After watching Christmas programming for the last couple of weeks, I must ask:
Did it ever occur to anyone that the Whos were just obnoxious? Think if your neighbors were making all that racket. What would you do?
I'm not saying I would have embarked on a crime spree, but I have new sympathy for The Grinch, heart two sizes too small or not.
Monday, December 29, 2008
After watching Christmas programming for the last couple of weeks, I must ask:
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Bishop of Phoenix Thomas J. Olmsted has issued a decree of excommunication to Monsignor Dale Fushek, founder of LifeTeen, and Father Mark Dippre for their establishment of and leadership in an "opposing ecclesial community."
I don't think I even knew this stuff was going on. I'll admit that I've never been to a LifeTeen Mass, but folks on both sides of the fence describe them as more suited for VH1 than EWTN. I have met quite a few LifeTeen promoters and they have all had a few things in common.
1. A striking disregard for the supernatural aspect of the Mass.
2. An unhealthy emphasis on their feelings.
3. Very little idea of what the Church is.
These characteristics also seem to be shared by Msgr. Fushek. He and his colleagues apparently thought that indifferentism was a better deal than the Mystical Body of Christ and decided to found a non-denominational "praise and worship center." According to the CNA article, "Their meetings regularly draw 250 to 300 people. The priests’ 90-minute services begin at 10 am each Sunday and feature much music but do not include sacraments. Reportedly, the priests have repeatedly said their services are not to be considered 'Catholic' in any way."
After repeatedly ignoring requests by His Excellency, Bishop Olmsted, to discontinue their public ministry in this farce, the Msgr. Fushek and one of the above-mentioned colleagues have now been excommunicated.
First, let me remind everyone that we should offer our prayers that these guys will take notice of their errors, repent, and reconcile with the Church.
Second, we should praise Bishop Olmsted for taking such a courageous action in the face of what is probably going to be a lot of negative publicity. He was left with no alternative, though. If you don't think that activities like those of Fushek are bad, I invite you to read these comments from "Catholics" who attend the "praise and worship" services.
"I go to Mass for my sacraments, and I go to Praise and Worship for my Christian fulfillment," Stan Nicpon said, adding that it has a "good community feeling."
Stan is the perfect example of what I described above. Note that he doesn't have any idea of the sacraments as being Christian fulfillment. Yeah, Stan, receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and participating in the Mystical Liturgy of Heaven, the Sacrifice of Calvary, and the most important event on the planet just doesn't quite make for "fulfillment," right? What's really important is that we get good feelings out of it.
I wonder if Stan comprehends the selfishness involved in thinking that his worship of God has anything to do with whether or not he feels good.
His wife Jan described her reaction to the service, saying "It is kind of a fulfillment beyond church. It is just a lot of great music that kind of fills you with a good spirit, inspiration and hope — a lot of hope."
Fulfillment beyond the Body of Christ. Fulfillment beyond the communion of self with Savior. Ooo, ooo! And great music, too! Did I mention the music? It makes you feel so awesome!
What Jan is describing sounds more like an Obama rally or a trip to Dave & Buster's. Again, more emphasis on herself, rather than God. More ignorance as to what the Church is.
When a bishop is faced with such revolting comments as those expressed by Stan and Jan, along with willful disobedience from those who would lead the flock astray, he really only has 2 choices (if he's going to be a responsible shepherd, that is). He can either be St. Nicholas or St. Thomas Becket. Thankfully, His Excellency opted for the latter and avoided the potential lawsuit posed by the former.
Pray for all those involved, especially Stan and Jan who do not seem to know how far they have wandered off the reservation.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
St. John's seminary in Boston, once on the road to closure, has gotten a huge reprieve in the form of a surge in enrollment. Per the Globe:
Enrollment at St. John's Seminary has doubled over the last two years, a stunning turnabout for an institution that seemed to be spiraling toward closure in the wake of the clergy sexual abuse crisis.
The stone hall in Brighton, where two generations ago hundreds of young men prepared for the priesthood, is still strikingly quiet, but the pews of the Romanesque chapel are now about one-third full, as fresh-faced young men from around the world help to revive a 125-year-old institution that teetered on the brink of extinction just a few years ago.
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, who resisted calls from priests to close the Catholic seminary when he arrived as archbishop of Boston five years ago, has made preserving St. John's a top priority for his administration, and has cajoled bishops from New England and beyond to send young men to Boston to prepare for the priesthood. This fall there are 87 men studying theology at St. John's, up from 42 two years ago.
I'm not sold on the Neocatechumenal Way, which is a source for some of these guys, but this is a postive sign no matter what, I think. I hear that seminaries are seeing increased enrollment everywhere. I haven't seen numbers to that effect, but every time the subject comes up, that's what people say. The reaction from the Pope's visits around the world seem to bear witness to an increased interest in the Church by younger folk. Considering the rapport JPII had built with the youth, that's saying a lot. Hopefully, we will see more concrete stories like this in the new year.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Therefore the Word of God, Himself God, the Son of God who “in the beginning was with God,” through whom “all things were made” and “without” whom “was nothing made,” with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate. Without detriment therefore to the properties of either substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt, belonging to our condition, inviolable nature was united with possible nature, and true God and true man were combined to form one Lord, so that, as suited the needs of our case, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and rise again with the other.
Rightly therefore did the birth of our Salvation impart no corruption to the Virgin’s purity, because the bearing of the Truth was the keeping of honour. Such then beloved was the nativity which became the Power of God and the Wisdom of God even Christ, whereby He might be one with us in manhood and surpass us in Godhead. For unless He were true God, He would not bring us a remedy, unless He were true Man, He would not give us an example. Therefore the exulting angel’s song when the Lord was born is this, “Glory to God in the Highest,” and their message, “peace on earth to men of good will.” For they see that the heavenly Jerusalem is being built up out of all the nations of the world: and over that indescribable work of the Divine love how ought the humbleness of men to rejoice, when the joy of the lofty angels is so great?
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.
In other words, if we view the civil authorities as participating in the power wielded by Christ, we are more apt to regain the respect for that authority that seems to be missing in modern times. If the ruler himself understands the source of his authority in this way, he is less likely to abuse it, knowing that his power is not his own and that .God will judge him more severely for that abuse. Rather than exercising his office for his own selfish ends, the ruler will instead consider the common good (which includes the spiritual good).
The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Who knew! Certainly not anyone who has bothered to read it. Luckily, though, Lisa Miller over at Newsweek is willing to set all of us idiots straight. Make sure you pay special attention to how she completely blows off Paul's "tough" rhetoric contra homosexuality by appealing to a "modern scholar."
I keep saying it because it's true. It's looking more like 1984 every day. Pretty soon, we'll be reading articles about how 2+2=5.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Let Us explain briefly the nature and meaning of this lordship of Christ. It consists, We need scarcely say, in a threefold power which is essential to lordship. This is sufficiently clear from the scriptural testimony already adduced concerning the universal dominion of our Redeemer, and moreover it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due. Not only do the gospels tell us that he made laws, but they present him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love. He claimed judicial power as received from his Father, when the Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath by the miraculous cure of a sick man. "For neither doth the Father judge any man; but hath given all judgment to the Son." In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed.
