Damien Thompson at the Telegraph is reporting that concerns have emerged for Pope Emeritus Benedict’s apparently rapidly fading health.

Thompson writes:

I think all of us were distressed by the fragility of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when we saw him greet his successor, Pope Francis. The footage was almost too painful to watch. Now, according to the excellent Fr Ray Blake, a Spanish newspaper says he is suffering from something “very severe”, and that “we won’t have us with him for very much longer”. His condition has apparently continued to decline. I thought twice about repeating this, but I’m sure Catholics and others would wish to pray for the man many of us regard as the most inspiring pope of modern times. No pontiff for centuries has written and preached so brilliantly about the relationships between liturgy, evangelism and the shape of history. If only he had been a younger man when he was elected to the chair of St Peter!

Personally, despite the doubts voiced by a number of Catholics about Pope Benedict’s abdication, I always sensed that he was too keen of mind and faithful to his duties to make such a decision without a very good reason. I find myself now wondering if he has been aware all along of some ailment that would bring him swiftly toward his eternal repose.

And really, how fitting it would be for a man of his character to keep the attention away from himself and on the office he would be leaving vacant? I don’t know about you, but I can’t resist trying to get sympathy from those around me when I have a common cold, let alone something serious. And I don’t have access to the prayers of billions. Pope Emeritus Benedict is arguably the most well-loved and recognized figure living in the world today, and if it were true that he knew of a rapidly developing illness and chose to keep that silent, what an impressive witness of personal humility it would be.

If it were so, then he has allowed his successor, Pope Francis, to begin his papacy free of the shadow of the impending illness — or even death — of his beloved predecessor. Pope Francis has now had time to establish himself, to “settle in” to the job, as Benedict has faded quietly into the background.

Of course, the media has already made much of the humility and personal piety of Pope Francis. Many of these reports are published by those who seem giddy in their attempts to contrast these virtues with the character of Benedict, who for his detractors was a symbol of all the pomp and circumstance and rigor and tradition in the Church that they wish to see swept away under the auspices of “reform”. Others have argued that by Pope Benedict’s adoption of the traditional trappings of the papacy, he simply demonstrated that he was personally submissive to the office that he held, and the symbolism in which it is steeped.

If it turns out that the Holy Father left his post without mentioning that he knew that the end was near, I believe it would prove this latter assertion. His dedication to the “hermeneutic of continuity” remains, even until the end. I should hope that even the cynics would give him credit for the dignity and selflessness with which he facilitated this transition.

Please pray for Pope Emeritus Benedict. I am certain he is praying for us.

In certain Catholic circles, there has been no small amount of alarm over Pope Emeritus Benedict’s abdication, and the possible circumstances that precipitated it. Those who have always looked to Benedict as a dauntless pillar of strength in a very tumultuous period for the Church found it suspicious that he would step down from his duties unless in some way, his hand was forced. To many, he always seemed to be the sort who would carry that cross until his dying day, come what may.

Personally, I’ve never doubted that the Holy Father acted in good faith and of his own volition. Whatever else the world may think about him, there are few who would argue that he is not a man of keen intellect and tenacious adherence to principle. But this does not mean that his decision was not influenced by forces that he feared might overwhelm even his capacity to forestall.

Dr. Robert B. Moynihan, founder and editor-in-chief of Inside the Vatican magazine wrote yesterday of an encounter he had with a member of the curia that lends credence to this concern. After recognizing a certain unnamed cardinal of his acquaintance dressed in the manner of a simple clergyman on the streets of Rome, Moynihan approached him to speak a concern that had been on his mind.

“Your eminence,” I said.

In his eyes he was saying to me that he could not answer any questions.

But he was not excluding all conversation. And so I ventured…

“I only wanted to tell you one thing,” I said. “That I loved Pope Benedict.”

He stood still.

“I did too, and I do love him,” the cardinal said.

“And so I have been troubled and a bit off balance since February 11,” I said.

And then, as if filled with a sudden emotion, I saw the cardinal’s face grow dark and sad, and he said, forcefully: “I love him, but this should never have happened. He never should have left his office.”

I was silent.

“It is like a man and a woman, a husband and wife, a mother and father in relation to their children,” he said. “What do they say?” It seemed he was asking me the question.

