Popin' Ain't Easy

Have I Ever Mentioned How Much I Hate

2012-01-28T19:58:00.001-08:00

Being COMPLETELY TECHNOLOGICALLY DEFICIENT?

Exhibit#3587

The poster below.

Ex-Episcopalians In Baltimore

2012-01-28T17:19:00.000-08:00

Not sure how I missed this one, but Rorate had posted an article from Catholic Review of Baltimore about an Episcopalian Parish taking advantage of Anglicanorum Coetibus.

Cardinal-designate Edwin F. O’Brien, apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, announced Jan. 19 that Mount Calvary Church, a Baltimore parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, will be received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church through the newly created Anglican Ordinariate for the United States.

Father Jason Catania, Mount Calvary’s pastor, informed the archdiocese that it has reached an agreement with the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, effectively ending the parish’s 169-year history with the Anglican Church. In October 2010, the parish’s vestry unanimously voted to leave the Episcopal Church and to become an Anglican-use Catholic parish.

Mount Calvary’s reception into the Catholic Church marks the second such Anglican community in Baltimore to do so. In 2009, Cardinal-designate O’Brien welcomed 10 Episcopal nuns and their chaplain to the Archdiocese. In 2011, the nuns, members of the All Saints Sisters of the Poor in Catonsville, were welcomed into a newly erected Roman Catholic diocesan priory of the same name. Their chaplain, Father Warren Tanghe, was ordained a Catholic priest in June.

“The steady flow of Mount Calvary alumni to Rome, combined with the decision by the All Saints Sisters and the publication of Anglicanorum coeitbus, made it clear to the people of the parish that our future lies with the Catholic Church,” Father Catania said.

And check out the actual event for the occasion. A Solemn High Mass. Pretty sweet stuff.

Enemies Of The Church

2012-01-28T05:03:00.000-08:00

It isn't just Barack Obama & Co. They are everywhere, and we were warned about them.

Have you ever heard of Bella Dodd? She was a very prominent organizer of the Communist Party here in America back in the 30s and 40s. Eventually, she saw the error of her ways and came back to the Church, in large part thanks to the efforts of Bishop Sheen. In the 1950s, she testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Lots of people remember her claiming that Communists had garnered very high posts advising the president, as well as positions controlling labor unions. What many don't recall is that she also said that over 1100 Communist agents had been injected into the Church's seminaries in the 1930s and that many had risen up through the hierarchy.

If you have trouble believing this, take a look at some recent news from Bulgaria about the Orthodox Church there. Per Novinite:

Prime Minister, Boyko Borisov, says he is stunned by the number of agents and collaborators of the former Communist State Security, DS, among senior clergy at the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

On Tuesday, Bulgaria's so-called Files Commission – a panel investigating the Communist era secret files, exposed eleven out of a total of fifteen Bulgarian Metropolitan bishops as former DS agents.

"I was shocked by the scale of this. Yes, I have heard about one or two, but eleven out of fifteen – this is way too much. There is separation between the Church and the State, so it is none of my business to comment on this. I am talking only about those who entered in this interaction with the State then on their own will and voluntarily became agents," Borisov said.

This is nothing new. The Russian Orthodox Church was a hotbed of KGB activity, all the way up to Patriarch Alexei II's (codename Drozdov) collaboration. Are we so foolish as to think that the Catholic Church would be immune to such an infiltration?

Remember, the Church has enemies. They aren't stupid. They aren't lazy. They want to destroy us all.

Catholics Dropping Mad Science, Yo

2012-01-23T05:06:00.000-08:00

Some of our brethren have taken up the banner of the Church to respond to the Humpty Dumpty guy on the subject of Jesus and religion. Excellent work, gentlemen. Excellent work.

The Other War

2012-01-22T06:21:00.000-08:00

I was ignoring these stories until something definitive broke. I first saw it on Rorate that the Holy Father was going to give approval to the liturgical wackiness of the NW. What a difference seven or so years can make. This is the same group that Pope Benedict chastised a while back for this same weirdness. From the looks of things, they are still doing exactly what got them into trouble before. Only now, they aren't getting sanctioned for doing so.

But are they getting approval? Who knows? In yet another stunning example of the Church's unwillingness to speak clearly about things, we see the following report, again from Rorate:

A moment ago, the Decree was read with the approval of the celebrations present in the "Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way", which are not strictly liturgical, but are part of the itinerary of growth in the faith. It is another element that shows to you how the Church follows you with attention in a pacient discernment, that she understands your richness, but also takes care for communion and harmony in the whole Corpus Ecclesiae...

The celebration in the small communities, regulated by the Liturgical Books, that are to be followed faithfully, and with the specificities approved in the Statutes of the Way, has the goal of helping those who walk on the neocatechumenal itinerary realize the grace of being inserted in the salvific mystery of Christ, who makes possible a Christian testimony capable of also assuming signs of radicalness.

I have no idea what any of this actually means. It sounds like something was approved. But what? Fr. Z has tried to parse the language in as positive a manner as possible, focusing mostly on the "which are not strictly liturgical" part and the text of the decree which says that the approved celebrations are those "contained in the Catechetical Directory of the Neo-Catechumenal Way which are not, by their nature, already regulated by the liturgical books of the Church."

Ok, so maybe their liturgy wasn't approved. But something was, and as the folks at Rorate point out, that's all the NWs were really looking for. This will be flung around for years now as an official Vatican thumbs-up for whatever disco liturgies the whack-jobs out there can think of.

If I may, though, this is only part of the story. Consider these other items, also from Rorate, especially that last one. The Extraordinary Form continues to proliferate, with South Carolina having an additional two priests offering it and France being blessed with a fourth personal parish in France that is exclusively for the EF. Look again at the last story linked, though:

For the first time in decades, a cerimoniere pontificio - Monsignor Marco Agostini, an official in the State Secretariat who has also been since June 2009 in the staff of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, headed by Mgr. Guido Marini - celebrated the Traditional Mass publicly. It took place yesterday in the Personal Parish of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini, the parish entrusted to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) in the Diocese of Rome.

This is kind of a big deal. Not on par probably with the NW news, but still a big deal. I think all this points to a major conflict going on behind the scenes among the players in the Vatican. The Pope, unfortunately, looks to be boxed in on several fronts. It's all very Windswept House, I'm afraid. At this point, the Holy Father might not have the energy to keep up with all the different currents going on. I hope it's not true, but I have no other explanation for such radically different initiatives coming out of Rome all at the same time.

Pray for the Pope. Pray for the bishops. Pray for the priests and religious.

And One More Thing

2012-01-21T22:07:00.000-08:00

I was thinking about this and was curious as the following argument. I'm no canon lawyer, but it would be interesting to see how this would play out.

Catholics aren't allowed to join certain organizations. The most known of these is Freemasonry, but the canon in question is much broader:

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.

As of this point, the Obama Administration seems to form just such an association. Now, you might have difficulty defining the "Administration" but it would seem that HHS could qualify rather easily.

A separate point. Could the bishops ask the Democratic Party to repudiate this new position by the President and, if it refuses to do so, invoke this canon against the entire party? They are certainly promoting a President and his organization in a plot against the Church. It would be a bold move, which is what is called for here. It would probably lead to a massive conflagration over the Church's tax exempt status.

As I said before, though, he's either stopped here or he won't be stopped ever.

Fr. Jenkins At ND Responds To Obama's Decision

2012-01-21T12:43:00.000-08:00

You got to be kidding me.

“I am deeply disappointed in a decision by the administration that will place many religious organizations of all faiths in an untenable position.

“This unnecessary intervention by the government into religion disregards our nation’s commitment to the rights of conscience and the longstanding work of religious groups to help build a more compassionate society and vibrant democracy. I find that profoundly troubling on many levels.

“Moving forward, we call for a national dialogue among religious groups, government and the American people to reaffirm our country’s historic respect for freedom of conscience and defense of religious liberty.”

Really? That's all you have for us? You are "disappointed" and "troubled" by all this. Well, gee, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. How about addressing your role in this? Or just calling the President out as a liar? Maybe you remember when he said this:

Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.

Maybe you do. Maybe you recall when you looked for the adoration of man instead of service to God by giving this creep a platform to promote himself. Maybe you do, but you sure as hell don't seem all that remorseful about it.

And then to bend the knee again by asking for DIALOGUE of all things. Dialogue? Are you completely insane? Something about "doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result" comes to mind. First off, the man lied to your face. That alone is worth calling him out. But now he's directly attacking the Church and your best response is to ask for dialogue? Holy smokes!

Let's hope that the rest of the Church's leaders react with something more than an appeal for more failure.

This Means War

2012-01-21T05:19:00.000-08:00

By now, you've probably heard that President Obama and his lackeys have decided to push ahead with the rule requiring health plans in the US to cover sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacients. This can be construed as nothing more than an attack on the Church. We already knew that the Church was being singled out for discriminatory treatment in receiving grant funds to help victims of sex trafficking all because the Administration wanted to make sure that abortions were available.

Now, the President is actively seeking to destroy Catholic institutions, from hospitals to universities, by stripping them of their ability to provide health benefits to employees. The bishops have already responded:

The Catholic bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today’s announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

No, Archbishop Dolan. What this represents is war, and hopefully a realization among Catholics that this initiative is a test run to see how the switch from a passive persecution to an active one is going to work. I hope the bishops understand that this is what their inactivity on the political front has wrought. Playing see-no-evil with the Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis of the world sounded really good when the storm was just brewing. Now it's breaking, and the Church's sway in this country is at its nadir.

Hopefully, this will wake everyone up. This president and his supporters are enemies of the Church and therefore enemies of God. Remember what Christ said to St. Paul:

And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 9:4

Making war against the Church is to making war against God. Catholics need to get involved now to defeat this man in the next election. Call your legislators in Congress. Do something, anything, but don't let this assault stand without confrontation.

Most of all, pray for the bishops. The President is being subtle, but essentially, this is just a request for the episcopate's submission. Either they stop him here, or he's going to run them over on everything else from this point on. Maybe they'll have to serve some time for civil disobedience. The point is that this could get ugly real quick, and we should support the ones who fight, pray for the weak ones so that they will fight as well.

Let Our People Go

2012-01-17T12:08:00.000-08:00

I know I've mentioned the Cardinal Kung Foundation several times. Please support the underground Church in China. It gets very little, if any, attention and deserves our prayers and offerings. When groups protest or decry relations with China, they love to mention workers' rights, unions, and other such items. Even if you are a "Catholic" university, it seems that unionization is a more important issue than the persecution and murder of fellow Catholics.

AsiaNews doesn't ignore this. They are making an appeal for some of our captive priests and bishops to be freed.

In a letter to President Hu Jintao and the Chinese ambassador in Italy, AsiaNews has decided to ask for the release of three bishops and of six priests who have disappeared in police custody or are detained in prison without trial. Their release could be a gesture of friendship and hope for Catholics and human rights activists, as well as a sign of true hope for the upcoming Chinese New Year.

In just a few days, on January 23, the world of the Far East celebrates the Lunar New Year: we will enter the Year of the Dragon, a very positive year that promises many fruits. In China, hundreds of millions of people will travel to join their families: the dawn of the New Year is always celebrated by strengthening the bonds of family and friendships which help to face the future with an even more positive outlook.

For this reason, we ask that for these three bishops and six priests to be restored to their families and their communities.

They were never charged with any crime; given the opportunity of a trial or convicted by a court. And yet they have been interred in forced labour camps or were seized by the police of a country that is a member of the UN Security Council and that has signed the Charter of Human Rights.

I'm reproducing all of the captives' entries from AsiaNews here. Please pray for them, especially Bishop Su Zhimin, who the Cardinal Kung Foundation assigned to me for my prayers.

Bishops and priests who have disappeared in police custody

Msgr. James Su Zhimin underground bishop of Baoding (Hebei)
Msgr. Su, nearly 80 years of age, was arrested by police on October 8, 1997. The charge that led to his arrest has never been revealed, nor whether a trial took place, while place of his detention is unknown. In November 2003 he was discovered by chance at a hospital in Baoding, surrounded by policemen. After a brief and hurried visit from relatives, he once again disappeared in police custody and to this day there has been no more information on his whereabouts.
Before his last arrest, Msgr. Su Zhimin spent at least 26 years on and off in prison or forced labour camps, branded as "counter-revolutionary" just because, since the 1950s, he always refused to join the Patriotic Association, which wants to build a national Church independent of the pope. In 1996 - from a hidden location because he was sought by the authorities – he was able to distribute an open letter calling on the Chinese government to respect human rights and religious freedom of the people. In all, has already spent 40 years in captivity.

Msgr Cosma Shi Enxiang, underground bishop of Yixian (Hebei)
Bishop Shi, 90, was arrested April 13 the 2001, which was Good Friday. Nothing is known of him, although his family and the faithful continue to ask the police for at least some news of his wellbeing.
Msgr. Shi Enxiang has suffered long periods of prison from 1957 until 1980, was forced into hard labour, first on a farm in Heilongjiang, then as a miner in coal mines in Shanxi. He was arrested again for three years in 1983, followed by three years of house arrest. In 1989 – following the establishment of the Episcopal Conference of underground bishops – he was arrested once again and was only released in 1993, until his last arrest in 2001. In all, he has already spent 51 years in prison.

Fr. Joseph Lu Genjun, vicar general of the underground diocese of Baoding (Hebei)
He disappeared in police custody February 17, 2006. Fr. Lu, who belongs to the underground Church, was arrested in February 2006 along with another priest and a friend whom he met at the train station in Baoding. The other priest was transferred to the Xushui prison (Hebei) and later released. Instead, to date no-one knows where Fr. Lu is imprisoned.
In December 2008, his parishioners asked the government for his release, even if only temporary, to be close to his dying parents and attend their funeral. But even this act of filial piety, which is of great importance in Chinese culture, was denied him.
Fr. Lu has suffered years of imprisonment and other violence. In 1998, Palm Sunday, he was jailed for a short period (perhaps to keep him from celebrating Masses during Holy Week). In 2001 he was sentenced to three years of "re-education through labour" (forced labour camps), accused of having conducted illegal missionary activities that undermine social order because he did not adhere to the Patriotic Association. He was released in 2003.
In May 2004 he was arrested along with another priest, shortly before giving a lecture on natural methods of birth control and moral theology. The two were kept for several days in Dingzhou prison, near Anguita (Hebei).

Fr. Zhang Jianlin, underground priest of the diocese of Xuanhua (Hebei)
Fr. Zhang was taken away by staff of the Religious Affairs Bureau on 22 June 2011. Up to now no-one knows where he is being held.
In July 2009, Fr. Zhang had been taken away by police and placed under house arrest in a courtyard attached to the building of a government office. He had been given permission to receive visitors, but was been subjected to heavy physical and psychological tactics to force him to support the Council of Chinese Bishops (not recognized by the Holy See) and to join the Patriotic Association. After seven months of detention he was released, but was kept under constant control, he could not move freely, and was forbidden to practice his ministry
In 2008 he was arrested in Nanjing, for trying to go to the Marian shrine of Sheshan on May 24 and participate in the celebration of the World Day of Prayer for the Church in China, convoked by Pope Benedict XVI. Brought back to Hebei, he served a period of detention in Xuanhua.

Fr. Cui Tai, underground priest of the diocese of Xuanhua (Hebei)
Fr. Cui disappeared in police custody June 22, 2011. That day some personalities of the government’s Religious Affairs Bureau dragged him away and since then he has disappeared without trace.
He had often been arrested and then released. During his periods of detention, he suffered hunger and his health has drastically deteriorated. In 1993, undergoing a sentence of three years in prison, was beaten and lost two teeth.
In 2001, due to an accident, the police discovered his identity as a priest and detained him in an isolated place in the mountains, forcing him to undergo political sessions and brainwashing. He was later released, but could never freely carry out his ministry, being under constant surveillance.

Bishops and priests who are detained or imprisoned

Fr. Liu Honggen, underground priest of the diocese of Baoding (Hebei)
Fr. Liu and eight other priests were arrested in the village of Xinanzuo (Qingyuan County, Hebei), 27 December 2006. He is currently detained in the prison of Qingyuan

Fr. Ma Wuyong, underground priest of the diocese of Baoding (Hebei)
Fr. Ma and 8 other priests were arrested in August 2004 in the village of Suijiazhuang (Quyang County, Hebei). The priests had gathered to celebrate their first year of ordination. At least 20 police cars arrived at the place carrying out a door to door search and arrest them. Fr. Ma is currently held in a prison in Qingyuan.
Before the Chinese New Year 2006, Fr. Ma was temporarily released from prison. He was re-arrested a month later, after attending the funeral of a priest of Baoding, Fr. Chen Baidu.

Fr. Wang Chengli, underground priest of the Diocese of Heze (Shandong)
On 25 August 2011, Fr. Wang, 48, was sentenced to two and a half years of "re-education through labor" (forced labour) probably because he refused to join the Patriotic Association. To serve his sentence, the priest was transferred from Dongming prison to Jining concentration camp, over 150 miles from his county.

Msgr. Wu Qinjing, official bishop of the diocese of Zhouzhi (Shaanxi)
Since November 2007 the government has forced this young bishop to remain imprisoned in the minor seminary in Xian and limits his activities. Bishop Wu was secretly ordained as a bishop of the official diocese of Zhouzhi, but without the permission of the local Patriotic Association. For this reason, since his ordination was made public (May 2006), the government has blocked all of his activities and has kidnapped him, forcing him to memorize the "Regulations on Religious Affairs". He is forbidden to carry the Episcopal insignia or carry out any activities as a bishop. He is still under house arrest at the seminary in Xian.

This is the price here on Earth of resisting Satan's work. Imprisonment, torture, and death. Please pray for this cause and for all of the other priests, bishops, religious, and laity of the underground Church. The rest of the world might forget about them, but we shouldn't.

Our Lady of She-Shan, please keep them safe.

Catholic Paradise

2012-01-15T19:25:00.000-08:00

I concede that I ripped this off from Constable Toad over at DCF, but it was funny enough that I had to share.

To the tune of Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise:

(Modernist Priest): As I stroll to the altar and I bow at the waist
The choir sings banal lyrics of questionable taste
But I’ve been celebrating Mass like this for so long,
that even Eagle’s Wings sounds like a cool song
and I ain’t never worn a maniple or done an asperges
An amice or a cincture? You know I don’t wear these!
my church walls are bare now, I’ve got long hair now,
Following the rubrics? you know I don’t care!
I really hate to chant, or to genuflect,
I face the congregation, givin’ them respect, fool
I’m the kinda priest I think the kiddies wanna be like
Full of jokes, hugs and smiles,
With very little insight.