All this is a set up to the real nuts and bolts of the encyclical. What with all this Kingly power, the question becomes what is the object of Christ’s Kingship.
This kingdom (Christ’s kingdom) is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things.
“Aha!” shout the Church/State separators. “It’s a spiritual kingdom, so keep that Jesus guy and His Church out of our secular government!”
Nope. Not that simple.
It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.
Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?" If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation."
In a nutshell- Jesus is King of all that is. That includes you. All of you. Not just the part that you want him involved with. As Paul says, we’ve been purchased at a great price, namely, the blood of the God-Man. The Almighty isn’t Wal-Mart. There is no returns policy.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Friday morning, I awoke to the sound of my wife gasping in pain next to me. Most of you don't know my wife, so I'll go ahead and tell you that she's a pretty tough customer and is sort of from the "I ain't got time to bleed" school when it comes to pain. In other words, if she's gasping and paralyzed from a specific hurt, I know it must be serious.
It took a lot of coaxing, but I finally convinced her to let me take her to the hospital emergency room. This is something else that she's bad about: not getting medical help when it's needed. At this point, there wasn't anything that she could have done about it anyway. She was in too much pain to fight me, and I'm stronger than her and was getting really worried.
We made it to the hospital and, of course, they started running all the typical lab work, including a urinalysis. Despite her pain, we spent our time joking about how this was the worst case of gas either of us had ever seen. Sure, she was yelling at me not to make her laugh, but it took the edge off and, like I said, I was getting really worried.
The doctor returned with the lab results and informed us that the UA indicated a pregnancy. My heart leapt. I already have three sons, but she and I had discussed having more. Very little compares with the joys of fatherhood, and I found myself mentally playing through what the next few months and years had in store. I took this as just another difficult pregnancy. We'd had those before, albeit nothing this bad. But my thoughts quickly turned away from that to visions of ultrasounds, feeling for kicks, my wife's glow, the agony/ecstacy of labor, a little blanket-bound body, etc.
Then the doctor made his follow-up. "We're worried it's ectopic." My wife was clearly way ahead of me as she harmonized with the physician perfectly as he said it. It took a couple of seconds for me to grasp all this. My brain sort of went into a freefall. We were supposed to leave for DisneyWorld with my parents in a few hours. It was Christmas-time; stuff like this doesn't happen around Christmas. This can't happen. I'm supposed to get to be a daddy again.
As we waited for the ambulance, reality began to set in. We didn't talk about what this all actually meant, yet. We just hugged each other and cried. Transport was even worse. I had to ride at the front of the ambulance, so I couldn't be with her at all. The hospital wasn't much better. They took her away right when we got there while I filled out the endless miles of paperwork. When I finally got back to her, what I got to see was her being tortured with an ultrasound, screaming as the tech was forced to press harder and harder on her stomach. They couldn't see anything. Not that we would have had any choice anyways. We knew that surgery was coming.
When the doctor came out to update me on how things were going, he told me that (a) she was fine, (b) the pregnancy was indeed ectopic and (c) that it had already ruptured. He was going to clean out the wound and that would be that. The blood loss was already stopped.
It's tough to express what happened after that. I was happy that my wife was going to be ok, but I think I was just as happy that the rupture had already happened. To this point, I had been dreading the moment of decision. At some point, I just knew that I was going to be asked to give the word to abort our child. I would have done so (and no, I'm not going to make this a double-effect post). I don't know if I could have lived with that, though. I know what you're thinking. "But you had to save your wife. The baby was going to die anyway." All that is very true. Maybe that makes the decision easier to make. I'm not sure that it makes it easier to live with. I will always thank God for taking that call away from me.
Providence is a weird thing. I went to Mass yesterday while the missus was still in the hospital. The church was a block away so it was a quick walk, though I'm sure my three days of unshowered body funk made for a less than fun time for my pew neighbors. I was still (and probably still am) something of a basketcase, so I didn't catch anything from the homily until the priest closed out with, "We are to praise God in everything. This is easy when we see a beautiful child and thank God for that child. Or look at nature and praise God for the wonders of His creation. But it is so very hard when we carry our cross. I myself am still learning."
So am I.
Then Job rose up . . . and worshipped, And said . . . "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord, so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord."
Blessed be the name of the Lord.
PS- I have some posts scheduled to come up over the next few days, but I won't be around, so if you leave comments or questions, it might take me a while to get around to them.
Just because the Synod is over, don’t think that there aren’t still problems with it. What we’re getting now are the propositions being forwarded to the Holy Father for review. My biggest concern, mentioned here in a previous post, was the treatment of Dei Verbum 11. The Instrumentum Laboris took what seemed to be a heretical view of this passage. The post-Synodal proposition isn’t much better. Prop 12 reads:
Inspiration and truth of the Bible
The Synod proposes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts of inspiration and truth of the Bible, as well as their reciprocal relationship, in order to understand better the teaching of "Dei Verbum" 11. In particular, it is necessary to highlight the originality of the Catholic biblical hermeneutics in this field.
The CDF needs to comment? Why? Is there a reason why the unanimous consent of the Fathers, multiple ecumenical councils, and four popes from the last century alone aren’t good enough? I’m having difficulty seeing this as anything other than modernists trying to get their foot in the door. So far, I’ll admit to being ok with the big items Levada has come out with during his tenure. It would be awesome if his response was to censure the morons who continue to try and make this some sort of issue.
Prop 25 from the Synod isn’t much better:
Need for two levels in exegetical research
The biblical hermeneutic proposed in "Dei Verbum," 12, continues to be of great present importance and efficacy, which envisages two different and correlative methodological levels.
The first level corresponds, in fact, to the so-called historical-critical methods that, in modern and contemporary research, often was used with fruitfulness and that entered the Catholic field, above all with the encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu" of the servant of God Pius XII. This method is necessary by the very nature of the history of salvation, which is not mythology, but a true history with its apex in the incarnation of the Word, divine and eternal, who comes to dwell in men's time (cf. John 1:14). The Bible and the history of salvation, therefore, also call for study with the methods of serious historical research.
The second methodological level necessary for a correct interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, corresponds to the nature, also divine, of human biblical words. The Second Vatican Council justly recalls that the Bible must be interpreted with the help of the same Holy Spirit who guided its writing.
Biblical hermeneutic cannot be considered carried out if -- along with the historical study of the texts -- it does not also seek its theological dimension in an adequate manner. "Dei Verbum" identifies and presents the three decisive references to arrive at the divine dimension and, therefore, to the theological meaning of the sacred Scriptures. It is a question of the content and the unity of the whole of Scripture, of the living tradition of the whole Church and, finally, of attention to the analogy of the faith. "Only where the two methodological levels are observed, the historical-critical and the theological, can one speak of a theological exegesis, an exegesis adequate to this book" (Benedict XVI, Oct. 14, 2008).
