Starting with the humorous and moving quickly to the serious.

In case you hadn’t heard, and purely for context, we announced two weeks ago that our president, Father Terence Henry, TOR, will step down from that position at the end of this academic year. That in mind, Bob Rice, popular Catholic musician and assistant professor of Catechetics here at Franciscan, offered:

Isn’t it obvious? The Pope is resigning so he can be the new president of Franciscan University.

— Bob Rice (@therealbobrice) February 11, 2013

The cuisine here in Steubenville isn’t nearly as good as in Rome, but we would certainly welcome this prospective new president… He *would* have to become a TOR, however. One of our students offered a common solution to problems here on campus:

First Fr. Terry and now the Pope? This is too much. I need a couple hours in the Port. #overwhelmed #fusprobs — FUS Problems (@fusprobs) February 11, 2013

“The Port,” for those unfamiliar, is the replica we have on campus of the Portiuncula chapel St. Francis re-built in Assisi when he heard the Lord instruct him to “Rebuild my Church.” We have perpetual adoration in the Port during the academic year. As you can imagine, that also makes it a place to go when you don’t know where else *to* go.

Our vice president for Advancement, Michael Hernon, noted, “Steubenville has a new bishop, soon a new president for the university, and now a new pope. What a year of faith!”

Sure gives one the opportunity to just let go and trust that God is in charge.

We posted a collection of reactions from Fr. Henry and some of our theology professors. Here are a few highlights.

Father Henry offered,

While Pope Benedict’s resignation is certainly unexpected, it is yet one more sign of the strong leadership he has exhibited throughout his papacy. It takes a particular kind of wisdom to know when to step down and a wonderful humility to do so.

I’ve seen some saying that Pope Benedict ought to stay in the office until he dies like John Paul II did. As much as I might think it is a good idea and I would like that to happen for the great witness is gives of noble suffering, I recognize that what I’m saying is I, I, would like it. Frankly, what I would like or what I think is the appropriate thing to do doesn’t really matter here. If I love this pope and trust his judgment then that trust must extend to a decision as momentous as this one. Few would grasp the gravity of such a move as well as Joseph Ratzinger, especially since he had a front-row view to the deterioration and demise of his beloved predecessor. Does Benedict want to set the precedent that popes ought to resign before the onset of Alzheimer’s or another debilitating disease that saps the mind but not the body? Modern medicine can keep a body alive long after the mind is gone. If we trust that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from any harmful actions of a debilitated pope—and we do—ought not we also to trust that the Holy Spirit could guide a pope to resign *before* he loses his mental faculties and then cannot resign with a free conscience and fully operational will?

Interim chair of the Department of Theology, Dr. Alan Schreck, said,

Upon his election as pope, some predicted that Pope Benedict XVI would be a polarizing figure, continuing his long-held role as the Catholic Church’s chief doctrinal defender and ‘censor.’ Pope Benedict certainly did not avoid controversy in the pursuit of truth, engaging in honest and serious dialogue with other religions and with modern culture, unafraid to challenge the ‘dictatorship of relativism.’ Yet Pope Benedict was deeply committed to promoting reconciliation: among Christians, among nations, and with those alienated from the Catholic Church.

Indeed, this pope has gone further than anyone thought imaginable extending olive branches and making efforts to restore unity. From the true meaning of his much-maligned Regensburg Address—the one that angered some fundamentalist Muslims to murderous rage, but actually led to a significant dialogue with Muslim scholars—to his visit to Turkey and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to the establishment of the Anglican Rite and the massive influx of former Anglicans to the Church, to his efforts to draw the Society of St. Pius X back into the fold, to Summorum Pontificum and the seismic shift it caused in the landscape of Catholic liturgical development, and other efforts that escape me at the moment, he has used a graceful humility, arguing with an unassailable logic, founded in the truth of the Love of God, proposing always that any approach not founded in and leading to that love, is inhuman and doomed to denigrate humanity and lessen all of us.

