It seems a pretty simple question with a logical answer. There is almost no question that female deacons existed in the early church. There is disagreement as to their function, but their existence is not seriously challenged. 

At the same time, Pope Francis has made clear that the role of women in the church needs to be enhanced. The language of Evangelii Gaudiumand other statements are clear and positive, but the argument breaks down in practice. The church seems unable to traverse the gulf of its institutional dictates, even though there is no compelling reason to maintain the status quo, and an enormous need to move forward. The church seems unable to pair its lofty language about the value of women with changes on the ground.

The diaconate provides a way to bring women into a more meaningful role in the church without addressing the issue of priesthood. A Vatican commission exists to study this issue, and many in the church are speaking out to promote a positive outcome for this commission. A positive decision might even give the church some breathing room for a while on having to confront the issue of priestly ordination for women.

Fr. Ray Donovan, a leader in the Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland, has called on the church to ordain no more permanent deacons until the commission on women deacons completes its work. He points out that women are already involved in all kinds of ministry yet are given no power or status. He notes personally that women have taught him especially about the compassion and inclusiveness of Christ. His powerful message is that we are "starving people of the richness and nourishment women can bring."

Yet my sense is that the most positive decision that could come out of the current commission on female deacons would be a recommendation for further study. Even that kind of recommendation is not at all assured.

We know the church moves at glacial speed. An even greater concern is what appears to be an organized challenge to much of what has been the message of Pope Francis. The most recent example has been the disinviting of Jesuit Fr. James Martin to speak at several venues, including Catholic University of America.

Consider some of the driving forces to ordain female deacons. The history and the importance of women in our church clearly demonstrate their significance while at the same time relegating them to what could be considered second-class status. Mary Hunt, in her review of Donna Quinn's book, Chicago Catholic Women: Its role in founding the Catholic Women's Movement, highlights several relevant points. Quinn's book recalls that Pope John Paul II told church domestics to be grateful for their role of cooking and cleaning for priests so the men could do their important work. Quinn also notes that Cardinal John Cody forbade Sr. Melinda Roper from preaching in her home parish after the murder of her Maryknoll sisters and colleagues in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Many other examples are provided.

Many Catholics think of Catholic nuns as having had a formative role in their lives, but the role of Catholic lay women is often devalued. Mary Hunt also reviews a work on the international Grail movement by Marian Ronan and Mary O'Brien. The Grail movement is a group of lay women who focused on issues of women and children, including the issue of female genital mutilation. These works on the historical role of women in our church are a critical element of the need to move forward with increasing the dignity and authority of one half of our church.

In a recent NCR editorial, there is a call to swing the doors open for women. There is a need to start somewhere. Either women are going to be brought into their rightful role in the church or the church will remain fixed in the Middle Ages. There is a fear of strong women among much of the hierarchy. Quinn's book notes that the Chicago Catholic women's movement met with bishops during the early days of their ministry in the '70s, but "men became increasingly terrified and embarrassed by the reactions to their outrageous oppression of women." The history of an all-male and celibate priesthood continues to haunt the future of the church.

If the church continues to say no to even the smallest effort to update itself, it diminishes its influence in the world and impoverishes the riches it can offer to its own congregants. It is indeed time to swing the church doors open for women. They are exactly what is needed in our church today.

On Sunday, Oct. 1, a lone shooter killed 58 people in Las Vegas, firing into a crowd at a country music concert. There was a flurry of responses immediately after the shooting concerning possible new gun safety regulations. Even a few Republicans seemed willing to consider some minimal change. Now, two weeks later, there is mostly silence. It is a scenario that has been repeated too many times to count.

I would just like to ask a few questions:

Why is it not the right time to discuss this issue right after an incident occurs?

This is actually one question I can answer. If we don't talk about the problem with guns right away, people will forget about it and we won't have to confront the issue. We are already seeing that point of view coming to fruition.

Just a few more questions:

Why is the issue always blamed on mental illness even when there is no sign of mental illness?

Isn't it strange that many legislators who are so concerned about the mental health issue are also voting to cut funding for mental health services?

If mental health is such a major issue, wouldn't it seem like additional funds should be appropriated for that purpose?

Would the entire response to this shooting have been different if a Muslim, undocumented immigrant, or non-Caucasian had been the shooter? If so, how would it have been different and why? I suspect volumes could be written on that topic.

How is it possible that in this country we must be resigned to the notion that nothing can be done to make things better?

Does it really make sense to say that because we cannot reduce gun violence to zero we should do nothing to reduce it by 20 percent, 40 percent or 60 percent?

