Catholic Defense League

Journey Home to the Catholic Church: I Have Jumped into the Tiber to Swim Across

June 13th, 2009

“… I am becoming a Roman Catholic along with my wife Rhea and our six children.”

by Jeffrey Steel

“…What I became aware of was that it was almost impossible to say ‘the Church teaching is’ within the Anglican church because there are so many various opinions on matters of sacraments, liturgy, morality, scripture etc. What I did not want to experience anymore was proclaiming the teaching of the Church only to end up defending myself rather than the Anglican church defending me. This has become an ever-increasing impossibility that is no secret to the entire Anglican world. My preaching would always be seen as a matter of personal opinion rather than having the authority of the Magisterium that backs up what I teach publicly. Of course there is dissent in the Catholic Church but it is always that, dissent towards what Mother Church proclaims as authoritatively true. It is the truth of Mother Church that I embrace as my own deep personal faith.

“…

“In my heart, I knew that I had grown to love and believe the Catholic faith as it was taught in the Catholic Catechism. On my final day in Rome on 17 April 2009 I went to the tomb of S. Peter and knelt and prayed for quite some time. I knew in my heart I was a Catholic and asked what it was that was keeping me from converting. All sorts of fears …”

Posted in Church Teaching, Dissenting Groups, Good News | No Comments »

Bernardin vs. Obama

June 2nd, 2009

From the National Catholic Register

“At Notre Dame, Obama referred to Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.

“That must have had Cardinal Bernardin turning over in his grave,” writes Elizabeth Lev.

Then, she finds an extraordinary quote from the cardinal himself … and in the Register, no less.

… Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in a front-page interview in the June 12, 1988, National Catholic Register, said:

‘I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual.” He went on to say, “I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.’ ”

Posted in Abortion, Politicians | No Comments »

the full threat Obama poses for the American Catholic conscience

May 27th, 2009

From an article By Michael Novak in National Review Online which lays bare president Obama’s position on abortion:

One. In 2004, the American Catholic bishops formally declared that Catholic educational and other institutions in the U.S. ought not to give honors to any public leader who speaks against (defies) our fundamental moral principles. This was a solemn declaration, an explicit part of the bishops’ teaching magisterium. In the case of Obama, two fundamental principles were at stake: the right to life and freedom of conscience.
Two. About 40 percent of America’s 65 million Catholics attend Mass at least once weekly. Most of these Catholics stand with the natural law to oppose abortion, often passionately. For some years, and even in part today, Catholic laymen and women have been more public and fierce in their hatred for abortion than many bishops, who at times have seemed to be afraid to take the lead and voice their consciences in public. But in recent years, more and more American bishops have been quite brave about this issue, and embarrassed many of their brother bishops into public support for the pro-life cause. The late John Cardinal O’Connor of New York was an outstanding leader in this respect.

By contrast, those Catholics who go to Mass less than weekly (or, in about 10 percent of cases, never) have virtually the same pro-abortion views as the general secular and latitudinarian Protestant population.

Thus, when the secular press writes of “Catholics,” one must distinguish, in one’s own mind, which Catholics they mean, the most committed in practicing their faith, or the less serious and less observant. It is crystal clear that the most committed Catholics are nearly all pro-life — if not in all circumstances, then in virtually all. The less committed tend to support abortion in one way or another.
Three. In the U.S., abortion law is extremely radical, with little leeway for compromises. The Supreme Court decided the issue in 1973, without seeking the consent of the people, and without support in the text of the Constitution. Essentially, the Court said that every woman at any moment has the right to have an abortion, right up to the moment of birth. This is the most extreme law in any civilized nation. This is the standard that secular people and their sympathizers now take as the supreme measure of “reason.” Any opposition to it is painted as extremism.
Four. Barack Obama, the bearer of so much promise as the fulfillment of the dream of those many Americans who died to overcome slavery, segregation, and second-class status for the children of Africa, has in fact gone farther than any president in American history in supporting abortion.

