In 1999, Linda Poindexter—the wife of Rear Admiral John Poindexter, onetime national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan—ended her thirteen years as an Episcopal priest and became Catholic. In an August conversation with the National Catholic Register, she shared some insights on what drew her to the Church.
Foremost was the question of authority. In Protestantism, she said, “There is an unclear sense of authority. I was able to accept the structure of the Church’s authority more easily. Thus I am at peace, and because I believe, I don’t have to argue with others about it. It certainly makes sense that God would have chosen this kind of structure to let people know about him and about what they’re supposed to be doing.”
She was asked, having been an Episcopal priest, if the all-male, celibate priesthood posed a problem for her. In her answer one can see how submission to the Church’s authority is key, especially when it goes against one’s own inclinations.
“In the context of the Roman Catholic Church, I believe in and support the all-male, celibate priesthood,” Poindexter said. “I find it difficult to accept intellectually all the reasons for this, but I am content to believe that the magisterium of the Church is divinely guided and inspired and perhaps may contain more truth than my own thinking on the subject.”
Based on her firsthand experience, Poindexter also offered a host of practical reasons why the Church should not allow married clergy:
“I think the celibate priesthood is the way to go. I said that all the time I was actively in a parish, and I began to understand the gift. It’s tough to give your all to a parish and give your all to a spouse and family.
“Then I see younger women with children [becoming Episcopal priests], and I don’t see how they’re doing this. Once you’ve taken marital vows you do have those obligations. It becomes most confusing. The way it seems to have worked out in the Episcopal church is that people are overly concerned now with their contracts and their benefits, their time off and all the rest of it, because that’s necessary if you’re going to be part of a family.
“But that means it becomes a nine-to-five job, which means many of them won’t do anything on a day off. If somebody dies on your day off, that’s too bad. It’s a very awkward situation. Granted everybody needs some free time, and I’m glad when they get it, but it is just very difficult when you have a family.
“I see Episcopal priests taking off to pick up their kids from school, and they have this and that, and then I hear Catholics say we have to have married priests because we’re so short [of priests]. That’s just not a good reason. You don’t know what you’re asking for. For one thing, are you prepared to triple your parish budget?
“It becomes a very different view of the priesthood. There’s just something very special about someone who has the gift of celibacy and is set apart for that reason. There again we get into the awe and mystery that I think contributes to that.”
Boxer Rebellion
Even though you may want to explain the faith, remember: It doesn’t mean others want to hear it. Last summer, Cathleen Cleaver of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops testified at the hearing on the Bush administration’s reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, which forbids U.S. taxpayer dollars from supporting overseas groups that promote or perform abortions. She was there to explain Catholic support for the Mexico City policy.
California Senator Barbara Boxer, who chaired the hearing, questioned if the Church was being “intellectually honest” in its support for the policy. Boxer repeatedly asked Cleaver about the Catholic Church’s stance on artificial contraception. Cleaver responded, “Well, Senator Boxer, the position of the Catholic Church with regard to contraception is very clear and very well-known: Artificial contraception—”
“Well, I don’t know,” Boxer broke in, “so perhaps you can enlighten me, because it may have changed from when I was paying attention to it.” The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute reported that one observer labeled the Senator’s comportment toward Cleaver “rude and embarrassing.”
Boxer sought to establish that the Mexico City policy “will cause women and families increased misery and death.” According to Cleaver, “The truth of the matter is poor women in developing nations are not calling for help to abort their children. They are calling for food, housing, and medicine for themselves and their children so that they can lead lives of full human dignity.”
In July, Boxer personally blocked a Senate endorsement of the Vatican’s presence at the United Nations, which had passed the House of Representatives with only one dissenting vote.
The Year Britain Dies
Britain is literally dying because it is not Catholic, according to a leading management consultant.
Andy Pollard told the Catholic Times he first discovered the decrease in the number of young English people while conducting market research on ice cream and the 18–34 age market. Pollard believes that, due to the widespread use of contraception since the 1960s, the population of Britain has failed to reproduce itself, and that the death rate is overtaking the birthrate.
“We’re running out of young people, and the number of abortions doesn’t explain it,” said Pollard. “The major cause is contraception. The vast majority of people don’t have children now. The more effective contraception becomes, and the less willing people are to have children, the faster the decline in the population occurs.”
It is time to return to a full-strength Catholicism rather than a “watered-down” variety, said Pollard. “We desperately need to replace deadly ideas with true religion, which is about the real world and how to live and survive in the real world.” He predicts 2006 as “the year Britain dies.”
Christ Complex
Gee, maybe we’re missing the boat with “Catholic Answers Live.” Why give the Catholic Church’s answer to questions when you can answer them as Christ himself?
That’s what Neil Saavedra does every Sunday during the “Jesus Christ Show” on KFI, Los Angeles’s top-ranked talk-radio channel: He assumes the identity of Christ, takes calls, and dispenses advice.
