Punditry

FRONT ROYAL, Va., Oct. 23 /Christian Newswire/ — The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, STL, president of Human Life International, issued the following statement in response to Georgetown University Law Center’s announcement that they have established the Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights:

“It is deeply disturbing that a university that claims to honor and perpetuate the Catholic faith would establish a human rights chair in the name of a heretical priest who has spent much of his lifetime advocating for the most heinous of human rights violations: abortion. Sadly, Georgetown University—a Jesuit institution—has a long history of mocking the Faith, including hosting pornographer and social degenerate Larry Flynt, and at one point removing crucifixes from the classroom in spite of student protests to keep them.

“Referring to Fr. Drinan as a human rights hero is like calling Attila the Hun a diplomat. Given the school’s history, I wouldn’t be surprised if the college posthumously awarded Attila the lifetime achievement award for humanitarianism.

“While the Law Center’s announcement is an amazing study in misdirection and spin when describing Fr. Drinan’s checkered past, it clearly fails to address the fact that he was ordered by Pope John Paul II to relinquish his seat in the U.S. Congress because of the unrepentant aid and comfort he consistently gave to the purveyors of the culture of death.

“At age 85, Fr. Drinan doesn’t need another hypocritical award. He needs to be in a monastery praying for the salvation of his soul. While he’s at it, he should also pray for Georgetown’s return to full communion with the Catholic Church.

“
If the University is confused as to why this award is hypocritical at best, they need only reflect upon the words of Pope John Paul II in Christifideles Laici where he directly addressed situations like this: ‘The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory, if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.’ (n.38).

“It is my sincere prayer that the leaders of Georgetown University will reflect upon these words and come to the obvious conclusion that they must rescind this award and fully embrace their Catholic heritage by defending the most vulnerable members of our society, the unborn.”

What’s next a Judas chair for Financial Oversight? Or and Arian chair for Christology?

For those unaware of Fr. Drinan was at one time a Congressmen whose policies totally supported abortion, but would write to pro-life constituents that the Church’s position was correct. He was the first of the "Personally opposed, but.." politicians. When he first ran in 1970 the Father General of the Society of Jesus Father Pedro Arrupe had pretty much commanded that Drinan not be allowed to run and if elected to not serve. Unfortunately there was much obfuscation by Drinan’s superiors in this matter leading to a lot of confusion and the circumventing of the local bishop. When Drinan ran for reelection the Father General formally told him he could not run, not that this matted to Fr. Drinan. Shortly after Roe v Wade, Drinan wrote that the decision had flaws but that he found it on the whole a beneficial judgment.

Pope John Paul II in 1980 issued a general order banning priests from political office and Fr. Drinan did leave office. He later wrote articles in the New York Times and what I guess could be called its sister publication the National Catholic Reporter attacking the partial birth abortion ban and supporting President Clinton’s veto of it. New York’s John Cardinal O’Connor in his diocesan newspaper called Drinan to account and later James Cardinal Hickey, archbishop of Washington, D.C., demanded that Drinan clarify his position and saying that he had "caused public confusion about Church teaching on abortion."

There hasn’t been much good news on the Catholic identity front at Georgetown in recent years and the Drinan chair only shows that it has sunk to new lows.

Madrid (CNA) — The Spanish daily La Razon is denouncing a Catholic publishing company that has agreed to publish text books for Islamic religion classes that will be offered in public schools in Spain. The Santa Maria Foundation, which is operated by the Marianist religious order, has assumed the project of publishing Islamic text books through its publishing group "SM," with the support of the Union of Islamic Communities of Spain (UCIDE — Spanish abbreviation). The first textbook, which has been released to reporters, is called, "Discovering Islam."

SM, says the purpose of their decision to publish Muslim texts "is to foster intercultural encounter and religious dialogue, with the integration of Islamic values in the socio-cultural context of Spain," La Razon, however, argues the deal is really about getting Muslim business.

