So Let's Review

It's been a busy few days. Let's examine why,

First, word broke that the Pope's resignation was prompted by a special report he commissioned that revealed how deep the Lavender Mafia ties in Rome are and how messed up the Vatican Bank is. The report classified these as sins against the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. Depending on the accounts you read, the Pope was devastated by the findings and proceeded to resign. Cardinal Pell has already come out calling for some kind of response and saying that the Vatican bureaucracy is a mess.

Now, it's being reported that those implicated in the report are going to be circulated pre-conclave.

There are basically three possibilities here. First, this is accurate, such a report exists, it's why the Pope resigned, and all hell is about to break loose when this is passed around and the rats scramble before, during, and after the conclave to thwart any new Pope's mission to root them out. Second, this is sort of accurate, such a report exists, but it's not exactly why the Pope resigned, but a smaller amount of hell will break loose as these reports are going to dominate the mission of the next Successor of St. Peter, who should be forced to take action on this. Third, none of this is really true, it's Curial politics gone mad amidst pre-conclave jockeying, and only a minor amount of hell will break loose as the Curial reforms will be rough but not to the extent envisioned if the report was real.

From the Australian news (not to mention Moynihan's items), we're led to believe that there is at least SOME kind of report delivered to the Pope by the Cardinals in question. So there's that.

This isn't all the news out there, though. Let's review the other recent snippets that you might not have heard.

1. Last summer, the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, which was famous for promoting the heresy of liberation theology, was stripped of its Catholic label by the local bishop (Cardinal Cipriani) and Cardinal Bertone. This was done in the name of the Holy Father. Earlier this month, Archbishop Muller apparently began to proceed in overturning this in his role as Prefect of the CDF. Three days ago, Cardinal Bertone has shoved back against +Muller and declared that the sanction will stand.

2. Cardinal Kasper, who still won't just go away, is now calling for women deacons, just women deacons that aren't ordained but that would (I guess) still do the same things as real deacons.

3. Cardinal O'Brien wants to re-examine the issue of priestesses.

4. Several outlets (such as here) are reporting Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor as calling for greater collegiality. Note at the link the other bishops who are criticizing Pope Benedict's management of the Church.

5. The German Episcopal Conference, following the previous approbation of Cardinal Meisner, has decided that the morning after pill is ok in cases of rape. This action then received the "Amen" from, of all people, the President of the Pontifical Council for Life.

6. Now, the Secretary of State has issued a statement about the conclave, which states in part:

It is regrettable that, as we draw near to the beginning of the Conclave, when Cardinal electors shall be bound in conscience and before God to freely express their choice, news reports abound which are often unverified or not verifiable, or even false, even subsequent damage people and institutions.

And, I'll add, most importantly:

It is in moments such as these that Catholics are called to focus on what is essential: to pray for Pope Benedict, to pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten the College of Cardinals, to pray for the future Pope, trusting that the fate of the barque of St. Peter is in the hands of God.

But seriously. I mean, holy smokes people. If scenario #1 cited above is true and the Pope basically resigned to get himself out of the way so that these problems could be exposed, holy smokes. This would at least explain the random outbursts of modernism from these cardinals and bishops, as well as the additional Curial conflict that we are seeing.

And the Pope's resignation hasn't even taken effect yet.

I'm reminded of something else I heard a long time ago.

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops.

Our Lady of Akita

Pray everyone. And fast. Then pray and fast some more.

My Favorite Popes

I'll probably do a couple of these in the lead-up to the conclave. I have an excuse to do this one first, though, because his birthday was yesterday (the 20th).

Anyways, it's easy to pick out some popes as favorites. After all, guys like Leo I, Gregory I, and Nicholas I are called "the Great" for a reason. However, I find that a lot of my own faves don't get a lot of play.

Take Leo XIII, for example. His reign was sandwiched between Blessed Pius IX and St. Pius X. It's easy to get lost among a couple of titans like that. It's easy to neglect that he was not only the oldest pope ever, living to age 93, but he also had one of the longest reigns of all time (behind only JPII and the aforementioned Pius IX). This is instructive in our current situation, when you have a lot of media tripe about retirement ages for popes and the ability of medical science to prolong life.

The thing that stands out for me about Pope Leo XIII is the well-nigh supernatural clarity of his writing. If I wanted someone to know Catholic teaching on a subject, I would steer them directly to this guy. Want to know about ecclesiology? Pick up Satis Cognitum. Trinitarian stuff? Divinum Illud Munus. Marriage? Arcanum. The Bible? Providentissimus Deus. Social justice? Rerum Novarum.

