Bishop Sheen on “What’s my Line” via Fr. Ryan.
Greg and Jennifer Willits of The Catholic Channel’s show “The Catholic’s Next Door” interviewed Professor Scott Appleby of the University of Notre Dame. It was not an official response by the administration of Notre Dame, though no doubt his reasoning followed closely what the defenders of this decision generally beleive.
One of the things the professor mentioned is that a straw poll before the election showed the majority of the student body support then-Sen. Obama. I was wondering why he brought this up since it seems to me that this should be something the university should be rather ashamed about. While the university is made up of people other than Catholics, murdering the innocent is something everybody can come to know it wrong via the Natural Law. A Catholic university that can’t even impart the Culture of Life to their own students is failing on some fundamental levels. Though no doubt many of these students voted for Obama for reasons other than abortion.
It seems to me that these Obama supporting students have made the exact same flaw as the administration. They voted for him largely despite the fact that he was the most radical abortion supporting candidate for the presidency and Fr. Jenkins selected him despite the very same fact. The idea is that just as long as your selection is based on another criteria then it makes the selection perfectly fine.
One of the prevalent pieces of defense of this has been to “reach out” to the President. To open up lines of communication and to dialogue and to create “teaching moment” as the Head of Holy Cross order said. I think it is a bit silly to consider that the President flying in giving a speech and receiving a law degree and then flying out could do any such thing. It reminds me more of appeasement than anything. I just wonder by these arguments exactly what is beyond the pale? If you can support murdering the innocent and experimenting on them then I guess a President could do anything and could still be invited. This President has not exactly been someone reaching out to Catholics (unless they were pro-abortion) and has continuously ignored and slapped the face of faithful Catholics by his actions and nominations. When you ignore the evil somebody is doing you are not helping them. I guess John the Baptist should have reached out to Herod and invited him to speak by the Jordan River instead of rebuking his irregular marriage. St. Thomas More should have created a teaching moment by signing the document and hoping his capitulation would lead to lines of communication.
Professor Appleby got a bit perturbed by Greg’s questions and wanted a yes or no answer to whether it was a reasonable interpretation to think that Notre Dame was honoring the President for his support of abortion. Greg didn’t really want to give a yes/no answer since this really wasn’t the right question. What the invite does is present a relativistic view in regards to abortion and minimizes the evil of it. This is certainly how the majority of pro-lifers see this. The professor though did understand why people were troubled by the honorary law degree given to someone who supports Roe V. Wade. If the President was just invited to speak the case could have been made (wrongly I think) about opening lines of communication, but the honorary law degree really sticks in the craw of those who want to protect life.
When you have 2 cardinasl, your diocesan bishop, and a number of other bishops speak out that you messed up – you probably messed up. Though no doubt we will continue to have a Kmiecation of them trying to justify a bad decision. Cardinal George today called it an “Extreme embarrassment” to Catholics.
WASHINGTON–As many as 150,000 new or returning Catholics are expected to join the Catholic Church in 2009 in the United States. Many of them will do so at the Easter Vigil liturgies, April 11, in parishes across the country.
In some cases the numbers show the growth and vitality of the Catholic Church in places where it has traditionally been a small minority. For instance, the Archdiocese of Atlanta estimates that 513 catechumens and 2,195 candidates will join the ranks of the Archdiocese in 2009. About 1,800 of them will do so at Easter. These numbers do not include infant baptisms, which are recorded separately.
Catechumens are people who have never been baptized. Candidates are those who have received baptism in another Christian community and are seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. [reference]
I certainly rejoice in each and every person joining or returning to the Catholic Church. But this number is not all that impressive compared to the past. In 1960 there was almost the same number (146,212). Yet in 1960 the population was over 120 million people less. Then again the number is almost double of what it was in 2002 with 79,892 and this year is a high water mark since the cultural turmoil of the sixties. Funny how all the “relevance” and “engaging the culture” didn’t quite work out as planned.
If you find a book that covers the topic of exorcism you can imagine many ways the book might go wrong. When you find one written by a freelance writer who worked for the AP bureau in Rome you can think of other ways it would go wrong. Exorcism is a topic that can easily lead to sensationalism or mocking skepticism.
Despite the chances to go awry the book “The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist
” by Matt Baglio actually turned out to be quite solid book on the subject. According the the author’s note at the end he had heard about the university course in Rome on exorcism and wondered if it was a PR stunt or actually serious. He had plenty of preconceptions and later met with priest from California who had been appointed by his bishop to be the diocesan exorcist and to take this course.
The book follows Fr. Gary Thomas as he goes through the classes and apprentices with an exorcist in Rome. Fr. Thomas had previously known very little about exorcism and was rather hesitant about becoming an exorcist. Along with following his progress as he learns about exorcism and then later his experience as an atheist once returning to his home diocese, the book also goes over his calling to the priesthood and an episode where he had to recover from a very serious fall off a cliff.