Why does no other industrialized country in the world have the same level of gun violence that we have here?

Why is the Second Amendment the only amendment that can admit of no restrictions? Maybe I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater to protect all my rights.

Finally: How many deaths will it take — Is there any point at which the powers that be will say enough is enough, we must do something to reduce the level of gun violence in our country?

I once believed that George W. Bush was the worst president of my lifetime. My lifetime goes back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, though I have no living memory of him. There can be no question that the current president has easily supplanted Bush in that role. More importantly, Bush is looking awfully good in the light of where we are today.

His speech on Oct. 19 in New York is extraordinary. If you have seen snippets of it on newscasts, read the entire speech. It hearkens back to what America is meant to be. It reminds all of us of what too many of us appear to have forgotten. America is a nation based on ideals. It is when we fail to remember and act on these ideals that America ceases to be great.

Bush sees free markets, the strength of democratic alliances, and the advancement of free societies as what has made us great. "Free nations are less likely to threaten and fight each other."

The president is eloquent when he speaks of the importance of our ideals. "We know, deep down, that repression is not the wave of the future." Our democracy ensures "that the strong are just and the weak are valued."

Bush notes, "Most tyrannies pretend they are democracies. Democracy remains the definition of political legitimacy."

The president goes on to express some of his concerns about the present political climate. "Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication."

Is he right that there are "signs that the intensity of support for democracy itself has waned, especially among the young"? He feels they have lost the "moral clarity" of those who experienced the Cold War. He fears too many are infected with a "combination of weariness, frayed tempers, and forgetfulness."

He describes the current political culture as disturbing. "Discourse degraded by casual cruelty ... disagreement escalates into dehumanization ... nationalism distorted into nativism." He reminds us that immigration has always brought a new dynamism to the country.

Yet, on a more optimistic note, he believes that "to renew our country, we only need to remember our values." He especially focuses on the value of human dignity found in the Declaration of Independence.

Do Americans today understand or care about the lofty sentiments expressed by Bush? I don't know the answer to that question, but we are going to find out. Some believe that Donald Trump may well be re-elected in 2020. No one knows what the outcome of the 2018 elections may be. The people will speak in 2018 and 2020. That's the way we do it in this country.

If they continue to choose all that Trumpism stands for, that will be their right. But America will no longer be America, and may never be again.

Or, perhaps, we will remember the truth of the former president's words: "People of every race, religion and ethnicity can be fully and equally American. ... Bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed."

How open is the church to dissent and criticism, and how open should it be? Dissent in the church is as old as the argument between St. Peter and St. Paul described by Paul himself in Galatians. Another account is also given in the Acts of the Apostles.

Pope Francis himself has encouraged open debate. In doing so he has challenged decades of resistance to any attempt to disagree with anything coming out of the Vatican.

Conservatives who defended the pope's authority and condemned anyone who questioned Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, are now freely trashing everything they don't like about the Francis message.

So, what is appropriate debate and dialogue in the church, and when does it cross the line? Let's start with Paul. We see that despite their fierce arguments, Peter and Paul remained in koinonia, or unity in their faith and teaching. Despite their very real differences, Paul is able to say that "James and Cephas and John, who were considered the pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" (Galatians 2:9).

In the New Testament, the Johannine community differences finally did break down near the end of the first century. The koinonia was broken and instead of charity, they no longer even considered the other to be Christian. They were the antichrist. See especially the second epistle of John.

Still, other than the eastern churches that separated after 1,000 years of unity, it wasn't until the reformation that Christianity began to splinter. The differences within the church and among nations became so strong that unity became impossible. Could we be seeing the beginning of another such time?

The cited NCR article on the tension within the Catholic bishops' association suggests the deep divisions as well as the strong desire for unity within today's church. Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, the head of the U.S. bishops' doctrine committee, sent a letter to Pope Francis, accusing him of promoting disunity and confusion. He was forced to resign. The president of the U.S. bishops' conference, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, had to assert that the bishops are "in strong unity with and loyalty to the Holy Father."

DiNardo went on to comment about the nature of dialogue and dissent within the church. He notes that debates on important topics have often been good. While he recognizes the need for humble and honest discussions around doctrinal issues, he makes clear how he feels about the nature of these discussions. DiNardo states, "It should be presumed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor's statement than to condemn it. This presupposition should be afforded all the more to the teaching of our Holy Father."

