Punditry

With all the talk today of Mitt Romney’s "Faith and America" speech and the reference to JFK’s speech I decided to actually read the JFK speech
to the Southern Baptist Leaders in 1960. Wow what an overrated speech that was and it is quite horrid in parts with it’s modern view of Church/State separation that is quite rigid. It was interesting to read that JFK was opposed to having an ambassador to the Vatican and in fact it wasn’t till President Reagan that we had an ambassador to the Holy See. It is certainly not a speech that religious conservatives today would much like, but maybe it had helped him with borderline anti-Catholics. Though I think the funniest thing in hindsight is the idea of JFK being beholden to the Catholic Church in any way in the first place.

Mitt Romney’s speech on the other hand concentrates mostly on faith in public life and not his own faith for the most part and in fact he only mentions Mormons once. His view of church and state separation is much better than JFK’s and closer to what the founders actually intended.

…”We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

…”There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

” I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

Interesting remarks about the Catholic Mass. He must not have been to Mass at the Church John Kerry attends in Boston. Though if I were a Lutheran I think I would be miffed at Mitt. I don’t think "confident independence" is going to be a advertising motto for Lutheran churches anytime soon. "You look confidently independent. Are you a Lutheran per chance?"

…"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

With Mormonism such a statement is more important considering that their current "prophet" can receive new revelation as has happened in the past. Maybe one day they will have one on caffeine to help out Starbucks in Utah. But if you believe in this Mormon doctrine where new revelation can contradict older ones than saying that this could have no influence on presidential decisions is to say he is not a faithful Mormon. JFK’s at least said he would step down in some theoretical case his faith conflicted with his presidency. But the purpose of this speech in the first place is to satisfy those who are concerned about his being a Mormon and it is not surprising he takes this tack, but I don’t think it helps his credibility by saying so and his credibility is already his major liability.

Jimmy Akin is not impressed with the speech and mentions how Romney wants to have it both ways. I agree with Jimmy on how the "Religious test" was misrepresented from the Constitution. Voters certainly can have a religious test in making their decisions. If a candidate was part of some doomsday cult than surely you can knock him out of contention just for that.

His speech is just too generic on faith in public life and has little to do with him as a Mormon. He obviously perceived his Mormonism as a problem to be addressed, but this speech doesn’t do it. For me there are a lot more issues I am concerned about with Mitt Romney than his Mormonism.

I heard Donny Osmond the other day in a interview he did that included a defense of Mormonism where he talked about believing what the Council of Nicea said which he thought took place sometime in the 900’s. And here I thought Mormons held that the Church became corrupted pretty much right away. Though you always do have to wonder just how much Mormons really know about their faith and its distinctive from Christianity. Those Latter Day Saint commercials constantly on TV never seem to mention Polytheism or the name of the planet God the Father came from.

As a blogger who sees lots and lots of headlines through various sources there is one thing I would love to do. I wish I could write a search and replace macro virus that would go through all of the various news organization style guides and make some changes.

Headline writers are just getting too lazy. One word I especially see used way too much is "slam" or "slams" Apparently everyday somebody is slamming something. In fact later generations if they go by news sources will be convinced that at one point there was an Pope who took the name of Slams since so many headlines say Pope Slams this and Pope Slams that. Though it isn’t just the pope who gets the slam treatment, it is used throughout all headlines on just about any topic.

In almost all cases slam can be replaced with "disagree" or "criticizes." I guess those words just aren’t as sexy for headline writers. But surely people get desensitized to always using slam and it will be less likely to catch your eyes.

A reader sent me a sample of how New Line Cinema is deceptively using a review from the USSCB’s Office for Film & Broadcasting.

First it is dishonest to say that it is the USSCB that said this, but that is the least of the problem.

The part they put in quotes does not actually exist in the review. They have cobbled it together from two different sections of the review.

Whatever author Pullman’s putative motives in writing the story, writer-director Chris Weitz’s film, taken purely on its own cinematic terms, can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.

and

To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.

