Denver, Colo., Apr 9, 2017 / 04:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In 1970, there was one priest for every 800 Catholics in the United States.
Today, that number has more than doubled, with one priest for every 1,800 Catholics.
Globally, the situation is worse. The number of Catholics per priest increased from 1,895 in 1980 to 3,126 in 2012, according to a report from CARA at Georgetown University. The Catholic Church in many parts of the world is experiencing what is being called a “priest shortage” or a “priest crisis.”
Last month, Pope Francis answered a question about the priest shortage in a March 8 interview published in the German weekly Die Zeit. The part that made headlines, of course, was that about married priests.
“Pope Francis open to allowing married priests in Catholic Church” read a USA Today headline. “Pope signals he’s open to married Catholic men becoming priests” said CNN.
But things are not as they might seem. Read a little deeper, and Pope Francis did not say that Fr. John Smith at the parish down the street can now ditch celibacy and go looking for a wife.
What the Holy Father did say is that he is open to exploring the possibility of proven men (‘viri probati,’ in Latin) who are married being ordained to the priesthood. Currently, such men, who are typically over the age of 35, are eligible for ordination to the permanent diaconate, but not the priesthood.
However, marriage was not the first solution to the priest shortage Pope Francis proposed. In fact, it was the last.
Initially, he didn’t even mention marriage.
Pressed specifically about the married priesthood, the Pope said: “optional celibacy is discussed, above all where priests are needed. But optional celibacy is not the solution.”
While Pope Francis perhaps signals an iota more of openness to the possibility of married priests in particular situations, his hesitance to open wide the doors to a widespread married priesthood is in line with his recent predecessors, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as well as the longstanding tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
So why is the Church in the West, even when facing a significant priest shortage, so reticent to get rid of a tradition of celibacy, if it is potentially keeping away additional candidates to the priesthood?
Why is celibacy the norm in the Western Church?
Fr. Gary Selin is a Roman Catholic priest and professor at St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver. His work Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations was published last year by CUA press.
While the debate about celibacy is often reduced to pragmatics – the difficulty of paying married priests more, the question of their full availability – this ignores the rich theological foundations of the celibate tradition, Fr. Selin told CNA.
One of the main reasons for this 2,000 year tradition is Christological, because it is based on the first celibate priest – Jesus.
“Jesus Christ himself never married, and there’s something about imitating the life our Lord in full that is very attractive,” Fr. Selin said.
“Interestingly, Jesus is never mentioned as a reason for celibacy. The next time you read about celibacy, try to see if they mention our Lord; oftentimes he is left out of the picture.”
Christ’s life of celibacy, while compatible with his mission of evangelization, would not have been compatible with marriage, because “he left his home and family in Nazareth in order to live as an itinerant preacher, consciously renouncing a permanent dwelling: ‘The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head,’” Fr. Selin said, refering Matthew 8:20.
Several times throughout the New Testament, Christ praises the celibate state. In Matthew 19:11-12, he answers a question from his disciples about marriage, saying that those who are able by grace to renounce marriage and sexual relations for the kingdom of heaven ought to do so.
“Of the three manners in which one is incapable of sexual activity, the third alone is voluntary: ‘eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs [emphasis added].’ These people do so ‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,’ that is, for the kingdom that Jesus was proclaiming and initiating,” Fr. Selin explained.
Nevertheless, it took a while for the “culture of celibacy” to catch on in the early Church, Fr. Selin said.
Christ came to earth amid a Jewish people and culture who were instructed since their first parents of Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28, 9:7) and were promised that their descendants would be “as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore” (Gen. 22:17). Being unmarried or barren was to be avoided for both practical and religious reasons, and was seen as a curse, or at least a lack of favor from God.
The apostles, too, were Jewish men who would have been a part of this culture. It is known that among them, at least St. Peter had been married at some time, because Scripture mentions his mother-in-law (Mt. 8:14-15).
St. John the Evangelist is thought by the Church fathers to be one of the only of the 12 apostles who was celibate, which is why Christ had a particular love for him, Fr. Selin said. Some of the other apostles likely were married, in keeping with Jewish customs, but it is thought that they practiced perpetual continence (chosen abstinence from sexual relations) once they became apostles for the rest of their lives. St. Paul the Apostle extols the celibate state, which he also kept, in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8.
Because marriage was such an integral part of Jewish culture, even for the apostles, early Church clergy were often, but not always, married. However, evidence suggests that these priests were asked to practice perfect continence once they had been ordained. Priests whose wives became pregnant after ordination could even be punished by suspension, Fr. Selin explained.
Early on in the Church, bishops were selected from the celibate priests, a tradition that stood before the mandatory celibate priesthood. Even today, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, most of which allow for married priests, select their bishops from among celibate priests.
As the “culture of celibacy” became more established, it increasingly became the norm in the Church, until married men who applied for ordinations had to appeal to the Pope for special permission.
In the 11th century, St. Gregory VII issued a decree requiring all priests to be celibate and asked his bishops to enforce it. Celibacy has been the norm ever since in the Latin Rite, with special exceptions made for some Anglican and other Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism.
A sign of the kingdom
Another reason the celibate priesthood is valued in the Church is because it bears witness to something greater than this world, Fr. Selin explained.
Benedict XVI once told priests that celibacy agitates the world so much because it is a sign of the kingdom to come.
“It is true that for the agnostic world, the world in which God does not enter, celibacy is a great scandal, because it shows exactly that God is considered and experienced as reality. With the eschatological dimension of celibacy, the future world of God enters into the reality of our time. And should this disappear?” Benedict XVI said in 2010.
Christ himself said that no one would be married or given in marriage in heaven, and therefore celibacy is a sign of the beatific vision (cf. Mt 22:30-32).
“Married life will pass away when we behold God face to face and all of us become part of the bridal Church,” Fr. Selin said. “The celibate is more of a direct symbol of that.”
Another value of celibacy is that it allows priests a greater intimacy with Christ in more fully imitating him, Fr. Selin noted.
“The priest is ordained to be Jesus for others, so he’s able to dedicate his whole body and soul first of all to God himself, and from that unity with Jesus he is able to serve the church,” he said.
“We can’t get that backwards,” he emphasized. Often, celibacy is presented for practical reasons of money and time, which aren’t sufficient reasons to maintain the tradition.
“That’s not sufficient and that doesn’t fill the heart of a celibate, because he first wants intimacy with God. Celibacy first is a great, profound intimacy with Christ.”
A married priest’s perspective: Don’t change celibate priesthood
Father Douglas Grandon is one of those rare exceptions – a married Roman Catholic priest.
He was a married Episcopalian priest when he and his family decided to enter the Catholic Church 14 years ago, and received permission from Benedict XVI to become a Catholic priest.
Even though Fr. Grandon recognizes the priest shortage, he said opening the doors to the married priesthood would not solve the root issue of that shortage.
“In my opinion, the key to solving the priest shortage is more commitment to what George Weigel calls evangelical Catholicism,” Fr. Grandon told CNA.
“Whether you’re Protestant or Catholic, vocations come from a very strong commitment to the basic commands of Jesus to preach the Gospel and make disciples. Wherever there’s this strong evangelical commitment, wherever priests are committed to deepening people’s faith and making them serious disciples, you have vocations. That is really the key.”
He also said that while he’s “ever so grateful” that St. John Paul II allowed for exceptions to the celibate priesthood in 1980 – allowing Protestant pastor converts like himself to become priests – he also sees the value of the celibate priesthood and does not advocate getting rid of it.
“…we really do believe the celibate vocation is a wonderful thing to be treasured, and we don’t want anything to undermine that special place of celibate priesthood,” he said.
“Jesus was celibate, Paul was celibate, some of the 12 were celibate, so that’s a special gift that God has given to the Catholic Church.”
Fr. Joshua J. Whitfield is another married priest, who resides in Dallas and is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News. He recently wrote about his experience as a married priest, but also said that he would not want the Church to change its celibacy norm.
“What we need is another Pentecost. That’s how the first ‘shortage’ was handled. The Twelve waited for the Holy Spirit, and he delivered,” Fr. Whitfield told CNA in e-mail comments.
“Seeing this crisis spiritually is what is practical. And it’s the only way we’re going to properly solve it…. I’m simply not convinced that the economics of (married priesthood) would result in either the growth of clergy or the Church.”
A glance at what the priest shortage looks like in the United States
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is the largest diocese in the United States, clocking in at a Catholic population of 4,029,336, according to the P.J. Kenedy and Sons Official Catholic Directory.
With 1,051 diocesan and religious priests combined, the archdiocese has one priest for every 3,833 Catholics – more than double the national rate.
Despite the large Catholic population, which presents both “a great blessing and a great challenge”, Fr. Samuel Ward, the archdiocese’s associate sirector of vocations, told CNA he doesn’t hope for or anticipate any major changes to the practice of priestly celibacy.
“I believe in the great value of the celibate Roman Catholic priesthood,” he said.
He also sees great reason for hope. Recent upticks in the number of seminarians and young men considering the priesthood seems to be building positive momentum for vocations in future generations.
The trend is a national one as well – CARA reports that about 100 more men were ordained to the priesthood in 2016 than in 2010. Between 2005 and 2010, there was a difference of only 4.
In the Archdiocese of New York, the second largest diocese in the United States, there is a Catholic population of 2,642,740 and 1,198 diocesan and religious priests, meaning there is one priest for every 2,205 Catholics.
“I think we’re probably like most every other diocese in the country, in that over the past 40-50 years, the number of ordinations have not in any way kept pace with the number of priests who are retiring or dying,” said Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the archdiocese.
It’s part of the reason why they recently underwent an extensive reorganization process, which included the closing and re-consolidation of numerous parishes, many of which had found themselves without a pastor in recent years.
“Rather than wait for it to hit crisis mode we wanted to be prudent and plan for what the future would look like here in the Archdiocese of New York,” Zwilling said.
Monsignor Peter Finn has been a priest in New York for 52 years, and as rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary for six years in the early 2000s, he has had several years’ experience forming priests. While he admits there is a shortage, he’s not convinced that doing away with celibacy would solve anything.
“After 52 years of priesthood I’m not really sure it would make any big difference,” he told CNA.
That’s because the crisis is not unique to the vocation of the priesthood, he said. The broader issue is a lack of commitment – not just to the priesthood, but to marriage and other vocations of consecrated life.
Fr. Selin echoed those sentiments.
“It goes deeper, it goes to a deep crisis of faith, a rampant materialism, and also at times a difficulty with making choices,” he said.
So if marriage won’t solve the problem, what will?
Schools, seminaries, and a culture of vocations
The Archdiocese of St. Louis, on the other hand, has not experienced such a drastic shortage. When compared with other larger dioceses in the country (those with 300,000 or more Catholics), the St. Louis Archdiocese has the most priests per capita: only 959 Catholics per priests, in 2014.
John Schwob, director of pastoral planning for the archdiocese, said this could be attributed to a number of things – large and active Catholic schools, a local diocesan seminary, and archbishops who have made vocations a pastoral priority.
“…going back to the beginning of our diocese in 1826, the early bishops made repeated trips to Europe to bring back religious and secular priests and religious men and women who built up strong Catholic parishes and schools,” he told CNA. “That has created momentum that has continued for nearly 200 years.”
These three things also ring true for the Diocese of Lincoln, which has a smaller population and a high priest-to-Catholic ratio: one priest for every 577 Catholics, which is less than one third of the national ratio.
As in St. Louis, Lincoln’s vocations director Fr. Robert Matya credits many of the diocese’s vocations to Catholic schools with priests and religious sisters.
“The vast majority of our vocations come from the kids in our Catholic school system,” Fr. Matya said.
“The unique thing about Lincoln is that the religion classes in all of our Catholic high schools are taught by priests or sisters, and that is not usually the case … the students just have greater exposure to priests and sisters than a kid who goes to high school somewhere else who doesn’t have a priest teach them or doesn’t have that interaction with a priest or a religious sister.”
The diocese also has two orders of women religious – the Holy Spirit Adoration sisters (or the Pink Sisters) and discalced, cloistered Carmelites – who pray particularly for priests and vocations.
Msgr. Timothy Thorburn, vicar general of the Lincoln diocese, said that when the Carmelite sisters moved to the diocese in the late ’90s, two local seminaries sprang up “almost overnight” – a diocesan minor seminary and a seminary for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter.
“Wherever priests are being formed the devil is going to be at work, and cloistered religious are what we would consider the marines in the fight with the powers of darkness, they’re the ones on the frontlines,” Msgr. Thorburn told CNA.
“So right in the midst of the establishment of these two seminaries, the Carmelite sisters… asked if they could look at building a monastery in our diocese.”
A commitment to authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching is also important for vocations, Msgr. Thorburn noted.
“I grew up in the ’60s and ’70s and ’80s, and many in the Church thought if we just became more hip, young people would be attracted to the priesthood and religious life … and the opposite occurred. Young people were repelled by that,” he said.
“They wanted to make a commitment, they wanted authentic Catholic teaching, the authentic Catholic faith, they didn’t want some half-baked, watered down version of the faith; that wasn’t attractive to them at all. And I’d say the same is true now. The priesthood will not become more attractive if somehow the Church says married men can be ordained.”
Pope Francis’ solutions: Prayer, fostering vocations, and the birth rate
Pope Francis, too, does not believe that the married priesthood is the solution to the priest shortage. Before he even mentioned the married priesthood to Die Zeit, the Pope talked about prayer.
“The first [response] – because I speak as a believer – the Lord told us to pray. Prayer, prayer is missing,” he told the paper.
Rose Sullivan, director of the National Conference of Diocesan Vocation Directors, and the mother of a seminarian who is about to be ordained, agrees with the Pope.