The historical-critical method is “necessary.” It actually says that. How amazing that the Church was able to do without it for 1900 years or so. I’ll be frank. If I may borrow a line from my colleague Karl, the historical-critical method is largely for sucks. Sure, it has some value, as Pope Benedict points out in his Jesus of Nazareth book. It’s primary use, though, is to serve as a lever for heretics to shoehorn naturalist a naturalist reading of Scripture into Church forums. This is where we get this popular attempt to separate the “historical Jesus” from the “Christ of Faith.” I guess the proposition tries to clarify its point here in an orthodox way, but that doesn’t change the fact that the beginning premise is ludicrous.
You can read all the propositions over on Zenit.
Friday, December 12, 2008
As I stated a while back, I am going to try to do Quas Primas justice, though I’m sure that my efforts will be in vain. It’s too good to pass up, especially for Advent, when so many of the proclamations of Our Lord’s Kingship occurred. Pius XI even comments on how so many of the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament had this Kingship as their theme. For example:
That of Isaias is well known: "For a child is born to us and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever."
Of course, Christ’s own words are sufficient to demonstrate that He certainly was a King, far moreso than any mere earthly ruler:
Moreover, Christ himself speaks of his own kingly authority: in his last discourse, speaking of the rewards and punishments that will be the eternal lot of the just and the damned; in his reply to the Roman magistrate, who asked him publicly whether he were a king or not; after his resurrection, when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations, he took the opportunity to call himself king, confirming the title publicly, and solemnly proclaimed that all power was given him in heaven and on earth. These words can only be taken to indicate the greatness of his power, the infinite extent of his kingdom. What wonder, then, that he whom St. John calls the "prince of the kings of the earth" appears in the Apostle's vision of the future as he who "hath on his garment and on his thigh written 'King of kings and Lord of lords!'." It is Christ whom the Father "hath appointed heir of all things"; "for he must reign until at the end of the world he hath put all his enemies under the feet of God and the Father."
And naturally, and perhaps most fittingly for this day so soon after the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, we have Gabriel’s joyous words to the Blessed Mother:
This same doctrine of the Kingship of Christ which we have found in the Old Testament is even more clearly taught and confirmed in the New. The Archangel, announcing to the Virgin that she should bear a Son, says that "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
Maybe I’m completely screwed up, but it seems to me that living in liberal democracy-type societies has completely warped our mind’s perception of authority. What is a senator, congressman, or president? Just some guy like me who was picked by other guys like me to keep the trains running on time. Sure, if we were going to meet the President, we’d probably dress nicely and mind our manners, but that would probably be the extent of our acknowledging of his position. Kings get genuflections, kissed hands, bows, and general abasement.
Part of me wonders if the lack of respect that we show to Christ and the sacraments which bring Him near us (incessant, loud talking in Church; ignoring confession; receiving the Eucharist in a state of sin; wearing crap clothes to Mass; and so forth) isn’t because we have no idea of how to respond to kingly authority. It reminds me of the following line in the Clint Eastwood classic, Unforgiven, when English Bob (Richard Harris) is discussing the assassination of President Garfield:
If you were to try to assassinate a king, sir, the, how shall I say it, the aura of royalty would cause you to miss. But, a president, [chuckles] I mean, why not shoot a president?
Cardinal Arinze's homeland of Nigeria has re-emerged as a hotbed of anti-Christian persecutions at the hands of Muslims. Ruth Gledhill reports:
Horrific stories of ruthless killings on the streets of Jos in northern Nigeria are emerging. At least one church pastor was shot dead, along with three members of his household and an Augustinian monastery attacked, the abbot narrowly escaping death after a molotov cocktail was thrown into his room. The Church Times and The Economist have reports, with the latter reporting that mosques were also burned down. On Thursday I spoke to the Bishop of Jos, Dr Benjamin Kwashi. According to his eyewitness report, the violence was directed solely against Christians, with some Muslims shot by armed forces only when they broke curfew. Estimates vary, but it seems about 400 people might have been killed. While not lessening the horror of that atrocity, this is about twice the number killed in Mumbai.
I wonder if CNN will even bother reporting. And for those who would insist that this is just some random outbreak of violence:
Dr Kwashi insisted the whole thing had been long in the planning and was not a spontaneous response to the elections, as is claimed.'I was woken up at about two in the morning last Friday morning. The roads coming into Jos and going out of Jos had been blocked by Muslim youths chanting Allahu Akbar. Other Muslim youths inside the town were by now burning churches and killing Christians. We have not had the exact figure of those killed.'
In India, security concerns have resulted in the cancellation of Christmas ceremonies in at least one diocese, per Zenit.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Congratulations to His Excellency, Bishop Jaime Soto for his appointment to the Diocese of Sacramento. The story is here at the OC Register. If you’ll recall, Bishop Soto was the shepherd who had the courage to speak the truth of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality to a conference focusing on homosexuality. Hopefully, we’ll see more such appointments for the continuing future.
The Catholic Hierarchy News is reporting that he's retired and that Cardinal Canizares Llovera is taking over as prefect of the CDW.
I personally don't know anything about this guy, but Rocco Palma over at Whispers in the Loggia seems to think that he'll be a strongly traditional guy. Hey, he's already on the Ecclesia Dei Commission, so that has to be a good sign. Rocco's picture of the new prefect is freaking awesome, by the way.
In memory of Cardinal Arinze's reign as prefect, everyone should take a look at Redemptionis Sacramentum, probably his most well-known bit of work.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
This isn’t going to be a long shpiel about how the Immaculate Conception is really Mary’s conception, rather than Jesus’s. I’m just going to point out something that I try to harp on. God’s grace is way bigger than people can imagine.
Jesus didn’t have to turn water into wine at Cana. But he did. He didn’t have to feed 5000 people with enough leftovers for 12 baskets. Why not just enough to get everyone full? When the Apostles were fishing, He didn’t have to load their nets up to the breaking point. A few here and there would have been fine.
The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has joined seven other dioceses in passing a resolution asking the church to let lesbians as well as homosexual men become bishops.
And the collapse continues.
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here . . .
Monday, December 8, 2008
Here’s an image for you. Think of Santa Claus, yes jolly old St. Nick, sitting around with a group of his peers, listening to a guy speak. The speaker then makes a comment that denies the divinity of Christ. Imagine then, our cheerful and charity-driven St. Nick rising from his seat and crossing the room to stand alongside the speaker. Envision the sparkle in his eyes as he draws back his merry hand and, without so much as a “Ho, Ho, Ho,” slaps the speaker across the face with all the strength that his jovial person can muster.
Doesn’t really fit the "classic" Santa image, does it? This is exactly what St. Nicholas, as bishop of Myra, did at the Council of Nicea in 325. Basically, he had enough of the Arian lunacy that was being proclaimed and decided to shut their pie holes with the most blunt means at his disposal, in this case, the back of his hand. Isn't this story much more awesome than riding around with flying reindeer, though? It certainly grabs the kids' attention when you tell it to them. While the top picture is probably a bit more accurate as to St. Nicholas's appearance, I like the one on the bottom because there's something about the eyes where you can sort of see the man who would silence heresy in this most old-fashioned of ways.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
As it is Advent, the Incarnation is nigh. We will celebrate the Almighty God's arrival in the flesh to our universe of space and time. I was thinking of the following to help set the mood for kids in my Catechism class. It's the Cherubic Hymn from the Liturgy of St. James. I don't know if he's really the guy who wrote it, but I can think of few words more appropriate for the occasion.
