Punditry

Two Catholic women are being ordained
by
Roman Catholic Womenpriests here Nov. 11, prompting outrage from Catholic officials — outrage
that, surprisingly, is directed less at the women aspiring to the
Catholic priesthood, or at the movement ordaining them, than toward a
rabbi who agreed to host the event.

The women to be ordained are Elsie Hainz McGrath, a retired writer and
editor for a Catholic publishing house, and Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, a
former teacher. Bishop Patricia Fresen, who was for many years a
Dominican nun, ordained the women as deacons Aug. 12 and will perform
the ceremony here. The women are among a growing number of deacons,
priests and bishops ordained in the Roman Catholic Womenpriests
movement. Based on responses to formal invitations, Hudson said
organizers are expecting 300 to 400 to attend.

Noting that ordaining women is forbidden by Catholic canon law, St.
Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke wrote to Rabbi Susan Talve, senior rabbi
at Central Reform Congregation — the synagogue host — urging her to
revoke her offer of hospitality. Meanwhile, the director of the
archdiocesan Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Fr.
Vincent A. Heier, has excoriated Talve for her role, likening it to a
Catholic pastor inviting a Holocaust denier to speak, and describing
Talve�s action as a major setback to the area�s strong, hard-won
Jewish-Catholic relations.

The president of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association, Rabbi Mark
Fasman finds it inappropriate for a synagogue to host an event no
Catholic parish would allow and, though stressing that he speaks only
for himself, acknowledged that among rabbis he is not alone. He is
worried that what should be a Catholic issue — whether women can be
ordained — will provoke a backlash against Jews.

I doubt there will be any such
backlash, but I am glad for the statement.



But in some ways this is quite
appropriate.  After all they are only imitating the women
priests that they had in in Levitical priesthood.  Oh wait –
that didn’t happen.  Funny how God can be so consistent.

Hudson, a longtime teacher, was
certified by the St. Louis archdiocese
as a lay pastoral minister in 1998, after completing a two-year
formation program, and received a master�s degree in pastoral studies
in an extension program offered by Loyola University, New Orleans. She
was the first woman to serve as parish council president at her former
parish, St. Joseph Catholic Church in Farmington, Mo.

McGrath worked with the St. Louis archdiocese to develop a family life
commission, earned an undergraduate degree in theology at St. Louis
University while working as a secretary in the theology department in
the 1980s. Invited to join the editorial staff at Liguori, the Catholic
publishing house, she stayed for 12 years, while earning a master�s
degree from Aquinas Institute of Theology in 2002. Her late husband was
an ordained deacon in the St. Louis archdiocese, and she attended
courses with him throughout a rigorous formation program.

Andrew
Sullivan links to my blog in reference to my posting on what Fr.
Longenecker wrote on hymns.

This is one area where my aesthetic
sympathy for the theocons overwhelms my dismay with some of their
theology.

I really have to laugh at the idea of
Fr. Longenecker being described as a theocon, but maybe I am not privy
to his secret plans to force Catholic dogma on the state.  Or
maybe I am just not picking up the clues and reading between the lines
on his apparently totally non-political blog.  But what I find
really ironic is the idea of an ex-Anglican turned Catholic supporting
a theocracy considering just how well that worked out.

For the record if anybody want to know
I am a kneelcon.

You can always expect a few laughs from
the wacky religion reporting of the Times’ religion reporter who Jimmy
Akin calls Ruth “I’m Too Dangerously Unqualified To Keep My Job”
Gledhill.  In her latest news story (a.k.a. op ed)
she writes
on Cherie Blair recent criticism of Muslims forcing women to wear
veils.  

Mrs Blair’s own Church forbids the
ordination of women, forbids women from using condoms even when their
husband has been infected by HIV while working away, and denies the
sacrament of communion to women who are divorced and remarried without
an annulment, even when a woman’s first marriage has broken down
because of abandonment for a younger woman by their husband.

Now you might wonder how an article on
Muslim women wearing veils can segue into Catholic Church bashing – but
if you did then you aren’t use to Ruth Gledhill’s writing.

What I find highly ironic about her examples is how they are mostly
examples of the Church’s view of equality.  For example:

• Women are forbidden to use female condoms, just as males
  are forbidden to use condoms also even if their spouses have an STD.
• Both men and women who are divorced and do not have a
  declaration of nullity can not  be remarried.
• Both men and women who were abandoned by their spouse for a
  newer model can not be remarried.

As for women’s ordination she can take that one up with Jesus since it
was his will.  The Church neither has the power to accept or
forbid women’s ordination, she is just following Christ.
 Besides why do they never get on the case of Buddhists and
Muslims for not having women monks and clerics?

What she totally misses is that that when it comes to sexual morality
men and women are held to the same standard.  This was not
true prior to Christianity where for example only adultery by women was
seen as bad and women were truly second class citizens.
 Though it is quite common for people to bite the hand that
fed you.

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.