He has supported what is euphemistically called “partial-birth abortion,” which is actually disguised infanticide: An abortionist induces birth, and just as the infant is beginning to emerge from the birth canal, the abortionist plunges scissors into its brain to kill it, so that, technically, it is dead before full delivery. And Obama has opposed legislation that would have forbidden the voluntary throwing into a hospital garbage bin of any child on whom an abortion was attempted, but who nonetheless was born alive. As an Illinois state senator and then as a U.S. senator, Obama spoke against banning this practice. He was virtually alone in U.S. politics in going to such an extreme, just to please his pro-abortion constituency (which is central to his political base).

During the 2008 campaign, he memorably noted that he would not “punish” his two young daughters by obliging them to give birth to a baby they might have conceived unintentionally. That a new child is a “punishment” is a position never before taken by a major political candidate in the United States.
Five. Worse, this Freedom of Choice Act would infringe the freedom of conscience of health-care workers. Anyone who would stand in the way of abortion could be recognized as a criminal. Thus doctors and nurses, even in Christian hospitals, who found participation in abortions abhorrent would be forced by law to practice abortion when requested, and forbidden to suggest alternatives. The practical upshot of this would be the refusal of Catholic and some other Christian hospitals to participate in abortions, and the closing of their obstetrical facilities — and perhaps the closing of entire hospitals. (Christian — mainly Catholic — hospitals comprise almost a third of all hospitals in the U.S.)

Posted in Abortion, Church Teaching, Politicians | No Comments »

From the Wikipedia bio on John Joeseph Cardinal O’Connor

May 27th, 2009

Relations with the gay community

(For a version with references and links, see: Wikipedia)

O’Connor adhered to the traditional Catholic teaching that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law, intrinsically immoral and therefore never permissible, while homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered but not in themselves sinful. He resisted attempts within the Church to modify that traditional understanding[citation needed] and was frequently at odds with New York’s gay community during his tenure as Archbishop.[citation needed]

O’Connor actively opposed Executive Order 50, a mayoral order issued in 1980 by Mayor Ed Koch, which required all City contractors, including religious entities, to provide services on a non-discriminatory basis with respect to race, creed, age, sex, handicap, as well as “sexual orientation or affectational preference”.[24] After the Salvation Army received a warning from the City that its contracts for child care services would be canceled for refusing to comply with the executive order’s provisions regarding sexual orientation,[25] the Archdiocese of New York and Agudath Israel, an Orthodox Jewish organization, threatened to cancel their contracts with the City if forced to comply.[26] O’Connor maintained that the executive order would cause the Church to appear to condone homosexual practices and lifestyle.[27][27] Writing in Catholic New York in January 1985, O’Connor characterized the order as “an exceedingly dangerous precedent [that would] invite unacceptable governmental intrusion into and excessive entanglement with the Church’s conducting of its own internal affairs.” Drawing the traditional Catholic distinction between homosexual “inclinations” and “behavior”, he stated that “we do not believe that homosexual behavior … should be elevated to a protected category.”[28]

We do not believe that religious agencies should be required to employ those engaging in or advocating homosexual behavior. We are willing to consider on a case-by-case basis the employment of individuals who have engaged in or may at some future time engage in homosexual behavior. We approach those who have engaged in or may engage in what the Church considers illicit heterosexual behavior the same way…. We believe, however, that only a religious agency itself can properly determine the requirements of any particular job within that agency, and whether or not a particular individual meets or is reasonably likely to meet such requirements.[29]

Subsequently, the Salvation Army, the Archdiocese and Agudath Israel, together with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, brought suit against the City of New York to overturn the executive order on the grounds that the Mayor had exceeded his executive authority in issuing it.[27][30] In September 1984, the New York Supreme Court agreed with the religious entities and struck down that part of the executive order that prohibited discrimination based upon “sexual orientation or affectational preference” on the grounds that the Mayor had exceeded his authority.[31] In June 1985, New York’s highest court upheld the lower court’s decision striking down the executive order.[32]

O’Connor vigorously and actively opposed City and State legislation guaranteeing the civil rights of homosexual persons, including legislation (supported by then-Mayors Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani) prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation in housing, public accommodations and employment.[33][33][34][35]