(with choir) Been saying Mass this way, though the congregation’s turning grey
Been saying Mass this way, though the congregation’s turning grey
Keep saying Mass this way, ‘til the congregation’s gone away
Keep saying Mass this way, ‘til the congregation’s gone away

(Traditional Priest) Here’s the situation, God you’re not facin’
Turn to the altar fool, and follow the book!
Red are the actions, the black words you read,
We’re not here to entertain, but to intercede.
You’re an educated fool, with your Kung and Bultmann
But your people wanna hear Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
You’re an outdated hippie, folk music and sandals,
Ignorant of piety, liturgical vandal, fool
put the hashpipe down, stow the guitars away,
Can the geriatric “teen” choir and the crap that they play
It’s past the millennium, Bob Marley is gone,
Can the rainbow vestments, put a fiddleback on!

(Modernist Priest) Tell me why was I, so blind to see
That the Church just wants reverent liturgy?

(with choir) Been saying Mass that way, while the congregation went away
Been saying Mass that way, while the congregation went away
In a modernistic haze, led the congregation all astray
In a modernistic haze, led the congregation all astray

(Both priests) Sin and absolution, end all the confusion,
More Latin, less ad libbing, that’s the real solution!
Put the veil on the chalice, give the deacon a dalmatic,
Reassemble the communion rail that’s stored up in the attic,
The rubrics can be learned, there are priests out there to teach you,
Send a shout out on the internet and Fr. Z will reach you!
It’s not so hard, just read the cards,
The Missal too, and you’ll say Mass like you’re s’posed to

(Modernist Priest) I said Mass Bugnini’s way, but the congregation went away
I said Mass McBrien’s way, but the congregation passed away,
Now I’ve turned the eastward way, and choir chants the Kyrie,
The Sovereign Pontiff I obey, off’ring Mass the Roman way

(choir) Tell me why were we stuck in ’73?
using Broadway tunes, tinged with heresy?
Now we’re celebrating proper liturgy,
Ditching Haugen and Haas, using Pergolesi!
A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-al-le-tu-ia!

Humpty Dumpty Syndrome

2012-01-12T18:38:00.000-08:00

I'm coining this term. It basically means a complete disregard for the real meaning of words for the purpose of advancing a cause of complete egotism. Why Humpty Dumpty? I'm pulling this from Lewis Carroll's Through The Looking Glass:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Needless to say, there are a lot of people infected with this disease. You could say it's gone viral. Sort of like this video:

If you're looking for a textbook case of Humpty Dumpty Syndrome, this guy is loaded with it. I'm sure he's well-meaning, well-intentioned, a good dancer, and so forth, but let's not pretend that his description of religion is remotely grounded in reality. What he's done is to take a word and then redefine it to suit his own purposes.

In terms of philosophical arguments, what he presents is full of false dichotomies and straw men. I'm not going to get too much into that, as there is already a wonderful analysis posted over at Aggie Catholics. I suggest everyone read it, especially since this video is a good example of an intellectual plague ravaging the world, namely, that the Humpty Dumpty Syndrome is a valid method for arguing a point.

Anyways, I'm pointing out a different problem with this message. Oddly enough, the current en vogue trashing of "religion" by Protestants tends to avoid looking at what the Bible says about the topic. Weird, huh? I wonder why that is. Let's take a look.

First, a quick Bible search will note that the word "religion" is used thirteen times over the entirety of Scripture. Four of those are from books that Protestant found inconvenient and cut out of their own Bibles, so I can get how they might have missed those. I will reproduce this one for the Catholics here since it comes from the book so popular in the Early Church that it was called Ecclesiasticus ("of the Church").

Treat not with a man without religion concerning holiness, nor with an unjust man concerning justice, nor with a woman touching her of whom she is jealous, nor with a coward concerning war, nor with a merchant about traffic, nor with a buyer of selling, nor with an envious man of giving thanks

Sirach 37:12

Religion doesn't sound bad there, does it? In fact, we're instructed not to discuss holiness with someone who lacks religion. But hey, not every Christian has this treasure at their disposal. So what about the other 9 uses of "religion"?

Two are from Esther (8:17/9:27). Of those two, one is a reference to paganism and one is talking about Judaism. Another mention is in Leviticus 16:31, which is also pointing to Judaism.

There is a disturbing trend among Christians to discount the Old Testament as though none of it matters. Let's try to keep in mind here that, prior to the Incarnation, only the Jews worshiped the True God. Only the Jews had the True Faith. Everybody else?

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils

Psalm 95:5

Paul says much the same thing in 1 Corinthians 10. The point is that we should probably take what these Jews were saying seriously, mainly because, you know, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it for Sacred Scripture. The references to Judaism in the Old Testament as a "religion" are good and positive. Got that? The Holy Spirit thinks that Old Testament Judaism, the religion, was a good thing. And how could it not be since it was given to them by God? I'll add here that this completely annihilates our spoken word friend's analysis of religion as man-made. We see from the Old Testament that religion can be of Divine origin.

Is there bad religion? Sure, since paganism is also called religion in Esther 8:17, and we know from Psalms that paganism is bad. Hence, bad religion.

Naturally, the argument will be that this Old Testament stuff stopped being valid at the Advent of Christ. So maybe religion used to be good, just not anymore. So let's look at how religion is discussed in the New Testament.

Four of the six uses are by Paul. In Acts 26:5 and Galatians 1:13-14, he's again referencing Judaism. These are in less than glowing terms, as he is speaking of his conversion and prior life as a Pharisee. He brings religion up again in Colossians 2:18. Here, he's cautioning his readers against the religion of angel-worship. So all the NT contexts of religion thus far are negative, with some referring to Paul's status as an unconverted Jew (who had the worship of the True God taken away from them and delivered to Christians) and another to what is basically paganism.

So what's left? What's left is James 1:26-27, which are the crux of this post. Verse 26 reads:

And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Wait a minute. So you can think you are religious, but your religion can be in vain. So that means that there's some religion that's not in vain, right? Absolutely, as is seen in Verse 27:

Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world.

So religion is good. It just has to be the right religion. We can go on to argue about what it means to keep oneself unspotted and so forth, but that's beyond the scope of this post. All we wanted to do here is show that denouncing religion is un-Biblical and stripping words of their meanings and recasting them in one's own image is dishonest.

Jesus fought against hypocritical jerks. He didn't fight against religion. After all, He founded one that is clean and undefiled. Just ask James. Don't ask the guy in the video. He doesn't even know what the word means.

Quick! Go Check Out Google!

2012-01-11T18:41:00.000-08:00

Today's Google theme is for Blessed Nicholas Steno, convert, bishop, and scientist. Can't say that I saw that one coming. Good to see some nice publicity for a little known Catholic of fairly great significance. He was a pioneer in the fields of geology (mostly) and anatomy (not so mostly). His work also serves as a good riposte for the wide swaths of whackjobs who assert that the Church is somehow anti-science.

Blessed Nicholas Steno, pray for us!

Redemption

2012-01-10T11:52:00.001-08:00

A bit of rambling today. That happens when I try to think.

Ever notice how people seem to always say that they tales of redemption but they don't really seem to like redemption itself? Let me use comic books as an example here.

There are some levels of spoiler-dom ahead, but the stories are so old that I should be on solid ground in relating their details.

You may, for example, be aware of the Dark Phoenix Saga in X-Men lore. If you are basing your thoughts on the horror that was X-Men: The Last Stand, please banish those ideas from your mind now. In the real (ie- comic book) version of the story, Jean Grey was driven insane by the nigh-omnipotent powers she received as Phoenix. This resulted in her destroying a sun, which in turn killed billions of innocent aliens. Sure, she eventually recovered, but there was this left-over problem of what to do with a character that had such a terrible crime on her hands. Most people know that the ending originally proposed for this story arc had Jean losing her powers, with that being about it. However, Jim Shooter, Marvel's editor-in-chief, didn't like this. Given the magnitude if Jean's crimes, she had to be punished a bit more severely. Allegedly, this meant being exiled to what amounted to Cosmic Hell. A compromise position was reached with the writers where her sentence was commuted to simple execution. And that's what happened.

Years later, it was revealed that the Jean Grey who went all murdery wasn't even the real Jean Grey. I won't get into the details, but my point is that the consensus seemed to be that the only way Jean could return was to completely exonerate her from having killed all those aliens.

The same thing happened with Hal Jordan, aka Green Lantern. DC wanted to go in another direction with the character, probably more in the name of hipsterism than anything else. Their story to do this involved destroying Hal's hometown. This drove him insane, which led to his declaring war on the Guardians of the Universe and his fellow Green Lanterns. After massacring them all, he steals their power and attempts to annihilate the entire universe.

The DC folks, apparently noting that this wasn't a very good way to give such a venerable hero his send-off, tried to rehabilitate Hal's image by having him sacrifice himself to save the planet in an event called The Final Night. Even that didn't work. People still just remembered Hal as the psycho who killed all those Green Lanterns and a lot of other people along the way to trying to end the universe. They even tried literally casting him as "The Spirit of Redemption" for a while. That didn't work either.

Their response? Basically the same thing that happened with Jean Grey. See, Hal Jordan didn't really make for all that havoc. It was an evil being called Parallax, who grafted itself to Jordan's soul and mind-controlled him into all that badness. Again, real redemption was deemed impossible. Hal had to be removed from the situation entirely.

Where am I going with this? I just struck me last night how cynical society can be. We aren't really all that willing to forgive and forget even the slightest faults or evils from others. It doesn't have to be inter-galactic genocide. Just standard rudeness or irritability seem enough these days to write somebody off, regardless of the efforts they give to make amends. For criminals, there seems to be a lot more of a push for life imprisonment or capital punishment with every offense. Maybe it's just my neck of the woods, but it seems that way. We are much more apt to seek vengeance than justice, I think.

More than that, we seem to have lost the concept of expiation. Please don't read this as an argument against the death penalty or punishing criminals in other ways. It's the motives behind the punishments that are the problems. If nobody considers the hope that a person may actually achieve redemption, they definitely aren't going to see the value in expiation. The crime is the crime is the crime. The punishment is just our own personal satisfaction at seeing somebody get theirs. This is a dangerous way to be and is probably more a function of pride than anything else. Ultimately, we all deserve to be damned and should consider redemption and expiation a bit more seriously than we do.

In the words of Will Munny, "We all got it comin'"

Public Service Annoucement

2012-01-08T23:55:00.000-08:00

This has nothing to do with the Church per se. It is, however, to preserve the common good to the greatest extent possible. George Lucas is beginning to advertise the re-release of The Phantom Menace in 3-D format. It is currently scheduled for February 10.

You may be tempted to go see this movie. Flee from that temptation! Do not give this man any more of your money! Yes, I'm sure it would be a hardy penance, but that isn't worth making Lucas any richer. If you seek an alternate penance, try a cilice or hairshirt.

DO NOT GIVE THIS MAN ANY MORE OF YOUR MONEY!

Tireless Intercessor

2012-01-08T06:31:00.000-08:00

There's a great documentary called Tireless Intercessor about the life and miracles of Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos. It looks like we might have to chalk up another healing to his credit.

When Redemptorist Fr John Murray struck his head against a railing after tripping along a walkway 15 months ago, the consequences were devastating.

The Baltimore parish priest suffered a broken neck that left him immediately paralysed. Rushed to a hospital, he underwent emergency spinal cord surgery and later began rehabilitation.

Doctors said that Fr Murray, who was known across the east coast of America, for his preaching abilities, would almost certainly never walk again...

But on November 28 2010 Fr Murray did something everyone said was impossible. While living and undergoing rehabilitation at Stella Maris in Timonium, Maryland, he moved his left leg ever so slightly, lifting his foot off the ground.

“I was ecstatic,” Fr Murray said. “Here I was about six weeks after they told me I’d never move again and, lo and behold, I could move. Just the foot, but it kept going and going and going.”

Today Fr Murray is completely mobile. Using a Zimmer frame he is able to walk on his own at his new residence at St Clement Mission House in Ephrata.

Fr Murray sees only one explanation: an encounter with the miraculous. In his pocket he carries a small object with him at all times. Encased in a locket is a relic – a piece of bone – of Blessed Francis Seelos, a 19th-century Redemptorist priest under consideration for canonisation, who had been a rector of the same parish Fr Murray once led. “Ultimately, all prayers go to God. Seelos can’t give the grace, but he was the conduit for my prayers,” he said.

Dr Ernestine Wright, medical director of Stella Maris, said she was shocked by Fr Murray’s recovery and that she had never seen anything like it. A born-again Christian, Dr Wright said she believed it was miraculous.

I wonder what her opinion of the Church is. I'm sure there are more than a few Agent Scullys out there saying "Well, they did say that he 'almost' certainly wouldn't walk again. So he had a chance the whole time." When I hear those comments, I always think of that scene from Dumb and Dumber where Jim Carrey asks Lauren Holly if he has any chance of being with her. She tells him it's about one in a million, and he's thrilled to know that there's a chance.

Anyways, it's good thing to get the positive stories out there. I try not to let stuff here get overly gloomy.

I've Always Hated The New Orleans Saints

2012-01-07T06:38:00.001-08:00

Despite being from Louisiana, I've just always despised them. This priest gave me another reason for doing so back when they won the Super Bowl.

I'm so glad that this parish and priest felt the need to bring celebrations of the profane into sacred space. And please, spare me the comments about how I don't understand. I'm from here. I understand perfectly. There are hordes of folks who have more respect for their NFL team than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That's what is going on in this clip. It's disgusting but a great illustration of the two cities.

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all.

St. Augustine, City of God

As for this weekend, Go Lions.

Prison = Easy; Monastery = Difficult

2012-01-07T05:33:00.000-08:00

Pretty awesome when you see the prisoner confined to the monastery begging to get back into prison because the monks are too tough for him. Thanks to Fr. Z for the story.

A convicted criminal who was serving out his sentence in a monastery has escaped for the second time and asked to be sent back to prison because life was too tough.
Thief David Catalano, 31, was sent to a Santa Maria degli Angeli community run by Capuchin monks in Sicily last November.

But he found their austere lifetstyle too tough to handle and soon escaped. After a short while on the run he was caught by police and sent back.

On Monday he fled for the second time in six weeks, only to swiftly turn himself in at a police station and beg officers to send him back to jail in the nearby town of Nicosia.

Remember when this was pretty standard punishment for wayward prelates? I wish we could go back to this model, especially if it was run like these guys apparently run their monastery.

Another Plenary Indulgence

2012-01-01T13:11:00.000-08:00

It's the first day of the year. Get to a church and say the Veni, Creator for your next plenary indulgence. Thanks again to Rorate.

§ 1. A plenary indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, in a church or in an oratory, are present [take part] in a recitation or solemn chant of:

1° the hymn Veni, Creator ... on the first day of the year, imploring divine assistance for the whole of the coming year...

If you need help with the words:

Come, Holy Ghost, Creator Blest,
Vouchsafe within our souls to rest;
Come with Thy grace and Heav'nly aid
And fill the hearts which Thou hast made.

To Thee, the Comforter, we cry,
To Thee, the Gift of God Most High,
The Fount of life, the Fire of love,
The soul's Anointing from above.

The sev'nfold gifts of grace are Thine,
O Finger of the Hand Divine;
True Promise of the Father Thou,
Who dost the tongue with speech endow.

Thy light to evr'y thought impart,
And shed Thy love in evr'y heart;
The weakness of our mortal state
With deathless might invigorate.

Drive far away our wily Foe
And Thine abiding peace bestow;
If Thou be our protecting Guide,
No evil can our steps betide.

Make Thou to us the Father known,
Teach us the eternal Son to own,
And Thee, whose name we ever bless,
Of both the Spirit, to confess.

Glory to Thee, Father and Son
And Holy Spirit, with them One;
And may the Son on us bestow
The gifts that from the Spirit flow!

Things More Important Than New Year's Day

2012-01-01T05:57:00.001-08:00

1. It's Sunday. This is the Lord's Day, and He has a right to be worshiped on this day in particular. It's also still a day of rest. In other words, all of your clean-up from any partying last night is going to have to wait until tomorrow.

2. Even if it wasn't Sunday, it would be the Feast of Mary, Mother of God. The fact that it's on New Year's Day has caused a lot of people to ignore what this day is all about. Of all Our Lady's gifts, including the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, her Divine Maternity is the greatest. As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange spells out, this gift is of the hypostatic order since it is basically the gift of the Incarnation. Not to mention that the graces of the other gifts flow from her dignity in this role.

I think it's pretty critical that we re-capture the meaning behind this Feast. Infiltration of the New Age movement has led to some people around here making some very confused statements about Christ's person that sound an awful lot like some kind of neo-Nestorianism. It's a bizarre thing. It's not that these folks are rejecting the Truth on purpose. They've just had their ears tickled. That doesn't make it any less blasphemous, though.

Read the Council of Ephesus. Think about what it means for the Blessed Mother to be the Theotokos. Not just for her, but for Jesus as well.

Oh, and Happy New Year as well, I guess.

More News Out Of Philadelphia

2011-12-31T18:14:00.000-08:00

Of course, everyone heard when the news broke about the molestation cases there. There's some significant news now that nobody is hearing. Archbishop Chaput is selling the bishop's mansion in Philadelphia.

Thanks to Rocco Palma for the story.

Seen by many locals as the quintessential symbol of the “complacency and pride” that have long marked the city’s ecclesial culture, the property's placement on the market is said to have received “strong support” both from Chaput's Finance Council and Council of Priests, who were consulted on the move over the last six weeks. As the value of a successful deal is almost certain to exceed the canonical threshold for a bishop’s alienation of diocesan property on his own initiative (currently $7.5 million for larger US dioceses), a transfer of ownership would require the approval of the Holy See.

An American prelate is about to engage in a multi-million dollar transaction that requires the approval of the Vatican. That's a pretty big deal. Examining the full article, it doesn't appear to be on the table because of any diocesan financial problems. It looks to be just because +Chaput wants it to happen. With his being a Franciscan, I can understand how he would be uncomfortable in such a setting. However, given the state of affairs, it's probably more an act of penance to maybe give the Philadelphia flock a little more confidence in their new shepherd. I hope it works.

Get Your Indulgence Today

2011-12-31T06:11:00.000-08:00

Easy stuff for releasing a soul from torment. You'd want them to do it for you, right?

Thanks to Rorate for the reminder.

§ 1. A plenary indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, in a church or in an oratory, are present [take part] in a recitation or solemn chant of:

2° the Te Deum hymn, on the last day of the year, in thanksgiving to God for the favors received in the course of the entire year.

Here is the Te Deum for anyone who doesn't know it.

