The Curt Jester

Considering that Pentecost is often mentioned as the birthday of the Church it is not surprising to hear a homily referencing the age of the Church. Today I heard the same and like I hear all to often it involves bad Pentecost math in that the Church is referred to as being 2,000 plus years old.

Now I can understand a bit of shorthand in referring to the Church as being 2,000 years old, but not 2,000 plus. The error seems to count the birth of the Church from the birth of Jesus and not Pentecost after his death. While there is some lack of precision on the year Jesus was born (theories ranging from roughly 1–7 BC) any such recalculation still does not make the Church 2000 plus years old in the year 2013. Now this is no big deal, just one of those little things that annoy me.

Still I wonder if in the years ahead if the Church will try to set some date as a 2,000 year anniversary of the Church? Jimmy Akin had an interesting piece this year exploring if we could know when Jesus died. He sets it with some precision as 3:00 p.m on Friday, April 3, A.D. 33. So in 20 years we really could be saying the Church was 2,000 years old.

The other bit of bad statistical math involved in the homily was the priest saying there were 2 Billion Catholics. The actual figure is somewhat over 1.2 Billion.

Since the priest wasn’t interested in precision of numbers I put in a donation envelope that said $20 on the outside, but contained a check for $5 inside. Well not really.

Speaking of math, here is something from post from 2006 The Mathsiah.

“Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;”

“Be fruitful and multiply”

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log of x+1 that is in your own eye?”

“Go and sine no more.”

Tweet

New York’s Timothy Cardinal Dolan made it clear this morning that if Gov. Cuomo proceeds with his plans to strengthen state abortion laws, he will face the wrath of the Catholic Bishops.

“I am going to hope that the better natures prevail here, but boy if you come out you can expect us to be as vociferous and rigorous as possible in our opposition to this,” Dolan said during an interview with an Albany radio station Tuesday. “I hope we don’t go there.”

Dolan went so far as to suggest that Cuomo might not be considered a Catholic in good standing if goes forward.

“I don’t mind telling you that’s one of the things the governor and I talk about,” Dolan said.

“Look, he and I have very grave differences, and this is one of them… That’s something that we talk about and that’s something that I talk turkey with him about.”

This story was later updated:

UPDATED – Dolan spokesman Joe Zwilling just emailed a note clarifying Dolan’s comments on the radio, saying “Cardinal Dolan would not and did not suggest the governor might not be a Catholic in good standing going forward. The subject he ‘talks turkey’ about was abortion.”

Dolan’s comment’s came in a response to a question that asked how Cuomo “could be a leader on an issue that the church so fundamentally feels strongly about, opposes, abortion, and still be considered a Catholic in good standing.” (source)

One thing I have wondered about just exactly what does the term “Catholic in good standing” mean anyway? If Pelosi, Biden, and Cuomo can use those terms concerning themselves it doesn’t mean very much. Does the term have any actual definition from the Church? I’ve heard the term bandied about and while the definition of it seems common sensical. The Knights of Columbus use this term in regards to membership. The practical application of the term seems to mean someone not formally excommunicated and so ends up not meaning very much at all. Somehow I feel that after I die, telling Jesus “I was a Catholic in good standing” won’t be very helpful.

“Cardinal Dolan would not and did not suggest the governor might not be a Catholic in good standing going forward.”

If Gov. Cuomo who supports multiple intrinsic evils in his political life and commits adultery with his live-in girlfriend can be considered a “Catholic in good standing” then talk about mixed-messages.

Now I can understand pastoral sensitivities, but I don’t understand the sensitivity about this term which I believe has no canonical weight. Certainly I am frustrated by my internal feeling that “Catholic in good standing” actually means “Bishop unwilling to act.” I know that is more hyperbole than truth, but I keep waiting for a Bishop/Politician interaction where the dialogue and the dissent does not just keep going on and on. But as usual whining about Bishops is much easier than praying for them and for those “Catholics in good standing.”

Tweet

Hilary Towers writing at NRO:

Once upon a time in this country, moral integrity, emotional (and even spiritual) maturity, and a servant’s heart were considered important characteristics of public leaders. In Mark Sanford we find a case study in how far removed we’re becoming from that standard. When did abandoning one’s spouse and children for an extramarital affair become compatible with conservativism? [sic] Apologies are meaningless when they are followed by more of the same. Sanford describes himself as “one imperfect man saved by God’s grace.” But the problem with this win (and here is who South Carolina voters could have elected if they had put values first) isn’t that Sanford isn’t perfect. Marriage is hard, and every spouse has virtues and vices — defects of character with which they will struggle throughout their married lives. But marriages don’t “fall apart” as a result of falling in love with another person; they are all too often destroyed from within by a self-love that transcends marital bonds and spills over into every aspect of one’s existence. It is time for conservatives to publicly recognize the widespread phenomenon of spousal abandonment, and the system of “family law” that supports it, for what they both are — a national scandal.

Among other things, this election result is a searing reminder that we have, as a nation, lost touch with what “redemption” really means — with the true power of God’s grace, which is the power to transform behavior. And behavior, after all, is a reflection of the heart. How much longer can conservative stewards of family values turn a blind eye to the very narcissistic lifestyle choices of our leaders that we are fighting so hard to weaken (and ultimately transform) in society at large?

If repentance means marrying the women you committed adultery with, you’re doing it wrong.

If only this was contained to the “narcissistic lifestyle choices of our leaders.” The reason this pasts muster in the first place is that divorce and “remarriage” has become so accepted. Hard to hold politicians to a standard when the standard behavior of so many is exactly the same thing.

I heard callers on the Laura Ingraham show who were not concerned at all about his behavior because he votes the right way. The same as for the defense of President Clinton on the other side. The excuse always is that the other candidate will be worse for the country. Yet this never explains how seriously morally compromised candidates get nominated in the first place instead as if they were the only option.

Tweet