O’Connor also supported the decision by the Ancient Order of Hibernians to exclude the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization from marching as such under its own banner in New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade.[36] The Hibernians argued that their decision as to which organizations may march in the parade, which honors St. Patrick, a Catholic saint, was protected by the First Amendment and that they could not be compelled to admit a group whose beliefs conflicted with theirs.[37] In 1992, in a decision criticized by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the City of New York ordered the Hibernians to admit the gay organization to march in the pararde.[38] The City subsequently denied the Hibernians a permit for the parade until, in 1993, a federal judge in New York held that the City’s permit denial was “patently unconstitutional” because the parade was private, not public, and constituted “a pristine form of speech” as to which the parade sponsor had a right to control the content and tone.[39]

O’Connor also prohibited a pro-homosexual group from meeting in New York parishes[40]. O’Connor celebrated Mass with members of Courage, a Catholic ministry to homosexual men and women that seeks to encourage them to abstain from sexual relations and live chastely in accordance with church teachings.[citation needed]

Posted in Bishops, Church Teaching, Homosexuality, Religious Oppression, Sanctity of Marriage | No Comments »

Will the Church be next?

May 23rd, 2009

This is not meant to be humorous!

Preseident Obama says he does not want to run Chrysler, GM, financial and other institutions. However they do continue to pile up. Here is a report from George Weigel, via LifeSite News:
Obama’s Notre Dame Speech Tried to Redefine U.S. Catholicism - George Weigel

George Weigel charged that Obama has inserted himself into intra-Catholic disputes by trying to define who a “real Catholic” is. He warned the president risks assuming the headship of the dissident wing of U.S. Catholicism, pitting Catholic intellectuals and institutions against their bishops.

Weigel, writing in a Monday essay for National Review Online, said it was “surprising” and “disturbing” that President Obama decided to “insert himself” into “the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic convention in the public square.”

Weigel compared the effort to the historical phenomenon of “Gallicanism,” the French bishops’ past efforts to establish a church generally independent of papal authority.

“This is a very serious business, with the president of the United States putting himself in charge of the Gallican wing of the Catholic Church in the United States — the difference being that this new Gallicanism isn’t local bishops vs. Rome but intellectuals and their institutions and magazines vs. local bishops and Rome,” Weigel told CNA.

Weigel said that the “politically savvy” White House and its allies among Catholic progressive intellectuals may have intended to secure Obama’s political advantage among Catholic voters with his appearance at Notre Dame.

The Catholic commentator also argued that the president indirectly presented himself as a more significant authority than the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who had “explicitly and unambiguously” instructed Catholic institutions not to honor pro-abortion rights politicians.

President Obama put forward the late Archbishop of Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin as the model for being “congenial and gentle” and for “always trying to bring people together.” Weigel said Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” approach to public policy ended up helping Catholic politicians and laymen dodge moral objections to their support for a permissive abortion regime. According to Weigel, the U.S. bishops abandoned the “seamless garment” metaphor in 1998 to better emphasize the foundational nature of the life issues. He also suggested that President Obama’s praise for Cardinal Bernardin was an implicit criticism of contemporary bishops who are vocally pro-life, like present Archbishop of Chicago Cardinal Francis George.

Here is a link to the full story on the Catholic News Agency:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16048

Posted in Attacks, Church Teaching, Persecution, Religious Oppression | No Comments »

Washington Post misrepresents the Vatican and misinforms on Notre Dame

May 15th, 2009

E.J. Dionne, Jr. of the Washington Post had an opinion piece on his take on the Vatican’s reaction to the Notre Dame controversy as evidenced by one “signed” editorial in L’Osservatore Romano” newspaper (unsigned editorials carry the full weight of the Vatican’s official newspaper. Signed items are the opinion of the individual who wrote the piece) as printed in the Star Tribune on Sunday, May 10. You may read it here