If you examine the plethora of articles to be found on the internet criticizing this pope from every quarter, you wonder what terrible things Pope Francis has done. As near as I can tell, his crime is exhorting clergy and faithful to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My sense is the "fraternal" correction we are seeing is not a good faith exercise to broach a thoughtful discussion of the issues. Rather, it appears many traditionalists feel threatened by the words of this pontiff and are lashing out and even conspiring to ensure that no changes are permitted in the church.

Francis has barely touched on doctrinal issues. It is only a distorted interpretation of his words that could see him as questioning Catholic teaching. As DiNardo says, we should not be putting the worst possible interpretation on everything Francis says.

I do think Francis would like to consider a few operational changes to the church — for example, exploring who can receive Communion and under what circumstances. That is certainly a legitimate topic for discussion, but instead we are getting over-the-top accusations of abandoning Catholic teaching on marriage. We can have differences of opinion as to who should be allowed to receive Communion, but it should not be falsely made into a doctrinal issue. My own opinion is that Communion should not be made into a reward for good behavior. It is rather nourishment to help all of us be better Christians.

I also think Francis would be willing and would perhaps like to experiment with regional efforts at permitting married priests. No one in the church believes this is a doctrinal issue, but resistance to such actions suggests something more than ordinary disagreement is going on.

Pope Francis was criticized when he washed the feet of women and non-Catholics on Holy Thursday. Such resistance indicated that some simply want to live in an earlier era and will oppose even the most innocuous efforts to bring the Gospel to the people. Is the job of the church to preserve a former way of doing things, or to find a way to bring the Gospel of Jesus to the people in a way they can understand and respond in a positive manner?

If conservatives and traditionalists continue to insist that the church cannot change or be updated, I fear there may be no solution to our present situation other than a schism. Considering some of the hate and vitriol we have been seeing, and the lack of charity on both sides, schism may be a better solution than the current enmity. 

Editor's note: This blog post contains a spoiler for the novel Origin by Dan Brown.

I just finished reading Dan Brown's latest novel, Origin. It is a great read with all of the suspense-building that Brown is famous for. I soured a bit on Brown after The Lost Symbol. I found it too loaded down with codes and without the exciting buildup of his other novels. But Brown is back, and I believe you will find this book difficult to put down. 

Of course, Brown has come in for much criticism in religious circles, even among Catholics. The Da Vinci Code was found to be unacceptable for suggesting that there may be offspring of Jesus of Nazareth still around. Most, however, were able to recognize that this was simply a fascinating story and not meant to be a theological or biblical treatise.

I am reminded that during my seminary years we were all mesmerized by Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ. That novel was not only interesting, but caused many of us to do some pretty deep thinking. When the stylized temptations we find in the Gospels were compared with what real human temptations Jesus might have experienced, we found ourselves wondering how we would have fared in similar circumstances.

My point here is that I think Catholics are often able to deal with such "shocking" material better than those in some other denominations are. Origin is a good case in point. It is essentially about a scientist who is out to prove that there is no God. For those who may be thinking about reading the book, you may want to treat this as a spoiler alert for the next paragraph.

Just as the scientist is about to announce his dramatic discovery, he is assassinated. At that point, the genius of Brown kicks in with his compelling narrative.

Catholics have a philosophical underpinning to their religion that tends to be stronger than it is for most other Christians. It is a philosophy that drives me crazy most of the time, with its penchant for natural law, metaphysics and epistemology, but, in this case, it is helpful. 

When Thomas Aquinas utilized Aristotle to provide a deeper understanding of God, he helped us go beyond the anthropomorphic God of the Old Testament and even the personal relationship we have in Jesus.

The God who is unknowable and immaterial provides a stronger basis for dealing with scientific discoveries. It means we don't have to feel threatened every time a new theory is enunciated.

Aquinas identified a variety of ways to prove the existence of God. Of course, these proofs do not actually prove the existence of God, but their power comes from the fact that they cannot be disproved. At least that, I believe, is the case of the uncaused cause.

Whether you go back to the Big Bang theory, or a tiny molecule that evolves into the world as we know it, one can always say: But it was God who created the tiny molecule. Something ultimately had to be created ex nihilo, and God becomes that uncaused cause.

Catholics have always believed that faith and reason cannot be in conflict. Recent popes have had little difficulty accepting the possibility of evolution.

Other Christians who are wedded to a literal interpretation of the Bible have a truly difficult time dealing with any challenge to the Genesis narrative. Unfortunately, they wind up straining credulity to maintain their adherence to the literal word of God. I don't think anyone can truly believe that the world is like a teacup inverted over the land (the firmament of Genesis), and that God opens windows in the firmament to let the rain through. Yet this is the cosmology of the Old Testament.