I love the language Dr. Regis Martin, professor of systematic theology, uses, (and I appreciate that he echoes what I said this morning):

The sudden news of the Pope’s decision to retire at the end of this month, rather than die, as his sainted predecessor did, with his boots on, has taken us all by surprise. But the shock of the realization that this gentle and good man, this wonderful Vicar of Christ whose mind is as profound as his heart is fearless, should be tempered by the recognition that while popes come and go, the Church remains forever. And the legacy he leaves behind will surely last as long as the Bride and Body of Jesus Christ himself. What precisely that patrimony will consist of I leave for another day. But surely the centerpiece of his life has always been the love of God monstrated before the world in the sending of his Son. All else has been a footnote to that horizon-shattering event. And so I see his departure in the immediate context of that blinding light. Leaving—to recall the last line of a poem by Stephen Spender—‘the vivid air signed with his honor.’

Yes. No pope’s full impact on the Church, and therefore the world, can be calculated within many decades of the end of that papacy, but I think this pope’s impact will reverberate with the loudest of them for centuries for reasons touched on in the list above of areas where he has tried for reconciliation. Striking because of how quiet and meek a man he is. But from the outset, when the first encyclical of this extraordinarily intellectual man was a profound meditation on “God is Love” (a very Augustinian opener that just warms my Augustinian heart), we knew we had something we did not expect.

Almost as though “God is Love” is the answer to, or countering position against, the “dictatorship of relativism” he identified as a great threat to modern man roughly a year prior.

More will be said in the days and weeks to follow, but that’s enough for now.

It will, however, be followed by what I’m most interested in: Cardinal Dolan’s closing prayer. THAT. could be the highlight of the conventions season if the Dems continue their anti-God, anti-Jerusalem, anti-life, anti-woman, anti-religious liberty ways.

But before you listen to Obama, or even after (if you bother), you owe it to your Catholic martial spirit to check out this homily by the normally reserved Most Reverend Gilbert Sheldon, bishop emeritus of Steubenville, delivered here at Franciscan University at the Mass in Finnegan Field House held at the beginning of this year’s new student orientation—the Mass at which new faculty and administrators took the Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium.

His Excellency’s delivery was staid and straightforward as ever, but his content was, to put it mildly, stirring. You can watch it here, with the transcript below.

The text, as delivered, with my emphases:

A year ago I had the privilege of addressing this assembly and receiving the Oath of Fidelity on behalf of the Church. I thought it would be the last time that I would have the honor of doing this in this august event. However, due to the inscrutable processes of episcopal appointments, I stand before you again.

Last year I pointed out that we are in a culture war. A war that is reducible to, on the one hand, one between those who believe in a Supreme Being who created us, who has a definite plan for our well-being now and into eternity, and to whom we are responsible; and on the other hand, those who believe in themselves as supreme beings and architects of their own destiny, with responsibility only to themselves. In their view there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is only individual choice. One choice is as good as another, and if there is a conflict between choices the choice of the majority prevails. I call attention this time to the latest battle that has been joined in that culture war: the battle for religious freedom.

A call to arms has been issued on behalf of believers by the Catholic bishops of the United States. Our antagonists are the liberal secularists in government and elsewhere, who would erode away our religious freedom. They’ve just won the first skirmish in that battle—the acceptance by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional the comprehensive health plan offered by the present administration in Washington.

Pope Benedict said in his statement recently to American bishops, quote, “once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate, and well-informed laity, endowed with a strong critical sense, and with courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate.” The Pope’s words are reflected in the battle plan that has been outlined by the U.S. bishops committee on religious liberty. It calls for study, catechesis, and prayer.

Prayer is the equipment of all believers. Study and education are further arms that we must furnish them—that is, you as faculty members, I and my colleagues from the pulpit. The high spots of the bishops’ call should be familiar to us all. It points out specific efforts in the federal and state level to curtail our religious freedom. And among them, for example, first of all would be the requirement we’ve already mentioned in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It requires that organizations offering health insurance to their employees must provide for contraception and, by implication, abortion, as so-called “reproductive health services,” or otherwise face substantial fines.

