Chicago’s Father Michael Pfleger reinstated to ministry 

On Feb. 3, 2025, at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Father John Yongli Chen will celebrate an evening Mass in Mandarin, his native language, in recognition of the Chinese New Year. Chen is pastor of St. Ann Parish in Ortonv… […]

Mark Houck gives a speech at the Men’s March in Boston on Oct. 15, 2022. / Credit: Screenshot of Facebook Livestream “My Mother Mary”

Philadelphia, Pa., Jan 27, 2023 / 17:48 pm (CNA).

The jury deciding the fate of pro-life activist Mark Houck could not come to a decision Friday on whether the Catholic father of seven broke a federal law in a shoving incident outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic in 2021.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert entered the courtroom around 5 p.m., almost two and a half hours after he sent the jury out for deliberation, and said that he received a note from the foreman that said, “Your honor at this point we are deadlocked. How long should we continue to deliberate?”

Pappert called the jury in and asked the foreman if he thought, with more time, the jury could come to a decision. 

The foreman said no, but Pappert sent the jury home with instructions to return to court and resume their deliberations Monday morning.

Houck, 48, is charged with two counts of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, better known as the FACE Act.

The allegations in the case relate to two incidents that occurred at a Philadelphia abortion clinic on Oct. 13, 2021. The federal indictment alleges that Houck twice shoved an abortion clinic escort, Bruce Love, once when Love was attempting to escort clients and again during a verbal altercation with Love in front of the clinic.

The FACE Act prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.” 

The charges are being fought by Houck, who pleaded not guilty to the federal charges several months ago, in U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The trial began on Tuesday. However, opening statements and witnesses were not called until Wednesday and Thursday. Since then, both sides have had the opportunity to make their case with witnesses, evidence, and closing arguments.

On Friday in court, the jury got to hear from Mark Houck — sometimes referred to as Mark Sr. — and his son, Mark Houck Jr.

On the stand, the elder Houck said he told Love to “Stay away from my son” and “Don’t come near us,” as Love approached them on the sidewalk after the first incident already occurred that day, and Love was again approaching them.

The facts of the first incident are disputed by both sides. Both sides agree that Houck was sidewalk counseling two women crossing the street who left Planned Parenthood. Both sides agree that Love followed them. 

But that’s where the accounts diverge. The prosecution says that Houck elbowed Love because he was a clinic escort. Houck says that Love startled him, and even made contact with him, causing him to say “What are you doing?” and hip-check him out of reflex.

Following the first incident, Houck said Love left the clinic, placed himself next to Houck’s son, and was jeering at Houck Sr.: “You’re hurting women. You don’t care about women.”

Houck then said that the same things were said about him to his son. 

Houck’s son, who took the witness stand first and was 12 at the time of the incident, made the same claims about Love’s words.

The younger Houck said Love came and stood next to him about an arm’s length away on the wall of the clinic near the corner where they were praying and sidewalk counseling.

“I moved away… because I was scared,” he said.

The younger Houck testified that Love said to him “Your dad’s a bad person. Your dad’s harassing women.”

The boy said it was “unusual” that Love went “that far from the clinic” to escort the women, referring to the site of the first incident, when his father was counseling two women crossing the street.

Houck’s attorney, Brian McMonagle, asked the younger Houck if he prepared his testimony with his father’s lawyers. When the boy said he had, McMonagle asked him what the lawyers told him to tell the jury. 

“The truth,” he said.

[…]

Fr. Richard Cassidy, professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, dresses in Roman prisoner garb as he holds a copy of his newest book, “A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians.” Fr. Cassidy’s eighth scholarly work, the book explores the subversive nature of St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, which the apostle wrote from behind bars in a Roman prison cell. / Valaurian Waller | Detroit Catholic

Detroit, Mich., Apr 30, 2022 / 08:00 am (CNA).

It was a tough decision for Rick Cassidy as he began graduate studies at the University of Michigan in mid-1960s. Would he take the course on Imperial Rome, because of his love of history, or the course History of Slavery, because of his deep concern for social justice?

The Dearborn native chose the course on slavery. The insights he acquired have helped to guide Fr. Richard Cassidy’s scholarly work for three decades, including his latest work, “A Roman Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians“ (Herder & Herder, 2020). 

Paul’s letter, composed in chains and secreted out of his Roman jail cell, is intentionally “counter-slavery” argues Father Cassidy, professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary since 2004, as well as “counter-emperor.” At its core, Philippians is an underground epistle that subverts the Roman power structure and the “lordship pretensions of Nero.” Reviewers praise the “distinctive thesis” of Father’s groundbreaking work as “fresh and illuminating,” making for “fascinating reading.”

This is Father Cassidy’s seventh book that examines the influence of Roman rule on the writers of the New Testament, and his eighth book overall. He returned to Ann Arbor on a rainy afternoon in late June to discuss his newest work.

Dan Gallio: St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians is most known for its soaring declaration of the divinity Christ, before whom one day “every knee must bend,” and “every tongue proclaim” his universal lordship (2:6-11).  

Your new book presents a unique argument: Paul’s letter is primarily a “subversive” document of resistance against the Roman Empire—particularly against emperor worship and slavery. How did you arrive at this against-the-grain interpretation?