Let all mortal flesh be silent, and stand with fear and trembling, and meditate nothing earthly within itself:—
For the King of kings and Lord of lords, Christ our God, comes forward to be sacrificed, and to be given for food to the faithful; and the bands of angels go before Him with every power and dominion, the many-eyed cherubim, and the six-winged seraphim, covering their faces, and crying aloud the hymn, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
He's been here for years.
Zenit has a good story about the current blossoming interest in Thomism that is occurring among moral theologians. Note that 1968 is given as the period when St. Thomas began to fall out of popularity in this field. The effects of Humanae Vitae are legion. I think that His Eminence is a bit off with that date, though. Pick up any book immediately pre- or post-Vatican II and you'll see the same anti-Scholastic crap being spewed. Two good examples would be Fr. Cyprian Cooney's book Understanding the New Theology and Fr. Frederick Crowe's A Time of Change.
Weird thing about these "new theology" guys. The first item of practical application for the Faith that always went out the window for them was the Church's doctrines on moral issues and sin. All of a sudden, you had folks spouting insanities like spotting married couples a few divorces before getting serious about the sacrament. Or that maybe contraception, fornication, etc. really aren't so bad. Or that there really isn't such a thing as mortal sin at all.
This led us to the theological trash heap known as the "fundamental option." Some folks might be surprised to hear me say this, but this is probably the most poisonous heresy of the last century. Yes, you can say it's just a manifestation of modernism, but modernism, by its nature, takes so many forms that even describing it is tough (as St. Pius X admitted).
If you've never heard of it, fundamental option (hereafter- FO) is the idea that folks, over time, build up this "fundamental" perspective/orientation/choice/whatever that is either for God or against God. This isn't defined by any specific actions, but rather by a sort of collective appraisal of where you come down on loving God and others or basically pursuing your own selfish needs. In other words, just being a generally swell guy/gal is what really matters. Where it really goes off the rails is when its supporters begin claiming that individual actions are rendered meaningless, as no single act of sin is sufficient to separate you from God because all God cares about is whether your FO is still for Him. Mortal sin, of course, is immediately eliminated from our theology at this point.
This is the source of the new Pelagianism. This teaching has been so thoroughly disseminated amongst the laity that folks don't really mind sin so much anymore. Why? Because they know they are a "good person." The rampant religious indifferentism in the Church? All rooted in this same idea that Person X is just "too nice" not to go to heaven. Personal preferences reign while grace is ignored. I helps people feel good about themselves and others, though, when they aren't having to actually behave themselves or consider their accountability for their actions.
It's all been very condemned, naturally. Veritatis Splendor was the most recent document doing so. Check sections 65-69. Even so, you still have this idea wreaking absolute havoc on the faithful. I can almost guarantee that this kernel is at the heart of just about every modern heresy problem that we have. Why should heresy matter, as long as you don't kick puppies and help little old ladies across the street?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
It's the Christmas season, apparently, and we are all being encouraged to spend money and buy lots of stuff. Christmas is coming, and we wouldn't want to be caught without our appetites fully satisfied. Eat! Drink! Spend!
This attitude occasionally produces real casualties, as in the case of the poor worker trampled to death during a Black Friday sale, all so that shoppers could get flat-screen HDTVs. But it always produces spiritual casualties, people who focus so much on the coming of goodies that they are unprepared for the coming of Christ.
In the ancient tradition of the Church, usually forgotten, Advent is a penitential season. We are _not_ supposed to act as we do, going from festival to festival and spending our money on presents. We are supposed to prepare for the coming of Jesus by prayer and fasting. Now, I know that Catholics are only required to fast on two days, but I don't really care what the minimums are. Are you a minimum Christian? You don't have to be. Strive to do what the Church has always recommended, that we make straight the way of the Lord.
In my Church, we are recommended to fast from the feast of St. Phillip onward, which I keep variously depending on the year. It is another Lent, a preparation for the coming of Christ. Christmas Eve is, for us, a day of strict fast and abstinence, like Good Friday. The party doesn't really begin until after Christmas, and then continues for twelve days until the feast of Theophany (Epiphany in the West). To celebrate before the event is to have it backwards. Spend the time getting ready to gain spiritual benefits from the holiday, and then rejoice in those benefits after.
This is apparently being pushed in England and Wales, according to the Telegraph.
A document issued by the Catholic Education Service said facilities for other faiths should be made available in all primary and secondary schools if possible. . . The guidance said schools should consider putting aside a prayer room "if reasonably practicable" for use by staff and pupils from other faiths.
Umm . . . Why exactly should we do that?
Schools must foster race relations and religious tolerance to stop communities becoming divided.
It followed a warning from the Commission for Racial Equality that Britain's segregated schools are "a ticking time bomb waiting to explode".
So this just some sort of pre-emptive tactic because we don't think Muslims/Hindus/Jews/whoever can help but blow stuff up? What a wretched thought. If you think I'm exaggerating, check out this bit:
In a further conclusion, schools with large numbers of non-Catholic students are advised to read out "messages of goodwill" at assemblies or send them directly to parents during religious ceremonies. This includes the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu celebrations, the guidance said.
I really think this is an initiative completely motivated by fear. Of course, there's also the chance that this is just another manifestation of ecumenical madness.
The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, and chairman of the Church's education board, said: "Dialogue with other faiths is a consistent theme in the life of the Catholic Church. Such dialogue is conducted in many parishes and neighbourhoods, in colleges, universities and other academic circles."
You know what's a bigger theme? Preaching the Gospel to those who don't have it. Exercising the charity to want others to know the Truth of God. Lawrence of Brindisi wasn't made a Doctor of the Church by Blessed John XXIII because he set up worship sites for non-Catholics or for facilitating their errors. St. Lawrence is most famous because he actively worked to convert these people to the True Faith. Heaven help us if we actually cared enough about people to tell them the Truth.
Oh, and one other thing about that dialogue stuff.
You explain with great clarity that an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the term is not possible, while you urge intercultural dialogue that develops the cultural consequences of the religious option which lies beneath. While a true dialogue is not possible about this basic option without putting one’s own faith into parentheses, it’s important in public exchange to explore the cultural consequences of these religious options.
Pope Benedict wrote that in a forward to Marcello Pera's upcoming book. Perhaps the powers pushing this agenda should check themselves for parentheses.
Monday, December 1, 2008
"A Charlie Brown Christmas" is the only Christmas special worthy of the name as it is the only such special that actually deals with the real reason for Christmas.
And whoever spawned the horrendous "Twas The Night Before Christmas" with the whiny clockmaker and the bratty mouse should be beaten.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Charlie Weis should not be the head coach at Notre Dame next year. Whether he resigns (which anyone with dignity should at this point) or is terminated, he has failed. He has embarassed a school dedicated to the Blessed Mother and which should be a shining example to the entire world of Catholic excellence in all things.
Yes, I know McBrien is still a professor there, but excellence will not be perfection on this side of the eschaton.