The notion that the world was created in six 24-hour days is simply nonsensical. Even if the world is younger than what scientists posit, it could not have been a mere six days.

My concern is I believe fundamentalist Christians have trapped themselves in a world where they can no longer evaluate truth from fake news, and have thus been taken in to Donald Trump's orbit. If one must deny what we see in the world around us to remain faithful to the Scriptures, then why would one accept as true information that goes against other strongly held beliefs?

Jennifer Rubin's article in The Washington Post highlights some of these discrepancies with observable truth.

Evangelical Christians have been among the staunchest supporters of Trump. Rubin references a CNN focus group whose video has gone viral, where one says, "If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, 'Hold on a second. I need to check with the president if it's true.'"

We find ourselves in a world where an important segment of the population has given up on evaluating information based on objective analysis of facts. As Rubin says, "People who look to him [Trump] rather than their religious messiah are not going to change their minds based on real-world events."

I have no real answer to this dilemma. The education of children is certainly the best answer. Yet with home-schooling and parental influence, these beliefs continue to be perpetuated.

Rubin says we need to win elections with the majority we have, and keep trying to change the minds of others. I think she's right.

The noose begins to tighten around President Donald Trump's neck. With former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleading guilty and cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller, the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is picking up speed.

There are so many reasons why it is time for Trump to vacate his office. The most pressing is the crisis in North Korea. Trump's national security adviser is now saying that we are drawing closer to war with North Korea every day. Any reasonable attempt at diplomacy seems off the table. The danger of Trump and his unpredictable nature should be sufficient cause for the Washington establishment to find a way to remove him from office.

ABC News highlights a number of recent controversies that lead one to question to what extent the president's behavior is normal. And Ezra Klein believes the behavior of the current occupant of the White House is sufficient to move toward impeachment.

I agree with Klein, but I don't see the kind of movement in Congress that would be necessary to make this happen. Republicans in Congress are still wedded to this president, and even with the passage of the tax bill in the Senate, they don't seem ready to shed their ties to Trump.

I'm not sure what it will take, but I contend that this is not and should not be about partisan politics. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. In fact, if Trump were to leave office tomorrow, it would be a far bigger boon for Republicans than it would for Democrats: Democrats would be running against Trump in the 2020 presidential election, and his removal from office would make that difficult or impossible.

Vice President Mike Pence would ascend to the presidency. He is a very conservative politician. He is steadier than Trump and more likely to successfully pass a conservative Republican agenda. Also, it would give him more than two years to serve as president before needing to run again in 2020. This would give him an enormous advantage to prepare a winning campaign.

Even if the vice president were to get caught up in the Russian investigation and become unable to serve, the mantel would fall to Paul Ryan, the current Speaker of the House. He too is a conservative Republican who Republicans should be only too happy to see take over the White House.

As a progressive, I am fearful of either Pence or Ryan succeeding Trump, but we can't continue with someone so unfit to serve in that office. His presence is dangerous to our country. He is demeaning the office. He is damaging our standing overseas. Every time he speaks or tweets, he adds to the problem. His comments all too frequently bear no resemblance to truth. His retweets of hateful Muslim videos are seen as outrageous, even by the British government.

So how do we best and most quickly remove him from office? I disagree with Klein that impeachment is the way to go. It is a long and cumbersome process, and much damage is likely to be done to our country in the meantime. No one seems to know how or whether to use the 25th Amendment, which states a president can be removed if "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

I believe resignation is the way to go. If it is successful, he could be gone immediately. We need someone to go into the White House and tell Trump it is time to go, like Barry Goldwater did to President Richard Nixon in 1974. A cadre of important Republican politicians, likely to include senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, need to explain the advantages of resignation to Trump.

It would take some of the pressure off the Russian investigation. The next president could even pardon him and his family. He could go off to his golf resorts and enjoy life. He would not be tied down to the tedium of daily presidential duties. I think he might find such an outcome pretty attractive. He could go back to being king in his own fiefdom.

The country could then return to standing for decency, principle, an effort to achieve equality for all, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.

We are by no means a perfect country, but President Trump is not in the ballpark of what is normal or appropriate behavior for the president of the United States of America. 

I want to share some recent data from a Washington Post/ABC News Poll. According to the poll, 4 in 10 White Catholics do not approve of the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. It is striking that they are saying the matter should not even be investigated. Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics do not believe President Donald Trump committed a crime. A total of 60 percent of white Catholics voted for Trump in the 2016 election.

