Source: http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/2014/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:00:33+00:00

Document:
Today was a grand adventure in Jerusalem. I lack time to do the day justice.
At 5:30 am we walked over to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which stands over both the rock of Calvary, and the tomb where he was buried.
As I mentioned in a prior post, the holy sites are governed by a set of rules called the "status quo"--and last night, we were briefed on what was expected. The main thing was: we were not to enter the Greek area while wearing liturgical garb (street clothing, even clerical attire, was not a problem).
So, to borrow a passage of Scripture, early in the morning, while it was still dark,* we came to Calvary for the Holy Mass.
The great church was built at the time of the Crusaders, on top of structures that date to the 4th century. As we enter, we walk by a large slab on the floor--over which hang many large oil lamps--which is said to be the place where our Lord's body was anointed after being removed from the Cross.
This is as good a place to say this: we have many, many places in Jerusalem in particular, and the Holy Land generally, that have been identified with our Lord and his associates. It is important to realize that we cannot be as certain about some as about others. Nevertheless, this realization doesn't call into question our Faith--because while our Faith stands or falls on certain facts, that is not to say every single fact ever asserted in connection with Christianity, even the life of the Lord, is essential to the Faith. So we know very certainly that our Lord was arrested and punished cruelly until death. But did his meetings with Caiaphas and Pilate happen here? Or over here? So when you come here, as I encourage you to do, have peace of mind about the places you visit; nevertheless, understand that with so many layers of history between then and now (and most of those layers are, quite literally, now rubble), on some matters we can only make surmises.
So, for example, when--after Holy Mass, we toured various sites along the Via Dolorosa, we came to a place traditionally associated with Pilate's condemnation of our Lord. It's a great story, but time won't allow me to do it justice; but in sum, some years back, down under a convent--situated very close to the Antonio Fortress, a pavement was discovered. Upon close examination, it seemed to match the place described in Scripture.
And yet, upon later, and even closer examination, it seems the pavement is simply not old enough: it dates from AD 135, a mere hundred years later; nevertheless, too late.
That doesn't mean the Lord wasn't condemned there; but it does mean those particular pavement stones aren't the very ones. But could the spot be somewhere close by? Yet to be discovered? Certainly! And, as I said to one of the priests--an amiable and hardworking Irishman--this pavement likely was built very similarly to what existed before; so if this isn't the very pavement, the actual pavement probably looked very much like this.
The Church of the Sepulcher is hard to describe; like the Church of the Nativity, it's rather a mess of a building in some ways, and it has to be shared by many different groups; yet there's a good metaphor for the living stones of which Christ's Church is being built, isn't there?
We vested, and then found our way to the place for Mass; the steps up are exceedingly steep; the altar where we had Mass was just to the right of...well, Calvary! That most holy of places is in the care of the Greeks. Wedged in between is an altar bearing an image of Mary. We had enough room, just enough, for our group of twenty-plus priests, plus several other pilgrims who, even at such an early hour, chanced upon Holy Mass. Those of us lined up closer to the Greek altar were careful not to step too close, and no problems; but I confess I sought every opportunity to glance over my shoulder at the place where salvation was obtained for the world.
As we concluded Mass, another group of Catholic pilgrims began to arrive, to have Mass on the Marian altar I mentioned; and while we had a few minutes to stay and pray, I decided to head back to the Notre Dame Center (where we're staying) for breakfast, as we had a full day ahead of us, beginning at 8 am. If time allows later tonight--after our conference and dinner, I'll tell you more. It was a very exciting day!
I left Cincinnati around 6 pm Sunday, and arrived at the Notre Dame Center in Jerusalem around 5:30 pm Monday. No sleep to speak of on the flight over, so I was pretty tired. I met some of the other priests and got some information for today's outing.
We were up early today and on the road at 7 am. First stop? The Temple Mount, also known as Mount Moriah, where Abraham was prepared to offer his son Isaac. This is where Solomon erected his temple, which the Babylonians destroyed; and then the temple of Ezra, substantially rebuilt by King Herod, which was finally completed in AD 65, only to be destroyed with fury by the Romans five years later.
