Pope Benedict teases the faithful after his address at the University in Pavia with a draft copy of the Motu Proprio.
American Papist is doing a updated roundup of the Pope’s pastoral visit to Vigevano and Pavia.
Ruth "Darth Bader" Ginsburg complains in her dissent on upholding the PBA ban.
The Court’s hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label ‘abortion doctor.’ Ante, at 14, 24, 25, 31, 33.
Some such as Stuart Buck wondered "Just when?" NRO has had a discussion of this and Robert George responded to Jonah Goldberg.
Dear Jonah:
The irony is that the label "abortion doctor" was actually introduced by supporters of legal abortion and its public funding as a way of softening the image of physicians who engage in the rather grisly practice of deliberate feticide. They were traditionally known as abortionists, and that remains the accurate label. The truth is that persons performing what we ordinarily think of when we use the term "abortions" are not acting as doctors (i.e., healers) at all. Whether or not they hold a medical degree and license to practice medicine, the object of their action is not healing but killing. The (attempted) abortion is a success or a failure depending precisely on whether they transform a living human fetus into a corpse. Anything short of fetal death—-including live birth—-is a failed abortion.
Pregnancy as such is not a disease; and abortion as such is not a therapeutic treatment. Of course, sometimes pregnancy induces dangerous maternal health problems, and physicians (including physicians who are pro-life) sometimes take actions unavoidably causing fetal death in order to save women’s lives or prevent serious irreparable damage to their health. A classic case is the removal of a cancerous, but gravid, uterus. These were traditionally described as "indirect abortions," to distinguish them from abortions in the straightforward sense, i.e., interventions whose precise objective is killing the fetus. (The issue can be, though it need not be, discussed in terms of the "doctrine of double effect.")
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a leading opponent of abortion who also happens to be an obstetrician, notes the relevant distinction and refers to cases in which he himself has performed procedures that unavoidably caused fetal death in order to save maternal life. Obviously, he doesn’t regard himself as an abortionist or even an "abortion doctor." In the tragic cases to which he refers, he would have been pleased—not disappointed—if somehow the baby miraculously proved able to survive after being removed from its mother’s body. When we use the term "abortionist" (or "abortion doctor"), we refer to someone who accomplishes what he sets out to accomplish precisely in causing the fetus’s death. His job is turning a living human being in utero into a dead one, then extracting the body or its severed parts to prevent infection. If the baby somehow miraculously survived, he would not be pleased — he would not even be paid. And he would probably be sued.
Sincerely,
Robby
Abortion doctor isn’t a pejorative, its an oxymoron.
I fisked an article the other day by Phyllis Zagano that was an exceptionally silly exercise in wishful thinking that Pope Benedict was moving towards ordaining women as priest that appeared in The Kansas City Star. Quintero at L.A. Catholic reports that the same article appeared in the print edition of The Tidings. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the Archdiocese of L.A. would print such garbage.
So much for "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful." I guess definitely held means something different in L. A.
A reader sent me a link to the following story:
St. Louis University, a Jesuit school proud of its Catholic heritage, celebrated a legal victory last week that affirmed it is not controlled by the Catholic church or by its Catholic beliefs.
The Missouri Supreme Court agreed with the school in handing down a decision that the city of St. Louis did not violate state and federal constitutions by granting the university $8 million in tax increment financing for its new arena.
Opponents of the $80 million arena sued the school in 2004, halting construction.
The Missouri Constitution prohibits public funding to support any "… college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever."
The debate came down to two words: "control" and "creed." Does the guiding mission of a Catholic university align with the specific system of religious faith espoused by the Catholic church? And if so, does that system of faith control the actions of the university?
In a 6-1 decision, the court said SLU "is not controlled by a religious creed."
Jesuit bashing it just too easy nowadays to be any fun.
Pope revises limbo, says there is hope for babies who are not baptized
Vatican panel condemns limbo to eternal dustbin
All this begs the question "can unbaptized MSM headlines writers be saved?"
The New York magazine has an article titled The Convert. Of course you knew it would not be a normal conversion story but one of a former Jewish leader of a Synagogue who became Catholic and later accused of being a greedy corporate looter.
Even adoring former law partners couldn’t help but wonder if Belnick was suffering a very high-end breakdown. Opus Dei! They’d been to his kids’ bar mitzvahs. A Utah ski house! Belnick doesn’t ski. Just look at him—a shape like Alfred Hitchcock. If Belnick had really become a ski-loving Catholic—and none of his former partners had been informed—then who knew what other kind of kookiness was possible?