I was silent.

“They say, ‘until death do us part!’ They stay together always.”

So I understood him to be saying that he felt a Successor of Peter should not step down from the throne, no matter how weary and tired, but continue until death.

I felt the words he was speaking were the words of an argument that may have been used even among the cardinals, but of course, that may not be the case.

But I felt that I was catching a glimpse of how at least one cardinal was thinking about the Pope’s renunciation.

“Your eminence,” I said, “I’ve forgotten. Are you already above age 80, or not?

“I am not yet 80,” he told me.

“So you will be voting tomorrow.”

He nodded, and a look passed over his eyes which seemed filled with shadows and concerns. I was surprised at his intensity. I was surprised by the whole conversation.

He squeezed my hand. “Is there anything else I can do?” I asked.

“Pray for us,” he said. “Pray for us.”

He turned as if he needed to go.

“I have to go.”

He took a step away from me, then turned again.

“It is a dangerous time. Pray for us.”

I think we should do as he asked.

It is good that we trust in the wisdom of Benedict’s decision, that we believe that whatever the reason, he knew what he was doing. But this should not put us at our ease. I believe in the very core of my being that the cardinal is right. It is a dangerous time for the Church. I can feel it. The forces of darkness are alert, and there is something afoot. What it is, we may never know. But this is far from an ordinary conclave.

In any conclave, Catholics who love the Church pray for the election of a good and holy pontiff. In this conclave, we should pray all the more, and invoke St. Michael’s intercession. Remember the reason for the prayer’s composition:

Pope Leo XIII (reigned from 1878-1903) composed the now famous “Prayer to Saint Michael” after celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with a group of cardinals. During the Mass, the Holy Father fell to the floor at the foot of the altar. It seemed that the Holy Father had died or suffered from a stroke. Suddenly, the Pope revived and said, “What a horrible vision I was allowed to see.”

Apparently the pontiff saw a future influx of demonic forces into the Catholic Church. He subsequently authored the following prayer to Saint Michael, seeking to gain further protection for the Church. Pope Leo XIII also ordered this prayer it be prayed by the priest and faithful at the end of every low Mass.

Latin
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio; contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperat illi Deus; supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.

English:
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle, be our safeguard and protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

As a Catholic attached to the Traditional Latin Mass, I have had the privilege of seeing the old practice of praying the St. Michael prayer at the foot of the altar after every low Mass. Here in Northern Virginia, many parishes that celebrate the Novus Ordo have restored the tradition of the St. Michael prayer at the conclusion of the liturgy. If you are a pastor, I urge you to pray it with your parishioners. If you are a parent, pray it with your family. If you believe that the Devil is at work both in the world and in the Church, pray it on your own. Every day. If you want to really stick it to the Devil, pray the longer version of the prayer.

May God grant us a holy and wise pontiff. May He grant us a strong pontiff. May He grant us a better pontiff than we deserve.

The phrase didn’t occur to me as the bell of St. Benedict’s Abbey  tolled over and over again for 10 minutes starting at 1:00 pm (8:00 pm in Rome) to mark the resignation of the Pope.

The phrase occurred to me when the bell stopped tolling and the Abbey grew silent.

St. Benedict’s Abbey tolled its bells as the Pope stepped down.

There is no pope. There is no pope. There is no pope.

Benedictine College is on the Kansas bank of the Missouri River, and when we cross the bridge into Atchison, the kids like to say “We’re in Missouri. We’re in Missouri. We’re in Missouri,” until we get halfway across, and then say, “We’re in Kansas. We’re in Kansas. We’re in Kansas.” We jokingly planned to do the same at the hour of the Pope’s retirement: “There is a Pope. There is a Pope. There is a Pope … There is no pope. There is no pope. There is no pope.”

But now, when the bell stopped tolling and there was no pope, I remembered the phrase — and it wasn’t funny anymore.

We are in the interregnum. The chair of Peter is vacant. The Vatican Twitter account is revoked. The Vatican website weirdly says Apostolica Sede Vacans next to an umbrella.

The Universal Church feels like my parish church on Good Friday when the tabernacle is empty.

There is no pope.

Kneeling there with the students (and the TV cameras; we were a “local angle” on the historic “Pope retires” story) the moment was far more emotional than I expected. The whole thing reminded me of Acts:  “So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God.”