They didn’t even do a Maureen Down and put in ellipses.

I sent off some emails to New Line Cinema’s Press Contacts, though I doubt if I will get a reply.

Though I also do wonder how non-Catholics might see the endorsement and if if it a negative in their case?

Update: New Line Cinema emailed me back with this reply “We have been alerted yesterday about this matter and we have changed the text — it takes 24 hours for the online change and it will happen sometime today –.” So if anybody sees the new text of the ad let me know what it is.

Today must be anti-Catholic film day today on the Curt Jester. This is from the Catholic League.

On December 7, Gener8Xion Entertainment, a prominent Protestant film company, will release Nolle. Catholic League president Bill Donohue disputes the claim that the movie is merely a parable of forgiveness and grace:

Weve seen the movie and its a gem. In the synopsis provided by Gener8Xion, it accurately describes Jonathan Keene as a young Catholic priest seemingly devoid of genuine human emotion; his job is to do what he does best: shut down a failing parish. Then there is the child-like Fr. Simeon Joyce, a faithful but disillusioned priest who blatantly disregards church regulations, uses church monies to pay an old fishermans medical bills and spends most of his time drinking at the local pub. Both priests are portrayed as losers.

Viewers learn that the only reason Fr. Keene became a priest is because he felt guilty about getting a girl pregnant when he was in college; to top things off, he pressured her to have an abortion. Fr. Joyce, the alcoholic, has serious reservations about celibacy and his idea of heaven is a jolly good Christmas party. Fr. Joyce tells Fr. Keene he wants to marry a woman named Marjorie so he can help raise her illegitimate kid, saying he made a vow to God not to the Church. But Fr. Keene, a first-class klutz, is also in love with the same woman: he is shown bolting in the middle of Midnight Mass to be with her, knocking over a filled chalice and ripping off his vestments.

Throughout the film, confession is trivialized, celibacy is ridiculed, the Virgin Mary is disrespected, nuns are belittled, last rites are mocked, and priestly vocations are caricatured. In short, that which is uniquely Catholic is trashed. However, the plot and the acting are so deliriously absurd that it is impossible for us to get too worked up about this flick.

It means nothing that the movie has a pro-life message. Stereotypes about Protestant ministers abound, raising the question, Why didnt Gener8Xion choose to mock one of their own clergy? Similarly, given that the films writer, David Hall, has said that his primary interest was in dealing with hypocrisy, why didnt he consult with Sen. Charles Grassley about all those prosperity church pastors being investigated for ripping off their flock? We know why, and thats why the Catholic League exists.

I haven’t written much about the movie adaptation of the Golden Compass. Others such as Carl Olson at Insight Scoop has been doing in depth coverage of this much better than I could.
But I do find a couple of things interesting about the debate.

For one what was the last time you heard the people involved with a movie basically brag about how far the movie adaptation is from the book? Usually you will here excuses in book adaptations giving an apology of why the screenplay has to be different from the novel. In this case though they go on about how they toned down elements of the novel to not be so anti-religious. So in a way they are admitting they are making a movie based on an anti-religious book. The actors involved have made all kinds of statements on how the movie is not anti-Catholic. I would like to hear one interviewer asking them if the novels are? If someone did a movie adaptation of The Elders of the Protocol of Zion and then said they toned down the anti-Semitic parts of it would they get away with this?

I also find it interesting that Pullman in his trilogy where the message of atheism trumps storytelling had to be done in an alternate time line. When you think of atheistic materialism you don’t often think, if at all, about having dæmons as an animal-formed, shape-shifting manifestation of people’s souls. Sounds a lot like to me of an Indian spirit guide. This is not to say that atheists aren’t allowed to use fantasy as a story telling vehicle. It just seems to me to be a poor vehicle for preaching materialism.

The whole debate though went off the end when a Zenit reader wrote Coke about their sponsorship of the movie and received this reply.

“We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

” The Golden Compass movie is a story about friendship, love, loyalty, tolerance, courage and responsibility. This movie also provides an opportunity for Coca-Cola to help raise awareness about climate change and the perilous state of the polar bear.