… Soon, though, Belnick found companionship in an intensely bound new community, and in particular with the figure at its center: C. John McCloskey, a former Merrill Lynch stockbroker who’d become an Opus Dei priest. The sect, which believes that holiness is possible in the workplace—even for lawyers—has sometimes been accused of secretiveness. But McCloskey is an open book. He’s cheerful, thoughtful in conversation, ending sentences with an upturned hmm. Then there’s his Website. There, anyone can learn that he’s an unusual combination of Ivy League–ness (Columbia grad, strong interest in squash), religious conservative, and aggressive evangelist. “Priests,” he says, “are the Navy seals of the Catholic Church.”
Well the "even for lawyers" line is pretty funny. I also like the “Priests are the Navy seals of the Catholic Church.” Be all that you can be – be a priest sounds like a great motto to me and hey Seals are male only also. In bootcamp I once had aspirations of being a Seal which is funny since even rocks call me static.
His admirers at the Harrison JCC were equally befuddled. “Opus Dei caused us more shock than anything else,” says the treasurer. “It shook us.”
The article on the whole is rather odd since it focuses mainly on his conversion and not the trail itself and his acquittal. Though there is the obvious connection we are suppose to make that they are related.
TS relates his experience of Catholic school during the seventies.
…How well could I have been spiritually formed given that we’re dealing primarily with the years 1975-1981? This is sort of like being eighteen years old in 1941 isn’t it? You’re pretty much doomed. By 1975 I think even Ohio (where everything other than puberty is delayed ten years) was infected by the whole “spirit of Vatican II” thing, where "spirit" is defined by "whatever the hell I want the document to say".
He also talks about the books used and the "infamous “Christ Among Us”" and is tempted to read it just to be able to judge it. I picked up that book in a used book store early in my conversion. I am not sure why I read the whole book and even as I was reading it I knew there was something wrong with it. I hardly ever quit a book and heck I even finished reading Fr. O’Brien’s Catholicism which should have been called "My Catholicism."
Not surprisingly the book relatives the Eucharist and even talks about the real presence in terms of non-Catholic celebrations. This was of course the trend at the time to downplay the Sacrament of the Eucharist in favor of Christ present in the congregation. Though with the increase of Eucharistic celebration thankfully that trend is fading .Anthony Wilhelm, the author, even makes the mistake of equivocating the reality of Christ’s presence with the fervor of the people.
Wilhelm even goes on to write that premarital sex is okay for the engaged, so I guess you can commit a retroactive sin if the engagement breaks off. Of course as you would expect contraception and women’s ordination is also endorsed. Even though my understanding of Catholicism was definitely at its infancy this book sounded klaxons of alarm to me throughout.
Unfortunately this book is still used in RCIAs throughout the country. Sean Roberts who was RCIA blogger, a former atheist, and is now a monk detailed how the book was used in his RCIA class. The book also had an imprimatur at one time though then-Cardinal Ratzinger later ordered that it be removed. Also unfortunately since over 2 million copies of the book have been printed it will continue to have a negative impact.
I have wondered at times if it might be good for the bishops conference to set the curriculum for RCIA, but at the minimum it should be set by the local bishop. I was quite fortunate in the RCIA that I went to was filled with people faithful to the Church and who didn’t play fast and loose with the doctrines of the Church. Though I have heard and read plenty of horror stories of what have been taught in these classes. Right now RCIA classes vary from parish to parish. I have read that there have been recidivism rates in RCIA in the area of 70% to 80% throughout the country. While of course there can be plenty of factors leading to this – watered down Catholicism is not exactly the elixir to help Catholics maintain their faith.
The Bishop’s conference as it currently stands could probably even produce a fairly good curriculum based on the CCC or the new Adult Catechism. This ability might have been in question 10 or 20 years ago, though it would probably been better then those relying heavily on Christ among us. Though I am quite open to ideas why the USCCB doing this might not be a good thing. But each parish doing there own thing will certainly insure varied results depending on the parish. The fact is also that regardless of how good a curriculum is it can be subverted
I would be interested to hear others experience in RCIA.
Jay Anderson has been maintaining a roundup of people making the link between the support of the legality of the PBA ban and that those same five justices were Catholics. A real doozy is the cartoon that appeared in a major daily newspaper.