As our bus ascended the hill, we could see all the graves buried nearby, facing east in anticipation of the Messiah's coming. We "de-couched" (a word our driver coined) and passed through the "Dung Gate, and then climbed further by foot. As you approach the security checkpoint, you see lots of things reminding you the Israelis are in charge; then when you go across a kind of bridge, with people praying at the Western ("Wailing") Wall below, and then reach the summit, you pass into a Muslim area. A sign warns observant Jews that, according to the chief rabbinical authority, they must not go up to the top. Why? Because certain areas of the temple were off limits to any but the priests; and now, no one knows for sure where the dividing line is. So while nothing legally prevents Jews from coming here, I saw no yamulkes or prayer shawls.
What we did see were the two mosques built when the Muslims gained control in the 7th centuries. Their doors were shut. As we the Dome of the Rock--which is pretty much where the Holy of Holies was--to our right was the Kidron Valley, and beyond that, the Mount of Olives, where our Lord prayed the night before he died. We could see several churches built there, one with brilliant gold onion domes typical of Eastern churches. To our left, the guide pointed out where Calvary was. If indeed the spot, it was a good choice for the Romans: a high point, where crucified enemies of the state would provide a warning to any who might resist Rome.
There was a lovely fountain, with a pool, but with very little water. Around the base of it were a series of spigots. I meant to ask if that was for Muslims to wash their feet before entering the mosques.
From there, we passed down into a cramped, old neighborhood, and found our way to the Western Wall. Here again, as far as I know, anyone can come here to pray. Yet, while there were many Jews, the priests I was traveling with--about 30--and some other pilgrims I can't classify--our guide told us he didn't think Muslims came here. "They will go up to the top."
Of the many Jews praying there, many were Hasidic--they are the ones who wear a hat on top of their skullcaps. Here's why (according to our guide). To wear no hat is a sign of freedom--hence a passage of the Old Testament speaks of God's People leaving Egypt with their heads uncovered. So for Jewish men to cover their heads is a sign of their commitment to God. That's the reason for the yamulke. So why a second hat? Because in Eastern Europe--where many of the Hasidic Jews originated--they would be required to tip their hats to dignitaries. So to honor the secular power and the Divinity, they have two hats.
I confess, one of my overriding thoughts since arriving here was, "don't say or do the wrong thing" toward the Muslims and the Jews. All I needed--all the Archbishop needed!--was for a phone call home about my causing some inter-religious, international incident! So what do you avoid saying, or doing, if you don't know what the wrong thing might be? You don't say anything; and you don't go near people! Still, I had some questions.
Happily, there was a boy I'd guess around 13 (the men and women pray in separate sections) was talking to some tourists I guessed from China, even letting them take pictures with his hat! So I surmised no offense would be given if I asked him a question. I'd noticed how the Jewish men would tie a band around their arm, to hold a box with a verse of scripture inside against their skin; and while most of them did it on their left arm, a few did it on their right. Why? The young man explained that it was supposed to go on one's weaker arm: so a leftie wrapped it on his right arm.
A nice custom you may have heard of is that anyone can write a prayer and insert the paper between the stones. As you face the wall, you can see quite a lot of little wads of paper wedged into various crevices. I wonder what happens to them? I had come with my own paper, and I stepped up and found a place.
"Who can climb the mountain of the Lord? Who can stand in his holy place? The man with clean hands and pure heart, who desires not worthless things, who has not sworn so as to deceive his neighbor."
After this, we toured some of the excavations around the temple area, finding our way down to one spot where we were at what was street level in our Lord's time. In fact, a section of the street had been cleared. It was a fine street--narrow by our standards, made with the same white stone that was quarried from the hills on which we stood, and which built the temple walls that towered over us. Yet the street was not flat, but caved in. What could explain this? "That's the result of these stones being hurled down from above by the Romans" in AD 70, our guide explained--when, after crushing the Jewish rebellion, destroyed the temple. And just a bit further was a huge mound of these stones, exactly where they'd fallen. I sat awhile to contemplate that scene, predicted by our Lord.
Then we walked around to what was a monumental staircase coming up from the south. A section of it is still there, in quite good condition. Part of it, however, is covered up by what was a palace of one of the sultans. Our guide explained that in this area, in the era of the temple, there were a number of pools built. These were for ritual bathing, before Jewish pilgrims would ascend to pray in the temple. And he reminded us that when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, Peter preached to many of the pilgrims, and 3,000 were baptized that day. They must have been baptized in those pools, he said, because there was no where else for that to have happened. Which means, we were standing where Peter and the Apostles stood that first Pentecost.
