Part 4: 19th century Know Nothings and anti-Catholicism

/in

Stephen Enzweiler, Cathedral Historian
Part 4 in a series

On Aug. 6, 1855, a large mob descended upon the election polls in Louisville, Ky., and made a show of force to block Irish and German Catholics of the city from voting in the day’s election. What transpired was a day-long series of beatings, lootings, acts of arson and murder. German breweries were burned, immigrant homes and businesses were looted, Catholic churches were vandalized and the Eucharist desecrated. Loaded cannons were rolled up in front of and pointed at St. Martin’s Church, ready for firing. Of the more than 1,000 Catholics eligible to vote that day, only 20 were able to cast a ballot. As evening fell and the mobs dispersed, 22 people were dead and parts of the city lay in ashes. History would remember it as “Bloody Monday.”

Bloody Monday was just one incident among many resulting from a growing mid-19th century anti-Catholic sentiment called nativism.

Nativism was a political position derived from the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established American inhabitants against the interests of immigrants. For 156 years before the American Revolution, the religious, cultural and political landscape had been dominated by generations of mostly English Protestants. As the flow of Catholic immigrants increased in the early 19th century, this dominance was weakened as immigrants began playing greater roles in determining the cultural identity and political direction of the country.

Anti-Catholic prejudice was first brought to colonial America by Protestant Europeans, predominantly English Pilgrims who were themselves victims of religious persecution by the Church of England. They shunned its traditions and rubrics of worship which they believed were rooted in Roman Catholicism. As a result, early American religious culture evolved with a deeply Protestant emphasis. Thus, being English meant being “anti-Catholic.” British colonies like Virginia enacted laws prohibiting Catholics from owning land, marrying, having businesses, or becoming lawyers. Maryland double taxed Catholics and enacted laws that outlawed the Mass, the Sacraments, and Catholic education.

In the first two centuries of the colonial period, there were basically two varieties of anti-Catholic prejudice. The first was of the biblical variety, a theological byproduct of the Protestant Reformation and the European wars of religion. Early American religious identity was largely either Anglican or Puritan. Clashes between the two gave birth to new movements, such as the Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Unitarians and others. But the colonial worldview did not include Catholics; it accused the pope of being the Anti-Christ and Rome of being “Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of the earth’s abominations” [Rev 17:5].

The second variety evolved in the early 19th century from a xenophobic and ethnocentric distrust of the increasing numbers of Roman Catholic immigrants coming into the country. These foreigners were said to be under the influence of Rome and under the direction of the pope who wanted to infiltrate the country and replace democracy with obedience to the papacy. This threatened the long-standing Anglo-Protestant dominance that had prevailed in America since the time of the Mayflower, and it gave rise to the use of derogatory, anti-Catholic pejoratives such as Romanism, papism, and popery.

Know Nothingism is perhaps the most infamous of the anti-Catholic movements to come out of the 19th century. Founded in 1849 as the “Order of the Star-Spangled Banner,” it viewed Catholics as foreigners under the control of the Pope in Rome. Later known as the American Party, Know Nothingism evolved into a secret political movement formed to organize native-born Protestants in opposition to the growing numbers of Catholic immigrants from Europe. They were called “Know Nothings” because members were required to answer “I know nothing” whenever asked about details of their organization. The secrecy was understandable, considering Know Nothing members were known to engage in almost every kind of violence to achieve their anti-Catholic objectives.

By 1852, the Know Nothings were achieving phenomenal national growth, largely due to the intellectual and financial contributions of none other than Samuel F. B. Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, an eminently respected American — and a rabid anti-Catholic. Morse accused the Vatican of subverting traditional Protestant values and ideals. He wrote prolifically and published pamphlets against the Catholics, charging that “Popery” is a political as well as a religious system, and he called Catholicism the “cloven foot of foreign heresy.” Morse remained vigorously anti-Catholic for the rest of his life.

In the same year the Know Nothings were formed, the first group of Franciscans came to Cincinnati. In his journal in 1844, Father William Unterthiner described the reaction of city residents who saw Franciscans walking the streets in their brown habits. “Some people threw wooden sticks at us,” he wrote, “and cursed us as we walked down the street. It is certainly true that a person is free to choose one, or even no religion, but one would still be very mistaken if he believed that Catholics are allowed to live unhindered.”

In 1853, Pope Pius IX sent Archbishop Gaetano Bedini to the U.S. to report on the state of the Catholic Church in America. During his visit to Cincinnati, hundreds of protesters marched on St. Peter’s Cathedral with a scaffold from which an effigy of the archbishop was hanging along with signs that read “Down with Bedini!,” “No Priests, No Kings,” “Down with the Butchers of Rome!” and “Down with the Papacy!” The riot that resulted became known as the Cincinnati Riot of 1853, and claimed the life of one protester, with 15 wounded, and 63 arrested. Bedini’s visit to other cities fared no better, as violent demonstrations erupted against his visit in Louisville, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Boston. In New York, the threat of violence was expected, and Bedini was secreted by rowboat to a waiting steamship in the harbor on which he immediately departed for Europe.

In the same year as the Cincinnati riot (1853), Pope Pius IX carved a new see out of the eastern Kentucky landscape and appointed a quiet academic named Father George Aloyisius Carrell as the first Bishop of Covington. The episcopate of Bishop Carrell would be a difficult one to say the least. From the very beginning, he had to endure persistent nativist aggression and the anti-Catholic threats of Know Nothings. There were outdoor rallies, threats and protest marches against the Church. In response, a number of priests printed pamphlets and periodicals in defense of the new diocese and Roman Catholicism. Editors of the “Catholic Advocate” reminded its Bardstown readership that “persecution is wisely permitted to try the fidelity of God’s servants, to purify and disengage them from this earth; and to prove that God can preserve his Church against all human opposition.”

Bishop Carrell was no doubt reminded of Jesus’ own words, “If the world hates you, understand that it hated me first” [Jn 15:18]. But the new bishop and his small band of just six priests faced the dangers with Christlike courage. “In courthouses and community halls,” penned Father Paul Ryan in his 1954 History of the Diocese of Covington, “where others who denounced that un-American activity had pistols primed for defense on the desk before them, Bishop Carrell fearlessly stood unprotected, explaining the Catholic teaching with a natural eloquence.”