Also, 7 in 10 white evangelicals see no clear evidence of Russian involvement in the 2016 election. A total of 79 percent of white evangelicals do not believe Trump committed any crime.

I'm wondering what the contrast with voters of color who are also evangelicals suggests. It was not my impression that religion should have anything to do with one's racial makeup. Yet, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, with 88 percent casting their votes for her. The totals suggest that 13 percent of black men voted for Trump while only 4 percent of black women did.

The gender disparity is interesting, but my question is why the different religious viewpoints based on race among evangelicals or Catholics of color? Do religious tenets change based on one's race? The cited article from The Atlantic, highlights the high degree of agreement between black and white evangelicals in matters of doctrine. Yet it also highlights the chasm that exists on issues of race and justice. So near and yet so far.

It raises the question as to what extent religious beliefs inform daily living. Does believing or not believing in the Virgin birth, for example, lead one to be a good neighbor or kind to the stranger? Does Jesus being born poor and in a stable influence how we treat the poor and those who are different? Does belief in angels make us better people? How?

Perhaps we would all do well to examine our own religious beliefs to determine what our values are. For Catholics, it is easy to say we believe in the Immaculate Conception, but what practical effect, if any, does it have in how we live our lives as followers of Christ each day? Our creedal statements are important, but early Christians spoke of their religion as "The Way." The way to God and salvation is how we treat others, as is made clear in Chapter 25 of the Gospel of Matthew, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and other core passages of the New Testament.

The special Senate election in Alabama suggests that things may be changing. A Democrat was chosen for the first time in decades. It seems even voters in the heavily Republican state of Alabama were uncomfortable choosing an alleged child molester to sit in the United States Senate.

African-Americans spoke loudly and clearly in this election. Their turnout was high, especially for a non-presidential election. The electorate in this race was 29 percent black, and 96 percent of blacks voted for the Democratic candidate, Doug Jones.

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that 11 a.m. on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in the United States.

If we cannot worship together how can we possibly understand each other? We have, of course, major divisions in Christianity. But surely, we can come to a common understanding of the core Gospel message. We can agree that all of us have value, dignity, and worth. At some level we can appreciate the fact that we are all Christians, all followers of Christ. We can work harder to make the words of the hymn true, "They will know we are Christians by our love." The song was based on the words of John 13:35: "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

As we gear up for a new year that promises to be fraught with uncertainty, challenges and perils for our country, I think it wise to recall some of the highlights, or lowlights, we have seen from our chief executive in 2017. A compilation of 125 of President Trump's most significant tweets provides a background for where we have been and where we may be going.

There has been so much noise emanating from this administration that it is easy to forget some of the more egregious statements and actions we have experienced this year. I believe it is important not to forget, in order to have a context for examining and understanding what we may be subjected to in the coming year.

Therefore, I want to just remind us of a few gems from the past year. You can fill in some of the blanks by reviewing the more detailed list of 125 tweets.

Tweets against Hillary Clinton: "Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails"… "So many people are asking why isn't the A.G. or Special Counsel looking at the many Hillary Clinton or Comey crimes. 33,000 e-mails deleted?" 

Tweets against the media: ".@NBC News is bad but Saturday Night Live is the worst of NBC. Not funny, cast is terrible, always a complete hit job."…

"The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people!"

Tweets about dictators: "Being nice to Rocket Man hasn't worked in 25 years, why would it work now?"… "Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?'

Tweets about politicians: "Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart"…

"Watching Senator Richard Blumenthal speak of Comey is a joke. 'Richie' devised one of the greatest military frauds in U. S. history"… "Blumenthal would talk of his great bravery and conquests in Vietnam - except he was never there." 

"We should start an immediate investigation into @SenSchumer and his ties to Russia and Putin. A total hypocrite!"

Tweet about the Judiciary: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

Tweet about President Obama: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

Tweets on the Russian Investigation: "Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt"… "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations"… "I am being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director! Witch Hunt"

… "There is no collusion & no obstruction. I should be given apology!"

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended"…

Tweet on history: "Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!"

Immigration tweet: "People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!"

Tweet on presidential pardon power: … "I have just granted a full Pardon to 85 year old American patriot Sheriff Joseph Arpaio."

