There was once a time when you could count on high-profile Catholic priests to know right from wrong and make decisions based on morals and Church teaching rather than politics and expediency. Unfortunately, sometimes that’s a less certain position than it ought to be. 

Apparently, Rev. John I. Jenkins, CSC, has chosen to put prestige, popularity, and political expediency above doing the right and moral thing. Father Jenkins, you see, is the president of the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, IN. That’s the University of Notre Dame, the most important Catholic university in the United States. Apparently, Father Jenkins has invited President Barack Obama to speak at the commencement ceremony this summer, and is expected to award the US President with an honorary doctorate.

Keep in mind that President Obama has the most radical pro-abortion record of any Presidential candidate (never mind the winners) ever. His beliefs regarding abortion and related topics include: supporting a bill that will usurp the constitutional authority the several states have to regulate abortion, opposing all restrictions as being “undue burdens” including parental and spousal notification and restrictions on transporting minors across state lines, opposing laws that require doctors to treat the live born victims of failed abortions, support for the idea that abortion should be readily available to anyone, anytime, regardless of age, marital status, or ability to pay, supporting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions both here and overseas, and supporting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund destructive research on live human embryos.

Priests – and clerics in other religions, whatever their title may be – have the responsibility of being the moral leaders of their congregations. They are the ones to go to about what is right and what is wrong. Someone who cannot do that fails in their primary responsibility to their flock. It’s more than simply saying Mass and doing confession. That’s why I get on the case of other Christian denominations who ordain open, active homosexuals. Furthermore, a priest in an important position, like the president of a university has the duty to uphold the teachings of his faith because he is a very public representative of that faith.

So when a priest picks a politician, any politician, to speak at the commencement of his university, that implies a tacit approval of that politician’s message. The politician in question has positions that go directly against the teachings of the Catholic Church, and such tacit approval should not be given to him, even if … no, let’s try particularly because he is the President of the United States. 

I would encourage any Catholics out there to express their concerns to Father Jenkins. His office can be contacted at this website: http://president.nd.edu/contact-us.  There is also an online petition at http://notredamescandal.com/Home/tabid/437/Default.aspx that I would encourage people to sign. 

Catholics, clergy and laity alike, need to stop the “progressive” idea that Catholicism is an a la carte religion.  If you want a la carte become a Unitarian. If you want to save your soul, I’d stick with the Church.

Evil is a topic that is not well understood in this modern, secularist, humanist age. The actual definition of the word evil is, by itself, a difficult one to articulate succinctly. What it encompasses becomes cloudy. 

In the era before the Age of “Reason” – when the secular-humanist movement gained ground and purported to expose the irrationality of religion – evil was much better understood by the populace, because an understanding of “that which goes against God” was all that was necessary to define evil. But that definition falls on deaf ears when the populace regards God as either an imaginary construct of unreasonable people to add comfort to their otherwise depressing lives, or an aloof, uncaring, or otherwise uninvolved creator who remains unaffected by the acts of men and admits all but the truly vile into heaven.

Evil is defined as being of a morally wrong or bad quality, or of being injurious or harmful. It can also be associated with general misfortune – as an “evil wind” – or even with simple anger or irritability – as an “evil” temper. The definition including moral wrongness is the closest, but, as I said, to the humanist, nothing a person does is morally wrong unless they believe it to be so.

More than simply definition, application of the word evil is poorly understood. Too often a person is described as evil without an understanding of what it means, or a thing is described as evil, which is impossible.

The simplest way to define evil is to start by how and where it can be applied. (Keep in mind, I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian, I am simply an observer. Most of what I write comes from elsewhere.) First and foremost for evil to be committed, an act of the will is required. This doesn’t have to be court-provable intent, and the person need not regard the act as an evil one, but it must be willful. Animals, lacking the ability to make moral judgments, cannot commit an act of evil. Animals act in response to their surroundings without considering the moral implications of their acts. Inanimate objects, which have no will or intellect also cannot commit evil acts. This rules out natural phenomena (the 2004 tsunami, for example), and individual objects like handguns, cigarettes, alcohol, and money. Inanimate objects and forces cannot be evil, and neither can animals.

Humans, on the other hand, can be evil and, in general, are. That is human nature. Left to ourselves, without any moral compass to guide us, we are violent, hedonistic, lazy brutes who act solely for our own preservation and pleasure. There have been only two humans to walk the earth without committing evil, Jesus, Himself, and Mary, the Mother of God. On the other hand, making a blanket statement that all humans, save the two I mentioned, are inherently evil falls, to my understanding, into the category of “judge not lest ye be judged.” So I will caveat it by saying not so much that all humans are evil, but that all humans are capable of evil acts, and the vast majority have committed them in the past. In my mind, a distinction needs to be made between an evil person and a person who has committed evil acts.