In the state of Alabama, for example, there was an effort to forbid services of any kind including spiritual services to undocumented immigrants. In effect it treats these people as worse than wartime enemies, to whom any aid and comfort is considered treasonous. It would forbid a priest from administering the Last Rights to an undocumented immigrant.

There was an effort in the state of Connecticut to intrude into the internal government of the Church by reintroducing the flawed practice of trusteeism.

And in some state universities there is an attempt to force religious organizations on campus to open their membership to all individuals, including those with contrary religious or moral convictions.

And finally there was a requirement by several states that Catholic social service agencies offer services contrary to their own stated religious and moral principles, for example in adoption and counseling services.

This secular liberal agenda would redefine the First Amendment to the Constitution so as to restrict Freedom of Religion to Freedom of Worship. And that distinction is crucial. The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Freedom of worship would restrict religious practice to worship services, presumably done in a house of worship or in private. However, the exercise of religion derives from religion itself and its own definition of its activities.

Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, includes a great many activities which are public. Not the least of which is bringing the Gospel to non-believers.

The secularist opposes any public religious display, whether public prayer or in the display of a religious symbol.

And of course we have a taste of this here in Steubenville as a proposed logo for the city is being attacked, incidentally by a group from another state, because it includes a well-known landmark—the chapel here at Franciscan University. The objection, supposedly, is that it is an involvement by the city government in religion. So how ridiculous can you get?

Our Founding Fathers were very much aware of the public dimension of religion. George Washington, in his famous farewell speech said, quote, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” He well understood that lending support to religious and moral principles must be made part of the public and political discourse. Something to which the liberal secularist is very allergic. Like many of the Founding Fathers, Washington was a deist, who derived his philosophy from John Locke. Locke, himself not a Christian, however, believed in natural law—a concept that’s firmly embedded in Catholic moral theology. The current liberal secularists would have us believe that human rights are conferred on its citizens by the State, much like welfare. But that’s not what the Declaration of Independence says. Quoting again, “we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that all are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Constitution of the United States guarantees that statement in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights which we heard before.

This call to arms by the Catholic bishops implies, if need be, civil disobedience. However, it is not saying, “if this be treason, let us make the most of it.” Civil disobedience is not disloyalty to one’s country. It is, and especially in this case, a form of patriotism, that calls upon the government to be true to the Constitution and to walk the narrow line that the Constitution lays out for it. Nor should the loyalty of Catholics in the United States ever be called into question. The blood that Catholics have shed through all the wars in past history speaks loud and clear. And admittedly there were only a handful of Catholics that fought in the American Revolution but by World War II fully a third—one out of three—men and women in uniform had “C” for “Catholic” on their identification tags—the so-called “dog tags.”

Civil disobedience is in fact a virtue when it opposes unjust law, as is the case here. Let me quote a well-known proponent of opposition to unjust law. He said, quote, “I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all. Now what is the different between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, ‘an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.’” You might be wondering what pope said that. It was no pope at all: it was Martin Luther King.

Coincidentally, or, perhaps, not so coincidentally, this battle will be contemporaneous with the Year of Faith that Pope Benedict announced; and the year of faith begins, also, marking the 20th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Again: coincidence, or divine providence?

The year of faith and the Catechism give us the logistical support that our battle requires for the faithful and for us to use. The year of faith is a call to prayer; the Catechism is an ideal tool for presenting the Catholic position. All that is needed now is the will to use them to fight. May God bless us in our struggle.”

The city of Steubenville logo, as adopted in December 2011

“Victory”! The militantly secularist group declared on their website (no, I’m not naming them or linking to them—I will not help with their SEO).

They had pressured the city of Steubenville to agree in principle to remove the cross and steeple that represents Franciscan University of Steubenville (my employer) from its brand new logo. The spokesperson for the group, one Annie Laurie Gaylor, said the inclusion of the chapel steeple and cross is a sign “that Steubenville is a theocracy and is a Christian city where nonChristians or nonbelievers are not favored citizens.”