Pope Leo covered just about all of it, and he did it in a way that just obliterates confusion and ambiguity. It's some of the most impressive writing I've ever encountered and is sufficient to be a catechism unto itself. Let me go further and say that, if he's ever canonized, he should be considered for Doctor of the Church status due to the quality, clarity, and breadth of his writings.

He accomplished all of this marvelous teaching while engaging in extraordinary diplomatic moves that did a lot to rebuild the Church's standing among the secular powers after the stormy pontificate of Pius IX. That's not a criticism. It's just reality.

In my opinion, this kind of guy is just what the Church needs. A clear-minded teacher, with a firm hand, and a savvy that can challenge world leaders on the big stage. And not to sound shallow, but it also helps that he looks like your grandpa. God bless Pope Benedict, but he was never the most photogenic guy out there.

I close with the following, which I think I've posted before, but it merits repeating. This is Pope Leo himself, in the earliest film footage ever of the Vicar of Christ.



Thanks be to God for Our Holy Father of Happy Memory. Pope Leo XIII, pray for us.

Preparing His Departure, The Pope Confirms What We All Knew

As Rorate has already provided a full report on this topic, I'm just going to comment. Basically, the Pope addressed the Roman clergy and laid out why Vatican II has been so problematic. In a nutshell:

The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help.

Make sure you read the whole thing at the link.

He hedges a bit on the "factions" involved, choosing instead to focus on the media's role, but it's still there. The good news is that there is a papal recognition that the Council was, in fact, hijacked. Our readers here should know this story well, as it's been covered in our prior postings on the matter. The hijacking was possible by a media presence who hyped the fact that there was a group advocating for heterodox positions to the detriment of those supporting the Catholic position.

This is a striking statement considering our theory on why the Pope is resigning and all the media speculation (and obvious preferences) on who the next Vicar of Christ will be. Moreover, it brings the Council back to the forefront on the eve of the conclave and not as a good thing, but rather as something that must be overcome. At least in terms of the operative Council, which is the "virtual" one he refers to in the speech.

Let's hope the clergy, not to mention the cardinals, were listening attentively.

Whither The SSPX? (updated)

Who knows?

However, I'm reminded of a conversation with a priest friend of mine from several months ago wherein he stated that if Pope Benedict regularized the SSPX, he hoped that God would grace him with a quick death thereafter so as to spare the Holy Father the crushing backlash that would result.

Perhaps the current scenario isn't so far from that. Per Rorate:

Rorate can independently confirm the report --hinted at just now in Le Forum Catholique -- that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has sent a letter with a final offer to the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX): resume the dialogue with the Holy See by February 22, or else the Holy See will make an offer of reconciliation and full communion to individual SSPX priests. (What kind of offer or structural basis will be offered is unclear.)

So there's that. I've been throwing in as a wild prayer to God that the Pope make the final move with the Society immediately before his resignation. Maybe now not so wild after all.

Please, God. Make it so.

UPDATE:

Apparently, Bishop Fellay seems to think it's hopeless.

Orson's Game

Orson Scott Card is best known as the author of Ender's Game, and it's multiple sequels. Ender's Game is one of my all-time favorite novels, of any genre, and should be required reading at the high school level. It's certainly better than the A Separate Peace-esque crap that students are typically force-fed.

Unfortunately, Mr. Card has been in the news lately for a different reason. He's part of a creative team assigned to a new digital Superman project being launched by DC Comics. He's also under fire by homosexual groups for daring to oppose their alleged "right" to marry.

Mr. Card isn't Catholic. He's Mormon and apparently actually believes some of the stuff that Mormonism proclaims as true, hence his opposition to homosexual unions. This is sufficient for multiple groups with different views asking for him to be fired.

I bring this up because this is what Catholics are experiencing and will experience over the coming years. The tolerance of moral relativism will only extend as far as the hate of natural law will allow. Whether it's a new nominee for the Supreme Court or perhaps entry into an academic fellowship of some kind, compliance with immorality will be demanded. Notice that Mr. Card isn't sponsoring legislation or anything. He isn't trying to destroy someone's livelihood. He's just acting in conformity with his conscience in support of a legal principle that is still the law in the vast majority of the country.

If people were really paying attention, they'd be calling for the firing of abominations like Joe Quesada and Dan DiDio.