“We would not refer to it as a ‘priest shortage’ or a ‘vocation crisis.’ We would refer to it as a prayer crisis. God has not stopped calling people to their vocation, we’ve stopped listening; the noise of culture has gotten in the way,” she said.
“Scripture says: ‘Speak Lord for your servant is listening.’ So the question would be, are we listening? And I would say we could do a much better job at listening.”
Another solution proposed by Pope Francis: increasing the birth rate, which has plummeted in many parts of the Church, particularly in the west.
In some European countries, once the most Catholic region of the world, the birth rate has dipped so low that governments are coming up with unique ways to incentivize child-bearing.
“If there are no young men there can be no priests,” the Pope said.
The vocations of marriage and priesthood are therefore inter-related, said Fr. Ward.
“They compliment each other, and are dependent upon one another. If we don’t have families, we don’t have anything to do as priests, and families need priests for preaching and the sacraments.”
The third solution proposed by Pope Francis was working with young people and talking to them directly about vocations.
Many priests are able to trace their vocation back to a personal invitation, often made by one priest, as well as the witness of good and holy priests that were a significant part of their lives.
“A former vocation director took an informal poll, and he asked men, ‘What really got you thinking about the priesthood?’ And almost all of them said ‘because my pastor approached me’,” Fr. Selin related.
“It was the same thing with me. When a priest lives his priesthood with great joy and fidelity, he’s the most effective promoter of vocations, because a young man can see himself in him.”
Msgr. Thorburn added: “There is no shortage of vocations.”
“God is calling a sufficient number of men in the Western Church, who by our tradition he gives the gift of celibacy with the vocation. We just have to make a place for those seeds to fall on fertile ground.”
[…]
There is good reason to believe that Vance will promote the pro-life cause as VP despite the recent politically expedient comments he made in support of access to the abortion pill. He campaigned hard against the abortion legalization initiative in Ohio last fall and has a perfect record on the issue as a Senator. He has not declared himself “pro-choice” and has made it clear that he wants judges that will not impose abortion by judicial fiat and opposes federal funding for it. He deserved to be called out, but his critics need to keep some perspective.
I’m hoping for the best also.
It’s very disappointing that more American voters are not on board as they should be on this human rights issue but Mr Vance is not our enemy. I think we can work with him.
In politics that’s the best you can hope for sometimes.
I agree.
Idea for a t-shirt – “I’m voting for the guy with the pierced ear”
Dude, that’s an awesome idea. Hilarious comment.
Part of my own story includes the chairman of my dissertation committee (1970s). A transparent fellow, formerly an anthropologist who had worked in the Afghanistan of the 1960s to reform the education system. In a small group around the coffee table, he switched tracks completely and confided:
“My wife is Catholic and I am Episcopalian…and I don’t really know if God talks [!] to people.” The ACHILLES HEEL of the entire secularist education system and worldview! Does God ever talk to people?
All to the point that the historical and even alarming event of the INCARNATION, Jesus Christ, is not just another a religious “expression.” But, rather, the self-disclosure (!) of the Triune God. Christians listen to “the Word made flesh.” And, Catholics are also converted to the sacramental Real Presence which/Who assembles the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. More than a sola Scriptura congregation, or a synodal convener of some polyglot Worldreligion.
Moreover, in the reasonably distinct SECULAR DOMAIN of robust and political rough and tumble, however, it is quite enough to simply respect the universal and already inborn Natural Law. Beyond respect for the moral absolutes, the Catholic Social Teaching (CST) does offer added perspectives, but: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 36). The CST is the negation of all ideology…
Plenty of room there for robust dialogue and negotiation on the means for communities to define and achieve their moral and complex ends.
The attentive reader will be able to spot the eyebrow-raising statements, in light of aligning oneself with a political platform that doesn’t merely wait for a better, politically possible reality in order to defend unborn human life, but has scrubbed it and actively allowed for the opposite. One may also notice that Sen. Vance has deleted statements defending the unborn from his website, all presumably for political expediency. Will we ever learn not to rush and promote public converts especially for their Catholicism, before they are allowed time to develop and/or consistently express doctrinal coherence? Or in the case of abortion, before they are aware of the need to express one’s “absolute personal opposition” (Pope John Paul II) when faced with political realities that make the Good “impossible” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Daniel. Vance’s initials JD appear to be John Donald. His duplicitous adoration of his great leader comes with a signifcant historical flip.
Before and during his 3 years as a fledging US senator his hypocractical moment was when he fierecely disparaged and unCatholic like said…
he was a “never-Trump guy.” “the reason, ultimately, that I am not … is because I think that (Trump) is the most-raw expression of a massive finger pointed at other people.”
Trump is “reprehensible” and an “idiot.”
In another deleted tweet following the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape on which Trump said fame enabled him to grope women, Vance wrote: “Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us.”