I was quite impressed with how the author covered the subject and it was quite obvious he had done a lot of research on the subject both theologically and the pastoral aspects by talking to multiple exorcists. I had very few quibbles as I read through the book and while I can’t speak to just how accurate everything was in the book theologically, it mostly seem to ring true. The author did not write from a skeptical point of view and while at times he did discuss scientists who were trying to explain exorcism, it was done in a way as trying to be thorough and not just to explain away exorcism. The author mentions in his note at the end that when he started the book that he had been an infrequent Mass goer. Though it certainly appears that he allowed himself to follow what he had discovered and what he had learned via Fr. Thomas and ended up writing a different book than he might have originally intended.
I learned a good deal about exorcism in the book and the fact that most exorcists try to be the ultimate skeptic when it comes to the subject. The terminology used and the distinctions made for precision. There was also discussion about some of the clergy and others who are embarrassed about the whole topic or could hardly believe that the Church was still trying to teach this.
Fr. Thomas’ apprenticeship under the Italian exorcist was very interesting and covered the more mundane aspects of exorcism to some of the more difficult cases. This made for quite interesting reading along with some of the stories told by other exorcists.
Overall I found this to be both an informative and enjoyable read and so much better than I had anticipated it to be.
Disclaimer: I received this book via the Amazon Vine program.
More than 100,000 Britons have recently downloaded “certificates of de-baptism” from the Internet to renounce their Christian faith.
The initiative launched by a group called the National Secular Society (NSS) follows atheist campaigns here and elsewhere, including a London bus poster which triggered protests by proclaiming “There’s probably no God.”
“We now produce a certificate on parchment and we have sold 1,500 units at three pounds (4.35 dollars, 3.20 euros) a pop,” said NSS president Terry Sanderson, 58.[reference]
Lame! If they want to do it right they need to do what Julian the Apostate did. He baptized himself in bull’s blood to be de-baptized. Sure that is just as inffective as an internet certificate, but it at least shows commitment.
I started a Twitter account for the Pope’s Cat.
You can also find me at @curtjester.
I am a pro-life Democrat. I believe that life begins at conception and ends when we draw our last breath and that we must protect life at every point in that process.
My actions as a U.S. senator have been consistent with this philosophy. I have voted against federal funding of stem cell research that would destroy living embryos.
I have voted to codify the federal regulation that provides unborn children with health coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
I have voted to prohibit funding to organizations that support coercive abortions.
I have voted to prohibit circumvention of parental involvement in abortion decisions.
I have consistently supported the Hyde Amendment and the Helms Amendment regarding federal funding of abortions or abortion-related services.
And I have worked closely with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other faith groups to introduce S. 270, the Pregnant Women Support Act — last year and again last month. This legislation would reduce the number of abortions by providing health care, education, counseling, nutrition, pre-natal care, and information for pregnant women.
And he voted against bringing back the Mexico City Policy. So he is not exactly telling the truth calling himself pro-life when he voted against a bill that would stop the U.S. funding organizations overseas that provided abortion that the President allowed. Bishop Martino has written two letters to Sen. Casey about this and as far as I know he has not responded. In 2007 Sen. Casey voted against and amendment by Sen. Brownback that attempted to undo the damage by a bill from Sen. Boxer also regarding the Mexico City Policy. Sen. Casey also supported Sen. Obama’s run for president because Obama “thinks we shouldn’t be deaf to the voices of the next generation.” – irony indeed. He also supported the so-called morning after pill Plan B. If you want to call yourself pro-life Senator than stop supporting federal funding of abortions and thinking contraception is find for a Catholic to support.
Many pro-life activists talk about one strategy only — the appointment of a justice who may tip the Supreme Court against Roe v.Wade. I understand this approach. I, too, believe that Roe was wrongly decided. I strongly oppose the Freedom of Choice Act which would codify the Roe decision. While this bill has not been introduced, I will oppose it if it is introduced.
Strawman alert: I don’t know of any pro-life organizations whose only strategy is changing the law. The pro-life movement has been the force around the crisis pregnancy centers that have multiplied throughout the nation. This sounds oh so familiar to the phony complaint by pro-abortion types that we only care about the unborn and not the born. Glad to hear that he is still strongly opposed to FOCA, we will have to wait and see how he votes on President Obama’s first Supreme Court pick when it happens.
Sen. Casey was sorry to hear when pro-abortion Catholic Tom Daschel had to withdraw as a nominee to head Health and Human Services. So far he has not said anything about whether he will support pro-abortion Catholic Gov. Sebelius. Though his bishop has urged him not to.