The big differentiator is repentance. A “good” person knows he has done evil things, is truly remorseful, and repents, repairing the damage done (if any) as far as possible. An “evil” person either (a) knows what he has done is evil and does not care or (b) is so twisted in his morality to believe that his evil act is actually a good act. In either case, he does not believe he has the need to repent. This lack of a need to repent allows that person to continue to commit greater and greater evils without what is commonly referred to as a guilty conscience. Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, and John Allen Muhammad all committed acts of great evil, and none has, as yet, repented of those evil acts. That makes them obviously evil people. They aren’t the only ones, to be sure, but they are obvious examples.

Apart from evil people, actions can be evil. The vast majority of evil committed in this world is not by unrepentant evil people, but by otherwise “decent” people who fall. Everybody falls, and we must never forget that, particularly about ourselves. There are a whole host of evil acts, which religious people call “sins,” so listing them here would be a futile effort. The most important thing to remember about evil acts is that they do not necessarily have to bring about direct harm to another person or thing. Privately renouncing belief in God is an evil act, even though no one we can see is directly hurt by the act. The humanist’s mantra of “if it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it’s OK” fails here. It also fails because some harm is neither obvious nor immediate. It may appear, for example, that homosexual acts are not inherently harmful, and, thus, morally neutral, but the harm that they cause is not obviously apparent, nor is it necessarily immediate. AIDS, however, is evidence of what harm homosexual sex can do. 

Another point of contention about evil is what acts constitute the “most evil” acts that could be committed. The humanist usually believes that the murder of a fully developed human being is the highest degree of evil a person could commit. By extension, genocide, the mass murder of a defined group (race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, political leanings, etc.) is unspeakably horrific. But, murder, as bad as it is, is still not adequately depraved to be considered the worst evil. Dante Alighieri, in his Inferno, puts betrayal as far worse than murder. In fact, in Inferno, murderers occupy the outer ring of the 7^th circle (or level, if you will) of Hell, while those who betray their kin, countries, guests, or masters and benefactors (in that order) end up in the 9^th.  More importantly, fraud, sorcery, simony (the selling of church favors and positions), barratry (like Rod Blagojevich), sewing discord, suicide, blasphemy, and sodomy are all punished more severely than murder.

I must disagree with both the humanists and Dante. I, personally, find the worst possible sin to be scandal, the leading of another into evil. A single murder can be (and frequently is) performed by one person. Even serial killers usually act alone. But genocide cannot be committed by one man. No one individual has ever killed over 1,000 people by his own hand without help. That help comes from the recruitment of others into an evil act. Recruitment into evil harms not only your own soul, but the souls of those you recruit. And, again, tangible harm is not the only standard that describes evil. The gay privileges lobby recruiting believers in same-sex “marriage” is an act of great evil.  The same goes for those politicians and activists who support abortion. It’s probable that many of the politicians who vote against abortion restrictions have never experienced abortion, but they champion it as morally neutral, or even, in the case of extremists, a moral good.  As such, they are, collectively, responsible for the 41 million abortions performed in America since 1973.

This leads me to another point about evil that is wildly misunderstood. There is great confusion – some intentional, some not – about what, exactly, is an evil act. First and foremost, passivity toward evil – that is simply remaining silent about an evil act, or “I don’t want to get involved” syndrome – is itself an evil act. It goes to the deadly sin of sloth, because we are supposed to prevent evil. Bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination are all evil acts, but so is the “tolerance” of sinful behavior. It is wrong to judge another person as evil because we have enough evil in our own hearts. By the same token, it is wrong not to speak out against evil acts, like homosexuality or abortion. Homicide – the killing of another human being – is not necessarily an evil act. Yes, you read that correctly. Certainly, killing someone for gain is evil, as is killing out of rage or vengeance. But the state killing a murderer according to its own laws, which laws are applied and followed equally for all people in that society is inherently neutral, neither a particular good nor a particular evil. The same is true for an individual killing in the defense of himself, his family, those under his care (Like a teacher shooting back at someone shooting up a school) or his country. A soldier fighting in a war and shooting enemy soldiers who are trying to shoot him has not committed an evil act. Sexual acts outside the bounds of marriage, particularly if adultery is involved, are evil. This includes, but is not limited to homosexual activities. Blasphemy, is, of course, evil, as is committing evil acts in the name of God. But calling on people to reject sin and embrace Christ is not. The expectation of a day’s pay for a day’s work is not evil, even if the day’s pay is very high. Disloyalty is, of course, evil, as is wishing ill on someone else (a political opponent, for example.) Lying, particularly under oath or from a position of public trust, is evil, though the degree of evil varies by the effect of the lie. Lying under oath is a far greater sin than lying about whether your wife looks fat in that dress. Presumption – the belief that you either do not need or do not deserve God’s forgiveness – is also evil, and probably the evil that is most common in the human condition today. It’s among the worst because if you never repent your presumptiveness you will never feel the need to repent anything else. With that, your sins will not be forgiven, and you’ll receive an unpleasant surprise when you meet St. Peter. I could go on, but I only have so much time.

The Christian faith has a pretty good handle on evil, and what it entails, unlike secularism. Just remember one thing, a description of evil shouldn’t make you feel good about yourself, because we all commit evil acts. If your understanding of evil excludes anything you, personally, do, you need to rethink your definition, because there’s no one who doesn’t commit evil acts. 

