Punditry

There is a need to set right the parameters for Christian participation in public life if Australia is to forestall Muslim fundamentalist aspirations for an Islamic state, Jesuit Fr Frank Brennan has argued at a Jesuit conference in Melbourne.

"Muslims and other members of minority faiths in Australia should have the same opportunity and be subject to the same constraints as Christians from the major denominations when contributing to public debate," he told the "Evangelisation and Culture in a Jesuit Light" conference.

"It should be no disrespect to Muslims to insist that Australians exercise their rights including free speech without legal restraint but with due regard for the sensitivity of others," he said.

The conference, hosted by the Australian Catholic University, the Jesuit Theological College and the Melbourne College of Divinity, coincided with the 500th birthday of St Francis Xavier and the 450th anniversary of the death of St Ignatius Loyola, both founders of the Society of Jesus, now known as the Jesuits, one of the largest Catholic religious orders.

This article started out pretty good but soon degenerated.

In his address, Fr Brennan focused on the role of faith-based conscience in a pluralist democracy. He told the conference that there are no easy options between a rock and a soft place for religious citizens looking to select electable candidates in a modern democracy.

"The committed Catholic cannot be satisfied that his conscience is properly formed and informed simply by pledging adherence to Vatican declarations," Fr Brennan said.

"Authoritative church teaching is a privileged guide to be discounted only after mature reflection and prayerful discernment.

Excuse me but this paragraphs just makes me laugh out loud for its silliness. If a Church teaching is authoritative then by definition it can not be discounted no matter how much you reflect upon it and for you at the same time still be a faithful Catholic. After mature and prayerful discernment I determined that the statement by Fr. Brennan should be discounted.

"
History is replete with examples of religious authorities mistaking the moral good in times of changing uncertainty. A living tradition is the fruit of inter-generational affirmation of the primacy of conscience as the means for reaching truth, the primary end for which we strive," he said.

Funny that doesn’t seem to be the same thing as what the Catechism refers to as living or more accurately Apostolic Tradition.

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

And of course is to be interpreted by the magisterium and is not up to the "inter-generational affirmation of the primacy of conscience."

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."[47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

The dread, damp palms and anxiety may still be there, but Catholic confession has moved out of the dark, creaky booth where a priest listened to penitents and then meted out penalties to every last sinner to show up.

The confessional box has largely given way to a lighted room where priest and penitent can gaze into each other’s eyes and have a private conversation about lapses in holy living. That’s especially true in Arizona, where Catholic churches tend to be newer.

Or sinners can still anonymously recount their wrongs kneeling behind a screen on a table in a well-lighted room, uttering the traditional words, “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned” and noting the date of the last confession. Largely gone is the dark confessional booth, tagged the “sin box,” with a kneeler and demarcating shuttered divider between the two parties.

Also gone are the long lines of penitents who humbly spill out their venial and mortal offenses to God through a priest who is forbidden from repeating them to anyone.

Personally I prefer the older confessionals to "reconciliation rooms" and especially the type displayed in the picture. I have never seen one setup like that, but it seems rather problematic to me. For one I guess you would have to approach this confessional cubicle from a specific angle to retain the canonical right of the individual penitent to remain anonymous. The other problem I would see is that a traditional confessional or a dedicated room would at least act as a baffle to help to prevent people from overhearing your confession. An open confessional would require awaiting penetents to stand much further away to avoid this problem.

Now of course compared to what happens during this amazing sacrament the furniture involved in facilitating it is of no consequence. Though I think we need a visual indicator that the sacrament of confession isn’t something mundane, but something quite exceptional. What could be more exceptional than forgiveness of sins when we truly repent?

I have also always wondered how someone who is forced to make an appointment for confession retains there canonical rights to anonymity? Would you have to give a false name and then say you will meet the priest in the confessional at a certain time? Would you have to confess to giving a false name?

On the light side the confessional pictured looks like it would make for a really challenging game of ping pong.

Dawn Eden has a report about Democratic Governor nominee Thomas Suozzi:

Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, currently struggling to win the Democratic nomination for New York’s governorship, yesterday rescinded a $90,000 grant he had promised to an abstinence-education program — after the head of the program, which also runs pregnancy resource centers, complained publicly about Planned Parenthood’s promotion of bestiality.