The two-hour broadcast starts with a sermon-like introduction by Saavedra, who then fields theological and practical questions from callers. His listeners run the gamut from doubtful atheists who tune in for entertainment to church-oriented Catholics looking for clarifications and enlightenment of Scripture.
“Everyone’s welcome on the show, but I do not want this to be a Christian lovefest. I want to challenge and frustrate the Christians as much as I frustrate the atheists,” he told the Los Angeles Times in its August 10 edition.
The Times described Saavedra as a “bald, six-foot-tall, two hundred-forty-pound Latino with a thick silver hoop earring in his left earlobe and a handful of tattoos adorning his body. . . . He hasn’t stepped into a church in at least three years, uses foul language, and is the first to admit he is ‘not the poster boy for Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.’ Yet the host’s rebellious questioning of beliefs and his proclivity for teaching and apologetics (the study of defending doctrines) are central to his role.”
Raised Catholic, Saavedra switched to Protestantism at age eighteen. He led Bible studies and lectured at churches in the L.A. area for several years while studying at the Chalcedon Christian Academy in Calabasas, California, and Simon Greenleaf School of Law (now Trinity Law School) in Anaheim, California. He was not “bent on getting degrees or anything other than knowledge” and never enrolled in college.
On a recent show, Saavedra reassured a homosexual caller, Anna, that she is as valuable a being as any other in Christ’s eyes. He then scolded the Church for what he characterizes as over-targeting homosexuality as a sin while not addressing others.
“I once had a women call up once whose child had died, a mere infant,” he said. “Here is a woman broken before me and to a 50,000-watt radio audience, and if anyone tells me I don’t have the scriptural right to tell her that her child is in heaven, well, if that’s what’s going to get me called a blasphemer, then call me a b.asphemer.”
As We Believe, So We Invest
We weren’t surprised: A recent study has found that more than half of all U.S. investors—including three out of five who consider themselves “religious”—bring their religious beliefs to bear when deciding how to invest and make other financial choices. In biblical times, people of faith were guided by their beliefs on questions of wealth and how it was to be used. In fact, the New Testament is filled with instruction on money and resources.
The report, “Where Faith and Wall Street Intersect,” conducted by Mennonite Mutual Aid (MMA), analyzed data from a survey of 1,141 U.S. investors. Some of its findings:
Eight out of ten (seventy-nine percent) investors describe themselves as religious or spiritual. (Women are more likely to characterize themselves as religious or spiritual than are men; eighty-three percent compared to seventy-four percent.)
The large majority of investors identified themselves with one of three Christian traditions: Protestant, Catholic, and Fundamentalist Christian.
Three out of five (sixty-two percent) “religious” Americans who invest exercise their faith or personal ethical values in financial decision-making. Only thirty-three percent of “non-religious” investors tend to factor their personal values into their financial decision-making process.
More than half (fifty-six percent) of all U.S. investors—including those who are not religious)—make faith or personal values part of their financial decision-making process.
Religious investors are more likely to avoid investments in the traditional “sin” industries (alcohol, gambling, and tobacco) as well as companies producing abortion-related products. Among religious investors, Fundamentalists are the most passionate about corporate ethical issues. They differed from other religious respondents in that one of their top five ethical concerns is corporate involvement in the production of abortion products. (Catholics as a statistical group could take lessons from their Protestant brethren.)
MMA Praxis Mutual Funds, sponsor of the study, is designed to reflect Anabaptist beliefs and values. The survey’s margin of error is plus or minus three percent.
Nobel Not Noble
Lest you put much credence in the Nobel Peace Prize, understand the politics behind it. A member of the Nobel committee said in August that although Pope John Paul II helped end the Cold War, he will not receive the peace prize, in part because the Church opposes the use of condoms to fight AIDS.
Gunnar Staalseth, the Lutheran bishop of Oslo, Norway, and a member of the select committee responsible for awarding the honor instituted by Alfred Nobel, publicly addressed the Pope’s positions after a meeting with United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, who was on a two-day visit to the Norwegian capital. “The current Roman Catholic theology is one that favors death rather than life,” Staalseth said in statements published by Reuters news service. “I challenge the Vatican to redefine its attitude to condoms. Condom use should be tolerated as a way to stop the spreads of AIDS.”
In addition to making a unique contribution to the end of the Cold War, John Paul II has moved to end many global conflicts. His direct mediation in 1979 helped Argentina and Chile avoid certain war over the Beagle Channel border dispute.
Ever since AIDS first appeared, the Pope instructed the Catholic Church to assist people infected by the HIV virus. One out of every three AIDS patients is cared for in a hospital or clinic administered by a Catholic institution. In February, the Pope allocated $435,000 in contributions from the Catholic faithful to help AIDS orphans in Uganda.
John Paul II’s name appears every year on the list of candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize.