Punditry

Via Diogenes

A California priest threatens to
hold back a treat unless his
congregation agrees to play ball:

A risky proposition, methinks.
Granted that a parish school is a good cause, how many preachers would
give the faithful the option — even at no cost — of going home
homilyless?



I hope Father Michael’s gambit
catches on. Think of the happy possibilities … “Unless I see a double
sawbuck in the collection basket every week from every family, you’ll
never hear On Eagles Wings in this church again!”

Now that would be a great fundraiser tool.
 Contribute money or we will use Here I am Lord or
other such song for all four hymns of the standard hymn sandwich.
 How about selling tickets to a Gather Hymnal bonfire?
 Surely you would raise enough to fund the Adoramus or other
appropriate hymnal.  Cough up money or a drum kit will be
given to the choir!

Now in reality the idea of withholding a
homily is really a bad idea and the first instance of sermon extortion
I have ever heard of. You have to be a pretty confident preacher in the
first place to use this one, though of course under Canon law
there is no way you could licitly do this for a Sunday or other Holy
Day of Obligation Mass.

Where I went to Mass today they had both of the side altars decorated with plenty of pumpkins, gourds, and corn stalks.  At least there weren’t Jack-o-lanterns.  Now I have nothing against Halloween themes generally, but please leave them for home decoration and not the sanctuary of a church.  I am not worried about any Pagan connections, I just find this decorating theme rather bizzare for a Catholic church.

TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) – The rapid spread in Latin America
of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by the Roman Catholic Church’s
stand
against using condoms, a U.N. official said on Monday.

Some 1.7 million people
across Latin America are infected with the HIV virus or full-blown AIDS, and
the epidemic is spreading swiftly with up to 410,000
new cases in 2006, up from as many as 320,000 new cases in 2004, according
the UN AIDS program, UNAIDS.

"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were
used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said
Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

The Catholic Church, which holds sway in Latin America despite the rise in evangelical
churches, opposes all forms of contraception and instead promotes abstinence
as a way to avoid spreading AIDS.

If only the Catholic Church was a powerful as they infer and that Catholics
are as obedient as they assume. Somehow we are suppose to believe that many
Catholics won’t use condoms, yet somehow they will commit fornication and adultery.
I am pretty sure the Church teaches that these are grave sins regardless of
whether you are using a condom or not. Final impenitence of these acts will
send you to hell regardless. Do they think that there is a deeper circle of
hell for those who use condoms in addition to these other acts?

Though this is the same logic they have used in Africa and the assertion that
the Pope is personally responsible for any Catholic who die of AIDS.

Here is an example of just how wrong the UN and its organ the World Health
Organization.

AIDS victims in 1987: Philippines 135 / Thailand 112

In 1991 the WHO predicted the Philippines would have 80,000 to 90,000 cases
and Thailand 60,000 to 80,000 AIDS victims.

Thailand promoted the use of condoms in massive campaigns where Catholic Philippines
promoted ‘Abstinence’ and ‘Be faithful’.

The prognosis of the WHO was wrong for both countries:

1999: Philippines 1,005 / Thailand 755,000 AIDS victims

Source: British Medical Journal, volume 328, April 10th 2004

Here is
another case:

Take for example a March 2004 article in the medical journal,
Studies in Family Planning (cited by the Zenit News Agency, June 26, 2004).
Titled "Condom
Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?," the
piece was a meta-review of the scientific literature on the question.

The results shocked condom advocates. In the article, researchers
Sanny Chen and Norman Hearst noted that, "In many sub-Saharan African countries,
high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use." In
fact, they continued, "No clear examples have emerged yet of a country
that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom distribution."

No surprise, then, that Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South
Africa — the
nations with the highest levels of condom availability — continue to
have the highest rates of HIV prevalence ("The White House Initiative
to Combat AIDS: Learning from Uganda," Joseph Loconte, Executive Summary
Backgrounder).

And of course Uganda which once has the highest incidence of AIDS now has
the lowest after a campaign the promoted primarily faithfulness and abstinence.
This campaign resulted in the largest drop of any country in history.

The irony is is that it is the U.N., various government agencies, and other
advocacy groups who have some culpability if anybody does. First off it is
always the individual first that is culpability for the consequences of their
actions, but this is reduced when all-out false information becomes common
knowledge and is promoted far and wide.