She then goes on to show just how accurate the charge is with quotes and images from Planned Parenthood and its related sites.

I remember when Thomas Suozzi (who is Catholic) advocated reducing abortions by funding adoption and homes for single mothers, while at the same time funding groups like Planned Parenthood. While this was a least a step partly in the right direction, it certainly didn’t take much to veer from it.

The topic does remind me of my Slippery Slope Publishing parody that included this.

Marry the Little Lamb

Three enjoyable stories of people in wonderful committed relationships with barnyard animals. Here is a sample:

Marry the Little Lamb, Little Lamb, Little Lamb
Marry the Little Lamb and giver her a ring of gold.

And every where the Married went, Married went, Married went.
Every where the Married went, people learned not to stare.

After reading our version of Goldilocks and the three bears, the old version will never be the same.

Children will learn to put behind the stereotype that marriage is only between a man and a women.

A department head at the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has resigned her post after revealing that she had secretly participated in a ceremony last year in which she says she was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest.

Jean Marie Marchant, who for the last four years has been director of healthcare ministry for the archdiocese, offered her resignation to Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley in a letter last week in which she said that a year ago, using a pseudonym, she had been among nine women who had participated in an ordination ceremony on the St. Lawrence Seaway in Canada. That group, whose ordination ceremony is considered invalid by the church hierarchy, also included another woman from Massachusetts, Marie David, a Harwich innkeeper who now leads a weekly liturgy on Cape Cod.

“I’ve always seen my role as to stay within the church and to push the boundaries," Marchant said in an interview. “But I really came to see in the archdiocese that the change was not going to come about because we women were doing a good and worthy job, but that something more dramatic and drastic had to happen. Until we really took a very strong step and defied this very unjust law — the canon in canon law that restricts ordination to men — nothing was going to change."

O’Malley, who has repeatedly said that women cannot be ordained as priests because Jesus did not have female apostles, immediately accepted Marchant’s resignation. Although in 2003 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, announced the excommunication of seven women ordained as part of the same movement, the Archdiocese of Boston has not sanctioned Marchant and has chosen less confrontational language in its conversations with her, an e-mail alert to priests, and a statement to the Globe.

“In her resignation, Ms. Marchant acknowledged that her having participated in an ordination ceremony with Roman Catholic Womenpriests is irreconcilable with the position she held with the Archdiocese of Boston," O’Malley’s spokesman, Terrence C. Donilon, said in a statement. “We greatly appreciate Ms. Marchant’s many years of service in healthcare ministry. The archdiocese greatly values the ministry of lay and religious women. Their contributions are vital to the life and mission of the church."

…Donilon, O’Malley’s spokesman, said yesterday that “the cardinal has imposed no penalty on Jean Marchant, because, according to church law, she separated herself from the church by her own action."

I don’t think that this is true canonically. A commenter previously brought up Can. 1378 and 1379 that this would occur a incur latae sententiae excommunication (automatic). But Canon Lawyer Pete Vere replied to this comment "She cannot be excommunicated for impersonating or simulating a priest because she is a woman and women are incapable of being receiving valid ordination. Thus the aforementioned canons are not applicable."

So I think it is unfortunate that the Cardinal does not excommunicate her as other bishops have done in recent years. I think it minimizes the problem and leads to confusion on the part of the people. This type of softness can be seen as a weak encouragement.

The title of this Boston Globe article was "Making a stand for women priests." Well Custer also made a stand.

Update: The Lady in the Pew has her own reaction.

Spokesman Terrence Donilon:

"We greatly appreciate Ms. Marchant’s many years of service in healthcare ministry. The archdiocese greatly values the ministry of lay and religious women. Their contributions are vital to the life and mission of the church."

I think this is a load of bleep. In any case, I do not "appreciate" Jean Marchant’s "service."

I do not appreciate that, as far back as 2001, while in the Archiocese’s employ, Jean Marchant attended the 2001 "ordination " of Mary Ramerman of Spiritus Christi Church, Rochester, New York. (Google this "church" if you can stomach it.)

I do not appreciate that the Archdiocese’s employee, Jean Marchant, said that she "always seen my role as to stay within the church and to push the boundaries."