I will not comment on who his replacement should be. Anyone other than himself, Radio Willingham, or Bob Davie.
Is Faust still available? At least he could beat Socal.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
A question oft-posed by my comrade Karl has occurred to me.
How long until Catholicism is regarded as a hate crime? It is part of the very essence of Truth to be wholly intolerant to falsehood. The Church cannot accommodate the errors of modernity and subjective morality. Therefore, it condemns them.
How long until we are told that such intolerance will no longer be tolerated? Maybe never, I suppose. The scene below, FOCA, the plight of Catholic health care providers refusing to provide contraceptive services, etc. seem to indicate that it's at least a possibility.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
About $250 according to Hindu extremists. The Times Online reports:
Extremist Hindu groups offered money, food and alcohol to mobs to kill Christians and destroy their homes, according to Christian aid workers in the eastern state of Orissa. . .
The US-based head of a Christian organisation that runs several orphanages in Orissa – one of India’s poorest regions – claims that Christian leaders are being targeted by Hindu militants and carry a price on their heads. “The going price to kill a pastor is $250 (£170),” Faiz Rahman, the chairman of Good News India, said.
Yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of public outcry over this. At least the persecution of the Catholics in Iraq has gotten a 60 Minutes segment. No real outcry, but it's something. Christians in India are being exterminated.
Orissa has suffered a series of murders and arson attacks in recent months, with at least 67 Christians killed, according to the Roman Catholic Church. Several thousand homes have been razed and hundreds of places of worship destroyed, and crops are now wasting in the fields.
God please protect these poor people.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
You've probably seen this by now, but it's new to me, so I'm just now getting it up here for comment. This is a newsclip from election night that focuses on California's vote on Proposition 8. This was the initiative to ban homosexual marriage. Observe, and please watch for the entire three minutes.
Not exactly marching on Washington and singing "We Shall Overcome," is it? I suppose we shouldn't be all that surprised with the trampling of the Cross. I'm ashamed that I can type that sentence. Still, you could have seen that coming from a mile away.
I must admit to complete awe at the stupidity of the anchorman, though. "Hate on both sides"? Really? The old lady walking around with the Cross was hateful? So hateful that you could make an equivalence between her activities and a crowd of assailants shoving her around and stomping on the sign of the world's redemption? I certainly hope this newsman lost his job. He might be outstanding at reading a teleprompter, but he's clearly far too stupid to be allowed access to a public forum.
The weird part about this for the homosexual marriage proponents is that they are obstinately refusing to see a very obvious Truth that the Church has taught for centuries. If you succumb to the secular nonsense that rights come from the citizenry or the government, you have no rational argument when your claim to a right is denied or rescinded. You have left your status to the will/whim of the masses or the elected officials. What is needed is an objective source of rights that transcends whatever might be the fancy of those in authority. Modern secularism, having rejected even the most primitive notion of natural law, lacks this objective principle. Yet they still gripe and complain and do violence over phantom violations of alleged rights that they have no basis to claim.
And somehow, we Catholics are labeled as the stupid, backward, and unenlightened ones.
Catholic Action UK has this story. Many thanks to them.
Given the well-publicized liturgical shenanigans that he's been a part of lately, this is a breath of much-needed fresh air.
But those bishops, said Cardinal Schonborn, were "frightened of the press and of being misunderstood by the faithful". Blame lay not only with the bishops responsible at the time - none of whom is still alive - but with all bishops for the fact that Europe is "about to die out". "I think that it is also our sin as bishops, even if none of us were bishops in 1968," he added. Bishops have not had, or did not have, the courage to "swim against the tide" and say yes to Humanae Vitae, he said. The cardinal, who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, particularly criticised two of the many 1968 bishops' conference declarations on Humanae Vitae, which all stressed the importance of the individual conscience.He singled out the Maria Trost Declaration, whose signatories included Cardinal Franz Konig, the late Archbishop of Vienna, president of the Austrian bishops' conference and a Father of the Second Vatican Council, and the Konigstein Declaration, whose signatories included Cardinal Julius Dopfner, the late Archbishop of Munich, president of the German bishops' conference and another Council Father.
Cardinal Schonborn accused the signatories of "weakening the People of God's sense for life", so that when "the wave of abortions" and increasing acceptance of homosexuality followed, the Church lacked the courage to oppose them.
This is pretty heavy stuff coming from such a high-level prelate, especially since he's singling out the hierarchy on an issue that's very third-rail for a lot of folks.
Of course, the question becomes the same as the one posed by Cardinal George's recent comments below. Folks still aren't doing what they are supposed to do in this respect, and I'm talking about priests and bishops here. What is going to be done about it?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The new Superior General thinks that liberation theology will be just fine as long as it's given time to "mature" and is saddened that this heretical BS hasn't' been given a "vote of confidence."
What the hell is this? I gladly kicked dirt on the grave of liberation over a decade ago. Now this guy wants us to give it a "vote of confidence." Really. I'm not making this up. CNA has the story:
In an interview with El Periodico, Father Nicolas said Liberation Theology “is a courageous and creative response to an unbearable situation of injustice in Latin America. As with any theology, it needs years to mature. It’s a shame that it has not been given a vote of confidence and that soon its wings will be cut before it learns to fly. It needs more time.”
We've been dealing with this stuff for decades now. It has been condemned by the current pope and the previous one as completely incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Fr. Nicolas would like for us to give Arianism another shot. How about rolling iconoclasm out of the garage and kicking the tires on it for another century or so?
Here was Cardinal Ratzinger's first broadside, way back in 1984. This made for a steady stream of attacks all the way up to his first encyclical.
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. . .
The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone”—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.
Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est
Hmmm. Materialist conceptions of man? Wonder who might promote that? Smells like Marxism, which is the engine that drives the whole liberation theology bus.
Yeah, maybe Fr. Nicolas isn't referring to any of the condemned "versions" of LT, but if that's the case then he should make that distinction. Not to mention the very fact that he's talking about "cut wings" and such indicates that he is specifically referring to what has already been classified as heresy.
In almost Kasparian fashion, Fr. Nicolas closes out with an even more outrageous comment:
He said it was “possible” that the Church in Spain has “a tendency to be reprimanding.” “I’ve always found it bothersome and incomprehensible that a priest lectures his people. What right does he have to do that? It’s a mistake,” Father Nicolas said.
Screw those spiritual works of mercy. Why bother sinners with correction or the ignorant with instruction? How could anyone think that a priest would lecture/reprimand his flock? Maybe because Jesus did and instructed his apostles to do likewise. Surely there's a problem with the translation here.
It seems like a short time ago that JPII directly intervened in the Jesuit's election of their Superior General. We know that both Cardinal Rode and Pope Benedict made a point to emphasize the 4th vow to the Society prior to this election. It seems that neither action has done any good.
Let us pray for the Society, its members, and those entrusted to their care. St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, St. Peter Canisius, and St. Robert Bellarmine, pray for them!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Yesterday was the Feast of Christ the King, which was established by Pope Pius XI back in 1925. Used to, it was on the last Sunday in October, an appropriate counter to the Protestant celebration of Reformation Sunday. We have since moved it to the Sunday before Advent.