I remember once being naive enough to believe that the AIDS epidemic would
make people rethink their attitudes towards sexual promiscuity. Like I said
it was naive and of course we soon had the false idea of safe-sex so that everyone
could pretend to go on as usual. When it comes to the free sex culture – facts
must never get in the way. Sex education and throwing condoms at the problems
has done nothing to reduce STDs and yet the answer is of course always more
sex ed and more condoms. Oh, but it is the Catholic Church that is out of touch.
Why could you imagine what would happen if people actual followed the teachings
of the Church on sexuality and marriage? Society would collapse as STDs and
the moral repercussions due to sexual promiscuity were greatly reduced. Marriages
would be stronger and kids would be safer – horrible to think about if society
followed Church teaching. Lets just go on as we are because that is working
so well for us.

The National Coalition of American Nuns is
also upset by the new English translation for the liturgy.
 Again we are too stupid to understand words like
consubstantial.  The more complaints I hear from the usual
suspects the more I am pleased by the new translation.  For me
they serve as an anti-Nihil Obstat.

… so many teachers must have taken a vow of celibacy.

This is quite refreshing. Rev. Peter J. Daly who was one of two participants in an article on the TLM that seemed to be quite disparaging has replied:

I’m sorry,

… On conservative Catholic blogs my name has been mud. I have been called everything from a heretic to a fool.

I’m sorry if I offended anyone. And it may surprise my correspondents, but I actually agree with many of them.

My previous column was a failure for two reasons. First, it did not convey my own affection for the old liturgy. Second, it did not recognize the good motivations of the people who want a return to the Latin liturgy.

Instead of attacking the messenger and writing off bloggers and others as cranks he goes on to give I think a much better analysis of why some love the extraordinary form of the Mass.

Now if only we can get him from calling it the Latin liturgy and the Latin Mass.

I do wish he would have corrected the many inaccuracies his original column and characterization of a neighboring parish (St. Francis deSales) with the TLM. Fr. Daly had personally apologized to the pastor of this parish and reportedly promised to put out a retraction. The new column has an excellent tone generally in reference to followers of the TLM, but does not make any mention of the parish he previously maligned. Though I don’t want to go on an on about this and am glad that Fr. Daly has written this column.

Jester Hat Tip:	The Cafeteria is Closed

Asked about reaction he had received, Archbishop Niederauer expressed concern about the impact of Web logs, or blogs.

"The blogosphere is a kind of dangerous, endless recess in a global schoolyard," he said, "where the bullies with the biggest bullhorns can shout whatever they want."

There is of course some truth in this, but these kind of comments are exactly the type of defensive ones used by people who are forced to react to something. Bloggers almost always are dismissed as always being in the extreme camp – I guess bullies in pajamas seems to be the dominant charge. No thanks is ever given when a some scandalous event is posted on and attention brought to bring it to an end. There have been a large range of reactions to this event with some of them quite uncharitable towards the Archbishop, but the implication that bloggers are just bullies who can shout whatever they want is not exactly charitable either with this implication of lying.

Catholic punditry is a potentially dangerous sport and we must always examine our consciences when we post and to be quite careful about what we say. I know I don’t want the first words from Jesus to me upon my death to be "About that blog of yours…" Sometimes it can seem that we can be quite happy reporting on scandals within parishes such as Most Holy Redeemer of the infamous St. Joan of Arc. Though speaking for myself and probably for the majority of Catholic bloggers, I would be quite happy to be reporting on positive changes in these parishes or not posting on them at all.

Jesuit Father Donal Godfrey, one of the Mass concelebrants, said the way the two men were dressed was “disrespectful to religious sisters,” but he said he felt “it probably wasn’t their intention (to offend.) They knelt in all the right places. They stood in all the right places. Except for the way they were dressed, they weren’t doing anything disrespectful.”

Fr. Donal Godfrey is normally good for a good laugh. "Except for the way they were dressed" is quite a funny line if you take it that way. Except for mocking the habits of Catholic religious orders and receiving Communion in objectionably grave sin they weren’t doing anything disrespectful.

Update: American Papist has some solid commentary on comments made defending MHR and the Archbishops comments on blogs.

A reader sent me the following story.