After Letting It Marinate For A Bit

I've finally had time to process this historic occasion. I honestly still can't quite wrap my mind around all this. Throughout the course of the day, I've deliberately avoided any real commentary, blogs, or other media. I did have a round of discussion with folks on NDNation, but that was it.

No matter the situation, I try really hard not to second guess the Pope (whoever he may be) on anything. I really do, and I'm going to try not to here. The whole thing smacks of Windswept House, but I'm trying not to think about that either.

All things considered, I did hear a lot of things today, both from my exchanges online and from the non-Catholics I work with, that indicate two minds on the Holy Father's resignation. First, you've got folks who think that he's resigning for the reasons he gave, namely, he's old and in poor health. Second, you've got a group who are convinced there is a conspiracy afoot and that the whole health thing is just a smokescreen.

I'm going to comment on this once and hopefully not have to re-visit this again.

I think both of the above groups are correct. Pope John Paul II's waning years are burned deeply into my brain. I went away to college then and was exposed to the rampant problems in the Church for the first time. I remember people wondering why he didn't resign. At the time, I thought that was unspeakable and an affront to the Petrine Office to suggest such.

As the time went on, though, and I became more cognizant of the attacks against Catholicism, I started wondering myself. Why doesn't the Pope do anything about all of this? Then I'd see him on TV, and it was pretty obvious why. The man couldn't walk by himself. He could barely speak. How was a guy in this condition supposed to keep up with the plotting of people who were so well-positioned in the Church's internal machinery?

Yesterday, we were faced with a Pope who was not just getting old. He was old, and even older today. What else were we seeing? A level of public Curial in-fighting not seen in recent history and a catastrophic loss of faith throughout the world, with some of the parties in the former situation probably actively contributing to the latter. My theory in all this is that Pope Benedict recalled the utter hopelessness of JPII's situation and vowed that he would never leave the Church so vulnerable to Her internal enemies ever again. Not being in a position to out-wait or out-maneuver the opposition, His Holiness decided to opt for passing the baton to someone who would be able to do both.

This is all speculation to be sure. What I do know is that this is an occasion of great importance. Not to sound all apocalyptic or anything, but there seems to be a hell of a lot going on right now to just write this event off as the answer to a future trivia question. Big things are going down, and we'd best be prepared for them.

Don't take this as Doomsday Prepper material. I'm talking about staying close to the sacraments and PRAYING. A LOT. Pray for Pope Benedict. Pray for the conclave. Pray that whatever is coming that souls will be saved.

Pray.

Pope Benedict Is Resigning

As if there wasn't enough weirdness going on, we have this news.

I am speechless. This is ground-shaking stuff. I have no idea how to react.

Bishop Morerod Clarifies . . . Nothing

In an attempt to clarify the recent restriction of Catholic churches to the alternate use of Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, and other groups outside of the Church (while declining the SSPX a similar privilege), His Excellency seems to have missed the point.

Rorate has the update:

First of all, differently from the Orthodox or Protestants who can use the churches of the diocese under certain conditions and in case of need (for instance, because they do not have a nearby church, or due to works in their own church, this possibility often being reciprocal), the priests of the SSPX present themselves as Catholic.[*] The dialogue with the SSPX is not properly speaking "ecumenical", but an internal dialogue. What is, then, the situation of the SSPX priests in the Catholic Church?

...

They are, in fact, priests ordained in an illicit manner, and no Catholic priest whose ministry is illicit - whether or not he is a member of the SSPX - may celebrate in a Catholic church, unless, of course, he be reconciled with the Church.

The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside. And it is precisely regarding this point that my anxiety has grown in the course of the past few months. I was already horrified that a bishop of the SSPX had published a book repeatedly accusing Pope Benedict XVI of being heretical (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, L’étrange théologie de Benoît XVI, Avrillé, 2010). This could nonetheless be an isolated viewpoint that did not engage the Society as such, even if coming from one of its bishops. The same applies to the famous declarations of Bp. Williamson, which was confirmed by his exclusion from the SSPX.

We get that. If a bishop wants to ban the SSPX from using local parish facilities, he certainly has the authority to do so. But why do so, yet provide the same facilities to those outside the Church? And do so in the same breath?

Guys like St. Ambrose defied the Emperor to make sure that Catholic churches weren't used by Arians. Isn't it a bit weird to see denominations that were conceived essentially as a rejection of what the Church Herself is being allowed this kind of access?

It is tough to get more bizarre than this.

The New "Accommodation"

I wasn't even going to mention it, but I've had some emails, so here goes an analogy in pictures.

