Anglican Bloodbath?

No, this isn't a post about Queen Elizabeth. As with most of our Anglican-based posts, it's about Rowan's continued problems, though the ideas of "Rowan" and "bloodbath" don't really go together. More like "Rowan" and "catastrophic collapse."

As reported by the Daily Mail, Rowan is trying to hold the remaining timbers of the Anglican wreck together. That's to be expected, I guess. We all try to keep our job security, and I suppose if the Archlayman of Canterbury has any duty at all, it would be to keep some sort of Anglican entity in existence as best he could.

As is often the case, the issue at hand has to do with bishops (such as they are in Canterbury), specifically women who want to be bishops.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to make a dramatic intervention in the long-running row over women bishops this week by demanding that opponents of female clergy are not driven out of the Church.

Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu are so concerned thousands of traditionalist churchgoers will quit when women become bishops that they are to risk the wrath of liberals by calling for major reforms in Church legislation.

Ok, so you've got a threatened schism over women becoming bishops. What do you do if you're the leader here? Do you make a stand on principle? Take the bull by the horns and formally declare for one side or the other on a dispute that strikes at the very heart of what the episcopacy is? Attempt to formulate some sort of doctrine or instruction on the matter through debate, study, and discourse?

Of course not. This is Rowan we're talking about here. What you do is abandon all semblance of reason and try to please everyone, ironically enough by deliberately splitting the Anglican Communion from within and asking that people just keep the brand name intact.

Sources said their statement will spell out a legal formula that will give traditionalist clergy and parishes the right to reject the authority of a woman bishop.

Traditionalists, who do not accept that women can be priests or bishops, have been calling for the creation of a ‘his and hers’ Church, in which they cannot be forced to serve under a woman bishop.

Liberals say, however, this would unacceptably diminish the status of women bishops because there would be parts of the Church over which they would have no sway.

So far the Synod has only agreed to give traditionalists minimal protection in the form of a code of conduct.

Holy smokes. Did the "traditionalists" just admit that the women bishops aren't really bishops? If you're going to pretend to be bishops at all, shouldn't you at least agree on whether or not your own folks are consecrated as such? How can you have a real bishop and not have to serve under them?

The liberals are right. Either the women have the authority as bishops or they don't. The proposed de facto schism under the umbrella of the Anglican Communion would be completely nonsensical. Then again, nonsense has been the Anglican stock in trade for a while now. Rowan and John aren't even dealing with logic anymore and are just scraping to save the brand.

An insider said: ‘This is a huge moment for the Church. It will determine the shape of things to come. The Archbishops are putting their integrity on the line, but are passionate about keeping the Church together.’

Shouldn't you have some integrity first before you can put it on the line? Unfortunately, Rowan sacrificed that a long time ago. All of this grab-bagging is embarrassing. There is no "Church" left in Canterbury to keep together.

However, a leading supporter of female clergy said: ‘There is a good chance the Synod will reject the Archbishops.’

We needed an "insider" for that tidbit?

John Fisher And Thomas More

There isn't a whole lot that I can say that these clips don't. I still can't fathom how such material wound up on Showtime, but I am grateful for them.

Being aware, as we are, of the current and coming persecutions throughout the world, it's probably inevitable that we ask ourselves the question: Could I do it? Could I be a martyr?

To be blunt, the answer is no. Neither you nor I could pull something like this off. God, on the other hand, can do such things, and we should not concern ourselves with whether or not our flesh is weak. It is. We should simply pray and trust in God that He will deliver us in these torments to the Pearly Gates.

St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher, pray for us that we may not fail in our times of trial.

Pope Joan: The Movie

How lovely.

A new film based on the legend of Pope Joan – an Englishwoman who purportedly disguised herself as a man and rose to become the only female pontiff in history – has sparked debate in the Roman Catholic Church.

The medieval epic stars a German actress, Johanna Wokalek, as the female Pope, the American actor John Goodman as Pope Sergius and David Wenham, an Australian last seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as her lover, a knight named Gerold.

A tale with all the historical accuracy of The Da Vinci Code and John Goodman as Pope Sergius. What could possibly be wrong with this? Just another blast at the Church. I'd love to see the reaction if a movie/book/whatever was released that alleged that Mohammed was actually female.

For those who are curious or just haven't heard this before, Patrick Madrid gives the reality behind the lie.

I Hate Father's Day

You might think that makes me a bad father. Actually, it's the other way around. I hate it because it reminds me of what a bad father I am. This is my 9th one, and it's not getting any better. It didn't start out this way. My first felt weird and uncomfortable. Every one since then has been outright miserable.

What's even worse is that my own distaste sours my enjoyment of the events meant to show appreciation to my own father, who is an outstanding guy. This all probably adds up as my being a bad son on top of everything else.

Let's go ahead and get on with Monday.

The Real Sedevacantists

I've probably mentioned it before, but I have a great deal of pity for sedevacantists. I think most of them are good people who, quite frankly, were so traumatized by the events of the last few decades that they couldn't hold it together and abandoned the Church.