The city does not have the financial resources to defend itself against any lawsuit the group might file, did not seek outside help initially, and so decided the most prudent course of action would be simply to change the logo.

Victory, they declared.

Heh.

Within hours of the story becoming news, at first only local, then going national, and international, a number of organizations contacted the city offering to defend the city’s case pro bono. Now the issue is “on hold” as the city weighs its options.

Gaylor was not pleased, and she said some rather remarkable things. From an article in the National Catholic Register:

Gaylor was glad the city originally backed down, and her organization’s website claimed it as an “[redacted] victory” on July 25. But on July 29, Gaylor said she fears a fight from the Becket Fund, the Liberty Counsel, the American Center for Law and Justice or other organizations that defend religious liberty.

“These organizations are buttinskis,” Gaylor said. “They are outside groups that interject themselves into these controversies. If they want to fight us, I’m sure we can find a plaintiff.”

All emphasis mine. Let’s look at that.

• She fears a fight. Excellent. All bullies fear a fight. Bullies bully those whom they are confident they can manipulate and keep down through fear and intimidation. As soon as the bullied either bulks up or gets a friend the bully’s cowardice shows.
• Perhaps the most hand-smacks-forehead line in the entire affair is “These organizations are buttinskis.” Read that again. She who sits up there in über-liberal Madison, Wisconsin, inserted herself into local affairs of a small town on the eastern edge of Ohio; she who who refuses to name a heretofore unknown local complainant; she condescends to inform us that Becket, et al., who are offering to defend the city against this coercion from outside bullies, *they* are the “buttinskis” here. I think along with God she also rejects irony or self-awareness.
• “I’m sure we can find a plaintiff.” What, your local complainant won’t step up and out of the shadow? Sez somethin’.

I’m getting an image in my head. It’s like when a cat has a chipmunk or small bird by the neck in its mouth but hasn’t killed it yet and you try to intervene to save the poor thing or put it out of its misery: the cat, who could be as nice and pleasant every other time, suddenly turns on the menacing growling and lashes out, deeply perturbed that you would dare try to save what it has *rightly* captured and subdued, and knowing that you could, very well, snatch its prey away and set it free.

Gaylor’s antipathy to religion-in-the-public-square isn’t reserved just to logos, though. She views merely entering a church, any church, for a government-related purpose as harmful:

Gaylor said she knows firsthand that mixing government and religion “causes injury” to atheists.

“My polling site was moved into a church one year,” Gaylor said. “I could not vote. I actually didn’t mind the church. It was a liberal church. I had attended concerts there. They often had liberal political functions there. My dad had been the janitor in that church. What caused injury was being told I had to enter a church in order to vote. It represented government coercion.”

Merely entering the hall, not even the sanctuary, of a church of unknown denomination —one she had entered willingly for concerts and otherwise finds common cause with—”caused injury.” It “represented government coercion.”

Again: she had, under her own power, with full knowledge, entered that church for concerts. The concerts possibly even had somewhat-sacred music. And she was okay with that. But when the polling location was moved to the church hall, all of a sudden she could not enter.

And we are valuing her opinion concerning what is and what is not a violation of the Establishment Clause?

If we cannot fight back against bullies like this I don’t know what fights we could still muster.

——–

P.S. The Steubenville City Council meets in about an hour for a regular meeting at which this issue will be discussed. The big sticking point right now is the ability of the city to pay any legal fees and associated costs should they pursue the case and lose. The likely scenario should the city decide to fight the case with pro bono counsel is that the atheist group will back off, having been duly counter-intimidated. The case is eminently winnable on the merits, and both sides know that, but due diligence dictates that the city waits to pursue the potential litigation until they are certain those costs, if incurred (not likely), will be covered without further depleting the city’s limited resources.