But far more seriously, I do not appreciate the fact that, since her "ordination," Jean Marchant has "quietly `anointed’ some sick people and privately `consecrated the Eucharist’."

In fact, I find it worse than appalling.

Understand that I do not judge Jean Marchant. However, I strongly condemn the statement of "appreciation" released by the Archdiocese.

Via Matt Abbott

Silenced priest Father Robert Altier has responded to a recent letter by Dennis McGrath, communications director for the St. Paul-Minneapolis archdiocese, regarding Father Altier’s status in the archdiocese.

The following is Father Altier’s (unedited) response to McGrath:

Dennis McGrath
Chancery
226 Summit Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55102-2197

Dear Mr. McGrath,

Praised be Jesus Christ! I am writing to you in response to a letter that you wrote to Mr. Kenneth Fisher on July 17, 2006 and which was, in turn, forwarded to me. In this letter you state, regarding Mr. Fisher, that "his story is replete with errors and major exaggerations. As the communications director for The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, let me strive to correct the record and, hopefully, get your Catholic Newswire to do the same if you’re at all concerned about journalistic ethics and truth." Toward the end of the letter you further state "to let Mr. Fisher use your news service as a communications medium to trumpet a campaign based on false and distorted information is almost unimaginable to me, as a trained journalist."

These are rather interesting statements considering that your own letter contains very few pieces of factual data but is, indeed, replete with misinformation and a great deal of false and distorted information of its own (and this is not the first time). This strikes me as being "almost unimaginable" coming from one who claims to be a trained journalist and even more because you represent the Archdiocese and the Archbishop. If this were merely a matter of false and distorted information I would have ignored it and remained silent, as I have in the past. But there is something much more serious contained in your letter which has prompted me to write you. This would fall under your statement about getting the record straight and concern about journalistic ethics and truth.

In your letter you state that I have "indeed frequently and inappropriately (if not disobediently) criticized the Archbishop and Archdiocesan leaders (and not simply on the VIRTUS child protection/education program)." While it is true that I have not always agreed with certain decisions that have been made, I have never, to my recollection, made public statements that are critical of the Archbishop and I have never been disobedient to anything he has ever asked. A clear distinction needs to be made here. We have a right and, at times, an obligation to make judgments on actions, including decisions. To criticize such actions or decisions does not constitute criticism of the person per se. I have made a promise of respect and obedience to the Archbishop and I have maintained this promise. To disagree with a decision is neither an act of disrespect for the person of the Archbishop nor is it an act of disobedience. These charges made in your letter are not only fabrications of your own, but they constitute slander and calumny which are both serious sins. I am requesting that you either produce some evidence to back up your remarks or "strive to correct the record" by recanting these statements in the same medium or media in which they were made.

Mr. McGrath, considering your position as the Director of Communications for the Archdiocese, and considering that you make it clear at the beginning of your letter that you are acting in that capacity, your statements have to be taken not as personal opinion, but as the official position of the Archdiocese. This is quite tragic (but does indeed speak volumes) and it is truly unimaginable coming from a trained journalist who is concerned about journalistic ethics and truth. Since you are speaking on behalf of the Archbishop and your statements are to reflect his own official position, I am sending a copy of this letter to the Archbishop. I am also sending a copy to Mr. Fisher because your original letter was addressed to him. Trusting in your desire to correct the record and uphold only the highest standards of ethics and truth, I will look forward to your rectification of this unfortunate situation.

In our Lord and our Lady,
Fr. Robert J. Altier

Cc: Archbishop Flynn
Mr. Kenneth Fisher

If the claim made by many progressives that the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality is true, then why aren’t bad hosts called Sodomites?

Your Eminence:

I noticed this paragraph in your most recent homily, published in the National Catholic Reporter:

I think of World War II as an example where our church failed in the face of a tyranny and an evil that was unbelievably evil — the Nazi tyranny. The church in Germany failed to speak a prophetic word to that tyranny. Why? Because they had entered into an agreement with the Nazi dictatorship in 1933. Hitler would allow the church to have its schools if the bishops of the church would agree they would not allow their priests to preach any so-called political message. And so the Church became virtually silent during those years. There were a few exceptions — a peasant in Austria, Franz Jägerstätter, and a few others like him said, “No! I won’t serve in Hitler’s army,” and he was executed. A whole group of young people connected with the universities called the White Rose group — the same thing — they spoke the truth; most of them were executed. The church refused to listen. It was more concerned about its institutional structures than about God’s Word. So we failed.

