Author: SDG

After the Columbine High tragedy, we learned of the story of Cassie Bernall, the young woman who said "Yes" and then was murdered when asked by her killers if she believed in God. Now, in the wake of another school shooting spree, this time in Minnesota, we learn of another heroic martyr, this time a teacher who openly prayed in for herself and her students and paid the ultimate price for her heroism:

"’God be with us. God help us,’ 15-year-old Ashley Lajeunesse heard [English teacher Neva] Rogers say after she told students to hide as gunman Jeff Weise fired through a window and marched into the room.

"’He walked up to that teacher with the shotgun, and he pulled the trigger, but it didn’t fire,’ said Chongai’la Morris, 14. ‘Then he pulled out his pistol, and he shot her three times in the side and once in the face.’

"Rogers, 62, was the only teacher killed by Weise, a depressed teenager who last week shot his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend, then went to the high school and shot Rogers, a security guard and five students before turning the gun on himself."

When the story of Cassie Bernall made the rounds, I believe it was Chuck Colson who applied Matthew 26:13 to her story. That verse is also appropriate for Ms. Rogers:

"Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."

GET THE STORY.

From our Burying-The-Lead Department comes a surprising entry from John Allen Jr., ordinarily the Vatican correspondent who makes the National Catholic Reporter worth checking in on from time to time.  (Indeed, I think his book All the Pope’s Men is must reading for aspiring apologists.)

In his current column for NCRep, Allen includes but a brief mention of the Terri Schiavo case and the extraordinary Vatican response to it apparently as an afterthought at the very end of his column (titled "A Short Note on Terri Schiavo"):

"So much has been written and said about the Terry [sic] Schiavo case in the United States that I hesitate to add anything here. It’s already well-known that the Holy See has been outspoken; three senior Vatican officials have appealed directly on Schiavo’s behalf, including Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace; Cardinal Javier Lozano Barrigan, president of the Pontifical Council for the Health Care Pastoral; and Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

"The American press, already accustomed to the engagement of religious conservatives on Schiavo’s behalf, has not given a great deal of attention to these Vatican interventions, treating them as largely pro forma.

"In fact, however, if one sees these statements through the lens of normal Vatican operating procedure rather than the particular contours of American debate, they’re really rather extraordinary. As a general rule, Vatican officials restrict themselves to enunciating general principles, treating particular cases, pieces of legislation or elections as something for local bishops to address. Readers will remember, for example, during the American debate over
[C]ommunion for pro-choice Catholic politicians, that Vatican officials outlined the general rules in
[C]hurch law but never even cited the name ‘John Kerry’ in doing so."

Now, granted, what Allen has to say about the Vatican response is a valuable insight into the Vatican’s usual modus operandi in cases like this, and into the Vatican’s suspension of it for Terri. But did he have to bury the blurb at the bottom of the column? And did he have to misspell Terri’s name? (Small peeve, I know, but I think it’s telling sometimes when journalists are not careful to double-check name spellings.  I should note that Terri’s name is spelled correctly in the headline.)

GET THE STORY. (Scroll to bottom of page.)

Happy and Blessed Easter to one and all. My post on Queen Camilla generated some great comments, so I thought I’d do a follow-up:

I know precious little about the British monarchy, but it does seem interesting. I think that tales of palace intrege would be particularly interesting. Could you recommend a book or two on the subject? Thanks!

Unfortunately, I don’t know of a general history I can recommend (suggestions welcome!). I do recommend focusing on particular individuals or houses that interest you and look for books on that narrower focus. One such historian, who has written a number of books on British royals, is Alison Weir, although I disagree with her conclusion that King Richard III is the most likely murderer of his nephews, the princes in the Tower. Sure, he’s a prime suspect, but the traditional case against him is far from conclusive. (Indeed, I think one of the reasons he has persisted in the popular mind as a villain is thanks to Shakespeare’s play, which Shakespeare probably wrote at least in part to please Tudor England.)

The monarchy never really recovered after Henry VIII–yes, yes, I’ve heard of Elizabeth, and even Victoria. But Henry was the most destructive man in English history. It just takes some things longer to disappear than others, once they’ve been mortally wounded.

True enough, although there were moments of greatness, as another reader recounts:

I like to think of the Queen Mum stepping over the rubble left by bombs in wartime London. The reign of the Royals of the ’40s (after the Duke of Windsor and Wally sailed off in their yacht), and the gov’t of Winston Churchill, by inspiring London during the Blitzkrieg and overseeing Britain’s "finest hour," represented one of the few bright spots in the dull to dumb to slapsticky British history that Henry VIII and his apostasy begat.

If only there the moments of greatness were extended to generations of greatness….

Just skip over Charles and go straight to William.

Were that the case, I would again be a fan of the Windsors (at least for a while). However, although I cannot find confirmation of this online, I believe I’ve read that Charles has already indicated that he has no intention of stepping aside for William. Hard to blame him, as he’s been the twentieth-century’s Edward VII (Queen Victoria’s son); but stepping aside would be the noble thing to do.

