Justice?

Several years ago a new 'technology' for communicating with the mentally handicapped appeared on the scene. It was called Facilitated Communication or FC. A facilitator would hold the hand of a disabled person over a keyboard and suddenly the disabled person would -- with the assistance of the facilitator -- would suddenly type out wonderful messages. In no time at all the technique swept around the country, winning the approval of important people, such as Zell Miller, Governor of Georgia who established a special program to spread the technique throughout the schools of his state.

Then another fact started to appear in the pages of newspapers across the nation. In quite a few cases, the facilitators turned out to be sexual predators, who forced the handicapped to type out entertaining stories about sexual abuse. In case after case, parents were arrested and families destroyed. It is unclear how many such families were involved, since they were handled in special secret family courts.

As time went on, though, it became clear that FC lacked the support of the scientific community. Many criminal prosecutions fizzled.

But one must ask, why weren't the real perpetrators of sexual abuse -- the so-called facilitators, themselves -- arrested? Most of the guilty parties, of course, worked for the state. In general, they pretended ignorance. So prosecutors gave them a pass.

And what happened to the politically powerful, such as Zell Miller? He went on to the United States' Senate.

We strongly doubt that he ever bothered to apologize to the people who suffered as a result of FC. Do Zell and those others in a similar position care about the innocent people whom they stepped on? We doubt it. Powerful men routinely step on little, innocent people. That simply comes with the turf. It certainly doesn't seem to bother him that a few individuals were sexually abused as the direct result of his playing God.

The facts are clear. He could have stopped the prosecutions very easily. But no, that would have been embarrassing.

We wish Zell all the happiness in the world in retired bliss. It would be nice if he had the courtesy to have cared for those others who suffered so he could rise to prominence.

Eminent Domain

The appointment of John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court has raised eyebrows across the nation. The opinions of the political left may be seen in the aggressive distortions pushed by the National Abortion Rights Action League, (NARAL) which launched a $500,000 ad campaign linking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (and all pro-life Americans for that matter) to abortion bombings and an "ideology that excuses violence."

The political right, meanwhile, has tended to take a more moderate view, saying that it doesn't matter to them whether Judge Roberts is conservative or liberal. What matters is that he follow the original intent of the Constitution. Perhaps they are sincere. Or perhaps they know that Judge Roberts is, in fact, conservative. But their claim deserves a closer examination.

As it happens, an interesting test case for the sincerity of those who talk of original intent has recently come up. We refer to the question of Eminent Domain. Do the several states and their political subdivisions have a Constitutional right to seize private property for any public use whatsoever? It seems that they do. See Kelo v. New London.

The recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in that case has raised the ire of people on both sides of the political divide. "A man's home is his castle." Or so it used to be.

But what is the original intent of the law? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, among other things, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." That might seem to say all that needs to be said. But the Fifth Amendment refers to the Federal Government, only. It placed no restriction on the several states.

The plot thickens, however, when one considers the Fourteenth Amendment. It says, (in part) "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

But what is "due process of law?" It means that one can sue the states. But it does not guarantee the result of such a suit.

That does not, however, explain why in this particular case, the plaintiffs lost. To understand that, one must look at the conservative's favorite amendment, the Tenth. It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What the Supreme Court has decided is that there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the several states from seizing property belonging to private citizens for public uses, provided that it is done in accordance with due process of law. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, it is up to the states to regulate themselves, the only Federal question being that it is done according to law.

The decision seems to be in perfect accord to the doctrine of original intent. If people do not like state laws they should change them through legislation at the state level.

So why are conservatives expressing outrage? They may, indeed see this as a liberal decision. But aren't they saying that it doesn't matter as long as the court follows original intent?

It is a real mystery.

Tish'a B'Av

The Ninth of Av is said to have been the saddest day in Jewish history. Jewish tradition holds that it was on that day that both the First Temple -- built by King Solomon -- and the Second Temple -- built after the Babylonian Captivity -- were destroyed.

This year Tish'a B'Av fell on Sunday, August 14^th. It too has been a time of sorrow for the Jews of Israel. For it marked the beginning of the Gaza pullout. Thousands of Jewish settlers in Gaza are being forced to leave homes, which they have occupied for years.