“We do not believe that this fantasy movie is an attack on any religion. We would never support a film that intentionally antagonized or condemned any faith.”

So I guess a CGI armored bear dæmon in a alternate timeline fantasy movie is really going to help awareness for real Polar Bears. Did you know that Finding Nemo raised awareness for mercury levels in fish? This has got to be the silliest defense I have ever heard. But as Carl Olson said "Didn’t Al Gore already make a fantasy movie about climate change and polar bears? " So what Coke wants us to believe is that a movie that has the Magisterium as the enemy, talks about suppression of heresy, has the agents of the Magisterium called friars, includes a renegade priest is not an attack on any religion. I mean it is not like there is any faith that has a Magisterium includes friars and priests and condemns heresy. Oh wait.

Now I am not into boycotts, I am just into knowledge and honesty. That parents should be aware of the trilogies agenda and that while the movie tones this down it remains evident even by secular reviewers in the New York Post.

I just wanted to complain that there is only one decent action sequence in this lavishly produced flick — a fight between two CGI bears that drew the only reaction from the audience at last night’s screening at the Empire — and reams of dull exposition. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has been publicizing the movie by claiming it’s an anti-religious tract, as much as it pains me to say so, this self-appointed no-nothing may actually have something of a point. You don’t need to be a Jesuit scholar to figure out that the film’s bad guys who keep complaining about heretics — led by Nicole Kidman, looking even more like a CGI character than those bears — are clearly meant to be reps of the Catholic Church, even before you get a glimpse of their Vatican-like headquarters.

If you are going to make a movie that is a veiled attack on specifically the Catholic Church, but really any faith – then at least have the courage to say you are doing so.

It use to be that I could at least admire Pullman’s frank discussion about his books and was quite above board about his atheism. His love of truth though seems to have gone out the window when it comes to defending the movie. He complains about Bill Donohue calling him an militant atheist out to convert people when he has in fact said – as Jimmy Akin has chronicled.

In an interview published in the Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2001), he stated:

“’ I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I was doing the Devil’s work.’”

Similarly, in an interview published in the Sydney Morning Herald (Dec. 13, 2003), Pullman stated:

“I’ve been surprised by how little criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s been taking all the flak. I’m a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people—mainly from America’s Bible Belt—who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven’t got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God.”

Though in the books he doesn’t have much imagination when it comes to God and what he has done is setup a strawgod to knock down.

There has also been some controversy over the USSCB positive movie review by the same person who loved Brokeback Mountain and later had to revise his rating.

Msgr. Eric Barr has coverage of this along with American Papist.

Update: A reader who has written to to New Line Cinema let me know that they are using the USCCB review and saying"this movie is ‘entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.’ "
What the reviewers actually wrote was:

To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.

So blatant dishonesty is no problem for New Line Cinema. They were only talking about one aspect of the movie, though of course reviewers Harry Forbes and John Mulderig statement is pretty problematic in the first place.

From St. Frances Cabrini Parish website and their statement on reconciliation.

With this history in mind we commit ourselves and our community to:

* Reach out to the gay/lesbian community, encouraging them to join our parish;
* Regularly publish our welcome in the gay press;
* Promise to educate ourselves about gay/lesbian issues and work to overcome stereotypes;
* Include a gay/lesbian perspective in catechesis at all levels, including elementary school age;
* Support lesbians and gay men in ways that promote stable, healthy relationships;
* Publicly bless the relationships of a same sex couple after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage; *
* Stand willing to accept qualified, openly gay or lesbian priests or lay ministers;
* Zealously work for and guard the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, knowing that all of our civil rights are compromised when theirs are;
* Pray for greater understanding and acceptance of gay, and lesbian people in official Church teaching;
* Encourage other parishes to become publicly reconciled with the gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual community.

* Not being implemented at this time.

As you might expect they start with St. Paul statement about their being neither "Jew nor Greek" to set the tone. Apparently there is neither sin nor scandal either.