Father Cassidy: These insights were the result of long hours with the text, spending a lot of prayer time for guidance, as to Paul’s situation.

The issue of slavery came into play strongly. I now saw that Jesus was executed as a violator of Roman sovereignty, condemned by Pilate, executed under Emperor Tiberius—and that this was the slave’s form of death. This is a crucial point.

In regards to the two topics you mention, I had the intuition that the Letter to the Philippians was “counter-emperor cult” and “counter-slavery.” First, the self emptying of Christ from on high—descending downward into human form, downward, downward to the point of the slave’s death on a Roman cross—and then you have St. Paul’s wonderful words in chapter 2, verses 9-11.

My insight was that there is going to be a redressing of what has happened. Because of the great faithfulness of Jesus Christ, the Father intervenes and begins the lifting up, the ascending of Christ, where the Father exalts Jesus and bestows upon him “the name above every other name.”

So I can now speak about this famous passage in terms of a kind of  “drama”: four scenes that represent the descent of Jesus, and four scenes that represent his ascent, akin to a medieval passion play. The Father intervenes on Christ’s behalf, conferring upon him the name of “Lord.” Now all of creation, including the emperor, the governor, the imperial personnel, are all subject to Jesus. They have to prostrate themselves before the name of Jesus.

DG: So, essentially, Philippians is subversive because it makes a political statement as much as a theological one.

FC: Yes, but for some, it is a great privilege to genuflect at the name of Jesus. This includes slaves! Paul had integrated slaves into his community in Philippi. They were empowered now to proclaim the name of Jesus, standing alongside free men and women. They are standing alongside the Roman imperial power structure, all involved in the same process of bowing before Christ and proclaiming his name.

And that name is “Lord.” Jesus is being acclaimed as Lord, and not the emperor, to the glory of God the Father. This is the decisive element of Philippians 2:6-11, blended together in this one passage.

DG: You provide a forty-four-page introduction to the social situation of the Roman colony of Philippi. Why did you feel such an informative but lengthy introduction was necessary to support your thesis? 

FC: I had to establish that conditions at Philippi mirror conditions at Rome. This is important. Philippi was like “Little Rome.” When Paul is speaking of conditions at Philippi, his is also experiencing the same oppressive conditions at Rome as a chained prisoner. I had to establish that emperor worship was everywhere, in Philippi’s renowned amphitheater, in the streets, in public artifacts. That is why I had to go into an extensive introduction to set the stage of what Paul is doing in his letter. 

DG: Your appendices are extensive, too, like bookends to the introduction, driving the thesis home again using illustrations.

FC: There is one illustration of a monument where slaves are chained, and a slave trader is proclaiming his prowess as a slave trader. This monument to the degradation of slavery was at a city adjacent to Philippi. Paul almost certainly passed by it on his way to and from Philippi. It was discovered back in the 1930s and almost destroyed in the war by Nazi bombings.

DG: Paul is sometimes criticized by revisionist commentators for not rejecting the institution of slavery in his letters. Is your book an answer to these critics?

FC: Paul’s approach to slavery is complicated. There are some letters where he seems to envision the imminent return of Christ. Possibly he minimized the importance of slaves being freed in these letters. However, in Philippians, his final letter before his death, he addresses the issue definitively. It is very undermining of slavery.

I intended to de-establish the idea that Paul acquiesced to slavery. He did not acquiesce. The laudatory prepublication comments by scholars make me think the book will have a decisive role in re-imaging Paul.

DG: Back to Philippians 2:6-11. Why do you maintain this passage is not a hymn or baptismal catechesis, as is customarily believed, but is an original composition of Paul? Is this position another example of your counter exegesis?

FC: This is not some other preexisting hymn. No! This is fresh imaging. Visceral imaging. This is intensity from identifying with Christ as the “slave crucified.” No one else could have composed this passage. And Paul could not have composed this passage until he was in Roman chains and could see the threat posed against Jesus by the counterfeit claims that Emperor Nero is Lord.

DG: It’s almost like the passage is “supra-inspired,” that he would get such an original insight while in such dreadful circumstances.

FC: Correct. And there is a real question as to how this letter could be transmitted from prison, with the security and censorship. In garments? In pottery? It is possible the original written letter was confiscated. So how is Paul is getting his subversive thoughts past the Roman guards?

I suggest in my book that Paul was drilling his associates, Timothy and Epaphroditus, to memorize his letter, given the role of memory in early Christian life.

DG: With your busy teaching and pastoral duties, where to you find the motivation and energy to produce such a thoroughly researched, and beautifully written, work of scholarship?

FC: It’s Spirit driven!

DG: Is the Spirit driving you to another book?

FC: I would say so. After a book comes to publication, there is always a kind of mellowing period. So right now I have not identified the next project. I am appreciating the graces I have received from this book, and trusting that the same Spirit who has shepherded me through this sequence will still stand by me, guiding me forward. 

This article originally appeared in Mosaic, Sacred Heart Major Seminary’s magazine, and is reprinted at CNA with permission of the Detroit Catholic, where it was published April 20.

[…]