While the behavior of Church leadership regarding the Shoah is a worthy topic of discussion (count me as one who thinks more could have been done), I find your criticism to be ironic, given your own track record.

Just what explains your consistent refusal "to speak a prophetic word" to the tyrannies you have visited in "solidarity" during your lifetime (e.g., Castro’s Cuba, Hussein’s Iraq, Aristide’s Haiti, Arafat’s Palestine)? I’m also coming up empty looking for examples of "prophetic words" spoken by yourself to the Soviet Union, so any insight you could provide on that would be welcome.

Beams, specks and all that.

Sincerely,

Dale Price

Dale once again nails it. Now on the positive side Bishop Gumbleton has spoken out about Darfur, Sudan, but his "prophetic voice" let him down when it came to Rwanda. Mainly it is just those lovable tinpot dictators that the left so loves or are at least willing to give them a pass. Robert Mugabe for example can continue to be safely ignored while his policies cause starvation and he builds torture training camps in which youth are trained to both torture and kill. My suggestion to anybody who wants to get on the dictator career track just make sure you shout socialist bromides and you are sure to be ignored or even better sanitized by the world press and the peace movement.

A reader sent me this press release from the Catholic League.

At a news conference yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin denounced President Bush’s veto of a bill that would expand embryonic stem cell research. He questioned, "Who set up the president of the United States, this president, as our moral pope? The president of the United States is not our moral ayatollah. He may wish to be, but he’s not."

Sen. Harkin also said that the president has put himself "in the company of people like Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, who told Galileo it was heresy to claim that the earth revolved around the sun.." He also claimed that Bush is now aligned "with people like Pope Boniface VIII, who banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s. This stopped cadaver dissection for over 300 years, over 300 years."

Here’s how Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded:

"It’s hard to know what’s worse-Senator Harkin’s Catholic baiting or his ignorance of history. When he votes to allow doctors to kill babies who are 80 percent born, no one calls him a moral pope. But the Iowa Catholic is quick to drop the Taliban card on President Bush for vetoing a bill that was opposed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He is just as quick in distorting history.

"Cardinal Bellarmine, as well as Pope Urban VIII, welcomed Galileo’s research, presenting him with medals and gifts. It was only after Galileo persisted in promoting his hypothesis as fact (this was the heresy, not the claim that the earth revolved around the sun) that trouble ensued. As for Pope Boniface VIII, in 1299 he sought to stop the trafficking in bones from soldiers killed in the Holy Land-not to stop all dissection. In any event, dissection began again a few years later, not 300 years later.

"Sen. Harkin’s reckless remarks will anger many in the Catholic community. There is no place in the senate for Catholic baiting, and it matters now a whit whether the guilty are themselves Catholic."

Added with Sen. Specter’s statement it must be false Catholic history week in the senate. Since both Senators Harkin and Specter brought up the cadaver dissection I wonder where this talking point came from? Though I guess it is an old one since it was also included in 2002 as part of the statement of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2002 (which wouldn’t have)

History shows us the devastating effects of tying the hands of scientists for ideological reasons. Galileo was imprisoned for his support of Copernicus’ theory that the planets revolve around the sun. Pope Boniface VIII banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200’s. This set back the understanding of human anatomy and the practice of medicine for over 300 years.

This is in fact an old talking point and I suspect like many other false portrayals of Catholic history that it originated from some Protestants. Many black legends and other bits of false history made it into the public’s consciousness over time via Protestant apologists trying to make the Catholic Church appear to be foolish.

Here is a paper published back in 1911"The Supposed Papal Prohibition Of Dissection" written to answer this slander and addresses the true topic of the Papal Bull by Pope Boniface VIII. So obviously this slander/talking point has been with us for a while.

"Title Concerning Burials.’ Boniface VIII. Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead, barbarously boiling them, in order that the bones, being separated from the flesh, may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very act excommunicated.

…The reason for the bull is very well known. During the crusades, numbers of the nobility who died at a distance from their homes in infidel countries were prepared for transportation and burial in their own lands by dismemberment and boiling.

