readers:

This just in. Fellow RenewAmerica columnist Matt C. Abbott has just published a lengthy excerpt from a pseudonymously published book by a priest of the Miami Archdiocese, a “factional” (part fact/part fiction) work detailing the ecclesial life of that corrupt Archdiocese.

The book features financial and sex scandals, and strongly suggests that Archbishop Favalora is an active homosexual. Note: I do not necessarily endorse such an accusation. I am simply reporting it.

Check out the book yourself here: “The Virtuous One”

It should go without saying that such an accusation is gravely immoral if there is no truth to it. One hopes this anonymous priest has put his money where his mouth is, and informed the relevant Roman authorities if his accusations are indeed true!

Meanwhile, please continue to pray for the Miami Archdiocese, and Archbishop Favalora.

Yours Truly at Tallahassee Town Hall

Yesterday yours truly was present at a rally sponsored by the James Madison Institute and Americans for Prosperity, protesting the Obamacare legislation:

“Tallahassee: Rallies Heat Up Outside City Hall”

Here I am:

Eric Giunta carries a sarcastic sign during the Hands Off My Healthcare rally Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009 outside City Hall in Tallahassee, Fla. The rally was sponsored by Americans for Prosperity and the James Madison Institute.

Let me make clear where I stand on all this proposed legislation:

1) It is absolutely odious that the government would force taxpayers to contribute any money to abortion services and euthanasia counseling.

2) While I firmly believe that a serious conservatism must advocate and advance a public sense of social responsibility for those who cannot help themselves, it is unambiguously unconstitutional for the federal government to advance a “public option” healthcare system. Until the United States Constitution is duly amended, healthcare reform is solely an issue for the states, along with counties and municipalities.

3) In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, health care reform should leave as much to the free market as is socially responsible. Reasonable free-market solutions should be tried and tested before relying on government machinery to solve these problems. And when government is employed in the administration of health care, municipal and county intervention should be exhausted before recourse is had to a centralized state bureaucracy. This includes taxation. Let citizens in their own localities determine what their medical needs are, and raise their own taxes if and when they are ready to shoulder the burden of government-run health care

4) Proponents of healthcare reform do themselves no favor by exaggerating the problems. There is no “healthcare crisis” in America. The number of chronically uninsured is very low, and it simply is not the case that the uninsured necessarily go without adequate healthcare. (Even if the oft-cited “45 million uninsured” figure were accurate [and its not], that still leaves 80 percent of Americans with health insurance–hardly a crisis!)

5) We cannot have utopian expectations. The poor we will have always, along with those who get sick and die because “the system” fails them. This does not justify such failures, but it should put our expectations into perspective, and we ground us in the realism that failures do not a crisis make.

In short: libertarians and leftists both have this issue wrong. At least the former have the Constitution going for them vis-a-vis the federal government. What we need are common-sense solutions, several of which are making their way through Congress via the Republicans (if only the Democrats would let them get passed committee!). I for one am very sympathetic to the idea of co-ops, though I don’t believe it is constitutional for the federal government to subsidize them.

Breaking: Coadjutor Coming to Miami

Dear readers:

You heard it here first: Sources tell me the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami is soon to receive a coadjutor bishop, i.e., an assistant bishop who will succeed Archbishop Favalora when he retires next year.

Favalora’s reign, as documented on this blog and elsewhere, has not been a fruitful one for the Catholic Church in South Florida. Liturgical abuse and banality is rampant throughout the Archdiocese, the traditional liturgy is derided by most of the pastors, theological dissent is rampant, millions have been paid in sexual abuse settlements, and clerical immorality is commonplace.

The Archbishop is increasingly unpopular with his flock, as he recently announced that some 10 percent of the Archdiocese’s parishes are being shut down, due to dwindling Mass attendance and an inability to meet parish expenses. It is an indicator of the lack of evangelical fervour in the South Florida church. (Many notable exceptions exist, of course.)

In short: The incoming Archbishop of Miami will have his hands full.

Three names are being touted for the position: Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Bishop Frank Joseph Dewane of Venice in Florida, and Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the United States Military Services.

What significance what the appointment of any of these men mean for the Miami Archdiocese? Here’s what I know of their records:

1) Bishop Wenski has long distinguished himself by his advocacy for social justice, particularly among the immigrant community of South Florida. Since his coadjutorship of the Orlando Diocese, he has also distinguished himself by his outspoken defense of unborn human life. Before Bishop Dewane’s appointment in 2007, Wenski was the only one of the Florida bishops to courageously uphold his Church’s teaching that pro-abortion Catholic politicians be barred from receiving Communion. He also promised to enforce it in his Diocese. He made his stance (or rather, the Catholic Church’s) crystal clear in both the 2004 and 2008 general elections.

Wenski’s predecessor, Bishop Dorsey was hostile to the Catholic liturgical tradition, and deaf to the pleas of faithful Catholics who wanted to hear Mass according to the Church’s traditional rubrics.

By contrast, the traditional Catholic Mass has flourished under Wenski. Not a single parish offered it before he arrived; now, at least four do. This is rather impressive for such a small Diocese (small in terms of percentages of Catholics), and represents a new Latin Mass offered each year since Wenski assumed the episcopal throne in Orlando.

More recently, the Orlando diocese announced plans to renovate the cathedral, to make it look more Catholic.

I share then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment “that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today largely derives from the disintegration of the liturgy.” One thing is clear: Bishop Wenski shares Ratzinger’s liturgical sensibilities in a way most of the Florida bishops do not, and this can only bode well for the continued fortunes of his present Diocese, or for the Miami Archdiocese, should he be transferred there.

[Update: How could I forget: Bishop Wenski was one of the bishops who issued the strongest condemnations of Notre Dame's Obama invite, going so far as offering a very public Mass of Reparation for the offense against Catholic orthodoxy, and preaching a spell-binsing sermon at said Mass. Check thou it out!]

2) Bishop Dewane of Venice would also arrive in Miami with orthodox credentials well-established, despite his short episcopacy. The secular media snarkly labeled him a “conservative,” and so he has shown himself.

Under Bishop Nevins, Dewane’s predecessor, Venice was known as Florida’s “priestly dumping ground,” where clerical degenerates of all stripes were sent, far from the scenes of their vile crimes. Bishop Dewane’s had his hand full cleaning up the mess.

One of his first acts as Bishop was putting a halt to yoga classes occurring at one of his parishes during the celebration of Mass. The classes were held in an adjoining room, with see-through doors and walls. Catholics had to choose between new age mysticism or the Divine Liturgy, and worshippers at the latter had the former before their eyes while they worshipped! Bishop Dewane ordered the classes discontinued and was derided for it.

Liturgically speaking, Dewane courageously performed a most daring gesture: he invited the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter to set up a full-time apostolate in Sarasota (the only one of its kind in the entire state), and at least four other locations offer the traditional liturgy is regularly.

One of these is the new Ave Maria University. It was an open secret that Nevins and other bishops were none-to-pleased at the establishment of such a dynamically orthodox collegial institution so close to home. Not only did Dewane endorse and bless the university, solemnly consecrating its quasi-parish, but he did so after demanding that Ave Maria’s Oratory offer the Traditional Liturgy every week, which it now does. I for one never thought I’d see the day when a bishop in this state would demand that a robustly orthodox institution celebrate the usus antiquior!

Finally, Bishop Dewane reportedly was one of only two Florida bishops (with Wenski) to faithfully and accurately convey the Catholic Church’s teaching on how Catholics must vote, which issues they must give first priority to.

By the looks of it, sending Dewane to Miami would do wonders for South Florida.

3) As for Archbishop Broglio, there’s not much in his record to go by, though I assume he’s theologically orthodox. On the other hand, since taking up his latest post he’s distinguished himself by his less-than-generosity in implementing Pope Benedict’s liturgical reform of the reform. This contrasts rather sharply with the aforementioned prelates.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, it’s far too early to judge the merits and effectiveness of the present Pontificate. The appointment to Miami is crucial to the state of Florida. Not only does the Metropolitan Archbishop set the tone for his Province, he also has the greatest say and authority over the affairs of the state’s two seminaries, both of which are in dire need of reform. (Without going into all the sordid detail, let’s just say it’s a miracle the two never made it into Michael Rose’s expose Goodbye, Good Men.)

Readers of this blog will be notified on any further developments. Meanwhile, let us continue to pray and sacrifice for the Church in Florida.

Tallahassee Latin Masses

Important Announcement

Dear readers:

The liturgical reform of the reform is moving apace, slowly but steady, in the Catholic Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee. Yours truly has just been authorized to release this academic year’s schedule of Traditional Latin Masses. They will each be celebrated at 2:00 pm at Tallahassee’s Cathedral of St Thomas More.