According to the Spanish newspaper, the UCIDE will sell the books at the same price as books on the Catholic religion published by the Marianists. The first printing of the books should thus bring over $275,000 in revenue. SM says the profits will be used to finance future editions, and if the UCIDE is able to sell 15,000 copies each of all seven volumes of the series, it will earn some $1.5 million in profits.

According to reporter Alex Navajas of La Razon, "In countries like Saudi Arabia or the Sudan, if you are caught with a Bible, you are sentenced to death…Surely the Islamists in Spain are not as fanatical as the Saudis or the Sudanese. But that’s not what this is about. The problem is that SM, whose ‘identity is inspired by Christian values’," has fallen prey to "the most severe form of relativism and syncretism."

"That is, there is no difference between promoting the Christian faith or the Islamic faith because, in the end, all religious are equal since all of them lead to God. So, let them publish the Book of Mormon, which is just nonsense, or come to an agreement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who own one of the most powerful publishing companies in the world," Navajas said.

In related news Dom posts on the Massachusetts Bible Society with its new slogan “a voice for progressive Christianity.” He also mentions that in recent years they have also been distributing Korans.

In an article on a brochure by Archbishop Charles Chaput, Denver; Bishop Michael Sheridan, Colorado Springs; and Bishop Arthur Tafoya, Pueblo.

Other political issues, the document said, allow for "legitimate diversity in our prudential judgments" and apparently allow Catholics to vote for candidates as they will, without consideration of intrinsic evil issues.

Somehow I don’t think that is what is meant by the Colorado bishops. Besides shouldn’t that be intrinsically evil vice "intrinsic evil." Of course they have editors so I must be mistaken.

Everytime some half-wit progressive brings up Jerry Falwell, the Bakers and Pat Roberston, don’t you always hear "Hungry Like the Wolf" playing in the background? Can’t critics at least learn some new names from this century if they’re going to criticize the Religious Right? (Although I guess we can take some small comfort from the implication that progressives are just too stupid and/or lazy to bother…)

But anyway, I don’t have a NYT column, and David Brooks does. Here’s part of his review of Andrew Sullivan’s book:

"The Conservative Soul is imbued with Sullivan’s characteristic passion and clarity. And yet I must confess, if I hadn’t been reviewing this book, I wouldn’t have finished it. I have a rule, which has never failed me, that when a writer uses quotations from Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the Left Behind series to capture the religious and political currents in modern America, then I know I can put that piece of writing down because the author either doesn’t know what he is talking about or is arguing in bad faith."

Which. Is. What. I’ve. Been. Frickin’. Saying.

Kathy Shaidle goes on to call this Brooks law and even better Reductio ad Falwellum. This is so true since the only time you ever hear these names are if some liberal is bringing them up or the rare case when a conservative does – and in those cases it is mainly to lampoon the latest idiotic statement. Pat Robertson and the Bakers, etc. are like the crazy uncle in the family as far as most Christians are concerned. But maybe the reason they are stuck in the eighties as far as the religious right goes is that there really are no dominant members of the Christian right that are as easy to caricature. Sure they totally disagree with people like Dr. James Dobson, but he doesn’t have some cheesy television show talking about the end times and curing people over the airwaves. They want religious right Bogeymen to scare their constituents to the polls to save us from the impending theocracy. The eighties had the death defying Jason and progressive’s keep resurrecting old religious right figures one more time hoping for once to give a good scare. That behind Jason’s hockey mask lies Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell.

A reader sent me this story about Bishop David Choby once again guarding his sheep.

Citing conflict with Church teaching, the local Catholic Diocese has for the second time in six months rescinded an invitation—made by one of it own Catholic clergy members—to a local interfaith group to meet in one of its churches.

Father Patrick Kibby invited a group hosting a four-week discussion about the intersection of religion and politics, jointly sponsored by the Interfaith Alliance of Middle Tennessee and the Tennessee Alliance for Progress, to use facilities at the Cathedral of the Incarnation for this week’s meeting. Instead, the group—whose series is titled “Doing Justly: Integrating Our Deepest Spiritual Beliefs Into Our Professional Lives”—received word late last week that Diocesan Bishop David Choby objected to the positions of the Interfaith Alliance on abortion and same-sex marriage and that, therefore, the group would not be allowed to gather on church grounds. It will meet instead at Belmont United Methodist Church.