Trump was “unfit for our nation’s highest office.”
“I’m a Never Trump guy,” Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016, according to Politico. “I never liked him.”
Vance also deleted a tweet saying he found Trump reprehensible from October 2016. “My god what an idiot.”
Vance has not mentoned his support for Project 2025. The so called GOP “platform”. If you haven’t read it you should. The most egrious part is “Install A Totalitarian Administration”. A monarchy!
Which must mean that, per Harris, Biden did “praise racists” opposed to busing, and therefore her attitude could not evolve within the political reality of assuming the office, and her support of Biden has ulterior motives, similar to Vance/Trump, correct?
Grieving the departure of the public defense of the unborn, for political “reality”, does not equate to therefore supporting the Progressive celebration of abortion as emancipation, the enabling of the mutilation of gender dysphoria subjects, etc.
The “lesser of two evils” remains an applicable description of the situation.
Mr. Morgan, I’m partial to constitutional monarchies. It would save us the election circuses we endure every 4 years. But that’s not what Donald Trump or any other GOP candidate has in mind. And again, please don’t go down that rabbit hole.
Mr. Vance was correct that many people thought of Donald Trump as a giant “finger” at the elites. And that’s still true. But after his term in office he earned more credit than just a protest against the status quo.
If you venture down that TDS rabbit hole please say hello to my friend from grade school. She’s been down there incommunicado since last November.
🙂
Balderdash on the 2025 GOP Platform.
I’m not sure if your are calling Project 2025 bunkum, or my article?
Thanks.
Project 2025 is not any part of the Trump platform, per Trump himself. Once again you are simply spouting talking points.
Morgan D brings into discussion a very significant set of issues regarding his concerns about Project 2025. I think it is less that adequate to argue as Michael Caldwell and Athanasius have done in providing a one or two sentence rebuttal that is essentially dismissive of Morgan D’s stated concerns. The Heritage Foundation has been around for decades and were major players in policy direction for the Regan Administration therefore thy have influence in the heavy hitting end of the spectrum of influence. Secondly Project 2025 was authored almost entirely by individuals who were at the apex level of Pres Trump’s admin when in office and are likely to hold positions high up in Pres Trump’s admin if elected. Several spoke at the convention.
Secondly it is accurate to acknowledge that together with recent rulings of the Supreme Court coupled with some relevant Project 2025 proposals, the checks and balances on executive power are effectively removed. The posibility that foundation principles of the Constitution become open to the Presidents interpretation seems a likely outcome. The Republic then has the potential to move in the direction of that of an Emperor. Surely this is worthy of careful, informed and impartial examination.
Donald Trump pays little attention to the Establishment. There are some good people in the Heritage Foundation but I doubt Mr. Trump pays a great deal of attention to them either.
Americans voted for President Trump the first time around because they wanted a disruptor against the Establishment and status quo. Not someone who took instructions from a Reagan era think tank.
I personally wish Donald Trump would pay a little more heed to folks at places like the Heritage Foundation but that’s not who he is.
You are concerned about nothing, and you are mindlessly parroting DNC talking points here. At his Grand Rapids, MI speech, Trump clearly stated that he does not endorse or support Project 2025. He would know, after all. You are simply spreading lies, and that’s not appropriate. One cannot have legitimate concerns about something that isn’t legitimate. It needs no further elaboration.
It seems to me upon further investigation that Project 2025 is very relevant to this election cycle and the political agenda Trump intends to pursue from, as he has often mentioned, from Day One. To dismiss Morgan’s point by offering Trumps recent statements of distancing is not an acceptable rebuttal.
I will begin with this observation:
Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, the conservative thinktank’s road map for a second Trump presidency, has close ties and receives regular spiritual guidance from an Opus Dei.
Trump has repeatedly referenced the Heritage Foundation in recent years and particularly in the aftermath of his 2016 victory.
Trump knows personally most of the major contributors to the document because they worked in his administration. The authors include Trump’s former Cabinet secretaries, top White House officials and senior aides — including former Trump appointees to EPA, the Interior Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Thomas Homan, former acting director of the US immigration and customs enforcement agency, responsible for the disastrous tactic of separating children from their families is a major contributor.
The list goes on.
What is of some concern at present is are the recent actions of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice’s wife flying the US flag upside down…. here we have another example of the influence of Opus Dei. Leonard Leo is a conservative activist who has led the Republican mission to install the rightwing majority in the supreme court and finances many of the groups signed on to Project 2025.
[Nov. 18, 2023, 6:17 AM GMT+11 / Updated Nov. 18, 2023, 10:18 AM GMT+11
By Katherine Doyle]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/donations-surged-groups-linked-conservative-project-2025-rcna125638
We can see that the Heritage Foundation are heavy hitters in the Republican Parties history:
Major input into President Regans policy suit.