It should be noted that the vast majority of anti-Catholic agitation across America was non-violent. Yet every priest, as they went about their ordinary duties, knew that danger was never very far away. Still vivid in their memory was the unhappy story of one of their own — Father Charles F. Broeswald. Father Broeswald had been a well-known figure in Northern Kentucky in the 1840’s. Assigned here by Bishop Flaget in 1844, he founded Corpus Christi Church in Newport and served as its first pastor until being reassigned to Louisville in 1846. There, he founded St. Mary Church, where he remained its pastor for the next nine years. On the night of Nov. 2, 1855, Father Boeswald was returning home from a routine sick call when he was killed by a mob of Know Nothings.

The power and influence of the Know Nothings came to an unceremonious end after the 1856 election, and by 1860 they had become largely irrelevant as an effective social and political movement. But it was the Civil War that became the principal cause of decline in 19th century anti-Catholicism. Irish and German immigrants had rushed by the tens of thousands to enlist in the fight in the nation’s struggle to put down the rebellion. Their great number of enlistments in the Union Army — and their heavy losses in battle — would go on to dispel any lingering notions about Catholics and immigrant disloyalty.

But just below the surface, the smoldering embers of anti-Catholic prejudice and discontent would continue to linger … and wait … for a new opportunity and another time to emerge.

Coming in Part 5: The Lightning that came from the East

Part 3: Pioneer priests brought Eucharistic tradition to Kentucky

/in

by Stephen Enzweiler, Cathedral Historian

At the beginning of the 19th century, the turbulent and deadly effects of the French Revolution had finally begun to subside across most of Europe. During the decade of the 1790’s, the Catholic Church had been subjected to a level of brutality and systematic persecution that hadn’t been seen since Roman times. In ten short years, the Church that had enjoyed a privileged bond with kings and empires in the moral governance of societies, had been reduced to little more than a hollow shell. The 1801 Concordat, brokered by Napoleon Bonaparte, was meant to usher in a period of reconciliation and renewed cooperation between the Napoleonic regime and the shattered Catholic Church. It was a beginning, but the damage had been done.

ccording to historian Dr. Frank Tallett, more than 30,000 priests had been forced out of France during the Revolution. About 20,000 more had been forced to hand over their letters of ordination, and up to 9,000 had been forced to marry. Thousands who did not recant or leave were guillotined. Gone was the once proud and influential Gallican Church of France, with its centuries old rituals and religious traditions, its beauty and its liturgy. Gone, too, were its priests who alone had the faculty to consecrate bread and wine into the Holy Eucharist and bring the real presence of Jesus Christ to people for the nourishment and salvation of their immortal souls.

Like seeds scattered in the wind, thousands of clergy fled the darkness westward across the Atlantic to a bright, new land of hope. With them they brought their theological training, their priestly faculties, and their unquenchable desire to save souls, all fueled by their Lord’s great commission to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:18). And, like seeds do, they found fertile soil in a new home called Maryland and the newly established Diocese of Baltimore, led by the energetically pragmatic and optimistic Bishop John Carroll (1735-1815).

Born in Maryland in 1735, John Carroll joined the Jesuits in 1753 and studied in Liege, Belgium until his ordination there in 1761. He remained in Europe until he was almost 40, gaining a reputation as a learned and influential clergyman. But when Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuit order in 1773, he returned to Maryland. At the time, English laws discriminated against Catholics and prevented the existence of any public Catholic Church in colonial Maryland. For a time, Carrol became a missionary priest visiting the rural mission stations bringing the Gospel and sacraments to Catholic settlers along the Maryland-Virginia frontier. As the American rebellion began, his sympathies were with the revolution which he saw as favorable to the future of the Catholic Church in America.

With Independence in 1783, Fr. Carroll he wrote to a friend in Rome that “our Religious system has undergone a revolution, if possible, more extraordinary, than our political one.” Unlike the French Revolution, the American Revolution employed the Enlightenment ideal of separation of church and state, permitting Catholicism in the United States to develop and grow on its own without political interference. It was Benjamin Franklin, a close friend of Fr. Carroll, who had argued for complete religious freedom for Catholics in the new United States, and his close association with Franklin make Carroll the de facto ambassador of all American Catholics.

Like Franklin, Fr. John Carroll was a forward thinker. He favored saying the Mass in English, proposed that papal power extend only to spiritual matters, fought taxes against the Church and its clergy, and demanded equal rights for Roman Catholics. He founded parishes, and in 1783 he led a series of meetings with fellow clergy which resulted in the organization of the Catholic Church in the United States. His work did not go unnoticed. On June 9, 1784, Fr. John Carroll was appointed by Pope Pius VI as provisional “Superior of the Missions in the thirteen United States of North America.” In 1790, he became the first Bishop of Baltimore.

Like a farmer preparing the soil for planting, Bishop Carroll was instrumental in preparing the conditions for the planting and growth of the Catholic Church in the United States. Catholics had lived in the American colonies for more than 150 years, mostly as farmers in Maryland growing tobacco. By the close of the revolution in 1783, eastern farm soils were exhausted, and the Catholic farmers looked west toward the lands of legendary fertility in Kentucky. But the Catholic emigrants were unable to secure priests to accompany them. At the time there were only 25,000 Catholics in America and only 25 priests. And as the era of westward migration gained steam, the American Church found itself chronically understaffed.

In 1790, there were only about 300 Catholic families in Kentucky, most of them concentrated in Nelson County near a trading post called Bardstown. All of them were hungry for a priest to bring them the sacraments. The only priest in this vast frontier territory was Rev. Charles Maurice Whelan (1741-1805). Whelan had been sent there by Carroll in 1787 and became the first Catholic priest in Kentucky. In Carroll’s own words, he “not only kept alive the spirit of religion amongst the Catholics, but in addition, he has gained a great increase for the Church of Jesus Christ.”