The city of Steubenville logo, as adopted in December 2011

Now my two cents: The city of Steubenville adopted a new logo in December which included a Revolutionary War soldier and the reproduction of Revolutionary War-era Fort Steuben, for which the city is named, the cityscape, and the dominant image of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, the most prominent visual feature of the area. Off to the side of the logo is the steeple and cross atop Christ the King Chapel, the most prominent feature of the logo of Franciscan University of Steubenville. The University lauded the city for this inclusion.

It was right and appropriate for the city to include the logo of the University in its logo.

Today we learned that the city, bowing to pressure from the militantly secularist Freedom From Religion Foundation, has decided to remove the Chapel and cross.

Franciscan University’s iconic cross and chapel were not included in the city’s logo because we are a Catholic institution. They were not included because the Chapel is especially lovely. They were included because the city logo was intended to represent the most prominent features of life in the city of Steubenville, and Franciscan University of Steubenville has been one of those for decades.

Franciscan University of Steubenville is one of the largest employers in the city, second only to the hospital system (though I may be wrong—we may have surpassed the hospitals). Franciscan brings thousands of people from across the country and many other countries, not only as students, but many thousands every summer for our robust and unique summer conferences. Those thousands of people plus the hundreds of families of faculty and staff who live in and around this city who are raising their children here because of this University contribute mightily to the local economy. Many public-private partnerships have seen the University and the city collaborate to improve life here in town. Our student-led missionary outreach activities directly assist the most disadvantaged in town. And Franciscan University of Steubenville has changed Steubenville’s place “on the map.”

Even just thirty years ago if someone outside the Ohio River Valley had heard of Steubenville the association was mob activity, drugs, and prostitution. Abe Bryan, the late, long-time, beloved coach of the Steubenville “Big Red” football team (high school football passion here rivals that of any school in Texas), said as much during his acceptance speech when the University honored him with the President’s Award at the 2011 Century Club Awards Dinner.

But, Bryan noted, when Father Michael Scanlan, TOR, took the reins of the dying College of Steubenville in 1974, launched the household system and the summer conferences in 1975 a whole new chapter began. Now, because of the fearless faith of our graduates going nationwide to teach and lead with a love for the Church, and particularly because our youth conferences happen in 14 locations nationwide and one in Canada, if someone has heard of Steubenville across this country the association is Franciscan University of Steubenville and our summer conferences—they may know it only as “Steubenville,” or “Steubie U” and not even know that it’s called “Franciscan University,” so associated with the city has our activity become.

The phenomenon is global as well. Fifteen years ago during a Papal Audience in St. Peter’s Square, Blessed John Paul II was welcoming the different groups who had come. When he mentioned the students who had come to Rome from our perennial study abroad program in Austria our students let out a cheer loud enough that the great Pope paused, turned, smiled, and said, “Ah, Steubenville!”

And more recently this happened (how can you not love that pause and smile)?

“Steubenville” is known because Franciscan University of Steubenville is known.

The major element of the University’s logo was included in the city logo not because Franciscan is a Catholic institution but because it is a major component of the life of the city in a way no other institution is. Not to include the University’s logo would be to ignore a major part of what makes this city what it is.

To say it another way: the University logo was incorporated into the city logo because the University is a major part of the city just as the Veteran’s Memorial Bridge and Historic Fort Steuben are. Inclusion does not push Christianity on anyone and does not make the city’s logo an exclusively Christian work of art—it recognizes the reality of the life of the city. The city offered to include another campus structure in the logo, an offer the University refused because no other edifice or architectural feature so directly represents the institution—no representation at all would be equal to unrecognizable representation.

Thus the University is dis-recognized simply because some militant secularists have a too-broad reading of the Establishment Clause. The same justification that keeps “In God We Trust” on our money, “under God” in the Pledge, and that allows St. Louis, Corpus Christi, St. Augustine, and the countless cities that start with “San” in the southwest and all over California to retain their Christian-origin names applies here. Use of Christian imagery in the logo is a result of the decision to honor what makes the locality what it is rather than the motivating principle of the new logo design.