Sunday, October 4, 2009 – Low Mass (with Hymns)

Sunday, January 10, 2010 – High Mass

Sunday, April 18, 2010 – High Mass

As you can see, the Masses are celebrated on a quarterly basis (there was one additional [Low Mass] celebrated on June 28). This is far from ideal, but the faithful are building up to a weekly High Mass.

But this ideal will not come to be unless there is consistent, significant attendance at these Masses (which there has been so far, thanks be to God), and if the faithful are not generous in their tithes when the collection plate comes around.

Rest assured: whatever is collected at these Masses goes toward the celebration of the traditional liturgy. The Mass on October 4 will be celebrated with a brand new set of gorgeous vestments, purchased from the funds collected on June 28.

So please be generous with both your time and money, and patronize these liturgies! Vote with your feet!

I encourage non-Catholics to attend as well. The traditional Catholic liturgy, with all its artistic treasures, is one of the historic bedrocks of Western Civilization, and so the common patrimony of all mankind. Your pressence would be most welcomed, and greatly appreciated.

There will probably be refreshments served after the Mass. Hope to see you all there. Reminders will be posted as we draw nearer to these dates.

Why Pope John Paul II Should Not Be Canonized

My latest piece for RenewAmerica:

Once again, the Catholic world has been rocked by yet more allegations of sexual impropriety by Legionnaires of Christ founder, the late Fr. Marcial Maciel. It seems the now-disgraced founder-cum-pervert fathered more children than previously suspected; the latest claimants to his paternity purport to have evidence that the late Pope John Paul II knew of Maciel’s sexual dalliances, and turned a blind eye to them. (If true, it would confirm the prior journalistic scholarship of author Jason Berry.)

The allegations highlight what for all too many Catholics is the elephant-in-the-room when discussing the ills which beset the modern Church: the extent to which the late Pope John Paul II was an enabler of these perversions, from sexual and liturgical abuse to theological dissent and the scandal of Catholic politicians who support the most immoral of social policies with the tacit or express blessings of their Church.

One does not need to deny or disparage the personal sanctity, thoughtful conservatism, or religious orthodoxy of the late Pontiff in order to acknowledge that his Pontificate, by all accounts, was a glorious failure. Yes, he aided in the fall of Eastern European Communism, but the Pope of Rome is not primarily a mover and shaker of state politics, but a Christian pastor whose mission it is to save souls, convert the lost, and govern his church in such a way that it resembles, as best as possible, the city on a hill, the light of the world whose radiance cannot be hid under a bushel-basket.

In terms of raw statistics, the Catholic Church shrank under the late Pope. Catholics comprised 18 percent of the world’s population in 1978, the year Karol Wojtyla assumed the Chair of St Peter. At his death Catholics comprised 17 percent.

It’d be foolish, of course, to let such numbers stand alone as leading Catholic indicators, but in terms of the quality of world Catholicism the evidence, while not as quantifiable, is no less apparent or tangible. If one is looking for the fruits of the Wojtylian pontificate, several studies of the modern church paint a representative picture: Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, and the pioneering work of Dr. Richard Sipe and Roman Catholic Faithful. These sources approach their subject matter from very varied ideological backgrounds, but they all paint a very bleak, but well-documented, picture of the prior pontificate.

Though Catholics and others are loathe to admit it of an otherwise beloved Pope, John Paul II oversaw a church which deteriorated in both its inner and outer life. His callous indifference toward the victims of priestly sexual abuse in refusing to meet personally with a single one of them, and his stubborn refusal to compel the resignation from office of any of the bishops who aided, abetted, and covered-up the abuse, are testamentary to his utter failure: not as a Catholic or a theologian, but as a Pope.

And this is precisely why he should not be canonized. For in the Catholic (and popular) understanding, canonization is not simply a technical decree indicating one’s everlasting abode in Paradise; it is, in addition, the Church’s solemn endorsement of a Christian’s heroic virtue. The question the Catholic Church must ask herself is: Was John Paul II a model of “heroic” papal virtue?

Contrary to leftist media reportage, the late Pope was not an authoritarian despot, bent on enforcing Catholic orthodoxy on an unwilling church. Quite the contrary: theological liberals and dissenters flourished in all of the Church’s structures, from lay politics and Catholic universities, to the ranks of priests and bishops. Not a single pro-abortion Catholic politician has been excommunicated from the church; only a handful of openly heretical priests were asked to stop teaching theology, but were otherwise permitted to exercise their priestly ministry unhindered. The Church in Austria openly dissents from orthodox Catholicism with papal impunity. Fr. Richard McBrien, Sr. Joan Chittiser, Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, Hans Kung, Charles Curran, Notre Dame University, dissenters galore: the overwhelming majority of prominent far-leftist, theologically modernist Catholic organizations, speakers, and theologians are Catholics in good standing with their church, and are frequently given an official platform at church-sponsored institutions and events. To give just two more examples, several Catholic parishes and universities flaunt themselves as “gay-friendly” in a directory published by the Conference of Catholic Lesbians. These speakers and institutions are in just as good standing with the Church as so-called “orthodox” Catholic pundits and writers.

After John Paul II, the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable from the Anglican Communion. Everyone has their seat at the table, liberal and conservative, high church and low. The “official” teaching of the Church may lean toward religious conservatism, but this is just one option out of many which a loyal Catholic may avail himself of and remain in good standing with his Church.

The late Pope’s governance of his church was laissez-faire, he personally adhering to conservative Catholic orthodoxy but not wishing to impose such on Catholic clergy or institutions. Ironically, the Papacy has been rather critical of governments who take such approaches to their economies; should it be the model for a church which regards itself as the one true religion?

The canonization of Pope John Paul II is an issue which concerns not only Catholics, but all traditionalist conservatives. For better or for worse (depending on one’s religious outlook), the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution on the planet, and historically regarded as a fairly conservative one. The Washington Times recently named Pope Benedict the de facto leader of world conservatism. Just as conservatives do not wish to see their foundational principles redefined by the nomination and election of conservatives-in-name-only, so the canonization of the late Pope would represent (among other things) his church’s influential imprimatur on a model of Christian pastorship that has eroded the foundational conservative principles of one of the world’s oldest and most venerable conservative institutions.

As noted earlier, the Papacy is the third-rail of orthodox Catholic discourse. The respect Catholics have for the Papal institution renders the living or recent claimants of that seat virtually impervious to criticism, as if such critique automatically rendered one implacably uncharitable or schismatic. When civil society regains its conservative bearings, history will not be kind to what any unbiased observer must regard as the gross pastoral negligence of the 21st century’s first Pope; if Catholics want to come out of the present cultural quagmire with their intellectual integrity intact, they must fearlessly shed the light of truth on that Pontiff’s pastorship, and be sure to end up on the right side of history’s verdict.

“Clarity, Please, or Silence”: An Open Letter to the Bishops of Florida

My latest piece for RenewAmerica:

Human Events has just published an insightful and courageous piece by Rev. Michael Orsi of Ave Maria School of Law, wherein the good Father carefully elucidates the difference between perennial Christian teaching (reflecting immutable natural law) and prudential judgment in applying that teaching: “Bishops Wrong: Health Care Not a Right”

The courage of this piece should not be lost on readers. Fr. Orsi is a Catholic priest, and we can safely assume it was only after much moral reflection that he decided on composing this piece, a charitable critique of the United States Catholic Bishops’ statements relating to public policy.

The truth must be embraced regardless of whose mouth it comes out of. Still, familiarity breeds contempt, and especially in light of recent history, the Bishops should be particularly precise and focused in their public remarks.

Sadly, such clarity and discretion continue to elude these statements. And the Bishops’ endorsement of the Democrats’ single-payer healthcare plan is just the latest example. Orthodox Catholics have long echoed the late Henry Hyde’s characterization of the Bishops’ Conference as “the Democratic Party at prayer,” and while this is not strictly fair, it is true that the Bishops have never found a spending provision or government-enlargement proposal lacking their approval (unless such proposals have involved subsidization of culture-of-death liberalism).

Without commenting on the merits of the proposed health-care reforms it does seem evident that men of goodwill (orthodox Christians included) can subscribe to the same fundamental set of moral principles and come to a prudential disagreement on what policies best advance those principles. In her official statements the Catholic Church has always made the distinction between non-negotiable truths which bind the truth and prudential judgments, which are worthy of serious consideration but are not strictly binding. These distinctions are often blurred when bishops’ statements on prudential matters are lifted from their overall pastoral context.