O God, we praise Thee, and acknowledge Thee to be the supreme Lord.
Everlasting Father, all the earth worships Thee.
All the Angels, the heavens and all angelic powers,
All the Cherubim and Seraphim, continuously cry to Thee:
Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts!
Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of Thy glory.
The glorious choir of the Apostles,
The wonderful company of Prophets,
The white-robed army of Martyrs, praise Thee.
Holy Church throughout the world acknowledges Thee:
The Father of infinite Majesty;
Thy adorable, true and only Son;
Also the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.
O Christ, Thou art the King of glory!
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.
When Thou tookest it upon Thyself to deliver man,
Thou didst not disdain the Virgin's womb.
Having overcome the sting of death, Thou opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all
believers.
Thou sitest at the right hand of God in the glory of the Father.
We believe that Thou willst come to be our Judge.
We, therefore, beg Thee to help Thy servants whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy
Precious Blood.
Let them be numbered with Thy Saints in everlasting glory.

V. Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thy inheritance!
R. Govern them, and raise them up forever.

V. Every day we thank Thee.
R. And we praise Thy Name forever, yes, forever and ever.

V. O Lord, deign to keep us from sin this day.
R. Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us.

V. Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, for we have hoped in Thee.
R. O Lord, in Thee I have put my trust; let me never be put to shame.

More Christmas Brawling

2011-12-29T19:02:00.001-08:00

Looks to be Greek and Armenian Orthodox clergy throwing down at the Church of the Nativity during what is supposed to be clean-up in anticipation of Christmas:

Rough stuff.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 9

2011-12-28T05:16:00.000-08:00

At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.

What can be gleaned from this? Stuff like Christ instituted the Eucharist. None of this "evolving worship service" garbage that seems to be popular among certain RCIA programs.

Or how about the Mass as a sacrifice? Or that Christ is eaten? I wonder what the folks scandalized by Mysterium Fidei were thinking when that language was included. We know from prior posts how scandalized Robert MacAffee Brown was when Paul VI wrote that particular encyclical.

I'd go so far as to say that maybe 75% of the heresies involving the Eucharist that claim "the spirit of Vatican II" could be refuted by this one paragraph.

The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word and be nourished at the table of the Lord's body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.

I just heard a tremendous "Aha!" from some readers. There it is! We shouldn't be silent spectators! No more TLM!

This is the standard McBrienish argument. In other words, one with no foundation. Such an argument presupposes that those attending the TLM are silent spectators. We already know from prior statements in SC that participation doesn't mean "doing things." In fact, contemplation is superior to action. If anything, people these days are completely violative of this section by having no idea what they are doing, if we are to believe the surveys on what Catholics believe.

Oh, and if you're looking for the footnotes to this, check out Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on John here, especially chapters XI and XII.

For this reason the sacred Council, having in mind those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the faithful, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation, has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.

"Pastorally efficacious." I'm not sure what that means. I'm assuming that it's to encourage the above-mentioned dispositions.

The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

A revision. Not an entirely new rite of Mass. One can debate the success of the latter sentence as well, since it seems that fewer and fewer Catholics believe (or even know) the dogmas associated with the Mass. We are participating at the wrong level, I guess.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

So they are looking for a liturgy that's more like what the Fathers were using. Maybe no Second Confiteor and that sort of thing. Have you ever been to a liturgy that hasn't been all that "reformed"? The Eastern ones, for example.

Are they more like the TLM or the Pauline Mass?

The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

We did this, hence the new cycle of readings. I'm not sure how well this worked out, since we seem to have more Scripture but don't really know much of it very well.

By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.

See, here's one of those things that really bothers me. All this talk about how important the homily is, yet I hear all these stories about random layperson or whoever delivering it.

Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world.

Someone more qualified than me can answer this one. What's the difference between these and the intercessory prayers in the TLM or Divine Liturgy?

In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Aha! again. See, the mother tongue is supposed to be used! To the dustbin with that Latin stuff!

Let's take this in context. First, all it really mentions are the readings and intercessory prayers. Then there's a reference to some vague "local conditions." Even those "conditions," though, are subject to the norm of Article 36. Remember that one? It's the one that said for Latin to be preserved as the language of the liturgy.

So what does the Constitution say? Latin is the norm. The vernacular is the exception. What do we have? The exact opposite.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Whoa. Probably don't hear this one much, huh? The faithful are actually supposed to be learning Latin. Can you imagine the upheaval if this was implemented these days? People are going insane over having to say "And with your Spirit." Et cum spiritu tuo would make heads explode.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

If you don't recall Article 40, it's discussed in our entry here. It's the one that mentions things like "carefully and prudently" considering any liturgical adaptations with "circumspection," including special reference to the mission field. As mentioned earlier, there weren't all that many objections to liturgical adaptations in this area. Even Bishop Castro de Mayer admitted as much.

Now, does a place like the USA really fall into this kind of category? Did most of the world back in the 1960s? I'm not sure, but it strikes me as very weird that all these adaptations going on meet the criteria of Art. 36 or Art. 40.

That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

Is this about private Masses? Anybody know?

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

The reference to Trent probably shocks the modernist conscience, but it's worth taking a look at, I think. It's in Session XXI. Some readers might be surprised to see the Tridentine statement that communion under both species is something the Church can change. Other readers might be surprised to see this:

[I]f any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

Think about that the next time you hear someone ramble on about how communion under one species was the product of some kind of clerical snobbery or pride.

The other thing about this paragraph is that it mentions the occasion of communion under both kinds as being isolated special events, rather than every single Sunday.

The two parts which, in a certain sense, go to make up the Mass, namely, the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy, are so closely connected with each other that they form but one single act of worship. Accordingly this sacred Synod strongly urges pastors of souls that, when instructing the faithful, they insistently teach them to take their part in the entire Mass, especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation.

Of course.

Concelebration, whereby the unity of the priesthood is appropriately manifested, has remained in use to this day in the Church both in the east and in the west. For this reason it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration to the following cases:

1.

a) on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper, not only at the Mass of the Chrism, but also at the evening Mass.

b) at Masses during councils, bishops' conferences, and synods;

c) at the Mass for the blessing of an abbot.

2. Also, with permission of the ordinary, to whom it belongs to decide whether concelebration is opportune:

a) at conventual Mass, and at the principle Mass in churches when the needs of the faithful do not require that all priests available should celebrate individually;

b) at Masses celebrated at any kind of priests' meetings, whether the priests be secular clergy or religious.

2.

1. The regulation, however, of the discipline of concelebration in the diocese pertains to the bishop.

2. Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper.

A new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and inserted into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.

So there is a new rite for concelebration in the West. Can someone explain why? Here's the thing I don't get. Why did we need one? The East does a lot of stuff that we don't do in the West and vice versa. Was this really so big of a deal? It admits to being an innovation. However, as we learned from Article 23:

Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

So what's the deal?

More to come.

People Are Taking This "And With Your Spirit" Stuff Way Too Seriously

2011-12-27T06:49:00.000-08:00

Or maybe they were just a bunch of humbugs:

A priest today described how he feared parishioners' lives were in danger when a fight broke out in his church during midnight mass on Christmas Eve.

Monsignor Vincent Harvey said heavy chairs were thrown down an aisle at St Edmund's Church, Southampton, during the fight in the middle of the service on Saturday night.

Police patrol cars and an ambulance raced to the historic church on The Avenue, Southampton, as other members of the congregation tried to break up the fight.

The priest managed to continue the mass to his shocked but uninjured congregation after police arrived to arrest those involved.

‘You often expect some drunken behaviour at the Christmas Midnight Mass but this was actually quite shocking,’ said Father Vincent Harvey.

‘But then about three or four minutes later, there were scuffles going on. Then it was obvious it was more than just a scuffle, there was actually a fight going on.’

I hope they all went to confession afterwards.

It's STILL Christmas, People!

2011-12-26T15:41:00.001-08:00

There's a reason the song is about the TWELVE Days of Christmas.

I know this is probably an utterly stupid thing to nitpick over, but it's annoying when you say Merry Christmas to people only to have them get this smug look and remind you that Christmas was yesterday. After the 4th one this afternoon, I finally just started telling people to have a nice day.

Merry Christmas Everyone

2011-12-25T05:16:00.001-08:00

The SSPX Has Returned Serve

2011-12-21T15:56:00.000-08:00

Per Rorate:

The response of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to the Doctrinal Preamble presented by Cardinal Levada on September 14 was officially delivered on December 10. This information was recently made known to the District Superiors of that fraternity.

Wait and pray.

The Rowan Road

2011-12-20T07:36:00.000-08:00

This link to the Weekly Standard has been sitting in my Inbox for probably a week now which is unfortunate since it analyzes one of the most interesting, and ignored, bit of news out there.

The whole thing is about the alleged impending retirement of Rowan Williams from his post as Archlayman of Canterbury and the fact that nobody gives a crap. But they should. Let's take a look at why:

The archbishop of Canterbury is going to resign next year. At least that’s the story making the rounds of newspapers in London, and the interesting part is not that the 61-year-old Rowan Williams should be willing to give up another decade in the job. Or even, if the Telegraph is right, that the clergy and his fellow bishops are working to push him out.

No, the interesting news about the looming resignation is how little attention anyone appears to be paying to it. The Church of England just doesn’t seem to matter all that much, fading from the world’s stage only slightly more slowly than the British Empire that planted it across the globe.

First, why the hell would Rowan want to stay? So he can continue to be excoriated from just about everybody who is supposed to have "communion" with him? And why wouldn't we expect his fellows to be trying to push him out? He's been a disaster by any reckoning.

Christianity will survive in other forms, of course, both theologically and denominationally. In the long run, the great tragedy of the fading of Canterbury and the looming breakup of the Anglican communion may be the geopolitical consequences—fraying the already weak ties between the global South and Western civilization.

He's right about this. The secular world should be paying attention, but it isn't. This fact is a striking demonstration of how irrelevant the Anglican Communion has made itself. The next bits of the article are basically about the growth of Anglicanism in Africa and how it is much more fervent and traditional there than elsewhere. Moving on to the next part:

Instead, hardly anyone notices when the archbishop of Canterbury is about to be replaced and the unity of Anglicanism is about to be shattered. The job of the archbishop of Canterbury has always been something of a high-wire act, delicately balanced between the Protestant impulses of the church on one side and its Catholic impulses on the other side. And, from time to time, various archbishops have lost their balance (notably when John Henry Newman slipped away to Catholicism in the battles over the Oxford Movement in the 1840s).

This time, unfortunately, it is the wire itself that is breaking. What the archbishop of Canterbury needed to hold together was a church divided between such African heroes of the faith as the retired archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu, and such established masters of the Anglican bureaucracy as the primate of the Church of Canada, Fred Hiltz. On issues from the legality of abortion to the installation of female bishops and, especially, church ceremonies for gay marriage and the consecration of openly gay priests, the difference between the conservative African churches and the radical Western churches—between, say, Nicholas Okoh, Anglican primate of Nigeria, and Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States—is unbridgeable.

Unbridgeable is probably an understatement. Don't think that this gap wasn't in mind when Schori was promoted either. It was a statement that the Anglican Communion would either board the train to Spongville or be destroyed. Just another step in the overall Death March, but an important one nonetheless. Frankly, the author of the piece and others can wax poetic about Tutu all they want, but it seems pretty clear that he left the station a long time ago.

The current archbishop is a cultivated, intelligent man: a published poet and literary figure with theological sophistication and a talent for administration. Rowan Williams never possessed either the international star-power of someone like John Paul II or the intellectual depth of Benedict XVI. Still, he has more or less succeeded in his decade-long attempt to hold Anglicanism together with a kind of quiet, British suasion.

He pursued that end, however, mostly by trying to make himself an utterly neutral figure, beginning his reign as archbishop, for example, by leaving the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, an important British pro-life group. And his Laodicean pose has led him into such inanities as his 2008 call to enact some form of the “unavoidable” sharia law in Great Britain—even while his fellow Anglicans in Nigeria were being attacked by Muslim mobs.

I admit that I almost stopped reading the article here. Rowan is a smart guy, but what's this "talent for administration" business? And he's succeeded in holding Anglicanism together? Really? This is only if you accept the fact that there is any sort of togetherness going on, which ironically, the whole article indicates is absolutely not the case. All of this stuff went on under Rowan's watch. The fact that everyone still uses the same letterhead seems massively inconsequential in comparison.

And this "neutrality" thing. This has contributed to the unravelling of the Anglican Communion more than just about anything else. What the Anglicans needed was a leader. They got Rowan instead, who basically just let the inmates run the asylum. I'm not sure where or when this kind of stance became a virtue.

Pope Benedict’s 2009 offer of a Catholic home for traditionalist Anglicans is reported to have taken Williams by surprise, and he has found no answer to the administrative disaster of new conservative parishes being established in America—parishes that proclaim allegiance to conservative African bishops rather than to their local ordinaries. For that matter, the church-dividing question of gay marriage and an openly homosexual clergy has not been solved during the archbishop’s tenure. It’s only been repressed...

Yeah, but you just told us how awesome he is. How could any of this have happened?

The last full meeting of the Lambeth Conference—the once-a-decade meeting that brings together leaders from all the national churches to discuss and pass denomination-wide legislation—did not go well, back in 2008. African bishops pulled in one direction, holding separate meetings and hinting at schism, while the Western leaders pulled in the other direction, demanding that all churches in the communion embrace their views on human sexuality. That the church kept any unity at all was a tribute to the meliorating work of the of Canterbury. And with Williams no longer at the helm, little will be achieved at the next Lambeth Conference.

Unity? Why does he keep using that word? I do not think it means what he thinks it means. The last Lambeth Conference was the quiet, whimpering death of Henry and Elizabeth's hell-spawned ecclesiastical offspring. It's a zombie now, just unaware that it's dead and shambling around to various familiar places trying to pretend it's alive. It might even show up at Lambeth in a few years to devour the flesh of some more of its traditions. The bottom line is that the Death March is the only life and mission it has left.

The article's best and main point is something that everyone needs to pay attention to, though:

Little, that is, except the schism of Anglicanism. In all likelihood, the forcing of the issue of same-sex marriage will lead the African churches to withdraw from communion with the Western churches—while the churches of Europe and North America will denounce the African churches, choosing allegiance with standard-issue Western liberalism over the orthodox teaching of their own faith.

And thereby the world will lose one more of the old ties that might have bound it together. Freed from their African anchor, the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in America will move even further in a pro-Muslim, anti-Israel direction, providing yet more cover for fashionable liberal anti-Semitism. Let loose from their allegiance to Canterbury, the African churches will quickly move toward forming pan-African denominations that will feel entirely distanced from Europe and America—and will help build the belief the global South owes nothing to the West.

Granted, these aren't the only consequences, and theologically speaking, not even the most significant. However, it is what the secular world should be paying attention to. While Rowan's road comes to an end, the putrescent corpse of Anglicanism staggers along its own path. When it's finally too exhausted to continue, what will be left? Probably a horde of the worst modernist prelates imaginable on the left, with a group of sincerely devout, but wandering and shepherdless, clerics on the right. It's a good bet that Pope Benedict's greatest legacy will be giving these latter souls a boarding ramp to the Barque of Peter. Let's pray they accept.

Sort Of An Assisi Update

2011-12-19T07:09:00.000-08:00

I'm throwing this out there for consideration. Some pretty scandalous things have been done at Assisi in the name of peace. And granted, not just there but in a lot of places as we see the evangelical fervor of the Faith gradually diluted into some sort of weird humanism. This is a far cry from Pope Pius XI's teaching in Quas Primas:

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.

So we need the recognition of Christ as King if we're going to have any sort of peace. I have no idea how the Assisi meetings encourage this, but that's not the point. The point is Pope Benedict's recent comments that resonate much more closely along these lines:

The Holy Father dedicated his remarks to three themes the Commission has been examining in recent years, turning first to consider the question of God and the understanding of monotheism. Benedict XVI recalled how "behind the Christian profession of faith in the one God lies the daily profession of faith of the People of Israel". However, with the incarnation of Jesus Christ, "the monotheism of the one God came to be illuminated with a completely new light: the light of the Trinity, a mystery which also illuminates brotherhood among men". For this reason theology "can help believers to become aware of and bear witness to the fact that Trinitarian monotheism shows us the true face of God, ... and is the source of personal and universal peace".

This is refreshing stuff. The Holy Father doesn't just stick with monotheism, which is an unfortunate habit by some ecumenists. He is clear that Judaism and Islam don't count. It's the Trinity that does, along with the Incarnation. This is where the true peace is. Given that he was talking about the nature of Catholic theology, it's also clear that we are talking about Catholicism rather than whatever Mike Murdock might be espousing.

That's all very good to hear, as it calls the Church back to Her mandate to evangelize. Evangelization is the path to peace. Or to take The Master's word for it:

[H]e that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

Luke 11:23

If I can give the Pope one more bit of props (yo) here, I should mention his hat tip to an idea he talked about in Caritas in Veritate:

"The Church's social commitment is not a merely human activity", Benedict XVI explained, "nor is just a social theory. The transformation of society by Christians over the centuries has been a response to the coming of the Son of God into the world. ... The disciples of Christ the Redeemer know that no human community can live in peace without concern for others, forgiveness, and love even for one's enemies. ... In our indispensable collaboration for the common good, even with those who do not share our faith, we must explain the true and profound religious motivations for out social commitment. ... People who have understood the foundation of Christian social activity may also find therein a stimulus to consider faith in Jesus Christ".

In other words, all this charity stuff that people do doesn't matter if it isn't being done with the Truth in mind. Taking care of temporal needs for the poor doesn't mean anything if the condition of their souls is neglected. It's another call for converting the masses. I wonder if the liberation theologians will bother to listen.

Does Come De Previgny Read This Blog?

2011-12-18T07:02:00.000-08:00

He just might, since he asks the same question we did not so long ago. In a recent item from Rorate, he discusses the views of the SSPX and compares them with those of Msgr. Gherardini. You can read the whole thing for yourself, but check out the last part:

If affirming that the texts of the Council are disconnected from Tradition makes the Society worthy of being considered outside the Church, is it to be thought that Monsignor Gherardini deserves excommunication for having dared to publicly affirm that which others will never have the boldness of saying?

This sounds a lot like what we posted a couple of weeks ago:

If the SSPX comments are denied, what does that say about guys like Monsignor Gherardini or Bishop Athanasius Schneider who also question some elements of the Council? Are they subject to some sort of negative action as well?

Hey, I'm just sayin' is all. Msgr. Gherardini's question remains the crux, I think. What is the authority of Vatican II in the realm of the Magisterium?

Newsflash: Latin Rite Priests Should Be Celibate

2011-12-17T06:40:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Fr. Jan Peijnenburg of The Netherlands didn't get the memo. Not sure how I missed this one, but it seems that he'd had a "partner" for over 46 years. What's worse, he claims that the diocese knew about his girlfriend for over a decade. What is even worse than that, in my opinion, is the rationale given by the diocese for why he has to choose between her and the priesthood.

“We cannot allow him to do that which is forbidden to others.”

That's it? Nothing about vows or holy obedience or obligations to Our Lord Jesus Christ? I'm hoping very much that there's more to this or that maybe it's a bad translation.

Fr. Peijnenburg was given till December 1 to make his choice. He had pretty much announced at the time of the original article above that he was staying with his concubine. When the deadline came, it looks like he figured that ignoring the problem would make it go away. He didn't do anything, so he was suspended and removed from his admittedly limited ministry. Now, he's now wanting to take the case to court:

"I remain a priest, and cohabitant. And I contest the Bishop who has had me removed." These were the comments made by a priest who has been living with a woman for 46 years, and who lost the priesthood two days ago, because he violated (and openly admitted) the obligatory celibacy rule. He is not giving up, however, and promises a legal battle. Father JanPeijnenburg, the elderly Dutch priest who has been defrocked, wants to go even further and take his diocese before the European Court of Human Rights.

Living a "double life" for almost half a century, in his opinion, does not justify the decision of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, on the contrary, the "cohabitant priest” publicly claims the battle undertaken to obtain permission to live with his partner Threes van Dijck (who is also octogenarian). "I will take my case to the European Court of Human Rights", the former pastor announced after recently receiving the letter with which the bishop notified him that he has been suspended from the priesthood because of his refusal to abandon his domestic partner, as the diocesan ordinary officially asked him to do a month ago.

Great. And would anyone be surprised at the rest of the article's statements about how so many in the Dutch priesthood and hierarchy favor the abolition of the celibate clergy?

I don't know anyone from The Netherlands. Just what is the deal with their culture that seems to foment dissent so openly? None of this is new, as Rorate reminds us today with their post remembering The Dutch "Catechism." I'd love to hear any ideas people might have on this question.

ND To Play In China?

2011-12-14T04:46:00.000-08:00

It's being discussed, per the NYT. I'm sure Leland Stanford is rolling over in his grave at the thought of his namesake university playing there.

That it's being considered is a wonderful example of ND's continued hypocrisy, though. Put aside the fact that it's a move to play for a country whose government is imprisoning and murdering Catholics all the time. More than just regular persecution, they've even set up a schismatic counter-church for the purpose of deceiving as many people as possible. Take all that out of the equation.

What about all those "fighting for" commercials? We know how dedicated ND is to the "secular common good," so how is it that a nation with a human rights record like China's can draw even the possibility of the university's presence?

One word answer: $$$$$$

Catholic Rage! Catholic Rage!

2011-12-09T07:26:00.000-08:00

This has to be posted in as many places as possible. It's from a blog known as Vestal Morons and contains what is no doubt the most profound analysis of VII that the world has ever known.Thanks to Fr. Z for providing this. Star Wars is really about Vatican II.

They tryin' to tell us that deep inside we all wants to be Modernists!!

Whether you agree with it or not, you should read it and pass it on to every single person you know.

Happy Feast Of The Immaculate Conception

2011-12-08T13:18:00.000-08:00

You might be wondering, Where's Mary? True, this isn't an icon of the Blessed Mother. It is, however, a picture of what we celebrate today, namely, the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos.

This is one of my favorite icons. I have no real words myself for today, so I'll leave that to some other folks.

O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.

St. John Damascene

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Blessed Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

I Wonder If ND Will Ever Get Around To This

2011-12-07T05:24:00.000-08:00

From Rorate, regarding recent decisions at the University of Louvain:

"KU Leuven - University of Leuven" [in English]. This is probably the new name of the university. A consensus has been reached in the university to keep the K, but to remove all references to the name Catholic. The proposed [new] mission statement of the university also includes independence from the Church and proactive openness.

Although final decisions on the identity [of the university] are to be taken only by the University Board meeting of December 22, President Mark Waer has made clear that "the line has been drawn." ...

The position of the five bishops within the Board will be placed under pressure ... . The acknowledgment of Archbishop Leonard [of Mechlin-Brussels] as Chancellor of the university would remain, but he would no longer sit on the Board

All references to the Catholic character will be removed from the name. ... Internationally, in order to avoid confusion about the identity of the university, the present document recommended the subtitle "University of Leuven." [sic, in English]. ... The interest of KULeuven is to associate its independence from the Church with a more proactive diversity policy. It would seem that a broad focus for the different groups at the university is necessary. President Waer argues for a broader interpretation of the hitherto compulsory course "Religion, Meaning and Values." "The students, who the leaders of the future, must be open to and confronted with different views." Waer suggested that the RML course be replaced by one on "Man and worldviews", where Christianity is just one of the different worldviews represented."

How incredibly disgusting. And unfortunately, probably not that far away from what we'll see at Catholic universities in this country. It's at least honest, I suppose. Why pretend to be something you aren't?

This Is How Absurd It's Gotten

2011-12-05T19:46:00.000-08:00

Per FoxNews, a bill is being introduced in the House that would ban abortions on the basis of race and gender. Sure, the article mentions that nobody thinks it will pass, but just consider the concept. We would have a situation where certain classes of babies would have more protection from being killed than other babies for no other reason than whether or not they have an extra X-chromosome.

Some babies are just more equal than others, I guess.

And yes, I get it that this guy is trying to stop whatever abortions he can. That doesn't make the fact that we even have to consider steps like this any more absurd.

Modernism And Who Knows What

2011-12-03T06:30:00.000-08:00

In a lot of ways, I think Catholics of the traditional set need to look in the mirror a bit. As I wander through the Catholic corners of the Web, I find that a lot of our like-minded brethren are doing the cause way more harm than good.

For example, a random post goes up on a Catholic message board about how somebody doesn't understand this corrected translation business and that they don't particularly like it. They are then met with a barrage of mockery from the self-styled traditionalist who basically declares that they are going to hell anyway for attending a Pauline Mass in the first place. The original poster is now completely shut off from wanting anything else to do with the discussion, much less learning about why the translation is changing. Most likely, their position on the changes is confirmed, since only a jerk like the responder could like such a thing.

It seems there is an incredibly quick rush to pass judgment on Catholics who just might not know something. I'm not sure why. Just pride, I guess. It's a natural impulse to enjoy showing that somebody else is wrong and that we're right. That doesn't make it a good impulse.

You could throw in a range of topics here. Blessed John Paul II's papacy, anything from Vatican II, the Social Kingship of Christ, etc., all fall under this same scenario. Instead of trying to understand the background of the person presenting their opinion or asking the question, they are almost presumed to be a liberal modernist heretic and no prudence or mercy is shown in dealing with them. St. Paul said something about milk before meat. Is that out of style these days?

Take myself for example. When I was growing up, my priest was a no-nonsense Irishman who didn't mince words about the Faith and tolerated absolutely zero dissent from the Church. I had no idea there was a crisis going on. I figured everywhere was like my parish. Sure, we had some flakes that I knew pined for disco liturgy and such, but they were quickly silenced when they attempted to influence matters simply by the priest's comments that "We're Catholic. We do things the Catholic way." This was at a parish with a Pauline Mass, reverently offered. I didn't even see a TLM until I was well past 20. Even now, I get criticized in some circles because I don't drive my family 4 hours every Sunday to the nearest traditional liturgy.

Considering all this, I hadn't read Vatican II or its history, but I certainly wouldn't have thought the subsequent era had any problems. I hadn't heard about Assisi or the Koran incident or any of the other stuff that so scandalized Catholics who were paying attention to this sort of thing. Which is my point. The number of folks in the latter group is pretty small, I think, compared to the body of Catholic believers at large. Most Catholics don't know what Modernism is, other than it's clearly a slur and not something that's going to encourage them to find out more.

I guess I'm just urging charity here. Don't rip somebody as a heretic, indifferentist, modernist or any other such term just because they disagreed with you. Consider first that they are just trying to be good Catholics as best they can. And consider that maybe you're the one who is wrong. Going to a TLM doesn't make you infallible, so it can happen. Wailing away on people who are just trying their best isn't going to make them more sympathetic to traditional ideas. It will have the opposite effect.

Let me add one other thing here since the SSPX has been in the news recently. This is kind of their problem too. Not to sound harsh, but I don't think standing at the periphery shouting at people is all that effective. Too many people have no idea about their current situation to listen, even those in good faith. The SSPX's irregular condition is an automatic shut-off for the average Catholic. If they want to do the most good, they will regularize and get back in the fight for real. Getting this obstacle out of their way will be a huge benefit. Every time I go to an FSSP Mass, it's packed and attracting more and more people who have never been there before. The SSPX could bring more people in as well, but I don't know that they can be as effective given their current situation.

Anyways, to conclude. Charity first. Milk before meat. Do not presume.

That is all.

Fair And Balanced?

2011-12-01T18:23:00.000-08:00

Not from this Zenit headline:

SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X REJECTS VATICAN OFFER

Did they really?

The superior-general of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has declared that his group is not in full agreement with the content of a "Doctrinal Preamble" offered to them by the Vatican.

Is that really a rejection? Given that the document was provided with some flexibility and even came with a note saying that it wasn't "definitive," how is the SSPX's decision to ask for some changes a rejection?

It seems to me that it's just part of the process and exactly what Cardinal Levada and/or Pope Benedict expected to happen. Here is the full text of Bishop Fellay's comments. Here's my question. If the SSPX comments are denied, what does that say about guys like Monsignor Gherardini or Bishop Athanasius Schneider who also question some elements of the Council? Are they subject to some sort of negative action as well?

Holy Smokes! A Movie About The Vendee!

2011-11-29T15:29:00.000-08:00

Sure, it looks low budget, but the fact that someone is even acknowledging that all this happened is pretty shocking. Thanks to the HoC for getting the word out.

Between this and Cristiada, there's all kinds of Catholic moviedom being unleashed.

Feticide: Calling A Spade A Spade

2011-11-28T06:18:00.000-08:00

Rorate notes that the UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has decided to cut through some of the semantic hair-splitting involved with killing babies. As part of the new guidelines regarding women seeking abortions, FETICIDE is recommended "should be performed before medical abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation to ensure that there is no risk of a live birth."

Nice to know they've given it such thought.

Inducing fetal death before medical abortion may have beneficial emotional, ethical and legal consequences.

If you ever wondered if we were living in an age of absolute evil, consider that this group of legally-sanctioned professional has just formalized a policy wherein the killing of a child is lauded for its beneficial ethics. Think about that. Or this:

However, in cases where the fetal abnormality is not lethal or the abortion is not for fetal abnormality and is being undertaken after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation, failure to perform feticide could result in a live birth and survival, which contradicts the intention of the abortion.

Well, we sure as hell can't have that happen, now can we? Just ask President Obama. The last thing we need is some kid getting born and actually living. And we might as well do it when they're really tiny. Otherwise, it might hurt them:

Regarding fetal pain and awareness, the RCOG has published guidance and concluded that ‘In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.’

Ignoring for a moment whether or not this is true, does anybody really think that the rightness or wrongness of this decision depends on the baby feeling pain or not? Let me jump straight to Godwin's Law. I suppose this means that if the Nazis had sedated the prisoners in Dachau or wherever that executing them would have been ok.

You probably don't want to read the whole entry. It's something out of our worst dystopian nightmares. Might as well just accept the fact that it's happening, that we have to pray and do our part to stop it, and that God is punishing us and will continue to punish us for these crimes.

"Consubstantial"

2011-11-27T11:35:00.000-08:00

So today was the introduction of the revised translation. How did it go for you? We had a practice run last Sunday, but it was with a visiting priest who kind of forgot to mention what we were doing. Naturally, there was some confusion. Still a bit this morning as well. Which means there was some complaining.

I'm going to wonder many times over the coming weeks if all these whiners have considered what the shift was like going towards the vernacular. Yeah, I'm sure that was seamless and not awkward at all.

Any stories from your parishes about transitioning to the revision?

"They're Going After My Girls"

2011-11-26T19:48:00.000-08:00

When you read the caption of this post, what was the image conjured in your mind? Bullying? Some other variety of physical intimidation? Perhaps some kind of emotional torment? At the very least, a sort of threat, right?

Nope. These are the words used by Jennifer Zickel to describe either the Catholic Church or her priest upon hearing that her parish wouldn't be having female altar servers anymore.

Oh, the humanity! I'm betting there's a Lifetime movie in production right now to bring this story of oppression and struggle to the public at large.

The whole story is at the Washington Post:

Tucked in with announcements about a new electronic donation system and a church dinner at Margarita’s Mexican restaurant was news that Zickel, the mother of two girls, had been dreading: Corpus Christi would no longer train girls to be altar servers.

Zickel burst into tears and ran to the bathroom.

“I knew right then that our family couldn’t stay at this church anymore,” Zickel said, her voice breaking. “I’m a mama bear, and they’re going after my girls.”

Who knew bears were so melodramatic?

The decision last fall by Corpus Christi’s pastor, the Rev. Michael Taylor, and the response of Zickel and about a dozen other families who left the 1,100-family South Riding church reflect ongoing tensions among American Catholics over the role of women. About 50 families from across the country wrote letters of protest to the Arlington Catholic Diocese, and a vigil is scheduled for Sunday outside the diocese’s offices.

Last fall? Are you freaking kidding me? Why is this a story now?

Looking at the rest of this tragicomic paragraph, I wonder if these dozen families were all personally affected by this decision or if they are just looking to make a statement. I suppose it doesn't really matter. It's just another example of people having little or no respect for authority. Holding a vigil? I wonder how many other vigils they've had and for what cause. Hopefully, they've opted for a few occasions that were actually Catholic, rather than this sort of immature pouting.

Perhaps next they'll protest non-Catholics being barred from communion. Or those in mortal sin even. Or just skip to the chase and demand women priests.

Interestingly enough, although this story made the Washington Post, the line coming from the diocese is pretty tame:

Caitlin Bootsma, the diocese’s spokeswoman, said she thinks the number of displeased parishioners is very small.

“The rest of the community either supports it or is getting used to it,” she said. In the diocese overall, “we don’t hear much on the issue at all anymore.”

Which makes sense considering that the girls already participating were allowed to continue. They just had to wear white, while the boys wear black.

Maybe we should go back to Blessed John XXIII's policy and not even allow women in the sanctuary, period. Make sure his name is attached to the decision and watch the liberal heads explode from apoplexy.

If I can just add a small bit here. Have you ever watched the interactions of young boys and young girls? At this age, boys are drawn to things that they perceive as activities that are for boys. The minute girls show up to participate, the boys will lose interest. You can observe this anywhere, but if you've been especially unlucky, you've seen it in your parish since girls started on the whole altar serving thing. My parish used to field half a dozen servers for any given Mass. When the girls started, it was down to 1 or 2 within a couple of years. The boys didn't want to do it anymore. Think about that when someone mentions the vocations crisis. Ask yourself or any protesting parishioners you might know if we are doing everything we can to address the crisis. Consider that maybe we aren't and that this course of action might be something that would help.

A Non-Thanksgiving Thought

2011-11-24T05:04:00.000-08:00

I was sitting around last night reading a bit by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and some stuff occurred to me about this past Sunday's Gospel reading. Consider this part:

Come, you who are blessed by my Father.
Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me,
ill and you cared for me,
in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say,
'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,
or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you,
or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply,
'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did
for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Matthew 25:34-40

If the blessed receive this kind of reward based on their treatment of others being compared to their treatment of Jesus, how much greater is Our Lady blessed as the one who actually did these kinds of things for Christ Himself? I doubt He was ever sick, but pretty much everything else applies. She gave Him food, drink, clothes, and was one of the few remaining by His side when He was executed as a criminal.

Perhaps something to mention to any Protestant brethren who question why she is any different from the rest of us.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Theology At ND

2011-11-21T08:17:00.000-08:00

I've had this question come up a couple of times via email and more recently in this comment from an old thread about Professor John Cavadini. Basically, the question was whether or not you can go to ND and get a good theological education, sans heresy.

First, let me qualify this by saying that I graduated from ND over a decade ago, so things might be way different now.

Second, I didn't graduate in theology. I did get a philosophy degree, and there was some natural overlap between the two departments on a few things.

With those two qualifiers, let me say that I do think you can go to ND, major in theology, and get a soundly orthodox education on the subject. You will have to work around some things, though. Everybody knows about Fr. McBrien. When I was there, Fr. Baxter was another guy with some odd ideas, but I've been told he isn't there anymore. Hugh Page destroyed the faith of some students while I was there and was promoted to Dean of First Year Studies. I imagine he's still around. Professor Jean Porter has some clearly wrong ideas about abortion. Oh yeah, and Gustavo Guttierrez teaches there, too. In other words, there are some bad apples to be avoided.

However, you've got guys like Professor Cavadini there. I've heard great things about David Fagerberg. It's not like things are a complete wasteland. My advice to anybody looking to pursue a degree there would be to visit or call the theology department and speak to one of these guys. Tell them about your concerns. I'm sure they would be more than happy to help you out. The world needs good theologians. They aren't the type to discourage the formation of one.

While I will discourage my own kids from going to ND and have no intention of supporting it financially until there is a regime change or some public repentance, I can understand the fact that the world indeed needs good theologians. Not only that, but ND needs students serious about their Catholicism. Too many have grown up without really knowing the Faith. Lots of thinking that "everybody's going to heaven" and "many paths to God" and so forth. Having some savvy theological minds among the student body might help with this. If anyone feels called to take on this kind of work, I don't want to dissuade them.

Thought Experiment

2011-11-20T06:26:00.000-08:00

Consider this latest story as reported on FoxNews. Apparently, there might be a link between rising levels of prostate cancer and the amounts of contraceptive hormones in the water supply. Negative effects from contraceptives are old news. Whether it's cancer rates or genetic alterations in aquatic life, we've known about this stuff for a while. Granted, it's not all that widely publicized, but it's still out there.

Here's the experiment. What would the negative consequences have to be in order for society to give up its access to cheap and quick sterilization? How bad would things have to be for women to stop taking the pill and men to cease trying to get them to take it?

So far, we've got harmful effects to the environment and higher cancer risks for both men and women. Not to mention the abortifacient aspects where a child winds up dead.

What do you think it will take? Outside of instant death, I'm not sure there's anything bad enough.

Contraception For The Disabled

2011-11-19T06:17:00.000-08:00

There are people here who know more about these things than I do. Can I get a ruling on this bit from the Q&A over a Zenit?

Q: My friend has a 21-year-old daughter who suffers from a developmental disorder that makes her behave significantly younger than she is. I too have a daughter with a similar disorder (she's 12). Because some people prey on girls who do not understand what is going on or do not have the reasoning skills to stop a situation, my friend put her daughter on "birth control" to protect her. She has, of course, talked to her daughter about what is appropriate touching and what is inappropriate. But she still fears for her daughter's safety. I know from my experience that my daughter often does inappropriate things unknowingly. I understand this mother's worry, but I wonder if there are any moral concerns with doing this? -- D.U., Wichita, Kansas.

This is a legit question. Some of the stuff in the answers seems weird, though.

But in the question above, we are not dealing with a woman who is freely choosing sexual intercourse. We are dealing with the potential victim of a sexual assault -- rape. Rape is an act of forcing another person into sexual intimacy against his or her will. A female victim of rape certainly has no obligation to submit to her rapist's assault. And she rightly resists her assailant. The attacker's sperm is an extension of the attacker himself. Just as it would be legitimate for her to defend herself against him by attacking his person, or to pull herself away from him as he penetrates her vagina so he does not ejaculate inside her, so too she has a right to prevent his sperm from achieving the completion of his act of aggression by fertilizing her ovum. This act on her part is one of self-defense. And the Church has always taught that proportionate measures used to render an aggressor incapable of causing harm are legitimate.

The USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (5th ed., 2009), directive 36, sets forth the following norm:

A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Although this directive specifically addresses women who have already been victimized, I believe it is legitimately extended to potential victims of rape. If a woman anticipates being raped, as may occur in a time of war or social unrest or if she is particularly vulnerable, as in the case of the disabled, she may use preemptive measures to defend herself (her ovum) from a rapist's attack (his sperm), provided those measures are not abortifacient.

When a woman is not adequately equipped to defend herself, it may fall to her caregivers to take reasonable measures on her behalf. One who is authorized to make or execute decisions on behalf of another is called a proxy. (Strictly speaking proxies are authorized by those on whose behalf they act; since a cognitively disabled person may not be in a position to formally authorize another, caregivers, such as parents, who rightly make decisions for dependent children, are not really proxies; but for purposes of this reply, I use the term proxy.)

Does this thing from the bishops seem correct? The extrapolation offered in the answer really seems off-base to me. From my reading, it's like we're ok with sterilizing people as long as the circumstances are right. I don't think you can argue double effect here. Moreover, the directives of Humanae Vitae don't seem to permit this kind of "pre-emptive strike." Not to mention that the scenarios for this can't be all that common. Rwanda-type situations and things like that, but I can't imagine a typical parent being put in a position where they are so afraid of their child being raped that contraception would be a legit choice. If that's the case, the parent should be extricating themselves from wherever they are as quickly as possible.

And just how far does this logic go? Can we do tubals on the girls? What about for boys? Can steps be taken to sterilize them as well? Castration, even?

I just don't get it and would appreciate somebody explaining it to me.

Anybody Watching These Debates?

2011-11-16T20:23:00.000-08:00

They're mostly funny or sad, depending on your perspective, I suppose. However, I did want to point out something from the one this past weekend. I just got around to watching it via DVR and noticed something entirely out of place in the current political narrative, regardless of party.

Newt Gingrich specifically brought up the growing problem of the "Arab spring" turning into an open persecution of Christians. Thus far, President Obama has apparently been ok with the extermination of Christianity in the Middle East. Or, at the very minimum, really good at hiding how upset he is over it.

Allow me to suggest that only someone affiliated with the Catholic Church, as Gingrich is, would be willing to bring something like this up at all, much less on the stage of a nationally televised debate on CBS. Don't take this as an endorsement or anything. It just struck me as so out of lockstep with the prevailing talking points that I was compelled to give him props for doing so.

The next big step will be for someone to mention the persecution of Christians in Israel.

Married Priests From The Eastern Churches

2011-11-12T07:53:00.000-08:00

So the Melkites in the US are going to start ordaining married guys, so says this OrthoCath blog.

At his recent enthronement as the Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop in the USA, Bishop Nicholas Samra stated that the Melkite Catholic Church (an Eastern Catholic Church in union with the Pope of Rome) will begin ordaining married men to the priesthood in the USA.

Bishop Nicholas Samra, Bishop of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, Massachusetts made the comment in a dinner speech following his enthronement on August 23, 2011. The Bishop’s speech, newly published in the Melkite journal Sophia, contains the first published public statements by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church of their intention to ordain married men to the priesthood for the American Melkite Church.

I honestly didn't realize that the ban or any other such restriction was still in place. Aren't we way past all this by now? Most Latin Catholics don't even realize they're Latin Catholics, much less that there are other Catholics out there. What is everybody worried about? Confusion among the laity? Maybe this kind of confusion will do them some good by making them get out and learn exactly what this "Catholic" thing they belong to actually is.

There is a concern here, though. Sometimes, it seems like you get a few Easterners who want to do things just to show Rome up. I certainly hope this isn't the case here. That being said, I'm assuming this is all on the up and up.

Pro-Life (?)

2011-11-10T19:06:00.000-08:00

Here's a depressing story:

Defying Mississippi's conservative reputation, women voters appeared to lead the charge against a ballot measure that sought to ban abortion, and could've made some birth control illegal and deterred doctors from doing in vitro fertilization.

Supporters of the so-called personhood movement, which defines life as beginning at fertilization, vowed to push for the amendment in five other states next year, even though this Bible Belt state may have been its best chance at success.

While there were no exit polls to determine how men and women voted, women for weeks sounded off on social networking sites. In the well-mannered South, where things like sex and abortion are rarely discussed in polite company, women attended a rally last month with signs such as "I love my IUD" and "Keep your public policy off my private parts."

Here's what folks need to understand. When we (Catholics) say "pro-life," it's not what other people mean when they say it. This vote explains that quite well. The non-Catholic pro-life movement has very little grasp on how abortion and things like contraception and in vitro are tied together. A lot of this is due to ignorance. Some is innocuous, but a lot of it is willful and/or self-inflicted. And when I say non-Catholic, I'm including people who just use "Catholic" as a label. Like this woman:

Kathy Sikes of Jackson, a Catholic and an abortion opponent, voted against it. The mother of three grown daughters believed it would pave the way for government intrusion into private medical decisions such as birth control. She said also she grew tired of receiving email from men asking for her support.

"All the men are the ones who said to vote for it," Sikes said, chuckling. "Well, why not? Nothing off their back. They have the fun and then the woman raises the child if the child comes."

Yeah, Kathy. That's just freaking hilarious.

It all boils down very simply. There are a lot of people who are allegedly pro-life, but only as far as it might affect their ability to get on the pill or aim for children on demand (many of whom will end up in a deep freeze or dead anyway). If a challenge to abortion jeopardizes a woman's sacred right to sterilize herself or commodify her children, then the abortion stuff is going to have to take a back seat. Dead babies are important, after all, but not that important.

We deserve whatever punishment God chooses to visit on us for these abominations.

Venerable Pius XII Goes Undercover

2011-11-06T05:17:00.000-08:00

I got this from Fr. Z, but the initial report was at CNA.

Gary Krupp came across the evidence in a letter from a Jewish woman whose family was rescued thanks to direct Vatican intervention.

“It is an unusual letter, written by a woman who is alive today in northern Italy, who said she was with her mother, her uncle, and a few other relatives in an audience with Pius XII in 1947.” Next to Pope Pius during the meeting was his Assistant Secretary of State, Monsignor Giovanni Montini, the future Pope Paul VI.

“Her uncle immediately looks at the Pope and he says, ‘You were dressed as a Franciscan,’ and looked at Montini who was standing next to him, ‘and you as a regular priest. You took me out of the ghetto into the Vatican.’ Montini immediately said, ‘Silence, do not ever repeat that story.’”

Krupp believes the claim to be true because the personality of the wartime Pope was such that he “needed to see things with his own eyes.”

“He used to take the car out into bombed areas in Rome, and he certainly wasn't afraid of that. I can see him going into the ghetto and seeing what was happening,” says Krupp.

How about that? If true, that's way remarkable stuff. There are some other interesting factoids in the article about what Krupp's group has done to exonerate Venerable Pius XII from the slanders hurled against him. In light of all this, I'm sure Abe Foxman will be issuing a press release any day now expressing his gratitude over the Holy Father's efforts.

Any day now.

Cold, Cold Water

2011-11-05T05:07:00.000-07:00

I love the folks at Rorate, but man, they sure know how to bring a dude down. Check out their recent entry on relations with the Orthodox.

From Metropolitan Hilarion (the guy who thinks it was ok for the Soviets to force Ukrainian Catholics into Orthodoxy). His comments are focusing on the Pan-Orthodox Council, which is an idea that's been knocking around for decades and still hasn't materialized:

He assured all those doubting that the Council will not be the Eighth Ecumenical Council and will not rescind or review the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. “The Council will not cancel fasts, nor will it introduce married episcopate or allow a second marriage to clergyman. It will not recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome over the Orthodox Church or sign union with the Catholics. The long and short of it is that the Council will do nothing of that what some “defenders of Orthodoxy” fear, displaying zeal that exceeds reason. In case something adverse to the spirit and the letter of the Seven Ecumenical Council happens, the Russian Orthodox Church will renounce this Council and its decisions as she renounced the Council of Ferrara and Florence in 1441. I believe, however, that the other Local Orthodox Church (sic) will renounce it, too.”

I don't see Moscow agreeing to any sort of gathering like this until Constantinople has finally been destroyed. After that, it will be a great forum for Russia to announce its primacy among the Easterners.

Speaking of Constantinople, here's another sad bit. This one is from Patriarch Bartholomew:

The Ecumenical Patriarch said that he has repeatedly stressed in the past "the essential differences between Orthodoxy and other confessions." Referring especially to the dialogue with the Catholic Church he emphasized that the Orthodox Church always prays "for the union of all" and may not refuse herself when invited to a dialogue on the purpose of attaining this union, "as is desired by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself", but not without substantial conditions:

"Union is the ultimate goal, but before that there should be the identity in the faith."

"Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another" (Georgetown University, 21 October 1997), added Mr. Bartholomew. He said further:

"Furthermore, it is not true that we overlook the preconditions to the union of churches, nor is it true that we overlook the differences which prevent union."

For me, this is another point where all the efforts of ecumenism seem to have fallen flat. Having meetings and slapping each other on the back is one thing. It doesn't really accomplish anything until people start acknowledging the differences. Rorate mentions Bishop Farrell's comments about Catholics and Orthodox having the same faith. These echo the naivete exhibited by Cardinal Husar a while back. Maybe somebody should talk to the Orthodox hierarchy before making comments like these and looking so foolish in the process.

Why The Dorothy Option Won't Work

2011-11-04T05:41:00.000-07:00

Vox Nova recently posted an article by a guy named Mark Gordon regarding the current state of political and economic affairs in the US. In a nutshell, he rightfully decries the left-right paradigm and how Catholics have splintered into one or the other faction.

I used to engage in these war games, and enjoyed watching others engage in them. I fought under the conviction that the soul of the Church – at least in America – was being contested. Don’t get me wrong: my intent is not to trivialize or dismiss either the importance of the issues contested or the legitimate passions of the contestants. It is true that from a Catholic perspective there is a fundamental problem with a party that aggressively supports both the killing of the unborn and a revolutionary redefinition of marriage. And it is also true that from that same perspective there is a fundamental problem with a party that aggressively seeks to dismantle the social safety net in the name – acknowledged or not – of a Darwinian economic ideology, and which uncritically celebrates war, torture, and empire.

For the purpose of this post, we'll overlook what appears to be the standard problem of placing abortion on the same level as these other concerns. Let's assume that he's not doing that and is merely pointing out that both sides have pretty big problems if one is to profess Catholicism. Catholics in general should abhor abortion, but they also understand that subsidizing corporate interests to create oligopoly and monopoly at the expense of people is bad, too (along with war, etc.).

To remedy this, Mr. Gordon proposes what he calls "the Dorothy (Day) Option."

The “Dorothy Option” is not about retreating into isolated enclaves like Ave Maria, Florida, or indulging in the kind of spiritual navel-gazing that so often marks New Age and fundamentalist Christian communities. Instead, it means a deeper, more radical engagement with the world through a life centered on service to the poor and marginalized. It also means resistance – including the use of non-violent civil disobedience – against systems that generate violence or offend the dignity of the human person. Dorothy was no socialist. She mistrusted the concentration of state power and even opposed the erection of a bureaucratic welfare state, which she thought was violent at its core and dehumanizing in its effects. But, of course, she was no capitalist either. She equally mistrusted private concentrations of power, especially corporations, which she believed commodified human persons and impoverished the many for the sake of a few.

Sounds good. The problem is that it omits, and maybe not even purposefully, the thing so often left out of Catholic social justice discussions. Why are we engaging the poor and marginalized? The paraphrased error of the liberation theologians is to say that we do so because we should be pushing for the realization of the Kingdom here on Earth. Many Catholics have swallowed and digested this until they think that taking care of the poor is the Church's primary end. This is false. The Church's mission is to save souls. All Her work in charity, or social justice, or whatever you want to call it is subordinated to that goal.

You can "radically engage" the poor in whatever extreme method comes to mind, but it will never catch on unless people understand why it should be done. It's because we love God first, and then His creatures on account of Him. In all of the Dorothy Option discussion, there is no call to evangelize these poor people. There isn't a push to win souls for Christ. There's only a list of things that could come from anywhere. Anybody can ladle soup, get arrested, or publish a newspaper. Where will they get their ideas of justice, though? Do they understand where justice places a limit on those they are protesting AND their actions and demands as protesters?

They won't unless they understand why all of this is important. Unless they are taught to listen to the voice of Mother and Teacher. Pope Benedict hit on this very theme a lot in Caritas in Veritate. What good does all this talk of charity and justice do unless it's tempered by Truth? Absolutely none. Even if temporal successes are realized, what good does it do for such those receiving assistance to be ultimately without Christ? I suggest none. Tending to people's material needs while letting them continue under a distorted idea of what charity and justice are is only going to make things worse by (a) leading those assisted to think their ideas are correct or at least acceptable and (b) confusing Catholics as to what is correct or acceptable.

Let me give an example. I was recently in New York City and passed by the Occupy Wall Street crowd. In one corner of their encampment, there was a quasi-marked off area with two cardboard signs. One said "Community Altar" and the other "Sacred Space." I'm not sure exactly what was going on. Perhaps some sort of pagan marriage ritual. Two people were standing in the "Sacred Space" while a woman waved feathers and incense around them in some kind of pattern. These people might very well be poor and marginalized. Helping them might solve those problems. Their real problems run much deeper, though. Unless Catholics use the Truth to separate themselves from any of the innumerable other groups who can provide assistance, we aren't really helping.

Legitimizing Pelagius

2011-11-03T06:10:00.000-07:00

Oh, those wacky Episcopalians! The latest effort appears to be rehabilitating one of the most notorious heretics in history: Pelagius, the enemy of grace. He's basically where folks get their ideas that you just have to be nice to get into heaven. He also said that original sin didn't exist, except as Adam giving a bad example. Christ's crucifixion was just the good counter-example to what Adam had done. This isn't stuff that you would ordinarily think of as Christian, and with good reason. St. Augustine put him in his place long ago.

Not for the Atlanta Diocesan Council, though. Check out this tidbit from TitusOneNine:

Whereas the historical record of Pelagius’s contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire, and their ecclesiastical dominance, and whereas an understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition, and whereas his restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, grace, free will, and the goodness of God’s creation, and whereas in as much as the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans, Be it resolved, that this 105th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta appoint a committee of discernment overseen by our Bishop, to consider these matters as a means to honor the contributions of Pelagius and reclaim his voice in our tradition And be it further resolved that this committee will report their conclusions at the next Annual Council.

Submitted by the Rev. Benno D. Pattison, Rector, the Church of the Epiphany

In other words, all of Pelagius's controversies were really just another case of The Man keeping a good guy down. I can't wait to see what steps are taken to "reclaim his voice" for whatever tradition is left in Atlanta.

I wonder how much of this type of hijinks might be connected with the recent report showing Episcopalian membership at its lowest in 70 years. Just wait till those ordinariates catch on.

And the Death March continues...

For All Our Peeps Waiting On The Beatific Vision

2011-11-02T19:09:00.000-07:00

I know it's late in the day, but here's a reminder about them, too.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord; And let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen

For All Our Peeps In The Beatific Vision

2011-11-01T11:52:00.000-07:00

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us

Hebrews 12:1

Somebody Kmiec On The Phone

2011-10-31T16:47:00.000-07:00

Will he ever formally apologize for supporting Obama's presidency? Will any of the other Catholic leaders who have honored Obama make an act of public repentance? Looking at you there, Fr. Jenkins.

The Washington Post has decided to make the Church's conflict with the current administration a real story now. Hopefully, Catholics are paying attention.

The latest dispute centers on the Department of Health and Human Service’s decision in late September to end funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of human trafficking, or modern-day slavery. The church group had overseen nationwide services to victims since 2006 but was denied a new grant in favor of three other groups.

The bishops organization, in line with the church’s teachings, had refused to refer trafficking victims for contraceptive or abortion services. The American Civil Liberties Union sued and HHS officials said they made a policy decision to award the grants to agencies that would refer women to those services.

In other words, it is the official position of the United States government that you can't help people who are victims of the slave trade unless you make sure they can get abortions and contraceptives. How insane and/or evil are these people? They are so wedded to the culture of death that they are willing to go through the effort of redirecting federal funds all in the name of making sure that we have fewer children in the world. Read the whole article and note that even people involved in the process felt like the whole thing was tainted.

Of course, that's not the only anti-Catholic initiative out there right now. You've got the mandate that employer insurance cover contraception and sterilization. You've got the Mexico City Policy. You've already had Catholic Charities curbing foster care in order to avoid having to support civil unions. It's going to get worse, and so many people don't even realize that it's that bad right now.

Has anybody coined the term "soft persecution" yet? If not, I am.

Catholics Now Permitted To Marry Fake Monarchs

2011-10-31T06:30:00.000-07:00

Buried in all the stories about the British changing their laws about women inheriting the throne is this little nugget:

Cameron's proposed agreement will also clear the way for an heir to the throne to be able to marry a Roman Catholic and still succeed to the Crown.

"These rules are outdated and need to change," Cameron said at a news conference. "The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man just isn't acceptable any more. Nor does it make any sense that a potential monarch can marry someone of any faith other than Catholic."

How nice of them. Will they return all the property they stole, too? Naturally, this doesn't mean a Catholic can become the fake monarch themselves. After all, how can they defend the faith of the Anglican Communion? Not to worry, though. Once the Anglicans are done annihilating themselves, this part of the law may be ripe for reform as well.

Assisi Update

2011-10-30T14:18:00.000-07:00

From taking a look at Boniface's latest entry at Unam Sanctam, it seems that Assisi III didn't go off without a hitch. Instead of keeping things neat and clean (as would have been possible), we wind up with a guy chanting a hymn to a pagan deity inside the Basilica. I wonder if this shmoe was asked even asked to apologize. Can you imagine what would happen if the Pope prayed to the Holy Trinity while in a synagogue? Or a mosque? Or if he had praised Christ as Savior of the world at this very meeting?

I'll tell you what would have happened. The world would have come unglued and well-nigh fainted at the temerity of the Pope to have done so. We're Catholic, though. So when somebody does this to us, we're expected to just smile and be pleased at how mutually enriched we are at having paganism proclaimed in our churches.

How revolting.

Cross-Overs

2011-10-30T07:21:00.000-07:00

Another Rorate entry. This one says that a Nigerian bishop has given permission for one of his priests to join the SSPX. This is another huge deal. First, there was the case with that convent. Now, a canonically regular priest given the go-ahead for SSPX-dom? I can't imagine this is anything other than good news.

Assisi III

2011-10-29T07:26:00.000-07:00

To sum up, there was no communal prayer. There also wasn't any kind of attack on religious relativism, as we had hoped for. This was pretty much the Pope having lunch with a group of non-Catholic leaders. Woopty doo. Not a success. Not a scandal. Not much else to report, in my opinion.

The Truth About Communion In The Hand

2011-10-28T06:13:00.000-07:00

This is an awesome entry from Rorate. I've had this argument too many times to count, and it always begins and ends with this same "quote" from St. Cyril. When you mention the stuff about smearing the Precious Blood (and your spit) on your eyes and such, people swear that you are making it up, not realizing that this is all very dubious information.

Read the whole thing. Understand why it's such a big issue. The more we treat the sacred things like common things, the more apt we are to stop believing they are sacred.

I'm Back (Sort Of)

2011-10-27T19:12:00.001-07:00

I'll have some posts coming in over the next couple of days, but there won't be much to them. I've got several things to play catch up on, but we'll try to keep the news steady until I can comment further.

Pardon The Interruption

2011-10-21T19:16:00.000-07:00

I'll be out for a couple of days. Some personal items have intervened that are not conducive even to the kind of mediocre blogging typically seen here (unless it's Karl posting).

I shall return in a few days.

To Die With Purpose

2011-10-18T15:18:00.000-07:00

As much as we might want to, probably only a few of us are brave enough to do so.

Stacie Crimm was one of those.

Stacie Crimm made the ultimate sacrifice -- and she got her dying wish. As doctors and nurses wearing protective gear looked on last month, the 41-year-old mom got to hold her newborn daughter.

Three days later, Crimm died. But her baby girl, Dottie Mae, is alive, because her mom refused the cancer-fighting treatments that might have saved her life -- and that she feared would risk the life of her unborn child.

Pray for this woman's soul and for the child she had to leave.

Laying Caesar's Foundation

2011-10-15T05:50:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration took another step forward in legitimizing the persecution of Catholics last week. Nobody really noticed because there really aren't a lot of people who care. I got this from Fr. Z. You can read the main article here. Basically, the Supreme Court is hearing a case about a teacher dismissed from a Lutheran school for not accepting Lutheran teachings. The subject of the Catholic priesthood came up.

Leodra Kruger, making the case for the solicitor general, questioned the “ministerial exception” directly. When questioned by Chief Justice John Roberts on whether religious groups should have the right to judge the qualifications of their own key employees, she replied: “We don't see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such.”

When Justice Stephen Breyer pressed the issue, asking specifically whether the Catholic Church should be allowed to bar women from the priesthood, Kruger replied: “The government's general interest in eradicating discrimination in the workplace is simply not sufficient to justify changing the way that the Catholic Church chooses its priests, based on gender roles that are rooted in religious doctrine.” But by casting her legal argument in terms of the government’s interests, rather than the unchanging language of the First Amendment, she left open the possibility that at some future date, under different circumstances, the government could side with women seeking ordination as Catholic priests.

In other words, the Obama administration thinks the only reason Catholics can have an all-male priesthood is because there isn't a big enough government interest to do so right now. That an attorney for the federal government would even consider such an argument should terrify Catholics across the country. Unfortunately, too many of us have cast our lot with Caesar to be all that concerned right now.

Sometimes change is bad, as are the hopes for such changes.

Russian Shenanigans

2011-10-14T06:28:00.000-07:00

Per Zenit, the Russian government has refused to renew the permit for the construction of a Catholic church in Pskov. Notice in the article that construction of the church has been going on for about a decade. Note also that the reason they had to build a church in the first place is because the cathedral there has been stolen and not returned.

Everybody seems to be acting shocked about this. Why? Why is everyone so surprised? Just what have the Russians done for the True Church since Lenin took over? This is basically the same nation that, with a KGB agent as its patriarch, wouldn't even let JPII visit. They actively persecute the faithful in Ukraine. They have stolen our churches. Then, they have the temerity to wail and gnash their teeth about Catholic "proselytism," as though this is something we should be ashamed of.

Keep in mind that the most prominent rising star in the Russian hierarchy was recently nice enough to let all of us know exactly what the score is. Metropolitan Hilarion, who we've written about previously, had the following exchange with George Weigel:

Yet when I asked him whether the L’viv Sobor (Council) of 1946—which forcibly reincorporated the Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine into Russian Orthodoxy, turning the Greek Catholics into the world’s largest illegal religious body—was a “theologically legitimate ecclesial act,” Hilarion unhesitatingly responded “Yes.” I then noted that serious historians describe the L’viv Sobor as an act of the Stalinist state, carried out by the NKVD (predecessor to the KGB); Hilarion responded that the “modalities” of history are always complicated. In any event, he continued, it was always legitimate for straying members of the Russian Orthodox flock (as he regarded the Ukrainian Greek Catholics) to return to their true home (i.e., Russian Orthodoxy).

Throughout the meeting, Hilarion smoothly but unmistakably tried to drive a wedge between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II (whom two patriarchs of Moscow, both KGB-connected, refused to invite to Russia). He also suggested that Benedict’s calls for a “new evangelization” in Europe, including a recovery of classic Christian morality, could be addressed by joint Catholic-Russian Orthodoxy initiatives. Yet, in what seemed a strange lack of reciprocity, Hilarion also spoke as if the entirety of the former “Soviet space” is the exclusive ecclesial turf of the Russian Orthodox patriarchate of Moscow.

I have issues with Weigel, but holy smokes. People better wake the hell up on this kind of thing. The Russians are not our friends and are basically telling the world that if they have to liquidate the Catholic Church and persecute Her children in the name of maintaining Orthodox authority in Russia, they are very comfortable doing that. It's not just us on the line here either. Let's not forget that Russia is positioning itself to replace Constantinople when the Turks finally wipe that see off the ecclesiological map. I wonder how the rest of the East is going to handle that. I'm guessing it doesn't go over particularly well given that Russia's history is not all that friendly to the other sees. Just ignore the Ukrainian situation. Think Estonia, for example.

This is all bad stuff, but nobody should wring their hands and pretend like it isn't completely expected either.

And Off The Cliff They Go

2011-10-13T04:15:00.000-07:00

In prior posts, we've referenced the lemming-ish habits of the Protestant ecclesial communities. After having their national assembly vote last year to allow for openly homosexual ministers, the first such type was finally ordained earlier this week.

A Wisconsin man who left his Presbyterian ministry in California more than 20 years ago after telling his congregation that he is gay was welcomed back into the church leadership on Saturday as its first openly gay ordained minister.

In a quavering voice ripe with emotion, 56-year-old Scott Anderson told the hundreds of friends and backers who packed Covenant Presbyterian Church in Madison for his ordination ceremony that he never thought the day would come.

"To the thousands of Presbyterians who have worked and prayed for almost 40 years for this day, I give thanks," Anderson said. "And I give thanks for those who disagree with what we're doing today yet who know that we are one in Jesus Christ."

Another slap in the face to Truth. This was the best part, though.

When he was presented to the crowd, audience members gave him a thunderous standing ovation and began roaring with cheers.

"That was very atypical of Presbyterians," Doug Poland, an elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church, told the Wisconsin State Journal. "Usually our hands are in our laps."

Makes me wonder how many spins in his grave Calvin did on this. It's true, though. You usually can't get Presbyterians to show that kind of reaction in church. For them to provide it for something like this is beyond weird.

Speaking Of Young Christians...

2011-10-12T04:31:00.000-07:00

This Huffington Post article tries to explain why they lose their faith.

Here's the nutshell account:

New research by the Barna Group finds they view churches as judgmental, overprotective, exclusive and unfriendly towards doubters. They also consider congregations antagonistic to science and say their Christian experience has been shallow.

Let's take a look at how these things break down exactly.

One in four 18- to 29-year-olds said "Christians demonize everything outside of the church."

Gee, maybe because some things are demonic. Really though, this is probably more reflective of wanting to sin and not get called on it.

One in three said "Church is boring."

Translation: Entertainment is most important.

One in six young Christians said they "have made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them."

This is everyone's fault. The odd thing is that it seems there's just as much judgement outside of religious congregations on this front. There's also the curious phenomenon of those outside Christianity judging (dare I say "demonizing"?) everything within it.

And 40 percent of 18- to 29-year-old Catholics said their church's doctrine on sexuality and birth control is "out of date."

Which is really just another species of wanting to sin freely.

Ultimately, the article misses the underlying cause behind all these reasons. It seems the real reason these young people lose their faith is because it tells them they aren't God. They aren't the center of the universe. Things are not ordered to their whims. They are not the final arbiters of what is good and evil.

Basically, non serviam.

It's Hard Out Here For A Priest

2011-10-11T13:42:00.000-07:00

Rorate has reproduced some comments by Bishop Guy de Kerimel of Grenoble-Vienne. They are somewhat lengthy, so I'll refer you to the link. Please read them. We should call them to mind when we find ourselves complaining about a priest who somehow doesn't meet our own nitpicking standards. I would add to his list any negative comments about a priest's accent.

Why Young Christians Aren't Waiting Anymore

2011-10-10T18:32:00.000-07:00

This topic is examined over at the CNN religion blog. In an article of almost 500 words, the word "sin" isn't mentioned once. I get the cultural factors and everything else, but is it possible that fornication happens more because people just don't think it's wrong and dangerous to their immortal souls?

Rough Readings

2011-10-10T06:22:00.000-07:00

There's been a few of these lately. It makes you wonder how folks came up with the image of Hippie Jesus. Consider today:

But when the king came in to meet the guests,
he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
The king said to him, 'My friend, how is it
that you came in here without a wedding garment?'
But he was reduced to silence.
Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet,
and cast him into the darkness outside,
where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
Many are invited, but few are chosen."

Cast into the outer darkness. Over the wrong garment. Now, I realize there are meanings beyond the literal, but it still sounds harsh by modern standards, especially given that so many seem to ignore that there's an outer darkness in the first place.

It does seem instructive about the proper attire for Mass as well, though.

Or Friday's reading from the Book of Joel:

Gird yourselves and weep, O priests!
wail, O ministers of the altar!
Come, spend the night in sackcloth,
O ministers of my God!
The house of your God is deprived
of offering and libation.
Proclaim a fast,
call an assembly;
Gather the elders,
all who dwell in the land,
Into the house of the LORD, your God,
and cry to the LORD!

Alas, the day!
for near is the day of the LORD,
and it comes as ruin from the Almighty.

This seems so much like a message for today that it's freaky.

Or the Gospel from the week ago:

But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another,
'This is the heir.
Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.'
They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.
What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?"
They answered him,
"He will put those wretched men to a wretched death
and lease his vineyard to other tenants
who will give him the produce at the proper times."

Lots of stuff in here. Maybe the most glaring thing is to remember that our Lord is infinitely loving. This doesn't make Him lacking in justice, nor does it exempt us from taking His commands seriously.

Jesuits Cry: Save The Altar Girls

2011-10-09T08:12:00.000-07:00

You might wonder why America magazine is making such a petition. When you read the article in question, it's basically because, sadly, they are just looking for a way to justify being heretics.

We know that the Holy Father is aware of what this publication stands for. Otherwise, Fr. Reese would still be in prominence. My wondering is why Pope Benedict even lets such a brood of vipers exist in the first place. Wheat and tares, I suppose.

The minute a bunch of alleged Catholics try to relegate dogma to the level of "policy," though, we should also inquire as to where the priests and bishops are who would challenge this attempt to poison their readers' souls.

Unintended Consequences

2011-10-08T07:07:00.000-07:00

At some point, you'd think people would just acknowledge that maybe the Church is on to something. From the NYT:

Contraceptive Used in Africa May Double Risk of H.I.V.

The most popular contraceptive for women in eastern and southern Africa, a hormone shot given every three months, appears to double the risk the women will become infected with H.I.V., according to a large study published Monday. And when it is used by H.I.V.-positive women, their male partners are twice as likely to become infected than if the women had used no contraception.

The findings potentially present an alarming quandary for women in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of them suffer injuries, bleeding, infections and even death in childbirth from unintended pregnancies. Finding affordable and convenient contraceptives is a pressing goal for international health authorities.

Now, if everybody wants to be fair, shouldn't the people behind this contraceptive method be excoriated for basically committing, at best, negligent homicide and all kinds of other crimes against humanity? Considering the litany of absurd slanders hurled at Pope Benedict for allegedly contributing to the HIV epidemic, isn't that the least the press could do? Maybe just try to show some objectivity, guys. Just once.

The Triumph Of The Church

2011-10-07T20:09:00.000-07:00

White founts falling in the Courts of the sun,
And the Soldan of Byzantium is smiling as they run;
There is laughter like the fountains in that face of all men feared,
It stirs the forest darkness, the darkness of his beard;
It curls the blood-red crescent, the crescent of his lips;
For the inmost sea of all the earth is shaken with his ships.
They have dared the white republics up the capes of Italy,
They have dashed the Adriatic round the Lion of the Sea,
And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,
And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross.
The cold queen of England is looking in the glass;
The shadow of the Valois is yawning at the Mass;
From evening isles fantastical rings faint the Spanish gun,
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Dim drums throbbing, in the hills half heard,
Where only on a nameless throne a crownless prince has stirred,
Where, risen from a doubtful seat and half attainted stall,
The last knight of Europe takes weapons from the wall,
The last and lingering troubadour to whom the bird has sung,
That once went singing southward when all the world was young.
In that enormous silence, tiny and unafraid,
Comes up along a winding road the noise of the Crusade.
Strong gongs groaning as the guns boom far,
Don John of Austria is going to the war,
Stiff flags straining in the night-blasts cold
In the gloom black-purple, in the glint old-gold,
Torchlight crimson on the copper kettle-drums,
Then the tuckets, then the trumpets, then the cannon, and he comes.
Don John laughing in the brave beard curled,
Spurning of his stirrups like the thrones of all the world,
Holding his head up for a flag of all the free.
Love-light of Spain--hurrah!
Death-light of Africa!
Don John of Austria
Is riding to the sea.

Mahound is in his paradise above the evening star,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
He moves a mighty turban on the timeless houri's knees,
His turban that is woven of the sunsets and the seas.
He shakes the peacock gardens as he rises from his ease,
And he strides among the tree-tops and is taller than the trees;
And his voice through all the garden is a thunder sent to bring
Black Azrael and Ariel and Ammon on the wing.
Giants and the Genii,
Multiplex of wing and eye,
Whose strong obedience broke the sky
When Solomon was king.

They rush in red and purple from the red clouds of the morn,
From the temples where the yellow gods shut up their eyes in scorn;
They rise in green robes roaring from the green hells of the sea
Where fallen skies and evil hues and eyeless creatures be,
On them the sea-valves cluster and the grey sea-forests curl,
Splashed with a splendid sickness, the sickness of the pearl;
They swell in sapphire smoke out of the blue cracks of the ground,--
They gather and they wonder and give worship to Mahound.
And he saith, "Break up the mountains where the hermit-folk can hide,
And sift the red and silver sands lest bone of saint abide,
And chase the Giaours flying night and day, not giving rest,
For that which was our trouble comes again out of the west.
We have set the seal of Solomon on all things under sun,
Of knowledge and of sorrow and endurance of things done.
But a noise is in the mountains, in the mountains, and I know
The voice that shook our palaces--four hundred years ago:
It is he that saith not 'Kismet'; it is he that knows not Fate;
It is Richard, it is Raymond, it is Godfrey at the gate!
It is he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth,
Put down your feet upon him, that our peace be on the earth."
For he heard drums groaning and he heard guns jar,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
Sudden and still--hurrah!
Bolt from Iberia!
Don John of Austria
Is gone by Alcalar.

St. Michaels on his Mountain in the sea-roads of the north
(Don John of Austria is girt and going forth.)
Where the grey seas glitter and the sharp tides shift
And the sea-folk labour and the red sails lift.
He shakes his lance of iron and he claps his wings of stone;
The noise is gone through Normandy; the noise is gone alone;
The North is full of tangled things and texts and aching eyes,
And dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise,
And Christian killeth Christian in a narrow dusty room,
And Christian dreadeth Christ that hath a newer face of doom,
And Christian hateth Mary that God kissed in Galilee,--
But Don John of Austria is riding to the sea.
Don John calling through the blast and the eclipse
Crying with the trumpet, with the trumpet of his lips,
Trumpet that sayeth ha!
Domino gloria!
Don John of Austria
Is shouting to the ships.

King Philip's in his closet with the Fleece about his neck
(Don John of Austria is armed upon the deck.)
The walls are hung with velvet that is black and soft as sin,
And little dwarfs creep out of it and little dwarfs creep in.
He holds a crystal phial that has colours like the moon,
He touches, and it tingles, and he trembles very soon,
And his face is as a fungus of a leprous white and grey
Like plants in the high houses that are shuttered from the day,
And death is in the phial and the end of noble work,
But Don John of Austria has fired upon the Turk.
Don John's hunting, and his hounds have bayed--
Booms away past Italy the rumour of his raid.
Gun upon gun, ha! ha!
Gun upon gun, hurrah!
Don John of Austria
Has loosed the cannonade.

The Pope was in his chapel before day or battle broke,
(Don John of Austria is hidden in the smoke.)
The hidden room in man's house where God sits all the year,
The secret window whence the world looks small and very dear.
He sees as in a mirror on the monstrous twilight sea
The crescent of his cruel ships whose name is mystery;
They fling great shadows foe-wards, making Cross and Castle dark,
They veil the plumèd lions on the galleys of St. Mark;
And above the ships are palaces of brown, black-bearded chiefs,
And below the ships are prisons, where with multitudinous griefs,
Christian captives sick and sunless, all a labouring race repines
Like a race in sunken cities, like a nation in the mines.
They are lost like slaves that sweat, and in the skies of morning hung
The stair-ways of the tallest gods when tyranny was young.
They are countless, voiceless, hopeless as those fallen or fleeing on
Before the high Kings' horses in the granite of Babylon.
And many a one grows witless in his quiet room in hell
Where a yellow face looks inward through the lattice of his cell,
And he finds his God forgotten, and he seeks no more a sign--
(But Don John of Austria has burst the battle-line!)
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop,
Purpling all the ocean like a bloody pirate's sloop,
Scarlet running over on the silvers and the golds,
Breaking of the hatches up and bursting of the holds,
Thronging of the thousands up that labour under sea
White for bliss and blind for sun and stunned for liberty.

Vivat Hispania!
Domino Gloria!
Don John of Austria
Has set his people free!

Cervantes on his galley sets the sword back in the sheath
(Don John of Austria rides homeward with a wreath.)
And he sees across a weary land a straggling road in Spain,
Up which a lean and foolish knight for ever rides in vain,
And he smiles, but not as Sultans smile, and settles back the blade....
(But Don John of Austria rides home from the Crusade.)

Italian Worshiper Tears Both Eyes Out at Mass

2011-10-06T09:04:00.000-07:00

Holy smokes.

An Italian man tore both of his eyes out in the middle of the priest's homily at a church near Pisa, according to reports.

Fellow parishioners watched in horror as Aldo Bianchini, 46, used his bare hands to pull out both eyeballs. Bianchini later told surgeons, who were unable to save his vision, he heard voices that told him to do it.

"He was in a great deal of agony and he was covered in blood," Dr. Gino Barbacci told the Daily Mail. "He said that he had used his bare hands to gouge out his eye balls after hearing voices telling him to do so - to do something like that requires super human strength."

Somebody get Fr. Amorth on the phone. I'm thinking this guy is a candidate.

Possible Eucharistic Miracle In Poland

2011-10-05T05:33:00.000-07:00

Weird seeing a story like this on Yahoo. Apparently, this was back in 2008. Now, you've got physicians confirming that the spot is cardiac muscle.

Roman Catholics in Poland gathered Sunday for a special Mass celebrating what they see as a miracle: the appearance on a communion wafer of a dark spot that they are convinced is part of the heart of Jesus.

The communion wafer in question developed a brown spot in 2008 after falling on the floor during a Mass in the eastern Polish town of Sokolka. Two medical doctors determined that the spot was heart muscle tissue, church officials have said.

Bialystok Archbishop Edward Ozorowski said during the Mass that in history, the "substance of Christ's body or blood has become available to the human senses, and this also happened in Sokolka.

"For God, nothing is impossible," Ozorowski said.

The dark-spotted wafer was carried aloft in a reliquary by a golden-robed priest in a procession and was put on display in the town's church of St. Anthony as about 1,000 faithful looked on, according to a report and footage carried by the TV station TVN...

The wafer was dropped by a priest celebrating communion in 2008. In accordance with church practice, the priest placed the wafer in water to dissolve it. Several days later a nun found that the wafer had not dissolved completely, and found a red mark on it.

These always make for great stories. What makes them even better are the efforts of the unbelievers to explain the whole thing away. In true Agent Scully fashion:

A group of rationalists complained about the matter in 2008, and called on authorities to investigate if a murder or other crime was involved if human flesh was indeed found on the wafer. Police say they have no evidence of any crime.

Think about that. These folks seem to be saying that it's more likely than some sort of murder, of which there has never been any proof, occurred in this church building on the exact spot where the Host fell than there being an Almighty God who worked a miracle.

And they say we religious folks ignore evidence. Geez.

Catholics Protest Catholics Taking Over Their Parish

2011-10-04T06:43:00.000-07:00

Am I reading this right? It looks like the Archdiocese of Boston is selling a parish to the Syro-Malabar authority, and the current parishioners are protesting.

The Boston Archdiocese announced Saturday that it had sold the properties of a Framingham parish that's been occupied by protesters since it was closed six years ago, but the protesters said they won't leave.

The archdiocese announced the sale of St. Jeremiah's church building, parking lot and rectory for $2 million to the Syro-Malabar diocese, a part of the Eastern Catholic Church that shares the same fundamental doctrines as the Roman Catholic Church. The archdiocese said it would put the proceeds into its remaining parishes.

"The completion of this transaction provides the Syro-Malabar community a much needed location for their parishioners," said the Rev. Walter J. Edyvean, the archdiocese's auxiliary bishop for its western region.

Protesters said they didn't know when the sale was coming, but the deal itself was no surprise. The archdiocese said this summer that the deal was in the works, and a Syro-Malabar priest has been leading a Sunday Mass at the Framingham church since 2008, with Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley's permission.

I understand that they are working through appeals and stuff. Not to sound harsh, but maybe they should be happy that the parish is being taken over by other Catholics, as opposed to being turned into a community center or even a mosque. Maybe they could learn something about the universality of the Church by attending the Syro-Malabar liturgy.

Given what I've seen happen to other closed parishes, I'd be thrilled just to know that there's not going be one less place for the Eucharist. I get how someone might be upset over all this. It just seems like there must be more to the story.

Carmody said archdiocesan officials have made it clear that they hope parishioners can find a new home within the archdiocese. But she said that betrays a basic misunderstanding about the protesters: They aren't trying to save their church buildings; they're trying to save their community.

"What matters is community, what matters is the people you worship with, and that you love, and you care for and you provide for as a community," she said. "When you destroy that community, you destroy people where they live their faith."

Really? What is it about this that will destroy your community? You're getting a Catholic parish to replace your Catholic parish. You might not prefer the liturgical practices, but that's a pretty common thing nowadays. I'd rather attend a TLM. My wife would like to go to the Divine Liturgy. Neither of these is practical, so we attend a Pauline Mass. We're just glad to have one in the area at all.

Fr. Jenkins Is Worried Now

2011-10-03T05:51:00.000-07:00

He wasn't all that worried about having a US President who was ok with babies being killed whether in the womb or born alive. After all, he was so secure with having such an individual in authority that he gave him a public platform and an honorary degree. Once he initiated all that mythical dialogue, what else was there to do? He had friends in high places now.

It's a bit more complicated now.

As you've probably heard, President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (an alleged Catholic) are planning to force health plans to cover contraception and sterilization services. This includes health plans provided by Catholic employers. Like ND.

In response to this, Fr. Jenkins has written a letter to Sec. Sebelius asking for this to be reconsidered and that an acceptable conscience clause be included. Fr. Jenkins makes multiple references to Obama's graduation address. I suppose this is to remind the secretary how tight he and the president are. He even makes mention of how Obama himself called for a reasonable conscience clause in his speech. Except that he didn't. At least not in this context. I'm waiting for Obama to make the distinction. "Oh, sorry about that, John. I meant conscience clauses for ABORTION. You thought I meant conscience clauses for everything? Aww. That's too bad."

It must really stink to be in Fr. Jenkins's position. Maybe now he realizes that he has no currency to barter with these people. There won't be any dialogue because they are our adversaries. They seek to destroy the Church or, at bare minimum, remake it into their own images. It's good to see him getting back in the game, albeit late and perhaps not at the needed level just yet. Way better than where he was, though.

Two cities, Fr. Jenkins. We can only belong to one. What would you fight for?

Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all.

St. Augustine, City of God

Do You Worry About Your Soul?

2011-10-02T06:30:00.000-07:00

Noting some recent exchanges, not mention imams from ostensibly Catholic universities telling us that "the spirit of God dwells in all of us," I've been considering how little people seem to be concerned about their own salvation. It's taken pretty much as a given, regardless of their religious affiliation or beliefs. The only people less concerned about their final destination than your average believer are folks who don't believe in an afterlife at all. And forget about being worried about someone else's salvation.

Typically, I see folks quote something like this as to why they aren't worried. It's from today's Second Reading:

Brothers and sisters:
Have no anxiety at all, but in everything,
by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving,
make your requests known to God.
Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding
will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Phillipians 4:6-7

This is the same St. Paul who, in the same letter just a couple of chapters earlier, told his readers to work out their salvation with "fear and trembling." It seems pretty clear then that St. Paul isn't saying that fear has no place in the salvation equation.

Just thinking about the saints of the past, some of the holiest people who have ever lived have been stricken with crushing doubts about how they would die and their place in eternity. This got some mainstream coverage back when Mother Teresa's letter were published a few years ago. You hear stories about St. Alphonsus, St. Therese, St. Teresa, and others who passed through an incredible amount of torment over this issue.

Are we somehow better than them that we should have no such concerns? Do we do our neighbors a favor by not praying for their conversion? Is it charity to congratulate others on their errors or lack of faith? Or to simply assume they are ok and go on about our business without comment?

More On Assisi III

2011-10-01T10:17:00.000-07:00

The Eponymous Flower has been keeping tabs on some of the news leading up to the next Assisi Meeting. As cringe-inducing as the prior events were, things are shaping up to be way different this time.

First, Cardinal Koch has gone on record as saying there will be no communal prayer at the event. This is a relief and has lent credence to an earlier report, which I admit I had discounted, that the Holy Father is actually going to use the meeting to attack religious relativism.

These would be hugely positive things. One can only imagine the SSPX response. Even moreso, the secular media reaction will be vicious beyond anything we've seen recently. I'm willing to suppose that it might wind up worse than anything I've seen in my lifetime. If you thought the criticisms relating to the Traditional Latin Mass or even sex abuse cases was bad, these will be all-out attacks. Unfortunately, I'm sure a lot of them will be coming from Catholics as well.

Caption Contest

2011-09-26T19:47:00.001-07:00

I got this from Fr. Z. His commentary is right on. The jokes pretty much write themselves.

The fact that they used Daleks in one poster is priceless beyond words. Because, hey, if you want to make a point about the eternal Truth about who can receive the indelible mark of Holy Orders on their soul in order to serve as a priest of the Almighty God, what could be better symbol than a collective of homicidal cyborgs bent on conquering the universe?

Pope Benedict In Germany

2011-09-26T06:13:00.000-07:00

Here's the headline from Bloomberg:

Pope Benedict Disappoints German Protestant Leaders Seeking Common Ground

Looking at the article, it would have been more accurate to caption it:

Protestants Disappointed That Pope Is Catholic

Since the author of the article appears to be lacking some journalistic skills, I'll translate as best I can.

Pope Benedict XVI disappointed Protestants seeking common ground with Catholics by stressing differences between the two groups, as he continued a four-day journey in his native Germany.

Pope Benedict XVI disappointed Protestants by being honest.

The Evangelical Church of Germany, or EKD, an umbrella group of German Evangelical and Lutheran denominations, had raised the issue of joint communion for married couples of different Christian denominations. Speaking in the eastern city of Erfurt today, the Catholic leader rebuffed expectations by saying that one can’t “think through or negotiate” faith.

A bunch of heretics and schismatics approached the Pope with a proposal to commit sacrilege. His Holiness said no.

While the meeting between the 84-year-old pontiff and leaders of Germany’s protestant denominations was “open and friendly,” Bishop Johannes Friedrich, head of the United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany, said he would have wanted to see closer ties. He also expressed disappointment that Benedict declined to discuss the Reformation Jubilee in 2017, five centuries after Luther issued the 95 theses that represented his movement’s rupture from the Catholic Church.

“The pope unfortunately didn’t concretely discuss the Reformation Jubilee in today’s talks,” Friedrich said in a statement posted on the group’s website.

The Pope was polite enough not to bring up the origins and devastating effects of the various heresies and schisms that were wrought by the tragedy often labeled as the Reformation.

There's a tidbit in the end that says the Holy Father praised Luther as a theologian. Having read the whole address over at Whispers, I'm not quite sure how much praise is going on. He basically says that Luther asked important questions, then ignores his answers. He could probably say the same stuff about Ayn Rand. But hey, after the aforementioned massive disappointments, I can see why they'd be looking for a silver lining.

Consider The Following Words

2011-09-25T07:59:00.000-07:00

"I said: 'Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.' (That's when I pointed at my chest - through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that's when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Léolin church only, I added: 'We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades, we are encouraging this evil' ... What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes."

Apparently, this is the sort of talk that gets a priest barred from saying Mass. In Canada, at least. This was from a homily given by 85-year old priest Fr. Donat Gionet of the Diocese of Bathurst. As a response, Bishop Valéry Vienneau appears to have prohibited him from offering Mass. The rationale is pretty astounding:

Rev. Wesley Wade, vicar general of the Diocese of Bathurst, said Gionet's teachings don't meet the diocese's goal of following Christ's example of loving unconditionally.

"We have to respect people on their own journey," Wade said.

"The first message of Christ was to reveal to us a loving father and a merciful father and that we are all called to be his children and that we are all loved unconditionally by Him."

While the Church gets criticized as a judgmental institution, Wade said the reality is "it's full of compassion."

I suppose Christ's warnings about Gehenna and all that other badness associated with sin has been forgotten. He didn't seem to respect the Pharisees all that much when He called them a brood of vipers. Is the above what passes for love these days? What loving father stands idly by while His children sow the seeds of their own destruction without reprimand? That's why He gave us the Church. To warn us about the consequences of our actions so that we don't wind up damned to eternal torment. I'm sure God will be perfectly ok with our having waved the souls of our acquaintances on by during their journey to hell as long as we were respectful about it.

A Jesuit Article You Should Read

2011-09-22T19:11:00.000-07:00

Fr. Schall is a Jesuit at Georgetown. Don't hold that against him as you read this article. He describes what we all fear (or should fear) as the direction of secular government.

Almost everything is now in place for a full-scale legal persecution of the Church, all concocted under the aegis of government protection of “human rights.” The meaning of “rights” the government itself defines in the name of “freedom” and “equality.” It is noble-sounding, but as Plato said: “Entreaties of sovereigns are mixed with compulsion.” This admonition includes democratic sovereigns.

World News Daily (September 17) reports that PayPal investigates Christian Internet sources said to be involved in “hate language” because of their criticism of certain gay activities. Addressing this issue is not affirmation of a “right to speak,” but a subject of state investigation. Certain central teachings of Christianity will be legally prohibited as threats to “human rights.”

A situation analogous to that in China can be foreseen: an “official” break-away church that follows government decrees and an underground church that still maintains the central truths of reason and faith. One suspects that the degree of hatred for the Church is more widespread and deeper than we like to admit. The situation, however, is not so different from what Scripture would have us expect.

Things change almost too rapidly for us to appreciate their scope. With legalized same-sex “marriages,” as they are equivocally called, in which children are adopted, we will have mandates to educate them in Catholic schools as if no problem exists. The children, legally deprived of a mother or a father, will be presented as from “normal” families. Several writers have suggested that parents teaching children that problems exist with homosexual life or adoption will be investigated for “child abuse.”

The child-abuse cases themselves have shown how to undermine the financial stability of the Church. In addition to properly investigating malefactors, legal procedures have permitted lawyers to make enormous wealth from Church funds. Ironically, since most of these abuses were rooted in homosexuality, not pedophilia, the corporate Church on the one side is required to pay for the abuses and on the other is forbidden to say that anything is wrong with this form of life.

The legal undermining of the family as a favored, natural union of wife and husband is far advanced. Abortion is an established “right.” Few really care about the millions of human infants slaughtered. Opposition to this system is considered “inhuman” and, again ironically, “against women.” What is defined as “human” is now solely a matter of civil law. Relativism is the established religion of the realm, backed by force.

That's only about half of it. I post this to try and demonstrate that it's not just tin-foil hat types who are worried about this and to show that not everything that comes from a Jesuit is bad.

What Would You Fight For?

2011-09-20T11:40:00.000-07:00

This is the name of an ad campaign that ND runs during their football games. Basically, they take a cause (hunger, criminal justice, disease, learning disabilities, etc.) then show how someone connected to the university is "fighting" on the right side of the cause. See, cause they're the "Fighting Irish," so they're supposed to fight for stuff. How clever. I'm waiting for them to emphasize the Irish part and show clips from Boondock Saints.

Anyways, here's the one that ran this past weekend:

I'm sure everyone is completely breathless over how awesome this was, but let's try to take a look at it from the standpoint of Catholicism, rather than that of some indifferentist New Age-ism.

First, I'm very happy this guy isn't being tortured anymore and that he labored against causes like apartheid. I'm very sad, though, that his experience in prison left him with such radically erroneous concepts about God.

"The Spirit of God dwells within all of us," he says. Why would an allegedly Catholic university have a guy spouting this off on a commercial for the school? We know from prior commercials in the series that the university wants itself associated with the content promoted by the speaker. Can we all agree that his comment is not Catholic even in the most remote of senses? The Spirit of God lives within the baptized who are in a state of grace. It does not live within those who are in a state of mortal sin. Period. So the imam is gravely mistaken and ND has given him a public platform to espouse such views in a way that ties them to the university (and the Church as well unfortunately).

Anybody remember an ND commercial or campaign that featured people fighting for the spread of the Gospel? And no, I'm not talking about social justice causes that are devoid of evangelical content. I'm talking about something specifically directed at conversions. I don't, but I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. Perhaps something about the underground Church in China or some other group of martyrs. Today is the Feast of Andrew Kim Taegon, Paul Chong Hasang and their Companions. All of them were tortured and died for the Church of Jesus Christ. Can't have that. Instead, let's talk about the tragic case of a guy being tortured and then turning towards a false religion for his consolation.

Oh, hey. There's Desmond Tutu. That makes it ok. A faux bishop from a schismatic and heretical sect is giving the "Amen" to what the imam says. If an Anglican and an imam agree on it, it must be true. By the time this spot was over, I couldn't help but think that the whole thing was like a weird virtual Assisi meeting except Catholicism wasn't invited. The worst part is that whoever vetted this thing for the university probably had the same thoughts and smiled when they saw the end result.

Peace among religious people is a great goal. However, let's keep in mind that false religions are a hindrance to salvation and hence bad. In this sense, there can be no peace among religions. Truth always strives against error. For those who proclaim the Truth to simply adopt the "I'm ok/you're ok" version of the world is not only hypocritical but monstrous in its disregard for the souls of their neighbors.

What is ND fighting for with these spots? Probably money and the applause of the world.

Another Bishop Sheen Miracle?

2011-09-19T07:49:00.000-07:00

From The Catholic Post in Peoria:

That James Fulton Engstrom is celebrating his first birthday on Friday is amazing. In fact, some would call his life a miracle.

Considered stillborn on Sept. 16, 2010 after a healthy pregnancy and “a beautiful, short labor,” James was without a pulse for the first 61 minutes of his life. It was only when doctors at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria were ready to call the time of death that his little heart started beating.

His parents, Travis and Bonnie Engstrom, believe James is alive due to the intercession of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, Servant of God.

What a marvelous story. Continue to pray for the advancement of Bishop Sheen's cause. As God wills, of course.

Here's A Sobering Thought

2011-09-18T06:01:00.000-07:00

We live in a world where parents can sue doctors and win $4.5 million because the doctors robbed them of the opportunity to kill their child. From the Orlando Sentinel:

Almost 3, Bryan Santana longs to play with toys and run alongside other children. But because he was born without arms and with only one leg, normal toddler games elude him.

On Friday, a jury awarded his West Palm Beach parents $4.5 million to help them buy prostheses, wheelchairs and other medical services experts say he will need to live any semblance of a normal life.

After nearly nine hours of deliberation over two days, a jury of four men and two women agreed that a Palm Beach Gardens obstetrician and the clinic where she works were negligent for not detecting the boy's horrific disabilities before he was born.

Had Dr. Marie Morel and an ultrasound technician properly administered a sonogram, they would have discovered the abnormalities, the jury found. Had Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana known, they said they would have terminated the pregnancy.