The Diocese doesn’t dispute that characterization of the situation and appears more than happy to sit out this citywide discussion among religious people of various backgrounds.

“We encourage people to rely on their faith as they play an active role as citizens in our society,” Diocese communications director Rick Musacchio says in a statement issued to the Scene. “However, serious confusion is likely to arise in the minds of many when political groups hold events on church grounds. We have asked the sponsors…to find another venue for their event after it became clear that one of the primary sponsors is an avowedly political group endorsing many positions that are in conflict with Catholic teaching.” When asked which sponsor the Diocese considers “avowedly political,” Musacchio cites the Interfaith Alliance, a diverse group with members of many faiths and whose local members include several Catholic priests.

Rev. Dan Rosemergy, board chairman of the Interfaith Alliance and an eternal optimist, tells the Scene he’s aware of Choby’s reasons for changing the venue and has scheduled a meeting with him this week to discuss the situation. He feels reasonably hopeful that Choby will come around.

I don’t think congregationalist pastor Dan Rosemergy should hold his breath on this one.

Sadly, the shrinking tent mentality within the Diocese isn’t an isolated occurrence. Back in May, Father James Mallett of Christ the King Church was forced to deliver the news to published theologian Dan Maguire that he would not be welcome after all to speak at his parish about justice and the poor. A group of local Catholics invited the Marquette University instructor here, only to see Bishop Choby weigh in against the plans, putting the priest in an embarrassing situation and forcing the group to find an alternative location.

I love the editorializing here about the "shrinking tent mentality" and casting dissident theologian Dan Maguire as a "published theologian" as if having a book published makes you right. Funny how it is the Bishop that put the priest in an embarrassing position and not the fact that it was the priest’s action that caused the problem. I think it is rather embarrassing to invite anybody to your parish who you say you are totally unfamiliar with, especially with someone like Maguire who has done his best through the media to make everybody familiar with him.

“I am unfamiliar with most of your work, but I did not hesitate to agree to host the event,” Mallett wrote in an email to Maguire at the time. “I am also quite familiar with a number of the group…who invited you. I am at a total loss to explain the tide of vitriol and stupidity that has followed in the wake of our publicity of this event.”

I also have never been much of a fan of the tent analogy in the first place, especially the idea of a big tent only goes so far. Truth has defined edges like a tent does, but often what is imaged is an idea of a tent so big that it essentially has no border. Like the Hotel California you can enter it but never leave. A tent so big that it encompasses everybody stops being a tent and instead becomes a giant cover blocking the sun, and in this case the truth itself by elevating opinion as truth. A real tent has tent pegs to hold it down the same way truth is held down by dogma. Pull up the pegs and the boundaries of the tent do get bigger to the point that it ceases being a tent.

The author of this article also previously covered the first instance that the good bishop took action. She quoted Maguire as saying "They are locked into what I call the pelvic orthodoxy.” I bet Maguire has used this little phrase a lot Of course if there is such a thing as pelvic orthodoxy there would be also pelvic heterodoxy. But sin is of the will and his little turn of phrase does not diminish the fact that outside of marriage that sex is sinful or that lust in all circumstances in sinful. As a theologian Maguire does not explain Jesus’ words, he explains away Jesus’ words.

Update: Carl Olson also weighs in on this article.

Southern California actress Laurel Kelsh Jones brought Martin Luther’s wife, “Katie” to life in the sanctuary of Napa Valley Lutheran Church on the afternoon of Oct. 8.

Clothed in Renaissance dress, Jones declared to the 30 mostly elderly attendees, “This is the day the Lord has made! Not bad for 507 years old, is it?”

She colorfully described incidents in Katie’s life, such as her time in a convent, saying, “I’ll tell you how I got into the habit” and “we prayed and we prayed and we prayed.” Katie told of secretly reading Martin Luther’s pamphlets in her cell and being smuggled out of the convent on Easter eve in empty herring barrels.

