Punditry

From Domenico Bettinelli:

If anyone was still under the misapprehension that Dignity, the homosexual-activist Catholic group, was in fact Catholic, the fact that they have a pretend-ordained woman set to preside over their Gay Pride “Mass” should dispel that notion.

Dignity/NY, the LGBT Catholic group, will have a woman preside over its Gay Pride Mass for the first time on June 23 at 7:30 p.m. at the Judson Memorial Church on Washington Square South. She is the Reverend Victoria Rue, a Roman Catholic womanpriest who was ordained by three Roman Catholic womenbishops in 2005.

Here’s hoping that the “menbishops” of the Church in the US once and for all order all of their diocesan ministries to homosexuals to sever all ties with Dignity, because it is a heretical group.

Well there is a bright side. With a women "priest" they won’t be taking Communion sacrilegiously, in fact they won’t be receiving Communion at all.

It is almost a rule that if a group uses dignity in their title that their positions are at odds with Church teaching. Euthanasia groups are also prone to use the term in titles for their groups.

Dignity USA on their FAQ says conscience like:

Neither Scripture nor Tradition nor natural law theory nor human science nor personal experience convincingly supports official Catholic teaching about the immorality of homogenital acts. Accordingly, and after much soul-searching, many gay and lesbian Catholics have formed consciences that differ from official Church teaching and have entered into homosexual relationships. In this respect they are exactly like the many married Catholic couples who cannot accept the official teaching on contraception.

Of course they like to quote from Church documents that rightly teach about how those with same-sex attraction are to be treated. So if a Catholic went against Church teaching and decided his conscience allowed him to treat homosexuals as an "object of violent malice in speech or in action" I doubt they would consider this a valid following of conscience that "differ from official Church teaching." The following of a conscience formed outside of the Church if it proves anything, proves too much.

Maybe one day good and faithful groups such as Courage will get as much support as Dignity does by prominent diocese.

STATEMENT OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO
REGARDING REMARKS MADE BY FR. MICHAEL PFLEGER
June 4, 2007

On Saturday, May 26, 2007, during an anti-gun rally at a Riverdale gun shop, Fr. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina parish, reportedly made aggressive and inappropriate statements threatening the store’s owner.

If the comments reported are accurate, and a threat was made, it is up to the civil authorities to investigate the matter and determine what if any action should be taken against Fr. Pfleger.

Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., Archbishop of Chicago, stated, “publicly delivering a threat against anyone’s life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest. It is first of all up to the civil authorities to determine what threat might have been contained in the remarks attributed to Fr. Michael Pfleger. With that determination, the sponsors of the anti-gun rally and the Archdiocese can better decide how to respond.”

Jester Hat Tip:

AMDG

That is a pretty disappointing statement from Cardinal George. Just because something might not be determined to be a prosecutable crime does not mean that it might not warrant discipline from the diocese. If the comments reported accurate line is also quite a dodge since there is audio easily available of what was said. Even if in context the use of the word "snuff" was not meant as murder towards the gun shop order the whole demonstration was quite inappropriate. Of course this is not exactly the first instance of the scandal of Fr. Michael Pfleger who has no problem having pro-abortion speakers at his parish and recently had racist Loius Farrakhan speak who has said such things as "White people are potential humans — they haven’t evolved yet." Fr. Pfleger also appears as a testimonial on Sen. Obama’s campaign page. Yes Sen. Obama who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and is one of the Senate’s most ardent protectors of abortion at any time.

Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell plans to ask new principals of Catholic schools to make a "religious submission of intellect and will" to the teachings of the Church. Now it is easy to foresee the reaction. Diogenes has a cartoon from the Brisbane Times that asserts that this submission makes you brain dead and he then goes on to talk about "Thinking Catholics."

The term "Thinking Catholics" used by some progressive Catholics annoys me. Though when I was an atheist I was annoyed by atheists who called themselves "Brights" and "Freethinkers." All of these terms are an evidence of intellectual pride and I though I didn’t like the terms I remember the pride of being an atheist as being smarter then those dumb theists who blindly followed a faith. Reading some "Thinking Catholics" I detect this same pride which is in many ways similar.

I have wondered if at the creation of the Angels if the Satan and those who fell with him considered themselves "Thinking Angels?"

Now I consider myself a "Thinking with the Church Catholic" and those how have the mind set as evidence by the cartoon would consider those like me a "Unthinking, with the Church Catholic" which only shows their ignorance. Thinking with the Church means that you actually have to find what the Church thinks first before you can do any religious submission of intellect and will. Those that think this is easy again are misinformed. I certainly know in my case there would a slew of things that I believed and held that had to be abandoned in the face of Church teaching. It is just that when I investigated these convergences on my way into the Church and the reasons they were taught that I found those teachings to be true and my previously held assumptions to be false. So contrary to what "Thinking Catholics" assert you have to do a lot of thinking to be faithful to the Church and it is certainly not a case of blind intellectual faith in the Church. Now in my case it did help that I believed in the Church prior to believing all that she taught and this attitude helped me to better understand to some degree what she taught. As Augustine said, "I would not believe the Gospels if it were not for the Church."

One of my favorite stories taht I have read was in Alice Von Hildebrand’s book The Soul of a Lion: The Life of Dietrich Von Hildebrand when she describes her husbands entry into the Church. He was taking private lessons from a priest when he told the priest that he was ready to enter the Church. The priest knowing that Dietrich was against the Church’s teaching on contraception told him he would not bring him into the Church until he assented to it. Dietrich Von Hildebrand immediately made a declaration that he believes what the Church teaches despite his own lack of understanding and previous disagreement. Dietrich Von Hildebrand went on to wonderfully defend the Church’s teaching and to teach about the evil of contraception later in his life.

Thinking Catholics try to assert that faithful Catholics have to leave their brain at the door to be faithful to the magisterium where in fact the opposite is the case. To be obedient to the teaching authority of the Church you must leave you intellectual pride at the door and that whatever intellectual gifts you might have will be fully exercised in understanding and defending what the Church actually teaches.

Modern debate is so much easier than debate in the past. For one there is very little debate prep that many need to do. Instead of having to spend time crafting substantive arguments you now only need to learn some stock phrases. Now anybody can become a master debater for most subjects.

Well after just reviewing Catholic Priesthood and Women, here is a unfortunate story.

Sudbury’s Marie Evans Bouclin has become the second woman in Canada to be ordained a Roman Catholic priest.

Bouclin was one of three women called to the priesthood by Bishop Patricia Fresen at an ordination ceremony at West Hill United Church in Scarborough on Sunday afternoon.

I am shocked? Shocked I tell you. Does this person care nothing for tradition? I mean where is the riverboat? Up to now the tradition of women’s riverboat faux ordinations has been quite firm. Though she did manage to keep the tradition of an unbelievably ugly stole.

Along with Bouclin, Cheryl Bristol and Mary Ellen Robertson of the United States were called to the priesthood by Fresen, one of only three female bishops worldwide.

Strange, I though it was Christ’s role to do this calling? I’ll have to check a concordance for Fresen. Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe had the following comments.

Plouffe is on record recently as saying that, while he respects Bouclin for her faith, ordaining women breaks from the teachings of the church.

Plouffe said he would not consider Bouclin’s ordination valid, because only men can be ordained.

Bouclin is optimistic that will change as a result of Sunday’s service.

The Pope has called an emergency synod at the Vatican because of Bouclin’s ordination. It has forced their hand and now everything must change because of "Sunday’s service." It seems most women wannabe priests see themselves as the Rosa Parks of the Catholic Church, that they are taking a brave stand defying inequality. I do wonder if they make a vow of obedience to their women "bishop?" Not that obedience is exactly their strong streak.

The ceremony was filled with music and prayer. And while the liturgy was virtually the same as that heard every Sunday in traditional Roman Catholic churches, it was startling for some to hear it delivered by women.

Even more unusual was the sight of Fresen breaking bread and presiding over the mass.

Even more unusual was the sight of people receiving only bread and wine for Communion instead of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. The women’s priest movement, even though they don’t realize it, are just working to deprive people of the Eucharist.

VisionTV is preparing a documentary on Bouclin and why she has chosen to defy the Vatican.

How about a documentary on how she has chosen to defy the will of Christ and his Church?

From time to time I comment on just how misleading some headlines are in dealing with the Catholic Church. Here is the latest example of journalistic malpractice.

Loophole allows married clergy to become Catholic priests

The story is about ex-Episcopal priest Bill Lowe who was recently ordained as the writer says "by way of a little-known pastoral provision." Now I would truly like to know how the Holy See in 1980 creating the Pastoral Provision under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a loophole. Last I checked loopholes are not created on purpose. Could he mean that somebody who wanted to be a married Catholic priest could first spend a long career as an Episcopal priest, have a family, and then at an appropriate time join the Catholic Church and then apply via the Pastoral Provision to become a married Catholic priest?

Mahony said people should view the ordination as an exception and not an indication the church may change its requirements and bring in more married priests.

Many of the parishioners weren’t listening. Worried about the shortage of priests, they viewed the ordination as a symbol.

“I think it’s opening a door for married priests in the future,” said Michelle Paschen of Camarillo. “And yes, I think priests should be married.”

John Blankenship, 68, of Camarillo went further.