Here's the old HHS mandate accommodation:

Here's the new version:

Everybody got that? Crap wrapped up in roses and rainbows is still crap.

If you want a breakdown, the National Review had a good take on it. Otherwise, the story is the same. The President wants to force people to pay for chemical sterilization and abortifacient drugs.

The End.

Keep praying.

Archbishop Gomez: "There Are No Excuses." Cardinal Mahony: "Let Me Give You Some Excuses."

Cardinal Mahony, deciding with supreme imprudence to give up his right to remain silent, has offered a response to Archbishop Gomez's decision to strip him of his public duties. Basically, it comes down to this. Way back around 30 years ago, Cardinal Mahony admits he messed some things up. Since then, he's been awesome. There's almost(?) a tone in there that suggests(?) that +Gomez and the rest of us should be thanking him for how he handled things.

I'm linking to Rocco Palma's account because (a) I don't want to drive any traffic to Mahony's blog where he posted the response and (b) the text of what he wrote is pretty disgusting and reproducing it makes me feel icky.

If you want some detail on just how things were getting handled in LA, this article on Real Clear Religion gives some good examples.

I certainly hope that Archbishop Gomez's recent statement doesn't amount to a walk-back of his prior action.

The Downfall Of Cardinal Mahony

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, the guy who said that the vocations crisis was a great fruit of Vatican II, who spawned numerous liturgical nightmares, who claimed that the Mass used in the Latin Rite for 1500 years doesn't instill the spirit of Christ, now seems to have overseen even worse horrors. From the looks of things in LA, he reigned over an epic protection racket for child molester priests.

Mahoney and other top Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles officials maneuvered behind the scenes to shield molester priests, provide damage control for the church and keep parishioners in the dark, according to the church personnel files. 

As Vicar for Clergy, [Auxiliary Bishop Thomas] Curry was responsible for "promoting the spiritual and physical well-being" for all priests and deacons in the archdiocese, including those who were inactive, sick or on leave, according to the archdiocese’s website. He also doled out assignments for priests and deacons.

Cardinal Mahony has long been a favorite of the "social justice" crowd, drawing rave reviews for his stance on immigration reform, for example. That stance? Comparing folks in favor of reform to the Nazis.

Considering his status with these folks, I'm going to make a prediction. In five years, whether he's in jail or not, +Mahony will be even more exalted by his followers in these circles. All of this stuff will be forgotten, and his popularity will make the revisionism being given to Rembert Weakland look tame by comparison.

Does One Match The Other?

Take a look at this:




Now this:




Now, take a look at what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians about speaking in tongues and such.

Do the videos seem to follow the rules that St. Paul is laying down?

Whether St. Thomas Is Fittingly Called Boring

This is from a Dominican's blog, which automatically makes it more awesome. Not only that, but it's a Dominican who went to Notre Dame. Not only did he go to Notre Dame, but he seems to have graduated and not completely lost his faith in the process.

Yeah, I know that sounds bad, but the fact is that I knew way more people who abandoned Catholicism in their 4 years there than did otherwise.

But anyway, I thought this blog entry was phenomenal and deserved some props:

Whether Thomas Aquinas is fittingly called boring?

Objection 1: It would seem that Thomas Aquinas is fittingly called boring. The works of Thomas are composed of impersonal statements and arguments, which are boring. Now, every agent acts in accordance with its nature to produce something like unto itself (omne agens agit sibi simile). Just as nothing can effect heat unless it is hot, so too no one can produce boring writings, unless he is boring. Hence it is seen that since Thomas’ works are boring, Thomas is fittingly called boring.

Objection 2: Thomas Aquinas is well known to have been of considerable girth. A man possesses phlegmatic humor in proportion to his size. The more phlegmatic a man’s disposition, the more he is perceived as dull, wearisome, and uninteresting. Thus, as a result of his girth, Thomas is fittingly called boring.

Objection 3: Those who are always correct in all things are annoying. Those who are annoying are also boring. Thus, Thomas, who is typically correct on account of the soundness of his reasoning and the brilliance of his intellect, is fittingly called boring.

Check out the responses at the link above.

Re: Russia

We talk about Russia a lot here. There's are reasons for that.

First, it is the de facto leader of Eastern Orthodoxy in the world. Depending on who you ask, it could be appropriate to say that the Russians were the last of the Orthodox to break from the Church. As things stand today, if they were ever re-integrated with Rome, the rest of the East would almost certainly follow.