Only now Peter wasn’t in prison. He was rising up out of the Vatican Gardens in a helicopter. He had grown old and frail and had stopped being Pope. I don’t fault him for it, I don’t consider it a Great Refusal, I don’t think he is stepping off a cross. In fact I think he shows compassion and magnanimity greater than his critics can even conceive. In his method of ending his papacy, he has shown himself to be a man of the beatitudes: Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are the meek.

What he is doing is truly great.

But that doesn’t make it any less weird.

Back at my office, I took down the picture of the Pope from my wall. Colleagues suggested that that this was unnecessary, and I appreciate their point.

I almost kept the picture up there, too. I still greatly admire him. I still feel grateful that I lived at the time when he was Pope, and I still think that the most thorough, affordable postgraduate theological education you can give yourself is to read his deep and clear writing every day.

But though I love his writing, that wasn’t the reason I had him on my wall. I had him on my wall because he was the Pope. And he is not the Pope anymore.

I remember during the Jubilee Year I briefly stayed in an apartment across the street from the colonnade of St. Peter’s. I was a father of five, but I was all alone in Rome. I loved it. I loved hearing a commotion in St. Peter’s Square and rushing out to see what was going on and finding myself a part of a celebration of one aspect of the faith or another.

I also loved going on early morning walks through the colonnade. It was on one of those early morning walks that I found myself face to face with a figure in an overcoat headed toward a side door at St. Peter’s. It was Cardinal Ratzinger. I stopped dead in my tracks and gaped, foolishly starstruck. It was obvious to him that I recognized him. He smiled shyly, nodded, and walked purposefully out of my way.

I believe Jesus Christ chose Peter to be the rock, and that he gives us his successors. And though I like the charming stories of the Galilean fisherman who was Andrew’s brother, absent Christ from the story I wouldn’t give Peter a second thought.

I believe God gave the Church the continuity of a magisterium and the grace of a vicar of Christ at its head. I think Pope Benedict XVI did a wonderful job in the role God gave him there, and I am grateful for his openness to God’s grace.

But now I can’t help but think of him as that shy, retiring man ducking into St. Peter’s through a utility door. A great man, I am convinced. But not the pope.

There is no pope.

I pray God we will have one soon.

This is especially true of men entrusted with great power. In the case of President Obama and soon-to-be Pope Emeritus Benedict, the contrast of the two men’s fortunes is especially instructive. Whereas the latter is descending the proverbial staircase with grace and self-control, the former is desperately clambering up from the bottom in a futile struggle to the top. The two men could not be more different.

As the heir to the Chair of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI possessed not only tremendous temporal power but indeed the keys to heaven itself. In the frailty and weakness of his old age, he knew that he could not adequately shepherd the souls of billions toward the gates of the eternal kingdom and so he has relinquished everything to better serve his people and his God in meditation and prayer.

In so doing, he demonstrates the greatest power of all, which is the willingness to give it up.

Meanwhile, faced with tough decisions to reduce government spending due to cuts that were enacted by his own party in the Senate, Obama’s naked display of raw power is as embarrassing as it is ugly. An elder journalist has received threats from the White House staff and the Secretary of Defense is reducing our naval presence in the most troubled part of the world, for instance.

Both men entered into their respective offices with great hope and adulation, but there the similarities end. In Rome yesterday, tens of thousands crowded into St. Peter’s Square to wish Benedict a fond farewell and express their continued joy and hope for the future of the Church.

On the other hand, any illusion that Obama still believes his 2008 campaign mantra of “Hope and Change” surely has been dispelled by the events of the past week. Hope has hardly made a comeback in Washington since the election.

Double-helix staircase at Chateaux de Chambord, Loir-et-Cher, France which allows one to ascend without meeting someone coming down

King George III was reputed to have said of George Washington’s retirement as Commander-in-Chief, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” The same could be said of Benedict today. Meanwhile, Obama’s abilities as a leader were never equal to his ambitions and his pique in response to his failures is like the madness of George III instead of the grace and humility of George Washington or the outgoing Supreme Pontiff. Whereas Pope Emeritus Benedict is laying his life at the foot of the cross in obedience to a higher power, President Obama’s second term is shaping up to be a reprise of the worst abuses of the Nixon administration.