The elimination of the monarchy poses an interesting political question – if the royalty were eliminated, what would the United Kingdom and the other countries do to fill the "Head of State" position?

Since my interest is in British history, not British constitutional law, I don’t know; but I assume the prime minister would become the head of state. For all intents and purposes, he already is anyway. Queen Elizabeth II is a great lady, but really a figurehead monarch.

The traditional response would be to look for a better royal house, as was done with the Bloodless Revolution in 1688.

No thanks. The so-called "Glorious Revolution" ousted the rightful king and last Roman Catholic monarch, James II, in favor of his Protestant daughter and her husband. Indeed, the "Glorious Revolution" was also responsible for the Bill of Rights 1689, which ensures that no Roman Catholic or royal married to a Roman Catholic will ever again ascend to the British throne.

Not especially a surprising development for a country of which the national church’s founder insisted that his second wife be styled Queen within his first wife’s lifetime, but a disappointing possibility nonetheless:

"Camilla Parker Bowles can become queen after all, despite earlier statements by Prince Charles that she will take a lesser title after marrying him, the government said Monday.

"Replying to a question from a lawmaker, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said in a written statement that the marriage of Charles and Parker Bowles would not be ‘morganatic’ — in which the spouse of inferior status has no claim to the standing of the other.

"’This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he becomes king,’ said Andrew Mackinlay, the lawmaker who raised the question.

"The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation, saying that legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of queen. Similar legislation apparently would be required in more than a dozen countries — such as Australia, Jamaica and Canada — in which the British sovereign is the head of state."

Now I happen to be an Anglophile with a particular love for the British monarchy. (My knowledge of British history is primarily focused after the Norman conquest in 1066.) But if I were a Brit, I’d be sorely tempted to vote for any measure that would abolish the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth II passes away. The soap-opera foibles of the Windsors may be entertaining, but surely less expensive and more professional entertainment can be found.

Since I’m not in a position to vote, all I can do is shake my head and sigh over the demise of the once-majestic legacy of the British monarchy.

GET THE STORY.

It is Holy Week for Christians; but for Jews it is nearly Purim.  Thursday will be a fast day in commemoration of Esther’s fast (cf. Esther 4:16) and Friday will be the feast of Purim, which honors the Jews’ deliverance from the deadly plans of Haman.  Just as pro-life Christians have been seeing a parallel to the events of Holy Week in the Terri Schiavo case, so pro-life Jews are seeing a parallel to Purim:

"The [Purim] story recounts how an evil man named Haman sought to kill all the Jews. But through communal prayer, fasting and the heroic acts of Queen Esther, the plot was exposed and counteracted. In a divine turn of events, it was the evil Haman who was killed. The Jews who had been marked for death were now free to protect themselves and live!

"The significance of this is not lost to me as it relates to the Schiavo case, the result of which will affect the disabled community, and all people. We see an important message for us in these days in Esther chapter 4 verse 14:

"13. And Mordecai ordered to reply to Esther, ‘Do not imagine to yourself that you will escape in the king’s house from among all the Jews.

"14. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and rescue will arise for the Jews from elsewhere, and you and your father’s household will perish; and who knows whether at a time like this you will attain the kingdom?’

"Like Esther, each of us has been placed in a unique position so that we can help bring good out of even the most evil of situations. God only asks that we do our part. Ultimately, He takes care of the rest."

READ THE POST.

(Nod to Kathy Shaidle of Relapsed Catholic for the link.)

The congruence of Terri Schiavo’s plight with Holy Week has led to speculation by Christians on the eternal significance of this young woman’s struggle.  Some have seen in it a microcosm of another Passion, two thousand years ago:

THE PINELLAS COUNTY PASSION PLAY

TERRI AT CENTER OF MODERN-DAY PASSION PLAY

An especially powerful statement of Terri’s passion and its correlation to Christ’s Passion came earlier this week from Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida:

"And so, Holy Week, the annual remembrance of Jesus’ passion and death, begins with the Passion of Terri Schiavo. Terri’s agony has already begun and, barring some miracle, the denouement of Terri’s drama will be her death.

"This week, in recalling Jesus’ Passover from death to life, we celebrate the fact that the misterium iniquitatis is overcome through the misterium crucis.

"From the cross Jesus cried out, and his cry is echoed today by all those held captive to a world of pain and sin.

"As Terri shares in his passion, she will share in his Resurrection. Like Jesus did, Terri Schiavo cries out, though with muted voice: ‘I thirst!’"

GET THE STORY. (Warning: Evil registration requirement. Nod to Amy Welborn for the link.)

Some of the commentators have expressed reluctance for linking Terri’s plight to Christ’s Passion.  I feel no such reluctance, and indeed think that the similarities bear expression for the benefit of all those with ears to hear:

"’I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink’ … Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me’" (Matt. 25:42, 44-45).