It always makes me wonder what they would have done if they'd been around for guys like Benedict IX.

It's very easy to focus on the more organized groups of sedes, but let's face it. There aren't that many of them, and lots of Catholics probably don't even know they exist.

Are they the only ones, though? What exactly are we to make of the Nancy Pelosis, Joe Bidens, and Peggy Noonans of the world? In those sorts of folks, you clearly have the mindset that there is a guy in Rome claiming to be the Vicar of Christ. However, their attitudes demonstrate that they think such a claim is a fraud. The extent of their current role in the Church is to usurp the Magisterium's role and proclaim dogmas of their own.

When you get down to brass tacks, the highest of these dogmas, the one from which all others flow, is that the Pope is not who he claims to be. He's really just a guy in a funny hat who gets to talk from a balcony, and a lot of people show up to listen.

How is this different from the "traditionalist" sedes? Why do we treat them differently?

The Triumph of Bad Taste

Today, the kids were sick, and my wife had to stay home with them while I directed the choir at church. She then went to a local Roman Catholic church for Mass. She isn't particularly rabid, theologically, but, get this: she went to the Polish mass, in a language she couldn't understand, simply to avoid the ubiquitous liturgical silliness these days.

It's actually not a bad parish, just rather low-church, as so many are. Guitars and drums are in the sanctuary, as well as (it seems) half the parish as extraordinary ministers of the eucharist. I know that the priest loves God and isn't trying to offend, but the liturgical practice is offensive.

My question: if we must have guitars and folk-music in order to appeal to the taste of whoever it is that likes that stuff, why doesn't anyone do anything to appeal to the taste of people like me or my wife? Why do we rush headlong to the lowest and easiest?

What was it Stan Lee always says? Excelsior!

Shenouda II Vs. The Egyptians

How long before we face this in Europe and America?

Pope Shenouda II, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, has confirmed that his church will refuse to abide by a decision of Egypt's highest court, which ruled that the Coptic Church must allow divorce and remarriage.

In May the court ruled that because "the right to family formation is a constitutional right," no religious body can deny that right. In Egypt all marriages must be endorsed by a religious body. The court said that the Coptic Church must alter its teachings to allow for the civil rights of divorced people.

Pope Shenouda said that the Coptic Church will disregard the ruling, insisting that the court has no authority to dictate religious beliefs and practices.

I can't help but think that we'll be seeing the same with abortion and euthanasia shortly thereafter. Hence, our future path to Logan's Run-dom.

The Hatred Of Beauty

Have you noticed how allergic people are to the term "beautiful"? Women aren't beautiful anymore. They are "hot." Music isn't beautiful. Frankly, I don't know what the hell it is.

This is a very bothersome thing because it trickles down to so much else. If I may jump immediately to the extreme, consider sex as the prime example. The Catholic Church has often been denigrated for allegedly teaching that sex is something dirty or unclean. In reality, of course, sex is holy to the extent that it allows participation in God's creative act. Even in the unitive sense, though, it is a beautiful thing as the most intimate expression of spousal love. Read the Song of Songs if you don't believe me.

Contrast that with the more worldly conception of sex. What is promoted as the best kind of sex? The dirty kind. The filthy kind. Those adjectives are not hyperbole. They are the actual words used. By the way, if you're wondering what prompted this post, it was an episode of Friends, formerly a primetime television staple.

Consider also the very nature of how sex is engaged. The normal conception of the holy is that it is reserved, rather than given away in profligacy. Formerly, one could say similar things about beauty. The whole point of beauty is that the beautiful thing possesses certain attributes making it unique and set apart from the masses. This is part and parcel of Catholic sexual teachings. Because the marital embrace is special and holy, its exercise is reserved to the sacramental bond.

Switch gears back to the world. Sex, in hypocrisy that is difficult to comprehend, is praised as something "special," yet is treated as a commodity indistinguishable from what you'd find in your average grocery store, something to be freely traded in a mutual transaction founded upon the pleasurable exchange of bodily fluids. Pleasurable, yet dirty and filthy in its best form. Rarely as something beautiful.

The world is weird.

To back it down a few gears, just look around at your other cultural elements. What is there that promotes beauty? Anything? Sure, Susan Boyle might be popular, but she's not getting the play of Lady GaGa (and never will). The latter's work is an exaltation of the ugly in almost every form one can imagine. She's also big enough to get her own episode of Glee. I could come up with more examples, but you get my point.

The really sad thing in all this is that the treatment of beauty goes beyond simple apathy. If you played Mozart to a room full of moderns, they might consider it nice at first. They would then demand that it be changed to the latest release from Rascal Flatts (just to show that I'm not biased by genre). If the demand is not met, I would anticipate "It's nice" changing to "This sucks." I've seen it happen exactly as I've described.