Napoleon Bonaparte, who was well-acquainted with earthly power, is supposed to have said, “Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.” Obama seems to share in this mentality, for he is desperate to avoid the obscurity which seems inevitable as his influence wanes. However, Benedict knows better, for he remembers well the words spoken at his inauguration–and which will be spoken again at the inauguration of his successor, “sic transit gloria mundi.”

All power is for naught. In the final accounting, only grace and obedience to God will be of any value.

===

Joshua Bowman (@prolixpatriot) joined in full communion with the Catholic Church in 2010 after many years in the spiritual wilderness. He recently moved from his beloved native Virginia to Columbus, Ohio with his growing family and writes on religion, politics, history, and geographical curiosities in these pages and on his personal blog, The Prolix Patriot.

In a visit to the Rome-based Community of Saint’Egidio home for the elderly in 2012, Pope Benedict told residents that senior citizens “are an asset to society, even in suffering and disease.”

If only someone had whispered those same words in his ear before he stepped down as the 265^th successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict might not have resigned.

Most commentators have spent the past several weeks praising Pope Benedict’s “humble” and “courageous” decision to be the first pope to willfully abdicate the papacy in over 600 years. Very few have voiced their disagreement with his decision. However, an essay published in La Croix, the semi-official daily newspaper of the French church, has been getting some attention for doing precisely that.

The column in question, titled “The pope’s abandonment is a catastrophe,” is written by Pierre Dulau & Martin Steffens, two philosophy professors.

“This resignation by the pope is a catastrophe,” Dulau and Steffens argue. “It is an event that is rarely found in history, a fact that, in its symbolic violence, is a portrait of our time.” The authors continued:

The Papacy is, in the West, the very last function of which it is commonly accepted by all that it engages the one who entered it “up until death.” This “till death” means at least two things. First, that human life is not its own goal: our life has no meaning if not linked to a greater life to which we may, in justice, sacrifice everything – exactly as the love of the spouses, “till death” as well, takes its meaning from beyond itself, in a promise that does not cease existing.

This “till death” recalls consequently that the pope, a “pontiff,” is the arch that links Earth to Heaven, that is, by the threshold of death, finite life to infinite life. A pope who resigns is a bridge that decides not to reach the other side where promise lies, [a destination] of which it is the assurance, and that leads there all those who left the point of departure.

To rupture this arch by way of a unilateral decision means to join hands with the global movement of non-commitment that strikes the entire Western symbolic order. Parenthood? Yes, but if we are in the mood for it, as long as we are in the mood for it. Marriage? Yes, if I can get divorced. To be in charge? Why not, if that does not deprive me of my right to happiness… There where a word is given that opens the door of life to something greater than itself, there also that word is broken, mocked, relegated as an old oddity. And even a pope should resign? A CEO or a president may resign. A pope is fired by death.

Although I don’t entirely agree with the assertion that Pope Benedict’s decision to step down is a catastrophe, count me among those who think Dulau and Steffens marshal a very strong argument as to why pope’s shouldn’t be resigning. And count me among those who don’t think it would be wise for Pope Benedict to retire and, as some Catholic leaders have assumed he will, start cranking out books on theology. After all, didn’t he cite a deterioration in mental strength as the reason why he resigned?

Some will surely point out that the intellectual rigor required to shepherd a flock of over 1 billion is different than writing a couple of books, and that having a pope who is mentally incapable of effectively managing the church can lead to disarray. That’s a fair point. But there’s a reason why fewer than a dozen popes have resigned from the papacy over the course of the Catholic Church’s 2,000 year history. It would be unwise to think this should be the new normal.

Photo by Catholic Church (England and Wales)

Most folks have pointed to the section near the end where Benedict, in discussing Vatican II, contrasts the “Council of the Fathers” with the “Council of the media.” It is well-timed since the Pope describes how the media distorted the true intentions of the Council for its own ends, and we can point to numerous media reports in the past few days where stories of Pope Benedict’s renunciation have themselves contained distortions. Quoting Benedict:

[T]he Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics. The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world.