“I think it’s great that we’re moving forward,” he said. “Hopefully that will eventually lead to women being priests.”

Ah there is a stunning bit of logic. A dispensation from a discipline will lead to the change of a dogmatic teaching. You also have wonder if the married priest advocates have ever read or listened to what some of the seventy some married priests in the United States say on this subject.

Via Ignatius Insight and Carl Olson a story that always runs just before Pentecost. Yes, one on the Rainbow Sash Movement.

According to Joe Murray, US Convener for the RSM, individual parishioners have taken it upon themselves to share their hosts with ribbon-wearing churchgoers, acts which infuriated the Bishops who could do nothing about it.

"Out of fear and their own homophobia," says Murray, "Church officials have chosen to go against their own teaching, that individual conscience is paramount in guiding the individual to spirituality. These ill-advised bishops cannot possibly know our hearts when they deny us communion. They are desecrating the Holy Eucharist by making it a weapon of division and exclusion.

Let’s play spot the contradiction.

• You can’t know our hearts, but we know you do this out of fear and homophobia.
• Conscience is king, except your conscience if it leads to denying us Communion. In that case conscience is a peasant to be trampled down by us.
• You are causing division and us wearing sashes and disrupting Masses is not.

"When we wear a rainbow sash, we are honestly expressing who we are. Bringing our honesty into the Church is a way of asking the Bishops to include all the Children of God into the Body of Christ, and to stop thinking they can make decisions for God. These Bishops need to be reminded they are pastors, while they call themselves Princes. Try finding that in the scriptures!"

Approval of homosexual acts – try finding that in scripture! Though the princes thing is rather silly. Do bishops really call themselves princes? I have never heard the term used except in a more general fashion by people other than bishops, though the term is used most often in modern times to refer to the Cardinals.

Murray questions why the Church hierarchy, which sets anti-gay and anti-war policies, gives communion to soldiers in uniform, but denies the Body of Christ to gays. "Who did Jesus turn away?" he asks.

In the Eucharistic discourse in John 6 many people turned themselves away. They could not accept what Jesus taught and so left. Rainbow sashers are just less honest. They do not accept what the Church teaches and do not go away. It is still primary upon the person who knows they are not in Communion with the Church to turn themselves away.

… They are still demanding a 13th century lifestyle where they are the arbiters of right and wrong. They need to stop talking about us, and start talking to us. My partner of 27 years and I agree, they are hopelessly out of touch."

Why specifically the 13th century when this has been something taught by the Church through all centuries. And if you are gong to use an argument by century where referring to an older century is negative then we can say they want a 0th century lifestyle lived by some homosexual Pagan Romans and Greeks.

Carl Olson adds in his post:

Murray is right: when it comes to putting a stamp of approval on homosexual acts and the gay lifestyle (not to mention abortion, euthanasia, divorce, contraception, pre-marital sex, adultery, etc., etc.), the Catholic Church is out of touch. Which is one of many reasons I am a Catholic. I am, however, puzzled as to why Murray is a Catholic.

Yes the Church is out of touch with the modern world, though in touch with the Holy Spirit which prevents her from not being synchronized with the errors of the times. They always get it exactly backwards. It is the modern world which is out of touch with the Church, the mystical body of Christ.

A couple of years ago I had some of my own ideas for disordered sashes.

• Adulterous Pride Sashes – To bring the gifts, witnesses, and the challenge of adulterers into the heart of the Church. Sashes could be made up of a string of shattered wedding rings or pictures of their latest soul mate.
• Pride Pride Sashes – Why not be prideful that you are prideful. To often prideful people are oppressed by the reading and homilies demanding that they conform and be humble. This talk of Jesus humbling himself and coming in the form of a servant is hurtful and non-caring when it comes to the prideful. Bruce’s suggestion of self-portraits and awards is great for this. Sash’s could be made with plastic pockets like what comes in wallets to display your greatest possession – yourself.
• Contraception Pride Sashes – How about all those Catholics that are oppressed by a Church that just won’t roll with the times. Come on the majority of Catholics practice contraception so while they are hardly ever oppressed by homilies on this subject. The Catechism and Church teaching still hasn’t given in on this. The sashes could be made out of birth control pill containers strung together with condoms.
• Uncharitable Pride Sashes – For those who do not have a charitable disposition and are imposed on when some busy-body usher shoves a offering basket under their nose they can have a sash that says it all. The sash would come with lettering saying "Charity begins at home – my home and that’s it."

And if sashes are fine for those who dissent from church teaching how about those who are upset with liturgical mediocrity?

• Gregorian Chant Sash Movement – In a show of solidarity with the past and to dissent from OCP and GIA sashes could be made of Gregorian Chant CD attached together with mini-organ clips.