Rev. William de Rohan was another sent by Carroll to assist Whelan. De Rohan had served in the Carolinas and had been granted permission by Bishop Carroll to administer the sacraments in Kentucky. For four years he brought the Eucharist to whomever needed it. In 1792, he build a log structure, which became the first Catholic church built west of the Allegheny Mountains. Unfortunately, both Whelan and de Rohan encountered personal problems that made their stays in Kentucky short-lived.

Then on September 3, 1793, Bishop Carroll sent the newly ordained Fr. Stephen Badin (1768-1853) west into Kentucky. It was the same Stephen Badin who had escaped revolutionary France with Fr. Benedict Joseph Flaget and Fr. John Mary David, and it would be Badin who would become the guiding light that transformed the face of Catholicism in Kentucky. Badin was stern and rigid, but his care for the spiritual lives of his charges and for bringing the Eucharist to them was famous among Kentuckians. He taught young catechumens with strictness and exhorted families to have morning and evening prayers. His opposition to dancing was legendary. Like a bloodhound, he could sniff out dancing schools and private parties wherever they may be. One contemporary remembered: “He sometimes arrived unexpectedly while dancing was going on… he glided into the room before anyone knew it and told them smiling, that ‘it was time for night prayers.’” Writing to Bishop Carrol, Badin remarked, “No clergyman is fit for Kentucky who seeks for his own interests more than for those of Jesus Christ.”

In 1805, Badin was joined by Rev. Charles Nerinckx (1761-1824), another survivor of the French Revolution. Badin and Nerinckx liked each other from the beginning and went on to become close, lifelong friends. Short and stocky, the older Nerinckx had an almost endless physical strength and stamina. His mortification was legendary: he fasted every day, wore homespun clothes, and had an aversion to any kind of decoration or ornamentation. Once when he received a new horse bridle as a gift, he quietly took out his pocket knife and trimmed off the tassels and ornamentation. Like Badin, he was exceedingly strict and was an opponent of dancing, putting great emphasis on prayer, confession, and receiving the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

“Nothing could exceed the devotion of Mr. Nerinckx to the Holy Sacrament of the altar,” wrote Bishop Flaget in a letter to Bishop England after Nerinckx’s death in 1824. “In this respect he is the model for every clergyman.” Nerinckx kept his churches plain and without decoration except for the altar where the tabernacle was. To him it was the Holy of Holies, where his Eucharistic Lord dwelled. He always kept it richly decorated and instilled in all of his congregations the regular practice of perpetual adoration of the Sacrament. After founding the Sisters of Loretto in 1812, he instilled in them the rule of observing “perpetual adoration” each Thursday night – all night – in memory of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. This reverence and  devotion to the Blessed Sacrament was observed in all of his congregations.

In the years after 1805, the Catholic population of Kentucky grew as westward migration continued. In 1808, Bardstown became the seat of a new Diocese, with the diligent Benedict Joseph Flaget as its new Bishop. The arrival of the Dominicans in Kentucky were in notable contrast to the strict pastoral style of Badin and Nerinckx. Guided by the deft hand of leaders like Rev. Edward Fenwick and Rev. Stephen Montgomery, the Dominicans became popular, were more lenient, and fostered kindness, tolerance and piety among Kentucky Catholics. They also approved of dancing.

Yet as more immigrants arrived from the east, Bishop Flaget struggled to provide priests to minister to the growing Catholic communities. One of those was in Covington, where almost a quarter of the 947 residents in 1830 were Catholic. A frustrated Flaget turned to Cincinnati’s Bishop Purcell and asked for help, and in response, Purcell sent Dominican Fr. Stephen Montgomery, then rector of the Seminary in Cincinnati.

In 1833, Fr. Montgomery began crossing the Ohio and visiting the Covington Catholics twice monthly, celebrating Mass and providing the sacraments on a regular basis. Within the year, both Purcell and Flaget saw the need for a more permanent solution. In 1834, Bishop Purcell and Fr. Montgomery built the first Catholic church in northern Kentucky on Fifth Street in Covington. They named it “St. Mary’s Mission.”

Next time: “When America Hated All Catholics.”

Social Media

‘A Wired Family’ presentation helps adults navigate social media for teens

/in

Maura Baker, Staff Writer

 In an age where technology is becoming increasingly prevalent, teens have more access to online content than ever before. 

Around 2009, Stephen J. Smith recognized how children and families were adapting to the ever-changing technology, and what he thought it was ultimately leading to. 

“As far as initially, their mental health, but just as important, how their privacy was being invaded, how they were being judged by people that will never meet them,” said Mr. Smith. 

Apps like many popular social medias have a business model that entices all people, not just children, to stay on as long as possible, Mr. Smith reports, having spent much of his retired life dedicated to education on social media and how it affects children and teens through his LLC, A Wired Family. 

“What that’s doing is it’s creating these surges of dopamine and cortisol, which is playing with the brain chemistry. Now for an adult, that’s one thing, but for children … while the brain is just being developed, it’s creating issues,” he said. 

The Safe Environment Office of the Diocese of Covington, responsible for training such as VIRTUS, will be sponsoring Mr. Smith for two presentations for adults in the upcoming weeks. The first will occur at 7 p.m. at St. Henry District High School, Erlanger, on Feb. 27, and the second will occur at 7 p.m. at Bishop Brossart High School, Alexandria, on March 7. Both talks are expected to continue until around 9 p.m. Presentations are free and require no reservations, but these specific presentations will be adult only. 

The presentations, titled “Social Media & the Adolescent Digital Tribe: Navigating the Teen World State,” are based on a book of the same name authored by Mr. Smith himself. 

“Stephen Smith has been doing this work for decades in our area,” said Julie Feinauer, director of the Safe Environment Office. “We’ve heard from all of our schools and have noticed a pretty big problem with social media and the kids.” 

The goal is to “pack people in” for the presentation, said Ms. Feinauer, selecting St. Henry and Bishop Brossart as locations to try and reach people in both the Northern and Southern reaches of the Diocese. 

“It’s mainly for parents, to foresee what’s upcoming with kids, as younger ones and then into their teen years, how to monitor what’s out there and what to be looking for,” she said. 