Anyone who has ventured into the Catholic blogosphere recently is aware that speculation about the motu proprio has been at a fever pitch for months. One wag has even posted a list of the Top Ten signs that someone is in the grip of "motu-mania," including: "You have a calendar with all the likely feast days that the motu proprio might be issued marked," and, "You have written 500 blog posts, and 480 of them have been about the motu proprio."
Wow I have been elevated to "wag" in a John Allen Jr. column! I am so excited and this is a lifelong dream to be described as a wag. Wagdom has long evaded me. I was actually once a wog – that is someone who had not yet crossed the equator aboard a Navy ship. But I am now a trusty Shellback six times over and now to be a wag in addition makes me quite happy.
Doubtless Mr. Allen came across my list previously when Amy Welborn linked to it. Interestingly Amy today in a post said:
Secondly, the citation of the "wag" who provided the top-10 list. Well, the"wag" was the Curt Jester and it is a shame that in this piece he can’t be credited by name and a link, especially since the Catholic blogosphere, despite its general bias against NCR(eporter) has played a role in whatever presence NCR(eporter)’s website has, primarily through its links and discussions of Allen’s reporting. Fair is fair.
She makes a good point and I have reviewed two of John Allen Jr’s book positively and the Catholic blogosphere has been quite favorable to his consistently fair reporting. Our grudge against the NCReporter is that he is pretty much the exception.
I also designate Maureen an honorary wag since my list took off from her original one and she coined the term “Motu-Mania”.
Sacerdos in Aeternum posts on a Kansas City Star article that is rather strange. The women who wrote the article must be the Pollyana of progressives. An optimist with a large imagination.
Yes, I know all about the chances of snowballs surviving in the netherworld, but I still think Pope Benedict XVI is moving toward ordaining Catholic women.
Of course it contains the usual misinformation that women in the early Church acted as deacons, without mentioning that the normal role of deaconesses in the early Church was helping to baptize women in full immersion fonts.
Three times in the last year or so, the pope’s comments leaned in that direction. The telltale words are “governance” and “ministry.” Each is technically reserved to the ordained.
In the flood of ideas coming from the scholar-pope, the theme of charity stands out. Would a pope turning 80 on April 16 ordain women to minister in charity?
A year ago, a Rome priest publicly asked Benedict if women could be included formally in Church governance and ministry. Surprisingly, Benedict said yes. He said so again on German television last August.
The idea that “governance” and “ministry” is only for the ordained is just a form of clericalism and a form of it that I guess progressives are for.
Of course Cardinal Razinger replied in a Dubium:
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
But I guess since he didn’t say "Hell no" that leaves some room for "telltale" signs.
When Benedict talks about women, he always begins by deflecting the idea of women priests, pointing out that Jesus chose male apostles from among his men and women disciples. Such is the Catholic Church’s fundamental argument against women priests.
But that has nothing to do with women deacons. In fact, Benedict has now — three times — reiterated that women were actively engaged in Jesus’ ministry. And “ministry” is the key word when we’re talking about deacons.
Ministry is what deacons do: They minister in and through the word, the liturgy and charity. Deacons preach. Deacons participate in the Mass. Deacons manage the Church’s charity, or at least they used to.
Deacons watched over the stores and treasures of the early church. They cared for the poor and the orphaned, for the homeless and the widows with church funds, properties, and possessions. They even paid the salaries of the priests.
I guess if you are not ordained a deacon you can not care for the poor and the orphans. The homeless and widows need help, but sadly you have to tell them that you are not a deacon.
That may not be the case today, but it begs the question: why not? As Catholicism is increasingly bereft of priests it is concurrently flooded with deacons — there are over 15,000 in the United States alone. These are capable men, able to run a parish plant, manage Catholic charities, or oversee the cemeteries or the various aid societies of a parish or a diocese. They can free priests to do priestly — rather than diaconal — ministry.
What exactly is a "parish plant?" I assume it is not some potted plant but perhaps a view of the parish as some kind of sacramental factory. Once again though I can’t see from her example why anybody can perform the jobs she cited and not be ordained.
If Catholicism were to return to its older tradition, that would add women to the mix. Then women could oversee church money and properties on behalf of the pastor or the bishop. What if women watched where the money went? Perhaps then there might be more money around for the poor and maybe fewer financial scandals.
You learn something new everyday. I was not aware that original sin applied only to men.
And what if women deacons ministering in charity could preach each Sunday? Would not the church hear more about the way the gospel functions in the real world, here and now, in the 21st century?
Well women can preach all they want. Just not at the homily during Mass.
It’s just a thought, but it might be Benedict’s idea too.
Well as a prophet I hope she keeps her day job.