E.J. Dionne Jr’s article in the Star Tribune on Sunday May 10, 2009, “Divided and Driven by the Politics of Abortion” is full of distortions and misrepresentations. For starters, the Vatican must deal with Obama as head of state and negotiate with him and his administration on many different issues, worldwide. Dionne’s attempt to tie the Vatican newspaper’s statements to the personal attitude of the Pope is misinformed at best and disingenuous at worst. We’ll take up his distortion of polling numbers later but here are some items that refute Dionne’s focus on the Vatican newspaper as being the operative word on the Pope’s and the Church’s view of this scandalous event:

Pope Benedict’s visit to the United States a little over a year ago. “Pope Benedict returned to The Catholic University of America on the evening of April 17 to meet with the heads of more than 200 American Catholic colleges and universities and superintendents of Catholic schools from the 195 dioceses of the United States. He delivered a public address on the role of Catholic education in addressing the “crisis of truth,” which, he declared, has its roots in a “crisis of faith.”[1]

Pope John Paul II published an encyclical, Ex Corde Ecclesiae with the cooperation and collaboration of then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, that defines the responsibilities of any Catholic higher school.

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops published a directive on the duty of any Catholic School not to honor one whose position is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church.

Archbishop Burke, Prefect of the Vatican’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, called on Catholics to “give an uncompromising witness” to the dignity of life and sharply criticized the University of Notre Dame for its planned honor for pro-abortion President Barack Obama during an address this morning to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC.

The dictates of Canon Law defining the responsibility of Fr. Jenkins to obey his local bishop who clearly and forcefully demands that he not carry out this travesty and who refuses to attend the ceremony.

If one looks at all the evidence and writing from the leadership of the Church it is clear that Fr. Jenkins is operating outside the Church. In doing so, he divorces Notre Dame from the Church. To me and (I suppose) most Catholics, Notre Dame is the pre-eminent icon of Catholicity in America, surpassing St. Patrick’s Cathedral (apologies to Archbishop Dolan) and the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, and even the missions of California. To have it thus disgraced is a tragedy.

This debate and disagreement is not about politics. It is not about abortion, per se. It is not about president Obama. It is not even about Fr. Jenkins. It IS about the ACTIONS of Fr. Jenkins (and there is a huge difference between condemning the Actions and condemning the person!) It is about an action that is scandal. It scandalizes students at Notre Dame and everywhere. It scandalizes all Catholics and particularly those at Notre Dame. Obama’s record, dating back to the beginning of his political career, shows extreme support for abortion, at one point even opting for the killing of a baby born alive as the result of a botched abortion. However, that’s not the point here. The point is Fr. Jenkins’ honoring this man by awarding, of all things, a law degree and the forum to speak at the Notre Dame Commencement ceremony. In providing this honor, Fr. Jenkins conveys the impression that president Obama’s views are worthy of consideration or are open to debate! That is scandal.

Now to the polling numbers. Who are these people calling themselves “Catholic”? If one was baptized a Catholic but does not go the Church regularly, is he really a “Catholic”? Not attending Church regularly is seriously sinful and separates one from God. If one, while calling himself Catholic, publicly proclaims that abortion is OK or that sex between two men is OK, or even that artificial birth control is OK, is that person really a “Catholic”? A Catholic is one who accepts the teaching of the Church and, to the best of his ability, puts that into practice. The very essence of the Catholic faith is the authority of the Pope and the Bishops, collectively referred to as the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church.

If one were to poll Catholics, the numbers would be much different from those quoted by Dionne. From the Cardinal Newman Society: “The Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that, by a 60% to 25% margin, U.S. Catholics say Notre Dame should obey guidelines issued by the U.S. bishops and refrain from awarding an honorary degree to the president. Among all Americans, 52% oppose the honor and 25% support it.”

Pat Phillips, President, Catholic Defense League (no kin to the Catholic League)

Posted in Abortion, Bishops, Church Teaching, Politicians | No Comments »

President Barack Obama Record On Life

May 2nd, 2009

The NRLC, National Right To Life [Committee?] has a running list of anti-life acitvities of the Obama administration here . It starts with the quote below:

“Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose….Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have
consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.” -Barack Obama

Posted in Abortion, Moral Values, Sanctity of Life | No Comments »

Vatican II Did Not Change Doctrine of the Church!