While Mr. Smith has presented in the past to various schools in the Diocese, with programs for both adults and students alike, Ms. Feinauer says that “we’re trying to bring the whole community together because we know that there are parishes and schools who might not be able to afford to have him come. We believe it is important to have equity as far as getting this information out.”

TMU Institute for Religious Liberty — defending religious liberty is an all or none proposition

/in

Laura Keener, Editor

Dr. Ray Hebert, executive director, Thomas More University’s William T. Robinson III Institute for Religious Liberty, welcomed students and guests, Feb. 16, to Mary, Seat of Wisdom Chapel for a discussion on “Political Partisanship and Its Impact on the Future of Religious Liberty.” 

Asma Uddin, a religious liberty lawyer and scholar, was the keynote speaker, with Dr. William Madges, chair of Theology Department, Xavier University, as commentator. Dr Catherine Sherron, chair of TMU’s Philosophy, Political Science & Interdisciplinary Studies, was the moderator. 

Ms. Uddin introduced herself as “an American Muslim and I fight for the rights of Christians.” Among the high-profile cases that Ms. Uddin has argued include: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a case asserting Hobby Lobby’s religious exemption against the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate; Carson v. Makin requiring the state of Maine to fund religious education at private religious schools as part of its tuition assistance program; and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, determining that high school football Coach Kennedy’s First Amendment rights were violated after he lost his job for praying at the 50-yard line after games. 

“I have defended the rights of Christians across the world … I have been motivated by a single principle: that religious liberty for some is religious liberty for none,” Ms. Uddin said. 

Addressing the evening’s topic, Ms. Uddin said that to understand political polarization, it’s good to understand polarization in general and group identity. 

“The idea is very simple. Each of us has our group. Our group is the ‘in group,’ and those outside our group are the ‘out group.’ Our attachment to our group is so significant that loyalty boosts self-esteem. On the flip side, studies have shown that if we are isolated from our group, the stigma acts on us psychologically and, also, triggers a physical assault on our bodies. What this means in practice is that, on an evolutionary level, humans are programmed to signal their allegiance to their tribe as a way of avoiding the loneliness and stress that comes with being cast out.” 

Out groups, she said, can be seen as threatening and may elicit fear and hostile reactions, especially when the status gap begins to close between the in group — the group that is larger in numbers and holds the majority of power — and the out group. 

“In America today, many of us have allegiance to our political tribes in a way that’s not very different from the usual intergroup interaction or competition,” she said. “Tribalism affects how we interpret and respond to information. Our desire for our group to win makes us less interested in finding the right answer to a particular question or debate and more interested in locating and shaping the information that will help us win the argument.” 

Political tribalism, she said, is having an impact not only on political campaigns but among members of society. “Unfortunately, in today’s tribalized political environment it is becoming harder and harder to be civil,” she said. Defining civility as “clinging and caring for one’s identity, means and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process. It is about disagreeing without disrespect.” 

Studies on intergroup bias show that an in group will react with hostility towards an out group when it finds the out group threatening. “Solving that problem requires us to lower the temperature to lower perception of the threat,” she said. Working together on shared goals, no matter how small, is a place to start. 

In his commentary, Dr. Madges focused on the Catholic understanding of religious liberty by a quick historical look at the evolution of Catholic teachings. “In this exposition three interrelated concepts are extremely important — human dignity, conscience and then religious liberty,” said Dr. Madges. 

The medieval and early modern Church for centuries held the idea of “extra Ecclesia nulla salus,” or “outside the Church there is no salvation.” 

“The Church claimed that it alone possesses the truth necessary for human wellbeing and salvation,” said Dr. Madges. 

The 19th century, he said, “was the century of revolutionary upheavals.” Intellectual revolutions — Immanuel Kant, “think for yourself”; scientific revolutions — Darwin’s theory of evolution; political revolutions – the French Revolution and Marx Revolution. 

It is in this context on Dec. 8, 1864, that Pope Pius IX issues his encyclical “Quanta cura” (“With how great care”), where he spoke out against the erroneous ideas that were gaining currency in the modern world. “In short, Pius was asserting the notion that error and falsehood have no rights. Only truth should be promoted and the Catholic Church had the truth.” 

Fast forward 100 years, after the Second Vatican Council pope’s have continued to affirm the principle of religious liberty very different from the 19th century, said Dr. Madges quoting extensively from Pope John Paul II 1991 World Peace Day message: “No human authority has the right to interfere with a person’s conscience. Conscience bears witness to the transcendence of the person, also in regard to society at large, and, as such, is inviolable. Conscience, however, is not an absolute placed above truth and error. Rather, by its very nature, it implies a relation to objective truth, a truth which is universal, the same for all, which all can and must seek. It is in this relation to objective truth that freedom of conscience finds its justification, in as much as it is a necessary condition for seeking the truth worthy of man, and for adhering to that truth once it is sufficiently known. This in turn necessarily requires that each individual’s conscience be respected by everyone else; people must not attempt to impose their own ‘truth’ on others. The right to profess the truth must always be upheld, but not in a way which involves contempt for those who may think differently. Truth imposes itself solely by the force of its own truth. To deny an individual complete freedom of conscience — and in particular the freedom to seek the truth — or to attempt to impose a particular way of seeing the truth, constitutes a violation of that individual’s most personal rights. This also aggravates animosities and tensions, which can easily lead to strained and hostile relations within society or even to open conflict. In the end, it is on the level of conscience that the difficult task of ensuring a firm and lasting peace is most effectively confronted.” 

From Pope Francis address at the “2014 International Conference on Religious Freedom and the Global Clash of Values,” Dr. Madges quotes, “Legal systems, therefore, whether state or international, are called upon to recognize, guarantee and protect religious freedom, which is an intrinsic right inherent to human nature, to the dignity of being free, and is also a sign of a healthy democracy and one of the principal sources of the legitimacy of the State. Religious freedom, acknowledged in constitutions and laws and expressed in consistent conduct, promotes the development of relationships of mutual respect among the diverse Confessions and their healthy collaboration with the State and political society, without confusion of roles and without antagonism. In place of the global clash of values, it thus becomes possible to start from a nucleus of universally shared values, of global cooperation in view of the common good.” 