Now I have a question? What would they call their discernment process that would be similar to pre-Cana for heterosexual couples? Pre-Sodom doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. Okay that’s a cheap shot, but this glorification of homosexual acts and the promotion of a phony equality with marriage between a man and a women deserves ones. They also rob those who struggle with same-sex attraction from the truth. The problem with liberal churches is that their is no call for repentance unless of course you are a homophobe. The saying is that the greatest trick of the Devil is that he gets people to not believe in him. Likewise the greatest trick of liberal Christianity is to get people to not believe in sin or consequences.

Now since they put an asterisk on blessing gay marriages I guess "Not being implemented at this time." makes it just fine. Previously the Vatican intervened to have gay pride pages removed from another Minneapolis parish St. Joan of Arc. Most likely we will have to wait for Bishop John C. Nienstedt to become the Archbishop before these problems are rectified.

Lifesite had previously reported on Fr. Leo Tibesar leadership activities in the group dissident group Dignity. Yet it is after that that Fr. Tibesar was made the pastor of this parish. Nobody can say they were surprised. Even stranger is that for years Fr. Tibesar has been involved in the diocese programs for preparing couples for marriage – especially since he seems to have no idea what marriage is in the first place.

Speaking of his Excellency Most Reverend John Nienstedt, Coadjutor Archbp. of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Last week Nick Coleman had a critical article on him regarding a column he wrote. As somewhere quite aware of Nick Coleman and the fact that his columns are routinely fisked for their inaccuracies I knew exactly what to expect before I read the column.

This week though the Coadjutor Archbishop has responded to his column.

In a Nov. 28 column, Nick Coleman accuses me of not being compassionate toward friends and relatives of persons with same-sex attractions. I vigorously deny the charge. For 13 years I prepared priesthood candidates for celebrating the Sacrament of Penance by counseling them to welcome persons with warmth, compassion and understanding. Anyone who has celebrated that same sacrament with me knows I follow my own advice.

What Coleman wants is for the church I represent to be accepting and compassionate toward homosexual acts and lifestyles. And that can never be.

Coleman further claims the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that homosexual acts are a “grave evil.” What it does say is the following: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Genesis 19: 1-29, Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Corinthians 6: 10, 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. … Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

As a priest and bishop, I have the responsibility before God and in the name of Jesus Christ to call all men and women to conversion, the first step of which is recognizing sinful activity for what it is. Sometimes that is not a comfortable thing to do, but it is always the compassionate thing to do.

JOHN C. NIENSTEDT, ST. PAUL;

COADJUTOR ARCHBISHOP,

ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS

After the original column I saw an email exchange between Leon Suprenant and Nick Coleman that was quite instructive. It was a very civil discourse, but Coleman’s reading of Nienstedt statement was that it was his intention to make a political statement, that he was telegraphing the diocese that he was a conservative. It is understandable how Nick Coleman sees it this way since he sees everything with political lenses. That opposition to homosexual acts is a conservative thing and not a specifically moral one for him and for many others. The one thing they can’t accept is that people can oppose homosexual acts out of love for the person with same-sex attraction.

A reader let me know that some references to the book "A Daring Promise: A Spirituality of Marriage" By Richard R. Gaillardetz have been removed from the USCCB’s marriage website. Last month Catholics United for the Faith and myself reported on the book of the month club selection by this know dissident The review of the book has now been purged from the site and from the book of the month archive. Though there are still some references to this book on their site.

In a NYT op-ed we find out that the Gospel of Judas was not written by a Gnostic fanboy of Judas after all.

AMID much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didnt betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judass reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.

It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the societys transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographics translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.

Several of the translation choices made by the societys scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a daimon, which the societys experts have translated as spirit. Actually, the universally accepted word for spirit is pneuma in Gnostic literature daimon is always taken to mean demon.

Likewise, Judas is not set apart for the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated from it. He does not receive the mysteries of the kingdom because it is possible for him to go there. He receives them because Jesus tells him that he cant go there, and Jesus doesnt want Judas to betray him out of ignorance. Jesus wants him informed, so that the demonic Judas can suffer all that he deserves.

