'My Brother the Pope'

Georg Ratzinger, brother of Pope Benedict XVI,  revealed intimate moments of their childhood and his relationship with his brother.  Michael Hesemann's week-long interview with the Pope's brother provides the material for their book, "My Brother the Pope."  Ratzinger speaks in great detail about their Catholic upbringing which included attending daily mass, family prayer, and celebrations of the great Christian feasts.

"In our family, though, it was not only Christmas that was marked by the deep faith of our parents and the religious customs of our homeland. From our parents we learned what it means to have a firm grasp of faith in God. Every day we prayed together, and in fact before and after each meal (we ate our breakfast, dinner and supper together)."

Ratzinger attributes the faith of him and his brother to their parents devotion and piety. The practice of daily prayer and devotion was instrumental in creating the deep faith of the Ratzingers.  It is this daily commitment to faith that Ratzinger feels is lacking in many Christian families.
 
"I am convinced that the lack of this traditional piety in many families is also a reason why there are too few priestly vocations today. Many people in our time practice a form of atheism rather than the Christian faith. In some respects, they may maintain a sort of vestigial religiosity; perhaps they still go to Mass on the major feast days, but this rudimentary faith long ago ceased to permeate their lives, and it has no bearing on their everyday routine."

Faith is not only reserved for Sundays or feast days.  The Christian life calls each person to live out their faith daily in their actions, their words, and in prayer.  Faith needs to become a part of everyday routine.


To read more on Ratzinger's childhood in the Huffington Post, click here, and to read more of Michael Hesemann's reflections on the interview, click here.

Pope's advice for Lent

Lent is a time for renewal.  For 40 days Christians are called to turn away from distractions and bring God back into the center of their lives, rejuvenating their faith and their commitment to Christ.  As Catholics throughout the world begin this journey, Pope Benedict offered words of encouragement as a reminder of the true meaning of Lent: “The time leading up to Easter is a time of ‘metanoia,’ a time of change and penance, a time which identifies our human lives and our entire history as a process of conversion, which begins to move now in order to meet the Lord at the end of time”.   As college students make contemporary Lenten sacrifices of caffeine, chocolate, and Facebook, we must remember that it is not so important what we give up, so long as it leads us to give in to God's grace and draw closer to the passion of Christ.

Read more of Pope Benedict's words for the beginning of Lent here.

Here We Are

Prof. Helen Alvare of George Mason University has written a letter in response to Nancy Pelosi's charge that women do not support the Church's teaching on contraception. Her letter was signed by hundreds of other women and published by National Review Online. View the text with signatures here. This is the text of her letter:

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

DON'T CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable -- but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking "women's health" in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of "costless" birth control with "equality," note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

Helen M. Alvaré JD Associate Professor of Law George Mason University (VA)*

Kim Daniels JD Former Counsel Thomas More Law Center (MD)  (*Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. They do not indicate institutional support.)

Why the Pill is not good for women

Erika Bachiochi, a speaker at Notre Dame's recent Edith Stein Project, co-authored an article with Catherine Pakaluk on why "The Pill is Not Good for Women" for the National Review Online today. An excerpt:

"The Pill, together with abortion as backup, appeared to provide full insurance against pregnancy risks. But as economists well know, full insurance tends to induce greater risk-taking: As people perceive sex to be safer, they pursue more of it. This applies especially to people who would otherwise be most vulnerable to the risks of unwanted pregnancy: the young, the unmarried, and those unable to care for a child."

Read the full article here.

NRO covers Edith Stein Project

Katheryn Jean Lopez of the National Review Online covered last weekend's student-run Edith Stein Project in her discussion of the current contraception debate. Her article quotes Margaret Kennedy, one of our undergraduate assistants, who served as a co-chair of the conference. An excerpt:

“Contraception,” she says, “is but a mask,” covering up our vulnerabilities. It’s like alcohol, she adds: “a way not to confront our fears or take responsibility for our actions.”

Read the full article here.

Unacceptable Compromise

Unacceptable

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services.  Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.  It is certainly no compromise.  The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust.  Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage.  For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers.  More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual.  They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer.  It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer.  What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.  This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.  It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.

Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty.  The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

Signed:

John Garvey

President, The Catholic University of America

Mary Ann Glendon

Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University

Robert P. George

McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

O. Carter Snead

Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Yuval Levin

Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

EWTN Files Suite to Block Contraception Mandate

EWTN filed a law suite today in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, AL seeking to declare the federal government's contraception mandate as unconstitutional.   EWTN is the first lay Catholic organization to challenge the HHS mandate.  

"'We had no other option but to take this to the courts,' said [Michael]Warsaw, [EWTN's president]. 'Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice: Either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health-insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable.'"

Read more in the National Catholic Register