In closing, Dr. Madges quipped that, “coming from a Jesuit institution, I cannot stop myself from making a Jesuit reference.” Quoting Ignatius of Loyola’s Presupposition: 

“… it should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. 

Further, if one cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. 

If the meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; 

If this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.” 

Image: Dr. Sherron, Dr. Joseph Chillo, president, TMU; Dr. William Madges, commentator from Xavier University; Dr. Ray Hebert and Ms. Uddin, gather for a group photo before the presentation.

Marriage

Faithful families begin with ‘purposeful, persuasive, encouraging’ marriage preparation

/in

By David Cooley.

At the request of the Holy Father, Pope Francis, the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life in Rome has prepared a document called “Catechumenal Pathways for Married Life,” which was recently translated into English. This document is an important step for the universal Church in moving toward a marriage preparation process that rises to the challenge of equipping couples with the tools they need to maneuver through modern trials. Additionally, this new approach comes with a recommendation for a process where members of the local Church and parish community continue to walk with newlyweds as they build their life together during the early years of their marriage.

Currently, many young couples spend far more time and effort preparing for their wedding day than they do preparing for their marriage. The consequences of that are often painful and can be disastrous. We can see that today’s “hedonistic mentality, which distorts the beauty and depth of human sexuality; a self-centeredness which makes it difficult to espouse the commitments of married life; a limited understanding of the gift of the Sacrament of Marriage, the meaning of spousal love, and its essence as an authentic vocation” has created a fragile state for marriages in society as a whole, “which puts at stake the personal fulfillment and happiness of a great many lay faithful around the world” (CPMF #3).

A loving response from the Church is to recognize all of this, instruct young couples properly, provide the means for a more thorough and Christ-centered preparation for the sacrament marriage, and accompany them as they begin to live out their life-long vocation.

While it is exciting that the Holy Father is asking dioceses all over the world to develop their own pastoral approach to marriage preparation — an approach that is “purposeful, persuasive, encouraging, and fully oriented toward emphasizing the good and beautiful aspects of married life” (#20) — the development and implementation of such a robust catechumenal model will take some time and a great deal of effort.

One of the first challenges will be changing the hearts and minds of young adults about the importance of the sacrament of marriage and recognizing it as a vocation — a path to holiness that encompasses a person’s entire life. If the prospect of marriage is taken seriously, we can help couples invest the proper amount of time, consider what they need to consider, and reflect on what they need to reflect on before taking sacred vows. I have witnessed too many couples and their families simply looking for the quickest and easiest way of satisfying “bureaucratic” requirements to get married “in the Church.”

Another challenge will be the flexibility needed to allow at least a full 12 months for the catechumenate model. More time will need to be invested in the spiritual preparation for marriage and the building up of the couple’s relationship with Christ. While this will certainly be difficult — asking couples to consider a longer engagement period — it is necessary if we want to see any real change in how people live out married life. Couples coming to the Catholic Church to be married are always coming from many different places on their spiritual journey and we have to meet them wherever they are; but we must challenge them to move closer to Christ and remind them of Bishop Fulton Sheen’s words: “It takes three to get married.”

Before the release of “Catechumenal Pathways,” at the June 2021 Plenary Assembly, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved and published a document “Called to the Joy of Love,” which lays out a national pastoral framework for dioceses to start moving forward to better serve and assist couples discerning the sacrament of marriage. These two documents complement and reinforce each other.

Marriage preparation is an issue that should matter to all of us. The future of the family is the future of the Church. We need strong marriages to have strong families. We need strong families to spread the faith. We need families to spread the Gospel and build up the Church if we are going to be any help to the world. Pope John Paul II said, “The future of humanity passes by the way of the family.” It is time to double down on the importance of family life ministry and marriage preparation.

David Cooley is co-director and office manager of the Office of Catechesis and Evangelization in the Diocese of Covington.

Catholic School

Catholic Schools — ‘What are you looking for?’

/in

By David Cooley.

There are three moments from the Gospels that I reflect on often. These are moments when Jesus turns to his disciples and asks them very poignant questions. These three questions from Jesus are meant for all of us and we should return to them often.

The first question is: “Who do you say that I am?” from the Gospel of Mark (8:29).

The world has many opinions and images of Jesus Christ, but it all comes down to what we say about him and how well we really know him and nurture our relationship with him. What place does he have in our hearts and lives? Do we know him and love him so much that we can’t help but spread the Gospel to others?

The second question Jesus asks us is: “Will you also go away?” This is from the Gospel of John (6:67).

It is a sad fact that many people walk away from their Catholic faith. While it is true to say that it is not easy being Catholic these days, it’s also true that it has never been easy. It’s difficult, and so many give up.

I have spoken to a lot of people who have left their faith behind — left the Church — and I have surmised three main reasons why people go. Most of the time they are scandalized by the behavior of others. This is often understandable — think of the sex abuse crisis and other failures of the members of the Body of Christ. Any way you look at it, hypocrisy is a very powerful roadblock for people when they are trying to get to know and have a relationship with God.

Another reason people leave is that their own behaviors drive them away (even if it is on a subconscious level). Usually nobody is harder on us than we are on ourselves. We recognize that we are unable to live up to the life we are called to. We are not conditioned for the great Christian adventure, our faith is weak, and we don’t trust fully in the grace of God. We know we can’t do it, so why even try — it’s impossible, and so we leave.

A final reason people leave is a result of one or many of the “hard teachings.” Common examples are the Eucharist, the dogmas of Mary, the primacy of the pope as the successor of St. Peter, etc. It was the Eucharist that Jesus was teaching about when many walked away from him prompting him to ask the few remaining if they were going to walk away too. Let’s face it, it’s hard to believe that Jesus gives us his body and blood to nourish our souls, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The Catholic Church safeguards the hard teachings of Christ and no matter how much some people want them to change, they never will.