Back to the bus and off to the Church of Saint Ann, situated hard by the pool of Bethesda, where our Lord healed a paralyzed man. The pools are still there, but not much water. The church, built by the Crusaders and used as a Muslim school for a time, was reconsecrated after the French helped the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War--hence the French flag flying over it. There, our group of priests, from three continents, concelebrated Mass almost entirely in Latin (the readings were English or Spanish).
After lunch, we had a siesta (we needed it!), then a visit with the auxiliary bishop for the Latin Patriarchate (you'll have to look that one up--I'm using my laptop battery to write this), after which prayer, dinner, and a talk about our plans for the next few days. Tomorrow it's Bethlehem; then Galilee for several days.
When I posted something a couple of days ago about a column at U.S. News and World Report trotting out many of the classic anti-Catholic tropes of yesteryear, I expected it wouldn't be long before someone at U.S. News came out and said, we goofed--or else leaned on the columnist to issue at least a half-hearted apology.
Perceived bias on the court is a legitimate issue that U.S. News & World Report has covered for many years, from many perspectives. Our Opinion section has published pieces on the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage from all sides of the debate and, just this week, included pieces from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Archdiocese of New York and Concerned Women for America. We are committed to publishing a diversity of views on a variety of topics. Jamie Stiehm's piece is within the bounds of fair commentary. We have run letters rebutting the piece and will continue to feature a diversity of opinions on this topic and others.
As I said Wednesday, U.S. News is free to publish whatever they wish, including bigotry. But why Mr. Kelly decided to defend this particular column fascinates me. It's not only anti-Catholic; it's not particularly a creative expression of it. And it's hobbled, further, but some laughable errors of fact.
Ms. Jamie Steihm, the author of this column, claims that "The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic." In other words, the Catholics--by voting together--are tilting the court to an "extreme." And all this is at the behest of "the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops" and "pernicious Rome" seeking "hegemony."
Wikipedia provides a listing of all the cases decided by the Supreme Court since John Roberts became Chief Justice. His appointment represented the fourth Catholic on the court, joining Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas (we'll skip over the fact that when Thomas was named, he was an Episcopalian, like President Bush who nominated him). And for those who want to keep track of these things, Justice Roberts replaced William Rehnquist, a Lutheran. Then, when Samuel Alito--the fifth Catholic!--was named to the Court in 2006, he replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, an Episcopalian.
So let's review the cases, shall we?
It would take too long to go through every case, so let's just look for cases involving abortion and contraception, shall we?
Scanning the 2005 cases, we find Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. Oooh! Surely this will prove Ms. Steihm's thesis, no? After all, she said "More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if "you" are female." And, sure enough, this involved an abortion restriction in New Hampshire.
Sure enough: the Catholics all voted in lockstep. Except the case was unanimous.
No, this isn't working. So maybe we should try something different to demonstrate Ms. Steihm's claim. Instead, let's look for cases in which all the Catholics line up on one side, and all the non-Catholics--free to vote as they wish--line up the other way.
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution abrogates state sovereign immunity. It is significant as the only case allowing Congress to use an Article I power to authorize individuals to sue states.
Here's another one: with that notorious Catholic Alito now on the Court, the fish-eaters have a majority! And in Garcetti v. Ceballos, they ganged up together...and ruled that a work memo is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
Obscure? Sure! But clearly Rome cares about them!
Later we find a similar pattern in Hudson v. Michigan--a case regarding an improper search and whether evidence so obtained can still be used; Rapanos v. United States, a wetland case; then we have Kansas v. Marsh--this is a death penalty case, and we all know the Catholic Church has a stance against that! Trouble is, on this one, all the Catholics voted to uphold Kansas' death penalty law.
Here's a juicy one: Ledbetter v. Goodyear. This actually got a fair amount of media coverage, as it concerned a woman suing over wage discrimination. The majority--all Catholics!--voted for a very narrow interpretation of the law, greatly limiting her damages. And of course, we all know the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically against the "paycheck accrual rule."
More tedious procedural cases. You can look them up if you wish. But here's one: Wisconsin v. Right to Life came back to the court for a substantive ruling. And now all the Catholics ganged up against the free-thinkers again! What did they do? They struck down limits on political advertising.
Then we have Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. Here the Catholics ruled that the Freedom from Religion foundation did not have standing to sue over the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives. "Vatican hegemony" strikes again!
In 2007, the most controversial case was Heller, greatly expanding the right to own guns. The others are more procedural cases, and yet more rulings letting the death penalty go forward.