It's not that people are apathetic to the beautiful. They have been acculturated into hating it. People are almost embarrassed even to use the word anymore in fear of sounding like a lame-o.

Regardless, this clearly bleeds into the praxis of Catholics, with, of course, the liturgy being the primary manifestation. In what universe could this sort of stuff be labeled as "beautiful"? Yet parishes drown themselves in this sewer of ugly banality to the exclusion of Gregorian chant. Why? Because chant sucks, naturally. Ask around. Not you, Karl. You have it good.

Let me guess what some of the folks reading this are thinking. It's all in the eye of the beholder, right? All subjective? I don't think that flies. First, I've yet to find someone describe a clown Mass as something beautiful, so it's not like people are even worried about that aspect of things. Second, the important beholder in this particular instance is God. Ascribing liturgical novelty as beautiful in the eyes of the Almighty takes an enormous amount of hubris. We don't have to worry about that so much with the TLM or the Divine Liturgy because of their long-sanctioned standing within the Church.

Getting to the brass tacks, hatred of beauty is contagious. Given the current shape of the world, I think that this is all borne out by the clear and widespread hatred of God, Who is Perfect Beauty.

Who Exactly Can't Be An Anglican Bishop Now?

Per the Telegraph, divorcees now qualify. Am I the only guy more surprised by the fact that there was still a rule prohibiting divorced bishops than the recasting of the rule itself?

The Church is set to issue a statement announcing the new policy next month after legal advice made clear that there is no obstacle to a divorcee, or a priest married to a divorcee, being consecrated.

It means that a number of clergy who have been rejected in the past by the Crown Nominations Commission, the body responsible for appointing bishops, will now be put forward for consideration.

So who is left that hasn't gotten in on this yet?

Has anyone asked Chants A Lot's pet rock or Chris's chia pet if they are discerning a vocation?

Eucharisticism

I just coined that word, I think. I use it to refer to the idea that the only thing that matters in worship is the Eucharist, and that any other liturgy becomes measured by this. Thus, Vespers and Matins vanish, because "I can't go to communion." The sanctification of time which is so characteristic of Christianity throughout the ages is lost, because we want to get ourselves that sacrament.

Schmemann, an Orthodox theologian, writes: "The receiving of communion is becomingc [for the faithful] the 'one thing needful,' the self-sufficient goal and content of all their churchly life." This is a bad thing, and can lead us even to reducing the sacrament to some sort of magic pill that we need weekly, rather than the participation in the once-forever redemptive act of Christ, which we also participate in through the hourly prayers of the Church.

My suggestion? Ban the Saturday vigil mass, except for feast days.

Option #3

We make mistakes here all the time. When that happens, we try to own up to them. This could be just such a case.

Over the course of this blog's existence, we've speculated a bit on whether Speaker Pelosi was a morally bankrupt liar or perhaps just stupid beyond the expressive capacity of the English language. Her comments that sparked this speculation are why she scares the hell out of me.

However, recent events have forced me to question if she is either of these things and that maybe I was being overly harsh in my assessment. There is a third option that I have been prompted to consider. It's entirely possible that Speaker Pelosi is insane.

Note the following report from CNSNews:

At a May 6 Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, the speaker said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

Ok. At this point, we can probably just accept her shpiel here as garden-variety political pandering for the benefit of her audience. Then she goes to 11.

“And that Word," Pelosi said, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

Are you kidding me? Did Nancy Pelosi just call for public policies based on the values of Jesus Christ?

Try to wrap your head around this. Pelosi is saying that she wants to give voice to Christ's values. Does that include partial birth abortions? Holy smokes. I'm not even going to get into what the Church says about relations with the State. Has she read Quas Primas or Libertas lately?

The real conclusion here is that Pelosi regards herself as Pope. We've seen this dynamic before. Now that she's going to start dropping comments like this, though, it seems to me that there is a strong likelihood that she suffers from some kind of mental disorder.

In a bit of a tragic conclusion, she says the following:

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

Yeah, Nancy. He's coming back, and He'll probably have something to say about the dead babies. If she is insane, perhaps her culpability for her cooperation in the infanticides will be mitigated.

In case you don't buy the above account, by the way, there is video:

May God have mercy on her, and the rest of us for tolerating a nation that permits such horrors.

Boniface Says It Better Than Me

I've punched a lot of keys on this blog yammering about the problem of substituting dialogue for evangelization. Given that it's probably been incoherent babble for the most part, I was very happy to see that Boniface over at Unam Sanctam has a great post on this topic. With some of our recent items here, it seemed like the perfect time to mention it.

My favorite bits:

St. Paul might begin his sermon on the Areopagus with a dialogue about the comparative merits of Greek religion, but this only serves as a springboard to lead him into the essential message - the preaching of the Gospel, where he warns them that God will no longer overlook their ignorance, that He demands all nations repent of their sins because God has fixed a Day of Judgment, and that this Judge will be none other than Jesus Christ. What St. Paul certainly does not do is tell the Greeks how great their paganism is and then encourage them to continue to worship their false gods and petition then for worldly favors like "peace on earth."