April 18th, 2009

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS (click for full text)REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

…

FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]

…

Posted in Apologetics, Church Teaching, Vatican II | No Comments »

Archbishop abused his office - BALONEY!

April 15th, 2009

On Holy Thursday, the Star Tribune published an op-ed piece by D.J. Leary, copied below. It is a scurrilous and vicious attack by someone representing himself to be “Catholic” but who, by his statements clearly demonstrates that he is not. Both the Star Tribune and Leary show a strong anti-Catholic bias.

By D.J. Leary

Last update: April 10, 2009 - 6:57 PM

This is one of the holiest periods of the liturgical calendar in my Roman Catholic faith. It is so special that it’s the only time in the year that the Church designates as “Holy Week.” Yet, in this holiest of periods, our Archbishop has behaved in a manner that has been anything but holy. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt’s recent actions have forced other members of this family of faith to endure the most appallingly, unholy, disrespectful, and inappropriate abuse of position, power and privilege exhibited by any local church leader of similar standing in recent memory.

I refer, quite obviously to the Archbishop’s statement attacking our new president because of his political beliefs. Nienstedt has misused his office in an attempt to strong-arm the distinguished University of Notre Dame to rescind its invitation to President Barak Obama to be the principal speaker at this magnificent institution’s commencement next month.

I certainly hope that people who do not identify themselves as Catholic don’t assume that Archbishop Nienstedt speaks for each of the more than 750,000 Catholics who make up his flock. Neither should the Archbishop, himself, presume that he speaks for of us who make up that membership.

When Archbishop Nienstedt speaks to those of us who occupy the pews of the 222 parishes in his archbishopric on matters strictly related to faith and morals, then we listen and, perhaps, even learn. Some heed his Excellency’s directives and, no doubt, some do not. After all, it is a church based on concept of Free Will.

Urging the leading Catholic university in this country to rescind its generous and thoughtful speaking invitation to President Barak Obama is not only an outrage, it is far beyond the Archbishop’s proper purview. It is, quite frankly, an unspeakable embarrassment to those of us who share the Archbishop’s identity as Catholics and Americans, but do not share his politics. Thankfully, Notre Dame University has a deeper sense of honor, nobility, and good manners. It knows—clearly better than Nienstedt—when the Archbishop is out of line as a spokesperson for Catholics on a political matters.

John Nienstedt was only 13 years old when, on September 12, 1960, the Democratic nominee for the office now held by President Obama, Sen. John F. Kennedy, went before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. In a speech that historians still believe to be one of the most important diversity statements of American public life, Kennedy set forth the boundaries of the freedoms of religion and speech that are held so sacred in our national culture and character.
Because the Archbishop appears to be totally unfamiliar with the precepts of that part of our U.S. Constitution, allow me to quote Kennedy: “…I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

Kennedy went on to state: “…I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all….:

Near the end of this moving and lasting declaration, and to the point of Nienstedt’s call for Notre Dame to uninvite President Obama, Kennedy made certain the protestant clergy, who constituted most of that 1960 audience, had no doubt where he stood: “…Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”

As equally unauthorized to speak for anybody else, as Archbishop Nienstedt was in this instance, I ask, Mr. President, that you please accept my deepest and most sincere apologies for this dishonorable and ill-mannered action by one of our church leaders

Posted in Bishops, Dissenting Groups | No Comments »

MOST REVEREND TIMOTHY M. DOLAN ARCHBISHOP-DESIGNATE OF NEW YORK

April 14th, 2009

“Thanks For Opening the Doors”
Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:29 PM
HOMILY OF THE MOST REVEREND TIMOTHY M. DOLAN
ARCHBISHOP-DESIGNATE OF NEW YORK
SOLEMN VESPERS AND RECEPTION INTO THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH
ST PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL
NEW YORK
14 APRIL 2009

Thank you, everybody, for opening the door and letting me in when I knocked! It sure is good to be at home with all of you!