Tweet on hurricane relief: "...Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico"…

There is so much more to look at, and tweets represent only one aspect of the first year of the Trump presidency. Yet I believe what we see here provides a flavor of who the man is who occupies the Oval Office. He is unlike any president who has ever served in that capacity. He exhibits a strong tendency toward authoritarianism. His lack of truthfulness or consistency gives credence to suggestions regarding his mental stability.

He needs to be watched very closely in the coming year. Foreign conflicts may well escalate. Erosion of civil liberties and long-held freedoms could continue. If the Russian investigation gets closer to the White House, desperate actions seem likely from this president.

Strong American institutions have limited the damage from this president thus far. Continued vigilance will be needed in 2018 to preserve our democracy as we have known it.

A New York Times article by Barry Berke, Noah Bookbinder and Norman L. Eisen provides strong evidence that President Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.

Let me highlight a few of the developments they mention. The president took aggressive steps to prevent Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation because he needed Sessions to protect him. The president drafted a letter to James Comey calling the investigation made up and politically motivated. The president worked on a statement on Air Force One to mislead the public concerning a meeting in Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., a Russian lawyer and others. One of Trump's spokesmen quit at this point because of his concern about possible obstruction of justice. There is also evidence that Special Counsel Robert Mueller can substantiate the memos of former FBI Director Comey concerning his interactions with the president and his subsequent firing. Finally, there is evidence of conspiracy with others in the White House who may have been cooperating with the president.

Regardless, now we are seeing Republicans in Congress going to extraordinary lengths to protect this president. They have submitted their first referral for criminal charges, and it is Christopher Steele, the British spy who prepared the controversial Trump dossier. Steele is also the only person currently involved in this probe who, when he saw potential criminal acts, went directly to the FBI with this information.

We are told that Hillary Clinton is now under investigation by the Justice Department. This investigation appears to be in direct response to the insistence of the president. So much for an independent judiciary.

Is this now truly the Trump Justice Department and Trump FBI? Is he in control of the levers of power and even of the Republican Congress? He can now order investigations into his political rivals and enemies. I think we do well to wonder just how damaging these actions can be to the fabric of our democracy.

Jason Sattler of USA Today elaborates on what Republicans are doing to protect the president. He notes that once Mueller was able to get the former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn to cooperate in the investigation, everything changed. Republicans began rushing to Trump's defense. Sen. Lindsay Graham switched from being an outspoken critic of the president to a cheerleader. Sessions, after recusing himself, is now starting an investigation into Hillary Clinton. This is something he said he would not do. Rep. Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee was not to be part of the investigation into Russia, but he has continued to obstruct the work of the committee and now seems bent on shutting the investigation down altogether.

Sattler says unequivocally, "It's clear Republicans want this investigation crushed not because Mueller isn't finding any connections between the Trump campaign and the Putin regime, but because he is." He goes on to say he sees these connections involving Trump's inner circle and large sums of money.

Greg Sargent of The Washington Post wonders how far Republicans will go to prevent a full accounting of Russian interference in our election and what recourse the Democrats have.

Sargent focuses on Nunes: He was to have given up his leadership of the committee in the Russia investigation, but he hasn't. He has refused to issue subpoenas requested by Democrats though has issued some of his own. He has thwarted efforts to request necessary records and arrange for important interviews of relevant individuals.

The Democrats' recourse is to issue a minority report. Far from ideal, it would primarily focus on illustrating the ways in which Republicans have impeded this investigation. It would focus on questions they were unable to examine due to Republican obstruction. It would show just how far Republicans went to protect Trump and his closest advisors from accountability.

While this would be an important contribution to the ongoing discussion, it would continue to leave us a deeply divided country. Half of the country will believe the Republican report, while the other half will believe the minority report.

There is too much darkness surrounding the activities of the 2016 Trump campaign. It appears that only a Democratic sweep in the 2018 elections and open Congressional hearings, to include impeachment hearings, can bring light to the darkness. 

President Donald Trump reportedly has used vulgar language to express his beliefs that people from poor countries and people of color should not be welcomed into the United States. He specifically said that he prefers immigrants from countries like Norway.

Earlier he is said to have accused all Haitians of having AIDS. Further, he stated that Nigerians coming to this country will never want to go back to their "huts in Africa."

We are talking about the president of the United States making such comments. He is not a guy sitting in a bar talking with his drinking buddies. While that would still be offensive, in this case we have a president determining immigration policy based on these racist ideas.

The comments are outrageous, but what is most important are his actions. He has ended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program to allow children who were brought into this country by their parents at an early age, to remain in this country (though a judge has blocked this for now). He has ended TPS (temporary protected status) for Salvadorans, Haitians and Nicaraguans. His administration has initiated aggressive deportation policies that separate families and go after law abiding residents who have lived here for years and contributed to this country.