Here's the problem. I've re-read it several times in an effort to post about it. I can't. I wouldn't do it justice and would wind up just posting the whole thing and telling you to read it for yourself.
I'm going to come up with something, or maybe even a series of somethings. The Social Kingship of Christ is a concept very foreign to a lot of folks these days. (Note: I seem to say "these days" a lot.) The whole encyclical is brimming over with goodies that I'd like to talk about. I just need to figure on it a bit more.
In the interim, here it is. Read, enjoy.
I wish these comments from CNS gave some sort of comfort. Yes, I know a lot of bishops stepped up to the verbal plate this past election. That's a good thing. However, that's just a small step compared to what His Eminence is talking about here.
When asked last week whether a Catholic politician voting for the FOCA – which would impose nationwide abortion on demand and government funding of abortion – would incur automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said the question would need to be discussed once the actual language of the bill was known. . .
At a press conference at the fall meeting of the USCCB held in Baltimore last week, CNSNews.com asked Cardinal George if the language in the Catholic Catechism that says “formal cooperation” in abortion incurs the penalty of excommunication would apply to a Catholic member of Congress voting for FOCA.
Passage of FOCA can be seen as nothing less than a declaration of war against the Church and, by default, Christ Himself. That alone should be sufficient to qualify for ecclesiastical sanction, regardless of what sort of casuistry is used to opt the Act's supporters out of formal cooperation.
Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict.
If this sounds extreme, I'd advise you to read the text of the Act. Granted, what it looks like in its final passage might be different, but judging from what it says now, I think my point is valid.
It would be very nice if the same clerics who were so outspoken during this election would stop making statements like this (condemnations with ample wiggle room) and then failing to take action. It only serves to create scandal and further sap the Church's credibility when push comes to shove. It's a shame, but I can't believe in the veracity of such threats until I actually see them enforced.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
That's the gauntlet that's been thrown down by Ed Young, a Dallas mega-church preacher, to his congregation. For some reason, this report is in the Boston Herald.
Young, 47, said he believes society promotes promiscuity and he wants to reclaim sex for married couples. Sex should be a nurturing, spiritual act that strengthens marriages, he said.
A hearty "Amen!" to Mr. Young. I've said many times that no religion promotes sex as much as the Catholic Church. We just don't want folks corrupting it with chemical or other artificial garbage so as to negate the fruitfulness of the act.
I would like to see a bishop do something like this. Really. I don't see it as scandalous, and I don't think he should put some sort of set timeframe in place, but married couples should really get a full lesson on the Church's teachings about sex. I think a message that starts with an encouragement to practice the "nuptial embrace" regularly would be a good start.
On the down side:
Young said he will deliver his seven-day sex challenge while sitting on a bed in front of his Dallas-area church campus.
I can do without the ooginess of having the guy deliver the message whilst seated on his bed.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Or at least tries to.
Per LifeNews, Cardinal O'Malley of Boston was audacious enough to lack hope in our President-elect, not to mention re-visiting the reprehensible ideas that gave rise to Planned Parenthood:
"My joy, however, is tempered by the knowledge that this man has a deplorable record when it comes to pro-life issues and is possibly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood," O'Malley said.
The Catholic cardinal told the newspaper that Planned Parenthood "in its origins was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks" and "it’s sort of ironic that he’s been co-opted by them."
Of course, PP isn't going to take this sort of talk lying down. If most folks knew that Sanger's vision was driven by eugenics and the general idea that blacks are inferior, political clout might suffer. At least, I hope it would.
The response from the CEO was the typical crap about how guys like His Eminence are "out of step" and how Catholics "overwhelmingly" (cough, cough, BS, cough) support PP services. Most interesting, though:
She didn't respond to the racism contention but claimed O'Malley's views don't represent those of Boston Catholics.
Coward. The fact that your evil activities are fed by one foul disposition rather than another is quite irrelevant, so why cower from these facts? You know the Cardinal's words are true, Ms. Luby. I'll admit it would be a bit awkward to concede that your entire corrupt enterprise was spawned from the same hellish mind as the Final Solution, but at least then you wouldn't come off as utterly gutless.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
That's pretty much what happened to the liberals of the world when they read Pope Benedict's latest shpiel on Vatican II. If you were to ask most of that crowd where we should look to really understand the Council, they'd probably sing all sorts of songs about the wonders of Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Ed Schillebeecx (sp), or John Courtney Murray.
The Pope has different ideas. Per this article in Zenit, we would be best served by looking to Pius XII. Specifically, "with the exception of sacred Scripture, this Pope is the authorized source that the council cites most frequently."
Quite interesting, especially since Pope Benedict directly references Mystici Corporis, which many liberal tried to claim was somehow no longer relevant in light of VII's "People of God" language. Let's think in even more detail. This means Mediator Dei and Humani Generis should be in the mix as well, with all their condemnations of archaelogism in the Mass and confusing the natural and supernatural orders.
And you can't just write these things off as random, isolated footnotes either.
"Moreover," he continued, "the references to these documents are not, in general, mere explanatory notes, but rather frequently are authentic integral parts of the conciliar texts; they do not just offer justifications in support of what the text affirms, but further offer an interpretive key."
In other words, when in doubt as to what the Council means, check Pius XII first.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Fr. Zuhlsdorf has the story over at WDTPRS.
For those who don't know him, Bishop Trautman has earned the nickname Bishop Trautperson for his efforts to mutilate the liturgy with inclusive language. He's also famous for thinking that we're all idiots, as was discussed here.
Anyways, Fr. Zuhlsdorf relates some events from the USCCB on the translations for our liturgical texts. Bishop Trautman requested that the prayer be changed from "cleanse from vices" be changed to "help to cleanse us of vices." In the midst of the initial passage of this item, Cardinal George stated the truth that "This is Pelagian."
Pelagianism is the idea that we get to heaven on our own efforts rather than by means of a supernatural grace from God. Grace, of course, is gratuitous and cannot be earned by human efforts. By saying that God merely "helps" cleanse us from our vices, Bishop Trautman is clearly claiming that we are able to cleanse ourselves and maybe just need a little assist from the Almighty with doing so. This is an impossibility and, as Cardinal George said, heretical.
Luckily, the final product doesn't seem to have had this crap item included. Still, it's a bit disturbing to see this kind of thing seriously considered.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
November 14-21, 1964 has been given the name "Black Week" by the progressives of Vatican II because it marks the point when their power finally began to wane. It was then that Paul VI and more orthodox Council Fathers started to figure out that something was amiss and began asserting themselves much more in the conciliar proceedings. I mention some the earlier shenanigans that tipped them off in this post. You don't see this mentioned much because to do so would shatter the popular image of the Council. I've been told that Hans Kung was actually the guy who coined the term "Black Week," but regardless, it's popular enough that everyone who was there who thought that this stuff was bad calls it that.
Basically, this one week saw a delay in the vote on what became Dignitatis Humanae, requested revisions to what became Unitatis Redintegratio, and Paul VI declaring Mary as "Mother of the Church" on his own authority. This last was an especially big deal considering that the progressives (with the exception of Cardinal Suenens, I think) were absolutely opposed to such a measure, fearing an ecumenical backlash from Protestants. As though that should be a consideration. This title of Our Lady had actually been excised from an earlier draft of the Constitution on the Church and rejected outright in the form of a separate document that was meant to be just about her. Anyways, this move by Pope Paul ticked off a lot of people.
Really, though, the biggest thing to come out of Black Week is what's now known as the Nota Praevia. This was an "explanatory note" that was added to Lumen Gentium. It clarified certain aspects of the document's teachings on the authority of bishops and the Pope. Otherwise, LG shaded awful close to heresy. The bad thing is that this addendum is supposed to be a "prefatory note." In other words, you're supposed to read it first. Somehow, it always winds up being put at the end, where a lot of people miss it. Other folks ignore it altogether. This is how we got a lot of our misguided ramblings about "collegiality" and that bishops are no longer answerable to the Holy See.
If anyone wants to learn more about this, check any of the books I have listed to the right that concern the Council.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
That is the title of a Joan Vennochi article that I stumbled across here. It's old, being from 2006, but I am going to discuss it because it sheds a lot of light on current events.
The honesty here is refreshing, and I applaud Ms. Vennochi for acknowledging a lot of things that most folks are leaving unsaid. Granted, she belittles and degrades the Mystical Body of Christ for no other reason than to make a point, but in doing so still does a good thing, I think, by marking out the stark contrast between the two kinds of people you find in Catholic churches these days.
The first part is just her insulting Cardinal O'Malley. Nothing to see here. Then it gets interesting when she brings up the Catholic Charities upheaval from that time.
Last week, seven members of the board of Catholic Charities of Boston announced their resignations. They were protesting the effort by Massachusetts bishops to prohibit gays from adopting children from their Catholic social service agencies. The seven who quit said the prohibition ''threatens the very essence of our Christian mission."
We see the divide beginning. The "mission" is not one defined by the Church. It is defined by these seven people, regardless of what the Church thinks. This is made clear a couple of paragraphs down:
If you agree with those principles (ie- what the Church says), you are, according to the Vatican, a Catholic in good standing. If you don't, you're not.
Of course, this is unacceptable to those who desire to declare their own subjective morality apart from the authority granted by God.
Liberals raised as Catholics refuse to accept this reality. We think we can be prochoice, pro-gay marriage , pro-gay adoption, and in favor of married and female priests and still call ourselves Catholic. The people who make the rules say we don't meet the criteria.
Note here what the primary characteristic is. Vennochi rightly describes these individuals as liberals first, who happened to have been raised Catholic. This is practically an admission of the temporal, political views as having superiority over views regarding the supernatural.
''I know a lot of Catholics, gay and straight," said O'Connell, a lesbian mother of a 5-year-old daughter. ''Everyone continues to go to church and act like their parish is not part of all of this -- the sexual scandal, the association to the Vatican and its stand on gay adoption. Everyone who believes that is in a state of denial."
''It's time to find a new path," she said.
I'm reading three items here: the sex scandal, association to the Vatican, and the Vatican's stand on gay adoptions. One of these things is not like the others, but to the liberal mind, they are all the same.
Finally, we get the real meat of the article:
Catholics who don't agree with church doctrine are doing the unexpected -- sticking around where they are unwelcome, rather than moving on. The stubborness is rooted in nostalgia, inertia, and arrogance. We cherish some memories, like the lacy white communion dress and the innocence of childhood confessions. Despite spotty attendance, we enjoy the ritual of Sunday Mass. We also believe our views are the enlightened ones and Rome's represent the neanderthal; eventually we will get a pope who understands that.
Nothing in this article expresses any liberal interest whatsoever in such minor things as getting to heaven. It is all about pretty dresses and having a place to go on Sunday morning. Going to Mass is a ritual, rather than mystical participation at Calvary or the marriage of heaven and earth. Only neanderthals would believe in such nonsense. Our more enlightened brethren have made it a mission to save us from our ignorant embrace of the transcendent.
A colleague of mine who is a recovering alcoholic once summarized the bulk of 12-step programs as the acceptance of two major principles: First, God exists. Second, you aren't Him. This principle would be most helpful to the sorts of people Ms. Vennochi is describing. Catholic dogma requires submission to the belief that we are not gods, despite what the serpent claimed. We need His help, for without Him, we can do nothing. The liberal mindset expressed in the article is quite opposed to this. The guiding rule becomes- God exists (I'm assuming), and whatever we don't like, He better get used to it.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
It's over at First Things. Of interest to readers here:
After the election, some Catholics with itching ears who are manifestly embarrassed by the Church’s being out of step with the new world of “the change we’ve been waiting for” have gleefully pointed out that the assertiveness of the bishops had little political effect. In the presidential and other races, Catholics voted for pro-abortion candidates. So what? It is not the business of bishops to win political races. It is the business of bishops to defend and teach the faith, including the Church’s moral doctrine. One hopes they will keep that firmly in mind in their Baltimore meeting.
Earlier this year, the bishops issued “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” It was, as I wrote at the time, a fine statement in almost every respect. But its elaborate attention to nuance and painstaking distinctions made it a virtual invitation for the Catholic flaks of Obama to turn it upside down and inside out. The statement was regularly invoked to justify voting for the most extreme proponent of the unlimited abortion license in American presidential history.
Yet Cardinal George seems to think that this is not possible. How could someone distort such a clear and direct document?
That unintended invitation to distort, eagerly seized upon by those with a mind to do so, was especially evident in the statement’s treatment of a “proportionate” reason to support pro-abortion candidates.
I hope it was unintended, Father. I really do.
In the last four decades, following the pattern of American Protestantism, many, perhaps most, Catholics view the Church in terms of consumption rather than obligation. The Church is there to supply their spiritual needs as they define those needs, not to tell them what to believe or do. This runs very deep both sociologically and psychologically. It is part of the “success” of American Catholics in becoming just like everybody else.
Disgusting, but true.
What most Catholics don’t know, and what would likely astonish them, is that CHD very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor. Part of the thinking when it was established in the ideological climate of the 1960s is that Catholic concern for the poor would not be perceived as credible if CHD funded Catholic organizations.
I mention this last bit because the guy who was giving the talk to the USCCB on the Campaign for Human Development/ACORN issue (I didn't catch his name) was asked about this by Bishop Bruskewitz. He declined to give a real answer, saying instead that it was his "understanding" that Catholic groups could receive funding but that this was all he knew.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The first bits I saw had a lot of griping about abortion and the catastrophic consequences of FOCA being passed, including the effects on Catholic hospitals and health care providers. It's good that this is being noticed here at the 11th hour. Maybe a display of guts over the last 30 years would have prevented our arrival at this precipice, but hey, better late than never.
Then came a bit on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, with some focus on the ACORN shenanigans that have come to light recently. Funny how supporting an organization that has been unabashedly partisan hasn't drawn any ire from the church/state separation crowd.