Someone should be sure to mention that to the Lama.

Also:

The real place of dialogue, as St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the introduction to the Summa (I.Q.1,art.8), is to establish common ground with somebody so as to delineate the parameters of the debate. But that this dialogue should lead to a disputation, with the express purpose of coming to a conclusion, is never questioned by St. Thomas.

There we have the main problem. People are afraid of disputation. It's why the Lama's viewpoint is insulting. By degrading all religions to an equal level, he treats us like jackasses who can't have a reasoned discussion about the most important topic that there is- God. Remember the old saying about the things you never discuss being politics and religion. That's why both of them are so screwed up these days. Nobody wants to actually talk about them and debate over what's going on. The preference is to state conclusions and then congratulate ourselves on being able to do so.

Whoopity freaking do.

He's A Big Hitter, The Lama

He's also written an op-ed for the New York Times. I'm sure the Dalai Lama is a very nice man. I just can't make any sense out of the stuff that he says. Meanwhile, folks world-wide drop trou every time he makes a statement on anything.

Just look at the first sentence of his piece:

When I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best — and that other faiths were somehow inferior.

Ok. First question, why are you a Buddhist at all? Surely, you must think that other faiths are somehow inferior in some way, right? This is a huge chunk of cognitive dissonance that affects many people. If he truly thinks all religions are equal, then he should naturally eschew any practices overtly connected to any one of them. By taking up the practices of one, he admits there is something there of an enhanced value, even if it is just purely and personally subjective.

Granted, every religion has a sense of exclusivity as part of its core identity.

Including Buddhism? Does this mean he's admitting some level of "betterness"? After all, if you're going to exclude something, surely it will be the bad stuff. And at some point, someone excludes/includes enough to catch your attention and make you think it's more correct than everyone else? Right? Bueller?

Even so, I believe there is genuine potential for mutual understanding. While preserving faith toward one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions.

And we can buy the world a Coke while we're at it. Is this supposed to be profound in some way?

An early eye-opener for me was my meeting with the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in India shortly before his untimely death in 1968. Merton told me he could be perfectly faithful to Christianity, yet learn in depth from other religions like Buddhism. The same is true for me as an ardent Buddhist learning from the world’s other great religions.

Just had to throw this in given our recent shpiel on Merton. Back to the main issue. We have to ask ourselves just what the Lama is getting at in trying to place all religions at the same level.

A main point in my discussion with Merton was how central compassion was to the message of both Christianity and Buddhism. In my readings of the New Testament, I find myself inspired by Jesus’ acts of compassion. His miracle of the loaves and fishes, his healing and his teaching are all motivated by the desire to relieve suffering.

The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths.

Take Judaism, for instance... I remember vividly the rabbi in the Netherlands who told me about the Holocaust with such intensity that we were both in tears...

In my many encounters with Hindu scholars in India, I’ve come to see the centrality of selfless compassion in Hinduism too...

Compassion is equally important in Islam — and recognizing that has become crucial in the years since Sept. 11, especially in answering those who paint Islam as a militant faith...

What I'm getting from all this is that compassion is the unifying element of mankind. It apparently forms a sort of natural super-structure in which all the world's religions are housed. Is there something missing here?

How about God? Where is He in this mix? Considering that He (or They for Hindus) is allegedly the reason why we have religions (unless you're Buddhist, which doesn't seem to require a deity). How about Truth? Eternity? Dare I even consider mentioning salvation?

On a side note, I wonder what the Lama thinks of evangelization. For some reason, I doubt he associates it with compassion of any kind.

Finding common ground among faiths can help us bridge needless divides at a time when unified action is more crucial than ever. As a species, we must embrace the oneness of humanity as we face global issues like pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster. At that scale, our response must be as one.

Unified action is crucial. The Lama will have to excuse me, though, if I place the eternal destiny of myself and all of mankind ahead of the economic crisis. Losing my house, car, or job isn't really on the same level as Gehenna. Working together to prevent these kinds of natural problems is all good and well. Nobody is saying otherwise.

That we have to begin from the Lama's template of indifferentism is offensive and degrading to the very concept of religion. It makes all our beliefs in the supernatural and transcendent look trivial. They aren't, and it's insulting to say otherwise. Moreover, it's completely contrary to this idea that we have to "understand" each other's religion. If they are all really the same, why even bother?

Also, take a look at the title for the piece. It's captioned as "Many Faiths, One Truth." What "truth" is that? Compassion? How does that equate to Truth? Unfortunately, the Lama is in for a rude awakening if he thinks that compassion is some kind of panacea. I know folks who think that murdering Down's Syndrome children in the womb or killing people like Terri Schiavo is compassion. With whatever respect I can muster, the Lama's idea of some kind of natural human compassion as the ruling aspect of humanity isn't going to work if it's divorced from Truth. Read Caritas in Veritate for the current Pope's take on all this.