Trump is one man, but he won an election. We have to wonder who his supporters are, and how many of them are there. We may not know the real answers to these questions until November, but what do we do in the meantime?

These remarks must be condemned by everyone. How about Republicans in Congress? We have heard little from them. Sen Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who was in the room, has confirmed the remarks but been uneasy about blatantly condemning the president. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan described the incident as unfortunate, which does not constitute a stirring denunciation.

Two Republican senators who were also in the room have now flatly denied that the president used the offensive language. At first, they couldn't recall the remarks, and now they have moved to total denial. Frankly, their denials and confused memory are pathetic and are not believable.

The Congress needs to censure the president for these words. This president should not be able to continue to escape accountability for his words and actions. An effort at censure is being made in Congress, but will Republicans sign on to make clear these words and ideas do not represent them or their party? It seems unlikely.

World leaders have been more forthcoming. Many are beginning to see this president as a danger to national security. American troops operating in Africa may wind up being placed in harm's way because of this president's outbursts.

There has been some concern raised among Evangelical Christians, and there has been some slight erosion of support for Trump in some parts of the movement. Yet for the most part, we continue to see the religious right in lockstep with this president.

That brings us to Catholics. Again, there has been some criticism of Trump from Catholic leaders, but there continues to be considerable support for the Trump agenda and the Trump presidency.

I believe we need more from Catholics. Much more. Catholicism has a long history of support for social justice. Catholic priests and bishops marched in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and stood shoulder to shoulder with Dr. Martin Luther King, whom we celebrated this weekend.

We need an energetic and widespread movement that rivals the right-to-life movement. We need to recall how priests and bishops responded to the injustices of Jim Crow and segregation.

It wasn't easy then. Many in the pews were not in sync with the clergy, but efforts at consciousness raising bore fruit, and Catholics can claim an important role in the success of the civil rights movement.

Today many Catholics are supporters of President Trump for a variety of reasons. What do we say in the pulpit? Just as in the '60s, we need to speak truth to power and to our people. We need to bring injustice to the fore. We need to remind people of the worth, value, and dignity of every human being. We need to speak to the plight of the refugee and the oppressed. Yes, we need to speak to the obligation of government to protect the poor, disadvantaged, discriminated against and devalued among us.

Donald Trump represents the worst in America. He has brought into the public sphere: white nationalism, neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, not to mention a debasement in the whole area of sexual abuse.

Unless I'm wrong, and the church sees itself as sharing the values of this current president, then it is time to preach our social Gospel and work to end this anomaly that afflicts us in the body politic. 

I find it disingenuous that Republicans are talking about illegal immigration and amnesty in connection with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. How can you confer amnesty on those who have done nothing wrong? It is true they are undocumented, but they are guilty of no wrongdoing. They were brought to this country at a young age, when they were unable to make a decision for themselves. 

I am also troubled that we keep hearing from Republicans that they are in favor of DACA and it can be fixed quickly. So, why has it not been fixed? Why does it keep being put off for later? When will it be the right time? How confident can anyone be that there is any intent to deal with this issue?

The government shut down. By the time you read this, Congress may have passed a three-week extension to re-open the government while work on the budget, immigration and other issues takes place. We have to ask, however, why do we need such an extension when this should have all been fixed four months ago?

What have Republicans done to avoid a shutdown? House Republicans passed a one-month continuing resolution that they knew could not pass in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to permit a vote on the measure until a shutdown was inevitable.

No substantial negotiations took place after President Donald Trump blew up the deal crafted by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin. Despite a last-ditch meeting with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the president has remained outside the fray.

Democrats decided to stand firm because nothing substantive was happening. We have seen one continuing resolution after another. But no meaningful efforts have been made during these extensions to resolve issues. When is the work of government going to be done? If nothing happens during the three-week extension, we will be right back to a possible shutdown again.

What we have seen primarily is political posturing on both sides.  Extreme positions on immigration from conservative House members seem to be holding sway. There is little or no leadership from the White House. Democrats seem determined to hold firm. Will Mitch McConnell’s assurances that real work be done on these issues mean anything? We will have to see.

On another subject, Trump spoke to anti-abortion marchers on Friday. The tension between everything that is wrong with this president and his support for right-to-life policies continues. To my mind, there is no positive about this president speaking against abortion. In fact, I believe his presence and support taint the movement.