Violence has marked this event. Jews have taken up arms against the Palestinians whom they blame for their sorrows. Some have died.

Let us pray that Our Lady of Sorrows will comfort all those who are grieved by these events.

Time, Evolution and the Dormition

Time Magazine's issue for August 15^th includes an article about the current controversy regarding the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Aside from the purely technical description of the two ideas, the question is largely philosophical and theological.

Let us note, first of all the extreme hatred, which the advocates of Evolution have for Intelligent Design. They want to prevent the idea from being proposed to students, lest anyone come to believe in it. Why? Because they conceive it as being nothing more than a clever way to introduce the concept of God into a purely scientific discussion. Such a position makes little sense, given the fact that science depends on the free flow of ideas, regardless of their source.

Many say that there is nothing to keep Christ's faithful from believing in Evolution. God could have created the universe in whatever manner God wanted. If God wanted to create through random variations over billions of years then there would be nothing to stop God from doing that.

The conclusion, however, is untenable. But before we consider the reason for that, let us reflect on the fact that August 15 -- the very day on which this article appeared -- is the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. Is it possible that the Most Pure, All Holy, Ever Blessed Virgin and Mother of God was the result of random variations and the survival of the fittest? The very concept is ridiculous. Random variation could never produce She whose womb is more spacious than the heavens...

In You, O Woman, Full of Grace,
the angelic choirs and the human race -
all creation rejoices! All creation rejoices!
O Sanctified Temple, Mystical Paradise and
Glory of Virgins, He, Who is our God, from
before all ages, took flesh from You and became
a child! He made Your womb a throne! A throne
greater than the heavens! In You, O Woman,
Full of Grace, In You, O Woman, Full of Grace,
all creation rejoices, all creation rejoices! All
praise be to You! All praise be to You! All
praise be to you!

Of course, one cannot expect the worldly philosopher to understand the principles upon which God's providence rests. But Christ's faithful, at least, ought to realize that there are no accidents. Everything has been provided for from eternity.

Except ye be converted, and become as little children...

Sunday I had the pleasure of returning to a Byzantine-Rite Catholic church. It had been a couple of months since I had the pleasure of attending the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. I had -- for a variety of reasons -- been attending another Catholic church during that time -- a church of the Syro-Malabar Rite.

While I was there I witnessed something shocking to both conservative Catholics and feminist radicals, alike -- seeing small children; even infants in their mothers' arms -- receiving the Precious Blood of our Blessed Lord, Jesus. Yet what could be more natural than that Christ's Faithful should share His Precious Blood with their children? For me, it was a real joy.

As I say, the opposition to paedo-communion unites conservative Catholics with radical feminists. For paedo-communion turns their worldviews upside down. The conservative Catholic asks, "How one can give the Eucharist to one who doesn't understand what the Eucharist is?" It seems to be a vain and offensive act to do so. The radical feminist is offended in seeing a church that actually treats babies as if they were real people. These two views coming from widely divergent sources stand in clear opposition to the Gospel...

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:1-4

For the Eucharist is -- or should be -- a pro-life sacrament. What better way is there to celebrate our children before God and man? Who can doubt that they are God's greatest gift to mankind?

Should one condemn the Church for the blindness of some of Her children? Certainly not! What we can say is that the Rome's position on paedo-communion is not consistent with other, more pro-life positions that the Church has taken. This is hardly surprising in an institution with as long and colorful history as that of the Catholic Church.

In the days since the Second Vatican Council much has changed. Here the Church has a perfect opportunity to restore the apostolic practice. Saint Augustine, it is said, considered paedo-communion to be absolutely essential to the Church. Let us hope that our current pontiff, Benedict, who we understand to be fond of Saint Augustine's views, will do him the honor of restoring this excellent, ancient practice throughout the Western Church.

One can't win if one refuses to fight.

I have been hearing from some who oppose my statements regarding Abortion and Paedo-communion. There are, of course, the cries of outrage from feminists. But there are some more reasoned thoughts, as well.

I am not a theologian. But some things are clear. No one can escape the consequences for their decisions. That is true of the Church as much as of any of us mere mortals. As such, the Church must face the world that the Church created. For the modern world was in large measure created by the decisions that the Church has made.

Over the lifetime of the Church there has been a continual progression in which the Church has grown farther and farther from the lives of simple family men and women.

How many bishops know a thing about raising children? How many priests do? Perhaps they remember how their own parents worked themselves to the bone for their families. Perhaps that is one of the reasons they chose a life far removed from the daily cares of ordinary human beings.

Long ago, the Western Church decided that only bishops should be allowed to administer Holy Chrism (''Confirmation''). What was the result? Well, bishops are Very Important People. It would hardly suit their elevated estate to be going about chrismating babies. So the age when one received Holy Chrism was pushed back. There are ways of justifying that, theologically. They weren't wrong to do that, but there are consequences to that decision.

Priests are, of course, Very Important People, as well. Administering the Eucharist both as consecrated bread and as consecrated wine is inconvenient. It was easy enough to come up with reasons why priests shouldn't be expected to do that. After all, they might spill the wine. The Church wasn't wrong to restrict the Eucharist to consecrated bread, but there are consequences to that decision. One of the consequences was that it became impossible to give the Eucharist to the youngest of Christ's Faithful. To get around that, they invented First Communion. The Church wasn't wrong to restrict the Eucharist by age, but there are consequences to that decision.

Then things started to unravel. One of the consequences of the Church's denial of the Eucharist to children was that it seemed to imply that if you don't understand the Eucharist, you could not profit from it. Thus, by denying the Eucharist to children the Church had made the Sacred Mysteries appear to depend on the understanding of the recipient. Slowly, mere devotion to the Eucharist had replaced the ''essential'' grace of the Mysteries in the minds of all too many.

By the time Martin Luther came on the scene, faith in the Sacred Mysteries had all but evaporated in the minds of many.

But things continued to get worse. Protestant ministers are Very Important People, too. It seemed to many of them that they didn't need to baptize children. After all, the Catholic Church had denied the Eucharist to children. It was a simple step to deny them baptism. There are, of course, ways to justify that.

Perhaps the Council of Trent could have returned to the ancient practice of giving the Eucharist to children. But that would have been embarrassing. So they held firm and dug the hole a bit deeper by expressly forbidding the practice. They claimed the right to do that. I do not disagree with that claim. But there are consequences to that decision.

Unfortunately, things continued to unravel. Protestants had no real basis for authority. As a result, their congregations fragmented again and again. And as religion fragmented the state became unstable. They tried replacing religion with secular humanism, a project that was bound to fail.

Was anyone surprised when the United State's Supreme Court decided that abortion is unconstitutional? Without faith to back it up, the result was inevitable.

Where did we go wrong?

Perhaps Saint Augustine would have said that it was when the Church decided that it could bypass the Lord's command: "Suffer the little children to come unto me..."

Abortion and Paedo-Communion

Infant Communion (also known as Paedo-communion) refers to the practice of giving the Eucharist, in the form of consecrated wine, to newly baptized children, in accordance with the words of Christ in the Gospel: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:14). At one time, the Catholic Church permitted and encouraged parents to present their children to receive the Eucharistic species of wine served with a spoon, though the practice has since fallen into disfavor with the Roman Church.

Abortion
What is the connection, you ask, between Abortion and Paedo-Communion? Certainly Christ, being True God, was a prophet. Perhaps we should look back at His words. Why did he command the Apostles to "suffer the little children?" Was there a lesson in his command for us, today? The Roman Church will not see it. They are blinded by years and years of denial.

There are churches, which allow Paedo-communion. The Orthodox do it, as do certain Eastern-Rite Catholic churches. I have attended such a church. In my humble opinion the practice is a beautiful one. To see Mothers and Fathers carrying an infant to receive the Precious Blood of Christ proclaims to all the love, which men ought to have for the least among us. It is a powerful pro-life sacrament. Seeing mere babies treated as Christ intended is something that would warm the heart of the hardest NOW feminist.

How wonderful Paedo-communion is! It makes one wonder why it is that so many oppose it. Why is the Roman Church afraid to obey Christ's command?

I hope that one day the Roman Church returns to the Gospel and restores the ancient practice. Let us pray!