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world.

Here's what is necessary for harmony and peace in our world:

Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord... 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.

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas

All Dogs Go To The Episcopal Church

Hilarity ensues in Danvers, MA.

A Massachusetts church is scheduled to launch a new monthly worship service — for dogs. Calvary Episcopal Church will offer later this month its first "Perfect Paws Pet Ministry" aimed at giving area pooches and their owners improved odds at getting canines into heaven. The Danvers church plans to hold the service on the third Sunday of every month, complete with communion for the humans and special blessings for pets. Dogs will get special treats.

Monthly services. Wow. I can't even get a monthly TLM in this whole deanery. Does that mean that this church gives more consideration to its dogs than my own hierarchy thinks of me? Throw me a bone here, guys!

(rimshot)

Just a minute, though. What is this?

Church officials said well-mannered, leashed dogs are invited.

This is a complete distortion of the Gospel. Those who are well don't need a physician, right? So saith The Master. Why are the unruly dogs being excluded? Are we just content in letting them be damned?

OUTRAGE!!

I probably shouldn't get so worked up. Before this is all over, they very well might be consecrating them as bishops.

United In A Common Ruin

This is from an article entitled "Kirk and Catholic Church strengthen ties."

The two faiths, historically divided along sectarian lines, have taken what the Kirk has described as "a monumental step in inter-church links" by creating a "joint-liturgy" for the reaffirmation of baptismal vows.

As a result, Scotland has the first Protestant church in the world to form such a bond with the Catholic Church. The two churches will also join together to mark the 450th anniversary of the Reformation later this year.

First, I don't know what a "joint liturgy" is. Second, I don't know how one even goes about "creating" liturgies in the first place, especially with folks who aren't Catholic. I always thought the the liturgy was something that God did. Of course, that was before we had the wonders of liturgical committees, though, which clarified that the public worship of the Church was strictly outside of God's omnipotence and very much an entirely human affair.

Check out the occasion for all this what-not, though:

Ms Kesting said the decision to hold a joint ceremony in St Giles' Cathedral, in Edinburgh this year to mark the 450th anniversary of the Reformation – which saw the creation of the Presbyterian Church when it split from the Catholic Church – was a public statement of the strength of their relationship.

Schism and heresy! WooHoo! It's a party!

Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said: "This is a significant and seminal moment in Scottish church history.

And tragic.

"While the emphasis in the Catholic Church is more about commemorating the event, rather than celebrating, it is still a moment in history that had an impact that must be debated and discussed."

Oh, so it's only SORT OF about celebrating it. It's MORE of a commemoration. I guess that makes it ok then. Did you commemorate this anniversary of sacrilege and blasphemy with prayer and lamentation? No, you got together for "joint liturgy."

"We should not be afraid to tackle it, and we very much want to be involved in the debate about what happened 450 years ago."

It was settled at the Council of Trent. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Mr Kearney said that, while there were differences between the two churches, worshippers from both denominations were "part of the body of Christ".

False and entirely contrary to Church teaching.

What we really have here is a perfect example of fake ecumenism. Nobody here is really concerned about the "debate" of the Reformation. If so, they wouldn't be hauling off with all this pomp and circumstance as though the divisions (that they admit are there) don't exist. They can't even agree on what the baptisms they are promoting actually do. The main interest is in ignoring the divisions so that pretended progress towards a fabricated communion can produce a religion that is completely emptied of any meaning whatsoever. Which means that we'll finally be able to ditch God for good.

But some, through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

Just give us time, Holy Father. God help us, but we're working on that.

About Persecution

It is without a doubt that persecution of the Church (and the faithful) is coming, and in fact is already here, as Throwback points out. I came across a prayer by the deceased Patriarch of Serbia which you should read:

“O Lord, how many are the foes who war against us and say: ‘There is no help for them from God or from man.’ Lord, reach out Thy hand to us that we remain Thy people, both in faith and in works. If we must suffer, may it be on the road to Thy justice and Thy truth, and not because of our injustice or hatred toward anyone. Let us all say fervently, Lord have mercy.”

Let the Church suffer because she proclaims God's truth, not because of our sins.

Hate Speech

Both Karl and myself have gotten our share of criticism over the years for predicting that Catholicism would one day be outlawed as hate speech or some other public disturbance. Most folks seem to think that such a scenario is ridiculous. In examining this, let's examine the recent case of Cardinal Marc Ouellet. Here's a nutshell of what he said:

Speaking at a recent pro-life conference in Quebec City, the Cardinal said that abortion is a "moral crime" and that it is unacceptable even in the case of rape. That's an extreme position by this country's standards: Only about 5% of Canadians oppose abortion in all circumstances. But, as a spokesman for the Quebec City Archdiocese later pointed out, the Cardinal wasn't saying anything new: Like many religious Christians, strictly observant Catholics typically regard all fetuses as carrying the divine spark of human life. And so they urge that the tragedy or rape should not be compounded by a second moral tragedy.