So back to that second question from Jesus. When I am having a hard time handling what I hear in the news about the Catholic Church and I see the failures of all of us who are supposed to be God’s hands and his feet; when I am struggling with my faith, questioning if I really believe, and wondering if all of this is worth it; I can hear Jesus ask me, “Are you going to leave me, too?” On my hardest days my answer is simply the same as Peter’s: “To whom (to where) shall I go?”

The third question comes from the moment in the Gospel of John when Andrew and John first run up to Jesus and he turns to them to say: “What do you seek?” in other translations he says, “What are you looking for?” (1:38).

Believers and non-believers alike can start with this question. What is it that we are looking for? Why are we here? What do we want out of life? Most people will eventually recognize that we are all striving for happiness. But, how can human beings find happiness, everlasting joy? Ultimately, it circles back to that first question: who do you say Jesus is?

So, when it comes to the education of our children, what should we be looking for in a school?

My answer is a school not afraid to explore the big questions of life, such as: Who am I? What is the meaning of life? How am I supposed to live, and why?; a school that recognizes that there is a right and a wrong, good and evil, and that children need to be challenged to live a moral life so that they can flourish and promote the common good; a school where not only is a child allowed to pray — it’s essential. My answer is a thoroughly Catholic school.

When a Catholic school is living up to its name it will help students answer those three straightforward questions from Jesus in a way that enables them to discover who they really are, reach their fullest potential, and bear witness to God’s glory in a world that has been turned upside down. Catholic students need a strong foundation that will help them know and love their Catholic faith, ensuring that they won’t leave Christ when times get tough.

Catholic schools are different from all other schools because faith stands at the center. It is a community of believers striving to know God and live out their faith. A Catholic school adheres faithfully to the teachings of Christ and embraces its mission of bringing the faith to others in service of the Church and the world.

David Cooley is co-director and office manager of the Office of Catechesis and Evangelization.

Parish Points of Contact have one plea: take the Disciple Maker Index survey this Lent!

/in ,

Laura Keener, Editor

The With One Heart initiative is preparing for its major and most foundational step — the implementation of the Disciple Maker Index. 

The With One Heart initiative is a multi-faceted, leadership development program Bishop John Iffert launched in September 2022. It is led by the Catholic Leadership Institute, who has 17 years of experience in assisting bishops in their mission to develop priests, parishes and parishioners for missionary discipleship. In the Diocese of Covington, the four-year initiative has as its stated goal: “Empowering Priests. Igniting Parishes. Enlivening the Faithful.” 

The Disciple Maker Index, or DMI, is one tool CLI uses to help bishops, pastors and parish leaders make data-driven decisions. The DMI is a 75-question survey used to collect that data. All parishioners are encouraged to take the DMI survey, which opens Feb. 22 and lasts through March 27. The questions not only ask demographical questions but also asks parishioners to evaluate their own involvement in the parish, what their parish does well and what opportunities they think could be explored. The more people that take the survey the better the data will be, which would lead to better decisions at both the diocesan and parish levels. 

Each pastor was asked to appoint a Parish Point of Contact (PPOC). The primary role of the PPOC is to assist the pastor in implementing the DMI at their parish. In three sessions, Jan. 9 and 10, Carla Molina, relationship manager and leadership consultant with CLI, introduced the PPOC’s to the With One Heart initiative and a plan on how to implement the DMI. 

“I think using the DMI will be very helpful,” said Jenni VonLehman, PPOC, St. Joseph Parish, Crescent Springs. “Each parish is unique, and the DMI will enable pastors to hear directly from their parishioners. It gives people the opportunity to be heard, but it also empowers them to begin supporting their pastor and their fellow parishioners in a more concrete way.” 

David Doyle, PPOC, St. Patrick Parish, Maysville and St. James Mission, Minerva, said that Father Andrew Young, pastor, is very engaged and routinely asks Parish Council for feedback and assistance. Using the data from the DMI along with the feedback collected at the Deanery Listening Sessions and Parish Strategy Sessions, two of the initial strategies of With One Heart held last fall, will help parish leaders “to take action to improve the overall experience in our parish,” he said. 

“This will now give them an opportunity to better communicate their feelings, wants, desires at the parish level,” Mr. Doyle said about the DMI. 

As a retired business professional, Monica France, PPOC for St. Anthony Parish, Taylor Mill, has seen the benefits of surveys, especially as a way of building trust. 

“In my line of work, that’s what they did, they would do surveys every five years and that’s how they would set plans and that’s how they would measure progress,” Mrs. France said. “It was a very good way to kind of capture the feelings of the people.” 

But, Mrs. France said that trust can be broken if results of the survey are not shared or if there is no follow-up on the information provided by the survey. “It only works if you give them feedback, and then respond in a way to address what you learned,” she said. 

With the DMI, pastors and parish leaders will be able to login into a dashboard to see the aggregate results of surveys completed by their parishioners. They will also be able to see the aggregate results of other parishes. This will allow everyone in the parish to work together to make data-driven decisions to help support parishioners on their faith journey as missionary disciples of Christ. The survey is completely anonymous — no one at the parish or the diocese will have access to the names of any individual respondent. 

“All of us have so much to offer, and it’s exciting to think about how we could transform our parish together,” said Mrs. VonLehman. “There are also a lot of programs that I really believe in — programs that have changed my life — and I would love to find a way to make these more accessible (and attractive) for families who lead very busy lives. Ultimately, I would love to see our parish more energized and on fire for our faith. That kind of energy is contagious, and Christ has made it clear that this ‘fire,’ in turn, spreads to the wider community. I think most of us have seen it ourselves, and we know it’s true. This is an exciting opportunity for the entire diocese.” 

Mrs. VonLehman, Mrs. France and Mr. Doyle all agreed that their biggest challenge as PPOC will be getting people to take the survey and/or staying with the 75-question survey to its completion. Mrs. Molina has provided a publicity template that will help the PPOC’s get the word out. Bulletin and pulpit announcements have been written and provided to the PPOC’s. Soon, social media posts and flyers to print will be made available on the With One Heart website, www.covdio.org/WithOneHeart. Parishioners will also have the option of completing the survey online or on paper. 