And, to put it bluntly, because I know this will come up in the comments, if a Jewish temple or a mosque were as significant in Steubenville as is Franciscan University of Steubenville I would heartily support the inclusion of a Star of David or a minaret with crescent moon in the logo. I would not feel it endorsed those religions, but bespoke the prominence of those institutions in the city. But they are not. Franciscan University is. Our logo is the steeple of our chapel. The city saw fit to include us in the logo. No oppressive threats of lawsuits from outsiders should alter that.

We have public creches and menorahs, chaplains of all faiths paid by the military, various religious symbols in countless government places, and many other manifestations of the religious heritage of the citizens of this country in places owned and operated by the government. The push to remove them all is an attack on the heritage that has formed this country and to supplant all religion with irreligion, which results in the religion of the state and the raw exercise of power. That push needs to be resisted rather than settled out of court.

This weekend also holds the second weekend of Franciscan University of Steubenville Youth Conferences. More than 5,000 youth and their chaperones will gather in three locations—here on campus in Steubenville, in Alexandria, Louisiana, and in West Palm Beach, Florida—in witness of their love of the Lord, to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, to be emboldened to live as Christians in the world. They are the future of this great nation. They are the future of our Church. And they desperately need to know the love of Jesus Christ, and to know the truth which flows from that love, protected and promoted by the Catholic Church.

Eucharistic adoration, along with praise and worship, is a signficant portion of the weekend, with the Saturday evening adoration including a procession through the crowd. (Photo: Franciscan University of Steubenville)

(See pictures from last weekend’s first on-campus conference.)

The youth conferences are in their 36th year, but never before have they happened under such a cloud of confusion and hostility from the culture at large. Our young people are stewing in a culture that becomes more and more anti-Christian by the day. The family, marriage, authentic love and sexual ethics, life itself, are all under acute attack. The Church is told to stay in her room and keep the door closed with the shades drawn. She is told she can no longer care for the sick, clothe the naked, feed the poor, or educate the masses, unless she bows to modern secular morality.

But this has the arrangement exactly backward. The Church does not exist to follow the culture—she exists to form the culture, redeem the time. The Lord did not come to be a reed blowing in the wind, but to be the Lamb who was slain to become source of life. The secular humanist utilitarians who direct the modern zeitgeist follow in a long line of hedonists who, wittingly or not, oppose the true flourishing of the human person, failing to realize or willfully ignoring what man and woman were created to be. The Church has always stood opposed to this coarsening, flattening, dispiriting (literally) philosophy.

The Church says man and woman, the culture says any arrangement is fine. The Church says wait until marriage, the culture says that’s impossible and dumb. The Church says it’s a child, the culture says it’s a woman’s right to choose. The Church says, “God loves you as you are, but He loves you too much to let you stay there. As John Paul II said, ‘you can expect moral and spiritual greatness of yourself.’” The culture says, “You’re already good enough, in fact, too good, stop trying to be better; just try to feel good in your mediocrity like everyone else, just redefine mediocrity as ‘greatness’ and call it good.”

And every year, at nearly 20 conferences across this country including one in Canada, nearly 35,000 youth and their chaperones have an opportunity to leave behind the flattening message of the culture and rejoice in the Good News, knowing that there is a glorious, exultant alternative. And then they are emboldened to go forth and help others see greatness that they were made for.

This year’s conferences, especially the conferences during this Fortnight for Freedom, are more special because of the storms raging in our society. The youth who come these days are even more deeply scarred than those who came even a few years ago. The proliferation of pornography online, the anti-Christian messages pumping through our schools, the steady erosion of support for true marriage and family life, and the constant barrage of secular humanist utilitarian morality.

The conferences cannot undo the damage in one weekend, but they can give evidence of an alternative. They can go a long way to marking the contrast between the culture of life and the culture of death. And just providing the spark that such an alternative is possible may be all some of our youth need to begin the ascent to their God-given greatness.

————-

Tom Crowe is a writer and the web content editor at Franciscan University of Steubenville. The views expressed are solely his own and do not reflect the views of any other person or organization.