Second, it is the most dangerous of the Eastern churches from the standpoint of oppressing our Catholic brethren. If you don't believe me, ask Metropolitan Hilarion, who asserted that Stalin's liquidation of the Eastern Catholic communities was perfectly legitimate.

Third, especially now in the days of Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Orthodox are the only group worth ecumenical efforts, since Protestants lack central authority to deal with on such topics.

With that out of the way, I highly recommend that everyone look at this article from Reason and brought to our attention by Haskovec. If you read our prior posts on this subject, you'll find that our greatest fear has been the return of imperial Russia, backed by the most powerful force in Orthodoxy. This is the picture painted in the article. Which is bad.

We've always known that Patriarch Alexei II was a KGB puppet. Now, it looks like the current patriarch, Kyril I, had just as many ties to the agency. This all makes sense considering just how married he and Putin appear to be these days.

In case you wonder about where the Russian Church's influence extends and what use it has in larger Russian society, consider the following:

Abortion, which is as unacceptable in Orthodoxy as it is in Catholicism, remains not only legal but free at public clinics. In 2011 the Patriarch’s plea to end government funding for abortions was briskly dismissed by the ruling United Russia party, and legislation introducing some restrictions, such as spousal consent for married women, died in the Duma (the Russian parliament); the only actual policy change was tighter regulation after the first trimester. Church advocacy on this issue has been fairly low-key and deferential; when Kirill raised it in his meeting with Putin, it was to concede the pro-choice tilt of popular opinion and beg for better incentives for women to make other choices.

The effort to bring Orthodoxy into public education has yielded mixed results at best. A few years ago, proposals to make “the basics of Orthodox culture” a required subject for middle school students met with a strong backlash, including an open letter from a group of concerned scientists whom the church assailed as relics of militant Soviet atheism. Then Putin’s docile Duma nixed a resolution condemning the critics, and Putin himself warned that religious indoctrination in state schools would be illegal. As if on cue, church spokesman Chaplin made a conciliatory statement calling for a pluralistic approach to religious studies. The solution was a class in “secular ethics and world religions” (which recently became mandatory nationwide after a two-year pilot program), with several options from which parents can choose. So far less than a third of students have enrolled in the Orthodox track, compared to more than 40 percent for secular ethics and 20 percent for world religions. The Patriarch blamed the church’s comparative failure on “the liberal press.”

When do you hear the Russian Church's voice the loudest? When it's backing Putin and talking about how awesome he is. Or when it's denigrating the West, in general. That tells you just about everything you need to know.

Right now, it seems the secular world and media don't have much of a grip on how much religion, beyond Islam (and sometimes Judaism for stories in Israel), shapes events. They've missed this boat when it comes to Anglicanism in the Global South, and they're missing it again when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy. There is a lot of dangerous potential in Russia right now, and a refusal to understand how the Russian Church (and even the See of Constantinople) plays into all this is a grave, grave error.

Abortion Is Satanic, Pt. 2

In case our prior post wasn't convincing enough, consider this entry over at Salon, who is perfectly willing to admit that abortion kills a baby. She just doesn't think that's all that important. Not only does she confess this belief herself, she urges all of her pro-abortion cohorts to go ahead and admit the obvious. Abortion kills a baby. Her call for these folk to embrace reality is refreshing, but it is bone-chilling in how blatantly evil people are willing to be.

Oh, and if you're wondering at all about the Satanic angle, check out her language in closing.

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Yes. She just approved of human sacrifice. To a deity? Probably not consciously, but can it seriously be argued that taking this position isn't making a deity of the self?

Abortion Is Satanic

As is evidenced by this:

This video was produced by the Center for Reproductive Rights. You know how some folks say that there's no such thing as a "pro-abortion" person? I wonder what they think after watching this.

How utterly horrific that they chose a black man to star in their ode to genocide. How much worse that he actually agreed to the proposition.

I submit that only a mind completed overtaken by the demonic could have come up with something this disgusting.

What Would A Lutheran Ordinariate Look Like?

Fr. Zuhlsdorf had a recent bit on a Vatican Insider article that discussed the possibility of an ordinariate for dissident Lutherans (such an ironic phrase) along the lines of what came out of Anglicanorum Coetibus.

I'm a bit weirded out by this suggestion. From my experience dealing with the Anglicans who came over, they were far more schismatic than heretical. Once they got over the whole popery deal, everything else was ok. Eucharist? Check. Confession? Check. Soteriology? Check. There was so much doctrinal casualness in the Anglican Communion that all they really had to do was to come to terms with the primacy issue. Since the Wreck of King Henry had screwed things up enough, it got way easier for them to accept.