So you've got a Catholic prelate saying Catholic stuff to a group of folks who probably weren't all Catholic, but were at least an audience who were in-line with the Church's view here. What could possibly go wrong?

How about the whole government going completely ape-poop.

The National Assembly (basically the congress/parliament/whatever) adopted a resolution BY UNANIMOUS VOTE proclaiming"

That [Quebec’s] National Assembly reaffirms the right of women to free choice and to free and accessible abortion services.” It also asked the Prime Minister “to put an end to the current ambiguity on this issue,” and again “reaffirms that the fact of supporting women’s right to an abortion should not in any case be used by the federal government to cut funding to a woman’s group...

That wasn't all.

Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest told The Globe: “Today’s motion sends a clear message to the federal government on the need to protect an essential right for all women.”

“Quebec has fought and won its battles over abortion rights, he said. “That battle is over and is no turning back” (Globe, Ibid).

Pauline Maurios, leader of the provincial Bloc Quebecois, declared the Cardinal’s statement “unacceptable.”

As someone who is "openly pro-choice" (her words), federal Conservative Minister Josée Verner joined her voice to the critiquing choir.

There was equally outrageous reaction from the media.

On May 17, Patrick Lagacé from the daily La Presse compared Cardinal Ouellet to an Imam from Teheran who stated that earthquakes could be attributed to women who dressed immodestly. According to Lagacé, the Cardinal and the Imam "are both religious fundamentalists that attack women". Lagacé mentioned that the only member of the Quebec clergy who "came up to the plate to publicly denounce Quebec is (again) Raymond Gravel." Gravel is a self-excommunicated priest and former Bloc Québécois MP. Lagacé himself stated that he hopes "Cardinal Ouellet dies of a long and painful death" so that he understands why some people might want to get legal help to die.

Holy smokes people. Just look at the story. The context is a Catholic talking Catholicism to a bunch of pro-lifers. The response is action at almost every level of government to make sure that said Catholicism is put in his place, which in this case, is the back of the bus. Is outright suppression really that hard to imagine?

As for His Eminence, he's taking all this pretty well:

"Why such a big reaction? Because I am just reminding people of the teaching the Church," he said.

"The Church has to teach the truth of the Gospel and the understanding of the human being from the Gospel of Christ," he said. "And the Church has to care for the formation of conscience."

"What I see in the country is the fact that we have for 40 years legalized abortion without any restriction, it has a great effect on conscience," he said, referring to the role the law plays as teacher. There are about 30,000 abortions a year in Quebec, more than 100,000 in Canada as a whole.

Ouellet said as a bishop he had a duty to teach Catholics the moral law. The Church also has to call for justice in society, he said. "For the unborn, there is not justice. He is the weakest human being; nobody is protecting him.

"After these four decades the moral state of our culture, it has become unthinkable to revise the law, it is also symptomatic of the effect of the law on the culture," he said. "In the future we should be more prudent on what kind of laws we pass in Parliament."

"I am aware that in Canada, in Quebec in particular, you will not reform society at the moral level by teaching morals first," he said.

"It will be through a new evangelization. If you do not meet Jesus Christ, it is very difficult to accept the teaching, the moral teaching of the Church. I am aware of that, even if what we teach is coherent at the rational level."

He had one other comment, though, that really brings out a lot of the problem, even if people don't want to talk about it.

"I have no power," the archbishop of Quebec and primate of Canada said in an interview. "The Church in Quebec has no power anymore."

This is equally true everywhere. Remember the days when Henry IV would walk around out in the snow doing penance until St. Gregory VII absolved him? The Church has no power anymore and the State has forsaken God. No wonder things are so crappy around the world right now. Nobody wants to bring it up because we are far too wedded to the idea of compartmentalizing the Faith away from politics. Of course, it's probably not that far off when ideas like the Social Kingship of Christ will be classed as sedition anyway.

So I Was Watching Jack Van Impe

It's come up a few times here that I watch Jack Van Impe. So sue me.

About a week ago, my wife and I were tuned in to see him and Rexella go off on a completely unexpected tangent. Like he's been doing for the last couple of decades, Jack was letting us know that we are in the End Times and that Jesus is coming back soon. Pretty typical stuff, complete with Bible verses interspersed every 3 words or so.

Then he shifted gears.

All of a sudden, he brings up the Prophecies of St. Malachy. He starts talking about how we're down to one more pope. Jack goes nuts talking about the rise of Peter the Roman.

Aside- Peter the Roman is often referred to as the last pope in the above-mentioned prophecies. It says:

During the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, the seat will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge His people.

Back to the regular program.

Anyways, Jack is blasting away that Peter the Roman is going to be an apostate and how all us Catholics best gear up for the long haul down the road to oblivion. He was even quoting Malachi Martin by the end of his shpiel.