Finally, she passionately spoke of her courtship and marriage to Martin Luther. She said, “He was 42, I was 26. He was an ex-monk; I was an ex-nun. … We had six kids in eight years.”

When Jones ended the performance, she said, “You’ve had a Martin Luther in your life. Think about your Martin Luther, who loves you unconditionally. … I know it’s not cool to be Lutheran. Shouldn’t you go to the non-denominational church? Luther transformed the foundation of all Christianity. … God put you here for a reason. God chose you, is that not wonderful?”

The audience applauded enthusiastically. Afterwards, at the pie social, Jones answered questions and passed out “Reformation red” pencils.

Jones has played Katie Luther for a decade, performing at nearly 30 churches a year. Originally, her pastor asked her to do a 15-minute sermon called “The Reformation according to Katie.” Now, she has sold 650 recordings of her hour long, one-woman show.

In an interview, she said, “God is working through me. … Incredible things have happened in my life because of Katie. Blessings continue to unfold. What (Martin and Katherine Luther) did for the Christian Church is astounding.”

Jones described the Luthers’ marriage, saying, “Katie felt there was something she needed to do; something was missing. She had too many unanswered questions. How she and Martin came together could only be God-inspired because they didn’t start as lovers, but with respect. Martin and Katie had a marriage of our day; they enjoyed sexual relations, they desperately loved their children, they were a working father and working mother, they taught their children at home.” She said they were “partners in the Gospel and in life.”

On the Reformation, she observed, “Martin wasn’t out to destroy the Church, but restore the Church and go back to basics. In the Catholic Church, Mother Mary still has a prominent position, you have to go through the saints; in Protestantism, you go directly to Jesus. (In the Catholic Church) there are certain prayers, using Rosary beads, and following specific liturgies; it’s more formulated and scripted. Every Protestant church is different, more free. Everybody wants freedom, that’s what we have with God.”

You would think that she would know of Martin Luther’s devotion to Mary such as one of his sermons when he preached "[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." Martin Luther also believed in the Communion of Saints. The Mass Luther celebrated in the church he created was essentially the Mass with some changes. I wonder if she knows about the growing number of Protestants and especially Lutherans who pray the Rosary?

What I find interesting is the thought of how every church being different is seen as a good thing. That what the doctrine one church holds is dismissed by another. Or even the doctrines two churches might share will have radically different interpretations. Jesus prayed that they may be one, not that they may be divided. On my way into the Church it was my introduction to the variance of Protestant theology and how on Protestant radio I listened to the doctrines changed from hour to hour depending on who was preaching. Not that the message preached from those in the Church is always consistent, but it isn’t hard to discover whether they preached what the Church taught or not. I can easily understand a Lutheran defending Lutheranism and the Reformation, just not a defense of all of the splits and calling them freedom.

Strange kerfuffle over at Jimmy Akin’s site with letters from Bill Moyer’s lawyers threatening him about a story he posted on his site previously. Amazing how things go right to a lawyer when a simple email to Jimmy Akin would have been sufficient in the first place.

The offending post contained a statement by Dr. Beisner relating to Bill Moyers.

"..he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats. "

A statement of which Bill Moyers denies ever making. I remember seeing that quote before and at the time and questioning its accuracy. Now I am in no way a Bill Moyers’ apologist and I have fisked him thoroughly in the past. The reason I doubted him saying this is that I have heard him questioned about media bias before. I have little doubt that he truly believes that he sees himself as totally unbiased and as an independent so I think it is totally out of character for him to admit that he isn’t. I do think that he is totally delusional when it comes to this since his fragrant bias permeates everything he does. But like most in the media they truly don’t believe this about themselves.

Jimmy’s lawyer Stephen Dillard of the blog Southern Appeal replied to Moyer’s lawyer’s pointing out that this didn’t rise to defamation and that a simple request would have solicited Jimmy to post Moyer’s denial of the quote.