How does this work with Lutherans? Eucharist? Umm no. Confession? Double no. Soteriology? Absolutely not. There's a hell of a lot of theological baggage to sort through here. Let me be clear. I don't know any Lutherans who actually believe what Luther thought about 90% of relevant items. The problem is that they've tended to ditch anything he held that was still remotely Catholic.

I know that anecdotes aren't data, and that's all I've got to go on. As "ecumenical" as a guy like Oscar Cullman was, though, do you really think he'd be in line to convert? Probably not. Likewise with the bulk of the rank and file Lutherans out there, given that we aren't talking about a shift in ecclesiology, like with the Anglicans. Instead, we're looking at the wholesale junking of their entire system in favor of the Truth.

If we're going to be honest and appropriate with this, and look for sincere converts rather than just Lutheranism with a Catholic label slapped on it, there should be a lot of caution in making such an offer.

Scriptural Observation

Something I noticed for the first time in today's Gospel. I've probably heard the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana dozens of times, but this is only just now registering.

And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from . . . the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.”

Of course, Jesus is referred to as "the bridegroom" all throughout Scripture. Take today's First Reading, for example. It occurred to me today that this passage has a very Old Covenant/New Covenant ring to it. God provided the Jews with the former but later revealed the latter to all the world. He saved the good wine for the appropriate time later on.

I'm sure someone else has thought of this before. Just surprised at how it seems so obvious, yet I'm just now catching it.

On Weirdness

I was sent this email a couple of days ago and debated on whether or not to post it. I know a couple of folks who have followed the odder things about this trial, so I know a bit about it second-hand. Here's the news report:


Here's the deal. The events surrounding Fr. Robinson don't really end with him. His defense rests mostly upon the existence of an entire group of Satanic priests who engage in full-on Black Masses and killed this nun as part of one. According to the other folks I mentioned above, there have been multiple other parties that have come forward with similar accusations in the course of this investigation and trial who have said the same thing and been ignored.

I'm not here to say anything about Fr. Robinson's guilt or innocence. He's been accused of ritual abuse himself. I throw this out because this isn't the only time these sorts of allegations have come up. The Frank Pellegrini murder comes to mind, as well as the murder of Fr. Alfred Kunz.

Just weirdness.

Silence

By now, most have heard about the horrific rape and murder of the Indian girl who was only trying to take a bus ride. It has happened again, with pretty much the exact same circumstances. The national and international outcry over these events is intensifying.

Please note that what I'm about to write is in no way meant to ignore the tragedy and significance of these events.

That being said, did anybody hear an outcry when nuns were being raped while the police watched? Or when bounties were being offered to people for assassinating priests? Or when dozens of Catholics were murdered and thousands of their homes were being burned in Orissa, to the point where Christmas celebrations were cancelled out of fear? Or when priests were being murdered, with all of their bones being broken and their eyes being gouged out of their sockets? Even Protestants seem to have the go-ahead to persecute our brothers and sisters there.

And nary a word. Utter and complete silence. Because when it's Catholics dying, nobody gives a crap.

So Bishop Williamson Might Have Finally Lost His Mind

Per Rorate:

Today, we were contacted by a worthy source claiming that H.E. Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), was to come to the United States in a couple of weeks to consecrate a bishop.

Rorate independently contacted one of the priests said to be organizing the consecration ceremony. Although we asked repeatedly, the priest refused to deny the consecration would be taking place, only saying there's nothing to report to the "general public."

If true, you can't say that nobody saw this coming. And in saying that, I mean saw it coming a decade ago. My only question is whether he'll just come out and openly declare himself a sede.

Rorate's source is a separate blog that indicates a bigger schism on the horizon. My question on that is whether this will be something that drives the real SSPX closer to Rome.

Time will tell, I guess.

Let Me Tell You About A Bishop

I had never heard of this man until a few years ago. My family and I starting throwing our support to the Cardinal Kung Foundation. I was sent a card telling me about Bishop James (Jacob) Su Zhimin and asking me to pray for him every night.

He is bishop of Baoding (Hebei) in China. His predecessor died under torture from Chinese authorities. He is regarded as an enemy of the state by Beijing. Why? Because he remains loyal to the Christ's Church and His Vicar. This resulted in his being kidnapped by government thugs in 1997. Nobody has seen him since 2003, when he had been admitted to a hospital. This wasn't His Excellency's first stint in prison. In the course of his life, he's spent over four decades in captivity for Christ.