Is it just me, or do the first couple of paragraphs there come this [] close to saying that the child really would be better off dead anyway?

I wonder how mom and dad will explain all the money to him as he gets older. "Well, son, if we'd known that you were going to be born like this, we would have killed you way beforehand. Some doc or ultrasonographer screwed up, though, so we were stuck with you."

Ours is a doomed culture.

How Did I Miss This?

2011-09-17T06:08:00.000-07:00

So last night, I turned on Jack Van Impe in the middle of his broadcast. As usual, he's spouting off a 10-minute stream of Bible verses, so you have to wait to hear what he's actually talking about. When he gets done with that, he starts blasting the Trinity Broadcast Network and the junior Crouches (sons of the founder). Holy smokes. Jack basically calls them apostates looking to censor the Word of God because they won't let him rip Muslim/Christian syncretism ("Chrislam" as Jack calls it) and how he'll never be on TBN ever again.

How did we get here? When did all this happen and why didn't anyone tell me.

There's articles about it all over the place. June? This all blew up back in June? I'm not sure if I'm humiliated for just now finding out or just ticked off because none of the other Jack fans I know bothered to tell me. Maybe they just figured I already knew.

You can hear Jack talk about it here:

As you might know, Hal Lindsey left TBN back in 2006 over similar stuff but returned a year or so later.

Anyways, I couldn't find the actual broadcast that I was watching last night, but Jack was all over the place. He blasted the Crouches, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and said something about somebody's momma before it was all over with. Not only is Chrislam a problem, but there's no more preaching on sin and church services look more like night club entertainment than worship.

Sure, he's given rants about these last topics before but not while calling people out by name. Wild stuff and more reasons why the J to the V to the I is Bible-quoting awesomeness in a coat and tie. Seriously, it was like that scene in Network:

Two things that I'm wondering about going forward. First, will this re-center some Protestants on the importance of doctrine? Second, Jack praises DayStar for showing his program twice a day. As anyone who has seen DayStar programming can tell you, they are the media hotspot for exactly the kind of squishy doctrine and disco church service that he was just condemning. Will he speak out against those other preachers as well?

Make it three things. Jack, when are you going to stop all this other nonsense and become Catholic? We know you had a soft spot for JPII. You enjoyed reading the Catechism. You mention the Church Fathers in your broadcasts all the time. Home is waiting, sir, and you are welcome.

Holy Smokes

2011-09-15T20:05:00.000-07:00

I'm speechless. This is the rationale used by a Canadian judge for why a mother who strangled her newborn child shouldn't get jail time.

“The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,’ she writes.

The judge noted that infanticide laws and sentencing guidelines were not altered when the government made many changes to the Criminal Code in 2005, which she says shows that Canadians view the law as a ‘fair compromise of all the interests involved.’

‘Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

Read that a couple of times, folks. Then suffer awe at God's mercy by allowing such an evil world as ours to remain in existence.

Update: Bishop Fellay's Response

2011-09-14T17:57:00.000-07:00

There's not much here, but that's probably ok. Nothing bad. He did put the whole situation with the talks in a positive light, though. This is good considering that the last interview +Fellay gave didn't sound all that great. He addresses this in his comments. Looks like we'll be waiting a couple of months for anything definitive.

Keep praying, folks.

Pray For Success

2011-09-14T06:16:00.000-07:00

The first part of the talks between the SSPX and the Vatican have kind of come to a head. It's popping up everywhere from Rorate to FoxNews. Much of the reporting centers around a "doctrinal preamble" that's been provided for the SSPX to review. The gist seems to be listing a certain number of principles that all must agree on, while admitting that other areas are open for debate. Which is pretty much what everyone has been saying this whole time.

Hopefully, we'll know an answer soon, as well as the contents of this document. In the interim, pray for a successful meeting.

A Thought

2011-09-11T05:58:00.000-07:00

As I review the reports and commentary following the epic hilarity that ensued at yesterday's ND/Michigan game, I can't help but notice something. ND fans are more concerned about the administration's handling of the football program than its handling of matters touching the Faith. The scandal of honoring Obama is forgiveable. Starting 0-2 (again) is not. How sad.

Something about reaping and sowing comes to mind. Once Fr. Jenkins & Co. have completed their annihilation of the football program, and ND's finances with it, perhaps they will finally have time to get around to all that dialogue they've been meaning to do.

New Anglican Catholics

2011-09-10T06:50:00.000-07:00

I picked these up from Fr. Z. Basically, the first story is about the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada voting to become Catholic. It's apparently only about two dozen congregations, but every little bit helps. This is another step for the ordinariate process.

The second item is actually a collection of articles about Fr. John Hepworth, who as an Archbishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion, has spear-headed that group's reconciliation with Christ's Church. I had no idea how terrible his journey had been. He entered the Catholic seminary at 15 and was repeatedly raped by priests there. This drove him out of the Church to Anglicanism. Now, he is returning home. Warning- some of the content in the articles is very graphic. Please pray for this man. He deserves as many as we can give him.

Reading of his seminary experience, the shadow of Windswept House loomed large in my mind.

Mel Gibson And The Maccabees

2011-09-09T14:28:00.000-07:00

Even before Apocalypto came out, Mel Gibson was talking about doing a movie based on the Maccabean Revolt. Personally, I think that's a freaking awesome idea for a film. As we all know, Gibson's career got a bit side-tracked as he seemed to completely lose his mind. Even beyond the personal harm to him and his family, this was a shame because his Catholicity was well-known. It was pretty scandalous stuff. As I've said before, I'm not sure one can rule out some variety of demonic attack. It was that bad.

Now, reports are coming out that the Maccabees movie is back on. The screenwriter? Joe Eszterhas, another Catholic who did some bad things but came back to the Church. From a movie-making stand-point, this could be pretty promising.

Naturally, the Abe Foxman crowd is up in arms. I'm not sure why anyone should care. Nobody cared when Dan Brown was airing blasphemy. I hate to tell Abe & Co., but the stories of the Old Testament are just as much ours as theirs. Moreso even, but saying that definitively would probably get me branded as an anti-Semite. Really, this comes down to my inability to understand why (a) Abe Foxman can still get publicity and (b) the role of forgiveness in these people's minds. At least Gibson apologized. Has Dan Brown or any of his ilk ever apologized for their slights against Christianity? Joy Behar has her own show now. The New York Times editor can openly ridicule the Eucharist. Haven't heard any apologies from them. Have Foxman et al ever offered to pray for Mel Gibson?

I'm sure Hollywood will rise up in collective contempt for Gibson's new effort. This will be done in the same breath as the newest accolades heaped upon whatever Roman Polanski's latest film happens to be.

On a very side note, if it gets made, this movie will be an excellent way of introducing Protestants to some of the missing parts of their Bibles.

"That Could Never Happen"

2011-09-08T16:48:00.000-07:00

This is the refrain of countless millions throughout history who don't think they could ever possibly be screwed over by the government. Catholics, in complete denial over historical and present realities, have been saying it to themselves for years. Even ignoring past precedent, the fact that petitions like the following can be seriously made should at least give such people pause.

Mike Weatherley, the Conservative MP for Hove, has called for churches to be banned from holding marriages if they refuse to perform civil partnerships for gay couples.

He says that the idea will bring more equality for gay couples.

In a letter (see below) to prime minister David Cameron, Mr Weatherley wrote: “As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples there will be inequality.

“Such behaviour is not be tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all.

“Until we untangle unions and religion in this country we will struggle to find a fair arrangement.”

Mr Weatherley said that 2005′s Civil Partnership Act was an “uneasy truce” between religious groups and gay rights campaigners and that lawmakers knew an “inherent inequality” would persist.

Once the Muslims refuse to do this, I'm sure folks will be free to call it a persecution. That's assuming they don't get some kind of waiver or pass. Unfortunately, I'm afraid this is only the beginning.

More Vatican II Insight From Roberto De Mattei

2011-09-01T07:55:00.000-07:00

This is from Rorate and is worth checking out. It's basically about how most of the bishops at Vatican II weren't in either theological camp, but were instead swayed by the more effective organization of the Rhine group. We've talked about this a little in the past and mentioned that the orthodox bloc were blind-sided at the opening bell by Cardinal Leinart's shenanigans and then played from behind for the rest of the game. The Rhine camp, on the other hand, had been planning for some time about how they would go about "refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII."

To this point, I don't think de Mattei's book is in English, which is a shame. I eagerly await a translation, though. In the interim, check out the excerpts at the link and marvel at what a well-organized machine can do in a campaign for votes.

Remembering The Reformation

2011-08-31T10:24:00.000-07:00

For some reason, the Council for Promoting Christian Unity has decided to do a Joint Declaration on the Reformation with the World Lutheran Federation in order to "analyze the Reformation in the light of 2,000 years of Christianity." This is all per Zenit.

Woo-freaking-Hoo.

The history of this sort of thing is checkered at best. Remember the famous Joint Declaration on Justification that was so afflicted that it required a Catholic "Response" to the Vatican Declaration? Or the Ravenna Statement with the Orthodox which has thus far rejected all of my attempts to interpret it in a Catholic fashion? None of these documents really produce anything except mass confusion. It's not like the WLF even speaks for all the Lutherans. So why are we even bothering?

On top of that, let's consider the stated goal of the document, namely, considering the Reformation in light of Christian history. If we're really going to do that, then the only conclusion is that Martin Luther was a heretic and schismatic. If you look at the work of guys like TF Torrance, for example, Protestants are admitting that Lutheran ideas of justification really don't have a place in Church history. However, in the interest of being all ecumenicool (ecumenical AND cool; I just coined the term and will sue anyone else who uses it), I have the feeling this document will be playing fast and loose with the facts so that we can shoe-horn in some kind of legitimacy for heretical doctrines.

As usual, the Truth is what will suffer. Hopefully, the Pope will squash this or at least render it mostly harmless.

A Brief Tangent On Economics

2011-08-29T06:46:00.000-07:00

The woes of rural America are unseen and unheard in our recent economic badness. It's exceptionally common to see much tooth-gnashing over, say, the fate of Detroit or some other metropolitan area. The country part of the country is ignored. This is a bad thing.

Consider this tidbit from ABC. I would think this would have been big news, but I only discovered it by accident.

Rural America now accounts for just 16 percent of the nation's population, the lowest ever.

The latest 2010 census numbers hint at an emerging America where, by midcentury, city boundaries become indistinct and rural areas grow ever less relevant. Many communities could shrink to virtual ghost towns as they shutter businesses and close down schools, demographers say.

More metro areas are booming into sprawling megalopolises. Barring fresh investment that could bring jobs, however, large swaths of the Great Plains and Appalachia, along with parts of Arkansas, Mississippi and North Texas, could face significant population declines.

These places posted some of the biggest losses over the past decade as young adults left and the people who stayed got older, moving past childbearing years...

While rural America shrinks, larger U.S. metro areas have enjoyed double-digit percentage gains in population over the past several decades. Since 2000, metros grew overall by 11 percent with the biggest gains in suburbs or small- or medium-sized cities. In fact, of the 10 fastest-growing places, all were small cities incorporated into the suburbs of expanding metro areas, mostly in California, Arizona and Texas...

He and other demographers believe that rural areas will remain viable, although many will be swallowed up by booming metropolitan areas and linked into sprawling megalopolises. Far-flung rural counties boasting vacation and outdoor recreation also will continue as popular destination points for young couples, retirees and empty nesters.

Lang said he hoped the growing convergence of major metro areas — and smaller towns in between — will promote better regional planning and cooperation rather than leading to individual cities acting as rivals for new investment. He said such collaboration might mean development of more roads or regional high-speed rail, or new approaches to water and energy conservation in the Mountain West.

I consider this important and not just because I live in a rural area. Personally, I feel that the consolidation of people and resources in the "megalopolises" envisioned in the article is a bad idea and has already shown to be such. Let me admit that I'm no economist and my points on this are largely borne from anecdotes.

When I see people move from the small town to the big city, it is often for a single reason: jobs. I must question how realistic this is when I see the urban unemployment numbers as being so high. However, a certain inertia sets in when this move is made, and the person is highly unlikely to move back. They then find themselves in a lower-paying job than they would have had if they hadn't left. This could be in absolute or simply practical terms, as earning a couple of dollars more an hour won't mean much in an urban environment with twice the cost of living as a rural area.

With so much surplus labor on the market in a limited area, the social services, including the school systems get stretched to the breaking point, which means that there must be corresponding taxes to keep up. These will often be sales taxes which means that the poor will be paying them as well. In addition, so many people crammed into an area (many of whom lack means) will lead to the generation of underground economies and other criminal activities that take advantage of those new opportunities.

None of this even touches the problems of moral and ethical breakdowns when everyone's motivation is materialism, but it's there, too.

The surplusage of labor and other ancillary industries that accompany population migration will permit major companies (such as manufacturing) to thrive for a time. Eventually, though, all of this catches up. Either the taxes, the educational system, the criminal element, or all of these things make for an untenable economic environment. Just ask Detroit.

Looking at all this, it seems to me that fixing it will require the dispersal of cities. All of this excess population competing for resources all in one place can't go on. It's like the watering hole in the Sahara where the weaker animals just die off because they can't get a place at the table. They have to be moved out to where there isn't as much competition and resources are more plentiful. Rural areas might not have the jobs, but we do have land and space.

That collective groan you just heard were the people reading this who rolled their eyes saying, "More distributist nonsense." Just hear me out.

People could at least be trained in some measure of self-sufficiency. Growing their food, working the land, etc. are all things that could be done without people starving or getting trapped in a cycle of dependence upon government assistance. Would it be so mad if schools were teaching this kind of thing these days? On top of that, the one thing we're always going to need is food. Developing the agricultural economy from the ground up (no pun intended) without the drag of corporate interference could be a net gain for everyone. Rural America is where we get our commodities from. Since those are the things we really can't afford to run out of, we should nourish those places.

Moving a step farther down the line, most people probably know the concept of enterprise zones, mostly from back when Jack Kemp was a big name in American politics. Basically, it's tax and regulatory breaks designed to spur economic development in ostensibly undesirable locations. I'm not aware of any federal effort to push this in a rural area. Despite the prevalence of USDA loans and similar mechanisms, I don't think anyone has pushed this. I ask that any reader who knows otherwise to correct me, please. It seems to me that a concerted state and federal effort should be made to disperse the congestion of the cities through mechanisms like this. This would mean property and capital in the hands of masses of locations rather than a few, which hopefully brings a mitigation of the negative factors mentioned above.

As an aside, I think the standard line about rural areas being impractical for job creation because of an "unskilled/uneducated work force" has gotten a bit tired. Most of the stories we see coming out of urban school systems and training programs aren't recording stellar results. What is there is an aging workforce with lots of experience, but one would assume that isn't going to last forever.

The added benefit in all this and why I think it would work has to do somewhat with the nature of rural life itself. Rural areas remain communities and don't suffer from the same personal alienation that is more common in urban life. I've lived in larger cities. Most people don't really know each other and are therefore less apt to appreciate and or care for the common problems of their neighbors. In a setting where everyone know most everyone, this is impossible. Rural areas would therefore appear to offer a bit of a clean slate for economic growth in that many of the symptoms of decay are stifled or at least mitigated to a great extent. Sure, we have meth labs, abusive parents, and other problems that everyone else has, but the lack of population keeps a natural cap on these activities. These areas should be in a position to absorb additional population without greatly contributing to these factors. One would hope that this community life would serve as an early warning system for when capacity is being reached and the problems reach an unacceptable level.

I'm trying to leave the spiritual element out of this for right now. Living closer to the land, relying on God for one's sustenance, being freer from the distractions of materialism, among other things are also contributing factors to why all this would work. However, people are even less likely to listen to those than the other insane ideas I've floated thus far.

Taking all this into account, I think I should close by admitting I don't see any of these things happening. On a local level, cities aren't about to give up their political clout, even if it would make some of their other problems better. Individual politicians aren't about to allow their influence to be diluted even if it would benefit the common good. Look no further than the steps being taken by our own feds. Whether it's the new restrictions on agriculture or the new health care reform law, there are affirmative steps being taken to kill rural areas. And why not? It's easier to control people when they are all in the same place. Brave New World sort of comes to mind.

By the way, for those wanting more information on the problems confronting rural agriculture and rural health care, please look here (which doesn't even address the regulatory scheme being directed against farming) and here (which should scare everyone since it means dead people in rural areas and surges to metropolitan hospitals that can't be absorbed).

How's That Springtime Working Out?

2011-08-27T09:39:00.000-07:00

We have heard, almost ad nauseam, over the last few decades about the New Springtime of Evangelization, New Pentecost, etc. and all the glorious effects that it had and would continue to have on the Church. I've never understood all this talk, nor do I recall seeing many of these allegedly positive outcomes. Monsignor Pope's article from the Archdiocese of Washington demonstrates why.

To summarize, the number of converts continues to drop. The figures he quotes are pretty harrowing. Not being one to simply lament the problem, he does offer suggestions to fix things:

You and I will likely look to causes and solutions. And the temptation is to look outside ourselves and say the bishops ought to do something. Perhaps, but allow me to offer that the solution to this problem is no further than your very self, my very self.

What would happen to the Church tomorrow if every Church-going Catholic pledged to bring one fallen away family member or friend back to communion with the Church in the next two years? Well of course our numbers would nearly double. A few of us might not be successful, but, if we really worked at it, we’d probably come close to doubling. And the Lord would surely be pleased and also reward our efforts.

The answer is not really so difficult, but it is hard work. Yet, we do not need to go to a mountaintop to get the answer. The answer is staring you in the mirror: Go make disciples. If you need to, grab a partner and work on two people together. But get started. It goes without saying that you ought to have something approaching a relationship with the Lord to be a good evangelizer. More on that next week. But for now, don’t wait to be perfect just get started.

I think the real problem is how many people will take his comments seriously. If you have a bunch of people who don't think of Catholicism as just another path to salvation, with no unique role or benefit in preserving a soul from hell, you aren't going to be all that motivated to explain to people why they should ditch their current religion for something else, True or not. Indifferentism and Pelagianism are kissing cousins and a real problem to untangle from someone's mind. It doesn't help that they already have a hold on so many Catholics.

Altar Girls

2011-08-26T17:48:00.000-07:00

Yeah, this is pretty much a third rail topic. It's amazing to see how folks can get worked up over this one. William Oddie decided to use a gas can and blowtorch in his discussion of it over at the Catholic Herald. You should read it and pay special attention to the narrative on how girls serving at the altar came to be. Like so many other such items (communion in the hand- eg), it was a widespread abuse that the Pope caved on. I hadn't heard the explanation of political and/or legal pressure before, but the bottom line is that the Church capitulated to the whims of Her enemies (from within and without).

If we are to see any reversals of our current fortunes, these types of things have to stop or be repealed. Now is as good a time as any.

Pray for our bishops, especially the Holy Father.