I have thought of a new one to add this year.

• Homophobia Pride Sashes – for those actual homophobes that are mad at what the Church teaches about "intrinsic dignity of each person " and that "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs." Time and time again the Church teaches that this type of disordered reaction to same-sex attraction is quite sinful and homophobes are forced to stay in the closet and not come out proclaiming their hatred. Yes homophobes do need their own sashes to protest this divisive discrimination.

A reader wrote me about a strange omission in the bestselling nonfiction new & future releases list on Amazon.com. Some of the items in the top of the list include:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens

Buddha: A Story of Enlightenment
by Deepak Chopra

Letter to a Christian Nation
by Sam Harris

The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom (A Toltec Wisdom Book)
by Don Miguel Ruiz

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
by Victor J Stenger

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
by Sam Harris

Out of their list of 100 books Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth is nowhere listed. Though if you go to their bestsellers list it is currently at #17.

Seeing Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason at #1 really makes me laugh though. When I had first saw this title I was sure he had written an autobiography.

A reader sent me a link to a Maggie Gallagher article.

…This week, for example, according to news accounts, 18 Catholic House Democrats, including Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Patrick J. Kennedy (R.I.) and Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) publicly rebuked Pope Benedict XVI for reaffirming during a recent Mexico City trip that legislators who vote to permit the killing of the unborn have excommunicated themselves and may be refused communion during Mass.

…Back in D.C., the gang of 18 went apoplectic. Catholic popes, bishops or clergy who withhold communion to politicians, they said, are engaging in essentially un-American activities: "Religious sanction in the political arena directly conflicts with our fundamental beliefs about the role of democratic representatives in a pluralistic America — it clashes with freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Such notions offend the very nature of the American experiment and do a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done."

Par for the course for Catholic Democrats in the House. First reacting to initial news reports that had been somewhat clarified latter is the typical level of fact checking you would expect. But there statement is silly on so many levels it is hard to know where to dig in.

One question I have is that in Canon law there is no dispute that those who procure and abortion or are formally involved in carrying it out do incur an automatic excommunication. Have you ever heard a Catholic Democrat complain about this? But if the same Canon is said to apply to them then there indignation explodes. This bit of all-about-me-ism is not exactly surprising in a politician though.

Often we will also get an appeal to conscience, but somehow if a bishop or someone else acts on their conscience and conflicts with theirs then that is somehow wrong. It is also funny to invoke a pluralistic society and then to condemn someone’s comments. Pluralism is much narrower than I supposed. Plus wouldn’t these religious freedoms they mention also apply to religious leaders themselves. Again their conception is distinctly one sided. Their wall of separation between church and state seems to be permeable on their side but inviolable on the other.

This is of course what Mark Shea calls Catholic tribalism in that many like these politicians seem to like to belong to the Catholic Church, but deeply disagree with what she teaches. Tribalism is the most charitable way to explain this. They would belong to no organizations or clubs that lobbied against what they vote for, but somehow they don’t think membership in the Church is not hypocritical or problematic and then they get all huffy when a bishop or the Pope speak out about this schism between her teaching and their actions.

Nobody would see a problem with members of the ACLU getting the can because they joined the KKK, but if the Church speaks out about an even worse crime such as the murder of innocents that is beyond the pale. Any organization where its members are doing something contrary to its mission has duty to speak out, unless it is the Catholic Church I guess.

These Culture of Death politicians do not automatically receiving the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication, but they also are not in communion with the Church and should admit it by not receiving Communion. If their conscience is so at odds with the Church exactly why do they want to belong to it? Politicians have often revoked their membership with some such organization or club for much lighter disputes, yet continuing membership in the Catholic Church does not invoke the same reaction. Though in tribal Catholicism it of course follows that what they believe the Church to be in the first place is greatly flawed. Bad ecclesiology necessarily follows. Then again though if the Church is just a human institution then it is just on par with other organizations and clubs that they would not be involved in. So this is just a intellectual case of having it both way; the Church is more than just a human institution, but that fact doesn’t matter when it comes to vote. I am not in favor of them leaving the Church, but that they learn what she is in the first place.

Update: One commenter makes a good point:

What is really funny, these Democrats are complaining that the ROMAN Pontiff addressing BRAZILIANS about MEXICAN POLITICIANS is un-American and not Constitutional…

Gerald as he photographs churches throughout Europe has shown some incongruous articles in otherwise quite beautiful churches. Today though a cross in a church in Vienna really takes the cake.

A Lego block cross complete with lego toy truck at the intersection is something else indeed. I think this is one instance when I am really glad they had a cross instead of a crucifix. Now I know Jesus is the Logos, but certainly not the Legos. Maybe they borrowed it from the Lego church.