Engaged in restructuring Iraq with policy and personnel.
The Trump Campaign’s other formal policy document Agenda 47 has many close parallels to Project 2025
I am of the opinion that the agenda outlined by Project 2025 is central to Trumps agenda and will be perused with haste from Day One if he is elected.
You write that James Donald Vance ‘adores’ Trump? Seriously, dude, you need to get out more. Any Catholic worth his salt understands that adoration is directed to God alone. Not even the BVM gets it from us.
Iv’e been to a DUDE ranck though. And, I got plenty of fresh air. Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements. I do not.
Thanks.
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.
I am actually concerned that too much is being made of Vance’s Catholicism.
Cleo, Tmthat’s an odd comment for a Catholic to make (forgive me if I assumed you are a Catholic but are not).
As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”(EV 73; also CPL 4). (Source: Priests for Life “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics”)
Trump/Vance are doing exactly what Pope John Paul II has acknowledged as “licit:” “supporting proposals aimed at limiting the harm done” by abortion laws that they cannot fully undo at this time and expect to get elected in this political climate in America.
The truth (if we are willing to face it) is that we are living in a Constitutional Republic that is fading away. The moral character of the country is such that it cannot be sustained. I encourage readers to convince me otherwise (please don’t make appeals based on pure sentimentality).
It would behoove my fellow Catholics to listen to an interview with J.D. Vance at the NAPA Institute Conference three years ago. Here goes…
https://youtu.be/Mhgz-03M-7w?si=c96QHVecr9guIf35
Having now been behooved, I thank you for this link…especially Vance’s criticism about corporate boardrooms and the culture wars.
Recalling, here, that in 2015 corporate America formally positioned itself in favor of gay “marriage”. As broadly reported and rewarded in the media, AT&T and Verizon, Dow Chemical, Bank of America, General Electric, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, and the San Francisco Giants, were among nearly four hundred corporations and business organizations that weighed in with probably duplicate amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Together they orchestrated their dollar-sign argument for a constitutional right to the oxymoron same sex “marriage.” The reason: stock market numbers might benefit (very, very marginally) from spending patterns (one billion dollars: sounds big, but not even an infinitesimal fraction of the $20 Trillion annual GNP).
In this hostile takeover by the tribal LGBTQ religion, the empty-suit business world gave an entirely new meaning to the term “bottom line.”
I assume the readership here are aware that JD Vance’s entire career and upward trajectory has been financially supported and facilitated by Peter Thiel, who in 2017 married his long term partner Mat Danzeisen.
Many of us have worked for employers or corporations that differed with us ideologically or politically. How does that signify?
I assume the readership above IS aware that Mother Teresa received $1.25 million from one Charles Keating, a major player in the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. So? That Vance’s campaign may have taken money from a man practicing homosexuality proves what? Nothing!
I once inadvertently gave $1000 to Francis’ Peter Pence Collection. That in no way means that I agree with its leader or its goals. I entirely disagree with the idea of structured global charity drives; funds have sometimes been proven subject to dishonorable misappropriation. I do not particularly like the personality and leadership style of Francis. And many organizations and persons that I do approve don’t receive a dime from me. So what!?
My first point would be to say that such association when applying to a Democrat candidate would elicit much opposition from many here. So this situation at least indicates the existence of confirmation bias.
I did not specify what this financial and other support for JD Vance did prove but proof is likely not the appropriate word here. The support implies a common agenda, overt or hidden. The relationship gives Peter Theil some influence simply because when such consistent and significant support is given it is wise to assume something is expected in return. My main point would be this is worth exploration. JD Vance is direct in line to become POTUS if Trump is elected and he is a relative newcomer with limited experience. There surely would be many more qualified for the position of potentially leading the nation. Personally I am somewhat mystified by Trumps choice of VP.
Certainly people with diverse views on some issues can find common ground on others. Why not?
You need to consider which issues are being promoted. That’s what counts.
To John Allan, wondering about intersecting interests of Thiel, Vance, and Trump, see Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/content/408fb864-5831-4b1d-beef-fd1966b3beed
If he is truly converted to Catholicism, his first order of business is to apply Catholic principles of justice and compassion to the plight of the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, like Trump, he greenlights the ongoing murderous ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Chris Albrecht: There was no killing until the Palestinians in Gaza invaded, raped, killed and kidnapped innocent civilian Israeli, American and other nationals who were minding their own business. It’s no different than the invasion of our Southern border by illegals who come here and rape, murder and bring their Fentanyl to sell to our children. Your version of reality is woefully warped.