What follows, though, is a wonderful discussion of the impact this had on people’s perception of the liturgy (emphasis added):

There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help. This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically based, that said: “Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular world”. Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of ​​the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith. And it was so, also in the matter of Scripture: Scripture is a book, historical, to treat historically and nothing else, and so on.

Perhaps this is on my mind because I recently had the opportunity to attend Mass while out of town. How commonplace are parishes where the aim of the liturgy seems to be participation and feel-good-ism! In hindsight, the main reason why I drifted off into twice-a-year Mass attendance is precisely because of what Pope Benedict describes. Being somewhat introverted, church-as-community-activity did (and does) not appeal to me. It always gave me the impression of lowering the bar.

I praise God that my family is able to attend a (Cathedral) parish where the liturgy is celebrated more in line with the “Council of the Fathers,” as “an act of faith.” If you had to ask this non-theologian, non-philosopher, only-recently-serious Catholic what Pope Benedict will be most remembered for, I would hope it would be his attempt to draw the Church back to the beauty and timelessness of the authentic liturgy. Not because he’s stuck in the past, but because he cares about our future. He wants us all to be encouraged and strengthened on our journey towards the Father, and he knows how crucial the liturgy is in attaining that goal.

I know, the comparison is hardly equivalent for many reasons:

• Ratzinger was well-known worldwide as a leading scholar and hardly raised any eyebrows when selected as Pope; Obama was a little-known Chicago senator who advanced politically probably because his ideological leanings were kept under wraps.
• Benedict XVI shepherded an institution with divine origin and inspiration which will last for all time; President Obama rules an institution with lofty though earthly origin whose future is certainly not guaranteed.
• Everyone agrees where Ratzinger was born…

But given that Benedict was head of a billion-member Church and Obama is head of the world economic and military superpower, maybe the comparison is somewhat appropriate. So how do they (or will they) stack up?

• Even going beyond the obvious papal job description of continuing the line of St. Peter, Pope Benedict has stressed the importance of continuity with the past, both in his writings on the liturgy and in emphasizing a “hermeneutic of continuity,” especially as regards Vatican II. President Obama seems determined to break continuity with past presidents (except in fiscal profligacy) or societal tradition itself, whether it’s full-on support for abortion or same-sex “marriage.”
• Speaking of which, Pope Benedict has stood steadfast for common-sense understandings of when life begins and what marriage is (and, foundational to that, what sex is for), even though the culture is blindly charging in whatever direction feels good. President Obama is the most visible example of a relativistic culture: changing positions when it suits him, even if nature and reason aren’t on his side.
• Again speaking of which, President Obama secured his political position by relying on half-baked “arguments” that won more converts by emotion than logic. “If it feels good, do it” gets an embarrassingly high amount of support in our culture, but it wins when pushed by a good-looking and smooth-talking president or Hollywood star. Pope Benedict is not telegenic and certainly had his share of occasions where his words were easily twisted against his intent (e.g., Regensburg, his “approval” of condoms for AIDS sufferers, etc.), but no one would accuse him of sacrificing substance for style.
• President Obama stands for, well, I’m not really sure. Making the rich pay their fair share? Bringing ‘murica down a peg? Pope Benedict continually comes back to the simple Gospel theme of sharing the Good News about Jesus Christ, and the necessity of our knowing Him and doing His will. His brilliant intellect, though, can’t help but shed incredible new lights on our faith.

Whose eight-year term will have a greater impact on the world? As far as “the world” is concerned, I can’t imagine Pope Benedict generating much media interest after, say, a year from now. Maybe Obama will go out quietly too, eschewing the “did you forget me yet?” approach of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, but I somehow doubt it. He’s been elevated to god-like status on too many magazine covers to be allowed to recede quietly into the background.

Pope Benedict wants to recede quietly, and has since before he was elected. It sounds like an oxymoron to say that Ratzinger showed great humility in accepting the papacy, since most people consider exercising power to be the ultimate in self-seeking. But Ratzinger’s own choice was to be a scholar and teacher; he set aside his personal desires to serve. If, in his own words, he is too ill to continue then he is a most visible example of demonstrating that “no greater love,” since he laid down his life for us, the Church.

While President Obama will likely pen one or more best-selling memoirs about himself, Pope Benedict’s popular literary legacy will be continuing what St. John the Baptist and our Blessed Mother did: pointing to Jesus of Nazareth. The modern world may not long appreciate Pope Benedict but those in heaven certainly will, especially those whose path there was made easier and more fruitful because of what he did and taught.