What we don’t often hear is the reality that overturning Roe will not outlaw abortions — it will send the question to state legislatures. Many states will legalize abortion in some or most circumstances. And that is assuming that five justices will put aside the principal of stare decisis and overturn a 35-year-old ruling.
As if pro-lifers don’t know this.
What are we doing now to help the unborn? Does the fifth-justice strategy help support pregnant women who need help in order to choose life? Does it help women think through their options? Does it provide assistance to teenagers and college students so they can have their babies and stay in school? Does it help pregnant women who have abusive partners get the support they need? Does it eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition in the individual health insurance market? Does it provide home visitation to young mothers without support? The answer, sadly, is no. Neither party does enough What are we doing now to help the unborn? Does the fifth-justice strategy help support pregnant women who need help in order to choose life? Does it help women think through their options? Does it provide assistance to teenagers and college students so they can have their babies and stay in school?Does it help pregnant women who have abusive partners get the support they need? Does it eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition in the individual health insurance market? Does it provide home visitation to young mothers without support? The answer, sadly, is no. Neither party does enough to help pregnant women.
The problem with this thinking is that it assumes an either/or attitude when we can both help to change the Supreme Court and to help pregnant women. Without government funding we are already creating and supporting crisis pregnancy centers within are area. We are already providing support for those who think they have no other choice. We can certainly do more in this direction. We have to work towards changing the culture, changing the courts, and at the same time providing care and hope for pregnant women, but they are not equally exclusive operations.
He goes on to talk about the Pregnant Women Support Act which he has reintroduced. This is actually a pretty good bill and in the past had the support of solid pro-lifers and the USCCB. Though for the most part I think that we can do more in our local communities than any government program ever will do.
I wish that we had actual pro-life Democratic Senators, but the ones who call themselves so are not consistent and mostly will put the party over their pro-life convictions and in the case of Catholic Democrats they put the party over their faith. I get so tired of Catholics who say they are pro-life and then find every excuse to go along with the Democratic party. The Notre Dame scandal seems to be right along party lines where the defenders are known apologists for excusing the Democratic Party for their Molochian support while pretending that their policies will make things better. Within the Catholic blogosphere I was quite happy to see Catholics criticize Republicans when they support the culture of death. The large outcry that there was over Mayor Giuliani’s candidacy. I wish that the pro-life Catholics of a Democratic persuasion would be just as critical when their party does something evil. Unfortunately the same individuals and groups who supported President Obama as being “more pro-life” don’t have anything contrary to say when he funded abortions overseas or declared that a class of human persons could be killed and experimented on. There is no perfect political party, but that does not mean we don’t hold their feet to the fire when they are supporting evil and in no way should make excuses for them.
I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children.
Bishop Tobin responding to complaints about his previous column.
The phony and new age “healing” practice Reiki is all too common and is used at some Catholic hospitals and retreat centers. Over time I have heard plenty of people calling into Catholic Answers asking about this. This issue has become a little more clear now since the USCCB Committee on Doctrine has released “Guidelines For Evaluating Reiki As An Alternative Therapy” and says “Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence” and is superstitious”
So this new document will be some help to those wanting to get rid of this nonsense as practiced in Catholic institutions. Though like most Church documents including those from the USCCB there are often just ignored by Catholics who want to do their own thing.
Hat tip to Fr. Philip Powell, OP.
Science Fiction author John C. Wright points to an article by fellow SF author Michael Flynn that was in the the July/August edition of Analog. The article “De revolutione scientiarum in ‘media tempstas'” and addresses the history of science and its roots in the medieval period and questions related to this
He asks how long was this pregnancy and also mentions Fr. Stanley Jaki’s statement that “the Scientific Revolution was stillborn in every other civilization.” Having read some of Fr. Jaki’s books in regard to the history of science it is certainly true that it was the Catholic Church that was the midwife for the Scientific Revolution.
Michael Flynn writes this in the dialectric format which readers of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologicae. This is really quite an excellent article, though since it is a scanned PDF not the easiest thing to read.
John C. Wright also mentioned some of the most ignorant comments he has received citing the myths of the Church’s opposition to science or saying the Church taught the Earth was flat or that it banned autopsies.
This kind of reminds me how some Protestants are very similar to some atheists/secularists. That they believe all sorts of things about the Church that just doing the most basic research would show as false. Atheists seem to think that science popped up out of nothing and if anything despite Christians and Protestants seem to think that church history started right after the Reformation. Both groups are quite ignorant of the actual history of the Church just as I was once equally or even more ignorant.
I previously reviewed Mr. Flynn’s book Eifelheim which I loved and Mr. Flynn even commented on my review. I am also a fan of his other books and look forward to reading his latest book “The January Dancer.”