What I find ironic is that this all takes place within the context of a series Moyers is doing on the environment which covers in part evangelicals. Last year Moyer’s published an editorial claiming that religious right is deliberately trying to despoil the environment and using as evidence the Left Behind novels. In it he claimed that James Watt who was President Reagan’s first secretary of the interior said:

…that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

What Watt actually said was "we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."

So now Bill Moyers’ is so worried about his "integrity as a journalist" without ever recanting his own defamation. A lie that was subsequently used by other media outlets as being true, though some have issued a correction.

Domenico Bettinelli looks at the proposed document by the USCCB regarding the “Church’s posture on homosexuality.”
I think his concerns about the document are well justified. He says "While the proposal itself includes stuff that sounds right, there is enough equivocation to sink it at the pier before it even launches." Considering their history with documents like Always our children I think skepticism is appropriate.

“For this reason, baptism of children adopted by such couples presents a pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the church does not refuse the sacrament of baptism to these children, but there must be a well-founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion.”

How much hope could you possibly have that children brought up by people so obviously in rejection of a basic moral teaching would be brought up in the fullness of the Catholic faith? In fact, what does “brought up in the Catholic religion” mean? Is there some minimum standard? That’s certainly a can of worms because there are plenty of heterosexual couples for whom the same questions can be asked.

Just how likely is a homosexual couple to teach children that active homosexuality is gravely sinful? Or for that matter cohabitation couples teaching about the sin of fornication? This goes way beyond a founded-hope into wishful thinking.

In other USCCB related news.

The U.S. bishops will vote to establish norms for hymns at Mass during their annual November meeting in Baltimore, November 13-16.

The new norms, which will require a two-thirds vote by the bishops and subsequent recognitio by the Holy See, are to ensure that liturgical songs will be doctrinally correct, based in the scriptural and liturgical texts and relatively fixed.

The norms are part of a new “Directory for Music and the Liturgy for Use in the Dioceses in the United States of America.” The directory responds to a recommendation of Liturgiam authenticam, the fifth Vatican instruction on correct implementation of liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council.

The recommended norms are here and they look pretty good. The USSCB site also says

The document said that the large number of liturgical songs that exist in the United States have benefited the liturgy, but also said that “a certain stable core of liturgical songs might well serve as exemplary and stabilizing factor.”

I hope the author of that statement went to confession after writing it. Large number? If this was true there would be no needs for these new norms.

CORNWALL, Ont. – The altar rail is no place for confrontation between Catholic politicians and the clergy who want them to fall into line, Washington’s archbishop emeritus said Tuesday.

But if a politician consistently and publicly defies the church, he should be denied communion, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick told the Conference of Canadian Catholic Bishops meeting here this week.

”You have no choice in the matter. That person should not partake of communion. Sometimes you just have to do it.”

I was pretty sure there was only one Theodore Cardinal McCarrick until I read this article. I mean is this the same Cardinal who seemed to mischaracterized the letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger and also spent two years with a committee on this subject only to come up with for each Bishop to do their own thing?

By discussing the matter civilly, the cardinal said, ”I feel we have brought people closer to the centre … In the middle is virtue.”

Okay this is the same Cardinal. There is of course always a problem using political terms within the Church. Left, right, center just don’t equate very well. Have you ever hard of a martyr described as a centrist? Cardinal McCarrick does love talking about the middle. Truth does not lie (pun intended) between two extremes, it transcends them. Virtue is not the middle of two positions. Fr. John Hardon’s wonderful Catholic dictionary defines virtue as "A good habit that enables a person to act according to right reason enlightened by faith." Now I am not implying that the Cardinal ever means anything not orthodox, but I have called him a man of the muddle before because most of what he says that is reported seems to me to be informed more by politicalese and beltway talk than in ways that have a more Catholic heft behind them. If he would start substituting center with truth I think it would improve the little pieces of quotations we do get from the media.

The article ends with his quote "”These dialogues are not about winning votes, but saving souls.”" To which I say amen.