Thank you
If Vance did anything like what you want, he wouldn’t be a senator let alone vice-presidential candidate. If trimming your sails is essential when it comes to abortion, it is even more so when discussing foreign policy in the Middle East. You have to rhetorically bend the knee to Israel if you are to survive in American politics. BTW, the same principle applies in Europe as well. Even Orban sides with Israel. The Israelis have committed outrageous injustices and brutalities against the Palestinians. That doesn’t mean that the conduct of the Palestinians has been in any way admirable – it has not been. The relevant point is that the US unjustifiably and, contrary to its national interests, supports Israel to the hilt. Vance, despite some his almost obligatory comments, is a voice of reason and peace through strength on international affairs.
Of course, there is a problem of israeli dominion over american political speech, but resistance must begin somewhere, and we need moral principles and a more than natural courage. I would point out as an example of standing up to Israel Rep. Thomas Massie–who explained on Tucker Carlson’s program that every republican and democrat has an assigned AIPAC handler to make sure that they submit to Israel. Massie stands up to Israel and wins. It can be done.
As Joan of Arc said: fight! God will provide the victory!
Chris Albrecht. Who should listen to an anti-semite?
A fine Catholic columnist, Joseph Sobran, once wrote:
An “anti-semite” used to mean someone who hated Jews.
Now it means someone whom Jews hate.
This quote is relevant to today’s controversies.
Joseph Sobran was a brilliant writer and I always looked forward to his articles.
Perhaps his illness played a part in his going off the rails. It was a shame.
May he rest in peace.
Mrs. Cracker: Sobran did not “go off the rails,” rather he had the courage to touch the “third rail” of American politics: the issue of Jewish/Israeli control over what constitutes acceptable political discourse. This control is destroying the American Republic.
Massie is terrific, but he is neither a senator nor a vice-presidential candidate. Also, he merely objected to the aid package to Israel, largely on the grounds that, with our towering national debt, we should not be giving aid to a First World nation. Of course, that was enough to put him in the crosshairs of AIPAC. I am sure he would offer much deeper criticisms of Israel and its lobby among friends. The same is true of Vance, I am confident.
I hope that you are right and I have not given up on Vance, but so far he looks like a neo-con who has simply decided to pivot a half-step, because of the many failures of the neo-con agenda. thus it is easy now to oppose aid to Ukraine or criticize the now distant Iraqi invasion.
But he argued recently for “hitting Iran hard” (that is, with violence,–and he approved of Trump’s murder of Solemani)
and “focusing on China” as the main enemy, and, by implication, he continues to press ardently for an “endlosung” for the Palestinians (i.e. the complete removal of Palestinians from that region of the middle east).
It is a mere shift of emphasis, tactically and optically necessary.
Same agenda–America as Israel’s golem, hater of dem Ay-rabs and dem Muslims, and the overweight bully on the world playground.
Re: the Palestinian issue. if a person votes for an arms and aid to israel package, *knowing full well that it will be used to wage war on the civilians of Gaza–he is complicit.* God will hold Vance accountable.
But pray that God may amend him–and Trump.
It is not too late. “The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord” (Proverbs?)
All it takes to end the war is to for Hamas to surrender and free the captives. At least one or twwo kidnapped victims are American citizens. Hopefully if Trump is elected we will hear good news from the Middle East. Sort of like when Reagan took office and our citizens were being held by Iran.
For all intents and purposes it’s Iran all over again today.
trump should be in prison.
Okay. Why don’t you fill out the appropriate form to put him there? You don’t have it? Well, back to school with you then. September is only a month away.
The Palestinians who committed and/or supported the October 7 massacre, have no just call for our support. They are thenauthors of their own fates. Hamas hates Christians as much as it does Jews. It is an arm of the Muslim world domination culture.
I doubt Vance will save us.
No one who is truly Christian would expect anyone but Christ to save us. Only Christ can save us from our own individual wantoness.
De above – It’s early days. I think people are putting a lot of expectations on Vance.
I am disappointed in the lack of nuance in his position on mifepristone. As I understand it, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case because the presenters didn’t have standing, i.e. they lacked the necessary qualifications to present the case. That’s not the same as approving mifepristone.
Yes, Cleo that’s what I understood also.
And currently, each state has the right to restrict abortifacient drugs. So both chemical & surgical feticides can be banned state by state.
Further to De above – Fr. De Souza has an article on Vance’s Catholicism today, July 19, in The Catholic Thing.
I think Fr. De Souza’s assessment is more tentative, wait-and-see than I’m getting from many commentators.
This is the time for Catholic thought to grow. Morality must be seen in terms of an ascent towards transcendence that can be realized only by the free and mature individual. This implies both a kind of gnosis by which conflicting transcendental invitations are experienced and a conscious synthesizing of the opposites. Epistemology and politics are challenged to expand. This can be seen as where Catholic thought must go rather than where it has been.