And so, for instance, no bishop has ever threatened Catholic politicians with ecclesiastical sanctions for supporting capital punishment or the Iraq War, despite the fact that such support contradicts the Church’s official policy positions.

Father Orsi’s latest article interests me for two reasons. For starters, in keeping with the noble tradition of Christian-democratic social teaching, he concedes that society does have a responsibility to provide care for the weak and the unfortunate:

The only [health] right that one human being owes to another is “medical care.” This means care and treatment for an immediate need. For instance, a person has a right to expect that civil society would provide for an emergency appendectomy even if he is without sufficient means to pay for it. Biblical support for medical care can be found in the Golden Rule and the story of the Good Samaritan. On the other hand, while preventive medicine such as an annual check-up or the right to elective surgery may benefit some people no where is it found as binding in the natural law or the Christian tradition.

Unfortunately, these distinctions and nuances are all too often nonexistent in conservative discourse on the issue of health care, lending weight to the stereotype that conservative social policy is amoral, or that conservative morality extends solely to below-the-belt behavior. Fr. Orsi is to be commended for articulating a coherent argument for social responsibility, and situating conservative policy within a natural law framework.

Secondly, Father Orsi’s analysis reminded me of a letter I sent several months ago to the Florida Catholic Conference, to which I never received a reply. It concerned what was then the latest public pronouncement by the Florida bishops on the imminent execution of a heinous murderer. I believed, and still do, that their statement lacked the proper nuance displayed in Fr. Orsi’s Human Events piece, and so failed to do full justice to authentic Catholic social teaching.

I reproduce below my correspondence in full, in the form of an open letter:

Your Excellencies:

As a practicing Catholic of the Miami Province, I wish to share some thoughts and concerns I have with regard to Your routine pronouncements on state executions of capital offenders.

Having as I do a literate grasp of the history of Catholic doctrinal development, and a well-researched understanding of why the Church has adopted the positions she has in applying her social doctrine to the circumstances of today, I am concerned that in Your pronouncements on some issues there are not sufficient clarifications made between immutable moral principles and prudential judgments.

It is my understanding, by the natural law and by the divine law explicated in the Church’s living tradition, that today’s magisterial consensus against the employment of capital punishment by lawful authority is of the latter kind: a prudential judgment. Though I believe this is unintentional, Your pronouncements sometimes give the impression that capital punishment is contrary to human dignity, and may only morally be applied when it is the only means available to mitigate the harm a convicted criminal might inflict on society.

It is my understanding that this is not an accurate representation of Catholic social teaching. Not only do the Scriptures (of both Testaments) presuppose and illustrate the natural right of the state to execute capital criminals, but the tradition of the Church is consistent in its teaching that capital punishment serves a justly retributive end when applied to criminals who have committed particularly grave moral offenses (particularly, though not exclusively, murder). Some modern pronouncements on capital punishment which have emanated from the Holy See sometimes give the impression, by their wording, that those condemned of capital crimes have a right to life, and that capital punishment inherently violates human dignity, but it seems to me that when there are apparent contradictions in magisterial teaching, we are to employ what our present Holy Father has called “a hermeneutic of continuity,” interpreting the current magisterium in light of, and not in contradiction to, the prior tradition. I have found the work of the late Avery Cardinal Dulles rather enlightening in applying this hermenutic to capital punishment.

Now, I appreciate that there are factors extrinsic to the death penalty which render its application undesirable, particularly in the light of modern circumstances. For instance, the prudential determination that it coarsens societal mores with regard to the respect for the sanctity of life. I understand and appreciate this determination, whatever private reservations I and other Catholics may have concerning it. My point, Your Excellencies, is that I wish that Your statements were clearer and more nuanced in this regard, that they made clear that capital offenders do not have a right to life, that capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral (even when bloodless means are available to render an offender “harmless”), and that orthodox Catholics (and others of good will) may ethically disagree with Your prudential judgment on this matter.

My paramount concern is that Catholics who do not have as sophisticated an understanding of their faith might be led to draw false equivalences between capital punishment and, say, abortion, euthanasia, and other offenses which really are inherently evil and really do violate the right to life of innocent persons. My concerns are not hypothetical, but are based on the situations I and several of our Catholic brothers and sisters have encountered in trying to accurately portray the Church’s social doctrine to those who would misuse Your episcopal pronouncements to justify such equivalences.