Looks like Sen. Specter knows just as much about history as he does about the "promise" of ESCR.

WASHINGTON (CNS) — What does a pope elected at the end of the 13th century have to do with the Senate debate about embryonic stem-cell research?

Pope Boniface VIII, best known for his efforts to exercise temporal power over the French monarchy, was cited — albeit misidentified — by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., from the Senate floor July 18 to represent religious leaders who had slowed scientific progress over the centuries.

"Pope Boniface VII (sic) banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s," Specter said. "This stopped the practice for over 300 years and greatly slowed the accumulation of education regarding human anatomy."

Boniface VII, an antipope who held the papacy during three separate periods in the late 900s, is clearly not the pope to whom Specter was referring. Boniface VIII served from 1294 to 1303.

But neither of the Bonifaces, nor any other pope, was responsible for the type of ban cited by Specter, most historical sources agree.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Pope Boniface VIII makes no mention of any papal document related to dissection, but other sources cite the possible cause for confusion in "De Sepulturis," a papal bull issued in 1300.

"Persons cutting up the bodies of the dead, barbarously cooking them in order that the bones being separated from the flesh may be carried for burial into their own countries, are by the very fact excommunicated," says one translation of the document.

"The only possible explanation of the misunderstanding that the bull forbade dissection is that someone read only the first part of the title and considered that … one of the methods of preparing bodies for study in anatomy was by boiling them in order to be able to remove the flesh from them easily, (and) that this decree forbade such practices thereafter," the Catholic Encyclopedia said.

In his 1845 textbook "The History of Medicine," German author Heinrich Haesar said dissection of cadavers continued without hindrance during the Middle Ages in European universities, run under the direction of church leaders.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its entry on anatomy, says that Guy de Chauliac, considered the father of modern surgery, encouraged the use of dissection in anatomical studies in the 14th century and insisted "on the necessity for the dissection of human bodies if any definite progress in surgery is to be made."

Since de Chauliac was the personal surgeon to three popes and encouraged dissection while a member of the papal household, "this fact alone would seem to decide definitely that there was no papal regulation, real or supposed, forbidding the practice of human dissection at this time," the encyclopedia says.

In his Senate speech, Specter said one of the victims of the papal ban was Spaniard Michael Servetus, who "used cadaver dissection to study blood circulation" in the 1500s and was "tried and imprisoned by the Catholic Church."

While it is true that Servetus is credited as the first to accurately describe the circulation of blood through the lungs and reportedly used cadavers in his science, that does not seem to have played any role in his 1553 arrest, trial and execution.

One of the more fun and at the same time most annoying things about being Catholic is that we have a disproportionate share of urban legends that have come to become "common knowledge." It is rare to read a statement in the media concerning Church history that is actually correct or doesn’t contain some degree of error. Sometimes in seems in my reading of Church history that not only do I learn much; at the same time I have to unlearn much of what I was taught or learned through societal osmosis.

For the second time in four years, so-called Catholic groups that oppose Catholic Church teachings regarding human sexuality will protest at the opening Mass of the National Courage Conference.

The Catholic Action Network for Social Justice and Friendship and Justice plan to be outside the College Church on the campus of Saint Louis University on Thursday, July 27 demonstrating against what they call the "hurtful and untrue message promoted by Courage."

Organizers are also asking supporters to write letters to friends, faculty, and students of the university to "expose" the university’s support of Courage and the conference.
[Via David Morrison]

They are concerned that "Courage’s understanding of homosexuality directly contradicts
statements by major professional mental health and medical associations including the American Psychological Association, the American
Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

I find this sad but funny that two so-called Catholic groups are worried about Courage’s dissent from the psychiatric magisterium while at the same time have no problem dissenting from the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Somehow in their ecclesiology a vote taken by an organization because of social pressure and not scientific studies trumps the faith.

So what is the "hurtful and untrue" message proclaimed by Courage. Why it is a call to developing the interior life and chastity and to move beyond the confines of the homosexual identity to a more complete one in Christ. Somehow I miss how that is a hurtful message especially when their own message has nothing to do with repentance and they in truth become enablers of sin; which seems to me to be pretty hurtful.