Punditry

The article entitled "Catholics largest group in new US Congress" has been making the rounds in St. Blogs. Shouldn’t the title be "Cafeteria Catholics largest group in new US Congress?"

I also started to wonder if the term cafeteria was affixed to other Christian groups to designate those that that pick and choose what their church teaches. Checking Google I got no hits for Cafeteria Methodist, and only a handful for Cafeteria Baptist and Cafeteria Calvinist (who I guess are predestined to be Cafeteria Calvinists). The ones for Cafeteria Presbyterian only referred to a real cafeteria in a Presbyterian hospital. I also got zero hits for Cafeteria Anglican or Episcopalian though mainly because a Cafeteria Anglican would be a Unitarian anyway.

Diogenes has more on the history of the Archdiocese of L.A. Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics,

You’ll remember the Archdiocese’s original animator of gay ministry was a Carmelite named Peter Liuzzi, who dismayed orthodox Angelenos with his counter-Catholic advocacy and who was constantly protected by Mahony’s inner circle. That Liuzzi’s abstract advocacy fronted for a personal lifestyle issue became obvious when fellow Carmelite Dominic Savino was found to have molested high school boys, and Mahony’s right-hand man Msgr. Richard Loomis, in a hacked e-mail, urged his fellow apparatchiks to play down the Savino-Liuzzi connection (3/19/2002):

A complicating fact: I believe that Father Peter Liuzzi is being assigned to Crespi Carmelite HS as a faculty member. A representative of the "Lay Catholic Mission" has approached a Carmelite priest who occasionally helps here at Saint Charles to question "the wisdom of assigning Father Liuzzi to an all-boy school." On top of that, Father Liuzzi and Father Savino have lived in the same community house for as long as I have worked at the ACC — not quite seven years. They are close friends. I am not sure how many people know these facts and I would not want to tip my hand. Everything in this "complicating fact" paragraph would be tracked right back to me. I would not want it made public if it can be avoided. But my thought is that one issue might ignite the other in the press, both secular and retro-Catholic.

Here’s how the daisies were chained: Liuzzi was the Archdiocese’s gay ministry guru. He left the job, and was teaching part time at a Carmelite high school, while sharing a bungalow with his boyfriend Savino, who’d molested boys at the same school. Loomis, the director of the Cardinal’s secretariat for administrative services, ran interference for Liuzzi when the Savino story broke. But it doesn’t end there. Loomis himself later left ministry after being accused of molesting two boys. ("Loomis. That case proves that our procedures are working," said Cardinal Mahony, when taxed by Jason Berry in 2005 with his adjutant’s perfidy in the matter.)

The conflict of interest here speaks for itself. Yet the Archbishop, and the Archdiocese’s Ministry with Lesbians and Gays, are still under full sail — which indicates that the forces that share their sympathies have more clout than those that don’t. Those of us Loomis calls retro-Catholics might object to the Gay Rainbow Jesus, but it’s clear that most senior churchmen in the Archdiocese would be bewildered at the suggestion that there’s anything objectionable about it. In heraldic terms, it’s an eloquent emblem of Cardinal Mahony’s tenure as bishop and, indeed, of what they understand as religion full stop.

Cardinal Mahony himself ordained an openly homosexual deacon and activist last year so you know the Archdiocese ministry is really just a subversion of the Church’s teaching under the wraps of tolerance. They talk about being "consonant with Church teaching", but somehow never get around to what those teachings actually are as evidenced by their web page. No references to the Catechism or any authoritative Church documents on their ministry site. Now how could that happen? I guess it is just a coincidence that Deacon Eric Stoltz the openly homosexual activist who designed the ministries website and in fact the archdiocese website is involved.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles wants you to order a rainbow fish pin "as a sign of recognition of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers".

Here is the web page: Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics

Here’s some quotes:

See in the fish pin a sign of recognition of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. The pin signals solidarity with all people of faith who promote justice and inclusivity for every person in their faith communities.

In 2006 we celebrated our 20th anniversary of this ministry. The Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics was founded by Cardinal Roger Mahony on February 4, 1986 and is supported throughout the Archdiocese at parish level a an active outreach ministry with gay and lesbian Catholics, their parents, families and friends.

I have a question: How does wearing a rainbow fish pin help anyone? If I see someone wearing one, what should that lead me to think?

Does it mean the person is a homosexual? Is it meant to make it easier for homosexuals to recognize one another and connect?