Once I got over the initial shock of seeing Malachi Martin featured as a legit source by Jack Van Impe, I was left to wonder why the hell Jack is putting any stock in anything St. Malachy said (or allegedly said). More than that, why should give the remotest crap about anything that should refer to popes in the first place? Does he think that Venerable Pius XII was an "Angelic Pastor" or that Pius XI was of "Intrepid Faith."? How can Jack think that any pope is other than an apostate?

Yeah, I know. He was quite complimentary of JPII and has said good things about Catholicism throughout the life of his program, but geez. At some point, we have to look at each other honestly.

Thomas Merton

One of the things that never fails to surprise me is how influential Thomas Merton is. Honestly, I had never even heard of the guy until I made it to college. His work was required reading in some classes. More than that, there were a bunch of students who were actually picking up items like Zen and the Birds of Appetite and other books that I suppose I would describe as compilations or biographies.

Interested, I read The Seven Storey Mountain. I thought it was great. I'd later find out that this was his most read and least popular work among my fellows. I read some more Merton, then stopped. Anyone who has read a decent amount of Merton knows that he got into a bunch of weirdness later in life. That was enough for me. I was getting enough weirdness already (isn't that what college is all about?) and really didn't think I could take any more.

I bring this up after stumbling across this article by Donna Freitas. It's called "Why I Can't Forgive Thomas Merton." Those are pretty strong words, so I was intrigued. Anyways, she starts with this:

Like every other grad student who studies religion, in particular Catholicism and its spiritual traditions, I had romantic notions about the various and prolific writings of Thomas Merton and what wisdom of his awaited me. Merton is so beloved. People just adore him. I couldn't wait to offer my share of the adoration.

This was precisely my experience, which is why Merton's later weirdness was so striking. People quoted him like he was the Catechism. When you're experimenting with all these erroneous religious beliefs like he was, having that much influence over people so many decades after death is scary.

Ms. Freitas never even got to the weirdness, though:

But before I could even pick up "The Seven Storey Mountain" I learned of Merton's love affair with the woman he calls M. from his journal "Learning to Love," published posthumously in 1998. I learned of the poetry he wrote for her. That they met when he was convalescing in the hospital and that M. was his nurse. That he felt so passionately about M. that he contemplated leaving his life of celibacy and solitude to be with her. That they were sexually intimate, though they never "consummated" their relationship.

This is a famous incident from Merton's life which is treated in different lights by his supporters. Some are embarrassed by it and try not to bring it up. Sadly, others actually praise him for this. After all, nothing beats a good old priest-parishioner affair to show the glorious liberation from Catholic oppression.

Here's where Ms. Freitas's unforgivingness sets in:

But the combination of Merton's disregard of his vow of celibacy and learning M's age has truly colored my opinion of him ever since. M. was in her early twenties and Merton in his fifties, with almost three decades between them. She was practically a girl and he almost an old man. I can't seem to get this business enough out of my head to read Merton like the brilliant intellectual and writer I once imagined him to be.

I can't forgive him.

I can't forgive Merton for having this affair because she was so young and he so old and supposedly a celibate man and a powerful, famous one.

Strong stuff. And why? Where does this come from? Well, the first thing she does is tie it to the current sex scandal in the Church. This is coupled with some direct quotes from Merton where he refers to the relationship as "a gorgeous game" that he is "playing." She sets up her final unforgiving declaration by saying that:

And I think, once you read some of the things that Merton said about M and in response to his confusion about the affair, it's difficult to feel sympathy for him. He said such disturbing things, after all.

Here's the deal as I see it. Merton's saying disturbing things is why he's so adored in the first place. He's presented as a theological rebel, upholding all the syncretist and indifferentist values that are trumpeted by the modern world. That's why most folks read him and why they don't like The Seven Storey Mountain, as those elements are notably absent. I find it very significant that Ms. Freitas does not seem one bit disturbed by Merton's quotes that have led people to consider abandoning the Faith.

The biggest thing here, though, is the declaration of unforgiveness. I'm not saying that Merton is a saint or anything, but geez, there have been plenty of saints who did a whole lot worse than him. We all know that St. Augustine was shacking up for a while before his conversion. Henry II made St. Thomas Becket an archbishop precisely because he felt his character would make him a good pawn. Blessed Bartolo Longo was a Satanic priest, for crying out loud.

I guess my point is that making statements about being unwilling to forgive is dangerous and a potential cause for scandal. I don't know where Thomas Merton is right now. Frankly, just speculating on such things is unhealthy for me. I'm way too judgmental as it is.

Pop Culture Update

Lost:

Mr. Eko got screwed.

The finale sucked. And it was indifferentist crap.

American Idol:

Does it even deserve commentary? Except perhaps to show that our nation's ability to discern quality in anything must be at an all-time low.

Did You Pray For The Church In China Today?

The Pope asked for you to.

Dear Pastors and all the faithful, the date 24 May could in the future become an occasion for the Catholics of the whole world to be united in prayer with the Church which is in China. This day is dedicated to the liturgical memorial of Our Lady, Help of Christians, who is venerated with great devotion at the Marian Shrine of Sheshan in Shanghai.