Frank Ruppert
You’re insight is enlightening, appreciated and spoken truthfully. In summation, we are all a work in progress in our search for the Wisdon, Knowledge, Understanding of God, His Merciful Love and Abundance of Grace.
i certainly hope trump does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a felon to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
i certainly hope biden does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a hair-sniffing groomer to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
Holy Scripture says: “Put not your trust in princes.” I’m sure this applies to Vice-Princes, too.
Mrs. Cracker above – Thanks for the confirmation of my understanding of the Supreme Court’s action on mefipristone. I read an article explaining it but haven’t been able to re-find it.
I wasn’t clear that each state could ban abortifacient drugs. Perhaps we will eventually hear that from Vance. “Hope springs eternal”.
Abortifacient drugs are a controlled substance in our state Cleo.
Got it. Vance has proven his Catholic allegiance at Napa. His conversion to the faith is an example for others. But, his litany of disparagements against Trump proves he isn’t quite there yet. His acceptance of Project 2025, the Trump, not GOP “platform” shows he is an extremist. 2025 is a plan to OVERHALL GOVERNMENT. Paul Dans is the director along with Trumps inner-circle advisers. Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, Jennifer Hazelton, Peter Navarro, Steven Miller… Read it.
https://democracyforward.org/the-peoples-guide-to-project-2025/
Thanks.
Every election cycle we get fearmongering talking points like “Project 2025”, January 6th, Christian Nationalism,etc.
There are good people in the Heritage Foundation but President Trump doesn’t take marching orders from them.
Maybe the crowd who cant stop attacking Trump and Vance for not being even MORE pro-life, should direct their energies toward the current Pope. He appears to have a lukewarm approach to the subject. He has provided a smiling warm welcome to those DEM politicians who have given public full throated support of PRO-abortion policy loud and clear. ( Here I mean his welcome to Biden, Pelosi and Whoopie Goldberg, etc, who have met the Pope in person.) NO American politician has any obligation at all to support a pro-life agenda, although many do. Its unfortunate but true that many who voice pro-life support end up voted out of office. If they had an opportunity to remain IN office, they could have helped enact MANY policies which would have assisted our poor and marginalized citizens. Voicing extreme pro-life legislation will almost guarantee they will be voted out of office and then able to accomplish NOTHING. Failing to vote for politicians who appear to be friendly to the pro-life agenda in at least SOME measure is cutting off your nose to spite your race. Like it or not, compromise MUST be used on this topic. Otherwise you will not even get the “half a loaf”. You will in fact get NONE. How on earth does that help anyone or save ANY babies??? Progress is most often made in increments, not in one fell swoop. If you cant see the difference between a party which supports abortion til the day of birth, and one which might allow some rare exceptions but does not support 3rd trimester abortion at all, do us all a favor and stay at home election day.
LJ above – Thanks for your comments.
The battle continues and you’re right, Pope Francis’ welcome mat isn’t helping. And he doesn’t have the problem (excuse) of having to win power.
Retort to Carl. I want to reply to your comment on disparagement of Trump, but you no longer seem to accept a reply.
Carl E. Olson
JULY 23, 2024 AT 12:04 PM
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
“Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.”
Give me an example.
I don’t use disparagements like, “crooked Joe, crooked Kamala, wackjob E. Jean Carroll, AG Barr a fat pig, lock her up Hilliary Clinton…
Pot? I cook with a pot and a kettle every day.
Thanks
I think in the first place it’s not clear if you meant to write vile but you put “vial”.
If you meant “vial disparagements” it would be an image of disparagements lumped into a sort of container. Like pot and kettle in a combined metaphorical sense.
If you meant “vile” then you’re emphasizing the disparaging and that you think Trump doesn’t deserve that. Pot and kettle in traditional metaphor.
Trump has disappointed A LOT OF PEOPLE and I am not surprised it isn’t going over well. He’s also multiplying his overlaying of his self-management, eg., as we just saw, “I’m going to tell you what I experienced with that bullet and then I never want to have to talk about it again.” Since when there’s Presidential immunity for that?
Some tenants pay rent and suddenly they’re never accountable again. Trump wants to live in your head rent free (not my metaphor but it’s spectacular! at least it’s not VP Harris!) and then even with exempting himself from paying rent he wants to then be unaccountable! Haha good one!
John Allan,
Every election cycle either party comes up with scare tactics and hype. Project 2025 is just the latest one for the DNC. I haven’t seen it getting much traction lately so they probably have other plans in the works to distract voters with
And Opus Dei is not a powerful, sinister organization. That’s more spin.