Once again, we are forced to ask if support on abortion supersedes all the damage this president is doing on almost every other issue. In fact, it may be that we are more likely to overlook some areas of disagreement because he agrees with us on this one issue. Is that really a good thing?

Finally, a few thoughts on Pope Francis and his latest trip to Chile. It is hard to know what to say about the pope blaming the victims of sexual abuse and suggesting their criticism may be slander.

We all make mistakes, but this is so unlike Francis. His appointment of Juan Barros as bishop of Osorno, Chile, has been highly divisive. He obviously felt the need to support Barros and the appointment. Is he just being defensive and refusing to admit a mistake?

Whatever the case may be, he could have couched his support in a way that would be more in keeping with the Francis persona, instead of using such harsh language against the critics of Barros. This is truly a sad episode.

Further, I would make the point that things are not all well with the Francis papacy. The unyielding criticism, I believe, has taken a toll on the pontiff. Except for this out-of-character incident, Francis remains warm, compassionate, and a loving pastor. Yet I sense his energy has waned. His willingness to push the envelope and work for change seems to be diminished.

I fear his conservative critics are once again winning. They have thwarted this pope over even the most basic types of change.

Although I hate to say it, I am not optimistic about the future direction of our church. Francis continues to appoint bishops and cardinals who are in tune with his thinking, and that is a hopeful sign. Yet, I’m not hearing any new ideas or meaningful efforts at change coming out of the Vatican.

Instead, I see resistance at every turn. If the commission on female deacons comes back with a negative report, I am hard-pressed to see the kind of aggiornamento that is badly needed in our church.

America magazine and Kerry Weber have provided us with an in-depth portrait of women in the church, both in the past and in the present.

Not surprisingly we learn that women have historically had a powerful influence on the church. That influence was of course behind the scenes and did not involve any leadership roles. Women were the humble and indispensable foundation of the church, but when important decisions were being made it was time for women to leave the room. Just as was often the case with African-Americans in our country’s history, it was important that women knew and understood their place in the church.

Now, the America article and its survey show that women in the church have had enough. They are choosing to no longer be the mainstay of keeping the church afloat. The issue is not that women are actually leaving. Women surveyed indicated that 82 percent of them had not considered leaving the church.

Instead, they are disengaging and do not consider active involvement in the church important. Only 24 percent of women surveyed went to Mass weekly or more often. Less that half of respondents felt it very important or somewhat important to be involved in one’s parish.

Specifically, millennial women have chosen to back off their involvement in the church. Their disengagement is even greater that that of their male counterparts. The article also indicates that this same phenomenon is not occurring in Protestant denominations.

What does this data mean? How serious is the problem? Kathleen Sprows Cummings, associate professor at the University of Notre Dame, and director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism, provides a pretty stark analysis. She states, “We are at a crisis point. . . . If you lose the women, you lose the children.” No one can doubt the formative role women have always played in the religious training of their children.

It seems fair to say that a combination of the rise of women in every secular sphere of influence, along with a continued refusal to consider women for leadership roles in the church, is affecting the willingness of women to be engaged in the church. It is even more true for young women who are part of the current culture and have a different understanding of what the role of women should be in the world and in the church. Although not that many women have actually left the church, it may be instructive to note that of those who have considered it, 48 percent mentioned the lack of an appropriate place for women in the church, and 69 percent mention disagreement with church teaching.

It is also likely true that many women are unaware of a number of leadership positions that are available to women in the church today. The article profiles a number of these women in important positions, including the chancellor of the diocese, pastoral associate, parish life director, etc. I certainly concur that there needs to be many more of such openings available, and the more people learn about these important opportunities the more it could sway the thinking of some women.

I believe these are genuine signs of progress in the church, and I do not want to downplay their importance. It is also true that the church needs to start making progress somewhere. Yet, many in the clergy and hierarchy remain strongly opposed to even these limited steps.

It is my sense, moreover, that sacramental change is really the whole ball game. As long as this men’s club of priesthood is off limits to women, there is no way women can consider themselves anything other than second class citizens. Barriers to women are breaking down in every sphere outside the church, which puts the church in the category of continuing to depict women as containing some kind of fatal flaw that removes them from consideration for making the Eucharist present for the faithful. What is worse, so much of the opposition is not theologically based, but based on a cadre of celibate old men being uncomfortable with allowing women into their private club.

Mary brought the Lord Jesus into the world. Mary Magdalene was the "Apostle to the Apostles," being the first witness to the Resurrection. Surely, it is time women be considered worthy to preside at the Eucharistic table.