“We’ll have to find ways, you know, having a place open after Mass where they can go and they can get coffee and doughnuts and complete the survey, if you do that a couple of times, that would be helpful,” Mrs. France said. She also will be seeking the assistance of other parishioners to help promote the DMI by greeting parishioners and talking with them about the DMI after Mass. 

“With God’s help we will move this forward and make every parish better off for having participated,” Mr. Doyle said.

TMU celebrates the 10 year anniversary of Mary, Seat of Wisdom Chapel

/in

Laura Keener, Editor

On the feast of St. Juan Diego, Dec. 9, Bishop John Iffert joined the Thomas More University community in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the dedication of its Mary, Seat of Wisdom Chapel. Father Raymond Enzweiler and Father Gerald Twaddell, both faculty members at TMU, concelebrated, with Deacon Brian Cox assisting. Thomas More University President Joseph Chillo and Divine Providence Sister Margaret Stallmeyer, former president that oversaw the building of the chapel, served as lectors.

In his homily Bishop Iffert tied together the feast of the day — St. Juan Diego; the solemnity of the day before — the Immaculate Conception and the evening’s Gospel read-ing of Jesus meeting the woman at the well (John 4:19–24), to encourage those present to have faith in the Lord as they build up the Church in the cultural challenges of today.

In the recounting of the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Bishop Iffert said, it may appear that Archbishop Fray Juan de Zumarraga had little faith when Juan Diego tells him that the Blessed Mother wants to build a church on the hill at Tepeyac. He wanted a sign.

“The truth is that the good bishop and his Franciscan brothers had been praying a long time for action on God’s part … they had come to know the situation of the indige-nous people of Mexico. They had come to know the devas-tation through the war and the introduction of disease. They had come to know the violence and plague that had led to the death of an estimated half of the indigenous pop-ulation. They had come to know that people, who were living in despair … The Christian religion was the religion of their oppressors and they were firmly determined to resist it.

“The good bishop needed a firm answer to his prayers. And so it came. Over the next months and years, millions of people came to see Our Lady of Guadalupe, who came with respect shown to the indigenous people and their culture … who served as a bridge to accept the gospel of Jesus; to know that this God, who they had learned of from foreigners who had brought disease, was also a God who loved them and respected them and had a future for them. Who helped them move from one way of life to another and to build up the temple of God.”

The woman at the well questions Jesus. Our people say you should worship on the mountain; your people say you should worship only in Jerusalem. So what’s your answer? Where do you think we should worship?

“Here’s what Christ comes to reveal to us, that there is a living water that bubbles up within us,” said Bishop Iffert. “That if we had known we would have asked for it from the beginning and the Holy Spirit would come and take up a dwelling in us … in our own being we would give good worship. Whenever that Spirit saw itself in another, greeted itself in another, accompany its own Spirit in another, wherever two or three are gathered in Christ’s name and the name of his Spirit, there will the Spirit be. Jesus says something new is happening right here in front of you.”

About the Immaculate Conception, Bishop Iffert said that from the moment of her conception, the Holy Spirit touched Mary and “she (Mary) had been prepared. She had received God’s grace because Christ gazed upon her from the very beginning. His loving gaze had changed and pre-pared her. Because of that, she was able to recognize something new that was promised, something that was being delivered into the world to be her salvation, and say, ‘yes. Yes, be it done to me according to your word.’ And the whole earth became a temple and she its tabernacle.”

Bishop Iffert said that we are also living in a time of cultural transition and that Catholic universities — priests, women religious, administrators, faculty and staff — are on the front lines of that change.

“We can no longer assume a shared cultural identity of Christ,” Bishop Iffert said. “We can no longer assume a shared knowledge of the Scriptures and tradition … we can no longer assume an intellectual tradition built from that wisdom and knowl-edge. There’s more diversity, less agreement.

“As a pastor of Christian people, I can’t help but notice that along with that loss of culture, along with that loss of the wisdom tradition, along with that shared knowledge, comes a growing sense of despair, a rise in rates of suicide, a sense of loss in direction … They’re (young people) not sure that their life is going to be as affluent as their parents life. They feel they’re bound to accomplish less, to have less, and since having is being in our culture, to be less. That leaves us wondering — like that good bishop to Juan Diego when he came with his tilma — how do we build the Church in this culture? How are we to facilitate true worship?”

“I’ll say to you, what we have witnessed in the life of Juan Diego, what we have witnessed in the life of the woman at the well, what we have witnessed in the life of Mary, herself, somehow, in some way that we may not see or recognize yet, God is working some new work in our midst. God is invoking that Spirit; that life-giving water dwells in our midst and he will raise up a living witness to the glory of God in a temple not made with human hands. That’s our confidence. That’s our faith, it is the virtue of Christian hope.” 

Image: Bishop John Iffert consecrates the Eucharist, assisted by Deacon Brian Cox. TMU faculty member, Father Gerald Twaddell (left) stands near. 

Diocese of Covington rings in the season with first diocesan Bambinelli blessing and Christmas tree blessing

/in

Maura Baker, Staff Writer

On a cold Advent night, Dec. 10, families within the Diocese of Covington gathered at St. Mary’s Park, Cathedral Square, Covington, to witness the blessing and lighting of the diocesan Christmas tree, and to be a part of the diocese’s first ever Bambinelli blessing.

The Blessing of the Bambinelli was first introduced by St. John Paul II, and is still celebrated in Vatican City and around the world, especially in Europe. This tradition involves the blessing of figurines of the infant Jesus, or “Bambinellis,” commonly used in Nativity sets during the Christmas season.

Families in the diocese were encouraged to bring their Bambinellis from their home to be presented by them-selves or their children for Bishop Iffert to bless. During the blessing, Bishop Iffert prayed that the baby Jesus’s would be a sign of God’s “abiding presence and love” to all who attended.

In addition to this extra special blessing, youth choirs from diocesan schools including Covington Catholic High School, Covington Latin School and St. Augustine School, Covington, sang carols to accompany the event. Hot chocolate was served along with cookies baked by Curia staff.