In 2008, lots of cases where the Catholics ganged up! On matters of legal procedure, environmental protection, union rights, and so forth.
Now we come to 2009. This is when the last Protestant--John Paul Stevens--drops off the court, replaced by yet another Catholic! The notorious papist, Sonia Sotomayor, who incurred the wrath of our intrepid pursuer of popish plots, Ms. Steihm. Now just you wait and see what kind of pattern of Catholic collusion emerges!
And here they are! Between 2009 and 2012, five cases that will live in infamy: Conkright v. Frommert; Stolt-Nielsen v. Animal Feed International; Kawashimi v. Holder; Wetzel v. Lambert; and Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan. They may be obscure, but surely there is some Romish plot that knits them together?
Meanwhile, something else curious happens after Justice Sotomayor shows up. Instead of voting in lockstep with her fellow Catholics, she actually votes very frequently with the free-thinkers! Same thing in 2010, when Elana Kagan--another Jewish justice, thank goodness!--replaces Stevens. Same thing in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
In fact, you'll find another curious thing: Anthony Kennedy--another infamous papist!--strangely doesn't always seem to obey Rome's orders. Famously, in 1992, he resisted the blandishments of Rome's favorite enforcer on the court, Antonin Scalia, and upheld Roe v. Wade. Somehow, Scalia and Thomas convinced two other justices (both Protestants) to help them against Roe; and yet Kennedy double-crossed them!
He did the same thing when the issue was homosexuality; repeatedly, in fact: in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.
How can we explain this: that Kennedy and Sotomayor's votes don't line up with the other Catholics?
And then, to see Sotomayor vote so consistently with Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan? I mean, they're all Jewish! Can there possibly be anything they have in common?
Can you guess an answer? Because Brian Kelly, editor of U.S. News, can't. Despite a near total lack of factual support--and an abundance of contradictory facts--he finds the claim of a Catholic conspiracy entirely plausible.
Now, what do we call a negative characterization of a particular group that both lacks actual factual support, and can be contradicted by another set of facts--yet is stubbornly clung to by the person making the statement?
That's called bigotry. And U.S. News and World Report is all-in on deeming bigotry to be "fair commentary."
* To be clear, I am not actually accusing these justices of anything nefarious when I say they voted against church teaching. All I mean to point out is that their vote--if it has any relationship to Church teaching at all, it's more against it than for.
Update (1/13/14): Apparently, the latest orders from "the rock of Rome" are for abortion laws to be upheld. This despite Ms. Steihm's confidence that "pernicious Rome" wants the Supreme Court to stop abortion. How else to explain the decision, today, by Catholic-controlled Supreme Court, not to review a lower court ruling striking down Arizona's law restricting abortions after 20 weeks?
There are three things going on with this event.
First, John’s baptism was about repenting and confessing sins.
“Someone else” did this to me.
Of course, that can be true; but it’s not always true.
But notice how often that’s our first instinct?
God’s People were in trouble.
They’d lost their country to the Romans.
And it wasn’t just about politics--it was about survival.
John’s call makes sense: maybe we need to look in the mirror.
It may not even be about blame at all.
and not lose our head, our heart, or our faith.
So John stood up and called everyone to repent.
In many ways, that’s what Pope Francis is doing.
and trying to paint him as something he’s not.
and the need for our culture to convert.
is the arrival of Jesus the Messiah.
John knows who he is.
And when he sees Jesus step up to be baptized, he’s stunned.
and the Lord Jesus stepped in!
they’d be something like John’s: you’re coming to me?
I need to come to you, Lord, for absolution!
So what does it mean that Jesus gets in line with the sinners?
and we want Jesus close to us--get in the line!
I don’t need to confess my sins.
has collapsed in recent decades. Why is this?
Is it because we Catholics no longer sin?
Did the Church abolish the sacrament? Of course not.
And we no longer need frequent confession.
but the truth is, that’s all they are: excuses.
And that includes me, your priest.
I don’t like it. I wonder what the priest will think.
I’m going to confession next week. That’s a promise.
and not with those who said they didn’t need it.
There’s one more thing happening in this episode.
And it’s what takes place after Jesus is baptized.
he already had that from eternity.
And he already knew the love of the Father.
but we need all those things!
What he receives, he receives for us!
So if you want heaven open: get in the line with Jesus!
get in the line with Jesus!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.