SAN FRANCISCO (CNS) — Reaction to San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer giving Communion to two men in mock nuns’ garb during an Oct. 7 Mass has been overblown, said the pastor of the church where the Mass was celebrated. "It is most unfortunate this incident has clouded the fact the archbishop came to meet with his people and celebrate a beautiful and reverent Mass together — and that is what really happened," said Father Stephen Meriwether, pastor of Most Holy Redeemer Parish. "This incident has been blown way out of proportion," he told Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper. Reaction has run the gamut from some who insist the "sisters" had set out to embarrass the church and the archbishop to others who felt the unannounced visitors who videotaped the Mass were more of an intrusion than the costumed men.

Last year after the sex toy bingo at Most Holy Redeemer hit the news Fr. Meriweather was said to be placed "on leave" by the archdiocese. This bingo being held in the parish hall was also run by
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. After all the hoopla died down Fr. Meriweather returned to the parish. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast what turned out to be prayer service (or in reality a homosexual pep rally) at MHR by Fr. Donal Godfrey, S.J. who said about homosexuality" It’s simply another gift from God who created us as rainbow people." Every year MHR has maintained a presence at the areas gay pride events and the parish web site has shown pictures such as men kissing.

San Francisco priest Fr. Malloy reports.

Not 48 hours ago we mentioned the relationship between Most Holy Redeemer Church and the University of San Francisco, specifically the appointment of Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ, (who wrote an approving book about MHR: see here and here) to the position of Executive Director of Campus Ministry at USF.

As if on cue, the Jesuits chime in on the scandal of Archbishop Niederauer’s giving communion to two members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. From this morning’s San Francisco Chronicle:

“The general sacramental principle is that you don’t deny the sacrament to someone who requests it,” said the Rev. Jim Bretzke, professor of moral theology at University of San Francisco, a Jesuit Catholic university…..”Over-accessorizing and poor taste in makeup is not an excommunicable offense.”

Fr. Bretzke is the co-chair of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at USF. He’s also on the Advisory Board of the Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought, who sponsored the “Queer Perspectives” seminar last February at Most Holy Redeemer.

Of course withholding Communion is not excommunication anyway so the point is rather mute. I wonder if some skinhead dressed in a Nazi uniform would receive Communion from Fr. Bretzke?

In other MHR news Archbishop Niederauer ordered that a thank you from a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence that appeared in this Sunday’s bulletin be removed. The parish complies and did remove it from the PDF version of their bulletin from their site.

Canonist Ed Peters has a post concerning Cdl. McCarrick approach to the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic politicians compared to Archbishop Burke’s. The Cardinal recently talked about preaching the pro-life message to presidential candidates and said that while he respected Archbishop’s Burke’s position to would rather focus on persuasion.

…But in disagreeing with Burke, I think that McCarrick mischaracterized the question and Burke’s compelling answer to it.

I think this is exactly right. It is not an either/or situation of persuasion or refusing Communion. Obviously persuasion is the first step before taking further actions exactly as outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. Archbishop Burke has acted precisely in this order when addressing pro-abortion Catholic politicians within his diocese. If persuasion and catechesis fails then there must be a further step to help the individual understanding the gravity of his supporting objectively grave sin. To stop and to go no further undermines the gravity of the sin.

…To be sure, important questions such as the point at which one’s pro-abortion voting record constitutes objective grave sin, or exactly which ministers of Holy Communion are charged with assessing public conduct, must be addressed. But how can such questions even be broached when the most fundamental points of Eucharistic discipline have become so muddled?

We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of respect for Jesus in the Eucharist. Such a crisis compels all of us, I think, to examine our consciences for how our sins might have contributed to this disaster. But in the meantime (and though he might cringe to hear such praise) let me suggest that Abp. Raymond Burke has emerged as the most articulate defender of our Eucharistic Lord among our bishops, and that his leadership is valued more widely than he can possibly imagine.

It just seems to me that the way so many bishops handle this is to just totally ignore Canon 915 and effectively say that there is no situation where this Canon would apply. Where exactly is the concern for the souls of those receiving Communion sacrilegiously? Sure denying Communion in these cases might not have the desired effect of their conversion, but it would certainly be harder for them to believe that they are in communion with the Church. These punitive measures are ordered towards repentance and it just isn’t right to not try to help them out in this manner.