The last part I saw was a small panel with Cardinal George of Chicago and Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco. I was very disappointed in their comments. Apparently, in a segment I somehow missed, Bishop Martino (who freaking rules as we have already established) spoke about issuing canonical penalties for politicians who support abortion in the same way that Archbishop Rummel did for segregationists in New Orleans a few decades ago.
It warms my heart to think that Bishop Martino might read my blog.
His Eminence responded that a politician who claims to reject abortion personally while voting in favor of such measures so as not to force his view on another is different from a politician who claims to believe personally that a certain racial group is inferior and then votes that way. Of course, he provided little rationale for this position. I certainly fail to see one. The politician who claims to reject abortion personally but tries to Cuomo/Biden/Pelosi his way out by citing an unwillingness to subject others to his opinion has already rejected the teaching of the Church.
Abortion is homicide. Politicians vote in favor of measures punishing homicide quite frequently. If one believes abortion is homicide, they should have no problem prohibiting others from diong so. The excuse is irrational and uses logic that would only be acceptable to an insane person. It's not like this issue hasn't already been addressed at the highest levels anyway.
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii
His Excellency, Archbishop Niederauer, then gave a very confusing answer to the question by saying that Archbishop Rummel's situation was different because it had to do with events going on "within the Catholic Church." I think his point was that Rummel's initial efforts were in desegregating the Catholic schools in New Orleans, so it was "entirely" a Catholic matter.
This doesn't make sense either. The issue went well beyond that and into the political realm very early on. It was absolutely a threat made based on political positions held by self-proclaimed Catholics in elected office. I have no idea how this makes it any different or less of a scandal. If anything, the sheer difference in gravity makes it worse.
That's not the end of this story, though. Another reporter stood up two questions later and mentioned that, with all respect to the answers described above, Catholics really wanted to know how to take an allegedly Catholic politician who espouses pro-abortion stuff. Cardinal George simply responded by saying that this was "clearly answered" in the Faithful Citizenship document from the USCCB.
Clearly? Is that why you had people on both sides of the issue claiming that the document supported their views? Is that why you had bishops all over the country basically ditching the entire reasoning of Faithful Citizenship and throwing it in the trash? As my colleague Karl mentions below, Faithful Citizenship "succeeds minimally." We saw how well "minimally" does at the polls.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
From a Zenit interview with Brian Burch, president of Fidelis:
Q: An estimated 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama, despite the strong stand of over 50 heads of dioceses against candidates who support abortion. How did Obama successfully win the majority of the Catholic vote?
Burch: The notion of what constitutes the "Catholic vote" is widely debated. While Obama won the Catholic vote overall 54% - 45%, among Catholics who attend mass every week, McCain won 55% - 43%. Clearly the main reason Obama succeeded overall was the fact that Catholic voters echoed the concerns of the rest of the electorate in citing the economy as their top issue.They concluded that Obama’s economic policies would benefit them more, and ignored the teaching authority of many bishops who explained that concerns about the economy do not justify a vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Translation: What mattered to most was that the trains run on time.
Q: Did the strong stance of the episcopate have any noticeable affect on the election? What could the Church have done more of?
Burch: The results of the election seem to indicate that, for the most part, Catholic voters ignored the guidance of their bishops. The results simply do not show any dramatic shift away from the larger trends seen during the past several election cycles.One area of concern was the document "Faithful Citizenship," which was used by many organizations to improperly justify support for pro-abortion candidates. The shortcomings of the document forced many bishops to issue their own pastoral letters, leaving many voters confused. Regrettably, I believe the net effect of "Faithful Citizenship" was more confusion than clarity.
Translation: We need more Bishop Martinos.
I've been thinking about this for a few days, but there's lots of it that I'm still mulling over. Bear with me. Maybe I'll even make sense at some point.
Historically, both for the Church and the secular perspective of the United States, liberty has always been something connected with the notion of life. [On a side note, since most folks who read this probably don't cipher the philosophical notions of freedom and liberty, I'm sticking with the everyday usages which have them as pretty much the same thing and I think the basic point I'm making will still apply regardless of the potential conflicts between false "Enlightenment" ideas and those of the Church.] The Declaration talks about inalienable rights like life and liberty (endowed by the Creator, no less). Patrick Henry linked liberty with life when he proposed death as the alternative to living under tyranny. Augustine's instruction on liberty was to "Love, and do what thou wilt" in his Sermon on 1 John. Pope Leo XIII called liberty the "highest of natural endowments" on which the power of all his actions in life rested. There was also an interest in protecting the rights of others, albeit the limits on such protections would have made for disagreements.
This isn't to say that death didn't enter the picture (eg- choosing martyrdom). It just wasn't the emphasis.
The prevailing view seems to have rejected the close association of these concepts, or is at least rapidly swinging in that direction. Liberty is now understood primarily in terms of death.
For some time now, it has been common to hear assisted-suicide advocates to treat their cause as one that allows "death on your own terms." This is sort of what I'm talking about. The ultimate expression of one's liberty now has less and less to do with living. It has more to do with destroying one's own life or the life of another.
Consider the Freedom of Choice Act. This legislation would elevate abortion to a "fundamental right" (clearly one not endowed by the Creator). Not only would Sen. Obama sign this legislation, he appreciates it so much that it would be "the first thing" he'd do as President. The destruction of life in the womb has taken on an almost apocalyptic significance for those who justify the "right" to take such an action. Don't believe me? Read Justice Blackmun's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and tell me if I'm exaggerating:
Three years ago, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, four Members of this Court appeared poised to "cast into darkness the hopes and visions of every woman in this country" who had come to believe that the Constitution guaranteed her the right to reproductive choice. All that remained between the promise of Roe and the darkness of the plurality was a single, flickering flame. Decisions since Webster gave little reason to hope that this flame would cast much light. . . And I fear for the darkness as four Justices anxiously await the single vote necessary to extinguish the light.
This is the kind of language I'd expect from Tim LaHaye about the coming of the AntiChrist. Here we have an example of how the ultimate exercise of one's freedom has become defined by the ability to destroy the life of another. Considering that FOCA envisions the test for any restriction to be "viability" as specifically discussed in Roe v. Wade (yet admitted as a rather worthless standard by the plurality in the Casey opinion), we will have accomplished the amazing feat of making life a completely arbitrary determination.
The same arguments were used in Washington for Initiative 1000 and really any other assisted suicide law. The murder of self is touted as the greatest freedom one can exhibit. The life of the individual is no longer regarded by himself or others as something with a completely objective value. Due to ____________ circumstances, the life in question is now somehow diminished and of such lesser value than pre-___________ life, that extermination is appropriate. The height of freedom is not the ability to transcend whatever fills in the blank. It is cast instead as the willingness to succumb to it.
These are just a couple of examples. You could make much the same point about the stem cell proposition in Michigan. I do not know how this paradigm shift took place. Death, for oneself or others, has now come to signify liberty. This is a far cry from inalienable rights endowed by a Creator, unless we are to turn Jefferson's words on their head and say that death is the true right granted by God.
Maybe I am making some leaps here that I shouldn't. I'll admit that this sort of just popped in my head Wednesday morning whilst in the shower. I do know that I have seen a remarkable (r)evolution in this nation's thinking over my brief life span. It does not appear to be for the better.