I appreciate Your taking the time to consider my concerns, and ask Your prayers for myself, my family, my work, and my studies, as I in turn continue to ask God’s blessings on You and Your ministry of preaching the Gospel and administering Christ’s mysteries to His people. Begging Your blessing, I remain

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Eric Giunta

Birth Certificate Controversy

As readers of the blog know, I’ve taken a keen interest, from the start, in the Obama birth-certificate controversy.

After half-a-year of reading everything I could on the controversy, I believe the preponderance of the evidence points to the President’s having been born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, just as he says.

But I’m afraid this doesn’t end the controversy.  The fact of the matter is, the President is going to odd, disproportionate lengths to keep nearly every facet of his personal life hidden from public scrutiny. This is disturbing in itself, all the more so from a President who has promised to be the most transparent in our nation’s history.

I highly recommend the following editorial which has appeared in today’s edition of National Review Online:

“Suborned in the U.S.A.”

It is the most comprehensive account of the controversy, the legitimate questions whose answers are being sought, and what implications this has for any assessment of the moral and political character of the President. It also makes for a quick, enjoyable read.

The article’s tagline summarizes it best: The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.

Why All REAL Centrists Are Conservatives

My latest piece for RenewAmerica, of which I am now a regular columnist:

I used to believe that being a part of the far-right meant that one had an affinity for fascist political philosophy; after six years of undergraduate education and a year of law school, and having lived most of my adult life under the Bush-II presidency, I’ve come to realize that in the eyes of the American intelligentsia (that unholy trinity of Academy, Arts, and Media) what constitutes far-right thinking is nothing other than adherence to the traditional principles of mainstream conservatism.

When asked to give an example of a prominent proponent of far-right thinking, the typical American graduate student will name Rush Limbaugh before Benito Mussolini, Ann Coulter before Adolf Hitler, and Sarah Palin before Augusto Pinochet.

I began collegiate studies identifying myself as a centrist, and as time went by grew to embrace the far-right nomination. But over the past few weeks I’ve begun to reflect anew on my convictions, and have come to a startling realization: I am centrist, and I am centrist because I am conservative.

However counterintuitive this declaration may seem, the truth of it is borne out by the facts. When I go through my beliefs, one-by-one, I fiind that they are shared by a broad consensus of the American people.

1. I believe in God, and am a practicing member of the Christian religion.

Whoa, what am I, some kind of a religious fanatic, even a nutter? Actually, I’m just a mainstream American, by all accounts. According to the most recent studies on the subject by Pew Forum, a mere ten percent of Americans identify as “atheist, agnostic, or secular unaffiliated.” Okay, so I’m very mainstream in my belief in God.

Oh, and lookie here: according to that same study, almost eight out of every ten Americans identifies as a Christian! Can’t get much more on the fringe than that, can we?!

Statistics for the world, provided by the CIA Factbook, show that I’m rather mainstream even on that scale. Turns out a mere two percent of the world is professed atheist, and a trifling twelve percent describe themselves as “non-religious,” (whatever that means). Meanwhile, 86 percent of the world subscribes to some sort of religious belief system, and Christians hold a plurality, claiming just under a third of the world’s population.

Religiosity is not only mainstream by today’s standards; it is so historically. The great majority of men who have ever existed have been believers in a Deity and subscribers to some sort of religious faith, and this also holds true for most of the great men and women who have contributed to the building of human civilization: artists, philosophers, scientists, statesmen, sportsmen, humanitarians, etc.

It was religious people who abolished slavery, and invented science, the rule of law and charity as we know it.

Whatever position one personally holds on the subject of religious faith, it is conservatives who are in the mainstream in professing and venerating it, and the irreligious who are on the fringes of civil society.

2. I believe the United States to be a Christian nation (not a Christian theocracy).

The Left may take exception to this, but exactly how way-out-there am I in saying this about a country whose vast majority of citizens profess the Christian religion, and always have? Even our current President has tacitly conceded that we “once were” a Christian country.

Incidentally, a recent study found that most Americans agree with me on this point, and that furthermore, most even believe teachers should be allowed to lead prayer in public schools!

And once again, history is on my side here. When radical secularists claim that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, they are actually referring to a handful who have become household names. This is faulty for several reasons: first, it proves too much: most of our “Deist” Founders were very robust in that Deism, and did not try to impose their Deism on the country, quite unlike the atheist-imposing antics of secular religions like the ACLU. (It also ignores the fact that Enlightenment-era Deism owes much of its substance to its Christian antecedents.)