As I look out with heartfelt affection and appreciation at you good people who just opened the door and let me in, I embrace eminent cardinals — especially my esteemed predecessor, Cardinal Edward Egan — brother bishops, Archbishop Sambi and Archbishop Migliore, brother priests, deacons, and seminarians, women and men consecrated religious, representatives of every vicariate in this expansive archdiocese, parish leaders, respected civic and ecumenical partners, dear Mom, family, loyal friends from St. Louis, D.C., Kansas City, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Rome, Ireland, Australia — brothers and sisters all:

Thanks for opening the door wide enough even for me to get in.

Thanks for welcoming me so warmly as your new pastor!

Thanks for already making me feel at home!

Thanks for letting me into your lives!

I am so glad you are here! And it sure beats sitting at home doing our last-minute tax returns, doesn’t it?

You realize the statement we are making this evening. As I begin my apostolic ministry as your new shepherd, there is nothing more effective, more appropriate, more powerful that we can do than pray, pray as the Church. Pope Benedict XVI repeatedly exhorts us that every project, every initiative, should begin with adoration — praising the God without whom we can do nothing, with whom everything is possible, humbly placing our dreams, fears, hopes, and trust in His omnipotent hands. That we do this evening.

A special word of greeting to our Jewish friends, now concluding Passover, and, un abrazo especial a nuestra querida comunidad Latina por ser obsequio y promesa para esta arquidiócesis.

Thanks, most of all, everyone, for opening the doors of your hearts to the Lord Jesus Christ!

He it is, of course, who stands at the portal of every soul and gently knocks. Life’s most pivotal question then becomes whether we will open the door of our existence and let Him in, to receive incomparable light, love, mercy, and friendship, or whether we will remain closed-up in darkness, self-absorption, sin, and isolation.

So did St. Peter in God’s Word this evening prayer exhort us to “Come to the Lord!”

So did St. Peter’s successor, John Paul the Great, inspire the world when he challenged us, at his first Mass as Pope, to “open wide the doors to Christ.”

So did Pope Benedict XVI, in his inaugural Mass, invite us to “open-up in friendship with Jesus.”

One of my favorite illustrations of Jesus is the familiar one of Him standing outside the door of a simple home, gently knocking. In second grade at Holy Infant School in Ballwin, Missouri, my teacher, Sister Mary Bosco Daly, who this evening, fresh from Ireland, just read our scripture passage from St. Peter, asked us to look closely at that picture and see if we noticed anything strange. “Yes,” Carolyn Carey finally raised her hand and blurted out, “there is no door knob!”

“Right,” observed Sister Bosco, “because Jesus cannot open up and barge in on His own. He patiently waits for us to open the door of our hearts and invite Him in to stay with us.”

That lesson alone, Mom, was worth all the sacrifices you and Dad made to send us five kids to Catholic school.

Because that’s the ultimate question, in the end the only one that really counts: will we open up in faith, hope, and love to the God who gently knocks on the door to our being, asking Him in to live with us? Or will fear, self-absorption, and darkness keep us locked up in ourselves?

The Church is at her best, faithful to her mission, when she invites people to open the door and ask Jesus in. That’s precisely the invitation this Archdiocese of New York extends; that’s the proposal the Church makes to the world. As Bernini explained the massive colonnade surrounding St. Peter’s Square, “Those are the arms of Mother Church reaching out to embrace all people!”

This is the “theology of invitation” articulated by the servant of God, John Paul II.

God invites us . . . never coerces . . . God invites us to believe in Him, trust Him, accept Him. God invites us to let Him be the Lord of our life; and when we do, our lives are never the same; our lives will last forever!

Jesus, His son, is the invitation incarnate, as He invites us to a life of meaning, purpose, life to the fullest, life never-ending. To allow Him in is genuine freedom, the start of an adventure in fidelity. Living in the true liberty of Christ is not easy. It requires fidelity and heroic virtue. In our celebration days ago of Holy Week and Easter, we reverently recalled God’s liberation of the people of Israel from bondage in Egypt — which our Jewish neighbors are now celebrating as Passover concludes — and remembered how, during the Exodus, God gave us the gift of the Ten Commandments, lest this newly freed people would lapse back to the habits of slaves. When the Church proclaims the moral truth about the dignity of the human person, she helps us all live free.