Subsidiarity is a big idea from the Church. Hopefully our video can give you enough information to understand basically what it is and why it is important. But a few minutes is not enough time to thouroughly explain the philosophy. So, if you would like to learn more about Subsidiarity, and other ideas the Church teaches about how we can best structure a just society, please use the following links to help in your exploration.*

The Catholic Church on Subsidiarity:

• The Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1883, 1885, 1894
• Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII – Rerum Novarum
• Papal Encyclical of Pope Pius XI - Quadregesimo Anno
• Papal Encyclical of Pope John XXIII – Mater et Magistra
• Papal Encyclical of Pope John II – Centesimus Annus
• Papal Encyclcial of Pope Benedict XVI – Caritas in Veritate
• Pastoral Constitution Pope Paul IV – Gaudium Et Spes
• Proceedings of the 14th Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (Large, 6.9mb):  Pursuing the Common Good: How Subsidiarity and Solidarity Can Work Together

Catholics on Subsidiarity:

• How To Understand Catholic Social Teaching: Subsidiarity & Solidarity - Joe Heschmeyer
• Subsidiarity and Solidarity: Not Necessarily What You Think They Are, by: Msgr. Charles Pope
• Subsidiarity as a Principle of Governance: Beyond Devolution, by: Rob Vischer
• The Limits of Subsidiarity, by: Peter Brown
• NCRegister – Subsidiarity Defined: Downsizing Social Programs, by: Benjamin Wiker
• NCRegister – The Church and Capitalism: What Subsidiarity Tells Us, by: Benjamin Wiker

Practical Applications of Subsidiarity:

• The Acton Institute – The Principle of Subsidiarity, by: David Bosnich
• Crisis Magazine – Private Charity versus Government Welfare, by: Rev. C. J. McCloskey III
• The Acton Institute – Health Care Reform: Government Subsidy or Restoring Subsidiarity?, by:Phillip DeVous
• The Acton Institute – School Choice and Parental Duty: Returning Subsidiarity to Education, by: Joseph Klesney

on January 19, Pope Benedict turned his attention to the rapidly changing context in which the Church in the United States must proclaim the Gospel. He conveyed his alarm that the consensus about the nature of morality and the common good that was enshrined in our country’s founding documents  “has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents that are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.” These cultural trends, he added, “represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself.” It is therefore imperative for the entire Catholic community in the United States — not just the bishops, but especially “an engaged, articulate and well-formed laity” — to “realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism that finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” You don’t have to be a veteran vaticanista to recognize that he was describing the grave threats against religious freedom and conscience that are being implemented by the Obama Administration and a few like-minded radically secularist state governments.

Welcome to the Lunchtime Reader, where we assemble important stories to keep your eyes on.

Don’t like the 2012 Republican presidential field? Blame George W. Bush, says conservative columnist Philip Klein. http://is.gd/uxXhFU

Do you still support Herman Cain-style harsh anti-immigration rhetoric? Here’s your wake up call: “The Coming Latino Majority” in the U.S. Catholic Church. http://is.gd/ee1fK2

Democrats are collecting signatures at a feverish pace to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. But there are reasons for Republicans to be optimistic in Wisconsin, says the National Journal. http://is.gd/yuMnQR

A new book on Margaret Sanger attempts to airbrush her eugenicist sins from history, note Chuck Donovan and Nora Sullivan. http://is.gd/7tDnGK

“The Crisis of The Church Is the Crisis of Faith,” says Pope Benedict XVI in his “Year in Review” talk to Curial chiefs.  http://is.gd/Q0wYfE

Governor Sam Brownback is putting Tea Party principles into effect in Kansas, says the Washington Post. http://is.gd/h5S5Jq

“There are at least three reasons to hold a candidate’s past infidelities against his candidacy … that forgiveness and repentance do not nullify,” says Ramesh Ponnuru. http://is.gd/0UTPeB

The Minnesota Catholic Conference launches a pro-marriage website. http://is.gd/qa6Pr5

Dissident theologians threatened to resign, so Cardinal Pell called their bluff. You have to read this short story. http://is.gd/GIrXz4