In any event, there at least 204 men who would qualify for the title of “Founding Father,” the vast majority of whom were professed Christians.

And as it so happens, the United States Supreme Court back in 1892 said that America was a Christian nation, and gave copious documentation of that fact.

It is not conservatives, but rather those who would deny this history, and ignore the sentiments of the great majority of Americans, who are well outside the mainstream on this point.

3. I believe that innocent human life should not be murdered. Sticking forks in the necks of nine-month old unborn children is a bad thing.

Need I say more? The overwhelming majority of Americans belong to religious traditions which historically have regarded abortion as nothing less than infanticide, and it’s simply a biological fact (not a philosophical assertion) that a conceptus is an individuated human substance: a human being at a more primitive stage of development but a human being nonetheless.

It is actually so-called “pro-choicers” who try to impose their personal religious beliefs on society by insisting on an arbitrary distinction between “human life” and “personhood,” as if the two were not in fact concomitant, if not coterminous.

Thankfully, most Americans today identify as pro-life, and in any event a belief can hardly be considered fringe when at least half of the population has always subscribed to it.

By contrast, among how many self-identified pro-choicers is it mainstream to advocate for partial-birth abortion, late-term abortion, opposition to parental consent laws (heck, opposition to parental notification laws), opposition to informed consent, forced taxpayer subsidization of abortion, etc? Of the pro-choicers I know, very few of them adhere to the Democratic Party’s advocacy for each of these, and once again the stats bear me out.

On the pro-life issue, doctrinaire conservatives are a lot closer to the American mainstream than the pro-choice lobby or the Democratic Party.

4. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. The natural life-mate of any mammalian male is a female of that same species.

Just where the heck do I get this from, nature or somethin’?!

This one is so easy even a child can understand it. No, literally: children can and do understand this. Don’t believe me? Leave a girl to her own devices, to play House or Barbies. Still don’t believe me? Take a look at the doodled masterpiece behind your son’s seat on the school bus.

Once again, conservatives are on the side of the historical mainstream. There has literally never been a civilization on the face of the planet that has ever sanctioned the solemnization of homogenital unions. Nope, never; this in spite of all the differences which have existed in marriage rites and set-ups: societies can’t seem to agree on the ceremonial minutiae, age requirements, how many wives to permit, etc. But they are all unanimous (or were until eight years ago) that marriage was only between a man and a woman.

And this consensus by and large still holds today. Most countries in the world do not perform or recognize same-sex marriages. Closer to home, most of the United States do not recognize gay marriage and every State that has submitted this to a popular vote has banned it—even California!

Once again, conservatives are middle-of-the-road on a controversial social issue—which actually is not all that controversial.

5. I believe that people should be allowed to keep most of what they earn. I believe that countries, like people, cannot afford to spend money they do not have.

Whoa, baby! Here we go—I am such a right-wing fascist, aren’t I? As the popular Tea Party demonstrations have, well, demonstrated, I guess I’m quite mainstream here too!

6. I believe that government which is closest to its people is better able to gauge that people’s needs than a far-flung bureaucracy operating out of Washington, DC.

One of the ways the Left tries to discredit conservatives is by confusing us with libertarians. The vast majority of conservatives do not advocate doctrinaire laissez-faire libertarianism. As believers in an objective moral order, we’re happy to concede, and even to promote, social responsibilities alongside personal responsibility, solidarity alongside subsidiarity.

We don’t, however, equate society with government, at least not government alone. We draw concentric circles around the individual. Society begins first with that individual; whatever he cannot provide for himself should be assisted by his immediate relations, then by his extended family, then by friends, then by local intermediate institutions (especially churches and local charities), then municipal government, then county government, then state government, and finally, as a last resort, the Feds, in a manner not inconsistent with the rule of law (namely, the United States Constitution).

Is any of this radical, let alone extreme? Everyone, I have ever suggested this model to has told me they found it sensible (yes, even my colleagues).

And by the looks of it, American’s aren’t pleased with President Obama’s big-government solutions to our problems. Score one more for the conservatives.

Conclusion

As will be apparent, it has not been the object of this survey to demonstrate the objective validity of any of the six principles I have outlined above. This really ought not to disturb any Leftist, since most of them are dogmatic or functional relativists,–but I digress!

I have endeavored to make one point and one point alone: If one really wants to embrace a philosophy of mainstream, centrist commonsense he must, to one degree or another, embrace traditionalist conservatism.

By itself, this manifesto of mine cannot be a charter for a conservative resurgence in the American power structures. But if we are ever to restore this country to its moral and philosophical foundations, conservatives must start by countering Leftist propaganda which systematically portrays our deepest-held beliefs as fringe or extremist.

Before we can convince people our beliefs are true, we need to first show them they are respectable.

Miami Mass Wars

Miracle of miracles, folks! The Archdiocese of Miami has just noticed that the Holy Father has been calling for Catholics to reacquaint themselves with the traditional Latin Mass. You can follow the discussion with Msgr Terrence Hogan, the Archdiocese’s chief liturgist, here.

As you can see, yours truly and others, while taking the time to thank the good Monsignor for bringing attention to the usus antiquior, also took the time to clarify what we believed were a few misconceptions one could take away from the Monsignor’s piece.

Which bring us to some guy named Luis Estrada, who immediately went on the offensive and tried to give my comments and others the most uncharitable of readings. Who is Mr. Estrada? No one I’ve ever heard of, this despite the fact that he runs some blog calling itself the Miami Latin Mass Society. From what I can gather, this “Society” has exactly two members: Mr. Estrada and his computer.

I have been working for years alongside several others in the Miami Archdiocese to shed light on the problems there, including the call for a reform of the liturgical reform, and I have never so much as heard of this “Society.”

Now, Mr. Estrada seems like a good man, and I’m sure his intentions are noble. But the last thing Catholics in that Archdiocese need is self-righteous armchair activists throwing stones at those who have been fighting the culture wars longer than they themselves have.

What’s worse, Mr. Estrada would not give me the opportunity to publicly defend myself against his accusations on his blog. And so I do so here:

Mr. Estrada:

There is no need for you to speak uncharitably of Catholics who are of like mind with you, share your love for the Church and her liturgy, but happen to take a different, but complimentary, approach than you do to these questions. Nothing that has been said on the Miami Archdiocese’s blog was heretical, schismatic, or immoral.

There has to be a way that we can charitably correct our pastors when they (even in good faith) spread misinformation about the Traditional Mass. This misinformation, such as appeared in the blog entry in question, just reinforces negative stereotypes about traditional liturgy.

I might very well be wrong, but if you ask me why your questions were never answered by the Monsignor, here’s my reply: The Archdiocese of Miami does not give a rat’s foot for your questions, and has no real interest in promoting the Tridentine Mass oo the Ratzingerian liturgical reform of the reform, the basic premises of which most of our priests are simply ignorant.

I am NOT saying this is Msgr Hogan’s position, but it IS that of the Archdiocese, and nothing will change until we receive a new Archbishop.

By the way, I’m a former applicant to the seminary formation program of the Archdiocese. Let’s just say I could have written a chapter for Michael Rose’s “Goodbye, Good Men,” and my active participation in a local Latin Mass Community was unacceptable for the vocation admissions board. This was only four years ago.

I have seen several seminarians from St John Vianney visit St Robert Bellarmine in Miami for the Sunday morning Missa Cantata. Not one of them has ever been from our Archdiocese. Usually from Orlando and Venice, never from Miami.

For the record, I am not schismatically inclined, and have had to suffer much for retaining communion with Archbishop Favalora when I could have availed myself of the beautiful liturgy offered at neighboring schismatic parishes.

It is my informed belief that the only thing that will be effective in promoting liturgical reform in the Archdiocese, at this point in our development, is to charitably demand the rights we are owed as Catholics, and then appeal to Rome (and publicize in the Catholic media) when those rights are violated.

I would never recommend starting with this approach, but years of diplomatic negotiation have failed–the closing of St Robert Bellarmine is proof of this, as the Latin Mass Community there has been deliberately retarded, stunted in its growth, and never allowed to prosper. I’ll refrain from going into detail out of charity toward the authorities involved.

Hear Lex on Radio Interview!

Dear friends:

For those interested, I will be discussing my latest article on RenewAmerica.us, “Obama’s Pope: How the Catholic Church Brought Abortion to America”, with Paul Lamon on his radio show, “My New Dawn”, at 6PM this evening.

You can catch it live through that website, or listen to the archived version at the same. Especially if you are a reader of the blog, feel free to call in and ask questions or share your thoughts.