Sadly, we have usually tragically said no to God’s invitation, most dramatically at the event we somberly recalled five days ago, Good Friday.

But we have a God who will not take no for an answer, as Easter demonstrates definitively.

And now Christ stands at the door and knocks, and the Church nudges us to open up and invite Him in!

But, you know all this, because this venerable Church of New York has been doing it for 201 years!

My brother priests, you are the ones who “open the door to the sacred” through Word and Sacraments. You do it so faithfully and so generously! I am so proud to call you “brothers”; I am so awestruck to be the elder brother of a presbyterate known for its zeal and devotion. I thank you, brother priests, for continuing to be agents of the divine invitation, and to you I pledge my life and love!

Consecrated women, vowed religious sisters, brothers, priests, for centuries you have opened the door to Christ identified with the sick, the immigrant, the troubled, the forgotten, and to millions of our children in our splendid schools, and who have loyally prayed without ceasing with and for the Church, this archdiocese owes you so very much. Please, keep opening the door to Jesus;

Our deacons, their loyal spouses, our devoted lay pastoral collaborators, please keep showing by your lives of service and joy that letting this Jesus in the door is a choice one never regrets;

Dear people of God, faithful Catholics of this archdiocese, you indeed are the “living stones” spoken of by Peter this evening, who give a smile, a voice, an embrace, a heart to the mystical body of Christ we call the Church, as you love faithfully in marriage, obey the “law of the gift” by caring for your children, who take the identity of Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation so seriously, and who never fail to open up to the Jesus who stands and knocks at the doors of your homes, parishes, schools, offices, farms, factories, and professions. Thank you for your vocations, for sensing the universal call to holiness.

Realistically, though, we must confess that there’s so much lurking there to keep us from “opening the door” to Jesus!

There’s sin, fear, and sadness to keep us closed-up inside, evident in so many problems and worries: the scandal of clergy sexual abuse and caring for those hurt; the challenges of strengthening our parishes, schools, and charitable outreach; the threats to marriage, family, to the unborn baby and fragile human life at all stages; the need for vocations. The list is long and haunting.

There’s so much inside me, I don’t mind admitting, that was scared to open the door completely to Him, as I kept the chain-on, opened up just a crack, and heard Him invite me to serve Him and His Church as Archbishop of New York! I inwardly replied to Him:

“Go away, Lord! I’m not your man! My Spanish is lousy and my English not much better!”

“I’m still angry at New York for taking Favre and Sabbathia from us in Wisconsin!”

“The Yankees and Mets over the Cardinals and Brewers? Forget it!”

“Following the likes of Hughes, Hayes, Spellman, Cooke, O’Connor, and Egan! Sounds like McNamara’s band, and I’m not up to being part of it!”

Trepidation; unworthiness; anxiety; leave me to the beloved brats, beers, and cool summer lake breezes of Milwaukee where I’m secure and at home . . .

Yet He had his sandal in the door and would not let me shut Him out, as I heard the whisper of the One who says,

“Timothy, be not afraid!”

“My grace is sufficient…”

“Never do I invite one to a task without giving him/her the strength to do it!”

“I am with you all days.”

“Open up and let me in. . . ”

I recalled the words John Paul II spoke down the street at the United Nations: “We must not be afraid of the future. It is no accident that we are here. Every human person has been created in the image and likeness of the One who is the origin of all that is. We have within us the capacity for wisdom and heroic virtue. With these gifts, and with the help of God’s grace, we can build . . . a civilization worthy of the human person, a true culture of freedom, a culture of life. “

And this evening, when you opened those bronze doors to my knock, and I beheld a Church, an archdiocese, that has been opening the doors to Christ for 201 years, am I ever glad I listened to Him and took the chain off!