Does it mean the person has a friend or relative who is homosexual? What, then, by wearing the rainbow fish do they want people to think or feel about homosexuality?

Why would a ministry to people with an intrinsically disordered orientation encourage people who have that orientation, as well as everybody else, to recognize and define the totality of a human person by their disordered orientation? Will they be making pins that assist alcoholics, drug addicts, and people with eating disorders in recognizing one another? How about a pin for people who are promiscuous or for people who tend to commit adultery? How about one for people who struggle with an addiction to internet pornography? Why not?

Is a disorder something to wear proudly, like a badge of honor?
[Roman Catholic Blog]

The first fish I ever caught as a kid was a Rainbow Trout so I wonder if this qualified as solidarity with those who have same-sex attraction. Though maybe gutting and eating it is not the sign of the Rainbow Fish they intend. Though the Archdiocese of L.A does seem to keep gutting the faith.

Maybe we need some other pins to identify with those who have other disordered attractions. A fish in a bottle pin for solidarity with Alcoholics. A Fish eye pin for those who have a wandering eye with lustful thoughts. A Shark pin for solidartiy with adulterers. A fish with bunny ears pin for those attracted to porn. Let is be inclusive and not just concentrate on only one group which is such a small part of the population. Heck why not charm bracelets with little charms for every disordered inclination?

A couple years ago I wrote how odd I found the rainbow symbol in the first place.

I have found the sign of the rainbow highly ironic for the homosexual movement. In Genesis 9 after the earth was flooded because "that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", God set the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with man. I am not saying the flood was directly caused by homosexual acts, but it was certainly the results of sexual immorality. I put all acts of sexual immorality such as fornication, adultery and homosexuality pretty much on the same footing, though adultery is worse than fornication and it can be argued that homosexually acts are even graver. But they are all grave sins and can cause the loss of sanctifying grace in the souls of those who act thus. Yet their are no pro-fornication or pro-adultery protests going on and no open movements demanding that the Church change on these issues. If homosexual activists are trying to put these same-sex relationship at the same level of sacramental matrimony then why aren’t they crying out against homosexual fornication before marriage? Neither are they protesting when they breakup their long term committed relationship as in this very court case.

Q: You were recently quoted as calling yourself a “conservative Catholic.” Are you?

A: I think so. I was raised, as I say, in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, than that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.

I have five children, five grandchildren; I try to abide by all the teachings of the church in relationship to family. I think my family speaks very clearly to that.

So who is this "conservative Catholic?" Well if you didn’t get the reference by the mention of grandchildren (this politician mentions it at every opportunity) it is Nancy Pelosi from a 2003 NCReporter interview.

Q: Is being a Catholic in public life a blessing or a burden?

A: Oh, it’s a blessing. I have more people praying for me.

In the family I was raised in, love of country, deep love of the Catholic Church, and love of family, were all the values I was raised in. I don’t like to have religion and politics come too closely together, but I will say that I am motivated by the Gospel of Matthew, as many people in politics are. I find it an inspiration.

What did I see the other day? The divinity in me bows to the divinity in you. The respect that we have for the individual because of the spark of divinity that we all carry serves me well in politics – to respect people and their point of view. I say that, I hope it doesn’t sound patronizing, …in a very respectful way.

My upbringing — working on the side of the angels with my parents — to help people, again according to Gospel of Matthew, and the idea …. [that we] look upon God’s creation as an act of worship – to ignore the needs of God’s creation is to dishonor the God that made them. And that we have that responsibility, all of us.

It’s part of me, it’s immediate in my life, it’s immediate in the lives of many of my colleagues.

The divinity in me bows to the divinity in you? This is of course a Hindu greeting and the context is polytheistic. Though of course it can also loosely be interpreted in that those living in sanctifying grace become "partakers of the divine nature" and the Eastern Mystical Theology of deification. But I find the phrase itself rather odd in a Christian context. I can bow to you because you are the Imago Dei, made in God’s image. But does the image of God in me in itself bow to the image of God in you? The phrasing seems to me to be kind of leaving the human person out of the equation and to be only an exchange between divinities – which is of course the original meaning.

Q: Is it more difficult today to be a pro-choice Catholic then it was, say, ten years ago?

A: It’s about the same. Now when I traveled across the country when I was campaigning for candidates this last time, when I was in another city on a Sunday, I would try to find a Catholic church nearby. I heard some of the sermons in some of the churches down south, so I understand what some of our colleagues undergo in the church — it was difficult. We’ve had those sermons in California, but a little more subtlety than I was hearing down south. It gave me a better understanding of what some of my colleagues are going through.

I have never in my district in California, in my archdiocese…if I was going to [be allowed to] receive communion; I never knew if this was the day it would be withheld. And that’s a hard way to go to church. Fortunately, I’m invited — I have a big family — I go to a lot of weddings, I’m in a different church every week. I’m a moving target. I travel, so I’m not exactly a target in terms of always being in the same church, although I go to St. Vincent DePaul, which is my neighborhood parish.

In addition to that, on many occasions the archdiocese has told the nuns that I couldn’t be the speaker at some event. And that’s hurtful because we have so much in common. But it’s the decision the church has made.

Is it more difficult today to be a square circle then it was, say, ten years ago? This type of question shows perfectly just how heterodox NCR is. I also just love the condescending attitude towards the South. Yep nun of us no newance down hear. It also says a lot about the Diocese of San Francisco that a 100 percent pro-abortion record Catholic never had to worried about not receiving Communion. Being allowed to receive Communion sacrilegiously and causing scandal must be something too nuanced for me to understand. I guess you don’t have to worry about someone’s immortal soul if they are already a politician. You do wonder about the inconsistency of her not being able to speak on many occasions in the Archdiocese and yet can receive Communion.

One last thing from this conservative Catholic.

Q: Women as priests?

A: Oh absolutely…Why not? Why not?

My eyes are now opened. What a stunning argument in favor of women’s ordination. Why not? Bludgeoning the homeless. Why not?

Q: On the flip side of the abortion question, how big a tent is the Democratic Party? Is it big enough to welcome Democrats who oppose abortion?

A: I think it is a bigger tent than people realize. I come myself from a family that does not share my views on choice.

Q: That must make for some interesting dinner table conversations.

A: Interesting in that they get back to the point that I made earlier – that we are all blessed by the creator with a free will [to] which we are answerable and I will step back to that. And that seems to be common ground [among the family].

Having said that, I think there are occasions where they would like me to be less visible, that they don’t like to see any disagreement between the church and any of us.

Well I am at least glad to hear that she recognizes that we are responsible for the choices we make and that she does not equate free will in this case with license. With her impending coronation, I mean 4 day party, please keep Nancy. Pelosi in mind in your prayers.

Amy Welborn the other day had a fairly extensive post on Nancy Pelosi and her voting record.

Try to imagine Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, dressed up as a bishop — the head bishop — of his own state-sponsored church.

According to media reports coming out of Latin America, President Chavez is considering a proposal that would establish him as the high priest of his own form of evangelical Christianity, convert his cabinet members into bishops of a lower rank, and submit church activities to the civil and military power of his government.

It is still unclear who is behind the proposal. Publicly, it has taken the form of a petition by leaders of “Centro Cristiano de Salvación” (Christian Center of Salvation). The association claims to represent 17,000 evangelical churches and 5,000,000 Venezuelans. Their request is simple: make their denomination the country’s official religion, teach it in all public schools and pay the pastors from government coffers. In turn, they will make Chavez their head bishop and promise to submit absolutely to his authority.

If the reports are true and this happens I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the American left to condemn this new theocracy. After all Chavez was able to consolidate power in the presidency by converting the bicameral National Assembly into a weakened unicameral legislature while still eliciting gushing praise. For many liberals the effects of Marxist leaders are similar to the sacrament of baptism, except all sins are remitted in the past and in the future.

Damon Linker has a piece in the current edition of The New Republic in which he questions Mitt Romney’s suitability for the Presidency of the United States based on his religious faith, which everyone knows by now is Mormonism. Linker even suggests that Mitt Romney’s recent election-year flip-flops on abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, protections for gays against hiring discrimination, etc. etc. etc. may be faith driven. “Romney may have undergone an authentic religious rebirth during the last few years—a rebirth that has led him to embrace the fundamental tenets of his church more fully than ever before in his political career. If so, voters need to know it. And they need to think long and hard about the possible consequences of making such a man the president of the United States,” Linker writes.
[Via Patrick Hynes at Deal Hudson’s blog]

Looks like Damon Linker knows as much about Mormonism as he does about the impending theocracy. Mormons have no official teaching on abortion, though they do have one on caffeine. As to Romney’s flip-flopping I think it is easier to believe it is something endemic in Massachusetts. Sen. Kennedy was once pro-life and then of course there is the King of Flip-Flops Sen Kerry. Though then again political opportunism is not just native to Massachusetts.

