When I was a teenager, attending a high school staffed by the Christian Brothers of Ireland, we laughed when we said that the "ICB" stood for "International Child Beaters." Sure, we were all acquainted with "the strap" and "the stick." Discipline was strict; corporal punishment was routine. But it was a good school, a generally healthy atmosphere, a solid education. I look back on those days with pleasure and with gratitude-- even if I do still wince when I remember Brother O'Sullivan's windup.

In light of the Ryan Report, unfortunately, it's not so easy to chuckle about physical punishment administered by the Christian Brothers. 

Still let's keep things in perspective. Times have changed. The Christian Brothers have changed. 

And frankly sometimes, when I see what they're doing today, I long for the good old days when they were just beating the tar out of us. The pain goes away sooner than the embarrassment.

    For more than a decade, thousands of older women undergoing in-vitro fertilization have relied on an expensive embryo-screening procedure to boost their chances of getting pregnant.   

Thus begins a cautionary story in the Wall Street Journal. But soon you realize that the real problem is not only getting pregnant but staying pregnant-- that is, 1) avoiding miscarriage and 2) having a pregnancy that the mother won't choose to abort. Read on:

Most medical experts agree that embryo screening can significantly reduce the risk of serious chromosome-related illnesses, such as Down syndrome.

There's no risk that the mother will contract Down syndrome. It's a chromosome disorder. The mother's chromosomes were set for life some years ago: back when she was an embryo. The Journal account doesn't quite explain who faces the risks of illness-- it would be impolite to talk about the baby, at a time when the mother still might decide not to continue the pregnancy-- but of course it's the embryo.

For women, embryo screening has offered two benefits: it helps them determine whether they will be able to continue the pregnancy, and whether they want to continue the pregnancy. For embryos, the procedure never offered any benefits at all. Just risks. The risk of contracting a chromosome disorder that will cause miscarriage. The risk of contracting Down syndrome, which will cause a restricted life. And the risk of becoming unwanted.

Now the doctors tell us that the screening process can help identify chromosome disorders in embryos, but it might also cause chromosome disorders in embryos. So it's not at all clear that there's any benefit to would-be mothers. For embryos, the cost-benefit analysis hasn't changed.

 How do you plan to live out this Year for Priests? 

By praying for the sanctification of all priests? Good. By praying for priests who are facing particular difficulties? Fine. By praying for young men who may hear a call to priestly ministry? Excellent. 

How about praying for those people who want to be priests-- whether the Church likes it or not?

If you visited St. Louis parish in Pittsford, New York this past weekend, and picked up a copy of the parish bulletin, you'd find this suggestion from the pastor:

I pray that wherever priests come from that we as God's family would be open to allow people to serve... if you feel only male celibates should be ordained, fine, encourage and pray for that... if you feel women or married men should be considered, encourage and pray for that...

Why stop there? If you think that non-Catholics should be considered for the priesthood, encourage and pray for that. Non-believers too? Why not! Encourage them all!  

"I am sure that these ideas are not a part of Pope Benedict's plan for this year," the pastor concedes later in his note. No big deal what the Vicar of Christ thinks. The important thing is what you think-- or rather, to use the proper verb, how you "feel" about things.

So go ahead: Pray however you want, for whatever you want. But as you do, ask yourself whether it's likely that God will answer these self-indulgent prayers by raising up priests who will sacrifice their own personal ambitions and offer up their lives-- yes, even their feelings-- to serve the Church.

 We shouldn't realize expect European commentators to understand the American political scene. So the rosy portrait of Barack Obama painted on the pages of L'Osservatore Romano, while annoying, are not necessarily cause for panic about the Vatican paper's editorial slant.

The tributes to the Beatles and to Easy Rider were hard to swallow, but easy to understand. The new editor was trying to wrench L'Osservatore out of its old, staid mold, and appeal to younger readers. ("Younger" is a relative term; a cadre of middle-aged readers, weaned on Beatles music, would be a step in the right direction.)

But now the paper has gone a step further with a breathless eulogy for the late Michael Jackson, and we're reached the breaking point. Edward Peters makes the relevant points in devastatingly accurate critique entitled "L'OR and the Loss of Reason." After commenting briefly on the "embarrassingly naïve" treatment of Obama, he focuses on the "high-schoolish tribute" to Jackson, noting that

… the L'OR report leaves Catholics little sense that much of Jackson's work was sexually exploitative, at times quasi-obscene; it dismisses as insignificant the terrible example that Jackson's chronic pursuit of superficial "beauty" gave to millions of young people; and, worst of all, it trivializes the serious, and in some cases unresolved, allegations of child sexual abuse made against him.

You'd think that, after a decade of education by the most painful process imaginable, any literate Catholic would realize that you just don't dismiss accusations of sexual abuse. Yet here is L'Osservatore, fawning over Jackson: "But no accusation, however serious or shameful, is enough to tarnish his myth among his millions of fans throughout the entire world."

Naïve, yes. High-schoolish, indeed. Giddy, in fact. In general, dangerously immature. Maybe it's time to put the adults back in charge.

 So it appears that Caritas Christi, the health-care agency of the Boston archdiocese, won't be involved in the abortion business after all. Thank God for that.

The announcement was obviously timed (after business hours on a Friday afternoon) for minimal media exposure, and offered no details about the new arrangement. A few questions linger. Among those questions: How did a Catholic agency get involved with this proposal in the first place? Do the people at the helm of Caritas Christi understand the purpose of health-care system with a Catholic identity?

A spokeswoman for Caritas Christi told the Boston Globe: “This is the right way to move the distraction of the debate of ownership and allow us to be a provider.’’

The distraction.

A debate over involvement in killing unborn babies is a "distraction" from the business of saving lives. A debate over mutilating people to make them infertile is a "distraction" from the distinctive mission of Catholic health care. 

Boys and girls, it's that time of year again to practice for those pesky analogy problems on college entrance exams.

Here's problem #1. Listen carefully.

Disgraced former archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, lobbying for the Church to "endorse the 'physical, genital expression'” of homosexuals is analogous to the disgraced former governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer, lobbying for:

(a) school vouchers.

(b) the prohibition of beer sales on Sunday.

(c) the criminalization of abortion.

(d) the legalization of prostitution.

 Yes, boys and girls, "d" is the best answer.

Problem #2: "In flagrante delicto" is to.....

Folks have been reacting to the Christopher West imbroglio partly because of the ludicrous identification of the early thought of Karol Wojtyla and Hugh Hefner--a comparison that West regrets. But leaving aside any comparison of the pope's and Hefner's early thought is West's extremely curious follow-up explanation of Hefner and American Puritanism:  

Both men began addressing the problem of Puritanism at the
same historical moment -- the early 1950s. As Catholics, we
actually agree with Hefner's diagnosis of the disease: a
Puritanical rejection of the body and sex is utterly contrary to
Catholic faith. But we radically disagree with his cure....

Evidently, West is unaware that Hefner’s problem was not with Puritanism. It was with simple modesty, because modest men do not purchase pornography.

If West were old enough—or studied enough—to have known men who were beginning their families in the US in 1940s and 50s, the "Puritanical rejection of the body and sex" would not have come to mind. Twentieth century American men and women have never been especially puritanical, but before the 1960s, they could be broadly described as being in possession of a bourgeois modesty that the porn industry and Hollywood labored tirelessly--and successfully--to subvert. 

If West wants to treat the disease, he should at least get the diagnosis right. His follow-up is not encouraging.

 So the aptly named Alberto Cutie-- don't you agree that the name looks better without the accent?-- is now married. Well, best wishes to the happy couple, and all that. But tell me: What are the long-term prospects for Mrs. Cutie?

This romance blossomed after Father Cutié, the telegenic star of EWTN and Telemundo, was captured in compromising photographs. Well, no; that's not quite right. I guess the compromising photos wouldn't have been taken if the romance hadn't already been in pretty much full bloom. Anyway, once his dalliance with his future bride became a matter of public record, Father Cutié suddenly discovered that he was adamantly opposed to the Catholic discipline of clerical celibacy.

You'd think he might have given some thought to the matter earlier in his life. Most seminarians do realize that ordination will probably crimp their romantic style. Perhaps young Alberto neglected to consider the matter. It's funny how seeing your photo in the tabloids can jog your memory, and remind you of a moral crusade you'd previously forgotten to carry out.

Anyway, once he realized that he couldn't remain in a Church so heartless as to repress his inner Romeo, Father Cutié quickly bolted, and landed a new gig with the Episcopal Church, which allows its clergy to marry. With all obstacles lifted, the couple has lived happily ever after-- at least up to the present date.

But now let's just suppose that Alberto Cutié has another epiphany. The tabloid photos prompted the abrupt realization that he is unalterably opposed to clerical celibacy. At some future date, when he is introduced to Lolita Abbondanza, might he gain a similar mystical insight that he opposes permanent marriage?

The Episcopal Church, you know, has never objected strongly to divorce. Ask Anne Boleyn.

Nouwen Catholics-Kenya, which describes itself as "a group of LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans gender and Intersex) Catholics," is unhappy with Archbishop Karl Raymond Rodix.

So, you might ask, what else is new? Gay activists are constantly at odds with archbishops, insofar as archbishops-- excepting certain archbishops emeriti from Wisconsin-- advance the teachings of the Catholic Church with regard to the intrinsic immorality of homosexual acts.

But this is a different sort of story. You won't find Archbishop Karl Raymond Rodix listed in the Annuario. He's the self-proclaimed leader of the Ecumenical Catholic Church-- a.k.a. the Reformed Catholic Church. That peculiar institution, which has ties to the inimitable Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, strongly believes that priests should be free to marry. The Ecumenical (or Reformed, if you prefer) Catholic Church professes loyalty to the Roman Pontiff and the universal Church, but shows that loyalty in unusual ways-- such as following an excommunicated prelate (Milingo), taking cues from a non-Christian sect (the Moonies), and ordaining its own bishops without a mandate from the Holy See.

It's the episcopal ordinations, performed in Africa, that triggered an angry reaction from the Nouwen Catholics. The LGBTI group announced that Archbishop Rodix and his uxorious band "made what can only be described as an open attack on the Roman Catholic Church by ordaining Fr. Geoffrey Shiundu as a bishop and five priests."

[Let me pause here and interject that I strongly suspect the misguided archbishop ordained Father Shiundu as a bishop, and ordained five other men as priests. Despite the wording of the Nouwen Catholics' release, I don't think that Shiundu has the versatility necessary to act as one bishop and five priests all by himself. But you never know…]

So the Nouwen Catholics, who aren't the marrying kind, strongly object to the priests who are the marrying kind. Got it?

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure whose side I'm on in this debate, but you've gotta admit it beats the usual boilerplate.

 

A New Jersey pastor has been placed on administrative leave. 

Monsignor Patrick Brown, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church since 1992, began the leave June 4, a day after two FBI agents visited the diocesan headquarters in Clifton and told top officials Brown was under investigation, said Kenneth Mullaney, the diocese attorney.

Probably a coincidence.

The feds are looking into financial irregularities. The Diocese of Paterson doesn't want anyone jumping to conclusions, and issued a statement reminding the public that, among other things, Msgr. Brown "has been active in fund-raising for many charities and educational institutions."

It's not the charitable and educational institutions, we're guessing, that have prompted the FBI's interest.

He doesn't reach the same fever pitch of sputtering petulance that Father Tom Reese managed in the Washington Post, but David Gibson, writing for Beliefnet, lets us know that he, too, is sorely disappointed in the American bishops. Moreover, he cites editorials in America and Commonweal to demonstrate that liberal Catholics generally are disheartened.

"The U.S. hierarchy," Gibson writes, "gathers for its spring meeting tomorrow, in San Antonio, in the wake of one of the most divisive and ugly stretches the Catholic Church has seen since, well, Joseph Bernardin was alive." The bishops themselves, he adds, "have been the perpetrators and victims of much of the nastiness."

The "nastiness" in question is the public debate over President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame. Many American bishops made clear public statements chastising Notre Dame, and the guardians of the "spirit of Vatican II" are not accustomed to episcopal scoldings. It's been routine, over the past generation, for bishops to criticize conservatives. Criticism of liberals-- public criticism, no less!-- is something quite new. So now they know how we've felt for the past 35 years or so.

To say that our liberal friends are thin-skinned would be, I'm afraid, a gross understatement. Yes, a few bishops issued stinging criticism of Notre Dame's decision. But were they "nasty" in their approach? Or is it inherently nasty to criticize the "second magisterium"-- that authoritative voice that has spoken from America and Commonweal, Notre Dame and Georgetown for all these years? Maybe "disrespectful" would be a better word. These bishops must be put back in their proper place.

And there's something more here. The controversy that surrounded Obama and Notre Dame did command headlines for a few weeks. But to suggest that it was "one of the most divisive and ugly stretches" for the Church since Cardinal Bernardin's death suggests a failure of memory that can only be attributed to a severe shock.

Think about it: Can you name a topic that arose within American Catholicism between 1996 and today that was uglier, more divisive, more destructive for the welfare of the Church? A topic that generated literally thousands of disgraceful headlines stories, over a period of years rather than weeks? Now that story is nasty.

 You won't find Vatican employees updating their "friends" lists during office hours anymore. The Facebook web site has been blocked from the Vatican computer network. It's a question of efficiency, Msgr. Paul Tighe told the Catholic News Service. Keep the workers at work, you know.

Msgr. Tighe said he believed online social networking is more appropriate from home and not the office.

True, we don't want clerical workers kibitzing with their pals on company time. But Facebook users aren't always wasting their time. They might, just for instance, be checking to see whether a prominent traditionalist bishop questions the severity of the Holocaust. (That information, you'll recall, was readily available to Facebook users, yet somehow unknown to decision-makers at the Vatican.) Pope Benedict has been encouraging Christians to use all the latest means of modern communications technology in the service of the Gospel. Why not follow that advice in the offices of the Roman Curia?

Beyond that, there's some irony (to put it mildly) in the notion that an occasional Facebook session might detract from the streamlined efficiency with which Vatican business is conducted. The late mornings, early evenings, and long lunches-- not to mention the smug sense of immunity from direct responsibility or professional criticism-- are far greater problems for office efficiency than an occasional trip into cyberspace. 

Remember how Blessed John XXIII replied, when he was asked how many people work at the Vatican? With a wink, he replied: "About half of them."