A good place to start understanding what is evil is what Catholics call the examination of conscience. It is a simple questionnaire a Catholic gives himself before Confession. It is essential to the sacrament so that the penitent doesn’t forget to mention some serious sin he has committed. An example can be found here.

Repentance of evil is critical to salvation. Recognition of evil is the key to repentance. 

The California Supreme Court is hearing a case that could set a catastrophic precedent for those interested in protecting the basic rights we hold dear. The same-sex marriage ban has come before the Court, and the court is being asked by the plaintiffs – those who believe that redefining marriage to fit one’s peculiar sexual tendency is a basic human right – to declare a portion of the Constitution of California unconstitutional. I’ve written about this before, but what I said then bears some repeating.

Just for a moment, let’s take the fact that this has to do with same-sex “marriage” out of the argument. It wouldn’t matter what the issue was, the problem here is the same. So let’s look at the problem.

Liberals are accused by conservatives, myself included, of wanting to shred the Constitution. Their ideas on speech codes, hate-crime laws, gun control, government regulation, welfare, abortion, same-sex “marriage”, and capital punishment are all used as evidence to this claim. Conservatives are often accused of the same thing by liberals, but it usually comes up when some liberal policy, like abortion, same-sex “marriage,” or gun control, comes under attack. It is often apparent that many people don’t understand what a constitution is, never mind what a particular one says. 

When asked what the Constitution of the United States is, most people will repeat what they heard in 7^th grade civics class: “The Constitution is the law of the land.” While a technically accurate statement, it fails badly at describing what it actually does. Any constitution (small “c”) is a document that lays out the rules and guidelines for forming the particular government for which it is written. The Constitution of the United States, first and foremost, lays out the plan for how the government is, well, constituted. It establishes the three branches of government: the Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts. It describes how the Congress is divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate, provides rules for the selection of their members, describes how their numbers are to be determined, establishes eligibility criteria, and enumerates their duties and powers. It describes how the President and Vice President are selected, enumerates their duties and powers, and establishes their eligibility criteria. It describes how the Judiciary is formed, describes how judges are selected, and establishes the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary. The one law that was originally made in the Constitution was the prohibition on and description of treason – this because treason is a very serious crime and they did not want the government to decide from time to time what treason was or was not, lest some Congress decide that simple disagreement with the President was treason.

The Constitution of the United States does not grant a single right to the people. Not one. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “Everyone has the right” or “The people have the right” or anything of the sort. Those Constitutional rights you hear about do not come from the Constitution, they preexisted it. The Constitution simply denies the government the authority to violate those rights. The same is mostly true with state constitutions, though the wording in some newer states, like Arizona or Alaska, does, for some rights say “the people have the right” to something, and even then, there is typically a “this right shall not be infringed” clause.

Any constitution is superior in authority than the government it creates. A good government recognizes that fact. Having said that, no constitution is infallible. There can be a need to change it, and those change procedures are listed in the particular constitution. In the case of the US Constitution it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by convention in 3/4 of the several states. In, California, amendments to the state constitution can be proposed by 2/3 vote in the legislature, by a constitutional convention set up by a 2/3 vote in the legislature, or by ballot initiative. In all cases the amendment is enacted by the will of the people. In no case can the courts change the Constitution.

And that’s the trouble here. The courts are supposed to be inferior to the law and the constitution. Judicial review – the declaration that a law is invalid – is only intended to apply to laws that violate the constitution. For example, if there was a law establishing Roman Catholicism as the official state religion in the US, that would violate the provision that “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion…” Therefore, that law can be invalidated by the courts. If, however, 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states amended the Constitution to state that Roman Catholicism is the State Religion of the United States, the courts cannot undo that change, because that wouldn’t be a law created by Congress under its enumerated powers, it would be a part of the document that authorized the court in the first place.

The courts, particularly a supreme court (a state supreme court, for example) have no higher authority. Judges and justices are appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature in most cases, and often, except at the lowest level in the states, do not have to answer to voters or the other two branches of government. Further, their power has been construed as to overrule those of the legislature and the executive. Whenever a law is declared unconstitutional, the common reaction is to consider them invalid, even if there is no real constitutional basis for that determination – as in the abortion debate. That the courts can apply such loose standards to the constitutionality question makes them already much more powerful than the executive or the legislature, neither of whom can dismiss a judge, particularly a Supreme Court Justice, without impeachment for misbehavior. Judges answer to no one, except the constitution that gives them their powers. If it is to be accepted that the constitution can be declared constitutionally invalid by judges, what recourse do the people have?

Reverse the positions, if you like. Pretend, for a moment that the people of California voted in constitutional amendment allowing a pairing of two men or two women to be on equal standing with one man and one woman vis a vis marriage. Now, imagine if the Religious Right sued to declare that constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Should the court rule in favor of the Religious Right? If you said “no”, you should also disagree with the court ruling in favor of the gay privileges lobby. 

The issue here far transcends whether or not Adam can marry Steve. The issue here is “Can a court invalidate a provision in the constitution?” Regardless of your position on the individual provision, the only correct answer is “NO!”