Perhaps the most egregious mistake I found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judass ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But its clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will not ascend to the holy generation. To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the Thirteenth. In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians belief in the atoning value of Jesus death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

April D. DeConick the writer of the op-ed goes on to not that their is no satisfactory answer about how these mistakes were made. Though I think it is telling that the translation mistakes were all in one direction. She also notes how the National Geographic rush for an exclusive made real scholarship and peer review almost impossible.

Like clockwork sometime around Christmas or Easter we get some new discovery or scholarship that once again attacks Christianity and then shortly thereafter we find out that it doesn’t even make it up to the level of bunk. You just got to bless those hearts at the Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic, etc for giving it the old try again.

The Deacon’s Bench

I was wondering what hook the media would latch onto on the new encyclical Spe Salvi.

Pope attacks ‘cruel and unjust’ atheism in his message of hope

Pope Benedict and the Crusade Against Atheism

New Papal encyclical blasts atheism, promises hope

Pope criticizes atheism and Marxism

Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Pope Criticizes Atheism in Encyclical

It it worth repeating what Tom at Disputations wrote some years ago about the press and papal letters.

And it suddenly hits me why reporters seize on such bits of rehashed doctrine as the hook on which to hang papal letters. It may have less to do with reporter’s prefab notions of the Church than with everyone’s experience of the Ginger Factor.

The Ginger Factor, named for a well-known “Far Side” cartoon, is a measure of the ratio of words said to words understood. A dog named Ginger, for example, only understands the word “Ginger” in the sentence, “Okay, Ginger, if you get into the garbage one more time, you’ll be spending the night outside.”

I think most people, not just benighted reporters, experience a high Ginger Factor with most papal encyclicals; my post below includes a paragraph from an apostolic letter that has a high G.F. for me. Naturally, a reporter doesn’t report on the parts of a papal statement that sound like, “Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.blah” And naturally, a reporter does recognize (and report on) the part that sounds like, “This means Senator Rawkins is being naughty.”

The Australian Catholic Students Association has pledged its loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI on women’s ordination, despite calls for discussion of the issue by signatories of a recent petition from Australian Catholics.

Students Association President Camillus O’Kane said Catholic students are disappointed that some groups continue to push for the “ordination” of women, despite it being declared a non-issue for the Church.

“Ever since Christ established the Church over 2000 years ago and assigned His Apostles the task of sanctifying, teaching and governing the faithful, the office of the priesthood has been has been reserved for men only,” Mr O’Kane said.

A
reader sent me a link to the above article from Australia’s Cath News.
I have never been much impressed with the orthodoxy of Cath News and their headline for this story "Catholic students declare silence on women’s ordination " confirms my prejudice. How issuing a statement is declaring silence is beyond me. If you happened to agree with the Church I guess you are being silent on a subject no matter what you say, but if you dissent than you are speaking out.

The petition was organised by former priests Paul Collins a (pictured) and Frank Purcell and promoted on the Catholica Australia website and elsewhere. Its primary intention is to encourage consideration of married clergy in order to preserve Australian Catholics’ access to priests and the sacraments. It also requests discussion of women’s ordination.

Does anybody else find it highly ironic for a former priest speaking out about the problem of the lack of priests? I believe Diogenes also thought this rather ironic.

At least Cath News ends the article with a great quote.

Meanwhile Hugh Henry of the Melbourne-based John XXIII Fellowship condemned the petition and organised a counter-petition.

Mr Henry, who edits Fidelity magazine, said: “No Catholic can support this. The Church has definitively and repeatedly said that an exclusively male priesthood is not an open question that Catholics can debate about.”

He agreed with the petition that the Church is currently experiencing a dearth of priests. But the solution, he said is to “attack the problem at its source by cleaning out all the ageing, locked-in-the-sixties liberal Catholics in institutions that are responsible for this crisis in the first place.”

Amen to that.