Rich Leonardi reminds me of something I also found odd this month. On one my Catholic calendars put out by J.S. Palusch, Inc and specifically a calendar devoted to vocations – lists today as the first day of Kwanzaa. Now I of course decided to do the readings associated with St. Stephen instead while reading the Divine Office today. Funny my guide book does not have alternative readings for Kwanzaa, but happily Kathy Shaidle previously supplied some. This day of course deserves the treatment that Kathy Shaidle gave to it.

Twas the night before Kwanzaa
And all through the ‘hood,
Maulana Karenga was up to no good.

He’d tortured a woman and spent time in jail.
He needed a new scam that just wouldn’t fail.
("So what if I stuck some chick’s toe in a vice?
Nobody said revolution was nice!")

The Sixties were over. Now what would he do?
Why, he went back to school — so that’s "Dr." to you!
He once ordered shootouts at UCLA
Now he teaches Black Studies just miles away.

Then to top it all off, the good Doctor’s new plan
Was to get rid of Christmas and piss off The Man.

Karenga invented a fake holiday.
He called the thing Kwanza. "Hey, what’s that you say?

"You don’t get what’s ‘black’ about Maoist baloney?
You say that my festival’s totally phony?

"Who cares if corn isn’t an African crop?
Who cares if our harvest’s a month or two off?
Who cares if Swahili’s not our mother tongue?
A lie for The Cause never hurt anyone!

"Umoja! Ujima! Kujichagulia, too!
Collectivist crap never sounded so cool!
Those guilty white liberals — easy to fool.
Your kids will now celebrate Kwanzaa in school!"

And we heard him exclaim as he drove out of sight:
"Happy Kwanzaa to all, except if you’re white!"

A reader sent me a link to this good roundup at Vivificat concerning Call to Action and their response to the Vatican confirmation of their excommunication by Fabian Bruskewitz in the Diocese of Lincoln.

Since the post first came out one of CTA’s "deaconess" Ashley Reynolds
left a comment at Vivificat.

"I, Ashley, believe in our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I believe in Apostolic succession, the primacy of Peter, the Blessed Virgin, and the Creeds. I, Ashley, believe that women can image Christ, that homosexual love is good and holy, that Jesus lived nonviolence, and that Jesus did not cast out disciples and apostles who had doubts."

Jesus did not cast out those who doubted, though he did call them forward from their doubt. When Jesus and the Apostles were at sea in the storm and Jesus calmed the storm he did not praise them for having doubted. John Henry Cardinal Newman said "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." There is also a great difference between a doubt and rejection of parts of the faith. Jesus not exactly have kind words for those who rejected his teachings. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and others were not exactly praised for doubting Jesus was the Messiah. When Jesus preached on the permanence of marriage, the Apostles did not reject his teaching – they wondered how it was possible since they did not yet have a full understanding of the graces in a sacramental marriage. CTA though does not doubt Jesus teaching on marriage – they outright reject it.

They also do not doubt Jesus’ teaching on marriage being between a man and a women, once again they outright reject it and call homosexual acts good and holy. It only makes sense that since they have no problems with homosexual acts that they also have no problem with contraception and also of course abortion. Yes social Justice means being able to kill the purely innocent in the womb. The slaughter of the innocents continue long past King Herod’s death.

In the most recent development:

Nicole Sotelo, codirector of national Call to Action, said her organization intends to mount a letter-writing campaign to Lincoln, Neb., Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, with copies to Bishop William Skylstad, bishop of Spokane, Wash., and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The letters will protest Bruskewitz’s refusal to comply with the bishops’ conference policies on child abuse by clergy, she said. Asked about the timing of the campaign, just after an announcement that the Vatican has upheld the excommunication of the Lincoln chapter of Call to Action, she said it would counter Bruskewitz’s "attempts to silence" the organization. "Justice cannot be silenced," she said [Via Diogenes ]

When Bishop Bruskewitz first excommunicated the various groups he received national coverage and thousands of letter. He said at the time very few were negative and were overwhelmingly supportive of his action.

Dad29 replies to this action by saying:

OK. After CTA’s actual membership (all 78 of them, nationwide) writes their letters, then what?

Does anybody remember CTA’s 1996-1997 petition drive for the "We Are Church: A Catholic Referendum" petition. They strived for over a million signatures by placing their petitions throughout parishes nationwide and it included the typical progressive laundry list of how the Church must change to fit their agenda. It was also a total flop receiving what I remember to be around 80 thousand signatures. The only thing this letter writing campaign will be sure to produce is a hearty laugh by Bishop Bruskewitz and also not a few prayers for the members of CTA.