I would like that date to be kept by you as a day of prayer for the Church in China. I encourage you to celebrate it by renewing your communion of faith in Jesus our Lord and of faithfulness to the Pope, and by praying that the unity among you may become ever deeper and more visible. I remind you, moreover, of the commandment that Jesus gave us, to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us, as well as the invitation of the Apostle Saint Paul: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:1-4).

On that same day, the Catholics of the whole world – in particular those who are of Chinese origin – will demonstrate their fraternal solidarity and solicitude for you, asking the Lord of history for the gift of perseverance in witness, in the certainty that your sufferings past and present for the Holy Name of Jesus and your intrepid loyalty to his Vicar on earth will be rewarded, even if at times everything can seem a failure.

Our Lady of Sheshan, intercede for your persecuted children in China.

Now That The Voting Is Over

Let me say that I'm surprised that Brave New World came out the winner. Sure, there were only 7 votes, but for me, Logan's Run is the clear winner. I agree that we're pretty much already at the level of folks wandering around with no other purpose than to eat, drink, bang, and be merry. The divergence between the two images of the future, though, is the level of toleration granted to the non-conforming.

Personally, I think we're all screwed in the long term. There aren't going to be "reservations" for the folks who don't fall in line with modernity. We (and I use the term for the like-minded, since I grant that I might not be here to see it) will be left for the Sandmen to exterminate.

If this sounds grim, that's because it is. It's also what should be expected from the End of Days (whenever that is; again, don't take this as a prediction of something imminent). As crappy as Brave New World might be. It's going to be roses and rainbows compared to the reality.

Yeah, I've had a bad couple of weeks. Maybe that's coloring this post a little. Maybe I've been watching too much of the news. I'm honest that I could be biased right now. I'm willing to entertain scenarios that the three possibilities that were the subject of the poll are off-base. Anybody want to give that a shot?

Hooray! We're Back!

And in appreciation for all those who stuck with us during our down time, I hereby present the funniest thing I've seen in quite a while. Yes, even funnier than the Oscar trailer:

My Sincerest Apologies For The Lack Of Updates

My computer has been assailed by some really nasty crap. We're working on it and hope to be back to normal soon.

Is It Warm In Here, Or Is It Just The Coptic Bishop With The Blowtorch?

Holy smokes. Check out these quotes from Bishop Anba Suriel, a Coptic bishop who was invited as an observer to a meeting of the Anglican Global South to South Encounter meeting. Let's hit the highlights as reported by VirtueOnline.

On modernity:

I want to share with you a saying of Saint Anthony the Great, the father of monasticism. This great Egyptian saint said, "There will come a day when the mad people will look at the normal people and say, 'Look at these mad people because they are not like us.'" I think this prophecy has been fulfilled in our day and age. Abnormality has become the new normality. Certain factions of the Christian Church are becoming desensitized to the truth of the Gospel. I call it the frog in the kettle syndrome.

If you place a frog in a kettle at room temperature the frog will be comfortable, if you raise the temperature slightly, the frog will quickly adapt. If you continue to raise the temperature very gradually the frog will continue to adapt to its new environment until finally the water is boiling and the frog is fried inside the kettle and loses its life. This is what today's Post Modern society is doing; it is pushing the limit of immorality further and further till it tries to make some lose their spiritual life and die.

I wish more Catholic bishops spoke that like.

On Gene Robinson:

He was a married man and had two daughters. He divorced his wife and left his daughters to live this unthinkable life of abomination. Is this the holiness and perfection and the image and likeness of God? How then can such a person be ordained to the highest level of authority in a Church, the episcopate? What example does he give to young people, what long term effects will such a decision by The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) have on the North American Episcopalians in generations to come?

Holy smokes.

On John Shelby Spong:

Today's heresy often becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy. Well, let me say the orthodoxy of God will never allow for these heresies.

That is why TEC allows a heretic like Bishop Spong to promulgate his poison all over the world and publish books advocating a cocktail of heresies ranging from denying the divinity of Christ to a complete and shocking attack on the inspired Word of God. And yet at the same time they depose an orthodox Episcopal bishop for upholding the true faith of the Scriptures that marriage is between one man and one woman... I cannot even begin to get comprehend that.

Am I the only one shocked to see him refer to Spong and Robinson as actual bishops? Do the Copts actually recognize the validity of Anglican orders? If so, it would be (for me) the most shocking part of this.

On ecclesiology:

Perhaps if some studies can be made, historical studies on the conciliar nature of the church and to see it from the Orthodox perspective may be helpful to you in setting up a viable structure for the Anglican Global South.

No, no, no. Let me wag my finger at this one. Pope Benedict already beat you to the punch here.

Haven't seen words this strong in a while, though. Can you imagine if a Catholic bishop had said such things? It would have been a media day massacre.