The Christmas tree in St. Mary’s Park was also blessed by Bishop Iffert, who also would light up the tree for the first time this season. This tree is decorated with ornaments designed by various schools, organizations and parishes in the Diocese, and will remain in the park for the Christmas season.

At the event, Bishop Iffert emphasized the importance of comradery and coming together as a diocese. “Back in September, we had a gathering here in the park and a nice picnic celebration. We said, we want to get together more as a Church and have these kinds of events and be together, especially this place here at St. Mary’s Park.” 

Image: Bishop Iffert blesses a young boy’s Bambinelli, sprinkling it with Holy Water. (Photo by Cecilia Baker)

How to answer pro-choice arguments: Part 3 — Hard cases

/in

By: Caitlin Shaughnessy Dwyer.

This is the conclusion of a three-part series about a simple strategy that can help make difficult conversations about abortion a little easier. The strategy is centered on asking one simple question: “If you were convinced that the unborn child is a human life, would you still support abortion?”

In Part 1, we explored how to converse about the science of fetal development. In Part 2, we outlined how to speak about the legal and philosophical concept of personhood. In this article, we address how to engage people who support their pro-choice position by citing certain “hard cases” like extreme poverty, rape or the endangerment of the mother’s life.

Many abortion proponents contend that a baby places too great a burden on mothers living in extreme poverty. A woman should not be “forced” to have a baby under these circumstances. The mother “needs” the abortion to survive.

One approach to this topic is what pro-life apologist Trent Horn calls TOAT: “trot out a toddler.” This technique demonstrates the illogic of the pro-choice argument by applying that illogic to a toddler, rather than to an unborn child.

In this case you could say, “I agree with you that many women find themselves pregnant in very difficult circumstances. In fact, many women are parenting in poverty. I think society has a duty to help these parents and children. But do you think that if the parents of a toddler do not have the financial resources to take care of their child they should be able to terminate that child’s life?”

The answer, of course, is no. You can then ask, “What is the difference between an unborn baby and a toddler?” The person will most likely point to an arbitrary distinction in size, development, location or degree of independence, and you can highlight the problems with those distinctions, as explained in Part 2.

Another method would be to cite the long-held principle from criminal law that necessity is not a defense to murder. Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens (1884), a classic case taught in law schools to illustrate this principle, concerns sailors lost at sea who cannibalized their cabin boy to stay alive. When rescued, they defended their misdeed as “necessary.” However, they were tried and convicted of murder. The key holding from the court was that one person’s subjective “need” can not negate another person’s objective, inherent and unchanging right to life.

Roe v Wade inexplicably departed from this principle by ignoring the personhood of the unborn (see Part 2). Politely invite your listener to consider whether the mother’s subjective needs are truly a valid reason to override the objective personhood rights of an innocent unborn child and validate ending her child’s life.

Another difficult objection concerns rape and incest. An essential starting point for discussion of this issue is sincere empathy for the wronged women involved and recognition of the horrific nature of the crimes committed against them.

After acknowledging this reality, you could explain that, in the immediate aftermath of rape, it is morally permissible in Catholic teaching to try to avoid pregnancy through the use of high dose progestin. A woman can (and should) go to a hospital after she is assaulted. As part of her exam, doctors can determine whether or not the woman has recently ovulated. If she has not ovulated (and therefore pregnancy is not yet possible), this hormone can be given to suppress ovulation in order to avoid pregnancy.

Nevertheless, there are some instances when rape or incest produces pregnancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, about 1.5 percent of abortions each year is sought due to rape or incest. Notice that this is a very small percentage and it is highly questionable to legitimize all elective abortions in the name of the small number of abortions sought for these difficult reasons.

In addressing these instances, it may be helpful to first point out that nothing can undo the violence committed against these women. An abortion cannot erase the crime.

Second, you could ask: “If your father committed a violent crime, would it be permissible to punish you for his crime with the death penalty?” This would, of course, be completely unjust, which is the point: The question highlights the injustice of aborting the innocent child conceived in rape or incest.

The circumstances of a child’s conception do not alter the fact that he or she is a human being. As Trent Horn puts it, “Rape is a horrifying evil, but should our answer to the evil of rape be to commit further evil against an innocent person?”

Finally, let’s address cases in which abortion is sought to safeguard the life of the mother. First, you can note that cases in which a mother’s life is truly at risk are extremely rare.

Second, you can point out that, even when the mother’s life is at risk, there are still two patients present, both of whom are entitled to the highest standard of medical care. The Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm” applies to both. The physician should render every effort to preserve the life of each patient, and should never intentionally end the child’s life to protect the mother’s life.

Third, you can acknowledge that in certain instances it is morally permissible to allow the termination of the unborn child’s life, but only if that result is an unintended effect of administering life-saving treatment to the mother — also known as the principle of Double Effect.

In sum, there are many ways to discuss “hard cases” with an abortion proponent — ways that express empathy without sacrificing reason, logic or moral principle. While it is useful to have an answer to these tough questions ready at hand, it is important not to allow them to distract us from the fundamental question in the abortion debate, namely, “Who are the unborn?” Always direct the conversation back to that question, because the correct answer — living human beings with the inviolable rights of personhood — is the linchpin to the entire topic and the key to a persuasive defense of the right to life

Caitlin Shaughnessy Dwyer is an instructor of Theology at Thomas More University. She and her family are members of St. Pius X Parish, Edgewood.

The principle of Double Effect

The doctrine of “double effect” is rooted in the fundamental moral principle that one can never intentionally choose evil in order to try to achieve good. However, a person can choose a good action that has a bad effect if three factors are met:

(1) the person does not directly will (i.e. “intend”) the bad effect;

(2) the bad effect is not the direct means to the good achieved;

(3) the good achieved is proportionate to the bad effect.

For example, if a pregnant woman is dying of uterine cancer, a doctor could remove her cancerous uterus even if the unintended side effect is the death of the child. The chosen act (removing the diseased organ) is good; the bad effect (the death of the child) does not directly lead to the good effect (mother’s life saved); and the good achieved (a life saved) is proportionate to the bad effect (a life lost).