His memory is so feared by the Communists that they banned praying for him in 2011 on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

A recent entry from AsiaNews indicates that there is a chance he might be set free.

Since the beginning of this year, in fact, the reformed penal code has passed into law which, at least in intention, aims to "respect and protect human rights." An example of this is that under the new law no one should be forced to incriminate themselves and all arrests must be based on evidence "obtained in a legal manner", i.e. not through torture.

The law also ensures immediate access to a lawyer within 48 hours of a request being made, and that the relatives of the suspect are to be informed of the circumstances and place of detention. Moreover during the period of detention, the suspect must be guaranteed an adequate diet and sleep. Finally, the police can not detain a person without charge for more than six months.

A Hebei priest told AsiaNews that under these new laws, enacted in the era of Xi Jinping, Msgr. James Su Zhimin, the underground bishop of Baoding (ds in the photo), 80, who disappeared in police custody 15 years ago, should be able to return home. His family every year, on the anniversary of his kidnapping, ask the police where their relative is being held, as of this year they will finally have an answer different from the one received in the past ("We do not know!") .

Of course, this is China, so the law doesn't necessarily mean much. Some folks are more equal than others, after all. It is a cause for hope, though. Please offer your prayers for this brave and holy man, as well as for all of our persecuted brethren in China. Support the Cardinal Kung Foundation.

I also will make a suggestion. If you find yourself ever questioning your faith because of the cowardice, heresy, or other scandal from a bishop, reflect on the courage shown by these men in the face of martyrdom. They shepherd their flocks under infinitely worse conditions than we see here. They stand firm. They suffer. Not only that, but nobody cares. There is no international outcry, no sanctions, no nothing. And still His grace is sufficient for them.

One does not forsake Peter because of Judas. It does really inspire to see those who stay faithful to Peter, despite Satan's attempt to sift them like wheat.

Book Recommendation- Godly Seed: American Evangelicals Confront Birth Control

What with the HHS mandate being such a big deal these days, it's pretty easy to get drawn into conversations with Protestants about contraception and why Catholics think it's bad. From my experience, most of us are woefully unequipped to deal with arguments on the issue, though. Lots of Catholics, assuming their Protestant brethren to be pro-life, will default to arguing about the pill's abortifacient character. Even if you can get the other person to believe that (which is difficult enough), that doesn't deal with other method, like, say, condoms.

The best route might be to try and show the Protestant just how novel the acceptance of birth control is by their own religious tradition. Allan Carlson's book, Godly Seed, is the perfect guide for doing so.

Dr. Carlson basically takes the entire history of Protestant thought on contraceptive and tracks it all the way from Luther and Calvin to Billy Graham and the modern age. Very few people these days are aware of how universal the condemnation of birth control was until less than a hundred years ago. It was considered a vile practice by every stripe of Christian. When I use the word "vile," I'm not exaggerating. Some of the Protestant language about contraception makes Catholic discussion look tame by comparison.

More than just tracing the religious doctrines about birth control, Godly Seed also paints a picture of how those doctrines affected the legal landscape in the United States. How many people these days have heard of Anthony Comstock or the laws named after him? Is there anyone who would imagine that the history of legal bans on contraception in this country were entirely the result of Protestant lobbying? Doubtful.

As the book progresses, Dr. Carlson shows how the cracks began to appear in the monolithic anti-contraception mentality. Naturally, it was the Anglicans who caved first at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. But what brought them to make such a radical break with what had previously been standard Christian practice?

Essentially, Protestants were duped into the waters of antinatalism by Margaret Sanger, who really was just a real piece of filth. Sanger used a dual approach of promoting eugenics on one hand, while stoking the fires of anti-Catholicism on the other. Eventually, the mainline Protestant faiths threw up an intellectual white flag to the former, while the fundamentalists succumbed to the latter. It's pretty depressing stuff. Granted, the onset of the sexual revolution didn't help, but the main point of Godly Seed is that the foundation for any religious resistance had already been ripped from its moorings even before then. All the sexual revolution did was formalize the break and sweep away any lingering vestiges of resistance.

As an aside, it might also be surprising to many Protestants at how divisive the issue of abortion was over time. It wasn't as cut-and-dry as saying, "The Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill.'"

The first huge advantage this book has is that Dr. Carlson is not Catholic. He's Lutheran, so nobody can point fingers about denominational biases. I can't overstate how valuable this is in breaking down the initial walls of resistance.