One of the megatrends that John Allen Jr. should be following in his new book is the continuing dying out of progressive orders and organizations. CTA, FutureChurch, and others will be holding their meetings in retirement homes in years to come. Progressive religious orders will continue to shrink while vibrant orders who faithfully embrace the teachings of the Church will continue to grow.

Case in point is Sister Joan Chittister, OSB who in her latest column actually compares the Church’s treatment of women to Sharia law – though they never explain the Church’s veneration of the Blessed Mother and all of the women saints. She also says such stupid things as:

After all, women are the majority race. If God doesn’t like girls, S/he certainly made a lot of them. And they’re beginning to figure it out.

Women are a separate race? As dumb as I am I though they were part of the human race. Or maybe she thinks women are actually from Venus. This type of stupidity leads her to use the term s/he in referring to God which I consider down right impolite. The Holy Spirit went to a lot of trouble inspiring the writers of the Old and the New Testament and how we are to address the most Holy Trinity, the relation among the three divine persons, and our relation to them; and to have it ditched in favor of some PC term is just plain dumb. If you ask someone to call you by your first name and they then call you by some other name instead would you thing this is right – yet this is exactly what they do.

Gerald at The Cafeteria is Closed writes:

Another proof that the world is full of *bleeps* – my wife is the director of the San Diego office of a foster care agency. So she comes home tonight and says, "look what I got from my secret snowperson". I thought she was kidding. But – the social committee decided that "Secret Santa" was politically incorrect" because there were Jews and Pagans working for the company as well who might be offended. So, it was renamed into "Secret Snowperson". Not snowMAN of course because that’d be sexist. How *bleep* idiotic can you get? How much of a complete *bleep* do you have to be to set up a meeting deciding the fate of "Secret Santa" ? I cannot believe that there’d be people so humorless and brain-damaged to come up with something like that!

The idea of a Snowperson in San Diego of all places is pretty stupid. A song or a annual Christmas cartoon called Frosty the Puddle just would never catch on. Isn’t inflicting Snowpersons on San Diego geographical bias? Trying to inflict weather norms from other parts of the country in a much more warmer clime is pure hateful bias. What about those who have never experienced snow or made a snowperson won’t they feel left out and weather discriminated against? Somebody should file a complaint there about this Latitude/Longitude bias.

A reader sent me a link to a Google Video of Womenpriests at the Call to Action conference from November. If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. Now I would suggest a drinking game that every time someone at a Call to Action conference uses the word prophetic that you take a drink. I would suggest it if it wasn’t gravely sinful to get that drunk and I think even King Kong with his massive body weight would be pretty tipsy be the end of the conference.

The video also includes Cindy Sheehan who is sitting in the front row. Though not long ago an CSPAN when asked if she was still Catholic she replied no. I think this would be a more honest reply for anybody from CTA. If anybody has doubts about Bishop Bruskewitz excommunication of this group in his diocese should have their doubts lifted by viewing this.

One of the funniest phrases I have heard in reference to advocates of women priest is prophetic obedience. I think it means that in the future there will be women priest so they are being obedient to what will occur then. The women homilist (who wore a cross so big that it would be proportional for Flava Flav from Public Enemy to wear) talked about prophetic obedience and how the "unjust law" of the male only priesthood must be ignored. I will have to try this line of reasoning if I am ever stopped for speeding."But officer, in 100 years the speed limit will be 200, I am actually going to slow." How about prophetic savings. That would be so cool. Just to go into my bank and withdraw an amount of money that would be equal to a couple hundred years worth of interest.

Funny though that my reading of the Old Testament the prophets themselves never acted like this. They were always calling Israel back to the practice of the Faith as handed down. They were always fighting against the culture of the time not being synchronous with it. Pointing out the sins of the country and then usually getting killed for it. I guess the new way of being a prophet has some advantages. Preaching a cultural message in sync with the current culture isn’t very likely to get you persecuted or killed. If the Old Testament prophets had not been so judgmental and had only preached about how it was okay to pray to idols and sacrifice to other gods they would have been left alone. Tolerance instead of talk about covenant curses and equating idol worship with adultery. Modern prophets get invited to conferences instead of being stoned to death. If only God had called up prophets to affirm people instead of calling them to be faithful and to a life of holiness. John the Baptist could have opened up a shop of fashionable camel hair clothing instead of being beheaded for criticising the marriage of Herod.