The second huge advantage actually comes from the fact that it's not very well written, at least as far as conventional notions go. The book has very little material directly from Carlson himself. Every page is almost entirely made up of quotations from the original sources. This was annoying at first, but I can understand why it's written this way. It's almost as though Carlson went into this project knowing that a lot of his audience wasn't going to believe him, so he felt he had to over-document everything and cut out as much of his own ideas as possible. This results in a book that is entirely informational, with very little in the way of narrative or style. If you are looking for dynamic and engaging language, you won't enjoy this work. However, you will learn stuff, and for that reason, you should read it anyway.

The final advantage of the book is that it has an unintentionally topical element as well. As Protestant circles became more and more accepting of birth control, the concept of marriage itself came under scrutiny. Historically speaking, marriage was regarded in very similar terms as what Catholicism would claim. While Protestants rejected it as a sacrament, they did maintain the view that the primary end of marriage was procreation and the begetting of children. Naturally, if contraception was to be legitimized in Protestant religious practice, fertility's place had to be degraded. In other words, marriage had to be redefined to reduce children to a secondary role, while the mutual support of the spouses was made not only the primary end, but the sole one as well. After all, children were now optional altogether.

This may resonate with modern Protestants troubled by the current societal desire to redefine marriage as included homosexual unions. Regardless of their feelings on how Biblical a practice may be, perhaps the practical side of how dangerous it is to arbitrarily alter such a bedrock concept will have some influence.

Godly Seed isn't very long. It was about 170 pages, I think, but a lot of that was end notes. It is a densely-packed, thorough examination of how Protestants abandoned their heritage as Christians out of fears of too many handicapped, too many blacks, and too many Catholics. Once the lack of sexual accountability became comfortable, there was no reason to consider past arguments, and everyone was content with the new status quo. I strongly encourage all Catholics to read the book for themselves and then circulate it among your Protestant friends.

Sobering Thought

Again, as for another objection, stated in the question, Wherefore does He create souls for those whom He knows to be destined to an early death? we may reply, that by the death of the children the sins of the parents are either reproved or chastised. We may, moreover, with all propriety, leave these things to the disposal of the Lord of all, for we know that he appoints to the succession of events in time, and therefore to the births and deaths of living creatures as included in these, a course which is consummate in beauty and perfect in the arrangement of all its parts; whereas we are not capable of perceiving those things by the perception of which, if it were attainable, we should be soothed with an ineffable, tranquil joy. For not in vain has the prophet, taught by divine inspiration, declared concerning God, He brings forth in measured harmonies the course of time. For which reason music, the science or capacity of correct harmony, has been given also by the kindness of God to mortals having reasonable souls, with a view to keep them in mind of this great truth. For if a man, when composing a song which is to suit a particular melody, knows how to distribute the length of time allowed to each word so as to make the song flow and pass on in most beautiful adaptation to the ever-changing notes of the melody, how much more shall God, whose wisdom is to be esteemed as infinitely transcending human arts, make infallible provision that not one of the spaces of time alloted to natures that are born and die— spaces which are like the words and syllables of the successive epochs of the course of time— shall have, in what we may call the sublime psalm of the vicissitudes of this world, a duration either more brief or more protracted than the foreknown and predetermined harmony requires! For when I may speak thus with reference even to the leaves of every tree, and the number of the hairs upon our heads, how much more may I say it regarding the birth and death of men, seeing that every man's life on earth continues for a time, which is neither longer nor shorter than God knows to be in harmony with the plan according to which He rules the universe. 

St. Augustine, Letter (166) to St. Jerome

Don't believe him? Recall a man after God's own heart and what happened to him.

And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.

2 Samuel 12:13-14

We should never assume that the consequences of our sins are ours alone.

Happy Feast Of The Mother Of God!

What was born of Mary was therefore human by nature, in accordance with the inspired Scriptures, and the body of the Lord was a true body: It was a true body because it was the same as ours. Mary, you see, is our sister, for we are all born from Adam. 

The words of St John, the Word was made flesh, bear the same meaning, as we may see from a similar turn of phrase in St Paul: Christ was made a curse for our sake. Man’s body has acquired something great through its communion and union with the Word. From being mortal it has been made immortal; though it was a living body it has become a spiritual one; though it was made from the earth it has passed through the gates of heaven. 

 Even when the Word takes a body from Mary, the Trinity remains a Trinity, with neither increase nor decrease. It is for ever perfect. In the Trinity we acknowledge one Godhead, and thus one God, the Father of the Word, is proclaimed in the Church.

St. Athanasius, from the Office of Readings